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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

Fragony, just order a "TV" from Amazon.com... :laugh4:

Italian-made?

You unpatriotic scumbag!!

Also, rifles = boys, pistols = girlieboys.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Italian-made?

You unpatriotic scumbag!!

Also, rifles = boys, pistols = girlieboys.

---

None = Men

Relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Wz...eature=related

What a fitting gift!

Now, imagine a howitzer if you get a doctorate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

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/y1...r/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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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)

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Teeth can still be part of the arsenal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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. :yes:
I can tell you from experience that a snubby .357 can sting your hands a little when firing magnums out of it.

Quote:

---

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

IMO, PVC is talking sense here. Winging someone is for Hollywood. You run the risk of missing altogether (and hitting a bystander), winging as intended- which may or may not stop a determined attacker, or hitting center of mass anyway- may as well aim there to begin with..... But, I'm not a cop, lawyer, marksman, or anything of the like, so take that for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

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

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Are you certain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

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.

Wow. This thread got seriously Vuked up.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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.

---

That is what frangible ammunition is for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That is what frangible ammunition is for.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/...tridge1500.jpg

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/...etleo1_500.jpg

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/...tridge1500.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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

https://i520.photobucket.com/albums/...tridge1500.jpg

---

That's the wrong round, the .50AE is about 10mm longer than the .50GI. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?

---

In a war, yes. For use in home defense and police work, preferred. Less chance of dangerous ricochets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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.

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: