Onepoint
-
Content Count
518 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by Onepoint
-
-
Yes, at least speaking for mine, I made it so it uses either rear sight. I have seen other setups that raise it slightly so they can use other rear mounted sights.
-
I have built a couple up off Superior lowers, both had tight magwells, so using thermolds Pmags was a non starter, but metal mags worked fine.
Another to look for is Essential Arms for a low cost lower, I just built one, not very pretty, kind of rough in machine finish, but the mag well will drop free any mag, and the parts all went in without any issues.
-
Mine are 1/9, but I suggest you patch test it.
" Wrap a tight patch around the cleaning rod that is freely rotating in a handle of some sort (or you could try to turn it as you push it in if you get a feel for the resistance). Insert patched rod in barrel, mark a spot (tape with a dot, sharpie dot on the rod, observe a scratch on the rod, etc). Push rod through barrel and watch it turn with the rifling until the spot marked rotates to the same position (ie, you saw a mark on the "top" it rotated around as it pushed through and is now on "top" again). The distance it (the spot/mark) travelled its one rotation is going to be your twist rate (ie 7" =1 turn in 7" inches/1:7, 9"=1 turn in 9"/1:9, etc.) "
1 in 9 will handle up to 69gr, 1 in 7 will go up to 77gr.
-
IIRC they are Wilson blanks sold by Century at one time. Just be aware they are in the white and not stainless, I almost bought one last year until I found that out.
I have read they shoot very well but are pretty heavy not being turned down much past 1." at all past the gas port.
-
True enough not everyone is mechanically adept enough to build one and make it work right. But its a pretty straight forward, if a person can do what it takes to build it, I would expect they can tweak the cover to make it tight.
On both my 223s, the covers are tight tight, and the covers I sued to mount the sights on were actually Chinese smooth ones. These have been repeatable for zero for the ranges I use them, its not a match rifle and using steel cased ammo it works out fine. I have lost count of round under it, but its 2+ years old now. I toyed with mounting it on a hinge up front, but it has worked well enough I haven't so far. Bottom line is I shoot better with these sights than the stock ones, in any conditions.
Maybe if these issues are major concerns, then money would best invested in a Krebs rail and sight, or different rifle altogether.
-
I have no idea how it matches to the front sight for elevation. But the parts can be had http://www.robertrtg.com/g3rearsight.htm
Or as I posted in another thread. http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=16767.0
-
-
15 minutes with a dremel and some grades of finer sandpaper you could have yours looking exactly like that.
I wish it was that simple, it took me that long to photoshop it.
The stock being hollow wont let you profile it, wish it would, it would be done already.
-
Thats one of the good things about a pistol frame type carbine, its as compact as an SBR and still has a 16" barrel. No mag to get in the way as its in the grip.
The only disadvantage to the thumbhole stock is it keeps you from reaching the mag release with the trigger hand, so you have to bring up the off hand to hit the button. The Hi-point carbine isn't perfect by any means, but is a heck of a bargain for what it is.
After using it, if I was going to wish for another design from Hi-point or ATI, I would just as soon go simpler, something maybe like this.
-
I haven't found much difference in feel between the 2 G2s, the double seem slightly (emphasis on slightly) heavier, the single may be just a slightly rougher, but you really have to shoot one or the other a lot before you can tell.
-
Well I got one on the EE on AR15.com, and about the same time I low bid another for just over $100 on gunbroker and won. It didn't have the ATI stock though. No one had them local, at least until I bought one and then I seen some.
MD, I like that stock. It would be cool if the future new designed Hi-point stocks look like that.
-
The sights are AR-15 folding type from Yankee Hill Machine, they co witness in the bottom 1/3,
You can get rail stock in raw aluminum from http://egw-guns.com/catalog/
Its really not too much of a job to make one.
The stock comes in 16" lengths, so you cut it down just a little to fit, and clean it up and shape the ends etc. Drill 3 holes in it, and tap them, drill 2 indents for the protrusions on the stock reciever cover and its ready to paint or finish. Attached with 3 button head screws. The rail will deflect if you pull it down, but works just fine if you keep your hands off it. I probably wouldn't mount a optic much past the receiver for that reason. Anodizing would be best, but isn't available to me. I used baking lacquer instead. Without the painting and baking time it was a 2 hour project.
Here it is without the Ultrasight
-
Hi cap mags are the only downside to these things, I got a carbine with ATI stock a few weeks ago and tweaked it up some to taste. Found some rail stock online to make the top rail.
Lots of fun for a cheap plinker.
-
CDNN has been out of the galil mags, have they got some back in?
-
UZI tigers is basically what tried the 1st time, except I used a small nut and welded it in, but I wanted the windage adjustable so I could center the front post.
The peep sight I built using AR apertures will still use standard AK front sights, with a some elevation adjustment to them.
As to the cost of parts - Midway has the A1 rear parts set for around $15, http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/...leitemid=584981 you will have to get a A2 windage screw to make it work on the 3/4" tubing, the A1 is just slightly too short to get a the pin in the windage drum, everything else from the A1 parts set will work fine. If you add the tubing which is about 6 or 8 bucks at the hardware store, and the button head screws, maybe $25- $30, if you want the larger A2 style drum and another $6 or so. If I recall correctly, on the A! windage drum, I had to find a thin shim washer to take some slack since the distance of the hole for the pin is different than the A2 drum.
Other than the labor its not to expensive for what you end up with. You do want to keep everything as low as possible so the scope moiunts will clear it. So you are looking at $40 or so with shipping depending on what you choose for parts. You can cut the sides to lok like any style you want, FAL, Galil or I copied roughly a smaller version of the Stoner 63.
FWIW Krebs is coming out with a rail and incorporated sight that replaces the rear sight and clamps to the rear tang. Its going to be expensive, but is definitely a neat idea.
-
I have built my own. I did a tutorial on building one from AR-15 rear sight parts and plain steel tubing. Its possible to build one and install it with no welding as well.
-
I read elsewhere look for the rear rail sight to be in the $200 range.
-
The cartrige was designed for a carbine from everything I read, but If the 7.62x39 is optimum for the 16" barrel, wonder why did they used 23" barrels on RPDs and RPKs?
Anyway aside from looks, I like shorter handier rifles unless I gain something from the barrel length like velocity to coincide with accuracy at longer range, on most any AKs it isn't a major consideration IMO. The only thing I can think of other than that is 308s do spit a lot of powder out of 16" barrles though.
-
Last I was in Jensens the x39 ones were $259, if they went down I am going to really make my wife mad...again :
-
Forget the x39, even the 223 Saiga isn't really varminter capable, though it will work in a pinch. I have used mine for shots up to a couple hundred yards on them and it worked OK. Get some decent ammo and shoot it enough to know it before you go. Some of the match hollow point stuff, like Black hills or Ultramax isn't too expensive and shoots well.
As for a scope, I wouldn't go less than 6x for prairie dogs, with 9x or 12x being better. If you want to stay with a POSP type, then the 8x would be OK I would think.
-
Some of the early ones had a spring that held pressure against the trunnion and gas tube, which had tabs that rested in slots in the handguard. The newer ones are retained with a screw.
-
Mine is a brand new one. Therefore, it is 1:7. Right?
If someone tells you its 1 in 7 thats good enough apparently. If you really want to know, wrap a patch up so its very tight in the bore on you cleaning rod, mark it, run it down until it makes 1 turn, mark that, pull it out, measure between the marks and that is the twist rate. OR you can simple listen to advertising, which is much easier.
Actually , I am curious to those who say they do have 1/7 if they have patched it, because it would be interesting, even if trivial to know, especially if or when they changed it.
-
-
Again I say 1 in 9. I suggest you guys go refigure your metric conversion or tight patch the barrel, I just did it again to see if I was wrong. my 2 saigas came out 1 turn in 9 give or take a 1/4", just like the AR-15 barrel I did as a comparison, and that is marked 1/9.
The 1/7 AR barrel came out 1 in 7.5", not exact but close enough to call it.
Saiga 5.45 comparison
in Saiga 5.45
Posted
I had the same dilemma, I did both since I ran across a used M&P upper, and am in the process of direct comparison. So far the AR upper is winning the accuracy comparison, both have functioned 100% so far.
http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=60651.0