The Gun Thread

Best gun for home defense? Call me idealistic but I don't intend to shoot anything that I don't plan on eating

Come on, human don't taste that bad.

^^

Hey bro, what's your address again?

^ To be fair, he only said "intend", not that he'd never shoot anything he wasn't willing to eat.

As for not tasting bad, I don't know. Some of those folks aren't exactly the most hygienic of people...

The idea of keeping a gun to protect your home sounds stupid to me.

But there again I live in a country were only 5% of the population own guns rather than nearly 40%.

Just a friendly reminder: this is a thread for talking about guns themselves. Not gun control; whether owning a gun is good, bad, stupid, a necessity, or something else entirely; or why you don't like guns.

^^^plus I'm a a piss poor shot, so what I intent to shoot and what i hit are two totally different things

I'm going to paintballing this march, I'm looking forwards to it, I haven't been since high school.

edited 18th Jan '12 2:45:13 PM by joeyjojo

Regarding the shotgun versus pistol for home defense question: How about a pistol that can fire a shotgun shell?

edited 18th Jan '12 7:48:09 AM by OscarWildecat

@Oscar: Ah, the Judge. I've never had the chance to shoot one of those, how do they handle?

or alternately, you could just combine the two.◊

The advantage of handguns is mobility, correct? When firing rifle or shotgun rounds from them you pretty much have to add a stock to avoid self harm and recoil problems which would kinda defeat the purpose of using pistols, especially since with a real shotgun you also have a longer barrel and stuff. But then again self defence isn't really my area of expertise.

@mahel: I've never had occasion to fire a Judge, like I said earlier...but a .410 shell is not really that big. Hell, it fits in the same cylinder as a .45 Colt.

As to the Le Mat revolver, I've spoken to several Civil War re-enactors who own replicas; they say that even with a stiff load of powder and shot, firing the central shotgun is eminently manageable due to the pistol's weight *

Speaking of the Le Mat, I WANT SOMEONE TO BUILD THIS. It's grossly impractical, but still...

Never had the chance to shoot one a .410 pistol. It's on my "Bucket List", however.

Also, one has to be careful with showing about the antique shotgun-pistol hybrids. For whatever reason, the lack of rifling in barrel makes them run afoul of the 1934 National Firearms Act. (I think it has to do with the wording of the law.) There's several work-arounds, however — the simplest of which is to have the barrel rifled.

EDIT: I've fired .410 shotguns. They produce very little recoil. IMHO, a 9MM or .45 is worse than a .410 in the recoil department.

There are some early 20th century smokeless powder models that are problematic. (Note: I don't think they're high on the ATF's "Things to be Worried About" list, however. I believe that most ATF offices will work with owners of the problem models to get things nice and legal.)

edited 18th Jan '12 8:08:57 AM by OscarWildecat

@Oscar: as long as the firearm is "black powder", it isn't covered by the Act. I guess they aren't concerned about a gun with a reload time measured in minutes.

EDIT: Oh right, the "pinfire" Le Mat. Those are too expensive to shoot, seeing as they are very rare.

edited 18th Jan '12 8:14:10 AM by drunkscriblerian

Threadhop:

Revolver or semi-automatic? Revolver, hands down. I'd like a weapon that is easy to use and simple to maintain. Plus, if the weapon fails to fire, all I have to do is pull the trigger again to bring a fresh cylinder in line with the barrel (provided I'm nto out of ammunition). More of a hassle to clear a misfire with a semiautomatic, but adequate training and practice can reduce clearing a jam on pretty much anything to muscle memory. I still know how to do Immediate Action on an AR-15, a decade after using it all the time, due to that muscle memory.

Anyway...

My grandpa was a SeeBee in the Second War, did a bunch of island hopping and cleaering land for runways and stuff. Managed to bring back a number of things from that time, including a Type 99 Arisaka rifle (a very nice example - not one of those last-ditch ones) and a Katana.

I did a bunch of internet searching and stuff to find out about the rifle, discovered that it's pretty much a Mauser clone. Took it apart, cleaned it, lubed it, still had packing grease in it from... somewhere, sometime.

It never had a chrysanthemum - rather, it has two concentric circles in place of the 'mum. Near as I can figure, rifles markes as such (Type 38's and Type 99's) were never supposed to be issued to the Army, but went to Secret Police, prison guards, and other organizations.

Other than that, it has all the options you'd expect for an early-made Type 99 - folding anti-aircraft sights, metal buttplate, knurled safety knob, attachment for the monopod (grandpa lost it yeras ago) and real nice wood. After cleaning it out real good, the action was nice and smooth. Bore is bright and the rifling is distinct.

I only regret not shooting it, but it was winter and I was only visiting for a few weeks. My Dad said it shot good at the range later, though.

I'd Like To Buy:

A Mosin-Nagant 91/30, although I could go for a Lee-Enfield or a Springfield '03, I suppose - something about bolt actions with full-length wooden stocks just calls out to me for some reason. They're not as brutishly ugly as modern firearms, and they have simpler lines than modern offerings, as well. Plus, with a bit of imagination, most old military bolt-actions don't look terribly different from ancient flintlocks muskets. Bolt-actions are also very simple and usually made to last practically forever, compared to modern military rifles. Made in a time when forging and machining was the accepted method for making a firearm, as opposed to stamping and spot-welding.

I'd like it if we could get rid of the direct inpingment system for the AR-15. Hot burnt powder residue and flaming gases do not belong anywhere near the bolt of a weapon system, ideally being shielded from that stuff by way of the cartridge case forming a seal agasint the chamber walls at the moment of firing. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that an M-16 can cycle hundreds of rounds in a sitting without a jam, but good luck cleaning that weapon.

My unit received two Graymill solvent parts cleaners shortly before I left active duty - anything to help get the crap off of the disassembled bolt and bolt carrier. My thought is that it should not take half a day to properly clean a rifle.

When they last issued me a new M4 I just got fed up and boiled the damn thing for a wing-wide inspection, lots of other guys did that too, makes them look nice and squeaky clean. Just don't forget to thoroughly lube it up after boiling it.

Boiled your rifle... wow. I wonder if anyone's been stupid (or desperate) enough to run their parts through an industrial dishwasher before....?

Pretty much any method that works great for getting the carbon off is also great for getting the CLP off of it, too. Dipping it in a solvent tank, shaving cream, harsh language, boiling it - all take off everything. So yeah, the after-cleaning lube is essential.

Firearms I have fired and would love to own: The Belgian FN FAL, modernized and godified by the British Royal Ordnance boys to be reborn as the SLR. 7.62mm x 51 NATO calibre, twenty round detachable box magazine, in double column format. Sadly out of production in SLR form but FN are still making the FAL now, and the new ones look lush. Would have to bin the full auto capability as firing that stuff from the shoulder in automatic would hurt like the devil himself had repeatedly kicked you.

Secondly, the Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1*, in .303 calibre. Ten round detachable box magazine, with provision for stripper clips. Right handed bolt action with right sided case ejection, but the weapon is of sufficient length so that it can be used from both shoulders without the empties smacking you in the teeth.

Weapons I have never fired but would love to: Steyr AUG (the rifle that Britain should have bought if it wanted to experiment with a bull-pup rifle that actually works) FN P90 - fifty round top mounted magazine, firing a novel 5.7mm x28mm round. Fully ambidextrous, bottom case ejection and lethal as hell up to 200 metres.

Weapons I never want to see again: The SA 80 (any and all marks), the Browning L 9 A 1 9mm High Power. As that fucking thing scares me. The Sterling 9mm submachine gun. More use as a club than as a thing for shooting people.

So, why is it that we still use the M-16 again? Is there something in particular that the AR-15/M-16/M-4 have going for them that other firearms don't? Because it sound like that DI is an inferior system to other methods of gas operation.

Sorry for double post, but cleaning working parts of any rifle with a steam cleaner? I just heard every firearms instructor I have ever had shout at me for even looking at that.

To clean the gas parts, bolt and operating rods of any rifle is so simple even a British Army Cadet Force sprog can do it. Step one, disassemble your rifle, get the dirty bits arranged by group. Step two, empty a two liter ice cream container, preferably by consuming the contents. Step three, half fill the container with malt or spirit vinegar. Step four, dunk all the bits in the vinegar bath by groups for about five minutes. The vinegar will remove the carbon as if by magic. Step five lift them out and wipe with first a damp cloth and then a dry one. Make sure you clean inside the bolt carrier and any other parts that have holes in them. Step six, lubricate the parts as required.

^^ The TLDR version is "politics".

edited 18th Jan '12 10:38:29 AM by Nohbody

Part of the appeal of the DI system is that it saves weight - indeed, tehAR-15 is very lightweight. Second, less piece parts and mass moving around when the bolt unlocks and moves to the rear, and then back into battery, which aids in accuracy when firing rapidl - your aim is disturbed less. Thirdly, the weapon is actually pretty good as a target rifle, and the Military placed a lot of importance on first-roudn hit probability, the soldier's carrying weight, and the fashionable thing to do at the time was to ditch battle rifles firing full-power ammunition in favor of lighter smaller weapons firing intermediate cartridges.

Couple that with how poorly the M14 did in the humid climate of Vietnam (the wood expanded and negatively affected accuracy, plus it shoudl haveer had been built to be selective fire in the first place) and the Army was keen on adopting it, despite it's radical departure from traditional small arms methedology - aluminum alloy for the receiver, for one. Most weaposn of the day used stamped or milled steel.

It was visionary, radical, high-tech, and it did very well on trials and the spec-ops guys who used it on a limited issue grew to like it. Plus, as it fired a smaller cartridge, you could carry more ammunition for it than you could with the M14.

I can understand why they chose it, despite wishign that they hadn't done so, and had designed the M14 (the M14 is essentially an M1 Garand rechambered for 7.62x51 and given a box magazine) properly.

There are some kits that replace the gas tube with a traditional gas piston and operating rod, and do so pretty well. I think Ruger makes a retrofit kit, there are others that exist, too.

Some history on why the US Army still uses the M-16/M-4: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

We should have adopted the HK 416 (an upgrade of the M-4 using a different type of action) a long time ago:

From the article: "...In exhaustive tests with the help of Delta Force, the upgraded weapon was subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds – fully 3 times the reliability shown by the M4 in US Army studies. The H&K 416 was declared ready in 2004..."

^

No we shouldn't, H&K sucks balls, they make good gear but they charge about 50 percent more than they should for what you get. Fuck giving those greedy assholes more money.(slightly pissed about what they did to GSG over the GSG 5)

It's why I'll never buy from H&K. If we had to do a replacement, I'm for the SCAR or the ACR.(or just using those piston upgrade kits, my friend has one on his AR and it is wonderful, I have no colorful language to describe the improvement.

Aside from the mentioned politics, there's the replacement cost of adopting a brand new weapons system, as well as the retraining cost of putting all our current troops through using a new rifle. Also, as said, it really isn't a bad rifle. One highly downplayed feature of the AR series is how nicely the ergonomics are. Collapsible stock, easy to reach magazine button, you don't have to rock the magazine in like with an AK, and it has a lot of attachment options. I used an AK yesterday, and the entire time I was thinking "Man, this thing shoots good, but the ergonomics of it suck."

edited 18th Jan '12 12:29:31 PM by Barkey

Personally I'm a big fan of Heckler & Koch but since I live in the UK, I'll only be able to get a bolt-action rifle or a double-barreled shotgun. Personally I'd go for either a Lee-Enfield or a Mosin-Nagant when it comes to rifles but I might get an AK in .22LR or WMR (Can get semi-autos in .22 rimfire) or a Barrett M95 just for Rule of Cool. As for shotguns, I'd go with a 12-guage Browning over-under or a SPAS-12 with a capacity nerf (limit for a shotgun license is 2+1 I believe). If I could get a pistol, it would probably be a .44 magnum or an M1911. Semi-auto rifle in any calibre would either be an M1 Garand or an AK of some kind. If i could get a full-auto of some kind, I'd definitley go for a G36.

On revolvers: I remember being at a gun store just outside of Austin, TX, where they had a 50 Cal Smith and Wesson Revolver for sale. I looked quizzically at store owner, who said, "Yeah, it hurts to fire that thing."

(And no, I didn't test fire the gun. Too chicken!)

edited 18th Jan '12 1:32:42 PM by OscarWildecat