Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Gun Reviews

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by dave phpbb3, Jan 4, 2008.

  1. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    Thought I would start this up for those of us who shoot on the Forum,
    if you just list what you either own, or have used with a short review.


    I'll start off with the Browning T-Bolt .22RF rifle (the 2nd generation launched in 2006)

    We'll the T-bolt is one of the finest rifles I have ever used,
    It has a superb trigger which is nice and crisp. The rifle is light weighing in at 4lbs and 14oz. It is also well ballanced, well made and is very attractive. The straightpull action takes abit of getting used to if you are used to turn-bolts, but after time, it becomes very easy to use and it can have a high rate of fire.
    The magazine is in a "double helix" shape, and holds ten rounds, these magazines are very reliable and compact, I have never had a feeding problem with them and I have put well over 2000 rounds through one magazine alone.

    The only real complaints about the rifle is that with a 22 inch barrel it quickly becomes heavy at the fore-end, but Browning have already solved this by producing a carbine variant with a 16 inch barrel. and the magazine ejector is rather powerful and if you are not careful you could end up losing a mag or 2 in the field.
    Overall it is a fantastic rifle to use, with few complaints. It shoots well and the action is very easy to use.
    I will hopefully post some picutres soon and add more reviews of 10/22 Rugers, Walther G22, Marlin Model 60, Marlin Model 1896, Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk.2, Mauser K98, Winchester 9410.
     
  2. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    This will take a while so I will have to get back to it.
     
  3. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    THIS was my review of my old 9mm Husqvarna pistol.

    [edit to add a pic]

    [​IMG]

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  4. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Here's my M-1903. It was a WW1 rifle that was rebuilt during WW2 for secondary standard use. I bought it through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

    The farthest I have shot it so far is 600 yards.

    Caliber is .30-06

    I should have gotten a pic with the ladder sight flipped up. :-?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    The Walther G22 .22RF

    Well this is a short militaristic looking rimfire. It is in bullpup configuration which gives this little gun a 20 inch barrel in a very compact package. Fitted with 3 weaver rails which allow multiple accessories to be mounted it is good for plinking or hunting. The gun is designed so that with s quick change of the action it can be used by left handed people.

    But here comes the bad news. The trigger for target shooting is horrible. It has a very slack first stage and then the second stage is incredibly long and spongy. This can be made a little better with some modifications though. The safety mechanism on this gun aren't that brilliant. It has no external hold open so to lock the bolt back you need to insert a magazine, even if empty it still isn't good practice. G22's tend to also be quite fussy on ammunition and this varies dramatically from gun to gun. I've known G22's to cycle CCI minimag perfectly, yet mine simply refuses to.

    For hunting, or rapid fire competitions or general play the G22 is a good rifle. With a new trigger unit it could become quite a promising rifle, but until then avoid using it for precision shooting.
     
  6. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    my experiences

    my one and only experience with the T-bolt was not a good one. i was considering buying one until i shot it. about half the time i cycled the action the damn bolt would pull out completely on the back stroke. i also had the bolt move out of battery at least one time [ there were a couple other times i suspected it but i cycled the action before checking]. given the combination of both falling out of battery and the bolt coming out of the action i decided to quit before i ended up with the bolt in my face. note that this was a new out of the box gun. i hope it was a freak that somehow made it through quality control and final test but i decided to forgo buying it.

    for my money the best common .22 autoloader is the ruger 10-22. i own one that is about 30 years old and has had thousands of rounds through it. i find it reliable as a tombstone and accuracy runs about 2 MOA at 100 yds with 4X scope. its only fault is it does not like the yellow jacket type of bullet with the step in the side of the slug. they often jam on feeding. i've had others tell me that they also have issues with them. there's literally hundreds of after market parts for this gun. its possible to build a new gun out of nothing but after market parts. a friend has one with a match barrel and all the accuracy goodies that shoots sub MOA groups at a hundred yards all day long.
     
  7. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: my experiences


    That sounds like the first generation T-Bolt introduced in 60's/70's, the one I have was revised and reintroduced in 2006. It has the same layout, but the action and magazine have been revised. I've use my t-bolt alot, even in rapid fire competitions, and have never had any feeding trouble or any trouble with the bolt.
     
  8. Sarge

    Sarge Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Colorado
    Here is what I have/shoot(copied from another thread):
    Well I'll start off with hunting gunz I currently own: Win Mod 12 & Remington Mod 11/48 both 28 ga. Rem Mod 11 20 ga. Browning A5 in 20 & 12 Ga. My hunting rifles are out of my military collection. My carry pistols are a Hungarian PA 63 in 9mm Makerov and a 60s vintage military contrakt Browning HP. Also have a couple of Colt single actions and a Ruger Bear Cat.
    I have shot almost every variety of US small arms to include full auto & mortars from the Spanish/American War period to current.
    I have also shot the same variety of WW 1 & WW 2 German and all of the WW 2 Brit weapons. I've also shot all of the ruskie/com block weapons used from WW 2 thru Viet Nam.
    In addition to having shot them, I currently own "at least" one example of most of the above.
    I started collecting military firearms in about 1953.
    Sarge
     
  9. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I don't know if anyone else here builds or is considering building an AR15, but I found something pretty interesting a while back. I bought the side-charging upper receiver shown below just to build a fun gun - steampunk/zombie thing. I only bought that upper because I wanted a retro look, not for any practical reason. Yet, when I assembled, I realized that a side-charging upper receiver replaces nine (9!) moving parts in an AR15. The goofy rear charging handle on a traditional AR has four (4!) tiny springs, detents, whatevers, to make it work. And then because the rear charger doesn't shove forward in case of a stuck cartridge, clearance drill, dirty chamber, whatever, they had to add a forward assist with another five (5!) moving parts, plus a goofy housing sticking out to hold all of that.

    So, anyhoo, with an old school bolt on the side (like every other semi or auto rifle ever designed) you don't need any of that, which makes me suspect that Stoner only designed the M16 in that way just to be "different." None of that makes the rifle work better, in fact, just the opposite. It adds unneeded parts that can break, get fouled or wear out. It also adds more places for water, mud, sand, gunk, to get into the receiver and create a stoppage It's poor engineering!

    This is my old school side charging upper - ignore the skull lower.

    HoytBolt.jpg

    And this is a standard AR upper with the extra parts needed to make it work.

    traditional upper.jpg

    The upshot is that on my next build, which will be a simpler 'business' rifle, I will choose that side-charging bolt upper. And I would recommend anyone else considering a build to use this style upper. The link below is one source for the part.

    AR-Stoner Side Charging Upper Receiver Assembled AR-15 223 Remington
     
  10. Ken The Kanuck

    Ken The Kanuck Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    472
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2017
  11. Ken The Kanuck

    Ken The Kanuck Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    472
    Anyone in particular you would like to see more of?

    KTK
     
  12. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Location:
    God's Country
    More parts yes, more susceptible to sand, gunk, mud no. If you keep the ejection port cover closed on an AR type rifle, which an infantry man is trained to do and does so habitually without thinking, you get less environmental debris into the weapon with the Stoner design. I do not understand your logic when you go from three, semi-sealed openings, charging handle, forward assist, and ejection port (which has a cover) to one very large cutout, not sealed at all with the side charging handle and then think it somehow keeps more stuff out? For a civilian rifle I think your option is fine, for a military weapon or one that will be heavily used (lots of rounds) and with heavy environmental exposure it makes a lot less sense, unless you're using it on a weapon without the close tolerances found in the AR platform. The AR type rifle, because of it's close tolerances, runs best when it's run wet, lots of lube, this further attracts contaminants which the current military configuration protects against.
    I do think your configuration would reduce carbon build-up in a DI system. However, that's not as big a problem in the current system as a lot of the weekend warriors on some of the AR websites make it out to be. Most claim in a DI system gas is vented into the rifle when it is primarily just the forward portion of the bolt carrier group. The excess gas is vented out through the vent holes in the bolt carrier as the gas seal rings on the bolt pass them, venting gas and carbon out of the ejection port. This keeps most of the carbon out of the weapon and the bulk of what does build up is pretty much restricted to the bolt and the forward portion of the bolt carrier,. It also acts as a self-adjusting system for the gas pressure. The faster moving assembly in a clean gun vents more gas and the slower moving assembly as the weapon fouls results in the gas being vented slower exerting more pressure (as required) to the operating system. It all depends on how fast the bolt gas seals pass the carrier vent holes. When the carbon builds up to a certain point, a squirt of lube in the ejection port, hit the forward assist to make sure the bolt is seated and resume firing, most of the carbon is blown/thrown out the ejection port and the gun runs like it's almost clean. Ever wonder why you see bottles of LSA carried in the helmet band in Vietnam War photos? I would think it problematic to run the gun wet if the bolt carrier were exposed to the environment, as it is in the side charging handle configuration, when not being fired.
    Another point is that it's correcting a problem that I don't think exists. In all the years I spent in infantry and Special Operations units I never saw or heard of a charging handle or forward assist failure. I texted my boys and asked them if they'd ever experienced or heard of those particular failures (they add another combined 10 years experience a good portion of it in combat) and they hadn't either. So it's correcting a problem that doesn't exist or is extremely rare. In conclusion if anyone chooses to use that system because of personal preference or because they like the way it looks, more power to them; I'm all for it. If you're doing it to increase reliability or combat performance, IMO you're creating more problems than you're solving.
     
  13. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Location:
    God's Country
    Here's some of my long guns;

    [​IMG]
     
  14. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    Actually, since you keep the bolt forward it is already pretty effectively sealed, unless you are actually shooting and then the cover is open anyway, which is why I didn't address that. I think we've talked about DI vs piston system before and all I can say is that the operators that get a choice generally want a piston system since it can run much longer between cleanings. Your receiver, bolt, bolt carrier, everything, remain cleaner and thus less prone to malfs due to fouling. I put an aftermarket (Adams) piston system in my first AR and actually tested it before and after with cheap, dirty, Tula ammo. It ran much longer with the piston, in fact, I never did get it to foul or malfunction after I installed the Adams system. There is a huge difference that you can test by merely sticking your finger into the action of a DI and then a piston system after some extended shooting. Your finger will be clean with a piston, dirty in the standard DI system. HOWEVER, that really has very little application for a recreational shooter, so unless you just buy a Ruger (which already has a piston system), it may not be worth the money and trouble for most people to upgrade a standard AR. I do shit like that with guns because I like to build guns and/or tinker with them.

    At any rate, I would not discard a standard upper and replace with one of these newer side-bolt uppers, but in building a rifle from the ground up, it's worth it to me and I'll go that way for future AR builds. It's just a less 'fussy' build and the bolt located there is an ergonomic improvement. I have not had the pleasure as yet, but I suspect clearing an actual jam would be far quicker. Your hand has greater purchase (and thus force) on the bolt both in pulling it back and slamming it forward should you have a stuck cartridge in the chamber. Some things are improvements and some aren't. I think this old school charging handle is an improvement, though I might quickly change my mind if I was dragging it through a swamp with my life on the line. For a recreational shooter (assuming you're building from the ground up), this is a better mouse trap.

    One more point about running the gun wet. That too is a 'fix' (or partial solution) to the fouling in a DI system. Lots of oil keeps the powder debris from cementing into moving parts due to heat blown into the action. It's not a big deal either way, but just something adopted because of the way a DI system runs. The gun works and we've found ways to make it work better, but much of what we take as gospel with the AR is just a series of little tweaks and fixes to a less than perfect system.

    .
     
  15. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Location:
    God's Country
    I agree, for the recreational shooter, it should pretty much be what you like or what appeals to you. And that's the way it should be

    Again no disagreement.

    Here I'd have to argue not. The forward assist is easy to slap and uses the notches in the bolt carrier to push against, I don't believe greater force would be applied by pushing against the side mounted charging handle. Same same with retracting the bolt, I don't believe you could get more force than with the charging handle. I find both easy to use and ergonomically well designed. This point I'd have to say whichever is more pleasing and/or intuitive to the shooter is the way to go. There really is no material, mechanical advantage.

    Here, it's as much the close tolerances designed into the AR that requires it to be run well lubed as it is the fouling factor. Hell, there's been several times where I've even seen SKS's start having feed problems because of too little lube and they're fairly loose tolerance, simple, reliable weapons. So unless the side charging AR upper and bolt carrier are machined to looser tolerances than the standard AR, you still have to run them oilier than a looser tolerance weapon. I have seen some new coatings out that supposedly have lube qualities, but I'm not sure if they live up to their claims. If so then maybe....

    The side of the bolt carrier is exposed, some lube will be transferred to it's exterior surface during cycling. When fired all that gunk that accumulates will get dragged into the weapon where it could cause issues. Unless you have time to wipe it before firing.

    No, the fouling just takes place in a different place. Same carbon, just deposited in the gas port, the gas cylinder and the gas piston. In fact you are correct that there was a point in time where many Special Operations units did forward deploy with piston systems due to all the hype, (similar to the hype over Dragon Skin, where's it now?) It only took a couple deployments before the data proved that the piston weapons didn't live up to the hype and they reverted back to DI system weapons. They did find that the piston gun had a significantly lower rate of stoppages. However, most DI stoppages were able to be quickly cleared and firing resumed. Though fewer in number, the piston system stoppages were more severe and were not readily corrected by the operator in combat. Many requiring armorer intervention or special tools.
    They're the same issues we've always had with our gas cylinders/pistons in the M60 and M240 machine gun systems the difference is you've got spare barrels that you can switch too with the MG, until one of the support personnel in the gun crew can clean the cylinder, piston and gas port on an M60, or clean the gas cylinder and gas plug on the 240. You also have to clean the head cavity on the piston/operating rod, but you have to do that when the guns down. In fact that was contained in most of the lessons learned information gleaned from the early years of the GWOT. "Carry extra gas pistons/gas plugs in an ammo can filled with enough JP-8 to cover the parts so they can self-cleaned so they were available to swap out."
    If you've ever had to use the reamer tool on the combo wrench for the M60 to clean the gas port, cleaned the piston and cylinder or used the combination tool, reamers and scrapers to clean a 240, you'd know there's quite a bit of carbon buildup.
     
  16. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    With a piston system, you don't need wet lube, and the favorite is a lube called Eezox which dries into a kind of waxy coating on all moving parts. Debris doesn't stick to it and it doesn't flow when hot and carry the minimal powder debris in a piston system into sensitive areas. It's one of those things that is better grasped when shooting than in describing. I can only say that with many thousands of rounds with the Piston AR I've never had a malfunction of any and all of that was with the 'dry' Eezox lubricant. Before I installed the Adams piston, I would get malfs when I got to 200 rounds or so. Most of that was with cheap Tula, but it's nice to know that a piston will even digest crap ammo with absolute reliability.

    With the latest build (a DI system) I've been using good old break free. I don't expect any problems, but then this latest build is just kind of a fun gun. I don't expert to burning off 400 or 500 rounds in a session. It's not a serious rifle, just a shooter that was designed to give liberals nightmares.

    Hoyt3.jpg

    The next build will be a pure defense rifle and it will have both the side-bolt upper and an Adams Piston system. Nuttin' fancy, just a stone could reliable defense gun with a 1 and 7 twist for heavier hunting soft points.
     
  17. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Location:
    God's Country
    I've read about Eezox, and read it's really good, just wasn't sure if it was all hype like some of the other new lubes. Based upon your recommendation I'll give it a try.

    I'm not the biggest fan of CLP/Breakfree, I find it merely adequate. I remember when it was introduced and supposedly did it all, I had high hopes. It does do it all, clean, lube and protect from corrosion/rust, it just doesn't do any of the functions as well as a dedicated product. It doesn't clean as well as a solvent like RBC or Hoppes #9, and it's not as good a lube or rust preventative as LSA. The superior lubrication properties I've observed in LSA probably have to do with the Lithium thickener it contains. LSA also has a higher flashpoint and doesn't burn off as quickly as CLP with extended firing. I generally clean with a solvent, dry, wipe down with WD 40 to remove any residual moisture (The WD in WD40 stands for Water Displacement and it also has solvent and lubrication ingredients-I used to know an old armorer that kept it hidden around the armory because it wasn't authorized for use. He euphemistically referred to it as Super RBC), wipe down, apply a light coat of LSA. Even with long storage the weapon doesn't rust and the lube is still in place.
    When you get your new DI gun built give it a test. You say your old gun would have a stoppage at @ 200 rounds. Try running your new DI gun with CLP and see if it does the same thing. Then clean and lube with LSA, and repeat. I think you'll find your stoppages become less frequent and when you do finally have one, if you do, it will probably be a failure to feed. Since the bolt and the round won't be fully seated forward, through the ejection port apply two drops or so of LSA to the bolt where it intersects with the bolt carrier, apply another drop or two to the bolt carrier gas vent holes, hit the forward assist and resume firing. The heat and cycling of the weapon will spread the lube and I think you'll find the gun will run almost as good as new. When you're done the LSA will be as black as used motor oil, but this is a good thing, the carbon that would normally be baked onto the weapons parts is held in liquid suspension. LSA is still readily available, despite supposedly being superseded by CLP in the early 80's, DoD still buys large quantities every year and has contracts with Castrol, Royal Lubricants, and Chemsol.

    The two areas where LSA doesn't do well is in extremely cold sub-zero temperatures and in areas where the dust is very fine and talcum like.

    You might also want to upgrade your 5.56 mags to the Magpul polymer type, you'll see one in my picture in post #13 to the left of the stack of AK mags. They virtually eliminate the other most common source of stoppages in the AR platform.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2017
  18. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    1,572
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I'm not sure Eezox is the right choice for DI rifles since I suspect you'd want the wet lubricant of your choice, except perhaps in extremely cold weather. For piston rifles of all kinds from Garands to ARs, it's the correct choice. It's also what I use in all my various handguns. It's cool stuff, applied wet but then an hour later you think it's a dry gun until your finger down a rail or something and feel that slick, hard coating.

    I use Magpul mags for all my business rifles. The one above is using metal GI mags (for appearance), but even those have the followers replaced with Magpul followers and springs. During the late unpleasantness in Iraq/Afghanistan, my tiny Kodiak shooting club raised 22K with a Magpul program to send combat units Magpuls at production cost. I think that was down to about $6 bucks per mag and hundreds of other clubs across the country were doing the same. A deal had been worked out that even the shipping through government channels was basically free, since volunteers were using their own gas and trucks to deliver the crates to APO shipping points.
     
    lwd likes this.

Share This Page