Grey Templar wrote: Its also tough since manually cycling the gun often won't show that it doesn't have the energy to cycle since you will always be pulling it back to the full extent of its cycle while a real cycle may not.
Yes, but if it's a bolt face or feed ramp, that would show up.
One could also short-stroke chambering and see what happens.
cuda1179 wrote: Just saw this. Springfield Armory is importing a gun called the Kuna. It's an MP5 looking subgun with reported incredible reliability. MSRP of under $650, $25 mags. 9mm, 40S&w, and likely 10mm coming later.
Definitely looks interesting.
Though I would say it looks more like the UMP, though thats just the MP5s less famous younger brother.
cuda1179 wrote: Just saw this. Springfield Armory is importing a gun called the Kuna. It's an MP5 looking subgun with reported incredible reliability. MSRP of under $650, $25 mags. 9mm, 40S&w, and likely 10mm coming later.
Definitely looks interesting.
Though I would say it looks more like the UMP, though thats just the MP5s less famous younger brother.
I would like to make one correction. Looks like my initial source on this got the price wrong. It will be more like $950. Oh, and I forgot to mention it's roller delayed blowback. It'll run nice and smooth.
It looks really promising. Nice to see a non HK delayed roller gun, especially one with a pic rail already on it. The low profile mounts for the HK/clone guns aren't very good and the claw style mounts are expensive and harder to get. The sights are ingenious as well (pistol sights in the down position, flip up for rifle style peep sight). The base model being in .40 is a little weird, not many new guns are being made in that caliber.
My brother restored my grandfather's 22. Walnut grips instead of mother of pearl and added bluing. More love than a cheap pistol like this probably deserves, but it's a sentimental item.
Mod edit - please do not attach non-wargaming images directly to your posts
What is the story behind it? It was his personal pistol for protection/sport? Needed for work? Kept in the home? Always curious about these sorts of family personal items. My own Grandfather was remarkably tight lipped with us grandkids. Only found out at his funeral for example he was the sole survivor of the original men and women in his medical unit who formed in Africa (I assume as part of the KAR) and fought through to Burma. Only knew he had gone to there as he remarked about not liking Chittagong when I said I was going there for a while. He had simply said he was a radiographer to us. He had made an awful lot of pieces of furniture and paintings, all with various impulses behind them that we were completely oblivious of until various relatives started speaking about them.
My grandfather did many jobs over his lifetime, and this was an incredibly cheap .22 that he carried with him literally every day, whether on the logging truck, his security job later in life, or even when he was fishing. Heard a story once about him smoking a possum on an overnight catfishing excursion.
Just Tony wrote: Sometimes it's a contest to see how much you can hot rod a clinker
Some of the most expensive collectibles are things like paper dolls that had zero longevity.
As for that piece, an obvious reason for it to look bigger than it needed to be was deterrence. When drawn, it will look like something more robust, and if pointed at you, even the modest muzzle will look quite intimidating.
I don't own any ..22 short (though I have some ammo for it) but I have an Iver-Johnson .32 short that is probably a lot like this in terms of energy and recoil.
To put it another way, with guns like this, you can understand why .32 long was such an upgrade!
Just Tony wrote: Sometimes it's a contest to see how much you can hot rod a clinker
I hope there is a paper out there, or if not someone writes one, on how US firearm ownership has changed with the economic headwinds. The general economy and peoples wealth has changed radically over the last hundred years along with the cost of and availability of ammunition and firearms. Would be fascinating to see how people prioritised firearm quality, ammo lethality (perceived), practice over the years and how tied it was to economic means (would you make cutbacks elsewhere for a reliable piece, would you simply get what could be casually afforded, would practice suffer disproportionately when times were tight etc.).
So, other than generally inadvisable for self defence, does keeping a clip or magazine only partially filled cause damage or out? Like making the spring wonky?
For your spares, do you only load them up when you’re off to the range etc?
In general keeping springs under constant compression will eventually collapse them. It's why you're not supposed to store your toys with missiles in the launchers.
Just Tony wrote: In general keeping springs under constant compression will eventually collapse them. It's why you're not supposed to store your toys with missiles in the launchers.
This is actually a myth.
Any spring always has a range where it travels between being compressed or relaxed and within that range it doesn't matter where it rests. The only thing that wears it out is how many times it has cycled in that range(so the lifetime of the spring will be measured in how many full cycles it makes) OR if it is compressed or hyper-extended beyond that range which will permanently deform it.
Magazine springs are pretty much always well within their possible ranges, so as long as you don't load more rounds than the magazine is supposed to hold you cannot damage the spring by leaving the magazine loaded.
Actually, loading and unloaded would do more "damage" to a spring than simply leaving it empty or full. Though the lifetime of any magazine spring will be measured in the hundreds of thousands of cycles so really it doesn't matter.
The reason toys often advise not to leave them under tensions is because the springs in toys are garbage. They'll either be outside the range for that spring OR simply not rated for very many cycles and they'll wear out fast.
Should add there is a practical reason to keep ammunition separate from magazines and that's simple inventory management. If you are concerned with age, condition and storage of ammunition, having a bunch left in magazines is both a logistics headache and a potential theft/shrinkage issue. Its interesting in the UK at least a lot of illegally held pistols and ammunition come from sales from those in the SF community who have more loosely monitored access to such things.
Just Tony wrote: In general keeping springs under constant compression will eventually collapse them. It's why you're not supposed to store your toys with missiles in the launchers.
This is actually a myth.
Any spring always has a range where it travels between being compressed or relaxed and within that range it doesn't matter where it rests. The only thing that wears it out is how many times it has cycled in that range(so the lifetime of the spring will be measured in how many full cycles it makes) OR if it is compressed or hyper-extended beyond that range which will permanently deform it.
Magazine springs are pretty much always well within their possible ranges, so as long as you don't load more rounds than the magazine is supposed to hold you cannot damage the spring by leaving the magazine loaded.
Actually, loading and unloaded would do more "damage" to a spring than simply leaving it empty or full. Though the lifetime of any magazine spring will be measured in the hundreds of thousands of cycles so really it doesn't matter.
The reason toys often advise not to leave them under tensions is because the springs in toys are garbage. They'll either be outside the range for that spring OR simply not rated for very many cycles and they'll wear out fast.
With my metallurgy hat on, creep is a deformation effect that happens even when the metal is in the elastic range. A spring under stress will be creeping at a faster or slower rate. I don't know how that factors into magazine spring design specifically though.
Flinty wrote: With my metallurgy hat on, creep is a deformation effect that happens even when the metal is in the elastic range. A spring under stress will be creeping at a faster or slower rate. I don't know how that factors into magazine spring design specifically though.
A well-made magazine spring will outlast its original owner. I've found that recoil springs have a shorter lifespan, but still one measured in decades.
That being said, springs aren't serialized and if one buys some vintage firearms, "refreshing" the spring is a good idea because they can also be weakened by rust, etc.
As to socio-economic popularity/purpose of firearms, I think a big factor is simply the lack of competing designs. Auto-loaders only came into their own about a century or so ago, so for most people it was a revolver, and there were the premium brands (Colt and S&W) and the lower-tier like H&R or Iver Johnson who lacked the fit and finish, but nevertheless worked reasonably well.
Another factor was the resale market and obsolete designs, such as blackpowder cartridge revolvers vs smokeless. The fact that these items are still being passed down and popping up on places like Gunbroker show just how pervasive and popular they were.
Just Tony wrote: In general keeping springs under constant compression will eventually collapse them. It's why you're not supposed to store your toys with missiles in the launchers.
This is actually a myth.
Any spring always has a range where it travels between being compressed or relaxed and within that range it doesn't matter where it rests. The only thing that wears it out is how many times it has cycled in that range(so the lifetime of the spring will be measured in how many full cycles it makes) OR if it is compressed or hyper-extended beyond that range which will permanently deform it.
Magazine springs are pretty much always well within their possible ranges, so as long as you don't load more rounds than the magazine is supposed to hold you cannot damage the spring by leaving the magazine loaded.
Actually, loading and unloaded would do more "damage" to a spring than simply leaving it empty or full. Though the lifetime of any magazine spring will be measured in the hundreds of thousands of cycles so really it doesn't matter.
The reason toys often advise not to leave them under tensions is because the springs in toys are garbage. They'll either be outside the range for that spring OR simply not rated for very many cycles and they'll wear out fast.
With my metallurgy hat on, creep is a deformation effect that happens even when the metal is in the elastic range. A spring under stress will be creeping at a faster or slower rate. I don't know how that factors into magazine spring design specifically though.
Technically yes, however its so small for the spring steel that is used for magazines relative to the loads they experience that it is practically zero. Maybe a few years off the life of something that will be usable for half a millennia. Especially considering how well within the elastic range magazine springs are kept. They aren't pushed even close to their maximums.
The only case I can think of where leaving a magazine loaded is a bad idea is with magazine-fed shotguns, since plastic hulls will deform if subjected to constant stress. The magazine springs are a non-issue though.
You can get AR15 12-gauge uppers which you can slap on any AR15 and use mags which fit a normal AR magwell but hold 12 gauge. There is the Russian Saiga, which is an AK shotgun. And tons of shotguns which are AR15/AR10 based but aren't technically compatible.
Its easy to overlook them in a photo since they can easily be mistaken for an AR, or just an AR with a larger caliber since the mags will be a little different.
I have a DDI-12. Looks like an AK-AR hybrid and uses Saiga Mags. I do like the adjustable gas setting.
I also have some Chinese shotgun I bought from Brownells. I can't remember the brand right now, but it sold new for $149, it was on a 20% clearance, AND I had a 10% off coupon. I ended up getting it for under $100 plus shipping. It came with 2-3 round mags, but I bought 2-5 rounders and an 8-rounder. Yes, it's heavy, a bit ugly, and cheaply made. But for $100 what can you expect? I still haven't shot it as it was shipped in cosmoline, and in 5 years I haven't worked up enough motivation to clean it out. Tempted to torture test it to failure for Youtube.
Might be hard to do a proper torture test with only 5 and 8 round mags.
The main way firearms fail in a torture test is from heating the gun up faster than it can cool which causes more damage than that same number of rounds fired in a more reasonable duration(IE: a gun that fires 1k rounds in 1 minute will be damaged way more from that than one which fired 1k rounds over a couple hours). And with that few, and such low capacity, it might not be possible to physically feed it fast enough to do that.
That said, shotgun torture tests would be interesting. You might have some failures that wouldn't happen in other firearms, like a shell melting in the chamber. Maybe even cooking off without pulling the trigger as the plastic is way less heat resistant than a metal casing.
On the otherhand, I just dont see it warping the barrel or anything like some other firearms could. Its going to have a lot more surface area and less heat buildup relative to other guns.
Might be like when the US was testing the Maxim gun(I think). IIRC they fired it for like 2 weeks or something continuously, it never failed, and they only stopped the test because they ran out of ammo.
Grey Templar wrote: Might be hard to do a proper torture test with only 5 and 8 round mags.
The main way firearms fail in a torture test is from heating the gun up faster than it can cool which causes more damage than that same number of rounds fired in a more reasonable duration(IE: a gun that fires 1k rounds in 1 minute will be damaged way more from that than one which fired 1k rounds over a couple hours). And with that few, and such low capacity, it might not be possible to physically feed it fast enough to do that.
That said, shotgun torture tests would be interesting. You might have some failures that wouldn't happen in other firearms, like a shell melting in the chamber. Maybe even cooking off without pulling the trigger as the plastic is way less heat resistant than a metal casing.
On the otherhand, I just dont see it warping the barrel or anything like some other firearms could. Its going to have a lot more surface area and less heat buildup relative to other guns.
Might be like when the US was testing the Maxim gun(I think). IIRC they fired it for like 2 weeks or something continuously, it never failed, and they only stopped the test because they ran out of ammo.
Maybe it would work with the assistance of a loader handing off refilled mags. Pump shotgun torture tests are a thing and by their nature they're not firing that fast either, so it could still be possible with semi auto.
I would also add for Mad Dok's context there's a huge variability in the quality of these semi-auto shotguns. There's a lot of cheap (usually Turkish made) ones on the market and they don't hold up well at all.
Grey Templar wrote: Might be like when the US was testing the Maxim gun(I think). IIRC they fired it for like 2 weeks or something continuously, it never failed, and they only stopped the test because they ran out of ammo.
The Brits had the same experience with a Vickers gun. Ran for three days before they got bored.
I'm not much into torture tests or mud or stuff like that because it usually involves and artificially high level of abuse. If I drop a weapon in mud, I'm going to clean it as best I can before proceeding. I get the tolerance thing, but it should be somewhat realistic.
The videos where guns are blown up are more interesting because a KABOOM is more dramatic than a failure to feed.
Well, truly, James Reeves' tests are about failures to feed rather than kaboom. Which is in a way refreshing. Although it strains it a bit too, because there's probably no way you'd shoot THAT many rounds in a single firing session I suppose, but straining the gun is part of the concept nonetheless.
It's still somewhat a show moreso than a review I'll agree.
I purchased a Reminton 870 clone a number of years back. I've had exactly ONE problem with it. The follower in the tube was plastic. I know this was a cost-cutting measure, but it looks like the plastic was chemically melted by the solvent I used to clean the gun the last time I used it. Like, WTF? you used plastic that reacts to one of the most common cleaning solvents?
I ended up replacing it with a stainless steel one I found online for just a couple bucks, but the frustrating part was disassembling the gun and having to ram-rod a totally deformed plastic follower out of the magazine.
I keep a few rifle and pistol mags loaded, the majority of them are empty until needed for shooting trips.
Regarding shotgun torture tests, you might shoot that amount if you take a shotgun class. You probably want to bring something that will be reliable to avoid being "that" guy at the class, so those vids can be useful. When I was shopping for a shotgun one of those TFB testing videos was a factor in my purchase.
I believe such classes are not a thing in France. Or at least I'm not aware of it.
I've just bought a cheap Turkish hatsan escort for tinkering purposes (again...) and it's cheap from the get go, while I did get it second hand I didn't expect the lever to wobble lol. I'll try fixing it and see what I can manage.
Plus redo some parts not over the worn camo paint from factory, I'll have to pounder how exactly I'll have my spray paint stick to that smooth as silk surface and older factory paint job without stripping it entirely somehow.
And the main part of it will be drilling and tapping a picatiny rail to slap a cheap red dot because giggles. But first, I'll have to shoot it to see if anything falls apart early and to end my other projects, that is the Reina reviving, the 22 single shot smlefthanded special custom, and the Beretta wooden side grips. Which is still a lot of work.
Hope so! I fear the surface is so smoothe the primer might not stick either. But it's worth a try and the nice thing with this camouflage factory paint is it doesn't look like much from the box so nothing bad can really happen
Grey Templar wrote: Well in practical terms you'd really be interested in that type of failure more than "what will make my gun explode?"
What is useful there is seeing how it reacts to a catastrophic failure and what the margin of safety is. Turns out, ARs are designed with failure in mind. Overpressure will blow out the magazine, not send the bolt into your face. (Unlike that .50 cal. that almost killed Kentucky Ballistics.)
I just don't consider putting a bunch of rounds through something a torture test as checking reliability. Trying to see how it responds to overheating is different than trying to break it completely.
Kentucky's case was an interesting one for sure. In some ways, a rifle like that is more prone to catastrophic failure because its all or nothing. No moving parts, it either holds together or explodes.
I'm proud to announce that the reina now works as intended and plinking with a 22 is great fun!
Now, the singl shot project on the other hand runs into somme trouble. The lifter that also seals the chamber and extracts apparently suffered at some point. i'll have to add matter to it and file it down until all stays in place properly and I can again force the cartridge out. If that don't work, I'll buy another one.
when i'm done with it I have got the turkish POS upgrade, the beretta grips, and... bought another auto 5 butt to make a shortened one for my GF who is slightly shorter than me. Adding new work just as I'm done with the first one lol
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: I'm proud to announce that the reina now works as intended and plinking with a 22 is great fun!
This is great news! Congratulations!
Now, the singl shot project on the other hand runs into somme trouble. The lifter that also seals the chamber and extracts apparently suffered at some point. i'll have to add matter to it and file it down until all stays in place properly and I can again force the cartridge out. If that don't work, I'll buy another one.
when i'm done with it I have got the turkish POS upgrade, the beretta grips, and... bought another auto 5 butt to make a shortened one for my GF who is slightly shorter than me. Adding new work just as I'm done with the first one lol
Yeah, win some lose some.
I made my first trip to the range yesterday and I was quite rusty. The FR-7 was not running well at all, and I now realize that the bolt is part of the problem. This is one of those situations where having two weapons using the same action is quite helpful because you can make an up-close comparison. Alas, my gunsmithing area is currently occupied by a large assortment of model railroading supplies I shall shortly be selling on ebay, so there there will be some delay in addressing the problem.
cuda1179 wrote: I purchased a Reminton 870 clone a number of years back. I've had exactly ONE problem with it. The follower in the tube was plastic. I know this was a cost-cutting measure, but it looks like the plastic was chemically melted by the solvent I used to clean the gun the last time I used it. Like, WTF? you used plastic that reacts to one of the most common cleaning solvents?
Stupid plastic bits where there should be proper metal bits to save a cent or three is one of my pet peeves.
Time for the absurd. Just found out there are commercially available 100 round double-drum mags available for 50BMG Beret rifles. Anyone feel like a $450 mag dump? Better be using a bipod, you're not carrying it.
IDK where you are finding them "commercially available". All I found was a picture of it, but I can't find anything suggesting it isn't a prototype or one-off.
There is a 20 round aluminum drum that some company announced at shotshow awhile ago IIRC, its going to cost ~$1600.
Grey Templar wrote: IDK where you are finding them "commercially available". All I found was a picture of it, but I can't find anything suggesting it isn't a prototype or one-off.
There is a 20 round aluminum drum that some company announced at shotshow awhile ago IIRC, its going to cost ~$1600.
Firearms are now entering the absurdly expensive custom phase. I'm reminded of the 1980s, when suddenly mods became more standardized and widespread, and people just dumped money to get them. Before that, if you had money you either went with something classic like a Rolls or had to mod it yourself.
But in the 80s, you had people DEMANDING that sort of thing, and so we are with firearms.
Used to be a high-end gun was either old and collectible (Luger, 1911) or some German creation. Now people are doing the firearms equivalent of add glass packs, spoilers, spinning rims and jacking them up.
Talking to a friend the other day, we lamented the fact that we just don't go into gun stores anymore. It's just too disappointing. Now and again I'll drop in, but just to check the consignment area. New production just doesn't do it for me.
Sure, you CAN go and buy some absurd custom AR that costs as much as a car, but the vast majority aren't doing that. Plenty of guns exist in the normal price ranges. You can get basic ARs for sub-$500 if you look around.
Actually, but that might be cultural in a country of only hunters and range shooters, kitting firearms looks strange to me as most upgrade you'd slap on, at least the most expensive ones like lasers and powerful lights, look like tacticool show it off stuff, overpriced for the actual benefits you'll get from it. However I wonder to what extend the "militia" part of the second amendment may give you a different point of view on tactical gear? That could be extended to plate carrier though.
Besides, after commissar's comment... is there a dakka car thread yet??? Or else imma make one lol
I have a laser on my AUG as the backup to the LPVO on it. The laser is zero'd for 10 ft, mounted on the canted rail, and its purpose is for very close range aiming. IE: I don't have to look down the scope the aim if I have to clear my house. I can just hipfire if I need to. Thats basically the purpose of a laser, close CQB aiming.
Hi Point is now making AR-15's. Looks to be fairly basic, with a quad-rail. According to them though, the MSRP will be "well under $500". Now, Hi Point has a pretty good warranty policy, so for that price point it may be worth it even if you have to send it in to be fixed.
If MSPR is under $500, you might be able to snag one for $400. Honestly? I'm tempted to get one for the giggles and make it my poverty-pony (or perhaps a gift for my son/daughter).
Back when buying my first rifle, I was torn between an FAL and an HK91. I ended up finding an HK I could afford before I found a suitable FAL. I've been wanting an FAL ever since. Been looking at this model for a while and wife decided I should get it as my Bday present.
50 yards for pistols is just silly, many of the targets have a 10 or 15 yard min for pistols.
All targets are hung in such a way that splatter is very unlikely to go towards the direction if the shooter. We get thick AR500/550 steel, and replace if they get pitted.
We've fired 10s of thousands of rounds without incident over the last few years.
CptJake wrote: 50 yards for pistols is just silly, many of the targets have a 10 or 15 yard min for pistols.
All targets are hung in such a way that splatter is very unlikely to go towards the direction if the shooter. We get thick AR500/550 steel, and replace if they get pitted.
We've fired 10s of thousands of rounds without incident over the last few years.
I mean if you angle the steel to the point that it is more of a backstop, okay.
But without knowing that, 25 yards with an AR is a bit close.
I suppose pistols are fine a bit closer, 50 ft at the absolute closest, but rifles absolutely not within 100 yards/meters. You are risking shrapnel with anything other than steeply angled plates.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose pistols are fine a bit closer, 50 ft at the absolute closest, but rifles absolutely not within 100 yards/meters. You are risking shrapnel with anything other than steeply angled plates.
You can go closer with pistols so long as they are soft lead (no jackets) and lighter calibers. I'm told the cowboy action guys do some of this for poker game scenarios and the like.
A couple of years back we were fine just plinking away with mouse guns, but then someone let off a 9mm FMJ and we had to close the range and offer some corrective instruction.
On a different note, I've noticed an across-the-board retreat for firearms prices. It truly is a buyer's market. I'm undertaking some home improvements and have been out of it for a while, but I'm pleased to see so many guns dropping in price. Ammo is way down as well, with .32 H&R Magnum having gone from about $1 per round to $0.74.
The_Real_Chris wrote: What do you think is behind the price? Overproduction? Drop in demand?
It's hard to say. Firearms are actually a pretty segmented market. During the Covid panic, basic weapons were soaring in price but vintage or obscure ones actually dropped. I think there's some deflation going on, less demand, and Covid guns are being resold (just today I talked to a friend about helping him sell one of his Covid purchases that hasn't worked out for him).
I periodically do a sweep of Gunbroker, watch auctions and then see how they go. What I'm seeing is about a $100 drop since January, but it's not uniform. Spanish Ruby pistols are really high. I mean, one popular Youtube can cause a price spike. But overall, the prices I jotted down are all higher than what I'm currently seeing.
The ammo price drop is because people who bought 10,000 rounds in spam cans don't really need more and won't for a while. Manufacturers see this glut, and shift the lines to other calibers, which increases the supply there, and since the 9mm is basically dead in the water, they are cranking out a lot of otherwise low volume calibers. I used to shoot .44 Special in the 1990s, and I don't think it has ever been this cheap.
The_Real_Chris wrote: What do you think is behind the price? Overproduction? Drop in demand?
A huge reason is one we can't directly talk about on Dakka. But it has a lot to do with who occupies a certain residence in a certain city. If one side occupies it, it causes panic buying because of threats of bans and when the other does the panic goes away. The panic is currently gone away.
I've just picked up a new range toy: a chronograph. I've wanted one for a while because I'm curious what velocities I am getting out of my vintage .32s and such.
I also intend to use it to see just how far out of spec some of that surplus ammo is. I have keyholing in various rifles, but it is inconsistent. I'm thinking some of that surplus is out of the performance envelope, which is making rounds tumble almost from the muzzle.
Plus, I can pretend to be the late, great Paul Harrell, turning to my buddies and reading off the numbers.
How much could be attributed to changes in support for Ukraine? Are the affected calibres something that could have been starting to get ramped up for supply abroad and then policy changes kicked in?
Flinty wrote: How much could be attributed to changes in support for Ukraine? Are the affected calibres something that could have been starting to get ramped up for supply abroad and then policy changes kicked in?
None of it. The ammo in question is decades old.
The result of my testing confirmed that the modern commercial ammo (which runs just fine, no keyholing) is around 400 fps less than the surplus stuff, which keyholes badly. Basically, the surplus is too 'hot' for that particular rifle. That is the big thing with surplus. Sometimes it gets weaker, sometimes it get much, much more powerful. A gain of 400 fps on a 2,000 fps ammo is significant.
I will be trading it away at the next gun show.
In other news, the civilian Tokarev ammo I have is actually a bit more robust than the surplus stuff. Both ran reasonably well. That Tokarev has had trigger issues but they seem to be working out. Maybe the refurb parts need to wear on each other. It's Romanian, so it's been on the bench for a while.
Smokeless powders generally always get more hot because as the formula's decay they become slightly more volatile versions of themselves, meaning they burn faster when they are ignited leading to faster thermal expansion and higher pressures. The times when a powder gets weaker is generally because of the round having defects which might allow moisture into the mixture from outside the shell.
Grey Templar wrote: Smokeless powders generally always get more hot because as the formula's decay they become slightly more volatile versions of themselves, meaning they burn faster when they are ignited leading to faster thermal expansion and higher pressures. The times when a powder gets weaker is generally because of the round having defects which might allow moisture into the mixture from outside the shell.
At what ranges is that Tokerev key-holing?
I had no idea. We obsessively dispose of ammo (far sooner than we need to), and have gone to extreme lengths in the past when disposing of stuff overseas. I wonder if a rifle like a FN FAL with its multiple gas settings can handle it better. Is it noticeable when firing on a range or you need an armourer with your chronograph to spot it?
In theory an adjustable gas system would be able to compensate.
Of course most modern ammo formulas will take far longer to decay than the older ones. So stuff from WW2 tends to have reputations for being hot. Modern ammo will probably take 100+ years before it starts degrading like the old stuff.
You usually will notice a bit more recoil when firing stuff like this. Its not usually dangerous unless there is a specific ammo with a specific firearm. I know people say you don't want to use surplus Italian 8mm mauser in any semi-auto because it is extremely hot now as an example.
And of course if you've got some surplus .50 BMG you will want to be very careful with that just because its so much more powerful than normal calibers. Consider pulling it and reloading yourself, and don't trust anyone elses reloads. 10% more chamber pressure in a .308 or 8mm, ehhh not a huge massive deal most of the time. 10% extra chamber pressure on a .50 BMG is hella dangerous.
I think I’ve probably asked this before, but as we’ve new peeps commenting on the thread?
Are there any notorious “gimmick guns”, like that Zip .22 which, despite being little more than a gimmick, you have or want for your collection, just for the novelty?
I’m not gonna define gimmick gun beyond that one example, as I don’t know enough.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think I’ve probably asked this before, but as we’ve new peeps commenting on the thread?
Are there any notorious “gimmick guns”, like that Zip .22 which, despite being little more than a gimmick, you have or want for your collection, just for the novelty?
I’m not gonna define gimmick gun beyond that one example, as I don’t know enough.
The Taurus Curve, I've heard they're notoriously unreliable. But the concept of a curved gripped pistol to better match the contours a human body (and thus conceal better) seems interesting.
Grey Templar wrote: Smokeless powders generally always get more hot because as the formula's decay they become slightly more volatile versions of themselves, meaning they burn faster when they are ignited leading to faster thermal expansion and higher pressures. The times when a powder gets weaker is generally because of the round having defects which might allow moisture into the mixture from outside the shell.
At what ranges is that Tokerev key-holing?
Sorry, it was a Mauser Kar98k that was keyholing at 10 yards.
I wouldn't expect any ammo could make it keyhole that close. I would expect it to be a problem with the rifle if its doing that but if commercial ammo is fine then idk.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think I’ve probably asked this before, but as we’ve new peeps commenting on the thread?
Are there any notorious “gimmick guns”, like that Zip .22 which, despite being little more than a gimmick, you have or want for your collection, just for the novelty?
I’m not gonna define gimmick gun beyond that one example, as I don’t know enough.
The Taurus Curve, I've heard they're notoriously unreliable. But the concept of a curved gripped pistol to better match the contours a human body (and thus conceal better) seems interesting.
I wouldn't expect any ammo could make it keyhole that close. I would expect it to be a problem with the rifle if its doing that but if commercial ammo is fine then idk.
It's not unknown for overpressure to cause a bullet to be unstable. The surplus stuff was 20% over spec, and on a rifle with a less than perfect bore, that was enough.
As to gimmick guns, that's a pretty broad category. Maybe "quirky" also fits. There are the revolvers that cycle (Matiba, Webley-Fosbery), and the new thing of having the barrel aligned with the bottom of the cylinder, lowering the bore axis.
My thing is really cheap guns that are off the beaten path. Obscure service weapons in .32 ACP is catnip to me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think I’ve probably asked this before, but as we’ve new peeps commenting on the thread?
Are there any notorious “gimmick guns”, like that Zip .22 which, despite being little more than a gimmick, you have or want for your collection, just for the novelty?
I’m not gonna define gimmick gun beyond that one example, as I don’t know enough.
I actually own one of those horrible pieces of gak Zip-22's. In order to get mine to shoot "reliably", and I use that term relative to it's initial state, I had to do A LOT of work. I diassembled it, reemed-out the chamber a bit, polished EVERY steel component to a mirror finish, lubed with graphite powder as the manual dictates NO liquid oil, use only factory Ruger 10-round rotary mags, and only CCI stinger ammo. I can now average 9 rounds between jams.
Honestly, I think a minor tune of this gun could make it reliable. 1. Enlarge the ejection port a bit. 2. extend the action just a wee bit (even 1/4 inch would help) to slow the reciprocal rate. 3. Replace the silly polymer bolt and replace it with either aluminum or steel (unsure which would be better) to give the bolt more mass and SLOW the action down. 4. add a metal feed ramp.
90% of this gun's jams are from too high a reciprocal rate, and the rest is from too small an ejection port.
Riiight so I finally found time to ponder about what when wrong with the single shot manuarm in 22...
Seems it was the spring metal sheet that serves to press everything together against the receiver. It was badly curved and no longer held the extracting plank in place. I'll have to go to the range to see if it improved anything, but dry firing and dry cycling it seems to work, which is already a jump forward.
Kinda butchered the spring, as I needed to heat it in order to bend it back into a suitable form. I'm literally just counting on the fact that it is a single shot 22 and that it will never give enough energy to make anything bad happen.
If that works, I'll be happy and able to go onwards to another project.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd like to get to making the short buttstock for my gf that'll help here handle the Auto 5 a bit more easily, since it's a long and unwieldy gun. When I'm done with all that, I'll need to sell it, need some cash after a car crash to make my repairs.
Next question on the Zip, mostly because I like the name and the design reminds me of a Biker Scout’s blaster from out of off of Star Wars.
If Cuda1179’s field fixes had been applied to the actual design, would things have worked out any differently?
I can see some appeal from its deadliness, and a Wiki article suggests it was pretty accurate. But is it just….y’know, a bit too weedy looking?
I’m possibly thinking a bit Orky here, but I think as a near total stranger to firearms, I’d prefer something a bit more conventional, knowing such designs have worked plenty fine for decades.
Not for intimidation reasons. This thread has taught me “only draw if you’re going to shoot, intimidation is a silly thing”
If the Zip was reliable? Heck yeah, I'd have been in love.
I didn't care that it looked like a firearm birth defect. It IS accurate. It was ridiculously cheap. It was light. And it used Ruger rotary mags/banana mags.
My whole plan was to use it as a backpacking gun. No wood and little metal meant humidity wasn't an issue, and if I totally lost it or broke it I wouldn't feel too bad about it.
Now, the weird stock and option to mount it as a foregrip for another firearm were silly in the extreme. For a camp gun or survival pack gun, sure would work great.
The main issue with the Zip is that it was overcomplicating the "answer" to the question it was allegedly a response to. IE: Cheap mostly plastic gun. You could do that so easily without making it an unreliable pos. .22 rimfire is already so fickle, why make the action so weird? It really is hard to not think they were trying to make the worst gun imaginable.
Just copy a Ruger 10/22 action, put it a plastic toy pistol housing, make the barrel a steel sleeve inside a plastic tube, and call it good.
Grey Templar wrote: The main issue with the Zip is that it was overcomplicating the "answer" to the question it was allegedly a response to. IE: Cheap mostly plastic gun. You could do that so easily without making it an unreliable pos. .22 rimfire is already so fickle, why make the action so weird? It really is hard to not think they were trying to make the worst gun imaginable.
Just copy a Ruger 10/22 action, put it a plastic toy pistol housing, make the barrel a steel sleeve inside a plastic tube, and call it good.
The ergonomics on it look terrible. Even if it ran perfectly, that's a big problem.
I'm a pretty big fan of "carry what works" rather than "carry the heaviest caliber you can," but I draw the line at .22 LR. It's just too fickle a cartridge. Anything in centerfire is an improvement. Yes, those are more expensive, but this is supposed to be a lifesaving device.
Yeah, its terrible. You're basically holding a brick.
Using an extended mag kinda helps because it gives something for your pinky and ring fingers to hold instead of empty air, but its still a square object that is a little too big for your hand to properly hold. And then you're probably wiggling the mag if you do that so it'll jam even more.
Doesn't help that one of the more(I use that term loosely) comfortable ways to hold it puts your hand covering up the ejection port.
Making the darn thing manually cycled might have helped its reliability.
TL;DR: 9mm casings could not hold enough black powder to even get the bullet through the barrel. Total fail. .45 ACP did better, and managed to achieve a muzzle velocity of 450 ft/sec. It also jammed up after 5-6 rounds and needed repeated flushing with water to clear.
Same for the AK and the AR - they could get maybe five rounds going and then total lockup. The rounds were clocked at around 1,000 fps.
Put simply, they don't work. There is a reason why the early repeaters relied on manual cycling (turn bolt, lever action, revolver) because black powder did not possess enough energy to push the bullet out and cycle the action, and the fouling was incredible.
Anyhow, fun to watch, and something to keep in mind in your post-apocalyptic RPG campaigns.
Do you reckon it would be possible, using modern materials, to make an automatic or semi-automatic that could work with blackpowder?
I’m guessing the spring has a minimum strength requirement for the cycling action to complete, as it’s moving the slide (?) and letting the spent casing eject, in enough time that it’s in a position for the next round to enter the firing chamber. So I can see that whilst a weedier, less resistant spring might compensate for black powder’s lack of oomph, the timing of the entire action just may not work?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Do you reckon it would be possible, using modern materials, to make an automatic or semi-automatic that could work with blackpowder?
No. Black powder was limited in the amount of pressure it could create. If you look at the various cartridges produced using it, they topped out because the powder simply could only burn so fast.
The combination of slow burning powder and fowling put an inherent limit on what black powder weapons could do.
The 1911 could have been boosted by making it .455 and using larger cartridge casings, but the fouling would still have been a problem. It's interesting that the British were content with using the same pressures in smokeless accepting the lesser fouling as a bonus.
Smokeless powder not only provided higher velocities in smaller packages, it also permitted moderate increases in existing cartridges with less cleaning.
I think you could probably make a gun that could theoretically cycle properly using black powder pressures. It would have to be a specially made cartridge and firearm for that purpose. But this gun would inevitably run into the issue that black powder is horribly dirty and would foul the gun within a few shots.
Such a gun would probably be a very large cartridge combined with a lightweight bolt and spring. Possibly direct blowback. I'm imagining a .45-70 scale cartridge that is direct blowback.
Other than the intellectual exercise this would be it is a totally useless idea. Smokeless powder is superior in every way, and is pretty easy to manufacture too. In some ways its actually easier than black powder. Even in the event of an apocalypse we will likely not lose smokeless powder in the process.
Flinty wrote: Could you make a combination of non-stick surface and fluid flushing system to sufficiently clean the action and barrel after each round?
You would end up with like a water jacketed MG, but the water is there for cleaning rather than cooling
The system could run off a secondary blank cartridge that fires only to provide energy to run the cleaning system, or some other external power pack.
I suppose it is possible, but you would have a weapon that fires five shots and then needs to be flushed for 30 seconds or more. Not really efficient.
Better off with a lever action or bolt action, which is what people used.
Gatling Guns I believe predated smokeless powder, and the multiple barrels probably spread out the fouling.
Yes. Gatling guns spread the fouling out quite a bit. And IIRC while they were rifled they weren't as aggressively rifled as most rifles of the time were, they were closer to modern rifling.
Ye-old blackpowder rifles had fairly aggressive grooves for the rifling and you would force the lead ball down the length of the barrel. This would cut the rifling into the ball and give it a nice snug seal for the gas expansion. But you could only get 5-10 shots before you had to clean it because you simply could not force a ball down the barrel anymore as the residue in the rifling was too much.
And of course breech loading guns like the gatling gun didn't need to worry about that so that was the biggest contributor to multi-shot capability.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Do you reckon it would be possible, using modern materials, to make an automatic or semi-automatic that could work with blackpowder?
No. Black powder was limited in the amount of pressure it could create. If you look at the various cartridges produced using it, they topped out because the powder simply could only burn so fast.
The combination of slow burning powder and fowling put an inherent limit on what black powder weapons could do.
Maxim's original machine gun prototypes were demonstrated with black powder ammunition. Several of his patents relate to self-cleaning mechanisms. Gas operation is right out but recoil operation is surprisingly resilient to fouling.
Obviously smokeless makes it a lot easier, and was instrumental in self-loading firearms becoming successful, but it's not the hard no you make it out to be.
Going back to comments about the Zip 22, without dwelling on that gun in particular. But online sources it was at least noted for its accuracy.
But what does that mean in the wider context? As in, imagine you’ve two pistols. Same calibre, same barrel length. Near as dammit identical designs. But one of the designs is noted as being more accurate.
Is that a reflection of manufacturing tolerances? Like the company takes pains to ensure the barrels are properly straight and with perfect rifling, whereas the other one has barrels slightly off True, with such tiny differences being more impacted the further the bullet goes?
Accuracy 'out of the box' won't have much to do with slightly off barrels and such on most modern firearms. I suspect mostly it will have to do with quality of trigger (especially for handguns) and how barrel is mounted/mates with chamber which is likely to be an engineering difference vs a quality control difference. But I'll let the much smarter than me crew jump in. (admittedly this is NOT my area of expertise).
I suspect that anecdotes on the Zip22s accuracy are because most of its shots are first shots not follow-ups. The first shot is always the most on target. Zip22 ensures you don't get a follow-up shot
I think its this as opposed to anything special about it's trigger or set-up that is inherently accurate.
Usually it is the trigger as CptJake says. A clean trigger break important so the effort to shoot it doesn't cause your aim to come off target.
catbarf wrote: Obviously smokeless makes it a lot easier, and was instrumental in self-loading firearms becoming successful, but it's not the hard no you make it out to be.
It has been proven to be a "hard no" on gas guns.
Maybe pure blowback would work, but I doubt you could fit enough black powder in a .32 ACP casing to push the bullet out of the barrel. If 9mm couldn't do it, a lot of other calibers would fail.
Could one re-engineer modern firearms to function in a black powder environment? Of course. But the best solutions were the ones historically arrived at - use a mechanism rather than the round's energy to cycle the action.
Now as to Zip 22, I'm just going to suggest that most reviewers will struggle to find something good to say about a terrible product. It's human nature.
"Well, the one round I fired was on target, so at least there's that," seems pretty faint praise, and I doubt anyone actually took Zip 22 and put it up against a Ruger Standard.
CptJake wrote: Accuracy 'out of the box' won't have much to do with slightly off barrels and such on most modern firearms. I suspect mostly it will have to do with quality of trigger (especially for handguns) and how barrel is mounted/mates with chamber which is likely to be an engineering difference vs a quality control difference. But I'll let the much smarter than me crew jump in. (admittedly this is NOT my area of expertise).
Was it eric on iraqveteran 8888 who alsao said that it was the meeting point of what the gun can do and what YOU can do?
Going back to comments about the Zip 22, without dwelling on that gun in particular. But online sources it was at least noted for its accuracy.
But what does that mean in the wider context? As in, imagine you’ve two pistols. Same calibre, same barrel length. Near as dammit identical designs. But one of the designs is noted as being more accurate.
Is that a reflection of manufacturing tolerances? Like the company takes pains to ensure the barrels are properly straight and with perfect rifling, whereas the other one has barrels slightly off True, with such tiny differences being more impacted the further the bullet goes?
Accuracy is primarily a function of repeatability - how often the exact same thing comes together. There are certainly other components, and the human being is almost always the weakest one, but that's the benchmark for "accuracy" if you clamped it in a bench rest.
So, manufacturing tolerances play a role - the tighter the tolerance, the more precisely the same the action locks together each time. Then you get into details - 'generally', with rotating bolt designs, the more lugs, the more accurate the weapon. Rotating bolts are more accurate than something like a tilting barrel (which is a pistol only thing, really - but with modern QC, the tilting barrel is universally accepted because it's still good enough for basically any shooter).
Then there's ergonomic stuff - open bolt guns are more inaccurate than closed bolt ones, technically, not for any reason except that the inertia of the working parts slamming forward will move your point of aim.
It's a good question and I agree with most of the above. We have to consider that differences in accuracy can be divided into two categories. Practical accuracy is how accurate "you" are when shooting it, and inherent accuracy is how mechanically accurate the gun is when shot from a vise or rest.
I agree the trigger is probably the most important factor in practical accuracy. Your revolver is much more accurate when cocked and fired in single action then when using the double action trigger pull. Glocks with the heavier law enforcement trigger have less accuracy than the base model and much less accuracy than those with custom triggers. The harder/longer the trigger pull, the more the gun moves.
Better sights, ergonomics, grips, compensators, etc all fall under that category too. And with enough practice, you can mitigate at least some of the difference in practical accuracy between the same type of guns.
For inherent accuracy yes, the craftsmanship, fit, and quality of the parts makes a big difference. Ammunition can make a big difference, too. The more consistent the velocity of the ammo, the more reliably accurate.
Consider these two accuracy tests between two budget/mid Palmetto State and Aero AR-15s shooting high quality ammo, vs a top quality LaRue AR-15 shooting better but still not top of the line ammo:
The various "budget" AR-15's use a lot of the same parts from the same places and are mostly still "combat" or accurate or better, and good enough for most use cases. Many of the ones from Bear Creek Arsenal were put together by completely unskilled workers picked up outside of Home Depot and are decidedly inferior in quality.
For some of the other recent commentary, if you believe the reports, Sgt Green killed over 500 enemy soldiers at San Juan Hill with one Gatling Gun! And I'm a little surprised no one mentioned the new semi auto "Dumpster Defender" Mossberg Aftershock as a gimmick gun.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Maybe pure blowback would work, but I doubt you could fit enough black powder in a .32 ACP casing to push the bullet out of the barrel. If 9mm couldn't do it, a lot of other calibers would fail.
Could one re-engineer modern firearms to function in a black powder environment? Of course. But the best solutions were the ones historically arrived at - use a mechanism rather than the round's energy to cycle the action.
Here's a black powder shooter putting handloaded 9x19 through a couple of different (unmodified) guns. ~800fps with 124gr projectiles isn't amazing ballistically but that is definitely a lethal load. .45ACP would be better suited to this application.
Slowroll wrote: Practical accuracy is how accurate "you" are when shooting it, and inherent accuracy is how mechanically accurate the gun is when shot from a vise or rest.
To that point, having shot a Zip, I can't speak to the mechanical accuracy but the odd grip arrangement, awful sights, and horrendous trigger make it extremely difficult to actually connect.
With handguns in particular it's always the practical accuracy that matters anyways, short of a smoothbore.
catbarf wrote: Here's a black powder shooter putting handloaded 9x19 through a couple of different (unmodified) guns. ~800fps with 124gr projectiles isn't amazing ballistically but that is definitely a lethal load. .45ACP would be better suited to this application.
Slowroll wrote: Practical accuracy is how accurate "you" are when shooting it, and inherent accuracy is how mechanically accurate the gun is when shot from a vise or rest.
To that point, having shot a Zip, I can't speak to the mechanical accuracy but the odd grip arrangement, awful sights, and horrendous trigger make it extremely difficult to actually connect.
With handguns in particular it's always the practical accuracy that matters anyways, short of a smoothbore.
I wonder what form of black powder was used. That might account for the difference. I've got a couple of black powder weapons and they are very specific about which powder to use. Maybe Kentucky Ballistic's ammo used a less powerful grade.
OK reverse question, as our self-appointed clueless but well meaning idiot?
Let’s take say, a Baker Rifle (which I’m familiar-ish with from Sharpe).
But, we swap out whichever powder Sharpe used, for modern gunpowder. And for sake of fun and clarity? Lt Cl Sharpe for whatever reason grabbed a horn of modern gunpowder, and took it from there.
He'd need a lot less powder per shot. Modern burns at higher pressures than black powder, and particularly in a rifle with close mating of the bullet with the barrel, and dicey metallurgy, high chance of explosion. On the plus side, he'd be cleaning it a lot less.
I think some black powder weapons get fired today with modern cartridges stripped down to just primer? Sure I've heard that somewhere.
Ahhh, but the assumption in my poser is that Sharpe has, for reasons undisclosed, grabbed a horn of modern power, and has applied a matching pour amount/time as old fashioned gunpowder.
I say gunpowder, there’s something scratching away at the back of my idiot Brian that Napoleonic Powder wasn’t some base mix, but one better developed. Still a bit crap, but less Smokey?
Best case, he gets an extra big whack of recoil and checks the powder. Even back then they understood too much powder was a bad thing, or could degrade or become too hot (load wise) and he'd realise something was wrong.
Catastrophic explosion is most likely. Smokeless powder is orders of magnitude faster burning and more powerful. It would be a miracle if he wasn't injured if he used a black powder charge of smokeless powder in a rifle. A regular smoothbore musket might actually be safer as the round isn't as tightly sealed so there is some escape for the gas pressure behind the ball. Still going to be dangerous and might damage the gun.
Grey Templar wrote: Catastrophic explosion is most likely. Smokeless powder is orders of magnitude faster burning and more powerful. It would be a miracle if he wasn't injured if he used a black powder charge of smokeless powder in a rifle. A regular smoothbore musket might actually be safer as the round isn't as tightly sealed so there is some escape for the gas pressure behind the ball. Still going to be dangerous and might damage the gun.
The question would be if he turned it into a pipe bomb or merely got a big boom.
The case for a pipe bomb: Expansion will take place faster than the bullet can get out, burst barrel.
The case against: bullet fit is loose, and there is a vent hole, which could act as a vented chamber. Gun fires with a big boom, flames shoot out of the firelock and Sharpe needs a clean pair of pants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: He'd need a lot less powder per shot. Modern burns at higher pressures than black powder, and particularly in a rifle with close mating of the bullet with the barrel, and dicey metallurgy, high chance of explosion. On the plus side, he'd be cleaning it a lot less.
I think some black powder weapons get fired today with modern cartridges stripped down to just primer? Sure I've heard that somewhere.
Yes, there are black powder cartridges converted to smokeless. Among the ones I know of personally are .32 S&W (short), .455 Eley (Webley) and .45-70.
The issue with a rifled musket is the bullet is NOT loosely fitted. You have to force the ball down the barrel which create a very tight gas seal in the rifling. This is why rifled muskets had so much worse fire rates than normal, they had to expend a lot of effort to get the ball down. And the flash hole isn't large enough to be helping here.
The good news is when it fails it will probably just blow out the flash hole, but depends on how well made the firearm's chamber is.
Grey Templar wrote: The issue with a rifled musket is the bullet is NOT loosely fitted. You have to force the ball down the barrel which create a very tight gas seal in the rifling.
My comment was specifically in regards to Sharpe's situation. After extensive time in the field, rifle bores can deteriorate. I've seen weapons where - if you look closely - you can see where the rifling used to be.
That is THE thing to look for in surplus. Whenever I'm looking at buying something I can't physically handle, I want photos and firm statement on the quality of the bore.
Amusingly, this causes some people to get cold feet and drop the price in order to make the sale because they can't tell the difference between dust, preservative or actual corrosion.
Speaking of firearms, yesterday I finally fixed my FR-7 that has been tormenting me for three years. I'll spare the details, but it turned out that the problem was that the cocking piece was deteriorating, and the simple act of replacing it fixed the problem. Celebratory range trip tomorrow.
Is the difference between a Baker Rifle (again, ala Sharpe) and a modern rifle’s manufacture largely just quality of metal?
Or is it the overall design, with the Baker not having a bolt/slide/thingy to help absorb some of the energy of the shot, so even if made with modern gun metal, it’s still going to be under significant strain?
Is the difference between a Baker Rifle (again, ala Sharpe) and a modern rifle’s manufacture largely just quality of metal?
Or is it the overall design, with the Baker not having a bolt/slide/thingy to help absorb some of the energy of the shot, so even if made with modern gun metal, it’s still going to be under significant strain?
---
The short answer is that it's both.
The Industrial Revolution created the ability to make vast quantities of steel of a high, uniform quality.
This in turn enabled higher pressure propellant.
Felt recoil only really changes when there is a way to bleed some of the recoil impulse into cycling an action. The difference in recoil between a muzzle loader and a bolt action or lever action rifle comes down to to the propellant. None if it is bled off into cycling the action.
This is why revolvers have stronger recoil than similar caliber autoloaders - all of it goes right back to the shooter. You don't have slide bleeding it away.
I will say that black powder burns slower, so you get a push rather than a punch.
Aye. It is the easily reproducible quality of materials that really set the revolution apart.
In theory, you could teach a master gunsmith and a powder chemist of the 1700s how to make a relatively modern self-loading firearm and the smokeless powder and cartridge that makes its operation possible. But it would be a hand crafted highly expensive piece. Each piece hand-made to exacting standards over several years, with lots of dud parts along the way. The ammo would also be similarly hand crafted and obscenely expensive.
The barrel alone would probably take years of smithing to get its quality just right to handle the pressures. Then more hand boring and rifling to get right. Any step of which could fail and require you to start over.
Over the weekend I took the FR-7 (that is a Spanish M1916 converted to 7.62mm NATO) out to the range. After years of work I figured out the cocking piece was damaged, and when put to the test, this assessment was correct. It ran ball ammo flawlessly.
However, the German surplus training ammo was less reliable, which is to be expect. For one thing, it's plastic, so it flexes in weird ways. On top of that is the round nose "bullet" (really a breakaway part of the casing). Finally, the rim is slightly smaller than standard ammo to serve as a last line of defense on the training range. The G3s that this was built to go with would have their bolts swapped out with training versions, which would accept this. The smaller bolt faces won't chamber live ammo, keeping the smaller training range safe. Conversely, extraction with a standard bolt is problematic. With a turnbolt, it was a bit weird since a sharp pull might extract the spent round, and the fresh one behind it!
Then again, it's dirt cheap and has no recoil.
My new range toy is a chronograph and the ball was running 2,800 fps while the blue stuff was 4,400. Pretty hot for 5 grains of plastic. I've shot water jugs with these and they will crack the skin but do no penetrate.
We also had an accuracy competition between a SIG P226 and an IMI Jericho 941. To the surprise of no one, the SIG dominated. To be fair, all steel vs polymer lower is also a tough row to hoe.
Something that I've wondered about for a LONG time, finally answered. Can loading a Super Ball into a 12-gauge shotgun shell work as a non-lethal round?
My plan was similar to this guy, but I was thinking of using less powder, a single ball, and one of those super short 1.75 inch mini-shells.
Not sure if anyone else is following this, but it's looking like the M18 (SIG P320) has some serious problems. A USAF sergeant was recently killed when his holstered pistol discharged, and the commander of US Global Strike Command has order all of the pistols turned in and the troops are to use M4s until the situation is sorted out.
I for one cannot understand why the US military didn't just go with the M9A3. I hated the M9, but the A3 variant seemed like the obvious choice, especially since Beretta was willing to bring the existing stocks to the A3 standard. I'm a fan of Beretta in general, but the M9 was meh. The M9A3 looks pretty slick and my buddy has an A4 model (the current one) that I'm eager to try out.
US military procurement seems deeply broken at this point. The M7 Spear (also by SIG) seems a rifle no one wants and no one needs, but it is very, very expensive.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Not sure if anyone else is following this, but it's looking like the M18 (SIG P320) has some serious problems. A USAF sergeant was recently killed when his holstered pistol discharged, and the commander of US Global Strike Command has order all of the pistols turned in and the troops are to use M4s until the situation is sorted out.
I for one cannot understand why the US military didn't just go with the M9A3. I hated the M9, but the A3 variant seemed like the obvious choice, especially since Beretta was willing to bring the existing stocks to the A3 standard. I'm a fan of Beretta in general, but the M9 was meh. The M9A3 looks pretty slick and my buddy has an A4 model (the current one) that I'm eager to try out.
US military procurement seems deeply broken at this point. The M7 Spear (also by SIG) seems a rifle no one wants and no one needs, but it is very, very expensive.
Several third party manufacturers have also dropped support, and some shooting competition orgs have also banned the 320.
It's gone from months of smoke as people on the internet argue about whether the pistol can fire on it's own to a full out inferno.
As far as the military trials, I can't imagine there wasn't some level of influence involved in picking Sig.
Its pretty much an open secret that Sig bribed the politicians to get the contract. Nobody in the military actually wanted the Sig guns.
There isn't anything particularly wrong with the M7, or the other entrants to the contract, but everything special about it could have been replicated in an AR10 in .308 for way way cheaper. You could make spicy .308 ammo and have reinforced barrels to fire it and get everything else more or less off the civilian market.
Its also pretty obvious that if a real war starts up the US will begin issuing and using DU ammunition instead of Tungsten for AP uses. A Spicy(or even not) .308 with DU penetrators would be more than enough for anything you'd want out of small arms.
Moving from 5.56 to a rifle caliber was and still is a good idea, but it was poorly implemented for scalability. AR10s would have been the more sensible choice. Compatible with existing M4 accessories, large civilian market part availability, etc...
Grey Templar wrote: Its pretty much an open secret that Sig bribed the politicians to get the contract. Nobody in the military actually wanted the Sig guns.
I used to work in procurement and have been following the development of the XM7. Most people in industry expected Sig to win long before the decision was made. General Dynamics didn't provide a belt-fed (which was a major part of the program!) and a bullpup is an ergonomic non-starter for Army. Textron required even more exotic LSAT-derived ammo, didn't meet performance requirements, and had untenable service agreement demands. Sig was the only one that met all requirements, was the most conservative of the three designs, and came from a company with credible capability to supply a new service weapon. There was some discussion of retrofitting the Textron prototype to use Sig ammo but neither company wanted to deal with that.
The M17, on the other hand, was chosen because both it and the Glock met trial requirements but Sig offered a unit price of sub-$200. I'd have to go back and check exactly what the M9A3 got dinged on, but at the end of the day when it comes to service sidearms the gold standard is whatever's cheapest and meets requirements. It's the reason the (Sig, ironically) P226 lost out to the Beretta 92 in the last go-around. It wasn't until after adoption that it was discovered the M17 did not meet RBS requirements using milspec ball ammo, and subsequently the uncommanded discharges started. Sig USA might actually be screwed as a corporate entity over this debacle, depending on how the lawsuits go, because their handling of it has not gone unnoticed by the government.
The 'open secret' amounts to the Internet collectively saying 'I paid no attention to the process and don't understand the outcome- must be bribery'. It's tiring.
Grey Templar wrote: You could make spicy .308 ammo and have reinforced barrels to fire it and get everything else more or less off the civilian market.
.277 Fury physically cannot be replicated with .308. With comparable case volume .308 cannot produce the same velocity, and the worse ballistic coefficient of the .308 makes it less conducive to maintaining energy at range, which is the entire point of the cartridge. Even if you did build a very spicy .308 load, grossly exceeding SAAMI specifications would necessitate creation of a new caliber, and since .308 weapons are still in circulation this would mean case alteration to render it non-compatible with existing .308 guns (see: .357 Magnum vs .38Spl). And the barrel isn't the only problem, as the design of the AR-10 bolt carrier and action dictates a maximum chamber pressure of under 70K PSI, while the .277 is designed to hit 80+K.
If .308 could be made to meet the requirements, they'd have done that, but it can't. So either you settle for less (which is pointless- we'd sooner reissue A4s than switch back to .308), or you develop a new cartridge for a new rifle with a new action, and at that point the nominal advantages of being based on an existing platform are much more limited. Army felt that their program goals were worth the demonstrable trade-offs and cost. Whether that pans out, particularly in light of the XM7's teething problems, remains to be seen.
The M17, on the other hand, was chosen because both it and the Glock met trial requirements but Sig offered a unit price of sub-$200. I'd have to go back and check exactly what the M9A3 got dinged on, but at the end of the day when it comes to service sidearms the gold standard is whatever's cheapest and meets requirements. It's the reason the (Sig, ironically) P226 lost out to the Beretta 92 in the last go-around. It wasn't until after adoption that it was discovered the M17 did not meet RBS requirements using milspec ball ammo, and subsequently the uncommanded discharges started. Sig USA might actually be screwed as a corporate entity over this debacle, depending on how the lawsuits go, because their handling of it has not gone unnoticed by the government.
I have only done UORs, but even then the safety testing was expensive and roundly cursed (I can't imagine how it is with 'proper' programmes). I can see obviously many examples how stuff fails to be found out in testing, but why do you think this didn't come up? Specially made test pieces vs production models, or poorly designed testing programme?
If you mean the ball ammo, as I understand it the prototypes provided for testing met standards that the production guns did not, but this was primarily of interest to DOD (and not .gov or .le) as the reliability issues did not manifest with conventional 115gr/124gr loads as opposed to the essentially +P+ of 9x19 NATO. So you have a situation where the gun is doing fine for most users, but in Army testing it isn't quite reaching the required MRBF, but we've already bought all the damn things so a course-correct is needed. AFAIK that was addressed...
...but then the uncommanded discharge issue arose, without any clear explanation. There's a lot of FUD and rumormongering and idle speculation, but if I had to stake my life on a cause, I'd bet there's a tolerance-stacking issue that's permitting some guns to fire under some particular combination of circumstances. A recent YT video making the rounds showed that a little bit of trigger takeup coupled with manipulation of the slide is sufficient to make at least some guns fire, which lends credence to the idea that there may be a striker reset issue preventing the normal battery of safeties from fully engaging.
The thing is, nobody really knows what's going on. The M17/P320 is, fundamentally, a cheap gun, and the sorts of manufacturing processes used to bring down production cost (like MIM parts, or batch sampling for QC) only make it more difficult to isolate the problem. Sig has a huge PR problem here because even leaving aside their dogged insistence that nothing's wrong, if they can't determine the cause and neither can potential customers, there's little reason to accept that risk (let alone the bad optics if it results in further needless deaths) when there are other options on the market.
I do have a bias - I could always shoot expert on the M9 - didn't hurt that they gave you 40 rounds to hit 30 targets in the old qualification tables. But I can barely get above marksman with the M17. I have to blame the balance of the pistol - the front feels heavier to me which I think I overcorrect and tend to shoot high or maybe I'm pulling instead of being relaxed... I spent over 12 years running the M9 and never once had it fail to fire a round at the range. Flawless reliability, even after thousands of rounds. But after transitioning to the M17 for the last 3 years, I’ve had multiple misfires across multiple ranges—and not in harsh field conditions, just standard range use.
Some of this, I’ll admit, isn’t purely on the platform. A big part comes down to how military pistols are handled across the board. Unlike rifles, you don’t zero your issued pistol, and in many Army ranges, the same sidearm sees hundreds of rounds through it with zero cleaning, maintenance, or accountability. Pistols get passed shooter to shooter on a lane with carbon buildup and no inspection, and over time that kind of neglect adds up—especially on a platform that might already be flirting with tolerance limits.
Still, if the M17’s design can't reliably handle normal duty cycles under military use—let alone NATO-spec pressures—it’s hard to shrug off. And when a previously trusted sidearm suddenly starts throwing surprise misfires, it doesn't inspire confidence. I respect what SIG was trying to do with modularity and cost savings, but at a certain point, you can’t compromise on reliability and assume users will make up the difference with perfect upkeep. Because in reality, most won't.
I don't shoot the M18 particularly well, either. The gun is mechanically accurate, I think its more of a balance thing as you say. Plenty of people shoot plastic guns well, those used to metal guns often don't. Anecdotally, I have shot 1000+ rounds through it, mostly high pressure M1152 ammo, and had no reliability issues. I never tried the 124g NATO round.
As for the spontaneous discharging, even the "official" data can be misleading. This FBI report has some good information regarding the striker safety lock spring, but repeatedly calls a regular 320 (320 compact with no manual safety) an M18 (the same except it does have a manual safety). I wanted to know if the gun can discharge with the manual safety on or not, and still don't. I'd assume the airman that was killed had an actual M18 with the safety on, but you know what they say. Either way, mine will be staying the safe at this point, absent a recall.
It seems like instead of becoming the new HK, Sig might be becoming the new Taurus. I'd love to know how many of their other guns also use parts made in India. I often shoot at their flagship store/range and they have this huge diorama of US soldiers equipped with Sig guns in their "museum", afaik none of them yet used in actual combat. Might have jumped the gun on that, so to speak .
Even if this 'just' turns out to be some error that doesn't relate to a failure of the weapon itself, it's going to be a massive issue.
I know that at least one army recalled a whole bunch of holsters, because they encouraged the release of manual safeties accidentally. Nothing to do with the pistol, or the holster, just the ergonomics led to people releasing the safety while reholstering, because it felt comfortable to handle it that way.
Sure, you can call that a training issue, and that it could be mitigated without a recall of either, but once you consider how dumb, tired, or infrequently people will touch these things, it's definitely easier to recall.
Also entirely possible that there's a tolerance issue. Happens all the bloody time, even with established weapons. One batch has some cut corners or someone reckons they've got a cheaper way to do it, and suddenly parts are cracking or wearing down below safe limits.
The 'open secret' amounts to the Internet collectively saying 'I paid no attention to the process and don't understand the outcome- must be bribery'. It's tiring.
No, it was clear even from a casual observation that something was odd about the whole process. What is the M7 even designed for? It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires. The obvious truth was that with then end of the GWOT, the Army knew it was going to get big budget cuts because the Navy and Air Force were now on the front line, so they needed some big project, and the found the most inefficient one possible that also carried a ludicrous logistical requirement for special training ammo vs actual field ammo, short barrel life and a package that was heavier than the M-14.
No one wanted this, except SIG and the officers who would shortly be retiring to work for them.
The M18 debacles shows that the procurement system is completely broken. We can't build ships, our tank designs come in ludicrously overweight and even small arms, which we once excelled at, are now a dangerous joke.
There is a video claiming (grain of salt) that Beretta met every requirement with the M9A3, offered a better price, and also offered to retrofit the existing stock. Everyone was trained on it, what defects it had were corrected (including the grip), but SIG won because reasons. Even if they messaged the per unit price down, the time lost in swapping out the entire logistics system, the effort in retraining imposed very real costs.
As for the XM7 competition, the lack of interest by otherwise qualified manufacturers tells you that it was pre-selected and no one wanted to waste the money on a losing proposition.
Went shooting at my brother's house. We dug out a TISAS 1911, a Walther P99, and a reproduction Colt 1851 Navy that had an aftermarket cylinder for .45 Long Colt. Of all those the P99 was the worst one to shoot.
No, it was clear even from a casual observation that something was odd about the whole process. What is the M7 even designed for? It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires. The obvious truth was that with then end of the GWOT, the Army knew it was going to get big budget cuts because the Navy and Air Force were now on the front line, so they needed some big project, and the found the most inefficient one possible that also carried a ludicrous logistical requirement for special training ammo vs actual field ammo, short barrel life and a package that was heavier than the M-14.
To defend the M7 a little bit.
It is quite clear that in the long term rifles are going to move away from intermediate and back to rifle calibers. The M7 does the job of being a rifle caliber battle/assault rifle thingy. The over-performing battle ammo is meant to be extra insurance against body armor evolution for the forseable future.
So I mean, the M7 does do what it is intended to do. But as you point out it could be done way simpler, cheaper, "just as good", etc...
The .277 Fury is a neat round, at least as field ammo. However, in terms of practical effect you could do 95% of what the intention is with this ammo with .308
A long heavy barrel .308 AR10 platform will already defeat most body armor, and thats just with ball ammo. They could have just adopted some match grade +P ammo, and had an AP variant using Depleted Uranium penetrators instead of Tungsten(for actual war use only). This has the advantage of actually having a domestic source of AP penetrator material. Most Tungsten comes from China, but we have ungodly amounts of DU sitting around....
It would already be compatible with all of the accessories that the army already has, and even some parts compatibility. Identical manual of arms to the M4. Tons of magazines already available on the civilian market too in any size you want really, 20, 25, 50, etc... Importantly, its also compatible with all of those. So if a war happens you can hoover up civilian product in a pinch.
And you are really really married to the idea of .277 Fury. Just AR10 with .277 fury Uppers. It doesn't need to be complicated.
It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.
That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.
The 'open secret' amounts to the Internet collectively saying 'I paid no attention to the process and don't understand the outcome- must be bribery'. It's tiring.
No, it was clear even from a casual observation that something was odd about the whole process. What is the M7 even designed for?
Uh, thanks for proving my point, I guess.
The original program solicitation is a great starting point for understanding the goals of the NGSW, why such a massive project is being undertaken, and why existing COTS solutions wouldn't work. If you want to discuss the merits of the program, start by educating yourself a bit on what they actually are, and then we can discuss the actual facts.
Otherwise, I'm not really keen on engaging with empty speculation based on vibes.
It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.
That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.
To that point it's worth noting that the M27 IAR project was adopted by the Marines to replace the aging M249. The Marine view is that it is not rounds in the air that produce effects, but rounds on target. They considered a weapon with a lower sustained rate of fire, but greater hit probability, to represent a net improvement in lethality. The NGSW program has similar goals- that's why the huge expensive computerized fire control unit is an integral component of the XM5/XM7/M7.
It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.
That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.
Um. "One shot, one kill" has been the mantra of the US Army since before I enlisted in 1992, so I'm not sure where you're getting that we're just NOW on board with accuracy over volume.
Is there a difference between military and civilian shotguns? And of course, if so, what are they?
Kinda of a nuanced response I guess? Military shotguns tend to be short barrel. I've only seen them used to breach doors and for close quarters. Civilian shotguns can be used for hunting and will have a longer barrel for accuracy and different ammo or for home defense and will be very similar to shotguns used by the military.
It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.
That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.
Um. "One shot, one kill" has been the mantra of the US Army since before I enlisted in 1992, so I'm not sure where you're getting that we're just NOW on board with accuracy over volume.
Maybe at the team or squad level this still holds true—I couldn’t say for certain. It’s been over a decade since I operated below the company level, and things may have evolved. But at the company level, the emphasis is firmly on coordinating fires and managing asset integration. In a near-peer conflict, where it's division versus division, the Army isn’t concerned with what small arms an individual rifleman is carrying. The real priority becomes maneuvering that division effectively, with synchronized support from air, artillery, and missile assets. At that echelon, the focus shifts even further toward the deep fight—shaping the battlefield well beyond the immediate close-quarters engagement.
Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.
What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.
It looks like a great rifle for sniping in the Hindu Kush, which is no longer a concern. A peer adversary is not going to be defeated by long-range precision marksmanship but by massive quantities of supporting fires.
That would get you a fail on the doctrine exam. As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange. It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.
Um. "One shot, one kill" has been the mantra of the US Army since before I enlisted in 1992, so I'm not sure where you're getting that we're just NOW on board with accuracy over volume.
Maybe at the team or squad level this still holds true—I couldn’t say for certain. It’s been over a decade since I operated below the company level, and things may have evolved. But at the company level, the emphasis is firmly on coordinating fires and managing asset integration. In a near-peer conflict, where it's division versus division, the Army isn’t concerned with what small arms an individual rifleman is carrying. The real priority becomes maneuvering that division effectively, with synchronized support from air, artillery, and missile assets. At that echelon, the focus shifts even further toward the deep fight—shaping the battlefield well beyond the immediate close-quarters engagement.
It's basic soldiering principle, taught to everyone at Basic, regardless of how POG their MOS may be. When a cook or refueler knows "One shot, one kill" then I'd say it's an Army wide principle. Combined arms and integrated fires are a different animal. The person I was responding to inferred that individual fire volume control wasn't a US military thing, and I'm saying that that's wrong.
LOL. The US is (in)famous for not following doctrine.
This goes back a long way, and it's usually a good thing.
As far as we are concerned the US marines and now army seem to be coming around to the British view that accurate fire is better than bullets dumped randomly downrange.
This has always been US practice since 1775.
It might feel great on your end but even the Taliban learnt they weren't going to get hit and it no longer fixed or eliminated them. Given our personnel move when receiving what was considered fixing or suppressive fire, we would expect a peer to do the same. While the section sharpshooter was a local adaptation and won't always hang around, the requirement for all deliver accurate fire remains.
Right, so this is back to re-fighting the last war, as I said.
The original program solicitation is a great starting point for understanding the goals of the NGSW, why such a massive project is being undertaken, and why existing COTS solutions wouldn't work. If you want to discuss the merits of the program, start by educating yourself a bit on what they actually are, and then we can discuss the actual facts.
Otherwise, I'm not really keen on engaging with empty speculation based on vibes.
The "why" is to spend money. It is a bureaucratic turf battle. The Army came up with an urgent requirement for a rifle that would only be useful to infantry, thus creating duplicative ammo supply trains. There is no way Navy and Air Force security forces are going to lug those behemoths around. So now our supply chain becomes even more complex, and of course short barrel life adds to the strain.
Short barrel life is a feature, not a bug, if you work for SIG.
We are done with "brushfire wars." A peer conflict needs to have mass, with deep reserves and robust logistics. Your 1914 BEF equivalents will - like the real ones - be mostly extinct within a few months. What then?
Even the Air Force (!) has figured out that our reasources are not infinite.
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.
What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.
Could this pull the OICW or similar capabilities out of the past? Bolters with mass reactive seeker shells ahoy
This weekend I did some ammo comparisons using a Webley Mk VI and a Colt 1911 equivalent (Ballester- Molina). Range was about 10 feet to the chronograph. I used three types of ammo: actual Webley .455, downloaded .45 ACP to Webley pressures, and .45 ACP.
Two things stood out. The first was that the downloaded ACP was so much slower than the rimmed .455. I did not expect that. The report of the two cartridges was markedly different.
I'm assuming the variation between revolver and autoloader had to do with the cylinder gap, and also maybe the .45 ACP didn't take all the rifling up.
Another lesson is also obvious: DO NOT USE .45 ACP IN A WEBLEY. Yes, they were 'shaved' and will chamber it with a full/half moon adapter, but it's a really bad idea.
For me, I'm going to shift more to the downloaded .45 because it is so much cheaper and you can use the clips. To take the .455 I had to fabricate adapters, which are a pain to use, and the ammo is not cheap.
I'm really liking my chronograph, so expect to see me randomly drop results from time to time. If you can think of a comparison, let me know. I may not own a ton of guns, but I know people who do, which is just as good!
Re doctrine/M4/volume of fire/accurate fire. Won't go into it in detail as off topic and one of those things where people will have their own views and experiences. In training everyone does marksmanship, but consider the view from outside the US. We are jealous of the money the US has, we use individual riflemen competency to try and compensate for the excellent crew served firepower the US has. Undoubtedly we are snobbish about the real life capability of the M4 and the real world implications as we see them, seeing US riflemen as ammo carriers and operators for all those great pieces of kit, but see moving away from the M4 as moving towards that individual competency more. (Something incidentally I wonder if the militia movement in the US gets, the importance of those weapon teams, while I get rifles are cheap and personally important, its why armies scythe through militias that try to stand up fight). Anyway done, will say no more.
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.
What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.
You can see on the interwebs the interceptor drone with 2 one shot shotguns underslung. No idea how that could be used in anything but an ambush role (perhaps an AI could use it better than a human, but drone dogfights are still in the future - the one dropping nets are cool though...).
While I think its illegal everywhere to have drones with dangerous payloads, I wonder if that's a future gun rights issue, if you are flying the drone how is it different to holding the gun yourself? And something of the reverse, what about computer managed firing of a weapon with you holding it but the command to fire being computer triggered - you point it downrange but the gun decides the best time based on local conditions to fire to hit what you have keyed in?
My non-professional argument is that, being there in-person grants a better, probably clearer perspective of what’s going on.
If the person threatening you flees at the sign of an in-person firearm, pursuing them isn’t a good option, as who knows what might happen. But….with a Drone? You aren’t in direct danger, which would surely change your internal considerations.
There’s also the risk of someone netting or otherwise downing the drone, and making off with the firearm. So even moralistic what-ifs may not be the main concern.
I’d also question civilian gun drone accuracy. How do you aim it? How do you calibrate that? Do drones automatically compensate for wind and that?
Arguably the better use of the Drone is with a speaker to confirm “look, I’ve seen you. You can see I’ve seen you. I am aware of you, I am armed. I have warned you” type stuff.
Now that won’t dissuade a methed up nutter or even common or garden variety nutter, sure. Because they’re nutters, regardless of why they’re a nutter in that moment. But for burglaries and vehicle theft? Are they gonna risk it further once they know they’ve been rumbled?
I don’t know for sure, I’m not exactly well read on such matter. But from a legal point of view I’d reckon you’re better off with the speaker drone.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:The "why" is to spend money. It is a bureaucratic turf battle.
If we're still engaging in creative fiction, I think the purpose of the M7 is actually to make Soldiers carry more weight so they get swole again. Big Army is finally recognizing that the adoption of the AR platform has been catastrophic for gains, and we need a big beefy battle rifle so our pin-up calendars can compete with firemen's.
Trust me bro.
Flinty wrote:
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty much every shotgun that's actually been adopted by the military is just a basic pump action shotgun you can get anywhere. The AA12 does exist, but its not really ever been more than a weird fancy toy. And if they dont want to carry a full extra gun they have a couple guys with the underslung single shot master key shotguns.
What with Drones becoming a thing we will probably see some actual interest in shotgun innovation, but it might take a few years to see what actually happens. I imagine some sort of shotgun firing Proximity airburst shells would have some potential.
Could this pull the OICW or similar capabilities out of the past? Bolters with mass reactive seeker shells ahoy
I looked into this a while back, and found that most successful engagements of drones (at the tactical level) in Ukraine were occurring at very short range, basically a hail mary against a drone on terminal approach. A shotgun gives you a directional spray with minimal fratricide concerns. An airbursting munition could be pretty hazardous to friendlies or the shooter if it's going off below treetop level inside of 50yds.
Even with some kind of directional airburst, there's also the question of whether it's useful enough to be worth bringing a computerized grenade launcher rather than a much lighter shotgun. Part of why the XM25 (the grenade launcher component of the OICW) didn't get much traction is because it added another 15lbs of launcher alone; 75th RR did not feel it was valuable/flexible enough to be worth sacrificing other elements of the combat load. Drone defense is even more specialized than the roles envisioned for the XM25, whereas a simple pump shotgun as a secondary weapon is already tolerated for breaching roles.
While the KAC Masterkey wasn't all that successful- Soldiers and Marines tended to prefer carrying a separate breacher on a sling, rather than weighing down their carbine- I could see something like it coming back for a doctrinally-specified drone defense squad role, similar to how underbarrel grenade launchers are employed by grenadiers.
catbarf wrote: If we're still engaging in creative fiction, I think the purpose of the M7 is actually to make Soldiers carry more weight so they get swole again. Big Army is finally recognizing that the adoption of the AR platform has been catastrophic for gains, and we need a big beefy battle rifle so our pin-up calendars can compete with firemen's.
Trust me bro.
It is not creative fiction to understand that the stated purpose is often not the actual purpose. Spending most of my career working in higher headquarters was a true eye-opener. I've seen things you would not believe...
I actually agree with you that the massive weight was a backdoor method to get women out of the combat arms, something that become moot when Hegseth changed the fitness program to a single, universal standard based on career field rather than gender-normed.
The specific point is that the US leadership lives in a fantasy world where logistics don't exist and airlift is infinite. In a true peer conflict, super-special rifles will not move the needle. This isn't 1939 where the US having a semi-auto rifle gave a decisive advantage against turn-bolt armed adversaries.
I will leave it at that, because the failures of US procurement aren't really on topic.
Given that drones are very fragile you can get away with very small warheads that would minimize the risk to friendlies from close in detonations. And if a suicide drone is incoming to your position, I think soldiers will be willing to risk some minor friendly shrapnel from their airburst shotgun shells vs whatever warhead the drone is carrying.
You can always set a minimal engagement distance on the airburst shells so they travel a certain amount before they can detonate as well.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the following get developed.
A 12 Gauge shell which can be fired from any shotgun. It contains a programmable warhead with a proximity fuse. The warhead can be programmed with a handheld RFID device which you simply punch in the data you want and then pass it over the shells to program them, either for set detonation distance or for proximity. There is also a minimal safe distance of 5 meters. The warhead is small and has an effective blast radius of only 1.5 to 2 meters with a shrapnel load made up of steel bearings(similar to #4 Birdshot). The bearings would pretty quickly lose lethality beyond a few meters from the explosion so would be relatively safe above friendly troops.
It would probably be developed alongside a high-capacity shotgun of some kind, but with the flexibility to be deployed with any 12-gauge system. So while you could issue out the special shotgun if necessary, you could also just give the shells to guys who have master keys or regular pumps as well. The special shotgun would be more of a specialty item. Troops in fixed or high value areas get them to augment their firepower.
Doctrinally, this will probably eventually lead to some new specialization in US squads. The very short range air defense guy. He's gotta carry a shotgun and a stinger missile. Or maybe its just a DARPA robot dog with the gatling shotgun airburst cannon and a mini-radar set(your cancer is not service related)
My non-professional argument is that, being there in-person grants a better, probably clearer perspective of what’s going on.
If the person threatening you flees at the sign of an in-person firearm, pursuing them isn’t a good option, as who knows what might happen. But….with a Drone? You aren’t in direct danger, which would surely change your internal considerations.
There’s also the risk of someone netting or otherwise downing the drone, and making off with the firearm. So even moralistic what-ifs may not be the main concern.
I’d also question civilian gun drone accuracy. How do you aim it? How do you calibrate that? Do drones automatically compensate for wind and that?
Arguably the better use of the Drone is with a speaker to confirm “look, I’ve seen you. You can see I’ve seen you. I am aware of you, I am armed. I have warned you” type stuff.
Now that won’t dissuade a methed up nutter or even common or garden variety nutter, sure. Because they’re nutters, regardless of why they’re a nutter in that moment. But for burglaries and vehicle theft? Are they gonna risk it further once they know they’ve been rumbled?
I don’t know for sure, I’m not exactly well read on such matter. But from a legal point of view I’d reckon you’re better off with the speaker drone.
Legally speaking, it would be pretty hard to justify self-defense hiding behind a drone precisely because you are out of harms way.
As for aiming, the Ukrainians have not been doing too bad with just winging it. I saw some with full on AKs on drones to suppress some trenches. The shotgun ones also have cameras pointed in the general direction of the barrel. Given that they seem to be intended to sneak up on an unaware enemy drone you only need 1-2 shots because thats all you'll get. The drone will either be dead or it will notice you shooting at it.
Depending on the state and what kind/size of drone it is. Putting a gun on a drone in the US is playing with fire, but probably not strictly illegal in most places. That said, outside of target practice and the shiggles it has no practical use other than training for combat. That said, thats going to be quite a dangerous thing to be playing around with. A gun that you have minimal control over where and what it is pointing at is not good for your or anyone else's safety.
If I had the inkling, I would stick to ground drones or emplaced turrets rather than the flying ones for remote controlled gun activities.
Here's a little bit of firearms news from the US of A.
The Civilian Marksmanship Program - an actual government entity whose purpose is to sell guns to the American people - has announced that it has managed to figure out a method to restore deactivated M1903A3s used for parade rifles. Apparently these simply had the bolt welded to the receiver and a method has been found to remove the weld without damage. A bunch of rifles were tested at double proof loads and did just fine.
Not available yet, but soon. Apparently a new cache of M1911A1 pistols has also been found, so they have a few years of those left. The M1917s are running low, and the Krags are now all gone :(
There is a persistent rumor that South Korea is holding onto more than a million M1 Carbines that could be repatriated. I will be all over that if it happens.
I got a really nice M1 Garand at their Ohio store about a year ago and now I'm getting emails, so I thought I'd share.
Its basically a government company whose purpose is to sell off military surplus weapons to the civilian market, there are also limits to how many items an individual can buy from them so everybody has a fair shot to get something.
It is unfortunately largely useless till we get rid of the NFA but they sometimes have some nice antiques available.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Is it a government company trying to make a profit or a civil servant staffed body?
A little bit of both. I believe the employees are civil servants and they are set up on military installations.
However, they pay for themselves based on the sales of surplus weapons. As the stock of surplus has dwindled, their fate was becoming uncertain.
The new management has been more aggressive on the commercial side, pushing new options for purchase, such as ammunition as well as CMP "branded" replicas, such as of the Tisas 1911A1. They are also looking at custom new production M1 Garands.
The big announcement that they were able to convert deactivated parade versions of the M1903A3 and Garand offers huge new stocks for future sales, and a recent windfall of 1911A1s offers further financial stability, and, per Grey Templar, they are looking at ways to sell more recent weapons (M14) albeit in a semi-auto configuration. They also do training and competitions, but the weapons sales keep the light on.
The one in Ohio is next door to the PX, so one can load up on guns and discount liquor all in the same trip.
I don't think there is anything more American than rolling onto an Army post. Buying a rifle, and - while it's being packaged - loading up on discount liquor.
And paying for it all with a credit card.
The Garands they sell come in custom cases and include a certificate attesting to its provenance as a genuine US Army issue rifle. Some collectors like that sort of thing and you'll resales identified as such.
Setting aside the collector aspect, the CMP stuff is nice because it's all sorted by condition and function-tested, which is nice. Even the low-graded bores are really good, because they do parts replacement as part of the refurbishment. I had no idea it existed until a friend told me about it, but now I follow their news closely.
I don't think there is anything more American than rolling onto an Army post. Buying a rifle, and - while it's being packaged - loading up on discount liquor.
And paying for it all with a credit card.
The Garands they sell come in custom cases and include a certificate attesting to its provenance as a genuine US Army issue rifle. Some collectors like that sort of thing and you'll resales identified as such.
Setting aside the collector aspect, the CMP stuff is nice because it's all sorted by condition and function-tested, which is nice. Even the low-graded bores are really good, because they do parts replacement as part of the refurbishment. I had no idea it existed until a friend told me about it, but now I follow their news closely.
Hence the saying, "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convience store, not a government agency."
It's time for Labor Day sales so bought the cheapest Glock clone I could find lol.
Seriously, someone I know through a friend was selling a Derya DY9 for $200 and I couldn't resist. Yeah, it's a Turkish pistol, but the reviews have been pretty good.
ScarletRose wrote: It's time for Labor Day sales so bought the cheapest Glock clone I could find lol.
Seriously, someone I know through a friend was selling a Derya DY9 for $200 and I couldn't resist. Yeah, it's a Turkish pistol, but the reviews have been pretty good.
Turkish stuff can be quite good, but the one I bought was a lemon. It was a CZ-75 clone and it felt great in the hand, but on the range it had some really strong trigger slap. I'd heard of it but never experienced it. Unless your finger was on the exact sweet spot, the trigger snapped at you.
So I sold it and bought a Walther PPQ instead, because at the time there were $100 rebates and Gander Mountain was going out of business and discounted everything. Heck of a deal.
Traded the Walther for an Ishapore .410 SMLE, which is a hoot to shoot. Bolt-action shotguns are cool.
Grey Templar wrote: Turkish guns are coin flip. You either get a cheap garbage gun or a cheap really nice gun. Either way, at least it was cheap.
Yeah, my understanding on the real cut rate firearms is that what suffers is quality control first and foremost. At least with something like this where it's a proven design.
I'm not worried about this particular pistol because the owner bought it to do a youtube review. So he put about 500 rounds through it, made a review saying it worked fine and now is trying to move it since he doesn't want it taking up room in his safe.
Yeah. One of my coworkers bought some turkish semi-auto shotgun and it is a bit finicky with what ammo it likes. Its supposed to work with anything, but it only works with high pressure ammo. Not surprising but it does show that you should have a grain of salt with these things.
I’m oddly fascinated by the discussion of cheaply made guns.
Every time I read a post about them, my mind jumps to knock-off toys. Which is pretty much my only, completely rubbish, point of comparison.
The ones where they’ve clearly remoulded a popular toy line, but done the casting in cheap monkey plastic, and had the paint job applied by what seems to be a vision challenged goat that’s forgotten its classes, using a stunned hedgehog as a brush.
As if a cheaper gun will only be good for a couple of shots before a two part barrel is falling apart.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As if a cheaper gun will only be good for a couple of shots before a two part barrel is falling apart.
There are two categories of cheap guns. One is the Chinese Warlord/Khyber Pass kind of stuff. All sorts of workshop products floating around that might get one round off before it disintegrates in a spectacular (if not dangerous) fashion.
I actually spotted a Warlord Mauser, and it was really cool because it was just a little off. From a distance, it looked pretty good. But the metal was really thin, and upon chambering the bolt would likely have simply broken.
Outside of that, there are lots of very cheap weapons on the secondary market that work just fine. I'm not even talking Hi Points, but old Harrington and Richardson revolvers, or Iver Johnson top-breaks. These will cost you less than a GW starter set, yet the run just fine.
If you want do dig deeper into the weeds, old service weapons are another place for inexpensive and reliable weapons. There are IMI Jericho 941 - that's Israel's take on a CZ75 - out there for $250 or so.
The US market prices seem to be in retreat, which is why I'm generally holding off to see where we hit bottom. Same with ammo.
If some of our European (British in particular because they seem to have things really locked down) friends hop over the pond in the vicinity of Michigan, I could show y'all some things.
1) Cheaply manufactured production guns. High Point, Turkish guns, and other similar guns. Made in actual factories to actual standards. While certainly low brow, I wouldn't say they are inherently dangerous.
2) Sketchy production guns. This is stuff like Kyber Pass or the Chinese Warlord guns. Some of them are alright, maybe up to the first category at least functionally. Most are at least functional, but some might be sketchy. Made by unskilled smiths copying a real gun without knowing what stuff necessarily does, but at least made with actual tools. A Kyber Pass AK might be smoothbore and have no finish on it, but it'll probably at least work.
3) Zip guns, pipe guns, and other guns made by those with no access to proper tools and just kludging something together that'll go bang at least once.
There's also the "Ring Of Fire" pistol manufacturers. Davis Industries is the first that comes to mind, and I've personally owned 2 of their firearms. Neither exploded on me, but they also never got a 500 round day at the range because that's totally unnecessary for what those guns were used for. The .38 derringer was a great varmint gun if you could get close enough, and the .32 auto was fairly accurate for being stock. The only malfunctions I saw with them were a firing pin issue with the derringer that had it misfire the lower barrel once in a while, and a round that didn't extract from the auto when I tried to clear it. The extraction could easily have been a brass issue and not a chamber issue.
Just when you least expect it, my chronograph strikes again!
Yesterday I returned to the range to answer a question that has bothered me for a while: how close are the velocities of 7.62mm Tokarev and 7.63mm Mauser in actual practice? We all know that Tokarev ammo is based on the Mauser, but much more spicy.
Yet the Tokarev has a much shorter barrel than the standard C96, so does that make a difference?
Yes. Yes, it does.
Testing it yesterday at 5 yards using S&B Tokarev and PP Mauser, (5 round each) I got:
Tokarev: 1,420 fps Mauser: 1,432.8 fps
I should add that the first round of the Mauser series clocked in at 1,420 and pulled down the average.
Now, as the late great Paul Harrell would say, is that enough of a difference to make a difference? No. But it does highlight how more theoretical power doesn't always manifest itself as practical power. If I had a Mauser Bolo, I'm sure the Tokarev would look much better.
This question is brought to you by Law & Order Season 1. And it’s for Dakkanauts that live in concealed, or I suppose open carry states, which get cold winters to the point you regularly wear gloves to protect your mitts.
See, Cragen just asked one of his Detectives “yeah, and how well do you shoot when wearing gloves”.
Now, gun safety would suggest that’s something an owner, who can concealed carry, would practice. And I’m wondering does it change your preference in sidearm in the winter months?
I’m thinking perhaps a slightly larger trigger guard, to allow for gloves thickness, and perhaps a less responsive trigger?
I luckily do not live in a state where this is an issue. If I did, yes I would train with my gloves on and would have a pistol with larger trigger guard.
You don't need huge gloves to keep warm, except maybe in places like Alaska, but for someone who lives in cities in a day to day basis, there's some slimmer gloves who will keep you plenty warm and wouldn't need a big(ger) trigger guard.
Testing it yesterday at 5 yards using S&B Tokarev and PP Mauser, (5 round each) I got:
Tokarev: 1,420 fps Mauser: 1,432.8 fps
That is pretty interesting. The PPU 7.62x25 Tokarev round is advertised at 1722 fps, 300 more than you got there!
What do you think accounts for that discrepancy? It could be just false advertising, but the S&B 7.62x25 lists a velocity of 1650 fps, not too far off. I suppose both loads could have been tested using a PPSH barrel.
Speaking of PPU, in case anyone is unaware they aren't exporting ammo due to the tariff situation. They are/were a major source for a lot of the milsurp calibers no longer in current use.
---
As for gloves, I've got quite a few pairs of Mechanix gloves and do a good bit of shooting with them. They are tight fitting work gloves that are very popular with shooters. A standard 1911 style trigger guard is a little tight but no real problems or accuracy issues besides that. They function well as work gloves, too.
That said, I probably wouldn't walk the streets wearing them. I'm not sure where they rank next to a photography vest or 5.11 tuxedo, but if you are carrying concealed, its best not to advertise! If I did have to be in the cold all day while carrying, those mittens that you can fold back the fingers on seem like a way better choice.
I remember seeing some things about the Kriss Vector way back when it was first being revealed and hadn't really thought much about it in the interim, but I recently came across it again, now in it's third generation, and was curious if anyone ever tested or used one out and what they thought of it. It is an interesting bit of engineering but that doesn't always necessarily translate to being a great overall product.
Haven't used one myself, but I have heard people who do say that the Vector is great. In full auto.
The semi-auto one is pointless as it cannot take advantage of the Vector's selling point which is the unique recoil system that all but eliminates vertical recoil. Without that, its just a very very expensive(and very cool) PCC.
That is pretty interesting. The PPU 7.62x25 Tokarev round is advertised at 1722 fps, 300 more than you got there!
What do you think accounts for that discrepancy? It could be just false advertising, but the S&B 7.62x25 lists a velocity of 1650 fps, not too far off. I suppose both loads could have been tested using a PPSH barrel.
The late great Paul Harrell has noted that advertised velocities are often much higher than what he obtains. He has suggested exactly what you have: the manufacturers use longer barrels to get those velocities.
Regarding gloves, there are actual shooting gloves. My wife has a pair. There are also hunting gloves with textured fingers and stuff. Not at all difficult to shoot with them if one practices.
Yesterday's range trip was all about the Makarov. Bulgarian vs Polish P64. The P64 felt better in the hand, more ergonomic, nicer single action trigger. Also lighter weight.
Both have fixed barrels, but the weight of the Bulgarian is a true blessing. The P64 is incredibly snappy. I loaded five rounds and offered it to one of my range companions who fired three shots and handed it back. With some trial and error I learned that if I kept my lower grip firm but relaxed my other fingers, the recoil would go into barrel rise. Given the power, I'm not worried about limp-wristing it.
Basically, like shooting .357 magnum out of a snubbie. Not particularly pleasant.
Okay, just saw this. FN is making a SKAR (basically) chambered in 30mm, meant for 30mm grenades. 5+1 capacity semi-auto. Man, this gives me a chub. Take the stock off and it's almost an IRL bolter.
Its interesting, so far only the Neopup PAW-2 has worked I think out of the various semi auto grenade launchers (the rest tried to be clever with airburst stuff), but its a small round. What is the advantage of this larger round that still isn't 40mm, does the ability to fire more make it viable?
Probably a more direct-trajectory round combined with the 5+1 to try sell it as a squad-level support weapon. Lighter ammo, easier to engage, more rapid follow up.
Whether or not anyone bites is a different matter, probably just an expensive toy that gets a handful of trials.
I remember recently seeing something about China leaning into this kind of system. Is this a case of "look, they seem to think its important" rather than having a solid doctrinal need for it?
Almost definitely. It is also just the job of weapons manufacturers to try sell guns - it's a super hard sell to upgrade most of what the west uses for small arms, so new guns is sort of it.
Is it cool? Hell yeah. Is it practical? No, probably not. Like, what does this contribute that a 7.62mm GPMG doesn't? More to the point, what does it contribute that makes it worth the purchase, logistics, training, and WEIGHT to a soldier?
There's going to be a bunch of officers who will never have to carry it convinced it's the best thing since sliced bread, but I don't think there's any gaping hole this thing will fill.
If they combine it with some simple airburst proximity ammunition it could have a future as an anti-drone weapon.
It is highly likely that every squad is going to have to devote one guy to be the anti-drone guy. Which right now basically means shotguns. If you can swap a shotgun for something that has a little more range as well as utility vs ground targets it might be an option. As it stands, mr shotgun is also going to have to carry an M4 and that is heavy.
I could see a future drone protection position in every squad who is armed with a grenade launcher that primarily has airburst proximity fuse ammo, but also has regular grenades for ground and armor targets as well. This could potentially be useful enough to allow the guy to ditch the service rifle entirely and just focus on the grenade launcher.
Maybe 2/3 of the load is simple proximity fuse warheads and 1/3 is regular impact grenades. maybe with a few heat warheads for anti-tank duties. You could have a programmable multi-purpose warhead that could be used against infantry and drones, but that would be more expensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flinty wrote: I remember recently seeing something about China leaning into this kind of system. Is this a case of "look, they seem to think its important" rather than having a solid doctrinal need for it?
yeah, they have a grenade launcher "DMR" type monstrosity.
Its basically China admitting they don't have the capability to mass produce grenades to the point they can have an automatic grenade launcher so they compensate by making it longer ranged and, allegedly' more accurate. The issue is its not really that much more accurate and it clearly gives anyone using it a black eye each time its fired. So it likely will not be any more accurate than a Mk19 in actual battle conditions while being harder to use.
Against armour, there’s a fairly large target. Against infantry, lobbing a few frag rounds in their general direction may not need hurt anyone to prove effective?
There's never a time when less accurate is better, but take your point.
Infantry are the easy bit - even running, they're not that fast, they're squishy, and you don't need a direct hit because shrapnel does it fine.
Armour, different matter - it's a big target, although not really that big, possibly moving, possibly suppressing you, and you need to score direct hits for a HEAT charge to do anything.
Bigger, slower rounds suffer more from windage, suffer from needing your soldiers to compensate for their arcing fire - add stress, and it's messy.
If you fire at something 100m away, and you're 1 degree off due to stress, movement, suboptimal optic, anything - you're going to miss your point of aim by 1.8m.
I think that grenade launcher has nice potential. I see it as a modern version of the M-79 "Blooper". The magazine design means that it's capacity can vary due to magazines being able to be designed to hold various numbers of rounds with a different configuration of the magazine. Think of a current 30 round Glock magazine adapted to this platform. I like it.
Its important when you are, say, trying to plop the round through a window or into a foxhole. Even the propaganda piece china put out on their launcher was not particularly impressive. It was hitting 8 foot sheets of plywood at 100 meters and it was all over the place on that target.
Far from useless, but it wasn't exactly screaming precision. Precision would be putting the grenades through an 8" square at 100 meters repeatedly. That would be useful for plonking into foxholes and windows or specific weak spots on vehicles.
Against armour, there’s a fairly large target. Against infantry, lobbing a few frag rounds in their general direction may not need hurt anyone to prove effective?
Pleas note the question mark, yeah.
"Close" is famously could enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.
I was better on the grenade range than with rifle qualification. Certainly grenades are more fun.
The grenade launcher is crying out for a chainsaw bayonet, though.
Gardensnake wrote: I think that grenade launcher has nice potential. I see it as a modern version of the M-79 "Blooper". The magazine design means that it's capacity can vary due to magazines being able to be designed to hold various numbers of rounds with a different configuration of the magazine. Think of a current 30 round Glock magazine adapted to this platform. I like it.
William
Now I am imagining a 20+ lb stick mag of 30mm grenades
Given Ukraine is now using more and more remote driven ground platforms as a counter to drones...
But yes, what is going to be the cheap anti drone measure. Mounted on armour? Will tanks ripple off boxes of airburst grenades. Can you realistically use it with infantry?
And for the purposes of this forum - will members be getting sub 40mm grenade launching rifles, and what will the local range owner do in response?
The_Real_Chris wrote: And for the purposes of this forum - will members be getting sub 40mm grenade launching rifles, and what will the local range owner do in response?
The training rounds are pretty satisfying, and I could see enjoying pelting a junked car (or some other object) with orange chalk powder as an alternative to high explosive. Hitting a stack of water jugs with solid shot would also be entertaining.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Given Ukraine is now using more and more remote driven ground platforms as a counter to drones...
But yes, what is going to be the cheap anti drone measure. Mounted on armour? Will tanks ripple off boxes of airburst grenades. Can you realistically use it with infantry?
And for the purposes of this forum - will members be getting sub 40mm grenade launching rifles, and what will the local range owner do in response?
All of the above I expect.
Infantry squads will have one guy with an anti-drone support weapon of some kind. Airburst grenade/shotgun shells/etc...
Tanks will have active point defense turrets with airburst shells, maybe mini-radar with a few hundred meter range to detect incoming drones. Dedicated AA tanks which swap the main gun for a medium range autocannon with proximity shells. Basically, an M42 duster with proximity shells, a short range small target radar, and low overall profile.
We'll probably see dedicated point defense vehicles/drones. Imagine that DARPA mule but instead of carrying random gear you have one which has a small version of CIWS. Maybe a gatling shotgun firing 12 gauge proximity warheads.
Permenant military bases will have both mobile and fixed gun defenses. Short ranged flak and proximity shell firing small and medium caliber guns. All planes will need to be stored in protected hangers even deep behind the lines.
Is there any milage in trying to jam drones? Or is that, in the real world, too broad spectrum a technology, and you’d unavoidably end up jamming your own radio and WiFi communications too?
Jamming is absolutely a huge thing. Yes, it does jam your own communications depending on the spectrum being used. Jamming comes in both complete spectrum as well as specific spectrum. You can just jam everything, which of course jams everything including your own stuff. Or you can try and figure out which frequencies your opponent is using and jam those. Which leads to playing ring around the rosy with frequencies as everything changes to keep ahead of the enemy.
And then there is the option to go completely jam immune with fiber optic cable tethers. IE: the drone has a spool of cable that it drops as it flies out. Ukraine is now covered in the stuff if you look at recent photos. The disadvantage is that the cable has a limited range(though you can still get a few kilometers on even a small drone) and it can get physically severed.
Russia has been investing in electronic warfare for a very long time, both Russia and Ukraine went into the war with extensive battlefield doctrine and equipment to do this. One of the main reasons Ukraine was so successful in the first couple weeks of the war was because Russia was not actively using all their SPAA and EW equipment as they invaded while Ukraine was. So much of their high tech stuff got destroyed or captured on the road to Kiev.
Electronic Warfare equipment also has a weakness in that it is extremely noisy(in the electromagnetic spectrum), it has to be to do its job. So you pretty much know exactly where the EW equipment is and you can make weapons to take advantage of that. Anti-radiation missiles are designed to go after radar arrays and you can make similar things for EW stuff. EW jamming is, in its crudest description, basically using electronics to scream louder than whatever equipment your opponent is using, be that radios or drone controls, and your opponent is going to know where you are when you do that.
Sounds almost like a modern Enigma Mission. As in if you can somehow ascertain which range of frequencies the enemy’s drones operate within, without them knowing you know that? You’ve a significant advantage.
Well, kind of. Once you start jamming a frequency there is zero secrecy. They'll know you are jamming them and on what frequencies. Best you can do is wait to actually jam them when you think it will be most inconvenient. And when operating your own drones you'll want to keep which frequency they are running on a secret till the last moment.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, kind of. Once you start jamming a frequency there is zero secrecy. They'll know you are jamming them and on what frequencies. Best you can do is wait to actually jam them when you think it will be most inconvenient. And when operating your own drones you'll want to keep which frequency they are running on a secret till the last moment.
There is a possibility that they will be treated like chemical weapons - everyone has countermeasures, they're a pain to implement for both sides, and trying to counteract them doesn't gain an advantage commensurate with the effort.
In an actual peer-to-peer conflict, I expect space would be broomed out, which would dramatically change comms and ISR. There's a reason artillerists are having to go back to learning to use fire tables and not long ago there was talk of reactivating Project ELF and LORAN.
Everything old could be new again. Practice your map reading, young cadets, and get comfy with those iron sights!
I always expected that in any near-peer conflict going forward we will see aircraft and all precision munitions being far reduced in effectiveness. Both because there are a lot of counters AND that they are so expensive that you cannot make enough of them. They'll still be there, but more and more rare as the conflict drags on.
One more reason I hope the NFA goes away eventually. We need airburst munitions so us civies can have a counter to drone threats.
I would not be surprised if every military eventually readopts equivalent weapons to the towed medium caliber autocannon AA guns that were used in WW2 except everybody gives them simple proximity fused shells. Just reproduce the WW2 tech that we had. Super analog and mass produced.
Ukraine’s certainly has, except I think there is no real purpose to towed weapons like that any more. Pick ups with multiple MG mounts, Gepards, etc. although I’ve not heard that much about the gepards recently. They aren’t the flashiest things, so they might just be plugging away in the background with the limelight stolen by shinier things. Or they might have been droned like Russia’s S300 and S400’systems.
Meanwhile, there's a new trigger gizmo that makes something like full auto accessible to people who aren't willing to spend $20,000 on a firearm. Brandon Herrera likes it:
Just watched that the other day. Unfortunately it looks like the ATF says (and not says simultaneously somehow) that FRT's being legal only applies to plaintiffs of that particular case, and only to one particular brand of FRT.
They just arrested a guy at a gun range with one for having a "machine gun".
And for the purposes of this forum - will members be getting sub 40mm grenade launching rifles, and what will the local range owner do in response?
Since I own my range, any grenade launchers are welcome, as long as you replace any destroyed targeted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Well, kind of. Once you start jamming a frequency there is zero secrecy. They'll know you are jamming them and on what frequencies. Best you can do is wait to actually jam them when you think it will be most inconvenient. And when operating your own drones you'll want to keep which frequency they are running on a secret till the last moment.
Modern jammers are pretty good at detecting frequencies used, even for hopping transmitters. Broadband jamming and putting out a ton of power is not the way its done in most cases.
cuda1179 wrote: Just watched that the other day. Unfortunately it looks like the ATF says (and not says simultaneously somehow) that FRT's being legal only applies to plaintiffs of that particular case, and only to one particular brand of FRT.
They just arrested a guy at a gun range with one for having a "machine gun".
They've actually lost the FRT cases entirely. They are not considered machine guns. That case you are referring to is an interesting one though. The guy will more than likely win, but he was definitely being a dumb ass by putting an FRT into a rented gun.
The controlling case of the FRTs was ruled on and the ATF was directed to not appeal. But even if it was still ongoing, each new type of FRT is considered a different thing. Like, FRTs are not a legally defined term, so even if one type of FRT was ruled to be a machine gun it would have no bearing on another manufacturer who had an FRT with a different design.
Unfortunately, individual rogue ATF agents might still charge you for having an FRT even if they are legal. Just for the purpose of making you defend yourself in court because they're anti-freedom buttholes.
Grey Templar wrote: The controlling case of the FRTs was ruled on and the ATF was directed to not appeal. But even if it was still ongoing, each new type of FRT is considered a different thing. Like, FRTs are not a legally defined term, so even if one type of FRT was ruled to be a machine gun it would have no bearing on another manufacturer who had an FRT with a different design.
Unfortunately, individual rogue ATF agents might still charge you for having an FRT even if they are legal. Just for the purpose of making you defend yourself in court because they're anti-freedom buttholes.
A lot of stuff is up in the air at the moment and I'm going to wait until all the case law is sorted out and (hopefully) confirmed in statute. As long as a law is on the books, the opinion can be reversed. Michigan had an emergency powers act that was ruled unconstitutional, and while repealing it was looked on as just making the rubble bounce, it meant that as a practical matter, it was really most sincerely dead.
The thing about rapid fire is that it gets real expensive, real fast. A friend of mine owned an MG 34, which was super cool, and he loved showing it off, but going through the range and blasting through hundreds of dollars in ammo in seconds was not so cool. He ended up selling it.
Something in a pistol caliber seems the way to go. All the fun of the giggle switch, a natural limit via magazine size, and ammo at a fraction of the price.
Of course the best ammo is someone else's and to this day I regret passing up an opportunity to do a story on the Security Forces' summer training where I was promised ample hands-on training in return for a glowing report. I previously did a similar story on the firefighters, who 'rewarded' me by getting me utterly blitzed at the All Ranks Club.
An experience of regret only superseded by the night I got into a drinking contest with some Army colleagues.
Reporting for duty the next morning:
"Airman, you are seriously tore up."
"Yes, sergeant, but you should see the other guys!"
My dream would be for the NFA to go away and pick up an MG3. Its an MG42 that shoots affordable ammo
We can only hope. If the registry is wiped out, I wonder what would happen? On the face of it, prices should collapse since new weapons would now be transferrable, but on the other hand, without all the hoops and paperwork, a lot of new customers would enter the market.
My dream would be for the NFA to go away and pick up an MG3. Its an MG42 that shoots affordable ammo
We can only hope. If the registry is wiped out, I wonder what would happen? On the face of it, prices should collapse since new weapons would now be transferrable, but on the other hand, without all the hoops and paperwork, a lot of new customers would enter the market.
Certain weapons which are just rare and not produced anymore would still be valuable, but a lot of weapons would drop significantly. Though I expect most weapons currently on the registry would still have inflated values due to their rarity and being out of production. No more original MG42s or Stg44s are being made, so those will still be 6-7 figure guns I expect.
I don't think the influx of new demand would make the prices go up at all though for stuff which is still made/can be easily imitated. Manufacturers would increase production significantly and existing guns which are off limits would suddenly be sellable. A select-fire AR15 or AK would be basically the same cost you can get the semi-autos now. The manufacturers would just start making them select-fire. Plus, a robust industry around converting existing ones to select-fire.
This would also likely decrease prices for government contracts too since anything that does or does not get adopted can still be sold on the civilian market, and not just US mfgs either. Foreign companies would basically increase their potential customers by a thousand %.
The companies would also no longer need to have a separate(and very expensive) production line for the limited civilian sales. Maybe FN and Steyr wouldn't be insanely expensive guns anymore...
Grey Templar wrote: Certain weapons which are just rare and not produced anymore would still be valuable, but a lot of weapons would drop significantly. Though I expect most weapons currently on the registry would still have inflated values due to their rarity and being out of production. No more original MG42s or Stg44s are being made, so those will still be 6-7 figure guns I expect.
Looking at recent auctions, some of the most expensive guns are transferrable M-16s and MP5s, and that value would plummet.
So the premium would disappear, but with more accessibility, the rare market might go up.
On the other hand, there are probably a lot of guns that could be imported if the registry was opened up. It would certainly stir the pot.
My particular choice would be a GAU-5 because I'm a Zoomie and they are cool.
MP5s would definitely become very cheap since they are still manufactured. M-16s would also become a lot cheaper, but there would still be specific ones which would have collectors value.
I think the main reason transferrable M-16s are so valuable is because they are compatible with the plethora of AR15 parts. You don't have to worry about shooting the barrel out and ruining the weapon since you can just get a new upper.
Commissar von Toussaint, Getting back to that Brandon Herrara video: The FRT he was showing for the MP5, I wonder if that would work in my HK93? I know A LOT of MP5 stuff will cross over, and they are basically the same trigger group. Might be fun to have some rapid fire 5.56.
cuda1179 wrote: Commissar von Toussaint, Getting back to that Brandon Herrara video: The FRT he was showing for the MP5, I wonder if that would work in my HK93? I know A LOT of MP5 stuff will cross over, and they are basically the same trigger group. Might be fun to have some rapid fire 5.56.
I suspect that there will be lots of cross-compatibility, but it would probably be very specific. Colt 1911s have a lot of parts in common with Ballester-Molinas, but not all of them. Magazines and barrels swap out just fine, but the trigger assembly is quite different. The current shaky status of the NFA (and attendant regulations) is going disrupt the gun market in ways we haven't seen since John Browning came along.
One might equate it to the Wonder Nine revolution, but this is about more than just giggle switches. If SBRs fall away, we could see a return to stocked pistols. Select-fire stocked pistols.
What a world that would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Is not a proper gun like, but treated myself to a resin replica of The Colt from out off off of Supernatural.
My wife was a big fan of the show, which went on for far too long. I think we have the DVDs somewhere. I recall watching that bit, being called in to witness the lore, which was a hoot.
cuda1179 wrote: Commissar von Toussaint, Getting back to that Brandon Herrara video: The FRT he was showing for the MP5, I wonder if that would work in my HK93? I know A LOT of MP5 stuff will cross over, and they are basically the same trigger group. Might be fun to have some rapid fire 5.56.
Its possible. I believe that one is just a modification to the trigger group so if the HK93 accepts MP5 trigger groups I see reason it wouldn't.
I have a pic of the Mosin M44 Carbine that my brother restored and gifted to my nephew, but I don't have a photo hosting site that is dakkadakka friendly, and I refuse to pay for one.
Just Tony wrote: I have a pic of the Mosin M44 Carbine that my brother restored and gifted to my nephew, but I don't have a photo hosting site that is dakkadakka friendly, and I refuse to pay for one.
Just been rewatching the first season of The Walking Dead. Finale sees our survivors leg it from the CDC, which is about to self destruct. Rick and Shane, being the best trained with firearms clearing the way for the others.
By this point it’s establish the Dead are drawn to sudden noise, and for Artistic Reasons their guns are of course Extra Noisy here.
Which lead me to the following question. Real world shooters are of course somewhat quieter than their tv and movie representations. So, assuming that right now you’re in a similar zombie apocalypse? Which gun do you think has the best balance of accuracy and low noise?
I would add range and stopping power, but given its all about putting the Freedom Seed through the bonce of a rotting corpse, I feel neither is quite as relevant as accuracy and low noise.
And whilst I understand they’re actually not as useful as the screen might have us believe, assume No Silencers. For sake of balance.
I never watched The Walking Dead, but I understand that it followed the standard rules that zombies only die to headshots, which would mean that .22LR would work just fine, and one could plink away contentedly while causing very little noise.
Suppressed .22LR doesn't even require ear protection.
Hollywood loves shotguns and revolvers because they don't need blank firing adapters, so those are often the anti-zombie weapons of choice. No one is going to find a Ruger 10-22 with a banana clip and a can on the end visually impressive.
In the Walking Dead universe you are prepped for Zombies, but the bigger threat is other survivors, and you have to be ready for both. That's why I'd rule out 22LR, unless you're mission specific or it's an emergency truck gun.
Now don't get me wrong, being shot with 22LR would still suck, and likely be fatal with no medical attention, but I'd prefer to put someone down BEFORE they can return fire.
I'm also wanting a gun that is heavy enough to be used as a club should I need to use it as such and durable enough to not matter that I did just cave in a zombie skull. Preferably also with a bayonet lug.
Looking at my own collection, I'd go with my HK93. Roller delayed blowback action makes it reliable and maintenance free. Compact, yet strong. Easy to disassemble. Large capacity maga and pretty common ammo.
cuda1179 wrote: In the Walking Dead universe you are prepped for Zombies, but the bigger threat is other survivors, and you have to be ready for both. That's why I'd rule out 22LR, unless you're mission specific or it's an emergency truck gun.
Yes, that was why I never watched the show.
Put simply, zombies aren't a very interesting tactical puzzle, so one has to cook up weird human behavior and other plot contrivances to keep the story going. Human societies can be remarkably resilient, but all Hollywood writers know is the back-biting within the industry, so that's what they write.
Also they don't know much about how firearms and ballistics work.
I remember watching the remake of "Dawn of the Dead" where a guy hunkered down on the roof of a gun shop is using an absurdly overpowered rifle to plink zombies when he probably has enough .22LR downstairs to kill all of them and plenty of time to do it.
Now contrast that with "Aliens," which does a much better job of creating a plausible yet challenging scenario.
To be fair with Dawn of the Dead, if you watch the DVD extras you'll find Andy's video diary. In it he says he was out there for a better part of a day plinking away zombies, but just kinda gave up because more and more kept coming and replacing the ones he shot.
Classic TWD style zombies would be very low threat to the actual human world as far as diseases go and the show itself completely contradicts itself on how durable zombies are.
The show itself shows that you can still blow zombies to pieces. A zombie with a broken spine is paralyzed and can't walk anymore and they do eventually rot away to nothing. That alone means the military would have been able to handle the problem fairly well. The disaster at New York should never have happened if that was the case. A single .50 BMG round through a crowd of zombies, even if it gets zero headshots, will still rip a half dozen of them to pieces where they are no longer a threat due to immobility. The muscle damage caused by torso impacts from normal calibers would also render the zombies no threat. Can't walk if your entire torso is hanging limp from your waist and you will not be crawling that way either.
It would still be bad, but it would be a containable outbreak.
Demoderby with any armored vehicle and you could just splat them into the ground. You'd never be able to stop a vehicle with weight of bodies without the zombies destroying themselves at the same time.
.22LR is still over 100 db and (usually) supersonic. And it starts dropping past 50 yards making medium range headshots difficult to say the least.
I'd probably just use my AR as the primary. That said, something like a Ruger Mark IV makes a lot of sense as a secondary gun useful for killing small game as well as zombies.
Also, in a lot of this media the zombies skulls seem to become so weak almost any hit to the head will kill them. In TWD, a woman in her 50's buries her knife to the hilt in dozens of them with minimal effort. And in one of the video games a thrown DVD can pierce their skull. A slingshot or even hand pumped children's air rifle may be enough if there are only one or two zombies.
Slowroll wrote: .22LR is still over 100 db and (usually) supersonic. And it starts dropping past 50 yards making medium range headshots difficult to say the least.
I'd probably just use my AR as the primary. That said, something like a Ruger Mark IV makes a lot of sense as a secondary gun useful for killing small game as well as zombies.
Also, in a lot of this media the zombies skulls seem to become so weak almost any hit to the head will kill them. In TWD, a woman in her 50's buries her knife to the hilt in dozens of them with minimal effort. And in one of the video games a thrown DVD can pierce their skull. A slingshot or even hand pumped children's air rifle may be enough if there are only one or two zombies.
Since we're talking guns, I'll see your Ruger and raise you a Beretta Cheetah. That is one sweet-shooing firearm. Fits the hand well, zero recoil, and therefore crazy accurate. I'm liking Beretta's decision to refresh their pocket pistol line, including the pop-up barrel designs.
I'm a big fan of Berettas, but the M9 is...unfortunate. I hear the upgrades are much better, though. A friend has an A3 (IIRC) and I'll have to try it. I really, really wanted to like the M9. Maybe the A3 or A4 is the one for me.
If the ammo was more widely available, I would say that 5.7 would be the best for zombie headshots.
Extremely light shooting and accurate at short/medium ranges and a little more powerful than .22 for the purposes if you are just going for heatshots. Maybe specifically the Fiocchi frangible rounds.
Grey Templar wrote: If the ammo was more widely available, I would say that 5.7 would be the best for zombie headshots.
Extremely light shooting and accurate at short/medium ranges and a little more powerful than .22 for the purposes if you are just going for heatshots. Maybe specifically the Fiocchi frangible rounds.
Powerwise its probably plenty good. But it still has the biggest drawback of .22lr and that is its rimfire. Which means unreliable quality and ejection.
and the avg cost/round for .22 magnum is only slightly cheaper than some of the bulk 5.7 i have found sometimes...
The Cheetah as a larger than usual .380 seems like a nice gun, especially for certain demographics that find both a typical .380 and compact 9mm to have more recoil than they want. I didn't know there were .22LR versions, I think the new ones are all in .380.
22 magnum and 5.7 both largely solve that medium range issue, but you likely aren't taking those kind of shots with a pistol.
I have a Ruger Mk3 with an 8-inch slab side barrel. When I first got it my first two impression were: Man, this thing weighs a TON, and Wow, this thing is accurate as heck.
When it comes to peripherals like laser sights and that? What are the main differences between makes and models? Outside of specific compatibility with a given rifle or pistol.
The caliber/recoil they are rated at.How tough they are (can they stand being dropped, under water), how they attach, weight, where batteries get put in (do you have to take it off to put in a new battery). Plenty of other variables too.
Completely silly question: hypothetically, (in the US) if putting a forward grip on a pistol was unregulated would you ever really do it? I mean, I can see the appeal for something like an MP5 or a Mac11.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When it comes to peripherals like laser sights and that? What are the main differences between makes and models? Outside of specific compatibility with a given rifle or pistol.
LOL. Don't know; don't use them.
None of my handguns have "glass" on it. I've got some red dots on longer weapons and modest scopes for hunting weapons, but at pistol ranges I'm more of a "point-shoot" enthusiast. Much faster that way.
cuda1179 wrote: Completely silly question: hypothetically, (in the US) if putting a forward grip on a pistol was unregulated would you ever really do it? I mean, I can see the appeal for something like an MP5 or a Mac11.
If its actually a real pistol? No
If its an SMG/PDW analog, then Yes. Its basically a necessity on those things.
If and when that ever does occur I expect that MGs will also be unregulated or lightly regulated as well so it would be even more necessary.
Flinty wrote: To take a leaf out of MDG’s book, lasers or red dots? Discuss
There’s a difference?
Is there no end to my ignorance on this subject?
No. No there is not.
Lasers are like the ones you see in 80s films - they project a dot onto the target. Generally they're less cool in real life, and it's easy to lose track of the dot in bright light or over moderate distances.
A red dot sight uses a laser, but projects it onto a specially coated glass as part of a device mounted to the gun, so you're seeing a dot superimposed over whatever you're looking at. This is good because it let's you very quickly visually determine what your bullet will hit (provided you dialed it in correctly). The red dot sight generally doesn't have any magnification though, so it has the limits of the vision of the person using it.
You can also use lasers to designate targets and control fires, like a squad leader using his to designate targets for a SAW gunner. The ones we had you needed NVGs to see, so a bad guy didn't look down and see a red laser dot on his chest.
I’m guessing a red dot is also preferable when you don’t want the target knowing it’s in your sights.
In the Army we referred to "red dot" sights as Close Combat Optics, or CCO's. The idea was that with quick target acquisition in, say, an urban environment you'd need a rather easy sight to line up rather than the front/rear posts.
When I went through Ft. Benning in '93 DS Lewis showed us the most practical CCO ever made: he rotated the rear sight so that it was an even V in the sight frame, allowing you to saddle sight the stem of the front sight in seconds. It also worked off of your zero so it was already lined up.
Just Tony wrote: When I went through Ft. Benning in '93 DS Lewis showed us the most practical CCO ever made: he rotated the rear sight so that it was an even V in the sight frame, allowing you to saddle sight the stem of the front sight in seconds. It also worked off of your zero so it was already lined up.
On my final rifle qualification, it rained continuously, and I really wanted to pull the optics off and just use iron sights. In fact, I was more accurate, probably because that's what I trained on. (Yes, showing my age here.)
Red dots are the modern, high-tech equivalent of a reflector gun sight for Battle of Britain enthusiasts. In fact, there are military versions that basically use daylight rather than a power supply. I do own some optics, and they work, so I'm no Luddite, but for personal defense I prefer the old ways: snub-nosed revolver. When carry in uniform was authorized, I settled on a Walther PPQ, which when I retired, I traded for an Ishapore SMLE converted to .410. Instead of using the rifle sights (the rear one is pinned anyway), one can index just fine on the wings on the front sight.
There's something wonderfully off about having a bolt-action shotgun with a sword bayonet.
Flinty wrote: To take a leaf out of MDG’s book, lasers or red dots? Discuss
There’s a difference?
Is there no end to my ignorance on this subject?
No. No there is not.
Lasers are like the ones you see in 80s films - they project a dot onto the target. Generally they're less cool in real life, and it's easy to lose track of the dot in bright light or over moderate distances.
A red dot sight uses a laser, but projects it onto a specially coated glass as part of a device mounted to the gun, so you're seeing a dot superimposed over whatever you're looking at. This is good because it let's you very quickly visually determine what your bullet will hit (provided you dialed it in correctly). The red dot sight generally doesn't have any magnification though, so it has the limits of the vision of the person using it.
And to add more clarification, you have Red Dot sights and you have Holographic sights.
Red Dot Sights are the simple laser projected onto glass you mentioned. A holographic sight is a hologram.
The main difference between a holo and a red dot is that Holographic Sights account for parallax whole Red Dots do not. Basically, a Red Dot requires you to properly line up your eye ball with the laser in the red dot or it will not reflect the aiming point accurately. A Holo sight on the other hand will actually show you the correct point of aim even if your eye is misaligned with the sight. Like if your head is a few inches to the left or right it will still show a proper point of aim.
A number of years back I bought a "See-All open sight". It's basically the analog version of a holographic sight. No battery, no laser. It just uses glass optics so that no matter where your eye is the sight centers in the same place. It's like if iron sights and a holographic sight had a baby. Is it the best thing out there? No, not by a long shot. However, it was only $20, and doesn't mind being on a shotgun.
Single piece resin cast (obvs except the rounds), and overall I’m happy with. Interior of the box could do with some fake velvet type lining, but pretty sure I can sort that myself.
Mod edit - please do not attach non-wargaming images to your post, off-site hosting is perfectly fine.
My wife was an avid fan of the show, and we bought the DVDs, so I've heard the spiel about the Magic Colt, which is quite amusing. The cartridge conversion (hugely anachronistic) was probably a sop to Hollywood prop limitations as well as a dramatic device creating limited ammo supply.
Although one could do that with bullets cast with relics in them, but who wants to watch a character spend time loading each chamber with powder and then ramming the ball home?
Ahhh, to be honest? The limited ammo thing is solved within the show.
Bobby, the boys’ surrogate father figure ends up repairing the gun, and whilst not without a little demonic support, figures out how to make fresh ammo.
The writers were sensible enough to find a way to minimise its use though. Basically get it out of Winchester hands and disappear into the black market.
I know there was a tutorial on the internet a while back showing how to make a REAL, 100% functional, replica of the Colt from Supernatural. Apparently the prop itself was made using an off-the-shelf gun and conversion kit, which are still available. Other than that, it's some minor cosmetics and artificial weathering.
On the Colt thing, can etching deeply into casings lead to malfunctions? The explosion of the propellant willl tend to squish the casing to the inside of the chamber. Are there examples of bits of casing detaching and being left in the chamber or barrel by such things?
I wonder if it being a Revolver helped manage that risk? If it does foul its chamber, it’s no effecting the others?
And given its highly specialised nature (by design not intended for sustained firefights) I’d presume a decent cleaning regimen would see you arlright?
Flinty wrote: On the Colt thing, can etching deeply into casings lead to malfunctions? The explosion of the propellant willl tend to squish the casing to the inside of the chamber. Are there examples of bits of casing detaching and being left in the chamber or barrel by such things?
..
The casing in a revolver is fully supported and the rim adds even more structural strength. This is why autoloaders lag revolvers in absurdly powerful cartridges. And of course cartridge revolvers were an innovation on the cap-and-ball system.
In addition, black powder revolvers have very low chamber pressures compared to even mild smokeless powder loads. You look at the WW I vintage Webley revolvers, which are chunky and heavy, yet they can only handle 12,000 psi (they are engraved with "six tons"). Now compare that with the oft-derided .32 ACP, which is close to 20,000 psi. Lots of sources say that the Brits switched from .455 to .38/200 between the wars because the former was such a powerful cartridge. It's not. Especially in a lighter frame, .38 Special can have more felt recoil. (I've not shot a .38/200, but it's on my list).
All of which is to say, if one knows what one is doing, I don't think it would matter. Extraction could be an issue, but a ramrod would punch out the empties just fine. Even if it has some other method (like the Webley), that is the technique of last resort.
The rifle I ordered in August from the CMP finally showed up. It's an M1917 (that's a P14 chambered in 30-06) and the interwebs tell me that based on its serial number, it was built in May of 1918. That alone is pretty cool, but of course it came out of US Army stocks, so it may well have seen service.
And let us contemplate that it is 2025, the US Army is only now getting rid of the last of it's first world war surplus. Garands are running low, but supposedly a new batch of WW II Springfield 1903s are going to hit the market soon.
Just Tony wrote: My brother just sent me a pic of his newest purchase: an old Remington rolling block shotgun.
To clarify: apparently it's from the 1880's
Do they may downloaded ammo for those things? Did the pressures appreciably change?
I know there are two kinds of smokeless .45-70, one for antiques, one for modern, plus there are blackpowder shells out there.
There is some Fudd lore about early cartridge revolvers being incapable of firing modern ammunition, but it is way overblown. Designs like the Webley can use modern ammo because it was loaded to the same pressures. The same is true with .32 S&W (aka .32 Short), which is so mild as to make .25 auto feel snappy.
Getting back to the M1917, one nice aspect is that bolt-action 30-06 service rifles do not have the same ammo restrictions as the M1 Garand, allowing one access to cheaper ammo, albeit with the caveat that extra attention must be paid at the range if you bring out Garand. Sort of like shooting a Mauser Broomhandle and a Tokarev concurrently.
I suspect that even old shotguns would be fine with modern loads since shotshells have pretty low pressures. Double check of course, but that would be my instinct.
Grey Templar wrote: I suspect that even old shotguns would be fine with modern loads since shotshells have pretty low pressures. Double check of course, but that would be my instinct.
I generally agree with you, but even with shot shells, smokeless powder packs a lot more punch. Black powder has something of a hard limit on chamber pressure, and the only way one can get beyond that is tapering or obstructing the bore.
Even standard modern shells probably have much higher velocities (and therefore pressure) than one could achieve with black powder. I'm thinking back to Kentucky Ballistics loading modern ammo with black powder and how in smaller calibers, the cartridge never even cleared the barrel. One reason why modern .32 Short is reasonably safe in older pistols is that it was never uprated, just like .455 Webley.
Modern shotgun ammo has pretty good velocities, and of course the 3" shells might chamber but should never be used. Basically, check what pressure the black powder ammo used and try to find modern smokeless that has the same pressure. Just as a reminder, Webleys are proofed to 12,000 psi, and even a "mouse gun" cartridge like.32 ACP goes well beyond that.
I’m guessing that when there are still rounds in the magazine, the spring pushing the next round up triggers a switch, allowing the slide to pop back into the forward position?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m guessing there’s also an engineering wear and tear logic behind such a lock out.
Like how you never dry fire a bow. Not even if you’re a 14 year old spotty Herbert in the USA for the first time ever.
Usually, it involves the follower in the magazine catching the bolt as it travels forward(the follower is the plate in the magazine that is between the bullets and the spring) when it is at its highest(empty) position. Some guns also have a little catch that is also triggered by the follower and will continue to hold the bolt open while a new magazine is inserted. Some guns do not and the bolt will get released when you remove the magazine.
Pretty much all semi-auto handguns have this feature along with a push-button release so you can simply put a new magazine in and then hit a button to drop the slide and chamber a new round without having to fully rack the slide. AR15s, and all related weapons, have a bolt catch which locks the bolt on an empty magazine and holds it open till you push the release. AK magazines do hold the bolt open on an empty magazine(unless its one of the magazines which do not have this type of follower), but on most models there is no catch so when the magazine is dropped the bolt will move again unless you install an aftermarket part or have one of the models that has one by default.
Dry firing is definitely not as big a deal with guns as bows, but some guns do have more delicate internals, especially more antique ones like early 1900s automatic pistols. But this isn't related to bolt-hold mechanisms.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Movie Trope. Where a semi-automatic pistol’s slide locks in the rear position to signify you’re out of ammo.
Real thing?
Real thing but depends on the shooter?
Complete invention for cinematic storytelling reasons?
It depends. It's common for auto-loaders to lock open on empty, but not intrinsic to the design. Experienced (top notch) shooters, however, never let it happen. They know the round count and drop the empty and insert a new one so that it just keeps running. The late great Paul Harrell would always say "For demonstration purposes only" when he ran a gun dry because he would never do so in practice.
But it does look dramatic and someone cool to do all the clicky stuff, sort of like racking a shotgun or thumbing back the hammer on a double-action revolver.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Movie Trope. Where a semi-automatic pistol’s slide locks in the rear position to signify you’re out of ammo.
Real thing?
Real thing but depends on the shooter?
Complete invention for cinematic storytelling reasons?
It's a real thing......Kinda. There are some guns that do this, and some that don't. It's a design feature of the weapon. It's known as the last-round hold open. Is it a necessity? Technically no, but I prefer it and anyone that isn't designing a pistol with one really missed the boat.
Edit: there is also the chance that "official" magazines in a semi auto will enable a last-round hold open, but that some knock-off discount magazines (I'm looking at you Tapco) might not be fully compatible. I've also seen this with "clone weapons". Sometimes you can use one model's magazine in another weapon because they are based on the same design. My wife's Taurus 738 .380 auto will accept a magazine from a Diamondback (that I put a Kel-Tech mag extension for a 3rd pistol on) and this happens.
Someone with more knowledge of pistols will have to correct me, but I would say it's most if not all semi-autos do this, at least all those I've fired (Glock 17, Browning HP, C22)
cuda1179 wrote: Some cheaper pistols don't have a last round hold open. Anyone with a Hi Point want to chime in?
Yeah, HiPoints lock back. Our drills, though, were to NEVER just drop mag, insert, send slide forward, engage - no, apparently too many people have done something stupid and accidentally discharged doing it how it's meant to be done.
cuda1179 wrote: Some cheaper pistols don't have a last round hold open. Anyone with a Hi Point want to chime in?
Yeah, HiPoints lock back. Our drills, though, were to NEVER just drop mag, insert, send slide forward, engage - no, apparently too many people have done something stupid and accidentally discharged doing it how it's meant to be done.
cuda1179 wrote: Some cheaper pistols don't have a last round hold open. Anyone with a Hi Point want to chime in?
Yeah, HiPoints lock back. Our drills, though, were to NEVER just drop mag, insert, send slide forward, engage - no, apparently too many people have done something stupid and accidentally discharged doing it how it's meant to be done.
cuda1179 wrote: Some cheaper pistols don't have a last round hold open. Anyone with a Hi Point want to chime in?
Also common on older service pistols, some of which will not close unless the magazine is removed. Actually, I think the Walter P380 works that way, and it isn't old at all. It's a mixed bag with some these - they either close the moment the magazine is withdrawn, or have to be cycled.
The flagged plastic insert is especially useful for guns like this, though using an empty cartridge case will work in a pinch to "show empty."
cuda1179 wrote: Some cheaper pistols don't have a last round hold open. Anyone with a Hi Point want to chime in?
Yeah, HiPoints lock back. Our drills, though, were to NEVER just drop mag, insert, send slide forward, engage - no, apparently too many people have done something stupid and accidentally discharged doing it how it's meant to be done.
My daughter struggled with her Air Force rifle qualification - not so much the accuracy, but the manual of arms. It got her flustered, which spoiled her accuracy. So we went to range and I called out the commands for her (loading three rounds per magazine) until it felt familiar. It is a bit convoluted.
She did fine on the M9 (which the Guard still has). I never got a chance to do pistol qualification in either the Army or the Air Force.
I managed to get out and blast a bunch of pigeons (Animal, not flying targets). With how life has been going the last 10 years I feel lucky for that. Darned flying rats.
I don't hunt much at this point, except predators on the property, but a couple of weeks ago my son got a 175 pound buck in my back pasture. I had to go help him load it onto the utility vehicle so he could take it and process it. My help earned me some meat off of it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: My previous previous flat had a tiny, impractical balcony. Home to pigeons. The dirty, noisy hideous little sky rats.
Blast away, I say.
A bit macabre, but there is something hilarious when you aim for one pigeon, and another flies right in front of your barrel as you pull the trigger. I hit a bird about 10 feet in front of me with 3 inch 12 gauge birdshot. Feather-Explosion.
A bit macabre, but there is something hilarious when you aim for one pigeon, and another flies right in front of your barrel as you pull the trigger. I hit a bird about 10 feet in front of me with 3 inch 12 gauge birdshot. Feather-Explosion.
Decades ago I was out hunting for upland birds and one of the dogs was poorly trained, flushed everything in sight. I stopped to take a leak, and as I was walking to catch up with everyone, and almost stepped on a rabbit. We looked at each other for a moment, and the thought popped into my head that this critter was in fact "small game" just like the birds, so it was in-season and covered by my license. There followed the moment of tension when I tried to slowly unsling my shotgun without the critter knowing what I was doing, but it was not deceived and took off. I was able to snap off the safety and get a shot off as it dashed into the undergrowth and in fact it was a clean kill.
I was 13 at the time, so there was much back-slapping by our hunting party and it turned out that I'd bagged the only game we took that day, which my mother cooked with herbs and served with wild rice. Delicious!
The dog was sent to obedience school and did much better.
My nephew bagged a deer with his 1956 Mosin. This was the moment that he and my brother realized that it may be time to chase down some ball ammo. The round liquefied the heart and left a rather sizeable exit wound.
My daughter struggled with her Air Force rifle qualification - not so much the accuracy, but the manual of arms. It got her flustered, which spoiled her accuracy. So we went to range and I called out the commands for her (loading three rounds per magazine) until it felt familiar. It is a bit convoluted.
She did fine on the M9 (which the Guard still has). I never got a chance to do pistol qualification in either the Army or the Air Force.
It is different per service? From memory I was sure its platform based in the UK, though everyone has their own usage twists.
What used to be my local pub, going back 15 or so years ago used to get wild game supplied for its kitchen,
Tucking into a bit of rabbit, and having to spit out the shot is an experience. Sure, I can see some being squeamish about such things. But for me it’s a reminder of how we get meat on the table in the first place.
I could do without the pomp and ceremony nonsense of Toff Hunting in the UK (tweed suits, lack of chin, mindless braying and hooting). But I know full well where the Pheasant, Venison, Rabbit etc I enjoy on occasion came from.
And in the UK specifically (possibly other places too?), given we’ve long since wiped out their natural predators Deer do need to be culled.
Yeah, Deer and pigs are absolute menaces. Over here its not even that their predators have been wiped out, its that the deer are just way outbreeding in manicured suburbia thanks to the food abundance. Which leads to massive cycles of feast and famine every 5-6 years where the population explodes, then starves as they eat every green thing they can reach, die off to lower levels, the greenery recovers, and then it just repeats. Coyotes and mountain lions will go into the suburbs, but they can't keep up with the deer.
Pigs of course have no real predators other than humans.
My daughter struggled with her Air Force rifle qualification - not so much the accuracy, but the manual of arms. It got her flustered, which spoiled her accuracy. So we went to range and I called out the commands for her (loading three rounds per magazine) until it felt familiar. It is a bit convoluted.
She did fine on the M9 (which the Guard still has). I never got a chance to do pistol qualification in either the Army or the Air Force.
It is different per service? From memory I was sure its platform based in the UK, though everyone has their own usage twists.
The standards are different, but the issue with the M9 is that she's a medic, and they all train with the M9 as they may have to carry one for self-defense when rendering humanitarian assistance.
With my career field it's assumed I'll have a rifle. The Army likewise never trained me on the M9, for the same reason. Rifle and grenade, yes, but no pistol.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, Deer and pigs are absolute menaces. Over here its not even that their predators have been wiped out, its that the deer are just way outbreeding in manicured suburbia thanks to the food abundance. Which leads to massive cycles of feast and famine every 5-6 years where the population explodes, then starves as they eat every green thing they can reach, die off to lower levels, the greenery recovers, and then it just repeats. Coyotes and mountain lions will go into the suburbs, but they can't keep up with the deer.
Pigs of course have no real predators other than humans.
Piggies are also a human introduced invasive species.
Like US Crawfish in certain UK rivers. How we’ve not gone Seafood Boil on them, I don’t know. Crawfish are delicious, and invasive. It’s not a one season fix, but if we got organised and ate as many of the critters as we could? It would help, and overtime potentially sort them right out.
My daughter struggled with her Air Force rifle qualification - not so much the accuracy, but the manual of arms. It got her flustered, which spoiled her accuracy. So we went to range and I called out the commands for her (loading three rounds per magazine) until it felt familiar. It is a bit convoluted.
She did fine on the M9 (which the Guard still has). I never got a chance to do pistol qualification in either the Army or the Air Force.
It is different per service? From memory I was sure its platform based in the UK, though everyone has their own usage twists.
The standards are different, but the issue with the M9 is that she's a medic, and they all train with the M9 as they may have to carry one for self-defense when rendering humanitarian assistance.
With my career field it's assumed I'll have a rifle. The Army likewise never trained me on the M9, for the same reason. Rifle and grenade, yes, but no pistol.
All of our medics were trained on the M9 AND the M4/M16. Likewise when I went through 11B OSUT we were trained on EVERY weapon system utilized by the Infantry. I'm not sure how you got breezed past the 9. That sounds like a unit thing and not an Army thing.
But I can barely get above marksman with the M17. I have to blame the balance of the pistol - the front feels heavier to me which I think I overcorrect and tend to shoot high or maybe I'm pulling instead of being relaxed... I spent over 12 years running the M9 and never once had it fail to fire a round at the range. Flawless reliability, even after thousands of rounds. But after transitioning to the M17 for the last 3 years, I’ve had multiple misfires across multiple ranges—and not in harsh field conditions, just standard range use.
