GRIZ
-
Content Count
6,538 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
43 -
Feedback
100%
Posts posted by GRIZ
-
-
That's the latest update. Showed up a few days after the last update. I think it's a good outcome. What do you think?
I hazard a guess he may get his job back and his dismissal reduced to a suspension without pay on appeal.
I have to find the article but there is an update. He won't be charged with anything. BS
BS? Why? What crime did he commit? What would be the crime if two consenting adults had sex at your job while on the job? Would they get fired?
-
KpdPipes is 100% correct but I'll add a little more. A M2 kit used to convert a M1 carbine to full auto is a NFA registered weapon all by itself with no M1 carbine to put them on as far as ATF is concerned. There are six parts that are considered part of a M2 kit are hammer, sear, slide, disconnector, disconnector lever, and selector (the last three have no place in any M1 carbine). There are others as well but these six are a NFA item. It is not uncommon to find other M2 parts (except the three I mentioned) in a legit M1 carbine. Having the six parts I mentioned can get you an extended stay in a Federal Corrections facility.
There are also some carbine receivers marked M2. The receiver itself is a NFA item even if you have all M1 parts on it.
Constructive possession applies to a lot of things under Federal law.
-
1
-
-
If his record was expunged his application would be okay IMO. However, I don't think it was expunged as the guy returned the permits. Not having it show up is a distinct possibility as has been explained. He should be prosecuted for a false statement on the application though.
the law needs to be changed because he shouldn't have any elected or appointed position in the government.
The person must be convicted of a crime that bars him from holding any public office or a condition of conviction as the result of an impeachment from a public office already held. I don't think welfare fraud carries any of these stipulations.
-
Not sure about FN but I know glocks are imported (not made!) into Smyrna, GA and thats where they get the fixed sights before distribution. Every single glock comes into the country with adjustable sights to beat import laws...lol
Good point. I don't know about FN either but any polymer frame handgun would have the same problems as Glock getting killed on the "point system" on frame material and weight. Glock did convince ATF that their firing system was double action which also saved them. No one had a firing system like Glock back in the 1980s. They also convinced ATF that Glocks had a "target trigger" and "target grips" to make points.
I know Taurus put 3" barrels on in Brazil to get their small frame revolvers in. They took them off in Miami and sent them back to Brazil to make the trip again.
None of this would apply to firearms for the military and LE.
If you make the guns here in the US none of this applies.
It does illustrate how stupid many gun laws are.
-
You seem to contradict yourself in the same post. Forget what you said?
Throw a suppressor on a P90 and you run into the same issues as throwing on onto an MP5.
As for adding bulk, it wouldn't necessarily be the case with certain weapons platforms as you mentioned earlier (P90 for example).
Surpressor will add bulk to the P90 but the P90 will be easier to retain than MP5.
That was already quite apparent in my earlier posts. Basically a select-fire weapon isn't going to magically enhance the penetration abilities of the rounds they fire
The long barrel in a subgun will increase velocity which will increase penetration as I've said at least twice before.
As for proper stance and grip, that's merely a training/equipment issue and is applicable to any other firearms platform. This being an important point that applies to all firearms.
You may not be able to use a proper stance and grip in any SD situation. You may have to be able to control snd shoot the firearm with one hand which you can do with any firearm, including a P90 to a degree, except a subgun. Your first round may hit the target but the others will go everywhere else but with a subgun.
Baseball bat scenario, nice... How does the handgun instantly win in either of those?
Gun hand across your chest shoot, one handed in the scenario I presented No time for proper stance.
What's stopping you...or getting hit in your other shoulder? What about... If the only...then blocking may be an alternative. Though then,...
When your teacher asked you what 1 plus_1 equals did you say "5 if you add 3"? There is no what's, getting, what about, if, or though then. This is not Playstation you can't add more lives, pick up first aid kits or reduce the level of difficulty. You can't use your power ring to turn into Green Lantern either. Solve the scenario as its presented.
How about holding up at the top of your staircase/doorway with a suppressed sub-machine gun with a light/red-dot on it and let the intruder try to get through your own personal death funnel?
your own personal death funnel?[/
Which video game you get that from? Is it an accessory I don't know about? Is it portable or stationary? Does it come with batteries and remote? That is another term that may haunt you later.
Taking on someone who is waiting in ambush is already a bad deal regardless of what you carry.
True but what if you're on your way to your own personal death funnel?
As for which firing mode that it would be in, does it really matter if your on the ground being beaten?
Well yes, if you have to shoot your subgun one handed after the first round the others will most likely go to places other than your target.
I'm sorry, but 3 doesn't really pan out. Why is full-auto only limited to ranges beyond that of a shotgun? What's limiting you from using it at ranges you would normally use a shotgun? In that sense, it confers similar advantages to a shotgun, without the disadvantages at long range.
No, No, and No. A shotgun will hit the target will multiple projectiles with reduced penetration compared to a subgun.
And what about 2? What about a charging opponent instead of a fleeing one? Wouldn't you want to put as many rounds into them as fast as possible?
I said fleeting not fleeing. Shotgun can do this or 2 or 3 rds in a second from a hangun, rifle, or pistol caliber carbine with a greater degree of accuracy.
such restrictions should only exist in the form of additional Amendments to either repeal or modify the definition of what arms we're allowed to keep an bear
repeal the 2nd and replace it, with one which narrows the definition of arms, or add an amendment which reserves the right to own a certain subset of arms while excluding others.
You really want to repeal the 2A and start over? In today's political climate? You are naive in the areas of politics and lawmaking. Amendments are the result of Constitutional Conventions that take years. Some Amendments are still pending since as far back as 1789.
Disagree. The amendment process exists to either repeal existing amendments, add new rights to be protected, or to modify existing rights. The right to vote, for example, was expanded upon via Constitutional Amendment. Not via SCOTUS.
The Amendment process repeals or adds. "Modification" as you call it is done by SCOTUS based on cases brought to them. They interpret the Constitution to decide if an issue is protected by it. No one brings them a case they have nothing to do. SCOTUS had nothing to do with voting rights as they have no authority to expand or repeal them. They only have the power to interpret them as they apply to the Constitution.
I don't think they've been answered quite clearly at all, and in many instances just boil down to a long gun vs. hand gun debate.
I've seen it as a subgun vs everything else debate. Your perception is way off.
Again, it really depends on the DA and how much of a bone he has to pick with you. Apparently, lighting a guy up with 9 shot burst is a war crime, but a well placed head shot is not. As they say: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
The argument in the story you linked was one of excessive force. Might he stopped the guy with 1 or 2 shots and the guy lived? Not saying I agree with what was done in your link. A DA or prosecutor in many jurisdictions is an elected official and needs to try cases that his constituency wants tried to get re-elected. In other cases the prosecutor has to bring cases to trial to let a jury determine if the defendant's actions prove he did it or prove an exception to the law. Better to be tried and found not guilty in some cases as the issue can't be brought up in the same court system again.
"Judged by 12...", is an easy statement to make when you are not sitting in a courtroom as the defendant with your freedom or life at stake. Better to avoid sitting there to begin with.
Would you be telling telling the police or the jury if you were on trial "he entered my own personal death funnel" and expect that being taken as aiding your defense?
Yep, that point has been made quite clear.
Your subsequent posts show you are giving pistol caliber carbines some consideration.
No, you change it by telling people it's a legal and viable means of defense. If the jury is properly instructed, it shouldn't matter if you used a Stoeger over-under to kill someone breaking in, or if you used an M-4 Carbine.
That would be violating the defendant's 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment Rights. The jury is the arbitartor of fact and the judge of law. A judge cannot tell a jury that something is legal when instructing them. He explains the elemnets of the law that the defendant is charged with and the jury decides if those facts violate those elements.
It doesn't matter if you killed them with a toilet tank cover (that was the murder weapon in one case I know of). The questions are did you kill someone and if so was it justifiable. The fact is you have to admit you killed someone for the jury to find it justifiable under the laws of the jurisdiction.
As for using the FA, it seems to have done the job quite well when killing the one assailant.
As might have 2 or 3 rounds from his pistol if he had used that.
A kinder judge and a more rational prosecutor would've ensured such a case would have never reached a Grand Jury.
A judge is not supposed to be kind. He or she is supposed to be fair. A judge might never see a defendant until after he's indicted. Please read up on criminal procedure.
If you want to discuss tactics or law its probably best to start another thread and confine things to best firearm for HD.
-
I will speak on the ballistics question and what makes the P90 different.
Shane I was talking about ballistics (interior, exteriors, and terminal) but being that you brought up cyclic rate it is worthy of note. The P90 fires a bit faster than a MP5 (900 vs 800 rpm IIRC). The higher rate of fire is easier to control because:
1. The lightweight bullet makes the P90 recoil about half of a MP5.
2. Like a MP5 the P90 fires from a closed bolt.
3. The hands forward bullpup design enhances control and retention.
When you get accustomed to the trigger you can easily shoot 2-3 rd bursts. You can control longer bursts due to the low recoil so a 12 rd burst isn't needed. You need to "pump" the trigger if you want to put a lot of rounds on target under control.
In training we would have the student shoot a 1, 2, or 3 rd burst on call with a full auto MP5. They had to hit a 3" circle at 7 yds. Really easy once you practice it. I used to put on a demonstration showing trigger control with a full auto MP5. I would dump a 30 rd mag by pumping the trigger shooting at a 5" circle at 7 yds. I would do this in under 3 seconds. I think my record was 2.6 sec. That puts it pretty close to the cyclic rate.
-
Apologies for insulting your experience GRIZ, I am thankful for your service to our nation and your experiences and I was completely out of line to call them "tacticool".
Okay we can move on from there.
Also: I tend to learn a lot more about stuff via disagreement than by simply taking things at face value. But your experiences aside, I had some major gripes with your reasoning here.
I'll give you some free advice. If you said above a lot of questions instead of gripes it makes you more inquisitive than argumentative. You can get a lot further by asking questions rather than disagreeing with people. If you keep arguing you give people the impression you cannot comprehend what they are saying, they will become frustrated and walk away without you learning much. If you are inquisitive and ask questions instead of arguing or disagreeing with what they say you will learn a lot more. Most of us have learned what we have by listening not disagreeing. If you want to disagree you need to have some basis for your position on a topic. All the other respondents in this thread state their choice, maybe mention why they made this choice, and maybe state why they didn't choose something else. You said:
I don't see how any of the other options beats this...
semi-auto handgun: hard to aim, limited firepower
revolver: capacity blows chunks
shotgun: pretty awesome, limited capacity (typically 5 or 6 unless you really rice it up)
carbine/rifle: getting there...
You can kill an intruder in your living room without waking the kids or neighbors,
That last remark seems rather blase about killing someone and may haunt you later.
You also have to stop insulting people by telling them they are all wrong you are right and saying things like:
I hardly consider my suggestion a "video game" one. But if you lack the imagination to truly envision a great home defense weapon, than do tell: what would you consider the best? And why?
some folks here (who have never shot full-auto) have some Hollywood notions on the matter and sound just like the Brady Bunch folks who want to further diminish our rights.
Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine?
But we as a nation, and by an even greater extent as subjects in the Socialist State of New Jersey are brainwashed into thinking that semi-autos = ok, but full-auto = bad.
If we want to win the fight for our rights, we need to dispense with this mindset, and assume all things are fair game for use for whatever we desire.
See what I mean? You keep saying I'm right the rest of you are wrong. I can honestly say you are trying to pin things on the wrong crowd. You also have to read or listen to them. You're not doing that you have only been wanting to argue.
What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm?
If you're talking about they same barrel length, none. Subguns have 9-12" barrels where they can gain more velocity. A 5.56 will penetrate less than a 9mm coming out of a subgun (read previous comment talking about FBI tests). The overpenetration issue is if you miss, which you still can do even if you know how to control it, you have 2,3, or more rounds overpentrating instead of one.
What makes retention of a FN P90 or an MP5 different from a CX-4 carbine or a pump-action shotgun, or any other 2-handed long-gun?
A MP5 is shorter than than any 16"+ pistol caliber carbine, M4, or any standard long gun. The longer barrel give your opponent the leverage advantage making it easier to take away from you. Simple physics, the lever being everything in front of your trigger hand and your trigger hand the fulcrum. Other than that the MP5 has no distinct retention advantage over any other subgun configured similarly. If you add a surpressor to the MP5 you get its length near that of a shotgun or carbine so retention
The P90 beats out all the subguns in rentention because of its bullpup configuration and short barrel. The length is only about 20". If your opponent tries to grab it he only has a couple of inches at the muzzle to grab it. All the leverage is to your advantage here. Shane also said:
I think it would be easier to take a pistol or non bullpup rifle from me compared to the P90. Your basically holding on to a pair of circles at the FRONT of the rifle. Thats a metric ton of control
I'd tend to agree with him.
What makes a P90 and MP5 better for fire control is they fire from a closed bolt. The P90 is a blowback firing from a closed bolt and a MP5 is a delayed roller locking bolt. You don't have a big heavy bolt slamming that bolt forward and firing the round as you do with most subguns like the MAC, Carl Gustaf, M1 Thompson. STEN, MP40, and others.
Aside from a pistol, what else on this list is going to be more compact than a SBR subgun? It seems to me that the same reasoning that is used to bash full-auto suppressed subguns can simply boil down to an argument of long guns vs. hand guns, correct?
You need to get terminology straight first. There is no such thing as a SBR subgun. A SBR is a short barrel rifle firing a rifle round. Subguns fire pistol rounds. The advantages of a 5.56 rifle is tremendous stopping power with limited penetration in building materials compared to subgun. A shotgun also has tremendous stopping power but limited penetration due to the ballistic inefficiency of the round ball. 00 buck penetrates about the same as a 9mm or 45 ACP from a pistol. You can see what penetrates what here:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm
Unfortunately there are no subguns used there.
I mean, I get it: suppressed subguns have drawbacks, just like every other weapons system listed. But in comparison to other long(er) guns, the biggest difference is that they have can have a suppressor (which adds length/bulk to a firearm at the expense of protecting your vision/hearing), and that they have an extra spot on the FCG that let's you shoot multiple bullets with one trigger pull.
Surpressors are made for everything except revolvers and make any gun less compact. You are not going to go instantly deaf and in a handgun or shotgun you can experiment and find lower flash ammo (9mm WW Silvertip only emits a tiny blue flame from a 4" barrel).
The multiple bullets with one trigger pull is the issue! You don't seem to get it. Accounting for every round you fire. You don't seem to think you would ever miss even if you are well trained with the subgun. If you can't use a proper stance with a subgun (stock in your chest between your shoulder and centerline, elbows tucked in, and shoulders hunched over the gun yours, mione or anyone's accuracy and control with that subgun is down the toilet.
Even if I owned a full-auto weapon, does that mean I can only use it in full-auto? Nope. It's select-fire for a reason, and you can switch firing modes to fit whichever situation you're in.
"Imagine" the scenario of you're right handed and trying to locate the intruder and he comes up on your left side, slightly behind you with your Louisville Slugger. No time to turn that subgun or long gun. Handguns win that. One issue that hasn't been addressed is using one handed if you have lost use of one arm. Say he swings that bat, you dodge it but get hit in the shoulder. You fall between the coffee table and the sofa. Handguns win again. If you have room you can get that shotgun or rifle on target. Use your subgun one handed and if you connect with your first round there are those others that will miss. Switch to semi you say? You really think that's going to be on your mind when someone is trying to kill or seriously injure you in your living room?
I guess that is what really irks me about this thread... why are folks bashing a firearm because it has one or two additional features than the ones they traditionally own?
You didn't read what I said before:
law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons.
That doesn't mean I think the police or regular people shouldn't own them. The uses for full or burst fire weapons are:
1. Surpressive fire thsi includes spraying the interior of a room to clear it
2. Getting rounds into a fleeting target (shooting at an airplane or other vehicle)
3. Multiple rounds in a target at greater than shotgun ranges
Only the military does 1. The police may have use for 2 say at a roadblock. That leaves 3. How big is your house? Is your living room 100' long?
As for the last tidbit, I agree some reasonable restrictions should exist to the 2A... but seeing as it's one of these fancy Constitutional Amendments, such restrictions should only exist in the form of additional Amendments to either repeal or modify the definition of what arms we're allowed to keep an bear.
The Constitution is an entire package like I said. You don't write Amendments to interpret amendments. Any interpretation is left to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sometimes their decision opens up a whole bunch of other questions like what is reasonable but that's the way it is.
What I don't get is why the reasons that an FA Subgun is a bad choice for HD, don't apply to other firearms? Like a shotgun? Or a rifle? Or even a pistol/revolver?
I think all your questions are answered. If you have more go ahead.
1. Excessive force can be applied to any scenario where the DA can argue it.... every bullet you shoot in self-defense has a lawyer attached to it...
Which is why a FA is not a good idea, too bullets to account for.
2. Over-penetrations is dependent on the caliber, not the firing mode. This is a valid argument when comparing the pros/cons of a rifle round, pistol round, or shotgun shell. It has nothing to do with FA.
It also depends on the velocity generated by the longer barrel of the subgun. As I've said a 9mm out of a subgun penetrates more than a handgun (9mm or 45), buckshot, or 5.56 in building materials. A pistol caliber carbine has the same penetration issues but only one round per pull.
3. This has to due with the perception of full-auto. Most people don't even know they're legal in the USA (local laws apply though). But the same can be said if you used a mean looking tactical AR-15 or a pump-shotty with 100 shells and a bayonet strapped to it.
You aren't going to change that by bitching you change that by education and reasoning and people can still think what they want, we have no "Thought Police" like in "1984".
A good read on the matter is this article by Massad Ayoob: "F you and your high powered rifle"
This article really answers a lot of the arguments you put up for FA.
-
2
-
-
GRIZ, no offense, but all your basically saying is that with training, you can overcome any firearms' potential drawbacks.
You can't overcome ballistics, retention, compactness, and use in close quarters with training they are what they are and you can't change that.
So in short: your justification for choosing whichever gun you feel is best is entirely dependent on ones' proficiency with a particular firearm. That aside (and one was proficient with any firearm equally), any of the potential drawbacks with a full-auto weapon can also be easily overcome.
Proficency is one factor. Reread my posts and look what I say about other factors that training can't overcome.
While the youtube isn't the most stellar example of Full-auto use, for a first timer, it really wasn't all that hard to hit what I was aiming at.
So why did you post it? What were you hitting? The dirt?
I may not have the "tacticool" experience you have
I was going to ignore your later responses until you said this.
I have no "tacticool" experience or training. The training I have had is because I had a genuine need for it. I started getting shot at at age 18 is SE Asia (history books seem to skim over that war) and have been shot by bad people in other places as well. The VA does not pay you disability because you were "tacticool". I'm not a Ranger, SEAL, or any kind of special operator and don't try to make believe I was one. I am not looking for accolades for what I did but did what I did because I enjoyed it first of all. If you really desire to obtain some experience I have you can join the Army or Marine go infantry and after being shot at, maybe even bleeding a little, you can be as "tacticool" as me.
I became a LEO as once again I liked doing that. I liked catching bad guys and helping people. No accolades sought. I didn't care too much about writing tickets but enjoyed writing them to idiots. Some of the disgression I exercised when I worked with the PD might get me in trobule today. I tolerated a lot of the BS I had to put up with so I could do what I liked doing.
I went to the Federal government as I could concentrate more on doing what I liked. BS sure but a bit more tolerable than working on the PD and some added bennies. I got to catch bad guys all over the country, all over the world for that matter.
You also need to be aware of police departments and Federal LE agencies don't put you out on workman's comp for injuries you sustained because you were "tacticool".
I realize you may think I'm a dinosaur but logic would prevail that I may have learned a little more than you in 45+ years of shooting, shooting things most people don't, and having been an instructor for over 30 years vs whatever experience you have.
I may be opinionated but I will change my mind if someone presents a reasonable and thought out proposal.
If someone has fun being tacticool I have no problem with that as long as no one is hurt.
However, I take calling my experience "tacticool' as a personal insult from someone who only has a very narrow focus on the issue and nothing to bring to the table.
My apologies to others for going OT.
Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine? There are folks out there who don't understand why anyone one need a gun in the first place, and would rather have no one have them in the first place. Thank goodness for the 2A though right?
No one has said any of what you're saying here. We are all 2A supporters and see no reason people shouldn't be able to own a subgun, surpressor, or SBR. I'll give you another bit of info and state law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons. That doesn't mean no one should be able to own one There is no one that has been in total agreement with you regarding the HD weapon issue we've been discussing. You're right and everyone else is wrong? Does that tell you something?
You can join the whacko Libertarians that believe one should have nuclear weapons and nerve agent in their garage. There are people who have drank that Kool Aid. You will never get enough people to agree with you to change anything. There are plenty of websites where some define the 2A as meaning that. You can also work with people in a group like the NJ2AS (which I don't belong to by the way) which is working to get gun rights restored through education and reason and rule of law.
You can also move to Somalia where you can own anything you want but you probably don't want to give up the rest of the protections the Constitution gives you. The Constitution is a package deal not just the 2A.
-
5
-
-
Defending your home is more of a mindset than the gun you use.
Very true. You only have to read "The Armed Citizen" in the American Rifleman to see this. When you see the 85 year old grandma repel a home invasion by gangbangers with the Raven she bought for $35 it becomes obvious.
IF WE WERE IN FANTASY LAND OF NO RESTRICTIONS I could easily see picking a subgun for myself. I have time on FA P90 and Uzi. The P90 is an incredible package for tight quarters. A 2 round burst Kriss would be interesting as well.
You recognize the training and proficiency needs so there's no argument there. The UZI is worthy of note as it put most of the weight behind your shooting hand enhancing control. The P90 was originally marketed as a "Personal Defense Weapon" but to most (myself included) its a subgun. However, nothing is absolute and the P90 may be a good choice. I got to first shoot the P90 at a seminar at East Brunswick PD range when FN was trying to promote their line to the LE community. Most of the disadvantages for using a subgun as a HD weapon don't apply to the P90 as:
1. Its not only more compact than most subguns its also offers more control. FN said it has half the recoil of a MP5 and they are probably right. Recoil is a big control factor with subguns and I may have to say the P90 is has the least recoil of them all. This impressed me to the point I started to draw a happy face on the target shortly after I started shooting it.
2. The round it uses contributes to the low recoil. I would hazard a guess with the high velocity and lightweight it would perform similar to the 223/5.56 in building materials and reduce the threat of overpentration in building materials.
3. It is undoubtedly the most compact of all controlable subguns due to its bullpup configuration. Close quarters use is enhanced.
4. Retention issues with long guns and other subguns don't apply to the P90. The hands forward design moves the fulcrum of that lever to the shooter. There's not much for your opponent to grab.
2 rd triggers are light years easier to control. I don't have any experience with the Kriss but if it lacks a memory like the MP5 2 and 3 round burst it may work.
-
1. Agreed. But for HD, why make things harder on yourself?....2. This is true... but the vast majority of revolvers are either 5,6, or 7 shooters.... Either way, the capacity advantage is definitely with the semi-auto...a revolver would have to reload twice to keep up with a 13-15 round semi-auto magazine.
I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in using a revolver for HD. You have all these disadvantages with 0 real upside. I love wheel-guns, but they have been fully displaced by modern, reliable, semi-autos in almost every role outside of cowboy action shooting.
Semi autos have a capacity advantage without an argument. How many rounds do you think you'll use in that HD encounter? If you start with 6 you'll most likely have a couple left when its over if you can shoot. Yes more ammo is better but if you know what you're doing 6 will do unless you are being attacked by a platoon of gangbangers that were Army Rangers.
You've ignored the revolver advantages of having the easiest malfunction drill that you can do with one hand and the easiest manual of arms. If you have a Ruger, S&W, Colt, Dan Wesson, Korth, Charter or any other DA revolver you don't need to even look at it to know how to make it work.
Delegating revolvers to cowboy action shooting is demonstrates a lack of understanding.
Semi autos are easier to use than a revolver and high capacity appeals to the spray and pray crowd. Not saying high capacity is bad but it isn't impressive if that's the first advantage you mention. A decent trained revolver shooter (and I'm not talking Jerry Miculek) can overcome all the "faults" you mention except ammo capacity. If you refuse to take the time and effort to learn a revolver properly you're missing a lot.
why no carbine? been doin research, hearing good things as an option for home defense?
Carbines have my vote. They're easy to use, easy to aim, and (in all places except NJ) they have a greater capacity (30 rounds in most instances).
The only disadvantage is that you need two hands to operate them. But given the variety of light mounts and other options, it's a minor issue.
Disadvantages? Overpenetration unless you are using a 223/5.56 is a big one. Muzzle flash will light up things moreso with a short barrel. A flash surpressor reduces the flash from the shooters perspective but doesn't do anything to prevent the flash from lighting up the room. The biggest however they not conducive to mobility in close quarters (you don't have to turn around fully to use that handgun) and are the easiest weapon to get taken from you (as any long gun is). You can't keep that muzzle in close like you do a handgun, you will have to let that muzzle stick out a bit. That offers your opponent the leverage advantage. The same goes for guns with surpressors. Subguns are a little better but retention is still harder than a handgun.
Ideally, the best firearm for HD is an NFA fully-automatic or burst fire 9mm/45acp sub-machine gun fitted with a suppressor, lightweight stock, red-dot, weapon light, sling, and 30 rounds of sub-sonic hollow point ammunition.
This is way off base because:
1. A lot of people who buy a subgun really never learn how to use it.
2. A 9mm penetrates more in building materials than a 223/5.56 (FBI and other agencies have proven this). Subsonic ammo stays subsonic in a Glock 26 or MP5 so you are not getting a ballistic adavantage. Not sure how a 45ACP does but a std 230 FMJ is going close to 1000 fps from a 10-12" barrel which will enhance penetration.
3. A surpressor adds length to that subgun making it easier to take away. People don't go totally deaf firing in a confined area. I can't say how others may be affected but I have had to shoot in a confined area more than once and have been exposed to numerous other explosions without hearing protection including being on the shooting end of literally thousands of rounds of artillery (105, 155, 8" and 175). I have 70% hearing in my left ear and 50% in my right. I had to give up my dream of being a piano tuner but far from deaf.
My assessment of a subgun being a poor choice as a HD weapon is based on the fact that I started shooting subguns in 1968 (OJT) and as a LE Firearms Instructor for about 30 years and a subgun instructor for over 10. I thought I knew how to use a subgun after taking my agency operator's course (35-50 hrs depending how fast we progressed) but learned how much I didn't know when I went to instructor's school (about 60 hrs of instruction).
Since 1968 there have been only 5 years I have not had at least limited access to FA weapons due to my LE and military experience. I realize to most people shooting anything FA is quite a novelty as it would have been for me if I hadn't had the opportunities I've had. Not trying to brag just letting you know what I base my assessment on.
Your home is close quarters environment where your potential invader can easily be within breathing distance of you in a few foot steps. It's also gonna be dark.
Which is why you don't want a long gun or longer than a handgun gun so you'll be able to retain it.
You're also gonna be tired (if it's a 'bump in the night scenario'), and you're gonna want all your gun stuff in one place where you can reach it.
Which is why you want a gun with the simplest manual of arms and malfunction drill. If you put a maglite by your handgun you will also have an impact weapon.
You also won't be wearing hearing protection either.
You need to be real. There is a very small percentage of shooters that use a surpressor on a HD gun. Doing so gives your opponent a leverage advantage to take your gun away in those close quarters. Auditory exclusion will take care of the noise bothering you but not the hearing loss. Faced with the options:
a. lose some hearing
b. be dead
I'll take option A everytime.
Shooting without hearing protection in an enclosed environment pretty much guarantees deafness.
If you're saying total deafness that is false as I have related. I should have lost all my hearing in 1968.
As the video I posted shows, the lack of control is simply not true.
I disagree. The video shows lack of trigger control (you should be able to shoot a 2-3 rd burst on call), the shooter needs to improve his stance to prevent all that rocking around he's doing, and doesn't show what accuracy he's getting (you just see some dirt getting shot). If that shooter was confronted with multiple assailants the #2 bad guy has plenty of time to get effects on target at the tempo he's shooting. He needs to learn how to shoot it faster.
Using any gun, you have the potential to miss your target and hit something you didn't intend. FA or SA. So what's the big difference then?
The big difference is with a SA you shoot and miss once (unless you are doing spray and pray) there is only one stray bullet; with a FA, even if you're doing it right, you'll get at least 2 or 3 chances to hit something you didn't want to.
But to be honest, I'd say a properly trained and loyal guard dog would be the best HD tool, hands down.
Best suggestion yet! That's why I but it in bold. You can get a mutt from the pound (I have two), be nice to it, and it will adore you and protect the castle.
Again, I stipulated in an ideal world where the unconstitutional legal barriers to owning an NFA weapon were simply not there.
In an ideal world the weather would always be perfect, the water warm, the drinks cold, and no crime so we wouldn't have to talk about this at all. But its not and you have to deal with what's real.
But if you lack the imagination to truly envision a great home defense weapon, than do tell: what would you consider the best? And why?
I have and I have. Imagination not needed just analysis of facts from experience I have acquired from shooting for close to 45 years, Army AD, Guard and Reserve 1967 to 2010 (a few years dead time in there), over 30 years as a LEO and Firearms and Tactics Instructor, the good fortune to get to go to a lot of shooting and tactics training for free and having been put in a position where I might have to fire a shot in anger more than once.
I don't believe knowledge is power and am willing to share.
My rankings of weapons discussed for HD are:
1. Revolver
2. Semi Auto Handgun (if you have more than one the one you are most familiar with)
3. Pistol Caliber Carbine (if there is an issue with recoil)
4. Shotgun (I prefer a pump, extended mag nice but not required, a O/U or SxS will do)
5. 5.56 AR
Long, I know but there was a lot to say.
-
2
-
-
I like De Santis the best overall. I have some De Santis holsters I use regularly that are over 20 years old, they still have kept their shape, no problem with stitching and I use them to this day. I also have some Bianchi leather for the past 35 years that are still in use.
Just about any quality holster is really good to go.
"You get what you pay for" is very applicable.
So how do you guys feel about nylon holsters?
I have a friend that says he would rather have the cheapest leather holster than any nylon holster. That may be going too far but my experience with nylon holsters has not been good. They tend to fray a bit if you use it all the time. I have some nylon shoulder holsters I only use once in awhile and they serve their purpose.
For cheap belt holsters I think you're better off with Kydex.
-
They basically told us to have all of our gear ready because there may be a possibility that We will be put on state Active duty. Im in a water purification unit in sea girt
I spent 18 years in the Guard, can't count the number of warning orders I got for emergencies, and was only activated once for two days for a snowstorm. You are in a different situation being in a water purification unit. Your unit is specialized (as are MPs and other Engineers among others) so the chance of you getting activated will depend on if and when the water system goes out anywhere in th state. If they only need trucks and bodies for evacuation they can use just about any unit close to where the problems are.
-
10 potential contenders and three of them are GLOCKs
Also three of them are S&Ws. The way the list is made up Glock gets 3 spots due to model numbers.
Where is the fnusg. 45? That list sux.
and the XD or XDm
or 1911
or Sig P220
or Taurus 24/7 OSS
The way these things work is the proposal is sent out and the manufacturers respond or respond with the model of firearm you're looking at. It looks like Ruger and others have also bowed out, at least for now. There may be others that drop out as the testing gets underway. You'll never see the military go back to the 1911. That would be saying they made a mistake getting the M9. When the FBI tested their downloaded 10mm in the 80s the 45 acp actually came out as a better round. The FBI couldn't ask for money to adopt a caliber that another agency DoD was abandoning.
Rest assured that whatever gun is chosen, it won't be on the merits of the gun alone. These types of decisions are political by their nature since it involves vast sums of money changing hands.
You can be sure of that. There may also be practical considerations. Some of these may be:
1. US manufacturing facility-not an issue here as all those on the list I gave have one but was an issue with the M9. This may be a reason others have bowed out.
2. Keep the 9mm caliber- to keep current stocks of ammo and NATO standard.
3. Pick the Beretta 92A1- minimal retraining, many parts (also holsters and magazines) are already in the inventory.
The U.S. Army is currently adopting requirements for the Modular Handgun System (MHS)
This is like piggybacking on a contract and is done by all Federal agencies. Saves money on the testing and agencies that sign on get a better price. The agency i worked for got their MP5s off the Secret Service contract. A lot of agencies bought ammo through the Treasury contract (IIRC about 8 years ago the price for 9mm NATO was about $5 a box and CCI Gold Dots were 9 or 10).
According to this, they're behind the curve on the selection process.
True but looking for a new handgun isn't as high a priority as other things. The more cutbacks DoD has to endure will delay this process more.
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
-
The current issue of the Army Times has an article on current plans to replace the M9. The Army has adopted the Air Force's Modular Handgun System proposal which has been approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council but hasn't made much headway. The Army plan is at HQS waiting for approval but of course the biggest consideration is having the money to replace pistols with current DoD cutbacks.
Among the considerations for the new pistols are:
1. "Increasing the permanent wound channel" which may mean a bigger caliber than 9mm.
2. When clearing a jam soldiers often engage the slide mounted safety without knowing it until they try to fire.
3. The M9s open slide allows dirt to enter the pistol.
4. The lack of a modular grip, intergrated rail, and night sights.
5. The inability to surpress.
6. Increased service life to 25,000 rds (M9s were required to have a service life of 5000 rds. They have a average service life of 17,500 without a stoppage although there are some (12)that have gone as much as 168,000 rds).
The current contenders according to the Army Times are:
1. Glock 22 (.40)
2. Glock 37 (45 GAP)
3. S&W M&P (9mm or.40 or 45ACP)
4. SIG P229 (9mm)
5. H&K P2000 (9mm or .40)
6. Beretta 96 (.40)
7. Beretta 92A1 (9mm)
8. SIG 226 (9mm)
9. Glock 17 (9mm)
10. Beretta PX4 Storm (.40)
That's 13 different guns when you count the multiple calibers.
What do you guys think?
-
I was quite intrigued on how the military adopted the M9. After all of the testing, the Beretta was chosen, and it beat out its rival Sig.
I have some other input having been around "way back when" when the testing was going on. IIRC the first set of tests were thrown out and SIG actually beat the Beretta the 2nd time around although not by much. If you look at old gun magazines from 84-85 you'll see SIG ads with the 226 backed by the US Flag and the caption "choice of the finest military forces in the world". These ads were run before verything was finalized. The Beretta was chosen as they offered a lower unit cost and already had a factory in the US where they could be made. There were also political considerations which we shall discuss.
Please keep in mind I am not a fan of SIGs and prefer the Beretta myself.
There has been some talk of just how political it really was in it being chosen by the armed forces. The US was pressured to adopt a 9mm handgun to comply with NATO. The US wanted a missile base in Italy, so the contract was offered to Beretta for the M9 to secure that.
The US "pressure' to adopt the 9mm was generated here. There was no President that scared the Russians more than Reagan. This was the main reason Communism bankrupted itself building more tanks, planes, and missiles. That tactic is a topic for another discussion. It kind of made sense to adopt a 9mm as that was what every other NATO country used. The US had always mandated the NATO rifle rd, most of the parts interchangabilty (M1 Abrams track pads also fit the Brit's Challenger and German Leopard tanks for example), and set the standards for most Nato Standardized Agreements (STANAGS).
The US missiles in Italy were another very important issue. The Russians gave major concessions in SALT for us to take the Pershing missiles systems out of Germany. They really worried the Russians as they were mobile the Russians couldn't target them because they couldn't be sure of where they were going to be. A base in Italy was not one of the issues and would still enable us to hit targets in the Soviet Union. Establishing another military base in a foreign country is great for their job market and economy. This and the other factors I mentioned were the reasons the Beretta was chosen.
For example, would Colt, who had secured the contract for the 1911 and who was working on a scaled down 1911 in 9mm for the new contract, would Colt have had any interest in the 92s "durability" as it produced ammuntion for the military?
Colt was really stumbling in the gun business in the 80s. They had made no real attempt to modernize their line of guns and figured they were set making M16s. There was one private proposal to convert the 1911 inventory to 9mm which was actually the cheapest proposal of them all at about $125 a gun. new slide, barrel, magazines and some frame mods were all that was required. This was turned down as the newest 1911s were made in 1945 and were approaching 40 years old. I've seen 1911s (no A1) made in 1916 in Army inventories that already had been through a couple of rebuilds.
And Glock was probably rejected because it didn't have 50,000 safeties on it.
The Glock wasn't even being imported when the tests started. First Glock I saw was a 17 in 1985. Had it been around that would have been my pick.
And then the FBI murders happened! Bad Guys took too long to bleed-out & DIE from their "lethal" wounds with the 9mm round!
If you're talking about the Miami shootout the FBI was using the 115 gr WW Silvertip. This happened in April 1986 so the M9 was alreday adopted. I saw the complete after action report. The ammo performed as it was supposed to and took out several inches of the BGs brachial artery stopping just short of his heart. Even if it had gone through his heart it still would have taken him a bit to die.
But it goes to show how unfair it is to compare a new weapons system to one that has already been established and had all the bugs worked out of it.
Very true. When the 03 Springfield was adopted Army brass insisted it have a magazine cutoff because troops would waste ammo. This feature was dropped on the 03A3 in WWII as a cost saving measure.
Those FBI guys? They didn't probably didn't even use HPs.
See my comment above.
Because of the retarded Hague agreement, they were restricted to FMJ only
I agree to an extent. Its okay if you kill soldiers with jagged pieces of metal from fragmentation from artillery rounds but not hollowpoints. I don't think its retarded concerning the treatment of POWs if I am one and the enemy country follows the rules.
Just because they pass up the 9mm to use the .45acp doesn't automatically make the 9mm inferior at everything,
Correct once again. The 9mm seems to have worked for Eurpoean nations for years. If the 45 is better than the 9 in FMJ configuration its only marginally so (and I like my 45s).
There is an article in the current Army Times regarding the announcement of trials for a new US military standard handgun. I'll dig it out and start a new post.
-
Depending on the size/config...
1. (for DAOs), the trigger pull is very heavy
2. limited capacity
3. difficult reloads (requires both hands and a bit of fumbling, and speed loaders)
The limited capacity is a big one though.
1. You should be firing DA in a SD situation anyway. If you are not properly trained with a revolver the DA pull can be an issue. I see what you're saying though and that's the reason semi-autos are more popular. Revolvers are a bit more difficult to master but once you've learned how to use one everything else is easy
2. If you're talking 5 shot vs 15 I'd agree. A shotgun gives you the same disadvantage in most cases. However, a std 1911 holds 7+1 which you can get with a revolver if that's an issue. Having had to use a revolver once or twice in the past 40 years I've never felt undergunned.
3. You can do one handed reloads with a revolver and there is no fumbling if you're properly trained. Speedloaders are once again an issue of proper training.
The fact is you can come up with a bunch of disadvantages for any weapon and you get to make your own choice and accept any disadvantages coming with it.
-
Time?
-
IMO you would have to pin the stock. You would have a rifle with at least two evil features (ability to accept mags over 15 rds and a pistol grip)so substantially identical would apply.
ATF says its legal as far as Feceral law goes but I'm not sure what NJ has to say. Maybe we will see more "AG Guidelines" which make up laws as they feel like.
-
Revolvers have too many down sides.
Like?
-
You can have hi cap mags for guns you qualify with and use on duty.
-
Understood. But from the variety of "active shooter" incidents that we've seen across the nation, the SOP for most police is simply as follows:
1. Establish perimeter
2. Wait for SWAT team
You describe what happened at Colombine. People kept dying while waiting for SWAT. Engaging the active shooter with the first responding units is a more effective tactic to minimize loss of life.
The answer is more guns in the right hands, and those hands are yours and mine.
So you're volunteering to patrol schools with your AR or am I reading that wrong? You should have an AR or AK and the police shouldn't?
It also means more money in investigative skills, not shooting skills.
This would be so the police can figure out where the shooter was standing when they killed all the people they shot? Police shooting skills are the object of so many jokes on gun forums and you're advocating police don't have more. It's much easier to hit with a rifle whatever your skill level is.
Allow teachers and faculty to be armed, and control the portals entering and exiting the school itself.
They're more than that to parents and their children. For the hours they're in the class, the teacher is their guardian. What good is a guardian if they are forcibly disarmed by the state?
Yeah, sure. Send this proposal to the NJEA and see what they say. Do you think they'd agree with you?
To what end? Patrol officers are not soldiers, nor should they be equipped as such.
They aren't soldiers and neither are most of the people on this forum. Police shouldn't have them but the average citizen should? You are losing any argument criticizing stupid laws like NJ's AWB with logic like that.
But hey, we all saw how VT and Columbine worked out... I bet more AR-15s and body armor for the police would've really helped there
If police had immediate response policy to an active shooter at the time many lives may have been saved both those of victims already shot and those that were shot while waiting for SWAT.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. When you formulate opinions on flawed thinking that's dangerous. It seems on every gun forum there are those that know way more about how police should operate and what they should be armed without any concept of what they are talking about. When I was a LE firearms instructor I encouraged use of long guns (870s, M4s, MP5s, etc) whenever anyone was going out on anything where a shooting was possible. Many times mere display of the long guns were enough to make the bad guys give up (who willing to fight it out if you came only with handgun).
The bravado of saying "I can make that shot with a pistol" or "I shoot better than most cops anyway" go down the toilet in a genuine shooting situation.
As far as the guy losing the rifle, punish him and lets carry on.
-
1
-
-
Phoenix PD was looking for people big time but has slowed n almost stopped in the last three years. I have family in Arizona and had oppertunities to join three years ago and kick myself for not moving.
The problem with a long distance move for a local agency is if you like the work but can't stand living there you're starting out all over again.
I started with the Federal government moving from NJ to AZ. During the summer it was too hot for my kids to play outside during the day, had to drive 150 miles to get to a real supermarket, 50 miles to get a part for my car with the choice of one place to go, and with no cable TV then I got to watch reruns of Mannix in from Mexican TV or one channel from Tucson or Phoenix but only at night after spending a weeks pay on a super antenna and line amp. I worked my way back east with no loss of seniority, postion, or anything like that.
Okay you won't have a lot of those problems in Phoenix. AFAIC Phoenix has the same problem as most places have between the Mississippi and the West Coast and that's you have to drive so far to go somewhere else.
Something to consider.
-
I picked revolver. Simple manual of arms you don't have to stop and think how it works or if its my Glock, 1911, or Beretta by the bedside. If you only have one type of semiauto I'd go with that. Shotguns are great but you can't maneuver them as easily as a handgun. Birdshot will work at home defense ranges and won't penetrate walls but you have to consider the fact that if it hits a steel door, stove, fridge, or other metal it will richochet and can wind up hitting something you don't want hit.
-
And, if it were "NATO" ammo, you gotta be careful with some of that stuff in 9mm. The spec allows some really hot crap for subguns that have been designed to handle it.
Well yes...and no. Old WWII surplus ammo (black tip) was really hot and should be reserved for subguns. There were others as well.
Pressure specs for NATO ammo vary. Figures I've found are:
SAAMI spec (to compare).....35,000 psi max.....38,500 +P max
US M882 spec................31,175 psi avg.....36,250 max
Other NATO..................37,000 psi to 42,000 psi max
In other words if its US manufacture M882 NATO spec it should be safe.
I'm guessing that most NATO countries now load toward the lower end of that max pressure and having a high presure round only for sub guns and a lower pressure one for pistols would be a logistical nightmare that can be easily avoided.
I would be careful with foreign made NATO spec.
Camden Chief Issues P2P's to Prohibited Person
in General Discussion
Posted
Pizza Bob missed the line you quoted. The Councilman and Chief need to be charged.