/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>>2450
The point is you’re gonna have to learn how to make casings,magazines and possibly bullets as well. Like >>2467 said it’s not just the gun you’re making, you have to take into account the ammunition and accessories. Milling and machinery is just more practical and covers more ground. I’m also not contesting the use of plastic, but like those videos demonstrated, a LOT more could be produced at a faster rate with an injection molding machine. One thing that’s also important to note, is that polymer can be prone to warping and chipping if consistently put in rough conditions. Their handling also pales in comparison to wood and even metal framed guns, so their advantage lies more so in the amount that could be produced quickly. All that aside I love AUGs and think it would be a good model for mass production

>>2486
AUGpill me

Its another tool to mix and match with. Cheaply machine big basic parts, 3d print small weirdly shaped parts. Rivet or weld together what you need to. If something is cheap and available, buy that part and take it home to work with.

>>2580
injection moulding yo

>>2589
Extruded plastics can be stronger than injection moulding and a 3d printer is a lot cheaper. Look into PEEK.

8chan.moe/indiachan/res/7.html

>>3124
what is this?

>a shock sensitive explosive to set off a bomb
OP that's retarded
anyway here's my idea:
>put TCCA in a PET bottle
>insert a sealed test tube with HCl in the bottle
>add a spring loaded spike or whatever to break the test tube when desired
>when activated, Cl2 will build up in the bottle until it bursts
you now have something that'll cause concussion/hearing damage, throw plastic shrapnel around and also functions as a chemical weapon. hooray!

Don't get your house searched, if you have a secret stash you shouldn't be keeping them there anyway

>Is it possible to actually completely eliminate illegal guns and ammo in private ownership?
No
>How many firearms are secretly owned in places with extreme gun control and penalties like China and Singapore?
Probably less than countries where it is easy and legal to own one
>Today with metal detectors and sniffer dogs it seems almost impossible if they search your house.
Guns can be printed in high temperature filament as strong as aluminum that will not show up with a metal detector and/or embedded in a solid mass with the same density. Dogs to my knowledge sniff mainly gunpowder and explosives ingredients of these. I don't think they can smell the actual firearm itself but they may be able to be trained to smell lubricant used for the firearm. You can avoid all of these threats I think. The cops will strip down everything in pursuit of the contraband if they think it is there but you can avoid that to to varying degrees based on threat model. There is this old rule of thumb for hiding drug stashes about like 15 minutes of hiding for 1 hour of searching ro something. Anyways figure out how hard the cops will go to find such contraband and prepare your model accordingly.
>>3100
This. Bury underground in some preservative in some remote location on a property you own or somewhere else no one will dig through incidentally. Don't be caught travelling through such an area. Ammunition and small items can be buried in small waterproof plastic containers etc. There is even a lot of designs online for easily accesible buried waterproof containers. The prepper community etc has tons of good tutorials online. Don't just scoff at good ideas. Learn.

>>3099
they will put them in a drum of oil and bury it in a location only they know until it's time to use it
>>3101
this guy basically gets it

Even the paddle itself is good by itself
You can brain someone with it
Start by carving one

>>3348
You sound one step away from unironically saying "the founding fathers were talking about muskets"

>>3327
LOL
typical anarkiddies, always having their priorities straight

>>3324
>this a thing that happens when people substitute belief in the masses or organizing within the masses for their small group, and they compensate for the lack of effectiveness by ramping up the radical aesthetics and "militant" posture
this is everyone in leftypol who cant shut up about muh guns

>>3377
Its better than nothing
I suppose some would prefer if we were all castrated liberals engaging in the public discourse, but we dont have a place there, because we are threats

>>3377
>every burger in leftypol
ftfy

>>1972
Looks like they're all back, rejoice

cant wait until wearing ballistic helmets in public becomes normalized

>>2021
Short bros… it's not over?

>>2022
Could build yourself a pillbox with steel and bricks if it's in your home. Or something funnier like this one guy who had renovated his house with a reinforced door so he could lock himself upstairs and shoot trough holes in the floor.

>>1849
>Watching the latest NY shooter video got me thinking, how if at all possible could one survive a mass shooting?

Just pull out your gun and shoot back at them. If you have nothing, then charge them. Running is for pussies. You'll only be shot in the back. Hiding is for pussies. You'll only be doubletapped.

This tbh

>>3083
This is nonsense.

the Tu-4; It is obviously based on the B-29, that is not denied by anyone, however there are major differences in their construction.

Soviet engineers were tasked with reverse-engineering the several B-29s the USSR had in it’s possession; impounded USAF bombers (under the terms of the 1941 Soviet-Japanese Neutrality treaty) which were forced to land in Soviet territory after flying bombing missions against Japan.
The B-29’s fuselage was made of an 1/16 inch thick plates, or 1.5875 mm. The Soviets used a metric system, so there was no way or logic to produce/use such plates, only 1.5 or 1.6mm. This meant that it could not be applied directly to the original B-29 plans because of mass, length and rigidity changes in the air-frame. So Tu-4 air-frame was redesigned, (increasing and redefining size and dimensions) with the plating being made of 1.8 and 0.8mm plates.
Other differences also existed. The Tu 4 used 20mm guns in its defensive mounts, and later mounted 23mm guns, (both of which were far more effective at defense, having a longer range, able to contend in distance with the 30 and 25 millimeter guns of fighters of the time), and with a heavy enough hit to seriously damage attackers with explosive force, rather than the cleanly punched holes the .50 M2 left. Or the engines; the Tu-4’s ASh-73 radial engines were not copies of the B-29’s Wright R-3350 “Duplex Cyclone” radial engines as is often (falsely) claimed. The two engines were in fact separately developed from the same “grandparent”: the R-3350 was an evolutionary development of the Wright R-1820 Cyclone engine, whereas the ASh-73TK was an evolutionary development of the Shvetsov M-25 which was a licensed copy of that same engine. This common ancestry meant that many parts were similar or even interchangeable between the two engines, but the only component of the Duplex Cyclone engine which the Soviets actually copied was the turbo-supercharger unit. The Tu-4s engines did not include the R-3350’s lightweight magnesium-alloy crankcase, which increased weight but also eliminated the Duplex Cyclone’s infamous tendency towards engine fires so catastrophically hot that they could melt the wing spars in literal seconds. The differences are seen in capability as well. The Tu-4 was about 750kg heavier, 10 mph slower (big difference that is) and carried only 6000kg (Post too long. Click here to view the full text.