[QUOTE=Exalion;16663434]That little gun is very cute, what disadvantages come from an internal hammer?
I imagine it makes cleaning more complicated, but wouldn't it reduce the chance of jamming as less of the workings are exposed?[/QUOTE]
If the hammer is internal it can't snag on anything, but you can't cock it either. You have to rack the slide back which will also chamber a round. If there is a round already chambered when you do that it falls out of the gun.
Also here is a cutaway picture which details said hammer.
[img]http://www.hlebooks.com/images/colt/1903frag.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=redonkulous;16659843]Damn this makes me want a decent pistol even more. I would love a 1911, or maybe a springfield XD.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to pay to much, look at Ruger's P series or the Stoeger Cougar.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;16664534]If the hammer is internal it can't snag on anything, but you can't cock it either. You have to rack the slide back which will also chamber a round. If there is a round already chambered when you do that it falls out of the gun.
Also here is a cutaway picture which details said hammer.
[img]http://www.hlebooks.com/images/colt/1903frag.JPG[/img][/QUOTE]
A lot of guns are made like this now days.
I don't understand the advantages of a hammer fired gun over a striker fired gun if there's no exposed hammer though.
[editline]09:43AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=SBD;16665028]If you don't want to pay to much, look at Ruger's P series or the Stoeger Cougar.[/QUOTE]
Springfield XDs and Glocks are both cheap guns.
If you stoop much lower you're getting into wasting money. Also if he wants a 1911, rock island armory makes an entry level 1911. I have no idea what you're getting into with one though.
[img]http://www.snubnose.info/images/GunPornTheRockIslandArmoryM1911A1_13253/RIA_L_1_5003.jpg[/img]
It does look a bit cheap. What does it cost?
BTW I just signed a contract with the army. I'll join next year, when I'm done with my current education. Maybe I'll decide to go to officers school, since I'm qualified.
[B]EDIT:[/B]
The Hammerless look a lot like the Tokarev. Do they work the same?
[QUOTE=Bonde;16668704]
The Hammerless look a lot like the Tokarev. Do they work the same?[/QUOTE]
Yes. I've heard that the TT-33 is in fact directly based off one of the pre-1911 colt automatics although I'm not sure if it's the 1903/1908. It probably is though.
[QUOTE=Bonde;16668704]It does look a bit cheap. What does it cost?
[/QUOTE]
Internet says $400-500.
Gunshops locally show $350-450. For a 1911 it's very cheap.
[QUOTE=SBD;16665028]If you don't want to pay to much, look at Ruger's P series or the Stoeger Cougar.[/QUOTE]
The ruger's magazines are weird as shit.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16672038]Internet says $400-500.
Gunshops locally show $350-450. For a 1911 it's very cheap.[/QUOTE]
250 quid?! Damn that's cheaper than a console! Too bad I'm not American.
[QUOTE=lintz;16682867]250 quid?! Damn that's cheaper than a console! Too bad I'm not American.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the quality is debatable. Some people say the really cheap 1911s are almost to the point where they are unsafe to use, others swear by them and claim they are just as good as the 1,000$+ 1911s. Of course with all this confusion, rumor and hearsay I couldn't tell you for sure.
Also for tonight I'm planning on the AR-18.
[editline]08:05PM[/editline]
90)AR-18
[img]http://world.guns.ru/assault/ar18.jpg[/img]
There has been an awful lot of fanfare regarding various new "Piston" AR-15s which are made by just about every firearm company in the US market that makes AR-15s. The idea is that a piston system is more effective than direct impingement since it doesn't channel residue from the gunpowder into the workings. What I don't get is how this all makes the gun cost an extra 100-1,000$. But before all this fanfare there was essentially the first true piston AR and it was a real Armalite.
Not to mention technically a commercial failure.
It all started after ArmaLite sold their rights for the AR15 (AKA M16) to Colt. They then wanted to make a new gun to blow their previous invention out of the water. The idea was to take the AR-15 and improve on its flaws by giving it a piston so that it doesn't need to be cleaned as often and worked more reliably while at the same time making the gun cost far less to produce so that third world counties could afford it.
Indeed, this rifle met all of said expectations. The receiver was made out of stamped steel, rather than precision machined aircraft-grade aluminum. This solution saved both money and weight. Since there was a piston, maintainable was less of a chore. It could also take the same aluminum STANAG magazines the AR-15 used because there was no need to change what worked. Aesthetically it has a cruder and more simplistic appearance with a distinctive diagonal line running from the base of the stock to the end of the magazine well. To some it looks a bit better, in a crude sort of way.
But not that looks matter.
As usual Armalite lacked the necessary facilities to mass-produce such a weapon, so they tried to license it abroad. While some attempts were made to sell it to the US government it soon became clear that Colt ran the show and there was no way in hell they were going to accept a contract for a gun that costs LESS to make, even if it is more reliable. Abroad they found that the AR-15 had a better grip on the higher-priced rifle market while the AK-47 dominated the low end of that spectrum. At the time the AR-18 was too expensive for the poor and too cheap for the rich so it found very few takers.
This isn't to say it didn't find any.
Sterling in England as well as Howa in Japan took up the offer. While neither could convince their country to adopt it they still made about 20,000 guns which found use in specialized roles. Particularly in England. The light weight made the AR-18 excellent for patrols in Northern Ireland where captured examples of said rifle earned infamy in the hands of the IRA which dubbed it "The Widowmaker". A civilian version known as the AR-180 was made as well and proved to be very competitive in civilian markets around the world which is in part due to the lower cost and in part due to its ability to take STANAG magazines (although a few variants used their own proprietary mags). Meanwhile in Japan Howa built them for a couple years before the government forbid them from manufacturing military firearms. While production in Japan halted immediately when the government requested a new 5.56 assault rifle Howa made the Type 89 which is an AR-18 with a few tweaks and updates.
Cases like the Type 89 proved to be the AR-18's legacy as they were by no means uncommon. Sterling's relative success in making said rifle in England partially resulted in the L85 series which is little more than a bullpup AR-18. Although for some weird reason it costs a lot more and works a lot worse. In spite of its price tag the G-36 series too is based directly off the AR-18. The same is true of the Singaporean SR-88 and SAR-80, the Australian M-17s (although that was a flop) and a handful of other designs.
In 2001 the new "Armalite" reintroduced the AR-180 as the AR-180B with the main difference being a polymer receiver to further save weight. I guess that means it has come full-circle. First there was the AR-15, the AR-18 added a piston which created a number of assault rifles that competed against the 15 resulting in all the various AR-15 clones with pistons and now the original AR-18 is back in production to compete with all of those because it costs half as much. Too bad the 180B is no longer in production.
Wasn't the M60 one of the first real medium machine guns (light being the French Chauchat and heavy Germany's MG34/42, though I think the Lewis Gun was a MMG)?
I also believe it was prone to barrel blowouts or something of that sort, could still warrant an article.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;16683611]Wasn't the M60 one of the first real medium machine guns (light being the French Chauchat and heavy Germany's MG34/42, though I think the Lewis Gun was a MMG)?
I also believe it was prone to barrel blowouts or something of that sort, could still warrant an article.[/QUOTE]
Medium machine guns kind of don't exist. I say kind of because light machine guns are typically considered medium machine guns only when mounted in vehicles or anti-aircraft mounts.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;16683611]Wasn't the M60 one of the first real medium machine guns (light being the French Chauchat and heavy Germany's MG34/42, though I think the Lewis Gun was a MMG)?
I also believe it was prone to barrel blowouts or something of that sort, could still warrant an article.[/QUOTE]
Never heard of the M60 being prone to barrel blowouts, but it had a bunch of parts that could be installed backwards without the operator knowing, that caused it to fuck up royally.
[editline]10:06PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;16684229]Medium machine guns kind of don't exist. I say kind of because light machine guns are typically considered medium machine guns only when mounted in vehicles or anti-aircraft mounts.[/QUOTE]
The Maxim and Vickers are medium machine guns.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;16684572]Never heard of the M60 being prone to barrel blowouts, but it had a bunch of parts that could be installed backwards without the operator knowing, that caused it to fuck up royally.
[editline]10:06PM[/editline]
The Maxim and Vickers are medium machine guns.[/QUOTE]
Then what the hell counts as a heavy machine gun? I pretty sure "Gatling" guns are filed under heavy.
[QUOTE=lintz;16687287]Then what the hell counts as a heavy machine gun? I pretty sure "Gatling" guns are filed under heavy.[/QUOTE]
The Browning M2 .50 cal
Russian DshK 12.7mm
etc etc
Question
If you pull the top of a handgun back to load that first bullet and you don't end up firing it, how do you get it out?
also how do you do the same thing once you load a bullet into the breach of an assault rifle by pulling back the hammer/thing on the side
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;16688081]Question
If you pull the top of a handgun back to load that first bullet and you don't end up firing it, how do you get it out?
also how do you do the same thing once you load a bullet into the breach of an assault rifle by pulling back the hammer/thing on the side[/QUOTE]
You pull it back again, same in both cases, pulling it back manually is only emulating the action being cycled by a round going off.
Being something of an aviation fan (currently doing theory for my license) I was thinking about making a thread similar to this, called Amazing Aeroplanes. Anyone else think this is a good idea?
[QUOTE=SBD;16689588]Being something of an aviation fan (currently doing theory for my license) I was thinking about making a thread similar to this, called Amazing Aeroplanes. Anyone else think this is a good idea?[/QUOTE]
I'd love to read that. I'm a fan myself.
For the Britfags, one of the SA-80 series.
[highlight](User was banned for this post (""britfags"" - GunFox))[/highlight]
Well, only the A2 would be worth the article.
The A1 is a pos. The LSW is a pos as a LMG, but as a marksman's rifle it excels. I guess that would be interesting. And the L22 Carbine is kinda pointless. But an article on the A2 would be nice.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;16691266]For the Britfags, one of the SA-80 series.[/QUOTE]
T'was in the Weeaboo Weaponry thread.
[QUOTE=SBD;16689588]Being something of an aviation fan (currently doing theory for my license) I was thinking about making a thread similar to this, called Amazing Aeroplanes. Anyone else think this is a good idea?[/QUOTE]
That'd be awesome, but only if you can write articles as well and as regularly as Bean-O
What about the M18 Recoiless Rifle used in Korea? My grandfather fired it when he was there.
An M-60 article would be nice sir Bean-O
I've never heard of AR18s. Thanks. Informative +1
[QUOTE=SBD;16689588]Being something of an aviation fan (currently doing theory for my license) I was thinking about making a thread similar to this, called Amazing Aeroplanes. Anyone else think this is a good idea?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like it would be an excellent idea. People have been asking me to do various military vehicles including aircraft for a while but I simply don't know that much about them.
The way this thread format works is with a daily update of content. You should write up the first 10 before starting the thread, posting all of them at the same time and then add one at a time. They don't have to be really long. In fact this concept started with the Weeaboo Weaponry thread where originally it was just the weapon's name, a picture and a very brief reason for it being there. I guess it sort of grew from that to where my daily articles can be pretty massive. But even then after I have all of my research it only takes about 10-30 minutes to write.
There are two other rules that I follow although both are optional. First, if my thread falls to the second page (which is happening every now and then since interest has waned in the last week or so) I usually don't bump it just to add content. When I do that I feel like I am artificially trying to keep the thread alive, there are even some articles that were written with only one or two comments between them. So it's like I'm writing to myself.
Secondly I limit myself to one article a day because it is possible to be carried away.
fuckin' pps-43 dawg
Do the M1917 Eddystone "US Enfield" rifle, it was the main rifle used by the US army when the supply of M1903 Springfield's ran low in WW1.
[img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/enfield_p17_2.jpg[/img]
That sexy thing.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;16696464]Do the M1917 Eddystone "US Enfield" rifle, it was the main rifle used by the US army when the supply of M1903 Springfield's ran low in WW1.
[img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/enfield_p17_2.jpg[/img]
That sexy thing.[/QUOTE]
I thought he had already done it. If not, then he should!
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;16696464]Do the M1917 Eddystone "US Enfield" rifle, it was the main rifle used by the US army when the supply of M1903 Springfield's ran low in WW1.
[img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/enfield_p17_2.jpg[/img]
That sexy thing.[/QUOTE]
Looks like an asain design to me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
