# Easy to Field Strip???



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

Why is it a positive to so many people that a gun is "super" easy to field strip? AS STRICTLY A SELLING POINT ON THE FIREARM IN QUESTION. I don't get this. A firearm like the Beretta Storm series seems far too easy to take apart. I'm more of the mind that the mechanism involved with something like the S&W M&P is as simple as a fire arm should be to take apart. 

I really don't get the importance on this simplicity. Simplicity in this area seems like a moot point to a negative feature of a firearm. Under what scenario is this of the utmost necessity?


----------



## BigCityChief (Jan 2, 2013)

I own 40 pistols. They're all easy to take apart although my Ruger MK III is sometimes challenging to reassemble. A firearm is a tool and should neither be difficult nor frustrating to operate, clean or maintain. Firearms manufacturers and designers realize this as their business relies on happy customers. That's one good reason why simplicity of use is a premium in the eyes of most.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

do you think that there is a point where one becomes to simple to take apart? 

like how Jet Li can take some apart with one hand in the middle of a fight and hit his opponent with it? I get it is a movie however this highlights a potential problem albeit a 1/1000000000 chance.

When I see it as a selling point all I hear is "Hey dummy, here is a firearm even you can clean."


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

I guess a better question is, why would one want a weapon that was hard and or complicated to field strip..........

Personally, the easier the better............


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I do most of my own gunsmithing.
It is a blessing, therefore, that our 1911s not only field-strip simply, but detail-strip easily as well.
The same is true of my 1903A3 and Garand, our Ruger 10/22, Jean's SKS, and a few more.

If attention is paid to the instructions, why would an easy strip be a bad thing?
And, if the instructions are ignored, well, it keeps gunsmiths in business.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I prefer a simple, common sense field stripping process on my guns. Most of mine are like this; a few not so much. I like the quote, "Form follows function" so I much prefer simplicity over flash and flare. Guns are no exception to this rule for me. If I have to use special tools, struggle and fight the thing every time I want to clean it, I loose interest in using it. BigCityChief said;

"A firearm is a tool and should neither be difficult nor frustrating to operate, clean or maintain."

I couldn't agree more with this.


----------



## SP3 (Nov 25, 2009)

Cait43 said:


> I guess a better question is, why would one want a weapon that was hard and or complicated to field strip..........
> 
> Personally, the easier the better............





Steve M1911A1 said:


> why would an easy strip be a bad thing?


answer ought to be interesting.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I do most of my own gunsmithing.
> It is a blessing, therefore, that our 1911s not only field-strip simply, but detail-strip easily as well.
> The same is true of my 1903A3 and Garand, our Ruger 10/22, Jean's SKS, and a few more.
> 
> ...


Steve, you put the 1911 at the easy end of the spectrum. my question is coming from a point where people put it at the starting to get complicated to complicated end. I hear this as a selling point for things like glocks. "well the glock is easier to disassemble than a 1911" I don't see it as a selling point between a glock and a 1911.

The PX4 storm all you do is push 2 side tabs down and the weight of the hammer pushes the slide out of its locked position. Getting this "Barney Style" seems to me to be inviting the gun to break. The only next step to get it simpler is to be able to take it apart with one finger. "Combat Effective" field striping to me really should only, not require a specific tool to accomplish.

It is quite a bit harder to swap the grip swells on the PX4's than to take the slide off.

I'm not advocating to have a 12 step take down process, I'm of the opinion that it should be more than a 1 step process though, maybe that is the military and its focus on redundancy coming out.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

" Glocks are easier to clean that XD's or M&P's. I have all three and I know this to be fact. " SouthernBoy

here is an example from the first purchase of a handgun thread.

The Glock is an easy one and the M&P is a hard one. 

Safety issue GLOCK- people shoot themselves in the leg taking it apart

It seems to me that it's a pretty smart decision to have an extra step where you have to lock the slide back.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

ponzer04 said:


> " Glocks are easier to clean that XD's or M&P's. I have all three and I know this to be fact. " SouthernBoy
> 
> here is an example from the first purchase of a handgun thread.
> 
> ...


My comment which you quoted dealt with cleaning the gun, not field stripping it. The Glock is a simpler design with fewer parts and less complexity in the top of the frame area where powder residue tends to collect.

As for field stripping, I find the M&P to be a little more involved to field strip (a few more steps) than is a Glock. When I field strip my M&P's, I do not depress the sear disengagement lever (don't know what it is really called). I just pull the trigger when I move the slide forward and off of the frame.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Field stripping is one thing, complete dis-assembly is quite another. A 1911 can be completely dis-assembled without any tools, Glocks have very few moving parts and the pins should be removed without the use of a hammer, hand pressure and a nylon pin will do. Others require specific tools and punches (cup tip, flat, and roll pin). The slide safety assembly on a Berretta 92 is somewhat tricky to take apart as you have to compress a combination of small plungers and springs in order to remove it. A CZ 75 with the decocking mechanism requires a small pin to be inserted into the carrier to hold all the little parts together, so it doesn't fly apart when removed from the frame. It is also somewhat difficult to re-assemble as all the little levers and springs have to be aligned in a certain position. If an individual is mechanically inclined and takes the time to learn how to properly dis-assemble their firearms, the advantages are tremendous. For an individual with average mechanical abilities a firearm that does not have a combination of different mechanisms, might be a better choice. Relying on other people to fix an otherwise simple problem is a pain in the butt. Having owned and restored antique cars, I'm surprised at how many car enthusiasts don't even know how to change a fan belt, especially on an engine that only has a generator or an alternator, and take long trips out into the middle of the Sonoran or Mojave Deserts, during the summertime. My point being, a gun does you no good when your life may depend on it, if it's at the gunsmith's waiting for a minor repair.


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the purpose of field stripping a gun WAS to clean it.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

Yep,it is,and if it's hard to take apart how often will it get cleaned?Probably not very often,and some guns just don't like to run dirty.A Ruger MKII is the worst I've had and they aren't really hard.They can be a PITA to get the barrel reseated so the bolt stop pin goes back in,but detail strip the frame and you'll think it's a snap.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Holly:
Yes you are correct, a simple field strip (removal of slide, barrel, etc.) on a semi auto, running patches and brush through the barrel, cleaning the breech and extractor claw, slide, frame rails and feed ramp after a shooting session is wise. On a revolver, opening the cylinder cleaning the barrel and cylinder chambers, breech face, and ratchet is also wise. But eventually you will have to go further than that, depending on how often you go shooting and how often you carry and under what conditions. Dirt and crud will eventually build up in areas where a basic field stripping will not be adequate and combined with grit can wear out a guns moving parts prematurely. Bore cleaner combined with crud will also find it's way into those critical areas. If you have access to compressed air, gun scrubbers in aerosol cans can be used to spray into the firearm and then blowing out the excess residue, but you have to keep in mind that some parts on some guns should not be lubricated and those areas have to be completely free of lubricants including aerosol cleaners. Some aerosol cleaners will dissolve and remove all lubricants, requiring the firearm to be taken apart further than a simple "Field Strip" and re-lubricated.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Rex:
"Yep,it is,and if it's hard to take apart how often will it get cleaned?" Good point! When purchasing a firearm take that into consideration, based on what your mechanical aptitude is. What's easy for me may be a nightmare for you. Guns, just like any other mechanical devise must be maintained, otherwise it can and will fail you, just when you don't want it to. Improperly maintaining firearms can be down right dangerous, resulting in accidental discharges and in some cases blowing up in your face, not to mention failing to fire when your life depends on it. This is not a subject to be taken lightly.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

Everyone reading my posts so far has gone the wrong way with what I am asking.

Why is it a positive "SELLING POINT", and the main one so many people go to when promoting a specific firearm, that it is the _easiest_ to strip down?

Ease of use and dis-assembly is *great*, like a 1911, but what is a POSITIVE point of being much simpler than that.

Under what "Tactical situation" would a malfunction occur where I need to take my slide off of my gun and wipe the interior to get it back into action, and in this scenario how will having one (PX4 storm) step vs three save my life M&P shield?

Easy to field strip as a "SELLING POINT" says to me Hey idiot even you can figure this out. I put it on the same level as people at a gun store suggesting that a revolver is a woman's weapon because there isn't a slide to rack, and lets face it women are not smart enough to figure out a slide.

Please re-read my comments and see if you can actually understand my question. Everyone so far is off base with my question. Maybe I was unclear.


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

I'm going to venture into movie land here and ask why is _this_ a selling point? :numbchuck:


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

ponzer04:
The way I understand "Selling Point" is that some firearms are easier for the average person to field strip and maintain, and hence are more user friendly. I own a variety of guns and without going into the idiosyncrasies of each individual one, some are in fact easier to field strip and maintain than others. This applies mostly to semi auto's. Not everyone has the same aptitude or dexterity. My wife has no problem racking the slide on some of my guns but has difficulty on some of the others. Now, try to imagine her trying to hold back the slide with one hand while trying to remove the slide stop with the other while performing a routine field strip. A Glock is fairly easy, the slide only has to come back about 1/4 inch, and then pull down on the slide release, therefore there is less tension on the recoil spring, whereas on many semi autos the slide has to be pulled back much further, increasing tension on the recoil spring making it harder to hold in place, in addition you have to line up the slide stop with the notch in the slide, hold the slide in that position and then push the slide stop out. On the CZ's that I have you need a tool in order to push the slide stop out as it is held in place by a spring that locks into a notch on the slide stop, impossible to do with just your thumb. During re-assembly all you have to do on a Glock is push the slide assembly over the frame rails until it locks in place. You do not have to line up the barrel lug with the slide stop hole while holding the slide and re-aligning it, and then inserting the slide stop and in some cases scratching the frame in the process (Idiot Marks). 1911's don't have this problem as much because the spring tension can be relieved before the slide is removed, but I've seen many 1911's with (Idiot Marks). Of course no one is going to field strip a gun during a fire fight, that's not the point, if a firearm is not properly maintained it may fail you when you need it most. It just seems to me that a good "Selling Point" would be ease of maintenance, and as others have noted if it's somewhat difficult to field strip it might never be maintained.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

As a selling point,because there have been people coming in droves over the last few years buying firearms,and the manufacturers know most are completely new to firearms and a good portion probably have little mechanical aptitude.If a monkey can take it apart,they know they can also.

Glock must hate this,their ND rate is probably climbing by idiots clearing the chamber before dropping the mag.Run into one of those (and other than Glock) damn near monthly it seems.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*ponzer*;
If I'm in the field, and I have to clean my pistol, I would prefer that it came apart in the fewest, simplest moves, resulting in the largest, fewest parts with which to fiddle.
I don't want to have to spread out a cloth, to catch small falling parts, or on which to lay the parts out schematically to ease reassembly.
Then, when I'm done with the cleaning, I want it to go back together quickly and easily, without a fuss.
So a simple field-strip process would be a selling point to me, were I interested in buying a new pistol.
Which I'm not.

Does that help?


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

Holly said:


> I'm going to venture into movie land here and ask why is _this_ a selling point? :numbchuck:


Hehe that's funny.Fortunately it takes a lot of practice to pull that off fast,I'd love to know how many takes it took to get it.The concept is simple,but you have to be perfect in your execution or that front sight will take a chunk out of you when the slide hangs up because the lever didn't go just far enough.Something a lot don't think about is if you grabbed my Beretta that way it will still shoot off one round,and if you do strip the slide off that dust cover is just about perfect to poke or pop an eyeball with.

Desertman,I have a cure for the 1911 idiot scratch that cures it with no tools required for assembly.Some are just so freakin tight it's a matter of time for a slip or you're always trapping the plunger in the slot.Let me know if you want it.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

"Under what "Tactical situation" would a malfunction occur where I need to take my slide off of my gun and wipe the interior to get it back into action, and in this scenario how will having one (PX4 storm) step vs three save my life M&P shield?"

I forgot this part.While I don't really see it needed so much for a pistol,think M16 in the last 40 years of war.Water,dirt,sand,guns really don't like to function well with those inside it,so the quicker you can get it apart and cleaned the best and fastest you can is great.We've lost soldiers because they were ambushed while cleaning their arms.People out hiking slip and fall all the time and may gunk up their gun.If you're hiking and carrying a gun,it's because you aren't the top of the food chain in that setting.Would suck if a big bear or cat pops out because you have to fiddlefk around with it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Holly said:


> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the purpose of field stripping a gun WAS to clean it.


Not at all. While one is mandatory, the other is not. In order to properly clean a pistol, it must be field stripped, however field stripping does not necessitate cleaning.

Example. You might want to examine it or install a new or replacement part, or just become more familiar with your gun. So while we do tend to think of cleaning and field stripping as a married couple, this is most definitely not the case.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

ponzer04 said:


> Why is it a positive to so many people that a gun is "super" easy to field strip? AS STRICTLY A SELLING POINT ON THE FIREARM IN QUESTION. I don't get this. A firearm like the Beretta Storm series seems far too easy to take apart. I'm more of the mind that the mechanism involved with something like the S&W M&P is as simple as a fire arm should be to take apart.
> 
> I really don't get the importance on this simplicity. Simplicity in this area seems like a moot point to a negative feature of a firearm. Under what scenario is this of the utmost necessity?


Actually, you answer your own question.... It is just that *"a selling point"* and nothing more........ It is no different than a car salesman or for that matter all salesmen using "selling points" to get the sale.... Many gun dealers are no different.......


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

ponzer04 said:


> Everyone reading my posts so far has gone the wrong way with what I am asking.
> 
> Why is it a positive "SELLING POINT", and the main one so many people go to when promoting a specific firearm, that it is the _easiest_ to strip down?
> 
> ...


Based upon the fact that, as you stated, no one has as of yet addressed your question, I would say that its verbiage may be lacking in clarity. You might try posing it again in a different manner to see what develops. I believe I understood your question and did answer it in kind. However, I'll give it another try.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

ponzer04 said:


> Everyone reading my posts so far has gone the wrong way with what I am asking.
> 
> Why is it a positive "SELLING POINT", and the main one so many people go to when promoting a specific firearm, that it is the _easiest_ to strip down?
> 
> ...


Based upon the fact that, as you stated, no one has as of yet addressed your question, I would say that its verbiage may be lacking in clarity. You might try posing it again in a different context to see what develops.

Why is it a positive to so many people that a gun is "super" easy to field strip? AS STRICTLY A SELLING POINT ON THE FIREARM IN QUESTION. I don't get this."
*Manufacturers are in business to make a profit. Consequently, they must attract and keep as large an audience as possible to satisfy this venture. Gun companies are no different. If they come out with an "improved" design that makes their product(s) easier and simpler for the end user to strip down and maintain, they are going to increase their market share. From the consumers' standpoint, this is a win-win situation. Simplicity not only breeds easy of maintenance for them but a simpler gun with fewer parts has a better chance of being more reliable (yes, there are exceptions).*

"A firearm like the Beretta Storm series seems far too easy to take apart. I'm more of the mind that the mechanism involved with something like the S&W M&P is as simple as a fire arm should be to take apart."
*I am not at all familiar with the Storm so I cannot speak to that. I am familiar, though not intimately so, with their 92 series. In my opinion, the M&P is easy to field strip than the Beretta 92 series or its clone, the Taurus 92 series. To say that the M&P is as simple as a firearm should be to take down is tantamount to saying further R&D should not continue in this area. As I mentioned, I find the Glock design more simple than that of the M&P.
*

"I really don't get the importance on this simplicity. Simplicity in this area seems like a moot point to a negative feature of a firearm. Under what scenario is this of the utmost necessity?"
*I already addressed this above but suffice it to say that as long as there is a buying market, manufacturers are going to do their best to satisfy that market. In other words, the market is king as it should be with this or any other consumer product or service.*

If we define simplicity as having fewer parts, that is one definition. If we define it as an operational thing, that is another. Many times they go hand and hand and serve one another well. Operational simplicity of a firearm can mean the difference between a user getting that gun into use quickly and successfully to end a dangerous confrontation or winding up in an emergency room... or worse. Fewer parts can mean a more reliable firearm, easier cleaning and maintenance, and a better familiarity of the tool for the user.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

Cait43 said:


> Actually, you answer your own question.... It is just that *"a selling point"* and nothing more........ It is no different than a car salesman or for that matter all salesmen using "selling points" to get the sale.... Many gun dealers are no different.......


This person gets it.

Why are we being gun salesmen, then, and using this line? If I am at a store with a normal person and I am helping them pick a firearm this will not be a line I use because I believe they can figure them out. I would only point out stripping procedures if it is a harder gun to strip and would like to inform them of this issue.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

so then,

Should the ar-15 be improved on by adding a button on the side that pops the upper receiver straight off of the lower so that it is faster and more monkey friendly? or could this be too simple?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Rex:
"Desertman,I have a cure for the 1911 idiot scratch that cures it with no tools required for assembly"

Thanks! Fortunately, I haven't scratched mine, but I've seen quite a few that have "Idiot Marks", at least the dealer or seller can't pass them off as new guns. This can be avoided by placing a piece of plastic, such as an expired credit card cut to size against the frame to protect it while inserting the slide stop. Of course there are some people who don't care what their guns look like, I'm not one of them. I bought a used CZ 40 P and the side of the frame was so scratched up around the slide stop hole, I swear it must have been re-assembled by a blind person that was drunk. Other than that area, the gun was in great shape and hardly used. Because of this I got it for a good price and was able to strip and re-finish the frame with Duracoat, and it now looks like new. One thing I'll say about CZ's they are excellent guns and the original finish was not easy to remove. Yes, some of those slide stops are tight and you do have to fiddle with it. Which brings us back to the original argument of whether "Easy to Field Strip" is a good selling point.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

There was a time that I swore that I'd never own a Glock and whether they are better than any other guns is debatable, they all have their pluses and minuses, it's all personal preference, some people hate 'em others love 'em. But one things for certain they are extremely easy in my opinion to completely tear down, re-assemble and maintain than most other auto pistols. Making them highly desirable for those who aren't that mechanically inclined. Sure, there are many reports of people who have had accidental discharges (AD's) with them, maybe because there are so many of them in circulation. I have a Kahr MK 40 which is my all time favorite, it too is striker fired, and has no trigger safety, I have yet to hear of any AD's with them, guns can only go off when the trigger is pulled, or in some cases where the hammer is cocked and the gun is dropped. Today's modern striker fired pistols have firing pin safety blocks which prevent them from being discharged when dropped. At any rate, your finger should be no where near the trigger unless you intend to fire it. It is our responsibility as gun owners to fully understand how our firearms of choice operate and to properly maintain them.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Cait43 said:


> I guess a better question is, why would one want a weapon that was hard and or complicated to field strip..........
> 
> Personally, the easier the better............


I'll second that!:watching:


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

ponzer04:
"Should the ar-15 be improved on by adding a button on the side that pops the upper receiver straight off of the lower so that it is faster and more monkey friendly? or could this be too simple?"

I have a Bushmaster AR-15 carbine that has two "pop out" pins that allow you to do that, the Colt AR-15 that I bought in 1980 has a pin at the front of the lower receiver with a screw in it that has to be removed and the rear is a "pop out" type of pin.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

desertman said:


> Rex:
> "Desertman,I have a cure for the 1911 idiot scratch that cures it with no tools required for assembly"
> 
> Thanks! Fortunately, I haven't scratched mine, but I've seen quite a few that have "Idiot Marks", at least the dealer or seller can't pass them off as new guns. This can be avoided by placing a piece of plastic, such as an expired credit card cut to size against the frame to protect it while inserting the slide stop. Of course there are some people who don't care what their guns look like, I'm not one of them. I bought a used CZ 40 P and the side of the frame was so scratched up around the slide stop hole, I swear it must have been re-assembled by a blind person that was drunk. Other than that area, the gun was in great shape and hardly used. Because of this I got it for a good price and was able to strip and re-finish the frame with Duracoat, and it now looks like new. One thing I'll say about CZ's they are excellent guns and the original finish was not easy to remove. Yes, some of those slide stops are tight and you do have to fiddle with it. Which brings us back to the original argument of whether "Easy to Field Strip" is a good selling point.


I didn't even consider the relevance of your last sentence,good call.

I did post the fix in the 1911 forum because it's a very useful mod.I didn't put it the gunsmithing subforum because I figured a lot of new people don't necessarily go there and they could benefit from it most.Thread hijack over.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> ponzer04:
> "Should the ar-15 be improved on by adding a button on the side that pops the upper receiver straight off of the lower so that it is faster and more monkey friendly? or could this be too simple?"
> 
> *I have a Bushmaster AR-15 carbine that has two "pop out" pins that allow you to do that*, the Colt AR-15 that I bought in 1980 has a pin at the front of the lower receiver with a screw in it that has to be removed and the rear is a "pop out" type of pin.


I was going to mention that but the OP'er seemed as though he was getting a little irritated so I let it slide. All of my AR's do this.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

so you push one pin and the upper falls off of the lower? and if you were standing there shooting and your buddy slapped your rifle on the button it would fall into two pieces?

I'm guessing not, so you didn't actually read what I said. and I don't see this feature on many rifles so I guess getting the process getting too simple isn't all that it is cracked up to be. Because at some point too simple is a bad thing. 


If your deciding factor in purchasing a firearm is that on has a 1STEP take-down and the other has a 3STEP, and you can't figure out the extra 2 steps. YOU SHOULDN'T OWN A GUN! I see most modern pistols as more or less horses of a different color and how the field strip is of the least importance over most all other features. The only time I would mention this step, to a friend I'm helping pick a gun, would be if it was a difficult firearm to take down. This easy to take down statement is used to much be us as a go to point that I don't think needs to be made. Maybe I give most people the benefit of thinking they can and would want to figure out most any gun they buy.

this statement when used to compare a Glock, XP, or M&P is a moot point for me, and I believe that if someone can figure one out the others will give them no problems.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

2 pins actually (on modern AR's)... but popping one pin (rear pin) will allow the upper receiver to rotate forward for quick access to the bolt carrier, barrel and lower receiver. Simplicity at it's finest.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

ponzer04 said:


> so you push one pin and the upper falls off of the lower? and if you were standing there shooting and your buddy slapped your rifle on the button it would fall into two pieces?
> 
> I'm guessing not, so you didn't actually read what I said. and I don't see this feature on many rifles so I guess getting the process getting too simple isn't all that it is cracked up to be. Because at some point too simple is a bad thing.
> 
> ...


Your stance on this is rather narrow and does not take into consideration several very important factors.

Last year around this time, I helped a neighbor friend purchase his first semi-auto handgun. I showed him a number of mine, let him handle them, and even shoot them at a range. He narrowed down his decision to a gen4 G17 Glock. The ease of takedown was very important in his decision because he has larger hands but rather weak thumbs; not arthritis but some other medical anomaly there. One thumb had to have surgery several years ago and consequently, he has some trouble with the fine use of these digits.

The other reason is, in my opinion, the most important of all and I don't think has been mentioned so far in this thread. The purchase of a firearm is the purchase of a piece of private property. As such, it is a personal choice for a variety of reasons and no different from the purchase of any item, including cars, furniture, coffee makers, or PC's. It is private property! Where in the hell does anyone get the right or authority to make such outlandish statements that one shouldn't own a firearm if they can't figure out this or that. They'll learn or they most likely won't buy it in the first place. And if they do buy it and have problems with its takedown, they'll most likely get some training or wind up selling it.

Private property, personal decision. No one tells me what I can and can't do about these matters and I would bet the same holds true for most other people. I've been around firearms, bought them, used them, sold or traded them, for close to 46 years so I think I know a few things about what I'm doing in all of this. Granted I do make mistakes on occasion such as snap decisions, got bit by one of these very recently, but those are my decisions to take and I move on. I have guns which are simple to take down and a few which are more involved. The ease of field stripping a firearm is an important one but not at the top of my list of criteria when considering a purchase. I believe I can figure things out on my own as I tend to be mechanically inclined and logical in mind. I tend to view ease of takedown as a "benny" or icing on the cake, if you will.

This is a somewhat nonsensical thread in that it has turned divisive rather than remaining objective and helpful. Almost like a fishing expedition for argumentative rhetoric. Once again, how someone views the ease of field stripping a firearm is totally and completely their business.... no one else's. If someone comes here for questions or opinions about this or that, then that is another matter but what they own, what they want to own, is completely up to them. Respecting this is a core part of being an American.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Southern Boy:
"Where in the hell does anyone get the right or authority to make such outlandish statements that one shouldn't own a firearm if they can't figure out this or that."

Great Points and post! Just because someone is not mechanically inclined does not make them stupid, I know plenty of people, in all the years that I have been involved in auto restoration, that purchase old cars, either restored or in need of restoration that can't tell the difference between a spark plug and a carburetor, yet they are doctors, lawyers, dentists, computer programmers, some are even carpenters, plumbers and electricians. A good friend of mine who is an excellent mechanic, is just now getting interested in guns, he along with his wife just obtained their concealed carry permits here in Arizona, which by the way is not required. I feel honored that he comes to me with any firearms related questions, and for a person new to the firearms hobby I can understand where it can be somewhat confusing as to all the different types and calibers of guns, and how each one operates. Granted, it's not that complicated to field strip any of the semi auto's if an individual follows the instructions in the owners manual, and I don't believe that any special skills are required, but the fact is that some guns are easier to field strip and completely dis-assemble than others making them a better choice for those who basically want a gun for self protection, and other than operating it in safe manner, have no desire to get involved in the technical aspects of the vast assortment of firearms that are available. As for my friend, he now has a new hobby that he enjoys, plans on buying additional firearms, and the "Pro Gun" side just got two new members, him and his wife.


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

I think the point in this was lost and we should all stop commenting to keep the peace. :smt109


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

My last comment on this thread:

I think the sentence- this or that modern pistol is easier to field strip- should not be an opening point, unless someone specifically says they have an impairment and can't physically operate a particular firearm.

That's really all I was trying to say.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Deleted due to duplication.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Holly said:


> *I think the point in this was lost* and we should all stop commenting to keep the peace. :smt109


I think you're right with this part. As far as the commenting, etc., that is what threads on websites are for. But I certainly do agree with your underlying point that getting off track or losing a sense of civility helps no one. I can assure all of the posters here that I hold no animosity or ill will towards any of the contributors on this thread. I do find it curious how it progressed but that happens at times.

There is no doubt in my mind that everyone of the people who posted a response here are good and decent folks who love nothing more than learning from each other's experiences and thoughts. At least that is my approach to these forums.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Deleted due to duplication.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Southern Boy:
"There is no doubt in my mind that everyone of the people who posted a response here are good and decent folks who love nothing more than learning from each other's experiences and thoughts. At least that is my approach to these forums."

You've certainly lived up to those standards. Your comments regarding "private property and personal decisions" are right on, there was no need to apologize. What started as a discussion on the "Selling Points" of certain firearms regarding ease of use, turned into a discussion of unlikely scenarios of field stripping a firearm during a firefight and a rifle being slapped and then falling apart because of it's simplicity. With such a wide variety of firearms available today there is probably a firearm that will suit any particular individuals needs, and only they can decide what best suits them based on their individual capabilities. This is true for all types of products. Gun makers and advertisers have every right to boast about their products in the spirit of competition, and we as consumers are better served by it. When I bought my truck back in 2001 it had the most torque, towing capacity, payload etc. and now the newer trucks on the market run circles around it, all due to competition. But overall I still prefer my antique cars due to their simplicity and if I have a problem, I will be able to fix it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Southern Boy:
> "There is no doubt in my mind that everyone of the people who posted a response here are good and decent folks who love nothing more than learning from each other's experiences and thoughts. At least that is my approach to these forums."
> 
> You've certainly lived up to those standards. Your comments regarding "private property and personal decisions" are right on, there was no need to apologize. What started as a discussion on the "Selling Points" of certain firearms regarding ease of use, turned into a discussion of unlikely scenarios of field stripping a firearm during a firefight and a rifle being slapped and then falling apart because of it's simplicity. With such a wide variety of firearms available today there is probably a firearm that will suit any particular individuals needs, and only they can decide what best suits them based on their individual capabilities. This is true for all types of products. Gun makers and advertisers have every right to boast about their products in the spirit of competition, and we as consumers are better served by it. When I bought my truck back in 2001 it had the most torque, towing capacity, payload etc. and now the newer trucks on the market run circles around it, all due to competition. But overall I still prefer my antique cars due to their simplicity and if I have a problem, I will be able to fix it.


Thank you. As for cars, once a gearhead, always a gearhead. I grew up in the 60's during the supercar era and I was the original owner of a real, honest to God American supercar (NOTE: they were NEVER called muscle cars back then... that came much later). I lived at the area drag strips and still love the quarter mile. It was really fun back then. Today we do have some fantastic machines out there that will turn ET's out of the box in the 11's. I love it.


----------



## Donn (Jul 26, 2013)

MHO? While there are examples that predate his work, you can thank Mr. Kalashnikov for the attention being paid to ease of maintenance. The AK-47 was meant to be easy for a young Russian peasant draftee to deal with. Could be wrong, but that's where I think it started.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Southern Boy:
Yes, guns and cars certainly go together, especially when you love mechanics and machinery, I started out building a street rod a '40 Chevy Coupe with a 350/370, solid lifters, 780 double pumper on a high rise aluminum manifold, 4 speed Muncie and a 456 rear. Then went on to restore cars as original, not nearly as fast but I wanted to preserve history, still wish I had the Chevy, but I still have two others to bomb around in, that I've had for 36 years.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Southern Boy:
> Yes, guns and cars certainly go together, especially when you love mechanics and machinery, I started out building a street rod a '40 Chevy Coupe with a 350/370, solid lifters, 780 double pumper on a high rise aluminum manifold, 4 speed Muncie and a 456 rear. Then went on to restore cars as original, not nearly as fast but I wanted to preserve history, still wish I had the Chevy, but I still have two others to bomb around in, that I've had for 36 years.


The small block Chevy, and Ford, are superb engines. Ford copied the Chevy design when they introduced their 221 CID small block in 1962. That engine soon grew into the 260 (a 255 came first), the 289, the 302, and their 351. Chevy's small block is, of course, legendary and has been available in so many configurations all the way up to what we have today with the 427 Z06, which is a small block.

I loved the big block engines based upon the 396/427 engine. That supercar I mentioned was a 1966 Chevelle SS396 with the L34 360HP engine. I really wanted the L78 375 solid lifter engine (which was a real brute), but my parents wouldn't sign for the loan for that one. I still have the original order form copy given to the customer for that car. With the close ratio M21 Muncie, 3.73's, and a set of decent tires with a good tune (carburetor and distributor tricks), the car would run 13.3's. Later with a few mods, it was in the 12's.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Southern Boy:
My friend had a 66 Chevelle L78, two fours on a tunnel ram with I believe a 513 rear and a line lock. He was in the 10's but the rears never held out. My early Ford Flathead V8 is probably in the 60's a real neck snapper, favored by moonshiners, and considered quick for it's day, Clyde Barrow would attest to that. A good "Selling Point". I sure wish I had his gun collection, especially his M1918 BAR.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

It is funny that a simple question can start a s***storm of comments.......


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Southern Boy:
> My friend had a 66 Chevelle L78, two fours on a tunnel ram with I believe a 513 rear and a line lock. He was in the 10's but the rears never held out. My early Ford Flathead V8 is probably in the 60's a real neck snapper, favored by moonshiners, and considered quick for it's day, Clyde Barrow would attest to that. A good "Selling Point". I sure wish I had his gun collection, especially his M1918 BAR.


I don't think Ford produced any flathead V8's beyond the early 50's. (I just checked as saw that '53 was it's last year). A flathead is no match for an OHV engine, but in their day they were the bomb. I knew of one guy running around in my area that had an L78 in his Chevelle. That engine first appeared in the 65 1/2 396 Corvette as a 425HP engine. GM had an edict that no mid-size car could produce more than 350HP or have over 400 CID displacement. Of course Oldsmobile and Buick abused that. And Chevrolet just underated the L78 to 375HP. Granted it did lose a little bit of power because of the exhaust manifold change from the 'Vette to the Chevelle, but it was still putting out well over 400HP at the clutch.

We should get back on topic.

I have a friend, who has since moved to another part of the state, who has three BAR's. I haven't a clue how he came across them.

As for the thread topic at hand, I believe I had mentioned that the Glock design favors easier cleaning that do some other designs; specifically I had the M&P and XD in mind. What I mean by this statement is that there are less nooks and crannies in the Glock to hold residue than there are in the M&P and the XD. Also, it seems that less powder residue makes it into the magazine... the follower to be more precise. The M&P seems to really get the follower dirty after as few as 100 rounds. Also its feed ramp as well. I suspect that this may be due to the recoil spring being a little lighter on the M&P than the Glock (thinking 9mm here) which would allow the slide to begin to retract sooner. This could allow more of the burnt powder residue to exit the breech and thereby get into the gun's internal parts. In any case, the Glock is a simpler design and much easier to detail strip for serious cleaning.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Southern Boy
There's no question about Glocks being easier to clean and dis-assemble, removing the cover plate on the slide to gain access to the firing pin tunnel and remove the extractor and firing pin is easier, than my Kahr MK 40 and Kimber Solo Carry. This is absolutely necessary because a lot of crud can build up in that tunnel over time. The problem with Glock magazines is the removal of the floor plate, you have to push in the button on the bottom while squeezing both sides of the magazine to clear the little tabs at the bottom which fit into notches in the floor plate. I have two thin machinists rulers that I slide between the two, I don't know why Glock designed their magazines that way? I also have a Sig P229 and the slide release has to be rotated down in order to remove the slide, this lever is tight even more so when the gun is dirty, I removed it and polished it but it is still very tight, and I certainly don't want to remove any metal. My neighbor has a Walther P5 that was given to him and there was no instruction manuel, it's a real nice gun but the magazine catch is at the bottom, and it's very awkward to remove the magazine you wouldn't win any speed loading contest with it, and God forbid you were in a firefight, I think the East German police use them but I'm not sure, and maybe they switched to CZ's. As to BAR's I believe that you can get a semi auto version from Ohio Ordinance, but they are very expensive around $5000 they also make semi auto versions of Browning machine guns , I'm not sure which models, and the M60. Full auto versions are legal here in Arizona if they are registered with the federal government and you pay the tax stamp. Just recently they had a machine gun shoot in Wikieup where people could rent and shoot them or if you had one legally, bring your own. You gotta love Arizona! One of the last bastions of freedom!


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Southern Boy
> There's no question about Glocks being easier to clean and dis-assemble, removing the cover plate on the slide to gain access to the firing pin tunnel and remove the extractor and firing pin is easier, than my Kahr MK 40 and Kimber Solo Carry. This is absolutely necessary because a lot of crud can build up in that tunnel over time. The problem with Glock magazines is the removal of the floor plate, you have to push in the button on the bottom while squeezing both sides of the magazine to clear the little tabs at the bottom which fit into notches in the floor plate. I have two thin machinists rulers that I slide between the two, I don't know why Glock designed their magazines that way?


I used to squeeze the sides of the Glock mags to take them apart but gave up on that. I now just insert a small screwdriver or my Glock tool and use it as a lever to remove the floor plate. Works fine.

I hit the range this morning (NRA headquarters range) for my usual bi-weekly drills. My cohort, a neighbor friend, couldn't make it so I went by myself. I took a new gun that I haven't yet fired... just picked it up last week. A gen4 Glock 17. I have already made my normal mods to it and wanted to compare it to my M&P 9 Pro Series that I usually take. The Glock did well but the M&P did better, probably because I have over 4000 rounds through it. Towards the end of my time, the Glock was doing markedly better; meaning I was doing markedly better with the Glock. Still not up to that M&P but I expect it will be in another few trips.

The M&P had one failure to feed, the Glock had no failures at all. I want to transition to that G17 since my primary carry is one of my gen3 G23's... which I shoot well. But I have to say, that M&P 9 Pro is very accurate.


----------

