AdvertisementGun failure is one of the worst nightmares for a concealed carrier to go through. AdvertisementA lot of people we’ve heard from and have heard from news stories usually say when they fail to fire a round, “my gun failed.”The gun didn’t fail. It worked precisely as it was designed. In fact, if it did work with the safety engaged, that would be a failure. First round fires, second round jamsIf you shoot and neutralize your target on your first shot, good on you.
Next round is on us. However, no concealed carrier should ever bet on that happening. A common, frightening mistake is when the first round discharges normally but the next round jams.There are many reasons this can occur:. Horrible craftsmanship — the gun wasn’t engineered right. Hello, Hi-Point and Jimenez. Wrong ammunition loaded — a lot of gun owners don’t know the difference between.380, 9×18 Makarov, and 9×19 Luger. That’s frightening.
But that’s also going to. The first round will discharge just fine but the second round isn’t going anywhere. Rusted, damaged upper receiver — the first round racks just fine but the second round gets caught. The least likely of all suspects is a rusted upper receiver. It can happen — it’s just not that common. First round fires, second round fails to loadFor this, check the magazine. Chances are good either the magazine didn’t lock properly in the magazine well or it only got a partial lock.
Every semi-automatic, magazine-fed handgun is designed to fire the first round and load a second into the chamber. When it fails to load a second round, we’ve covered some of the possibilities. However, the magazine can also be a culprit. If the magazine spring has become rusted, the spring will fail to function properly.
Another big culprit is oversized magazines. Often, the longer springs have a harder time pushing past the middle mark.
We’re not talking a standard 15-round magazine but something more in line with 30-45 rounds — not a typical choice for concealed carriers.The best action you can take for gun failure is preventative care. Fire your gun once a month. Switch out magazines and ammunition regularly.
Clean your gun after every use. Store in a clean, dry place when not holstered.Your gun should earn your trust and you should develop trust in your gun.
I noticed that the 'new' F-35 still has a GAU-22/A cannon installed in it - albeit with only 182 rounds (more with ammo pods).Why do fighters still have cannons? The day of dogfighting is long over, now it's just fire some missiles and forget.
Even if they expended all their missiles, 182 cannon rounds is only 6 seconds of firing (I think the GAU is rated to 1800 rpm).The only reason (and I'm not sure if I should answer my own question) is that they need something to shoot warning shots over the bow of another airplane. But that seems an awful amount of weight for this rare occasion. And it'd mean loading tracer rounds.Or is just a vestigial organ, like the sabres on the side of full dress military uniforms? The idea that missiles will be all a fighter aircraft needs was prevalent in the late Fifties. The Phantom II carried initially only missiles, but at the start of the Vietnam war this turned out to be inadequate. The long-range missiles back then were rather unreliable, and in a real conflict things turn out always different than anticipated.
As said, the plan is the first casualty of war.F-4s frequently found themselves in close-combat situations for which they were inadequately prepared. Even today, a gun gives the pilot a lot more options, and if the situation is unclear, close-up visual inspection before shooting is still vital to avoid.From the F-4C on, F-4s were equipped with a gun.
$begingroup$ Besides missile unreliability, another factor handicapped missile-only F-4s in Vietnam. The rules of engagement required that enemy planes be identified visually before being shot at, and this was impossible at missile ranges. F-4 pilots either had to violate their ROE, or make a close pass for identification, defenseless, then try and open the range back up to engage with missiles. This is still potentially an issue in modern combat environments. $endgroup$–Sep 22 '14 at 21:50.
I guess it's for the same reason that soldiers carry hand-guns.They designed without a cannon and added them back in 1965.If you do go up to intercept a plane, if you do ever get close to it, what then? The.says,Starting with block 50 (as far as the F-16 is concerned anyway), provisions have been made to fire the new 'hotter, faster, farther' PGU-28 round. It reputedly travels three times as far as the standard M53 round, effectively closing the gap between the Sidewinder minimum engagement range and the gun's maximum engagement range.Up-close and personal is the norm in peace-time: e.g. The Chinese buzzing American planes n the China Sea; or NATO planes flying to meet Russians in the North Sea or off Alaska. What would you do without a short-range weapon? You would have to:.
Keep your distance (e.g. Run away if the enemy comes too close).
Shoot before they get too close (a huge over-reaction). Be unarmed/disarmed at close range (not exactly 'armed forces' then, is it). You can't spoof a bullet with countermeasures.The plain fact is that bullets cannot be diverted or fooled, unlike missiles, for which there are flares, chaff and different electronic countermeasures and early warning systems. It' s also much easier to destroy a plane with bullets now than it was a few decades back (during WW1 and 2 for instance). Unless your aircraft has some serious armor plating to guard against explosive and incendiary rounds which are quite common, it's difficult to guard against bullets. Better to ask a combat pilot I would think.
However, a few points:The internal gun for the F-35A, including a full load of ammunition, is less than 500 pounds - this represents about 2.5% of the F-35's total weapons payload capacity. That doesn't really sound too bad. They can save 80 lbs if they choose not to load it.The external gun, which is what the VTOL/Naval B and C models get, is a few hundred pounds heavier than that, but optional.Six seconds is actually a lot of 'gun time' for modern air-to-air systems considering speeds, targeting systems and lethality of the projectiles involved. It's not like WWII anymore where you'd slowly pull up behind a bomber and then have to spend several seconds pumping a bunch of crappy.50-cal lead in, hoping to poke enough holes in an oil cooler to make a difference.
A long time ago I used to build fighter aircraft (yes, with my hands). Anyway, the designers whispered behind their hands that the guns on this particular aircraft were there to make the pilots feel happy. The gunfire vibration tended to destroy the delicate instruments, so they were strongly discouraged from ever firing them.In those days the designers (I was aspiring to be one) said, only half joking, an aircraft is a platform for delivering missiles or bombs, so it is basically a radar and a missile management system. The rest is infrastructure.So in folk-parlance pilots like to have guns, in the same way as the air force likes to have pilots - it makes them feel better but is not strictly necessary.edit: chatting to my old colleague about this, he said he offered to give a pilot a loudspeaker in his helmet going 'Da-Da-Da-Da-Da', since it would be just as much use and a lot less weight. But the pilot was unimpressed. $begingroup$ Not just the instruments.
I was once a contractor at a place which specialised in countermeasure systems (chaff and flare). The Aussies reportedly put their chaff and flare dispensers on the tails of their helicopters - and when they let off a full load (which rattles out like an automatic weapon, one shell at a time), the stresses literally broke the tail off. Of course their DoD couldn't change a shitty engineering decision, so we had to change the firing rate and pattern to let the helicopter tails survive. Facepalm $endgroup$–Jan 17 '18 at 10:58.
HDprint 720p total Dhamaal Full Movie. Reply Delete. Unknown 30 March 2019 at 08:44. Hd print kab dalo ge sir. Reply Delete. Unknown 31 March 2019 at 05:05. Download korbo kivabe. Reply Delete. Post a Comment. Powered by Blogger Theme images by Michael Elkan. Worldfree4utotal dhamaal full movie.
How To Fix A Gun Jam
While missile and radar systems designs get better they still cannot make a complete positive identification between friend or foe. So you need to get close enough to visually ID the target. Now you are in a dogfight situation with distance getting too close for missiles and too far for a gun.
So you need both. You also still need to train pilots in close in dogfighting techniques and tactics.All of this is complicated by the fact that aircraft are sold to many countries. So the same aircraft may be flown by both sides of a conflict. So now you need to get very close to see markings and other distinguishing characteristics. As missile guidance and tracking systems evolve, so do countermeasures and maneuvers to cause a missile to miss.
Planes don't carry that many missiles to begin with, and as mentioned before, missiles also have a minimal range. For all of these reasons, guns are still the only way to hit a plane with modern countermeasures. After all your missiles went for bust, or you're closer than the minimal operating range of your missiles. Turning away to gain distance is usually not an option, because as you increase your distance from the enemy, you open up an opportunity for them to turn in and engage you, not to mention losing airspeed is still generally considered a blunder in air-to-air combat.
I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastrophic jam which caused him to discard the rifle.
Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point? Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle.
Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?In before the 'Colt or nothing' crowd. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.
Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.Correct. The initial cartridges were loaded with a stick powder, but McNamara made them switch to a ball powder. That, combined with non-chrome chambers, led to the problems.Also, just as now, some unknowledgable leaders liked their troops to have bone dry rifles. The AR-15/M-16 will run wet (with oil) and dirty, but not dry and dirty. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.this is what I've heard they were using shit powder. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle.
Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.This is the answer you seek, OP. Major Dick Culver, USMC, has a website (Culver Shooting Page) and there is an article detailing some of the reasons the original issued rifles 'jammed'.The powder change and absence of cleaning kits was just the tip of the iceberg.The powder switch changed the pressure curve, causing the pressure to peak during the unlocking of the bolt and bolt carrier. Chroming the bolt and carrier helped with powder fouling but the slickness of the hard chrome actually accelerated the unlocking process, leading to the extractor shearing through the case rim, leaving a empty case stuck in the chamber.
Cleaning rods had to be used to punch the empty cases out of the guns, but ( for the Marines, anyway) only cleaning kit per issued rifle was sent to Viet Nam. So in no short time there was a shortage of cleaning rods. Early photos sometimes show tape loops on M16 handguards so a cleaning rod could be carried to punch out empties. The magazine situation was crazy at first, as well, with something like two 20-rd magazines per rifle, per Marine. The rest of the ammo was on stripper clips, and the plan was to reload each magazine as it was emptied.Culver wrote a letter to his congressman about how boys were dying over there because the official Corps policy was to insist nothing was wrong with the rifle. IIRC, the Commandant himself called Culver 'disloyal' but eventually the powder and cleaning kit and magazine situation was fixed.
By the early seventies many of the jamming issues had been eliminated. This is a stupid question to try to answer. How the hell should we know? Maybe it was contributing factors that we today consider the majority of the reasons leading to a malfunction back then.Or for all we know, it was just a damn malfunction. Weapons still jam to this day. Asking why in the field will get you killed. And unless you have every component of the system and the round that failed present and unaltered after the fight to analyze, asking why is futile.And holding a negative view of a weapons platform simply because of one failure at the wrong time when your life depended on it is sentimental stupidity.
The inanimate object failed when you needed it. It didn't single you out. It didn't care. It wasn't personal.
If the weapon in question and other similar weapons had serious and persistent issues leading up to this, then a negative view of the platform is more justified.All that aside, even if the weapons back them were a piece of shit that is no basis for a negative outlook on the modern variants. I don't have to have special knowledge of anything to see that it is the leading item in use for that task and come to the conclusion that it is justified. Curious but I thought the 'bad' guns had probably been replaced by the time the TET offensive occurred.
If so then perhaps his jam wasn't caused by the original issue.And although most explained it I had also thought the original M-16(or whatever designation it had during testing) was also tested using a chrome lined chamber which the first guns shipped to VN didn't have. The lack of chrome lining AND the powder change together caused the main problem. The thought the gun didn't need cleaning didn't help either. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle.
Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.Pretty much dead on. Originally Posted By Rotors-R-Cool:This is a stupid question to try to answer. How the hell should we know? Maybe it was contributing factors that we today consider the majority of the reasons leading to a malfunction back then.Or for all we know, it was just a damn malfunction.
Weapons still jam to this day. Asking why in the field will get you killed.
And unless you have every component of the system and the round that failed present and unaltered after the fight to analyze, asking why is futile.And holding a negative view of a weapons platform simply because of one failure at the wrong time when your life depended on it is sentimental stupidity. The inanimate object failed when you needed it.
It didn't single you out. It didn't care. It wasn't personal. If the weapon in question and other similar weapons had serious and persistent issues leading up to this, then a negative view of the platform is more justified.All that aside, even if the weapons back them were a piece of shit that is no basis for a negative outlook on the modern variants. I don't have to have special knowledge of anything to see that it is the leading item in use for that task and come to the conclusion that it is justified.it seems there are more than a few others that have done some research.I give your rant 2/10. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.Actually, they switched powders to one that gave more velocity but was gummier. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastrophic jam which caused him to discard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this?
Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?He was most likely using an XM16E1, which did not have a chromed chamber. The M16A1, adopted in 1967 (but didn't replace all of the E1s overnight) had this corrected, and later A1s added a chrome bore as well. Originally Posted By BamaInArk:Curious but I thought the 'bad' guns had probably been replaced by the time the TET offensive occurred. If so then perhaps his jam wasn't caused by the original issue.And although most explained it I had also thought the original M-16(or whatever designation it had during testing) was also tested using a chrome lined chamber which the first guns shipped to VN didn't have. The lack of chrome lining AND the powder change together caused the main problem.
Double Feed Jam
The thought the gun didn't need cleaning didn't help either.original test AR15s and early M16s did not have chromed chambers or boreSEC DEF said it didnt need it when colt and the army said it needed it, on the grounds that if the M16 needed chromed chamber/bore, Stoner would have made it that way from the start. So it was pressed into service as is,the powder was use dno because it was cheaperit was used to bump up velocity and cyclic rate. Which caused the fouling and the gun parts to fail faster since it let the gun fire at a faster rate then was spec. Originally Posted By BamaInArk:Curious but I thought the 'bad' guns had probably been replaced by the time the TET offensive occurred. If so then perhaps his jam wasn't caused by the original issue.And although most explained it I had also thought the original M-16(or whatever designation it had during testing) was also tested using a chrome lined chamber which the first guns shipped to VN didn't have. The lack of chrome lining AND the powder change together caused the main problem.
The thought the gun didn't need cleaning didn't help either.My dad mentioned the issues they had too, he said it was one of the reasons that he was glad to be carrying the M60. I guess that was right up to the point that he was they first one shot in the ambush walking out of Hue. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle.
Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.That's it. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive.
The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.All this is my understanding as well. I didn't get to Vietnam till October 1968. I was issued a brand new M16A1.
I went to be a Forward Observer for a rifle company in I Corp. I was with them for 7 months in the field almost continuously.In that time I saw 5 rifle malfunctions: 2 were blow ups from dunking in a rice paddy and not draining the barrel before firing. 2 were clearly magazine related.
What Gun Does James Bond Carry In Spectre
1 was a case head pulled off in an XM177E1.Mine never failed in any way and I did shoot it quite a lot including a 2 1/2 hour fire fight where I fired all my loaded magazines (28) and all but 7 rounds in my last magazine. Originally Posted By M82Assault:It would be helpful if we knew the type of 'catastophic jam' to diagnose the problem.Round stuck in chamber from what I remember.early on you could not leave a round chambered overnight, otherwise it would swell and the rim of the cartridge would tear off leaving the casing behind.Please explain how this swelling might occur.Instead of the case swelling, surface rust forming on the chamber?I'm skeptical. Many of our guns did not have chrome lined chambers and overnight rust was not a problem. By '68 I would think the original rifles that had problems would have been recalled and fixed.My guess is it was something ammunition related.
Case failure, rim tore off, etc.While I was in Iraq (contractor) we had AK's issued to the Ugandans in our company. One day at the range a case failed in the middle of the chamber, not at the rim and the hot gas of the firing basically welded the case into the chamber of the rifle. Myself and one of the Ugandans pounded the thing out back in the arms room using a cleaning rod, hammer, and a LOT of force (killed a couple cleaning rods in the process) only to find that the propellent gas had burned a 1/4 inch hole in the chamber and the rifle was unusable. Not sure what the fuck was wrong with the round that did it, but that rifle was done as a weapon.Could something similar have happened to the OP's father's rifle?
Originally Posted By 72coupe:I didn't get to Vietnam till October 1968. I was issued a brand new M16A1. I went to be a Forward Observer for a rifle company in I Corp.
I was with them for 7 months in the field almost continuously.In that time I saw 5 rifle malfunctions: 2 were blow ups from dunking in a rice paddy and not draining the barrel before firing. 2 were clearly magazine related. 1 was a case head pulled off in an XM177E1.Mine never failed in any way and I did shoot it quite a lot including a 2 1/2 hour fire fight where I fired all my loaded magazines (28) and all but 7 rounds in my last magazine.How did you carry them? In bandoleers, ammo pouches, pack? Originally Posted By 72coupe:I didn't get to Vietnam till October 1968. I was issued a brand new M16A1. I went to be a Forward Observer for a rifle company in I Corp.
I was with them for 7 months in the field almost continuously.In that time I saw 5 rifle malfunctions: 2 were blow ups from dunking in a rice paddy and not draining the barrel before firing. 2 were clearly magazine related. 1 was a case head pulled off in an XM177E1.Mine never failed in any way and I did shoot it quite a lot including a 2 1/2 hour fire fight where I fired all my loaded magazines (28) and all but 7 rounds in my last magazine.How did you carry them? In bandoleers, ammo pouches, pack?4 bandoliers of 20 rounders and 1 in the gun for a total of 29. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.this is what I've heard they were using shit powderYep. Ball powder was nastier. They should have stuck with the IMR powder originally specified.