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.

Right, blued the trigger guard and the barrel. I trained in making marks and filing as symmetrically as possible on that trigger guard, hence why I went for.... Hm. Artistic cuts into it. But should I only want to make it on the next rifle sleeker, than that would be piece of cake now.

Besides, I painted the front sight, after filing it into a new form because I discovered it was lead and it started melting when I tried to solder it into place... I'll secure it using two parts epoxy glue, worked perfectly on my Mosin nagant no reason that should not work on this tiny 22 rifle!

Mod edit - please do NOT attach non-wargaming images to your posts. Off-site hosting is fine, but I repeat, please do not attach non-wargaming images to your posts using the attachments system.

Just watching some CSI, and they’ve test fired a small revolver.

As ever I’ve no idea what it would be called, but that’s not my question.

Instead, it’s tiny, holdout design has me wondering what folks consider to be the smallest, practical firearm. And of course why.

Our British "friends" (Major Hugh Reeves)developed the coolest piece of tiny firearm tech: The Welrod.

Used by the OSS, the CIA, the SAS... from World War II to the Gulf War in 1991... this suppressed pistol was the quiet weapon used by Western Allies during the Cold War.

Depends on what you mean by "practical"

Do you just mean the smallest firearm that technically functions, and is just a neat thing, or do you mean the smallest firearm that you would consider useful for what firearms are useful for besides "being cool".


There is an assortment of 2mm Pinfire guns, as well as this thing







which would fall into the first category of neat but useless outside of parlor tricks. I would be shocked if these were lethal to anything larger than a kitten, air guns will be more powerful.

Definitely the latter. As in something you might keep about your house or person in case of self defence. But not necessarily to kill. Though I guess a chunk of that depends on where the bullet(s) end up exactly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Definitely the latter. As in something you might keep about your house or person in case of self defence. But not necessarily to kill. Though I guess a chunk of that depends on where the bullet(s) end up exactly.

I can't imagine keeping a gun for self defense that was not going to kill. You can get tasers or pepper spray, or even an ax handle, if you are looking for less than lethal choices.

 CptJake wrote:


I can't imagine keeping a gun for self defense that was not going to kill. You can get tasers or pepper spray, or even an ax handle, if you are looking for less than lethal choices.

I agree with most of this but then was baffled how an axe handle was 'less' lethal (my great grandfather was charged for beating a rapist to death with one) then I remember that people can come in 'small'.

I’m thinking more along the lines of intimidation, and not necessarily wanting to take a life.

Not going further there, and certainly not going for moral absolutes.

But I’m guessing where a situation involves guns being drawn, at least part of the hoped resolution is the aggressors thinks twice and legs it. The old “that’s not a knife” scenario. But with guns, and definitely not spoons.

We used axe handles in our reenactment society as safe sword replacements for sparring. Using an axe handle doesn’t require the target to be seriously injured or killed. It would have been much harder to do the same thing with guns.

My uncle used to have a single-shot .410 pistol in his truck for anti-snake duty. I think that with buckshot it would be okay for self defense.

Realistically though, I wouldn't depend on anything with less than 4 shots, and less than a .380 auto.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m thinking more along the lines of intimidation, and not necessarily wanting to take a life.

In the US, drawing with intent to intimidate is called brandishing and is a crime, usually charged along with assault. You don't de-escalate a confrontation by escalating it to lethal force.

For self-defense 9mm is the common standard so the smallest practical handguns in that caliber are something like the Sig P238. Snubnose revolvers in .38Spl or semi-autos in .32ACP or .380ACP can get a bit smaller.

In the south, the go to home defense weapon is the 20 Guage pump action Shotgun.

Racking it has a unique sound, that has deterred intruders for a very long time.

 Flinty wrote:
We used axe handles in our reenactment society as safe sword replacements for sparring. Using an axe handle doesn’t require the target to be seriously injured or killed. It would have been much harder to do the same thing with guns.

Which is funny, since in my reenactment society, we use guns.

Fair point well made. I’ll go back to lurking

I actually still have my deployment Tomahawk made by Gerber. Excellent for dislodging pesky eye/hook &/or dead locks from doors. Been a few "Here Johnny" moments.


As for home self-defense. 10mm Kimber. Easy patchwork on drywall and less blood to clean up unlike a trench sweeper.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m thinking more along the lines of intimidation, and not necessarily wanting to take a life.

Not going further there, and certainly not going for moral absolutes.

But I’m guessing where a situation involves guns being drawn, at least part of the hoped resolution is the aggressors thinks twice and legs it. The old “that’s not a knife” scenario. But with guns, and definitely not spoons.

I absolutely have zero desire to take another's life. I don't want to shoot anything but inanimate objects for training and practice. Having said that, in the extremely unfortunate situation that I have to defend myself with a firearm, I want one that will be the most effective. I carry a firearm everyday, andI I hope I never have to use it against another individual.

William


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m thinking more along the lines of intimidation, and not necessarily wanting to take a life.

Not going further there, and certainly not going for moral absolutes.

But I’m guessing where a situation involves guns being drawn, at least part of the hoped resolution is the aggressors thinks twice and legs it. The old “that’s not a knife” scenario. But with guns, and definitely not spoons.

Take this with a grain of salt due to it's original source. I took a class in order to obtain a license to carry a gun and the instructor advised us to never use our gun to try to intimidate. He instructed us that in a self defense situation, draw the weapon and shoot. He advised no actions in between. His reasoning for this was that any actions taken after drawing the gun other than firing represented a pause and showed that you weren't in immediate danger and also that you escalated the situation by introducing a gun when you may not have had to. I advised taking it with a grain of salt because the instructed also sold legal insurance in case you needed to use a firearm. I personally advise, use your own best judgement for what is right for you and your situation.

William

Gardensnake wrote:
Take this with a grain of salt due to it's original source. I took a class in order to obtain a license to carry a gun and the instructor advised us to never use our gun to try to intimidate. He instructed us that in a self defense situation, draw the weapon and shoot. He advised no actions in between. His reasoning for this was that any actions taken after drawing the gun other than firing represented a pause and showed that you weren't in immediate danger and also that you escalated the situation by introducing a gun when you may not have had to. I advised taking it with a grain of salt because the instructed also sold legal insurance in case you needed to use a firearm. I personally advise, use your own best judgement for what is right for you and your situation.

I steer clear of what is presented over here as a legal morass of gun, self defence and similar laws in the US and would never comment on it one way or the other. Saying that I have seen a fair few commentators talk about it being a binary situation, the gun is safe and away or you have to kill the target. Anything else is potentially legally far worse for you.

Also for greater context, I’m here as an outsider. I don’t know much about guns, and don’t feel the need to own one etc.

But, I am interested in understanding the other side of the fence. Hence many of my questions are coming from well meaning naivety, and not angling for argument fuel

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also for greater context, I’m here as an outsider. I don’t know much about guns, and don’t feel the need to own one etc.

But, I am interested in understanding the other side of the fence. Hence many of my questions are coming from well meaning naivety, and not angling for argument fuel

I always see your questions as just curiosity, not pot stirring.

 catbarf wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m thinking more along the lines of intimidation, and not necessarily wanting to take a life.

In the US, drawing with intent to intimidate is called brandishing and is a crime, usually charged along with assault. You don't de-escalate a confrontation by escalating it to lethal force.

For self-defense 9mm is the common standard so the smallest practical handguns in that caliber are something like the Sig P238. Snubnose revolvers in .38Spl or semi-autos in .32ACP or .380ACP can get a bit smaller.

Yeah. Basically the "proper way" to do self-defense is you go from 0-100.

That does make sense. You can tell I watch a lot of cop shows and silly actions films!

I think I've mentioned this before, but "technically" in most places it's actually MORE illegal to try not to kill someone in a self-defense situation.

Using a firearm is always considered "use of deadly force" even if you don't mean it to be deadly. Here's the kicker though: If you shoot to wound (not to kill) it is you admitting that deadly force wasn't really needed, despite using (by definition) deadly force.

Ski-masked stranger with knife rushes you and you pop them in the forehead, it's totally justified. Intentionally shoot them in the leg as to not kill them, assault with a deadly weapon (although likely not charged).

Its why "Just shoot them in the leg" from the bleeding heart types is bad. You're just making yourself liable for their injuries.

Always makes me sad when “yeah you should just kill them” becomes the default position :(

Not sure I agree with it, but I can see how that precedent came about.

Only takes one wily lawyer after all. Akin to warning labels like “Warning, Contains Nuts” on peanuts.

Though it is worth noting that in terms of UK Car Insurance, it’s cheaper to compensate a family for a deceased loved one, than it is to compensate someone crippled for life. Not even close to being the same thing of course, but a similar principle, I guess. You kill someone and…it’s kinda done in terms of impact. You cripple or maim someone for life? That’s an ongoing impact.

As I said though, not exactly agreeing, but understanding where such a principle or precedent might arise.

 Flinty wrote:
Always makes me sad when “yeah you should just kill them” becomes the default position :(

I stop being sad when someone breaks into my house and puts my wife and children in danger. In fact, I think I'm pretty much gleeful to pull the trigger in that instance.

Flinty wrote:Always makes me sad when “yeah you should just kill them” becomes the default position :(

The precedent under US law isn't 'you should just kill any aggressor as a default'. It's 'unless potentially killing someone is justified, don't use a gun.'

You don't pull out a gun to intimidate, you don't shoot in the air to show you're super serious, you don't shoot him in the leg or shoulder because you want him to go away. A gun is not a compliance tool; going for trick shots to deliberately maim is a gross misuse of lethal force and a de facto admission that you were not in fear for your life.

You employ lethal force if it is the only reasonable option to avoid imminent injury or death. At that point you are shooting to stop the threat and no further, as executing an injured and no longer threatening assailant is murder and immediately invalidates any claim of self-defense. It isn't about lawyers or liability or insurance compensation, it's about only using lethal force in situations where it is truly justified and only to the degree necessary to defend oneself or one's family.

 catbarf wrote:


The precedent under US law isn't 'you should just kill any aggressor as a default'. It's 'unless potentially killing someone is justified, don't use a gun.'

You don't pull out a gun to intimidate, you don't shoot in the air to show you're super serious, you don't shoot him in the leg or shoulder because you want him to go away. A gun is not a compliance tool; going for trick shots to deliberately maim is a gross misuse of lethal force and a de facto admission that you were not in fear for your life.

You employ lethal force if it is the only reasonable option to avoid imminent injury or death. At that point you are shooting to stop the threat and no further, as executing an injured and no longer threatening assailant is murder and immediately invalidates any claim of self-defense. It isn't about lawyers or liability or insurance compensation, it's about only using lethal force in situations where it is truly justified and only to the degree necessary to defend oneself or one's family.

Eh, it's like that duty to retreat bs. I've seen instances where the family retreated upstairs, and so the guys breaking in burn the house down with everyone in it. Until they actually light the place up, you/re not allowed to shoot them, but once they have, it's too fething late.

Castle Doctrine

 Jihadin wrote:
Castle Doctrine

One of my big gripes is the total misunderstanding of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. Case in point the Marrissa Alexander case, who NEVER should have been able to use SYG for about half a dozen reasons.