Archive for the 'Guns' Category

We’ve panned this gun as the wrong choice for all the wrong reasons, and I still believe that.  However, Tim Harmsen apparently likes the gun a lot.

We’ve covered this before.  Softer metals can wear down harder metals if they make contact long and vigorously enough.  And he tells you so again in the video.

Commentary at Army Times:

On all key technical measures, the Next Generation Squad Weapons program is imploding before Army’s very eyes. The program is on mechanical life support, with its progenitors at the Joint Chiefs obstinately now ramming the program through despite spectacularly failing multiple civilian-sector peer reviews almost immediately upon commercial release.

Indeed the rifle seems cursed from birth. Even the naming has failed. Army recently allowed a third-party company to scare it off the military designation M5. The re-naming will certainly also help scupper bad public relations growing around ‘XM-5′ search results.

Civilian testing problems have, or should have, sunk the program already. The XM-5/7 as it turns out fails a single round into a mud test. Given the platform is a piston-driven rifle it now lacks gas, as the M-16 was originally designed, to blow away debris from the eject port. Possibly aiming to avoid long-term health and safety issues associated with rifle gas, Army has selected an operating system less hardy in battlefield environments. A choice understandable in certain respects, however, in the larger scheme the decision presents potentially war-losing cost/benefit analysis.

Watch the mud test video above. It’s possible to tailor demonstrations and testing to sell any product, and that’s what many manufacturers do in Military arms contracts award trials. And there’s almost always a high-level ringer in uniform to urge his peers into acceptance.

Civilian testing, testing Army either never did or is hiding, also only recently demonstrated that the rifle seemingly fails, at point-blank ranges, to meet its base criteria of penetrating Level 4 body armor (unassisted). True, the Army never explicitly set this goal, but it has nonetheless insinuated at every level, from media to Congress, that the rifle will penetrate said armor unassisted. Indeed, that was the entire point of the program. Of course, the rounds can penetrate body armor with Armor Piercing rounds, but so can 7.62x51mm NATO, even 5.56x45mm NATO.

Everybody knew outsourcing manufacturing would have dire national consequences over time. All strategic negligence will result in tactical failures; it’s the nature of planning and execution. There’s really no way around it other than clever soldiers who are able to overcome bad decision-making. Having to overcome your own National Strategic Commander’s acquisition errors is no way for a soldier to be thrust into battle. But by now, we all know Washington doesn’t have the individual Soldier or Marine at heart. I sighed out loud, reading this next paragraph.

The fundamental problem with the program is there remains not enough tungsten available from China, as Army knows, to make the goal of making every round armor piercing even remotely feasible. The plan also assumes that the world’s by far largest supplier will have zero problems selling tungsten to America only for it to be shot back at its troops during World War III. Even making steel core penetrators would be exceedingly difficult when the time came, adding layers of complexity and time to the most time-contingent of human endeavors. In any case, most large bullet manufacturers and even Army pre-program have moved to tungsten penetrators for a reason, despite the fact it increases the cost by an order of magnitude and supply seems troubled. Perhaps Army has a solution, perhaps.

There’s this conclusion:

The slight increase in ballistic coefficiency between the 6.8x51mm and 7.62x51mm cartridges neither justified the money pumped into the program nor does the slight increase in kinetic energy dumped on target. Itself a simple function of case pressurization within the bastardized 7.62mm case. Thus the net mechanical results of the program design-wise is a rifle still chambered in a 7.62×51 mm NATO base case (as the M-14), enjoying now two ways to charge the weapon and a folding stock. This is the limit of the touted generational design ‘leap’ under the program.

And more at the source.

H/T Bill Buppert g/@zerogov

Source.

More than 58% of firearm owners stored at least one gun unlocked and hidden, while nearly 18% of firearms owners stored at least one firearm unlocked and unhidden, the study found.

The study found that gun safes were the locking device most commonly used among firearm owners, rather than other locking mechanisms researchers examined, like cable locks and trigger locks.

Nearly 50% of respondents who didn’t lock their firearms said locks are unnecessary, while more than 44% of respondents said that locks would prevent quick access in an emergency.

They act like this is some sort of great revelation, something worthy of an article or a “study.”  I could have told them that, almost down to the numbers.  In fact, I suspect these numbers are a bit low.

It’s a revelation to them that if you put a lock on a firearm or store it away in a safe, it’s not accessible to you in exigent circumstances.  You know, exigent circumstances – the time when you are most likely to need that firearm.

What good is a firearm if it’s locked?

Sure, it might be a great idea to lock them away with small children in the home, and there are biometric safes for that, but we oppose efforts to legally mandate such things.  The FedGov isn’t God, regardless of how much they want to be.

The Forerunner of The Modern Sniper Rifle at Forgotten Weapons

Snip:

In the 1960s, Steyr Daimler Pusch developed a modern sniper rifle for the Austrian military (and also for commercial civilian sale). It was adopted as the SSG-69 (Scharfschützen-Gewehr; sharpshooter’s rifle), replacing the SSG-98k in military service. Mechanically, the SSG-69 uses a bolt with six rear-mounted locking lugs in 3 pairs, giving it a short 60 degree throw. The stock is made of polymer and the barrel is cold hammer-forged, both fairly cutting-edge elements at the time of its design. It was a factory 1MOA rifle, also something considered typical today, but quite impressive ein the 1960s.

Includes two videos. The first from Mr. McCollum:

And this from Practical Accuracy:

I don’t have to worry about this since I NEVER put metal to my BCGs.  I only use cleaners and nylon brushes.

With that said, I think it might be nice to get the gauges he mentioned.

Richard Mann writing at F&S.

• 30-30 Winchester
• 357 Magnum
• 44 Magnum
• 45/70 Government
• 360 Buckhammer

[ … ]

The 30-30 Winchester and the 30/06 Springfield are often considered the two most iconic American rifle cartridges. They’ve withstood the test of time. But they’re not the oldest or the most versatile. The 45/70 was introduced in 1873, 21 years before the 30-30 and 33 years before the 30/06. Originally designed for the Trapdoor Springfield, the 45/70 gained its current fame in the lever-action, and it is arguably the most popular lever-action rifle sold today. By modern standards, original 45/70 ballistics are pathetic. Modern 45/70 loads are not. And when all the 45-70 loads are considered, you have what might be the most adaptable big game cartridge of all time.

There are essentially three power levels of 45/70 ammunition, which is a trait no other centerfire rifle cartridge can claim. Power-level-one loads replicate the cartridge’s original ballistics and launch a 405-grain bullet at about 1300 fps. Inside 75 yards they’ll work for many big game animals. Second-power-level loads are generally loaded with a 300-grain bullet and pushed to about 1800 fps. They can generate more than 2000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy and are sufficient out to around 200 yards for non-dangerous critters. And finally, there are the third-power-level 45/70 loads. These can generate more than 3500 foot-pounds of muzzle energy—with recoil to match—and are sufficient for spy balloons or any beast walking Earth.

He also discusses the other cartridges, including one of my favorites, the .44 magnum.

I always enjoy reading Richard’s work, but my goodness it seems way, way premature to include 360 Buckhammer in that list.  It’s brand new, and in my opinion will end up being a flash in the pan.  Basically it doesn’t really do anything that the 30-30 can’t with the heavier loads (e.g., I have both 150 gr and 170 gr sitting on my desk in front of me now, and ballistically, it’s not really proven that the 170 gr does any better than the 150 gr.).  It’s parent case is the 30-30, just with a heavier bullet.  It’s also not proven that the .35 Remington does any better than the 30-30.  I just don’t think there’s a void to fill with the 360 Buckhammer.  Prove me wrong with ballistics analysis.

But let me tell you where I think there is a void.  Between the .44 magnum and the 45-70.  The perfect cartridge to fill that void is the 454 Casull, and I have written both Henry and Marlin begging them to introduce a rifle chambered in 454 Casull.  Apparently, my protestations have been to no avail at this point.

Anyway, I expect 350 Legend to wane in popularity, and I don’t expect wide availability of the 360 Buckhammer.  It may be an item of interest at some point (“Wow, I haven’t seen one of those in a long time, it may be a collector’s items at this point”), but it remains to be proven.

The 30-30 will never go out of style or off the market, and there will always be a high demand for either a new release by Marlin or a legacy JM stamped 336 in 30-30.

But I demand that Marlin introduce a Model 336 in .454 Casull.  I’ll buy two immediately upon release.  And I’d be happy to write about 20 articles on a new 336 in .454 Casull for Marlin if they send me a prototype.

As I’ve said, I could listen to Ryan Muckenhirn talk about boiling beans for hours and never get bored.  I watched every minute of the video (it’s a long one).  But lever actions guns are almost always unique, are historic, are a distinct part of Americana, come from a much better time in history, were designed by the very best mechanics and craftsmen America had to offer, are still viable and useful today, and still (in many cases) carry the wood stock and beautiful furniture you would like to turn over to your children and grandchildren.  Jim said it near the end when he said he got into lever guns when he sat back and thought one day when he hands his children his weapons, “Here, offspring, here is this really special firearm …,” and then thought, I have no special firearms.  So he bought lever guns.

They’re beautiful, classic, nostalgic, fun to operate, can still put meat on the table, and it’s no wonder there is such a resurgence in interest in lever actions guns and the cartridges they shoot.

I’d like to have a much larger collection of lever action guns than I do.  I’ll tell you someone who had a gigantic collection of lever action guns: Jeff Quinn of Gunblast, whom I miss.

I’ve never shot the M60 though I wanted to the first time I saw one, which was in a Navy unit I briefly served with. The M2 is another story. The readers here probably know some interesting details about the weapon.

Photo found without attribution. Appears to be news stock, Vietnam Era.

Some of the links provided in the story are better than the source of this brief overview.

The M60 is one of the enduring symbols of the American firearms industry. Born out of a fusion of two WWII-era German designs, the original M60 had several engineering flaws that lead to its replacement by the M240. But in 2014, Denmark adopted the M60E6 as the standard light machine gun of its armed forces, and the design continues to be manufactured and sold today. How did the M60 go from its rushed original design to the gun it is today?

The story of the M60 begins right after the end of WWII. During WWII, U.S. soldiers faced down the advanced MG42 machine gun and FG42 automatic rifle. While some may say the MG42’s rate of fire was too high, the weapon was far more suitable for infantry use than the American M1919A6, with superior ergonomics and lower weight. They also faced the FG42, an advanced box-fed automatic rifle that was lighter and more flexible than the American M1918A2 BAR.

Both of these weapons impressed American evaluators, who ordered Saginaw Steering Gear Division of General Motors to produce a version of the MG42 in the American .30-06 caliber. This did not go so well, with many engineering errors such as making the receiver too short. The final gun was highly unreliable, and the project was canned.

The U.S. Ordnance Corps then investigated the possibility of converting the FG42 into a belt-fed machine gun. A variety of prototypes were made. The T44 was a relatively standard FG42 converted to use the MG42’s belt feed, but the basic FG42 barrel proved too light for sustained automatic fire. The T52 came later, incorporating a heavier barrel. Later iterations of the T52 added a quick-change barrel and a new gas system.

The Army also began development of the T161 around this time, which was a variation on the T52 design, but modified for mass production. The T161 and T52 competed with each other throughout 1953 and 1954. In 1954, both guns were adapted for the new 7.62x51mm NATO round and M13 belt link, though they were not called that at the time. The T161 eventually won and went through several iterations before its final field trials as the T161E3 in 1955 and 1956.

The results of the T161E3 trials were impressive. Soldiers preferred the gun over the M1919-series of guns as it was far easier to maneuver, aim, move, and maintain. The gun weighed almost ten pounds less than the M1919A6, tipping the scales at around twenty-three pounds. The T161E3 was adopted as the M60 on 30 January 1957.

The M60 would see its first combat use in the Vietnam War in 1965 with the U.S. Marines. While it served well for many soldiers, providing heavy, accurate firepower, it also revealed many more flaws in the design.

In the door gunner role, M60s could fire upwards of 5000 rounds a day, laying down constant suppressing fire onto landing zones before helicopters came in. This caused the lightweight receivers to stretch and even crack, and gages were issued to armorers to determine when replacement should occur, which usually happened around 100,000 rounds or so. In contrast, the heavier M240 has been known to go for upwards of two million rounds without receiver repair.

More at the source.

Here’s one going for six figures at auction. That price is entirely the NRA’s fault under the NFA; its members covet control of high prices for their automatic rifle investments. The video source is Rock Island Auction, 2023 Gun Prices and Trends, which details many collectibles for this coming year.

Do any readers care to add to the list of mistakes to avoid, or tips for making scope mounting easier or more effective?