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.

If you’ve not Rich Texan’s with those at least once, I’ll be ever so disappointed!

What do you mean “firearm safety”?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
Is that a Marlin 39a (.22 rimfire)?

I've got one, and it's a lovely thing

I'll get the nomenclature for you later today...

Marlin 39A rimfire 22

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If you’ve not Rich Texan’s with those at least once, I’ll be ever so disappointed!

What do you mean “firearm safety”?

I fight the urge every now and then Doc, but gravity is my greatest enemy. That and my fear of falling bullets hitting someone

About five years ago I bought a Colt SP1 at a gun show, decided I wasn't huge on it, and sold it to a friend. Fast forward to 2021 and I started getting into retro ARs, and eventually agreed with my buddy to buy it back from him at fair market price.

The bottom piece isn't actually a firearm, but a gas-powered airsoft rendition of an armory rebuild M16A1, which I augmented with a real upper receiver and surplus furniture. This particular brand is built as close to milspec as possible, so it's not an exaggeration to say it feels indistinguishable from the real thing until the lack of muzzle flash and quieter report give it away. Great fun for suburbia-friendly shooting practice and blasting wannabe tacticool operators at a local field.

Picked up my Python today. Just feels great in the hand.

I know it’s probs the wrong make and model? But I see that, and I hear “desist and leave the swimming area now, Mr!”

Gorgeous thing!

Loving the retro AR-15s too.

Here's a pic from a recent range outing:

Local store actually had something else I had been wanting for a while. A KP9. Pick it up on Sunday.

What is that coming out the back of the grip?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What is that coming out the back of the grip?

Looks like a California compliant grip, the state law set limits on what combinations of features a gun can have (pistol grip, detachable magazine etc) and a grip style like that doesn't count as a pistol grip since it has that triangle preventing you from fully grasping it.

I do like the KP9 and if I had the funds/space in the safe I'd totally pick one up.

Ah, that makes sense.

Yeah, its got dumb CA compliant stuff, but it at least doesn't look super dumb like some neutered guns. The 16" barrel is covered up by a fake suppressor and the folding stock is pinned so it cant fold. It also has a thumb rest/grip in the side of the fin grip so you can still hang on.

Yeah I’m pretty sure this is exactly where I keep my ignorance to myself!

Nope. Not even nod hopefully sagely and just sort of agree!

Though I’m still a bit bummed that NYC seemingly doesn’t have shooting ranges where Idiot Tourists can give guns a try. I was pretty good with an air rifle in my youth like.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Though I’m still a bit bummed that NYC seemingly doesn’t have shooting ranges where Idiot Tourists can give guns a try. I was pretty good with an air rifle in my youth like.

New York state is pretty restrictive on possession of firearms and NYC even moreso. You outright can't own a pistol in NY unless you get a permit approved by your local sheriff, and in NYC, you simply will not get approved unless you're law enforcement or politically well-connected. The big metropolitan cities tend to all be pretty similar in that regard, and often use zoning laws to keep gun shops and ranges out altogether.

If you want to go to a range as a tourist, you need to look more to suburban or rural areas. Like, Washington DC has no publicly available ranges and only a single 'shop' (one guy who works by appointment out of the DC police headquarters), but less than an hour's drive into Virginia there are a bunch of public ranges that rent stuff.

Got to shoot a variety of pistols owned by friends and colleagues.

Glock 19, Sig P320 and Canik Mete. They handle so much better than the issued Browning HP, it's unreal.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Got to shoot a variety of pistols owned by friends and colleagues.

Glock 19, Sig P320 and Canik Mete. They handle so much better than the issued Browning HP, it's unreal.

I've never handled one but the Hi-power is on the list of classic guns I want to own, so I'm curious - is it just the difference between polymer and steel framed pistols? Or is it an issue where service pistols are usually beat to heck and poorly maintained?

 ScarletRose wrote:
Or is it an issue where service pistols are usually beat to heck and poorly maintained?

This, for sure. I am sure if someone had brought their own HP, bought a few years ago, it would give me a new outlook on it.

If you go to a more red state you can probably find ranges that will rent to tourists. I went to one in Texas where they had straight up machine guns you could rent, you just had to buy their ammo to use in any of the range guns.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Got to shoot a variety of pistols owned by friends and colleagues.

Glock 19, Sig P320 and Canik Mete. They handle so much better than the issued Browning HP, it's unreal.

I've never handled one but the Hi-power is on the list of classic guns I want to own, so I'm curious - is it just the difference between polymer and steel framed pistols? Or is it an issue where service pistols are usually beat to heck and poorly maintained?

Me personally I find steel framed pistols to handle better. Nothing particularly wrong with polymer, I'm just not a big fan. But pistols are much more down to individual tastes, preference, and what fits good in your hand.

Rifles are a little more flexible "anybody can shoot this" than pistols. Less worry about someone being unable to handle the recoil.

If a rifle has more kick than someone can handle, it'll usually just knock them around abit. They're not gonna have the weapon fly out of their hand outside of extreme edge. Pistols on the other hand very much do have risk of it flying out of your hand if it's too big and/or they had a weak grip.

The Glock 19 was too small for my liking, but damn, it had the best trigger of the bunch by far.

Having perused a few pages I fell I should ask you all being more knowledgeable than I...

What is the difference between the pistol grip and traditional rifle grip?

Google doesn't offer me much. I have only ever used assault rifles, battle rifles and pistols with, well, pistol grips, for work. They seem inherently superior whenever I have thought about the ergonomics of that traditional stock grip. If they are superior, why so long to become ubiquitous? Are they more difficult to manufacture? Heavier? Something else I am missing?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Having perused a few pages I fell I should ask you all being more knowledgeable than I...

What is the difference between the pistol grip and traditional rifle grip?

Google doesn't offer me much. I have only ever used assault rifles, battle rifles and pistols with, well, pistol grips, for work. They seem inherently superior whenever I have thought about the ergonomics of that traditional stock grip. If they are superior, why so long to become ubiquitous? Are they more difficult to manufacture? Heavier? Something else I am missing?

A pistol grip is the common grip set-up you see on the AR-15 type weapons and you can hold it like a pistol and your finger easily finds the trigger, whereas a standard rifle grip would be what you have on a bolt-action type hunting rifle - no real grip at all, except you wrap your hand around the stock area to put your finger into the trigger spot. So, you are not wrong in your question as to why would there be an ergonomics question, except early rifles had a traditional grip and always will, but assault-type weapons developed the pistol-grip to facilitate single-hand use when needed and better ergonomics, but would be slightly more expensive to manufacture.

Bobthehero wrote:The Glock 19 was too small for my liking, but damn, it had the best trigger of the bunch by far.

That's... frightening. Not having a dig at you, but Glocks aren't particularly known for having great triggers.

Though I suppose if you're trying out compact pistols, safety in condition zero is generally prioritized over trigger pull quality.

The_Real_Chris wrote:Having perused a few pages I fell I should ask you all being more knowledgeable than I...

What is the difference between the pistol grip and traditional rifle grip?

Google doesn't offer me much. I have only ever used assault rifles, battle rifles and pistols with, well, pistol grips, for work. They seem inherently superior whenever I have thought about the ergonomics of that traditional stock grip. If they are superior, why so long to become ubiquitous? Are they more difficult to manufacture? Heavier? Something else I am missing?

It's a couple of things.

One is ergonomics. A traditional rifle stance has you stand bladed, or side-on to the target. This requires a pretty long length of pull (distance between your shoulder and the grip area), so a shallow grip angle like on a traditional rifle stock is comfortable. Modern combat shooting teaches a more squared stance, facing the target. This favors a shorter length of pull, which in turn requires a more vertical grip to avoid straining the wrist.

This is also part of why you see early transitions from rifle stocks to pistol grips on automatic weapons intended to fire from a bipod or tripod, where the ideal stance is squared up to the gun. One example would be the M14E2 variant of the M14 rifle.

Another aspect is that a traditional rifle stock has no protruding pistol grip to catch on things, dig into your back, or get caught in a slim rifle case. This is handy if you're going to hike with it slung for a distance, but is irrelevant to begin with for anything with a protruding magazine or magazine well.

Additionally, military doctrine historically emphasized a stance called port arms for carrying a rifle at the ready. This gives a solid grip on the neck of the stock and the forend and provides good control, and can be seamlessly brought to a shouldered stance for firing. With a pistol grip you have to adjust from the stock to the grip to fire, so nowadays it only really survives in ceremonial/drill contexts (example). Modern training has shifted towards low ready, which might be what you're more familiar with.

There are also technical aspects, like the Stoner internal-piston design on the AR-15/M16 family requiring a straight-line buffer tube. That outright prevents a traditional stock design, and the workarounds for legal compliance are peculiar, to say the least. Conversely, traditional hunting rifles need to drop the stock axis below the barrel axis to provide enough vertical distance between the cheek and eye for the shooter to align on the sights, so a conventional stock accomplishes that while providing a grip surface at the same time.

It really doesn't have anything to do with ease of manufacture or cost. Really, I'd hazard a guess that the reason you don't see the point of traditional stocks is because you've trained in the use of techniques that overwhelmingly favor pistol grips. Someone who's shot hunting or match rifles their whole life may have the complete opposite impression.

 catbarf wrote:

Bobthehero wrote:The Glock 19 was too small for my liking, but damn, it had the best trigger of the bunch by far.

That's... frightening. Not having a dig at you, but Glocks aren't particularly known for having great triggers.

Though I suppose if you're trying out compact pistols, safety in condition zero is generally prioritized over trigger pull quality.

Which is funny because I just do not like the utter lack of safeties on Glocks in condition zero. I don't really consider the trigger safety a good safety.

Something which locks the firing mechanism in some fashion is much better IMO, especially if you are drawing the weapon under duress. I'd be worried about pulling the glock's trigger before full removal from its holster. I don't wanna emulate all the gangsters that pump a round into their nethers while drawing their gat.

Glocks are okayish guns. They do everything adequately, but I can't really think of anything they do spectacularly. The one thing I always roll my eyes at are the Gucci Glocks. Some modding is fine, but I've seen people throw $1500+ in add-ons onto a Glock, and that's silly.

Why have I bought Glocks? They do function reliably. Everyone knows how they work. You can find parts everywhere, and for cheap. Aftermarket support is extensive. High-capacity mags are readily available and will be for years.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Something which locks the firing mechanism in some fashion is much better IMO

Strictly speaking, Glocks do have a number of internal safeties that accomplish that. The striker is not tensioned until the trigger is pulled, and there is a firing pin block that prevents it from contacting the primer until the trigger is pulled. Plus the trigger safety as you noted. What they don't have is a safety that will allow you to pull the trigger without shooting, but the predominant school of thought nowadays is that old-fashioned manual safeties can be slow to operate under duress and so are not particularly desirable for a carry gun.

Preventing a nasty case of Glock Leg comes down to holster design and trigger discipline more than anything else. The old SERPA holsters were really bad about it, because you had to push your finger into a release positioned pretty much right over the trigger, so as the pistol came out if you were still applying tension with your index finger, bang. Leather 'pancake' holsters and pocket holsters are also typically poor at isolating the trigger. With more modern designs (thumb-release active retention like Safariland's ALS/SLS, or passive retention with kydex) there's no chance of the trigger getting pulled in the holster, and you can keep your index finger parallel to the bore as you draw.

YMMV. I'm more a fan of SA/DA designs with decockers. Similar simplicity of bringing into action, heavier initial pull to reduce likelihood of an ND, better trigger once it switches into SA.

Finally got out to the range.

The KP9 is butter smooth to shoot. The triangle stock isn't very comfortable, but with 9mm you dont get it jabbing into your shoulder like a full size AK would, so it works out.

This informative thread is going too low for my liking. And in my near constant state as well meaning, knowingly uninformed idiot…..

Who first discovered recoil?

How long, given multiple round guns were a fairly long time coming, until it mattered.

Who was the first gun manufacturer to at least trying to compensate for it in any gun capable of firing a single round at a time?

Recoil exists in ALL ranged weapons, not just guns. Bows have recoil, crossbows have recoil, etc... Though bows it is transmitted through the hand holding the bow and not into the shoulder. Its why crossbows sometimes had at least a nominally ergonomic buttstock.

Small handheld firearms at least at first were braced against your midsection and not shouldered, so they didn't have stocks but the concept existed prior with crossbows and it was simply a logical extension to mount these guns in crossbow-like stocks.

Recoil was also a big thing when it came to siege weaponry. Catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, etc... The concept that these things kick has been known since the bronze age, and you have to design the weapon to withstand it, and guns were just the latest in the lines of stuff that kicks and you need to compensate for. The earliest firearms were really miniature cannons, hence the term Hand Cannon, and were used as such. You'd have a group of dudes with hand cannons, or hand mortars, who were aiming at general locations and bombarding them with shot more than shooting at individual targets.

Anybody who has shot a true medieval or a modern hunting crossbow can attest that they kick as much as any rifle.

Putting some padding on a buttstock to protect your shoulder or chest almost certainly predates the existence of guns.

Recoil was actually a significant factor on black powder weaponry ever since its introduction. On an arquebus or musket, there's a noticeable delay between when the pan ignites and the main charge goes, and then another delay for the powder to deflagrate and propel the ball out the barrel. Flash-boom-hit. Soldiers were historically trained to tuck their arms and aim low- when aiming was trained- because even a single-shot black powder firearm will start to rise before the ball even leaves the barrel, and hit high. It's also generally unpleasant to shoot without a stable firing platform and some means to handle recoil, and you really don't want soldiers losing their footing when standing in dense formation holding matches lit at both ends while everyone's carrying loose powder.

Also, if you look at drawings of musketeers from the Thirty Years War ('musket' at that time denoted a heavy, high-caliber smoothbore weapon fired from a forked rest, in contrast to the lighter, handier, shoulder-fired arquebus), there are some pretty exaggerated stances to compensate for the recoil of their higher-powered weapons. Here's an illustration showing what I mean.

So, tl;dr, recoil's been a factor in firearm design right from the start.

Cheers folks

Next hopeful conversation starter?

What do you consider to be the best value shooter?

Could be cheap a cheerful. Could be mid-price, could be well expensive. I’ll let you decide your own definition of value here.

Just include the Why