I understood it more as the fact you would customise a gun, as is often the case with AR15, almost from inside out, even if the modifications can be done perfectly and soundly.
Had the wrong grasp on this!
By the way just tested out a VHS2 yesterday and although that's a bit expensive... Really found it cool. Like bullpups.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: I understood it more as the fact you would customise a gun, as is often the case with AR15, almost from inside out, even if the modifications can be done perfectly and soundly.
Had the wrong grasp on this!
By the way just tested out a VHS2 yesterday and although that's a bit expensive... Really found it cool. Like bullpups.
No, Gucci was never known for owner modifications. A Gucci gun is a Desert Eagle with gold tiger stripe finish, and faux ivory grips.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: I understood it more as the fact you would customise a gun, as is often the case with AR15, almost from inside out, even if the modifications can be done perfectly and soundly.
Had the wrong grasp on this!
By the way just tested out a VHS2 yesterday and although that's a bit expensive... Really found it cool. Like bullpups.
No, Gucci was never known for owner modifications. A Gucci gun is a Desert Eagle with gold tiger stripe finish, and faux ivory grips.
I never understood that "wannabee" rich kid type of deal. Either go full rich and go to a gunsmith for something truly customised or if you intend to also use it and are not flush with infinite cash, use something that is practical to use.
Not Online!!! wrote: I never understood that "wannabee" rich kid type of deal. Either go full rich and go to a gunsmith for something truly customised or if you intend to also use it and are not flush with infinite cash, use something that is practical to use.
Afterall there's nothing wrong with mattblack.
The Gucci Glock is a combination of aspirational affluence and entry-level gunsmithing. It allows one to brag about how much money one spent customizing the firearms equivalent of a subcompact car while pretending to be a hot-rod mechanic.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.
I think pistol grips are almost a generational thing. If you grew up (as I did) learning to shoot revolvers, Glock grips will never feel right. I'm very comfortable with auto-loaders, but many of these have some of the same features in terms of shape and grip angle.
I know the new hotness is getting the grip as high as possible, but if you shoot revolvers or vintage weapons, it's a great way to get slide or hammer bite, and frankly, I'm not that allergic to recoil. It's funny to watch modern shooter flinch from a .38 revolver's recoil.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.
I think pistol grips are almost a generational thing. If you grew up (as I did) learning to shoot revolvers, Glock grips will never feel right. I'm very comfortable with auto-loaders, but many of these have some of the same features in terms of shape and grip angle.
I know the new hotness is getting the grip as high as possible, but if you shoot revolvers or vintage weapons, it's a great way to get slide or hammer bite, and frankly, I'm not that allergic to recoil. It's funny to watch modern shooter flinch from a .38 revolver's recoil.
I've never seen a pistol shooter flinch from a .38 revolvers recoil.
I've got dinky little hands so Glocks have always felt a little too large for me to hold comfortably, but I've shot them for 25 years now. I'm ok with them. I was enthralled with my new Glock 48 MOS. However I find that grip too small. Roll eyes.
My 1911 with VZ's is the tits, and I like H&K USP grips. Go figure.
Kayback wrote: I've never seen a pistol shooter flinch from a .38 revolvers recoil.
Seems to be a thing among the current generation. In my youth, .38 special was a puny round, and 9mm was obviously inferior to .45 ACP.
I think the modern ergonomics and popularity of .22LR in carry guns has lowered recoil expectations quite a bit. I've seen people say that .380 is "too snappy" and that they prefer a full-sized 9mm.
On the other hand, there are BFRs with ridiculous chamberings and snub-nosed .500 Magnums for true masochists.
I have a friend who has pretty much settled on a full-sized 9mm and .22Mag target revolver as his preferred handguns, and has zero interest in even trying .45 ACP.
Anyone who is skittish with the idea of guns or really new might flinch too. But that doesn't have anything to do with the actual caliber and is more mindset. They'd flinch on a .22 most likely too.
Agreed, already seen how the few first round of a friend, being 22, made him step a bit backward although there's literally 'o recoil. Someone fully new to the range and firearms can be really overwhelmed by the idea of recoil, but that doesn't last for long!
Grey Templar wrote: Anyone who is skittish with the idea of guns or really new might flinch too. But that doesn't have anything to do with the actual caliber and is more mindset. They'd flinch on a .22 most likely too.
It's not newness, it's what they are accustomed to. The guy who won't shoot over 9mm is older than I am, he's just determined a comfort level that I find a little absurd. And I tease him about it.
But among the new generation (which includes my kids), there is an aversion to any form of discomfort. We're seeing this in the way that just about every handgun now has alternate grip panels and even frames. It's fine, but it's the antithesis of the old school where you just got used to it. You know, like that Ruger Bisley I used to own in .44 magnum with hardwood grips. I didn't hurt so much as make your hands go numb.
And yes, I know shooter who consider .22LR "enough." I think there's a huge opportunity for updated .32 ACP weapons for this crowd, because in compact frame, .32 ACP is quite soft, and one of my daughters has decided that it's the perfect caliber for her (her targets bear this out).
A far cry from when I bought my first handgun and - after listening to all the "experts" - opted for a .357 Magnum because everything else was "underpowered."
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.
I do have to say I don't like the finger grooves in a lot of Glock grips. I have large hands, and my ring finger will ride along the ridge that is supposed to separate your ring finger and pinky. Now, there are aftermarket Glock lowers that I'm interested in that have no finger grooves, and are styled more similar to a 1911.
Now, I'm no Glock fanboy, and I somewhat dislike the pistols. However, why do I love Glock? The magazines. Not the cheapest mags, but far from the most expensive. They are reliable, come in various capacities, and they are everywhere and will be for decades. I have a couple pistols where tracking down factory mags (the only reliable ones there are) feels like cruising back allies in hopes of finding VHS cassettes of snuff films.
Agreed, especially in a country such as France where aftermarket is very limited.
Most spare parts and attachments are hard to find, and when you do find them, their atrociously expensive. Save for a few very common, mostly glocks for example.
You have got the option to import them but postage is expensive too...
cuda1179 wrote: Now, there are aftermarket Glock lowers that I'm interested in that have no finger grooves
Only gen 3 and gen 4 Glocks have the finger grooves. If you get the newest (gen 5) or an older one (gen 1-2), no finger grooves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: But among the new generation (which includes my kids), there is an aversion to any form of discomfort. We're seeing this in the way that just about every handgun now has alternate grip panels and even frames. It's fine, but it's the antithesis of the old school where you just got used to it. You know, like that Ruger Bisley I used to own in .44 magnum with hardwood grips. I didn't hurt so much as make your hands go numb.
And yes, I know shooter who consider .22LR "enough." I think there's a huge opportunity for updated .32 ACP weapons for this crowd, because in compact frame, .32 ACP is quite soft, and one of my daughters has decided that it's the perfect caliber for her (her targets bear this out).
A far cry from when I bought my first handgun and - after listening to all the "experts" - opted for a .357 Magnum because everything else was "underpowered."
As someone who probably qualifies as 'the new generation'- there's an emerging consensus that a gun that fits your hand and is comfortable to shoot is more effective (ie easier to shoot rapidly and accurately) than something with nominally higher effectiveness on paper but which you have to 'get used to'. Part of that is pushback against high caliber as a hard requirement for 'stopping power', as modern defensive hollowpoint loads have narrowed the differences in terminal effects between calibers, and part of it is a shift towards being more concerned with whether the round connects rather than what happens when it does.
It's not just a civilian shooter trend, either. There's a great case study in the form of FBI selecting the 10mm Auto as a new standard sidearm caliber in the early-90s, discovering that smaller-statured shooters simply were not effective with it and downloading to what is now known as .40S&W, and then ultimately ditching it and going with 9mm. I would also push back on the implication that this is a new thing, as the caliber wars between good ol' single-stack fohty-fahv and the whizzbang double-stack wonder-nines have been ongoing since the 80s.
Personally, I own a number of handguns in .45ACP, .357, .30 Carbine, and .50AE, but my go-to handgun is a plain CZ75B in 9x19. Love my 1911s, Automag, and Mateba, all wonderful target pistols, but with the CZ I can put more rounds on target more accurately in less time under stress.
Which circles back to my view which is get the most powerful thing you can shoot reasonably accurately. Don't get something you can't control, but don't go smaller just because "shot placement is key". Don't risk your life on getting perfect shot placement. Go for the most powerful thing you can do "good enough" with. What caliber this means will be different for different people, but I would say personally that anyone who can handle .380 can handle 9mm and there is no reason to downgrade.
Personally, I own a number of handguns in .45ACP, .357, .30 Carbine, and .50AE, but my go-to handgun is a plain CZ75B in 9x19Love my 1911s, Automag, and Mateba, all wonderful target pistols, but with the CZ I can put more rounds on target more accurately in less time under stress.
I shot .45ACP in various 1911s for many years. I love throwing trashcans around. My handload is a TC 230gr at around 900fps, a touch spicy but it works well and on steel it knocks it down with authority. The first time I did a classifier with my 9mm Glock 26 I went up a division and that was with standard 124gr FMJ out a box.
I'm still trying to get a 1911 back, looking at a Les Baer, but still carry my G17/G48. I'm not as good with my 48 yet as I've got hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange through it. It's a 2 pin early Gen 3 frame. Shot to pieces I love it but carry my 48 MOS. Having electronic sights makes blind shooters happy.
IIRC when the FBI came out with the ballistics test 10mm and .357 SIG were the only automatic calibers that could pass it. Ammo tech has continually improved to the point that 9mm and up can pass it, so it makes sense to switch to something easier to shoot. And if LE is just going to mag dump at 7-10 yards with an 18% hit rate, capacity trumps caliber. That said....
Grips are a generational thing to an extent as most revolvers and older semi autos were intended to be shot one handed, and the training of the time reflected that. Sometimes things do rise and fall out of fashion too. 3 dot sights had been common but the new hotness is blank or blacked out rear sights.
I'm one of the people that heavily upgrades their guns. I personally would not buy a "Gucci" Glock or put thousands into upgrading an existing one, but can't really fault the people that do. A lot of people either got a Glock as their first gun, or were issued one for their job. Switching to a hammer gun would be a good idea, but getting better with what you know is also a viable choice.
Do you really need extra cocking serrations, "lightening" holes cut into the slide, a bling-tastic finish, and similar? Of course not. But anything that increases the intrinsic or practical accuracy (how it shoots from a rest vs how you shoot it), or improves your shooting drills, can be worthwhile. if you bought the gun because John Wick used it and you shoot 100 rds a year out of it, then yes its a waste.
For instance my AR started out as a generic GWOT era M4 and over time I have replaced nearly every part. It had good accuracy, and now shoots frikkin laser beams at 100 yards from a rest with good ammo. It had an adequate trigger, now it has the finest of any gun I've owned. Knowing that the gun has that kind of accuracy is very helpful when practicing as I know the problem is me, not the gun/ammo. To me its worth it.
Grey Templar wrote: Which circles back to my view which is get the most powerful thing you can shoot reasonably accurately. Don't get something you can't control, but don't go smaller just because "shot placement is key". Don't risk your life on getting perfect shot placement. Go for the most powerful thing you can do "good enough" with. What caliber this means will be different for different people, but I would say personally that anyone who can handle .380 can handle 9mm and there is no reason to downgrade.
I generally agree, but I think what makes it more complicated is that 'what you can shoot reasonably accurately' will depend on a lot more than just caliber. Many people who can handle 9mm just fine in a full-size steel-frame delayed-blowback handgun will struggle with the same caliber in a subcompact polymer-frame form. There are a lot of factors that affect practical effectiveness, particularly when it comes to guns intended for concealed carry, and a gun can go from barely controllable to rock steady for a particular user from something as simple as swapping out slick plastic grips for molded rubber ones.
If switching to a lighter caliber than one can 'handle' means either better practical accuracy under stress or a smaller/lighter system that they will actually carry rather than leave at home, then I can't really fault that, provided an adequate self-defense load is used. I draw a hard line at .22LR though, just because I've observed too many malfunctions with rimfire ammunition to trust it.
Grey Templar wrote: Which circles back to my view which is get the most powerful thing you can shoot reasonably accurately. Don't get something you can't control, but don't go smaller just because "shot placement is key". Don't risk your life on getting perfect shot placement. Go for the most powerful thing you can do "good enough" with. What caliber this means will be different for different people, but I would say personally that anyone who can handle .380 can handle 9mm and there is no reason to downgrade.
I disagree - shoot the caliber and platform that you are most accurate with, period. Under the stress of a self-defense situation, accuracy will degrade, and if you were only "good enough" you are likely to fail.
Plus, comfortable shooting makes for more frequent practice. I've seen several examples of people who took the "heaviest they can control" and who now rarely practice because it isn't that enjoyable and they consider themselves "good enough."
I agree with catbarf about .22LR being unsuitable. It's harder to find, but .25 ACP was designed to remedy the unreliability of rimfire ammo.
I will say that .32 Long or .32 ACP get you much better ballistics than .22LR and in the right package is very easy to shoot. What's more, vintage .32 Long revolvers can be found in excellent condition for less than $200. One of my daughters loves shooting a European "police pistol" in .32 ACP. With the steel frame, there is very little recoil and seems to point naturally in her hand.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Plus, comfortable shooting makes for more frequent practice. I've seen several examples of people who took the "heaviest they can control" and who now rarely practice because it isn't that enjoyable and they consider themselves "good enough."
Also, corollary: The .32 or .380 or .38Spl or 9x18 you actually carry is infinitely more useful than the 9x19 or .45 you left at home because it was too heavy or prints too much.
I think there's a balance to be struck between caliber and practical accuracy- as tedious as the discourse around ""stopping power"" is, there's good reason FBI penetration tests are widely considered the gold standard- but nobody's effective with a platform they don't practice on or don't actually have available when the fight starts.
I disagree - shoot the caliber and platform that you are most accurate with, period. Under the stress of a self-defense situation, accuracy will degrade, and if you were only "good enough" you are likely to fail.
Logistics! While the above is the ideal - the reality is you have a budget and platforms you practice with are better than the ideal gun you leave in its box. There is a lot of leeway there for personal use, but organisationally it can be a big cost driver if you pick wrong and end up cutting effectiveness to save cash.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Logistics! While the above is the ideal - the reality is you have a budget and platforms you practice with are better than the ideal gun you leave in its box. There is a lot of leeway there for personal use, but organisationally it can be a big cost driver if you pick wrong and end up cutting effectiveness to save cash.
Cost and cost of ownership (ammo) are absolutely factors as well. That being said, if you need something that is very compact and you go with a 9mm because ammo is cheap, but the felt recoil in such a tiny frame causes you to flinch, or be less enthusiastic about practice, it's clearly not really a savings.
That's why I try to help people think outside the box. I bring up .32 Long revolvers because they are dirt cheap, ammo isn't bad and they're a nice balance of recoil and power. It used to be the NYPD's official caliber, so I can get the job done.
Likewise, there are tons of weapons chambered in .32 ACP that are affordable to buy and use and they also print small.
Weight is a factor, but it can cut both ways - as mentioned above, what might be fine in an all-steel frame may be too "snappy" in a polymer or "airweight" configuration.
I'm a huge fan of .32 Magnum, which is like the platonic ideal of a self-defense cartridge. It's biggest drawback is cost/availability of ammo, but that seems to be improving, and you can use .32 Long for practice.
I've said enough regarding ammo choice/effectiveness and agree that can be a tedious discussion. Cost and cost of ownership (which you might extend to the cost of maintaining proficiency) is a lot more interesting, and careful shopping is a big part of shooting if you are doing it at the level of a hobby. Effectiveness aside, ammunition in dead or mostly dead calibers is fairly expensive for what it is, mostly due to low demand and supply. You could choose to buy a $200 C&R revolver and a $500 case of ammo, or for a similar cost buy a case of 9mm and a brand new serviceable 9mm carry gun like a PSA Dagger, Masada, or Shield Plus.
If you are shooting enough to maintain proficiency with your gun, ammo cost is a big factor. If you are shooting a box here and there, you'll likely be as good as those average LEO shooters with the 18% hit rate. And TBH they usually still win their gunfights so that is probably good enough for a more casual shooter.
With careful shopping you can save a lot of money in this hobby. And that applies to guns, ammo, and even upgrades. I'm much more of a "buy once, cry once" shopper rather than someone on a tight budget, but I still don't want to throw money away either.You have to decide what you want, and whether the price will rise or fall if you wait to buy. Make your purchases carefully using logic that makes sense at the time, and try not to get so set in your ways that you make bad decisions later down the line.
Real world example! :
The only Glock I own is in a dead caliber (.357 SIG) that made a lot of sense when I bought it but makes less sense now. Modern 9mm has sufficient penetration and makes the same sized hole. .357 SIG ammo has been extremely hard to come by in recent years, with a few boxes here and there available at over $1 per round, and absolutely nothing available by the case. I've tried another striker fired carry gun (M18) but I'm not in love with it, and greatly prefer my full size guns that are more suited to cold weather carry.
Recently, I was excited to see my preferred ammo dealer offering cases of .357 SIG HSTs for $600, and planned to buy one the next time I ordered ammo. Then the mini-panic hit, and that same case of ammo available only in one place, became $870 overnight. At the same time, the CZ Shadow 2 Compact was released. People rave about the full size Shadow 2 but I'm pretty well set on full size guns and didn't see the need, but remained curious. The Shadow 2 Compact is also getting rave reviews, I am in the market for a new carry gun, and I really, REALLY want one, but they are in high demand and people are treating them like Playstation 5's. I would have to pay hundreds of dollars more than MSRP to get one right now.
So, with the end goal of upgrading my "carry" gun to something better than an M18, and preferably a Shadow 2 Compact, as I see it these are my options:
A- Don't buy anything and get as good as I can get with the M18, a gun with dissapointing accuracy, and relatively expensive magazines/aftermarket parts. Hope the Shadow 2 Compact is available later at MSRP, which it probably will be.
B- Go ahead and buy the case of HST for $870, which could instead be 3 cases of 9mm range ammo, a different midrange gun, or any number of other things. Use that ammo to regain and maintain proficiency with the Glock 32 and save the last box for carry ammo.
C- Convert the Glock to 9mm with a complete upper for $500, with enough money left to buy a whole case of range ammo or upgrade the trigger. And be able to switch back to .357 if I had the inclination. With the downside of the federales potentially showing up at the house thinking I am making "ghost guns".
D- CONSOOM PRODUCT and just pay the extra $300-1000 to get the CZ. Maybe go get the new Iphone while I am at it.
E- Buy a different, good CZ or Jericho carry gun instead which would probably more than suit my needs, but with the knowledge that if I like it I will still want the Shadow 2 Compact.
F- Buy a different, more expensive high end carry gun I will probably really like rather than being gouged on the Shadow 2 Compact, like a Staccato or even an EDCX9 which is really more than I want to spend on a handgun.
G- Start thinking outside the box and learn to love 100 year old .32 caliber guns.
G- Start thinking outside the box and learn to love 100 year old .32 caliber guns.
I think everyone knew I was going to go with that option.
I'd like to add a little bit to your ammo discussion and note that per-round price isn't necessarily the "cost" of the ammo. This is because revolvers typically have modest appetites. You shoot your six (or five, or seven) and then reload. A 9mm full size will typically hold at least 15 rounds, so unless you download your mags, you're going to go through much more ammo.
I actually do that, rarely putting more than 5 rounds in a magazine. This forces me to handle the weapon more while conserving ammo. Also, I think acquiring the target is more important than endless follow-up shots.
My point is that I find a practice session with a revolver simply uses less ammo.
Another important consideration is comfort level. It takes a lot less time and effort to "get good" with a light caliber than a heavy one. The sad truth is that .32 Mag. is never going to be super-cheap, but its recoil is so low and easy, that I'm naturally good with it - both in accuracy and quick follow ups. Much better than with a .38 of the same size and of course it has superior ballistics, so what's not to like?
Getting back to your dilemma, something to consider is the likelihood that if you have to use it, you're likely to lose whatever weapon you are carrying, at least for a while. I would feel more comfortable about losing something that I have less than $500 invested in.
Re-watching the Terminator and making notes for a possible YouTube/podcast thing with a friend (why yes, it will be every bit as terrible as you expect. If not more so).
My focus is on “little things which make it good”.
Just at the Police Station shootout, and there’s one confirmed, but possibly more, one-handed shots with what I think is a Spas-12, where at least two shots are done without the pump action being applied.
Now, one handed I get is Silly, but given it’s the Terminator doing it, that’s not my concern. My concern is “does the Spas-12 need pumping between shots or is that like, a single shot setting?”
To be fair the buttstock (hehehehe, but) isn’t present on his one. Which I might count as a “nice slice of minutiae”. I mean, you’ve got to bait comments for the algorithm, right?
Is the semi-auto proper semi-auto, or more ‘slam fire’ and so still requiring manual cycling/pumping?
I remember reading the SPAS-12 is both. There's a button or w/e to change it from pump action to semi auto. Unless I am confusing it with another shotgun.
Bobthehero wrote: I remember reading the SPAS-12 is both. There's a button or w/e to change it from pump action to semi auto. Unless I am confusing it with another shotgun.
that's what they show in the video, so you're remembering correctly! I am the only one to think it looks ugly though?
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Proper semi. Well, if it works, in the video they get a failure to feed at the very first cycle.
If held by only one hand, it probably would have difficulty cycling. "Limp wristing" and all that.
Terminator, like a lot of Hollywood films, uses a fair amount of magic tech and also reality-bending guns. If a terminator did exist, a face full of shot would probably disable his optics and would definitely remove any doubt as to whether it was human.
I'm thinking precision shooting through the eye (with a scoped rifle) would absolutely end it, and there might have been parts on the chassis just as vulnerable. Feet come to mind. Those servos can't be robust and yet sensitive enough to support fluid movement like walking and running.
Most gas-operated shotguns and rifles are nearly impossible to limp wrist. The mass ratio between the reciprocating bolt and the comparatively static rest of the gun is too low, and the impulse of energy transfer is too short. You can do it, but just shooting one-handed isn't enough, you have to do something very strange- like shooting light-loaded ammo through an unlubricated gun in exceptionally hot or cold climates- for an improper stance to sap enough energy to induce a malfunction.
In any case, the SPAS-12 works fine one-handed*. The incredible thing in that scene isn't that the gun works, it's that he can hold that front-heavy 10lb gun up, arm outstretched, with no apparent difficulty.
* With the usual caveat that it will only cycle full-power buckshot and slugs reliably, regardless of how you hold it. The whole point of the selectable pump/semi system is to have a semi-auto shotgun that can still be used with lighter loads, particularly less-lethal rounds for police use.
Limp-wristing is only really a thing with semi-auto pistols. Glocks in particular are pretty bad with it, you can almost guarantee a failure to feed when you limp wrist a glock.
I think it has to do with the slide losing all its inertia in moving the gun back to level position instead of chambering the round. The gun rotates back 45ish degrees(nearly pointing vertical) before it goes back level when you really only want it rising 20ish degrees at most.
Most rifles are gas operated and will have a lot more energy involved so even if the rifle was just spinning freely it would still cycle. But even fully recoil operated ones should still be fine.
If you don't have a steady/firm grip on a semi automatic weapon, some of the energy the weapon uses to cycle is absorbed/used when your wrist/elbows move. If enough of it dissipates that way, the weapon won't cycle properly - on a pistol, you'll have cases get jammed in the ejection port, or the slide won't cycle far enough to pickup a round.
I'm not sure if it's a thing with most gas powered rifles? I *think* most rifles would still cycle if they got to flap around.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So the wielder’s stance holding the gun steady gives the recoil only one place to go, yeah?
Yes, it keeps the frame stationary so that the recoil energy can push back the barrel and slide. If the gun isn't held stationary, then that energy gets split between the frame and the slide, and if not enough goes into the slide it may fail to fully cycle.
In a conventional gas-operated semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, the gun has a lot more weight relative to the bolt carrier, so even if held loosely most of the energy goes into the bolt carrier and it will still cycle. This is why you will see videos of militiamen shooting AKs sideways over a wall and they still function. Many handguns, particularly polymer-frame ones (again, low mass relative to the steel slide), will malfunction if you do this.
Right thanks for the explanation, I knew this phenomenon but didn't know how it was called in English! I don't think we have got any specific term for this in french
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Right thanks for the explanation, I knew this phenomenon but didn't know how it was called in English! I don't think we have got any specific term for this in french
If so, that's a first!
I was just throwing it out there because (as others pointed out) there is a difference between recoil-operated weapons and gas-operated ones. If you try hard enough, you can probably force a failure of some sort in any pistol using some form of blowback. Gas-operated weapons don't seem to care as much. I'm not an authority on that particular weapon, so I'm popping smoke and getting clear of the argument.
Something I've noticed of late: the complete lack of any rational explanation for ammo prices. We're seeing prices in general going up, but yet some ammo is once again plummeting in price. What is more, there seems to be no consistent explanation for it.
For example: .38 special used to track closely on 9mm. Then it went up, up, up. It can't be a component issue, but perhaps was a supply one. Now .38 is trending down, but still above 9mm.
Meanwhile, .44 magnum is actually cheaper than .32 magnum. Excuse me? How does that work? Supply and demand, I suppose, but it's crazy that .44 magnum is cheaper now than it was before the pandemic.
All sorts of oddities going on with ammo prices that make the "price of ownership" calculation something of a crap shoot. What was cheap and plentiful today can be scarce and pricey tomorrow.
.32 magnum is a bit of a niche caliber. .44 magnum is very common, both in revolvers, lever guns, and some semi-autos. The price point is going to be lower on .44 just because it is in demand and has a higher supply.
I suspect that .38 and 9mm have divorced their correlation due to the massive increase in new gun owners during the pandemic. The vast majority of new pistol purchases would be in 9mm over .38, so the demand for one relative to the other went up. This causes production to shift towards the more common caliber.
There is also the wonkyness where ammo suppliers aren't manufacturing every caliber at the same time. Instead they'll rotate between calibers in batches. They'll make X amount of Y caliber, then switch to Z caliber for a while till they hit an amount, then switch again. Only the really really common stuff is going to be in continuous manufacture. 5.56, .308, .45, 9mm, etc... those will be made constantly. .32 magnum, .45 long and other more niche calibers will probably only be made a couple times a year for a few weeks and that has to last till they come around again. This can mean that if a caliber runs low during an off period in production the price can temporarily spike due to no new supply. And during the pandemic all calibers were in high demand and ammo production lines aren't able to react quickly to sudden changes.
As for recent ammo issues. There was an explosion at the Salt Lake City ammo plant, so it had to shut down for a bit and wasn't making anything. There was also the recent government orders for some government controlled plants to cease civilian contracts. So yeah, there has been a direct curtailing of the supply for various forbidden off-topic reasons.
catbarf wrote: It's not about whether the handgun is held one-handed or two-handed. It's about whether it's held firmly or loosely.
Indeed. Now you probably aren't going to be able to hold as firmly with 1 hand as with 2, but it doesn't preclude the possibility. If you are strong enough you can do it. The more practical issue with dual wielding is accuracy and any attempts to reload.
As far as I'm concerned, I leave in a parallel universe. As I'm highlighted many times over in this thread, the French market doesn't necessarily ressemble the us market so prices may not be related to the same stuff going on.
But for now, in the reloading market, supply is quite low and makes prices soar, waiting for restock but even then there is much uncertainty as to what when will be available.
Prices for the most popular calibers hiked less since the last wave of inflation I believe, supply is less tense, others are becoming harder to get by to start with.
So I’ve asked about the reuse of casings before, and got answers for brass.
But, what about shotgun shells? I saw some in real life as a kid (I’m sheltered, ok? ) and I recall them having the brass cap end like any other round, but the overall casing was a plastic. And provided TV hasn’t lied to me, they’re not exactly sealed at the blasty end, but sort of, folded over, so the freedom seeds don’t spill out.
The plastic seems fairly strong given it’s quite thin, but never having compared a spent to a fresh cartridge, I’ve no idea if reusing is possible, advisable or feasible etc?
Reuse is fully possible, in fact I am to learn it with a friend of mind who already reloads his 12 cartridges whenever I can retrieve the buckets of lead my grandpa has got laying around in his less of a garage
Grey Templar wrote: .32 magnum is a bit of a niche caliber. .44 magnum is very common, both in revolvers, lever guns, and some semi-autos. The price point is going to be lower on .44 just because it is in demand and has a higher supply.
It's clearly a case of supply and demand, it's just amusing that the cost of materials are essentially irrelevant to the price.
The ammo market is still in recovery mode. You are correct that some ammo stays in production year-round (9mm, 5.56mm come to mind) but others are produced in finite batches. What the pandemic did was wipe out the entire inventory of those low-demand rounds, so now everything is being reset. Since the niche calibers are scarce, prices are high.
I think .32 mag is also seeing some resurgence in popularity because I'm seeing positive references to it on gun channels. Especially for marginal calibers, someone with a few hundred thousand followers singing the praise of a cartridge can have a big effect on aggregate demand.
This is one reason why I hate the Taurus Judge so much. Time was, .410 ammo was cheap and plentiful. Great starter gun for a kid or some niche shooting in a Thompson Contender.
Now, much of the production is geared to the Judge and its clones, which is really annoying. Instead of slugs and game loads, it's all weird "self defense" concoctions (that often don't work according to the youtube world).
Modern shotshells can be reused about the same as brass cartridges.
Really only the very top of the shotshell gets damaged when it gets used, and that is the part that gets stuffed back down to cover up the new load. So as long as there is enough plastic left to crimp down over the pellets it is still usable. It helps that shotshells are much lower pressure than other ammunition so it is much nicer to the shell. If you are reloading 3" shells, once they're worn out you can just start using them to make 2/3" shells
It's clearly a case of supply and demand, it's just amusing that the cost of materials are essentially irrelevant to the price.
Its not irrelevant, but for calibers that are close enough to each other it won't make much difference. So the real difference will be the opportunity cost of making one caliber vs the other.
Material cost is only going to be a major factor for very large calibers or specialty ammo like the various solid brass/copper hunting bullets. Like .50BMG probably has more of its total price locked up in materials than something like 5.56.
Grey Templar wrote: Its not irrelevant, but for calibers that are close enough to each other it won't make much difference. So the real difference will be the opportunity cost of making one caliber vs the other.
Material cost is only going to be a major factor for very large calibers or specialty ammo like the various solid brass/copper hunting bullets. Like .50BMG probably has more of its total price locked up in materials than something like 5.56.
The bullet weight on .44 Mag is 2 to 3 times that on .32 Mag. Brass is casing is also much larger, but the larger cartridge is running half the price of the smaller one. I think if one priced the components, .44 would be more expensive, but then again, availability is important.
They key is that .44 is established and out there, while .32 was simply unobtainable for about a year. Federal just did a big run, but it's still very high because people will pay that much. Supply and demand will force it down, methinks because the markup on that is so big, other manufacturers will be tempted to make some bucks on a short run.
Oh yes. If you strictly priced out the material cost the .44 has more cost in lead, copper, and brass. But the .32 is inflated by its niche appeal.
How much .32 magnum are you actually going to sell to justify the run? Even if everybody who owns a .32 magnum buys ammo, because they are so few in number it is risky to make any .32 magnum. But if you instead made something more popular you could guarantee a sale. Especially when every caliber is selling out. Why risk having some extra .32 magnum just sit on shelves once its small demand is satisfied when you could make literally anything else and sell out completely? Better to have the demand build up to an excessive amount so when you do make a run it does sell out completely.
It's just a natural result of the current high demand market right now. The producers only have so much capacity to make stuff, and since everything is in demand they don't have slump times they could normally use to make some of the more eclectic ammunition.
Grey Templar wrote: Oh yes. If you strictly priced out the material cost the .44 has more cost in lead, copper, and brass. But the .32 is inflated by its niche appeal.
How much .32 magnum are you actually going to sell to justify the run? Even if everybody who owns a .32 magnum buys ammo, because they are so few in number it is risky to make any .32 magnum. But if you instead made something more popular you could guarantee a sale. Especially when every caliber is selling out. Why risk having some extra .32 magnum just sit on shelves once its small demand is satisfied when you could make literally anything else and sell out completely? Better to have the demand build up to an excessive amount so when you do make a run it does sell out completely.
It's just a natural result of the current high demand market right now. The producers only have so much capacity to make stuff, and since everything is in demand they don't have slump times they could normally use to make some of the more eclectic ammunition.
I figured Federal would get into action when the smaller batches by Black Hills and Buffalo Bore were selling out within hours.
I'm also going to say that I'm sure the manufacturers are watching how fast this inventory is moving, comparing its production cost vs retail, and recognizing that shifting some 9mm capacity (which overproduced at the moment and driving down the price) to .32 and other calibers is the smart play.
Interesting that .32 Long is getting cheap. I think that's the cowboy action crowd, because it's LRN in many cases, and if you're just making metal ring against a clock, .32 is faster than .38 while being absolutely historical.
G- Start thinking outside the box and learn to love 100 year old .32 caliber guns.
I think everyone knew I was going to go with that option.
I'd like to add a little bit to your ammo discussion and note that per-round price isn't necessarily the "cost" of the ammo. This is because revolvers typically have modest appetites. You shoot your six (or five, or seven) and then reload. A 9mm full size will typically hold at least 15 rounds, so unless you download your mags, you're going to go through much more ammo.
I actually do that, rarely putting more than 5 rounds in a magazine. This forces me to handle the weapon more while conserving ammo. Also, I think acquiring the target is more important than endless follow-up shots.
My point is that I find a practice session with a revolver simply uses less ammo.
Another important consideration is comfort level. It takes a lot less time and effort to "get good" with a light caliber than a heavy one. The sad truth is that .32 Mag. is never going to be super-cheap, but its recoil is so low and easy, that I'm naturally good with it - both in accuracy and quick follow ups. Much better than with a .38 of the same size and of course it has superior ballistics, so what's not to like?
Getting back to your dilemma, something to consider is the likelihood that if you have to use it, you're likely to lose whatever weapon you are carrying, at least for a while. I would feel more comfortable about losing something that I have less than $500 invested in.
Hmmm...I might have a better agreement with your stance if it was based on .30 instead of. 32. 30-06, 30-30, 308,30 "carbine'. Very common. Very available. You seem to be obsessed with handgun calibers. And I'd remind you, that you're handgun is just a substitute for the rifle that you shouldn't have put down in the first place.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hmmm...I might have a better agreement with your stance if it was based on .30 instead of. 32. 30-06, 30-30, 308,30 "carbine'. Very common. Very available. You seem to be obsessed with handgun calibers. And I'd remind you, that you're handgun is just a substitute for the rifle that you shouldn't have put down in the first place.
Great, so I assume you have a carbine in your passenger seat in case you get carjacked? You go to the grocery store with a lever rifle in hand?
I live in a leafy suburban community. The primary use for a firearm here is discrete self-defense. The houses are close enough together that firing a rifle might well go through my drywall and into the neighbor's so handguns are what's on the menu.
This also applies to hunting applications. My part of the state is below the "rifle line," so only shotguns and handgun calibers are legal to take large game.
If anything, you're the one who seems determined to force a rifle-length peg into a pistol-sized hole.
I will say that my next purchase is likely to be a PCC for deer, something in .44 magnum. My daughter is lobbying for a Type 38 Arisaka, so that's also on the list.
Just on the drywall thing... Chap I worked with way back when had a company/charity hired by the then Yemen government to work with a bunch of charities building replacement houses after a large earthquake. Traditional houses were drybrick, wooden beams for earthquake resilience, etc. Except trees/wood had run out, so they were increasingly concrete based though the walls were often the same. Still those houses fell down.
So in true non local imposition style, they were building breezeblock near prefab style hot boxes. These were murderous in the heat and it got so bad the locals started kidnapping staff and only releasing them after they promised to hand over the cash and material and never return.
Anyway this chap, Sultan, was showing off a set in a model village to one group, who weren't impressed. They had various concerns. Ultimately their defacto leader who seemed to be calling the shots told him to go inside one building with this old man. The old chap motioned him to stand to one side of the room, at which point the younger guy outside unslung his AK and put half a clip through the breeze blocks, resulting in a comical shafts of light, dust curling image being seared onto his brain. He was ushered white faced out, to be told by the semi interpreter the houses where no good, not bulletproof...
Gadzilla666 wrote:You seem to be obsessed with handgun calibers. And I'd remind you, that you're handgun is just a substitute for the rifle that you shouldn't have put down in the first place.
If you're a soldier, sure. Or if Red Dawn has become reality. Or if you're larping the post apocalypse in the woods.
If you're a .gov working with locals off-base, or you're living in a bad part of town, or just a concerned citizen, or otherwise in any scenario where being visibly armed with a weapon of war is not an option, then your rifle is Plan B at best.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:The houses are close enough together that firing a rifle might well go through my drywall and into the neighbor's so handguns are what's on the menu.
The above aside- hollowpoint loads in 9mm or .45 overpenetrate more than their 5.56 counterparts, and frangible ammunition in the latter is about as safe as it gets. Light, fast rounds destabilize immediately upon contact with a hard surface; heavier and slower calibers like pistol rounds or 7.62x39, especially FMJ loads, tend to icepick through drywall (or even concrete) instead. 00 buck, as popular as it is for home defense, can penetrate a couple of interior walls (6+ layers of drywall) and still remain lethal.
If you're looking specifically at home defense, a rifle loaded with appropriate ammunition is less likely to injure bystanders or miss the target under stress than a handgun.
Edit: This also becomes significant when considering smaller handgun calibers, where FMJ may be necessary to meet penetration standards for reliable incapacitation.
I dont think anyone would disagree that if you have a choice between a rifle and a pistol pick the rifle every time. But its not really an option for every day walking around even in places where that is legal. Its just a hassle. That said, if you can I would at least have a carbine in your vehicle if its legal. When I finally move to a free state I shall definitely be doing that.
The above aside- hollowpoint loads in 9mm or .45 overpenetrate more than their 5.56 counterparts, and frangible ammunition in the latter is about as safe as it gets. Light, fast rounds destabilize immediately upon contact with a hard surface; heavier and slower calibers like pistol rounds or 7.62x39, especially FMJ loads, tend to icepick through drywall (or even concrete) instead. 00 buck, as popular as it is for home defense, can penetrate a couple of interior walls (6+ layers of drywall) and still remain lethal.
If you're looking specifically at home defense, a rifle loaded with appropriate ammunition is less likely to injure bystanders or miss the target under stress than a handgun.
Edit: This also becomes significant when considering smaller handgun calibers, where FMJ may be necessary to meet penetration standards for reliable incapacitation.
Very true. Rifle is definitely superior to a pistol for home defense for your listed reasons.
This is why when people ask me what their first gun/gun for home defense should be I tell them to get a carbine/rifle. Or a shotgun maybe, but that is bare minimum in my opinion. People often are very surprised when I say they should have an AR for home defense, but after you explain why you can just see the lightbulb light up above their heads.
catbarf wrote: The above aside- hollowpoint loads in 9mm or .45 overpenetrate more than their 5.56 counterparts, and frangible ammunition in the latter is about as safe as it gets. Light, fast rounds destabilize immediately upon contact with a hard surface; heavier and slower calibers like pistol rounds or 7.62x39, especially FMJ loads, tend to icepick through drywall (or even concrete) instead. 00 buck, as popular as it is for home defense, can penetrate a couple of interior walls (6+ layers of drywall) and still remain lethal.
If you're looking specifically at home defense, a rifle loaded with appropriate ammunition is less likely to injure bystanders or miss the target under stress than a handgun.
It depends heavily on what you are dealing with. Paul Harrell has a bunch of videos on penetration of walls, beds, car doors, grocery shelves, etc. Can handguns exceed shoulder arm penetration? Yes. It all depends on what you are using and what's around you. But his videos show pretty conclusively that while 5.56 does deflect more, that's not necessary a good thing because it's still moving really fast.
Where 9mm had an edge was shooting people through a row of soup cans. But again, this was at extreme short range.
To put it another way, 50 yards bleeds a lot out of a handgun round, but nothing out of a rifle.
I agree with a lot of what has been said. On the other hand, a missed shot with a necked rifle round (shooting at people coming through your front door, for instance) might zip off 1000 yards into the neighborhood where a straight wall will drop after a couple hundred.
Some people advocate for #4 buck out of a shotgun to reduce penetration. I'm curious but haven't yet tried them. 8 pellet #00 Critical Defense is my current HD choice, primarily to negate the 9th pellet "flier" found in most #00 buck. I've also got some of the PDX-1 segmenting slugs which would probably be OK for home defense where I live, but the 3 huge fragments could hit innocent people upstairs and downstairs if fired in an apartment building.
Light and fast pistol rounds usually mean monolithic copper bullets. Some of those penetrate even better than FMJ (the Xtreme defender/penetrator bullets with the screwdriver tips). There are some high velocity frangible copper rounds from Liberty Defense but like many of these rounds (such as all copper "Controlled Chaos", and Russian 7N6 "poison bullet" rifle ammo, NOT the V-MAX style varmint rounds Catbarf is presumably talking about) the entire bullet does not fragment and there is a large piece behind the fragments that continues to penetrate. I'm curious how those would do against studs and drywall. I'd consider them an unproven gimmick until I can see more. Glaser bullets have been around a while but don't seem to have really caught on and there is likely a reason for that beyond the price.
I don't think a perfect HD round exists. You have to take your individual situation into account before making a choice. I think most anything is going to go through at least one interior wall if it doesn't hit a stud, even fragmenting rounds.
Buckshot of any size will still penetrate everything in a typical house except for something odd like a cinderblock/brick wall. For the first 10ish meters of travel the pellets are still all in one mass so they're going to punch through drywall and doors like its not there.
Grey Templar wrote: Buckshot of any size will still penetrate everything in a typical house except for something odd like a cinderblock/brick wall. For the first 10ish meters of travel the pellets are still all in one mass so they're going to punch through drywall and doors like its not there.
There's a case to be made for birdshot - at very close range it's a deadly dense mass, but it rapidly loses energy.
I think there's a clear contradiction in asserting that handguns are underpowered and inferior to should weapons and at the same time maintaining they that they have a higher risk of overpenetration.
There are videos out there showing how much cover household items provide vs various weapons, and the only time I've seen handguns have better penetration is at point blank range vs soup cans, or layers of 2-liter Shasta bottles.
The big takeaway in that respect is the old rule of knowing your target and what is behind it. Thus, homeowners should consider not just the sight lines, but what lies at the end of them.
I've been eyeing an AR with a 5.7 upper conversion that utilizes mags from a P90. Casings eject downward out the AR mag well. If you hollow out an old 5.56 magazine it will act as a brass catcher.
Cool, but hyper expensive to shoot, and very niche for any practical use.
cuda1179 wrote: I've been eyeing an AR with a 5.7 upper conversion that utilizes mags from a P90. Casings eject downward out the AR mag well. If you hollow out an old 5.56 magazine it will act as a brass catcher.
Cool, but hyper expensive to shoot, and very niche for any practical use.
Sometimes the absurdity of the thing justifies it.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:I think there's a clear contradiction in asserting that handguns are underpowered and inferior to should weapons and at the same time maintaining they that they have a higher risk of overpenetration.
It's not contradictory, it's just counterintuitive. A round that is designed to disperse energy on contact can have very high kinetic energy but deposit it immediately into the first surface(s) it hits. A round with lower energy, but designed to maintain integrity and stability, will better penetrate obstacles while retaining that energy. So a 9mm hollowpoint will typically have more kinetic energy than a pellet of 00 buck, but that hollowpoint is designed to deform on impact with a solid surface and disperse its energy as rapidly as possible. The buck pellet is more likely to pierce through and still retain KE out the other side.
Raw energy isn't everything, and in particular intermediate SCHV calibers like 5.56 and 5.45 are inherently less stable than most pistol rounds. The other factor is just the difference in practical accuracy. Handgun hit rates under stress are abysmal even among trained professionals with combat experience, and if you're worried about overpenetration, every missed shot is a liability.
cuda1179 wrote:I've been eyeing an AR with a 5.7 upper conversion that utilizes mags from a P90.
Not sure if anything has changed but I remember the AR57 uppers being notoriously unsafe and poorly made. Unless that has changed significantly I'd steer clear; I'm all for novelties but OOB detonations are bad news.
If every month, you had to spend $100 on ammo, and use it all within that month?
What and how would you buy, and of course, why.
The now is there to allow reuse of casings and that.
If I was made to spend that much every months, clearly I'd go to the closest gunsmith shop, grabe a box of 7,62x39 ammo for my ak, and have fun shooting like no tomorrow . For 100 euros I should get around 200 rounds.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hmmm...I might have a better agreement with your stance if it was based on .30 instead of. 32. 30-06, 30-30, 308,30 "carbine'. Very common. Very available. You seem to be obsessed with handgun calibers. And I'd remind you, that you're handgun is just a substitute for the rifle that you shouldn't have put down in the first place.
Great, so I assume you have a carbine in your passenger seat in case you get carjacked? You go to the grocery store with a lever rifle in hand?
I live in a leafy suburban community. The primary use for a firearm here is discrete self-defense. The houses are close enough together that firing a rifle might well go through my drywall and into the neighbor's so handguns are what's on the menu.
This also applies to hunting applications. My part of the state is below the "rifle line," so only shotguns and handgun calibers are legal to take large game.
If anything, you're the one who seems determined to force a rifle-length peg into a pistol-sized hole.
I will say that my next purchase is likely to be a PCC for deer, something in .44 magnum. My daughter is lobbying for a Type 38 Arisaka, so that's also on the list.
Very fair point. I'll fully admit to forgetting about the influence of environment to this question, and automatically assuming my own environment (rural Appalachia). I can fully imagine why those such as you would prefer pistol calibers, in retrospect. They are probably preferable in a suburban/urban setting.
And, yes, around here, we typically have rifles/carbines stowed in our vehicles. Again, it's a difference of environment, and I fully apologize for not considering the environments of others.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Very fair point. I'll fully admit to forgetting about the influence of environment to this question, and automatically assuming my own environment (rural Appalachia). I can fully imagine why those such as you would prefer pistol calibers, in retrospect. They are probably preferable in a suburban/urban setting.
And, yes, around here, we typically have rifles/carbines stowed in our vehicles. Again, it's a difference of environment, and I fully apologize for not considering the environments of others.
Appalachia? Well say no more. My wife is from there and it is a wildly different environment from where we are. Driving through the hollers, a handgun feels like a noisemaker. I can absolutely see throwing up a screen of suppressive fire whilst groping for the rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: It's not contradictory, it's just counterintuitive. A round that is designed to disperse energy on contact can have very high kinetic energy but deposit it immediately into the first surface(s) it hits. A round with lower energy, but designed to maintain integrity and stability, will better penetrate obstacles while retaining that energy. So a 9mm hollowpoint will typically have more kinetic energy than a pellet of 00 buck, but that hollowpoint is designed to deform on impact with a solid surface and disperse its energy as rapidly as possible. The buck pellet is more likely to pierce through and still retain KE out the other side.
But the energy is still finite, and rifles have outputs many times that of handguns. Your 5.56 may well tumble, but it's still going to keep going for a while. Pistol calibers simply don't have enough energy to cover much distance after striking a few obstructions - especially if they flatten out.
Lots of youtube video show how quickly pistol rounds run out of energy while shoulder weapons can keep on going. The issue isn't just confined to misses, either. Paul Harrell has a video of 30-30 wreaking havoc on a meat target and then slicing through his new and improved high-tech bullet stop. No rounds could be recovered.
Obviously 5.56 isn't 30-30 (though maybe it should be?) but rifles in home defense is more of a rural thing.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: But the energy is still finite, and rifles have outputs many times that of handguns. Your 5.56 may well tumble, but it's still going to keep going for a while.
Well, if it's 55gr M193 pushing 3200fps out of a 1-in-12 twist, it doesn't tumble or keep going anywhere, it basically explodes on contact.
Rifle rounds by design are intended to maintain energy over distance and present more of a liability at 500+yds, I'll agree with that. But what they do on contact with a solid object- shatter, tumble, icepick right through- is a function of bullet design rather than raw muzzle energy. A round that has already expended some of its energy in flight can even become more stable on impact; as you can see with that M193 example above, there's a critical velocity below which 55gr ammunition stops fragmenting as designed.
.30-30 is a perfect example of a big, slow bullet that maintains structural integrity, inflicting damage through sheer mass and penetrating well enough to incapacitate large game. Some loads (eg jacketed 150gr spitzer) will tend to icepick more, depositing little energy into each object struck, allowing greater penetration. Whereas other loads (eg soft-point 170gr) are designed to flatten on impact and put all of that energy into the first thing they contact. Some balance of characteristics is desirable depending on the use case, particularly for hunting.
For overpenetration risk, what we're concerned about is not how much energy the round has at the muzzle, but how much energy remains after passing through some number of obstacles. A high-energy round that blows a grapefruit-sized hole in two layers of drywall and then disintegrates is less of a risk than a low-energy round that goes through three walls and hits your neighbor.
When I was a .gov I attended a training facility that had kill houses cleared for frangible 5.56. They made it clear that only their issued frangible rifle ammunition was to be used, as it was incapable of penetrating the outer walls of the facility. All was well and good until apparently some SEALs didn't get the memo and used their 9mm sidearms. Only a third as much energy as 5.56, but 9x19 FMJ isn't designed to splatter and so the facility got some new ventilation, and then they stopped offering access outside their agency.
catbarf wrote: When I was a .gov I attended a training facility that had kill houses cleared for frangible 5.56. They made it clear that only their issued frangible rifle ammunition was to be used, as it was incapable of penetrating the outer walls of the facility. All was well and good until apparently some SEALs didn't get the memo and used their 9mm sidearms. Only a third as much energy as 5.56, but 9x19 FMJ isn't designed to splatter and so the facility got some new ventilation, and then they stopped offering access outside their agency.
Right, and how much of this ammo is on the civilian market vs surplus ball?
I have some 7.62 NATO training ammo that fires plastic ten-grain bullets. They leave the barrel at close to 4,000 fps, but when I shot a water jug, the bullet failed to penetrate. It cracked the jug, sent up a spray, but flattened out and bounced off.
As with the long weapon/handgun discussion, we're dealing with what people actually have not an ideal circumstance. The tests I've seen on youtube are with what most people probably have, not something procured from a training facility.
Er, plenty. Frangibles aren't exactly .gov/.mil only, they're readily available as self-defense ammo from a variety of brands, including Federal and Lake City as contract overrun. Hollowpoints for rifle calibers are common too and typically disrupt more readily than comparable handgun loads. And even as far as surplus ball is concerned, look at the example I gave with M193. Lots of options here.
Sure, if someone loads up surplus M855 green-tip in their 1-in-7 for self-defense it's going to put nice neat clean holes in things and then whack the neighbor three houses down. But this is where the conversation started:
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The houses are close enough together that firing a rifle might well go through my drywall and into the neighbor's so handguns are what's on the menu.
So I'm not sure I see the relevance of what most people probably have, as we're talking about what's available to an informed user making an educated decision for home defense. You're not limited to surplus ball, and with appropriate ammunition the risk of overpenetration with intermediate-caliber high-velocity rifles is typically less than that of common handgun calibers.
If you're, like, in a warzone and limited to ammunition kept in inventory by Hague Convention observers, then that's another matter entirely.
catbarf wrote: So I'm not sure I see the relevance of what most people probably have, as we're talking about what's available to an informed user making an educated decision for home defense. You're not limited to surplus ball, and with appropriate ammunition the risk of overpenetration with intermediate-caliber high-velocity rifles is typically less than that of common handgun calibers.
How do I verify which frangible loads are house-safe? Does it say it on the label? Do they all work equally well? No offense, but "I saw some guy on the internet say this can't go through drywall" would need some verification.
I think we've nit-picked this to death, but I'll concede the point that some handguns are worse than some rifles in terms of penetrating overpenetration. I think the advantages of handguns in home defense (particularly if one is mindful of handgun ammo selection), outweigh those of long arms. Handguns are easier to secure, yet conversely more accessible. Unless you're going to lug a rifle from room to room, there's a chance that you may be in the wrong place just when you need it. Handguns can be discretely placed to ensure one is always within reach (yes, my European friends, bathroom guns are a thing).
These sort of onion-peeling exercises are what makes the topic so enjoyable, no?
By the way, who has bathroom guns? For those with limitations, would you if you could?
The only advantage a handgun has over a rifle in home defense is, as you mention, hiding them somewhere sneaky. And nothing wrong with doing that if you choose to hide guns around the house like a belligerent squirrel, but in the event you have to grab the closest weapon fast the pistol only serves to enable you to get to a rifle. And if you are in a situation where its ok to just leave guns hidden around the house its not really that hard to hide a rifle.
The advantages of a (semi-auto)rifle however really outweigh pistols(and shotguns) by a hilarious amount. You put yourself at the greatest likelihood of having a firepower advantage over an intruder, you won't have to worry about reloading generally, you won't have to worry about fumbling the mechanism like a shotgun, and you have way more control over where your bullets go compared to a pistol.
When you mag dump a pistol those bullets could be spraying everywhere because you are going to be shaking from the adrenaline. A rifle will minimize this due to its greater weight and length of pull. And if you still have the mental capacity to think about it you can more easily be mindful of where your bullets are going. TL DR: the cone of dispersion from where you are aiming will be a lot tighter with a rifle vs a pistol. This will minimize the chance of collateral damage from over penning above and beyond ammunition choices.
Pistols only advantages are in areas that don't have relevance during an incident itself. They are lighter to carry and easier to conceal, but in an actual fight a rifle > pistol in every way. This is the only reason pistols still exist. The convenience of a small package, but with the downside that you sacrifice performance in every other way.
If the gang bangers can hide mini-dracos and AR pistols under their couch cushions, behind their fridges, and under their beds so can you. Heck, you can hide mini-dracos in a pretty small backpack if you choose.
As someone who is frankly never going to see a firearm outside of armed Police in right place right time?
This talk of home defence is challenging. In a diplomatic “I’ve not live your life” style.
So…equally diplomatically? What do the stats show, when it comes to burglars/home invaders meeting an armed occupant?
Because in my utter ignorance, I can’t imagine a scenario where anyone hangs around after a couple of shots, because nothing is worth your life and limb?
Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.
To me this clearly shows the advantage of having any type of firearm. You'll put yourself in the best possible position to resist if violence does occur, and at worst be on an even footing.
As far as how often people actually use guns to defend themselves, not much research has been done. Though the CDC recently did do some, and then immediately deleted it because it wasn't aligning with their political views. I should try to find some screenshots, but it showed IIRC high hundreds of thousands of defensive uses per year with very high success rates.
Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.
To me this clearly shows the advantage of having any type of firearm. You'll put yourself in the best possible position to resist if violence does occur, and at worst be on an even footing.
As far as how often people actually use guns to defend themselves, not much research has been done. Though the CDC recently did do some, and then immediately deleted it because it wasn't aligning with their political views. I should try to find some screenshots, but it showed IIRC high hundreds of thousands of defensive uses per year with very high success rates.
According to the US Census, there are about 144 million homes in the US. That means there is about a 2.6% chance of the average home being invaded in any given year, 1% chance of you being home while being invaded in any given year, and a 0.22% chance someone will try to attack you in your home in any given year. A 1/3200 chance someone will attack you in your home, with a gun, during a robbery, in any given year.
Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.
To me this clearly shows the advantage of having any type of firearm. You'll put yourself in the best possible position to resist if violence does occur, and at worst be on an even footing.
As far as how often people actually use guns to defend themselves, not much research has been done. Though the CDC recently did do some, and then immediately deleted it because it wasn't aligning with their political views. I should try to find some screenshots, but it showed IIRC high hundreds of thousands of defensive uses per year with very high success rates.
According to the US Census, there are about 144 million homes in the US. That means there is about a 2.6% chance of the average home being invaded in any given year, 1% chance of you being home while being invaded in any given year, and a 0.22% chance someone will try to attack you in your home in any given year. A 1/3200 chance someone will attack you in your home, with a gun, during a robbery, in any given year.
cuda1179 wrote: According to the US Census, there are about 144 million homes in the US. That means there is about a 2.6% chance of the average home being invaded in any given year, 1% chance of you being home while being invaded in any given year, and a 0.22% chance someone will try to attack you in your home in any given year. A 1/3200 chance someone will attack you in your home, with a gun, during a robbery, in any given year.
The problem with these numbers is that they are highly skewed by certain ultra-violent jurisdictions. There are communities where violent crime is virtually unknown, people lock their doors merely out of habit, etc. Then there are places like Chicago and Detroit, where it's endemic.
The only advantage a handgun has over a rifle in home defense is, as you mention, hiding them somewhere sneaky.
That's just not true. I don't know your house, but mine has furniture in it, including lamps and tables and hanging light fixtures. Maybe you have a nice open floor plan with all the tables and chairs lining the walls, so that's not an issue. A handgun is a lot easier to use in confined spaces. You can use your spare hand to hold a flashlight, or turn a knob, hold a cell phone.
Firearms are tools, and they are optimized for specific roles. All of them have advantages and disadvantages.
How do I verify which frangible loads are house-safe? Does it say it on the label? Do they all work equally well? No offense, but "I saw some guy on the internet say this can't go through drywall" would need some verification.
We could probably discuss just 5.56mm ammo for a long time. M193 is probably one of the most common centerfire rifle rounds in the US. I and presumably many others use it as range ammo.
To get to that 3000 fps threshold for M193 to fragment you really want to use an AR with a 20" barrel (M16 style). 16 inch (and 14.5 with welded flash hider) are much more common nowadays and only achieve those velocities for short distances which definitely includes a home but probably not 100 yards. Short barrel AR pistols/SBR can't hit 3000 fps even at point blank.
Besides M193, there are a lot of frangible/fragmenting ammo types out there. Hornady V-MAX are popular and readily available in many stores in many hunting calibers, including rimfire and even 6.5 Creedmoor, and without a velocity threshold. Other types may have some local availability but you may have to order online. I've never actually seen the Mk311 military training ammo for sale. V-MAx is the one to get if you are buying retail.
As to what you should use, and how to get information, you can find at least some kind of actual test on Youtube for virtually any commercially available round. Identify your keywords and go looking. In this case, "V-MAX gel", "V-MAX barrier", "Frangible 5.56 .223", "Libery Civil Defense Gel", "Sinterfire", "Mk311" will work.
Switch to 8:30 if the timestamp doesn't work. I've been watching this guy a lot. He is kind of a yahoo and not the most knowledgeable , but he has a great personality and runs the same test for most of his videos. In this particular one, you can see that at 25 yards from a 16" AR, he gets one M193 round to "explode" and the second one just tumbles/deforms. Perhaps he is close enough to 3000 fps at that range that the M93 "works" or doesn't depending on the variance of individual rounds. He has a number of vids for the Liberty and Sinterfire ammo.
It is very Web 1.0 and a little out of date but there is a ton of good information here. Anything from the user MOLON I would consider to be very high quality. Don't say I never gave you anything!
The only advantage a handgun has over a rifle in home defense is, as you mention, hiding them somewhere sneaky.
That's just not true. I don't know your house, but mine has furniture in it, including lamps and tables and hanging light fixtures. Maybe you have a nice open floor plan with all the tables and chairs lining the walls, so that's not an issue. A handgun is a lot easier to use in confined spaces. You can use your spare hand to hold a flashlight, or turn a knob, hold a cell phone.
Firearms are tools, and they are optimized for specific roles. All of them have advantages and disadvantages.
Do an exercise for me.
Having someone measure the distance between your shoulder and the muzzle of you holding both a pistol and rifle in a typical shooting stance aiming down the sights. The rifle won't be sticking out nearly as far past the pistol as you might think. And unlike the pistol the rifle will be braced by your shoulder.
Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself. Yes, you will have to use your offhand to open doors/use a cellphone, but if you are doing something else with your hand, the rifle will suffer far less penalty to using it one handed vs using a pistol one handed. Accurately shooting with a pistol one handed is exceedingly difficult even in ideal circumstances. One handed use of a rifle will be far less impeded due to the advantages of the weapon's extra weight and bracing it against your shoulder. Of course assuming by rifle were are talking about an AR or similar weapon and not something stupid like a bolt action.
Any of my ARs or AKs could be used one handed if I had to.
Having someone measure the distance between your shoulder and the muzzle of you holding both a pistol and rifle in a typical shooting stance aiming down the sights. The rifle won't be sticking out nearly as far past the pistol as you might think. And unlike the pistol the rifle will be braced by your shoulder.
Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself. Yes, you will have to use your offhand to open doors/use a cellphone, but if you are doing something else with your hand, the rifle will suffer far less penalty to using it one handed vs using a pistol one handed. Accurately shooting with a pistol one handed is exceedingly difficult even in ideal circumstances. One handed use of a rifle will be far less impeded due to the advantages of the weapon's extra weight and bracing it against your shoulder. Of course assuming by rifle were are talking about an AR or similar weapon and not something stupid like a bolt action.
Any of my ARs or AKs could be used one handed if I had to.
I had a picture I made myself using my own G17, AK-103, AR-15 and SBS M88 shotgun.
Even my stock AK-103 was only as long or shorter than an "elbows locked Isosceles" stance. Sure there are more compact pistol stances, but overall pistols aren't *THAT* much more compact when being used.
Sure 98% of my HD and SD plan revolves around my pistol, because it's what I have. My rifle doesn't ride shotgun with my, nor do I have it accessible all the time. While you can't schedule an assault but if there's "something going on" you can rest assured I have my rifle and a chest rig ready.
I personally *HATE* the idea of a HD shotgun. Maybe a semi auto, but any pump gun? Far too many drawbacks for very little gain. As it is my shotgun is probably the last gun I'll ever grab, it would be down to my .454 Raging Bull or my shotgun. I'm not convinced I'll take my shotgun. But my shogun has a light. So do my AR, AK and Glocks. You get a light, you get a light, everyone gets a light.
For one handed use though, my Glock has the most ergonomic light, an X-300U with DG switch.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself.
The problem with this is that to use the flashlight function you must point a loaded firearm at someone, which is legally problematic.
Doubly so if it turns out to be a police officer responding to the call of a concerned neighbor.
I'm also going to say that firing a pistol one-handed is not at all difficult so long as you practice it. With certain ones, I'm actually better one-handed, my theory being that in anticipation of the recoil I tighten my grip more than usual, establishing a more stable hold.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself.
The problem with this is that to use the flashlight function you must point a loaded firearm at someone, which is legally problematic.
Doubly so if it turns out to be a police officer responding to the call of a concerned neighbor.
I'm also going to say that firing a pistol one-handed is not at all difficult so long as you practice it. With certain ones, I'm actually better one-handed, my theory being that in anticipation of the recoil I tighten my grip more than usual, establishing a more stable hold.
I would say the slim advantage of being able to point a flashlight in a different direction to the firearm is negligible compared to having the advantage of the rifle.
I would also not bank on one handed use of a pistol in a stressful situation. Last thing you want is to be limp wristing and causing an otherwise completely avoidable jam. Far too risky imo.
Pretty much anytime I see bodycam footage of police shootings, if the officer one handed fires their weapon they almost always get a jam from limp wristing.
Bit of a penetration adjacent question - in situations where you can fairly reliably prove your property suffered damage from another persons firearms (we all heard the shots - you can trace back through the bullet holes to his front door etc.) are you liable for the damage regardless of circumstance? So if you were using the firearm for self defence would you still be liable? I ask because US law is endlessly fascinating and often baffling to outsiders.
Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.
I was thinking that sounded crazy... then checked the UK stats for robbery. Just under 1% of households as well. But 65% of times people are present (and unaware the majority of the time) and 45% of times the thief is known to the victim. For that 65%, half (so around 32% of robberies) involve the threat or use of violence. So from that limited comparison I would say that self defence weapons are potentially a difference in that encounter and violence used rate.
Yes, you would be potentially liable for civil damages irrespective of what happens on the criminal side of things. But that is more just in the general sense and not specifically involving self-defense. If you damage someone's stuff for any reason, they can sue you for damages. How much will they get? Depends on the jury really, but I suspect that if you put some holes in the neighbor's fridge you're going to be buying them a new one. And honestly I would say that is fair, as long as they claim damages within reasonable levels. Which is really where problem is with US civil courts, too much frivolity above and beyond what is reasonable.
Grey Templar wrote: I would say the slim advantage of being able to point a flashlight in a different direction to the firearm is negligible compared to having the advantage of the rifle.
Slim? You really want to scan a room by tracking a loaded rifle around it? Or your yard? Seriously, this is huge violation of firearm safety and legally very risky. I'm assuming you live alone, because I can't imagine anyone else living there is fine with having a loaded gun possibly pointed at them while you determine if that's a burglar or a squirrel making noise in the middle of the night. I'm going assume that you're safety-conscious, but that still means that if you hear a sudden noise behind you, everyone there is going to dive out of the way as you bring the light (and gun) to bear.
With a handgun, I can keep the weapon in a safe posture while scanning freely and much more rapidly. I'll accept the potential loss of firepower and accuracy in exchange for vastly greater safety.
I would also not bank on one handed use of a pistol in a stressful situation. Last thing you want is to be limp wristing and causing an otherwise completely avoidable jam. Far too risky imo.
Well, revolvers don't have to worry about that and I haven't had an issue with autoloaders one-handed because I practice using them that way. I also practice using them with each hand, because my primary hand could be injured.
That's my point - the rifle is great, dominating even, but only for a specific scenario. In all other applications it is inflexible and unsafe. Self-defense should be practiced in situations where you're not at your best, where your primary hand is in a cast, or you're in the bathroom, the rifle's downstairs, and the break-in is in the room next to you.
Pretty much anytime I see bodycam footage of police shootings, if the officer one handed fires their weapon they almost always get a jam from limp wristing.
Police officers often do not get sufficient training or range time, and the videos prove this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The_Real_Chris wrote: Bit of a penetration adjacent question - in situations where you can fairly reliably prove your property suffered damage from another persons firearms (we all heard the shots - you can trace back through the bullet holes to his front door etc.) are you liable for the damage regardless of circumstance? So if you were using the firearm for self defence would you still be liable? I ask because US law is endlessly fascinating and often baffling to outsiders.
It would depend on the circumstances and the jurisdiction. Depending on what type of damage, you could face criminal charges for reckless use of a firearm. Self defense is primarily a shield against criminal liability, though some states have extended it into the civil arena, but if you have a local prosecutor with an agenda, nothing can be taken for granted.
This isn't a thing with modern lights. Point a PLHv2 or TLR1-HL wherever you're looking and you'll just spoil your own night vision with the blinding power of the sun. Point it at the ground and the reflected light illuminates your surroundings. You only need to bring the weapon up for direct illumination to verify or engage a threat.
Respectfully, you're behind the times on this. Handgun-mounted and rifle-mounted lights have been common practice for the better part of two decades now, to the point where holsters are commonly made for light-bearing handguns, and legally there don't seem to be any legitimate concerns.
You should be flipping switches to enable central lighting anyways.
catbarf wrote: Respectfully, you're behind the times on this. Handgun-mounted and rifle-mounted lights have been common practice for the better part of two decades now, to the point where holsters are commonly made for light-bearing handguns, and legally there don't seem to be any legitimate concerns.
You should be flipping switches to enable central lighting anyways.
There's a difference between having a carry weapon with a light for added accuracy and using a gun-mounted flashlight to check your surroundings. I mean, that's cool for first-person shooters, but in the real world you're breaking two core gun safety rules.
You're only supposed to point a gun at something you intend to shoot. Sweeping the area speculatively breaks that, and also the requirement of knowing your target and what's behind it. I agree that flipping a switch is even better, and since we're talking about home defense, it's a good reason to have a pistol, since you don't have to one-hand your rifle while you do it. As I said before, it is possible to build proficiency in one-handed pistol shooting. I don't know a range that would even let you practice one-handed rifle shooting.
That being said, sure, shoulder arms (which includes shotguns) are fine for home defense and I'm fully on board with their use.
The reason I've been defending pistols is not because I think they are better, but because other folks have implied that rifles are everywhere and always superior.
I'm an all of the above/whatever works for you kind of guy, which I why I've taken exception to this line of argument.
Out of curiosity - why handguns? Ok so I know why in many situations, but this question relates to finding myself reading a bunch of social media comments relating to the recording of a survival conference. Not interested in all of it, had a fairly narrow segment I wanted to see, but it seems the commentariat we outraged at a segment I skipped through to view to see what the fuss was about. Chap was describing a bug out bag for moving to a backup location and had said how much ammo he recommended (in essence enough to get out of a situation where you were being shot at). This appeared to be laughably low to the commentators who I assume need to go on more hikes before writing knowledgably about weight.
All though when proudly saying what they would carry (roughly a wheelbarrow full it seems - and why do so few people include wheelbarrows in their survival list of stuff to have?). X hundred rifle rounds, but then all listed a handgun with between 5-12 magazines it seems.
Now I get ammo for primary weapon, but sidearms are just weight and not as effective as a rifle. So why carry them in any situation where you are on foot? I get the utility in some circumstances if you have a vehicle or are on foot for a short while, but otherwise? People seemed very wedded to them. What is the expected use in that scenario?
I think you kind of answered your own question. handguns are very useful - situationally. While a rifle may be superior for a larger range of situations, a handgun is better in extremely close confines and if surprise is needed.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Out of curiosity - why handguns? Ok so I know why in many situations, but this question relates to finding myself reading a bunch of social media comments relating to the recording of a survival conference. Not interested in all of it, had a fairly narrow segment I wanted to see, but it seems the commentariat we outraged at a segment I skipped through to view to see what the fuss was about. Chap was describing a bug out bag for moving to a backup location and had said how much ammo he recommended (in essence enough to get out of a situation where you were being shot at). This appeared to be laughably low to the commentators who I assume need to go on more hikes before writing knowledgably about weight.
All though when proudly saying what they would carry (roughly a wheelbarrow full it seems - and why do so few people include wheelbarrows in their survival list of stuff to have?). X hundred rifle rounds, but then all listed a handgun with between 5-12 magazines it seems.
Now I get ammo for primary weapon, but sidearms are just weight and not as effective as a rifle. So why carry them in any situation where you are on foot? I get the utility in some circumstances if you have a vehicle or are on foot for a short while, but otherwise? People seemed very wedded to them. What is the expected use in that scenario?
That amount of extra pistol mags seems pretty bonkers. I'm guessing the assumption is you'll never see civilization or be able to repair anything ever again, so you should just fill your pants with as many as possible?
Honestly, in that sort of scenario if you're shooting you've already messed up several steps. A pistol with two standard 15 rounds magazines is fine in my (very much non-operator) opinion. One in the gun and a spare in the very remote chance something goes wrong with the one in the gun.
amanita wrote: I think you kind of answered your own question. handguns are very useful - situationally. While a rifle may be superior for a larger range of situations, a handgun is better in extremely close confines and if surprise is needed.
Yes. They fulfill different roles. Trying to move a crowded interior space - a tent, mobile home, vehicle interior - is difficult even if one is using a carbine.
There's also the fact that if you are trying to work (cut firewood, cook, built a shelter), a pistol on your belt is a lot easier to manage than a rifle on a sling - and faster to bring into action.
A reasonable compromise one sees is using a pistol caliber carbine (which will boost most handgun cartridges to 100 yards of effective range) with a pistol of the same caliber and interchangeable magazines. I believe the Ruger PPC takes Glock magazines and Beretta's (since discontinued) Storm series used interchangeable magazines between pistol and carbine.
The 5.7mm cartridge was designed to use pistol and PDW, but new offerings are emerging because it has decent range and it's small size and light weight gives you more rounds for the same carrying capacity.
It's like anything else - there is no perfect "everything in one" tool for anything. It's all about tradeoffs.
One other note: ammunition consumption is vastly overestimated by these folks. Unless one is planning on launching a conventional war, self-defense is unlikely to take hundreds of rounds in a sustained firefight.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Out of curiosity - why handguns? Ok so I know why in many situations, but this question relates to finding myself reading a bunch of social media comments relating to the recording of a survival conference. Not interested in all of it, had a fairly narrow segment I wanted to see, but it seems the commentariat we outraged at a segment I skipped through to view to see what the fuss was about. Chap was describing a bug out bag for moving to a backup location and had said how much ammo he recommended (in essence enough to get out of a situation where you were being shot at). This appeared to be laughably low to the commentators who I assume need to go on more hikes before writing knowledgably about weight.
All though when proudly saying what they would carry (roughly a wheelbarrow full it seems - and why do so few people include wheelbarrows in their survival list of stuff to have?). X hundred rifle rounds, but then all listed a handgun with between 5-12 magazines it seems.
Now I get ammo for primary weapon, but sidearms are just weight and not as effective as a rifle. So why carry them in any situation where you are on foot? I get the utility in some circumstances if you have a vehicle or are on foot for a short while, but otherwise? People seemed very wedded to them. What is the expected use in that scenario?
I'm kinda one of those prepper people, to a lesser extent. My plan, should anything happen is to bug-in. Stay at home, lock the doors, shut the shudder and/or curtains and don't draw attention. Should I be forced to leave? I have more than one place to go (family, friends, etc.) and there will be ammo waiting for me there. My immediate family traveling would have a couple rifles, a couple pistols, and 150 rounds assorted.Should the world go to heck when I'm away from town, I have a compact 9mm carbine in my trunk with 6 mags and 100 extra rounds.
amanita wrote: I think you kind of answered your own question. handguns are very useful - situationally. While a rifle may be superior for a larger range of situations, a handgun is better in extremely close confines and if surprise is needed.
I’d also argue that in a “worlds gone completely tits up” situation that in a pinch, a handgun is going to be easier to hide somewhere. So should someone nick all your stuff, you’re less likely to be reduced to Harsh Language.
Granted I understand they’re not massively useful for hunting game (though still capable), but a sidearm or two seems an eminently sensible option.
And going off telly and films, my sole point of reference, possibly of more threat in a standoff situation, as they’re more compact, and don’t require manual cycling, so if your first shot goes wide you’re just a trigger squeeze from the next (ammo allowing).
But, hey. As said my sole point of reference is hardly solid. Always happy to end up better educated
Real experience example. While up at Bragg we lived off post on about 150 acres along a river (rented the place, landlord also had a separate house on the land.). Between my place and the road was a not-so-nice trailer park, and on the road was a little stop-N-rob gas station. It was not atypical to hear very heated fights in the trailer park or a shot or two go off at the gas station. Cops were about a 20-30 minute response.
A hurricane hit and the river started rising as a dam upstream broke (didn't 't know that was gonna happen!). Had to help land lord and his wife unass at about 1100, at about midnight their place was under about 10 feet of water. Was not sure if daughter and I were gonna have to evacuate, but had already heard power lines/trees and complete road washouts were gonna make that difficult. Had a 'go bag' prepped for getting out on foot and making it to land lord's daughters place about 5 miles away, on foot if we could not get our vehicle up to the road as I did not trust the horses to go through real gak terrain/cross water especially at night. Had 3 days food at 2 meals a day each for daughter and me. Two life straws. A very well packed IFAK. Important papers in. a waterproof bag. Some cash. a couple good lighters and good knives. Bag also had 6 mags for my rifle, 6 for my pistol, and 200 rounds boxed ammo each. Also had a few chemlights and a couple good flashlights and 3 extra sets of batteries each but hoped to avoid using lights.
As power went out we heard shots up at the gas station. Luckily water stopped rising about 75 yards from my house, all the horses were on dry land by the house.
So we hung in place, far enough away we hoped 'out of sight/out of mind' would keep folks away. If we had to leave rifle wold have gotten my through known rough areas but pistol felt like a very necessary back up. As it was we spent some dangerous time on kayaks trying to herd land lord's cattle who did not make it to high ground up towards my place (worked that from 0300 one morning to about 30 minutes after the sun went down before we successfully saved the critters. Open the next few weeks helped others recover including land lord and his wife (they are very good friends of ours).
I knew I would have to carry everything (daughter did have a small pack with underwear and socks and a couple meals and an extra life straw). and was more than happy to lug the weight of extra ammo. Frankly I was thinking if I had to shoot my way through anything I was NOT gonna worry about counting rounds or running out. I was going to lay down some hate. I carried a lot more when wearing a uniform and that was without having to worry about keeping my daughter safe.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d also argue that in a “worlds gone completely tits up” situation that in a pinch, a handgun is going to be easier to hide somewhere. So should someone nick all your stuff, you’re less likely to be reduced to Harsh Language.
Granted I understand they’re not massively useful for hunting game (though still capable), but a sidearm or two seems an eminently sensible option.
And going off telly and films, my sole point of reference, possibly of more threat in a standoff situation, as they’re more compact, and don’t require manual cycling, so if your first shot goes wide you’re just a trigger squeeze from the next (ammo allowing).
But, hey. As said my sole point of reference is hardly solid. Always happy to end up better educated
You can literally hide a handgun under your outer clothes. They can fit comfortably in a pants pocket. So even if you have a rifle, having a compact with you is common sense.
Movies and TV are weird. They often downplay firearms because they have to keep the story going. Alternatively, they love pump shotguns and revolvers because blank rounds for those can be made lighter (since they don't have to cycle the action). This is why zombie hunters use these weapons rather than Ruger 10/22s with 30 round mags. But I digress.
A percussion cap revolver is honestly a reasonable solution to this problem, and even a single-shot flintlock is better than nothing.
Seems a sensible thing to pack. Because even where they’re rated for a limited number of uses, that’s a limited number of safe uses, and I reckon using an expired one is still a good deal safer than drinking raw water of non-tap provenance.
Seems a sensible thing to pack. Because even where they’re rated for a limited number of uses, that’s a limited number of safe uses, and I reckon using an expired one is still a good deal safer than drinking raw water of non-tap provenance.
There are also "camp" filters, where you pour water into a bag and it slowly goes through filters to become safe to drink. Useful for generating drinkable water in quantity.
I've got a rain barrel for the garden, but in extremis, rainwater can be used for other purposes.
Getting back to firearms, a pistol can properly be understand as a longer-range way of throwing a devastating punch, like those cartoon extension boxing gloves.
Nowadays these weapons are derided as "belly guns" but in far more violent times than ours they were very popular for a reason. I think Americans in particular are obsessed with big calibers and also being able to hit a target 100 yards away. Europeans historically understood that reaching across the room was often enough, hence the enduring popularity of .32 ACP.
I've been meaning to pick up some Life straws. Definitely a useful thing to have. But yeah, anything like that is still useful beyond its stated amount, better than nothing.
Same with canned food. Properly canned food is edible indefinitely. It might not taste good and might not have the same nutritional value, but it'll still be food.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: You can literally hide a handgun under your outer clothes. They can fit comfortably in a pants pocket.
I was going to respond to this topic earlier but I thought my anecdote was a bit inappropriately dark so I nixed it.
But I can summarize as this: In any situation between 'life as normal' and 'last man on earth', being at least apparently unarmed identifies you as a survivor, where having a long gun either slung or at the ready identifies you as a combatant. Your interactions with any sort of power structure- be it law enforcement, National Guard on emergency response, or I dunno, the Brotherhood of Steel- will differ depending on how much of a visible threat you pose. Things have to get really bad before a guy walking down the street with an assault rifle is business as usual.
A 'survival conference' ought to be thinking less about The Last of Us or The Road and more about Hurricane Katrina or the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Otherwise it's just apocalypse fantasy.
Grey Templar wrote: Same with canned food. Properly canned food is edible indefinitely. It might not taste good and might not have the same nutritional value, but it'll still be food.
Not exactly. A couple of years ago I did a comprehensive reorganization of preserved food to enhance visibility and first in-first out practices. I can reliably inform you that for some items, expiration dates mean something. Like canned milk. Especially canned milk. Whew.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: A 'survival conference' ought to be thinking less about The Last of Us or The Road and more about Hurricane Katrina or the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Otherwise it's just apocalypse fantasy.
A millions times this! Zombie/post-apocalyptic movies are about putting butts in seats (or streaming subscriptions), not about reality.
There are actually real-world examples we can look at, and should look at. Katrina is a great example - many people stayed put and networked with their neighbors. There was a wonderful article that I long ago lost the bookmark for (but it was great) about how the people of one neighborhood in the French Quarter banded together and rode out the storm and the looting. A doctor offered up his swimming pool's chlorinated water for cleaning. A local bar had ample stocks of bottled hydrating beverages, and folks helped the owners by guarding it in shifts. There was no looting.
The great quote that has stuck with me all these years later is one of the patrons drinking a warm beer remarking "Some people became animals. We became more civilized."
When I was in Nairobi and Tbilisi we had powdered milk. It was clumpy and tasted awful, but shelf-stable in tropical heat.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: A millions times this! Zombie/post-apocalyptic movies are about putting butts in seats (or streaming subscriptions), not about reality.
I'd go a step further and say that a lot of post-apocalypse fiction, and zombie fiction in particular, is evolved from the 'stranded in the wilderness' genre like the Gary Paulsen books I grew up with. A sort of empowerment fantasy where the crushing weight of society is long gone and a lone individual (usually male) carves out comfortable living through strength, cleverness, cool, and sheer grit. Except instead of possibly useful survival skills, it's typically more about masculine stuff like cars and guns and fisticuffs.
It makes for fun popcorn flicks and great fodder for videogames, and I'm not knocking it as entertainment. It's just neither particularly useful as instructive material, nor representative of the sorts of disasters and survival scenarios that actually happen in the real world. But it's not like it's trying to be. The guy who idly fantasizes about being the Road Warrior while dealing with his local homeowner's association probably doesn't want to hear 'ackshually, you're going to have to buddy up with your neighbors if you don't want a broken leg to be a death sentence'. It's maybe the guy vacuum-packing guns and ammo but who has no plan for acquiring clean water who could use a reminder.
It is very funny to me, though, that FEMA regularly invokes zombie media as a means of urging disaster preparedness- the idea being that if you're ready for the zombie apocalypse, you're ready for floods, hurricanes, power failures, wildfires, and so on. It's clever marketing and a positive message, so long as you, y'know, don't take it too literally.
Grey Templar wrote: Same with canned food. Properly canned food is edible indefinitely. It might not taste good and might not have the same nutritional value, but it'll still be food.
Not exactly. A couple of years ago I did a comprehensive reorganization of preserved food to enhance visibility and first in-first out practices. I can reliably inform you that for some items, expiration dates mean something. Like canned milk. Especially canned milk. Whew.
Milk fat does break down into highly unpalatable by-products. IIRC its still edible, but of course quite nasty.
Anything that has actually spoiled(has bacteria growing in it) was not canned properly. FWIW, modern canning does have a high failure rate and canned foods need to be checked over long periods for signs of spoilage, but the cans that pass will still be good if uncompromised.
This isn't to say that swapping for new stuff isn't a good idea. No reason to not have the freshest stuff possible, but its more of tip when and if the SHTF for real. You could still eat some canned food that is decades old if it is uncompromised, so even if you found some decade old cans they're potentially not useless.
And certain stuff will keep better long term anyway. Canned meat will taste better when its old then canned veggies and retain more of its nutritional value.
Odd, but true fact: even normal milk is both safe and nutritional long after it's "spoiled". If it is pasteurized and homogenized you can not only drink it long after its expiration date but long after it tastes gag-inducing. Literally if you don't have to strain the chunks out with your teeth it's good to go. I'd assume canned milk is much the same.
cuda1179 wrote: Odd, but true fact: even normal milk is both safe and nutritional long after it's "spoiled". If it is pasteurized and homogenized you can not only drink it long after its expiration date but long after it tastes gag-inducing. Literally if you don't have to strain the chunks out with your teeth it's good to go. I'd assume canned milk is much the same.
The cans I emptied had achieved a semi-solid state. The 10-year-old peas looked fine, but they had the most intensive pea smell imaginable. A universe of peas. Scary.
Yes, I think a lot of the survival genre is also based on tales of mountain men, and the fantasy of fending off cattle rustlers with your trusty six-shooter and a Henry rifle.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Lever guns are fun! I'm seriously looking at the new "tactical" ones with synthetic stocks, rails and matte finishes.
In an apocalypse scenario I just hope I can live long enough to rub it in the faces of everyone I don't like that are starving. Yeah, I know how that sounds.
cuda1179 wrote: In an apocalypse scenario I just hope I can live long enough to rub it in the faces of everyone I don't like that are starving. Yeah, I know how that sounds.
I prefer sports schadenfreude as it carries less negative consequences for me as well.
As I was telling a friend the other day, in many senses the US at least is experiencing something of a wartime economy - inflation is up yet there are chronic, random shortages of things.
Crises move in strange and uneven ways, which is why the 'key date' is often known only long after the fact. This is why the smart play is to have your firearms in good repair, plentifully supplied with ammo, and stay in practice with them. It's also why the pistol you have with you is better than the rifle you have in your car or at home.
On a side note, I've noticed that vintage arms are falling in price. For a while everything was soaring, but now the more obscure stuff is dropping due to low demand. People are clearly going for modern and extra ammo. This bodes well for my antique ambitions.
In both Kingsman, and Battlestar Galactica, we see pistols with something mounted beneath the barrel.
Whilst I don’t think we find out what it doesn’t in Kingsman, in BSG it seems to be for a heavier, explosive and possibly armour piercing round. But to my uneducated eyes, it looks like you might be able to fit a single shotgun cartridge in there.
Recoil and “ooyah, me wrists!” aside? Is that just a cool greeblie to futurise a gun, or are they based on actual real life attachments?
Most common attachments that come to mine would be flashlights, IR pointers, and laser sights. I'm not aware of any underslung weapon in under a pistol so that might be rule of cool
In BSG it's a FN Five-seveN with underslung micro-grenade launcher. In Kingsman it's a Tokarev TT-33 with underslung single-shot shotgun. In real life there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any sort of integral underslung projectile weapon on a handgun since the LeMat revolver of the mid-1800s.
catbarf wrote: In BSG it's a FN Five-seveN with underslung micro-grenade launcher. In Kingsman it's a Tokarev TT-33 with underslung single-shot shotgun. In real life there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any sort of integral underslung projectile weapon on a handgun since the LeMat revolver of the mid-1800s.
The LeMat wasn't really underslung because the shotgun barrel was integral to the design.
As for pistol-grenades, I'm reminded of the flip-top ones from Aliens the size of a AA battery.
I was pretty good with the M203, but only got to use those funky orange chalk rounds. Our in-brief cautioned us to use great care when loading the training rounds since the contents were under pressure, and a few weeks before an overzealous private slammed the round into the chamber when it was slightly out of alignment, rupturing it.
In theory you could eventually have some sort of rail mounted grenade launcher that could fit on a pistol, or be built into it. but you'd need to have some very powerful but compact propellent and a very strong but compact explosive charge to make any sort of projectile that small be worth it. And for those short ranges and presumably small kill radius it might just be better to shoot them with a normal bullet. Or just an explosive bullet.
Grey Templar wrote: In theory you could eventually have some sort of rail mounted grenade launcher that could fit on a pistol, or be built into it. but you'd need to have some very powerful but compact propellent and a very strong but compact explosive charge to make any sort of projectile that small be worth it. And for those short ranges and presumably small kill radius it might just be better to shoot them with a normal bullet. Or just an explosive bullet.
It would be easier to mount a handgun onto the launcher than the other way around. I'm thinking M-79 with underslung revolver - sort of the LeMat on steroids.
Grey Templar wrote: In theory you could eventually have some sort of rail mounted grenade launcher that could fit on a pistol, or be built into it. but you'd need to have some very powerful but compact propellent and a very strong but compact explosive charge to make any sort of projectile that small be worth it. And for those short ranges and presumably small kill radius it might just be better to shoot them with a normal bullet. Or just an explosive bullet.
It would be easier to mount a handgun onto the launcher than the other way around. I'm thinking M-79 with underslung revolver - sort of the LeMat on steroids.
Some launchers actually do have some integrated gun in a normal caliber. Usually as a spotting weapon loaded with tracer rounds which have the exact same ballistic arc as the launcher's projectile, allowing for you to spot yourself before firing.
Grey Templar wrote: Some launchers actually do have some integrated gun in a normal caliber. Usually as a spotting weapon loaded with tracer rounds which have the exact same ballistic arc as the launcher's projectile, allowing for you to spot yourself before firing.
I'm not surprised. I wasn't aware of specific grenade launchers, but I know that tanks and anti-tank guns had spotter rifles to confirm the range. Didn't recoilless rifles have them as well? There was a time when those were all the rage, now not as much.
Not exactly, as apparently you still have to estimate or measure distance. I was thinking of some kind of binoculars that include a laser telemetre in them, as I had in the army, but built into a scope.
That's a pretty impressive optic set I wasn't aware of though, thanks for sharing!
I'm not sure you do. If you wade through the verbiage on the page it implies that the system monitors target distance and various other ballistic factors. Also the mock up of the HUD seems to have a distance marker on it. I've never (and likely never will) used one so I could well be wrong.
It is kinda surprising there hasn't really been a bunch of scopes with integrated rangefinders built into them. Given that you can get a handheld laser range finder for super cheap, integrating one into a scope should be no big deal. It would be a lot bulkier than a normal scope, but not excessively so.
Then you could have a scope that in theory you could zero at a fixed distance(like 100 meters), get the windage dialed in, and then with the rangefinder and built in distance ticks you can adjust to just about any distance. Or even possibly have a scope that automatically adjusted to the distance measured. Should at least be doable for most rifle calibers and most distances within 5-600 meters.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Rangefinder, that's the word I lacked. I'm also pretty surprise to have found none after a brief googling.
A bit more than a century ago, a "rangefinder" was likely a hapless bloke told to hammer some stakes out in front of the line - hopefully before the shooting started.
Anyone who has looked through vintage surplus sights has to marvel how anyone actually scored a hit. I'm thinking it was shot density rather than precise placement.
Does anyone have a particular favorite among vintage surplus arms? Rifles or pistols (or MGs! We don't judge.)
The first modern range finder was in the 1880s, but even the Romans had range measuring devices(The Roman Dodecahedron) where you could use references against known objects and math to gauge the distances.
The basic premise is you have some sort of tool you can look through to see what an object of known height in the location you want to know the distance to, then extrapolate that measurement to get the distance. Usually you'd measure the height of enemy soldiers and that would tell you roughly how far away they are.
I would also suspect that people in the past had much more cause to practice distance estimations and so most people could guess ranges at least to within "good enuff".
What would you consider the minimum practical calibre?
.380
.32, .25acp and the various .22s are too risky in the lethality department and honestly if you can't control .380 and are forced to go smaller there probably isn't anything that could save you. .22s are also jamomatics.
.32, .25acp and the various .22s are too risky in the lethality department and honestly if you can't control .380 and are forced to go smaller there probably isn't anything that could save you. .22s are also jamomatics.
Several armies carried service pistols in .32 ACP. France during WW I was buying as many Rubys as they could get. After the war, they chose a .30 caliber pistol. Go figure.
NYPD was using .32 Long for quite a while, which is even less powerful. Teddy Roosevelt felt that superior shot placement was more important that brute force, especially in an urban environment.
The biggest cause of failure for defensive gun use is failure to bring the weapon into action. Either the defender couldn't draw it or get it to fire. One has to dig deep into the weeds to find cases where hits were scored but they didn't do enough damage.
I've seen some stats by caliber, but it was only sorted by bullet diameter, which isn't helpful. That is to say, .380 got a nice boost from .357 Magnum and 9mm +P.
I think the key is solid training so that you remain calm and can successfully deploy the weapon and hit the target.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree about .22 LR. I have had too many failures with .22 rimfire to ever trust it for personal defense. It is inherently less reliable than centerfire ammo. In a steel frame, .32 ACP is quite mild, and .32 Long revolvers are a dime a dozen. If you're really in need, .25 ACP is ballistically the same, but guns in that caliber are hard to find and ammo is expensive.
If someone is really sensitive to recoil and noise, I'd say go find a revolver capable of .32 Magnum or .327 Magnum and fire .32 Long through it. Smooth as silk.
I have a problem with this entire concept. Limiting this to autoloaders is simply silly. WW I was the last conflict where revolvers were viable military sidearms and if they are included my top five would be:
When you get beyond the top 3, the advantage in additional ammo capacity and reload speed becomes less pronounced. The fact is the M1917 models represented the final form of the military revolver. You have a hand-ejector, a swing-out cylinder and of course full or half-moon clips using rimless .45 ACP, making reloads as quick and efficient as using the typical heel-release common at the time.
One could arguably put the revolvers ahead of the Steyr, which used stripper clips, but I'm going to concede that for that time and place, stripper clip handling was more instinctive than it is for us.
Honorable mention: Mauser C96, which while larger, hit harder and hand longer reach than any of these, as well as a deeper magazine. Had the Schnellfeuer been available, it would have been a heck of a trench clearer.
Limiting it to autoloaders is not silly. Revolvers were horribly obsolete even by WW1. They only stuck around due to institutional inertia, mostly on part of the British who were reluctant to pay to replace all their sidearms.
Hand ejectors, swing out cylinders, etc... are the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Desperate attempts to stave off the irrelevance of Revolvers.
You'd only use a Revolver if autoloaders were available if you were 1) too poor or 2) too stubborn to switch/too cheap to pay.
Grey Templar wrote: Limiting it to autoloaders is not silly. Revolvers were horribly obsolete even by WW1. They only stuck around due to institutional inertia, mostly on part of the British who were reluctant to pay to replace all their sidearms.
Hand ejectors, swing out cylinders, etc... are the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Desperate attempts to stave off the irrelevance of Revolvers.
You'd only use a Revolver if autoloaders were available if you were 1) too poor or 2) too stubborn to switch/too cheap to pay.
You'd seriously prefer a .32 Ruby to a M1917? Many of those autoloaders didn't have manual holdopens, so you'd have to undo the heel release (both hands), insert new mag, and then cycle it. Safeties were also sketchy.
I agree that the British in particular beclowned themselves by refusing to abandon revolvers, but at that time, I think Colts and Smiths would have been preferable to a Roth-Steyr.
Another candidate would be the Browning M1910, but that's in .380. Would trade 6x.45 ACP for 8x.380?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I believe I saw that discussed on tfbtv a long while ago, and it pretty much boiled to this iirc: revolver could use the argument of reliability back to ww1 era, I suppose mostly due to the state of western trench era battlefields. All the mud, dust and stuff could probably cause malfunctions to many of these earlier models. However it was probably overplayed a lot to justify not actually trying to improve (and pay) for better handguns.
As soon as autoloaders became fully reliable, which I think is not to far away from WW1, revolver had no excuse anymore.
I say that owning a revolver over an autoloader because they have style to spare.
Yes, six for sure. But good luck fumbling around reloading that during a battle.
It really just was either individual officers being Fudds OR governments using any slim justification to pinch some pennies that kept revolvers around. No legitimate justification existed.
This is generally why people hadn't switched over to semi-auto rifles either. Nobody was willing to put $ into trying to get a design off the ground despite it being technically feasible and quite obvious to everybody that everybody would eventually switch. Particularly by WW2 there was no justification other than "Its expensive" for people not having tried to switch over.
The fact that it was the US who did it first is actually kinda surprising. Congress was extremely cheap with $ at the time. You would have thought the British would have done it first, given they had the smallest army and it would have been cheapest to equip everybody.
Whats even weirder is that many countries after WW1 abandoned SMGs till WW2 broke out. Some got rid of their entire inventories.
But then you are up against needing the tooling and trained workers to make what you already have that is well established against the investment needed to make a whole bunch of new stuff that is untested and unfamiliar with the troops. By the time we got to properly rearming it was too late to upgrade.
Yeah, actually France was close to get a semi rifle in ww1 but ended up not for many reasons that had nothing to do with military.
The worst of the worst must have been nagant revolvers though. Reloading a revolver in battle is already probably going to get you killed, but the nagant is probably even worse.
Only advantage to revolvers is really how good they look, so for a range and fun shooting rifle, that's neat. Never got why they issued them to the police though.
Because they're cheap. Most police in the US even into the 80s were being issued crappy revolvers in woefully wimpy cartridges and, if they were lucky, a few shotguns simply because the budget wouldn't allow for anything else.
In WWI Lt Paul Jurgen Vollmer famously surrendered his whole company to Alvin York after emptying his pistol at York and missing with all of his shots. I suppose with a better gun he might have scored a hit or even been willing to reload it and keep fighting. York had killed 25 men (6 with his own 1911 handgun) but you have to believe the remaining 132 Germans would have eventually got him.
That one time aside, you have to wonder how much if any difference handgun quality made during that or any war. I understand these guys need to create these kinds of videos to maintain their livelihood. Maybe they will compare officer swords next.
I would imagine that everybody involved in war always tends to think the other side has better stuff, and if that is reinforced by you mag dumping some crazy American and failing to so much as scratch him I expect it would be rather demoralizing.
But practically speaking handguns are small potatoes in terms of equipment for warfare, its not going to be a deciding factor.
Trenches might’ve changed that though. It’s fine and well having a rifle which is good at range. But if your foe is in your trench with shotguns and accurate, dependable pistols?
Except unlike the last time there was a big trench war, rifles had to be manually rechambered, unlike the rifles we use today, furthermore, shotguns have 5 to 8 rounds capacity and only some of them are semi auto. I'll take the 30 rounds with the option to turn on the fun switch in a trench. Ideally the rifle's actually a carbine, in that case, but otherwise, I'll take one over a shotgun.
Against bolt action rifles, and the occasional SMG. That is my point, you're not facing bolt action rifles that are over a meter in length anymore nor are short-ish weapon capable of fully automatic firing just ''occasional''
Edit: Nevermind, I think I saw a word that wasn't there, whoops.
Yeah, pistols and shotguns were much more effective in trench raids then bolt action rifles, but the effectiveness of trench raids themselves to the war overall is debatable. Raids couldn't really be relied on to take ground.
So my understanding was that strategically, raids did very little.
What they were intended to do, and arguably did, was keep the enemy edgy and demoralised, enable capture of low level intel, and keep your own soldiers active, and in fighting mode - rather than guys sitting in trenches not that far apart talking, or doing nothing.
Bobthehero wrote: Against bolt action rifles, and the occasional SMG. That is my point, you're not facing bolt action rifles that are over a meter in length anymore nor are short-ish weapon capable of fully automatic firing just ''occasional''
Edit: Nevermind, I think I saw a word that wasn't there, whoops.
Well, even today, you'll see pistols carried as side arms, and the occasional shotgun for CQC and breaching.
What they were intended to do, and arguably did, was keep the enemy edgy and demoralised, enable capture of low level intel, and keep your own soldiers active, and in fighting mode - rather than guys sitting in trenches not that far apart talking, or doing nothing.
Yes. If one reads accounts of the front, it's clear that they were "shaping" events for future action. Robert Graves served in a "county" regiment as well as with the Guards, and the contrast was striking. The "county" troops built up very high parapets, kept their heads down as much as possible, and were just trying to make it through the war alive. This meant very little situational awareness, little intel (since their raids were tentative and halting) so that along that sector, the Germans would hold the initiative.
The Guards, by contrast, had a policy of sniper dominance, absolute control over the battlespace, and constant offensive action to terrify the enemy. Their morale remained high and they had excellent intelligence.
So when major offensive action took place, both areas could be overrun, but one type of unit would surrender as opposed to inflicting punishing losses and conducting an orderly retreat.
Getting back to the question, I'm going to again point out that in terms of reloading and handling, the 1911 and perhaps the Luger are close to modern ergonomics, but nothing else in the autoloader side is. Dropping a mag while using a heel release actually takes more effort than dumping half moon clips out of a 1917, and you can actually have your clips in hand when you do it. Obviously, practice makes perfect, but autoloaders were not the slam-dunk winner of fast-handling that they are today.
That being said, yes, revolvers were on their way out as combat weapons (or should have been). The M1917s were put into service because the machining already existed and could not be converted to 1911 production.
Comparing them side by side, the Colt 1917 I shot is really nice, points well, smooth action and accurate. The vintage autoloaders I've played with had some challenges, which goes back to the reliability angle. One can argue that it's unfair to judge performance with an antique vs fresh off the assembly line, but doing a like with like, the revolvers aged better.
And while I'm at it, the Webley is a true disappointment. You'd think .455 (which sounds big and scary) would be a dominating cartridge, but it's not. Very mild to shoot, really (partly because it's so heavy).
Bobthehero wrote: Against bolt action rifles, and the occasional SMG. That is my point, you're not facing bolt action rifles that are over a meter in length anymore nor are short-ish weapon capable of fully automatic firing just ''occasional''
Edit: Nevermind, I think I saw a word that wasn't there, whoops.
the occasional shotgun for CQC and breaching.
When it's used for breaching, the shotgun is a tool to breach, the breacher will still have a rifle (ideally a carbine) for self defense. The shotgun is used to break doors first and foremost, and you use it to shoot someone if that someone pops in your face when you got the shotgun in hand, but otherwise, it's a tool, like breaching charges or the battering ram. As for CQC, it's roughly similar to trenches, I'd go for a carbine over a shotgun
What sets it apart is that in addition to telling you what it was made from, I actually took the piece out to the range so you can get my totally biased opinion on it.
This is generally why people hadn't switched over to semi-auto rifles either. Nobody was willing to put $ into trying to get a design off the ground despite it being technically feasible and quite obvious to everybody that everybody would eventually switch. Particularly by WW2 there was no justification other than "Its expensive" for people not having tried to switch over.
Interestingly while there is a high degree of existing stocks and training regimes factoring in, there was also a belief going back the 19th century about not letting soldiers fire too many bullets for a host of logistics and cost reasons, though perhaps that died out in WW1. You then had the rapid rise of machine guns and then squad portable machine guns with tactics soon being around those weapons and the firepower of the ammo carriers being less important. I wonder if had everyone going into WW2 had semi auto weapons if that would have impacted the subsequent focus on those squad support weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: It is kinda surprising there hasn't really been a bunch of scopes with integrated rangefinders built into them. Given that you can get a handheld laser range finder for super cheap, integrating one into a scope should be no big deal. It would be a lot bulkier than a normal scope, but not excessively so.
Then you could have a scope that in theory you could zero at a fixed distance(like 100 meters), get the windage dialed in, and then with the rangefinder and built in distance ticks you can adjust to just about any distance. Or even possibly have a scope that automatically adjusted to the distance measured. Should at least be doable for most rifle calibers and most distances within 5-600 meters.
Has there been a push from the military for this? It might be a bit much for the civilian market. Crew served weapons certainly have range finding options, sniper teams have it, but on the spotter, so do a fire team need it? Looking at their expected engagement range for personal weapons, perhaps not?
Automatically Appended Next Post: So anyone get anything good for Christmas? I got to do stuff with a MP7 (I don't get to keep it). And it was interesting getting a chat about the ethos behind the procurement.
Did lead me to wonder why, in more militarised societies, portable machine pistols aren't used more widely by police. Is it cost? A perceived mismatch in firepower VS threat? (Where you can always get a rifle from a patrol car.) The training overhead seems in many ways to be less than a pistol with its risk of jams from not being correctly handled. A public perception thing? Would that change if body armour become more prevalent mirroring the fears of the late 80's soviet get up?
Yup. Prior to WW2 really there was a huge reluctance from the budget offices of most countries which prevented large ammo expenditures.
Heck, even the burst fire mechanism on M16s and a lot of other rifles exists only because governments were worried about soldiers mag dumping and wasting ammo.
I actually would say that machine pistols are primarily used by police forces. They are rarely used by military forces, because just get a real SMG ya dork. Most of them are police/bodyguard issued where the primary advantage is their low weight while still having firepower.
Its honestly probably the only thing keeping SMGs/Machine pistols in production, because most militaries have totally ditched SMGs as normal rifles can mostly do the same job.
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Prior to WW2 really there was a huge reluctance from the budget offices of most countries which prevented large ammo expenditures.
Heck, even the burst fire mechanism on M16s and a lot of other rifles exists only because governments were worried about soldiers mag dumping and wasting ammo.
Full-auto on battle rifles is pointless. There's no reason for it. Three-round bursts are more controllable and you can do suppressive fire on semi-auto.
It's hard for us to understand this now, when just about every government runs peacetime deficits, but back when countries used currency backed by gold, budgets were a lot tighter.
There was also a question of scale. You have 4 million magazine-fed bolt-action rifles. Replacing them will be expensive. Your generals grew up shooting single-shot blackpowder weapons. You have various types of machinegun. How much more lead do you need to throw downrange?
SMGs, on the other hand, were cheap. Really cheap. And used cheap ammo. So they were popular.
The US could push ahead with the Garand because the cost to re-equip the tiny peacetime army was negligible, and once the tooling was developed, wartime bond drives would take care of everything. For everyone else, it was a tough sell.
Honestly, we're in the same position in a lot of ways. The AR platform is in a very similar place to the bolt-action rifle of a century ago, where models remained in production for decades.
As for firearms activity, I've got an appointment tomorrow to try out a Type 38 Arisaka. Looking forward to it.
Yeah, but it was to the point where soldiers couldn't even establish proficiency with their weapons. And this was when most people just had bolt actions.
Heck, the US stuck with the trapdoor springfield over a bolt action for so long because you couldn't have those soldiers dumping their ammo with those repeaters
If the US congress hadn't been such spendthrifts in the late 1800s we might have seen a US army equipped with lever actions enter WW1. Germans might have filed complaints over that too.
Fullauto on battlerifles is definitely silly, but that is more because you can't control the damn thing AND don't have enough ammo to make suppression worthwhile. I think the only full auto battlerifle that made sense was the BAR(yeah, technically its an LMG, but lets be honest it was more like a Battlerifle before that was a thing). It was actually controllable in its slow fire mode.
For those interested in the range report, my daughter loved the Arisaka and it was only with difficulty that I was able to prevent her from shooting off the entirety of our meager ammo supply.
I managed to pry it away from her for a couple of rounds to contrast it with the Mosin 91/30 I was using, which was clearly its inferior in terms of smoothness of action and recoil.
There's an alternate timeline in the Multiverse where the French occupied Japan and Arisaka sporters graced hearths from Paris to Marseilles.
The degree to which American GIs looted Japan is simply remarkable. The prevalence of sporterized rifles is indicates that much of it was practical looting rather than trophy-taking: a poor draftee jumps at the chance to get a 'free' rifle that he can hunt with.
American hunting culture is very egalitarian (indeed, it's generally disdained by the upper class - a perfect inversion of Europe).
Buying a license and taking a deer is a very cost-effective way to fill one's freezer for months, and I know people (and hope to be one of them) who don't buy red meat in stores, they harvest it in the woods, process it and live off of it year-round.
My stepfather was like that, and it reached the point where the taste of beef was someone foreign to me - we ate venison instead, including ground venison. No luck this fall, but more in-depth preparations are underway for the coming season.
I’ve said before I’d love to give rifle hunting a go. And I fully appreciate that such an endeavour should include time on a range practising. Because only an awful human bean would want to risk injuring and not killing.
Grey Templar wrote: Limiting it to autoloaders is not silly. Revolvers were horribly obsolete even by WW1. They only stuck around due to institutional inertia, mostly on part of the British who were reluctant to pay to replace all their sidearms.
Hand ejectors, swing out cylinders, etc... are the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Desperate attempts to stave off the irrelevance of Revolvers.
You'd only use a Revolver if autoloaders were available if you were 1) too poor or 2) too stubborn to switch/too cheap to pay.
I'm late to this particular track of the conversation but I want to point out that for the vast majority of users of handguns in WW1, self-loading pistols were not issued with much in the way of spare magazines. Magazines were hand-fitted and typically serialized to the guns, commonly just one per gun or sometimes two per gun as part of a holster system or transport case, with no guarantee that magazines from other guns would fit and feed correctly. The practice of carrying spare magazines for a handgun and swapping them in combat was practiced on an ad-hoc basis by trench raiders, but didn't become common practice until after WW1- more likely you just had a pocketful of spare cartridges to reload your single magazine with. Or carried multiple handguns.
So if your choice is either 6 rounds in a revolver or 7-8 in a pistol, with a time-consuming and awkward reload either way, then I can see the greater reliability of a revolver under trench conditions and with early-20th-century ammo quality being a bit more appealing.
It's worth noting that the complication and expense of fully interchangeable detachable magazines was still a major industrial concern even going into WW2. It's the main reason no nation had adopted a detachable-magazine rifle by the start of hostilities; stripper clips or en-bloc clips were comparatively much cheaper and easier to mass-produce...
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Honorable mention: Mauser C96, which while larger, hit harder and hand longer reach than any of these, as well as a deeper magazine. Had the Schnellfeuer been available, it would have been a heck of a trench clearer.
...which is part of why I would put the C96 a little higher than honorable mention, especially if the Steyr is on the list. The stripper clip system circumvents the early hurdles with detachable magazines, and is a lot faster than people expect. It locks open on empty, you insert a clip, strip the rounds, and as soon as you pull the clip it chambers the first round and is ready to go. I've shot mine on the clock, and it beats the heck out of lower-capacity pistols with no last-round hold-open and heel magazine releases, let alone if spare mags aren't guaranteed.
I mean, by modern standards it's not a great gun. It's huge, the grip sucks, the bore axis is way too high, and it has an annoying tendency to pinch the web of your hand if you choke up high on the grip. But by WW1 standards it's powerful, flat-shooting, high-capacity, exceptionally reliable, and with the stock-holster instantly adapts to a competent pistol-caliber carbine.
The M1932 'Schnellfeuer' on the other hand tries to turn the C96 into something it isn't. The cyclic rate is nigh-uncontrollable (it'll dump the standard ten-round magazine in half a second), it's reliant on detachable magazines that don't interchange as well as you might expect, and the hold-open mechanism relies on the hammer interfering with the bolt and consequently can either fail to work or fail to release after reloading (even in semi). It was developed solely to compete with Astra clones in the Chinese market; the C96 design is much better in semi-auto and by WW1 standards that's still a credible trench fighting weapon.
But all that said I guess it depends on what metrics you're using for a 'top 5', because the biggest problem with the C96 design is that it was economically non-viable as a military weapon. They were incredibly expensive to manufacture even at the time, and every modern attempt to make new ones has ended when the projected cost comes out to $3K+ even with the advantages of modern machining. It works surprisingly well for how early of a design it is, but it's also hideously overengineered in a classically German manner, and it's not surprising that the Heer was desperate to accept any other handgun that could supplement production.
Some might have, but really few and they almost all disapeared in the meantime apparently. Conditions weren't exactly top notch either to bring back stuff, plus if the french army at the time had the same view of things as it does now, it would probably have been forbidden altogether unless giving the trophy away to the regiment.
Getting ammo for them is also quite unpractical, so that's also a deal breaker, as almost only partizan cartridges are available and i'm not sure they'd make any back then.
Commissar, that's a great dream (plus a profitable one) you've got here! I'd tend to agree to an extent, not necesseraly on safe reliance and that, but because i don't know, I find it heartwarming and thrilling to know you have skills. And to make something real out of it. There's something neat in having the skills to feed oneself from zero.
6.5 Japanese is hard to get in the States as well, and expensive. Brass is available at standard pricing and there are a lot of modern bullets that can be used, so if you were into reloading it wouldn't be too bad. Either way, you don't need a pile of ammo for a hunting rifle.
For holiday gun stuff, I was able to get a Shadow 2 Compact for MSRP just before Christmas. I haven't had the chance to shoot it yet to see if it lives up to the hype, as the local ranges have had over an hour wait each time I've tried to go. Its like the health clubs after New Years, never seen them so busy. It has a fantastic 3lb trigger in SA and the trendy bevelled rear sights. I will try and get used to those rather than replace them.
Reloading supplies in France are rarer and not as wide in scope, so while it is possible and more practical to reload, it's still not quite attractive.
The arisaka would need to come with a sight graduated up to only 300m and probably in a non military cartridge to be legally used to hunt. Athough it used to be far more liberal and people used to hunt with MAS and Mausers a lot!
catbarf wrote: ...which is part of why I would put the C96 a little higher than honorable mention, especially if the Steyr is on the list. The stripper clip system circumvents the early hurdles with detachable magazines, and is a lot faster than people expect. It locks open on empty, you insert a clip, strip the rounds, and as soon as you pull the clip it chambers the first round and is ready to go. I've shot mine on the clock, and it beats the heck out of lower-capacity pistols with no last-round hold-open and heel magazine releases, let alone if spare mags aren't guaranteed.
I mean, by modern standards it's not a great gun. It's huge, the grip sucks, the bore axis is way too high, and it has an annoying tendency to pinch the web of your hand if you choke up high on the grip. But by WW1 standards it's powerful, flat-shooting, high-capacity, exceptionally reliable, and with the stock-holster instantly adapts to a competent pistol-caliber carbine.
You don't have to sell me on the C96! The reason I kept it out of the top 5 is that it wasn't really a standard issue weapon. Yes, the Germans in desperation put them into service, but it was never widely adopted, so it's kind of a special case.
Regarding the full-auto, with a detachable magazine and stock, I think it would be good to use in short bursts, basically a compact SMG. Of course, they wouldn't have any idea about teaching that back then, so even more moot.
One of the amazing things about it is how long it was in production despite not being adopted on a large scale. People just liked them and bought them. Chinese warlords couldn't get enough of them!
In fact, a few weeks ago I was at a gun show and while waiting for my friends to finish with another vendor, I saw a C96 in a glass case and to pass the time asked to see it. Much to my surprise, I realized it was a genuine Chinese warlord fake! The vendor had no idea - he was selling it out of the estate of an avid collector. At first I think he thought I was trying to scam him, but when he said it was part of a collection the light went off. "A true collector would love one of these. I mean it's a fake, but it's a valuable fake!"
The craftsmanship on it was quite good, the "Mauser" was spelled correctly, as was the factory info. The big giveaway was the serial number, which was not aligned, nor were the right parts serialized. At that point, I noticed the rear sights, which were grossly mismarked. The vendor was still dubious but my friends caught up with me and made a big deal about finding an actual Chinese warlord gun. The guy wanted $2,500 for it and I said that was actually reasonable, given its condition (I would not have shot it for any amount of money, though).
That's pretty cool! I've seen a few of the Shanxi Arsenal guns in .45ACP at local gun shows, but never a knockoff in 7.63/9mm. My C96 is one of the commercial guns made in the 20s and exported from China to the US in the 80s, so it's got similar provenance. I'd be really curious to see what a knockoff Mauser looks like on the inside; you'd need to be a competent machinist to replicate that puzzle box clockwork mechanism of a fire control group, but a machinist who isn't a gunsmith might not appreciate some of the details necessary for safe delayed blowback operation. Chamfer the locking lug and now you have a very spicy straight blowback broomhandle.
And yeah, you can pull short bursts with the M1932, but it's really hard under any sort of stress to avoid dumping the mag, and the muzzle climb is significant even with the shoulder stock. The MP18 (and all its derivatives) was a much better design for an automatic weapon, and considerably cheaper too. Of course, the problem for the Chinese warlords who were interested in full-auto Mausers was that long guns were under embargo, so a 'proper' submachine gun was off the table anyways, and the Mauser had a well-established reputation for quality.
Interestingly, the Rio De Janeiro police bought about five hundred M1932s in the mid-30s, and used them at least into the late-80s- 'modernizing' them in the early 1970s with new metal stocks and foregrips. Here's an article about them. The author's experience tracks with my own- useless in full auto, but a decent semi-auto carbine with the stock.
catbarf wrote: That's pretty cool! I've seen a few of the Shanxi Arsenal guns in .45ACP at local gun shows, but never a knockoff in 7.63/9mm. My C96 is one of the commercial guns made in the 20s and exported from China to the US in the 80s, so it's got similar provenance. I'd be really curious to see what a knockoff Mauser looks like on the inside; you'd need to be a competent machinist to replicate that puzzle box clockwork mechanism of a fire control group, but a machinist who isn't a gunsmith might not appreciate some of the details necessary for safe delayed blowback operation. Chamfer the locking lug and now you have a very spicy straight blowback broomhandle.
I really wanted to tear it down, but that wasn't going to work. My sense is that it was probably pure blowback in .32 ACP. The rear sight was almost entirely decorative. It was a Bolo copy, so probably some Big Man wore it proudly on his belt.
There were competent arsenals in China making "normal' mil spec firearms, but the craft guns are fascinating.
Winter finally arrived. We had the usual tease of snow in October as well as November, but December was basically late October on replay. Very dull.
All that's over. We're huddling in the single digits, road salt won't do its work, and I was thinking about shooting in weather such as this.
Has anyone done it?
I've gone out to the range mid-winter when it's below freezing, and there is definitely a change in sensitivity on the part of the action. Extra lubrication is essential because everything wants to stick. Once the parts warm up, it's not so bad, nothing runs as slick as it does on a fine summer day.
I actually went to the range last week in poor weather. While it wasn't raining, but it was heavily misting and the ground was a churning mass of ice and mud. Just a reminder that a nice overcast day at home is a range that is inside the cloud layer and its charitably described as wet and cold.
Was actually glad I wore the plate carrier as it kept me warm without being too hot that a big jacket might have.
Grey Templar wrote: I actually went to the range last week in poor weather. While it wasn't raining, but it was heavily misting and the ground was a churning mass of ice and mud. Just a reminder that a nice overcast day at home is a range that is inside the cloud layer and its charitably described as wet and cold.
Was actually glad I wore the plate carrier as it kept me warm without being too hot that a big jacket might have.
Plate carrier do keep a bit warm! But I find you tend to notice it more in summer when they make you overheat than in winter when you're freezing
Can't bring one here anyway on a civilian range, chances are too high they get the police on you or throw you out of the range. Which would in all due likelyhood kind of ruin your range day.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Plate carrier do keep a bit warm! But I find you tend to notice it more in summer when they make you overheat than in winter when you're freezing
Can't bring one here anyway on a civilian range, chances are too high they get the police on you or throw you out of the range. Which would in all due likelyhood kind of ruin your range day.
When I went through Army Basic, plate carriers weren't yet a thing. Kevlar vests were where it was at.
Going through basic in winter sucked. My cold weather resistance was utterly shattered, and it took me years to recover it.
On the plus side, MOPP gear felt nice and toasty warm. More CS canisters, please!
I chose winter on the advice of the recruiter, who said allergies would be less of a problem and that if you're cold, just add another blanket. Sure, that's it.
Range days tended to be above freezing, and in any event, the legacy A2s we were issued were so loose that I could have served slushies through them with room to spare.
Had no plate carrier for military basics, rather absolutely prehistoric pieces of garbage some dare to call "load vest" (but it was truly undeserving of the title). Only got them way later on, when I got a squadron.
My 8 month basic got me through winter as well but fortunately it wasn't too harsh that year. Especially, not to much rain. Cold is a thing, but rain -.you can sense your motivation and morale dripping out of your body each passing second
Weapons needed to be dried and replied regularly, although the exterior of them would never dry and soak up your gloves... Of course, when it's cold, the weapon would carry cold and transmit it generously to your hands.
Can't bring one here anyway on a civilian range, chances are too high they get the police on you or throw you out of the range. Which would in all due likelyhood kind of ruin your range day.
Whaaaaaat.
While I'd get a couple of odd looks at my sports based range, no one would say anything so long as I followed the rules. At my other range that's used for more tactical training during the week no one would even raise an eyebrow if I rolled up wearing full combat gear. I use my SANDF 83 style chest rig quite often., but that's just a Chi Com style mag pouch chest rig, no armour.
Flinty wrote: Then surely you just need to liberally fire your weapon as often as possible to get that toasty warmth back into your gloves
Actually, on shooting session, it is truly tempting to get just an inch closer to the hot barrel for that reason!
On the issue if plate carriers, they are in a tricky spot. That's not illegal per say as far as I am aware, but that'll have you marked as a trigger happy potential terrorist in the eyes of many. So it is not authorised in most ranges, or actively discouraged.
And if ever you are described as a trigger happy terrorist by a panicked range member, that could lead to the police coming to say hello to your house on suspicion of radicalisation.
Long story short, anything resemble wargear can be very poorly interpreted. Even kitted out weapons often raise eyebrows here and there. I'm sure they are select few places were it is possible, but in that case, they are specially intended for it and will likely count mostly like minded shooters.
The fact that private ranges are almost non existent might also play a role in this, as you can't just run around YOUR range doing whatever you fancy. They are always shared, public places.
Flinty wrote: Then surely you just need to liberally fire your weapon as often as possible to get that toasty warmth back into your gloves
Actually, on shooting session, it is truly tempting to get just an inch closer to the hot barrel for that reason!
On the issue if plate carriers, they are in a tricky spot. That's not illegal per say as far as I am aware, but that'll have you marked as a trigger happy potential terrorist in the eyes of many. So it is not authorised in most ranges, or actively discouraged.
Well, I suppose they're expecting you to retain that essential Gallic insouciance.
Maybe a whiff of ennui whilst one takes a jaded smoke break.
My drill sergeants also took a dim view of people who were enthusiastic in the wrong sort of way.
Still, I think American military culture is very much dakka dakka friendly. I recall some years ago fully embracing a writing assignment on our security police squadron and applying praise and superlatives with a trowel. I think I compared them to Audie Murphy.
Their commander purred like six kittens and by way of encouragement, and asked if I'd be willing to accompany them for a weekend of life-fire training - which would of course including familiarization for me so that I could be a better-informed author, wink, wink. I eagerly accepted, but was forced to back out when a mindlessly mundane but unavoidable conflicting assignment came up. The colonel read the disappointment on my face, and offered to elevate his request to HQ, because of all the writers, only I, with my unique Army/Air perspective could fully accomplish this vital assignment. Oh, the temptation...
I played nice, and had to decline his generous offer. Because I was young and stupid. I should have gone.
As my typical disastrous overspending on Christmas fades into the past, the possibility of future firearms purchases becomes increasingly feasible.
Given your respective jurisdictions, what items are you looking at adding to your collection in 2024?
For those with less freedom of action (say all your money is tied up in TOW purchases), what is at the top of your "wish list"? Is it something new, or a hardy perennial?
I will lead off by saying that my top priority is a pistol caliber carbine optimized for deer hunting. Not a huge lift, but my resources are limited.
Stuff to upgrade comfort of my saiga 103: just got a picatinny rails under handguard to strap a hera arm false leather foregrip on it. So far so good, waiting to try it out on the range. Would also like to add a cheekpad on the stock, again for added comfort.
Here in the UK, we have (maybe had? I’m dangerously close to old) travelling fairs. And one of the attractions I’m a sucker for is the target shooting.
Now I of course know the owners of the attraction have ensured the air rifle’s sights are on the wonk, and I kind of suspect they’ve also mucked about with the barrel (or provide pellets just a bit too small for the barrel?). So even when the customer has a rudimentary idea of how to best aim and shoot (squeeze, don’t pull. Squeeze when breathing out, not in), it’s always a bit off when you wanted the pellet to go.
But for the marksmen among us? Do you reckon* that after a couple of unsuccessful goes, you might be able to win the prize?
*no need to prove it! Spesh as I’m the sort of marksman where the safest place is right in front of the intended target.
I have no idea how it is in other nations, but in Australia the periodic shooting assessment for the armed forces doesn't check for accuracy at all, but consistency.
Sights and scopes are fragile, and subject to wandering/loosing their zero. But if you can consistently bang shots into the same place (meaning, they land close together, even if not where your point of aim is), you can walk/adjust onto your target.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: I have no idea how it is in other nations, but in Australia the periodic shooting assessment for the armed forces doesn't check for accuracy at all, but consistency.
Sights and scopes are fragile, and subject to wandering/loosing their zero. But if you can consistently bang shots into the same place (meaning, they land close together, even if not where your point of aim is), you can walk/adjust onto your target.
Rifle qualifications for the Army and Air Force start with "zeroing" your rifle that follows this process. Once you have a group, you adjust the sights so that it is in the center of the target, which a square grid with directions for how to change what.
At that point you do the qualification course, which used to be firing from prone supported (in a foxhole) and then unsupported (on the ground next to it). This changed in recent years to use barriers and obstacles, and on the Air side, some familiarization with fire on the move. I haven't done Army qual since 2000, not sure what it entails today.
Success is measured by total hits at various sized targets where all hits are equal (no bonus for hitting head or center of chest). The Army has wonderful pop-up targets going out to 300 meters, but the Air Force is content to put out a piece of paper at 25 meters with target size representing the various distances. On my most recent trip, it was a steady drizzling rain, rendering the optics almost useless and I shot better using the iron sights (My contemporaries report the same phenomenon - the 'glass' should be easier, but we're so used to the iron, that's what we prefer.)
In terms of carnival games, the same principle would apply if the weapon is consistent. Use a bit of "Kentucky windage" to compensate. I've got some vintage weapons with fixed sights that have that issue.
Huge disadvantage of MAS36 rifles that are supposed to go back to a gunsmith to change the front sight with another one according to the correction you want to make. Not really possible anymore as of today so you need to compensate by yourself, which can be quite difficult at furst but in my expenrience is alright once used to the rifle. Oviously the further the target, the tinier it gets, and the harder it becomes to evaluate what compensation to apply. As far as close up targets are concerned that should be dead easy.
Well, in theory you should only have to zero a rifle to one distance. 100m or 50m. Whatever the battle zero you want to be. I usually do 100m.
Then once you have accomplished that you can simply use the elevation adjustments on the rifle to hit further targets as the windage shouldn't change unless your sights are utterly borked.
Was that the one that had a bag of different sights and you tried different ones at the factory until you found one that fitted how the rifle shot? I do love stuff that reveals how the military thinks about an individual rifleman and where the effort goes in the military machine, vs what popular culture shows you about them and key men turning the tide of the film
The sights were complicated, let's leave it at that. But darn are they accurate. Problem is though when you had to replace a part the logistics officers place looked like a clockmakers workshop.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Actually never ever heard of this rifle! thanks for sharing. The article's picture of swiss bycile infantry is priceless btw
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, did you retain your service weapon? You may ahve said it earilier in the trrhead but can't be sure.
Thank god i was merely fodder with the modern rifle which after getting civilianised i kept. Those bycicles are the horror... especially in hilly and mountainous terrain. Granted those were way before it was my time to crawl through mud but they are nowadays common enough for certain hipsters to use.
Not Online!!! wrote: Thank god i was merely fodder with the modern rifle which after getting civilianised i kept. Those bycicles are the horror... especially in hilly and mountainous terrain. Granted those were way before it was my time to crawl through mud but they are nowadays common enough for certain hipsters to use.
I can only imagine how miserable doing "bicycle repair drill" would have been on top of weapon cleaning. I saw a Danish movie about their brief participation in World War II and there was an (I assume) reasonably accurate recreation of everyone making a tire flat, then repairing it.
The coolest thing about the film was the light AT gun mounted on a motorcycle sidecar. 40k attack bike ftw!
In the movie the motorcycle troops were as you would expect - not willing to stick around. Fire a shot, and buzz away, laughing at the bike troops as you go.
New guns for those interested: looks like Tisas/SDS is making clones of Benelli semi auto shotguns and clones of MP5's for less money. A new MP5 for just over $1000 msrp is darn reasonable.
Also, looks like Taurus actually produced a quality 10mm pistol with their TH10. Comes with two 15 round mags.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: From a standard consumer POV? Are they because you’re not paying a Label Premium, or Cheap Because They’re Made From Tinfoil?
Well, I personally own Their clone of the hk91 and HK93, and have had a chance to compare them to the local gun stores "authentic" versions. The 93 is pretty nice actually, works flawlessly, and accurately. The Hk91 looks a tad rougher around the edges, but is still 100 functional. They are build like a brick, just like the originals, and in fact use A LOT of original surplus parts (new barrels and receivers, naturally). As these are pretty much the same platform as the MP5, I'd say 90% of the markup in price is from the name-brands.
Side note, it is kind of fun having the "fully automatic" position for my safeties, even if all it does is make it a semi-auto when the selector is there.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: From a standard consumer POV? Are they because you’re not paying a Label Premium, or Cheap Because They’re Made From Tinfoil?
That's the trick - figuring out what exactly you are getting. One the one hand, there isn't much left to patent, so most firearm designs are in the public domain. Anyone with tooling can make one.
But, how to separate the wheat from the chaff? The name isn't always a guarantee of quality, particularly if "the brand" has changed hands. Then there's the "no-name but good" thing, which happens often. Plus there are the companies that don't actually make guns, but contract them from other companies using designs from other companies that were modified by still other companies. Can't really go off the name, it really comes down to the individual products.
And yes, I owned a gun like that - the design was a CZ-75 with Israeli modifications made in Turkey for EAA. Felt great in the hand, shot like crap. I didn't own it for long.
Yet I'm told other EAA guns made by other contractors are great! Caveat emptor.
In the case of roller-delay guns like the MP5, the H&K tax comes partly from the hardening used for the receiver and stress-bearing components like the rollers, partly from extremely exacting standards for manufacture (actual H&Ks don't generally have break-in periods like the clones do), partly from paying European wages, and partly because they're not terribly concerned about competition in the civilian market when most of their income comes from gov't contracts.
At one-third the cost of H&K I was happy to roll the dice on an MKE AP5, and it's been flawless thus far, but others have not been so fortunate.
I'm pretty sure all or nearly all of the "real" HK roller delayed guns in the US are from the late 80's and older, as they (and many other similar military style guns) were banned from importation. That led to the third party "parts guns" from places like Century and later to the gun companies opening branch offices in the US. So you can get brand new AKs from Arsenal and K-USA, Tavors and Galils from IWI US, etc. There is an HK USA but they don't sell those particular guns here except for a few in .22LR.
I think the "standard" HK tax on new guns is often worth it. They have a well deserved reputation and most good guns in general are expensive. That said, parts can be exorbitant. I too have a Century HK91 clone I bought before I knew better, and to get an HK bipod on it would cost more than I paid for the rifle. The prices for PSG-1 components are eye watering. And the 80's vintage "real" HKs command collector prices that those guns no longer really warrant on merit alone, IMO.
The "parts guns" places have gotten better over time. Century used to be a joke but is now fairly reputable and their Canik line is highly regarded. Not sure about the other places.
For the new SHOT show stuff, the things I liked most were the Aero and Henry lever actions, and the steel 1911 style 320 grip module. I'm curious how all those budget 2011's will stack up, probably at least one of them will be pretty good!
I can't remember where I got it, but I put a quad-picatinny rail on my hk91 clone so I could have a vertical foregrip. It's stayed solid, but I used a liberal amount of loctite too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, 20 round drums for 50BMG Berret rifles are now available, lol.
The Lucky Gunner youtube channel had some updates that I found very encouraging. Looks like several manufacturers are pushing into the .32 caliber spectrum, and I'd love to see .32 Magnum going for 50 cents a round. If demand picks up, it should get there.
Beretta's new .32 ACP likewise has my attention. Tip-ups are fun in general, but a 10-shot 32 would be outstanding.
I wonder if these folks are looking at the Euro market, which seems much more friendly to .32s than the Americans.
Really depends on what kind of zombie. Fast or slow? Headshots only or can they be killed like a normal human?
While the ammunition available seems to be very large, billions of rounds are bought by US consumers every year, it can go quickly if the SHTF. A war, either normal or vs the undead would chew through ammo very quickly. Though expenditure vs zombies would go down as fast as it started since they'd be thinned out very quickly.
Assuming that the cities were most effected and it spread quickly, you'd probably have huge amounts of zombies in the cities with survivors in the countryside being able to slowly thin the zombies out as they wandered out of the cities.
Zombies compared to a normal war situation have a major disadvantage, they don't shoot back nor do they need to be suppressed. So you can actually aim and make your shots count. You're not hiding in a trench spraying at the oncoming horde. You can basically do walking fire and stay mobile. This would probably counteract any extra durability the zombies may have on how much ammo it takes to kill them.
So the ammo supply would definitely be chewed through quickly, but since the zombies aren't respawning video game enemies the ammo supply will most likely outlast the zombies.
If its just a normal apocalypse, things are a little murkier. On the one hand, people will be shooting at each other. On the other, the population is still going to dwindle quite sharply. If you keep your head down, your supplies could last for years. If you end up having to fight constantly, it could be gone in days. Either used by you or whoever loots your corpse.
Anyone that dies turns, bitten or not, unless you damage the brain. Zombies are slow, but proven incredibly dangerous in hordes, and attracted to loud noise.
In a Walking Dead type scenario? How quickly do you think existing ammo supplies would be worked through?
As in, all the ammo currently on shelves or palettes awaiting distribution right now?
It's hard to say because after the pandemic, people who might have only had a spare box probably have a case or two in reserve.
As for Walking Dead, as Grey Templar points out, these vastly oversell the zombie population. In the remake to Dawn of the Dead, they show a guy on top of a gun store taking sniper shots at less than 100 yards with a scoped rifle. Ludicrous overkill. If they're classic "brain box" zombies, you could sit up on the roof with a 10-22 and plink them into a oblivion in the course of an afternoon. In addition, each one you drop becomes something the others have to crawl over, and if you have friends and a plan, you can pretty much ring the property with slippery, squishy berms.
If you want to get into Mad Max/Civil War scenarios, realistically whatever militias or neighborhood watch groups exist would be integrated into larger forces, who would handle ammo supplies.
The issue with ammo shortages is a loss of practice ammo, which is important because shooting is a perishable skill. There are electronic substitutes, and the US military has a cool pneumatic system using TV screens where you have to pull the mag (and even clear jams) to shoot the bad guys on TV, but there's nothing like the real thing.
People focus on needing 16 mags to defend house and home, but simply trying to keep the peace isn't the same thing as taking a windshield tour of Fallujah.
Yeah, walking dead type zombies would be very easy to deal with. Easy to kite around, stand on something they can't get up while you spend all day headshotting them.
Heck, have a few dudes in larger vehicles drive around and corral the zombies up so they're in a nice big horde you can dispose of. Make a couple killdozers and you can simply flatten the local population till its gone. Literally any of the exploits you can take advantage of in a zombie game with the bad zombie AI would probably work wonders in an IRL zombie situation.
Hence why the authors of those settings need to handwave the army away, an enemy that doesn't try to take cover, is slow, has no armor and doesn't fire back would get shredded by IFVs and gunships
I have also thought that most zombies would be totally defeated by a good suit of infantry plate armour, as it is definitely bite proof. Small risk of having the helmet levered off, but then the occupant isn't just going to be standing there.
The big impact from zombies that doesn't get shown that much is to your logistical chain and just in time delivery system. Universal threat, no mater how low, is going to gum up works fast.
Depends. There aren't going to be many zombies out blocking the highway system outside of major cities. And most large cities have the highways elevated. You could simply block off the access ramps and drive along quite happily. Zombies aren't doing much down below the overpass.
And in the event the road is blocked by a horde, thats why you escort the convoys with a couple tanks or killdozers to clear a path.
Yes, it is theoretically possible for zombies to stop a tank with mass. But the amount needed would be far in excess of what would realistically be encountered.
You would think that tanks with mine flails would be the most effective weapons against zombies.
I really like the World War Z book (not the utterly terrible movie) as it has overtones of how just pure organisational incompetence can lead to the problem escalating beyond the ability of security services to deal with it.
Flinty wrote: You would think that tanks with mine flails would be the most effective weapons against zombies.
I really like the World War Z book (not the utterly terrible movie) as it has overtones of how just pure organisational incompetence can lead to the problem escalating beyond the ability of security services to deal with it.
On that subject? I’ve often wondered how effective a Combine Harvester might prove in the same situation.
Combine blades look scary, and they will shred a few zeds for sure. But they are a lot more fragile then you think. They 're only made to cut crops afterall. A few dozen and you'd probably be basically useless.
Living in a rural area, I often thought that the ideal vehicle for a zombie apocalypse would be one of those extremely large, 4wD tractors with the retractable bording ladders. Doesn't need to be armored, high enough they can't get you even if you stall out, good off-road and river fording abilities should roads be blocked or destroyed, okayish top speed, and there are platforms on the side you could have buddies on with guns.
The_Real_Chris wrote: The big impact from zombies that doesn't get shown that much is to your logistical chain and just in time delivery system. Universal threat, no mater how low, is going to gum up works fast.
For a time, but people will adjust. Areas not effected by the outbreak will convoy supplies. I mean, I know the current thing is disaster pr()n, but we've actually seen total breakdowns and it's nothing like the movies.
Consider New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina. Yes, in some areas there was looting. In other areas, neighborhoods formed ad hoc police forces and provided mutual aid.
I never watched the Walking Dead because the promo art was so stupid. The image of one side of the interstate being jammed up and the other empty showed me that the writers never heard of college football.
You know, the authorities can make all lanes outgoing if they want, and there are car radios and phones and stuff to tell people about this.
That's why so many films/books of the genre fast-forward through the disaster phase.
Since someone mentioned World War Z, never read it, but did read the author's previous work with the Zombie Survival Guide and it was clear that he knew nothing about firearms. You do not need to bother with headshots when firing HMGs. The zombies are just churned into meat.
Max Brooks's zombies become magically more resilient to impact and trauma due the virus thing. They don't really need to conform to human frailties, so to make them more of a credible threat the resilience gets ramped up so that a headshot is pretty, much required
Even if a creature is immune to hydrostatic shock, the physical damage of its muscles being torn, its bones being shattered, etc... will quickly immobilize it.
A lot of zombie authors also underappreciate what damage to the torso does in terms of mobility and such. Even if we assume a zombie is a human who feels no pain and the cells continue to function without succumbing to shock unless they are directly damaged, a few bullets through the chest will majorly disrupt the zombie's ability to move.
You actually need the muscles in your chest to stand up straight. If they start getting chunked the zombie is going to slump over. A broken/damaged spine also won't support the body as well, and a broken spinal cord will paralyze the zombie.
Leg and arm muscles are the same. A bullet through those will degrade its ability to move. Severed muscles are useless muscles.
Any sort of rifle round will blow chunks out of a zombie. .50BMG will completely vaporize anything touched, and would be especially useful against a dense horde. Artillery and such would also be useful as the shockwaves would break all the zombies bones, riddle them with shrapnel, and do the same thing as shooting them in the brain. Even if a zombie survives a cannon or artillery shell, a living goo pile that can only twitch angrily on the ground isn't much threat.
You'd have a lot of zombies crawling around on the ground with broken/paralyzed legs, or not because their arms could be broken too. Zombies with shattered ribcages and chest muscles unable to stand up and so constantly flopping around. Zombies with obliterated neck muscles whose heads are just flopping around their torso holding on only by the neck bones. An angry head detached from its body just sitting on the ground. Zombies that had their biceps blown off so they can't even raise their arms. And any of these injuries would cause the zombies to flail around and hurt themselves further.
Zombies crippled like this would be no real threat to anyone who was paying attention, and after you have coordinated efforts to clear out hordes this would be the majority of zombies.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if a creature is immune to hydrostatic shock, the physical damage of its muscles being torn, its bones being shattered, etc... will quickly immobilize it.
Yes. Grey Templar and I have disagreed on occasion, but here we stand in unison.
Bones matter. Muscles matter. Even if you want to do the whole "undead skeletons" thing, at a certain point, the bone boxes are reduced to powder.
The whole "only the headshot counts" concept exists because the authors have no practical knowledge of what bullets actually do.
Not to climb on my soapbox, but there are a lot of fables about firearms (and calibers) that seem to be endlessly recycled, particularly in print media. I have a pretty picture book on firearms that I keep solely because of how wrong it is. For example, the book says that 9mm Parabellum is more powerful than 7.63 Mauser. No. Not even close. Or that the Astra 400 is capable of chambering any 9mm cartridge. No.
These claims are in print, so people repeat them, but they are still wrong.
So yes, the whole "knock down" thing where hitting a guy in the little finger with a .45 ACP will throw him to the ground is not true. However, having 7.62mm NATO rounds tearing through a zombie is likely to render it ineffective, even if the brain somehow doesn't take a hit.
There's a longstanding Hollywood convention that bullets don't break bones, or shear away ligaments and tendons - you know, the things that allow you to actually move.
All that being said, years ago I figured that an M1A (semi-auto M14) would pretty much be the ideal anti-zombie gun for all purposes. I think that's still a defensible intellectual position.
It would definitely be effective. The only reason I might say it wouldn't be effective overall is ammo capacity or cost.
Sure, it might take three shots of 9mm, 2 shots of 5.56, etc... to equal a single shot of .308 but you can afford more than 3 shots of 9mm/2 of 5.56 for the cost of one .308 bullet and the gun can hold more ammo in the magazine.
But if you are in a group and have an ammo supply it would absolutely be a decent choice. Just make sure you've got some buddies with ARs or 9mm subguns watching your back while you reload or take careful aim.
This might also be related to the old movie trope of characters shrugging off leg or shoulder wounds like they are nothing. A shoulder or leg wound is a minor inconvenience in a movie. IRL its life threatening as you have major life juice plumbing in those areas.
When your Grandpa got a purple heart in WW2 there is a reason he got shipped home afterwards, never had to go back, and used a cane for the rest of his life.
It's pretty basic chemistry, but fulminated mercury put into hollow points would be fun in a without-laws world of a zombie apocalypse. Easy explosive ammo, although I have no real world experience with what the outcome would be.
Very bad idea to just stuff that into an exposed hollow point. A hollowpoint which prior to firing will be cycled through the firearm, which usually involves a bit of friction up a feedramp... and will be exposed to some hot gasses as it leaves...
Now putting it into a cavity and then sealing the bullet, that is definitely potentially doable but you'd still have ammo that could explode from a relatively minor impact. Like dropping it on the ground. There is a reason most explosive ammo has a more stable explosive and a primer of some kind.
But some proper explosive rifle ammunition would be very nasty against zombies, though expense would be a problem. There is a reason it was reserved for snipers and airplanes in WW2 and not just given to everybody.
Grey Templar wrote: But some proper explosive rifle ammunition would be very nasty against zombies, though expense would be a problem. There is a reason it was reserved for snipers and airplanes in WW2 and not just given to everybody.
Yes, but once again, we're underestimating standard hollow point, which is never used in a military context. That would absolutely change the ballistic performance, and just shred the zombies in new and exciting ways.
Also, I'm going to interrupt our harmony by disagreeing with you on .308. Prices are all over the place, but there was a point in time when it was staggeringly cheap. I'm assuming this was because wartime ammo expenditures had ceased and not a ton of civilians were interested in 7.62mm ball.
Over Christmas I visited with my uncle who served in 'Nam (no, really) during Tet. We were talking about firearms and he is absolutely one of those guys who insists that the M-14 was a better weapon and that the M-16 was utter trash. He got the first-gen complete with defective training ("self-cleaning barrel" he said) and he marveled that we were still using them.
I explained that they've been product improved since then, training had changed, and they were pretty good now.
Now that I think of it, an AR-10 would be the way to go, not an M1A. Stoner knew this.
The whole "only the headshot counts" concept exists because the authors have no practical knowledge of what bullets actually do.
To adds a touch of nuance, it may also be the conceit that is required for zombies to be a threat. The authors may have loads of practical experience with battlefield wounds and their disabling effect on human anatomy, but for the purposes of the story, only headshots do the thing because that is what the story requires.
As I noted earlier, the purpose of zombie stories is not for a detailed assessment of firearm damage to the undead, but rather putting the protagonists in the relevant stressful situation to explore their reactions and interactions.
I think ammo availability would depend on how much advance notice we had of the zombie apocalypse. During the mini panic in October a large chunk of the available 5.56mm ammo in the US was gone within 10 days. If zombie videos were coming out of places overseas, you might have a week to stock up, probably less. If the videos were from Chicago or NYC, maybe a couple days before the cupboard is bare, even in the distant stores. Your online orders may well end up sitting in a UPS hub undelivered in a true TEOTWAWKI situation.
On the show, 100lb waifs and pre pubescent boys are able to pierce zombie skulls with a pocket knife, so presumably mall ninja stuff like wrist rockets and blowguns, .22 air rifles, and literally any firearm would do the job. Except maybe the scoped MAC-10 from Escape from NY that Negan was using Still, it doesn't take long before other humans become the biggest threat and you need the best guns you can get against them.
A post apoc M1 Garand is interesting. New ammo is still fairly common and you can still buy surplus ammo packed in clips and on bandoliers. The Hornady reloading bible has separate sections for a few specific guns that can safely accept stronger ammo than other guns but The M1 entry instead specifies weaker than normal loads, and some .30-06 is marketed as being specially formulated for M1 Garands. Yet there are Garands chambered in .458 WM, a *much* more powerful round. It seems like it might be picky with modern ammo but I don't know really.
I suspect that using weaker loads in M1 garands is more about preserving the relic than an actual safety issue. It will definitely last longer if you use weaker loads, but I think this is in terms of heavy usage and thinking about decades or a century in the future.
And most other .30-06 rifles are boltys, and people do love handloading for boltys. A really hot handload for a bolt action probably wouldn't be a good idea in an autoloader.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The whole "only the headshot counts" concept exists because the authors have no practical knowledge of what bullets actually do.
And because non-gun-people tend to have a wildly optimistic idea of how hard it is to hit a moving target the size of a head at any distance. I remember being amused by World War Z describing a slow, measured, controlled pace of fire as scoring one headshot per second for like an hour straight.
(I remember being less amused and more annoyed by all the handwavium and bs involved in contriving the US Army losing a stand-up fight against the zombie horde, but that's a whole other can of worms)
Slowroll wrote:It seems like it might be picky with modern ammo but I don't know really.
Grey Templar wrote:I suspect that using weaker loads in M1 garands is more about preserving the relic than an actual safety issue.
There's a lot of fuddlore about using modern ammo in Garands, but basically some commercial .30-06 loads are significantly higher pressure than the milspec stuff it was designed for and will beat the gun up. With an adjustable gas plug you can use any commercial .30-06 you want.
This is a pretty common issue with semi-autos chambered in cartridges typically used in manually-operated firearms, it isn't unique to the Garand.
M1 Garands WORK, and never, almost never, stop working. Becuase they fire a fething big round. The 30-06 is got a hell of a lot more powder behind it than it's modern counterpart, the .308/7.62x51. It's so powerful infact that you can literally burn off and knock out most obstuctions in the working bits on firing. The M14 on the otherhand, can be a right prissybritches when it's not in a perfect setting. Try torture testing the 3,000USD "M1A SOCOM whatever from springfield, and see how long it works after being dropped in the mud and frozen solid. Then do the same with a M1 Garand. There is a reason the Garand worked after Normandy, and Saipan, and Bora Bora, and every damn isle in Japan, not to mention parts of Africa. Because nothing short of being blown up really stopped it. Even saltwater, the bane of most firearms, couldn't stop it.
If you want the best of both worlds, go the extra mile, and get you a upgunned AR platform in 30-06, like the Benelli R1 or the Noreen BN36X3. You get a full AR Package with a 30 round mags into.
And because non-gun-people tend to have a wildly optimistic idea of how hard it is to hit a moving target the size of a head at any distance. I remember being amused by World War Z describing a slow, measured, controlled pace of fire as scoring one headshot per second for like an hour straight.
There's also the non-trivial problem of them clumping together and taking no cover at all. If you want to go "heavy," and use a full-power cartridge, you could probably kill a bunch in one shot, because they're lined up like pumpkins in the patch.
I recall seeing the beginning of "The Walking Dead" which shows an abandoned tank and thinking "WHY?! There is nothing they can do to that tank crew, and the tank crew knows it. It's actually got an NBC-grade air purifier designed to deal with nerve gas. They are invulnerable." (Former housemate drove tanks for a living for a while. Don't get me started...)
And you are dead-on with the collector community. Holy crap, these people get spun up on ammo. If you want to really stir the pot, go on a gun forum and announce that you've been putting some .308 through your Spanish FR-7 (this is a M1916 pattern Mauser converted to 7.62mm in the 50s) and you will get no end of: "OMG! It's gonna s'plode yer brain!"
Their "proof" is a blown up action on Google that likely got nitro handloads fed into it.
And Spanish rifle fudds got nothing on Garand fudds.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: M1 Garands WORK, and never, almost never, stop working. Becuase they fire a fething big round. The 30-06 is got a hell of a lot more powder behind it than it's modern counterpart, the .308/7.62x51. It's so powerful infact that you can literally burn off and knock out most obstuctions in the working bits on firing.
Milspec 7.62x51 (M80) has 96% the muzzle energy of standard WW2-era M2 .30-06, and identical muzzle velocity at 2,800fps. It's just a 147gr projectile versus 152gr. They're functionally the same round.
The .308 has a smaller case because it was designed to use fifty-years-newer propellant that needs less volume to achieve a given loading. As I mentioned before it's modern commercial ammo that takes advantage of the case volume of .30-06 to cram in more propellant.
The M14 is little more than a M1 adapted to magazine feed and with a better gas system. The idea that the Garand is more reliable than the M14 because it shoots a more powerful round or that this can blow out obstructions is incorrect on both points. If you get mud on the top of either rifle and any particulates get into the chamber face or behind the carrier, you're done- that exposed action is a massive vulnerability, and this was noted in the initial acceptance trial reports conducted at Aberdeen in the late-30s. It was adopted anyways because by the standards of the time, it was still sufficiently reliable for military service, and fared better than any of the other rifles in competition.
The Garand is a fine rifle and is reliable when kept clean, but it's not as impervious as you think or all that different from the M14/M1A. Op rod breakage was a known issue, oil gets washed out of the bolt by rain, and exposure to sand or mud requires immediate remediation. The biggest reasons the M1A is regarded so much more poorly than the Garand are that the M14 was plagued with manufacturing QC problems during Army service, and just that expectations of reliability (and maintenance/upkeep requirements) for semi-automatic rifles have changed considerably in the nearly a century since the Garand was designed.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I recall seeing the beginning of "The Walking Dead" which shows an abandoned tank and thinking "WHY?! There is nothing they can do to that tank crew, and the tank crew knows it. It's actually got an NBC-grade air purifier designed to deal with nerve gas. They are invulnerable."
Yeah, and a lot of writers seem to have this idea that a tank is a sensitive, delicate machine that will get easily bogged down if forced to deal with unexpected obstacles. I've seen an Abrams with most of a tree tied up in its road wheels; I don't think a horde of squishy things would even slow it down.
Even if we take all of the Walking Dead's Zombie lore as fact, the zombies still take physical damage. So just driving around and crushing them should have been perfectly viable even if you ran out of ammo. Maybe a humvee or lighter vehicle could get overwhelmed, but thats when you as the crew just start tossing frags out the hatch and clear them out. Or make some Moletovs...
Bobthehero wrote: Hence why the authors of those settings need to handwave the army away, an enemy that doesn't try to take cover, is slow, has no armor and doesn't fire back would get shredded by IFVs and gunships
I have a few easy explanations for those things: the Army is typically trained to aim center mass, rather than go for the head. Most modern weapons wound, as opposed to kill. And, perhaps most importantly, gunships and IFVs are comparatively rare. Remember, Russia has lost about 7,000 tanks and IFVs in Ukraine, and that has been an absolute slaughter, outpacing a modern industrial societies ability to produce them.
For comparison, the US has 5,500 tanks in it's entire arsenal, and is considerd one of the largest stockpiles of such vehicles on earth. There are only, approximately 700 A-10s *ever* built.
BaronIveagh wrote: I have a few easy explanations for those things: the Army is typically trained to aim center mass, rather than go for the head. Most modern weapons wound, as opposed to kill.
Beehive tank rounds would leave a red stain, nothing more. As for the .50 cal, I don't think you could ever just wound with it.
And yeah, I read the first book, which posited that soldiers were too stoopid to notice head shots were lethal but chest shots weren't.
The amount of body-disappearing firewpower modern armies possess is staggering. Even the much-maligned 5.56mm will - with repeated hits - reduce the target to something less than cohesive. It's also kind of a red herring - modern infantry have support weapons all over the place. M203s would probably make an impression. Concertina wire and some Claymores would also do a number.
I mean, this isn't anything new. The Chinese and Vietnamese both attempted to overrun outposts using overwhelming numbers in close assault. Sometimes it worked.
This an interesting discussion because it brings out so many different myths. Such as: 5.56 is basically non-lethal, only capable of wounding because its so underpowered; the M-14 was wrongly removed from service, and better than the M-16; the legendary reliability and power of the M-1 Garand.
I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.
I don't think that a country has kept a stockpile of those since the Ontos was removed from service. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that use flechettes like that are certain Russian artillery rounds, and the Hydra 70 rocket for the Apache. I think there's an area defense round for the Carl Gustaf, as well.
And yeah, I read the first book, which posited that soldiers were too stoopid to notice head shots were lethal but chest shots weren't.
It's not about being stupid, it's about having to fight your own training and muscle memory. Also, the book had their first engagement in urban terrain. Very few people who lived would have gotten close enough to tell the difference.
The amount of body-disappearing firewpower modern armies possess is staggering. Even the much-maligned 5.56mm will - with repeated hits - reduce the target to something less than cohesive. It's also kind of a red herring - modern infantry have support weapons all over the place. M203s would probably make an impression. Concertina wire and some Claymores would also do a number.
I think you're failing to understand the scale of the issue. Let's use the US military, and three cities in close proximity to each other as our Outbreak. Assuming that the initial government response is a quarantine and lockdown of the area, which gives the disease time to infect... 60% of the population. In the case of New York and it's surrounds, that's 9 million Zed, or twice the *entire* US military, reserves, National Guard, and everything. M203s would be like throwing pebbles into a pond.
The last time I'm aware of that the Pentagon actually drew up a plan for fighting an *entire* American city, it consisted of a Nuclear Weapon. Mind you, this was the Nixon administration, but there you have it.
The abandoned tank in the Walking Dead could simply have been out of fuel. Supply lines can and do get busted up, and an tanks in general are fuel hogs.
I'm also wondering what the "sweet spot" is for zombie-biting. In 28 Days Later and World-War-Z being infected happens in literal seconds. In other films it can take literal days, if not weeks, to fully turn a person. Someone that turns instantly does make an instant horde. On the other hand, people are stupid, and if someone gets bitten they might not tell you about it.
A single slow-turn person can get into your bunker/safe zone and cause more damage than 1000 infected outside. Both are bad, but what would the "worst case" time for turning be? If they turn instantly there is no need to try to identify infected. Too slow and they can't build their numbers up fast enough, and you can contain them. I'm thinking that somewhere in the 8-16 hour range (bite to turning) would be the worst case scenario. They still turn a lot of people in a short time, but it gives panicking people that have been bitten plenty of time to jump in cars and drive for hours, spreading infection far and wide.
In the WWZ book it was a much slower burn. The only times it was shown as rapid was organ transplants and after nerve gas attack just turned a mob of civilians off, letting gthe disease take over instantly.
As another example the WWZ book has an outbreak start in a South African informal settlement. Cramped humanity, no real organised defence force, hundreds of thousands of victims, at night, confused.
Add that to general social inequality and the powers that be not really caring what happens to slum dwellers and you can get a ,ajor escalation pretty quick.
WWZ also pointed put that canister shells kn tanks were awonderful, but each tank only had 3, and the .ogistics trai. Was set up all wrong.
It's not a perfect book, and zombies definitely have poor descriptions and suchlike, but that book real,y got over an amazing set of short stories set at different points in a major g,oval outbreak. I rea,ly love it, and am quite grumpy at the utterly beige film that resulted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, people aren't stupid. They are scared and alone and they don't want to die, and it's not going to happen to me is it? It was just a scratch, and it can't happen to me, because who would look after the kids if Im infected, no it'll be fine. Just need to ride it out, it's probably just a cold. And oh god I'm so scared!
I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.
I have a pre-ban HK-91 and a M1A SOCOM model. Love them both.
BaronIveagh wrote: It's not about being stupid, it's about having to fight your own training and muscle memory. Also, the book had their first engagement in urban terrain. Very few people who lived would have gotten close enough to tell the difference.
The central conceit of zombie movies is that no one in them has ever heard of zombie movies. That's why they don't work.
Kind of like vampire movies, etc. "What is this strange, new inexplicable thing that has an entire genre of entertainment built around it? How do we respond to it without betraying obvious and easily exploited conventions?"
Post-pandemic, bio-agents are going to be a concern, the military has long-standing decontamination processes (mostly for ATSO or whatever they're calling it now), but in any event, the instant people are shambling around, someone will blurt out "could they be zombies?" and there would probably be a discussion of head shots vs body shots. Oh, and "muscle memory" says nothing about your aim point. You have to be able to adjust that at will. If a guy's in a trench or behind a wall, you don't mindlessly shoot where his torso would be.
Indeed, the closer targets are mostly head, because that would be what is visible.
Anyhow, while writing The Imperial Rebellion, I wrote myself into a blind alley. After agonizing about it, I had to delete about 1/3 of what I had written to that point and take a different fork in the road.
Zombie fiction just sort of handwaves that stuff, because it's hard and the authors tend not to know much about the nuts and bolts of military units (like the fact that all US infantry is mounted in vehicles that could sweep a street packed with zombie by themselves).
By way of contrast, in Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year, no attempt was made to contain the spread of the plague within London, but instead patrols were set up ringing the city, firing at escapees on sight. That would be what you would do. The troops would surround it, run wire, mines, lay guns and just wait. That could be quite a good premise for an adventure movie - an all-volunteer detachment offers to go and try to extract an enclave and bring it to a quarantine camp.
CptJake wrote: I have a pre-ban HK-91 and a M1A SOCOM model. Love them both.
The reason we don't have Beehive rounds anymore is simple. Shot guns and mass-dispersion rounds like that are illegal by the GC. It's only by sheer technicallity that we're still able to use the Claymore, and that's because it's not classified as a mine, but a "Directed Area denial weapon", which is silly.
Shotguns remain in US military inventory today (see: Remington M870 MCS, Mossberg 590), the Beehive Program flechettes were used in Vietnam, projects SALVO and SPIW researched a variety of multi-projectile rifles from the 50s through the 80s, and the Abrams deployed to Iraq in 2003 with the M1028 canister round.
There is no legal prohibition on weapons that employ multiple projectiles, sounds like more fuddlore. Next you're going to tell us using the .50BMG against personnel is a war crime but using it on materiel is legal so they just aim for the belt buckle.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: This an interesting discussion because it brings out so many different myths. Such as: 5.56 is basically non-lethal, only capable of wounding because its so underpowered; the M-14 was wrongly removed from service, and better than the M-16; the legendary reliability and power of the M-1 Garand.
And speaking of fuddlore, 'modern rifles are designed to wound' is one of those chestnuts of wisdom that seemingly everybody knows- except the ordnance board at APG. Suffice to say that the institution that rejected the .276 Pedersen, .280 British, and 9x19 on grounds of insufficient lethality did not do a sudden and temporary 180 on their stance during the 1960s. Methinks they were swayed more by the fact that when a barely-stabilized M193 hits flesh at 3000fps, it blows apart in a way that FMJ .308 doesn't and produces comparable terminal effect.
Reminds me of Korean War vets swearing that .30 Carbine was so weak that it bounced off the winter coats of their Chinese adversaries. Turns out that being in a life-or-death situation has a tendency to skew one's memory and turn mundane near-misses into something out of a Terminator film. Something to keep in mind when you read about malnourished VC surviving ineffective hits from that poodle-shooter M16.
I think that the truth is that 5.56 is "lethal enough", so there hasn't been a ton of push to get something more until recently. And there is a school of thought that its better to wound enemies than kill them so they become a burden on the enemy logistics. My personal problem with this is that, at least from the US perspective, our enemies don't seem to care too much about their wounded. Not much in the way of logistics for the average injured terrorist to be a burden on, and the Russians definitely are happy to let their wounded rot in the trenches.
And while I don't care about "rules of war" or anything I think someone having the idea to shoot to wound would definitely qualify as icky for those who care about such things. If anything, the rules of war should require more lethality not less. If the goal is to make war more civilized, we should be all about that explosive ammo, hollowpoints, etc... End the suffering sooner
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The reason we don't have Beehive rounds anymore is simple. Shot guns and mass-dispersion rounds like that are illegal by the GC. It's only by sheer technicallity that we're still able to use the Claymore, and that's because it's not classified as a mine, but a "Directed Area denial weapon", which is silly.
The reason claymores don't violate international agreements is that they require an operator to make a conscious decision to fire the thing, rather than indiscriminate triggering by people walking past. There's no reason they couldn't be non-directional, and explode 360, except that it makes it harder to have your operator survive. They're very distinct from mines.
Seems amazing we developed the M1028 canister round for the Abrams if they are 'illegal'. More amazing we used them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also amazing I had my guys shotgun qualified when we got stuck on an airfield security detail. Waiting for the Geneva Police to kick in my door and arrest me.
There's a heap of "The Geneva Conventions say it's illegal" stuff floating round every western military it seems, because we got much the same spiel. The Red Cross publishes a summary of the GC, and it's less than 20 pages long. Most of it deals with the treatment of PoW, and occupied territories. This is all the GC really says about weapons:
"Conduct of combatants
The Protocol lays down the rules governing the conduct of com- batants during hostilities. The basic principle underlying these rules is that the right of the warring parties to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited. It follows that it is prohib- ited to use arms, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (P.I, 35).
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resorting to perfidy (P.I, 37). The recognized emblems (red cross, red crescent and red crystal emblem, white flag, protective emblem of cultural property, etc.) must not be misused (P.I, 38 / P.III, 1, 2). The use of nationality emblems of adverse parties or other States not party to the conflict is prohibited (P.I, 39). The Protocol thus affirms that the law of armed conflict requires a degree of fairness on the part of the combatants.
It is prohibited to refuse quarter (P.I, 40). An adversary who is not or no longer able to take part in hostilities, who has surrendered or who clearly expresses the intention of surrendering, must not be made the object of attack (P.I, 41, 42). A captor who lacks the means to evacuate his prisoners must release them (P.I, 41)."
The Geneva Conventions aren't the be-all-end-all of warcrimes, though. Mines, for instance, are covered by the Ottawa Treaty, and there are a few more treaties covering other things.
I think the real reason we don't see combat shotguns is they're limited in usefulness beyond things like breaching doors (I assume your adgies use them for alternative ammo, CptJake?) more then anything legal. And beehive rounds probably went away for similar reasons. Do you waste precious space carrying a hyper specialised, incredibly short ranged round (you don't want enemies that close), or instead take HE which is probably going to do 80%+ of the same job while being useful outside that hyper specialised role?
Grey Templar wrote:And there is a school of thought that its better to wound enemies than kill them so they become a burden on the enemy logistics.
Right, and you often see that used to explain why weapons are 'designed to wound'- the idea that one dead combatant is one man down, but one wounded combatant takes out the man and a couple of stretcher bearers.
The thing is, nobody involved in procurement or evaluation actually buys that. Reliably incapacitating the enemy (within the constraints of the rules of war) is overwhelmingly preferable to just hurting him and giving him the opportunity to return fire, especially if you have him backed into a corner and he will keep fighting rather than be medevaced. Plus if you're looking at the long game, a wounded combatant may contribute to his polity's economy, provide intelligence, serve in a secondary role, or return to fight another day. A dead one will not.
Plus if you explicitly design a weapon to maim rather than kill, you are committing a war crime, and the US takes those prohibitions very seriously. Even as a fed I was prohibited from carrying hollowpoint ammunition on-base because if it were construed to have been used by military personnel, it would constitute a war crime.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote:The Geneva Conventions aren't the be-all-end-all of warcrimes, though.
Correct. The Geneva Conventions primarily address treatment of non-combatants, POWs, and surrender. It was the prior Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 that form the basis of most rules of war as concerning hostile combatants and allowable weapons. Ammunition designed to cause undue suffering is prohibited, and that includes expanding ammunition which has been understood to include things like hollowpoints. It also prohibits explosive bullets, formally enshrining a prohibition previously established by the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868. But there is no prohibition on flechettes, shot, duplex rounds, or other mechanisms of firing more than one bullet at a time.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote:I think the real reason we don't see combat shotguns is they're limited in usefulness beyond things like breaching doors (I assume your adgies use them for alternative ammo, CptJake?) more then anything legal. And beehive rounds probably went away for similar reasons. Do you waste precious space carrying a hyper specialised, incredibly short ranged round (you don't want enemies that close), or instead take HE which is probably going to do 80%+ of the same job while being useful outside that hyper specialised role?
Also 100% correct. Shotguns are carried as breaching tools and by MPs but they haven't been optimal CQB weapons since WW2, and M1028 is still in inventory but usually not worth the rack space.
Same deal with flamethrowers, land mines, and poison gas- it's not a matter of war crimes, they're not used because they're not optimally mission effective. You can give a guy a disposable rocket launcher that will chuck a thermobaric ten times farther than a flamethrower can reach while still letting him carry a rifle, you can defend an area with command-activated munitions and pre-registered artillery without the legwork and liability of producing an active minefield, and conventional explosives aren't neutered by anyone with even third-world CBRN capability. There's no moral progression, just more efficient and flexible means of killing.
Same deal with flamethrowers, land mines, and poison gas
I believe poison and chemical weapons ARE now prohibited, although they weren't under the initial conventions (which are subject to revision). This has evolved from no prohibition, to prohibited unless the opposing side uses them first, and I believe they're now blanket prohibited. And incendiary weapons are prohibited if there is another weapon that would work in their place (in addition to the practical reasons like range, weight, specialty, etc).
All these conventions make distinction between international, and non-international (civil) conflicts, and some things that are permitted in one are not prohibited in the other, in addition to making distinction between civilians and military (some things are permitted against military targets that may not be used on civilians - in addition to the normal "don't attack civilians").
I do feel like we're maybe derailing the thread, though 😅
I thought there were also treaties about landmines, but with not great signature coverage so plenty of nations still use them.
I'm not convinced landmines are obsolete in modern warfare. They are cheap and therefore can achieve massive coverage, as seen in Ukraine. Breaching defended minefields is very challenging.
Yeah, the Geneva Protocol forbade the offensive use of chemical weapons (but not their development, or use in retaliation, or use in civil conflicts) in 1925, and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 enforces stricter restrictions and established a dismantling program that makes for a handy bargaining chip when dealing with third-world regimes.
But despite some of the signatories developing sophisticated chemical weapons programs and then violating jus in bello in other ways, there's been little use of chemical weapons between developed powers since WW1. It's counterproductive to modern maneuver warfare and ineffective against a prepared military force; you mostly see it used between developing nations or by governments against their own civilians.
(To be clear: flamethrowers remain legal, as are land mines despite pressure to accede to the Ottawa Treaty like you noted)
The point just being that if a weapon of war is banned or retired for seemingly moral reasons, dollars to donuts it was already on the way out among the signatories for more pragmatic reasons. Once you've gotten rid of weaponry that doesn't fit your doctrine, then you can leverage moral outrage to your advantage against parties that haven't done so.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.
Forgot to reply to this earlier- yeah, the CETME is the most cost-effective battle rifle nowadays, but I don't think it's the best example among the big four (G3, FAL, AR-10, M14). The roller-delay is great for a subgun but pretty violent for a rifle caliber, and it mangles brass if reloading is a concern.
I'm pretty partial to the FAL. Most aren't any better than 3 MOA and using steel-case ammo can be risky, but the adjustable gas system makes them exceptionally soft shooters, and the controls and layout feel surprisingly modern considering its age. DSA makes decent new ones, or builds on old Imbel receivers can still be found for $1-1.5K.
Haighus wrote: I thought there were also treaties about landmines, but with not great signature coverage so plenty of nations still use them.
I'm not convinced landmines are obsolete in modern warfare. They are cheap and therefore can achieve massive coverage, as seen in Ukraine. Breaching defended minefields is very challenging.
the US has not signed the Minefield treaty since it was first created. Because we refuse to be held accountable for our mistakes.
I love it but carry my 48 
) and I recall them having the brass cap end like any other round, but the overall casing was a plastic. And provided TV hasn’t lied to me, they’re not exactly sealed at the blasty end, but sort of, folded over, so the freedom seeds don’t spill out.
No.
