Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 5,580
» Latest member: tjm4801
» Forum threads: 22,024
» Forum posts: 274,307

Full Statistics

Latest Threads
.338WM - DS
Forum: Knives and Assorted Weapons
Last Post: Grizzly Dave
5 minutes ago
» Replies: 5
» Views: 93
A Handy light.
Forum: Backpacking and Gear Testing
Last Post: Deerstalker
9 hours ago
» Replies: 7
» Views: 87
.338 Win Mag
Forum: Weapons FAQ
Last Post: ddennis2
08-10-2018, 11:18 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 81
All Brass Shotgun Shells....
Forum: Questions and Answers
Last Post: Jimbo
08-09-2018, 10:43 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 1,781
what Revolver (s ) do you...
Forum: Knives and Assorted Weapons
Last Post: Scottman
08-08-2018, 10:13 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 46
A matter of interest on k...
Forum: Knives and Assorted Weapons
Last Post: Limey Pete
08-07-2018, 08:41 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 279
Ahoy the camp!
Forum: Welcome To The Hoodlums
Last Post: Grizzly Dave
08-01-2018, 11:51 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 234
Skookum Bush Tool
Forum: Knives and Assorted Weapons
Last Post: Bill Hay
07-31-2018, 11:57 AM
» Replies: 44
» Views: 1,476
Introduction (also reques...
Forum: Welcome To The Hoodlums
Last Post: Tn Ridge Rover
07-31-2018, 01:44 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 145
HOWDY HOODLUMS!!! I'M BAC...
Forum: Welcome To The Hoodlums
Last Post: 7.62
07-30-2018, 02:10 AM
» Replies: 19
» Views: 614

 
  Need Help, New Tent?
Posted by: frediver - 04-11-2004, 11:05 PM - Forum: Questions and Answers - Replies (14)

I've got only one more day to make up my mind. I have an REI certificate burning a hole in my pocket good for 20% but it's the last day.

I've been thinking for a while about a new tent. I want something fairly light, but with more floor room than seems to be offered these days. I think my best option is with a pyramid style, floorless.

I know Ron and Karen have one, if you are reading this do you like it?? Any problems? Who made it? I am looking at the Bibler (BlackDiamond) Megamid or Megamid lite, any reason for one or the other? Also considering the Golite Hex 3.

Anyone have any experience with any of these tents? What do you think of them?

Or should I just get a tarp instead?

One other option is the MSR Treker tent. A more traditional pup-tent style. One side opens up as an awning like the old Whelen style.

Thanks<><

Print this item

  Kydex Sheath Making
Posted by: Guest - 04-11-2004, 03:33 PM - Forum: Weapons FAQ - No Replies

Heres The Deal......

Posted By: Normark - Registered User

Posts: 549

Posted At: (3/9/03 5:11 pm)

Reply | Edit | Del



Hey Guys....



Jason..



Forming synthetics can be as complicated or as easy as you want it..



Depending on how you want to mold will dictate the final product...



The info a Texas Supply... Throw it in the garbage and do it properly from the beginning...



First you will need a press of some type...



2-2X6" boards or even better 2X8's will work better..

Make sure they are flat,,no crowning..



Spray adhesive 2 layers each of blue sleeping pad foam onto each piece.



On the bottom mold screw 2 2"X2" feet to raise it off the bench.



You will need at least 3 LARGE C-clamps or pipe clamps.



One at each end, one in the middle. The more pressure you use, the better the outcome.



Secondly, you will need to tape your blade. 4-6 layers on each side,,depending..

The more layers of tape the more rattle you will get.The fewer layers, the more scratching will possibly happen.

I'd rather fit rattles than scratches...



Get a heat gun..



Keep you surfaces clean, knife clean and taped edges clean..



Get your clamps ready to go in open position..You don't want to waste valuable time opening them.



Depending on how you want to form, either pouch style or pancake (two piece) style...Truthfully, fold over or pouch is the easiest way to go...



Heat you plastic to touch,,use you hands with thin cotton gloves..

Keep testing the plastic to make sure it has the right amount of heat..



I do Everything by feel, and can tell if a certain area is not up to molding temp..



If you see white when you fold,, you've damaged the piece, throw it away.



When plastic is at temp, lay it on your mold, insert the knife fold it over and pull the knife spine into the fold while holding the open end.



Make sure to leave room for the tip.At least one inch.

You will also want to go once inch at least further than you want to go on the the knife handle. At least 1.5 inch more than the knife edge..



Fold the top mold over and hold it down as you tighten your clamps. Tighten the middle clamp first, then the end clamps... Tighten as much as you can...



This can be sometimes a two person job...Work Fast!!!



You can use a Quick Clamp in the middle to free up your hands, then go to town on the end clamps...



Wait at least 10 minutes, then remove your new sheath...



If you find finger imprints in the plastic,,reheat only the effeted area, and reclamp... If you find waves, your mold may be warping from the pressure, or you aren't using enough pressure.



I use custom made 2 ton presses, designed only for this type of work.. The more pressure you use, the crisper your lines will be.. Even steady downward pressure is the answer...





Now the adjustment phase will begin..



This is rather complicated and different on every single knife...



You have to understand where the kydex is locking the knife..Find this and adjust it, so the knife will go in and out as well as lock in place...



The area around the guard of the knife is the first place to start...



Again every knife is different,,and its nothing I can really explain,, it all comes with experience,,so you'll have to experiment a little...



This is the basics of sheathing...



Don't believe any of that rock the knife back and forth BS... Trust me, it'll look like shit, and fit even worse...



Have Phun..



Eric...

Print this item

  Rain Chaps
Posted by: DIRTY DOC - 04-11-2004, 01:26 PM - Forum: Questions and Answers - Replies (4)

Has anyone out there ever used Rain Chaps? I am most interested in the ones made by Outdoor Reaserch called Exped Chaps, but any brand that you have had success with would be OK with me. I am thinking of getting a pair to use with my poncho when the weather really gets nasty.



Dirty Doc

Print this item

  Question For Ron
Posted by: N8QGE - 04-11-2004, 11:38 AM - Forum: Questions and Answers - Replies (10)

Quote:As long as you can buy three nine volt batteries, pure silver and distilled water, you can have the stuff.

Ok, call me somewhat uninformed, but what are the plans for making this stuff?





Disclaimer: I understand that the risk that I may be taking is of my own free will and that I will hold no one responsible other than myself.

Print this item

  Ron Hood's Shoulder Bag
Posted by: sgteldridge - 04-11-2004, 04:44 AM - Forum: Questions and Answers - Replies (17)

were did you get that leather shoulder bag i see in some of the videos?did you make it? or buy it somewere?

Print this item

  Round File Striker?
Posted by: nevada - 04-11-2004, 04:08 AM - Forum: Questions and Answers - Replies (5)

i thought i saw an article somewhere, by someone, on turning a round file into a "C" striker for flint and steel fire making. maybe it was american survival guide or backwoods magazine - maybe someone knows what im refering to?



i do remember the author using a propane torch to bend the file...would this ruin the temper for making sparks? <img src='http://www.hoodswoods.net/IVB/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />

Print this item

  Rifle-scopes
Posted by: wmerrin - 04-11-2004, 03:17 AM - Forum: Weapons FAQ - No Replies

Subject: Need a little help

Posted By: turtle - Registered User

Posts: 175

Posted At: (5/30/02 8:49 am)

Reply | Edit | Del All



I'm in the process of developing loads for a Rem. 25/06. I've found a good shooting load but have a question regarding parralax in scopes. My bench is not T shaped but more like a picnic table. When I am in position to shoot it is very hard to get a full field of view without pressing my chest into the table. Without doing this the field of view isn't full but black around the edges. This appears to contribute to larger group sizes. The scope is a 4X14 Leopold Vari X III set on 14X when shooting. Should the field of view be full when precision shooting? and if it is not will this effect group size? Thanks



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

Subject: The Factotum Speaks

Posted By: ML - Registered User

Posts: 286

Posted At: (5/30/02 11:43 am)

Reply | Edit | Del



Rifle-Scope Arcania



Once again, I see that my second-intellect (or what remains of it) is called upon to shed the most feeble light in the darkness of ignorance. Or something like that.



I imagine many Forum members are less than satisfied with their telescopic sights, and now we have an entire generation which has grown up shooting with nothing but telescopic sights.



The problem you describe ("a question regarding parralax in scopes . . . . When I am in position to shoot it is very hard to get a full field of view without pressing my chest into the table. Without doing this the field of view isn't full but black around the edges") isn’t parallax at all, nor is it really Field of View; rather, it’s eye-relief and exit-pupil related. So let’s define a couple to terms.



Eye relief is the distance your eye must be from the ocular lens (the lens closest to your face). In the case of the Leupold 4.5-14 Vari X III, the eye relief is between five inches (at the lower magnification range) and 3.7 inches (at the higher magnification range). Depending on the design of the scope itself, the "sweet spot" of the eye-relief’s range can be critical--especially at the higher magnifications. With a 14-power glass, I imagine you’ve got to position your eye within five millimeters or so, exactly, in order to get an accurate, consistant sight picture.



Why is this? Partly because of the scope’s exit pupil diameter--again exacerbated and increasingly critical at high magnifications. Exit pupil diameter is the amount of light (or in this instance the diameter of the image) transmitted to your eye through the ocular lens of the sight. It’s easy to compute for telescopic sights, binoculars, and so on: simply take the diameter of the objective lens in millimeters (the lens far away from your eye) and divide that number by the magnification. For example, a pair of seven-power binoculars with 35mm objective lenses has a 5mm exit pupil diameter (35 divided by 7 = 5); a pair of seven-power binoculars with 50mm objective lenses has a 7.1mm exit pupil diameter (50 divided by 7 = 7.14).



Your Leupold Vari X III 4.5-14 may have either a 40mm or a 50mm objective lens (Leupold produces two versions). At 14 power, you can see that the exit pupil is only 3.6mm (for the 50mm objective) or a even smaller 2.8mm (for the 40mm objective). While both of these figures are quite good for such a high magnification, they’re still modest nonetheless.



(An aside here--as the iris in the human eye opens and closes, it reveals a pupil pf about 2.5mm under very bright light, of about 5mm in the light of early morning or evening, and of a maximum of about 7mm at night--although as one’s eyes age, the range constricts, too. Therefore, theoretically we never need a pair of binoculars or a scope with an exit pupil diameter in excess of 7mm for light transmission--our eyes can’t use more--although larger exit pupils are easier to pick up ard are less critical in their viewing.)



Parallax, now, is something else entirely, and while of interest it’s not your problem. Parallax is the apparent movement of the target in the scope as you move your eye around the ocular lens.



Still with us? Here’s what you need to do to resolve your particular problem.



One, you MUST line the center of your eye’s pupil with the optical center of the telescopic sight. You mention your shooting bench’s construction as an issue. Fix it. The bench itself is not the problem--it’s the way you, your rifle, the bench and your seat all line up. Simply, sandbag the rifle higher (use anything solid--40-pound sack of cat litter or dog food will work just fine). Just as good, shoot from prone over a solid rest. And remember, that rest (whether on the bench, prone, or in the field) must never contact the barrel directly, but only the rifle’s stock).



Big glass makes precise aiming easier, but the tradeoff is often ergonomic unfriendliness--exactly what you’re experiencing. At the whole other end of the scale, the Leupold M8 2.5-power Intermediate Eye Relief (IER) "Scout Scope" on my Steyr offers a whopping 11mm exit pupil and more than nine inches of non-critical eye relief. Yes, it’s an apples-and-oranges comparison to your 14-power dilemma, but it serves to illustrate the point. I’ve shot with scopes as high as 32 power, and they’re often not very user friendly.



You might try dialing down your Leupold’s magnification for a bit--it is a variable, after all. And take a look at the entire package--how far you can slide the scope in the rings, how high the ring/base combination puts the scope above your rifle’s bore, how high and straight your stock’s comb is.



Your rifle is a machine which needs to fit you as well as a comfortable pair of shore. It sounds as though yours doesn’t just yet--at least not in combination with your shooting bench. Change things until it does--and start with the way the rifle sits on the bench.



Best of luck with that .25-’06--you’ve got a good piece of glass there, albeit a bit on the powerful side. Make it work for you.



Regards, and hope this has been of some help,



--ML



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

Subject: ML...

Posted By: turtle - Registered User

Posts: 176

Posted At: (5/30/02 1:20 pm)

Reply | Edit | Del



Many thanks for the information. As usual, you came through. So a little clarification. Eye relief is important and the "sweet spot" should be found. Your eye must be exactly centered with the rear lens or the bullet could print differently? I understand I have work to do in positioning myself at the bench I believe I'll start from scratch. By the way, once I obtained a "full field" of view my second 3 shot group was .636 (Extreme to Extreme and backing out .257). This was with IMR 4831 87 gr. Sierra bullets seated .001 off the lands. Again I Thank You for your help.



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



Subject: Additional Clarification

Posted By: ML - Registered User

Posts: 287

Posted At: (5/30/02 2:50 pm)

Reply | Edit | Del



Clarification



Your question: "Eye relief is important and the ‘sweet spot’ should be found. Your eye must be exactly centered with the rear lens or the bullet could print differently?"



The two (centering your eye with the optical center of the telescopic sight and proper eye relief) are related.



All telescopic sights or binoculars have a range of eye relief (the "sweet spot") where the image is sharp from edge to edge with none of the black fuzziness around the edges you’ve previously described. Most of the time, as magnification increases, that range decreases, and consequently becomes more critical. In practical terms most low-magnification rifle scopes offer as much as two inches of eye-relief range, and some high-magnification models as little as a quarter-inch. (The eye-relief number you see quoted by most manufacturers is not the range per se, but the distance from the ocular lens to the middle of the range.) So long as your eye is within that range, exact placement of your pupil within the scope’s centerline, while desirable, is not absolutely essential, and the target should not appear to shift its location on the aiming reticle--if it does, then the issue is parallax. When you are outside of the range (the situation you originally described), accurate shooting, while still possible, is exponentially more difficult, and requires that the optical center of the scope and the center of the eye be precisely in line from shot to shot--a difficult task.



So first, you need to do all your shooting within the (short) range of proper eye relief when using your scope set at 14 power. As you’ve noted, when you did, you achieved superior results.



* * * * *



A couple of thoughts on magnification



"If a little is good, and more is better, than too much must be just right." Whether it’s telescopic sight magnification, horsepower, or alcohol consumption, that philosophy--while probably no stranger to most on this Forum--leads unswervingly to one point, and it’s not pretty.



High-magnification riflescopes seem like such a fine idea--the magnification makes truly hair-splitting points of aim possible. And when shooting truly small targets at great distance with a precision rifle, high magnification makes sense--to a point.



High-magnification scopes do have some significant drawbacks, though. First, they tend to be expensive. Second, they’re almost always heavy. Third, in order to produce a usable exit pupil, they must use large objective lenses, often in the 50mm range, and this means they must be mounted high above the bore, a condition which precludes proper head position on many rifle stocks. Above 10-12X, the exit-pupil size diminishes enough to warrant note in anything but bright light. Eye relief becomes critical. They offer more limited fields of view, making it more difficult to locate a target you’ve spotted with the naked eye or with a more modest pair of binoculars (a condition known as "getting lost in the scope). Finally, because they exaggerate errors in hold, in anything but a rock-solid shooting position they result in "chasing the scope" (trying to compensate for the crosshairs moving on the target).



A 14X sight on a .25-’06, by today’s standards, is probably not viewed as excessive by most, providing the shooter is gunning for squirrel-sized targets in the 300-yard range. When shooting something as large as a deer at 100 yards, 14X is a huge liability.



Most shooters who purchase scopes up in this magnification range choose variables, believing them to allow more versatility. They do, but only if used correctly. Always move from shot to shot with your scope set on its lowest power, and only dial up the magnification once you have located and decided upon your target.



Some shooters choose heavy, expensive high-magnification variables because they think, in the long run, they’re actually saving the expense and weight of having to purchase and carry a spotting scope or a pair of binoculars. Wrong! It is an exceedingly poor practice to intentionally point a firearm at anything you do not tend to destroy (Rule Number Two). NEVER use your rifle’s scope to "glass" a target, and don’t shoot with anyone who does.



High-magnification scopes have their place, but they are specialized tools. Before you opt for one, make sure you need its features and are willing to live with its drawbacks. And while those drawbacks are apparent on the bench, often in the field, as the scope’s magnification goes up, often so does the magnification of the drawbacks.



--ML



The Four Rules:



1.

All firearms are loaded.



2.

Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy.



3.

Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.



4.

Be sure of your target and what is behind it.



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

Print this item

  So Who's Still Wearing Mocs?
Posted by: Keeler - 04-11-2004, 02:56 AM - Forum: Questions and Answers - Replies (21)

Normally during the day I have to wear workboots/shoes, but after that into my carl dyers mocs. Just wondering if I was the only one still wearing primitive footgear?Come rain or shine mine have provided excellent service.

Print this item

  Measuring Trigger Pulls
Posted by: wmerrin - 04-11-2004, 02:46 AM - Forum: Weapons FAQ - No Replies

Subject: Measuring Trigger Letoff

Posted By: ML - Registered User

Posts: 272

Posted At: (4/29/02 4:02 pm)

Reply | Edit | Del All



Measuring Trigger Pulls



Some time ago, the subject of measuring the weight of a trigger’s release came up. Of course, the correct procedure is to use a dedicated trigger-pull gauge such as sold by Lyman or RCBS.



For those Forum members who are either too thrifty to spend the $50 or so for such a device, or who only plan to use it once or twice and put it away, there is a workable alternative.



First, make sure the firearm in question is unloaded. Then take an empty gallon milk jug, and tie a short loop of string through the jug’s handle and over the trigger--the string should run in one side of the triggerguard and out the other so it pulls straight down and not to one side, and it should be short enough that the jug is suspended only a couple of inches below the trigger itself. Next, cock the action, and make sure the safety is off. Finally, begin slowly filling the jug with water until the trigger releases.



At this point, you have two options: First, you may take the jug and water to a post office and weigh them together to get the exact weight of trigger release. Second, simply pour the water into a measuring cup at home, and calculate the weight.



How to do that? "A pint’s a pound the world around," my old man used to say. He’s largely correct, too: A gallon of water (eight pints or 128 fluid ounces) weighs 8.345 pounds (8 pounds, 5.5 ounces) Every ounce of water you decant weighs 0.0652 pounds (1.043 ounces by dry weight). Remember to factor in the weight of the milk jug. (No scale? Your old Uncle ML has just measured one for you, and it came in at 2.3 ounces empty. Your milk jug’s mileage may vary, blah blah blah.)



Our metric friends have things a little easier, as one ml (milliliter) of water weighs exactly 100 grams.



If your trigger pull is more than eight pounds (one gallon), measuring its letoff is the least of your problems.



And a little piece of informational lagniappe: a gallon of gasoline weighs 6.1 pounds, and a gallon of motor oil weights 7.5 pounds.



Have fun,



--ML



29.iv.2





Edited by: ML at: 4/29/02 6:35:26 pm



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



Subject: Very cool and another question

Posted By: David R - Registered User

Posts: 109

Posted At: (4/30/02 11:59 am)

Reply | Edit | Del



So, i have just finished two books from STTU (hope i said that right :-) on marksmenship and tactical stuff. I am reading everything that I can get my hands on ...



my question is.. so a person finds out that the trigger has an 8lb pull. Now what? How do I get to a 3.5lb trigger pull? That seems to be the number that I have seen floating around. What is the right trigger weight?



Thanks,



David



P.S. Thanks to Bill Hay and ML earlier for your answers on why Glass Bedding. You guys have really been helping me a lot!



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

Subject: Triggers

Posted By: ML - Registered User

Posts: 273

Posted At: (4/30/02 1:07 pm)

Reply | Edit | Del



There’s nothing "magic" or absolute about 3.5 pounds per se, although for many rifles it’s a worthy goal. When the trigger pull is greater than the weight of the rifle, life becomes more difficult, but many rifles weigh in excess of seven or eight pounds.



Some rifles--especially autoloaders--really need heavier trigger pulls. The M1 Garand, for example, is seldom safely reduced below 4.5 or 5 pounds, so this 3.5 goal is really for bolt guns and single shots.



No less an authority than the great Jeff Cooper has gone on record as saying that trigger-release weight alone is not the primary concern--a trigger’s crispness, lack of creep, and lack of overtravel is. From the Guru himself:



"The most essential element of the ‘shootability’ of rifle or pistol is its trigger action. The ideal trigger breaks clean without telling the shooter that it is about to do so. This quality is generally referred to as ‘crispness’ and does not refer to trigger weight. A two-stage trigger, which is what I prefer, moves slightly and smoothly before it reaches ignition pressure. With a single-stage action, the trigger does not move perceptibly without ignition pressure. In either case, there appears to be a consensus that 3.5 to 4 pounds pressure is the correct weight. Actually weight is a good deal less important than crispness. A trigger may be quite light, but still ‘mushy’ in the sense that it moves perceptibly when activated. Such movement is called creep, but it is not ‘take-up,’ which occurs before the trigger has reached the point of ignition pressure.



"Superior trigger action is more of a help to the shooter in snapshooting than in slow-fire, but a really good trigger is the first thing to look for in the selection of any rifle. When people ask what rifle they should bring to class here at school, my answer has always been, ‘bring the one with the best trigger.’"1



That noted, we come to the second part of your question: "What can I do about it?" Some rifles (notably Remington 700s) permit trigger adjustment simply by turning screws. On other non-adjustable designs, lightening the trigger and cleaning up its action is achieved by altering the trigger and sear surfaces with a sharpening stone, and through alterations to the trigger spring(s). This course typically requires some skill, and the results--good or bad--are generally irreversible without purchasing new parts. It’s tempting to take your stone work just a little too far and produce an unsafe trigger. In addition, some triggers/sears are case-hardened, and stoning through the thin case treatment exposes the soft metal, which wears quickly and returns a poor trigger with use.



Perhaps the best solution of all is the purchase of an aftermarket trigger. Thankfully, there are several really excellent designs around: Timney, Dayton, Kepplinger, Bold, and Shilen all produce outstanding aftermarket triggers for a variety of modern and vintage rifles. (God bless these folks for keeping the faith in such a litigious product-liability atmosphere!) Prices generally range from $40 to $100 or so. Often a little additional inletting is required, but not much more. The specifics, of course, vary from brand to brand and rifle to rifle.



Recently I installed a Timney trigger ($37.99 from Cabela’s--see link below) in one of my Swedish M96 Mausers. Excellent results--I didn’t even bother re-adjusting the unit from the Timney factory specifications. I did have to relieve some metal in the triggerguard and some wood in the stock--maybe an hour’s fine work with a die grinder and a file. Of course, a good gunsmith could do this for you as well.



(Cabela’s Link)



[url="http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/pod/standard-pod-wrapped.jhtml?id=0012728&navAction=jump"]http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/template...&navAction=jump[/url]



Hope that helps!



Good shooting,



--ML



1 Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Volume Nine, Number 14; December, 2001.



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

Print this item

  Barrels And Bayonets
Posted by: wmerrin - 04-11-2004, 02:41 AM - Forum: Weapons FAQ - No Replies

[A continuation of the "Beddiing and Rifles" post]



Subject: interesting snipet from an article - relates to your post

Posted By: David R - Registered User

Posts: 105

Posted At: (4/23/02 3:00 pm)

Reply | Edit | Del



Thank you ML, once again I see that I have A LOT!!! to learn!



Here is a snippet that I came across... goes nicely with what you were saying about hanging things off your firearm.



"The Model 1944 Carbine was designed with the earlier Russian Model 1938 Carbine as an official blueprint, with the only major deviation in overall design being the addition of some form of bayonet. Bayonet testing was undertaken in 1943, with a specimen designed by N.S. Semin becoming design of choice. The selected bayonet was a permanent side folder and seemed the perfect solution to the Soviet dilemma. The short length of the carbine would not be affected in normal use and the side- folding bayonet could smoothly be extended when necessity arose. The added convenience of a permanently attached 15.1 inch crucifix bayonet was that this was one less item the Red Army soldier would be forced to carry, or lose for that matter. The carbine can be fired with the bayonet folded in place or extended, ***but it is important to note that the M44 was designed to be fired with the bayonet in the extended position. This design fact means when the bayonet is not extended, the point of aim/impact changes. ***"



for the complete article:

[url="http://www.mosin-nagant.net/Russian-M44-Carbine.html"]http://www.mosin-nagant.net/Russian-M44-Carbine.html[/url]



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



Subject: Barrels and Bayonets

Posted By: ML - Registered User

Posts: 269

Posted At: (4/25/02 11:51 am)

Reply | Edit | Del



Once again, we see Mr. Roberts has been paying attention in class. Most commendable.



Here’s another example. In 1939, our friends across the pond (the English) adopted a new infantry weapon--the Rifle No. 4. Superficially, this looks much like the famous SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) or Rifle No. 1, Mk III, and indeed does use the same .303 British cartridge. In actuality few parts are common between the two. As an over-simplification, the British used the SMLE in the First World War, and the Rifle No. 4 (in various "Marks" or modifications)--supplanted by refurbished SMLE--in the Second World War.



Very early versions of Rifle No. 4 used an "L"-shaped flip-up twin aperture rear sight: One aperture was regulated to 300 yards, and one for 600 yards. Distances in between required the soldier to attach or detach his bayonet to change point of impact. (Alternate sources complicate this further, calling out the regulation of the 300-yard sight for use with the bayonet and the 600-yard sight for use without the bayonet.)



Unlike the SMLE Rifle No.1, Mk. III, the Rifle No. 4’s bayonet attached directly to the barrel, and caused the point of impact to shift about NINE INCHES at 100 yards (nine inches low).



Obviously, this was a very poor system, and subsequent "Marks" of the Rifle No. 4 used a more conventionally adjusted rear aperture sight; many of the twin-aperture rifles were later refit with this superior sight as well.



Another oft-overlooked issue concerns a forward sling swivel attached to the barrel itself. This is common practice with really big, heavy recoiling "African" calibers, so the weapon’s forward swivel stud doesn’t cut the shooter’s forward hand under recoil. But we also see it on a far-more-common arm--the M16 or its civilian counterpart AR-15. Here, the forward swivel is attached to the front-sight assembly (which of course is attached directly to the barrel).



If you use a tight sling when you are shooting from a supported left elbow (as you well should), sling tension may significantly bend the barrel, changing the harmonics and moving point of impact (usually down as well, although the amount of deviation depends on the tension of the sling). Similarly, resting the barrel against anything (a fencepost, a tree, or over sandbags or a log) will also change impact, although in these cases, as Mr. Hay states with his "pencil" example, the point of impact will usually move away from the direction of the rest’s influence.



--ML



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

Print this item