Working at a gun shop I have people come in with their firearms asking for repair work etc. Usually if they bought the gun new, there is a lifetime warranty through the distributor we use.

Even though I major in psychology and criminal behavior, it doesn’t take a psychologist to tell when someone…

It gets ten times worse when you add a range. And customers are completely useless at describing malfunctions.

"What’s it doing?"  "It’s double-feeding."

Every malfunction is a double-feed. Failure to extract, failure to eject, short-stroking, genuine double-feeds… everyone describes them all as “double feeds”.

gunrunnerhell I've noticed that there's a stage in many gun-owners' experience where there is a compulsion to oil everything. Every single square micron of the gun is doused in some form of lubricant, or worse, WD-40. I see it all the time. I attribute it to being a learning phase brought on by the combination of a misinterpretation of what older generations expressed regarding their experience with angsty officers and "the white glove" alongside internet conjecture on many forums propagating all manner of fallacies. This creates the situation where it's not only their pride, but them having to call into question their idols and everything echoed from them. As for stock screws, I've always advocated including the basic working tools of every weapon with the weapon system. I'd consider a torque wrench pre-set to the proper value of the supplied bolt action and another for its mounts in addition to the correct bits as a basic working tools for a standard-stocked and scoped bolt action. Those screws often come loose with time and use, and I've also noticed people frequently dismantle their bolt action guns to "clean (and oil...) under the receiver and in the rings." I've seen a lot of optics on the brink of being ruined, or actually killed, by people going way past the specified torque. It's just a thing people seem to do.

Wait, is Kel-Tec any good, or do their guns only look like crap? 

It really depends if you get the magic Kel Tec. I have quite a few friends who own Kel Tecs, and have sent them back under warranty numerous times. Once they work they work. Seemingly, the verdict is good luck getting one that works. They either do or don't though, seemingly. Like not even feed two mags not work, or never have a hiccup. From a machinist's standpoint, I have no idea how such a definitive line is the case. I have no idea how such is the case from a QC / Inspection standpoint either. Nature of the beast.

I'm firmly confident that less wildcat cartridges would exist if people actually got out and shot.

Are you implying that people try and make up for their shitty aim by inventing new calibers?

Usually those cartridges are created by people who go out and shoot the most. People who can discern minor differences and want a highly custom cartridge for their particular shooting desires.

On the contrary. Most wildcats are made by "what if" types, which is both fine and fun. It's fun trying new things, but the end result is in most cases just a personalized widget. Check out ReloadersNest; people were making crazy and nifty stuff all the time. The minor differences literally aren't discernible with any level of skill and experience. Many cartridges are literally within a foot difference of each other in flightpath, and have overlapping loads. It's impossible to say with a straight face that at range, that foot is going to make a real difference if the shooter was capable of engaging the target in the first place. Even a 30" at 600 yards difference isn't a lot in practice, and that's roughly the difference between a 300 WM and a .308 Win, it's just another hold range per zero a hundred yards shorter or farther if one ranges their target and doesn't ignore wind. At that point, the big difference is that the magnum stays supersonic farther where it has 100"+ of difference, with better attributes in wind, and has the benefits of a superior sectional density. An extra 100 yards before you have to mess with your zero at the beginning of what I'd consider long range, and that's with 300 WM vs. 308 Win. If one has data on the gun and doesn't just shoot it straight at a single zero with no user input, there's no tangible difference. A hundred FPS here or there and a slightly higher ballistic coefficient doesn't even really change "good enough" holds beyond a 20ish yard extra margin which is already 200 yards from short end to far end at range. Little margins don't even matter to an extreme in benchrest as the cartridges are loaded to consistency nodes instead of max velocity, which is why cartridges like the 6mm PPC are so popular for short range benchrest.

I'm firmly confident that less wildcat cartridges would exist if people actually got out and shot.

Are you implying that people try and make up for their shitty aim by inventing new calibers?

Not quite in those words. Less windage and drop is always good, but there's a point at which chasing it is impractical. A working, reliable weapon system is more important than any marginal gain, and it's hard to get data and time on system if there is insufficient ammunition to feed the tool. Most importantly: with basic but quality experience, marginal gains really don't matter. It doesn't even take great skill to "make it work" in most cases, there just isn't much empirical difference and very, very few circumstances where a marginal ballistic advantage would have turned a miss into a hit. I believe people need experience to truly grasp "how it works" in field or competitive conditions before they start building better mousetraps.

Too easy to get a concealed weapons permit

A friend of mine took the S. Carolina concealed weapons class a few months ago and he gave me the details. It’s an 8 hour class where you bring 1 box of ammo and shoot from 1 position and take a written exam, I don’t know how other states are though. So all you have to do is show up and shoot 50 rounds in a well lit room while standing.

Read More

The main purpose of most CWP "classes" are to meet the minimum auditable statutory requirements , and move a $50ish (depending on locale) service product. There are some better CWP classes done by organizations which put more than the minimum into their product, but it's not exactly easy for the average customer to access them because they are not exactly advertised to the point of a boutique trainer of the year and people don't usually want to spend more for a product that hasn't been properly differentiated.

To me, a CWP class (assuming the present legal structure exists and we're not having a political debate) should be more of a legal presentation with testing on that, and contain more references to state/local history on the subject. It's not hard to go get decent firearms training, but it isn't as easy to access that legal side because everyone in the community is essentially focused just on guns and legalese isn't fun for most people.

An additional consideration is how adding certain physical requirements to a CWP training certificate would affect disabled individuals. Many of the better instructors will add circumstance driven content to their courses for people with handicaps while the other students perform what are accepted as essentially standard motions and positions. A CWP certificate course with even basic physical activity in some cases would reduce access to some of the population which may need a CWP most even with the most well thought out legal clauses.

Another thing to note is that most lawful self defense instances historically do not involve mag changes or malfunctions. Do they happen, yes; are they common, no.

Within the existing legal framework, it seems better and more in support of equal access to the Second Amendment to isolate on legal content and basic safety. In real life, that knowledge and a functional basic safety fundamental mindset is going to do more than the weapons manipulation stuff. It's one floor in the skyscraper.

Custom M1A

This Springfield Armory M1A in a JAE chassis for the most part has everything going for it, maybe aside from the odd muzzle brake, but its the caliber that I think ultimately brings it down. Standard M1A’s are chambered in .308 Winchester. For whatever reason the owner re-chambered it in .260 Remington. The cartridge is based on the .308 and simply requires a barrel swap but if you’re consolidating calibers and sticking to the more common selection, this M1A would sell faster if it were still .308. (GRH)

Sexy.

Oh fuck, I have a need.

.260 Rem in any of its proper loadings would wreck an M14 clone gas system.

Is the M1A a clone?

IIRC, it was T-Something > M14 > M1A as per chronology.

Yeah, the M14’s been in-dev since late WWII. I just was wondering if the M1A was a clone or a direct derivative of the final result (ie, just having the Fun Switch trimmed out).

Many of the “match” M1A’s have a proprietary lug pattern. The M14 is a somewhat self destructing machine.

Can you elaborate on that? I’d like to know more. The M1A/M14 has been kind of a shopping list item for me if at all possible.

They have extremely early armorer level maintenance schedules by comparison to other weapons because of how they “rock” fore and aft under recoil. Ideally, “dead nuts” tolerance rectifies this but in practice no amount of epoxy in a traditional stock (i.e., anything short of some ridiculous metal bedding done with wire-EDM to the millionth of an inch which doesn’t presently exist on the market) will prevent a few thousand rounds from markedly degrading both the accuracy and reliability of the weapon. They eat stocks, and the leading match designs add a third lug to reduce the tangible effect of that.

In other words, M14/M1As are a terrible investment?

I'd say they have extremely high pride of ownership. I've had great times with various M14 pattern guns, all of which in precision contexts. Are there far better options, sure. There's something about that gun which is just enjoyable, even if it doesn't particularly excel at anything compared to anything readily available in the last decade. There were tons of problems with the SR-25 series guns before people focused on the platform. The M14 has been a workhorse for the last half a century, despite any of its shortcomings. If I could compare it to anything, it's the F14 Tomcat of rifles.

1911’s are the high-class call girls that will give you a hell of a night and will make you want more, if you pay the right price.

Glock’s are the cheap, dirty sluts that will take anything you’re willing to shove…

You just took that to another level. It’s just a joke shit lol.

But the great 1911’s are pricier than Glocks. Yes Rock Island’s can perform but stock they can’t excel.

In regards to that statement specifically, I've seen classic 1911's and their imported clones outperform far pricier options. I've even seen the Para's that worked endure and succeed (they either didn't work or they did, kind of odd how easy it was to spot the lemons quickly). One doesn't really get much extra performance from the higher priced options; again, I've owned a few and have put over 27,000 rounds over the course of a year in a Kimber back when that name actually meant something. There are limits to the platform which transcend price, and there are exponentially diminishing returns. The 1911 mythos, even within its own culture, doesn't reflect reality.

Want

Good god…….

etherealmenace or anyone else, what’s the technical term for the ‘baffles’ on muzzle breaks like this? I’ve taken to calling them “thrust plates” as that’s the most literal name for them I can think of.

There’s not really a term for them as far as I know aside from baffles. It’s a clam shell brake, and the expansion chambers re-vector gas into forward thrust. I call the region between baffles expansion chambers even though they’re open to the environment, as they act similarly under the pressures and fluid dynamics given time parameters.The solid features are technically baffles in function as per nomenclature, just not designed to be suppressor baffles.

Hmmm. So, these are angled so that they revector gas rearwards, what effect would a 90° plate have, something like the end of an AK-74 muzzle brake? Would the escaping gas push against that and give any considerable amount of forward thrust?

The gas bounces from wall to wall or mushrooms out in support of the muzzles jet effect (given the immediate side expansion) with comparably little recoil mitigating effect in 90deg to 90deg depending on spacing and a few other design factors. Most felt recoil comes from a jet effect at the muzzle. In the Ak setup, the ports allow for side-to-side stability. Re-vectoring gas to act as rearward thrust has more efficacy. Very small engineering considerations affect those phenomena greatly. Also consider that there is a point at which re-vectoring gas with a brake actually pulls the gun forward.

glockenspiel

>.40

1911masterrace.jpg

Also, this is why you don’t buy anyone else’s reloads. Gunshow reloads=BAD. Not saying that’s what happened here, but this looks like either a round fired after a squib or a double-charge. Not sure what else could cause something like this.

A double charge probably would have had more of an effect on the ramp due to the “unsupported chamber” / extremely generous ramp that equates to chamber relief. Still certainly possible, modeling kB!s is fun like that. Double charge leading to an effective squib + double detonation is also possible if the case head ruptured on the double and prevented the projectile from achieving escape velocity.

Wouldn’t it be more likely, if the pressures were high enough to cause a case head rupture, that the case head would’ve just separated, meaning another round wouldn’t be able to chamber and fire behind the squib? (assuming the owner isn’t an idiot who removed the headless case and didn’t check the barrel for a squib)

On a semi-related note, what are industry standards for proofing/destructive testing of firearms? I know that it’s common to use 150% charge rounds, but I’m not familiar with how many shots the firearm is supposed to withstand at 150%, or any of the other conditions surrounding such tests.

A double detonation isn’t a double feed. It happens when part of the powder charge ignites after and separately from the initial combustion. Generally, that second, delayed detonation is insufficient to send the projectile through the length of the barrel creating a permutation of the squib situation. This is common with certain low powder volume subsonic loads in rifle cartridges because there is too much case volume and the charge gets propelled forward before reaching its combustion temperature. With unsupported chambers and a partial head rupture, a similar effect can happen partially due to backpressure. With the Glocks, it is more likely to have a partial rupture at the unsupported area of the case than a full head separation via path of least resistance. Most proof loads are ~30% over nominal pressure. The standard for the M16 is one 70,000 psi proof cartridge, with a 55,000 psi nominal chamber pressure averaged between loads and a 60,000 psi max. Most 9x19 proof loads are also 30% over nominal, consistent with SAAMI and CIP in most regards. MPI or other surface inspection is used after a proof load to determine if a crack has been formed, in which case the part(s) are scrapped. There is actually quite a bit of literature to suggest that proof loads / HPT don’t actually fully correlate with a part being initially bad, and instead create a situation which wouldn’t have existed with tens of thousands of max pressure rounds; it’s a hot issue at the moment. A second proof load will generally cause that situation by itself, and the argument against using them comes from roundcounts and different samples being subjected to no proof + rounds, 1 proof + rounds and a very small scrap rate, 2 proof rounds and a very high scrap rate. People have not yet found another way to address the concern, however, aside from performing MPI only on more expensive setups and special flux application with higher skilled workers to determine if cracks exist inherently in the finished part.

Things I learned today: MPI and double detonations.

The path of least resistance makes sense on a Glock for why the case head would rupture instead of separating. Hadn’t thought of that, thanks. As for double detonations, don’t people know Trail Boss exists? I’m sure it’s not as tacticool as everyone would like in this age of subsonic magic bullets, but use the right damn powder.

That’s also a very interesting point regarding overproof loads for testing. I would think the biggest use of overpressure rounds would be to prove that a design is safe to the user even in the event of a catastrophic failure such as a squib or extreme pressure event. High round count testing would seem to be the right idea for durability, although you can’t really do that with every single piece that comes off the firing line. Couldn’t you simulate repeated firing by using air pressure introduced from the muzzle, or is that too expensive a process?

The point of the HPT criticism and how it was done with round counts wasn't for testing every gun, but the HPT process itself. If the test group with two HPTs experience a huge scrap rate after failing MPI, and the one HPT group suffers few, and they're the same gun from the same plant and lot, it suggests that HPT may make scrap out of guns that were perfectly good. There aren't enough round count tests to show any conclusive correlation between life of a one HPT gun being lower than no HPT gun, but that's what the emerging thought is. A few major companies as well as the government have fairly recently done the high round count testing in relation to HPT and overall lifespan but to really confirm it requires a larger sample size. Regardless of the change in lifespan, it's clear that just one extra HPT will cause a high scrap rate that can't be explained otherwise.

If you use a proof load as part of a HPT then confirmed no cracking with MPI, it's really means that the gun survived it once where the whole process was intended to mean that the gun could continue to survive it in the event of an accident. It is specified to HPT then MPI every bolt and barrel for the M16 and most other platforms. Most commercial manufacturers will HPT only, which is really useless without the MPI unless there's actually a catastrophic failure (which is literally unheard of), and better ones with MPI a sample from a batch just to say their stuff is HPT MPI (which also defeats the point). The cracking that HPT shows with MPI is microscopic, hairline faults caused by machining stresses or poor quality bar stock. It is possible to MPI only without HPT with a highly experienced worker taking much more time per part and a $400k ish technology investment in inspection scopes and tools compared to the $180k for a good inspection apparatus and decent visual inspection tool; no one is going to make that cycle time slow down and investment when the government requires and chairborne commando market wants HPT + MPI anyway. Many people don't know the wonders of Trail Boss, and some try to make subsonic magnums. Not using magnum primers is also a common culprit with the rifle rounds.