|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 16, 2019 21:21:09 GMT
I remember when the concept was first introduced and I thought it was fine as an option. If someone wanted a firearm with the option to lock out use electronically, that was their choice. The problem arose when New Jersey said "this should be mandatory on ALL firearms" and effectively smashed the idea right into the ground. They took an idea that was harmless on its own and telegraphed exactly how they were going to use it for oppression.
There are people who don't even want a mechanical safety on their firearms, let alone an electronic one. Their reasoning for this is very sound. Every extra piece added to a firearm is a component that can fail. When you add components for safety, such as switches, key locks, mag safeties, you increases the likelihood of failures that can render the firearm nonoperational.
Here's an example of a very simple safety feature that failed on a firearm I owned once.
All Taurus revolvers have a key lock on the hammer now. Basically all it is is a screw that backs out enough to prevent the hammer from being pulled. One time at the firing range my revolver suddenly locked up and would no longer function. What happened was the screw backed out on it's own due to successive recoil.
This is a safety feature comprised of one component and it failed. A smart gun will have thousands of additional components that all have the capacity to fail.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 18, 2019 18:01:49 GMT
zaealix; what were your thoughts on the matter? Now that I've got a 7x57mm carbine, I'm on the hunt for a nice rifle. The sad part is that I could've bought a couple of Brazilian or Chilean rifles in mint condition over the past couple of years, but opted not to.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 19, 2019 16:52:19 GMT
What's the bloom like when you fire off that short little rifle?
|
|
|
Post by zaealix on Apr 19, 2019 18:03:50 GMT
Personally?...My thoughts were that it seemed much less like people were actually UNinterested in the idea so much as that Law killed the concept in the crib due to being made with no real intent to actually support gun consumers so much as to fufill a vision for the world- one where guns are ONLY for the good guys and not for the bad- made by people who don't actually understand the reality. Now? If anyone wants to develop such a thing it'll basically have to be someone who's basically backed by the same folks who made that law, which is all too likely to prompt a pretty nasty backlash due to being a decree handed down by people who aren't willing to hear the other side out... Basically, the whole idea got an unwanted and unneeded dose of politics screwing it all into a big annoying mess. Which is how some charismatic type grabs it and proceeds to screw it up.
...As for Smart Guns as a concept? Sounds neat, doesn't actually seem to address the idea of willful malicious use AND complicates things for people meaning well...It's like having to fuss with passwords while Hackers just go for using a code-breaker. The advantage belongs to the 'bad guys' due to living with the security measure being more difficult/annoying then breaking it in the long-term.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 19, 2019 18:35:00 GMT
Not sure, substantial I imagine, I was wearing yellow glasses while shooting it the other day so I couldn't really see the muzzle flash. Probably going out tomorrow, I'm just cleaning off some of the rust and finishing the stock today, might get a video of it tomorrow.
It'd stop someone from using it right then, if they picked it up and pulled the trigger without using the fingerprint scanner or squeezing the trigger just like the owner or wearing the special RFID wristband, but it wouldn't stop someone from hacking and disabling the lock. I know in Europe there's been a big spike in car theft, specifically cars that use a wireless fob to automatically unlock the doors when the driver is nearby and enable the keyless ignition, so there's no reason to think someone couldn't hack a firearm.
Or even just remove the locking stuff, it seems like most of these smart guns feature a system that locks out the fire control group, there's no reason someone with a bit of knowledge couldn't physically disable the smart lock.
Plus, I just think this is something that, if it's installed in every gun an people are forced to use it, could make people complacent about safety and safe storage.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 19, 2019 19:15:51 GMT
The thing is that a smart gun would only serve two practical purposes. One, it could prevent the accidental use by a child who happens to find the firearm. Two, it could prevent the immediate use of the firearm against the owner if the firearm happens to get taken away from them.
Now the first issue can be eliminated without any electronic means simply with safe handling and storage. Basically by using the smart safety between your ears. Not everyone uses that, but it's pretty hard to tech your way around it. In fact, a tech solution might actually make things worse. A smart gun might encourage poor handling and storage practices since the owner might come to rely on the tech entirely to keep it safe.
The second has been studied by police as a large amount of officers who get shot tend to get shot with their own weapon. Biometric safeties were ruled out since they don't function at all when someone is wearing gloves. When testing the proximity devices they came across a number of issues. Firstly, most shootings where the police officer gets shot with his own firearm happen during a grapple, when both the officer and the assailant have their hands on the firearm. In those cases the firearm may still function for either person. What's more, in a grapple the proximity device (usually a watch) can get torn away and render the firearm useless. That may or may not be good. Another issue is that the proximity device was usually put on their shooting hand, so in a situation where they had to use their off hand the gun was inoperable. Beyond that the smart guns had a high degree of failure in normal use, which didn't endear them to the officers.
As far as smart guns being able to keep firearms out of the hands of the bad guys, if someone steals a smart gun there's nothing keeping them from simply removing the electronic components and making the firearm a normal "dumb gun". So it's not going to prevent their use any more than keys prevent people from stealing cars or breaking into houses.
Like I said, I agree the idea has some merit, but politics have unfortunately been inserted. From a gun owners perspective it's better if the idea simply goes away for now.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 20, 2019 23:24:19 GMT
No muzzle bloom whatsoever, I'm surprised, my M44 produces a fireball and it has a longer barrel, could be that the PPU I'm using burns really fast. I cleaned the rifle up some on Thursday night, I rubbed off as much of the rust as a could with an oiled rag and some steel wool, stripped the stock down and finished it with some BLO and wax;
Not perfect, but it's a significant improvement.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 23, 2019 23:55:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 24, 2019 6:49:37 GMT
That's pretty neat, every now and then some of this shit designed to work around California gun laws results in something cool.
That grip would be a problem for me though, I've got short fingers so I mightn't be able to wrap my thumb over the top of the receiver.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 24, 2019 7:05:45 GMT
You could still shoot it with the thumb on the side, it just might feel a bit awkward.
Though it's still a bullpup so I suspect it's not Canada legal.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 24, 2019 13:56:28 GMT
Bullpups are legal, converting a standard layout rifle into a bullpup is illegal illega.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 25, 2019 0:19:49 GMT
It's too much trouble to remember all these laws.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 25, 2019 2:45:31 GMT
It's easier than the US sometimes, our laws are the same across the country, there aren't federal laws and then 50-odd sets of state or territorial laws.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Apr 25, 2019 4:24:37 GMT
Don't forget city and municipality.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Apr 28, 2019 22:47:37 GMT
Got my hands on a Swiss G1896/11;
Overall it's in pretty good shape, the bore is nearly perfect, all parts match, the firing pin is snapped but that (and the 300m zero) didn't prevent me from shooting some nice groupings with it yesterday. I've got a replacement firing pin on order, and I'm going to see if I can get a front sight that'll bring the zero down, fortunately it uses a regular dovetail for the front post, rather than the diagonal one used on the K31.
The original 1889 Schmdt-Rubin (the one with the long-ass 12rnd mag and big roller coaster rear sight) used locking lugs at the rear of the bolt, in 1896 it was redesigned and the locking lugs were moved to the middle of the bolt, and most of the existing 1889 rifles were converted. When they developed the GP11 smokeless cartridge they figured they could use the existing Model 1896 rifles by installing new barrels, at the same time they installed a tangent sight, spliced a semi-pistol grip into the stock, and replaced the fixed 12rnd mags with detachable 6rnd mags.
They didn't have enough Model 1896s, so they started producing the Model 1911 from scratch; identical to the 1896/11 rifles, except the semi-pistol grip was integral to the stock, rather than spliced in.
I had a bit of a challenge fitting this in with my other rifles, it's several inches longer than an M91/30.
|
|