The Guns and Ammo Thread

[JohnnyEgo]

Korth and Janz produce high end guns predominantly for the Euro market, where import laws and caliber restrictions make it harder (less profitable) for Smith to compete.

Both Korth and Janz have very limited production capacity, and each gun produced goes through a fairly substantial amount of hand fitting. Smith has two (really three) product lines for different markets. They have their mass production line, and then their Performance Center line. Within the PC line, you can go from light customization to a full custom. The higher end PC line is probably a better comparison to Korth and Janz then the production line.

Smith dominates revolver competition based on it's size, production, and investment in the sport. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it does not take away from quality of their mass production guns. Korth and Janz are too esoteric and too low production to compete in the US shooting sports. Much the same is true of Glock, which dominates IDPA despite producing a gun that I find to be rather odious at best.

I had a JM Special in .45 ACP for a few years, and I regret having sold it. It was a Performance Center gun, and had one of the smoother triggers I've had the pleasure of shooting. I've seen a Korth in this country exactly once, and I was not allowed to shoot it. It seemed well made, but otherwise not terribly distinguishable from a Smith.

In my humble opinion, arguing by proxy of experts over who produces the better gun is relatively pointless. It matters most how a particular gun performs for the shooter.

 

[DammitBoy]

Arguing anything on the internet is pointless Johnny.

Are you saying you don't base any of the component purchases for your builds based in some form or fashion on what the 'experts' say are the best components?

How do you determine what components go into your builds? Do you pay attention to what any of your competitors use in matches?

---

When competitors started using .308 in long distance rifle matches and it became obvious that it clearly outmatched the 30-06, nobody forced those guys to switch to .308 - they did it to stay competitive.

Logically, it follows that if the top 100 revolver competitors all use the same revolver, it's not because of sponsor money or mind control. If it didn't perform, it wouldn't be used.

I doubt Miculek would use a Rossi in any competition, no matter how much cash they threw at a sponsorship.

 

[SuAside]

When competitors started using .308 in long distance rifle matches and it became obvious that it clearly outmatched the 30-06, nobody forced those guys to switch to .308 - they did it to stay competitive.

Your comparison is flawed in a multitude of facets. In long range accuracy, even the slightest gain counts for a lot, but for unsupported pistols and revolvers, humans are a far greater factor than their weapons once you hit a certain level of quality.
Besides, both .30-06 & .308Win as ammunition and the weapons used costed the same at that point. There was no detriment to the change at all.

Logically, it follows that if the top 100 revolver competitors all use the same revolver, it's not because of sponsor money or mind control. If it didn't perform, it wouldn't be used.

I never said it did not perform. Quite obviously, it does.

I however stated that Korth & Janz (the MR-73 as well) were "better" quality. I believe this can quite easily be proven empirically.
If we take pure accuracy compared to a full custom Performance Center, I think we can easily remark that they are all accurate beyond what a human can get out of it. On that point, I doubt there's any way to prove which is better.
But handguns are not simply accuracy. There's fit & finish, which you can hardly argue that Korth & especially Janz are worse than S&W. They're just a marvel. There's the components used, where the MR-73, Korth and Janz use far better metals for their weapons compared to S&W. Set off a double magnum load in the latter 3 and you'll bulge your cylinder. The frame will however be intact, only one round will go off and you'll be able to go back to shooting after ordering & fitting a new cylinder. Do the same with an S&W and your frame blows up with the cylinder (most likely 2 or 3 rounds will blow in massive catastrophic failure). And yes, before you comment, I have seen this with my own two eyes but it is documented well enough for you to verify for yourself.

As such, I can with a clear conscience say that quality-wise S&W < Korth < Janz. This proves for me that their quality is better. But as I said in the first post detailing this, return on investment pretty much disappears as you invest more & more money into a revolver. Investing money in quality has severely diminishing returns.

It's logical that competition shooters favor S&W:
- You get sponsored by them.
- Quality is more than adequate. They're great revolvers.
- Parts are in plentiful supply.
- They're not extremely expensive, not even the tuned ones as you likely do most of the tuning yourself.
- If you wear a weapon out, you can switch to the next revolver.
- Using quality ammo minimizes the likelyhood of getting hurt from a catastrophic failure.

Competition shooters don't need a Janz that costs more than a brandnew car. But that doesn't mean they're not as good, or in this case better than the S&Ws. It's a cost vs benefit thing...

 

[DammitBoy]

I however stated that Korth & Janz (the MR-73 as well) were "better" quality. I believe this can quite easily be proven empirically.

There's the components used, where the MR-73, Korth and Janz use far better metals for their weapons compared to S&W...

You can quit masturbating about how super totally awesome they are: lets see some links to actual facts about components and metals being superior to the S&W 627 performance center revolver please.

Johnny's comment, "It (Korth) seemed well made, but otherwise not terribly distinguishable from a Smith." carries much more weight than you waxing poetic imho.

Alsoplustoo: this page needs more gun pics...

The Kriss system, totally cool, stupid, silly or smart?

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Arguing anything on the internet is pointless Johnny.

Are you saying you don't base any of the component purchases for your builds based in some form or fashion on what the 'experts' say are the best components?

How do you determine what components go into your builds? Do you pay attention to what any of your competitors use in matches?

---

When competitors started using .308 in long distance rifle matches and it became obvious that it clearly outmatched the 30-06, nobody forced those guys to switch to .308 - they did it to stay competitive.

Logically, it follows that if the top 100 revolver competitors all use the same revolver, it's not because of sponsor money or mind control. If it didn't perform, it wouldn't be used.

I doubt Miculek would use a Rossi in any competition, no matter how much cash they threw at a sponsorship.

I certainly agree with you that arguing over the internet is mostly an exercise in futility, which is why I stay out of the politically oriented threads. We respectfully agree on that much, and I am sure we aren't that far apart on many other matters.

However...

I use the opinions and experience of my competitors and other experts to inform my opinions, not to make them. The difference is important. I will illustrate with a picture:

In 2004, when the Assault Weapons Ban expired, one of my clubs decided to celebrate with a build party. Since the restrictions were completely lifted, I decided to build a pistol, just because I could. I scrounged around my box of spare parts and found a Bushmaster Carbon 15 cut carrier, spring, and buffer tube. These parts were unique to the Carbon 15, and radically different than standard AR parts. The tube was much shorter and did not have any holes for a stock, which struck me as a good idea at the time to avoid any potential for undue scrutiny on the grounds that I might convert it to an unauthorized short barrel rifle. The recoil spring was much smaller in diameter, and rode on an integrated guide rod in the tube. Likewise, the carrier was about half the length of a standard carrier, and much lighter. In all, it was rather novel.

A distinguished industry expert and competitive shooter was at the build party with me. As is common in the gun world, he was exceptionally proud of his knowledge, and certainly had the skill and experience to back it up. He is also the owner of one of the larger companies in the AR market. This individual spent an hour following me around while I assembled my pistol, trying to convince me and everyone who would listen that what I was building would absolutely not work, was inherently dangerous, and would explode in my face on the first pull of the trigger. He had a well-thought out belief as to why this would happen, and made a compelling argument that the force of recoil in the unsupported tube would make it shatter in my face. However, his argument was completely wrong. I ran through eight magazines without a hitch. He even asked to shoot a few magazines himself.

Six months later, his company began to produce custom lightweight buffer tubes for cut carriers for AR based pistols.

My point is that no matter how experienced the expert, compelling the testimony, or sound the theory, it can still be wrong. I would have been a fool to have ignored this individual's advice, however I would have been pistol-less if I had elected to follow it.

As to Mr. Miculek and Rossi/Charter/Et. Al: If they could produce a pistol that could compete at that level, and were willing to provide sufficient sponsorship capital, I have no doubt that they could attract one or more shooters at or approaching that level. However, they lack the size and capital to do either of those things, not to mention the proficiency. I have no doubt that Korth could compete at that level quality-wise, but they, too, fail the size and capital requirements.

---------------
SuA -

Good to see you as always. I would point out that a full custom PC gun will give a Korth a run for it's money any day, in any category, except for price. Korth will definitely win on higher cost.

If you are comparing a stock production S&W to a Korth, Korth wins on quality. The same could be said of comparing a stock Springfield Mil-Spec to a Wilson or Nighthawk.

Janz, from what I recall, specialized in making multi-calibre revolvers for the more restrictive side of the Euro market. Their interchangeable cylinder and barrel system is novel, and they produce very pretty guns. Opinions on performance, however, are somewhat mixed amongst my German friends. My understanding is that they handle multiple calibers well at the expense of handling one caliber superbly.
----------------------------------------------------------

Here I am using another one of my guns that went completely against what most experts said would work reliably or be effective.

At my last competitive shoot, I made six of eight shots on a 12" x 6" plate at 200 yards with a 7.5" barrel and an unmagnified EOTech. I came in tied for second place on that course.

In a note of irony, the young lady who won that course with 8 of 8 shots decided she wasn't competitive enough, so she'd just take her time. She made all eight shots, and with no missed time penalties, came in first place, even though her total trigger time without penalty was in the lower middle of the pack.

-------------------------------------------
Edit 3:

DB - I shot one of the early Kris guns at a SHOT 2008 demo shoot at Knights. I recall the recoil being very low and the action fairly smooth. However, the trigger left a bit to be desired.

 

[DammitBoy]

I scrounged around my box of spare parts and found a Bushmaster Carbon 15 cut carrier, spring, and buffer tube. These parts were unique to the Carbon 15, and radically different than standard AR parts. The recoil spring was much smaller in diameter, and rode on an integrated guide rod in the tube. Likewise, the carrier was about half the length of a standard carrier, and much lighter. In all, it was rather novel.

A distinguished industry expert and competitive shooter was at the build party with me. This individual spent an hour following me around while I assembled my pistol, trying to convince me and everyone who would listen that what I was building would absolutely not work, was inherently dangerous, and would explode in my face on the first pull of the trigger. However, his argument was completely wrong...

Thanks for proving me wrong about arguments being pointless fucker! Since my argument with Sua led to this great post of yours. This is exactly what I see happen all the time on gun forums. Just yesterday I was posting in a thread where 8 out of 10 posters were claiming the Carbon 15 system was crap and dangerous and they'd never own one or shoot one. My question was, "Then how do you know they suck?" which was drowned out in a sea of witty retorts the likes of, "Because they suck!"

This drives me nuts because I own this playpretty:

Bushmaster Carbon 15 P97S .223

Which is both fun and reliable in my experience. I'd really like to read more about how you decide what components you use and why, that is far more interesting and useful imho. Thanks for cutting through the crap and making some great points and observations.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Which is both fun and reliable in my experience. I'd really like to read more about how you decide what components you use and why, that is far more interesting and useful imho.

I'm certain I've posted these before, although it was probably around page 50. Anyways:

This was one of the first gen Bushmaster Carbon 15s, shortly after they bought the molds from Pro Ord. It had a rocky start, primarily because of some friction between the charging handle in the upper receiver, although it took a while and several trips to Bushmaster before we figured it out. It's pre-dust cover and forward assist. When the ban expired, I swapped out the stock and custom carrier for a more conventional set-up. Once I finally figured out what was causing the bolt bind, I never had another problem with it. Ran it in competition for a few years before I switched to something more suited to my needs.

As to how I choose my parts, there are a lot of factors involved. I run in several circles which use the AR15 quite a bit, so I often have an opportunity to see what works and what doesn't for a variety of people. The lead factor that made me better at building ARs was to have a clear idea of what I wanted to achieve from the gun up front. Do I want it to be short range, mid range or long? Will it be suppressed? Is it's primary function to be a suppressor host? Is it a range gun or a competition gun? Once I know exactly what function I want to achieve, the process becomes a lot simpler.

The super-shorty carbine above was designed with one purpose in mind - to be a super short host for the Ops M4S super short can. I wanted to build the shortest gun I possibly could that would work reliably with the Ops M4S. That meant a barrel length of 7.5", profiled for the Ops 15/16/M4S mounting system. It also meant having a carefully enlarged gas port tailored to the additional dwell time and back pressure the M4S would provide. The circle of manufacturers who could provide a barrel to those specs were relatively limited, which made choosing one pretty easy.

For the gas block, I went with what I knew, which was Vltor. I needed a rail with enough inner diameter to accomodate the outer diameter of the can, with enough space to provide a fairly uniform air gap. This meant choosing between the older Daniel Defense mid length rail, a YHM rail, or the VTAC rail. The YHM was out based on observation, aesthetics, and experience. The DD and VTAC were the same quality and price wise. At that point, I went with what I thought would look cooler - the VTAC.

I knew I wanted a strong reciever, because a barrel length that short can be hard on a gun. That meant billet. My go-to for billet receivers are Vltor and Larue. One of my buddies had a Vltor MUR available. I liked how the angularity played off the round-to-angular transition of the VTAC rail. At equal levels of quality and performance, aesthetics seem like a perfectly reasonable method of selection.

For an optic, I already knew it would be an EOTech for this short range gun. Because of my astigmatism, the dot on an Aimpoint appears to rotate about an axis. With the EOTech, the large circular reticle keeps my eye from becoming distracted by the rotating center dot. This condition, known as 'Phoria', is also what keeps me from being able to use the Bindon Aiming Concept with my ACOGs. It's unfortunate, because I believe that in every way other then price, the Aimpoint is the superior optic.

I went with an LMT Defender lower receiver with LMT's 2-stage trigger. Probably didn't need the 2-Stage, but it feels really comfortable and I like the definiteness of the take-up. The LMT came with an LMT stock, which is not my favorite, but it's very good and flows with the rifle.

I had a harder time with the bolt carrier. My normal BCG is either LMT or Young National Match. I started out with an LMT Enhanced 3-Hole bolt carrier, which is designed to vent the extra gas associated with suppressor back-pressure. However, it vented too much gas, and I ended up short-stroking. Next I went with a lightweight Young carrier, but I kept getting what at first appeared to be short strokes from it, too. It was actually cycling so fast that it would close before the magazine springs could advance the next bullet to the feeding position. So I ended up with a Young NM heavyweight carrier and an H2 buffer. The added mass slowed and smoothed the recoil pulse considerably, and have turned out to make this super-shorty remarkably reliable on 55gr FMJ.

Throughout the entire process of selecting and building the rifle, I frequently asked friends and professionals for advice. Through trial and error, I found the combination of parts to achieve what I wanted. It turned out way better then expected, and I ended up with a competition rifle instead of just a suppressor host.

 

[DammitBoy]

Another great post by the other old fart in these forums!

That was a great read and very informative Mr. Ego - and you've made me think about re-evaluating my next long gun purchase.

I was thinking about the DPMS Panther REPR in .308 - but I've hesitated about the price and the value of the system, especially since I'd probably want to make a couple of changes to it anyway.

My idea is a CQB rifle in .308 with a 16" barrel, a collapsable stock, an aimpoint sight (maybe eotech?) a forward verticle grip and very little in the way of rail system.

Never built or had anything built from scratch, so I've been apprehensive about attempting this. I'd like to keep the build in the $2000 range. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[SuAside]

You can quit masturbating about how super totally awesome they are: lets see some links to actual facts about components and metals being superior to the S&W 627 performance center revolver please.

I don't masturbate over how totally awesome they are. They are illustrations of how more money buys you higher quality that you'll never need or use. What S&W uses is fine, what the others mention use is above & beyond of what you'll ever need.

I'm not going to waste my sunday digging up crap that you can quite easily google yourself only to have you scoff at it and continue ragging on me.

Johnny's comment, "It (Korth) seemed well made, but otherwise not terribly distinguishable from a Smith." carries much more weight than you waxing poetic imho.

You just keep reading what you want to read and not what is actually there... I've been trying to explain diminishing returns in all my goddamn posts since we started this particular discussion.

The Kriss system, totally cool, stupid, silly or smart?

Questionable usefulness in an SMG, but might have some future in other applications. Say a bullpup 7.62x51mm? Could the design be transposed into that form factor?

SuA -
Good to see you as always.

Same back at you. Always a pleasure, my friend.

I would point out that a full custom PC gun will give a Korth a run for it's money any day, in any category, except for price. Korth will definitely win on higher cost.

You're only strengthening the point about diminishing returns that I made. I think you're actually on the same page as I am, but don't realise it. Maybe it's my fault for not explaining it well enough.
Accuracy-wise and in general use, there will really be no distinguishable difference.

Janz, from what I recall, specialized in making multi-calibre revolvers for the more restrictive side of the Euro market. Their interchangeable cylinder and barrel system is novel, and they produce very pretty guns. Opinions on performance, however, are somewhat mixed amongst my German friends. My understanding is that they handle multiple calibers well at the expense of handling one caliber superbly.

That's indeed how Janz made their reputation. Their guns are more or less Korth-based in action, but most models (not all) have the ability to swap caliber. You could go from .22LR to .454Casull (or even .460S&W in some cases) on the same frame. Which is why they generally overengineer everything they do. As such, it becomes incredibly difficult to destroy a Janz (hence the exploding cylinder reference to point out construction strength & quality versus the S&W).

 

[DammitBoy]

As you've said many times Sua - if you make a claim, it's your responsibilty to back it up with facts.

You claim the korth and others are made with better materials. I asked for some proof - you provided none. You said it was information easy to produce. You produced none.

Thanks for playing.

 

[SuAside]

Thanks for playing.

The only way to win is not to play...

"The factory guarantees that the cylinder will not burst or show any bulging or deformation with .357 Magnum ammunition developing double the standard maximum allowable pressure of 300 MPa, meaning the cylinder can withstand 600 MPa (92,800 psi, or 46.4 tons per square inch)"

A standard .357 Magnum load is 241 MPa (or 35000 psi). At 92,800 psi of pressure the MR-73 is guaranteed not to deform at all. Do that to an S&W and you'll be picking up the pieces. As said, an aggressive double load will bulge a MR-73, but the frame will be unharmed. The french proofing shot is at 416 MPa.

An L-frame is supposedly rated up to 42000 psi.

 

[DammitBoy]

Thanks for playing.

The only way to win is not to play...

"The factory guarantees that the cylinder will not burst or show any bulging or deformation with .357 Magnum ammunition developing double the standard maximum allowable pressure of 300 MPa, meaning the cylinder can withstand 600 MPa (92,800 psi, or 46.4 tons per square inch)"

A standard .357 Magnum load is 241 MPa (or 35000 psi). At 92,800 psi of pressure the MR-73 is guaranteed not to deform at all. Do that to an S&W and you'll be picking up the pieces. As said, an aggressive double load will bulge a MR-73, but the frame will be unharmed. The french proofing shot is at 416 MPa.

An L-frame is supposedly rated up to 42000 psi.

That's a very interesting claim. What materials do they use to achieve this?

 

[SuAside]

That's a very interesting claim. What materials do they use to achieve this?

Korth uses teutonic metal forged from minerals left over from forging Thor's hammer.
Chapuis (makes the MR-73 nowadays) probably uses metals stolen from Algeria, forged on massive amounts of burning white flags and quenched in the tears of liberal faggots.

In other words, no one really knows exactly. For the MR-73 there's however only one supplier in France capable of producing that exact metal. Whatever that means.
Do note however that this is used solely in MR-73 production, other Manurhin models use regular steel, more like Ruger's revolvers.

 

[DammitBoy]

Well since S&W uses Adamantium for it's frames - it's obviously the superior product.

(this thread needs more pics)

DPMS LRT .308 SASS

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Korth uses teutonic metal forged from minerals left over from forging Thor's hammer.
Chapuis (makes the MR-73 nowadays) probably uses metals stolen from Algeria...

That made me chuckle quite a bit.

And now for something entirely smaller:

DB - That's one of the finest guns DPMS makes, and one of the few I would consider owning.

 

[DammitBoy]

DB - That's one of the finest guns DPMS makes, and one of the few I would consider owning.

I almost want one just like it with a few mods. (check 7 posts up).

I'd rather have the chrome bolt carrier, a 16" barrel, a collapsable buttstock (maybe?), upgrade the charging handle, and not in love with a full rail system.

I could buy the basic DPMS RFLRT-SASS .308 for $1830.00 right now - my question to you: would you do that and upgrade for more money or just do a custom build from scratch?

Also - if you have a 16" barrel, instead of an 18" barrel would you be better off with a different twist rate than the factory 6 grooves, right-hand 1x10 twist?

 

[JohnnyEgo]

1:7 twist has been the trendy rate for the last 30 years out of a 16" barrel. It stabilizes longer (heavier) bullets. Since most match grade ammo is heavier, there might be an accuracy advantage in the faster twist rate. However, 1:10 won't hurt anything.

There really isn't much of a power drop off from 22" - 18", and less barrel whip, which is why so many precision rigs in .308 have started trending towards the shorter 18" barrel. My own .308 bolt gun is an 18" barrel. There is a considerable drop-off in muzzle velocity from 18" to 16", but out to 300 yards, it's really not going to make much of a difference. I've toyed with building a .308 SBR, ala Noveske's Leonidas, on and off for a couple of years, but the price of ammo has kept me from making the investment.

Without knowing the retail on the SASS gun off the top of my head, I'd probably go with the LWRC REPR, the LMT MWS, or the Larue OBR first, but they all start in the $3000 range. The DPMS SASS seems like a fair amount of gun for the money.

If you're really feeling spendy, I am very partial to the Knights SR25, which will set you back about $5000. Or go full bore with the complete XM110 package for $25000, and be the coolest kid on the block.

 

[DammitBoy]

I could buy the basic DPMS RFLRT-SASS .308 for $1830.00 right now...

Without knowing the retail on the SASS gun off the top of my head...

This is what happens when old men stay up posting past their bedtimes.

Even with the chrome bolt carrier and a charging handle upgrade, it comes in under $2200.00 which is significant when compared to the great systems you covered. So, if I can't do a custom build for under $2500 - that's a no starter for me. I'd probably settle on the SASS and upgrade a few things as i could afford to.

$3500 and up for one gun sticks in my craw, at this point in my life. If I spent that much on a gun, it better come with a nice vagina, heated leather seats and phased plasma in the 40-watt range.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

I could buy the basic DPMS RFLRT-SASS .308 for $1830.00 right now...

Without knowing the retail on the SASS gun off the top of my head...

This is what happens when old men stay up posting past their bedtimes.

That's what happens when I stay up late and involve myself in the lunacy of 'techno-fascism'.

Incidentally, you can get a rather nice semi-custom for the $2500 price point. Take a look into GA Precision (GAP). They take a DPMS SASS and tighten and tune it into a rifle that can give KAC and the others a serious run for the money in long distance accuracy.

Of course, you realize that any decent optic you put on whatever gun you buy, you are going to push the total price safely north of $3000.

 

[DammitBoy]

That's what happens when I stay up late and involve myself in the lunacy of 'techno-fascism'.

Incidentally, you can get a rather nice semi-custom for the $2500 price point. Take a look into GA Precision (GAP). They take a DPMS SASS and tighten and tune it into a rifle that can give KAC and the others a serious run for the money in long distance accuracy.

Of course, you realize that any decent optic you put on whatever gun you buy, you are going to push the total price safely north of $3000.

Some of these threads are a hoot, huh? I crack myself up. It's kinda fun being the boogeyman.

---

Yeah, I'm not planning on a rifle for 300-600 yards. As I stated earlier, my idea is more of a CQB rifle in .308 - not a sniper system per se. Yeah, yeah, I know the RFLRT-SASS is a sniper system. I'd like to go with a collapsable stock and the shorter barrel - but I'll probaly end up with the stock barrel on the DPMS SASS.

It's under $2000 and decent quality for that price point as you say. I'll look into GA Precision - somebody else said they did nice work.

What would you put together to make a .308 CBQ rifle?