Firearms and other Weapons

Past and present. You can't make this stuff up.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by noddy »

too many variables..

are they blowins or are they locals, the chances of an ugly long term escalation are much more real with the latter, how comfy would you feel knowing they are waiting for payback.

are they amped up on speed and lacking in any type of humanity or are they drunk and useless, or just poor and starving.. these are line calls you make instinctively in the moment and dont translate well to the chattering class which will focus on them being young and pretty or old and ugly with little regards for those much more pertinent realities.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Marcus »

noddy wrote:. . are they amped up on speed and lacking in any type of humanity . .
Years ago, I used to shoot for fun every fall with a bunch of Detroit cops, deer hunters who came up every season to an old farmhouse owned by one of them across the road from where we lived. In the evenings, we used to just tack up man-silhouettes on a tree and see who could pump in the most rounds the quickest, all aimed at the heart area of the target. On one of the last years, Bill told me the rules have changed—no more "all in the chest" shots. Now it is two in the chest, one in the head with the logic being that if the guy's still on his feet after two rounds to the chest, he's either wearing a flak jack or he's hopped up on dope.

Personally, if the guy's in my house after dark, he needs to do exactly what I say as soon as I say it. Not going to wait.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cdgt »

I don't consider a TV valuable property.

I have a dog, and I don't see how, if I'm home, I'm not already aware of the guy's approach before he even gets inside my house. Unless its a military precision invasion, at which point, I'm probably unable to get armed and probably toast anyway. Military precision invasions seem incongruent with TV theft, I might add.

The only property approaching any real value in my home would be my guns, and if he had some of those in his possession, that would be unhealthy for one of us, pretty quick.

Anyone seriously worried about such a scenario should probably own a dog ... or three. Dull, not very Walter Mitty-ish, but there it is.

This happens to be on Drudge tonight: Pit Bull Shot In The Head Trying To Protect Owner, But Miraculously Survives
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Ibrahim »

cincinnatus wrote:I'd take a position with partial cover, aim, and give him the chance. I wouldn't yell to shock him. I'd calmly say, you have a .45 Long Colt aimed center mass. Step back, turn to the right, and place the TV on the ground. Then, stand up with your hands in the air with palms pointed at the ceiling. I will not shoot if you follow these instructions. If he kept going, I'd simply follow with the gun on him to maintain ID and hopefully get specifics on his vehicle (this assumes wife on cell phone talking to 911 the moment we hear the sound that alerted us). Edit: this assumes I haven't lavender myself and loaded the gun with batteries.
Sounds reasonable to me.

regardless of your flipant remark (the "random passer on the street" hasn't displayed breaking and entering through an electronic alarm skill set, so leave the strawman outside please).


Hey you can walk past some twitchy folks in the big city. I live in a small city these days.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Ibrahim »

cdgt wrote:I don't consider a TV valuable property.

I have a dog, and I don't see how, if I'm home, I'm not already aware of the guy's approach before he even gets inside my house. Unless its a military precision invasion, at which point, I'm probably unable to get armed and probably toast anyway. Military precision invasions seem incongruent with TV theft, I might add.

The only property approaching any real value in my home would be my guns, and if he had some of those in his possession, that would be unhealthy for one of us, pretty quick.

Anyone seriously worried about such a scenario should probably own a dog ... or three. Dull, not very Walter Mitty-ish, but there it is.

This happens to be on Drudge tonight: Pit Bull Shot In The Head Trying To Protect Owner, But Miraculously Survives
Dogs are great.

My question was more philosophical though. Killing for whatever property you deemed most valuable to you, monetarily or sentimentally.
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cdgt »

Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:I don't consider a TV valuable property.

I have a dog, and I don't see how, if I'm home, I'm not already aware of the guy's approach before he even gets inside my house. Unless its a military precision invasion, at which point, I'm probably unable to get armed and probably toast anyway. Military precision invasions seem incongruent with TV theft, I might add.

The only property approaching any real value in my home would be my guns, and if he had some of those in his possession, that would be unhealthy for one of us, pretty quick.

Anyone seriously worried about such a scenario should probably own a dog ... or three. Dull, not very Walter Mitty-ish, but there it is.

This happens to be on Drudge tonight: Pit Bull Shot In The Head Trying To Protect Owner, But Miraculously Survives
Dogs are great.

My question was more philosophical though. Killing for whatever property you deemed most valuable to you, monetarily or sentimentally.
People, not property. Unless that property in question can directly threaten the people, i.e., guns. And not because of the value of the guns, mine are pretty utilitarian, I view them as tools, not art objects. Picking up one of my kitchen knives would also be an unhealthy act, if I were in a position to respond, for the same reason.

Killing is serious business, and personal property ... isn't.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Ibrahim wrote:How many of you guys would shoot a burglar? Not some maniac coming at you, but a guy trying to get your TV out the window.

Just curious.
The answer is absolutely no. And anybody thinking about it here, the answer has to be no.

Put aside the moral and even legal dimensions, the reality is if you shoot someone in self defense you will may lose your job, get divorced, go bankrupt and may have to move a different state. And if the circumstances are right you could cause a national firestorm and have a bounty put on your head.

When I began firearms training the very first class stressed for no other reason don't shoot anyone because it could very well destroy your life. I should have all the supporting evidence that was presented but have never got around to collecting it, but unless say someone is bouncing your head off of cement then you really want to avoid shooting people.

Most self defense doctrine these days is always let the guy go. Pull your gun, light him up with a dot, tell him to drop his stuff and leave, then call the cops.

You should of course never ever shoot anyone that you have not positively identified. There is a famous case of a dude shooting his fiance on accident in his house, mistaking her for an intruder. Another case I came across recently a dude killed someone coming into his hotel room, the guy was a hotel patron given the wrong room key mistakenly. I think both cases can be googled and I think both were not charged with a crime (don't remember). I can't agree with that.

But my recommendation is if there is someone in your house let 'em go, let the cops catch 'em.
Censorship isn't necessary
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Demon of Undoing »

I have a fairly smart pit that appears to be a pacifist. He barks like a Great Dane, but unless you have either a broom or a hose ( he hates both, we think he was abused as a puppy), he will eventually remember that he had something better to do, and bark from behind cover.

It's pretty uninspiring to watch. He gives the breed a bad name. That's why he's " Buddy", and not " Felony" or " Butch".
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:How many of you guys would shoot a burglar? Not some maniac coming at you, but a guy trying to get your TV out the window.

Just curious.
The answer is absolutely no. And anybody thinking about it here, the answer has to be no.

Put aside the moral and even legal dimensions, the reality is if you shoot someone in self defense you will may lose your job, get divorced, go bankrupt and may have to move a different state. And if the circumstances are right you could cause a national firestorm and have a bounty put on your head.

When I began firearms training the very first class stressed for no other reason don't shoot anyone because it could very well destroy your life. I should have all the supporting evidence that was presented but have never got around to collecting it, but unless say someone is bouncing your head off of cement then you really want to avoid shooting people.

Most self defense doctrine these days is always let the guy go. Pull your gun, light him up with a dot, tell him to drop his stuff and leave, then call the cops.

You should of course never ever shoot anyone that you have not positively identified. There is a famous case of a dude shooting his fiance on accident in his house, mistaking her for an intruder. Another case I came across recently a dude killed someone coming into his hotel room, the guy was a hotel patron given the wrong room key mistakenly. I think both cases can be googled and I think both were not charged with a crime (don't remember). I can't agree with that.

But my recommendation is if there is someone in your house let 'em go, let the cops catch 'em.
Reasonable advice.

The Hattori incident and several others unfortunately lead to a perception of the US as a dangerous society.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Simple Minded »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:How many of you guys would shoot a burglar? Not some maniac coming at you, but a guy trying to get your TV out the window.

Just curious.
The answer is absolutely no. And anybody thinking about it here, the answer has to be no.

Put aside the moral and even legal dimensions, the reality is if you shoot someone in self defense you will may lose your job, get divorced, go bankrupt and may have to move a different state. And if the circumstances are right you could cause a national firestorm and have a bounty put on your head.

When I began firearms training the very first class stressed for no other reason don't shoot anyone because it could very well destroy your life. I should have all the supporting evidence that was presented but have never got around to collecting it, but unless say someone is bouncing your head off of cement then you really want to avoid shooting people.

Most self defense doctrine these days is always let the guy go. Pull your gun, light him up with a dot, tell him to drop his stuff and leave, then call the cops.

You should of course never ever shoot anyone that you have not positively identified. There is a famous case of a dude shooting his fiance on accident in his house, mistaking her for an intruder. Another case I came across recently a dude killed someone coming into his hotel room, the guy was a hotel patron given the wrong room key mistakenly. I think both cases can be googled and I think both were not charged with a crime (don't remember). I can't agree with that.

But my recommendation is if there is someone in your house let 'em go, let the cops catch 'em.
Excellent advice!!! Same advice I heard in a CCW class.

The one exception would be if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person holding your TV set was a lawyer. ;)

I think Dick Cheney proved one of the most certain ways to boost your public approval rating is to shoot a lawyer in the face.

For some reason lawyers are one of the most dispised demographic groups out there. Lower public approval rating than Tea Partiers and taxpayers..... approximately the same public approval rating as child molesters........ not sure why....
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Burglar Stealing your Television... What would Chris Rock do

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:How many of you guys would shoot a burglar? Not some maniac coming at you, but a guy trying to get your TV out the window.

Just curious.
Thank you Very Much for Your post, Ibrahim.

Given the circumstances cited..... Holding TV etc...... Would not shoot as long as he/she followed instructions not to move while I called the police and the News....

Don't trust the police 100% anymore..... Best to have the News hounds around to record as in some places AIUI we are not allowed to....

If the bungling burglar moved......

And given the circumstances cited, can't help but wonder what Chris Rock might do in this situation :wink: ........

f3PJF0YE-x4

About 1:30 to 2:00 for the TV ........... But see earlier for Chris' likely action :shock: :twisted: :o
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Reasons Lawyers are Disliked........

Post by monster_gardener »

Simple Minded wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:How many of you guys would shoot a burglar? Not some maniac coming at you, but a guy trying to get your TV out the window.

Just curious.
The answer is absolutely no. And anybody thinking about it here, the answer has to be no.

Put aside the moral and even legal dimensions, the reality is if you shoot someone in self defense you will may lose your job, get divorced, go bankrupt and may have to move a different state. And if the circumstances are right you could cause a national firestorm and have a bounty put on your head.

When I began firearms training the very first class stressed for no other reason don't shoot anyone because it could very well destroy your life. I should have all the supporting evidence that was presented but have never got around to collecting it, but unless say someone is bouncing your head off of cement then you really want to avoid shooting people.

Most self defense doctrine these days is always let the guy go. Pull your gun, light him up with a dot, tell him to drop his stuff and leave, then call the cops.

You should of course never ever shoot anyone that you have not positively identified. There is a famous case of a dude shooting his fiance on accident in his house, mistaking her for an intruder. Another case I came across recently a dude killed someone coming into his hotel room, the guy was a hotel patron given the wrong room key mistakenly. I think both cases can be googled and I think both were not charged with a crime (don't remember). I can't agree with that.

But my recommendation is if there is someone in your house let 'em go, let the cops catch 'em.
Excellent advice!!! Same advice I heard in a CCW class.

The one exception would be if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person holding your TV set was a lawyer. ;)

I think Dick Cheney proved one of the most certain ways to boost your public approval rating is to shoot a lawyer in the face.

For some reason lawyers are one of the most dispised demographic groups out there. Lower public approval rating than Tea Partiers and taxpayers..... approximately the same public approval rating as child molesters........ not sure why....
Thank you Very Much for your post, Simple Minded.

Lawyers.......... Maybe because most of our misrepresentatives are lawyers?? ;)

More seriously they are seen as those who promote the miscarriage of justice........

Speak and write an alien form of Latinized English designed to enable the lawyers and Corporations to cheat the common people........

At best seen as VERY expensive hired guns needed if you get in trouble with some law that lawyers had enacted :roll:

A few of synonyms for lawyers......

Petit-Fogger......

Shyster........

Liar......

DGpS0XgKuLk
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Antipatros
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:33 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Antipatros »

Ibrahim wrote:In other news, the end of an era:

(Originally from the Ottawa Citizen, info now on wikipedia)
Canadian Rangers are issued the .303 British calibre Lee Enfield No 4 rifle, with each user being provided with 200 rounds of ammunition every year.

...

Owning to the decreasing availability of spare parts, the replacement of the Lee-Enfield rifle had long been expected and in August 2011 after user requirements had been determined, the Canadian Forces officially issued a tender request for a bolt-action rifle compatible with 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester. Approximately 10,000 rifles were to be bought giving the system a service life of about 30 years. The new rifles were to be manufactured under license by Colt Canada and to be in service by 2015.
That was the last Commonwealth unit I'm aware of still using the .303 Lee-Enfield, but no longer. What rifle would you guys bring to the Arctic?

This is what the government is looking for:
http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/inbasket/Peralta ... _Final.pdf


Note: Canadian Rangers are noting like US Rangers. They are a paramilitary arctic patrol organization, not special forces combat troops.
I repeat my earlier comments on the issue:
Re: Guns Thread

by Sennacherib » Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:01 pm

Sad, but their binoculars have always been their most important equipment. ("There's a Yankee II surfaced at coordinates...".)

The Canadian VFR Supplement had a large number of remote airstrips where the government officially recommended carrying .308 Winchester (at a minimum) for protection from polar bears.
7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) is the absolute minimum they need; thus it should be avoided at all costs. To create a weapon suited to their needs, combine:

(a) the strength and speed of the Lee Enfield action;
(b) a more powerful, rimless cartridge such as .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70mm);
(c) a redesigned trigger system. A larger trigger guard or winter trigger would permit firing with mittened hands, but it's time to engineer a better alternative.
Be not too curious of Good and Evil;
Seek not to count the future waves of Time;
But be ye satisfied that you have light
Enough to take your step and find your foothold.

--T.S. Eliot
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cdgt »

Antipatros wrote:7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) is the absolute minimum they need; thus it should be avoided at all costs. To create a weapon suited to their needs, combine:

(a) the strength and speed of the Lee Enfield action;
(b) a more powerful, rimless cartridge such as .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70mm);
(c) a redesigned trigger system. A larger trigger guard or winter trigger would permit firing with mittened hands, but it's time to engineer a better alternative.
To me, outfitting a large group versus an adventurer or three means different things.

For a large group, all else equal, I'd lean toward the .308 Win. More powerful, harder kicking, more expensive rounds are certainly available. But distributed across a variety of individuals, less cost and less kick could mean more practice and more accurate shooting. And placement trumps power in my book. But you can take it too far. I certainly wouldn't go 5.56. The .308 Win. is, I think, a reasonable compromise. An "almost .30-06" which is pretty darn serviceable.

For an individual or three, whatever floats your boat.

IIRC, you are supposed to completely degrease / remove all oil and go with a dry lubricant like graphite in Artic conditions. That's what I've read, not practical experience, sadly.
User avatar
cincinnatus
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cincinnatus »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:How many of you guys would shoot a burglar? Not some maniac coming at you, but a guy trying to get your TV out the window.

Just curious.
The answer is absolutely no. And anybody thinking about it here, the answer has to be no.

Put aside the moral and even legal dimensions, the reality is if you shoot someone in self defense you will may lose your job, get divorced, go bankrupt and may have to move a different state. And if the circumstances are right you could cause a national firestorm and have a bounty put on your head.

When I began firearms training the very first class stressed for no other reason don't shoot anyone because it could very well destroy your life. I should have all the supporting evidence that was presented but have never got around to collecting it, but unless say someone is bouncing your head off of cement then you really want to avoid shooting people.

Most self defense doctrine these days is always let the guy go. Pull your gun, light him up with a dot, tell him to drop his stuff and leave, then call the cops.

You should of course never ever shoot anyone that you have not positively identified. There is a famous case of a dude shooting his fiance on accident in his house, mistaking her for an intruder. Another case I came across recently a dude killed someone coming into his hotel room, the guy was a hotel patron given the wrong room key mistakenly. I think both cases can be googled and I think both were not charged with a crime (don't remember). I can't agree with that.

But my recommendation is if there is someone in your house let 'em go, let the cops catch 'em.

Yea, my CCW instructor said "the moment you draw your weapon, it is a felony...you will have to prove in court that it was justified and you will be sued in civil court, even if it was a burglar." (Ibrahim, this is also the prime reason why an average scary looking dude you pass on the street can't meet the justification to engage with your weapon). One area of disagreement between you (Mr. P) and I is whether getting your ass kicked justifies even brandishing the gun, much less shooting center-mass. I still maintain maybe a stun gun is the way to go if you're worried about that situation.

Ibrahim, I simply have no "property" I'd kill to maintain. Maybe it helps I don't have expensive taste in objects ;) Protecting my loved ones is another ballgame, and it looks like most here are in that boat.
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Ibrahim »

cincinnatus wrote:Ibrahim, I simply have no "property" I'd kill to maintain. Maybe it helps I don't have expensive taste in objects ;) Protecting my loved ones is another ballgame, and it looks like most here are in that boat.
As near as I can tell everybody who answered except possibly one agreed that they would not shoot someone just to protect their property, even though some states apparently allow you to legally do so. I thank those who answered.


My motivation for asking this was something DoU and I were talking about in another thread, specifically what the benefits of being armed are. I'm familiar with firearms, both from an amateur interest in military history and well as doing some shooting in various Canadian and Turkish backwoods settings, so I don't have any fear of guns. I just can't think of many situations where I would need one.

I agree with those here that would not fire on someone over property, nor would I shoot a mugger etc. The only scenario that I would use a gun in is if someone was intent on attacking me or those close to me. And even then, as someone pointed out, that would depend on me not panicking or simply being less effective at gunfighting than the person attacking me/us.

So that leaves one very unlikely (where I live) situation where I would even want to use a gun, combined with the moderate chance of me fluffing it even in that situation.

All of this excluding hunting or other sport-shooting of course.
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cdgt »

Where I hope/plan to end up, which is a very rural farm, I anticipate being armed quite often when outdoors. Not necessarily hunting.

My "threats" (given an east coast environment) will be snakes, anything after my critters (I plan on chickens, among other things), maybe a rabid racoon (Apologies to Typhoon. ;) ) or dog. Coyotes.

This is why I settled on a Ruger SR22 over the legendary Ruger Mk series. Smaller, lighter. The gun that gets carried the day you need it is better than a more robust weapon that got left in the house. Obviously a .22LR is getting marginal on a rabid dog, depending on the size / type of dog, maybe coyotes. But it beats a sharp stick. And a .22LR should be plenty for most everything lower on the scale. Cheap to shot, too, and a pistol without practice is pretty ... pointless.*

Depending on the area, if there are feral pigs, I'd carry the Glock 23 (.40 S&W) that I'm planning to get--itself marginal on pigs, but certainly more substantial than a .22LR.
  • * No extra charge for the alliteration. You're welcome. ;)
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Demon of Undoing »

I might one day get an NFA stamp and convert the MkII to an integrally- suppressed "Hush Puppy". I like the idea of being able to practice indoors by shooting into phone books.

Waitaminute. Do they still print phone books?
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cdgt »

Maybe not. You could order copies of federal legislation, like the obamacare bill. That should work. ;)

Didja notice that the Savage Hog Hunter barrel is threaded?

As I understand it, a .30 cal can works just dandy on a .22 barrel. If you plan it right, one can fits all.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Mr. Perfect »

cincinnatus wrote: Yea, my CCW instructor said "the moment you draw your weapon, it is a felony...you will have to prove in court that it was justified and you will be sued in civil court, even if it was a burglar." (Ibrahim, this is also the prime reason why an average scary looking dude you pass on the street can't meet the justification to engage with your weapon). One area of disagreement between you (Mr. P) and I is whether getting your ass kicked justifies even brandishing the gun, much less shooting center-mass. I still maintain maybe a stun gun is the way to go if you're worried about that situation.

Ibrahim, I simply have no "property" I'd kill to maintain. Maybe it helps I don't have expensive taste in objects ;) Protecting my loved ones is another ballgame, and it looks like most here are in that boat.
1) Non-lethal has a lot of merit, a lot, have looked into it and not followed up a number of times now. Need to to do that.

2) I will say if not for the potential for overwhelming repercussions and practical problems you face when using a gun, I would be pretty aggressive in using one if not for that. I would not shoot someone for stealing my tv, I would shoot them for being in my house period. I would shoot a mugger period for being mugged, if I could, not for what I was being mugged for. Setting aside male barroom bravado, I really have a hard time imagining why I should legally or morally have to endure a beating I did nothing to deserve. I go back and forth on that. Ted Nugent makes a lot of sense on some of this (dead perps).

3) To address what Ib said, carrying (CCW) a gun is like wearing a seatbelt, a little insurance policy against long odds. It is what it is.

However, Ib seems to be concerned about his ability to responsibly deal with carrying, and frankly I applaud him. I think that responsible gun handling and our overall culture some what parallels what we've seen in littering, drunk driving and seatbelt wearing. Safe, proper, responsible gun handling as taught now is leaps and bounds better than the gravel pit shooting of my youth, even with the hunter safety class dear old dad made me go to. To me now training goes hand in hand with ownership and use. If you don't feel up to it don't do it.

There are plenty of people who I know that carry that frankly terrify me and wish to heaven they would stop, but in the end I want just as many drivers off the road, so you just have to factor everything in. So, if someone just feels like it's beyond their comfort level I applaud them. There is nothing wrong with that.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
cincinnatus
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cincinnatus »

cdgt wrote:
Antipatros wrote:7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) is the absolute minimum they need; thus it should be avoided at all costs. To create a weapon suited to their needs, combine:

(a) the strength and speed of the Lee Enfield action;
(b) a more powerful, rimless cartridge such as .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70mm);
(c) a redesigned trigger system. A larger trigger guard or winter trigger would permit firing with mittened hands, but it's time to engineer a better alternative.
To me, outfitting a large group versus an adventurer or three means different things.

For a large group, all else equal, I'd lean toward the .308 Win. More powerful, harder kicking, more expensive rounds are certainly available. But distributed across a variety of individuals, less cost and less kick could mean more practice and more accurate shooting. And placement trumps power in my book. But you can take it too far. I certainly wouldn't go 5.56. The .308 Win. is, I think, a reasonable compromise. An "almost .30-06" which is pretty darn serviceable.

For an individual or three, whatever floats your boat.

IIRC, you are supposed to completely degrease / remove all oil and go with a dry lubricant like graphite in Artic conditions. That's what I've read, not practical experience, sadly.
A guy I work with showed me a product that allows me to shoot .22LR from my Taurus Judge (chambered for 45 Long Colt/410 gauge 2.75 in shells). Definetly makes range shooting cheaper.
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Mr. Perfect »

How do you like that Judge? I'm thinking of getting one.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
cincinnatus
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by cincinnatus »

Mr. Perfect wrote:How do you like that Judge? I'm thinking of getting one.
Works fine for me (I have the Titanium version). I don't like the double-action so much, so I usually cock it with the thumb and fire single action. It surprisingly has little kick when firing the 45LCs (or the 410s either). I haven't gone to shoot with the adapters that allow me to use 22s yet.

One caution; Smith & Wesson has their own version that shoots 45LC, 45 ACP and the 410 2.75 in shells, so it's even more versatile and if you prefer S&W to Taurus, maybe a better buy. If I'd have had that choice available when I bought, I would have gone for the S&W for the ability to shoot 45 ACP too.
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
Simple Minded

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Simple Minded »

Mr. Perfect wrote:However, Ib seems to be concerned about his ability to responsibly deal with carrying, and frankly I applaud him. I think that responsible gun handling and our overall culture some what parallels what we've seen in littering, drunk driving and seatbelt wearing. Safe, proper, responsible gun handling as taught now is leaps and bounds better than the gravel pit shooting of my youth, even with the hunter safety class dear old dad made me go to. To me now training goes hand in hand with ownership and use. If you don't feel up to it don't do it.

There are plenty of people who I know that carry that frankly terrify me and wish to heaven they would stop, but in the end I want just as many drivers off the road, so you just have to factor everything in. So, if someone just feels like it's beyond their comfort level I applaud them. There is nothing wrong with that.
Excellent points Mr. P.

I don't know Ibrahim from the man in the moon, but I respect his judgement and choices. He reminded me of an observation I made long ago about the people I knew that were/are "anti gun."

Most of the time when they say guns are dangerous, they seem to be saying "Since I do not trust myself with a gun, I do not trust other people to have guns." This has occurred to be both from the perspective of they are concerned they may have a accidental discharge and hurt someone, and also if killing somone was as effortless as pulling a trigger, they just might decide to kill somone, or many. But using a baseball bat would just take too much effort....
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Firearms and other Weapons

Post by Enki »

I'm amazed at how prevalent this extremely expensive hobby is.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Post Reply