#44496 - 07/22/05 10:01 PM
Re: another question about survival weapons
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Kalifornia is always a different ball of wax.
I would think that so long as it has factory, non-A1 furniture (the folding stock paratrooper model), most places might class it as an antique. At the very least, it is no more menacing than a Mini-14.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#44497 - 07/22/05 10:28 PM
Re: another question about survival weapons
|
Veteran
Registered: 12/10/01
Posts: 1272
Loc: Upper Mississippi River Valley...
|
I've been kicking around getting a Mark X Mini-Mauser action and building a 6.5 Grendal on the action with the 7.62 x 39 bolt. A little Grendal bolt action rifle would be nifty for a really long walk. I'd stoke it up with something it likes in the 125gr Nosler partition to 129gr Hornady Interlock range and be ready for careful and deliberate harvesting of about anything. The COAL for the magazine on this is 0.005" short of the max COAL for the Grendal; I can live with that, since I would only handload for it anyway.
The 6.8 Rem would be OK, too but the reasonable bullet weights in that caliber are too light for my taste - if it would handle a 130gr well, that would be another story. I realize that there are some specialty bullets starting to appear for it, but sectional density cannot be magicked with conventional lead core bullets; it takes weight (mass) to get a higher SD. (Maybe with carbide or DU cores, but...) Anyway, building a 6.8 Rem on a Mini Mark X would take machining to open up the bolt face of the 223 bolt and extractor and I'm not keen to mess with that until someone else does it first - several times.
These are both really aimed at M16 magazine parameters, so a spare upper reciever in either caliber for someone who already has an AR15 would be well worth the investment, IMHO. The pundits pontificate that the 6.8 is a tick better in QCB (slightly better frontal area and slightly less recoil) and that the Grendal is superior at long range. No personal data, but I know what a 6.5 at those modest velocities does - kills things dead with no fuss; penetration is almost always thru and thru. I would be much more confident of taking a Wapiti with the Grendal than with the 6.8. Both should do fine on deer and smaller critters.
But I can't really think of a good excuse to do this... neither caliber will do anything that something else I already have won't do better. Be nice if my wife gets one built for me - she does things like that from time to time <grin>.
Tom
(forgive my spelling - it's extra-awful tonight and I'm too lazy to go fix it)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#44499 - 07/23/05 06:54 AM
Re: another question about survival weapons
|
old hand
Registered: 01/17/02
Posts: 384
Loc: USA
|
Skater, Oops... I totally forgot about the folding stock variation of the M1 Carbine. AFAIK it would fall within the definition of an assault rifle per the criteria of (SB 23) California Penal Code section 12276.1 (a) (1). Such guns were required to be registered with the State of CA by December 31, 2000. Ownership or possession thereafter of such guns without registrations is a felony under CA law. If you happen to have such a gun, see a criminal lawyer skilled in gun cases. An interesting question would be why you couldn't just remove the offending (and probably valuable) stock, divest yourself of both ownership and possession, and replace it with a conventional stock. I don't know the answer. If the gun/folding stock were in storage out of the state of CA, that might also be legal. In any case a gun case savvy criminal lawyer could advise you. You might find it informative to check the CA Attorney General's website at http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/genchar2.htm Another informative website is http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/Good luck, Legal Disclaimer: Obviously this post is not meant to provide legal advice, legal representation or relationship, and none exists or is provided. I am not admitted to practice law in any state other than California and am neither doing nor intending to do so. I limit my practice to civil law, and do not practice criminal law. Anyone wanting legal advice or representation should seek his own lawyer admitted to practice law in the prospective client's jurisdiction. John
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#44500 - 07/23/05 07:17 AM
Re: another question about survival weapons
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 3824
|
Rifles and handguns sharing common ammunition is of course a old and valid combination. There have been many articles written over the years on the subject. You must understand that Marlin uses microgroove rifling on many pieces and the differing system, twist rate and numerous nearly intangible variances will make a load performing well in both pieces nearly impossible. That was the conclusion of Ken Woods years ago in a Handloading magazine article. The rifle range is limited by the cartridges ballistics. You can squeeze a little more useable range with a peep sight and the modest velocity increase-but do not expect any Adobe Wells shots. Something later exploration leaders insisted upon was uniformity of both firearms and ammunition. Aside from logistic sense, the ability to rebuild one functioning firearm from two disabled ones in the field was paramount.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#44501 - 07/23/05 09:54 AM
Re: another question about survival weapons
|
Rapscallion
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 4020
Loc: Anchorage AK
|
I will still stick with my break action 410. For a survival weapon, it packs all the power and versatility you could want in a firearm. It may not be the greatest self defense weapon, but I can say that cutting one of these rounds loose in a dark room will definitely have the desired effect on anyone unwelcome.
Anyone who plays video games knows that the pistol is only for getting your hands on something bigger.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#44502 - 07/23/05 02:11 PM
Re: another question about survival weapons
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Thanks, John. I am not fortunate (or unfortunte) enough to have a folding stock M1. I think an original folding stock alone would be worth more than one would have to pay for the full-stock rifles now; shades of Errol Flynn in Back to Bataan. Mine are the full stock versions. Thanks very much for your follow up message. And I agree with your disclaimer, no matter what advice you have offered, any action I take or don't take is purely in my hands.
Thank you again.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
0 registered (),
434
Guests and
267
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|