given the price of 223 commerial bullets
and the threat of clinton, the corbin mould and swaging die set, for converting .22lr cases into 223 practice bullets, might be worth owning, but not for the $900 that corbin charges. My god.
[url]http://www.corbins.com/prices.htm#r-dies[/url]. A friend told me that max speed of production is under 100 bullets per hour, even without having to cast the lead cores. So that means the real rate limit is 50 bullets per hour. Just time and lead wise, hunting up and cleaning the 22lr cases, that's 20c per bullet. :-) even if your time IS only worth $10 an hour. I wouldn't even consider it at twice that much "savings", or half as much for the needed kit.
the same money, spent on a 223 silencer's making expenses, and the tax stamp, and .22lr conversion unit, 22 ammo trigger job, luminous sight inserts, see thru scope mount (in the removable carrying handle) and reloading components will make you far better off. If you're any good, there will be lots of 223 ammo to pick up from dead bodies.
John in Ark will attest that the silencer makes the full power 223 every bit as "tame" to use as the .22 unit without the silencer. So there's little need for 223 practice, actually. snapshooting can be practiced with airsoft AR, .22 unit for the AR. group shooting can be practiced with a .177 pellet rifle.
Without money and time being wasted on non-combat types of guns and ammo, or on pointless duplicate guns, there's plenty left for practice with the real deal, and no real reason to worry about what clinton tries. If I was a young guy, I'd want 2 of everything, tho. and a LOT more components and .22 ammo stashed, along with 'spare" ID, a makeup kit, and become fluent in the language of at least one other country.
[QUOTE=justme;248553]…John in Ark will attest that the silencer makes the full power 223 every bit as "tame" to use as the .22 unit without the silencer…[/QUOTE]
No, I won’t. And I’ve said it before, so would you please stop saying that I “can attest” to something that is the exact opposite of what I’ve actually said & written repeatedly? Exactly why you have this fixation with claiming what I “can attest” to, I can’t say, but it’s not true. This is what I’ve repeatedly said, but I’ll repeat it again:
A suppressor cuts down on muzzle blast and it even cuts down on recoil impulse (which is pretty much nil on a .223 to begin with), but that’s it. It does NOT make an AR as tame as a .22LR rifle and here’s why: the AR’s direct-impingement system forces gas back around the bolt carrier group, and when you put a suppressor on it, it increases both the volume and duration of that gas blow-back onto the bcg. This gas is in the neighborhood of three thousand degrees fahrenheit, and is running at more than 10,000 PSI. And this increased blow-back of this gas onto the bcg is directed thru gaps in the charging handle latch area, and into your face.
The high-pressure and high-temperature gasses being momentarily trapped by the suppressor makes these increases inevitable. If your suppressor design doesn’t do this, then it’s not trapping pressurized gas; laws of physics are immutable regardless of how much we might wish them to be otherwise. That reality is why cyclic rate increases when a suppressor is added to an AR. It’s why extractors that are borderline functional become NON-functional when you add a suppressor to an AR. It’s why extremely-dirty guns or borderline guns can start ripping rims off of cases due to increased bolt speed when you add a suppressor to an AR. It's also why there's an entire industry of "gasbuster" charging handles - because this reality is inescapable in a direct-impingement system such as the AR uses.
I always wear glasses when shooting and that helps, but it still only keeps the gas out of my eyes, not out of my face. Fact is, I and others here have shot a LOT more suppressed rounds thru AR’s than you have. I do it on a regular basis and have done so for years; and I’m sure that there are guys here who do it more than I do. I also shoot a fair amount of .22 rimfire out of that same AR and one other, and so have recent, first-hand, personal experience of what I'm talking about on AR's, suppressed AR's, and .22 kits in AR's. And I’ve repeatedly replied to you that no, I cannot attest that an AR with a suppressor is as tame as a .22 rimfire.
Because [i][u]an AR with a suppressor is NOT as tame as a .22 rimfire.[/i][/u] I’ve said it repeatedly, yet you repeatedly claim that I “can attest” to just the opposite.
I hope I’m not being unclear.
And that blowback hurts!
[QUOTE=BigBassMan;248625]And that blowback hurts![/QUOTE]
Yep. Almost as much as the mighty .22 rimfire... :laugh:
bs, you've said in print that the can makes the 223 sound just like the .22 unit. I've shot a couple of thousand rds of 223 thru silencers, nearly all of it left handed. I experienced no more blowback than I normally would get without the can. since there's no need to be using the can until shtf, that's PLENTY of experience at it. As I've said before, the can designs you use must suck.
You mean all the major manufactorers are wrong?
people just have this dumb-assed "idea" that they need to shoot lots of 223's thru their silencer. It's just not so, for any realistic skill building or maintenance of skill reasons. if blowback actually DID hurt anyone, there'd be lawsuits shutting down all the AR silencer makers. They are going full blast, so obviously back-blast isnt hurting anyone.
[QUOTE=justme;248713]bs, you've said in print that the can makes the 223 sound just like the .22 unit. [/quote]
Yes I did. I also said that above — you know, the whole “cuts down on the muzzle blast” thing in my post above. It sounds like a .22 long rifle. I’ve said that before today, I still say that (said pretty much that in this thread), and it’s true.
But sound and recoil aren’t the only factors in the equation. The 3,000-degree, 10,0000PSI gas coming out of the gas tube is a very relevant factor.
[QUOTE=justme;248713]I've shot a couple of thousand rds of 223 thru silencers, nearly all of it left handed.[/quote]
Awesome. Shooting is fun. I’ve done more than that this year, so I'm not relying on memories from the previous century.
[QUOTE=justme;248713]I experienced no more blowback than I normally would get without the can. [/quote]
A — you're recalling incorrectly, or
B — the suppressor wasn’t doing much of anything, because...
if the suppressor is moderating (ie, containing) the blast and pressure, [U][I]that blast and pressure DO travel out the path of least resistance[/I][/U]. Not an assumption on my part, it’s a rule of junior-high-school level physics. If there was no increased backpressure with a semiauto or auto with the suppressor in place, the suppressor accomplished nothing. Physics — it’s a real thing.
[QUOTE=justme;248713]since there's no need to be using the can until shtf, that's PLENTY of experience at it. As I've said before, the can designs you use must suck.[/QUOTE]
Well, I confess that they contain no rolled-up window screen, wound around a dowel rod and pounded into shape with a mallet. Because mallet-pounded window screen is probably magic stuff for 10,000-degree gas blasts at 3,000PSI, trailing in the wake of a mach-3 projectile. You got me there.
Your 1970’s kitchen-table designs are better than John Norrell's? Better than AAC? Better than AWC? They're so good and so advanced that you've somehow overcome the laws of physics that most of us mortals are bound by?
Because I have suppressors from all three of those makers, and the laws of physics (shockingly) do apply.
Fwiw, what Noveske has to say on it:
[quote]With the increased and often mandatory use of sound suppressors in today's Military and Law Enforcement, certain issues have arisen which require attention regarding the M16/M4 family of weapons. For over two years we have been working on a simple user friendly solution to mitigate the side effects of sound suppressor use on this weapon platform. The result is the Noveske SwitchblockÂ®. It is a light weight, simple and durable gas block designed to regulate the increased flow of gas caused by use of a sound suppressor.
COMMON EFFECTS OF SOUND SUPPRESSOR USE
The installation of a sound suppressor causes a few problems of varying importance on the M16/M4 family of weapons.
——Increased bolt speed/premature bolt unlock
——Increased chamber and receiver area fouling
——Increased cyclic rate on Auto
——Increased wear on weapon components
——Increased recoil due to increased bolt carrier group/buffer impact on the rear of the receiver extension
——Increased propellant gasses directed to to the shooter's face
——Premature weapon failure during suppressed use
Unsuppressed Cycle of Operation:
The expansion of the cartridge case neck against the chamber wall seals the propellant gases from leaking around the case. The propellant gasses expand, forcing the projectile through the bore, past the gas port and out the muzzle. The gasses passing through the barrel's gas port, travel rearward through the gas tube and expand in the bolt carrier group, ultimately resulting in the rearward movement of the carrier and the extraction of the spent cartridge case. During the weapon's cycle of operation in unsuppressed use, the bolt unlocks and extracts the spent cartridge case once the propellant gas pressure has been reduced to a level that allows for minimal carbon fouling on the chamber and receiver walls.
Suppressed Cycle of Operation:
With a sound suppressor in place, once the round exits the muzzle, the sound suppressor begins to collect the propellant gasses. Then the sound suppressor holds and delays the exit of the propellant gasses through the front of the sound suppressor. This action also delays the normal reduction of propellant gas pressures throughout the bore and chamber. Simultaneously, the gasses passing through the barrel's gas port, travel through the gas tube at a higher volume and expand in the bolt carrier group sooner than the weapon is designed to handle. The bolt carrier begins it's rearward movement prematurely which also extracts the spent cartridge case before the propellant gas pressure has been reduced to the safe level. Once the spent cartridge case is pulled out of the neck area of the chamber, the carbon rich high pressure propellant gasses escape to the rear around the case and coat the case and chamber walls with carbon. The carbon continues to move to the rear into the receiver area, continuing to coat the receiver walls, bolt carrier group, and the unfired cartridges loaded in the magazine with carbon. Continued use in this manor results in a layer of carbon that will cause a malfunction of the weapon by means of a stuck cartridge case in the chamber or a failure to feed or eject because of increased friction between the bolt carrier and the receiver walls. Lastly, the shooter experiences a blast of pungent propellant gasses directed at his/her face causing difficulty breathing and seeing.
RESULT——Premature weapon failure during suppressed use. [/quote]
Your argument isn't with me; it's with everyone who actually [i]uses[/i] suppressed AR's rather than daydreaming about them.
yeah, they cater to the "smaller is better" crowd. When the can's smalller tube is 1 .2" OD and the outside, sleeve tube is 1.7" OD the hottest, highest pressure, dirtiest gases have a REAL place to go (not some minor little slit) and if you know to put some wraps of copper screen in that 3/16" of sleeve-area, a lot of that heat energy never gets back into the baffled part of the can. But the cheapskate makers, who are charging 10-20x what the can cost to make, can't be bothered with the wrap. CAuse, you see, the idiots who "think" they want to pump 20,000 rds thru the silencer would want a way to service the sleeve area, which would add $50 to the $50 they now spend to make the can that they sell for 1-2k $,
Can't have that, cause then they'd feel "obligated" to charge another 1k for their can. A can is 10x easier to make than the AR, so why does it cost 2-3x what the AR costs, hmm? They are so simple to make that you can set up a screw machine to make the tubes, another to make the baffles, another to make the blast screens,, another to make the rear plug, another to make the front end plug and turn out many hundreds of cans per day. If you already had the machines, to make your flashlights, what a DEAL, eh? :-)
Fwiw, from: [url]http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-gear/suppressor-effects[/url]
[quote]Suppressors trap, redirect or alter gas expended from a discharged cartridge, both in front of and behind the expended bullet. This will effect your weapon’s operation, and to which extent depends on the weapon and ammunition used, as well as the suppressor’s design. Suppressors cause back pressure, although newer designs cause much less than what they once did. How and when it occurs is critical.
Most have little effect on bolt guns beyond heat transfer and a sticky bolt that is hard to lift. Gas guns are a different story. Increased back pressure causes increased bolt speed and can wreak havoc on function. Piston-driven systems are less susceptible, but can still be problematic. As a general rule, the shorter the barrel, the greater the effect on the gun’s performance. Adjustable gas blocks help but remain an issue. Excess gas in the action can also affect reliability as the action can get fouled quickly. Rapid fire produces significant heat transfer to the weapon and can have an adverse effect on operation...[/quote]
Do you have any product liability insurance on yours?
So on the increased backpressure issue, you’ve gone from “it doesn’t happen”:
[QUOTE=justme;248553]… silencer makes the full power 223 every bit as "tame" to use as the .22 unit…[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=justme;248713]…no more blowback than I normally would get without the can.[/QUOTE]
To “it doesn’t matter”:
[QUOTE=justme;248713]…there's no need to be using the can until shtf…[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=justme;248761]…idiots who "think" they want to pump 20,000 rds thru the silencer…[/quote]
(Basically, your trail of excuses on the subject is pretty much identical to Hillary’s trail of excuses regarding Benghazi. As much as you say you hate her, have you ever noticed how often your logic emulates that of her and her husband?)
And lastly, we get to the inevitable, Bernie-esque, socialist whining of “people who buy stuff are stupid and people who sell stuff are unfair”:
[QUOTE=justme;248761]…the cheapskate makers, who are charging 10-20x what the can cost to make…
…the idiots who "think" they want to pump 20,000 rds thru the silencer…
...the $50 they now spend to make the can that they sell for 1-2k $...
…why does it cost 2-3x what the AR costs…[/quote]
With all your libertarian claims, in this one thread you’ve managed to philosophically channel pontificating televangelists (which you claim to despise), Hillary Clinton (whom you claim to despise), and Bernie Sanders (a blatant socialist). Awesome.
In all candor John, if you’d be willing to learn as you went thru life (as even animals learn to do), your shortcomings would not only be less blatantly public, they would gradually actually reduce themselves.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.