Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 30, 2017, 08:39:41 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:        2017 NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits       -       27 through 30, April, 2017       -       Atlanta, Georgia

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: Today at 08:24:34 AM 
Started by Salsantini - Last post by Docduracoat
 What do you mean by refinish?
 If it is just painted with Duracoat or Ceracoat, the numbers will still be there, just colored

 on: Today at 08:19:44 AM 
Started by semper paratus - Last post by EWTHeckman
The only stuff I saw that Speer lawman had was 147 gr @ 950 fps isn't that super sonic speed? The others were 1050 fps

The speed of sound is roughly 1125 FPS. (It can vary based on altitude and atmospheric conditions.) So that makes the Speer 147 subsonic. Heck, that makes the 1050 FPS loads subsonic too.

 on: Today at 08:17:54 AM 
Started by Eliott - Last post by Docduracoat
 My Steyr Aug A 3 does 2 to 2 1/2 inch five round groups at 100 yards, from a rest with 55 grain ball ammo

 on: Today at 08:07:00 AM 
Started by semper paratus - Last post by bravo619
The only stuff I saw that Speer lawman had was 147 gr @ 950 fps isn't that super sonic speed? The others were 1050 fps

45acp... turning human garbage into useful fertilizer since 1911

 on: Today at 06:46:29 AM 
Started by Commanderfluffy - Last post by Mindless-Focus
The issues of previous models have been fixed. You're good to go.

 on: Yesterday at 11:33:07 PM 
Started by Gear Head - Last post by nyrican84
Received my Gear Head Works folding charging handle within a few days of ordering.  Followed the video on their website and was a breeze to install.  Some of the best $$$ I spent. 

 on: Yesterday at 10:15:54 PM 
Started by HBeretta - Last post by kfeltenberger
Ge, you guys are tough. So for a crime of this magnitude is hangin' too good for 'em?

Perhaps DT is really Captain Lincoln F. Stern...


What in the heck was that??

Well, consider tall the crimes Stern was accused of...sort of like what DT is getting hit with, and then you have Fiste, who is essentially the unpleasable customer who wants to do to Stern, well, I think ol' Hanover explains it pretty clearly...

And you've never seen Heavy Metal?  The younger generations these days.  ;-)

 on: Yesterday at 10:15:31 PM 
Started by kevalaska - Last post by Dogmeat
I'm looking at the US Optics B-10 1.8-10x. Just trying to decide which reticle i want to go with. Leaning more towards the MOA at this point since I plan on hunting with the MDR. I also have a Burris Fastfire that needs a home. Probably go with a 45 degree offset mount. I'll know better when it's in my hands.  Cool

 on: Yesterday at 10:14:27 PM 
Started by kevalaska - Last post by coldboremiracle
Still not sure what all this fascination with FFP scopes for all around use is. For me at  closer distances 0-300 meters the FFP has too much compromise. Either the reticle is too thin at close distance for quick work or too thick for high magnification for real accurate ranging. Plus the eye box on a FFP is less forgiving than a SFP for CQB/ snap shooting.

For mid range (3-550 meters) the SFP and FFP are a wash. Because if I'm going to range or hold off I will just crank the power to max where the SFP reticle should be calibrated anyway. And in a 1-6 or even 1-10 that is still just 6x or 10x so definitely not over magnified for 400ish meters. Past this range in high magnification scopes is where the FFP is king.

My 2 cents save the extra cash and get a quality SFP scope for anything less than 12x magnification. Also G&A just wrote a little something about this in their latest Book of the AR15 while reviewing the Bushnell 1-6.5x. Picture of the section below because I couldn't find a link. Pretty good issue too, best AR15 one they did in awhile FYI.

If you read the article, it specifies carbine use, which is typically closer in. As you mentioned, and the article implies, FFP scopes are not as good for close in use. This is not a revelation. FFP scopes were developed specifically for long range shooting to grant the ability to range targets. Since the military likes the simple, rugged solution to things, and having to rely on as little equipment as possible, the ability to be able to integrally range with a scope and not having to rely on external devices and their attendant batteries/electronics, they tended towards FFP solutions. As the taticool tidal wave hit the civilian market, FFP were pushed to the forefront. For most people they don't make sense, especially if you live in areas where you don't typically shoot longer ranges. It boils down, just like anything else, to application and preference. I find that turning on the illumination on my scope makes the 1.8x setting perfectly usable at short range and the size of the reticle is completely inconsequential. But that's me. Practicing bringing up the rifle to the same shoulder position each and every time takes trial and error and a bit of effort, but it solves 100% of the eye relief problems and makes you faster at the same time. If you want SFP and ranging, a SIG Kilo is a great little rangefinder for a great price, but now any savings you may have reaped by going SFP are gone and you have extra gear and batteries to worry about.

I disagree somewhat; FFP scopes are very handy for ranging, but I dont think anybody really uses them for that much anymore. Perhaps there are some out there, myself included that occasionally like to dabble in Milling targets. But with the simplicty and accuracy of todays lasers, it seems almost moot. The reason FFP's are so popular isnt because you cant range with an SFP scope (as Im sure you know) its just easier because regardless of magnification settings, the reticle is always calibrated. This makes ranging easier, but more importantly correction calls. If two or more people are shooting a target, and everybody has an FFP scope (preferably with same units of measure as well)  then everybody can call out corrections without having to fiddle with mag rings or anything else. The advantage of FFP is having a consistent measure from one shooter/spotter/rifle to the next.

 on: Yesterday at 10:13:17 PM 
Started by HBeretta - Last post by kfeltenberger
I understand what he means by "production". He actually said "production ready". Then he indicated that they were still testing it. OK, so what he meant was that if they find no problems that's what's going to ship, so I can understand that he's not calling it a prototype. I actually like that approach. I want them to find any problems now, and obviously they do too. I don't want to receive a rifle that has problems and needs to be shipped back to them for fixes. I want it done right the first time and it's pretty obvious, so do they. Maybe he would have done better to call it a final production ready prototype and then stated it was in final testing. But I'm not going to nit pick his words. I'm fairly certain that's what he meant.

Hey, they build guns, they aren't English majors; neither am I for that matter.

A "production ready rifle that is undergoing final testing" is just a fancy way of saying "final prototype."
Production ready means all evaluation is complete. If they are still doing final checks for problems, it is not production ready, it is a prototype.

You don't want to go from prototype/test gun to converting that to a shipping gun and then shipping them.  You want to have "pre-production" guns and test them before you ship the "production" guns.  What's the difference between the two?  Normally, nothing; the pre-production guns are simply the first ones off the assembly line using production parts.  Just because the prototype works, and the test guns work, doesn't mean that everything translates to production guns made from mass produced production parts.  The prototypes and test guns likely had more fitting and "smithing" done to them during assembly and the goal was to prove the concept and then prove that the firearm is capable of doing what you want it to do.  Production parts don't have the same care lavished over them as prototype parts, so the tolerances may add up and cause issues that require them to go back and re-spec a part (or parts).

In closing, this is why you don't let engineers talk to the press; that's a job for marketing or senior management.  Engineers have their own lingo that may not translate the way we think it does.

I'm not an engineer so take this with a huge grain of salt, but I would imagine that if the "pre-production" rifle works perfectly, but the full assembly models have issues, that would be an issue with the assembly-line machinery, not the rifle itself. I would think one would want to conform the assembly machinery to meet the demands of assembling the final iteration of the rifle, not the other way around. The design and specs of the rifle itself are complete, thus no longer need testing.

The big question is what was DT really testing?  You've got prototypes which are pretty much hand made from the ground with each part made on an individual basis (or perhaps in very small, very quality controlled production runs), and then you have the pre-production guns that are made with production quality parts.  Which ones were the DT people referring to and when? 

I agree, if the pre-production guns run fine, then things should be good to go.  Often, the prototypes have proven the concept and perform to expectations, but translating that to production quality guns may have some glitches.  But, again, if the pre-production examples performed to expectations, then it should be just a matter of making enough and ensuring that the continual parts quality remains consistent. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!