StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This was requested by a few people, so here they are. I went target shooting with a friend over the summer and brought along my digital camera. We decided to take some staged photos. For the record, DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS. While we took safety precautions taking these pictures, most of these pictures do violate fundamental firearms safety rules (we weren't at a shooting range). We made sure every weapon was unloaded, unchambered, and not cocked. Checked before almost every picture just to be sure. So you have my warning and acknowledgement of taking a risk. Anyway, here are the pictures.

























The black rifle is a civilian legal semi-automatic AK-103. The other rifle is a Romanian AK-47 that has been converted to semi-automatic. The pistols are a Kimber Stainless II M1911 with 5" barrel and a Glock 22. The vest is a simple Blackhawk tactical cross draw vest (not bullet proof or even resistant). The tactical holster is a Blackhawk design as well.

For those wondering about the scope. That is an Aimpoint CompM2 M68 red dot (not telescopic). I tested out a dust cover rail mount on the AK103 only to discover the dust cover caused significant jamming. In addition the mounts very design is not accurate beyond close range. The scope has been removed and the dust cover was replaced by the original that came with the rifle.

Yah, side mounts are really the only kind of scope mount I've had work for a shit beyond 200 yards on an AK. 'Course, in Montana 7.62x39's a "front yard" gun, kinda like a .38 in the suburbs . You're holding out on the real artillery!

I am. Next time I will post pics of my M14 and M1 Garand.

Heh. Just add a couple of patches and a radio and you look ready to hunt some wraith.

That's a nice serpa holster you got there. And nice hardware too.

Hm ... why did I think you were a girl?

Nice pictures bro, they're straight up badass.

Schuyler Colfax wrote:Hm ... why did I think you were a girl?

.... Nah, too easy .

Some fucking awesome photos dude, wish I could've packed my camera on a/the range/BT. I like the close ups most, good framing and DOF (=blurry)

I especially like the pistol-shots. They are very intimidating.

Alyeska wrote:

Do these again with dark glasses and you have a pair of winners. The top one would make a great avatar.

The top one is total Man Bites Dog.

Avatar-worthy for sure.

I will see what I can do. I have some nice Oakley's, I also have a pair of silver reflective Aviators. It would probably be best to try pictures with each.

Mmmmm. Pimped out AK-103. Me likey- what's up with the muzzle brake though? I can't remember if that's what it originally looked like. Have you shown me your -103 before?

I shot pistols for the first time over summer. I'd fired rifles before, but had the chance to go to an indoor range and took it. I fired five different handguns; a .22 Ruger, a .38 revolver, a Glock 9mm, an M1911, and finally a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 magnum revolver. I was looking forward to the Colt .45 the most, being a service pistol with a lot of history, but I wound up enjoying it the least. It was loud, smokey, and kicked like Tim Cahill. The .44, which I'd feared, was easy in comparison. It goes without saying that the Glock was the easiest, and I achieved the best groupings with it.

Does this sound like a normal experience?

Alyeska, just put in the shaded lenses in photoshop. The picture's good, why bother re-staging it?

Vympel wrote:Mmmmm. Pimped out AK-103. Me likey- what's up with the muzzle brake though? I can't remember if that's what it originally looked like. Have you shown me your -103 before?

Its one of the flash suppressor/compensators that they have available with this manufacturer. It only has slits on the side and top allowing for the gas to compensate for upward recoil. It is not standard but I like the suppressor. Very mean looking.

Kanastrous wrote:Alyeska, just put in the shaded lenses in photoshop. The picture's good, why bother re-staging it?

Fine. You photoshop them in if its that easy.

Okay, I'll probably play with it tomorrow.

tim31 wrote:I shot pistols for the first time over summer. I'd fired rifles before, but had the chance to go to an indoor range and took it. I fired five different handguns; a .22 Ruger, a .38 revolver, a Glock 9mm, an M1911, and finally a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 magnum revolver. I was looking forward to the Colt .45 the most, being a service pistol with a lot of history, but I wound up enjoying it the least. It was loud, smokey, and kicked like Tim Cahill. The .44, which I'd feared, was easy in comparison. It goes without saying that the Glock was the easiest, and I achieved the best groupings with it.

Does this sound like a normal experience?

Yes. Well made pistols can account for big cartridges. Poorly made M1911s might be irritating as hell to shoot. I have a 4" barreled M1911 that I hate with a passion. Trying to sell it. My 5" Kimber is an absolute pleasure to shoot. The pistol is heavy as hell which feels very comfortable and it eats up the recoil nicely. I have a Walter P99 9mm which kicks horribly for such a small cartridge. Fun to shoot and hold but inaccurate as can be. My Kimber 5" M1911 and my Glock 22 are my two most accurate pistols.

A friend has a match-grade Kimber .45 ACP which is just a joy to shoot. Even smoother than my .40 USP.

tim31 wrote:I shot pistols for the first time over summer. I'd fired rifles before, but had the chance to go to an indoor range and took it. I fired five different handguns; a .22 Ruger, a .38 revolver, a Glock 9mm, an M1911, and finally a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 magnum revolver. I was looking forward to the Colt .45 the most, being a service pistol with a lot of history, but I wound up enjoying it the least. It was loud, smokey, and kicked like Tim Cahill. The .44, which I'd feared, was easy in comparison. It goes without saying that the Glock was the easiest, and I achieved the best groupings with it.

Does this sound like a normal experience?

Yes. The Super Redhawk is a big, heavy, handgun with well-designed grips, and the .44 Magnum's pain potential has been greatly inflated by folk who probably don't know better. I find the .44 Magnum to be quite manageable and very accurate at 25 yards plus, and that's out of the comparatively lightweight Smith and Wesson with the stock sandpaper wood grips.

The M1911 is a pistol whose original ergonomics weren't quite up to today's standards. GI-spec ones, with the full, skin-pinching, hammer and hand-biting grip safety were pretty awful (but compared with its contemporary semi-auto competitors, it was the ergonomics king.) Many blinged-out civillian models have bobbed hammers and wide beaver-tail grip-safeties, making them much more pleasant to shoot. And the accuracy potential of the M1911 platform made it the base for the so-called "race guns" used by competitive target shooters.

.44 Magnum? I piss .44 magnum, baby.

.454 Casull, that's a round for a real man.

Hey, it was my first time! Be gentle

But in any case I look forward to going back and doing it again, probably at another range. Tell you one thing though, it finally opened my eyes to the appeal of a revolver.

Alyeska wrote:For those wondering about the scope. That is an Aimpoint CompM2 M68 red dot (not telescopic).

I was looking for one of those for my AR but had a hard time finding one. So I went with a used EOTech 512 instead. I think the Aimpoint would have worked better for me tho.

Kanastrous wrote:.44 Magnum? I piss .44 magnum, baby.

.454 Casull, that's a round for a real man.

.22lr is the round for me. Practicality & price over all.