BaronIveagh wrote: Here's a question: anyone have a Winchester 97 riot? I'm eyeballing one, but I'd like feedback from people who've used one, and a real Winchester, not that Norinco 97 BS.
I used a 1952 made Winchester 97 to win quite a few shotgun competitions in my time.
What are you interested in knowing? Although to be honest my go to is an older 870 with Magpul furniture or a 1301 semi.
That being said the Norinco guns are generally good. About the only bad one was the run of incorrectly heat treated M14 knockoffs. My 1911 runs like a sewing machine, many older 1911 race guns are built on Norinco platforms, my friends AR15 11.5 SBR runs amazingly as did his 16" AR. My other friends Type 56 and Type 56-2 work well.
While it isn't the same as their guns my Saiga AK103 has only ever been fed Norinco steel case M43 ammo.
I used a 1952 made Winchester 97 to win quite a few shotgun competitions in my time.
If it's 1952 made that's the Winchester 97 Standard, not the 97 Riot. The one I'm looking at is Riot. It's the Police version of the Winchester 97 Trench Gun, so similar to that, but without the bayonet lug or heat shield.
She's got a shorter barrel than the standard, and no choke, so her spread will be wider.
It you had the take down version though, that might be useful, how is it mechanically? I've heard it's dependable, but...
It you had the take down version though, that might be useful, how is it mechanically? I've heard it's dependable, but...
D'oh I skipped over the "Riot" part and went with 1897. Sorry.
Yeah it was the Takedown version. Mechanically it was great. The single action bar may cause some concern but I used one for about 7 years, in various sports (SADPA DMG, IPSC Shotgun, Cowboy Action Shooting) and never had an issue with it. You can speed load with it, the one I had could slam fire (If that's what you want) and it fed everything reliably. You can also mitigate the shorter cylinder bore by using 2 3/4" 00 buckshot with Flight Control Wad. It'll run more accurately than anything anyone using an 1897 in war ever used. Of course pattern your gun and make sure it like it. I'm currently using a cylinder bore Maverick M88 with an 18.5" barrel and it is just as accurate as you need it to be. With even budget ammo it patterns OK, and with slugs it's a laser device. Out to 35m. Personally I wouldn't like to use a shotgun at 50m+ so am happy with what it does especially with FCW.
The one I used was well maintained and had a very slick, well looked after action. The solid lifter made it easier to feed than some modern slotted lifters. I've had a shell get stuck under my 870 lifter and it was a bitch to remove, especially on the clock.
What are you wanting the Riot for? The 1897 is light and fairly slimline but I'd go for a more modern action for pretty much every application I can think of.
What are you wanting the Riot for? The 1897 is light and fairly slimline but I'd go for a more modern action for pretty much every application I can think of.
A combination of personal preferences and a family friend's recommendation. He had positive experiences with the Trench in combat, but looking at them, the prices are too high, but the Riot is functionally very similar and a lot less expensive on the market.
There are parts of my house that are extreme close quarters, so that 20 inch barrel, ease of reloading, and the ability to slam fire has it's perks. We did some testing and a handgun round will penetrate the interior walls, so I'm looking into shotguns. My old Bay State isn't going to cut it for home defense around here.
Buckshot will penetrate most whatever a handgun will. It’s mostly a myth that shotguns can’t penetrate walls. At least the interior walls of houses anyway.
Grey Templar wrote: Buckshot will penetrate most whatever a handgun will. It’s mostly a myth that shotguns can’t penetrate walls. At least the interior walls of houses anyway.
That is why you get an automatic shotgun and load it only with bird shot. Yeah you won't kill the home intruder on the first 3-5 shots, but after 8-10 they are going to wish they were dead
Grey Templar wrote: Buckshot will penetrate most whatever a handgun will. It’s mostly a myth that shotguns can’t penetrate walls. At least the interior walls of houses anyway.
That depends on your load and your walls. But then, that's true of anything. Certain interior walls in my parents house have stopped grapeshot.
But generally slam firing birdshot into someone takes a lot of the fight out of them at close range.
I'm not going to take the chance on the possibility that it just makes them mad. If I'm taking my shotgun against an intruder, they're getting law enforcement grade 00 buck.
Of course my guns that are always ready to go are the 1911 and AK.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm not going to take the chance on the possibility that it just makes them mad.
The longest engagement range in my house is ten feet. At that range, bird shot is going to do the job just fine. (Hilariously, Winchester has rediscovered the buck-and-ball load preferred by Union soldiers with Muskets in the form of their PDX1 shell, which would be my go-to if I wasn't worried about blowing holes in the place.)
Awesome, looks like fun. Are outdoor ranges available or will they be closed as well?
I spent last sunday at a quarry banging through a range of soviet surplus as well as the running Aug and Tavor, but sadly didn't get any pics. Found that trying to dig steel targets into rock quarry floor doesn't work so well
Home defense is the tried and true AR-15. Haven't really done much to it besides a rail system, basic sites (iron...well plastic but you get the point) and a sling. At most im going to put a forward grip and call it a done deal.
Going to get the pistol soon, maybe this weekend, and after that I have to go find a lever action 30 30.
Vaktathi wrote:Awesome, looks like fun. Are outdoor ranges available or will they be closed as well?
I spent last sunday at a quarry banging through a range of soviet surplus as well as the running Aug and Tavor, but sadly didn't get any pics. Found that trying to dig steel targets into rock quarry floor doesn't work so well
Outdoor ranges closed as well :(
Did you forget to take your jackhammer?
Gadzilla666 wrote:That's a nice looking SMLE. All the ones we have here in the states look like they were drug all the way over here.
It's quite a nice one, Australian coachwood stock, all the right Australian bits and pieces. Shame I can't shoot it all that well, my eyes really struggle with open sights, do much better with an aperture, or a scope for preference!
Unfortunately my interests are more in the historic line, so a lot of them do have open sights...
What are you wanting the Riot for? The 1897 is light and fairly slimline but I'd go for a more modern action for pretty much every application I can think of.
A combination of personal preferences and a family friend's recommendation. He had positive experiences with the Trench in combat, but looking at them, the prices are too high, but the Riot is functionally very similar and a lot less expensive on the market.
There are parts of my house that are extreme close quarters, so that 20 inch barrel, ease of reloading, and the ability to slam fire has it's perks. We did some testing and a handgun round will penetrate the interior walls, so I'm looking into shotguns. My old Bay State isn't going to cut it for home defense around here.
Ehhh. Birdshot is best for birds. It *can* work at close range but I'd be more comfortable running a low number buckshot like #4 at a minimum. Birdshot lacks penetration and people's vitals are burried fairly deep. I'd also go Flight Control Wad.
Personally I'd buy a Mossberg 500 or an older Remington 870 Police Magnum (or even Wingmaster). The 1897 is a decently effective gun but it is a dated design. I'm a strong proponent of getting a light on a gun and reducing a shotgun's LOP as much as comfortable. Magpuls furniture means you can do it easily. The 18.5" barrels available are a handy package, and you can Gussy it up.
However I'm against the idea of shotgun's for HD for any reason except cost, and getting a shotgun into a decent level is likely to be expensive anyway. As for ease of loading, that takes practice. I have competed with shotgun's for years and am still slow on reloads. Rifles and pistols reload much quicker and can be stored loaded safer. Slam fire brings a whole stack of issues itself. As a civilian in a letigious setting I want to be in control of every single projectile I launch. Shotguns with shot and super rapid fire are the antithesis of that. My shotgun is ready to go if I want it too but it's also behind my AK-103 in my safe.
The only sort of shotgun I would say is on par with an AR/AK of some kind for home defense would be a mag-fed semi-auto shotgun like a Saiga. Or, if you're gonna get weird, a DP-12 where you have 2 trigger pulls worth of shots before needing to pump, its also a nice compact bullpup length. On top of having 14+2 rounds to play with, so you mostly dispense with the possibility of needing to reload under stress. Only real downside is it is heavy af.
Mostly for the cool factor I am considering a DP-12 as my next gun purchase. Favorite gun in PUBG and its just so badass in both look, function, and concept. Plus its one of the few firearms you can get in CA without neutering it.
I don't really keep firearms with the idea of "home defense" for the most part these days, as in my current abode, the options of entry are a balcony 3 floors above a steep embankment overlooking a busy city street, and anything coming through the front isn't going to leave time to grab and load a firearm, nor offer enough distance such that any encounter would be out of arms reach.
That said, if I were to designate anything I own for such these days, it'd have to be the Tavor. I wasn't expecting that when I bought it, but after slapping a Holosun510c on there (as an effective sighting system that'll work in the dark and with both eyes open while offering a huge eyebox without having to center one's eye through a tube), that weapon can be wielded one handed very effectively (allowing one to open a door, operate a vehicle, use a phone or type on a computer, push someone away, etc) and can be maneuvered in close quarters (such as within doorways) very capably, with greater kinetic energy than a handgun would offer.
It would not be my choice if I had to lots of competitive shooting, the mag change mechanism pretty much kills that rifle as a 3gun platform for example, but it's a great "inside" gun.
With regards to shotguns, I'm not such a huge fan as HD weapons within the context of where I live. First and foremost, minimum 18" barrel length for most people is just going to make them big and unwieldy in many situations. Second, most shotguns are either pump operated or have very little capacity, and under stress most people (without extensive training and experence) will probably short stroke a 5 round tube at least once in my experience (myself included), and I'm not comfortable with just a side by side or over-under. Semiautos solve the last, but not so much the first, I've got a VEPR12, and it's a neat gun, but it's huge and does not maneuver well indoors at all. Now, a shorty semi-auto? That may be something to talk about, but they're something of rare breed.
Vaktathi wrote: Now, a shorty semi-auto? That may be something to talk about, but they're something of rare breed.
I think someone does a shorty version of a semi-auto Mossberg, and I think someone else does a Mag conversion kit for it. So, you could have a 12 inch barrel (stockless of course), semi-auto with detachable magazine. 8+1 12 gauge in a compact package would be quite intimidating.
I'd still prefer a shoulder braced weapon and if you're SBSing you may as well SBR a rifle. An AR "pistol" with a brace would be better IMHO. Lighter, handier, less user manipulation and 20 rounds on tap (if using shorty mags for weight saving).
IMHO a shotgun is NOT a beginner's weapon. While it's easy enough to not short stroke a shotgun with *some* constant practice getting fast and reliable as well as having good recoil cobtrol requires a lot of practice. A rifle requires less. Both require a bit of familiarity if you have a stoppage, a rifle generally has less ways of going wrong.
If you just want a shotgun for shooting stuff then an 1897 doesn't really have any drawback. It can shoot well, it is light enough to be carried if needed, it can launch decent loads, reloads ok if you know what you're doing, is fun as heck to slam fire for giggles.
But for the same average price right now you can buy a police trade in Remington 870 Police Magnum, produced in 2004 which was pre Freedom purchase of Remington so a good one, in SBS configuration $499 on Gunbroker buy now. File the SBS paperwork, buy a Magpul stock and profit. Send it to Vang for a makeover and you'll be having an epic fighting shotgun. Something you can do piece by piece for the 870 but can't ever really do with the 1897.
A semi auto traditional shotgun like the 1301 can minimize some drawbacks but introduces others, mostly capacity and feeding it. Now you're not *likely* to need more than a handful of shotgun shots to solve most problems needing a gun, but if you do you want a gun that's easy to reload. Shotguns can be topped up but it isn't an easy skill.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, you’ve all had a break from my idiot asks. But now I’m back with another.
Amongst your collection, what would you say your most extravagant gun is?
I’m not gonna set any parameters, because I don’t know enough to do so. Just figured it might be an interesting topic.
If we're going to classify "extravagant" by initial cost...probably the Steyr Aug
If we're going to go by "doodads and hoops and weirdness", it's going to be my shorty AR. I built it very much wanting a Ghost In The Shell-esque range toy. This thing was originally build in pieces as a pistol with a brace and a binary trigger, acting being as something of a middle finger to the NFA being both short barreled (but without a stock) and not being full auto but definitely not being what most people associated as being semi-automatic either. It since got paper'd as a legal SBR for the stock. It's also built in a niche caliber (300 blackout) that's expensive to shoot but designed for very short barrels. A pure moneysink, but a lot of fun.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, you’ve all had a break from my idiot asks. But now I’m back with another.
Amongst your collection, what would you say your most extravagant gun is?
I’m not gonna set any parameters, because I don’t know enough to do so. Just figured it might be an interesting topic.
1813 Sutton in .69 cal. Its a 1795 Contract gun, used by Perry's troops during the war of 1812, used again in the Mexican War, then converted to percussion and then captured in the Battle of Fort Donelson, when it became a war trophy in a GAR hall for a century or so.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, you’ve all had a break from my idiot asks. But now I’m back with another.
Amongst your collection, what would you say your most extravagant gun is?
I’m not gonna set any parameters, because I don’t know enough to do so. Just figured it might be an interesting topic.
1813 Sutton in .69 cal. Its a 1795 Contract gun, used by Perry's troops during the war of 1812, used again in the Mexican War, then converted to percussion and then captured in the Battle of Fort Donelson, when it became a war trophy in a GAR hall for a century or so.
That would, in fact, be it. (and yes, that Perry. He stripped every Pittsburgh gunsmith of anything that could shoot before marching to Erie)
It shoots (and feels) like a somewhat lighter Charleville (or at least, compared to mine, which is the 1763 model), though the Confederates put a "French style" percussion conversion on it, but instead of putting a new hammer on it, they put a piece of pipe in the flintlock hammer.
I don't know if it's exotic or not they are, but here are my go-to ARs (which I think anyone still following this thread in 2020 has already seen);
The top one is a SBR in 300 blackout with a 10" barrel and a Recce 7 Suppressor (which fits inside the handguard shroud).
The bottom one is a AR pistol. It's actually pretty similar to the one above it, but 5.56, and I wanted to get a specific color scheme cerakoted for it. I planned to eventually SBR it as well but after using the brace decided not to bother. The muzzle brake is threaded to swap the suppressor back and forth.
I need replacement glass, I want a HS510C to replace at least the bottom one.
That would, in fact, be it. (and yes, that Perry. He stripped every Pittsburgh gunsmith of anything that could shoot before marching to Erie)
It shoots (and feels) like a somewhat lighter Charleville (or at least, compared to mine, which is the 1763 model), though the Confederates put a "French style" percussion conversion on it, but instead of putting a new hammer on it, they put a piece of pipe in the flintlock hammer.
Well your collection is absolutely bonkers. Oldest firearm I've ever even held was a Turkish Mauser. I did see some...I think flintlock pistols at a local gun shop that had been on sale for ages.
Edit: They may have been percussion. My firearm knowledge is limited to American weapons from the Civil War era onwards.
trexmeyer wrote: Well your collection is absolutely bonkers. Oldest firearm I've ever even held was a Turkish Mauser. I did see some...I think flintlock pistols at a local gun shop that had been on sale for ages.
Edit: They may have been percussion. My firearm knowledge is limited to American weapons from the Civil War era onwards.
My father had the theory that if you were taller than the gun, you could shoot it.
Thus, the very first gun my father ever had me shoot was a 1828 Pottsdam musket (a .70 cal) that had been cut off right after the first barrel band for cavalry use. I landed on my ass, because the recoil was monstrous, but I did obliterate the target. And the tree it was attached to.
I clearly don't own it for a number of reasons, legal being #1. But I have fond memories of shooting a defective cheese puff round out of a M203 that slammed perfectly into a tree about 6 inches in diameter and just about split it perfectly.
SemperMortis wrote: I clearly don't own it for a number of reasons, legal being #1. But I have fond memories of shooting a defective cheese puff round out of a M203 that slammed perfectly into a tree about 6 inches in diameter and just about split it perfectly.
Man, I had forgotten about the cheese puff rounds. Those were so satisfying to watch explode.
Best one I've ever seen was Pittsburgh PD wanted to see what the armed vessel license was about a pal of mine wanted, they made him show them what the weapons in question would do to, say, a squad car. (despite being on the lower end of the Naval Gun scale, they were still on the Naval Gun scale.)
The first shot, the drivers side door exited through the passenger side door, and the only reason we know this is a high speed camera recorded the whole debacle, and a few moments later the second round hit something more substantial and made 'car confetti'.
Next time I see him, I'm gonna see if I can get a copy of the film to put on youtube.
So my brother and I swapped pistols this morning. My mother had given me a Davis Industries .38 cal over/under Derringer that I really had no attachment to. My brother had been sitting on a Davis industries P-32 semi-auto .32 cal pistol that he'd been trying to pawn off on me for $50. Two days ago he asked how much I'd take for the Derringer since I was a bit dissatisfied with it, and I jokingly said "$50 so I can buy your chick gun.". Well, he brought over the .32 with a case of ammo and we called it even.
Here's a google link to pics of what the pistol looks like. Mine is the black with wood grain grips.
Just Tony wrote: So my brother and I swapped pistols this morning. My mother had given me a Davis Industries .38 cal over/under Derringer that I really had no attachment to. My brother had been sitting on a Davis industries P-32 semi-auto .32 cal pistol that he'd been trying to pawn off on me for $50. Two days ago he asked how much I'd take for the Derringer since I was a bit dissatisfied with it, and I jokingly said "$50 so I can buy your chick gun.". Well, he brought over the .32 with a case of ammo and we called it even.
Here's a google link to pics of what the pistol looks like. Mine is the black with wood grain grips.
Just found out there's aftermarket extended mags. May look into this as where the end of the grip lands in my hand makes it... problematic to hold.
You lost out on this deal. Davis' derringers were actually made of steel, and, while inaccurate, because derringers, are fairly reliable. The Autos, however, were not made of steel, but instead Zinc Alloy, and will degrade over time quite spectacularly. If it wasn't such a gak gun, I'd recommend taking it to a gunsmith on a regular basis to ensure it's still safe to shoot, but it's simply not worth the money that would take.
It's job is to put metal in a home invader, and to be able to be fired by my 8 year old daughter if necessary. As much as I would prefer a .45 ACP it wouldn't meet those requirements...
Just Tony wrote: It's job is to put metal in a home invader, and to be able to be fired by my 8 year old daughter if necessary. As much as I would prefer a .45 ACP it wouldn't meet those requirements...
I don't consider it a gak gun because it's not powerful enough, I consider it a gak gun because it's not safe. It's not safe in many ways. It's not drop safe, it's prone to jamming, and it's not made of steel so it degrades over time. Particularly since it's a Zamak type alloy and will corrode.
All of those things are, to put it mildly, reasons to not keep one in your house or depend on it for home defense. The derringer was the better option.
Just Tony wrote: It's job is to put metal in a home invader, and to be able to be fired by my 8 year old daughter if necessary. As much as I would prefer a .45 ACP it wouldn't meet those requirements...
I don't consider it a gak gun because it's not powerful enough, I consider it a gak gun because it's not safe. It's not safe in many ways. It's not drop safe, it's prone to jamming, and it's not made of steel so it degrades over time. Particularly since it's a Zamak type alloy and will corrode.
All of those things are, to put it mildly, reasons to not keep one in your house or depend on it for home defense. The derringer was the better option.
I've researched all the problems as well as what PMCS to perform on it. It'll do its job well enough, and I'll still be getting a good. 45 ACP for myself
trexmeyer wrote: That's a beautiful AR. I love the look of that grip. I've never had a chance to shoot one with that specific grip, how is it?
The forward grip is pretty decent, the main pistol grip is a bit small and needs another spacer
Nice.
Serious question. I like the AR-15 platform for its accuracy and range. It's fun to shoot. Does anyone actually buy those for home defense? I don't see how its superior to handgun or shotgun options for that specific purpose.
trexmeyer wrote: That's a beautiful AR. I love the look of that grip. I've never had a chance to shoot one with that specific grip, how is it?
The forward grip is pretty decent, the main pistol grip is a bit small and needs another spacer
Nice.
Serious question. I like the AR-15 platform for its accuracy and range. It's fun to shoot. Does anyone actually buy those for home defense? I don't see how its superior to handgun or shotgun options for that specific purpose.
It's been used quite a bit for home defense. Remember, the average home invasion has two or more attackers, and the average person only hits 9% of the time and it requires, on average, more than one hit to neutralize a home invader. The advantages to a shotgun are than it is much more controllable, lighter, and high capacity. It's also easier for a novice to use than a handgun and has faster follow up shots.
trexmeyer wrote: Oldest firearm I've ever even held was a Turkish Mauser. I did see some...I think flintlock pistols at a local gun shop that had been on sale for ages.
You know, this got me thinking, what's the oldest gun everyone's used?
Mine's a 1730's Land Pattern, though I had the opportunity to fire a late 17th century blunderbuss once, but I wussed out when I watched it break a guys arm. Anything bigger than 100 cal/one gauge is more for emplacements or Space Marines than something most people would want to shoot by hand, black powder or not.
trexmeyer wrote: That's a beautiful AR. I love the look of that grip. I've never had a chance to shoot one with that specific grip, how is it?
The forward grip is pretty decent, the main pistol grip is a bit small and needs another spacer
Nice.
Serious question. I like the AR-15 platform for its accuracy and range. It's fun to shoot. Does anyone actually buy those for home defense? I don't see how its superior to handgun or shotgun options for that specific purpose.
It's all going to depend on your home setup and the build of the AR. I personally don't keep firearms loaded and unlocked for that purpose currently, and a 16 or 20" barrel rifle doesn't make much sense within the confines of an apartment. A melee weapon or handgun, or at least something like a Tavor, make a whole lot more sense there. The super shorty I have isn't actually one set up for HD really, it's *really* hearing unsafe If you're in a large house, potentially with land that you might have to move about on, an AR, particularly of more normal size, makes a whole lot more sense (and is less likely to result in a child doing something unfortunate with if they find it just because it's bigger and more complicated, if that's a concern). I'm personally not as big of a fan of shotguns as some others are, mainly because of the low capacity and/or high chance or short stroking a pump action. There are places where an AR makes sense if home defense is a concern, and a lot of instances where it probably does not, but that's going to be a subjective and variable judgement.
trexmeyer wrote: I like the AR-15 platform for its accuracy and range. It's fun to shoot. Does anyone actually buy those for home defense? I don't see how its superior to handgun or shotgun options for that specific purpose.
If you use frangible ammo, you will penetrate significantly less drywall with .223 than you will with 9mm or buckshot. Additionally, the AR15 will give you the option of good light, good optics, greater ammo capacity, and - if you're using a short barrel - extend less from your body than a long shotgun or an extended pistol in a weaver stance.
Obviously this will vary greatly by the person, but I trust myself to be more accurate with one of my ARs in a high stress situation than I would with any of my pistols.
Accuracy and magazine capacity are the main advantage of an AR, or similar semi-auto, for home defense over a pistol or shotgun.
Shotguns are powerful, but lower magazine size and the awkwardness of use makes shotguns not a good idea in a high stress situation. Many pump shotguns also lack safety features, so you can't store them loaded as safely as you could an AR. The high recoil of shotguns also makes them a bad idea for people of slimmer builds. Just type in Shotgun Fails into Youtube and you'll see why shotguns aren't the best idea for home defense.
Pistols can have decent magazine capacity, but because of the very short sight radius on pistols it is easy to miss targets. Even being slightly off with the iron sights can cause a shot to be several feet off. Pistols are also harder to control because you don't have multiple grip locations so the felt recoil is much larger. It is so much harder to put multiple shots on target with a pistol vs a semi-automatic rifle.
Finally, there is the guarantee that you won't be outgunned in the event an intruder is also armed. You'll have the superior firepower 99.999% of the time if you defend your home with an AR/AK/etc... On the very unlikely event they also brought one, at least you are on equal footing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
trexmeyer wrote: Thanks for the input. Personally, I hate shotguns. I don't get the love for them at all.
Well, they are cheap and conceptually simple. You can get a basic pump shotgun for only a couple hundred bucks, and people have a simple understanding of how they work. Point in the general vicinity and click. Grossly oversimplified of course.
Its the thing that a person who isn't really into guns is going to buy if they feel compelled to get one for some reason. A noob trap if you will.
I feel like part of the appeal of pump shotguns in home defense isn't how they fire, as much as how they sound. If you can convince a home invader to leave just by racking a shell, that's all the better.
I'm curious- does anyone with one of those arm-strap braces ever actually use it while strapped to their arm?
Also, the Arabian guns are called "Jezzails" (sound familiar?) and are actually pretty neat, as they were sort of like custom-designed heirlooms, art pieces, and status symbols as much as they were tools or weapons.
Anvildude wrote: I feel like part of the appeal of pump shotguns in home defense isn't how they fire, as much as how they sound. If you can convince a home invader to leave just by racking a shell, that's all the better.
At my house, racking the pump would eject a perfectly good shell. Instead, the first sound someone hears would be BOOM!
Also, the Arabian guns are called "Jezzails" (sound familiar?) and are actually pretty neat, as they were sort of like custom-designed heirlooms, art pieces, and status symbols as much as they were tools or weapons.
I'll say that you're probably correct, but since it was acquired from Morocco (according to the vendor) and has a French lock, I suspect it's some sort of frankengun rather than a true jezail. It's also not safe to shoot, the stock has had several obvious repairs.
Also, in response to all the AR-15/AK posturing, remember that you want a weapon that you're comfortable with, that fits the environment you'll be using it in, and that is legal (assault rifles for some reason being a popular target of legislation). The shotgun actually does have advantages in a close range firefight. While it may not have the magazine capacity (usually, there are exceptions) that an AR or a pistol does, it's stopping power can be fantastic. Missing a mansized target at under 10 feet is less likely with a shotgun than with a pistol and unless you live in a mansion, the extra range really isn't needed.
And you can load a shotgun with all sorts of nastiness, though, caveat emptor, not all exotic shells are equal.
IMHO the AR is far superior to the shotgun in a HD situation.
12 guage, especially in a 00 load has a historically good result but the shotgun, especially the pump action, is not a good beginner weapon. And by beginner I'm meaning anyone who's unwilling or unable to practice with it. It takes dedication to get good at it and under stress you revert to your lowest level of competence, not your highest one. IMHO the shotgun has too much user interface to be reliable. Yes there have been cases of "buy it and leave it in the cupboard for 20 years but still used it successfully" stories, but short stroking or bad loading, and various other issues can cripple a shotgun.
Oldest firearm? Probably the 1890 Webley Mark IV bird's head revolver in .455. While I have fired (and owned) some muzzle loader flintlocks/precussion cap&ball guns I'm a metallic cartridge guy.
Also, the Arabian guns are called "Jezzails" (sound familiar?) and are actually pretty neat, as they were sort of like custom-designed heirlooms, art pieces, and status symbols as much as they were tools or weapons.
I'll say that you're probably correct, but since it was acquired from Morocco (according to the vendor) and has a French lock, I suspect it's some sort of frankengun rather than a true jezail. It's also not safe to shoot, the stock has had several obvious repairs.
Also, in response to all the AR-15/AK posturing, remember that you want a weapon that you're comfortable with, that fits the environment you'll be using it in, and that is legal (assault rifles for some reason being a popular target of legislation). The shotgun actually does have advantages in a close range firefight. While it may not have the magazine capacity (usually, there are exceptions) that an AR or a pistol does, it's stopping power can be fantastic. Missing a mansized target at under 10 feet is less likely with a shotgun than with a pistol and unless you live in a mansion, the extra range really isn't needed.
And you can load a shotgun with all sorts of nastiness, though, caveat emptor, not all exotic shells are equal.
About the flint lock, coming from Morocco. A souvenir Jezial was a common trade item that could be picked up cheaply in the early 20th century. Local wood craft and brass sand cast furniture wrapped around a possibly valuable antique lock. You can still find them at lawn sales if you get lucky. They get called "non firing replicas" by the people who don't realize they have a potentially functional weapon kicking around the house.
Kayback wrote: IMHO the AR is far superior to the shotgun in a HD situation.
12 guage, especially in a 00 load has a historically good result but the shotgun, especially the pump action, is not a good beginner weapon. And by beginner I'm meaning anyone who's unwilling or unable to practice with it. It takes dedication to get good at it and under stress you revert to your lowest level of competence, not your highest one. IMHO the shotgun has too much user interface to be reliable. Yes there have been cases of "buy it and leave it in the cupboard for 20 years but still used it successfully" stories, but short stroking or bad loading, and various other issues can cripple a shotgun.
Other than short stroking though, those issues will occur with any firearm, or, some of them, any situation.
There was a gun that was undermanned at a reenactment about, twenty years ago now, the flicker dropped something, he bent over to pick it up, and his thumb slipped off the touch hole. There was a spark in the bore, and it blew the rammers arms off, fired the ramrod down field, and I can just remember that wub wub wub sound it made is it passed overhead.
I've seen better than that at lawn sales. My parents once bought a trunk of old clothing in Mercer PA. At the bottom was the last surviving PA militia uniform coat for the war of 1812. It looked like he came back, and just took it off and threw it in the trunk. Still had a pre Napoleon III salamander knife and some change in the pockets.
trexmeyer wrote: Oldest firearm I've ever even held was a Turkish Mauser. I did see some...I think flintlock pistols at a local gun shop that had been on sale for ages.
You know, this got me thinking, what's the oldest gun everyone's used?
Mine's a 1730's Land Pattern, though I had the opportunity to fire a late 17th century blunderbuss once, but I wussed out when I watched it break a guys arm. Anything bigger than 100 cal/one gauge is more for emplacements or Space Marines than something most people would want to shoot by hand, black powder or not.
I've enjoyed shooting a Spencer carbine. I'm always considering picking up a reproduction. The Specer had been converted over to centerfire, a common conversion back in the day. There was something hypnotic about its manual of arms. I shot it enough to consider it used. I still carry a 100 year old Broom handle. Sometimes. It's total vanity to carry a C 96 Mauser. No, I don't use the holster stock for carry. Although if I was going to open carry the beast the stock holster would be the way to go.
Kayback wrote: IMHO the AR is far superior to the shotgun in a HD situation.
12 guage, especially in a 00 load has a historically good result but the shotgun, especially the pump action, is not a good beginner weapon. And by beginner I'm meaning anyone who's unwilling or unable to practice with it. It takes dedication to get good at it and under stress you revert to your lowest level of competence, not your highest one. IMHO the shotgun has too much user interface to be reliable. Yes there have been cases of "buy it and leave it in the cupboard for 20 years but still used it successfully" stories, but short stroking or bad loading, and various other issues can cripple a shotgun.
Other than short stroking though, those issues will occur with any firearm, or, some of them, any situation.
There was a gun that was undermanned at a reenactment about, twenty years ago now, the flicker dropped something, he bent over to pick it up, and his thumb slipped off the touch hole. There was a spark in the bore, and it blew the rammers arms off, fired the ramrod down field, and I can just remember that wub wub wub sound it made is it passed overhead.
I've seen better than that at lawn sales. My parents once bought a trunk of old clothing in Mercer PA. At the bottom was the last surviving PA militia uniform coat for the war of 1812. It looked like he came back, and just took it off and threw it in the trunk. Still had a pre Napoleon III salamander knife and some change in the pockets.
Other than short stroking though, those issues will occur with any firearm, or, some of them, any situation.
The thing is worth a pump shotgun you get that chance every time you need to fire it.
With your AR you can do all the admin tasks before hand and literally flip the safety and fire. Under stress you need to use two user interactions to fire it, and one of those is firing it. You can load it and chamber check it and make sure the mag is seated in a nice quiet setting without any stress.
If either gun goes T/U you'd wish you had more practice to get it working again, sure, but the shotgun just has more chances of the user messing something up. A semi shotgun fixes some of these issues but not all.
trexmeyer wrote: Oldest firearm I've ever even held was a Turkish Mauser. I did see some...I think flintlock pistols at a local gun shop that had been on sale for ages.
You know, this got me thinking, what's the oldest gun everyone's used?
Mine's a 1730's Land Pattern, though I had the opportunity to fire a late 17th century blunderbuss once, but I wussed out when I watched it break a guys arm. Anything bigger than 100 cal/one gauge is more for emplacements or Space Marines than something most people would want to shoot by hand, black powder or not.
That I've actually fired? An actual combat used M1 Garand. Touched/owned? A .32 revolver that was over 100 years old, and a shotgun that was in our family for about the same amount of time.
Shotguns are widely available and somewhat easier to feed in a crisis than .223 antiperson guns like the ar15.
Turkey makes a number of ar15 formfactor .410 shotguns, as well as some ar15 formfactor 12 gauges.
Keltec makes the ksg (14 to 20 rounds internal magazine) and the ksg25 (25 to 40 rounds internal magazine) which can more than match the firing capacity of an ar15, at least for a single magazine. If you shoot more than 40 rounds of anything in self defense, its likely someoen will arrest you for unnecessarily going over the line into vigilantism.
Hickok45 reviewd both ksg and ksg25, and I invite folk to look for his comparison of a doublebarrel to an ar15 for home defense, simply because he walks through the issues that the ar15 shines in for that role.
I have a KSG that I've used for feral hog hunting before. It was nice to have A LOT of ammo, and be able to switch back and forth between 00 Buck and slugs. In retrospect though, I think I'd have preferred a semi-auto Ak style 12 gauge. We found a pocket of pigs eating, and after that first shot rang out we had like 2 seconds to blast anything that moved (got 5 of them between the three of us).
Dukeofstuff wrote: Shotguns are widely available and somewhat easier to feed in a crisis than .223 antiperson guns like the ar15.
Turkey makes a number of ar15 formfactor .410 shotguns, as well as some ar15 formfactor 12 gauges.
Keltec makes the ksg (14 to 20 rounds internal magazine) and the ksg25 (25 to 40 rounds internal magazine) which can more than match the firing capacity of an ar15, at least for a single magazine. If you shoot more than 40 rounds of anything in self defense, its likely someoen will arrest you for unnecessarily going over the line into vigilantism.
Hickok45 reviewd both ksg and ksg25, and I invite folk to look for his comparison of a doublebarrel to an ar15 for home defense, simply because he walks through the issues that the ar15 shines in for that role.
It's late at night here so my numbers might be off, but an M193 5.56mm weighs 11g, an M855 weights 12g. A shotgun shell weighs in at 45g. 25 rounds of shotgun ammo is 1.1kg of extra weight. 40 just under 2kg. 1.8kg. That's 167 rounds of 5.56mm, obviously without the mags to hold it. For the same weight, using Magpul Gen 3's you can carry 105 rounds of 5.56mm in 4 magazines. I mean you REALLY shouldn't go through 105 rounds in an SD situation but claiming you can use a heavy shotgun with an even heavier load as an argument against a light AR is..... misplaced. The KSG25 weighs in at 9.25lbs, while the 6920 weighs 6.95lbs unloaded. The 6920 is 2.5" shorter than the KSG, even before using a short stock setup or a short barrel on the AR.
There are some semi shotguns that may work, like I said earlier. Personally having used some I'd go Saiga or Vepr over an AR style, but if you like the AR style then rock on dude. But they are all still big guns. The A-12 is a 39.75" gun that weighs 8.75lbs. I've got limited trigger time on an AR style shotgun but have shot plenty of Saiga rounds.
Dukeofstuff wrote: Shotguns are widely available and somewhat easier to feed in a crisis than .223 antiperson guns like the ar15.
I mean, I guess it depends on how you mean it? If you mean loading shells into a breech is about as difficult under stress and loading individual cartridges into a mag, then sure, I'd agree, the shells are bigger.
If you mean loading shells into a breech is easier under stress than slapping a mag in, then... I really, really disagree. The mag is much larger and easier to handle than fumbling for shells, and you get 30 rounds with one interaction vs 1 (half of one, if we're racking a pump).
I would never trust my life to a KSG, regardless of the whole shotgun VS AR debate. They seem prone to malfunctions/short shucking beyond the norm.
If you mean loading shells into a breech is easier under stress than slapping a mag in, then... I really, really disagree. The mag is much larger and easier to handle than fumbling for shells, and you get 30 rounds with one interaction vs 1 (half of one, if we're racking a pump).
.
The thing they struggle with in a panic isn't the clip itself,usually, it's the catch to eject the previous clip. Or they try to put the clip in backwards, or they load an empty clip. If there's a way to feth something up, someone in a panic will do it.
Sure, but again it is easy to keep your chosen "bump in the night" gun already loaded with a full mag. You are far less likely to need to reload at all with an AR vs a shotgun.
Another thing that bears remembering is that most shotguns in the US will come with their tube magazine 'gimped' for hunting when you first purchase the shotgun. Even if a shotgun can hold 5 or 8 rounds, it will come off the shelf with a rod in its tube to only hold 2. The uninformed or lazy individual might not bother to remove this rod. This is because most states only allow you to have 3 rounds in the gun while hunting game birds or waterfowl with shotguns.
I started out with shotguns and large caliber rifles. I didn't own an AR15 for a long time (was raised to call it a "poodle shooter"). Shotgun puts out 9 pellets instantly, good as an SMG was the saying. 308 is a "real" battle rifle... etc...
When I finally tried an AR15, and got one to work with, the thing I most came to appreciate was stability and speed of follow up. Getting multiple shots lined up quickly was noticably faster than with my .308s and 12 guages. In many cases the ergo was better or could be better fine tuned.
I'm not stuck on any particuarly platform over another, anyone can make just about anything work for them with enough practice, but I've come down to finding wisdom in a good 9mm pistol and a good AR15 for anything having to do with personal defense. I prefer the AR15 over the pistol again for the stability and follow up. Whatever you pick I think it's critical to train with operation and malfunction clearing under stress though. That usually means paying money for some good training, or if you're lucky spending time with some good friends who are willing to teach, but the aim is to make operation and fixing familiar enough that it's trained under your fingers rather than something you need to think about. (Expensive given ammo supply/cost these days).
Hunting is another matter. For most hog or larger I'm leaving the AR15 behind and going to 308 or 30-06. Never did get into avian hunting... easier to keep chickens maybe
Like I said, anyone can make just about anything work... key is try several different flavors with an open mind, then get good training to lock in skill and refine setup.
Hog hunting with 5.56 is fine, though I would prefer something bigger. I'd prefer my AK over the AR15 in that situation(unless I'm using the .458 socom upper). Much more stopping power, but I still have the follow-up and rapid fire in case one of them comes after me. Which a 308 or 30-06 probably doesn't have, unless you're using an AR chambered in such a caliber.
Dukeofstuff wrote: Shotguns are widely available and somewhat easier to feed in a crisis than .223 antiperson guns like the ar15.
I mean, I guess it depends on how you mean it? If you mean loading shells into a breech is about as difficult under stress and loading individual cartridges into a mag, then sure, I'd agree, the shells are bigger.
If you mean loading shells into a breech is easier under stress than slapping a mag in, then... I really, really disagree. The mag is much larger and easier to handle than fumbling for shells, and you get 30 rounds with one interaction vs 1 (half of one, if we're racking a pump).
I would never trust my life to a KSG, regardless of the whole shotgun VS AR debate. They seem prone to malfunctions/short shucking beyond the norm.
I think they mean finding ammo for it. Everyone/where will have 12 guage no matter if you need to get it from .mil, LEO or private pillaging, it can even be found in non gun-friendly places as Sporting shotguns aren't "guns". Not everyone has 5.56.
I'm not sure I'd agree but it may be a consideration. I'm of the opinion 5.56 is more likely to be found than combat 12 guage. A light .223 Vmax load may not be the best combat load but it'll be more useful than #7 shot.
Regarding comparative 12 guage vs 5.56 availabiltiy...
It is probable that more people have a little 12 guage, but I would wager that the total population stock pile is dwarfed by the sometimes 1000s of rounds people who do shoot 5.56 tend to collect, and then there's also the LEO/Govt supply as well.
Not saying anything is bad about 12 guage or that there's anything uniquely or specially problematic with supply, just that I suspect the total availabilty of 5.56 within CONUS is potentially huge in comprarison.
How willing people are to part with their supply during an ammo shortage, or at what terms is an open question.
About a year ago I was counseling anyone I cared about to stock up during the cheap ammo phase, as there's always an up-tick in price and demand close to an election in the US. With covid and civic unrest on top of a normally tense year, prices for 5.56 have gone from 30 cents per round to 80+ cents.
In a true (or perhaps deeper crisis) the demand and cost may go even higher.
I for one find ammo a safer commodity to stock than precious metals, simply becuase it has actual uses, and increasing value in scenarios where traditional store of value investments may be devalued.
Kayback wrote: I think they mean finding ammo for it. Everyone/where will have 12 guage no matter if you need to get it from .mil, LEO or private pillaging, it can even be found in non gun-friendly places as Sporting shotguns aren't "guns". Not everyone has 5.56.
OK, I get that, not literally "feed".
When I built my AR10 I went with 308 over 6.5 Creedmore due to availability. I know Creedmore is a better round ballistically but you can get 308 anywhere that sells ammo, usually.
So yeah, one point to the shotgun crowd, you'll always be able to find 00 Buck.
trexmeyer wrote: That's a beautiful AR. I love the look of that grip. I've never had a chance to shoot one with that specific grip, how is it?
The forward grip is pretty decent, the main pistol grip is a bit small and needs another spacer
Nice.
Serious question. I like the AR-15 platform for its accuracy and range. It's fun to shoot. Does anyone actually buy those for home defense? I don't see how its superior to handgun or shotgun options for that specific purpose.
I wanted to get to the original subject, as the discussion as been focused on the AR vs Shotgun side. Anything with a stock is an improvement over a handgun. The handgun is the weapon that's great when you don't need a weapon, functional when needed. So yes, AR better than a handgun.
trexmeyer wrote: That's a beautiful AR. I love the look of that grip. I've never had a chance to shoot one with that specific grip, how is it?
The forward grip is pretty decent, the main pistol grip is a bit small and needs another spacer
Nice.
Serious question. I like the AR-15 platform for its accuracy and range. It's fun to shoot. Does anyone actually buy those for home defense? I don't see how its superior to handgun or shotgun options for that specific purpose.
I wanted to get to the original subject, as the discussion as been focused on the AR vs Shotgun side. Anything with a stock is an improvement over a handgun. The handgun is the weapon that's great when you don't need a weapon, functional when needed. So yes, AR better than a handgun.
To this I'll add that I find inexperieced shooters I've worked with tend to naturally get better hits out of the box with an AR than a pistol. The ability to lock it in to your body better vs. learning to stabilize the various moving parts when using a pistol seems significant. There's a lot to be said for the more significant terminal effects from a rifle than a pistol in ensuring a threat is stopped.
The real downside to an AR in an enclosed space is the level of hearing damage you and anyone nearby is going to take. This is why some folks like the idea of suppressing a short .300 blackout for HD.
The silencer on your home defense gun is for your and your families protection, because if that hits that fan, you won't be thinking "gee, I should run down to my car and get those earplugs I use to nap at work." or anything like that. Pick up a shotty, an ar15, an ak, or some fancy dan pistol with a silencer, and you are good. Longer barreled weapons are quieter not by their inherent nature, often, but because the ammunition is designed for use in them, and the powder mix burns completely before exiting the gun. Short barrels using rounds designed for optimal burn in a longer barrel create a huge fireball in front of the firearm, that is itself nothing more than a puff of powder that then explodes. This is louder than a gunshot needs to be.
Silencer, I reckon, would offset that some, although I also reckon you need buy a good one to survive the portion of the short barrel expelled explosion taking place inside the silencer every shot, too.
You know, it's funny. My go-to gun is a short AR in 300BLK, and I have a suppressor for 300BLK, and the AR in question has the correct thread screw for that suppressor, but... I keep the suppressor locked up upstairs on a different AR.
I should probably keep the suppressor with the gun even if I don't leave it screwed on.
At least for the 300BLK, all the powder has burned off by the 9" barrel length. I don't know offhand what it is for 5.56, other than "longer".
CptJake wrote: I doubt an AR is louder than a .357 with a 3 inch barrel or a 12 gauge with a short barrel.
Fair. I'm thinking a smaller caliber, but even then, we're usually talking 150s to 160+db.
Ouze wrote: You know, it's funny. My go-to gun is a short AR in 300BLK, and I have a suppressor for 300BLK, and the AR in question has the correct thread screw for that suppressor, but... I keep the suppressor locked up upstairs on a different AR.
I should probably keep the suppressor with the gun even if I don't leave it screwed on.
At least for the 300BLK, all the powder has burned off by the 9" barrel length. I don't know offhand what it is for 5.56, other than "longer".
Aaaand speaking of that, you just reminded me to move a suppressor to the correct gun. As for burn in the 5.56, you certainly keep adding energy through 18" http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html
Dukeofstuff wrote: ...
Silencer, I reckon, would offset that some, although I also reckon you need buy a good one to survive the portion of the short barrel expelled explosion taking place inside the silencer every shot, too.
So to your point, there's companies/designs available with tough cans that can do a shorter AR, hell, some are even good for machine guns. It also helps if you put a muzzle brake mount on, as it takes some of the abuse that otherwise would go onthe baffles. I have a SpecWar 7.62 that I use with my 11.5 inch 5.56 SBR. I expect it will keep working for a good long time.
Funny thing about the Hearing Protection Act if it ever passed, you'd probably see a lot fewer suppressors built like a tank, given that without the stamp/wait, the market equilibrium in terms of in lower cost vs. longer life would like shift down a good amount.
Without getting into politics, I am really bummed the hearing protection act didn't pass. I think there was a window there that has now closed, or if not closed, is closing rapidly.
So yeah, one point to the shotgun crowd, you'll always be able to find 00 Buck.
At least in normal situations of course. but around here 00 buck has been basically non-existent for the last 6 months, along with all of the handgun ammunition and 5.56/7.62. About the only thing on the shelves is birdshot and more niche calibers.
I got lucky and one of the local stores got a few cases of law enforcement grade 00 buck last week. Managed to get a case of 50 for only $70.
HPA should have passed. There is nothing wrong with suppressors.
I currently live in a country with rampant crime committed with firearms and what doesn't get used often is supressors. And they are readily available, I have 3 in my garage at the moment. I gave two others away.
IMHO a suppressor on an HD weapon is a win, but it vastly ramps up the price.
From a HD perspective, the AR-15 is significantly better than a shotgun. Keep in mind you won't necessarily be the one using the weapon to defend your home. My wife is much more capable of handling an AR-15 and keeping shots on target than she is with a shotgun.
Add in the pucker factor and the likelihood of missing a target goes up dramatically. Which is easier to get back on target, an AR-15 or a 12 gauge? I know from experience I can put 30 out of 30 into a man sized target at 50 yards rapid fire, think you can mimic that with slam fire from a shotgun?
Grey Templar wrote: Hog hunting with 5.56 is fine, though I would prefer something bigger. I'd prefer my AK over the AR15 in that situation(unless I'm using the .458 socom upper). Much more stopping power, but I still have the follow-up and rapid fire in case one of them comes after me. Which a 308 or 30-06 probably doesn't have, unless you're using an AR chambered in such a caliber.
This is why I love my AR 10. Though there is a significant weight difference to an AR 15. AR 10 is just not a practical weapon - I am glad I have one but honestly dread shooting it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know, it's funny. My go-to gun is a short AR in 300BLK, and I have a suppressor for 300BLK, and the AR in question has the correct thread screw for that suppressor, but... I keep the suppressor locked up upstairs on a different AR.
I should probably keep the suppressor with the gun even if I don't leave it screwed on.
At least for the 300BLK, all the powder has burned off by the 9" barrel length. I don't know offhand what it is for 5.56, other than "longer".
Isn't 300 blk a subsonic round? I thought that was the whole reason to use it - it is very quiet right? Never heard one fired personally.
Grey Templar wrote: Hog hunting with 5.56 is fine, though I would prefer something bigger. I'd prefer my AK over the AR15 in that situation(unless I'm using the .458 socom upper). Much more stopping power, but I still have the follow-up and rapid fire in case one of them comes after me. Which a 308 or 30-06 probably doesn't have, unless you're using an AR chambered in such a caliber.
This is why I love my AR 10. Though there is a significant weight difference to an AR 15. AR 10 is just not a practical weapon - I am glad I have one but honestly dread shooting it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know, it's funny. My go-to gun is a short AR in 300BLK, and I have a suppressor for 300BLK, and the AR in question has the correct thread screw for that suppressor, but... I keep the suppressor locked up upstairs on a different AR.
I should probably keep the suppressor with the gun even if I don't leave it screwed on.
At least for the 300BLK, all the powder has burned off by the 9" barrel length. I don't know offhand what it is for 5.56, other than "longer".
Isn't 300 blk a subsonic round? I thought that was the whole reason to use it - it is very quiet right? Never heard one fired personally.
300BLK is available as both sub and supersonic.
There is a phenomenon that has a name that goes along with the selective hearing that happens in an actual gun battle. Although the bang from short barreled rifles can have a concussive and actually stunning effect on folks that aren't expecting the boom users don't seem to be affected in the short term. Not saying that long term effects aren't an issue but with the vets in my circle jet engines caused more issues than machine guns. The combo of jet engines and machine guns make a bad combo.
Xenomancers wrote: Isn't 300 blk a subsonic round? I thought that was the whole reason to use it - it is very quiet right? Never heard one fired personally.
You can get many different loads depending on what you want to do, 147gr supers or 220gr subs.
Xenomancers wrote: Isn't 300 blk a subsonic round? I thought that was the whole reason to use it - it is very quiet right? Never heard one fired personally.
You can get many different loads depending on what you want to do, 147gr supers or 220gr subs.
That's really the charm that brings interest from a lot of folks. You can get similar energy out of a suppressed 45, but with a 45 you can't just do a mag swap and start throwing supers.
There's just the whole admech level sacred handling of the ammo and magazines to avoid doing this
Dukeofstuff wrote: specwar 7.62 would, I presume, also work on calibers up to the .308 range? and down to the .22LR?
Careful shooting .22LR through a center fire can, clean it before you shoot center fire as the .22 deposits quite a bit of unburnt powder in the can which a center fire can ignite.
Someone on the Tippmann forum blew up his suppressor doing that.
I saw a PSA video of some guys who shot a 300 blackout round in a 5.56 barrel to show what happens. The bullet actually came out the end, looked like someone stepping on a tube of toothpaste on the high speed. Surprisingly, only the barrel itself was ruined. Both the lower and the upper survived.
For practical purposes, 300 blackout is very similar to 7.62 in terms of use and they have similar ballistics when dealing with the same bullet weights. Given the potential safety concerns with 300 blackout and 5.56 confusion if you're using both at the same time I honestly would take a 7.62 upper instead as I would get much the same overall results as 300 blackout without the potential for a safety disaster. You can't mix up the mags and 7.62 will never ever feed into a 5.56 chamber even if you tried.
Nice! Just be extra sure to check the firing pin, it took me two days and several punches to get the firing pin out and cleaned so it wouldn't just slamfire through everything
After that though, it's been one of my favorite shooters. A great pickup.
Vaktathi wrote: Nice! Just be extra sure to check the firing pin, it took me two days and several punches to get the firing pin out and cleaned so it wouldn't just slamfire through everything
After that though, it's been one of my favorite shooters. A great pickup.
Probably a good thing the primers on mil spec ammo are hard.
I once had an issue with an FN-49 at deep negative temps. I've seen what out of battery discharges can look like.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a PSA video of some guys who shot a 300 blackout round in a 5.56 barrel to show what happens. The bullet actually came out the end, looked like someone stepping on a tube of toothpaste on the high speed. Surprisingly, only the barrel itself was ruined. Both the lower and the upper survived.
For practical purposes, 300 blackout is very similar to 7.62 in terms of use and they have similar ballistics when dealing with the same bullet weights. Given the potential safety concerns with 300 blackout and 5.56 confusion if you're using both at the same time I honestly would take a 7.62 upper instead as I would get much the same overall results as 300 blackout without the potential for a safety disaster. You can't mix up the mags and 7.62 will never ever feed into a 5.56 chamber even if you tried.
If you mean 7.62x39, there's just fewer options for subsonic rounds and defensive bullets. The whole romance for Blackout is being able to switch back and forth between subs and supers in a relatively short barrel. There's seduction in hardware reuse as well, if you can keep from committing hardware sins. Also, one could build cases from spent .223.
So all in all it's a lot of great ideas, but like some kitchen aids on TV like the slap chop, do I really need it? (well of course, but mostly because its cool). In another world and another time it might have been the backbone of some army's infantry. In this day and age it competes with lots trying to do many jobs as well as more specialized weapons.
Meh, I'm good with it because choices are good, but one shouldn't have .223 and .300 unless they are going to have a bit of admech reverence for the machines involved.
Serial number is in the 11 millions, which according to one site I have found indicates roughly 1967 manufacture. Stock, bolt, and receiver all have matching numbers.
I have honestly never been interested in ARs. Now, I don't own firearms myself, (though I've been considering getting a revolver for target shooting), but I have friend that takes me shooting every so often, and I just... Rifles aren't my jam, and ARs don't even have the sort of historical interest that a Nagant or other old bolt-actions have. Nothing against them, and I'm sure they're fine for their purposes, but I just... don't care about them.
When it comes to popular or well known (and legal where you are) firearms? Are there any you don’t care to own, and why.
If I won the lottery, I would have a huge garage full of motorcycles and a big ass arms room with all kinds of things which go BANG!. So no, there is nothing I wouldn't care to own. I'll take one of each and 2-3 of the ones I do!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Vomiting my curious ignorance upon your screen once again, but in a festive style.
When it comes to popular or well known (and legal where you are) firearms? Are there any you don’t care to own, and why.
ARs. I've had to carry that garbage pea shooter for almost the entirety of my military career stretching back to 1992, and I'm of the opinion that we should have went with the FN FAL all along.
Anything single shot, unless it's 50BMG. Most black powder stuff, unless it's a build-a-gun kit, because that just looks like fun to build. 45 auto is just not a cartridge that interests me, like at all.
AR's aren't fun to me and I also have very little interest in expensive, and while i find black poweder guns to be fun, I don't like then nearly enough to actually by one and all the stuff to go along with it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Vomiting my curious ignorance upon your screen once again, but in a festive style.
When it comes to popular or well known (and legal where you are) firearms? Are there any you don’t care to own, and why.
ARs. I've had to carry that garbage pea shooter for almost the entirety of my military career stretching back to 1992, and I'm of the opinion that we should have went with the FN FAL all along.
Having used a SANDF R1 I strongly disagree. The FAL is a decent platform but there isn't anything a "battle rifle" can do that an "assault rifle" can't also do, at half the weight.
Anything people claim a battle rifle can do requires a DMR or a GPMG/MMG.
A 16" FAL with a short stock is a handy dandy weapon but hardly a good replacement for an AR.
I get not wanting to own an AR, I'll never buy an R4/5/Galil. That being said with an unlimited budget the only guns I won't buy are any WWI /WWII era bolt action like a K98, Mosin/ Enfield because, meh. Or anything in 5.45x39mm because locally we have *zero* ammo available. I know a guy with a mint AK-74 but he can't fire it because of the lack of ammo.n
My brother from Tulsa is visiting for the next week. He told me the gun stores down there are pretty well picked over, leaving mostly 12 gauge birdshot on the shelves. Any rifles or pistols left are pretty generic and going for well above MSRP. I took him to our local small-town gun store and his jaw dropped at the selection and sane prices. Kind of felt good somehow.
I'm not interested in most guns actually. I focus on AR pattern rifles, and that mostly because of the wide parts and options availability. It's a rifle that everyone in the US should know how to run and mantain in my opinion.
I have an ancient paint ball pistol that was the lowest tech of its time in the late '80s.
I have a hunting bow that I haven't used in about 10 years.
And there's a pellet rifle that gets used every few months to thin out the pigeon flocks that infest our barn.
Beyond that I'll never talk about what guns I might/might not posses
Slinky wrote: Got a brief trip to the indoor range in last week - All ranges are now shutting down again for England's month-long lockdown.
My 10/22 "Target Tactical" and SMLE trainer rifle (1943 Lithgow, converted to No 2 Mk IV* in 1949).
Spoiler:
I like the look of your SMLE, an iconic rifle, how does it shoot? After 20+ years in the military I still enjoy shooting, was going to sign up with my local range once everything opens up again.
Never thought about picking one of these up, but seeing yours has piqued my interest. Are they easy to find? Any problems getting ammunition for them?
I believe the SMLE trainers use .22lr. Hence why they are trainers so you're not wasting a bunch of 'real' ammo. A byproduct of the old mentality governments used to have where everybody was super stingy with ammo for training, and either wouldn't give soldiers any ammo at all or only a handful of rounds. Then they moved to modified weapons chambered in .22lr because its dirt cheap and better than basically not training your troops at all. Of course, training your soldiers on .22s isn't ideal at all beyond getting them accustomed to shooting in general. Its useless for marksmanship because the weapon will handle completely differently when you're using the real thing.
They're definitely interesting relics of the premodern military mindset.
Yeah, it's in .22LR, which is all that is allowed in my indoor club anyway
It's a nice historic piece, it shoots "okay", not exactly pin-point accuracy, but lots of fun, and always gets interest and people wanting to have a go!
One interesting thing is that it is a single-loader, but it doesn't have an ejector - The magazine is just an empty .303 one, and the empty cases just fall into it, then when you are finished you can take the mag out and neatly dump the brass into the brass bucket
Slinky wrote: Yeah, it's in .22LR, which is all that is allowed in my indoor club anyway
It's a nice historic piece, it shoots "okay", not exactly pin-point accuracy, but lots of fun, and always gets interest and people wanting to have a go!
One interesting thing is that it is a single-loader, but it doesn't have an ejector - The magazine is just an empty .303 one, and the empty cases just fall into it, then when you are finished you can take the mag out and neatly dump the brass into the brass bucket
You learn something new everyday. I vaguely remember being told years ago about .22 ammunition for training, are there still .303 variants around then?
Slinky wrote: - The magazine is just an empty .303 one, and the empty cases just fall into it, then when you are finished you can take the mag out and neatly dump the brass into the brass bucket
I'm looking to buy a new .308 and thinking about getting a PTR 114. Does anyone here have any experience with the PTR line? I've seen good things online but wanted to get some more info on it before I spend that kind of money.
I was thinking about getting a ptr 91 or 114 as well. Or something like the smith and wesson mp 15 sport 2 (which seems like a decent budget AR). This would basically be my second firearm, only other one ive bought was a mosin nagant at 100 bucks almost a decade ago. Another thing to consider is I live in california so it would be neutered with 10 round mags. Good thing about the AR platform though is you could put a sparrow type grip on it to get around having that paddle blocking my thumb.
I really don't have much to add t this, the only thing to happen here recently was I got a reproduction bayonet frog in the mail for my Type 30 bayonet.
Kayback wrote: ... Or anything in 5.45x39mm because locally we have *zero* ammo available. I know a guy with a mint AK-74 but he can't fire it because of the lack of ammo.n
I can agree the 5.45 for the AK-74 is really hard to find; however, so much more accurate than the 47 w/ 7.62 rounds - it is a smaller round, like the .223
I have spent many of the last 15-18 years or so just picking up the odd box here and there when I found it, so have thousands of rounds for it now. I think I am ready for the apocolypse.
And, yes, .22 ammo is so cheap and plentiful, I loved shooting my old Ruger 10-22 - It wasn't until about 10 years ago when I retrofitted the innards into a Bullpup stock that it became a super fun thing to shoot. Here is the kit: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/100684253 - throw a flash supressor on the barrel end and an extended mag and it is a real hot shot looking piece.
My son has a Mosin Nagant from Bulgaria (I think) dated 1939 - very cool piece.
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
Not personally but I know a handful of peeps with them that like them enough that they dropped Spuhr kit on them to modernize them and that ain't cheap. The guy's using them recreationally are all fairly hard charging door kickers in their professional lives so know a fair bit about quality firearms.
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
Had a pre-ban HK-91. Loved it. PTR is the same, right?
If we're talking basic G3 style platform I used a G3 that had been neutered for competition shooting, major class for a brief while. Besides the slimline handguard getting hot AF it was a good platform. I preferred the shorty FAL but it's just me. I prefer the ergos of the FAL, my T-Rex arms can't reach the G3 charging handle, and some people claim it's got better recoil.Then others claim the PTR is the softest shooting gun they've shot in 7.62x51.
Some claim the FAL heats up faster than the G3. YMMV.
Without a DSA style top cover for the FAL mounting an optic is easier on the G3.
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
Yeah, I've owned one for over a decade. My favorite rifle that I have. Accurate, reliable, mags are dirt cheap. Guns literally never jammed. Just don't expect to do any reloading with any ammunition you run through it. These things mangle brass.
The 32 I'm not so enthused about, it's stupid heavy for an x39 gun, PTR put an insanely thick barrel on it, and the gen 1 is picky on mags.
The 91 is as good as every legit HK I've ever shot, and mags were (until recently) $3 each. That said, they do feel like they were made for 8ft tall giants, not normal human beings, everything from the length of pull to the charging handle location and safety controls. I like my DSA FAL more in terms of ergonomics, but it was also half again as much in cost and isn't any more accurate or reliable, while the GIR model has a reasonable built-in optics solution where the FAL doesn't so much.
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
Yeah, I've owned one for over a decade. My favorite rifle that I have. Accurate, reliable, mags are dirt cheap. Guns literally never jammed. Just don't expect to do any reloading with any ammunition you run through it. These things mangle brass.
Thanks for the response. I don't have the space to reload right now so I'm not worried about it mangling brass. Have you tried shooting steel through it? I've heard some people say it causes more wear and tear and other people say there isn't any real difference.
Had a pre-ban HK-91. Loved it. PTR is the same, right?
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
Yeah, I've owned one for over a decade. My favorite rifle that I have. Accurate, reliable, mags are dirt cheap. Guns literally never jammed. Just don't expect to do any reloading with any ammunition you run through it. These things mangle brass.
Thanks for the response. I don't have the space to reload right now so I'm not worried about it mangling brass. Have you tried shooting steel through it? I've heard some people say it causes more wear and tear and other people say there isn't any real difference.
Had a pre-ban HK-91. Loved it. PTR is the same, right?
Yeah they are a semi-auto clone of the HK-91.
I have an HK91 clone that I got for dirt cheap. I love it for what it is. It doesn't shoot with bolt-action precision, but still darn accurate for a semiauto. I've never had it jam. You can buy mags for it in bulk. Heck, I bought 10 for it for less money than I paid for ONE mag for another weapon. It fits my frame well, but I'm 6'5" tall, so I can see how it might be a reach for other people. The one thing I really don't like about it is the sights. Some people love them, and swear by them, but I really don't (that's just a me thing). My clone came with an integral picatinny rail, so I mounted an optic on it and called it a day.
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
Yeah, I've owned one for over a decade. My favorite rifle that I have. Accurate, reliable, mags are dirt cheap. Guns literally never jammed. Just don't expect to do any reloading with any ammunition you run through it. These things mangle brass.
Thanks for the response. I don't have the space to reload right now so I'm not worried about it mangling brass. Have you tried shooting steel through it? I've heard some people say it causes more wear and tear and other people say there isn't any real difference.
Had a pre-ban HK-91. Loved it. PTR is the same, right?
Yeah they are a semi-auto clone of the HK-91.
Yes, I've shot steel case through it, and yes, steel case ammunition will cause more wear and tear on any firearm than brass.
As Cuda 1179 says, some don't like the sights, but I do. I don't find anything for the gun to be "a reach" either, and am 6', but very long-limbed.
DrGiggles wrote: So no one here has any experience with the PTR 91 platform?
H&K's roller-delayed rifles are a lot like AKs in terms of design concept. You don't have to worry about gas pressure and they're pretty tolerant on headspacing, so they eat good ammo, bad ammo, don't care. They're under-sprung, so function fine even with underpowered ammo, but you will definitely feel that bolt carrier slamming into the receiver on each shot. No bolt hold open. The manual of arms is weird, but you can get used to it, and the HK slap is fun. They will mangle your cases on ejection so reloading is right out.
Something like an FAL or AR10 will be more ergonomic and softer shooting. But they may also be more picky about ammo (steel-cased ammo is straight-up unsafe in an FAL), harder to find cheap mags for, and don't have that stamped-steel charm.
PTRs are good implementations of the H&K design. The ones I've handled have all been substantially better than their Century counterparts. But I'd only buy one if I were looking specifically for a G3/CETME clone, as there are better .308s for the money out there. Same with the FAL, really, but that didn't stop me from buying one.
Re: steel-cased ammo, it's a bit harder on your extractor on a gun not designed for steel (Eastern Bloc guns don't care), and bimetal-jacketed bullets are a bit harder on your rifling, but that's it. For modern-production guns where I can replace a shot-out barrel or broken extractor, I shoot mostly steel, as the amount I save on ammo more than pays for the additional wear-and-tear. For guns where replacements are unlikely, or where steel-cased ammo is unsafe (again, FAL- lack of ductility on steel means case head ruptures) I stick with brass.
catbarf wrote: [... (steel-cased ammo is straight-up unsafe in an FAL),
(again, FAL- lack of ductility on steel means case head ruptures) I stick with brass.
That's the first I've heard of that. We've got loads of guys running NORINCO steel case bi-metal ammo through all types of guns here, it's almost the only bulk we get. I shot a shorty FAL for a season of competition here so not super tons of experience and the steel case I used was super happy. I had bigger issues with old SANDF 7.62. Not nice old Battle packs but just loose ammo from here and there. I
catbarf wrote: [... (steel-cased ammo is straight-up unsafe in an FAL),
(again, FAL- lack of ductility on steel means case head ruptures) I stick with brass.
That's the first I've heard of that. We've got loads of guys running NORINCO steel case bi-metal ammo through all types of guns here, it's almost the only bulk we get. I shot a shorty FAL for a season of competition here so not super tons of experience and the steel case I used was super happy. I had bigger issues with old SANDF 7.62. Not nice old Battle packs but just loose ammo from here and there. I
The internet seems torn on it too?
DSA outright will not honor their warranty on their guns if you shoot steel-case. In my case, I had a case head rupture about 60 rounds in. The gun did what it was supposed to and diverted the gas through the magwell, blasting the floorplate into the floor hard enough to ricochet 30 feet, and blowing out the magazine into an oval. Headspace and locking were checked after the fact, both were within spec.
The FAL has a partly unsupported chamber and extracts early under pressure. With brass cases this isn't a problem, as the brass stretches a bit and holds. If you reload, you'll find the brass needs resizing more than from other battle rifles, but otherwise it's safe. If you shoot steel, though, it might work fine or, being unable to stretch, it might tear at the case head and allow the propellant gases to vent into the action. Best case it's slow enough to vent out the mag, worst case the pressure spike KBs the gun.
Not all steel-case ammo is made the same- in the FAL owner's group on Facebook, it seems to be Tula that does it more than other brands, so I have no idea how Norinco stacks up. And not all FALs are made the same. But it's enough of a problem to warrant caution. I normally have no qualms about shooting steel in my other guns and dismiss the unsubstantiated FUD about steel-cased ammo, but for FALs specifically this is a documented issue.
Now I find myself wishing I bought more of that Malaysian surplus 7.62x51 a few years ago...
Just over quarter of a century ago, I went on a school exchange trip to Maine (Noble High School, just on the off chance there are any alumni reading).
The family I stayed with had wee room with an ammo packing machine. I remember it being setup for rifle ammo, the calibre I couldn’t say.
I can say that, rather predictably, the sleeve and bullet itself were separate, with the machine being used to pack powder and bullet into the jacket, making the complete round (sorry if I’m mangling the terms).
So far as I’m aware that was entirely legal. Yet, from pop culture (specifically The Walking Dead) it either glossed over such resources entirely, or such devices are relatively uncommon?
Is this a common thing? Does it vary state to state?
And if you’ve got one, what would happen if you put in too much powder? The obvious thought is it would make the round too long, but one assumes you could alter the bullet itself?
Just over quarter of a century ago, I went on a school exchange trip to Maine (Noble High School, just on the off chance there are any alumni reading).
The family I stayed with had wee room with an ammo packing machine. I remember it being setup for rifle ammo, the calibre I couldn’t say.
I can say that, rather predictably, the sleeve and bullet itself were separate, with the machine being used to pack powder and bullet into the jacket, making the complete round (sorry if I’m mangling the terms).
So far as I’m aware that was entirely legal. Yet, from pop culture (specifically The Walking Dead) it either glossed over such resources entirely, or such devices are relatively uncommon?
Is this a common thing? Does it vary state to state?
And if you’ve got one, what would happen if you put in too much powder? The obvious thought is it would make the round too long, but one assumes you could alter the bullet itself?
Again, apologies for my absolute ignorance.
Loading/reloading is legal pretty much everywhere without much legal restriction. Most of what you'll find is restriction on quantity of powder or storage requirements, but that's about it.
It's not super common, but it's not uncommon. It's not so much a state to state thing but more a rural/urban thing. People in cities have access to modern supply chains and often don't have room for the loading setup, and many times ranges don't allow reloaded ammo or it's awkward to try and collect ones brass afterward. In more rural areas, supply chains aren't as regular so people recycle ammo and keep stuff on hand, and people have access to longer ranges and have more access to facilities to both reload and shoot, so you see a whole lot more people loading to match their specific guns for accuracy.
If you put in too much powder, or the wrong powder, bad stuff can happen. Everything from "click" to "boom". More than one person has ended up crippled, maimed, or killed that way, and many gats have spread themselves into many irretrievable pieces by the same method. In general, if you've loaded so much powder that the bullet has trouble seating, you'll notice that, but it probably won't actually fire at that point even if loaded and chambered as there may not be enough oxygen inside to properly ignite. That said, I've only done reloading a couple times, so I'm sure others will have more detailed answers.
If you put in too much powder, or the wrong powder, bad stuff can happen. Everything from "click" to "boom". More than one person has ended up crippled, maimed, or killed that way, and many gats have spread themselves into many irretrievable pieces by the same method. In general, if you've loaded so much powder that the bullet has trouble seating, you'll notice that, but it probably won't actually fire at that point even if loaded and chambered as there may not be enough oxygen inside to properly ignite. That said, I've only done reloading a couple times, so I'm sure others will have more detailed answers.
Yeah, my brother found that out the hard way when he tried making his own shotgun shells when we were kids. seems you don't fill the entire three inch magnum with powder. To be fair, his H&R only exploded on the second shot. He was fine, just some minor shrapnel in his arm. Unfortunately, this was before cell phones, so my father came home while we were at the ER and panicked when he found the blown up gun and no one around.
Mind you, this is the same man who used his children to test guns he really didn't trust rather than use a string and a tire. So...
It depends on the round and powder. Some combinations allow dangerous pressures to explode your firearm. Others will only wear out components quicker. The most common I've seen examples of are pistol rounds with a fast burning powder that only requires a few grains. Usually it's a double charge of powder from not paying attention. For rifle rounds, a double charge is likely to make a mess of powder, so it's someone not remembering to reset the powder measure or forgetting what they're using.
I think the reloading breakdown is less about supply chain and more about time vs cost. It's usually cheaper to reload yoir own. However, the equipment outlay, time to research loads, and time testing loads all are factors. It's also a process that seems more difficult than it is.
My friend has an "awesome" story about his brothers and reloading. His dad was a trucker and gone a lot, and also had a reloading station. As it turns out, a paintball fit very nicely inside a shell. His little brothers decided to reload the shell, guestimating the amount of powder needed to actually shoot a paintball without it being dangerous to someone shot with it. They were smart enough to test it on a tree, as they vastly overestimate the amount of powder. At that point they thankfully decided that this was a bad idea.
The big sporting stores all carry reloading supplies, and many small ones too. It's been exploding in popularity recently too with the recent ammo shortages, enough that its tough to find reloading supplies too.
I think the reason its absent from pop culture is that most of the producers of pop culture media have exactly zero actual knowledge about anything to do with real firearms. But realistically any type of apocalypse scenario is going to involve people reloading their own stuff.
Loading too much powder could result in anything up to the firearm exploding, which is why you need to be extra careful when doing it. Funny thing though is that more powder doesn't necessarily equal a more powerful shot. It's all a combination of powder charge, type of powder(there are hundreds), bullet weight, bullet shape, bullet density, etc...
One thing that might surprise you is that if you make a bullet heavier, you usually have to reduce the amount of powder because the heavier bullet will exit the gun slower. Which means there is a greater amount of time for pressure in the chamber to build as the powder slowly burns off, to potentially unsafe levels. Smokeless powder doesn't actually explode like black powder does, it burns relatively slowly which means its a reaction that occurs over time. Black powder instantly, relatively speaking, raises pressure to a certain amount. Smokeless powder continued to build pressure till the bullet leaves the barrel and pressure drops. This is why smokeless powder is significantly more powerful than black powder.
One thing you can count on is that you'd never ever fill the casing completely with powder. First off, the bullet takes up space inside the casing too. Usually half to 1/3 of the actual bullet is sunk inside the shell depending on the specifics. Powder could be touching the bullet, or it could be barely 1/3 of the inner space. Too much powder could result in unsafe pressure, and at the least its going to result in a huge fireball out the end of the gun, which represents wasted energy since none of that is going into the bullet.
For example, the load I usually load for 7.62x39 the IMR4198 powder comes up to several centimeters below the bullet. But if I am loading 7.62x54 even though its a much bigger casing and bigger bullet weight the powder doesn't even up to halfway up the cartridge even though there is more powder.
Not all steel-case ammo is made the same- in the FAL owner's group on Facebook, it seems to be Tula that does it more than other brands, so I have no idea how Norinco stacks up. And not all FALs are made the same. But it's enough of a problem to warrant caution. I normally have no qualms about shooting steel in my other guns and dismiss the unsubstantiated FUD about steel-cased ammo, but for FALs specifically this is a documented issue.
Now I find myself wishing I bought more of that Malaysian surplus 7.62x51 a few years ago...
Huh something new every day. I don't think I'd stop using NORINCO ammo. Maybe Tula is thin walled or incorrectly heat treated? I've had head separations from old .mil ammo but never the steel.
Mad Doc Grotsnik
As for the reloading issue, in some places it's much more common than others. In Fallout 3 you can reload your own ammo in the post apocalypse. The thing is some parts (specifically primers) are not easy to make yourself and supplies will run out.
Its a fairly simple process that actually gets more complicated the more you get into it. Basically you just need powder, primer, case and bullet. And a way of putting it all together.
Basic machines do one step at a time, more advanced machines do multiple actions with each movement.
In long you take an empty or new case, tumble it in a way to clean it, this can include chemical cleaning, mechanical cleaning, wet or dry tumbling. Once the case is clean you can start with the reloading. A rifle case needs to be resized because they stretch on use. You can then anneal the cases to make it correctly heat treated again to reduce wear.
Then you put in a primer. That's the bit on the back that ignites the powder. You get normal and magnum primers. The magnum primers are for larger powder loads or slower igniting powder. This can be done with a separate machine, the same machine or part of the steps of a multi machine.
Then you need powder. Modern propellants are not "gunpowder". "gunpowder", also known as black powder hasn't been used in serious guns in over a century. Nitro cellulose based propellants replaced "gun powder" a while ago. Even "cordite" isn't used anymore. Propellants produce a lot of volume when burnt and don't "explode" as much as conflagrate. This is where "blow your gun up" will come into play. One aspect of burn rate is pressure. The higher the pressure the faster most powders will burn, which will increase the pressure which increases the burn.... Putting too much powder, or the wrong powder or putting the bullet in too deep or too tight into the case will set up a problem. (there is a tiny problem coming from too little powder, that can detonate as opposed to burn, but it isn't a frequently encountered problem). You get different powder types, spherical or ball powder pours better, flakes burn faster, extruded powder is cheaper to make
Pistols and shotguns use faster burning powders than rifle rounds. Putting a pistol powder in a rifle round will create issues (mostly, there are some exceptions) because the faster burning powders will spike the pressure, which will increase burn rate... Then you need the correct weight of powder. Too much and increased burn rate, too little and possibility of detonation and not enough velocity of the bullet, too too little and the bullet may not exit the barrel or on a semi it may exit the barrel but not provide enough energy to work the action. Then you get accuracy nodes. The bullet must exit the rifle barrel when the barrel is aligned, the barrel flexes when the bullet is fired so won't be pointing "true" some of the time, affecting accuracy. So you can load by "volume" but modern propellants are loaded to a tight range of specific weight, except some machines load with volume still.
Then you need to choose a bullet. Different materials have different effects on the target. Frangibles disintegrate on impact, polymer tip expand, monolithics penetrate, hollow points expand, armour piercing penetrate, bare lead is cheaper but can make your barrel dangerously dirty (increasing pressure), copper jacket are cleaner but more expensive, powder coated are cleaner and cheaper, do you make your own or buy? Then different weights do different things. Barrels are designed with a spin rate which will stabilize a certain range of bullets. For example an M16 had a 1:7" twist rate which stabilized the light 55grain bullet well, but wont work so well on the longer, heavier 75gr bullets, an M4 has a 1:9 twist which will work well with anything from 68-95gr but won't work super well on an older 55gr, but what are you doing? Close range room to room fighting, 500m? Where do you need your performance? Volume over accuracy? I can buy 500 light bullets that'll be "ok" vs 100 bullets that'll be super accurate at 500m. As others have said, heavier bullets need different charges, but lead requires a different charge to copper which requires a different charge to powder coat.
Then you put it all together. And the final product must be within spec, too long or too short won't work.
But in all honesty it is both a hobby in itself (there are plenty of variables I haven't gone into) and easy as pie. I reload 9mm, .45 and .454. My press is set up for 9mm permanently. I have my settings dialed in. Making ammo is literally checking my choice powder (each batch is ever so slightly different), filling the powder hopper, testing it throws correctly and then just pulling the handle over and over. Using my Dillon press I can make around 300 cartridges an hour. For the cost of about 15 rounds.
Fortunately there are plenty of books and internet sites that'll tell you your load data.
Telling you now, if there's ever an actual apocalypse, it's going to be the muzzle-loaders that come out on top for long-lasting. The flintlock crew are going to have the best time of it at first (I'm talking, like, 10 years post whateverhappens, once the chemical resources dry up), but once people figure out how to do fulminates without blowing themselves up, caps are going to be back in vogue.
Anvildude wrote: Telling you now, if there's ever an actual apocalypse, it's going to be the muzzle-loaders that come out on top for long-lasting. The flintlock crew are going to have the best time of it at first (I'm talking, like, 10 years post whateverhappens, once the chemical resources dry up), but once people figure out how to do fulminates without blowing themselves up, caps are going to be back in vogue.
TWD also has full-auto rifles everywhere, Glocks with external safeties, no problems with finding ammunition in a wide variety of boutique calibers, and the usual Hollywood lack of tinnitus. Lots of funny stuff happens when the overlap between 'people writing pop culture' and 'people who know guns and gun culture' is basically nil- I wouldn't be surprised if the writers on TWD aren't even aware that reloading ammo at home is a thing people do.
I mean, to be fair regarding full auto being everywhere, in the event of the apocalypse you'd definitely see a lot of semis get turned back to select fire.
I am in the middle of arranging a new "retro" AR15 build.
Trying to replicate the model 602 as used by the British and Gurkhas in the Indonesian Confrontation (Borneo).
Unfortunately it seems like US export rules have changed, and now no upper receiver with an auto-sear recess can be sent out, so at the moment I am not able to get the right upper, the best available is a C7, so with the fixed carry handle, but with a case deflector and forward-assist... Going to go with that for now, in the hope of swapping it out for a proper "slab-sided" upper later.
This will, of course, be a straight-pull, rather than semi, being in the UK...
Grey Templar wrote:I mean, to be fair regarding full auto being everywhere, in the event of the apocalypse you'd definitely see a lot of semis get turned back to select fire.
Ehhh... It's a lot harder than people think, though. With an AR or AK, most of the FCG parts change, and you need significant milling operations to the receiver to accept an auto sear. ATF is very touchy about semi-auto conversions that can 'easily' (for a machinist's definition of 'easily') be converted back to FA. Realistically unless you have a mill, the requisite knowledge, and a full-auto parts kit just sitting around when the bombs drop, it's not happening.
Something like a lightning link is more practical, but that still requires knowledge and a mill, and of course isn't select-fire. The shoelace-on-a-Mini-14 trick is kosher, though.
Just my pet peeve with post-apocalyptic media ignoring some of the limitations of the pre-apocalypse. Military deserters with ARs and Humvees, okay, that's cool, it makes sense. Roving gangs of bandits with full-auto AKs and miniguns mounted to armored cars? Where'd they get all this crap? I'd love to see the post-apocalyptic videogame where getting your hands on a select-fire M4 to replace the avalanche of hunting rifles, pump shotguns, and bargain basement semi ARs you've been encountering is an exciting moment.
Slinky wrote:I am in the middle of arranging a new "retro" AR15 build.
Trying to replicate the model 602 as used by the British and Gurkhas in the Indonesian Confrontation (Borneo).
Unfortunately it seems like US export rules have changed, and now no upper receiver with an auto-sear recess can be sent out, so at the moment I am not able to get the right upper, the best available is a C7, so with the fixed carry handle, but with a case deflector and forward-assist... Going to go with that for now, in the hope of swapping it out for a proper "slab-sided" upper later.
This will, of course, be a straight-pull, rather than semi, being in the UK...
Will put up pics when its all finally sorted.
Have you looked at the retro receiver Brownell's offers? Fixed carry handle, no case deflector or forward assist. That is their UK website so I'm assuming that means you can buy it.
Sadly, no, those ones aren't available to buy any more, even though they used to be - Some sort of new rule on the export, I believe. Brownells have gone as far as to have a new Aero Precision upper made without the auto-sear recess so it can be exported to Europe, but they haven't done so for the "retro" uppers as yet.
Unfortunately it seems like US export rules have changed, and now no upper receiver with an auto-sear recess can be sent out, so at the moment I am not able to get the right upper, the best available is a C7, so with the fixed carry handle, but with a case deflector and forward-assist... Going to go with that for now, in the hope of swapping it out for a proper "slab-sided" upper later.
While I'm not aware of all the intricacies of US export laws, AFAIK there's nothing in the upper receiver that handles Full/Semi or that would need clearance for the autosear, that's all in the lower. We have all sorts of ex-MIL upper receivers floating about here on the market, it's the lower receiver with the 3rd pinhole above the safety that's the no-no component. Unless they're talking about the bolt carrier, there are semi-auto specific bolt carriers that won't trip an autosear, but semi/FA bolt carriers are otherwise fully interchangeable (and aren't legally controlled items in the US, most domestic US guns will come with a FA BCG, but such often are legally controlled items elsewhere).
Oh, interesting. Every AR upper I own is cut like the FA example on the right. Domestically this isn't an issue, as the only legally controlled component is the Lower receiver.
I knew Colt had "AR15" specific semiauto lowers in a variety of iterations, some with different sized takedown and FCG pin holes, mostly with different internal milling, but I didn't realize they also cut the uppers differently like that, I don't think their current guns do that anymore. I've never seen one cut like that on the left in person. I know in other countries just about every part is controlled and they have their own restrictions on what parts can be configured or machined in what ways, just didn't know about the AR issue there.
Reminds me of our import barrel ban, where if a barrel was ever installed on something considered a "machinegun" under US law, it can't ever be imported even if it's just the stripped barrel, but another barrel off the same assembly line that was never installed, or that was installed in a gun that wasn't considered a "machinegun", and is otherwise identical in all respects, is 100% A-OK for importation.
I don't see anyone in the Apocalypse using full autos. Full auto fire is fun, noisy and in massed engagements useful, when ylh have a healthy supply chain keeping your guns fed. If you're humping everything you own hoping you'll get a resupply sometime, people will be using aimed, controlled fire. Semi auto fire will be the way forwards.
One fairly famous war movie adressed this when the main characters were cut off. (Blackhawk Down? We Were Soldiers?)
And I hate ITAR with a passion. As a legal gunowner getting some bits from the US with ITAR and that other rule, means my Magpul shotgun stock is restricted for export but the literal Spetznas are running Eotechs and CTR stocks on their AKs.
Vaktathi wrote: Reminds me of our import barrel ban, where if a barrel was ever installed on something considered a "machinegun" under US law, it can't ever be imported even if it's just the stripped barrel, but another barrel off the same assembly line that was never installed, or that was installed in a gun that wasn't considered a "machinegun", and is otherwise identical in all respects, is 100% A-OK for importation.
Parts kit prices never recovered
In a similar fashion, if you have a shotgun with a stock, and cut the barrel down to 17.99 inches, you just committed a felony. If you have an identical shotgun that only has only ever had a pistol grip go ahead and slap that 10 inch barrel on it, it's perfectly legal.
Vaktathi wrote: Reminds me of our import barrel ban, where if a barrel was ever installed on something considered a "machinegun" under US law, it can't ever be imported even if it's just the stripped barrel, but another barrel off the same assembly line that was never installed, or that was installed in a gun that wasn't considered a "machinegun", and is otherwise identical in all respects, is 100% A-OK for importation.
Parts kit prices never recovered
In a similar fashion, if you have a shotgun with a stock, and cut the barrel down to 17.99 inches, you just committed a felony. If you have an identical shotgun that only has only ever had a pistol grip go ahead and slap that 10 inch barrel on it, it's perfectly legal.
Or you go with a Mossberg Shockwave that isn't either of those things because its over 26 inches and also doesn't have a stock on it, so its not even technically a shotgun at all.
But you'd have to hate your wrists and all attempts at being practical to want one of these things.
Vaktathi wrote: Reminds me of our import barrel ban, where if a barrel was ever installed on something considered a "machinegun" under US law, it can't ever be imported even if it's just the stripped barrel, but another barrel off the same assembly line that was never installed, or that was installed in a gun that wasn't considered a "machinegun", and is otherwise identical in all respects, is 100% A-OK for importation.
Parts kit prices never recovered
In a similar fashion, if you have a shotgun with a stock, and cut the barrel down to 17.99 inches, you just committed a felony. If you have an identical shotgun that only has only ever had a pistol grip go ahead and slap that 10 inch barrel on it, it's perfectly legal.
Or you go with a Mossberg Shockwave that isn't either of those things because its over 26 inches and also doesn't have a stock on it, so its not even technically a shotgun at all.
But you'd have to hate your wrists and all attempts at being practical to want one of these things.
Before the Shockwave was a thing the "Shockwave Grip" was available as a separate piece through the original manufacturer. I got one and put it on a Mossberg, and it was oddly much more easy on the wrist than the "standard" pistol grip. Still uncomfortable though. I did end up putting a muzzle break on it from Whitt Machine (wonderful company with great product, highly recommended). After that shooting was a breeze and I could easily do it one-handed if I ever wanted to.
If you hadn't noticed, the Mod RiTides has set up a forum for "Everything That Counts", which as a Second Amendment thread going, if you're interested to check it out.
Oh dear. Another ignoramous question. Brace yersel
For those in areas that allow concealed carry, and have the appropriate license?
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
As ever, despite being a Dirty Socialist Lefty, I’m not going anywhere with this. If anything, I’m looking to gain greater insight and as a result clear away the many misconceptions I have in my head as a result of absolute ignorance on the matter
My usual concealed carry (and by usual, I mean only when I go to "the big city" is a Taurus 709. Slightly odd choice, but it has been reliable. It's small and comfy, and if it gets ruined I'm out $200. It only holds 7 rounds, so yes I carry one spare mag just because, usually in my inside jacket pocket.
For those in areas that allow concealed carry, and have the appropriate license?
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
As ever, despite being a Dirty Socialist Lefty, I’m not going anywhere with this. If anything, I’m looking to gain greater insight and as a result clear away the many misconceptions I have in my head as a result of absolute ignorance on the matter
For myself, when I do carry, it's typically a Ruger LCR in .357 but loaded with beefy .38 specials instead. Really it's there to deal with someone in arms reach or direct contact so I can run away. Dump the 5 rounds then throw the empty piece at 'em, and flee to safety. Personally, if I'm in a situation where I need reloads, I'm probably in a situation where a sidearm isn't going to save me.
But I'm happy to help further your firearms-related education, Mad Doc Grotsnik.
My preferred concealed carry choice is a Glock 19, which is Glock's compact double stack 9mm. It's 15+1 (15 rounds in the magazine plus 1 in the chamber) so I normally do not carry a reload, although I am able to do so and am not opposed to it.
I have carried a variety of other guns (and occasionally still do). I used to regularly carry a Ruger LC9, which is a single stack 7+1 9mm. Because of the smaller magazine capacity I did sometimes carry an extra magazine. I also sometimes carry a Taurus TCP .380. It's 6+1 but I usually don't carry an extra magazine with that because when I'm carrying it, it's usually because I'm wearing clothing that is harder to conceal in (often in the summer, shorts and a t-shirt, that kind of thing) so I'm going for minimalism. I've also occasionally carried a Smith and Wesson 642 (J-frame, 5 shot .38 Special revolver). When I did, I sometimes carried a speed strip with an extra 6 rounds.
The decision often comes down to what I'm doing, where I'm going, and what I'm wearing. All things being equal, the Glock is my preference but I will compromise when necessary.
For legal concealed carriers, the chances of needing to use a gun in self-defense are very low, the chances of needing to use a gun in self-defense in a manner that involves actually firing the gun are lower, and the chances of needing to use a gun in self-defense and need to reload during the encounter are even lower than that, so I'm usually not overly concerned if I have to carry something with a lower capacity.
I've actually never heard of a (non-police/military) self-defense encounter in which the defender had to reload. Not saying it's never happened, it wouldn't surprise me if it has happened somewhere at sometime, but it's so incredibly uncommon and I've just never seen or heard of an example of it. If anyone here knows of one, by all means do share.
Happy to answer any additional questions you may have, Mad Doc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: My usual concealed carry (and by usual, I mean only when I go to "the big city" is a Taurus 709. Slightly odd choice, but it has been reliable. It's small and comfy, and if it gets ruined I'm out $200. It only holds 7 rounds, so yes I carry one spare mag just because, usually in my inside jacket pocket.
The Taurus 709 has actually always seemed like a good choice to me. I wouldn't consider it odd. I've never had one, but I've seen them and wouldn't be opposed to carrying one. Taurus makes some decent guns and the Taurus TCP I've had experience with has been reliable.
Hordini wrote: Well, that's quite the personal question!
But I'm happy to help further your firearms-related education, Mad Doc Grotsnik.
My preferred concealed carry choice is a Glock 19, which is Glock's compact double stack 9mm. It's 15+1 (15 rounds in the magazine plus 1 in the chamber) so I normally do not carry a reload, although I am able to do so and am not opposed to it.
I have carried a variety of other guns (and occasionally still do). I used to regularly carry a Ruger LC9, which is a single stack 7+1 9mm. Because of the smaller magazine capacity I did sometimes carry an extra magazine. I also sometimes carry a Taurus TCP .380. It's 6+1 but I usually don't carry an extra magazine with that because when I'm carrying it, it's usually because I'm wearing clothing that is harder to conceal in (often in the summer, shorts and a t-shirt, that kind of thing) so I'm going for minimalism. I've also occasionally carried a Smith and Wesson 642 (J-frame, 5 shot .38 Special revolver). When I did, I sometimes carried a speed strip with an extra 6 rounds.
The decision often comes down to what I'm doing, where I'm going, and what I'm wearing. All things being equal, the Glock is my preference but I will compromise when necessary.
For legal concealed carriers, the chances of needing to use a gun in self-defense are very low, the chances of needing to use a gun in self-defense in a manner that involves actually firing the gun are lower, and the chances of needing to use a gun in self-defense and need to reload during the encounter are even lower than that, so I'm usually not overly concerned if I have to carry something with a lower capacity.
I've actually never heard of a (non-police/military) self-defense encounter in which the defender had to reload. Not saying it's never happened, it wouldn't surprise me if it has happened somewhere at sometime, but it's so incredibly uncommon and I've just never seen or heard of an example of it. If anyone here knows of one, by all means do share.
Happy to answer any additional questions you may have, Mad Doc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: My usual concealed carry (and by usual, I mean only when I go to "the big city" is a Taurus 709. Slightly odd choice, but it has been reliable. It's small and comfy, and if it gets ruined I'm out $200. It only holds 7 rounds, so yes I carry one spare mag just because, usually in my inside jacket pocket.
The Taurus 709 has actually always seemed like a good choice to me. I wouldn't consider it odd. I've never had one, but I've seen them and wouldn't be opposed to carrying one. Taurus makes some decent guns and the Taurus TCP I've had experience with has been reliable.
The one thing that frustrated me was that Taurus teased us with an extended magazine with 9 rounds, and that turned into vaporware. They did, however, do a limited release of the .40 709 extended magazine. So, being the cheeky bastard I am, I bought one of those and a normal 9mm magazine. I frankensteined the parts to make myself a 9mm extended mag, and gave the .40 "normal" mag to a friend.
For those in areas that allow concealed carry, and have the appropriate license?
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
As ever, despite being a Dirty Socialist Lefty, I’m not going anywhere with this. If anything, I’m looking to gain greater insight and as a result clear away the many misconceptions I have in my head as a result of absolute ignorance on the matter
My daily carry is a Glock 17 that's been cut down to G19 grip lengths, with an attached Surefire X-300U light and a G19 magazine and one spare G17 +2 magazine. I'm of a slightly different opinion to the other posters here, I don't want to ever be in the situation where I died from not being able to shoot back enough.
You can throw a whole bunch of numbers around as to why you don't need reloads and they can be countered by plenty of other numbers (accuracy of around 40% in real life gunfights, multiple assailants, multiple hits required to stop and the like) but I've heard enough stories of people emptying guns and the fight not being over. While it is a platitude, you don't get to decide then the fight ends there are only 2 things that make that happen the badguy deciding to not press the attack or them being rendered incapable of pressing the attack. Handguns are really bad fight stoppers. I want to make sure I can carry on shooting until the badguy either stops permanently or decides they've had enough. IMHO the chances of ever needing a gun are low, but you've already struck astronomical proportions of odds, do you want to bet your life on the odds you won't need more bullets too? What if your fight is one that needs 7 rounds, or 9, or 21? Averages are just that, the average, meaning there are plenty of opportunities that required less and plenty that required more.
Now I'm also exposed to a different threat level than most other posters here. I live in South Africa and our murder rate is around 35 / 100 000 while the US' is 5 / 100 000. I also work in a very sus part of town, pretty much the real-world equivalent of the Underhive. One part of the road I use runs along Khayelitsha which reported a murder rate of 100 / 100 000. And I work a pretty specific job so "find somewhere else to work" isn't possible and I travel those roads late at night, early in the morning, weekdays and weekends.
Most of our crimes are perpetrated by multiple assailants and violence is often used as an opening, but I'm also not willing to trust the altruistic nature of the criminals thanks. Besides outright murder, assault and rape are also frequent here. Often the people even doing basic hijacking have guns and are willing to use them, seeing full auto police/military or ex struggle firearms like R5 (Galils) and AK-47 (actually Chinese Type 56's) isn't too out of the ordinary.
Having seen how badly most of the legal R5 shooters shoot I'm confident of my abilities when stacked up against criminals who've had less practice, but I definitely want all of the shots I can get, which is why my work bag has another 19 round mag and a 30 round magazine in it too. Do I honestly ever think I'm going to need almost 90 shots? No. No I don't. But like I said earlier I'm not going to be found wanting.
But my "normal" is only the mag in the gun plus one spare.
What sort of situation do you see yourself in where you'd need a second magazine? I could see something where the two magazines have different loads, (or if you were hiking and were carrying for anti-wildlife), but for civilization walking-around, wouldn't a couple shots be enough?
When I carry I carry a Glock 29, which is a "compact" (as compact as a 10mm can be) 10mm with a 10 round magazine. I don't usually carry additional magazines.
Anvildude wrote: What sort of situation do you see yourself in where you'd need a second magazine? .., but for civilization walking-around, wouldn't a couple shots be enough?
On average, yes. However like I said averages also include times when many many more shots than "average" are used.
Multiple attackers, multiple hits per attacker to stop them and less than stellar accuracy during real world gunfights means having more is better.
There's also the possibility of a magazine failure. Your carry mag may malfunction. It isn't likely but it can and does happen. Being able to discard said magazine and get your gun working again is best. This can be something as simple as you falling to the floor and damaging or knocking off the magazine floor plate. Hope for the best but plan for the worst.
I've had family members in Joburg have a protracted fight with people who tried to hijack the son when he arrived home, remember fight or flight applies to the bad guys too they *may* run away but they may also fight back against your fighting back. Two friends of mine have run to slide lock during an attack recently. One managed to end his fight with the 8 rounds in his 1911 but he was completely dry without any reloads when the attackers decided to leave. The other ended up in hospital with his own GSW and he shot his Glock dry, reloaded and dispatched his attacker about a third of the way into his second magazine.
" The average", or even "most" is still not "all".
I don't expect to need a second magazine, I don't expect to need my gun in the first place, but it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I've never heard someone say "I'm so glad I had my low capacity gun on me instead of a bigger one".
Anvildude wrote: What sort of situation do you see yourself in where you'd need a second magazine? I could see something where the two magazines have different loads, (or if you were hiking and were carrying for anti-wildlife), but for civilization walking-around, wouldn't a couple shots be enough?
One situation is you might have to drop a magazine on an autoloader to clear a malfunction. It's probably going to take both hands to deal with and retaining the dropped magazine is a PITA . Faster to just let it go, or Wick flick it. Plus, nobody has ever lost a gunfight for having too much ammo that I'm aware of.
"Two is one and one is none." I have had multiple family members who worked in law enforcement that never needed to reload their revolvers....ya revolvers... during a shooting incident. They still always carried extra ammo, or magazines, if or when they carried side arms off duty or after retirement. I personally have no hard and fast rule besides a reload worth of ammo. For example when carrying a 5 shot 9mm revolver I carried a 9mm magazine from some other pistol to feed ammo out of. Sometimes a Browning HiPower mag, sometimes a smaller S&W shield magazine. That provided 9-13 extra rounds. I have never carried more than two extra pistol magazines on my person, even when I was in the military.
Anvildude wrote: What sort of situation do you see yourself in where you'd need a second magazine? I could see something where the two magazines have different loads, (or if you were hiking and were carrying for anti-wildlife), but for civilization walking-around, wouldn't a couple shots be enough?
The only situation that would cause me to have to draw and use my pistol would be an unavoidable lethal threat. In a life and death situation there is a lot of stress and adrenaline and even well trained people are affected by it. It’s very easy to fire to slide lock in a few seconds especially when the stress and adrenaline make it nearly impossible to focus on things like counting rounds. You can easily find yourself holding an empty gun in less than a few seconds and just because you expended all your rounds doesn’t mean you neutralized the threat. Therefore it’s prudent to have a spare magazine so you can reload.
I find the spare magazine to be harder to carry concealed than the pistol so I typically have a magazine in a coat pocket or bag pouch or in the car more often than in a pants pocket or on my belt.
I won't link to it, as it isn't exactly site friendly. However if you look it up there was a police shooting from earlier in the month.
A skinny mid-40's, shady car dealer looking guy in a blazer came at a cop with a giant tree branch. The cop literally shot the guy 14 times in the chest before he even slowed down. Yeah, he died, but if that had been a knife instead of a tree branch the officer would have been severely injured too. If the guy only took 5 to the chest he might have had time to finish a deadly stabbing too.
For concealed carry I have a Walther P22. It is not my preferred but among the handguns I currently own it's the best choice. It's small, accurate, and has a good capacity because well, .22. I do usually have a second mag on the belt.
I would love to say I'm manly enough to carry my Nagant revolver, but reality is a thing.
Kayback wrote:For recreational use I'd still go with the PMR-30 in .22Mag.
I see you also are a man of taste and refinement.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh dear. Another ignoramous question. Brace yersel
For those in areas that allow concealed carry, and have the appropriate license?
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
As ever, despite being a Dirty Socialist Lefty, I’m not going anywhere with this. If anything, I’m looking to gain greater insight and as a result clear away the many misconceptions I have in my head as a result of absolute ignorance on the matter
I generally carry whats considered a full frame combat handgun: Sig220, 226, 228, Glock 17 or Glock 22; I also have a Glock 43 subcompact but with the mag extensions that came with it from its previous owner it prints like a full size pistol. I've also been known to carry a P22 or Beretta 76; there's nothing wrong with a 22 if you put the bullets in the right places. I'm a fairly large man and I wear a lot of loose button down shirts anyway so I primarily carry OWB.
I always carry a spare magazine with semi autos, the primary source of failures in a modern handgun is magazine failure. When I used to carry a revolver I carried spare speed loaders to bring the total carried load to about 15.Actual shootings indicate that defensive handgunners shoot until the gun is empty, and not all incidents end immediately.
Spoiler:
Hordini wrote:
I've actually never heard of a (non-police/military) self-defense encounter in which the defender had to reload. Not saying it's never happened, it wouldn't surprise me if it has happened somewhere at sometime, but it's so incredibly uncommon and I've just never seen or heard of an example of it. If anyone here knows of one, by all means do share.
I think you'd find that most CCW instructors recommend carrying at least one spare magazine not because you expect to fire them all but because they provide you with an immediate action to malfunctions and increase flexibility if you DO have to shoot more than once.
Veldrain wrote:For concealed carry I have a Walther P22. It is not my preferred but among the handguns I currently own it's the best choice. It's small, accurate, and has a good capacity because well, .22. I do usually have a second mag on the belt.
I would love to say I'm manly enough to carry my Nagant revolver, but reality is a thing.
I have nothing against carrying a P22, with Minimags I've never even had a malfunction in 1000's of rounds. Its certainly not my first choice but its viable.
cuda1179 wrote: I won't link to it, as it isn't exactly site friendly. However if you look it up there was a police shooting from earlier in the month.
A skinny mid-40's, shady car dealer looking guy in a blazer came at a cop with a giant tree branch. The cop literally shot the guy 14 times in the chest before he even slowed down. Yeah, he died, but if that had been a knife instead of a tree branch the officer would have been severely injured too. If the guy only took 5 to the chest he might have had time to finish a deadly stabbing too.
Indeed. Its also a good lesson about the difference between killing an assailant and stopping an assailant. It only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, but it can take dozens to stop someone from being able to hurt you. Which is why its important to have magazines with 15, 30, or more rounds for self-defense. Maybe you'll need them, maybe you won't. Are you willing to bet your life on it not taking all your ammo?
If you're gonna carry, carry as much additional ammo as you can.
Me: *Sees a firearms thread*
"Oooooh, I wonder what they're talking about in there!"
*Most recent posts, Yanks talking about their EDC self defense guns.*
*Cries in jealousy*
Annnnnyways.
cuda1179 wrote: My friend has an "awesome" story about his brothers and reloading. His dad was a trucker and gone a lot, and also had a reloading station. As it turns out, a paintball fit very nicely inside a shell. His little brothers decided to reload the shell, guestimating the amount of powder needed to actually shoot a paintball without it being dangerous to someone shot with it. They were smart enough to test it on a tree, as they vastly overestimate the amount of powder. At that point they thankfully decided that this was a bad idea.
^ This is surprisingly not insane or unworkable. Simunition is.. basically just this, but refined with a bunch of testing. I've used it quite a bit in force on force training. It's really good for indoor, close range training.
For those in areas that allow concealed carry, and have the appropriate license?
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
Sig Sauer P365. Small, light, and has a 10 round magazine despite its compact size. I also don't mind if it gets worn or dinged. I bought it for exactly what it's being used for. I don't personally carry a spare magazine.
I used to carry a Walther PPK which I still love to death. Got scratched to all heck though just from general use and that makes me sad. That's one major reason I switched to the Sig, it's not as classy so I'm not worried about damaging it.
Eh, a carry gun is a tool. So long as it is functional it doesn't matter how it looks. My Glocks have all been worn down to the metal. Use induces wear. A worn gun is one that's been used. A pristine carry piece is a fashion accessory, IMHO. The finish on Glocks specifically can get down to visible metal without sacrificing the protective quality of the older Tennifer and the newer Nitride finish.
I've ways laughed at anyone complaining of an "idiot scratch" on a 1911. It means I've taken it apart and put it back together often.
I know I might be anal about this, but I was wondering if anyone else has the same philosophy. I don't fire any weapon I own until I can reliably do a field strip of it without looking at instructions.
Yes, I have quite a few oddball weapons that I haven't used often, or within the last 5 years. I might need a refresher course with the manual. I just don't like to fire anything where I don't have an intimate understanding of what may or may not be happening inside it.
cuda1179 wrote: I know I might be anal about this, but I was wondering if anyone else has the same philosophy. I don't fire any weapon I own until I can reliably do a field strip of it without looking at instructions.
Yes, I have quite a few oddball weapons that I haven't used often, or within the last 5 years. I might need a refresher course with the manual. I just don't like to fire anything where I don't have an intimate understanding of what may or may not be happening inside it.
Kind of...
For any firearm I obtain, I field strip and clean it myself before bringing it to the range. I can pretty much disassemble everything I own by memory except for one thing...
cuda1179 wrote: I know I might be anal about this, but I was wondering if anyone else has the same philosophy. I don't fire any weapon I own until I can reliably do a field strip of it without looking at instructions.
Yes, I have quite a few oddball weapons that I haven't used often, or within the last 5 years. I might need a refresher course with the manual. I just don't like to fire anything where I don't have an intimate understanding of what may or may not be happening inside it.
Kind of...
For any firearm I obtain, I field strip and clean it myself before bringing it to the range. I can pretty much disassemble everything I own by memory except for one thing...
That Ruger MkIII. It is a nightmare.
Oh. My. Freaking. God. As much as I love to shoot my MkIII, I want to chuck it against a wall when it comes to disassembly. Those MkIV boys got totally spoiled.
cuda1179 wrote: I know I might be anal about this, but I was wondering if anyone else has the same philosophy. I don't fire any weapon I own until I can reliably do a field strip of it without looking at instructions.
Yes, I have quite a few oddball weapons that I haven't used often, or within the last 5 years. I might need a refresher course with the manual. I just don't like to fire anything where I don't have an intimate understanding of what may or may not be happening inside it.
… I feel like you have a more technical mind than I do. I can field strip any of my firearms for cleaning, but my knowledge of how they work mechanically amounts to: "You pull the trigger and the machine spirit sends the projectile flying out of the weapon."
The C96.....take down instructions are useful but to quote Garand Thumb "it's held together by German magic." Understanding? It's got fricken leaf springs like a Flint lock inside. Definitely machine spirits.
For those in areas that allow concealed carry, and have the appropriate license?
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
As ever, despite being a Dirty Socialist Lefty, I’m not going anywhere with this. If anything, I’m looking to gain greater insight and as a result clear away the many misconceptions I have in my head as a result of absolute ignorance on the matter
Glock 19 for about 8 months of the year. 15+1 in the gun and a spare 15-round magazine. I carry the spare more for the possibility of magazine failure than the ammo. If the one in the gun fails to feed I can just dump it and reload.
Ruger LCR for the summer months. Easier to conceal than the Glock when I don’t have a jacket. I carry a spare speed strip of ammo for that in the watch pocket of my jeans because the little revolver only holds 5 in the cylinder, and it’s easier to top off with a strip than a speedloader.
I don't care about disassembly. I make sure I can field strip the gun, clean and lube it and reassemble to make sure nothing *major* is wrong from the factory.
I only learnt how to detail strip my 1911 after about 10 years when I was replacing parts and my Glocks after about 6.
I can now detail strip a Glock without reference to YouTube and my 1911 can get stripped out in a shorter time.
My 15/22 and my AK I'm much more familiar with. I started modding my AK the day I got it, and a field strip isn't much short of a detail strip. The trigger pin/hammer pins and springs are a little tricky but it's like the gun was built to allow farmers to take apart and put together.
My 15/22 was even easier. Captured bolt blow back and an AR trigger group. No buffer, no buffer spring, no gas piston on the BCG... One tricky thing is the safety detent spring is different from an AR.
My Colt .22LR, "Cadet". That thing is evil AF. Springs under tension after you remove the slide, firing pin cocked and held back only by the trigger ... Hell requiring an Allen key to field strip! Things a nightmare.
When you are concealed carrying, what’s your choice. And do you carry spare rounds?
As always I must preface this answer with the statement that the Wife and I had a stalker who was addicted to painkillers and were advised by several persons as a result.
*Me: M&Pc. Spare mag with 17. Used to carry 1911 with multiple spare mags but calmed a little as threat has lessened.
*Wife: How she likes her pool boys: Large and Italian with more ammunition than the Canadian Army.
AS for new firearms. I grew up during the time when you had to field strip, oil, and shoot a firearm about 500 rounds before it would break in. Things are better but thats the habit I always had.
cuda1179 wrote: I know I might be anal about this, but I was wondering if anyone else has the same philosophy. I don't fire any weapon I own until I can reliably do a field strip of it without looking at instructions.
Yes, I have quite a few oddball weapons that I haven't used often, or within the last 5 years. I might need a refresher course with the manual. I just don't like to fire anything where I don't have an intimate understanding of what may or may not be happening inside it.
Kind of...
For any firearm I obtain, I field strip and clean it myself before bringing it to the range. I can pretty much disassemble everything I own by memory except for one thing...
That Ruger MkIII. It is a nightmare.
Same. Though with older used guns I strip it down to the trigger group, replacing springs as necessary. That Ruger Mkiii is a NIGHTMARE! Bought it for my daughter, she tore it down once and since then I’m the only one to have to deal with that knuckle buster. Great gun otherwise lol.
cuda1179 wrote: I know I might be anal about this, but I was wondering if anyone else has the same philosophy. I don't fire any weapon I own until I can reliably do a field strip of it without looking at instructions.
Yes, I have quite a few oddball weapons that I haven't used often, or within the last 5 years. I might need a refresher course with the manual. I just don't like to fire anything where I don't have an intimate understanding of what may or may not be happening inside it.
Kind of...
For any firearm I obtain, I field strip and clean it myself before bringing it to the range. I can pretty much disassemble everything I own by memory except for one thing...
That Ruger MkIII. It is a nightmare.
Same. Though with older used guns I strip it down to the trigger group, replacing springs as necessary. That Ruger Mkiii is a NIGHTMARE! Bought it for my daughter, she tore it down once and since then I’m the only one to have to deal with that knuckle buster. Great gun otherwise lol.
I know it's not "right" but sometimes I just spray the insides out really well with gunpowder solvent, let it dry, then spray gun oil into it. I only do a full take-down every now and then.
You guys make some good points about carrying a second magazine in case of a magazine failure. I'm considering carrying a second magazine more often just for that reason.
Needs some thoughts on the potential purchase of a beater Mosin.
I already own two Mosins, but they are in remarkably good shape and as such I am afraid to use them (I put great stock in their historical value.) So, I've been looking to find a Mosin that's not in great shape so that I can shoot and enjoy it without as much worry.
I stumbled across a Chinese Mosin carbine. Barrel and other metal components are in good shape, still coated in cosmoline. The stock, however, is wrecked. Dings, scratches, whatever. The issue is that the stock is cracked through right above the trigger mechanism. It's like somebody picked up the rifle and broke it over their knee. I'm at a loss on how that happened.
So my question to you guys: This looks like a nice opportunity to practice some restoration work. However... I'm not sure how viable patching together a cracked in half stock is. I was thinking maybe using epoxy to re-attach the two broken sections? Once that's done, clean up and re-finish the rest of the stock? Has anybody done that before?
Repairing a cracked stock on a full-power rifle, particularly a carbine that doesn't have a lot of mass, is always a stopgap even when executed well. You'd be better off getting a replacement stock.
But beyond that, I wouldn't be afraid to use a Mosin at all. If you own surplus Mosins, they have been shot and probably a lot. Being bolt-action rifles there's no gas system or otherwise fragile parts to worry about, and you would be hard-pressed to put enough rounds through them to shoot out the barrels. Just clean appropriately (especially if using surplus ammo with corrosive primers) and they'll be fine.
Aye. If you are worried about damaging the stocks on your existing rifles, just buy an aftermarket stock for regular use. They're just drop-in affairs. If you buy that beat up rifle you'd have to do that anyway, and be out an additional ~$300 for the actual rifle.
As for that carbine, it probably happened when the rifle got disassembled sometime. The stocks aren't terribly durable when the rifle isn't inside them. Probably happened whenever it got packed away in the cosmoline. Then whichever embarrassed peasant was guilty of it stuck it back in the broken stock and packed it away like nothing happened.
Regarding the DP12, they did send the correct paperwork nice and quick. So fortunately that got resolved. The other unfortunate thing is the gun store is booked through appointments till next week anyway, so it'll be another week or so till I can start the paperwork.
Yeah, pinning is the normal method for repair, but the viability depends on the action and the gun in question. A full-sized round like 7.62x54R, in a bolt-action system (no moving bolt to soak up recoil), in a carbine body (lightweight), is about the worst case for long-term survival of the stock.
The Chinese Mosin-Nagant carbine, the Type 53, should fit in a Soviet M44 stock. So if you can't find any T53 stocks, look for an M44 stock.
Cothonian wrote: Needs some thoughts on the potential purchase of a beater Mosin.
I already own two Mosins, but they are in remarkably good shape and as such I am afraid to use them (I put great stock in their historical value.) So, I've been looking to find a Mosin that's not in great shape so that I can shoot and enjoy it without as much worry.
I stumbled across a Chinese Mosin carbine. Barrel and other metal components are in good shape, still coated in cosmoline. The stock, however, is wrecked. Dings, scratches, whatever. The issue is that the stock is cracked through right above the trigger mechanism. It's like somebody picked up the rifle and broke it over their knee. I'm at a loss on how that happened.
So my question to you guys: This looks like a nice opportunity to practice some restoration work. However... I'm not sure how viable patching together a cracked in half stock is. I was thinking maybe using epoxy to re-attach the two broken sections? Once that's done, clean up and re-finish the rest of the stock? Has anybody done that before?
I did a resto-mod of a Mosin that was in okayish shape. The one thing I was looking for was one with a nice bore with fresh looking rifling. I HEAVILY recommend getting a new stock for your Mosin. It helps improve the cruddy ergonomics and felt recoils so much. My vote goes for an Archangel Stock, as it allowed you to use 5 or 10 round detachable mags, free floats the barrel, and gives you a Picatinny rail for a bipod. If you want a scope mount, Rock Solid Industries makes probably the very best one out there. It's a tad pricey, so if you would prefer a cheaper option for shorter range shooting you can get rails that replace the rear sites, which will work well for pistol scopes and red dots. A Timney trigger is easy to install and turns one of the worst triggers into one of the best, and adds a very easy to use safety, which helps. I recommend one from Witt Machine, however if you want a FREE one, I happen to have one that would likely fit your weapon that I can send you if you say please.
Respectfully, while there was a time when it was practical/economical to sporterize a milsurp rifle, it's long gone.
I mean, if you're looking at $200 for a beater Mosin, $150 for an Archangel stock, and $60 for a rail mount, you could just get a Ruger American in your choice of caliber for about the same cost and have a significantly better rifle in the end.
I'm all for buying historical rifles either for collecting or just for the fun of shooting, but I wouldn't dump money into trying to turn it into something it's not.
catbarf wrote: Respectfully, while there was a time when it was practical/economical to sporterize a milsurp rifle, it's long gone.
I mean, if you're looking at $200 for a beater Mosin, $150 for an Archangel stock, and $60 for a rail mount, you could just get a Ruger American in your choice of caliber for about the same cost and have a significantly better rifle in the end.
I'm all for buying historical rifles either for collecting or just for the fun of shooting, but I wouldn't dump money into trying to turn it into something it's not.
Wow, Mosins are up to $200 for a beater? Mine was in good, but not great, condition when I bought it 6 years ago for $140. I also got my archangel stock for $95 on ebay. A rail that replaces the Mosin rear sight for use with a red dot can be had for $25.
While I generally agree that the golden age of sporterizing military surplus is long behind us, there is still room for it. Especially when the furniture on a Mosin is all ready broken. At that point it's little more than a barreled action anyway, and since the OP all ready has it......
I'm honestly surprised that more people don't carve their own stocks. Seems like the sort of thing that folks would gravitate to as something that seems fairly straighforward to customize.
That being said, I imagine there'd also be a whole lot of terrible stocks in that instance, but still.
Hordini wrote: You guys make some good points about carrying a second magazine in case of a magazine failure. I'm considering carrying a second magazine more often just for that reason.
After almost 3 decades of dealing with US military weapons platforms, my strong suggestion to anyone using a firearm is to become INTIMATELY acquainted with corrective action techniques for that weapon system. S.P.O.R.T.S. came into use far more with every M16/M4 I've ever fired than I'd like to admit. I've also had to P.O.P.P. the 249 more than any sane person should have had to, especially given the fact that the M60 didn't even misfeed as much as the SAW.
When I finally convince my wife that getting my FN FAL is a necessity, I will spend about a week doing disassembly and loading/unloading drills before I hit the range with it.
The immediate actions with a FAL aren't that bad, honestly. Woot R1.
Most of the failures I've read about with the M16/M4 and M249 have been from GI's, the "spec ops" like Ranger and Delta seem to have far less issues. I strongly suspect the "lowest common denominator" maintenance. Guns gotta be lubed to run, not pass a white glove inspection.
While I've mostly used my own AK, I do have decent trigger time on AR's and have competed against them often enough to be able to guess which ones will fail. And it isn't the well maintained ones used by serious shooters but the occasional user who couldn't tell you the correct areas to lubricate.
Kayback wrote: Most of the failures I've read about with the M16/M4 and M249 have been from GI's, the "spec ops" like Ranger and Delta seem to have far less issues.
Regulars carrying them on patrol in sandy and dusty deserts have a lot more exposure to fouling than SOCOM guys going from the FOB to the AO and back in six hours. They're more likely to bang their GI mags into things and dent the aluminum shells, and less likely to be carrying PMAGs or similar polymer substitutes instead. And they're almost universally using older, more ragged, worn-out weapons than highspeedlowdragtierone operators with the latest KAC/DD/Geissele hotness. The 249 is being retired because there straight up isn't an O&M plan in place that can keep them running.
The majority of failures in the AR platform are magazine-induced- mag damage, worn springs, fouling- and there's not a whole lot that lubrication will do for you there. Lack of lubrication can certainly induce failures but I haven't seen that as a real issue with guys in the field.
Kayback wrote: Most of the failures I've read about with the M16/M4 and M249 have been from GI's, the "spec ops" like Ranger and Delta seem to have far less issues.
Regulars carrying them on patrol in sandy and dusty deserts have a lot more exposure to fouling than SOCOM guys going from the FOB to the AO and back in six hours. They're more likely to bang their GI mags into things and dent the aluminum shells, and less likely to be carrying PMAGs or similar polymer substitutes instead. And they're almost universally using older, more ragged, worn-out weapons than highspeedlowdragtierone operators with the latest KAC/DD/Geissele hotness. The 249 is being retired because there straight up isn't an O&M plan in place that can keep them running.
The majority of failures in the AR platform are magazine-induced- mag damage, worn springs, fouling- and there's not a whole lot that lubrication will do for you there. Lack of lubrication can certainly induce failures but I haven't seen that as a real issue with guys in the field.
100% agree with you here. I was going to keep quiet when I read the previous post because I've been utilizing these weapons since '92 as a servicemember, and the "facts" are flat out wrong in that previous post. It's amazing how many people seem to be experts on procedures in a foreign military they've never served in.
It really doesn't help that the AR platform doesn't have a bolt handle directly connected to the bolt which really limits your options when it comes to manipulation. Major failing of the overall design really. So many times I've had a round only partially feed, likely due to mag issues, but I can't just force it forward into battery or just move it forward and backwards slightly. I have to eject the round entirely and start over.
Absolutely no good reason the design couldn't have a bolt handle on a right side channel. The bolt itself is also long enough to keep the opening entirely sealed, so no worries about an open hole being an egress for dirt.
Grey Templar wrote: So many times I've had a round only partially feed, likely due to mag issues, but I can't just force it forward into battery or just move it forward and backwards slightly.
Since the result of forcing an FTF into battery is usually turning a small problem into a much larger one, that is working as intended. The forward assist was added to, in part, do exactly what you describe, but nowadays it is doctrinally advised against for that purpose.
You can still partially retract the bolt and let it drop home if that's all it needs. If it's FTFing because you're riding the bolt forward, don't do that. If it's FTFing because it's not properly lubricated, fix that. If you are operating the weapon correctly and a round fails to feed, either the feed geometry is wrong- in which case mashing the forward assist will bend the case and cause a much worse jam- or there's an obstruction in your chamber which, again, will cause an immediate stoppage, and the harder you ram the round in the harder it will be to extract.
There's no entry in the Soviet manual of arms for smacking the charging handle if the round doesn't feed; and none of the many operators of the G3, FAL, SCAR, MP5, or AUG seem to mind the non-reciprocating charging handle.
Just been watching Predator again. Not only is it a really good film, but it’s also really cold in England right now, so I can mildly gloat that Predators wouldn’t bother.
But, when we see a close up of the guns Arnie’s lot are carrying, the end of the barrel looks, well, really small and weedy.
You’ve got for want of a more informed description the “Phillips head” end to the barrel (which I understand helps will recoil or such). But in the middle, there’s what looks like a teeny tiny pipe.
Is...is that the sign of a prop gun designed only to fire blanks, or is it an actual feature of that gun and the projectiles are just way tinier than I ever assumed?
Quickly now, there’s gun ignorance actively looking to be better informed. And from a dirty socialist lefty too!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Quickly now, there’s gun ignorance actively looking to be better informed. And from a dirty socialist lefty too!
My dude, asking questions is all good, don't sweat it.
Are you talking about the muzzle of this rifle?
If so, that little protruding bit in the middle is a Hollywood blank adapter, built into a birdcage-style flash hider. The narrow aperture forces pressure to build behind it, which provides the gas pressure needed for the rifle to cycle. Without one of those, a blank doesn't build up much pressure (since there's no bullet to obstruct the barrel) and won't cycle a semi-auto.
Military blank fire adapters look more like this, because it's very important to know that nobody's got a live rifle during an exercise, and equally important to know that nobody's left a blank adapter on a rifle that will subsequently be shot with live ammo. Obviously Hollywood needs something a little more discreet.
All that said- .223-caliber bullets (as used by the M16s in Predator, but also the L85s in British use, and pretty much every other Western nation's service rifle) are actually pretty tiny. Rifle ammunition is typically lighter and thinner than pistol ammunition, but fired at a tremendously higher velocity. So the inner diameter of a barrel is actually only about a quarter-inch; not too far off from the blank adapter to start with.
Cartridges are usually described by the projectile diameter multiplied by the overall cartridge length. 5.56 is properly referred to as 5.56x45mm. It fires a 5.56mm diameter projectile from a cartridge that has an overall length of 45mm. 7.62x39mm is a 7.62mm bullet fired from a cartridge with an overall length of 39mm. etc...
5.56x45mm actually has the same bullet diameter as a dinky .22lr. It is significantly more powerful because of the higher velocity and, usually, a heavier bullet(depends on the brand and specific ammo in question). Heavier bullet+higher velocity=more energy. 5.56 is also in the grand scheme of things a weedy cartridge when you compare it to other intermediate and rifle calibers, if we are talking just the energy that the projectile has. The main benefit to 5.56 is that it has relatively high velocity and a flatter overall ballistic trajectory. This makes it a decent round for precision shooting.
Really the main reason you would use blank adapters at all is for safety. A blank cartridge still sends out high pressure gas and some wadding material which can still hurt or kill you at close range. Kinda like how pressure washers say don't put your fingers in front of the nozzle. 50ft away, the blank isn't going to hurt you at all. But if you're 5ft away, it could definitely still hurt you.
Grey Templar wrote: So many times I've had a round only partially feed, likely due to mag issues, but I can't just force it forward into battery or just move it forward and backwards slightly.
Since the result of forcing an FTF into battery is usually turning a small problem into a much larger one, that is working as intended. The forward assist was added to, in part, do exactly what you describe, but nowadays it is doctrinally advised against for that purpose.
You can still partially retract the bolt and let it drop home if that's all it needs. If it's FTFing because you're riding the bolt forward, don't do that. If it's FTFing because it's not properly lubricated, fix that. If you are operating the weapon correctly and a round fails to feed, either the feed geometry is wrong- in which case mashing the forward assist will bend the case and cause a much worse jam- or there's an obstruction in your chamber which, again, will cause an immediate stoppage, and the harder you ram the round in the harder it will be to extract.
There's no entry in the Soviet manual of arms for smacking the charging handle if the round doesn't feed; and none of the many operators of the G3, FAL, SCAR, MP5, or AUG seem to mind the non-reciprocating charging handle.
The option being there would be nice. I want the ability to firmly manipulate the bolt forwards and backwards.
Mostly its issues when I'm running my .458 socom upper. Constant jam city and I would like to be able to slowly move the bolt back and forth to possibly see what areas of friction are causing my constant jams, but my only option is a hard reset and hope the next round feeds. Halfway pulling the bolt back doesn't help generally, wiggling the rifle usually makes the .458 round come loose but then the bolt lacks the energy to actually seat the shell.
Hordini wrote: You guys make some good points about carrying a second magazine in case of a magazine failure. I'm considering carrying a second magazine more often just for that reason.
Kayback wrote: The immediate actions with a FAL aren't that bad, honestly. Woot R1.
Most of the failures I've read about with the M16/M4 and M249 have been from GI's, the "spec ops" like Ranger and Delta seem to have far less issues. I strongly suspect the "lowest common denominator" maintenance. Guns gotta be lubed to run, not pass a white glove inspection.
While I've mostly used my own AK, I do have decent trigger time on AR's and have competed against them often enough to be able to guess which ones will fail. And it isn't the well maintained ones used by serious shooters but the occasional user who couldn't tell you the correct areas to lubricate.
Most problems that people have with the 249 is because of age. A lot of them are pushing 30 years old with only barrel changes. You’re starting to see FCGs fall out; extractors break off; bent receivers. It’s also a mad scientist design that isn’t any of the things that make the MAG an amazing medium machine gun. The STANAG mag well is the root of a lot of it’s functionality issues.
If you investigated most of the issues US soldiers have with the M4 system; you’ll find the magazine is the cause in most of them.
Grey Templar wrote: I hate disassembling my glock. You need 3 hands to juggle it while you line everything up.
Really? I was actually impressed with how easy it was to strip and clean the Glock 19. Took a few seconds and required very little cleaning at all. I thought it was a remarkably simple piece of kit. Put about 300 rounds through one yesterday. I was smiling all the way home, thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Hordini wrote: Thanks for sharing the video, AustonT. Clint Smith makes some good points.
Slinky, looks like that was a great time! What rifle did you use?
It was great fun, yes
I had my "straight pull" AR15, this is me shooting it in a different CSR comp, you can see the handle on the side for UK legal reasons:
That's actually a pretty cool setup, though does it need a side charging handle in addition to the t-handle for legal reasons, or is it just handier that way?
Just out of curiosity, noticing that stainless barrel, what's it like getting and swapping barrels over there, particularly as they are controlled parts as I understand it?
Grey Templar wrote:2.5 months of waiting, but my DP12 is finally here!
Swapped the stock forward grip with something a little more handy, and I have a sling+iron sights which should be here next week.
You'll have to share how it shoots! They look like the ultimate videogame gun.
Vaktathi wrote: That's actually a pretty cool setup, though does it need a side charging handle in addition to the t-handle for legal reasons, or is it just handier that way?
Just out of curiosity, noticing that stainless barrel, what's it like getting and swapping barrels over there, particularly as they are controlled parts as I understand it?
The side charging handle is way handier and faster - These competitions vary in range from 600 yards all the way down to 25, and at the short ranges there are some quite rapid fire stages.
With the standard T charging handle you would have to move your head out of the way etc, whereas the side charger lets you pretty much stay in the aim, it's very ergonomic
Barrels are controlled, yes, but there's no issue having an existing rifle rebarreled, it's only if you want a spare that you would need it put on your certificate, but lots of people have that if they are paranoid that their barrel will suddenly go bad
Grey Templar wrote:2.5 months of waiting, but my DP12 is finally here!
Swapped the stock forward grip with something a little more handy, and I have a sling+iron sights which should be here next week.
You'll have to share how it shoots! They look like the ultimate videogame gun.
Planning on next thursday.
It is quite heavy, but it has very nice ergonomics. It balances right on the pistol grip so its not unbalanced if you are holding it with just the trigger hand. It comes right naturally into the shoulder and the cheek weld is comfortable. Perfect height for using the rail as a sight, or any optics you might install. The weight will definitely cut down on the recoil, plus the springs in the buttpad.
I do kinda wish the under-rail was tiny bit longer, even an inch would be enough. It is barely long enough to get a flashlight attachment in front of the vert grip, and you lose the ability to grab the first couple inches. Not enough to make it unusable, just not as comfortable as I would like. I might eventually buy a vert+flashlight combo somewhere.
I'll also say that disassembly is... not easy. You have to take the buttpad off(which involves 2 different hex keys) and remove the lower assembly to get access to the bolt carrier. They claim that they come pre-lubed for up to 10,000 cycles of the action, but that sounds like a load of BS. Also, taking the magazine caps off requires a blow torch to melt the thread cement, because they cement them on for some reason despite it being a part that bears absolutely no stress
Saw something quirky at the local gun store the other day, a custom Hatfield .410 shotgun pistol.
A Hatfield can be purchased at local Walmarts around here for about $90. Pretty cheap single shot .410 shotgun, but reliable from what I hear.
What set this apart though? Apparently someone was able to get their hands on a blank receiver and was sold as such. This means that as long as a stock is never attached you can put a super short barrel on it. Some rather interesting custom woodwork was done on it to make it look like a 1700's era flintlock pistol.
If it never had a stock on it it would not be considered a shotgun, and thus not a short barreled shotgun. But I think such a weapon would fall under the classification of an AOW since it would be less than 30" long, and thus be concealable. Unless the barrel is rifled, which would make it a pistol. Which is how stuff like the Taurus Judge is legal because its rifled, and thus is a pistol. If it was smoothbore it would be an AOW.
I would be very leery of the legality of such a weapon. Of course its possible it is a registered AOW, which would be fine. you'd just need to pay the $200 tax stamp and do all the transfer paperwork. But if its not, it might be an unregistered one without knowing more about its specific characteristics.
cuda1179 wrote: Saw something quirky at the local gun store the other day, a custom Hatfield .410 shotgun pistol.
A Hatfield can be purchased at local Walmarts around here for about $90. Pretty cheap single shot .410 shotgun, but reliable from what I hear.
What set this apart though? Apparently someone was able to get their hands on a blank receiver and was sold as such. This means that as long as a stock is never attached you can put a super short barrel on it. Some rather interesting custom woodwork was done on it to make it look like a 1700's era flintlock pistol.
Just strange enough to make me consider it.
Like the Handy-gun in .410, this would be an 'Any Other Weapon'.
Grey Templar wrote: If it never had a stock on it it would not be considered a shotgun, and thus not a short barreled shotgun. But I think such a weapon would fall under the classification of an AOW since it would be less than 30" long, and thus be concealable. Unless the barrel is rifled, which would make it a pistol. Which is how stuff like the Taurus Judge is legal because its rifled, and thus is a pistol. If it was smoothbore it would be an AOW.
I would be very leery of the legality of such a weapon. Of course its possible it is a registered AOW, which would be fine. you'd just need to pay the $200 tax stamp and do all the transfer paperwork. But if its not, it might be an unregistered one without knowing more about its specific characteristics.
Incorrect. A stockless shotgun (aka not-a-shotgun) is considered a "firearm" under Federal regulations and may be as short as 26 inches in overall length with any length barrel and does NOT constitute and AOW. The one I was looking at is 26.1 inches long. Yes, this means the "flintlock" look is a bit spoiled.
Just something I thought up: If one were to weld a picatinny mount on top of a single shot shotgun like this, and sling it under a AR-15 pistol (grenade Launcher style) it would make the most ridiculous Range ninja setup.
Incorrect. A stockless shotgun (aka not-a-shotgun) is considered a "firearm" under Federal regulations and may be as short as 26 inches in overall length with any length barrel and does NOT constitute and AOW. The one I was looking at is 26.1 inches long.
Again, see my example of the H&R Handy gun. Your idea has been done before, it's an Any Other Weapon.
Incorrect. A stockless shotgun (aka not-a-shotgun) is considered a "firearm" under Federal regulations and may be as short as 26 inches in overall length with any length barrel and does NOT constitute and AOW. The one I was looking at is 26.1 inches long.
Again, see my example of the H&R Handy gun. Your idea has been done before, it's an Any Other Weapon.
And yet the Mossberg Shockwave, which is a "not a shotgun" has a 14 inch barrel, and is 26 inches long and is NOT an AOW. So, yes, it has been done before (legally). The Handy Gun is an AOW because it is too short in overall length.
I just read through the ATF regulations. In order to be an AOW, a firearm must fall into at least one of the following categories:
1.A pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell. (Arguably you need two hands, so not a pistol, so this doesn't fit, by definitiond)
2.Weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading. (it's over 18 inches, so this part doesn't apply)
3. Any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
Edit, just ran over the local gunstore, as it's next door to me. They confirmed it is being sold as a regular, non AOW, firearm.
And yet the Mossberg Shockwave, which is a "not a shotgun" has a 14 inch barrel, and is 26 inches long and is NOT an AOW. So, yes, it has been done before (legally). The Handy Gun is an AOW because it is too short in overall length.
You left off the fourth category: any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive.
Mossberg actually published a letter from BATF/DOJ that explained why the Shockwave is not a AOW. All over the place in the letter it talks about how taking certain actions with it would make it an AoW (See above)
Grey Templar wrote: If it never had a stock on it it would not be considered a shotgun, and thus not a short barreled shotgun. But I think such a weapon would fall under the classification of an AOW since it would be less than 30" long, and thus be concealable. Unless the barrel is rifled, which would make it a pistol. Which is how stuff like the Taurus Judge is legal because its rifled, and thus is a pistol. If it was smoothbore it would be an AOW.
I would be very leery of the legality of such a weapon. Of course its possible it is a registered AOW, which would be fine. you'd just need to pay the $200 tax stamp and do all the transfer paperwork. But if its not, it might be an unregistered one without knowing more about its specific characteristics.
Incorrect. A stockless shotgun (aka not-a-shotgun) is considered a "firearm" under Federal regulations and may be as short as 26 inches in overall length with any length barrel and does NOT constitute and AOW. The one I was looking at is 26.1 inches long. Yes, this means the "flintlock" look is a bit spoiled.
Just something I thought up: If one were to weld a picatinny mount on top of a single shot shotgun like this, and sling it under a AR-15 pistol (grenade Launcher style) it would make the most ridiculous Range ninja setup.
Ok, I guess i was misremembering the specific length threshold.
You left off the fourth category: any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive.
Mossberg actually published a letter from BATF/DOJ that explained why the Shockwave is not a AOW. All over the place in the letter it talks about how taking certain actions with it would make it an AoW (See above)
This video highlights the majority of the pistol/rifle/aow rules:
Punch guns are AOWs, as are cane guns, pen guns, and anything else designed to be concealed (but not simply a concealed pistol).
Anyways, here's the tl;dr:
-If it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder, it's not a rifle or shotgun. (Note that once a rifle/shotgun, always a rifle/shotgun, even if you remove the stock)
-If it's not designed to be fired with one hand, it's not a pistol.
-If it's not under 26", it's not an AOW.
And that leaves the nebulous 'firearm' category as a catch-all for the weird weapons that aren't designed to fire from the shoulder, aren't designed to be fired one-handed, and aren't under 26".
Nowadays it comes up most frequently in two contexts: Pistol-grip-only 12ga guns like the Shockwave, or ARs with short barrels, braces, and foregrips. That latter category primarily exists because if an AR is manufactured as a pistol and under 26" overall, adding a foregrip turns it into an AOW and requires registration, but if it's over 26" then it's just a firearm.
And that leaves the nebulous 'firearm' category as a catch-all for the weird weapons that aren't designed to fire from the shoulder, aren't designed to be fired one-handed, and aren't under 26".
And, IIRC, are made after 1893. Since, apparently, firearms weren't made before a certain date.
1898, actually. Buy a Mosin from 1900 and it needs a background check, buy an identical Mosin from 1896 and it doesn't.
It's also only a firearm if it uses a metallic cartridge. Buy a black powder revolver and it's not a firearm, buy a metallic cartridge conversion cylinder and that's not a firearm either, but put the two together and you've manufactured a firearm. This means you can put a shoulder stock on a black powder revolver, but not one that uses cartridges, because that's an SBR.
Watch out, because state law differs. In New York you can own a black powder revolver on its own and it's not a firearm, but if you also own powder or bullets then it's considered a handgun and you need a pistol permit.
catbarf wrote: 1898, actually. Buy a Mosin from 1900 and it needs a background check, buy an identical Mosin from 1896 and it doesn't.
It's also only a firearm if it uses a metallic cartridge. Buy a black powder revolver and it's not a firearm, buy a metallic cartridge conversion cylinder and that's not a firearm either, but put the two together and you've manufactured a firearm. This means you can put a shoulder stock on a black powder revolver, but not one that uses cartridges, because that's an SBR.
Watch out, because state law differs. In New York you can own a black powder revolver on its own and it's not a firearm, but if you also own powder or bullets then it's considered a handgun and you need a pistol permit.
It's a pain.
Wait, HUH????? in NY it's not a pistol unless you have the ammunition needed to fire it, then it is a pistol?
cuda1179 wrote:Wait, HUH????? in NY it's not a pistol unless you have the ammunition needed to fire it, then it is a pistol?
Yes. You can buy a black powder revolver to hang on the mantle, but the second you possess black powder ammunition, it becomes considered a handgun and you need a pistol permit.
ATF doesn't care because it's not a firearm on a federal level. But the states have their own laws.
Anvildude wrote:Wait, so then wouldn't a punch gun just be a pistol, since it's designed to be fired with a single hand?
Most likely no, because while it's designed to be fired in one hand, there is precedent that being integrated into a glove makes it a concealed or disguised firearm and thus an AOW.
Not legal precedent, mind you- ATF only gives rulings on a case-by-case basis, so if you you want to know for certain, you have to mail it to ATF and they'll tell you. Seriously, that's how it works.
In PA the firearms laws are uniform with the sole exception of Philadelphia. Since they are the only 'City of the First Class' some firearms laws are modified there. The big ones that come up are usually related to licenses to carry.
In PA, city of the first class simply means a population over 1M. No other city in the state even comes close to that.
Got out to the range and put some lead through the DP12. The kick is quite manageable, even with some hot 00 buck. There is a noticeable difference in pattern placement between left and right barrel, so that is something you need to adjust for. Kinda rock left and right for each shot.
In PA the firearms laws are uniform with the sole exception of Philadelphia. Since they are the only 'City of the First Class' some firearms laws are modified there. The big ones that come up are usually related to licenses to carry.
In PA, city of the first class simply means a population over 1M. No other city in the state even comes close to that.
Pittsburgh, if you're looking at the whole urban area rather than just the 'city' would be one, at 1.7m (2.3 for the entire metro area) Philly kind of cheats since the entire county is also the 'city'.
In PA the firearms laws are uniform with the sole exception of Philadelphia. Since they are the only 'City of the First Class' some firearms laws are modified there. The big ones that come up are usually related to licenses to carry.
In PA, city of the first class simply means a population over 1M. No other city in the state even comes close to that.
Pittsburgh, if you're looking at the whole urban area rather than just the 'city' would be one, at 1.7m (2.3 for the entire metro area) Philly kind of cheats since the entire county is also the 'city'.
Considering no one in Pittsburgh or Allegheny County can agree on anything, I don't see them following Philly's example at all. Erie tried the same move a few years a ago and the smaller boroughs laughed in their face.
There are a few problems with that test though. Mainly because getting "authentic" medieval armor suitable for testing is difficult. Real medieval armor would have varied in quality greatly depending on the smith who forged it and what materials he had access to, all the crappy medieval armor wasn't kept around as heirlooms for museums to later find and preserve. So our samples of medieval armor is heavily biased towards the higher end stuff.
Plus the AC system that DnD uses is far too simplistic to really do plate armor justice.
Grey Templar wrote: There are a few problems with that test though. Mainly because getting "authentic" medieval armor suitable for testing is difficult. Real medieval armor would have varied in quality greatly depending on the smith who forged it and what materials he had access to, all the crappy medieval armor wasn't kept around as heirlooms for museums to later find and preserve. So our samples of medieval armor is heavily biased towards the higher end stuff.
You're not wrong, but it's worth noting that the third gun in the lineup- a matchlock arquebus- was one of the main reasons why armor fell out of common use in the mid-1500s.
Steel plate isn't particularly 'medieval' to begin with, either, only starting to reach common use in the mid 1400s, shortly before the development of the matchlock. The zenith of plate armor in the early 1500s coincided with the refinement of the haakbus (the second gun) into early arquebuses, which would have struggled against plate armor at a distance, but could easily penetrate at close range, and in Italian and Spanish use were supported by muskets with much greater penetrative power and effective range. At Cerignola in 1503, French heavy cavalry were slaughtered by Spanish arquebusiers and cannons, marking the start of a century of Spanish battlefield supremacy based on infantry-borne small arms. By the mid-1500s, matchlock arquebuses like the one in the video could defeat any practical plate armor at typical combat ranges, and muskets became unnecessary. By then the main purpose of plate was to defend against shot fired from several hundred yards, pistol fire (lower caliber and lower velocity) at closer range or in melee, and hand to hand weapons.
Knights encased head to toe with plate didn't coexist with man-portable firearms for very long, and were never proof against long arms. So... If you want guns in D&D, you either have to downplay their penetrative capabilities substantially, limit them to only the most primitive handgonnes (the first gun in the video), or accept that your fighter in shining plate armor is highly vulnerable to gunfire in a system that doesn't handle armor penetration or injury modeling very well to begin with.
They’ve got a video on Siege Crossbows (1,000lb draw weight!), which explained because they were slow to fire, it’s likely they would’ve held off until the Knights drew closer, ensuring greater accuracy and of course efficiency.
I can see much the same being true of these guns. After all, the Knights had to come to you, because that’s what they did.
If it’s mounted Knights, there’s all sorts to hit. And you don’t really need to penetrate the armour, just hit with sufficient force to unhorse the rider. With enough hits, whether or not they’re kill shots, the charge might be disrupted (especially if the Knights behind have to charge over the Knights to the front as they fall.
I’d be interested to look into what effect early firearms had on the horses. Any horse needs strict training to turn it into a warhorse. Add in big old bangs, whinnies of pain from stablemates and the smoke of early black powder? That’s possibly just as dangerous as the shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: There are a few problems with that test though. Mainly because getting "authentic" medieval armor suitable for testing is difficult. Real medieval armor would have varied in quality greatly depending on the smith who forged it and what materials he had access to, all the crappy medieval armor wasn't kept around as heirlooms for museums to later find and preserve. So our samples of medieval armor is heavily biased towards the higher end stuff.
Plus the AC system that DnD uses is far too simplistic to really do plate armor justice.
I kind of like that they use the same breastplate, because at least it offers some kind of benchmark and consistency.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They’ve got a video on Siege Crossbows (1,000lb draw weight!), which explained because they were slow to fire, it’s likely they would’ve held off until the Knights drew closer, ensuring greater accuracy and of course efficiency.
I can see much the same being true of these guns. After all, the Knights had to come to you, because that’s what they did.
If it’s mounted Knights, there’s all sorts to hit. And you don’t really need to penetrate the armour, just hit with sufficient force to unhorse the rider. With enough hits, whether or not they’re kill shots, the charge might be disrupted (especially if the Knights behind have to charge over the Knights to the front as they fall.
I’d be interested to look into what effect early firearms had on the horses. Any horse needs strict training to turn it into a warhorse. Add in big old bangs, whinnies of pain from stablemates and the smoke of early black powder? That’s possibly just as dangerous as the shot.
The problem with holding fire until the enemy draws close is discipline, which was the main problem for infantry of all types during the era of conscripted levies, and particularly an issue with early firearms. There are a lot of discrete actions needed to load and fire a black powder firearm, and standing in dense formation with lit matches, loose powder, and poor training is a recipe for disaster. Handgunners/arquebusiers had to be trained well enough not to blow themselves up while reloading, to stay in formation and trust in their pikemen as the enemy bore down on them, to hold fire until the enemy reached close range, and (later) to retire by rank or retire by file to enable volley fire. Pikes, as well, were weapons that required extensive training and discipline to use effectively.
The Swiss were the first to develop professional mercenary armies and saw great success with pike formations, but it was the addition of firearms under the German (landsknecht) and Italian (condottieri) mercenary systems, subsequently followed by the Spanish adoption of a standing professional army rather than mercenaries, that allowed infantry to finally displace heavy cavalry as primary combatants. The Spanish tercio was the quintessential early modern infantry formation, combining well-disciplined pike and shot formations to counter enemy infantry and cavalry.
However, heavy cavalry didn't go away- they updated accordingly. Lances were gradually replaced with wheellock pistols, and often employed in a caracole formation pioneered by the Spanish. Rather than charge the enemy, the cavalry would advance to around a hundred paces from the enemy, fire pistols (usually two, sometimes more), and then retire to reload and attack again. Once the infantry were sufficiently disrupted, then the cavalry charged. This saved them from having to charge into formed pike or eating volley fire from massed arquebusiers.
But these weren't knights anymore, as the feudal system was long gone; they were usually mercenaries, just like the infantry they fought.
Also, to answer your question- horses are terrified of gunfire, and desensitizing them was a basic part of training a warhorse. In addition to getting them accustomed to being surrounded and teaching them to trample, it was common to subject them to explosions, or even deliberately deafen them, so as to reduce their hearing sensitivity and aversion to the noise of firearms.
Edit: Oh yeah, and the inaccuracy of early firearms is often drastically exaggerated or overstated, to the point of being more of a meme than fact. 16th century arquebuses could engage massed formations at ranges up to 200-300yds, while muskets (bigger, heavier weapons that had to be mounted on forked rests to fire) could engage at as far as 500yds. Their operators- again, professional mercenaries- practiced marksmanship just as they practiced drill. It is absolutely not true, despite popular depictions, that they could not hit the broad side of a barn and had to wait until the enemy were at point blank before they had any hope of hitting, nor is it true at all that guns (or crossbows) were successful because they were easy to build or because just anybody could use one. Low effective ranges on firearms are most commonly attributed to 18th and 19th century conflicts and were primarily the result of smaller infantry formations (harder targets), irregular warfare (particularly in North America), and nonexistent training among conscript armies. So yeah, arquebusiers and musketeers were able to engage cavalry with effectiveness out to surprising distances, and this was one of the factors that pushed cavalry towards maintaining distance until the infantry were broken. I've got a whole rant about the nonsense pop history takes on bows vs early guns but I won't get into that unless anyone actually wants to hear it.
Also, you can't unhorse a rider with a bullet, unless they just fall off because they're stunned by the impact. Impact on the target is less than recoil on the shooter. People getting blown over by gunshots is pure Hollywood.
The "myth" of early firearms being inaccurate partially comes from a misunderstanding of the purpose of ranged weapons in massed combat. You're not actually shooting at a single specific target, that notion is a thoroughly modern idea. Prior to WW1 ranged weapons were used to bombard an area with projectiles. You only aimed at specific targets within very close range or if you had a specialized weapon capable of long range accurate shooting.
Yes, an arqubus isn't as accurate over long range as a crossbow if you are trying to hit a specific man-sized target. But it is just as good at hitting a general area with a volley of shots from a large unit of arqubusiers as a unit of crossbowmen will be.
You're not wrong, but it's worth noting that the third gun in the lineup- a matchlock arquebus- was one of the main reasons why armor fell out of common use in the mid-1500s.
Not really. It was more that armor was just too expensive. As armies became professional organizations paid for by the state as opposed to noble retinues and mercenaries armor was just dropped as an unnecessary expense. but still saw use for pikemen and heavy cavalry up until those units were abandoned entirely. Guns were not the sole driving force behind armor being abandoned, and indeed didn't become strong enough to make it totally useless till well after armor had been abandoned. It was more down to societal and strategic pressures disfavoring heavily armored cavalry and infantry. Large armies are easier to equip and train when you're just issuing your soldiers pikes and crossbows/arqubus and aren't needing to bother with making armor. the metal from that armor can go towards making more pikes and guns.
Lots of people forget that guns took a long time to become the dominant weapons. There was a good 200 years where guns were used alongside crossbows, longbows, and pikes in a combined arms period where there was constant push and pull between different experiments in what was most effective. Guns weren't so obviously the best choice until the 1800s.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, an arqubus isn't as accurate over long range as a crossbow if you are trying to hit a specific man-sized target.
That's what I'm saying is a myth.
In the 80s, the staff of the Styrian Armory in Austria conducted a live fire test on the early modern firearms in their collection. Accuracy with 1500s-era muskets amounted to about 50% hits at 100yds, but 100% hits at 30yds. That doesn't seem like a lot, but Italian crossbowmen of the era engaged even massed targets at no more than 100yds, and firing on point targets beyond 50yds was unheard of. Arquebuses and muskets were- if the soldier was up to the task- capable of engaging with greater accuracy at greater range.
I mean, these guns were significantly more expensive to produce than crossbows, required a greater logistical train, and required significantly more training. They displaced crossbows through raw effectiveness- they weren't just as good at hitting a general area, they were better, along with greater lethality and armor penetration. The same goes for the vaunted English longbow, which for all the mystique attached to it was outclassed and relegated to a militia weapon even in English use by the early 1600s.
Grey Templar wrote: but still saw use for pikemen and heavy cavalry up until those units were abandoned entirely.
Not as full plate, though. The archetypical knight in shining full plate was a battlefield element for all of half a century before the amount of armor started to scale back. By the late 1500s pikemen and heavy cavalry were typically wearing no more than a cuirass and sometimes a helmet. Into the 1600s it was common for infantry and some heavy cavalry- like the German Reiters, who used wheellock pistols as their primary weapons- to have no armor at all. It wasn't worth the cost and inconvenience (especially on march) once it could no longer stand up to common weapons of the period.
The abandonment of armor did not directly coincide with the rise of state armies. If you look at contemporary depictions of Landsknecht you can track a gradual reduction in armor over the course of the 1500s, long before the mercenary companies were dissolved.
Grey Templar wrote: Lots of people forget that guns took a long time to become the dominant weapons. There was a good 200 years where guns were used alongside crossbows, longbows, and pikes in a combined arms period where there was constant push and pull between different experiments in what was most effective. Guns weren't so obviously the best choice until the 1800s.
That's way too late. Of the continental armies, the Italians held onto crossbows the longest but retired them in favor of firearms during the early 1500s. As far as infantry composition, the Spanish and Swedes were using a 1:1 ratio of shot to pike by the mid-1500s, climbing to 3:1, 5:1, and in some cases as high as 10:1 during the Thirty Years War. By the time Gustavus Adolphus was killed in action at Lützen in 1632, the firearm was the dominant battlefield weapon and pikes retained solely to protect against cavalry. A contemporary depiction of the battle shows this well (see below).
When plug bayonets became widely adopted at the end of the 1600s, melee-armed infantry disappeared entirely.
I'll say that if you want a completely a-historic example of this time period and sort of combat, check out the "Ring of Fire" novel series by Eric Flint et. al.
It's about a West Virginia coal-mining town that gets flung back to 1632 Germany. (1632 is, by the way, the name of the first novel in the series- almost all the titles are dates, which makes finding them annoying as heck.)
That's where I first really even was made aware of that period of combined-arms warfare.
I can speak to the replacement of the longbow by firearms as well. The thing is, it is really not very difficult to acquire basic proficiency with a firearm. Put a peasant through 2 months of training, and they can be about as deadly as a longbowman.
In contrast, a good longbowman takes a lifetime. They can identify longbow users from just their bones- using one over time adapts the arms in very predictable ways. It's literally a lifetime weapon to get one to perform with the stats we see quoted.
Gitzbitah wrote: I can speak to the replacement of the longbow by firearms as well. The thing is, it is really not very difficult to acquire basic proficiency with a firearm. Put a peasant through 2 months of training, and they can be about as deadly as a longbowman.
In contrast, a good longbowman takes a lifetime. They can identify longbow users from just their bones- using one over time adapts the arms in very predictable ways. It's literally a lifetime weapon to get one to perform with the stats we see quoted.
That too; the English longbow design required such a lifelong commitment that English law outright required longbow practice for the peasantry. But I would caveat that most arquebusiers in European service were typically well trained and experienced, as the drills to march in formation, fire by rank and retire, and simply to reload a weapon with 20+ individual steps (while holding a match lit at both ends, handling loose powder, and packed shoulder to shoulder) took time. On top of that, equipment was self-bought rather than issued, so a non-negligible amount of capital was needed to outfit an arquebusier. Commanders in the 1500s/1600s hated trying to levy peasants- in addition to being difficult to make into effective combatants, they had no impetus to fight and would seek any opportunity to desert and return to their farms. They overwhelmingly preferred to raise their own mercenary companies for the military season (spring to fall), and recruit veterans when possible.
Anyways, to now execute the rant I threatened earlier: There are a bunch of things that annoy me about pop history comparisons between bows vs crossbows. One of the big ones is that the English longbow is a historical oddity, rather than archetypical for what a bow could do. The shortbows in overwhelmingly more common use in European conflicts (let alone those used in the Middle East or Asia from horseback) were significantly weaker, shorter-ranged, and less powerful.
Then you've got types of crossbow. You'll often see comparisons of rate of fire suggesting that longbows could loose something like ten shots per minute, while crossbows could do one. Well, practically speaking, that means you're talking about a crossbow with a windlass or other sort of pulley mechanism, and those crossbows had ridiculous power. If you look at the kind of crossbow that actually does get beaten by a longbow for range, like one with a simple stirrup or gaffe lever, those have comparable practical rate of fire to a bow. And you are not getting ten shots off in one minute with a 150lb warbow.
Third, there's a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons in effective range. While bolts generally don't have the same range as arrows for a given power output (due to their shorter, thicker design), a lot of times the range advantages attributed to bows are comparing plunging fire against massed targets (ie shooting upwards at a 45 degree angle) versus direct fire from a crossbow. Crossbows are less efficient about converting draw weight to energy, but once you start looking at 600+lb crossbows (military designs got up as high as 1300lbs during the Renaissance), they have more energy in the projectile than a 150lb English longbow and can reach as far or farther, while being much easier to aim, especially against point targets. More importantly, once a crossbow is spanned it has a reliable energy output, while archers lose their strength in a hurry if performing rapid fire during a battle. And one of the most popularly referenced examples of longbows outranging crossbows- Crecy, 1346- notably featured the Genoese crossbowmen crippled by their bowstrings being saturated in the rain.
Plus, ranges given for English longbows often assume the use of hunting or practice arrows; heavyweight war arrows (broadhead or bodkin point) had lesser range. In the mid-1500s Henry VIII mandated that flight (practice) arrows be used at > 220yds, while military arrows practiced at below this range. Ralph Payne-Gallwey, a 19th century author who tested surviving military crossbows from the 1400s, found an effective range of 300-400yds, with the longbows struggling to reach 300yds with military arrows in typical use. Modern tests bear out these claims.
Lastly: The idea that crossbows (or firearms) displaced bows because they required little training and any old jackass could use one has little basis in actual history. Crossbowmen, like the arquebusiers who followed them, were well-trained and highly-paid specialists operating expensive and mechanically complex pieces of equipment. They became popular not as peasant's weapons (peasants were accustomed to using bows for hunting; that's why they continued so long in English use), but as the forefront of the rising movement of professional mercenaries. And no, Pope Innocent II didn't ban crossbows; he tried to ban all forms of bows, jousting, tournaments, and fighting from Thursday to Sunday, with the results going as well as you could expect. In the 12th-14th centuries, the English paid longbowmen about the same as ordinary infantrymen, but crossbowmen (particularly Italian crossbowmen) commanded up to 50% higher pay.
As for why pop history says that longbows were superior weapons but crossbows or guns were cheap and easy to use: Because the Victorians loved narratives about the old traditions being superior to mass-produced technology, and the lifelong commitment and national uniqueness of the English longbow made it a perfect symbol. Much of the modern understanding of the Middle Ages (not just in terms of warfare) comes from Victorian scholars and is colored by their biases.
Ammo definitely can have an expiration date. See the Kentucky Ballistics SLAP rounds exploding 50cal. Most likely caused by old ammunition where the powder degraded in a dangerous fashion.
Particularly older types of powder can degrade as they age. Sometimes the powder becomes weaker. Sometimes it becomes more powerful. Depends on the chemical composition. Usually caused by the degradation of the oxidizing agent in the powder. It might make the powder burn faster(and thus be much hotter) or it might make it burn slower relative to when it was first manufactured.
If you're dealing with some old 7.62x39 ammo, even if the powder degrades to become hotter it is unlikely to cause such a catastrophic failure(though it is still possible). .50BMG is just such a big round that that much powder degrading to become hotter was a bigger problem than normal.
A good warning that if you're shooting some really old .50BMG you might want to consider pulling the bullets and reloading them just so you can be sure the powder hasn't become dangerous.
EDIT: Dear god it gets worse XD You watch more and move of the video and then you get to the part where he pulls his shirt down and its like "gak this dude almost died." That's some insane stuff. I wouldn't have though a bullet, even a big one like that, could blow off with that kind of force. Blasting the gun apart is one thing in my head, actually shearing pieces off and producing shrapnel is some holy feth stuff XD
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: With the pulling the bullets, I’m guessing that taking the projectile out of the jacket/casing.
Is it then empty and refill the jacket/casing and pop the projectile back in, or do you just reuse the projectile?
Casings corrode and develop weak points, powder breaks down and/or is infiltrated by moisture, primers can lose their sensitivity but aren't worth the hassle to extract from cases.
So if you have old ammo that looks fine (no visible corrosion), you can dump the powder, reload it with new powder, and reinsert the bullet. Then the only thing you need to worry about is the primers, but that's more of a functional annoyance (they might not trigger, or they might pop out of the case and cause jams) than a safety issue.
With really bad ammo, like the Turkish surplus Ian showcased in that video, the best you can do is save the bullets and dump the rest.
Also yeah that Kentucky Ballistics guy very nearly died as a result of old ammo. There's a tremendous amount of energy involved and kabooms can be catastrophic. I regularly shoot sealed surplus ammo but nothing with visible corrosion or damage, and I certainly wouldn't roll the dice on anything as spicy as .50BMG.
In the video I shared, WW2 sounds pretty obvious for being dodgy. But are we talking a few years, a decade?
Depends on the ammo.
Military history visualized had a good video on how ammunition type by material impacted the Wehrmacht's accuracy. (The wehrmacht had brass shortages which forced them to manufacture steel ammo which is worse for many reasons, including performance due to variability in material e.g. Pressure and of course rust, i am unsure in which video that was.... probably something about logistics.... or was it on his second channel.. )
Steel ammo probably will go dodgy far earlier simply because steel corrodes. Never mind it allready has for guns not designed for primary use for steel ammo worse operational capability.
In the video I shared, WW2 sounds pretty obvious for being dodgy. But are we talking a few years, a decade?
Depends on the exact ammo and storage conditions, so you basically have to do research. I shoot 50s and 60s era Soviet surplus all the time (stored in sealed tins) and it's totally fine; while the .50 BMG SLAP round that exploded was 80s/90s production.
Generally speaking, powder/primer degradation is on the order of decades, but it can occur in different ways so the effects depend on exactly what it was loaded with in the first place. Could just result in lower velocity, could result in hang-fires (where the gun goes click, there's a pause, and then bang), could result in your gun exploding and putting you in the hospital. It's astronomically more likely to just not work well than it is to blow up, and I should point out that the SLAP round that kaboomed is an atypical cartridge design.
Case degradation are usually more related to storage conditions. Ammo left exposed to atmosphere near the ocean will corrode in a hurry and could become unusable after as little as a few years, while sealed tins of milsurp will last forever. Note that if you have ammo exposed to air it's also common for moisture to infiltrate the cartridge over time and render the powder and primer less sensitive or potentially inert.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Steel ammo probably will go dodgy far earlier simply because steel corrodes.
Brass corrodes too, and steel ammunition is normally lacquered both to protect against corrosion and to facilitate extraction.
Soviet ammo was almost all steel-cased and was intended to last indefinitely in arsenal storage. Most of it still works fine today.
Not Online!!! wrote: Steel ammo probably will go dodgy far earlier simply because steel corrodes.
Brass corrodes too, and steel ammunition is normally lacquered both to protect against corrosion and to facilitate extraction.
Soviet ammo was almost all steel-cased and was intended to last indefinitely in arsenal storage. Most of it still works fine today.
Also true, however the germans weren't that thourough with their steel ammo....unlike the soviets which planned with it from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Gotta admit, I’m staggered that ammo can even be that old. Guess I always assumed ammo tended to be used rather than stored.
Generally, if the military budget is in question over here atleast, yes ammo get's used up, even if that means that the conscripts get to shoot 5 times a week rather than 2 or 3 times. Gotta make sure that the state pays for the next batch of ammo. Atleast it's fun going to the range though.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Gotta admit, I’m staggered that ammo can even be that old. Guess I always assumed ammo tended to be used rather than stored.
There are militias in north and east Africa currently armed with WW2-era German MP44 rifles, supplied by the Soviets, using ammunition that was made alongside the rifles in the 40s.
It can last a long, long time- depending on your tolerance for less-than-perfect functionality.
Not Online!!! wrote:Also true, however the germans weren't that thourough with their steel ammo....unlike the soviets which planned with it from the beginning.
You are 100% correct. All depends on how it's made and treated.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Gotta admit, I’m staggered that ammo can even be that old. Guess I always assumed ammo tended to be used rather than stored.
There are militias in north and east Africa currently armed with WW2-era German MP44 rifles, supplied by the Soviets, using ammunition that was made alongside the rifles in the 40s.
So sad we can't make a trip there to save those old relics. I'd pay good cash to snag and save a handful of those things.
Not Online!!! wrote: Steel ammo probably will go dodgy far earlier simply because steel corrodes.
Brass corrodes too, and steel ammunition is normally lacquered both to protect against corrosion and to facilitate extraction.
Soviet ammo was almost all steel-cased and was intended to last indefinitely in arsenal storage. Most of it still works fine today.
Also true, however the germans weren't that thourough with their steel ammo....unlike the soviets which planned with it from the beginning.
The soviets also stored their ammo in sealed cans.
Airtight from the factory so it will last basically forever. I've got a couple of these myself. Under normal circumstances its a good value for buying in bulk, though ammo of all types is hard to get nowadays. This sort of stuff flooded the market after the Cold War as the various former combloc countries sold their inventories on the free market to get some quick cash. And i believe that the Russians still make and sell ammo in these type of storage containers.
Not Online!!! wrote: Steel ammo probably will go dodgy far earlier simply because steel corrodes.
Brass corrodes too, and steel ammunition is normally lacquered both to protect against corrosion and to facilitate extraction.
Soviet ammo was almost all steel-cased and was intended to last indefinitely in arsenal storage. Most of it still works fine today.
Also true, however the germans weren't that thourough with their steel ammo....unlike the soviets which planned with it from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Gotta admit, I’m staggered that ammo can even be that old. Guess I always assumed ammo tended to be used rather than stored.
Generally, if the military budget is in question over here atleast, yes ammo get's used up, even if that means that the conscripts get to shoot 5 times a week rather than 2 or 3 times. Gotta make sure that the state pays for the next batch of ammo. Atleast it's fun going to the range though.
In every unit I was ever in, the mass expenditure of ammo at the range was referred to as the G.A.C., or Great American Cook-off. Burning up the 12 gauge ammo with the pumps was the most fun, I'd be handing back an empty shotgun while a full one was being handed to me over my other shoulder.
No luxury sooting over here, you get your STGW 90 (or variant of it) and the mags and you will learn how to hit a target 300m out without any help or so help me god.
Also an alternative before my time was sneaking disposal via lake.... yeah.... Conscripts do wierd gak mate. Conscripts do wierd gak.
Not Online!!! wrote: No luxury sooting over here, you get your STGW 90 (or variant of it) and the mags and you will learn how to hit a target 300m out without any help or so help me god.
Also an alternative before my time was sneaking disposal via lake.... yeah....
Conscripts do wierd gak mate. Conscripts do wierd gak.
I'm not saying that we don't focus on proficiency, I'm saying every now and then command decides it doesn't want to turn in any live ammo, or has been given specific instructions for complete expenditure. I remember one time they had tons of 7.62 belted that needed burned up and they pulled 6 M60s out of a vault to aid in the GAC.
Not Online!!! wrote: No luxury sooting over here, you get your STGW 90 (or variant of it) and the mags and you will learn how to hit a target 300m out without any help or so help me god.
Also an alternative before my time was sneaking disposal via lake.... yeah....
Conscripts do wierd gak mate. Conscripts do wierd gak.
I'm not saying that we don't focus on proficiency, I'm saying every now and then command decides it doesn't want to turn in any live ammo, or has been given specific instructions for complete expenditure. I remember one time they had tons of 7.62 belted that needed burned up and they pulled 6 M60s out of a vault to aid in the GAC.
it's not about proficency, it's about the "occaisional" lackluster quality of the conscripts and the clear point to just waste the ammo to maintain the budget as is It's also a joke about my time as a recruit... we had people that were unable even after 2 such weeks for ammo expenditure to not hit their own targets and instead shot the next ones to them.
Not Online!!! wrote: No luxury sooting over here, you get your STGW 90 (or variant of it) and the mags and you will learn how to hit a target 300m out without any help or so help me god.
Also an alternative before my time was sneaking disposal via lake.... yeah....
Conscripts do wierd gak mate. Conscripts do wierd gak.
I'm not saying that we don't focus on proficiency, I'm saying every now and then command decides it doesn't want to turn in any live ammo, or has been given specific instructions for complete expenditure. I remember one time they had tons of 7.62 belted that needed burned up and they pulled 6 M60s out of a vault to aid in the GAC.
it's not about proficency, it's about the "occaisional" lackluster quality of the conscripts and the clear point to just waste the ammo to maintain the budget as is It's also a joke about my time as a recruit... we had people that were unable even after 2 such weeks for ammo expenditure to not hit their own targets and instead shot the next ones to them.
Well, i'd rather go on ammo expenditure for 3 weeks in a row, compared to ÜW. (survival week).
also shooting is fun at the ranges and it did help with accuracy of some people to even be able to hit a target at 300m, others got the best ratings in the year, so it wasn't really waste, just the internal logic of a militia conscript system applied under budgetary pressure to use the ammo up.
In the video I shared, WW2 sounds pretty obvious for being dodgy. But are we talking a few years, a decade?
Stored away from air and moisture ammo is good nearly indefinitely. Some of the primers May degrade. I shot WW2 surplus 303 about 10 or 7 years ago with 100% fires. I’ve never run across WWI 303 but mostly I think that’s because ww2 happened and the commonwealth continued to use SMLEs for another 50 years in various nations.
In regards to KY ballistics catastrophic failure it seems pretty likely he got ahold of some counterfeit Slap rounds that were either overcharged (likely) or undercharged, Mark Serbu the designer of that gun and generally a good firearms resource anyway pointed out that the rounds KYB sent pictures of are not crimped. SLAP rounds are produced by Olin for the government and are always crimped. Mark talks about other nonsense in this video but it’s a good break down of the arguments going on on ARF and Reddit right now.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=na1Qo7FxDeM
Not Online!!! wrote: No luxury sooting over here, you get your STGW 90 (or variant of it) and the mags and you will learn how to hit a target 300m out without any help or so help me god.
Also an alternative before my time was sneaking disposal via lake.... yeah....
Conscripts do wierd gak mate. Conscripts do wierd gak.
I'm not saying that we don't focus on proficiency, I'm saying every now and then command decides it doesn't want to turn in any live ammo, or has been given specific instructions for complete expenditure. I remember one time they had tons of 7.62 belted that needed burned up and they pulled 6 M60s out of a vault to aid in the GAC.
It’s like 30% that turning live ammo into the ASP is a pain in the dick; it’s 80% that ammo is forecasted through the system whose name I no longer need to know. The S3 training NCO would fething MURDER you if you turned in 10 or 20% of your quarterly training ammo and then he/she could only get the amount you used last time and the unit fails to qualify the number of crews or individuals next quarter or year. As either the S3 or SAMT I would personally ring the life out of the officer or NCO that turned in live ammo.
I had a friend who was in the Commando (basically our version of the National Guard) who got me invited to a range day. Had to burn through an entire years budget of ammo in a day. I literally never knew you could get bored running a beltfed.
As for war ammunition, I recently went to a bullet factory here, the only one that produces .mil ammo in SA. They were celebrating a new order from the military. The first order since the end of the Border War in 1990. That's how much ammo was produced and stored then. In the early 2000s the Goverment dumped 3 million rounds of .303 that they couldn't sell to civilians any more, all WW2 supplies. They'd been a major source for sports shooting for decades and then all got dumped in the ocean due to a new law preventing civilians owning military bullets. Bullets our military hasn't used since the 60s.
Anvildude wrote: It's always been kinda wild to me that nnot having enough oomph in your charge can be just as dangerous as having too much.
Like, I know why, but it's still crazy.
An old guy in my club once had some dud rounds - He put one through, the 2nd blew his barrel to bits (thankfully all the bits went forward), yet he was completely oblivious and had to be prevented from chambering the 3rd round
Kayback wrote: I had a friend who was in the Commando (basically our version of the National Guard) who got me invited to a range day. Had to burn through an entire years budget of ammo in a day. I literally never knew you could get bored running a beltfed.
I had to explain to my last Platoon Sergeant why I rolled my eyes at being asked if I "wanted" to fire the Mark 19 grenade launcher. "I've cleared more rounds from that gun than most people in this unit have fired. Let THEM have a turn, I'm all out of HOOAH for this one..."
Even the P90 is of mixed effectiveness. It is good at what it does, but what it does isn't considered particularly useful right now. It is an SMG that was designed around a projectile intended to defeat body armor, the FN 5.7mm. So while it is moderately effective at penetrating soft body armor, its not really any more effective at defeating an armored target than any of the other amazing SMGs available in 9mm or .45. You're always going to be dumping multiple rounds into a target and your 9mm or .45 is still going to get through or hit parts not covered by body armor, and be more effective when they do get through because 5.7 projectiles are tiny and cause minimal damage(relatively speaking)
Until the very recent decision by the US to look into a new SMG their usage has been really dying. Modern assault rifles are able to do everything an SMG can plus more. SMGs made more sense when the standard service rifle was an actual rifle, bolt action or semi-auto or had a burst option, and you needed to sprinkle in a full auto weapon that wasn't an LMG.
SMGs have become a specialty tool for law enforcement or personal protection. Not really much use as a battlefield weapon. Especially if you are one of the armed forces that uses bullpup rifles, which eliminate the last advantage an SMG has over an assault rifle(being compact).
Honestly, I think the DP12 I just got might be the only really sci-fi looking thing that actually has a practical niche. Yes, it is gimmicky, but the gimmicks actually work and it offers a good mix of characteristics when you are looking at shotguns.
Semi-auto shotguns are finnicky things. Unless you are willing to shell out $2k+ for a Benelli, most semi-auto shotguns can only run certain ammo reliably. This is because shotgun shells can vary wildly in the gas pressure that the shells generate, and gas pressure is what is used to operate the gas system to make it a self-loading shotgun. The Benelli is great, but it is very very expensive and you still are using a tube magazine that at best holds 7+1 shells. That isn't terrible for shotguns by any means. Tube magazine shotguns are typically between 5 and 8 rounds in a tube.
Now if you want something that is nearly 100% reliable assuming no operator error, Pump shotguns are the way to go. Manually cycled action means you don't have to care about the power of the shells you are using. Beanbag rounds all the way up to slugs will work just fine. Usually they are again tube magazine fed, but there are detachable box magazine fed pumps too so you can potentially have more capacity. Though detachable box magazines are usually more common on a semi-auto shotgun. Pump shotguns with tube do have one disadvantage though. They are quite long assuming the shotgun has a buttstock. so they can be unwieldy.
The DP12 on the other hand has a good compromise for all of these points, with the only real problem being total weight.
The DP12 is only ~30" in length while still having 18" barrels. So you have a very compact gun while still having full size barrel length. It is a pump action so you have that as a reliable method of cycling, so any ammunition will function in it. You have a staggering magazine capacity, with 2 tube magazines holding 7 shells each(2-3/4" shells) for a total of 14+2. You have quick follow-up because you get 2 rounds to fire before the action needs to be cycled, so it is similar to a semi-auto in terms of quicker follow-up.
The weight is a downside. It is nearly 10 lbs, I believe over 10 when it is fully loaded, but this does help mitigate the substantial recoil of 12 gauge. and because of its compact design, pistol grip, and front vertical grip, it isn't unwieldy. I can hold mine out by the pistol grip with my hand full extended and it balances perfectly over it. It doesn't tip forward or backwards. This makes it very handy when whipping around to new targets.
And while it is definitely not a cheap shotgun($1450 MSRP) it isn't a $2-2.5k Benelli. But even with this, it isn't anything new technologically. It is really just two pump shotguns stuck together with a bullpup layout.
Ultimately, the reason most new firearms aren't making a splash is because firearm technology has really stagnated. Nothing new has really been invented since just after WW2. Nothing that has proved super useful anyway. At their core, the M4 rifles that the US uses are not much different than the M16s that got issued in Vietnam. You could take an M16 from just after Vietnam and slap all the modern doodads from a modern M4 on it and you would just have an M4 with an M16 receiver. At their core, the M4 is a 70 year old design. Just with minor tweaks to allow for attachments, different fire control groups for different selector settings(burst vs full auto or both).
Even the new NGSW trials to replace the M4 aren't any leap forward in technology. They're just bullpupping an M4 and swapping ammo to something a little bigger. But it is still pretty much the same 70+ year old technology. No, swapping the ammo casing from brass to polymer is not technological advancement. It is just a novel use of existing technology.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So when it comes to cool and snazzy looking modern weapons, are there many which are actually kinda effective?
Only one I can think of is the P90. Seems all the other sort of SciFi styled guns are wildly impractical?
The P90 is an 80s design. What's sci-fi? Not being snarky, just saying, it's a moving target. Is an AUG (1977) sci-fi? Or a Vector (2006)? I actually own an AUG and will defend it as my pick for the best bullpup, but 'sci-fi' is a very subjective thing.
I have to disagree with Grey Templar on a couple of points:
-5.7mm is much better at piercing Level II or III body armor than 9mm or .45. Against the contemporary body armor fielded by near-peer adversaries, pistol calibers simply won't inflict damage, even with repeated impacts- it's very, very rare to achieve multiple hits in a tight cluster on full auto in combat. I do agree with the general point that it's a solution to a question that hasn't been particularly relevant for a while now. Keep in mind the point of the P90 was so truck drivers and clerks could shoot back against Soviet paratroopers dropping behind Berlin. That's how old it is.
-SMGs are doctrinally obsolete compared to carbines, but carbines have their problems. Short-barreled 5.56 rifles really suck in terms of concussion, noise, flash, and reliability, and the significant loss in muzzle velocity limits range and greatly reduces lethality. Milspec 5.56 through a sub-10" barrel is actually more similar to 9mm than it is to 5.56 through a 20" barrel in terms of ballistics and wound cavity. Modern cartridges like .300BLK are, in part, an attempt to optimize for lower velocity and shorter barrel length, but they have tradeoffs of their own, like being ineffective beyond not much farther than SMG range. There's a general relationship where you have to design either towards short barrels, low velocity, and consequently short range, or long barrels, high velocity, and long range, and putting ammo intended for the latter in a compact platform causes all these nasty side effects.
-Semi-auto shotguns are a proven technology. Being tuned for a specific ammo type isn't a real problem; it's no different from semi-auto rifles and handguns being designed for a particular ammo type and either failing to cycle on weak rounds or being beaten to death by stronger rounds. Combat shotguns are designed for full-power buckshot and modern designs work quite reliably. Heck, even some older ones- the Browning Auto 5 and Remington Model 11 are over a century old and have exemplary records in combat.
-Pump shotguns are more reliable assuming no operator error... but that's a big caveat. Short-stroking pump guns under stress is a non-negligible problem, particularly for novice shooters (read: your average 18-year-old soldier). Given that semi shotguns offer softer recoil impulse and higher effective rate of fire, and theoretical reliability is the main thing a pump has going for it, that's a legitimate issue.
But the main reason pumps are still in common military use- and the elephant in the room for combat shotguns in general- is that shotguns aren't particularly militarily viable, so their most common application is as a specialist weapon. They're good for breaching doors, they're good for stopping vehicles (I enjoy checking out the racks of Benellis going through the guard checkpoints of US gov't facilities in the DC area), and they're good for less-lethal ammunition in law enforcement use, but by and large if you want to clear a building you use a carbine of some flavor.
Every so often the good idea fairy strikes some poor gun designer and they get the urge to design yet another full-auto or high-capacity combat shotgun. Jackhammer. Striker. AA-12. USAS-12. Some of them see minimal adoption in very specialized roles, but the most success these guns have had has been in Hollywood. It's the kind of thing that sounds super impressive, but in reality a double-tap with 5.56 above fragmentation velocity will kill someone just as dead as nine pellets of 00 buck, while weighing a fraction as much and being able to shoot out to about ten times the effective range.
The point about technology stagnating is spot-on though. The modern AR platform is the same gun it was in the 1960s, minor tweaks aside. What's changed have been the sighting systems used with the guns (an enormous force multiplier) and the support for additional accessories. A modern compact Mk18 is ballistically less effective than a Vietnam-era M16, but with a common accessory package can achieve much better hit probability at range, illuminate with a flashlight for close quarters, designate with a laser for artillery or air support, flood with IR to support night vision, and facilitate better recoil control at all ranges.
That said, the NGSW trials may actually represent a significant advance, because the calibers being trialed are not just something a little bigger. A little bigger is, say, 6.8 SPC- what the NGSW trials are asking for is a caliber with higher bullet mass and higher velocity than 6.8 SPC while retaining the same diameter, necessitating extremely high chamber pressures that a simple AR rework couldn't handle. The designs proposed so far are actually really interesting technically, like Textron's entry using a moving chamber on a cam track that seals to the barrel to fire. The fact that this is an actual iteration in small arms capability is the main reason I think this is actually going to result in procurement of a new weapons system, compared to every other attempt to replace the AR15 (all the way back to the 1970s) that basically ended in 'that's cool, but isn't sufficiently better than the AR to justify the cost'.
Changing projectile specs still isn't anything revolutionary. Its just a longer bullet with 6.8mm caliber that is seated a little deeper in the cartridge than what otherwise might be done. Bu deepseated bullets aren't anything new. Heck, the APFDS shells that Abram's uses are almost 1/2 way down the shell. I've seen .458 socom bullets that are literally seated 80% down into the shell with only a tiny amount of powder(600+ grain subsonic thicc-boi projectiles).
I'm sure the military will definitely adopt this new weapon system, but I think it is down to the ammunition and not necessarily because the rifles are anything special. The military has realized how anemic 5.56 is and they have gone into this designing a new cartridge from the ground up and asked everybody to make a gun that fits that round. The rifles would be just as special/not special if they were chambered in something else, but it is the new cartridge that is the center focal point here.
That said, the military isn't going to be dropping the M4 any time soon. The proposed contract for the NGSW is just enough to equip the front line troops and is rather limited in quantity. Reserve troops are still going to be issued M4s for the foreseeable future.
So I bought a Kimber Custom 2 a few weeks ago. It is my first 1911, and I cleaned and oiled it the same way I do my other guns, and it sat until today (about 2 weeks). Went to the range today, and the slide kept jamming as the round cycled into the chamber. First the range officer thought it was just me limp wristing, but then I let him try to put a mag through, and it happened to him a bunch of times. We could both feel the slide getting caught on something as it dropped. I used Winchester white box, and both a factory Kimber mag, and a WC 47D mag.
After a whole 15 rounds (took almost 20 minutes, and at least 30 F2Fs), the range officer suggested that I take it home, clean the hell out of it, sloppy oil the stripped bits, and let it sit for a while, then dry it off and re-lube it. I have literally never been asked to leave a range for safety issues before. All of my Kimber groups are telling me to just re-clean and oil it, and try to get at least 200 rounds through it before I ship it off to kimber.
If you have any other .45's, you could try a few rounds in those. You could also do a plunk test with the barrel disassembled. That might tell you more if you have any .45 that's not from the Winchester White Box. Either of these could tell you if the ammo is the problem.
catbarf wrote: Not being snarky, just saying, it's a moving target. Is an AUG (1977) sci-fi? Or a Vector (2006)? I actually own an AUG and will defend it as my pick for the best bullpup, but 'sci-fi' is a very subjective thing.
I just watched Dredd last night and the one thing to catch my eye was the sneaky placed AUG in the background for the SciFi weapon collection of the bad guys
the AUG is still a SciFi "themed" weapon because it looks different to anything else, even other bullpups, the classic design which was revolutionary by its time (like the integrated sight, or transparent magazine) are now considered outdated so the group of people who will recognize the design is limited
which is a reason why you see it in near-future SciFi movies
but if the question is to get something that works and still look futuristic, an AUG would be the first that comes to my mind
I've fired brass cased pre1945 8mm Mauser and while the ammo looks flawless externally on the inside there can be considerable corrosion of the brass. The powder however is perfectly functional and the later 8mm spitzer type bullets are awesome. I have know folks who have reloaded the bullets and powder into new brass. I still shoot 1950's FN contract ammo, tho I am always sorting out the rounds with questionable primers to shoot first. So far they have all been flawless in functionality.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: So I bought a Kimber Custom 2 a few weeks ago. It is my first 1911, and I cleaned and oiled it the same way I do my other guns, and it sat until today (about 2 weeks). Went to the range today, and the slide kept jamming as the round cycled into the chamber. First the range officer thought it was just me limp wristing, but then I let him try to put a mag through, and it happened to him a bunch of times. We could both feel the slide getting caught on something as it dropped. I used Winchester white box, and both a factory Kimber mag, and a WC 47D mag.
After a whole 15 rounds (took almost 20 minutes, and at least 30 F2Fs), the range officer suggested that I take it home, clean the hell out of it, sloppy oil the stripped bits, and let it sit for a while, then dry it off and re-lube it. I have literally never been asked to leave a range for safety issues before. All of my Kimber groups are telling me to just re-clean and oil it, and try to get at least 200 rounds through it before I ship it off to kimber.
Any other ideas/suggestions?
If it wasn’t under warranty you’d be polishing the mating surfaces. From your description check the hood and the end of the barrel for wearing from the slide
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: So I bought a Kimber Custom 2 a few weeks ago. It is my first 1911, and I cleaned and oiled it the same way I do my other guns, and it sat until today (about 2 weeks). Went to the range today, and the slide kept jamming as the round cycled into the chamber. First the range officer thought it was just me limp wristing, but then I let him try to put a mag through, and it happened to him a bunch of times. We could both feel the slide getting caught on something as it dropped. I used Winchester white box, and both a factory Kimber mag, and a WC 47D mag.
After a whole 15 rounds (took almost 20 minutes, and at least 30 F2Fs), the range officer suggested that I take it home, clean the hell out of it, sloppy oil the stripped bits, and let it sit for a while, then dry it off and re-lube it. I have literally never been asked to leave a range for safety issues before. All of my Kimber groups are telling me to just re-clean and oil it, and try to get at least 200 rounds through it before I ship it off to kimber.
Any other ideas/suggestions?
Its a possibility the recoil spring hasn't been worn in yet. My 1911(Springfield) was very stiff and didn't feed quite right till the spring got a little loosened up just through some usage.
You could try just loading up some snap caps and cycling it a bunch to get it loosened up. Sometimes my 1911 gets ftf when the slide closes too fast for the round to make it into the chamber, which I think is down to the spring being overly strong. The solution just seems to be breaking it in a bit.
How hard is it to manipulate the slide? It should be firm but not uber stiff.
I don't know why there is such hate for semiauto shotguns. Are the ones you guys looking at devoid of adjustable gas systems? I bought a DDI-12 (Improved Saiga) and it has a 4-positon gas adjustment knob that will reliably cycle anything from the lightest birdshot to hard hitting slugs without beating the gun up.
I'm not sure if it's actually semi auto hate, but when the pump or break action type shotguns are the standard measurement for ammo compatibility semi autos start to look cranky. Especially the box fed variety where ammo deformities when stored in loaded magazines or overall shell case length from one manufacturer to another can be an issue. Plus the expensive nature of some of the more reliable semis compared to their pump action counterparts.....ugh...
