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.

I'd imagine you'd have people around to make people actually shoot and intervene in case something goes wrong at every booth to avoid that. But depending on the country you live in, the moment any accident occurs, the anti gun mobs are going to come for your head no doubt.

Checked the barrels this morning before leaving for my construction site, everything still black like I hoped it too, I assume I managed it. Going to reassemble the whole gun next week and take it to the range to get my first rounds through it!

That would be awesome. Ideally with short lectures, possibly by QR code, on the different aspects of the weapons. Would be like an interactive version of forgotten weapons While modern firearm designs have succeeded in making them thoroughly dull to fire, the older ones are far better!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know what I reckon would be cool?

A theme park type attraction featuring historical firearm reproductions the visitors can shoot. A hands-on trip through time, even if some designs need extra, non-historical safety additions on account being sued for someone being blown up sucks.

I mean, I assume it sucks. I’ve never actually blown anyone up, nor do I hope to. But a safe assumption, I trust you’ll agree.

There used to be, back in the 1970s, something like this at Gettysburg.

Though they weren't reproductions and safety was a word that only was heard to follow 'release the'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know what I reckon would be cool?

A theme park type attraction featuring historical firearm reproductions the visitors can shoot. A hands-on trip through time, even if some designs need extra, non-historical safety additions on account being sued for someone being blown up sucks.

I mean, I assume it sucks. I’ve never actually blown anyone up, nor do I hope to. But a safe assumption, I trust you’ll agree.

You could do that with the pneumatic simulators. Someone in my squadron did a drug deal with the Army post next door (he was prior Army), and we got trigger time on various weapons hooked up with cables and wall-size screens, so we could shoot the snot out of everything. I think it was described as "team building" rather than "bored Zoomies go on high tech shooter rampage."

The mission where a couple of us took M9s into the Hindu Kush was...absurd.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know what I reckon would be cool?

A theme park type attraction featuring historical firearm reproductions the visitors can shoot. A hands-on trip through time, even if some designs need extra, non-historical safety additions on account being sued for someone being blown up sucks.

I mean, I assume it sucks. I’ve never actually blown anyone up, nor do I hope to. But a safe assumption, I trust you’ll agree.

You could do that with the pneumatic simulators. Someone in my squadron did a drug deal with the Army post next door (he was prior Army), and we got trigger time on various weapons hooked up with cables and wall-size screens, so we could shoot the snot out of everything. I think it was described as "team building" rather than "bored Zoomies go on high tech shooter rampage."

The mission where a couple of us took M9s into the Hindu Kush was...absurd.

We got that in french army too but it doesn't see a lot of use.

Falcor progressing. This time, I had the bluing hold after immerging the final coat in water then thorough WD40 cleaning out and in the barrels. You can see a few blotchy marks here and there if you really get close, but overall, it looks about good enough.

I've refitted (partly) the buttplate, and that's when I did a gak up, heating it at one points from the ouside and killing hte varnish. No big problem as I plan on swapping that someday anyway, but stupid on my part nonetheless. I also widened the screw holes so the screw heads no longer protude and falme blued said screws. Tomorrow, i'll take it to the range and fingercrossed it shoots no problems.

Meanwhile, I'm already selecting my next target on naturabuy, that is, trying to find a cheap beaten up if needed side by side, that I plan to cut down to the minimal dimension I legally can.

That is, in french gunlaw terms, 80cm total lentgh of which 45cm barrel length. I'll then try my hand at reshaping, shortening, and refurbishing the stocks, at cutting down and rectifying the barrels, and if needed, the worst part, re soldering the middle rail...


Automatically Appended Next Post:


By the way, found this while researching.

Well this thread about a topic I’m ignorant about is slipping far too far. Time for an idiot question.

And I guess it’s only firearm adjacent. But my Inner Beavis points out it does kind of involve fire. And arms. So maybe it counts?

Simply put, watching Stargate Atlantis, and they’ve just used a mere smear, a smidge, a pockle of C4 to open a door. And it got me thinking?

Military Vets in this thread - have you ever used C4 in training and that? And in a training scenario, is it as much fun as it seems?

Because of army regulations, not as fun in training, but fun nonetheless.

I've also personally never done an explosive breach with C4, but maybe that depends, we use det-cord.

I've played with C4, plenty of it. (P for Plenty if you know the formula!) And lots of det cord. Got to blow a live AT mine in place once and that was a BIG BOOM (like 20+ pounds of explosives in the mine, a 1 pound chunk of C4 with some det cord on top of it).

Depending on the door a 1/4 pound set correctly would blow out a bolt or hinges. In the movies when they blow up a whole building with a couple of pounds always makes me laugh. It don't work that.

The EOD/demining crew I tagged around with for a while had a variety of ways of blowing up potentially dangerous objects. Most memorably with half a chaps house - he had paid the labourers to collect the bomblets and piled them up against side of house and assumed we would take them away. I had to explain we didn't remove the items we destroyed them. In situ. He then wanted us to go (so he could get them all shifted no doubt), and had to explain that we were bound by the government to dispose of any items we found immediately. Had to get infantry support to ultimately move situation along.

I do remember in my induction we had the mickey mouse IED lesson where we got to use a glass bottle with nicely concave base to make an explosively formed penetrator and punch it through steel. Surprisingly effective.

An issue in recent operations when 'mouseholing' was so frequently used (making doors in walls), there were issues with people not liking the approved carry methods and placing explosive items in thigh pockets and similar. They could go off when struck by bullets.

Thats a pretty tragic story... Guy tries to be helpful and loses his house :(

Oof, hard lesson to learn :(

Feel bad for him, but you did your job nonetheless, respect.

I had the chance to detonate my own pack of explosive the old way, pack laid on the ground, a piece of det cord, and a detonator I had to squeeze onto the piece of det cord. Unfortunately, as we were required to walk away once it was set up, we couldn't see anything and only heard the big explosion, that was quite impressive to here for such a small piece.

Was cool though!

The_Real_Chris wrote:


An issue in recent operations when 'mouseholing' was so frequently used (making doors in walls), there were issues with people not liking the approved carry methods and placing explosive items in thigh pockets and similar. They could go off when struck by bullets.

I'm really curious what explosives these were because I thought most modern explosives were stable enough that pretty much only the detonators or more explosives can set them off. C4, for example, doesn't go off if shot or burned.

Although if the bullet hit the detonator that could still be a bad day in a thigh pocket.

 Haighus wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


An issue in recent operations when 'mouseholing' was so frequently used (making doors in walls), there were issues with people not liking the approved carry methods and placing explosive items in thigh pockets and similar. They could go off when struck by bullets.

I'm really curious what explosives these were because I thought most modern explosives were stable enough that pretty much only the detonators or more explosives can set them off. C4, for example, doesn't go off if shot or burned.

Although if the bullet hit the detonator that could still be a bad day in a thigh pocket.

If the primer is with the c4 in the pocket, then the primer might detonate. Primers are relatively fussy.

If I had to guess they might have been carrying detcord, which would be a lot more unstable compared to C4.

C4 is practically inert unless you hit it with a primer. You can literally cook with it. And of course you don't want a primer anywhere near it unless you are prepping to boom.

I honestly can't remember if this particular problem is detailed in anything other than general terms in open source. Certainly it is in some medical reporting in terms of treating injured soldiers. But broadly easy access pockets and pouches save time and allow different items to be split up for easy selection, but carry their own risk.

But a bit of research and you will see all sorts of writings about the tension between the way you are mean to do things and the way they are done in the field and how that plays into uniform design, especially in the age of the overloaded soldier.

Back to firearms and a related note, and exemplified by the AR platform, its interesting how there seems to have been a big acceleration in customising small arms. Looking at the past 20 years it seems so different to the 60's through 90's when stock firearms abounded. Is it technology? Consumer driven change? Smaller militaries?

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I had to guess they might have been carrying detcord, which would be a lot more unstable compared to C4.

C4 is practically inert unless you hit it with a primer. You can literally cook with it. And of course you don't want a primer anywhere near it unless you are prepping to boom.

Thanks, that would make sense

Was it the Mythbusters who tried to set off C4 with iron thermite? That still wasn't energetic enough to make it go boom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Back to firearms and a related note, and exemplified by the AR platform, its interesting how there seems to have been a big acceleration in customising small arms. Looking at the past 20 years it seems so different to the 60's through 90's when stock firearms abounded. Is it technology? Consumer driven change? Smaller militaries?

Probably multiple things, but small militaries is likely a factor.

The rifles used by the relatively-small British Expeditionary Force at the outset of WWI had volley sights fitted to allow for indirect suppressive fire, as well as sights out to something like a kilometre. Soldiers were trained to use them. This was quickly dropped for wartime production with the sights greatly simplified- none of it made any difference to the conscript with much more minimal training who was unlikely to be hitting much at 300m, let alone volley fire at 2000m.

I'd expect weapons to simplify rapidly if facing a scenario like Ukraine, with the gubbins reserved for specially-trained, elite, or veteran troops.That said there is a much greater industrial capacity for things like precision sights these days, so they probably wouldn't become as scarce as in previous time periods.

Back in the 'firearms you own and their uses'



Newest is this little Sig .22. Had it about a month and it has already got 2 copperheads, a moccasin, and this egg thief (found in laying boxes in coop with 3 eggs in him).

Custom rifles are bot that often seen in France I find. Mostly because it is really expensive. Then because for the most difficult fits, finding a good gunsmith is not always easy. At least that what I think of if you ask me. Plus hunting rifles are not necessarily extremely modulars or stuff as frankly that's not truly a requirement for your average rifle.

I kind of customised my AK a bit though but that's really that kind of uneducated custom for giggles and comfort, I don't mean to become a good shooter with it.

 CptJake wrote:

Newest is this little Sig .22. Had it about a month and it has already got 2 copperheads, a moccasin, and this egg thief (found in laying boxes in coop with 3 eggs in him).

Nice! I was looking at those. How reliable are the mags\feeding? You can't really expect 100% with those rimfire mags, I'm curious if it is better or worse than similar guns.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Back to firearms and a related note, and exemplified by the AR platform, its interesting how there seems to have been a big acceleration in customising small arms. Looking at the past 20 years it seems so different to the 60's through 90's when stock firearms abounded. Is it technology? Consumer driven change? Smaller militaries?

I think its probably a combination of all of those things.

There have always been tinkerers leading the way with new innovations, and by the 90's there was a decent amount of "mainstream" customization going on. Modifications for SKS, Mini-14s and 10/22s were common, as well as high performance custom 1911s. There have always been people who disliked the Glock style sights, and night sights for every gun that could use them were popular. But overall I agree it really seems to have jump started in the early 2000's.

Speculating, companies like Magpul and Trijicon getting large govt contracts in the early GWoT era gave them the capital to expand their business and create a new market for gun accessories and in turn new competition chasing those contracts. The Picatinny Rail and later MLOK rails lessen the need to have dedicated mounts for specific guns. Laser sights went from the enormous versions seen in films like Cobra and Terminator to being small enough to be incorporated into a handgrip on a holdout pistol. GWoT era attempts to increase the lethality of short barrel AR-15s led to a cottage industry of new calibers usable in existing ARs with an upper receiver swap. Fixed power optics were proven effective and rapidly grew in popularity for both military and civilian use as entirely new products.

The internet/youtube/Leviathan Group provide small and large businesses marketing and exposure exponentially more effective than ads in Shotgun News ever could, and the popularity of shooter games with highly customizable guns has to be a factor as well. The barrier for entry is also much lower with the availability of garage scale CNC machines and even 3D printers.

The AR is probably the easiest gun to deeply customize, a highly proven design, and due to legal reasons and their fallout, the most readily available gun of its type in the US. Depending on what you want, it can be a good idea to just buy the lower receiver and build from there, which incentivizes the DIY aspect. And with the sheer amount of options the AR-15 or AR-10 can perform any role you'd want a rifle or SMG to perform, outside of extreme long range shooting. So not too surprising it is the #1 gun in terms of customization. For handguns, it seems to still be mainly driven by 1911s and Glocks, and new guns often come with some of those features standard. The expiration of the Glock patent in particular has led to an explosion of striker fired guns, some of which are just Glock clones with varying degrees of customization.

I'm all for it. My own AR only has a handful of original parts, with vastly superior performance. And most of my guns are customized to some degree, nothing that required a gunsmith.

People have always been customizing their stuff. I think the main difference is that in the last 20 years there has been an explosion in both the number of gun owners and the mass availability of parts to customize with. More and more accessory companies offering more stuff combined with a surge in interest with guns that accept those customizations.

The Fudds of yesteryear were as much into customization as everybody today, it was just more niche back then.

 Slowroll wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Newest is this little Sig .22. Had it about a month and it has already got 2 copperheads, a moccasin, and this egg thief (found in laying boxes in coop with 3 eggs in him).

Nice! I was looking at those. How reliable are the mags\feeding? You can't really expect 100% with those rimfire mags, I'm curious if it is better or worse than similar guns.

So far so good. Had a couple failures to cycle in the first 20-30 rounds, then no issues with the exception of trying out subsonic rounds. Those didn't seem to have enough oomph to cycle the next round. Currently loaded with high velocity hollow points and have not had any failures with the can on the front. The can does lower DBs enough that you can fire it in the coop and not have your ears ringing.

Have put maybe 150 rounds through it, most the first day as once it started its anti-egg thief role it only gets fired when actually needed.

My one complaint is though the stock sights are suppressor hight, they are all black and hard to see in some environments especially against a dark target. I got some glow sight paint and that fixed it though I'll probably splurge and get tritium and/or fiber optic sights at some point.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People have always been customizing their stuff. I think the main difference is that in the last 20 years there has been an explosion in both the number of gun owners and the mass availability of parts to customize with. More and more accessory companies offering more stuff combined with a surge in interest with guns that accept those customizations.

The Fudds of yesteryear were as much into customization as everybody today, it was just more niche back then.

This, and also the rise of e-commerce has made it much easier to produce and sell niche parts. If you want to make perfect reproductions of an obscure aftermarket AR grip from the 1980s, you don't need to take out advertisements in Soldier of Fortune asking people to mail for details, you can just create a webstore and post your work on Reddit.

And of course the development of parts standardization (eg M1913 rails, M-LOK) means that the market for accessories is broader than ever. You don't need to design for a specific platform, you can make optics or furniture that fit multiple platforms.

I'd underline standardisation, because I've always find it difficult, when you're new to it, to find what is compatible or not with you're rifle from a distance on the internet.

I feel standardisation means I am less prone to error and can more confidently give away money for parts I'm pretty sure should fit.

Of course the big deal is first and for most to be able to pick that handguard from the other side of the country without actually having to drive all the way there because no one in your neighborhood sells any... But if any of you ever did that, kudos, that's a testimony to your dedication!

Yeah, you do need to read a bit of the descriptions of stuff to make sure it is compatible. I bought a few Keymod things by mistake

Buying incompatible things by mistake has to be one of the things that make me feel the most dumb when I do it

Ah but when we do it, we do it in style and armourers across the country are confused at what they have received...

At least you're not the maintenance guy on an aircraft carrier who ordered an Abrams turret by mistake Or the people along the way who let it get delivered without questioning it

"what, that ain't what I ordered" "Yes it is sir"

I really hope they mounted it somewhere… that’s awesome. We had a famous case of the reverse in the UK a few years back when audits of MOD storage facilities identified that there where whole Harrier nose cone assemblies missing. Not sure if they ever got the the bottom of where they went, or how the supply system allowed them to be taken out of inventory.