[QUOTE=beanhead;48714027][url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights[/url]
:neat:[/QUOTE]
The man is still a fucking nut.
I would urge you to consider that Trump's dipshit ass policies outweigh his few decent ones before voting for him.
Oh shit, its politics, hide
-snippero--
Let's not go into polololotics
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48714233]I would urge you to consider that Trump's dipshit ass policies outweigh his few decent ones before voting for him.[/QUOTE]
So? Got any better candidates?
[QUOTE=Binladen34;48715174]So? Got any better candidates?[/QUOTE]
I shouldn't have said that, this thread isn't for politics.
Anyone like broom handles?
[img]http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/UncleJimmema/2013-05-31_18-23-12_492.jpg[/img]
This is my Pre-War Commercial C96, serial dates it somewhere between 1911-1913. All Numbers Matching, Even The Grips. Still Shoots but the bore is pretty rough, gotta load it with .309 or .310 bullets for it to actually catch the rifling.
-snip-
There's an semi franken Ar15 for $500 at my LGS. It's got the A2 stock, A2 receiver, Adam Arms lower, magpul forend, and has a crappy, sticky paint job. Is it worth it to buy the gun and cannabalize the parts?
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;48716113]There's an semi franken Ar15 for $500 at my LGS. It's got the A2 stock, A2 receiver, Adam Arms lower, magpul forend, and has a crappy, sticky paint job. Is it worth it to buy the gun and cannabalize the parts?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like it was cobbled up by bubba in the back shop. Without knowing whose barrel and bcg it is i would be wary. There's a lot of companies selling cheap shit AR parts that at best don't work and at worst blows your gun up.
IMO if you're looking for a solid inexpensive AR to get into I'd look at Ruger's AR-556, S&W M&P 15 Sporter, or a Mossberg MMR.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48715564]Anyone like broom handles?
[img]http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/UncleJimmema/2013-05-31_18-23-12_492.jpg[/img]
This is my Pre-War Commercial C96, serial dates it somewhere between 1911-1913. All Numbers Matching, Even The Grips. Still Shoots but the bore is pretty rough, gotta load it with .309 or .310 bullets for it to actually catch the rifling.[/QUOTE]
I have a 1915, very early member of the new safety pattern batch. A collector I had look at it told me he thinks it may be one of the ones sent to to the Imperial Navy for trials, since it has an acceptance stamp and a very, very low serial number.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/XQMAUNa.jpg[/t]
God dammit I got another casing broken in my barrel...
My fucking luck right
The broad appeal that the C96 seems to command is surprising to me. I've encountered them in person, but never operated one. They are ugly as sin, so they must be super satisfying to use. Some actions are cathartic beyond all reason.
Totally not being critical here. They are certainly interesting pieces.
I figured it was the straight blowback, weight up front and revolver style grip that does it.
Wish I owned one.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48717115]They are ugly as sin[/QUOTE]
Lol, I wish more people thought like you. Then maybe I wouldn't have to drop $5k on one.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48717115]The broad appeal that the C96 seems to command is surprising to me. I've encountered them in person, but never operated one. They are ugly as sin, so they must be super satisfying to use. Some actions are cathartic beyond all reason.
Totally not being critical here. They are certainly interesting pieces.[/QUOTE]
I think it's a very industrial, utilitarian gun. There are no fairings, nothing that doesn't need to be there, and it's exceptionally well put-together. In that way, it reflects the image of early 1900s Imperial Germany pretty well. Much of its popularity has to do with being the first viable semi-automatic, as well - it really was revolutionary.
They are surprisingly comfortable to hold and shoot - you wouldn't expect it from the looks of it but they point very well and are immensely fun to fire. It's kind of hard to explain. I'd never seen one in real life before I decided I wanted one and picked mine up, and I was surprised by how much I liked it the first time the seller handed it to me.
As reliable and accurate as this gun is I can't believe they chose the Luger over it for military service. It's a joke.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48718302]
As reliable and accurate as this gun is I can't believe they chose the Luger over it for military service. It's a joke.[/QUOTE]
Same reasons why any gun is picked for military. These 4 things basically determine what a military gets: Cheaper to make, cheaper replacement parts, reliability, and politics.
Looking at a C96 cutaway and a Luger cutaway, the C96 is like a watch and the Luger looks like most hammer fired semiautos that have a fairly simple design. Less complex internals means easier parts replacement and lower maintenance costs.
C96 Cutaway:
[IMG]http://40.media.tumblr.com/bd5cc2f2e93ee5605cbbb616ac02274b/tumblr_mp2c8dfRts1s57vgxo2_r1_1280.jpg[/IMG]
The Luger:
[IMG]http://www.lugerlp08.com/CutAway_files/image004.jpg[/IMG]
That's a Shanxi Type 17 cutaway - I believe it has some extra parts that the German 7.63 doesn't or maybe it's just that the Mauser action looks more complex than it is in cutaway. But yes, it is all finely machined. It's just that the Luger really barely worked by comparison, while still being very expensive per unit. It was all politics.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Y512fxv.jpg[/t]
Here's the guts of mine. You can see how much fine machine work goes into one of these. They were exceptionally expensive to produce.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48718831]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Y512fxv.jpg[/t]
Here's the guts of mine. You can see how much fine machine work goes into one of these. They were exceptionally expensive to produce.[/QUOTE]
The housing for the mechanism blocks what is really in there. Looks simple until you pop the pins out and everything comes out. Still a nice find.
Thought you guys might like a nice nugget to drool at.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyOwdgtJd78[/media]
Just got the casing out again.
This cerrosafe shit is handy as hell.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_j9RrzS7I[/media]
These 3 gun guys sure do get creative.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48718831]That's a Shanxi Type 17 cutaway - I believe it has some extra parts that the German 7.63 doesn't or maybe it's just that the Mauser action looks more complex than it is in cutaway. But yes, it is all finely machined. It's just that the Luger really barely worked by comparison, while still being very expensive per unit. It was all politics.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Y512fxv.jpg[/t]
Here's the guts of mine. You can see how much fine machine work goes into one of these. They were exceptionally expensive to produce.[/QUOTE]
They're still swiss watches on the inside. I'm very careful when taking mine apart, because there's plenty if tiny pieces that are not captive what so ever. But for essentially a first generation hand gun it's not too bad, and it's biggest appeal was a large magazine capacity with fairly powerful ammunition for the time.
One of my dreams is to make one chambered in 7.62 tok that could handle the hot czech loads. I might realize that dream too cause my shops thinking about getting a 07 FFL.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;48720163][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_j9RrzS7I[/media]
These 3 gun guys sure do get creative.[/QUOTE]
Yes they do. And some of the designers have absolutely no thought about lefty shooters sometimes, at least in my limited experience with 3-gun. A lot of 'Stand to the left side of the wall and shoot' spots in the couple I did which is not fun as a lefty.
So I don't know about anyone else, but the thing about the C96 that I find interesting is that it seems to me like it was really ahead of its time. It fires a cartridge with comparable energy to 9x19, is fairly simple to load despite the lack of removable magazine, holds ten rounds, and is pleasant to shoot.
If you look at contemporaries like the Bergmann 1896, Borchardt C-93, or Browning M1900, you see guns that made various significant compromises. Most used very weak rounds, like the M1900 with its .32ACP, and the ones that didn't, like the Borchardt, used overly complicated and unreliable actions. Many, like the Bergmann, had small magazines and were difficult to reload.
Even going as far forward as the First World War, most of the semi-automatics used were similar to the Browning design, with magazine capacities from 6 to 8 and firing weak cartridges. The 1911 is such a huge standout among those designs, but even it was designed a full 16 years after the C96, and 16 years in an era of extremely rapid firearms development seems significant.
And what makes that so interesting to me is that fundamentally it's still one of those oddball 19th century designs, a developmental a dead end, and yet it still continued to be a viable and popular weapon for decades, whereas few of its contemporaries survived into the 20th century and none of them past the World Wars. That's a pretty big achievement.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48721460]
And what makes that so interesting to me is that fundamentally it's still one of those oddball 19th century designs, a developmental a dead end, and yet it still continued to be a viable and popular weapon for decades, whereas few of its contemporaries survived into the 20th century and none of them past the World Wars. That's a pretty big achievement.[/QUOTE]
Too bad Star Wars nerds ruin them because they want to be Han Solo.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48721460]So I don't know about anyone else, but the thing about the C96 that I find interesting is that it seems to me like it was really ahead of its time. It fires a cartridge with comparable energy to 9x19, is fairly simple to load despite the lack of removable magazine, holds ten rounds, and is pleasant to shoot.
If you look at contemporaries like the Bergmann 1896, Borchardt C-93, or Browning M1900, you see guns that made various significant compromises. Most used very weak rounds, like the M1900 with its .32ACP, and the ones that didn't, like the Borchardt, used overly complicated and unreliable actions. Many, like the Bergmann, had small magazines and were difficult to reload.
Even going as far forward as the First World War, most of the semi-automatics used were similar to the Browning design, with magazine capacities from 6 to 8 and firing weak cartridges. The 1911 is such a huge standout among those designs, but even it was designed a full 16 years after the C96, and 16 years in an era of extremely rapid firearms development seems significant.
And what makes that so interesting to me is that fundamentally it's still one of those oddball 19th century designs, a developmental a dead end, and yet it still continued to be a viable and popular weapon for decades, whereas few of its contemporaries survived into the 20th century and none of them past the World Wars. That's a pretty big achievement.[/QUOTE]
Even though none of its contemporaries themselves survived the war, the Browning was the most important one in terms of development to come from the era. As you said, the C96 was a developmental dead-end, but the Browning M1900 gave us the slide as a means to cycle a round from the barrel, an idea that we still use on pretty much every pistol to this date. While the 1900 itself didn't last very long, the technologies we got from it survive to this day. I'd say that's a far bigger achievement. I 'd also say the 100+ year popularity of the 1911 that's led to basically the same design being built for over a hundred years with very little variation is a much bigger achievement.
I honestly don't view the C96 as having achieved anything all that great. The most outstanding thing that it ever accomplished was being converted to full-auto, being the first machine pistol. Everything else about it was just a curio or is outshined by other guns.
Went to the range today, got some training in on the 92fs.
There were these two fucking morons there, just blazing away at their target without a care in the world. They were hitting the side baffles and everything, treating the whole damn thing like it was a goddamn game. I wanted to fucking punch them.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;48722081]uh, maybe get the headspace and barrel specs checked before you shoot it again? just saying
or retire your ammo that's left with you with two case head separatings....[/QUOTE]
Well it's not a bad idea. I had two stuck cases when I fired again, except the first didn't separate like the rest and I was able to pull it out with the bolt. The fucking metal of the blasting cap on that round exploded and hit me in the lip, though it's nothing serious. After a few more rounds I had another stuck case. Again knocked it out with cerrosafe.
Does anyone have experience with 5.45 ammunition? My first box of 30 rounds were WPA HP 55 grain with one case separation, my next 60 rounds I got are WPA FMJ 60 grain with two case separations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
