Author: Grumpy
Get the feeling that these real life Hard Noses are not happy with some NFL Folks?
This is more a work of Art than a Rifle. But none the less I really like it a lot. Which is why I picked it for Gun of the Week. Hopefully you will agree with me!
Grumpy
Its in Caliber 8x68S caliber which is comparable to a 338. Which is not a light caliber!
All I know is it is out of my Pay Grade!
Categories
Damascus steel or W.T.F.I.T. ?
This is one of the earliest and most beautiful steels made by man. Here is it’s story below:
https://youtu.be/shWWo4d-uP0?
Damascus steel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For Damascus Twist barrels, see Skelp. For the album of the same name, see Damascus Steel (album).
Close-up of an 18th-century Persian-forged Damascus steel sword
Damascus steel was a type of steel used for manufacturing sword blades in the Near East made with wootz steel.[1] These swords are characterized by distinctive patterns of banding and mottling reminiscent of flowing water. Such blades were reputed to be tough, resistant to shattering, and capable of being honed to a sharp, resilient edge.[2]
The steel is named after Damascus, the capital city of Syria. It may either refer to swords made or sold in Damascus directly, or it may just refer to the aspect of the typical patterns, by comparison with Damask fabrics (which are themselves named after Damascus).[3][4]
The original method of producing Damascus steel is not known. Modern attempts to duplicate the metal have not been entirely successful due to differences in raw materials and manufacturing techniques. Several individuals in modern times have claimed that they have rediscovered the methods by which the original Damascus steel was produced.[5][6]
The reputation and history of Damascus steel has given rise to many legends, such as the ability to cut through a rifle barrel or to cut a hair falling across the blade.[7] A research team in Germany published a report in 2006 revealing nanowires and carbon nanotubes in a blade forged from Damascus steel.[8][9][10] Although many types of modern steel outperform ancient Damascus alloys, chemical reactions in the production process made the blades extraordinary for their time, as Damascus steel was superplastic and very hard at the same time. During the smelting process to obtain Wootz steel ingots, woody biomass and leaves are known to have been used as carburizing additives along with certain specific types of iron rich in microalloying elements. These ingots would then be further forged and worked into Damascus steel blades. Research now shows that carbon nanotubes can be derived from plant fibers,[11] suggesting how the nanotubes were formed in the steel. Some experts expect to discover such nanotubes in more relics as they are analyzed more closely.[9]
Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Loss of the technique
2 Reproduction
2.1 Moran: billet welding
2.2 Verhoeven and Pendray: crucible
2.3 Anosov, Wadsworth and Sherby: bulat
2.4 Additional research
2.5 In gunmaking
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
History[edit]
See also: Wootz steel
A bladesmith from Damascus, c. 1900
Damascus blades were first manufactured in the Near East from ingots of wootz steel that were imported from India,[1] as well as Sri Lanka.[12] The Arabs introduced the wootz steel to Damascus, where a weapons industry thrived.[13] From the 3rd century to the 17th century, steel ingots were being shipped to the Middle East from India.[14]
Loss of the technique[edit]
Production of these patterned swords gradually declined, ceasing by around 1750, and the process was lost to metalsmiths. Several modern theories have ventured to explain this decline, including the breakdown of trade routes to supply the needed metals, the lack of trace impurities in the metals, the possible loss of knowledge on the crafting techniques through secrecy and lack of transmission, suppression of the industry in India by the British Raj,[15] or a combination of all the above.[5][6][16]
The original wootz was imported from India to Damascus, where Middle Eastern bladesmiths forged them into swords.[5][6] Due to the distance of trade for this steel, a sufficiently lengthy disruption of the trade routes could have ended the production of Damascus steel and eventually led to the loss of the technique in India. As well, the need for key trace impurities of tungsten or vanadium within the materials needed for production of the steel may be absent if this material was acquired from different production regions or smelted from ores lacking these key trace elements.[5] The technique for controlled thermal cycling after the initial forging at a specific temperature could also have been lost, thereby preventing the final damask pattern in the steel from occurring.[5][6]
The discovery of carbon nanotubes in the Damascus steel’s composition supports this hypothesis, since the precipitation of carbon nanotubes probably resulted from a specific process that may be difficult to replicate should the production technique or raw materials used be significantly altered.[16]
Reproduction[edit]
A bladesmith forging a Damascus blade
Recreating Damascus steel is a subfield of experimental archaeology. Many have attempted to discover or reverse-engineer the process by which it was made.
Moran: billet welding[edit]
Characteristic “organic”[citation needed] pattern of Damascus steel
Since the well-known technique of pattern welding produced surface patterns similar to those found on Damascus blades, some blacksmiths were erroneously led to believe that Damascus blades were made using this technique, but today, the difference between wootz steel and pattern welding is fully documented and well understood.[17][18][19] Pattern-welded steel has been referred to as “Damascus steel” since 1973 when Bladesmith William F. Moran unveiled his “Damascus knives” at the Knifemakers’ Guild Show.[20][21]
This “Modern Damascus” is made from several types of steel and iron slices welded together to form a billet, and currently the term “damascus” (although technically incorrect) is widely accepted to describe modern pattern welded steel blades in the trade.[22] The patterns vary depending on how the smith works the billet.[21] The billet is drawn out and folded until the desired number of layers are formed.[21] To attain a Master Smith rating with the American Bladesmith Society that Moran founded, the smith must forge a damascus blade with a minimum of 300 layers.[23]
Verhoeven and Pendray: crucible[edit]
Question book-new.svg
This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
J. D. Verhoeven and A. H. Pendray published an article on their attempts to reproduce the elemental, structural, and visual characteristics of Damascus steel.[5] They started with a cake of steel that matched the properties of the original wootz steel from India, which also matched a number of original Damascus swords that Verhoeven and Pendray had access to. The wootz was in a soft, annealed state, with a grain structure and beads of pure iron carbide, which resulted from its hypereutectoid state. Verhoeven and Pendray had already determined that the grains on the surface of the steel were grains of iron carbide—their goal was to reproduce the iron carbide patterns they saw in the Damascus blades from the grains in the wootz.
Although such material could be worked at low temperatures to produce the striated Damascene pattern of intermixed ferrite and cementite bands in a manner identical to pattern-welded Damascus steel, any heat treatment sufficient to dissolve the carbides would permanently destroy the pattern. However, Verhoeven and Pendray discovered that in samples of true Damascus steel, the Damascene pattern could be recovered by aging at a moderate temperature. They found that certain carbide forming elements, one of which was vanadium, did not disperse until the steel reached higher temperatures than those needed to dissolve the carbides. Therefore, a high heat treatment could remove the visual evidence of patterning associated with carbides but did not remove the underlying patterning of the carbide forming elements; a subsequent lower-temperature heat treatment, at a temperature at which the carbides were again stable, could recover the structure by the binding of carbon by those elements.
Anosov, Wadsworth and Sherby: bulat[edit]
Question book-new.svg
This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In Russia, chronicles record the use of a material known as bulat steel to make highly valued weapons, including swords, knives and axes. Tsar Michael of Russia reportedly had a bulat helmet made for him in 1621. The exact origin or the manufacturing process of bulat is unknown, but it was likely imported to Russia via Persia and Turkestan, and it was similar and possibly the same as damascus steel. Pavel Petrovich Anosov made several attempts to reproduce the process in the mid-19th century. Wadsworth and Sherby also researched [6] the reproduction of Bulat steel and published their results in 1980.
Cementite crystal structure. Iron atoms are in blue, carbon atoms are in black.
Additional research[edit]
A team of researchers based at the Technical University of Dresden that used x-rays and electron microscopy to examine Damascus steel discovered the presence of cementite nanowires[24] and carbon nanotubes.[25] Peter Paufler, a member of the Dresden team, says that these nanostructures are a result of the forging process.[9][26]
Sanderson proposes that the process of forging and annealing accounts for the nano-scale structures.[26]
In gunmaking[edit]
Prior to the early 20th century, all shotgun barrels were forged by heating narrow strips of iron and steel and shaping them around a mandrel.[27][28] This process was referred to as “laminating” or “Damascus”.[27][28] These types of barrels earned a reputation for weakness and were never meant to be used with modern smokeless powder, or any kind of moderately powerful explosive.[28] Because of the resemblance to Damascus steel, higher-end barrels were made by Belgian and British gun makers.[27][28] These barrels are proof marked and meant to be used with light pressure loads.[27] Current gun manufacturers make slide assemblies and small parts such as triggers and safeties for Colt M1911 pistols from powdered Swedish steel resulting in a swirling two-toned effect; these parts are often referred to as “Stainless Damascus”.[29]
Categories
Don't Underestimate the . 30 – 30
Gratuitous Gun Pic: FN-FAL
So now that the Gummint has admitted that small-caliber guns are not “military” equipment, I think it’s time to look at a couple decent “civilian” rifles, which I will do here, and again over the next few days or so.
Everyone has written or is writing about the Usual Suspects (AR-15, AK-47 etc.), so I’ll look at what I think are viable alternatives.
Here, for example, is the SA-58 line in the manly 7.62x52mm NATO caliber from DSArms:
This should trigger all sorts of memories among men Of A Certain Age who served with it as the FN-FAL in various European armies during the mid-20th century period. As the L1A1 it was the rifle of choice in the British and Commonwealth armies and as the R1, it was the standard-issue rifle during my time in the Seffrican Army (SADF). While my particular rifle was an absolute pig (shot-out barrel and a quirky mag release, to name but two “features”), that shouldn’t prevent anyone from getting one now.
And any gun designed by Dieudonné Saive (he of the improved Browning High Power design) should always be afforded a respectful hearing.
The biggest knock against the FN was its unreliability in dusty conditions (it’s the main reason the Israelis dumped it in favor of the Galil), although it should be said that later versions performed much better in this regard. (For an overview of the FN-FAL, go here.)
As far as I’m concerned, its main problem is its weight — as I recall, mine (with a 21″ barrel, don’t ask) weighed in at just under 6kg (13lbs) unloaded — but I see that DSA has got their modern version down to a far more manageable 8.25lbs, which is good news.
You can get it still lighter with some versions, but then the lighter frame doesn’t handle the 7.62’s recoil as well. Newton will not be denied. Here’s what we’re talking about:
I’m not a big fan of the collapsible (“paratrooper”) stock, but I will grant that this feature allows for easier storage and carrying. You may want to invest in a shoulder pad, however, if you’re going to have an extended range session with this puppy.
The FN-FAL doesn’t compete with the AR-15 much, because it’s more of a rifle for wide-open spaces, as opposed to short-range urban activities where it’s disadvantaged compared to its smaller counterparts. I do think, though, that it’s a better rifle than Stoner’s AR-10 because it handles recoil better.
The only thing you need to know about the SA-58 is that it’s based on the “metric dimension” of the Steyr version, so it can’t use parts from “inch-dimensioned” variants common in the U.S. and Canada.
Would I take an SA-58 today over an AR-15? If it was the shorter-barreled Combat Tactical Carbine (CTC) version, in a heartbeat. (And I should also note that it’s a bear to make the basic FN tacti-cool, but the CTC makes it easy.)
Would I take an SA-58 over an AK47? Probably not — unless I was facing the prospect of open-country (ergo longer-range) shooting. Then, I believe the 7.62x51mm cartridge is a much better choice than the shorter 7.62x39mm, and I’d forego the CTC for the 18″-barreled fixed-stock option, and just pump iron for a few weeks first so I could handle the extra weight [sigh].
For more information, visit http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-p-10-c/.
To purchase a CZ P-10 C on GunsAmerica.com, click this link: https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.htm?T=CZ<id-all=1&as=730&cid=150&ns=0&numberperpage=50&.
The P-10 C from CZ-USA is a polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol for a very reasonable price of under $500 retail. Image courtesy of manufacturer.
The CZ P-10 C, which is quite a lot to spit out, is the latest foray of CZ into the polymer frame market. We haven’t seen a striker-fired CZ in quite sometime, and I wouldn’t say the CZ 110 was a huge success in terms of numbers sold. I have spent a little time on the CZ P09, and I will say it wasn’t my personal cup of tea.
It looks like the Czech engineers spent that time in the lab though, turning out a very different pistol for the US market.
The controls and ergonomics of the pistol are generally well thought out, and it is very controllable. Image courtesy of manufacturer.
SPECS
- Chambering: 9mm
- Barrel: 4.02 inches
- OA Length: 7.3 inches
- Weight: 26 oz
- Frame: polymer
- Grips: n/a
- Sights: Combat type, white dot, fixed
- Finish: nitride finish
- Capacity: 15+1
- MSRP: $499
The P-10 C is a compact, which is a good place for an introduction to the pistol market. CCW still trumps duty guns as far as sales go, but I bet we see a CZ P-10 full size in the not to distant future.
This model features backstraps in three sizes (small, medium, and large) and they actually do change the size of the pistol’s grip front to rear.
This has been a complaint in some models; the grip panels are so similar in size as to be irrelevant. The CZ requires you to drive a roll pin out to change grip panels, but I have written elsewhere I don’t really see this as a negative.
Once you have switched to the size you like, when are you ever going to change again?
The pistol came packed in a nice foam-lined plastic case along with some spare magazines and interchangeable backstraps.
The P10 also includes a lanyard hole in the backstraps, showing us they haven’t forgot the LE and military customer in this design. (The requirement to use a lanyard is more common than most people would think).
The grip has a grenade style checkering that is quite aggressive, and one of my favorite features of the pistol. The gun really stays put in your hands. I can’t help you with “is it uncomfortable if you have soft, effeminate, weak hands that are mostly used for the wood on a ‘ban coal’ protest sign, made of 100% post-consumer recycled fair trade laminate that is BPA free?”
I use skateboard tape on all my personal pistols, and this has rather jaded my ability to judge for most people.
The pistol employs interchangeable backstraps for adjusting the grip to fit your hand.
I also like that CZ went ahead and checkered a place on the front of the frame for your non-dominate hand thumb. This gets out a lot, and I like the CZ attention to detail in there.
The trigger guard has been undercut to make your hand positioning more comfortable, and prevents the notorious polymer callous on your shooting hand middle finger.
As the trigger guard is very large, you should have no problem reaching the trigger even in heavy winter gloves. It is also an aesthetically pleasing square.
I am completely serious on that, the hard 90 degree angles just look right, and really complements the appearance of the gun. The front of the trigger guard also features some texture, in case you learned how to shoot from watching old TJ Hooker reruns. Seriously, stop that.
The front of the pistol features a true Picatinny attachment point for lights and lasers etc. I am glad to see pistol manufacturers adopting the Picatinny standard. Having your own rail dimension just makes life harder on all of us, and drives the cost of accessories up. I’m looking at you, Smyrna.
The Guts of It
The take down of the pistol is like that of most modern polymer pistols. Those familiar with other models will have no problem with pull the trigger, pull the slide slightly to the rear, pull down the take down lever, slide comes off.
Oh wait, add unload the gun to that first part. Some companies have gone to extreme lengths to remove the “ pull the trigger part”, but I think jury is still out on that one. Does the introduction of some other method introduce additional parts?
Are those more failure points? Does anyone on earth advocate taking a gun apart without first ensuring it is empty? At least it can be said that CZ is treating us like grown-ups on this one. Anyway, the take down lever is steel, and has serrations to make using it easier.
The pistol features ambidextrous controls to ensure ease of use by the broadest range of shooters.
The slide release lever is quite large, also steel, and also serrated. Despite the fact that the slide release is easily twice the size I am used to on a polymer gun, it never once got in the way.
Zero accidental slide locks, which can be a problem for me on other brands with extended controls. And this thing is so big, you are unlikely to miss it in an adrenalin-enhanced reload. Points to CZ.
It is also truly ambidextrous, which after a recent debacle I now check. As in, there is a slide release lever on both sides of the gun, and depressing either one releases the slide equally well. The magazine release is also ambidextrous, steel, and checkered in a square pattern.
Moving up to the slide, the dimensions look one way and measure another. Due to the thickness of the frame design, the gun looks like the slide is going to be oversized. Measuring shows it is not, it is about the same width and height as other popular models.
I really liked the aggressive cocking serrations that are front and rear of the slide; fronts are usually what you over pay to have added aftermarket.
The slide has also been milled on the sides of the top, to what resembles a five-sided barn shape. It reduces the overall weight of the slide, and makes for a very attractive pistol.
The sights are of the three-dot variety and low profile in their design.
The sights on mine are a three-dot affair, though they seem to be luminous paint, not tritium, which is to me an odd choice.
The rear sight is a dovetail that is unique to CZ, which at the moment limits your aftermarket choices. Arguably not the best decision by CZ, and something to consider when buying this pistol.
The front sight is the same as this in mounting, and is narrower than most out of the box guns. I liked that the sights are steel, and the narrow front is easy to pick up.
From the first second of shooting, the sights proved to be very good. This is a nice change for the consumer, not immediately needing to spend $100 to upgrade the dovetail protectors the factory installed.
How about the internals? Well, it turns out I am not an engineer. Nothing is glaringly obvious as a bad idea, and everything seems to work.
The author liked the large, squared trigger guard of the pistol.
Where It Counts
As I said in the video, it took me a minute to adjust to this gun. Nothing wrong with it, it’s just a little different. The rear of the frame is cut to move your hand forward and under the slide, which also acts as a beavertail to protect your hand.
It feels a little strange at first, but I have to conclude this design is part of what made the gun so controllable. And it is controllable. Very controllable.
The grip is a little bit small for my tastes, but that does contribute to the concealability of the gun. By small, I mean it was difficult to get as much grip from the support hand as I like.
My hands are on the big side, but I am not a giant. I generally wear a size large glove in mechanics or ski gloves. The trigger, which is the main selling point of the gun, is lighter than many other polymers.
My trigger gauge said 4 pounds, 6 ounces, but my tools also weren’t made by Zeiss. I am willing to contend that 4 pounds even is accurate, as advertised.
The author ran the pistol through some drills on the range and came away impressed.
My one real issue with the gun is how they got that trigger pull. I like triggers that have a set mechanical stop, then you apply pressure and they break, and the gun shoots.
The CZ P-10 C trigger has what feels like a stop point, then some more movement without a stop behind it, then the gun shoots. This is a subtle movement, but it is present. I would guess 99.9% of the shooters that pick up this gun won’t even notice.
To be fair, on the range, I barely noticed, too. The gun is incredibly accurate, and the speed drills I was shooting with this gun speak for themselves.
It handles well, it is easy to control, and the trigger isn’t bad. I for one would really like to shoot this gun in .40 S&W, see how it tames that beast. At a street price of under $450, this CZ is absolutely a bargain.
For more information, visit http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-p-10-c/.