Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If one is stuck with the wonky stock, I think Gundam-theming it was an inspired choice.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
If one is stuck with the wonky stock, I think Gundam-theming it was an inspired choice.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

I dunno. I'd rather have a anything themed Gundam than a Gundam themed AR.

So it turns out that the pistol is a .32 cal. revolver that seems to have something wrong with the mechanism. My mother said that supposedly having rounds in the cylinder will make it rotate when the trigger is pulled, but as I inspected it the cylinder was free wheeling. I may look into what it will take to fix it, but as it stands I am not even sure what model it is or who the maker is. I'll google the letters on the grip tomorrow, right now I'm not motivated to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hopkins & Allen Arms Co. Forehand Model 1901 .32 M&H Cal. Hammerless 5 Shot

Pretty sure the teeth for turning the cylinder are stripped, but as it's over a hundred years old I might be able to fetch a buck or two and then invest in a functional firearm. My brother has a .32 auto that he's wanting $50 for, may go that route.

 Just Tony wrote:

Pretty sure the teeth for turning the cylinder are stripped, but as it's over a hundred years old I might be able to fetch a buck or two and then invest in a functional firearm. My brother has a .32 auto that he's wanting $50 for, may go that route.

Looking around at some auctions, you *might* be able to afford that 32 auto with it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They bring $75 to $200 at auction for near immaculate, not broken. My Great grandfather bought two that I still have because he was looking for a cheap murder weapon, and that says pretty much all that needs to be said there.

At this point I'm wondering if it'd be simpler to try to chase down a replacement cylinder. The pawn shop was disinterested as they've apparently loaded up on "antique" firearms.

 Just Tony wrote:
At this point I'm wondering if it'd be simpler to try to chase down a replacement cylinder. The pawn shop was disinterested as they've apparently loaded up on "antique" firearms.

Where might I find this pawn shop????

RamZ Emporium, in Lafayette, Indiana.

 Just Tony wrote:
RamZ Emporium, in Lafayette, Indiana.

Oh well. Too far to be bothered.

Any views on this pistol? My competition M&P is starting to get long in the teeth. This would likely be my last pistol purchase outside of .22s. It would be for competition or Zombies, not carry.

Advantages: minimal tweeking needed: adjustable fiber optic sights; 4-5lb good trigger pull with relatively tight reset; ~35 ounce weight (if taking off the mag well for SSP/Production). Sight already plated for red dot optic if I go that way in the future which is liekly due to eyesight.

Disadvantage: mags cost more; I would have to get a new holster, mag carrier and 10 magazines.

Options. Don't get anything, Walther Q5, another tweaked out M&P (lighter though, but don't need new gear).
https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/415006606/sig+p320+x5+9mm+5+21rd+blk+sts

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/p320-x-five-full-size-coyote.html

I've heard that the CZ (Shadow?) is still the king of off-the-shelf competition guns. The Walther is great (I'm a Walther fanboi), but I can't see giving Sig money even though their quality seems to slowly be turning around.

 Elbows wrote:
I've heard that the CZ (Shadow?) is still the king of off-the-shelf competition guns. The Walther is great (I'm a Walther fanboi), but I can't see giving Sig money even though their quality seems to slowly be turning around.

Yes indeed. I like CZs. However a Shadow is 1. substantially more expensive; and 2. DA/SA (I think it has a DA option but safety must be on also). I absolutely suck at DA/SA.

I like the Walther but it has a higher center of gravity and weighs less thus slowing up follow on shots. Ironically, if this were a carry I'd go with the Walther hands down. It has been one I have thought about though and am not averse to. PLus it has optic ready plates too.

Have you seen the new Steel Frame Q5? SWEET! but its $1,500 and pretty much sold out.

I'd suggest a look at the Arex Rex Zero 1 Tactical. It had the durability of a Glock, but feels and handles like a Sig P226, The tactical version is far more customizable, and you should be able to find one for under $800.

I have had range time with the Rex Zero 1 and loved it, and the tactical is on my to-buy list.

I have not heard of them. Will look at.

 Elbows wrote:
I've heard that the CZ (Shadow?) is still the king of off-the-shelf competition guns.

And it is. I traded an old vanilla 75 for a shadow 2 a couple years back and I'm extremely happy.

On any given competition regional and up over half the guns will be CZs.

Got to fire both my HK rifles yesterday. The HK-91 was the first rifle I bought myself, way back in 1993 or so. I haven't had it out shooting in over 15 years. Picture is my HK MR556. I had not fired it since we were up at Bragg, so almost 2 years. The Aimpoint is still very much zeroed!

Excuse me. It’s another Pleb question.



Sniper scopes. How do they adjust for the lost of binocular vision? Or is it all down to the shooter, and their chosen adjustments?

Just realised it’s something I’ve never thought about. But using only one eye, we lose some depth perception, which seems a bugger to any would-be sharp shooter?

And are sniper scopes like guitars and that, in they need retuning to satisfaction having been unpacked?

That’s why you zero for both windage and elevation. It does still require you to determine how far the target actually is. So lots of scopes have little indicators for helping determine the distance, like multiple step indicators that show the height of a man sized target at various distances.

Once you are zeroed, have the distance of the target, and know how to adjust for that you don’t need depth perception.

Erm....ummmm.....yes?



Sorry, I really am utterly clueless in this realm. You want the finer points of consumer credit law in the U.K., I’m your man. But previous statement needs to be as plebby as possible

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Erm....ummmm.....yes?

Sorry, I really am utterly clueless in this realm. You want the finer points of consumer credit law in the U.K., I’m your man. But previous statement needs to be as plebby as possible

Eh, I still like how you Brits do it anyway. Line up the two halves of the target, that's your range, signal the guys in the 12 inch battery. Love those old Barr and Stroud's.

Depth perception doesn’t matter. Estimate/know your range, adjust windage/elevation (vertical and horizontal) on your scope, fire away. Most military (and many civilian) optics will have markings on the crosshairs for different ranges and some scopes have rangefinding capability. I like to zero my scope at 100m and I can adjust from there depending on range.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Depth perception doesn’t matter. Estimate/know your range, adjust windage/elevation (vertical and horizontal) on your scope, fire away. Most military (and many civilian) optics will have markings on the crosshairs for different ranges and some scopes have rangefinding capability. I like to zero my scope at 100m and I can adjust from there depending on range.

Points to his above reference to the Barr and Stroud.

Perhaps a little too oblique a reference to range-finding, so...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Erm....ummmm.....yes?



Sorry, I really am utterly clueless in this realm. You want the finer points of consumer credit law in the U.K., I’m your man. But previous statement needs to be as plebby as possible

Even with a scope you should still have both eyes open. It takes some practice but I always shoot with both eyes open.

The reason you don't need depth perception is because we are already assuming the scope has been correctly zero'd in.

Scopes need to be adjusted for Windage(Left and right) and Elevation(up and down). Windage gets the scope aligned with the linear trajectory of the barrel, while Elevation determines at what distance the scope is zero'd at. IE: The distance at which, if the rifle is fired from a level position, the bullet will strike exactly where the reticle is placed. If you aim at a target that is closer than the range at which you are zero'd, the bullet will strike higher than the point of aim. If you aim at a target that is farther away than the range you zero'd at, the bullet will strike lower.

Now because the scope has been aligned with the barrel and path of the bullet, even without binocular vision you'll still hit the target because your eye will also be aligned with the trajectory of the bullet. Binocular vision is an enhancement for your vision to aid in gauging distance, but it is mostly relevant at close distances. The farther away an object is, the less relevant it becomes as the data gained by both eyes becomes more and more similar. And again, because the eye, scope, and bullet trajectory are all aligned in a scoped rifle the binocular vision is irrelevant when it comes to actually firing. Its only relevant when the distance to the target is in question and you need to know weather to aim high or low, but once you have that you just fire.

And are sniper scopes like guitars and that, in they need retuning to satisfaction having been unpacked?

Oh yeah. Even the act of firing can cause the scope to juggle out of alignment ever so slightly, as can simply carrying the rifle around in a case. Thats why to keep a good zero you need a solid carry case and you will be always making minor adjustments to bring it back. And removing a scope, even with a quick detach mount, can knock it out of zero. Not so much that if you do it you'll have to start all over again. Its more of a maintenance item.

yellowfever wrote:


Even with a scope you should still have both eyes open. It takes some practice but I always shoot with both eyes open.

I'd only do that if you were shooting at very close targets. If the zoom is quite high you're just going to be dividing your focus between the two images.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason you don't need depth perception is because we are already assuming the scope has been correctly zero'd in.

Scopes need to be adjusted for Windage(Left and right) and Elevation(up and down). Windage gets the scope aligned with the linear trajectory of the barrel, while Elevation determines at what distance the scope is zero'd at. IE: The distance at which, if the rifle is fired from a level position, the bullet will strike exactly where the reticle is placed. If you aim at a target that is closer than the range at which you are zero'd, the bullet will strike higher than the point of aim. If you aim at a target that is farther away than the range you zero'd at, the bullet will strike lower.

Now because the scope has been aligned with the barrel and path of the bullet, even without binocular vision you'll still hit the target because your eye will also be aligned with the trajectory of the bullet. Binocular vision is an enhancement for your vision to aid in gauging distance, but it is mostly relevant at close distances. The farther away an object is, the less relevant it becomes as the data gained by both eyes becomes more and more similar. And again, because the eye, scope, and bullet trajectory are all aligned in a scoped rifle the binocular vision is irrelevant when it comes to actually firing. Its only relevant when the distance to the target is in question and you need to know weather to aim high or low, but once you have that you just fire.

And are sniper scopes like guitars and that, in they need retuning to satisfaction having been unpacked?

Oh yeah. Even the act of firing can cause the scope to juggle out of alignment ever so slightly, as can simply carrying the rifle around in a case. Thats why to keep a good zero you need a solid carry case and you will be always making minor adjustments to bring it back. And removing a scope, even with a quick detach mount, can knock it out of zero. Not so much that if you do it you'll have to start all over again. Its more of a maintenance item.

yellowfever wrote:


Even with a scope you should still have both eyes open. It takes some practice but I always shoot with both eyes open.

I'd only do that if you were shooting at very close targets. If the zoom is quite high you're just going to be dividing your focus between the two images.

Part of learning to shoot with both eyes open is learning to control your eye dominance. Like I said it takes practice but you can do it. When I was still training to be an 0317 they required us to have that ability. Of course for casual shooting it's not that important but I personally still practice doing it.

How does everyone feel about reproductions/ parts kits rebuilds of older weapons, especially weirder ones?

I don't know why, but I am being drawn to a PPS-43 chambered in 9mm.

 cuda1179 wrote:
How does everyone feel about reproductions/ parts kits rebuilds of older weapons, especially weirder ones?

I don't know why, but I am being drawn to a PPS-43 chambered in 9mm.

In and of themselves? They're great, and often are the only source for many firearms. The problems come usually with the builder and their QC, or newly made parts sometimes not being made to original spec. For something like a 9mm PPS43, go for it, because a real one isn't going to drop by at an affordable price any time soon

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
How does everyone feel about reproductions/ parts kits rebuilds of older weapons, especially weirder ones?

I don't know why, but I am being drawn to a PPS-43 chambered in 9mm.

In and of themselves? They're great, and often are the only source for many firearms. The problems come usually with the builder and their QC, or newly made parts sometimes not being made to original spec. For something like a 9mm PPS43, go for it, because a real one isn't going to drop by at an affordable price any time soon

I thought the PPS-43 was cool when I originally saw it, but the main drawback at the time was that it was chambered in 7.62x35. I didn't want to invest in a new gun with weird Russian ammo that isn't used by any other weapon I have. Now that I know that it is available in 9mm, for the same price, it's much more tempting. It might be one gun I'd consider getting a permit for a SBR for.

Yeah, I probably wouldn't be too interested in a 7.62x35 gun either. I'd love to get to play with one of the PPS43 9mm guns. Been looking at a Galil rebuild lately myself.

Are you talking about one of those "new" Galeo rifles?

Aye, it appears Atlantic will have them for about $1k. That's my threshold for interest in a classic style Galil at this point. I'd love one just to have one, but it's hard to justify at the prices most of the rebuilds have been of late, and a preban is just straight off the table. I'm hoping there will be some build quality reviews soon.