What’s that old saying? “Life would be easy if it weren’t for other people”.
Do you like guns? If you’re here, you probably do.
Do you know a lot about guns? Some of you do, some of you don’t. Some are aware of where you stand on the gun knowledge spectrum, and others are not.
Do you want to talk about and learn about guns? Once again, if you’re here, you probably do.
It would be great if we could all discuss the things we like and learn more about them. But like any activity, once you add people into the mix it can get pretty complicated and annoying.
I like Savage as a company, and I like their guns too. Inexpensive and accurate. You don’t have to be a skinflint yankee to know that there’s a difference between “inexpensive” and “cheap”. One quality is admirable, the other is to be shunned.
Savage used to make a handy .22LR/.410 over-under called the Model 24.
Handy and versatile, and easy to feed. A lot of prepper/survivalist types sang their praises.
I was disappointed to learn that Savage discontinued the Model 24 a few years back.
The only other gun which combined these useful calibers was the also-discontinued Springfield Armory M6, which was more portable but less ergonomic.
Baikal also makes a .22/20ga or .223/12ga over under. (I might have to consider one.)
But now I see that Savage has replaced the Model 24 with a new gun, the Model 42:
Available in .22LR or .22WMR over a .410 shotgun barrel, the Model 42 boasts a more-modern design of synthetic stock than the Model 24, thus increasing its street cred among preppers. I looked forward to seeing one, and perhaps adding it to my arsenal.
After examining a Model 42, I realized that Savage cheaped out on this new gun in one significant way, with 3 specific effects.
The ejector is manually-activated, unlike an original Model 24 which partially extracts the shells when you break the gun open. Not a dealbreaker; and I can see some scenarios where it would be an advantage to leave the shells in the chamber until you decide you want them out. But for fast firing this change is a step in the wrong direction
The ejector mechanism is made of plastic:
The extractors are made of straight pieces of razor-thin metal, and look extremely fragile:
While I like the looks of the Model 42, I am disappointed with this lowering of quality. I think I will look for a used Model 24. Or maybe look at a Baikal.
The front cover of Guns & Ammo this month has a weird-looking contraption from Sig called the “ACP” or Adaptive Carbine Platform. There’s a video to watch at the link.
It seems to be a big aluminum housing that you attach your handgun to, making it into a PDW. It is covered with Picatinny rails that you can attach scopes, lights, lasers to. It has an attachment for an elastic sling on the back, and an operating handle to work the slide (which can be mounted on either side of the ACP).
There is a law-enforcement version with a wire shoulder stock on the back that would need to be registered as a short-barreled rifle if you want to own it.
I see that Ruger has a take-down version of the 10/22. Looks nice. I have no doubt that reviewers will put it through its paces and let the shooting public know whether or not it upholds the Ruger tradition of reliability & value. I suspect that it will.
Take-down rifles are a neat concept. Nearly as store-able as a handgun when they are broken down, but retaining the longer sight radius (and greater accuracy) of a rifle when assembled. Hollywood loves the concept, from the signature weapon of Francisco Scaramanga in The Man With The Golden Gun (pictured on the left), to the custom-made weapon used by the calculating assassin in The Day Of the Jackal.
The drawback is that it is hard to achieve maximum accuracy with a gun that has to be able to be taken apart easily. If the complete sighting apparatus (iron or optical) stays with the barrel, that mitigates the potential loss of accuracy, assuming that the sights aren’t banged around. But Hollywood loves to show you the expert sniper reassembling his (or her) rifle, and re-attaching the scope, immediately followed by some test shots that are dead-on bullseyes. Anyone who has removed and re-mounted a scope knows that is far-fetched.
I have always liked the look of a Mannlicher stock. They just seem…old school, traditional, classy. I have read that the style originated from the need to use a longarm as a walking stick in the hilly parts of Europe.
Yes, I know that the barrel isn’t free-floating.
Yes, I know that the full-length stock might change the point of impact when the gun heats up.
Don’t care. Maybe it’s an engineering-centric preference, with the barrel being “protected” by the full-length stock. Or maybe it’s aesthetic, with no skinny barrel sticking out “unsupported” to offend anyone’s sensibilities. Whatever the reason, guns with Mannlicher stocks draw my attention, pop into my head for no reason, and make me dawdle at gun show tables. But I hadn’t pulled the trigger on one, so to speak.