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 really like my Alien Gear holster.

Col. Dash wrote:
OK looking for a pistol for concealed carry. Down to two options. Both are roughly similar in price. Both are 9mm and are roughly the same size class.
Sig P320 9mm or a Glock 19 gen4 in 9mm. Anyone know any pros or cons of either?

I gave away my Glock 19 when I got my Glock 26. The 19 was too big for comfortable conceal carry on my frame.

Some folks do not like the lack of external safety on Glocks (my wife for example loves the way my 26 shoots, but refuses to carry a gun without an external safety, so we got her a Kimber Solo Carry).

I'm not familiar with the SIG. I like the G19, it shot well, but I like my 26 a LOT more, and at the ranges I would need it if stuff goes sideways, it is as accurate as the 19.

A full size is usually too large for concealed carry. Look for a compact.

I'm a rather large guy, and even I don't concealed carry with a full size (usually). From April through early November my gun of choice is a Taurus 709 Slim. Why? Well, it's reliable, has an external (yet easily accessible) safety, and it is so small I can stick it in the pocket of my shorts without printing. I use a pocket holster only. I like just wearing a t-shirt and shorts while still having it handy. As an added bonus, it's cheap enough that if I bang it around it doesn't bother me too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question of the day, At what point does having "accessories" on your firearm go from useful to just plain tacky? Personally I think that you are allowed fewer items on wood-furniture rifles than you are polymer ones. That's especially true for older-style weapons. I saw someone with red dot on a 30-30 Henry rifle.....and it just seemed like sacrilege.

Col. Dash wrote:
OK looking for a pistol for concealed carry. Down to two options. Both are roughly similar in price. Both are 9mm and are roughly the same size class.
Sig P320 9mm or a Glock 19 gen4 in 9mm. Anyone know any pros or cons of either?

Being a Glock owner (G19 and G26) and having shot the Sig, I'd definitely suggest the Sig 320. Much nicer trigger, reset allows you to dry fire practice, and it's modular.

Then again, I'd look into smaller pistols for CC. Give some serious thought to a Gen 4 G26 (smaller than the sub Sig and with a nice Connector like a Ghost Rocket the trigger is pretty good) and the S&W Shield 9 (with or without Apex trigger). The Shield 9 is by far my favorite every day carry piece.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Question of the day, At what point does having "accessories" on your firearm go from useful to just plain tacky? Personally I think that you are allowed fewer items on wood-furniture rifles than you are polymer ones. That's especially true for older-style weapons. I saw someone with red dot on a 30-30 Henry rifle.....and it just seemed like sacrilege.

Personally I usually limit it to 2 items, 3 at the top. I think on something like an AR, a red-dot, flashlight, and maybe a foregrip is reasonable, but probably not much more than that, especially if you don't have a regular dedicated usage for it. A long range gun may get a bipod and a scope, a PCC may get a foregrip and red dot, etc.

Most of my guns just have optics and that's it. I don't think I have a single weapon with more than 2 accessories.

Wood furniture definitely tends to look far more ridiculous with accessories, but red dots I think always work, even if they look wonky. The utility overmatches any goofiness if they're being used for shooting where any sort of stress/duress is expected (be it self defense, competition, hunting, etc.)

Even AR's can be subject to the "too much crap" syndrome. I saw a guy show off his rig: Quad-rail, scope, red dot on 45 degree side mount to left of scope, iron sights on 45 degree mount to the right of scope, magwell grip, forwar pistol grip, muzzle brake, laser sight, flashlight (has to be a C-cell sized light), bipod, and slide-fire stock.

I wondered if he had enough rail space left to mount training wheels to roll it around.

Quad rails are so 5 years ago

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even AR's can be subject to the "too much crap" syndrome. I saw a guy show off his rig: Quad-rail, scope, red dot on 45 degree side mount to left of scope, iron sights on 45 degree mount to the right of scope, magwell grip, forwar pistol grip, muzzle brake, laser sight, flashlight (has to be a C-cell sized light), bipod, and slide-fire stock.

I wondered if he had enough rail space left to mount training wheels to roll it around.

Haha, oh those silly Tactibros and Mall Ninjas...

Yeah I just laugh at the Tacticool guys. My 300BLK just has red dot, flip up iron sights, adjustable stock and foregrip.

It is a heavy beast. The 13" quadrail was a bad choice in hindsight but whatever. I love it.

I have been debating for years about putting an optic/glass on my M1A Scout, but may just leave it stock. I am very comfortable with iron sights now after special training.

I bought my Mossberg MMR with a quadrail. Personally, I wanted a forward pistol grip, and I liked that it had a free-floating barrel and adjustable stock standard. Other than that the only thing I've put on it are a single point sling mount and so latter style rail covers.


Something for the gun guys to consider. I just purchased a See All open sight. This thing is AWESOME. It's like a red dot and an iron sight had a lovechild. It combines the best aspects of both into a cheap package that is tough and does not require batteries. I highly recommend it.

I got the barrel for my .300 BLK build in the mail on Friday and it's beautiful. Since I just got the second half of the payment from a commission I finished so now I have $700 with which to finish the rifle. I need the BCG, charging handle, handguard, gas system, and muzzle device.

I really can't wait until I'm done building this rifle!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I got the barrel for my .300 BLK build in the mail on Friday and it's beautiful. Since I just got the second half of the payment from a commission I finished so now I have $700 with which to finish the rifle. I need the BCG, charging handle, handguard, gas system, and muzzle device.

I really can't wait until I'm done building this rifle!

That's going to be a fun shooter . I finished my 6.8 spc early last year and have wanted to start working on another AR since. Soooo, I bought a Spikes Honey Badger lower a couple months ago and bought a Larue Tactical stealth upper. Sadly I really have no idea how long its going to be before I see my Larue upper so I am half tempted to buy a 300 blk barrel for my extra stripped upper. Where did you get your barrel from? I'm thinking about getting a BCM barrel myself. I really don't need anything super fancy since the 300 blk will be a "just for fun" rifle. The Larue upper will be on it most of the time.

These questions about a particular gun cropped up on another thread, and because I didn't want to drag it OT, and because other dakka members have better gun knowledge than myself, I thought I would ask these questions here:

Pistols from the Napoleonic war/blackpowder era :

What's the average number of shots a trained soldier could fire per minute with a pistol? (assume dry, perfect conditions).

Same question, but with the soldier on horseback. Any difference? Again, assume dry, perfect conditions, and assume horse is stationary.

Did black powder pistols have a rifled barrel?

Thanks for any replies.

This seems to be more of a history question.

At the time of the Napoleonic era, weapons were not exactly being advanced as quickly as today. The British Brown Bess musket for example was in use for over 115 years.

Rifled pistols in Napoleon's time did exist, but were not as common as older, cruder designs. The common pistol back then was still smooth bore.

As for your rate of fire question, that actually has two answers. Assuming you start with one shot loaded, a soldier with a smooth bore could put off 3 rounds in a minute if they were decent, 4 if good. If you had a rifled pistol, then things were a little slower. By necessity rifled guns had MUCH tighter tolerances. That means the bullet was the same diameter as the interior of the barrel, so the rifling would work. This extra friction slowed reloading times. My best guess, 2 or 3 shots per minute.

I doubt you could reload while on horseback. Not if the horse was moving anyways.

I don't know much about reloading black powder weapons, but I do have a bit of time in a saddle.

yellowfever wrote:
This seems to be more of a history question.

Yes and no IMO. Ultimately, it's for the mods to decide, but obviously, this is a gun discussion thread, and there are a few blackpowder enthusiasts on this forum, so I thought it would be appropriate to ask here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I doubt you could reload while on horseback. Not if the horse was moving anyways.

I don't know much about reloading black powder weapons, but I do have a bit of time in a saddle.

I've been checking some historical sources, and it's not easy, even if the horse was stationary, as you need one hand on the reigns. Once the pistols had been fired, they were sometimes used as clubs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
At the time of the Napoleonic era, weapons were not exactly being advanced as quickly as today. The British Brown Bess musket for example was in use for over 115 years.

Rifled pistols in Napoleon's time did exist, but were not as common as older, cruder designs. The common pistol back then was still smooth bore.

As for your rate of fire question, that actually has two answers. Assuming you start with one shot loaded, a soldier with a smooth bore could put off 3 rounds in a minute if they were decent, 4 if good. If you had a rifled pistol, then things were a little slower. By necessity rifled guns had MUCH tighter tolerances. That means the bullet was the same diameter as the interior of the barrel, so the rifling would work. This extra friction slowed reloading times. My best guess, 2 or 3 shots per minute.

Thanks for that detail. Is it not the case that because of the rifled barrelling, gunpowder would get clogged up in a pistol or rifled musket, and thus increase the chances of an explosion or accident with the barrel?

 Ruberu wrote:
Where did you get your barrel from?

It's a YHM 16" fluted barrel and I got it from Cheaper Than Dirt.

There are certainly cheaper options out there but I went with a mid-range priced barrel because I had the money in the build for it. I've used other YHM stuff in the past and have always been happy with them. Also, it looked cool, so there's that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[

Thanks for that detail. Is it not the case that because of the rifled barrelling, gunpowder would get clogged up in a pistol or rifled musket, and thus increase the chances of an explosion or accident with the barrel?

Well..... yes and no. Gunpowder quality and consistency were a little spotty back then. Sometimes guys were to make their own in the field (yes, there is a way to do it, and it involved peeing into the mix over an open fire).

As long as your weapon was using a decent quality gunpowder, it was crafted correctly, and it was maintained correctly, the chances of it exploding during a single battle are extremely low. However, if the weapon was abused and neglected, allowed to have build-up, was crafted poorly, and you were using some low-grade gunpowder, your chances of a catastrophic failure does rise significantly. However, it was still fairly uncommon for any army because they had inspections of firearms. If this was a quickly made militia using personal arms I could see at least one idiot bringing an old POS.

Did anyone ever see that old Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman movie "Far and Away"? That's the kind of abuse a gun would need for that kind of failure.

Speaking of black powder rifles, anyone every build those self assembly kits? I've towed around the idea for a couple years on getting one but I don't want to spend a few hundred bucks and find out they are junk or worse.

 KingCracker wrote:
Speaking of black powder rifles, anyone every build those self assembly kits? I've towed around the idea for a couple years on getting one but I don't want to spend a few hundred bucks and find out they are junk or worse.

I built one a couple of years ago. Percussion cap kentucky rifle. Super accurate even with round balls. Highly recommended.

Don't own fire arms, but do own a 20yrs old composite bow. Rusty as hell, and not very useful if someone broke into the house. Not sure a handgun would be anymore useful, nor a rifle. I'd end up shooting holes in the walls at shadows or killing a family member half-sleep in the middle of the night.


---insert catchy signature here....

heybiff wrote:
Don't own fire arms, but do own a 20yrs old composite bow. Rusty as hell, and not very useful if someone broke into the house. Not sure a handgun would be anymore useful, nor a rifle. I'd end up shooting holes in the walls at shadows or killing a family member half-sleep in the middle of the night.


---insert catchy signature here....

Much of that fear can be helped with training, but some people simply aren't cut out for the responsibilities involved with firearm ownership.

heybiff wrote:
Don't own fire arms, but do own a 20yrs old composite bow. Rusty as hell, and not very useful if someone broke into the house. Not sure a handgun would be anymore useful, nor a rifle. I'd end up shooting holes in the walls at shadows or killing a family member half-sleep in the middle of the night.


---insert catchy signature here....

As Nostrodamus said, training gets you over that. Adrenaline from such situations will always be a huge factor, but you mitigate it by training. The more comfortable you make yourself with a firearm, the less likely you are to screw things up if you have to use it.

As for that bow, I'd probably get it checked out by a professional before you tried to use it for anything. An ill-kept bow could very easily lead to self injury.

heybiff wrote:
Don't own fire arms, but do own a 20yrs old composite bow. Rusty as hell, and not very useful if someone broke into the house. Not sure a handgun would be anymore useful, nor a rifle. I'd end up shooting holes in the walls at shadows or killing a family member half-sleep in the middle of the night.


---insert catchy signature here....

Why pollute this topic with this crap?

Indeed, if your post had been to show off a bow well while it wouldn't have been quite on topic I may have let it slide. As it is, please don't bring that into this thread. Just wait for the next gun thread to pop up in the OT at large. Thanks

I own a TC firestorm flintlock and really enjoy deer hunting with it. Harvested a pretty nice buck a few years ago with the flintlock during PA traditional flintlock season. Use to have to shoot ball n patch but PA changed that about 12 years ago so now we can use conicals

I had a friend that moved with his family from upstate New York to Iowa right after he graduated high school. He was into hunting in New York, and wanted to continue in Iowa.

He got a little disappointed when he learned we can't use rifles to hunt deer here. So, after some re-training with a shotgun I took him out. He was very proud of his kill, but the rest of us were a little shocked. From our perspective he had killed a juvenile buck, barely 2/3 grown. He thought it was decent sized.

I guess the Midwest is just more conductive to growing large deer.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I had a friend that moved with his family from upstate New York to Iowa right after he graduated high school. He was into hunting in New York, and wanted to continue in Iowa.

He got a little disappointed when he learned we can't use rifles to hunt deer here. So, after some re-training with a shotgun I took him out. He was very proud of his kill, but the rest of us were a little shocked. From our perspective he had killed a juvenile buck, barely 2/3 grown. He thought it was decent sized.

I guess the Midwest is just more conductive to growing large deer.

Yeah you guys have us beat when it comes to trophy bucks. We have had antler restrictions here in PA for about 15 years and larger bucks have been killed overall but we just don't have the gene pool. Cross the boarder into Ohio and it's a different story... Just look at the number of PY bucks or BC bucks trophy killed in each state and compare

 cuda1179 wrote:


I guess the Midwest is just more conductive to growing large deer.

This is true. In Louisiana and Texas, the deer are much smaller than what I am seeing in IL and WI.