Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The current threads dealing with Ars and shok buffs are great examples of the time honored marketing concept of making a market. More bluntly creating a demand where none existed before. “Gee, until you told me I didn’t know I needed one of those.”

Most of the time the seller can craft a perfectly plausible theoretical explanation for why their gadget is better but very often their claims can be neither proven nor disproved.

It has been my lot to run into more than a few snake oil salesmen who wanted me to write about their new wonder product. Lubricants and bore cleaners are especially fertile fields and the BS can get pretty deep. More than a few wanting to sell cleaners had products that defied basic laws of chemistry or contained a newly invented element. Sometimes I would say, “I bet you didn’t know I’m a graduate chemist” or “call **** university and ask about my degree”.

I just loved the lubricant salesmen who made claims of “improved function” for their product. I had a standard response… “show me a gun that absolutely never worked until you put your stuff on it and I’ll tell the world”… some would bluster some more, but many just hung up.

Shok buffs sound reasonable intuitively so when the event they supposedly prevent happens rarely they can automatically claim success. Snake pointed out that one can fail and stop the gun cold.

I already said that op rod AR mods were examples of fixing something that wasn’t broke. Now they well be a better mousetrap but it only took 50 odd years for the M-16 to be thoroughly proven so check with me later.

I’m really awful when it comes to PROOF.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
Three holes in the 1911 trigger is another example of this.

Three lightening holes in a solid steel 1911 trigger might make enough of a difference to prevent the dreaded so-called (and incorrectly named) "trigger bounce." Three holes in an aluminum (or plastic) trigger, which is already much lighter than the ventilated steel trigger, do nothing but collect lint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
. . . It has been my lot to run into more than a few snake oil salesmen who wanted me to write about their new wonder product. Lubricants and bore cleaners are especially fertile fields and the BS can get pretty deep . . .
Charlie, tell me about the bore treatments that increase muzzle velocity 10%, improve accuracy 50%, and extend bore life 500% using nanotech particle applications.

Thinking about snake oil salesmen . . . a while back there was a company that would "accurize" your rifle. They included a testimonial from a shooter who had them work their magic on his .308 to the point that he was now - with match ammo - shooting one-hole five shot groups routinely.

Think about it - even if the five shots were all strung out in a row and just barely touching, that's about 1.2 inches center to center.

He was doing it with iron sights.

At 600 yards.

That's less than 0.2 MOA.

Sure. I believe it. :lol:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Charlie, tell me about the bore treatments that increase muzzle velocity 10%, improve accuracy 50%, and extend bore life 500% using nanotech particle applications.
Oh ye of little faith... :shock:

you left out molycoating bullets...

A long time ago I tried some of the "bore conditioners" and found that some did increase velocity but only for a few shots. Never was able to see any difference in accuracy.

I actually can visualize a nano-particle application to permanently fill pores in a bore but the technology is so expensive I don't think anyone could afford to try it to see if it would work.

My all time favorite though was coating bullets with the same super secret stuff applied to stealth aircraft to absorb radar
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Part One of Three:
(I have divided the following three items into three linked postings so as to not bore the reader to death and so that any responses can be focused more easily on the specific topic involved.)

As still something of a newcomer here and hopefully not stating the obvious, AND (for a moment) sticking strictly within the concept of "making a market", Full Length Recoil Spring Guides for single spring guns have always confused me.

In theory, they sound like a good idea. We can visualize a conventional 1911 spring wanting to move out of single centerline configuration when compressed (somehow moving off-center into whatever space is available to it between the barrel and the dust cover) for we know if we took that same spring outside the gun and tried to compress it between our thumb and forefinger it wouldn't merely "close up" but it would "bow out" in one direction or another. Our brains can see it doing the same thing (or worse) in the space open to it inside the weapon.

So fitting that spring over a rod and keeping it moving in a straight line has to be better for a wide variety of reasons, right? Well, it appears that in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't. Any bending of the spring apparently does little in affecting the life of the spring or the performance of the gun. All that it appears to do is make disassembly of the gun slightly more difficult and the "press checking" of an assembled weapon pretty much impossible in the conventional manner.

Yet the use of these devices (with or without their inclusion of some sort of buffering system as well) became de rigueur when it comes to what have been considered the professional grade 1911's of the past several decades. But while they are still around, their use appears to be diminishing. That is, except by those people who benefit from their sale.

(And to be honest, I can't blame those folks; for I don't consider the devices dangerous or counterproductive and I am a capitalist myself. Still, I don't see their value like I once thought I did.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Part Two of Three:
(I have divided this, the preceding and the following items into three linked postings so as to not bore the reader to death and so that any responses can be focused more easily on the specific topic involved.)

Moving a bit outside of the hard and fast devices of Part One (full length recoil spring guides) and into the realm of things that might have merit but seem to have come-and-gone within the mainstream are various porting concepts and muzzle brakes. First, in an effort to avoid our getting sidetracked, let's overlook those ports that were not properly installed and created havoc with the bore. The problems they generated are a given. Instead, let's just look at the concept.

If there is a significant amount of gas pushing the bullet down the bore and out of the muzzle, why would it not make sense that some portion of that gas and the pressure it has as a result of that function be used for something other than ultimately just being vented out of the muzzle in a uniform pattern behind the bullet? Why couldn't it be vented (redirected) in a particular direction to either keep the muzzle "down" (affecting the potential upward rotational movement of the gun in the hand) or to affect movement of the weapon to the rear (possibly influencing recoil back into the hand and arm).

While interesting (and I am sure that I still have the textbooks around here some place), Fluid Mechanics remains one of my less exciting college classes so I will not attempt to pass myself off as even understanding such things these days let alone being knowledgeable in them. Still, it would make sense to me that if enough gas under the correct amount of pressure was present then it should be employable in either of these two manners.

Yet the days of everybody cutting vents into conventional barrels, or machining or attaching convoluted chambers and porting pathways on to them, seem to be behind us. Yes, both approaches (ports and brakes) are still being taken but they are not everywhere like they once were.

Why are such things seen on fewer handguns today instead of being the norm?

This isn't anything that I have studied but I think that there are a number of reasons:
1) People have discovered that they can control recoil. Growing up in the late 50's and early 60's with a father who shot a lot when I was a kid, I guess I knew that a .45 wasn't impossible to control. But it wasn't until I started using a Colt Commander in the 1970's and started shooting IPSC and IPSC-like events (and going to places like Ray Chapman's on a regular basis in the 80's), that I, like thousands of others, saw that for fighting guns, "compensators" of any kind were not needed to accurately fire multiple shots at multiple targets in what in the past would have been thought of as ridiculously short time frames. And while maybe the "game guns" of the time moved into lighter calibers and still do employ things to make the guns perform differently, just look at what we take for granted performance-wise these days from what are basically modified-but-standard-configuration .45 caliber 1911's that people actually carry.
2) Moving on to the performance of the ammunition and not the firearm, while there are examples of heavy recoiling .50 caliber and sub-.50 caliber handguns being developed in the past twenty years, the more traditional cartridges (.9mm, .38spl,. 357mag, .40S&W, 10mm, .44spl, .44mag, .45acp, .45LC and others) can do more today than ever before due to bullet behavior (due to improved design and construction) and not necessarily increased energy, which would have resulted in greater recoil. As such, (and even with revolvers) people have found that they can control the guns that fire such loads without the need for anything special added to them.
3) Along with points covered in #'s 1 and 2 above, the move toward pistols and, except for certain niche markets, a move away from revolvers, also made the use of some of the port and/or braking systems out of the question. You just couldn't install them easily or reliably on many of the more popular semi-autos.
4) Separately and to be frank, a lot of the approaches that I saw years ago were just scams. Yes, there were some good ones out there but many guns were "ruined" by being filled with holes and not engineered ports, pathways or chambers. That said, I fully believe that under the right circumstances (having enough gas at a sufficient pressure) some of the concepts did work at either reducing muzzle flip or directional recoil but many of them did nothing but vent the gases (and perhaps even negatively affect bullet performance) in dramatic fashion.
5) And that "enough gas at a sufficient pressure" thing is a big part of the equation here as is calculating both the size, angle and number of ports needed for such a system; as is the overall design of any chamber and/or venting pathways found within a brake. Coming from the hands-on, prototyping, learn-as-you-go, build-it-and-try-it-background that I do, it might sound a little odd but I really don't think that anybody ever applied the kind of true engineering/scientific method of developing either of these two concepts in the manner necessary to prove that they were beneficial in everyday handguns and/or to "prove out" that they were as functional as everyone would have liked to have believed at the time.
6) And that last part (knowing what actually worked and convincing people that it did) leads me into my last thought on this topic and that's the faddish nature of a lot of things in this business. Barrel porting (primarily on heavily recoiling revolver-caliber handguns) had been around for a long time by the day that pistol shooters started looking for something to allow them to shoot pins at limited distances and in a straight line "faster" than the next guy. At about that same time, metal and Milpark target shooters wanted to put more rounds downrange in less time than they had before. Finally and to a lesser degree, big bore revolver shooters started looking at chamber-type brakes instead of just calculated vents to try and make their (primarily hunting caliber) handguns more controllable; especially in those weapons capable of firing a second shot. I'm not saying that folks aren't still doing that stuff, but the era of such spillover into the everyday gun market has, I think, come and gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Part Three of Three:
(I have divided this and the previous two items into three linked messages so as to not bore the reader to death and so that any responses can be focused more easily on the specific topic involved.)

Moving not only beyond the hard and fast devices that started this discussion in Part One (full length recoil spring guides) but also the realm of things that had merit but have come-and-gone within the mainstream market in Part Two (ported barrels and muzzle brakes), I'd now like to touch on things from a final group of items where perhaps we see a combination of two axioms: "If a little is good, a lot is better" and "Too much of a good thing" that took the idea of "Extended and Oversized Components" to an extreme from which, in some cases, we have retreated.

As people began using pistols designed some 50 years earlier in ways that people hadn't conceived of 20 years earlier, all kinds of shortcomings became apparent throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's. Their military-level accuracy was lacking. Mean-rounds-between-failure rates with mixed ammo were not in keeping with the needs of these shooters. The true "combat" sights on such guns were woefully inadequate. And both the gripping surfaces and the controls didn't lend themselves to the kind of fast paced, either-handed, acquisition and employment of weapon that they were experiencing. So among all of the other changes and structural improvements, oversize and generally ambidextrous manual safeties, oversize and elongated slide stops, and taller, large-headed thumb operated mag releases became standard on custom guns.

But in the past twenty years, those radically "Extended and Oversized Components", while still in vogue with some folks have fallen out of favor with many. For as people have moved to accurate guns that aren't extreme and that can be readily carried on a daily basis, some of the more radical sighting systems and some of the more oversized controls proved to be problematic.

All of them could dig into and drag on holsters. All of them could snag on clothing and concealing garments. Oversize and too-tall mag releases could get bumped by holsters only relieved for standard ones. Or by clothes and body parts on holsters that had been modified to contain them. Furthermore, large slide stops and safety levers could become ledges and support platforms for the shooters' thumbs; causing them to be moved (or stopped from moving) in an unintentional manner. And ambidextrous safety levers give right hand shooters (who, in theory, don't need them anyway) just one more thing to accidentally affect that status of a carried gun like the 1911: this where this outboard lever can get knocked off safe by a passing object, the bump of an arm, or the movement of a covering piece of clothing.

So as a result, some of these "advanced" lever designs have been reduced in size or removed altogether.

And, in a way, that brings us full circle within these three, linked postings. Look at the ambi-safety. For a right-hander, why would you need this (in the real world) anyway? I'm sure that all of us could come up with some convoluted reason or event, where it might be helpful but more than likely, the gun will be worn on the right hip (generally for men, behind the right hip) and drawn with the right hand from underneath a concealing garment. Looking at the types of real life situations that would legally allow the use of the firearm and, more importantly, the distances and time frames that most of them would likely involve, most people would be hard-pressed to draw and successfully fire upon the threat with that right hand (which would disengage the manual safety as part of the process), let alone be able to do anything at all in this regard with their left hand. That is, if they could even reach a gun carried in this manner with their left hand!

I have taught on an international level for over twenty years and I will tell you that I always teach people to never give up and I do teach them how to fight weak handed (an old fashioned and out of vogue term itself) whether the gun is equipped in a way to facilitate this or not. But let's be realistic here, the only reason that ambidextrous safeties became popular was that in certain "games" and in certain training exercises (dating from a time when people were just starting to push boundaries and learn what they could do with guns like these), it was commonplace to transfer a cocked-and-locked 1911 from the right hand to the left hand for "left hand" (weak hand, off hand, non-dominant hand) drills. And in order to do so safely (ON THE RANGE), most supervising bodies wouldn't let you disengage the safety until the gun was in the left hand. To facilitate this (and to be honest, to allow faster times in doing so in timed events), the ambi-lever became commonplace.

Which brings me to another favorite topic of mine that deserves its own thread: Realistic Appearing Range Practices That Are Anything But Real World; And Anything But Realistic.

Thanks for listening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
P. Marlowe said:
...Which brings me to another favorite topic of mine that deserves its own thread: Realistic Appearing Range Practices That Are Anything But Real World; And Anything But Realistic...
...Which essay I eagerly await with 'baited breath!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Muzzle brakes on .223 rifles is one of those triumphs of marketing over common sense things. Unless you like the increased blast & flash.

I've had a very occasional fit of the giggles watching people on the range, after being assured that I was witnessing the latest & greatest technique. Enshrined in my memory is a time I chastised one of our newbies for slapping the trigger. He informed me that (a noted pro shooter) used that technique. As it happened, I was able to tell him that I'd fired in his relay that past weekend and hadn't noticed him using that "technique". Gazing at the target, I then noted that since it wasn't working for him, perhaps he should consider trying the old fashioned way. He did much better then.

Steve, unless you've been gnawing on worms, that's "bated breath", but at 0300, some disconnect between brain and fingers can be expected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
William R. Moore said:
Muzzle brakes on .223 rifles is one of those triumphs of marketing over common sense things. Unless you like the increased blast & flash.

I've had a very occasional fit of the giggles watching people on the range, after being assured that I was witnessing the latest & greatest technique. Enshrined in my memory is a time I chastised one of our newbies for slapping the trigger. He informed me that (a noted pro shooter) used that technique. As it happened, I was able to tell him that I'd fired in his relay that past weekend and hadn't noticed him using that "technique". Gazing at the target, I then noted that since it wasn't working for him, perhaps he should consider trying the old fashioned way. He did much better then.

Steve, unless you've been gnawing on worms, that's "bated breath", but at 0300, some disconnect between brain and fingers can be expected.
The one I saw that gave me a giggling fit wasn't on a .223 but on a .308. It was a Remington bolt action, I believe, set up like a "sniper" rifle, complete with a muzzle brake that looked like a scaled down version of the ones found on Barrett .50's. You know, the kinda arrowhead shaped ones that deflect the blast out at angles to the rear of the gun?

I've done more than a little bit of shooting with .308's, and have just never noticed much of a problem with recoil or muzzle blast. But I do know that gun shop sold that rifle pretty quick...guess 'cause it was soooo tactical!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Well...

Where to start? Y'all may have guessed that I know Mr. Marlowe and without blowing his cover let me tell you he knows whereof he speaks... doubtless because he has been reading my stuff for all these years... :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,168 Posts
"As still something of a newcomer here and hopefully not stating the obvious, AND (for a moment) sticking strictly within the concept of "making a market", Full Length Recoil Spring Guides for single spring guns have always confused me."--P. Marlowe
But, but...if we didn't have the FLGRs, why would we need Front Cocking Serrations? :ehsmile:

Actually, I have an ambi safety on my Commander. I'm a lefty, though mostly shoot right. The ability to safe the pistol with my left hand while retaining a shooting grip is comforting to me.

OTOH, I watched a "Jesse Stone" movie where there was a scene of the police officers shooting. One character commented to "Stone" (Tom Selleck) about him not having an ambi safety on his GM ("Stone" was shooting lefty, as his right arm was injured). The reply was that an ambi safety could break too easily. I thought that was a nice bit of firearms knowledge, which gave the movie authenticity.
----
I've never understood the porting thing for SD handguns. For powerful, hard-kicking hunting guns that are intended to be held at arm's length, yes. On a short-barreled gun that may have to be held close to the body, thereby causing gas, gunk and blast to shoot upward into one's face, no thanks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
...he has been reading my stuff for all these years... :wink:
And now, at long, long last, he finally has a venue to vent, apparently.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

(I've penciled in some time Tuesday morning to read his recent novellas. Looking forward to it.)
:wink: :lol:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
P. Marlowe said:
All that it appears to do is make disassembly of the gun slightly more difficult and the "press checking" of an assembled weapon pretty much impossible in the conventional manner.
There are at least two ways to design/build FLGRs that don't interfere with disassembly in the slightest.

I've never "press checked" any autopistol. I was taught to keep valuable body parts away from that end of the gun. There was a point in my life, however, when I considered it of some value that small children would never be able to chamber a round in my Condition Three 1911 by pressing its front end against a table, door jamb, etc. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Thank you Snake, for including the press check. I'd intended to heap some scorn on it for that reason and several others but actual work interfered with my posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
William R. Moore said:
...Steve, unless you've been gnawing on worms, that's "bated breath", but at 0300, some disconnect between brain and fingers can be expected.
It was salami.

Now, having brushed my teeth, I'm waiting with 'bated breath. (We mustn't forget the apostrophe, now.)

:mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Boy! Charlie starts a thread obviously aimed at Gunzilla(The worst cleaning solvent ever peddled) and everybody goes off on a tangent! I don't even clean my Airguns with that Junk!

OKAY! Now that I've got the thread back on track, go ahead Charlie!!!! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Would that Gunzilla stuff work on my baited breath? :lol:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
baited breath?
I was wondering how long it would take... :wink:

actually I was not just thinking of cleaners but the BS factor is so high there it would be hard not to... super killer ammo is another

some years ago a guy with fantastic promotional skills offered some cast bullets that according to his press release also cured cancer... the bad news was that they looked just like all the other commercial cast bullets on the market... and shot the same too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Charlie, exactly how were those bullets supposed to "cure cancer"?
Was it a, ahem, "terminal cure"?
Is death really a "cure"?
Or was one supposed to take two bullets with a glass of water, and then call him in the morning?
And would that've made them the long-awaited "magic bullet" that cancer researchers are always talking about?
:ehsmile:
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top