JonathanL
-
Content Count
333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by JonathanL
-
If you are anywhere near the north east I can get you a 4 gun cabinet for £60. New is about £110, I think. J.
-
Read another article which said it was at around 3,300ft. Think it was the wikipedia article on it. That mentioned that the time of flight was 6 seconds! J.
-
It will all depend on the club's rules as to who they will accept. There are no statutory rules on this and clubs don't even need to take references from anyone if they don't want to. Personally, I'd take "good standing" as being fairly wide inmeaning in this case. Who is to say that any particuar person is not of good standing? J.
-
You aren't telling us why it's dangrous though. You are saying that they are different but aren't saying what it is about those differences that make using one in the other dangerous. So what is it that makes 5.56 dangerous in a .223 chamber? Well, as far as pressure specs go CiP say they are identical. That being the case, it can only be something about the physical features of the round/chamber which is causing this danger you speak of. What is it? Of course it's an issue - your gun won't work properly. Personally though, I've seen it happen and it wasn't dangerous from wha
-
It's hugely convoluted but, essentially, just about the only thing you can't own a pistol for these days is target shooting; unless it's a big one, or a muzzle loading one, or a historic one. There are are also exemptions for owning them for shootng animals, possessing as part of a collection, possessing as a historic handgun, and possessing under the exemption for antique firearms. Also, you can possess them for the purposes of starting races - yes, that's right, you can possess a .44 Magnum perfectly legally for starting althletic races yet if you target shoot with it you can do 10
-
Wikedpedia in all its glory has worded things badly, it means 7.62x51 is interchangeable with .308, it does not mean .308 should be put through a 7.62. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that! Check anywhere you like, here are a few examples! http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html http://www.303british.com/id36.html http://guncentral.net/Articles/SAAMIvsNATO.html These all make it clear that .308 through a 7.62 is not clever! Nevertheless, if you want to put .308 through a 7.62 then I for one will not attempt to stop you! In reality though, it happe
-
Differences yes. You talk about taking chances but, in reality, there are essentially no chances to take. Shooting 5.56mm through a .223 chamberfed rifle is not a risk. It just isn't - I don't care what you say, it just isn't. If it is then show me where the actual risk lies. It's okay to say that they are different but that in its self doesn't show a risk. Show me some particular difference which means there is a risk of blowing you gun up. Also, you still haven't answered the question regarding reloads. If I reload, say, a case stamped 5.56mm with a heavy bullet - say 80grns - then s
-
Well, I'd take issue with that as well. What a certain round is is actually is is a matter of fact, not a matter of lose terminology. What happens when a manufacturter accidentally stamps 7.62 on a .308 case? Which has happened in the past. Custom ammo companies make different .45 ammo from brass stamped .45 BASIC but does that mean that a .45-70 round loaded with this brass is notr .45=70 even though it meets the specs? What about my 7.62mm ammo which was stamped with something in Arabic? It was probably 7.62mm but what if it fell outside the specs for that round by a little bit? Am in in
-
From what I could find the MV is 958 meters per second, the source I found was 200 grain bullet (?). Quick load has not ability to alter environmental factors. If we could find out exact MV & bullet weight I could run it through Quick load and come up with a replicated round (powder weight etc.). From there if we knew what range the military snipers zero then I could run the data with multiple BC's to give a very accurate trajectory graph and data. John .338 Wikipedia This says the standard military load is a 250grn bullet at about 3,000fps which sounds right from everyt
-
I think that this whole issue could turn into a lawers breakfast in a big hurry if it ever came to court and the defandant decided to put up a big fight. The first big, big, issue you will face is one of interpretation. I mean, your FAC tells you what ammo you can acquire by quantity and calibre. However, "calibre" is not defined in the Act, as far as I'm aware. What does it refer to in a legal sense? Is it ammunition which has bullet of a certain diameter; or designed to be used in a firearm with a certain bore diameter - and if so is that land or groove diameter? Also, what about stuff w
-
It would also mean that it's velocity would reduce less rapidly so it would travel further before it hit its trans-sonic phase which is a major potential cause of innaccuracy. Looking at the figures again; the military ammo actually uses a 250grn bullet which will make a big difference. At Sea level at 59 degree air temp it will fall below the speed of sound at around 1750 yards. At 10,000ft at 40 degrees you get another 900 yards on that!!! So, chances are that those bullets were still supersonic when they found their targets. Based on a 500 yard initial zero (at either altitude) you
-
I'd tend to agree. The Canadian guy did it at altitude as well. I don't agree with the nay-sayers claiming the story is bollox merely on the basis that he did it three times in a row. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen. It you accept that it did happen on one of those occasions then there is no reason why it didn't happen three times. In fact, just becasue something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen - it actually means that sooner or later it will happen! J.
-
The main point is that people are saying that this is a horrendously dangerous practice but aren't offering any actual evidence as to why. The main thrust seems to be that it's because 5.56 is a far higher pressure round than .223 but when you actually compare specs from the same source and which are derived from the same testing method you see that they are actually the same. So what is it that makes firing 5.56 in a .223 rifle dangerous? Yes, there are slight differnces in the chamber specs but they are really slight. Rifles don't run so close to the point of blowing up that a slight dif
-
They are different, it doesn't necessarily mean that the difference is going to cause any damage. They have different throats and rifling leeds - big deal. Like I've asked, where are all the blown up guns? Not of its self, no. However, we know the history of these things and know damn well that they are basically interchangable. There is very little difference, they both shove a .223/4 bullet down a .223/4 barrel and have pretty much the same powder capacity. I've never said they have. I said they don't issue the samwe warning as SAAMI and, to be honest, I don't know if SAAMI stil
-
So, Why does it say .223 on the rifle and not .223/5.56??? You do what you like, I am happier to accept this.... http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html Extract... SAAMI points out that chambers for military rifles have a different throat configuration than chambers for sporting firearms which, together with the full metal jacket of the military projectile, may account for the higher pressures which result when military ammunition is fired in a sporting chamber. SAAMI recommends that a firearm be fired only with the cartridge for which it is specifically chambered by the manufa
-
As I said before, the same reason my .308 is stamped '.308' and not 7.62mm because it's a civilian rifle. Not sure why some P-H sporting rifles are stamped 7.62 tho John It will be because they had their chambers cut with a 7.62mm reamer. Lots of target rifles are actually 7.62mm because that's what was used at Bisley in the likes of the Queens comp. They use military ammunition so cut the chambers to miliary (7.62mm) specs. J.
-
So, Why does it say .223 on the rifle and not .223/5.56??? You do what you like, I am happier to accept this.... http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html Extract... SAAMI points out that chambers for military rifles have a different throat configuration than chambers for sporting firearms which, together with the full metal jacket of the military projectile, may account for the higher pressures which result when military ammunition is fired in a sporting chamber. SAAMI recommends that a firearm be fired only with the cartridge for which it is specifically chambered by the manufa
-
Military surplus ammo was always a lot cheaper than commercial ammo. This is the reason that .223 and .308 rifles became so popular - same as .303 years back. Having said all that there is actually very little surplus ammo about these days for obvious reasons. J.
-
9mm shotgun for rats
JonathanL replied to kevin from bristol's topic in Rimfire, Centrefire & Shotguns
I've got one. Never shot anything with it but have tested in on an indoor range. Much past 15 yards the pattern is huge. Very handy for rats at very close range or in buildings. J. -
Bearing in mind, of course, that that article is 31 years old now. Also, it relates to a warning put about by SAAMI, a manufacturers representative group. So, no bested interst there then. J.
-
They are diferent spec, true. The brass is thicker in certain parts and such like. They don't actually produce different pressures. The differences come from the fact that different countries test the ammo in different ways. The US manufacturers use the SAAMI test which gives a pressure of something like 55,000psi. However, people quote this against the NATO Evap test for 5.56mm, which shows something like 63,000psi, and then use that to "prove" that 5.56mm is a higher pressure round than .223 and is dangerous in .223 rifles. The prolem is that the tests do not measure the same thi
-
Cue the protracted argument!
-
If you join the full-bore section which shoots at Ponteland (which I run) you'll have no problem getting slots for .223, .308, etc. Give me a shout if intersted or ask the chaps to print you off a form next time you're in. J.
-
Legally, a mod is a firearm in it's own right. Being very pedantic about it I think you could extend that argument to saying that even a mod for a non- FAC air rifle needs to be on FAC, even though the air rifle doesn't. J. Edit: checked the Act and a mod for an airgun which is exempt from Sec.1 is not a firearm in its own right.
-
Short answer; Yes, in law a mod is a firearm in its own right. Yes, you can be given it in the same way in which you can be given any other firearm. J.