Originally Posted by WickedLou9 I duno. I know how I was as a kid. I loved exploring the house and looking around for neat stuff. If there was a safe or something I would have probably eventually found a key or a combination or whatever. I dunno. If I actually ...
11-29-2007, 12:02 PM
| #41 | ||||
| Noob Republican 
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 So...you were an good example of every parents nightmare?? 
 | ||||
     |
|
11-29-2007, 03:19 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by Grouch
I have owned an AK. They are okay. Not what I would choose personally, but to each their own. It is a good gun for somebody who does not know how to maintain a rifle and does not need any degree of accuracy who bets on never having a medium or long range engagement. I have had a couple Norenkos too.... not a fan of them either. If every flat is treated that way, then every one of them has poor grain structure and is softened. I can name a few widely believed falsehoods, so the 'everybody does it that way' argument does not fly with me. I base my statements regarding heat treating on a very sound understanding of hardening and tempering steel... observable, repeatable results built on a LONG standing tradition of blade smithing and gun smithing. Some dude with a propane torch and a bucket of oil does not an expert make :-) The method listed in your link should trigger a logical flaw alert. If you heat to red and then quench to harden, why would you heat to red and then air cool at the end? To temper, you back the hardness down by heating to just shy of the oxidation temp, not going back to critical LOL When you heat steel past critical, the ferric carbides are transformed to austenite. Austenite transforms to martensite when rapidly cooled to far below critical temp. If you dont rapid cool, you end up with large grain structure. The steel that he is using, 4130, has fairly low carbon content, so it must be heat soaked and rapid quenched, and then tempered SLIGHTLY. Going red is just stupid. | ||||
| |
|
11-29-2007, 03:27 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41  Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by Stylerod It's what we'll be fighting tyrrany with when they take away our guns.
Wow. Imagine what you could put in a tennis ball! It could be like those sticky grenades in Halo!
__________________ -Avengeance | ||||
| |
|
11-29-2007, 03:30 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Mission Accomplished NOT!  Independent MN
| Originally Posted by Stylerod We used to do it all the time when I was young, just didn't want to say it online in fear of being labeled a terrorist.
| ||||
| |
|
11-29-2007, 05:24 PM
| #45 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Grouch, Why dont you just soften the pins or use mild steel for the pins? | ||||
| |
|
11-29-2007, 09:08 PM
| #46 | ||||
| General Asshole Moderate
| Originally Posted by RockPusher
You mean a Norinco AK 47? You can’t even spell it right. Yeah I’m sure you’re REALLY familiar with them alright Your ignorance is outstanding on firearms, quit while you’re ahead before you say something really stupid. I guess 250m isn’t long range enough for the worlds most trusted and longest lasting assault rifle. But hey if you’re stupid enough to use a short barreled assault rifle for anything more than CQC, that’s you’re bad for picking the wrong tool for the job. It’s an ingenious design it will shot forever without cleaning. lol And why wouldn’t I just soften the pins? Because then if there is failure it could go unseen (unless seeing egging of the holes) which in turn increases the chance of a catastrophic failure. | ||||
| |
|
11-29-2007, 09:29 PM
| #47 | ||||
| For those about to rock...  libertarian Atlanta, GA
| are bad gun kay mmm | ||||
| |
|
11-30-2007, 01:36 PM
| #48 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Stylerod We were ingenious little bastards. My favorite insidious creation of all time was "Stink Fluid".
Take an empty one gallon milk jug. Fill it with water about 2/3rds up. Then dump in anything you can find that might be gross. Eggs, milk, salt and pepper, pine sap, sugar, etc. Seal it up. Put it in a trash bag, tie that up. Put that into a rubbermaid storage container and close it.. let sit for approximately one month in the garage. This was the most putrid stuff on earth. I dont even know why we made it. It smelt like raw sewage. | ||||
| |
|
11-30-2007, 02:33 PM
| #49 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by Grouch
Ooooooooh .... You got me... I misspelled a word! Ouch. I guess that means you are right!  Seriously though, if you don't want the pin to distort the holes, make the pin too soft to damage the hole. You will not increase the chance of failure by softening, you decrease the chance of failure. Hard = brittle soft = tough That is why on the Samurai swords, only the edge is hard. The soft spine can take stress without breaking. I would not use a 7.62x39 for medium/long range. Too much drop and energy loss beyond 100yds. A Kalishnikov or Norinco does not have the accuracy to rely on past about 75 yards. The grouping is horrible. Dragonaovs are little better, but still not suitable for long range accuracy. You have to 'mortar' 7.62x39s to shoot 200 yds. It is difficult to acquire a target if you elevate your barrel high enough to hit at 200yds. They are very reliable, but they are not the only reliable rifles, and reliability is not the only aspect to a rifle. Reliability and proliferation are more of a benefit in terms of equipping a large number of untrained, poorly provisioned troops on a shoestring budget. My M1 is reliable too, but it requires that the user knows how to clean it. Moreover, its effective range cannot be realized with a dirty bore because dirty bores decrease accuracy. My M1 D shoots a consistent m.o.a, about 1" groups at 100 yds. I shoot about a 4" group at 300 yds with it. It is designed to be capable of MUCH longer engagements. It is also designed to KILL, not wound. The 30-06 causes absolutely horrific wounds and is effective against light armor. In WWII, soldiers typically engaged at over 100yds.... because they could. In Iraq, contractors typically engage the enemy at 300+ yds with SR-25 class rifles chambering 7.63x51. The enemy cannot return fire at these ranges. So I suppose it comes down to tactics. If you wish to have the opportunity to engage at long range with more substantial firepower, you would need to rethink your weapon choice. In close quarters, the AK 47 class is adequate, though personally I would rather a semi auto 12gua loaded with flachettes and buckshot... | ||||
| |
|
11-30-2007, 03:42 PM
| #50 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator  Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by Scrum
 | ||||
| |
|
11-30-2007, 03:43 PM
| #51 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator Republican In Name Only
| I love to stay strapped | ||||
| |
|
11-30-2007, 07:19 PM
| #52 | ||||
| General Asshole Moderate
| No, your misspelling of a rifle you claimed to have owned shows your most likely making shit. 7.62x39 has an effective range to 300y and you'll hit center of mass with a scope everytime. You sound like a tool trying to claim it's not. Get you're head out of your ass and stop lying just to save face on an internet forum. A lot of guns are reliable, but a CGC assault rifle that remains reliable under the same conditions an AK you will be hard pressed to find. You statement that they are for people who can't clean a rifle or whatever pathetic drivel you were spewing is just more of your garbage. At least finally, after being forced to, and posting irrelevant information regarding other firearms you admit the AK47 is just fine for what it is supposed to be. The worlds most reliable short barreled CQC rifle. | ||||
| |
|
11-30-2007, 07:43 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Look Corky, I never said it was unreliable. I said that it is an okay weapon. If your sole factor in choosing a weapon is its ability to be dug out of the mud and fired after swishing it around in a stream, then it may be your best bet. Its tolerances are loose enough and its action primitive enough to do that.... that doesn't make it the best rifle in the world. What the hell does a scope have to do with anything? Do you need one for consistency? Placing 'somewhere in the black' at 100 yards is not a merit badge for a rifle. That would be acceptable standing up firing a 6" barreled revolver. If you cant group less than 8" at 100 yards, you have crappy accuracy and should not rely on the weapon at that range when firing at animated targets. I have had a couple of 47 type weapons. I dont scrutinize them and get emotionally invested in them like you do, and no... they Norinco brand name is not emblazoned in my mind. I got one as a bonus in a trade and paid 50$ for the other. When you start nitpicking somebodies statement because of a misspelling, it makes you look pretty lame. | ||||
| |
|
12-01-2007, 01:19 AM
| #54 | ||||
| General Asshole Moderate
| Originally Posted by RockPusher Look at you, starting the name calling.
 at least I wasn't the first this time.Not only are you too stupid to pick up on, or you're too stupid to read worth a shit. I never said anything about 100y. I said 300y you twit. Way to waste all that emotion on your own stupidity. No only do you lie about the most easily of verified facts, but you're too dumb to keep your misrepresentations straight. Maybe you will fit right in here after all. Last edited by Grouch; 12-01-2007 at 10:09 AM. | ||||
| |
|
12-01-2007, 06:58 AM
| #55 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by Grouch umm, no that is not what an the AK was designed for. Nor is it the best CQB weapon.
/immediatelyregretsthispost | ||||
| |
|
12-01-2007, 09:58 AM
| #56 | ||||
| General Asshole Moderate
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor It was designed to be the weapon for the Russian front lines. And to function at close ranges (sub 300m)
 Want to quote me where I said it was the best CQB weapon? I did say it was the most reliable one. Maybe you're easily confused between the two. | ||||
| |
|
12-01-2007, 12:09 PM
| #57 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by Grouch 200 yards is not close quarters
an AK will still operate when filthy, but not as accurately. That is not reliable, if you ask me | ||||
| |
|
12-03-2007, 02:05 PM
| #58 | ||||
| Member Republican
| Originally Posted by Grouch I am aware that you claim the AK is effective at 300m. My statement was the implication that the AK is not really effective at 100yds. Not accurate enough to reliably hit a moving person at that range. If your error of margin is half a man's cross section, you stand a good chance of missing, even if you aim true.
That may be sufficient if you don't have the time or ordinance to expend training troops in proper marksmanship, but the AK cannot realize the accuracy potential of well trained troops. [qupte]No only do you lie about the most easily of verified facts, but you're too dumb to keep your misrepresentations straight. Maybe you will fit right in here after all.[/quote] Please correct me if I have stated something that you can demonstrate is wrong. I am not saying that the weapon is useless, and I agree that it can function under extreme environmental conditions despite neglect. This is not a small factor, but the AK class of firearms does not offer the HHHHUUUGGGEEE tactical advantage of being effective for long range engagements. Before you dismiss the importance of the tactical advantage of long range effectiveness, look into the importance of the English longbow. The longbow could only be used at long range after much training. The King of E. at one point required all male subjects to train regularly with the longbow. Do you deer hunt? Can you hit the kill zone of a deer at 200+yds? Can you do that with your AK? | ||||
| |
|
12-05-2007, 06:29 PM
| #59 | ||||
| General Asshole Moderate
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor
jesus ok how do I explain this in the smallest words possible. 7.62x39mm, the bullet, is good out to ~300m. Good AK with a good shooter should have no problem hitting grapefruits at 200m. Being able to do that does not mean it isn't a very capable rifle for close quarters use. But to use of your poor argumentation. An M4 or AR-15 is not a close quaters use rifle because .223 is good to +400m You and the noob both disagree with me but you don't even agree with each other. He claims an AK is only good to 75m, which yes, to respond to his claim in his last post, to point out why he has said as a lie. IS A LIE. Norris, John. Rifles & Combat Shotguns: Assault & Sniper Rifles.Herndon: Brassey's, 1997 "The Effective range of the AK47 is between 150 m to 250 m." While you agree that is is good to 300m and thus is not useful as a CQC rifle. Last edited by Grouch; 12-05-2007 at 07:16 PM. | ||||
| |
|
12-06-2007, 09:18 AM
| #60 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Why do you guys care so much about some stupid commie/terrorist rifle? Seriosuly. It's just a tool that performs some function. It's not like you are talking about your mothers or something. would you see people on here arguing about how much torque you can apply with a DeWalt 18v drill? NO! it's 150 ft-lbs not 175 you mongloid. DIE DIE DIE! | ||||
| |
| Register to Post a Reply |
|
