Graduation Gift. Beretta Px4 Storm & 200 Winchester full metal jacket rounds [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Graduation Gift. Beretta Px4 Storm & 200 Winchester full metal jacket rounds

Strike For The South

08-12-2012, 18:26

Because there is no gun control in Texas. Off to the range

a completely inoffensive name

08-12-2012, 18:38

Wiki link for the curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_Px4_Storm

Fragony

08-12-2012, 18:54

Am I asking too much if I want you to give it to me

Gregoshi

08-12-2012, 19:04

Am I asking too much if I want you to give it to me
Fragony, just order a "TV" from Amazon.com... :laugh4:

HoreTore

08-12-2012, 19:26

Italian-made?

You unpatriotic scumbag!!

Also, rifles = boys, pistols = girlieboys.

ICantSpellDawg

08-12-2012, 19:33

That is a great gun. I hate you up in NY. The countdown to first handgun is on - the week after I get back from Turkey

Greyblades

08-12-2012, 21:22

Italian-made?

You unpatriotic scumbag!!

Also, rifles = boys, pistols = girlieboys.

None = Men

Hax

08-12-2012, 22:15

Relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3WzxJ5FegQ&feature=related

Sarmatian

08-12-2012, 22:24

What a fitting gift!

Now, imagine a howitzer if you get a doctorate!

Vuk

08-12-2012, 23:06

What a fitting gift!

Now, imagine a howitzer if you get a doctorate!

Come now Sarmatian, do you deny that you would love to get a gift like that?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-13-2012, 00:47

I have three questions:

1. Why do you want a pistol?

2. Why do you want a 9mm?

3. Why on earth would you want FMG?

I don't understand - even the part of me that loves guns doesn't understand.

ICantSpellDawg

08-13-2012, 01:01

I have three questions:

1. Why do you want a pistol?

2. Why do you want a 9mm?

3. Why on earth would you want FMG?

I don't understand - even the part of me that loves guns doesn't understand.

FMJ are the preferred rounds for range shooting. 9mm are one of the cheapest rounds to purchase (other than 22 rimfire which would be great for defending yourself against marauding squirrels). Pistols are great weapons for people who aren't hunters.

Your 3 questions reveal that you know absolutely nothing about handguns, as does your geographic location. Why don't you go ask your local police department to help you understand them? Oh, that's right because they would look at you as though you had 2 heads because they probably wouldn't have the faintest.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-13-2012, 02:51

FMJ are the preferred rounds for range shooting. 9mm are one of the cheapest rounds to purchase (other than 22 rimfire which would be great for defending yourself against marauding squirrels). Pistols are great weapons for people who aren't hunters.

Your 3 questions reveal that you know absolutely nothing about handguns, as does your geographic location. Why don't you go ask your local police department to help you understand them? Oh, that's right because they would look at you as though you had 2 heads because they probably wouldn't have the faintest.

Ooooh, look at the big scary American with his knowledge of firearms!

Not.

I know FMG are the "preferred rounds" for range shooting but I've used FMG and hollow point in a rifle, and at the end of the day you should shoot with the round you plan on using in the field - the preferred round for soft targets, especially at close range (people you shoot with handguns) is hollow point.

From the perspective of target shooting, why use a pistol when you can use a long arm?

I don't understand why you'd have a gun except to kill something with, that's why I learned to shoot.

If I was minded to use a weapon for self defence I'd use a bigger caliber and hollow points, because 9mm won't reliably put a man down outside point-blank range, although pistols generally aren't as good at putting people on their backs as shotguns or rifles because of the lower muzzle velocity, which also affects target accuracy, of course.

So - personally - I'd be much more excited if I was given an enfield bolt-action .30 caliber rifle.

ICantSpellDawg

08-13-2012, 03:01

I apologize, I inferred that when you asked "why on earth you would want FMG" that you couldn't think of a reason on earth to want FMG.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-13-2012, 03:09

I apologize, I inferred that when you asked "why on earth you would want FMG" that you couldn't think of a reason on earth to want FMG.

People assume that because I spend most of my time quoting the "nice" bits of the Bible, and arguing for universal healthcare and free universities that I'm some sort of urban Liberal.

Whatt most people don't realise is that seven years ago I was going to university in expectation of entering Sandhurst and hopefully taking a Commission in the Intelligence Corps.

Turns out, I don't like killing things, but I know very well how to do it with firearms.

So, what I meant was:

"I can't really see much of a reason for FMG in a handgun in a civilian context."

I appreciate your apology, but I must say that just because I am English doesn't mean I don't know my way around a firearm.

PanzerJaeger

08-13-2012, 04:45

Congratulations Strike! That's a great all purpose pistol. Beretta makes quality weapons. You'll of course need to get the PX4's mate, the CX4 - one of my favorite shooters. It's super accurate, can be used in indoor ranges, and isn't a bad choice for home defense either. Your mags will be interchangeable as well.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/X4family.jpg

Everyone is gettings guns in the Backroom (well, everyone who lives in a nation that trusts them with that particular freedom). We should start a gun club. :grin:

May I ask what you majored in?

I know FMG are the "preferred rounds" for range shooting but I've used FMG and hollow point in a rifle, and at the end of the day you should shoot with the round you plan on using in the field - the preferred round for soft targets, especially at close range (people you shoot with handguns) is hollow point.

That's largely untrue in this context. If you can group well with a pistol at defensive ranges with FMJ, you can group well with any round. If you're really worried, just make sure to match the grains. Power differences and how they impact recoil are much more likely to throw you off than the type of bullet used. Throwing hollow points down range is a needless waste of money.

Fragony

08-13-2012, 06:55

Ooooh, look at the big scary American with his knowledge of firearms!

Not.

I know FMG are the "preferred rounds" for range shooting but I've used FMG and hollow point in a rifle, and at the end of the day you should shoot with the round you plan on using in the field - the preferred round for soft targets, especially at close range (people you shoot with handguns) is hollow point.

From the perspective of target shooting, why use a pistol when you can use a long arm?

I don't understand why you'd have a gun except to kill something with, that's why I learned to shoot.

If I was minded to use a weapon for self defence I'd use a bigger caliber and hollow points, because 9mm won't reliably put a man down outside point-blank range, although pistols generally aren't as good at putting people on their backs as shotguns or rifles because of the lower muzzle velocity, which also affects target accuracy, of course.

So - personally - I'd be much more excited if I was given an enfield bolt-action .30 caliber rifle.

Why use hollow-points if you only intend to shoot at cards

Sarmatian

08-13-2012, 10:06

Come now Sarmatian, do you deny that you would love to get a gift like that?

I'd like a howitzer. I'd put it somewhere on the Petrovaradin fortress and then demand a passage fee from all ships sailing the Danube.

I can't really scare them enough to pay me with a handgun, now can I?

rajpoot

08-13-2012, 16:02

Now that is a nice graduation gift!

Now over here it'll probably be easier to rob a bank and get away with it than trying to buy a licensed working firearm.

Vuk

08-13-2012, 22:24

I'd like a howitzer. I'd put it somewhere on the Petrovaradin fortress and then demand a passage fee from all ships sailing the Danube.

I can't really scare them enough to pay me with a handgun, now can I?

Bit of a difference, eh? A pistol is a personal weapon, and a howitzer a crew weapon. Personally, I'd love if every town/city/township had its own militia, and owned a few M2s, and in the larger places some artillery pieces and tanks, but that will never happen. A person though should definitely be allowed to own a personal weapon. The handgun he has is such a pathetic little piece of shit that it is only mildly useful (when compared to alternatives) for self-defense, and would be a last choice for anyone wanting to go kill their neighbors, get in a shootout with the police, etc. Why would someone owning one worry you? The only possible reason a civvy with a brain would buy one is self-defense or target shooting.

Papewaio

08-13-2012, 23:18

Vuk

08-13-2012, 23:25

If a 9mm hand gun is lethal within the ranges typically people endup in a shooting. Then it is sufficient for self defense.

If you did a database crunch on most self defense shootings they probably are going to be:
Within 10m
In confined spaces ie indoors, in a car, an alleyway, a shopping centre or the largest area a carpark.
Dark
Confusion... Most muggers will probably not challenge you to go for your gun thu will either have a knife or a gun in your gut before they demand a wallet.

If these are the typical scenarios then a small firearms would be much better then a weapon made for a long range firefight.

Yeah, but the 9mm is not nearly as effective as other rounds. Also, its short range limits it. Sure, most self-defense scenarios may happen at absurdly close-ranges, but not all. Why bother with the limitations when you could add 2 inches onto the barrel and change the caliber? A .45, a 357, a .50 AE with frangible rounds, all of these would be better options for self-defense. They would kill better, and still could be used in a short enough pistol as to make it ideal for self-defense. Sure, a DE would take a split-second longer to draw, so you may not want it, but why not a 45 Super or a 357?
9mm does not kill consistently enough with the first shot for me to trust it with my life. I'll stick to my .50 AE and my .45, thanks.

Vuk

08-13-2012, 23:53

Vuk, you missed his point. Everyone knows and agrees upon the failings of the 9mm round, but Pape was explaining why those failings don't matter in a typical self-defense scenario. Against a car-jacking, home invasion, mugging, or even the fabled 'save the 7/11 clerk from the armed robber' scenario, a 9mm will do just fine--and, in fact, almost any pistol is more ideal for those situations than some kind of rifle.

I wasn't arguing for rifles though. My argument to Sarmatian was that a tiny 9mm pistol is not something someone who wants to go getting in a gun war with the police is going to buy, as the only possible reason you would buy it is self-defense. I then made a side-point that it is even not as well-suited to self-defense as other weapons. I agree that most times any pistol would do (even a single-shot .22 lr is probably gonna be enough most times in single-attacker scenarios if you have good shot placement), but I was arguing that I believe your chances of survival would increase more with other weapons, and therefore a small 9mm isn't necessarily better than other handguns for self-defense.

Montmorency

08-13-2012, 23:54

9mm does not kill consistently enough with the first shot for me to trust it with my life.

The purpose of self-defense is not to kill anyone on the first draw who looks at you funny; you're not in an old-timey Western film.

It is worrying to see a weapon in the hands of one who's favored attribute in weapons of self-defense is lethality. To incapacitate is more than enough, so speed, reliability, and ease of use are surely far more valuable qualities.

Vuk

08-13-2012, 23:55

Also, I should add that I don't carry, because I live in a really rural area and don't feel the need right now. Because of that, my guns are mostly for home defense, so my needs in a pistol are slightly different than someone carrying. (though I think I would still prefer a .45 if I was carrying)

Vuk

08-14-2012, 00:04

The purpose of self-defense is not to kill anyone on the first draw who looks at you funny; you're not in an old-timey Western film.

It is worrying to see a weapon in the hands of one who's favored attribute in weapons of self-defense is lethality. To incapacitate is more than enough, so speed, reliability, and ease of use are surely far more valuable qualities.

You are falling into the widespread lethal trap that many self-defense experts fall into Montmorency, and that is not realizing that they only way to effectively and consistently incapacitate a perp is by physically damaging them till the point they can no longer damage you. Fear and pain only work on sane people who are not on substances, and the chances of your attacker being on substances, or not being a very sane individual are pretty high.
First of all, I am a firm believer in winging people if you are able, and only if that doesn't stop them shooting to kill. If I don't have the ability to do that, or if doing so will endanger me or those around me (because taking the extra time will allow the other guy to get a shot off), I am gonna pointshoot for a mass I know I can hit as soon as possible (and that will be his vitals), and I am gonna want a gun that can stop him instantly, before he gets a shot off.

If a guy is on drugs and/or crazed Mont, putting a few little holes in him will not always stop him from killing you. If you want to stay alive, you need to kill him before he can kill you. Like I say, if you can plug him in the shoulders and make him drop his weapon, fine, but if not, you are gonna need a weapon that puts him down reliably and consistently.

P.S. I love how you assume that I would I am suddenly going to shoot anyone who looks funny at me.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 00:18

I agree. That's why I bought a .38, which will put a large hole in someone at any reasonable self-defense range. However, 9mm handguns aren't all that bad. For self-defense purposes, it will still get the job done--and with less possibility for collateral damage than other kinds of rounds. True, it has trouble peircing any kind of body armor, but for most self-defense situations that is a non-issue. For target shooting, 9mm pistols such as a Beretta seem tailor-made--low recoil, cheap rounds, etc. The difference in recoil between a Beretta M9 and my little .38 Revolver is night-and-day--the first time I took my .38 target shooting I gave myself a big fat blister/sore/thing on my thumb, something which never happened with an M9 no matter how much I shot it.

Basically, 9mm weapons have their uses and are still perfectly serviceable for a self-defense situation. And for target shooting, they are fantastic. For a concerned city-dweller, the pros of 9mm outweigh the cons.

I agree, but I always prefer the larger ones, since I also like to target shoot on my property and like the increased range and accuracy. My largest pistol is currently a .45, but I want to get a desert eagle .50 AE one day. The way I see it is that being equiped with frangible rounds means I won't have to worry about damaging civilians behind my intended target, and it will still be one hell of punch to anyone in body-armour. (not that I am horribly concerned about that scenario, but if I ever was ever being attacked by a wacko like the one in Colorado, it would be nice to have something that would be effective)

Xiahou

08-14-2012, 00:21

Why a .38 and not a .357 magnum? It can shoot the cheaper .38 rounds but still have the magnum's stopping power when you want it.

JHP in .357mag is a pretty great self-defense round. But, if you're looking to keep a gun around the house for defense, I don't think you can do any better than a 12 gauge shotgun. :yes:

PanzerJaeger

08-14-2012, 00:35

Yeah, but the 9mm is not nearly as effective as other rounds. Also, its short range limits it. Sure, most self-defense scenarios may happen at absurdly close-ranges, but not all. Why bother with the limitations when you could add 2 inches onto the barrel and change the caliber? A .45, a 357, a .50 AE with frangible rounds, all of these would be better options for self-defense. They would kill better, and still could be used in a short enough pistol as to make it ideal for self-defense. Sure, a DE would take a split-second longer to draw, so you may not want it, but why not a 45 Super or a 357?
9mm does not kill consistently enough with the first shot for me to trust it with my life. I'll stick to my .50 AE and my .45, thanks.

A Desert Eagle? For carry?? No one really needs anything more than .380 in a carry gun. On the rare occasion that I carry, its a Sig P230.

drone

08-14-2012, 00:44

The Px4 Storm comes in 9mm, .40, and .45 cals, and I don't believe Strike has specified which one he got. So can we dispense with the peniscaliber measuring for a while and congratulate the boy on his present. Sheesh.

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 00:53

Fear and pain only work on sane people who are not on substances, and the chances of your attacker being on substances, or not being a very sane individual are pretty high.

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 01:03

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

I'm talking about in cases where shooting to kill/incapacitate are your only options. If I only wanted to scare people and had no intention of shooting them, I could carry around a toy! I want a gun that has all options on the table. If intimidation and winging shots fail to stop someone, I want to be able to kill them before they kill me. Quit it with your hypocritical morality.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 01:04

A Desert Eagle? For carry?? No one really needs anything more than .380 in a carry gun. On the rare occasion that I carry, its a Sig P230.

Yeah, more than anything just because it would terrify most any perp, and I probably would have to worry less about having to use it then with another gun. I am a pretty big guy, so believe it or not, I can wear one under my coat without it being noticeable. Why not carry it?

Greyblades

08-14-2012, 01:06

Bah! All you gun boys are a bunch of wussies! Real men dont need guns, when we need to kill something we use our teeth!

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 01:12

I'm talking about in cases where shooting to kill/incapacitate are your only options. If I only wanted to scare people and had no intention of shooting them, I could carry around a toy! I want a gun that has all options on the table. If intimidation and winging shots fail to stop someone, I want to be able to kill them before they kill me. Quit it with your hypocritical morality.

When did I ever claim a moral high ground?

The point: For most criminals, revealing your weapon will cause them to abort. For most of the remainder, a wound anywhere on the body, with most any firearm projectile, will cause them to abort. Viking champions are a vanishingly small felon demographic, so arming oneself with them in mind primarily is simply a dangerous mindset.

ICantSpellDawg

08-14-2012, 01:15

Teeth can still be part of the arsenal

Vuk

08-14-2012, 01:26

When did I ever claim a moral high ground?

The point: For most criminals, revealing your weapon will cause them to abort. For most of the remainder, a wound anywhere on the body, with most any firearm projectile, will cause them to abort. Viking champions are a vanishingly small felon demographic, so arming oneself with them in mind primarily is simply a dangerous mindset.

Why is it dangerous to have killing capabilities? I don't know why you assume that because I want a gun capable of killing I am some wacko who just wants to butcher everyone I see. First of all, I don't even carry. The only thing that would make me carry is if I was in an area with really high crime. City crime and drugs usually go together, so the chances of someone being high when they attack you is not that far fetched. Guys on drugs have gotten shot multiple times and not even realized it. They also don't make the best decisions.

I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone, which is why I carry a tire knocker in my car, along with my knives. Killing is always a last resort, but sometimes it is necessary to protect oneself. You may say that those situations are rare, but being mugged at all is rare. You arm yourself for those rare instances and hope they don't come. Of course you should use non-lethal means of defense first whenever possible, but if they never present themselves or if they fail, you had better have something definite to fall back on.

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 01:44

I'm speaking in principle. As someone who claims to go to pains with non-lethal or less-lethal alternatives, why would you make lethality the first and foremost trait of defensive gun use?

City crime and drugs usually go together, so the chances of someone being high when they attack you is not that far fetched. Guys on drugs have gotten shot multiple times and not even realized it. They also don't make the best decisions.

Presumably, if one lives in a Detroit or DC slum, the risk of falling victim in a larceny or felony is much higher than the average for the entire country - and thus justifies possession of a firearm for self-defense. Now, "intoxicated" does not necessitate "being in a psychotic rage". Preparing for the latter sort is like carrying a potassium cyanide tablet at all times on the off chance that the CIA will detain and interrogate you.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 02:10

I'm speaking in principle. As someone who claims to go to pains with non-lethal or less-lethal alternatives, why would you make lethality the first and foremost trait of defensive gun use?

Because every gun is going to have the same or mostly the same non-lethal and less-lethal abilities (intimidation, accuracy sufficient for winging shots, etc), but where they really differ is the lethal capabilities, and it is in the most dire straights when that becomes important. It is those dire straights I am concerned about. If I only wanted to scare people away I could carry a toy gun. If I wanted to just wound them, and figured I would never be in a situation where I would have to do more, I could just use my knife. Sometimes though you need more. You carry a gun for those instances.

Xiahou

08-14-2012, 02:14

Do they make snub-nosed Magnums? Concealability and practicality were my main concerns when I went gun-shopping. The fact that its a .38 is more a side-product of the weapon's other features that I liked.They sure do. (http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/specSheets/5720.html) :yes:
I can tell you from experience that a snubby .357 can sting your hands a little when firing magnums out of it.

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 02:30

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

Sometimes though you need more. You carry a gun for those instances.

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

That's what I'm getting at - these outlier concerns are not warranted... Certainly, equating any firearm to a knife in functionality is an indicator of categorical confusion.

I hope you'll at least maintain vigilance with respect to incoming out-of-control vehicles in future, ready to dive out of the path at a moment's notice.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2012, 02:39

First of all, I am a firm believer in winging people if you are able, and only if that doesn't stop them shooting to kill. If I don't have the ability to do that, or if doing so will endanger me or those around me (because taking the extra time will allow the other guy to get a shot off), I am gonna pointshoot for a mass I know I can hit as soon as possible (and that will be his vitals), and I am gonna want a gun that can stop him instantly, before he gets a shot off.

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

1. It's how you trained, even if you're practiced shooting him in the shoulders, you practiced grouping more and you aimed at the centre of the target when you did that. the centre of anything is also where you will naturally point. Trying to "wing" someone is fighting muscle memory and instinct, that means you're thinking, that means you're too slow.

2. You objective is to put him down, whether he dies or not is secondary, the objective is to get the guy on his back, hitting him in the shoulder even at close range might not do that. You've already drawn you gun, someone has to go down now, no take-backsies.

3. You will panic, your aim will suffer. You have more chance of hitting him at all if you aim for the centre of mass, especially with a handgun which is never going to be super accurate to begin with.

I'll give you a fourth.

4. At close range no matter where you hit him trauma might cause shock and death, in which case it will look better if you aimed centre of mass, because then the Police might be more willing to believe you acted on instinct and didn't have time to not shoot him.

He's another tip:

Double-tap, two bullets in the chest will put down a charging man, and even if he has a vest on he will be struggling to breathe.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 02:40

That's what I'm getting at - these outlier concerns are not warranted... Certainly, equating any firearm to a knife in functionality is an indicator of categorical confusion.

I hope you'll at least maintain vigilance with respect to incoming out-of-control vehicles in future, ready to dive out of the path at a moment's notice.

No, I am not confused. I was pointing out that you were. A gun's main usefulness and advantage over other weapons in a self-defense situation is its capacity for lethality (whether you can use knowledge of that to intimidate someone or have to use lethal force). Why should that not be one of the most important deciding factors?
And don't worry about me, I am always cautious when crossing the road.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 02:44

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

1. It's how you trained, even if you're practiced shooting him in the shoulders, you practiced grouping more and you aimed at the centre of the target when you did that. the centre of anything is also where you will naturally point. Trying to "wing" someone is fighting muscle memory and instinct, that means you're thinking, that means you're too slow.

2. You objective is to put him down, whether he dies or not is secondary, the objective is to get the guy on his back, hitting him in the shoulder even at close range might not do that. You've already drawn you gun, someone has to go down now, no take-backsies.

3. You will panic, your aim will suffer. You have more chance of hitting him at all if you aim for the centre of mass, especially with a handgun which is never going to be super accurate to begin with.

I'll give you a fourth.

4. At close range no matter where you hit him trauma might cause shock and death, in which case it will look better if you aimed centre of mass, because then the Police might be more willing to believe you acted on instinct and didn't have time to not shoot him.

He's another tip:

Double-tap, two bullets in the chest will put down a charging man, and even if he has a vest on he will be struggling to breathe.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

Actually PVC, I practice on cardboard human-shaped targets to wing opponents. No, it is not perfect, and of course it will be a lot different, but I have been in life or death scenarios before, and I am fairly confident I can keep my wits about me. If I can't, I'll know at the time, and I'll shoot to kill.
It depends a lot of the scenario, and to rule out times when taking someone alive is possible is just silly. I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience that I killed a man who I could have taken alive. Yes, it may be more risky, but I am capable of and willing to evaluate those risks and make a decision. If I am too panicked to at the time, I'll always fall back on what I know.

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 02:54

No, I am not confused. I was pointing out that you were. A gun's main usefulness and advantage over other weapons in a self-defense situation is its capacity for lethality

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?

I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience that I killed a man who I could have taken alive. Yes, it may be more risky, but I am capable of and willing to evaluate those risks and make a decision.

If you need to fend off domestic dogs, you don't need to carry an elephant gun.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 03:53

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?

If you need to fend off domestic dogs, you don't need to carry an elephant gun.

I've already explained my position to you. I am not gonna repeat myself.

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

Yeah, I understand that, but I am not going to write off the possibility that such a situation could present itself. If it does, I will always try to take advantage of non-lethal means before lethal. I already know most circumstances when non-lethal shots would be possible, and when they would not. If I am ever in a situation where I need to use a gun to defend myself, I'll respond based on the options available to me. You may very well be right that non-lethal options aren't available most times, but when they are, what do I stand to lose by not taking someone's life?

a completely inoffensive name

08-14-2012, 04:02

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?

It's called paranoia and/or power tripping. Owning a gun imparts a lot of power over anyone else who doesn't have a gun. If you think that you need a hand cannon to walk the streets when violent crimes is at its lowest since the mid 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States), you must be either paranoid or you get rock hard at the idea that anyone who messes with you will be turned into paste.

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 04:11

Do I press on with it? Perhaps he's been ignoring my posts? I suppose I'll just move on to the incidental point that's been bugging me.

I already know most circumstances when non-lethal shots would be possible,

The "non-lethal shot" is a myth, as no part of the body is truly non-lethal when it comes to bullet wounds. It is particularly amazing to hear of "non-lethal shots" from the one who advocates that large-caliber sidearms be preferred and wielded for their superior lethality.

Xiahou

08-14-2012, 04:21

Vuk

08-14-2012, 04:30

Do I press on with it? Perhaps he's been ignoring my posts? I suppose I'll just move on to the incidental point that's been bugging me.

The "non-lethal shot" is a myth, as no part of the body is truly non-lethal when it comes to bullet wounds. It is particularly amazing to hear of "non-lethal shots" from the one who advocates that large-caliber sidearms be preferred and wielded for their superior lethality.
Of course you can kill someone no matter where you hit them, due to possible infections, bleeding, etc. It is true though that there are some areas where shooting someone is much less likely to kill them than other places. Shooting in the arm, shoulder, or leg avoids most major blood vessels, avoids causing septic infections, avoids the central nervous system, etc. No, it is not 100% 'non-lethal', but it is a lot more so than shooting someone in the torso and face.

It's called paranoia and/or power tripping. Owning a gun imparts a lot of power over anyone else who doesn't have a gun. If you think that you need a hand cannon to walk the streets when violent crimes is at its lowest since the mid 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States), you must be either paranoid or you get rock hard at the idea that anyone who messes with you will be turned into paste.

Wanting to be able to defend yourself is paranoia? So I guess a government with a military is paranoid and on a power trip, for wanting to defend itself and its citizens. How does it make me paranoid to want to keep my family and I safe?

Owning a gun imparts a lot of power over anyone else who doesn't have a gun.
Here you accuse me of wanting inequality, and of wanting to have power over others. I have long advocated that everyone should carry a gun, and I believe that in a close-as-humanly-possible-to-a-perfect world everyone would carry a gun, except known criminals. It has nothing to do with wanting to have power over others, but wanting to have power over myself. I don't want to be in control of someone else, and I don't want them to be in control of me. I like guns because it gives me the ability to ensure that my life is as much in my own hands as possible.

Honestly ACIN, you have posted like an ignorant fool on subjects you have no idea about before, but this is a new low. I don't know if your mom didn't love you as a kid or what, but get a grip.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 04:34

I say if you feel like you're going somewhere so unsafe that you think you'll need a gun, you need to ask yourself why you're going there in the first place. However, that's no reason not to carry should you choose to- it's just a caution against thinking you can go into unsafe situations just because you're carrying. That's dangerous thinking...

I hate cities, and everything about them. The noise, the crime, the lack of privacy, the tight spaces, the horrible traffic, etc. But if the only place I can get a job is a city with a lot of crime, as long as there are no prohibiting city laws, I am moving there and I am carrying. I am not gonna pass up a job opportunitty because of crime. Whether I am allowed to carry or not, if I could get a job in a dangerous city, I would jump at it. Things are too desperate right now for me to worry too much about safety or preference.

Montmorency

08-14-2012, 04:37

Shooting in the arm, shoulder, or leg avoids most major blood vessels

Are you certain?

Vuk

08-14-2012, 04:53

Are you certain?

I know there are large blood vessels in the arms and legs, but your chances of causing uncontrollable bleeding there is far less than if you shoot someone in the torso.

PanzerJaeger

08-14-2012, 05:23

Vuk

08-14-2012, 05:28

Indeed, and if you shoot someone past fifteen feet, you're likely going to jail.

Unless they have a gun trained on you or someone else.

a completely inoffensive name

08-14-2012, 05:42

Wanting to be able to defend yourself is paranoia? So I guess a government with a military is paranoid and on a power trip, for wanting to defend itself and its citizens. How does it make me paranoid to want to keep my family and I safe?Here you accuse me of wanting inequality, and of wanting to have power over others. I have long advocated that everyone should carry a gun, and I believe that in a close-as-humanly-possible-to-a-perfect world everyone would carry a gun, except known criminals. It has nothing to do with wanting to have power over others, but wanting to have power over myself. I don't want to be in control of someone else, and I don't want them to be in control of me. I like guns because it gives me the ability to ensure that my life is as much in my own hands as possible. Honestly ACIN, you have posted like an ignorant fool on subjects you have no idea about before, but this is a new low. I don't know if your mom didn't love you as a kid or what, but get a grip.Dude you are legit crazy, I am not against owning a gun for self defense, you just don't need a hand cannon. You grab insults where there is none to play the victim card.

Papewaio

08-14-2012, 07:06

Sharks vs bees

Not all dangerous situations are obvious. Even though only 2 countries in the world had greater then 50% private gun ownership circa 2010. Private guns do not necessarily increase safety.

However despite the shark like drama of gun deaths there are far more lethal things to watch out for. The bee like dangers of cars, sugar, alcohol and speed.

Some risks are spectacular like sharks but infrequent. Others like bees are a constant hum in the background, these cause far more deaths.

Diabetes and being overweight are far more likely deadly events then having your face gnawed off by a berserker.

Vladimir

08-14-2012, 13:03

Wow. This thread got seriously Vuked up.

Major Robert Dump

08-14-2012, 15:54

Sometimes pro gun people's comments are the best argument for gun control.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 17:25

Dude you are legit crazy, I am not against owning a gun for self defense, you just don't need a hand cannon. You grab insults where there is none to play the victim card.

Right, so a poster says that the best gun for home defense is a shotgun and you don't blink an eye, but I say that I want a Deagle, and you hit the roof. (and BTW, I want the DE mostly for the gun, and the fact that it is gas piston operated, not for the round I am gonna get it in. That is a secondary priority.)
Of course a typical 12 gauge with slugs or buck shot will do much, much more damage to someone than a .50 AE. Yet it is me you call the wacko.

If the point of your gun is for those times when you need to put someone on their backs to defend yourself, what is wrong with going for the gun that can do that best, while still being easy for me to use and easily concealable?

The fact that you keep refering to it as a handcannon makes me think you play way too many video games and really know nothing about the gun.

Sharks vs bees

Not all dangerous situations are obvious. Even though only 2 countries in the world had greater then 50% private gun ownership circa 2010. Private guns do not necessarily increase safety.

However despite the shark like drama of gun deaths there are far more lethal things to watch out for. The bee like dangers of cars, sugar, alcohol and speed.

Some risks are spectacular like sharks but infrequent. Others like bees are a constant hum in the background, these cause far more deaths.

Diabetes and being overweight are far more likely deadly events then having your face gnawed off by a berserker.

What is your point? Am I saying you shouldn't be careful of cars when crossing the road, or watch your blood sugar level, you should drink too much, and that you should speed? No, I am not. Just because one thing happens less often than another thing, does not mean that you should do nothing to safeguard yourself from it. You should try to protect yourself from all dangers that have a reasonable likelihood of happening. Depending where you live, there is a pretty good likelihood of falling victim to violent crime.

Major Robert Dump

08-14-2012, 20:43

In most states, the conceal carry maximum caliber is a .45, as it should be

A 50 caliber pistol is a hand cannon. I would hope that you would never consider using that as a home/carry weapon loaded with metal jackets.

Vuk

08-14-2012, 21:42

drone

08-14-2012, 22:20

That is what frangible ammunition is for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_eagle

The advantage of the gas operation is that it allows the use of far more powerful cartridges than traditional semi-automatic pistol designs. Thus it allows the Desert Eagle to compete in an area that had previously been dominated by magnum revolvers. Downsides of the gas-operated mechanism are the large size of the Desert Eagle, and the fact that it discourages the use of unjacketed lead bullets, as lead particles sheared off during firing could clog the gas release tap, preventing proper function.
Choose your rounds carefully.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2012, 23:32

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

It's a target, right? not a person.

In most states, the conceal carry maximum caliber is a .45, as it should be

A 50 caliber pistol is a hand cannon. I would hope that you would never consider using that as a home/carry weapon loaded with metal jackets.

IF I were the sort of person who carried a concealed weapon I would think a .40 - what's the point of carrying a weapon if people can't see the bulge in your jacket.

That is what frangible ammunition is for.

Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?

I'm certainly not impressed by your cardboard targets, I've used a SAT range with a section marksman weapon, but doubt MRD or GC would want me in a foxhole with them, not least because I've probably only put about a thousand rounds down range with that weapon and for all that I'm a very good shot I'm not a soldier, and neither are you.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2012, 23:34

.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/PrivateMajorG/cartridge1500.jpg

Desert Eagle will probably just kill you, hydro-static shock will get you after the affected body part disappears in a pink mist.

Vuk

08-15-2012, 00:33

Maybe, maybe. There's a lot of myths about .50 cals, especially in the military. We had them on tanks, and I always thought they were a pain, but there's no doubt that they're powerful. One of my favorite myths is the story that you can lose an arm or a leg just by being grazed or nearly hit.

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/PrivateMajorG/tumblr_lh0zkrjvla1qzetleo1_500.jpg

But what do rifle rounds have to do with the discussion. A .50 AE and a .50 BMG are completely different rounds.

It's a target, right? not a person.

IF I were the sort of person who carried a concealed weapon I would think a .40 - what's the point of carrying a weapon if people can't see the bulge in your jacket.

Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?

I'm certainly not impressed by your cardboard targets, I've used a SAT range with a section marksman weapon, but doubt MRD or GC would want me in a foxhole with them, not least because I've probably only put about a thousand rounds down range with that weapon and for all that I'm a very good shot I'm not a soldier, and neither are you.

It is both target and person when you aim for it. And when talking in that context, target is the more relevant word, as you are speaking of aiming at it.
So what if I am not a soldier? What does that and your shooting a thousand rounds have to do with anything?

.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/PrivateMajorG/cartridge1500.jpg

If the point is to kill, then kill. You cannot be more than killed. There is no such thing as overkill, unless it kills others you did not intend. A .50 would have a better chance of killing, so why not use it? What is absurd about good killing potential?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_eagle

Choose your rounds carefully.

AET rounds are usually made of powdered copper held together by some adhesive. They can be used in gas piston action rifles and pistols without issue.

drone

08-15-2012, 00:36

.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w324/PrivateMajorG/cartridge1500.jpg
That's the wrong round, the .50AE is about 10mm longer than the .50GI. :tongue:

Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?
In a war, yes. For use in home defense and police work, preferred. Less chance of dangerous ricochets.

rvg

08-15-2012, 00:37

AET rounds are usually made of powdered copper held together by some adhesive. They can be used in gas piston action rifles and pistols without issue.

Yeah, but what for? What's the point of having a .50 Cal? .22 is enough to kill a person, 9 mm is more than enough. How dead do they need to be?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2012, 00:41

It is both target and person when you aim for it. And when talking in that context, target is the more relevant word, as you are speaking of aiming at it.
So what if I am not a soldier? What does that and your shooting a thousand rounds have to do with anything?

No, it's just a target - possibly a moving target that shoots back. Only snipers tend to shoot actual people.

What does "1000 rounds" have to do with anything?

It's not many rounds, that's the point. Soldiers' yearly number of live rounds expended is usually measured in thousands, or should be, the point is you may think you're good but you're really an amateur with no experience of combat and no combat training to speak of.

Unless you did a stint in the Green we don't know about.

Vuk

08-15-2012, 01:03

No, it's just a target - possibly a moving target that shoots back. Only snipers tend to shoot actual people.
What exactly does that mean?
What does "1000 rounds" have to do with anything?

It's not many rounds, that's the point. Soldiers' yearly number of live rounds expended is usually measured in thousands, or should be, the point is you may think you're good but you're really an amateur with no experience of combat and no combat training to speak of.

Unless you did a stint in the Green we don't know about.

First of all, I never said I was an expert. That said though, I burn through 2-5k .22lr for plinking every year easily. I also have went through many, many thousands of .223s and military surplus 5.56s, as well as hundreds of 8MM, and at least a thousand surplus 30-06. I've also shot hundreds of .45 ACPs, 38s, and 357s. (and that doesn't even count shotguns) I shoot a lot more than you think (well, I used to, but the last few years I have not been able to support my habit, esp since I've been buying my own ammo. I buy ammo cheap and in bulk, but it is still really expensive), and have since a very young age.
I've been shooting since I was five years old PVC, I have snapped up shots without looking through my sites and hit squirrels as they have jumped from tree to tree. I'm never claimed to be an expert, but I am fast, I am accurate (both at aiming at medium-long ranges and point shooting within 50m), and I know my limitations. I don't have to have served in the military to be good with guns and to know what I am capable of. I know guys in the military who can outshoot my sorry butt any day, and I know ones who I can easily outshoot. So don't tell me you have to be in the military to know how to use a gun, because the military world is just like the civilian world: some people are good shots, and some just suck.
Sure, my property is not long enough for me to have ever been able to practice shooting past 350m, so I am sure many in the military could outshoot me above that range, but that doesn't matter when you are using a pistol at close ranges.
I admit that most of my experience has not been with pistols, but I would not start carrying if I didn't first train heavily in drawing from the holster, and in shooting accurately. That said though, within 25m, I can point shoot accurately enough to easily hit the vitals of a target with my pistol.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2012, 01:24

Vuk

08-15-2012, 01:50

I've also been shooting since I was a child, I'm also a very good snap shooter - If I can see something I can hit it, with a telescopic sight I can hit pretty much anything.

Unfortunately, I have progressive myopia.

Still - none of that is the same as shooting people. If the actual soldiers here are saying centre of mass, you're a non-expert minority of one.

I know the logic, I know the reasoning. I didn't say that I disagree with them all the time, or even most of the time. I simply said that I can conceive of times when it would be possible to wing someone, even if rare, rather than go for a kill. I have never had to shoot someone, and I am not saying that I am 100% sure I am right, but that is my opinion. If the opportunitty did present itself (and I am pretty good at knowing my limitations), and I could hit off-center to lower the chance of killing without significantly endangering myself or someone else, I would try. If they didn't stop, the next would be to kill.
I may be wrong, maybe it would happen too fast, I would fall onto instinct and just have enough time for the kill shot. I can't say for 100% sure, but if such an opportunity did present itself, and I was sure I could hit with a wing shot, I would at least try.

Sucks about your vision. I suffer from Myopia as well, but with my glasses, I can see pretty decent out to 400m, so it is not that big of a deal. Without them, my vision starts degrading past 15-20m. My whole family actually suffers from it except my two youngest brothers. (yet)
I take it that progressive myopia means glasses don't help a lot? That must really suck.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2012, 02:27

I know the logic, I know the reasoning. I didn't say that I disagree with them all the time, or even most of the time. I simply said that I can conceive of times when it would be possible to wing someone, even if rare, rather than go for a kill. I have never had to shoot someone, and I am not saying that I am 100% sure I am right, but that is my opinion. If the opportunitty did present itself (and I am pretty good at knowing my limitations), and I could hit off-center to lower the chance of killing without significantly endangering myself or someone else, I would try. If they didn't stop, the next would be to kill.
I may be wrong, maybe it would happen too fast, I would fall onto instinct and just have enough time for the kill shot. I can't say for 100% sure, but if such an opportunity did present itself, and I was sure I could hit with a wing shot, I would at least try.

My point is that I don't think you'd realistically get that opportunity, and looking for it will get you killed.

Sucks about your vision. I suffer from Myopia as well, but with my glasses, I can see pretty decent out to 400m, so it is not that big of a deal. Without them, my vision starts degrading past 15-20m. My whole family actually suffers from it except my two youngest brothers. (yet)
I take it that progressive myopia means glasses don't help a lot? That must really suck.

It means, I need new glasses every few years since the age of twelve, which means my most recent glasses don't keep up with my eyes - hence the need for a scope.

Vuk

08-15-2012, 02:42

My point is that I don't think you'd realistically get that opportunity, and looking for it will get you killed.

It means, I need new glasses every few years since the age of twelve, which means my most recent glasses don't keep up with my eyes - hence the need for a scope.

Ah, I've only needed to get a stronger pair of lenses twice. Guess I am lucky. I remember my dad's used to be ridiculously thick, but mine are not that bad.

You may be right that such an opportunitty would not present itself, but I would not be looking for one. If one was there, I would take it, if not, I would shoot to kill. I can't imagine you would get the luxury of thinking much in such a situation.

Major Robert Dump

08-15-2012, 02:52

If the situation justifies you shoot your way out of it, then the situation justifies shooting to kill.

"Winging" someone is a really good way to get sued.

Fragony

08-15-2012, 08:53

Just curious, what handgun does the military use and why?

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 09:04

The USA uses the Beretta 92 IIRC.

If I were to ever get a gun it would be a (copy of) their previous handgun, the M1911. Just because having the same kind of gun used by American troops in WW1, WW2 and the Vietnam war is pretty cool. And my interest in guns largely stops after the "coolness" factor.

Major Robert Dump

08-15-2012, 09:59

Just curious, what handgun does the military use and why?

Right now the standard sidearm for the combat zone US Army is the M9 (Beretta), aka the 92 . Obviously, MPs and SF may have different options due to mission requirements. Cannot speak for the other branches.

15 round magazine and incredibly dependable in foul conditions. However, it is also rather heavy for a pop gun and pretty inaccurate past about 30 meters. This is not due to some scientific study on my part, just first hand experience.

Sarmatian

08-15-2012, 10:48

If the point is to kill, then kill. You cannot be more than killed. There is no such thing as overkill, unless it kills others you did not intend. A .50 would have a better chance of killing, so why not use it? What is absurd about good killing potential?

The point is not to kill, the point is to stop, if we're talking about hypothetical handgun for personal defence scenario. You're not a vigilante striving to make the world a safer place by killing pickpockets and burglars en masse.

Your goal is to prevent personal injury and/or loss of your personal property. For that, smaller calibers work just as good as the bigger ones.

Just to be clear, my knowledge of firearms is limited to recognizing the difference between a pistol and a rifle, but I know a howitzer is more powerful than anything you guys talked about and since I want a howitzer, I'm cooler than any of you and most badass person in the backroom.

Anyone wants a piece of me, huh?! I said HUH?! Didn't think so.

rory_20_uk

08-15-2012, 11:17

Bigger bullets mean less in the magazine which in turn means a heavier gun with a greater kick - less accuracy and fewer bullets not great I would imagine.

For the true defender of all that's right and good, get an M4 in case he's wearing non-military body armour.

~:smoking:

Fragony

08-15-2012, 12:30

The point is not to kill, the point is to stop, if we're talking about hypothetical handgun for personal defence scenario. You're not a vigilante striving to make the world a safer place by killing pickpockets and burglars en masse.

Your goal is to prevent personal injury and/or loss of your personal property. For that, smaller calibers work just as good as the bigger ones.

Just to be clear, my knowledge of firearms is limited to recognizing the difference between a pistol and a rifle, but I know a howitzer is more powerful than anything you guys talked about and since I want a howitzer, I'm cooler than any of you and most badass person in the backroom.

Anyone wants a piece of me, huh?! I said HUH?! Didn't think so.

I once opted for a Deathstar, that was in the frontroom though

Major Robert Dump

08-15-2012, 12:33

As a Tanker, we got issued Berettas even when we were in an Infantry role and they were some of the worst peices of junk i've ever seen--worse than the ones they used in Basic. The one I had in Iraq had an inoperative safety and a barrel that was years over-due for a refit. Wasn't good for anything but carrying to the porta-john at night in your boxers so you didn't have to lug your rifle.

That's sucks to hear.

And mine saved my life.

I saw some pretty ratty M9s being carried out there, looked like they were in the first batch from 85, discolored, rattling etc. Ours were all brand new. Had a couple of good 92s on my team.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2012, 12:42

I can use the main gun on a Challenger II MBT - I'm not very good though, I found the laser rangefinder too fiddly.

How cool does that make me.

Vladimir

08-15-2012, 12:56

I can use the main gun on a Challenger II MBT - I'm not very good though, I found the laser rangefinder too fiddly.

How cool does that make me.

Almost as cool as Richard Hammond.

Fragony

08-15-2012, 13:41

Vladimir

08-15-2012, 14:49

Don't know anything about it other than it's an HK, so I wholeheartedly support it.

Fragony

08-15-2012, 15:46

It can shoot underwater. I am sure it's a great rifle but the regular army isn't happy because they get budget cuts.

Vladimir

08-15-2012, 17:18

Budget cuts? It can shoot under water. You shoot an M-16 under water and it will blow up.

Vuk

08-15-2012, 18:55

The point is not to kill, the point is to stop, if we're talking about hypothetical handgun for personal defence scenario. You're not a vigilante striving to make the world a safer place by killing pickpockets and burglars en masse.

Your goal is to prevent personal injury and/or loss of your personal property. For that, smaller calibers work just as good as the bigger ones.

Just to be clear, my knowledge of firearms is limited to recognizing the difference between a pistol and a rifle, but I know a howitzer is more powerful than anything you guys talked about and since I want a howitzer, I'm cooler than any of you and most badass person in the backroom.

Anyone wants a piece of me, huh?! I said HUH?! Didn't think so.

The best and only sure way to stop them is to kill them.

Beskar

08-15-2012, 19:11

The best and only sure way to stop them is to kill them.

and that is a comment you don't want taken out of context.

rvg

08-15-2012, 19:14

The best and only sure way to stop them is to kill them.

But why .45 cal? It's like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

Vuk

08-15-2012, 19:18

and that is a comment you don't want taken out of context.

Really, if someone trying to kill you, and the only way you can save your life is to defend yourself with your gun, how do you stop them. If you hit them and put a neat hole in them, but don't kill them, they may not even realize they have been hit and that may give them the opportunity to kill you. You stop someone who has a gun from killing you by killing them. Unfortunately, that is often the only way.

Lemur

08-15-2012, 19:35

Fun fact: the .45 ACP round is usually subsonic (exception being certain "hot" rounds and special loads). So you fit a .45 with a suppressor, and you've got about as quiet of a popgun as nature will allow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNgMkxzeQNE

Now if only I lived n New Zealand, where suppressors are legal for everyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Oceania). (Here in the US they're a pain to obtain.)

drone

08-15-2012, 20:17

Vuk

08-15-2012, 20:52

But why .45 cal? It's like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

9mm doesn't kill reliably and therefore doesn't stop an attacker reliably. .45 does so much more reliably.

rajpoot

08-15-2012, 20:58

I haven't seen this much blood thirst here since Bin Laden died.....

Vladimir

08-15-2012, 20:59

Fun fact: the .45 ACP round is usually subsonic (exception being certain "hot" rounds and special loads). So you fit a .45 with a suppressor, and you've got about as quiet of a popgun as nature will allow.

Yep. That's one thing I like about it. Fewer rounds force you to be more accurate and the lower velocity reduces risk to others.

Vuk

08-15-2012, 21:05

I haven't seen this much blood thirst here since Bin Laden died.....
Blood thirst is the desire to kill. No one here wants to kill anyone.

Lemur

08-15-2012, 21:12

No one here wants to kill anyone.
Well, maybe, but I am full of rage and just went off my medication.

Actually, wait a minute, that's not me, that's how I imagine the other drivers on the road.

Never mind.

Veho Nex

08-15-2012, 21:15

Italian-made?

You unpatriotic scumbag!!

Also, rifles = boys, pistols = girlieboys.

Real men fire cannons!

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 22:34

Just to be clear, my knowledge of firearms is limited to recognizing the difference between a pistol and a rifle, but I know a howitzer is more powerful than anything you guys talked about and since I want a howitzer, I'm cooler than any of you and most badass person in the backroom.

Anyone wants a piece of me, huh?! I said HUH?! Didn't think so.

I want a scud launcher. Beat that!

a completely inoffensive name

08-15-2012, 23:13

I want a scud launcher. Beat that!

I want an experimental MIRV (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Experimental_MIRV).

Xiahou

08-15-2012, 23:58

Well, maybe, but I am full of rage and just went off my medication.

Actually, wait a minute, that's not me, that's how I imagine the other drivers on the road.

Never mind.Just remember:
driver going slower than you = moron
driver going faster than you = maniac
:yes:

Tellos Athenaios

08-16-2012, 00:48

I want an experimental MIRV (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Experimental_MIRV).

If you want to go nuclear, why not do it properly and get yourself a relativistic baseball (http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/) ?

PanzerJaeger

08-16-2012, 02:44

What is your guys opnion on this one http://www.google.nl/search?num=10&hl=nl&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1161&bih=827&q=HK416&oq=HK416&gs_l=img.3..0l3j0i24l7.1777.1777.0.2839.1.1.0.0.0.0.113.113.0j1.1.0...0.0...1ac.weqzsC3P_pg

It's going to replace the guns our special forces are using, they are supposed to cost a fortune is it any good or is it a waste of money?

Eh, it's just an AR with a piston - which theoretically gives it far more reliability than a direct impingement AR. However, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the guns H&K enters in competitions are of a different quality than the guns H&K delivers to customers once they have secured contracts, as many failures have been reported. It is impossible to judge the authenticity of internet static, of course. What is more certain is that it is very heavy and not as modular as some other choices.

That being said, it is a quality weapon on paper with a strong operational record and heavy adoption among first world special forces.

If I had the budget to buy a third gen assault rifle, though, I would probably go for one built from the ground up around a piston system like the SCAR instead of an old system with a piston stuffed in it. Many believe that working within the AR framework led to a lot of compromises. Whereas guns like the SCAR and ARX160 are truly next gen, the 416 is somewhere in the middle.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-16-2012, 15:00

Budget cuts? It can shoot under water. You shoot an M-16 under water and it will blow up.

No it won't, it will just jam - water will enter the gas parts, preventing them from forcing the bolt block to the rear and the rifle will simple fail to fire. An AK47, which uses direct recoil action to force the bolt to the rear, will fire underwater.

So, big wup.

Vladimir

08-16-2012, 17:03

No it won't, it will just jam - water will enter the gas parts, preventing them from forcing the bolt block to the rear and the rifle will simple fail to fire. An AK47, which uses direct recoil action to force the bolt to the rear, will fire underwater.

So, big wup.

The big whoop is that too much water in the gas rings (and I'm sure other places) can cause a potentially catastrophic failure, meaning, it could blow up.

What if the dykes break? Give me the underwater gun.

rory_20_uk

08-16-2012, 17:08

I doubt there'd be enough pressure caused even under water to make hardened steel blow up before it stopped working. I'm sure this sort of test would be undertaken to see what happens.

~:smoking:

Vladimir

08-16-2012, 17:09

I doubt there'd be enough pressure caused even under water to make hardened steel blow up before it stopped working. I'm sure this sort of test would be undertaken to see what happens.

~:smoking:

Well, we're not talking a headspace and timing releated 50 cal blow up, but enough of one that I don't want my face next to it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 02:08

The big whoop is that too much water in the gas rings (and I'm sure other places) can cause a potentially catastrophic failure, meaning, it could blow up.

What if the dykes break? Give me the underwater gun.

Maybe the M-16A4 is just that badly designed, but in most gas-powered rifles the gas system will fail when the bolt flies to the rear and water enters the breach.

*shrug*

EDIT: The M16 is that badly designed. That's actually... yeah. How did that enter service, now?

PanzerJaeger

08-17-2012, 02:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3TMh1qkjFk

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 03:31

Maybe the M-16A4 is just that badly designed, but in most gas-powered rifles the gas system will fail when the bolt flies to the rear and water enters the breach.

*shrug*

EDIT: The M16 is that badly designed. That's actually... yeah. How did that enter service, now?

Politics. Fat ass senators in committee hooking up their crony homies. Been going on since the 1800s. Would be interesting to hear from Custers ghost and find out if he would've reversed his vote on the standard cavalry rifle once he got into a real fight (as opposed to women and kids) and saw the jamming that occurred in the breaches. Of course, when they voted they weren't thinking of the Sioux, they were thinking of the $$$$.

We have only learned our lesson a little, inasmuch as you will never see an O5 or higher riding in an MATV or ASV because those things are, ya know, death traps.

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 03:35

PanzerJaeger

08-17-2012, 05:41

EDIT: The M16 is that badly designed. That's actually... yeah. How did that enter service, now?

No firearm should be fired under water or full of water. Not even the venerable AK performs reliably (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mskbs462iw). As such, the weapon's performance in such conditions is not indicative of the robustness of its design. The AR was revolutionary when it was designed and has stood the test of time very well. It pushed militaries around the world to adopt similar systems. The AR has actually eclipsed the AK in worldwide adoption, and is used by more special forces units around the world than any other system. Piston ARs and other third generation assault rifles do improve upon it in several ways, but only incrementally. The reason why the US military has not adopted a new service rifle is because nothing has outperformed the AR in a great enough way to justify a switch.

@MRD

The early failures of the AR in Vietnam were due to the pentagon switching the type of powder used from that which Stoner designed the rifle around. In short, it gummed up the bolt and bolt carrier causing jams. That reputation for jamming has followed the rifle ever since, even though the modern AR is a very reliable platform.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 15:32

regarding PJs post,

Not sure of the actual numbers, but it has been taught at various military schools in which I attended that a very large number of dead soldiers in Vietnam were found with jammed/inoperable rifles or their platoon mates had jammed/inoperable rifles. Of course, were this true it would not exactly be something the Senate Armed Forces Committee would be excited to advertise, and could also be seen as a national security issue. I dont know, maybe it was just a reason to make us clean our rifles more, kind of like the time I got smoked because my canteen cup was dirty and, according to the TAC, "dirty cups killed 1000s in vietnam" haha. I pointed out that we never use canteen cups, because our water was bottled now, he was not impressed

The version of the story I heard, from a former British NCO old enought to have met serving Vets from Nam, was that the soldiers died trying to cock their rifles.

No firearm should be fired under water or full of water. Not even the venerable AK performs reliably (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mskbs462iw). As such, the weapon's performance in such conditions is not indicative of the robustness of its design. The AR was revolutionary when it was designed and has stood the test of time very well. It pushed militaries around the world to adopt similar systems. The AR has actually eclipsed the AK in worldwide adoption, and is used by more special forces units around the world than any other system. Piston ARs and other third generation assault rifles do improve upon it in several ways, but only incrementally. The reason why the US military has not adopted a new service rifle is because nothing has outperformed the AR in a great enough way to justify a switch.

Most rifles outperform the AR-15 in one way or another - the M-16 series is a byword for utter crapness, it is a relatively light rifle but there is little about the design which is revolutionary or desirable. The 5.56 cartridge is too small, and it exists as a result of Post-War American Generals being unwilling to adopt the British .280, and later going overboard on the downsizing (recently, the 6.8 Remington has acknowleged the stupidity of this), direct impingement is such a stupid concept I actually can't believe Stoner created it, and the AR-18 gave us short stroke piston a few years later anyway.

there is, I suspect, exactly one reason why the AR-15 dominates the American Armed Forces - it is made by Colt.

@MRD

The early failures of the AR in Vietnam were due to the pentagon switching the type of powder used from that which Stoner designed the rifle around. In short, it gummed up the bolt and bolt carrier causing jams. That reputation for jamming has followed the rifle ever since, even though the modern AR is a very reliable platform.

Partly true - but it is equally true that Stoner's design was not, as he claimed "low maintainance" using standard powders. Face it, the flaw is in the gas system - it isn't soldier proof or combat proof.

It is a well-earned reputation. Even shiny fresh-from-the-factory M4s will malfunction as soon as you give them a good reason to, whether it be firing lots of rounds, getting it dirty, or whatever. Sure, it performs just fine under ideal conditions, but when is a Soldier's rifle ever under ideal conditions?

Murphy's Laws of Combat - Bear in mind your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 16:04

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 19:34

I found my M4s to be far more dependable than any M16 I ever used. M16s were garbage, and they are still in use by Fobbits.

The only time I ever had any issues with an M4 was when it was filthy on the inside. The main problem with that is that a couple hundred rounds will make it filthy, and it is ieasy as pie to fire off a couple hundred rounds over the course of a standard kinetic mission day, which means you actually have to add "weapons maintenance" down time to your operation in addition to food and rest. You can clean an M4 thoroughly in under 10 minutes with the right tools, even quicker with the right chemical spray, but the worry is that you will get hit while peoples weapons are dissassembled.

When I was a military cadet, we got bumped in the Habour Area while I had my L98 stripped for cleaning. It took me about 15 seconds to get it back together, I think the bolt was already in, anyway there I was in my foxhole - only then suddenly realising I had taken my belt kit off and I had left my ammo ten feet away.

This may have been the point I realised that I was not actually cut out to go into the army.

I was, I think, about 16 or 17, to this day I am ashamed.

Strike For The South

08-17-2012, 21:26

Fragony

08-17-2012, 23:45

There was a cute girl there with a pink rifle and a pretty smile

No there wasn't. Gawd that's hot I bet she had Hello Kitty on her cameltoe

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 02:35

Target shooting was fun, me and my dad had a good time

There was a cute girl there with a pink rifle and a pretty smile

@PJ My major was history and I am taking a year off before I go back to grad school. Need to make some money

We sit here debating the virtues of direct impingement vs short stroke piston gas systems while Strike goes out to meat girls.

Hmm.

I think we have produced a collective fail guys.

Major Robert Dump

08-18-2012, 03:20

When I was a military cadet, we got bumped in the Habour Area while I had my L98 stripped for cleaning. It took me about 15 seconds to get it back together, I think the bolt was already in, anyway there I was in my foxhole - only then suddenly realising I had taken my felt kit off and I had left my ammo ten feet away.

This may have been the point I realised that I was not actually cut out to go into the army.

I was, I think, about 16 or 17, to this day I am ashamed.

I'm not worried about the 20% of my team doing the cleaning not being able to put their weapons back together quickly.

I'm worried about a mortar or grenade blowing up and tossing all their weapons parts to kingdom come.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 03:29

I know, I just wanted to share my stupidity with my friends.

although, "kingdom come" and "ten feet" are about the same when receiving incoming fire, I would imagine.

a completely inoffensive name

08-18-2012, 03:32

I congratulate the knowledgeable people for hijacking this conversation.

PanzerJaeger

08-18-2012, 06:01

Most rifles outperform the AR-15 in one way or another - the M-16 series is a byword for utter crapness, it is a relatively light rifle but there is little about the design which is revolutionary or desirable. The 5.56 cartridge is too small, and it exists as a result of Post-War American Generals being unwilling to adopt the British .280, and later going overboard on the downsizing (recently, the 6.8 Remington has acknowleged the stupidity of this), direct impingement is such a stupid concept I actually can't believe Stoner created it, and the AR-18 gave us short stroke piston a few years later anyway.

Oh, is that why the SAS fought so hard to dump the L85 for ARs? :laugh4:

I don't know who fed you this information, but you have been completely misguided. The AR is an excellent design, and yes, it was revolutionary (http://weaponsman.com/?p=413) when introduced. Some other assault rifles (AK, SIG 55X, AUG(my love :smitten:)) do best it in certain qualities, but the effectiveness of an infantry weapon system is determined based on the mix of those qualities and how they come together to reinforce the efforts of the user. The AR offers a very favorable mix of adaptability, ergonomics, accuracy, weight, modularity, speed of magazine changes, ease of field stripping, and yes, reliability. I will not say it is the best of its generation because at that point things become subjective, but it is hardly a 'byword for utter crapness' like the FAMAS and L85. Which assault rifles do you consider better?

It is certainly not a perfect weapon, and it has been eclipsed by systems that have emerged in the last decade; but then it is a 50 year old design. It is interesting, though, that most of the premier special forces units around the world, who have both the budgets and discretion to stock the weapons of their choice (and are certainly not bound to any loyalty to Colt) continue to choose ARs.

I am also not sure what the caliber has to do with anything. :inquisitive:

Partly true - but it is equally true that Stoner's design was not, as he claimed "low maintainance" using standard powders. Face it, the flaw is in the gas system - it isn't soldier proof or combat proof.

You are recycling a myth (http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/recycling-myth), which has been disproven (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/) time (http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/08/27/cleaning-your-ar-15-is-pretty-much-a-waste-of-time/) and again (http://kitup.military.com/2010/07/theres-no-reliability-problem-with-the-m4m16.html).

The biggest problem with the weapon is that the military does not understand it. From the powder to the cartridges to the shortened, lightened barrel for all, it continually compromises the system with poorly thought out alterations. They also fail to train it properly, from cleaning to use. It is an assault rifle not a machine gun, and should not be used as such.

I am of the mindset that our troops deserve the best equipment possible, and would not mind my tax dollars being spent on a new system that offers some incrimental improvement like the SCAR. I do, however, understand why the military is hesitant to switch, and it has nothing to do with Colt. As they say around here, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

PanzerJaeger

08-18-2012, 07:38

I found my M4s to be far more dependable than any M16 I ever used. M16s were garbage, and they are still in use by Fobbits.

The only time I ever had any issues with an M4 was when it was filthy on the inside. The main problem with that is that a couple hundred rounds will make it filthy, and it is ieasy as pie to fire off a couple hundred rounds over the course of a standard kinetic mission day, which means you actually have to add "weapons maintenance" down time to your operation in addition to food and rest. You can clean an M4 thoroughly in under 10 minutes with the right tools, even quicker with the right chemical spray, but the worry is that you will get hit while peoples weapons are dissassembled.

The M16 is more reliable than the M4 due to the placement of the gas port and the relative stresses it puts on the internals. My guess is that the M16s you encountered we're simply older than the M4s. The Army's maintenance program for the gun is asinine. Essentially, they run them until they fail instead of replacing normal wear and tear components. Check this out.

http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 14:39

Oh, is that why the SAS fought so hard to dump the L85 for ARs? :laugh4:

The SAS never used the L85A1, they were using the M-16 with the 203 grenade launcher by the time of the Falklands, for the reason that the M-16's ammunition was lighter and the weapon has selective fire, which the SLR did not. The L85a2 is a superior weapon overall, the only drawback being weight, but the flip side of that is that the bullpup design greatly reduces recoil, which is negligible in single-shot mode, and allows soldiers to have the range and power of a full-size rifle in a platform smaller and more maneuverable than an M4. The US Army will greatly regret switching to the M4 if it ever has to fight another war in Europe.

As a shooting piece, the L85 is stupidly accurate and the L86 is is just ridiculous for what it is, a heavy barreled assault rifle with a bi-pod.

I don't know who fed you this information, but you have been completely misguided. The AR is an excellent design, and yes, it was revolutionary (http://weaponsman.com/?p=413) when introduced. Some other assault rifles (AK, SIG 55X, AUG(my love :smitten:)) do best it in certain qualities, but the effectiveness of an infantry weapon system is determined based on the mix of those qualities and how they come together to reinforce the efforts of the user. The AR offers a very favorable mix of adaptability, ergonomics, accuracy, weight, modularity, speed of magazine changes, ease of field stripping, and yes, reliability. I will not say it is the best of its generation because at that point things become subjective, but it is hardly a 'byword for utter crapness' like the FAMAS and L85. Which assault rifles do you consider better?

SCAR, L85A2, possibly a select fire FN FAL, anything by HK (which includes the L85A2).

I am also not sure what the caliber has to do with anything. :inquisitive:

Ballistics - specifically range and stopping power at range.

You are recycling a myth (http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/recycling-myth), which has been disproven (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/) time (http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/08/27/cleaning-your-ar-15-is-pretty-much-a-waste-of-time/) and again (http://kitup.military.com/2010/07/theres-no-reliability-problem-with-the-m4m16.html).

The biggest problem with the weapon is that the military does not understand it. From the powder to the cartridges to the shortened, lightened barrel for all, it continually compromises the system with poorly thought out alterations. They also fail to train it properly, from cleaning to use. It is an assault rifle not a machine gun, and should not be used as such.

I am of the mindset that our troops deserve the best equipment possible, and would not mind my tax dollars being spent on a new system that offers some incrimental improvement like the SCAR. I do, however, understand why the military is hesitant to switch, and it has nothing to do with Colt. As they say around here, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

"The military does not understand it" is code for "the system is too temperamental" - live with it. The AR platform is not robust enough to reliably stand up to field conditions when handled by stupid soldiers. The average solder carried 120 rounds in his left magazine pouch, plus whatever else he can carry - your article says that "upwards of 150 rounds" the AR-15 need cleaning. As MRD has noted, soldiers on patrol fire in the region of 200. It also isn't a "myth", using cordite the M-16 is not low maintenance. Saying "oh, you need to use better powder" doesn't cut it, especially when cordite is cheaper and you are mass-producing ammo for a war.

Vuk

08-18-2012, 17:07

Target shooting was fun, me and my dad had a good time

There was a cute girl there with a pink rifle and a pretty smile

@PJ My major was history and I am taking a year off before I go back to grad school. Need to make some money

Your major was history? I must have misread that! Surely you mean partying or bodybuilding. So is you serious lack of any historical knowledge that you demonstrate on this forum just an act or something? Or did you just graduate from a diploma farm?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 18:08

Your major was history? I must have misread that! Surely you mean partying or bodybuilding. So is you serious lack of any historical knowledge that you demonstrate on this forum just an act or something? Or did you just graduate from a diploma farm?

Strike claims to post drunk, mostly.

Vuk

08-18-2012, 18:13

Strike claims to post drunk, mostly.

Ah, that would explain it...

PanzerJaeger

08-19-2012, 08:23

The SAS never used the L85A1, they were using the M-16 with the 203 grenade launcher by the time of the Falklands, for the reason that the M-16's ammunition was lighter and the weapon has selective fire, which the SLR did not.

Not true. The MOD tried to push the L85 in both A1 and A2 versions on the SAS several times. There are even some pictures of the SAS training with A2s floating around if you look hard enough. The SAS kindly responded 'No thanks, we'll keep our ARs. We might actually have to fight (http://www.mail-archive.com/cybershooters@compuserve.com/msg00341.html).'

THE SAS is to buy a new assault weapon to replace its favourite American M16 rifle, but will insist that it be spared having to use a version of the troubled SA80 rifle used by the rest of the Army, despite claims that the SA80's problems are a thing of the past. Two hundred thousand of the SA80s, which have been criticised ever since they first came into service in 1985, are being extensively modified at a cost of L80 million but although the much-modified SA80 is supposed to have overcome all the problems highlighted by British soldiers in successive campaigns - the Gulf War in 1991, Kosovo last year and Sierra Leone in May - it is not expected to be given a second thought by the British Army's most elite regiment.

A week ago the modified SA80 rifle and light support weapon derivative surpassed expectations during endurance trials by an Army team at Warminster in Wiltshire, when each gun tested fired 15,000 rounds through new barrels without mishap.

A British Army firearms expert said that normal weapons trials involved firing only 10,000 rounds.

"It proved that the modified SA80 is going to be an excellent rifle and one of the most reliable weapons of its type," the officer said.

It was the Special Air Service, with the Parachute Regiment, that first complained of the SA80 when they tested it in the 1980s. They reported that the rifle
jammed in dusty conditions. The SAS subsequently spurned the British-designed rifle and stayed with the Vietnam War-proven M16, which it had acquired before the SA80 came into service.

Now, as part of a "new small arms for special forces" programme, the SAS is looking at a range of advanced weapons to replace the M16, which, like the SA80, has also been modified many times. The version carried recently by the SAS in Sierra Leone is the M16A2.

Ian Hogg, editor of Jane's Infantry Weapons, said the Hereford-based regiment had chosen to stay with the M16 because it did not consider the SA80 to be sufficiently reliable.

And, of course, the SAS was correct. The new A2 turned out to be absolute trash (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/06/military.richardnortontaylor).

A number of standard army rifles, recently modified at a cost of £92m, have jammed or misfired in operations in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday.
A team has just returned from Kabul after investigating official reports from soldiers that three SA80-A2 rifles had malfunctioned. There were anecdotal reports of other rifles not working properly, the MoD said. "We have still to get to the bottom of exactly what those problems are before we make any judgment", said Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, who visited Kabul earlier this week.

"The rifles are operating in really extreme conditions. It's very, very hot and there is lots of sand. And some of the rifles are being affected by the heat.

"But it's not good enough. We have spent a considerable amount of money upgrading this rife and I don't want to accept second best. We do not want anybody to be facing any more risks out there than they are already."

The original SA80, made in Britain, was suspended from Nato weapons lists in 1997 after soldiers experienced problems such as jamming in extreme weather.

H&K simply cannot perform miracles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1402602/Army-trials-of-new-SA-80-rifle-were-fudged.html).

The Ministry of Defence should consider scrapping the Army's SA 80 assault rifle, plagued by problems since its introduction into service, if reports that the weapon has been malfunctioning in Afghanistan prove correct, the Tories said yesterday.

The challenge followed the announcement by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, of an investigation into claims by Royal Marines that the rifle had suffered from jamming and misfires during operations in the country. The weapons involved were "improved" SA 80 A2s, the product of a £92 million project to remedy the rifle's defects.

The MoD's concern about the weaknesses of British infantry firepower in recent operations has also been illustrated by the decision to equip the Army with a new light machine-gun because of the inadequate rate of fire provided by the machine-gun version of SA 80, known as the Light Support Weapon (LSW).

Mr Hoon said he had sent a team from the MoD and the SA 80's manufacturers to Afghanistan this week to investigate the problems.

Speaking at the launch of Army 2002 on Salisbury Plain, he said: "I have just come back from Afghanistan, where I talked to the Royal Marines who have used the gun. The problems are that from time to time the rifle is jamming and they believe that is because of the really extreme conditions they have encountered. It is very hot, very windy and there is a lot of sand there."

The original SA 80 was suspended from the Nato nominated weapon list in 1997 after soldiers experienced problems such as jamming in extreme weather. To date 22,000 modified rifles have been issued to the Army, with priority going to units in Afghanistan.

As it turned out, the H&K mod was a sham from the beginning (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1402602/Army-trials-of-new-SA-80-rifle-were-fudged.html).

Trials of the modified SA-80 rifle in Kuwait to test it in the heat and sand of the desert were a sham, say defence sources.

Hessian matting was laid on the ranges to protect the SA-80 A2s and they were taken to the trials in bags.

A team from the Army's Small Arms School carried out "operational" trials in Kuwait, Norway and Belize, to test the weapon's reaction to arctic, jungle and desert conditions, said a senior source yesterday.

The rifle was modified by Heckler & Koch at a cost of £92 million after more than a decade of reports on its failings, most notably in the Gulf War. But it reacted badly to the fine sand and heat in Afghanistan. Royal Marines using it in combat reported stoppages and magazine failures.

A more realistic test by a company of marines for an investigation team sent to Afghanistan led to problems with 30 per cent of the rifles.

The L85a2 is a superior weapon overall, the only drawback being weight, but the flip side of that is that the bullpup design greatly reduces recoil, which is negligible in single-shot mode, and allows soldiers to have the range and power of a full-size rifle in a platform smaller and more maneuverable than an M4.

Are you serious? Your own military (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1400622/Scrap-British-rifle-and-buy-Heckler-say-the-generals.html) doesn't even believe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1408410/Army-chief-wanted-rifle-scrapped.html) that.

Senior army officers want the Government to scrap the service's fault-prone main assault rifle because of fears that it will cost the lives of British soldiers in battle.

The demands arose after it emerged that several SA80-A2 rifles, the latest version of the weapon that recently completed a £92 million upgrade, failed to fire during operations in Afghanistan.

One senior officer told The Telegraph: "You can't improve a weapon which is basically flawed no matter how much you spend on it, and the SA80 is a flawed weapon. It's not balanced, the optical sight easily gets steamed up so it can't be used, and it can't be fired in the left-handed position.

"Even with all the modifications these basic flaws still exist. The lesson here is that no amount of testing can replicate conditions in war. The modifications have made it more reliable and it doesn't jam as much as before, but it still jams. And a stoppage in combat will cost the life of a British soldier."

Another senior officer said he believed that troops had lost confidence in the weapon following the latest failures.

The Army's Director of Infantry called for the modified SA80 rifle to be scrapped amid concerns over the inadequate firepower it gave his men, according to a document leaked to The Telegraph yesterday.

Although trials on the modified rifle were deemed successful "options such as the phasing out of the SA80 and the procurement of an off-the-shelf proven weapon system need to be considered", Brig Seymour Monro said.

In a document entitled Infantry 2010, he also called for the machinegun, the Light Support Weapon (LSW), to be scrapped.

Brig Monro, who was transferred in June last year, said: "The LSW, even when modified, is unlikely to be the most effective way of meeting the suppressive fire requirements of the infantry engaged in close combat.

"HQ Infantry's view is that the Light Machinegun (LMG) should replace the LSW in the Infantry ."

The MoD has committed itself to keeping the SA80 until 2015 but the document pointed out that the SA80 will not work with new sophisticated systems due to be issued to all infantrymen in 2008.

"Trials indicate that short bull-pup designs such as the SA80 quickly become unbalanced once day/night [thermal imaging] sights, laser aimers and other equipment are fitted, with consequent loss of operational effectiveness," it said.

The Daily Telegraph has also been sent a photograph demonstrating that last year's "successful" trials of the modified weapon's ability to operate in desert conditions were a sham.

The MoD dismissed our report earlier this year that trials of the modified SA80 in the Kuwaiti desert were carried out in artificial conditions.

But the photograph clearly shows the weapon being fired on coconut matting on top of plastic sheeting to protect it from the sand. A hessian bag in which the rifle was carried to the range, also to protect it from the sand, lies between two ammunition boxes.

"It wasn't realistic," a senior Army source said. "These weapons were not exposed to long periods of operation in dusty conditions, the soldiers used mats and the weapons were delivered in dust free containers.

"The ammunition was drawn straight from factory sealed boxes and loaded into brand new magazines. There was no simulation of the battlefield."

The SA80 has immense problems in the desert. The MoD confirmed this week that the unmodified version, which British troops were forced to use during the 1991 Gulf war had only six per cent reliability in desert conditions.

The modified version failed when it was used in combat conditions for the first time in Afghanistan earlier this year.

Senior Army officers tried to blame the Royal Marines, saying that they were not cleaning their weapons properly.

But a Royal Marines officer said his men were cleaning their rifles as much as five times a day.

"A few senior Army officers speak in praise of the weapon," one Army officer said. "But they are not the guys who will be using it."

Both the Royal Marines, hunting down al-Qa'eda remnants, and British paratroopers on duty with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul ditched the LSW in favour of the US Minimi machinegun.

As a shooting piece, the L85 is stupidly accurate and the L86 is is just [I]ridiculous for what it is, a heavy barreled assault rifle with a bi-pod.

The vaunted 'accuracy' is solely due to being issued with a magnified optic - which was a stupid decision in its own right. With the same optics, the AR actually has superior accuracy.

The L85 is junk. The L86 was dumped (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1431349/Army-admits-defeat-over-SA80-light-machinegun.html) do to its terrible performance. This has been well documented (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek). The H&K redesign was a massive improvement in that critical pieces didn't crack and/or fall off the weapon (no exaggeration, important bits simply fell off the rifle), but it still resulted in junk because they were forced to work within the constrictions of the original SA80 design.

And worse, unlike the AR which has proven to be adaptable to modern fighting techniques due to its modularity, specifically in regard to CQB, the L85 has fallen dramatically behind (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2011/11/actual-friggin-data-on-sa80.html).

The SA80 is a poor design and prone to a lot of problems. The M16/M4 isn't superior in ALL regards, be it is in MOST of them
When dudes raised on the SA80 switch over to M4s (and even the M16A4 fence-post) they love them, especially when I show them the versatility of the system.
It is heavy. It feels like an AK, weight-wise. It is primarily constructed from stamped sheet metal.
The trigger has serious issues, and under a heavy firing schedule are prone to failing. I have personally seen three guns go down almost simultaneously with the same problem.
The handguard has a mounting screw that goes through the gas-block on the barrel which makes the gun very susceptable to POI change due to pressure on the handguard from aggressive hold, VFG use, or supported positions. This is not changed with the DD handguards- which have their own problems. They are prone to loosening of the retention screws (one through the gas-block and one that presses into the front of the receiver), which results in drastic POI variance. The gas block is exposed, and it happens to be right where the support hand wants to be for good front-end control. The top rail is lower than the top of the gas-block which severely limits a 12:00 light mount.
It is highly trigger sensitive and prone to having consistently low groups during rapid fire or rapid trigger manipulation.
It is no more accurate than an M16 or M4 when compared with similar optics.
The line of sight over bore is really high, especially when using a piggybacked MRD.
The NATO rail is severely lacking.
The SUSAT is a nightmare.
I have not seen the magazine well bend. However, I have seen what we would call the "lower receiver" (TMH here) bow outward which results in the magazine over-seating (like crappy 10 round 1911 mags do) during speed reloads.
The weapon can be fired left-handed, but only if you are very very careful and have a laser.
The rearward weight distribution makes the gun bouncy during multi-shot engagements and auto. I can hold 20 rounds on an IPSC on FA (full auto)with an M4A1, about 10 to 12 with the SA80.
The lack of adjustability of the LOP (length of pull) makes the gun sub-optimal for CQB. Everybody touts the thing for being so short, but the LOP is barely shorter than an M16A2. Combined with the zero amount of eye-relief of the SUSAT; CQB work with it when wearing armor sucks unless you want to rely solely on the laser (if you get one) or until the ACOGS come in (which have a MRD piggy-backed). The long LOP prevents the 3-man from carrying in the high port, which results in a less than speedy 3-man's gun in the room/fight.
It is virtually unusable with a single-point sling though the issue 3-point essentially configures into a single point, it isn't really. The sling sucks hard, but that will probably be a non-issue since we do have options.
The pistol grip is uncomfortable unless, get this, you hold it with all of your fingers. That's right- it's more comfortable to carry in a non-firing grip than with a finger straight and off the trigger.
The position and type of safety requires the shooter to use the left hand to engage the safety. It's a cross-bolt safety just forward of the trigger guard.
The mag catch is stiff and only operable with the left hand.
The placement of the mag release and charging handle (left side and right side, respectively) means that you have to flip the gun back and forth for stoppage reduction instead of just canting it and running it. The bolt-catch is handy though. Unfortunately, the bolt release is tiny and requires a bit of dexterity to consistently manipulate it.
The short handguard makes it impossible the grip out on the rail where you are most efficient, but you have to hit the safety with the left hand anyway, so it's just a forced compromise anyway. It feels like a pan of water during SOM (shooting on the move).
The trigger mechanism is slightly less complicated than the interior of a combine harvester, and prone to all kinds of fouling and unnecessary play, resulting in a great trigger (sarcasm).
The buttstock is ribbed, but doesn't stick in place during firing like a decent stock should. It is also heavily curved which makes running in the frontal pocket with armor more difficult than it needs to be.
You need two hands to work the gun and a functioning right side hand, arm, and clear line of sight to the right eye. This implies a lot of of failure points when in unconventional positions.
I taught the lead urban combat course in both marksmanship and tactics in the UK to instructor-level personnel from everywhere from SFSG to FPGRM. To a man they are senior and all have multiple tours in Iraq and the 'Ghan. I work with senior guys, guys that have been around and done stuff, many of which carried weapons systems other than the SA80. All of them are vocal about the fact that the SA80 needs to go away and be replaced with something that is actually made to fight with.
Yes, we are using A2s. There are no A1s, as they were all upgraded to the A2 configuration. Yes, I know the difference.
The SA80 is a bit better with the ACOG, but it doesn't do a damned thing about the problems with the system. The mount is a weak point. The ACOG needs to be cantilevered forward with the mount due to the rail being too short, and there are numerous accounts of a dropped rifle breaking or bending the mount. Implying that system would be fixed with an optic is grasping for straws and trying to obscure the real issues.
I have sufficient experience in CQB to say that the short overall length of the SA80 is not an advantage over an M4, especially considering that the length of pull is not adjustable. Most movements within the enclosure will be done from a compressed position with the barrel pointing either upward or down. Virtually no actions will be taken with the gun up unless covering a danger area or threat, in which case the shorter OAL does nothing. Indexing the gun sucks since the bolt travel will cause the cocking handle to strike the bicep if brought into an under-arm position, which means that I can actually make the M4 protrude a shorter distance and still be usable for extremely close contact. I have hopped into and out of vehicles a few times and I can positively say that the SA80 is barely better than a SAM-R (USMC's version of the Mk11 SPR essentially), and no better than an M4 in those conditions.
Why can't people be honest about things like guns? The SA80 is a POS. A better gun backed by better training would yield a better result. Why don't people want that to happen? As it is, HK is running out of SA80 receivers (I forgot to note, they are prone to cracking), which means that the MOD (Ministry of Defense) will have to accelerate their selection of a new system. I know this because I was in a tri-service (British) meeting about the topic.

SCAR, L85A2, possibly a select fire FN FAL, anything by HK (which includes the L85A2).

Well yeah, I kind of meant which of its contemporaries would have been a better choice to adopt. The SCAR entered service three years ago.

The L85A2 is garbage, as discussed above. The FAL is a wonderful weapon, but it is a Cold War era main battle rifle in line with the G3 and M14. It is completely unsuitable to fill the assault rifle role. The H&K XM8 which was being developed to replace the AR turned out to have a melting problem.

In my opinion, the AUG would have been a great choice, or maybe the SIG 55X series - although both come with significant disadvantages.

Ballistics - specifically range and stopping power at range.

But what does that have to do with the rifle's operation? The AR was originally developed in .308. It can be had in .300 Blackout, 6.8 SPR, 6.5 Lapua, etc. The viability of the 5.56 has no bearing on the functionality of the AR platform.

"The military does not understand it" is code for "the system is too temperamental" - live with it. The AR platform is not robust enough to reliably stand up to field conditions when handled by stupid soldiers. The average solder carried 120 rounds in his left magazine pouch, plus whatever else he can carry - your article says that "upwards of 150 rounds" the AR-15 need cleaning. As MRD has noted, soldiers on patrol fire in the region of 200. It also isn't a "myth", using cordite the M-16 is not low maintenance. Saying "oh, you need to use better powder" doesn't cut it, especially when cordite is cheaper and you are mass-producing ammo for a war.

I think you may want to re-read my links. They actually said:

I reliably fired 2400 rounds (80 magazines) on a bone dry gun, and I would bet that is a lot more than any soldier or other armed professional will ever come close to firing without any lubrication whatsoever.]

Over the past few years, I've fired a number of ARs (and a number of other weapons, for that matter) for thousands of rounds without any sort of cleaning whatsoever - in most cases, I just kept adding lubricant to the weapon. Recently, as you can see right below this post, I fired close to 3000 rounds through a 5.45 AR-15 without cleaning or lubrication.

It is very odd to witness someone trashing the AR and praising the L85 at the same time. I get the complaints from the AK purists who would sacrifice all other factors for absolute maintenance free reliability (which is a myth, by the way, but that is a different discussion), but I do not understand how one can come to the conclusion that the L85 is even in the same league. Both systems had rocky introductions, but whereas the AR has actually blossomed with age and gained wider acceptance, the L85 has continued to limp along as a running joke. (Designed by the Incompetent; Issued by the Uncaring; Carried by the Unfortunate; as British soldiers used to say before it was banned.)

Global procurement of AR pattern rifles has surpassed that of the AK for several years now. The Brits could only pawn the L85 off on the Jamaican army. No one who actually gets into gunfights and has a choice of firearm picks the L85, even your own special forces. They use the AR.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-19-2012, 14:25

Not true. The MOD tried to push the L85 in both A1 and A2 versions on the SAS several times. There are even some pictures of the SAS training with A2s floating around if you look hard enough. The SAS kindly responded 'No thanks, we'll keep our ARs. We might actually have to fight (http://www.mail-archive.com/cybershooters@compuserve.com/msg00341.html).'

And, of course, the SAS was correct. The new A2 turned out to be absolute trash (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/06/military.richardnortontaylor).

H&K simply cannot perform miracles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1402602/Army-trials-of-new-SA-80-rifle-were-fudged.html).

As it turned out, the H&K mod was a sham from the beginning (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1402602/Army-trials-of-new-SA-80-rifle-were-fudged.html).

There's a reason the rifles failed in the desert - the Marines were cleaning them using hob-brite, a necessary practice with the A1 to remove fouling, but the A2 has black-carbon finish on the recoil rod and spring, and the block, the marines rubbed the finish off.

Are you serious? Your own military (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1400622/Scrap-British-rifle-and-buy-Heckler-say-the-generals.html) doesn't even believe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1408410/Army-chief-wanted-rifle-scrapped.html) that.

I'm totally serious, and the weapon in question there is the L86, not the 85. The L86 is the heavy-barreled bi-pod beating variant that at the time was being used as a support weapon, but it's magazine, not belt fed. It has since been replaced by the FN Minime

So no points there.

The vaunted 'accuracy' is solely due to being issued with a magnified optic - which was a stupid decision in its own right. With the same optics, the AR actually has superior accuracy.

No, it's due to the expensive free-floating barrel. The British army has issued optics to infantry as standard since the 1970's. The SA80 platform was so much more accurate than the SLR that the marksman tests had to be redesigned. It's also not a stupid decision, given that British doctrine has focused on superior marksmanship at range for over a century. Using SUSAT at close range is also not as much of an issue as you make out, it's a very easy sight to use once you have your eye in from the range.

It's a nice weapon to use, really. It is also stupid-accurate - get over it.

The L85 is junk. The L86 was dumped (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1431349/Army-admits-defeat-over-SA80-light-machinegun.html) do to its terrible performance. This has been well documented (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek). The H&K redesign was a massive improvement in that critical pieces didn't crack and/or fall off the weapon (no exaggeration, important bits simply fell off the rifle), but it still resulted in junk because they were forced to work within the constrictions of the original SA80 design.

Wrong again, the L86 was moved to the Section Marksman role, and your 2003 article notes that the L85 performed well, from the same paper as your previous articles denigrating it. It's also not true about bits "falling off", that tended to happen with the L98 because cadets actively abused the rifle, these problems were not common with the production variant - the squeezable magazine housing was also a prototype issue.

About your rant-guy. I smell a Walt: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts

And worse, unlike the AR which has proven to be adaptable to modern fighting techniques due to its modularity, specifically in regard to CQB, the L85 has fallen dramatically behind (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2011/11/actual-friggin-data-on-sa80.html).

Also not true, really.

Well yeah, I kind of meant which of its contemporaries would have been a better choice to adopt. The SCAR entered service three years ago.

The L85A2 is garbage, as discussed above. The FAL is a wonderful weapon, but it is a Cold War era main battle rifle in line with the G3 and M14. It is completely unsuitable to fill the assault rifle role. The H&K XM8 which was being developed to replace the AR turned out to have a melting problem.

In my opinion, the AUG would have been a great choice, or maybe the SIG 55X series - although both come with significant disadvantages.

But what does that have to do with the rifle's operation? The AR was originally developed in .308. It can be had in .300 Blackout, 6.8 SPR, 6.5 Lapua, etc. The viability of the 5.56 has no bearing on the functionality of the AR platform.

I think you may want to re-read my links. They actually said:

It is very odd to witness someone trashing the AR and praising the L85 at the same time. I get the complaints from the AK purists who would sacrifice all other factors for absolute maintenance free reliability (which is a myth, by the way, but that is a different discussion), but I do not understand how one can come to the conclusion that the L85 is even in the same league. Both systems had rocky introductions, but whereas the AR has actually blossomed with age and gained wider acceptance, the L85 has continued to limp along as a running joke. (Designed by the Incompetent; Issued by the Uncaring; Carried by the Unfortunate; as British soldiers used to say before it was banned.)

Global procurement of AR pattern rifles has surpassed that of the AK for several years now. The Brits could only pawn the L85 off on the Jamaican army. No one who actually gets into gunfights and has a choice of firearm picks the L85, even your own special forces. They use the AR.

British special forces do not use the AR platform, if you got back and read your own articles you'll find the answer to what they do use

About the FAL, a few years back the Royal Marines issued an "Urgent Operational Requirement" for a 7.62 rifle with an effective range of 1,000 yards in a semi-automatic configuration for use in Afghanistan, rather than pull a few SLR's out the cupboard they purchased 400 new weapons.

This is what the Squaddies have to say about it, after the statutory winge, have a look at the final sentence:http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/SA-80

What they say about the M16: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/M16

Which makes me feel like people don't want to talk about it.

I mean that seriously, the lack of griping implies that the write-up isn't be people who use them in the field.

Strike For The South

08-19-2012, 23:08

a completely inoffensive name

08-20-2012, 04:03

Care to put this to a vote?

Even better, lets have Strike and Vuk take a SAT Subject test on World and/or US History and see who wins.

Vuk

08-20-2012, 04:25

Even better, lets have Strike and Vuk take a SAT Subject test on World and/or US History and see who wins.

It depends on how many questions involve beer and iron pumping.