In reply to matthewmcl :
Thanks!
In reply to matthewmcl :
Thanks!
Anybody got anything specific on the issues with Sig P320 and if it affects any other models? I'm hearing about a PD in Milwaukee that's suing over unintentional discharges. I'd like to know more, but you know how thin on real information the average news story is.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
early 320's without the manual safety had the possibiliy of ND especially if dropped. There was a recall and redesign as I understand it. Manual safety 320's did not have that issue.
So why didn't Ruger pursue making these for the civilian market?
In reply to stroker :
Probably because they couldn't make it accurate. I recall the Mini 14 and Mini 30 not being extremely accurate.
spitfirebill said:In reply to stroker :
Probably because they couldn't make it accurate. I recall the Mini 14 and Mini 30 not being extremely accurate.
Yeah, but they ultimately fixed that. They could have marketed it against the LR-308 class of rifles as the "308 Semi that won't get you noticed" or something. I guess it depends on where it fell against the Clinton AWB...
spitfirebill said:In reply to stroker :
Probably because they couldn't make it accurate. I recall the Mini 14 and Mini 30 not being extremely accurate.
1.5-2 MOA was normal on the early ones. The later mini-14's were better. But against the AR platform they were never going to be competitive. Too many options.
bobzilla said:1.5-2 MOA was normal on the early ones. The later mini-14's were better. But against the AR platform they were never going to be competitive. Too many options.
They're also up against the M1A and other civilian variants of the M-14, and I'm betting the Springfield rifles were always going to be less expensive.
bobzilla said:spitfirebill said:In reply to stroker :
Probably because they couldn't make it accurate. I recall the Mini 14 and Mini 30 not being extremely accurate.
1.5-2 MOA was normal on the early ones. The later mini-14's were better. But against the AR platform they were never going to be competitive. Too many options.
But these days Mini-14s are not assault rifles. But that is a whole different story that should be hashed and re-hashed on a gun board somewhere and not here.
In reply to Noddaz :
And let's not forget that Bill Ruger wasn't exactly a fan of the Black Rifle ("No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun” and “I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20- or 30-round mags or my folding stock”). That 308 would have allowed Ruger to be "in the market" without selling "assault" rifles.
spitfirebill said:In reply to stroker :
Probably because they couldn't make it accurate. I recall the Mini 14 and Mini 30 not being extremely accurate.
Ruger XGI in .308 - A carbine of that weight, in that caliber, would be a beast to shoot. There was a reason the M1 and M-14 weighted almost 10 lbs.
The Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30 carbines were not supposed to be tack drivers. They are designed to be "handy". Also don't have all the complicated moving parts of an AR.
The early barrels are very thin, rapid fire causes the follow up shots to string. If you site in letting your barrel cool between shots you can get sub moa with a mini. The later model with the 16" barrel is the most accurate for more continuous or rapid fire.
Handy they definitely are, and take up much less real estate than a pistol grip rifle
I was at my granparents house cleaning some stuff because they're too old and it's too big.
Anyway he was talking about some old guns he had and asked me if I wanted them. Of course I do lol.
Top Left: S&W357
Bottom Left: .38 long cartridge
Top Right: Lugar of some type. Any experts here?
Bottom Right: Armi F Lli Tanfoglio .380. I don't know much of these
yupididit said:I was at my granparents house cleaning some stuff because they're too old and it's too big.
Anyway he was talking about some old guns he had and asked me if I wanted them. Of course I do lol.
Top Left: S&W357
Bottom Left: .38LR
Top Right: Lugar of some type. Why experts here?
Bottom Right: Armi F Lli Tanfoglio .380. I don't know much of these
That is a Walther p38, not a Luger
In reply to Antihero :
Well thanks. I don't know anything old and not Sig lol
yupididit said:In reply to Antihero :
Well thanks. I don't know anything old and not Sig lol
Nothing wrong with that at all. The P38 is a decent if very outdated gun. IIRC that is what replaced the Luger too
In reply to yupididit :
Looks like an early build Walther, too. They strengthened the frame with a hex bolt in later iterations.
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
I finally got home and actually looked at it for more than 5 mins. Its engraved AC43 which Google tells me it was made in 1943.
Cool toys there. Worth saving based on the conditions. All fun shooters although the S&W top left will likely outshoot everything there. P38's have a very nice following and typically bring good money.
Any sources where I can find more info about the bottom left one?
yupididit said:Any sources where I can find more info about the bottom left one?
Did you say that was a .38 LR as in .38 Long Rimfire? What markings are on it?
In reply to matthewmcl :
It actually says 38 long cartridge. When I made that original post it was after a long day and a bunch of work.
On the butt it says (I can barely read it): Made Spain and it has the number 8300 on it. That's all.
In reply to yupididit :
Any insignia on the grips? Something similar to one of these?
or
https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-manufacturer/spanish-revolvers/eibar-beistegui-38long
https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/found-a-1927-eibar-38-long-ctg-in-my-father-safe.221063/
In reply to matthewmcl :
Just a J on the right grip and a M on the left.
In reply to yupididit :
1943? That's very early in the build!
Is the revolver one of these? Spain was producing Colt knockoffs for a bit, apparently.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/eibar-spanish-model-92-revolver/
You'll need to log in to post.
