10X

*But you'll need one eventually. Mikey's point is correct, though. You can do that all, albeit slowly, on an inexpensive single stage press. The single stage press will likely still see use if you upgrade to a progressive, as you may find the volume of rifle ammo you load is low enough that it's not worth setting up a Dillon to do it, or you may choose to resize on the single stage press then move the brass over to the Dillon. Shop carefully for equipment and components, and the prices will only be slightly inflated. Avoid the urge to pay panic prices just to get started sooner. In the meantime, shoot factory ammo and save the brass--that's the first step in reloading, after all.

Model 70! Accept no substitutes.

Me, too, please!

It comes with one each small and large primer pickup tubes. But yes, you want the flip tray. The cheap plastic ones work fine.

Interesting. I guess it's each dealer's prerogative to decide how much aggravation they are willing to deal with, but being able to 'keep track of where your gun is exactly' should be something an FFL holder is pretty good at.

Dimly. I remember seeing Daisy VL guns and ammo for sale in the local Woolworth's Department Store (yes, it was another day, and another state...). Trounds I've only read about.

It's not the one you are describing, but I think the Daisy VL qualifies as an answer to your original question. Daisy produced both the rifle and the .22 caseless ammo for just two or three years in the late '60's.

Target. To paraphrase the late gunwriter Jack O'Connor, only accurate handguns are interesting. Everybody needs at least one tack driver in the safe...you'll learn more about shooting, you'll improve faster, and you may find you like competitive shooting!

I can't imagine tackling such a project without Jerry Kuhnhausen's Shop Manual. It's an incredible reference. http://www.brownells.com/books-videos/books/gunsmithing-books/handgun-gunsmithing-books/jerry-kuhnhausen-the-colt-45-automatic-prod13805.aspx

There was a good article in Smithsonian Air and Space within the last year, on the necessity of this technology for any extended manned space missions. NASA recognizes that to go to Mars or beyond, one can't possibly carry all of the spare parts that might conceivably be needed. Carrying a 3D printer, resin, and the CAD files needed to replicate any part for which the technology is appropriate makes a lot more sense.

My nephew's high school recently got a 3D printer to support their robotics/fabrication courses. The kids immediately went to work to see if they could use it to make another 3D printer... Disassemble, scan, reassemble, replicate! I don't think that panned out, but I give them credit for thinking of it.

I hate to see spent primers in dummy rounds. Maybe if you paint it, but otherwise you can't distinguish it from a dud, and you don't want to use a dud round for the purposes you describe.

Duplicate

I had asked about one at the local PD last year. I was told if I wanted one to use 3 permits at once, they'd get it back to me in 90 days. In other words, they'd make sure it didn't speed up the process for me.

I don't recall when this took effect, but it was a number of years ago. Also, if you use the safe for purposes that include storage of anything income-producing (I don't have the relevant language in front of me), you can deduct a prorated portion of the purchase price from your taxes, though I think it has to be amortized as 5-year property.

I know the M1 Garand should be fed a diet of M2 ball ammo or equivalent, and that modern, hotter 30-06 rounds can bend the operating rod. My question is, how quickly might that happen? I've got 140 rounds of modern Winchester 30-06 with 165gr bullets that I'd love to convert to empty cases, into which I can load Garand-optimized components (I've got data on replicating M2 ball ammo). Is it worth the risk, or should I sell or trade the new ammo? I could also pull the bullets and reload with appropriate powder, I suppose. I've no sense of whether the operating rod damage can happen quicklly, or if this is something that only shows up after firing thousands of rounds of modern ammo. Thanks.

I really like the Ruger 10/22T model, with a couple of Volquartsen drop-in mods added after the fact (at a minimum, the automatic bolt release). More money than the base model, but better accuracy, and it looks oh-so-cool. http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Target/models.html

This validates my lifelong habit of drinking the cheap stuff out, the good stuff at home!

Don't worry about your own lack of an engineering background. As we've already established, the engineers who have been working on this problem for years have yet to come up with a workable solution. A tool shed or even a toolbox is hardly required to defeat the locks that some manufacturers tried to introduce. Raz-O already pointed out that a punch will suffice. You think someone trying to disable the lock might have access to a nail? Because the knowledge of how to defeat locks passes quickly through the criminal community. You can open a master combination lock or pop a Kryptonite bike lock with a bic pen/cap. Nearly any car can be stolen in a matter of a minute. I lost a late model Acura from a parking lot in the time it took to pick up a take-out order that was waiting for me within sight of the car. It ended up in one of those 'rough parts of Newark' you reference, and I'm pretty sure the thief didn't have a tool shed, just a screwdriver. And you'll never fit a lock mechanism remotely approaching the complexity of a car ignition, kryptonite lock, or master padlock into a handgun frame. As for your claim that the mentally ill don't worry about or test for reliability...please. The perpetrators of Columbine, of Aurora, of Sandy Hook, of Virginia Tech planned meticulously and devoted a great deal of time to preparation. As you said yourself, think about the actual people we are talking about here. Here is what I consider the final test for whether or not the technology is workable: Will the police accept it for their duty weapons? They know that officers being shot with their own firearms is an ongoing risk, that they'd dearly like to reduce. But they are also extremely cognizant of what works and what doesn't, what is reliable and what isn't, what enhances safety, and what will get you killed. And they ALWAYS make sure there is a law enforcement excemption carved out from any proposed 'safe gun' acts. Because you can't have that crap on any firearm you must trust to function when you need it.

I'm not a member there, but Tenafly has Sunday night action pistol matches that are open to anyone. I finally made it to one this month, and I'll be back. The static steel match has fairly minimal equipment requirements, and you can shoot centerfire pistol/revolver, or rimfire pistol/revolver/rifle. They run other events in rotation. Info is on their website.

A branch came down in my yard, and I found myself in possession of a lower receiver. Now, I don't have the upper, nor do I intend to assemble the complete weapon...but this makes me nervous. Can I be locked up under the vague 'constructive intent' language of the NJ gun ban?

NJIT given $1.5MM by the NJ Legislature to work on smart gun technology: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/691450/posts NJIT estimated another $5MM needed to make the technology workable: http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/107.html US Department of Justice awarded $7MM in challenge grants for gunmakers to work on smart gun technology. The money ran out without a workable solution being developed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/smart-guns_n_2562091.html

I've often told my wife that on the day I retire, three conditions will be met. 1) The loaded U-haul will be parked in front of the office. 2) It will be pointed West 3) The engine will be left running I can't leave for awhile, but when I can, I and my accumulated wealth (such as it is) will be out of here in a matter of hours.

Gawd, I hate it when public officals write legislation based on something they saw in a work of fiction. The technology is essentially unworkable; adds tremendous complexity and cost to a firearm, reduces reliability to the point where I wouldn't trust it in a local bullseye league, let alone when my life was on the line, and despite the claim made in the link, it can't be retrofit to existing guns. Exact failure points vary with which potential implementation is being discussed, but include dirt/oil on hands, wearing gloves, variation in grip ergonomics under stress, forgot to wear the magic ID ring to bed, mechanical failure, software failure, dead battery, and probably a few others I'm not able to think of right now.

Don't say 'don't say it's a right of 2A'. It's not your place to arbitrarily exclude the strongest arguments from discussion. We've already got elected officals doing that.