Show us your Guns!

[XPLSV]

Actually, with the instructions in front of you it was pretty easy to disassemble the Model 51. Without them, however, it would have been pretty ugly. Now I need to fire the darn thing and I find, unbeknownst to me, that .380 auto ammo is scarce?! Are they just not making it anymore?

John

I picked up a PPK/S in .380 Auto for my wife for Christmas 2008 and there was very little to be found on the store shelves in Colorado throughout the year. In fact, I had trouble tracking down some reloading dies for it! I think the large increase in CCW permits that took place as the 2008 election unfolded resulted in a lot more folks out there picking up .380 autos and the new demand was able to outstrip the rather small supply that was out there...then I think the factories began to concentrate on the more popular calendars during the shortage.

When I left Colorado at the beginning of December, the only handgun ammo that was regularly seen on the store shelves was .25 Auto, 40 S&W...and occasionally some 9mm. .22LR, .380 Auto, .357 Mag, 357 Sig, .44 Mag, .45 Auto...what came in was usually gone within the first couple hours...and not much was coming in. Powders and Primers were both still in poor supply.

Over here in Kabul, there's a slightly different problem. The Afghan National Army has an awful lot of ammo from decades ago (old Russian calibers) for which the weapons don't exist anymore...but try to tell them they need to dispose of the stuff and you get a mini-uprising! It is a great desecratation over here to not hold on to any and all ammo...even if there isn't a weapon in the country that could fire it!

 

[warbird]

My AR. The modernized weapon of the longest serving US military service rifle in history. Daniel Defense. Cold hammer forged chrome lined barrel 16" 1/7 twist. Full length free floating rail. Mine now has Trijicon ACOG or Aimpoint M3 sight and Aimpoint 3x magnifier mounted on a flip side mount.

Surefire light is mounted at the 12 position in front of the F fixed front sight.

 

[Undertow]

My AR. The modernized weapon of the longest serving US military service rifle in history. Daniel Defense. Cold hammer forged chrome lined barrel 16" 1/7 twist. Full length free floating rail. Mine now has Trijicon ACOG or Aimpoint M3 sight and Aimpoint 3x magnifier mounted on a flip side mount.

Surefire light is mounted at the 12 position in front of the F fixed front sight.

Wow, that is nice. I will be picking up my m4 shortly and will post pics. You mentioned the ACOG - which one do you have and what was the ballpark price? I will be getting an ACOG (eventually) and I haven't seen much feedback on them anywhere online.

 

[Undertow]

I was wondering if anyone owned a Nagant M1895? I've been reading up on those recently and they seem to be very interesting weapons, both for mechanical structure and ammunition used. Are these still in production (that is to say reproduction)?

 

[warbird]

I was wondering if anyone owned a Nagant M1895? I've been reading up on those recently and they seem to be very interesting weapons, both for mechanical structure and ammunition used. Are these still in production (that is to say reproduction)?

No they don't make it anymore. There are probably millions of them out there. Some of them are fairly accurate, if you get a good one. Russian snipers used them with success in WWII. Personally I detest them, but that's just me. They do have their fan base.

The wood on them is as hard as concrete. They are very heavy and yet still manage to kick like a son of a gun.

I bought probably 10 of them in the early 90's when you could buy them at Rose's for $39. They had pallets full of them. They were probably worth that. But today's prices, I wouldn't pay that for them. Between an old beater Mauser and one of these I'd take the Mauser all day long and they can be had for little more than the Mosin.

As for the ACOG, I have one of the TAO models. They are good enough that the SOCOM guys depend on them with their lives if that tells you anything. You don't want to know what they cost. They easily cost as much as a rifle.

 

[John in Covina]

The Nagant M1895 is the revolver with the interesting set up where the cylinder moves forward and creates a gas seal to get the most out of the cartridge. I read on Wiki that there are replacement cylinders made so one can choose from 32 H&R or 32ACP in these. To find them best to go to the news stand and get a copy of Shotgun News, you can find out what wholesalers have them and order thru a firearms dealer. (I don't think that working cartridge firing revolvers are part of the military antiques clause.)

The rifle is the Moisin Nagant 1891? I have a Finnish M39 still in the cosmoline which is based on the Russian rifles.

 

[Undertow]

As for the ACOG, I have one of the TAO models. They are good enough that the SOCOM guys depend on them with their lives if that tells you anything. You don't want to know what they cost. They easily cost as much as a rifle.

The cost is pretty steep, that's for sure. I've been eyeing one for nearly $1500 (or more, depending on where I'm looking). I've been having trouble locating a model to inspect first hand as my local retailers are either completely dumbfounded as to what I'm talking about, or have no idea of how to acquire one. I think the greatest attraction is that they require no batteries and are, as you've stated, dependable.

John, thanks for the tip; I'll see if I can find a Shotgun News lying around somewhere. You would think a state like Iowa would have that, but unfortunately we're all out of luck 90% of the time.

 

[MKL]

I picked up a PPK/S in .380 Auto for my wife for Christmas 2008 and there was very little to be found on the store shelves in Colorado throughout the year. In fact, I had trouble tracking down some reloading dies for it! I think the large increase in CCW permits that took place as the 2008 election unfolded resulted in a lot more folks out there picking up .380 autos and the new demand was able to outstrip the rather small supply that was out there...then I think the factories began to concentrate on the more popular calendars during the shortage.

When I left Colorado at the beginning of December, the only handgun ammo that was regularly seen on the store shelves was .25 Auto, 40 S&W...and occasionally some 9mm. .22LR, .380 Auto, .357 Mag, 357 Sig, .44 Mag, .45 Auto...what came in was usually gone within the first couple hours...and not much was coming in. Powders and Primers were both still in poor supply.

Over here in Kabul, there's a slightly different problem. The Afghan National Army has an awful lot of ammo from decades ago (old Russian calibers) for which the weapons don't exist anymore...but try to tell them they need to dispose of the stuff and you get a mini-uprising! It is a great desecratation over here to not hold on to any and all ammo...even if there isn't a weapon in the country that could fire it!

Here in this part of Kansas .380 auto is almost impossible to find. If you happen to stumble upon a box they are asking $30 for 50 rounds. Last October I was traveling through St. Louis and stopped at a Walmart and found one lone box on the shelf. I think the brand was Remmington. The price was around $13.00. Needless to say, I snatched it up.

Those are some great looking pieces in the recent posts.

 

[Doublegun]

The cost is pretty steep, that's for sure. I've been eyeing one for nearly $1500 (or more, depending on where I'm looking). I've been having trouble locating a model to inspect first hand as my local retailers are either completely dumbfounded as to what I'm talking about, or have no idea of how to acquire one. I think the greatest attraction is that they require no batteries and are, as you've stated, dependable.

John, thanks for the tip; I'll see if I can find a Shotgun News lying around somewhere. You would think a state like Iowa would have that, but unfortunately we're all out of luck 90% of the time.

Good quality optics, like made by Turjicon are going to start at around $800 and go up to $1,500. However, just about every optics manufacturer has some sort of holographic or red-dot type site. Price ranges from $350ish - $500ish. By comparison, basic flip-up battle sights (peep and front post) will run around $250. You can spend WAY more than the cost of the rifle just tricking it out. Keep in mind, most of these optics are battery operated and have to be turned on manually. You are not going to pick up the rifle and be ready to go.

As cool as ACOGs are, unless you are going to shoot competitively I they really aren't necessary. If you want optics look at Bushnell or Nikon which are good quality.

 

[warbird]

The Nagant M1895 is the revolver with the interesting set up where the cylinder moves forward and creates a gas seal to get the most out of the cartridge. I read on Wiki that there are replacement cylinders made so one can choose from 32 H&R or 32ACP in these. To find them best to go to the news stand and get a copy of Shotgun News, you can find out what wholesalers have them and order thru a firearms dealer. (I don't think that working cartridge firing revolvers are part of the military antiques clause.)

The rifle is the Moisin Nagant 1891? I have a Finnish M39 still in the cosmoline which is based on the Russian rifles.

Yep you are right. I did not read carefully and just saw Nagant. Most folks only talk of the rifle rarely the pistol.

I am just not a fan of Russian guns. Except for the AK47, which I may or may not own several, and the Dragunov which I used to own, I couldn't care less about their guns. And really for the most part the Chinese made the 47 better than the Russians did and several countries made the Makarov better than the Russians. In fact I am pretty much of the opinion that the only thing the Russians made well at all... is Vodka. And they are pretty dang good at that.

 

[warbird]

A decent holo sight w/o magnification is to me a great platform because it is far easier to acquire than the iron battle sights. My BUIS (iron sights) are in fact fixed front and rear. I co-opt one third meaning I can see my iron sights in the bottom third of the holo. If I use a magnified sight switch to to the folding iron. I wouldn't ever be w/o iron.

That all said, an ACOG or other variation like it is probably overkill for most people. I like something that is durable, and useful at near and far distances. I have in the past needed (work related) and will in the future need again for work a battle durable rifle which stands up for abuse. For that reason and the fact that I tend to be able to get things at good deals, leads me to get the best I can find.

There are numerous other options out there and in fact there are a couple of companies making clones of the better sights for far less. These clones are not all equal.. But there are a couple of companies making excellent stuff that resemble the best stuff. That said they will not withstand tremendous abuse, but are tough enough to withstand a fair amount and still hold zero.

 

[Undertow]

There's a Bing Crosby song that comes to mind (or he sang it anyway), I'm an Old Cowhand which I believe applies to so many of us regular city folks and civis when it comes to duty vs. fun.

However, I can say with certainty that from the beginning of my firearms experience, the single thing which has always held true is that "You get what you pay for" (in almost all cases), unlike many other durable goods.

I have been considering an Aimpoint CompM3 (M68 gun sight upgraded) in place of the ACOG, and the price is considerably lower - 50% I believe. However, there have been two sticking points:
1. You get what you pay for, and
2. Batteries

I believe if I'm going to scope out this rifle, it being an M4, and if I'm going to stay consistent with military specs, as I like to do with these thing, I should choose between the ACOG and CompM2 (M3,M4, etc). And, given the choice between the two scopes, the ACOG does not require batteries and is a far superior scope overall, then naturally I should choose the ACOG. Of course, like the Old Cowhand song, it's not as if I'll ever fully utilize it or even actually need it, nor will I ever be able to actually appreciate its reliability unless I were in combat.

I have an easy answer to this question, which I'm sure all on this board can appreciate: when given the choice between Nunn Bush and AE's, which would you pick? Or given the choice between a new Stetson and a mint Disney hat, where would you throw your money? Each may serve their purpose, but the higher quality is always more alluring. So...

 

[warbird]

I understand your point. However I will say this don't count out because of price the Aimpoint or a Holo Trij because it is less expensive.

The nice feature about a holo is that it just a parallax sight, it has no magnification making them useful for CQB scenarios. Then you can add a 3x magnifier behind that for distance. You can mount the 3x on a foldaway, which means it swings off to the side during CQB. To me this is a very useful option. Plus you can buy them separately so less expense all at once. I wouldn't worry much about the batteries, most use lithium batteries which last for years literally. And my vertical foregrip stores extras if need arises.

Security forces use this set-up in real battle operation and I have yet to see these fail in use in numerous types of situations from plinking, to competition to carbine classes, to the field.

The ACOG is great, but it has its limitation too. Specifically in CQB where you really want no magnification. The holo allows for both eyes to remain open and still easily pick up the sight picture.

I do highly recommend two things on an AR. First is a light of some sort which easily allows for you to use it intermittently.

Second I HIGHLY recommend a vertical foregrip. The grip allows for you to pull that firearm back into shoulder allowing your trigger hand to relax more and have more accurate shots. The second thing the foregrip does is allows for you to more easily use a battle stance facing forward. When shooting an AR you should not be bladed, or turned sideways as in traditional rifles, to the target. This is the way these rifles are meant to be used, it is one of the several reasons they started using the shorter M4 variants. The military found in Iraq I and the early stages of the current war that most of the soldiers shot during combat were shot because a round found the space where there is no armor under the armpit.

So now everyone shoots in a very near straight forward position, much the way you shoot a pistol in an isosceles stance. Perhaps I should say slightly turned. That way you have more cohesion between arms and do not open yourself up to underprotected areas. Thers's only a bit of a shift. And notice I say nearly straight on stance, not completely as this would be very difficult. However, not nearly so turned as you would be shooting a conventional rifle.

So in many ways they still today use vintage firearms, but with updated features and the tactics are MUCH improved over years past.

 

[anon`]

The nice feature about a holo is that it just a parallax sight, it has no magnification making them useful for CQB scenarios. Then you can add a 3x magnifier behind that for distance. You can mount the 3x on a foldaway, which means it swings off to the side during CQB. To me this is a very useful option. Plus you can buy them separately so less expense all at once. I wouldn't worry much about the batteries, most use lithium batteries which last for years literally. And my vertical foregrip stores extras if need arises.

This bears repeating. Red dot != holo != ACOG. The first two are rather more similar, but all three are different. The ACOG has its place, as does the holo or the simple red dot. The term the gun boards like to use is, I believe, tactical parameters. An ACOG is great if you're engaging targets at 300--or maybe even just 50--yards. But 3.5x magnification really doesn't help, and indeed may be a liability, at, say, five yards. The solution, of course, is to buy both

A quick thought on stance, also: squared to the target is great... if you're wearing armour. Yes, it gets the armoured part of you pointing in the right direction, but it also makes your silhouette larger. Being "bladed" to the target is, IMNSHO, a superior option if unarmoured, for obvious reasons.

 

[John in Covina]

Let's not forget the difference between cover and concealment.

 

[thunderw21]

...The solution, of course, is to buy both
...

Hmm, you sound like an ARFCOMer.

 

[Diamondback]

Let's not forget the difference between cover and concealment.

What "difference"? To the M1 Garand, it's ALL "concealment"... .30-06 milsurp AP FTW! LOL

----------------
Now playing: John Barry - He's Dangerous
via FoxyTunes

 

[Story]

I have been considering an Aimpoint CompM3 (M68 gun sight upgraded) in place of the ACOG, and the price is considerably lower - 50% I believe. However, there have been two sticking points:
1. You get what you pay for, and
2. Batteries

Had one on my M4 while in Iraq, was just ducky. So did everyone else in the Battalion.

I was wondering if anyone owned a Nagant M1895? I've been reading up on those recently and they seem to be very interesting weapons, both for mechanical structure and ammunition used. Are these still in production (that is to say reproduction)?

Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvF4yurWSc0

 

[anon`]

Hmm, you sound like an ARFCOMer.

Haha! I lurk there, but to date haven't bothered posting anything, or take a whole lot of what I've read without an unhealthy dose of sodium chloride.

Honestly, this is my solution to every problem like this. Can't decide if I want to have Art make me a in blue smoke or powder blue. So buy both! Can't choose between Headamp GS-1 or RSA XP-7... so get both! Albion Reeve or Squire? Well, you get the idea I'm sure.

Finances willing, it helps with the sanity quite a bit.

 

[warbird]

This bears repeating. Red dot != holo != ACOG. The first two are rather more similar, but all three are different. The ACOG has its place, as does the holo or the simple red dot. The term the gun boards like to use is, I believe, tactical parameters. An ACOG is great if you're engaging targets at 300--or maybe even just 50--yards. But 3.5x magnification really doesn't help, and indeed may be a liability, at, say, five yards. The solution, of course, is to buy both

A quick thought on stance, also: squared to the target is great... if you're wearing armour. Yes, it gets the armoured part of you pointing in the right direction, but it also makes your silhouette larger. Being "bladed" to the target is, IMNSHO, a superior option if unarmoured, for obvious reasons.

The biggest advantage to a holo reflex is it is non parallax which means even at an angle as long as you can see the sight picture, where it is aimed that is where the bullet is going. It is superior to any other type of sight in this respect in situations where you may have you gun at an angle and have to rack the jack. It is also superior when you or if you have to fire your gun from a weakside position, allowing you to still use your dominant eye.

As to the stance I would agree with with you except for the fact that it hasn't shown to hold water. Many including me thought that for a long time. Studies on law enforcement as well as military have show there is no increase correlation in your chances of being shot bladed or straight on. The advantage is for straight on obviously if you have armor that you are more likely protected, but in reality the chances of being hit no matter the stance do not increase. The advantages of the straight on stance outweigh the disadvantage of a minuscule larger sight picture, whether with pistol or carbine. The advantages are that you can acquire a sight picture faster, your balance is better and more stable and you are more accurate properly balanced. There is only one firearms academy in the nation still training a weaver stance for pistols, every one else has moved to isosceles.

We never teach people to use one stance for armor and another w/o. Your body must act on instinct through muscle memory through repetition and practice. The mostly straight on stance is just superior for acquisition, speed and accuracy. It doesn't matter if you ever wear armor. This stuff has really become a science in the industry with the aid of testing and computer simulations. Cooper took us one giant leap from the poor way, well poor way looking back now, they did it in the past. Now we have advanced that one big step further. Tactically the LEO, SWAT or soldier is the most advanced fighter ever to enter into battle in history.