June 01, 2004

Choices - Longarms

I'd love to play with all of these but not sure I'd want to keep them...

People who responded to my invitation to pick a longarm, handgun and vehicle extra for the summer got into the spirit I had in mind while going in different directions than I foresaw. The longarm category included a .22 target rifle (as challenging as anything else to shoot well) and some .30 caliber rifles, more or less military (yes, .303 British ammo is available, but it is a might expensive for plinking) but after one rifle in the intermediate chambering of 45-70 all the rest were .50 caliber (all Barretts) and above.

If bigger is the name of the game, there is a gun I've thought about playing with which will leave your .20 mm anti-tank gun, your medium and heavy machineguns and your Civil War cannon in the dust. I'm interested in the use of canister shot in the big guns of battleships as an anti-aircraft round. A salvo of that would have had interesting results at Pearl Harbor.

But that wasn't the longarm I had in mind for this summer. I am fascinated by rook rifles, the genteel single shot ancestor of the varming rifle. They were chambered either for the .22 centerfire rounds of the era or for rounds similar to those used in handguns. I've seen it reported that the standard 9 x 19 handgun round was originally developed as a rook rifle round. I'd like to build one for myself (disclaimer - I won't have enough machine shop this summer) chambered for the high-velocity 7.62 x 25 round used in the CZ52 pistols. Too bad the submachine gun parts kits from which I could scavenge a barrel have disappeared from the market.

One last thing. Teresa thought this was a good question, but doesn't know enough about guns to make a selection. Could some Chicago area gun blogger get in touch with her and take her to the range for an introductory session?

Posted by triticale at June 1, 2004 07:17 AM

Hmmmmm. I've got one of those parts kits sitting downstairs waiting to be built into a dummy.

Now I have a dilemma...

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at June 4, 2004 01:29 PM

As I recall, the use of canister for the 16 inch guns was considered, and rejected due to rate of fire, rate of slew, and rate of elevation considerations, not to mention fire control difficulties, since the guns didn't have sights suited for AA fire. I.E., the guns just weren't suited for fast moving targets. I believe the idea was initially proposed in the early days of battlewagons as a response to the threat from torpedo boats - but the torpedo boats could release torps and run farther out than the canister would be truly effective. A better coverage was provided by slathering the battlewagons with 5" secondary batteries, and 40mmm and 20mm guns - as well as the development of the anti-aircraft cruisers like the Baltimore class ships.

Keep the big guns for the big targets, use the quick-firers for the little targets.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at June 4, 2004 01:37 PM

San Francisco is famous for its steep hills and fresh food, so it may come as no surprise that it wins the honor as the fittest city in the United States, according to a new report.

San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area narrowly edged out Seattle in the first American Fitness Index released last week by the American College of Sports Medicine and the WellPoint Foundation.

Posted by: at June 9, 2008 05:08 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?