Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide

MajorJim

Members
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by MajorJim

  1. But that is a very important point - he was not stripped of his citizenship and remained a US citizen. I am very familiar with what this shitbag did in the past. However, the analysis the Administration did to justify this did not argue for his loss of citizenship or use that as a factor. And that is a very important factor. Instead, they argues that because he presented a "threat" and that he was too hard to catch, we could skip the arrest and trial and go to execution - all without due process guaranteed to US citizens under the Constitution. Even the detainees at GITMO are getting trials. We tried Nazi brass at Nuremburg. The reason a trail is important is that you have an impartial third party evaluating the evidence in a setting designed to guarantee due process rights. He's too hard to catch? Try him in abstentia. That has been done before. Or at least make a pretense for revoking his citizenship before ordering the guy killed. Like any new power found by the government, once the door is opened there is no going back. And with any new toy, the limits of that new found power will be pushed. Just what will stop this precedent form being applied domestically? Or having the definition of "threat" expanded to include those whose political ideology conflicts with yours? You have given the Executive Branch of government absolute power here, without the ability to subject it to the checks and balances of either the legislative or juducial branches. That certainly is not consistent with the protections under the separation of powers provisions in the Constitution. The Constitution is not some ala carte menu to pick and choose from; it is not like the Pirate Code - "guidelines, really". It is the North Star of government that has guided us for over 200 years. Abandon the Constitution and we lose our sense of direction. Once the nation loses its bearings, all bets are off as to where we are led, or where we end up.
  2. Here is the report I referenced above. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf Since the "memo" has not been released, I cannot link to that and can only reference what has been reported about its contents. The point being made was that without some objective guidance, those in charge of subjectively determining just what is a threat, when someone can't be found and stopped or caught, and just what rises to the level of being "at war" with the US, have a trump card in voiding the Constitution. This Administration wantted to try Al Qadea detainees in a US court because justice demanded it. They were not US citizens, and were captured in connection with Combat operations or proven to have had direct involvement in terrorist attacks against the US (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). While the Administration seems to have relented, Mohammed and others will still get a military trial and a right to due process under the UCMJ. The concern is the precedent set. Just what happens once you put a foot on that slippery slope?
  3. Just to run a few things down: there is an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, state laws against murder, due process and right to trial protections in the Bill of Rights and international laws of war that apply. But if you get a memo, all is good. There was a memo, which has not been released. Reports from those who have seen it indicate that the legal analysis reached the conclusion that Awlaki could be legally killed, (i) if it was not feasible to capture him, (ii) because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in a war with the US (not declared) and "posed a significant threat to Americans", and (iii) because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. The "memo" focused on subjective factors and sounds like it was a tad short of providing a list of objective factors as support. Despite the spin stating that this will not be used as precedent and that this was a "one time" deal, I for one do not find a lot of comfort in that. What happens if an administration concludes that an individual is "at war" with the US based on reports by "intelligence sources" and that the individual "poses a significant threat to Americans", and that the authorities are unable to stop this person. Since capturing the person is not "feasible", it is A OK to kill. I have no problem with killing the enemy in a time of war. But Awalki was not near any battlefield, and was not even present in a country where we are engaged in armed conflict. It might have been easier to swallow if they said Awalki had effectively renounced his US citizenship and forfeited his rights as a US citizen. And crafted some legal analysis around the fact that he permanently left the US and focused on his links to Al Qaeda that he was part of their command structure. Something other than he is an enemy of the state who is too hard to catch, and, in the estimation of unnamed sources, poses a danger to US citizens. I for one don't take a lot of confort in who is making those determinations, particularly when the Director of Homeland Security believes "right wing extremists" are the same as terroritsts, and goes on to define right wing extremists to include verterans, those who support the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the Second Amendment to the Constitution, immigration enforcement advocates, Christians, and basically anyone who is conservative in their political views. The subjectivity in the reasoning for taking out Awalki gives the people who control the definitions virtually unlimited authority. I have no problem taking out a bad guy. I do have a problem with being unable to come up with an objective and rational reason for doing so in light of domestic and international laws making it illegal.
  4. She is the new Marie Antoinette...."let them eat cake".... Of course, that mentality was part of the fuel for the French Revolution.
  5. A good shooting mat is a must. Since I believe in leading by example, let me be the first to volunteer for mat duty.
  6. I will admit, I am probably older than a lot of the crowd here, so my perceptions on a few things may differ. I went through my basic at Fort Bragg in the mid 70's, and was fortunate to have a cadre of fine Special Forces NCO's and officers with significant combat time. I knew how to shoot and handle firearms - my dad made sure of that starting at age 5. But they made me better. Much better. One thing that has stuck with me is that there is the shooting technique the Army wants to see, and then there is the technique that works for you. They are very similar, but we are all built differently, have different wiring, etc., so one man's winning style is another's Barney Fife. So it is with great interest that I observe the rather unorthodox technique displayed by these two ladies. Let me start by saying I am very heartened to see young women enjoying shooting sports. And that 98Z5V keeps the company of heartbreakers! <thumbsup> But the technique... I can only ASSume that 98Z5V has passed on some of what he learned and adapted for his own methods. In the first picture, though, well, that's some flexibility right there. Are they now teaching ballet in basic? I would try that during my next range visit, but only with an ambulance on standby. But if it works, doesn't matter how I look. Camp Perry here I come! The second picture is really my favorite. A three point base anchrrrored by the balls of both feet and an elbow on the knee, perfectly perpendicular. That left foot flexed in a way that my old bones don't move. I am impressed. I am wondering just how 98Z5V teaches that???? Can you help a brother out with two blown out repaired knees (one with no ACL left), two repaired achilles, and other various maladies wrought by a lifetime of bodily abuse and a very misspent youth? Just from looking at the picture, it occurred to me that walking around in high heels might help with stretching the ligaments and tendons in the proper position. If so, what height of heel is optimal for that training? Is there a version available to support a 6'1" 275 pound frame? Seriously though, way to go!
  7. Option 4. If you are thinking about buying another barrel, Lothar has LW50 .308 VarTac profile 20" barrels in stock. I found that out yesterday or the day before when I was talking to them. $360, and it comes with a matched DPMS bolt. It uses an Armalite AR10 length gas tube, but has a DPMS estension and bolt. I think it has an .875 gas block. When your other barrel arrives, switch to your new barrel and sell the VarTac and bolt. Or, follow the 98Z5V playbook, and get another upper receiver ;D (I confess I have built another upper "not to waste spare parts" - sounded good at the time).
  8. Matt, If you don't mind me asking, what is the profile you are having LW make for you? I have always liked their barrels, and their LW 50 steel is fantastic. Stainless on steroids, which makes the barrel life one of, if not the, the longest out there.
  9. Anyone using one of these? I understand that they have one in a profile they call the "Var Tac". A 20" barrel, LW50 stainless, with a 1.2" OD at the breach tapering to 1" just before the gas block; .875 gas block tapering to .780 just before the muzzle thread. Has a DPMS barrel extension, but uses an Armalite length gas tube. Seems to have all the barrel mass where you need it - at and just after the chamber. I'd imagine that is going to come in at between 3.5 and 4 pounds.
  10. More: http://www.rndrifles.com/ http://www.defensereview.com/bushmaster-338-lapua-magnum-mcr-modular-combat-rifle-semi-auto-338-lapua-magnum-anti-materielsniper-rifle-for-long-range-interdiction-will-it-live/ More of a BAR clone, but can get it in a 505 Gibbs http://www.vigilancerifles.com/
  11. A few in 338 out there, including this one: http://www.onlylongrange.com/badnews.asp (They have a 300 WM version for the wimmin folk);
  12. Hell, if you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly! 300 WM? Hah. Grab one of the selections in 338 Lapua Magnum. Much higher "bad ass" factor. Just plan to get into reloading, if you don't reload now.
  13. And the search commenced! I was looking for a light weight scope with a magnification that would match the maximum effective range of my .308. There is a pretty wide selection in the 1 X 6 range, but things get really interesting if you are looking for something 10X or above. The "old school" general rule of thumb was that you went up 1X for every 100 yards. So a 5X scope would fit a 500 yard platform Actually, there is also "old, old school", that says men use iron sights, and scopes don't belong on a field rifle, but I won't go there. Scopes have come a long way since the old days, and a good scope won't take a dump in a stiff wind. More power is certainly nice, up to a point. The higher up you go, the less your field of view, any shake or movement of the rifle is magnified, and of course, the weight goes way up. But, a decent powered scope can be used as a field expedient spotting scope and to more clearly identify targets, So what do I need for a .308? My starting point was something a tad over 10X, with a low enough bottom range to allow for a decent FOV and quicker shots at closer targets. And if I ever wanted to push the limit of a .308 in the face of say, a rampaging prairie dog platoon, I would not be missing the higher power. 4X is about the highest low I felt comfortable with. Under that would be a plus. It is pretty easy to add an additional 2.5 to 3 pounds to your rifle with a scope in this range. That is not what I wanted. My target was something under 20 ounces. In case you didn't know, rifles GAIN weight in the mountains. About 7 years ago, I was in Alaska and I noticed that the weight gain of the rifle is directly proportionate to the distamce walked times the average slope during the trek. I began with a 9.5 pound .416 Rigby, and after a 12 mile day where the slope average over those 10 miles was "vertical", my rifle weighed 78 pounds at the end of the day. Thank goodness that after the rifle rested overnight, it dropped back down to 9.5 pounds. Back on topic. The scope would have to be durable, waterproof and shock proof. Figure that the amount you get banged around on a trip is equally borne by your rifle. And the last thng you need when you are many miles from a road, and several zip codes away from a shop, is to have a scope go from working to not working. BUIS are great for backups, but I personally would not rely on them for a money shot at a distance beyond about 70 yards. The tube would need to be 30mm. You can save a lot of weight going to a 1" tube, but you give up the ability to make full use of the windage and elevation adjustments at longer ranges. Plus, a 30mm tube is sturdier than a 1" tube. You will not pick up light gathering ability with a 30mm versus a 1" tube. That is a function of the objective diameter and of course, the glass. And onto the glass. When it comes right down to it, it is all about the glass. Unfortunately, the better glass is usually on higher priced scopes. Here, though, you do get what you pay for. So after bracketing in on the basic requirements, Great glass was a must. So we are looking at manufacturers like S&B, Zeiss, Leica, Nightforce, US Optics and others in that class (Yes Hensoldt is great, but not $1000 more great). As mentioned before, there are a lot of options at there n the 2 pound plus range. So just what adds that weight? Well, the bigger the tube, the more weight. So I stuck with the 30mm tube rather than going to a 34mm one. Illuminated reticle. Illuminated reticles are great. However, they add weight. A "nice to have" option, but something I would be willing to part with. Then there is the objective diameter. A 28mm objective will be lighter than a 56mm one (and a 56mm less than a 72mm "hubbel"). Of course, the bigger the objective the better the light gathering ability. I could stay with a smaller objective WITH illuminated reticle, but if I wanted more light, I could go to a higher ojective and lose the illumnation. Illiminated reticles take batteries, and it is another part that can fail on a field rifle. The decision was to lose the illumination, trading up for a decent sized objective. Decent sized? Something North of 35mm but below the 50 plus uber range that begins to seem to exponentially add weight to the scope. Sizes commonly available in that range are 37mm, 42mm and 44mm. For hunting, most game seems to move at sunrise and sunset. NOTE: The game I have hunted can tell time, and subscribe to legal shooting tables for each state's game commission. At least with a higher objective, I can see them giving me the hoof or the paw as they pop out right after legal shooting time. I ended up zeroing in on a Leica ER 3.5-14x42 Model 51022 . http://en.leica-camera.com/sport_optics/rifle_scopes/ER_3.5-14x42/ It seems that until just recently, Leica did not make scopes. They were not even on my radar when I started my search. 18 OZ with tactical turrets (adds a whopping 2 oz versus the stock turrets), eye relief at a shade under 4", their "ballistic reticle" (I like to use holdover when there is a need for speed rather than making elevation adjustments to the scope), nice low profile, 30mm tube, and side parallax adjustment. And for once, my timing was good. Leica just dropped the prices on these by $400 or more due to the economy. The model I chose came in at about $600 less (Alex at Euro Optics). No, it is not tacticool. No it does not have a Horus reticle designed to confuse even air traffic controllers. No, it does not have official military sounding knobs. It is just a mechanically sound, reliable, durable, crystal clear scope. In the future, if I choose to employ a spotter calling wind, range, slope, elevation, etc., I might gi with a different model. But for now, this is the ticket I am going with.
  14. Will there be a deer roping exhibition?
  15. Some other measurements Length of upper receiver (excluding barrel flange) - both mearued the same to the 32nd inch using a Starrett steel Top groove in upper receiver for BCG - both mearued the same to the 32nd inch using a Starrett steel Thickness of front of upper receiver face (where the front pivot pin hole is located): Iron Ridge - .554 DPMS - .594 Gas tube hole in upper receiver - measured from the top of the barel flange to the opening inside of the upper Iron Ridge - 1.335 DPMS - 1.297
  16. Still in the middle of my first build, but one thing I have learned is that is all too easy to end up with a heavy rifle. Lots of great parts out there, but a lot of those come with a weight price. Some of my random comments/observations (your mileage may vary): Stock - the Magpul PRS stock is great. There are other great rifle stocks out there as well. They are all heavy relative to carbine length stocks. Maybe a carbine stock is the ticket for a lwoer weight platform. Barrels - longer means heavier, as does thicker. Fluting not only helps cooling, but it also helps to reduce weight. Then there are the carbon wrapped barrels, and Lothar's aluminum option. But carbon and aluminum come at a price over twice the price of a stock barrel. My own view is that a 16" barrel is probably OK for 400 or 500 yards. If you want to go out to 600 yards maybe an 18" barrel is best. Over 600 - 20 and up. Barrel diameter - still figuring that one out. Receivers - looks like someone is paying attention - SI Defense's GenIII Receiver looks like it is 15% lighter than the DPMS receiver. Forearms - Just how many rails is enough? See comment on Tacticool accessories below for my thoughts. The more rails you have, the more weight. As with jumping from carbine, to rifle to LONG forearms. Carbon is great, but it comes at a price, and there is not a whole lot of difference between carbon and some aluminum set ups. I'd go with a slick forearm you could add rails to. Scopes/Glass - the higer up in magnification you go, and the larger the diameter of the objective as well as the larger the diameter on the housing, the more weight you add. Try to match the scope power to the ranges you will be shooting. No sense mounting a 72mm 25 power Hensholdt "Hubbel" on a rifle used on a 100 yard range. Larger objectives are for lower light and longer ranges. The 30mm range will hit most needs. 44mm is nice for longer distances and lower light. 50 -56 mm pretty much 1000 yards. 72 mm for targets orbiting Mars. Larger diameter housings are for light gathering and reticle travel. Again, 30mm will be just fine for most of us, but 34mm and up will take you way out there, provided your scope has the appropriate reticle travel built in. Tacticool accessories - lights, lasers, range finders, night vision, infrared, thermal devices, target solution calculators, levels, etc. Great for static positions or manning the Maginot Line. Try carrying it. If that is what you are into, go buy a 50BMG. the rifle you are building will end up at about the same weight. I'd be real interested to hear other thoughts on the topic.
  17. Done with the preliminary measurements on the barrel flange. All measurements are in inches. Iron Ridge Threaded barrel extension flange on the receiver- .687". Top of barrel flange to first thread - .1685" Front of receiver to first bottom thread on barrel flange - .142 to .149 DPMS Threaded barrel extension flange on receiver -.6505 DPMS Difference to IR - IR+ .0365 Top of barrel flange to first thread – 0.00 Front of receiver to first bottom thread on barrel flange - .089 Differences Iron Ridge to DPMS Threaded barrel extension flange on receiver - IR+ .0365 (.0365 falls into the range of between 1/32 and 3/64, so that might explain some of the difference. ) Top of barrel flange to first thread – IR +.1685" (not sure how much this would effect barrel depth into the receiver, but that falls in to the range of 5/53" to 11/64")) Front of receiver to first bottom thread on barrel flange – IR + .053 to .06 (that falls in between 3/64" and 1/16") Tools used were a Starrett depth gauge for depth measurements and a Starrett inside/outside electronic caliper. I am not a machinist, but I re-verified each reading at least 5 times. The other thing I noticed is that there is a small gap between the DPMS upper receiver when mounted to the Iron Ridge Lower. If I can locate my gap gauge, I'll see where that comes in. Any thoughts? I'll update as I think of and take additional readings and measurements.
  18. MajorJim

    M1A

    There are a few of those guys around. But they are becoming fewer and farther between. Until fairly recent times, the M14/M1A was a weapon without a war. Yes, they were used in the initial stages of Vietnam, but were phased out and replaced by the M16. While it may have been relegated to the scrap heap of warfare, the performance of the 7.62 cartridge versus the 5.56 was not lost on those that were able to choose their rifles. Special Ops needed something with more range and punch, and started pulling old M14's out of inventory. That did not go unnoticed by companies like Smith Enterprises, who worked with Crane Labs to put a new face on the M14. The ball got rolling, and pretty soon you had companies competing with Springfield Armory for M1A's. LRB is a perfect example - forged rather than cast receivers just like the "old" days. Op rods, bolts and trigger groups. The M14 was designed as a "battle rifle (whereas the M16 was designed as an "assault rifle"). It was not designed as a sniper platform. It is a rock 'em, sock 'em platform. If I recall correctly, the specs for battle rifles was around 4 MOA. Definitely not a sniper platform. But, when Spec Ops got into the mix, 4 MOA would not do. While the barrel set up on an M14 is not free floated, which is a definite disadvantage from the start, improvements and tweaks made by the likes of Smith and Crane labs, plus the old military National match armorers sharing their secrets of improving accuracy, now gives us a platform that can easily be worked to shoot 1 MOA or better. Bedding the action, unitizing the gas system, proper headspacing, etc. all get you pickups in accuracy. While there are a lot of new parts out there, they don't seem ot beat some of the original issue parts. The bolt is perhaps the best example of that. TRW bolts are still in high demand, which has sent prices way up. But they are kind of like a divorce - they cost so much because they are worth it! Stocks are one of the biggest areas of after-market improvement. Stocks like Sage and JAE eliminate the need to bed the stock - the receiver is bedded right into the stock with metal to metal. Guys who have these get some screaming accuracy out of an old warhouse. The biggest issue I see if the weight they add. Where the standard wood stock will bring the weight of the total rifle to the 9.5 pound range, some of these after market stocks will go 12 pounds and up. Just my personal advice here - stay away form the 16" SOCOM barrels. Accuracy and velocity suffer. The 18.5" scout barrel is great for a hunting set up. Of course, the 22" standard is going to improve on that even more. When you take a higher view of the M1A, it appears we have come full circle. Government contractors are now in the process of improving on the M16 - ditching the gas impingement set up for a piston in order to improve durability and decrease cleaning and barrel wear. And moving up in caliber from a 5.56 to a 7.62. The M14/M1a is a piston driven gas system in .308 caliber.
  19. Had a chance to do some quick measurements on a DPMS A3 upper receiver. .6505 DPMS Difference to IR - IR+ .0365 .0365 fals into the range of between 1/32 and 3/64, so that might explain some of the difference. The other thing I noticed is that with the DPMS, there is no distance from front of flange to first thread. The DPMS is threaded all the way up. There is a .089 distance from front of the DMPS upper receiver to the bottom thread on the flange. I have not measured the Iron Ridge for this yet and will do it this weekend.
  20. Do we live in a Democracy or a dictatorship??? Take a stand! Protect your right to dangle your nuts! Make them take your nuts away only if they pry them from your cold dead hands! (well, that didn't come out right - but you get the point). http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/02/hanging-truck-nuts-grows-into-free-speech-debate/
  21. Truer words have never been spoken. I believe you have a new signature line!
  22. I don't want to add insult to injury here, but was the roped deer a buck or a doe? Why do I get the impression that 98Z5V engaged in the sport of cow tipping in his youth? Great story, by the way. Sounds like something I would have thought was a good idea in my younger days.
  23. The old rule of thumb was 1X for each 100 yards. For combat and hunting, that still allowed for a decent field of view. The higher up you go in power, the narrower your FOV gets. If you are just target shooting, the FOV is a non issue - you know where the target is. And higher magnificaitons not only magnify the target, they magnify any movement, any little shake, etc. And higher power also means more weight. Some of these scopes are pushing or exceeding 3 pounds. Without the mount. With that said, it is nice to have a clearer picture of things at higher magnification. I see a lot of guys trying to sell their 1.8 X 10 scopes for something with more power. And manufacturers (S&B and IOR Valdada) out with a 3 X 18 scope. The S&B's are not out yet (multiple delays) and will retail for around $3000. IOR's are out now and retail for $1999. US Optics has long had a 3.5 X 17, and with a lighted reticle will set you back anywhere from $2000 to around $2500 (USO is an al la carte menu, and charges for different features). Nightforce has had a 3.5 X 15 out for a while, and you are probably looking at about $1500 there. Lots of 4 X 16 varieties out there, and it is pretty common to see used ones for sale on various forums. With a wide range of prices - from the Uber premium Hensholdt (if you have to ask how much...) to the premium S&B ($3000) all the way down to ones under $1000. Used prices on the premium and up are not going to get much of a discount. I'd take a hard look at Zeiss and Leica - they have superb top quality glass and seem to be reasonably priced. You of course are limited in the reticles you can choose from, and they don't come with those neat tacticool reticles and features that jack the price of a scope sky high.
  24. I hope to have a DPMS upper in my hands by tomorrow, and may be able to get ahold of an SI upper to check in the next week or so. Planning to measure the length of the threaded barrel flange on all 2, plus the distance from the top of the flange to the gas tube channel were it ends on the inside of the upper receiver. Then take a look at the BCG slots on the inside of each receiver and perhaps measure those if they are not consistent. The Starrett inside depth micrometer is going to get a work out.....
×
×
  • Create New...