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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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.

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. (Here in the US they're a pain to obtain.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

---

That HK45 will probably be my next pistol. Minus the suppressor though. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Italian-made?

You unpatriotic scumbag!!

Also, rifles = boys, pistols = girlieboys.

---

Real men fire cannons!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I want a scud launcher. Beat that!

---

I want an experimental MIRV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I want an experimental MIRV.

---

If you want to go nuclear, why not do it properly and get yourself a relativistic baseball ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What is your guys opnion on this one http://www.google.nl/search?num=10&h...ac.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

No firearm should be fired under water or full of water. Not even the venerable AK performs reliably. 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.

Quote:

---

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.