notalbert

Again, those who are arguing that "if a gun person had written the story" everything would be different.....are arguing for backhanded political correctness. So, let's see, the reporter assigned to the story should have been vetted....to ensure that they are pro- gun....so that the story will be worded to please gun owners ? Does anyone else not see the ridiculous nature of this ? I am not any more happy about the sensationalism of stories like this...or the tendency of some members of the public to take the wrong inference...or overreact...than anyone else. But, really...we cannot have the news reported in such a way that is designed to please each and every special interest group around...else nothing would ever be reported (ALL stories would be in re-write forever...in order to ensure that NO one was offended). The fact is, many (perhaps most) people in this country are far too thin-skinned - when it involves a subject about which they feel strongly...or an activity about which they are enthusiastic. We gun owners are no exception. Guns do provoke a reaction in the news, in this country....as much as anything else because of the awful level of gun violence here. Most people do not have extreme attitudes, one way or the other. When it comes to guns, most people simply fear gun violence - and want something done about it, nothing more. That is a reasonable attitude. So, the false inference they may take from a news story such as this....is that the 54 guns confiscated from the home of an individual (probably) to be charged with multiple murder....served as an "arsenal" to possibly be used for criminal purposes. Duh. What a terrible, false inference.....which just happens to be a perfectly reasonable concern. What I do not understand about those so upset about a story like this...is that their concerns seem to be for the guns - not the people involved. ("How dare the police confiscate 54 innocent guns....which were not used in the crime in question !") A silly point of view....no other way to put it. I do not like, as a fellow gun owner, to be unfairly maligned by others, as some sort of violent nut (or potentially violent nut) - just as none of you do. However, I recognize that, given the facts of our society, as it is....this is inevitable, to some extent. The best way to not be perceived as some sort of "nut"....is to not give that impression. A reporter writing a news story....reporting the facts... has no more "power" over the perceptions, fears and desires of the vast majority of the general public, than a commercial sponsor of a TV show has the power to FORCE you to purchase their products. To believe that the news media somehow holds the power of making public opinion at will (based on how they word a particular news story)....is to believe that one can be subliminally hypnotized to do another's bidding. Simply ain't so. Subliminal suggestion, such as that attempted in advertising in the 1950's, has long been disproven - as ineffective...and a waste of time. It doesn't work. Those people who read the news story in question will draw their OWN conclusions, based on their own beliefs, their own fears and concerns... and their own preferences - NOT based on the way the story was worded. The spectrum of conclusions drawn will be as broad as the spectrum of different types of people in this country. No one group or constituency has gained control of everyone's mind. To believe otherwise is ridiculous at best.....and paranoid at worst.

Swamp Thing, You are quite right. The (potential) problem with this article...and news stories in general, is the sensationalizing of the events....and conclusions jumped to by members of the public. There are those who will "take" the fact that the house contained 50-odd guns as evidence that guns are automatically bad - false logic, to be sure. However, there are those among us that "take" the mere reporting of the facts, which is what this story contains, as evidence of the "anti-gun bias" of the media - also false logic. So, how should the story have been reported ? Should the journalist in question have censored his/her own news story...out of fear of the emnity of gun owners, especially those who overreact ? That is, by it's very definition, "political correctness" - a concept almost universally reviled by us gun owners. Or, should the reporter have simply not reported the story at all - so as to not antagonize either side ? This is a bottomless pit - with a bottomless swamp at it's bottom (no pun intended). By that, I mean - there is NO solution to this conundrum by which someone would not cry foul. Yet, the facts SHOULD be reported - we NEED this - as open journalism and a free press are AT LEAST as important as anything else...to the defense of democracy and an open society. So, I'm afraid that the only workable solution is ....to let the chips fall where they may. The extremists at both ends of the spectrum will scream....and the vast majority of reasonable, sane people across the middle will "take" these stories as what they are - neither evidence of a great right-wing conspiracy....nor of a great left-wing conspiracy - but just the facts, surrounding a tragic and unfortunate event.

The news story did not say one thing about illegal ownership of the guns. It also did not "allude" to such ownership being a crime, in any way. The statement that the parents are not "licensed gun dealers" is essentially meaningless....I do not see that it makes any material difference to the story. Probably just an extraneous detail, inserted because the reporter thought it significant. The fact of the police seizure of the guns does not indicate that ownership of them was/is a crime....this is SOP when a felony murder is under investigation...and the guns may figure into the crime, or activities of the suspect. As to the political leanings of the reporter and newspaper.....you've been watching too much TV. How could you possibly know these details ? In fact, you DON"T....you've simply bought into someone's propaganda. How paranoid can you be, gentlemen ? Geesh.

Beautiful work....a beautiful rifle....and all designed simply to slaughter rockchucks....because "three of them will eat the same amount of hay as a cow". What a crime that is. What depravity.

Partly because of (thinking about) this thread....and partly because I have been kicking around the idea for awhile, I decided the other day, to strip and refinish an old walnut stock I have. I had applied, gulp (I hate to admit it now) a Minwax water-based poly product. Well, over time and through normal handling, a few places were peeling (small areas, at the edge of the inletting). So, I decided that this must go - in favor of a "tung oil finish". Suprisingly, removing the old poly was not too tough - a knife blade as a scraper, carefully applied, did very well. The surface was already quite smooth - so I simply re-sanded from 220 grit....up to 600. No wet-sanding, though. I chose to use Behr Scandinavian Tung Oil Finish, because I have heard very good things about it - not the least of which is that it is easy (and rather quick) to use. Well, I have applied three coats now, over the last several days... two "flood coats", to seal the wood....and one thin coat, wiped on and buffed in with a soft cloth. I was surprised at the absorption of the wood, but, I made sure that the flood coats were sufficient to allow the wood to absorb all the finish it would. I am giving the stock a couple of days to fully cure, after which I will apply several more coats, thin ones - buffed in with a 0000 scotch-brite pad. Each of these coats I intend to give at least 24 to 36 hours to cure (the Behr product is supposed to cure fully in 16 - 24 hours). I will probably apply 4 or 5 more coats, then set the stock aside for at least a week. I am probably violating every rule in the book with my "method" (if one could call it that).... so I hope it works out. So far, I like what I see....and I haven't made a sticky mess of the thing. So, we shall see.

Great stock finishing tips.....a wonderful article....and this will no doubt produce a truly beautiful stock, if done properly. However, I added all of the recommended curing/ drying times together, as well as estimating time for the actual work - and I calculate, from the beginning of the finishing process (after the sanding to 220 grit) - a MINIMUM of 94 days. This presumes that one will work on the stock on each succeeding day, between curing/ drying periods, with NO interuptions. Obvously, we all have other things to do, as well. So, the entire process could well actually take 4 months (120 days) to complete. And THEN, the checkering (if any), may be completed ! Absolutely NO criticism of the article or the methods employed...or in fact, the author, is intended - as I said above, I'm sure that this process WILL produce an exceptionally beautiful stock. I have NO doubts that Mr. Soverns knows what he is talking about, either. I fully understand that quality work requires time to complete. However, I do not think that I EVER have possessed such patience, to complete a project such as this. I suppose that this separates the "hacks" (like me)...from the true artists. If so, so be it. All I can say is WOW - what a marathon ! I'm not sure that I would feel it to be worth that much effort, after all of that. Of course, I am not everyone.

I would agree as to using powdered metal as a thickening agent. You'll get more strength and resistance to shrinkage and heat that way. If much extra strength is desired, glass fibre (short strands - not the silica) can be embedded in the bedding material. A simple, inexpensive source for this is the open weave glass fibre tape, that can be gotten from many home centres. I think perhaps that Brownells sells this sort of thing (pre-packaged for bedding purposes), as well.

I'm afraid that I have never used the ProBed....so I cannot comment on it's durability. I second the positive comments about Devcon. I have used this and a similar epoxy for several years - exclusively. It is great stuff...and I have never had a problem in getting a good bedding job. It has proved durable through quite a range of field conditions.

It is a great idea, but I've always just kept the striker spring compressed as long as needed (in order to remove or install the cocking piece). It has never seemed like much of a problem to me. Oh well.

I am not a purist, in any sense of the word....so I do not care whether anyone chooses to "sporterise" his/ her property. As for myself, I would not sporterize any rifle that was all-matching. It just so happens that the Yugo M48 I have now doesn't have ANY matching numbers. Still, my intention was to make a good shooter of it, without deviating from the standard military configuration (except, perhaps, the sights). This did not prove to be possible. So, in the end, I made a sporter of another military stock (the original stock was not good)....and glass-bedded the action....and free-floated the barrel. I also changed the sights. Now, the rifle shoots as per it's potential - and shoots very well. In summary, sporterising, for me, is only a means to the end of improving the function of the rifle, in a technical sense. I see no other real value to it.

I have no knowledge of these actions....so I cannot comment as to whether they are good or bad. I thought that they might be made by Zastava....the same ones as imported by Charles Daly. However, they do NOT resemble the Charles Daly Mauser actions. However, after examining the photos closely and checking the website....I believe that they are actual Mauser actions, by the Mauserwerke company, which is still in business. All of the details, including the bolt handle shapes, the tang design, the shape of the bolt shroud and safety, the shape of the trigger guard, the shape of the receiver itself...and the floorplate release button built into the trigger guard - resemble exactly, the Mauserwerke actions shown on their website. The Mauserwerke company still builds the Model 98 action, which is what these appear to be....for expensive sporting rifles. So, I'd say that there is a good chance that this is their true origin. Of course, the simple way to find out is to call Legacy Sports and ASK.

I concur. Your best choice would be a clear poly.

The BEST way to deal with this issue is a full glass-bedding job. Then the action (and the barrel connected to it) cannot move around in the stock...and can't make contact with one side or the other (if the bedding job is done properly). The inletting in M48 stocks is often oversize...and does not fit the actions well. Another, more temporary solution is to use shims to shift the action a bit in the stock...and relieve the barrel contact. A third option is to remove wood in the barrel channel - but I do NOT recommend this. Try first to see if you can add a shim of some suitable material, on one side of the magazine box (between the magazine and the stock)...to see if this will solve the problem. If the stock is inletted TOO much oversize....then glass-bedding may be the only solution.

No, the replacement spring is not a problem. It could be, if it were a bit longer, such that the coils bottom out against each other, when the spring is fully compressed. But, even with the extra length it has (it's sized for the full-length K98 actions)...it does not do this. I replaced the striker spring on my M48 with the exact spring you have...some months ago. It works perfectly. As to the firing pin....will it damage the pin ? Again, the answer is no. The replacement spring you have is 22 lbs....the standard spring was 19 lbs. There is not such a huge difference, you see. I would check the tip of your firing pin, to be sure it is not nicked or flattened. That has nothing to do with the spring, though. Also, it is a good idea to check the firing pin protrusion (when the striker is in the fired position). This should be about 0.054", or so.