Search results for query: *

That chrome-lined barrels are extremely durable when subjected to high volumes of fire was the point of that comparison and was on topic — sorry that the comparison set you off.

The OP asked about barrel treatments with regard to nitriding, chrome-lined, stainless, etc and their effect upon durability and never mentioned anything regarding competition so you're a tad off topic. Sorry to hear that mention of chrome-lined barrels set you off like that as I had no...

There are many options for chrome-lined .300 BO barrels. You've got the internet at your finger tips; use it.

Since the Soviets chose a chrome-lined barrel for the 7.62x39 (AK47) and the .300BO has approximately the same case-to-bore-volume as the 7.62x39, I'd recommend highly a chrome-lined barrel. Even subjected to long full-auto use and little to no maintenance, those barrels perform admirably. Copy...

It's unfortunate that you've been accused of having a nefarious motive in asking the question(s) that you've asked when that's clearly not the case. I hope that you'll continue to pose interesting questions here in the future because they provide an opportunity to inform those who might not ask.

Great.

You're right. Type-3 (milled) AK-47 (7.62x39): 8.7 pounds AR10 (7.62x51): 8.9 pounds M-14 (7.62x51): 9.2 pounds The typical AK47 is about 8 ounces lighter than a M-14 and an AR-10 is just 3 or 4 ounces heavier than an AK47. As you noted, not enough to be much of an issue.

Well, since you're looking for a way to quantify the difference in performance at range for the 7.62x51 M80 (147-grain FMJ @ 2,800 fps) and the 7.62x39 M67 (123-grain FMJ @ 2,329 fps) why not use what the US military has used for that same purpose since the early-1960s? The SLV (survivability...

Pretty country up there. We have friends that own a cabin just off off the Wakely Bridge launch of the Au Sable and I still hunt whitetail nearby there every November. Nothing like spending a late summer afternoon canoeing the river either—I love that place.

Oh, my, that reminds me... Dad bought me a brand new H&R Topper 088 in 20 gauge in 1979 at a K-Mart when I was a kid in SE Iowa. There were times when I considered selling that gun to make ends meet and glad that I never did so. He's passed on now and the memories that just holding the gun...

By comparison, my ''assortment'' of lubricants is just plain old boring. One 4 ounce bottle of BreakFree LP, nothing else, not even grease. Bore cleaner/solvent selection (somewhat 'off topic ') is also boring—a of a half bottle of Hoppes #9.

As a general rule, I like to have a minimum of six magazines (plus the magazine in it) for each pistol. For high use guns, the necessary amount is determined by the circumstances requiring additional magazines.

It's a scam. With approximately 30 seconds of looking, three giant red flags jump out. First, no phone number or physical address on their "Contact" page. Second, they accept only Zelle and crypto. Third, the use of English on the website is somewhat awkward in a few places not to mention...

C3 makes no sense when we've got an embarrassment of riches of semiautomatic pistols that permit carrying in C1 safely. Train accordingly. If you don't/can't trust your gun for C1, get one that you can. One can train and achieve proficiency in C3, but equal training and proficiency in C1 will...

I agree. When it comes to range sessions, a little 'extra' lubricant can't hurt—as long as the gun isn't dripping wet. I do it and consider it to be a little 'extra' insurance against wear. The only deviation from Glock's lubrication recommendations that I make is that I do use a swab to leave...

These work well; they're what I use when direct application is needed. https://www.brownells.com/tools-cleaning/general-gunsmith-tools/shop-supplies/needle-oiler-bottles/

I just dampen a cotton swab with lubricant (Break Free LP, in my case), and apply a light film that just wets the surface of the recommended lubrication points. The process leaves the right amount of lubricant and migration, if there is any, is minimal.

The problem with assuming ceteris paribus (all things being equal) is that they almost never are. Action, barrel length, bore axis are not components of the Power Factor equation which only computes the momentum (bullet mass multiplied by bullet velocity) of the bullet itself.

Power Factor does not consider the mass of the firearm, so no, the equation for Power Factor does not correctly compute recoil.

When asking about the difference between 115-grain and 124-grain JHPs, I s'pose that it might be advisable to define the 'difference' that you are concerned with? If that ''difference' is the terminal performance of JHP ammunition in either weight, the mass of the bullet is just one of three...