I doubt a square slug or shot would really be any more lethal than a round one. It might be slightly shallower and have more tumbling, but I don't think the difference would justify the effort. The difference is most likely more cosmetic than anything.
cuda1179 wrote: 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.
Its more that it is inconvenient to have to adjust the gas at all. Especially when you have to adjust just to run normal shells. Its not like other adjustable gas guns where it might be because you are running a suppressor with some sub-sonic ammo and need to adjust for that special situation. Its just "Well, gotta switch the gas cause Ima shoot some buck". Plus its not something you can do quickly. And a lot of shotgun hunters find themselves hunting multiple prey at the same time. Like say they are going after both birds and hogs and are carrying both buckshot and birdshot. You're not going to be able to adjust the gas quickly if you've got birdshot in the chamber but suddenly you spot a hog and need to swap to buckshot.
Then when it also has a much bigger price tag to top it all off it isn't very attractive.
Really having an adjustable gas system is the exception rather than the norm. The vast majority of firearms are non-adjustable and in most situations you're not going to be using it even if you do. So when you suddenly have a gun where you have to adjust it whenever you switch it is a real downside.
Grey Templar wrote: Its more that it is inconvenient to have to adjust the gas at all. Especially when you have to adjust just to run normal shells. Its not like other adjustable gas guns where it might be because you are running a suppressor with some sub-sonic ammo and need to adjust for that special situation. Its just "Well, gotta switch the gas cause Ima shoot some buck". Plus its not something you can do quickly. And a lot of shotgun hunters find themselves hunting multiple prey at the same time. Like say they are going after both birds and hogs and are carrying both buckshot and birdshot. You're not going to be able to adjust the gas quickly if you've got birdshot in the chamber but suddenly you spot a hog and need to swap to buckshot.
If you're only going to be firing a few shots, there's little harm in tuning the gun for your lighter birdshot. It'll kick harder on buck but it'll cycle, and if you're not doing extensive shooting in that configuration you don't need to worry about the increased wear and tear. And you can get birdshot loaded comparably to the buck. If they're both 1-1/8oz at the same muzzle velocity, the gun doesn't care what shape the lead is in, they'll cycle the same.
Actually swapping ammo type is a much more relevant concern. But that applies to both pumps and semis. You can do a changeover quickly if you practice, but that gives you one shot. And if you have the time to empty the tube and reload, you have the time to adjust a gas regulator.
Or get something like a Benelli and it'll eat just about every shell you put through it with no reconfiguration needed.
Beretta owns Benelli and has for some time as far as I know. The 390 series up in Beretta; all Benelli Semis as well as Franchi and Stoegers are inertial. You don’t have to tune anything.
They don’t dampen recoil well and in light guns a 3.5” shell is straight up torture.
I’ve been watching you guys talk about semi auto shotguns and Unless you have some purely anecdotal experiences you’ll find most factory loads today will cycle through most semi autos currently sold and sold within the last 30-ish years. Unless the gun is SPECIFICALLY tuned to 3.5” shells it should reliably cycle 3 and 2.75” shells without a hiccup.
I’ve never really seen the need to shoot anything but 2.75s other than borrowing a friends gun to give an opinion so YMMV. Outside of going from standard to super magnums or trying to shoot half shells a SA eats almost anything you feed it unless it’s broken.
Its a kinda silly concern. The steel shot will almost certainly be softer than the barrel. Plus the shot is going to be largely cupped by the wad till it leaves the barrel so there will be minimal contact.
Even if its a post-war fake, that still makes it very old and very interesting. Plus its perfectly functional too for whatever that is worth.
A lot of concealed .22 weapons are really impractical and you might struggle to even see how it might damage anything. This one actually has decent barrel length, seems pretty reliable and durable, and its not terribly gimmicky in how you'd use it. Its certainly no Liberator.
I've seen some impractical guns, but that takes it to a new level. I think the guy in the video described it best when it said it would be "substantially more dangerous to the person wearing it than anybody else." Very hard to imagine what kind of niche something like that would fill that something like a pocket pistol or even a derringer couldn't do better 100% of the time.
The only way that is injuring anybody is if you literally press it against someone and fire it.
Which is of course the main failing of any of these gimmicky tiny concealable things, they usually have incredibly tiny ammunition combined with absolutely no barrel which means they have inferior ballistics to an air gun.
Most likely. There is a very long tradition in gunsmithing of making small complex firearms simply to show off your skills. Especially during the 15th-16th century during the heyday of Wheellocks, which are dizzyingly complex mechanisms. A gunsmith would make examples that were over the top to sell his quality to customers.
Interestingly about wheellocks. They share many mechanical features with mechanical clocks, and indeed the gunsmiths who made them were usually also clockmakers and vice verse as both involved very complex systems of fine springs and gears.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of quartermasters of the time? You see that, and you might figure “their machining skills are just what we need for mass production”
Would every service revolver be made to such tolerance? Not at all. But if they can that, they clearly know their onions, so their proper guns are likely more than up to snuff.
It depends on the revolver, but most are clockwise rotation during normal operation. When you rotate the cylinder out of the frame they spin freely of course.
I don't know of any revolvers that can change between rotation direction.
Revolvers turn depending on manufacturer. If you are looking down the sites Taurus, Charter Arms and Colts will turn clockwise. Rugers and Smith&Wesson will turn counterclockwise. I am unsure of other brands.
I post this here because I think most people that were interacting with the black powder weapon discussion in the The Old World News topic are also reading here (and it might be interesting for others too)
Son has spent some spare time improving our on-property firing range.
There is a mirror image cover board to the one in the picture, and also distances marked at 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 25, 50 and 75 meters not in those pictures. Also an archery area with 4 3D targets (buck, coyote, turkey and javalina) with thick rubber barn mat backstops to keep arrows from getting lost int he woods.
When I win the Euromillions jackpot, I’ll totally be bribing my fellow Dakkanauts with loadsamoney, and like, Lobsters, to let come visit and make use of their shooting facilities
And now for a slightly more educated Idiot Question.
I’m currently watching The Terminator (because why wouldn’t you?). And I’ve identified the shotgun Arnie picks up as a SPAS-12L, thanks to Wikipedia.
But what I’ve not been able to learn is what the hook on the end of the stock is for.
Looking at it through uninformed eyes, it just doesn’t seem to serve a purpose?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When I win the Euromillions jackpot, I’ll totally be bribing my fellow Dakkanauts with loadsamoney, and like, Lobsters, to let come visit and make use of their shooting facilities
And now for a slightly more educated Idiot Question.
I’m currently watching The Terminator (because why wouldn’t you?). And I’ve identified the shotgun Arnie picks up as a SPAS-12L, thanks to Wikipedia.
But what I’ve not been able to learn is what the hook on the end of the stock is for.
Looking at it through uninformed eyes, it just doesn’t seem to serve a purpose?
IIRC you're supposed to loop it over your arm to help brace the gun - this allows you to hold it steadier in one handed firing.
Yeah, its basically a weirdo brace thingy. But I don't think it would be terribly practical to use it for that. Its more useful just as a carry handle.
Yes, forces you to shoot from uncomfortable positions, and the colors match the target you are supposed to shot from that position. Boards obviously can be moved to allow different distances.
Going to set up cleaning/loading tables next I think.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m currently watching The Terminator (because why wouldn’t you?). And I’ve identified the shotgun Arnie picks up as a SPAS-12L, thanks to Wikipedia.
But what I’ve not been able to learn is what the hook on the end of the stock is for.
Looking at it through uninformed eyes, it just doesn’t seem to serve a purpose?
Hook turns sideways and then goes under your arm. Ostensibly for shooting one-handed while rappelling, or moving a suspect, or... something. I mean, there's a reason you don't see it on other semi-auto shotguns.
So, little backstory here. About a year ago my job announced they were doing a big reorg, and about 6 months ago, my job announced my department was liquidated and the jobs sent to India. Note: During this timeframe, my department was the only one in our area working in person during the pandemic because were essential workers, so the whole time we were coming in to work during the worst of a global pandemic without any provided PPE, they were actively negotiating to send our jobs away - class act.
Anyway, as soon as I heard I might lose my job, I started saving money, just in case. I wound up landing something somewhere else that worked out pretty well (and my dudes, I missed the reaper by about 2 weeks, it was a very close thing).
So now I again have a stable job, and I had some cash savings for in case I became unemployed. Most of that money I am going to invest or spend on home repair, but I did decide that after a year of psychic trauma I deserved a little present, so I finally bought myself the dumbest gun I always wanted but was otherwise too smart to buy.
Spoiler:
Pretty excited about blasting away the equivalent of half a pumpkin spice latte with every trigger pull.
I'm going to get it cerakoted once I feel comfortable with a detail strip, thinking black on black zebra stripes (yes I know that is a factory option, but they don't do the integrated muzzle brake in that finish).
A Deagle is next on the list of dream guns. Though sadly I can only buy one in .44 magnum here in CA(though I can totally do a caliber swap after the fact and just load my own ammo).
Found this little video that sets up a pretty good hypothetical question. I've been interested in a PS90 for a while (StarGate fan), but having one with a super-long barrel has always killed it for me. Introducing, the PS90 pistol.
cuda1179 wrote: Found this little video that sets up a pretty good hypothetical question. I've been interested in a PS90 for a while (StarGate fan), but having one with a super-long barrel has always killed it for me. Introducing, the PS90 pistol.
The factory barrel is anything but super long and goofy. Its just 16" and its in a bullpup rifle, so its gonna handle nicely.
But yeah, if you are anywhere in the US that allows PS90 ownership you can also SBR it after the fact. Much cheaper and less legally dubious than getting a new receiver for an existing gun.
And the way I see it, if you can afford a PS90, just save up a little more and buy a machine gun. FN products are absurdly expensive.
Sadly Iowa does not allow machine guns or else I long since would have gotten, in rapid succession, an Uzi and probably a divorce for spending 20 grand on a gun.
Ouze wrote: Sadly Iowa does not allow machine guns or else I long since would have gotten, in rapid succession, an Uzi and probably a divorce for spending 20 grand on a gun.
That’s kind of funny; a friend of mine has tired of his Uzi and wants to sell it. In fairness he bought it as an investment he could have fun with.
That makes me think, though: what are your guy's dream guns?
For me that list is down to:
Barrett M82A1
Uzi, and not that stupid long barrel variant, I mean the short barrel select fire stubby stock real Uzi
UMP45*
*To be honest I think I could actually make a pretty fair version of the UMP45 pretty easily now; I think you can more or less do it from a USC and SBR it.
I mean, you can buy semi-auto UMPs. They're expensive AF like all HK stuff, but they do exist. There is someone on GB right now selling 2 of them(as pistols). https://www.gunbroker.com/item/903760342 Sad thing is that a kit to rebuild your own UMP is about the same cost as getting a semi-auto version.
But yeah, a real version(full MG) of either an UMP or MP5 would be pretty nice to have.
I think in order of what I would have if there was no obstacles in the way,
1) T-72 MBT with working MGs and cannon
2) Type 1 AK-47
3) MP5
4) FG42
5) MG42
That makes me think, though: what are your guy's dream guns?
I wouldn't call them "dream guns", but I've long desired a Chiappa Rhino and a Kris Vector. Unfortunately for me, these fall into the "nice gun, but not nice enough for that price" category.
Grey Templar wrote: Well you could always slap that ZiS-S-53 on a Toyota and make your own technical. Gas mileage on those isn't bad.
You do realize that a ZiS-S-53 weighs 2.07 tons, right? It's an 85mm. You ever seen a technical that had armament comparable to a Patton? No? There's a reason.
I think the biggest gun I've ever seen that done with was a 75mm pack crammed into a Volkswagen, and it worked, or, didn't, as the case may be, sort of like a stug, so it wouldn't flip it.
That makes me think, though: what are your guy's dream guns?
For me that list is down to:
Barrett M82A1
Uzi, and not that stupid long barrel variant, I mean the short barrel select fire stubby stock real Uzi
UMP45*
*To be honest I think I could actually make a pretty fair version of the UMP45 pretty easily now; I think you can more or less do it from a USC and SBR it.
Nighthawk Custom .45 with mammoth ivory grips. Oh Lord I want one.
That makes me think, though: what are your guy's dream guns?
Scar-H and G36 (the OG one with the dual optic, as awful as it is, it's not like I'd be carrying it around much anyway xD) fat change of ever getting either here in Canada, even in some busted up civilian version.
Grey Templar wrote: Well you could always slap that ZiS-S-53 on a Toyota and make your own technical. Gas mileage on those isn't bad.
You do realize that a ZiS-S-53 weighs 2.07 tons, right? It's an 85mm. You ever seen a technical that had armament comparable to a Patton? No? There's a reason.
I think the biggest gun I've ever seen that done with was a 75mm pack crammed into a Volkswagen, and it worked, or, didn't, as the case may be, sort of like a stug, so it wouldn't flip it.
Well I was kinda joking.
But I mean, somebody put a T55 turret onto the back of a truck so anything is possible.
M60A1 would be my dream gun to own, along with the permits to be allowed to own it. My dream rifle would be a modernized FN FAL with a rail system for all those superfluous extras that I don't really like but occasionally turn out to be useful.
As far as pistols go? My P32 isn't anything other than a free home defense pistol, so I'd ideally like to find a .45 ACP in a platform I'm very comfortable with as far as grip, aesthetics, AND function. Still trying to figure out the best route there.
I'd also like to own a Makarov 9mm solely because of the Soviet era sentimentality. How many times I had to be able to recognize that from the Platoon Sergeant's deck of Warsaw Pact weapon recognition cards...
So I know most parts of guns wear out over time, because they do.
But how often do you need to replace a given magazine? From my limited understanding, they tend to be (possibly universally?) spring tensioned, with the downward pressure coming from the stacked rounds.
So as I see it, they should be pretty robust, though I suspect the top bit might be exposed to heat when the gun fires, albeit not that much, as once chambered the round should be lifted clear?
So I know most parts of guns wear out over time, because they do.
But how often do you need to replace a given magazine? From my limited understanding, they tend to be (possibly universally?) spring tensioned, with the downward pressure coming from the stacked rounds.
So as I see it, they should be pretty robust, though I suspect the top bit might be exposed to heat when the gun fires, albeit not that much, as once chambered the round should be lifted clear?
It depends on your level of use really; the more the spring is tensioned and released the faster it wears out. Other than that a magazine can last your heirs lifetime. The feed lips are pretty robust and as long as the follower or baseplate remain intact the spring should be the only maintenance component. Depending on the magazine cost some are simply disposable and some require maintenance.
My dream gun for a long time was the Carl Gustav M/45. It still is but now I own one and just a butt tonne of magazines. At this point I feel like I should build a Suomi just to justify the magazines.
I’d like a Holland and Holland double rifle; and a Winchester model 21
In my reasonable to attain list I have a Winchester 23 and the new model Python.
But I mean, somebody put a T55 turret onto the back of a truck so anything is possible.
I'm a bit surprised. That 52-PT-412D can flip an 18 ton vehicle from the recoil. Did they actually shoot it like that or is this just something that was found?
So, little backstory here. About a year ago my job announced they were doing a big reorg, and about 6 months ago, my job announced my department was liquidated and the jobs sent to India. Note: During this timeframe, my department was the only one in our area working in person during the pandemic because were essential workers, so the whole time we were coming in to work during the worst of a global pandemic without any provided PPE, they were actively negotiating to send our jobs away - class act.
Anyway, as soon as I heard I might lose my job, I started saving money, just in case. I wound up landing something somewhere else that worked out pretty well (and my dudes, I missed the reaper by about 2 weeks, it was a very close thing).
So now I again have a stable job, and I had some cash savings for in case I became unemployed. Most of that money I am going to invest or spend on home repair, but I did decide that after a year of psychic trauma I deserved a little present, so I finally bought myself the dumbest gun I always wanted but was otherwise too smart to buy.
[spoiler]
Pretty excited about blasting away the equivalent of half a pumpkin spice latte with every trigger pull.
I'm going to get it cerakoted once I feel comfortable with a detail strip, thinking black on black zebra stripes (yes I know that is a factory option, but they don't do the integrated muzzle brake in that finish).
[/spoiler]
l got the chance to shoot one of those when I was 16. Being smaller, and left handed, the gun jerked hard every shot, and the recoil drove my index finger knuckle into the slide lock. Every. Single. Time. It wasn't really limp-wristing, I was simply too small for the size of the bloody thing.
Now that I'm a bit more grown (and have a bit more experience), I wouldn't mind trying it again.
So I know most parts of guns wear out over time, because they do.
But how often do you need to replace a given magazine? From my limited understanding, they tend to be (possibly universally?) spring tensioned, with the downward pressure coming from the stacked rounds.
So as I see it, they should be pretty robust, though I suspect the top bit might be exposed to heat when the gun fires, albeit not that much, as once chambered the round should be lifted clear?
The heat a magazine spring is exposed to is never going to be anywhere near enough to actually damage it, at least if you're talking a factory made magazine. Maybe some hokey magazine made from some spring made out of crappy wire or something might be in danger.
The springs in a magazine are usually made to have lifetimes of 10k+ish(or more) compression cycles(a full compression and decompression), which is actually more rounds than what most firearms are rated for. Assuming the spring is never compressed/decompressed beyond what it is supposed to be and is never exposed to many hundreds of degrees that would melt it, it will last basically forever from a practical standpoint. The biggest danger to a magazine would be getting crushed because it got left on the ground or something. But for normal use they will last practically forever.
You'll wear out the barrel on your gun long before you wear out the magazines.
But I mean, somebody put a T55 turret onto the back of a truck so anything is possible.
I'm a bit surprised. That 52-PT-412D can flip an 18 ton vehicle from the recoil. Did they actually shoot it like that or is this just something that was found?
My guess is they put down those jacks to brace it. Probably functional enough as basically a mobile artillery piece.
So I know most parts of guns wear out over time, because they do.
But how often do you need to replace a given magazine? From my limited understanding, they tend to be (possibly universally?) spring tensioned, with the downward pressure coming from the stacked rounds.
So as I see it, they should be pretty robust, though I suspect the top bit might be exposed to heat when the gun fires, albeit not that much, as once chambered the round should be lifted clear?
It depends on your level of use really; the more the spring is tensioned and released the faster it wears out. Other than that a magazine can last your heirs lifetime. The feed lips are pretty robust and as long as the follower or baseplate remain intact the spring should be the only maintenance component. Depending on the magazine cost some are simply disposable and some require maintenance.
My dream gun for a long time was the Carl Gustav M/45. It still is but now I own one and just a butt tonne of magazines. At this point I feel like I should build a Suomi just to justify the magazines.
I’d like a Holland and Holland double rifle; and a Winchester model 21
In my reasonable to attain list I have a Winchester 23 and the new model Python.
Another issue with mags, and we used to see this in the Army all the time, was leaving the mags fully packed for very long periods of time. You essentially are putting the spring in a clamp, and that has an adverse effect after time.
If your mags are being damaged by being stored full, they are very very poor quality and should be replaced with proper ones.
As long as a spring is kept within its normal range of motion it won't matter at what point in a compression cycle it is. Properly made magazine springs will be well within their actual limits. Again, assuming the spring is properly made. A properly made magazine will not have the spring being compressed to a point it will damage it when it is full.
The only way a fully loaded, and properly manufactured magazine spring, could be damaged just by sitting somewhere is if it was subjected to extreme heat or cold that could temporarily change the springs elasticity. But that would have to be quite hot or cold for that to happen.
It is pretty much fully debunked that storing mags loaded can damage them, assuming they are made to proper specs of course.
Ouze wrote: So, little backstory here. About a year ago my job announced they were doing a big reorg, and about 6 months ago, my job announced my department was liquidated and the jobs sent to India. Note: During this timeframe, my department was the only one in our area working in person during the pandemic because were essential workers, so the whole time we were coming in to work during the worst of a global pandemic without any provided PPE, they were actively negotiating to send our jobs away - class act.
Anyway, as soon as I heard I might lose my job, I started saving money, just in case. I wound up landing something somewhere else that worked out pretty well (and my dudes, I missed the reaper by about 2 weeks, it was a very close thing).
So now I again have a stable job, and I had some cash savings for in case I became unemployed. Most of that money I am going to invest or spend on home repair, but I did decide that after a year of psychic trauma I deserved a little present, so I finally bought myself the dumbest gun I always wanted but was otherwise too smart to buy.
Spoiler:
Pretty excited about blasting away the equivalent of half a pumpkin spice latte with every trigger pull.
I'm going to get it cerakoted once I feel comfortable with a detail strip, thinking black on black zebra stripes (yes I know that is a factory option, but they don't do the integrated muzzle brake in that finish).
Good to hear you got past that scare, and congratulations on the meme gun. I've got one of my own, it's an objectively stupid thing but it's a ton of fun to shoot. Just be sure to brace it firmly and lock your dominant wrist- it really needs a stiff grip to cycle well.
Grey Templar wrote: And the way I see it, if you can afford a PS90, just save up a little more and buy a machine gun. FN products are absurdly expensive.
A little more? There are no transferrable P90s, and I don't know that a $6-7K M11 or a $10+K Uzi- to say nothing of the cost of select-fire rifles- really scratches the same itch, let alone at 3-5x the cost.
I paid about $2K for a Steyr 40th Anniversary StG-77, and it's been a lot more useful to me (carbine courses, action matches) than an open-bolt subgun would be. Still want an Uzi, though- I built a closed-bolt SBR Uzi for about $1K, but it's just not the same.
Edit: Grey Templar is 100% right about properly-made mags not being damaged by being stored loaded. That's common practice. Ironically, repeatedly loading and unloading mags on carry guns in the hopes of minimizing time spent loaded actually wears them out in a hurry.
catbarf wrote: Good to hear you got past that scare, and congratulations on the meme gun. I've got one of my own, it's an objectively stupid thing but it's a ton of fun to shoot. Just be sure to brace it firmly and lock your dominant wrist- it really needs a stiff grip to cycle well.
Thank you! I'm already thinking about swapping out the default sights, or installing optics, but I am pretty sure that's just sending good money after bad - I doubt I've really going to use this enough to justify any more investment (I don't hunt).
Grey Templar wrote: And the way I see it, if you can afford a PS90, just save up a little more and buy a machine gun. FN products are absurdly expensive.
A little more? There are no transferrable P90s, and I don't know that a $6-7K M11 or a $10+K Uzi- to say nothing of the cost of select-fire rifles- really scratches the same itch, let alone at 3-5x the cost.
I paid about $2K for a Steyr 40th Anniversary StG-77, and it's been a lot more useful to me (carbine courses, action matches) than an open-bolt subgun would be. Still want an Uzi, though- I built a closed-bolt SBR Uzi for about $1K, but it's just not the same.
Edit: Grey Templar is 100% right about properly-made mags not being damaged by being stored loaded. That's common practice. Ironically, repeatedly loading and unloading mags on carry guns in the hopes of minimizing time spent loaded actually wears them out in a hurry.
PS90, not P90.
Yes, a machine gun, even a cheap one, is 4-5 times the cost of what a PS90 would run you. But once you've surpassed the $2k price tag its not much further to a cheap-o machine gun like a Mac10 or something. Especially when your 2k isn't really getting you much beyond what an AR would do for you. Might as well save a little longer and get something special.
PS90s are cool, but I wouldn't say their coolness is worth their pricetag. I would personally just keep saving for a transferable machine gun of some kind. Maybe even consider dropping some of your retirement investments into it because MGs aren't a terrible option for that.
Ouze wrote: I'm just gonna say it: the P90 is a butt ugly gun, and the PS90 made it worse.
But it shoots fething lasers man! Having shot both, I actually prefer the feel of the PS90. The P90, without gloves, you can feel the concussion or something on the knuckles of the support hand. I think they changed the texture of the plastic too between the 1980's and the later PS90s. It is kind of ugly though.
Grey Templar wrote: Just saw this video again. Great illustration of the ridiculous durability of an AK.
It was a cool video but I feel like I came away with the opposite takeaway - you were seeing significant malfunctions after about 10 mags / 300 rounds. I mean, that is far in excess of what anyone should be doing in that timeframe, obviously... but ARs seem to be able to do much, much higher select fire round counts before they start having operating issues.
Grey Templar wrote: Just saw this video again. Great illustration of the ridiculous durability of an AK.
It was a cool video but I feel like I came away with the opposite takeaway - you were seeing significant malfunctions after about 10 mags / 300 rounds. I mean, that is far in excess of what anyone should be doing in that timeframe, obviously... but ARs seem to be able to do much, much higher select fire round counts before they start having operating issues.
Ummmm, there was not a single malfunction in that video. Not a single failure to feed, failure to fire, failure to eject, not even a cook-off. The only problem with the rifles operation was pulling the bolt back because it was getting dirty/heat expanding making it difficult to cycle it manually, with the added difficulty of it being too hot to touch. But every time it chambered and was then fired it worked flawlessly with normal operation. Every magazine was emptied without issue once it was loaded.
An AR15 under the same type of test(non-stop firing with no cool-off) would have clogged its gas system long before getting to that round count, assuming the heat didn't destroy it.
Grey Templar wrote: Ummmm, there was not a single malfunction in that video. Not a single failure to feed, failure to fire, failure to eject, not even a cook-off. The only problem with the rifles operation was pulling the bolt back because it was getting dirty/heat expanding making it difficult to cycle it manually, with the added difficulty of it being too hot to touch. But every time it chambered and was then fired it worked flawlessly with normal operation. Every magazine was emptied without issue once it was loaded.
An AR15 under the same type of test(non-stop firing with no cool-off) would have clogged its gas system long before getting to that round count, assuming the heat didn't destroy it.
There's actually quite a few youtube video tests of people doing just that. Mechanically speaking, so long as nothing's screwed up with lockup, it'll fire consistently without fail, no matter the gun. Having to manually cycle the gun does constitute a failure though, and a pretty drastic one too, especially if you're in the midst of a combat environment. Realistically speaking of course, you don't end up shooting that much in a single engagement continuously as well. The AK actually isn't as dirt stupid reliable either, as its not that hard to gum up the works if you end up crawling through some mud.
Good video to illustrate that an AR burning steel case can get to 800ish rounds before an actual catastrophic failure during continuous fire, and that failure is in the barrel and not the gas tube, bolt or any other part.
Grey Templar wrote: Just saw this video again. Great illustration of the ridiculous durability of an AK.
It was a cool video but I feel like I came away with the opposite takeaway - you were seeing significant malfunctions after about 10 mags / 300 rounds. I mean, that is far in excess of what anyone should be doing in that timeframe, obviously... but ARs seem to be able to do much, much higher select fire round counts before they start having operating issues.
Ummmm, there was not a single malfunction in that video. Not a single failure to feed, failure to fire, failure to eject, not even a cook-off. The only problem with the rifles operation was pulling the bolt back because it was getting dirty/heat expanding making it difficult to cycle it manually, with the added difficulty of it being too hot to touch. But every time it chambered and was then fired it worked flawlessly with normal operation. Every magazine was emptied without issue once it was loaded.
An AR15 under the same type of test(non-stop firing with no cool-off) would have clogged its gas system long before getting to that round count, assuming the heat didn't destroy it.
300 rounds in an AR platform at cyclic rates? You won’t see issues that that point. I see someone already posted an IV8888 video: he’s done several meltdowns on various priced uppers.
That dude slamming the charging handle back using the table isn’t a good sign. It means the bolt or oprod is binding.
Yeah, that AR was not mil spec, where it seems the AK was. First hiccup was on 3rd magazine when the bolt failed to hold open. The dude having to use some serious effort to cycle the bolt after sustained fire is part of the reason why weapons ment for sustained fire frequently fire from an open bolt, and probably contributes to the cult of the last round bolt hold open.
Open bolt is mostly used because it is a much simpler design, you can save a lot of $ by eliminating the complex machining that a hammer or striker fired weapon has. There are actually a lot of drawbacks to such a system which make it not ideal for anything other than an SMG or a HMG. Mostly down to the recoil prohibiting accurate fire because there is recoil impulse before the round fires in addition to after. It is also more difficult to make a weapon with an open bolt select-fire.
There is a minor benefit in cooling with open bolts, but in practical situations it doesn't really matter.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: Additional upside to open bolt, in weapons meant for sustained or extended fire, is the prevention of runaway guns.
No round being held in the chamber at action means no chance of a cookoff causing an unintended burst.
Well, yes, a round can't cook off in an open bolt. But you have the risk, without specific safety features in place, of a physical bump to the gun causing it to set off a burst. Yes, all modern open bolt guns have these features, but many of the original ones did not. Or had very basic ones that an inexperienced user could ignore.
Any open bolt gun without the safety engaged is a much greater risk then a closed bolt firearm in terms of negligent discharge. Closed bolt guns generally can't go off if you just drop them, open bolt guns totally can, assuming the safeties are not engaged. So there is an extra safety hazard.
You take an original Uzi prior to them adding safety features to prevent this and throw it down the stairs and you will probably have it mag dump by itself. Even simply falling over from being propped against a wall was known to set them off.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: Additional upside to open bolt, in weapons meant for sustained or extended fire, is the prevention of runaway guns.
No round being held in the chamber at action means no chance of a cookoff causing an unintended burst.
Well, yes, a round can't cook off in an open bolt. But you have the risk, without specific safety features in place, of a physical bump to the gun causing it to set off a burst. Yes, all modern open bolt guns have these features, but many of the original ones did not. Or had very basic ones that an inexperienced user could ignore.
Any open bolt gun without the safety engaged is a much greater risk then a closed bolt firearm in terms of negligent discharge. Closed bolt guns generally can't go off if you just drop them, open bolt guns totally can, assuming the safeties are not engaged. So there is an extra safety hazard.
You take an original Uzi prior to them adding safety features to prevent this and throw it down the stairs and you will probably have it mag dump by itself. Even simply falling over from being propped against a wall was known to set them off.
Not disagreeing, and yes, early gun, the odds of a physical bump causing a runaway was much greater then a cook off. Nowadays, though, with those safety features, the probability's reversed. Even knocking them around pretty damn hard isn't likely to set them off - combat's not exactly kid gloved, they get thrown around. Cook offs, though? Everyone's had a few. Weapon fails to cycle, pop the lid, bang. And a runaway gun is a huge safety issue - no one wants your LSW suddenly dumping a dozen rounds before the gunner can snap the belt. Even with muzzle awareness, that's an additional hazard that people go to great lengths to avoid.
Been watching The Walking Dead Season 10. And am on the main story finale.
See when The Horde is approaching? I’m wondering how effective two, three maybe four of the mini guns out of Predator might’ve been?
I ask because my only knowledge of such weapons is from pop culture. And my question is tied to another pop culture source.
In theory? Whilst they may not outright kill many zombies (unless somehow fixed to average height for the business end), they’d still make a pretty decent mess, and turn most Whisperers lurking among The Horde into either soup, mist or shrieking Zombie chow.
I’m guessing against such a slow moving and densely packed target environment, they’d be great. But I’m also wondering what their penetration power is. Would each round only shred the first, second and third zombie in its path?
Some extrapolation may be required on account of rotten meat. But I’m interested to hear about it nonetheless.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Been watching The Walking Dead Season 10. And am on the main story finale.
See when The Horde is approaching? I’m wondering how effective two, three maybe four of the mini guns out of Predator might’ve been?
I ask because my only knowledge of such weapons is from pop culture. And my question is tied to another pop culture source.
In theory? Whilst they may not outright kill many zombies (unless somehow fixed to average height for the business end), they’d still make a pretty decent mess, and turn most Whisperers lurking among The Horde into either soup, mist or shrieking Zombie chow.
I’m guessing against such a slow moving and densely packed target environment, they’d be great. But I’m also wondering what their penetration power is. Would each round only shred the first, second and third zombie in its path?
Some extrapolation may be required on account of rotten meat. But I’m interested to hear about it nonetheless.
As set up in Predator, not great. They actually had that EXACT weapon on a show called Hollywood Weapons. Even firing blanks creates so much recoil that a well-built man with military training was not able to hold himself up, let alone keep it on target. Real ammo would be MUCH worse. Even if you put it on a swivel mount, the average round is just a .308/7.62x51mm full metal jacket. Yeah, it might penetrate 3 zombies deep, and possibly chop them off horizontally at the sweep line. Going to use A LOT of ammo though.
Realistically, I'd go with Molotovs and pipe bombs with lots of shrapnel. Not going to do much to the horde, but still a lot more likely to make a Whisperer go running when they aren't in the front ranks.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Been watching The Walking Dead Season 10. And am on the main story finale.
See when The Horde is approaching? I’m wondering how effective two, three maybe four of the mini guns out of Predator might’ve been?
I ask because my only knowledge of such weapons is from pop culture. And my question is tied to another pop culture source.
In theory? Whilst they may not outright kill many zombies (unless somehow fixed to average height for the business end), they’d still make a pretty decent mess, and turn most Whisperers lurking among The Horde into either soup, mist or shrieking Zombie chow.
I’m guessing against such a slow moving and densely packed target environment, they’d be great. But I’m also wondering what their penetration power is. Would each round only shred the first, second and third zombie in its path?
Some extrapolation may be required on account of rotten meat. But I’m interested to hear about it nonetheless.
I'd think the main problem with such weapons in a post-apocalyptic scenario would be how wasteful they are in ammo. That thing fires like thousands of rounds per minute and maintaining a supply to keep up with that would be difficult I imagine. Not to mention carrying it all around.
If you somehow did have the resources to set up several of those weapons, I'd imagine they'd be really effective though. The zombies would basically just be turned into a pulp. But again, the problem would probably that you'd run out of ammo before you'd run out of zombies.
As set up in Predator, not great. They actually had that EXACT weapon on a show called Hollywood Weapons. Even firing blanks creates so much recoil that a well-built man with military training was not able to hold himself up, let alone keep it on target. Real ammo would be MUCH worse. Even if you put it on a swivel mount, the average round is just a .308/7.62x51mm full metal jacket. Yeah, it might penetrate 3 zombies deep, and possibly chop them off horizontally at the sweep line. Going to use A LOT of ammo though.
Realistically, I'd go with Molotovs and pipe bombs with lots of shrapnel. Not going to do much to the horde, but still a lot more likely to make a Whisperer go running when they aren't in the front ranks.
Yeah, the M134 would be good, just, not as they did it in Predator. Now, if they were to mount it in an old DC 3, however....
That said,if you want to take Gatling guns to zombies, might I suggest...
Our buddy, the GAU-8. If there were ever a weapon system you felt the urge to buy a beer afterwards, this is it. No matter what flavor your zombies come in, fast, slow, exploding, mutating, hyper muscular or armored (particularly armored) this bad boy will turn them to virulent goo. To make extra sure, the same A-10 platform also supports delivery systems for napalm and white phosphorus. Because you can never be too sure when dealing with the undead.
Mini-guns have horrendous recoil due to being chambered in full rifle calibers. They absolutely cannot be carried and used by a person both because of recoil and how much ammo you need to have to operate them. They are definitely a vehicle only weapon system. They gotta be bolted down to something substantial that can also carry the 5000+ rounds you'd need to fire it a useful amount.
Now, there is something new that is man-portable. The XM556 Microgun.
Its basically a mini-gun scaled down to 5.56, same round used by M4s and AR15s. The makes the recoil manageable, though still definitely substantial, and you still eat ammo like crazy.
In theory, you could have a backpack ammo feed system with a couple thousand rounds in it. But you would have at best a few seconds of fire and you'd be dumping multiple rounds per target. Not exactly the best kill per bullet ratio you'd want in a zombie appocalypse. I'd rather have an MG3, adjustable rof is nice.
In a maximum density zombie crowd, you would definitely be penetrating multiple bodies. Potentially up to 5-6 or even more. The issue is that each zombie would be getting hit by multiple bullets, so you are kinda wasting a lot of your shots. A bunch of dudes with select fire rifles, most being used in semi-auto, would be more efficient. You can space your shots out and make them count, and maybe use full auto occasionally to clear them out if you're getting too close.
Something like this would be more useful vs zombies.
A controllable rate of fire, you can vary how fast or slow you fire so you can be selective where you dump your shots.
On the penetration issue, and I’m pretty sure we’re diving into “who knows”…
But given Zombies in the Walking Dead can have their skulls smooshed with just a single stomp, or a few swings of a flimsy door, we can reasonably assume their overall body integrity is compromised.
So I’m wondering if a single gut shot would cause enough damage to barely trouble the next round?
Grey Templar wrote: Just saw this video again. Great illustration of the ridiculous durability of an AK.
It was a cool video but I feel like I came away with the opposite takeaway - you were seeing significant malfunctions after about 10 mags / 300 rounds. I mean, that is far in excess of what anyone should be doing in that timeframe, obviously... but ARs seem to be able to do much, much higher select fire round counts before they start having operating issues.
Ummmm, there was not a single malfunction in that video. Not a single failure to feed, failure to fire, failure to eject, not even a cook-off.
That's because you are artificially redefining "malfunction" to only include the point a round has been chambered. By the 10th mag, it was no longer possible to normally charge the rifle, and to me, that is a malfunction - if you have to mortar it to load it, that is not normal operation in my book, and I was surprised it happened to early on. I would have expected a much higher round count before that became a problem.
Grey Templar wrote: You take an original Uzi prior to them adding safety features to prevent this and throw it down the stairs and you will probably have it mag dump by itself. Even simply falling over from being propped against a wall was known to set them off.
Honestly? That just makes me want the dangerous bad boy of the firearms world that much more.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the penetration issue, and I’m pretty sure we’re diving into “who knows”…
But given Zombies in the Walking Dead can have their skulls smooshed with just a single stomp, or a few swings of a flimsy door, we can reasonably assume their overall body integrity is compromised.
So I’m wondering if a single gut shot would cause enough damage to barely trouble the next round?
As evidenced by episode 1 of the walking dead, the zombies can definitely survive everything short of their heads being destroyed, but a zombie with no functioning legs or arms is pretty much a non-issue. Can't bite you if it can't catch you.
So in theory as long as their ability to walk/crawl is eliminated/severely hampered you can safely wait for the zombie to rot away.
This would really be what ends a zombie appocalypse before humanity got wiped out. The zombies would start rotting away to immobilization before they got everybody. So really you'd have at most a month or so to worry about it. After that any remaining zombies would just be angrily twitching on the ground trying to bite your ankles as they would lack any leg or arm muscles.
This is of course assuming the zombies rely on actual biological processes to move their bodies. IE: They still have to send nerve impulses to their muscles to move. If their limbs are moved by magic, nothing short of total dismemberment will suffice.
Battlebots. Get yourself a full-body spinner, and just start turning zombies into meat slurry.
Also, on that microgun- First off, neat. But the attitudes of some of the people in that video are... concerning. First off, it's not 'revolutionary', Mr. person. It's fun, or cool, or possibly concerning. It's a miniaturized miniaturized rotary cannon.
Second... Why are these available to the police? In what situation could you POSSIBLY imagine police officers needing this!? Military I could see- with a fire/speed control, that could work as a useful man-portable area denial platform. But Law Enforcement?
Second... Why are these available to the police? In what situation could you POSSIBLY imagine police officers needing this!? Military I could see- with a fire/speed control, that could work as a useful man-portable area denial platform. But Law Enforcement?
This situation:
Remember, the police don't always have the superior firepower or equipment. This vehicle was seized by Mexican police.
Well, the microgun might not do much if that vehicle is 5.56 resistant.
Anvildude wrote: Battlebots. Get yourself a full-body spinner, and just start turning zombies into meat slurry.
Also, on that microgun- First off, neat. But the attitudes of some of the people in that video are... concerning. First off, it's not 'revolutionary', Mr. person. It's fun, or cool, or possibly concerning. It's a miniaturized miniaturized rotary cannon.
Second... Why are these available to the police? In what situation could you POSSIBLY imagine police officers needing this!? Military I could see- with a fire/speed control, that could work as a useful man-portable area denial platform. But Law Enforcement?
Well, they should be available to everybody IMO. No special treatment for anybody, level playing field. I need something for my Terminator Sergeant Cosplay!
That said, I doubt any US police department would actually buy that microgun. That thing is going to be way outside the budget of most departments, and even those that could afford it from their size would still find it tough to justify. Most of the high end toys that US police get are surplus that the military just gives away instead of scrapping, they rarely actually outright buy the expensive stuff.
The manufacturer of that weapon is probably just desperately trying to drum up any interest in purchase, so they're not going to limit their sales market artificially, but outside of actual military they are probably out of luck.
Grey Templar wrote: It is also more difficult to make a weapon with an open bolt select-fire.
How so? With a typical hammer-fired closed-bolt system you need an additional sear to release the hammer when the bolt is in battery, and a mechanism on the selector to cam the disconnector out of operation when set to full-auto. With an open-bolt system, the typical method is to have a disconnector which simply bumps the trigger sear out of alignment and thus releases the main sear. Check out how simple the fire control is on the Sten for an example. Another method is for the trigger to operate directly on the main sear, but at an angle such that it slips off and releases it at the end of travel- fire selection then is just a matter of limiting the trigger to half-travel for full-auto, so it keeps the sear down without slipping off.
I would actually argue it's easier to make an open-bolt system select-fire than a closed-bolt one- the fact that firing is tied to bolt closure gets rid of all those nasty issues with debounce or hammer follow; you can use a fixed or cam-actuated firing pin and avoid dealing with a hammer or separate striker altogether.
Grey Templar wrote: There is a minor benefit in cooling with open bolts, but in practical situations it doesn't really matter.
The test reports I've seen for the Diemaco LSW suggest otherwise; Diemaco offers the gun in both open-bolt and closed-bolt configurations, and the former is much better at sustained fire. I'll have to see if I can find it on the Internet. It's the airflow through an open action that makes a difference; same reason barrels cool faster out of the gun than in it.
Not directly related to cooling per se, but the risk of cook-off also gives closed-bolt guns a lower tolerance for heat than open-bolt ones. So you can run an open-bolt gun to a higher temperature and thus get more shots between barrel changes being needed.
There's also the benefit for blowback-operated guns of preignition, which is where open-bolt guns are generally designed to fire just before the bolt is fully in battery. This forces the recoil impulse to first cancel the forward travel of the bolt before it can accelerate rearwards, and in practical effect lets you build a safe blowback-operated firearm with much lower bolt mass. It's actually a common issue on closed-bolt conversions of semi-auto subguns to have bulged cases or potentially even safety issues because they're extracting sooner than intended- PPS-43s in particular do this badly, if you're curious for an example.
Also open-bolt guns are just generally simpler for mechanical operation- you can change a barrel without having to lock open the bolt, for example.
But for a gas-operated infantry rifle none of these are relevant, and as you noted the impact to accuracy of having the bolt drop before it shoots is significant for precision shooting. I can think of a few examples of at least prototypes of open-bolt rifles, but they're all blowback guns and deliberately crude designs.
Second... Why are these available to the police? In what situation could you POSSIBLY imagine police officers needing this!? Military I could see- with a fire/speed control, that could work as a useful man-portable area denial platform. But Law Enforcement?
This situation:
Remember, the police don't always have the superior firepower or equipment. This vehicle was seized by Mexican police.
That doesn't look like something a small calibre high rate of fire weapon would help with.
That would need an anti-materiel rifle, which I can totally understand a police force having. High precision firearms make sense for a policing force. If those highly precise firearms also have high penetration and single-target destructive force, that makes a certain amount of sense too. Killdozer situations would call for that sort of thing.
If there's a situation where you need 5,000 rounds of anti-personell per minute, I think you've gone past a situation where a police force is required. Like, the Microgun is something you need if you want to have fun slicing plywood cutouts in half on the range (and have too much money somehow) or if you need to kill large numbers of people. Neither are things that police forces should be tasked with.
Grey Templar wrote: It is also more difficult to make a weapon with an open bolt select-fire.
How so? With a typical hammer-fired closed-bolt system you need an additional sear to release the hammer when the bolt is in battery, and a mechanism on the selector to cam the disconnector out of operation when set to full-auto. With an open-bolt system, the typical method is to have a disconnector which simply bumps the trigger sear out of alignment and thus releases the main sear. Check out how simple the fire control is on the Sten for an example. Another method is for the trigger to operate directly on the main sear, but at an angle such that it slips off and releases it at the end of travel- fire selection then is just a matter of limiting the trigger to half-travel for full-auto, so it keeps the sear down without slipping off.
I would actually argue it's easier to make an open-bolt system select-fire than a closed-bolt one- the fact that firing is tied to bolt closure gets rid of all those nasty issues with debounce or hammer follow; you can use a fixed or cam-actuated firing pin and avoid dealing with a hammer or separate striker altogether.
Grey Templar wrote: There is a minor benefit in cooling with open bolts, but in practical situations it doesn't really matter.
The test reports I've seen for the Diemaco LSW suggest otherwise; Diemaco offers the gun in both open-bolt and closed-bolt configurations, and the former is much better at sustained fire. I'll have to see if I can find it on the Internet. It's the airflow through an open action that makes a difference; same reason barrels cool faster out of the gun than in it.
Not directly related to cooling per se, but the risk of cook-off also gives closed-bolt guns a lower tolerance for heat than open-bolt ones. So you can run an open-bolt gun to a higher temperature and thus get more shots between barrel changes being needed.
There's also the benefit for blowback-operated guns of preignition, which is where open-bolt guns are generally designed to fire just before the bolt is fully in battery. This forces the recoil impulse to first cancel the forward travel of the bolt before it can accelerate rearwards, and in practical effect lets you build a safe blowback-operated firearm with much lower bolt mass. It's actually a common issue on closed-bolt conversions of semi-auto subguns to have bulged cases or potentially even safety issues because they're extracting sooner than intended- PPS-43s in particular do this badly, if you're curious for an example.
Also open-bolt guns are just generally simpler for mechanical operation- you can change a barrel without having to lock open the bolt, for example.
But for a gas-operated infantry rifle none of these are relevant, and as you noted the impact to accuracy of having the bolt drop before it shoots is significant for precision shooting. I can think of a few examples of at least prototypes of open-bolt rifles, but they're all blowback guns and deliberately crude designs.
The only successful firearm that fires semi from a closed bolt and auto from an open bolt that I can think of is the FG-42. I love the FG-42 and keep flirting with the idea of getting one if the reproductions.
Taught a woman to shoot yesterday. She had been afraid of it all her life but decided she needed to learn how. She felt confident and empowered by the end. Good time.
Anvildude wrote: [
That doesn't look like something a small calibre high rate of fire weapon would help with.
That would need an anti-materiel rifle, which I can totally understand a police force having. High precision firearms make sense for a policing force. If those highly precise firearms also have high penetration and single-target destructive force, that makes a certain amount of sense too. Killdozer situations would call for that sort of thing.
Narcotanks are less tank, and more APC, so the whole idea of comparing it to a 'killdozer' will get you and your pals killed.. Sure, the vehicle itself is big and scary, but it's packed full of heavily armed combatants if you do manage to bring it to a halt. While the minigun isn't all that useful against the tank itself, it is useful when guys with AKs come piling out of it like it's a clown car.
Also on the Killdozer situation they were briefly debating using guided missiles to try and stop it, and it only stopped because it fell into a basement and was overheating from a coolant leak. Anti Materiel rifles wouldn't have done anything to that monstrosity on a good or a bad day
Mighta been able to take out the driver? How much concrete penetration does one of those have, anyways? I'll admit that most of what I know about that sort of weapon is from pop culture- namely Tremors 2, where a shot from one went through multiple buildings, a shrieker, and an engine block.
Anvildude wrote: Mighta been able to take out the driver? How much concrete penetration does one of those have, anyways? I'll admit that most of what I know about that sort of weapon is from pop culture- namely Tremors 2, where a shot from one went through multiple buildings, a shrieker, and an engine block.
Yeah, to put it mildly, that's not the case, though it depends on ammunition. A standard steel ball round out of the Barret M107 would have failed to penetrate, but there are a variety of specialist munitions that would have gone through. The big issue with picking off the driver is that you frequently have no idea where the driver is in these improvised armored vehicles. It gets uglier when they're like the 'killdozer' and covered in composite armor.
BaronIveagh wrote: While the minigun isn't all that useful against the tank itself, it is useful when guys with AKs come piling out of it like it's a clown car.
I want to stress in no uncertain terms that the Microgun is a toy, it has no practical use whatsoever, and the idea of it being used by police for anything is somewhere between see-what-sticks marketing and an outright joke.
Edit: The only reason miniguns exist to begin with is because additional barrels allow a higher sustained rate of fire. Given that single-barrel machine guns are already capable of a higher rate of fire than an operator can practically control offhand, the multibarrel arrangement only advantageous if the gun is mounted to something, preferably in an arrangement that allows the shooter to aim. Handheld miniguns are difficult at best to control (note that the guy in the first vid on the previous page is firing blanks at the indoor range, and when he's shooting live ammo outdoors, a quick burst yanks the muzzle sideways in a hurry), impossible to aim, impossible to use from behind cover, and it's impossible for the operator to carry enough ammo to make the fire rate worthwhile. They only exist because it looked really cool in Predator and Terminator 2; the US military roundly rejected the idea of a man-portable minigun even in 5.56 and on a tripod (the XM214).
SWAT teams going up against organized criminals in armored vehicles would be far better off with something more conventional. Preferably something with sights.
SWAT teams going up against organized criminals in armored vehicles would be far better off with something more conventional. Preferably something with sights.
SWAT's plan with the 'killdozer' involved a Javelin or Hellfire. They weren't quite sure which at the time, before the thing took itself out. US police have been stocking up on military grade hardware since 2001, with several departments stocking armored cars, afvs, and light tanks. A minigun would NOT be out of the question.
A Javelin or Hellfire launched by the US military. You find me a police department in the US that's stocking air-to-ground missiles and I'll concede that a minigun in police use is plausible.
Those over-the-top Bearcats and the like are kitted up for breaching on SWAT raids. A minigun is something you typically use for gunning down an indiscriminate area from a helicopter. That's way outside the area of responsibility of police, even in an era of increasing militarization. Police don't use weapons like autocannons, mines, or flamethrowers either; they represent collateral damage threats and aren't suited to their tactical goals.
Anvildude wrote: Mighta been able to take out the driver? How much concrete penetration does one of those have, anyways? I'll admit that most of what I know about that sort of weapon is from pop culture- namely Tremors 2, where a shot from one went through multiple buildings, a shrieker, and an engine block.
Depends on the buildings. If its normal houses, any type of ammo for .50BMG is not going to stop for anything it might encounter there. Even normal rifle rounds and most intermediate ammo will happily pass through the plywood that most houses are made of without losing much energy, assuming the round is a FMJ and not a hollow or soft point. In which case it'll still go through but start to deform and break apart.
An engine block can stop most rifle rounds, including a normal .50BMG, but it is iffy. Depends on the composition of the engine, where it hits, ammo type, etc...
You shoot an AP .50BMG at the engine block of a civilian vehicle and its going to go through it. Civilian vehicles are not built to stop bullets.
Concrete is about the most pedestrian material you get to where stopping bullets is realistic. When you layer it in combination with hardened high quality steel, you have primitive composite armor that takes advantage of physics to break apart incoming shots. IIRC he basically did a layer of concrete sandwitched between 2 steel plates. Incoming bullets would have to penetrate the first steel plate, then the concrete, then the last steel plate, which would have been impossible for most small arms. Possibly even something like a .50BMG SLAP round, at least for the cockpit. The engine could probably still have been taken out though.
This type of armor is also effective against the heat charges that a missile would use as it breaks apart the molten metal stream. Probably wouldn't have been enough for a hellfire missile, but maybe it could have resisted a javelin.
Of course a simpler solution exists for vehicles like this. Molotov cocktails. Fill some glass bottles with gasoline or motor oil, light a wick, and toss them onto it. Preferably around the air intake or exhaust for the engine. That will disable it in really short order.
catbarf wrote: A Javelin or Hellfire launched by the US military. You find me a police department in the US that's stocking air-to-ground missiles and I'll concede that a minigun in police use is plausible.
DC and Miami. Oh, and remember, Philly PD did this, dropping two one pound Trenchrite bombs to take out a fortified house.
If you have a source for DC and Miami stocking air-launched anti-tank missiles I'd like to see them. The 1985 Philadelphia bombing was an incident that involved a police department lobbing a pair of FBI-supplied one-pound munitions by hand out of a helicopter by hand like WW1 pilots, with most of the damage coming from the ensuing uncontrolled fires. Hardly an example of a PD being geared up with air support for anti-tank warfare.
This is also completely beside the point, given that you can at least articulate a viable use case for something like a Hellfire; an intermediate-caliber handheld minigun is worthless to begin with.
This is also completely beside the point, given that you can at least articulate a viable use case for something like a Hellfire; an intermediate-caliber handheld minigun is worthless to begin with.
Strikes me as an excellent way to provide suppressive fire. And, apparently, someone agrees with me since the Empty Shell mini gun has begun production. So, unless the US military is buying them, it's law enforcement.
BaronIveagh wrote: Strikes me as an excellent way to provide suppressive fire.
Well, frankly, that's why you're not in procurement. Unaimed fire from the hip doesn't suppress, and you can't walk it in unless your cyclic rate is low enough and weight high enough to be controllable, and even then it's largely ineffective (see: marching fire). Suppression is unproductive if your muzzle sweeps from recoil prevent fire-and-movement forward of your 3/9. You need a stable position, preferably firing from a bipod, to effectively engage a target at distance and establish your beaten zone to allow maneuver outside it. When people start shooting back, you want to be behind hard cover or at least decent concealment, not standing in the open striking your best Jesse Ventura pose. And you need to keep it up for more than ten seconds without running dry.
It's a stupid idea. It always has been. Every man-portable LMG in modern service has a lower rate of fire than the WW2-era MG42; even the Germans retrofitted the gun after the war to reduce rate of fire and thereby make it more effective. There's absolutely no push whatsoever for minigun rate of fire in infantry use. It just keeps coming back in Good Idea Fairy form because it's so ingrained in pop culture, but it never goes anywhere.
BaronIveagh wrote: And, apparently, someone agrees with me since the Empty Shell mini gun has begun production. So, unless the US military is buying them, it's law enforcement.
Nah, they got a rollover contract with Army for a few vehicle-mounted units- certainly not POR without serialized production so selling a few for T&E is the first step. But the key is 'vehicle-mounted', since mounted miniguns have a long and successful history, while man-portable ones do not.
Notably, Empty Shell suspended development in early 2020, and despite planning to resume production in late 2020 still have not done so. So it's still vaporware. And I'll bet dollars to donuts it's not going to law enforcement, let alone in handheld form, unless someone's Class III wants a postie for a toy at taxpayer expense.
As I understand it the Border guys on the river have patrol boats armed with belt feds. Maybe they liked Act of Valor and wanted some miniguns too?
That being said anything approaching a useful application for handheld miniguns has not materialized. The best idea, however impractical and impossible the actual design is the "Chinese M1-L1 Triple Pulse assault gattling" from Deep Rising.
It's a stupid idea. It always has been. Every man-portable LMG in modern service has a lower rate of fire than the WW2-era MG42; even the Germans retrofitted the gun after the war to reduce rate of fire and thereby make it more effective. There's absolutely no push whatsoever for minigun rate of fire in infantry use. It just keeps coming back in Good Idea Fairy form because it's so ingrained in pop culture, but it never goes anywhere.
According to internet rumor, Dillon Aero being the most recent to have this idea visit them, though actual information thus far has not been forthcoming. They currently sell vehicle mounted M134D's to pretty much all the usual suspects,including private contractors and law enforcement.
Even in my wider ignorance, this seems an awful design. But can you suggest a worse shooter?
The L. Dolne à Liege 'Apache Revolver' in 7mm. Supposedly the British had a similar weapon in WW2 for commandos in 9mm, but no information has ever been released to the public as far as I know beyond it's existence.
I’ve got Nerf guns deadlier than that pile of crap!!! Could the misfires be down to the spring being knackered?
In other news. I’m currently watching Robocop in HD. And the scene at the petrol station (garage?) has me puzzled.
When Emil is threatening the attendant with his (I think) Uzi, you can clearly see a round through what I assume to be the ejection port, at a rather jaunty more or less 20ish degree angle.
Is that normal for that shooter, or is it unique to prop/blank fire versions?
He can beat me all he wants, provided he calls me cupcake during!
I can see the theory behind it. As weapons go, it’s compact and at least theoretically versatile - if not ultimately practical.
Certainly to my ignorant eyes the worst offender is the teensy little blade. It might pop a pimple or two (boy…..it might pop a pimple or two!), but unless you’re skilled/knowledgeable/both, it seems unlikely to do proper damage (would still hurt though. I stabbed my self in the groin with a GW scalpel once. Did little damage, still hurt)
I can see the theory behind it. As weapons go, it’s compact and at least theoretically versatile - if not ultimately practical.
Certainly to my ignorant eyes the worst offender is the teensy little blade. It might pop a pimple or two (boy…..it might pop a pimple or two!), but unless you’re skilled/knowledgeable/both, it seems unlikely to do proper damage (would still hurt though. I stabbed my self in the groin with a GW scalpel once. Did little damage, still hurt)
Counterpoint on that theory.... you could just hand them a propper pistol, nimrod, or whatever else you want to give your commandos AND a bajonett... which still would take up only marginally more space and guaranteed functions.
Counterpoint on that theory.... you could just hand them a propper pistol, nimrod, or whatever else you want to give your commandos AND a bajonett... which still would take up only marginally more space and guaranteed functions.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In other news. I’m currently watching Robocop in HD. And the scene at the petrol station (garage?) has me puzzled.
When Emil is threatening the attendant with his (I think) Uzi, you can clearly see a round through what I assume to be the ejection port, at a rather jaunty more or less 20ish degree angle.
Is that normal for that shooter, or is it unique to prop/blank fire versions?
It's a Mac-10, but like an Uzi it fires from an open bolt. That means in the ready to fire position, the bolt is back and the ejection port open. Pulling the trigger drops the bolt forward and fires in one action. The rounds are canted upwards in the magazine so they can ride up the feed ramp and into the barrel.
Seems it might be capable of greater continuous round penetration when it’s shooting up manky rotting corpses and that?
The other points about needing a stable platform, and a super short burst timing stand. But I feel I need to challenge the “pass through three or four” point.
Not confidentially challenge like. Just “but if it could do A, what would it do to B” challenge.
I think, and I could be wrong, that the penetration power is related more to the specific cartridge then rate of fire. The M134 fires a 7.62x51mm NATO round. From what I can find it comes in 147 and 175 grain. That's nothing crazy.
Also, I just shot a Sig Sauer P250 .40 S&W and hated it. I don't know if anyone else has fired that specific model, but the trigger pull felt very weird to me.
Edit: It also ejected the fething casings right back into me...
I think, and I could be wrong, that the penetration power is related more to the specific cartridge then rate of fire.
It's... complicated. The ballistics of a projectile are determined by a lot of different factors.
Powder Charge, Bullet Weight, Bullet type, etc... are determined by the specific cartridge. The same caliber can have many different cartridge variations though. Some might have more power/less powder, different types of bullets, different weights of bullets, different types of powder, etc...
Then the firearm itself can have an effect on the ballistics. The main factor being length of the barrel, but rifling twist type can also have an effect. Generally, the longer the barrel the better stabilization you'll have on the bullet. But you can also have more complete powder burn, which means more energy is transferred to the bullet. A shorter barrel on the other hand, might mean that a good amount of the powder is wasted because by the time it finishes burning the bullet has long since left the barrel.
Say you have a bolt action rifle of some kind. Usually they have 20+ inch barrels. They impart a very large amount of the energy in their powder charges to the bullet because of that long barrel giving time for the powder to burn while the bullet is traveling down the barrel. But if you take the same rifle and cut it down to say, a 5 inch barrel(yes, people do do this. Look up Mobrez on youtube), you now have very little time for the powder to burn before the bullet leaves the barrel. The amount of energy lost when this occurs is so great that in some cases the bullet would actually become non-lethal beyond a few meters. You've basically turned the rifle into a flashbang gun, even though you're using the same ammo that with a longer barrel has lethal range of several kilometers.
Shorter barrels generally = less power assuming all else is equal because of the lost energy. You'll have a lot of muzzle flash from the excess powder burning outside the muzzle but that is about it.
How short you can make a barrel before this occurs depends on the cartridge in question too. 7.62x39 is less susceptible to a drop off in ballistics with a shorter barrel than 5.56x45 is for example. The cartridge generally has complete powder burn even with a shorter barrel. Which is why AKs with 12" or even 8" barrels still can have very reasonable range when compared to a normal 16" barrel. But you have a 8" barrel on an AR15 and you'll have much more drop off compared to a normal AR15.
Penetration specifically seems to be most effected by the speed of a projectile. A very fast small projectile tends to penetrate better than a large slow moving projectile. E=MC^2 also shows that velocity has twice the effect on energy as mass does. So X increase in Velocity is twice as effective as X increase in mass at increasing the energy.
But raw on-paper energy is one thing, actual practice is another. It is one thing to have the energy, but you have to actually transfer that energy to the target to do damage. And it turns out that slower projectiles are more efficient at transferring their energy to a target because they spend more time in contact with it as they pass through it.
For example, a 5.56 projectile traveling through a block of ballistic gel will carve a neat little hole in it. If its a hollow point it might spread out slightly, but it will generally make a small neat hole all the way through(assuming something like a 5-6 inch block). If it is a FMJ bullet it is definitely going to just pass clean through.
Compare that to a .45 ACP bullet in the same gel. Even a FMJ bullet is going to gouge a massive hole, deform, and create even bigger wound channels. Much much more damage to the gel, even though the 5.56 on paper has over 3 times the muzzle energy. Make it a hollow point and it's gonna be very messy indeed. It may not even penetrate all the way through, which actually will be even more damaging because that means 100% of the bullet's energy was absorbed.
But if we change the target to say a 1/8" sheet of mild steel, the 5.56 will pass right through it, while the .45 ACP will just go splat. It'll make a big dent for sure, but it won't go through with one shot.
I have a Zip 22. What a cluster of a gun. Pretty unergonomic, but okay for someone with huge hands like me.
If this thing would have actually worked reliably I think it would have sold well. Unfortunately I needed to tear mine down, change the springs, polish everything to a high sheen, and widen the breech a bit and dump a ton of powdered graphite into it just to get it to feed 10 rounds in a row from a standard 10-22 mag.
I will say this though, it was accurate. If it fed reliably it would have been my backpacking pistol of choice, which is why I bought it.
Grey Templar wrote: It is kinda shocking how someone could mess up a .22 pistol design so badly.
In theory I kinda liked it. It marks a lot of what I am looking for in a backpack gun and a random plinker. Cheap, 22LR, not that heavy, accurate, and takes 10-22 mags. Sure, it's ugly as sin, but I can overlook that. If that weapon actually had anything close to reliability I'd have loved it. I think the five issues that made it suck were: 1. you are NOT supposed to use oil on it, and almost no one seems to understand that. 2. ejection port is too small. Opening that up would have aided in not having jams. 3. There wasn't quite enough force in the ejection of a shell casing. 4. It was picky about ammo. 5. Reciprocal rate was WAY too high. I think that last one was the major hang up as most mags wouldn't lift the next round fast enough. If they would have been able to slow the cycle down to around 60% of what it is misfeeds would have been less.
Yup. That is basically its main problems. Way too high fire rate meaning mags can't feed reliably combined with having no ejector mechanism beyond hoping the shell bounces out. If they had added something to delay its cycling and added any kind of ejector it would have been way better. Even a simple tab and maybe stronger springs would have been enough.
You would probably have better results by converting it to bolt action.
If I was to design a cheapo .22 out of cheap plastic that fed from standard 10-22 mags, I would have made it manually cycled. Maybe via Lever Action.
Critter was headed to the duck coop to snatch eggs. The coop is just 20 or so feet from the front pond, which allows us to let the ducks out to swim/play. I had the ducks out was chilling, watching them play in the water when I saw this guy.
We keep the .38 loaded with snake shot. It usually sits in my wife's waist pack she wears when out feeding the animals.
Critter was headed to the duck coop to snatch eggs. The coop is just 20 or so feet from the front pond, which allows us to let the ducks out to swim/play. I had the ducks out was chilling, watching them play in the water when I saw this guy.
We keep the .38 loaded with snake shot. It usually sits in my wife's waist pack she wears when out feeding the animals.
You know, the funny thing is, my sister in law freaked out when my mother was teaching my nephew to just grab them and throw them in the river.
Snakes are snakes. Don't have to kill them to deal with them. Now, Mountain Lions, bears, and foxes, those are problems best solved with bullets. Snake you can just toss away. Even venomous ones can't bite you if you just get them right behind the head, though it's smart to take a few precautions like using a branch or tool to hold their heads down. Put them in a bag, then take them someplace they're not going to bother anything, and let them go.
My uncle used to kill snakes by spitting his chewing tobacco on their faces. Something in it snakes can't handle, like chocolate with dogs, but worse. My uncle became a spitting sniper.
cuda1179 wrote: My uncle used to kill snakes by spitting his chewing tobacco on their faces. Something in it snakes can't handle, like chocolate with dogs, but worse. My uncle became a spitting sniper.
While I'm sure that plenty of snakes are irritated by being spat on, it's entirely untrue that tobacco harms snakes. Maybe it was his breath?
I would never test my luck by trying to grab a venomous snake behind the head with my hands. At most, I would use a very long stick to keep it as far away as possible while moving it. Maybe some grabbers.
Of course, if its not bothering me or anybody I'd just leave it be.
catbarf wrote:Oh, that's lovely. Is it still the case that necking down brass 20ga hulls is the best way to load? Or have you found a source of loaded ammo?
Yes, all my brass is resized shotgun shells, processed by a guy locally. It's a bit labour-intensive compared to other reloading, with wads, carded wool filler, plus paper-patching the bullets, but it's worth it
Vaktathi wrote:That's gorgeous, looks like a lot of fun!
Always nice to make some smoke, until it's time to clean it later
After a lot of consideration and meticulous planning (it was an impulse buy), I got myself a Kimber Custom 2. Had some...issues breaking it in, but now that its running steady, I'm thinking about shooting USPSA with it.
2. Bullet fragments are a thing. I mean, as already covered my laughable knowledge mostly stems from pop culture, where Freedom Seeds just bounce off, landing squished but whole. I’m surprisingly not actually surprised they shatter.
Yeah, though it depends on the individual bullet and what it is made of how much it will fragment. Bullets that are made only of lead will absolutely fragment significantly. Bullets that are a lead core surrounded by a copper jacket(like most bullets are nowdays) will fragment less, though it depends on what they hit. A hard surface like concrete, steel, or titanium iron man armor will definitely result in them shattering.
This is why modern body armor plates are usually coated in some sort of rubber/plastic and worn inside plate carriers that might also be made out of kevlar. The kevlar and rubber/plastic will catch and trap the bullet fragments and any spalling from the armor plates to prevent further injury to the wearer.
Generally, it is unlikely that a bullet will remain in one piece, even if it only hits squishy flesh. You have to have bullets that are specifically designed to stay intact, something like a specially designed solid copper expanding head hunting round.
These are some of the bullets I load for my .458 socom.
Only reason these bullets will sometimes remain in 1 piece is because they are solid copper. A composite bullet made of two different metals, like a lead core with a copper jacket, is more likely to fragment slightly. Most ammunition is lead core with a copper jacket.
Also of note, there are rounds that are completely on the other end of the spectrum. I want to say they are made of compressed graphite, but don't quote me on that. They don't exactly fragment, but re-powderize on impact. They were developed specifically for police during hostage situations.
Yeah, frangible bullets. I think their uses during hostage situations is minimal at best. Their main application is as target ammunition that won't cause as much damage to targets at the range.
Most hostages that get injured by their rescuers aren't getting hit by ricochets.
Got to go trap shooting this weekend and was able to try out an Ithaca Model 37. I know Ithaca's are supposed to be a reliable gun but I could not get it to reliably cycle/feed into the chamber after the first shot, likely caused by the magazine spring being too weak. Any Ithaca owners run into this problem before?
A question regarding the season 11 opener of The Walking Dead.
Heroes visit a military base, and enter a room full of sleeping Zombies, which were formerly servicemen.
Presumably they’ve been in there since the fall, which would be roughly 8 years before.
Some of the guns work, some don’t. Is that particularly realistic? There’s no sign of the building being damaged, so no particular concern over the elements. My gut is saying that provide the firearm was previously properly maintained (cleaned, oiled etc) then 8 years lying around shouldn’t mess with it too much?
They’re M-16s, and possibly a colt pistol? I’m not terribly knowledgeable on makes and models, so go easy if I’ve made a rookie mistake!
So long as there's no excessive moisture, they probably should run just fine, especially if its in an armory which likely has some temperature control measures. Most of an M16 is also aluminum beyond the bolt, barrel, springs and fire control bits, so its probably just as simple as rack the bolt, if it opens, it fires.
The m16 has a rep for being a bit finicky about maintenance (they're machining tolerances were too tight early on) (and, personal option, would be next to useless against Z), but the M1911s should have been fine. A trove of AKs would have been much better.
Ammunition, however, might be more hit or miss, but not after only 8 years.
A properly stored firearm(clean and lubricated to combat readiness at minimum) of any kind should work just fine no matter how long its been sitting assuming its been in a moderately sealed environment, which that would qualify. Even a finnicky Vietnam era M16 would be fine. Those only had issues with actual combat conditions, like getting dropped in mud.
Now if the guns had been gathered by other survivors and stored somewhere else for 8 years then you could potentially have an improper storage situation. But even guns in that situation could probably be usable after getting cleaned. About the only way you could make a gun utterly useless would be to let it sit in salt water for a few months. But even that would only ruin the parts made of steel, the receiver itself would be fine.
From what I remember the walking dead is based around Atlanta-ish area? So hot, humid, years with no electricity, and the occasional hurricane. Not the best conditions, but not to horrible.
Veldrain wrote: From what I remember the walking dead is based around Atlanta-ish area? So hot, humid, years with no electricity, and the occasional hurricane. Not the best conditions, but not to horrible.
Yeah, but a military building specifically made for the storage of firearms would be designed to not let in the elements even if there was no power. It might fail after a century or so, but 8 years is nothing.
Humidity is also not a huge issue assuming the firearms were properly lubricated. M16s only have a few steel parts anyway. A 1911 might get some surface rust, but as long as the friction surfaces were properly lubed it'll still work just fine. 1911s are kinda like AKs, very simple and not too fussy.
Its the drama they are going for, but the govt. has had some bad runs of ammo in the past. During the Korean War my father checked every round of ammo by shaking before loading it into his aircraft
It is nice. I really enjoy having folks come over to shoot so get to share the joy quite a bit. If you're ever in the area, you're welcome to come bust caps.
If I may drag this, temporarily, to pick your brains on 40K analogous weapons - and how that analogy has changed over the years as the 40K background has evolved and changed.
So….this gun certainly looks the part of an Autocannon.
It’s also anti-tank, and self loading (which at this scale I understand to be equivalent to semi-automatic?) which pretty much matches the 40K description of the autocannon.
Until, dear friend….until we delve right down deep into the earliest days of 40K weapon lore - where the autocannon was noted for a frankly astounding rate of fire - the sheer number of shots it could kick out defeating armour by delivering dozens if not hundreds of rounds with accuracy to the same rough area - they’d literally batter an armoured target into the dust.
Assault Cannons? Yeah… originally multi barrelled rotary versions of the autocannon, which is frankly terrifying.
Assault Cannons? Yeah… originally multi barrelled rotary versions of the autocannon, which is frankly terrifying.
So what do you think the modern allegory lies?
Autocannons are a real thing that actually exists. The Hispano 20 mm is probably a close analogue to the 40k version, though I'm sure there's a closer match out there.
Breaking down the word itself, Autocannon is an abbreviation of Auto-loading Cannon. IE: Self-loading cannon. Self-loading with any weapon just means that the weapon uses excess energy from firing to load the next round into the chamber instead of needing to be manually cycled. So really any weapon of sufficiently large size to be called a cannon that is also self-loading could technically be called an Autocannon. In the real world, it is a catch-all term for a self-loading weapon with a caliber somewhere between small arms and an artillery piece/tank main armament. It could be a weapon capable of full automatic fire OR only semi-automatic fire.
The various forms that Autocannons are showed in 40k are similar to many real world guns, though each of the real world analogues are quite different from each other.
The manportable Autocannons we see Imperial Guard lugging around are roughly equivalent to all of the Anti-tank rifles or even small field guns of the late 1800s/early 1900s. The vehicle mounted ones are more like a 20mm Oerlikon. Really, any modern 20-40mm cannon is basically a 40k autocannon, and there are a lot of different weapons of that caliber. They're used as primary weapons for APCs/IFVs, secondary batteries for naval vessels, coaxial weapons for MBTs, etc...
Assault Cannons are just an M134 Minigun.
The various guns that are all lumped as Autocannons in 40k really deserve to be differentiated since in reality they would act a lot differently, but the rules don't exactly have that level of granularity. And of course 40k lore, especially early on, blurred the line between Assault Cannons and Autocannons. Which IIRC early on what we now call Assault Cannons were once included in the general weapon family of Autocannons, basically being to autocannons what multi-lasers are to lasguns/lascannons.
And really, any sort of anti-tank/anti-material rifle would fit nicely into the Autocannon statline. They're powerful enough to be a threat to light vehicles, but not really much of a threat to truly armored vehicles.
AegisFate wrote:Most of an M16 is also aluminum beyond the bolt, barrel, springs and fire control bits
Grey Templar wrote:M16s only have a few steel parts anyway.
This is a 'technically yes, but actually no' sort of thing.
All the critical parts in a milspec AR are steel. That's the bolt, bolt carrier (inc gas key), hammer, trigger (+ disconnector), auto sear, all the FCG springs, cross pins, barrel, gas block, gas tube, mag release, bolt release, and selector switch. Almost all of the minor parts are steel too- dust cover, stock latching pin, grip screw, castle nut, end plate, buffer retainer, flash hider, peel washer.
As far as aluminum goes it's really just the upper and lower receivers, the buffer tube, and the charging handle, which are all fairly low-stress parts that aren't particularly vulnerable to corrosion in the first place. It's generally not the receiver rusting that kills a gas-operated rifle; it's the bolt head no longer fitting in the locking lugs (or worse, fitting and then failing), the gas system coming apart or getting plugged, or the FCG freezing up.
On top of all that, even 7075 isn't immune to corrosion, as bare aluminum will turn white and passivate if exposed to humidity; it's just slower than steel oxidation because aluminum oxide is much more stable. Preventing this is what hardcoat anodization is for- just as steel parts are typically parkerized (phosphated), blued, browned, painted, case-hardened, electroplated, or otherwise sealed to keep something in between the bare metal and the environment. And since it's aluminum and steel touching you also get galvanic corrosion if bare metal is exposed, and that's a whole other can of worms.
So ARs aren't particularly resilient against functional degradation due to rust, although they do hold up well to cosmetic oxidation. They still need proper protection (maintenance of the parkerized finish on exterior parts plus oil or CLP on the BCG and FCG) and a controlled environment to last. That said, I do agree that a government armory should be able to maintain a suitable environment for at least a couple of years, and then it'll be a slow decline after that. But leave an AR out in salty humid air, or worse in an alkaline environment, and they'll go to crap as quickly as anything else.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If anyone else has watched that scene, could they chip in with whether the guns that fail to fire are simply out of ammo, or a bit buggered?
It was likely do to a shortage of ammo, although it could be either/or. In that specific scenario, when you have multiple backups within arm's reach I'd say getting a new gun is better than spending the time identifying and correcting any malfunction that shows up.
One thing I was wondering, in that scene there was a helicopter with belt-fed door guns. I'm thinking that getting up into that might have been a decent choice too.
I see where you’re coming from. But would our heroes know what to do if one of those big bits of Dakka was jammed or needed cycling etc? Given it was a distinctly Brown Trouser Experience, probably best to stick with smaller weapons you’re familiar with? They’re all credible survivors at this point (even if there were past points where one did wonder how come you’re not Zombie chow? in the past!
Though for those who haven’t seen it, they were there to scavenge up MRE, and not shooters.
I see where you’re coming from. But would our heroes know what to do if one of those big bits of Dakka was jammed or needed cycling etc? Given it was a distinctly Brown Trouser Experience, probably best to stick with smaller weapons you’re familiar with? They’re all credible survivors at this point (even if there were past points where one did wonder how come you’re not Zombie chow? in the past!
Though for those who haven’t seen it, they were there to scavenge up MRE, and not shooters.
My plan would have been to dangle from the rope for a couple hours and spend my time just out of zombie reach. I'd take my time and spear a few hundred in the head. If they start to pile up, yell up to the roof to have them raise you up a bit. Time wasn't that critical really. Safe and steady if the course of action in the Zombie future. Heck, they did basically this as a plan when they were in the train tunnels, and they did it without the ability to know what was ahead, who/what was sneaking up from behind, and without the ability to quickly get away.
Belt-feds aren't terribly complicated to operate, and its reasonable that at this point they would have come across a few to tinker with and so might be familiar with how they work. But they are more time consuming to load and they'd waste a lot of ammo though so ignoring them isn't implausible. Given time I wouldn't leave them to waste of course, ammo and guns are ammo and guns after all.
Just ordered today a cz 457 in 17 hmr with laminate thumbhole stock. Smart looking gun. My wife’s cousin has one and I was impressed. I’m going to use it mainly for night time fox hunts so will be on the lookout for a decent night scope.
Here’s the gun my wife’s cousin has. I think the scope he has is a little on the heavy side.
Very rarely over 150yards usually 80 to 100. I’m a farmer and most of my ground is hilly and I’ve lots of forestry. I thought of going for a 223 but at the minute it would probably sit with the police licensing for 10 months to a year and I can’t be bothered with the wait.
Longer explanation: I have some shooting experience (mostly thanks to my in laws) and own a pistol myself, but I'm looking to expand my collection.
My Sig Sauer Sp2022 I bought via Calguns, arranged to meet the seller in person at an FFL to do the paperwork and have the FFL hold it the mandatory waiting period.
Now I live in PA and I kinda don't know the best way to buy. Do I go to a store and just browse around? I kinda feel weird about that. If I buy online and ship it to an FFL do I notify them ahead of time or do they just hold onto it or what?
There's also gun shows, but I'm wary of buying a lemon. My non-expert feeling is that much like miniatures when you're buying from individuals rather than stores you're now open to the possibility of much worse (or better) deals that are more dependent on having specialized knowledge.
I order online all the time and have it shipped to a 'Mom & Pop' gun store who handles the FFL transfer. Some of the bigger online retailers have a list of FFLs they use and you can search for one in your area, or arrange to have your gun shipped to the one of your choice. Typically I do let the local guy know I'll be using him, but once had something shipped to a big box store (Cabelas) and didn't bother. Once I got the delivery notification I just went in and completed the transfer (and paid the transfer fee).
The local FFL typically holds the gun until you come pick it up.
Of course, nothing wrong with browsing in the store and buying local if they have what you want at a price you're willing to pay.
Longer explanation: I have some shooting experience (mostly thanks to my in laws) and own a pistol myself, but I'm looking to expand my collection.
My Sig Sauer Sp2022 I bought via Calguns, arranged to meet the seller in person at an FFL to do the paperwork and have the FFL hold it the mandatory waiting period.
Now I live in PA and I kinda don't know the best way to buy. Do I go to a store and just browse around? I kinda feel weird about that. If I buy online and ship it to an FFL do I notify them ahead of time or do they just hold onto it or what?
There's also gun shows, but I'm wary of buying a lemon. My non-expert feeling is that much like miniatures when you're buying from individuals rather than stores you're now open to the possibility of much worse (or better) deals that are more dependent on having specialized knowledge.
If you were on the other side of the state I would recommend a few stores but my best advise is to look around and ask the counter guys. Most of them are pretty easy to talk with.
It depends on your state laws. Federally all online orders have to be shipped to a FFL in your state so they can conduct the background check, some states require the weapon to not only be sent to an FFL but also require it to be sent from an FFL(so a private seller has to pay an FFL to ship it for them). Generally you will 1) Pay for the gun. 2) Have the FFL you want it shipped to email the seller their information so they can verify they are an FFL and can process the paperwork. 3) Once that is verified the gun will be shipped to the FFL who will call you when it arrives so you can come do the paperwork. I've never seen an FFL that won't do online orders for a typical fee(most of the ones around here charge $30-50 for it).
If you're buying from a private individual face to face it depends on the state.
Nothing weird about just going in and browsing. A gun isn't exactly a small purchase and it would actually be weird for you not to do some browsing at different stores first. Some stores may even be willing to special order something specific if you're interested. Honestly the best thing to do when buying a gun is to handle it first. Especially pistols because not every pistol is going to be comfortable for every person. Someone with small hands may have difficulty handling a large pistol and the opposite is also true. You could easily buy something online that you end up hating because it isn't comfortable for you to operate, something you would have known if you'd been able to examine it in person. This is one reason why I would be wary of buying specifically pistols online.
Gun shows are fine too. You do have to just be a little more wary, but not really any more than buying from a private individual. Just FYI there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole and all sales conducted at them still need to do background checks no matter what state you are in. I do prefer gunshows for non-gun items. Like ammo or accessories. Gunshows also tend to focus more on surplus collectible firearms as opposed to more modern stuff, which at the very least just makes them a cool place to hang out for a few hours looking at cool stuff.
Grey Templar wrote: Just FYI there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole and all sales conducted at them still need to do background checks no matter what state you are in.
If you are selling a gun as a private individual (non-FFL holder) to another private individual who is a resident of the same state, and the transaction is occurring in the state you are both residents of, there is no federal requirement to carry out a transfer through an FFL on a 4473. That's the private sale exemption carved out by the Gun Control Act of 1968, AKA 'gun show loophole'.
As soon as an FFL holder or state lines are involved, it has to go through the NICS.
Right - only 14 states require background checks on any firearm at the point of sale. Iowa, for example, currently requires neither a background check nor a permit when buying at a gun show unless the seller is a licensed dealer.
For myself, I have bought very nearly all of my guns online and had them transferred to a hardware store near my house for (currently) $30. They're not the cheapest, but they are the least hassle, and they are zero percent shady (there is a guy near my house who does xfer for $5 but the whole operation feels incredibly sleazy, and my last local gun shop had some... issues)
Slinky wrote: What sort of thing are you after - Brand new, in-production, or a crusty old military-surplus antique?
Definitely more interested in surplus and old stuff.
Nothing weird about just going in and browsing. A gun isn't exactly a small purchase and it would actually be weird for you not to do some browsing at different stores first. Some stores may even be willing to special order something specific if you're interested. Honestly the best thing to do when buying a gun is to handle it first. Especially pistols because not every pistol is going to be comfortable for every person. Someone with small hands may have difficulty handling a large pistol and the opposite is also true. You could easily buy something online that you end up hating because it isn't comfortable for you to operate, something you would have known if you'd been able to examine it in person. This is one reason why I would be wary of buying specifically pistols online.
I order online all the time and have it shipped to a 'Mom & Pop' gun store who handles the FFL transfer. Some of the bigger online retailers have a list of FFLs they use and you can search for one in your area, or arrange to have your gun shipped to the one of your choice. Typically I do let the local guy know I'll be using him, but once had something shipped to a big box store (Cabelas) and didn't bother. Once I got the delivery notification I just went in and completed the transfer (and paid the transfer fee).
The local FFL typically holds the gun until you come pick it up.
Of course, nothing wrong with browsing in the store and buying local if they have what you want at a price you're willing to pay.
I usually try to buy local for other stuff, so it sounds like it's worth it to just check out local shops. Even if I don't find anything interesting I can ask about their transfer fees and such.
Local places are always worth checking out, especially if they have a big used section. Usually they're not the best price-wise, particularly having to deal with their brick and mortar overhead, but can often have hidden gems (especially if they don't know exactly what's on their shelf).
Longer explanation: I have some shooting experience (mostly thanks to my in laws) and own a pistol myself, but I'm looking to expand my collection.
My Sig Sauer Sp2022 I bought via Calguns, arranged to meet the seller in person at an FFL to do the paperwork and have the FFL hold it the mandatory waiting period.
Now I live in PA and I kinda don't know the best way to buy. Do I go to a store and just browse around? I kinda feel weird about that. If I buy online and ship it to an FFL do I notify them ahead of time or do they just hold onto it or what?
There's also gun shows, but I'm wary of buying a lemon. My non-expert feeling is that much like miniatures when you're buying from individuals rather than stores you're now open to the possibility of much worse (or better) deals that are more dependent on having specialized knowledge.
I live in the same corner of PA. The Oaks gun show is pretty solid, and you can get a good deal there (can always run the price on the tag against online sales to see if you are being up charged). If you don't mind spending a little extra, there are several shops you can go to, but the further out into Amish Country you go, the better the selection. I personally use The Sportsman's Shop in East Earl. Little on the pricy side, but they have a range on site, and offer limited gunsmithing for any purchases made through a local smith. Also Hudson's in Pottstown are solid, knowledgeable folks, I've bought from them.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I personally use The Sportsman's Shop in East Earl. Little on the pricy side, but they have a range on site,
Which brings up another point. Especially with handguns, try to find a place like the above that will let you rent the models you are interested in so you can fire a few rounds through them and see if you do like them.
At a minimum, go to a place which will let you dry fire at the counter. Most big box stores (like Cabelas or Academy around me) will not take off the trigger locks to let you test the triggers prior to buying. That ends a potential sale for me.
Well, I built a PCC. It's using an Aero Precision EPC builder's kit, and has a 8.3" barrel, 9mm, uses Glock mags.
I was amazed that my Form 1 Efile took literally 2 weeks. The paper ones I did a few years back took 10 months.
Optic is a HS510c Green. I removed the hood and painted it (poorly).
I have a thread protector on there for now because I am thinking about getting a suppressor of some kind. I suppose I could do a form 4 efile, but I don't really have the right equipment to make a quality one, I don't think.
Well for one thing, you don't manufacture on a Form 4- that's a transfer form. You manufacture on a Form 1, and manufacturing an NFA item involves more legal hoops than just a transfer. That somewhat reduces the appeal.
For another, they do exist, they're just not good value for money. The body is literally a tube, and if you have the tools to finish the suppressor you have the tools to make baffles from scratch.
Even then, ATF is squirrely about people owning tubes and baffles without approved form 1s already.
Additionally, there are some annoying restrictions on how you can service a suppressor, so for a private owner if you screw up a can you built on a Form 1 you basically have to destroy it and try again. Only an FFL/SOT can legally perform a repair on internals of a serialized can. So, if you order from a reputable manufacturer with a decent warranty you have peace of mind that if you get baffle strikes or similar problems you can send it off to them.
I was amazed that my Form 1 Efile took literally 2 weeks. The paper ones I did a few years back took 10 months.
Question for you, seeing that you seem to have put together a few Form 1/NFA firearms.
Do NFA guns have to follow local laws/restrictions? As in, I live in a AWB state. If I were to build/register an NFA gun, does it have to follow local AWB rules given that it is an NFA firearm? (Does my question even make sense? This is an area of the firearms hobby that I've gone nowhere near, so I wouldn't know where to start.)
While we're here, do you need a Class 3 license to build a Form 1 gun?
I ask because I've always wanted a Kalashnikov (semi auto), but they've always been out of reach due to state laws. Thank you for your time.
You do still have to follow state laws. In theory, if you could build an NFA item that did not fall under whatever your state's AWB are it would be ok, but I don't think that is possible.
What state in particular are you in?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Only an FFL/SOT can legally perform a repair on internals of a serialized can.
Really?
So if, say, you had a Can with removable baffles that you could have extras of you can't legally swap them out? That is a pain in the butt if so.
If I recall correctly, the AWB rules here ban anything with a detachable magazine and (long list of common features, including pistol grips or adjustable length stocks.)
So that doesn't necessarily preclude you from getting an AK of some variant. There are these attachments which can turn a detachable AK magazine into a fixed magazine that can only be removed if you remove the Dust cover and reach inside. There are similar things for ARs.
If CTs ban is anything like here in CA, you can also go "Featureless" and keep the detachable magazine. Which means you either get a fin grip wrap or some other non-pistol grip and you don't have any adjustable stocks/bayonet lugs/forward grip/etc... IMO, this is the better way. Fixed mags you have to disassemble the gun to detach are annoying and not worth having the pistol grip.
But it really depends on the exact wording of their AWB law. Put on your best wargaming rules lawyer'y cap and read the fine print.
AtlanticFirearms sells a bunch of banstate legal versions of firearms you'd be interested in. I'm sure they have some type of AK that is legal in CT. And shop around at your local gunstores in the state. They'd definitely have stuff that is legal. Focus on the smaller ones, big box stores tend to have much more vanilla stuff.
I was amazed that my Form 1 Efile took literally 2 weeks. The paper ones I did a few years back took 10 months.
Question for you, seeing that you seem to have put together a few Form 1/NFA firearms.
Do NFA guns have to follow local laws/restrictions? As in, I live in a AWB state. If I were to build/register an NFA gun, does it have to follow local AWB rules given that it is an NFA firearm? (Does my question even make sense? This is an area of the firearms hobby that I've gone nowhere near, so I wouldn't know where to start.)
I think I understand you. Yes, you have to follow all applicable laws, state and local. If you live in a state where SBRs are banned, getting a federal tax stamp would not allow you to legally possess that SBR in that state - the federal allowance wouldn't even supersede a hypothetical township ban on machine gun ownership.
Cothonian wrote: While we're here, do you need a Class 3 license to build a Form 1 gun?
I ask because I've always wanted a Kalashnikov (semi auto), but they've always been out of reach due to state laws. Thank you for your time.
Grey Templar wrote: So if, say, you had a Can with removable baffles that you could have extras of you can't legally swap them out? That is a pain in the butt if so.
Legality at a federal level does not supersede legality at a local or state level. If you build an SBR in a state that bans SBRs, all you get by having properly Form 1'd it is that you only get brought up on state rather than state+federal charges.
You do not need to have any kind of SOT to manufacture a SBR, SBS, AOW, or suppressor on a Form 1. You only need a Class 2 SOT/FFL Type 7 or a Class 3 SOT in order to engage in the manufacture of machine guns.
Connecticut grandfathered in pre-1994 firearms as exempt from current AWB restrictions provided they aren't banned by name. 7.62x39 AKs are banned, but other calibers are good to go. So if you can find a 5.45 or .223 AK made prior to '94, that'll work. Alternatively, there is at least one shop in CT manufacturing 7.62 AKs under the NFA title 1 category of 'other', which avoids some of the restrictions.
Of the shooters you own, which is the most prone to jamming, and why?
AMT Automag III.
It's basically a Colt 1911 stretched out a bit to feed the .30 Carbine originally developed for the US M1 Carbine in WW2.
It needs to be overly lubricated to function because 1. AMT never was great about fit, finish, or QC, so there are some rough geometries and general lack of polish that can cause it to stop up, and 2. it's an early example of a stainless steel gun, and the galling properties of stainless were not yet well understood. If it's under-lubricated, it will hang up returning to battery (ie, the slide will stop short of all the way forward) every time.
Honorable mention to my Desert Eagle Mk XIX in .50AE, which will do a similar malfunction if it's not held very rigidly when shooting. That's due to a combination of the high recoil of the round and the relatively slow action of the gas-operated system. Rifles generally don't have this problem because they have more mass to work against and higher gas pressure.
Oh, and my FAL kinda exploded once a little. But it's been okay ever since.
I own one of these colossal POS guns. I completely disassembled it, polished every component to a high sheen, increased the bore diameter by a thousandth of an inch, recontoured the feed ramp, slightly enlarged the ejection port and polished the plastic, lubed it up with graphite (gun uses NO oil by instructions), installed the proper springs, only used factory Ruger 10-22 10 round rotary magazines, AND found the brand of ammo best able to cycle through it. Even after all of THAT it is still a jam-o-matic 5000. After mods I have about a 40% chance of getting through a 10 round magazine without a jam of some kind.
From the factory as is, it was more like every 3rd round jamming, and that's with a Ruger mag and select ammo. Want to use a 3rd party magazine or even a 25 round Ruger mag? LOL, good luck. It will jam EVERY time. Want to use bulk .22 ammo? Hey, you might not even get the round to properly chamber and have an out of battery discharge (happened to me and it sucks).
Biggest design flaws: too small of an ejection port causing spent casings to get caught up, and the has WAY to high of a cyclic rate and doesn't allow the fired round time to eject before trying to load another round.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: What’s “exploding a little once”? I mean, once it’s exploded itself to bits, it can’t exactly explode again?
It experienced a malfunction known as a case head rupture, which is where the gun fires, but the back end of the casing for one reason or another is unable to contain the pressure of the fired round and it tears open, dumping that 60,000+ PSI hot gas out the breech.
Basically it went bang-bang-BOOM and then the contents of the magazine were on the ground, with the magazine bowed out into an oval shape by the semi-contained explosion routed into it to keep it away from my face.
This is an extremely uncommon type of malfunction, but in the FAL it can occur with certain brands of steel-cased ammunition as a consequence of the FAL's chamber design and timing characteristics. Basically it doesn't completely support the casing, it starts to extract the case a bit early (still under pressure) compared to other rifles, and it relies on the malleability of brass for that to work out. With (some) steel case the residual pressure holds the casing in the chamber but the bolt pulls on it anyways, and since it can't stretch like brass it splits at the unsupported point.
So now I only use brass-cased ammunition and it's fine.
Of the shooters you own, which is the most prone to jamming, and why?
My least reliable pistol has actually been a Walther PPK. Always had jamming issues when initially loading it, then a few thousand rounds in it started jamming every other shot (this is despite regular maintenance and lubrication.) After servicing from Walther Arms it's functional again.
To provide some context, the Walther PPK model has had multiple production runs over the years. This one was part of a bad run by Interarms Alexandria if I'm remembering correctly.
I have one other gun which functions reliably enough, but is wildly inaccurate. It's a Stevens "Visible Loader" .22 rifle from 1905 (if I'm remembering the year correctly.) As best I can tell, its barrel was sabotaged for carnival use. That is, they ran steel brushes down the bore to purposely make it inaccurate. Overall, it's in pretty rough shape. Really interesting piece, though.
Sounds like Mad Doc Grotsnik should look into trying out the hobby.
catbarf wrote: Legality at a federal level does not supersede legality at a local or state level. If you build an SBR in a state that bans SBRs, all you get by having properly Form 1'd it is that you only get brought up on state rather than state+federal charges.
You do not need to have any kind of SOT to manufacture a SBR, SBS, AOW, or suppressor on a Form 1. You only need a Class 2 SOT/FFL Type 7 or a Class 3 SOT in order to engage in the manufacture of machine guns.
Connecticut grandfathered in pre-1994 firearms as exempt from current AWB restrictions provided they aren't banned by name. 7.62x39 AKs are banned, but other calibers are good to go. So if you can find a 5.45 or .223 AK made prior to '94, that'll work. Alternatively, there is at least one shop in CT manufacturing 7.62 AKs under the NFA title 1 category of 'other', which avoids some of the restrictions.
I think the AK-74 I have would fall nicely into that group. It uses the 5.45 x 39 rounds, which can be tough to find, so I pick up the odd box or two when I see them and have amassed quite a few rounds. It shoots very similar to a .223, or the M16 I shot in the military way back when. However, the mag issue could still be a problem, as I have multiple 30-round mags for it that are not legal in many states, but no issue where I live. GBtSoT!*
My least reliable gun was the Kel-tec PMR30. Even after being broken in, and even when only using the 2-3 ammo brands on the little card it came with - it still would reliably jam 3 or 4 times per magazine. Part of it is it really is a tough design, the .22WMR is a very long round to cycle in such tight confines, and when you are jamming 30 of them into a magazine like that, they are prone to brass deformation.
The only gun I ever sold. I partially regret it because it really was a blast to shoot; huge fireballs, no recoil, 30 rounds, lots of fun - but it also was super annoying clearing the constant jams, and it was difficult finding ammo in the very specific brand and grain and bullet weight requirements.
I’ve been lucky in not having guns that are lemons. Most times it was pistols, and even then it was because I was limp wristing the firearm when I first started in the shooting hobby (not keeping my wrist stiff enough so that when the slide reciprocates, my wrist would bend which would interfere with the inertia necessary to chamber the next round).
I did have an AR pistol lock up when I was testing for extreme weather conditions. I was shooting on a hill top range, -32 F. The lubricant on the BCG was producing enough friction so that when a spent case was ejected, the next round would semi chamber and lock up the bolt in the forward position. The only way to eject the round was to mortar the firearm (kneel with the firearm in a 45 degree angle, , drop magazine, the. holding onto the charging handle, and slamming the buttstock/lower receiver extension tube on the ground just forward of your foot, causing the live round to eject). Tried it two more times with the same issue occurring before racing back to the shop, removing the extra lube, then running the gun dry. Lesson learned- cold weather, don’t run the BCG wet!
Ouze wrote: Well, I built a PCC. It's using an Aero Precision EPC builder's kit, and has a 8.3" barrel, 9mm, uses Glock mags.
That's neat as hell. I want a PCC but getting the right bits here is hard. I can BUY a PCC off the shelf but it's full of things like 16" barrel 9mm PCC's and the like. Like, I know non SBR's are easier to export than SBR's but no one needs a 16" 9mm.
Even our own locally made ones are stupid long. Edit, oh I just checked the local manufacturer, they do make SBR 9mm's now.
The Ruger PC Charger is an interesting option in the PCC world. It's lack of iron sights is a bummer but it has a surprising amount of after market support, including Volquartsen triggers.
Long update from my last post in the thread: I decided to go to the local gunshow.
It was interesting to say the least. I was surprised by how diverse the crowd was.
My first purchase was from a really nice older couple, they helped walk me through the whole thing. The husband was making dad jokes and banter while the wife did the entry for the background check. Just super friendly.
Spoiler:
It's a Type 56 SKS, all matching serial numbers including the stock. The wood is in great shape, when I got a good look at the bore it was (in my entirely non-professional opinion) pristine. Crisp rifling and the lands looked glassy smooth. It made me wonder if the prev. owner ever fired it at all.
The only slight flaw is once I removed the rubber recoil pad it looks like the butt plate doesn't quite fit right. There's a small area of wood that looks like it should be covered but isn't. I'll probably buy a new one (since it's non-serialized and it's a metal plate how much could it cost?).
After purchasing it I remarked that I wanted a case for it and the husband said "the guy at the table next to ours is having a fire sale maybe check him out". And it was definitely an everything must go sort of sale because I bought the case for $20 and he gave me 40 rounds of 7.62 for free.
Second day of the show I made my second major purchase: a P-64. Not quite the Makarov I wanted, but it seems like 99.9% of the show's pistols were either Glocks or revolvers. Felt like I was stuck in a Resident Evil game or something.
Spoiler:
I bought it from a more business-like table, but they seemed ok. Was supposed to come with a holster and extra magazine but they forgot to bring it and promised to mail it to me at their expense.
Overall I had a very positive experience and will definitely be going again for the next one.
The one lesson I did learn though is that in a 3 day gunshow, always go the first day. It was less crowded and easier to find that SKS. Next time I might switch around my schedule and arrive Thurs so I can be there first thing Friday morning.
EDIT'd to spoiler the large images from my potato of a phone camera
I picked up a type 56 earlier this year too. I would definitely recommend taking it out of the stock and checking it for cosmoline. Some people only clean the exterior areas and forget the rest of it, and cosmoline likes to come out of hiding once the gun heats up. You're gonna enjoy the rifle. Hope you got some stripper clips for it too.
Regarding the buttplate, it could potentially have been replaced at some point during a refurbish. Most surplus guns will have gone through a refurbish where they get sent back to the factory and have any worn parts replaced and maintained before they get gunked up with cosmoline and put in a warehouse for the next few decades till they got liquidated.
Grey Templar wrote: I picked up a type 56 earlier this year too. I would definitely recommend taking it out of the stock and checking it for cosmoline. Some people only clean the exterior areas and forget the rest of it, and cosmoline likes to come out of hiding once the gun heats up. You're gonna enjoy the rifle. Hope you got some stripper clips for it too.
Regarding the buttplate, it could potentially have been replaced at some point during a refurbish. Most surplus guns will have gone through a refurbish where they get sent back to the factory and have any worn parts replaced and maintained before they get gunked up with cosmoline and put in a warehouse for the next few decades till they got liquidated.
I took it apart today, managed to launch the gas piston part right into the ceiling. Luckily I found it and the spring pretty easily. The parts were a bit greasy but not gunky or anything.
I picked up some stripper clips at the show too, though it took a bit of searching. The tables that had piles of every magazine in existence didn't have any stripper clips, but while cutting between two aisles I spotted some in the middle of a pile of GI webgear and canvas. I asked and they were for sale so I figured why not?
Also thinking back about I do have one complaint - I know this is like an expectation at a gun show, but those stun guns were incredibly annoying. The first day was nice and quiet aside from normal crowd sounds, but Saturday was a constant electric sizzle and crack. I'm not sensitive to noise usually, but that was a nuisance.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As someone with the very loosest of grasps on firearms? And a 40K fan….
Would Bolters, with their self propelled sometimes, depending who’s writing or drawing, caseless ammo, benefit from a Bullpup layout.
Remember to show your working (aka explain it in simple terms a moron like I can understand)
Any rifle can benefit from being a bullpup. Bullpup as a design feature wouldn't interact with caseless ammo all that much.
The benefit to bullpup'ing a rifle is that you get the same barrel length in an overall shorter package. Barrel length is important for ensuring that the energy of the gunpowder is transferred to the bullet. Gunpowder doesn't burn all at once, it burns over time. Time the bullet is spending going down the barrel. If the bullet leaves the barrel before the gunpowder is done burning, you lose potential energy as well as stabilization from the rifling. This is a problem with versions of some firearms that have had their barrels shortened. It depends on the specific cartridge caliber too, some don't lose as much with a shorter than normal barrel.
Bullpup'ing makes the weapon easier to use in confined spaces from the reduction in its overall length, plus storage and other size related benefits, without losing the benefits of a normal(or potentially longer) barrel length. The downside to bullpups is they are, usually, not left handed friendly and reloading is sometimes awkward due to the magazine being so far back. These are minimal downsides, so in theory Bullpups are great. In practice, its another story.
Bullpup'ing an existing gun design is difficult and janky, which is why most bullpups are completely new designs. But they are usually focused on the bullpup aspect of the design, which means they can sometimes suffer in other areas. Which is why most countries have not adopted bullpup rifle designs, yet bullpups keep getting experimented with and the few countries who do use bullpups love their choices.
Grey Templar wrote: I picked up a type 56 earlier this year too. I would definitely recommend taking it out of the stock and checking it for cosmoline. Some people only clean the exterior areas and forget the rest of it, and cosmoline likes to come out of hiding once the gun heats up. You're gonna enjoy the rifle. Hope you got some stripper clips for it too.
Regarding the buttplate, it could potentially have been replaced at some point during a refurbish. Most surplus guns will have gone through a refurbish where they get sent back to the factory and have any worn parts replaced and maintained before they get gunked up with cosmoline and put in a warehouse for the next few decades till they got liquidated.
I took it apart today, managed to launch the gas piston part right into the ceiling. Luckily I found it and the spring pretty easily. The parts were a bit greasy but not gunky or anything.
I picked up some stripper clips at the show too, though it took a bit of searching. The tables that had piles of every magazine in existence didn't have any stripper clips, but while cutting between two aisles I spotted some in the middle of a pile of GI webgear and canvas. I asked and they were for sale so I figured why not?
Also thinking back about I do have one complaint - I know this is like an expectation at a gun show, but those stun guns were incredibly annoying. The first day was nice and quiet aside from normal crowd sounds, but Saturday was a constant electric sizzle and crack. I'm not sensitive to noise usually, but that was a nuisance.
Yeah, you gotta hold those spring loaded parts down when disassembling them. I always send the top cover across the room when I'm taking mine apart, and its a chonky piece thats gonna bonk someone someday.
Garand thumb is the number one reason to not want a Garand, I think.
'thumb' issues were a common issue in ww2 rifles. I still have a scar from working my type 38 a little too furiously one day, about 20 years ago. Did get the deer though.
I can say I know for a fact whey the Japanese infantry frequently 'lost' the dust cover on those.
ScarletRose wrote:The one lesson I did learn though is that in a 3 day gunshow, always go the first day. It was less crowded and easier to find that SKS. Next time I might switch around my schedule and arrive Thurs so I can be there first thing Friday morning.
Conversely, also consider going on the last day. That's when sellers start getting more willing to negotiate on what they haven't been able to move.
Right at opening or afternoon on the last day are my preferences.
Ouze wrote:The Garand ping is my number one reason to want a Garand, I think.
Garand thumb is the number one reason to not want a Garand, I think.
Garand thumb is easy to mitigate; you're supposed to insert the en-bloc clip with your thumb while the meat of your palm rests against the front of the charging handle, like this. That way even when the bolt lets loose, your hand is in the way of the action closing.
Years back I got a Bullpup kit for my Ruger 10/22. Add a flash supressor (cuz it looks cool) and it is a totally awesome looking piece. I brought it into a gun show to buy some larger mags, as I needed to make sure they fit with the different setup, and had about a dozen people ask if I was selling it, where could they buy one, etc.
This is again comes from me watching Forgotten Weapons on YouTube.
This time, I wish to enquire about your “I didn’t want to that, did I?” type rookie mistakes when you first started experimenting Fun With Firearms.
My brother, when he was much younger, gave hand loading a try. He exploded his shotgun. Apparently, you're not supposed to fill the entire shell with powder.
My first time hunting, I tried to rapid fire a bolt action rifle from the hip. Surprisingly, I killed the target, despite the fact it was 75 yards away.
Yeahhhhh. Shotshells only take a little bit of powder, they're mostly empty space when all said and done. Reloading is one of those things where you gotta follow the damn instructions.
Of the shooters you own, which is the most prone to jamming, and why?
Right now my Carl Gustav M45. I suspect the mag well is slight out of spec but I can’t really mess with it until my SBR paperwork gets done and I can extend the stock
This is again comes from me watching Forgotten Weapons on YouTube.
This time, I wish to enquire about your “I didn’t want to that, did I?” type rookie mistakes when you first started experimenting Fun With Firearms.
Unloading a Glock is pretty straightforward:
Drop the mag
Rack the slide to eject the chambered round
Rack the slide again and lock it back
Visually check the chamber, insert a pinky in feed ramp just to verify it unloaded
Drop the slide, dry fire the trigger in a safe direction
Store magazine, store pistol.
After 10 years of training, practicing helping train others, I did this instead:
Got into a deep discussion with the wife - distracted
Dropped the mag
Racked the slide
Racked the slide, locked it back and checked the chamber
Inserted the mag
Dropped the slide and fired the pistol into a sandbag sitting on the desktop of the built in cabinet, going through said bag and lodging the 9mm hollow point into the horse hair plastered slatboard wall in our close to 200yo house.
While shocked and deafened by the “eeeeeeeeeeee”, I dropped the mag, racked hell out of the slide, locked it back and placed the pistol as well as the mag into the safety box.
I must admit that I had a negligent discharge once as well, but nearly that bad. I was out plinking with my brother in law with our .22LR pistols. He had a revolver that held 9 rounds. We decide to try each other's weapon out and he filled his with what he had left in a partial box of ammo, which was 8 rounds. I, thinking it was a 7 round revolver, squeeze off 7 rounds, then hit a click and think I'm empty. I then point at a pigeon, thinking I was just going to dryfire. Nope, surprising everyone I dropped the pigeon.
While I've never had an ND, my father, who originally trained me to use guns, had one once he's never lived down.
My mother loves to point at the hole over the kitchen table where, while cleaning an Allen and Wheellock bar hammer, he had decided to try and clear an apparent blockage by snapping a cap rather than do it the right way.
This successfully fired a round that had apparently been in the revolver since the 19th century. Fortunately, it didn't have a lot of oomph left.
I'm thinking about getting a 1911, but I'm not sure what the good ones are anymore. Do you guys have any suggestions. I'm looking to spend around 1,500 and I will CCW with it.
Is there anywhere I can go to fling some lead down a range? I remember looking before, and the one I found wasn’t open to non-US citizens, if memory serves.
Not looking for anything crazy fun, just somewhere to test the eye in a safe and practical environment.
yellowfever wrote: I'm thinking about getting a 1911, but I'm not sure what the good ones are anymore. Do you guys have any suggestions. I'm looking to spend around 1,500 and I will CCW with it.
The Springfield Armory Ronin is a bit cheaper, but seems to be a pretty nice pistol. Gets good reviews. I admittedly do not have one but am considering getting one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Just NYC, but thank you for the offer, I may take you up on that on another trip
Seems in NYC, and some of the surrounding area (my geography is terrible) you need a license :(
Yeah, NYC is notoriously restrictive. Don't want to slide into politics and get the thread killed though.
Maybe someone from there can recommend a club/range that would let you shoot.
Is there anywhere I can go to fling some lead down a range? I remember looking before, and the one I found wasn’t open to non-US citizens, if memory serves.
Not looking for anything crazy fun, just somewhere to test the eye in a safe and practical environment.
This link might help. You can use the filters to find what you want.
https://www.wheretoshoot.org/ It looks like you're going to have to leave NYC to shoot anything other than a .22 rifle.
yellowfever wrote: I'm thinking about getting a 1911, but I'm not sure what the good ones are anymore. Do you guys have any suggestions. I'm looking to spend around 1,500 and I will CCW with it.
I have a Kimber Custom 2. Only have about 300 rounds through it, and I still get at least 2 F2Fs per mag. Once it's "fully broken in" (I'm being told between 500-1000 rounds), then it should run smoothly. Wouldn't recommend for carry unless you're willing to put in the work before it gets there.
I'll second Springfield. Their new Emissary line looks great
Thanks guys, I shoot fairly often so putting in the work is no problem. Plus I have other guns I currently carry so no need to rush on my part. I was leaning towards Springfield but wanted to see if anyone had personal experience with them first.
yellowfever wrote: I'm thinking about getting a 1911, but I'm not sure what the good ones are anymore. Do you guys have any suggestions. I'm looking to spend around 1,500 and I will CCW with it.
I've heard good things about Rock Island Armory's 1911 clone. It looks like a vintage 1911, but with a couple little tweeks. It's very inexpensive as well. It's reliable, and that's the main thing you want for a CCW. I figure, if it's reliable and easy to use, you shouldn't have a gun pricey enough that you freak out when it gets used and roughed up.
Grey Templar wrote: For 1911s, the Springfield Operator is another really nice 1911 in that price range. $1300. Nice and modern looking, but keeps the 1911 feel.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The two pics above have what I might call block triggers, rather than triggery triggers.
I know enough that one squeezes, rather than pulls a trigger. I assume the block trigger helps with that?
I wouldn't describe a sliding rather than pivoting trigger as inherently better or worse, it's just a different style. I've experienced very good and very bad examples of both.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The two pics above have what I might call block triggers, rather than triggery triggers.
I know enough that one squeezes, rather than pulls a trigger. I assume the block trigger helps with that?
I wouldn't describe a sliding rather than pivoting trigger as inherently better or worse, it's just a different style. I've experienced very good and very bad examples of both.
To me the biggest difference is the single vs double action trigger. While I've experienced some very good double action triggers or double/single action triggers my favorite triggers have been on single action only pistols of the 1911 variants. As a side note, very interested in the SA-35 because the magazine disconnect in the Hi-power always seemed to add some slop.
Double Action triggers will always be less crisp, all else being equal, than single action simply because you have to exert force over time and then you have the break. Single action only has the trigger break.
My P94 does however has a very nice light trigger pull despite being double action, and it is nice being able to have the hammer dropped on a live round so there is basically no chance of mechanical failure. With a 1911 the hammer will always be cocked if there is a live round in the chamber.
I have a soft spot for 80s tacticool garbage and the AMT Hardballer Longslide with that one-of-a-kind laser sight is a standout example. It took a fair bit of work to track down the gun, the sight mount, and an airsoft copy of the laser, which I then had to gut and re-wire to make functional and hold zero under recoil.
trexmeyer wrote:Does a scope that size impact racking it at all?
I've got freakish hand strength so I have no trouble pinching the slide serrations, but there definitely is less contact surface. Also, it's not a scope despite appearance, it's actually a laser.
Grey Templar wrote:Its gonna get the heck beat out of it from recoil over time. Slide mounted sights aren't exactly known for longevity, but it is really cool.
And it's not slide-mounted, either. NPC grip mount. Here's the other side:
An elongated AMT Harballer has always been on my bucket list (thank you Hitman), so that's really cool that you managed to find one. I've been considering just buying a Fusion 80% kit, and just doing it that way.
Well, from the "never meet your heroes" department, I have an update on my deagle situation.
I have wanted a Deag for the longest time - at least 20 years. This year, as a "I didn't lose my job" gift (we had a hellish company re-org), I finally got the deagle, the 50ae with the integral muzzle brake. That was around June or July and I never actually... shot it.
The other day, we had some unseasonably warm weather - 70 degrees in December in the midwest. I took that opportunity to finally shoot 2 guns I had never shot - a 9mm SBR PCC and my deag.
Not a good time. I could not believe how much recoil it had - very unpleasant to shoot. I brought 60 rounds but called it a day at 20 or so.
I'm not a total more - I did rent and shoot a deagle just like this at my local range about 5 years ago, and it was just fine. Stout recoil but not, you know, unpleasant? I wish I knew what the difference was. Either that one was nice and broken in, springwise - that is my hope - or I was just a lot physically stronger 5 years ago. That is sadly the more likely possibility with the combination of nerve damage in my right wrist and 2 years of remote work where I barely move all day.
I am already thinking of selling it. I know I could get the 44 conversion but is it really even a deagle at that point anymore? I would say not. I am alternately hoping it just needs to break in a bit. I am already using only 300gr ammo, I don't think they make 50ae with less - and of course, it might not cycle with less, anyway.
As a final side note to this essay - one of those 50 cal cases flew back into my face so hard it left a small chip right in the center of my right eyeglass lens. Wear your ballistic glasses, they are cheap.
Ouze wrote: I am already thinking of selling it. I know I could get the 44 conversion but is it really even a deagle at that point anymore? I would say not. I am alternately hoping it just needs to break in a bit. I am already using only 300gr ammo, I don't think they make 50ae with less - and of course, it might not cycle with less, anyway.
As a final side note to this essay - one of those 50 cal cases flew back into my face so hard it left a small chip right in the center of my right eyeglass lens. Wear your ballistic glasses, they are cheap.
I hate to say it, but it's unlikely to get better as it breaks in. .50AE is a very strong cartridge. A case hitting your face is also a classic sign of not holding it tightly enough- you're supposed to fully extend and lock your dominant arm, and keep your wrist tight. If you're right-handed, well, that would track with nerve damage in your wrist.
But as far as caliber: The original Desert Eagle was .357 Magnum, then .44, and .50AE was the latecomer. So there's nothing wrong with the lighter calibers, and .357 in particular is a soft, downright pleasant round with the weight of the pistol. Most of the folks I know who own Eagles in .50AE primarily shoot .44 instead. .50AE is a meme cartridge.
I would also say you could add more weight to help tame the recoil, but if you have wrist strength issues then that might be a bad idea. I use an Ultradot on mine, and it both provides a good sighting solution and adds a bit of weight to the muzzle. Real one is rightmost, other two are airsoft:
If your Deagle was in 44 magnum I would gladly take it off your hands. Sadly, that is the only one that can be sold in CA. But its totally ok to buy one in .44 magnum then buy the .50AE barrel and mags so you can swap it out, it just can't be originally a .50AE.
Ouze wrote: I am already thinking of selling it. I know I could get the 44 conversion but is it really even a deagle at that point anymore? I would say not. I am alternately hoping it just needs to break in a bit. I am already using only 300gr ammo, I don't think they make 50ae with less - and of course, it might not cycle with less, anyway.
As a final side note to this essay - one of those 50 cal cases flew back into my face so hard it left a small chip right in the center of my right eyeglass lens. Wear your ballistic glasses, they are cheap.
I hate to say it, but it's unlikely to get better as it breaks in. .50AE is a very strong cartridge. A case hitting your face is also a classic sign of not holding it tightly enough- you're supposed to fully extend and lock your dominant arm, and keep your wrist tight. If you're right-handed, well, that would track with nerve damage in your wrist.
But as far as caliber: The original Desert Eagle was .357 Magnum, then .44, and .50AE was the latecomer. So there's nothing wrong with the lighter calibers, and .357 in particular is a soft, downright pleasant round with the weight of the pistol. Most of the folks I know who own Eagles in .50AE primarily shoot .44 instead. .50AE is a meme cartridge.
I would also say you could add more weight to help tame the recoil, but if you have wrist strength issues then that might be a bad idea. I use an Ultradot on mine, and it both provides a good sighting solution and adds a bit of weight to the muzzle. Real one is rightmost, other two are airsoft:
Thanks for the advice - I know for SURE I wasn't holding it tight enough. I wish I had the wrists of just 5 years ago - sort of a lot has changed since then.
I might try again at my other range (indoor) where I can rest my arms\the gun butt on the shooting shelf, that might help a little. Will think about it more after that.
The nerve thing is really eating away at the stuff I love - gaming, minis, and now shooting have all become more difficult/painful. But that's getting old, I guess At least I still have many firearms in regular calibers.
When did you first take up shooting as a hobby, what was the first gun you used, and what was the first gun you personally owned?
First gun I bought was a pre-ban HK-91 I got when stationed at Ft Hood in the early 90s.
Think the first gun I used for 'shooting as a hobby' was an old .22 bolt action my Dad had. Don't remember the make. Since I've kind of restarted 'shooting as a hobby', my first gun dedicated totally to just fun shooting is a Walther/Umarex .22 M4 licensed by Colt. I've grown the collection considerably since that purchase, but it is still the gun I start new folks on. Easy, no recoil, PINGS the steel targets very accurately on our range.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another question for the sake of interesting conversation. Well. Interesting to me at least!
When did you first take up shooting as a hobby, what was the first gun you used, and what was the first gun you personally owned?
My partner's grandfather taught me to shoot when we visited his vacation property out in the middle of nowhere Arizona. I'm the only one of my generation that had any interest/talent so he was happy and it became a good pivot after his initial negative reaction to me dating his granddaughter.
I started with a Beretta 92FS.
My first purchase was a secondhand Sig Sauer SP2022. I eventually ended up trading it in because I found I preferred having a manual safety. I know that's not considered the "cool" set up for a pistol, but it feels more intuitive for me.
Manual safeties are IMO the superior way to go. I don't mind having another type as well, like the Beaver Tail safety on a 1911, but guns that lack any sort of manual safety just make me a little paranoid. It really bugs me with my Glock for instance.
Grey Templar wrote: Manual safeties are IMO the superior way to go. I don't mind having another type as well, like the Beaver Tail safety on a 1911, but guns that lack any sort of manual safety just make me a little paranoid. It really bugs me with my Glock for instance.
It didn't hurt that about the time I decided on the trade-in a neighbor ended up getting a nice new hole in their wall courtesy of their wife feeling around in a drawer and snagging a trigger (at least according to what we overheard her telling the cops).
Now granted, a lot of that is just unsafe storage/handling, but a manual safety would've prevented it for sure.
No one was injured btw, though the bullet struck a neighboring building which led to the police involvement.
Grey Templar wrote: Manual safeties are IMO the superior way to go. I don't mind having another type as well, like the Beaver Tail safety on a 1911, but guns that lack any sort of manual safety just make me a little paranoid. It really bugs me with my Glock for instance.
Some safeties are more safe than they're worth. My Arisaka's safety is the culprit of the only time I've ever injured myself with a gun. I suspect that it was commonly left with the safety off by Japanese soldiers outside of drill.
I mean, it could happen on a single action of some kind. You can have very light triggers and if its tangled on something... But yeah, most likely not.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another question for the sake of interesting conversation. Well. Interesting to me at least!
When did you first take up shooting as a hobby, what was the first gun you used, and what was the first gun you personally owned?
Started shooting pretty young - wasn't until I was 20 that I actually started shooting regularly. Primary reason for that is that my family finally got a range membership which made shooting regularly A LOT cheaper.
First gun I personally owned was a Yugo M48 chambered in 8mm Mauser. To put that in English, that is a Yugoslavian version of the Mauser Kar98 rifle. Absolutely gorgeous. Ground shakes when you shoot it. What's interesting, though, is that it has a WWI era bolt with a straight handle. Don't know how that happened, but I'll roll with it.
...and that started the soft spot in my heart for Mauser rifles and their derivatives. Only thing stopping me from owning more is budget.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another question for the sake of interesting conversation. Well. Interesting to me at least!
When did you first take up shooting as a hobby, what was the first gun you used, and what was the first gun you personally owned?
Started shooting pretty young - wasn't until I was 20 that I actually started shooting regularly. Primary reason for that is that my family finally got a range membership which made shooting regularly A LOT cheaper.
First gun I personally owned was a Yugo M48 chambered in 8mm Mauser. To put that in English, that is a Yugoslavian version of the Mauser Kar98 rifle. Absolutely gorgeous. Ground shakes when you shoot it. What's interesting, though, is that it has a WWI era bolt with a straight handle. Don't know how that happened, but I'll roll with it.
...and that started the soft spot in my heart for Mauser rifles and their derivatives. Only thing stopping me from owning more is budget.
D’you Not have a firstborn to trade? And after that a second born you can pass off as a firstborn?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another question for the sake of interesting conversation. Well. Interesting to me at least!
When did you first take up shooting as a hobby, what was the first gun you used, and what was the first gun you personally owned?
I learned to shoot with a Daisy BB gun, lever action. First true firearm I shot was some old single-shot 22LR rifle my dad lent me. When I was 10 I was given a Ruger 10-22 for Christmas, and when I was 15 I received a Winchester 1300 12 gauge. My first pistol was an 8.5 inch slabside barrel Ruger Mk3 .22LR target pistol.
22 single shot, 22 bolt action 5 round mag, and a 22 14 round semi auto rifle were my rec weapons before the military. Since then I have only shot once recreationally, and the assortment was an AK47, an AK74, an AR15 (yawn), an FN FAL (hot, so flipping hot), and a random dude walking up to offer us a round each with his Garand if he could pop a mag through the 47.
My wife is so skittish around having guns in the house that I'm lucky to even have the Davis Industries P32 that I currently own
Once you’re used to shooting a given gun, do you find it tricky to switch to another, or are the general principles so general that you can shoot and maintain most guns?
If the guns are roughly similar in their basic functions its not really an issue at all. My 1911, Glock, and P94 are all pretty much the same principles. Only difference is how the different safeties(or lack of one on the Glock) are used.
Someone who has only ever used semi-auto pistols would probably find using a level action or a bolt action rifle a little weird at first, but nothing involving guns is every really complicated. You just follow the basic rules of gun safety(which apply to all guns equally) and then whatever minor changes there are for a specific gun.
Honestly, the biggest struggle I've ever had is with my DP-12. The urge to pump after every shot like a normal pump action shotgun is strong, but the DP-12 gets 2 shots between pumps.
Maintenance is another story. Guns which have mostly identical functions might disassemble in radically different ways. What you need to do doesn't change, you still need to clean and lubricate. Its just how you take them apart that can be very different.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another question for the sake of interesting conversation. Well. Interesting to me at least!
When did you first take up shooting as a hobby, what was the first gun you used, and what was the first gun you personally owned?
I started shooting at 7 years old with my dad. First gun I used was a .22 rifle, don't remember which one specifically. First gun I bought was a Glock 21.
I've decided to take the plunge into 3D printing a weapon. I have logged 300+ hours of printing since I got it, and have a decent understanding. After I mod it to use Carbon Fiber nylon I'm going to test my skills with making chassis for my BattleBots, then a firearm.
I think I'd like to try a Mac Daddy receiver. It's basically a modified Ar-15 lower without a buffer tube that uses Glock Mags and mates to a Mac-11 upper. Nice, cheap subgun.
Once you’re used to shooting a given gun, do you find it tricky to switch to another, or are the general principles so general that you can shoot and maintain most guns?
The general principles are close enough. Most civilian owned firearms are going to be relatively simple in design so maintenance shouldn't be an issue.
Unless you're a pro-shooter, insanely rich, or somehow make a chunk of your living off of shooting you won't be shooting "that much" so maintenace time shouldn't be insane. Even machine guns aren't that complicated from a cleaning perspective.
I think the general differences across firearms are safety type and functionality around reloading, chambering, and ejecting rounds and then the potential failure to fire issues that stem from that functionality. i.e. a revolver shouldn't have failure to fire issues, but the semi-automatics I've used, be it a handgun or rifle, have the same general FTF issues.
Once you’re used to shooting a given gun, do you find it tricky to switch to another, or are the general principles so general that you can shoot and maintain most guns?
You can definitely run into some muscle memory or retraining issues. For example the thumb safety on some auto pistols. Colt 1911 up safe down fire , Browning Hi power up safe down fire, Smith & Wesson 39 up safe down.......wait a minute decocker up fire down safe, Barrette 92 decocker up fire down safe. Glock......WTF.
I personally don't dig the transition from the 1911 to the M9.
For idiot terms. I drive manual (or stick shift as you might know them) vehicles.
In my time, I’ve driven a fair number of vehicles. Generally, the layout is so standardised the only real difference is getting used to breaking, acceleration and the biting point of the clutch. Also parking if there’s a size variance.
How would you say those difference can be compared to the differences between shooters?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For idiot terms. I drive manual (or stick shift as you might know them) vehicles.
In my time, I’ve driven a fair number of vehicles. Generally, the layout is so standardised the only real difference is getting used to breaking, acceleration and the biting point of the clutch. Also parking if there’s a size variance.
How would you say those difference can be compared to the differences between shooters?
There's a lot more variation in firearm controls, but the fundamentals are largely the same.
Imagine you get a new car and the gear-shift sequence is different, so when you go to put it in 2nd that motion actually puts you in reverse. The ignition is now underneath your seat so you sometimes reach for the wrong place when you go to start it, it's more sensitive on the accelerator than you're used to so that takes adjustment, and the clutch is now manipulated with your left hand rather than a pedal. You already know how to drive so this isn't starting from scratch by any means, and you'll do fine in a controlled environment where you can think deliberately about what you're doing, but it's not as instinctive as you're used to and if you immediately set out in rush hour traffic you might make mistakes.
You can tell a lot about what someone's used to and trained on by how they manipulate a gun- there's a meme I've seen every now and again about a Russian guy reaching for a nonexistent charging handle on the right side of an AR, and an American slapping at a nonexistent bolt release on the side of an AK. The fundamentals of shooting are all the same, but the details of manipulation differ, so muscle memory can bite you. And that really matters when it comes to stress. I've seen body camera footage of a (right-handed) American cop in a shootout awkwardly holding his Glock pistol by the barrel/slide with his left hand while he inserts a new mag into the grip with his right. In a life-or-death situation he fell back on muscle memory, and holding the gun with your left hand while you insert a speedloader with your right is exactly how a right-handed shooter speed-reloads a revolver.
In general there's only so many ways a particular function can be implemented, and market forces push for familiarity. Once you've handled a couple of archetypical examples, it's not hard to pick up a gun and notice a particular combination of features, and then you broadly know how the weapon operates. But even then, there are quirks- if I know ARs and AKs then all the controls of an MP5 might be intuitive to me, but not the fact that I have to manually lock the bolt back before I can insert a fully-loaded magazine.
So I've been working some overtime to save up for my first AK. I'm planning to budget roughly $1200. I've been reading up and I feel like there's three options:
WASR The intro AK. Obviously I can get it for significantly less than my budget, but I do want a folding stock so I'll probably still be spending on some upgrades. It's a basic, reliable rifle.
Zastava ZPAP I can get the model with a triangle side folding stock for my budget. I've heard lots of good things, it seems super durable with the thicker receiver and bulged trunnion. But that comes at the cost of being heavier, and having Yugo pattern parts. So any furniture or scope mount stuff I buy will be out of a narrower market of potential parts.
Also no bayonet mount, which (while wildly impractical) is still something that would be nice to have.
WBP Fox I've also heard good things about this one. Polish quality costs a bit more, so any changes to the furniture will have to wait until later. On the plus side it uses standard AKM parts so it'll be easier to find stuff. Basically this is the opposite of the WASR option - invest more in the base unit at the cost of the upgrades.
Obviously, the market can change and any of these can become a better/worse option. And I'm planning to visit my LGS this Sat. to see if they have a good deal on anything.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18370534/GettyImages_517788790.jpg)
At least I still have many firearms in regular calibers.
