Jump to content

brown dog

Global Moderator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brown dog

  1. Reloading with Rosie

    Only just caught this thread. What a remarkably 'retro' way to position a modern video. Benevolent take: It got us talking about it, which is the aim of marketing.
  2. We do ask that advertisers name a price on here; grateful if you would do so.
  3. Bump. Sensible offers?
  4. 10x42 ELs (with old style Butler Creek scope caps fitted to the objectives in place of the useless Swaro obj covers - the butlers show flaked paint when I originally painted them green ) Glass perfect. Would describe as close to mint, less for small & normal wear to the anodising on the bridge. The best there is: £950 shipped (bank transfer or cash, please).
  5. Lever Action Rifle accuracy

  6. The Mighty AK Continues as the AK-12 and 15

    An afterthought; a new ammo type that runs at proof in temperate conditions, breaks all in-service army weapons, unless substantially modified, and is yet to work in the infantry's main squad support weapon......hmm, I wonder if the engineer running this is the same chap who managed to persuade the purchasers that ACU was an effective cam?!
  7. The Mighty AK Continues as the AK-12 and 15

    How do the various ammo pressures compare? One thing I read mentioned that the 855a1 ain't far off 5.56 proof pressures - and anything routinely breaking bolt lugs (holy crap!!) sounds to be at that sort of level (?) (The design workarounds you mention and the 'it's great, but breaks all existing weapon types it's fired in' soundbite sound very SA80-esque!)
  8. The Mighty AK Continues as the AK-12 and 15

    Coincidentally, I had the original minor tactics 'lessons' output from Op Corporate on my desk 2 weeks ago. I'll dig some quotes out next week, but what particularly leapt out at me - remembering that LSW was in the procurement pipeline at the time that the report was written- was that this top-of-Army operational report went out of its way to say something along the lines of 'don't go 5.56' and, even more emphatically 'don't even think about going 5.56 and box magazine for a support weapon'..........and then we immediately bought SA80 and LSW. It'd be lovely to think the 855a1 has been bought because it's better; but as soon as I saw the words 'green ammo' and the r&d costs (read: profiteering by someone) to drive it through; and then cross-reference that with the USMC 'rifle durability' officer-speak, I see a politically -not effect- driven procurement.
  9. The Mighty AK Continues as the AK-12 and 15

    Not heard of the 855a1, so just had a quick google. This USMC verdict made me chuckle: "In testing, the Army round caused “some durability issues” for the ­Marine Corps’ M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, Brig. Gen. Joseph Shrader, ­MARCORYSCOM’s commanding officer, told Senators in June. Even though the M855A1 reduces the IAR’s durability, the M27 is still “operationally suitable” when firing the Army rounds" 'some durability issues' and 'reduces the IAR's durability' - that's career-conscious officer-speak for 'it totally fxcks the rifles'
  10. Biathlon Rifles?

    Just watching Olympic biathlon. Random musing: Who makes the amazing rifles / stocks / slings?
  11. Biathlon Rifles?

    Thanks, both. Biathlon seems to be dominating the eurosport olympic coverage. Absolutely nails sport, and everything about the way the competitors handle the rifles fascinates me; even the semi-rigid slings seem to be an ergonomic work of art. (I haven't looked, I'm on patchy internet access at the mo, but I imagine l/h biathlon rifles are rocking horse poo)
  12. Some time in the pipeline, we have finalised a new UKV baseball cap. It's a high quality twill with a slightly 'moleskin' feel to it. Most of the first run have gone already and we only have 10 left for sale. A further 4 are available FREE as prizes in our facebook competition (details to follow shortly) The hats are £15 plus £2 p&p with payment by BACS - post here to reserve a hat and PM me directly to arrange payment and give a delivery address
  13. Diggle Benchrest Success

    Impressive. Congratulations!
  14. Action bedding

  15. Scope Calibration

    Well, no. It's back to muddling dependant variables. If you go straight to a tall target shooting test, and get 'lateral'; you will have nil idea as to the cause: cog jump or ret misalignment or scope not level or rifle not level or a bit of each or a bit of some.
  16. Scope Calibration

    George, you are conflating click calibration (ie how the scope mechanicals perform) and cant. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand why you keep bringing cant into a calibration discussion. Separate and sequential.
  17. Scope Calibration

    I think Yogi Beara's thing doesn't apply to empirically calibrating an optical instrument: Calibration is the act of empirically assessing the theoretical click value. It would apply were one to decide that calibration is for cissies and to trust the manufacturer's claimed click values and, yes, it would apply to the subsequent use of said calibrated instrument in a 'system': Calibrated scope doesn't guarantee uncanted fire, but it does mean that where a cant effect is seen, the mechanics of the scope itself have been ruled out.
  18. Scope Calibration

    George, you'd be muddling dependent variables if you were to try to assess cant at the same time as check scope calibration and repeatability. In sequence and separately, one at a time, or the output is meaningless.
  19. Scope Calibration

    Hol Holy crap. You're surprised an error that miniscule in a small arms optic wasn't covered?! I've not checked your maths, or whether the chord/arc 'error' you've stated was cm or m , but you've stated an error value of 0.00000033, lets assume the measurement was metres, that's an error of 0.0003mm ..at 100metres. so about 200 times finer than a human hair - Weird they didn't mention it ! Haven't followed your subsequent calc, but you still appear to be talking in 'hundredths of a millimeter' for a large change at 1000m. Values in both cases that wouldn't be even remotely empirically observable. I think it's safe to say that at small arms ranges and elevations, arc/chord subtension issues are so close to zero as to be completely ignorable. As regards the various other posts / posters discussing repeatability and calibration stuff; I never understand why anyone would choose to perform an optical calibration test by shooting. One is then testing the shooting system as a whole; not the optics alone. I'd recommend this ...as always, I'm horses, not zebras, so: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid): Clamp the rifle (eg black and decker workmate) and simply observe a ruler placed vertically at exactly 10m, or a tape measure at 100m. Then dial on, say, 50 clicks, and see where the ret has moved. (Calibration) Then dial it back. Does it go back to the start point? (Repeatability). Do it a bunch of times for different bunches of clicks. If the calibration error is hard to see visually, throw it into stark relief by winding on big corrections and returns. Job done. Simples.
  20. British Shooting Show - No Dogs

    Cor blimey, golly jeepers, e-paranoia does get a bit wearing. There was another thread with exactly the same name as this one, that got taken down because it strayed into ad hominems and name-calling arguing both sides of the well trodden Seal Team 6, or more realistically 'Man at G10", shooting attire debate. The thread was then regenerated, for some reason, who knows why, and I don't actually mind or care, it's obviously of interest to some, with an identical title. I imagine your 'gone' post was collateral damage in the destruction of the Seal Team 6 version. Hugs and flowers all round. Everyone OK now? (I'm actually silently screaming 'FFS', well, nearer 'FFFFFFFFS' with spittle and froth. This repetitive, ungrateful, righteous indignation e-paranoia (sorry, not just your post JB1, myriad other sniffy and handbag comments like 'I expect the mods didn't like it' etc), when all the modding crew is trying to do is maintain a civil and mutually-respectful hobby space for us all to enjoy, is beginning to 'do my head in')
  21. Think that'd have to be answered with 'define best'. If it's only in terms of sharpness, then yes. But if it's 'best for intended application', then no. Best for making razor sharp edges? Yes Best for dive knives etc? No
  22. They're also generally hammer forged, for cheapness, which I suspect is the primary driver for that choice, and I would suspect that there are multiple other economies of scale for mass production (ie non-stainless is cheaper) and production (tooling wear etc?) that drive military-lowest-bidder choice away from stainless.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy