Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of \$9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

#### Bored As gently caress posted:

Che Guevara was a war criminal.

Maybe that's why.
Gonna need a citation on that.

#### Inspector_71 posted:

Why ever would I do that?
I don't know, but you can find people who will poo poo talk any given progressive leader in the entire twentieth century, from Henry Wallace to Zhou Enlai to Alexander Lukashenka.

Am I more intoxicated than I think, or am I phrasing the question that poorly?

I know that you don't just measure the distance between two bullet impacts at 100 yards. I understand that it is an angular measurement. What I don't understand is why Fang said the center of the arc is the muzzle of the gun.

#### Fang posted:

It is the arc between the two most distant holes where the center of the arc is the muzzle of the gun.

He's usually pretty precise in his language, so I am wondering if there is something that I don't understand beyond the fundamentals.

edit: I may have had an epiphany. If I'm picturing it correctly, Fang is correct, and Pitch's explanation helped me figure it out. I was thinking about the vector (if I'm using that term correctly) represented by the bullet's path in the barrel, but the angle of a measured group originates at the muzzle. Correct?

edit 2 for Atticus: What I was envisioning was your diagram but with the bullet impacts at, say, 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock instead of at 11:30 and 12:30.

edit 3 for Schigolch: Actually, we're back before square one with that diagram...

Easychair Bootson fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jul 27, 2010

#### GroovinPickle posted:

Am I more intoxicated than I think, or am I phrasing the question that poorly?

I know that you don't just measure the distance between two bullet impacts at 100 yards. I understand that it is an angular measurement. What I don't understand is why Fang said the center of the arc is the muzzle of the gun.

He's usually pretty precise in his language, so I am wondering if there is something that I don't understand beyond the fundamentals.

The black line is the gun. It is at the center. Both the lines are the path of the bullets that struck the target farthest apart from each other in the group. You then measure the angle between.

Atticus_1354 fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jul 27, 2010

 Schigolch Apr 30, 2008 Did he smile his work to see? Did he who made the Lamb, make thee? Atticus already did it in a simpler way but I'll be damned if I spent minutes over a hot MSPaint for nothing. # ? Jul 27, 2010 04:13

#### Schigolch posted:

Atticus already did it in a simpler way but I'll be damned if I spent minutes over a hot MSPaint for nothing.

I like your picture better. I am on a laptop and my gun kept turning out like poo poo. I am saving yours for future reference.

#### GroovinPickle posted:

edit: I may have had an epiphany. If I'm picturing it correctly, Fang is correct, and Pitch's explanation helped me figure it out. I was thinking about the vector (if I'm using that term correctly) represented by the bullet's path in the barrel, but the angle of a measured group originates at the muzzle. Correct?

edit 2 for Atticus: What I was envisioning was your diagram but with the bullet impacts at, say, 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock instead of at 11:30 and 12:30.

Yes. As was stated before, considering a perfectly still gun the first chance a bullet has to change its path is as it exits the muzzle. I think you get it, but feel free to ask any more questions.

#### Pitch posted:

Che Guevara loved the FAL.

#### Cycloneman posted:

Gonna need a citation on that.

Anderson, Jon Lee (1997). Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-1600-0, pages 237-238, 269–270, 277–278.

Luther, Eric (2001). Che Guevara (Critical Lives). Penguin Group (USA). ISBN 002864199X, pp. 276.

 incredibull Sep 7, 2008 GENERIC Getting pretty tired of hearing about zombies, the coming zombie apocalypse, zombie resistance training camps, zombie shooting events, and all the other zombie related bullshit that fills up every other single gun forum that I visit. The zombies are no longer just a joke that's been run into the ground in some places, instead now viewed as a likely SHTF scenario. # ? Jul 27, 2010 05:02

#### incredibull posted:

Getting pretty tired of hearing about zombies, the coming zombie apocalypse, zombie resistance training camps, zombie shooting events, and all the other zombie related bullshit that fills up every other single gun forum that I visit. The zombies are no longer just a joke that's been run into the ground in some places, instead now viewed as a likely SHTF scenario.

...okay?

#### incredibull posted:

Getting pretty tired of hearing about zombies, the coming zombie apocalypse, zombie resistance training camps, zombie shooting events, and all the other zombie related bullshit that fills up every other single gun forum that I visit. The zombies are no longer just a joke that's been run into the ground in some places, instead now viewed as a likely SHTF scenario.

That is nice and all, but maybe you have the wrong thread.

 incredibull Sep 7, 2008 GENERIC yep I do, well too late to edit that out... # ? Jul 27, 2010 05:11

#### Cycloneman posted:

Gonna need a citation on that.

Gonna need you to stop posting in here and get the gently caress out. Thanks!

#### Atticus_1354 posted:

I like your picture better. I am on a laptop and my gun kept turning out like poo poo. I am saving yours for future reference.
... but his picture is incorrectly labeled, and doesn't explain the concept of minute of angle at all

#### Gtab posted:

TFR you are mind-numbingly easy to troll

Is it that, or that we don't want another puckins episode? I honestly don't know.

#### Black Stormy posted:

Is it that, or that we don't want another puckins episode? I honestly don't know.

Yeah, that was my first thought when he said "urban warfare." I was going to ask if anyone was messing with his puckins, but by then it had already spiraled into full on troll/crazy mode, so I just sat back and watched.

#### Black Stormy posted:

Is it that, or that we don't want another puckins episode? I honestly don't know.

No, it's definitely that you're mind-numbingly easy to troll.

 spankmeister Jun 15, 2008 Meh I caught on right away, the rest was just trying to mess with him. # ? Jul 27, 2010 20:37

#### spankmeister posted:

Meh I caught on right away, the rest was just trying to mess with him.

Me too. I guess I just suck at trolling trolls

 ZebraBlade Mar 26, 2010 Something is rotten in the state of Denmark Cross posting from the 1911 megathread: Well after 4 years of USPSA with easily 2,000 draws and reholstering and 20k + rounds the Taurus pt1911 functions really good still but looks like absolute poo poo. Holster wear up the wazoo, the safety was black but is now half shiny silver from wear, same goes for other places. It has been retired from USPSA duty and will be my backup and fun gun 1911. What does this all mean you ask? Well it is time to get it refinished!!!! but.... I have no clue where to start. I am not going to DIY it, just looking for how to have it done (leaning towards gunkote, dont know of other options) and where to send it to be done and what color(s) to have it finished. So let me break it down 1. What do I need to know about having my 1911 refinished? 2. What kind of refinishing options do I have? 3. Where can this be done? 4. What colors can be done? 5. What colors does TFR suggest? I dont know if I want to do a FDE or tan scheme or stick with black and do the parts a different color. Any and (almost)all input is welcome # ? Jul 28, 2010 00:46
 Sgt. Shaved Balls Sep 6, 2006 by Lowtax Using modern materials isn't it feasible to manufacture a 7.62x25 cylinder for a nagant revolver that can handle the pressures? Or manufacture one that is at a lower capacity as usual so it has more metal between chambers? Why can't this be done? I know modifying an original cylinder can have dangerous outcomes but I'm talking a completely new one. # ? Jul 28, 2010 01:52

#### Sgt. Shaved Balls posted:

Using modern materials isn't it feasible to manufacture a 7.62x25 cylinder for a nagant revolver that can handle the pressures? Or manufacture one that is at a lower capacity as usual so it has more metal between chambers?

Why can't this be done? I know modifying an original cylinder can have dangerous outcomes but I'm talking a completely new one.

That is reaching for the stars, pressure wise. I understand the urge for cheap ammo but even if it could be done the cost would kinda defeat the purpose.

Now getting a 7.62x25 cylinder for one of those new .327fed Blackhawks might be cool.

#### bunnielab posted:

That is reaching for the stars, pressure wise. I understand the urge for cheap ammo but even if it could be done the cost would kinda defeat the purpose.

Not to mention 7.62 Tok is kind of a wacky shaped cartridge to try and make a cylinder for. You'd probably have to use moonclips. I'd rather have a Nagant revolver with a .32 H&R cylinder or yeah, even .327 federal.

Ron Mexico fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jul 28, 2010

2. What kind of refinishing options do I have?
3. Where can this be done?
4. What colors can be done?

The pawn shop down behind the topless bar in Colorado Springs will Duracoat anything in any color you want, so I'd imagine you can find a local gunsmith to do it. I'm not sure of the difference between Duracoat and Gunkote, though. There's always the more classic options of rebluing it or having it parked.

#### Ron Mexico posted:

Not to mention 7.62 Tok is kind of a wacky shaped cartridge to try and make a cylinder for. You'd probably have to use moonclips. I'd rather have a Nagant revolver with a .32 H&R cylinder or yeah, even .327 federal.

Eh, iirc the Nagant uses an ejector rod so moonclips wound not be an issue. However, the only redeeming thing about the Nagant is the cheap price and the relevantly expensive ammo makes that pointless as well.

Sadly, while they are neat little guns they are impractical to shoot and there is no simple or cheap way to change that.

#### Ron Mexico posted:

Not to mention 7.62 Tok is kind of a wacky shaped cartridge to try and make a cylinder for. You'd probably have to use moonclips. I'd rather have a Nagant revolver with a .32 H&R cylinder or yeah, even .327 federal.

Yeah, I think the shape is the biggest problem. I just compared the two, along with .32ACP, and the Tok. ammo is about a millimeter thicker because of its tapered case. There's just not enough room on one of those cylinders. Those seven shots are crammed in there as much as possible.

#### bunnielab posted:

Eh, iirc the Nagant uses an ejector rod so moonclips wound not be an issue. However, the only redeeming thing about the Nagant is the cheap price and the relevantly expensive ammo makes that pointless as well.

Sadly, while they are neat little guns they are impractical to shoot and there is no simple or cheap way to change that.

I don't know if you've checked lately, but Nagant ammo is about half the price of what it was a few years ago. The first box I bought was like \$.75 or more per round. Today it's less than \$.50. I just checked AIM surplus and it was \$.44. That's not too bad. Yes, 7.62 Tok is cheaper, especially surplus, and 9mm Luger and Mak are WAY cheaper than 7.62 Nagant, but I'm also not mag dumping half a box of the stuff in five seconds. It's a slow to load, slow to shoot gun, so you don't go through as much ammo. The guns are a lot of fun though and don't be turned off from them if you can get one for a good price.

#### bunnielab posted:

Eh, iirc the Nagant uses an ejector rod so moonclips wound not be an issue. However, the only redeeming thing about the Nagant is the cheap price and the relevantly expensive ammo makes that pointless as well.

Sadly, while they are neat little guns they are impractical to shoot and there is no simple or cheap way to change that.

Ammo for the Nagant is about ~\$.45/rd after shipping as long as you buy more than a box at a time and order online. I really wish that people would stop over-exaggerating how much it costs to shoot Nagant pistols. No, it's not .22LR or 7.62TOK cheap, but it's no more expensive than .44 or .357. Hell, that's only about double what 9mm costs if you buy the absolutely cheapest poo poo you can find online, and is anyone going to be putting the kind of round count through a 100 year old Russian pistol (or at least 100 year old design - your specific gun could be from the 30s or 40s I guess) that you would put through a Glock or Sig?

This is why I find all the conversion cylinders (or shooting improper ammo that just happens to fit and fire relatively safely) so silly. The amount of money you save with the cheaper ammo is negligible compared to a conversion cylinder, and shooting the wrong ammo leads to the accuracy going to poo poo - and at that point why the hell are you firing it anyways? Why not just buy a cap gun at that point?

I don't want 7.62tok because its cheap, I like it because its 7.62tok. It's bad rear end as hell.

Also why is making a bottle-necked chamber for a revolver unfeasible? (disregarding pressure stuff)

#### quote:

That is reaching for the stars, pressure wise.

Even if it was made of titanium steel alloy?

#### Sgt. Shaved Balls posted:

Also why is making a bottle-necked chamber for a revolver unfeasible? (disregarding pressure stuff)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44-40_Winchester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38-40_Winchester

just not much interest, I suppose.

#### Cyrano4747 posted:

This is why I find all the conversion cylinders (or shooting improper ammo that just happens to fit and fire relatively safely) so silly. The amount of money you save with the cheaper ammo is negligible compared to a conversion cylinder, and shooting the wrong ammo leads to the accuracy going to poo poo - and at that point why the hell are you firing it anyways? Why not just buy a cap gun at that point?

At one point it made sense when the right ammo was not available, but since it is now there is no reason. Me, I've thought about getting another cylinder (not seriously) because I also shoot .32APC, but the cylinder costs as much as I paid for the gun. I can buy a couple more boxes of ammo with that money.

Yeah, the Nagant just isn't a fire all day every weekend gun. It's a fire seven shots then pass to all your buddies to shoot type of gun.

#### Sgt. Shaved Balls posted:

I don't want 7.62tok because its cheap, I like it because its 7.62tok. It's bad rear end as hell.

Also why is making a bottle-necked chamber for a revolver unfeasible? (disregarding pressure stuff)

Even if it was made of titanium steel alloy?

On the Nagant, there is only like a two or three millimeter thick wall between chambers. The Tok. ammo is thicker than the Nagant, so it wouldn't fit and there's no room to make more space. Maybe you could make a six shot cylinder but would have to work on the timing. It's just not worth it.

 Detective Thompson Nov 9, 2007 Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. is also in repose. Out of curiosity, would current production 7mm Mauser be safe to fire in an old rifle (old=1894 or so)? Is it like current commercial 8mm Mauser, where it's loaded to older specs to be safe in the antique rifles? # ? Jul 28, 2010 07:14

#### Illegal Clown posted:

At one point it made sense when the right ammo was not available, but since it is now there is no reason. Me, I've thought about getting another cylinder (not seriously) because I also shoot .32APC, but the cylinder costs as much as I paid for the gun. I can buy a couple more boxes of ammo with that money.

Yeah, the Nagant just isn't a fire all day every weekend gun. It's a fire seven shots then pass to all your buddies to shoot type of gun.

On the Nagant, there is only like a two or three millimeter thick wall between chambers. The Tok. ammo is thicker than the Nagant, so it wouldn't fit and there's no room to make more space. Maybe you could make a six shot cylinder but would have to work on the timing. It's just not worth it.

I smoke blunts everyday for my locked away homies.

#### Sgt. Shaved Balls posted:

I smoke blunts everyday for my locked away homies.

 Gtab Dec 9, 2003 I am a horrible person, disregard my posts. it has blossomed # ? Jul 28, 2010 07:19
 Gtab Dec 9, 2003 I am a horrible person, disregard my posts. like a flower # ? Jul 28, 2010 07:19

#### Gtab posted:

like a flower

My life
came like dew
disappears like dew.
All of Naniwa
is dream after dream.
-Toyotomi Hideyoshi

 spankmeister Jun 15, 2008 Man this thread is becoming like BYOB lite or something. e: Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. # ? Jul 28, 2010 07:48

#### Sgt. Shaved Balls posted:

Also why is making a bottle-necked chamber for a revolver unfeasible? (disregarding pressure stuff)

Check out the .22 Jet. It was a tapered, bottlenecked cartridge that S&W chambered in their N-frames that had functioning problems out the wazoo, so they discontinued it. I don't think too many people have been wanting to repeat that mistake. Basically what would happen is that firing full-power loads would make the brass back out of the chamber and lock up the cylinder.

 bongwizzard May 19, 2005 Then one day I meet a man, He came to me and said, "Hard work good and hard work fine, but first take care of head" Grimey Drawer Even \$.40 a round is too much. I wouldn't spend that much on .44 or .357 either. Reloading is the only way I can afford to shoot as much as like and due to the funky rear end case and bullets Nagant ammo isnt really worth it to reload either. They are cool little guns but atleast to me, they arnt worth the expense or bother to shoot when there are a bunch of other weird guns out there that I could afford to shoot more often. # ? Jul 28, 2010 12:06

#### bunnielab posted:

Even \$.40 a round is too much. I wouldn't spend that much on .44 or .357 either. Reloading is the only way I can afford to shoot as much as like and due to the funky rear end case and bullets Nagant ammo isnt really worth it to reload either.

So, do you own any full-sized rifles at all that aren't in x54r?