NationStates Jolt Archive

Ask away.

Why do you own a weapon?

Why don't you?

Because I have no need to, plus they're illegal in this country :p

Why do you own a weapon?
1. To learn to exercise power. A firearm is an instrument of power - literally and figuratively. In today's society, the individual so rarely gets to exercise power (or learn how to not indulge in the use of power despite it being at the individual's fingertips). The power of the rods and the axe, so to speak. The Jovian thunderbolt. In your hands. Now, learn how to use it judiciously.

2. Shooting is fun, when done for competition or just shooting targets. Certainly more fun than a video game.

3. For self-defense.
4. Some firearms are classic pieces of engineering and art. So I collect some.

Hypotheticall scenario: The pigs have you sorounded, there's no way out, they call on the loudspeaker one last time for you to surrender. Do you:
A) Surrender peacefully?
or B) Go out in a blaze of glory?

Hypotheticall scenario: The pigs have you sorounded, there's no way out, they call on the loudspeaker one last time for you to surrender. Do you:
A) Surrender peacefully?
or B) Go out in a blaze of glory?

A.

Do you want to own an AK-47 (or similar), or do you see a legitimate reason why someone would?

or you could learn to go aroun and butcher everyone around you (school shootings - hmmmmmm must be down to music not jurasic GUN LAWS)

shooting can be fun in competition in safe and secure enviroments not under your pillow just because your afraid of youths because they're black

hmmm self defence dont you just love the eye for an eye stupid mentality alot of gun ownership leads to stealing guns and then selling them so gr8 if you want to arm up the whole neighbour hood and then you really have to defend yourself damm kids getting hold of guns tut... whatever next

by the way i dont like the idea of gun ownership

1. To learn to exercise power. A firearm is an instrument of power - literally and figuratively. In today's society, the individual so rarely gets to exercise power (or learn how to not indulge in the use of power despite it being at the individual's fingertips). The power of the rods and the axe, so to speak. The Jovian thunderbolt. In your hands. Now, learn how to use it judiciously.

2. Shooting is fun, when done for competition or just shooting targets. Certainly more fun than a video game.

3. For self-defense.
4. Some firearms are classic pieces of engineering and art. So I collect some.

I understand the points abuot the sport and the engineering.
But self-defense? Who is out to get you?

or you could learn to go aroun and butcher everyone around you (school shootings - hmmmmmm must be down to music not jurasic GUN LAWS)

shooting can be fun in competition in safe and secure enviroments not under your pillow just because your afraid of youths because they're black

hmmm self defence dont you just love the eye for an eye stupid mentality alot of gun ownership leads to stealing guns and then selling them so gr8 if you want to arm up the whole neighbour hood and then you really have to defend yourself damm kids getting hold of guns tut... whatever next

by the way i dont like the idea of gun ownership

You ,sir, are an idiot. More guns less crime. There are hard statistics showing that communities with lighter gun laws and concealed carry laws have much lower crime rates than places like NY or LA where it's almost impossible to get a gun.

Why do you consider shooting guns to be fun?

Would you consider buying some of my guns?

As an American gun owner, why do you only own American guns?

Sorry. That was facetious.

Let's see...as a gun owner, I assume that you are fully aware of proper safety protocols when handling a gun. Do you believe that there should be a mandatory safety course for people to pass before being allowed to buy or use a gun? If not, do you know of an alternative method to ensure that those who handle guns do so properly? Does such a program exist in the USA or your state?

Do you want to own an AK-47 (or similar), or do you see a legitimate reason why someone would?
Here in the US, you can only own a fully automatic weapon (since 1934) by obtaining an NFA permit (which can only be done in 35 states). This process requires an FBI background check, a 200 dollar non-refundable tax, and permission from your local law enforcement.

As for semiautomatic version of the same weapons, one might consider the following thought problem.

A semiautomatic hunting rifle, such as a Remington 7400, is not based on any pre-existing military design. It comes with a 5-round magazine, and fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger. You can get a 10-round magazine. It is only slightly heavier than an AK-47, but the round it fires is substantially more powerful. The Remington is far, far more accurate. And the effective range of the Remington is hundreds of yards greater.

The Remington was designed with these characteristics because they fit the needs of hunters - people who shoot large game like Dall sheep at extended ranges (up to 400 yards away), or shoot elk at long range. You need the quick follow-up shot, and you need the long range.

But, because we're all "scared" by pictures of an AK-47, people want to ban them. Why? It's very inaccurate. It fires a relatively weak cartridge.

The typical American gun owner, with a lever action 30-30, is going to be far more dangerous than just about anyone with an AK-47. And if I have a modern Remington bolt-action rifle, I have a weapon that is equal in design, and nearly equal in quality to the finest sniper weapon money can buy.

Weapons like the AK-47 and the M-16/M-4 fill an odd niche - some people buy them for personal protection in the home. Here, the weapon is sufficiently lethal at short range, while lacking the extreme penetration of a shotgun slug or larger rifle that could shoot through a wall and kill a neighbor.

In fact, the round the M-16 fires has trouble going through more than a few layers of wallboard - far less dangerous in that regard than simple 9mm pistol ammunition.

I hunt, and I shoot in long range competition. I used to own a semi-automatic M-4, but I found that I didn't need a rifle that's barely effective past a few hundred yards. I prefer a Remington 700P bolt action (although I'm thinking about getting a Springfield Armory M1A for three-gun competition).

I'll put it another way. As well as I believe I shoot, if you were 200 yards away, and I had a semiautomatic AK-47, with a 30 round magazine, I probably would not be able to hit you even if you stood still. I might get lucky.

But with a bolt action rifle, if you were within 300 yards, I could hit you on any hand-sized area of your body I chose, even if you chose to move as fast as you could. And I would still have an 80 percent chance of hitting the torso (a larger area) out to 1200 yards.

When I was in the Army, we used to call people armed with "assault rifles" a different word - "targets". Because they were too far away to really hit us, but well within our effective range.

Do you want to own an AK-47 (or similar), or do you see a legitimate reason why someone would?

It would be an interesting item to posses, but Icannot see any real reason to, a 30-06 semi is just as good as an AK on burst(all assault rifles manufactured after a certain point have only single shot or burst to conserve ammo).

I understand the points abuot the sport and the engineering.
But self-defense? Who is out to get you?

I've been robbed several times. It stops now when it starts, because they recognize what end of a pistol is the pointy end.

or you could learn to go aroun and butcher everyone around you (school shootings - hmmmmmm must be down to music not jurasic GUN LAWS)

shooting can be fun in competition in safe and secure enviroments not under your pillow just because your afraid of youths because they're black

hmmm self defence dont you just love the eye for an eye stupid mentality alot of gun ownership leads to stealing guns and then selling them so gr8 if you want to arm up the whole neighbour hood and then you really have to defend yourself damm kids getting hold of guns tut... whatever next

by the way i dont like the idea of gun ownership


Yes, and I teach victims of domestic violence how to shoot. You would be surprised at how well behaved their ex-husbands are once they realize the woman is armed and knows how to use her pistol.

Of the women I've helped to do this, several have repelled a potential attack. None have been harmed. I call this a good result. Other women from the same shelter who call police for help get beaten until the police arrive.

As an American gun owner, why do you only own American guns?

Sorry. That was facetious.

Let's see...as a gun owner, I assume that you are fully aware of proper safety protocols when handling a gun. Do you believe that there should be a mandatory safety course for people to pass before being allowed to buy or use a gun? If not, do you know of an alternative method to ensure that those who handle guns do so properly? Does such a program exist in the USA or your state?

When a person is trained to use and respect guns he will not use them improperly, that being said I learned all my shooting from my uncle and my friends, practical experience beats book learning every time. Did you know that during the so called "wild west" there were less murders and rapes in Bodie and Dodge city than there are in one month in LA or NY.

Why do you consider shooting guns to be fun?

Would you consider buying some of my guns?

It's fun because it's harder than it looks.

No, I always buy mine new.

As an American gun owner, why do you only own American guns?

Sorry. That was facetious.

Let's see...as a gun owner, I assume that you are fully aware of proper safety protocols when handling a gun. Do you believe that there should be a mandatory safety course for people to pass before being allowed to buy or use a gun? If not, do you know of an alternative method to ensure that those who handle guns do so properly? Does such a program exist in the USA or your state?

I own foreign guns also. I like SIG and Mauser pistols (well, I like the old 1911, which is a US design).

Yes. I'm aware of safety rules.

No. There are only four rules - and if everyone followed them, no one would ever get hurt. Here in the US, we no longer call them "accidental discharges" unless there was an actual mechanical failure that caused the gun to fire when it was NOT being handled. Everything else is a "negligent discharge" - that is, the PERSON is at fault - which is usually the truth. Even if I was holding a gun that had a broken safety, if I'm following the rules, no one should get hurt, even if the gun fires, because it won't be pointing at anyone. You can teach these rules to people, and even have a test to see if they've memorized them - and some people are just going to be careless. The test and certification would have no effect. Case in point - that recent video of a trained DEA agent shooting himself in the thigh.

No, there's no way to make sure you use a weapon properly. The Army, for example, has a LOT of training. It's constantly repeated. Yet military police frequently have negligent discharges when unloading their pistols at the end of a shift. Soldiers get shot at the training range.

You have to take a class in order to get a concealed carry permit - half the class is safety and shooting, and the rest is legal information on what conditions must be present for legal use of force.

Truth be told, if you're not good at following directions, you shouldn't own a gun. Or a chainsaw. Or any sort of wood chipper. The safety is between your ears.

BTW, gun accidents are a fairly minor percentage of gun deaths. Safer, for instance, than your bathtub (if we consider accidents alone). Plastic buckets kill more children than firearms accidents.

Here in the US, you can only own a fully automatic weapon (since 1934) by obtaining an NFA permit (which can only be done in 35 states). This process requires an FBI background check, a 200 dollar non-refundable tax, and permission from your local law enforcement.

As for semiautomatic version of the same weapons, one might consider the following thought problem.

A semiautomatic hunting rifle, such as a Remington 7400, is not based on any pre-existing military design. It comes with a 5-round magazine, and fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger. You can get a 10-round magazine. It is only slightly heavier than an AK-47, but the round it fires is substantially more powerful. The Remington is far, far more accurate. And the effective range of the Remington is hundreds of yards greater.

The Remington was designed with these characteristics because they fit the needs of hunters - people who shoot large game like Dall sheep at extended ranges (up to 400 yards away), or shoot elk at long range. You need the quick follow-up shot, and you need the long range.

But, because we're all "scared" by pictures of an AK-47, people want to ban them. Why? It's very inaccurate. It fires a relatively weak cartridge.

The typical American gun owner, with a lever action 30-30, is going to be far more dangerous than just about anyone with an AK-47. And if I have a modern Remington bolt-action rifle, I have a weapon that is equal in design, and nearly equal in quality to the finest sniper weapon money can buy.

Weapons like the AK-47 and the M-16/M-4 fill an odd niche - some people buy them for personal protection in the home. Here, the weapon is sufficiently lethal at short range, while lacking the extreme penetration of a shotgun slug or larger rifle that could shoot through a wall and kill a neighbor.

In fact, the round the M-16 fires has trouble going through more than a few layers of wallboard - far less dangerous in that regard than simple 9mm pistol ammunition.

I hunt, and I shoot in long range competition. I used to own a semi-automatic M-4, but I found that I didn't need a rifle that's barely effective past a few hundred yards. I prefer a Remington 700P bolt action (although I'm thinking about getting a Springfield Armory M1A for three-gun competition).

I'll put it another way. As well as I believe I shoot, if you were 200 yards away, and I had a semiautomatic AK-47, with a 30 round magazine, I probably would not be able to hit you even if you stood still. I might get lucky.

But with a bolt action rifle, if you were within 300 yards, I could hit you on any hand-sized area of your body I chose, even if you chose to move as fast as you could. And I would still have an 80 percent chance of hitting the torso (a larger area) out to 1200 yards.

When I was in the Army, we used to call people armed with "assault rifles" a different word - "targets". Because they were too far away to really hit us, but well within our effective range.


I have several guns-all rifles and shotguns, no pistols as of yet, but I am considering joining the local range and getting a license.
I have an SKS. I have an attached 30 round banana clip, which turns out to be a pain in the ass. I like to target shoot with it because the ammo is fairly cheap.
I have two 30 carbines with various magazines. another fun gun to target shoot with.
I have a Mossberg 500 shotgun. a Winchester model 94 30-30 lever action among others. Possibly the most fun is a Marlin bolt action .22. I can teach my 11 year old gun safety and marksmanship with this one without the sound and impact of the others.
None of these are really practical for home defense, aside from maybe the Mossberg. unless there was a general announcement we were under attack.
I'm not terribly concerned about a home invasion. I have a really nice tomahawk for that.

Yes, and I teach victims of domestic violence how to shoot. You would be surprised at how well behaved their ex-husbands are once they realize the woman is armed and knows how to use her pistol.

Of the women I've helped to do this, several have repelled a potential attack. None have been harmed. I call this a good result. Other women from the same shelter who call police for help get beaten until the police arrive.


Yes- the proper licensed pistol in the hands of a person with proper handling training and occasional practice beats an order of protection everytime.
How many women are beaten or stabbed to death within a week of having filed an order of protection? I dont hae the statistics, but its a lot.

hmm so I could take out someone with a SKS with my little bolt .22 rifle ?

or you could learn to go aroun and butcher everyone around you (school shootings - hmmmmmm must be down to music not jurasic GUN LAWS)

shooting can be fun in competition in safe and secure enviroments not under your pillow just because your afraid of youths because they're black

hmmm self defence dont you just love the eye for an eye stupid mentality alot of gun ownership leads to stealing guns and then selling them so gr8 if you want to arm up the whole neighbour hood and then you really have to defend yourself damm kids getting hold of guns tut... whatever next

by the way i dont like the idea of gun ownership

I'm glad you dont like the idea of gun ownership.
You statements show you to be far too immature to consider touching a gun, much less a pair of scizzors.

Would you ever replace your gun with a melee weapon? (eg knife)

hmm so I could take out someone with a SKS with my little bolt .22 rifle ?


My little bolt action .22 is pretty accurate, but it only holds 7 rounds. I dont know what you're capable of, but I'm able to hit anything I need to with either and be effective. If I couldnt, I wouldnt take the shot. If something is too far away for me to reasonably hit the bullseye why am I shooting at it anyway? I'm not a sniper.

what is the best assult rifle in the world right now?

Sniper weapon?

Would you ever replace your gun with a melee weapon? (eg knife)


I dont carry a gun. I do carry a spyderco knife. Its all I need.

No more 'Ask A's..

what is the best assult rifle in the world right now?

Sniper weapon?


I have no idea, I'm not an expert. For me-if I had to chose one, I'd pick one I was familiar with- the colt AR15. Or my SKS.
Sniper weapon? If I needed to hit something that far away, I would want to have the Barrett .50 cal. I've only seen one at a gun show, never got to shoot one. Likely never will

hmm so I could take out someone with a SKS with my little bolt .22 rifle ? Someone of equal skill? Probably not. But the .22 rim-fire has killed more men than any other cartridge. it is capable of fine accuracy, and with good shot placement, will kill a human dead.
Of course, that's with VERY good shot placement-but Negligent discharges with .22 rifles and pistols have killed lots of people too.

This is why one of the big rules is "Never Point a Gun at something you do not intend to destroy."

ANY gun. Rule 2: "The gun is ALWAYS loaded." lots of people are shot each year because they forgot this rule. I mean, you wouldn't sit there "Dry running" a circular saw over your hand, would you??? yet somewhere, some jackass is snapping the hammer on what he thinks is an "Empty" gun-and a percentage of those same jackasses will find that the gun is not, indeed, empty.

Rule 3: "Keep track of it. Keep it in a locked or lockable place if you're not needing it immediately." Just about every year, we read about some parent or other empty-headed nincompoop whose kids got 'hold of the gun under the bed, or in the closet, or off the coffee table, and perforated themselves or others fooling around with it.

Rule 4: Store it separately from the ammo, dude. Even when I was sleeping with a loaded 1911 under the pillow, when I got up to go about my day, I unloaded and cleared it before locking it up in the gun-cabinet, and the magazine in the locking drawer. Safes are a good idea. They're a REAL good idea.


Guns are NOT toys, they are dangerous tools, they are dangerous and often expensive tools. YOu don't throw a power-drill that costs a months' pay under the front seat of the truck with teh empty coke cans, snotrags, and cigarette butts. If you don't respect your tools, they will not work properly for you.

Someone of equal skill? Probably not. But the .22 rim-fire has killed more men than any other cartridge. it is capable of fine accuracy, and with good shot placement, will kill a human dead.
Of course, that's with VERY good shot placement-but Negligent discharges with .22 rifles and pistols have killed lots of people too.




A .22 was the weapon of choice for many, many gangster hits. A shot to the head at close range, the bullet penetrates the skull and bounces around inside-not strong enough to exit, but enough to cause massive damage.

A man who owns a gun is a citizen.
A man who does not is a subject.

I carry a Glock 17 which I think is a fantastic and easily concealable (with permit of course) sidearm. A little erratic down range but at 25 ft it will hit center mass and stop an assailant in his tracks.

Personally, I prefer small arms to Sniper/Automatic weapons. an M9 (9mm US Army Pistol) is my preference, although the M16/AK-47 are both beautiful weapons (I only got to fire an AK once). Weapons are not tools of death. If that was the case, every rock, shovel, powertool and loose floor board would have to be seized for its potential use as a deadly weapon. Weapons are a work of mechanics and conceptual art. How it is used depends on the person, not on the make of the weapon.

Sniper rifles are fun, especially bolt-action. Bust still, I prefer small arms: combat shotgun, semi-automatic assault rifle/pistol. Just me... ;)

I don't want to turn this into another debate thread with bleeding heart liberals whining endlessly like a cat in a blender, but as a gun store owner, what's your views on the second ammendment?

Also, if I lived in a city, where could I go to get some target practice in without driving to the country side or freaking out the neighbors?

Someone of equal skill? Probably not. But the .22 rim-fire has killed more men than any other cartridge. it is capable of fine accuracy, and with good shot placement, will kill a human dead.
Of course, that's with VERY good shot placement-but Negligent discharges with .22 rifles and pistols have killed lots of people too.

This is why one of the big rules is "Never Point a Gun at something you do not intend to destroy."

ANY gun. Rule 2: "The gun is ALWAYS loaded." lots of people are shot each year because they forgot this rule. I mean, you wouldn't sit there "Dry running" a circular saw over your hand, would you??? yet somewhere, some jackass is snapping the hammer on what he thinks is an "Empty" gun-and a percentage of those same jackasses will find that the gun is not, indeed, empty.



The sad fact is that way too many people learn gun handling from watching movies and TV where you can run around with a pistol jammed in your belt and everyone can hit targets 30 feet away with one-handed shots.
When people refer to gun culture as a negative, I always thought the opposite- a gun culture where an adult teaches the young inexperienced the proper handling, shooting,cleaning and storage of a gun. A mentor who can calmy teach respect and marksmanship. A household where hunting, military or law enforcement happens to have a gun in the house. Guns are understood. people that grow up without them and later decide that guns are terrible and dangerous tend to feel this way because of ignorance on the subject.

Is this the best sniper weapon around right now?

McMillan Brothers .50-cal. ?

A man who owns a gun is a citizen.
A man who does not is a subject.

I carry a Glock 17 which I think is a fantastic and easily concealable (with permit of course) sidearm. A little erratic down range but at 25 ft it will hit center mass and stop an assailant in his tracks.


I dont know a lot about Glocks, except they are known to be dependable.
Is the model 17 a 9mm or a .40 ?

Do you want to own an AK-47 (or similar), or do you see a legitimate reason why someone would?

Will own one soon. I want one because it would be fun to plink with one. Second reason is that design is one of the most historically important designs of the 20th century. Hence, having a copy is like owning a piece of history.

I don't want to turn this into another debate thread with bleeding heart liberals whining endlessly like a cat in a blender, but as a gun store owner, what's your views on the second ammendment?

Also, if I lived in a city, where could I go to get some target practice in without driving to the country side or freaking out the neighbors?


You have to find a legitimate range. Unless you own the property and are familiar with its dimensions, you cant just go to the woods and start shooting. You never know whats on the property. My family has 20 acres and we built a berm to shoot into behind the targets. I know all my bullets are in there-no strays traveling a mile to hit someone or their property. And still, a neighbor will call the police and I'll emerge to cross the street with a rifle and meet a state trooper-never a good scenario.
Look up Shooting ranges and see which is closest to you. Its a safer, controlled environement and there is instruction available.

Will own one soon. I want one because it would be fun to plink with one. Second reason is that design is one of the most historically important designs of the 20th century. Hence, having a copy is like owning a piece of history.


Look at the SKS first- they are substantially cheaper. They are made by the red chinese though-Norinco.

I dont know a lot about Glocks, except they are known to be dependable.
Is the model 17 a 9mm or a .40 ?
9 mm.

Look at the SKS first- they are substantially cheaper. They are made by the red chinese though-Norinco.

I already have a Norinco SKS. I absolutely love it. The ammo is cheap, the recoil is easy going and the accuracy at 100 yds is pretty good, and really easy to take appart and clean. It really is amazing how much these rifles have evolved over the centuries. Even more amazing is what one can do with gas under pressure.

What gun would you recommend for a beginner?

I've been kicking around the idea of buying a pistol for quite some time and have narrowed down my first buy to a few options, which are:

Beretta 92FS
Browning Hi-Power 9mm
Colt 1991A1 (or some offshoot of the 1991/1911 made by Colt)

Should I start with a 9mm or the .45ACP?

Other guns i'd like to own:

Colt Python .357Mag
Glock 19 (shorter-barrel 9mm)
Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull
Ruger Mk7 (think that's it) bolt-action .308 rifle

advice would be greatly appreciated.

What gun would you recommend for a beginner?
Something 9mm, by Glock or Baretta.

What gun would you recommend for a beginner?

When I take someone out to the range for the first time I borrow my friend's AR-15. Recoil is nil and is very accurate. Problem is that one will run around 900. The SKS is good, the recoil is more than the AR however is far cheaper. A Yugo SKS will run around 160-170. Maybe you can find a decent .22LR bolt action for a decent price?

9 mil or 40 S&W is good but 45 acp is my preference as a starter. for brand try springfields XD line.

Do you like the AK-47? Mine was a piece of crap and I sold it back to my father. I prefer the SKS. And with that I am gone to play some Bloodbowl with a limey friend.

Yes- the proper licensed pistol in the hands of a person with proper handling training and occasional practice beats an order of protection everytime.
How many women are beaten or stabbed to death within a week of having filed an order of protection? I dont hae the statistics, but its a lot.

Women are at the peak of danger when they actually leave their abusive boyfriend/spouse. Most of these men end up stalking their ex. I've seen it over and over again. The danger actually increases when the woman gets a protective order. The man sees it as an affront and as a challenge. The man is present at the hearing for the protective order, and it takes a lot of evidence to get one - so he feels insulted by the process.

Add to that the fact that a protective order is just a piece of paper, and to be effective, the man has to still be present when the police arrive (or you have to videotape him on the scene), and you'll know why women die or are beaten up. Police don't like responding to calls for protective order enforcement, because they know it will be a problem.

hmm so I could take out someone with a SKS with my little bolt .22 rifle ?

A .22 rifle isn't much good past 100 yards (yes, I know you could hit further than that, maybe as far as 200 yards if you're lucky). The bullet really runs out of steam.

The whole design concept behind the "assault rifle" was simple.

1. Use a lightweight cartridge to enable the user to carry more ammunition.
2. Use a lightweight cartridge to reduce recoil to low levels.
3. You can sacrifice effective range down to 200 yards or less because statistics show that soldiers rarely can detect anyone past that distance, and most soldiers require a lot of training to hit anyone past that distance.
4. The rifle must be light in weight.
5. The magazine should hold a lot of ammunition, so that the soldier doesn't have to reload as often during combat.
6. The rifle must be cheaply and easily manufactured and repaired.

That being said, you will notice that the design is NOT optimized for killing. It is optimized to reduce the weight carried by a soldier, increasing the number of rounds carried/fired, reducing logistical costs, while sacrificing power, accuracy, and effective range.

In short, it is not a more "lethal" weapon in any respect. It is a more "effective" combat weapon from a purely military perspective.

These types of rifle grew out of German, UK, and American studies. Germans in WW II wanted a rifle that was smaller and lighter than the traditional rifle, but more powerful than a submachinegun. They were impressed by the Russian submachineguns, and they liked the performance of their submachineguns, but they wanted a bit more range. The UK and US in the postwar period wanted the same, but they also did studies which proved that most military small arms combat takes place at a range of 100 yards or less. Even a man standing in the open at 500 yards is unlikely to be spotted by a group of men who are not equipped with optics. And, only the UK and US regularly train (to this day) their troops to shoot further than 300 yards.

The other major consideration was to make the weapons cheap, and easily mass produced. This means a radical reduction in the number of machined parts (a step taken with the AK-47 when it became the AKM), an increase in the number of stamped or investment cast metal parts, an increase in the use of plastic, and a decrease in the use of wood. There was also a steady replacement of high tensile strength steel with aluminum (aluminium) where possible (this required changes in receiver design).

Virtually any hunting caliber rifle, especially a semiautomatic design that does not have military ancestery, is superior in range, accuracy, and killing power. The civilian weapon is longer, heavier, has substantially more recoil, is more expensive, and has a smaller magazine.

If you want to ban semiautomatic replicas of a military weapon because you think that somehow it is a "more deadly" weapon, you are sadly misinformed. In the hands of most experienced shooters, even a bolt-action hunting rifle is far more deadly at far greater range.

what is the best assult rifle in the world right now?

Sniper weapon?

That's largely a matter of opinion.

If you want cheap, and don't care about accuracy, and you don't want to train the person using it very much, and you don't want to spend much time cleaning the weapon (i.e., you have undisciplined troops), you'll want an AKM.

If you have a bit more money, want to be able to add more options by bolting them on, want a lighter weight weapon with more ammunition per unit weight, and have disciplined troops who can take advantage of a more accurate weapon and they're going to clean it, you'll want an M-4 (the short version of the M-16), with some sort of optic (ACOG or EOTech).

If you want something in between, the SIG 550. May be more expensive, though.

If you want something unproven in combat, but ostensibly more modern, the G36.

As for sniper weapons, the Accuracy International AWM, in 338 Lapua Magnum would get my vote for an all-around weapon (some might prefer a smaller caliber such as 7.62 NATO), and some like a heavier round in a different rifle (my current wish list is one rifle - the Chey-Tac M200 in 408 Cheytac - it comes with a ballistic computer and rangefinder, and can give a first shot hit on a man-sized target as far away as 2500 yards.

Women are at the peak of danger when they actually leave their abusive boyfriend/spouse. Most of these men end up stalking their ex. I've seen it over and over again. The danger actually increases when the woman gets a protective order. The man sees it as an affront and as a challenge. The man is present at the hearing for the protective order, and it takes a lot of evidence to get one - so he feels insulted by the process.

Add to that the fact that a protective order is just a piece of paper, and to be effective, the man has to still be present when the police arrive (or you have to videotape him on the scene), and you'll know why women die or are beaten up. Police don't like responding to calls for protective order enforcement, because they know it will be a problem.


Agreed-the protective order seems to catalyze a violent reaction. People are misinformed thinking this somehow shields them from harm. Its not like the court grants it and stations an officer at your residence to enforce it.

It is my goal to save up enough and buy a SAKO 41. I read a bit about it when I was doing some research for one of my first book attempts. Beautiful rifle, too rich for my blood right now though.

my brother has been bought several shotguns in the past two years-real works of art-Beretta, Benelli and Franchi. All seems to have a degree of craftsmanship-tool and scroll work and all are Italian made. Just shooting clay pigeons with them, but he enjoys breaking them down and cleaning them as much as anything.

It is my goal to save up enough and buy a SAKO 41. I read a bit about it when I was doing some research for one of my first book attempts. Beautiful rifle, too rich for my blood right now though.

Most great rifles are worth saving the money for.

Most great rifles are worth saving the money for.

Now if only I can convince my wife of this fact.

Now if only I can convince my wife of this fact.

I married a woman who shoots. The problem I have now is, if she ends up liking my gun, she wants one, too - or I have to give her mine.

I married a woman who shoots. The problem I have now is, if she ends up liking my gun, she wants one, too - or I have to give her mine.

I married a Japanese woman. If I mention guns she covers her ears and says, "Kowai!!" (means scary). I love to tease her by saying that if we have daughters I will make them join the Marines.

Now if only I can convince my wife of this fact.


A good one becomes something you can hand down to your children and carry on a tradition

What gun would you recommend for a beginner?

Pretty much any full size Glock is great for a beginner. They're very easy to maintain, have very few parts to break, and there are a veritable ton of extras for them.

You don't have to start with a 9mm, either. With the low bore axis and polymer frame, just about any caliber is tame in any of the full size Glocks.

Full size Glocks:
Model 17--9mm
Model 20--10mm
Model 21--.45ACP (the standard .45 caliber you always hear about)
Model 22--.40 S&W
Model 31--.357SIG
Model 37--.45GAP (new caliber with a shorter case, to fit in smaller frames)

If you've ever shot a pistol before, you find out fairly quickly which ones "snap" up and down, and which ones "push" back into your arm and shoulder. I prefer the ones that push--they tend to be the larger, slower calibers, like the .45ACP. The 9mm is a smaller, faster caliber with more snap than push. Some like that more.

Before buying, I'd just recommend going to a local range that rents out pistols and try a few out, to see what calibers you like and what frame fits and feels better in your hand.

A good one becomes something you can hand down to your children and carry on a tradition

Yeah, my father has given me a couple of them. A Winchester lever action and an Argentinen Mauser made in 1898. I have fired the Mauser but we have to reload the rounds for it cause they is darn expensive to buy.

I married a woman who shoots. The problem I have now is, if she ends up liking my gun, she wants one, too - or I have to give her mine.

I seem to have that "problem" as well....

For young shooters, the first weapon is a rifle (it's what I did with my children). The CZ 452 in 22 rimfire.

I married a woman who shoots. The problem I have now is, if she ends up liking my gun, she wants one, too - or I have to give her mine.


I wish my wife were interested-or tolerant. She is nervous when my 11 yr old and I are shooting the Sheridan air rifle at a target with a trap in the basment. With glasses on.

I wish my wife were interested-or tolerant. She is nervous when my 11 yr old and I are shooting the Sheridan air rifle at a target with a trap in the basment. With glasses on.

Have you asked her to try shooting ever? Many times, that pulls people right in. I think I've had one person that I've introduced to the sport view it negatively afterward. The other 40-50 have all had something of a change of heart regarding firearms.

Yeah, my father has given me a couple of them. A Winchester lever action and an Argentinen Mauser made in 1898. I have fired the Mauser but we have to reload the rounds for it cause they is darn expensive to buy.


Is it the Winchester model 94? Thats one I have. My father also has a Winchester chambered for the 300 magnum. He'll said he'll leave it to me, but I dont see myself doing any big-game hunting.

Have you asked her to try shooting ever? Many times, that pulls people right in. I think I've had one person that I've introduced to the sport view it negatively afterward. The other 40-50 have all had something of a change of heart regarding firearms.


I have several times, but she grew up in a non-gun household and is ignorant and fearful of them. I havent been able to change her opinion through explanation or almost 20 years of safe handling of them since we're together. I dont force it on her. None of my guns are displayed. The ones I have in my home are trigger locked AND in a concealed safe, ammo seperate. Her fear of them has increased my diligence. I never want ti have an "I told you so situation" as a result of my being careless. As a result, its a part of my life I dont spend very much time on.

I have several times, but she grew up in a non-gun household and is ignorant and fearful of them. I havent been able to change her opinion through explanation or almost 20 years of safe handling of them since we're together. I dont force it on her. None of my guns are displayed. The ones I have in my home are trigger locked AND in a concealed safe, ammo seperate. Her fear of them has increased my diligence. I never want ti have an "I told you so situation" as a result of my being careless. As a result, its a part of my life I dont spend very much time on.

Sorry to hear, but yeah, you're right--it can't be forced. I hope you never have the actual situation where you need one.

The best you can do is pass it on at this point. Good luck, sir.

A man who owns a gun is a citizen.
A man who does not is a subject.

I carry a Glock 17 which I think is a fantastic and easily concealable (with permit of course) sidearm. A little erratic down range but at 25 ft it will hit center mass and stop an assailant in his tracks.

The first handgun I owned was the subcompact version of the 17, 21 I think the model number is. I though it would fulfil both my target and cealed carry needs. Unfortunately, It didnt fit either role well. Fun gun to shoot though. I love the trigger action.

I wish my wife were interested-or tolerant. She is nervous when my 11 yr old and I are shooting the Sheridan air rifle at a target with a trap in the basment. With glasses on.
My first present to my wife was a compact revolver in 357.

I've been kicking around the idea of buying a pistol for quite some time and have narrowed down my first buy to a few options, which are:

Beretta 92FS
Browning Hi-Power 9mm
Colt 1991A1 (or some offshoot of the 1991/1911 made by Colt)

Should I start with a 9mm or the .45ACP?

Other guns i'd like to own:

Colt Python .357Mag
Glock 19 (shorter-barrel 9mm)
Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull
Ruger Mk7 (think that's it) bolt-action .308 rifle

advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have both a Beretta 92 FS and a version of a 1911(A wilson protector custom)

The 1911 is by far my most favorite gun to fire. It is also my most accurate. The Beretta if a good gun to start with. Very accurate and is both single and double action. The 1911 is only single action.

For your first gun I would recomend the beretta. Easy gun to fire and maintain. The 1911 is slightly more complicates to clean. Ammo is also more expensive for the 1911. 9mm for the beretta is dirt cheap(not as cheap as 22 but still cheap).

I think glock 19s are in 40 though. the 17 is 9mm

Sorry to hear, but yeah, you're right--it can't be forced. I hope you never have the actual situation where you need one.

The best you can do is pass it on at this point. Good luck, sir.


Thanks. As I said in a previous post, I dont own them for home protection. I dont think any of my guns are really suitable for that-maybe the Mossberg 500-its got a pistol grip and a short barrel. But with three kids in the house-two very young-I cant reasonably have it somewhere accessable.
My community is rated as in the top 5 safest towns in the country to live in, which is something I pay attention to. Break ins and robberies are rare. My house is pretty secure regardless-I changed the doors and frames and locks as part of a renovation after we bought the house-you couldnt knock my doors down without a breaching charge. We have an alarm. motion sensitive lights and a driveway alarm. I'm always home, so an intruder would have to deal with me. and a tomahawk. When I'm not home, I'm blessed by having an eagle eyed Vietnam Marine across the street-a good friend who watches over me. and the neighbor next door has a rotweiller who might as well be mine as he watches my property too-I dont even need a dog.

My first present to my wife was a compact revolver in 357.


A Colt ? That will shoot .38s too, right? My wife would have tried to pistol whip me with that.

My first handgun was a High Standard Supermatic Tournament in .22 LR.

Probably still my favorite for fun.

I have a Browning Hi-Power in 9mm, and I've had a Beretta, but I don't like 9mm - the flip-up that was talked about before.

I like just about anything that shoots the .45 ACP. I have several variants of the 1911, but my carry piece is a Mauser M2.

snip.

You missed the point that assault rifles are also specifically designed to wound not kill. The logic being that a wounded soldier consumes more resources than a dead one. War is more about attrition than clear cut military victories.

hunting rifles/ammo on the other hand(as you stated) are designed to kill quickly.

The first handgun I owned was the subcompact version of the 17, 21 I think the model number is. I though it would fulfil both my target and cealed carry needs. Unfortunately, It didnt fit either role well. Fun gun to shoot though. I love the trigger action.

Sub-compact Glock 9mm is the 26. :)

21 is the full size .45ACP ;)

The sub-compact Glocks, 26 (9mm), 27 (.40S&W), and 33 (.357SIG) are very useful for concealed carry, but yeah, you're right, target shooting isn't their forte.

My first handgun was a High Standard Supermatic Tournament in .22 LR.

Probably still my favorite for fun.

I have a Browning Hi-Power in 9mm, and I've had a Beretta, but I don't like 9mm - the flip-up that was talked about before.

I like just about anything that shoots the .45 ACP. I have several variants of the 1911, but my carry piece is a Mauser M2.


I dont have any pistols yet. I've only fired my father's. He has one of each of every Smith & Wesson model, in addition to several others.
I have a range nearby that I have yet to go to, though I plan too. In NJ, I need a firearms license for even an airgun, which I have yet to obtain.

My first present to my wife was a compact revolver in 357.

Heh, I didn't even get that far. Mine shot my Glock 20 (10mm) at the range the first time, and I never saw it again. Had to get another one...

I dont have any pistols yet. I've only fired my father's. He has one of each of every Smith & Wesson model, in addition to several others.
I have a range nearby that I have yet to go to, though I plan too. In NJ, I need a firearms license for even an airgun, which I have yet to obtain.

You need to move to Virginia. I can't even drive through NJ with some of my guns in the trunk of the car.

I have both a Beretta 92 FS and a version of a 1911(A wilson protector custom)

The 1911 is by far my most favorite gun to fire. It is also my most accurate. The Beretta if a good gun to start with. Very accurate and is both single and double action. The 1911 is only single action.


I've always wanted to buy a 1911. Tried a few, but I can't get clearance for the price tag. :(


I think glock 19s are in 40 though. the 17 is 9mm

G19 is a 9mm, but it's a compact frame. The G22 is the full-size .40S&W.

Thanks. As I said in a previous post, I dont own them for home protection. I dont think any of my guns are really suitable for that-maybe the Mossberg 500-its got a pistol grip and a short barrel. But with three kids in the house-two very young-I cant reasonably have it somewhere accessable.
My community is rated as in the top 5 safest towns in the country to live in, which is something I pay attention to. Break ins and robberies are rare. My house is pretty secure regardless-I changed the doors and frames and locks as part of a renovation after we bought the house-you couldnt knock my doors down without a breaching charge. We have an alarm. motion sensitive lights and a driveway alarm. I'm always home, so an intruder would have to deal with me. and a tomahawk. When I'm not home, I'm blessed by having an eagle eyed Vietnam Marine across the street-a good friend who watches over me. and the neighbor next door has a rotweiller who might as well be mine as he watches my property too-I dont even need a dog.

Well, if you have to be without an accessible firearm, I'd say you have the bases pretty much covered--repeatedly. :D

You need to move to Virginia. I can't even drive through NJ with some of my guns in the trunk of the car.


Its tough. I could live anywhere in the country with this job, but my kids are doing so well in a very progressive school system, that will have to wait. In about 20 years, I'll be moving somewhere were the cost of living is cheaper. Its pretty high here, but we are very comfortable.
I shoot occassionally on large, family owned property in NY.

You need to move to Virginia. I can't even drive through NJ with some of my guns in the trunk of the car.

Oog. Sounds like when I drive through Illinois....

Well, if you have to be without an accessible firearm, I'd say you have the bases pretty much covered--repeatedly. :D


Thanks- I'm dilligent and I like to be prepared. I wont even get into that subject. Another area my wife and I dont see eye-to eye on. She knows deep down though that she will never be standing on line for water from a national guard tanker or waiting for the "government cheese" in the case of some catostrophic event-man made or natural.

Its tough. I could live anywhere in the country with this job, but my kids are doing so well in a very progressive school system, that will have to wait. In about 20 years, I'll be moving somewhere were the cost of living is cheaper. Its pretty high here, but we are very comfortable.
I shoot occassionally on large, family owned property in NY.

Fairfax County has a pretty progressive school system, but the area is expensive.

My first handgun was a High Standard Supermatic Tournament in .22 LR.

Probably still my favorite for fun.

I have a Browning Hi-Power in 9mm, and I've had a Beretta, but I don't like 9mm - the flip-up that was talked about before.

I like just about anything that shoots the .45 ACP. I have several variants of the 1911, but my carry piece is a Mauser M2.

My carry piece is a seecamp 32. Nice gun and all + easy to carry(weighs nothing and is extremely slim). Unfortunately I wouldnt use it beyond point blank range unless my life absolutely depended on it. By absolutely I mean the guy had a gun, if he only had a knife I wouldnt risk using this gun. Doesnt even have sights.

I can draw and empty my gun into a man sized target at 10 feet without sighting, but beyond that is not really possible with this gun. This level of innaccuracy makes me kinda uncomfortable. In a real life situation with adrenaline pumping accuracy would be even less.

Sub-compact Glock 9mm is the 26. :)

21 is the full size .45ACP ;)

The sub-compact Glocks, 26 (9mm), 27 (.40S&W), and 33 (.357SIG) are very useful for concealed carry, but yeah, you're right, target shooting isn't their forte.

Thanks for the correction

My carry piece is a seecamp 32. Nice gun and all + easy to carry(weighs nothing and is extremely slim). Unfortunately I wouldnt use it beyond point blank range unless my life absolutely depended on it. By absolutely I mean the guy had a gun, if he only had a knife I wouldnt risk using this gun. Doesnt even have sights.

I can draw and empty my gun into a man sized target at 10 feet without sighting, but beyond that is not really possible with this gun. This level of innaccuracy makes me kinda uncomfortable. In a real life situation with adrenaline pumping accuracy would be even less.

Decent concerns. Ever thought about going back up in caliber and using something with sights?

Decent concerns. Ever thought about going back up in caliber and using something with sights?
In Virginia, open carry without a license is legal. I have a concealed carry permit because I don't want to frighten people. But, it's ok if it prints, or if it makes my pants shift, or shows in some subtle way. So I don't mind carrying the larger pistol.

For other states, with other laws, prudence might dictate a small, more concealable pistol.

What would you suggest he carry that would be larger?

I've always wanted to buy a 1911. Tried a few, but I can't get clearance for the price tag. :(


I felt the same way(felt because i didnt need clearance).

The guy at the gun store tried to sell me a custom 1911 one day but I wasnt buying. A few months later, I was complaining about how my accuracy wasnt improving. The guy pulls out his piece(another custom 1911 and asks me to fire a few rounds). It was magic. The gun is so accurate(its the gun, not me) and it feels so amazing. The weapon is PERFECTLY balanced and the trigger is like butter.

I immediately asked to buy one, he told me there was a 3 year wait from the factory but he did me a favour(Ive gone out drinking with him a couple of times + and I begged a lot) and got me one in a few weeks at the factory listed price

Believe me, after you fire this weapon you will find a way to get it. What an amazing design. And if you get one from a place that adds some more refinements(reduced trigger pull, rebalance,night sights, handmade grip ect) you will cherish it.

Fairfax County has a pretty progressive school system, but the area is expensive.


I bought my house near the start of the price rollercoaster-right now its worth a full 50% more than I paid for it. Hoping it stays at least that high, I hope to sell down the road and move somewhere that the same house would cost less and the property taxes would be significantly lower. It will mean sacraficing the ocean, but I dont want to work forever. I want to take my northeast salary somewhere like Arizona.

In Virginia, open carry without a license is legal. I have a concealed carry permit because I don't want to frighten people. But, it's ok if it prints, or if it makes my pants shift, or shows in some subtle way. So I don't mind carrying the larger pistol.

For other states, with other laws, prudence might dictate a small, more concealable pistol.

What would you suggest he carry that would be larger?

I'd suggest going back to the Glock 26 he had. It's very easy to conceal that. The Seacamp is TINY. I can still get a G27 (the .40S&W version of the Glock 26) into a pocket holster, without printing, in khakis or khaki shorts.

Personally, when I carry, I have a Glock 30 on my hip, either inside the waistband or under a shirt and outside the waistband. The gun is almost twice the size, and it disappears. I understand results may vary between people, but if he's uncomfortable about the performance, a slightly larger, more accurate weapon is an option.

For another option, the XD line from Springfield has a sub-compact as well. There are also several sub-compact 1911s out there that are nice and thin.

In Virginia, open carry without a license is legal. I have a concealed carry permit because I don't want to frighten people. But, it's ok if it prints, or if it makes my pants shift, or shows in some subtle way. So I don't mind carrying the larger pistol.



I never knew this about Virginia-I cant believe it. I spent a lot of time in Alexandria and Georgetown years ago, but never knew this.
I knew it was the case in Arizona, after seeing guys with six-shooters tucked in their waistbands in convienient stores. Being from NY, that takes a little getting used to.

I felt the same way(felt because i didnt need clearance).

The guy at the gun store tried to sell me a custom 1911 one day but I wasnt buying. A few months later, I was complaining about how my accuracy wasnt improving. The guy pulls out his piece(another custom 1911 and asks me to fire a few rounds). It was magic. The gun is so accurate(its the gun, not me) and it feels so amazing. The weapon is PERFECTLY balanced and the trigger is like butter.

I immediately asked to buy one, he told me there was a 3 year wait from the factory but he did me a favour(Ive gone out drinking with him a couple of times + and I begged a lot) and got me one in a few weeks at the factory listed price

Believe me, after you fire this weapon you will find a way to get it. What an amazing design. And if you get one from a place that adds some more refinements(reduced trigger pull, rebalance,night sights, handmade grip ect) you will cherish it.


Don't get me wrong, the Kimbers that I've fired were nice and all, but they didn't have the magical effect on my shooting that it did with yours, it seems. :) They're fine, but the Glocks do just as well by me.

Actually, I'm still much better with the Glocks (probably the practice and my being used to the greater grip angle).

If I had a chance, I'd like to nab a Dan Wesson Razorback (10mm) or a Dan Wesson Patriot (.45ACP). Both are sitting around $1000 right now, but don't need much in the way of tweaking. When I can get a Glock for less than $600 with mods, I don't have enough of an argument with the boss. ;)

I know Smith & Wesson has a compact semi automatic .45.

I never knew this about Virginia-I cant believe it. I spent a lot of time in Alexandria and Georgetown years ago, but never knew this.
I knew it was the case in Arizona, after seeing guys with six-shooters tucked in their waistbands in convienient stores. Being from NY, that takes a little getting used to.

Wisconsin also has the open carry--but I wouldn't try it in Madison or Milwaukee...too many officers willing to ticket you for "disturbing the peace of the sheeple"--well, the "disturbing the peace" part, anyway.

It's screwed up.

I never knew this about Virginia-I cant believe it. I spent a lot of time in Alexandria and Georgetown years ago, but never knew this.
I knew it was the case in Arizona, after seeing guys with six-shooters tucked in their waistbands in convienient stores. Being from NY, that takes a little getting used to.
We got "shall issue" concealed carry in 1995, and the open carry without license in July 2004.

The police in Fairfax were never told - and they were about to arrest them, when the supervisor told them over the radio that it was legal.

A really funny day.

Decent concerns. Ever thought about going back up in caliber and using something with sights?

I am not a big guy and in FL(where I have my carry permit) it is inconvenient to wear a lot of clothes(meaning I cant shoulder carry). So I keep my piece in a hip holster and untuck my shirt. Because of my size 5'6" slim, I am limitted by my comfort level to what I can carry. I started with my glock 26(which I feel very comfortable shooting with in RL situations) but it is just too bulky for hip carry.

Oddly, my largest handgun(1911) is slim enough that it wouldnt be bad to carry if it had a shorter barrel.

In any case, if the perp is more than 10 feet away then there should be limitted reason to draw a weapon. 10 feet is enough room to run away or do something else.

Its funny, all the people who hate guns think gun owners are looking for any excuse to shoot someone. Before I owned a firearm I guess I thought it would be "cool" to stop a robbery or something with a weapon. Since I became a gun owner I dont think like that at all. I think about what is the least confrontational way to get out of a situation because if something bad happens and I have to pull my weapon, there will be hell to pay.

Before I had a weapon I used to have no problem getting into arguments/fights with people. Now I back down/defuse specifically because I have a gun at my hip and who knows, a small argument MIGHT turn into something larger and its not worth taking the chance that I might have to pull my weapon.

We got "shall issue" concealed carry in 1995, and the open carry without license in July 2004.

The police in Fairfax were never told - and they were about to arrest them, when the supervisor told them over the radio that it was legal.

A really funny day.


You think something like that would be at the top of the agenda. What a potential nightmare.

I am not a big guy and in FL(where I have my carry permit) it is inconvenient to wear a lot of clothes(meaning I cant shoulder carry). So I keep my piece in a hip holster and untuck my shirt. Because of my size 5'6" slim, I am limitted by my comfort level to what I can carry. I started with my glock 26(which I feel very comfortable shooting with in RL situations) but it is just too bulky for hip carry.


I'd suggest the pocket carry with a decent belt.


Oddly, my largest handgun(1911) is slim enough that it wouldnt be bad to carry if it had a shorter barrel.


There are several 1911-style pistols out there with 3.5" barrels--perfect for the set-up you have.


In any case, if the perp is more than 10 feet away then there should be limitted reason to draw a weapon. 10 feet is enough room to run away or do something else.


10 feet isn't enough to draw your weapon. If the attacker is within 21 feet, and their weapon is out, you don't have as much time as you think you do. You're right, though--anything past that seven yard mark becomes VERY suspicious, if you were to shoot another.


Its funny, all the people who hate guns think gun owners are looking for any excuse to shoot someone. Before I owned a firearm I guess I thought it would be "cool" to stop a robbery or something with a weapon. Since I became a gun owner I dont think like that at all. I think about what is the least confrontational way to get out of a situation because if something bad happens and I have to pull my weapon, there will be hell to pay.


You're not alone in that feeling. Most that carry are painfully aware of the ramifications of firing on another human being. You will go to jail, even if it's for a short time.


Before I had a weapon I used to have no problem getting into arguments/fights with people. Now I back down/defuse specifically because I have a gun at my hip and who knows, a small argument MIGHT turn into something larger and its not worth taking the chance that I might have to pull my weapon.

That's the majority of gun carriers' mentality.

Its funny, all the people who hate guns think gun owners are looking for any excuse to shoot someone. Before I owned a firearm I guess I thought it would be "cool" to stop a robbery or something with a weapon. Since I became a gun owner I dont think like that at all. I think about what is the least confrontational way to get out of a situation because if something bad happens and I have to pull my weapon, there will be hell to pay.

Before I had a weapon I used to have no problem getting into arguments/fights with people. Now I back down/defuse specifically because I have a gun at my hip and who knows, a small argument MIGHT turn into something larger and its not worth taking the chance that I might have to pull my weapon.

This is what I call learning to exercise power responsibly. It's one of the things that comes with carrying a gun. People who don't own a gun and don't carry one rarely get the opportunity to learn this skill.

Don't get me wrong, the Kimbers that I've fired were nice and all, but they didn't have the magical effect on my shooting that it did with yours, it seems. :) They're fine, but the Glocks do just as well by me.

Actually, I'm still much better with the Glocks (probably the practice and my being used to the greater grip angle).

If I had a chance, I'd like to nab a Dan Wesson Razorback (10mm) or a Dan Wesson Patriot (.45ACP). Both are sitting around $1000 right now, but don't need much in the way of tweaking. When I can get a Glock for less than $600 with mods, I don't have enough of an argument with the boss. ;)

Cant argue with the boss!! :)

I am decent with full sized glocks(dont own a full sized though) but they do not compare to my Wilson. The Wilson was $1900 though and the glocks are a LOT less.

There are several 1911-style pistols out there with 3.5" barrels--perfect for the set-up you have.

I am going to have to look into that. Unfortunately I am India now and there is very limitted provision for civillians to own firearms here.



10 feet isn't enough to draw your weapon. If the attacker is within 21 feet, and their weapon is out, you don't have as much time as you think you do. You're right, though--anything past that seven yard mark becomes VERY suspicious, if you were to shoot another.


10 feet is all ive got without fear of hitting unintentional targets with my seecamp. I guess I have to pray my assailant is a slow fat crippled SOB :)



You're not alone in that feeling. Most that carry are painfully aware of the ramifications of firing on another human being. You will go to jail, even if it's for a short time.

That's the majority of gun carriers' mentality.

Yes, too bad the anti gun crowd will never understand this. Responsible gun owners(the ones that take it seriously) arent the ones who get drunk and shoot up a place. Its the idiots who do this, and they would do it regardless of whether guns are legal or not. For that matter, those types of people would find a way to cause harm with power tools let alone firearms.

Cant argue with the boss!! :)

I am decent with full sized glocks(dont own a full sized though) but they do not compare to my Wilson. The Wilson was $1900 though and the glocks are a LOT less.

WOW. None of my firearms break the $600 mark yet. :) But I drool over many.

I am going to have to look into that. Unfortunately I am India now and there is very limitted provision for civillians to own firearms here.


Oog. Sorry to hear.


10 feet is all ive got without fear of hitting unintentional targets with my seecamp. I guess I have to pray my assailant is a slow fat crippled SOB :)


Here's hoping you never get attacked, regardless the weapon you possess. :)



Yes, too bad the anti gun crowd will never understand this. Responsible gun owners(the ones that take it seriously) arent the ones who get drunk and shoot up a place. Its the idiots who do this, and they would do it regardless of whether guns are legal or not. For that matter, those types of people would find a way to cause harm with power tools let alone firearms.

Yup. That's what sells newspapers and commercial space on TV, though. :mad:

It seems strange to me that 100+ posts on this topic and only one reference to the second amendment to the US Constitution. Here's it is:

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

A couple of things stand out (at least to me):

1) In 1791, the United States was still very much under threat of the British returning to get another can 'o whoopass opened up on them. This is why a "well regulated Militia" is referenced.

2) In 1791, the United States did not have the drug/crime problem plaguing us today. Looks like Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee a crackhead unloading his .38 into the chest of a liquor store owner just to get the $50 out of the till.

3) It also seems to me that the word "Militia" has a far different connotation today than it did 214 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines militia as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." Using this definition, shouldn't gun ownership be limited to the brave men & women of the National Guard?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.

WOW. None of my firearms break the $600 mark yet. :) But I drool over many.

I thought it was a crazy price to pay.. until I fired a similar weapon.

Whispering Legs, thanks for stepping up to bat. When I saw the post I knew there would be hostility towards you but do appreciate the honest curiosity of some. It seems private ownership of firearms relegates on to criminality in the eyes of many industrialized nations where the citizens do not have access to that freedom. Presumption of guilt.

In the United States, our Constitution was built around the ideology that rational individuals should hold more power than an impersonal bureaucracy. Rational individuals do not wish to cause harm to others but maintain firearms because irrational individuals will victimize others for their selfish benefit.

Whoa! I just scrolled down and seen all you carriers. This is my first day on the forum. The baby I carry is a Springfield .45 compact. Love it. You know you are a serious gunnut when you carry different guns depending on what your wearing. In the summer with shorts...chromed Colt Pocket Mustang .380, in the winter I've got a full sized frame Desert Eagle 9mm I prefer over the Springfield but carry the Springfield most of the time.

My conceal and carry has come in handy once I know of. Sitting in a grocery parking lot a scumbag was checking to see if there was anyone in the cars in the darkened parking lot. He peeked into my tinted window to see the Springfield looking his way pointing about 30 degrees to the right of his head. I then got raised hands and an apology with some lame story about he thought it was his girlfriend's car.

Deterance...some nefarious types know I carry and haven't confronted me on information (may still...but doubtful) I've given to the police resulting in two felony arrests for manufacture of crystal methamphetamines for a combined 12 years in prison.

It seems strange to me that 100+ posts on this topic and only one reference to the second amendment to the US Constitution. Here's it is:

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

A couple of things stand out (at least to me):

1) In 1791, the United States was still very much under threat of the British returning to get another can 'o whoopass opened up on them. This is why a "well regulated Militia" is referenced.

2) In 1791, the United States did not have the drug/crime problem plaguing us today. Looks like Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee a crackhead unloading his .38 into the chest of a liquor store owner just to get the $50 out of the till.

3) It also seems to me that the word "Militia" has a far different connotation today than it did 214 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines militia as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." Using this definition, shouldn't gun ownership be limited to the brave men & women of the National Guard?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.

Just like the press isnt the only body entitled to free speech, so the militia isnt the only body allowed to posses firearms. It is called the justification clause, and as was the style at time in no way limits the body of the sentence. Also, Militia(as defined by the people who wrote the constitution and cill of rights) is all able bodied males between 17 and 45. In other words, the people.


The crack addict has already found a way to get his hands on an illegal substance, why do you think he will follow the law when it comes to guns? He isnt following it when it comes to crack? Theonly thing you would be doing is preventing the liqour store owner from shooting the crack addict first.

I have heard this argument so many ttimes and it really makes me wonder. Do people not understand that criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. What possible gain is there to making another law(there are already 20,000) concerning guns. Thats 20,000 gun laws by the way.

It seems strange to me that 100+ posts on this topic and only one reference to the second amendment to the US Constitution. Here's it is:

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

A couple of things stand out (at least to me):

1) In 1791, the United States was still very much under threat of the British returning to get another can 'o whoopass opened up on them. This is why a "well regulated Militia" is referenced.

2) In 1791, the United States did not have the drug/crime problem plaguing us today. Looks like Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee a crackhead unloading his .38 into the chest of a liquor store owner just to get the $50 out of the till.

3) It also seems to me that the word "Militia" has a far different connotation today than it did 214 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines militia as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." Using this definition, shouldn't gun ownership be limited to the brave men & women of the National Guard?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.


You're in the wrong thread.
The Constitution didnt give us the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from outside forces that the National Guard would-it was so that we could protect ourselves from tyranny within.
This who have the weapons, make the rules.
Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson intended for us all to have a black-powder musket hanging on the wall?
You're not going to get the answer you want to hear in here.

I have heard this argument so many ttimes and it really makes me wonder. Do people not understand that criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. What possible gain is there to making another law(there are already 20,000) concerning guns. Thats 20,000 gun laws by the way.


You cannot effectively argue this sensible point to someone that doesnt want to believe it. Dont try to explain yourself. People like this are the REASON we have the right-so the right cant be taken away.

I understand the points abuot the sport and the engineering.
But self-defense? Who is out to get you?
No one in particular is out to get most people, but burglars and criminals and the like will often break into homes when people are present. Typically in circumstances where the homeowners have a gun, the burglar surrenders before so much as a shot is fired. In fact, in the US this happens about two million times a year.

Just like the press isnt the only body entitled to free speech, so the militia isnt the only body allowed to posses firearms. It is called the justification clause, and as was the style at time in no way limits the body of the sentence. Also, Militia(as defined by the people who wrote the constitution and cill of rights) is all able bodied males between 17 and 45. In other words, the people.

Free speech is not limited to the press in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The second amendment says that a "well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." This forum up to this point is not talking about keeping their guns locked up until the Canadians come swarming down from the North, it's talking about the liqour store owner ... shooting the crack addict first.

It's cute to say "guns don't kill people, people kill people.", but when was the last time you heard of that crackhead carrying a Remington 700P bolt action?

To quote a Southern Redneck, "handguns were made for killing, they ain't no good for nothing else."

The second amendment says that a "well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." This forum up to this point is not talking about keeping their guns locked up until the Canadians come swarming down from the North, it's talking about

Hey, why don't you go look up the Battle of Athens, Tennesee, and you will see why we have the 2nd Amendment.


I have a question. Why is Sarah Brady such a stupid bitch?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.

I don't have to answer that. I live in Virginia, a state where I am entitled to carry a pistol openly on my person without a license. I can also carry it concealed with a license, and the state "shall" (which means they have no choice) issue me that license as long as I'm not a felon and have taken a short class (or been in the military).

You should come to one of the 33 states where life is like this.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is hardly relevant when I live in such a state. Even by your interpretation, there isn't any way to interpret it to mean that my right to bear arms is negated entirely.

To quote a Southern Redneck, "handguns were made for killing, they ain't no good for nothing else."

Handguns were made to stop fights in close social situations. Rifles were made for starting fights.

I have stopped three robberies without firing a shot. I suppose that in your book, that's "no good". I know over thirty women who now carry pistols and have received training from me who are no longer stalked and no longer beaten by their ex-husbands - and no shots were fired. The local women's shelter cannot boast the same record for women who did not get a pistol and a concealed carry permit.

Ask any of those women, including the women who staff the shelter, and they'll tell you that a gun is far, far more useful than a protective order.

Next time you need to quote Lynyrd Skynyrd for your sage advice, try and use the band's name.

snip."

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.




Why in your eyes should "the people" be differant in the 2nd ammendment than it is in all other amendments?

"The people" are "the people" throughout the document are they not?

Gun ownership has little to do with crime. If you ban guns criminals simply use other things or get them illegally, and then the people on the street and storeowners have absolutely no defense.

It seems strange to me that 100+ posts on this topic and only one reference to the second amendment to the US Constitution. Here's it is:

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

A couple of things stand out (at least to me):

1) In 1791, the United States was still very much under threat of the British returning to get another can 'o whoopass opened up on them. This is why a "well regulated Militia" is referenced.

2) In 1791, the United States did not have the drug/crime problem plaguing us today. Looks like Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee a crackhead unloading his .38 into the chest of a liquor store owner just to get the $50 out of the till.

3) It also seems to me that the word "Militia" has a far different connotation today than it did 214 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines militia as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." Using this definition, shouldn't gun ownership be limited to the brave men & women of the National Guard?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.

1) The reference to Well Regulated Militia was just an example. It wasn't the sole reason for the amendment. The actual reason for the amendment, according to the thoughts expressed in the Federalist Papers (the document that describes the meanings behind what went into the US Constitution), was to protect the citizenry from the government itself. The Justice department has also confirmed the right to bear arms applies to the individual citizens of the US.

2) The only reason there is a drug problem is because of prohibition. They tried it with alcohol in the early 1900s. Didn't work then either. It has nothing to do with guns. That's a black-market mentality, not a firearm mentality.

3) Again, you're assuming that the militia was the only reason for the 2nd amendment, when in reality, it was just one example to "justify" (though that wasn't necessary either) the armed citizenry. Back then, just about every citizen counted as being part of the militia.

The 9mm comment--Well, I can't comment on the 9mm itself, as I don't own a pistol in that caliber, but the right to defend oneself from harm is pretty self-explanitory in my eyes. The second amendment refers to arms. Not just firearms, but swords, knives, kubatons, or a baseball bat. It's about the natural right to exist, without being forced to submit to anyone trying to subjugate an individual's will. That's how a firearm applies to the constitution.

I have a question. Why is Sarah Brady such a stupid bitch?

She isn't stupid, otherwise we wouldn't have as much organized opposition against our position as we do. Don't underestimate her or her cronies.

Bitch? Probably not. More like she had something tragic in her life that she hasn't gotten over. And is VERY bitter about it. She's funneling all her pain and self-pity into the effort to take away our right to defend ourselves.

Is she a threat to our freedoms? You bet she is.

I thought it was a crazy price to pay.. until I fired a similar weapon.

One of the kimbers I fired was around $1600. Like I said, interesting and fun, but didn't improve my score.

I AM jealous, though. :D

It seems strange to me that 100+ posts on this topic and only one reference to the second amendment to the US Constitution. Here's it is:

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

A couple of things stand out (at least to me):

1) In 1791, the United States was still very much under threat of the British returning to get another can 'o whoopass opened up on them. This is why a "well regulated Militia" is referenced.

2) In 1791, the United States did not have the drug/crime problem plaguing us today. Looks like Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee a crackhead unloading his .38 into the chest of a liquor store owner just to get the $50 out of the till.

3) It also seems to me that the word "Militia" has a far different connotation today than it did 214 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines militia as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." Using this definition, shouldn't gun ownership be limited to the brave men & women of the National Guard?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.

I have taken the word "militia" in this case to mean something like, "Any group of citizens who may band together to defend themselves/their property/their country"... IE, it does not necessarily have to be a pre-organized or standing group; it, rather, may be a rag-tag bunch of guys with guns trying to defend themselves from government oppression (or any other type of oppression, for that matter).

At any rate, the key phrase for me is not that which contains the word "militia"; the key part of the sentence for me is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It is clear that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves.

...as for the coked-up person in your anecdote, I bet the founding fathers would support the shop owner's right to defend himself using a gun.

And if you take the shop owner's gun away, guess whose gun the cops likely won't be able to take -- the store-robbing criminal's gun.

What gun would you recommend for a beginner?

Glock 17 or 19 depending on hand size and if you plan on carrying it concealed on a regular basis. I have both, but carry the 19 daily (have two 19s, actually.) Glocks are, quite simply, the best handguns made, period. At least that's IMHO.

Glock 17 or 19 depending on hand size and if you plan on carrying it concealed on a regular basis. I have both, but carry the 19 daily (have two 19s, actually.) Glocks are, quite simply, the best handguns made, period. At least that's IMHO.

For self-defense and other tactical applications, I'm right there with ya. :D

It seems strange to me that 100+ posts on this topic and only one reference to the second amendment to the US Constitution. Here's it is:

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

A couple of things stand out (at least to me):

1) In 1791, the United States was still very much under threat of the British returning to get another can 'o whoopass opened up on them. This is why a "well regulated Militia" is referenced.

2) In 1791, the United States did not have the drug/crime problem plaguing us today. Looks like Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee a crackhead unloading his .38 into the chest of a liquor store owner just to get the $50 out of the till.

3) It also seems to me that the word "Militia" has a far different connotation today than it did 214 years ago. Merriam-Webster defines militia as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." Using this definition, shouldn't gun ownership be limited to the brave men & women of the National Guard?

I'm sure I don't have to ask, but would some handgun owner explain to me how their 9MM fits into the Constitution?

Thanks for the future enlightenment.


Hello road kill. The intent of the founding fathers was that a president or anyone else would never be able to take power from the citizens. To this effect all laws to regulate guns have been unconstitutional, if they were to pass laws regulating the militia that would unfortunately be legal. In the past there was unorganized and organized militia, the ammendment applies to both.

I have a question. Why is Sarah Brady such a stupid bitch?

Sarah Brady made an illegal straw-man purchase of a rifle for her son, in violation of the very law she championed.

The fact that she was investigated, and admitted the basic facts, but was not charged or prosecuted by the ATF speaks volumes for the fact that you can be rich and powerful, and the laws you use to remove the rights of others do not apply to you.

Handguns were made to stop fights in close social situations. Rifles were made for starting fights.

I have stopped three robberies without firing a shot. I suppose that in your book, that's "no good". I know over thirty women who now carry pistols and have received training from me who are no longer stalked and no longer beaten by their ex-husbands - and no shots were fired. The local women's shelter cannot boast the same record for women who did not get a pistol and a concealed carry permit.

Ask any of those women, including the women who staff the shelter, and they'll tell you that a gun is far, far more useful than a protective order.

Next time you need to quote Lynyrd Skynyrd for your sage advice, try and use the band's name.


come on man :rolleyes:
You getting to be a parody.

I used to be 100% against guns until I had a conversation with a friend who also happens to be a hunter.

If the general public simply felt there was no need for them to have guns we would not be able to protect ourselves from our own government. It made alot of sense to me.

come on man :rolleyes:
You getting to be a parody.

Hardly.

Lynyrd Skynyrd also wrote Gimme' back my bullets. So I would hardly call them supporters of anti-gun laws. Ronnie was admittedly against handgun ownership, but had no issues with long guns.

Why don't you have a foreign gun? Racist :p

For the same reason I don't have a Japanese car, they're usually not as good. Some brands that are excluded are HK, Mauser, FN, Steyr, SIG, and Walther.

come on man :rolleyes:
You getting to be a parody.

I can't tell....how was that a parody?

Over 2 million crimes are stopped annually due to firearm ownership.

WL is right. A gun is much more effective against criminals than a law or a restraining order. Criminals don't obey laws. They tend to believe in self-preservation, though.

Criminals don't obey laws. They tend to believe in self-preservation, though.

good point.
as a matter of fact
since cops got laser sights on their guns, the incidents of cops discharging their guns have drastically gone down.

Again as I have said before, guns are not the problem, nor are gun laws, the problem is that americans are violent.

You can have all the guns you but again the USA will have the most crime.

For the same reason I don't have a Japanese car, they're usually not as good. Some brands that are excluded are HK, Mauser, FN, Steyr, SIG, and Walther.

I have an HK sticker on my car just to piss off the anti-gunners at my school and in my town, you should see the look on the faces on the soccer moms who see that.... They are looking at my Bush stickers, rolling their eyes, and then you see :eek: haha

I wish to purchase a new gun that I can use to hunt deer in the brush with good range, what do you recomend.

The best kind of gun is a S.A.A. (single action army, peace maker) the gun that America was built with.

I own an AK47, and I've yet to commit a crime with it. In fact, it's alot of fun to shoot and serves as an excellent home protection weapon (I'd much prefer to have the 29 extra rounds incase in miss the first shot, not that I would...)

I don't see why everyone has a problem with the ownership of such weapons.

Again as I have said before, guns are not the problem, nor are gun laws, the problem is that americans are violent.

You can have all the guns you but again the USA will have the most crime.

Entirely possible.

So, I guess it would stand to reason that we'd need to be the best prepared for a personal assault by carrying a pistol or some other arm to help defend ourselves.

I own an AK47, and I've yet to commit a crime with it. In fact, it's alot of fun to shoot and serves as an excellent home protection weapon (I'd much prefer to have the 29 extra rounds incase in miss the first shot, not that I would...)

I don't see why everyone has a problem with the ownership of such weapons.

well as whispering legs has said before, the ak 47 has no power so in the event of a shootout with some robber you will not harm your neighbours at all of course. :rolleyes:

why not buy a little .22 revolver or something?

The best kind of gun is a S.A.A. (single action army, peace maker) the gun that America was built with.

Good, but not best, if you handle it like you see in a movie someone will get hurt, most likely you. SAA's take alot of skill and practice to use properly.

I wish to purchase a new gun that I can use to hunt deer in the brush with good range, what do you recomend.

Why do you need good range in brush (lack of visibility)?

Usually a good deer gun with limited visibiliby (and therefore, lack of necessary range) is a lever action rifle in 30-30 or .44mag. My Marlin 1894 in .44mag would fit the bill nicely.

If you're looking for a long range deer rifle, inexpensive options (under $700) include:

Savage Model 10 or 12, or a Remington 700, in .270, .308, or 300 win mag. I have both Savages in .308 and they are quite accurate out to 200 yards (haven't tested them beyond that).

Entirely possible.

So, I guess it would stand to reason that we'd need to be the best prepared for a personal assault by carrying a pistol or some other arm to help defend ourselves.

I dunno maybe try and change the thinking that if you get into a fist fight you pull out a pistol? Or if someone cuts you off you chase after the person with a SKS? Or reduce poverty and crime by increasing the cash you spend on education so criminals will have a choice other than crime and be able to get a decent future?

Up here in canada if you get in a fight you fight, when I go down to the states my relatives always warn me and my brother against getting in fights because of all these knuckleheads carrying concealed weapons...

Why do you need good range in brush (lack of visibility)?

Usually a good deer gun with limited visibiliby (and therefore, lack of necessary range) is a lever action rifle in 30-30 or .44mag. My Marlin 1894 in .44mag would fit the bill nicely.

If you're looking for a long range deer rifle, inexpensive options (under $700) include:

Savage Model 10 or 12, or a Remington 700, in .270, .308, or 300 win mag. I have both Savages in .308 and they are quite accurate out to 200 yards (haven't tested them beyond that).


just buy a .308

well as whispering legs has said before, the ak 47 has no power so in the event of a shootout with some robber you will not harm your neighbours at all of course. :rolleyes:

why not buy a little .22 revolver or something?

Oh come on. He said it had LESS power, not that it was harmless.

You'd have to be pretty darn good with the .22 to not have to empty it, to stop an assailant.

The point is to mitigate the danger to others while fully protecting yourself, not fully protecting everyone else at the expense of the one person who's actually in danger.

Time at the range helps a great deal in that regard. One tends to hit their targets if they practice more--and you'll find that gun owners with legally obtained weapons are better practiced than most police officers.

I dunno maybe try and change the thinking that if you get into a fist fight you pull out a pistol? Or if someone cuts you off you chase after the person with a SKS? Or reduce poverty and crime by increasing the cash you spend on education so criminals will have a choice other than crime and be able to get a decent future?

Up here in canada if you get in a fight you fight, when I go down to the states my relatives always warn me and my brother against getting in fights because of all these knuckleheads carrying concealed weapons...


Canada is not America, there will always be threats to your life, if you are armed then you have a better chance to survive the criminals assault. Most of the time in America a fight never starts if one participant is armed.

I dunno maybe try and change the thinking that if you get into a fist fight you pull out a pistol?


Why not try to do both? I do my best to avoid physical confrontation--I haven't been in an actual fight since high-school. I haven't killed anyone with a gun yet, either. Haven't shot anyone for that matter.


Or if someone cuts you off you chase after the person with a SKS?


You're making an awful lot of assumtions about US gunowners. I have yet to run anyone down for cutting me off--or even follow them.


Or reduce poverty and crime by increasing the cash you spend on education so criminals will have a choice other than crime and be able to get a decent future?


Ah. I'm not a socialist, so I can't support that one. Sorry. You sink or swim on your own merits and effort.


Up here in canada if you get in a fight you fight, when I go down to the states my relatives always warn me and my brother against getting in fights because of all these knuckleheads carrying concealed weapons...

Hoo boy. Have they actually run into someone that started a fight, THEN pulled out a gun? Or have they been the one attacked, and wished to stop the assailant? BIG difference. I don't know how it works in the Great White North, but you don't have the right to pick a fight in the US.

Why not try to do both? I do my best to avoid physical confrontation--I haven't been in an actual fight since high-school. I haven't killed anyone with a gun yet, either. Haven't shot anyone for that matter.



You're making an awful lot of assumtions about US gunowners. I have yet to run anyone down for cutting me off--or even follow them.



Ah. I'm not a socialist, so I can't support that one. Sorry. You sink or swim on your own merits and effort.



Hoo boy. Have they actually run into someone that started a fight, THEN pulled out a gun? Or have they been the one attacked, and wished to stop the assailant? BIG difference. I don't know how it works in the Great White North, but you don't have the right to pick a fight in the US.

yes someone pulled a glock

yes someone pulled a glock

Can you describe the set of circumstances, please?

Wow, didn't think my 1000th post would be asking that.

Then their assailant was in the wrong. That does not mean that all people with concealed carry permits will do that.

First time post, so please be gentle.

First off, I live in the U.S. (Indiana) currently and while I do not own any firearms, I have considered it off and on for several years. The household where I grew up had some firearms and I did learn proper firearm safety while young, at camp. I wonder if the same camp offer riflery now (Camp Tecumseh in Brookston, IN), due to todays PC guns are evil culture?

First off, to the Glock owners. My father owns a Glock and upon viewing it I came away with the impression that it would be very dangerous to possess. As I saw it, the gun has no safety and an internal hammer. It does have that lever in the trigger to prevent accidental fires. It seems to me that unless one is a perfect follower of range safety rules, this pistol could be trouble. What are your opinions?

Second, the 2nd amendment. As I understand it, the Constitution lists things the federal government may and may not do. It does not restrict things state and local governments may and may not do. As such, if people wish to abolish guns, they simply need only convince their own states/local goverments to restrict them. For example, as I understand it, people living in Chicago, IL may not own/possess pistols. I am not sure about rifles.

Finally, regarding most gun deaths and child-related accidents. I have seen evidence stating that many (I can't recall the source), if not most, gun deaths are due to suicides. Eliminating guns is not likely to prevent these deaths. Second, it is my opinion that in the event of children causing harm with guns, their parents should be charged with the equivalent crime (i.e. The Columbine kids' parents would be charged with multiple 1st degree murder) unless the parents have taken reasonable precautions to prevent the children from accessing the weapons. Reasonable to be determined by a judge or jury. I believe this might contribute to gun safety, or at least get idiot parents with guns off the streets.

Then their assailant was in the wrong. That does not mean that all people with concealed carry permits will do that.

The guy got into a arguement at a 7-11 and the other guy flashed a holestered glock.


The guy was cut off driving, chased after the guy I know and confronted him in the 7-11 parking lot and drew the glock later on...

The guy got into a arguement at a 7-11 and the other guy flashed a holestered glock.


The guy was cut off driving, chased after the guy I know and confronted him in the 7-11 parking lot and drew the glock later on...

Jackass should be shot. :rolleyes: There will still be idiots out there, yes. Where does the guy you know live? Large city?

First time post, so please be gentle.

First off, I live in the U.S. (Indiana) currently and while I do not own any firearms, I have considered it off and on for several years. The household where I grew up had some firearms and I did learn proper firearm safety while young, at camp. I wonder if the same camp offer riflery now (Camp Tecumseh in Brookston, IN), due to todays PC guns are evil culture?

First off, to the Glock owners. My father owns a Glock and upon viewing it I came away with the impression that it would be very dangerous to possess. As I saw it, the gun has no safety and an internal hammer. It does have that lever in the trigger to prevent accidental fires. It seems to me that unless one is a perfect follower of range safety rules, this pistol could be trouble. What are your opinions?

Second, the 2nd amendment. As I understand it, the Constitution lists things the federal government may and may not do. It does not restrict things state and local governments may and may not do. As such, if people wish to abolish guns, they simply need only convince their own states/local goverments to restrict them. For example, as I understand it, people living in Chicago, IL may not own/possess pistols. I am not sure about rifles.

Finally, regarding most gun deaths and child-related accidents. I have seen evidence stating that many (I can't recall the source), if not most, gun deaths are due to suicides. Eliminating guns is not likely to prevent these deaths. Second, it is my opinion that in the event of children causing harm with guns, their parents should be charged with the equivalent crime (i.e. The Columbine kids' parents would be charged with multiple 1st degree murder) unless the parents have taken reasonable precautions to prevent the children from accessing the weapons. Reasonable to be determined by a judge or jury. I believe this might contribute to gun safety, or at least get idiot parents with guns off the streets.


Glocks have a grip safety and a regular safety, so I'm not sure what you mean. As for charging a parent with murder for the crimes of a child is like charging a child for their fathers crimes, I thought that we were past the time of sins of the fathers.

First time post, so please be gentle.


I'll try... :)


First off, to the Glock owners. My father owns a Glock and upon viewing it I came away with the impression that it would be very dangerous to possess. As I saw it, the gun has no safety and an internal hammer. It does have that lever in the trigger to prevent accidental fires. It seems to me that unless one is a perfect follower of range safety rules, this pistol could be trouble. What are your opinions?


Revolvers have no safety at all. There are three internal safeties in a Glock, preventing the release of the firing pin to strike the primer on a cartridge. A Glock cannot go off unless the trigger is actually pulled, or the ambient temperature gets high enough to ignite the powder in the cartridge. Any "accidental" discharge with a Glock is most likely a negligent discharge, in actuality.


Second, the 2nd amendment. As I understand it, the Constitution lists things the federal government may and may not do. It does not restrict things state and local governments may and may not do. As such, if people wish to abolish guns, they simply need only convince their own states/local goverments to restrict them. For example, as I understand it, people living in Chicago, IL may not own/possess pistols. I am not sure about rifles.


As much as I don't like it, yes, that is the case. However, over 30 states have self-defense statements in them, covering that topic directly.

Glocks have a grip safety and a regular safety, so I'm not sure what you mean. As for charging a parent with murder for the crimes of a child is like charging a child for their fathers crimes, I thought that we were past the time of sins of the fathers.

Sorry about this, but Glocks don't have a grip safety, nor any sort of external safety, other than the one on the trigger....

The second ammendment superseedes all law, as such all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional.

Jackass should be shot. :rolleyes: There will still be idiots out there, yes. Where does the guy you know live? Large city?


He was driving from phoniex to flagstaff...

Sorry about this, but Glocks don't have a grip safety, nor any sort of external safety, other than the one on the trigger....

You're right, I was thinking of the XD by Springfield, my bad.

The second ammendment superseedes all law, as such all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional.

Odd, as no "anti-gun" law has ever been held unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

You don't really want to get into this ...

The reason is that there is too much precedent of an incorrect interpretation. The meaning is that all citizens may own guns, but how and where they may use them can be regulated. The ammendment specifically says "well regulated militia", not well regulated guns.

First time post, so please be gentle.

*snip*

Second, the 2nd amendment. As I understand it, the Constitution lists things the federal government may and may not do. It does not restrict things state and local governments may and may not do. As such, if people wish to abolish guns, they simply need only convince their own states/local goverments to restrict them. For example, as I understand it, people living in Chicago, IL may not own/possess pistols. I am not sure about rifles.

*snip*.

Congratulations on a thoughtful first post. And welcome to the NS Forums.

I also congratulate you for having a better understanding of the Second Amendment than most.

But you are not 100% right. The Constitution -- as originally written -- describes the powers and limitations of the federal government. Thus, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. See Barron v. Baltimore (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html ), 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

The 14th Amendment changed this, however. Through the process of "incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29)," the Supreme Court has held over the past 100 years or so that certain provisions of the Bill of Rights are fundamental liberties protected by the 14th Amendment. So, the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Regardless of how one interprets the Second Amendment (i.e., whether or not one believes it protects an individual rather than collective or state right), it has not been incorporated through the 14th Amendment. So it does not apply to state and local governments. This is not to say it could not be incorporated. But it hasn't been.

There are, however, state constitutional provisions similar to the Second Amendment. Each has its own caselaw interpreting and applying it. These provisions may or may not protect an individual right to possess and use firearms -- depending largely on who you ask.

Before anyone throws a hissy fit, this NRA article (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23) confirms what I have said.

(This has been a public service announcement brought to you by The Cat-Tribe -- with guitar!)

Here in the US, you can only own a fully automatic weapon (since 1934) by obtaining an NFA permit (which can only be done in 35 states). This process requires an FBI background check, a 200 dollar non-refundable tax, and permission from your local law enforcement.

As for semiautomatic version of the same weapons, one might consider the following thought problem.

A semiautomatic hunting rifle, such as a Remington 7400, is not based on any pre-existing military design. It comes with a 5-round magazine, and fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger. You can get a 10-round magazine. It is only slightly heavier than an AK-47, but the round it fires is substantially more powerful. The Remington is far, far more accurate. And the effective range of the Remington is hundreds of yards greater.

The Remington was designed with these characteristics because they fit the needs of hunters - people who shoot large game like Dall sheep at extended ranges (up to 400 yards away), or shoot elk at long range. You need the quick follow-up shot, and you need the long range.

But, because we're all "scared" by pictures of an AK-47, people want to ban them. Why? It's very inaccurate. It fires a relatively weak cartridge.

The typical American gun owner, with a lever action 30-30, is going to be far more dangerous than just about anyone with an AK-47. And if I have a modern Remington bolt-action rifle, I have a weapon that is equal in design, and nearly equal in quality to the finest sniper weapon money can buy.

Weapons like the AK-47 and the M-16/M-4 fill an odd niche - some people buy them for personal protection in the home. Here, the weapon is sufficiently lethal at short range, while lacking the extreme penetration of a shotgun slug or larger rifle that could shoot through a wall and kill a neighbor.

In fact, the round the M-16 fires has trouble going through more than a few layers of wallboard - far less dangerous in that regard than simple 9mm pistol ammunition.

I hunt, and I shoot in long range competition. I used to own a semi-automatic M-4, but I found that I didn't need a rifle that's barely effective past a few hundred yards. I prefer a Remington 700P bolt action (although I'm thinking about getting a Springfield Armory M1A for three-gun competition).

I'll put it another way. As well as I believe I shoot, if you were 200 yards away, and I had a semiautomatic AK-47, with a 30 round magazine, I probably would not be able to hit you even if you stood still. I might get lucky.

But with a bolt action rifle, if you were within 300 yards, I could hit you on any hand-sized area of your body I chose, even if you chose to move as fast as you could. And I would still have an 80 percent chance of hitting the torso (a larger area) out to 1200 yards.

When I was in the Army, we used to call people armed with "assault rifles" a different word - "targets". Because they were too far away to really hit us, but well within our effective range.



wrong wrong wrong

The only time I've come accross firewarms was during my time in the cadet force at school, and in my opinion thats the only place they should be, the military.

I've fired SA80, M16, AK47, LSW, GPME, and 7.62mm hunting rifles (as well as .22 target rifles on the school range.

I can savely say that the 5.56 mm round fired by the SA80 and M16 is considerably more powerful than a 9mm pistol round, thats why the army dont wear kevlar armour, because they're no good against anything other than 9milli, the 7.62 round fired by the AK is more powerful still and I've seen one of those shoot right through a brick wall. Having said this all the times Ive fired a weapon I was under British military supervision and like I said I think the most powerful weapon a civilian should be allowed to own is a .22 target rifle, its all you need for targets, an air rifle would suffice to be honest. I find hunting animals distastful in the extreme, and even then if you must do it you could bring down anything with a .22, I understand that you yanks have some big ass animals but seriously most of them are protected anyway what the fuck are you doing killing somthing that has no means of killing you, its dishonourable plain and simple.

The idea of carrying a gun for self defense is the most fucking stupid thing i;ve ever seen, its morons with that kind of attidude which give the US an 11,000 people a year death rate from fire arms compared to just a few hundred in the Uk

The reason is that there is too much precedent of an incorrect interpretation. The meaning is that all citizens may own guns, but how and where they may use them can be regulated. The ammendment specifically says "well regulated militia", not well regulated guns.

Wow, over 100 years of federal caselaw -- scores of decisions by US Courts of Appeals and the US Supreme Court -- wrong. And it could have been avoided if they asked you! :rolleyes:

Please write Chief Justice Rehnquist ASAP! Perhap you can stop them before they err again! :D

(No, I kid. There is copious scholarship that supports your view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and there are a few cases appearing to adopt that view. There is copious scholarship and overwhelming caselaw supporting the other view. I will respect your view. And out of respect for WL and his thread, I won't get into another huge debate over the interpretation of the Second Amendment.)

wrong wrong wrong

The only time I've come accross firewarms was during my time in the cadet force at school, and in my opinion thats the only place they should be, the military.

I've fired SA80, M16, AK47, LSW, GPME, and 7.62mm hunting rifles (as well as .22 target rifles on the school range.

I can savely say that the 5.56 mm round fired by the SA80 and M16 is considerably more powerful than a 9mm pistol round, thats why the army dont wear kevlar armour, because they're no good against anything other than 9milli, the 7.62 round fired by the AK is more powerful still and I've seen one of those shoot right through a brick wall. Having said this all the times Ive fired a weapon I was under British military supervision and like I said I think the most powerful weapon a civilian should be allowed to own is a .22 target rifle, its all you need for targets, an air rifle would suffice to be honest. I find hunting animals distastful in the extreme, and even then if you must do it you could bring down anything with a .22, I understand that you yanks have some big ass animals but seriously most of them are protected anyway what the fuck are you doing killing somthing that has no means of killing you, its dishonourable plain and simple.

The idea of carrying a gun for self defense is the most fucking stupid thing i;ve ever seen, its morons with that kind of attidude which give the US an 11,000 people a year death rate from fire arms compared to just a few hundred in the Uk

But the UK imprisons those who defend themselves with firearms. As for these "harmless" animals I'm gonna guess that you've never seen what a full grown buck does to a car. A 5.56 and a 7.62 are not powerful IN COMPARISON WITH HUNTING RIFLES compared to a .22 LR it's a cannon, however, my M1 replica makes both of those look like pussies, and my brothers .308 Win Mag is even more powerful.

Wow, over 100 years of federal caselaw -- scores of decisions by US Courts of Appeals and the US Supreme Court -- wrong. And it could have been avoided if they asked you! :rolleyes:

Please write Chief Justice Rehnquist ASAP! Perhap you can stop them before they err again! :D

(No, I kid. There is copious scholarship that supports your view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and there are a few cases appearing to adopt that view. There is copious scholarship and overwhelming caselaw supporting the other view. I will respect your view. And out of respect for WL and his thread, I won't get into another huge debate over the interpretation of the Second Amendment.)

The issue is that most lawyers are not taught anything about it and do not know how to use it effectively. That being said I appreciate you not trying to start a debate as well.

But the UK imprisons those who defend themselves with firearms. As for these "harmless" animals I'm gonna guess that you've never seen what a full grown buck does to a car. A 5.56 and a 7.62 are not powerful IN COMPARISON WITH HUNTING RIFLES compared to a .22 LR it's a cannon, however, my M1 replica makes both of those look like pussies, and my brothers .308 Win Mag is even more powerful.

i was just going to say a .308 would do a better job.

I dont have a problem with hunting rifles, specially stuff like .308s. To be honest one needs .308s for stuff like bears. I wouldnt want to shoot my little .22 at a raging bear, it would probably just piss it off...

That being said i do have a problem with people carrying around glocks and handguns, i just dont see a need....

To all those who advocate gun control I say this: I challenge you to place a sign in your yard that says "no guns here" with a graphic as well for illiterate criminals, then see how long it is before you're robbed. If you live in a community that has its own security then I challenge you to move to a place like new york or jersey city and post that sign.

In your opinion, is a S&W Model 500 worth anything except as a gimmick weapon?

Yes. It is an interesting piece to hunt with, for those who like a pistol backup when they hunt.

The second ammendment superseedes all law, as such all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional.

There's been a bit of debate on that point--Federal vs. State powers. I don't have the answer, though.

Congratulations on a thoughtful first post. And welcome to the NS Forums.

I also congratulate you for having a better understanding of the Second Amendment than most.

But you are not 100% right. The Constitution -- as originally written -- describes the powers and limitations of the federal government. Thus, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. See Barron v. Baltimore (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html ), 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

The 14th Amendment changed this, however. Through the process of "incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29)," the Supreme Court has held over the past 100 years or so that certain provisions of the Bill of Rights are fundamental liberties protected by the 14th Amendment. So, the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Regardless of how one interprets the Second Amendment (i.e., whether or not one believes it protects an individual rather than collective or state right), it has not been incorporated through the 14th Amendment. So it does not apply to state and local governments. This is not to say it could not be incorporated. But it hasn't been.

There are, however, state constitutional provisions similar to the Second Amendment. Each has its own caselaw interpreting and applying it. These provisions may or may not protect an individual right to possess and use firearms -- depending largely on who you ask.

Before anyone throws a hissy fit, this NRA article (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23) confirms what I have said.

(This has been a public service announcement brought to you by The Cat-Tribe -- with guitar!)


I was wondering when you were going to chime in. Made my later post irrelevant. Ah well.

I was taught gun safty by my dad with his .22 target rifle and 12 gauge shot gun. I have never had a shooting accident by following those 4 rules stated ealier in the post, the most important of the 2 being "The gun is ALWAYS loaded", and "Never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot." We have been burgerized a couple times, and my dad lost is good handgun collection durring those, so he keeps his guns in a safe now.

Yes, a 7.62 or 5.56 is more powerful than a 9mm (This gets catagorized under "Duh"), but civilian rifles are generaly far more powerful and deadly than the scarry looking millitary ones. The Millitary style rifles, however, are far more effective at home deffence than a .308 because they have less recoil, are lighter(and thus, easier to aim in close quarters) and have higher magazine capacity in case of a few misses.

In regaurds the the second ammendment, it does extend to the states. Where most of the bill of rights state that "The congress shall not", the 2nd amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", meaning that any anti-gun law should be declared unconstitutional. However, we are not realy living under the constitution any more in reality because of the politicians and judges ignoreing our rights as they see fit.

I myself am joining the US Navy and will probably be issued a rifle and handgun, but I plan to privately purchace a handgun privately for personal and home deffence. I'll wait till I have more practice with handguns before I make a decission, as I have only once fired my dad's old black-poweder revolver

Does paint ball hurt like hell? Does it leave bruises? I'm thinking of playing, but I dont wanna be black and blue when I'm finished.



What? You use a paintball gun....that counts.

wrong wrong wrong

The only time I've come accross firewarms was during my time in the cadet force at school, and in my opinion thats the only place they should be, the military.

I've fired SA80, M16, AK47, LSW, GPME, and 7.62mm hunting rifles (as well as .22 target rifles on the school range.

I can savely say that the 5.56 mm round fired by the SA80 and M16 is considerably more powerful than a 9mm pistol round, thats why the army dont wear kevlar armour, because they're no good against anything other than 9milli, the 7.62 round fired by the AK is more powerful still and I've seen one of those shoot right through a brick wall. Having said this all the times Ive fired a weapon I was under British military supervision and like I said I think the most powerful weapon a civilian should be allowed to own is a .22 target rifle, its all you need for targets, an air rifle would suffice to be honest. I find hunting animals distastful in the extreme, and even then if you must do it you could bring down anything with a .22, I understand that you yanks have some big ass animals but seriously most of them are protected anyway what the fuck are you doing killing somthing that has no means of killing you, its dishonourable plain and simple.

The idea of carrying a gun for self defense is the most fucking stupid thing i;ve ever seen, its morons with that kind of attidude which give the US an 11,000 people a year death rate from fire arms compared to just a few hundred in the Uk


And 2 million crimes stopped with firearms....

I'd really like to see you take down a deer with a .22....not going to happen--certainly not at 100 yards.

Then again, you're entitled to your own opinion.

i was just going to say a .308 would do a better job.

I dont have a problem with hunting rifles, specially stuff like .308s. To be honest one needs .308s for stuff like bears. I wouldnt want to shoot my little .22 at a raging bear, it would probably just piss it off...

That being said i do have a problem with people carrying around glocks and handguns, i just dont see a need....

Oof. Just in case no one's pointed it out yet--7.62 NATO IS .308. Now, the AK and the SKS generally fire 7.62 X 39mm rounds. The 7.62 NATO is 7.62 X 51mm.

You want something bigger than a .308 for bears (grizzlies, anyway--a 10mm pistol will take down a black bear).

In your opinion, is a S&W Model 500 worth anything except as a gimmick weapon?

If you like hunting for large game with a pistol, then no. For self-defense....I'd shy away from it myself.

Oof. Just in case no one's pointed it out yet--7.62 NATO IS .308. Now, the AK and the SKS generally fire 7.62 X 39mm rounds. The 7.62 NATO is 7.62 X 51mm.

You want something bigger than a .308 for bears (grizzlies, anyway--a 10mm pistol will take down a black bear).


7.62 is not .308 Win Mag though, it is as you have said 7.62x51. My brother uses a Win Mag. it is more powerful than the nato round.

7.62 is not .308 Win Mag though, it is as you have said 7.62x51. My brother uses a Win Mag. it is more powerful than the nato round.


I don't think there is a .308 win mag, unless it's a wildcat round of some sort. There is a 300 win mag, though. Yes, much more powerful than the .308.

Does paint ball hurt like hell? Does it leave bruises? I'm thinking of playing, but I dont wanna be black and blue when I'm finished.



What? You use a paintball gun....that counts.

Yes, they do. :D Just make sure you have clothing over pretty much every inch of ya, and you'll be fine.

Oh yeah, not getting hit helps, too. ;)

Have you ever had a semi go full auto on you?
I have, at the range one day I was plinking with my SKS. Had in a 70 round drum clip (which is illegal now and so hidden away for the revolution!!) in the rifle. Squeezed the trigger and buuuuurp!! About five rounds went off. Scared the hell outta me cause it was so unexpected. The rangemaster came jogging over to check what happened. We had a bit of a laugh over it and I had to pack up and go home.
Fixed it later (but kept the piece that had smoothed off so I could go back to full auto in the revolution to come, heh heh)

Oof. Just in case no one's pointed it out yet--7.62 NATO IS .308. Now, the AK and the SKS generally fire 7.62 X 39mm rounds. The 7.62 NATO is 7.62 X 51mm.

You want something bigger than a .308 for bears (grizzlies, anyway--a 10mm pistol will take down a black bear).


a .308 wont take out a bear? Seems like a pretty big gun to me. Granted i know dick about guns but I do know how to shoot and my 308 seemed like it could do the job.

I just want to say thanks to all the other gun owners and shooters that are calmly and responsibly posting in this thread.

But guys ( and girls ) ...Glocks? oh I loathe them! Beretta, Colts, Desert Eagles, Walthers, H&K..but Glocks!

oh well to each their own!

Ask away.
Why the heck would anyone buy a 9mm pistol when good, non-metric .40 cal pistols are available?

Some nice guns mentioned here makes me want to go on a spending spree :D

I own a few for my own pleasure. I enjoy going to the range with my 13 yo daughter. She is almost as good of a shot as I am now, been shooting with her .22 and 410 since she was 4. I am about to take her up to the 9 mm and maybe the 20 gauge.

At the range I shoot off my Baretta 9mm and 30-30. I hunt in the brush mostly so the 30-30 is the perfect gun for me, as I do have a few fields that I need a bit more reach on than a shotgun can provide. My favorite rifle since I was 10 has been the 7mm and 7.7 Jap, both bolt action. They were both owned by my dad and he passed them to me when he gave up hunting. I have 3 shotguns all Remington, 12 gauge single shot, 16 gauge 5 shot pump and a 20 gauge 5 shot pump. The 16 is sawed off, the other two are just for good times when I have friends over that didn't bring their own gun and we are going bird hunting.

With the 7mm and 7.7 I can hit just about anything at around 400 yds with iron sights. I do not believe in using scopes as that just seems like cheating.

The only assualt rifles I own are 2 Ak-47's. I really do not like them that much but the price was right as well as the guy threw in 10000 rounds of ammo.

I am an bit of an old fashioned guy when it comes to guns and perfer to use those I grew up with. Although I would like to be more of a collector just haven't had the money to spend on the guns I truly like.

And 2 million crimes stopped with firearms....

I'd really like to see you take down a deer with a .22....not going to happen--certainly not at 100 yards.

Then again, you're entitled to your own opinion.


It would be criminally irresponsible to shoot at a deer with a .22. I dont know if you are allowed into public hunting lands during deer season with a .22. If you hunt with a .22, keep it to squirrels or rabbits please. better yet, get a .410 shotgun. unless you're an exceptional marksman.

Does paint ball hurt like hell? Does it leave bruises? I'm thinking of playing, but I dont wanna be black and blue when I'm finished.



What? You use a paintball gun....that counts.


Yes-paintballs hurt like hell. Its a .68 caliber ball travelling at about 280 feet per second. You have to have a mask and goggles, layered loose clothes. And women may want to consider a chest protector to protect their precious parts.

Wow, over 100 years of federal caselaw -- scores of decisions by US Courts of Appeals and the US Supreme Court -- wrong. And it could have been avoided if they asked you! :rolleyes:

Please write Chief Justice Rehnquist ASAP! Perhap you can stop them before they err again! :D

(No, I kid. There is copious scholarship that supports your view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and there are a few cases appearing to adopt that view. There is copious scholarship and overwhelming caselaw supporting the other view. I will respect your view. And out of respect for WL and his thread, I won't get into another huge debate over the interpretation of the Second Amendment.)

Please ignore Cat o Tribes posts.

The reason I say this is because we have no idea about his competance. He claims to be a lawyer, and that is fine but he also claims to be black and a defender of affirmitave action.

So, We dont know if he is truly qualified to be a lawyer or only qualified to be one under the reduced AA standards. Perhaps he can interpret the law properly, perhaps not.

I mean, he is black after all. How do I know if he actually worked for his degree or was granted it because there were not enough applicants of his skin color? I am sure he worked hard and deserves all the degrees that he has. But why should I take the chance? I know a black man wth a Harvard degree does not equal a white man(or asian) with the same degree. 30 years ago they were the same, but not today. In fact, 30 years ago a black man with a harvard degree was probly MUCH better than a white man with the same degree.

So Cat o Tribe, why should I pay you the same $/hour as I would a white/jewish/asian/indian guy from the same institution with the same degree? Its entirely possible that you are worth it, it is also possible that you got your degree through AA and are not worth it.

Justify it to me. You are clearly a smart successful guy, why should I view your degree with the same weight as someone who wasnt aided by AA?

Oh, and let me tell you a story I know personally.

One of the guys I used to hang out with(when I was in the US) graduated from Wharton. Turns out that he applied the same year I did(I didnt know him then). He got a 630 on his GMATS, I got a 760. Meaning there were a few hundred people that beat me out max that year. He got into Wharton, I did not. Differance..well my grades did kinda suck. But the biggest diff was that Rodney was black, while I am Indian. He got a free ride while they wouldnt take me. Do you think he is as competant as me? He doesnt think so(well, he thinks he is smarter than he is), and its not like he grew up poor, his parents are well off.

So rail rail away, I know that I view a black man from harvard differantly than I do a white man. Its a shame too, because maybe the black guy is actually smart enough, but AA makes me think not.

Edit:

Cat o Tribe, this isnt meant to be an insult or anything like that aimed towards you. I am just using your case to illustrate a point about one of the unintentional effects of AA. I am not sure why I brought this up in a gun thread , but whatever.

You need to move to Virginia. I can't even drive through NJ with some of my guns in the trunk of the car.


Actually I believe you can. IIRC Federal law says that if your firearm is legal in the state you came from and it's legal where you are headed to, then you have the right to transport it through any state on the way.

Of course all that might not stop the local cops from arresting you and confiscating your guns for violating state law but you won't be convicted. Federal law trumps state.

An American Gun Owner?

Isn't that redundant?

All we have are potato cannons and sling shots (Canada)

Have you ever had a semi go full auto on you?
I have, at the range one day I was plinking with my SKS. Had in a 70 round drum clip (which is illegal now and so hidden away for the revolution!!) in the rifle. Squeezed the trigger and buuuuurp!! About five rounds went off. Scared the hell outta me cause it was so unexpected. The rangemaster came jogging over to check what happened. We had a bit of a laugh over it and I had to pack up and go home.
Fixed it later (but kept the piece that had smoothed off so I could go back to full auto in the revolution to come, heh heh)

For your own safety you should get rid of it. What you experienced is called "slam fire" and it is a very dangerous malfunction that could result in the weapon blowing up in your face because the bolt doesn't lock into place before the round goes off.

Actually I believe you can. IIRC Federal law says that if your firearm is legal in the state you came from and it's legal where you are headed to, then you have the right to transport it through any state on the way.

Of course all that might not stop the local cops from arresting you and confiscating your guns for violating state law but you won't be convicted. Federal law trumps state.

A) the fed law is pretty new

b) it loosely defines what a stop is. meaning, its okay if I spent the night in a hotel but it isnt okay if I take a detour and spend the night in my parents house.

c) certain local laws are in contradiction to this..for example.. driving through DC or Chicago or NYC can still get you into trouble even if you will eventually get off.

A) the fed law is pretty new

b) it loosely defines what a stop is. meaning, its okay if I spent the night in a hotel but it isnt okay if I take a detour and spend the night in my parents house.

c) certain local laws are in contradiction to this..for example.. driving through DC or Chicago or NYC can still get you into trouble even if you will eventually get off.

Re A: I first heard of it nearly a decade ago, perhaps it has been rewritten recently?

Re B: Makes perfect sense.

Re C: That's what i said (though not as well)

For your own safety you should get rid of it. What you experienced is called "slam fire" and it is a very dangerous malfunction that could result in the weapon blowing up in your face because the bolt doesn't lock into place before the round goes off.

I have had this happen to me repeatedly..all with the same weapon.

I purchased a used calico autopistol. Problem was that after a few(20-30) rds, the damn thing would go full auto. And I mean full, regardless of trigger action. The damn (forget the part name) would keep cracking and it would just fire away. I Finally sold it. dint lose money excet for 1 breech block that I replaced($80)

gotta love 50 - 100 round mags though I only had the 50)

As much as I don't like it, yes, that is the case. However, over 30 states have self-defense statements in them, covering that topic directly.

My state says in its constitution, "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Hehe :)

Have you ever had a semi go full auto on you?
I have, at the range one day I was plinking with my SKS. Had in a 70 round drum clip (which is illegal now and so hidden away for the revolution!!) in the rifle. Squeezed the trigger and buuuuurp!! About five rounds went off. Scared the hell outta me cause it was so unexpected. The rangemaster came jogging over to check what happened. We had a bit of a laugh over it and I had to pack up and go home.
Fixed it later (but kept the piece that had smoothed off so I could go back to full auto in the revolution to come, heh heh)

Not unintentionally. :) I have fired full-auto weapons before, though. That had to be a little disconcerting...

a .308 wont take out a bear? Seems like a pretty big gun to me. Granted i know dick about guns but I do know how to shoot and my 308 seemed like it could do the job.

Peolpe who live around grizzlies tend to have calibers in the .40 and up range. A .308 is made for medium, light skinned game, for the most part. I'm not saying you can't take a grizzly with it--just generally not with one shot. You need a LOT of momentum (and therefore mass) to cause enough trauma to shock a grizzly's system into dropping.

I just want to say thanks to all the other gun owners and shooters that are calmly and responsibly posting in this thread.

But guys ( and girls ) ...Glocks? oh I loathe them! Beretta, Colts, Desert Eagles, Walthers, H&K..but Glocks!

oh well to each their own!

Heh, what can I say? I like plastic. :D

They practically take care of themselves. No rust, very little oil, the plastic absorbs almost all the recoil, and the steel parts are harder than just about anything out there. Plus, they fit my hands. Berettas and 1911s are too narrow. :( And the price!!! Glocks are less expensive than those listed above and just as capable (if not more so--I think only the H&K can handle the extreme weather stuff better, if I'm recalling the test right).

Why the heck would anyone buy a 9mm pistol when good, non-metric .40 cal pistols are available?

Ammo cost, magazine capacity, flatter trajectory due to muzzle velocity. Some like the snap (muzzle flip) better than taking it up through the arm.

Though I still have yet to keep one. :D

Some nice guns mentioned here makes me want to go on a spending spree :D

I am an bit of an old fashioned guy when it comes to guns and perfer to use those I grew up with. Although I would like to be more of a collector just haven't had the money to spend on the guns I truly like.

Well, it's not exactly the least expensive hobby in the universe.... ;)

It would be criminally irresponsible to shoot at a deer with a .22. I dont know if you are allowed into public hunting lands during deer season with a .22. If you hunt with a .22, keep it to squirrels or rabbits please. better yet, get a .410 shotgun. unless you're an exceptional marksman.

Generally you need a minimum of a .223, depending on the state.

Please ignore Cat o Tribes posts.

The reason I say this is because we have no idea about his competance. He claims to be a lawyer, and that is fine but he also claims to be black and a defender of affirmitave action.

So, We dont know if he is truly qualified to be a lawyer or only qualified to be one under the reduced AA standards. Perhaps he can interpret the law properly, perhaps not.

I mean, he is black after all. How do I know if he actually worked for his degree or was granted it because there were not enough applicants of his skin color? I am sure he worked hard and deserves all the degrees that he has. But why should I take the chance? I know a black man wth a Harvard degree does not equal a white man(or asian) with the same degree. 30 years ago they were the same, but not today. In fact, 30 years ago a black man with a harvard degree was probly MUCH better than a white man with the same degree.

So Cat o Tribe, why should I pay you the same $/hour as I would a white/jewish/asian/indian guy from the same institution with the same degree? Its entirely possible that you are worth it, it is also possible that you got your degree through AA and are not worth it.

Justify it to me. You are clearly a smart successful guy, why should I view your degree with the same weight as someone who wasnt aided by AA?

Oh, and let me tell you a story I know personally.

One of the guys I used to hang out with(when I was in the US) graduated from Wharton. Turns out that he applied the same year I did(I didnt know him then). He got a 630 on his GMATS, I got a 760. Meaning there were a few hundred people that beat me out max that year. He got into Wharton, I did not. Differance..well my grades did kinda suck. But the biggest diff was that Rodney was black, while I am Indian. He got a free ride while they wouldnt take me. Do you think he is as competant as me? He doesnt think so(well, he thinks he is smarter than he is), and its not like he grew up poor, his parents are well off.

So rail rail away, I know that I view a black man from harvard differantly than I do a white man. Its a shame too, because maybe the black guy is actually smart enough, but AA makes me think not.

Can we keep this part out of the actual questioning about firearms, please? Or at least start another thread on it?

I've had my debates with Cat as well, and he's proved that he does have a hellacious amount of legal process knowledge--he can out-cite pretty much anyone, when it comes to finding legal precedence.

Doesn't matter what his skin color is or where he lives--he's proved that he's intelligent. People can be intelligent and be on different sides of an issue. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be having gun control debates.

An American Gun Owner?

Isn't that redundant?

All we have are potato cannons and sling shots (Canada)

Funny. :)

Actually no, there are about 80 million gun owners in the US. Not all have them.

Hmmn, for someone who's never owned a gun, what do people think of the Sig P226/8?

no ones really asking questions :-/ , anyway i guess ill take part in this since i dont have to go to work in 3 hours

Hmmn, for someone who's never owned a gun, what do people think of the Sig P226/8?

I have no experience with them myself, but I've heard mostly good things--acurate, reliable, etc.

The only issue I've heard of is rust.

I've never heard any complaints.

First time post, so please be gentle.

First off, to the Glock owners. My father owns a Glock and upon viewing it I came away with the impression that it would be very dangerous to possess. As I saw it, the gun has no safety and an internal hammer. It does have that lever in the trigger to prevent accidental fires. It seems to me that unless one is a perfect follower of range safety rules, this pistol could be trouble. What are your opinions?


I've never owned a Glock but I can honestly say that I the trigger safety is a good idea. The Glock was devolped as a tactical pistol that caters to the law enforcment and self defense markets. In a self defense or combat situation a more safety lever simply gets in the way.
As for potential accidents, one should always obderve range safety rules. Its better that you know the gun has no safety than it is to believe that the gun's safty is enguaged when it is not. Mechanical safetys breed carelessness. The only good reason for them is to prevent discharge from impact.
I do have one big complaint about the Glock, however. It is simgle action only, meaning that you have to manually recock it of a primer fails to ignite. Usually, this isn't much of a problem as most people would manually clear the round anyway. But in combat that can impossible. There is at least a chance the the primer will go off if struck a second time and it is a chance worth taking if you are a second away from death, having no time to clear the chamber. With a glock you can't take this chance. You have to wortk the slide to recock it.

I'll put it another way. As well as I believe I shoot, if you were 200 yards away, and I had a semiautomatic AK-47, with a 30 round magazine, I probably would not be able to hit you even if you stood still. I might get lucky.


Um, nope. We had AK-47 clones (Valmet) when I was in the army. From a prone position a head shot from 150 meters is easy. Similarly for 300 meters and a torso sized target. Given 30 rounds I'd probably be lucky enough to hit a torso sized target at least once from 400 or maybe even 500 meters. And I'm no exceptionally good shooter; I was perhaps in the top 20 % of my troop since I had some shooting experience before entering service, but I haven't trained nearly enough to be good enough to be able to compete successfully.

Of course, from a standing position the situation would be different, but that's because my hand would be shaking, not because the gun itself is crap. :rolleyes:

Well, everything's more accurate prone or kneeling, standing is the true test of accuracy, if you're a good shot with a rifle while standing, then you're a good shot.

I've never owned a Glock but I can honestly say that I the trigger safety is a good idea. The Glock was devolped as a tactical pistol that caters to the law enforcment and self defense markets. In a self defense or combat situation a more safety lever simply gets in the way.
As for potential accidents, one should always obderve range safety rules. Its better that you know the gun has no safety than it is to believe that the gun's safty is enguaged when it is not. Mechanical safetys breed carelessness. The only good reason for them is to prevent discharge from impact.
I do have one big complaint about the Glock, however. It is simgle action only, meaning that you have to manually recock it of a primer fails to ignite. Usually, this isn't much of a problem as most people would manually clear the round anyway. But in combat that can impossible. There is at least a chance the the primer will go off if struck a second time and it is a chance worth taking if you are a second away from death, having no time to clear the chamber. With a glock you can't take this chance. You have to wortk the slide to recock it.

Yup, that's its one shortcoming. So carry two. :D

Really, you can have all kinds of failures on all types of weapons. Revolvers won't turn the cylinder, manual safeties won't disengage, mag springs break or weaken, etc.

Buying or loading high-quality ammo is one way of mitigating that particular type of situation. I've actually have never had a light primer strike with my Glocks (I have five, and have fired over 2,000 rounds through each one).

Glock 17 or 19 depending on hand size and if you plan on carrying it concealed on a regular basis. I have both, but carry the 19 daily (have two 19s, actually.) Glocks are, quite simply, the best handguns made, period. At least that's IMHO.

Best..no. The most practical and probably the best service piece then yes.

Up here in canada if you get in a fight you fight, when I go down to the states my relatives always warn me and my brother against getting in fights because of all these knuckleheads carrying concealed weapons...

You are not going to get into a fight with someone who is legally carrying concealed unless you start it. Just wont happen, the price is to high for a CCW holder to get into situations where violence might escalate to the point where he might have to pull his weapon.

You realize that it is a crime for a ccw holder to even pull/put his hands on his weapon(in a threatening way) unless his life is in danger. Simply pulling out the weapon can be considered a felony unless the circumstances warrant. Even if the use is justified, the gun owner is going to spend $5-15,000 in legal expenses.

Legal gun owners dont pull their weapons unless absolutely needed.

First off, to the Glock owners. My father owns a Glock and upon viewing it I came away with the impression that it would be very dangerous to possess. As I saw it, the gun has no safety and an internal hammer. It does have that lever in the trigger to prevent accidental fires. It seems to me that unless one is a perfect follower of range safety rules, this pistol could be trouble. What are your opinions?


Before you own a gun you must be prepared to follow the rules at all times. Would you ask an Airline pilot to follow proper landing guidelines only some of the time? When I got my first handgun, the guy at the gun store told me to constantly practice the right way to do things for the next week and it will become habit. Just like I cannot sit in a car seat(or a regular seat that feels like a car seat) without reaching over to grab my seatbelt, so too know, I cannot put my hands on a gun without first checking to see if its loaded. Just cant do it, it is such an ingrained habit. I never put my finger on the trigger, and am actually more comfortable with my fore finger runnning along the slide. I also always am aware of where the muzzle is pointing. These are all ingrained habits now. I put 0 thought into it, I just feel uncomfortable doing things any other way.

As to the safety on a glock.. The best safety is the one between the ears. If you have developed proper gun handling skills then you will find that the glocks safety is the best one(prevents accidental discharge). The only exception being my 1911 which has both a safety and a grip safety. But that is because the weapon is single action and is meant to be carried "cocked and locked". Still, it is one action to draw, remove safety and fire(safetys by the thumb).

The safety on my berretta is just stupid, because I can fire the first shot in double action. meaning I can carry the gun with the hammer down.

Ask away.
Do you lead a slow life?

Um, nope. We had AK-47 clones (Valmet) when I was in the army. From a prone position a head shot from 150 meters is easy. Similarly for 300 meters and a torso sized target. Given 30 rounds I'd probably be lucky enough to hit a torso sized target at least once from 400 or maybe even 500 meters. And I'm no exceptionally good shooter; I was perhaps in the top 20 % of my troop since I had some shooting experience before entering service, but I haven't trained nearly enough to be good enough to be able to compete successfully.

Of course, from a standing position the situation would be different, but that's because my hand would be shaking, not because the gun itself is crap. :rolleyes:
Valmet and Sako are both excellent manufacturers who build better weapons than the average-calling a Valmet an AK is like calling a Sako a Mauser, or pre-64 Winchester Model 70 a Mauser '98 clone.

In the general, the AK47/clones are junk-there are exceptions, the Valmet, the Galil, the R4. But these are significantly different both in quality control, and in features-and the Valmet's a much more accurate piece than, say, a Maadi, Yugo, or Hungarian AK variant, and it's practically a surgical instrument compared to the Chinese clones.

Still, it's built to be a short-range weapon compared to my own personal baby... M-1 Garand, blue-sky, with NM stamped Operating rod, Winchester Barrel, high-number Springfield reciever-probably an arsenal rebuild. I also got the nice, dark, walnut stock (rather than those remanufactured "Generic hardwood" jobbies...).
sights click in half-minute increments.

test-shot using the (surplus USMC) 25m Target at 150m groups 3 out of five within two inches, standing freehand with sling-support. Prone-supported puts four within one inch and a flyer that's less than two away.
forty-shot strings (Five magazines) keeps it inside six inches in nice, tight, one and a half to two inch groups depending on ammo and weather.
(Federal brand gives the best store-bought results-they're very consistent compared to the other Commercial outfits. Handloading to M1 Ball specs gives good results if you have the time...)

Have you ever had a semi go full auto on you?
I have, at the range one day I was plinking with my SKS. Had in a 70 round drum clip (which is illegal now and so hidden away for the revolution!!) in the rifle. Squeezed the trigger and buuuuurp!! About five rounds went off. Scared the hell outta me cause it was so unexpected. The rangemaster came jogging over to check what happened. We had a bit of a laugh over it and I had to pack up and go home.
Fixed it later (but kept the piece that had smoothed off so I could go back to full auto in the revolution to come, heh heh)

I had my calico autopistol go full auto on me. 50 rd drum, was jst firing away(I had bought it at a gun show a few days earlier). The thing goes full auto(luckily I only had 10-15 rds left. At the end of it, the gun wouldnt work and it turns out the block cracked. I am lucky that fire wasnt coming out of the ejection port

Why the heck would anyone buy a 9mm pistol when good, non-metric .40 cal pistols are available?
cause .40 cal and subcompact designs are a BAD BAD combination.

I fired some guys cheap russian 40 in a very subcompact design, my teeth were ringing for hours. Of course the weapon was so shoddy(or damaged) that just holding it felt like crap. 0 balance, everything felt loose and "tinny"

Can we keep this part out of the actual questioning about firearms, please? Or at least start another thread on it?

I've had my debates with Cat as well, and he's proved that he does have a hellacious amount of legal process knowledge--he can out-cite pretty much anyone, when it comes to finding legal precedence.

Doesn't matter what his skin color is or where he lives--he's proved that he's intelligent. People can be intelligent and be on different sides of an issue. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be having gun control debates.

that was basically the point of my post, though this does belong in another thread.

Everything you said about Cat o Tribe I agree with. Absolutely. I think he is very smart and very knowledgable. The point I was making was about AA. But again, it belongs in another thread

cause .40 cal and subcompact designs are a BAD BAD combination.

I fired some guys cheap russian 40 in a very subcompact design, my teeth were ringing for hours. Of course the weapon was so shoddy(or damaged) that just holding it felt like crap. 0 balance, everything felt loose and "tinny"

My (.45) Springfield Microcompact and I disagree with you. ;)
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-mc.shtml

My (.45) Springfield Microcompact and I disagree with you. ;)
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-mc.shtml

How does it feel to shoot? My full sized 1911 is my slimest piece, and I would love to carry one as slim if the barrel was shorter.

I know in my full sized, the balance is so great that I dont even feel the recoil. How does that compare to the subcompact?

cause .40 cal and subcompact designs are a BAD BAD combination.

I fired some guys cheap russian 40 in a very subcompact design, my teeth were ringing for hours. Of course the weapon was so shoddy(or damaged) that just holding it felt like crap. 0 balance, everything felt loose and "tinny"

I think the keyword here is "Cheap" not ".40 Caliber". I've had "Cheap" .38 revolvers that were worse than a magnum to fire- "cheap" handguns often have bad headspace, sloppy fit, and bad accuracy-along with being a real ass to shoot.
A good-quality handgun can be had at a modest price-there are a lot of reputable makers and importers out there that won't charge you the price of your firstborn for a good carry-piece (You know this, I think...) but it's Caveat Emptor if you haven't studied up.

How does it feel to shoot? My full sized 1911 is my slimest piece, and I would love to carry one as slim if the barrel was shorter.

I know in my full sized, the balance is so great that I dont even feel the recoil. How does that compare to the subcompact?

Ironically, it's the largest caliber and the smallest form factor piece I have, so it's a little weird (I prefer revolvers, specifically Taurus, though I like S&W too.)
Anyway... it's a very small cannon. I've been in point 4, and had my brass hit guys in point 9! (Hell of an ejector, I guess).
Pretty easy to control, but sighting is a little harder, or at least it is for me (I haven't figured out how to shoot this one with both eyes open yet...)
Balance is good, it feels natural. The ambi safety was a big point with me, as I shoot lefty.
Easy to conceal, even under a T shirt. (I have an inside-the-waist holster).
Very easy to hold (I have smaller than average hands for a guy... as I easily wear small or medium gloves).
It has a 3" barrel, so I don't bother practicing anything past the 25 line. Groupings are consistent, though I've only run about 600 rounds through it. My only complaint is that I get about 3 jams in 100, but I suspect it's due to either my ammo (I use cheaper (Czech) Sellier & Bellot for target shooting), or my mags.

I can't compare it to the subcompact, as I haven't every shot one. But against a "reg" .45, it's worthy, except at the 50 line, where I can only barely hit the paper...
For the package, it's great to have 6+1 locked & cocked. A little weird to carry it like that at first though.

Ironically, it's the largest caliber and the smallest form factor piece I have, so it's a little weird (I prefer revolvers, specifically Taurus, though I like S&W too.)
Anyway... it's a very small cannon. I've been in point 4, and had my brass hit guys in point 9! (Hell of an ejector, I guess).
Pretty easy to control, but sighting is a little harder, or at least it is for me (I haven't figured out how to shoot this one with both eyes open yet...)
Balance is good, it feels natural. The ambi safety was a big point with me, as I shoot lefty.
Easy to conceal, even under a T shirt. (I have an inside-the-waist holster).
Very easy to hold (I have smaller than average hands for a guy... as I easily wear small or medium gloves).
It has a 3" barrel, so I don't bother practicing anything past the 25 line. Groupings are consistent, though I've only run about 600 rounds through it. My only complaint is that I get about 3 jams in 100, but I suspect it's due to either my ammo (I use cheaper (Czech) Sellier & Bellot for target shooting), or my mags.

I can't compare it to the subcompact, as I haven't every shot one. But against a "reg" .45, it's worthy, except at the 50 line, where I can only barely hit the paper...
For the package, it's great to have 6+1 locked & cocked. A little weird to carry it like that at first though.

Sounds like something I would want to have. Like you(lefty) I have some issues because I am left eye dominant but right handed. When I shoot, I cant about 15degrees.

Sounds like something I would want to have. Like you(lefty) I have some issues because I am left eye dominant but right handed. When I shoot, I cant about 15degrees.

Yeah, that's familiar. ;)
It's a good piece.

I've been debating picking up this, but none of my local ranges will let me shoot it indoors...
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=30CSS10&category=Revolver

The safety on my berretta is just stupid, because I can fire the first shot in double action. meaning I can carry the gun with the hammer down.

Even with the hammer down a gun can still discharge when dropped or hit violently. It is very unlikely, but it is possible.

Yeah, that's familiar. ;)
It's a good piece.

I've been debating picking up this, but none of my local ranges will let me shoot it indoors...
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=30CSS10&category=Revolver

OMFG what the hell ae you going to do with that?

I met a guy at the range with a similar looking weapon. He had a red dot scope on it though. I asked him what he does with such a large weapon(cant carry it). He said he hunts wild boar with it. I said most people use rifles for that, he said yeah, but thats boring. I said how close do you need to be using the pistol, he said "close", I said what happens if you miss. He said " dont miss" its very bad if you miss.

Even with the hammer down a gun can still discharge when dropped or hit violently. It is very unlikely, but it is possible.

Not on any modern firearm.

Even with the hammer down a gun can still discharge when dropped or hit violently. It is very unlikely, but it is possible.


Thats the point of the trigger safety. It will not go off if dropped. The force during a drop s perpendicular to the force needed to dscharge the firearm. given the trigger safety.

OMFG what the hell ae you going to do with that?

I met a guy at the range with a similar looking weapon. He had a red dot scope on it though. I asked him what he does with such a large weapon(cant carry it). He said he hunts wild boar with it. I said most people use rifles for that, he said yeah, but thats boring. I said how close do you need to be using the pistol, he said "close", I said what happens if you miss. He said " dont miss" its very bad if you miss.

It's a heck of a home defense piece. :D
Beyond that not much. Here in Connecticut, it's illegal to handgun hunt with anything larger than .22.

Personally, I dislike red dots... batteries can die, and I find them harder to range.

3. For self-defense.

well in this case (and i shall use a hypothetical one) what happens when the robber or in other words "the bad guy" comes along and dicides to take some of your valubales well when ya go for 'ol sparky(gun) by the time you get to the gun rack ya ALREADY GOT A DEAD LEG OR ANY OTHER APENDIGE YOU CAN THINK OF! but yes it is a nice thing to have around the house. Oh and on anouther note, sads and point proving story, one christmas eve (very late i might add) in the land of free a mothers child goes down to see if st.nick has come, and what do ya know the mom mistakes the kid for a burgaler try'n to steal the presants and she got good 'ol faithful (44 magnum) and BAM! no more kid, and thats why i think personlaly people shouldn't have guns unless thier in a hazordis enviroment( and no your local suburb isn't that kinda place) I don't hate guns I hate ppl who don't use 'em properly, case in point.

It's a heck of a home defense piece. :D
Beyond that not much. Here in Connecticut, it's illegal to handgun hunt with anything larger than .22.

Personally, I dislike red dots... batteries can die, and I find them harder to range.

Ths was in FL, guy goes to private hunting range types. Cant imagine their liability insurance if they are letting peopl hunt wild boar with handguns..they are nasty animal.

well in this case (and i shall use a hypothetical one) what happens when the robber or in other words "the bad guy" comes along and dicides to take some of your valubales well when ya go for 'ol sparky(gun) by the time you get to the gun rack ya ALREADY GOT A DEAD LEG OR ANY OTHER APENDIGE YOU CAN THINK OF! but yes it is a nice thing to have around the house. Oh and on anouther note, sads and point proving story, one christmas eve (very late i might add) in the land of free a mothers child goes down to see if st.nick has come, and what do ya know the mom mistakes the kid for a burgaler try'n to steal the presants and she got good 'ol faithful (44 magnum) and BAM! no more kid, and thats why i think personlaly people shouldn't have guns unless thier in a hazordis enviroment( and no your local suburb isn't that kinda place) I don't hate guns I hate ppl who don't use 'em properly, case in point.

Wow, good story. Too bad that in a land of 300 million guns this almost never happens. The wrongful death rate of police shootings s 3 times that of civillians. But yeah, by your logic it is civillians who shouldnt have guns.

And 2 million crimes stopped with firearms....

Well I guess thats what happens when you ship all the weirdos from your continent to another one, 200 years down the line you get a continent full of weirdos


I'd really like to see you take down a deer with a .22....not going to happen--certainly not at 100 yards.

Why would I wish to kill a deer that has done nothing to me? like I said distastful in the extreme, you gonna eat that deer you're shooting, probably not so why are you shooting it[/QUOTE]



Then again, you're entitled to your own opinion.


Dont be stupid of course I'm not I live in Europe, everyone knows that America is the only country in the entire world where people have freedom of speech, In fact everyone in my country thinks you're country is really great and we'd all love to live there because clearly somewhere where 11000 people every year get shot is a well lush place to live tm & c

Well I guess thats what happens when you ship all the weirdos from your continent to another one, 200 years down the line you get a continent full of weirdos



Why would I wish to kill a deer that has done nothing to me? like I said distastful in the extreme, you gonna eat that deer you're shooting, probably not so why are you shooting it





Dont be stupid of course I'm not I live in Europe, everyone knows that America is the only country in the entire world where people have freedom of speech, In fact everyone in my country thinks you're country is really great and we'd all love to live there because clearly somewhere where 11000 people every year get shot is a well lush place to live tm & c[/QUOTE]


why dont you find another thread? Surely they are debating "Play Doh" somewhere.

I aint gonna debate this issue too, much everyone who has seen me post before knows I am all about Firearms, But here is the Rifleman's oath Marines learn and live by. Now praise God and pass the Ammunition
Rifleman's Creed

This is my rifle; there are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is by best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My rifle, without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will.
My rifle and myself know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, not the smoke we make. We know that it is the hit that counts. We will hit.
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, and its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will.
Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of my enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it until there is no enemy of The United States of America, but peace

that was basically the point of my post, though this does belong in another thread.

Everything you said about Cat o Tribe I agree with. Absolutely. I think he is very smart and very knowledgable. The point I was making was about AA. But again, it belongs in another thread

Okee doke.

My (.45) Springfield Microcompact and I disagree with you. ;)
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-mc.shtml

I'll disagree as well. My Glock 27 (sub-compact in .40 S&W) is a baby as far as recoil is concerned. ;)

lol reminds me of full metal jacket

"Do you like cock solider"

"sir no Sir"

"bullshit, I bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose"


what a film =)

Well I guess thats what happens when you ship all the weirdos from your continent to another one, 200 years down the line you get a continent full of weirdos


Gee, thanks. How old are you? 13? Why are you calling Mexicans and Canadians weird? They have a few more gun restrictions, ala Europe.


Why would I wish to kill a deer that has done nothing to me? like I said distastful in the extreme, you gonna eat that deer you're shooting, probably not so why are you shooting it

Everyone I know that hunts, eats what they kill. You have a great deal of pre-conceptions on what we do over here.


Dont be stupid of course I'm not I live in Europe, everyone knows that America is the only country in the entire world where people have freedom of speech, In fact everyone in my country thinks you're country is really great and we'd all love to live there because clearly somewhere where 11000 people every year get shot is a well lush place to live tm & c

Hoo boy. Yeah, stay there. Please. I had yet to do anything to you to provoke this kind of reaction (before this post that is). Man, no wonder you guys have guns banned--you argue like children.

For your own safety you should get rid of it. What you experienced is called "slam fire" and it is a very dangerous malfunction that could result in the weapon blowing up in your face because the bolt doesn't lock into place before the round goes off.

Nah, we repaired the rifle, works fine now. My father is a reloader and kinda amatuer gunsmith. It happened quite a long time ago and there was never a repeat after that. Just freaked me out when it did that. Funny as hell though, I was a felon for awhile!! Yes!

Why would I wish to kill a deer that has done nothing to me? like I said distastful in the extreme, you gonna eat that deer you're shooting, probably not so why are you shooting it
What the hell are you talking about?
Venison (aka: deer meat) is often leaner than beef, and tastes pretty damn good.
Cook up some venison dogs or venison sausage. Maybe even some jerky.
So, yes, if I shoot the deer, guess what, I'm going to eat it too.

But hey, why ruin the mood, please continue to toss about your ill concieved notions about.

Nah, we repaired the rifle, works fine now. My father is a reloader and kinda amatuer gunsmith. It happened quite a long time ago and there was never a repeat after that. Just freaked me out when it did that. Funny as hell though, I was a felon for awhile!! Yes!

You were only a felon if you were caught and tried. :D

Um, nope. We had AK-47 clones (Valmet) when I was in the army. From a prone position a head shot from 150 meters is easy. Similarly for 300 meters and a torso sized target. Given 30 rounds I'd probably be lucky enough to hit a torso sized target at least once from 400 or maybe even 500 meters. And I'm no exceptionally good shooter; I was perhaps in the top 20 % of my troop since I had some shooting experience before entering service, but I haven't trained nearly enough to be good enough to be able to compete successfully.

Of course, from a standing position the situation would be different, but that's because my hand would be shaking, not because the gun itself is crap. :rolleyes:

The typical Valmet is much higher quality than the typical AKM. I've seen a lot of AKMs (only dropped once) that were incredibly bad (the sights also suck in a major way).

That, and most third world soldiers fire standing up, from the hip, on full auto.

Well I guess thats what happens when you ship all the weirdos from your continent to another one, 200 years down the line you get a continent full of weirdos

You're right! Salvador Dali, Hermann Goering, and Freud were the pinnacle of normality. :rolleyes:

Why would I wish to kill a deer that has done nothing to me? like I said distastful in the extreme, you gonna eat that deer you're shooting, probably not so why are you shooting it

Amazing how you're speaking to something you know absolutely nothing about:
*CT Department of Environmental Protection estimates 6,000 – 8,000 deer are killed annually on CT roadways.
*An ecologically balanced density of deer is between 10-20 deer per square mile. Estimates from the CT Department of Environmental Protection indicate a population density of between 40 and 60 per square mile for the Wilton region. Some reliable estimates indicate that the population could be considerably higher.
* The white-tailed deer population has the potential to double every 2-3 years.
* In 1900, there were 12 white-tailed deer in Connecticut, in 2000 there were 76,000.
* Each deer eats 5-10 pounds of forage each day.

... simply put, there are no predators for deer, as there are almost no coyotes/wolves. They have no predators. They have become vermin, as they are so numerous and eat everything they can.


http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/wilton_deer_committee_findings_a.htm

The typical Valmet is much higher quality than the typical AKM. I've seen a lot of AKMs (only dropped once) that were incredibly bad (the sights also suck in a major way).

That, and most third world soldiers fire standing up, from the hip, on full auto.


Dont forget, they fire straight up into the air as well. There always seems to be a good reason to fire a clip or two into the sky. Maybe its a lead tribute to some god I dont know about. He isnt pleased with it though because he always seems to send the bullets back down. Ingrate.

You're right! Salvador Dali, Hermann Goering, and Freud were the pinnacle of normality. :rolleyes:



Amazing how you're speaking to something you know absolutely nothing about:
*CT Department of Environmental Protection estimates 6,000 – 8,000 deer are killed annually on CT roadways.
*An ecologically balanced density of deer is between 10-20 deer per square mile. Estimates from the CT Department of Environmental Protection indicate a population density of between 40 and 60 per square mile for the Wilton region. Some reliable estimates indicate that the population could be considerably higher.
* The white-tailed deer population has the potential to double every 2-3 years.
* In 1900, there were 12 white-tailed deer in Connecticut, in 2000 there were 76,000.
* Each deer eats 5-10 pounds of forage each day.

... simply put, there are no predators for deer, as there are almost no coyotes/wolves. They have no predators. They have become vermin, as they are so numerous and eat everything they can.


http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/wilton_deer_committee_findings_a.htm


Thats right-you know its really bad when you drive through a development and see assorted netting wrapped around trees and shrubs right up against houses. And you can count more than 3 dead deer on the roadside on the average commute to work.
Shouldnt someone be collecting them for the prison cafeterias?

Dont forget, they fire straight up into the air as well. There always seems to be a good reason to fire a clip or two into the sky. Maybe its a lead tribute to some god I dont know about. He isnt pleased with it though because he always seems to send the bullets back down. Ingrate.

I remember seeing them throw hand grenades at a wedding. I thought it was natural selection at work. If you didn't believe in evolution and natural selection before, you'll only have to see that behavior once to know it's the truth.