Firearms of note and ridicule

[bojan]

A lot of things were possible but were just not practical, either from manufacture of from user perspective.

Early field artillery was breach loaded, with powder and shot being loaded in steel "cases" that was inserted into breach, and steel wedge secured behind it. But it was expensive (each case had to be made to a good tolerances and did not last forever), not reliable (lot of gas leaks) and ultimately not much faster than muzzle loading artillery, so it was forgotten for a while. 

Revolving firearms date to 1500s, but only became practical in first half of 1800s, and only came to dominance in the second half of 1800s.

Rifled barrels were made as early as 1600s, but did not become common until mid 1800s.

 

[Markus Becker]

On 8/5/2024 at 2:26 AM, Colin said:

Most guys I know have ditched 12ga slugs for the 45/70. Far better penetration compared to Brenneke type slugs. Foster type generally pancake against the bones.

 

 

I presume the modern 45/70 has more powerful loadings than the historical US military ammo or is the equivalent of 70 grains of BP with a modern bullet up to the task? 

[shep854]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

A lot of things were possible but were just not practical, either from manufacture of from user perspective.

Early field artillery was breach loaded, with powder and shot being loaded in steel "cases" that was inserted into breach, and steel wedge secured behind it. But it was expensive (each case had to be made to a good tolerances and did not last forever), not reliable (lot of gas leaks) and ultimately not much faster than muzzle loading artillery, so it was forgotten for a while. 

Revolving firearms date to 1500s, but only became practical in first half of 1800s, and only came to dominance in the second half of 1800s.

Rifled barrels were made as early as 1600s, but did not become common until mid 1800s.

 

True.  That's why I was a bit surprised as Ian discussed that this rifle, and others like it, did achieve a moderate amount of use, though it was limited.  I had always assumed they were one-off designs.

[rmgill]

Still watching, but seems like the seal wearing would be an issue. But those springs help with the wear. I'd like to see one fire. Probably a bit like a revolver. The Powder being disconnected by the transfer measure in the operating handle is a great design. 

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

A lot of things were possible but were just not practical, either from manufacture of from user perspective.

Early field artillery was breach loaded, with powder and shot being loaded in steel "cases" that was inserted into breach, and steel wedge secured behind it. But it was expensive (each case had to be made to a good tolerances and did not last forever), not reliable (lot of gas leaks) and ultimately not much faster than muzzle loading artillery, so it was forgotten for a while. 

Revolving firearms date to 1500s, but only became practical in first half of 1800s, and only came to dominance in the second half of 1800s.

Rifled barrels were made as early as 1600s, but did not become common until mid 1800s.

 

Interchangeability of parts and precision being the bugaboo I think. 

[rmgill]

Ian, Calvin, Joze and Ziga work on reload comparisons with, as the title says the AUG, AK47, WWSD AR15 and Bren 2. 
 

 

[sunday]

44 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Ian, Calvin, Joze and Ziga work on reload comparisons with, as the title says the AUG, AK47, WWSD AR15 and Bren 2. 
 

 

Could do as an illustration of that difference between amateurs and professionals, former ones practice until they could do good, later ones practice until they could not do bad.

Even when these four guys are pros on this field.

[rmgill]

Well, there are amateurs who become obscenely proficient. 
 

 

[Ivanhoe]

I was really surprised that the Aug times weren't consistently better than the AK clone.

The comment from Calvin about the mag well flare making a difference in the AR reload times has me thinking.

 

[Olof Larsson]

9 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

I presume the modern 45/70 has more powerful loadings than the historical US military ammo or is the equivalent of 70 grains of BP with a modern bullet up to the task? 

The old black powder rifles in 45/70, could handle ~30'000 psi, modern lever-guns ~45'000 psi, while falling bocks and bolt actions can be loaded up to ~60'000 psi.

[rmgill]

54 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I was really surprised that the Aug times weren't consistently better than the AK clone.

Magazine location is a bit awkward. The button is in an odd place for ergonomics. On my FS2000, it's a very different and ambi setup, BUT the magazine doesn't drop clear. I prefer that but it slows down changes. You MUST pull the magazine and then you can retrieve and insert a fresh one. 

I was reasonably fast after a bunch of practice but not super speedy. You kind of have to point the rifle skyward for a faster mag reload. 

54 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

The comment from Calvin about the mag well flare making a difference in the AR reload times has me thinking.

 

It was a very specific design choice with the WWSD design. You are familiar no? 

This was previously posted...

Here's Karl talking about the more detailed specifications. 
 

Also, you CAN get flared magwells that can be added to AR-15 lowers. 

 

Edited August 8 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

Yes, I'm aware of lowers that have the flare cast in, not pertinent to my situation. The add-ons are, I've done some research on YT but argued myself away from them on the basis of "Do I really need this gymcrack?"

My baseless philosophy is that an AR's first mag solves 99% of likely rifle problems, the second mag only 0.9%. But if the cost and weight greatly reduce the odds of a bobble, might have a worthwhile cost/benefit ratio.

 

[rmgill]

They're super simple to add and are light as they're just plastic and 2 screws. If they help get the magazine in the magwell, in the dark then they're useful. And many are super cheap. Some as simple as 3D printed. 

[PCallahan]

On 8/8/2024 at 5:19 PM, Olof Larsson said:

The old black powder rifles in 45/70, could handle ~30'000 psi, modern lever-guns ~45'000 psi, while falling bocks and bolt actions can be loaded up to ~60'000 psi.

I had my Henry 45-70 at the range today, fired a mix of Hornady Leverevolution 325 grain (mostly) and 250 grain (only a handful).  Frankly, I know that people handload hot rounds for this, but I'm a big guy and I can't imagine firing a hotter round...  28 rounds downrange today, and my shoulder is beat to shit.  The Hornady rounds are a bit different than the older types, as they have a nose cap (cone?) and consequently higher velocity.  

Henrys are currently rated for everything but the heavy loads for single shot rifles (which I've never seen).  On the interwebs, some think you can do 40k+ psi with them, while others advise staying in the low 30s.  I have no idea, and will stick to commercial stuff.

Pat

[rmgill]

45-70 is a bit extra spicy. That's a lot for plinking. 

The big single shots are of course are far larger so absorb more recoil. 

[Olof Larsson]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

45-70 is a bit extra spicy. That's a lot for plinking. 

The big single shots are of course are far larger so absorb more recoil. 

On the other hand most Ruger No.1 in 45-70 were of the...I think that they were called the Medium Sporter model and cam e with a 22" barrel., and they are quite light. Should be about 8 pounds. The Tropical versions (like the medium sporter, but in more powerful calibers) are about 9-10 pounds. I have one in .375 Ruger and it's NOT ideal for plinking.

16 hours ago, PCallahan said:

I had my Henry 45-70 at the range today, fired a mix of Hornady Leverevolution 325 grain (mostly) and 250 grain (only a handful).  Frankly, I know that people handload hot rounds for this, but I'm a big guy and I can't imagine firing a hotter round...  28 rounds downrange today, and my shoulder is beat to shit.  The Hornady rounds are a bit different than the older types, as they have a nose cap (cone?) and consequently higher velocity.  

Henrys are currently rated for everything but the heavy loads for single shot rifles (which I've never seen).  On the interwebs, some think you can do 40k+ psi with them, while others advise staying in the low 30s.  I have no idea, and will stick to commercial stuff.

Pat

I haven't found the recoil to be much of an issue in my 1895, but then I don't shoot it much, and I have slapped on those neoprene extenders and risers, because I found the stock to far to short and the comb much to low. Without the risers and extension, my eye end up far below the open sights, and far to close to the hammer. But then I tend to end up to low and to close to the receiver on most guns. On the original HK G3 and FN FNC I end up absorbing parts of the recoil, with the bone under my dominant eye.

[rmgill]

I've probably fired 45-70 upwards of 20 times. My early experiences with shooting were with an old friend who had a Thompson Center Contender HANDGUN in .45-70. It was not hard on the shoulder but it was a handful.  When he let it off at the indoor range every other lane would stop shooting out of sheer astonishment (1). With the muzzle brake on it, it was VERY spicy when fired. 

1. *Insert Robin Williams "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!!??" From Good Morning Vietnam*

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[rmgill]

 

[bojan]

Turkish SF with scoped Mosin:

Well, probably capture from Kurds...

[rmgill]

Kentucky Ballistics tries to blow himself up again...

 

I also wish he'd done something with a plate to see what the armor penetration was. But I guess he was wanting to avoid any sort of issues with things blowing back at himself. 


I really need to get something in .50 or larger. A boyes in .55 would be quite nice to have. 

[shep854]

A great explanation on how the parts of the AR internal piston interact:

 

[sunday]

28 minutes ago, shep854 said:

A great explanation on how the parts of the AR internal piston interact:

 

I realize now that I did not know how an AR15 works.

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, shep854 said:

A great explanation on how the parts of the AR internal piston interact:

 

Great channel.

The above video illustrates why the FP retaining pin needs to be high-quality steel and not just any ol' cotter pin from the local hardware store.

I have my notes somewhere (?) on my hard disk; as I recall the main wear items are the buffer spring and gas rings. Breakages happen at the extractor pivot holes (not the hook, apparently), the holes in the bolt where the cam pin resides, and the bolt lugs. Aside from that, few of us can afford enough ammo to wear out or break things.

 

[shep854]

22 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Great channel.

The above video illustrates why the FP retaining pin needs to be high-quality steel and not just any ol' cotter pin from the local hardware store.

I have my notes somewhere (?) on my hard disk; as I recall the main wear items are the buffer spring and gas rings. Breakages happen at the extractor pivot holes (not the hook, apparently), the holes in the bolt where the cam pin resides, and the bolt lugs. Aside from that, few of us can afford enough ammo to wear out or break things.

 

Yeah; I'm practically binge-watching videos.  Chad gets pretty spicy on his SOTAR Facebook page; he likes picking on the 'As Good As' ilk.

Edited August 21 by shep854