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.

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.

Cheers dudes

 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.

Forgive my ignorance, what is "limp wristing"

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, what is "limp wristing"

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.

Ahh, that makes sense. So the wielder’s stance holding the gun steady gives the recoil only one place to go, yeah?

 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.

Here is a slomo video of limp wristing.

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

I’m guessing this is another issue for scenes of dual wielding in movies?

It's not about whether the handgun is held one-handed or two-handed. It's about whether it's held firmly or loosely.

 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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Slowroll wrote:


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.

Completely random poser! From an idiot with no frame of reference!

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.

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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.