Re: Gun/Military Thread

[StoneSlinger88]

STONE WANT!!!

Both, actually, but more of the one on top. It's a Uberti replica of the Colt Walker. That one below is a full-size .44 magnum. The Walker can handle up to 60 grains of powder in each chamber, only 10 less than the buffalo-killing .45-70. She weighs in at almost five pounds and will maintain good groups up to and sometimes past 100 yards.

[StoneSlinger88]

*digs through law websites for several hours*

Huh, apparently black powder guns are not considered firearms under federal law, and not under my state's laws... That includes black powder revolvers as long as they were manufactured before 1898, or manufactured as a replica of something originally designed before 1898...

*gears turning*

Saw a 1851 Navy on sale yesterday...

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

Black powder is considered an explosive... Keep that in mind.

Texas does address black powder

[StoneSlinger88]

Up here in Mass you need an FID to buy the powder, but not the gun.

I ordered a steel frame of the 1851 Navy, should be here in a week or two. It's in the Army caliber of .44, and not the Navy .36; however, the cheaper brass-framed models, while more eye-pleasing, have a habit of "stretching" at full powder loads and can't take cartridge conversion cylinders without serious problems arising.

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

... It looks like the Ranger Sequoia.

[StoneSlinger88]

The Sequoia looks to share more similarities with the Remington New Army design, as it has a top strap over the cylinder, a feature the earlier Colts lacked, and evolved into mostly what we see in revolvers today.

[StoneSlinger88]

A frame-by-frame of the 1851's first firing. The pics are pretty big, so I split them into separate spoilers.

1851 Pietta .44 #1:

#2:

#3:

#4:

#5:

#6:

#7:

#8:

#9:

[StoneSlinger88]

My buddy from Army basic recently picked up a Mosin Nagant. As we were discussing our rifles, we discovered they were made in the same year, 1943. Then we checked the batch and serial numbers-- Mine was exactly one hundred apart from his. There were over 17 million Mosin 91/30's made before and during the war.

[Ironmonger]

I think I may shoot for a 45-70 lever-rifle when I get the chance. Most of the creatures I intend on hunting are mammals with heavy builds, and there's far too much brush and trees here to make long-range shooting practical.

[Harmony Ltd.]

So, the FAMAS F1...

after having the occasion of living with it a bit (haven't shot real cartridges with it yet, only blanks, so I'm only going to comment the ergonomics), here's what I can say :

- cleaning is a pain in the ass, as you have to disassemble the rifle to do it ; and you'll NEED to clean it often because it's a very filthy piece of machinery. And it's something that takes between 10 and 20 minutes to do on the field under _good_ conditions.
- On the flipside, it's compact and easy to maneuver around, with around 3.5 Kg of mass without the ammunitions. So you can live with it on your back 24/7 without much problem (I've done it for a whole 5-days week on the field). Though after a while it starts to feel as if it weighs 50% more than that. And it feels weird once you leave it at the armory.

That's what I have to say on it for now. Haven't really got enough experience yet to comment on the bullpup configuration.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Also, shooting blanks, even with the gizmo that's supposed to help give enough blowback to sustain the action, I've had to manually re-arm the FAMAS every 3-4 shots. I hope it's just a quirk of the blank cartridge and that it's not something that happen often with real cartridges.

Though the fact the FAMASs we're using are probably the first generation or ones that have been deemed unfit for active service, plus what I said about them being very filthy, this may help explain that. I don't know.

[StoneSlinger88]

Also, shooting blanks, even with the gizmo that's supposed to help give enough blowback to sustain the action, I've had to manually re-arm the FAMAS every 3-4 shots. I hope it's just a quirk of the blank cartridge and that it's not something that happen often with real cartridges.

Though the fact the FAMASs we're using are probably the first generation or ones that have been deemed unfit for active service, plus what I said about them being very filthy, this may help explain that. I don't know.

It's the blanks. Same problem with the M-16A2 we used. That blank firing adapter? It blows all the powder residue back into your action and none goes out the barrel, getting in all those wonderful nooks and crannies that normal firing usually doesn't dirty too much.

And Iron, keep in mind the Sharps rifle that originally shot the 45-70 cartridge was nicknamed "The Buffalo Rifle". It'll put down anything you point it at.

[Ironmonger]

That's precisely why I'm getting one. I intend to do some predator hunting along with deer stalking. Ohio has coyotes everywhere, some black bears, and the occasional mountain lion and wild boar. That's a lot of stuff that could kill me dead if something goes wrong.

[StoneSlinger88]

That's precisely why I'm getting one. I intend to do some predator hunting along with deer stalking. Ohio has coyotes everywhere, some black bears, and the occasional mountain lion and wild boar. That's a lot of stuff that could kill me dead if something goes wrong.

A 45-70 will stop most of that and blow apart the rest. Might I recommend the Henry 45-70 Lever Action; from what I've read the quality is excellent, and the receiver is already drilled and tapped for a scope. It does load via loading tube, not the trapdoor/loading gate, but personally I prefer the tube method just as a matter of easily loading/unloading. If you can't kill something with four or five rounds of 45-70, that something isn't mortal.

[Ironmonger]

I've been considering getting a Marlin guide gun, but I've heard that Marlin's newer guns are of poor quality. I'll definitely keep the Henry gun in mind, though. My other options are Rossi and Chiappa, and Winchester. The last two are pretty expensive, but since I'm not going to have a ton of guns, the added expense may be more manageable than usual. However, I think that the Henry may be sufficient.

[StoneSlinger88]

I heard their quality was going back up, but I'm not quite sure. I don't normally see them at the range, so I really can't judge. Henry has a good reputation for craftsmanship, and the .22 I bought from them is really well made. Spend some time at a range and ask around, or go to a Ma and Pa gun shop; they can usually tell you what's up with manufacturers.

[Ironmonger]

Recently I had this really ambitious idea. I've been figuring out how to convert a Magnum BFR in 45-70 into a revolving rifle. If I recall correctly, to meet the legal guidelines it has to have at least a 16-inch barrel and an overall length of 37 inches. I think I can make that work. The real tricky thing, in my opinion, is redirecting the gas from the firing procedure so that I don't go blind or something. It's one of those "easier said than done" things, but I'm a tinkerer by nature.

EDIT: Bleh, I'm not even sure I can pull this off. I can probably get the gun to do what I want it do, but it's getting spare parts and maintenance that could be a problem.

[StoneSlinger88]

Keep in mind the gas/lead shavings that blast out when the bullet enters the forcing cone and be wary of how you'd hold it. Revolving rifles are more of a novelty nowadays and their black powder ancestors were finicky at best, but if you can get one to fire accurately with a 45-70 cartridge I might have to buy it off you!

[Ironmonger]

Challenge accepted, my homey. Honestly, I'm more worried about how I'm going to connect the pieces necessary to redirect the gas than the actual design. The design I have mostly down pat, it's getting it to hold together that's giving me a problem. By that I mean I don't know much about actual metalworking.

[StoneSlinger88]

In a cartridge revolver the gas escapes from where the cylinder meets the barrel (the forcing cone), and out the muzzle. If you're using a BFR frame with cylinder already chambered in 45-70, then that's already taken care of. You might be able to find a 45-70 rifle barrel with the same threads as a BFR; in that area, I'm only familiar with Mausers, unfortunately.

[Ironmonger]

I'll have to search around a bit for that, then. I'm very interested to see what kind of modifications can be done to weapons now that I'm back into tinkering. I just gotta make sure I don't lose mah faec or mah fingurz.  

[StoneSlinger88]

That's what benchrests and long strings are for, my friend. :D

[StoneSlinger88]

Anyone know anything about Fort Indiantown Gap in Pennsylvania?

[StoneSlinger88]

Here's to you, Mr. Kalishnikov.

[Frost]

So, the FAMAS F1...

after having the occasion of living with it a bit (haven't shot real cartridges with it yet, only blanks, so I'm only going to comment the ergonomics), here's what I can say :

-  cleaning is a pain in the ass, as you have to disassemble the rifle to do it ; and you'll NEED to clean it often because it's a very filthy piece of machinery. And it's something that takes between 10 and 20 minutes to do on the field under _good_ conditions.
- On the flipside, it's compact and easy to maneuver around, with around 3.5 Kg of mass without the ammunitions. So you can live with it on your back 24/7 without much problem (I've done it for a whole 5-days week on the field). Though after a while it starts to feel as if it weighs 50% more than that. And it feels weird once you leave it at the armory.

That's what I have to say on it for now. Haven't really got enough experience yet to comment on the bullpup configuration.

In comparison, the M4 is very easy to field-strip and clean, and quite easy to give a more extensive clean-down once you're back from the field. It similarly gets very carbon-filled, but I and my fellow not-fucking-retarded recruits (so, like, fucking 15 of us out of the platoon, at best) could get that thing cleaned to standard in a few minutes. 

It always felt convenient and compact, though I can't speak for having it on your back--we'd still not been issued slings by the time I left.

[Frost]

Here's to you, Mr. Kalishnikov.

Well, today wasn't a total tragedy. I've got another picture of Stone for later use.

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

that face and hair is out of regs...

[Frost]

And out of my league. You don't hear me bitchin'.

[Harmony Ltd.]

So, the FAMAS F1...

after having the occasion of living with it a bit (haven't shot real cartridges with it yet, only blanks, so I'm only going to comment the ergonomics), here's what I can say :

-  cleaning is a pain in the ass, as you have to disassemble the rifle to do it ; and you'll NEED to clean it often because it's a very filthy piece of machinery. And it's something that takes between 10 and 20 minutes to do on the field under _good_ conditions.
- On the flipside, it's compact and easy to maneuver around, with around 3.5 Kg of mass without the ammunitions. So you can live with it on your back 24/7 without much problem (I've done it for a whole 5-days week on the field). Though after a while it starts to feel as if it weighs 50% more than that. And it feels weird once you leave it at the armory.

That's what I have to say on it for now. Haven't really got enough experience yet to comment on the bullpup configuration.

In comparison, the M4 is very easy to field-strip and clean, and quite easy to give a more extensive clean-down once you're back from the field. It similarly gets very carbon-filled, but I and my fellow not-fucking-retarded recruits (so, like, fucking 15 of us out of the platoon, at best) could get that thing cleaned to standard in a few minutes. 

It always felt convenient and compact, though I can't speak for having it on your back--we'd still not been issued slings by the time I left.

And having shot real munitions with it now...

The basic aiming sights are a bit weird. (ref 1) (ref 2) (ref 3) And aiming with them is a bit of a pain, as the overture is kinda tiny. Thus, for beginners (which I am, as are my colleagues), the typical grouping at 25 meters is around 10 to 15 centimeters. Needless to say, we can still work on our accuracy...

[Frost]

That sounds like quite a problem. We were considered "problem cases" if we couldn't put five shots within four centimeters the very first time we shot.

[Sponsored content]