Gun Talk

[fire4effect]

9 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

It was/is pretty embarrassing.  Mine is chambered in .357.  Was shooting it out at the range with a buddy of mine, he says “.38 is cheaper, I’ve got some, let’s put that through it.”  First round doesn’t make it out of the barrel/just not enough oomph. I take it home and instead of just tapping the bullet out and calling it a day I decide I’m gonna field strip and clean after I’ve put a grand total of maybe 50 rounds through the thing.  Random pieces just kept falling out the more I took it apart.  YouTube videos weren’t overly helpful.  After about the 300th “fuck” or “cocksucker” my wife told me to take a break.  I’m probably gonna take it to a gunsmith, I just don’t think I have the patience.

I think I see the issue. You need a caliber that starts with 4. 😁

[Swizzle]

10 hours ago, fire4effect said:

I think I see the issue. You need a caliber that starts with 4. 😁

Oh snap!

I thought they started with "." unless that dirty metric system is being referenced!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_mm_caliber

Or..

[ClearedHot]

Court: Post Office Gun Ban is Unconstitutional

A couple years ago I was running errands and had to stop at the Post Office to drop off a package and grab some stamps.  I had my pistol and I was about to get out of my truck when I remembered.  For a second I thought, meh I will only be in there for a minute but I took the extra .69 seconds and took it off and under the seat.  I was standing in line and felt someone right behind me, I turned around and it was cop...probably just running an errand himself but my heart skipped a beat for a second.

[M2]

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Court: Post Office Gun Ban is Unconstitutional

A couple years ago I was running errands and had to stop at the Post Office to drop off a package and grab some stamps.  I had my pistol and I was about to get out of my truck when I remembered.  For a second I thought, meh I will only be in there for a minute but I took the extra .69 seconds and took it off and under the seat.  I was standing in line and felt someone right behind me, I turned around and it was cop...probably just running an errand himself but my heart skipped a beat for a second.

Unfortunately, you were already in violation of Title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1 (also 39 CFR § 232.1) which states "no person may carry or store firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons on USPS property, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes."  This includes vehicles parked on postal property.

Unlike 18 U.S. Code §930, which prohibits carry in Federal facilities, the CFR covers "any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1

I got into a debate with the owner of the Rio Medina General Store who felt because they leased a small section in the back to the USPS, the entire property fell under this regulation.  She was wrong.

Luckily, local police don't enforce Federal laws; it would most likely require a Postal Inspector and they are rare birds to see in the wild!

I am glad a court finally addressed this unconstitutional restriction, it will be interesting to see how quickly the correction is implemented (already doubtful) especially consider the shutdown that started today...

[brabus]

Anyone have a Universal M1 carbine? I picked one up, took it apart and it seems fine (e.g. safe to shoot). I wanted to see if anyone has experience with one (things to look for, gotchas, etc.)

Edited October 4 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

47 minutes ago, brabus said:

Anyone have a Universal M1 carbine? I picked one up, took it apart and it seems fine (e.g. safe to shoot). I wanted to see if anyone has experience with one (things to look for, gotchas, etc.)

I've got one, and honestly the only reason I feel comfortable with the thing is because the bullets it uses are such low power rounds. It's strange feeling how much less... sturdy... a gun from that era feels. But then again they were just being smashed out by every factory that could produce them. 

[ClearedHot]

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I've got one, and honestly the only reason I feel comfortable with the thing is because the bullets it uses are such low power rounds. It's strange feeling how much less... sturdy... a gun from that era feels. But then again they were just being smashed out by every factory that could produce them. 

But still powerful enough to kill.  My grandfather carried an M1 Carbine across the pacific and won a battlefield commission.  Old school deployments...he left in 1942 and came home in 1946.  He said he liked it because it was light and maneuverable in the jungle.  Ammo was light and he carried a lot of extra rounds and his 1911 for backup.

Break Break - the ATF is in another big fight.
 

 

[brabus]

@Lord Ratner So basically, let it rip! What mags do you use/where’d you get them?

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

@Lord Ratner So basically, let it rip! What mags do you use/where’d you get them?

The guy who owns my local gun shop is an M1 collector, and I asked him to take a look just to make sure it seemed fine. We got the gun from my wife's family, apparently the friend of an uncle or something brought it back from the war. 

 

The mags don't look ancient, but the only markings on them are "U" on one, "SW" on another couple, and "M2" on the extended. 

 

Right now the site isn't letting me upload pics.

 

From AI: "In summary, your "U" and "SW" marked magazines are authentic pieces of World War II history. Your extended "M2" magazine is more likely a later, commercial product, but a careful examination of its features can help to more definitively determine its provenance"

Edited October 6 by Lord Ratner

[ClearedHot]

UFB
 

 

[Lord Ratner]

Bought some toys to make range day a lot more fun: 

https://ar500targetsolutions.com/product/12x20-ar550-reactive-hostage-target-system-1-2/

 

And this fancy bit of kit:

https://shootingtargets7.com/products/dueling-tree-target

 

I'll report back in a couple weeks with the review

[ClearedHot]

I have two but, not a giant Glock fan.  I guess they just went up in value.  Crazy times.

 

[Smokin]

A Glock was the first pistol I bought, but that one is still my only Glock (a pretty old model, maybe it'll start being worth something).  They did push a significant innovation with their original introduction, which is good for the gun world.  Hopefully this new model similarly pushes all the companies to improve.

[TreeA10]

For those that don't know, the Glock Blue Label program is a really good deal for active and retired military.

[fire4effect]

I didn't jump onto the Glock train until about 3 years ago. G19 Gen 5 I got at the exchange, and I really shoot it as well as any pistol I've ever owned. When I saw all the SOCOM guys carrying it I thought there must be something there. I admit I was old school and convincing myself to get a pistol without a manual safety took a while.

[M2]

Bleh. 

I carried a Glock while deployed to Bosnia, and was a fan until I retired in 2006 and discovered the then-new and superior Springfield XD line.

Honestly, Glock's kowtowing to new California legislation makes me like them even less.   

I get California is the third-largest gun market in the U.S.; but Glock is the only manufacturer so far to publicly announce a redesign, launching its “V Series” pistols to comply with AB 1127.

I also get SIG Sauer and Smith & Wesson are not directly affected by the law as most of their pistols do not have the same vulnerability.

But the California Rifle & Pistol Association says AB 1127 is a “backdoor ban” on striker-fired pistols and warns that it could impact a wide range of models sold in California, not just Glocks; yet instead of fighting it, Glock capitulated early to beat the rush (and here I thought they were Austrian, not French!).

Bleh.

[busdriver]

The Glock performance trigger doesn't have a cruciform trigger bar.  So something developed from that will likely be the solution.

AB1127 basically puts into statute the ATF's interpretation of "designed to shoot" from the NFA definition of machine gun.  The ATF interprets "designed" to mean possessing design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing components.  Which is why the ATF has forced redesigns on other firearms in the past.  

So basically I think Glock has gotten away with not re-designing the fire control system because of the numbers in circulation already.  If the bureaucrats pointed this out, the sheer size of it all would create a very large problem.  Easier to ignore.  That is until a bunch of States sue Glock after switches recovered by law enforcement goes up by almost 800% over the last 6 years.

Whether or not you agree with the law, or that it does anything; from within the perspective of someone who does, it makes sense to go after Glock.  More importantly, it makes sense to change gears if you're Glock since they probably know they're screwed.

Like you said, the other striker designs don't have the same vulnerability since you can't access the trigger bar from the slide plate.

[M2]

Can't say I agree.  The mere presence of a cruciform trigger bar does not make a Glock a "machine gun."  It requires an illegal modification and part that Glock does not provide.  Just because their design makes their handguns more susceptible to conversion doesn't demonstrate that was their intent. 

I get there's been an increase in their use; but from 2017 to 2021 Federal cases involving automatic conversion devices only rose from 10 to 83.  730% sounds a lot cooler, but it's hardly an epidemic and such drastic actions (which California is well known for!) aren't necessary as they don't target the true culprit.

Of course, if the courts actually held those who use these devices liable for their actions, that would be a more effective deterrent; but once again it's a matter of punishing the good for the bad!

I have zero skin in this game, I just hate it when government goes after law-abiding citizens for the actions of others.  That is how we ended up with the GCA and NFA, and if the Liberals have their way, we can expect even more unconstitutional rights being denied!

And we're completely fucked if Gavin Newsom ever ends up in the White House!

[busdriver]

21 minutes ago, M2 said:

Can't say I agree.  The mere presence of a cruciform trigger bar does not make a Glock a "machine gun."  It requires an illegal modification and part that Glock does not provide.  Just because their design makes their handguns more susceptible to conversion doesn't demonstrate that was their intent. 

The point is the way the ATF interprets the NFA, intent is irrelevant.  

22 minutes ago, M2 said:

I get there's been an increase in their use; but from 2017 to 2021 Federal cases involving automatic conversion devices only rose from 10 to 83.  730% sounds a lot cooler, but it's hardly an epidemic and such drastic actions (which California is well known for!) aren't necessary as they don't target the true culprit.

Of course, if the courts actually held those who use these devices liable for their actions, that would be a more effective deterrent; but once again it's a matter of punishing the good for the bad!

Nationwide total devices seized was something like 5800 in 2023.  Anecdotally from law enforcement relatives, the uptick is very real.  The low amount of federal cases is certainly interesting. My assumption is it becomes a matter of jurisdiction and federal capacity.

28 minutes ago, M2 said:

I have zero skin in this game, I just hate it when government goes after law-abiding citizens for the actions of others.  That is how we ended up with the GCA and NFA, and if the Liberals have their way, we can expect even more unconstitutional rights being denied!

And we're completely fucked if Gavin Newsom ever ends up in the White House!

Agree.

However, Glock's interest is selling guns.  I can't get upset if they prioritize doing that over being a cause crusader.  Lots of government contracts.

Think positive, a better trigger in all Glocks might actually be a win, I doubt they'll be able to jack the price up more than they already have.  Patrick Bateman might have just forced Glock to upgrade their product line for the consumer's benefit.

[slc]

20 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

For those that don't know, the Glock Blue Label program is a really good deal for active and retired military.

Curious, how much savings ballpark?

[brabus]

1 hour ago, slc said:

Curious, how much savings ballpark?

Depends on model and dealer, but 25-50%. It’s a no brainer to buy through blue label.

Related note, a lot of shade is thrown at Glock for being “sub par” because owners upgrade a lot of the parts. But, even when I have chosen to do such a thing, my end result is still cheaper than the other guy’s factory gun, and matches, or out performs, its capability. That said, I think the gen 5 barrels are pretty solid and really just the trigger is what needs to be replaced. Meh money spent, especially when you get the gun via blue label.

Edited 4 hours ago by brabus

[M2]

2 hours ago, busdriver said:

The point is the way the ATF interprets the NFA, intent is irrelevant.  

ATF "interpretations" of late have proven to be less than stellar!

In January 2024, the ATF published it recovered more than 31,000 machine gun conversion devices over the past five years (Source).

But again, the issue is the GCA/NFA and why are such devices illegal in the first place?

Before anyone starts the "it doesn't matter why, they just are" argument, I am fully aware of that.

But much like SBRs, full reset triggers (which while functionally different pretty much provide the same result), bump stocks and everything else that's prohibited (to include fully automatic weapons), it's simply unconstitutional ("Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward).

I will always be against any legislation that turns law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for exercising their inalienable rights!

And anyone who doesn't realize this is just a stepping stone toward greater restrictions is simply delusional.

Truthfully, I treat any gun legislation coming out of California as anti-2A, no matter how they sell it ("It's for the children!")
 

[Lord Ratner]

45 minutes ago, M2 said:

ATF "interpretations" of late have proven to be less than stellar!

In January 2024, the ATF published it recovered more than 31,000 machine gun conversion devices over the past five years (Source).

But again, the issue is the GCA/NFA and why are such devices illegal in the first place?

Before anyone starts the "it doesn't matter why, they just are" argument, I am fully aware of that.

But much like SBRs, full reset triggers (which while functionally different pretty much provide the same result), bump stocks and everything else that's prohibited (to include fully automatic weapons), it's simply unconstitutional ("Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward).

I will always be against any legislation that turns law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for exercising their inalienable rights!

And anyone who doesn't realize this is just a stepping stone toward greater restrictions is simply delusional.

Truthfully, I treat any gun legislation coming out of California as anti-2A, no matter how they sell it ("It's for the children!")
 

From what I'd gathered, for the moment at least, the ATF has given up on forced reset triggers on rifles. In their settlement agreement with rare breed, they had two interesting conditions. The first was that it would not be adapted to conventional pistols (conventional in the sense that it doesn't include all of the pistol AR and pistol rifle type guns), and the second was that he would agree to enforce his patent against others.

 

I suspect the restriction on pistols was directly related to their ongoing attempts to get rid of the Glock switch.

[busdriver]

3 hours ago, M2 said:

And anyone who doesn't realize this is just a stepping stone toward greater restrictions is simply delusional.

All gun control laws are this, whether intentionally or not.  And the ATF has been "interpreting" laws into existence for awhile.  No argument.

If we're lucky, now that Chevron is out of the way some of that might get tamped down or reversed.

My point isn't that I like CA, or their stupid laws.  My point is Glock as a company is in the business of making money, and California is a huge market especially in the cop market (like you pointed out).  Expecting them to commit financial seppuku in the name of rights advocacy is naive.

CARB has been using the California market share to push desired changes for a long while.  Same thing.