Modacity shooters' thread

[rossmum]

It's a one time cost though. After selling a couple thousand units at $14,000 a piece, you've already recouped that entire cost. Trust me, it's about making money. I think you are underestimating how simple firearms actually are. As far as the Chey-tac is concerned, most of that R&D cost was likely not even in the rifle itself; it was in the .408 bullet and that range finder/spotting scope/glorified calculator.

With the tools I have at home (this is just me, because I have a shitload of power tools and table tools and hand tools), I could easily build a machine gun if I set my mind to it, let alone a bolt-action rifle. I can build a foundry and a forge for next to nothing to smelt things and make my own alloys if I have to. I can read up on ballistic physics and do some ballistic testing while changing variables such as rifling number, rate of twist, barrel length, round size, shape, weight, etc. Really, the costs are for the man hours, not the machines or the materials.

Now, while on the subject of home gunsmithy, I would like to take a box-lock and build an over-under pistol for firing slug. Just for shits and giggles.

Have fun rifling a barrel to any kind of functional standard, let alone a good functional standard. Most of the other processes involved in making a tube gun are pretty easy and can be done at home, but rifling is extremely difficult to do outside of a properly tooled-up factory. Most people who build their own guns either buy pre-made barrels or are forced to waste money and time making five or six attempts before they finally get one that works.

Also, with regards to AKs: WASRs are pretty shitty (they're known for their sights being canted), but they aren't dangerous shitty as far as I'm aware. Frankly the US is only hurting itself with its stupid (and illegal) trade protectionist bullshit, US-made parts are nearly always inferior to foreign parts and you end up making a perfectly good, fully functional, safe weapon either less functional or even unsafe because of the stupidity that is 922(r). Rather than tell American manufacturers (especially S&W) to harden the fuck up and make good guns if they wanted to save their business, the government enforced that stupid shitty law. As a result, unfucked-with foreign guns are extortionately priced, and the fucked-with ones aren't always safe because American parts are generally rubbish or even in the case of the best manufacturers, out of spec.

[Warsaw]

That law was more to make it harder for people to obtain Eastern Bloc "assault weapon" parts than it was to protect US firearm manufacturers. Just another form of gun control. Back then, US firearms were still pretty good, and if you bought a firearm that was made here to begin with, they are still pretty good. What suck are the US-made replacement parts for foreign weapons. Well no shit the US part is going to suck more, they don't give a flying fuck about the competition. They'd rather you buy one of their shiny, new AR-15s than parts to make your imported AK legal.

As for the rifling: I will just go buy/make a button-rifling machine. I also think you underestimate exactly what kind of tools I have access to. Besides, I'm not talking about tube guns, I'm talking about smelting the iron and making the steel myself, casting it into ingots, milling it into shape, then boring it out if I have to (though I can readily acquire the appropriate steel stock, so I don't need to). Finally, electroplating the chrome lining on the inside of the barrel. I'm not trying to make the next sniper rifle, but you claiming that guns are expensive to manufacture is laughable at best, face-palming at worst. They are just making it expensive because they can command that price, not because it cost them that much to make. It's like Apple products: the iPhone is made for around $115, but commands a $600 price because people want it badly enough. Supply and demand. Economics 101.

And yes, making a barrel would actually be fun.

[TVTyrant]

Also, with regards to AKs: WASRs are pretty shitty (they're known for their sights being canted), but they aren't dangerous shitty as far as I'm aware. Frankly the US is only hurting itself with its stupid (and illegal) trade protectionist bullshit, US-made parts are nearly always inferior to foreign parts and you end up making a perfectly good, fully functional, safe weapon either less functional or even unsafe because of the stupidity that is 922(r). Rather than tell American manufacturers (especially S&W) to harden the fuck up and make good guns if they wanted to save their business, the government enforced that stupid shitty law. As a result, unfucked-with foreign guns are extortionately priced, and the fucked-with ones aren't always safe because American parts are generally rubbish or even in the case of the best manufacturers, out of spec.

Not whats wrong at all in the US. The whole point of the US receiver is that its missing a slot where the selector switch could have three selections. That way its either automatic/safe or semi-automatic/safe, rather than being automatic/semi-automatic/safe. 922(R) is different entirely. The moment you put a pistol grip/handguard/magazine/anything other than the receiver that is American made on their you have to have six parts on it that are American made. I agree that 922(R) is a terrible law (that never gets enforced), but I dont see why its wrong to make the receiver so you only have two options.

[rossmum]

That law was more to make it harder for people to obtain Eastern Bloc "assault weapon" parts than it was to protect US firearm manufacturers. Just another form of gun control. Back then, US firearms were still pretty good, and if you bought a firearm that was made here to begin with, they are still pretty good. What suck are the US-made replacement parts for foreign weapons. Well no shit the US part is going to suck more, they don't give a flying fuck about the competition. They'd rather you buy one of their shiny, new AR-15s than parts to make your imported AK legal.

Counterpoint: everything S&W made during the 90s and right up to the M&P line. Especially the Sigma.

As for the rifling: I will just go buy/make a button-rifling machine. I also think you underestimate exactly what kind of tools I have access to. Besides, I'm not talking about tube guns, I'm talking about smelting the iron and making the steel myself, casting it into ingots, milling it into shape, then boring it out if I have to (though I can readily acquire the appropriate steel stock, so I don't need to). Finally, electroplating the chrome lining on the inside of the barrel. I'm not trying to make the next sniper rifle, but you claiming that guns are expensive to manufacture is laughable at best, face-palming at worst. They are just making it expensive because they can command that price, not because it cost them that much to make. It's like Apple products: the iPhone is made for around $115, but commands a $600 price because people want it badly enough. Supply and demand. Economics 101.

And yes, making a barrel would actually be fun.

I don't think you're grasping the difficulty of actually making a working, functional barrel. They are not easy to make at all, even with the right machinery - pretty much every time I've seen someone try it, they end up with about five times as many aborted attempts as they do working examples. There are good reasons people avoid doing it themselves.

I honestly don't know what to tell you at this point. Precision tooling costs a lot unless you want to be replacing broken parts constantly, and things like heat treatment have to be done to very stringent standards for a weapon to be safe, let alone of any particular quality. There are large commerical firms that have been building weapons for decades and still can't do it right, don't pay it off as cheap and easy just because you have the tools to machine metal or some background in metalwork. Actually building a working, safe, commercial-quality firearm is a whole new level and I really don't think you appreciate the number of headaches involved.

I've seen an awful lot of people say they would have no trouble making a weapon at home only to realise halfway through that it's not nearly as easy as they think.

Not whats wrong at all in the US. The whole point of the US receiver is that its missing a slot where the selector switch could have three selections. That way its either automatic/safe or semi-automatic/safe, rather than being automatic/semi-automatic/safe. 922(R) is different entirely. The moment you put a pistol grip/handguard/magazine/anything other than the receiver that is American made on their you have to have six parts on it that are American made. I agree that 922(R) is a terrible law (that never gets enforced), but I dont see why its wrong to make the receiver so you only have two options.

It has nothing at all to do with selector switches. It is a parts count law, not a receiver law. 922(r) was created at a time when the US firearms industry was in the shitter (S&W in particular) because everyone was buying better, cheaper foreign guns. The same US companies pushed hard for the law to be passed just as they have previously fucked gun owners in the past. 922(r) always has been and always will be an illegal trade-protectionist policy designed to force people into throwing money at American companies that couldn't keep themselves afloat without that law.

To give you an example, a guy I know was building an FAL. He had basically a full Belgian rifle (ex-Austrian Army), but decided to replace some of the guts of the rifle with US parts so he could keep the furniture that came with it as he felt it gave the rifle a nice character. He got DSA parts for the FCG (for those not in the know, DSA are basically the main guys you go to in the US for FAL parts and are considered probably the best US-based manufacturer for them), and found his rifle was continually firing in two round bursts. The engagement surfaces on several parts were out of spec with the Belgian parts that remained inside the FCG, and not in a way that was easily remedied. The end result? He had to replace the furniture and some other part (I think it was the dust cover) so he could keep the FCG all Belgian and avoid an unsafe rifle that could also bring the ATF down on him for unintentionally having created a 'machine gun'.

If the law was simply 'get a receiver which has no provision for automatic fire' (which it is not, not even by a long shot), I would agree with you, but the requirement to not only use a US-made part but several US-made parts, many of which can have nothing to do with the weapon's function as far as the ATF cares, gives it away for the bullshit it is.

[TVTyrant]

It has nothing at all to do with selector switches. It is a parts count law, not a receiver law. 922(r) was created at a time when the US firearms industry was in the shitter (S&W in particular) because everyone was buying better, cheaper foreign guns. The same US companies pushed hard for the law to be passed just as they have previously fucked gun owners in the past. 922(r) always has been and always will be an illegal trade-protectionist policy designed to force people into throwing money at American companies that couldn't keep themselves afloat without that law.

To give you an example, a guy I know was building an FAL. He had basically a full Belgian rifle (ex-Austrian Army), but decided to replace some of the guts of the rifle with US parts so he could keep the furniture that came with it as he felt it gave the rifle a nice character. He got DSA parts for the FCG (for those not in the know, DSA are basically the main guys you go to in the US for FAL parts and are considered probably the best US-based manufacturer for them), and found his rifle was continually firing in two round bursts. The engagement surfaces on several parts were out of spec with the Belgian parts that remained inside the FCG, and not in a way that was easily remedied. The end result? He had to replace the furniture and some other part (I think it was the dust cover) so he could keep the FCG all Belgian and avoid an unsafe rifle that could also bring the ATF down on him for unintentionally having created a 'machine gun'.

If the law was simply 'get a receiver which has no provision for automatic fire' (which it is not, not even by a long shot), I would agree with you, but the requirement to not only use a US-made part but several US-made parts, many of which can have nothing to do with the weapon's function as far as the ATF cares, gives it away for the bullshit it is.

I am aware of the first fact and said so in my post. But the compliance law does include a regulation on the receiver you can use and what selectors it is compliant with. There is the second part, and thats an interesting point about the 90's US industry that is true for the most part, but the provision is there and I agree with iu.

[Warsaw]

@Ross: I don't operate the same way those people who think they can just make a barrel do. I research thoroughly how to do things and then I do several practise runs to get the technique down before attempting the real deal. I've also already made a hinge-action shotgun, except that was a joint venture between me and a buddy in Roanoke, and he took it home since he spent the money for the material. Granted, a shotgun doesn't have rifling, but I'm no ignorant Joe Schmoe to gunsmithing.

Besides that, I'm telling you that only the initial investment for the tools is expensive and they've more than made it back after selling a couple thousand units at $15k a piece. Bottom line is that the actual manufacture of a firearm is cheap. It's R&D and tooling that cost money, and those are one-time deals. You have to spend that to manufacture any product, not just firearms.

Guns. Are. Cheap. Period. Cost is driven by demand for that particular firearm's capabilities. A sniper rifle is a steel tube that can guide a bullet down-range better than a regular steel tube. That doesn't mean it isn't still a steel tube.

[TVTyrant]

The most expensive part of a firearm is the taxes.

[Spartan094]

I will probably get a SKS sometime this year if i can. I like it over the AK but that's just me.

[Spartan094]

Bumpity

Found a Russian SKS made in 1951 by Izhevsk. I checked it thoroughly and I liked it. Made sure the bore was in good condition and wood stock at the back wasn't cracked at all. The price for it atm is $500 but I disagree with it. I MIGHT go Monday if I have the time and make a offer on it for $450 I guess or try to get it near that range. That is if somebody else hasn't bought it yet.

The only thing I'm aware of doing currently to it is cleaning the bayonet since it looks a tad dirty.

E: sorry for the blurry picture, looked fine on my Evo 3d.

[Warsaw]

EVO 3D's are infamous for their blurry pictures, even by HTC standards. That said, looks pretty good. Check for hairline cracks all around.