DaveTN

All shooting tactics do. He did, he said 50 meters. That’s 55 yards, and I would use sights for that. 20-25 would be pushing it for me. Then you could do 15-20 with practice. 3-5 may be all you need. No one should be trying to use sights at 10 feet. Most of us aren't either and most of us do; see #2 above.

I’ve said many times on here and in conversation “Sights are for target shooting”. I’ve taken heat over it and many want to argue it. It is how I was trained over 40 years ago. It was called Point Instinct Shooting by the guy that was teaching me; others have called it other names. Some people can’t do it; they have talked themselves out of it. Some people want to be part of the “Shot placement guys”. You know, the guys that it doesn’t matter what caliber they use or how many rounds they have because every one of their shots will turn the perp off like a switch. I’ve been in shootings; I’m not one of those guys. Having experienced the adrenaline rush I would guess that even using sights; I wouldn’t be one of those guys. Problem is that in a real-life shooting light and time may very well be in short supply. In my first shooting it was pitch black and there was no time for getting a sight picture. I was not concerned about that; I didn’t need one, I wasn’t trained that way. Here’s a test. Run your full-size silhouette target out to 10 yards. pick your gun up off the bench and fire 5 rounds without using your sights. If you think using your sights will be instinctive; tape them over. In a self-defense shooting the goal is no make your threat unwilling or unable to fire his weapon at you. Look at your hits; would they accomplish that goal? Repeat until they do. Remember squirt guns and dart guns as a kid? You didn’t use sights on those and hit what you were aiming at. Target shooting is a hobby I enjoy immensely. So, most of the time I am using sights, a scope, red dot, whatever. That is a skill I may need to call on in a self-defense scenario if I needed to make a shot past 20 yards or so; or if I had time. My chances of being in a self-defense shooting are pretty low anymore, so I’m mostly target shooting for sport.

Nah, that appears to be nearly an inch. You have to be missing something. Nothing is impossible, so I would try to have someone tell me what the length of the forearm is, so I could put that idea to rest.

I don’t have the patience to do that. There is no legitimate reason in the world for any of that to take more than a month. This is 2019; everything is done by computer, no one is walking around filing papers and sorting through records.

The 1:16 might generally be preferred for a bigger heavier bullet. Use whatever the barrel manufacturer recommends for the bullet you are going to use. If I’m not mistaken S&W uses 1:16 for the .40S&W and 1:10 for the 9MM, I think the 9MM use to be 1:18 and they changed it. If Storm Lake and Smith & Wesson disagree on which twist is more accurate on a Smith & Wesson; you have a decision to make. My opinion is that my M&P 40C is a belly gun and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. But that opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

In casting you are melting metal and pouring or injecting it. In forging you are hammering metal into the parts you want. And in machining you are machining the part you want from a billet or round of solid material. Those parts can then even me heat treated and finished. In MIM the metal is in powder form, binders are injected and it is sintered or “cooked” into the shape of the mold with heat and pressure without going liquid. As you can imagine the metallurgy or the physical and chemical properties plus the hardness of the finished part may differ greatly depending on the method and material used. The choice of material and forming method are based on many factors. Cost is always a big factor; and sometimes the wrong deciding factor. MIM, just like dry firing will be (and is) discussed, debated and argued on gun forums for years to come. But like the big 3D gun model drama we just saw; by folks that really have no clue. Smith & Wesson, Glock and some others decided MIM parts were a good thing because they reduced their cost. (Not yours; yours continue to rise no matter what) And for some their favorite gun company giving the stamp of approval is all it takes. I’m a Smith & Wesson fanboy and they got this one wrong. But they will find that out eventually and stop the practice. Lets hope no one gets killed in the meantime. BTW… I didn’t mean to imply that dry firing had anything to do with the FN striker problem. Just that its another physics, metallurgy and metrology issue that is easily overcome by a MFG saying it is okay or because someone has done it and their gun hasn’t fallen apart; it must be okay. Sometimes Engineers get it wrong. The test of a company is how they deal with it when they find out.

I’m a Toolmaker. When MIM started being used in guns I was one of the guys (along with many others) that had worked with it that warned MIM is junk. It’s one step above pot metal and is only used because it is cheap to produce high quantity of like parts. Then I had a catastrophic failure of my SW1911 that rendered it unusable. While I was showing my BIL how the safeties worked on a 1911; I engaged the thumb safety pointed it downrange at a target and pulled the trigger. The weapon fired. The gun would not operate after that. The guys at the range said they had never seen anything like it either. I did not disassemble the gun, but I’m convinced the thumb safety broke. I sent it in. S&W would not answer me about if the safety broke. They only would say the safety was improperly fitted. When I asked them to replace it with a safety that wasn’t MIM; they said they couldn’t, that was all they had. My 1911 has become a range gun, I don’t carry a 1911 much anyway, but until I get this safety change to stainless; I don’t trust it for a self-defense weapon. Bottom line…as many of us warned, MIM has an application; gun parts is not it. This is a public service announcement.

Best all purpose rifle cartridge ever made. Becoming more popular means lower priced ammo for us. Scoped, red dot, and even a laser in one package. The “Don’t worry Sir; I’m from the internet” guy may have been on to something.

Yes. Surface Area and Mass are as important as velocity; it’s like a triangle thingy. Well, there’s that, and then there’s the whole “We were awake in physics class” thing. Some of us are more than just a pretty face.

I’m sure they will. They just came out with the .380. So after all the wives & girlfriends have the .380’s and 9mm; the company will be wanting to sell to the guys also.

I wouldn’t for any 2 shot derringer. (okay, that’s not true. I might if it was wrapped in money and delivered by a stripper) I’m the applications guy, and believe many different guns have their own application. But there are so many better options for small pocket guns. Unless of course your application is seeing if you can spend more than anyone but still be the most unarmed person in the room. However, kudos to them I don’t see how they stay in business, but obviously they are selling guns.

I remember being young and dumb enough to shoot something like that. Now I just think its funny to watch folks build stuff that is uncomfortable to shoot. Only to find out they are 50 years (or more) too late.

Rimfires are pickier than centerfire. I assume because some have the power to properly work the actions; and some do not. The only .22 I have never had an issue with is CCI Mini-Mags. They operate everything I have without drama. So I assumed they had more power; but I don’t know. The unusual thing I found, that I can’t explain, is that the hollow points group a little tighter than the round nose. I would have expected the opposite. CCI has been hard to find in the past. I guess that’s over now. But other than WWB as my first choice for cheap range ammo min centerfire, everything centerfire I shoot is Federal. I’ll have to check out the Federal rimfires Garufa recommended the next time I can’t get CCI.

Exactly. You need to add velocity to an unsuppressed .308 Winchester? Why not just switch calibers to a .300 WinMag I mean no disrespect to you, but how would you explain that? Doing anything to a barrel could change the grouping, but that would be just by luck. How would hanging a suppressor on the end of a .308 barrel increase the accuracy of a quality .308 rifle? That would be important...if that was a concern. Absolutely a 300 BLK is giving up energy compared to a .308. I’ve never seen anyone try to compare the energy and velocity of a .300blk to a .308 Winchester. Have You? I’m not saying the .300 blk isn’t a good round, it is; for its application.

So you are going to spend hundreds (closer to a grand) to suppress a .308 and leave it supersonic? Whats the point?

The deer will be happy you decided to go that route. That’s about all I can add and be sure of.

And I’m not being dismissive of what you are saying, but many experts and trainers are teaching Point Instinct shooting as a discipline separate from target shooting; no sights are used. That’s how I was trained many years ago. Don’t get me wrong, if you have the time and the conditions to use sights; that’s great. Lighting and time can be in short supply in a shooting situation. I have a Shield in my carry lineup, but a Shield is a belly gun; not a target gun. As far as optics being found on many handguns in the future; I agree with you. But they aren’t there yet. They are too fragile and slow to use (I have them). My WAG is that lasers will surpass Red Dots in defensive carry handguns. Also, there is no reason not to integrate a milled slide into a handgun with a slide; everyone will do it.

And me. I like red dots, but I wouldn't expect to have time to mess with turning it on or needing a sight in the type of shooting I would be doing with my Shield. But absolutely, to each his own. S&W already has Shields out with red dots mounted. So I would guess they will offer them Optics Ready or C.O.R.E. Probably be cheaper to sell yours and buy one with the cutout than have a slide milled.

I still have an Akai Reel to Reel with an 8-track deck in the side; and it still works.

To make a .308 Winchester subsonic you have to neuter it. Isn’t a neutered .308 a .300 BLK that can be built on a standard AR-15 lower?

My comment had nothing to do with the ATF. It didn't say “Don’t worry Sir; I’m from the government”

I doubt it. I’ve not seen and held a Ruger Wrangler yet, but I’ve seen and held a Heritage. I can’t imagine Ruger making anything that low end, but I guess it’s possible. Maybe we’ll get sub $200 Smith & Wesson revolvers.

I had a DPMS Panther for several years. Sold it and got the DPMS GII Recon. It’s above your budget, but DPMS has several that are below $1K. I’ve never had any issues with them and they are accurate. I was interested in the M&P when it came out but thought the barrel looked too small. I never did get anyone to give me a diameter on it; just going by pictures. A .308 needs a good barrel. I haven’t looked at the cost of building one in a long time. But it used to be it would probably cost you more to build than buy a complete rifle due to lack of a standard. I don't know if that still holds true or not. Good luck in your search. In my opinion a .308 AR comes closer than anything else to being the answer to the question, “If I could only have one rifle, what would it be” question. It can do it all.

I just renewed mine, so I guess I’ll bump this 5 year old thread and see if anything has changed. Doesn’t look like many are doing it anymore.

That RUGER WRANGLER at $199 has to give Heritage a sinking feeling. I suspect the saving grace will be that the Rugers will be hard to get.