Tactical Shooting p. 70: Weight Reduction

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Tactical Shooting offers the Weight Reduction weapon modification, and the third method seems extremely tempting: it requires no materials/cost, 12 hours of work and an Armoury roll, and shaves off 0.15 of the weapon's mass. Now, the chance of ruining the weapon on a natural roll of 18 is scary, but the chance is very low, and you can just put the gun into a vise and shoot it 'remotely' for a few hundred shots to make sure it's not ruined.

Otherwise, it seems like fluted barrels and other mass-saving options can be done even better in the original construction. They're extremely tempting if they provide a 15% mass reduction at the cost of a slightly over 0.5% effective price increase (the chance of ruining a rifle in the process is 1/216).

So . . . does anyone have insights into why the modification works the way it works, and why an off-the-shelf price isn't listed for it?

Thanks in advance!

[DouglasCole]

The cost of the mod is the cost of the gunsmith's time and the tooling he'll use - which will presumably be spread over many barrels.

You can get a new fluted barrel for what looks like about 10% more than you'd spend on an unfluted one. I've seen prices for retroactive fluting at $180-480 depending on who's doing it. If you buy one tuned for the rifle, I'd say that's part of the quality modifier, but that's me.

[Anthony]

The main reason to not use weight reduction is because it (realistically) increases recoil; a 15% reduction in weight is on average a 19% increase in recoil, and if the weight reduction is occurring at the barrel, will be worse than that (if you're going to shave weight without affecting recoil, take if off the stock).

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The main reason to not use weight reduction is because it (realistically) increases recoil; a 15% reduction in weight is on average a 19% increase in recoil, and if the weight reduction is occurring at the barrel, will be worse than that (if you're going to shave weight without affecting recoil, take if off the stock).

I wouldn't really worry too much about the recoil, as it seems like a big part of handling recoil is developing muscle memory and control. I worked with a girl who handled a .357 like no problem, while a big guy who never shot was terribly inaccurate with it. Discipline and control is something you learn, and it tames even the most savage caliber.

One of my instructors was a ranger, parachuted into Khandahar, was a qualified CQB and pistol instructor in the Army, and is a great shot. He's also TINY: Five foor five or so, maybe 130 soaking wet? Tiny little guy(though ripped with muscle), and he handles a full size 12 guage or even an M1 Garand like it wasn't no thang.

The recoil, while real, is vastly overstated, and significant parts of it are due to shooter skill: when I first started shooting 12gauge, the blast and noise would make me flinch. That's something that goes away with practice. And pistols(something I'm very unfamiliar with) un nerve me even more. It's all in devolping the muscle control.

[Tomsdad]

Wonder if it would be worth tying recoil to familiarity in some why.

Maybe if you firing gun with with higher recoil or even higher min ST than other weapons of that type you are familiar with you receive an extra penalty equal to the difference between the two.

so e.g say you've only even shot 9mm pistols with rcl 2, and you pick a .45 with rcl 3, you get an extra -1 pen to hit until you qualify as familiar.

Or say the closest experience you had in firing a MinSt10 .45, was firing a MinST9 Sig you be at an extra -1 until familiar with it.


Maybe use the revised firearms skill and familiarity in pyramid? Having recoils/MinSt also being a point differentiation.

The more I think about this it's probably better to tie it to MinST than rcl, as MinST can be adjusted by grips etc, rcl is more immovable. So I quite like the idea of someone compensating for the higher MinST on a unfamiliar pistol with a two handed grip even if they have enough ST to handle the MIn St on on hand handed grip once familiar. Or say partially compensating for an unfamiliar higher MinST on a rifle with a braced sling until gaining familiarity..

[Verjigorm]

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it that much. I'd maybe increase malf. with higher powered ammo and let it ride. Fluted barrels are one thing, but actually shaving mass of the receiver is another. But the idea of my gun blowing up on me every 200 rounds is crazy.

It's a bit of an extreme move, when you can typically remove a butt stock or something to get a similar weight reduction.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it that much. I'd maybe increase malf. with higher powered ammo and let it ride. Fluted barrels are one thing, but actually shaving mass of the receiver is another. But the idea of my gun blowing up on me every 200 rounds is crazy.

It's a bit of an extreme move, when you can typically remove a butt stock or something to get a similar weight reduction.

I think some things need to be made clear:
First, there are three primary mass-reduction methods: shortening barrels/stocks/etc., using lightweight magazines and cases, and getting rid of unneeded material. The latter reduces empty mass by 15%, and does nothing else. One in 216 rifles modified this way blows up on the first malfunction. The other 215 rifles do not suffer increased Malf or explode on malfs by RAW.

It does puzzle me that TSh doesn't give the price of buying a rifle made with a lightweight stock, fluted barrel etc. - the surely-safe things.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It does puzzle me that TSh doesn't give the price of buying a rifle made with a lightweight stock, fluted barrel etc. - the surely-safe things.

I've never seen a factory gun with a fluted barrel. I'm not sure what constitutes a "lightweight stock" either.

The primary attempts at factory weight reduction I have seen have been with handguns and not rifles. This was mostly in the form of aluminum frames. Not very common any more since polymer is even lighter and has become the industry standard anyway.

The only way I know of you could get the sort of things Tactical Shooting talks about from a "factory" would be to order them from the maker's "Custom Shop" and that's just getting their gunsmith to do it rather than your gunsmith.

The maker wouldn't do a lot of them anyway since they actually might compromise safety and create liability.

[Kalzazz]

The high weight of guns is a leading reason I've seen Walking Armory taken many many times

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I've never seen a factory gun with a fluted barrel.

Just go to Wal-Mart :-)

Fluted barrels are very common, especially on target/varmint rifles (with large diameter barrels) and nicer ARs.

To wit:
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/12VLPDBM

and

http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.c...ategory_id=622


Ultralight rifles often have fluted barrels as well though it is often more efficient to just use a thinner profile.
http://www.weatherby.com/mark-v-ultra-lightweight.html

It is possible to get an AR format carbine down to well under 5 lbs just using off the shelf parts on a standard receiver fwiw.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I'm not sure what constitutes a "lightweight stock" either.

For a bolt gun, kevlar and fiberglass. For an AR, skeletonized.

http://www.jsesurplus.com/images/pro...etail/ARUL.jpg