Firearms XIII - Talk about all the guns - General

[QUOTE=Ridge;50808123]I've found one place still selling them, and it's $700 minus a barrel and lower. Seems like just a couple years ago they were easily found for $350 in that condition.[/QUOTE] I.O. Inc is going to be selling them as parts guns, Colt and Troy are selling new ones and NoDakSpud makes the receivers if you want to BIY one. I.O. Inc [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/01/15/io-inc-retro-m16a1-with-original-colt-parts/[/url] Colt [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/30/colt-to-introduce-new-reproduction-vietnam-era-ar-15s/[/url] [url]http://weaponsman.com/?p=32157[/url] Troy [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/21/troy-introduces-xm177e2-replica-nra-2016/[/url] [url]http://weaponsman.com/?p=32205[/url] [url]http://weaponsman.com/?p=33156[/url] NoDakSpud [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/27/nodak-spud-retro-ar-receivers/[/url] Edit: Almost forgot Brownells, which is selling NoDakSpud upper and lower A1 receivers: [url]http://weaponsman.com/?p=29600[/url] [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] Upper [url]http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/upper-receivers/ar-15-m16-a1-upper-receiver-prod83620.aspx[/url] Lower [url]http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/ar-15-m16-a1-lower-receiver-prod83622.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50805582]I just realized it's chambered in .30 Carbine. :why:[/QUOTE] Supposedly it loses close to 500fps due to the short barrel, which puts its ballistics at comparable to .357 magnum, but with a softer recoil impulse and enormous muzzle flash and report. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50807935]Interesting that it's an IAI instead of an AMT. I don't recall all the history there but my impression is that's a pretty rare stamp. You practically stole that thing my dude.[/QUOTE] Huh, I didn't even notice that it's IAI until you pointed that out. As far as I can tell they're the same company, so I'm not sure what the difference is. As far as why it was that cheap, it might have something to do with the fact that my range outing today revealed it to be the jammiest gun I have ever shot, failing to fully return to battery about half the time, and about a quarter of the time failing to eject or not resetting the trigger spring. However, after getting home it occurred to me when I examined it that it was basically bone dry, the stainless steel used in its construction has a fairly rough finish, and the gun doesn't have much wear which implies it was never broken in much- meaning there was probably a ton of friction between the moving parts. After dousing all the interacting parts in oil, it seems to feed and operate much more reliably, and I wager it won't have the chambering or trigger reset issues when I shoot it next. The ejection, on the other hand, still occasionally fails when cycling by hand, which seems to imply an extractor problem. I went ahead and ordered a new extractor, and recoil spring while I was at it, and we'll see if either or both help its reliability. But I'll be [I]damned[/I] if it wasn't the most fun handgun I've ever shot. The recoil isn't any worse than a 1911, and there's absolutely no snap to it whatsoever, plus the fireball and report are like a .223 SBR. It's pleasant to shoot, but sounds like a cannon and has quite a bit of power downrange. If I can get this working reliably it will definitely be my favorite pistol.

IAI bought out AMT at some point in the mid 1990s when AMT went bankrupt. IAI automags were made from the same tooling by the same workers as AMT automags. galena held the trademark for a few years after that, and then high standard bought them out in 2001 and has held the trademark ever since, but afaik the only AMT guns they've ever made have been automag 2s and backups

[QUOTE=MAC21500;50808273]Lower [URL]http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/ar-15-m16-a1-lower-receiver-prod83622.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE] Thanks for all the resources, but that receiver is wrong for an A1. That's your run of the mill A2 and beyond receiver. The A1 didn't have the material built up around the mag release, it was smooth. [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] I've decided I want to build a gun like the one I had when I got bored with ARs 4 years ago. Link because the embedding isn't working right. [url]http://i.imgur.com/GKTXU4x.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=Ridge;50808554]Thanks for all the resources, but that receiver is wrong for an A1. That's your run of the mill A2 and beyond receiver. The A1 didn't have the material built up around the mag release, it was smooth. [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] I've decided I want to build a gun like the one I had when I got bored with ARs 4 years ago. Link because the embedding isn't working right. [url]http://i.imgur.com/GKTXU4x.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] I wonder if their pictures are incorrect, because the description sounds correct: "Designed in conjunction with Nodak Spud, the BRN-16A1 Lower Receiver matches the features of the original M16A1 Receiver. Perfect for a “Retro” or reproduction build, these lowers precisely mirror the original profile. Features specific to the BRN-16A1 Lower Receiver are the proper M16A1 front takedown lug profile, and profile surrounding the receiver extension. Most forged lower receivers produced today feature “A2” profiles, which are incorrect for M16A1 reproduction builds. The lower starts off as a 7075 T6 aluminum forging, then is machined to mil-spec dimensions. Once machined, the lower is finished with a matte black hard anodized finish. This finish matches modern uppers found on the market today, as well as the Brownells M16A1 Upper Receiver sold separately." Also, your link is to a picture of a battlecomp? [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] Actually, from what I'm seeing, unless it was an M16 (Air Force) or XM16E1, the "fence" was there.

F it, I'll re-upload the pic [img]http://i.imgur.com/0xlaXdyh.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=MAC21500;50808589]I wonder if their pictures are incorrect, because the description sounds correct: "Designed in conjunction with Nodak Spud, the BRN-16A1 Lower Receiver matches the features of the original M16A1 Receiver. Perfect for a “Retro” or reproduction build, these lowers precisely mirror the original profile. Features specific to the BRN-16A1 Lower Receiver are the proper M16A1 front takedown lug profile, and profile surrounding the receiver extension. Most forged lower receivers produced today feature “A2” profiles, which are incorrect for M16A1 reproduction builds. The lower starts off as a 7075 T6 aluminum forging, then is machined to mil-spec dimensions. Once machined, the lower is finished with a matte black hard anodized finish. This finish matches modern uppers found on the market today, as well as the Brownells M16A1 Upper Receiver sold separately." Also, your link is to a picture of a battlecomp? [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] Actually, from what I'm seeing, unless it was an M16 (Air Force) or XM16E1, the "fence" was there.[/QUOTE] There are three lower receiver "fence" types: slab side, with no fence, featured on very early models and prototypes; partial fence, with just the top bar that the opened dust cover rests on, featured on models between the Colt 602 and the M16A1 when it was done away with; and full fence, with the fence around the entire magazine release button, which was used from the M16A1 and on.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;50808683]There are three lower receiver "fence" types: slab side, with no fence, featured on very early models and prototypes; partial fence, with just the top bar that the opened dust cover rests on, featured on models between the Colt 602 and the M16A1 when it was done away with; and full fence, with the fence around the entire magazine release button, which was used from the M16A1 and on.[/QUOTE] NoDakSpud offers all three. [editline]31st July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;50808679]F it, I'll re-upload the pic [img]http://i.imgur.com/0xlaXdyh.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/52eRP2O.jpg[/t]

So I've decided that I'm going to get a Ruger GP100 and that I'm willing to spend $600 on it. That's on the cheap end for one, but still affordable.

Anyone have the urge to convert their Glock 42 to 9x18 Makarov? [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/01/9x18-makarov-glock-42/[/url]

Recently I got a DPMS Oracle, Carbine length. What a good quadrail system I could get?

[QUOTE=MAC21500;50812773]Anyone have the urge to convert their Glock 42 to 9x18 Makarov? [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/01/9x18-makarov-glock-42/[/url][/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50812848]Why?[/QUOTE] Why not? [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] It's not like glock owners are known for their superior decision making.

[QUOTE=MAC21500;50812773]Anyone have the urge to convert their Glock 42 to 9x18 Makarov? [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/01/9x18-makarov-glock-42/[/url][/QUOTE] I'd be into it if it weren't for the whole 6+1 nightmare [QUOTE=Psychokitten;50812848]Why?[/QUOTE] .380 ball is hard to find and 9x18 ball is everywhere and cheaper than .380 jhp. both rounds perform poorly in jhp format.

[QUOTE=butre;50813013]I'd be into it if it weren't for the whole 6+1 nightmare .380 ball is hard to find and 9x18 ball is everywhere and cheaper than .380 jhp. both rounds perform poorly in jhp format.[/QUOTE] Why not get it in 9x19 or .45 if you're going to have trouble feeding it .380?

[QUOTE=Levelog;50812868] It's not like glock owners are known for their superior decision making.[/QUOTE] yea buying the most reliable handgun on the market sure is dumb

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50812790]Recently I got a DPMS Oracle, Carbine length. What a good quadrail system I could get?[/QUOTE] Does it need to be a quadrail? I put a KAC quadrail on my M4gery, but it's heavy. You could put one of these on and it'd not only look cool, but it'd be lighter and a free float tube: [url]https://www.manticorearms.com/m-16-rifle-products/transformer-panels-ar15.html[/url] [img]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/Dawg180/MA-14300%20left%20full.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50812790]Recently I got a DPMS Oracle, Carbine length. What a good quadrail system I could get?[/QUOTE] Midwest Industries makes drop in quad rails, no front sight removal required. Both fixed and free float. I had the free float on my AR above.

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50812790]Recently I got a DPMS Oracle, Carbine length. What a good quadrail system I could get?[/QUOTE] Troy Industries has drop-in quad rails.

[QUOTE=Ridge;50813708]Midwest Industries makes drop in quad rails, no front sight removal required. Both fixed and free float. I had the free float on my AR above.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Oracle has an FSB, or at least the pictures I'm finding have a low railed gas block. [img]http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q483/healyarms/Rifles/DPMS/dpms_rifle_oracle_556_right_view.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=MAC21500;50813377]Does it need to be a quadrail? I put a KAC quadrail on my M4gery, but it's heavy. You could put one of these on and it'd not only look cool, but it'd be lighter and a free float tube: [URL]https://www.manticorearms.com/m-16-rifle-products/transformer-panels-ar15.html[/URL] [IMG]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/Dawg180/MA-14300 left full.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Personally I'm needing it one for my foregrip and vicker sling. The only other thing I can convince of mounting to the thing would be a PEQ. I'm honestly not picky on what brand really, I looked at getting an aim sport one considering it's 60$ compared to these 150$+ ones.

[QUOTE=MAC21500;50813962]I don't think the Oracle has an FSB, or at least the pictures I'm finding have a low railed gas block. [img]http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q483/healyarms/Rifles/DPMS/dpms_rifle_oracle_556_right_view.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] It's got a rail on the top, so it's not going to fit under a longer quad rail. You'd have to either grind it down, or replace it with a thinner gas block. [IMG]http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/skus/p_080000528_1.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50813210]yea buying the most reliable handgun on the market sure is dumb[/QUOTE] How're them daily negligent discharges working out for you? :v:

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50814111]How're them daily negligent discharges working out for you? :v:[/QUOTE] Pretty much. My HiPoint only ND's once a week and I spent a fraction of a Glock's pricetag on it.

Fock glucks

So I'm planning on buying a rifle some time after I get to my unit in Ft. Riley, Kansas. Registering a weapon with the MPs on post shouldn't be much of a hassle from what other gunowners here told me. However, I'm conflicted between getting an AR or an AK. With the AR, I'm somewhat familiar with given I learned to shoot one back in basic training. The AK, it's something I want to have and familiarize myself with. Does anyone here know the pros and cons of having either rifles?

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50814111]How're them daily negligent discharges working out for you? :v:[/QUOTE] Pretty good because I'm not a dumbass and I keep my finger off the trigger until I'm ready.

[QUOTE=TehAgentGuy;50814718]So I'm planning on buying a rifle some time after I get to my unit in Ft. Riley, Kansas. Registering a weapon with the MPs on post shouldn't be much of a hassle from what other gunowners here told me. However, I'm conflicted between getting an AR or an AK. With the AR, I'm somewhat familiar with given I learned to shoot one back in basic training. The AK, it's something I want to have and familiarize myself with. Does anyone here know the pros and cons of having either rifles?[/QUOTE] [B]AR[/B] Pros: - like you said, you're already trained on it - inexpensive (hint hint, don't buy an expensive one, get a budget model like an M&P15 or an AR556) - ammo and magazines are cheap and easy to find (I recommond either Brownells USGI mags or PMags) - good accuracy, good ballistics at distance, good terminal ballistics with the right ammo - very modular with a massive aftermarket - light-weight Cons: - dirty as fuck - cartridge considered underpowered, depends on what kind of ammo you're running (hint, don't get M855 ball if you're planning on using it in earnest) - hates dirt - runs best with lots of lube, which attracts more dirt I've never run an AK, so somebody else will have to give you the rundown.

Just a word of warning, 7.62x39 has shit ballistics. Sub-par accuracy, major bullet drop beyond 300-400 meters. 5.45 is on par with 5.56 ballistically, but surplus 7N6 ammo is banned from import into the US. The sights still suck too. Notch/blades are bad enough without being 6 inches away from your face. Give me an aperture against my face any day of the week.

You know I was watching this: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT90YzPIhVE[/media] And I was wondering. Why don't any guns have digital ammo counters? Like, in this day and age we have so much electronics being tacked onto guns, sights, dots, lasers, lights and so on and in the video the counter works REALLY well. Like, they're simple electronics too. Each shot over a certain noise threshold would drop the counter down or perhaps it would be able to count each time the bolt or action was manipulated by being fired and count down. Just be able to pre-set it "5, 10, 20, 30rds" or if you wanted to get crazy put a QR code on the lip of the magazine for the counter to read so it can tell the capacity of the mag. It just seems like it'd be really helpful. They sell reflex sights for pistols that are small, durable and reliable enough to be used on duty weapons these days and they turn themselves on and off appropriately. This is basically one of the few "big" innovations modern firearms have seen in ages. So why not ammo counters? I would love one myself I always, ALWAYS lose count. [editline]2nd August 2016[/editline] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX_I219utRQ[/media] Dude I want this so bad for my Glock. If I ever got a 1911 I would absolutely get one. This shit is Blade-Runner tier cool and super useful.