May 1998
To Tim: The primary complaints I've heard about the Springfield scope had to do with clarity and repeatability. Current dealer cost on the B&L 4000 Elite 6-24x is $281 without shipping, and the scope does not include a BDC.
To Torsten: Thanks for the information. I sent you an E-mail with my requirements. I'd prefer to keep this matter offline.
To Bill: Fifteen grains of Red Dot in a .45 ACP case? You're an evil man, Bill, you're an evil man.
To Ned: Wow! I greatly enjoyed your post on the temperature-related variations. VERY interesting reading! Thanks!!!
To Ron: Double wow! Another great piece on the subject of rings, scopes, and dissimilar metals. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Again, to Bill: Shucks, Bill. Praise is always nice, and tremendously appreciated. Thanks for the kind words. All I can say is, we try to bring you the best of the best. If our visitors benefit, then we've done our jobs.
To "Manhattan Matt:" ArmaLite has a problem with vendors supplying
parts on time and, due to the success of the product line, backorders are
currently a way of life. (I recently posted a note from Mark Westrom on
this subject; it's on the ArmaLite website.) And don't worry, Matt, I think
we ALL check out the Emporium from time to time.
Russell E. Taylor <DQBW77A@prodigy.com>
Silvis, IL USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 01:22:30 (EDT)
Matt
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 02:11:59 (EDT)
I'm new here, but I spent about 2 1/2 years shooting IPSC and the last several years shooting non-competition pistol. I have a Glock 20 in 10mm. I have had only a few stoppages in this weapon, all failures to eject on the last round of the mag, so I think the factory glock mags that came with my particulat weapon have some sort of problem. Only about 1,000 rounds with the M20 (expensive even to handload), so I'll admit my Glock experience is limited.
As for the venerable 1911, let's say that it is either fragile or a real workhorse, depending on who you talk to. My IPSC custom gun is fragile, hates .45 hollowpoints with big holes in them because the feed angle from the magazine to the chamber is excessive, has broken several parts in the middle of an IPSC match (all custom accesories no less!!), and had at one time a tendency to throw the front sight blade (read custom) off of the slide every 1,200 rounds or so. It is also with out a doubt the most accurate handgun I have ever fired. Before it went to the doctor to become a racegun, it never broke, though it did like to jam at inopportune times.
My H&K is the darling of my handgun arsenal. I have used this weapon for IPSC matches on occasion (see last paragraph). I can say that accuracy is outstanding out of the box. Since I had this gun in my competitive days, when I would shoot upwards of 500 rounds in a single session without cleaning, I gave this weapon a real endurance test on several occasions. With over 7,000 rounds through it, it has NEVER EVER jammed, misfired, misfed, or even hiccuped. It is the only handgun I can trust my life to. And did I mention that my USP will devour any .45 hollowpoint made by man without prejudice?
To Matt: I have not regularly seen .40 S&W 1911's in use for IPSC, but I did see a few and I'll tell you what I know. Most were single stack 1911's in .40 cal, good double stack frames are usually in .45 ACP or .38 Super and they carry a hefty price tag as well so most shooters tend to opt for the more popular calibers when paying $900+ for a frame. They too suffered from the feed ramp angle problem my .45 ACP 1911 does. Misfeeds, while not entirely common, did tend to frustrate the .40 cal shooters pretty bad. Since most target and match .40 S&W loadings use hollowpoint or a trunicated cone bullet, the feedramp angle was just a nagging problem that was hard to solve. If you don't believe me try this; take a 1911 and a USP and lock the slide back. Now being VERY careful and pointing the weapon in a safe direction, slide in a mag loaded with one round. Observe the angle the cartridge must travel to get to the chamber. The USP is almost a straight line. Accuracy was acceptable in the .40's and could be improved quite easily if it wasn't up to snuff.
Sorry for such a long post everyone, just trying to help out where I can. My experience is almost all hadguns, so I'll chime in where I can.
Great site! Keep up the good work everyone!
Ralph Horne <m1911@earthlink.net>
Houston, Texas USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 04:25:33 (EDT)
A Norwegian gunmagazine, VapenJournalen, got their hands on a mysterious
litte russian pistol called PSM. It about the size of a PPK but slimmer.
This pistol in cal. 5.45X18 was developed to kill people wearing bodyarmour.
The people at VJ wanted to test the PSM to see if the roumours were true.
While they were at it they tested regular handgunrounds as well.
The bullets were fired at layers of kevlar from bodyarmour. The results
are going to be depressing for some...
Penetration, nr. of kevlarlayers penetrated:
.22LR: 0 layers
.32ACP Silvertip: 0 "
.32ACP GECO FMJ: 0 "
.38spec. +P FMJ: 0 "
.45ACP 230Fed HS: 0 "
.45ACP 230 FMJ: 0 "
.44mag Norma240HP:6 "
.44mag Fed HS: 7 "
9mm FFV NATO: 15 "
9mm Swe.M39B FMJ:65 "
5.54X18PSM: 49 "
The swedish 9mm M39B has a very heavy steeljacket that does not deform on impact. This round is Second Chance's nightmare and they know it. The bullet on the PSM has a squared off steelcore inside the jacket that cuts trough the kevlarfibers.
In a combatsituation you can't afford to use a round that will not penetrate bodyarmour.
If you are up against a modern army maybe a single shot TC Contender in .223 is better at self defence than any handgun in .45ACP :-)
TorF
Oslo, Norway - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 07:09:42 (EDT)
Anyway, to Ralph and Bill:
I haven't had the problems you describe with .45s WITH A STOCK GUN, or one modified for real-world carry. I've had problems with my competition guns, but that's because a gun is always going to get more picky as you reduce the tolerances. I've never had a problem I wasn't able to resolve, though, through paying attention to my handloads, polishing the feed ramp, whatever. Gun generally runs like a champ, as long as I'm not so dumb as to go into a match with ammo I haven't fired through it before.
I have a Lightweight Commander that's almost entirely stock, except for a bit of trigger work and a polished feed ramp. This is my carry .45. I haven't ever had a problem with it, shooting any type of ammo that I've tried. But of course, hollowpoints DO increase the liklihood of a feed problem, and lowering the angle at which the rounds feed is certainly a good idea--I'm just not convinced that stock .45s have a big problem feeding. Still, I don't claim to have shot it as much as my competition gun, so I may be missing something. I'll tell you what: I'll scrape up a little money, go buy a variety of hollowpoints, and do some tests, then report back to the Duty Roster with my results. Yes, my feed ramp IS polished, so maybe this won't give us a fair look at performance out-of-the-box, but my feeling on that is that any idiot with a Dremel tool (for example, ME!) can polish his own feed ramp, so I don't see it as a big issue. If need be, I can probably borrow a truly STOCK Springfield full-size from a buddy and test that, instead, or even compare the two.
TorF:
Well, you're right about the penetration issue. Velocity is nearly everything when you're talking penetration, and hot, smaller-caliber FMJs will generally do a better job of it. But still, there are plenty of vests out there that will stop almost any handgun round. If you're worried about armor, I'd say you need to either carry a rifle or be prepared to shoot for the head, and be able to do so effectively.
I don't think there are any armies out there that are issuing true body armor to the average soldier, yet. It's still all flak jackets, which aren't very effective against much, including most pistol rounds. Anyway, your average soldier is carrying a rifle capable of penetrating any vest that isn't too heavy and awkward for general wear by grunts. So from a military perspective, right now, the pistol is an acceptable backup weapon, or primary for certain individuals. ALTHOUGH....many officers I've known, who rated only an M9 according to the T/O, had an M16 in the armory, already identified as "theirs" if the s**t ever hit the fan.
To Matt (par8hed): I don't know of a way to improve the barrel-slide
fit of your Beretta, although I must say I've never had trouble shooting
mine accurately (when it was working!) at 25 yards. I have managed a 388
on the MC pistol qual course (400 poss pts--40 rds, 15 of which are at
25 yards), and typically drop around ten points at the 25--but in each
instance, I can always identify something I did wrong to throw the shot.
If I apply the fundamentals properly, I have no trouble keeping them in
the 10-ring with the M9. It's not equal to my competition .45 by any means,
but it shoots plenty well enough for its intended purpose. So make sure
it's the gun and not you (no offense---it could very well be the gun!).
Beyond that, I can't offer you much advice, but maybe someone else out
there knows something.
Matt
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 12:49:54 (EDT)
Just so you know on which side of the fence my 1911 sits on the polished feed ramp thing. I went a totally different route other than polishing the feed ramp. I had the entire frame stripped and coated with a grey, self-lubricating epoxy-teflon. It's a super smooth finish even on the feed ramp after 1,000's and 1,000's of rounds. I think it produces the same effects as a good polishing with a dremmel [and I have used a Dremmel on another weapon as well. So yes, I'm living proof that any dummy can do it! ;)] It also gives the weapon a nice two-tone look.
It also has the hardest time feeding Sierra hollowpoints like those
used in Cor-Bon ammo and Speer Gold Dots. Both of these are my preference
in hollowpoints, Talons notwithstanding. My gun in particular had a nasty
habit of ramming a factory Cor-Bon bullet into the case upon feeding. Not
that this would normally bother me a whole lot, I just don't want to increase
the seating depth on an already +P round. Hehehe, sure wouldn't want to
be known as "Crazy 1911 Slide-Stuck-In-Face Man"
Ralph Horne <m1911@earlink.net>
Houston, Texas USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 13:10:12 (EDT)
The kevlar VJ used in the test came from the producer of norwegian flakjackets. These flakjackets has 18 layers of kevlar.
A friend told me of a test were a dummy was dressed up in a complete
winter uniform, webgear, mag.pouches, maps, rucksack, etc. but no bodyarmour
or flakjacket. The dummy was soaking wet from heavy rain. Then they fired
30 rounds 9mm FMJ from a H&K MP5 at the dummy from a range of 100m.
Only 50% of the bullets penetrated in the chestarea. Goodbye MP5, hello
G3.
TorF
Oslo, Norway - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 16:59:06 (EDT)
I thought a bit more about your M9's problem with consistently locking up in the same position (i.e., it won't!), and I think I have a solution for you. But it's completely experimental, as far as I know (unless I'm reinventing the wheel, here) and not thought out in great detail. I'd still suggest a different gun. But if you really MUST use the Beretta, what about this idea:
Have a gunsmith thread the last, oh, maybe 1/2"-3/4" of your barrel (exterior), and machine you a conical piece that will screw onto the threads he cut, surrounding the barrel. He'd need to do a bit of measurin' and figgerin' first, but if he did it right, he could grind down the attachment and/or slide, fit them to one another perfectly, so it'd be like a removable flare. Voila! Consistent lockup, no bushing required. A set screw and some Lok-Tite to hold it in place---it'd have to be removable, or you'd never be able to take the barrel out of your pistol again! Again, this isn't a simple approach, and I may have over-thought it.... someone may have a much better, simpler idea. You'd need to find a competent gunsmith, unless you're handy with a lathe and have the tools and skills yourself. But I'm pretty sure this could be done.
If you try this, let me know how it goes!
Matt
Matt <m45acp>
GA USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 17:14:45 (EDT)
How 'bout sending me one o' them there Norwegian flak jackets!? I'd trust it a lot more than the one I wore for three years. (Now I'm actually issued a no-kidding vest, although not the best brand or protection level.)
The MP5 expirement is interesting, but I wonder about some of the details. I don't know. It's certainly surprising. On the other hand, 100m is not the range at which you want to be engaging targets with pistol rounds if you can help it, is it? I mean, all things being equal, who the hell WOULDN'T want a G3 over an MP5?!?!
You know, on the bodyarmor issue, it's kinda funny. Right now, certain elements of the USMC are switching from MP5s to M4 carbines because of concerns about vests, and not having enough "oomph" to reach out and touch someone. My biggest concerns with this are: will it be controllable for bursts (the MP5 sure is!), and will the noise cause problems? Having a few rounds of 5.56 fired from a short barrel, a few inches (or even feet) from your head, in an enclosure and without hearing protection, could be a potentially debilitating experience, exactly when you can't afford to be debilitated!
To Bill: I basically agree with you on the M9/92--it's always been accurate enough for me. I only made my suggestion because "Manhattan" Matt seems to think that inconsistent lockup is causing him accuracy problems. I guess that it could be doing so, but like I said, they've always shot well enough for me. On the other hand, I have my doubts about whether a good, customized .45 can't be made to shoot that well---I mean, I feel pretty sure that it could. The Beretta is accurate enough, but I don't think of it as anything exceptional in the accuracy department. I'm going to the range tomorrow, so I'll try a few things along these lines.
Matt
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 18:58:37 (EDT)
Several years ago my father introduced me to a Wehrmacht Eastern Front veteran who had been a platoon leader and carried an MP40. During one particular battle his men were defending a village. Out of the snow loomed dozens of Russian infantry shouting OORAH and stomping their way towards them. He aimed and fired at one. The bullets hit and the Russian fell over. A few minutes later the guy stood up and started running again. More 9mm SMG and down he goes. The third time he stood up, the platoon leader had a rifleman shoot that particular Russian.
After the attack was over they crept out to look at this fellow. He was dead. Under his coat he was wearing three sheep skin fleece vests and embedded in it were several 9mm bullets.
So lots of clothes can defeat bullets just as effectively as kevlar body armour. Not to mention cold weather reduces bullet velocity.
Terry
Terry Warner <twarner@sk.sympatico.ca>
Canada - Friday, May 01, 1998 at 21:31:06 (EDT)
Bill Rogers <brogers@elkhart.com>
USA - Saturday, May 02, 1998 at 00:55:03 (EDT)
I have a friend in South Afrika that makes a copy of the French THV
Bullet in 9 and .45.
The 9, when loaded up to the hilt (including the cavern inside the
bullet) with red dot leaves a High Power at 930 M/sek = 2800 ft/sek.
And yes it will penetrate BOTH sides of a class III A vest at 25 Meters.
Torsten
Torsten <infantrie@hotmail.com>
Germany - Saturday, May 02, 1998 at 06:20:36 (EDT)
To Ned and Bill: I hold the NBC television network accountable for
the upsurge in headshot-related deaths of law enforcement officers. If
you're in the body armor business, Ned, you'll know why. I think some level
of self-restraint is best applied in discussions of body armor construction.
I'm not opposed to using my editorial "pen" to remove certain things that
are posted to the Roster, but I hesitate to do so unless it's apparent
that things have gotten out of hand. For the most part, I am pleased with
the level of intelligence and contribution that is in evidence here, and
that's what we want. The majority of visitors to this site are individuals
who have invested a serious outlay of cash in their firearms and accessories,
and are looking for ways to get their money's worth out of their gear.
Granted, most gang-bangers can't spell, don't know what a URL is, and probably
wouldn't understand a discussion of sear engagement if it was broken down
to a single-syllable-words-only oration just for their benefit; still,
I feel we're relatively "safe" in discussing most things as they relate
to our, well, interest.
Russell E. Taylor <DQBW77A@prodigy.com>
Silvis, IL USA - Saturday, May 02, 1998 at 12:36:02 (EDT)
Matt
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Saturday, May 02, 1998 at 12:51:57 (EDT)
Send me an EMail with your full name and address. I've got one of your country men in my course and have talked to him about your requests. He will carry the info you wanted back with him to Germany at the end of the course.
He's doing real good in the course right now and I do not see any problems with him finishing the course. I do believe he was a little worried on the exam Friday, but he ddi well.
Rick
Rick <RBowcher@aol.com>
Fayetteville, NC USA - Saturday, May 02, 1998 at 16:20:49 (EDT)
I believe you are correct in your estimation of Snipercountry's clientele....but you never know who might stumble in here.
Comment on the Norinco pistols-- I've heard that they are very good
for the money, where most Chinese products are of low quality. But as firearm
enthusiasts, we are generally much more freedom-concious than most, so
we should keep in mind that any product made in China has as one of it's
ingredients the blood of political prisoners and an unfree populace. I
don't want to come off too pompous here, but they are shameless purveyors
of strategic weaponry to whatever crackpot dictator with a Napoleonic complex
can buy them.
Ned C. <michigun@net-link.net>
Three Rivers, MI USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 00:31:28 (EDT)
Bravo! You're right on the mark w/your comments on buying Chinese. In allowing trade with the PRC, our government has gone soft in the head and weak in the knees, and bowed to pressure from mega-corporations who see China as a hugely profitable market and nothing more. This doesn't mean we ought to put our own money in the pockets of the world's greatest remaining communist regime! Remember guys, people always get soft and complacent during periods of prolonged peace, and often don't stop to think about the potential consequences of their actions when things get ugly again. We may end up at war with these folks someday, and I'd rather fight starving, poorly-equipped hordes of Chinamen, versus well-fed, well-equipped hordes of Chinamen. Our dollars aren't going to hard-working, independent entrepeneurs in a democratic nation, when we buy a Norinco---they're going into the pockets of one of the "dirtiest" governments out there!
Matt
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 01:41:53 (EDT)
thank you for the help, an E mail is in your box.
I look forward to talk to the fellow German once he is back here.
Is he by chance form the Infantry school in Hammelburg? I am due to visit
there in June and upon my last visit I heard that they send some Instructors
to the US.
If I can do something for you let me know.
Torsten
Torsten Erning <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 07:23:22 (EDT)
I saw a special on the discovery channel over the easter holidays.
It showed a Seal shooting at a Tank turret with an m-88 using raufoss ammo.
Is there anyone out there that has a m 88 that would like to compare
notes ?
I have a 20 x MkIV Leupold on it with what is to be a Glass etched reticle ??? Leupold told me these would hold up better on a .50 with a muzzle break as the back and forth of the recoil and brake pull could break a wire reticle ??
Any input ?
Torsten
Torsten Erning <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 08:44:34 (EDT)
Torsten
Germany - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 08:46:12 (EDT)
To Torsten: My trip to Germany is a "go." I'm at my Reserve unit this weekend (thank God we have Internet access) and I received my orders yesterday. So, it's official, my tour of duty will cover 13-27 Jun 98.
On the matter of politics: Nothing surprises me anymore, since certain people occupy the White House. I just left an ODP (officer development program) meeting, and one of the things discussed was "money." The military, as a whole, has gone far beyond "doing more with less" and has been, for some time now, "doing less with less." While I'll certainly go wherever the policies of my government require, and "do the deed" as needed, I deplore -- as an American soldier -- the way our military has been treated. That the Chinese, and other countries, seem to thrive on the misery and misfortune of so many other countries, is upsetting. However, this country's ability to keep certain "bully" countries "in check" seems to be waning on a daily basis is even MORE upsetting. I have a little over 16 years in the Army as I type this, and I've made no secret of the fact that I intend to retire when I get my 20-year letter. Why? Because this is NOT the Army I joined in 1982. Whether we agree with them or not, the Chinese (and some other countries) seem to have maintained a sense of importance about what it means to have a strong military. As I'll never be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I don't see that I stand much chance of changing policy nor influencing national focus. Please don't mistake my concerns as being "militant." Rather, try to understand that my frustration is manifested from a deep feeling of compassion for the guy in the trench, the warrant officer in the motor pool, the company commander, and so many others who are currently seeing the results of funding cutbacks… inadequate training. Don't underestimate the Chinese, the Koreans, and others. We don't have a say in what other countries invest into their military forces, but we sure have a say in what happens to ours. Write letters, call congressmen, and support intelligent defense spending.
Wow. I guess I'm a bit touchy on "world matters." I suppose I'd be happier if I all I did was drink beer and watch reruns of I Love Lucy.
Russell E. Taylor <DQBW77A@prodigy.com>
Silvis, IL USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 10:53:31 (EDT)
It strikes me rather ironic that you would feel necessary to condemn the purchase of Chinese goods based on your bias against their government.
In a past Roster posting you commented on how you love H&K weapons.Using the same logic you present, does this mean that you support Germany,a country who brought us such wonderful things such as Nazi facism and over 6 million slaughtered Jews ?
Like other readers, I also condemn China for its human rights abuses and its oppressive government.
My comments aren't meant to offend anyone,including you Matt,but
I think we should leave politics out of discussing the merits of the weapons
brought into this forum.
Jeff B <2jeff@blaikies.ns.ca>
Truro, N.S. Canada - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 13:52:35 (EDT)
Jeff, I think you've mistaken the intent of my post. I'm not exactly condemning you for buying a Norinco, just pointing out that there are things to keep in mind when you buy foreign goods.
As for my feelings about German, Austrian, etc., weapons---well, if this were 1938, YES, I'd have a problem with buying their stuff. But this is 1998, those countries, although imperfect like any other country (including the U.S!) aren't fascist any more, and it's been over 50 years since anyone was gassing Jews. Although their governments aren't exactly identical to the U.S.'s, they're close enough for me to feel comfortable with, and I don't suspect them of institutionalized, government-sponsored human rights abuses on a massive scale, as I do the PRC. So I do, in fact, see a pretty clear distinction between the two situations. I also retain enough of that old Evil Empire paranoia to believe that when you have a country that's as large, aggressive, and ambitious as the PRC, whose area of interests overlaps our own, and its ideological foundations are so vastly different from our own, then you've got a situation which can never be completely stable. As long as we maintain these differences with the PRC, I think we'd be fools not to view them as a potential enemy, and approach dealings with them cautiously. I guarantee you that, although the White House probably doesn't let anyone talk about it, there a buncha boys in the Pentagon and in the Pacific who spend time thinking about just that.
As far as leaving politics out of the site, well, I know it's not intended to be primarily a site for political discussion, and you'll note that of everything I've posted in the past several days, there are only two (including this one) posts with a political bent. Would have only been one, but you responded to the first one! Anyway, let's admit that our shooting interests are intrinsically tied to politics---for those of us who aren't military, the question of whether we will be able to continue shooting at all is very, very political! So I don't think that occasional mention of things political is necessarily out of order. However, if I'm wrong, I'm sure our esteemed moderators will take appropriate action.
By the way----no offense taken. From my perspective, opposing viewpoints
are always welcome, if presented rationally.
Matt
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 14:26:19 (EDT)
13-27 Jun 98, I´ll check our reserve scedule for that time frame. When can you give me a firm date for a visit? The SIG tour could be on a Friday, but before noon as they close at 13:00 for the weekend.
If you are interested I could also get you a tour of a KRK (Crisis Reaction Forces) Anti aircraft artillery Unit. They are using the Leopard one based Gepard with twin 35 mm Oerlikons. Also a quick session with a Strela ( East German/ Russian Stinger copy ) could be arranged. They have the new H&K G 36 and P8 (USP)as well.
For the Bundeswehr visit you would need to bring your Military ID with you. Civilian Clothes are OK unless we go shooting.
I´ll keep you posted.
Torsten
Torsten <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 14:52:04 (EDT)
To Torsten: I probably won't know my "free" days until I'm on the ground. I always have my military ID with me, whether I'm on duty or not, but when I'm on duty I also have my dog tags and a copy of my orders on my person. Any "gun stuff" you can come up with will be fine with me.
To Matt: Yes, an occasional foray into political matters is probably
a cleansing thing on occasion, but I hope we'll all "generally" concentrate
on sniper weapons and accessories. We have a good bunch of folks contributing
a lot of good material here. For the most part, this Roster is frequented
by professionals or professional-minded individuals.
Russell E. Taylor <DQBW77A@prodigy.com>
Silvis, IL USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 15:24:53 (EDT)
Torsten-- I saw some Roufoss rounds fired last summer. From everything
I have read, they are supposed to really bring the .50 up to date. They
made a good show upon impact (nice flash, unusual puff of yellow smoke)
on a 1" thick steel plate....I imagine that they should work well on vehicle
fuel tanks that happen into the crosshairs. They come from your neck of
the woods, don't they? Is it PETN or RDX in there, I don't remember---
but my biggest question, any idea how they group?
Ned C. <michigun@net-link.net>
Three Rivers , MI USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 21:44:30 (EDT)
Also, I had a chance to shoot the much-ballyhooed USP today. Guy I ran into at the range had one (full-size) in .45, and when I started asking questions, he offered to let me shoot it. Here's my review:
Don't like the single action trigger as well as my .45 (I like a
REAL crisp trigger and very, very little overtravel--the ol' "breaking
glass" pull), but for a factory gun it seemed good. No better than my Glock's,
but good enough. Double action was acceptable, although I'm still an advocate
of "one gun, one pull." Another point in favor of the Glock.
Accuracy--didn't shoot it for a group at 25, but I'm willing to believe they're very good shooters out of the box. The .40 Compact I shot was hittin' great at 25, and the owner of the one I shot today said it's the most accurate factory gun he's ever shot.
Recovered well from recoil. It wasn't superb but again, for a factory gun, no compensator, straight outta the box, and seemingly fairly light to boot (polymer frame and all), it was OK. Need more time on one to eval properly. It didn't feel as good as my .45, but that may be a matter of getting used to it. Also, I was shooting the owner's handloads, and I don't know what he was loading----coulda been rhino rollers, although they didn't feel like it. At any rate, it was a helluva lot better'n my Sig P220.
Controls easy to manipulate. Right where they oughta be, unlike that silly Italian thing. Didn't have to cock the gun at all to reach safety/decocker, or slide stop. Good! (Glock has no safety to screw you up; I find the slide stop on the Glock no problem, although the shape of the HK's made it slightly easier to manipulate than the Glock's. I'll call this one a draw.)
Sights pretty standard for a modern factory gun.
Don't really like the mag release that much. I'd rather push in than down: again, a long-time .45 shooter's bias. Might be able to get used to it. Mags popped right out, unlike the Glock's tendency to sometimes hold onto 'em when not completely empty. (Mine doesn't do this, but I've seen it happen.) This isn't a big tactical concern to me as, if I'm ejecting a mag with rounds still in it, I must not be in a big hurry, and the Glock only holds onto 'em when there's still ammo in the mag. Still, all things being equal, better if it didn't do this, ever! Score one for the HK.
Those who aren't used to the feel of a top-heavy, polymer frame gun wouldn't like the feel of the HK. But you can adjust to this---I hated it about the Glock at first, and now I'm a confirmed Glock lover.
After more inspection, I don't think it's a bad-looking gun (who cares, anyway, if it shoots?!), although it still seems unreasonably wide to me. But it's not the ugliest gun I've seen, by any means.
Summary: I don't see it as the last word in combat handguns, as some would argue, but the USP is OK with me. I'd sure as hell rather carry one of those than my Beretta! So stand down, all you USPphiles! No need to spam me with hate-mail---I concede, it's not a bad gun, despite my anti-HK bias.
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Sunday, May 03, 1998 at 23:06:06 (EDT)
Anyone want to talk about rifles? Hugh? Please? Hugh? ;-)
Scott <xring>
USA - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 00:54:19 (EDT)
In my days of being Active duty with a German Army Jäger outfit
we went out shooting once a week for a day including a night shoot until
about 23:00.
Also we went to the big ranges/training areas like Wildflecken and
Hammelburg twice a year.
If I take into account all vacation and holidays I end up with a
figure of +- 16.000 Rounds fired over a 4 year term.
plus about a dozen of live hand grenades, 8 shots with a 44 mm Anti
tank RPG, and 3 shots of Milan ATGM, and some other stuff.
Not really all that much on a US standard, but at the time we were with the top ten ammo burners of the german forces.
If I tell these figures to my active duty friend today they start crying. No more Estern threat / no more ammo.
We always envied the US troops shoveling out ammo at the shooting ranges were we received our 5 rounds at a time.
But then again " the number of hits on the target is firepower, not the number of rounds firerd "
Torsten
Torsten Erning <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 02:45:03 (EDT)
Raufoss ammo comes from Norway made by Raufoss Ammo. Co. located in Raufoss a small town 150km north of Oslo.
Olin has a license to make .50BMG ammo.
Raufoss also makes this ammo in 20mm, 25mm, 27mm Mauser and 30mm.
The explosive charge is RDX.
Norwegian produced .50BMG ammo usually shoots 1moa in McMillans and 1,5moa in Barrett semiautos. More than enough for 1moapc!
Pauza has plans for a 20mm sniperrifle. It should be a blast to shoot with Raufoss ammo. I doubt it will be practical but it sure will be fun!
BTW. I only need an action. I've got a brand new 20mm flak 38 barrel
in store made by BYF. (Mauser)
TorF
Oslo, Norway - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 04:42:41 (EDT)
4000 rds/man/year? I can only dream of such excesses! Seriously, that's an order of magnitude more than what I've seen most active duty Marines fire in the last five years! Shooting every week?! Again, I feel a sudden urge to beat my head against something hard and immobile. Unbelievable! Of course, now we have the magical, mystical panacea of marksmanship training woes----the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer! Great! We train to kill on a huge, ridiculously expensive video game! Better than nothing? I suppose. A replacement for real weapons and ammo? Well, I think we all know the answer to that! For the money they spent on that big videogame, they coulda bought an unGODly amount of ammo!
One Marine captain suggested in "The Marine Corps Gazette" that we needed red-dot sights and electric triggers, so shooting the rifle would be easier, and consequently, lack of training ammo wouldn't be such a big deal. I disagreed rather strongly, and wrote them a letter saying so! Learn to shoot a basic weapon well, and the rest is just refinement. Learn to shoot with a supergun, all you'll ever be able to shoot is a supergun! Whatever happened to crawl-walk-run?
Ahhh, well---what th' hell do I know? I do miss the Evil Empire sometimes,
though!
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 05:19:40 (EDT)
yep, those were the days. I figure about 46 shoots per year with
a mix of MG 3, Uzi, P1 (P38) and G-3 of about 50 rounds per week. Plus
two trips to the big ranges for a week were we would fire in squad/platoon
size elements with a mix of two 20 rd. mags per go and with about 3-5 diffrent
stages per day .Plus the MG 3 on long distance tripod (Feldlaffette) with
120 rd. per go and about 3 stages for the whole trip.
My Schießbuch ( soldiers personal shooting booklet )
tells a pretty good story of this.
But then again we are in a diffrent reunited Germany now and things
have changed.
You are right about the shooting skills, if you can shoot and hit
with an Ak you can also shoot and hit with an H&K PSG 1.
Torsten Erning <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 06:35:56 (EDT)
I would ask any last minute walk on competitors to bring CASH. It will take several weeks for checks to cash - thereby holding up the final check we plan on presenting to the Hathcock family. Personal checks will not be accepted. Sorry guys, but I want to get the payment out as soon as is feasible and personal checks at this point will really hold up the works.
Second item. We will need volunteer medical personel at the match. If you or any of your aquaintences fit this description, please contact me via email. We can use EMTs, military medics, or nurses. This is precautionary of course, in case one of you happen to use a live round on my precious posterior during the stalk phase.
Again, that you all for your support!
Scott <xring@voicenet.com>
USA - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 12:44:11 (EDT)
Nathan: Ahh the memories! Shades of Sand Hill, Ft. Benning! My issue M16 during AIT was a honest to God Vietnam era rehash. The serial number had LOTs of zeros in it for heavens sake. Lucky for me it worked fairly flawlessly until loaded up with carbon from all the blank firing. On the other hand, my issue M16A2 during Basic was cherry and BRM went off with out a hitch. Could be they gave all you officer wanna-bees our cast offs! I guess there is some justice in the universe...hee heee....
The weaponeer. Jeeze, I'd actually forgotten that thing. Scored clean
on it. Neat toy. Seemed like a total waste of tax payer dollars. An afternoon
on the range would have had as much value. Have you ever gone to the High-Tec
center up at Dix? They had a weaponeer on steriods. You got into a firing
position and watched a movie play out on a big screen. You engaged the
targets as they appeared on screen. A compressed charge simulated recoil.
Afterward, a computer would relive the entire engagement on screen including
hits, misses, percentages et cetera. A veritable replay sans Howard Cosell.
Same thoughts as above. Why not just put us on a range and live fire on
movers? Just goes to show, our military has hi-tec on the brain, regardless
of common sense. I understand the value of these machine for evaluation
of skill, but nothing beats real range time.
Scott
USA - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 13:12:10 (EDT)
the no of rounds per gun issue !
I have found out that our Armorers (worldwide?) tend to hand out only 2 or 4 Pistols or MG-3´s or whatever for a shoot.
That way the other 20 stay nice and black and clean and oiled, you know the BS.
This way you end up with a 140 man Infantry unit firing their share through the same 4 pistols every time the unit goes to the range.
Natrually you get these guns beat to the max in a short time, and the average draftee only sees a pistol or MG that does not funktion properly. These are then the people that badmouth a particular weapon design from their limited experience.
Our luck they let us use our personal G-3´s.
We had two of them.
One was handed out once when you joined the unit to shoot it and
zero it, and then it would be cleaned, threated with a rust inhibitor and
sealed airtight in a plastic bag. A name tag would be taped to the bag
and the rifle would go into a special storage basement for use when the
shit actually hit the fan.
The other rifle was our regular bang around gun for blanks and PT and regular range sessions as well as the annual Schützenschnur Badge qual.
Our Sniper G-3´s were handled the same way and I had two snipers
per squad. 8 per platoon 24 per company.
But then again, only G-3´s with a Hensold 4 power scope.
They were good out to 600 Meters and some very tight ones even to
800. Problem was always the H&K mount. I remember a very healthy ass
chewing by our S-4 when I spot welded 4 mounts to the rifles to prove something
during a Sniper training class.
BR Torsten
Torsten <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 15:50:20 (EDT)
Bill: I understand that those shotshell are s'posed to be stood on end (I'm not crazy, and after all, I tend to string vertically anyway!). I just couldn't see the darn things. I mean, I could sort of see 'em, and I managed to hit one from time to time, but I think that was just the law of averages---I couldn't tell if I was even holdin' in the same place----they were darn near invisible with front sight in focus. I was serious about that glasses comment---it's been around 2 years, I'd guess, so maybe time for another exam!
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Monday, May 04, 1998 at 22:22:07 (EDT)
Torsten
Torsten Erning <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Tuesday, May 05, 1998 at 08:56:40 (EDT)
Seriously though, I would have to agree that a lot of the training rifles, particularly those reserved for AIT were trash. Makes sense I guess as they get dropped, rolled on, full of sand, bent, broke and abused. Hmm...sounds just like the poor trainee!
Matt: Feel free to talk your favorite topic anytime. The site is rifle oriented, but when it all goes south, at close range, the pistol is going to decide the day. Learning sound info is never a waste of time. You have not wasted ours. By the way, speaking of pistols bad, the worst I ever fired was a used up P-38. At 7 yards, it shot close to 10" right of point of aim! I figured some Wagnarian Opra type must have SAT on it!
Guy: Welcome aboard! I have a question. You mentioned you are using
a fixed 10x scope. Have your teams ever considered going to a variable
such as the 3.5-10? I am curious about how and why certain equipment decisions
are made with in LE, and I am always looking for this kind of input. Just
an observation: a fixed 10x seems a little high for close range work with
in a closed environment like a prison. Has this magnification worked well
for you?
Scott
USA - Tuesday, May 05, 1998 at 11:19:44 (EDT)
Silencers !
is there any input from the world of sniping to the use of suppressors
on rifles and or pistols.
I have a polymer wet pack can on my Glock 17 for the up close work.
Also I made a .50 can for the M-88. Noise level is reduced to the sonic crack and recoil is close to a .308 on full loads.
We have launched 850 Grain Monolithics at 320M/sek. out to 500 Meters with good results. Noise level is like closing the door on a BMW.
Any input on .308 ?
Torsten <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Tuesday, May 05, 1998 at 11:48:11 (EDT)
For the board: I was talking to a sniper down here on his "B" billet,
and he was telling me that the Corps is considering arming the second man
in its sniper teams with scoped, accurized M-14s these days (they're currently
armed with M203s, for the most part). What's everyone's opinion of that
idea? I'm not sure of the rationale, although I suspect it's a compromise
between being able to lay down fire on a close-in threat and being able
to assist the sniper with intermediate-range targets. My personal thought
is that the M16/203 provides significantly more capability for close-in
defense, whereas the M-14 is a mediocre compromise--not outstanding for
the close defense and probably limited a bit as far as really reaching
out and touching someone. And you can't always count on having air or artillery
to dig you out of a tight spot, so having some indigenous firepower, even
if it's limited, is certainly better than nothing. Comments?
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Tuesday, May 05, 1998 at 12:12:49 (EDT)
AWS <asiemieniec@comappspec.com>
Arlington, VA USA - Tuesday, May 05, 1998 at 12:42:07 (EDT)
sorry if this is a repeat, i've been having trouble connecting with
this site all day.
Clark Fuller (Butch) <theuniverse@compuserve.com>
new orleans, la USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 00:10:00 (EDT)
Guess my experience with firearms training in the Army was vastly different than yours. I served 8 years and will say that I had excellent training from day one until the day that I left. In basic, as with any course for cherries, the rifles you receive are hand me downs, i.e. worn out, from line units that have used em a long time. Certainly, some of the actions your DIs took were wrong. But I doubt highly that they were sniper trained as you said they were. Probably trying to get a couple hundred knuckleheaded officer wannabees through a range, not that I am justifying substandard training.
I too had alot of problems with range equipment sometimes. Those
qualification ranges are designed ONLY for basic familiarization that every
soldier in the army should know.
And you make do with what you have. IMPROVISE, ADAPT & OVERCOME!
I did see things that pissed me off in training. I vowed that when I became a leader, I would do it better.
But I have to say that my training in the US Army was nothing short of OUTSTANDING. And I had the best leaders that this nation produces, same goes for the soldiers, perhaps more for the soldiers.
So your portrayal of typical army marksmanship training is way off base in my experience, and one little OBC course does not give you the big picture. Foreign officers used to observe our platoon live fire excercises in absolute awe, remarking that their troops would kill themselves trying to do what we did, and I would take my platoon up against any in the world in a live fire, and know that they would stand very tall.
JEFF
Jeff W. <jackal21@together.net>
VT USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 00:30:59 (EDT)
I have to largely agree w/you concerning marksmanship training in the military. I have a much higher (probably warped) standard regarding proficiency with weapons than is probably reasonable for a conventional line unit to meet. (SpecOps should be another story, and I'm not convinced that the black pajama guys are always as good as they ought to be, or think they are.) Sometimes I let this get in the way of objective evaluation. But if I step back, I have to say that my experiences with military marksmanship training have been good.
As a student at the Marine Corps' Basic School for officers, I saw lots of guys with little/no shooting experience learn to hit a man-size target more often than not at 500 m, with a stock M16 and iron sights. Any way you cut it, that's not bad. We also built up to conducting platoon-sized live fire attacks down a 400 or 500 m course, firing the whole array of organic weapons, moving, shooting, reloading on our own initiative, without any safety problems and with damn good effects on target, as well. The pistol training was effective, considering the very limited amount of time they had to train us----there wasn't a guy in my platoon who wasn't capable of doing what he'd probably need to with his M9 (grimace!) when we finished. For comparison, we had a Romanian exchange officer with us, who was a 10-year veteran of the infantry (said he stood with his back to a BMP all night, when the coup happened). That guy was the most unsafe, ineffective and incompetent guy in the bunch, when we hit the range. It was darn near an international incident, because the lieutenants were near mutiny, not wanting to be on the range with him! So it's all relative, I suppose. Was the training good enough to make every rifleman a Hathcock, or have everyone handling a pistol like Miculek, Leatham, et al? No. Was it probably better than that which any other basic officer (or troop, as it's very similar to what enlisted infantry Marines go through) in the world gets? Yes. Unfortunately, it's geared for groups, not individuals, so when you have one guy with a problem, he may get lost in the shuffle. But it's pretty good, overall.
I went through a course that Marine Corps Security Force Training Company puts on, a few months ago. In it, I did some of the same marksmanship training that the young privates and lance corporals go through. One of the requirements to pass the pistol course is to be able to draw the M9 (grimace again!) from an issue holster (flap hooked) and engage an IPSC target with two rounds in, I believe, 3 seconds. That's not nearly as fast as it can be done. But as a minimum requirement for ALL students, you've gotta admit, it's not bad.
While I'd love to see an entire Corps of Hathcocks, that's not realistic.
As long as we're staying ahead of the competiton, I guess we're not completely
blowing it.
Matt <m45acp@gate.net>
GA USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 02:04:15 (EDT)
Just a nit-pick, but having commanded a company of drill sergeants for quite some time, the Army does NOT have drill "instructors" -- the Marines do, not the Army. Therefore, we do not have "DIs."
Oops, I just finished reading the rest of your post. "Cadet future officers?" Ohhhh, you went to "ROTC basic training." Ah. Anyway, I always like hearing Army-related training stories.
To Matt: These marksmanship "fads" are a joke. I'd rather see more "snapping in" time, THEN ammo. Screw the simulators. I've been involved with Army marksmanship as a private and as a captain. Nothing changed during that time -- it sucked then, it sucks now. Nobody in the Army ever asked ME how to run a marksmanship program.
Training story: FT Leonard Wood, 1992. I was the OIC for the grenade range. Crawl-walk-run method (dummies, "poppers," live grenades). The kids didn't make it to the next phase until they passed the previous one. You get the idea. Still... kids (some, not all) would freeze up in the pits. BAD time to freeze up. Too many of them did -- well, a LOT of @#%@# stupid stuff! The instructors deserved hazard pay. I gave them "stress" breaks every 15 minutes.
The kids we're getting, in the military today, are largely brain-dead. I base this not only on what I see, and have seen, but on a number of articles that have been written about military training. They're too wrapped up in video games and "simulated life AND death." Another problem is divorce, and irresponsible (and unwed) fathers. Kids are not taken out shooting anymore. Televisions have been "babysitters" for many years now. Kids grow up shooting each other because they didn't know the gun was loaded. They don't know a muzzle from a breach. And what happens? They want "a little help" with college, because mommy and daddy won't help or never made the kid get a job and save his money -- so they join the Army, looking for a free ride. They (the majority) don't want to serve their country (ask them), they want some money or money for college. Academy cadets are no better. The (current) average West Point cadet intends to serve his or her initial commitment and then leave the service to accept a position in the private sector ("West Point" looks pretty good on a resume'). Know how much of YOUR money it takes to put ONE cadet through West Point (or any academy)? A quarter of a million dollars! Yes, $250,000 per cadet.
There needs to be a MAJOR shift back to basics, especially in marksmanship training. Screw the bells and whistles, and get back to teaching how a rifle works, how ammunition works, how to read wind, how to hit a target at an unknown distance.
To Guy Johnson: Since I'm in Silvis, we should talk. Contact me at taylorr@ri.disa.mil at your soonest opportunity. So, your service is through Derby Tech, eh? I drive by them every night on my way to work.
To Atomic Chaos 69: Visit the ArmaLite website. (Being the webmaster for ArmaLite, you don't think I'd refer you anywhere ELSE, do you?)
To Cadet Kacmar: Interesting project. I'll give it some thought.
Would you mind providing a little more input? Such as, recoil limitations,
weight (of system), and portability requirements? By the way, you misspelled
"existing," cadet. Get on your face and give me 25. You may "recover" when
finished.
Russell E. Taylor <DQBW77A@prodigy.com>
Silvis, IL USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 02:47:53 (EDT)
The optimum round for a silent sniperrifle is the .300 whisper. Thats the .221 rem. fireball necked up to .30 cal and loaded with the 240gr Sierra MK at just under the spped of sound, 320ms. The barrel has to have a 1-8" twist to stabilize the long bullet. This round will work in any rifle designed for for .223rem. The barrel does not have to be longer than 14 to 16". If you add the length of regular suppressor you end up with a "barrellength" of 26". I've even seen a report and picture of a M16 converted to .300wh. Talk about an effective subgun. The 240gr Sierra MK is extremly effective subsonic. When the bullet is fired at 320ms it still has 300ms at 200m.
I've used sniper and huntingrifles with suppressors fireing regular supersonic rounds like 7,62NATO. The suppressor eliminates any fireingsignature like expolsive report, muzzleflash, moving vegitation/dust, etc. The sonic boom from the bullet is still there ofcource.
Tactically I think the supersonic mode of operation is preferable. In at least 90% of operations anyone on the receiving end will react when the soldier(general ofcource) goes down after being hit. The subsonic mode requires you to get closer to the target due to appaling ballistics. In supersonic mode it's business a usual. The suppressor eliminates the fireingsignature. That means that experiensed grunts can't figure out the range by timing the difference between the sonic boom from the bullet and the muzzlereport. In addition the sonic boom from the bullet comes at a 90deg angle from the direction of the shot. In other words, you can't hear a bullet before it has passed you and the direction of the shot are always called with a 90deg error. Thats not bad when you are trying to get away from the scene. We did some tests fireing with a suppressed and a unsppressed rifle at (above!) some people in a trench from different directions and ranges. With the unsuppressed rifle range and sometimes direction were found. With a suppressed rifle confusion was total.
In Norway suppressors are legal. At least 50% of .22LR rifles have a suppressor.
TorF
Oslo, Norway - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 11:10:55 (EDT)
i had a chance to fire a .300 wisper into a sand berm while viseting with geoge kelgren from kel tec in rockledge florida. fun gun.
on the other issue youré along my opinion also.
do you have any rifle ranges that are open for military reserve shooters from other countries ?
what are your thoughts about a visit of some of our reserves in your country ?
regards
torsten
Torsten <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 12:04:22 (EDT)
Kodiak
USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 12:23:52 (EDT)
Smoky,
smoky furgussen <larrysofia@hotmail.com>
galena, kansas USA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 16:17:27 (EDT)
I don't know about access to the shootingranges.
The easiest thing would be to get in contact with some norwegian
units. A friend of mine is serving as a sniper-instructor. I'll ask him.
If your unit make official contact to the Norwegian National Guard I think you may be able to take part in some courses at their trainingcamp Torpo. US Special Forces are regular visitors.
I discharged last month from the National Guard.
TorF
Oslo, Norway - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 16:55:03 (EDT)
To Steve:
I grew up shooting the Finnish Mosin-Nagant in 7.62 Russian. It
was a good round, on par with the .308W. Finnish snipers used this rifle,
mostly with iron sights, against the Russians during WWII. Consistant hits
to 600m was common, even with iron sights. The Finns mainly got the use
of the side-mounted scope from captured Russian sniper rifles. The Finns
used the "Ukko-Pekka" as their sniper rifle. It was a hand built, hand
fitted M39 with laminated stock and a 28" barrel. The original Mosin-Nagant
had a 31" barrel. On the Finnish rifle, peep sights were often used. The
Ukko-Pekka was later block bedded, but eventually the Finns upgraded to
the Sako TRG.
Hans
BC CANADA - Wednesday, May 06, 1998 at 20:43:40 (EDT)
Suppressors: I find it odd that the United States has a legal phobia for suppressors, though not guns, while many countries with strict limitations on firearms are not worked up over suppressors. This is due, I believe, to the historical conditions surrounding the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Bad guys were using suppressors, ergo they are bad. Later, police did not like them because suppressed weapons were harder to hear, etc.
Mr. Bain <bain@snipercountry.com>
Anytime, Anywhere, USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 00:21:25 (EDT)
To Kodiak: Your timing is impeccable. I just reassembled two triggers after having my Savages phosphated. Plus, I'd had to do it once before when I had my 110FP Tactical frozen, too. Assuming you haven't lost any of the parts (you should have a parts "breakout" from your Savage manual, or from another similar source), you'll just have to figure it out. I'll tell you this: From the time I bought my 110FP in 1994, to when I bought my 112BVSS-S in 1997, Savage made a "slight" change in the bolt release. You have five options. 1) Dump the trigger and say "screw it." 2) Send the barreled action to Savage. 3) Figure it out for yourself, like I did. 4) Call me and I'll walk you through the procedure (and run up your phone bill, too). 5) Send me the barreled action, all the trigger parts, and $25 (five bucks of which will cover my shipping it back to you when I'm done) and I'll do it for you. Once you've reassembled a Savage trigger from scratch, you'll know what you're doing. Having done three (so far), I guess I'm an expert. The BIGGEST problem (really, the ONLY problem) is the coil spring that has two straight lengths extending from both sides of it. If you have some simple tools, and a little brute strength, you can do it.
To Nathan: I met Bill Jordan at the 1995 Prairie Dog 'Conference'
in Malta, MT. I stand 6'5", Bill stood about 6'7". I have big hands. Bill
had BIG hands. I mean, B I G hands! I shook hands with this gentle
giant of a man, and looked up (literally) to him. (Both he and Skeeter
Skelton had been quite an influence on me. I was "majorly bummed" when
Skeeter died. Really messed me up. Long story.) It was a real honor for
me to meet Bill. He was the kindest, friendliest gentleman you could
ever hope to meet. We chatted for a little bit and, over the next few days,
it was just nice to be at a shooting event in Bill's presence. I, too,
was sad to learn of his demise last year.
Russell E. Taylor <DQBW77A@prodigy.com>
Silvis, IL USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 02:38:50 (EDT)
thanks for the "invitation" . i will have my unit send you a formal
E mail with our data on it.
We are running a class at this time and will go shooting on a sniper
training area in oktober, maybe some of you would like to visit also. send
me a mail if you are OK with the above´.
Hans,
heat build up on suppressors and following Mirage.
I have the same problem with my .50 can. It has a screw type thread
on the outside to dissipate? (you know what i mean) the heat faster over
a greater area.
I am using the Eagle scope cover as a heat padding around the suppressor
when i am shooting. this way it is good for at least 10 rounds. and with
the .5 that is enough anyway.
Torsten <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 02:53:30 (EDT)
Simrad Optronics, like Raufoss, is a Norwegian company.
A friend and shootingbuddy worked as an developmentengineer on the Simrad nightvision addon scope.
Simrad makes a very neat night vision goggle. It's a single lens design and looks like a small compact camera. My friend got Aimpoint of Sweeden to make a custom red dot sight calibrated to work with the Simrad NVG at night. The Aimpoint sight was mounted on a Glock. Very interesting to patrol in total darkness and have a weapon ready designed to aim through the NVG.
I'm sorry to say my friend left Simrad to work for national television...
Poor guy.
TorF
Oslo, Norway - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 04:09:20 (EDT)
My apologies for not remembering that Norway is Simrad's home. I've
got the Aimpoint with the night vision-capable dot mounted on my CAR. Haven't
yet had the opportunity to use it with night, but I'm sure looking forward
to it. My thanks to your friend.
Mr. Bain <bain@snipercountry.com>
Anytime, Anywhere USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 10:01:56 (EDT)
c/CMSgt. Keith Kacmar <Kacmar@thevine.net>
Saugus, CA USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 10:42:08 (EDT)
My two cents' worth, and not necessarily the opinions of this site
or anyone affiliated with it.
Mr. Bain <bain@snipercountry.com>
Anytime, Anywhere USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 12:29:25 (EDT)
does that aimpoint work with a secondary IR diode or do they just
put the polarizing filter on the other end so that you can dim the dot
down further ?
Torsten <lasercon@home.globe.de>
Germany - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 14:04:37 (EDT)
Torsten: Keine Ahnung. Scrieben Sie Springfield o. Aimpoint U.S.A. mit der Frage.
Whoops, sorry. Where am I? The states. Yes. Wish I were going to with Russ to Germany. It's been too long for me.
I think it may be just the same diode but lower setting. It is possible that there is a second diode. The Aimpoint without this capability is about $25 less. I suppose one way to tell would be to look into the front of the scope to see whether there is a second diode. You'd need night vision for this since the two N.V. settings are too low for unaided eyes to observe.
Mr. Bain <bain@snipercountry.com>
Anytime, Anywhere USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 15:24:35 (EDT)
Torsten: Keine Ahnung. Scrieben Sie Springfield o. Aimpoint U.S.A. mit der Frage.
Whoops, sorry. Where am I? The states. Yes. Wish I were going to with Russ to Germany. It's been too long for me.
I think it may be just the same diode but lower setting. It is possible that there is a second diode. The Aimpoint without this capability is about $25 less. I suppose one way to tell would be to look into the front of the scope to see whether there is a second diode. You'd need night vision for this since the two N.V. settings are too low for unaided eyes to observe.
Mr. Bain <bain@snipercountry.com>
Anytime, Anywhere USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 15:24:36 (EDT)
Semper Fi!!!
Sgt. Gimmellie <USMC__SNIPER@msn.com>
Chesapeake, Va USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 22:06:55 (EDT)
Concerning the Super Nintendo--Yes, the Army uses a Super Nintendo to SUPPLEMENT Basic Rifle Marksmanship. It is a training tool. Proper breathing technique, trigger pull, and proper sight alignment can be taught using this tool. It allows soldiers to practice these techniques before heading to the range to qualify. I can recall helping many soldiers in my unit to improve their scores. In a perfect world, with the perfect Army, we could go to the range and shoot live ammunition whenever we wanted to. Unfortunately, we are bound by a defenseive BUDGET. So, until you get true Basic Rifle Marksmanship from the United States Army, and function as a member of the Army, keep to what you know.
Disclaimer: Nathan, this discussion is not meant offend you. I just
have a personal hatred towards ROTC.
Matt <par8hed@ksu.edu>
Manhattan, KS USA - Thursday, May 07, 1998 at 22:47:04 (EDT)
Although I'm not a member of any militia, and don't expect I ever will be, I'm not ready to lump them all together and call them "terrorists." I honestly believe that, while some of them are hate groups hiding behind the militia tag, many (or even most) of these individuals and groups are people, like most of us, who are concerned about personal liberties and the Bill of Rights, and aren't getting any satisfaction through traditional means. I don't think most of them are a bunch of lunatics or hatemongers, and I doubt that very many of them are dangerous.
I think we're all, on this page, pretty frustrated with the way personal liberties in this country seem to be more and more curtailed. Gun control laws are one example, the one closest to most of our hearts, but they're not the only example. Now, having been trying the traditional approach to furthering my views for quite some time (letters to my congressmen, contributions to NRA-ILA and GOA, etc.) I know first-hand how frustrating things can be. Write a letter to a congressman, you probably get a fence-sitting reply that assures you (not in so many words) that the Honorable Mr. Such-and-So knows what's best for you, and not to worry. Just go enjoy the good economy and be glad you're not in Bosnia, you ingrate! But he's sending the same letter to anyone who writes in to support gun control, too! And when was the last time anyone saw gun control laws become LESS restrictive? Seriously. In my opinion, the gun-controllers are slowly, decade by decade, winning this fight. Look at where we were 35 years ago, and where we are now. Looks like progress on their part, to me! So, although I don't agree with the approach the militias are taking, I can understand their feeling like they have to do something out-of-the-ordinary. I think they're mostly confused about what to do, and these "militia" groups are a misguided attempt to take a different approach, to call attention to their concerns and register their frustration.
Now, as to the comment that everyone who "messes with...illegal weapons" is a terrorist: If I owned a rifle with a pistol grip stock and a flash suppressor, made on a certain date, that would be illegal. And I'd, according to that line of argument, be a "terrorist." Me and the IRA! Hamas! The Red Brigade! OK. But if I owned the exact same rifle, made a day earlier, it could be legal, and then I'd just be an average citizen with a rifle. Does that make sense? Let's be careful about our terminology here. And think about this: When (it may be "when" and not "if" at the rate we're going) magazine-fed guns are outlawed, or ALL guns, for that matter, everyone on this page will have the choice of turning in their precious M700s and M1As and all the rest of them, or becoming "terrorists." Think about that, and tell me if simply owning a certain type of weapon, absent any other criminal intent or ill purpose, makes one a "terrorist." For that matter, does it make sense that if I owned a silencer I'd made myself, and hadn't paid a big tax on it, the ATF could kick in my door unannounced, shoot me when I tried to defend my family against what I thought was a criminal, then seize my possessions and leave them destitute, all because I wanted to be able to shoot without violating a noise ordinance or upsetting the people at the church up the road from the range? That's where it stands today. But owning that silencer, according to the logic presented, would probably make me a "terrorist."
Now, as to the responsibility of individual federal law enforcement agents for abuses: most of us on this page probably agree that self-determination and personal responsibility are the ideas on which America was founded. If the "administration" makes bad, even illegal or unconstitutional, decisions regarding law enforcement, and agents go along with it, are they not responsible for resulting abuses, just as the policy-makers are? Didn't we pretty much establish that principle at Nuremberg? If a soldier illegally shoots a bunch of civilians on the orders of an officer, isn't he culpable, too? Yes, he is. So if agents agree to no-knock raids on the homes of people who aren't dangerous, or aren't even criminals, and those people are killed in the process, don't they share the blame for those deaths? If they agree to attempt to entrap law-abiding gun owners and dealers at gun shows, aren't they responsible for those acts, as well as the people who came up with the idea? I think they are. If they raid the home of a man who is "suspected" of a techincal violation of some