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

This could also be why I have had no trouble with mine.

I buy ammunition in bulk, especially practice ammo, and rotate the newest to the back so I'm always shooting the oldest first. This still leaves me shooting 500-2000 of a given ammunition before I'm changing to a new brand or even really divergent lot numbers. It's also usually my reminder to do a thorough cleaning of a gun.

I also live in the pacific northwest where temperature etc aren't super divergent.

I'm curious to see whether my impending move to Kansas will change the behavior of my guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

I was alternating mags of steel and brass.

9x19mm ammo is all over the place in terms of dimensions, bullets and propellant. No big surprise, it's been around forever and everyone has a slightly different take. Like chili.

So you're right, I should have said unreliable with that particular ammo. It might hum along with something else.

I wonder if .40 is more consistent, having had less time to diverge.

 

9X19 is one of those cartridges that can be all over the place, reliability wise.  Case metallurgy just made it weirder.

 

One of the better I ran into was an Owen SMG that'd run away with any 115 grain commercial fodder.  Basically the "modern" loads would kick the works just back far enough to cycle the piece but not far enough for the sear to catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was alternating mags of steel and brass.

9x19mm ammo is all over the place in terms of dimensions, bullets and propellant. No big surprise, it's been around forever and everyone has a slightly different take. Like chili.

So you're right, I should have said unreliable with that particular ammo. It might hum along with something else.

I wonder if .40 is more consistent, having had less time to diverge.

 

My Glock G22 Gen 4 has over 30,000 rounds through it at this point and I could probably count the amount of malfunctions I've had on one hand. even when swapping out to a G31 barrel.

 

Though, I'm not sure if that's because .40 S&W/.357 SIG are more consistent or because it just happens to be a very well maintained Glock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be shocked if .40 S&W were as inconsistent as 9mm.

 

Also, lol you like .40 S&W. Pleb.

 

I have like 8 different pistol calibers I need stocked alone, let alone shotguns and rifles.

 

Way to not be a true gun hipster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mosin-Nagant used by an Islamic State sniper still has the Soviet hammer and sickle emblem on the scope. I'm calling lazy.

CyX_RnzXcAEkhJE.jpg

 

And ISIS sniper team.

CyYSZWtXEAAsTDe.jpg

 

...with steel armor shield!

CyYLjSBWQAAKb6X.jpg

 

 

The Islamic State's take on the anti-materiel rifle. It needs a loader...let that sink in for a minute.

CyX91uHXcAAzLid.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first generation of .40 S&W pistols were basically 9mm designs that were bored out to accept the new, fatter cartridge, and this was a bad thing.  There were some that were purpose-designed for the .40, but they were not the majority.

 

I actually suspect that many .40 S&W guns today are designed for .40 S&W, but you wouldn't know it by comparing them to their 9mm counterparts.  They aren't any beefier.

 

What I think is going on is that gun designers have gotten (a little) wise and they're designing the .40 first.  So the 9mm pistols end up being a bit overbuilt and a bit bigger than they would otherwise need to be, but the .40s are adequately strong and there's some savings manufacture of shared parts.

 

You can see some evidence of this if you compare a .40 S&W XD and a 9mm XD.  Compare the magazines and the frames.  The magazines are actually the same width, and so are the magazine wells of the frames (the frames may in fact be interchangeable, or at least start as the same part in the factory).  The only difference is that the 9mm magazines have some extra ribs stamped into them to take up a bit of the width inside the magazine and thus feed the narrower cartridge.  Clearly, the magazine and frame were designed around the .40, and the 9mm was a conversion of this design.  It seems logical that the rest of the pistol is the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and that's related to a key argument that 9mm pistols are way, way, way stronger than the ammo we fire through them. I am convinced that - minor parts failures and mass balances aside - you could take any modern NATO-rated pistol and run 50,000 PSI ammo through it all the time and from an explodey perspective it would be just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want a reputable western manufacturer to clone the gsh-18 without the shitty build quality and bad materials.

Despite the extremely poor initial production models I think that the basic design could be genuinely ground breaking from a cost, production, and usability standpoint.

It's a phenomenally cool design that was let down by bad manufacturing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-heckler-koch-idUSKBN13N1JQ

 

Don't know if this would be of interest, but too bad

Here is some additional coverage from Deutsche Welle.  I posted it in the thread at TFB, but I'm no longer on their white list to post links.

http://www.dw.com/en/heckler-koch-promises-to-sell-guns-ethically/a-36575103

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...