The Firearm thread: Engineering artistry of wood, polymer and steel. [Archive]

Ducimus

07-15-13, 10:41 PM

Since I'm not the only person on the forum who owns guns, and the topic comes up now and then, usually in the form of derailments, and since it was suggested to start a thread of this type, I took the initiative.

This is not intended for political discussion.
If you really want beat on a dead horse, there are plenty of politically charged threads already in existence. Please use the search function, and find an appropriate thread for expressing your views.

This thread is intended for "shop talk", education, or training, and to keep all non political discussion about guns in one place.

Have safety concerns? Post it here.
Training concerns? Post that here as well.
Looking for advice on a firearm purchase? Go ahead and post that here.
Doing a little novice gunsmithing? post about it here.
Interested in owning a certain firearm? Daydream about it here.
Want to brag about whatever it is you own or post pictures of them? Brag about them here.
Have a great day at the Range? Tell us about it here.

August

07-15-13, 10:53 PM

Apparently there's a difference between .223 and 5.56. Firing the former in a weapon chambered for the latter is safe but the other way around may cause bad things to happen.

As The Arms Guide (http://thearmsguide.com/645/is-there-a-difference-between-223-and-5-56/) (<-- Link) puts it:

The most important difference between .223 and 5.56 chambers is the length of the throat (or leade) for each chamber. More specifically, the leade is located at the mouth of the barrel before the rifling occurs. Comparing the NATO and SAAMI regulations, the leade for 5.56 chambers is nearly twice as long as that of a .223 chamber (.162in to .085in, respectively). If a 5.56 round contacts the barrel rifling too early, it can cause pressure spikes (leading to malfunction, and potentially damage) in the chamber. This explains why it is safe to fire .223 through a 5.56 chamber, but not recommended to fire 5.56 through a .223 chamber.So, my question is should I have the throat of my 223 AR lengthened at great expense, aggravation and possible risk involved with finding a Gun Smith experienced and equipped to do this properly and hoping he doesn't screw it up.

OR

Wait for prices to come down some more and buy a whole new upper for my AR that is already chambered for 5.56? (presently about $500-$1K).

Red October1984

07-15-13, 11:22 PM

So, my question is should I have the throat of my 223 AR lengthened at great expense, aggravation and possible risk involved with finding a Gun Smith experienced and equipped to do this properly and hoping he doesn't screw it up.

OR

Wait for prices to come down some more and buy a whole new upper for my AR that is already chambered for 5.56? (presently about $500-$1K).

Most AR's should be chambered for 5.56... :hmmm:

What kind of AR do you have? Yes there is a difference...but with AR's you never know. There are some AR's that are officially chambered .223 but are really rated for 5.56

@Ducimus Thank you for starting this up. It's good that we have a thread for this now so we can avoid major political debates.

----

I still haven't been out to the range to sight in my Savage Axis .223 from Christmas....one of these days I will.

Come to think of it...I haven't shot in a long time. I don't mean like little .22s...I do that all the time...

Last time I shot anything bigger was Thanksgiving. I went out with some family and an SKS, .40 Compact (Manufacturer unknown. I didn't look) and an old .22 bolt action.

My uncle told me that if I hit the 100 yard target with that .22 he'd be impressed. So guess who went and did just that? :sunny: No scope on a windy day... Took me a few shots but I got it.

Shooting is a great hobby. :yeah:

August

07-16-13, 12:22 AM

What kind of AR do you have?

Colt Sporter II 1988 vintage. I've already checked that out. Mine is one of the ones that has the short leade.

Red October1984

07-16-13, 12:41 AM

Colt Sporter II 1988 vintage. I've already checked that out. Mine is one of the ones that has the short leade.

I think it comes down to a matter of personal preference.

From what I understand, AR's are chambered for 5.56 and some of them get marked for .223

I'm by far no expert. If you check with a gunsmith, he'll just tell you that 5.56 can't be fired from it and point you to the internet where there are arguments that go both ways. I've read very convincing arguments backed up by facts that say you're good and that there have never been guns to blow up. There are arguments that say you will have an explosion because of the higher pressure that the 5.56 shoots at...

There are also tons of bogus arguments about casing size, size of Milspec chambers vs Civilian chambers...nose to primer length...bullet size, etc.

It's up to you really.

----

On another note, I saw this one time and I have to share it here

Mosin Nagant vs. AK-47 vs. AR-15 (http://62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm)

Stealhead

07-16-13, 01:12 AM

Most AR's should be chambered for 5.56... :hmmm:

What kind of AR do you have? Yes there is a difference...but with AR's you never know. There are some AR's that are officially chambered .223 but are really rated for 5.56

When you are talking about an AR-15 it depends on when it was produced from the 70's into the early 90's they usually where chambered for .223.After the end of the Cold War there was a ton of mil spec 5.56mm laying and the many makers of AR-15 and clones decided that they should produce the rifles in 5.56mm instead.The date of manufacture makes a difference but the biggest thing is what is stamped on the weapon you should use that caliber even if there is a very very similar caliber.

I would not fire 5.56x45mm out of an AR-15 that has a .223 chamber even it does not explode which is likely a old gun shooting wives tall the two cartridges are different anyone that says other wise does not know what they are talking about.

The 5.56mm cartridge has a higher pressure higher than the design tolerances of the .223 chamber now any fire arm is going to be able to handle a higher pressure to some degree so would a .223 chamber explode from a 5.56mm cartridge I very highly doubt it.Will the higher pressure cause damage over time? Yes. How much it would depend greatly on many factors.Will the higher pressure cause screwy problems like blowing out primers? Yes

I would wait on the new upper better route to go any day of the week.You know for certain the upper is designed to a certain spec.Also I think that old lowers and new uppers are cool it is a new gun and an old gun all at the time.

I like the page about the Mosin-Nagant they got a little carried away though it does have a safety and a magazine.

Ducimus

07-16-13, 08:18 AM

August

07-16-13, 08:58 AM

I'd wait for the prices to come down. I just did a quick image search on the Colt Sporter II 1988. Does your rifle have the fixed A2 carrying handle? If so, i'd definitely wait for the prices to come down, or for a screaming deal, and then get a 5.56 chambered flat top upper receiver. That way, you open yourself up for accessory options. A red dot scope with a magpul mbus cowitness for example.

Also, you keep your rifles original reciever intact and unaltered/undamaged, which gives you the option to revert the rifle back to it's original form.

Yes my rifle is the old fixed handle type. See below.

My thought was to buy a complete upper including bolt carrier group (though that is a quick enough swap), front sight post and hand guards and bring one or the other to the range depending on what type of ammo I have.

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsterling/pwpimages/CR%202011%20Veterans%20day%20021.jpg?PHPSESSID=99e 719f19574849672ccad14abeef220

Ducimus

07-16-13, 10:54 AM

My thought was to buy a complete upper including bolt carrier group (though that is a quick enough swap), front sight post and hand guards and bring one or the other to the range depending on what type of ammo I have.

Well, if you get a 5.56 NATO chambered upper, its really all you need. Headspace aside (haven't done my homework on .223 and 556 headspacing, I'm assuming their same), you have the chamber pressure rating to feed it 5.56 or .223 at that point. My wife can feed either one through her rifle without any issues whatsoever.

EDIT: I think the only major difference is more brass expansion with .223, the cases are slightly thinner then 5.56, and NATO chambers tend to be a bit looser to allow for dirt, and debris.

August

07-16-13, 12:40 PM

Well, if you get a 5.56 NATO chambered upper, its really all you need. Headspace aside (haven't done my homework on .223 and 556 headspacing, I'm assuming their same), you have the chamber pressure rating to feed it 5.56 or .223 at that point. My wife can feed either one through her rifle without any issues whatsoever.

EDIT: I think the only major difference is more brass expansion with .223, the cases are slightly thinner then 5.56, and NATO chambers tend to be a bit looser to allow for dirt, and debris.

Correct. The idea is to be able to swap between them quickly. Good idea on the flat top rail too.

Stealhead

07-16-13, 02:57 PM

This is more of an opinion question.I have a friend that is left handed and dropped extra coin to for an AR upper that had a left hand ejection port and I think the selector switch is on the right side (to be lefty friendly).

I also have a neighbor and friend who is left handed and he shoots a standard AR-15 just fine.This guy is from Laos originally and fought the communists with an M-16 even though he is left handed just fine.And the shells really do not fly into your face thanks to the casing deflector anyway that is why they put it there for left handed shooters.Of course this Lao dude 40 years ago they did not have the casing deflector on M-16s back then.

Personally I think that those lefty upper mods are just a waste of money/a way to show off to other people that you have money to spend on unless things.Which is ok I suppose but i just think in the grand shecme of things at least for self loading firearms if your left handed it works just fine without modification.

What do you guys think?

August

07-16-13, 03:07 PM

Stealhead

07-16-13, 03:31 PM

I just wonder as I know guys that are left handed and they dont seem that interested in a left hand upper.At least in my case the one person I mentioned
he is very much the cool hobby of the next few years type.

He never did much shooting then he deiced to "get into it" and he ordered an upper that was left handed I think he had to wait a few months not sure exactly.Anyway he brought it out on the 4th and the Lao guy looked at it fired a few rounds then set it down and said "waste of money".

We actually had to zero the lefty rifle such is the experience level of the lefty gun owner.I would think it would be better to first try out of few rifles if you are a lefty and see if you really need the left handed port or not.Say that you're left handed but right eye dominate which means that with a rifle it is better to learn trigger control with the right hand anyway.

I know of people that are right handed but left eye dominate and they shot left with rifles and right with pistols(because with a pistol you can simply hold the sights over farther to one side).

Ducimus

07-16-13, 03:38 PM

Personally I wouldn't bother with a south paw reciever unless you were left eye And left hand dominate, and the rifle in question was "The" rifle.

Thankfully, I'm right eye and hand dominate so i never had to give this subject much thought. My wife is right handed but left eye dominate, which at times in the past was somewhat amusing once we figured out what the problem was.

EDIT:
It occurs to me, the lefty's dream rifle in an intermediate cartridge is probably an IWI Tavor. That thing is wicked slick, and truly ambidextrous.

August

07-16-13, 06:04 PM

I still have 35 year old burn scars in the crook of my right arm from basic training where ejecting brass from my Army M16-A1 bounced off my face or chest and fell down my sleeve. When you're qualifying on those pop up targets there is no time for the dance of pain. :)

Red October1984

07-16-13, 06:49 PM

Personally I think that those lefty upper mods are just a waste of money/a way to show off to other people that you have money to spend on unless things.Which is ok I suppose but i just think in the grand shecme of things at least for self loading firearms if your left handed it works just fine without modification.

I also think it's a waste. Why mess with it? :shifty:

Personally I wouldn't bother with a south paw reciever unless you were left eye And left hand dominate, and the rifle in question was "The" rifle.

Thankfully, I'm right eye and hand dominate so i never had to give this subject much thought. My wife is right handed but left eye dominate, which at times in the past was somewhat amusing once we figured out what the problem was.

EDIT:
It occurs to me, the lefty's dream rifle in an intermediate cartridge is probably an IWI Tavor. That thing is wicked slick, and truly ambidextrous.

I've always shot right hand right eye but I can do it ambidextrous fairly accurately. I'm a little weak on my left hand on a pistol bigger than a .22 and standing and firing a rifle but i've got time before my CCW qualification. :03:

I think for an ambidextrous gun...the FN F2000 or FS2000 would be best. The brass ejects at the front of the rifle and the safety is usable from both sides. I don't have one...but I've messed around (safely) with them at the store. I'd love to fire one someday. The Tavor is nice too and shouldn't be discounted.

I'm a fan of bullpup weapons. :yeah:

And for August's situation, I think you should go for the Flat Top receiver too. That'll really open up the potential of an AR.

You must have one of the pre-ban HBAR models right? :hmm2:

August

07-16-13, 06:55 PM

You must have one of the pre-ban HBAR models right? :hmm2:

Correct.

Red October1984

07-16-13, 07:01 PM

Correct.

From what I understand, those are good rifles. I wonder if there's a good way to use the current HBAR barrel in a flat top reciever.

It probably isn't a hard thing to do. I'm no AR-15 expert. I don't have one and neither does my dad.

Now if you've got an AK, i can be of some assistance... :up: At one point, I knew how to take the entire thing apart and put it back together. I'm a bit rusty by now though...

August

07-16-13, 08:08 PM

From what I understand, those are good rifles. I wonder if there's a good way to use the current HBAR barrel in a flat top reciever.

None of us are experts but as I understand it, the problem is not the receiver itself but rather the barrel, or more specifically at what point that the rifling grooves begin in the barrel (called a Leade). Technically I believe all I need to do is to have my barrels Leade bored out a few millimeters by a qualified gunsmith equipped with the specialty tool necessary to do so. This is apparently a rare combination and will at least involve having to ship it out of state which can bring it's own issues. I like to do important business with people I can meet face to face.

On the other hand if I buy a complete new 5.56mm upper which includes not only the receiver but also the barrel, gas tube, front sight post assembly, fore grip ect, I not only keep my AR all original but I can also swap back to the .223 upper when I have that type of ammo thereby saving wear and tear on the 5.56.

Red October1984

07-16-13, 08:17 PM

On the other hand if I buy a complete new 5.56mm upper which includes not only the receiver but also the barrel, gas tube, front sight post assembly, fore grip ect, I not only keep my AR all original but I can also swap back to the .223 upper when I have that type of ammo thereby saving wear and tear on the 5.56.

Sounds like the best option from my viewpoint.

This way you can go back and forth from your Tactical and your Sporter. :03: Best of both worlds.

AR's are too expensive for me otherwise I'd have one. :arrgh!:

Stealhead

07-16-13, 08:56 PM

So here is one what do you consider the worst design firearm of the 20th(and late 19th) century?Also what is a more obscure concept that never really took off you think is interesting?

I'll go first worst design firearm that is easy the Chauchat.All in all in was just a horrible design that simply did not work well at all.Worst feature magazines that had large exposed sections i assume to allow the shooter to quickly see how many rounds where left but all it really did was allow dirt and mud to mess everything up.
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/SoldatetFMchauchat_zpsee23ddb7.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/SoldatetFMchauchat_zpsee23ddb7.jpg.html)

Now on to an obscure concept that never really took off the Schmidt-Rubin(Swiss) pull bolt concept.The Swiss militray was the largest user of this concept they used a rifle that used this concept from 1911 right up through to the late 1940's.The US Navy used a rifle for a brief period that had a pull bolt but not as fluid as the Schmidt-Rubin.All in all the turn bolt is a much better design which is why the straight pull never took off not so much that it was bad it just was not any improvement over a turn bolt.

Swiss K31 this is not a semi auto it is a pull bolt
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/11004089_4_zps1ac8bd09.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/11004089_4_zps1ac8bd09.jpg.html)

US Navy M1895 .236 which had a more clunky pull bolt it went upwards while the Schmidt-Rubin truly pull directly backwards the .236 was around a few years before the Schmidt.
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/1343415595_zpsf615b2bd.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/1343415595_zpsf615b2bd.jpg.html)

Red October1984

07-16-13, 09:23 PM

I think that Pull Bolt is pretty cool!

Similar to the AR even... :hmmm:

I'm with you on that worst design. That doesn't look great at all. :har:

As far as another worst design? I don't like lever action guns all that much. (I killed my first deer with one) They jam if there's any dirt, grime, muck or if you don't work the action fast enough...but not too fast. I see a lot of problems with it. I jammed the thing like 4 times in one day of deer hunting. The only Lever Action gun I've ever bothered to use was a .45 Colt Cowboy Repeater-type rifle.

Just not my preferred design. :nope: I like Bolt Action and Semi-auto. Burst is good for the Military but not Civvie guns I think. Full Auto is good if you know your way around, what to expect, and how to handle it.

Now concept that didn't take off...

I'd really have to think on that one. There are many things that never took off but I don't know if you would call them innovations. I know there's one that is cool that did take off is the way that certain guns are made to incorporate magazines from other weapons....like the Sten and NATO weapons. Everybody uses the 30 rd. STANAG magazines now.

The Sten was designed to be able to use magazines from the MP-40 so if they captured enemy weapons, the ammo wouldn't be useless to them and they wouldn't have to use the enemy's weapon. I'm not sure if that was the exact reasoning behind it...but that's how I see it.

I read something somewhere that you should never trust your life with a weapon that is not your own. You don't know how the enemy kept their weapons and the last time they were cleaned...not to mention you might not be familiar with that type of weapon.

---

I remember the time I did the US Army Laser Marksmanship training at Fort Knox. That was before I knew my way around the AR platform. It seemed so overwhelming at that point (but I was also like 10 or 11...that probably had something to do with it). Now, I could pick the thing up and feel perfectly comfortable with it and I now know what all the controls do and how it works.

The one I didn't figure out was the M249 and the M240. I was confused by those....but it was also kind of dark in that room. I don't know if you're familiar with that kind of training. It's a simulator they set up with lasers and pistons in the guns that register on a computer. They run you through qual-type firing and scenario stuff...and of course...we have to have our fun by including the extras...like the Turkey Shooting...and stuff like that.

They had a good setup. M16A2's (or maybe a 4. I don't remember. Probably a 2 though.), M249, M240, AT4, M4A1 with an M203 fitted (that was fun) and they all were fully functioning weapons. They could just take the special components out and lock and load with real ammo IIRC. It's been a few years since then.

Here's a picture of what it looks like: (The room is dark...the camera flash makes it look like they have lights on)

http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2008/07/24/19826/size0-army.mil-2008-07-24-094444.jpg

That's not the same setup I had...and those look like A4's. :hmmm:

That was one of the coolest things I've ever done. Later that day, I got to go do the Stryker Driver and M1 Tank Driver simulators on the base there.

:arrgh!: Loved it...it's up there with me flying the Gyrocopter last September.

Stealhead

07-16-13, 10:42 PM

Red October1984

07-16-13, 11:48 PM

I would have to disagree with your opinion on level actions they where a revolutionary leap in technology and in certain battles made a huge difference.Case in point the Battle of Little Big Horn the US Army mainly had carbine Sharps rifles a single shot breech loader.The Sioux who also used a good number of firearms but they really liked Winchester and Henry lever actions which by the the US Army never adopted a lever action but it was not because the design was unsound they thought troops would expend ammo to quickly.

Well you are right...I can't argue with that because it's true. It was a technological breakthrough...but I just never liked them.

Perhaps the particular rifle you had was the problem I have not really heard of the issues you mention with most level actions unless of course something was wrong with them.:hmmm:

I think it was mostly just the calibers involved in my experience with lever action. Mostly I was using .44, .45 Colt, and 30-30 when I was looking at them. I ended up using the .45 for hunting because it was a good gun to start with in 2nd Grade. It had virtually no recoil...another problem was the range..

I think it comes down just to personal experience. I have never liked them too much...but I understand that some people get them to work great.... Me? I had double feeds every once in a while and the round would sometimes jam in between the magazine tube and the chamber. At that point, you have to take the spring out of the magazine tube and work it out of there. It just wasn't reliable compared to the bolt action guns I had used on the range. To this day, I prefer bolt action guns. I've also gotten very fond of the Semi Autos....ever since that day Dad took me out with the SKS, 10/22, etc. :03:

Bolt Action rifles are just awesome though...Mosin Nagant, Springfield, Karabiner 98 and all the way up to the M40A3 and beyond. :sunny:

Lever actions where an important step towards fully self loading rifles.

Can't argue with that statement at all.

The more impressive thing about the Sten gun is that is pretty much made up of scrap metal and it could be field stripped in seconds which allowed insurgents to easily hide them.Sten guns only cost about $10.00 a pop to produce which is pretty cheap.I have not heard before that the Sten could use MP-40 mags before.

IIRC, they did that so they could make hundreds of the guns to deploy an they wouldn't have to worry about ammo because they could use captured enemy ammo and the budget and building materials since it's just basically stamped out of a sheet of metal. I know the Sten was used in the early SOF of the war. It would make sense to put that in as an extra feature if they came across the enemy's ammo or when they run out.

I always thought it was a cool feature and an even cooler gun. :arrgh!:

Not true by any means.You can learn to operate any firearm they really are not that complex because the person who may use it could be pretty stupid.You do not need to understand basic math or read and you could be taught in a few hours how to operate and maintain any small arm.Most soldiers at some point are trained on several weapons including enemy ones once they have done that they know enough to be able to operate and maintain any firearm they encounter.Any elite soldier is expected to be able to use any weapon be it an M-4 or some farmers old bolt action rifle.

It was just something I read. I wasn't sure if it was true. I know that SOF guys train with the enemy's weapons...and tbh Small Arms aren't hard to learn to operate...like you say.

Elite Soldiers are probably expected...but I wonder about Private Benjamin over here. What about these guys? :hmm2:

I know that you aren't supposed to ditch your weapon...ever. That was in many-a-book that I've read. Brandon Webb talks a lot about SEAL training in his excellent book. He was re-assigned to a different Platoon which was notorious for screwing up. One of the men actually dropped his MP5 out of the helo on a VBSS (Visit Board Search and Seizure) mission. He just picked it up off the deck of the ship and kept going. In a situation where you have nothing left...(I.E. You actually do lose it or it breaks or is damaged) and you have no other choice to use the enemy's weapons I can see it being okay...but another part of that thing I read was to stick to the weapon you trust. Stick to the one that you know has been cleaned and that you know you can use proficiently. Let's say the enemy is Germany. Yes, you may know your way around a G36....but when was it last cleaned? Will it jam or overheat? Do you trust it to keep you alive? What if it's something like the MG3 that operates a little differently than what you're used to? If you're an elite, you might know how it works...but if you're Private Benjamin... :doh:

I don't know. Some of this might be correct to a certain extent. :hmmm: I can't remember for the life of me where I saw that...it actually might have been Deadliest Warrior when the SOF guys were on there.

Stealhead

07-17-13, 11:37 PM

IIRC, they did that so they could make hundreds of the guns to deploy an they wouldn't have to worry about ammo because they could use captured enemy ammo and the budget and building materials since it's just basically stamped out of a sheet of metal. I know the Sten was used in the early SOF of the war. It would make sense to put that in as an extra feature if they came across the enemy's ammo or when they run out.

Actually the British elite forces much preferred the M1928 Thompson because it had a single stack magazine which was very reliable(the drum mags where hated).The Sten used a double stack and in those days double stacks tended to jam the MP-40 had a doubles stack as well and it jammed a lot.Also the .45ACP has much more punch than 9x19mm.I have several very reliable sources that tell me that the Sten was not designed to use MP-40 magazines including a person who has owned Stens in the past not trying to rub it in your face but that information is not correct about the swapping of magazines.

"Deadliest Warrior" is a rather unreliable source of information.You need to read books specifically about firearms and their design and production.For example those trade books that list the values of firearms those are written by experts.The factor that you are failing to consider is that most every combatant knows how to take care of their weapon because their life depends on it therefore the odds are high that will be in good working order maybe not spotlessly clean but it will pass a functionality check.You pick a Taliban weapon trust me it will work perfectly.

Red October1984

07-18-13, 01:57 PM

Actually the British elite forces much preferred the M1928 Thompson because it had a single stack magazine which was very reliable(the drum mags where hated).The Sten used a double stack and in those days double stacks tended to jam the MP-40 had a doubles stack as well and it jammed a lot.Also the .45ACP has much more punch than 9x19mm.I have several very reliable sources that tell me that the Sten was not designed to use MP-40 magazines including a person who has owned Stens in the past not trying to rub it in your face but that information is not correct about the swapping of magazines.

Well I'll have to check up on that. You're probably right.

"Deadliest Warrior" is a rather unreliable source of information.You need to read books specifically about firearms and their design and production.For example those trade books that list the values of firearms those are written by experts.The factor that you are failing to consider is that most every combatant knows how to take care of their weapon because their life depends on it therefore the odds are high that will be in good working order maybe not spotlessly clean but it will pass a functionality check.You pick a Taliban weapon trust me it will work perfectly.

Deadliest Warrior really isn't. I know...but that was just what one of the SOF guys was saying. Yes, there's the factor that they will take care of their weapon. If you're fighting a proper Army I'm sure that the weapons will be clean and working well.

I do really need to read some books. Some of my knowledge on firearms comes from bits and pieces that I pick up. I've got too many books to read right now though...Don't have the time. :dead:

soopaman2

07-18-13, 02:06 PM

Ducimus

07-18-13, 02:41 PM

I always wanted a Taurus Judge.

I got bigger stuff for home defense, but I want a toy.

Fires .410 shotshell, and .45.

A born home defense weapon in a pinch.

I just wonder how much kick it would have.

I heard of it, but never looked into it. Just found this 38 minute shooting review if you have time to kill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRlry5KH6I0

Stealhead

07-18-13, 02:42 PM

The Judge I think might be the ideal "gut gun" in other words very close range defense weapon.The judge would be the perfect gun to have inside a vehicle at that range if someone attacked say someone trying to get into your car that .410 buck hits them in a nice group they are no longer a threat maybe not dead but messing with you will be their last concern after that buck hits them.My connection is crap today so I have not seen the clip posted by Ducimus but I bet that they show the judge being used just as I described.

Of course it has a huge draw back you either have .410 or .45ACP and .410 buck would be pretty nasty at very close range but after maybe ten feet coming form such a short barrel the pellets would spread badly making it ineffective.

I'd rather have one of those "baby" Glocks that way you have more rounds and better range.More rounds are always better because under stress you're gonna miss(average combat accuracy for the US Army is 33% and I bet they put more rounds down range than you do) accuracy is always the most important ability mind you but combat shooting is the most difficult first and foremost because you can not simulate the most important factor adrenaline and the psychological effect of both your life actually being in danger and you having to possibly take another life you may find that the instinct of flight is stronger than fight.I can say from talking to my father and other combat vets that the act of killing is not as easy as it may seem.

I think for home defense a shotgun (long rifle) is the best option pistols are the most difficult modern firearm to be highly accurate with with a rifle stock you have all that added stability.Some people say "what if the bad guy uses my wife/daughter/dog as a shield?" but really in a dire situation would you take a shot even with a pistol that if you miss or there is movement you'll miss and hit your beloved possibly fatally? even highly trained military and SWAT folks consider such shots very risky people that fire ten upon thousands of rounds per year food for thought.Also I find that scenario unlikely if someone raids they are gonna go full force and overwhelm every threat every form of possible resistance.Males are considered by most to be most dangerous so a violent criminal is going to try an neutralize any males first.

soopaman2

07-18-13, 03:11 PM

soopaman2

07-18-13, 03:22 PM

I heard of it, but never looked into it. Just found this 38 minute shooting review if you have time to kill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRlry5KH6I0

I am familiar with Hickok45 vids. His entire channel is worth watching if your are a shooting enthusiast.

Stealhead

07-18-13, 03:35 PM

I find it funny that he drives a Honda Element it does not seem like the kind of vehicle he would drive.

I like how he just shoots and talks about the different weapons he does not try to preach one idea or another very often and when he does it is his personal experience.for example he is a big fan of Glocks but he also explains that he has a lot of experience with different pistols and that one just fits him well.That shows that he is honest and not just trying to look cool.

And to a large extent with pistols what works great for one shooter does not for another.My friend brought over a Beretta Px4 Storm in 9x19mm on the 4th and it was the first time I had fired a Storm and it is a nice gun and interesting because it has a rotating barrel and it was pretty accurate but I just did not like how it felt in my hands.

Ducimus

07-18-13, 03:41 PM

And to a large extent with pistols what works great for one shooter does not for another. My friend brought over a Beretta Px4 Storm in 9x19mm on the 4th and it was the first time I had fired a Storm and it is a nice gun and interesting because it has a rotating barrel and it was pretty accurate but I just did not like how it felt in my hands.

Too true. I like some handguns better then others. On the subject of the PX4 storm, my wife tried all sorts of handguns before deciding she liked the PX4 storm compact the best. She also hates glocks. The lack of safety and the "safe action trigger" are not her list of favorites.

Stealhead

07-18-13, 08:18 PM

All things considered the safety features that Glocks use are just as reliable as any other method they just do not have a trigger disabling safety as in if pull fully pull the trigger the action is not stopped.But from a drop or any other type discharge outside of a trigger pull a Glock is very safe.Some people just do not like the idea of a firearm with a flip safety.The thing I do not like about Glocks is that they are striker guns and I just like seeing that hammer call me old school.

Now the flip side of that coin is that soldiers,cops and I'm sure some civilians have drawn their handgun in a real situation and forgotten to flip the safety or accidentally flipped in to on when they did not want to which can happen with the ergonomics of some handguns.

One thing I did really like about the Storm (the one I shot was the full size model) is it does have nice back straps especially for something factory I think they come with three different ones.Another pistol I fired which I not before was an FN FNX 9 I really like that pistol It weighs fully loaded as much as a Storm does dry which I like personally. I was putting down some quick double taps with that FN after messing around with it a bit defiantly a good pistol if you like your hammers of course so is the Storm.

Red October1984

07-18-13, 10:06 PM

I always wanted a Taurus Judge.

I got bigger stuff for home defense, but I want a toy.

Fires .410 shotshell, and .45.

A born home defense weapon in a pinch.

I just wonder how much kick it would have.

My friend has one. It's a hardcore gun. :up:

My connection is crap today so I have not seen the clip posted by Ducimus but I bet that they show the judge being used just as I described.

Still probably have you beat at worst connection.

Of course it has a huge draw back you either have .410 or .45ACP and .410 buck would be pretty nasty at very close range but after maybe ten feet coming form such a short barrel the pellets would spread badly making it ineffective.

The .45 has some degree of accuracy...but a .410 fired from a barrel that short is like extreme close range.

It makes a good snake gun.

I find your analysis accurate. It is billed for anti carjacking, and close work, not practical in most situations.

Though it causes alot of attention at the range.

I love killing paper.:up:

Let's hope you never have to get to that point where you have to do more than paper. :arrgh!:

----

I know what I want to shoot...I want to get me a FN Five-Seven or a Beretta 92. I really like those pistols...I just want to fire them so I can see for myself how they handle.

Really the only pistol I've fired that's bigger than a .22 is the .40 Compact that I shot. I really liked it. Now that I think about it, a Walther P99 in .40 would be pretty nice.

Just more things added to my wishlist. :)

Stealhead

07-19-13, 01:14 AM

The .45 has some degree of accuracy...but a .410 fired from a barrel that short is like extreme close range.

Depending on the weapon it is being fired from yes.If you watched that video you'd know that with that judge he had to hold very low to hit the aim point and Hickock45 is a very experienced shooter shooting at a location he is very familiar with.

In my opinion .40 caliber is over rated people diss 9x19mm all the time but you shot a heavier grain bullet and it is pretty effective the target/cheapo round are 115 grain you really need 124,134 or 147 grain rounds.NATO uses 124 grain ball FMJ.There are also some high end 115 grain rounds out there.The thing with the 115s is they have a pretty high velocity and they can pass through very fast and not do much damage of course they might pass through and keep going at a slower velocity of course.

In my opinion you either go 9x19mm or you step it up to .45ACP I would rather have 12+1 rounds of .45 than 13+1 or .40 cal any day.That is just how I feel though but you can do some research and find that elite units have variations what they prefer for a side arm though they tend to use either 9x19mm or .45 9x19mm is so common your enemy is likely to also use it in some of their weapons.But the preference for some units with 9x19mm stems form the concept of violence of action engagement and putting rounds into the threat until it is fully neutralized and down dead as dead.The SAS guys that raided the Iranian embassy in 1980 they used MP-5s and had Browning High-Powers as sides arms (both 9x19mm) some of the terrorists had over 100 bullet wounds in their bodies of course SAS counter terror troopers are the best combat shooters you can find they only have peers not anyone superior.

I do not know enough about the FN 5.7mm round but I do know that the market version is much weaker than the military version also the ammo is very expensive only a few firearm in the world use 5.7mm.

Red October1984

07-19-13, 01:50 AM

Depending on the weapon it is being fired from yes.If you watched that video you'd know that with that judge he had to hold very low to hit the aim point and Hickock45 is a very experienced shooter shooting at a location he is very familiar with.

I've never seen any of his videos. I'll check them out tomorrow.

In my opinion .40 caliber is over rated people diss 9x19mm all the time but you shot a heavier grain bullet and it is pretty effective the target/cheapo round are 115 grain you really need 124,134 or 147 grain rounds.NATO uses 124 grain ball FMJ.There are also some high end 115 grain rounds out there.The thing with the 115s is they have a pretty high velocity and they can pass through very fast and not do much damage of course they might pass through and keep going at a slower velocity of course.

I'm not doubting the 9x19's effectiveness or reliability or anything...I really like the caliber...but it's just the "shortage" (if you can call it that) is bad on the 9x19 as well as the .223

I'd rather get something different. Something a bit heavier...but not overkill...and not too expensive.

.40 seems just about right. I liked how it handled when I fired that .40 Compact and it's not an overrated caliber by any means IMO.

An overrated caliber would be the .50 Action Express in the Desert Eagle

In my opinion you either go 9x19mm or you step it up to .45ACP I would rather have 12+1 rounds of .45 than 13+1 or .40 cal any day.That is just how I feel though but you can do some research and find that elite units have variations what they prefer for a side arm though they tend to use either 9x19mm or .45 9x19mm is so common your enemy is likely to also use it in some of their weapons.But the preference for some units with 9x19mm stems form the concept of violence of action engagement and putting rounds into the threat until it is fully neutralized and down dead as dead.The SAS guys that raided the Iranian embassy in 1980 they used MP-5s and had Browning High-Powers as sides arms (both 9x19mm) some of the terrorists had over 100 bullet wounds in their bodies of course SAS counter terror troopers are the best combat shooters you can find they only have peers not anyone superior.

There's some good points....both 9x19 and .45 are good calibers. I think the elite units use 9x19 so they don't have to worry about shooting through a body. A 9mm will bounce around more than a .45 after impact. IIRC, Hollow Points and other expanding ammo is illegal for militaries to use ever since one of the Conventions. Don't remember which one....but it doesn't stop Police from using HP ammo. I've used HP ammo for hunting. That certainly gets the job done and makes a nice hole. I had Jacketed Hollow Points and Soft Points in my rifle the year I killed my big 6 Point (Should've been an 8...but got cheated out of two). I had about 5 JHP and what was left of the box of SP. I ended up needing more ammo than I should have since the first shot hit the spine in the back (it was almost too dark to see) and it tried to keep on going. I couldn't hit it at range (~120 yards) so I took the JHP and ran up there.

That was the end of that. JHP will make a nice hole. If militaries were allowed to use it, there would be some ugly holes for the doc to patch up. But since they can't use HP ammo, they use smaller calibers.

I do not know enough about the FN 5.7mm round but I do know that the market version is much weaker than the military version also the ammo is very expensive only a few firearm in the world use 5.7mm.

I like the 5.7 round. The casing itself can fit perfectly inside a 7.62x39 casing. It's a small bullet...but you have 20+1. While the civilian ammo is, indeed, weaker...it's still a good caliber. I imagine that it's easy to handle and good shooting.

And anything FN makes is pretty cool anyway. :rock:

Ducimus

07-19-13, 02:47 PM

Figured i'd show off the other lady in my life, she's not just a safe queen, and she's allergic to polymer. All steel, wood, and leather, she enjoys grease a lot more then CLP, 100% pure tung oil and 100% pure neatsfoot oil.

Anyway, so, here's my Deer rifle, pictured with a 5 round magazine.
- Sling is a government issue, national match 1907 sling. ( NSN 1005-00-714-1245 if your curious).
- You can't see it, but i just replaced the spring guide with a sadlak national match spring guide. (details here. (http://www.sadlak.com/si_spring_guide_history.html))
- Scope is a Nikon Prostaff BDC 3x9x50. (gift from my dad for my birthday)
- Scope mount is a Picatinny Rail low Scope Mount made by Basset Machine company in texas. (Website here (http://www.bassettmachine.com/) ) ( a birthday gift from my wife, who also happened to name my rifle Tallulah)
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_001.JPG

- The grease i've been using is actually Mobile 1 synthetic grease. It looks pink in the tube, goes to transparent on the rifle, but for some reason the flash brought out the pink coloration, so you can really tell where i've lubed her up. :haha: And yeah, that 50MM lens barely clears the handguard. There's enough space to easily remove or place the lens cap. I got REALLY lucky when i ordered the scope rings.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_002.JPG

Open chamber with 5 round mag seated in. I've actually loaded this rifle like a bolt action rifle, inserting one round at a time into the magazine. The 5 round mag is flush fitting, and doesn't remove easily. You have to reach in from the top and push down while working the magazine release. Kind of a pain in the ass.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_003.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_004.JPG

For a point of comparison here's a 20 round mag that the rifle was designed to use next to the 5 rounder. Also, versatility is what this rifle is about in my opinion, because with a 20 round mag, all i need is a bipod, and she's gone from hunting rifle to Designated Marksman Rifle.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_005.JPG

More on versatilty, remove the scope, and she becomes what she really is, the last wood and steel battle rifle. I recently just changed the flash supressor to one with a bayonet lug, and it chimes like a tuning fork.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_006.JPG

So why'd I put a bayonet on there? Because i could? Because it's cool? Also because I wanted her in the original design configuration for historical reasons. I'm sure historically correct is something everyone here can appreciate, although I do realize the 1907 leather sling isn't historically correct. The problem with the GI issue canvas web sling is it's noisy, and the adjustment clasp scratch's the stock. So i just use the leather one. Its quiet, and doesn't scratch.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_007.JPG

One reason i got the basset machine scope mount is because it is detachable, hold zero within 1/2 moa, and doesn't permanently alter the rifle. Here's a picture of how it locks in if your curious. Apologies for the flash.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/m1a_008.JPG

August

07-19-13, 02:55 PM

That is a sweet looking rifle Duc! :up:

soopaman2

07-19-13, 02:57 PM

She's sexy Ducimus.

I'd penetrate paper with her any day!:D

Dat juicy scope, mmm the curves....Freaking sexy!

Ducimus

07-19-13, 03:02 PM

Paper's fun, but frozen turkey's was even better. I have an inlaw that owns a piece of land right next to BLM land, up against a mountain. He has his own range set up out there, and we had some frozen turkey's that had been in our freezer for two years. We tried and failed repeatily to give them away. Nobody wanted them. So they were relegated to, I guess what you could call redneck ballistic gelatine. Literally blew the gizzards out of em, and they were frozen solid.

Jimbuna

07-19-13, 03:06 PM

She's a sweet looking companion and far prettier than the MP5 I used to have a relationship with.

Red October1984

07-19-13, 04:45 PM

Figured i'd show off the other lady in my life, she's not just a safe queen, and she's allergic to polymer. All steel, wood, and leather, she enjoys grease a lot more then CLP, 100% pure tung oil and 100% pure neatsfoot oil.

That's a damned beautiful rifle.

Wow.... :huh:

Gimme a second and I'll show you mine. :smug:

EDIT: Got to take pictures...Don't have time. I'll get them up later.

Stealhead

07-19-13, 09:42 PM

I've never seen any of his videos. I'll check them out tomorrow.

I'm not doubting the 9x19's effectiveness or reliability or anything...I really like the caliber...but it's just the "shortage" (if you can call it that) is bad on the 9x19 as well as the .223

I'd rather get something different. Something a bit heavier...but not overkill...and not too expensive.

.40 seems just about right. I liked how it handled when I fired that .40 Compact and it's not an overrated caliber by any means IMO.

That was the end of that. JHP will make a nice hole. If militaries were allowed to use it, there would be some ugly holes for the doc to patch up. But since they can't use HP ammo, they use smaller calibers.

And anything FN makes is pretty cool anyway. :rock:

.40 cal is just about as in demand as 9x19mm is in fact if a person does not have 9x19mm they have a .40 and it is not really a controlled shortage it is supply and demand if you make ammo for the open market it does you no good to have a surplus because then the value goes down.By having your ammo in demand you make much more money.Renumber firearms manufactures and ammunition manufactures are for profit businesses.I think many people forget this important fact.

There is limit on caliber size under the Hauge Convention you just are not allowed to use certain types of ammunition.FMJ are used because they cause the cleanest wounds which in theory causes less suffering.The Hauge Convention has been around in one shape or form since the end of the 19th century and for over 70 years of it existence nations used full size rifle cartridges and still do in machine guns,sniper rifles and other specialist roles.

Most armed forces use smaller caliber ammunition for two reasons:
1.the ammo weighs much less and this allows a combatant to carry a much larger amount of ammunition under the same weight. If the cartridge is large a full size rifle round the typical solider will only have about 180 rounds in a smaller cartridge they can carry 240 rounds for the same cost in weight as the larger caliber.
2.It is far easier to train a person to have good marksmanship with a smaller caliber round than it is a heavier round additionally people of smaller frame can much more easily use a smaller caliber rifle while a larger may reduce their combat effectiveness.

All in all I think that the choice to use smaller caliber round was a wise one.Even in Vietnam where there where teething troubles with the M16 largely due to poor training and poor maintenance practices the advantage of 5.56mm was clear it encumbered troops less and they carry a large amount of ammunition that would have been very encumbering if it had been a larger caliber.You have also recall that in addition your ammo you also might be carrying a belt or two of ammunition for the machine gun in Vietnam that was the M60 7.62x51mm.

These days a platoon might only have two GPMG M240 and each squad will have at least one M249 which greatly increases the suppression ability of a squad so only the members of the weapons squad where the GMPG will be have to carry the heavier ammo and in the other squads usually one extra man carrier belts for M249(5.56mm) they use canvas bags told hold them so they really do not add that much weight.Both the M240 and the M249(sometimes known as MK46) are very highly rated by combat troops in yearly reviews.

Red October1984

07-19-13, 10:12 PM

.40 cal is just about as in demand as 9x19mm is in fact if a person does not have 9x19mm they have a .40 and it is not really a controlled shortage it is supply and demand if you make ammo for the open market it does you no good to have a surplus because then the value goes down.By having your ammo in demand you make much more money.Renumber firearms manufactures and ammunition manufactures are for profit businesses.I think many people forget this important fact.

I know that there really isn't a shortage of this ammo...people are just buying it all up.

In fact, I found a store that sells boxes of Steel Case .223 for 6$ and Brass Casing 5.56 for 9$.

However, I don't own a pistol nor shoot pistols very much so I really don't know much about them. I can handle them correctly but that's about it. I'm not an expert in that department.

There is limit on caliber size under the Hauge Convention you just are not allowed to use certain types of ammunition.FMJ are used because they cause the cleanest wounds which in theory causes less suffering.The Hauge Convention has been around in one shape or form since the end of the 19th century and for over 70 years of it existence nations used full size rifle cartridges and still do in machine guns,sniper rifles and other specialist roles.

I remember it was one of those conventions. :yep:

Most armed forces use smaller caliber ammunition for two reasons:
1.the ammo weighs much less and this allows a combatant to carry a much larger amount of ammunition under the same weight. If the cartridge is large a full size rifle round the typical solider will only have about 180 rounds in a smaller cartridge they can carry 240 rounds for the same cost in weight as the larger caliber.
2.It is far easier to train a person to have good marksmanship with a smaller caliber round than it is a heavier round additionally people of smaller frame can much more easily use a smaller caliber rifle while a larger may reduce their combat effectiveness.

All in all I think that the choice to use smaller caliber round was a wise one.Even in Vietnam where there where teething troubles with the M16 largely due to poor training and poor maintenance practices the advantage of 5.56mm was clear it encumbered troops less and they carry a large amount of ammunition that would have been very encumbering if it had been a larger caliber.You have also recall that in addition your ammo you also might be carrying a belt or two of ammunition for the machine gun in Vietnam that was the M60 7.62x51mm.

Those are two other good reasons to use a smaller caliber...but that's for like an entire regular army. I was meaning Counterterrorism, SOF, Law Enforcement, etc.

I've heard over and over that they use Hollow Points and smaller calibers so they don't have to worry about shooting through bodies in a hostage situation or in a densely populated area.

These days a platoon might only have two GPMG M240 and each squad will have at least one M249 which greatly increases the suppression ability of a squad so only the members of the weapons squad where the GMPG will be have to carry the heavier ammo and in the other squads usually one extra man carrier belts for M249(5.56mm) they use canvas bags told hold them so they really do not add that much weight.Both the M240 and the M249(sometimes known as MK46) are very highly rated by combat troops in yearly reviews.

I've been trained on both the 240 and 249. :D I talked quite a bit with the gunner who was helping me.

He and I both agreed that they were awesome weapons. :har:

Stealhead

07-20-13, 03:49 PM

I've heard over and over that they use Hollow Points and smaller calibers so they don't have to worry about shooting through bodies in a hostage situation or in a densely populated area.

What makes you think that 5.56mm will not penetrate?Trust me it can big time at close range.JHPs have a reduced ability to penetrate body armor therefore from a military standpoint they are not popular.Even an FMJ 5.56mm against good body armor once it penetrates that it is slowed to around .22longrifle ballistics.

When even much slower velocity JHP pistol rounds are very capable of full penetration common sense will tell you that a higher weight and velocity round most certainly will penetrate.

Look at the Bin Laden raid some non combatants still got hit by rounds and that was the one of the most elite units in the US military.

I dont really care that much about what LE does to be honest their job is supposed to be to protect and serve not to be a combat force.99% of SWAT actions are warrant raids anyway and you kind find hundreds of cases where they shot innocent people.Here in Florida a SWAT sniper got a perfect head shot with a .308 only thing was it was one of the hostages whose head he split apart and it was not a miss he thought the woman was a legit target.No offense to the good cops out there I know it a a lousy job at times and such and there are plenty of cops giving everyone a bad name.

So here is another real favorite of mine the M1917 Enfield certainly one of the best looking rifles ever made it also happens to one of the most accurate.I have never owned one personally but my father has one and I have fired his many times maybe he let me have it some day.His is the US Army model in .30-06 there was also a version for the British Army in .303 and also some .276 caliber.
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/p17rifle2_zps4188695f.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/p17rifle2_zps4188695f.jpg.html)

I have read a few places that the M1917 and the Brit version where not ideal for trench combat because they became very unbalanced with a bayonet attached.But man they really are good shooters if you have it on a good rest but that might not be so good when a German is about to whack you in your tea drinking face with a razor sharp shovel.

Platapus

07-20-13, 03:59 PM

Here in Florida a SWAT sniper got a perfect head shot with a .308 only thing was it was one of the hostages whose head he split apart and it was not a miss he thought the woman was a legit target.

Perhaps it was this type of hostage situation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

Warning racial language!

Red October1984

07-20-13, 04:09 PM

What makes you think that 5.56mm will not penetrate?Trust me it can big time at close range.JHPs have a reduced ability to penetrate body armor therefore from a military standpoint they are not popular.Even an FMJ 5.56mm against good body armor once it penetrates that it is slowed to around .22longrifle ballistics.

I though we were talking about pistols. :hmmm:

So here is another real favorite of mine the M1917 Enfield certainly one of the best looking rifles ever made it also happens to one of the most accurate.I have never owned one personally but my father has one and I have fired his many times maybe he let me have it some day.His is the US Army model in .30-06 there was also a version for the British Army in .303 and also some .276 caliber.

Beautiful rifle. I always liked the British Enfield more though. Still, nice gun.

I have read a few places that the M1917 and the Brit version where not ideal for trench combat because they became very unbalanced with a bayonet attached.But man they really are good shooters if you have it on a good rest but that might not be so good when a German is about to whack you in your tea drinking face with a razor sharp shovel.

I know the Brits shortened their SMLE Enfields to use in the Jungle in WW2. I'm not sure about what they did for trench combat.

Stealhead

07-20-13, 04:11 PM

Perhaps it was this type of hostage situation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

Warning racial language!

No nothing like that.I think it was a man threatening to kill himself and some how SWAT showed up right away nearly this woman looked out the window and caught a bullet this was back in the mid 90's I think the woman may have even been in a different house than the upset fellow.Anyway the woman's family got several million in settlement money.It was an LE failing on multiple levels.

Unlike the sheriff whose move was pure genius.

Red October1984

07-20-13, 08:26 PM

Here's another utterly horrible (IMHO) design.

Krummlauf

Wikipedia Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf)

The adaptation to the STG 44 to allow the user to shoot around corners. I don't know if you would call it a failed design since there has been a successful weapon system that shoots around corners Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CornerShot)

Stealhead

07-21-13, 12:37 AM

Red October1984

07-21-13, 01:03 AM

@RedOctober

You speak of the SMLE Mk.5 and Mk.6 they where not a bad design for close range combat but they have a fierce recoil but the bigger problem with them was that they had a "wandering zero" so they never where constantly accurate.A friend owned one at one time a Mk.6 I think which was the Aussie version but it might have been a Mk.5.The wandering zero most likely comes from the fact that the MK.5 & 6 are carbines of the Mk.4 SMLE and perhaps the sights where not properly adapted also the barrel might be so short that some of the powder is not getting burned off.

During WWI the British Army and Commonwealth Armies used primarily the SMLE Mk.3 with a 17" bayonet some British units used the Enfeild Pattern 1914 rifle which is the Brit version of the M1917 that i mentioned earlier as far as I am aware only British units used them ANZAC and Indian troops pretty much exclusively used the SMLE Mk.3.

I've always liked the SMLE Enfield rifles. I need to get one someday. I love the old bolt action military rifles.

The Krummlaf is not so much a bad design as an impractical one if you ask me.

Here are two designs that you should look up the M1941 Johnson rifle and the M1941 Johnson machine gun.You may find them very interesting because they introduced some concepts that are now very common.Many of the guys that worked for Johnson later worked for a subsidiary of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Inc. that produced firearms and put those concepts intot he firearm they desgined.That is a clue there.:cool: See how much you can find out on your own.

Homework?

School doesn't start up again til the 13th! :shifty:

I'll look them up anyway :D

Reading the article on the rifle now....That is an interesting design. The recoiling barrel? :hmmm:

The M1941 rifle used the energy from recoil to operate the rifle. As the bullet and propellant gases moved down the barrel, they imparted a force on the bolt head that was locked to the barrel. The barrel, together with the bolt, moved a short distance rearward until the bullet left the barrel and pressure in the bore had dropped to safe levels. The barrel then stopped against a shoulder allowing the bolt carrier to continue rearward under the momentum imparted by the initial recoil stage. The rotating bolt, which had eight locking lugs, would then lock the bolt. Following, a cam arrangement then rotated and unlocked the bolt to continue the operating cycle.[1] One disadvantage of this design was its impact on the use of a bayonet, as the complex movements of the barrel would be subject to unacceptable stress when a bayonet thrust was used. The Johnson rifle utilized a unique 10-round rotary magazine and a two-piece stock, the weapon using the same 5 round stripper clips used by the M1903 Rifle.

Interesting idea. That's for sure...but how reliable?

Unfortunately, the Johnson's recoiling barrel mechanism resulted in excessive vertical shot dispersion that was never fully cured during its production life, and was prone to malfunction when a bayonet was attached to the reciprocating barrel. The Johnson also employed a number of small parts that were easily lost during field stripping. Partially because of lack of development, the M1941 was less rugged and reliable than the M1, though this was a matter of degree and was not a universal opinion among those that had used both weapons in combat.

Looks like another idea shot down before it could be perfected.

---

I'll look at the LMG tomorrow or whenever else I have time. Good reading so far. :yeah:

Stealhead

07-22-13, 04:47 PM

Well I'll tell you the rest of the story.After WWII most of the engineers that worked for Johnson got on with a firm called Armalite which was founded in the early 1950s.

Aramlite was owned by Fairchild at one time a large defense contractor mainly in aircraft.They wanted to get into the small arms industry so they formed Armalite their major concept was using non traditional materials in their designs aluminum and synthetics mainly.

They produced a couple of .22 caliber "survival rifles" and then the AR-10 which was designed by Eugene Stoner.Stoner was influenced by some of the concepts that the Johnson machine gun had.Especially how the guns recoil was "straight line" which meant that the weapon did not tilt upwards very much which at the time was common to most rifles for example the M-14,FN FAL,AK-47.

Most of the concepts found on the AR-15 actually originated on the AR-10 but the AR-10 came along at a bad time as the US Army had just recently adapted the M-14.Emphasis on most though the AR-10 was a bit different and contrary to popular belief the SR-25 is not an AR-10 converted to have AR-15 features it is really an AR-15 beefed up to handle 7.62x51mm.

Still it is interesting to see how concepts and ideas from one firearm are used in another design.When it comes to firearms imitation really is the best form of flattery.

It does always work out perfectly the M-60 for example took design features from the MG-42 and the FG-42 but early models had a lot of annoying problems.or example the the gas tube,barrel and bipod where all attached which meant that the gun was in two parts when you needed to change the barrel not ideal it also had a lousy feed ramp that is why they welded a tin can below the feed ramp.They missed out on one of the best features of the MG-42 which was its rapid barrel change.The FN MAG 58(M240) did a much better job taking concepts from the MG-42 and improving them.That MAG was around from 1958 but not until 1997 did the US Army finally accept it as the primary GPMG at least our tankers had them from 1977.Back in the 1950's though in the US there was kind of a mentality that we where the best engineers and that foreign stuff was inferior one of the rifles that the M-14 competed against was the FN FAL.
The M-14 is a good rifle but when it got accepted in 1957 it was supposed to replace several different weapons when it was really only good as a rifle.

soopaman2

07-22-13, 05:08 PM

Ducimus

07-22-13, 05:27 PM

Big fan of the m-14.

Inferior to the m16 in every way. Vietnam, and politics messed up our standard service rifle.

M14 way more punch and range, hands down.

Eugene Stoner also made the m16, which compared to the m14, is a pile of crap.

He wanted to be the Kalashnikov of America, but instead stuck us with a decent rifle with a mediocre round.

Eh? Probably a typo. :O:

On the subject of M-14's, can anyone identify the rifle's show in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff8GB_Bxp70

Also on the subject of M-14's, i'll also link this m14 / M1A lover's self pleasuring video:
http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/videos/weapons-rundown-m1a#weapons-rundown-m1a

As to Armalite Rifle No 15, the story behind it is interesting. Albiet you'll find bias for or against depending on who you talk. If one has the time to kill, here's a 45 minute documentary on it by the history channel.
Tales of the Gun - M-16 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKBNcq6oAzE)

My personal take is the M-16 was rushed into service, came into service before it was ready and unnecessarily costing lives as a result. I believe both the M-14 and the M-16 series have their place, and fulfill slightly different roles. If i had to pick just one rifle though, I'd take the M-14 for its versatility, range, and punch - although, that comes at a cost of being able to carry less ammo.

Stealhead

07-22-13, 06:59 PM

I fully agree with Ducimus and completely disagree with Soopa typo not withstanding.

Stoner did not make the M16 Colt did.:03: The M16 had problems because it was rushed into service and was billed as self cleaning wepon which was never a claim made by Stoner or Armalite.Colt purchased the rights because they had the production capacity they are the ones that failed to have the barrel and bolt chromed which greatly reduces rust.The army can also be blamed because they by mistake or lack of understanding(it is not known which for certain) changed the powder to a type that was much dirtier than what Colt recommended.

Both rifles do have their place and contrary to popular belief the M-14 was not a trouble free weapon.In its natural role that of a semi-automatic rifle it performed well the M21 also performed well bridging the gap between a standard rifle and pure sniping rifle at the time M40(bolt action).

It also had another role that of squad automatic weapon to replace the BAR the M14A1.In this role it was an abysmal failure it was simply uncontrollable on automatic fire so much so so that the Army and Marine Corps removed this model from service.

On top of this nearly all of the early production M-14s had the automatic sear removed.You can ID an A1 because they have a weird looking pistol grip behind the trigger and also have a bipod and a funky looking fore grip as well as a muzzle brake with drilled holes rather than the slots of a standard M-14.

The M-14 in my opinion did not succeed fully in its intended role because it was simply uncontrollable under fully automatic fire.This role was failed by every western post war rifle because the 7.62x51mm round is simply to heavy to be controllable in an 8~10 pound weapon under full auto conditions.From a production standpoint it also to some extent failed because it was costly to produce.The DOD could not afford to fully arm the military with the M-14 many reserve and national Guard units where stuck with M-1 Garands into the 1970s.Part of this was do to the M-14 not being easy to mass produce.

One of the factor that proves that the M16 series was in fact if properly treated a fine weapon is that many elite units in Vietnam who could choose the weapons they carried many of these guys choose to carry the M-16 or more commonly the XM177 sometimes called a Car-15.

I have asked my father this question many times as he was an LRRP in Vietnam and he preferred to carry the XM177 and he tried at different times
several firearms including the AK-47(90% of the time in Vietnam a Chinese Type 56) and even ANZAC FN FALS.He told me that the key was the typically range of combat and the weight of the weapon to him where the most important factors.And the XM was the lightest and most easy to quickly bring to bear it also had/has fewer steps(motions) in reloading something that your life might hang in the balance on.Weapon length is a huge factor as well at close range the longer you weapon is the slower your movement will be.

The other huge factor especially in Vietnam is weight the weather is brutal there and you really feel all that gear that you hump so more weight is always a negative when you have other options.

In modern combat the environment changes it can go from urban where a larger heavier rifle is a disadvantage to a more open one where you can use the benefit of a larger caliber.That is why you see the variation in weaponry most troops will carry an M-4 but you have some that are carrying a heavier DMR weapon it might be an M4/16 with a heavier barrel and also firing heavier grain rounds or it might be an M14EBR or one of the other modern variations of the M-14.The way I see it the M-14 in its modern forms gets to shine while in the past it was forced to be the jack of all trades a role that no firearm can truly fulfill.

Furthermore unless you have really put a lot of time on the range with both the M-16 and M-14 you really cant say which one is better for you.And the question of what is better for an armed force I have already answered.Not trying to knock you Soopa but for many people even big guys the M-14 just does not fit their needs.

Stepping off of the soap box now.

@Ducimus They look like M-14s to me:hmmm: was that some sort of trick question?

Ducimus

07-22-13, 07:37 PM

@Ducimus They look like M-14s to me:hmmm: was that some sort of trick question?

Yes it was. :O:

As to M-14 vs M-16, in terms of an urban environment... technically i want neither. I think. :shifty: Is the M4 technically considered it's own gun? Cause that's what i would want if i was thrown into an Urban environment. Short, light weight, and the round can go as far as it needs to. The situation is really dynamic. You can go from short range to medium range fairly quickly. So the M4 fits that nitch perfectly i think.

Now, the argument of M14 vs M16 is an old one amongst aficionado 's of either platforms. Kind of like "ford vs chevy". That said, there is a reason why M14's have reappeared from deep within the bowels of DOD armory's.
http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/501stm14.jpg
The 5.56 round was found insufficient, i believe primarily because of range, as they were only intended for 200-300 yard engagements if i remember correctly.

Now can the M14 be used in the same role as the M16 or M4? I think so, however it has it's drawbacks, with weight being the top detractor, size as mentioned being the second. (not so much if you look at the scout squad or Socom 16 M1A's) It certainly isn't a rifle for everyone, to use it effectively for extended periods of time, you really do need to be fit. My M1A, unloaded with an empty mag, and without a scope on it, is 11.2 pounds. Now add twenty 7.62 rounds and shoot it standing unsupported or even with a loop or hasty sling for about 50 rounds. Then the weight really starts to show.

All that said, in a SHTF scenario, here in the US, the M14 /M1A would be my go to rifle, for reasons i think i've already mentioned.

nikimcbee

07-22-13, 08:04 PM

I've still got my Chinese SKS I bought when I was 18. I haven't shot it in about 5~6 years.

I want to get rid of my .22 bolt New Haven long rifle and get a good .22. But, that is really low on my list of priorities.

Stealhead

07-22-13, 09:19 PM

Yes it was. :O:

The 5.56 round was found insufficient, i believe primarily because of range, as they were only intended for 200-300 yard engagements if I remember correctly.

I think the M14EBRs are really good.They started making those when troops saw the need and started taking old M-14s and mounting ACOGs and other scopes on them to act as a marksmen weapon.I have read a few places that they where having trouble with some of the old ones which is why they started the EBR program which partly rebuilds them.

The USMC lead the way back with their M-14DMR which is being replaced by another M-14 which is similar to the EBR but has a heavier and longer barrel.The Army guys where stuck with the older M-14s until well into 2003 until the EBRs became more readily available.

I would not be surprised some of those M-14s may have been sitting around for years they might have been a bit past their prime in some cases.

There is one draw back to having an obvious DMR it also attracts the enemy a solider with a longer rifle stands out.

Of course I understand that there are a few differing concepts out there when it comes to DMR type weapons.

One concept is simply a heavier barreled M-4/16 also firing a higher grain bullet to buffer the M-14.I read a fairly interesting book about a year ago where the author and former sniper spoke with mainly US army and USMC snipers as well as a few LE guys who also happened to be in the reserves.

One US Army Sargent his unit in 2008 tested the concept of using heavier grain 5.56mm for closer in kill(~400m) using I believe a military version of Black Hills 77 grain.They had outstanding results and in some cases they where using a standard M4 barrel other times they used a heavier barrel.

The sargent said that they when possible collected the bodies so that they could be medically examined.He said that one doctor had a conversation with him and complemented his skill with the M24(7.62x51mm) the sarge informed the doc that the round had been a 5.56mm 77 grain.That tells you something when a doctor gets fooled by the expected wound ballistics.Of course 5.56 even in a higher grain and out of a heavier barrel does have its range limits.Anyway this "experiment" was to evaluate the concept of using a DMR version of the M4/16 and issuing it to regular infantry.

It actually is a good idea from a military stand point you do not have to train the solider on a new rifle and in the heat of things the weapon of course fire standard 5.56 rounds just fine.It also places less demand on the production of M-14EBRs.

The Army also has the M110(basically an SR-25) but that is a more expensive bit of kit intended for snipers not DMs.

There has been some interest in also going with an "intermediate" cartridge as a DM round something in the 6mm range I know that the Lapua 6.5mm and the Barret 6.8mm are high are the suggested list.Of course that means producing millions of rounds of completely new ammunition and also procuring all new barrels as well as uppers for a percentage of M4/16s.

With all that said I think the combination of M-14s and beefed up M4/16 as DMRs is the best option.

Of course accuracy counts for something as well I know that a Marine killed in one shot a Taliban fighter that was making ready to fire an RPG at a US Amry MEDVAC and this some gunner had already taken down an MH-47 full of Seals a few days prior so he was no slouch.Anyway one fact is that we are talking about a Marine and they are all rifleman but he still made the shot with only an ACOG (3.5x or 4.0x) on a target that was 300+m away and also above him so a tougher shot and it was also a snap shot and he got the job done.I have read of this Marine in a book about the operation he was involved in and also on a National Geographic where they talked to some Marines in the same unit yet they did not mention his name a humble person I suppose.

Of course as you said with your own personal use that is a whole other can worms all together.I would say that the biggest factor there would be your location.

Red October1984

07-22-13, 11:31 PM

Feel like I've missed so much...

As far as the M-16 and M-14...

M16A4 with an ACOG and Mk 14 Mod 0 EBR.

Those are my choices. I'd probably still go with the EBR.

Stealhead

07-23-13, 07:48 PM

It would depend on the situation urban or an inclosed wooded/planted area like a "green zone" in Afghanistan I'd want an M-4 with a holographic site with the special sight enhancers that you can flip up for longer ranges (in combat your suppression capability is most important) and I'd want an M203 or ideally an M320 I have seen clips of guys really laying it down with an M320 and a few SAWs they help break contact very effectively.

In a more open area or if I am inside the wire an M-14 would be better because they usually attack from longer range and the M-14 would be in its element.

Of course all things considered any firearm is better than none if you find yourself facing unfriendly persons possessing them.

In an on your own situation any AR-15 based weapon gets a ding do to the extra TLC that it will need so really then something else would be better.

Ducimus

07-23-13, 07:57 PM

In an on your own situation any AR-15 based weapon gets a ding do to the extra TLC that it will need so really then something else would be better.

The first thing that jumps into my mind is, piston vs direct impingement. It probably won't be a big surprise if i said I prefer a piston. :O:

Red October1984

07-23-13, 09:02 PM

August

07-25-13, 11:53 PM

Red October1984

07-25-13, 11:59 PM

I had heard that before...but wasn't sure if it was confirmed or not.

TorpX

07-26-13, 11:51 PM

Interesting tidbit of firearms related information I found out today.

Although Colt AR-15's are marked as a .223 on the lower receiver all their barrels are actually chambered for 5.56mm. This means I don't have to do anything to shoot both ammo sizes. Yay!

I'm glad you posted this. I'm in the same boat, having an Colt AR-15 HBAR purchased shortly before the AW ban was passed. I was wondering what could have possibly possessed Colt to manufacture a paramilitary rifle complete with bayonet lug, flash suppressor, heavy chrome lined barrel, etc., but that could not use military surplus ammunition. They would have to have manufactured it on different tooling, no less. My faith in Colt is restored!

Ducimus, you obviously have good taste in rifles. :yep:

My main rifle is the AR-15. The principle reasons I bought it were lower cost of ammunition vs. 7.62mm and ability to fire .22LR with conversion devices. Most of my shooting with it has been with .22LR, in fact.

If I lived out where I could blast away freely (and had the dough), I would undoubtedly get a

M-1 Garand

"the greatest battle implement ever devised".

August

07-27-13, 12:52 AM

I'm glad you posted this. I'm in the same boat, having an Colt AR-15 HBAR purchased shortly before the AW ban was passed. I was wondering what could have possibly possessed Colt to manufacture a paramilitary rifle complete with bayonet lug, flash suppressor, heavy chrome lined barrel, etc., but that could not use military surplus ammunition. They would have to have manufactured it on different tooling, no less. My faith in Colt is restored

Just to be sure check the top of the barrel between the front sight post and the flash suppressor. There should be an inscription that should say:

C MP 5.56 NATO 1/7 HBAR

If you got that you are all set to use either .223 or 5.56

Red October1984

07-27-13, 01:20 PM

If I lived out where I could blast away freely (and had the dough), I would undoubtedly get a

M-1 Garand

"the greatest battle implement ever devised".

800$ at my local gun shop. :up:

They're very nice rifles. My friend's Dad has one and he's been telling me for 2 years now that we're going to go shooting...but he has work all the time...being a cop and all...

Stealhead

07-27-13, 02:56 PM

800$ at my local gun shop. :up:

They're very nice rifles. My friend's Dad has one and he's been telling me for 2 years now that we're going to go shooting...but he has work all the time...being a cop and all...

They should be a lot cheaper they only made several million of them but everyone wants the M1 Garand (never was that interested myself in them).

I do have an SVT-40 just as good of a weapon actually better having a better magazine which was the biggest drawback of the M1 and not because of the ping and the myth that US troops got killed when the ping was heard.As if you would even hear that in the heat of combat if you where stupid enough to expose yourself when you heard the ping anyway you would get shot by everyone else that still had rounds left.In combat your enemy tries to get on your flanks whilst you are distracted and then kills you the condition of your weapons has little effect on this tactic because he should not know that you are flanking him until you engage at which point he is overwhelmed unless he has outstanding NCOs and tact and has a lot of luck.

The 8 rounder of the M1 did make topping off very tricky because you had to prop the rifle on your leg and use both hands to hold the bolt open and and bullets while also holding the the clip in the magazine.The US Army combat manual actually advised that when preparing for an assault or when needing to have a fresh magazine in the M1 the user was to fire off the remaining rounds in the magazine until the clip was ejected and then load another 8 round clip into the magazine.I think that entire feature was John Garands little bit of engineering that he thought was unique (which it was) and he clung to that feeling it was ideal and not really thinking about some of the impracticality in the field that such a design can bring up.

Red October1984

07-27-13, 03:05 PM

Thye should be a lot cheaper they only made several million of them but everyone wants the M1 Garand (never was that interested myself in them).

I do have an SVT-40 just as good of a weapon actually better having a better magazine which was the biggest drawback of the M1 and not because of the ping and the myth that US troops got killed when the ping was heard.
As if you would even hear that in the heat of combat if you where stupid enough to expose yourself when you heard the ping anyway you would get shot by everyone else that still had rounds left.

That was always my thought.

Why would you hear that in a heated firefight? War is hell...but War is also loud as hell.

If it wasn't so intense...You might be able to hear it.

Another military channel show had a Weapons Collector and Historian talking on there about how the US Soldiers would throw empty clips against something hard and the enemy would jump up thinking the American was out of ammo.

They're beautiful rifles though. I'd love to have one.

Stealhead

07-27-13, 04:25 PM

TorpX

07-27-13, 10:14 PM

Just to be sure check the top of the barrel between the front sight post and the flash suppressor. There should be an inscription that should say:

C MP 5.56 NATO 1/7 HBAR

If you got that you are all set to use either .223 or 5.56

Yup, it's there. Thank-you!

The 8 rounder of the M1 did make topping off very tricky because you had to prop the rifle on your leg and use both hands to hold the bolt open and and bullets while also holding the the clip in the magazine.The US Army combat manual actually advised that when preparing for an assault or when needing to have a fresh magazine in the M1 the user was to fire off the remaining rounds in the magazine until the clip was ejected and then load another 8 round clip into the magazine.I think that entire feature was John Garands little bit of engineering that he thought was unique (which it was) and he clung to that feeling it was ideal and not really thinking about some of the impracticality in the field that such a design can bring up.

I know the 8rd. clip has been much criticized, but I think these criticisms have been overblown. Yes, topping off a M-1 takes longer, than with a Mauser, Arisaka, or Springfield, but gives you a faster reload, not to mention 3 extra rounds. Also, the en-bloc clip is a very efficient way to carry ammunition. The clips add very little in weight or bulk; much less than with box magazines. Also, the magazine is in the rifle, where it is unlikely to suffer damage. External magazines get bumped and bruised; sometimes reliability suffers. The Johnson system is not a bad idea, but I would still pick the M-1 for the fast reloading.

Here is a little bit of firearms history many may not know. The M-1 Garand was originally approved for adoption in .276 Pedersen caliber. It was selected over the Pedersen Rifle in the same caliber. Then, the Army Chief of Staff, General MacArthur, disapproved the report, stating there would be no change in the service cartridge. John C. Garand had to hastily redesign the rifle in .30 caliber. The .276 Garand had a 10 round capacity and was lighter. It met all Army requirements and only had about 60 parts, fewer than the Springfield '03. I kind of think the .276 Garand would have been an even better service rifle.

Red October1984

07-27-13, 11:34 PM

I have heard that claim about throwing the empty clips as well and it also sounds like BS so the sound of a bit of metal getting tossed is supposed to sound like a clip getting popped out of a chamber under many pounds of spring force right.

Agree. :yep:

Don't get me wrong the M1 Garand was good weapon it just was not the masterpiece better than everyone else weapon people make it out to be.Weapons are one thing but in war many other factors are important and the best weapon do not always win.The side with the best logistics and the best trained troops the best NCOs and the most well trained officers will win.Your brain is the ultimate weapon team work is the ultimate weapon.

Looking at the specs...we fought against the Arisaka and the Karabiner....and the M1 takes the cake for me. I think it's vastly superior to each of the enemy's rifles.

Now the German Gewehr 43 was a semiautomatic rifle that held 10 rounds. I'm not sure on the specs of that one...but I see it as a contender against the M1...even though it wasn't the standard service rifle.

A semiauto .30-06 that holds 8 rounds easily beats the other two bolt rifles in firing rate and capacity.

The only thing that I see where the M1 might suffer is range and accuracy. With a bolt action rifle, the chamber has a better seal and doesn't have to use extra gas to cycle the bolt. All the gas is behind the round. :hmmm:

I'd need to do a little research first though. Don't have the time.

Looking at it with no research and just knowledge...I see the M1 being best of the rifles during the War.

Stealhead

07-27-13, 11:58 PM

I know the 8rd. clip has been much criticized, but I think these criticisms have been overblown. Yes, topping off a M-1 takes longer, than with a Mauser, Arisaka, or Springfield, but gives you a faster reload,

I know the 8rd. clip has been much criticized, but I think these criticisms have been overblown. Yes, topping off a M-1 takes longer, than with a Mauser, Arisaka, or Springfield, but gives you a faster reload, not to mention 3 extra rounds.

I quoted the part that I disagree with.

See that is the biggest drawback of the M1 Garand is that under combat conditions you can't top it off easily your stuck with the rounds left in the current mag or as the already stated the Army manual advised your stuck firing off the remaining rounds until ping and then using a fresh clip.

I think that they amount to somethign becuase the 8 round capacity and quirky topping off where the two major complaints from soldiers and Marines using the M1 in combat.They started experimenting with an external magazine for the M1 Garand towards the end of WWII that ultimately led to the M-14.

Furthermore any bolt action rifle Kar98,Type99,SMLE what ever they all used stripper clips as well and you you just pressed the rounds out of the clip into the magazine the same exact process as the M1 Garand nearly to the T except the clip stay with the Garand so how that can be any faster than any other clip loading to me does not add up.

I think you are misunderstanding me here a little i am not in anyway saying that Garand was a bad rifle by any means only that it did have drawbacks.I am not in any way trying to say that it does not have a fire advantage over a bolt action rifle of course it does and that was its great advantage.

Kar98 reload for strip some relaxed loading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsTAuziBsY

M1 reload also a bit relaxed at any rate either could be done very quickly and i do not see how either can be much faster or slower than the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ICQHGeMd3bc&t=261

@Red the G43 used the standard rifle cartridge used by the German military 7.62x57mm Mauser it was a fairly decent rifle of course it is a bit heavier than the M1 Garand its biggest draw back would be simply low production numbers.

Do not forget Red that the M1 Garand never fully replaced the M1903 during the war in fact our first major battle in the Pacific at Guadal Canal the Marines there did not yet have the M1 Garand the Army troops relived them after several months of fighting did.Just like the M-16 20 years later some soldiers did not like the M1 and preferred the M1903.

You can have excellent accuracy with an M1 Garnad at any range where using open sights is a feasibility.They did make sniper versions as well but the M1903A4 was vastly preferred because at those ranges it was more accurate than the M1Garand C/D.One reason the C/D sniper Garands where disliked was because they had a scope mounted to the side which meant that it was not easy to bore sight and that is not something that snipers like very much.

Red October1984

07-28-13, 12:47 AM

@Red the G43 used the standard rifle cartridge used by the German military 7.62x57mm Mauser it was a fairly decent rifle of course it is a bit heavier than the M1 Garand its biggest draw back would be simply low production numbers.

Do not forget Red that the M1 Garand never fully replaced the M1903 during the war in fact our first major battle in the Pacific at Guadal Canal the Marines there did not yet have the M1 Garand the Army troops relived them after several months of fighting did.Just like the M-16 20 years later some soldiers did not like the M1 and preferred the M1903.

You can have excellent accuracy with an M1 Garnad at any range where using open sights is a feasibility.They did make sniper versions as well but the M1903A4 was vastly preferred because at those ranges it was more accurate than the M1Garand C/D.One reason the C/D sniper Garands where disliked was because they had a scope mounted to the side which meant that it was not easy to bore sight and that is not something that snipers like very much.

The G43 shot the standard cartridge...but was not the standard rifle.

And the M1 Sniper versions...they just annoy me. :smug: Garands aren't meant for that.

Ducimus

07-28-13, 09:09 AM

Patton never saw the product improved version of the Garand. Just sayin'. :O:

Stealhead

07-28-13, 02:23 PM

The G43 shot the standard cartridge...but was not the standard rifle.

And the M1 Sniper versions...they just annoy me. :smug: Garands aren't meant for that.

Not sure what the G43 firing the standard German cartridge but not being the standard issue weapon has to do with anything.

I would not say that a weapon design annoys me until I have tried it myself or someone who I know that has a reliable opinion has.

@Ducimus what you say is true and I am not even sure that he actually said that about the M1 anyway.Doing a little research I am unable to find a reliable source that proves that he ever even said that the M1 Garand was the greatest battle implement ever designed and it actually goes against his own beliefs as he was clearly a person that believed in the courage and determination of men.It would be more likely of Patton to say something like "the M1 Garand is a good weapon but without a good solider it is useless." he did not say that either but that is more along his line of thinking.

I can only find the M1 quote in places that might be a bit biased/fan boyish towards the M1.Patton had a mythology surrounding his persona even when he was alive and was misquoted on a regular basis so until I can find an unbiased source I do not feel that he actually said that about the M1 Garand.

August

07-28-13, 03:36 PM

The Garands biggest advantage over the Mauser, Springfield or any other bolt action is that it's a semi-automatic. That means it can put more aimed shots downrange compared to a bolt action. But note the emphasis on the aimed part. SMG's throw a lot more lead than semis but they sacrifice a lot of range and accuracy to do it.

With a semi auto a shooter doesn't have to move between shots. That means he's able to reacquire his target much faster than the bolt action shooter who must break his firing position between every shot to cycle the bolt, especially from the prone position.

Another advantage is the larger magazine of the M1. 8 shots vs 5 of the Mauser. That means 3 free shots at the enemy for every reload. When it comes to gaining fire superiority that is significant.

TorpX

07-29-13, 11:19 PM

Furthermore any bolt action rifle Kar98,Type99,SMLE what ever they all used stripper clips as well and you you just pressed the rounds out of the clip into the magazine the same exact process as the M1 Garand nearly to the T except the clip stay with the Garand so how that can be any faster than any other clip loading to me does not add up.

This seems true at first blush, but look at it carefully:

Kar/Springfield/bolt gun .........................M-1 Garand

last rd. fired ..........................................last rd. fired
move hand to bolt.................................. grab clip
lift up bolt............................................ insert clip
retract bolt........................................... close bolt
grab stripper clip.................................return hand to trigger
insert clip into guide
strip rds. into magazine
remove stripper clip
close bolt
lock bolt
return hand to trigger

It is somewhat like comparing reloading a semi-auto pistol, vs. a revolver with a speed loader. Those who have never tried to do it fast may think it can be done as quickly, but that is not the case. There are more motions involved and while training can speed up the process, it will still take longer than with a magazine pistol.

I'm not trying to sell everyone on the M-1 or get you to abandon your favorite rifle, but the M-1 is/was an excellent infantry weapon.

I didn't see a good video of fast reloading with a M-1, but this one does show some good, fast shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtBe6zUytI

(The shooting portion begins at 11:00 min.)

I just found this; here is shown different ways to load the M-1. My father described the method for loading it, like he describes in for loading the full clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GdTKm4eBAs

Ducimus

08-19-13, 04:22 PM

Minor product review:

CoyoteM1A check rests.
https://www.coyotem1a.com/

Might be able to use them on any similar stock I would imagine. Small merchant, made in Canada, quality I think is better then most name brand products (smith enterprise cheek rest for example) for far less money.

Some pics:
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/coyotem1a_01.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/coyotem1a_02.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/coyotem1a_03.JPG
Hey look, It's "the shoulder thing that goes up" :shifty: (Sorry, couldn't resist)

The underside of this cheek rest (not pictured), is a rubberized mat of some kind. It seems to prevent the rest from moving around on the stock. Combine that with the straps on the cheek rest, and it doesn't move around on you at all. I'm quite happy with my purchase in that regard.

My only gripe:
The nylon fabric is not kind to stubble. If your like me and sporting a 5 0'clock shadow most of the time, your whiskers will get snagged on the rest and pull a little. Downright annoying. So, I'm sad to say, shave before shooting, or get a different cheek rest.

Red October1984

08-19-13, 05:22 PM

Minor product review:

CoyoteM1A check rests.
https://www.coyotem1a.com/

Might be able to use them on any similar stock I would imagine. Small merchant, made in Canada, quality I think is better then most name brand products (smith enterprise cheek rest for example) for far less money.

Still love that beautiful rifle...

I'm really on the fence over a cheek rest and a bipod for that matter. I have that Savage.

It has a scope and sling on it now...but this was the day I got it.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8615/30tt.jpg

It was a good christmas...even though I haven't had a chance to take this baby out on the range yet. I'll have it done by November. :yeah:

Thinking of getting a sleeve over the stock to hold individual rounds. I don't feel I really need a bipod at this point.

Ducimus

08-30-13, 12:21 PM

Ok not all great guns are high speed rifles. Some guns are great for sentimental value.

The shotgun pictured below is a Remington 870 wingmaster magnum. It was my Fathers first gun, purchased at a pawn shop when he was a teenager. This is quite literally, my "daddy's shotgun". I dated the barrel codes, and as near as i can tell, this shotgun was made in 1961. I know for a fact that this puppy seen many days in the field, and has harvested untold numbers of upland game birds for the dinner table. Pheasants, doves, quail, ducks, grouse, chuckers, you name it.

This is also the first 12 gauge that I have ever fired. When my Dad was teaching me how to hunt (i'm guessing i was 14, give or take), he let me fire this bad boy once at a fallen tree and it about killed me from the recoil. Although as an adult, I can fire this thing all day if need be. In fact my dad has since taken to using his Browning auto loader, so he'd put this one in my hand whenever we went hunting together.

My father passed it down to me when my wife and I were leaving California to make our new life for ourselves in Utah. To me it was a special moment. It's my intention to do the same and pass it down to my first born child when it's time. This is a family heirloom in the making.

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/870_01.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/870_02.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/870_03.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/870_04.JPG

http://www.ducimus.net/temp/870_05.JPG

Red October1984

09-01-13, 12:37 PM

Here's one for the previous "Dumb Design" discussion

https://sphotos-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q77/s720x720/1236486_556433441072179_1967729441_n.jpg

How does .17/.50 even work?! :doh:

Platapus

09-01-13, 12:51 PM

How does .17/.50 even work?! :doh:

Well assuming that

1. You have a chamber that could handle the pressure

2. You have a barrel that can withstand the friction

3. Have a bullet that can withstand not only the friction but survive not breaking up when it leaves the barrel

4.The bullet would have any semblance of accuracy

You would have one very fast round that would probably fragment as soon as it hits anything. This would result in a very efficient transfer of energy to the target.

Personally, I doubt the accuracy would be anything acceptable.

Red October1984

09-01-13, 12:55 PM

Well assuming that

1. You have a chamber that could handle the pressure

2. You have a barrel that can withstand the friction

3. Have a bullet that can withstand not only the friction but survive not breaking up when it leaves the barrel

4.The bullet would have any semblance of accuracy

You would have one very fast round that would probably fragment as soon as it hits anything. This would result in a very efficient transfer of energy to the target.

Personally, I doubt the accuracy would be anything acceptable.

I'm sure the FPS on that is downright ridiculous.

I just don't see any use for that. :timeout:

Platapus

09-01-13, 01:13 PM

I'm sure the FPS on that is downright ridiculous.

I just don't see any use for that. :timeout:

Nor do I. I would opine that the ballistic trajectory would be unpredictable.

I do need to add another item to my assumption list

5. that you have a barrel long enough.

In order to garner the full effect of all that powder on such a small diameter projectile, the barrel would have to be long. And by long I would say 6-8 feet, perhaps? (would have to work on the maths on this)

For comparison, The Barrett M82A1 .50 rifle has a barrel length of about 3 feet.

Stealhead

09-01-13, 02:05 PM

Here's one for the previous "Dumb Design" discussion

How does .17/.50 even work?! :doh:

It is a joke no such round exists.I suppose it would be feasible though all that power on such a narrow neck I am not sure that it would work from a cartridge standpoint.

You could make a chamber strong enough and a bolt but a firearm must also have a cartridge that will not tear itself apart.

Also as Platapus mentioned the ballistics would be a problem.That much powered on such a small bullet it would likely simply disintegrate either inside the barrel or in flight.If it did not tear off the top of the casing before getting to that point.

It is just a fake cartridge someone made in a machine shop.

Also .17/.50= 0.34

Here is another joke round .22 necked down .50.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/09/08/50-bmg-necked-down-to-22/

These are novelty "rounds" poking fun at the many real super varmint rounds not to say they(the real ones) are ineffective but more of a "what if a some crazy redneck did this?"

Madox58

09-01-13, 02:17 PM

How does .17/.50 even work?! :doh:

With today's modern trend of shorter, fatter, and faster rounds, our staff has developed what may be the ultimate varmint round. It will far exceed both the WSM and WSSM rounds in both range and velocity. We would like to introduce the .17/50BMG Magnum.

The new round is based on the 50 BMG necked down to .17 cal. with an innovative shoulder configuration to allow additional powder space. Unfortunately, the round will not be able to be reloaded to factory velocities until we can develop a home-use powder drop that will adequately fill the shoulder space. It has been suggested that the load be assembled in reverse, with the bullet first being seated and the powder then poured throught the primer hole. We are now testing that proceedure.

The .17 cal. projectile is a specially designed 45 gr. varmint bullet. The staff sacrificed a slight bit of velocity with this heavier bullet in order to get an increased ballistic coeficient for added downrange stability.

We started development with 200 gr. of Hodgden H50BMG powder but found it to be a bit slow burning for maximum velocity with this light bullet. 205 grains of IMR4831 seems to produce the highest velocity but we won't know for sure until we find a chronograph that registers above 9999 fps.

Close range accuracy with our prototype rifle was .3 MOA. Further refinement of the rifle should dramatically improve on this poor performance. We fired a group at maximum range yesterday then sent a team to recover the target. They should be back tomorrow to report on long range accuracy.

Finding a scope with enough magnification to see small targets at maximum range has been a challenge. We finally settled on a Swift atronomical reflecting telescope which will provide suitable magnification of ground squirrels at 3 miles. However, being a reflecting scope, it has it's drawbacks. The image is inverted and, with the eyepiece being near the front and at 90 degrees to the scope, it's a bit uncomfortable to hold and sight the rifle. We feel that the unnatural shooting position is the cause of the less-than-ideal accuracy with the prototype rifle. On the plus side, the exceptional velocity of the round allows a 1.5 mile sight-in and allows the shooter to hold dead-on at twice that range.

It's well known that large capacity, narrow bore rounds tend to heat a barrel rapidly, causing premature throat errosion. This round, being large capacity and narrow bore to the extreme, tends to heat the barrel very rapidly, as expected. With the prototype, we find it unadvisable to fire more than two rounds per day in the winter, one per day in hot weather. This gives the barrel time to cool between shots. We have a second generation prototype under development that uses an environmentally correct R134 cooling system that operates from a backpack unit. It is designed to permit sustained rapid fire of one shot per hour.

We tested the new round on a coyote at about 2/3 of it's maximum range. The coyote was feeding on a rabbit when the shot was fired. However, before the bullet arrived, the coyote finished eating and wandered away, causing a miss. We recommend shooting only at sleeping coyotes unless it's either caught in a trap or already dead.

Retail price has not been established. Duplicate prototype rifles are available for those who wish to get in on the ground floor of the hottest round ever developed. We will gladly take trade-ins if you happen to have a low mileage Porche, 1998 or later. First born children are not accepted unless house broken and vaccinations are current.

:haha:

Red October1984

09-01-13, 02:37 PM

It is just a fake cartridge someone made in a machine shop.

Also .17/.50= 0.34

These are novelty "rounds" poking fun at the many real super varmint rounds not to say they(the real ones) are ineffective but more of a "what if a some crazy redneck did this?"

I figured.

Nothing came up on the google search that looked credible.

Aktungbby

09-01-13, 04:23 PM

For comparison, The Barrett M82A1 .50 rifle has a barrel length of about 3 feet.
Interesting. While my child is actually named Barrett (Not for the gun), consider my weapon of choice both on Cape buffalo (inlaws) and required minimum on conducted reservation bison hunts in Montana: The Browning stainless .375 H&H bolt-action on Harris bipod with BOSS compensator with breakaway Nikon .40 mm. obj. scope to resort to iron sights if damaged or fogged. Works well with nosey polar bruins when caribouing(providing you see them first) and on my MN moose in the Quetico when culling is permitted. We open the ball at 400 yards...and you can carry it! The Barrett .50 is just too weighty for old guys!:arrgh!:

Red October1984

09-01-13, 07:04 PM

Interesting. While my child is actually named Barrett (Not for the gun), consider my weapon of choice both on Cape buffalo (inlaws) and required minimum on conducted reservation bison hunts in Montana: The Browning stainless .375 H&H bolt-action on Harris bipod with BOSS compensator with breakaway Nikon .40 mm. obj. scope to resort to iron sights if damaged or fogged. Works well with nosey polar bruins when caribouing(providing you see them first) and on my MN moose in the Quetico when culling is permitted. We open the ball at 400 yards...and you can carry it! The Barrett .50 is just too weighty for old guys!:arrgh!:

Browning makes some pretty good stuff.

I wouldn't want the Barrett M82 anyway...

I want the Barrett M109... :woot:

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/25mm_prototype.JPG

Stealhead

09-01-13, 07:20 PM

Red October1984

09-01-13, 09:05 PM

I do not see any practical use for that.That is a 100% military grade weapon.Also it is XM109 it has not been approved by the DoD yet.

Might as well just use a 25mm Bushmaster like the LAV-25 and Bradley also they mount them on USN ships as away to greet small vessels.

I know there's absolutely no use for it other than military uses...but heck...

YOU HAVE A BARRETT THAT SHOOTS 25MM GRENADES!!!! :03: :woot:

Million times cooler than a normal .50 BMG

Stealhead

09-01-13, 11:39 PM

When another round comes along that does the many things that the .50BMG can and be effective for 94 years that is the point at which I will be impressed.

That XM109 I assume is going to use same 25mm rounds that another army project(that got canceled) uses.Which is an air burst round.Thing is those type round need laser to tell them at which point to burst.Which is actually a negative for two reasons
1.Lasers tend to have trouble with a good return during in climate weather(mist,fog,rain,dust)
2.Targets usually move which means that by the time the rounds get to point x the target may be far enough away from point x that the shrapnel does not hurt him.In addition it being a small 25mm round it more or less has to air burst to be effective against a target due to low blast radius.With an LGB it has been dropped form great height and has algorithms hit a moving target.

In short aginst a soft target I would rather have a 40mm grenade weapon(higher kill radius also more bang juice inside a 40mm).
And against a hard target LAW,Javelin similar weapon.This XM109 tries to be a jack of all trades which makes it a master of none.

Ducimus

09-02-13, 06:42 AM

I know there's absolutely no use for it other than military uses...but heck...

YOU HAVE A BARRETT THAT SHOOTS 25MM GRENADES!!!! :03: :woot:

Million times cooler than a normal .50 BMG

Can you imagine how much it would cost to feed that thing in today's market on ammunition and reloading supplies?

Red October1984

09-02-13, 08:47 AM

Can you imagine how much it would cost to feed that thing in today's market on ammunition and reloading supplies?

Yeah...don't think about that... Haha.

SHHHHHHHH!!!! You'll cost me money for even thinking about how much that'd cost.

Thomen

09-02-13, 09:34 AM

Found this one in a local pawn shop:

http://www.uboat-990.info/pics/Kar98.jpg

Mauser Kar98, 1915 Erfurt. It seems this one has parts of at least 3 other Mauser's on it. The bolt and bottom magazine cover are each from a different rifle. Rifle butt and barrel are still original.

It needs some work, but the action still works fine. Might take it to a gunsmith and have it checked before I take it to a range.

Ducimus

09-02-13, 10:47 AM

Yea definately could use some work, but could be a diamond in the rough. How much you pay for it if you don't mind my asking?

Thomen

09-02-13, 10:52 AM

Yea definately could use some work, but could be a diamond in the rough. How much you pay for it if you don't mind my asking?

$250, which imho seemed to be reasonable. It does not has any of the Wehrmacht/Nazi Germany stamps on it, which would indicate that it is "Imperial Era".

09-02-13, 11:39 AM

In short aginst a soft target I would rather have a 40mm grenade weapon(higher kill radius also more bang juice inside a 40mm).
And against a hard target LAW,Javelin similar weapon.This XM109 tries to be a jack of all trades which makes it a master of noneIf you know what LAW or Javelin is or 40mm grenade launcher you should also know that you compare apple and oranges.
This gun has nothing to do with them.

Ducimus

09-02-13, 12:21 PM

$250, which imho seemed to be reasonable. It does not has any of the Wehrmacht/Nazi Germany stamps on it, which would indicate that it is "Imperial Era".

Yeah 250 seems reasonable. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything more inexpensive then a Mosin. Those run 170 to 200ish depending on the condition, so 250 ain't bad. Nice find.

Stealhead

09-02-13, 02:41 PM

If you know what LAW or Javelin is or 40mm grenade launcher you should also know that you compare apple and oranges.
This gun has nothing to do with them.

Which is why I said soft target 40mm GL hard target LAW or Javelin read the entire post please.

The XM109 is billed as an anti-materiel weapon which LAW and Javelin would be much better at.

Buddahaid

09-04-13, 08:09 PM

Here's one of mine, an Arisaka Type 99 war trophy. The vet who brought it home did the varnish job and I've been very tempted to restore the original finish, however since these had almost no finish when new, I've just left it as is.

The sling is a reproduction as is the muzzle dust cover. This one is from 1943 most likely and saw very little service. It also was not issued with the bolt dust cover, although it has one added by the vet, nor did it ever have a cleaning rod. The Mum is intact so theoretically it's still the Emporer's property, and there are no import markings. The only real regrets I have are the original rubberized canvas sling went missing, and the vet's certificate is lost.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2007.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2007.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2012.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2012.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2008.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2008.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2015.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2015.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2018.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2018.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2009.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2009.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2016.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2016.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka2017.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka2017.jpg.html)

Oh and here is some original finish inside the stock.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/Arisaka1001.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/Arisaka1001.jpg.html)

Stealhead

09-04-13, 08:28 PM

It still has the Emperors mark those are not as common.The bolt handle is machined interestingly I assume to make production more rapid as opposed to a more rounded bolt. I agree restore the finish.

I have fired a T 99 before decent rifle really.

Too bad you do not have an early production version that had super insane anti-aircraft sight that folded down on either side of the leaf.I think they got rid of them because they knew they where pointless.

Buddahaid

09-04-13, 08:57 PM

There's a two page ID form on these and every detail has about five variations. I don't like the shine either but to restore it to originality means effectively no finish, plus the stock is very clean and sharp with pretty much no dings or scratches. And I agree the AA sight is cool.

Red October1984

09-04-13, 09:18 PM

Stealhead

09-04-13, 09:22 PM

*spits out cereal*

:o

Wow...

That's one of my bucket list guns...and it's so beautiful. WW1-WW2 era Bolt Action guns are just downright awesome.

That will set you back anywhere from $100~$900 bucks depending on condition and rarity.

Cybermat47

09-04-13, 09:25 PM

Wait, according to Stealhead Red spat out cereal, but according to Red he spat out water :hmmm:

Stealhead

09-04-13, 09:37 PM

That is a bit odd because I am sure that it said "spits out water" when I quoted it.

It shows no notation of any editing for his original post either.:hmmm: Maybe they do not do that anymore or there is a delay.

:shifty:

Maybe he was drinking water while also eating Rice Krispies and he spat water and Rice Krispies and milk came from his nose and right now he can hear snap.crackle,pop in his nose.

I puked Rice Krispies once and it was at school.They said "Acid coated puked up Rice Krispies clean up in the cafeteria be sure to bring the embarrassing puke absorbing kitty litter".
That was what I like to call a character building moment.Later when I had to puke while running in basic training I just let it fly who needs a war face when you can just barf?

Red October1984

09-04-13, 09:52 PM

That will set you back anywhere from $100~$900 bucks depending on condition and rarity.

The good ol' Mosin Nagant is first on my list...I'm thinking Christmas...

Wait, according to Stealhead Red spat out cereal, but according to Red he spat out water :hmmm:

Ninja

That is a bit odd because I am sure that it said "spits out water" when I quoted it.

It shows no notation of any editing for his original post either.:hmmm: Maybe they do not do that anymore or there is a delay.

:shifty:

Maybe he was drinking water while also eating Rice Krispies and he spat water and Rice Krispies and milk came from his nose and right now he can hear snap.crackle,pop in his nose.

Or maybe I just edited it really fast immediately after it was posted to add a sentence and change that one.

If you get to it fast enough, it doesn't say that it was edited.

Water just sounded better than cereal...

I puked Rice Krispies once and it was at school.They said "Acid coated puked up Rice Krispies clean up in the cafeteria be sure to bring the embarrassing puke absorbing kitty litter".

My baseball coach (also verified by his brother) had frosted flakes come out of his nose when he saw his sister run down the stairs flat into the wall when he was little.

He claimed to smell Frosted Flakes for the whole rest of the day.

Me, I did it with Pepsi once. Came out my nose...was easily one of the worst feelings ever. It burns really bad.

Okay...It was completely my fault. I was dumb enough to hang upside down on a playground bar and drink soda upside down.

Oh man...I learned real quick that it was a bad idea. After I fell 3 feet and sneezed soda everywhere with burning eyes... :oops:

Stealhead

09-04-13, 10:00 PM

Well that was an interesting segue.

Anyway here we have the old time version of a ruffian weapon.
A pepper box gun,dagger and brass knuckles all in one
Rice Krispies not included.

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/foldable-dagger-pepperbox-knuckle-duster_zps7ca02ee0.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/foldable-dagger-pepperbox-knuckle-duster_zps7ca02ee0.jpg.html)

Buddahaid

09-05-13, 01:26 AM

That yours? Very close quarters crazyness. :88)

Buddahaid

09-05-13, 02:15 AM

One more of mine and this is my favorite. A 1916 DWM P08 with a very rare totenkopf marking. This one has matching numbers save for the magazines and the toggle lock lever. I obtained a correct holster for it dated 1916 and also made in Berlin. Enjoy.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916002.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916002.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916001.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916001.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916007.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916007.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916003.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916003.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916006.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916006.jpg.html)

The tool with imperial marking.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916005.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916005.jpg.html)

Cont.

Buddahaid

09-05-13, 02:18 AM

And the pistol.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916008.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916008.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916011.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916011.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916009.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916009.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916010.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916010.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916012.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916012.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/P081916013.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/P081916013.jpg.html)

And some glam shots. I thought they were chalked but only the photo backdrop is.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205509_2.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205509_2.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205508_1.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205508_1.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205511_4.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205511_4.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205510_3.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Album%20Two/gatogacho_1060205510_3.jpg.html)

Ducimus

09-05-13, 07:35 AM

Here's one of mine, an Arisaka Type 99 war trophy. The vet who brought it home did the varnish job and I've been very tempted to restore the original finish, however since these had almost no finish when new, I've just left it as is.

The sling is a reproduction as is the muzzle dust cover. This one is from 1943 most likely and saw very little service. It also was not issued with the bolt dust cover, although it has one added by the vet, nor did it ever have a cleaning rod. The Mum is intact so theoretically it's still the Emporer's property, and there are no import markings. The only real regrets I have are the original rubberized canvas sling went missing, and the vet's certificate is lost.

That is one beautiful rifle you have there. Looks like it's in excellent shape. I wonder if "never fired and only dropped once" applies here.

It still has the Emperors mark those are not as common.
That is my understanding as well. The way i heard it, towards the end of the war the Japanese removed all the Emperor's marks on all weapons before turning them in. Which I think means that, as a war trophy, this particular rifle may have been retrieved from the field.

One more of mine and this is my favorite. A 1916 DWM P08 with a very rare totenkopf marking. This one has matching numbers save for the magazines and the toggle lock lever. I obtained a correct holster for it dated 1916 and also made in Berlin. Enjoy.

Also a beautiful piece, and an exquisite (scuse me while i wax flowery words) addition for any collector . Between this and the Type 99, don't be surprised if the History Channel calls wanting their guns back if they ever stop doing stupid reality shows. :O:

Buddahaid

09-05-13, 09:17 AM

That is one beautiful rifle you have there. Looks like it's in excellent shape. I wonder if "never fired and only dropped once" applies here.

I was told it was taken on Okinawa from Japanese reinforcement landings but it's a third hand story. These guns can't be specifically dated but the experts that looked at it said likely late 1943 or early 1944. I have two bayonets for it but they are not well matched.

That is my understanding as well. The way i heard it, towards the end of the war the Japanese removed all the Emperor's marks on all weapons before turning them in. Which I think means that, as a war trophy, this particular rifle may have been retrieved from the field.

The mums were ground off, or otherwise defaced on most surrender weapons, by the Japanese to mark them as no longer the Emperor's property and save face.

I had the luger evaluated by Krausewerks. They claimed the totenkopf doubled the guns value over it's conditional value. It's likely a rework mark from the 1930's and not a WW1 unit marking, or WW2 SS marking.
http://krausewerk.com/

Stealhead

09-05-13, 07:44 PM

That yours? Very close quarters crazyness. :88)

Oh no I have no such weapon.I just looked up "pepperboxgun" and that was the coolest looking one.It looks to be from the 18th or early 19th century though.

Your Luger P08 though I read that Luge made the holsters to a very high degree of quality and they have (when new) a very good seal the idea being that in the field the pistol was well protected from dirt and grime.

About the Japanese mum I understand that McArthur at the end of the war ordered that the mums be removed so if you find a Japanese weapon with an intact one it usually means that it taken as a trophy prior to the end of the war or that it was not "officially" a trophy the latter is less likely as they had learned to be weary of this stuff by 1945.They started x-raying large mail items in 1943 because rifles and even machine guns where being mailed home though some stuff always slips through.

My dad told me that it was mostly the rear echelon guys that wanted trophies and the front line guys would collect them and sell or barter them what they usually did was after an ambush they would frisk all the dead bodies and remove the weapons and munitions then they would take the AK's and a small amount of explosives and destroy them now a regular unit they would take them I bet LRRPs sometimes used AK but they had rounds secretly produced in Korea.That is how it was in Vietnam anyway.Having read books like "With the Marines at Peleliu and Okinawa" by E.B. Sledge a Marine and other books their experience about trophy collection seems to match.

But I think it is true to some extent as my great aunt her husbands' brother was an infantry officer in WWII in Europe he only sent home one trophy an SS officers sword that was it and he sent it home and kept only because the previous owner was an SS officer and he wanted to always remember the shame on the guys face.He never got any of that though because he was KIA a few months later which is why my great uncle had it.

A little known secret about Vietnam is Prodigal Son a MAC/SOG program where they secreted into VC/NVA caches in Cambodia and placed faulty rounds for the AK,SKS and RPD all 7.62x39mm and also mortar shells they exploded in the weapons.So using a 100% field Type 56 in Vietnam was a bad idea from 1967 onwards.This is why using enemy weapons from 1967 onwards was highly discouraged all tough the real reason was a closely guarded secret only the ones who planted the Prodigal Son cache rounds knew the true reason.US troops on many occasions found AK(or the remains of) that had fired Prodigal Son rounds to them it seemed like a stroke of bad luck for the former owner which it was but not on the 1 in million chance that it seemed to have been in a Prodigal Son box it was much higher.It was well done not every round was bad because in that case you'd simply not use suspect stocks it was spaced out well to happen often enough to make an NVA solider not fully trust his weapon.It would seem to be the result of poor workmanship causing a lack of faith in your communist factory worker.

Buddahaid

09-05-13, 08:05 PM

Yeah I've heard the MacArthur order story but it's not confirmed. Here's the best web site for Japanese stuff, well one of them.
http://www.castle-thunder.com/index.htm
http://www.castle-thunder.com/rifles.htm

Here's some more about production numbers.
http://www.cruffler.com/trivia-September00.html

And the datsheet for my short rifle.
http://www.castle-thunder.com/datasheets/99ds2010e.pdf

Stealhead

09-05-13, 08:12 PM

That is true it seems more likely that the Japanese removed them themselves.

Ducimus

09-06-13, 04:45 PM

Speaking of the Luger P08,

Here's a 30 minute hickok45 closeup/shooting video on the same that he just posted today:

Luger P08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW0qDsMIAlk)

You don't have to be into guns to appreciate the hands on history there.

Stealhead

09-06-13, 10:22 PM

Little known fact about the P08: for the competition for a new US Army pistol held in 1906/07 (which John Browning/Colt won with what became the M1911) Luger placed a version of the P08 up and it was one of the better designs and nearly won out.

The sample P08 pistols where chambered in .45ACP(same round a the 1911). This was because a requirement was the round be a heavier caliber.

Prior to that a few years earlier the US Army field tested Luger in 9mm around the end of the 19th century.The P08 did not become known as the P08 until the German Army accepted it as a service pistol in 1908.The pistol itself was actually first marketed in the late 1890's.I guess the P08 name stuck.

I have a feeling that one of those prototype .45ACP Lugers is worth a lot of money seems they only made a handful of them.

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Colt_1905_Luger_45_zpsb7d2233b.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/Colt_1905_Luger_45_zpsb7d2233b.jpg.html)

Red October1984

09-06-13, 10:39 PM

Little known fact about the P08: for the competition for a new US Army pistol held in 1906/07 (which John Browning/Colt won with what became the M1911) Luger placed a version of the P08 up and it was one of the better designs and nearly won out.

The sample P08 pistols where chambered in .45ACP(same round a the 1911). This was because a requirement was the round be a heavier caliber.

Prior to that a few years earlier the US Army field tested Luger in 9mm around the end of the 19th century.The P08 did not become known as the P08 until the German Army accepted it as a service pistol in 1908.The pistol itself was actually first marketed in the late 1890's.I guess the P08 name stuck.

I have a feeling that one of those prototype .45ACP Lugers is worth a lot of money seems they only made a handful of them.

Wow. Did not know that.

Thanks for sharing! That's awesome.

I want a .45 P08 now. :rotfl2:

Buddahaid

09-06-13, 10:56 PM

I believe it was two .45 lugers and one is known still if memory serves. You can buy a .45ACP luger from Krausewerk if you have $50,000.00 to spare.

http://www.krausewerk.com/45luger.html

Stealhead

09-06-13, 11:03 PM

I wonder if there might be a modern reproduction on the market?That would cost less than 50K.A quick search implies that there are no repro Lugers not since the early 70's.

I know that long barrel P08s are also pretty valuable because they made far fewer of those.

Buddahaid

09-06-13, 11:10 PM

I love those. The WW1 artillery version is longest and a naval version is not as long.

http://www.collectorssource.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/l/u/luger_artillery_r10477.jpg

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/art_luger/artillary_luger_14.jpg

http://www.landofborchardt.com/images/navy/n4luger3.jpg

Stealhead

09-06-13, 11:23 PM

Another pretty cool early semi-auto and also a German...The Mauser C96 in fact the first successful semi-auto I believe.

I do not own one but at some point I will pick one up.

Original early production C96 are also pretty pricey.The C96 was very popular in China during the first half of the 20th century they made their own copies.There was also a version produced in Germany and sold to several different factions including the both the White Russians and the Bolsheviks.That model became associated with the Bolsheviks for what ever reason and it has since been known as the "Bolo".It was in fact well liked by all of its users do to it shorter barrel making it very handy for room clearing and CQC.

Original C96 7.63x25mm
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/c96-1_zps7fefaa0b.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/c96-1_zps7fefaa0b.jpg.html)

"Red 9" C96 the "9" means 9x19mm
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Mauser_C96_M1916_Red_9_1_zps8449d8b0.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/Mauser_C96_M1916_Red_9_1_zps8449d8b0.jpg.html)

"Bolo" C96 this one is in 9x19mm(hence the red"9") but they also came in 7.63 Mauser and the Chinese made some in .45ACP.
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/tee5364_zps37aa8b21.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/tee5364_zps37aa8b21.jpg.html)

Red October1984

09-07-13, 12:39 AM

Stealhead

09-07-13, 12:57 AM

I would rather have the extra rounds that the later C96 had and they went from stripper clips to removable mags 10,15 and even 20 rounders.In combat you want that.

The downside of the P08 is you had to keep it very clean the C96 on the other hand was a bit more rugged and could stand up to harsh treatment.

The P08 does have a more natural feel in the hands in those days even the combat pistol stance was one handed basically the one hand target stance it went the way of the do do in combat because well it is a bit counter to instinctive shooting which was first invented by two Englishmen that where police in Shanghai in the 20's (then a western controlled city).

I had to pick a first half of the 20th century German pistol I would use the Walther P38 instead.

Buddahaid

09-07-13, 01:01 AM

Beautiful pistols and one I would love to have but I would disagree on it being the first. The Swiss adopted the earlier Pistole Parabellum in 1900 making the 7.65 luger the first self-loading pistol to see military service. The German Navy followed in 1904. The next self-loading pistol to see service was the Colt M1911. I guess it depends on how one defines success as Steyr had a contender as well.

Stealhead

09-07-13, 01:23 AM

Well we are talking two different things here first to be manufactured and first to be accepted officially as the sidearm of a national military force.I shold have said first serial production semi-auto to me the term successful seemed fitting as many military officers who often could choose their own side arm choose to carry the C96 Winston Churchill for example carried an early C96 during his military career.Of course this can stem much more from status than practicality their selection.

According to my source for basic military firearms data Military Small Arms of the 20th Century by the late Ian Hogg the C96 was first produced in numbers in 1896.Where as Luger Pistole Parabellum was first produced in serial numbers(production) in 1898.I think that the PP became more popular because it had a detachable magazine where as the C96 had an internal magazine and did not have a detachable magazine as an option until much later past the time at which the PP was being selected.Also the PP is much less bulky is lighter and lines up naturally in the hand.Also ammunition wise you could carry a few mags more easily and with less space than you could C96 clips.I imagine that the Luger may have been less expensive as well.

In those days the a C96 side by side with a PP I think the C96 would have looked a bit bulky and primitive.They still do if you had the two side by side most people would say that like the Luger better.

The reason I would go with the P38 if I had to pick a German pistol 70+ years vintage?It had DA/SA trigger and a de cocker so you could safely carry a round in the chamber unlike the M1911(or most other older semi-autos) which did not and accidents where troops where walking around with a round ready where so common it was against regulations to carry one in that state right to 1985 when it got replaced by the M9 and the US Army clung to that for a a good while with the M9 as well.

Red October1984

09-07-13, 12:10 PM

The downside of the P08 is you had to keep it very clean the C96 on the other hand was a bit more rugged and could stand up to harsh treatment.

That's one of the only things I don't like too much about the gun. It has to be really clean.

The P08 does have a more natural feel in the hands in those days even the combat pistol stance was one handed basically the one hand target stance it went the way of the do do in combat because well it is a bit counter to instinctive shooting which was first invented by two Englishmen that where police in Shanghai in the 20's (then a western controlled city).

I've held them and they are some of the most comfortable pistols I've held. Never fired one though. I've got a friend who's dad has 2 P38's with matching numbers that were used in the war. He's got some holsters for them that came from the war too.

I had to pick a first half of the 20th century German pistol I would use the Walther P38 instead.

I probably would too. I want to shoot one someday. :yeah:

Sailor Steve

09-07-13, 12:50 PM

Okay, that's it, I've had it up to HERE! I am SICK of you anti-American losers showing off your furrin' guns! I'm here to show you what's what by presenting an all-American weapon of distinction!

So there! :O:

Actually I was planning on waiting until next month until I purchased a replacement bolt. I lived in a bad neighborhood for awhile and thought that if someone broke in and stole the gun they wouldn't be able to use it if I hid the bolt somewhere safe. Trouble is I hid it so well I haven't found it in the fifteen years since, and it's probably lost forever. I hate not having the original, but a replacement is better than no bolt at all, and I've found some good prices online.

You guys showing off your stuff got me too excited, so I can't wait anymore.

My '03 Springfield, license-built by Remington, now 71 years old:

The Rifle
https://i.imgur.com/4qF4nIA.jpg

The Date Stamp (Remington Arms, February 1942)
https://i.imgur.com/hdDaQ3G.jpg

The Rear Sight
https://i.imgur.com/POFFEeg.jpg

Original Strap (as far as I know)
https://i.imgur.com/HoghNSr.jpg

Butt Plate (needs a little cleaning)
https://i.imgur.com/o0QAt75.jpg

Business End with Front Sight
https://i.imgur.com/lZ4yLFm.jpg

Manufacturer's Stamp
https://i.imgur.com/I1YZg4B.jpg

Oh, and a note: The first time somebody wrote "Luger P08" I did a double-take. I thought he had written "Luger POS", and I thought "Is it really that bad?"

Buddahaid

09-07-13, 12:55 PM

Nice one Steve. I've always thought those were a handsome design.

Red October1984

09-07-13, 01:20 PM

Okay, that's it, I've had it up to HERE! I am SICK of you anti-American losers showing off your furrin' guns! I'm here to show you what's what by presenting an all-American weapon of distinction!

So there! :O:

Actually I was planning on waiting until next month until I purchased a replacement bolt. I lived in a bad neighborhood for awhile and thought that if someone broke in and stole the gun they wouldn't be able to use it if I hid the bolt somewhere safe. Trouble is I hid it so well I haven't found it in the fifteen years since, and it's probably lost forever. I hate not having the original, but a replacement is better than no bolt at all, and I've found some good prices online.

You guys showing off your stuff got me too excited, so I can't wait anymore.

My '03 Springfield, license-built by Remington, now 71 years old:

That's a beautiful rifle there Steve. :yeah:

Oh, and a note: The first time somebody wrote "Luger P08" I did a double-take. I thought he had written "Luger POS", and I thought "Is it really that bad?"

Haha. :rotfl2:

Platapus

09-07-13, 02:02 PM

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/art_luger/artillary_luger_14.jpg

I wonder if anyone used this configuration in combat? It looks ungainly.

Stealhead

09-07-13, 02:10 PM

The Germans did in 1918 at least up to the snail drum magazine.Remember think 100 year old technology back then that was pretty un-cumbersome by the standards of the time.That would have been nice a quick in a trench.In fact I believe that the snail drum was actually produced for the MP-18 so German soldiers where actually making the uber P08 on their own.The stock was a common feature with pistols back then.

Red October1984

10-06-13, 08:54 PM

Cool video a friend sent me.

AK-47 Underwater Slow Motion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp5gdUHFGIQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

Sailor Steve

10-06-13, 09:27 PM

Red October1984

10-06-13, 09:44 PM

DANG! That was way more than cool. Now I'm hooked, and I'm going to have to watch all of his videos.

I've always heard that bullets don't travel very far underwater, but watching it go from 2300 feet/sec to zero in just six feet was pretty sobering. This has implications for underwater shell hits in ship combat. Of course the shell in that case is a lot heavier with a lot more energy, but the principle is the same - it's going to hit the hull of the target with a lot less force.

Something else that video should help us understand is depth charges. It's commonly pointed out that a depth charge must go off within 25 feet of the submarine's hull go crack the pressure hull, and that anything outside of about 75 feet isn't likely to do any serious damage. The whole bubble explanation shows why that is so. Even though water doesn't compress, the shock bubble can only sustain itself for a very short distance.

I also liked the way the bubble vented upward very quickly and burst into the air, also much like what happens with a depth charge.

Thanks for posting that! :rock:

Another channel you might like is The Slow Mo guys that he has help him in that video.

They do all kinds of stuff in very slow motion.

It's cool stuff...yes. I have to agree with you. :yeah:

EDIT:

Here's some of their other videos that I like

Balloon Bullet Time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcYm6WjbWI)

Matrix Bullet Dodge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGzBI26vbUc)

Tuning Fork - This one is really cool. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCERs0v1OoI)

Tablet vs Paintballs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OH1CKIQdpw)

Ducimus

10-07-13, 08:09 AM

Steve, Nice M1903 rifle.

I just remembered something I heard awhile go, and thought i'd pass it along as a general FYI:

There are some 1903's that are considered unsafe to fire. I tried to find some links to support that, and this is the best i can find at the moment:

In short:
any rifle below 800,000 for Springfield Armory and 286,506 for Rock Island Armory. The reason these rifles are considered unsafe to fire is due to improper heat treatment when they were manufactured

1903/A3/A4 rifles manufactured by Remington and 1903A3 rifles manufactured by Smith Corona are not affected and are considered safe to fire as long as they are inspected by a competent gunsmith as they should still be checked for proper headspace, bolt setback etc.

If an individual is considering buying a low numbered Springfield or Rock Island 1903 do so knowing that it is not a shooter and IT SHOULD NOT BE FIRED!

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/mil-surp-collectors/18937-low-number-springfield-1903-rifles.html

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Okay, that's it, I've had it up to HERE! I am SICK of you anti-American losers showing off your furrin' guns! I'm here to show you what's what by presenting an all-American weapon of distinction!

So there! :O:

Actually I was planning on waiting until next month until I purchased a replacement bolt. I lived in a bad neighborhood for awhile and thought that if someone broke in and stole the gun they wouldn't be able to use it if I hid the bolt somewhere safe. Trouble is I hid it so well I haven't found it in the fifteen years since, and it's probably lost forever. I hate not having the original, but a replacement is better than no bolt at all, and I've found some good prices online.

You guys showing off your stuff got me too excited, so I can't wait anymore.

My '03 Springfield, license-built by Remington, now 71 years old:

The Rifle
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-71Springfield_zps8f3e76ba.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-71Springfield_zps8f3e76ba.jpg.html)

The Date Stamp (Remington Arms, February 1942)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-72DateStamp_zpsf9883216.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-72DateStamp_zpsf9883216.jpg.html)

The Rear Sight
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-73RearSight_zps70ca247b.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-73RearSight_zps70ca247b.jpg.html)

Original Strap (as far as I know)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-74Strap_zps1b9abad8.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-74Strap_zps1b9abad8.jpg.html)

Butt Plate (needs a little cleaning)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-75ButtPlate_zpsab595877.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-75ButtPlate_zpsab595877.jpg.html)

Business End with Front Sight
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-76FrontSight_zps4fc88b99.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-76FrontSight_zps4fc88b99.jpg.html)

Manufacturer's Stamp
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/9-77ManufacturersStamp_zps058aeb69.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/SteveStuff/9-77ManufacturersStamp_zps058aeb69.jpg.html)

Oh, and a note: The first time somebody wrote "Luger P08" I did a double-take. I thought he had written "Luger POS", and I thought "Is it really that bad?"

TorpX

10-08-13, 02:43 AM

Nice article Ducimus.

Years ago I read about this, but it was thought the defects were due to wartime manufacture and worker inexperience. Anyway, good article.

Ducimus

10-23-13, 12:08 PM

I saw a real interesting article in this months issue of American Rifleman.

I had no idea, but apparently Winchester didn't think too highly of the M1 Garand, and in fact had a competing rifle in the works. I think it's called the "Winchester SemiAutomatic Rifle G30"

I found an electronic version of the same magazine so you can read the article yourself. I'm trying to find more info about it, but info is incredibly scarce. Personally, I had no idea this rifle ever existed.

Anyway, here's the article, it should start you at page 87.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ar_201311/index.php?startid=87

Looks a little like an M14. From a historical standpoint, I can't help but wonder what difference this rifle could have made in WW2 being a semi-auto, box magazine feed rifle, instead of the enbloc clip.

Red October1984

10-23-13, 09:06 PM

I actually got to look at and handle some nice weapons this last weekend.

Didn't get to fire any of them...but man...

I looked at some nice M1A's (*Want*) and some special edition M1911's and there was a K98 that was taken off of a German Sniper in WW2...

There was another K98 that was supposedly taken off the battlefield, but I don't know. It had Russian markings so I wasn't completely convinced on that one.

August

10-23-13, 09:16 PM

I'd like to get a Garand someday.

Red October1984

10-23-13, 09:49 PM

I'd like to get a Garand someday.

+1

They're beautiful rifles. :yeah:

TorpX

10-23-13, 10:30 PM

Interesting article. I'll have to let it digest a bit.

Ducimus

10-29-13, 02:16 PM

Learn something new everyday.

How to Sight In Your Rifle in Two Shots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiOpQY2ORo4)

It's so simple and logical, I'm kicking myself in the ass for not knowing this before.

EDIT:
Here's a second video demonstrating the same method:
How to zero a rifle in 30 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwD5zu7yTeI)

Stealhead

10-29-13, 03:00 PM

A bullet never lies good thing to keep in mind no matter what zero method you use.

Red October1984

10-29-13, 05:56 PM

Learn something new everyday.

How to Sight In Your Rifle in Two Shots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiOpQY2ORo4)

It's so simple and logical, I'm kicking myself in the ass for not knowing this before.

I shot 18 the other day with my dad and a friend just trying to get on paper.

The rings are a bit high for the scope....so I'll have to find some different ones. :/\\!!

TorpX

10-30-13, 10:50 PM

Learn something new everyday.

How to Sight In Your Rifle in Two Shots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiOpQY2ORo4)

It's so simple and logical, I'm kicking myself in the ass for not knowing this before.

I like it, very economical. :yep:

It occurs to me, that you can do the same thing without someone to adjust the sights:

Fire one shot holding dead on. Lets say it goes low to the right. Then adjust say 5 clicks up and 5 left. Fire a second shot, same hold. It will be high and left of the first shot. Now when you go to the target and measure it, the vertical change in POI/ 5 gives you the vertical adjustment value. The horizontal change in POI/ 5 gives you the horizontal adjustment value. Adjust as needed from the second shot.

I shot 18 the other day with my dad and a friend just trying to get on paper.

When you have a new rifle/scope or such, it is advisable to fire for a close range zero, first. Otherwise, it is hard to know where the rounds might go.

Red October1984

10-30-13, 11:55 PM

When you have a new rifle/scope or such, it is advisable to fire for a close range zero, first. Otherwise, it is hard to know where the rounds might go.

Well we managed to get it to where at 100 yards I have to aim a foot high to hit the center.

Working on it though... :hmmm: Wish this had been done earlier in the year. I am going to need new rings or maybe a new scope because this won't adjust any further in the direction I need it to.

Red October1984

10-31-13, 12:49 AM

If the objective lens will not depress; shim the rear sight base up with foil strips slightly and hopefully have a 'breakaway' mount to revert to iron sights. What are you shooting and at what total range do you contemplate? Black powder is the opposite: 1 ft. under at 100 yards to compensate for the rainbow effect understood by every trooper of the 18-19 century before modern powder.:ahoy:

WOW! A post of yours I can read! :woot: :O:

Anyway, there are no iron sights on my gun...sadly. A breakaway mount wouldn't do me any real good.

And I never knew that about black powder...

Learn something every day... :arrgh!:

Red October1984

10-31-13, 05:32 PM

The moisture can mar the scope acuity and there should be a 2nd option on the primary weapon.

I've been out in pouring rain for hours with a .30-06 rifle. The scope kept the zero...the only thing I was worried about was the lens fogging up so I kept a glove over each end of the scope.

Low budget solution...but it worked.

As far as a second option on my Savage, I don't think you can get iron sight mounts for it. It didn't come with anything but two weaver mounts (had to replace one) on the top.

TorpX

11-01-13, 03:12 AM

Catch the movie 'Washing of the Spears'(Burt Lancaster) about the Zulu wars...
The movie was ZULU DAWN. I guess there was a book, 'Washing of the Spears' about the subject. Good movie, never read the book.

I saw a documentary about the battle, one of these PBS programs, I think. They did ballistics tests with the Martini-Henry, and had some interesting theories about what happened. I wish I had that on DVD.

Stealhead

12-11-13, 10:02 PM

Time to "reload"(pun intended) this thread.

I'd like to talk about a topic that many seem to have a great misunderstanding of......optics and what exactly they do and a bit about there development history.I not afraid to say that I am no expert on the topic but I know enough to spot a complete layman.

The other day I over heard a conversation in a gun store between two patrons they where discussing WWII era rifle scopes and what they said just made me cringe.They where discussing how basically useless WWII scopes where.:har:

Oh how incorrect.Now granted a modern high quality rifle scope is going to be a much better bit of kit than a 70+ year design is but to say that they where useless is just baffling.I can not even comprehend where someone could come up with this assessment.Certainly not from reading the widely available information out there from various legitimate sources that can confirm that rifle optics of the era where in fact very useful tools and when combined with a good rifle and a good shooter where deadly accurate.

The Soviet PU scope for example was very innovative it was the first scope where windage and zero could be adjusted without hand tools very useful indeed in the field where a quick adjustment might mean the difference between seeing the next sun rise and becoming a tally mark for an enemy sniper.

So far as my amateur understanding allows by and large WWII era scopes where very effective in their intended role.The German and Soviet design scopes being the best.Granted they fogged up in certain conditions easily solved by a quick wipe down and you still have to deal with this issue with a modern scope.I also know that rifle optics have been is use in some form at least since the 18th century and a British general even was killed by an American using a rifled musket with a crude scope.

So far as I can tell the most notable leaps towards modern optics where made during the late 19th and early 20th century mainly due the advent of smokeless powder(which allowed for greater ranges) and the popularity of big game hunting (wealthy men able to afford expensive optics). In WWI they simply took scopes designed for the hunting market and mounted them on rifles.Some like the Germans and the Russians understood the value of a sniper well enough to develop during the inter war years optics designed specifically for the conditions and type of shooting that a sniper par takes in.

I think people get confused perhaps because they have seen or know someone who has a WWII ear rifle say a 91/30 and they purchased a PU either an original one or a reproduction.These usually are not very accurate but this does represent how a from the factory 91/30 with a PU scope would have performed.There are poorly smithed 91/30s out there that where cobbled together with PU scope which are utter crap and not comparable to an original sniper 91/30(which I bet goes for over $1,000 these days).

Anyway here is a fairly interesting read about Soviet WWII era scopes Also talks a little about a Czech version of the PU
http://www.mosinnagant.net/sniper%20section/snipertext1.asp

A while back I read a very extensive article on the web about WWII era German scopes wish I jotted down the address I searched a bit and can't seem to find the same page.

Aktungbby

12-12-13, 01:08 AM

Pretty good!: The Russians are the one to check in with on sniping as they took it up to the highest level in terms of productivity. Approximately 12000 confirmed kills during WWII of which the top 20 snipers accounted for 7500!, as with air or Uboat aces, the top aces do most of the tallying! The top sniper of the war was Finnish Lt. Simo Häyhä with 542 confirmed kills in the Winter War, likely with a captured Soviet weapon. Additionally in the same winter battle of Koläa, the Finn, nicknamed 'White Death', used a Suomi kP/31 sub-machine gun and accounted for another 200 kills bringing his total to 742 in 100 day period; He died in 2002 at the ripe age of 97! Vasily Zaytsef of Enemy at the Gate fame was well down the list with a commendable 242. One of several proficient and highly decorated women snipers, Ludmilla Paulichenko, accounted for 309 confirmed kills with 36 of those being enemy snipers! The 1891/30 upgraded WWI Mosin was the weapon of choice with a extended bolt to avoid the simple rock solid sight mount for either the 3.5x power PU and later PE/Pem 4.0x power scope, both modeled on the superior Zeiss German scope and utilizing the German three bar reticule optic. This weapon remained in use until replaced by the Druganov in 1963, was used in Viet Nam and is still used/seen in the African conflicts today 100+ years later!!. :salute:

Aktungbby

12-12-13, 02:39 AM

a British general even was killed by an American using a rifled musket with a crude scope.

The only Two British generals of note killed in American wars by known shooters were Simon Fraser at he Battle of Saratoga by Known sharpshooter Timothy Murphy and General Ross in the War of 1812 at North Point in the campaign around Baltimore by two teenaged boys Wells and McComas; both militiamen of Baltimore. In the case of Fraser who was brilliantly leading his troops, he was spotted by no less than Benedict Arnold who noted that Fraser 'was worth a regiment" to Gen Dan Morgan in command of a regiment of skilled marksmen able to hit a seven inch target at 250 yards with a rifled (Kentucky) longrifle. Gen Morgan turned to the Marksman, Timothy Murphy and said "It is necessary that man should Die." Murphy fired three shots using his and another preloaded weapon which missed; hit Fraser's horse; and hit the general who later died in the night of the abdominal wound. Murphy's immediate fouth shot also killed the overall British commander, General Burgoyne's aide, rushing up with new orders. No scope is mentioned or depicted on a monument to Timthy Murphy. In the second instance, the death of equally capable General Ross at Baltimore, two leather trade militiamen, who knew the general on sight from a previous American defeat at Bledensburg, fired simultaneously " I have a mark" at Gen Ross who was struck once and died. Both Wells and McComas were instantly killed by a return volley by British regulars firing at the tell-tale smoke of the youths' firing position. Again no scopes, nor were these 18-19 yr. old boys snipers. A third general might have been General Packenham, Ross's replacement and the British commander at the Battle of New Orleans; he was knocked off his horse by a cannon ball and then shot twice in the neck and body fatally by musketry in the disastrous frontal assault on Andrew Jacksons lines. Again no scoped muskets are noted and the smoke and fog would have nullified any optic advantage anyway.:hmmm::salute:

Red October1984

12-12-13, 03:20 PM

They where discussing how basically useless WWII scopes where.:har:

That's when you say "Here buddy, let me tell you why you're wrong" :)

Stealhead

12-12-13, 03:49 PM

The only Two British generals of note killed in American wars by known shooters were Simon Fraser at he Battle of Saratoga by Known sharpshooter Timothy Murphy and General Ross in the War of 1812 at North Point in the campaign around Baltimore by two teenaged boys Wells and McComas; both militiamen of Baltimore. In the case of Fraser who was brilliantly leading his troops, he was spotted by no less than Benedict Arnold who noted that Fraser 'was worth a regiment" to Gen Dan Morgan in command of a regiment of skilled marksmen able to hit a seven inch target at 250 yards with a rifled (Kentucky) longrifle. Gen Morgan turned to the Marksman, Timothy Murphy and said "It is necessary that man should Die." Murphy fired three shots using his and another preloaded weapon which missed; hit Fraser's horse; and hit the general who later died in the night of the abdominal wound. Murphy's immediate fouth shot also killed the overall British commander, General Burgoyne's aide, rushing up with new orders. No scope is mentioned or depicted on a monument to Timthy Murphy. In the second instance, the death of equally capable General Ross at Baltimore, two leather trade militiamen, who knew the general on sight from a previous American defeat at Bledensburg, fired simultaneously " I have a mark" at Gen Ross who was struck once and died. Both Wells and McComas were instantly killed by a return volley by British regulars firing at the tell-tale smoke of the youths' firing position. Again no scopes, nor were these 18-19 yr. old boys snipers. A third general might have been General Packenham, Ross's replacement and the British commander at the Battle of New Orleans; he was knocked off his horse by a cannon ball and then shot twice in the neck and body fatally by musketry in the disastrous frontal assault on Andrew Jacksons lines. Again no scoped muskets are noted and the smoke and fog would have nullified any optic advantage anyway.:hmmm::salute:

Right I'll give you that like I said I am no expert especially on early American warfare.I do know that crude optics did exist at the time period not that they where all that useful I merely stated that they where around I admit a I mistook the story about the marksmen kills.I am not sure if a 335 word paragraph was needed to explain my error when the greater point was that extremely crude optics(like jerry rigged) did exist at the time and that there nearly 200 year development prior to WWII made WWII ear scopes a far greater leap in technology than the guys at the gun store where making claim to.

According to what I found the first purpose built optics where made by some man named Morgan James and another man named William Malcolm made a mass produced scope starting in 1855.Even fro that date that is still nearly 100 years of development time between then and WWII.

All I know is if I was around in WWII I would not want an enemy sniper or marksman aiming his "useless" optics at my big fat noggin as I am confident barring some extremely good luck that said shooter would have no problem blowing my brains out or my heart or lungs if his(or her) aim was off a scootabit.

I cant imagine what those WWII era snipers could do with a modern sniper like say an M24 with .338 Lapua bet the ratios would be at least 30% higher.

Jimbuna

12-12-13, 04:07 PM

Right I'll give you that like I said I am no expert especially on early American warfare.I do know that crude optics did exist at the time period not that they where all that useful I merely stated that they where around I admit a I mistook the story about the marksmen kills.I am not sure if a 335 word paragraph was needed to explain my error when the greater point was that extremely crude optics(like jerry rigged) did exist at the time and that there nearly 200 year development prior to WWII made WWII ear scopes a far greater leap in technology than the guys at the gun store where making claim to.

According to what I found the first purpose built optics where made by some man named Morgan James and another man named William Malcolm made a mass produced scope starting in 1855.Even fro that date that is still nearly 100 years of development time between then and WWII.

Oh come on now...at least you were spared the insertion of a Hamms plug :O:

I'll get my coat :shifty:

Stealhead

12-12-13, 04:25 PM

Oh come on now...at least you were spared the insertion of a Hamms plug :O:

I'll get my coat :shifty:

I'll shoot that Hamms bottle with my 1812 marksman in those days you drank whisky crude scope or not.

"That Hamms bottle should die lads make is so he needs a better drink it will do him some good."

I like everyone honestly if we all acted the same life would be pretty boring.

Jimbuna

12-12-13, 04:27 PM

I like everyone honestly if we all acted the same life would be pretty boring.

True that...and I'd be out of a job :)

Buddahaid

12-12-13, 04:48 PM

I'll shoot that Hamms bottle with my 1812 marksman in those days you drank whisky crude scope or not.

"That Hamms bottle should die lads make is so he needs a better drink it will do him some good."

I like everyone honestly if we all acted the same life would be pretty boring.

Hamm's comes in bottles? Class.

Stealhead

12-12-13, 05:25 PM

In cans too if this photo of Aktungbby was not Photoshopped.Being a refined man I doubt that Aktungbby would ever stoop to the low of drinking beer from a can.

I kid :sunny:

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/hamms_zps3fef5f2b.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/hamms_zps3fef5f2b.jpg.html)

Aktungbby circa 1973?

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/7122391045_4a8ac1bd7c_o_zps1b177068.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/7122391045_4a8ac1bd7c_o_zps1b177068.jpg.html)

Aktungbby

12-12-13, 08:21 PM

a 335 word paragraph was needed to explain my error. No error implied; you just piqued my curiosity since I study that history:/\\k: and shoot everything black-powder and up to WWII; But if you counted the words in my post!!!?

Stealhead

12-12-13, 09:15 PM

No error implied; you just piqued my curiosity since I study that history:/\\k: and shoot everything black-powder and up to WWII; But if you counted the words in my post!!!?...good lord ol' son, ya really need a HAMM"S

Nah i just copy pasted into Word and got the word count.How many Hamms did it take you to write that?:hmm2:

Red October1984

03-23-14, 03:01 PM

Reviving this topic to get some opinions on my next gun. Do we have any shotgunners on here?

12 Gauge
Able to shoot 3.5" shells
Durable and Reliable
Best Value For The Money

That's basically my criteria. Now, I have it narrowed down to the Benelli Nova and Remington 887. I've got a friend who has an 887 and my dad's got a Nova. I've heard some mixed things about the 887...and Benelli seems to have a good product line with the Nova.

The 887 has the special ArmorLokt coating...I read it described as a "glass-filled polymer coating." In reality, it just makes the thing feel plastic.

I'm leaning toward the Nova....which I can get for ~400$ around here but the 887 is only ~325$

I assume "You Get What You Pay For" applies to Benelli products. I took out the Nova the other day and ran some 2.75" High Velocity game loads through it and I really like the feel for it.

I'm just wondering should I consider the Remington 870 or any of the Mossberg products....

Ducimus

03-23-14, 03:49 PM

You missed the number 1 criteria:
What is this shotgun for? Hunting or self defense? With shotguns, it makes a world of difference in barrel length, magazine capacity, and choke. A good hunting shotgun makes a poor self defense shotgun and vice versa.

Personally, i'm in the Remington and Mossberg area, and really don't know much beyond those two brands. For hunting, id probably go with a Remington, mainly because I have a Remington 870 wingmaster in my gun safe, that was made in 1967 or so, and it's still chucking shells like it was brand new. The action is smooth, it's been 100% reliable, and has taken more dove, grouse, pheasant , quail, and other assorted upland game birds then i can count.

For self defense, that depends on what YOU want in a stock. Do you want a pistol grip with collapsible stock or a fixed stock? If you want a pistol grip with collapsible stock, again go with a Remington. The slide lock and safety locations are conducive to this setup. If you prefer a fixed stock, go with a Mossberg 500. The safety and slide release are in different locations then the 870 and are ergonomic to a fixed stock. Take it from someone who's made this mistake, DO NOT put an M4 styled stock on a mossberg. It's counter intuitive to the guns design. With a Remington 870 you have to shift your hand forward of the trigger guard to unlock the slide, with a mossberg 500, you do not have to shift your hand at all, so long as the receiver is on a fixed stock.

On the flip side mossbergs are harder to field strip, while Remingtons fairly easy. Also, Mossberg has a polymer or aluminum Reciever, and Remingtons are steel, if thats an issue for you. You may think im a Remington fan, but I actually have both, and like both. I have a Mossberg 500 with a short LOP stock and an 8 round magazine. It used to be my home defense piece, and would pick it over my Remington for that purpose.

Red October1984

03-23-14, 04:36 PM

You missed the number 1 criteria:
What is this shotgun for? Hunting or self defense? With shotguns, it makes a world of difference in barrel length, magazine capacity, and choke. A good hunting shotgun makes a poor self defense shotgun and vice versa.

I'm looking at waterfowl...but something versatile that I can use for squirrels, doves, etc. Mainly waterfowl though. I want to get into duck hunting. I've got some good friends that are hardcore into it and I fell in love with it in November.

I'd need a choke for steel shot... :hmmm: as far as choke tubes go. Magazine capacity only allows like...3 shells to be in the gun at one time. And obviously I wouldn't want a short barrel for this kind of thing...

Personally, i'm in the Remington and Mossberg area, and really don't know much beyond those two brands. For hunting, id probably go with a Remington, mainly because I have a Remington 870 wingmaster in my gun safe, that was made in 1967 or so, and it's still chucking shells like it was brand new. The action is smooth, it's been 100% reliable, and has taken more dove, grouse, pheasant , quail, and other assorted upland game birds then i can count.

See, there are people that swear by the 870 Wingmaster and then there are people who swear by the Mossberg 500. The Wingmaster doesn't shoot 3.5" and it's out of my price range by about 300$ (according to the Remington website)

For self defense, that depends on what YOU want in a stock. Do you want a pistol grip with collapsible stock or a fixed stock? If you want a pistol grip with collapsible stock, again go with a Remington. The slide lock and safety locations are conducive to this setup. If you prefer a fixed stock, go with a Mossberg 500. The safety and slide release are in different locations then the 870 and are ergonomic to a fixed stock. Take it from someone who's made this mistake, DO NOT put an M4 styled stock on a mossberg. It's counter intuitive to the guns design. With a Remington 870 you have to shift your hand forward of the trigger guard to unlock the slide, with a mossberg 500, you do not have to shift your hand at all, so long as the receiver is on a fixed stock.

On the flip side mossbergs are harder to field strip, while Remingtons fairly easy. Also, Mossberg has a polymer or aluminum Reciever, and Remingtons are steel, if thats an issue for you. You may think im a Remington fan, but I actually have both, and like both. I have a Mossberg 500 with a short LOP stock and an 8 round magazine. It used to be my home defense piece, and would pick it over my Remington for that purpose.

Home defense isn't too much of an issue for me. Living where I live, any weapon in the house is a possible self defense weapon. There are some people who go hardcore-full-nine-yards with the weapons for self defense. Those usually seem to me to be the people who will likely NEVER have to use it and end up wasting money.

As I said, I'm leaning pretty hard toward the Nova right now....but I'm open to anything you have to say.

Ducimus

03-24-14, 07:17 AM

Red October1984

03-24-14, 07:35 AM

I overlooked your requirement of a 3 1/2 inch shell. Something I don't think i've ever used. 2 3/4" or 3" shell, high or low brass is all I can recall using. It sounds like your looking for a "long tom" for geese and what not.

I've pretty much "shot my wad" where shotguns are concerned, so i can't offer any more information then what I already have. Maybe someone else with more experience can chime in.

Fair enough.

See, the perfect gun would be the Benelli Super Black Eagle II....but the cheapest one MSRP is $1500.

Who doesn't like semiautomatic 3.5" capable shotguns. :03:

There's a lot of people with the argument against 3.5" that it'll shred any bird you shoot with it. But, yeah, I want something I can use for a variety of purposes. Geese, Ducks, Squirrels, maybe the odd rabbit or dove.

Syxx_Killer

03-24-14, 09:20 AM

I would seriously look at Mossberg. I have a 500, so it doesn't shoot 3.5" shells. However, you can get a 535 which is a 500 that can shoot 3.5" shells. Mossberg also has the pump 835 Ulti-Mag and the autoloading 935 if you want to go that route.

I've handled the 870 a few times, but never shot one. I haven't even had my 500 for that long; only for about a year and a half. Personally, I find the controls of the 500 more natural. The safety is a tang on the top of the receiver so it's easy to reach, especially if you shoot left handed. The slide-lock release lever is right behind the trigger so it's quick and easy to reach. I've heard the elevator can pinch you when you load shells with the 870. I can't speak for that, but with the Mossberg it won't pinch you. The receiver is aluminum, however the bolt is steel. When you lock the bolt in place ready to fire, all the pressure is directed at the bolt, not the receiver. The 500 is super easy to take apart for cleaning. There's some videos on YouTube, but once you do it a time or two it's a snap. I love taking the 500 apart. :haha: I know the 500 can't shoot 3.5" shells, but like I said the 535 is basically a 500 that can. My 500 came as a bundle with a 24" rifled barrel with scope mount, and 28" choked field barrel. I also bought an 18.5" barrel for it.

I've also read good things about the 835 and 935 if you want to go that route. You can't go wrong with any of the options you're looking at. If you can, check them all out and choose which one you like the best. :ping:

August

03-24-14, 04:33 PM

I have the Mossberg 590 Police Special. It's 9 shot tube more than makes up for a 3" chamber I think.

Red October1984

03-24-14, 06:00 PM

I would seriously look at Mossberg. I have a 500, so it doesn't shoot 3.5" shells. However, you can get a 535 which is a 500 that can shoot 3.5" shells. Mossberg also has the pump 835 Ulti-Mag and the autoloading 935 if you want to go that route.

I don't know what it is about Mossberg...but I just get completely turned off to their products. I might consider looking at the 535.

I'll have to look at prices for the autoloaders. I think if I had to get an autoloader I'd still go with a Super Black Eagle II. I asked my friend today if I could play with his Remington 887 for a little bit sometime soon.

I've also read good things about the 835 and 935 if you want to go that route. You can't go wrong with any of the options you're looking at. If you can, check them all out and choose which one you like the best. :ping:

I would LIKE to go that route....just get a semiauto gun from the get-go... However they all seem to be crazy expensive. Even with the SBE, I would really be very reluctant to drop more than 800$ on a shotgun. The Remington 11-87 is supposed to be an affordable alternative to the higher quality brands.

I have the Mossberg 590 Police Special. It's 9 shot tube more than makes up for a 3" chamber I think.

I think if I'm going to get a second shotgun it would be the Magpul Tactical 870 that Remington has here. (http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/tactical/shotguns/model-870-express-tactical-magpul-fde.aspx)

That would be a pretty good "just goofing off" or squirrel gun.

Or I would look at the Benelli M3/M4 lines if I was feeling like dropping 2000$

Ducimus

03-24-14, 06:58 PM

You know, I have to wonder, just how important is the 3.5 " shell ? I would look into the value of a 3" vs a 3.5" more. On a lark i just googled "3.5 inch shotgun" and the first thing that caught my eye was this:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/08/truth-about-shogun-ammo

then this:
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/6080887/all/3_5_inch_how_much_more_range_d (8 page thread )

Maybe you've already hashed this out for yourself, I dunno, but a cursory look has me wondering about the practical value of a 3.5" shell. I can't say for sure, but I think your options on available shotguns open up a bit more with a 3" shell. In any event, if i were in the market for another shotgun, i'd be looking very closely at the pro's and cons on the two shell sizes.

As autoloaders go, i'm not sure there is such a thing as an affordable autoloader. Personally If I had 800 to 2,000 to blow, it wouldn't be on a scattergun.

d@rk51d3

03-24-14, 07:19 PM

You know, I have to wonder, just how important is the 3.5 " shell ? I would look into the value of a 3" vs a 3.5" more. .

Seems that 3.5 shines at steel shot and long range. Although newer HV 3" loads seem to have pretty much caught up.

Red October1984

03-24-14, 08:24 PM

You know, I have to wonder, just how important is the 3.5 " shell ? I would look into the value of a 3" vs a 3.5" more. On a lark i just googled "3.5 inch shotgun" and the first thing that caught my eye was this. Maybe you've already hashed this out for yourself, I dunno, but a cursory look has me wondering about the practical value of a 3.5" shell. I can't say for sure, but I think your options on available shotguns open up a bit more with a 3" shell. In any event, if i were in the market for another shotgun, i'd be looking very closely at the pro's and cons on the two shell sizes.

I'd like to have the option to go to 3.5"

It's traditionally what is used around here for geese. I have a box of 3" duck shells that I haven't gotten to use yet. I just want to get more bang for my buck. Figured i'd just get a good 2.75-3.5 inch gun that can do it all if I'm going to buy one at all.

As autoloaders go, i'm not sure there is such a thing as an affordable autoloader. Personally If I had 800 to 2,000 to blow, it wouldn't be on a scattergun.

See, i'm the same way. I've arrived at that conclusion. I'm not going to find a good affordable autoloader. If I wanted one I'd be looking at spending a LOT of money. If I was going to pay more than 800$ for a gun, it would be a tricked out tactical AR or something of the sort. I like a lot of FN's stuff. :03:

Still haven't gotten an M14 yet. :arrgh!:

Ducimus

03-25-14, 08:53 AM

I'd like to have the option to go to 3.5"

It's traditionally what is used around here for geese. I have a box of 3" duck shells that I haven't gotten to use yet.

Ahh, I see said the blind man. Don't mind me, i was just thinking aloud my ignorance. Options are good. I like options. :O:

Red October1984

03-25-14, 09:37 PM

Ahh, I see said the blind man. Don't mind me, i was just thinking aloud my ignorance. Options are good. I like options. :O:

Nah. You're good. The whole point of my posting here about this is to get opinions. :salute:

Aktungbby

04-20-14, 12:17 AM

Anyone have any hands on with EAA’s Compact 9mm Witness Pavona for Women?

I'm considering one for the Wife.
:hmmm: Get one for each of them!:O: 3.5 barrel lends to defense only at close distance...30'; wretched color selection; 13 rnds in .9mm-- prefer chrome slide to blued. More knock down oomph but fewer rounds (9) in SW.40 version which is better for ladies' home defense! $529 in chrome but the bad guy can see it in low light (opt out and start runnin') and there's less corrosion. Can the ladies handle a stiff slide pull as opposed to a 'tip-up' under stress?:hmmm:

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EAA-Witness-Pavona.jpg

Platapus

04-20-14, 07:14 AM

13 rnds in .9mm

You are probably gonna need all 13 rounds to stop the guy if this handgun shoots .9mm rounds. :o

:D

Red October1984

04-20-14, 02:10 PM

Shoot a .45...because they don't make a .46 :salute:

Jimbuna

04-21-14, 06:20 AM

I only have one Wife so 1 is enuff at just under 300 bucks.
:yep:
30' is plenty of range for our home. No miracle long shots through a rear window I'd think.
:hmmm:
13 rounds of 9mm should be enuff. If not? Time for a new Wife.
:03:
I'm thinking give her the Local LEO training. Keep pulling the trigger till it's empty, reload, and if they moan? Repeat!
:haha:

I'm surprise that famed left hook isn't enough for Nancy Lady :)

Aktungbby

04-23-14, 12:20 PM

I only have one Wife so 1 is enuff at just under 300 bucks.Stop taking the Schizophrenia meds; you'll think otherwise!:har:

30' is plenty of range for our home. No miracle long shots through a rear window I'd think. Really! I've been pacing off a lot of tinted window SUV's this last week (60') while at outdoor ATM's guarding the techs and the shot ain't even feasible for a stationary vehicle; and I've got laser grips to boot. Once he's 'back to ya' and moving away, you're out of it legally and paper-work-wise; Christian/bullet backfield considerations not withstanding... especially as I'm usually on camera'd locations and the choreography of 'what if' must be 'spot on'!

13 rounds of 9mm should be enuff. If not? Time for a new Wife. Nah! Since my Fed days in the housing: carry the first three-four rounds in the clip, and in the 'pipe' of these...Black Talon;(photo) which were discontinued due to public outcry (2000) but have been replaced by Winchester SXT in 2007(SXT="same exact thing":dead:)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Winchester_Black_Talon_9mm_%28detail%29.jpg/220px-Winchester_Black_Talon_9mm_%28detail%29.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winchester_Black_Talon_9mm_(detail).jpg)and in 2009 by the Winchester Supreme Elite PDX1 'reverse taper': and the balance of the clip in standard jacketed rounds for economy. For home defense, there need be few rules.:up: Be careful around Nancy!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IdEfcsjhGE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IdEfcsjhGE) :doh: Mr. Pistorius, currently on trial, used Black Talons on his Ms. Reeva in S. Africa and, of course: an extra clip and proper holster for your beloved, now armed, fraü...guaranteed to bring out her femme fatale BBY!.:haha:http://www.femmefataleholsters.com/images/9b14dfc1c5bd1401b29797b9197b1f48_u6hv_hdgx.png

I'm thinking give her the Local LEO training. Keep pulling the trigger till it's empty, reload, and if they moan? Repeat!
:haha:Excellent notion !!! as (LEO) it usually quals you for the CCW permit as well. AGAIN! a spare clip-properly sequenced (loadstack-wise) magazine...pour le Coupe de Grâce mon amis!... for a fast reload on those 'still wiggling "moaners"'!:03:

les green01

04-23-14, 04:06 PM

have anyone here mess with the 1847 walkers from cabela's

Aktungbby

04-23-14, 05:46 PM

Still the finest handgun on the planet, and I own a Colt's Python and carry a Berretta 92 24/7 . My practical experience with Walkers is with Civil War re-enacting and properly loaded, they are the most powerful handgun in .44 cal. yet. I still have and shoot personally the two little off-spring : both Uberti replica .36 Navies with no complaints.
The Colt Walker is quite powerful, with modern replicas firing modern FFFg black powder producing energy levels in excess of 500 foot pounds with both picket bullets and 0.454-inch-diameter (11.5 mm), 141-grain (9.1 g) round ball bullets. The black powder Colt Walker is often regarded as the most powerful commercially manufactured repeating handgun from 1847 until the introduction of the .357 Magnum in 1935, having a muzzle energy nearly exactly the same as a 4-inch-barreled handgun firing a .357 Magnum as my 4" Python. The Colt Walker has long maintained a unique position and mystique among handgun users, and its name is often used as a common expression of any overly large generic handgun example. Interestingly, while there is little to no documented evidence, it is still rumored that a Colt Walker, when loaded with the full 60 grain charge and a Minnie Ball, produces half again the muzzle velocity of the .357 Magnum thereby retaining its crown as the most powerful handgun ever made until the more recent introduction of extremely powerful handguns, including the Smith & Wesson 500 and the Smith & Wesson 460, among others. With the added advantage: It makes a great club when empty; Texas Rangers, employing Comanche tactics with this superior technology made the Southern Plains habitable in the 1830' & 40's. With 'wonder wads' behind each of the bullets- atop the full powder charges- to prevent a possible chain fire the weapon is utterly reliable and I've never experienced problems. For damp weather as in a reenactment, birthday candle wax is good moisture prevention on the front of the loaded cylinder. Two critical shooting tips:1; put a loop(string or leather thong) around the rammer and barrel of a Walker so the rammer does not drop (from recoil) and jam the cylinder rotation; and 2; always raise the pistol barrel up straight while cocking the hammer so that the deformed percussion cap(on any cap and ball revolver) from a previous shot, does not ride into the receiver but falls away, preventing a cylinder jam. Wear eye protection! Generally old timers carried two or more-up to six so yer a' shootin' one and a' cockin' one alternately in each hand. If you saw Lonesome Dove you should have the hang of it. When loading, pinch each cap slightly to insure a snug fit over the nipple(s) on the cylinder back: German made caps are best. The metallurgy of modern reproductions is very good-but have spare trigger and hand springs for the workings and a good screw driver to fine-tune the cylinder rotation smoothly on the pistol when respringing (the temper fades). Rewatch: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Lonesome_Dove (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Lonesome_Dove) especially when whackin' insolent bartenders etc. Goes nicely with my own Henry .44 magnum rifle(below), original 45-70 Trapdoor Springfield or 45-70 Sharp's Carbine too! I can't just spend all my time in type VII U-boats! :haha:http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/b/bb/1847ColtWalker.jpg/400px-1847ColtWalker.jpg (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:1847ColtWalker.jpg)http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/0/03/Henry.jpg/400px-Henry.jpg (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Henry.jpg)hard to say which is the backup! http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/5b/LDColtWalker-4.jpg/600px-LDColtWalker-4.jpg (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:LDColtWalker-4.jpg)NOTE: This 'bad boy' was converted to cartridge from 'cap and ball' as a safety measure on the set. in real life whether the trigger is pulled or not-you got a headache pardner.

les green01

04-23-14, 07:08 PM

ill have to take it out and pop some rounds though it I know the two 1851 navy's I got look like baby toys beside it at 5 pounds you can diffenly buffalo some one with it

Buddahaid

01-05-15, 09:32 PM

I picked up a couple of firearms last weekend from Dad.

The first is a Winchester 1894 30-30 with a serial number dating it to 1919. It's fitted with a Lyman "DA" sight and was in good working condition when put away last so it should be usable with some TLC that's long overdue. He used this for deer hunting at times in Lake County California where long shots pretty much aren't needed.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1894001.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1894001.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1894002.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1894002.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1894003.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1894003.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1894005.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1894005.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1894006.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1894006.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1894004.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1894004.jpg.html)

Red October1984

01-05-15, 10:23 PM

Eichhörnchen

01-06-15, 08:11 AM

Great photos: you can almost smell that rifle...

Jimbuna

01-06-15, 09:10 AM

Fancy! :up: I love a gun that has a story or family history behind it.

Anybody can agree that you've got a nice gun right there.

Most definitely :yep:

antikristuseke

01-06-15, 11:22 AM

Shoot a .45...because they don't make a .46 :salute:

.460 Rowland:salute:
http://i.imgur.com/g2VXEs3.jpg

Yes, yes, I know its still a .451 in bullet diameter

Eichhörnchen

01-06-15, 11:36 AM

http://i.imgur.com/HxWbwYZ.jpg?1

We were armed with these when we were kids (I went through a phase of collecting cowboy "cap guns" a while back)...

http://i.imgur.com/iwzrnXV.jpg?1

You can see how this one was a bit special: the percussion caps were placed inside dummy bullets, which were then loaded into the gun just like the real thing! Fab!

Jeff-Groves

01-06-15, 03:04 PM

Eichhörnchen

01-06-15, 03:09 PM

Yeah well our parents (unfortunately) wouldn't let us have real guns, or we'd have shot one another with just as much enthusiasm. I remember my brother shot this kid once in the thigh with a bow and arrow, with a proper metal pile on the tip. He ran around squealing with this thing hanging from his leg just like animals do on TV when they've been darted. We laughed.....

Buddahaid

01-06-15, 08:57 PM

Cool cap gun pardner! :yeah:

Here's another one I picked up from Dad. It's a Remington model 1908 12g take down in standard grade. I know the model 10's are inexpensive and pretty common, but I have no idea about this earlier version.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1908001.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1908001.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1908002.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1908002.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1908003.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1908003.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1908004.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1908004.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1908005.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1908005.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/1908006.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/1908006.jpg.html)

Red October1984

01-07-15, 10:37 PM

Those older Remingtons are supposed to be indestructible.

Supposedly it's hard to get a hold of a good quality older Remington shotgun for a good price.

I'm a big Remington fan as far as rifles go....but I'm a Benelli shotgunner.

Buddahaid

01-07-15, 11:31 PM

That would be nice although the stock has some hairline cracks which it seems is typical. It must have a hell of a kick. I'll pick up the last two rifles in a week or so. One is a Krag 30-40 that's sporterized and the other is a Remington 30 06 of some type. Both are scoped and the 30 06 was Grandpa's deer rifle.

Rockstar

01-08-15, 10:21 AM

These are my toys from top to bottom
1) K43 scoped (4x Optikotechna) infantry rifle factory code ac44.
2) Remington M870 12ga, which I just picked up for the wife. She's really good with it.
3) Old Soviet TT33 I think from 1941
4) Ruger .177 pellet break barrel air rifle with a 4x32 scope which I use to control the over abundant TreeRat population in my backyard. Helluva good rifle for under $100.

http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/jky242/a82cb437baa6cd564c22beef0234a85b.jpg

Also in my inventory is an old Colt Navy Black Powder and an almost pristine Fabrique Nationale Model 1949 (FN49) 7mm. Though they are at my brothers house.

Aktungbby

01-08-15, 02:31 PM

^A man w/o his Colt's cap and ball...is not a man!:O: I'll have a Hamm's on that Barkeep! PS: I'm still out there with an old Sears-Roebuck .16 gauge pump that refuses to die....just to back up my Uberti and Lyman Colt Navy's .36's :yeah: carried properly in their reverse flap holsters!:D http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/5b/LDColtWalker-4.jpg/600px-LDColtWalker-4.jpg (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:LDColtWalker-4.jpg)

Jeff-Groves

01-08-15, 03:33 PM

Ruger .177 pellet break barrel air rifle with a 4x32 scope which I use to control the over abundant TreeRat population in my backyard. Helluva good rifle for under $100.

A rebranded XS25. Good platform. A good tune and a 3x9x40 AO Center Point scope will have you taking bottle necks at 75 yards.
:D

Red October1984

01-08-15, 07:49 PM

3) Old Soviet TT33 I think from 1941

I've always kinda wanted one of those. Never fired one...but I've got to get one to pair up with the Mosin.

...and an almost pristine Fabrique Nationale Model 1949 (FN49) 7mm. Though they are at my brothers house.

My dad has got an FN49. They're great rifles....especially for deer. The only thing about ours is that the sight hood/shroud/etc is missing. Other than that, good condition. I like it. :up: Never known anybody else who had one.

August

01-22-15, 07:22 PM

Got a new toy today.

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsterling/pwpimages/20150122_172146.jpg?PHPSESSID=99e719f19574849672cc ad14abeef220

Thomen

01-22-15, 08:17 PM

Got a new toy today.

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsterling/pwpimages/20150122_172146.jpg?PHPSESSID=99e719f19574849672cc ad14abeef220

Darn! Congratz. :up:

That's what I am still looking for. Unfortunately they do not come cheap from what I have seen so far.

Rockstar

01-22-15, 10:20 PM

oooo that looks like a CMP hardcase.

Lucky you. That rifle was once #1 on my list of things to get, then I got married.

August

01-22-15, 10:47 PM

Yep I got a CMP special grade. The receiver is an H&R 1953-54 vintage.

CMP Special (.30-06) M1 Garand. This is a completely refurbished rifle consisting of an original M1 Garand Springfield or HRA receiver, new production Criterion barrel, new production American Walnut stock and handguards, and new web sling. Receiver and most other parts are refinished USGI, but some parts may be new manufacture.

Red October1984

01-22-15, 11:13 PM

Yep I got a CMP special grade. The receiver is an H&R 1953-54 vintage.

Beautiful rifle. :woot: :woot:

I've handled them but never managed to get behind one. I'd love to one of these days.

Mr Quatro

03-10-15, 12:22 PM

Oberon led me here from the gun control thread about the legal aspects.

I hate to make mistakes could someone correct this one from here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106&page=86

to here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2085224

please :oops:

Discussing the double barrel folding shotgun and rifle X-Caliber: http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2677

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/11/23/x-caliber-survival-rifle-gauge-adapter-system/

X -Caliber® is designed for use in any condition and with any ammunition available.

Originally designed with two calibers, a rifled .22 LR and a smooth bore .12 GA -, this rifle can fire up to 12 different calibers thanks to the 8 steel adapters supplied.

In addition to the two original gauges, adapters allow you to shoot 8 pistol calibers ( .380 , 9 mm , .357Mag/.38SP , .40 S & W, .44 Mag, .45 ACP , .410/.45colt ) and two shotgun calibers (410 ga, 20ga), combining the flexibility of a shotgun and the power of a rifled gun.

em2nought

03-12-15, 09:04 PM

Beautiful rifle. :woot: :woot:

I've handled them but never managed to get behind one. I'd love to one of these days.

It really is! The stock is lovely grained and the parkerizing is well done too. :up:

CCIP

03-12-15, 09:52 PM

The finish on that is fantastic! They really did a fantastic job with that refurb, without spoiling the authentic Garand feel of it one bit :yep:

Harvs

03-18-15, 03:20 AM

Hi all, this is my 1918 SMLE .303 MK III made by Lithgow Arms in NSW Australia.

http://i.imgur.com/GRAAN4M.jpg?1

August

03-18-15, 11:16 AM

Hi all, this is my 1918 SMLE .303 MK III made by Lithgow Arms in NSW Australia.

That is a beautiful looking rifle. Congratulations!

Red October1984

03-18-15, 05:02 PM

Hi all, this is my 1918 SMLE .303 MK III made by Lithgow Arms in NSW Australia.

Very pretty rifle. I wouldn't mind owning one of those but .303 is SO expensive here...I see it on the shelf for 34$ per box of 20.

I'd own it and never use it. :hmmm:

Harvs

03-18-15, 07:12 PM

Hi all, yes ammo is expensive here as well but I have got onto some Serbian rounds @ $30 a box of 20, I have had the rifle 15 years now but unfortunately the woodwork on the foregrip cracked and rotted so I had to buy synthetics as parts are too hard and too expensive to come by.

this is it before conversion.

http://i.imgur.com/7OAJXRA.jpg

Aktungbby

03-18-15, 10:55 PM

Don't apologize for synthetic! :up: had the original manufacturer had it 1n 1914 he would have used it! As price cutting is the name of the military/industrial game... especially in WWI. I'd imagine the price of ammo precludes your rendering of a historically accurate 'mad minute'? I reload the old 1800's Trapdoor Sprinfield and Sharp's Carbine 45-70 using this-it's a tedius drag, but $ave$ dinero in black and nitrate powder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TAHq2zKqS0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TAHq2zKqS0)

Harvs

03-19-15, 12:24 AM

Dont get me wrong, i love the new synthetics, the rifle is more balanced, its half the weight and looks great, will pist more pics soon.

d@rk51d3

03-19-15, 03:15 AM

Very pretty rifle. I wouldn't mind owning one of those but .303 is SO expensive here...I see it on the shelf for 34$ per box of 20.

I'd own it and never use it. :hmmm:
Cast and Reload. :cool:

Harvs

03-19-15, 04:40 AM

This is the same rifle with ATI synthetics.

http://i.imgur.com/PNWdrwx.jpg?2

Harvs

03-19-15, 04:43 AM

And again, same rifle after airbrushing, I am about to change the cam pattern to match my surroundings a bit more.

http://i.imgur.com/G4d2wez.jpg?2

Jeff-Groves

03-19-15, 04:43 AM

Now I like that setup!
What Bipod and Scope setup do you have?

Harvs

03-19-15, 05:13 AM

Now I like that setup!
What Bipod and Scope setup do you have?

I cant remember the brand of bipod, its good because it lets me sit comfortably with the rifle to my shoulder, I got it of Amazon but the Scope is a Barska 3-9 Digital Recticle that does the job well, im only shooting out to a max of 300m and mostly between 100m to 250m.

this was a shot on a pig that came out for a roo I shot the day before, 250m

http://i.imgur.com/INAYEuY.jpg?1

Aktungbby

03-19-15, 11:04 AM

a useful tool in any arsenal; I use a harris bipod on the .375 H&H Browning but authentic homemade & cheap 'crossed sticks' for black powder competition. Generally with a Lyman .50 or Thompson Hawken .45. http://www.turkeycountrymagazine.com/12SO/images/Bog-Pod.jpg

Red October1984

03-20-15, 09:59 PM

Cast and Reload. :cool:

I would but I'd have to pay for the equipment...and there's my problem

I can hold my wallet upside down right now and nothing would fall out. :nope:

Oberon

04-27-15, 04:27 PM

The Burgess Folding Shotgun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXvmGtLYwKA

em2nought

04-27-15, 05:14 PM

I wish I'd bought an SMLE long ago. Might go for an Mosin Nagant instead now.

Red October1984

04-27-15, 07:56 PM

Might go for an Mosin Nagant instead now.

Do it! :rock: :rock:

I love mine...haven't taken any deer with it, but hoping to this year. Soft points are a little expensive but an amazing rifle for the price.

Onkel Neal

09-03-15, 09:37 AM

August

09-03-15, 11:09 AM

Just got my Garand stock back from the Finisher. :D

August

09-03-15, 11:12 AM

Well, I've got the itch for a new firearm, and I also have this sense that these may become more difficult to come by soon (Nov 2016), So, this evening I am stopping by Academy Outdoors and Sport and picking up one of these babies.

http://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/sig-sauer-m400-556-x-45mm-nato-semiautomatic-tactical-rifle?repChildCatid=733518
http://assets.academy.com/mgen/09/10206109.jpg

This will round out my small firearm collection nicely, should be great fun in target practice and hog hunting. I know Sig makes great quality pieces. This should be a blast.

Don't forget to get plenty of magazines too. Some folks like to use the Mag-pulls and other fancy aftermarket but i've found the army issue ones to be just as reliable as long as you buy them in person so you know what you're getting rather than mail order.

Onkel Neal

09-03-15, 12:19 PM

Good idea, I'll get 3 additional, that should be enough to get me on the watch list:doh:

Nice Garand, :salute:

August

09-03-15, 12:27 PM

Good idea, I'll get 3 additional, that should be enough to get me on the watch list:doh:

Nice Garand, :salute:

If three will do it the 40-50 I have probably gets me my own spy satellite. :D

I got most of mine at gun shows. I just rummage through the surplus pile until I find one that looks in decent shape. Mainly I check and make sure there are no dents or burrs around the top of the mag that might impede the bullet or bolt and that the follower depresses smoothly.

Schroeder

09-03-15, 01:21 PM

http://assets.academy.com/mgen/09/10206109.jpg

You could have told me that's an M4 carbine and I had believed it. Looks very similar to some Colts.:doh:

Good idea, I'll get 3 additional, that should be enough to get me on the watch list:doh:

Nice Garand, :salute:
Are you afraid the hogs will pin you down in a prolonged firefight?:D

Mr Quatro

09-03-15, 01:51 PM

http://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/sig-sauer-m400-556-x-45mm-nato-semiautomatic-tactical-rifle?repChildCatid=733518
http://assets.academy.com/mgen/09/10206109.jpg

I have one just like that, but it has a red tip on it and fires plastic bb's :woot:

em2nought

09-03-15, 10:57 PM

Classic Firearms has some nice looking Yugo SKS's in stock that I've been jonesing for. They look sooooo pretty. I really should have bought one for $235 back in the day. $429 now. I'm kind of poor at the moment though. :hmmm:

Onkel Neal

09-04-15, 08:51 PM

Got to fire a hundred rounds through it this morning, still developing a feel for it, but I like it.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=10&pictureid=8400

Red October1984

09-04-15, 10:23 PM

Got to fire a hundred rounds through it this morning, still developing a feel for it, but I like it.

Very nice AR Neal!

I've been dying to get my hands on one chambered in .308....it'd be the perfect deer and coyote slaying machine.

Ideally, in a world where I actually have money, I'd buy one of these (http://blackrainordnance.com/bro-pg14/). Domestic company produces it all in the USA and my uncle is friends with the owner. They started up in Southwest Missouri.

Only problem is that AR's cost so damn much. :doh:

Buddahaid

09-04-15, 11:05 PM

I have one just like that, but it has a red tip on it and fires plastic bb's :woot:

I like your style. :arrgh!: Air guns are so fun in this modern world. :up:

Buddahaid

09-04-15, 11:07 PM

Got to fire a hundred rounds through it this morning, still developing a feel for it, but I like it.

OK. I am feeling a bit envious now.... :yep:

Platapus

09-05-15, 06:42 AM

Well, I've got the itch for a new firearm, and I also have this sense that these may become more difficult to come by soon (Nov 2016),

Why would you think they would be harder to get in the future>

Onkel Neal

09-05-15, 08:02 AM

Very nice AR Neal!

I've been dying to get my hands on one chambered in .308....it'd be the perfect deer and coyote slaying machine.

Ideally, in a world where I actually have money, I'd buy one of these (http://blackrainordnance.com/bro-pg14/). Domestic company produces it all in the USA and my uncle is friends with the owner. They started up in Southwest Missouri.

Only problem is that AR's cost so damn much. :doh:

Yeah, they do. It's definitely a luxury purchase. There are versions that cost hundreds less, like the S&W and Bushmaster. The DPMS looks pretty good too (http://www.cabelas.com/product/DPMS-Panther-Arms-Tactical-Rifles/751950.uts), and it's not that much at all. about the same as my Ruger SR9. The key is to put $20 a week into a jar... you won't miss it and by Christmas you will have you rifle.

Why would you think they would be harder to get in the future>

Without getting political, I will say there is always a lot of pressure (http://www.guns.com/2015/09/04/24-states-urge-supreme-court-to-take-up-assault-rifle-ban-case/) to outlaw semi-auto "assault" rifles, or neuter them so that cannot hold 30 rounds, etc.

Red October1984

09-05-15, 10:16 PM

Yeah, they do. It's definitely a luxury purchase. There are versions that cost hundreds less, like the S&W and Bushmaster. The DPMS looks pretty good too (http://www.cabelas.com/product/DPMS-Panther-Arms-Tactical-Rifles/751950.uts), and it's not that much at all. about the same as my Ruger SR9. The key is to put $20 a week into a jar... you won't miss it and by Christmas you will have you rifle.

I wouldn't mind a DPMS....but as far as AR's go....if im gonna pay that much for a gun I'm going to go big or go home. :arrgh!:

Until then, I have all I need. Mosin-Nagant M91/30, Benelli Nova, and Savage Axis (.223).

em2nought

12-27-15, 10:37 PM

Half price deal on lifetime NRA membership right now. Price is going up Jan 1st. Seems almost worth it just for the insurance alone. http://www.shootingusa.com/LATEST_UPDATES/NRA_news/NRA_Membership/nra_membership.html

Wish I'd known it was discounted to $300 for awhile two years ago. :wah:

Buddahaid

07-31-16, 11:22 AM

I collected the last two firearms from Dad which are two hunting rifles.

The first is a sporterized Krag 1898, or 1899, carbine. I can't find the markings and am guessing they are under the scope mounting. I also can't remove the bolt and I suspect the sporterized stock is preventing the lever from moving far enough to do so.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%201.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%201.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%203.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%203.jpg.html)

The second is a 1970 Winchester Model 70 chambered for 30-06 Springfield, and was Grampa's hunting rifle. The hunting terrain is pretty much tight canyons where he lived so most shots were short range.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Win%2070%201.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Win%2070%201.jpg.html)

The sight has a couple of dings but the rest is in great shape.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Win%2070%202.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Win%2070%202.jpg.html)

I don't expect I'll be acquiring any more firearms.

Aktungbby

07-31-16, 12:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnuy7zPfFAQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnuy7zPfFAQ) Nice! don't fergit to switch on the magazine! Bring it to the Napa Rod &Gun range and we'll have a contest with the one I still shoot (on the right) 1873 trapdoor infantry 45-70:D https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Springfield_.45_and_Krag_rifle.JPG/200px-Springfield_.45_and_Krag_rifle.JPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Springfield_.45_and_Krag_rifle.JPG) I suspect yours is a sporterized import not made at the Springfield armory...hence no marking on the left of the barrel or top front receiver end (directly under your scope's adj screw.) We'll keep it at 100 yards since yours is a carbine and I'm too old to compute a 'rainbowing 45-70's arc over the 100-yard mark...yours will have the flatter trajectory. :shucks:

Buddahaid

07-31-16, 12:28 PM

Nope, it was under the sight and I'm certain you would beat me.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%208.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%208.jpg.html)

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%206.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%206.jpg.html)

Aktungbby

07-31-16, 01:23 PM

Wow! I wouldn't have the nerve to remove the screws; I didn't think left side of the carbine receiver: I'm only on my second cup of Sunday java.:O: Don't mix up those screws on reassembly. I suspect that scope is a collector item as well ...what is the actual serial #? in case the weapon was in combat (not likely)which would add to its provenance prior to sporterizing The Krag–Jørgensen rifle in .30 Army found use in the Boxer Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion), the Spanish–American War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War) and the Philippine–American War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War). (the Rough Riders?) A few carbines were used by United States cavalry units fighting Apaches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apaches) in New Mexico Territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Territory) and preventing poaching in Yellowstone National Park (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park). Two-thousand rifles were taken to France by the United States Army 10th–19th Engineers (Railway) during World War I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I); but there is no evidence of use by front-line combat units during that conflict. 'Cau$e U You never know!http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/sirwinpb/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%206.jpg (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/sirwinpb/media/Dad%20Gun/Krag%2030-40%206.jpg.html)Nope, it was under the sight and I'm certain you would beat me.
Nonsense! I'll sight-1 ft. low at 100 yards for rainbow comp.!!- then pillow/rest the Trapdoor and use dental floss and my teeth :D to pull the trigger which will save my old shoulder; the recoil of a 45-70, 405 grain, is horrendous and the namby-pamby's on either side often discover their hearing protection isn't what they thought. I reload my own in both black and nitrate powder.:k_confused: Loser pays for clam chowder at Osprey!:yeah:

Buddahaid

07-31-16, 02:15 PM

s/n is 176,xxx which makes it a cut down rifle and of little value. Interesting that the removed front sight must have been brazed on after cutting down. Of course I can still be wrong about any of this.

Chowder eh? You may talk me into it yet.

Mr Quatro

01-25-17, 07:14 PM

Gun news :up:

http://i2.wp.com/kitup.military.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sig-Sauer-P320-Army-777x437.jpg?resize=777%2C437

http://kitup.military.com/2017/01/new-army-handgun.html

Sig Sauer has won a $580 million contract to make the Army’s next service pistol, beating out three other competitors, the company has released the first images of the winning gun.

The weapon replacing the M9 9mm handgun is Sig Sauer’s popular P320 model, a polymer striker-fired pistol first released in 2014. According to an announcement released this morning, the Army’s Modular Handgun System program provides for delivery of full-sized and compact P320s. Regardless of size, all the handguns will be equipped with threaded barrels to receive silencers and will include standard and extended-capacity magazines, according to the announcement.

While the P320 has a modular design that can be adjusted for frame size and caliber between 9mm, .357SIG and .40SGW, a source with knowledge of the competition process told Military.com the Army selected the 9mm version of the gun. That has yet to be officially confirmed by Sig Sauer or the Army.