Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let's all take a trip back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  This was the time of punk.  This was the time of despair.   Punk was all about minimalism; strip everything down to a few chords, wear

So what, my 5.56 rounds are groundbreaking too if I shoot the dirt.

Stechkin's Abakan (TKB-0146). https://www.kalashnikov.ru/abakan-stechkina-avtomat-stechkina-tkb-0146/        Bullpup, system of "recoil impulse shifted in time", 2-stage

So yeah, not sure if it will be useful to anyone, but fuck it, PSA time.

 

It turns out EA S4M round, which is an Aluminum cored Hollow point 5.7x28mm round (using the same bullet with a hotter charge as the SS195LF apparently) has a minor little design flaw of "not actually fucking expanding at all",

 

Hope that helps anyone who tries them, they seem to have a muzzle flash less bright then your average atom bomb compared to standard FN branded ammunition, which is kind of disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe S4M are literally SS195LFs with the bullet pulled and moly coated, the powder dumped out and replaced with EA's hotter powder, and the bullet reloaded in the case.

The 28gr aluminum cored FN bullet was designed as a training round, not to expand or do anything else, so it's not shocking that it doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading gunbroker is depressing. Were hunters of previous generations such weak assholes that they had to hack up perfectly good C&R just to save a few ounces of wood on a military rifle?

 

Short answer is "yes"?

 

Talking to old timers, they were trying to make their mil surps light and "handy". And since there were hundreds of thousands of the things to be had for $15 bucks or some ridiculous price (even for the time) it didn't matter if you took the hacksaw to a 1903 Springfield or 1917 Enfield since there was plenty more where that came from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SnaGVSU.png

Facepalm-Animated-GIF.gif

 

Exactly.

 

How about just getting a handgun chambered in .45 Colt (sic Long Colt) or some other caliber that begins with the number "4" and buy modern shotshells if you absolutely just have to have something for shooting "snakes".

 

http://www.cci-ammunition.com/products/detail.aspx?loadNo=3746

 

They'll do the job just as well - if not better - than a .410 shotshell in The Judge and you also won't be sacrificing performance when shooting real handgun rounds out of the thing. Not to mention the weight savings and the fact that hopefully it won't be an effing Taurus!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean screw it. Let's take a look.

 

You can get a Stainless Ruger Vaquero in .45 Colt at Cabelas for $669  with a 5-inch barrel with wood grips.

 

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Ruger-Vaquero-Centerfire-Revolvers/755647.uts

 

Or you can go cheap and get a similar Stainless Judge with a 3-inch barrel and rubber grips in .45 Colt/.410 shotshell for $599

 

To be fair, at the moment, a blued Judge is going for a hundred bucks less at $499. To me it's no contest what a person would rather have. And this doesn't factor in used prices. Although there again, I bet there are plenty of Used Taurus Judge's out there bought by people who were gulled into the gimmick and then got buyer's remorse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, what I'd actually like to see is a dedicated .410 shotshell revolver with composite plastic-steel cylinder and lightweight plastic frame with steel recoil plate. Revolvers like this would be fantastically cheap, more reliable than a lot of autos of comparable price, and might be reasonable home defense weapons for the impoverished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe S4M are literally SS195LFs with the bullet pulled and moly coated, the powder dumped out and replaced with EA's hotter powder, and the bullet reloaded in the case.

The 28gr aluminum cored FN bullet was designed as a training round, not to expand or do anything else, so it's not shocking that it doesn't.

 

Still, I'd expect a bullet literally listed as a "lead free hollow point" to at least change shape in some manner and not act like a DBP-10 or some shit, she probably did buy them as just range ammo since it's cheaper then FN's massively overpriced ammunition (though I didn't know about Federal/American Eagle labeled 5.7mm range ammo before, thanks for the heads up on that), but I am still of disappoint.

 

Aluminum can be made reasonably strong/hard with the proper alloys, but I don't see a reason to do that for a hollow point round, at it's base it's actually around the same hardness as copper (3 on the Mohs scale), and obviously manufacturers have had little issue making solid copper hollow points work.

 

The Judge is a perfect example of how litte most people understand about ballistics and caliber choice. For most people, the Judge is a "shotgun in a pistol", and everyone knows how powerful shotguns are, right?

 

Clearly .410 Magnum is much better then 12 Gauge 3" and 3 1/2" magnum because 410 is a much bigger number then 12!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't having a rifled barrel really fuck up the shot pattern?

 

I thought I remember reading something about that.

I'm not sure how much it would since most shotgun rounds these days have a plastic cup to hold the shot into place. I don't think it matters that much what with the stuff coming out of a 3-inch barrel. If a snake is 10 feet away you'll be able to hit it if you have reasonable dexterity and the birdshot will kill it or at least wound it enough to make it not want any part of you.

 

Sturgeon is right since these things are generally marketed as using buckshot or .410 slugs for "self defense" purposes when in reality either of those options are terrible. A .45 Colt round will do the job better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, what I'd actually like to see is a dedicated .410 shotshell revolver with composite plastic-steel cylinder and lightweight plastic frame with steel recoil plate. Revolvers like this would be fantastically cheap, more reliable than a lot of autos of comparable price, and might be reasonable home defense weapons for the impoverished.

Interesting idea. Something like that could theoretically be almost as inexpensive as a good track meet starting pistol.

 

However. I'm looking online and have already found two Charter Arms revolvers in .38 Special and also a .32 H&R Magnum for sub-$300 used. And I've seen plenty of cruddy revolvers in the low $200 range at stores.

 

Now, it's Charter Arms of course. But I'd take .38 Special or .32 Magnum over .410 anything in any platform for self defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea. Something like that could theoretically be almost as inexpensive as a good track meet starting pistol.

 

However. I'm looking online and have already found two Charter Arms revolvers in .38 Special and also a .32 H&R Magnum for sub-$300 used. And I've seen plenty of cruddy revolvers in the low $200 range at stores.

 

Now, it's Charter Arms of course. But I'd take .38 Special or .32 Magnum over .410 anything in any platform for self defense.

 

If you did it right, something like this could be sub-$100. It would be a piece of shit, but possibly a better piece of shit for home protection than a Jennings/Lorcin/Raven/etc.

.410 is very, very low pressure, which makes something like this possible. Add the lineup of self-defense ammo being marketed for the Judge, and you've got a not terrible home defense solution for the absolutely destitute.

 

Also you'd sell a million units to idiots with poor impulse control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea. Something like that could theoretically be almost as inexpensive as a good track meet starting pistol.

 

However. I'm looking online and have already found two Charter Arms revolvers in .38 Special and also a .32 H&R Magnum for sub-$300 used. And I've seen plenty of cruddy revolvers in the low $200 range at stores.

 

Now, it's Charter Arms of course. But I'd take .38 Special or .32 Magnum over .410 anything in any platform for self defense.

 

The battle of the shittiest cartridges, we just need cheap .25 ACP pistols in the discussion now!

 

Though, I was discussing to Colli the othe day how I wish someone would chamber something like a Coonan in .327 Hipster (Federal, not the shitty H&R) Magnum because I think it has a few edges over .357 as far as rimmed revolver magnums go.

 

I already surrendered and got a .357 reduced hipster Coonan though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would work as one of your next articles.

 

I mean, hell, is .30-30 a "good round"? It's the ballistic equivalent of a potato, bleeding energy fast enough from its stumpy-ass bullet to actually produce a serious discrepancy between its downrange killing power and its affect on the shooter's shoulder, even at "from the deer blind to the deer" type ranges. It comes from an uncomfortable period when ballisticians hadn't yet figured out that supersonic bullets need to be pointy to fly further, when smokeless rounds were being designed for blackpowder pressures because gunmakers were still using the same old metallurgy, and when designers were giving their cartridges giraffe-necks so they could fit paper cookie wads in behind the bullet. It has all the size of a .308 Winchester, and all the downrange killing power of a 7.62x39. To add insult to injury, it costs about a buck a shot in most gun stores, while the commie round that fits your Yugo SKS right next to it costs a quarter that and will do just as well.

 

But the .30-30 has taken more deer than god.

Is it a "good round"? It's a terrible round, but it's all most people would ever need from a rifle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^This, by the way, is why it annoys me to no end when people on the internet start going off about how "if 6.8 SPC/6.5 Grendel/.300 Blackout/.25-45 Sharps/whatever is such a bad military round, why did my uncle Billybob take a ten point buck with it last season!?!?"

 

The best counter-argument to this, by the way, is that Billybob also took a buck with his bow and arrow last bowhunting season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^This, by the way, is why it annoys me to no end when people on the internet start going off about how "if 6.8 SPC/6.5 Grendel/.300 Blackout/.25-45 Sharps/whatever is such a bad military round, why did my uncle Billybob take a ten point buck with it last season!?!?"

 

The best counter-argument to this, by the way, is that Billybob also took a buck with his bow and arrow last bowhunting season.

 

Or that Humans and animals are rather different physiologically, or that hunting and military situations are vastly different from each other.

 

But all of these arguments fall into the logic category, this is part of your brain ritually removed by Gary Roberts with a dental drill before you're allowed to join the Gerpersherr club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are many who feel that the 5.56 NATO is a superlative rifle round. Much has been said about larger alternatives to 5.56, such as various 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds among others. Less has been said about smaller rounds. Off the top of my head, I can recall that there was a German 4.6x36mm round, used in the HK36, and the British 4.85x49mm round. Neither of these rounds managed to gain widespread acceptance. My knowledge of the voodoo that is ballistics is somewhat limited, so I'm uncertain as to whether these failures were caused by flaws with the rounds themselves, or because they were below some lower limit of effective bullet size, beyond which performance decreases rapidly. Could we see a resurgence of these concepts in the future, or do they represent an evolutionary dead-end?

×
×
  • Create New...