I might be ignorant, but what factors affect a weapon's ability to fire without jamming?
Something about the way a gun chambers bullets and how durable gun's parts are?
I love the Enfield-esque muzzle cap. If I ever get another Enfield I definitely want another No.1. I'm still kicking myself for getting rid of the first one.
I never knew much about Krags but they're pretty interesting, pretty unheard of rifles to most in the US. I've only seen one and it was sporterized.
So the AR556 has a delta ring on it that is screw off rather then the standard squeeze-and-pray approach. Great idea, right? Except the threads are plastic and get horribly jammed a lot, according to my googling. Which is the exact case I'm stuck in right now.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;48079588]I might be ignorant, but what factors affect a weapon's ability to fire without jamming?
Something about the way a gun chambers bullets and how durable gun's parts are?[/QUOTE]
Any number of things.
[B]-Dirt[/B] - An obvious one, though some weapons are much more sensitive to it than others.
[B]-Material composition of the weapon[/B] - Shitty metal gives you a shitty gun that'll suffer from jams and misfeeds.
[B]-Manufacturing methods used to make the weapon[/B] - When they switched from machining to stamping out components of the M1903A3 rifle during WWII, they actually found that this eliminated a couple of jamming problems related to round feeding. This is believed to be a result of the fact that stamping results in smooth, rounded edges in comparison to machining.
[B]-Quality of the ammo[/B] The cheap .22 LR that my ROTC department used back when anyone could still find .22 had a wax coating over the projectile that would jam the Ruger target pistols we used.
[B]-Magazine issues[/B] (if you've got dirt in your magazine, or just a shitty magazine to begin with, it's going to stop feeding. Then there's the M16. During Vietnam, they actually found that loading only 17 of the 20 possible rounds into their magazines improved reliability)
[B]-Wear and tear on the weapon[/B] - This is actually counter-intuitive. The newer a weapon is, the less movement there has been between components. That means the weapon is going to be stiffer, meaning it needs more force from the expansion of propellant to cycle effectively. This of course isn't a problem for many kalashnikov family weapons, which use a powerful round and have minimum internal friction to begin with. For weapons like the AR-15 family however, with their close tolerances and precise machining, you get a lot of friction up against the force of a relatively low-powered round. Don't believe me? Pop an older one open and look for the shiny spots along the inside of the upper and lower receivers, and on the bolt-carrier group. They're everywhere.
A result of this is that [I]once an AR-15-family rifle is "broken in", you cannot replace the bolt-carrier group with one from another rifle.[/I] It'll blow up in your face if you try. At least, that's what my Drill Sergeant told me.
DS told you that so you'd keep track of your disassembled parts instead of giving the armorer a migraine.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48080242]DS told you that so you'd keep track of your disassembled parts instead of giving the armorer a migraine.[/QUOTE]
In retrospect, that makes more sense. I can see why they told us that though, half the kids in our company would have swapped them out just to spite the armorer. Bravo was full of narcissistic assholes.
Living in the city sucks, anyone know of any outdoor shooting ranges near mississauga?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;48082437]Living in the city sucks, anyone know of any outdoor shooting ranges near mississauga?[/QUOTE]
If I did, do you think I'd drive all the way to fucking Niagara to go shooting?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;48083509]If I did, do you think I'd drive all the way to fucking Niagara to go shooting?[/QUOTE]
Looks like I'll be getting into motorcycles now ;_;
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;48079940]Any number of things.
[B]-Dirt[/B] - An obvious one, though some weapons are much more sensitive to it than others.
[B]-Material composition of the weapon[/B] - Shitty metal gives you a shitty gun that'll suffer from jams and misfeeds.
[B]-Manufacturing methods used to make the weapon[/B] - When they switched from machining to stamping out components of the M1903A3 rifle during WWII, they actually found that this eliminated a couple of jamming problems related to round feeding. This is believed to be a result of the fact that stamping results in smooth, rounded edges in comparison to machining.
[B]-Quality of the ammo[/B] The cheap .22 LR that my ROTC department used back when anyone could still find .22 had a wax coating over the projectile that would jam the Ruger target pistols we used.
[B]-Magazine issues[/B] (if you've got dirt in your magazine, or just a shitty magazine to begin with, it's going to stop feeding. Then there's the M16. During Vietnam, they actually found that loading only 17 of the 20 possible rounds into their magazines improved reliability)
[B]-Wear and tear on the weapon[/B] - This is actually counter-intuitive. The newer a weapon is, the less movement there has been between components. That means the weapon is going to be stiffer, meaning it needs more force from the expansion of propellant to cycle effectively. This of course isn't a problem for many kalashnikov family weapons, which use a powerful round and have minimum internal friction to begin with. For weapons like the AR-15 family however, with their close tolerances and precise machining, you get a lot of friction up against the force of a relatively low-powered round. Don't believe me? Pop an older one open and look for the shiny spots along the inside of the upper and lower receivers, and on the bolt-carrier group. They're everywhere.
A result of this is that [I]once an AR-15-family rifle is "broken in", you cannot replace the bolt-carrier group with one from another rifle.[/I] It'll blow up in your face if you try. At least, that's what my Drill Sergeant told me.[/QUOTE]
Not having a bad extractor/ejector is also helpful, too.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;48079588]I might be ignorant, but what factors affect a weapon's ability to fire without jamming?
Something about the way a gun chambers bullets and how durable gun's parts are?[/QUOTE]
Theres a billion and one factors, not one true reason. Nearly everything affects it; type of metal the gun is made out of, quality of the casts/welds/milling, gas system, powder in the ammo used, type of bullet, type of bolt.....too many reasons to list.
too give a very common example,
AKM type rifles jam very rarely because of their design. The whole rifle is built with reliability in mind, so everything is bigger and stronger than it needs to be. It's basically Fischer Prices: My first assault rifle design. The gas system is oversized and the piston is way too big for it's own good. It doesn't have many moving parts, and nothing small enough to break during normal use. It's very easy to maintain and seldom needs an overhaul.
I was being a wannabee assmuncher shooting center axis relock at the range and I think God punished me for it by sending a searing hot piece of brass down the back of my shirt.
Fascinating tradeoff that guns have compared to melee weapons like swords and axes. Guns obviously have MUCH more range, but likely much more difficult to maintain at the battlefield if something goes wrong. With a zweihänder, you could just bash people with the side of the blade because of how heavy it is, in case the sword is too dull. But you'd get shot before you got in range to hit with it.
Glorious Nippon steel. Blah, blah, blah...
I could bash people with the side of my nugget too.
What now
idk i mean my SKS with the bayonet out is basically a sword idk
not folded a thousand times tho
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;48088801]lol why do people use guns sword are cooler :p[/QUOTE]
Speaking of swords, I bought this on the weekend:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/5EYGaQ1.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/uYioJQ0.jpg[/t]
Bayonets! We still use them! Just ask the Afghanis!
[QUOTE=Birdman101;48088938]I could bash people with the side of my nugget too.
What now[/QUOTE]
My bayonet is a bitch getting on the rifle so I just beat the damn thing into a tree. Works everytime. I use the plate on the stock as a hammer. Highly effective. The sound from my rifle has the effect of making EVERYTHING within a half mile radius stop whatever the fuck it's doing.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48090195]My bayonet is a bitch getting on the rifle so I just beat the damn thing into a tree. Works everytime. I use the plate on the stock as a hammer. Highly effective. The sound from my rifle has the effect of making EVERYTHING within a half mile radius stop whatever the fuck it's doing.[/QUOTE]
like I've said before, my bayonette goes on smooth as butter, fits perfectly.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;48087298]Fascinating tradeoff that guns have compared to melee weapons like swords and axes. Guns obviously have MUCH more range, but likely much more difficult to maintain at the battlefield if something goes wrong. With a zweihänder, you could just bash people with the side of the blade because of how heavy it is, in case the sword is too dull. But you'd get shot before you got in range to hit with it.[/QUOTE]
They actually solved this problem a few years ago
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/jvsv/Living_History/Artifacts/1903-2.jpg[/img]
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Birdman101;48090705]like I've said before, my bayonette goes on smooth as butter, fits perfectly.[/QUOTE]
this may be hard to believe but the Soviets weren't able to build all bayonets to perfect spec. Some need some filing and bending before they'll fit.
Dog got a hold of a ground hog, went out and put it out of it's misery with my P1
Did you at least say 'Hasta la Vista', in an ironic Austrian accent, or some such similar bad pun?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48090803]They actually solved this problem a few years ago
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/jvsv/Living_History/Artifacts/1903-2.jpg[/img]
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
this may be hard to believe but the Soviets weren't able to build all bayonets to perfect spec. Some need some filing and bending before they'll fit.[/QUOTE]
Well I understand that not all of them fit very well at all, but both mine and my dads work perfectly.
[QUOTE=mastoner20;48090812]Did you at least say 'Hasta la Vista', in an ironic Austrian accent, or some such similar bad pun?[/QUOTE]
Damn I forgot to say anything
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;48090936]Damn I forgot to say anything[/QUOTE]
Shame.
Damnit, Ridge. Now I want a Garand, AGAIN.
One of these days I'm going to find a good Garand and buy like I always tell myself I'm going to do, but never actually do.
[QUOTE=mastoner20;48090812]Did you at least say 'Hasta la Vista', in an ironic Austrian accent, or some such similar bad pun?[/QUOTE]
Should have said something like "I guess today's just isn't your groundhogs day"
[QUOTE=mastoner20;48090994]Damnit, Ridge. Now I want a Garand, AGAIN.
One of these days I'm going to find a good Garand and buy like I always tell myself I'm going to do, but never actually do.[/QUOTE]
Me, too. I kick myself in the dick every day for selling it (I'm very flexible).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
