The Firearm Topic

[maverick246135]

So its been 3 days since we got No Permit CCW in AZ and the streets haven't run red with blood yet. I'll keep you guys posted. Here's some gun porn

I know the picture is a little crappy but whatever. Left is H&K P2000 SK Right is Glock 19.

[Mike Tequeli]

Well at least there is some good legislation coming out of Arizona then. Opponents have to overstate the consequences because at this point most states have some form of CCW with no correlation to crime.

[JakeTheHuman]

I've only got stock pics....

 

Own list

 

1. Yugo SKS with synthetic stock, 30 Rd. Banana magazine, with original wooden gas block and bayonet.

 

2.RANGER Model 101.16, NSNV, .22 semi automatic rifle, 24"" barrel, tube magazine, smooth hardwood stock.

 

3.Winchester model 1200 pump-action with wooden stock.

 

Used to Own list

 

1.Some type of .38 special, I never got a good look at at because my father traded it along with $200 for a boat a few years back

 

WANT LIST!!!!

 

1. Colt M1911 .45 ACP ORIGINAL U.S.ARMY EDITION!!!

 

2. AR57 (f*cking amazing)

 

3. Walther P22 pistol (Wanted one ever since owned air soft version of gun)

 

4.Kel-tec RFB (wanted one since I had seen shooting illustrated do an article on it)

I actually used the above image on my 15th birthday cake on July 28th of this year

 

5. Ruger 10/22 Archangel kit

 

I don't know how much hate I'll get for this but I will NEVER want any gun that comes in 9mm. I think the Beretta M92FS should NOT have replaced the Colt M1911 and anytime I hear someone mention the 9mm I practically puke myself....

[Shylock]

You can't compare .45 vs 9mm. It's apples and oranges. Through an extensive study and comprehensive comparison it was determined that a 9mm cartridge would serve the military just as well as a .45 cal cartridge. Bigger doesn't always mean better.

 

If that was the case...everyone in the military would be walking around with a Desert Eagle and a .50 Browning MG.

[MetaPhysics]

 

3. Walther P22 pistol (Wanted one ever since owned air soft version of gun)

 

I also yearned to own this after seeing it while I was in Cuba. One of my favourites indeed.

[JakeTheHuman]

You can't compare .45 vs 9mm. It's apples and oranges. Through an extensive study and comprehensive comparison it was determined that a 9mm cartridge would serve the military just as well as a .45 cal cartridge. Bigger doesn't always mean better.

 

If that was the case...everyone in the military would be walking around with a Desert Eagle and a .50 Browning MG.

I'm not talking about size, if I was I would be comparing the 5.56 (.223 Remington) To the 7.62 (.308 Winchester)

Size is a factor with the .45 vs 9mm argument, however the reason I favor....no, PREFER the .45 over the 9mm is because the 9mm hits someone, sails through, and leave a nice little entrance/exit wounds. The .45 however, leaves a small entrance wound, but blows their guts out through the exit wound. Another thing is accuracy, sure the 9mm is accurate about 90% of the time at 100 yds, but the .45 is accurate 30% of the time at 100 yds, but who is going to be using a pistol at 100 yds? The pistol is usually an Oh sh*t weapon for close range. Magazine capacity is another factor, sure the max magazine capacity without getting ridiculous in size is about 8-12 rounds for a .45, and for a 9mm is 15-20 rounds, HOWEVER out of those 8-12 rounds in a .45, you get 8-12 kills/horrible wounds. With the 15-20 rounds of the 9mm you will get 5-10 kills and 10 livable wounds and they can still shoot back. Out of the many soldiers/marines I have spoken to ALL would prefer the M1911 over the Beretta any time of day. Several years ago, the Illinois State Police got in a shootout with a barricaded suspect. They hit him FORTY ONE TIMES with their 9mms. He bled to death en-route to the hospital. He was returning fire until he passed out from blood loss....Who else wants to stick to their .45s?

 

[JakeTheHuman]

 

3. Walther P22 pistol (Wanted one ever since owned air soft version of gun)

 

I also yearned to own this after seeing it while I was in Cuba. One of my favourites indeed.

Yea, its a very nice plinking gun, and with subsonic .22 and using one of the wide verity or suppressors available for it its quite, perfect for shooting in a place with annoying neighbors. The only thing I don't get though, is everything is fully ambidextrous, except for the safety...I guess lefties rolled the dice when they became lefties....

 

Edited August 6, 2010 by Z0MBIEStheyN0MBIES

[kevin2006rhs]

You can't compare .45 vs 9mm.  It's apples and oranges.  Through an extensive study and comprehensive comparison it was determined that a 9mm cartridge would serve the military just as well as a .45 cal cartridge.  Bigger doesn't always mean better.

 

If that was the case...everyone in the military would be walking around with a Desert Eagle and a .50 Browning MG.

I'm not talking about size, if I was I would be comparing the 5.56 (.223 Remington) To the 7.62 (.308 Winchester)

Size is a factor with the .45 vs 9mm argument, however the reason I favor....no, PREFER the .45 over the 9mm is because the 9mm hits someone, sails through, and leave a nice little entrance/exit wounds. The .45 however, leaves a small entrance wound, but blows their guts out through the exit wound. Another thing is accuracy, sure the 9mm is accurate about 90% of the time at 100 yds, but the .45 is accurate 30% of the time at 100 yds, but who is going to be using a pistol at 100 yds? The pistol is usually an Oh sh*t weapon for close range. Magazine capacity is another factor, sure the max magazine capacity without getting ridiculous in size is about 8-12 rounds for a .45, and for a 9mm is 15-20 rounds, HOWEVER out of those 8-12 rounds in a .45, you get 8-12 kills/horrible wounds. With the 15-20 rounds of the 9mm you will get 5-10 kills and 10 livable wounds and they can still shoot back. Out of the many soldiers/marines I have spoken to ALL would prefer the M1911 over the Beretta any time of day. Several years ago, the Illinois State Police got in a shootout with a barricaded suspect. They hit him FORTY ONE TIMES with their 9mms. He bled to death en-route to the hospital. He was returning fire until he passed out from blood loss....Who else wants to stick to their .45s?

The 9mm vs. .45 issue pretty much boils down to who was the lowest bidder and what is the cheapest to maintain, shoot, and buy ammo for.

 

If you really want to argue the effectiveness of the actual weapon in combat usefulness, think about this: Why do the US special forces (Special Forces, Rangers, SEALS) use .45 over 9mm even though the 9mm is the standard?

 

Personally, I used a .45 when I was in the army. It was a Springfield Armory 1911. I wanted a Colt General's 1911 but some people higher up would not have liked that very much.

 

Looked exactly like this:

[JakeTheHuman]

 

You can't compare .45 vs 9mm.  It's apples and oranges.  Through an extensive study and comprehensive comparison it was determined that a 9mm cartridge would serve the military just as well as a .45 cal cartridge.  Bigger doesn't always mean better.

 

If that was the case...everyone in the military would be walking around with a Desert Eagle and a .50 Browning MG.

I'm not talking about size, if I was I would be comparing the 5.56 (.223 Remington) To the 7.62 (.308 Winchester)

Size is a factor with the .45 vs 9mm argument, however the reason I favor....no, PREFER the .45 over the 9mm is because the 9mm hits someone, sails through, and leave a nice little entrance/exit wounds. The .45 however, leaves a small entrance wound, but blows their guts out through the exit wound. Another thing is accuracy, sure the 9mm is accurate about 90% of the time at 100 yds, but the .45 is accurate 30% of the time at 100 yds, but who is going to be using a pistol at 100 yds? The pistol is usually an Oh sh*t weapon for close range. Magazine capacity is another factor, sure the max magazine capacity without getting ridiculous in size is about 8-12 rounds for a .45, and for a 9mm is 15-20 rounds, HOWEVER out of those 8-12 rounds in a .45, you get 8-12 kills/horrible wounds. With the 15-20 rounds of the 9mm you will get 5-10 kills and 10 livable wounds and they can still shoot back. Out of the many soldiers/marines I have spoken to ALL would prefer the M1911 over the Beretta any time of day. Several years ago, the Illinois State Police got in a shootout with a barricaded suspect. They hit him FORTY ONE TIMES with their 9mms. He bled to death en-route to the hospital. He was returning fire until he passed out from blood loss....Who else wants to stick to their .45s?

The 9mm vs. .45 issue pretty much boils down to who was the lowest bidder and what is the cheapest to maintain, shoot, and buy ammo for.

 

If you really want to argue the effectiveness of the actual weapon in combat usefulness, think about this: Why do the US special forces (Special Forces, Rangers, SEALS) use .45 over 9mm even though the 9mm is the standard?

 

Personally, I used a .45 when I was in the army. It was a Springfield Armory 1911. I wanted a Colt General's 1911 but some people higher up would not have liked that very much.

 

Looked exactly like this:

True, but I still wouldn't want a 9mm for plinking, that's what .22s are for. When I get my Military ID after I join the Marines, I am going to get a .45 for self defense, no Glocks though. I dislike the Glocks as well because the whole trigger mechanism is way more complicated than it need to be. Not to mention the whole thing wobbles when firing....

 

Also, you had a sexy gun....

[kevin2006rhs]

Yeah...I miss her. She was a tried and true weapon.

 

 

 

I would love to get a 1911 again but I want to get an FN FiveseveN first. Love the little f*cker. I almost had one paid off and ready to pick up but some financial issues circling around a death in the family and some other sh*t killed that plan.

[JakeTheHuman]

Yeah...I miss her. She was a tried and true weapon.

 

 

 

I would love to get a 1911 again but I want to get an FN FiveseveN first. Love the little f*cker. I almost had one paid off and ready to pick up but some financial issues circling around a death in the family and some other sh*t killed that plan.

Sorry to hear that man, but yea, that's why I would like the AR57. Shoots the 5.7 round through the p90 style magazine, and the cool thing is it ejects the spent shell casings through the existing magwell.

[Shylock]

Obviously the bigger the round the bigger the hole...that wasn't the point though. 92FS was determined to fit the militarys need for all aspects of gun performance/cost. Which is why it is now SI.

 

No one is arguing that the .45 doesn't kill better. Just that size doesn't matter as much as say, accuracy. When a soldier is close enough to be forced to use his sidearm, he is close enough for a headshot. I personally prefer my .40 but as with all guns, personal preference is a make or break factor for a firearm.

[kevin2006rhs]

Obviously the bigger the round the bigger the hole...that wasn't the point though. 92FS was determined to fit the militarys need for all aspects of gun performance/cost. Which is why it is now SI.

 

No one is arguing that the .45 doesn't kill better. Just that size doesn't matter as much as say, accuracy. When a soldier is close enough to be forced to use his sidearm, he is close enough for a headshot. I personally prefer my .40 but as with all guns, personal preference is a make or break factor for a firearm.

Its cheaper for the military to arm its forces with 9mm berettas rather than a 1911 .45 like it use to. Same reason it won't do the .40 round you just brought up. Hell, the only reason we still use the AR-15/M16/M4 rifle is because we are too proud of that American crap rifle (it has a sh*tty wartime performance record and does not handle the elements well...facts) and swapping over the whole of the military's armaments would cost too f*cking much. If money were not the case, we would have switched over to the H&K 416 by now.

[The-King]

Obviously the bigger the round the bigger the hole...that wasn't the point though.  92FS was determined to fit the militarys need for all aspects of gun performance/cost.  Which is why it is now SI. 

 

No one is arguing that the .45 doesn't kill better.  Just that size doesn't matter as much as say, accuracy.  When a soldier is close enough to be forced to use his sidearm, he is close enough for a headshot.  I personally prefer my .40 but as with all guns, personal preference is a make or break factor for a firearm.

Its cheaper for the military to arm its forces with 9mm berettas rather than a 1911 .45 like it use to. Same reason it won't do the .40 round you just brought up. Hell, the only reason we still use the AR-15/M16/M4 rifle is because we are too proud of that American crap rifle (it has a sh*tty wartime performance record and does not handle the elements well...facts) and swapping over the whole of the military's armaments would cost too f*cking much. If money were not the case, we would have switched over to the H&K 416 by now.

And of course at that, if our military were to start switching now it'd probably be a contest between the ACR, the 416 and maybe the SCAR, which if I remember right is already in use with some special forces units.

[illspirit]

 

So its been 3 days since we got No Permit CCW in AZ and the streets haven't run red with blood yet. I'll keep you guys posted.

Good thing I didn't listen to the Brady Bunch and schedule a rapids kayak trip to Arizona. I know they've got to disappointed that there's no blood to dance in.

 

 

because the 9mm hits someone, sails through, and leave a nice little entrance/exit wounds.

Obviously the .45 has more oomph, but with some of the fancy new JHP designs, over-penetration with 9mm isn't quite as bad as it used to be. Either way, shot placement is much more important than stopping power. Unless you hit the spine or the brain box, you might still have to wait for a determined attacker to bleed out. While this should happen exponentially faster with a bigger hole, even if you could shave it down from ten minutes to two, that 120 seconds will still feel like an eternity on a two-way range.

 

Given how fast Very Bad Things can continue to happen after soon-to-be fatal wounds from either caliber, many people (self included) pick capacity so they have more chances to return fire between reloads. Will you have a better chance per round with .45ACP? Sure. But if the first 8 rounds from say, a 1911 miss anything vital or it turns out your attacker is wearing a vest, I bet those 20 rounds of 9mm in an XDM wouldn't seem so silly during the adrenaline-dilated 2 seconds spent changing mags.

[kevin2006rhs]

Obviously the .45 has more oomph, but with some of the fancy new JHP designs, over-penetration with 9mm isn't quite as bad as it used to be. Either way, shot placement is much more important than stopping power. Unless you hit the spine or the brain box, you might still have to wait for a determined attacker to bleed out. While this should happen exponentially faster with a bigger hole, even if you could shave it down from ten minutes to two, that 120 seconds will still feel like an eternity on a two-way range.

 

Given how fast Very Bad Things can continue to happen after soon-to-be fatal wounds from either caliber, many people (self included) pick capacity so they have more chances to return fire between reloads. Will you have a better chance per round with .45ACP? Sure. But if the first 8 rounds from say, a 1911 miss anything vital or it turns out your attacker is wearing a vest, I bet those 20 rounds of 9mm in an XDM wouldn't seem so silly during the adrenaline-dilated 2 seconds spent changing mags.

Ok...you have slight point. But if I am in a situation where I am going up against someone wearing a vest, I am going to be better repaired than some Joe Bananas with a concealed carry because I will likely know I am going into said situation. In which case, my sidearm would still be a .45...but it would probably be something along the lines of H&K Mk. 23. or a Glock 21 for capacity. But again, that would just be a sidearm in a somewhat combat ready situation. I would have a rifle and it would be something along the lines of a high capacity, fast fire, super light sub-machine gun (call me crazy, but it would be a P90). Besides, at that point, I would not so much worry about the other guys wearing a vest and my low velocity, heavy rounded sidearm not going through vests.

 

My point is really, if I wanted a sidearm to carry on a daily basis, I would carry a 10mm, .40, or, and most preferably, the .45. If I get into a situation in the real world, the daily life world, something bad is going to happen at close range. I am going to hit my target within 3 shots or I am dead. And if, IF he is wearing a vest, I am not worried about putting 38 damn rounds into non-vitals. I am worried about being able to hit him anywhere, including the vest, and knocking him on his ass. When I am standing and he is recovering or wondering why there is a 4 inch exit wound on his calf, I will have time to reload and/or shoot him in the face.

 

 

My theory, size is better.

[JakeTheHuman]

When I am standing and he is recovering or wondering why there is a 4 inch exit wound on his calf, I will have time to reload and/or shoot him in the face.

 

 

My theory, size is better.

I laughed my ass off at that. I also agree with you on the P90, or the AR57, same round. The reason I like those style guns is because you have 50 rounds to dump into him, and you aren't spilling hot lead on yourself

[kevin2006rhs]

That is kinda funny now that I read it.

 

Anyways, on the subject of ar57 vs p90: I take the P90. When holding the P90, it is more of a centralized weapon in relation to my body. To add to that, the gun ends at the end of my hands when in the locked, cocked, and aiming position. When it comes to moving through halls and doorways or in and out of a vehicle, I would feel more comfertable with a weapon that didn't hang out another 10-16 inches past the ends of my hands. Its just more unnatural body width to have to cope with.

 

So its been decided. Minus a 30-06 or .308 hunting rifle for sniping/long range duty, my wartime weapons pack (aka. "The Oh Sh*t Kit"):

 

Primary Rifle: P90

Primary Pistol: FiveseveN

Backup/2nd: Colt Compact 1991

 

(backup/2nd is subject to change depending on situation. If zombies or any form of "undead" are involved, the 941 Jericho takes its place.)

Edited August 6, 2010 by kevin2006rhs

[JakeTheHuman]

That is kinda funny now that I read it.

 

Anyways, on the subject of ar57 vs p90: I take the P90. When holding the P90, it is more of a centralized weapon in relation to my body. To add to that, the gun ends at the end of my hands when in the locked, cocked, and aiming position. When it comes to moving through halls and doorways or in and out of a vehicle, I would feel more comfertable with a weapon that didn't hang out another 10-16 inches past the ends of my hands. Its just more unnatural body width to have to cope with.

 

So its been decided. Minus a 30-06 or .308 hunting rifle for sniping/long range duty, my wartime weapons pack (aka. "The Oh Sh*t Kit"):

 

Primary Rifle: P90

Primary Pistol: FiveseveN

Backup/2nd: Colt Compact 1991

 

(backup/2nd is subject to change depending on situation. If zombies or any form of "undead" are involved, the 941 Jericho takes its place.)

My apocalypse weapons, if I only had a primary, secondary, and a back up would be...

 

Primary: AK-47 (Most reliable rifle out there, can be left in the ocean, run over buy a tank, and still fire. Not to mention that beefy 7.62 round.)

Secondary: Colt M1911 (.45....nuff said..)

Back-up:Walther P22 (shoots the .22 LR which will be abundant anywhere, and if shot in the head, it will ricochet off the back inside of the skull and do as much damage as a .45)

 

With all that being said, the only reason my Oh sh*t weapons list doesn't agree with yours is the ammo....the .45 ACP will be easy to get a hold of, but how abundant is the 5.7x28? The gun shop me and my father travel to (Can't wait to go Saturday after I get my learners) doesn't even carry the 5.7x28. I found out by asking about the AR57 and they said they don't carry that weapon nor those rounds.

[kevin2006rhs]

1. Primary: AK-47 (Most reliable rifle out there, can be left in the ocean, run over buy a tank, and still fire. Not to mention that beefy 7.62 round.)

 

 

2. With all that being said, the only reason my Oh sh*t weapons list doesn't agree with yours is the ammo....

AKs can be the sh*ttiest gun in the world too. Sure it is reliable. But you also neglect the fact that they are stamped metal and mass produced faster than you can blow cells out the end of your cock. That being the way it is, there are more than enough sh*t rifles out there. There is a reason everyone and their grandmother owns an AK; FAMAS would be my choice if I was going to chase after a common round.

 

As for the ammo: I will have plenty of it. I know where to get it, I would know where to steal it if need be, and I would probably have 5,000 rounds of it when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan.

 

Besides, You can only carry so much on you on foot. I would rather go with the lighter round just so I could carry 4x more with me.

[JakeTheHuman]

1. Primary: AK-47 (Most reliable rifle out there, can be left in the ocean, run over buy a tank, and still fire. Not to mention that beefy 7.62 round.)

 

 

2.  With all that being said, the only reason my Oh sh*t weapons list doesn't agree with yours is the ammo....

AKs can be the sh*ttiest gun in the world too. Sure it is reliable. But you also neglect the fact that they are stamped metal and mass produced faster than you can blow cells out the end of your cock. That being the way it is, there are more than enough sh*t rifles out there. There is a reason everyone and their grandmother owns an AK; FAMAS would be my choice if I was going to chase after a common round.

 

As for the ammo: I will have plenty of it. I know where to get it, I would know where to steal it if need be, and I would probably have 5,000 rounds of it when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan.

 

Besides, You can only carry so much on you on foot. I would rather go with the lighter round just so I could carry 4x more with me.

True, but an AK has been proven battle effective in MORE than enough battles, another reason why I would want one is because of the wooden stock, great for pounding steaks into the ground to set up a tent or bashing someones head in if it got close and I didn't have time to reload/pull out my offhand. I've seen one shoot 300+ rounds through it while it was on fire....Don't know why the guy lit his AK on fire, but he did....Plus, If my AK failed me, I could just get an FAL, which was supposed to be our gun but then NATO switched to the 5.56 so we chose the M16...

[jelly]

 

Don't know why the guy lit his AK on fire, but he did....

He probably didn't - the wooden forearm tends to catch fire when shooting hundreds of rounds due to heat building up in the area where the gas actuates the piston.

 

There's a reason you only see that happening in YouTube videos of redneck machinegun shoots..

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

Why the hell anyone would want an AK is beyond me, get something with more class. There are some much better Russian guns to be had, one example would be the Dragunov. I got to shoot one this weekend (Using my bullets, so I shot it a lot) and it feels comfortable and light. Recoil was a little harder than my Mosin (Both guns shoot the same: 7.62x54mmR) because the gun itself was lighter, not as much wood shrouding the assemply. 99% chance of getting one for myself.

[Mr.Mister]

I know nothing abut guns but I wanted to get this off my chest, I shot a double barreled shotgun and it was pretty damn awesome

 

My mom forgot her camera so I got no pics

[kevin2006rhs]

Don't know why the guy lit his AK on fire, but he did....

He probably didn't - the wooden forearm tends to catch fire when shooting hundreds of rounds due to heat building up in the area where the gas actuates the piston.

 

There's a reason you only see that happening in YouTube videos of redneck machinegun shoots..

*sigh*

 

 

Yeah...there are no limitations on youtube when it comes to idiots with guns.

 

 

[Kaj.]

Makes you think twice about the Second Amendment, dunnit?

[Tyler]

Makes you think twice about the Second Amendment, dunnit?

The second amendment was a little different than you think.

 

This is what most people think it is

 

 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms!

 

Here is the reality

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 

What I am saying is the amendment does not mean stockpile loads of ammunition so you and bubba can have some fun when the boys get over. It means Every community has the right to own personal firearms for revolutionary reasons to overthrow an unfair and unconstitutional government. Don't know why I felt like explaining that, but go ahead and learn it for future reference.

 

 

On the topic of militia, when I lead a small group of Chileans through into Argentina to take down a small village containing the families of some drug runners that destroyed our plantations, my men were carrying Ak-47's.

[JakeTheHuman]

 

Saw this in Wal-mart....had to change pants...

[Tyler]

Zombies you are obviously pale, but beyond that a fan of the finer guns in life. The most interesting man in the Universe toasts to your exquisite flavour.

 

[illspirit]

 

Ok...you have slight point. But if I am in a situation where I am going up against someone wearing a vest, I am going to be better repaired than some Joe Bananas with a concealed carry because I will likely know I am going into said situation. In which case, my sidearm would still be a .45...but it would probably be something along the lines of H&K Mk. 23. or a Glock 21 for capacity. But again, that would just be a sidearm in a somewhat combat ready situation. I would have a rifle and it would be something along the lines of a high capacity, fast fire, super light sub-machine gun (call me crazy, but it would be a P90). Besides, at that point, I would not so much worry about the other guys wearing a vest and my low velocity, heavy rounded sidearm not going through vests.

 

My point is really, if I wanted a sidearm to carry on a daily basis, I would carry a 10mm, .40, or, and most preferably, the .45. If I get into a situation in the real world, the daily life world, something bad is going to happen at close range. I am going to hit my target within 3 shots or I am dead. And if, IF he is wearing a vest, I am not worried about putting 38 damn rounds into non-vitals. I am worried about being able to hit him anywhere, including the vest, and knocking him on his ass. When I am standing and he is recovering or wondering why there is a 4 inch exit wound on his calf, I will have time to reload and/or shoot him in the face.

 

 

My theory, size is better.

Well, if I knew I was going up against someone with a vest, I'd bring one of the ARs full of m855. And it would probably also be time to strap a colander to my face. The extra capacity in the plastic space nine is in case I'm surprised by armored foes at times when carrying a rifle will upset the Eloi. Then of course there's also the chance of facing hostiles who are known to travel in packs.

 

I'm not arguing the 9mm is better. Just different. From a best-defense-is-a-good-offense standpoint, the bigger round wins for sure. I prefer the flexibility of extra smaller rounds. Though I might split the difference and get a .40 one of these days.

 

 

Makes you think twice about the Second Amendment, dunnit?

Nothing wrong with a little chlorine in the gene pool every once in a while..