The Perpetual Firearms Thread

[Boskone]

Swung by the micro-shop and put 3 spacers (so raising it about an inch) on my Tikka as a cheek riser. It's a Victor universal cheekrest, and while a smidge ugly I think it'll do the job just fine.

I just need to go get my can out of the safe, and it will be in it's fully armed and operational condition. I'm thinking maybe the week after next.

 

[.劉煒]

Just to kind of back this up: the reason I don't carry my XDs is because of the aggressively edged sights¹ and cheese grater-worthy checkering, not because I ever had any problems shooting it.

¹ I was carrying while loading servers once, and had to take it out of my pocket after an hour or so because it'd worn it's way throughthe pocket's material in a set of Carhartt pants, and was working it way quickly through my skin. I keep thinking about 'melting' it or something.

... no holster?

I have my shield in one of these for pocket carry. https://www.desantisholster.com/super-fly/

Something to think about again now that jacket season is over.

 

[.劉煒]

I'm not in the market for any more firearms, but If I was I would be looking at this in a few proven generations

Maybe for a open carry duty gun.. concealed? Nah. No need, if it's out I have positive control. Long arms? Same thing - on my body or in a case.

But you know someone is going to say 'all guns should use this, it's now mandatory'.

 

[Boskone]

... no holster?

I have my shield in one of these for pocket carry. https://www.desantisholster.com/super-fly/

Something to think about again now that jacket season is over.

It was holstered, in a Nemesis. The picture of the XDs in the Nemesis shows the problem.

I normally carry an EC9s now. I actually think it's a nearly-perfect CC pistol: small, powerful enough (9mm), enough rounds for 1-2 bad guys (number of zombies depends on type), and basically no extraneous bits. The sights are fairly rudimentary, but being a last-ditch defense weapon I find them to be perfectly adequate to the task; more pertinently, for me point-and-shoot with the pistol is sufficiently accurate to nearly ace the LTC shooting test.

How I'd perform under stress remains to be seen, of course, but:

• That's the case for any sighting system
• In hunting, at least, I'm not prone to buck fever or the like

 

[.劉煒]

It was holstered, in a Nemesis. The picture of the XDs in the Nemesis shows the problem.

Yeah. I had the same problem in my IWB holster until I added a backer.

I normally carry an EC9s now. I actually think it's a nearly-perfect CC pistol: small, powerful enough (9mm), enough rounds for 1-2 bad guys (number of zombies depends on type), and basically no extraneous bits. The sights are fairly rudimentary, but being a last-ditch defense weapon I find them to be perfectly adequate to the task; more pertinently, for me point-and-shoot with the pistol is sufficiently accurate to nearly ace the LTC shooting test.

No complaints about my shield 40 with appropriate holsters. And yeah, with modern polymer checkering, it needs protection from soft surfaces, either your skin or clothing.

 

[Kaiser Sosei]

Maybe for a open carry duty gun.. concealed? Nah. No need, if it's out I have positive control. Long arms? Same thing - on my body or in a case.

But you know someone is going to say 'all guns should use this, it's now mandatory'.

I was thinking more along the lines of a "nightstand" gun. My firearms are hidden, in locked cases, and all have trigger locks. Essentially useless for home defense, but I have children in the house and am not willing to risk an accident over what is essentially a non-existent threat.

The current version is too big for carry in my opinion and I don't think they were trying to make a concealable/carry gun., In a few generations the electronics will get smaller and I think the overall package of the firearm will get smaller. It's an interesting piece of machinery and I hope they can make it work.

 

[.劉煒]

I was thinking more along the lines of a "nightstand" gun. My firearms are hidden, in locked cases, and all have trigger locks. Essentially useless for home defense, but I have children in the house and am not willing to risk an accident over what is essentially a non-existent threat.

IMHO? Loaded in a push button style nightstand safe. Or a biometric safe. Or a biometric safe with a push button failsafe. No extra futz on the gun itself. Still satisfies your criteria.

I, too, have kids in the house. So either secured in safe (no gun locks, those things don't go on unless I'm going to a range where I expect to leave a vehicle unattended with the gear in it so it's double locked in a hard case). It's a barrier - but tell you something? My kids are of the age where they have had training. They're also of the age where I teach them how to use tools. They have full garage access - in about an hour, they could have full access to any safe in the house. You can think of the combination of tools needed.

Locks are great for the 'accidental pickup' type scenario, but don't do anything for malice, tbh.

It's an interesting piece of machinery and I hope they can make it work.

Tbh I don't because there are states who will literally mandate it if it does. Ones which have not allowed new gun types into their registry for decades. So that's a firm 'no thank you'.

Also, if someone is in a not-free state, and wants to learn how to print things, I'm happy to point you in the right direction. You too in the 'I don't like guns' states, btw. I won't send you anything, but words are still free(for now).

The current version is too big for carry in my opinion and I don't think they were trying to make a concealable/carry gun.

It's 'duty gun' / full frame pistol sized.

 

[Boskone]

It's 'duty gun' / full frame pistol sized.

It's a chunk even for those; at first, I thought it was a Hi-point.

Thought with my RIA Ultra HC, I'm not sure I can should fun of guns for being chunky anymore.

 

[.劉煒]

It's a chunk even for those; at first, I thought it was a Hi-point.

Thought with my RIA Ultra HC, I'm not sure I can should fun of guns for being chunky anymore.

Thinking about a Maxim 9, with the integral. That's kinda chunky too, but gotta protect hearing, right?

 

[invertedpanda]

Just heard back from Bore Tech since I haven't gotten the RPR bore guide or solvent I ordered..

They told me that they are backordered on the bore guides and it'll be a few weeks, but for a few bucks more I can get the patch guide instead.

The "few bucks more"?

The original bore guide was $37.99.

The patch guide? $74.99.

So.. nearly twice as much is "a few bucks more"?

Told em' I'll just wait for my original order.

Not gonna order from Bore Tech direct again, that's for sure. The bore guide is something that I'd hate to go without when I finally do a real cleaning of the RPR, so I wanna make sure I get it. I'll try and find a 3rd party to get the rimfire blend solvent from I guess when it's time to get a new bottle.

 

[von Chaps]

As I sit here [still] waiting to see if I will be granted a firearms cert, as you might imagine, I've been researching potential purchases and I've confused myself regarding scopes, so I'm reaching out for a bit of advice/guidance.

I've already stated that the .22s will be used anywhere from 10yds upwards and that I'll need scopes that can support this. The Diamondback Tactical has been recommended and, indeed, it is spec'd down to 10m focus.

I think I understand the principle of parallax and now it applies to sights (reticle and image in same focal plane), but many scopes have a fixed parallax (say 100yds). I don't follow how this relates to focus abilities. Many [most] scope spec's don't say anything about minimum focus distance. Many scopes don't even seem to have focus adjustment other than at the eyepiece and I think that's +/-2 dioptre for eye correction.

I don't have easy access to a shop where I can try stuff out; I will be mail ordering so it's awkward at least.

I would have thought this information was fundamental to a sighting system.

For example, if I go with a Vortex Spitfire 5x prism, will it focus down to 10yds? How am I supposed to know?

To be clear, I'm not really asking about specific scopes, more whether I have understood and there is no real way to know from the specs and I will just have to try each one out.

 

[invertedpanda]

This actually provides some good info on adjusting parallax: https://winchester.com/Blog/2017/10/understanding-and-correcting-parallax

Basically, think of it this way: The parallax is for focusing in on the target, while the eyepiece focus is for bringing the reticle itself into focus. In many cases you can get away with a fixed parallax ~sub 200 yards or so, and I've actually done some 100-200 yard shooting with my parallax left at 200 with no real major issues.

Also, regarding scopes, if you want to do any precision shooting I can't extol the virtues enough of the Bushnell Match Pro (or Match Pro ED which has better glass). It's budget-priced, but REALLY good.. And it's also adjustable down to 10 yards on parallax

 

[von Chaps]

This actually provides some good info on adjusting parallax: https://winchester.com/Blog/2017/10/understanding-and-correcting-parallax

Basically, think of it this way: The parallax is for focusing in on the target, while the eyepiece focus is for bringing the reticle itself into focus. In many cases you can get away with a fixed parallax ~sub 200 yards or so, and I've actually done some 100-200 yard shooting with my parallax left at 200 with no real major issues.

What's confusing me, I think is that the club scopes have parallax adjustment [on the objective lens as it happens] and I am needing to adjust it when moving from 25 to 15 to 10yds otherwise the target is really blurred, so it feels like something fixed at 100 would be terrible (although I realise this surely can't be the case). It feels like sub-50, parallax adjustment becomes massively important.

Also, regarding scopes, if you want to do any precision shooting I can't extol the virtues enough of the Bushnell Match Pro (or Match Pro ED which has better glass). It's budget-priced, but REALLY good.. And it's also adjustable down to 10 yards on parallax

Yea, thanks. I've seen your posts on that scope and it's definitely on my list. I might even put it on the T1x with a view to moving it to the T3x later. I think a Diamondback will go on the 10/22. Spitfire was for the M&P15 22, but I can't figure out if it would work at short range (it has no parallax adjustment and is fixed at 100).

 

[drogin]

I mean, keep in mind that most scopes intended to be used on centerfire rifles have parallax set to 100-150 yards because that's way more common of a scenario they operate in out of the box.

If you buy a scope specifically designed for rimfire, it's typically going to have an out of the box/fix parallax of 50 yards or so.

If you're using a scope that close in, then you likely should be using a very low magnification, and I'm kind of surprised that height over bore isn't going to be more of a problem than parallax.

You could also just be having issues with your cheek weld/head position. Parallax is not just about the scope. Don't forget about the shooter's most important lens. Their eye.

EDITED TO ADD

What I mean about the centerfire scope thing is just that putting a centerfire scope on a rimfire rifle is kind of an important choice you are making, and you should really understand the mechanics of that before buying that much glass.

 

[drogin]

Oh, and check your eye dominance. Make sure you're putting your dominate eye behind the sighting system.

 

[von Chaps]

Yea, thanks. I get the centre fire issue. To be clear, this is theoretical only atm, I am not having any problems other than in deciding what to get. I'm not having a parallax issue, it's simply that many scopes don't seem to specify the minimum distance they can be used at. I get that many are for CF but, other than guessing because the reticle is BDC, it's very hard to know which are useable with rimfire.

The reason I'm asking is, as you say, not to put a too expensive/inappropriate CF glass on rimfire - question is, other than price, how to tell?

 

[Boskone]

What's confusing me, I think is that the club scopes have parallax adjustment [on the objective lens as it happens] and I am needing to adjust it when moving from 25 to 15 to 10yds otherwise the target is really blurred, so it feels like something fixed at 100 would be terrible (although I realise this surely can't be the case). It feels like sub-50, parallax adjustment becomes massively important.

The clarity is kind of a side-effect of properly-set parallax. Basically, you're changing where the reticle is projected:

If the parallax is right, the reticle won't move relative to the target as your eye moves around; if the parallax is wrong, it will. The loss of focus is kind of just a side effect of how parallax correction works.

A lot of scopes don't have it, because it just doesn't matter: if I'm off 1moa at 400m with my deer rifle, I'm probably still well in the kill box. But it's a pretty major deal for precision shooting.

And yes, prismatic scopes have parallax. Even holographic sights and red dots have parallax, but theirs is set to infinity and doesn't really matter. However, if the maximum expected range is within the parallax range of the optic, it's effectively parallax-free: so if a scope has a fixed 50-150m parallax, and you're shooting 10-200m, then the parallax just won't be enough to notice outside of rather extreme measurement.

The reason I'm asking is, as you say, not to put a too expensive/inappropriate CF glass on rimfire - question is, other than price, how to tell?

Generally speaking rimfire scopes are small, short ranged, and are lightly built; they don't need to account for the occasionally punishing recoil of centerfire guns.

Most precision rimfire guns have centerfire scopes, though. E.g. Vortex makes some rimfire scopes in their Diamondback and Crossfire II lines, but both are 2-7x35 or something. The Diamondbacks I have on my RPR and T1x are flatly full-up Diamondback Tactical scopes, same as I might put on some gawdawful belted magnum. I (and apparently a lot of base-class NRL22 shooters) go with 'em because they're one of the relatively few FFP high-magnification scopes that leave enough in the budget to put a suitable rifle under 'em.

 

[von Chaps]

Yea. Thanks for the clear explanation. I kind of get parallax. When I use club scopes, I have to dial the eyepiece a lot to focus the reticle. At this point, the image is blurred and I use the parallax adjustment to bring the image into focus. It feels like, if the parallax is fixed, I won't be able to perform that latter step and I'll be left with a very blurry image.

I suspect I will just have to be very careful and only buy stuff that is clearly labelled as working down to short range. I do want to buy decent glass though (photography roots) and will be moving some of them to CF later. Looks like DB Tactical and/or Match Pro.

Just a side observation, whilst binoculars and cameras don't have reticles, you wouldn't buy that glass without the ability to adjust the objective assembly to focus the image depending on distance. I don't follow why scopes seem to be different in many cases. I know about DoF and circle of confustion so there is increasing flexibility at longer range, but still.

 

[drogin]

Yea. Thanks for the clear explanation. I kind of get parallax. When I use club scopes, I have to dial the eyepiece a lot to focus the reticle. At this point, the image is blurred and I use the parallax adjustment to bring the image into focus. It feels like, if the parallax is fixed, I won't be able to perform that latter step and I'll be left with a very blurry image.

I suspect I will just have to be very careful and only buy stuff that is clearly labelled as working down to short range. I do want to buy decent glass though (photography roots) and will be moving some of them to CF later. Looks like DB Tactical and/or Match Pro.

Just a side observation, whilst binoculars and cameras don't have reticles, you wouldn't buy that glass without the ability to adjust the objective assembly to focus the image depending on distance. I don't follow why scopes seem to be different in many cases. I know about DoF and circle of confustion so there is increasing flexibility at longer range, but still.

I think it is just cost and practicality.

I think you're taking what is a rather niche use-case and trying to apply that in a way that makes something mainstream seem like a defect.

If I want to sell a lot of hunting scopes at a reasonable price, I can assume that they are going to be used for hunting at normal hunting distances. So I optimize the system for those ranges and reduce the complexity and number of parts. I can put that money towards something else that the market finds valuable like better shock/weather proofing, better low light performance, etc.

Not a lot of hunters/"regular" shooters are trying to group at 10 yards with a high magnification optic. I'd also say that it would be weird for a competition small-bore shooter to have an optic that they use from 10 yards to 300+.

With regard to binoculars without a reticle, it is not trying to overlay two images, so it's a different situation.

For a rifle scope with fixed parallax, it really is a YAGNI decision.

 

[von Chaps]

Yep, thanks. I get what you're saying and I agree. It does seem like I'm manufacturing a problem to solve. The only thing I would say is that, in the UK, I suspect this is not unusual, but that's our particular issue since we don't really manufacture scopes.

 

[Boskone]

I'd also say that it would be weird for a competition small-bore shooter to have an optic that they use from 10 yards to 300+.

I think you'd be surprised; 300yd is pretty common in rimfire precision shooting.

 

[Boskone]

feels like, if the parallax is fixed, I won't be able to perform that latter step and I'll be left with a very blurry image.

Not really; they basically sacrifice parallax correction (and precision) for being clear at all ranges.

Basically the scopes are precise enough, but clear and faster. Just different characteristics for different styles of shooting.

 

[drogin]

I think you'd be surprised; 300yd is pretty common in rimfire precision shooting.

I'm sorry, that's not what I was meaning to say. What I meant to say is it would be odd for them to use the same kind of optic for all of those ranges.

If they were shooting at 300, they'd probably be just fine with fixed parallax after all

 

[DeedlitCryogenic]

Whelp, I have a couple new firearms. I got a Hi-Point 1095 carbine Last month, and we finally got a break in the weather to take it to the range last weekend. It shoots like a dream. Flawless function regardless of what ammo I feed it. Ran multiple magazines, including the 40 round 45acp Promag drum. I was expecting to possible need to do a bit of fitment, but nope! All 3 drums I bought over Xmas (Got a 1095 as a gift for my best friend. The drums were 50% off on black friday) worked flawlessly in both of our carbines AND her JXP. (Which just became her favorite handgun. And she's fired my Xd, Tok, PMR30, and Witness.


I just got a Savage 110 Hunter in 7mm PRC, and a full set of reloading gear to feed it. Hoping to do a bit more distance marksmanship. Got my best friend the same in 6.5mm PRC. Also next weekend I'll be picking up my early 70s vintage remington 700 in 270 that my grandfather left me when he passed. Lots of fun to be had soon at the rifle range!

Also picked up some underwood 30-06 loads to test out when I was buying Fullhouse 10mm to test the hipoints with.

 

[Boskone]

Let me know how the 7mm and 6.5 PRC go. I have a long-range scope burning a hole in my gun safe, and nothing that can really take advantage of it.

 

[invertedpanda]

Taking my bi-weekly range trip tomorrow, and this time I'm taking a 20-spot ARA benchrest target I popped together and printed at home (since ARA benchrest is usually 25 shots on 11x17, and I can only print 8.5x11). If I had thought ahead of time I could've gotten it printed at Staples or something probably, but, eh.. Oh well. I'm just shooting these targets for fun anyway and won't be scoring.

Wishing the wind would calm down so I could actually confirm my scope zero; I'm sure my windage is off a bit, but shouldn't be too far.

 

[von Chaps]

In the continuing saga of my firearms application, I received my certificate today. 16 weeks since the application went in. Shame it took so long, but I'm very pleased to have it. Limited to 1 x .357 and 4 x .22lr at the moment. I can vary it later. Planning to swap the .357 for 6.5 or .308.

Off to the local dealer today and ordered Tikka T1x .22 and S&W M&P15-22 MOE. Also hoovered up 1200 Blazer, which is all the .22 I am allowed to hold.

I have a Holosun RDS on order for the S&W. Looking at the Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 for the Tikka, but I notice Bushnell quote $400 on their US website. What does it really cost you guys after taxes? Best I can find in UK is £700 (inc taxes). That seems.... a lot. What do you think?

Vortex Diamondback Tactical I can get for £470. I know the Bushnell is better regarded, but is it worth £700 vs £470. Dont get me wrong, I can afford it, but I don't like waste or rewarding gouging. No opportunity to try locally either, so it's mail order all the way.

Otherwise, looking forward to getting the rifles next week and working with them.

 

[invertedpanda]

Looking at the Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 for the Tikka, but I notice Bushnell quote $400 on their US website. What does it really cost you guys after taxes?

I don't recall exactly what I paid with taxes for mine since I actually did it on financing just to spread out the cost over a few months (had a bunch of other expenses at that time), but I want to say it was $425 or something USD w/ tax. I bought mine through Amazon.

If I had to choose between the Vortext Diamondback Tactical and the Bushnell for a 22LR precision build, I'd go Bushnell hands down, even with the higher cost. I've looked through the Vortex, and it's not bad, but I like the Bushnell more, including the turrets. Resetting the zero on them is super easy, too.

Vortex does have a good RMA policy, but more and more folks are having to use it lately it seems.

Bushnell's is pretty much the de-facto NRL22 Base optic.

 

[Boskone]

Looking at the Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 for the Tikka, but I notice Bushnell quote $400 on their US website. What does it really cost you guys after taxes? Best I can find in UK is £700 (inc taxes). That seems.... a lot. What do you think?

Vortex Diamondback Tactical I can get for £470. I know the Bushnell is better regarded, but is it worth £700 vs £470. Dont get me wrong, I can afford it, but I don't like waste or rewarding gouging. No opportunity to try locally either, so it's mail order all the way.

I can't speak to the Bushnell, because they've wholly overhauled their optics since the last time I used one.

I have two Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50, and they've been good scopes. Parallax adjust, rezeroable turrets, nice firm click. I think the Bushnell does have a bit more adjust; like 10mil instead of 6. I guess the main downside I'd attribute to the Diamondback is that you can, er, accidentally buy an MOA scope.

(I don't mind MOA, but it seems like mil is getting to be more common, so easier to share dope. I'm still slightly tempted to just replace my MOA DBT, but then I'd just have two huge scopes sitting around.)

 

[Boskone]

So I finally have my suppressor, a can full of ammo to test-drive, two fully-set-up rifles, a decent shooting weekend, and I'm not on-call. Everything's ready and good to go.

I fully expect my RV to fall into a sinkhole tonight.

 

[DeedlitCryogenic]

Let me know how the 7mm and 6.5 PRC go. I have a long-range scope burning a hole in my gun safe, and nothing that can really take advantage of it.

Two trips to the range in, and two boxes of the 180 gr match ammo through my 7mm. I'm only able to shoot 200 yards at my current range, but I'm getting below .5 MOA consistently. Best string of 3 was a half inch at 200 yards, worst was a flat inch. I'm fairly impressed.

Then I went out and picked up a hi-point JXP10 (For giggles) and Canik TP9 Elite SC. Oh dear ghod is that thing the best 9mm I've fired. And for $400 for the entire kit, a great value. I also (FINALLY) brought home the 270 my grandfather left me. To my surprise it wasn't a R700, but a Weatherby Vanguard. Not at all surprised by the Leupold scope. haven't gotten a chance to take it to the range yet, as I'm doing some rust remediation on it. My dad did not take careful care of it.

 

[Boskone]

Well, no sinkholes...but I did wake up to rain. I'll check later, but the range is pretty much a mudpit if there's any precipitation.

 

[invertedpanda]

Canik TP9 Elite SC. Oh dear ghod is that thing the best 9mm I've fired.

Canik has made some impressive stuff lately. The Mete has been on my list for a long while.

Well, no sinkholes...but I did wake up to rain. I'll check later, but the range is pretty much a mudpit if there's any precipitation.

We had a light sprinkling last night, but thankfully nothing of substance, so this morning's range trip for me looks to be perfect (got the same problem of muddiness at my range).. It'll be 60 degrees with the lightest wind I've had since I picked up the RPR.. Plus I'll finally have a chance to play with my new Kestrel Super glad they came out with cheaper models of it with just the wind meter.

 

[von Chaps]

Those of you with a T1x and a Bushnell Match Pro, could you give me any guidance on the size of mounts I should be getting? I have a 10 MOA pic rail coming, so there will be a little bit of a slant on it. Primarily concerned with objective clearance of course.

 

[invertedpanda]

Was about to suggest a scope ring height calculator, but with the pic rail addition that throws it out of the window.

I'd say wait until you get everything and use coins to test eye relief and everything and then measure the coin height to determine scope ring height needs. That's what I did.

 

[von Chaps]

You mean like make 2 stacks of coins on the pic rail and rest the scope on them?

 

[invertedpanda]

You mean like make 2 stacks of coins on the pic rail and rest the scope on them?

Exactly. Super easy way to measure scope ring height.

 

[von Chaps]

Exactly. Super easy way to measure scope ring height.

Thanks. Good tip!

 

[Boskone]

Put a dab of silly putty under and between the coins, and under the scope. Makes things much more stable. Or wax, if you already have some.

I have a 20moa rail under my Diamondback, and a shade on it, so despite similar dimensions I don't think my setup will be applicable to you.

 

[Boskone]

Well, I didn't bother going to the range yesterday, which was fine because the weather's better today.

Today I had a sudden vague recollection of something going on...there's a 4h shoot Friday through today, and the range is otherwise closed. It's shotguns, but they repurpose the rifle and archery ranges as skeet ranges for such events.

At least I checked before making the drive.