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.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
L0cke17
Nov 29, 2013



ChuckDeNomolos posted:

Even with regular cleaning, should I expect some light corrosion on the nose of the slide? Is this is like how the finish will wear in patterns on the barrel and inside the slide where metal rubs, or is this a sign something's going wrong?

A little finish wear around the muzzle is normal, there's a lot of got gases and debris coming out there. That said when you say "corrosion" what do you mean? Is it actually rusting and pitting? Or just discolored on the surface?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ChuckDeNomolos
Jan 10, 2013

"For god's sake, man! Can you hear that? I know it seems like crying, and you always have crying in your head, but can you hear that?"


L0cke17 posted:

A little finish wear around the muzzle is normal, there's a lot of got gases and debris coming out there. That said when you say "corrosion" what do you mean? Is it actually rusting and pitting? Or just discolored on the surface?

Here is a picture as an example, because I would rather just show it than possibly misconstrue what's happening:



Along the pictured right side is what appears to be pitting or corrosion to me, but I could be exaggerating due to inexperience. I've only ever used a nylon brush, and if I was the chemicals I was using, it would be happening to the other parts of the gun, so I'm wondering if it's from powder I didn't quite get and left on too long, or if that's just expected.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



That just looks like caked on carbon buildup to me. I'm willing to bet that if you hit that part of it with a brass brush or even just the edge of a credit card it will scrape right off.

ChuckDeNomolos
Jan 10, 2013

"For god's sake, man! Can you hear that? I know it seems like crying, and you always have crying in your head, but can you hear that?"


Ohhh, so that's really just caked on top of the slide and what I think is flaking off the gun is just the carbon build up getting taken off?

Tyro
Nov 10, 2009


Yeah I'm with Cyrano that looks like carbon buildup. Should scrape off fairly easily.

ChuckDeNomolos
Jan 10, 2013

"For god's sake, man! Can you hear that? I know it seems like crying, and you always have crying in your head, but can you hear that?"


Cyrano4747 posted:

That just looks like caked on carbon buildup to me. I'm willing to bet that if you hit that part of it with a brass brush or even just the edge of a credit card it will scrape right off.


Tyro posted:

Yeah I'm with Cyrano that looks like carbon buildup. Should scrape off fairly easily.

I see what was throwing me off: The carbon "polishes" so it looks like bare metal, but after going after it with my picks and credit card, it's all gone! Thanks again, you guys are the best.

Proper Kerni ng
Nov 14, 2011



What kind of ammo are you using? That's a, uh, somewhat excessive amount of gunk for normal shooting.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Proper Kerni ng posted:

What kind of ammo are you using? That's a, uh, somewhat excessive amount of gunk for normal shooting.

I've seen similar with WWB and just not cleaning for a while. If he's been missing that area in cleaning it's not all that surprising.

ChuckDeNomolos
Jan 10, 2013

"For god's sake, man! Can you hear that? I know it seems like crying, and you always have crying in your head, but can you hear that?"


No crazy ammo, mostly Speer 147gr and Browning 115 FMJ, but as I stated earlier in the thread I was unaware of the need for solvent, so I'd let that build up by negligence. There's no wear at all to the finish, it was just crud.

After using solvent once, it makes it way easier and I definitely understand why it's useful. My barrel and the rest of the gun never had and issue with build up, so I'd just overlooked it.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



ChuckDeNomolos posted:

No crazy ammo, mostly Speer 147gr and Browning 115 FMJ, but as I stated earlier in the thread I was unaware of the need for solvent, so I'd let that build up by negligence. There's no wear at all to the finish, it was just crud.

After using solvent once, it makes it way easier and I definitely understand why it's useful. My barrel and the rest of the gun never had and issue with build up, so I'd just overlooked it.

Don't worry about it. I wouldn't even call that negligence - it didn't hurt your gun at all - it was just a bit dirty. Honestly most modern guns can function with quite a bit of carbon fouling built up. You want to clean it off now and again, but it's not a big deal beyond making your poo poo dirty if you handle it.

MazeOfTzeentch
May 2, 2009

rip miso beno


The important parts for function will be rubbing against each other and keeping that sort of buildup away anyway. If stuff has a chance to land and stay like that, chances are it's not a big deal, unless it actively starts causing problems.

flightless greeb
Jan 28, 2016



For example, modern firearms designs are indeed fairly immune to the need to clean after every trip, with a few exceptions.

However my stupid old Winchester 1873 rifle clone is so faithful to the original design that it is now starting to jam up and get hard to work the action after a few measly 1000 rounds or so. Horrendous!

tarlibone
Aug 1, 2014

Am I a... bad person?
AM I??





Fun Shoe

MazeOfTzeentch posted:

The important parts for function will be rubbing against each other and keeping that sort of buildup away anyway. If stuff has a chance to land and stay like that, chances are it's not a big deal, unless it actively starts causing problems.

Phrasing!

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



MazeOfTzeentch posted:

The important parts for function will be rubbing against each other and keeping that sort of buildup away anyway. If stuff has a chance to land and stay like that, chances are it's not a big deal, unless it actively starts causing problems.

Back around I want to say 2010 or '09 or so there was a bit of a fad in TFR where we didn't clean our poo poo to see how dirty we could get our guns and have them work. Still lubing, just not cleaning. Maybe 2012? Whatever.

The tl;dr was people started cleaning their ARs again when the carbon falling out of it was getting their hands dirty just moving them around their safes.

Nomyth
Mar 15, 2013

And if a Nyto get a attitude
Pop it like it's hot
Pop it like it's hot
Pop it like it's hot


Gross.

Also but that seems like a little bit of a fallacy because guns are machines and you don't just objectively "judge" a machine by its character or something based how adverse of a situation you successfully run it in???

After a certain number of rounds it becomes your fault for malfunctions and damage, not the gun's fault or the engineers behind it

But anyways, gross

boxen
Feb 20, 2011



?
I will absolutely judge a machine by how adverse a situation it can be in and still keep functioning.
Yeah, if it's your gun you're responsible for keeping it in running condition, but it's good to know how wide of a window you have to work with. If something binds up because an oxygen atom gets in a certain place instead of a nitrogen atom, I don't think it's a good gun. If you can tie a rope to it, drag it down the road fifty miles through mud and junk, and it'll still function (even if it's not well), I'll think it's a better gun. Depending on what the actual purposes of the guns are, I guess, and it's still my own subjective opinion.

Even if someone is very particular about keeping their firearm clean and well-maintained, I think it's interesting to know how well it functions in increasingly adverse conditions, and what can be done to mitigate those effects.

flightless greeb
Jan 28, 2016



Yeah I dont really understand your point Nomyth. Whats wrong with judging two similar firearms based on reliability, where reliability means how long it runs properly between cleanings.

22 Eargesplitten
Oct 10, 2010

Certified Centrist Trash


I can see the argument that a gun's function in extreme circumstances should be a lower priority than a lot of other factors, though. Like if I shoot groups half the size / faster with one gun that starts jamming after 2k rounds without a basic field strip cleaning than with a gun that can go 10k rounds without cleaning, I'm probably going to prefer the one that goes 2k rounds because I'm not going to be shooting it 2k times without a chance to clean it, whereas I am going to want to shoot faster / smaller groups. I guess it's about acceptable parameters of reliability, so it is good to know what it can take but being able to take more doesn't make it a better gun past your certain needs.

I have no idea if 10k rounds between cleaning is realistic, I've never even gone 2k rounds because A) I enjoy cleaning guns and B) my hands start getting filthy from shooting/handling my pistols after a while if I don't clean them.

22 Eargesplitten fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Oct 12, 2020

boxen
Feb 20, 2011


22 Eargesplitten posted:

I can see the argument that a gun's function in extreme circumstances should be a lower priority than a lot of other factors, though. Like if I shoot groups half the size / faster with one gun that starts jamming after 2k rounds without a basic field strip cleaning than with a gun that can go 10k rounds without cleaning, I'm probably going to prefer the one that goes 2k rounds because I'm not going to be shooting it 2k times without a chance to clean it, whereas I am going to want to shoot faster / smaller groups. I guess it's about acceptable parameters of reliability, so it is good to know what it can take but being able to take more doesn't make it a better gun past your certain needs.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "depending on the actual purposes of the guns".

Just for the sake of argument, say an AR47 is more accurate than an AK15, but the AK15 can keep functioning in more adverse conditions (I'm not trying to assert this is actually the case). If you're trying to ding steel plates at 700 meters, an AR is probably going to suit you better. If you're someone who does something like 2/3-gun competitions and is too lazy to clean/maintain your gun, maybe the AK. These are stupid, non-real-world examples just to illustrate my point.

Captain Log
Oct 2, 2006

Captain Log posted:

"I AINT DYING! Choo choo motherfucker!"




I remember Duccy doing tests with her swanky SIG ARs in the snow. If I remember correctly, each one of them had issues. In loving snow.

That's an issue. A gun should run dirty, regardless of how "gross" it is or isn't. This is coming from a certified OCD haver, too.

(Duccy come back!)

22 Eargesplitten
Oct 10, 2010

Certified Centrist Trash


I wonder what it could have been, the only thing I can think of is the snow might have melted into water and gotten into somewhere that the whole "can't be compressed" thing caused a problem.

boxen
Feb 20, 2011


22 Eargesplitten posted:

I wonder what it could have been, the only thing I can think of is the snow might have melted into water and gotten into somewhere that the whole "can't be compressed" thing caused a problem.

Oil will thicken up a lot in cold weather, exactly how much depends on the oil. Grease will turn to sludge or get hard. There are specific cold-weather lubricants used when that sort of thing is a concern for a lot of machines.

Cold weather will also make most metals shrink a bit, but the temperature variance usually isn't enough for it to matter for guns, at least.

Flappy Bert
Dec 11, 2011

I have seen the light, and it is a string

Are there any good tells for good training vs bad training without asking people in the local area about the specific shop/instructor? I just did a basic pistol training to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the instructor was a bit of a dip: wasn't explaining things in enough dept for the total newbies, mask off half the time, etc. I know judging training off of a website is probably going to be a long shot but you never know.

Anonymous Robot
Jun 1, 2007

Lost his leg in Robo War I


Flappy Bert posted:

Are there any good tells for good training vs bad training without asking people in the local area about the specific shop/instructor? I just did a basic pistol training to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the instructor was a bit of a dip: wasn't explaining things in enough dept for the total newbies, mask off half the time, etc. I know judging training off of a website is probably going to be a long shot but you never know.

Having worked with trainers that were highly qualified in terms of shooting skills and experience, but alternatively were or weren’t assholes: the assholes don’t have good teaching skills, and their overconfidence and general poor character makes them believe in bad practices and pass them on to others.

Atticus_1354
Dec 9, 2006

Don't you go near that dog, you understand? Don't go near him, he's just as dangerous dead as alive.


22 Eargesplitten posted:

I wonder what it could have been, the only thing I can think of is the snow might have melted into water and gotten into somewhere that the whole "can't be compressed" thing caused a problem.

I'm going to bet a proper cold weather lube wasn't used and the lube got gummy and thick.

poopgiggle
Feb 7, 2006

it isn't easy being a cross dominate shooter.




Flappy Bert posted:

Are there any good tells for good training vs bad training without asking people in the local area about the specific shop/instructor? I just did a basic pistol training to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the instructor was a bit of a dip: wasn't explaining things in enough dept for the total newbies, mask off half the time, etc. I know judging training off of a website is probably going to be a long shot but you never know.

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3925799&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=19#post505781211

MantisClaw
Jun 3, 2011


Flappy Bert posted:

Are there any good tells for good training vs bad training without asking people in the local area about the specific shop/instructor? I just did a basic pistol training to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and the instructor was a bit of a dip: wasn't explaining things in enough dept for the total newbies, mask off half the time, etc. I know judging training off of a website is probably going to be a long shot but you never know.

I really should do an effort post on how to select a trainer, but here are some things that came up last time this was mentioned.

poopgiggle posted:

Here's the instructor bio page for a quality, regional-level shooting school that I've trained at in the past: http://tdsa.us/instructors.php They don't have much of a national profile but are well-respected in the area.

Here's the stuff on there that would tell me, as a prospective student, that they are a quality institution:

- Competition shooting background for most instructors. Indicates that they can at least shoot well.
- List of outside training taken from other instructors. Indicates that they're focused on continually improving their own skills.
- Several Tom Givens instructor development course graduates on staff. Indicates that, at the very least, someone taught them how to teach, and that someone was Tom loving Givens.

tl;dr do they have verified shooting abilities? do they have verified teaching abilities? legit instructors will have both and will proudly give you their credentials.

e: the Powers school's instructor credentials aren't very impressive. You can basically get NRA Handgun Instructor creds in a box of Cracker Jacks. At least they've been to Thunder Ranch, which is a well-respected school.

Proper Kerni ng posted:

You can often get a broader picture of how a school/trainer is regarded by former students (and how they present themselves to prospective students) by searching for their name along with "facebook"/"tumblr"/"twitter"/"youtube", et cetera; a lot of places that have good reviews show their rear end on social media as fudds or chuds, and some places that get negative reviews address them in a way that makes it clear someone was slagging on them for reasons unrelated to the quality of their training.

MantisClaw posted:

I checked out the triple threat website and I'm not impressed. The photos and video they're using for promotional material all show outdated techniques and practices. The only thing they offer other then what appears to be state required generic CCW stuff is an 'Active shooter class' which is a pretty big jump. Most places will want to start a new customer in a core fundamental class to vett them before letting them jump into a course they may not be ready for. I've seen way to many people who thought they were awesome crash and burn because they never knew what shooting under pressure was like.

As a general rule I avoid people who use the term 'Tactical' in their course description. It's usually an indication that they're trying to pull the 'operator' marketing lever to fill classes and it attracts people who are trying to LARP the cool guys. Another indicator is a meaningless resume padding. I don't need to know that you qualified Expert 20 years ago, or every mandatory department training you attended. Like poopgiggle said look for them attending national level schools or instructors. NRA certs are meaningless unless that's specifically required by law like my state.

I break training down into three categories:
Skill Development: The class is focused entirely on the shooting. The goal here is to become as proficient as possible so you can achieve 'unconscious competence'. If you've never been to an instructor before, you should probably start here.
Problem Solving: This is a class where you spend more time thinking then shooting. Injured shooter, vehicle CQB, shoot house, and even some competitive shooter classes all can develop your ability to think with a gun in your hand.
Validation: This is where everything comes together. Force on Force, scenario training, shooting a match, anything where you're tested against other people at speed. This is where you get to see where everything falls apart and what you need to work on.

Order of priority for me when looking to travel for a class:

1. Is what they teach relevant to my skill level and lifestyle. If I CCW, I should probably be taking more handgun then carbine classes. Even if I don't plan to shoot long range on a regular basis, I may still choose to take a PRS class as it will give me greater understanding on how to run a carbine.

2. Can they explain what they teach. Anyone can parrot information but it takes understanding the material to be able to break it down and explain it to someone who doesn't get it on the first try. 'Shut up and do it' methodology only really applies in organizations with rigid hierarchy. Granted there may not be time on the line to go over things in more detail but most good instructors will take the time during lunch or breaks or afterward to sit down and try to help you understand whatever you're having trouble with.

3. Experience with other styles then their own. Do they attend other classes? Have they tested various methods to see what works the best? Have those tests been validated through metrics (targets, shot timers, real world situations)? This is where it may be advantageous to take a course from someone who is not a naturally talented shooter. Someone who has had to sweat blood and tears to get to where will have tried multiple paths to get to where they are. Someone with natural talent and practice may only know THEIR way but don't know the coaching cue you need now simply because they've never been there.

4. Can they shoot. Do they demo. Note that demos don't have to be at full speed, but there should be at least one person on their staff who can show you what right looks like. That being said, if they do shoot demos, look at the instructor not the target.

5. Background. Generic LEO and .mil experience means nothing to me. Same with combat deployments. Likewise XX years of competitive shooting. If they want to provide that information it should be relevant. Sniper, SWAT experience, HSLD operator types , A Class and above standing in USPSA or equivalent. That being said make sure their background is appropriate to the class; A pure USPSA shooter probably shouldn't be teaching room clearing for example.

Listen to the community. Find out who travels outside your area for training and listen to what they say. If they seek out the same stuff you're interested in, give those instructors a shot. You can learn something from every class even if it's what not to do. In the end everyone is teaching the same thing. How to get there is where everyone differs.

::edit:
drat you poopgiggle!

poopgiggle
Feb 7, 2006

it isn't easy being a cross dominate shooter.




It's cool. I was working to recreate the chat thread post here in case that chat thread got archived. You saved me some work.

MantisClaw
Jun 3, 2011


At this point, I think I've reposted that conversation in like 5 different megathreads so we should be able to find it even it slips into the archives.

Android Apocalypse
Apr 28, 2009

The future is
AUTOMATED
and you are
OBSOLETE






Illegal Hen

I appreciate the reposts and even if there becomes a dedicated thread on it it's a good reminder for people looking for training.

Nomyth
Mar 15, 2013

And if a Nyto get a attitude
Pop it like it's hot
Pop it like it's hot
Pop it like it's hot


22 Eargesplitten posted:

I can see the argument that a gun's function in extreme circumstances should be a lower priority than a lot of other factors, though. Like if I shoot groups half the size / faster with one gun that starts jamming after 2k rounds without a basic field strip cleaning than with a gun that can go 10k rounds without cleaning, I'm probably going to prefer the one that goes 2k rounds because I'm not going to be shooting it 2k times without a chance to clean it, whereas I am going to want to shoot faster / smaller groups. I guess it's about acceptable parameters of reliability, so it is good to know what it can take but being able to take more doesn't make it a better gun past your certain needs.

I have no idea if 10k rounds between cleaning is realistic, I've never even gone 2k rounds because A) I enjoy cleaning guns and B) my hands start getting filthy from shooting/handling my pistols after a while if I don't clean them.

I can see this argument too, and I believe a few competition shooters do subscribe to it which dictates how they prefer their racing equipment, but it's not exactly my argument.

The logic behind "torture it until it breaks as a measure of reliability" is flawed for the vast majority of gun owners. Why? Because nothing is actually being measured, except round count and maybe how long it takes to clean yourself off after handling the firearm. Indeed, round count can be subjective which is why people set different limits on them for serving their purposes, but more importantly, people usually don't measure exactly how dirty the gun gets for every round fired or for every time it gets dropped, unless they're engineers with way more money in test equipment than guns. Without that measurable basis, people aren't making an objective rating on a gun or comparison between guns (if in that context) for mean time/rounds between failure, they're just making a subjective judgement on how comfortable they are with it.

It's also an anecdotal small sample size fallacy too. You can absolutely induce a malfunction real quick in any hardware, if you know what parts do which thing and intentionally introduce a foreign object in a part's way to prevent it from doing that thing. Now accidentally introducing that object through "intended use", which in and of itself is subject to uncertainty? That's not something that a small sample size can solve.

All this brings me to the final word that if your owner's manual says to perform maintenance on your firearm after a certain number of rounds or after a specific malfunction, it's supposed to mean something. As in, there was testing that was way more logical than whatever you put into the gun to determine at least certain qualities of what you can't measure yourself, and no amount of prolonged use/abuse can make up for that. If one finds themselves in a situation where malfunction appears to occur sooner than regular maintenance time, that's when they can begin to ask questions. Admittedly, given the conduct of certain firearms manufacturers recently, you can have your own doubts about the engineering behind the product, but that's where customer service is supposed to come in, if it exists.

Nomyth fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Oct 13, 2020

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004





omg we got a twodot but for gun cleanliness instead of dice.

flightless greeb
Jan 28, 2016



Idk that all sounds like a lot of over thinking what to me is a fairly straight forward concept. There doesn't need to be any science or engineering thought put into it imo, I mean I don't read the manuals to guns and I wouldn't necessity trust what they said a huge amount. Lots of guns ship with generic manuals anyway.

I just need to know if a gun requires cleaning after every range trip, whether it requires it after 1000 rounds or 10000. Cleaning guns sucks and if the gun isn't going to malfunction under 10,000 rounds between cleanings then I want to know that so I don't have to clean it as much. That's the extent I'm interested in the subject anyway.

poopgiggle
Feb 7, 2006

it isn't easy being a cross dominate shooter.




The way I look at it, a gun's ability to function dirty is a measure of its window of reliability. Guns that require more frequent maintenance have a narrower reliability window. In a defensive shooting context, that means that if I'm firing in less than ideal circumstances (e.g. my grip is hosed up) it's more likely that the gun will malfunction. A broader reliability window means more things can go wrong before I have to worry about malfunctions.

In a training context, a gun that runs longer without cleaning means more time shooting/learning and less time dicking with my gun.

my kinda ape
Sep 15, 2008

Everything's gonna be A-OK


Oven Wrangler

The manual for the SITES Spectre says you never need to clean it

L0cke17
Nov 29, 2013



Wasn't there someone posting in TFR about how they cleaned their .22 can by shooting 1 round of 5.56 through it at every range trip to blow all the crud out? That was the most thing I remember seeing about cleaning on here.

infrared35
Jan 12, 2005

border patrol qt


Plaster Town Cop

L0cke17 posted:

Wasn't there someone posting in TFR about how they cleaned their .22 can by shooting 1 round of 5.56 through it at every range trip to blow all the crud out? That was the most thing I remember seeing about cleaning on here.

I think it was a 5.56 can that they had been running .22LR through. A regular .22 can wouldn’t survive a round of 5.56 through it.

my kinda ape
Sep 15, 2008

Everything's gonna be A-OK


Oven Wrangler

infrared35 posted:

I think it was a 5.56 can that they had been running .22LR through. A regular .22 can wouldn’t survive a round of 5.56 through it.

A while back I asked if this was advisable (well, 22LR through a .30 cal can) and the general consensus was that the 308 probably wouldn't do a good enough job of blowing out the rimfire crap to keep it from building up over time.

Ceros_X
Aug 6, 2006

U.S. Marine


infrared35 posted:

A regular .22 can wouldn’t survive a round of 5.56 through it.

https://youtu.be/lCuT2iYYTxg

Someone testing the 'does 5.55 clean out .22 crud?' https://youtu.be/SKzBeRvye60

Newbies: don't shoot 5.56 out of your .22lr can

Ceros_X fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Oct 14, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Could people be confusing this with the advice for the drop-in .22LR kits? I seem to remember years back the recommendation being to put a mag of 5.56 through your upper every now and again to prevent lead residue and other poo poo building up in the gas tube.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply