I recently purchased an NPAP AK47, but I have some problems with it, namely canting. The rear sights hang right, and front sights have left. I have to twist the rifle sideways to aim it, and I'm afraid to shoot the thing because I doubt it'll be accurate. Here are some shots of it:
When I look down the inside of the receiver, the barrel is leaning slightly to the left. Should I return it or is this still a working rifle? It was supposedly "QC" checked with the online place I got it from.
I would take it to a gunsmith to have it checked out, if you're worried. He will be able to assess it much better than any of us will be able to just by looking at a few pictures.
I recently purchased an NPAP AK47, but I have some problems with it, namely canting. The rear sights hang right, and front sights have left. I have to twist the rifle sideways to aim it, and I'm afraid to shoot the thing because I doubt it'll be accurate. Here are some shots of it:
When I look down the inside of the receiver, the barrel is leaning slightly to the left. Should I return it or is this still a working rifle? It was supposedly "QC" checked with the online place I got it from.
Where'd you get it? From Atlantic? I'd bring it up with them if so. This happens when rifles aren't put together properly, not unknown with NPAP's and WASR's. I'd bring it up with whomever you received it from. Failing that, bring it to a qualified gunsmith and see what they can do for you.
Looking at it, it looks like the front trunnion was assembled incorrectly perhaps? The gas tube looks like it's got a ~5 degree or so angle on it trying to mate up with the front gas block. Check the action, I'd *definitely* make sure the gas piston is moving properly through that tube. I wouldn't fire it as is.
Yeah, when I charge it all the way back it seizes and I have to push the handle back forward manually -- but I attributed it to the rifle simply being tight. I'm inexperienced when it comes to rifles, I suppose. I've sent Atlantic an email earlier today and I'm waiting to hear back from them on this one.
I recently purchased an NPAP AK47, but I have some problems with it, namely canting. The rear sights hang right, and front sights have left. I have to twist the rifle sideways to aim it, and I'm afraid to shoot the thing because I doubt it'll be accurate. Here are some shots of it:
When I look down the inside of the receiver, the barrel is leaning slightly to the left. Should I return it or is this still a working rifle? It was supposedly "QC" checked with the online place I got it from.
You should return it for one without canted sights. Some models of AK have this issue out of the box - Century Arms are famous for it.
I recently purchased an NPAP AK47, but I have some problems with it, namely canting. The rear sights hang right, and front sights have left. I have to twist the rifle sideways to aim it, and I'm afraid to shoot the thing because I doubt it'll be accurate. Here are some shots of it:
When I look down the inside of the receiver, the barrel is leaning slightly to the left. Should I return it or is this still a working rifle? It was supposedly "QC" checked with the online place I got it from.
Definitely send it back. If the gas block is canted enough, it can actually cause the piston to bind inside the gas tube. The gas tube is actually pretty rough on the inside with little teeth to keep the piston centered, so too much side to side play will cause it to drag and wear on the gas tube.
Yeah, when I charge it all the way back it seizes and I have to push the handle back forward manually -- but I attributed it to the rifle simply being tight. I'm inexperienced when it comes to rifles, I suppose. I've sent Atlantic an email earlier today and I'm waiting to hear back from them on this one.
AKs arent known for being tight, which helps with their dependability actually.
Dont put a round through it until you get it checked by someone.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Just a random thought D, but if you got an AR15 in .22 and you wanted to diversify what you shoot would you be able to switch out uppers to accept 5.56?
Dreadclaw, as others have mentioned there are .22 LR conversion kits for AR15s that work great.
I've had one by Spike's Tactical and three by CMMG. The CMMG kits win by a MILE, and CMMG makes their own mags.
Good to hear, just picked up a CMMG kit (evolution) that came with three mags. I put it in one of my kids ARs (until he's able to fight the flinch) and it cycles well, but I havent had a chance to take it to the range. Way less expensive than a dedicated upper or an S&S MP 15.
1000-1200 for the kit and the pistol, plus the 200 tax stamp? Not bad for an SBR, all things considered. Hell of a lot cheaper than a vector, though admittedly not as cool.
Yeah...For a kit that after all is said and done costs about 1K to have, nice but nope.
Just get an AR pistol
Oh, and Sig Sauer is going to pursue the SB15 issue with the BATFE, should be interesting to see. Money is on ATF losing.....
What case would they have? The grip isn't illegal, so long as they can't prove you purchased it with the intent to create an SBR, so what does Sig have to argue?
Yeah...For a kit that after all is said and done costs about 1K to have, nice but nope.
Just get an AR pistol
Oh, and Sig Sauer is going to pursue the SB15 issue with the BATFE, should be interesting to see. Money is on ATF losing.....
What case would they have? The grip isn't illegal, so long as they can't prove you purchased it with the intent to create an SBR, so what does Sig have to argue?
ATF is arguing that using the SB15 as a shoulder stock instead of its designed purpose, magically transforms it to an SBR. Sig also has a suit against ATF because ATF designated a muzzle device Sig invented for reducing recoil and flash as a suppressor.
Here's a video on the SB15: View it from the 3:30 mark...
While I agree that the NFA is ridiculous (and silly, considering the intent), I'm still not sure that Sig has a case. Now, it's been a while since I read the letter, so I could have forgotten the exact wording, but it seems to me that they were writing the letter based around an argument on the initial intent of the modification. Essentially, they are stating that neither the addition of the brace nor the improper use of that brace are illegal, rather that the improper use indicates that the original modification was made with the express intent to create an SBR, which are illegal to own without the gak you need to file and giving them money. It's sorta hokey, probably because the NFA is asinine, but as far as I can tell, sig might just be screwed. Their only hope is to argue that the addition of the brace doesn't constitute a physical modification, which would be a bit of a hard sell, at least to me.
Stonebeard wrote: While I agree that the NFA is ridiculous (and silly, considering the intent), I'm still not sure that Sig has a case. Now, it's been a while since I read the letter, so I could have forgotten the exact wording, but it seems to me that they were writing the letter based around an argument on the initial intent of the modification. Essentially, they are stating that neither the addition of the brace nor the improper use of that brace are illegal, rather that the improper use indicates that the original modification was made with the express intent to create an SBR, which are illegal to own without the gak you need to file and giving them money. It's sorta hokey, probably because the NFA is asinine, but as far as I can tell, sig might just be screwed. Their only hope is to argue that the addition of the brace doesn't constitute a physical modification, which would be a bit of a hard sell, at least to me.
To clarify, though, I REALLY want Sig to win.
You may want to watch the video just posted. It does a good job of explaining the capricious nature of this new ruling
SiG should just come out with a tac-vest that has an AR stock attached to the shoulder for you to pull an AR pistol against. Just slip the buffer tube in and start shooting
Stonebeard wrote: While I agree that the NFA is ridiculous (and silly, considering the intent), I'm still not sure that Sig has a case. Now, it's been a while since I read the letter, so I could have forgotten the exact wording, but it seems to me that they were writing the letter based around an argument on the initial intent of the modification. Essentially, they are stating that neither the addition of the brace nor the improper use of that brace are illegal, rather that the improper use indicates that the original modification was made with the express intent to create an SBR, which are illegal to own without the gak you need to file and giving them money. It's sorta hokey, probably because the NFA is asinine, but as far as I can tell, sig might just be screwed. Their only hope is to argue that the addition of the brace doesn't constitute a physical modification, which would be a bit of a hard sell, at least to me.
To clarify, though, I REALLY want Sig to win.
You may want to watch the video just posted. It does a good job of explaining the capricious nature of this new ruling
I watched it, and I agree with the man that the ruling is silly, but I don't agree that the law was technically modified (I disagree with the way he interpreted the letter) and I don't really see a way of changing this without removing the NFA.
Going back to that pistol conversion previously; I don't see the point of pistol caliber carbines. It seems like all the drawbacks of both types of gun, without really providing any benefits of either.
Ouze wrote: Going back to that pistol conversion previously; I don't see the point of pistol caliber carbines. It seems like all the drawbacks of both types of gun, without really providing any benefits of either.
Easier to aim, more accurate and quicker followup shots, ammunition cost and decreased risk of putting a round through your problem and the house behind him, I would guess. That thing in .45 seems like it would be great for home defense, though not much use outside that unless you have a fully auto, in which case it would just be fun as hell.
Don't kick as much.
Same ammo-LOGISTICS PEOPLE!!!!
Some types of pistol carbines can use the same mag as a similar pistol (Beretta Storm can use Beretta 92 and Storm pistol mags for example).
Most importantly, when you're charging the Pepper Gang single handedly on horeseback with your Winchester lever action in one hand and Remington peacemaker in the other, you don't want to be mixing up ammo.
As the immortal bard once said: "fill your hands you sonofabich!"
Frazzled wrote: Without violating laws, and you had a bee in your bonnet, wouldn't a nice bullpup perform similarly, but more accurately?
I'll be honest these just scream tacticool mall ninja to me.
Which arm are you talking about? The conversion kit?
The sig AR pistol types with the "wrist supports." Was that not being discussed? (youtubes are blocked for me)
Actually, a couple of things were being discussed.
I find the Glock conversion kit more if a mall ninja tacticool thing, wasnt sure which you were referring to.
The AR as a pistol is pretty damn sweet. Less over penetration, decent capacity, easy to manipulate and works well logistically (provided you have other ARs). The bull pup is a great rifle, but way over priced in comparison to an AR pistol or assembling you own AR pistol.
I'll be honest. I'm not really an AR fan. They're fine, just way expensive for any use I can think of. Frazzled's eyesight means he needs good glass, well just to get out of bed (unless a wiener dog is barking). So I need heavy optics on anything other than a shotgun or beyond 25 yards. At that point I'd rather a .30-06 / .308 with glass I can see Pluto with.
I'll be honest. I'm not really an AR fan. They're fine, just way expensive for any use I can think of. Frazzled's eyesight means he needs good glass, well just to get out of bed (unless a wiener dog is barking). So I need heavy optics on anything other than a shotgun or beyond 25 yards. At that point I'd rather a .30-06 / .308 with glass I can see Pluto with.
Your mileage may differ and more power to you.
Ah.
Well then in your case, may I respectfully suggest you use a bat for home defense?
Seriously though, price of your basic AR is down to $499, whereas a Tavor is well over $1200.
Funny about the shotgun, not my first choice for HD.
Well then in your case, may I respectfully suggest you use a bat for home defense?
Son have you seen what a full auto wiener dog can do to a man? (shudders) Houston house: Wingmaster. So long I don't actually have to shoot. I can just poleaxe at them from the other side of the house. Or one of the pistols laying about. Austin house: lots of things, some of which could be considered...unnatural.
Seriously though, price of your basic AR is down to $499, whereas a Tavor is well over $1200.
What basic AR is that? S&W, Ruger, Fulton, are all over $1K but a bit. The closest I saw to that was a Bushmaster I think? This is not a criticism, this is a question.
Funny about the shotgun, not my first choice for HD.
See thats why wiener dogs will rule the universe. We go big bore.
Like I said if others want them cool by me. I've shot AR-15s, M-16s, and a couple of M4 civiie clone wannabees. They're fine, they just don't do anything for me. At my age, if I am going to get a rifle, its going to go click clack click clack between shots.
What basic AR is that? S&W, Ruger, Fulton, are all over $1K but a bit. The closest I saw to that was a Bushmaster I think? This is not a criticism, this is a question. .
Not endorsing any of those, just answering the question.
I too am uninterested in AR15s - I was sort of interested in a really short AR pistol with the SIG brace, and may again consider that when the legal question is answered, but the AR15 for some reason just really doesn't appeal to me. I like the AK.
I'll be honest. I'm not really an AR fan. They're fine, just way expensive for any use I can think of. Frazzled's eyesight means he needs good glass, well just to get out of bed (unless a wiener dog is barking). So I need heavy optics on anything other than a shotgun or beyond 25 yards. At that point I'd rather a .30-06 / .308 with glass I can see Pluto with.
Your mileage may differ and more power to you.
I hear you on the ought six, my favorite go to rifle.
good glass costs more then an AR though, in the states I know its cheaper, but even up here you can build a whole AR from parts for about 500 CAD $ ( or ever cheaper if you mill out a 80% lower) or buy a decent new AR for 600-700$CAD
I always felt like ARs were cheap rifles, but then again, maybe in the states there are cheaper mag fed semi autos. Up here I can get a AR cheaper then say a ruger or similar 5.56 semi auto, but thats more because things like AR's require special licenses, and you cannot hunt with them, so that drives the price down, while things that are functionally identical like rugers but didnt make the liberal "we wet our pants when we saw this gun, so no hunting with it." list drives the price wayyyyy up.
I can buy a tavor south of the border for about 1500 CAD< north of the border its 2700-3000 CAD... because tavors are non restricted up here, but AR's are still cheap because they are restricted and there isnt much of a market for them (think class 3 firearms or SBR, thats basically how we treat them)
I always feel like Im cheating with scopes though, so I have commited to only competing in iron sight competitions, saving the glass for hunting.
its hilarious, you can take antique pistols from the USA, that are worth a couple hundred bucks, and because they are antiques (IE not classified as firearms, despite being able to shoot) they dont even require the most basic licencse up here...
so they sell for thousands, if not tens of thousands (basically the equiv of pre ban drop in auto sears)
Ouze wrote: Going back to that pistol conversion previously; I don't see the point of pistol caliber carbines. It seems like all the drawbacks of both types of gun, without really providing any benefits of either.
- You have the ability to standardize your ammunition between your rifle and your handgun
- More accurate than a handgun while using a handgun caliber round
- Less likely to over penetrate than a rifle round
- Hollow points are easily obtained
- Larger magazine capacity than a handgun
- Longer sight radius than a handgun
There are many advantages to a pistol caliber rifle
Ouze wrote: Going back to that pistol conversion previously; I don't see the point of pistol caliber carbines. It seems like all the drawbacks of both types of gun, without really providing any benefits of either.
- You have the ability to standardize your ammunition between your rifle and your handgun
- More accurate than a handgun while using a handgun caliber round
- Less likely to over penetrate than a rifle round
- Hollow points are easily obtained
- Larger magazine capacity than a handgun
- Longer sight radius than a handgun
There are many advantages to a pistol caliber rifle
Pretty much what he said.
I know a lot of guys who are more comfortable shooting a rifle then a handgun. This gives them options.
Ouze wrote: Going back to that pistol conversion previously; I don't see the point of pistol caliber carbines. It seems like all the drawbacks of both types of gun, without really providing any benefits of either.
- You have the ability to standardize your ammunition between your rifle and your handgun
- More accurate than a handgun while using a handgun caliber round
- Less likely to over penetrate than a rifle round
- Hollow points are easily obtained
- Larger magazine capacity than a handgun
- Longer sight radius than a handgun
There are many advantages to a pistol caliber rifle
Well, there's frangible ammo in 223 which works really well. Then there is this:
Real World .223 Testing
.223 / 5.56 Penetration Tests vs.
.40 S&W and 12 ga. Slug
Overview The research on the penetration of .223 ammunition has been completed. In an effort to make research more meaningful, testing consisted of handgun and shotgun ammunition in the same testing medium. The final results were that the .223 demonstrated less penetration capability than the 12 gauge slug and the .40S&W [handgun round].
Testing Medium Type 250A Ordnance Gelatin was cast into blocks, 6"x6"x16". The process used is that which is recommended by Col. M. Fackler, Director of the US Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory. This is a 10% mixture, 1Kg of gelatin to 9000ml of H2O. This type of gelatin accurately simulates human body tissue in terms of bullet penetration.
A small piece of wall was constructed to duplicate the standard exterior walls found in [the Pacific Northwest] area. This piece of wall was sheeted with ½" wafer board, covered with a 2nd piece of ½" wafer board to simulate siding. This wall was built using a 2x4 frame and finished on the inside with ½" sheet rock. The interior [of the wall] was lined with fiberglass insulation.
Weapons Used CAR-15, cal .223 Rem./5.56x45mm with a 16" barrel.
Glock M22, cal .40S&W.
Remington 870, 12 ga.
Ammunition Used Federal .223 Remington, 55 grain HP.
Winchester .40S&W, 180 grain HP.
Federal 12 ga., 2 ¾", rifled slug.
Procedure All rounds were fired from a distance of 12 feet. After each round was fired, its penetration was recorded and bullet performance noted. After a bullet was fired into the [bare] gelatin, another bullet of the same type was fired through the section of wall and into the gelatin. This was done in order to determine its penetration potential in the event a stray round were to hit the wall of a building.
Results Caliber Testing medium Penetration Condition of bullet
.223 Rem. gelatin only 9.5" two pieces
.223 Rem. wall & gelatin 5.5" * fragmented
.40S&W gelatin only 13.5" mushroomed
.40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
.40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
.40S&W wall & gelatin 19.5" * slight deformation
12 ga. wall & gelatin 27.5" mushroomed
* these measurements do not include penetration of the 6" wall.
CCI Gold Dot.
Summary The 55 grain HP .223 has less penetration than any of the other ammunition tested. Based on the results of this testing, there appears to be no basis for concern regarding the over penetration of the .223 [HP] round. In fact, it seems even safer in this regard than .40 S&W handgun ammunition.
The hollow point cavity in the .40S&W round filled with material when shot through the wall. This caused [these bullets] to fail to expand when they entered the gelatin. As a result, they penetrated 8.5" farther than when shot directly into the gelatin.
When the .223 [HP] was shot through he wall it began to fragment and as a result penetrated the gelatin only 5.5".
Because the .223 [HP] begins to break up on impact, it has less potential for damage or injury than the 12 ga. in the event of a ricochet. The .223 [HP] is obviously safer in an urban environment than the 12 ga. with slugs or buckshot.
Additional testing conducted proved that the .223 would penetrate a car door or glass. The .223 rounds fired into windshields began to break up after entering the glass and did not retain much energy. In most cases these rounds split in two.
Interesting results. Did they conduct the same test using 5.56mm rounds too? I'm interested in seeing what the increased velocity over .223 has on the results.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Interesting results. Did they conduct the same test using 5.56mm rounds too? I'm interested in seeing what the increased velocity over .223 has on the results.
If anything the faster rounds should fragment more quickly. I think TBOT has tested M193 and showed less penetration than handgun or shotgun rounds.
=Dreadclaw69 504193 7544248 a808483c30fbb9dfd4427b3ca04834c3.jpg]Interesting results. Did they conduct the same test using 5.56mm rounds too? I'm interested in seeing what the increased velocity over .223 has on the results.
Anecdotal evidence from use of 556 is that the currently issued ammo has problems penetrating adobe/dirt/mud walls, as well as sheetrock.
But that's like using a hammer to put in a window: use the proper tool for the job.
So say a 556 pistol shooting frangible 223 rounds (which is what the data supports) would be preferable as a HD weapon as opposed to using the same pistol to shoot XM855 or even lead core XM193 556 rounds. For close in or urban areas where you dont want to over-penetrate or have fragments come back at you, frangible 223 is the way to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wait you're saying a 5.56 has less penetration than a 9mm? Am I reading that correctly?
Er what?
Well.
There is less mass in a 223/556 rifle bullet than say a pistol bullet. So the rifle bullet rips apart quicker as it enters soft tissue, whereas a 9MM bullet retains much of its mass as it enters tissue. SO, the rifle bullet disperses its energy in the target, more so than a 9MM. When 9MM ball was all the rage in the 80-90's, there were many instances where someone would be shot multiple times with 9MM and the rounds driving straight through and the person being able to function longer had the bullet expended its energy in the body. Of course the newer 9MM bullets offer better terminal results.
Now say you use XM855 with a steel core. The jacket disperses in soft tissue, but the steel core can continue unhampered until it hits a solid object or is deflected by bone. You could be shot in the arm and the core could travel along the arm and exit out your back or enter your armpit. But again, this is why you dont use steel core indoors.
This is why it is very important to know your target as well as whats behind your target.
Frangible 5.56 penetrates much less than common handgun rounds. Even the non-frangible stuff was deviating and breaking apart after hitting 4 interior walls. Reports of bullets vs. windows also suggest that pistol rounds penetrate much better (i.e., stay intact better).
See the post here for water penetration at the bottom of the thread:
Handgun rounds just tend to stay together better than rifle rounds, which accounts for better penetration. The faster the thing breaks apart, the faster it loses velocity and the less it penetrates. If we're talking about a steel helmet then obviously 5.56 does a better job at penetrating.
For a discussion of post-wall wounding potential, see here:
Even the relatively heavy 75 grain BTHP loses most of its mass in the first ~ 7" of tissue. The part of the bullet that actually penetrated 12" in that photo is probably 20 grains and would be unlikely to cause a serious injury in the event of overpenetration. Meanwhile, check out the recoverable mass of these handgun rounds:
That's on bare gelatin so you're more likely to get expansion...so best case scenario.
Sig Sauer p226 9mm - home defense, secondary pistol
Sig Sauer p238 .380 - personal carry
Kimber 1911 .45 - home defense, bad assery
Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm - In case they call up the militia (cheaper ammo than 308)
Sig Sauer 716 patrol .308 - Hunting, zombies, north korea
No Sig in .45?
The kimber was an impulse buy and was a little bit cheaper than the sig 1911's. So far I love it. Only about 200 rounds through it but it's a real nice pistol.
Frangible 5.56 penetrates much less than common handgun rounds. Even the non-frangible stuff was deviating and breaking apart after hitting 4 interior walls. Reports of bullets vs. windows also suggest that pistol rounds penetrate much better (i.e., stay intact better).
See the post here for water penetration at the bottom of the thread:
Handgun rounds just tend to stay together better than rifle rounds, which accounts for better penetration. The faster the thing breaks apart, the faster it loses velocity and the less it penetrates. If we're talking about a steel helmet then obviously 5.56 does a better job at penetrating.
For a discussion of post-wall wounding potential, see here:
Even the relatively heavy 75 grain BTHP loses most of its mass in the first ~ 7" of tissue. The part of the bullet that actually penetrated 12" in that photo is probably 20 grains and would be unlikely to cause a serious injury in the event of overpenetration. Meanwhile, check out the recoverable mass of these handgun rounds:
That's on bare gelatin so you're more likely to get expansion...so best case scenario.
So are we saying then that, in actuality a shotgun or pistol carbine are better for short range fun?
Sig Sauer p226 9mm - home defense, secondary pistol
Sig Sauer p238 .380 - personal carry
Kimber 1911 .45 - home defense, bad assery
Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm - In case they call up the militia (cheaper ammo than 308)
Sig Sauer 716 patrol .308 - Hunting, zombies, north korea
So what you're saying is, you really hate Sigs...
I really don't know how this happend . I guess at this point you can call me a sig fanboy. Pretty happy about it too - I didn't have to spend colt money and I feel I got colt quality with my rifles.
Frangible 5.56 penetrates much less than common handgun rounds. Even the non-frangible stuff was deviating and breaking apart after hitting 4 interior walls. Reports of bullets vs. windows also suggest that pistol rounds penetrate much better (i.e., stay intact better).
See the post here for water penetration at the bottom of the thread:
Handgun rounds just tend to stay together better than rifle rounds, which accounts for better penetration. The faster the thing breaks apart, the faster it loses velocity and the less it penetrates. If we're talking about a steel helmet then obviously 5.56 does a better job at penetrating.
For a discussion of post-wall wounding potential, see here:
Even the relatively heavy 75 grain BTHP loses most of its mass in the first ~ 7" of tissue. The part of the bullet that actually penetrated 12" in that photo is probably 20 grains and would be unlikely to cause a serious injury in the event of overpenetration. Meanwhile, check out the recoverable mass of these handgun rounds:
That's on bare gelatin so you're more likely to get expansion...so best case scenario.
So are we saying then that, in actuality a shotgun or pistol carbine are better for short range fun?
Quite the opposite actually - 5.56 rifles do more tissue damage at a lower risk of overpenetration. A pistol is about the worst thing you can use, having the highest risk for overpenetration and the weakest permanent cavity. Buckshot is OK in terms of terminal ballistics but the platforms are poor (slow followup shots, very low magazine capacity, typically pump action or less reliable semi autos) and it still overpenetrates. It also lacks precision. Slugs have the worst to offer in terms of overpenetration, and the permanent cavity actually isn't all that impressive considering the absurd recoil.
Rifles > shotguns > handguns for pretty much all purposes. The only factor real tradeoff you should contemplate is for concealment.
Huh, learn some thing new everyday. How's the 5.45 perform relative to the 5.56? Or 7.62x39? Been thinking about possibly picking up the ace once it's been on the market for a bit, but I'm not really sure what I want the thing chambered in.
Frangible 5.56 penetrates much less than common handgun rounds. Even the non-frangible stuff was deviating and breaking apart after hitting 4 interior walls. Reports of bullets vs. windows also suggest that pistol rounds penetrate much better (i.e., stay intact better).
See the post here for water penetration at the bottom of the thread:
Handgun rounds just tend to stay together better than rifle rounds, which accounts for better penetration. The faster the thing breaks apart, the faster it loses velocity and the less it penetrates. If we're talking about a steel helmet then obviously 5.56 does a better job at penetrating.
For a discussion of post-wall wounding potential, see here:
Even the relatively heavy 75 grain BTHP loses most of its mass in the first ~ 7" of tissue. The part of the bullet that actually penetrated 12" in that photo is probably 20 grains and would be unlikely to cause a serious injury in the event of overpenetration. Meanwhile, check out the recoverable mass of these handgun rounds:
That's on bare gelatin so you're more likely to get expansion...so best case scenario.
So are we saying then that, in actuality a shotgun or pistol carbine are better for short range fun?
Quite the opposite actually - 5.56 rifles do more tissue damage at a lower risk of overpenetration. A pistol is about the worst thing you can use, having the highest risk for overpenetration and the weakest permanent cavity. Buckshot is OK in terms of terminal ballistics but the platforms are poor (slow followup shots, very low magazine capacity, typically pump action or less reliable semi autos) and it still overpenetrates. It also lacks precision. Slugs have the worst to offer in terms of overpenetration, and the permanent cavity actually isn't all that impressive considering the absurd recoil.
Rifles > shotguns > handguns for pretty much all purposes. The only factor real tradeoff you should contemplate is for concealment.
sorry having difficulty opening things. So what is the permanent cavity of a 5.56 vs. 9mm?
Frangible 5.56 penetrates much less than common handgun rounds. Even the non-frangible stuff was deviating and breaking apart after hitting 4 interior walls. Reports of bullets vs. windows also suggest that pistol rounds penetrate much better (i.e., stay intact better).
See the post here for water penetration at the bottom of the thread:
Handgun rounds just tend to stay together better than rifle rounds, which accounts for better penetration. The faster the thing breaks apart, the faster it loses velocity and the less it penetrates. If we're talking about a steel helmet then obviously 5.56 does a better job at penetrating.
For a discussion of post-wall wounding potential, see here:
Even the relatively heavy 75 grain BTHP loses most of its mass in the first ~ 7" of tissue. The part of the bullet that actually penetrated 12" in that photo is probably 20 grains and would be unlikely to cause a serious injury in the event of overpenetration. Meanwhile, check out the recoverable mass of these handgun rounds:
That's on bare gelatin so you're more likely to get expansion...so best case scenario.
So are we saying then that, in actuality a shotgun or pistol carbine are better for short range fun?
Quite the opposite actually - 5.56 rifles do more tissue damage at a lower risk of overpenetration. A pistol is about the worst thing you can use, having the highest risk for overpenetration and the weakest permanent cavity. Buckshot is OK in terms of terminal ballistics but the platforms are poor (slow followup shots, very low magazine capacity, typically pump action or less reliable semi autos) and it still overpenetrates. It also lacks precision. Slugs have the worst to offer in terms of overpenetration, and the permanent cavity actually isn't all that impressive considering the absurd recoil.
Rifles > shotguns > handguns for pretty much all purposes. The only factor real tradeoff you should contemplate is for concealment.
sorry having difficulty opening things. So what is the permanent cavity of a 5.56 vs. 9mm?
9mm gets around .5" diameter in a best case scenario (best ammunition, expansion, etc)
M193 (which is pretty much the run of the mill 5.56) is producing a permanent wound cavity around 2.75" and this cavity is almost 6" long.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Decided to try appendix carry. It's actually pretty good! Holster is a Bladetech, mag pouch is a Blackhawk IWB. Light clips onto the mag pouch perfectly. Obviously my shirt covers this normally to cover it, but it hides very well with a light shirt.
Frangible 5.56 penetrates much less than common handgun rounds. Even the non-frangible stuff was deviating and breaking apart after hitting 4 interior walls. Reports of bullets vs. windows also suggest that pistol rounds penetrate much better (i.e., stay intact better).
See the post here for water penetration at the bottom of the thread:
Handgun rounds just tend to stay together better than rifle rounds, which accounts for better penetration. The faster the thing breaks apart, the faster it loses velocity and the less it penetrates. If we're talking about a steel helmet then obviously 5.56 does a better job at penetrating.
For a discussion of post-wall wounding potential, see here:
Even the relatively heavy 75 grain BTHP loses most of its mass in the first ~ 7" of tissue. The part of the bullet that actually penetrated 12" in that photo is probably 20 grains and would be unlikely to cause a serious injury in the event of overpenetration. Meanwhile, check out the recoverable mass of these handgun rounds:
That's on bare gelatin so you're more likely to get expansion...so best case scenario.
So are we saying then that, in actuality a shotgun or pistol carbine are better for short range fun?
Quite the opposite actually - 5.56 rifles do more tissue damage at a lower risk of overpenetration. A pistol is about the worst thing you can use, having the highest risk for overpenetration and the weakest permanent cavity. Buckshot is OK in terms of terminal ballistics but the platforms are poor (slow followup shots, very low magazine capacity, typically pump action or less reliable semi autos) and it still overpenetrates. It also lacks precision. Slugs have the worst to offer in terms of overpenetration, and the permanent cavity actually isn't all that impressive considering the absurd recoil.
Rifles > shotguns > handguns for pretty much all purposes. The only factor real tradeoff you should contemplate is for concealment.
sorry having difficulty opening things. So what is the permanent cavity of a 5.56 vs. 9mm?
9mm gets around .5" diameter in a best case scenario (best ammunition, expansion, etc)
M193 (which is pretty much the run of the mill 5.56) is producing a permanent wound cavity around 2.75" and this cavity is almost 6" long.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Decided to try appendix carry. It's actually pretty good! Holster is a Bladetech, mag pouch is a Blackhawk IWB. Light clips onto the mag pouch perfectly. Obviously my shirt covers this normally to cover it, but it hides very well with a light shirt.
Used to appendix carry a 1911, but bending forward was a pain, switched to strong side carrying it, but the weight by the end of the day was killing my hips. I now strong side carry a Glock 26. Conceals surprisingly well.
As to permanent wound cavity, the data correlates to a rifle round expending most of its energy in a soft target as opposed to a pistol driving its way through.
Frazzled wrote: Thanks for the info.
How do you like appendix carry to draw from? It seems pretty difficult.
No problem Frazz!
I actually find it's easier to draw from. Less possibility of your shirt getting in the way of things since you're trying to expose something in front of you rather than something behind you. I find that drawing from 4 or 5 o'clock stresses my shoulder a little bit whereas appendix it's right there.
I haven't timed it but I expect that I'd cut or better my strong side draw time. In a vehicle it's MUCH faster since you don't have to shift funny or unbuckle the seat belt.
If you can get past the fact that you're muzzling your cocknballs and your femoral artery, it's pretty good in terms of concealment and draw time.
To put it nicely, if you ND while drawing or holstering AIWB you're probably going to end up either dead, or a eunuch. If you ND strong side, a la Tex Grebner, as long as your training kicks in and you call your parents, your odds of you (and your manparts) surviving are much better. Note that it is still VERY possible to ND yourself right in the pelvis while working strong side and there are lots of important arteries in there that will guarantee you death in minutes even if inflicted on an operating table.
Frazzled wrote: Thanks for the info.
How do you like appendix carry to draw from? It seems pretty difficult.
No problem Frazz!
I actually find it's easier to draw from. Less possibility of your shirt getting in the way of things since you're trying to expose something in front of you rather than something behind you. I find that drawing from 4 or 5 o'clock stresses my shoulder a little bit whereas appendix it's right there.
I haven't timed it but I expect that I'd cut or better my strong side draw time. In a vehicle it's MUCH faster since you don't have to shift funny or unbuckle the seat belt.
If you can get past the fact that you're muzzling your cocknballs and your femoral artery, it's pretty good in terms of concealment and draw time.
To put it nicely, if you ND while drawing or holstering AIWB you're probably going to end up either dead, or a eunuch. If you ND strong side, a la Tex Grebner, as long as your training kicks in and you call your parents, your odds of you (and your manparts) surviving are much better. Note that it is still VERY possible to ND yourself right in the pelvis while working strong side and there are lots of important arteries in there that will guarantee you death in minutes even if inflicted on an operating table.
This is where muscle memory and training are important. Finger off trigger until you are ready to shoot, and pistol angled away from you as you draw and holster.
What I dont understand is holstering in the small of your back. The DUMBEST place to carry a weapon, especially if you fall backwards. You can do some serious damage to your back this way.
Just as important as trigger control, though, don't point your firearm at anything you don't want to shoot. You don't want to shoot yourself in the groin, so don't point it at your groin. Redundancy is the reason why there are multiple weapon safety rules. Any one will keep you safe 99.9% of the time, but for the other 0.1% you want to have a backup rather than a severed femoral artery.
DarkLink wrote: Just as important as trigger control, though, don't point your firearm at anything you don't want to shoot. You don't want to shoot yourself in the groin, so don't point it at your groin. Redundancy is the reason why there are multiple weapon safety rules. Any one will keep you safe 99.9% of the time, but for the other 0.1% you want to have a backup rather than a severed femoral artery.
Unfortunately appendix carry has you violating one rule every time you sit down, and half of the time while standing as well.
DarkLink wrote: Just as important as trigger control, though, don't point your firearm at anything you don't want to shoot. You don't want to shoot yourself in the groin, so don't point it at your groin. Redundancy is the reason why there are multiple weapon safety rules. Any one will keep you safe 99.9% of the time, but for the other 0.1% you want to have a backup rather than a severed femoral artery.
Unfortunately appendix carry has you violating one rule every time you sit down, and half of the time while standing as well.
This is why I really don't like the concept. Having a loaded gun pointed at a major artery just seems like a bad idea.
This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
Xenomancers wrote: This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
No holster AT ALL?
2 big reasons you should have a holster:
1. It covers your trigger, therefore it goes a LONG way to helping avoid negligent discharges.
2. It orients the gun the same way every time you carry. This helps you develop the muscle memory necessary for drawing quickly under stress. It is especially crucial for pocket carry as it means you're not fumbling around trying to grab your pistol because it shifted in your pocket. Fumbling can possibly mean a higher chance of actuating the trigger prematurely.
Xenomancers wrote: This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
Do you have a pocket holster (that sounds wrong doesn't it...)? He has a point, you need a trigger guard even if you have an active safety.
The one I like for little .380s is the holster that looks like a cellphone carrier. Thats awesome.
Xenomancers wrote: This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
No holster AT ALL?
2 big reasons you should have a holster:
1. It covers your trigger, therefore it goes a LONG way to helping avoid negligent discharges.
2. It orients the gun the same way every time you carry. This helps you develop the muscle memory necessary for drawing quickly under stress. It is especially crucial for pocket carry as it means you're not fumbling around trying to grab your pistol because it shifted in your pocket. Fumbling can possibly mean a higher chance of actuating the trigger prematurely.
Thanks for raising that concern.
I have an alarming number of first time customers buying pocket pistols who hadnt considered a holster for their pocket pistols, until we demonstrate how easy it is (despite some having a long double action type trigger) for a foreign object (coin, keys, rolled up currency etc) to actuate the trigger.
DarkLink wrote: Just as important as trigger control, though, don't point your firearm at anything you don't want to shoot. You don't want to shoot yourself in the groin, so don't point it at your groin. Redundancy is the reason why there are multiple weapon safety rules. Any one will keep you safe 99.9% of the time, but for the other 0.1% you want to have a backup rather than a severed femoral artery.
Unfortunately appendix carry has you violating one rule every time you sit down, and half of the time while standing as well.
This is why I really don't like the concept. Having a loaded gun pointed at a major artery just seems like a bad idea.
I've never been concerned by it. AIWB is a comfortable carry position, easy to conceal and easy and quick to draw from. A loaded holstered pistol isn't any more likely to go off because it's in front of my appendix instead of being against my hip or my lower back. If you're using a decent holster and you have the safety engaged you shouldn't be worried. My EDC is the only pistol I own with a thumb safety specifically so I have peace of mind carrying it. If you don't trust your holster and/or the safety then you shouldn't be carrying the pistol at all.
.22. Pistol - My grandpa's old gun, for fun
.22 rifle - Great-great Grandpas gun, passes down the family
20 guage Shotgun - Same as .22 rilfe, though older
m1 carbine - personal gun, part of my kit
sks - for fun
there is more, but they are with my father.
I strong side carry a 1911 at the 4 O'Clock position with the pistol canted forward when I'm carrying I admit I'm a bad gun nut and haven't gotten my CO carry permit yet. Mostly money concerns.
If your clean your clean, but you never know who posing as who on these Internet's and that is the issue.
You mean I might not be posting as me?
Dreadclaw69... is that really you?
"posing" not "posting", posing as in acting or pretending, to represent oneself falsely; pretend to be other than what one is: conmen posing as police officers.
"posing" not "posting", posing as in acting or pretending, to represent oneself falsely; pretend to be other than what one is: conmen posing as police officers.
OK class is over...
Unsubscribed.
Posting. Not posing. As in posting a comment on Dakka.
Someday I’ll move on from testing micro-compact .380 pocket pistols, but every once in a while a round comes along that just warrants taking another look. In this case, DoubleTap sent me some of their new 95 grain Controlled Expansion .380 ammo. What stands out to me is that Mike McNett (owner of DoubleTap) is the designer of this bullet, designed specifically to get the bullet to penetrate deeply from a .380. Yes, this bullet was designed specifically to meet the FBI penetration standards through gel (and, therefore, more likely to be effective against a human attacker). Well, heck, this I gotta test . . .
Backstory: I’ve tested a lot of .380 ammo, from a pocket pistol. Nearly all of it under-penetrates (i.e., won’t reach 12″ through gel, at least not consistently). I found one type of hollow point bullet that would fairly consistently reach that depth, the Hornady XTP, but just about all the others fell short. So if DoubleTap has a bullet specifically engineered to reach that far or further — and especially if it’ll do so from a pocket pistol — well, that’d be big news as far as I’m concerned.
First thing I can say about the DoubleTap round: recoil is stout and the velocity is fast. Considering I was using a 2.8″-barrel pocket pistol, the typical velocity of most defensive ammo on the market seems to be about 800 to 900 fps with a 90-grain bullet. Heavier bullets go slower; the 95-grain PMC Starfire was 788 fps, for example. The previous “recoil king” was the Winchester PDX1, which pushes a 95-grain bullet at 901 fps.
But the DoubleTap is a lot more powerful; it pushes that 95-grain bullet at an average of 1,034 feet per second … from a .380. That’s 225 ft/lbs of energy, far higher than the 144 ft/lbs we see from normal defensive loads from this gun (90 grains at 850 fps). These rounds have a lot of recoil and they hit quite hard.
How is this possible? Is this actually “+P” ammo? No, it isn’t. I contacted DoubleTap directly and was assured that this is standard-pressure, fully SAAMI-compliant. Now, I do know that some other companies deliberately load their defensive ammo a little softer specifically to reduce recoil. HPR says that they made that choice on purpose with their .380 XTP load (which delivers 90 grains at 800 fps, for about 128 ft/lbs from this gun). DoubleTap must be loading this to the absolute limit of the caliber. It’s a heavier bullet traveling over 200 fps faster than some other companies’ offerings, and it shows in the recoil.
It also shows in the penetration. These things were insane for a .380. In the bare gel, the shortest bullet travel was 13.50″, and the furthest was 18.50″. Two came in at 16.50″. And that’s for fully-expanded bullets. .380’s just don’t do this … it’s really hard to find a .380 expanded hollowpoint that’ll even reach 12″. But these were fully-expanded bullets (an average size the same diameter as a .45 ACP) that also penetrated an overall average of 15.90.” That’s rather incredible.
The results through denim weren’t as encouraging. I ended up with six bullets total; four failed to expand and the two that did expand shed their jackets. Not a good sign. However, looking at it in context, two things jumped out at me.
The bullets that did expand still penetrated to a good depth (14″+) even though they shed their jackets, and they still did more damage than an FMJ would have. And one of the bullets that failed to expand looks like it must have tumbled violently because the wound track through the gel was massive, far more destructive than a typical FMJ wound. The other three acted more like FMJs, a smallish wound track and penetration in the 21″ to 23″ range.
So it’s not an ideal performer. But maybe with a revision, it could be. And even as-is, it still is a damaging round.
The bare gel performance was the best I’ve ever seen from a .380 hollowpoint, scoring a comparatively huge 35.9 on the MacPherson Wound Trauma Indicator scale (the next-highest scoring .380 hollowpoint was 28.3. That’s a huge difference). And the denim bullets, while not performing well at all by conventional standards, were no worse than FMJs, and in half the cases were quite a bit better.
I would definitely prefer better and more consistent results from the denim test. I wonder if a Version 2.0 of these bullets could be developed, somehow fine-tuning them for better denim performance, because if so, these could be the “HST” that we’ve always wished for for the .380 pocket pistols.
I still don’t know how they got that much power out of a SAAMI-compliant .380 ACP round. I’m not a reloader, so I don’t have the experience to judge it. But DoubleTap’s president assured me that they were SAAMI-compliant so I guess that there’s some magic going on. Maybe an extremely fast-burning powder, but at this point I’m just guessing.
I can say that I don’t recall there being any powder spray on the gel blocks, as is typical with .380 ammo testing from the short-barrel gun, so maybe the powder is all being burned in the 2.8″ barrel. I don’t know how they do it, but I do know the results are the hardest-hitting .380 hollowpoint I’ve tested, which leads to great penetration in bare gel, but also leads to substantial recoil.
If you can handle the recoil, you might like these rounds a lot. If you want a softer-shooting round, there are several choices that are loaded softer. I think it would be interesting to try these rounds from a GLOCK 42, which is the softest-shooting .380 pocket pistol I’ve used. Maybe it would tame some of the wrath and fury of these DoubleTap Controlled Expansion 95-grain bullets.
Xenomancers wrote: This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
When I carry, pocket carry is my preferred method (usually 9mm or .380). I highly recommend you get a pocket holster. There are a multitude of benefits. Number one, as others have already mentioned, pocket carrying without one can be quite unsafe. You need the trigger to be completely covered. In addition, it allows for a much more consistent draw, and also helps conceal the outline if your gun prints. This allows you to pocket carry slightly bigger guns, as even if they print, if anyone notices (they won't), it just looks like you have a big phone or wallet in your pocket. With all the crap people carry in their pockets these days, having a pocket with a square-ish or rectangular outline isn't going to catch anybody's notice.
Xenomancers wrote: This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
No holster AT ALL?
2 big reasons you should have a holster:
1. It covers your trigger, therefore it goes a LONG way to helping avoid negligent discharges.
2. It orients the gun the same way every time you carry. This helps you develop the muscle memory necessary for drawing quickly under stress. It is especially crucial for pocket carry as it means you're not fumbling around trying to grab your pistol because it shifted in your pocket. Fumbling can possibly mean a higher chance of actuating the trigger prematurely.
Thanks for raising that concern.
I have an alarming number of first time customers buying pocket pistols who hadnt considered a holster for their pocket pistols, until we demonstrate how easy it is (despite some having a long double action type trigger) for a foreign object (coin, keys, rolled up currency etc) to actuate the trigger.
Mines a single action only and it has an active safety. Do you really think it's needed? I keep a round chambered but the hammer is down and the safety is on.
Xenomancers wrote: This is why I have a .380. It's small enough to not need a holster - just goes into my pocket or sits in my glove compartment. Usually I put it in my jacket - pretty comfortable and safe. If it's not enough dakka then you are probably better off just running anyways.
No holster AT ALL?
2 big reasons you should have a holster:
1. It covers your trigger, therefore it goes a LONG way to helping avoid negligent discharges.
2. It orients the gun the same way every time you carry. This helps you develop the muscle memory necessary for drawing quickly under stress. It is especially crucial for pocket carry as it means you're not fumbling around trying to grab your pistol because it shifted in your pocket. Fumbling can possibly mean a higher chance of actuating the trigger prematurely.
Thanks for raising that concern.
I have an alarming number of first time customers buying pocket pistols who hadnt considered a holster for their pocket pistols, until we demonstrate how easy it is (despite some having a long double action type trigger) for a foreign object (coin, keys, rolled up currency etc) to actuate the trigger.
Mines a single action only and it has an active safety. Do you really think it's needed? I keep a round chambered but the hammer is down and the safety is on.
Thats interesting. The downside if you now have two things you have to do before you can fire-release the safety and cock the hammer.
IMO you're fine pocket carrying with just a safety, as long as you're careful not to put anything else in that pocket.
My favorite carry setup is actually my Shield in the pocket, no holster at all, safety on. I can be standing in a crowded place with a full firing grip on the pistol, and nobody even notices. Talk about cutting down your draw time...
NuggzTheNinja wrote: IMO you're fine pocket carrying with just a safety, as long as you're careful not to put anything else in that pocket.
My favorite carry setup is actually my Shield in the pocket, no holster at all, safety on. I can be standing in a crowded place with a full firing grip on the pistol, and nobody even notices. Talk about cutting down your draw time...
When 1911 carrying often the safety would fully or partially disengage. With the more "copetition style" safeties commonly found on 1911s now I've heard this was a common problem.
When 1911 carrying often the safety would fully or partially disengage. With the more "copetition style" safeties commonly found on 1911s now I've heard this was a common problem.
The safety on a Shield is really tiny...I haven't found that it engages itself.
But compare this:
To another pocket pistol like this:
The safety on the 238 is definitely bigger...probably has a greater chance of turning off. The other issue is the trigger...hammer is always going to be less safe in a pocket than striker-fired. The force required to actuate a Glock or M&P trigger is actually pretty substantial compared to a single action pistol.
When 1911 carrying often the safety would fully or partially disengage. With the more "copetition style" safeties commonly found on 1911s now I've heard this was a common problem.
Not yet, it has a glossy finish on it and really doesn't want to move- I don't suspect it ever will. Though the sig p238 is just a sub compact 1911. My full size 1911 safety is really really easy to set off - it had ridges and move a lot easier. The 1911 grip safety is impossible to shoot without gripping the pistol though.
When 1911 carrying often the safety would fully or partially disengage. With the more "copetition style" safeties commonly found on 1911s now I've heard this was a common problem.
Not yet, it has a glossy finish on it and really doesn't want to move- I don't suspect it ever will. Though the sig p238 is just a sub compact 1911. My full size 1911 safety is really really easy to set off - it had ridges and move a lot easier. The 1911 grip safety is impossible to shoot without gripping the pistol though.
This is true. Thats why I wasn't that worried about it, when it occurred (plus it was holstered). Frankly the reason I liked the active safety was for when I unholstered it for normal non shooting reasons (end of night etc.). It was an added bit of security.
What drove me away from 1911 for carry was that I might forget to disengage the safety when under stress-especially as I was using a pistol without an active safety for competitions and never worried about the safety when practicing. I saw two experienced guys do that in my first club matches. After that I switched.
I never use the safety on my 1911 or any other handgun. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer to carry in condition 3: the way I see it, either it's not shootin' time, so no round needs to be chambered,or it's shooting time, in which case I have practiced racking the slide as part of the draw.
I don't always see eye to eye with the Israeli government, but I am in total agreement with them on their personal firearms methodology with regards to carrying and drawing.
Ouze wrote: I never use the safety on my 1911 or any other handgun. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer to carry in condition 3: the way I see it, either it's not shootin' time, so no round needs to be chambered,or it's shooting time, in which case I have practiced racking the slide as part of the draw.
I don't always see eye to eye with the Israeli government, but I am in total agreement with them on their personal firearms methodology with regards to carrying and drawing.
I can understand that. At the house all firerarms in "ready" (easy open safes etc.) are like that. My wife is like that too.
Ouze wrote: I never use the safety on my 1911 or any other handgun. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer to carry in condition 3: the way I see it, either it's not shootin' time, so no round needs to be chambered,or it's shooting time, in which case I have practiced racking the slide as part of the draw.
I don't always see eye to eye with the Israeli government, but I am in total agreement with them on their personal firearms methodology with regards to carrying and drawing.
I can see that - raking a slide isn't difficult but it does require two hands. Hopefully you'll have access to both hands in the case you need to draw your weapon.
I carry in such a way that all I have to do is pull the trigger. No cocking, racking or manual safeties for me. Draw and fire. Less steps, less complications, less chances for murphy to screw me over.
But to each their own. It all comes down to training and muscle memory in the end.
Alex C wrote: I carry in such a way that all I have to do is pull the trigger. No cocking, racking or manual safeties for me. Draw and fire. Less steps, less complications, less chances for murphy to screw me over.
But to each their own. It all comes down to training and muscle memory in the end.
This.
The "Israeli method" is a product of their specific situation - you carry a gun not because YOU are worried about being targeted, but because you want to be able to intervene in case there's a terrorist attacking people generally. Crime is exceptionally rare compared to terrorism. The potential for negligent discharges outweights the need to employ your gun immediately as you're unlikely to be the sole target of a terrorist.
In the US, you usually carry a gun because you're concerned about being targeted. Crime is far more common than terrorism, and you need to be able to employ your gun as quickly as possible against a bad guy who is targeting you specifically, and has all the tactical advantages he can muster.
Having been "trained in the Israeli method of carry" I can tell you that I NEVER use it in the US. A gun without a round in the chamber is orders of magnitude less useful than a gun with a round in the chamber, across the possible situations you might encounter and need to use it.
When 1911 carrying often the safety would fully or partially disengage. With the more "copetition style" safeties commonly found on 1911s now I've heard this was a common problem.
The safety on a Shield is really tiny...I haven't found that it engages itself.
But compare this:
To another pocket pistol like this:
The safety on the 238 is definitely bigger...probably has a greater chance of turning off. The other issue is the trigger...hammer is always going to be less safe in a pocket than striker-fired. The force required to actuate a Glock or M&P trigger is actually pretty substantial compared to a single action pistol.
not to mention the M&P has a built in trigger safety as well, so the trigger wont pull unless its a finger on it.
personally im in the on the hip camp, but thats mostly because I cant buy one of those sheilds as they are too small to be legal up here unfortunately
Also I can only carry in my home or on a range, so limited use there too lol.
Ouze wrote: I never use the safety on my 1911 or any other handgun. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference, but I prefer to carry in condition 3: the way I see it, either it's not shootin' time, so no round needs to be chambered,or it's shooting time, in which case I have practiced racking the slide as part of the draw.
I don't always see eye to eye with the Israeli government, but I am in total agreement with them on their personal firearms methodology with regards to carrying and drawing.
I can see that - raking a slide isn't difficult but it does require two hands. Hopefully you'll have access to both hands in the case you need to draw your weapon.
wait, so you dont do this drill?
IM def not as fast as this guy, first time I didn't even notice he racked it, but once you learn how to hook the sights on something, ESP if you wear jeans, its not hard to do it (though a bit slower then the vid OBS)
some of our courses go through stuff like that in the drill, carry a few ammo cans, sprint, then draw and rack off of hand or one hand, from the ground, ect.
But conversely it means fewer levels of protection from murphy causing either a negligent or accidental discharge. I've heard a couple stories from individuals with decades experience carrying suffering a brain fart at exactly the wrong time and having it happen. It's easy to train yourself to deactivate a safety when you draw, and the odds of something going wrong the one time in your whole life you really need it is very low. You have a lot more chances for something to go wrong on everyday carry if you only have a single point of failure.
I think there are benefits and drawbacks to any style.
You say that it works well for you, but have you ever actually had to use it? Until then, you won't really know if it works well.
One of the best ways to test it is drill variants on the 21 ft rule, and in force on force training. It's either that, or just wait until you actually do need to use it, and failing means death or grave bodily harm.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: You say that it works well for you, but have you ever actually had to use it? Until then, you won't really know if it works well.
Well, I haven't put one through my thigh or my foot when drawing or holstering... so yeah, it's working OK for me so far.
I'm not Billy the Kid, either in skill level or in likelihood of deadly force encounters. If there were a situation where the extra half-second would mean the difference between life and death, frankly, I'm probably going to die anyway.
DarkLink wrote: But conversely it means fewer levels of protection from murphy causing either a negligent or accidental discharge. I've heard a couple stories from individuals with decades experience carrying suffering a brain fart at exactly the wrong time and having it happen. It's easy to train yourself to deactivate a safety when you draw, and the odds of something going wrong the one time in your whole life you really need it is very low. You have a lot more chances for something to go wrong on everyday carry if you only have a single point of failure.
It may be easy to train yourself to deactivate a safety, but the first that thing happens in a stressful situation (which is life or death) is the loss of fine motor control, which would be manipulating anything on your firearms with your fingers. The instructor I have (probably one of the best in my state, highly recommended), travels the world most of the year doing personal security for celebrities and the such. He teaches (and pretty much requires) that you forget about using a safety and slide releases, as in the real situation you will never be able to work them.
Obviously if you are trained and experienced you could work things, but lets be honest of the people on DakkaDakka (and the internet in general), they are not highly trained nor experienced. And if they were, they probably wouldn't be talking about it on a forum.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: IMO you're fine pocket carrying with just a safety, as long as you're careful not to put anything else in that pocket.
My favorite carry setup is actually my Shield in the pocket, no holster at all, safety on. I can be standing in a crowded place with a full firing grip on the pistol, and nobody even notices. Talk about cutting down your draw time...
This is one of the big reasons why pocket carry is my preferred method. I always use a pocket holster though.
When 1911 carrying often the safety would fully or partially disengage. With the more "copetition style" safeties commonly found on 1911s now I've heard this was a common problem.
Ive had it happen with an ambi safety on a 1911. A change in holsters took care of that though.
Anyone been keeping up with the toys from shot show? No idea what to thunk of the B.O.B.B.. On one hand it's a neat idea, on the other it seems like a great way to lose close to a grand. Then again, there's something to be said for having a 3A plate between a bad guy and your nuts.
If y'all don't know what I'm on about, check out the V.S.O Guns channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't post the link myself, but it's a bitch doing it with a phone.
Stonebeard wrote: Anyone been keeping up with the toys from shot show? No idea what to thunk of the B.O.B.B.. On one hand it's a neat idea, on the other it seems like a great way to lose close to a grand. Then again, there's something to be said for having a 3A plate between a bad guy and your nuts.
If y'all don't know what I'm on about, check out the V.S.O Guns channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't post the link myself, but it's a bitch doing it with a phone.
Meh. Add more weight, give me something else that can get tangled up with the rest of the kit, and seems more like a gimmick than useful, PLUS cost me in the area of a grand...nah....
Stonebeard wrote: Anyone been keeping up with the toys from shot show? No idea what to thunk of the B.O.B.B.. On one hand it's a neat idea, on the other it seems like a great way to lose close to a grand. Then again, there's something to be said for having a 3A plate between a bad guy and your nuts.
If y'all don't know what I'm on about, check out the V.S.O Guns channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't post the link myself, but it's a bitch doing it with a phone.
Interesting idea - it's a Murse (i.e., Man Purse) that folds open to produce ballistic protection.
I like the concept, and it's something I've toyed about with doing to my work back pack (this is not my idea mind you - I've seen ballistic backpacks before). The idea being you buy an old level IIIa vest from Bulletproofme.com or somewhere, remove the back portion of it, then slip it into the laptop sleeve of your backpack. Instant IIIa protection if you need it and it protects your torso (turn it around front) rather than your stomach and hip.
The idea with the backpack isn't so much that you wear it, but that it's portable COVER that you can actually set down somewhere and shoot from. I work at a university (an engineering school actually...with some very interesting characters) and so the potential for school shootings is there. My old classroom was at the end of a hallway in the basement, and the only way out was a long hallway to a staircase to the first floor. Talk about a fatal funnel...in that situation, barricading the door and getting behind some portable cover would actually be a pretty slick move.
Stonebeard wrote: Anyone been keeping up with the toys from shot show? No idea what to thunk of the B.O.B.B.. On one hand it's a neat idea, on the other it seems like a great way to lose close to a grand. Then again, there's something to be said for having a 3A plate between a bad guy and your nuts.
If y'all don't know what I'm on about, check out the V.S.O Guns channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't post the link myself, but it's a bitch doing it with a phone.
Interesting idea - it's a Murse (i.e., Man Purse) that folds open to produce ballistic protection.
I like the concept, and it's something I've toyed about with doing to my work back pack (this is not my idea mind you - I've seen ballistic backpacks before). The idea being you buy an old level IIIa vest from Bulletproofme.com or somewhere, remove the back portion of it, then slip it into the laptop sleeve of your backpack. Instant IIIa protection if you need it and it protects your torso (turn it around front) rather than your stomach and hip.
The idea with the backpack isn't so much that you wear it, but that it's portable COVER that you can actually set down somewhere and shoot from. I work at a university (an engineering school actually...with some very interesting characters) and so the potential for school shootings is there. My old classroom was at the end of a hallway in the basement, and the only way out was a long hallway to a staircase to the first floor. Talk about a fatal funnel...in that situation, barricading the door and getting behind some portable cover would actually be a pretty slick move.
But will you really get a chance to pull the straps, get it into place etc in time with the BOBB? The backpack I can see working, but again, it seems a bit clumsy. But if you can make it work, Im all for freedom of choice
Stonebeard wrote: Anyone been keeping up with the toys from shot show? No idea what to thunk of the B.O.B.B.. On one hand it's a neat idea, on the other it seems like a great way to lose close to a grand. Then again, there's something to be said for having a 3A plate between a bad guy and your nuts.
If y'all don't know what I'm on about, check out the V.S.O Guns channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't post the link myself, but it's a bitch doing it with a phone.
Interesting idea - it's a Murse (i.e., Man Purse) that folds open to produce ballistic protection.
I like the concept, and it's something I've toyed about with doing to my work back pack (this is not my idea mind you - I've seen ballistic backpacks before). The idea being you buy an old level IIIa vest from Bulletproofme.com or somewhere, remove the back portion of it, then slip it into the laptop sleeve of your backpack. Instant IIIa protection if you need it and it protects your torso (turn it around front) rather than your stomach and hip.
The idea with the backpack isn't so much that you wear it, but that it's portable COVER that you can actually set down somewhere and shoot from. I work at a university (an engineering school actually...with some very interesting characters) and so the potential for school shootings is there. My old classroom was at the end of a hallway in the basement, and the only way out was a long hallway to a staircase to the first floor. Talk about a fatal funnel...in that situation, barricading the door and getting behind some portable cover would actually be a pretty slick move.
But will you really get a chance to pull the straps, get it into place etc in time with the BOBB? The backpack I can see working, but again, it seems a bit clumsy. But if you can make it work, Im all for freedom of choice
Probably not! That's my beef with the Murse. With the backpack, unless it was one of MY students doing the shooting, I'd probably hear shots down the hall or upstairs more likely, and have a good amount of time. If it was one of mine I'm probably F'ed since I don't carry on my person while teaching. Don't need to be printing while I'm writing on the board or lecturing.
Yeah, getting the time to get the system into place is one of my two big issues with the B.O.B.B., the other being the idea of my firearm being anywhere but affixed to my belt or in my hand; giving up control of a loaded weapon sounds like a good way to get yourself or someone else killed. In a situation that would require the use of a firearm, getting those plates into place sounds like wasted effort and time. Now, if you need to defend a fixed point like in a home invasion scenario, it could be a great idea, but I would think a standard plate carrier would be more effective.
Beyond just the B.O.B.B, though, there were quite a few fun toys that poped up. I, myself, have been salivating over the ACE for months now. At least where guns are concerned, I have to say that I fething love the Israelis.
Oh, and Kalashnikov USA announcing plans for a US factory. Pretty neat.
Stonebeard wrote: Anyone been keeping up with the toys from shot show? No idea what to thunk of the B.O.B.B.. On one hand it's a neat idea, on the other it seems like a great way to lose close to a grand. Then again, there's something to be said for having a 3A plate between a bad guy and your nuts.
If y'all don't know what I'm on about, check out the V.S.O Guns channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't post the link myself, but it's a bitch doing it with a phone.
Interesting idea - it's a Murse (i.e., Man Purse) that folds open to produce ballistic protection.
I like the concept, and it's something I've toyed about with doing to my work back pack (this is not my idea mind you - I've seen ballistic backpacks before). The idea being you buy an old level IIIa vest from Bulletproofme.com or somewhere, remove the back portion of it, then slip it into the laptop sleeve of your backpack. Instant IIIa protection if you need it and it protects your torso (turn it around front) rather than your stomach and hip.
The idea with the backpack isn't so much that you wear it, but that it's portable COVER that you can actually set down somewhere and shoot from. I work at a university (an engineering school actually...with some very interesting characters) and so the potential for school shootings is there. My old classroom was at the end of a hallway in the basement, and the only way out was a long hallway to a staircase to the first floor. Talk about a fatal funnel...in that situation, barricading the door and getting behind some portable cover would actually be a pretty slick move.
But will you really get a chance to pull the straps, get it into place etc in time with the BOBB? The backpack I can see working, but again, it seems a bit clumsy. But if you can make it work, Im all for freedom of choice
Probably not! That's my beef with the Murse. With the backpack, unless it was one of MY students doing the shooting, I'd probably hear shots down the hall or upstairs more likely, and have a good amount of time. If it was one of mine I'm probably F'ed since I don't carry on my person while teaching. Don't need to be printing while I'm writing on the board or lecturing.
IF your campus allows faculty carry, a sport coat is your friend
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stonebeard wrote: Yeah, getting the time to get the system into place is one of my two big issues with the B.O.B.B., the other being the idea of my firearm being anywhere but affixed to my belt or in my hand; giving up control of a loaded weapon sounds like a good way to get yourself or someone else killed. In a situation that would require the use of a firearm, getting those plates into place sounds like wasted effort and time. Now, if you need to defend a fixed point like in a home invasion scenario, it could be a great idea, but I would think a standard plate carrier would be more effective.
Beyond just the B.O.B.B, though, there were quite a few fun toys that poped up. I, myself, have been salivating over the ACE for months now. At least where guns are concerned, I have to say that I fething love the Israelis.
Oh, and Kalashnikov USA announcing plans for a US factory. Pretty neat.
The Galil!!
We've had some inquiries on shipping dates already, I myself cant wait.
We've had some inquiries on shipping dates already, I myself cant wait.
IWI quality, 5.56 compatible, modern ergos and AK reliability in a dead sexy package. What's not to love about it? I'm just hoping the 23 stays below $1500.
We've had some inquiries on shipping dates already, I myself cant wait.
IWI quality, 5.56 compatible, modern ergos and AK reliability in a dead sexy package. What's not to love about it? I'm just hoping the 23 stays below $1500.
I don't know if these complaints extend to the ACE, but guys who were issued Galils (mostly reservist tankers) used to complain about the safety (it's goofy...check it out closely) and the sights, which don't necessarily return to zero when you return the top cover. It also uses AK-style magazines which may be a little slower to reload than AR-style magazines.
We've had some inquiries on shipping dates already, I myself cant wait.
IWI quality, 5.56 compatible, modern ergos and AK reliability in a dead sexy package. What's not to love about it? I'm just hoping the 23 stays below $1500.
I don't know if these complaints extend to the ACE, but guys who were issued Galils (mostly reservist tankers) used to complain about the safety (it's goofy...check it out closely) and the sights, which don't necessarily return to zero when you return the top cover. It also uses AK-style magazines which may be a little slower to reload than AR-style magazines.
I can understand how the safety might be a bit wonky. Was there issue accidentally flipping it? I can imagine how you might do that if your thumb were to ride high. Sights, though.... isn't that just a general issue with a railed top cover? I mean they're always going to have some issue with that just because an AK style top cover isn't really fixed like the upper on an M4 (at least I don't think it is) so you're always going to have some variance if you stick a sight on that. I Imagine it would be find if you were running and RDS, but I would think the work around for a LR sight would be to mount it above the barrel.
Ace can run both, and does, depending on what it's chambered in. Accepts m14 style mags, AR-15 or 7.62x39. If I were going to pick one up I'd definitely shoot for the 5.56. Grandpap has an ungodly amount of rounds berried somewhere on the farm.
We've had some inquiries on shipping dates already, I myself cant wait.
IWI quality, 5.56 compatible, modern ergos and AK reliability in a dead sexy package. What's not to love about it? I'm just hoping the 23 stays below $1500.
I don't know if these complaints extend to the ACE, but guys who were issued Galils (mostly reservist tankers) used to complain about the safety (it's goofy...check it out closely) and the sights, which don't necessarily return to zero when you return the top cover. It also uses AK-style magazines which may be a little slower to reload than AR-style magazines.
I can understand how the safety might be a bit wonky. Was there issue accidentally flipping it? I can imagine how you might do that if your thumb were to ride high. Sights, though.... isn't that just a general issue with a railed top cover? I mean they're always going to have some issue with that just because an AK style top cover isn't really fixed like the upper on an M4 (at least I don't think it is) so you're always going to have some variance if you stick a sight on that. I Imagine it would be find if you were running and RDS, but I would think the work around for a LR sight would be to mount it above the barrel.
Ace can run both, and does, depending on what it's chambered in. Accepts m14 style mags, AR-15 or 7.62x39. If I were going to pick one up I'd definitely shoot for the 5.56. Grandpap has an ungodly amount of rounds berried somewhere on the farm.
Galil safety looks like this:
The reason for rezeroing the sights after opening the top cover has to do with where the sights (or in the ACE's case, a scope) would be located. That top cover doesn't reseat the same way every time, the argument goes. That might just be an army myth...would have to test it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The reason for rezeroing the sights after opening the top cover has to do with where the sights (or in the ACE's case, a scope) would be located. That top cover doesn't reseat the same way every time, the argument goes. That might just be an army myth...would have to test it.
Sounds like a pretty serious design flaw. I mean, I guess it's okay when you're out plinking, but in an actual defense scenario when are you going to get the chance to rezero? Personally, I'd like to know exactly where my bullets are going to land when gack gets crazy.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The reason for rezeroing the sights after opening the top cover has to do with where the sights (or in the ACE's case, a scope) would be located. That top cover doesn't reseat the same way every time, the argument goes. That might just be an army myth...would have to test it.
Sounds like a pretty serious design flaw. I mean, I guess it's okay when you're out plinking, but in an actual defense scenario when are you going to get the chance to rezero? Personally, I'd like to know exactly where my bullets are going to land when gack gets crazy.
That seems to be the criticism with them. Clean gun --> rezero and now it's dirty again. Again, this might just be a myth but it seems reasonable.
On the flip side, it's unlikely to be off by too much...probably still good enough for up to 100 meters or so. It's pretty much the only way to get an acceptable sight radius on an AK, so maybe they figured the return to zero issue causes fewer problems than just having crap sights like a normal AK. But there's probably a reason the IDF is (or has completed) phasing out the Galil.
The galil is nice, but the re zero is a real issue,
this is why I really like the CSA style rifles,
statnag compatable,
good safety, modern furniture, acessories ect
basically a milled AK with some different internals (looks a lot like an AK otherwise)
but the rear sight is on the top just over the mag well as opposed to on the reciever cover, so no re zero ing.
not that it matters in US, but up here, its also non restricted so we can hunt with it, despite it being functionally IDENTICAL to evil baby killers like AR-15s and a plethora of other semi auto mag fed 5.56 rifles.
Can't see the ACE having similar issues, considering the monolithic top rail; even if the top cover still has issues, which I'm not sure it does, fixing it would just be a matter shoving optic forward of the cover.
New safety doesn't look all that bad, to be honest.
Might be wonky if you have hands like watermelons, but I don't see that being an issue for any normal human being.
The AR15 safety is worlds better, and it's a 90 degree safety not 180 degrees like the ACE. In fact, most new designs use a 45 degree safety because it's that much easier to use.
I guess they expect you to use this safety (coupled with the one between your ears):
Maybe, though I would argue that, if you have issues with toggling that safety, you probably shouldn't be around firearms to begin with. Honestly, it's no more difficult minipulate than most rifle safeties.
The AR15 safety is worlds better, and it's a 90 degree safety not 180 degrees like the ACE. In fact, most new designs use a 45 degree safety because it's that much easier to use.
I guess they expect you to use this safety (coupled with the one between your ears):
yeah.... safeties that are on the dominant hand inside carry side like that, that are simple push/pull in a line actions tend to go from safe to unsafe without it being noticed, and its a lot harder to just touch it with your thumb to see if its on or not.
where as things like the AR, CSA's ect have a switch where circular motion is required to move the switch, so its a bit harder to pull off by accident, and a quick touch confirms its still on.
Id totally still buy a new GALIL if they werent classified as super dooper baby kllers up here, cant even get em for range only weapons. IWI makes some fine stuff just to taunt me sometimes I swear!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stonebeard wrote: Maybe, though I would argue that, if you have issues with toggling that safety, you probably shouldn't be around firearms to begin with. Honestly, it's no more difficult minipulate than most rifle safeties.
thats the thing, its not that its so hard to manipulate, its that its too easy for that type of safety action to get caught.
my first thought seeing that gun is `man that safety is gonna rub my nipple raw and disengage`:
Stonebeard wrote: Maybe, though I would argue that, if you have issues with toggling that safety, you probably shouldn't be around firearms to begin with. Honestly, it's no more difficult minipulate than most rifle safeties.
The question isn't whether or not you can operate it. It's about how fast / easily you can operate it. If "can I use it?" were a decent criterion, we'd still be using bolt action rifles.
Then my suggestion would be to either change how you grip the weapon or to not try to grind your rifle.
Edit: That was aimed at Easy.
@Nuggz,
I can't see the difference between the time required to disengaging that safety and the time required to disengage an AR style safety being anything more than negligible. Certainly not to such a degree that it would matter to the average consumer.
Stonebeard wrote: Then my suggestion would be to either change how you grip the weapon or to not try to grind your rifle.
Edit: That was aimed at Easy.
@Nuggz,
I can't see the difference between the time required to disengaging that safety and the time required to disengage an AR style safety being anything more than negligible. Certainly not to such a degree that it would matter to the average consumer.
Gotcha...it's tough to illustrate but most firearms instructors teach on-target-safety-off, off-target-safety-on so you're switching back and forth between safe and semi. Engaging that safety is relatively difficult as you'd need to push your thumb forward, hook it up, and pull it directly back 180 degrees. That's a lot more difficult than flipping it 90 degrees, and way more difficult than flipping it only 45 degrees.
The Galil safety (and the AR15 90 degree safety actually) don't allow you to engage the safety without shifting your grip. That's why most new firearms use a 45 degree safety.
SCAR safety:
AR15 safety:
Review of why the shorter the throw, the better the safety:
Stonebeard wrote: Then my suggestion would be to either change how you grip the weapon or to not try to grind your rifle.
Edit: That was aimed at Easy.
@Nuggz,
I can't see the difference between the time required to disengaging that safety and the time required to disengage an AR style safety being anything more than negligible. Certainly not to such a degree that it would matter to the average consumer.
I dont think you understand what I mean,
im not talking about it in my hands, in my hands that safety is fine, aside from being offering less tactile feedback as to what mode you are actually in.
when its on a sling, the whole idea is that you dont always need to be holding the rifle, so you let the rifle go. When you do this with a gun with that kind of safety, its much easier for it to catch and disengage. In addition to this, its not even flush with the main body of the rifle, so is more prone to snagging.
This is why a lot of rifles are designed with that in mind and put the safety on the right hand side.
This is why I say the safety on that galil isnt ideal, AR-15s are a bit better with the radial switch, but I find the CSA position to be ideal as its on the outside when you carry in addition to being more tactile in nature and less snag prone.
the CSA also allows you to operate the safety from a firing grip, (I can do this with the ar-15 too, but only because I installed an ambi selector on the right side) by simply using the right trigger finger to flick it back and forth.
with the galils style you have to kind of take your hand off to go back and forth.
dont get me wrong though, I like the galil for many reasons.
Nah, man, I got what you meant. It's what I was talking about when I mentioned grinding the gun. It's not an issue with me, and probably most civs, because I wouldn't be carrying the gun for long periods of time nor will most Americans, I would wager. That being said, if you want to run it with a sling, I could see how it might be an issue.
As far as minipulating the safety goes, I doubt I'd personally have to move my hand much to disengage it. Then again, I have obserdly long fingers, so I could probably push it with my thumb fairly easily.
To clarify, though, I'm only talking about the safety from the perspective of the civilians market, and with that in mind, I don't see the issue with the rifle. I'm an neither saying that the ACE safety is best nor am I saying that it is without any fault. All I am saying is that the ACE safety is not so bad as to be a particular hindrance for my purposes, and that I do not feel I would have issue switching it on or off.
@ Nuggz,
I was not aware that they taught that, thank you. Suppose it might come in handy at some point. Still, I don't see much issue, though that might be because my hands are shaped fairly oddly.
While it still has the firing selector we discussed, it also has a small, AK style selector on the right side of the weapon. Whether or not that's actually better, I have no clue (though it seems it would be), but it's there. I'm not sure if anyone actually gives a damn, but there it is. Just trying to correct any incorrect info I put out there.
I went to the fun store the other day. Ended up playing with some Sig Sauer pistols. I'd like to support them due to their commitment to US civilian gun owners and general willingness to flip the bird to the ATF. If they pursue legal action against the ATF for their ridiculous Sig Brace ruling, then I'm in for 2 pistols.
Currently the 2 I'm looking at are the P320 (for carry) and the P229 Elite Stainless as a dress pistol. The P320 is modular, with the trigger pack being the actual "firearm." The rest of the weapon is just parts, so you can buy one trigger pack (which is your 'pistol') then swap out for a compact or subcompact. Very cool!
The P229 looks hands down beautiful, and I don't have a "nickel plated sissy pistol" (a la Tommy Lee Jones in Fugitive) that I can wear with dressy clothing open carry.
easysauce wrote: The galil is nice, but the re zero is a real issue,
this is why I really like the CSA style rifles,
statnag compatable,
good safety, modern furniture, acessories ect
basically a milled AK with some different internals (looks a lot like an AK otherwise)
but the rear sight is on the top just over the mag well as opposed to on the reciever cover, so no re zero ing.
not that it matters in US, but up here, its also non restricted so we can hunt with it, despite it being functionally IDENTICAL to evil baby killers like AR-15s and a plethora of other semi auto mag fed 5.56 rifles.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I went to the fun store the other day. Ended up playing with some Sig Sauer pistols. I'd like to support them due to their commitment to US civilian gun owners and general willingness to flip the bird to the ATF. If they pursue legal action against the ATF for their ridiculous Sig Brace ruling, then I'm in for 2 pistols.
Currently the 2 I'm looking at are the P320 (for carry) and the P229 Elite Stainless as a dress pistol. The P320 is modular, with the trigger pack being the actual "firearm." The rest of the weapon is just parts, so you can buy one trigger pack (which is your 'pistol') then swap out for a compact or subcompact. Very cool!
The P229 looks hands down beautiful, and I don't have a "nickel plated sissy pistol" (a la Tommy Lee Jones in Fugitive) that I can wear with dressy clothing open carry.
Sig 320:
P229 Elite Stainless:
Never shot the 320 - but the p229 has got to be the nicest firearm I have ever had the privileged to shoot. It's a little fat to carry but if that doesn't bother you it will most likely end up being your favorite pistol and it's dang pretty too.
The AR15 safety is worlds better, and it's a 90 degree safety not 180 degrees like the ACE. In fact, most new designs use a 45 degree safety because it's that much easier to use.
I guess they expect you to use this safety (coupled with the one between your ears):
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
In defence of glocks, they are made in the U.S.. They're still ugly PoS with ergonomics like, wel... a brick, but they're American made ugly PoS with brick-nomics.
Do they actually have made in the USA on them? When I bought my first M&P they were stil aryan uber gunz.
I actually prefer their grip angle, but stainless when available is almost a deal breaker for me due to the climate. Else there's not a lot of dfference.
Frazzled wrote: Do they actually have made in the USA on them? When I bought my first M&P they were stil aryan uber gunz.
I actually prefer their grip angle, but stainless when available is almost a deal breaker for me due to the climate. Else there's not a lot of dfference.
They've made glocks here for a while now, but at some point in 2013 Glock stopped or at least diminished Austrian made glock import into the U.S. because the EPA threw a bitch fit over Glock's ferritic nitrocarburizing protocol. Long story short: if you buy a Gen4, it's probably made in the U.S.. As far as I understand, anyway. Could be entirely wrong: I'm not exactly a big glock guy, so I don't exactly keep up on them.
Frazzled wrote: Do they actually have made in the USA on them? When I bought my first M&P they were stil aryan uber gunz.
I actually prefer their grip angle, but stainless when available is almost a deal breaker for me due to the climate. Else there's not a lot of dfference.
yeah I love the M&P...
stainless steel slide is a god send, so much snow, and it gets cold so a hot gun tends to grab some condensation, which can then freeze!
the M&P's is my favorite hand gun though, just so ergonomic, accurate, never had any issues with it either.
Well I have a CZ.45 that I use for sport shooting and home defense. I have a tarus slim 9mm that i use for CCW and personal protection, and I have a remington 700 30.06 that I use for target shooting, and will use to pluck off looters during the next major riot where someone thinks that looting private residences will be okay.
Supertony51 wrote: Well I have a CZ.45 that I use for sport shooting and home defense. I have a tarus slim 9mm that i use for CCW and personal protection, and I have a remington 700 30.06 that I use for target shooting, and will use to pluck off looters during the next major riot where someone thinks that looting private residences will be okay.
Did you get the recall on that 700? They recalled a bunch over the triggers.
On the bright side, the guide rod acts as a standoff device so you don't click out of battery while you're pressing the barrel against the heads of innocent Serb women and children.
M&Ps are awesome. I have a 45c and Shield that I carry. Comfortable to shoot, comfortable to wear, reliable, accurate and look great for a "plastic fantastic".
It points more naturally and the grip is something you have to feel for yourself. Throw in the fiber optic front sight and winner winner!!
It's alright. I shot it a while back, and I'm not a huge XDM fan so I wouldn't buy it, but if I were, I would.
The XD Mod2 is a followup to the XD, not the XDm. I thought the XDm was too thick for EDC, so Im not a big fan of the XDm either. That said, the grips of the XD Mod2 are entirely different to the XD, making for a better feel IMHO. We sold out our first shipment of XD Mod2 in about 5 days.
It points more naturally and the grip is something you have to feel for yourself. Throw in the fiber optic front sight and winner winner!!
It's alright. I shot it a while back, and I'm not a huge XDM fan so I wouldn't buy it, but if I were, I would.
The XD Mod2 is a followup to the XD, not the XDm. I thought the XDm was too thick for EDC, so Im not a big fan of the XDm either. That said, the grips of the XD Mod2 are entirely different to the XD, making for a better feel IMHO. We sold out our first shipment of XD Mod2 in about 5 days.
Do they still have that god awful texturing on the back of the grip? I've had friends who bought the original and, from what I understand, it had a bad habit of rubbing you raw if you IWB carried.
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
I felt the same way until I shot it. Glocks are Fhuggleee. But their triggers are sweet. They are the Buttaface of the gun world.
It points more naturally and the grip is something you have to feel for yourself. Throw in the fiber optic front sight and winner winner!!
It's alright. I shot it a while back, and I'm not a huge XDM fan so I wouldn't buy it, but if I were, I would.
The XD Mod2 is a followup to the XD, not the XDm. I thought the XDm was too thick for EDC, so Im not a big fan of the XDm either. That said, the grips of the XD Mod2 are entirely different to the XD, making for a better feel IMHO. We sold out our first shipment of XD Mod2 in about 5 days.
Do they still have that god awful texturing on the back of the grip? I've had friends who bought the original and, from what I understand, it had a bad habit of rubbing you raw if you IWB carried.
EDIT: Not a bad looking grip. Good change.
Totally redone. You have to try it. It's an "a-ha" moment when you do.
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
I felt the same way until I shot it. Glocks are Fhuggleee. But their triggers are sweet. They are the Buttaface of the gun world.
lol... the looks I could forgive on glocks, but not the grip, and certainly not the double action first pull trigger!
but that just goes to show you why different models are needed, what works for you may not work for me.
the M&P did need some trigger work, but to be honest, outside of my shotguns, I have done trigger work on all mah boomsticks.
I looked at the springfeild XD's, M&P's, glocks when I was choosing a 45, the xd was a close 2nd, but the grip on the M&P just blew it away for me.
on top of that, parts for the M&P's seem to be more varied and readily available, though this might be a canadian issue.
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
I felt the same way until I shot it. Glocks are Fhuggleee. But their triggers are sweet. They are the Buttaface of the gun world.
lol... the looks I could forgive on glocks, but not the grip, and certainly not the double action first pull trigger!
Glocks are striker fired just like your M&P so every pull is exactly the same.
It's the same crappy snap-tasic trigger pull evvvvvery time. You can make a Glock trigger really good, but it takes some work.
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
I felt the same way until I shot it. Glocks are Fhuggleee. But their triggers are sweet. They are the Buttaface of the gun world.
lol... the looks I could forgive on glocks, but not the grip, and certainly not the double action first pull trigger!
but that just goes to show you why different models are needed, what works for you may not work for me.
the M&P did need some trigger work, but to be honest, outside of my shotguns, I have done trigger work on all mah boomsticks.
I looked at the springfeild XD's, M&P's, glocks when I was choosing a 45, the xd was a close 2nd, but the grip on the M&P just blew it away for me.
on top of that, parts for the M&P's seem to be more varied and readily available, though this might be a canadian issue.
Considering that the Glock's one inherent safety is the trigger safety, Im ok with that. Fast reset and easy followup shots make it a great carry gun.
When I first bought a Glock, I compared it to an M&P and an XD. I didnt care for the stock M&P trigger and the price of the XD was a lil more than what I wanted to spend at the time. Plus, it was a used tuned Glock with extra barrel PLUS the serial number had my initials and football jersey number in it, so I HAD to
Its a model 26 gen3 with over 1500 rounds through it (3 full 500 round boxes of spent brass help guess the round count).
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
I felt the same way until I shot it. Glocks are Fhuggleee. But their triggers are sweet. They are the Buttaface of the gun world.
lol... the looks I could forgive on glocks, but not the grip, and certainly not the double action first pull trigger!
Glocks are striker fired just like your M&P so every pull is exactly the same.
It's the same crappy snap-tasic trigger pull evvvvvery time. You can make a Glock trigger really good, but it takes some work.
I feel the reset in my Glock pretty well actually, and the pulls are shorter on follow ups.
Vic, if you haven't tried it, check out Ghost's Rocket connector. The reset is mouse-click short if you fit it correctly. While I'm not a huge fan of DA/SA due to the long DA pull, it gives you a similar margin of safety vs. performance. Your first pull will be relatively long, while subsequent shots will require VERY short pulls despite no overall change in pull weight.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Vic, if you haven't tried it, check out Ghost's Rocket connector. The reset is mouse-click short if you fit it correctly. While I'm not a huge fan of DA/SA due to the long DA pull, it gives you a similar margin of safety vs. performance. Your first pull will be relatively long, while subsequent shots will require VERY short pulls despite no overall change in pull weight.
Speaking of Shields, just ordered a set of these for mine...
Talon Grips.
Right now I've got a Pachmeyer slip-on just to play around with it, and the rubber feels great compared with the slick factory texture. Only issue is that they slide around a lot...Talon Grips will be much thinner and far more stationary.
Frazzled wrote: You should try the grips on the M&P Pro. They are what M&P grips SHOULD be like.
I've heard really good things about Talon grips.
You mean the CORE? The Pro grips aren't really any different from the regular M&P grips as far as I can tell.
Really a big fan of M&P pistols...I'd trade my Glocks straight up any day of the week for their equivalent M&Ps. My only grips is that they don't make a Compact sized pistol the size of a G19. It goes from full directly to subcompact, in 9mm anyway. Well...maybe I'd keep the G26 because it's the smallest doublestack Sub out there AFAIK, but the G19 would be long gone.
Frazzled wrote: You should try the grips on the M&P Pro. They are what M&P grips SHOULD be like.
I've heard really good things about Talon grips.
You mean the CORE? The Pro grips aren't really any different from the regular M&P grips as far as I can tell.
Really a big fan of M&P pistols...I'd trade my Glocks straight up any day of the week for their equivalent M&Ps. My only grips is that they don't make a Compact sized pistol the size of a G19. It goes from full directly to subcompact, in 9mm anyway. Well...maybe I'd keep the G26 because it's the smallest doublestack Sub out there AFAIK, but the G19 would be long gone.
The M&P 45c is almost exactly the same size as a G19. I have both.
Frazzled wrote: You should try the grips on the M&P Pro. They are what M&P grips SHOULD be like.
I've heard really good things about Talon grips.
You mean the CORE? The Pro grips aren't really any different from the regular M&P grips as far as I can tell.
Really a big fan of M&P pistols...I'd trade my Glocks straight up any day of the week for their equivalent M&Ps. My only grips is that they don't make a Compact sized pistol the size of a G19. It goes from full directly to subcompact, in 9mm anyway. Well...maybe I'd keep the G26 because it's the smallest doublestack Sub out there AFAIK, but the G19 would be long gone.
The M&P 45c is almost exactly the same size as a G19. I have both.
But the 9c isn't: it's nearly an inch shorter and holds fewer rounds.
EDIT: Can someone tell me why the 45c and the 9c have different dimensions? Was it just that they couldn't get enough velocity out of a 3.5in barrel?
Really a big fan of M&P pistols...I'd trade my Glocks straight up any day of the week for their equivalent M&Ps. My only grips is that they don't make a Compact sized pistol the size of a G19.
Didn't realize it was a different person, lol. Sorry, too much on the brain today.
Anyway...
The M&P 45c is a compact the size of a G19, for anyone interested.
You guys are yakking about your plastic and I'm just over here with my CZ-75, Jericho, 1911 and wheel guns going "And? I can shoot you OR beat you to death"
Alex C wrote: I know the 9c isn't, but you said there wasn't an M&P about the size of a G19 and I wasn't sure if you were familiar with the 45c.
Not sure why they're different, but I'm glad. The 45c is the best polymer striker pistol I've ever fired.
because the "c" in M&Pc means "concealable." Thats what it meant for. A G19 is a full sized pistol.
So why does the Smith & Wesson website refer to it as "compact" multiple times (product info, spec sheets and manuals), rather than "concealable"?
Also, I've never seen the G19 referred to as full-sized. It is considered compact (as per their website and print materials), as opposed to the full-sized G17 and sub-compact G26.
Sorry, I meant compact - its for concealment. a G19 has a 5in height. Thats not a concealment pistol. Thats a full size pistol. They may say its compact but they can stick that up der yumpas. Even my old .45 1911 ultra carry had a shorter grip.
The M&Pc fits with the compact category. generally heights are between 4 - 4.5in. At 4.3in its actually shorter than the Shield. Both it and the Walther PPS are in this height category. man me likey some Walter PPS.
G26 isn't a subcompact. an LCP now THATS a subcompact I'd put the G26 the same as an M&Pc and the XDm version. Maybe an Ruger SR9c as well.
easysauce wrote: yeah... Id take the sig over a glock any day of the week.
Love me some polymers, but glocks always feel like this to me
I have nothing against Glocks. Glock fanbois are a different story.
My preference of M&P vs. Glock:
*Stainless barrel and parts.
*Made in USA.
thats it. Nearly everything else is modifiable for either of them. If I had to carry it as a duty piece without modification at the same price point I'd get an XDM.
I felt the same way until I shot it. Glocks are Fhuggleee. But their triggers are sweet. They are the Buttaface of the gun world.
lol... the looks I could forgive on glocks, but not the grip, and certainly not the double action first pull trigger!
Glocks are striker fired just like your M&P so every pull is exactly the same.
It's the same crappy snap-tasic trigger pull evvvvvery time. You can make a Glock trigger really good, but it takes some work.
not quite, while it is true that both are striker fired,
pulling the triger on the glock will both pull back, and release the striker, making it technically DA(though there is much internetz arguing over this)
but what is not argued about is that this results in a harder, longer first pull with a "break" that generally jumps right out at you.
I hate it, some love it, as you say its pretty much its only safety.
there is a safety on my M&P, and it generally isnt used.
i find a good holster that covers the trigger completely is better/faster, but this is for competition shooting, not EDC for me
Frazzled wrote: Sorry, I meant compact - its for concealment.
a G19 has a 5in height. Thats not a concealment pistol. Thats a full size pistol. They may say its compact but they can stick that up der yumpas.
Even my old .45 1911 ultra carry had a shorter grip.
The M&Pc fits with the compact category. generally heights are between 4 - 4.5in. At 4.3in its actually shorter than the Shield. Both it and the Walther PPS are in this height category. man me likey some Walter PPS.
G26 isn't a subcompact. an LCP now THATS a subcompact I'd put the G26 the same as an M&Pc and the XDm version. Maybe an Ruger SR9c as well.
The G19 is classified by Glock as a compact. The only functional difference between the two, besides the 45c not being a brick and the caliber, is that the glock is a tenth of an inch taller in heighth and two tenths shorter in length.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You guys are yakking about your plastic and I'm just over here with my CZ-75, Jericho, 1911 and wheel guns going "And? I can shoot you OR beat you to death"
dont worry, I always keep a pearl handled 1911 close in case easysauce needs to pistol whip a mofo
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You guys are yakking about your plastic and I'm just over here with my CZ-75, Jericho, 1911 and wheel guns going "And? I can shoot you OR beat you to death"
Bah, for a cudgel/firearm, I use my Ruger "Old" Vaquero 45 Colt stainless steel revolver - 3lbs of dead weight justice
Alex C wrote: I got a Webley Mk. VI for pistol whipping.
Or pistol stabbing if I had the bayonet...
lol... worst purchase I ever made for a pistol was the pistol bayonet....
During bayonet drills, one of the black beret instructors (pre 2001) asked us how to clear a bayonet. Someone blurted out "shoot him off" to which our instructor said in no uncertain terms, "if you have a bullet left in a rifle that you are using to thrust a bayonet, you have a serious case of retardation". Of course, some colorful expletives were used too - but you get the idea.
I have a Yugo M-70 NPAP, HK-45, Ruger Security Six, Springfield M1A Scout and a Mosin Nagant 1890/30. Love em all, though the later 3 don't get as much love as they should.
Used to have a Mossberg 500, CAR-15 and RIA M-1911A1 but sold all of them. Liked them all, but needed money so I sold the Shotgun and CAR-15, and sold the M-1911 cause I stopped trusting it and myself with it after a discharge.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also had a Browning Hi-Power that got sold when I needed money. Really miss that.
Alex C wrote: I know the 9c isn't, but you said there wasn't an M&P about the size of a G19 and I wasn't sure if you were familiar with the 45c.
Not sure why they're different, but I'm glad. The 45c is the best polymer striker pistol I've ever fired.
I said that there wasn't an M&P in 9mm the size of a G19.
Today I scored a Streamlight M3 at a pawn shop for $30. That's not nearly as good a deal as the Surefire X300 I found at a pawn shop for $30, which I'm fairly certain was just missing a 0 on the price tag lol. Anyway this will do duty on my briefcase gun mostly to soak recoil, but to provide light if need be.
It came with a stupid paddle holster. Why the hell would anyone carry a weapon light on a paddle holster? Excuse me sir, give me a moment to put my weapon light on my pistol so I can see you before I shoot you. Dildos, I say.
21st Century Bayonet Charges
In the last ten years, British troops have resorted to the bayonet to break impasses in combat both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, 2004, a detachment from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders surprised a force of 100 insurgents near Al Amara, Iraq with a bayonet charge. British casualties were light, but nearly 28 guerrillas were killed. And as recently as October of 2011, a British Army lance corporal named Sean Jones led a squad of soldiers from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment in a bayonet charge against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. After being ambushed and pinned down by militants, the 25-year-old ordered his squad to advance into a hail of machine gun fire. “We had to react quickly,” Jones remarked. “I shouted ‘follow me’ and we went for it.” He was awarded the Military Cross for his actions. Even in an age of GPS-guided bombs, unmanned drone and network-centric warfare, 300-year-old technology — like the simple bayonet — can still carry the day.
Alex C wrote: I got a Webley Mk. VI for pistol whipping.
Or pistol stabbing if I had the bayonet...
lol... worst purchase I ever made for a pistol was the pistol bayonet....
Clearly, you should have gotten the pistol chainsaw attachment instead, lol.
But if one were consider it technically, the problem is that pistols are for carry and concealment and a bayonet would just get in the way. The other issue is, I don't want to necessarily have to draw my pistol every time I want to cut open a bag of Skittles.
Alex C wrote: I got a Webley Mk. VI for pistol whipping.
Or pistol stabbing if I had the bayonet...
lol... worst purchase I ever made for a pistol was the pistol bayonet....
Clearly, you should have gotten the pistol chainsaw attachment instead, lol.
But if one were consider it technically, the problem is that pistols are for carry and concealment and a bayonet would just get in the way. The other issue is, I don't want to necessarily have to draw my pistol every time I want to cut open a bag of Skittles.
why are you cutting open your tactical skittles?
real men just yell at the package till it opens itself.
RE bayonets above being usefull: yup sometimes they work really great, esp in the example where the bristish are charging poorly trained and conditioned enemies who are terrified by that kind of thing. I have read that article before, really good example of bayonets being used at their best.
The times bayonets work well, man they work well!
But that is the vast minority, far more lives/battles have been lost by the mode of thinking that "the rifle is just there to hold the bayonet" as opposed to the "bayonets are useless" adherents. Lots of examples, ESP in the civil war where less then 1% of the casualties are bayonets.
most of the time, they are useless, and/or a knife (or even the unmounted bayonet) is more useful.
still means, for those off chances when you need em, you should have em.
It isn't a new concept;
The US tread that path a while back with the XM29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon The project was shelved in 2004. But the grenade launcher component underwent further development and has been used in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others countries have also tried this concept as part of the Land Warrior program; IdZ (Germany), FIST (UK), Félin (France), Land 125 (Australia), MARKUS (Sweden), Soldato Futuro (Italy), IMESS (Switzerland), Projekt TYTAN (Poland), FINSAS (India) and ACMS (Singapore), Ratnik (Russia).
KiloFiX wrote: Another over engineered design by committee.
They should really build a smaller grenade instead of a bigger gun.
, every time I pick one of these up, I just want to smash it on the floor and put it out of its misery. These and the Jimenez pistols are not something I'd ever entertain loading to fire.
I haven't posted in ages, as my interest in 40k has evaporated completely, but I figured this was a thread for coming back into.
I can't remember ever single weapon we have at the moment, but it's in the neighborhood of 75-80 firearms (mostly collector pieces), and I will be a terrible tease with this one!
My wallet screamed "NOOOOO", but it had to be mine! It helps that this one goes with a 1942 JP Sauer 38H with holster and two mags that are all matching that were brought back by the same vet who brought this one back. I got the Sauer and was too late to double dip on the G43, but no more!
Ouze wrote: Maybe we should stay away from the political stuff? Once that door gets opened it's pretty hard to close.
I'm not trying to make the thread political, just aware that many people in their thread have rifles that fire 5.56mm rounds and who may want to stock up before any ban.
Ouze wrote: Maybe we should stay away from the political stuff? Once that door gets opened it's pretty hard to close.
I'm not trying to make the thread political, just aware that many people in their thread have rifles that fire 5.56mm rounds and who may want to stock up before any ban.
For this reason, I appreciate that you posted the info, as I had not heard about it before you did. I'll refrain from any political commentary on the matter in this thread, other than to say I don't like it.
This isn't really a political thing is it? It's a regulatory fiat by an ostensibly non political entity that stands to affect all gun owners. The effects of the ATF expanding their power in this manner could see all sorts of ammunition being banned on a whim. Their relabeling of a non-armor piercing rifle round as armor piercing because it can penetrate Level IIA soft armor is absolutely nonsense. Every centerfire rifle round on the planet will pierce IIA soft body armor. It's not rated to stop that kind of round ballistically! Nor is it designed to! So that opens up the possibility of ban for just about every rifle round ever made.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: This isn't really a political thing is it? It's a regulatory fiat by an ostensibly non political entity that stands to affect all gun owners. The effects of the ATF expanding their power in this manner could see all sorts of ammunition being banned on a whim. Their relabeling of a non-armor piercing rifle round as armor piercing because it can penetrate Level IIA soft armor is absolutely nonsense. Every centerfire rifle round on the planet will pierce IIA soft body armor. It's not rated to stop that kind of round ballistically! Nor is it designed to! So that opens up the possibility of ban for just about every rifle round ever made.
I think this is the core of it.
It's a nonpartisan regulatory agency making a ruling according to the letter of the law without regards to the reality of the nature of the thing they're making a ruling on.
They do have precedence however, they did the same thing to 7N6 5.45x39mm ammunition earlier last year.
I'm actually kind of ticked at gun manufacturers who are making what are basically novelty guns that allow the ATF an excuse to do this, even when the same thing already happened with 7N6.
Just bought a police trade in Glock 22 Gen 2 for dirt cheap. It is in really good condition for its age and obviously was not a holster gun or it would have a lot more wear on the plastic. I bought it simply because it was a Gen 2 and I like the round no rail look on a Glock. Only thing I don't like is the NY 11 pound trigger pull, but it shoots really nice.
Wife got a 10/22 Carbine Classic from her dad at the weekend as a birthday present. It has a schnabel forend, straight gripped walnut stock made by Altamont and is one of only 307 ever made.
She's itching to shoot it, but the weather needs to warm up from -20 degrees before that happens...
Ruberu wrote: Just bought a police trade in Glock 22 Gen 2 for dirt cheap. It is in really good condition for its age and obviously was not a holster gun or it would have a lot more wear on the plastic. I bought it simply because it was a Gen 2 and I like the round no rail look on a Glock. Only thing I don't like is the NY 11 pound trigger pull, but it shoots really nice.
Google Glock trigger jobs, those are cake for a DIY trigger modification to a more reasonable trigger.
Ruberu wrote: Just bought a police trade in Glock 22 Gen 2 for dirt cheap.
Those are usually pretty good purchases. Department budgets being what they are, it's probably barely been shot.
Alex C wrote: She's itching to shoot it, but the weather needs to warm up from -20 degrees before that happens...
I've been itching to shoot too, and I haven't for the same reason. There's an indoor range here but it's pistols only, and you have to buy their own ammo which is, in my opinion, poor quality for a premium price. I like the outdoor range a lot better because it's free and I can shoot what I like ammo-wise.
Ouze wrote: I've been itching to shoot too, and I haven't for the same reason. There's an indoor range here but it's pistols only, and you have to buy their own ammo which is, in my opinion, poor quality for a premium price. I like the outdoor range a lot better because it's free and I can shoot what I like ammo-wise.
We're lucky in that the range we use allows rifles up to .308, and shotguns (using slugs only). Same rule for the ammo though, but the price is reasonable and quality good. Another range near here allowed people to bring their own ammo - until someone dumped a mag of tracer rounds into the rubber backstop. After the fire they're still rebuilding
The ban on XM855 62gr is already in place. It's 30 year exemption was pulled by the ATF Friday night (cool gig making up laws as the wind blows). Many distributors arent restocking the item, so what is out is it in regards to XM855.
The comment period that ATF published is to get ideas from retailers etc on implementing said ban.
Your only recourse is to contact your Congresscritters and Senators.
The neckbeards have just about emptied the shelves of XM855 and are now focusing on XM193, any 223 and reloading components. Add to this the restriction placed on once fired military brass (to be shredded and not sold to reloaders) from 2 years ago, and the era of "cheap" surplus 556 is pretty much over.
Cant ban the guns, so they went after the ammo.
What stinks is my rifles shoot 62gr much better than the 55gr stuff :(
Spacemanvic wrote: The ban on XM855 62gr is already in place. It's 30 year exemption was pulled by the ATF Friday night (cool gig making up laws as the wind blows). Many distributors arent restocking the item, so what is out is it in regards to XM855.
The comment period that ATF published is to get ideas from retailers etc on implementing said ban.
Your only recourse is to contact your Congresscritters and Senators.
The neckbeards have just about emptied the shelves of XM855 and are now focusing on XM193, any 223 and reloading components. Add to this the restriction placed on once fired military brass (to be shredded and not sold to reloaders) from 2 years ago, and the era of "cheap" surplus 556 is pretty much over.
Cant ban the guns, so they went after the ammo.
What stinks is my rifles shoot 62gr much better than the 55gr stuff :(
Disgusting. Really have no words for this. The law specifically says "The term “armor piercing ammunition” is defined, in pertinent part, as a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium."
M855 does not fit this definition at all, as it contains lead in the core. As usual, the ATF is just making gak up as they please.
Hopefully Sig fething bends them over for their ridiculous "ruling" on the SB15 brace.
But the Sig brace can be misused to allow the shouldering of a firearm with a barrel length of less than 16"!
Won't somebody think of the children!
Seriously, the crap they come up with there is ludicrous. Now they're trying to ban M855 because it can be used in pistols and defeats body armor. What's next? ALL .223/5.56? Gonna ban .308/7.62 too?
Since when was 2A about "sporting purpose" anyway?
Oh, and now it is considered AP because it can be fired from a pistol. The ammo magically transforms when fired from a pistol. Just like the SB15 brace magically transforms from a medical device into an NFA item if you shoulder it.
Should anyone tell them 855 doesnt get to enough velocity when fired from a barrel shorter than 14"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alex C wrote: But the Sig brace can be misused to allow the shouldering of a firearm with a barrel length of less than 16"!
Won't somebody think of the children!
Seriously, the crap they come up with there is ludicrous. Now they're trying to ban M855 because it can be used in pistols and defeats body armor. What's next? ALL .223/5.56? Gonna ban .308/7.62 too?
If ATF can get this to go without opposition, yup! Remember ALL center fire rifle ammunition can defeat body armor.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Based on the wording they absolutely intend to ban every rifle round for which a "pistol" with a capacity > 1 has ever been manufactured.
Just sitting here eating popcorn waiting for someone with brass balls to start voting with the ammo box.
Nah, never happen.
Bread n' circuses man, bread n' circuses.
Then again, the shooting sports in the US is the "circus" for some.
5.56. what else? If the argument is that rifle rounds that can be used as a pistol (assuming its not sued and overturned).
.308/7.62 (x51, x39 and x54r), .223 and even 30-30 spring to mind.
But really, IIRC, to fit the classification of "pistol" a firearm must have a barrel length shorter than 16" and not have a shoulder stock, so pretty much any rifle can be made into a "pistol", leading to all kinds of ammo ban possibilities...
5.56. what else? If the argument is that rifle rounds that can be used as a pistol (assuming its not sued and overturned).
.308/7.62 (x51, x39 and x54r), .223 and even 30-30 spring to mind.
But really, IIRC, to fit the classification of "pistol" a firearm must have a barrel length shorter than 16" and not have a shoulder stock, so pretty much any rifle can be made into a "pistol", leading to all kinds of ammo ban possibilities...
True. Im just going by what I have in stock at the store I work at.
The true panic hasnt set in yet because the media hasnt made an issue of it yet. But, add a high profile shooting, and watch what happens: Ammogeddon!
Then again, the shooting sports in the US is the "circus" for some.
It's definitely rare, but it does occasionally happen. A bunch of civilians ROFLstomped the ATF in Waco. Of course, then they were all subsequently murdered in cold blood on national TV, but...yeah.
It would be interesting to see how many times Sig Braced AR "pistols" loaded with M855 have been used in crimes to shoot people wearing level 3a body armor.
Because y'know, it's all for our safety, ATF wouldn't just arbitrarily ban things they think are scary, right?
I'm using military foam plugs, Son2 and Daughter got the nice sets , and my other set is up in Braggistan with the wife in case she gets a chance to go to the range with the toys we have up there for her.
That is an old Winchester .22 semi auto I kind of inherited. Also had out the Mosin, and an AK type 'pistol', and a couple hand guns. I personally only fired about 8 rounds of .22 while demonstrating a couple things for my daughter. I let the kids have all the fun.
CptJake wrote: I'm using military foam plugs, Son2 and Daughter got the nice sets , and my other set is up in Braggistan with the wife in case she gets a chance to go to the range with the toys we have up there for her.
That is an old Winchester .22 semi auto I kind of inherited. Also had out the Mosin, and an AK type 'pistol', and a couple hand guns. I personally only fired about 8 rounds of .22 while demonstrating a couple things for my daughter. I let the kids have all the fun.
There you go, it didnt have a hammer and I ruled out Marlin.
Good for you, love families having safe fun. Letting kids have all the fun is what we fathers do LOL.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Maybe they'l change their minds like the Sig Brace; the ammunition will be legal for rifles (regular and SBR) but not pistols.
There is nothing in the original exemption that gives them room for that. Its all or nothing.
And as far as I remember, ATF has not changed their minds favorably to the SIG brace.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Just sitting here eating popcorn waiting for someone with brass balls to start voting with the ammo box.
To be clear, we're using a euphemism for killing legislators who aren't legislating the way we want them to, right? "Brass balls" being an admirable trait and all, you're saying that it's time for second amendment remedies, right? Because I'm not really seeing how else else that can be interpreted.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Just sitting here eating popcorn waiting for someone with brass balls to start voting with the ammo box.
To be clear, we're using a euphemism for killing legislators who aren't legislating the way we want them to, right? "Brass balls" being an admirable trait and all, you're saying that it's time for second amendment remedies, right? Because I'm not really seeing how else else that can be interpreted.
I don't personally believe it's time for that, but if the James Yeagers of the country were to decide to put their money where their mouths are, I wouldn't be in a rush to turn off my TV.
ETA: Unless it's to go to the store to buy popcorn, because that's not the kind of thing I stock regularly.
So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
djones520 wrote: So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
JSE is gtg. Ive ordered from them for a while, never an issue.
Also, give the Ruger American a look see. Very nicely made gun. You can still find some Ruger M77's for about $550 or so. What caliber are you interested in?
djones520 wrote: So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
djones520 wrote: So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
djones520 wrote: So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
Are AR10s different in terms of dimensions? Because a DPMS AR15 upper would fit just fine on most lowers.
They have a different cut. I think it has something to do with the licensing. Armalite weapons are stand alone, can't swap parts out with other companies, as far as I've gathered at least. This part though, for sure I need to get directly from Armalite.
djones520 wrote: So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
djones520 wrote: So I'm on the fence about what to do with my rifle. I'm debating selling it, and using the money to buy a standard .308 rifle, or replacing a significant portion of the weapon.
Either way, I do not like the AR-10A2 configuration. I have to mount the scope on the carry handle, and it just makes it very bulky. So I want to replace the portion of the upper receiver, and give it a flat top instead of a carry handle. It looks like it'll be about $300 for the price, and whatever an armorer would charge me to swap the parts out.
Or I can get a really nice deer rifle for about $600. I could probably sell my rifle for $700-$800, but then I'd be giving up the first firearm that I bought with my own money. Lot of love attached to that thing. I guess the ideal thing would be to swap the part out.
Are AR10s different in terms of dimensions? Because a DPMS AR15 upper would fit just fine on most lowers.
I'm not sure in the case of DPMS to Armalite specifically, but I've heard that AR10 parts aren't as easily swap-able as AR15 parts.
On the subject of Bond and H&K: I know HKs are nice and I would be happy to have one (at least for the performance), and I think MP5s and their variants are really cool, but damn....a lot of their pistols are really, really ugly.
They have a different cut. I think it has something to do with the licensing. Armalite weapons are stand alone, can't swap parts out with other companies, as far as I've gathered at least. This part though, for sure I need to get directly from Armalite.
Stripped uppers from them are almost $300. Now I see why you're on the fence! That's half way to a decent AR15.
Maybe the solution is sell the AR10 for an AR15 AND a fudd gun.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Based on the wording they absolutely intend to ban every rifle round for which a "pistol" with a capacity > 1 has ever been manufactured.
Just sitting here eating popcorn waiting for someone with brass balls to start voting with the ammo box.
yup,
this is how they do it.
they will ban everything and anything they can ban, and if they can do it through unelected bureaucrats, all the better.
one gun at a time, one form of ammo at a time, they know all too well that its much easier to ban something then unban it.
I wont be surprised if I start hearing clap trap along the lines of "you have the right to bear arms, not to ammo for them."
Your normal capacity mags will soon be "high cap mags" your drum mags will soon be machine gun parts, I wouldnt be shocked at all to see a new assault weapons ban that targets mag fed rifles come about before too long as well.
This is exactly how they banned most of the stuff up here, write obscure laws that get around fair voter driven processes, ban the gun by banning a certain part of it or by name. then slowly branch out.
Get it before its gone is my advice,
Everyone has seen this coming though, this is why the shelves are still empty for almost 7 years.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Based on the wording they absolutely intend to ban every rifle round for which a "pistol" with a capacity > 1 has ever been manufactured.
Just sitting here eating popcorn waiting for someone with brass balls to start voting with the ammo box.
Nah, never happen.
Bread n' circuses man, bread n' circuses.
Then again, the shooting sports in the US is the "circus" for some.
you are wrong, it can happen, lots of people, with lots of money, are dead set on it happening.
Do not underestimate how serious a fight this is... you have a real chance at losing too, dont compromise, dont get complacent, and for the love of guns support your organizations like the NRA
Easysauce I think he was referring to Americans going full-on James Yeager in response to unconstitutional attacks on their rights.
We all know that gun control is going to happen...it happens constantly. Even this new national CCW reciprocity shindig is certain to contain clauses that screw gun owners in the end. I'm waiting to see if the requirements under the proposed national reciprocal CCW permit would be crazy (i.e., may-issue, long expensive classes required, applies only to one specific firearm, etc.).
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Easysauce I think he was referring to Americans going full-on James Yeager in response to unconstitutional attacks on their rights.
Full on James Yeager? You mean stomp on the brakes, stall the truck, jam your weapon and split the scene?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Easysauce I think he was referring to Americans going full-on James Yeager in response to unconstitutional attacks on their rights.
Full on James Yeager? You mean stomp on the brakes, stall the truck, jam your weapon and split the scene?
Bahahaha yes, and...
I had to Google "Youtube Yeager M855 ban." I was hoping to see more of this derptastic crap...his video was actually very calm and basically can be summed as "M855 sucks anyway."
Standard capacity mags are already called "high capacity" in many places and by many people, even by those who claim to be 2A friendly.
A 30-round mag for an AR is not "high capacity", it is standard capacity, no matter what arbitrary capacity limits certain politicians enforce in various parts of the country.
As for the national CPL reciprocity, yeah, that's almost guaranteed to have clauses to make the process of acquiring a license as difficult as possible, in order to be in compliance with the most strict states in the Union.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Easysauce I think he was referring to Americans going full-on James Yeager in response to unconstitutional attacks on their rights.
We all know that gun control is going to happen...it happens constantly. Even this new national CCW reciprocity shindig is certain to contain clauses that screw gun owners in the end. I'm waiting to see if the requirements under the proposed national reciprocal CCW permit would be crazy (i.e., may-issue, long expensive classes required, applies only to one specific firearm, etc.).
oh yeah, I realized now i might have been unclear, I was talking about laws and stuff
yeagers a total tool, im not talking about people going full yeager... never go full yeager.
Frazzled wrote: Who's James Yeager and no I'm not looking it up. Don't needz me noes NSA snoopinz my mailz
Former cop and private security contractor who is most famous for his ineptitude and cowardice during an ambush on the road to BIAP in Iraq in which ~3 people died. He now runs a firearms and tactics training school called Tactical Response, and is famous for saying the incredibly stupid (like making Youtube videos openly threatening to kill people over gun control laws) and doing the incredibly dangerous (like asking his camera man to stand down range during live fire stress drills).
He's probably been shot at more than Chris "Coast Guard" Costa, and he doesn't hold his rifle as if he's giving another man The Sneaky Stranger in a dark locker room, but in terms of street cred he's pretty much the opposite of a quiet professional.
I should also add that since his weight loss transformation, he's shifted over from the military veteran staple of polo shirts to a uniform consisting of nothing but TAP OUT GEAR. So he may or may not be responsible for popularizing the UFCDouche uniform amongst "Tactical Enthusiasts."
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Easysauce I think he was referring to Americans going full-on James Yeager in response to unconstitutional attacks on their rights.
Full on James Yeager? You mean stomp on the brakes, stall the truck, jam your weapon and split the scene?
Bahahaha yes, and...
I had to Google "Youtube Yeager M855 ban." I was hoping to see more of this derptastic crap...his video was actually very calm and basically can be summed as "M855 sucks anyway."
Well that was... special. Anyway, yeah, he's a bit bipolar. One video will be perfectly calm and the next will be entirely off the wall. No real middle ground setting to the dude.
As far as a ban on these two rounds go, I'm not worried. As others said though, it's disconcerting to think of where it could lead.
"...We have now been informed that the ammunition using the SS109 bullet commonly referred to as M855 by NATO will be banned for sale but not possession on March 16th.
We have been selling our handloaded match grade version of this load for 10 years both to civilians and to government agencies. As of today we will only be selling this load to civilians until our supply is exhausted. Once we have sold out we won't be loading it again. We have discounted this load for retail sale on our website...."
Frazzled wrote: Well I did make popcorn for the wife, daughter and three other teenage girls. Lots of butter was used. Thank you Fridge for the reminder!
See, dont you feel safer?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The BATFE reclassification makes anyone holding M855 a criminal at the state level effective immediately if your state has bans on possessing AP ammo. So, imagine what will happen when other calibers are re-classified AP?
A particular "inexpensive" round of the 556 caliber, leaving the option of classifying the entire caliber as well as other calibers that if used in a pistol or revolver are magically transformed into armor piercing rounds.
Frazzled wrote: Dude I've been teaching my daughter to drive. You freaking keep up on current events when you're getting heart attacks on a minute by minute basis. :O
Ill be there next year when my oldest turns 16 and we start the driving lessons :(
Sent Son1 and Son2 to driving school and let someone else risk their sanity and vehicle. Plus the 'passed a certified class' helped with insurance costs.
CptJake wrote: Sent Son1 and Son2 to driving school and let someone else risk their sanity and vehicle. Plus the 'passed a certified class' helped with insurance costs.
CptJake wrote: Sent Son1 and Son2 to driving school and let someone else risk their sanity and vehicle. Plus the 'passed a certified class' helped with insurance costs.
Will do the same for Daughter in 4 years.
I hear ya. However SWMBO said I was to teach her in no uncertain terms.
Spacemanvic wrote: The ban on XM855 62gr is already in place. It's 30 year exemption was pulled by the ATF Friday night (cool gig making up laws as the wind blows). Many distributors arent restocking the item, so what is out is it in regards to XM855.
The comment period that ATF published is to get ideas from retailers etc on implementing said ban.
Your only recourse is to contact your Congresscritters and Senators.
The neckbeards have just about emptied the shelves of XM855 and are now focusing on XM193, any 223 and reloading components. Add to this the restriction placed on once fired military brass (to be shredded and not sold to reloaders) from 2 years ago, and the era of "cheap" surplus 556 is pretty much over.
Cant ban the guns, so they went after the ammo.
What stinks is my rifles shoot 62gr much better than the 55gr stuff :(
Disgusting. Really have no words for this. The law specifically says "The term “armor piercing ammunition” is defined, in pertinent part, as a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium."
M855 does not fit this definition at all, as it contains lead in the core. As usual, the ATF is just making gak up as they please.
Hopefully Sig fething bends them over for their ridiculous "ruling" on the SB15 brace.
In the painful reality, the XM855 does have a steel penetrator tip (so it does meet the barest of thresholds to be considered for this ruling), but I still think this is a ludicrous ruling. Time to stock up, glad I already have some at least.
The nightmare might be over in less than two years, or maybe not.
Should we really stock up on these, though? I mean, really.... they're not the best rounds on the planet. I feel your effort would be better suited to writing your government officials and your money better spent picking up some hollow points. I mean, really, are you planning on shooting at someone in armor?
