Interesting site

If you have not been to site you should drop in and check it out. He just finished a comparison on AR-180 bolts that is quite interesting and well worth the read.

I hope to be adding to his article as I will be sending him pictures of the SA-80, Leader and Bushmaster rifle bolts and bolt carriers.

I will also not be in the shop this weekend as I have to make a Arizona cross country trip. Not everything is work, just most things. I hope to be back early tomorrow afternoon.

One last note. A friend of mine in Germany was able to track down a book on the 7.92 kurtz cartridge that I have been looking for.


The last page so you can try and find it.


I tried to contact the author and publisher for a copy but never received a response.

Interesting picture on page 221

scan0003csThat would be me shooting the 05.

While the book is written in German it still has a great deal of useful information and pictures. Maybe one day it will be in English.

Part Three on the Bushmaster pistol

This is part 3 on the interview with John D. on the Bushmaster pistol.

The first pistol that John talks about is the one with the special laser or flashlight attachment.


DSC_1165cwsLeft side view

DSC_1172csStill the old safety location

DSC_1171csLeft side view


The second pistol mention on the video deals with a new generation of weapon. Right side view


DSC_1149cswClose up of the new safety location

DSC_1150sRear of the receiver with no safety

DSC_1151cwsClose up of the markings of the receiver

DSC_1152csLeft side view

DSC_1153csClose up of the left side.

DSC_1156sA view of the magazine well area

DSC_1265csThe rear sight


Stay tune for part 4 of this series.


Important topic dealing with BATFE

This site is not political as it manly deals with designing  building and discussing firearms. However, my friend John D. has asked me to post this letter concerning the current BATFE attempt to limit our rights. This is an important issue and something everyone needs to stand up and fight. So PLEASE read and help. Chuck




Denise Brown of BATFE’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, has published a text titled “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C)”:

This text calls for comments on how to prohibit civilian ownership and transfer of U.S. Army specification M855 5.56x45mm cartridges. This is the current U.S. Army service round for M16 rifles and M4 carbines, and a popular civilian round for a wide variety of rifles as well.

This BATFE text is a brazen attempt to to circumvent the posting and commenting requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 requires posting of most new Federal regulations in the Federal Register followed by a comment period before implementation. The regulation dictating BATFE’s M855 ban were not posted, nor was there a comment period. BATFE is referencing the ban of M855 cartridges as a foregone conclusion in Denise Brown’s text.

As you will see in the letter presented below, this proposed ban will spill over to other 5.56x45mm and .223 Remington cartridges very quickly. You can bet your last round of M193 specification 5.56mm ammunition that BATFE will come back almost immediately with a prohibition on civilian transfer of M193 specification 5.56x45mm ammunition – using the 25% bullet jacket weight criteria of 18 USC 921 (a) (17) (B) (ii) – if they prevail in this M855 fight. The bullet jacket of the M193 projectile weighs 17.5 grains nominal, well above the 13.75 grain threshold which will be established for 55 grain projectiles if BATFE’s M855 prohibition prevails.

It is highly unlikely that ammunition manufacturers will be able to produce 55 grain bulleted 5.56x45mm ammunition with 13.75 grain maximum weight bullet jackets which will function safely at 60 k chamber pressures in 7 inch twist barrels. So all AR owners are at risk here, and possibly .223 Remington varmint shooters as well if .223 Remington ammunition with 13.75 grain maximum weight bullet jackets doesn’t function safely at 60 k chamber pressures in 12 inch twist barrels.
We do have a legal case here if we can flood BATFE with comments on Denise Brown’s devious sophistry. Here is the comment letter our reader John D. sent to BATFE:

M855 Cartridge Prohibition Beyond BATFE Statutory Authority

BATFE does not have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of U.S. Army M855 specification ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B), regardless of any ‘sporting purpose’ determination. Nor does BATFE have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of NATO STANAG 4172 specification cartridges under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B), again regardless of any ‘sporting purpose’ determination. The statutory language supposedly authorizing a prohibition, cited by Denise Brown on Page 3 of the BATFE text titled “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C)”, reads:

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means –

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

I have highlighted the words ‘constructed entirely’ for a reason which will become clear.

The projectile specified in M855 specification ammunition, U.S. Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869, has a combined steel and lead metal core. 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (i) applies only to projectile cores:

….constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium….

The core of the M855 projectile is not constructed entirely of steel, nor is the steel in the core of the M855 projectile combined with “tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium”. Rather, the steel in the projectile core of TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869 bullet is at the front of a lead metal component. These two components together, both within the projectile jacket, constitute the M855 projectile core. You can confirm this combination by reviewing U.S. Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9349656, which establishes the engineering requirements for the M855 projectile core.

Please note the English language definition of the adverb ‘entirely’, as taken from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ENTIRELY

1 : to the full or entire extent : completely <I agree entirely> <you are entirely welcome>
2 : to the exclusion of others : solely <entirely by my own efforts>

By any correct reading of the English language, the core of the M855 projectile is not constructed entirely of steel, or a combination of steel with any of the other metals specified in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (i).

18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (ii) applies only to projectiles larger than .22 caliber, designed and intended for a handgun, so the jacket weight percentage of the .22 caliber M855 projectile is not legally relevant to a determination of its status as ‘armor piercing ammunition’. Also MIL-C-63989C (AR), the U.S. Army specification covering M855 cartridges, does not mention handguns. Further, the gas port pressure requirements established in Section 3.10.3 of MIL-C-63989C (AR) constructively exclude the ‘AR Type handguns’ cited in Denise Brown’s text as an application for M855 cartridges.

Before an 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C)’ sporting purposes’ exemption can be considered, BATFE must establish that M855 projectiles are indeed subject to armored piercing ammunition regulation under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B). BATFE has not made this case, nor can BATFE make this case without abusing the clear statutory language.

Please withdraw Denise Brown’s “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C)” and terminate any further efforts to prohibit civilian possession or distribution of M855 projectiles or cartridges. Please extend all of these comments to cover any and all cartridges conforming to NATO STANAG 4172, which are functionally and constructively identical to U.S. Army M855 cartridges.

Feel free to use any portion or all of this text in a response to BATFE at You have until March 16th to register your opposition with BATFE.

New Section, Cut Away weapons

For me, part of the process of learning about small arms includes photographs, manuals, manufacture boards,studying the actual weapons them self and studying cut away weapons. So I have decided to start a section on cut away weapons. I do own a few cut away  and I take pictures of others when ever possible.

This first weapon is a Belgium Rolling Block rifle that was at the Belgium Military Museum. I strongly recommend that you visit this museum. I spent an entire day there and am looking forward to going back.

IMG_0143sA close up of the same action.

IMG_0144sSorry about the blurry picture. I was just starting with the digital camera and to this day still have a great deal to learn.

Building a Stevens Single shot rifle video

I like gun building and that should be no surprise to anyone that comes to this sight. I also like any type of weapon. I found this series of videos on building a Stevens single shot rifle. There is a great deal of information in his video even though it is not a how to. His web sight is interesting as well. This is part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.

And his site.

Digital Photography or how I wasted a Saturday

I started out today to take a couple of pictures of a few weapons to post. However, I got a little anal and wanted to take a descent picture with out the help of photoshop. I started a digital photography class a while back but dropped it after the instructor spent 3 hours going through a book looking at pictures showing one that was with a 18-55 lens and one taken with  a telescopic lens.

So today I just have a few pieces taken at different F stops, ISO and speeds. I also changed the back ground a little to help if needed.

So first off this is my photo tent being used outside with normal lighting.


The first set was taken with these settings.

ISO 400
And this is how they turn out.

Way to dark  so I called a friend who does a lot of picture taking and his recommendation for changes to the camera.
second set
ISO 600
F 8
DSC_3982sSo after a little more chatting this is what we came up with for settings.
ISO 400
F 11
DSC_3994sAs you can see the pistol frame is looking much better but the rifle receiver is still to washed out.
Same settings but with a darker back ground.
DSC_4000sYou can see that the trigger guard is still to dark but the receiver is okay. So the setting were changed again and a light diffusion card was place in front of the receiver.
ISO 400
F 10
DSC_4003sYou can see the lever and trigger guard much clearer.
The next trip will be to buy back ground paper and try again. There is a lot to taking good pictures and I am a slow learner, but I still keep trying.

Sunday answer 2-15-15



This is a bolt to the Brondby rifle in 7.62×25.






It was another trials rifle that was made in limited numbers.

pattern roon 2 025cs

The rifle fired from an open bolt ,which unfortunately means that I can not made one here. It is a gas operated rifle that uses a vertical cam locking mechanism.

Bolt and carrier together.

IMG_0365cThe bolt carrier and firing pin

IMG_0357 bolt carrierThe caming bar

IMG_0310 cam

A close up of the action open and closed.

pattern roon 2 031s

pattern roon 2 027ccs


What is it Saturday 2-14-15

This is going to be tough so here is a hint. It is Italian (ops) British trials rifle. Now I know everyone would have gotten it.





Part Two on the Bushmaster Pistol

This is part two on the Bushmaster Pistol with John D. It is not often you have the opportunity to chat with someone as knowledgeable as John is on a topic.  Enjoy the video.


Here are a few of the pictures to go along with the video.

Right side view.


DSC_1161csLeft side view


DSC_1163csThe safety.

DSC_1162sClose up of the Manufacture name

DSC_1160csA view of the rear sight


Fluting Press

More progress has been made on the fluting press.  We have most of the mechanical components made. I will be starting the hydraulics and digital read out soon.

A couple of views of the fluting machine mounted.


DSC_3929sClose up of the tool holder. Still a little work to be done to this

DSC_3930sThe adjustable mounting chuck.

DSC_3932sclose up of the location hole and degree angles.