Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:How much does a gun cost anyhow then ? On average anyway.

And bullets etc etc too.

I believe (in certain states) anyway you have to have a license to hunt etc too, I assume that costs $s as well.

Firearms are expensive. As far as handguns, you can buy a cheap little .25 auto for 90 bucks, but I wouldn't shoot it. Like most things I believe that to some extent you get what you pay for. My .22 target pistol was abou 300$ if I recall correctly. I personally believe that anyone who is interested in learning to shoot should buy a .22, as you can get a box of 500 rounds for 10$, which will allow you to actually practice. But as far as handguns, that is pretty typical for a decent pistol without any bells and whistles. Something high end like one of Kimber's 1911 .45s will set you back 1500$, easy. Large caliber pistol rounds are very expensive, though you can often buy in bulk and save money. There are different types of ammunition of course, but I'd say a box of 50 .38s would be 15$ if you bought a single box.

Rifles can vary a great deal, and like anything else, you can spend as much money as you like, but the fact is a perfectly fine rifle for deer hunting can be purchased for 300 dollars, new. Rifle ammuntion is another story. For deer I use a 130 gr .270 Winchester ballistic silvertip. If nothing else the round looks wicked as hell, its a lubricated bullet bullet with a plastic tip, and the lubricating coating is black, so you've got these silver cases with these black bullets in them, very odd looking. I think they're about 50 or 60 cents a pop, so you need to make them count. Of course you have to sight in with the round you're going to hunt with. I was recommended those rounds by a friend. Do you need ammunition like that to hunt with? Not really. Do they give you a better chance of dropping the animal cleanly? Both the data and my personal experience says yes.

Also, when you say "bullets" keep in mind that you can buy bullets, powder, and brass and load your own ammuntion. You can save money in the long run that way, but that is a hobby in itself.

The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

Actually it was a measure to ensure the formation of state civilian militias. The expansive federal government came into existence after the formation of the constitution, the right to bear arms was more in line with ensuring the nation had the ability to call upon its people to defend itself. Remember, it was primarily self organized state militias in the early days of the revolutionary war. The right to overthrow the government and the right to bear arms are neat in concert, but it's not really a functioning combo. The military could easily quell any armed insurrection civilians could attempt. Glocks and shotguns aren't going to do much to tanks and jets. Overthrowing the current day national government of the US isn't something the forefathers planned for. We have what is essentially an entirely different structure of national governance now, and the forefathers views in this regard are no longer really realistic.




The right to revolution is an excellent way of protecting protest demonstrations and keeping disobediance alive though. These days it really functions more as an inspirational note than an actual right (when was the last time a violent revolutionary was considered to just be properly excersizing his rights?).

Cheers.

I had no idea there would be such variance in the costs of them, but I guess if you think about it it makes sense. Like anything else you get budget lines and premium products.

To clarify : what is the difference between bullets and ammunition then ? Oh, might as well make sure whilst I have your ear : when you say .22, .45 etc etc, what measurement exactly is that ?

ShumaGorath wrote:

The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

Actually it was a measure to ensure the formation of state civilian militias. The expansive federal government came into existence after the formation of the constitution, the right to bear arms was more in line with ensuring the nation had the ability to call upon its people to defend itself. Remember, it was primarily self organized state militias in the early days of the revolutionary war. The right to overthrow the government and the right to bear arms are neat in concert, but it's not really a functioning combo. The military could easily quell any armed insurrection civilians could attempt. Glocks and shotguns aren't going to do much to tanks and jets. Overthrowing the current day national government of the US isn't something the forefathers planned for. We have what is essentially an entirely different structure of national governance now, and the forefathers views in this regard are no longer really realistic.




The right to revolution is an excellent way of protecting protest demonstrations and keeping disobediance alive though. These days it really functions more as an inspirational note than an actual right (when was the last time a violent revolutionary was considered to just be properly excersizing his rights?).

I don't know if I agree with that. Look how much damage partisans did in WWII to both sides.

However, I'm not making that argument in reference to 2nd amendment as, assuming someone even wanted to do that, history shows that to be a brutal, horrible manner of making war. In fact, I really wish people would stop making that argument. I believe that it is a matter of government trusting its citizens, rather than a threat of unrest. I also don't think it is universally true in history. Most important, the argument just isn't that effective. What people don't understand is that nice polite city folk hear "overthrow" or "rebellion", they don't think freedom, they think unrest and riot in the streets. This is particularly true in Europe where they have actual experience with this. It frightens people, it isn't an argument we should be using.

reds8n wrote:Cheers.

I had no idea there would be such variance in the costs of them, but I guess if you think about it it makes sense. Like anything else you get budget lines and premium products.

To clarify : what is the difference between bullets and ammunition then ? Oh, might as well make sure whilst I have your ear : when you say .22, .45 etc etc, what measurement exactly is that ?

Oh gosh, that is a whole subject in and of itself. Firearms nomenclature is rife with all sorts of oddness. First off, in the U.S., we use calibers. .22 is a bullet that is .22 inches in diameter. This gets complicated as sometimes it is the diameter of the *cartridge*, not the bullet. That is the case with the .38 Special. A .38 special will chamber and fire in a .357 Magnum revolver ( NOT the other way around, but most guns are designed to be idiot proof and will prevent you chambering a .357 in a .38 by virute of the difference in the length of the cartridge). Rifles typically use three digits while handguns use two, but that is not the case all the time, as seen in the .357, which is a handgun round, but like any handgun round, there is nothing stopping someone from making a rifle that will fire that round. In fact, .44 Magnum ( designed as a handgun cartridge) is a popular rifle chambering now. Other oddballs include the very popular .30-06. The 06 refers to 1906, which is a date, which I don't recall the significance of. The British are even more confusing as they sometimes mix metric and english units.

The NATO designation makes sense to me. For instance, you hear about 9mm all the time. 9mm usually refers to the 9x19mm parabellum, probably the most common automatic handgun cartridge in the world. That is 9mm diameter by 19mm long. However, 9mm is very common, and there is the 9mm short ( aka kurz) known as the .380 ACP in the US. Then there is the 9mm long which is designed to behave exactly like 9x19 but comply with local laws that forbid possession of "military" calibers ( I think France used to do this, and I think Mexico does). Then there is the 9mm Makarov, which is a Russian round. .38 Super automatic is also 9mm I believe.

The bullet is the actual projectile that is fired from the weapon. The case holds the bullet, powder, and primer ( cases are usually made of brass). The combined system is a cartridge. Shotgun ammo is typically called shells. Incidentally, shotguns are measured by gauges, which is the number of barrel size lead balls that would weigh a pound. Therefore, the 20ga shotgun is a smaller diameter shell than a 12ga shotgun. The british used to make gauge rifles for African game that were 4ga. Thats big.

Good anticipation with the shotgun answer btw

I think from previous discussions I've had it's been the cartridge vs. bullet thing that has thrown me.

So the brass casing bit is what we see spilled out on the floor after firing in films etc then. But you can get caseless ammo right ? I assume that is a bit more specialst ?

I would have thought making ones own ammo would have been both awkward and dangerous yes ? Also--primer ?

Aside from the different manufacturers and "needs" why is there such a variety of sizes and calibres then ? I would have thought by now we pretty much would have perfected he science behind it all one way or another. I guess a lot of it comes down just to peoples personal preferences maybe ?

EDIT : cheers for the Q & A btw !

sebster wrote:If you pick two collections of data and are willing to dismiss a relative difference a variance of 40%, you’ll end up dismissing most studies, and relying on personal bias to form your opinions of the world. That’s a bad thing.

Its not a bias to look at 2 non scientific statistics and say they shouldn't be used as empirical evidence. It really bothers me how accumalated data automatically passes for science without the study to properly support such. This isn't personal bias. Its whats happening.
It starts with certain things are required to be reported. Someone then takes those numbers and runs a ratio analysis. Suddenly we have a "study" saying one thing or the other. Yet, none of the rules of scientific reaserch were followed. There was no central oversite. No attempt to standardize the form of report. No attempt to understand cultural differences in what is considered murder. No standardization of investigative techniques (may be some basic level but not enough to be considered scientifically valid). With out a consistent paradigm for the study and without any actual studying there is no science.

sebster wrote:Instead you should take stats as they are, prone to some level of systemic error, prone to random fluctuations, and prone to cherrypicking, but an excellent tool for understanding broad social trends.

That would require for me to accept the statistics as scientifically valid studies which I just went over. All these statistics prove is that, yes, murder does happen and that there "appears" to be variation.

sebster wrote:Yeah, people getting murdered is horrific. By the maths I showed you above, the difference was about 8,000 people a year. More than two World Trade Centres. Most people consider that was pretty horrific, so it seems a short jump to claim that yeah, having that many more people killed every year is horrific.

Oh, nice one. Pull out the World trade Centers, cry 9/11, and the world,especially americans, will jump to your cause. Btw, its more like 3 time the WTC death toll. Nice subtle use of an emotional issue in support of your side of the debate.

Having said that, yes, murder is horrific. So are killer tsunamis, 8.+earthquakes, catagory 5 hurricanes, and the worst natural disaster of them all humanity. On purely philosophical levels I wonder, "How long we will cling to the idea of the sancitity of life?". I hold that our most reveered morals are purely situational at best. How valuable is human life in a world of 6 billion of mostly well fed people? Then, how valuable is that life in a world of 12 billion starving individuals? Yes, the act of murder is still horrific. But the rates can be viewed as acceptable when on a larger historical perspective. I admit to concern about man having circumvented the natural process of maintaining a balanced population. That we will grow unchecked until the morals we hold dear will have to be sacrificed on the alter of necessity.

Looking forward and at the world that surrounds us makes it hard for me to accept the irrevocable sanctity of human life. When, even, our government has such a casual attitude toward the issue itself. Used to be better a guilty man goes free before we kill an innocent. Whether that was ever fully practiced I don't know but its what we were taught. Now that thought process has change to so if an innocent dies to keep the rest of us safe.
My stance on this issue stems from the words of Benjamin Franklin,"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." To me this means that in a free society, we accept that there will always be threats on some level and it a part of the price for living within this system.

sebster wrote:No, none of that is plausible. We’re making steady progress as we become wealthier and more educated, and expand opportunities to a greater percentage of the population. If we continue to do that, the murder rate will drop further. But some places have managed to lower it more than others. It makes sense to look at the differences between those places.

There's a problem with this solution. It requires a system of continual expansion. That is neither realistic or sustainable. I'm looking for a more natural solution. Something that balances with mankind no matter what his conditions. Problem is that that solution will probably be viewed as unacceptable because it allows for the fact that a free society will inevitably have a few idiots or sick individuals that will perpetrate these crimes.

sebster wrote:I’m not really sure what the ‘responsibility to not get murdered’ is.

@both sebster and ghetto- Responsibility to not get murdered is to not do stupid things. Interviews with incarcerated offenders show there is usually a targeting process. The more complacent people become, the safer everyone feels, the less aware of their surroundings they become, are the things these criminals are looking for. Then there is just stupid life decisions to consider(choosing to join a criminal organization). Don't wave large sums of money in an impoverished area unless you want to be robbed. Don't be a part of a violent gang unless you're willing to be shot. Don't automatically assume that everywhere you go is safe, its what criminals are looking for. Don't always put your safety in someone else hands, they probably don't care as much about your life as you do. I've got enough to do watching out for my own life, family, and friends. Don't make me responsible for watching out for you also. Its down right inconsiderate.

Yes innocent individuals die all the time. I just propose that these numbers would be somewhat lower with the application of a little common sense in our day to day lives.


Edited for spelling

reds8n wrote:Good anticipation with the shotgun answer btw

I think from previous discussions I've had it's been the cartridge vs. bullet thing that has thrown me.

So the brass casing bit is what we see spilled out on the floor after firing in films etc then. But you can get caseless ammo right ? I assume that is a bit more specialst ?

I would have thought making ones own ammo would have been both awkward and dangerous yes ? Also--primer ?

Aside from the different manufacturers and "needs" why is there such a variety of sizes and calibres then ? I would have thought by now we pretty much would have perfected he science behind it all one way or another. I guess a lot of it comes down just to peoples personal preferences maybe ?

EDIT : cheers for the Q & A btw !

Sure, no problem, I enjoy talking about firearms as much as I do minatures, especially when it isn't a debate about legality. Yes, the case, or brass, is ejected from an automatic firearm when it shoots. Not revolvers though, that is an older mechanism. You fire all the rounds the pop the cylinder out and dump the brass. Caseless would be a wonderful boon to all the soldiers out there who have to hump around loads of ammunition, but it is something they're still working on. Such a round would, ideally, just produce gasses when fired. But it is a really cool idea.

Reloading, as it is called, is not as dangerous as it sounds. I don't do it, but I've read about it. Modern smokeless powder isn't like old fasioned black powder. Not only is it smokeless, but it won't detonate from, say, a static spark or something. Reloading is in itself fairly safe, the real danger is if you aren't concentrating and you load a cartridge twice. Say, if you get up to answer your door and forget which one in a row you're on. Modern firearms are unlikely to explode even in that case, but you're talking about something that could range from A. Suprising and embarassing at the range to B. A ruined firearm and possible injury.

Primers are the little round things in the bottom of cartridges that the mechanism of the gun strikes ( with the firing pin, or some similar setup) which ignites the propellant ( smokeless powder ).

It being called a revolver presumably as the bit that holds the bullets revolves to bring the next shot up yes ? Like in all the old Cagney movies etc etc ?

And in an automatic the bullets are "pushed" up from the magazine ( or is it a clip ?) automatically yes ?

I've no idea where I got the thought we had/have caseless ammo already... too much sci-fi clearly.

How do the different types of bullet work then ? Again I think I know but nice to get the facts.

reds8n,

You are correct on the revolver, and how the auto works.

As to caselees ammunition, its been around for a long while. The military has some rifles for special ops but hasn't switched over completely because of cost. It will happen sooner if copper and brass keep going up in price though.

reds8n wrote:So the brass casing bit is what we see spilled out on the floor after firing in films etc then.

Yes. If you don't use caseless, you could attach a brass catcher - then it won't go all over the floor...

Again that makes sense I guess.

So with caseless ammo it's all kind of built into one shell or projectile then is it ?

What is a semi automatic ?

And again, why the huge number of different calibre weapons ? I assume there are optimum sizes for killing/wounding a man/deer/elephant or just for target shooting .

A semi and automatic are confusing nomenclatures. Originally an automatic was a gun capable of full auto-fire(like a machinegun) and a semi-auto was a gun that auto loaded but fired only one round at a time. Somewhere along the way semi-auto pistols started to be calle automatics. I don't know specificaly when though.


Yes, you are correct. Different calibers for different uses. Just happens that you use the same rounds or calibers to bring down both a deer and a man.

I see. I suppose that's just another symptom of the fall of society.

So I assume all the different makes/manufacturers are essentially just variations on a theme.Like car manufacturers yes ? As in different people prefer different..err....."breeds" .. or types of gun because of weight, accuracy etc etc right ?

Or like wargame systems.

I take it then that with regards to top end products-- military grade I would hazard- there's not really that much difference as such between a machine gun made by company X and one by company Y.

AFAIK there hasn't been any huge leap or advancement in fireamr technology that has given one maker a big edge?

last I read seemed to suggest that electronic firing guns seemed to be the next move forward.

reds8n wrote:Again that makes sense I guess.

So with caseless ammo it's all kind of built into one shell or projectile then is it ?

What is a semi automatic ?

And again, why the huge number of different calibre weapons ? I assume there are optimum sizes for killing/wounding a man/deer/elephant or just for target shooting .

Yah, different calibres made for different purposes. Also different bullets in the same caliber for different purposes. The military uses fully jacketed bullets ( a lead bullet jacketed in copper ) because of certain international treaties and tactical purposes. While in the state of Tennessee, it is illegal to hunt with an FMJ for the same reasons the military uses them. Military bullets, oddly enough, are designed to wound, not kill, and the theory is that you'd end up with a lot of wounded game that would just crawl off somewhere and die. I have been told, though it could just be BS, that the round used in US infantry rifles ( NATO version of the .223 remington) has a bullet that conforms to international law but is designed to become unstable when it penetrates something and begin to pitch and yaw, thus causing more injury.

There is a huge difference between guns in terms of how "effective", accurate, reliable, and user-friendly they are. That is why people will pay more for certain weapons over others.

Actually, there is quite a large difference in grade and quality of materials used in the manufacture of the weapons.

Some makes come out of the factory just downright unsafe. Older Ithaca shotguns have a problem with slam-firing when you throw the pump forward.

You can research online and find the higher quality manufacturers. You generally see the price reflected in the quality and additional safety features offered.

Hmmm.


I can understand how there can and would be huge performance differences between the aforementioned $90 and the $1500 gun, but would there really be that much difference bewteen 2 $1000 guns by different companies ?
I assume you get different types or builds-- some designed for accuracy, others pure stopping power etc etc, but I would have thought that there would be an optimum build so to speak.

But then again that ignores the human component of course.

So what do yu gents own and shoot then ? And (roughly) how much a year do you spend on the hobby then ?

reds8n wrote:Hmmm.


I can understand how there can and would be huge performance differences between the aforementioned $90 and the $1500 gun, but would there really be that much difference bewteen 2 $1000 guns by different companies ?
I assume you get different types or builds-- some designed for accuracy, others pure stopping power etc etc, but I would have thought that there would be an optimum build so to speak.

But then again that ignores the human component of course.

So what do yu gents own and shoot then ? And (roughly) how much a year do you spend on the hobby then ?

Yah, I think you probably get diminishing returns as the price goes up. I'm sure a 30,000$ british double is a fine gun, but you can get an above average bird gun for 1500 bucks. And there are some things that are just silly, IMHO. For instance, the Desert Eagle that you may have heard from in video games ( CS comes immediately to mind ) starts at 1500 last I checked, and they have a gold plated version. They have a long barrled version that would probably be a good hunting gun, considering that it can come chambered in .50 AE. Otherwise, and I appologize to anyone who owns one, I think they're kind of silly. I is a big, oversized gun. I also would have trouble shooting it because like most autos the magazine fits in the grips, which are wide to accomodate the revolver type ammuntion it uses. I have fairly small hands for a man, so I probably couldn't hold it properly.

I've hunted small game with my shotgun, but it has been a long time since i've done that. In fact, I haven't even shot my shotgun in years. I want to try sporting clays, which is a shooting game that is sort of like trap or skeet, but they have a wider variety of targets. The rifle I pretty much just use for hunting, though I can tell you I absolutely love putting 3 rounds in a target touching each other at 100 yards. That is an expense thing there. I'm really a handgun guy, and I shoot more .22LR than anything else by far. Thats just targets, I don't hunt anything with that one. The entire reason I shoot that one, other than the pleasureable feel of it, is money. A box of 500 .22s, like I said, is cheap, and I can go to the range at the WMA, which is free. I would say that last year I spent a couple hundred bucks on it, at most. That is probably a lot less than your average shooter.

"Pure stopping power" generally means a bigger bullet:
- higher recoil forces (more ammo jams)
- more muzzle jump (worse shot-to-shot accuracy)
- larger magazine (requires bigger hands to hold)
- heavier gun (more tiring to carry and aim)
- larger gun (harder to conceal)

There are a lot of tradeoffs.

That said, people will typically get .45 ACP (proven man-stoppers), 9x19mm (more shots), or .40 S&W (split the difference) for defensive use.

Each has their own adherents and proponents. It's primarily religious at this point.

reds8n wrote:Hmmm.


I can understand how there can and would be huge performance differences between the aforementioned $90 and the $1500 gun, but would there really be that much difference bewteen 2 $1000 guns by different companies ?
I assume you get different types or builds-- some designed for accuracy, others pure stopping power etc etc, but I would have thought that there would be an optimum build so to speak.

But then again that ignores the human component of course.

So what do yu gents own and shoot then ? And (roughly) how much a year do you spend on the hobby then ?

As Obama's potential AG is on the record supporting gun bans and believes such are fully constitutional, I'll plead the Fifth.

I've seen people blow $500 or more in a year shooting (not including weapon purchases).

JohnHwangDD wrote:"Pure stopping power" generally means a bigger bullet:
- higher recoil forces (more ammo jams)
- more muzzle jump (worse shot-to-shot accuracy)
- larger magazine (requires bigger hands to hold)
- heavier gun (more tiring to carry and aim)
- larger gun (harder to conceal)

There are a lot of tradeoffs.

That said, people will typically get .45 ACP (proven man-stoppers), 9x19mm (more shots), or .40 S&W (split the difference) for defensive use.

Each has their own adherents and proponents. It's primarily religious at this point.

Shotguns are excellent in that regard as well. It imparts the most energy into the target.

Thank you, most enlightning.

So after the initial outlay for the weapon itself it doesn't seem too expensive as a hobby really.

Feel free to tell me to butt out here, but how do you store your guns ? Obviosly don't reveal anything here you'd rather not !

I remember seeing something years back when (I think) the Desert Eagle first came out, and they showed it shotting through something stupid like 50 phone directories. Very useful I thought if I'm ever attacked by a very slow moving conga line of phone books. From memory/Dirty Harry films the Magnum had been the "most powerful handgun in the world" at the time. Would I be correct in thinking that this is kind of a status thing/pissing contest between the manufacturers then ? Akin to producing the Worlds fastest car/smallest microchip/beefiest burger etc etc.

You mention gold plating, I take there is the usual plethora of "tasteful" adornments one can purchase for ones weapon ? I assume this would generally be something done by the less "serious" sortsman in this regard.

Oh, , do you name your guns ? Or is that just another popular myth ?

@Fraz, amen to that. Tho they take the stopping power problems I covered above to 11!

currently, i "own" and shoot an M-16A4, and an M2 MG..
lookgin for a Smith and Wesson 1911 (if i can find an antique one, id prefer it)or, the aformentioned "silly" gun, the desert eagle... having fired both pistols previously, i know exactly what im getting for the money. just a slight update on the DE, ive seen them on their website for about 1200 now, but thats your standard nickel plating, no fancy-pants finishes on it type weapon.

reds8n wrote:Thank you, most enlightning.

So after the initial outlay for the weapon itself it doesn't seem too expensive as a hobby really.

Feel free to tell me to butt out here, but how do you store your guns ? Obviosly don't reveal anything here you'd rather not !

I remember seeing something years back when (I think) the Desert Eagle first came out, and they showed it shotting through something stupid like 50 phone directories. Very useful I thought if I'm ever attacked by a very slow moving conga line of phone books. From memory/Dirty Harry films the Magnum had been the "most powerful handgun in the world" at the time. Would I be correct in thinking that this is kind of a status thing/pissing contest between the manufacturers then ? Akin to producing the Worlds fastest car/smallest microchip/beefiest burger etc etc.

You mention gold plating, I take there is the usual plethora of "tasteful" adornments one can purchase for ones weapon ? I assume this would generally be something done by the less "serious" sortsman in this regard.

Oh, , do you name your guns ? Or is that just another popular myth ?

many states require some form of gun cabinet or gun closet to store weapons, especially if you have children in the house (basically its a large safe, with special racks built in for the purpose of storing guns)

personally, growing up, we never EVER had guns locked up in a cabinet... both my brother and i were taught the proper way to handle a gun, and we never once had the urge to mess with them unless it was to grab them for a trip to the range, or if we were cleaning them after the range.

i for one dont name my weapons (well, my 50 MG has a name, but we'll not discuss that ) but, i am sure that there are people who have a name for every weapon they own, and their car/truck/mode of transportation...

Why those particular ones for you then ? Or do they just "fit" you ?



From memory I believe you are in the forces Mr. Ferrae, what do make of the weapons the Americans are armed with ? And/or the other nations.

Apologies if you're not.

@Ensis - If you *really* want a M1911, you better hurry... Colt just released a replica line of 1911 and 1911A1

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/1911WWI.asp

Personally, I'm not fond of the idea that ever trigger pull is going to cause a hammer bite...

reds8n wrote:Why those particular ones for you then ? Or do they just "fit" you ?



From memory I believe you are in the forces Mr. Ferrae, what do make of the weapons the Americans are armed with ? And/or the other nations.

Apologies if you're not.

i should start off with the easy one for me. this is purely my own opinion here, so you can completely ignore it if ya want.. i think that the M-2 .50 Cal machine gun is the best weapon of its type in the world... there's a reason that every unit in the US Army has used this weapon in every theater of war since WW2.

the M-16 family of weapons (including all the updates eg. M-16A2, A3, and A4) are crap. pure and simple... yeah, theres the whole congressional thing, the manuals that all say that its a precision instrument, and how you can be more accurate at range, blah blah blah... fact of the matter for me is that because of its configuration, length and overall design, it doesnt work... for one, its prone to jamming, especially if you have an A1 or A3 model (dunno what it is with them odd numbers) and with the length of the 16s, its very clumsy in urban environments.

the AK-47 family of weapons, while not as accurate are generally "better" than the M-16. There are numerous stories told to me by vietnam vets about how they capture/killed some vietcong and confiscated weapons that were crammed full of mud and whatnot, that still fired perfectly. it can fire even if its all rusted up... basically, so long as the breech is clear, it will fire the round. the biggest complaint by most is the weight of the ammo, as it uses the 7.62mm round.

Im not familiar with too many other nation's arms, however the limited use of the Hechler and Koch (sp.?) weapons ive had, they are a much better weapon all around than the M-16s

thank you.

You mean one of these yes ? Seems strange to think that the same basic weapon has been used for so long. I guess if it aint broke etc etc.

I've heard similar stories about the Ak eapons, but I am surprised at what you say about the M16 family. I know a few serving soldiers and they pretty much all say they'd prefer to use what the septics are armed with. Of course that might be more of a comment on what the Brits are armed with ...