Jump to content

Firearms, NFA specific


Recommended Posts

btw, just wanted to remind everyone that I started the "guns are evil" thread for the pro/con firearms debate. I'd appreciate if you left this one alone for the very small handfull of members who have questions/comments about topics such as suppressors, fully automatic, and other exotic firearms. Thanks :thumbsup: Jim *edit* It seems that thread has been removed from the board. I wasnt paying attention to it for a while so I'm not sure what happend. I do understand that most members of this board are quite vocal about being anti-gun, and the few pro-gun members tend to want to hide afraid to be ostracized by the hhplace society. That stated fear amazes me as I would think our members would be more open minded about others opinions considering we tend to want the general public to be more open minded about our opinions.

(formerly known as "JimC")

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would assume the muzzle mounted cans are a more efficient use of space/weight VS over barrel designs as it's very dificult to do a 180 degree change in direction of the gas flow. I feel it's better to use turbulance and surface area to slow the gas's and absorb heat which will reduce the impulse noise.

I don't have the expencive testing equipment the pro's use, so I just have to contemplate designs on paper and in my head :smile:

You design your own?

Current thinking agrees that noise reduction is probably best done by muzzle types like those of Ase/LEI/JLS. But the drawback is the additional barrel length. The main advantage is generally accepted to be a figure on a graph [in decibels]. But a more important criteria is downrange perception (surely)?

I think the secret to a successful moderator, is balanced resistant pressure. Each mod specifically designed to work on the moving volume of gas over time. What think you?

Done anything with 17HMR's? :thumbsup:

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='J

*edit* It seems that thread has been removed from the board. I wasnt paying attention to it for a while so I'm not sure what happend. I do understand that most members of this board are quite vocal about being anti-gun, and the few pro-gun members tend to want to hide afraid to be ostracized by the hhplace society. That stated fear amazes me as I would think our members would be more open minded about others opinions considering we tend to want the general public to be more open minded about our opinions.[/quote']

Yes there are a lot of anti-gun members here. However, I don't believe any of them would ever make me hide my opinion on guns, or anything else, for that matter. Besides, show me a person that is anti-gun and I'll show you someone that's just plain wrong. :thumbsup:

Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fastfreddy: I don't have a professional use for moderators, so most of the time the extra length is not an issue. In fact the .308 bolt action with a 26" barrel balances out quite nicely with one attached as it helps to reduce muzzle climb so I can see the location of my shot at 1000 yards. I think an over the barrel moderator might be effective with a ported barrel, as you could design it to have specific chambers within the moderator to allow for expansion, then redirecting the gas back into the barrel as pressures drop. The only two moderators I have built personally are for a .22lr and a 5.56. The .22lr is comparable to any of the commercially available designs and works very well. The 5.56 I assisted my b/f with the build of and made it from a solid core of 316 grade stainless with a stainless outer tube. It i also as quiet as a commercial model, but 1/8" larger diameter and has to be threaded on VS a quick disconnect. Oh well, gonna lose something when you save $800 :thumbsup: I think the design has to address the fact that the pressures will change as the gas has a chance to expand and slow down. I tend to go with an initial blast chamber that is maybe 50% larger then the final chamber. I believe this helps reduce pressure related stress on the material of the baffle and the outer tube. I also tend to make that baffle thicker then following ones. I tend to go with a relatively simple monolithic core design as I feel more comfortable being able to maintain baffle position and bore alignment that way. I'll stop typing for now :smile:

(formerly known as "JimC")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes there are a lot of anti-gun members here. However, I don't believe any of them would ever make me hide my opinion on guns, or anything else, for that matter. Besides, show me a person that is anti-gun and I'll show you someone that's just plain wrong. :o

Wrong is such a strong, harsh and inflexible term, Bubba. We need to be far more tolerant with those among us who have been mis-guided, or are generally mistaken in their views.

While I am a very strong advocate of the right to bear arms, I have (for religious views) personally disarmed myself. Furthermore, I strongly believe that in a not too distant date yet to come, that all firearms will become no more than museum piece curiousities. They will be both unwelcome and totally unnecessary. But that day is not here now. Therefore I fully understand and appreciate one's desire to arm one's self in this chaotic world.

But the right of people to hold opposing views is also important. After all, it is through the respect of other's rights and their viewpoints - even when we disagree - along with our love for one another that we can greatly reduce violence in our midst and the need for armaments, as well as their presence in our lives. So to my mind the truly important issue is mutual respect for one another - especially when someone tenaciously clings to a mistaken viewpoint. :-?

Keep on stepping,

Guy N. Heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the design has to address the fact that the pressures will change as the gas has a chance to expand and slow down. I tend to go with an initial blast chamber that is maybe 50% larger then the final chamber. I believe this helps reduce pressure related stress on the material of the baffle and the outer tube. I also tend to make that baffle thicker then following ones.

I tend to go with a relatively simple monolithic core design as I feel more comfortable being able to maintain baffle position and bore alignment that way.

I'll stop typing for now :-?

Oops!

Read this in a hurry and forgot to respond. :o

Most designs I've seen have the baffle stack immediately after muzzle, the expansion chamber is beyond that. The baffle stack is usually made of the same thickness material. [Costs of manufacture dictate that.] I'm thinking the baffle stack is placed where it is, to direct and control the gas flow prior to arriving at the expansion chamber?

The subsequent baffles can be made of lighter materials, but the initial baffle needs to be tough, and that often means a high chrome content. Stainless seems to perform better than most plain steels.

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The material chosen depends on the application and pressures involved. Aluminum works fine for most pistol caliber suppressors, even on sub-machine guns, but material such as stainless, steel, and even inconel work better for rifle caliber applications.

I have a .223/5.56 NATO suppressor from Advanced Armament that uses stainless for most of the construction but uses inconel for the initial blast baffle as it can handle alot more abuse.

The can I helped a friend build for .223/5.56 we used 316 grade stainless as he does not have access to full-auto firearms, thus will not need to hold up to that type of abuse.

The .22lr can I made for myself uses 7075 aluminum for the center core and grade 2 titanium for the outer tube. I chose the 7075 for it's high strength as wanted a big of a safty margin while learning how to design a can, and the titanium for the outer tube as that is the registered part and if damaged will require another $200 registration fee.

I have a .45acp caliber suppressor made by gemtech that is made of aluminum and can easily handle full auto fire as there is far less powder being used for pistol caliber rounds.

I'll try to find some of my sketches showing the baffle design I've used. I don't need to worry about production costs like a commercial shop would. Material costs tend to be quite low, but time taken to machine out a baffle stack from a solid core has ranged from 4 hours for a .22lr to several days for the .223/5.56 out of stainless. I do not intend to make another one out of 316 stainless.

(formerly known as "JimC")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am a very strong advocate of the right to bear arms, I have (for religious views) personally disarmed myself. Furthermore, I strongly believe that in a not too distant date yet to come, that all firearms will become no more than museum piece curiousities. They will be both unwelcome and totally unnecessary. But that day is not here now. Therefore I fully understand and appreciate one's desire to arm one's self in this chaotic world.

I have thought about this quite a bit. I too have very strong spiritual beliefs and know that God is taking care of business.

On the other hand, how is a .45 or any other gun of your choice going to stand up to a nuke or long range missile? As for now, I feel a need to arm and protect my family and myself, especially when making deposits in the middle of the night, for now.

real men wear heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnie

You are right and as Mister Colt was given credit for "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal." In todays world not only do we have to worry about some nut job terrorest, but out here we have to watch out for drug gangs anymore you have to carry for self protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Need I say more?

Is that accurate? (Or is it mis-information?)

I had him as the next President of the Old Colony. :smile: If he actually thinks removing/amending the 2nd Amendment is going to help him get elected, I'd say he had some poor election advice.

Sure the 'anti-gun' stance might be popularist, but popular with the people who get up and vote?

I can tell you, firearm bans really worked for the criminals over here. Our government took handguns from those who had owned them legally. The ciminals ignored the ban (as they were always going to) and crime involving handguns has ramped up by a percentage unthought of in the authorities worst nightmares. Same with semi-automatic rifles. Now we are part of the EU without borders, East Europeans drive their semi-automatic, and auto-handguns direct into the cities here.

About the only people who don't have guns over here, are those that need them the most. Law-abiding citizens.....

If you remove the means of self-defence, you remove the right to self-defence.

Just recently, a Police witness was threatened by the crime perpetrator. The Police were advised of the threat. The witness was murdered, as promised. The family took the Police to court, saying they failed to protect the witness. The court decided the Police are not responsible for protecting the lives of the citizens in this (once great) country. So, over here, no-one, including me, is allowed or tasked with the responsibility of protecting me from a threat or attack.

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better view:

Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan to "CHANGE"

The Second Amendment

1) Ban use of firearms for home defense.

2) Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.

3) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

4) Close down 90% of gun shops in America.

5) Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and

sport shooting.

6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by

500 percent.

7) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including

those who have been convicted of using a gun to

commit a violent crime.

8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions

more firearms.

9) Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a

firearm.

10)Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

real men wear heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that accurate? (Or is it mis-information?)

I had him as the next President of the Old Colony. :smile: If he actually thinks removing/amending the 2nd Amendment is going to help him get elected, I'd say he had some poor election advice.

Sure the 'anti-gun' stance might be popularist, but popular with the people who get up and vote?

I can tell you, firearm bans really worked for the criminals over here. Our government took handguns from those who had owned them legally. The ciminals ignored the ban (as they were always going to) and crime involving handguns has ramped up by a percentage unthought of in the authorities worst nightmares. Same with semi-automatic rifles. Now we are part of the EU without borders, East Europeans drive their semi-automatic, and auto-handguns direct into the cities here.

About the only people who don't have guns over here, are those that need them the most. Law-abiding citizens.....

If you remove the means of self-defence, you remove the right to self-defence.

Just recently, a Police witness was threatened by the crime perpetrator. The Police were advised of the threat. The witness was murdered, as promised. The family took the Police to court, saying they failed to protect the witness. The court decided the Police are not responsible for protecting the lives of the citizens in this (once great) country. So, over here, no-one, including me, is allowed or tasked with the responsibility of protecting me from a threat or attack.

....

That sucks!

real men wear heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number 7 looks the most dodgy. I always thought that once convicted, criminals had no rights anymore and that includes the right to vote! They have as I see it not obeyed the laws of your constitution and therefore forfeit everything. What a stupid thing to do! Number 10 appears to be he reserves the right to appoint his mates to be judges (A little Stalinist to say the least) Just a reaction from a guy over the pond! What do I know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine living in a state or country where the only people who have guns or a means to protect there selves are people like Obama. (the bad guy's)

It ain't good.

And is why I can NEVER understand any American who thinks his/her personal freedom isn't under-pinned with the ability to enforce that freedom. Jeez, some of your countrymen have short memories?

Same with people here. In the early 1900's the un-armed Police were known to borrow handguns from ordinary citizens in the street when chasing armed criminals. Do we never learn? The Police can't be everywhere, and is why concealed-carry is so vital. Ask anyone in Florida. :smile:

If every citizen HAD to have a gun in the house, would burgulary go up or down? If every citizen HAD to carry a gun, would street crime go up or down? Sure, mandatory gun ownership isn't the answer. But taking guns from those who choose to use them to protect themselves and others? How stupid is that?

It's generally understood over here, that we had our guns taken off us, to stop a revolution [like the one in Russia]. With increasing impingement on our personal freedom, it should surprise no-one the governments here tighten the anti-firearms screws, further and further. Take heed, Ex-Colonists!

It's a laughable situation, that we are hosting the 2012 Olympics, with sporting handguns of ANY form being illegal here. [With the single exception of "humane killer" guns for use on injured animals.]

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number 7 looks the most dodgy. I always thought that once convicted, criminals had no rights anymore and that includes the right to vote! They have as I see it not obeyed the laws of your constitution and therefore forfeit everything. What a stupid thing to do!

Number 10 appears to be he reserves the right to appoint his mates to be judges (A little Stalinist to say the least)!...

As one can readily see from the behavior of Baal Clinton during his last 24 hours in office, the president has the power to pardon. Furthermore, this power is apparently absolute! Therefore if anyone elected to the White House should again decide to misuse the powers vested in him, there is absolutely nothing that can be done. Perhaps the NRA envisions some sort of criminal pardon a la Clinton by Obama. :smile: In any event, just a brief look at Obama's record ought to make it clear who we don't need in the White House. Let us be ever mindful of the fact that in a democracy we might not get the leaders we need, but we will get the leaders we deserve!

Keep on stepping,

Guy N. Heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn about Obama and his wife, the more frightened I become that he might actually be elected to the office.

Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn about Obama and his wife, the more frightened I become that he might actually be elected to the office.

Well, for many years now I have said that not all of the terrorists that threaten America carry machine guns and bombs. Some of my chief concerns are about people who wear 3 piece suits and have a parking space on Capitol Hill.:smile:

Keep on stepping,

Guy N. Heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In any event, just a brief look at Obama's record ought to make it clear who we don't need in the White House. Let us be ever mindful of the fact that in a democracy we might not get the leaders we need, but we will get the leaders we deserve!

Couldn't agree with you more. Not much of a choice but we need to think of our freedom and the right to protect ourselves and our families.

Obama has all the protection he needs and is trying to take away, and has succeeded in Illinois, what protection rights we as Americans have left.:smile:

real men wear heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree with you more. Not much of a choice but we need to think of our freedom and the right to protect ourselves and our families.

Obama has all the protection he needs and is trying to take away, and has succeeded in Illinois, what protection rights we as Americans have left.:smile:

Any serious student of American history finds one inescapable fact - America's founders didn't trust government! Indeed, they had an abiding fear of government! Moreover, they saw a resort to arms as the absolute final chance to stop a government that had gotten out of control; like an FBI that couldn't clean up the strip-joints and adult video booths along 9th Street across the street from their Washington office; so it was easier for them to attack and burn-down a church at WACO, TX.

Well that's exactly why the founders felt that the right to bear arms should not be infringed. It was the last recourse after all else had failed. Now I find it extremely interesting that the main people who are opposed to private ownership of firearms are the ones in government - especially those in government leadership positions.

Keep on stepping,

Guy N. Heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following relates directly to what jonnieheel and Guy N. Heels are talking about. One of my friends recently sent me an email containing the following video. Please watch it -- especially her final point -- and let me know what you think.

[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl%5B/URL]]The Lady to the Senators

Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following relates directly to what jonnieheel and Guy N. Heels are talking about. One of my friends recently sent me an email containing the following video. Please watch it -- especially her final point -- and let me know what you think.

[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl%5B/URL]]The Lady to the Senators

Suzanna for president!

real men wear heels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an englishman, it strikes me real sad for you that you NEED to carry a gun at all times - is it really that bad everywhere ? Ok theres gang knifings etc here but not bigtime, and i never feel the need to go loaded, even going round London as i do for business. Is it the same throughout the usa ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an englishman, it strikes me real sad for you that you NEED to carry a gun at all times - is it really that bad everywhere ?

Ok theres gang knifings etc here but not bigtime, and i never feel the need to go loaded, even going round London as i do for business.

Is it the same throughout the usa ?

Not in the areas of the country where the local law allows citizens to own and carry a side arm.

I guess your attitude is what accounts for the fact that the only people in the UK that own guns are the criminals?

Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using High Heel Place, you agree to our Terms of Use.