ScarletRose wrote: 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.
Sounds like you want 7.62 and not 5.45 or 5.56? The reality of buying a rifle now is that you will need to probably spend closer to 2 or 3 grand to get everything you need to have a nice set up.
I built my AK74 years ago with Bulgarian parts, back then it there were a lot of options and for much less money. The old Arsenal imports were essentially what many would consider a premium AK that's not from Jim Fuller. If you can find any on the used market and you can pay the slightly gouged prices I'd go for that. You can still buy new ones, but they are the milled variety. Back when they were coming in like crazy I didn't wanna buy one because I thought they were a little much, so I went and built my rifle. Now I wish I had bought 10. Still love my build though. Here's a list of AKs that are currently available and are of good quality:
ScarletRose wrote: 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.
If you're thinking of like an authentic side-folder or underfolder, be aware that those use different rear trunnion designs from fixed-stock AKs. Polish and East German side-folding wire stocks, though, will fit on a fixed-stock trunnion.
ScarletRose wrote: 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.
I had a Zastava. There was nothing really wrong per se, but that thicker receiver is heavier to no practical durability gain, and the stock design has a very high comb that is quite unpleasant for some facial structures. I ended up putting an M76 stock on it, then eventually selling it. It is a much more limited ecosystem of parts so if you want to dress up an AK I would not opt for Yugo.
Burring on any type of finished firearm would be a serious quality control problem. Especially in any areas of moving parts. You would of course NEVER want to take grinder or a file to any part a gun unless you know what you are doing. Especially to the barrel as that could effect accuracy. Burring on either end of the barrel would be horrible. The chamber end would interfere with chambering and/or lockup of the action, which would result in lots of jams and/or out of battery detonations. The muzzle end would mean horrible accuracy as an uneven muzzle can mess up the bullet's spin as it exists the barrel.
What sort of modifications are you thinking about? There are a lot of weapons which have standard features that might be optional on others. Two different manufacturers making a cheap AR15 will probably have 4-5 different packages each with different options.
I would say most firearms have a breaking in period for sure. Recoil springs can be stiff for the first few hundredish rounds. Firearms without the most precision of manufacturing may result in some parts grinding against each other till they have worn each other down and begin working completely smoothly(we're talking maybe a few dozen micrometres of material getting worn away)
My 1911 took a few dozen mag dumps before the recoil spring was nice and smooth when I was manually manipulating it. Fresh springs are always a little stiff till they've been worked a little bit.
To emulate above, in general, if a gun has defects that require tool work, its not a well made gun. Hell, even late model Remington 870s had a large QC issue with their chamber cutting that could be resolved with steel wool on a drill, but the fact that there was such an issue where the shells start sticking alone is not a good one.
Break in though is a thing any gun generally will end up doing, as fresh from the factory guns have factory grease, things to keep it stored safely, and any number of other minor things to keep them from being troublesome. One example I can think of in breaking in a gun was when I got a new upper for my AR it wasn't cycling steel case wolf as it generally doesn't have the same burn curve as say M193 clone spec cartridges, but it started cycling it cleanly after a proper mag of ammo to 'burn in' the gas port so to say so everything could move neatly.
WASR or Zastava are both excellent. Get the one you like the look of better.
Yeah, they both seem like solid choices.
Dagstyrr wrote:
Sounds like you want 7.62 and not 5.45 or 5.56? The reality of buying a rifle now is that you will need to probably spend closer to 2 or 3 grand to get everything you need to have a nice set up.
Well, 5.45 is pretty much dead as I understand it. Very little import or domestic production, and prices on rifles in that caliber are through the roof. IIRC Kalashnikov USA might be producing a new 5.45 rifle, and some others, but just as with miniatures or pc games I'm a wait and see type of person. A lot of new stuff can end up just being vaporware.
5.56 I'm more ambivalent about. There are definitely upsides to using a lighter, more common cartridge. But I already own an SKS and the prospect of stocking up on 2 different rounds isn't appealing. In addition, while almost every 7.62 magazine is going to work (and some can be quite cheap since so many were made) not every 5.56 mag works in every 5.56 AK. There's no Soviet standardization of the magazine and while the cartridge does dictate most of the dimensions there's still some incompatibilities.
I know eventually my outlay might be higher once I factor in optics, furniture, muzzle device, any other bits I want to change or just have, etc. But right now I'm at the initial purchase step - buy the rifle and then pick up the rest as I go along.
catbarf wrote:I had a Zastava. There was nothing really wrong per se, but that thicker receiver is heavier to no practical durability gain, and the stock design has a very high comb that is quite unpleasant for some facial structures. I ended up putting an M76 stock on it, then eventually selling it. It is a much more limited ecosystem of parts so if you want to dress up an AK I would not opt for Yugo.
See this is the kind of thing I was looking to hear about. I know the newer ZPAP doesn't have the high comb on the stock that gave people trouble, but the extra weight vs. durability is the thing I wondered about.
The Yugo AK pattern is interesting to me since it's such an evolutionary offshoot - it was based on captured AKs that were taken from border guards of neighboring countries. So it's this combination of reverse engineering and native elements that's kind of intriguing.
But there is definitely a trade-off to uniqueness.
Ouze wrote: I cannot believe how expensive AKs have gotten.
Part of it really came down to the cheap kits from Eastern Europe dried up and importing got harder or banned for some cheaper floor models. Fact that domestic production AKs have really only gotten to the point of spec forged trunnions with KUSA if they're done from scratch or playing QC games with PSA AKs is more the reality of the gun being a bit more difficult to produce than just buying the same cheap 16" barrel everyone buys for an AR for their budget price point models. That and IO/Century produced AKs made a lot of people shy about the cheap ones for explosive reasons.
For mass produced models, have you ever bought one where it needed a wee bit of tinkering to get it working smoothly?
I’m thinking like the end of the barrel which sits by the receiver (?) might have some burring etc which you needed to file down.
I have, but like others have said it's usually a QC issue since guns are expected to work. I have a cheap Chinese-made copy of a Winchester 1887 that out of the box was extremely gritty, had a rough chamber which would cause shells to stick after firing, and some minor dimensional issues that caused feed and function problems. It required a little bit of filing to internal components, cycling the action with toothpaste as an abrasive to slick it up (old trick I picked up from cowboy action shooters), and running a brass brush on a power drill through the chamber to polish it. And now it works exactly as it should.
It also had boring brown wood:
Which cleaned up very nicely with paint stripper and refinishing:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And are there mass produced weapons where a given modification might as well be considered standard?
Usually, when that's the case, it's because of undesired functionality.
Some handguns, for example, are manufactured with magazine disconnects, which prevent the weapon from firing when a magazine isn't inserted. It's intended as a safety measure, but the prevailing school of thought is that it's unnecessary, and disconnects typically have negative impact on the trigger pull. So, disabling it is a common modification.
There are some quality-of-life add-ons that are pretty popular for certain platforms, but I can't think of any that are must-have, as usually guns don't leave the factory with glaring deficiencies. For Steyr AUGs, for example, there's a bolt-on deflector that makes cases eject forwards rather than backwards, which is nice to have if you have to shoot left-handed (or are left-handed and didn't buy a left-handed AUG) so that the cases are ejected away from you rather than into your face. I've also seen drop-in parts that convert the ambidextrous (on both sides of the gun) safety on the CZ Scorpion Evo to left-side only, to avoid accidentally hitting the right-side safety during use. But both of these aren't correcting flaws so much as adjusting to user needs/preference.
The Scorpion safety really does need to be changed right out of the box. It's not a case of accidentally hitting the right side safety lever so much as the safety digging a hole in your trigger finger when shooting. It isn't even a 'positive' safety that hits your trigger finger alerting you to the fact that the weapon is still on safe. The lever hits you when it's off safe. I guess that does create a tactile reminder of its position but I installed the right side delete after the first range trip.
Its to be expected that such a tiny gun would have some ergo issues. You would think they could have, idk, reversed the safety somehow. IE: Have up out of the way be ready to fire and down and annoying be safety on.
For mass produced models, have you ever bought one where it needed a wee bit of tinkering to get it working smoothly?
I’m thinking like the end of the barrel which sits by the receiver (?) might have some burring etc which you needed to file down.
I have, but like others have said it's usually a QC issue since guns are expected to work. I have a cheap Chinese-made copy of a Winchester 1887 that out of the box was extremely gritty, had a rough chamber which would cause shells to stick after firing, and some minor dimensional issues that caused feed and function problems. It required a little bit of filing to internal components, cycling the action with toothpaste as an abrasive to slick it up (old trick I picked up from cowboy action shooters), and running a brass brush on a power drill through the chamber to polish it. And now it works exactly as it should.
It also had boring brown wood:
Which cleaned up very nicely with paint stripper and refinishing:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And are there mass produced weapons where a given modification might as well be considered standard?
Usually, when that's the case, it's because of undesired functionality.
Some handguns, for example, are manufactured with magazine disconnects, which prevent the weapon from firing when a magazine isn't inserted. It's intended as a safety measure, but the prevailing school of thought is that it's unnecessary, and disconnects typically have negative impact on the trigger pull. So, disabling it is a common modification.
There are some quality-of-life add-ons that are pretty popular for certain platforms, but I can't think of any that are must-have, as usually guns don't leave the factory with glaring deficiencies. For Steyr AUGs, for example, there's a bolt-on deflector that makes cases eject forwards rather than backwards, which is nice to have if you have to shoot left-handed (or are left-handed and didn't buy a left-handed AUG) so that the cases are ejected away from you rather than into your face. I've also seen drop-in parts that convert the ambidextrous (on both sides of the gun) safety on the CZ Scorpion Evo to left-side only, to avoid accidentally hitting the right-side safety during use. But both of these aren't correcting flaws so much as adjusting to user needs/preference.
I have one of those shotguns too. I don't know if it was my large fingers, or if I just shoot weird, but when I took it out to shoot (negetive 5 degrees , Thanksgiving 2018), The first shot was awesome, the second shot was okay, third shot was "huh, that hits your trigger finger a bit", Fourth shot was "man, beginning to hurt", and by the time I emptied the chamber I was pretty much done for the day. Definitely a weapon I'll only shoot with padded gloves.
Insurgency Walker wrote: The Scorpion safety really does need to be changed right out of the box. It's not a case of accidentally hitting the right side safety lever so much as the safety digging a hole in your trigger finger when shooting. It isn't even a 'positive' safety that hits your trigger finger alerting you to the fact that the weapon is still on safe. The lever hits you when it's off safe. I guess that does create a tactile reminder of its position but I installed the right side delete after the first range trip.
The first thing I did with my Scorpion (EVO 3 S2 Micro) was also swapping out the safety to an aftermarket one that shorted and reversed the levers. What a terrible design.
The second was to replace the charging handle with an extended one.
I'll tell you, it has been pulling teeth to find reloading components lately. Looks like everybody has taken up reloading. Had to travel to 4 different stores and buy online to get components to reload .44 magnum. And I could only find 3 boxes of actual ammunition as well.
Grey Templar wrote: I'll tell you, it has been pulling teeth to find reloading components lately. Looks like everybody has taken up reloading. Had to travel to 4 different stores and buy online to get components to reload .44 magnum. And I could only find 3 boxes of actual ammunition as well.
Yeah, same over here, I need to stock up on primers!
Common ammo has been coming back, but the more niche stuff hasn't. 44 magnum seems to be one of those calibers that people are snapping up, but the manufacturers aren't increasing production like they have with the more common rounds.
At least round nose .45 isn't being sold for $70 for a box of 50 around here anymore.
Grey Templar wrote: Common ammo has been coming back, but the more niche stuff hasn't. 44 magnum seems to be one of those calibers that people are snapping up, but the manufacturers aren't increasing production like they have with the more common rounds.
At least round nose .45 isn't being sold for $70 for a box of 50 around here anymore.
Oof, it never got above $40 here, but selection is still limited (Winchester white box for my .45). 9mm can still be hard to find here in places. And some stores were tying the purchase of a gun to being able to buy ammo. It's actually part of why I bought my 1911, .45 was cheaper and easier to find than 9mm.
I've actually been looking at my hefty tax return, and the projected profit from selling my house, and eyeing up Springfield's new bullpup, the Hellion. I'm not 100% on board with the look of it, but the fact that I can make it ambi without tools is a huge plus, since I'm the only lefty in my group.
Online reviews of the Hellion say it's on par with a Tavor. Demand is high and supply low though. I'd wait a while for street prices to drop, unless you are willing to pay through the nose.
Grey Templar wrote: Common ammo has been coming back, but the more niche stuff hasn't. 44 magnum seems to be one of those calibers that people are snapping up, but the manufacturers aren't increasing production like they have with the more common rounds.
At least round nose .45 isn't being sold for $70 for a box of 50 around here anymore.
Oof, it never got above $40 here, but selection is still limited (Winchester white box for my .45). 9mm can still be hard to find here in places. And some stores were tying the purchase of a gun to being able to buy ammo. It's actually part of why I bought my 1911, .45 was cheaper and easier to find than 9mm.
I've actually been looking at my hefty tax return, and the projected profit from selling my house, and eyeing up Springfield's new bullpup, the Hellion. I'm not 100% on board with the look of it, but the fact that I can make it ambi without tools is a huge plus, since I'm the only lefty in my group.
Crossover hobby time here, and a serious question.
I know someone that had a workplace accident that left them with partial paralysis in their right hand. After surgery and physical therapy he has grip in the hand, but finer motor control is a bit wonky for him, and his trigger finger occasionally spasms on its own. Obviously NOT an ideal situation for a right handed shooter. He has taught himself somewhat to shoot lefty, but he's nowhere near as good as he once was.
Now that I have a 3D printer I think I have an idea. Imagine a bullpup linkage, but on a normally stocked gun. Basically, a forward pistol grip, and a right handed person would be pulling the trigger with their left hand. He has an AR with a lower picatinny rail, so this wouldn't need to be a permanent mod should he hate it.
Obviously this would take some getting used to, but I'm thinking it would be easier than learning to shoot lefty for him. Opinions on this?
cuda1179 wrote: Crossover hobby time here, and a serious question.
I know someone that had a workplace accident that left them with partial paralysis in their right hand. After surgery and physical therapy he has grip in the hand, but finer motor control is a bit wonky for him, and his trigger finger occasionally spasms on its own. Obviously NOT an ideal situation for a right handed shooter. He has taught himself somewhat to shoot lefty, but he's nowhere near as good as he once was.
Now that I have a 3D printer I think I have an idea. Imagine a bullpup linkage, but on a normally stocked gun. Basically, a forward pistol grip, and a right handed person would be pulling the trigger with their left hand. He has an AR with a lower picatinny rail, so this wouldn't need to be a permanent mod should he hate it.
Obviously this would take some getting used to, but I'm thinking it would be easier than learning to shoot lefty for him. Opinions on this?
Question. Is this person right eye dominant? Do all of his right hand fingers spasm or just the trigger finger?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I've actually been looking at my hefty tax return, and the projected profit from selling my house, and eyeing up Springfield's new bullpup, the Hellion. I'm not 100% on board with the look of it, but the fact that I can make it ambi without tools is a huge plus, since I'm the only lefty in my group.
Just FYI, Steyr AUGs come in left-handed flavors, and Corvus Defensio makes a deflector that allows them to be shot ambi.
Can't comment on the Hellion (I am also interested), but I have been quite happy with my AUG.
I'm tempted by the hellion because... it's cool looking, but ultimately, I don't need 5.56, really. Let alone one in a bullpup config,which is always a challenge for my tiny T-rex arms.
I want a Hellion so bad to go with the Aug and Tavor. The cool factor on that thing just hits the spot.
I just can't justify the price on a new toy right now. Maybe next year, particularly if they drop several hundred like most such rifles seem to do after a year or so.
Two rifles I thought I'd have acquired by now, a Galil Ace in 556 and a Bren 2, I still haven't, as the price of everything started to skyrocket once 2020 hit. Paying full, or above, MRSP on firearms is too rich for my blood.
cuda1179 wrote: Crossover hobby time here, and a serious question.
I know someone that had a workplace accident that left them with partial paralysis in their right hand. After surgery and physical therapy he has grip in the hand, but finer motor control is a bit wonky for him, and his trigger finger occasionally spasms on its own. Obviously NOT an ideal situation for a right handed shooter. He has taught himself somewhat to shoot lefty, but he's nowhere near as good as he once was.
Now that I have a 3D printer I think I have an idea. Imagine a bullpup linkage, but on a normally stocked gun. Basically, a forward pistol grip, and a right handed person would be pulling the trigger with their left hand. He has an AR with a lower picatinny rail, so this wouldn't need to be a permanent mod should he hate it.
Obviously this would take some getting used to, but I'm thinking it would be easier than learning to shoot lefty for him. Opinions on this?
Question. Is this person right eye dominant? Do all of his right hand fingers spasm or just the trigger finger?
He is right eye dominant, and he trigger finger, and middle finger I have seen spasm, unsure about the rest, but I think the thumb is okay.
cuda1179 wrote: Online reviews of the Hellion say it's on par with a Tavor. Demand is high and supply low though. I'd wait a while for street prices to drop, unless you are willing to pay through the nose.
I have one, it works. Word is that they're releasing (or have already released) a new version in .380 auto. Same dimensions, even the same magazines (with an added plate to assist in feeding .380.)
Anyone know if there are conversion kits to convert the original 9mm one to .380? I'd imagine it'd just entail a different barrel and a lighter spring, but I'm not seeing any available for purchase.
You would probably have to buy a completely new slide, spring, and barrel. The weight of the slide is important in balancing the recoil in direct blowback handguns so its not a sure thing that you could only swap the spring and barrel.
I'm sure Sig will eventually sell them by themselves when the .380 version goes live.
I’m watching Rambo Last Blood, one of my favourite movies.
I’m at the point where’s he setting his Cunning Traps, and there’s one I can’t fathom how it would work.
As it involves bullets, I’m wondering if Dakkanauts in this thread might be about to weigh in.
The trap is essentially loose round, in the floor, contained vertically in metal housings. Think explodey caltrop type stuff.
Now, I’m assuming the base of the metal housing has some form of firing pin. However, the rounds are clearly seen to be simply dropped in. Presumably they’re going to be rim fire (which I’m uneducatedly guessing needs less precision that pin fire). But given they’re just sort of slotted in, and assuming it takes a decent amount of pressure to set off the charge?
How the bloody hell is that meant to work? I am of course happy with “Hollywood Physics” as an answer, but on the off chance there’s a more interesting real world answer, I’m intrigued!
No I’m not planning on making one for myself. Because I just know I’d be the one to set it off.
I’m at the point where’s he setting his Cunning Traps, and there’s one I can’t fathom how it would work.
As it involves bullets, I’m wondering if Dakkanauts in this thread might be about to weigh in.
The trap is essentially loose round, in the floor, contained vertically in metal housings. Think explodey caltrop type stuff.
Now, I’m assuming the base of the metal housing has some form of firing pin. However, the rounds are clearly seen to be simply dropped in. Presumably they’re going to be rim fire (which I’m uneducatedly guessing needs less precision that pin fire). But given they’re just sort of slotted in, and assuming it takes a decent amount of pressure to set off the charge?
How the bloody hell is that meant to work? I am of course happy with “Hollywood Physics” as an answer, but on the off chance there’s a more interesting real world answer, I’m intrigued!
No I’m not planning on making one for myself. Because I just know I’d be the one to set it off.
It looks like he is using a center fire round, so as long as he has something to act as a firing pin in the bottom of the slots it would work. They wouldn't ignite from falling the last inch or so when putting them into place, but would probably go off from someone stomping on one when running over it.
Something as simple as a centered nail would be sufficient to set off a primer as long as enough force was applied. A person walking with some force to their steps could set them off.
The real issue is a cartridge going off outside of the confines of a barrel to contain and direct the pressure is going to have about as much lethal force as a firecracker. It'll freak someone out but nothing more than that. So you need to have some sort of barrel and breech analog to ensure the force is mostly directed in the direction of the bullet. A simple pipe would be enough, but the bullet would only be effective for maybe a few inches. Enough for a floor trap if done correctly.
But even with that, you need to be sure that the primer is being struck with enough instantaneous force. Primers are designed to only go off with sharply hit, continuous pressure isn't enough. It would need to be a sharp jolt, so a person running or briskly walking could do it. But someone sneaking around and lightly stepping would not without something more complex, like a spring mounted nail that would be released to hit the primer.
Never realised that, whilst I’m sure they’re actually pretty safe as long as you’re not an idiot*, that bullets/rounds required so little pressure.
The video’s tube made me think of this from the Mila Jovovich (everyone take a second to appreciate her magnificence…..3, 2, 1….back in the room) Joan of Arc movie…..just with shotgun shells.
The thing itself is a movie invention. Essentially a mahoosive crossbow which the defenders in a siege press up against the castle doors to obliterate troops massing outside.
If I needed to build one, I think I’d rig it so once the messy bit was done, a couple of dozen Party Poppers would go off, and a big, crudely painted sign declaring “Now Bugger Off” would unfurl.
That lead warning was one reason Bond Arms will no longer sell their Derringers there. Apparently one of the minor internal components has slightly too much of one cancer-causing chemical. Like, if you ate it you MIGHT have a .00001% increase in the chances of getting cancer.
Me again! And as ever, I’m coming back having watched a movie of yesteryear. This time? It’s Total Recall.
I’m hoping folk might be able to tell me whether a certain firearm featured is a proper shooter, or merely a prop shooter.
It’s the semi-automatic pistol type thing that’s seen just as Quaid enters his adventure/delusion.
It’s has a pistol grip, and seems to have a grip magazine. But the top bit (look you’ll get no better from this idiot, live with it) looks oversized at either end. Barrel and I want to say compensator?
I know many films took real life shooters and added gubbins, widgets and doohickeys, but here I was so young when I saw it, I couldn’t explain further.
I watched the video. Whilst I’m baffled by the need for a “well masculine” voice singing its praises? I didn’t see a link to the film?
Genuine apologies ScarletRose, because I know it’s not your doing, but given guns are kind of inherently masculine, having the ad narrated by someone speaking in a deeper tone than their regular voice just makes me feel a bit silly!
That would be because my link didn't work properly for some reason, I apologize.
From the internet movie firearm database:
The Goncz GA pistol seen fitted with a TEC-9 style barrel shroud is used by several characters including Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger), Lori (Sharon Stone), and other various characters throughout the film. This was confirmed by the armorers who worked on the film and the gun's later copy (the Claridge Hi-Tec series) was not manufactured when the film was made.
Competition pistols often have aftermarket compensators you can add to them, either via threaded barrel or a barrel swap to one with a built in compensator.
The vast majority of prop guns used in films, at least in closeups and action scenes, are real firearms. Scenes are shot using blank cartridges to give a sense of realism. Even sci-fi films usually use real guns, they'll just glue random bits and bobs on or use really obscure odd looking guns to make them look sci-fi. It is also very difficult to fake recoil or muzzle flash without it looking like something out of a Buck Rogers reel. An example I've used before is Star Wars. The opening scene of New Hope was all filmed with blank firing firearms and in certain frames you can even see spent shell casings on the ground.
Blanks of course make too much muzzle flash, and thus look kinda fake too, but less so than adding fake flashes via editing and they'll at least have recoil.
That's funny, I was just eyeing those at a gun show a week and a half ago. Elected not to as I vaguely remembered reading bad things about the new ones, but after further research it seems they straightened them out.
Also, you probably haven't found a .44 Python because it's called an Anaconda
My brother was given the job of restoring this Marlin for his father in law. Once he got it functioning he called the father in law to arrange drop off. It was then that the father in law let him know that the rifle itself was payment for getting it restored.
That's funny, I was just eyeing those at a gun show a week and a half ago. Elected not to as I vaguely remembered reading bad things about the new ones, but after further research it seems they straightened them out.
Also, you probably haven't found a .44 Python because it's called an Anaconda
You know... I should have known that, but for some reason I was thinking the Anaconda was the .500 magnum version.
Just remembered I haven’t added a pic to this thread! Here are two late 90s model Ruger Vaqueros in 45 Colt and polished stainless steel. The frames are stout and can fire Ruger 45 loads. The one with black birdshead grip is a 3 3/4” sheriffs model, from a limited run, and the one with white grips has a 5 1/2” barrel. They’ve had the triggers worked on, but I can’t remember the smith. Got them from an older gent who was retiring from Cowboy Action Shooting.
About five years ago I bought a Colt SP1 at a gun show, decided I wasn't huge on it, and sold it to a friend. Fast forward to 2021 and I started getting into retro ARs, and eventually agreed with my buddy to buy it back from him at fair market price.
The bottom piece isn't actually a firearm, but a gas-powered airsoft rendition of an armory rebuild M16A1, which I augmented with a real upper receiver and surplus furniture. This particular brand is built as close to milspec as possible, so it's not an exaggeration to say it feels indistinguishable from the real thing until the lack of muzzle flash and quieter report give it away. Great fun for suburbia-friendly shooting practice and blasting wannabe tacticool operators at a local field.
Looks like a California compliant grip, the state law set limits on what combinations of features a gun can have (pistol grip, detachable magazine etc) and a grip style like that doesn't count as a pistol grip since it has that triangle preventing you from fully grasping it.
I do like the KP9 and if I had the funds/space in the safe I'd totally pick one up.
Yeah, its got dumb CA compliant stuff, but it at least doesn't look super dumb like some neutered guns. The 16" barrel is covered up by a fake suppressor and the folding stock is pinned so it cant fold. It also has a thumb rest/grip in the side of the fin grip so you can still hang on.
Yeah I’m pretty sure this is exactly where I keep my ignorance to myself!
Nope. Not even nod hopefully sagely and just sort of agree!
Though I’m still a bit bummed that NYC seemingly doesn’t have shooting ranges where Idiot Tourists can give guns a try. I was pretty good with an air rifle in my youth like.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Though I’m still a bit bummed that NYC seemingly doesn’t have shooting ranges where Idiot Tourists can give guns a try. I was pretty good with an air rifle in my youth like.
New York state is pretty restrictive on possession of firearms and NYC even moreso. You outright can't own a pistol in NY unless you get a permit approved by your local sheriff, and in NYC, you simply will not get approved unless you're law enforcement or politically well-connected. The big metropolitan cities tend to all be pretty similar in that regard, and often use zoning laws to keep gun shops and ranges out altogether.
If you want to go to a range as a tourist, you need to look more to suburban or rural areas. Like, Washington DC has no publicly available ranges and only a single 'shop' (one guy who works by appointment out of the DC police headquarters), but less than an hour's drive into Virginia there are a bunch of public ranges that rent stuff.
Bobthehero wrote: Got to shoot a variety of pistols owned by friends and colleagues.
Glock 19, Sig P320 and Canik Mete. They handle so much better than the issued Browning HP, it's unreal.
I've never handled one but the Hi-power is on the list of classic guns I want to own, so I'm curious - is it just the difference between polymer and steel framed pistols? Or is it an issue where service pistols are usually beat to heck and poorly maintained?
If you go to a more red state you can probably find ranges that will rent to tourists. I went to one in Texas where they had straight up machine guns you could rent, you just had to buy their ammo to use in any of the range guns.
Bobthehero wrote: Got to shoot a variety of pistols owned by friends and colleagues.
Glock 19, Sig P320 and Canik Mete. They handle so much better than the issued Browning HP, it's unreal.
I've never handled one but the Hi-power is on the list of classic guns I want to own, so I'm curious - is it just the difference between polymer and steel framed pistols? Or is it an issue where service pistols are usually beat to heck and poorly maintained?
Me personally I find steel framed pistols to handle better. Nothing particularly wrong with polymer, I'm just not a big fan. But pistols are much more down to individual tastes, preference, and what fits good in your hand.
Rifles are a little more flexible "anybody can shoot this" than pistols. Less worry about someone being unable to handle the recoil.
If a rifle has more kick than someone can handle, it'll usually just knock them around abit. They're not gonna have the weapon fly out of their hand outside of extreme edge. Pistols on the other hand very much do have risk of it flying out of your hand if it's too big and/or they had a weak grip.
Having perused a few pages I fell I should ask you all being more knowledgeable than I...
What is the difference between the pistol grip and traditional rifle grip?
Google doesn't offer me much. I have only ever used assault rifles, battle rifles and pistols with, well, pistol grips, for work. They seem inherently superior whenever I have thought about the ergonomics of that traditional stock grip. If they are superior, why so long to become ubiquitous? Are they more difficult to manufacture? Heavier? Something else I am missing?
The_Real_Chris wrote: Having perused a few pages I fell I should ask you all being more knowledgeable than I...
What is the difference between the pistol grip and traditional rifle grip?
Google doesn't offer me much. I have only ever used assault rifles, battle rifles and pistols with, well, pistol grips, for work. They seem inherently superior whenever I have thought about the ergonomics of that traditional stock grip. If they are superior, why so long to become ubiquitous? Are they more difficult to manufacture? Heavier? Something else I am missing?
A pistol grip is the common grip set-up you see on the AR-15 type weapons and you can hold it like a pistol and your finger easily finds the trigger, whereas a standard rifle grip would be what you have on a bolt-action type hunting rifle - no real grip at all, except you wrap your hand around the stock area to put your finger into the trigger spot. So, you are not wrong in your question as to why would there be an ergonomics question, except early rifles had a traditional grip and always will, but assault-type weapons developed the pistol-grip to facilitate single-hand use when needed and better ergonomics, but would be slightly more expensive to manufacture.
Bobthehero wrote:The Glock 19 was too small for my liking, but damn, it had the best trigger of the bunch by far.
That's... frightening. Not having a dig at you, but Glocks aren't particularly known for having great triggers.
Though I suppose if you're trying out compact pistols, safety in condition zero is generally prioritized over trigger pull quality.
The_Real_Chris wrote:Having perused a few pages I fell I should ask you all being more knowledgeable than I...
What is the difference between the pistol grip and traditional rifle grip?
Google doesn't offer me much. I have only ever used assault rifles, battle rifles and pistols with, well, pistol grips, for work. They seem inherently superior whenever I have thought about the ergonomics of that traditional stock grip. If they are superior, why so long to become ubiquitous? Are they more difficult to manufacture? Heavier? Something else I am missing?
It's a couple of things.
One is ergonomics. A traditional rifle stance has you stand bladed, or side-on to the target. This requires a pretty long length of pull (distance between your shoulder and the grip area), so a shallow grip angle like on a traditional rifle stock is comfortable. Modern combat shooting teaches a more squared stance, facing the target. This favors a shorter length of pull, which in turn requires a more vertical grip to avoid straining the wrist.
This is also part of why you see early transitions from rifle stocks to pistol grips on automatic weapons intended to fire from a bipod or tripod, where the ideal stance is squared up to the gun. One example would be the M14E2 variant of the M14 rifle.
Another aspect is that a traditional rifle stock has no protruding pistol grip to catch on things, dig into your back, or get caught in a slim rifle case. This is handy if you're going to hike with it slung for a distance, but is irrelevant to begin with for anything with a protruding magazine or magazine well.
Additionally, military doctrine historically emphasized a stance called port arms for carrying a rifle at the ready. This gives a solid grip on the neck of the stock and the forend and provides good control, and can be seamlessly brought to a shouldered stance for firing. With a pistol grip you have to adjust from the stock to the grip to fire, so nowadays it only really survives in ceremonial/drill contexts (example). Modern training has shifted towards low ready, which might be what you're more familiar with.
There are also technical aspects, like the Stoner internal-piston design on the AR-15/M16 family requiring a straight-line buffer tube. That outright prevents a traditional stock design, and the workarounds for legal compliance are peculiar, to say the least. Conversely, traditional hunting rifles need to drop the stock axis below the barrel axis to provide enough vertical distance between the cheek and eye for the shooter to align on the sights, so a conventional stock accomplishes that while providing a grip surface at the same time.
It really doesn't have anything to do with ease of manufacture or cost. Really, I'd hazard a guess that the reason you don't see the point of traditional stocks is because you've trained in the use of techniques that overwhelmingly favor pistol grips. Someone who's shot hunting or match rifles their whole life may have the complete opposite impression.
Bobthehero wrote:The Glock 19 was too small for my liking, but damn, it had the best trigger of the bunch by far.
That's... frightening. Not having a dig at you, but Glocks aren't particularly known for having great triggers.
Though I suppose if you're trying out compact pistols, safety in condition zero is generally prioritized over trigger pull quality.
Which is funny because I just do not like the utter lack of safeties on Glocks in condition zero. I don't really consider the trigger safety a good safety.
Something which locks the firing mechanism in some fashion is much better IMO, especially if you are drawing the weapon under duress. I'd be worried about pulling the glock's trigger before full removal from its holster. I don't wanna emulate all the gangsters that pump a round into their nethers while drawing their gat.
Glocks are okayish guns. They do everything adequately, but I can't really think of anything they do spectacularly. The one thing I always roll my eyes at are the Gucci Glocks. Some modding is fine, but I've seen people throw $1500+ in add-ons onto a Glock, and that's silly.
Why have I bought Glocks? They do function reliably. Everyone knows how they work. You can find parts everywhere, and for cheap. Aftermarket support is extensive. High-capacity mags are readily available and will be for years.
Grey Templar wrote: Something which locks the firing mechanism in some fashion is much better IMO
Strictly speaking, Glocks do have a number of internal safeties that accomplish that. The striker is not tensioned until the trigger is pulled, and there is a firing pin block that prevents it from contacting the primer until the trigger is pulled. Plus the trigger safety as you noted. What they don't have is a safety that will allow you to pull the trigger without shooting, but the predominant school of thought nowadays is that old-fashioned manual safeties can be slow to operate under duress and so are not particularly desirable for a carry gun.
Preventing a nasty case of Glock Leg comes down to holster design and trigger discipline more than anything else. The old SERPA holsters were really bad about it, because you had to push your finger into a release positioned pretty much right over the trigger, so as the pistol came out if you were still applying tension with your index finger, bang. Leather 'pancake' holsters and pocket holsters are also typically poor at isolating the trigger. With more modern designs (thumb-release active retention like Safariland's ALS/SLS, or passive retention with kydex) there's no chance of the trigger getting pulled in the holster, and you can keep your index finger parallel to the bore as you draw.
YMMV. I'm more a fan of SA/DA designs with decockers. Similar simplicity of bringing into action, heavier initial pull to reduce likelihood of an ND, better trigger once it switches into SA.
The KP9 is butter smooth to shoot. The triangle stock isn't very comfortable, but with 9mm you dont get it jabbing into your shoulder like a full size AK would, so it works out.
Recoil exists in ALL ranged weapons, not just guns. Bows have recoil, crossbows have recoil, etc... Though bows it is transmitted through the hand holding the bow and not into the shoulder. Its why crossbows sometimes had at least a nominally ergonomic buttstock.
Small handheld firearms at least at first were braced against your midsection and not shouldered, so they didn't have stocks but the concept existed prior with crossbows and it was simply a logical extension to mount these guns in crossbow-like stocks.
Recoil was also a big thing when it came to siege weaponry. Catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, etc... The concept that these things kick has been known since the bronze age, and you have to design the weapon to withstand it, and guns were just the latest in the lines of stuff that kicks and you need to compensate for. The earliest firearms were really miniature cannons, hence the term Hand Cannon, and were used as such. You'd have a group of dudes with hand cannons, or hand mortars, who were aiming at general locations and bombarding them with shot more than shooting at individual targets.
Anybody who has shot a true medieval or a modern hunting crossbow can attest that they kick as much as any rifle.
Putting some padding on a buttstock to protect your shoulder or chest almost certainly predates the existence of guns.
Recoil was actually a significant factor on black powder weaponry ever since its introduction. On an arquebus or musket, there's a noticeable delay between when the pan ignites and the main charge goes, and then another delay for the powder to deflagrate and propel the ball out the barrel. Flash-boom-hit. Soldiers were historically trained to tuck their arms and aim low- when aiming was trained- because even a single-shot black powder firearm will start to rise before the ball even leaves the barrel, and hit high. It's also generally unpleasant to shoot without a stable firing platform and some means to handle recoil, and you really don't want soldiers losing their footing when standing in dense formation holding matches lit at both ends while everyone's carrying loose powder.
Also, if you look at drawings of musketeers from the Thirty Years War ('musket' at that time denoted a heavy, high-caliber smoothbore weapon fired from a forked rest, in contrast to the lighter, handier, shoulder-fired arquebus), there are some pretty exaggerated stances to compensate for the recoil of their higher-powered weapons. Here's an illustration showing what I mean.
So, tl;dr, recoil's been a factor in firearm design right from the start.
I have a Colt/Umarex .22 M4 that likely has more rounds through it than the rest of my guns combined. Use it for plinking, training folks who have little or no experience shooting, and it has taken a varmint or two. .22 is pretty cheap to shoot and the gun is just plain fun. No recoil, looks 'tacticool' which new shooters seem to enjoy, is accurate with the iron sights or the red dot I have on it. I think I paid between $300-$400 for it probably in the 2010 time frame. I've gotten a lot of 'value' from it.
What do you consider to be the best value shooter?
Could be cheap a cheerful. Could be mid-price, could be well expensive. I’ll let you decide your own definition of value here.
Just include the Why
Ruger 10/22 It's a great starter gun for youngsters, yet you will still like to use it all through your life. Decent varmint gun, while still giving you semi-auto fun. It won't kill your wallet for gun price or ammo cost.
M1 Garands are great guns, and good for hunting, but I wouldn't personally call Garand's reasonably priced. They're usually in the $2-3k range. And that is for a modern reproduction, you can pay even more for a vintage one.
Strictly speaking from a practical standpoint. 2-3k for a semi-auto 8 round rifle caliber rifle is... very expensive. But you're buying it because its a mother fething M1 Garand, bam bam bam bam bam bam bam bam PING! It's kinda in a league of buying a Dodge Charger, high performance and kick-ass everything, but you're definitely paying a lot of money for that privilege.
My personal pick for the best value. My latest purchase, the Kalashnikov USA KP-9/KR-9
You can get it in a lot of configurations. $1200-1400 in either Pistol, Rifle, or Short Barreled Rifle variants.
Not terribly expensive, but you get an extremely high-quality carbine that is cheap to shoot, great for home defense, and if you get a rifle version the 16" barrel would not be terrible for hunting small and medium sized game, anything smaller than a mule deer really. +P 9mm really comes rocketing out of that barrel. Anyone who likes carbines should get one, it's just soooo much fun.
If you want to spend even less money, you can build Ar15s from stripped lowers for less than $600 if you shop around. And then you've got more choices and options than you'd ever know what to do with.
Of course the Ruger 10/22 was designed around "I want to spend less than $200 and not care about ammo prices". It's basically the definition of a value gun. I just personally don't find a ton of satisfaction with .22lr. It's riding that line of "technically its a firearm with real bullets!"
Honestly the only .22lr that might get me excited would be one of those Tippman miniature Maxim machineguns that were chambered in .22lr
Original, USGI Garands are available from the Civilian Marksmanship Program for $650-1100 depending on condition, and surplus Garands in shootable condition go for $900-1200 on the commercial market.
Check prices on Gunbroker; they're certainly not $2-3K, nor are they modern repros.
Grey Templar wrote: Hmmm, I did some looking and I see 1 or 2 that are more along $1000, but that is just opening bid. Most of the Buy It Nows are multiple thousands.
And any gunstore in my state has them for $1500+ at a minimum. They're definitely 2k guns in CA at the very least.
Garand rifles escape the crazy Tactical rifle rules in Cali. because the gas system was set up to use a particular loading of .30-06 you have to be careful about ammo, or buy an adjustable gas plug then tune the rifle to a particular load. I once posted a picture of a Mini-G conversion. Just over 16 inch barrel. Fun gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: M1 Garands are great guns, and good for hunting, but I wouldn't personally call Garand's reasonably priced. They're usually in the $2-3k range. And that is for a modern reproduction, you can pay even more for a vintage one.
Strictly speaking from a practical standpoint. 2-3k for a semi-auto 8 round rifle caliber rifle is... very expensive. But you're buying it because its a mother fething M1 Garand, bam bam bam bam bam bam bam bam PING! It's kinda in a league of buying a Dodge Charger, high performance and kick-ass everything, but you're definitely paying a lot of money for that privilege.
My personal pick for the best value. My latest purchase, the Kalashnikov USA KP-9/KR-9
You can get it in a lot of configurations. $1200-1400 in either Pistol, Rifle, or Short Barreled Rifle variants.
Not terribly expensive, but you get an extremely high-quality carbine that is cheap to shoot, great for home defense, and if you get a rifle version the 16" barrel would not be terrible for hunting small and medium sized game, anything smaller than a mule deer really. +P 9mm really comes rocketing out of that barrel. Anyone who likes carbines should get one, it's just soooo much fun.
How distinctive are pew pews to those familiar with them?
For loose, and probably crap comparison, I can identify whether or not a given model is GW, definitely the faction, and even advise the rough time period it’s from. And once upon a time, I could look at a conversion and tell you where the individual bits were from, including what had been hand sculpted.
And are there any designs you’d consider hallmark, where lesser known companies try to do imitations as close to the copyrightable line as possible?
How distinctive are pew pews to those familiar with them?
For loose, and probably crap comparison, I can identify whether or not a given model is GW, definitely the faction, and even advise the rough time period it’s from. And once upon a time, I could look at a conversion and tell you where the individual bits were from, including what had been hand sculpted.
And are there any designs you’d consider hallmark, where lesser known companies try to do imitations as close to the copyrightable line as possible?
There are definitely distinct families of firearms, especially rifles. An AK-47 is iconic, similarly the M16/AR15 family of rifles is easily distinguished.
But if you put two AKs in front of me and said one is Bulgarian and one is Polish I'd have to look at the markings.
Think of it like cars - there's few/almost no one that can identify all cars and aftermarket parts by sight. But there are recognizable cars and enthusiasts for particular brands/particular periods that can have a high knowledge of details others might overlook.
I will say modern polymer, striker fired pistols tend to blur together for me. Glock made a big splash and everyone copied them.
Some certain firearms are absolutely unique and have distinct visual identifiers anybody can tell. Others often require experts to identify the differences between similar firearms.
Guns are also a lot more blurry than miniatures, especially when it comes to copy protections since a lot of firearm designs are not protected under anything like that. Patents run out a lot sooner than copyrights and once a patent is gone its gone. The actual protection of a firearm design is that guns are finely machined devices that you can't really 100% reverse engineer. You'd need to be given the original tooling specifications from the original designers. You can't just get an example of a gun, measure everything, tool up, and then start churning out exact copies. You can get close, but it'll be slightly different no matter how good you try. But if you are given the original tooling specifications you can absolutely make perfect copies, at least in theory.
I would say there are 3 main designs that are ubiquitously copied all the time. AR15, AK, and Glocks. The Patents of which have long since expired, if there even were any, and the original tooling specifications are out in the wild. Kind of the equivalent of a book entering public domain. You can't call your AR-15 clone an AR-15, as AR-15 is owned by Colt, but it can be physically identical in every way. Same with the Glock. You can't call your knock off Glock a Glock, but you can make it physically identical and compatible with Glock parts.
Likewise, every former Combloc country made their own version of the AK. The vast majority of whose parts are fully interchangable. You can make a Frankenstein AK with parts from a dozen different countries and it'll work. And in terms of identifying what parts came from where you'd need an expert to truly tell. Then there are a few oddballs that look like AKs, but aren't. Like the vz.58, which looks like an AK, shoots the same ammo, but shares exactly zero parts including magazines.
The mechanical workings of these guns, which is what would have been protected by patents in the past, are free game so nobody can get taken to court because of how your gun functions. Most types of actions were originally patented back in the 1800s and have long since become publicly available.
This kind of shows how firearm technology hasn't actually advanced much since the early 1900s because little in the way of new patented functionality has been developed. A new gun may come out, but its going to work much the same as guns that came before it.
Back to the vz.58. Its one of those things that you say "That is totally an AK", but then you look closer and you think something is off, but you can't figure out what. Its like an AK that someone drew from memory.
Again, zero parts commonality with an AK. It can't even use the same magazines, which is odd because even some AK derivatives that don't share parts can use the magazines. Like the ACE32 which can use normal AK magazines.
If anyone has seen the movie White Boy Rick, in the beginning they are at a gun show. A vendor is trying to pass off disguised, modded AK's (some rather common varient) as higher-end varients. A 14 year-old kid and his dad call him out on it and basically extort him into selling several of them at a loss to prevent his expulsion from the gun show.
With antique guns it can get a bit easier to tell the difference, since the gunsmiths made them by hand. So differences in style were more pronounced.
But, on the flip side, there are modern gunsmiths like the late Dick Vandall down in Pittsburgh (and the still living, last I heard, Mike Styles), who could fake it well enough to fool a museum expert.
So, to use your miniatures analogy, there are guys who fake it about as well as a Chinese recaster, and then there are guys who fake it like some of the Russian groups that can make FW minis indistinguishable from the real McCoy.
Interesting, even back in the day, some designs were commonly knocked off. The US Springfield (1795) is basically a knock off of the French Charleville, with a few, fairly minor, changes, for example.
Ahaha! It’s me again! And…I’ve been watching Robocop. Again. Just for a change. Surprise Surprise as Cilla once (very badly) sang. Just….Google that one. Or don’t. Your life will be richer for not checking me. If you do, you’ll understand.
Anyways. Robocops gun looks to be a Desert Eagle type thing. Which to my well established poor knowledge is just a heavy calibre pistol. Semi-automatic.
Yet, in the film it appears (well, sounds to be accurate) to fire in three round bursts. Which is kind of convenient for my question, because it is threefold…..
1. Is it indeed a Desert Eagle?
2. Even if I’m wrong, can whatever it actually is do three round bursts, with or without existing after market additions
3. If 2. is a no? Is it conceivable that such an after market addition could exist?
Right. Off you go! I’m just at the bit where Emile stacks it and gets all goopy.
It is indeed a Machine Pistol and is capable of 3 round bursts and full auto.
While I am sure it would be possible to modify a Desert Eagle to have a burst or full auto mode I doubt anyone has done so nor would such a thing be in any way usable.
Funfact: Robocop was originally supposed to use a Desert Eagle, however the costume made the pistol look comically small. So they instead went for modifying the Beretta, and they also were able to have a full auto/burst mode for real.
Grey Templar wrote: While I am sure it would be possible to modify a Desert Eagle to have a burst or full auto mode I doubt anyone has done so nor would such a thing be in any way usable.
Heads-up for anyone interested in roller-delay H&Ks- the MKE-manufactured, Century-imported AP5 is being heavily discounted at the moment, likely due to the current Turkish economic crisis. Unlike some of the prior clones, they're not reverse-engineered MP5s, but rather are made on actual H&K tooling and using the TDP that was provided to the Turkish military. I got mine this past weekend and despite some concerns about break-in (500 rounds, during which they recommend 124gr 9x19 NATO), it's running perfectly on S&B 115gr. Going to file a form 1 shortly.
Don't really feel like getting it out of the safe, but I have an S&W 422 6".
I heard it's kind of rare, but I doubt that.
The low bore axis makes it a dream to shoot. Very low recoil impulse and smooth operation.
I keep it around for home defense and range shooting.
Although recent firearms laws made it illegal because of its 12+1 capacity.
I've fired some .308 rifles, and I like e'm. The Scar looks really cool but I've never shot one. Maybe my opinion would change after I try it out, but it's my favorite gun. Just above the G-36, but unfortunately I like that one because of it's cool scope, but that apparently sucks.
Parts kits are available in the US so technically I could have one, but building one requires essentially fabricating an entirely new semi-auto firing mechanism from scratch. And it's an SMG, not much point in making it semi-automatic only.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: What gun that you’re not allowed to own (due to laws, or the gun not doing a real) do you really want to add to your collection?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: What gun that you’re not allowed to own (due to laws, or the gun not doing a real) do you really want to add to your collection?
Well, there's really not much you CAN'T own, you just need to go through some major paperwork. A Russian Ballistic knife isn't a firearm, but is illegal, but fun looking. Technically legal, but a full-auto MP5. A semi-auto is on my bucket list and is one of two weapons (the other a Styr Aug) to complete my "Guns of Die Hard" collection. A pen gun would be nifty.
Well, there's really not much you CAN'T own, you just need to go through some major paperwork. A Russian Ballistic knife isn't a firearm, but is illegal, but fun looking. Technically legal, but a full-auto MP5. A semi-auto is on my bucket list and is one of two weapons (the other a Styr Aug) to complete my "Guns of Die Hard" collection. A pen gun would be nifty.
Getting any post-WW II Japanese firearm is going to take a lot of work, since Japan doesn't export weapons.
A friend and I worked out that about the only way one could get one would be to work for a US defense contractor and request a sample for a proposed design that would build on commonality of spare parts.
That would probably be the hardest barrier to overcome, even worse than scarcity because scarcity can usually be solved with money. I mean bribery/theft might work, but since it is known Japan doesn't let current weapons out of the country, you'd pretty much have to hide it because every jurisdiction would know it was stolen.
Well, there's really not much you CAN'T own, you just need to go through some major paperwork. A Russian Ballistic knife isn't a firearm, but is illegal, but fun looking. Technically legal, but a full-auto MP5. A semi-auto is on my bucket list and is one of two weapons (the other a Styr Aug) to complete my "Guns of Die Hard" collection. A pen gun would be nifty.
Getting any post-WW II Japanese firearm is going to take a lot of work, since Japan doesn't export weapons.
A friend and I worked out that about the only way one could get one would be to work for a US defense contractor and request a sample for a proposed design that would build on commonality of spare parts.
That would probably be the hardest barrier to overcome, even worse than scarcity because scarcity can usually be solved with money. I mean bribery/theft might work, but since it is known Japan doesn't let current weapons out of the country, you'd pretty much have to hide it because every jurisdiction would know it was stolen.
Do they only restrict receivers, or parts as well? One might be able to 3d print a receiver if you could get the rest of the parts.
Do they only restrict receivers, or parts as well? One might be able to 3d print a receiver if you could get the rest of the parts.
Japan does not export weapons. Period. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for it to happen. As soon as Japan was allowed to rearm, it developed its own in-house versions of American weapons and then branched out, but it's completely self-contained.
The only way you could gain access would be through a mil-to-mil channels. Believe SIG designed one of Japan's sidearms, so they would probably have sample weapons in their collection. That's about it.
You'd pretty much have to do the same - set up a facility, and then contact DoD and say you want to submit a design that would merge commonality of parts with Japan in the case of major Asian combat operations.
Do they only restrict receivers, or parts as well? One might be able to 3d print a receiver if you could get the rest of the parts.
Japan does not export weapons. Period. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for it to happen. As soon as Japan was allowed to rearm, it developed its own in-house versions of American weapons and then branched out, but it's completely self-contained.
The only way you could gain access would be through a mil-to-mil channels. Believe SIG designed one of Japan's sidearms, so they would probably have sample weapons in their collection. That's about it.
You'd pretty much have to do the same - set up a facility, and then contact DoD and say you want to submit a design that would merge commonality of parts with Japan in the case of major Asian combat operations.
Dang. So short of being part of a major manufacturer the best hope you have is blueprints and making your own knockoff. Finding one that "fell off the back of a truck" is the next step. All that being said, is there anything from Japan that is good?
Dang. So short of being part of a major manufacturer the best hope you have is blueprints and making your own knockoff. Finding one that "fell off the back of a truck" is the next step. All that being said, is there anything from Japan that is good?
I don't know that they have anything particularly innovative, but the quality is likely absurdly good.
The mystery - who ever gets to shoot contemporary Japanese weapons? - is part of the attraction.
AK47 types have a bend. M16 type have an angled bottom.
What purpose does this serve, when others have straight magazines?
For most rifles, it holds more rounds, due to the shape of the bullet. The rear of the round is larger than the tip of the round, so the curve has it hold more rounds. This is my understanding, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
The shape of the ammunition casing determines the shape of the magazine. Most rifle rounds are tapered, but some more aggressively than others. 5.56 has a very very minor taper, which is why those mags have only slight curves. 7.62x39 has a fairly aggressive taper so they are very curved.
Also, if there is a curve it will be more noticeable the larger the magazine. A 30 round 5.56 mag has a slight but subtle curve. A 40 round 5.56 mag is more noticable.
A 30 round 7.62 mag has a pronounced curve. A 40 rounder has a silly huge curve.
30.06 and .308/7.62NATO have very minimal taper and are typically smaller capacity magazines. Usually 15-20 rounders. Thus most weapons with these calibers have completely straight mags.
Most pistol mags are straight because they have either too few rounds in them to cause a taper or have to be designed that way due to needing to go into a straight pistol grip. Carbines that are chambered in pistol calibers tend not to have this requirement and depend on the ammo. 9mm is a tapered cartridge, .45 is straight. That is why 9mm SMG mags are curved and .45 SMGs have straight mags(usually).
Another factor in magazine shape is whether the cartridge is rimmed or not. That is, does the cartridge casing have a rim around the base to aid with chambering/extraction.
British .303, Russian 7.62x54R, 8mm Lebel all have rims. Revolver ammo also has a rim so that the cartridge doesn't fall clear through the cylinder.
These will require a curve on the magazine for the rim to fit, and they are often quite severe (the Chauchat's magazine is a half-circle in shape). Rimmed cartridges also can suffer from the thing called "rimlock" which is when the rim of the top cartridge is behind the one below it, preventing it from chambering. Careful loading is therefore essential and some magazines use a guide or are slanted to prevent this from happening. For example, .22 LR magazines typically are straight (unless they are really big), but have a guide at the top to prevent rimlock.
Magazine issues are the single greatest source of malfunction, and in scale, they are expensive to produce, which is why so many armies preferred internal magazines fed by stripper clips and/or had detachable magazines that were only removed for cleaning.
The Steyr M1912 pistol is a curious combination of advanced features (auto-loading, uses rotating rather than tilting barrel) but it is fed by stripper clips through the top. Unloading it is a hoot, since the release button pulls aside the feed lips and the rounds shoot out of the top of the weapon. Probably the most steam punk large-production firearm out there.
Yeah, even the military issue ones had a variety of foregrips. But she's got a LOT of recoil, which makes her rise on full auto. A friend of my grandfather still had his M1, and he explained that if you were going to fire on full auto for a long period, you unclipped the sling, and stood on it to keep it on target. Some M1s had a bit of a quirk where the cyclic rate would increase the longer you fired it, and top out around 800 per min.
Yeah, even the military issue ones had a variety of foregrips. But she's got a LOT of recoil, which makes her rise on full auto. A friend of my grandfather still had his M1, and he explained that if you were going to fire on full auto for a long period, you unclipped the sling, and stood on it to keep it on target. Some M1s had a bit of a quirk where the cyclic rate would increase the longer you fired it, and top out around 800 per min.
They are so heavy, don't seem to fire that quickly, that I really don't expect felt recoil could be too bad. With a sling and fore grip and a drum magazine I would think it would be pretty manageable. Admittedly I've never fired a full auto version before.
Yeah, even the military issue ones had a variety of foregrips. But she's got a LOT of recoil, which makes her rise on full auto. A friend of my grandfather still had his M1, and he explained that if you were going to fire on full auto for a long period, you unclipped the sling, and stood on it to keep it on target. Some M1s had a bit of a quirk where the cyclic rate would increase the longer you fired it, and top out around 800 per min.
Doing a mag dump is different that firing controlled bursts, which is what you want to do unless you have a cart with spare magazines sitting next to you.
As long as we are talking magazine shape, there are a few outliers that defied convertional thinking when they were invented. This includes the rotory mag, helical mag, and the weird mags for the p-90. In the case of the rotory mag, it was specifically designed to have rimmed rounds fire reliably without having an insane curve.
Speaking of rotory mags, I've wanted a 357 Ruger 77 for some time.
Well, found a Black Friday sale I couldn't resist. Tisas 1911 pistol, $279. I've been interested in 1911s for some time, but couldn't justify the Gucci prices manufacturers want for them these days. Tisas isn't fancy at all, but the weapons are very close to original tolerances, it has a forged receiver and slide, and is known to reliably go bang. I think I might use this as an opportunity to polish a turd and pimp my gun.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, found a Black Friday sale I couldn't resist. Tisas 1911 pistol, $279. I've been interested in 1911s for some time, but couldn't justify the Gucci prices manufacturers want for them these days. Tisas isn't fancy at all, but the weapons are very close to original tolerances, it has a forged receiver and slide, and is known to reliably go bang. I think I might use this as an opportunity to polish a turd and pimp my gun.
This is the first time I've even heard of that company.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On the Tommy Gun. In media we see them with a front grip.
Being such an early SMG (maybe the earliest?) was that also the original front/riot grip?
The model 1928 Thompson, the first manufactured in large numbers, had an integral foregrip attached to the receiver with a relatively thin steel plate. The simplified M1, developed in WW2, replaced it with a simple handguard, partly because it was another relatively complex piece and partly because that connector plate was fairly fragile by the standards of military-issue firearms.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:May have asked this before. But…
Assault Rifle magazines.
AK47 types have a bend. M16 type have an angled bottom.
What purpose does this serve, when others have straight magazines?
Like others said, the ideal curvature depends on the cartridge, but it also depends on the feed geometry of the firearm. Many 9mm submachine guns use straight magazines, but many use curved magazines; it just has to do with the angle at which they're designed to pick up a round and feed it into the chamber.
For the M16 in particular, the sudden, sharp angle is a byproduct of the AR15/M16 magazine well being originally designed for straight magazines- initially 25rd, then 20rd when military trials started to meet a weight limit. So, with a rectangular magazine well preventing an ideal curve from fitting, the decision was made to have the top of the 30rd M16 magazine be straight, then angle noticeably once it clears the magazine well.
This was not ideal for reliability and it took the US military a long, long time to sort out the kinks.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, found a Black Friday sale I couldn't resist. Tisas 1911 pistol, $279. I've been interested in 1911s for some time, but couldn't justify the Gucci prices manufacturers want for them these days. Tisas isn't fancy at all, but the weapons are very close to original tolerances, it has a forged receiver and slide, and is known to reliably go bang. I think I might use this as an opportunity to polish a turd and pimp my gun.
This is the first time I've even heard of that company.
Learn something new every day, I guess...
Tisas is a Turkish manufacturer. In addition to 1911 style pistols, they also manufacture a licensed copy of the Beretta 84BB (an older version of the Beretta Cheetah), called the Fatih.
Grey Templar wrote: Turkey has a bunch of decent budget gun clone offerings. They're not the best, but for the price you can't complain. Better than Hi point at least.
LoL, "better than a Hi- Point" is the exact phrase I used to describe it to my brother.
Grey Templar wrote: Turkey has a bunch of decent budget gun clone offerings. They're not the best, but for the price you can't complain. Better than Hi point at least.
I had a Turkish CZ75 clone that felt great in the hand but when you shot it was absolutely terrible. I think the term is "trigger slap" and it's the only time I've experienced anything like it. That experience soured me on Turkish stuff.
The only way you could gain access would be through a mil-to-mil channels. Believe SIG designed one of Japan's sidearms, so they would probably have sample weapons in their collection. That's about it.
Each NATO country tends to have civilian run military firearm reference service with a selection of other countries firearms. The ones I know of tend to buy off each nation with a unique weapon 2 of their current service rifle (and provide theirs in return). It is often possible to get tours and talks from those places, especially if you have a reasonable security clearance and work in some kind of defence associated company. In the UK for example ours is in Shrivenham, has featured on forgotten weapons and does sometimes allow strangers into its midst. Just don't for heaven's sake do what everyone seems to do, which is cock the weapons and place them back on the racks.
Incidentally before there was a mail facility on site weapons were delivered by DHL to the local post office. At weekends being a small village with limited opening times, they would sometimes pile parcels up outside the post office for the owners to come get...
Each NATO country tends to have civilian run military firearm reference service with a selection of other countries firearms. The ones I know of tend to buy off each nation with a unique weapon 2 of their current service rifle (and provide theirs in return).
That's what I'm saying, the only channels for Japanese weapons are official. Short of bribing a Japanese servicemember (or stealing a weapon), there's no way to have one of their contemporary firearms.
Don't want to jinx it but I may have a line on a Saiga from a local seller. I know I'm way late to the party on it and finding the conversion parts will be a pain in the butt, but I like the idea of a project gun.
ScarletRose wrote: Don't want to jinx it but I may have a line on a Saiga from a local seller. I know I'm way late to the party on it and finding the conversion parts will be a pain in the butt, but I like the idea of a project gun.
If you succeed, your next challenge should be to build a Mauser C96 Broomhandle out of a parts gun.
ScarletRose wrote: Don't want to jinx it but I may have a line on a Saiga from a local seller. I know I'm way late to the party on it and finding the conversion parts will be a pain in the butt, but I like the idea of a project gun.
If you succeed, your next challenge should be to build a Mauser C96 Broomhandle out of a parts gun.
Lol, I'd have better luck making a C96 out of a block of steel and a file.
Checking out various sites the front end conversion on a Saiga is pretty easy to find parts for. It's the darn folding stock that's impossible to find, since Russia used two types (with a 4.5mm hinge pin and a 5.5mm one). The 5.5mm, and only the 5.5mm one, is the correct one that has been used in AK-100 series rifles. There's a bunch of 4.5mm folding stocks out there but hardly any 5.5
Like I said this'll be a project, so if I can't find a stock right away I'll wait and take as long as it takes.
Just a small question because I have been fairly brain dead and not able to find an answer online.
Regarding scoped. I recall that the larger the front aperture the better the scope should be in lower light conditions. Is this correct? I can't remember if that's "true" or something I made up in my head.
I'm looking to upgrade the scope on my air rifle. I usually do any shooting at night at pest animals bothering my chickens, that sort of thing. I have a good flashlight for it to illuminate the eyes and have taken to shooting iron sights but I want to try something different. I do enjoy plinking on targets as well.
I'm looking at a Hatsan Optima 3-12X50 as the upgrade with the scope that came with the rifle, a 3-9 X 32.
But I'd be open to looking at something better based on recommendations.
Yeah, though the more important issue is if you are zeroed and how consistent is the air rifle. Air rifles, especially the cheap ones, aren't exactly high precision so the quality of the scope can only do so much. If its zeroed to the rifle and as long as you can see the reticle in the dim light I wouldn't think the scope quality would matter that much.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Are you looking for magnification or simply more precision and consistency? A red/green dot optic goes a really long way.
And they weigh a lot less.
I mostly look for a set of eyes in the dark I was using a green lenses flash light but am moving to a red lensed light. (I've read some critters can't even register that color, this is a poor explanation of what I have read. ) So the big thing for me is can I see the reticle or not. So I am unsure about an illuminated red or green dot. My thinking, and it could be way off, is more light in and a black reticle. I was looking at mill dots because I thought it might be easier to use than what I have but I am still looking around. I'm open to at least considering illuminated as long as the light I use wont make it impossible to see. And I don't know if that will happen or not. I'd think a Green dot with a red light might work but I'm not sure having never used an illuminated sight.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, though the more important issue is if you are zeroed and how consistent is the air rifle. Air rifles, especially the cheap ones, aren't exactly high precision so the quality of the scope can only do so much. If its zeroed to the rifle and as long as you can see the reticle in the dim light I wouldn't think the scope quality would matter that much.
I realize air rifles can be inaccurate, I shoot the same pellet and don't jump around. I think mine is in the 200 dollar range but I've had it for 5 or 6 years now so I can't say for sure. It's a .22 break barrel but I may move up to a .25 at some point. Dad got the .25 but He doesn't use it much anymore. I wanted a PCP but keeping it charged seemed difficult when I was looking at them before. I know a PCP will make everything much easier, Zeroing will be easier for sure.
I don't want to throw more money at this than is practical. Just hope to find something fairly reliable and I will adjust my system as best I can.
Thank you both for taking the time for me.
Edit. After giving it some more thought I have picked a red/green/blue dot sight for air rifles that doesn't cost too much, it's mot that dissimilar from the ,I think it was, the M68 sights we used before I got out of the army. It's not going to be a durable but I do want to give it a try. I feel like I shoot fairly well with Iron sights and once this is dialed in Might be what I was looking for. I can save up for an upgrade.
After a crippling ammo shortage, some of the more obscure calibers are coming back into production. It's interesting to see that .32 S&W Long is among them. This was once a ubiquitous caliber around the world, and (at least in the US) revolvers chambered in it can be found at prices than can only be described as "dirt cheap."
Modern shooters consider it grossly underpowered, but no less than Teddy Roosevelt himself pushed for its adoption by the NYPD back in the day. It has mild recoil but twice the horsepower of .22 LR or .25 ACP.
I'm considering buying a 1911. My Dad gifted me a SGS 1911 22 last year and it's been a lot of fun to shoot. I got thinking that maybe a 1911 would be a good guy to buy myself on my Birthday in a few months. This keeps me more or less on the same platform. Not sure if I should get it in 45 or 9MM and I don't know if I should buy a full sized or look for a shorter model, if it is a thing. I'm planning to get my CWP but FL. may pass permitles carry this next year. I live way out in the sticks and there are packs of dogs out here and even around town from time to time so I am strongly thinking about the CWP because I don't want my wife or I to be mulled by dogs. Or worse.
I saw a video recently, but I can't recall how current it was, saying surplus 1911's were around and in the 500 dollar range. Another reason I was considering that pistol.
Any thoughts on that? Or any recommendations for that mater.
You can definitely get good 1911s in the $500 range, and even extreme budget ones can work well. Just stay away from the really really cheap ones. IE: If one is selling for $100 there is probably a reason.
As for full size vs compact, I would say whichever is more comfortable in your hands. This goes for all pistols. It is important that a pistol fit good in your hand so you can control it. 1911s are not small pistols, people with tiny hands might have trouble fully gripping it so see what works for you. An oversized or undersized pistol could be a liability in a bad situation. Too big and you will have trouble hitting anything or managing the recoil because you can't grip it properly. Too small and you might have issues operating it as fine motor skills vanish under stress.
If the purpose is to use against packs of dogs, go with the 9mm. You'll need the greater capacity and the round (especially with good self defense ammo) will end a dog quickly.
With 1911s the 'commander' versions have a shorter barrel but the grip Is the same as a full length. Easier to conceal but the shorter sight radius makes it less accurate. At short ranges probably not an issue, especially if you train up a bit.
But honestly, for any predators 'in the sticks', get a decent carbine. I live 'in the sticks' and between a Ruger 10-22 we keep in a case on the utility vehicle, my Taurus Judge,, my wife's little .38 loaded with snake shot, and one of the ARs predators are handled. Use the pistols against snakes which tend to go after the chicken and duck eggs (the little .38 gets carried while feeding critters in the warm months). Coyotes, opossums, foxes and other predators get taken with the long guns.
warhead01 wrote: I saw a video recently, but I can't recall how current it was, saying surplus 1911's were around and in the 500 dollar range. Another reason I was considering that pistol.
Any thoughts on that? Or any recommendations for that mater.
The 1911 platform is probably the most supported handgun in the world. Sorry Glock fans, but the sheer depth and variety of after market slides, barrels, frames, etc. is staggering.
The fit and feel in your hand is paramount. One reason why you see 1911-style pistols in so many calibers is that the operating system is so unique. If you're going to carry it for personal defense, "cocked and locked" is the standard posture, and that means you must be able to reflexively remove the safety with your hand in a firing grip. Another area of concern is the grip safety - if you cannot maintain a firm grip on the backstrap, it will not fire. I don't know if your .22 is set up with all that, but just keep in mind that range shooting is different from the real world. Most ranges don't allow drawing from a holster, so be sure to get snap caps in whatever caliber you choose so you can practice that at home.
As I said above, shot placement trumps caliber, so if you shoot 9mm better, go with it. Honestly, you can get 1911s in .380 ACP that will have milder recoil and will work against human or smaller sized adversaries. Normally, I'm not big on ammo capacity, but if you're dealing with a pack of critters, that argues against a standard 1911 which (thanks to modern engineering) can hold 8 rounds in the magazine (standard mags are 7). Any modern 9mm can double that.
If you are looking at practical shooting, stay away from surplus. Just about any surplus pistol you buy (especially on the low end of the cost spectrum) will need some remedial maintenance.
warhead01 wrote: I'm considering buying a 1911. My Dad gifted me a SGS 1911 22 last year and it's been a lot of fun to shoot. I got thinking that maybe a 1911 would be a good guy to buy myself on my Birthday in a few months. This keeps me more or less on the same platform. Not sure if I should get it in 45 or 9MM and I don't know if I should buy a full sized or look for a shorter model, if it is a thing. I'm planning to get my CWP but FL. may pass permitles carry this next year. I live way out in the sticks and there are packs of dogs out here and even around town from time to time so I am strongly thinking about the CWP because I don't want my wife or I to be mulled by dogs. Or worse.
I saw a video recently, but I can't recall how current it was, saying surplus 1911's were around and in the 500 dollar range. Another reason I was considering that pistol.
Any thoughts on that? Or any recommendations for that mater.
I was mentioning I purchased a Tisas 1911 on Black Friday. Both my brother and the local gunstore owner were curious as to it's quality, and since the store had a gun range, we did a 4way comparison. We compared my sub $300 Tisas, a $600 Kimber, mid grade Rock Island Armory, and my brother's $1500 S&W custom shop.
Obviously the S&W was hands above the others. Surprising though, we basically all agreed the Tisas came in second. Less tooling marks than the Kimber. And less rattle in the parts than either the Kimber or Rock Island.the biggest complaint was the plastic grips on the Tisas did feel cheap, but that is easily fixed with a set of $30 grips and 5 minutes of your time.
In addition the Tisas comes with two mags and a REALLY nice case, complete with an o-ring seal. If this was any other manufacturer it would easily be a $500-$600 gun.
Obviously the S&W was hands above the others. Surprising though, we basically all agreed the Tisas came in second. Less tooling marks than the Kimber. And less rattle in the parts than either the Kimber or Rock Island.the biggest complaint was the plastic grips on the Tisas did feel cheap, but that is easily fixed with a set of $30 grips and 5 minutes of your time.
In addition the Tisas comes with two mags and a REALLY nice case, complete with an o-ring seal. If this was any other manufacturer it would easily be a $500-$600 gun.
I am not a "1911 guy," but I know a few and by all accounts Kimber is not what it used to be in terms of quality. It's almost reflexive for a 1911 collector to sigh whenever Kimber is mentioned.
The problem with any 1911 is that unless you're going to get one of those crazy extended mags, ammo supply will be limited, forcing you to carry extra mags and do combat reloads if a pack of dogs shows up. Again, for normal carry, five or six rounds are likely enough, but a bunch of dogs (which is the scenario we are looking at) requires more quantity.
The Tisas come with 2 8-round mags. Admittedly that isn't much better than 7-rounders, but still. 10 round mags are around for a reasonable price, and I've seen some 12-rounders. Anything more than that and you are looking at a ridiculously long mag. If you want more capacity you'd need to go with a double stacked magazine.
cuda1179 wrote: The Tisas come with 2 8-round mags. Admittedly that isn't much better than 7-rounders, but still. 10 round mags are around for a reasonable price, and I've seen some 12-rounders. Anything more than that and you are looking at a ridiculously long mag. If you want more capacity you'd need to go with a double stacked magazine.
Yes, 8-round magazines are common for 1911 platforms, and the issue here is with potential packs of dogs. For that specific threat, I'd go with a compact 9mm carrying 15+ rounds.
On the topic of 1911 in .45 or 9mm, depends on the shooter both kill things, on dealing with wild dogs attacking people, always found a chemical spray worked well to drive them off, but most attacks will happen at night, so get a weapon light if at all possible.
I lived/Stationed in Alaska and we had wolves attacking people's dogs when out on walks, and when I lived in some lower 48 states , had coyote and potential wild/feral dog run-ins, only one I had to shoot was a coyote that was trying to tear his way into a garage door, the others the spray worked or even just a shot in the ground near the animal chased it off.
I am more concerned with 2 legged wild dogs anymore, and swear by the .45acp in a 10 round Mccormick mag, works fine... but now I am dealing with oversized Black bears in my area... so upped my hip carry, long guns are always the preferance but hard to always have on hand.
My brother once invited me to hunt on the land of a friend of his in Oklahoma. For Oklahoma the land was hilly, lots of bushes, and lots of trees. My brother said when he went out there it was basically an eradication mission. The only thing bigger than a raccoon were packs of feral dogs and packs of feral hogs. Both are dangerous and you hunted in groups, no solo hunters. When they spotted a pack of hogs he said he mag dumped his 12 gauge semi auto (slugs) and the other guys did the same with 308. When you kill a dozen hogs per day and they keep repopulating you know you have a problem.
cuda1179 wrote: My brother once invited me to hunt on the land of a friend of his in Oklahoma. For Oklahoma the land was hilly, lots of bushes, and lots of trees. My brother said when he went out there it was basically an eradication mission. The only thing bigger than a raccoon were packs of feral dogs and packs of feral hogs. Both are dangerous and you hunted in groups, no solo hunters. When they spotted a pack of hogs he said he mag dumped his 12 gauge semi auto (slugs) and the other guys did the same with 308. When you kill a dozen hogs per day and they keep repopulating you know you have a problem.
Wanted to say thankyou for all the input. I've bookmarked a few things now to dig into. You've all be very helpful.
On the dogs issue, it got me thinking about our run in with a bear one night. we'd only just gotten chickens back then. One night a bear and her cub had lifted the coups I had built and were, as you can guess, eating our chicks we had just got a few days before. I chased them off with a black powder revolver and my winning personality. (We have electro netting now and they haven't come back around in years.) So I'm wondering if dogs would react the same way to that pistol's report. We have dogs turn up from time to time, some were dumped some just got out and got lost. I tend to chase them off with a hard cattle wip. But that's not a pack of dogs.
I just don't see the need to shoot at one dog who may just need to get home.
warhead01 wrote: Wanted to say thankyou for all the input. I've bookmarked a few things now to dig into. You've all be very helpful.
On the dogs issue, it got me thinking about our run in with a bear one night. we'd only just gotten chickens back then. One night a bear and her cub had lifted the coups I had built and were, as you can guess, eating our chicks we had just got a few days before. I chased them off with a black powder revolver and my winning personality. (We have electro netting now and they haven't come back around in years.) So I'm wondering if dogs would react the same way to that pistol's report. We have dogs turn up from time to time, some were dumped some just got out and got lost. I tend to chase them off with a hard cattle wip. But that's not a pack of dogs.
I just don't see the need to shoot at one dog who may just need to get home.
Someone else mentioned spray, and that's not a bad way to go. I think having both pepper spray and a compact sidearm is a pretty good way to go through life in general. Seems like it can handle most adversarial situations.
Then again, I'm just some dude on the internet, so what do I know?
warhead01 wrote: Wanted to say thankyou for all the input. I've bookmarked a few things now to dig into. You've all be very helpful.
On the dogs issue, it got me thinking about our run in with a bear one night. we'd only just gotten chickens back then. One night a bear and her cub had lifted the coups I had built and were, as you can guess, eating our chicks we had just got a few days before. I chased them off with a black powder revolver and my winning personality. (We have electro netting now and they haven't come back around in years.) So I'm wondering if dogs would react the same way to that pistol's report. We have dogs turn up from time to time, some were dumped some just got out and got lost. I tend to chase them off with a hard cattle wip. But that's not a pack of dogs.
I just don't see the need to shoot at one dog who may just need to get home.
Feral Dogs are a problem precisely because, unlike wild animals, they do not have a fear of humans. Bears are especially skittish unless you get between a mother and her cub.
They might flee from a gunshot, and it will probably give them a little pause, but it depends on them knowing what it means. In a large enough group, it may do nothing. Warning shots are for bears and cougers. Feral Fido gets lead on the first go.
This is about the only thing IMO more scary than feral hogs. A hog will leave you alone at the least. Dogs will treat humans as prey.
Feral Dogs are a problem precisely because, unlike wild animals, they do not have a fear of humans. Bears are especially skittish unless you get between a mother and her cub.
They might flee from a gunshot, and it will probably give them a little pause, but it depends on them knowing what it means. In a large enough group, it may do nothing. Warning shots are for bears and cougers. Feral Fido gets lead on the first go.
This is about the only thing IMO more scary than feral hogs. A hog will leave you alone at the least. Dogs will treat humans as prey.
Any wild animal that decides people are prey can be a serious problem. Many years ago we lived out in the country and a large feral cat took an unfriendly interest in our toddler. Normally, feral cats are skittish around humans, but in this case, shouting or throwing rocks had no effect. The cat ignored the shouts and simply dodged the rocks while maintaining its sinister vigil. A shotgun ultimately solved the problem.
Happy new year all. I have acquired something I never thought I'd own- a Mateba 6 Unica autorevolver. It's effectively a semi-automatic revolver; everything above the trigger cycles under recoil, recocking the hammer and advancing the cylinder. If that wasn't odd enough, the barrel is aligned to the 6-o'clock position on the cylinder, like on the Chiappa Rhino (which was designed by the same guy, Emilio Ghisoni).
Doesn't have any especially practical purpose, but it is by far the softest-shooting .357 Mag revolver I've experienced. Gotta try .38 Spl next. And re-watch Ghost In The Shell.
catbarf wrote: Happy new year all. I have acquired something I never thought I'd own- a Mateba 6 Unica autorevolver. It's effectively a semi-automatic revolver; everything above the trigger cycles under recoil, recocking the hammer and advancing the cylinder. If that wasn't odd enough, the barrel is aligned to the 6-o'clock position on the cylinder, like on the Chiappa Rhino (which was designed by the same guy, Emilio Ghisoni).
Doesn't have any especially practical purpose, but it is by far the softest-shooting .357 Mag revolver I've experienced. Gotta try .38 Spl next. And re-watch Ghost In The Shell.
catbarf wrote: Happy new year all. I have acquired something I never thought I'd own- a Mateba 6 Unica autorevolver. It's effectively a semi-automatic revolver;
The ultimate range toy.
Although I think there's another revolver out there of newer vintage that fires out of the bottom of the cylinder.
People scoffed when they saw models of the Votann with pump action revolver shotguns. I bring to you the tactical lever action 9mm with box magazine and stock from a Remington 870.
cuda1179 wrote: People scoffed when they saw models of the Votann with pump action revolver shotguns. I bring to you the tactical lever action 9mm with box magazine and stock from a Remington 870.
cuda1179 wrote: People scoffed when they saw models of the Votann with pump action revolver shotguns. I bring to you the tactical lever action 9mm with box magazine and stock from a Remington 870.
I can see those being v popular in the UK if someone imports them!
I've been looking for something like this for a while - and you see "Cowboy Assault Rifles" in certain circles where they take an economy model lever-action and make it totally tactical.
It is also interesting from a legal standpoint because if you chambered it in 9mm Steyr or .32 ACP, it would be legal in lots of places.
The magazines could be an issue, but I think the solution there would be a fixed magazine with stripper clips.
Bullpups remain a solution looking for a problem. They were really never good for anything other than range toys, which is why so many countries that adopted them have subsequently dropped them.
Yes, I know the UK is oddly wedded to its German-refurbed bullpups, but that's British thinking for you: when every other army (including Spain and France) were developing auto-loading handguns, they re-equipped their troops with an underpowered .38 revolver, subsequently making it DAO because they wanted something even more useless. When your army procurement is playing catch-up with Nationalist China, you've got a problem.
cuda1179 wrote: People scoffed when they saw models of the Votann with pump action revolver shotguns. I bring to you the tactical lever action 9mm with box magazine and stock from a Remington 870.
Bullpups are a response to readily observable problems. In just the last two decades, the problem of 20"-barrel rifles being unsuitable for room-clearing and entering/exiting vehicles was seen in Fallujah, and the problem of shorter .223 carbines lacking the muzzle velocity to effectively engage (and produce terminal effect) at 500+yds was seen in Kandahar.
They're regarded poorly in civilian circles that focus on short-ranged competition shooting and aping door-kickers, where the benefits of longer barrels are irrelevant but the tradeoffs of reload time and heavy triggers are significant. If all you're doing is shooting silhouettes at 50yds, yeah, a bullpup is just a novelty.
NATO members have been moving away from bullpups as their military doctrine shifts to mechanized warfare and expecting infantry to only fight inside of 200yds, rather than expecting troops to be capable of engaging at long range in the Fulda Gap in the morning, and going door-to-door in Berlin in the evening. Even still, we are currently seeing bullpup AK conversions in active procurement in Ukraine, where mechanized/urban warfare favors shorter overall length but maintaining velocity helps defeat Ratnik body armor.
Ironically, the US's ongoing .277 Fury project is the perfect application for a bullpup. It's a cartridge that requires a decent barrel length plus a suppressor, and is intended to be flat-shooting and ballistically effective at 500yds, while also used by mechanized units in MOUT. But Army is only capable of entertaining one or maybe two new ideas at a time, and the barrel-burner cartridge with sci-fi fire control is already novel enough.
The main issue with bullpups is that a lot of the designs out there are hack jobs. Taking an existing rifle and forcing it to be a bullpup. This results in bad triggers because you are doing weird linkages to get it to work. Brass ejection is also an issue as if the bullpup doesn't match the user's handed-ness you get brass in the face.
Making a rifle shorter, but still maintaining full barrel length, is a major benefit so people are always going to try to make them work. But you do need to design the weapon from the ground up as a bullpup otherwise you might have teething issues. The AUG is perhaps the best example of a bullpup that works.
Ironically, the US's ongoing .277 Fury project is the perfect application for a bullpup. It's a cartridge that requires a decent barrel length plus a suppressor, and is intended to be flat-shooting and ballistically effective at 500yds, while also used by mechanized units in MOUT. But Army is only capable of entertaining one or maybe two new ideas at a time, and the barrel-burner cartridge with sci-fi fire control is already novel enough.
That rifle is a complete boondoggle. It weighs more than the M14, requires an unprecedentedly complex logistical chain to support its ammunition and will require a huge percentage of the force to use something else anyway. And this at a time when rising interest rates will cripple defense spending. But I digress.
You also left out another reason why bullpups failed, which was that they were supposed to replace SMGs. The UK, France and Austria were looking at ways to economize and the notion of getting rid of SMGs and just having an all-in-one rifle was very seductive. Obviously, it didn't work. SMGs are tremendously popular because they serve a very useful purpose. It's interesting that China arrived late to the bullpup party and didn't stick around, choosing to go back to a more conventional design.
I think I found a loophole in US law in which a bullpup would technically allow you to skirt US law and effectively allow you to have an otherwise illegal firearm.
Normally, a rifle needs to be a minimum of 26 inches with a minimum of 16 inches of barrel. This is measured with stocks extended.
I happen to have a carbine conversion of a Glock 23 with a collapsible stock, and it's only 24 inches long when collapsed. It also has a picatinny rail in front of the trigger.
I've thought about making a removable mount using that rail. Basically a forward vertical grip with a secondary trigger with a linkage back to the real trigger. This would allow me to shoulder and fire the weapon with the stock collapsed. However, if I extended the stock I could still shoot it using my left hand as the trigger finger.
As far as I can tell, this does conform to all US laws, although I can see the ATF frowning on it.
cuda1179 wrote: I think I found a loophole in US law in which a bullpup would technically allow you to skirt US law and effectively allow you to have an otherwise illegal firearm.
Short-barreled rifles are legal, but you have to pay a tax stamp. It's a bizarre judicial creation and I don't think any other country has anything like it. For those of you abroad, it treats pistols with stocks as a uniquely dangerous things. This has nothing to do with its rate of fire, magazine capacity, etc. It's purely a barrel length thing.
Which makes no sense, because shorter barrels are less accurate and impart less velocity. The reason it exists was to ban "gangster guns" during the Prohibition Era (another remarkably stupid idea).
Because it makes no sense and serves no discernible purpose, its enforcement is haphazard. For example, there are "braces" which look like stocks but have a strap on then, so that the pistol is "braced" against the forearm. Are they legal? Well, so long as you don't use them as a stock, apparently.
There are also exceptions for weapons whose manufacture predated the ban. Stocked pistols were once quite common, particularly in the Old West, but also in various European pistols. The Mauser C96 famously could take a shoulder stock, and so could Browning Hi Powers, Lugers, etc. All of those are legal.
You can also legally have a modern pistol with a stock, but it will cost $200 and requires special markings on it because reasons.
Alternatively, you can weld a flash hider/muzzle break at the muzzle to increase overall length. This does nothing to boost velocity, it's simply cosmetic, and here again we come up with the stupidity of the rule.
A new take on this is to build polymer "clamshell" adapters, much like the ones movie propmasters use to make guns look strange and futuristic (see also "Aliens" hiding Tommy guns inside polymer shells). The outer covering retains access to the firing controls, but it adds a stock. Is it legal?
All of this because in the 1930s some judges made rulings that essentially boiled down to "I'll know it when I see it."
For the US legal schenangans, a bullpup does let you make the overall weapon shorter while maintaining a full length barrel.
There are 3 ways a weapon becomes an SBR.
1) A rifled weapon with a stock and a barrel length of less than 16"
2) A rifled weapon with an overall length of less than 26"
3) A pistol with a barrel less than 16" and overall length less than 26"
Bullpups usually take advantage of maintaining a 16"+ barrel while being just above 26" total length. That is how they avoid being SBRs, and indeed that is the purpose of a bullpup. Keeping a full length barrel.
Putting an extra trigger linkage on a Rony(or equivalent device) chassis for a Glock does not let you get around SBR laws. If there is an actual Stock and not a pistol brace it is an SBR(assuming it has the normal Glock 23 barrel and not some 16" weirdness)
Grey Templar wrote: The main issue with bullpups is that a lot of the designs out there are hack jobs. Taking an existing rifle and forcing it to be a bullpup. This results in bad triggers because you are doing weird linkages to get it to work. Brass ejection is also an issue as if the bullpup doesn't match the user's handed-ness you get brass in the face.
Making a rifle shorter, but still maintaining full barrel length, is a major benefit so people are always going to try to make them work. But you do need to design the weapon from the ground up as a bullpup otherwise you might have teething issues. The AUG is perhaps the best example of a bullpup that works.
There's also balance, malfunction-clearing, optics support (particularly height over bore), safety, and heat concerns. Purpose-built bullpups generally do better in all of these respects than conversions.
I've shot a number of them and ended up buying an AUG. It'll never be as fast as my ARs for competition shooting, but it isn't rear-heavy like a Tavor, impossible to clear like an F2000, or as long as an M16A1/A2/A4. It's a gimmick for my uses, but an exemplar as far as that gimmick goes.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:You also left out another reason why bullpups failed, which was that they were supposed to replace SMGs. The UK, France and Austria were looking at ways to economize and the notion of getting rid of SMGs and just having an all-in-one rifle was very seductive. Obviously, it didn't work.
Er, historically speaking, that's pretty much exactly what happened. Even countries that didn't adopt bullpups replaced SMGs in most roles as intermediate-caliber carbines became standard.
The UK, France, and Austria all stopped issuing submachine guns as PDWs for squad leaders and non-combat personnel after adopting bullpup service rifles, cutting the biggest use case for submachine guns. The UK stopped manufacturing the Sterling in '88 and retired its use from reserve units by the late '90s, retaining really only MP5s for limited (eg SAS) use. France entirely replaced the MAT-49 with the FAMAS in the '80s, and while Austria kept the MPi-81 in service for special forces and a particular APC variant, the AUG replaced it in all conventional combat roles. Croatia adopted the VHS rifles to replace a slew of different indigenous submachine gun designs, Israel replaced both the Uzi and hand-me-down Menusar carbines with the Tavor, and West Germany was all set to adopt the G11 to replace both the G3 and MP5 until their defense budget disintegrated with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile the bullpup-phobic US stopped developing new submachine gun designs after WW2, with the M14 originally intended by the Ordnance Board as a 'universal rifle' (re-issuing M3s when that didn't work), the M16 actually achieving that goal in practice, and the 653/723/727/XM4/M4 refining it to something a little more ideal (and coincidentally nearly exactly the same size as an L85, FAMAS, or AUG). The Soviet Union got a head start with the AK starting to replace both rifles and submachine guns as early as the 1950s, and the Soviet answer to the need for a smaller weapon for vehicle crews and SF was the AKS-74U, a compact carbine.
Nowadays what few submachine guns remain in military and police use (MP5s, mostly, along with the oddball PDWs like the MP7 and P90) are gradually on the way out because compact carbines- particularly suppressed and in short-barrel-optimized calibers (eg .300BLK)- offer better range, terminal effect, and particularly armor penetration, with no significant downsides.
It wasn't strictly bullpups that killed the submachine gun, but their widespread adoption did significantly hasten its demise.
cuda1179 wrote:I think I found a loophole in US law in which a bullpup would technically allow you to skirt US law and effectively allow you to have an otherwise illegal firearm.
Normally, a rifle needs to be a minimum of 26 inches with a minimum of 16 inches of barrel. This is measured with stocks extended.
I happen to have a carbine conversion of a Glock 23 with a collapsible stock, and it's only 24 inches long when collapsed. It also has a picatinny rail in front of the trigger.
I've thought about making a removable mount using that rail. Basically a forward vertical grip with a secondary trigger with a linkage back to the real trigger. This would allow me to shoulder and fire the weapon with the stock collapsed. However, if I extended the stock I could still shoot it using my left hand as the trigger finger.
As far as I can tell, this does conform to all US laws, although I can see the ATF frowning on it.
Yeah, that would be legal. There's a similar application where a bullpup kit applied to a pistol theoretically maybe possibly allows you to brace the pistol against your body. Not with a recoil pad or anything, because obviously that would constitute designing it to fire from the shoulder and thus manufacturing an SBR, but at the moment there's no policy preventing use of a pistol in this manner.
Putting an extra trigger linkage on a Rony(or equivalent device) chassis for a Glock does not let you get around SBR laws. If there is an actual Stock and not a pistol brace it is an SBR(assuming it has the normal Glock 23 barrel and not some 16" weirdness)
This conversion carbine kit replaces the entire upper of the pistol, and includes a 16 inch barrel. Since the 26 inch minimal overall length is measured with stocks extended, the collapsible stock means it can fold down to under 26 inches, even if the gun can still be fired in that configuration.
Bullpups remain a solution looking for a problem. .
As others have pointed out, they are to provide 'rifle' performance from a carbine length of weapon. The Brits actually wanted a different calibre but decided to follow the yanks which arguably undermined what they were going for. Eventually even America has decided they want something different.
But all that ignores the part about the military being a system. Small arms are a small part of it. The calculations for an individual are about matching a gun to a need or range of needs. For an army it is how do we get all these different cogs spinning together.
The US has been happy with a carbine for years. One of their (many) strengths when it comes to people is crew served weapons. They are expensive and need excellent logistics. But the US can do that and leverage its other advantages. The M4 is fine. With scale also comes better specialisation. US troops need far less training than a military like the British where individuals have to be able to do more things. With that higher training overhead a more complex rifle can be accommodated. It remains to be seen if they can change to a more complex longer ranged weapon.
The UK doctrine for infantry is mechanised riflemen. They are expected to be able to engage targets individually at a longer range. Tasks that would be taken up with heavier weapons in the US system end up with individual soldiers in the British army and they are also expected to do far more CQB.
You will see militaries shift between short ranged, long ranged, small, big, etc. as budget and doctrine change.
Putting an extra trigger linkage on a Rony(or equivalent device) chassis for a Glock does not let you get around SBR laws. If there is an actual Stock and not a pistol brace it is an SBR(assuming it has the normal Glock 23 barrel and not some 16" weirdness)
I've seen some absurdly long pistol barrels that can be dropped into the frame as well. I think there is a 1911 package where you can put in a crazy long barrel and a stock and now it's a PCC. Obviously, you have to add in one of those ludicrously long magazines for full effect.
Putting an extra trigger linkage on a Rony(or equivalent device) chassis for a Glock does not let you get around SBR laws. If there is an actual Stock and not a pistol brace it is an SBR(assuming it has the normal Glock 23 barrel and not some 16" weirdness)
I've seen some absurdly long pistol barrels that can be dropped into the frame as well. I think there is a 1911 package where you can put in a crazy long barrel and a stock and now it's a PCC. Obviously, you have to add in one of those ludicrously long magazines for full effect.
Yes, if you swap to a 16" barrel you are fine because then it's now rifle length, but if you've got a short barrel cough up the $200 to Uncle Sam pls.
Rapid reload seems completely out of the question.
And for the same dimensions, you could carry a lot more dakka with a magazine in the grip.
Depends on if you can remove the whole cylinder. A reloader wouldn't work, but if you can just swap out cylinders, it might come close.
Revolvers have their uses, don't get me wrong, but if you're looking to spread lead so much that magazine capacity is an issue, you probably shouldn't be using a side arm.
Rapid reload seems completely out of the question.
And for the same dimensions, you could carry a lot more dakka with a magazine in the grip.
Depends on if you can remove the whole cylinder. A reloader wouldn't work, but if you can just swap out cylinders, it might come close.
Revolvers have their uses, don't get me wrong, but if you're looking to spread lead so much that magazine capacity is an issue, you probably shouldn't be using a side arm.
If this can hot-swap cylinders, has decent reliably, and isn't a wallet crusher, I might get one. I've fancied break top revolvers for some time.
Depends on if you can remove the whole cylinder. A reloader wouldn't work, but if you can just swap out cylinders, it might come close.
Revolvers have their uses, don't get me wrong, but if you're looking to spread lead so much that magazine capacity is an issue, you probably shouldn't be using a side arm.
I'm a huge fan of revolvers. The primary advantage of revolvers is their simplicity - both in operation and in use. The tradeoff is that autoloaders can be more compact, have higher magazine capacities and much faster reloads.
This revolver seems to have none of the advantages and all of the disadvantages. It's an exotic engineering project, reminiscent of the Darden.
I'm curious as to what the various laws/regulations are pertaining to black powder weapons - and this would of course include revolvers.
Under federal law in the U.S., black powder weapons aren't regulated as firearms. There are also "kit guns" which you can buy and assemble (often applying your own finish to the wood parts) without much (if any) regulation.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm curious as to what the various laws/regulations are pertaining to black powder weapons - and this would of course include revolvers.
Under federal law in the U.S., black powder weapons aren't regulated as firearms. There are also "kit guns" which you can buy and assemble (often applying your own finish to the wood parts) without much (if any) regulation.
Here in the US Bass Pro Shop and Cabela's used to have black powder revolvers on the rack in plastic clampacks like they used to do with pellet guns. You could buy one easily. You could also buy a conversion cylinder to convert it to 45 Long Colt. Neither are firearms unless you combine them.
They look fun if on the expensive side for what you get. I don't think I'd trust those conversion cylinders with anything other than the lightest "cowboy action shooting" loads. Just get a Ruger or equivalent if you want to shoot the "good" ammo.
Grey Templar wrote: They're not legally firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know.
Fun fact: Michigan has a pistol registry and there was some confusion as to whether kit gun pistols applied. No one knew how that was even supposed to work, but 20 years ago the law was changed to say that no, black powder handguns (whether assembled or not) are not considered firearms in the Great Lakes State.
Grey Templar wrote: They're not legally firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know.
Federally, no. But at a state level, it varies.
In New York, for example, a cap-and-ball black powder revolver is not legally a firearm... unless you also possess ammunition for it, in which case it becomes a pistol and requires a pistol permit.
Similar deal with antiques. According to federal law, a pre-1898 firearm is not a firearm and does not require an FFL, so I was able to get a Nepalese Martini-Henry mailed to my door. But states have different laws and not all recognize that same exception.
Super cursory google “pistol with the largest ammo” turned up the The Pfeifer-Zeliska .600 Nitro Express Revolver
Apparently, so large its rounds are in fact rifle rounds. British made rifle rounds if that matters a single jot.
Anyone got one of these slices of supreme, but not quite 40K silliness?
British small arms are something of an embarrassment, honestly. The British Army proudly stood alone in retaining revolvers as side arms well after such luminaries as Spain, Portugal and China had recognized they were obsolete. Indeed, Britain's eventual choice of modern service pistol was the same one China was using: the Browning High Power (GP 35 to the collector circuit).
That being said, the Brits do make some sweet big game cartridges, and if you have enough steel on hand, you can build a revolver thick enough to fire one. Some years back I fired a single-shot handgun chambered for a rifle cartridge (.375 something or other) and it was just painful - and I say this as someone who is quite comfortable shooting .44 Magnum. (Comfortable being a somewhat elastic term with large bore handguns.)
I've fired quite a few .44s now that I think of it: Taurus Tracker, S&W Model 29 (Dirty Harry's gun), Ruger Bisley and of course the absurd Desert Eagle. I almost bought one of those many years ago, but my sanity returned before I completed the sale.
I'd be willing try heavier weapons (.460, .500 mag, .50 AE) but the opportunity has not presented itself. I guess I need to find wealthier friends with high pain thresholds.
My .69 light dragoon pistol disagrees with this assessment. (Only England could call a .69 'light')
I believe it is the Dragoons that are Light, not the calibre.
Commissar von Toussaint
I shoot a .454 Casull often. Before the .500S&W and then the .460 S&W it was effectively the most powerful handgun cartridge around.
It's great fun to shoot but recoil is stout as hell. Even with a heavy pistol with a compensator it is borderline unpleasant. Pushing a 300grain projectile at 1600fps delivers a punch.
I much prefer shooting it with medium .45 Colt loads.
I shoot a .454 Casull often. Before the .500S&W and then the .460 S&W it was effectively the most powerful handgun cartridge around.
It's great fun to shoot but recoil is stout as hell. Even with a heavy pistol with a compensator it is borderline unpleasant. Pushing a 300grain projectile at 1600fps delivers a punch.
I much prefer shooting it with medium .45 Colt loads.
Taurus makes a Judge in .454 Casull that also takes .410 shotgun shells. I actually thought about getting one but then the codeine wore off. IIRC, the literature for the cartridge was that it had twice the horsepower of a .44 mag and 5x that of a .357.
At a certain point, heavy handgun calibers are just performance art. The .454 made some sense because it was just 'wildcatting' .45 LC, which is how .357 and .44 mag were created.
My favorite magnum is .32 H&R. Mild recoil, compact package and hits like a sledgehammer.
I've never even seen any of that boutique safari stuff IRL. Custom made, hand fitted guns are always going to be super expensive, and combining that with the niche nature of the safari guns kind of puts them out of the reach of people who aren't an independantly wealthy playboy. That revolver costs 18 grand! I'd tend to doubt anyone here has one, but I suppose you never know.
Still, big guns are undeniably cool and there are some guns out there in the "normie" price range. The BFR can be chambered in all the lever rifle cartridges including .45-70 and can be fired offhand by the average person. A few common bolt actions like the CZ 550 and Remington 700 are out there chambered for the smaller more modernized safari calibers, most/all not in current production.
I'd be sorely tempted to get a CZ 550 in .416 Rigby. There are some jaw dropping videos on Youtube of it shooting through 2 feet of wood, level 4 armor, and as you might expect, very large animals.
As it stands, 12 gauge 600 grain "Black Magic" magnum slugs are the most powerful ammo I've owned/fired. Comparable in power to those huge S&W magnum loads, and more powerful than 450 Bushmaster, so I imagine they do have a real purpose in states that don't allow necked cartridges for hunting.
Since bolters are technically possible with current technology, it would be cool if some gunsmith took it upon themselves to try and make a better gyrojet.
Essentially, you just have to combine the gyrojet rocket projectile with normal bullets. IE: Have the rocket be part of normal cased ammo as the bullet and not the whole projectile. This would solve the short range lethality issue, and with a rifled barrel also the inaccuracy, of the Gyrojet.
The hardest part would be carefully matching the rocket's spin with the spin of the rifling so they work together and not in counter. It would probably involve a much lower twist rate than normal firearms, along with a low spin rate from the rocket motor as well.
The ammo would be massively expensive due to the precision machining required.
Grey Templar wrote: Essentially, you just have to combine the gyrojet rocket projectile with normal bullets. IE: Have the rocket be part of normal cased ammo as the bullet and not the whole projectile. This would solve the short range lethality issue, and with a rifled barrel also the inaccuracy, of the Gyrojet.
The hardest part would be carefully matching the rocket's spin with the spin of the rifling so they work together and not in counter. It would probably involve a much lower twist rate than normal firearms, along with a low spin rate from the rocket motor as well.
The ammo would be massively expensive due to the precision machining required.
The difficulty is making basically a two-part cartridge. You'd have the casing effectively serving as a sabot to boost the round out of the barrel and then the rocket would kick off. To make it worth the effort, it should be at least .50 caliber, maybe bigger.
If you can get a handgun with low recoil and 1,000 yard range, now you're cooking with gas!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I check this thread occasionally to see if anyone is using their firearm to do carpentry or build a house. So far you're all letting me down.
That's been going on for decades, at least since the 1980s.
When my father had a sub-floor put in, they used a nail-driver that fired .22LR shells. I'm pretty sure there are ones that use blank shotgun cartridges as well.
Of course no one is using a Colt 1911 to do that work because that's not what it is designed to do, just as you wouldn't try to drive a nail with a coping saw. But there are construction-oriented firearms.
SemperMortis wrote: Fact of the matter is that Pistols are stupid and serve one purpose and one purpose alone. Buy you enough time to get to a real gun
I disagree. In extremely confined spaces, they're very useful while a 'real gun' can be hard to manage.
SemperMortis wrote: Fact of the matter is that Pistols are stupid and serve one purpose and one purpose alone. Buy you enough time to get to a real gun
I disagree. In extremely confined spaces, they're very useful while a 'real gun' can be hard to manage.
Plus they give police a fighting chance when ill trained individuals try and shoot them from 20 yards away with a pistol.
SemperMortis wrote: Fact of the matter is that Pistols are stupid and serve one purpose and one purpose alone. Buy you enough time to get to a real gun
I disagree. In extremely confined spaces, they're very useful while a 'real gun' can be hard to manage.
Absolutely. Pistols were at one time something only cavalry or officers might carry, as much a status symbol as a practical weapon. Then came trench warfare, and a pistol was absolutely easier to maneuver in confined spaces and faster to reload that a bolt-action rifle. As warfare became technically more complex, soldiers operating machineguns, artillery, radios, vehicles, etc. needed a compact weapon for personal defense. Just look at the production numbers for handguns. If they weren't needed people wouldn't have been making them by the millions.
Pay particular attention to the WW I need for them - everyone was scrambling to put something into the hands of the troops.
It's axiomatic that the .32 in your pocket is better than the .45 you left in the safe at home, and it's even more true that the pistol in your holster is better than the rifle sitting in the armory or just out of arms' reach.
Well, yeah, handguns were used by trench raiders in WW1 because the only alternative available at the time was a bolt-action rifle literally designed to be longer than the other guy's for the sake of bayonet fighting. As soon as submachine guns came onto the scene, the handgun as a primary fighting weapon disappeared.
Post-WW1, handguns were largely relegated to a PDW for non-combatants or a secondary weapon for specialists, and even then there have been numerous weapons explicitly designed to provide something better than a handgun in that role. The M1 Carbine, M4, P90, AKS-74U, and MP7 were all intended to replace handguns out of general consensus that handguns suck for actually fighting, and are only desirable if the alternative is having nothing.
Unless you are a SOG operator crawling through VC tunnels, a submachine gun or compact carbine is pretty easy to manage even in fairly tight indoor spaces. I've never had an issue running kill house drills with a 14.5" AR, let alone an 11.5" or subgun.
Well a cavalry pistol was a different beast due to how it was expected to be used. And trench raider pistols were I think defined by their high magazine capacities. Even then didn't yanks prefer slam firing shotguns?
catbarf wrote: Post-WW1, handguns were largely relegated to a PDW for non-combatants or a secondary weapon for specialists, and even then there have been numerous weapons explicitly designed to provide something better than a handgun in that role. The M1 Carbine, M4, P90, AKS-74U, and MP7 were all intended to replace handguns out of general consensus that handguns suck for actually fighting, and are only desirable if the alternative is having nothing.
But in many cases that is the alternative, which is why every military has one.
It's also not clear that carbines/SMGs are a satisfactory solution because everyone keeps deciding they love them and then hate them. One of the big drivers of the "bullpup" configuration was that it (theoretically) eliminated the need for a separate SMG.
Spoiler alert: it didn't.
SMGs have very marginal range and even PCCs can only go 100 yards, which is fine in a very dense urban environment, but even there you can find yourself outranged by someone across the town square or a river.
Thus the "intermediate" carbine, which has better characteristics but now you get another type of ammo in your logistics train.
And in both cases, you can't just have the thing on your leg in case you need it.
So yes, if you're setting out to clear a house, or expect and attack and have have an SMG or carbine within reach, they're awesome, but as a last resort, handguns have a place.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: It's also not clear that carbines/SMGs are a satisfactory solution because everyone keeps deciding they love them and then hate them. One of the big drivers of the "bullpup" configuration was that it (theoretically) eliminated the need for a separate SMG.
Spoiler alert: it didn't.
We talked about this a few weeks ago. The demonstrable outcome is that it very much did. France, the UK, Australia, and Austria all adopted bullpups and then issued them to non-infantry roles (drivers, clerks, administrative officers, armor crewmen) that historically had been given submachine guns or pistols, and stopped issuing submachine guns outside of very niche SF applications (usually cases where subsonic ammunition was needed for suppressed use).
I'm really curious as to who exactly you have in mind that allegedly went back on bullpups and started issuing subguns as PDWs again.
Anyways, nowadays the submachine gun is on the way out worldwide, as modern rifle-caliber loadings provide both better subsonic performance and better ballistics in short barrel lengths. Carbines are now the standard, be it bullpup or conventional layout. I'm not aware of any Western (or Eastern, for that matter) military doctrinally replacing a carbine with a handgun in the last twenty years.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: SMGs have very marginal range and even PCCs can only go 100 yards, which is fine in a very dense urban environment, but even there you can find yourself outranged by someone across the town square or a river.
Thus the "intermediate" carbine, which has better characteristics but now you get another type of ammo in your logistics train.
And in both cases, you can't just have the thing on your leg in case you need it.
Well, as above, the common answer to submachine guns and PCCs lacking range and armor penetration is carbines chambered in the already-standard intermediate rifle calibers. One of the driving factors behind the M4 program was that it eliminated the need to maintain .45ACP in inventory for the M3, instead using the same 5.56x45 as the standard-issue M16A2 and thus simplifying logistics. Same deal with all those nations that adopted bullpup rifles.
In the case of the P90 and MP7 among countries that use them in this capacity, the use of 5.7 and 4.6 is in lieu of standard pistol calibers among infantry units, so it's pretty much a wash. PDWs like the MP7 can be carried in holsters, but the need to quick-draw from the hip has not featured in any of the RFPs I've seen. Carrying a carbine on a sling isn't an issue.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: So yes, if you're setting out to clear a house, or expect and attack and have have an SMG or carbine within reach, they're awesome, but as a last resort, handguns have a place.
I would think 'as a last resort' tracks pretty well with 'buy you enough time to get to (your fighting weapon)'. Definitely not an ideal CQB weapon as Baron was suggesting.
Overall the point is that a pistol is not a go-to weapon of choice for any particular combat niche, and militaries around the world have been keen to develop better answers for the non-infantryman use case. Sure, pistols are still around as sidearms for machine gunners and officers, but your artillerists, radio operators, and vehicle crewmen aren't carrying handguns anymore, they're carrying carbines, and that trend doesn't show signs of reversing.
catbarf wrote: We talked about this a few weeks ago. The demonstrable outcome is that it very much did. France, the UK, Australia, and Austria all adopted bullpups and then issued them to non-infantry roles (drivers, clerks, administrative officers, armor crewmen) that historically had been given submachine guns or pistols, and stopped issuing submachine guns outside of very niche SF applications (usually cases where subsonic ammunition was needed for suppressed use).
The thing is, those "niche" SF forces now make up a significant part of national combat capability for many countries. The other day I was noodling around checking up in British regiments and they've been compressed to an incredible extent. The Duke of Cumberland had a bigger army during the War of the Austrian Succession. So far from being mostly dropped, they're one of the few weapons still getting heavy use.
Anyways, nowadays the submachine gun is on the way out worldwide, as modern rifle-caliber loadings provide both better subsonic performance and better ballistics in short barrel lengths. Carbines are now the standard, be it bullpup or conventional layout. I'm not aware of any Western (or Eastern, for that matter) military doctrinally replacing a carbine with a handgun in the last twenty years.
I'm really curious as to who exactly you have in mind that allegedly went back on bullpups and started issuing subguns as PDWs again.
Who still uses bullpups? I think the UK is the last of the old guard, but I guess some Balkan countries are flirting with homebrew designs.
As for SMGs, I think that the term PDW exists to entirely to obscure the fact that they are SMGs.
"So his pistol uses the same cartridge as his carbine."
"Yes, sir."
"Like a submachinegun, then."
"No, submachineguns use existing pistol rounds. These were designed from the start to use stronger, more robust cartridges that push the envelope of a handgun and bringing additional hitting power for the long weapon."
"Like the Soviets did with the Tokarev pistol and PPSh, then? So the PPSh was really a PDW."
"No, because these have polymer."
Seriously, what's the difference? 5x7mm was designed to have greater range and armor penetration than 9x19mm. 7.62 Tokarev was also designed to have greater range and penetration than 7x63mm Mauser. Both cartridges got two complimentary platforms designed around them.
Overall the point is that a pistol is not a go-to weapon of choice for any particular combat niche
So why are there all these new contracts for them? If they're duds, on the way out, no real point, why did the US just make a huge new order? And why do the Spec Ops guys always get fancy ones? If they have no role other than to buy time, why are they even bothering with them?
The answer is that they do serve a role and lots of militaries spend a lot of time (and money) on them.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Of course no one is using a Colt 1911 to do that work because that's not what it is designed to do, just as you wouldn't try to drive a nail with a coping saw.
Sounds like a lack of imagination and the will to do something magnificent.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The thing is, those "niche" SF forces now make up a significant part of national combat capability for many countries.
Sure. They're not buying submachine guns. They're buying compact carbines, typically piston-driven AR-15 or AR-18 derivatives. See: UKSF adopting AR-15s with monolithic uppers, France replacing all their rifles with HK416s, most of the NATO countries settling on some flavor of AR-18 derivative (G36, Beretta ARX, SCAR, Type 89, etc, etc).
(Edit: And note that this is pretty much the story with all the countries that adopted bullpups, and why I was pressing you for an example of one that went back to submachine guns. The trend among the nations that were formerly bullpup enthusiasts has been replacing them with more modern, AR-based carbines on a one-for-one basis. The carbines do the same thing the bullpups did, which is provide a one-size-fits-all solution for riflemen, SF, and second-line combatants, but take advantage of modern developments in ballistics to do so with a shorter barrel and obviate the need for the bullpup layout.)
The market for submachine guns has dwindled almost entirely to competition shooters and range gimmicks. Very few of the new entrants to the military/police market- eg the Sig MPX, CZ Scorpion Evo, B&T family- have had much success.
Submachine guns are not 'one of the few weapons still getting heavy use'. Far from it. I'll share this article that does a good job of summing up the general zeitgeist as regards submachine guns; it tracks with my experience as a testing & eval .gov.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: As for SMGs, I think that the term PDW exists to entirely to obscure the fact that they are SMGs.
(...)
Seriously, what's the difference?
PDW and SMG are not mutually exclusive terms. One's a descriptive categorization of intended role, the other's a functional categorization based on caliber and select-fire capability. Or at least, that's how the DOD sees it.
The distinction is relevant because the P90 and MP7 were not designed to be issued to assault teams or squad leaders, they were meant and are overwhelmingly issued to clerks, cooks, and drivers. Functionally, they're submachine guns; tactically, they're intended as second-line weapons, not peers to rifles as subguns once were.
Note that we have seen SOF adopt these PDWs in small numbers for very specific roles- often as secondary weapons in lieu of pistols. By and large, it's carbines as primary weapons nowadays for infantrymen and rear-echelon personnel alike.
So why are there all these new contracts for them? If they're duds, on the way out, no real point, why did the US just make a huge new order? And why do the Spec Ops guys always get fancy ones? If they have no role other than to buy time, why are they even bothering with them?
This strikes me as akin to asking 'if parachutes aren't a great way to travel, why does the Air Force keep buying them?'.
I never said there's 'no real point'. I agreed with the notion that handguns are best characterized as the step above unarmed, and I stated that their use as PDWs has dramatically diminished over the last century as better alternatives have been developed. They still have a niche, but no country puts much stock in handguns as fighting weapons nowadays, and you don't see Deltas dual-wielding 1911s or SASroom-clearing with BHPs anymore. They're the last resort, the 'E' in your PACE plan, and if someone issued a pistol has to use it in combat then something has gone terribly wrong. And when this starts happening regularly, the analysts start looking for how they can better arm whoever keeps getting stuck with a handgun in a rifle fight.
For my $0.02, as an intelligence officer I was issued an M4 when on warzone deployment, and I carried that in lieu of my G17. Even for .govs in non-combat roles, since the mid-00s it's been the norm to be issued a carbine.
catbarf wrote: For my $0.02, as an intelligence officer I was issued an M4 when on warzone deployment, and I carried that in lieu of my G17. Even for .govs in non-combat roles, since the mid-00s it's been the norm to be issued a carbine.
OMG, you were an intelligence officer???
That explains everything.
I think we're largely arguing over semantics and my two cents is that handguns have uses for which they are uniquely suited and the best choice.
As a (former) certified war planner (tm), I think there's a huge disconnect between doctrine, procurement and any notion of how to win a war. We went 0-2 during my career, so I'm not optimistic.
Guilty as charged, though to be clear I was on the .gov side, not .mil. Nowadays I'm just a contractor to Army.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I think we're largely arguing over semantics and my two cents is that handguns have uses for which they are uniquely suited and the best choice.
I get that sense too, so lemme just try to coherently state my position.
My experience has been that a handgun is the weapon you get when you aren't likely to use it and anything more effective would be too bulky, and the development of less-bulky but effective long arms with which to equip the historical recipients of handguns has greatly lessened their use. If I have to clear a building, I don't want a handgun, I want a compact carbine. But when I had to work in a plainclothes environment where an M4 would spook the locals, that's when I carried a G17; not because it was my first choice, but because it was my only choice.
Anyways, I still enjoy pistol shooting. My most recent acquisition was a Mateba autorevolver and I've been having a blast with how the recoil operation tames the recoil of full-power .357.
catbarf wrote: I get that sense too, so lemme just try to coherently state my position.
My experience has been that a handgun is the weapon you get when you aren't likely to use it and anything more effective would be too bulky, and the development of less-bulky but effective long arms with which to equip the historical recipients of handguns has greatly lessened their use. If I have to clear a building, I don't want a handgun, I want a compact carbine. But when I had to work in a plainclothes environment where an M4 would spook the locals, that's when I carried a G17; not because it was my first choice, but because it was my only choice.
I think that the same advances that make carbines more useful also have considerably boosted pistol capabilities. Most WW II pistols offered you a mag and a spare, for a maximum of 14-16 shots. The Browning Hi Power was a game-changer.
But now? Rigs with 3 spares give you 60+ rounds, which means that you've actually got suppressive firepower in your pocket.
That narrows the gap somewhat, which is why the Army (and other militaries) keep buying the dumb things.
Anyways, I still enjoy pistol shooting. My most recent acquisition was a Mateba autorevolver and I've been having a blast with how the recoil operation tames the recoil of full-power .357.
A true range toy if there ever was one. I'm more interested in military service pistols. Can you tell?
SMGs have very marginal range and even PCCs can only go 100 yards, which is fine in a very dense urban environment, but even there you can find yourself outranged by someone across the town square or a river.
Statements like that ignore that the military isn't a bunch of individual warriors but a system. Peoples rifle/carbine/pistol is typically the cheapest and least important bit of kit on a planners mind. Who traditionally got a sub machine gun in WW2? Speaking for the Brits the section commander who was meant to either lead and direct, or spearhead assaults where the short ranged high rate of fire was needed. Otherwise, just like today, the section LMG/HMG did most of the heavy lifting. In that river scenario the section would keep the gun fed and the gun would do the long range engagement while mortars or other support weapons could be called up.
Anyways, nowadays the submachine gun is on the way out worldwide, as modern rifle-caliber loadings provide both better subsonic performance and better ballistics in short barrel lengths. Carbines are now the standard, be it bullpup or conventional layout. I'm not aware of any Western (or Eastern, for that matter) military doctrinally replacing a carbine with a handgun in the last twenty years.
I think it has some resilience in paramilitary forces. Cost though is a big factor. The US for example seem to want rifles/carbines for their paramilitary bits, but they are operating in a very different market to many countries.
Bullpups come and go. The Brits are one extreme with the whole 'rifleman' ethos, the Israel's at the other (how do we make an even smaller carbine for fighting in hive cities?). For the rest this list looks pretty comprehensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup
Do a good job of going over the pros and cons too. We probably shouldn't get sidetracked into a bullpup discussion though as there are no winners in there... For what its worth the next round of military small arms innovation is going to be in response to ammunition changes now the US has broke its own NATO instilled hegemony for rifle rounds.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: So why are there all these new contracts for them (pistols)? If they're duds, on the way out, no real point, why did the US just make a huge new order? And why do the Spec Ops guys always get fancy ones? If they have no role other than to buy time, why are they even bothering with them?
The answer is that they do serve a role and lots of militaries spend a lot of time (and money) on them.
A lot of time, yes. A lot of money? Not in the scheme of things (their other programmes). Countries keep the same pistol for ages, it is generally more hassle than its worth getting a new pistol and a system (logs, storage, training, etc.) around it.
(Edit: And note that this is pretty much the story with all the countries that adopted bullpups, and why I was pressing you for an example of one that went back to submachine guns. The trend among the nations that were formerly bullpup enthusiasts has been replacing them with more modern, AR-based carbines on a one-for-one basis. The carbines do the same thing the bullpups did, which is provide a one-size-fits-all solution for riflemen, SF, and second-line combatants, but take advantage of modern developments in ballistics to do so with a shorter barrel and obviate the need for the bullpup layout.)
I think the countries switching back are doing it for a bunch of reasons. The countries going for a conventional rifle are doing so often because their own manufacturers aren't what they were, they don't like the manufactures making modern bullpups and they have political and commercial (cheap, supported) reasons to get one rifle over another. So countries that aren't fussed about individual firepower and want something good, cheap, customisable and supported for the next century, the M4 is a great choice due to the US civilian industry being duel purpose here.
catbarf wrote: The distinction is relevant because the P90 and MP7 were not designed to be issued to assault teams or squad leaders, they were meant and are overwhelmingly issued to clerks, cooks, and drivers. Functionally, they're submachine guns; tactically, they're intended as second-line weapons, not peers to rifles as subguns once were.
Note that we have seen SOF adopt these PDWs in small numbers for very specific roles- often as secondary weapons in lieu of pistols. By and large, it's carbines as primary weapons nowadays for infantrymen and rear-echelon personnel alike.
Well they were intended to be a rear echelon weapon that could defeat body armour in use at the time. So the SMG armour piecing capability is favoured for some tasks by other forces.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:I think that the same advances that make carbines more useful also have considerably boosted pistol capabilities. Most WW II pistols offered you a mag and a spare, for a maximum of 14-16 shots. The Browning Hi Power was a game-changer.
But now? Rigs with 3 spares give you 60+ rounds, which means that you've actually got suppressive firepower in your pocket.
That narrows the gap somewhat, which is why the Army (and other militaries) keep buying the dumb things.
I'm not really sure that double-stack is a game-changer, given that it's been the norm since the end of WW2. Having rounds on tap is good; being able to hit your target and inflict credible results is something else, and that's where the instability of a handgun combined with the lack of penetration of typical handgun ammunition become significant problems. Making noise is all well and good, but if Ahmed's amped up from chewing khat all afternoon I'm not betting on that scaring him off.
As Chris pointed out, the development of high-velocity armor-piercing pistol calibers, able to reach out to carbine ranges and challenge contemporary body armor, breathed some new life into those PDW submachine guns. The use of compact stocked platforms is also a plus, as you can carry an MP7 much like a grossly oversized pistol and make hits that would be extremely difficult with a conventional handgun. And you're right that there have been advances in bullet design that have made pistol rounds substantially more effective than they used to be, particularly small-caliber high-velocity rounds, though there is a direct tradeoff between expansion and penetration.
(The German 7.63x25, or the Soviet 7.62x25 based on it, is a spicy little round that will also vibe check body armor at 200m, and often came in pistol platforms with detachable shoulder stocks- everything old is new again)
If anything, I'd say a 'pistol renaissance' might come with the greater use of stocked pistols using modern technology and materials to retain the overall form factor of a pistol. We've seen the Flux Defense system making some waves in the last couple of years, being the first stocked-pistol platform that's readily holsterable and avoids the pitfall of giving it the overall bulk of a (much more effective) carbine. Though when it comes down to it, it's basically trying to turn a pistol into a tiny PCC, in recognition that a conventional pistol is not ideal.
Also worth noting that the general decline in civilian marksmanship makes training people to be effective with small arms all the more difficult, and handguns are pretty notoriously difficult to shoot accurately, especially under stress. Stocks go a long ways towards improving hit rates, and I've seen police agencies in the US express interest in holsterable stocked-pistol configurations for that reason.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:A true range toy if there ever was one. I'm more interested in military service pistols. Can you tell?
Oh yeah, I've got a bit of a milsurp collection myself. On that note...
Manurhin-manufactured Walther P1 for the West Berlin police, a reworked Mauser C96 relined to 9x19, and a Dreyse M1908 that my great-grandfather took as a trophy at Ypres.
Got a lot more than that but seemed particularly relevant to current discussion. The C96 is an awkward beast, but on the wooden shoulder stock it's exceptionally controllable and accurate. Loading from stripper clips is surprisingly easy, though the ten-round capacity sucks by modern standards.
And said shoulder stock doubles as a holster, into which the pistol is placed, and then the whole ensemble fits into a leather harness with belt loops to wear it on the hip.
Yet it was also re-worked into the Schnellfeur and Spanish select-fire variants that were very much used as SMGs. Oh where to draw the line?!
Our collection has considerable overlap. At some point I'd like to get a P1, but until my unfortunate canoe accident, I also had a Dreyse and a C96 built out of a parts gun. I had it restored to its pristine 7.63mm glory, and it's a hoot and half to shoot. With a stock it's a tack-hammer.
I mean it was a hoot and a half. Alas, like all of my other firearms, it perished in freak boating accidents.
Small update to my much earlier air rifle scope post. I ended up getting a reflex style dot site to go on my air rifle. Today I started getting it zeroed and so far so good I am happy with how this is progressing. My largest limitations right now are my flashlight being able to illuminate the target. I'm not shooting from a huge distance either maybe 30 or 40 feet. I need to measure the distance again. But I'm hitting soda cans tonight in the dark so not too bad. I plan to move down to smaller targets but there could be a sighting issue just because of the front site post is covered with a ring and that also touches the dot but I think I can overcome that with more dirt time.
The dot site does red/blue and green which is neat. Also the dots are so bright that the flash light is in no way a problem. I was worried about red on red being an issue and it's not.
Wanted to say thankyou for the earlier help.
Firearms are banned in my communist country so all I have are pneumatic selfdefence-measures such as a pneumatic (big pump included) handgun (its bigger than a magnum though) a carbine(wood) and a big rifle(synthetic) that has a silencer.
No bullets either, just the BB like rounds (not entirely BB, because theres rounds like hyenas that are pointed and shrapnel rounds, have those both incase there is a zombie apocalypse)
warhead01 wrote: My largest limitations right now are my flashlight being able to illuminate the target. I'm not shooting from a huge distance either maybe 30 or 40 feet.
It sounds like you just need a better flashlight. You don't have to go too crazy with it the Energizer brand LED lights at Home Depot/Lowes work great for $10-25.
On the subject of budget short range scopes, I picked up one of these a few weeks ago and couldn't be happier with it. Its kind of a ghetto ACOG. I really like that ACSS reticle and the field of view, very easy to use with both eyes open. I like it a lot more than my more expensive optics and will probably get the 5x at some point.
Slowroll wrote: On the subject of budget short range scopes, I picked up one of these a few weeks ago and couldn't be happier with it. Its kind of a ghetto ACOG. I really like that ACSS reticle and the field of view, very easy to use with both eyes open. I like it a lot more than my more expensive optics and will probably get the 5x at some point.
For those part of a gun club or shooting range in general, do they have particular maintenance requirements before letting you have some fun?
I mean, I suspect most gun owners are perfectly competent if not outright fastidious about proper cleaning and maintenance. But as with all things in life, I’m sure there are Idiot Exceptions who need such rules.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For those part of a gun club or shooting range in general, do they have particular maintenance requirements before letting you have some fun?
I mean, I suspect most gun owners are perfectly competent if not outright fastidious about proper cleaning and maintenance. But as with all things in life, I’m sure there are Idiot Exceptions who need such rules.
There aren't any inspections, if that's what you mean.
Obviously, a weapon with visible issues will get the immediate attention of the range officer, but maintenance issues typically manifest only during operation, and if someone's struggling, the range officer will usually get involved.
Most ranges ban the use of anything other than factory loaded ammo in the original box due to the possibility of a kaboom. One range that I used to frequent often had a sign saying "NO RELOADS, FACTORY AMMO ONLY" and below it was a S&W 686 that had the top strap blown off and one of the cylinder chambers ripped wide open. Guy loaded rifle powder in his .357 mag casings. Miraculously, no one was injured.
I own several CZ pistols, my/the 75 is circa 1980s, and is one of the most prolific world used service pistol, they actually produced an "assault" variant at one point. It came with a 3 round burst option, and a front grip that had a literal bayonet attachment. I'm guessing even Solid Snake would have trouble figuring out how to actually use it...
Ahtman wrote: Sounds like a lack of imagination and the will to do something magnificent.
So would you hire a mechanic whose only tool is a pipe wrench in the hope that his imagination and will can do something magnificent?
Because I'd like to see that.
Of course you would because it would be magnificent display of skill and bravado that challenges preconceived notions of art and car repair. It would be GLORIOUS.
Generally the rule is unless you are doing clearly dumb shizz they're not going to say anything.
As for ammo restrictions, in my experience they only limit your ammo in cases where the range provides steel targets, you're renting guns from the range, or its an indoor range. Hand-loads could obviously potentially damage steel targets that factory ammo with known effects would not, and same goes for rental guns. And indoor ranges don't want people chewing up their backstops with hot handloads, especially on rifles.
And nobody in their right mind would use AP ammo on steel plates except for testing purposes. Steel targets are usually $80+ each and wear out fast enough without someone blowing holes in them.
There are two ranges near me. A public range on the mountain and a private range near my parents. Public range is a 20 minute drive into the wilderness. Other than the sheriffs sometimes showing up looking for anybody who brought out the spicy illegal stuff nobody is there to tell you what to do. And unless you are shooting incendiaries into the bushes, littering, or something nothing is prohibited.
The private range only has limits on rapid fire and respecting the cease fire. You have to provide your own targets, and its paper only. No steel allowed.
Hand-loading is a big part of the hobby, so banning it is not usually conducive to good business unless there are other limitations like the ones above. Don't want to offend the fudds that pay to show up every week to plink with their bolt action .308 that they haven't bought factory ammo for since Reagan was in office.
Grey Templar wrote: Hand-loading is a big part of the hobby, so banning it is not usually conducive to good business unless there are other limitations like the ones above. Don't want to offend the fudds that pay to show up every week to plink with their bolt action .308 that they haven't bought factory ammo for since Reagan was in office.
The one that bans reloads is attached to a gun store and they sell ammo. They don't particularly cater to the DIY crowd, who I imagine already belong to one of the many gun clubs in the area - or likely have their own private range. Everyone I know who reloads also has a personal range on the back 40.
I think I’ve asked this before, but on hand loads (which childish innuendo aside, I understand to be rounds made at home from, well, kits) and shop bought? Does preference vary club to club, county to county, state to state and so on?
I think I’ve asked this before, but on hand loads (which childish innuendo aside, I understand to be rounds made at home from, well, kits) and shop bought? Does preference vary club to club, county to county, state to state and so on?
Club rules vary by club. I don't know of any state than prohibits reloading ammunition, nor do I know if they even could if they wanted. It's not always easy to tell.
Reloading ammunition has quite a spectrum of sophistication and there are firms that "re-manufacture" it. Those have wider acceptance because there is some sort of QC on it and also someone to sue if it blows up your weapon.
I do not partake of it, but I sell my used brass to those who do. That's the core of the thing - you buy the factory-made components of ammunition and assemble them yourself. The key is consistency at every step of the way, and a single person operating on their own...you can see the problem.
For some ammunition, though, it's the only real option because ammunition is no longer in production or is extraordinarily expensive.
Its very much a personal thing. There are many many books publishing data and charts about various loads. Every manufacturer makes their own with recommendations for their bullets and powders. Then you can make your own adjustments from there and those who get real deep into it will have their own secret formulas that they use for various calibers.
For reference, the formula for handloading involves the following variables,
Type of bullet. Weight, dimensions, hollow point, soft-point. How deep do you seat it into the brass, etc....
Powder. What kind of powder, how much, how much empty volume is in the casing between the bullet and the powder.
Primer. Generally, there isn't as much variation in primers, but some calibers give you the option to pick between Magnum and standard primers. Magnum primers are more powerful and will cause the powder to ignite faster.
To give an example of some of my personal handloads,
For .44 magnum, I have a formula where I use a powder called TCM that is normally for use in smaller handgun calibers. It burns fast and accelerates quickly. This gives a little more oomph than factory .44 magnum which is intended for use in pistols or revolvers, which means they are less powerful than they could be if you instead approach it from a carbine perspective.
For shotshells, I have a semi-unique self-defense round I make. It is a standard formula for 00 buckshot. I use the manufacturer's recommended powder for 1 and 1/8 oz of buckshot. Normally, this means 9 pellets of 00 buckshot. but my change is I only use 6 pellets of 00 buck and swap 3 of the buckshot pellets for an equal weight of number 4 birdshot.
Similar to the .44 magnum, I also load hot 9mm for use in my KP9. They'd be a little spicy for a handgun, but in the much stronger action of a carbine they are just fine.
I load 8mm mauser for my Hakim simply because the only 8mm you can find around here is pushing $3 a round because all anybody stocks is lead free hunting projectiles and not cheaper plinking ammo, though even that will still be $1.50 to $2 a round. But I can load my own for half the price.
I dunno, in any range I've ever shot at, if you start throwing super hot rounds down range at their expensive steel targets, they will be out promptly to have a quick word. Everyone can tell the difference between a .270 loaded to spec, and a .270 loaded beyond safe tolerances.
I get practicing how you expect to play, with +P+ pistol ammo in a defense handgun, but in anything beyond the pistol range, if you are throwing stupid home build lego rounds downrange next to me, I'm moving away from you, and the ticking time bomb of a rifle you are using. I've seen too many guns go boom from accidental bad loads. Shotguns especially. Something about 12gauge makes people think they're easier to hand load. Yeah, I'd rather you didn't endanger everyone at the range to test out that new 60g .308 you've made at home. I'd rather you go meet jesus on your own range.
Grey Templar wrote: For shotshells, I have a semi-unique self-defense round I make. It is a standard formula for 00 buckshot. I use the manufacturer's recommended powder for 1 and 1/8 oz of buckshot. Normally, this means 9 pellets of 00 buckshot. but my change is I only use 6 pellets of 00 buck and swap 3 of the buckshot pellets for an equal weight of number 4 birdshot.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be very cautious in using anything other than factory loads for a self-defense purpose. In the awful event that they are employed, the local prosecutor may well decided that those aren't just a minor tweaks but Death-dealing Hell-bolts painstaking built by a bloodthirsty killer eager to give them a try.
I won't use factory reloads for anything other than target practice. I know a pretty serious outfit that went under because of QC issues. The handgun ammo I bought in 9mm and .380 ran fine, but the .223 was really unreliable, failure to fire in every 25 rounds or so.
I have a friend who liked to buy sketchy gun show ammo, always in unmarked plastic containers (we joked he bought it out of a trunk in an alley) and it was all fun and games until he touched off a very stout .38 that caused us all to flinch followed by a pop and no kick. If he'd reversed order he put them in the cylinder, he'd have wrecked his pistol.
As a general rule in self defense rounds, you want them to completely kill, not wound. In that aspect, the only reason to go with non-00 buck in self defense is to reduce property damage or penetration. A 00buck in 3" magnum load can go through quite a few walls and windows. So if you live in an apartment or a cheap house, bird shot is preferable. However you break the first rule, which is kill the intruder.
Live intruders lead to major lawsuits later. There are numerous cases where granny with a shot gun and rock salt (Generally considered safe less-lethal) gets sued for inhumane assault. Then again you can always double tap, but be prepared for a massive police snafu, and likely arrest for murder.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, in any range I've ever shot at, if you start throwing super hot rounds down range at their expensive steel targets, they will be out promptly to have a quick word. Everyone can tell the difference between a .270 loaded to spec, and a .270 loaded beyond safe tolerances.
I honestly find it hard to believe this actually happens in real life. Muzzle flash, concussion, and noise are tremendously affected by barrel length and muzzle devices. You need to be extremely familiar with the exact gun and setup to gauge whether the ammo is hot or not; .270 Win through a 16" barrel looks a lot more impressive than it is.
If someone complained that my Automag III looks a little spicy, I would politely ask them to go away- that fireball is ballistic potential turning into light and noise, reducing factory .30 Carbine to the level of .357 Mag.
The only time I've been engaged by an RSO over it, she just asked if I use it to hunt dinosaurs.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be very cautious in using anything other than factory loads for a self-defense purpose.
I've seen a lot of allegations over the years that using homemade ammo, hollowpoints, modified weapons, NFA items, et cetera will give the prosecutor rope to hang you with. But I have been given explicit legal advice that that is not a realistic concern, and that I should be much, much more concerned with where and when lethal force is employed. Gary Fadden walked free. YMMV.
So steel plate targets at most ranges have posted signs saying what is an is not allowed in the forms of ammo on specific ranges, ie no rifle shooting at the pistol range. For obvious safety and range discipline.
To completely disregard their intent on that factor, makes you the jerk, not them. (Proverbial you, not replying to anyone specifically). And yes, if you've spent enough time around discharging firearms, you can tell instantly the difference in the crack of a Remington green box of 115g 9mm, or a +P+ 130g Buffalo Bore. It's not even hard.
Same with any round. You can tell the difference between a .22lr and a .223 because one has a lot more @$$ on it.
catbarf wrote: I've seen a lot of allegations over the years that using homemade ammo, hollowpoints, modified weapons, NFA items, et cetera will give the prosecutor rope to hang you with. But I have been given explicit legal advice that that is not a realistic concern, and that I should be much, much more concerned with where and when lethal force is employed. Gary Fadden walked free. YMMV.
Yeah, but those things are not at all the same. If you use factory self-defense ammo and can point out its ubiquity in the marketplace, note that law enforcement employs it, etc., that's a very different thing than the prosecutor being able to claim that unlike a "good gun owner," you spent hours agonizing over the best way to torment your victims. All the legal advice I've gotten on that is resoundingly negative.
It's a totally different category than having comfort grips, or after-market sights. The prosecutor now has an entirely new avenue of attack that most jurors will think is strange and sinister. Think Hollywood showing weirdos cutting crosses in their bullets and such.
Odds are whatever gain one gets is marginal, which is why risk analysis says it's one less thing to worry about.
Besides, the real advantage of reloading is volume. If you want to also have competition-level precision, again, no one cares.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: And yes, if you've spent enough time around discharging firearms, you can tell instantly the difference in the crack of a Remington green box of 115g 9mm, or a +P+ 130g Buffalo Bore. It's not even hard.
Same with any round. You can tell the difference between a .22lr and a .223 because one has a lot more @$$ on it.
Absolutely. If some guy wants to blast away with his gold-plated Desert Eagle in .50AE, people will see him coming and choose a different lane than the one next to him.
The issue is the +P++ jerk who wants to push his Glock to the limit.
Reminds me of a joke: How do you know someone is shooting 10mm?
Yeah, all the Range Elites that walk up with their just purchased Nighthawk, and wanna talk about how boss the 1911s are, and have their tacticool frankenpistols with the ported Glock 19s with beveled mag wells, (For TACTICAL RELOADS AT THE RANGE). I just giggle. I can out shoot your 1500 custom 1911 with my 375 USD factory stamped Czech model 75 from 1985. And I won't waist 150 bucks on .45 ammo.
#1 rule of any range, Safety before Pride. If you are going to practice firearms marksmanship, humble your self before walking on the range. No attitudes past the door, If you are there to show off your cool toy, do it somewhere else.
I shot expert on almost every weapon in the US army arsenal, and even a few that weren't yet. I still walk in and am straight "Yes sir/No Ma'am" to every person on the range. Even to the 22 year old behind the counter. And I'm 42.
It's just being a good range buddy.
I'm sick of working on my drills, and seeing some idiot doing mag dumps like it's fun.
Grey Templar wrote: For shotshells, I have a semi-unique self-defense round I make. It is a standard formula for 00 buckshot. I use the manufacturer's recommended powder for 1 and 1/8 oz of buckshot. Normally, this means 9 pellets of 00 buckshot. but my change is I only use 6 pellets of 00 buck and swap 3 of the buckshot pellets for an equal weight of number 4 birdshot.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be very cautious in using anything other than factory loads for a self-defense purpose. In the awful event that they are employed, the local prosecutor may well decided that those aren't just a minor tweaks but Death-dealing Hell-bolts painstaking built by a bloodthirsty killer eager to give them a try.
I won't use factory reloads for anything other than target practice. I know a pretty serious outfit that went under because of QC issues. The handgun ammo I bought in 9mm and .380 ran fine, but the .223 was really unreliable, failure to fire in every 25 rounds or so.
I have a friend who liked to buy sketchy gun show ammo, always in unmarked plastic containers (we joked he bought it out of a trunk in an alley) and it was all fun and games until he touched off a very stout .38 that caused us all to flinch followed by a pop and no kick. If he'd reversed order he put them in the cylinder, he'd have wrecked his pistol.
They'll do that anyway even if you use factory ammo so I don't think there is much additional risk. My shotgun is loaded with some spicy 000 factory buck I found, the bird/buck combo is more of a experiment than something I actually use.
Before my entire collection was lost in a series of freak boating accidents, I was actually in the position of not owning a "polymer 9." I had owned several, they are kind of neat, but I find them somewhat dull. I detest Glocks.
If I want to impress at the range, it's with some archaic item of wood and steel whose ammunition ceased production before I was born.
That being said, everyone has the thing they like, which is fine so long as it is safe. Indeed, I find having people who don't like the same sort of guns is great because we can try out each other's radically different items.
Thankfully +P HST and Gold Dots are common loads for Law Enforcement, are often marked as such. and are among the best ammo choices available. A lawyer might be able to twist most legit gun hobbyist activities into an unfavorable light, so getting a better lawyer than the one coming at you is probably more important than anything.
Speaking of that, +P factory ammo is not particularly unsafe and won't wreck your gun after a few shots. Upgrading your recoil spring is a good idea, but hundreds of thousands of law enforcement are carrying these in their stock Glocks, Sigs, etc. The "USA Valor" M882 and "Active Duty" M1152 9mm fmj sold by Winchester are unmarked +P and +P+ loads according to SAAMI spec. They are very much intended to be standard, general use ammunition and are widely available. The M882 has been US military issue for decades, the M1152 is new.
Regarding range rules, I've never seen a cleaning standard mentioned or enforced. Magnetic ammo is banned at the local indoor rifle ranges, which covers AP and cheap stuff with bimetal jackets. They will ask about that when you check in and have a magnet to verify. At all 3 of these places you can rent their guns but must shoot their ammo if you do, which is way overpriced remanufactured ammo at the worst of the three places. I personally don't reload or buy remans at all. Remans loaded out of spec seem like a bad idea altogether.. You hear about crazy rules at other places but around me it is all pretty reasonable.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be very cautious in using anything other than factory loads for a self-defense purpose.
I've seen a lot of allegations over the years that using homemade ammo, hollowpoints, modified weapons, NFA items, et cetera will give the prosecutor rope to hang you with. But I have been given explicit legal advice that that is not a realistic concern, and that I should be much, much more concerned with where and when lethal force is employed. Gary Fadden walked free. YMMV.
Oddly, a couple years back there was a legal case that got 15 minutes of fame when the prosecutor tried to claim that FMJ ammo was "military grade" and therefore more deadly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I am thankful I have my own range and don't need to worry about a lot of these issues.
My local publicly owned range gave me a mouthful for using .338 ammo at the steel targets. They looked perplexed when I said I don't own any such weapon. They mistook my custom Mosin Nagant as some kind of super-cannon.
LOL, last night I dropped my wife off at a Concealed Carry class. I came to pick her up a little early and overheard the Sheriff conducting the class on where the ladies (all female class) could pick up a tazer or stun gun if that was more their style.
As the class ended, I noted to the Sheriff, "hey, you do know that Tazers and Stun guns are illegal here, right?" Surprised Pikachu face from him with a "WTF, no they're not." 30 seconds and a google search later I was able to quote him the law. Yes, we are the only county in hundreds of miles that has banned them, and the police don't even know it. Oddly enough, it does NOT leave any provision for Law Enforcement use either.
Isn't that the Walther P22? Why did you put grip tape on it? It's a .22LR. Were you worried about the recoil?
That being said, I loved my P22 when I owned one, great little plinker and worked fairly well with most .22, but the mags were the bad part (Problem with most .22 autos). It would just fail to feed every 20 or so rounds. Easy to just rack the slide and go on, but still, great little 150 plinker.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't that the Walther P22? Why did you put grip tape on it? It's a .22LR. Were you worried about the recoil?
That being said, I loved my P22 when I owned one, great little plinker and worked fairly well with most .22, but the mags were the bad part (Problem with most .22 autos). It would just fail to feed every 20 or so rounds. Easy to just rack the slide and go on, but still, great little 150 plinker.
I think that's how the grip was molded. "Aggressive textured grips" are now a thing.
I like .22 LR handguns, but I would not rely on them for self-defense. If I wanted something that had similarly light recoil and an even more compact package, I'd get a Beretta tip-up in .25 ACP. Those things are super-fun to shoot.
The old Beretta Cheetah in .22 LR was also much fun.
The only reasons I see for having a 22LR handgun for self defense are either as a backup gun, or if you REALLY want to concealed carry and you have a tiny, tiny piece that can fit in a pocket or something. It's better than harsh language though.
You better have 100% confidance in your shot placement. .22lr can kill, but it's quite likely to make someone very very angry while they're dying and give them just enough time to do something about it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't that the Walther P22? Why did you put grip tape on it? It's a .22LR. Were you worried about the recoil?
That being said, I loved my P22 when I owned one, great little plinker and worked fairly well with most .22, but the mags were the bad part (Problem with most .22 autos). It would just fail to feed every 20 or so rounds. Easy to just rack the slide and go on, but still, great little 150 plinker.
I think that's how the grip was molded. "Aggressive textured grips" are now a thing.
I like .22 LR handguns, but I would not rely on them for self-defense. If I wanted something that had similarly light recoil and an even more compact package, I'd get a Beretta tip-up in .25 ACP. Those things are super-fun to shoot.
The old Beretta Cheetah in .22 LR was also much fun.
My brother bought that firearm for his teen/preteen sons to shoot milk jugs with. Period. It probably won't be used on any lifeform, let alone an intruder. He has several higher caliber pistols for that as well as shotguns, and a rather focused hunting dog.
Those .22 LR "duty" style guns are really nice, particularly as a first handgun. You can learn to shoot on that then move up to the higher caliber version and probably be better for it. An interesting way of marketing. I am sure the nephews enjoy it!
This is my latest. I have been impressed with the accuracy so far.
Just Tony wrote: My brother bought that firearm for his teen/preteen sons to shoot milk jugs with. Period. It probably won't be used on any lifeform, let alone an intruder. He has several higher caliber pistols for that as well as shotguns, and a rather focused hunting dog.
I think everyone should have a 22 for inexpensive practice and training new shooters. I (used to) have both a Beretta Cheetah and an Iver Johnson Sidewinder (that's a DA revolver from the 70s).
I like revolvers for when its muddy and you don't want to deal with flying brass.
Man, I miss my WC CQB Two Tone. I tricked the hell out of that gun, which was for IPSC competition. But I sold it because it cost too much to actually keep up.
If you're not shooting at least 500 rounds per practice, you're not really practicing, and that costs close to 1k USD now in .45ACP
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Man, I miss my WC CQB Two Tone. I tricked the hell out of that gun, which was for IPSC competition. But I sold it because it cost too much to actually keep up.
If you're not shooting at least 500 rounds per practice, you're not really practicing, and that costs close to 1k USD now in .45ACP
I don't know, I find that there's a point where you aren't really gaining anything, just burning through ammo. I'm not a competition shooter, but I've found that there comes a point in practice where you've peaked and locked in what you are going to get. This is true in music, fencing, martial arts and shooting.
That is to say, you can do a practice of 100 rounds per session and get good training, just be sure to do it every week.
Slowroll wrote: Those .22 LR "duty" style guns are really nice, particularly as a first handgun. You can learn to shoot on that then move up to the higher caliber version and probably be better for it. An interesting way of marketing. I am sure the nephews enjoy it!
This is my latest. I have been impressed with the accuracy so far.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Man, I miss my WC CQB Two Tone. I tricked the hell out of that gun, which was for IPSC competition. But I sold it because it cost too much to actually keep up.
If you're not shooting at least 500 rounds per practice, you're not really practicing, and that costs close to 1k USD now in .45ACP
I don't know, I find that there's a point where you aren't really gaining anything, just burning through ammo. I'm not a competition shooter, but I've found that there comes a point in practice where you've peaked and locked in what you are going to get. This is true in music, fencing, martial arts and shooting.
That is to say, you can do a practice of 100 rounds per session and get good training, just be sure to do it every week.
Also helpful to shoot a cheaper caliber.
So I'll give you that after 100 you are possibly reinforcing bad habits, but if you know what you're doing, then it's not just 500 at a static target. I'd say the first 50 went to paper static target, then 150 rounds on running the course, then maybe another 100 on just speed drills, then another hundred on fast shooting practice, and the last 100 are usually just for fun, say long distance or just ringing steel. I mean, if you are running 10 round mags, that's only 50 mags, and you go through 20-30 rounds each time you run the course, so it goes by fast.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I'll give you that after 100 you are possibly reinforcing bad habits, but if you know what you're doing, then it's not just 500 at a static target. I'd say the first 50 went to paper static target, then 150 rounds on running the course, then maybe another 100 on just speed drills, then another hundred on fast shooting practice, and the last 100 are usually just for fun, say long distance or just ringing steel. I mean, if you are running 10 round mags, that's only 50 mags, and you go through 20-30 rounds each time you run the course, so it goes by fast.
I would never put 50 on a static target. No more than ten, unless it's a new purchase and I'm finding the aim point. After that, I go into whatever drills I'm doing and I usually go light on ammo because target acquisition and engagement are what I'm chiefly concerned with. I never put more than five rounds in a magazine as this forces more reloading and handling.
Again, I'm not doing a competition thing, where those extra shots are doing something useful, so I get why one would have to make a larger expenditure. If your drill is going 10 for 10 than you need 10 rounds to do it.
My group has found that using shorter courses of fire seems to speed up our improvement because we get more feedback after each run. And yes, after a certain point, fatigue sets in an bad habits start to return, which when we quit for the day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On rounds, I’m guessing for each calibre (?) you’ve options in manufacturer.
But do you get Off-Brand or Own-Brand for super cheap, some where you’re just paying more for the name etc?
Depends on the caliber. If you're shooting 8x22 Nambu, options are very very limited.
Mostly ammo choice isn't brand so much as type. Standard FMJ vs jacketed hollow point or +P ballistic tips.
There are "premium" manufacturers, but I don't know anyone has true brand loyalty. Partly this is because each weapon has its own preference so even top-shelf ammo may run poorly in a given gun. Part of shooting is figuring out what runs well in which platform.
And yes, there are "hogs" that eat anything you give them. Such weapons are rightfully prized.
Mostly the division is between "range" ammo (usually FMJ, sometimes lead round nose), and stuff like hollow points for hunting/self defense, which always costs more.
Plus, you save money sure, but when you are using cheap ammo to save tens of dollars, but wearing out your 400 dollar barrel's life, is it really worth the trade?
There is quite a lot to it, and very little is absolute.
Generally speaking, the more popular the caliber, the more ammo choices you'll have. Bottom of the barrel cheap stuff is generally junk. Old surplus ammo is often corrosive and is of varying reliability depending on where it came from. Steel cased ammo is usually not very accurate and puts wear on the extractors of western guns. Other cheap ammo might not have sealed primers or might have a wildly inconsistant velocity from shot to shot.
In terms of paying for the name, there is some of that but supply and demand is a bigger factor.
A lot of the available target ammo is at least "ok". Some more accurate and dependable than others, and for the most part, the more expensive it is, the better. As Commissar said, the same ammo will have a different point of impact and different performance in different guns for a variety of reasons. Sometimes a given ammo choice may be just about unusable in some guns.
For handguns, the idea is to find a target load that hits in a similar spot with similar accuracy to your more expensive "carry" ammo and practice with that. Similar recoil is nice to have also but less important.
In terms of carry/HD ammo (hollow points for the purposes of this discussion), the cheap stuff is again usually junk. Expensive stuff is often also junk, and a given type of round might be great in one caliber or even bullet weight, mediocre in another.
Again, very little is absolute and this is just one test. The first thing that stands out is that quite a few of the options had minimal or no expansion. A lot of those are the cheaper ones, but the Hydra Shok and the 147g Speer are expensive and come from proven brands. A lot of people like the Ranger bullets and the medium weights were mediocre here.
Obviously, you bought that expensive carry ammo for the worst possible situation, and want it to actually work if ever needed. About 1/3 of these either didn't reliably work here or are an unproven gimmick (Barnes monolithic hollow points are proven at this point). Another chunk of them have good, not great expansion and some may be great options (accuracy wasn't measured here). That leaves a dozen or so choices with both good penetration and large reliable expansions. Probably a good place to start.
Again thats just one test with one 3.5" barrel gun and not the definitive word on anything, but it does show just how different ammunition can perform in the same caliber.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.
Cheaper ammo at worst might mean more malfunctions, at least ammo related ones like hangfires or large variation in performance between rounds.
Are you sure?
Try running old Russian surplus ammo through a brand new weapon, and watch how fast the gun; fails to feed, fails to eject, fails to go boom, stove pipes, and then goes BLAM. The quality of rounds absolutely has a detrimental effect on stuff like Match Grade parts. Both due to corrosive materials being sprayed everywhere, badly assembled rounds not functioning to spec 100% of the time, and their bullets being literally mis-cast, so they warp after firing, causing gauging to the threading of a barrel.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.
Well, more expensive ammo can also be a problem. We had a situation in Afghan where a US unit ran British supplied 5.56 ammo through their M4s and damaged rifling, receivers and bolt assembles (the firing pin? no idea what was damaged there). NATO interoperability is not always correct...
Grey Templar wrote: I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.
Cheaper ammo at worst might mean more malfunctions, at least ammo related ones like hangfires or large variation in performance between rounds.
Are you sure?
Try running old Russian surplus ammo through a brand new weapon, and watch how fast the gun; fails to feed, fails to eject, fails to go boom, stove pipes, and then goes BLAM. The quality of rounds absolutely has a detrimental effect on stuff like Match Grade parts. Both due to corrosive materials being sprayed everywhere, badly assembled rounds not functioning to spec 100% of the time, and their bullets being literally mis-cast, so they warp after firing, causing gauging to the threading of a barrel.
And in other guns that ammo will run just fine, even new ones. Literally the only thing about those rounds that can damage the gun is the corrosive primer/powder. And only if you are dumb and don't clean your gun after each range day.
I have never heard of miscast bullets causing damage to rifling. Nor have I seen any such bullets in Russian surplus.
If your match grade gun is being damaged by ammunition, that is a problem with the gun and you got skunked by whoever sold it to you. Well-made guns don't care what gets put in them. If it can't handle the steel it doesn't deserve the brass.
Bullets with a bi-metal jacket will wear out a barrel faster. The last time I did the math, the savings would pay for a new barrel & still have money left over.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Try running old Russian surplus ammo through a brand new weapon, and watch how fast the gun; fails to feed, fails to eject, fails to go boom, stove pipes, and then goes BLAM. The quality of rounds absolutely has a detrimental effect on stuff like Match Grade parts. Both due to corrosive materials being sprayed everywhere, badly assembled rounds not functioning to spec 100% of the time, and their bullets being literally mis-cast, so they warp after firing, causing gauging to the threading of a barrel.
The worst I've heard of happening with surplus ammo is old Greek and Turkish stuff that was improperly stored and that caused issues with the powder becoming unstable.
I use surplus ammo with corrosive primers because in some calibers that is all you can get. With proper cleaning procedures, it isn't a problem and I'll just point out that SMLEs were issued corrosive primer ammo for decades and yet they can be found with beautiful, shiny barrels because the Brits took good care of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Carrying that thought and string of discussion on? Is there a brand of ammo you just..won’t use?
No need to name and shame!
Nope, but there are some brands that don't work well in some guns as we discussed. I have also found the aforementioned "not nearly worth the price" situation.
There have been remanufacturers of ammo that I avoid, but I haven't yet come across a commercial brand and said "Wow, that's terrible/unsafe/never getting it again.
