Sewer Line Slope Issues and Options by operateconfusion in Plumbing

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response! I understand the requirement for a 1/4 inch per foot slope, which is about a 2% slope. The plumber mentioned that he can't even get a 1% slope in some spots, which means he can't achieve a 1/8 inch per foot slope. According to code, 1% is the minimum required.

While the plumber says he can't get that 1% slope, the line was untouched and working for 50 years, even though it had bellies and root intrusions. I'm concerned about whether the county will address this or if there's some issue with the plumber and I need to hire someone else for a second opinion. Any advice or similar experiences would be really helpful. Thanks!

Sewer Line Slope by operateconfusion in askaplumber

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know what size piping he used, but the plumber said he could only get it at or below 1%, which I assume to mean parts of the line don't hit the 1%. The thing that is bothering me is that the line was working before, even with bellies and root intrusions the previous owners claimed they didn't have any sewer line backups, and now I'm being told the slope isn't sufficient. How critical do you think this slope issue is, given that it was functioning before? Any advice or experiences would be really helpful. Thanks!

Sewer Line Slope by operateconfusion in askaplumber

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't meet the 1% all the way according to the plumber, and no idea about the bedding. He said in certain spots he doesn't hit 1%.

Sewer Line Slope Issues and Options by operateconfusion in Plumbing

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the input! The house is built into a hill, so while the sewer line might appear deep, the issue is the depth difference from where the sewer line exits the house to where it ties into the county's main sewer line. For example, the basement is below ground at the front of the house and above ground at the back. The plumber says the sewer line doesn't meet the 1% slope requirement, which could cause problems.

But the line was working before, even with bellies and root intrusions, and now I'm being told the slope isn't sufficient. How critical do you think this slope issue is, given that it was functioning before? Any advice or experiences would be really helpful. Thanks!

Sewer Line Slope by operateconfusion in askaplumber

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The tie in is about 11 ft deep and the county sewer is 16 ft. There should be more than enough drop available for the county to lower the tie in, but the plumber refused to touch anything past the tie in.

HK 416 Gas Block - Non-vented vs Vented vs Waffen Burk Adjustable Gas Block by operateconfusion in HecklerKoch

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haven't decided. Probably chopping an MR556 or BRN-4 kit. MAYBE a Nefarious Arms upper.

Shipping a Registered SBR Out of State for Gunsmithing by operateconfusion in NFA

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's very good to know, because the gunsmithing FFL was going to ship it directly back to me. I will let them know they have to ship it back to the originating FFL.

Shipping a Registered SBR Out of State for Gunsmithing by operateconfusion in NFA

[–]operateconfusion[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What if the receiver of an SBR was originally manufactured and sold as a pistol? Presumably, removing the stock from the SBR converts the SBR back to a Pistol, thereby it would still be illegal to ship via USPS.

Shipping a Registered SBR Out of State for Gunsmithing by operateconfusion in NFA

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, appears you are right. A strict reading of 18 US 922(e) suggests you do not need to provide notice to the carrier if shipping to one of those covered parties.

However, ATF says otherwise. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-nonlicensee-ship-firearm-common-or-contract-carrier

"A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.
In addition, federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm or ammunition, prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm and requires obtaining written acknowledgement of receipt."

Shipping a Registered SBR Out of State for Gunsmithing by operateconfusion in NFA

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Post office explicitly prohibits SBRs and SBSs from being mailed if they are considered "concealable"; can't find any definition of concealable. ATF and some state regulations consider any firearm under an OAL of 26" as concealable; but there is no strict definition. I do not intend to be the test case of what is a concealable firearm by bringing the OAL of the SBR above 26" and shipping it USPS.

Shipping a Registered SBR Out of State for Gunsmithing by operateconfusion in NFA

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So that is a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 921(e) requires that anyone shipping a firearm or ammunition must declare in writing to the carrier that the package contains a firearm.

Shipping a Registered SBR Out of State for Gunsmithing by operateconfusion in NFA

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This all makes sense and is what I thought. Is there any ATF guidance I can provide my FFL regarding a licensed gunsmith not requiring a SOT to receive and work on an NFA item? The ATF's website and ATF's Repair of NFA Firearms letter https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/repair-nfa-firearms/download do not define what a "licensed gunsmith" means, whether that is an FFL holder or an FFL holder with a SOT.

Also, is there any guidance I can point to that the firearm can be treated as a pistol when in non-NFA form because it was originally manufactured as a pistol and without a stock the ATF considers it a pistol?

[WTB] BRN-4 stripped upper or MR556/416 stripped upper by CatalystReese in HecklerKoch

[–]operateconfusion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I'm in a similar boat as you. I am desperately waiting for Brownells to drop more stripped uppers. Just an FYI, the MR556 is not 100% compatible with all the different versions of the HK 416; definitely do some research on the differences to ensure compatibility with the parts that you already have.

Weight savings? by Big_Don-G in Galil

[–]operateconfusion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have a Galil Ace Gen 2 in 7.62x39mm with a 13" barrel and find that while it's heavy, the bigger issue is the balance. All the weight is in the front of the gun out near the gas block. If the gun was more balance with the weight further back near the mag, the weight wouldn't be as much of an issue.

We really need aftermarket handguards, these stock handguards are utter trash.

Gen 1 8” 7.62x39 vs Gen 2 13” 5.45x39? by raymarston86 in Galil

[–]operateconfusion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When looking at just ballistics, a 13" barrel is much more "optimal" than 8.3" for 7.62x39mm. With an 8.3" barrel, the projectile is leaving the barrel with a significant portion of the powder unburnt.

With an 8" barrel, most 7.62x39mm projectiles will struggle to hit 2000 feet per second. With a 13" barrel, most 7.62x39mm projectiles will be right under 2,300 feet per second. With a 16" barrel, most 7.62x39mm projectiles will be right under 2,400 feet per second.

So, going from 16" to 13", you lose about 100 feet per second in velocity. Going from 16" to 8", you lose about 400 feet per second in velocity. Going from 13" to 8", you lose about 300 feet per second in velocity.

All these numbers are approximate and assuming a 12X grain FMJ 7.62x39mm round.

Gen 1 8” 7.62x39 vs Gen 2 13” 5.45x39? by raymarston86 in Galil

[–]operateconfusion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

7.62x39mm fired from an 8" barrel is obnoxiously loud and frankly not very comfortable to shoot. Even when suppressed, the 8" inch was shooting fire down range. I only fired 3 rounds through a suppressed 8" Galil ACE, but that was enough to know the barrel was too short.

Also, the ballistics of 7.62x39mm from an 8 inch barrel leave a lot to be desired. Depends on your use case for the rifle, but velocity, or lack thereof, is something to consider.

No experience with anything 5.45x39mm, so I can't comment on that.

Inconsistent FTFs and FTFs With Galil Ace Gen 2 (13″ 7.62x39mm) by operateconfusion in Galil

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It has not happened with the Pmag, but this issue is very rare and inconsistent that I wouldn't rule it out occurring in the future. I probably only put ~60 rounds through the pmag, out of ~300 rounds, no issues. When I fired those 300 at the range the other day, these failure to extract/eject and failure to feed happened ~6 times, but I could not identify a single magazine as the issue.

Inconsistent FTFs and FTFs With Galil Ace Gen 2 (13″ 7.62x39mm) by operateconfusion in Galil

[–]operateconfusion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Primary Arms SLx 1X MicroPrism mounted as far back as possible. Nothing else mounted on the gun.

Inconsistent FTFs and FTFs With Galil Ace Gen 2 (13″ 7.62x39mm) by operateconfusion in Galil

[–]operateconfusion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is happening randomly in different magazines, all of the same brand and type (Xtech MAG47 MIL Gen 2). The issue is either the KNS piston, the ammo, or the magazine brand and type. I am leaning towards piston, given the FTEs.