A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 18th 08, 10:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

To all:

My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been
diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American
Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry
a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several
questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As
usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see
why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a
more accurate rifle for a lot less money..." Others couldn't
understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so
much better. The interesting point here was their definition of
'better.' :-)

But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary
accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented
to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal
burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading
weapons.

My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and
I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of
protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps,
was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since
neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in
so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black
powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for
wadding.)

But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high-
precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was
capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards and our
horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a
rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized
circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop.

So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many
factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor
in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively
low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed
when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade
black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you
would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for
each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned
rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second.

The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one
revolution for every 10 inches of bore. Now here comes the tricky
bits.
800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second
With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps)
960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm
....and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead
ball.

Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to
deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly
true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover
it isn't a myth at all.

There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy
isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work
to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder-
wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon
was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming
powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked
and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives
the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover,
pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks
which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to
ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole
though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the
barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition
the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel...
and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America.

Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-)

Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional
cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'.
But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show
how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required
safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting
with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to
show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional
safety measures.

That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy
place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to
deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at
nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even
just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested
in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low
price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a
light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women.

  #2  
Old November 18th 08, 11:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
John Ammeter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

I think Ruger made a bolt action rifle chambered for the 7.62 x 39...
not sure if it's still available, though. They currently do, I think,
sell a Mini 30 which is the Mini 14 chambered for the 7.62 x 39 round.

John

wrote:
To all:

My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been
diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American
Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry
a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several
questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As
usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see
why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a
more accurate rifle for a lot less money..." Others couldn't
understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so
much better. The interesting point here was their definition of
'better.' :-)

But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary
accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented
to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal
burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading
weapons.

My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and
I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of
protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps,
was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since
neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in
so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black
powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for
wadding.)

But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high-
precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was
capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards and our
horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a
rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized
circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop.

So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many
factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor
in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively
low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed
when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade
black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you
would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for
each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned
rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second.

The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one
revolution for every 10 inches of bore. Now here comes the tricky
bits.
800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second
With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps)
960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm
...and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead
ball.

Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to
deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly
true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover
it isn't a myth at all.

There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy
isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work
to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder-
wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon
was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming
powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked
and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives
the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover,
pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks
which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to
ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole
though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the
barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition
the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel...
and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America.

Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-)

Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional
cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'.
But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show
how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required
safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting
with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to
show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional
safety measures.

That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy
place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to
deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at
nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even
just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested
in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low
price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a
light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women.

  #3  
Old November 18th 08, 11:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Anthony W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

The last I heard, CZ was making a very nice bolt action rifle in
7.62x69mm com-block. I've looked around and I couldn't find a shop here
in Portland, OR that carried them but I've seen them in Shotgun News.

Tony

John Ammeter wrote:
I think Ruger made a bolt action rifle chambered for the 7.62 x 39...
not sure if it's still available, though. They currently do, I think,
sell a Mini 30 which is the Mini 14 chambered for the 7.62 x 39 round.

John

wrote:
To all:

My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been
diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American
Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry
a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several
questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As
usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see
why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a
more accurate rifle for a lot less money..." Others couldn't
understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so
much better. The interesting point here was their definition of
'better.' :-)

But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary
accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented
to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal
burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading
weapons.

My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and
I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of
protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps,
was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since
neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in
so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black
powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for
wadding.)

But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high-
precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was
capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards and our
horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a
rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized
circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop.

So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many
factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor
in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively
low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed
when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade
black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you
would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for
each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned
rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second.

The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one
revolution for every 10 inches of bore. Now here comes the tricky
bits.
800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second
With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps)
960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm
...and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead
ball.

Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to
deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly
true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover
it isn't a myth at all.

There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy
isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work
to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder-
wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon
was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming
powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked
and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives
the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover,
pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks
which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to
ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole
though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the
barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition
the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel...
and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America.

Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-)

Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional
cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'.
But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show
how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required
safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting
with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to
show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional
safety measures.

That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy
place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to
deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at
nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even
just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested
in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low
price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a
light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women.

  #4  
Old November 19th 08, 03:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

In article
,
" wrote:

To all:

My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been
diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American
Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry
a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several
questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As
usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see
why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a
more accurate rifle for a lot less money..."


Why drive a car with a manual transmission when you can have an
automatic instead? Pretty much the same thing.

Others couldn't
understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so
much better. The interesting point here was their definition of
'better.' :-)


The canonical response being "when did percussion caps laying about in
creek beds become common"? Not that most respondents actually bothered
to learn how to chip their own flints from raw stone, mind.

But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary
accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented
to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal
burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading
weapons.

My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and
I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of
protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps,
was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since
neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in
so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black
powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for
wadding.)

But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high-
precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was
capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards


Shooting round ball, or conical (or "sugar loaf") patched bullets?

and our
horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a
rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized
circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop.

So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many
factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor
in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively
low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed
when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade
black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you
would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for
each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned
rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second.

The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one
revolution for every 10 inches of bore.


That sounds like a pretty fast twist, especially if we're looking at
round ball, and still a little fast for conicals.

Round ball usually works better with slower twist barrels, and even the
pitch of the grooves varies a bit, depending on caliber.

My .50 uses about 1:66, my son's first rifle, a .40 used a 1:48 twist.
IIRC, a .60 caliber rifle ran around 1:72. Those are all intended for
use with a patched round ball.

All flintlocks. Just because we like 'em.

Now here comes the tricky bits.

800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second
With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps)
960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm
...and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead
ball.

Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to
deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly
true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover
it isn't a myth at all.

There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy
isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work
to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder-
wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon
was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming
powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked
and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives


The "cock", which holds the flint in its jaws.

the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover,


The "frizzen".

pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks
which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to
ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole
though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the
barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition
the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel...
and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America.

Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-)


Absolutely!

Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional
cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'.
But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show
how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required
safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting
with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to
show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional
safety measures.

That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy
place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to
deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at
nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even
just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested
in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low
price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a
light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women.


Ruger makes their M77 in 7.62x39.

Remington's 799 uses a Zastava-made short action that can be had in the
cartridge.

The CZ 527 carbine has been offered in it, too.
  #5  
Old November 19th 08, 05:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gezellig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 463
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:11:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

To all:

My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been
diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American
Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry
a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several
questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As
usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see
why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a
more accurate rifle for a lot less money..." Others couldn't
understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so
much better. The interesting point here was their definition of
'better.' :-)

But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary
accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented
to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal
burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading
weapons.

My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and
I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of
protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps,
was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since
neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in
so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black
powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for
wadding.)

But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high-
precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was
capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards and our
horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a
rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized
circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop.

So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many
factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor
in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively
low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed
when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade
black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you
would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for
each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned
rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second.

The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one
revolution for every 10 inches of bore. Now here comes the tricky
bits.
800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second
With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps)
960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm
...and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead
ball.

Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to
deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly
true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover
it isn't a myth at all.

There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy
isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work
to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder-
wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon
was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming
powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked
and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives
the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover,
pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks
which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to
ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole
though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the
barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition
the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel...
and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America.

Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-)

Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional
cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'.
But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show
how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required
safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting
with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to
show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional
safety measures.

That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy
place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to
deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at
nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm.

-R.S.Hoover

PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even
just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested
in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low
price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a
light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women.


You don't know me, Hoov, but I enjoy every one of your posts!

Hang tight! Fly right!
  #6  
Old November 19th 08, 06:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

On Nov 18, 6:38*pm, Steve Hix
wrote:

That sounds like a pretty fast twist, especially if we're looking at
round ball, and still a little fast for conicals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Boy, does it!

I was thinking of a .22 barrel I turned into a muzzle loader some
years ago.

The barrel I'm working with now is 1 in 44.
  #7  
Old November 19th 08, 06:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Flyingmonk[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

On Nov 18, 4:11*pm, " wrote:

-R.S.Hoover

PS *-- *Here's one for you guys. *Do you know of a rifle -- or even
just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? *I'm not interested
in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low
price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a
light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women.


Remington Model 799 Bob. Not cheap, but a bolt action.

Monk
  #8  
Old November 19th 08, 07:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 18, 6:38*pm, Steve Hix
wrote:

That sounds like a pretty fast twist, especially if we're looking at
round ball, and still a little fast for conicals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-


Boy, does it!

I was thinking of a .22 barrel I turned into a muzzle loader some
years ago.

The barrel I'm working with now is 1 in 44.


That would be about average for a .40 or .45 shooting roundball.

I've got a .40 caplock single-shot pistol in .40, and used to have a
couple of .40 rifles, one flintlock, one caplock. Any of the three were
more accurate than me (doesn't take all that much). One of my
sons-in-law has the flintlock in another state now.

The rifles would regularly group better off the bench at 50yds than most
of the SKS and AK-ish shooters at the range. Nothing wrong with
muzzleloaders accuracy at short- to medium range.
  #9  
Old November 19th 08, 11:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!

On Nov 18, 10:07*pm, Steve Hix
wrote:

The rifles would regularly group better off the bench at 50yds than most
of the SKS and AK-ish shooters at the range. Nothing wrong with
muzzleloaders accuracy at short- to medium range.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danang, 1967. They ran a trawler ashore near Chu lai. It was loaded
with small arms & rpg ammo. Anyone who wanted one of the rifles (SKS)
just had to sign in. Transfer was under the 'spoils of war'
provisions and once you had the paper-work in hand you could ship the
thing back to the States. Several of us got SKS, some opted for
AK's. We took them out to the range at Marble Mountain and found we
couldn't keep them on the paper at 100yds and got about 50% fliers at
50 yds. I gave mine to... somebody.

I figured the thing needed to be bedded but the machine work was so
bad you really had to see it to believe it. I've a hunch these
weapons were assembled from REJECTED components, since North Vietnam
and Red China weren't on very friendly terms at that time. The ammo
was okay. Steel cased FMJ, 154gr. But really, the weapons were some
kind of a joke. On some the rifling was eccentric... even incomplete
in a couple of cases. Threads that ran out of metal near the end;
threaded bores that were NOT threaded. There were something like 3500
semi-auto SK's and about 1500 AK's but the Marine Corps SAMMI at Red
Beach said he went through 20 SK's without finding enough good parts
to assemble ONE good rifle. He's the fellow who opined that they were
assembled from junked parts, probably from one of the NORINCO
factories that was noted for the low quality of their work.

Still, the things WOULD shoot, although some of them had to have the
bolt closed by hand after each round.

But you really gotta wonder about why they'd go through all the
trouble of shipping a trawler-load of junk weapons to their 'allies'
in I-Corps. Fulfilling a promise? Or did the ChiComs WANT the NVA's
to lose?

The best weapon over there -- and the one we had to worry about --
were the M1's we'd given to the French which were captured by Giap &
Company. The NVA had quite a few of them, carried only by their best
marksmen. Some of them were in Trophy condition, with new stocks,
etc.

-Bob

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spin ? Mal Soaring 12 April 3rd 06 06:23 AM
How Low to Spin?? Paul M. Cordell Soaring 180 September 14th 04 07:17 PM
Spin Toks Desalu Piloting 43 May 11th 04 01:04 PM
Spin Training Captain Wubba Piloting 25 April 12th 04 02:11 PM
Spin K.P. Termaat Soaring 56 February 11th 04 06:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.