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.

As someone in the U.K., I feel like universal Concealed Carry might be safer?

For a start, it means no tosspot can just make a grab for my shooter, as they (in theory) won’t know if I’ve got one.

And equally, anyone looking to do an old fashioned Hold Up would have no way of knowing whether or not they might be shortly and thoroughly outgunned?

I get there’s shades of gray in between. But the first point is my main concern. In terms of tracing a given gunman, good luck if the only time they laid hands on the shooter was to pinch off someone else.

Concealed is definitely preferable. But in so many states, like CA, its basically impossible to get a CCW permit in addition to open carry being prohibited(hence the lawsuits). You either have to be a celebrity, judge, cop, or have active death threats to get past the "Good cause" requirement. And even then its down to if the local sheriff is ok with it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As someone in the U.K., I feel like universal Concealed Carry might be safer?
For a start, it means no tosspot can just make a grab for my shooter, as they (in theory) won’t know if I’ve got one.
And equally, anyone looking to do an old fashioned Hold Up would have no way of knowing whether or not they might be shortly and thoroughly outgunned?
I get there’s shades of gray in between. But the first point is my main concern. In terms of tracing a given gunman, good luck if the only time they laid hands on the shooter was to pinch off someone else.

To slice the topic up a bit, I'm of the opinion concealed carry as one goes about in a city is generally preferable, but I think flexibility in carry options is important. In terms of down sides, it is actually exceedingly rare or unheard of that someone is targeted because they OC, but there can be a lot of reasons for that. For sure when one open carries, they need to be very aware if the world around them, who is close to them, are the people around them trustworthy and peacable. For dense areas with lots of people in close proximity, say a line at a fast food resturant at lunch, is nit a good place for maintaining that awarenenss and protection of the weapon. But even that is conditional. In some communities so many of the population are of a high enough level of trust and good character that it would be fine, where in other communities it would be hazardous. It depends on a lot of factors.

A lot of people when they see a gun, particularly if their only exposures to guns are from hollywood, direct tragedy, or rhetorical anecdotes that focus only on the social costs of an armed populace and not benefits, these people can feel anxiety and disfomfort. At the very least it can be a visible reminder that its a rough world out there and people may not want to be reminded. On the other hand, seeing good folks carrying can be a normal sight no one thinks twice about as was the case where I grew up. It may be a reminder in the US that people have such a right, and that such arms can be carried responsibly, dispelling myths and stigma (If done well). That's an enculturation issue more than anything else, but one that people who would open carry must think about.

Its hard to deny that open carry offers the fasted and least complicated draw. Concealed carry adds a layer to weapon presentation that can add more time, and potential complications to weapon presentation. Training can help with this, but the roll of the dice could cause something to get caught on clothes, fumbles, etc. while defeating the extra layer of concealment. The sad fact of gun use is that when it is time to use one, it usually needs to be used in the fastest way possible. Consider the church shooting in texas a few months back where a guy pulled out a (illegally carried) shotgun and threatened a parishoner. A guy near them in a pew went for his concealed gun, but had to fumble with his shirt to get it, drawing the attention of the gunman, who then started shooting and nailed the guy he was harrassing and the guy trying to draw his gun. Someone else then efficiently drew and headshot the gunman as he was heading for the pastor. Whe can only wonder, would the gunman have attacked the man trying to get his gun first if he was open carrying? If people often open carried, would the guy have brought a shotgun at all knowing it was highly likely he would get hit by several defenders? (No less than 5 guns from different parishoners came out after the first shot)? Had the first defender had a less complicated or more experienced draw, could he have shut down the gunman before he ever fired a shot? No way to know.

Open vs. conceled is a tradeoff the answer of which constantly varies based on these and other factors. I think concealed carry is generally preferable for some of the reasons above (which makes it frustrating that it is so tightly controlled for non-prohiilbited possessors, and those controls having no power over bad actors), but I like that the people have the freedom to judge and adjust their carry mode as situations and circumstances dictate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s another Electric NooBaloo question! Yay!

Pistols. When it comes to Revolvers and Magazine fed (semi-auto? No, don’t laugh. I really am this clueless), what are the pros and cons?

I ask because I mostly come across guns via TV and Films, which typically have no basis in reality.

Are they much of a muchness when compared across different measures (accuracy, rate of fire, ease of reload, reliability, ease of maintenance etc), or is just personal preference?

You've gotten some good answers already but I want to chime in a little bit.

-Revolvers have, almost universally, heavy and long double-action trigger pulls (double-action meaning the trigger has to cock the hammer, then release it). This can make shooting accurately more difficult without extensive training. Most revolvers can be manually cocked with your thumb, turning the trigger pull into a lighter and shorter single-action pull (it's just releasing the hammer), but that is the kind of thing you would do for target shooting and not in a combat or otherwise stressful situation. So, in general, semi-autos tend to have better triggers than revolvers, which makes them easier to shoot accurately. That's not universal as there are plenty of semi-autos out there that have similarly long and heavy pulls, especially police handguns where the department doesn't trust the competence of their officers and mandates a heavy trigger pull to reduce negligent discharges (see: New York City).

-Tying in with the above, the overwhelming majority of revolvers do not use external safeties. The heavy trigger pull makes it very, very difficult to accidentally pull the trigger, so you can safely carry a loaded revolver, then draw and immediately fire. In contrast, with semi-autos there are various schemes for ensuring safety and lots of debate back and forth; some semi-autos (eg Glocks) use trigger design which makes it harder for the trigger to be accidentally snagged, some are carried loaded and cocked but with an external safety engaged, and some are carried loaded but with the hammer uncocked, so your first shot has to cock the hammer (double-action, long and heavy trigger as discussed above) but then subsequent shots are single-action. Over the last ten years the first category has slowly been winning; external safeties are considered another thing to screw up under stress, and double-action/single-action generally requires a hammer, whereas most modern semi-autos are striker-fired (instead of a hammer slapping a firing pin, the firing pin itself is spring-loaded and released to fire).

-Revolvers can be chambered in much heavier cartridges for a given size. Cartridges comparable to .357 Magnum require a fairly large and heavy action to reliably work in a semi-auto, but in a revolver they can be had in compact sizes. That said, those compact high-caliber revolvers absolutely suck to shoot with any kind of accuracy, because...

-Revolvers have more felt recoil since there are no moving parts to soak up that recoil energy, and more muzzle flip due to the ergonomics involved. So while you can get a tiny subcompact revolver chambered in .357, it is not something you can shoot accurately under any kind of stress (and, again, the heavy trigger pull doesn't help). Modern developments in semi-auto design have also led to very small subcompacts chambered in .380 ACP or 9x19mm, which are more than sufficient for defensive use.

-I've been mostly talking about concealed carry so far because revolvers lose hardcore in any kind of combat scenario for two reasons: Capacity, and ease of reloading. You get six, sometimes seven shots at most (with no indication that you are out of ammo until you try to shoot and it goes click), and then reloading quickly requires a bulky speedloader and significant practice. Modern full-sized semi-auto combat handguns hold typically 12-18 rounds in a standard magazine (depending on caliber), lock open on empty, and are much quicker to reload. Revolvers are completely obsolete as combat handguns; it's only in concealed carry (where most people aren't carrying spare magazines for a semi-auto, and the small size necessitates a 5-8 round magazine size to begin with) where they can close the gap a bit.

-Reliability for revolvers is sort of true, sort of overrated. Lighter semi-autos can jam if you do not hold them tightly enough, but by and large modern semi-autos are extremely reliable and modern ammunition is equally consistent. In modern semi-autos, if you get any malfunctions in 100 rounds, that is considered very bad. When issues do arise they are usually ammo-related, and the most common malfunctions are easily rectified (IE, rack the slide). Revolvers can be expected to go bang every time you pull the trigger and cannot jam in the same way, but if something goes wrong, it generally incapacitates the revolver. Revolvers are not simpler nowadays; they have the illusion of simplicity due to fewer moving parts, but there are many critical geometries to those parts that are necessary to get everything to line up properly for a shot. Modern semi-autos are an awful lot simpler than the early hammer-fired semi-autos, from which the 'more complex/less reliable' comparison to revolvers originated.

-Revolvers are easier to clean, and require less cleaning. That said, I'm about 800 rounds since the last time I cleaned my CZ-75B, and it's still running fine. Firearms don't need nearly as much cleaning as media depicts. Normally the first sign that a gun needs cleaning is loss of accuracy (and we're talking, like, a 3" wide pattern at 100yds opens up to 5").

Generally speaking: Semi-autos are more popular and better in just about every way for concealed carry, and they're overwhelmingly better for combat use (see: even the most under-funded police departments finally ditching revolvers in the 80s). If someone says revolvers are better, they either have not done any serious comparative drills in the last 30 years, or don't have much familiarity with guns to begin with. Revolvers survive nowadays for nostalgia, silhouette shooting (where all those deficiencies no longer matter), collecting, and cashing in on an older demographic that hasn't caught up with the times, but they're technologically obsolete.

That might sound harsh, but it is what it is. I think revolvers are cool, but in the same sense that I think my Mauser C96 is cool; great to appreciate mechanically and fun to shoot at the range, but not something I would ever carry, let alone want to have in a shootout. Here's my reproduction Colt Dragoon, converted to fire modern metallic cartridges (rather than black powder).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As someone in the U.K., I feel like universal Concealed Carry might be safer?

For a start, it means no tosspot can just make a grab for my shooter, as they (in theory) won’t know if I’ve got one.

And equally, anyone looking to do an old fashioned Hold Up would have no way of knowing whether or not they might be shortly and thoroughly outgunned?

I get there’s shades of gray in between. But the first point is my main concern. In terms of tracing a given gunman, good luck if the only time they laid hands on the shooter was to pinch off someone else.

Practically speaking, the idea of someone stealing your gun out of its holster when open-carrying is not a thing that happens. Modern retention holsters use either an active retention system (they hold the gun in place) that requires a specific button or other action to unlock, or passive retention, where the holster is molded to the gun and you need to pull in a very specific direction (straight upwards) to remove the handgun. Neither is doable by a random aggressor, but it could be a risk if you were using an older-style non-retention holster (like, the classic style nylon or leather with a strap on top to hold the gun in).

But lack of identifiability is a good reason for concealed carry. At an extreme end, it avoids telling a mugger that you've got a free gun if he gets the drop on you, or a robber that you're the biggest threat. More importantly, though, it's just socially smoother- firearm ownership is a contentious thing, and attitudes have changed. Wind back the clock a hundred years, and open carry was seen as acceptable, while concealed carry was seen as suspicious (why are you trying to hide the fact that you're armed?).

Concealed holster design has advanced by leaps and bounds over the past few decades. Nowadays you can get a holster that will keep your weapon secure and concealed, and doesn't require much in the way of a retention system, so the speed difference versus a conventional holster is slim to none with practice and/or training. The main reason to open carry would be if you are, for whatever reason (eg going into bear country), carrying a standard-sized handgun, which is somewhat difficult to conceal.

Edit: Oh yeah, and laws impact it too. In many states open carry is legal, but concealed carry requires a permit. So sometimes people will open carry simply because they don't have a permit or cannot get one. Conversely, in some states you can get a concealed carry permit, but open carry is always illegal, so you have to make very sure that your weapon is concealed. Also, permits are sometimes reciprocal with other states and sometimes not, so you have to navigate a complex web of legalities to figure out where you can legally carry a firearm and how. It's a bit of a mess, to say the least.

Also, in my experience, open carry generally is for donkey-caves. Usually it's people who want to intimidate the ones around them or send a political message - I know I am dancing around it, trying not to get in it - and I think most CCW permit holders look down on them for it.

Freaking out the people around you because you are open carrying an AR15 in the supermarket is a good way to turn off what might have been supporters. Open carry is also a good way of making sure that if it goes down, you're getting it first, chief. And of course, you're always on the verge of a potentially fatal encounter with armed, nervous law enforcement - more so depending on your melanin levels, typically.

Obviously this does not apply to the sensible applications of open carry - people who work on ranches, or hikers, or other places where they might reasonable encounter aggressive wildlife on short notice. I'm taking about the jackholes with slung rifles in Chipotle.

I'm on the fence on that. 1) I think you absolutely should have the right to do what they're doing, and protesting via exercising that right is the good and proper American thing to do. 2) It does turn people off and makes yourself a target. But again it only turns people off because they are stupid and don't understand how Rights should work.

Its really no different from Rosa Parks refusing to leave her seat on that bus.

I generally think open carry is done by donkey caves. I will say that some people do it out of necessity. If you are a farmer, very rural hiker, or live on a rural homestead where snakes, predators, and other animals are your daily enemy you get pass.

Yes, that's a totally different situation - I understand that completely.

 Ouze wrote:

Freaking out the people around you because you are open carrying an AR15 in the supermarket is a good way to turn off what might have been supporters. Open carry is also a good way of making sure that if it goes down, you're getting it first, chief. And of course, you're always on the verge of a potentially fatal encounter with armed, nervous law enforcement - more so depending on your melanin levels, typically.

Obviously this does not apply to the sensible applications of open carry - people who work on ranches, or hikers, or other places where they might reasonable encounter aggressive wildlife on short notice. I'm taking about the jackholes with slung rifles in Chipotle.

To your point, maturity, deportment, and appropriateness are what it's all about, and it all too often seems in short supply.

In many states, the legal "open carry" is basically a catch all to make it easier for law enforcement, and common sense.

Arizona, for example, has both legal open carry and legal concealed carry (without a permit, even). A lot of people in Arizona have firearms, and ranchers carry sixguns and 1911s on their hips, etc. People still have gun racks in their pick-up trucks, etc.

This more or less means that normal citizens don't have to panic about carrying a firearm incorrectly, or having a gun stored improperly in their vehicle while on the way to the range, etc. It also means land-owners don't have to worry about having a gun on their hip while driving to the gas station or driving through town, etc.

It also means that properly trained law enforcement officers aren't going to panic and draw down on people because they see a gun.

Generally, you're smarter concealed carrying - particularly in urban areas, etc. Legal "open carry" just makes life easier if carrying a gun is part of your job, or something you do routinely while working in distant areas.

Yeah, I 'open carry' my Judge when working on the property. Because it is my property (and I have rattlers, copperheads and cotton mouths on it).

And yeah, that reminds me of the advantage of a revolver (in my opinion). Automatics don't do shot shells well. The only ammo my Glock has ever jammed on were some 9mm snake shot a buddy gave me. The first round fires, the second fails to feed correctly. You don't have that issue with a revolver.

And of course, I have 3 inch .410 shot shells in the Judge. They work well on a snake. Very well.

Snake shot is a bad idea anyway. I've heard stories of it bouncing off a rattler's hide and just pissing it off. Just shoot it with a real bullet.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Snake shot is a bad idea anyway. I've heard stories of it bouncing off a rattler's hide and just pissing it off. Just shoot it with a real bullet.

I have a 'real life' horror story about trying out some .22 snake shot, using a semiautomatic rifle, on a very aggressive cottonmouth. Long story short, I'm glad only the first three rounds were shot and the rest were hollow points.

Now, .410 #6 or #7 works pretty darned good.

Yeah, a .410 would be the minimum I'd consider for a "snake" type round. Maybe that fancy one with the three brass disc-slugs followed by the buckshot, etc.

Lots of good and valid points in regards to advantages and disadvantages of concealed and open carry, and when one is more appropriate than the other.

Like many others here, I prefer concealed carry for the reasons previously mentioned, but I am an advocate for open carry being legal, also for reasons previously mentioned.

One thing I will add that is a significant advantage of legal open carry:
It protects legal concealed carriers who may accidentally or inadvertently uncover their weapon. In some states where open carry is illegal but concealed carry is legal, a legal concealed carrier could theoretically be at risk of criminal charges if they bend over and their shirt rides up and their weapon becomes visible, or if their shirt gets caught on something, etc. I think that's a bit ridiculous, quite frankly, and open carry being legal eliminates any legal ambiguity in those sorts of situations.

 Elbows wrote:
In many states, the legal "open carry" is basically a catch all to make it easier for law enforcement, and common sense.

Arizona, for example, has both legal open carry and legal concealed carry (without a permit, even). A lot of people in Arizona have firearms, and ranchers carry sixguns and 1911s on their hips, etc. People still have gun racks in their pick-up trucks, etc.

This more or less means that normal citizens don't have to panic about carrying a firearm incorrectly, or having a gun stored improperly in their vehicle while on the way to the range, etc. It also means land-owners don't have to worry about having a gun on their hip while driving to the gas station or driving through town, etc.

It also means that properly trained law enforcement officers aren't going to panic and draw down on people because they see a gun.

Generally, you're smarter concealed carrying - particularly in urban areas, etc. Legal "open carry" just makes life easier if carrying a gun is part of your job, or something you do routinely while working in distant areas.

I didnt see many firearms on my little jaunt to Arizona. in fact I only saw one, on a motorcyclist in a side bag on the freeway. looked like a lever action of some sort. I did stay in Scottsdale though, which seemed more like a student town, so I guess the interest in firearms might be lower there.

One of the things I regretted about my trip to the states was not going to the range and firing some weapons.

There are some places that do have "concealed carry", but make it as legally risky as possible for the person carrying.

For example, "concealed carry" is technically legal, but the moment your weapon becomes marginally visible, even for a moment, you just committed a felony. There was an infamous video of this a while back with a guy getting out of his truck. His shirt pulled up in the back and his pistol was momentarily visible to the police. Even though he was permitted, he was arrested.

Thats ridiculous.

 Elbows wrote:
The only kind of hunting you'd want to do with an actual semi-auto carbine in place of a simple hunting gun. A magazine fed carbine would definitely be the way to go.

Eh, I've never understood the attraction of "real" hunting guns, especially when you consider the mag fed bolt action was once the epitome of military personal firepower. Heck the bolt action was widely used in WWI and WWII. If I've got a semi automatic with 30 rounds doesn't mean I *HAVE* to use all 30 rounds! I can drop a warthog with a single shot from my Saiga AK-103 just as you can with your Ruger American Ranch bolt action. Modern Sporting Rifles are as accurate or even more accurate than old timey Bubbah SMLE's or such "classic" hunting guns. Most MSR's are more accurate than most shooters.

Also I can use a 5 round mag in my AK if you think having 30 is unsporting or something.

That being said I own:
a Saiga AK-103 in 7.62x39mm as my main MSR. When I bought it AR's weren't easily available here, it was cheap (around half the price of local R5's) and ammo was cheap and plentiful.

a 15-22 in SBR configuration because .22 is fun and cheap

a Mossberg Maverick M88, because I hate shotguns but need one for sport (and my 870 was stolen from a gunshop)

A G17 with a cut down frame for EDC/CCW

All of those are used in IDPA multi gun competitions

And my hunting gun. A .454 Casull Raging Bull


I also have a Colt .22 Cadet pistol, a Glock 26 and a 1911.


Huh, can't find a picture of my 26 or Colt. Ah well.

Personally I believe in the right of an individual to carry whatever they want to protect themselves. Living in a country with both high "gun violence" and strict gunlaws I can honestly say gunlaws do NOTHING to prevent criminals getting or using guns. They DO impact on law abiding citizens though. We have licensing requirements, limits on number and type, limit on ammunition, limit on use and carry, renewal periods, safe requirements and inspections, you name it. The criminals still have full auto AK-47's (Type 56's to be exact).

I do think open carry in public is stupid as hell. There have been instances here where cops have been murdered and their guns stolen. It does happen. And it gives away your element of surprise if you need it. That being said I don't think it's a problem on your own property and I don't think it should be illegal either.

Carry permits are extremely difficult to get over here. And open carry is non existent mostly because why would you need to, there are no big predators arround.

Unless of course you go shooting at a range but that is more a common sense approach or just bought a gun, etc.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I didnt see many firearms on my little jaunt to Arizona. in fact I only saw one, on a motorcyclist in a side bag on the freeway. looked like a lever action of some sort. I did stay in Scottsdale though, which seemed more like a student town, so I guess the interest in firearms might be lower there...

To be honest I think you tend to see OC less and less in the highly Urban parts of AZ given most people becoming less and less invovled with the land. Lots of Conceal carrying going on in AZ though given the more liberal carry policies. Scottsdale is quite civilized all things considered. When you get down to the southern end of the state and are closer to smuggling routes or hubs, then it's a different story. Still better to Conceal in that environment as well for the most part.

There was more than one car jacking near a freeway I worked next to where some gang jumped out with AKs and drove off with someone's hummer or truck, or had a little gun battle down a side street.

One of the reasons I decided to move.

Kayback wrote:


That being said I own:
a Saiga AK-103 in 7.62x39mm as my main MSR. When I bought it AR's weren't easily available here, it was cheap (around half the price of local R5's) and ammo was cheap and plentiful.

That's pretty neat, we can't get Saiga's here anymore, do you have a 5.45 as well? Looks like a 74 mag there too. I didn't get to play with any rooty tooty point 'n shooties when I visited SA years ago, but it's always interesting seeing what's available in different places.

 Vaktathi wrote:


That's pretty neat, we can't get Saiga's here anymore, do you have a 5.45 as well? Looks like a 74 mag there too. I didn't get to play with any rooty tooty point 'n shooties when I visited SA years ago, but it's always interesting seeing what's available in different places.

No, I know of literally 3 AK-74's in the country, there is ZERO 5.45 ammo here. I thought with the 7N6 ban in the US maybe the gunshops here would get smart and import a stack of it but no. The one guy with one I know had kittens when someone got him some 5.45 brass and dies. I don't know what he reloads, but he's a collector anyway so probably doesn't shoot it. I don't know what the other guys do for ammo.

That mag is the original Saiga mag that came with the gun, it's a 30 but had a metal U piece in it to limit capacity to 5 as it was a "hunting" gun. I'm lucky that way, my friend's was a literal 5 round mag, I have that now for bench shooting but don't use it very often.

Back when I started shooting not many people had semi auto rifles. There were quite a few M1 Carbines around, the occasional LM5 and every to often a SANNA-77 9mm carbine. I'd seen and shot 1 AR-15 in my life, an old Colt SP1. Then they decided to change the law from almost "will issue" to "shall issue" and introduced a whole WODGE of gun laws, limiting total ownership to 4, 1 self defence gun (pistol or shotgun), plus max 1 sporting pistol and 2 other guns. IF you were a dedicated sportsman or hunter you could apply for more. As many people already had the 2 pistols we were SOL unless we became dedicated so shooting sports popped up like daisys. My IDPA/SADPA number was 270ish we're now in the 10 000 bracket IIRC. As everyone was dedicated we could also apply for the now "Restricted" Semi Auto rifles and shotguns, so everyone did. The various 3gun sports blossomed. We can now get anything (well pre COVID we could). AK's, 9mm AK's, G3's, FAL's, AR-15's from everywhere (USA (Colt, Daniel Defense, DPMS, S&W, Sig, Armalite, Remington...), China, Germany, 2 companies here are making their own...) MP5's (German, Pakistani), Uzi, Scorpion Evo's, Taurus 9mm's, KRISS Vectors, UMP's ... Heck even Barrett .50's. Since everyone was now a legitimate sports shooter legally they could not deny anyone who applied - there have been some very successful court cases won against the government on this regard.

We've home brewed some pretty neat toys, the Denel NTW-20 20mm sniper rifle is one, but we have various other snipers in .50 and .338. The LM5 production has closed and the civilian market has pretty much dried up but like I said we have 2 companies here making AR-15's, including pistol caliber carbines and things like left hand charging AR's. Our hunting rifle community is as lively as always. With the PRS Steel Rain long range shooting sport catching on we can also get things like the AWM, Sako TRG M10 and such.

There are plenty of 5.45 guns out there.

Essentially here's what happened to 5.45 (in a very vague nutshell)

1) In the US, a firearm cartridge is considered a pistol cartridge or rifle cartridge (generally speaking). They are held to slightly different standards with regard to import, etc. You generally cannot purchase or obtain imported "armour piercing" (again, vaguely defined) handgun ammunition, while rifles you generally can (as most will penetrate average soft body armour, anyway), etc.

2) The 5.45x39 had never been put into a pistol, and thus never registered as a pistol in the US because...well, people were smart. 7N6 style spam-can surplus ammo was cheap, if corrosive. Gunsmiths around the country, etc. followed this unwritten gentleman's agreement that you didn't build or register a 5.45x39 "pistol" because then the cartridge changes categories to a pistol cartridge and import laws change drastically.

3) Some fether amateur gunsmith decided to build a pistol 5.45x39...registered it with the ATF...and overnight the cartridge became a "pistol" cartridge and was thus banned from import, etc.

Now, couple that with general increased bans on Russian imported firearms/ammo...and you're now stuck with basic commercial ammo which is fine, but no longer priced low to compete with spam-can surplus ammo. 5.45x39 surplus used to be around $0.08 a round or something obscene, and commercial ammo was commonly $0.18-0.21. Now, with the loss of surplus ammo, and the decrease of imported Silver Bear, etc...the average cost is far closer to 5.56 territory (around $0.28-0.30). This makes the rifle far less attractive, despite the round/gun still being excellent.

For a while, a quality arsenal-built AK in 5.45x39 was kind of a wonderfully kept secret. Accurate, reliable, and cheap ammo - with performance more or less identical to an average 5.56 round.

PS: People who understand all the laws and intricacies can correct the above - this is the cliff's notes version as I understand it. I'm sure I've missed some legal technicalities, etc. etc.

I run 5.45x39 AKs as my primary rifle - though I try to keep 2-3K rounds on hand and it's definitely pricier to do so now - which sucks.

 Elbows wrote:
There are plenty of 5.45 guns out there.

.

Yeah I was talking specifically about South Africa and the number of AK-74's here.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Thats ridiculous.

I'd like to know more about the case in question, because that seems...questionable. I've never heard of anyone being arrested - presumably for brandishing - in those circumstances. Brandishing generally requires violent intent.

 RegularGuy wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I didnt see many firearms on my little jaunt to Arizona. in fact I only saw one, on a motorcyclist in a side bag on the freeway. looked like a lever action of some sort. I did stay in Scottsdale though, which seemed more like a student town, so I guess the interest in firearms might be lower there...

To be honest I think you tend to see OC less and less in the highly Urban parts of AZ given most people becoming less and less invovled with the land. Lots of Conceal carrying going on in AZ though given the more liberal carry policies. Scottsdale is quite civilized all things considered. When you get down to the southern end of the state and are closer to smuggling routes or hubs, then it's a different story. Still better to Conceal in that environment as well for the most part.

There was more than one car jacking near a freeway I worked next to where some gang jumped out with AKs and drove off with someone's hummer or truck, or had a little gun battle down a side street.

One of the reasons I decided to move.

We drove from el centro through yuma along highway 8 then swung north at gila bend. A portion of the drive was literally along the southern border with Mexico. I was surprised at how quiet it was. I was expecting to see tons of border patrols, and lots more people. That's what the news always makes out like.

 Ouze wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Thats ridiculous.

I'd like to know more about the case in question, because that seems...questionable. I've never heard of anyone being arrested - presumably for brandishing - in those circumstances. Brandishing generally requires violent intent.

Yeah, this is a common misconception. A gun being exposed by accident is not brandishing under any legal circumstance. Brandishing a firearm is displaying with intent to intimidate, coerce, or harm. That being said...there are far too many instances of ignorant people seeing someone's gun and then calling the police and just saying "There's a man with a gun in the Wal-Mart!".

This is mainly because most non-gun owning people are entirely ignorant (and often fearful) of guns....have zero understanding of the legal capacity of people to carry firearms, etc. They're also normally ignorant of how to report anything to police officers and thus end up creating a crazy situation.

I don't know of a single case where a person was actually arrested/charged for brandishing in this method - but it is best to avoid it, again because of the idiocy of the average person.

 Ouze wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Thats ridiculous.

I'd like to know more about the case in question, because that seems...questionable. I've never heard of anyone being arrested - presumably for brandishing - in those circumstances. Brandishing generally requires violent intent.

In GA, up until a few years ago, a concealed weapon accidentally displaying could get you a charge, loss of permit and so on. I can't remember if it was 'brandishing' or 'illegal exhibition or what. The state legislature uflucked itself probably about 4-5 years ago so it is no longer an issue. It used to scare me when I rode my bike. Sometimes my jacket would ride up and potentially expose my Glock.

So the range finally opened up again today. got to shoot a bunch of stuff, including the 458 socom. 458 just kills your shoulder when you don't have any sort of buttpad.

I'd gotten some commercial HSM soft points to use to sight the gun in and it was acting weird. The bullets themselves were having extreme difficulty chambering from the magazine. the soft tips kept getting stuck on the upper locking lugs as if they were entering the chamber from too extreme of an angle. I started chambering them by hand.

They were also having some extraction inconsistencies. Sometimes they would extract fine and get thrown 5-10 ft away, which seems really short. But out of the 30 rounds I fired about 5 of them failed to extract and they'd get pinned by the bolt. I think the commercial rounds were too low pressure to cycle properly. And unfortunately I didn't pay the extra $50 for this upper to have an adjustable gas block.

The handloads I did were a different story. I was a little concerned I'd loaded them on the hotter side. Good news is there was no bulging so they're not unsafe. But I'm sure they are still a little too hot because the extractor was putting some nasty gouges in the brass, plus they were getting solidly dented and scraped in the general extraction. The handloads were loading from a magazine just fine so I think the bullet geometry was at play with the commercial flat nose soft tips.

Also gained a little anecdote regarding the importance of muzzle discipline. TL/DR is always point in a safe direction.

I was chambering each round of the 458 by hand. Stick it in the chamber, point at the ground facing down range, drop the bolt carrier, then set up on target.

Well. I dropped the bolt this one time. One hand was dropping the bolt. The other was holding the buttstock. BOOOM! That round I had just chambered discharged right into the ground 5 feet in front of the benches. Fortunately, nobody was downrange or near the muzzle.

I believe what happened was that the vibration from the very heavy bolt caused the trigger to vibrate enough to drop the hammer. The trigger on my AR does have a very very short traverse, only 1/8th of an inch to fire. I had not had the safety engaged with that or any of the previous 5 rounds I had fired when I chambered them. But now I know to always have the safety engaged when chambering the SOCOM.

So yeah. Thats why we always have multiple layers of safety to ensure nobody gets hurt.

 Elbows wrote:
A gun being exposed by accident is not brandishing under any legal circumstance.

Sadly, people have been charged with brandishing for that very thing in CA and a few other states IIRC. Yes, its dumb as heck.