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.

There is some chatter about demand from the usual suspects (sgammo), but all the places I go seem very well stocked and nothing like the run on 5.56mm from the last big happening is going on as far as I can tell.

I've read that a regular flashlight won't hold up when mounted to a rifle, but that may be coming from the people that want you to buy their $300+ "tactical" lights. I'd run a few mags through it and make sure the light stays on before trusting it. But yeah, putting that on an expensive quad rail will look more out of place than it would on a budget rifle. If you ever did need the light, the fashion police won't matter much.

 Slowroll wrote:
There is some chatter about demand from the usual suspects (sgammo), but all the places I go seem very well stocked and nothing like the run on 5.56mm from the last big happening is going on as far as I can tell.

Maybe some calibers are going up, but my beloved .32 H&R Magnum is continuing to fall.

As for modifications, unless it's wrecking a pristine historic item, go for it. My AR is somewhat cartoonishly laid out because was based on a discount model, with oddball rails and no front sight, so fitting flip-up backup ones required me to 'Lego' them up to match the optic. I think it gives it character.

Been watching a bunch of YouTube videos poking fun at Steven Seagal.

In a target rich environment, a repeat joke is his dodgy gun handling skills, and always closing his eyes when firing.

And Segal aside, it got me wondering if that’s a common issue? I can see it being a fairly natural human reaction, and one you’d have to train yourself out of.

Is that assumption right?

It can be. Especially since you are probably(hopefully) wearing safety glasses and they are probably getting forced into your face each time which cause a natural flinch. Especially if there is a scope bouncing in your face as well.

As for a regular flashlight potentially being damaged, yes it probably will if its not securely mounted. Any bouncing around it going to eventually damage the blub or the internals, but if you have some rings that are the proper size it should be fine. And I assume its not a very expensive light so worst case just put another one on there.

Lights are also one of those things you can just leave off the gun while at the range and only have it mounted when its at home to save on wear and tear.

Surely all lights are LED these days, and therefore the light source itself should be somewhat protected against impact/concussion. Any internal electronic gubbinz would need to be well mounted though. Hot glue probably ain't gonna cut it

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Been watching a bunch of YouTube videos poking fun at Steven Seagal.

In a target rich environment, a repeat joke is his dodgy gun handling skills, and always closing his eyes when firing.

And Segal aside, it got me wondering if that’s a common issue? I can see it being a fairly natural human reaction, and one you’d have to train yourself out of.

Is that assumption right?

It is common in novice shooters, which most actors are. One reason why so many action films have people wearing sunglasses during shootouts is that you can't see them blinking. In the director's commentary to Underworld, it was remarked that Kate Beckinsale didn't flinch when shooting, no blinking at all, which was something of a surprise. Of course the director married her, and then they got divorced. Her previous squeeze was the werewolf leader.

It didn't used to be much of a problem because military service was so prevalent (what with the war). While I'm on the topic, Tom Selleck is quite the collector of rare and historic firearms and they are being sold off. You can see them on Youtube.

Is it terribly problematic say, at the range? I appreciate it’s almost certainly going to have some impact on your accuracy. But is it sufficient that any training would include not doing it?

Again, whilst I could just use this to rag on Seagal and his ludicrous persona, I’m more interested in the practicalities.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it terribly problematic say, at the range? I appreciate it’s almost certainly going to have some impact on your accuracy. But is it sufficient that any training would include not doing it?

Again, whilst I could just use this to rag on Seagal and his ludicrous persona, I’m more interested in the practicalities.

It is something that must be overcome as it disrupts your sight picture. It's a serious problem if one is doing a mag dump and effectively firing blind. If you blink and then reset your sight picture and fire again, it's not as much of an issue.

Of course, only certain ranges will allow rapid fire. Again, it's something one can get over with practice and using proper eye protection. Starting out with small cartridges and using a rifle can help get one accustomed to the flash and recoil.

If you ever visit the States, I'm sure some local Dakkanaughts will give you all the hands-on experience you could ever want.

I inherited my Grandfathers K31.
Now i need to familiarise myself with it, but from what i can tell it's looking to be in good condition.

Speculative question, as I’ve just finished painting a Volkite armed Marine.

Whilst I’m aware some rifle, specifically anti-tank ones (there may be others) are billed as recoilless, I understand that’s more relatively recoilless. Because physics.

So my query is how hard would it be for you, as a gun owner, to adapt to a hypothetical energy weapon, such as an actual laser beam or radiation weapon, given those would be truly recoilless?

I wouldn't expect it wouldn't be difficult at all if it is truly recoilless and can be made man portable. At that point we'll probably have easy access to aim assistant scopes as well.

Recharging won't also be an issue since a man portable energy weapon necessitates hyper-dense battery storage and cheap energy generation to even think about it being man portable.


I still expect normal guns will persist even in the advent of such weaponry as they will still have some downsides. They'll be useless for hunting since a target will be killed via effectively burning it to death/flash boiling the wound tract. That just leaves self-defense and sport shooting, but it'll be down to personal preference since these weapons will most likely also light whatever they hit on fire. That might not be the best choice for turning on an intruder inside your very flammable home. There will also likely be a Gun=Very Expensive but Ammo = Almost Free balance going on.