You got a like for using laity in casual discourse, fekkin love this place.Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
You got a like for using laity in casual discourse, fekkin love this place.
Eh, he's Catholic. I call 'em normies or casuals. Example:
"Darth, you should just get a PSA upper."
"Do I look like a f***ing casual?"
That's where I'm at. The hardest use my carbine needs to hold up to is a couple hundred rounds in a day, getting rained on, and maybe falling over when I lean it on the tailgate. Basically a square range carbine class in shitty weather. I've no delusions of being a One Man Freedom Force.
Gucci-spec for the Hastaii.
Mil-Spec for the Principes.
PSA for the Munifex.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
I’m guilty of using the phrase “hard use” on this site recently and DocGKR’s answer seems ideal.
Using good magazines, decent ammo and adequate lube in the right places, a weapon that can put a lot of rounds down range before shit starts to fail.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for that dumb bastard.
There are lots of guys who are far better with words here than I, so I am not going to try to define such things.
In thinking about "hard use", my old original Kimber came to mind.
It took a considerable amount of use to cut the breech face over the years to end up looking like this:
A few reloads were performed as well:
The bluing is pretty well toast, but I keep it wiped down.
I have guns that get taken out a shot a little, then stuck back in the safe, then there are ones like my old Kimber 1911, or my old well worn 442 J Frame, which is on a path similar to the Kimber. I just figure if I completely wear one out, I will hang it on a peg on the wall in my reloading room and think about all the fun I had accomplishing such a feat. When you think about it, it is actually pretty hard to wear out a firearm.
Before it is all over, I would really like to wear out a Model 29 .44 Magnum or two.
Speaking of Model 29s, @Malamute
Malamute's Beautifully worn 4" S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum comes to mind as one that has seen some hard use. Maybe not tens of thousands of rounds, but definitely tens of thousands of miles.
It has "Hard Use and "Cool Factor" all rolled into one!
I was thinking how my uses and choices fit in the overall context of this thread. The 29 has seen a lot of hard life. Its not a high round count gun ot type of gun in the sense of its not likely anyone will shoot 1000 rds through it in a weekend, but for its intended use, its put up with a lot of dust, rust, rain, snow, hot, cold, living outside for several years, not being cleaned for months, and up to a year or so at a time a couple times, and its never ever failed to fire or function. I think I guessed it had maybe 1500 rds of magnums through it and likely 12-15k rds of various lighter loads, mostly 9 grs Unique and some sort of 240-250 gr cast bullet.
The old winchester 94 I came into in Arizona may qualify as hard use, but again, isnt something most would run a large number of rounds through in a short time, but thats not part of its use either. It was one of a pair of 94 that came off a ranch, mine was made in 1927. It functioned, but felt like it was full of sludge or mud. I stripped it and soaked it in carb cleaner, it was once again crisp sounding and functioned perfectly. When taking it apart, I found the magazine spring had worn through in two places, someone had spliced it back together with sewing thread. It still worked. The mag tube had been damaged at some point, cut back a couple inches and the front band reset. The front sight blade was a cut down dime. The bore was pitted, but cleaned up some and shot OK. I had the worn muzzle cut back 1/8" and recrowned and it helped group size by about 1/3 to 1/2. I recall reading in an old late 50s NRA reloading manual they described the 94 as a favorite among people in remote areas and was "virtually indestructible in service", I understood what they meant. I have no idea how many rounds it takes to wear through a magazine spring in two places, but somebody managed to do it. No telling how many coyotes and other varmints, deer, or javalina its taken, or injured cows or horses its put down. Its become one of my all time favorites.
I think the 29 and winchester 94 are capable of reliable operation in environments of hard use and abuse. I have no reservations about them.
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
I'm quoting this because I can't hit the like button 100 times.I was thinking how my uses and choices fit in the overall context of this thread. The 29 has seen a lot of hard life. Its not a high round count gun ot type of gun in the sense of its not likely anyone will shoot 1000 rds through it in a weekend, but for its intended use, its put up with a lot of dust, rust, rain, snow, hot, cold, living outside for several years, not being cleaned for months, and up to a year or so at a time a couple times, and its never ever failed to fire or function. I think I guessed it had maybe 1500 rds of magnums through it and likely 12-15k rds of various lighter loads, mostly 9 grs Unique and some sort of 240-250 gr cast bullet.
The old winchester 94 I came into in Arizona may qualify as hard use, but again, isnt something most would run a large number of rounds through in a short time, but thats not part of its use either. It was one of a pair of 94 that came off a ranch, mine was made in 1927. It functioned, but felt like it was full of sludge or mud. I stripped it and soaked it in carb cleaner, it was once again crisp sounding and functioned perfectly. When taking it apart, I found the magazine spring had worn through in two places, someone had spliced it back together with sewing thread. It still worked. The mag tube had been damaged at some point, cut back a couple inches and the front band reset. The front sight blade was a cut down dime. The bore was pitted, but cleaned up some and shot OK. I had the worn muzzle cut back 1/8" and recrowned and it helped group size by about 1/3 to 1/2. I recall reading in an old late 50s NRA reloading manual they described the 94 as a favorite among people in remote areas and was "virtually indestructible in service", I understood what they meant. I have no idea how many rounds it takes to wear through a magazine spring in two places, but somebody managed to do it. No telling how many coyotes and other varmints, deer, or javalina its taken, or injured cows or horses its put down. Its become one of my all time favorites.
I think the 29 and winchester 94 are capable of reliable operation in environments of hard use and abuse. I have no reservations about them.
I love these accounts and stories, and you've shared quite a few of them here. Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to do so.
I was working up a reply as I read through the thread, and then BBI nailed it.
I have competition guns that have serious round counts on them, but I have a relatively high maintenance and inspection schedule that goes along with it.
My "hard use" gear is the stuff that get shot or otherwise functioned less, but that takes a hell of a beating from the environment while remaining reliable. The finish on my G19m has flaked off in spots, my eotech sight has drifted off zero a few times, mags have cracked, and the rest of my personal equipment has been exposed to pretty substantial stresses. In spite of it all, my "hard use" gear keeps on trucking while some of the cheaper gear I have has been dropped from my loadout. It is one of the reasons I really love my titanium plates; they are not as sexy as some of the BZ ceramics, but I have zero concerns about their internal reliability and integrity - regardless of what happens to them.
Reply With Quote
