Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
21 - 37 of 37 Posts

· Registered
Everything I can get my hands on!
Joined
·
451 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Bond Arms | Bond Arms Lever-Action Interesting. Very similar to this:

HERRING® MODEL 2024 - ADVANCED LEVER ACTION RIFLE (HLR-556-BK)
[/QUO
This IS interesting! 🤔
I never knew Bond made rifles, I only know them from their derringers. There seems to be an over riding theme with the lever actions. I hope this doesn't foretell another "assault "weapons ban! If this clown in the Whitehouse gets back in we probably are! Vote Conservative.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,835 Posts
I like the look of the Herring better. But I'm not familiar with Herring, and the price is off putting.

Bond Arms Lever Action on top, Herring Model 2024 on the bottom
Photograph White Air gun Black Trigger
 
  • Like
Reactions: lklawson

· Premium Member
Joined
·
25,811 Posts
I like the look of the Herring better. But I'm not familiar with Herring, and the price is off putting.

Bond Arms Lever Action on top, Herring Model 2024 on the bottom
View attachment 77489
All the crap mounted on the Bond Arms makes it less visually appealing, but I don't like the loop on the Herring. As far as price goes, they're new so you know they'll be a little too proud of them. I would prefer to buy the lower and build an upper for it.

Then again, I would be just as happy with a traditional lever gun or an ultra-light 16" build with an adjustable stock and 20rd mags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrumpyOlMan

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,818 Posts
I like the look of the Herring better. But I'm not familiar with Herring, and the price is off putting.

Bond Arms Lever Action on top, Herring Model 2024 on the bottom
View attachment 77489
The Herring is made by Fightlite, formerly Ares, of belt fed AR-15 upper fame and their SCR ARish lower that takes 1100 stocks for ban states, a roundabout apology to the New Yorkers who put down deposits on their belt fed uppers, then when it was released Ares refused to ship the uppers to New York and kept the deposits. Decent engineers, better than normal firearm company businessmen but not folks you'd want your daughter to seriously date.

Bond Arms is WAY out of their usual market on this one. They solved some unusual engineering challenges when they bought Boberg, but I certainly didn't expect this from them. I think both of those guns would look more interesting w/ a wood forend and a wood straight-wristed stock, w/ levers to match.
 

· Premium Member
Everything
Joined
·
3,449 Posts
I don't like that mesh of old west and tacticool at all. I think more power to em for coming up with something unique but that's about it. Just doesn't do much for me personally as far as aesthetics nor practicality.

That bond arms lever action just looks silly with that big ol full length rail with a lil red dot on top. But I certainly would not knock anyone for buying/liking it, and if I knew someone who did, I'd want to play with it at least once.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,818 Posts
I don't like that mesh of old west and tacticool at all. I think more power to em for coming up with something unique but that's about it. Just doesn't do much for me personally as far as aesthetics nor practicality.

That bond arms lever action just looks silly with that big ol full length rail with a lil red dot on top. But I certainly would not knock anyone for buying/liking it, and if I knew someone who did, I'd want to play with it at least once.
We'll see more silliness like that until the Supremes strike down all the state AWBs. We'll continue w/ 16" bbls on HiPoint carbines til the NFA is struck down. We won't have easily attachable stocks for the HiPoint pistols til then.
 

· Premium Member
JHP
Joined
·
9,501 Posts
I've always liked the idea of detachable stocks on handguns - Browning Hipowers, Lugers, Broomhandles - even pneumatic air pistols like the Crosman 1377 and 1322's.

Rerun
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
37,174 Posts
The idea is cool. The actual gun, not so much.

There’s a reason NONE of those old stocked handguns stayed in production for long once the military they were made for realized they were silly.

It’s an idea that fits in parallel with why MILLIONS of AR pistol braces have been sold, and why guns like the CZ Skorpion and HK MP and UMP series continue to be sold.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,818 Posts
The idea is cool. The actual gun, not so much.

There’s a reason NONE of those old stocked handguns stayed in production for long once the military they were made for realized they were silly.

It’s an idea that fits in parallel with why MILLIONS of AR pistol braces have been sold, and why guns like the CZ Skorpion and HK MP and UMP series continue to be sold.
1896-1937, not long at all...

The 1934 NFA killed or delayed the development of many firearms, stocked handguns among them.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
37,174 Posts
1896-1937, not long at all...

The 1934 NFA killed or delayed the development of many firearms, stocked handguns among them.
You mean the C96? Nope. No individual military ever liked it for long. Even the German military rejected it after only a few years of use during WW1. Pretty sure no military ever ordered a second helping, outside the Chinese. Most sales were in third world countries. The shoulder stock wasn’t even available until 1898, and how many C96’s do you think were made without a slot?
Nah….it’s cool on paper, but it’s not that useful in the real world. In action, you either use it as a pistol, or you have time to grab a real rifle…or you wish you had an actual rifle.

Unless you were chasing off African tribesmen, like the ones that watched WDM Bell, who, after he shot a spear in half, casually mounted up the stock and then chased them off by shooting at the ground around them for a few hundred yards. Again….nice in a third world country.

As for the NFA…..not sure that the effect of killing off pistols that could take a separate stock was a bad thing. Notice that the guys that COULD have ANYTHING they wanted built for them, all went for a real handgun only pistol, or a real carbine or a sub gun, some of which had folding or collapsing stocks, but none of which was a one handed gun with a separate stock.

Except the Canadians. But….they were Canadians, so, do they really count? But seriously, the fact is they had a functioning factory, the inventor made it to Britain, the Chinese ordered a PILE….again, the Chinese, but then they couldn’t be delivered so the Canadians took them instead. war time production was a beast, so they just keep making them. Not because they were better, but because they COULD keep making them….but not all with stocks. Then they sold another pile to the Chinese. After the war, though….they stopped making the shoulder stock model. Which is, again, my point.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,818 Posts
You mean the C96? Nope. No individual military ever liked it for long. Even the German military rejected it after only a few years of use during WW1. Pretty sure no military ever ordered a second helping, outside the Chinese. Most sales were in third world countries. The shoulder stock wasn’t even available until 1898, and how many C96’s do you think were made without a slot?
Nah….it’s cool on paper, but it’s not that useful in the real world. In action, you either use it as a pistol, or you have time to grab a real rifle…or you wish you had an actual rifle.

Unless you were chasing off African tribesmen, like the ones that watched WDM Bell, who, after he shot a spear in half, casually mounted up the stock and then chased them off by shooting at the ground around them for a few hundred yards. Again….nice in a third world country.

As for the NFA…..not sure that the effect of killing off pistols that could take a separate stock was a bad thing. Notice that the guys that COULD have ANYTHING they wanted built for them, all went for a real handgun only pistol, or a real carbine or a sub gun, some of which had folding or collapsing stocks, but none of which was a one handed gun with a separate stock.

Except the Canadians. But….they were Canadians, so, do they really count? But seriously, the fact is they had a functioning factory, the inventor made it to Britain, the Chinese ordered a PILE….again, the Chinese, but then they couldn’t be delivered so the Canadians took them instead. war time production was a beast, so they just keep making them. Not because they were better, but because they COULD keep making them….but not all with stocks. Then they sold another pile to the Chinese. After the war, though….they stopped making the shoulder stock model. Which is, again, my point.
The German military used the C96 into the 2nd WW, the Luftwaffe ordered more after the war broke out & was filled from Mauser's stock. The Chinese took every stocked pistol they could get, and even manufactured em in .45 ACP. The USSR bought a bunch from Mauser after the civil war. It's a pretty impressive list on Wiki.

Prior to pistol braces, the first pistol chassis were showing up on the market, w/ a small note that all NFA Rules Apply - basically a felony in a box. Braces changed that, and the braced pistol chassis have been quite popular. The HK P7 is basically a full-auto pistol w/ a stock & an optic - how much further along would we be w/o the NFA trying to incriminate you?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
37,174 Posts
Pick one or t'other.
I did. I said “effect”….the EFFECT of the infringement wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. That doesn’t mean I picked the infringement as a good thing.😉


The German military used the C96 into the 2nd WW, the Luftwaffe ordered more after the war broke out & was filled from Mauser's stock. The Chinese took every stocked pistol they could get, and even manufactured em in .45 ACP. The USSR bought a bunch from Mauser after the civil war. It's a pretty impressive list on Wiki.

Prior to pistol braces, the first pistol chassis were showing up on the market, w/ a small note that all NFA Rules Apply - basically a felony in a box. Braces changed that, and the braced pistol chassis have been quite popular. The HK P7 is basically a full-auto pistol w/ a stock & an optic - how much further along would we be w/o the NFA trying to incriminate you?
So….none of your post says I’m wrong. Of course the Germans “used” guns they had in stock. Doesn’t mean they weren’t glad they were gone once they were gone. Did they order more? No.
Of course the Chinese did….and yes they even built their own pirated copies…but they were also still carrying swords and spears. Not saying much. Nor is the USSR purchase. I DID say lots of folks in the third world bought them. Once.

The AR? See, my POINT was…they aren’t really a handgun. They OBVIOUSLY need a stock to work well. And the brace makes sense because they ARENT a handgun. It makes no sense on an actual handgun, especially when there are SO many better options for a short small easily controlled shoulderable weapon.

Again….if it’s so good, why is no one making them for the military or LEO’s? As I’m pointing out…because they’re pointless, the military found that they aren’t as useful as they sound, and they aren’t as good as the other similar options available, either inside or outside the NFA. You are 100% better off with an actual rifle carbine, or a pistol and a carbine, that doesn’t require you to call a time out to loosen your belt and mount the stock on the gun, and doesn’t limit you to 9 mm when you do so.

Just my opinion of course. Shared by every modern military on the planet.
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top