jordan@greipa.UUCP (The Moderator) (07/18/85)
Guns Digest Wed, July 17th 85 Digest: 1:2
Topics:
mod.rec.guns [let's get some questions going!]
AR-15 vs. M-16 construction
Query: Regs about re-importing US-made military arms
mod.rec.guns [assault rifle queries]
.45-70 or .444 marlin, evaluation wanted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 85 08:33:29 pdt
From: decwrl!ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!woody (Woody Richards)
Subject:mod.rec.guns
Let's get some questions going!
1) Anyone had any experience with the new .32 H&R Mag., 7MM-08, or
35 Whelen?
2) Any good loads for the above?
Woody @Persci
!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!woody
---
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 10:40:39 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <qantel!ihnp4!seismo!Almsa-2.ARPA!wmartin>
Subject: AR-15 vs. M-16 construction
For the digest and mod.rec.guns:
There is a basic difference between the military M-16 series and the civilian
AR-15 series involving the method of taking the rifle down into subassemblies.
On the M-16 type, the upper receiver detaches from the lower by a hook-and-pin
arrangement at the front of the receivers; on the AR-15 type, these two
components are hinged together and held by a screw, which must be removed to
completely separate the two assemblies. (On both, they open at the rear by
a push-pin, allowing easy bolt removal, cleaning from the rear of the bore, etc.
You can buy aftermarket accessories to modify the AR-15 into the detachable
M-16 format, but I do not know if this is a simple bolt-on modification, or
something requiring permanent changes to the upper receiver, such as milling
out a hook.)
Can anyone tell me why there is a difference between the two? It appears that
the easy-detachable format is better for cleaning and storage; also, if Colt
had tooled for such a construction in the military models, it would be
simpler and cheaper to continue this form in the civilian version. However,
maybe the screw-attached form is actually better and stronger, allowing
tighter tolerances and less wear from needless repeated takedowns? Since
they had to slightly change the tooling anyway to meet BATF regulations
about ease of full-auto conversions, I suppose the attachment-method
change would be a minor additional expense.
Can anyone say for sure which is better, and what the reasons behind
the differences are?
Regards,
Will Martin
ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin
---
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 10:25:38 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <qantel!ihnp4!seismo!Almsa-2.ARPA!wmartin>
Subject: Query: Regs about re-importing US-made military arms
For the digest and mod.rec.guns:
I have a question regarding the regulations about the sale of firearms
returned into the US that had previously been sent out of the country as
"Lend-Lease" or military aid. I understand that these cannot be sold to
individuals or to regular FFL dealers for resale, but must be offered
for sale to police agencies only. There are ads in Shotgun News for such
guns, at prices far below the current rates for guns that can be sold to
individuals -- Garands for $195 and the like. There are a few wholesalers
(Armex and others) that seem to specialize in these. They also handle
Class III full-auto weapons, but my query is now limited to "ordinary"
(not full-auto) guns.
Once such guns are sold to a police agency, can that police agency then
dispose of them by auction or sale to an FFL dealer, and these guns *then*
enter normal commerce, without any restrictions other than those n any
guns? That is, does the one-time acquisition by a police agency "clean" or
"clear" these guns of the restrictions on further or future sales?
If so, I would think this could be a good source of income for small-town
police departments or county sheriff's agencies; they could buy Garands,
M-1 Carbines, .45 Automatics, and such legal and ordinary weapons,
through this special channel, at relatively low prices, and turn around and
sell them for double their cost or so, which would still be under the
current dealer cost for such used guns. Thus their municipality makes some
money, and those of us wanting to buy this stuff can get them at a lower
cost than otherwise, since the increased supply will drive down the
general price level for "shooter-quality" guns of these types.
It would also be worthwhile for some big importer, like Armex, to
establish some close relationships with certain police agencies for
this purpose, thereby "cleaning" the guns they import, and this could
increase their business and their profits, in addition to benefitting
the agencies involved and the shooting community.
If anyone knows the truth about these regulations, and their interpretations,
please post the info. I think the new "Curio & Relic" regs had some
mention of this issue, and I believe that some modifications to them were
incorporated into the Firearms Owners' Protection Bill, so maybe current
situations would change if that is passed by the House, too...
Regards, Will Martin
ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin
---
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 85 15:52:24 pdt
From: dual!proper!jfk
Subject: mod.rec.guns
OK, has anybody done any owner evaluations of the AUG, the
XGI or HK91? I don't mean the puff from the gun magazines.
Ditto Ruger Redhawk, TZ-75 and SIG 226.
---
Date: Wed Jul 17 16:24:35 PDT 1985
From: jordan@greipa.UUCP (The Moderator)
Subject: .45/70 or .444 Marlin, evaluation wanted.
I've been contemplating getting a marlin 1893 lever action
rifle in either .45/70 or .444 marlin. I like the idea of a
heavy bullet (about 300 grains in the .45/70) traveling at
2300+ FPS.. Has anyone used either of these calibers on big
(i.e. Elk) game or just plain 'ornery things like mountain lions?
I'm also interested in trajectories, since I figure either of these
two probably curve like a rainbow out past 200 yds..
It's either one of these or something small and fast, like a .270 Win.
***********
End of guns digest
--
Jordan K. Hubbard
@ Genstar Rental Electronics.
Palo Alto, CA.
{pesnta, decwrl, dual, pyramid}!greipa!jordan
"ack pfffft. gag. retch. barf.. ack"
- Bill again.