Re: Gun funnies

by **Claymore** May 3rd 2017, 12:00 pm

Well, this isn't a joke, but I guess that it is rather funny.

I have a PACT Model 1 Ballistic Chronograph. I've had it for over 20 years. You shoot (slightly over it), and it measures the speed of the bullet.

The trick is that you have to shoot close enough to the sensors that they can see the bullet, but far enough above them to not hit them (do you see where this is going?).

Well, a couple of months ago, I was measuring velocities on ammunition that I was shooting out of an AR-15 that was in the old "Vietnam Era" Configuration. It had the carrying handle as a permanent portion of the upper receiver. I had also mounted a Red-Dot Scope on the gun.

Problem is that the top of the Carrying Handle is about 3 inches above the Bore of the Barrel. On top of that, I had to attach a Scope Adapter Rail, that is about 3/4" high. On top of that went my Scope Rings and Scope, which is another 2".

So all of this made my Line-of-Sight about 5 3/4" higher than the Line of the Bore (A/KA "Line of the Bullet"). When I fired five rounds "over" the Chronograph, I only aimed about 5" above it, and shot up the Photo Sensors.

The Company does not make replacement parts for this model any more. Fortunately, I just found a replacement model with Photo Sensors on Ebay for $25.00.

Back in business, next week.

by **joecool** May 3rd 2017, 2:50 pm

Claymore wrote: Well, this isn't a joke, but I guess that it is rather funny.

I laughed harder than I do for most jokes.

by **Phillip Gross** May 3rd 2017, 11:12 pm

Aim higher... Smile

by **RRCmdrBennett** May 4th 2017, 4:02 am

Thats why unless I wanted an historic configuration I am not a fan of a fixed iron sit. I prefer the Optic/sight ready models. I am usually a Springfield Armory fan but that turns me off to the new Saint model.

by **Claymore** May 4th 2017, 1:13 pm

Phillip Gross wrote:Aim higher...

What are you?.......................

.......................................................an Air Force Recruiter?

by **Claymore** May 4th 2017, 1:21 pm

RRCmdrBennett wrote:Thats why unless I wanted an historic configuration I am not a fan of a fixed iron sit. I prefer the Optic/sight ready models. I am usually a Springfield Armory fan but that turns me off to the new Saint model.

Back when this rifle was "born" there was no such thing as a "Flat Top" AR-15.

The "elevation adjustable" A-2 Models were just starting to show up, and I did not have an A-2 upper receiver.

Also,

I built this rifle for my wife. She went through Army Basic Training shooting an M-16 A-1, so I made this as close to what she had used as possible. It even has the old triangular handguards.

When I went through Basic Training, my issued rifle was an M-16E1
(M-16 Experimental Model 1)

by **RRCmdrBennett** May 9th 2017, 10:14 am

Claymore wrote:
RRCmdrBennett wrote:Thats why unless I wanted an historic configuration I am not a fan of a fixed iron sit. I prefer the Optic/sight ready models. I am usually a Springfield Armory fan but that turns me off to the new Saint model.

Back when this rifle was "born" there was no such thing as a "Flat Top" AR-15.

The "elevation adjustable" A-2 Models were just starting to show up, and I did not have an A-2 upper receiver.

Also,

I built this rifle for my wife. She went through Army Basic Training shooting an M-16 A-1, so I made this as close to what she had used as possible. It even has the old triangular handguards.

When I went through Basic Training, my issued rifle was an M-16E1
(M-16 Experimental Model 1)

Which is your preference?

by **Claymore** May 9th 2017, 11:45 am

It depends. The rifle has evolved.....

My original M-16 weighed 6.5 pounds empty, and about 7.2 pounds with a 20-round magazine.

The M16A2 weighs about 7.7 pounds empty, and 8.8 pounds with a 30-round magazine. Throw optics, a light, and a vertical grip on that, and you can come close to carrying a 10-pound rifle.

The M16A1 was supposed to be good out to about 450 meters. The M16A2 was made to shoot to 550 to 600 meters.

Here in the "jungle" of Mississippi, you will seldom get a shot past 120 yards (and that is in a clearing). So what do I want to lug around all day, just "in case" I run into a coyote? I will take the M16A1 with 10 rounds in the magazine, making it weigh in at about 6.9 pounds.

by **RRCmdrBennett** May 9th 2017, 7:16 pm

Claymore wrote:It depends. The rifle has evolved.....

My original M-16 weighed 6.5 pounds empty, and about 7.2 pounds with a 20-round magazine.

The M16A2 weighs about 7.7 pounds empty, and 8.8 pounds with a 30-round magazine. Throw optics, a light, and a vertical grip on that, and you can come close to carrying a 10-pound rifle.

The M16A1 was supposed to be good out to about 450 meters. The M16A2 was made to shoot to 550 to 600 meters.

Here in the "jungle" of Mississippi, you will seldom get a shot past 120 yards (and that is in a clearing). So what do I want to lug around all day, just "in case" I run into a coyote? I will take the M16A1 with 10 rounds in the magazine, making it weigh in at about 6.9 pounds.

.

Plain basic setup with flip sights and reflex red dot is fine with me. Low mag count would make it easier to carry and less bulky.