Org Mobile Site
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.
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
That is what frangible ammunition is for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_eagleThat is what frangible ammunition is for.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
That is what frangible ammunition is for.
Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?That is what frangible ammunition is for.
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.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.
Desert Eagle will probably just kill you, hydro-static shock will get you after the affected body part disappears in a pink mist..50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.
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.
But what do rifle rounds have to do with the discussion. A .50 AE and a .50 BMG are completely different rounds.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:
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.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.
So what if I am not a soldier? What does that and your shooting a thousand rounds have to do with anything?
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.
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?.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.
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.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
.50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.
That's the wrong round, the .50AE is about 10mm longer than the .50GI. .50 Cal is pretty absurd. You don't just get shot by a desert eagle, you get maimed.
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.Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?
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?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.
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.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?
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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'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 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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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.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.
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.
"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.
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.
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. Just curious, what handgun does the military use and why?
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.
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.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?
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.
For the true defender of all that's right and good, get an M4 in case he's wearing non-military body armour.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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 thoughThe 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.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
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.
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.
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.
How cool does that make me.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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.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.
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?
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?
Don't know anything about it other than it's an HK, so I wholeheartedly support it.
It can shoot underwater. I am sure it's a great rifle but the regular army isn't happy because they get budget cuts.
Budget cuts? It can shoot under water. You shoot an M-16 under water and it will blow up.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
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.The best and only sure way to stop them is to kill them.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO