I don't quite understand sir. What exactly are you saying?
As for the .30-30 taking moose and elk, I'm sure it can, but having hunted elk and seeing how tough the animals really are, I'd want something with a bit more ooomph, a .308 at the least, especially at anything over moderate ranges. But in a survival situation, I guess you gotta make do with what you have...
Last edited by leib10; 18 Dec 10, at 15:47.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
My brother has an AK-74. I like my custom AR shorty better in every way, it is certainly a hell of a lot more accurate than my brothers AK74. With Mk262Mod1 77gr OTM ammo, the 5.56mm is extremely lethal, with a very short wound neck profile even in 10.5" barrels. And in any kind of a survival situation in the US, 5.56mm ammo will be far more plentiful than 5.45mm. The same is also true for AR parts vs AK parts, which is no small consideration.
I think i'll stick with my AR.
I picked an SAR 3. An AK74 derivative that shoots 5.56. Cheap initial investment, lots of spare parts available in the states and the ammo should be plentiful for decades to come. Its not pretty like an AR but is is less fussy and is accurate enough at the ranges and uses I anticipate for it. Its already proven to be a good hunting rifle.
I didn't mean to suggest that the AK74 was necessarily a better rifle than many in the AR family, or that the 5.45x39 was a better round, only that it was a pleasant surprise. I have used 5.56 ARs in lethal situations and have found them both effective and reliable.Originally Posted by Bill
I was just making a general observation.
I do agree the AK-74 and it's 5.45x39mm cartridge is a huge improvement over the 7.62x39 AK-47.
I have to agree with you. Not as good as an R-4 but definitely an improvement over the AK-47.
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
This thread is appearing to move into a couple of different directions.
Many of the old rimmed cartridges were originally designed for black powder... I'm not sure the 30-30 was one, but it can be packed with black powder and it'll work, so if we're talking true apocalypse, black powder can be easily made when all smokeless is gone, and primers can be fabricated with potassium chlorate and other simple chemicals. But that'd be a pretty extreme and desperate scenario.
I've experimented with this. It's interesting to see how much you can get out of a cartridge. But I can state unequivocally that an M1 carbine round packed full of FFFFG does not cycle the weapon.
I think the light 5.5mm class of cartridges are here to stay as a military round. The availability of surplus 5.45mm makes it an attractive package, and while I've never fired one, those that have all agree it is better than the 7.62.
I've seen from a number of different sources stating that the 30-30 was the first commercial round designed explicitly for smokeless.This thread is appearing to move into a couple of different directions.
Many of the old rimmed cartridges were originally designed for black powder... I'm not sure the 30-30 was one, but it can be packed with black powder and it'll work, so if we're talking true apocalypse, black powder can be easily made when all smokeless is gone, and primers can be fabricated with potassium chlorate and other simple chemicals. But that'd be a pretty extreme and desperate scenario.
I've experimented with this. It's interesting to see how much you can get out of a cartridge. But I can state unequivocally that an M1 carbine round packed full of FFFFG does not cycle the weapon.
I think the light 5.5mm class of cartridges are here to stay as a military round. The availability of surplus 5.45mm makes it an attractive package, and while I've never fired one, those that have all agree it is better than the 7.62.
Last edited by Maxor; 18 Jan 11, at 18:11.
I believe the 30-30 designation stands for .30 cal, 30grains of black powder. No?
That's interesting.This thread is appearing to move into a couple of different directions.
Many of the old rimmed cartridges were originally designed for black powder... I'm not sure the 30-30 was one, but it can be packed with black powder and it'll work, so if we're talking true apocalypse, black powder can be easily made when all smokeless is gone, and primers can be fabricated with potassium chlorate and other simple chemicals. But that'd be a pretty extreme and desperate scenario.
I've experimented with this. It's interesting to see how much you can get out of a cartridge. But I can state unequivocally that an M1 carbine round packed full of FFFFG does not cycle the weapon.
I have a friend with a .44 New Army (blackpowder) who bought a conversion cylinder. It calls for a .45 Long Colt "Cowboy Load" which is a not on the shelf item at the local sporting goods store. I told him worse case he could probably buy .45 colts and reload them.
My dad was a died in the wool, 30-06 fanatic who said they quit making "real guns" after the Garand and M-14. Even he said he might have to be changing his mind after firing the M-16 and Galil.I think the light 5.5mm class of cartridges are here to stay as a military round. The availability of surplus 5.45mm makes it an attractive package, and while I've never fired one, those that have all agree it is better than the 7.62.
Last edited by sappersgt; 18 Jan 11, at 21:58.
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
[QUOTE=sappersgt;782657
My dad was a died in the wool, 30-06 fanatic who said they quit making "real guns" after the Garand and M-14. Even he said he might have to be changing his mind after firing the M-16 and Galil.
Your dad was right the first time.
When smokeless first started coming out, the same designations for BP rounds were used for smokeless. .30-40 Govt (Krag) is another example, despite being a pure smokeless round.
It seems this went away once the Army moved to the .30-03/.30-06. My own personal gut feeling is that maybe different formulas for smokeless was making the grains designator meaningless.
ZF-
Sapper, your buddy can safely load .45 Colt cartridges with BP. Cowboy loads that use smokeless are downloaded to BP pressures, and do require care to make at home, bit it also can be done. The same thing with .45-70... there are smokeless .45-70 available, but if you shake them, you can tell the volume of smokeless is very low compared to the case capacity, and that is so people don't blow up their old Trapdoor Springfields. The .45-70 can (in theory) be loaded to elephant-rifle energies with solid bullets and mucho smokeless, but of course you'd need a rifle of great strength.
The nutshell ROT is that pretty much any smokeless round can be reloaded with BP to capacity, and the pressures will always be well below the smokeless levels. BP just cannot pack enough energy into them to be dangerous.
Here's an interesting thought experiment... an 1873 Colt SAA revolver is more complicated than an Uzi. Why didn't those old inventors create something similar? Rimless 9mm or .45 cartridges, a box magazine, and an open bolt STEN or Uzi. Here comes Wyatt Earp to the OK corral with a BP sub-gun under his jacket. I can't think of any mechanical reason it couldn't have been done back then!
Imagine the boiling cloud of smoke while firing and the long tedious cleaning afterwards that a BP subgun would entailSapper, your buddy can safely load .45 Colt cartridges with BP. Cowboy loads that use smokeless are downloaded to BP pressures, and do require care to make at home, bit it also can be done. The same thing with .45-70... there are smokeless .45-70 available, but if you shake them, you can tell the volume of smokeless is very low compared to the case capacity, and that is so people don't blow up their old Trapdoor Springfields. The .45-70 can (in theory) be loaded to elephant-rifle energies with solid bullets and mucho smokeless, but of course you'd need a rifle of great strength.
The nutshell ROT is that pretty much any smokeless round can be reloaded with BP to capacity, and the pressures will always be well below the smokeless levels. BP just cannot pack enough energy into them to be dangerous.
Here's an interesting thought experiment... an 1873 Colt SAA revolver is more complicated than an Uzi. Why didn't those old inventors create something similar? Rimless 9mm or .45 cartridges, a box magazine, and an open bolt STEN or Uzi. Here comes Wyatt Earp to the OK corral with a BP sub-gun under his jacket. I can't think of any mechanical reason it couldn't have been done back then!
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
by Chogy
Here's an interesting thought experiment... an 1873 Colt SAA revolver is more complicated than an Uzi. Why didn't those old inventors create something similar? Rimless 9mm or .45 cartridges, a box magazine, and an open bolt STEN or Uzi. Here comes Wyatt Earp to the OK corral with a BP sub-gun under his jacket. I can't think of any mechanical reason it couldn't have been done back thenThere was a scifi novel called Guns of the South where they did just that. The story goes that they could copy an AK-47 but it completely fouled in short notice. Coming up with a smokeless powder was the difficulty. Lots of fun.Imagine the boiling cloud of smoke while firing and the long tedious cleaning afterwards that a BP subgun would entail
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: