Anvildude wrote: Patina is either oxidation or the remnants of the oils and stuff used to prevent oxidation.
In other words- it CAN'T harm a gun more than cleaning it could.
If it is oxidation, you'd want to seal it, yes, to prevent further oxidation, but that oxidation that's already on there is going to protect the surface from FURTHER oxidation. (Unless, of course, it's like, pitted/bright orange sort of really heavy, nasty rust. But in that case the weapon is probably beyond value anyways).
.
I've seen far too many of those nasty orange pitted rust ones. Even a finger print can do that. Dick Vandal, who used to work down at the Carnegie showed me one once. A thumb print had entirely eaten through the barrel. Now, admittedly, it had taken since 1730 to do that, but it did it, eventually.
I'll grant the Sutton is a bit of an oddball since it was preserved in paint, almost half an inch accumulated on it from being painted over and over since the Civil war. But things like Browning, which they'r technically Patina, it was deliberately done to protect the metal. So, no, that should not be removed.
But I'll keep lightly rubbing it with cloth and thinned linseed oil, since shrunken, dry rotted stocks are a terrible thing.
Thinking about painting one of my bolt-guns for the lulz, but I've never painted a firearm before. I watched a couple videos and skimmed a couple articles, but I'm still a little fuzzy on painting the bolt itself.
Should I be worried about accidentally making the thing sticky so it doesn't run very smoothly? I was thinking about just giving it a light dusting to take the shine off (it's jeweled) after taping off the bits that look like they should be taped.
I Duracoated my Mosin Nagant. That stuff is SUPER tough, and even that has worn off a little around the bolt. (Note I did not durracoat the bolt itself, as it's stainless).
Personally, I wouldn't paint the bolt, but if you do I think there would be wear patterns in it pretty quick, and after a couple cleanings it would be gone anyway.
Anvildude wrote: Patina is either oxidation or the remnants of the oils and stuff used to prevent oxidation.
In other words- it CAN'T harm a gun more than cleaning it could.
If it is oxidation, you'd want to seal it, yes, to prevent further oxidation, but that oxidation that's already on there is going to protect the surface from FURTHER oxidation. (Unless, of course, it's like, pitted/bright orange sort of really heavy, nasty rust. But in that case the weapon is probably beyond value anyways).
.
I've seen far too many of those nasty orange pitted rust ones. Even a finger print can do that. Dick Vandal, who used to work down at the Carnegie showed me one once. A thumb print had entirely eaten through the barrel. Now, admittedly, it had taken since 1730 to do that, but it did it, eventually.
I'll grant the Sutton is a bit of an oddball since it was preserved in paint, almost half an inch accumulated on it from being painted over and over since the Civil war. But things like Browning, which they'r technically Patina, it was deliberately done to protect the metal. So, no, that should not be removed.
But I'll keep lightly rubbing it with cloth and thinned linseed oil, since shrunken, dry rotted stocks are a terrible thing.
Which is of course if and when you do clean rust off you want to give it a protective coat of oil afterwards. If you're constantly cleaning, letting it rust, cleaning, letting it rust... then it will eventually wear away. You gotta clean it and then prevent further rust.
cuda1179 wrote: I Duracoated my Mosin Nagant. That stuff is SUPER tough, and even that has worn off a little around the bolt. (Note I did not durracoat the bolt itself, as it's stainless).
Personally, I wouldn't paint the bolt, but if you do I think there would be wear patterns in it pretty quick, and after a couple cleanings it would be gone anyway.
Thanks. The more I've read and asked around the more I get the impression painting the bolt probably won't work well. Since it's super shiny I think it would end up looking pretty weird on a camo rifle, so I think I'm just going to leave my rifle as it is.
Regarding upkeep, while it can be a hassle we should remember that military service rifles aren't intended to last for 200 years (though they often do). Pumped out by the tens of thosuands they're essentially written off once they're issued. They expect breakage, losses, combat damage, etc. Will it serve an infantryman for 5 years or so? Then it's good enough. In peace time we're fortunate that we have firearms lasting 20-30 years in continued service.
If anything some older service rifles were probably over built for their purpose...something we should be happy about.
If you haven't heard of it, check out the story of the British sten gun from WW2. A pressed metal toy manufacturer was able to cut the cost of production by 70-80% or something amazing, and produce them for a minute fraction of what the military had been initially doing. Pretty slick, and a bargain for a submachinegun.
Which is funny since limited service is something new in the last century. Prior to that weapons were expected to be used for a long time. Some Brown Bess muskets saw 200+ years of use, and we’re refurbished when they broke.
Grey Templar wrote: Which is funny since limited service is something new in the last century. Prior to that weapons were expected to be used for a long time. Some Brown Bess muskets saw 200+ years of use, and we’re refurbished when they broke.
Just imagine if someone tried to equip their soldiers with 200 year old weapons nowadays Goes to show how fast technological progress has gotten.
Anyways, the AK series of rifles is definitely built to last. Those things never break. Mostly due to the fact that they are so simple even a kid can take one apart and assemble it again in seconds. And when you have a gun with almost no parts, there is almost nothing that can break. And if something does break, it is usually very easy to repair. And they have been in service for 50 years now, and I can easily see them being in service for 50 more. Who knows, in 200 years there might still be poorer countries that issue their military with AK variants.
Frankly the US should switch to an AK variant. It is simply a superior platform. The only advantages the M4 and M16 has over it is very long range accuracy, and at only at ranges where combat almost never occurs. Who cares about 1 inch groups at 800 yards when 99% of combat occurs within 100? At which range the two guns accuracy is basically identical.
Then the AK eats the M16s lunch in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.
The AK would also be cheaper to produce, even with a premium modern variant. The saved $ could be used to give everyone better body armor too
No, they shouldn't. The US should adopt the FN FAL. I've been saying this my entire military career.
As far as firearms owned, my wife is not pro-gun at all. My brother has a .32 auto that he's holding onto for me that will be my home defense weapon, soon as I can either sweet talk the wife into it or make the gun case/safe look like something she wouldn't recognize.
Grey Templar wrote: Which is funny since limited service is something new in the last century. Prior to that weapons were expected to be used for a long time. Some Brown Bess muskets saw 200+ years of use, and we’re refurbished when they broke.
undoubtedly some of this is down to simply the science/engineering aspect of more modern firearms.
I'm talking about things like muzzle velocity, and the pressures that are exerted on a barrel/firing chamber. . . The difference between a Kentucky Long Rifle or Brown Bess, and an AR-15 are night and day. Growing up, I was part of a re-enactment group wherein we shot a lot of muzzleloaders (most commonly it was a Thompson Center .54 caliber), and we'd shoot modified empty oxygen tanks, propane tanks, etc etc. . . we'd call them gongs because the velocity achieved by even a "hunting load" of powder meant that the lead ball smacked into the side of the metal and made a nice ringing noise. . .
Well, one year, another group was camping with us, and availed themselves to our targets. . . All those nice ringing targets we had, were punctured clean through by the second group's modern rifles (I know a couple of those guys had firearms that looked like ARs, but I did not personally see the casings on the ground (at least they policed their brass) to see whether they were firing proper 5.56 ammo or not). And this was largely down to the simple firing mechanics/design of the weapons they were using.
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly the US should switch to an AK variant. It is simply a superior platform. The only advantages the M4 and M16 has over it is very long range accuracy, and at only at ranges where combat almost never occurs. Who cares about 1 inch groups at 800 yards when 99% of combat occurs within 100? At which range the two guns accuracy is basically identical.
Then the AK eats the M16s lunch in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.
The AK would also be cheaper to produce, even with a premium modern variant. The saved $ could be used to give everyone better body armor too
The AR is much lighter, has better follow-up shots, is better for females, you can carry more ammo, and is easier to control in full auto.
All this debate about AR vs. AK, I prefer an HK93 myself. Almost as accurate as an AR, every bit as reliable as an AK, still easy to field strip, and self regulates gas pressure for different rounds.
As a long time gun enthusiast, I eventually sided on the AK side of things, though I respect both weapons heavily. Having used M4's on duty and AKs in my personal life I've plenty o' trigger time behind them (and I did own several ARs before selling them off and downsizing my collection).
What I found was two major things:
1) A good AK is not as inaccurate as people want you to believe. (Caveat: 90% of AKs in the US are poorly reassembled kits built off decommissioned/disassembled service rifles from other countries, so they generally give a very poor representation of what an AK-pattern rifle does)
2) The AR is not as unreliable as people say they are. A properly maintained and wet AR shooting the right ammo is reliable as hell. Is it as reliable as an AK? Not in my experience, but it's not so unreliable as to not trust a quality rifle with my life. (Caveat: The AR does have a lethal history and was an embarrassment the way it came into service and the hack-job we did forcing it on soldiers in Vietnam...it has since become a reliable fighting weapon, but I'll never forgive what we did to soldiers early in Vietnam)
If I was running a military? I'd absolutely go with a modern 5.45 AK package. The rifles are completely on par with a basic M4/M16 service rifle. We've found ways around most of its limtations by now. The 5.45 is a beautiful simple, low-recoil cartridge, excellent accuracy, etc. Magazines are robust as feth (polymer/bakelite models), and the gun is reliable, with a quality folding stock on modern versions. One minor flaw is that the 5.45 models are slightly heavier than their 7.62 counterparts because of the barrels, but they are still not heavy rifles by modern standards (right around 7 lbs.)
My biggest complaint about the AK is that if you do encounter an issue, or you want to change something it often necessitates a gunsmith, and a good one. Now that doesn't really matter with a service rifle, but as a personal owner of two AK-74 derivative rifles which have been heavily customized, my rifles now exceed the cost of a quality AR rifle, which is much more plug-n-play with regard to user friendliness.
My personal suggestion to personal firearms owners...get a rifle, and shoot the bejesus out of it. Abuse it a bit, and if it keeps working...stick with it. This is my "brown bitch". She's on a third coat of paint, a second barrel, numerous iterations of gear, and has run 14,000 rounds so far with one failure due to ammo, and a few failures following some gunsmith work (which went back and was fixed properly). Other than that, runs like an absolute top. Accurate to around 2-3 MOA, and all the magazines I currently run are the same 6-8 I started with, all beat up and used surplus magazines.
I have a spare rifle which is more or less the same, but I almost never shoot it. This is my absolute "work" gun. A dozen other rifles have come and gone (including high dollar piston ARs, etc.)...this bitch stays and keeps working.
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly the US should switch to an AK variant. It is simply a superior platform. The only advantages the M4 and M16 has over it is very long range accuracy, and at only at ranges where combat almost never occurs. Who cares about 1 inch groups at 800 yards when 99% of combat occurs within 100? At which range the two guns accuracy is basically identical.
Then the AK eats the M16s lunch in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.
The AK would also be cheaper to produce, even with a premium modern variant. The saved $ could be used to give everyone better body armor too
The AR is much lighter, has better follow-up shots, is better for females, you can carry more ammo, and is easier to control in full auto.
All this debate about AR vs. AK, I prefer an HK93 myself. Almost as accurate as an AR, every bit as reliable as an AK, still easy to field strip, and self regulates gas pressure for different rounds.
Lighter isn’t better. A heavier rifle has less recoil given the same size round. It will also be more robust. But of course you can give an AK plastic furniture if you want so it can be lighter. That’s what the AK-12 and AK-16 have.
Better follow up shots. That’s purely training and practice.
More ammo. If you have a superior weapon and cartridge overall, having slightly fewer rounds isn’t a big deal. But we ask our soldiers to carry a rediculous amount of unnecessary gear. That stuff should get cut back.
Full auto isn’t something that is used for accuracy, so having more control isn’t necessary. But even then the difference is miniscule and just needs practice.
We need to get rid of the mindset that results in making weapons lighter so we can have soldiers carry other crap. Best would be not making them carry anything other than weapons and ammo. Field kit should be carried by robots or vehicles. It’s only been the past 150 years that soldiers have had to carry their kit while fighting and it isn’t good for performance.
Yep, all of your combat effectiveness drops when you're wearing 90 lbs. of gear in a gunfight. There was some research done about how the average infantryman's loadout has increased by a rather shocking percentage in the past 30 years or so. Now I understand some of that is body armour, but at the end of the day weight can get you killed.
I used to get worn out on a long shift in the desert with just 20-25 lbs. of crap (granted I'm...slight). The continued expectation of carrying so much gear is indeed a problem. Of course the two biggest issues are ammo and water, which won't magically disappear anytime soon.
Looking at my collection of AR's, AK's, a FAL, rollery delayed guns, etc, I've found they all have their own quirks.
Personally, the AR15 really does have ergonomics and human engineering down. This, coupled with the modularity, is what makes it so popular. They're also extremely reliable as long as they're built right (most issues come from parts quality or assembly errors), and very light too if built with a pencil barrel. With a flat top receiver, they're also magnificently optics ready. The modularity is fantastic and can be assembled by almost any small shop.
What the AK offers is durability, you can abuse an AK in a way that you cannot abuse something like an AR, be it physical damage, neglecting of maintenance, operation with damaged parts, etc, the AK wins out there. A milled reciever AK is about as close to indestructible as you can get out of a shoulder arm, and stamped guns will outlive most stuff anyway. They're simple, the controls will work in any environment (try an AR mag release thats been frozen), and well suited to large scale production in centralized factories.
That said, anyone running a match or time trial is going to do better with an AR than an AK, hands down, both in time and accuracy, all else being equal. Weapon manipulations are faster and easier, and the quality of available ammunition is superior. I love the 5.45 round and the AK74 (SLR104 in my case), but the ammo choices are severely limited and none of it is exactly match grade (at least what is available in the US). It doesn't help that US made AK's are highly variable in quality. 5.45 is unfortunately becoming increasingly irrelevant worldwide as what few adopter there were move to 5.56 aside from Russia and her closest allies/clients.
I love the engineering aspects of roller delayed guns, but unfortunately all the ones out there are pretty much fundamentally WW2 era designs, both in terms of manufacturing techniques and materials as well as the human engineering. My PTR91/G3 clone basically feels like it was made for people 1.5x larger than actual humans, while the Cetme-L I own has no good way to mount optics natively, the BHO is super awkward and the iron sights are...not great.
The FAL is a beautiful piece of industrial art, but is probably the least reliable and accurate of the post WW2 major battle rifles (aside from the M14). Thats not to say its a terrible gun, they're not, and there's a reason they are still in use in places, but they are obsolescent (though not totally obsolete), I'd put the G3 in that classification as well however.
Pretty much all of these will be more accurate than 90% of shooters are capable of, myself included (particularly from the shoulder), and reliable enough to stake ones life on if you have to.
Among newer designs, I like aspect of each but feel most miss a critical mark in some way. The Beretta's ARX100 is a great gun, and is more modular than anything out there, but the base trigger suuuuuuuucks, you're stuck with an A2 style grip, and Beretta just wont release any conversion kits to 7.62x39 for some reason, and the disassebmly is a bit more fiddly than something like an AR or AK. The SCAR I dont have a huge amount of trigger time behind, but they're absurdly expensive for what they offer. The Bren 805 I recently picked up, and basically its a SCAR for half the price with a match grade trigger and dramatically better fit and finish, albeit about a pount heavier, and they're also a bit more finicky to disassemble than an AR or AK and have non captive holding pins. The Tavor is a lot of fun, though Bullpups are not for everyone and the trigger is also atrocious.
Looking around the world today, aside from the AR15, what we're seeing most of are various takes on the AR18/180 short stroke system (SCAR, Bren 805, SA80, ARX, etc), though the AR15 is becoming increasingly popular around the world. Newer long stroke designs appear to be limited to the Tavor and AK variants like the Galil Ace.
I concur that with the right set-up, an AR in a competition setting will likely outshoot the AK. I've addressed all of my concerns with manipulations on the AK, but that requires a lot of practice and a few extra parts (Kreb's selector, Tromix charging handle, etc.) I don't think there's an actual advantage in a basic infantry firefight, but in a super-speed/super-lightweight competition arena I don't think the AK could be viable without a load of expensive and custom work - whereas most of those components would be drop-in compatible with your average AR rifle.
I always find there is a list of traits for any modern fighting gun, and that people simply have different priorities.
-Cost
-Accuracy
-Reliability
-Weight
-Magazine Size
-Modularity etc.
There is a pre-occupation with accuracy by a lot of the internet and indeed a lot of range folks. It's noticeable when someone defines their gun as simple 1 MOA, or "can do X MOA at 700 yards" etc. I have a buddy who won't own anything he can't shoot 1 MOA with at 100 yeards. With me, I realized my absolute top spot was reliability, and comfortability. I started with this particular rifle maybe...10 years ago now? I've had some very lean years in the middle so I've had some years where I shoot it far less than I'd like. But now it's very much like an old pair of sneakers for me. That coupled with reliability is my primary concern. You never hit anything if the gun doesn't first go bang.
I've owned a lot of firearms, probably too many, but I've finally narrowed it down to just a couple serious work guns (and one fun gun, and an heirloom piece). Man, now I need to go hit up the range...
I always find there is a list of traits for any modern fighting gun, and that people simply have different priorities.
-Cost
-Accuracy
-Reliability
-Weight
-Magazine Size
-Modularity etc.
Mine goes something like Reliability, stopping power, accuracy. Not really worried about any of the others unless magazine size is really small or it's a complicated/ lengthy process to reload. High stopping power does offset small magazine size. if you only have to shoot once, you don't have to worry about how many rounds you have left unless there's a lot of them. And then you were a damn fool to pull a gun in the first place.
My great grandfather was a fan of the H&R Handy Gun. He'd load it with buckshot, to, and I quote 'clear a path to the door'.
Also, remember that muskets can fire sabots. In fact, there's no end to the nasty things you can put in one, even if it's just gravel.
Yeah, accuracy is definitely often over emphasized, especially at closer ranges. Standing and engaging a 100 meter target off the shoulder, I'm lucky if Im a 6 MOA shooter, same with most people ive found, the gun, almosr any gun, will be far more accurate than I am. If I'm trying to hit a small target at 300 yards off a bench for groups, I'm probably not so hyped about the AK, if for no other reason than ammo consistency, but nothing in my life really involves anything further out than a hundred yards or so. Krebs stuff, especially the safety, goes a long way to fixing a lot of manipulation issues for sure
Comfort and reliability are definitely great standards to go by. In that respect, I'm really starting to like the Tavor a lot more than I thought I would, it just handles magnificently for me, while the front heaviness of the Bren 805 is something of a damper on what is otherwise probably the most finely fit and finished and smooth acting rifle I've ever shot (though the Bren 2 that's 15oz lighter is starting to appear in drips on the market).
With AR prices at what they are these days, its hard to pass them up however. They're just so stupidly cheap and the aftermarket so well developed that you can botique craft almost anything you want to match almost anything else out there, and probably do it at a lower pricepoint
AK's unfortunately appear to be drying up somewhat, and 5.45 guns are probably gone from here on out as Russian imports are banned and Bulgaria apparently has decided they do not want to make them at all anymore and availability from other nations is an increasingly small supply of parts kits.
How good you do in a time trail is down to your personal experience with the platform. The AK doesn’t have worse ergonomics than an AR. It’s just a different platform. An equally familiar person with either platform will perform the same. Someone who is familiar with an AK but not an AR will do very bad with an AR, and vice verse. You have different motions of operation. A different Manual of arms. Accuracy is also far more reliant on your ability than the rifle itself. There are plenty of videos of guys on YouTube hitting tiny groups with AK at 500, 600, and even 800 yards.
Regarding modularity, there is a bevy of AK modifications out there now to the point where you can customise them as easily as an AR. Plastic furniture with picitany rails all over them, etc...
Hrm, owning and shooting both, while generally being something of an AK fanboy (and previously noting that I consider an AK my TEOTWAWKI gun in this thread), it's very hard not to give the AR a big win on ergos over the AK. A big one is the recoil impulse of an AR is more directly in line with the shooters position & body while the AK's stock bends down to ensure the shooter's head remains low enough to use a rear leaf sight (also why the AR sights are taller than the AK sights) and this makes rapid follow up shots easier with the AR, particularly when coupled with the lower recoil mass and greater distance of travel of the bolt, you're not getting the carrier slamming into the rear of the trunnion and transmitting all that force into your shoulder every shot on an AR. With Soviet doctrine of aiming at the belt buckle and squeezing off a 3-5 round burst in a Submachinegun role (as the AK was originally intended and designated as), these things didn't matter much, but with the AR being designed primarily for use in semiautomatic as a rifle, they matter more in that role.
The safety is another greap example, on an AK you have to break your firing grip (at least with a traditional safety) to remove or place the safety on, while you don't with an AR, you just thumb the switch. Even with something like a Krebs safety, this takes a bit more movement and makes a loud audible noise relative to an AR.
To take another example, no matter how well you practice, you will never match the same speed at doing something like mag changes with an AK that you will with an AR if you put an equal amount of time into both, there's simply more movement involved with the AK as the hand has a greater distance to move. Assuming you retain control of the weapon with your trigger hand and that you're right handed, with an AK you have to move your left hand back to the mag, grab the mag and thumb the mag release and manually pull the mag out, while with the AR you just use your trigger finger to drop the mag instead. To add to that, the AR also has a bolt hold open, which informs the shooter when they are out of ammo through intuitive feel rather than going to pull the trigger and hearing it go "click", and a bolt release button to quickly and easily close the bolt on a new mag instead of having to rack the bolt. That will make the AK a second or two slower to reload. How relevant that is, is up to the shooter, but you're never going to match the reload speed of an AR with an AK in a time trial (assuming all else is equal, however, by the same token, that AK mag release won't get stuck and freeze the way the AR mag release can), there's physically just more operations and distance involved with the AK and there's no way around that. Karl Kasarda on InRangeTV shows this in a video, doing in ~30 seconds with an AR what it took ~36 seconds to do with an AK.
An AR is also much more lefty-friendly, with the charging handle being naturally ambidextrous, the ejection with the shell deflector making cases hitting one in the face when firing from the left largely a non-issue, ambi mag releases and safeties are easily adapted or are standard at this point, all stuff that AK's generally don't have going for them (though I guess you could call the mag release on an AK ambi).
Yes, they have a different manual of arms, but you give someone equal training time on both and you'll be getting faster and more accurate shots with the AR. The degree to which that is relevant is subjective, but there's a reason nobody is showing up to Camp Perry with an AK but you'll see gobs of AR's. Now, in most cases most rifles are more accurate than their shooters, especially if fired from something other than a bench rest at a stationary target. That's certainly the case for me. However, that doesn't meant that there can't be noticeable differences when all else is equal once you start to look at a specific context. For instance, inherently, an AR having more locking lugs means a more repeatable lockup and a more reliable accuracy over the AK's two lug bolt, but at the same time, the AK won't shear lugs off the way the AR can. Other things not necessarily inherent to the rifle itself but rather to the weapon *system* come into play, like ammo. If nothing else, you can get match grade 5.56 ammo that has been shown to consistently shoot three quarter or even half-MoA in AR's capable of delivering that, but with the ammo available for AK platforms, no matter how good the AK is, there just isn't ammo of that quality manufactured/imported. This won't make a difference at 50 yards, but trying to hit a small target at 200 yards may be a very different story.
While there's lots of vids of stuff with AK's, I'm having trouble finding any videos of AK's at 800 yards much less any with tiny groups. From my own experience, if I can manage a hit at 300 yards on a torso sized target I'm doing fantastic. Rob Ski, the guy that runs the AK Operators Union channel, does a video showing an Iron Sighted 7.62x39 AK at 500 yards, landing 7 of 10 shots *somewhere* on a torso sized target from a rest (Hell, even with an AR, 500 yard iron sight shots are very difficult and won't be printing tiny groups). When he does 600 yard shots with a magnified optic and the 5.45 round (not the 7.62x39), he's hitting the target but not getting tiny groups and straight up says it's harder than with an AR.
The AK has upgrades to enhance its modularity, but they don't all necessarily work quite as well (replace standard AK handguards with a quadrail and you have half as much railspace as you do on a typical 16" AR for example). With mounting an optic, you just bolt it to the top pic rail that's an inherent part of the receiver on an AR, whereas with an AK you either have to use the siderail that prevents the use of folding stocks in most cases and will require more frequent removal (for field stripping) and a heavy accessory bolted to the side of the gun. Alternatively you can try an AK top cover with an integrated rail, but those have very spotty records of holding zero. Frequently, such accessories for the AK are simply substantially heavier. Swapping a stock on an AK can also be an interesting proposition, and there's a whole lot more compatibility issues and different receiver types. What fits an AKM won't fit a milled receiver AK and won't fit a Yugo pattern gun for example. To swap a barrel on an AK you basically need a machineshop, on an AR you need a vice and a wrench.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, gutta percha and ivory were available, they were very decorative. Both tended to break if they were used as anything but panels.
Personally I like black Walnut. It feels right in my hand, and I can hit something with it and not worry it's going to break.
Did people really make guns out of black walnut? That stuff absorbs and stores heat easier and longer than any other wood.
I too own both AKs and ARs. I would unhesitatingly trust my life to my AK, but I think it has substantially worse length of pull, bad options for attaching optics, the iron sights are terrible, and the charging handle handle and safety are both poorly situated.
In a bad situation I would probably take one of my shorter ARs. I would be trading off reliability for a lighter weapon that I know I can find ammo for at any place that sells ammo. If I knew for sure I'd be able to find 7.62x39 I would probably answer differently.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, gutta percha and ivory were available, they were very decorative. Both tended to break if they were used as anything but panels.
Personally I like black Walnut. It feels right in my hand, and I can hit something with it and not worry it's going to break.
Did people really make guns out of black walnut? That stuff absorbs and stores heat easier and longer than any other wood.
Well that was when a gun would only be firing 3-4 shots a minute. More time to cool between shots.
Ouze wrote: I too own both AKs and ARs. I would unhesitatingly trust my life to my AK, but I think it has substantially worse length of pull, bad options for attaching optics, the iron sights are terrible, and the charging handle handle and safety are both poorly situated.
In a bad situation I would probably take one of my shorter ARs. I would be trading off reliability for a lighter weapon that I know I can find ammo for at any place that sells ammo. If I knew for sure I'd be able to find 7.62x39 I would probably answer differently.
See, now stuff like this is intriguing to me. The gripes people have with an AK are so easily and cheaply fixed, it's just a matter of selling a gun modified like that instead of regurgitating the bog standard classic AK pattern. I used to run a lengthy blog on building and running what I called the MFAK or Modern Fighting AK, basically overcoming the minor shortfalls of the gun simply and easily. My first suggestion was always the $100 upgrade package which at the time was: Tromix charging handle, alternate pistol grip (US Palm is my preference and I think they're dead), Kreb's retaining plate, and Kreb's selector/safety. Literally $100 and it made the gun 2x more easy to manipulate and run on par with an average AR.
As a right handed shooter, the rifle is ideally set up, and I actually find the side charging handle to be a huge benefit (mainly as you can manipulate it far easier in awkward circumstances, while sitting with the rifle in a vehicle, prone, etc. The tromix charging handle means you really can kickstart it like a damn motorcyle if you have a serious malfunction (much as you would "mortar" an AR). I love that with the selector closed the handle/bolt lets you very easily check for a loaded chamber without any risk of dislodging the round, and you get a proper and 100% seat by following it forward afterwards.
Using the Kreb's selector safety the manipulation becomes more or less AR speed. Sweeping it up or down with your trigger finger or index finger. I've never used the bolt-hold open slot, but I suppose for some safety-conscious classes it would be a benefit. I know some classes you need to lock the bolt to the rear after a course or fire, for inspection (we did this during quals, etc.)
While I carried an M4 on duty, I did find that anytime I'd been running an AK, I found the AR just slightly more "annoying" to use. I enjoyed the cave man simple nature of it - the fewer points of failure or places to look if something didn't go right. This is why I laughed a bit when I saw the AK-12 (which isn't actually happening anymore) come out, and it more or less just had the basica components we'd been starting to toss on the rifle in the US for several years. They don't need to reinvent the wheel, they need to add about five or six things to bring the rifle inline with modern firearms and they're set. The AK is definitely the more "ingenious" rifle of the two in that it accomplishes the same exact goal with fewer parts and more reliability --- so I'm fearful they'll feth that up in the future.
I hope none of my fellow dakka members ever bought one of these.
I, sadly, DO own one of those. Let me give you the rundown of this POS. First, it's not all bad. I got mine for $140 new, and it came with a 25 round Ruger mag. So, even though I hate the gun, I got a quality mag for my 10-22. Second, it is accurate. Pretty dang accurate. The only pistol I have that shoots better is my 8-inch slab side barrel Ruger Mk3 target pistol. If you have large hands it is also not nearly as uncomfortable to hold as it looks. The trigger is predictable, but feels as spongy as a Tavor.
This thing is a jam-o-matic 5000. When I first got it I could not get more than 3 shots off in a row before a jam. Also, I had one out of battery detonation. Hurt like hell. I tried to fix all these problems by finding the absolute best ammo (gun is really picky). I also disassembled it, polished all the metal parts to a hi sheen with a buffer wheel on my Dremel tool, and used a copper brush attachment in my power drill to ever so slightly increase the diameter of the breach, then buffed it to a high sheen. I then used graphite (instructions indicate no oil ever be used) to lube all internals. I then switched to factory 10-round 10-22 mags as they are the most reliable.
After all that I can get about 12-13 shots in between jams. The problems? Some ammo is a little to big for the gun and doesn't slide in easily. The ejection port is way too small and makes jams happen more frequently. The rate of fire of this weapon is WAY too hi. If it didn't jam and you got used to the trigger this thing could be confused for a micro UZI. This means lower-quality mags can't keep up with the cyclical rate, and you get misfeeds and hang-ups.
If they made the ejection port about 1/4 inch taller and wider, and flared the opening, and made the whole weapon 1/2 an inch longer for a longer bolt travel to reduce cyclical rate this gun would have been awesome. Now I only keep it around in case there is a gun buy-back program.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wonder if I could get an aluminum bolt for this this milled out? could help slow things down a bit.
Would aluminium help that much, it'd still be pretty light? That thing looks to me like it's got so many problems that should have been sorted out at a prototype stage, it just looks so uncomfortable to shoot as well. I heard Ian's description of what happened to the company, but was there a reason the Zip went into production with all those issues still not ironed out? Did they have to rush it for any reason? Even the practical failings aside, the gun just looks aesthetically and ergonomically awful.
It looks like a 1980's GI-Joe plastic toy ray gun.
I love the pic of that thing stuck to the underside of a SCAR. "yeah slap this monstrously nonfunctional .22lr chunk of plastic to your $3k combat rifle!"
Did people really make guns out of black walnut? That stuff absorbs and stores heat easier and longer than any other wood.
Well that was when a gun would only be firing 3-4 shots a minute. More time to cool between shots.
Actually they *still* make them. I've always found them a nice and very comfortable material to shoot with, though heavier than flimsy wire stocks, carbon composite, or, ugh, plastic.
1911's, for example, were originally designed with American black walnut grips. It's a pretty common grip materiel for this iconic weapon.
I also have a 1745 light Dragoon that has a black walnut stock. In it's day, tiny ass .50 cal was for ladies and wimps.
Just out of curiosity, I've heard a rumor and I'm not sure it's true that Mosin Nagant once produced a .58 cal revolver (as in, a modern one)? Anyone heard of this thing?
simonr1978 wrote: Would aluminium help that much, it'd still be pretty light? That thing looks to me like it's got so many problems that should have been sorted out at a prototype stage, it just looks so uncomfortable to shoot as well. I heard Ian's description of what happened to the company, but was there a reason the Zip went into production with all those issues still not ironed out? Did they have to rush it for any reason? Even the practical failings aside, the gun just looks aesthetically and ergonomically awful.
Aluminum isn't all that heavy, but still noticeably heavier than the plastic part. Any extra weight would help, even a 5% increase in mass would help with the feeding issues tremendously I'd wager.
As for what use you'd want for this thing, I was hoping to use it as a backpacking gun. It's hellishly light, fairly compact, and uses a reliable mag.
Thanks Cuda, I was more wondering why the problems weren't fixed before it went into production. I can understand the appeal for it since it does look very light and compact, but it just seems like there are a fair few modifications that could be made that would have improved the Zip's dismal reliability, even if you probably couldn't do a great deal about the ergonomics, which is why I was wondering if they had to rush the production without properly testing or modifying it.
Just out of curiosity, I've heard a rumor and I'm not sure it's true that Mosin Nagant once produced a .58 cal revolver (as in, a modern one)? Anyone heard of this thing?
Just out of curiosity, I've heard a rumor and I'm not sure it's true that Mosin Nagant once produced a .58 cal revolver (as in, a modern one)? Anyone heard of this thing?
Well black powder weapons sometimes come in larger than 50 cal. .58 is actually a fairly common black powder rifle caliber. But I've never heard of a cartridge is something that large. Once you get to 12.7mm/.50 cal the scale jumps up to light artillery shells.
Grey Templar wrote: Well black powder weapons sometimes come in larger than 50 cal. .58 is actually a fairly common black powder rifle caliber. But I've never heard of a cartridge is something that large. Once you get to 12.7mm/.50 cal the scale jumps up to light artillery shells.
Other than hanging on to it, and over-penetration of the target, there's nothing wrong with light artillery shells.
14.5mm Russian and 20mm Oerlikon are both rifle and autocannon rounds.
And I know, my light dragoon pistol is a .69 flintlock. Load with double buck and ball and cut someone in half. If you hit them.
To be honest though being a big guy I just prefer weapons that feel 'my size'. My first gun my parents trained me with was a sawed off 1828 Prussian. I can still stick my thumb down the barrel.
It's cool, though multibarrel/extreme RoF and electronically fired shoulder weapons have all been done before.
Whether they can be proof against what ravages new-boot teenagers can subject them to, feed quickly and reliably (and economically) with those 4shot packs, and remain accurate, and be produced economically, while offering a meaningful performance advantage over an M16 remains to be seen. Historically such attempts have failed in one or all of these areas.
Whenever the headline ends in a question mark, the answer is always "no".
This doesn't seem to offer very much improvement over an existing M4 while adding an enormous of complexity. The system is novel but the actual application seems like a reach.
He kept saying that you get better accuracy because the action has to move only 2mm (instead of the length of a bolt carrier sliding back to the buffer) but they gloss over that you're potentially going to have 4x the recoil since you're now burning 4 chambers worth of powder simultaneously.
Firing 250 rounds per second (which I don't believe since I bet it can't chamber the blocks fast enough) only sounds awesome until you have dudes who have to actually carry the ammo.
The actual blocks have to be made of steel, presumably, since it has chamber pressure. That means they are going to be much, much heavier than standard magazines.
My concern would be wearing out the barrels so fast you go through tons of replacements. There is also the battery life to consider.
The funny thing is that this weapon would get around every firearm law out there because it doesn’t use centerfire ammo. Technically it wouldn’t even be a firearm legally speaking. Legal full auto folks!
I don't think the barrels would wear out faster- if anything, they'd wear out slower, since you're spreading the firing through 4 instead of 1. You'd have to check the specific full-auto times vs conventional full-auto feed rates, but the Ribbon's would be divided by 4 in any case.
The ammo, at least in the shown picture, looks like either a ceramic, or aluminum. Both of which would be lightweight enough and probably strong enough. Bulk would be an issue, but I'm thinking weight might not.
The thing is, a block with holes in it is going to have more structural integrity than a thin-walled cylinder, meaning that overall I'm betting this system would actually have MUCH higher general durability.
Heck, even the whole battery issue is probably NOT, considering how little energy the firing probably needs, and the electronicalization of the modern soldier. Hehe. You could even put a little wind-up handle on there to manually crank-charge it.
The biggest issue for deployment would be re-usability or disposability. If a soldier drops or loses a bunch of bullets, or even a whole magazine or ammo box nowadays, it's not a big deal. Some brass, powder, and stamped sheet metal. But if these blocks need specialized machining or expensive composites, that might be a sticking point.
If we take the given rof as accurate, even spread over 4 barrels each would be subjected to up to 3750 rounds per minute. Unless the article meant to say 250 rounds per minute and not second.
Put me firmly in the 'cool, but not anything I want to see my son and his buddies carry into battle' camp, and I'm sure glad it was nothing my troopers or I were issued.
I have to admit, I don't really see what's supposed to be so great about this. I can see why firing an extremely fast 4 round burst being useful in close quarters, but it does seem like that might come at the not insignificant sacrifice of having a greatly reduced magazine capacity (Although the picture seems to show a side loading magazine which I guess would carry multiple blocks). As far as the accuracy goes, I was under the impression that most current infantry rifles are considerably more accurate than their users in combat conditions so that point seems somewhat irrelevant.
The article I read mentioned that it fires caseless ammunition, but the cutaway seems to suggest that the magazine-blocks effectively act as very large, thick, multi-round, reusable cases, with the extra complication that the primers, bullets and propellants look to be separate rather than really being true caseless like the failed G-11 was supposed to have been. To me that appears to suggest that the PBI could end up having to make up the ammunition manually from separate components, which sounds nightmarish if you run out of pre-loaded mag-blocks in the middle of a contact and seems reminiscent of more of an 19th century firearm than even a 20th century one, assuming that they even can be reloaded in the field which is not at all apparent.
I wonder how the weight and bulk of 100 rounds of "caseless" ammunition in its steel blocks would compare to 100 rounds of 5.56mm in conventional magazines or carried loose. I'm 100% guessing from looking at it, but I'd imagine not good, especially if it turns out each individual soldier would be getting through ammunition quicker.
The real innovation seems to be the electric firing mechanism, I can see how reducing the number of mechanical components could be a distinct advantage since there's fewer points of potential failure, although I did note the phrase "electromagnetic actuator" which does still sound fairly mechanical.
Overall it does seem fairly novel, but somehow I'll be surprised if it even gets as far as the ACR projects did.
I think that electronic firing with 100% caseless ammo is the future for sure, but the "caseless ammo" is probably just going to be slugs that get fired down rails. So, we're a while off from that in terms of rail longevity and getting a power source both potent and small enough.
Of course, by the time we have a power source potent and small enough to drive a handheld railgun, we'll also probably have lasers to match.
I think primer + gunpower + bullet won't make it the next 100 years as a first world small arms weapon system. Mixing that system with electronics seems to add complexity without really making it better in any significant way.
The usual hype-train over something that'll never be a service rifle. The reality is that we, as a species, have yet to design something better than the self-contained cartridge which in essence is our current way of hurling "stones" at each other with enough speed to break each other's bodies.
Even when first world nations start to experiment with something that may slowly replace our firearms in the next 30-40-50 years, other countries and the world will still be using the self-contained cartridge in a mechanically operated firearm for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's cool gadget tech to read about, but it's always under the usual media garbage headlines.
As technology advances, you lose the ability to crimp blocks of ammunition into a case, store it in the dirt for 100 years...and then pull a rifle packed in grease out of a box that is equally old, clean it, load it, and fire it. The logistical simplicity offered by standard firearms is the largest hurdle new technologies have. Particularly in an industry which does seek to sell to all nations and not just first world nations.
Grey Templar wrote: The funny thing is that this weapon would get around every firearm law out there because it doesn’t use centerfire ammo. Technically it wouldn’t even be a firearm legally speaking. Legal full auto folks!
The primer configuration is not how the Gun Control Act defines firearms, unfortunately. Centerfire, rimfire, flintlock, whatever - none of that matters. Any weapon that expels a projectile by action of an explosion is considered a firearm, and any weapon that fired more than one shot with a single trigger pull would be considered a machine gun.
Anvildude wrote: The ammo, at least in the shown picture, looks like either a ceramic, or aluminum. Both of which would be lightweight enough and probably strong enough.
I'm not a metallurgist but I don't think an aluminum chamber can stand up to the stresses of firing a 6mm cartridge - probably something like 60k psi. I don't know of any firearms that have a chamber made of aluminum; correct me if I am wrong.
Grey Templar wrote: The funny thing is that this weapon would get around every firearm law out there because it doesn’t use centerfire ammo. Technically it wouldn’t even be a firearm legally speaking. Legal full auto folks!
The primer configuration is not how the Gun Control Act defines firearms, unfortunately. Centerfire, rimfire, flintlock, whatever - none of that matters. Any weapon that expels a projectile by action of an explosion is considered a firearm, and any weapon that fired more than one shot with a single trigger pull would be considered a machine gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anvildude wrote: The ammo, at least in the shown picture, looks like either a ceramic, or aluminum. Both of which would be lightweight enough and probably strong enough.
I'm not a metallurgist but I don't think an aluminum chamber can stand up to the stresses of firing a 6mm cartridge - probably something like 60k psi. I don't know of any firearms that have a chamber made of aluminum.
Wait would that make roman candles a firearm? that or any sort of firework. (which i guess has fire in the name so maybe)
Grey Templar wrote: The funny thing is that this weapon would get around every firearm law out there because it doesn’t use centerfire ammo. Technically it wouldn’t even be a firearm legally speaking. Legal full auto folks!
The primer configuration is not how the Gun Control Act defines firearms, unfortunately. Centerfire, rimfire, flintlock, whatever - none of that matters. Any weapon that expels a projectile by action of an explosion is considered a firearm, and any weapon that fired more than one shot with a single trigger pull would be considered a machine gun
As far as I could tell from the article, this is a rail gun. It doesn’t use an explosion, it uses electromagnetic acceleration.
No, the blocks are full of gunpowder. There is a single line in the article alluding to this; the video makes it more apparent.
Spoiler:
So the blocks are essentially a combination magazine and chamber.
I would agree that a 100% electrically driven gun, a railgun, would not fall under any firearms legislation that exists. This is just an electronically fired hammer though, functionally - that's what I think they mean by "2mm of movement".
This is why I'm saying I think that ROF is bs (or true, but stripping out the context to make it a lie of omission).
I believe their system can fire electrical impulses that fast, I bet you can even drop and reset an electronically driven firing pin that fast, but I do not believe you can feed those ammo blocks through the firearm that fast; you would need to somehow actuate 50 of those 5 round blocks through the gun on one second.
The video (Which I should have watched before posting earlier) also shows stacks of the blocks loading from a side feeding magazine, oddly the gun in the video at the show seems to have five bores and five round blocks rather than four. I'm guessing that it may have a very high rate of fire over a four round burst since it can fire all four bores at once (I'm assuming that the five round/bore gun was the very first prototype and for some reason they dropped to four), but even so I'd agree it does seem doubtful. Especially as the idea is supposed to be that the guns will run cooler and so will be able to fire continuously.
The company rep also mentions that for the military spec gun the blocks would come pre-loaded from the factory, so no reloading from loose ammunition, but then reloading the caseless ammunition in combat's probably not practical anyway, unless the powder, primer and bullet was neatly secured for carrying in a casing of some sort, perhaps made of some type of non-ferrous metal...
Personally I'd bet that these blocks will be significantly more expensive than traditional brass cartridge cases per shot as they'll inevitably take more work to produce. Combine that with the extra bulk and weight of them compared to standard brass, the quantities that will be required and the untested electromagnetic firing system (plus I'm guessing soldiers will probably want to carry a spare battery or two for that), those all seem to be significant minuses and will probably outweigh any benefits the system might have (Would firing four bullets at once really be that much of an advantage?), regardless of how fragile or robust it turns out to be.
(I'm also still not convinced that combining four or five rounds into what is effectively a single case makes the ammunition "caseless" in any meaningful sense, except maybe as a marketing gimmick)
I believe their system can fire electrical impulses that fast, I bet you can even drop and reset an electronically driven firing pin that fast, but I do not believe you can feed those ammo blocks through the firearm that fast; you would need to somehow actuate 50 of those 5 round blocks through the gun on one second.
Or over 60 blocks per second for the quad bore model, which is IIRC around six times the cyclic rate of the Kalashnikov. I guess if you were firing all four bores all the time and didn't have the delay of the action travelling back, ejecting and chambering the next round it could be possible (Although even taking that into account, it still seems high), how useful it would be is another matter entirely.
Ok, yeah. Thats definitely legally a firearm. And it now seems even more hideously complex than is necessary. Its not a better mousetrap, its just a more complex one.
"Hey, lets force all our magazines to be loaded at the factory instead of giving them reusable magazines they can load in the field with the bullets that we will ship to them!"
Especially since Caseless ammo's main selling point is that its lighter. This fails hard on that level. Total gimmick.
I ordered 3 extra MPX magazines for my MPX directly from Sig. Talked to them on the phone and got a good deal (better than internet retailer price and they were shipped quickly for free).
I had trouble with all 4 (includes the one which came with the gun, all Gen 2). I could not get 30 rounds into them even with a maglula loader. Emailed the tech I had talked to previously and he told me they come with REALLY stiff springs, and to try unloading them and reloading them a couple times. That did the trick.
Never had that happen with new magazines before for any of my other magazine fed firearms. Kind of surprised me.
All the magazines I own were quite stiff when I first got them, but after a few loads they loosened up. Same with the main spring in my 1911 too actually. The first few times I racked the slide it was far tougher than expected, but it got easier almost immediately.
My wife's Kimber 9mm had (single stack) magazines which were a bitch to load, but I was always able to get them to capacity. These had me worried. Never had an issue with my Glock magazines (double stack like the MPX). Never had an issue with the many many rifle magazines I have.
CptJake wrote: I ordered 3 extra MPX magazines for my MPX directly from Sig. Talked to them on the phone and got a good deal (better than internet retailer price and they were shipped quickly for free).
I had trouble with all 4 (includes the one which came with the gun, all Gen 2). I could not get 30 rounds into them even with a maglula loader. Emailed the tech I had talked to previously and he told me they come with REALLY stiff springs, and to try unloading them and reloading them a couple times. That did the trick.
Never had that happen with new magazines before for any of my other magazine fed firearms. Kind of surprised me.
I totally had that happen as well, but with the factory mags for my 9mm. Without using the uplula I think I still can't get that 12th round in there,
The Wilson Combat mags for my 1911 were pretty stiff as well (though not as bad).
Ouze wrote: OK, now I see where the disconnect is.
No, the blocks are full of gunpowder. There is a single line in the article alluding to this; the video makes it more apparent.
Spoiler:
So the blocks are essentially a combination magazine and chamber.
I would agree that a 100% electrically driven gun, a railgun, would not fall under any firearms legislation that exists. This is just an electronically fired hammer though, functionally - that's what I think they mean by "2mm of movement".
This is why I'm saying I think that ROF is bs (or true, but stripping out the context to make it a lie of omission).
I believe their system can fire electrical impulses that fast, I bet you can even drop and reset an electronically driven firing pin that fast, but I do not believe you can feed those ammo blocks through the firearm that fast; you would need to somehow actuate 50 of those 5 round blocks through the gun on one second.
I'm no evil scientist, but if the ammo uses an electronic primer would there be a way of using an electronic pulse of some sort to just have your entire ammo supply go off all at once?
CptJake wrote: I ordered 3 extra MPX magazines for my MPX directly from Sig. Talked to them on the phone and got a good deal (better than internet retailer price and they were shipped quickly for free).
I had trouble with all 4 (includes the one which came with the gun, all Gen 2). I could not get 30 rounds into them even with a maglula loader. Emailed the tech I had talked to previously and he told me they come with REALLY stiff springs, and to try unloading them and reloading them a couple times. That did the trick.
Never had that happen with new magazines before for any of my other magazine fed firearms. Kind of surprised me.
I knew the MPX gen 1 mags had issues, but thats weird. Hopefully they work out just fine after some break on. Have you had a chance to do some shooting yet?
The Scorpion Evo had some issues with early import mags cracking in a batch, but the US made ones are fantastic thus far, and cheap.
Ouze wrote: OK, now I see where the disconnect is.
No, the blocks are full of gunpowder. There is a single line in the article alluding to this; the video makes it more apparent.
Spoiler:
So the blocks are essentially a combination magazine and chamber.
I would agree that a 100% electrically driven gun, a railgun, would not fall under any firearms legislation that exists. This is just an electronically fired hammer though, functionally - that's what I think they mean by "2mm of movement".
This is why I'm saying I think that ROF is bs (or true, but stripping out the context to make it a lie of omission).
I believe their system can fire electrical impulses that fast, I bet you can even drop and reset an electronically driven firing pin that fast, but I do not believe you can feed those ammo blocks through the firearm that fast; you would need to somehow actuate 50 of those 5 round blocks through the gun on one second.
I'm no evil scientist, but if the ammo uses an electronic primer would there be a way of using an electronic pulse of some sort to just have your entire ammo supply go off all at once?
In theory yes. An EMP from, say, a nuke could set them off.
I'm no evil scientist, but if the ammo uses an electronic primer would there be a way of using an electronic pulse of some sort to just have your entire ammo supply go off all at once?
In theory yes. An EMP from, say, a nuke could set them off.
It looks like the ammunition still fires off a standard type of primer, it's just struck by what IIRC they call electromagnetic actuators which just sounds like a fancy way of describing a firing pin struck by or connected to a relay of some sort rather than fired by an electric current so they should be no more susceptible to EMP or exposure to a live current or static discharge causing a mass detonation than current ammunition.
All things considered it's really still a fairly conventional gun in a lot of respects. The trigger mechanism is electromagnetic-mechanical rather than purely mechanical but still seems to rely on the time-honoured method of a firing pin striking a primer, the difference being that if your battery runs out it doesn't matter how much ammunition you have left, it doesn't even look like you could use it as a bolt-action in an emergency. The ammunition despite appearances is essentially not much different from the cartridge-primer-bullet-propellant ammunition that's been the norm since the 19th century, even the multi-shot aspect isn't all that innovative since it's been used in naval firearms dating back to the age of sailing ships and flintlocks. The rate of fire sounds good from an armchair-soldier's point of view (And to be clear here I definitely count myself in that category), but even then really once you go much above the 600-900 rpm all it really means in practical terms is that you're using up your ammunition quicker, so you have to carry more or be resupplied much more frequently.
Grey Templar wrote: In other news, I also got my reloading station put together. Loaded 50 rounds. Overcrimped the first two but I got the hang of it after that.
That's good to hear. I keep going back and forth in my mind about whether or not I want to get into it: do I shoot enough to make it worth it, do I want to clear out a spot in my house for yet another hobby, etc etc. I keep landing just shy of doing it, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.
My dad was into reloading, back when he was young and hunted a lot. His bear, bobcat, and mountain lion rugs adorn his basement. He even updated all his equipment about 10 years ago but hardly uses any of it. He still has over 100 pounds of assorted grades of powder.
I know he has all the stuff to do 12 gauge, 22-250, 30-30, 300 Winchester Mag, 357 mag, 44 mag, .308 and a few others.
Thinking of sweet talking him into letting me use his stuff to reload. Admittedly I'm a total noob at this concept. Many of the calibers I want to reload he likely doesn't have the stuff for (.556, 7.62x39, 9mm, 40 S&W.). I'd just need a set of dyes for each of those, right?
Grey Templar wrote: In other news, I also got my reloading station put together. Loaded 50 rounds. Overcrimped the first two but I got the hang of it after that.
That's good to hear. I keep going back and forth in my mind about whether or not I want to get into it: do I shoot enough to make it worth it, do I want to clear out a spot in my house for yet another hobby, etc etc. I keep landing just shy of doing it, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.
After having set it up, it definitely seems worth it. And its way easier than it seems at first glance.
I'm not saving money if I'm comparing to cheap surplus 7.62x39, but I am saving about 50 cents a round if I compare it to the higher quality US made stuff(assuming I get 3 reloads per casing). And I'll definitely be saving money once I get my 7.62x54 die.
The whole setup was about $400. I bought a Lee anniversary kit, die set, case trimming gauges, and calipers. Screwed the press to a wooden sawhorse so its portable and easily put away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: My dad was into reloading, back when he was young and hunted a lot. His bear, bobcat, and mountain lion rugs adorn his basement. He even updated all his equipment about 10 years ago but hardly uses any of it. He still has over 100 pounds of assorted grades of powder.
I know he has all the stuff to do 12 gauge, 22-250, 30-30, 300 Winchester Mag, 357 mag, 44 mag, .308 and a few others.
Thinking of sweet talking him into letting me use his stuff to reload. Admittedly I'm a total noob at this concept. Many of the calibers I want to reload he likely doesn't have the stuff for (.556, 7.62x39, 9mm, 40 S&W.). I'd just need a set of dyes for each of those, right?
Pretty much. All you'd need is die sets and case length gauges for the desired calibers so you can trim the spent casings to the correct length. Plus load data of course.
Good to know. Once you get the hang of stuff, and get efficient, I wonder how many rounds you can make per hour?
On a related note, a shooting range in my brother's town has a rule that forbids you from picking up any of you spent brass. Personally, I feel that's one of the gakkiest rules I've ever heard of.
The price of brass has gone up hand in hand with copper. Odds are they care cashing out on it.
I wan't to get into reloading, but I don't shoot as often as I used to, so I'm weary of throwing the upfront cost into it. One day I'll make it worth while.
Clearly, Cuda, that just means that you have to put a brass-catcher on your gun, or a big funnel or something. Then you're not picking up the brass, you're just picking up the bucket!
Because, yeah, that's actually kinda theft. You paid for the shells, you get to keep what's left of the shells. They wanna sell scrap, they can dig spent rounds out of the burms.
There are plenty of instances. You're just making yourself a target sometimes. Money-chasing women, the jealous criminal elements...and depending on your defintion of heavily armed - are you making yourself the first target in a room of targets?
There is a kind that mounts directly on the rifle. It can either mount directly to the rail, or it uses velcro straps to wrap around it. The plus for this is that it's convenient. The downside is that I have found that ejected shells can sometimes bounce off the roof or inside of the bag and back into the action, causing stovepipe jams. I ditched this one pretty fast.
Spoiler:
The other kind is a big net basket, a "universal brass catcher". This kind I like a lot more. It has threading on the bottom for a tripod, but I usually just put it on the bench as depicted here. The downside is it won't catch every single shell if you move your rifle around, but in my experience it will catch 90+ percent of them.
Obviously a range with a rule prohibiting you from picking up your brass is going to kick you out for using either of these but since it came up seemed worth mentioning.While I don't reload yet, I do shoot at an open to the public unmanned range, and as a former boy scout I do not leave a bunch of trash behind me.
This sounds silly, but one of the things I like to do is take "trash" guns and put quality parts into them.
I have a Mosin Nagant that has 95% new parts, including a Timney trigger. I have a knock-off Remington 800 shotgun that I got for $129 brand new (sale price plus internet coupon) that I put new Remington parts into. I have a Mossberg AR that has a handful of upgrades.
It's kind of fun to make "cheap" guns much more reliable and functional. It's also a hoot to let someone shoot your discount isle POS and have it perform like a champ.
To use D-usa's analogy, this is more like taking an entry level Honda civic, putting in leather seats, premium sound system, tasteful but premium rims, and a full instrument cluster.
Speaking of gun mods and upgrades. I upgraded my recoil tube for my Benelli SBE to the stainless Sure Cycle recoil tube this off duck season. The old boy was slowing down and not cycling like it did 20+ duck seasons ago. Thing works like a dream
For me, it was still WAY cheaper to pimp out the clunker Remington clone than to buy and actual Remington.
I also think it's the same reason people rebuild old clunkers into race cars rather than buy a new one. Edge out a win in a new Corvette, yeah you get some looks. Beat a Corvette in a race with a custom 1983 Buick Citation and I'm sure you'd get more praise.
Guns are weird because of how the legality of what is and isn't a gun is defined, especially in areas where there are waiting periods to buy a gun. Its more "convenient" to slap parts onto a gun you already own than it is to buy a completely new firearm. Especially if those parts really make a huge difference in its operation, and indeed most of the non-receiver parts you can add to a firearm are the biggest contributors to its performance. A Receiver is really just the frame all the other parts attach to, and when it comes down to it there isn't much difference between receivers in terms of where it came from. A cheap-o gun's receiver is most likely just as good as the top of the line, assuming no major structural flaws. So swapping out a cheap gun's other parts will yield drastic improvements, and indeed make it just as good as an expensive one. Again, assuming there aren't any structural flaws.
I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
I don't think I've ever interacted with anyone, American or otherwise, who seemed to find guns "fetishistic." There are plenty of people who enjoy firearms as a a hobby, keep them for hunting or personal protection. I don't think there are many people who are "turned on by them," as you say.
1. Building them. I like all things mechanical. I've built cars, clocks (both mechanical and electric) from scratch, guns, toys, robots, etc. Mechanical and electrical components and their interaction have a certain appeal to me.
2. Hunting/pest control. This is both for a cultural and sustenance reason. I really don't hunt much any more for food, but that has to do with time at my business interfering with hunting season. You can DRASTICALLY drop the monthly costs of food if you know how to hunt/fish successfully and know how to process it.
3. Protection. I live in one of the statistically safest environments in the US (statistically lower that western Europe). However, crime does happen, and I often carry large amounts of cash deposits to the bank at the end of the night.
4. Conversation piece. Guns are interesting. They are fun to look at.
5. Collection. Just like Poke'mon cards, old toys, or anything else
6. Sometimes making loud noises and destroying things is fun.
To tack on to the above, many of those also bleed together into the ability to be self-reliant. The ability to take care of yourself. Which is where the "FREEDOM!!!MURICA!!!" thing comes from. Its a genuinely American ideal to be self-reliant. And nothing embodies that more than having the ability to protect and provide for yourself and your family. Its knowing that, in the event that the SHTF, you at least have taken as many precautions as possible.
As someone who 'gets' the attraction of firearms on an intellectual level, but isn't themselves a firearms owner, I feel I can elaborate a little.
I get where you're coming from with the 'fetish' thing- and no, Hordini, it's not sexual, but it can be a fetish. For instance: It makes perfect sense to want a pistol for personal defense, and a shotgun for duck hunting, and a rifle for Deer season, and a .22 for varmint huntin'. Maybe even have a second of a couple of those, because you found one you prefer, or have someone you loan it to or whatever. And it also makes sense when someone collects firearms for their art or historical value- having a combat rifle from every War, or collecting engraved pieces.
But none of those things explain the people who own 7 ARs of various kinds, and 3 shotguns, and 5 semi-auto handguns, and 10 revolvers, and 18 long rifles because they pick one up at each and every gun show they go to, who have subscriptions to 5 different firearms magazines, 3 different types of ammo for each weapon which they buy faster than they can shoot them...
And I'm not talking about violence or nutjobs or survivalists or doomsday preppers or anything. I'm talking otherwise perfectly reasonable people with 9-5 jobs, a wife, house in the 'burbs, 2.5 kids... Who for some reason spend as much time as is reasonably possible touching, cleaning, thinking about, researching and cuddling their gun collections.
It's that point where the firarms become an objective in and of themselves- when they're no longer an object of art, or a tool of protection or sustenance, that it becomes a fetish. And it's not necessarily a problem. It probably doesn't interfere with anything else in their life- it's just a huge, free-time-consuming hobby. What's odd is that it's become their only hobby.
And the way I look at it (as someone who's got a close friend who's showing the signs of becoming that sort of gun-nut... maybe) is that it's kinda like when people obsess over cars and motor vehicles. The guns just become more obvious because they're smaller and cheaper, so you can get more of them much more easily.
But it's a matter of control, and power being in your control. Firearms are a type of power, one that is contained and completely at the will of the the responsible owner. Much like a motor vehicle puts hundreds of horsepower at your toe-tips, and gives you dominion over thousands of pounds of material travelling at high speed if you want it to, firearms give you that concept of 'I am in control of this dangerous thing'. That can get heady.
In addition, there is the sort of Socially Acceptable Fringe Group that it has going for it. Being a gun-nut isn't mainstream enough that half the people in your PTA group get the same magazines you do, but it's something you see on TV and in movies, and so people know what you're talking about, in general.
Then of course, there's the whole "mechanically fascinating" and "Noise and light!" aspects of it.
But yeah. That's my take on why some people tend to get a little more 'into' firearms than others.
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
How droll that you took pains to specify explicitly that you meant to be insulting. Please don't crap up a thread that has been running 5 years with this nonsense.
Anvildude,
I would like to point out that there are perfectly valid reasons to have multiple shotguns, handguns, etc.
Shotguns can be configured for several different purposes. Being optimized for one use limits your use in another. For example, I have one pump action that I use for fowling with a 28 inch barrel. One I have with a 20 inch full choke barrel for deer hunting. Home defense shotgun with cylinder bore 18 inch barrel. Double barrel for skeet shooting. I also have a lever action simply as a cool conversation piece. And all of this is just in the 12 gauge.
The same is true of rifles. You don't use a brush gun like a 30-30 when you hunt areas with wide open spaces and you don't bring large scoped sniper rifles into heavy woods. In addition the calibre you use to hunt raccoon is not what you'd want to use to shoot elk.
Different types of ammo is also needed. Shooting is expensive. If I'm just target shooting I'm likely using whatever bulk crap rounds are the cheapest. In a personal protection gun, I'm going to splurge the extra 50 cents per round for guaranteed reliability and performance.
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
How droll that you took pains to specify explicitly that you meant to be insulting. Please don't crap up a thread that has been running 5 years with this nonsense.
As someone who 'gets' the attraction of firearms on an intellectual level, but isn't themselves a firearms owner, I feel I can elaborate a little.
I get where you're coming from with the 'fetish' thing- and no, Hordini, it's not sexual, but it can be a fetish. For instance: It makes perfect sense to want a pistol for personal defense, and a shotgun for duck hunting, and a rifle for Deer season, and a .22 for varmint huntin'. Maybe even have a second of a couple of those, because you found one you prefer, or have someone you loan it to or whatever. And it also makes sense when someone collects firearms for their art or historical value- having a combat rifle from every War, or collecting engraved pieces.
But none of those things explain the people who own 7 ARs of various kinds, and 3 shotguns, and 5 semi-auto handguns, and 10 revolvers, and 18 long rifles because they pick one up at each and every gun show they go to, who have subscriptions to 5 different firearms magazines, 3 different types of ammo for each weapon which they buy faster than they can shoot them...
And I'm not talking about violence or nutjobs or survivalists or doomsday preppers or anything. I'm talking otherwise perfectly reasonable people with 9-5 jobs, a wife, house in the 'burbs, 2.5 kids... Who for some reason spend as much time as is reasonably possible touching, cleaning, thinking about, researching and cuddling their gun collections.
It's that point where the firarms become an objective in and of themselves- when they're no longer an object of art, or a tool of protection or sustenance, that it becomes a fetish. And it's not necessarily a problem. It probably doesn't interfere with anything else in their life- it's just a huge, free-time-consuming hobby. What's odd is that it's become their only hobby.
And the way I look at it (as someone who's got a close friend who's showing the signs of becoming that sort of gun-nut... maybe) is that it's kinda like when people obsess over cars and motor vehicles. The guns just become more obvious because they're smaller and cheaper, so you can get more of them much more easily.
But it's a matter of control, and power being in your control. Firearms are a type of power, one that is contained and completely at the will of the the responsible owner. Much like a motor vehicle puts hundreds of horsepower at your toe-tips, and gives you dominion over thousands of pounds of material travelling at high speed if you want it to, firearms give you that concept of 'I am in control of this dangerous thing'. That can get heady.
In addition, there is the sort of Socially Acceptable Fringe Group that it has going for it. Being a gun-nut isn't mainstream enough that half the people in your PTA group get the same magazines you do, but it's something you see on TV and in movies, and so people know what you're talking about, in general.
Then of course, there's the whole "mechanically fascinating" and "Noise and light!" aspects of it.
But yeah. That's my take on why some people tend to get a little more 'into' firearms than others
.
You elaborated by creating a straw man fetishist. That's not helpful at all, it's basically trolling.
The thread topic is "Firearms you own, and their uses" if you don't want to make an on topic post then this isn't the thread you should be posting in.
@cuda- I get that. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, I was talking more about those who have multiples of the same loadout of firearm, and who don't own them for the purpose of using them, but merely to own them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh! Also, I remembered another reason to own Firearms- As an investment! Much like buying paintings or classic cars, firearms have a tendency to appreciate in value as they age, as long as they're well kept, and are of a rarer 'vintage'.
My dad has a wall of collector's edition Winchester 30-30 rifles. Non have ever been shot, and as far as I know none of those 20 guns has been out of the case in the 37 years I've been alive.
All of them have gold or silver inlays, extensive engraving in both the stocks and receivers, and some of them were only offered to "valued customers".
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
I'm guessing it is just your fetish to be turned on by the idea of American Gun Nutz actually being that way.
"Had to" get one, in order to enter the 100th Anniversary Armistice match at Bisley in November.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons is also shooting the match, apparently, so that's cool
Nice, here’s mine along with its German counterpart the Gewehr 98. I was bought this by my uncle for my 21st birthday and he bought the Gewehr, when he passed away 3 years ago I got the Gewehr. Nice piece of history. Mines traced to Royal Irish Rifles issued, which is great as I had several relatives serve in the Royal Irish in ww1 as did my wife. My wife’s great grandfather fell on the 1st July 1916 at the Somme which still remains nearly a holy day here as so many families lost loved ones. We framed his bits and pieces in 2016 along with a bayonet from the a lee enfield given to his family by his comrades.
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
How droll that you took pains to specify explicitly that you meant to be insulting. Please don't crap up a thread that has been running 5 years with this nonsense.
So you aren't even allowed to ask questions about this? I live in Scotland, which has very strict gun laws. I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and appreciate the shotgun I use to do it, so I'm not 'anti-gun'. It was a genuine question asked in a genuine manner. There is an undeniable set of people who view guns as more than just a tool, it's like it allows them to make up for all the things they are self conscious about not having, they idolise them, they take any questions or curiosity about how others see guns as a grievous attack on their idols. A little like you have just done there . The fact that you have taken such great offence at a mere question.... well.... perhaps you should take some time off the internet if such an innocuous question can hurt you so terribly.
@ Anvildude... I really liked your response and found many of your points interesting. Thanks.
Edit: is that possibly a swedish mauser? The stock looks different, does it chamber 8mm or 6.5? (The 6.5 probably shoots better)
The grip at the front makes it look more like the Swedish mauser but it fires the 7.92. I don’t shoot much at all apart from my little anchutz .22 semi so I’m no expert in the abilities of either of these antique weapons. In fact neither have been fired in over two years and I could safely say they wouldn’t have 50 rounds through the two of them in the last 10!
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
How droll that you took pains to specify explicitly that you meant to be insulting. Please don't crap up a thread that has been running 5 years with this nonsense.
So you aren't even allowed to ask questions about this? I live in Scotland, which has very strict gun laws. I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and appreciate the shotgun I use to do it, so I'm not 'anti-gun'. It was a genuine question asked in a genuine manner. There is an undeniable set of people who view guns as more than just a tool, it's like it allows them to make up for all the things they are self conscious about not having, they idolise them, they take any questions or curiosity about how others see guns as a grievous attack on their idols. A little like you have just done there . The fact that you have taken such great offence at a mere question.... well.... perhaps you should take some time off the internet if such an innocuous question can hurt you so terribly.
@ Anvildude... I really liked your response and found many of your points interesting. Thanks.
His point is that this thread has lasted 5 years because we try to prevent discussions from obviously loaded questions out of here. Like was already mentioned this thread is about the guns we own. If you want to talk about your shotgun have at it, but please keep anything else out.
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
How droll that you took pains to specify explicitly that you meant to be insulting. Please don't crap up a thread that has been running 5 years with this nonsense.
So you aren't even allowed to ask questions about this? I live in Scotland, which has very strict gun laws. I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and appreciate the shotgun I use to do it, so I'm not 'anti-gun'. It was a genuine question asked in a genuine manner. There is an undeniable set of people who view guns as more than just a tool, it's like it allows them to make up for all the things they are self conscious about not having, they idolise them, they take any questions or curiosity about how others see guns as a grievous attack on their idols. A little like you have just done there . The fact that you have taken such great offence at a mere question.... well.... perhaps you should take some time off the internet if such an innocuous question can hurt you so terribly.
@ Anvildude... I really liked your response and found many of your points interesting. Thanks.
I guess you can ask questions about it, guns aren't a banned topic in OT (yet) like politics and religion are, but I would do it in a separate thread. Gun debate threads get quite heated, and starting a discussion in this thread would get it off topic real fast. The topic of this thread is to just talk about what guns people have, what they do with them, maintenance and so on. For deeper questions/discussions you'd get a much better response if you make a separate thread.
Hollow wrote: I don't want to come in here and cause issues, I have a genuine query. What is it about guns that so many (mainly Americans in my experience) find.... fetishistic? What is it about them. It's not like these people just like or are interested in them, it seems like they are turned on by them. Why is that? I'm curious.
How droll that you took pains to specify explicitly that you meant to be insulting. Please don't crap up a thread that has been running 5 years with this nonsense.
So you aren't even allowed to ask questions about this? I live in Scotland, which has very strict gun laws. I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and appreciate the shotgun I use to do it, so I'm not 'anti-gun'. It was a genuine question asked in a genuine manner. There is an undeniable set of people who view guns as more than just a tool, it's like it allows them to make up for all the things they are self conscious about not having, they idolise them, they take any questions or curiosity about how others see guns as a grievous attack on their idols. A little like you have just done there . The fact that you have taken such great offence at a mere question.... well.... perhaps you should take some time off the internet if such an innocuous question can hurt you so terribly.
Get real. You asked why people were sexually aroused by their firearms. You know perfectly well this is trolling under the guise of "I'm just asking questions". Do think you would get a less hostile answer if you asked that elsewhere in the forum about Tau, or Resin, or hobby knives? Why do you think it's OK to beat your wife? I mean, I'm just asking questions, man.
Your condescending, garbage equivocations reveal your true, contemptuous intent.
Just hit the 'ignore' button folks, only way to get rid of the troll is to burn it with the fire of our indifference.
On topic, I recently discovered a love for the M1A courtesy of my dad going on about a pair he had when he was younger. The price tag alone is enough to make it a dream piece, but if I ever get the scratch together to snag one, I'll be a happy camper.
Haven't read all 5 years of posts, but has anyone used one?
M1A's are a lot of fun to shoot and are highly distinctive looking, which is neat.
That said, for a 7.62x51, there are tons of options that are more accurate, more reliable, more modular, more ergonomic, and lighter, for the same cost or less if you are looking for shooting performance. At its core its still basically a Garand, originating in the 1920's in terms of design.
I'd like to get one some day just to round out my FAL and G3 clones, but for what they go for it will unfortunately be a while.
On topic, I recently discovered a love for the M1A courtesy of my dad going on about a pair he had when he was younger. The price tag alone is enough to make it a dream piece, but if I ever get the scratch together to snag one, I'll be a happy camper.
Haven't read all 5 years of posts, but has anyone used one?
I have the SOCOM CQB model that comes with the Vortex red dot. It is FUN to fire. The muzzle brake really dampens the recoil, but a 7.62/.308 out of a 16 inch barrel sounds like you are firing a cannon. HUGE fire ball when firing in low light conditions. Even Wife and Daughter like it, and they are recoil adverse.
Pistol grip herecy eh? Must admit they are a hoot to shoot. Have you bothered to track down that short barrel 7.62 ammo designed for that sort of madness?
Insurgency Walker wrote: Pistol grip herecy eh? Must admit they are a hoot to shoot. Have you bothered to track down that short barrel 7.62 ammo designed for that sort of madness?
Haven't even tried. I have a bunch of German surplus 7.62 NATO which feeds this and my HK-91.
So, looking to pick up a semi-auto at some point, but I live in an AWB state.
I've been looking at a few options, such as the ARES SCR and Mini-30.
ARES SCR seems to have issues... heavy trigger, and a lot of proprietary parts (unfortunately there is a lack of aftermarket components for it at this time.)
Mini-30. I've fired one of these, honestly I just don't like it. Strictly personal preference.
Seems that there are not a lot of AWB compliant arms available, and surplus rifles such as the SKS are getting to be quite expensive for what you get.
Any ideas on rifles for me to look at? I have also looked at the M1A, but good god that is an expensive firearm (and even after getting it, ammunition for it isn't exactly cheap either.) I'm wondering if there are any interesting models that I have simply missed in my research.
Cothonian wrote: So, looking to pick up a semi-auto at some point, but I live in an AWB state.
I imagine that a featureless AR would be one of the least expensive options. There are also things like the FNAR or Keltec RDBS. I doubt you'd regret getting an M1A, though.
Cothonian wrote: So, looking to pick up a semi-auto at some point, but I live in an AWB state.
I've been looking at a few options, such as the ARES SCR and Mini-30.
ARES SCR seems to have issues... heavy trigger, and a lot of proprietary parts (unfortunately there is a lack of aftermarket components for it at this time.)
Mini-30. I've fired one of these, honestly I just don't like it. Strictly personal preference.
Seems that there are not a lot of AWB compliant arms available, and surplus rifles such as the SKS are getting to be quite expensive for what you get.
Any ideas on rifles for me to look at? I have also looked at the M1A, but good god that is an expensive firearm (and even after getting it, ammunition for it isn't exactly cheap either.) I'm wondering if there are any interesting models that I have simply missed in my research.
The Mini's are probably the easiest AWB rifles to deal with (as most are 50 state compliant out of the box), but if you really don't like them, you won't like an M1A any better (almost literally the same gun, just bigger).
You could look at a KelTech SU-16. An AK with a grip-wrap is also doable (at least in CA) if that's more your flavor. That said, as mentioned by Luciferian, you can do a featureless AR. It'll look silly, but it'll function fine, and the aftermarket support is tremendous, if you're not liking the Ruger Mini, I'd go for a featureless AR.
I think you should try to find an SCR to test shoot. The current SCR has a much better trigger than the earlier version and the parts that are proprietary are related to the fire control and bolt carrier. Parts that you don't often need to replace. Granted, you don't have the aftermarket options of some of the other AR based options but you can go as crazy as you want with the upper. Also,
Keltec
I have a love/hate relationship with Keltec but they do make a strangely functional cali compliant bullpup along with other 5.56mm platforms
Cothonian wrote: I'd prefer to keep it under $1000, but that might not be realistic. Seems like the majority of AWB compliant arms are very expensive.
God I envy states where you can pick up and AR or AK for $400. My dream rifle is an AK.
You can definitely get AKs for under $1000 where I am in CA. I got mine for $1100 after tax, but I got one with a chrome bolt. The were a number of much cheaper ones in the store too if I had wanted to save a few hundred.
Cothonian wrote: I'd prefer to keep it under $1000, but that might not be realistic. Seems like the majority of AWB compliant arms are very expensive.
God I envy states where you can pick up and AR or AK for $400. My dream rifle is an AK.
Alas, gone are the days of $400 AK's, probably never to return for a variety of reasons. $700 is the low end now, even for WASRs, at least in terms of new 16" barrel rifles. That said, $1k is doable.
If you have a good CA FFL that does transfers nearby, Atlantic Firearms has probably the best AK selection out there and does ship to CA (as long as you're cool with a $40 weird grip flap being stuck to the gun to make it compliant). If you're budgeting about a grand, either get a WASR from atlantic and have a bit left over to get a red dot or ammo too, or pick up one of their in-house built guns made from Polish WBP parts. Sadly I don't think any Arsenal's can be had for under a grand any longer.
That said, you *can* just pick up a bare AR receiver for $50-100, and build it to your desires (as they fit within CA law) and budget over time.
It is definitely cheaper if you build the gun yourself. Thats probably the only way you'll ever get a sub $500 AK nowdays. It doesn't seem terribly difficult either. The only part I would be concerned about would be the barrel assembly, but you can buy complete barrels so its not a huge deal. AK's are elegantly simple, and all the parts except for a complete receiver can just get mailed to your door.
Don't get into the politics of it, but if you own a bump stock, the bump stock ban looks to be pretty imminent - the final rule declaring them to be machine guns was leaked but not yet published. I don't know if there will be an injunction or not but the reason I post this is if you own one, you might want to follow the news on this.
Ouze wrote: Don't get into the politics of it, but if you own a bump stock, the bump stock ban looks to be pretty imminent - the final rule declaring them to be machine guns was leaked but not yet published. I don't know if there will be an injunction or not but the reason I post this is if you own one, you might want to follow the news on this.
They'll probably be forced to allow all existing Bump Stocks to be retained. Illegal seizure and forfeiture of property and all.
Ouze wrote: Don't get into the politics of it, but if you own a bump stock, the bump stock ban looks to be pretty imminent - the final rule declaring them to be machine guns was leaked but not yet published. I don't know if there will be an injunction or not but the reason I post this is if you own one, you might want to follow the news on this.
They'll probably be forced to allow all existing Bump Stocks to be retained. Illegal seizure and forfeiture of property and all.
It would be a pretty sweeping Constitutional violation to make all retroactively illegal. Ex Post Facto laws are illegal by plain Constitutional language.
There is also the interesting thing that, if you legally make the Bump Stock itself a Machine Gun, what does it do to the Firearm you attach it to? What if you have multiple firearms that could attach it? Would that make any gun with a bump stock 2 Machine Guns from a legal standpoint?
If that last one was true, that would result in something interesting. I take a Semi-automatic firearm, put a bump stock on it. It now legally becomes a machine gun. I then buy all the parts necessary to actually turn that semi-auto firearm into a regular full auto and install them. Its already legally a machine gun if its got a bump stock in this hypothetical scenario, and since its perfectly legal to replace parts on a machine gun you own legally. For extra mindfethery, remove the bump stock and put it on another firearm and repeat the process...
This could apply to any Bump Stock, or related device that does the same thing, that gets turned into a machine gun.
Even if you go the slightly more sensible route of "A firearm that currently has a Bump Stock attached to it is a machine gun" and don't allow for the moving of the Bump Stock to a different firearm, that still would potentially open a loophole for people to attach a bump fire device to a firearm, get it registered as a Machine Gun, and then just add regular Full-auto trigger groups to the gun. You can't be found guilty of manufacturing a Machine-gun if the gun in question was already legally considered one.
I hope they word the Fed law better than the FL law, which effectively outlaws any device/mechanism/whatever which allows a weapon to fire faster than the 'un-altered' version. As worded the FL law would make any custom trigger, or heck, even a good sling, illegal.
Frankly I hope all of these laws get smashed by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
BUT back on topic... I just bought 8 25-round magazines for Daughter's and Wife's Ruger 10/22s. Are there any decent 'magula' type loading devices for these magazines or am I doomed to sore thumbs? (Yes I do get stuck as the Official Magazine Loader in the family)
Frankly, I wish they would enforce the law which requires all laws to be written in "plain language". That would get rid of a lot of bloat.
I wonder if that FL law would mean anybody whose body was capable of faster than average finger movement to be a criminal?
In other news. I just took the plunge and bought a blank 80% AK receiver. Rails are all installed, magwell and trigger holes are drilled. All that it needs are the small rivet and post holes to be drilled. Probably going to assemble it as a Pistol.
If anyone is looking at doing an NFA Form 1 for anything, now's the time. E-File is back up (well, it's accepting applications anyway, whether it's working or not at any given time can be...interesting), and Form 1 stamps are coming back in as little as a week, typically under 20 days through E-File, while paper applications continue to languish for ~8 months or so.
Unfortunately it appears Form 4's for doing transfers still all have to be paper.
EDIT: as for the bump stocks, my guess is that even if a final rule gets published tomorrow, there will be courtroom drama keeping everything in limbo for...many moons. I suspect that such will ultimately require actual legislation and not agency reinterpretation of existing law.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I'm looking at getting a gun that can reliably and effectively defeat light body armor. Any suggestions?
This is sort of a hard question to answer, because body armor comes in different levels, and might have additional plates as well.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume the cheapest and most comfortable option, which ls level IIIa and no additional plates.
For a pistol, an FN FiveSeven will do it no problem. The only problem is a FiveSeven is $1100 and the right ammo for it is pretty expensive. SS190 is not supposed to be sold to non-government people, although it's lawful to possess - as a result it's about $200 for a box of 50.
If you're not looking at a pistol, then it's a lot easier. Regular old FMJ 5.56 (AR15) & 7.62 (AK) will defeat IIIa. It's not designed to stop rifle rounds.
Some ammo easily available in 5.56 will defeat some level III plates (though again, there are a lot of factors at play here).
Ouze wrote: Don't get into the politics of it, but if you own a bump stock, the bump stock ban looks to be pretty imminent - the final rule declaring them to be machine guns was leaked but not yet published. I don't know if there will be an injunction or not but the reason I post this is if you own one, you might want to follow the news on this.
They'll probably be forced to allow all existing Bump Stocks to be retained. Illegal seizure and forfeiture of property and all.
It would be a pretty sweeping Constitutional violation to make all retroactively illegal. Ex Post Facto laws are illegal by plain Constitutional language.
The complication is that machine guns aren't technically illegal. Presumably if you live in a state that allows you to register a machine gun, you can keep your bump stock and just register it.
Unfortunately a lot of states, like my own, prohibit machine guns so it's a state law that will have me turning in my own bump stock.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. I truly have no idea how it will go. I don't think they will be grandfathered in, though. Just my gut feeling.
Techpriestsupport wrote: I'm looking at getting a gun that can reliably and effectively defeat light body armor. Any suggestions?
This is sort of a hard question to answer, because body armor comes in different levels, and might have additional plates as well.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume the cheapest and most comfortable option, which ls level IIIa and no additional plates.
For a pistol, an FN FiveSeven will do it no problem. The only problem is a FiveSeven is $1100 and the right ammo for it is pretty expensive. SS190 is not supposed to be sold to non-government people, although it's lawful to possess - as a result it's about $200 for a box of 50.
If you're not looking at a pistol, then it's a lot easier. Regular old FMJ 5.56 (AR15) & 7.62 (AK) will defeat IIIa. It's not designed to stop rifle rounds.
Some ammo easily available in 5.56 will defeat some level III plates (though again, there are a lot of factors at play here).
Yeah, pretty much any rifle round will defeat common body armor. You have to get to tierIV(or stuff that is rated equal to tierIV) before you'll reliably stop rifle rounds.
The nomenclature for body armor is a little weird though. Some stuff that is listed as tierIII is actually tierIII, while some is rated equal to or better than tierIV but is sold as TierIII, so its down to the physical specs of that particular plate than just what label is slapped on.
There is also a big difference between penetration if you're shooting pure lead bullets, jacketed hollow points, jacketed soft points, FMJ, and actual armor piercing rounds. And there can be a difference between different manufacturers of what is technically the same ammo type. The Brown Bear 7.62 I use is a jacked hollow point, but the hollow point is barely a MM across meaning it would still have some fairly high penetration.
The complication is that machine guns aren't technically illegal. Presumably if you live in a state that allows you to register a machine gun, you can keep your bump stock and just register it.
Unfortunately a lot of states, like my own, prohibit machine guns so it's a state law that will have me turning in my own bump stock.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. I truly have no idea how it will go. I don't think they will be grandfathered in, though. Just my gut feeling.
The Ex Post Facto clause doesn't just forbid Congress, it also forbids the states from doing the same (only part of the constitution that binds both to the same restriction till Amendment 14, fun facts!). I think the issue is how the law regards once legal items acquired and owned legally before the law changed, and does that violate the restriction (there's precedent that swings both ways), on which I'd say Vaktathi is right. Lots of litigation before that works out and people probably want to stay on top of whatever is going on to avoid running afoul of however the law shakes out.
Question also: do you mean "Defeat" as in, penetrate, or 'Defeat' as in, stop the person wearing it?
Because as I understand it, most soft body armours don't necessarily prevent injury- just penetrative injury. There's still massive bruising, potential broken bones, and you might 'stop' the wearer without ever penetrating the armour. In which case, wouldn't a powerful enough non-penetrative round (.44 magnum?) still work?
And then there's the matter of ranges, who exactly you're expecting to come after you wearing body armour, etc. etc.
Most body armor today consists of both kevlar and hard plates. If the magnum hits a plate, its going to do little more than leave a bruise since those plates are designed to stop pistol rounds.
In a life and death situation, bruising and even broken bones aren't going to immediately stop someone. Anybody in a situation like that is going to be hopped up on adrenaline and will easily ignore broken ribs and bruises. They can even ignore actual gunshot wounds which cause severe, but not immediately lethal, injuries. Someone might be bleeding out, but till they lose enough blood to actually cause loss of consciousness they will still function well enough to be a threat.
A .44 magnum would be incredibly lethal to someone who isn't wearing any body armor at all, but if they have some it becomes a very dicey situation. Another problem with a pistol like that is they can be a little difficult to effectively put multiple rounds in a target, which is what you want. Lots of people also can't effectively use a pistol of that caliber. Size matters, but it is secondary to being able to put rounds on target in rapid succession. Which is why my motto is to use the largest caliber your body can control effectively.
Any type of body armor that uses plates is going to be highly resistant to pistol rounds because that is what it is designed to stop. The FN FiveSeven that Ouze mentioned is one of the few pistols that is designed to counter body armor(which is because it is essentially using a very small Intermediate Cartridge instead of a pistol caliber), and aside from edge cases like that a pistol is going to have extreme difficulty unless you get some obscure armor piercing ammo, which would be both rare and potentially illegal depending on where you are. But rifle and intermediate caliber weapons on the other hand will generally always defeat most body armor simply because they are orders of magnitude more powerful than simple pistol calibers.
Relying on simply injuring an assailant to stop them is a bad plan. Most likely they'll still be able to kill or maim you before they've stopped.
Cothonian wrote: I'd prefer to keep it under $1000, but that might not be realistic. Seems like the majority of AWB compliant arms are very expensive.
God I envy states where you can pick up and AR or AK for $400. My dream rifle is an AK.
Alas, gone are the days of $400 AK's, probably never to return for a variety of reasons. $700 is the low end now, even for WASRs, at least in terms of new 16" barrel rifles. That said, $1k is doable.
If you have a good CA FFL that does transfers nearby, Atlantic Firearms has probably the best AK selection out there and does ship to CA (as long as you're cool with a $40 weird grip flap being stuck to the gun to make it compliant). If you're budgeting about a grand, either get a WASR from atlantic and have a bit left over to get a red dot or ammo too, or pick up one of their in-house built guns made from Polish WBP parts. Sadly I don't think any Arsenal's can be had for under a grand any longer.
That said, you *can* just pick up a bare AR receiver for $50-100, and build it to your desires (as they fit within CA law) and budget over time.
Alas, I live in CT, where all forms of AK and AR are effectively banned (except for the ARES SCR, as it has a shotgun stock which clearly makes it harmless.)
Honestly looking at a Mini-30 again. Yeah I said I didn't particularly care for it, but then again the last time I fired one was literally over a decade ago... I'm going to see if I can find one to test shoot. I already have a bolt action chambered in 7.62x39mm (CZ 527 if you are curious), could be nice having multiple rifles using the same cartridge.
Yeah, unable to buy that. In CT, any pistol where the magazine is forward of the grip is deemed an "assault weapon" and thus illegal. For example, the Mauser C96 is designated as an assault weapon and thus banned. For good measure, anything bullpup that isn't a shotgun is also illegal.
Any carbine/rifle with the magazine in the grip is also illegal (man I wish I had gotten my hands on a Hi-Point carbine.)
I don't mean to be difficult. Honestly there just aren't a lot of options. I kind of wish stripper clip fed firearms would make a comeback lol, as those are CT legal (since they lack a detachable magazine.)
You could always cheat the system. Get a Glock lower for a couple hundred bucks, buy a Mechtech rifle upper (minus the stock), and get a pistol wrist brace (Mechtech can be compatible with AR-style stocks).
It's then still "technically" a pistol, but will in all intents and purposes be a carbine.
BaronIveagh wrote: If you really want to pen it, make up a shotgun round with a tungsten needle in a plastic sabot.
I'm not a lawyer but pretty sure this would be a felony. AP ammunition falls into a weird legal area - you're allowed to own it, and if you have it as an individual, you're allowed to sell it, but you're not allowed to manufacture or import it.
BaronIveagh wrote: If you really want to pen it, make up a shotgun round with a tungsten needle in a plastic sabot.
I'm not a lawyer but pretty sure this would be a felony. AP ammunition falls into a weird legal area - you're allowed to own it, and if you have it as an individual, you're allowed to sell it, but you're not allowed to manufacture or import it.
Not true, shotgun ammunition is exempt! The definition under federal law specifically excludes it from the legal definition of 'Armor Piercing'.
Yes and no, I think. The section that exempts shotgun ammo only does so for specific purposes, not a general shotgun exemption.
If it can be loaded into a handgun, it's not exempt. So, I think manufacturing .410 AP would be unlawful (by dint of the Judge, among others), but I don't know if any 12 gauge pistols.
Ouze wrote: Yes and no, I think. The section that exempts shotgun ammo only does so for specific purposes, not a general shotgun exemption.
If it can be loaded into a handgun, it's not exempt. So, I think manufacturing .410 AP would be unlawful (by dint of the Judge, among others), but I don't know if any 12 gauge pistols.
Shotgun pistols are generally illegal most places anyway because of the laws restricting sawed-off shotguns.
Of course a law saying "can be loaded into a handgun" is silly to begin with because any gunsmith could theoretically make a handgun to fire any type of ammunition.
Plus, banning manufacture but not possession is also a silly law because unless you catch someone in the actual act of making the ammunition there is no enforcement. You'd have to actually video them crafting the ammo. Catching them with either the components or the finished product would not be sufficient.
Its just like how it is legal to purchase, possess, and sell the parts to make a firearm into a machine gun. Its only illegal to cut the holes in the receiver and install the parts, and possess the finished product.
Ouze wrote: Yes and no, I think. The section that exempts shotgun ammo only does so for specific purposes, not a general shotgun exemption.
If it can be loaded into a handgun, it's not exempt. So, I think manufacturing .410 AP would be unlawful (by dint of the Judge, among others), but I don't know if any 12 gauge pistols.
Oh, you wanted an AP pistol? Good luck there. Long arms are the way to go for legal AP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: My legally purchased Judge seems to be evidence that not all 'shotgun pistols' are illegal.
Is not legally a shotgun due to it's rifled barrel. Has to be smooth bore to be considered a shotgun.
Ouze wrote: Yes and no, I think. The section that exempts shotgun ammo only does so for specific purposes, not a general shotgun exemption.
If it can be loaded into a handgun, it's not exempt. So, I think manufacturing .410 AP would be unlawful (by dint of the Judge, among others), but I don't know if any 12 gauge pistols.
Oh, you wanted an AP pistol? Good luck there. Long arms are the way to go for legal AP..
Someone else was asking about this. I didn't want one at all.
Grey Templar wrote: [
Shotgun pistols are generally illegal most places anyway because of the laws restricting sawed-off shotguns.
Sawed off shotguns are illegal, but that only applies if you actually shorten an existing shotgun that was manufactured as such.
Smooth-bore firearms with a barrel less than 18" in length, which are not manufactured to be shoulder-fired, do not fit the definition of shotgun. They are simply "firearms" and are not NFA regulated. Thus, you can *manufacture*, but not modify, a "firearm" designed to fire shotgun shells, with a barrel of any length, as long as it is not designed to be shoulder-fired. Even Mossberg is making such a "firearm" now.
SBR finally complete. Total ATF wait time from E-File submission to receipt of stamp: 12 days.
Get 'em in now if you're thinking about a Form 1 for something.
CptJake wrote: Anyone have experience with civilian thermal rifle sights or other civilian night vision sights? I have a need to ID and hit at night.
I got to play with an Armasight Zeus, that was *awesome*, but unfortunately the cost of most decent thermal optics is 3-5x the cost of the rifles I'd put them on, so beyond that I haven't had a chance to play with them.
I'm deeply tempted by that. I do own a shotgun and it was originally intended for home defense, but it's a full size shotgun so, you know, it's 4 feet long. Not great for going around corners.
This seems to fix that problem, and also just looks fun.
I quite like it. The 510c is often available for as little as $200 if you do some searching (usually $250-300), and while probably not as durable as some of the bigger names, its half or a third the cost and I'm also not planning on hopping out of a helicopter into salt water on a screaming hot day, so they've worked for everything ive used them for so far. Battery life is great, the one in the pic has been on for 4 months straight on the same battery.
d-usa wrote: There is this shotgun...pistol....thing?
Don't own any firearms myself, but have a fair bit of experience due to a few years in the Cadets. Used 5.56mm GP rifles, the British SA80 redesigned for single-shot fire. Very nice design, comfortable yet compact.
Was in the States a few months back and spend a few hours in ranges in CA and NV. My fiance and I used a nice variety of weapons including a Kimber 9mm, Desert Eagle, Kar98, Ak47 and a Barrett M82. The Desert Eagle is such an overhyped weapon, you have a 5-round clip, and you have to make every shot count, and while it'll obliterate whatever it hits, it's just too-damn big and heavy to use in any situation besides the range.
The Barrett however was just terrifying. The pressure-wave just knocks the air out of you, the only thing that takes your breath away more is the $30/round pricetag.
Loved using the ranges, just wish we had more of them over here in the UK.
The Barrett however was just terrifying. The pressure-wave just knocks the air out of you, the only thing that takes your breath away more is the $30/round pricetag.
Loved using the ranges, just wish we had more of them over here in the UK.
50BMG is always...interesting. ive seen them knock mud dauber nests off the ceiling at ranges, and you never want to be guy in the next lane over
I fired the M107 in the Army, and I was always surprised at how little felt recoil it has. That muzzle break is serious business. I'm pretty sure it would knock you over if you were standing to the side of it, though.
I basically did the whole Shockwave thing before it was popular. I bought a 12-gauge Mossberg Persuader. 20-inch barrel, pistol grip, 8+1 rounds. The pistol grip just hurt my wrist to shoot. That's when I picked up the Shockwave grip (before they partnered with Mossberg) and put it on my weapon. I have to admit, the birds head grip is actually more comfortable than the standard pistol grip.
Also, it now fits better into the over-the-shoulder shotgun scabbard I picked up to feel like Mad Max.
The shockwave and similar firearms get away with it because they were never manufactured as shotguns according to NFA definitions. It's all about how the weapon is entered in the manufacturer's books when they make it, similar to an AR15 pistol vs an SBR.
CptJake wrote: Anyone have experience with civilian thermal rifle sights or other civilian night vision sights? I have a need to ID and hit at night.
Most of the "civilian" night vision and thermals have pretty limited range. The Leupold LTO is probably your best bet for thermal although they are not the most clear and weather seems to effect them. I have not tried the Sig thermal yet although I would like to.
If you are serious about night vision, pony up the money and go to TVNC and look at a Gen 3 PVS-14. We use these at work and they are pretty darn good and they work even better if you have a good quality illuminator to go with it. Something to keep in mind is that most night vision and thermals are designed to be head mounted, attaching a PVS-14 on your rifle will cause it to wear faster internally because of the recoil.
Luciferian wrote: The shockwave and similar firearms get away with it because they were never manufactured as shotguns according to NFA definitions. It's all about how the weapon is entered in the manufacturer's books when they make it, similar to an AR15 pistol vs an SBR.
In the case of the shockwave, overall length plays an important part. If it was shorter it would be classified as an AOW and need a tax stamp.
In the USA Flamethrowers are federally unregulated and not even considered a firearm (ironic) by the BATF. No need for any NFA tax stamps, weapons licensing or even an FFL dealer. It’s the purchaser’s responsibility to ascertain that ownership and or use does not violate any state or local laws or regulations. Check out our FAQ page for information on international deliveries.
Throwflame requires purchaser to be 18 or older to order to receive delivery (shipper requires age verification upon delivery)
Its a side effect of Flamethrowers being legally considered engineering tools and not weapons. Though I was under the impression that if the range was over 10 feet it was considered a destructive device, which would require you to purchase a Tax Stamp.
Flamethrowers fortunately need no tax stamp, and AFAIK only Maryland has banned them. In CA, if it shoots more than 10ft you need to get a "may issue" license from the state fire marshall (given CA's issues with fires). Aside from that, there is no regulation in the US. That said, there are "flamethrowers" and then there are Flamethrowers.
Most such devices we see are basically propane torches. They're cheap and simple and are easily controlled, and dont shoot much more than 10ft. Basically they are just repackaged slightly beefier version of a common backyard grill mechanism. These can be had for a couple hundred bucks. Cheap, fun, relatively safe (like the .
A proper actual military flamethrower is more akin to scuba gear (and must be treated and routinely professionally tested in the same manner), and is throwing pressurized jellied fuel a couple dozen meters and is ignited by flare catridges in the wand and are incredibly dangerous, not only because they throw a lot more fire burning much hotter that sticks to stuff and burns in place, but they actually primarily kill through carbon monoxide poisoning (if you are in a bunker for instance, you can be missed by the flame entirely, but inhale a lung full of the combustion byproduct, not realize it, pass out 10 seconds later and be dead a minute later). These are generally old, require regular maintenance, usually cost north of $20k and there's only one guy in the country who does training and maintenance, and he's in his 70's.
The throwflame.com models look somewhere in between these two types, might be fun
I've had an amazon wishlist forever for parts to build a proper flamethrower (using pressurized diesel), but every time I start to add it to my cart, I start thinking that I don't really have enough property to properly enjoy it. Still, would be awesome for clearly snow and ice in winter.
Also, I don't want to have a horrible but hilarious accident.
Told my wife I wanted some ammo (9mm and 7.62 NATO) and magazines (for the M1A) for Christmas, and gave her some links to good places to order from. Picked up a 54 pound box UPS dropped off at the front gate yesterday.
Either she ordered a big ol box of the anthracite I deserve, or Santa is bringing ammo!
Ouze wrote:I've had an amazon wishlist forever for parts to build a proper flamethrower (using pressurized diesel), but every time I start to add it to my cart, I start thinking that I don't really have enough property to properly enjoy it. Still, would be awesome for clearly snow and ice in winter.
Also, I don't want to have a horrible but hilarious accident.
If you do this, please film it. I want to watch.
CptJake wrote:Told my wife I wanted some ammo (9mm and 7.62 NATO) and magazines (for the M1A) for Christmas, and gave her some links to good places to order from. Picked up a 54 pound box UPS dropped off at the front gate yesterday.
Either she ordered a big ol box of the anthracite I deserve, or Santa is bringing ammo!
So I've begun building the new AK. It is a Romanian underfolder kit, however the underfolder is missing a couple of the pieces for the underfolder, so I bought I regular rear trunnion for it instead to do a regular stock on it. it also counts as a part for 922r compliance so that is a benefit.
The kit also had the barrel already populated, which presented an issue in that the holes already in the trunnion were not tapped and I could not tap them myself without removing the barrel from the trunnion(which I ain't gonna do). So where I would have done the 4 front screws in the front trunnion, I decided to Silver Solder the trunnion and receiver together. It should be plenty strong.
I drilled two holes through the receiver lined up with the holes in the trunnion and put the flux and silver into the holes and in the gap between the receiver and the trunnion itself.
Here is the results after doing the left side. The solder has left some nice little silver buttons so it should look good once I've cleaned it up. I was worried it was going to be pretty ugly. I will do the other side once its cool.
please do not attach non wargaming images to Dakka, if you wish to share any such images you need to use an offsite host and link to it.
Reds8n
So I got both sides done and cleaned up. Turned out nicely. It did burn off the coating the receiver came with, but I was planning on painting it anyway.
The Silver Soldering was an interesting process. The crazy part is how it bubbled up into a perfect button.
edit: so far the only real issue with the assembly has been that the safety selector is VERY VERY stiff. The gap between the outside of the selector and the inner... flange, I guess, is quite small and it really pinches the receiver wall. I can still manipulate it with one hand but it requires a lot more effort than my current AK. Its like one push, it then locks into the full auto divot that is on the outside of the receiver, then I have to push it again to get into the semi-auto one.*
*ReCreator blanks makes their receivers exactly match original AK receivers so it came with that divot. I'm not making a machine gun
With the selector, can you try bending the lever outward? My Vepr12 selector was almost impossible to manipulate when I got it, but I just hand-bent it outward a tiny bit and it now moves perfectly.
I tried bending the lever, but its quite thick hardened steel. Its much stronger then the selector on my other AK. I think it might break before it bent. It works ok so I don't think I'll push my luck.
I mean, if you have a cool one to share, by all means
We have stuff like that in the US, though at least for where I grew up, "spud gun" was a term for a PVC pipe construct that used hairspray propellant to shoot an entire potato.
Grey Templar wrote: I tried bending the lever, but its quite thick hardened steel. Its much stronger then the selector on my other AK. I think it might break before it bent. It works ok so I don't think I'll push my luck.
Do you have access to the "bump" on the other side? If so, perhaps you can use a sanding stick to sand it down a bit so it doesn't stick so badly.
My AK had the opposite problem; the divots were machined/stamped really shallow so the selector would slide past semi and keep going as far as it could travel. I wound up using a ball-shaped carving bit in a dremel to deepen the semi dimple a tiny bit, and now it stops fine. Obviously give it a few passes, check, and repeat, since once the material is gone, it's gone.
I’m also somehow impressed an American even knows what they are. Because America has proper guns!
If by "do they count" you mean "are they firearms," then no. We do have spud guns here, like the type in the link. I would not consider them a firearm and I don't think there is anywhere in the US where they would be considered a firearm. If you're talking about what we would call a potato gun (or potato cannon) that starts to blur the line a little bit more as some of them actually use flammable propellant, but I still wouldn't really consider those a firearm in the traditional sense (they don't use gunpowder). In most cases they should be treated like one though, because they can be dangerous.
They also don’t count as fire arms here in the uk either. You can find them in toys shops for a few pounds, as spud guns are just toys but nerf seems to be more popular these days with kids.
My 6 yr old has a few but he spends more time eyeing up daddy’s airsoft/ Rifs. I swear that lad will be in some cadet force when he’s old enough.
So finally finished my AK build. Everything cycles nicely. All thats left is to actually test fire it. Hopefully the rain will let up on a day I have off work so I can do that. I'll be painting the receiver, dust cover, and the buttstock black as soon as I can too so that it matches. Still waiting on the bipod I ordered to come in for it, but other than that its done.
I've been wanting a 10mm carbine. I was keeping my fingers crossed that the Ruger PC Carbine would be available in something other than 9mm, but Ruger is...slow to change.
With that in mind, I'm considering a Hi-Point. I know they're reliable, accurate, and cheap. However they are also ugly, and they have a stigma about them.
What do you guys think? Hi-Point, or go for something more expensive?
10mm carbines are rather scarce, for all the hate hi-point gets, I'm not aware of too many other 10mm PCC's that are available, mostly functional, and aren't an insane amount of money. I've seen more 10mm AR stuff out there of late, but haven't shot one and can't comment on reliability.
KRISS makes a 10mm carbine, but I don't think I'd buy one over the Hi-Point given the disparity in price (3-4x as much) and no giggle-switch to take advantage of on the KRISS.
cuda1179 wrote: What do you guys think? Hi-Point, or go for something more expensive?
You've been talking about it for a year, so you should probably do it - it obviously wasn't just a fleeting interest. And it's a Hi-Point, so if you don't like it, it's not like you're out Les Baer money.
I remember this distinctly, because it set off a long discussion where I argued PCCs are dumb vs just carrying a handgun, and several people argued the merits, and now a year later I'm wanting to get a PCC as well, albeit a very small one - the Scorpion EVO 3 s2 with brace.
I would have gotten it already if I could have found someone selling the damn thing.
cuda1179 wrote: What do you guys think? Hi-Point, or go for something more expensive?
You've been talking about it for a year, so you should probably do it - it obviously wasn't just a fleeting interest. And it's a Hi-Point, so if you don't like it, it's not like you're out Les Baer money.
I remember this distinctly, because it set off a long discussion where I argued PCCs are dumb vs just carrying a handgun, and several people argued the merits, and now a year later I'm wanting to get a PCC as well, albeit a very small one - the Scorpion EVO 3 s2 with brace.
I would have gotten it already if I could have found someone selling the damn thing.
Now that you mention it, yeah, I remember that too. Dang, I hadn't realized it's been that long, or that I mentioned it here. Sorry. Had a few other items on my list taken care of though.
I think the stigma mostly stems from "something that cheap can't possibly be any good". And being ugly doesn't help.
There are a few aftermarket stocks to make them significantly less ugly, including one that makes them look like a Beretta Cx4, and a bullpup. I am hesitant to spend $100 to $200 on a Hi-Point to make it look nice. I did find someone specifically making Hi-Point accessories for a decent price. Putting a barrel shroud on the carbine makes it look less dumb.
$100 on a $200 gun isn’t terrible. You’ve effectively increased its value by 50%. And firearms tend to only increase in value. Assuming you care about potential resale.
cuda1179 wrote: Now that you mention it, yeah, I remember that too. Dang, I hadn't realized it's been that long, or that I mentioned it here. Sorry.
Well, I wasn't like... trying to drag you down, for lack of a better idiom. I'm just saying you clearly have been considering this for a while and so you should do it. I have 3 day fever for lots of guns (and minis) and then ultimately decide I don't really want them (yeah, x model is cool, but am I going to commit to x army? no), but this clearly isn't that. You're asking if you should get one, and I think you should.
It's also a good example of the inaccuracy of "no one ever changes anyones mind in the OT" which sometimes gets thrown out, because it does happen sometimes, and a good example is I did eventually come around on PCCs.
So maybe MAYBE tomorrow the weather will permit some test firing. Though driving up the mountain to the range might not be possible because of the week of rain. I also need to fire my Mosin after the boresighting I did for the PU scope.
Either, way I'll finish the basic paint tomorrow. A coat of engine paint, followed by a rattlecan to smooth it out and get rid of the shiny. The test patch on it was rather gloopy.
For decoration, I ordered a couple stencils because I'm such a fanboi
One will go on each side of the gun, and each of my metal magazines.
cuda1179 wrote: What do you guys think? Hi-Point, or go for something more expensive?
You've been talking about it for a year, so you should probably do it - it obviously wasn't just a fleeting interest. And it's a Hi-Point, so if you don't like it, it's not like you're out Les Baer money.
I remember this distinctly, because it set off a long discussion where I argued PCCs are dumb vs just carrying a handgun, and several people argued the merits, and now a year later I'm wanting to get a PCC as well, albeit a very small one - the Scorpion EVO 3 s2 with brace.
I would have gotten it already if I could have found someone selling the damn thing.
I don't think you can even build your own as that short barrel hand guard is still out of stock. The brace however is available now.
Can't wait for magpul to get on the CZ band wagon and have you seen the bullpup kit for the carbine?
As a side note, the old 40k art had these curved disk type blast cones in front of weapons muzzles and I had never seen a muzzle flash that looked like that until I bump fired a 5.56mm pistol. The muzzle flash got shaped by the following rounds shock wave. It was a cool effect.
My dad passed away Sunday morning at 3:34AM, and I was informed that there is a firearm as part of my "inheritance". I'm not sure what it is, if it's going to be a rifle, shotgun, or a pistol, or maybe a couple of those options. All I know is that my anti-gun wife is in for a real surprise this week or next...
Just Tony wrote: My dad passed away Sunday morning at 3:34AM, and I was informed that there is a firearm as part of my "inheritance". I'm not sure what it is, if it's going to be a rifle, shotgun, or a pistol, or maybe a couple of those options. All I know is that my anti-gun wife is in for a real surprise this week or next...
You have my sympathy for the passing of your father.
As for your wife, reminds me of my brother. When he got married his wife was VERY anti-gun. Her friends even teased her about marrying a gun enthusiast. Then she tried shooting one for the first time. She liked shooting enough that she now owns her own rifle and pistol.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm thinking I'm happy with the stock magazine release but I ditched the grip for I think for a Yeti works and did a right side safety delete. The pmag 35 is looking awsome and I'll give the grip a shot too to see if it's better than the yeti. The SB brace is pure magic.
Just Tony wrote: My dad passed away Sunday morning at 3:34AM, and I was informed that there is a firearm as part of my "inheritance". I'm not sure what it is, if it's going to be a rifle, shotgun, or a pistol, or maybe a couple of those options. All I know is that my anti-gun wife is in for a real surprise this week or next...
Ok, got a photo of the finished AK. The House Targarian stencil is still too damn big even at only 3", and I had to touch up the House Stark one a lot because there was a lot of over spray.
Still haven't shot it yet, 2 straight weeks of rain It is very nice and comfortable to hold though. I might buy a Dust Cover with a rail since I can't put on the side mount without covering up the wolf, but I might just keep it Iron Sights only.
If you don't want to deal with a siderail, you may also want to look at a large tube red dot or holographic out on the handguard. They're a bit funky that far out there, but a lot of the railed top covers have quirky zero retention, both have their ups and downs.
With AK's, though the market is rapidly adapting to it, there are only a handful of decent ways to put a quality optic on the rifle. Almost none of them involve the dust cover (though TWS was working on one which went in/out of stock frequently a couple years ago).
For magnified optics you're best bet is unfortunately the side rail, with a modern Western option from a company like RS Regulate. This will interfere if you have a folding stock. If you don't, not a bad option, though the side rail and additional mount will start to creep the weight up. I had my side-rail removed from my primary gun to save another few ounces.
For red-dot non-magnified optics there are numerous decent forearm options, which tend to be more solid than dust covers. The best/smallest package being something akin to the old trust Ultimak and an Aimpoint Micro. I would recommend a Trijicon product as well, but the RMR I put on top of my work gun actually was ruined by the Ultimak's heat (shooting in AZ, it melted some internals). That was a while ago, and a very new RMR when they just came out.
If you're serious about running the AK in classes or considering it as a defensive rifle, the must-haves are:
1) new grip...the standard one is exceptionally poor. My favourite are now out of production (US Palm, unless someone picked them up...)
2) Tromix charging handle. Gives you a ton of purchase and helps kick-starting the bolt if you have a malfunction.
3) Kreb's or similar retaining plate - replaces the garbage shepherd's hook spring which holds components in place inside the rifle.
4) Kreb's or similar selector lever which allows you manipulate it from the trigger hand.
Those items can be had for under $100 combined and will transform the way you run the rifle. Invest in a quality BFG or similar Vickers style sling and you'll be miles better handling/maneuvering and running the gun in any kind of environment.
Kindly do not host non-wargaming images in our gallery - BrookM
My work gun "The Brown Bitch" (bottom) and its...seldom used backup. The bottom gun has been through numerous surgeries and is sitting around 14,000 rounds or so with two ammunition related malfunctions and one malfunction when a smith got something wrong (which was subsequently fixed). Only long-arm I trust my life to.
I installed/function tested one, haven't had the opportunity to shoot one yet however.
Ultimately I suspect that something like a Geissele SD3G standard semiauto trigger will probably prove a more functional and reliable rapid fire trigger, but the gigglyness of the binary trigger is undeniable.
Expensive to buy, expensive to own. It doesnt make the gun FA, it fires when you pull the trigger, fires when you release it - but it comes pretty damn close to it. You can put it on safe between shots (the one I tried anyway) and select Semi instead of giggle switch. I dont care for that - pull trigger fire, release trigger fire - messes with my firearms handling. I have CMC and Geissele triggers that I can get to fire PDQ once I find their sweet spots. I dont see binary triggers being used for competition or home defense though. If you have need to lay down suppressive fire for someone to move up on or fall back from a target, you're probably in a fireteam and most likely NOT stateside with much better equipment than a binary trigger.
FA is great if Uncle Sugar is paying for the ammo, not so much when comes out of your pocket. And getting FA is expensive as hell (over $20k, also Class 3 paperwork). My pockets arent that deep. Also, most ranges dont allow FA fire around my area.
Dont get me wrong, binaries are fun. I just wouldnt get one because it just doesnt suit me.
Last time I checked not many high end trigger kits for the CZ Scorpion. The stock trigger is functional as you would expect a military design to be. Can not feel the trigger reset. The binary trigger from flanklin arms as almost 3/4 the price of a whole new Evo. So it's $500 plus gunsmith for something that has no real applications in my world, besides fun factor. However fun factor plus a better trigger....could help tip the scales.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Last time I checked not many high end trigger kits for the CZ Scorpion. The stock trigger is functional as you would expect a military design to be. Can not feel the trigger reset. The binary trigger from flanklin arms as almost 3/4 the price of a whole new Evo. So it's $500 plus gunsmith for something that has no real applications in my world, besides fun factor. However fun factor plus a better trigger....could help tip the scales.
You shouldnt need a smith for that trigger group. Its a dirt simple installation.
Just looking at some stuff from the SHOT show. S333 Thunderstrike. A .22 Mag double-barrel revolver, 8 rounds. Every trigger pull shoots two bullets, for 4-double taps.
It looks gimmicky as all heck, but I almost want one. For $350 MSRP, it won't kill my wallet.
Also, it looks like Hi-Point has modernized its pistol line up. New pistols function much like the old ones, but add A LOT of features like threaded barrels, better ergonomics, double-stack mags (with high capacity 15 and 20 round mags coming soon). This will spill over into their rifles soon. All for the same price as the last generation. Color me interested, at least as far as the rifles go.
I was looking at that revolver. I wonder about the regulations around it - it has 2 barrels and a single trigger, which legally I believe would make it a machine gun. Most of those gimmicky "2 barrel" guns have 2 triggers for a reason.
Ouze wrote: I was looking at that revolver. I wonder about the regulations around it - it has 2 barrels and a single trigger, which legally I believe would make it a machine gun. Most of those gimmicky "2 barrel" guns have 2 triggers for a reason.
Apparently they've gotten the go-ahead from the ATF. I'm perplexed as well. As far as function for a carry gun, I think 2 .22mag rounds would be considerably more effective than a single .380 auto. So, it's not totally useless.
As far as the ATF is concerned, you can have as many barrels as you want fire with a single trigger pull, volleyguns are just fine and dandy, as are double-barrel shotguns that can blast both bores at once, you can't can't have them do it continuously. The shots basically have to be in sequence to be an MG, if they're parallel then that's not an MG. Dunno the super detailed technical legal reasons why, but that's apparently how that works.
I'm sort of disappointed that they're horizontally aligned. I feel like vertical alignment would have allowed for a more compact system, possibly allowing more firing. maybe even a diagonal alignment.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of question the double-barrel ..22 is an answer for.
It's small, but looks wide.
It's .22LR...but only has four "shots"
It's low-recoil, but I'm curious what double-low-recoil equivalates to.
It falls into the same issue as most defensive minded revolvers, you're forcing yourself into a very limited time frame of solving your problem. Reloading a normal firearm is tough under stress, a revolver even more so...and a .22LR revolver more on top of that.
The trigger guard(?) looks snaggy and questionable as hell as well. I suppose it's neat for neat's sake, but I'm not seeing the value proposition here if it's meant to be taken seriously as a defensive tool. I do approve of what looks like a very tacky grip though.
It's actually .22 mag, not .22 LR. A single .22 mag has slightly more kinetic energy than a .380 auto. I wonder if having two shots so close together might tear into each others wound cavity, perhaps causing some kind of synergistic effect.
I had a .22WMR pistol and i wound up loving the round and hating the gun. Sorta acceptable stopping power - i would and do carry bigger, but i don't have issues cocking semiauto pistols and my wife does, and a .22WMR you can shoot beats a 9mm you can't rack the slide on.
Pretty much no recoil, about the same as a .22LR, maybe a tiny hair more but still basically nothing.
Better yet, gigantic goddamn fireballs.
The pistol I had was a PMR-30, which is the only firearm to date I hated enough to sell. What a POS.
I still have some .22WMR though. I'd love to get some kind of pistol that ran it but I am averse to revolvers - not for reasons that make sense - I just don't like them.
cuda1179 wrote: It's actually .22 mag, not .22 LR. A single .22 mag has slightly more kinetic energy than a .380 auto. I wonder if having two shots so close together might tear into each others wound cavity, perhaps causing some kind of synergistic effect.
I have no doubt it would suck being hit by two bullets of any type, but while it always stirs controversy - four pulls of the trigger is simply not enough to rely on. However, I'm probably just overthinking it, as it's a borderline modern derringer I s'pose.
cuda1179 wrote: I like the idea of .22 mag, it just seems that semi-autos don't seem to like it.
Almost every semi auto I've ever heard of that is chambered in it is basically a jam-o-matic 5000.
Yeah, it's an impossible ask. The ammo is just too damn long and skinny and coupled with it being rimfire, it's hard. Even that new Kel-tec that holds 33 rounds of 22LR does so only by being (functionally) 2x single-stack magazines stuck together. I think only rotary will be really reliable and that doesn't lend itself well to any handgun other than a revolver. or a fairly low capacity single stack.
Speaking of, I think I am going to have to get that Kel-Tec CP33. I know this is not a good idea and I am probably going to hate it because it's probably going to have the same gakky problems that the PMR30 has, but at least this one can take a supressor (the PMR30 weirdly cannot despite even having a threaded barrel from the factory).
I would think a rail mounted camera wouldn't be much use for being at the range. Even the most secure mount is going to shake like crazy when you fire so its not going to be a ton of help for stuff like reviewing your shots.
For hunting it might be interesting, though zoom distances and shaky camera when you fire might not give you great shots. Plus you can only film what you are actually aiming at. If you want to film a hunt, a GoPro on your vest or head is probably a better method.
Legal protection in the event you have to shoot a burglar is definitely a positive point for it though. If you have a dedicated "bump in the night" firearm it wouldn't be a bad idea. Though you still might have "can only film what you are aiming at" issues.
Grey Templar wrote: Though you still might have "can only film what you are aiming at" issues.
That was the big concern I had in general. I like the concept a lot, but muzzle flashing anything the camera gets pointed at is an issue to be concerned with.
I've done this many times with a GoPro Hero 5 Session. I think it's the only Gopro that is really suited to it in terms of size. It's too big for, say, a pistol, but it's smaller than a non-miniature sized weapon light - a 1 inch cube that weighs 2.5 oz.
If you decide to go that way, learn from my mistakes. I tried a bunch of different mounts, and almost all of them were lacking. This is the style you want:
Spoiler:
One mod you want to do is take a hobby knife and scratch a grid into each of the mounting surfaces, the "discs" between the mount and the camera where it screws it. Without scratching that, the recoil will cause it to wiggle, but once you do that it's pretty solid.
I can only speak to the GoPro because that's all I have ever used. One place that the Tactacam is going to beat it hard is that it zooms, and the Gopro does not. If you want a really wide angle, like for hunting where you want all the scenery (or CYA legal reasons where you want a wide FOV), then the GoPro is going to win - but when I used it for target shooting, you can't even see the targets I was shooting at @100 yards.
Here is what you can expect (on an AR10):
Spoiler:
So far as holding up to recoil, I have shot my Gopros with .308, 12 gauge 00 buck, and a bump-fired AK. That last one broke the mount within seconds but the camera was fine.
Spoiler:
TAKE THAT DIRT
So, as you can see, the real problem I had was making interesting footage.
On the whole I would suggest sticking a gopro on your dog instead.
You would need a bottom rail (does the Tavor have one under the handguard, or is that aftermarket?); and you can do one of these upside-down (the gopro automatically orients position so you can mount it sideways or upside or whatever):
otherwise you can do an offset one off the top rail, which would be pretty not great:
Not Online!!! wrote: Restoring a K31, as in taking a look at it and looking if it still works.
Cool. Those sound cool. Probably can’t find many outside Switzerland so do post pics. Bolt actions with detachable magazines are interesting.
And straight pull, however it's the one from my grandfather, as for many, they once were, thanks to the army everywhere, however alot of them have either been given back, recycled or made into props. So they have become quite rare.
If the K31 is the Swiss rifle I'm thinking of, they used to be quite available in the US about 10-15 years back. However, they came with a caveat: you couldn't find the ammunition...ever...at all, lol.
I hope that's changed. I'd hate having a firearm I couldn't shoot routinely.
Elbows wrote: If the K31 is the Swiss rifle I'm thinking of, they used to be quite available in the US about 10-15 years back. However, they came with a caveat: you couldn't find the ammunition...ever...at all, lol.
I hope that's changed. I'd hate having a firearm I couldn't shoot routinely.
It's the old standard ammo, 7,5x 55 mm.
Phased out so there's that.
I think he meant the US. Not surprising since its basically a proprietary cartridge that was used only by the Swiss. The only way you could shoot a rifle like that is if you reloaded your own brass, and somehow actually managed to find some brass in the first place. You'd probably have to cast your own bullets as well.
Frankly, anybody who had one in the US would probably need to seriously consider rechambering it in something else. 7.62x54r, 308, or 30-06 would be much easier to acquire.
edit: so having done a quick look, there are people who sell 7.5x55 in the US, but its quite expensive and all surplus. Meaning that it would only get more expensive over time to shoot the rifle.
Ive got a K31, I picked it up when they were $90 Big5 specials about 15 years ago when the Swiss liquidated their old inventory, it was the first gun I ever bought. Now they're far more expensive and rare these days. Ammo can be found easily...if you buy online, no local place is ever gonna have it in stock and it's gonna be about a dollar per trigger pull. Good news is that the Swiss surplus stuff is all match grade quality ammo and Prvi Partisan does produce new ammo commercially, so there are options.
The K31's are asolutely fantastic bolt action rifles.
Vaktathi wrote: Ive got a K31, I picked it up when they were $90 Big5 specials about 15 years ago when the Swiss liquidated their old inventory, it was the first gun I ever bought. Now they're far more expensive and rare these days. Ammo can be found easily...if you buy online, no local place is ever gonna have it in stock and it's gonna be about a dollar per trigger pull. Good news is that the Swiss surplus stuff is all match grade quality ammo and Prvi Partisan does produce new ammo commercially, so there are options.
The K31's are asolutely fantastic bolt action rifles.
This made me chuckle, because the $90 Big5 special was exactly where I had seen these when I was in Arizona maybe 2007-ish. Good to hear ammo can be had, if not...at "fun" levels of cheap.
Vaktathi wrote: Ive got a K31, I picked it up when they were $90 Big5 specials about 15 years ago when the Swiss liquidated their old inventory, it was the first gun I ever bought. Now they're far more expensive and rare these days. Ammo can be found easily...if you buy online, no local place is ever gonna have it in stock and it's gonna be about a dollar per trigger pull. Good news is that the Swiss surplus stuff is all match grade quality ammo and Prvi Partisan does produce new ammo commercially, so there are options.
The K31's are asolutely fantastic bolt action rifles.
This made me chuckle, because the $90 Big5 special was exactly where I had seen these when I was in Arizona maybe 2007-ish. Good to hear ammo can be had, if not...at "fun" levels of cheap.
Did some digging, you can procure match made ammo for it from RUAG ammo tec. That said you can also rechamber it to hunting rifles, which is very liked here.
Wife test fired one of these a couple weekends ago, liked it. As a result, we ordered her one and a stack of extra magazines. Fired a couple hundred rounds through it Saturday. Ordered her a in-the-purse holster last night.
Wife test fired one of these a couple weekends ago, liked it. As a result, we ordered her one and a stack of extra magazines. Fired a couple hundred rounds through it Saturday. Ordered her a in-the-purse holster last night.
Is that a PT111 G2? I have one and it looks identical, or very close.
It's a really nice 9mm, relatively accurate, reliable, cheap. I use it as my on conceal carry gun. My only complain is that the mags rattle inside the grip a little - I added a strip of tape to each side of the mag to fix that.
Yep, G2C. I haven't noticed the mag rattle yet, but haven't really looked for it yet either. I'll keep my eye/ear out for it.
I carry a Glock 26, wife likes it a lot, BUT is REALLY uncomfortable without the extra external thumb safety. Guy recommended the Taurus to her, we found a place that rented them, and now we own one.
CptJake wrote: I carry a Glock 26, wife likes it a lot, BUT is REALLY uncomfortable without the extra external thumb safety. Guy recommended the Taurus to her, we found a place that rented them, and now we own one.
I know exactly what you mean. When I was first shopping for a carry gun, I made a list of guns I was interested in looking at, and I had the expectation that I would get a Glock of some kind, probably a Glock 19 or 26. After test firing it I wound not liking the way it felt in my hand at all. The ergonomics just didn't work for me at all. I know they are great guns, crazy reliable, but the two Taurus pistols I own feel "right" when I hold them.
Watching a film, and the protagonist is mercury tipping his Freedom Seeds. Quick Google explains why.
But it got me thinking. When I was in the States, 25 years ago, my host family made their own bullets. Yet, watching The Walking Dead, that art seems lost until Eugene finds the relevant workshop.
What gives, Dakka? Is that based on state laws (WD is set in Georgia, I was in Maine)? Is it particularly unusual for a gun owner to do that, for cost or practical reasons? Or was their a change in the law?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or is it because WD is written by a Brit, who may not have thought bullets could be manufactured in the home?
Watching a film, and the protagonist is mercury tipping his Freedom Seeds. Quick Google explains why.
But it got me thinking. When I was in the States, 25 years ago, my host family made their own bullets. Yet, watching The Walking Dead, that art seems lost until Eugene finds the relevant workshop.
What gives, Dakka? Is that based on state laws (WD is set in Georgia, I was in Maine)? Is it particularly unusual for a gun owner to do that, for cost or practical reasons? Or was their a change in the law?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or is it because WD is written by a Brit, who may not have thought bullets could be manufactured in the home?
You just need a mold and the proper lead (wheel balancing weights are a favorite strangely). Now this works with lower speed rounds the best. higher speed rounds and rifle rounds will lead foul your gun quickly without a coating on it. I am not sure about higher speed rifle rounds though. they may need to be coated/jacketed.
A friend had molds for .44 rounds and 44 / 45/70 rounds he would load.
I only recall seeing the stampyclampy bit, where the pellet is squished into the casing after the powder.
They may have cast their own pellets, or the rounds were bought in kit form (perhaps as a safety precaution in case of theft? Was all kept in a strong room, that much I recall)
Just seems odd that The Walking Dead made such a big thing out of it?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I only recall seeing the stampyclampy bit, where the pellet is squished into the casing after the powder.
They may have cast their own pellets, or the rounds were bought in kit form (perhaps as a safety precaution in case of theft? Was all kept in a strong room, that much I recall)
Just seems odd that The Walking Dead made such a big thing out of it?
The problem would be the powder and primers. Black powder is not that hard. modern smokeless powder is a chemist's dream.
I have several buddies that reload. I typically save up my brass and give it to them. The gear isn't too expensive for some of the smaller/simpler set ups, and it isn't very complicated.
It’s extremely easy to reload brass and a lot of people do it for cost/precision reasons. These days the buy-in is a little more expensive than it used to be but if you shoot high volumes then it’s still economical.
Not sure what The Walking Dead’s take on it was but it’s a common prepper/survival trope.
It shouldn't make any difference. The only stuff that's difficult or impossible to reload IIRC is rimfire rounds like .22LR (Because the primer is the base of the cartridge and can't be replaced) and steel cartridge rounds which are fairly uncommon compared to the more conventional brass that the military typically uses.
Again, "reloading" as its called., is not hard if you can get the ingredients. Even bullet moulding (primarily pistol caliber) is not especially difficult.
But actually manufacturing the components - especially the powder and primers - of modern firearms is the difficult part.
For fun, check this out. This is a Mark 7 attachment for Dillon reloaders. Its used by people who handload of lot of rounds for competition, for clubs, etc. Its fascinating how fast they run.
Here's the reloader without all the mark 7 crap on it. Just hand cranked, its still blindingly fast.*
*Me want. Every time me get ready to get something happens. car break down, airc conditioner, etc. Me sad...
Just seems odd that The Walking Dead made such a big thing out of it?
It's because a scarcity of ammo is a cheap way to create tension until you start asking yourself 'wouldn't they have run out of ammo entirely by now'? And suddenly, a wild source of ammo appears!
I'm not entirely sure that an ammo shortage in the Walking dead universe would happen all that quickly. I think around season 3 Kirkman estimated that 1 in 5000 people survived the initial zombie outbreak. Now, in the US there are 1.13 guns to every person, and something like 1100 active rounds per weapon in civilian hands at any given time. That's something like 4,400,000,000 live rounds in the US at the time of the outbreak. Even if you don't count the military taking out zombies, or that there are a number of people that reload or taught themselves to, and even if you assume 90% of that ammo was wasted or lost, that's still 80,000 rounds per survivor. That's enough to shoot every zombie more than 160 times.
Yep, it's just an extension of the false belief that we'll run out of everything in six months (despite 90% of the population disappearing...resulting in overwhelming surplus of almost every conceivable necessity - including ammo). But, ya know...zombie show?
The only downside is the inability to carry large amounts of ammo. I have perhaps 3-4K at the moment, but short of carrying it in a car, I wouldn't be able to throw it in a bag and run with it (that's 50-60 lbs. of ammo). So if you were forced to leave your own stash you would have to locate some others, but again - pretty easy pickin's in the free states.
It does depend on how fast the population disappears in a society ending event. If 90% of the population drops dead/undead more or less instantly then yeah we would end up with large amounts of surplus everything.
However if the die-off takes a little longer, say over a few weeks or months, then we'd burn through the stockpiled stuff much more quickly. This is enough time for true panic to set in, which means that people will begin fighting each other over food(which is something that will get burnt through very quickly). That fighting would eat into ammunition stores. There would still a good amount leftover, but it would be a precious thing.
But the real challenge wouldn't be the stuff existing, it would be tracking it down. All of the stores are going to be completely looted within the first week or so, so the real challenge would be hunting down where the stuff has been stashed. Plus you'd be rolling the dice on if you find matching calibers for the guns you have.
In the Walking Dead scenario, a lot of places that had ammo might be simply too overrun with zombies to safely acquire it, or so many that you'd use more ammo getting it than you'd get out of it. And a sensible prepper isn't going to put up a sign that says "Survival gear stored here!"
Those videos frazz posted are also high end super expensive reloading gear. Multi-stage units that assembly line the whole thing that cost a few grand.
Something like this is much cheaper. Its what I have. If I include the first batch of brass, powder, and the sawhorse I screwed the whole thing to, it ran me about $400.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
simonr1978 wrote: It shouldn't make any difference. The only stuff that's difficult or impossible to reload IIRC is rimfire rounds like .22LR (Because the primer is the base of the cartridge and can't be replaced) and steel cartridge rounds which are fairly uncommon compared to the more conventional brass that the military typically uses.
And lets be honest, .22LR is a very poor choice for killing zombies, or indeed anything much bigger than a rabbit. Its one step above a pellet gun.
The difference in power is massive between a 22lr and something like a 5.56, which is itself pretty weedy in comparison to a 7.62x39 or an actual rifle round like 30-06. 22lr is going to somewhere around 150 joules of muzzle energy. 5.56 has around 1800 joules. 7.62x39 is around 2000. 30-06 is going to be around 4000. All dependent on the specific firearm, powder load, and bullet specs of course, but thats the rough ballpark.
So even if you could reload 22lr, it would really just be a waste of energy. Not that its useless, but you'd be better off melting down the brass to try and make larger caliber casings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
simonr1978 wrote: It shouldn't make any difference. The only stuff that's difficult or impossible to reload IIRC is rimfire rounds like .22LR (Because the primer is the base of the cartridge and can't be replaced) and steel cartridge rounds which are fairly uncommon compared to the more conventional brass that the military typically uses.
Steel cartridges are only difficult to reload because they are going to be Berdan primed. Which means that there are two offset flash holes in the bottom of the cartridge instead of 1 central hole, which is what all reloading dies are meant to accept.
Now I did see a cool video showing a proof of concept method of reloading steel cased ammo.
It would need to take many months to kill it off, and even then stuff would still exist. I agree, smart people would be taking action to horde it. But considering our population of 320-340 million people, everything we produce is already months out in production. If we hit the breaks immediately *assuming people left their jobs when it all started*, we'd still have a good amount.
I just think it's often way too wildly exaggerated "oh I found five aspirin, yay!" kind of nonsense just to make the movie more convincing etc.
It is very nice and comfortable to hold though. I might buy a Dust Cover with a rail since I can't put on the side mount without covering up the wolf, but I might just keep it Iron Sights only.
