Re: Gun/Military Thread

[Frost]

I only mentioned the F2000 since, unlike conventional rifles, the right-handed-based design isn't just a matter of inconveniently-placed controls, it's a matter of hot brass going in your ears.

Meanwhile, I think it'll be a very long time before bullpups have usurped conventional in terms of pure practicality.

You mentioned railguns. Curse you, because you reminded me how much I can't wait until we have small-arms-grade railguns

[Sindri]

I only mentioned the F2000 since, unlike conventional rifles, the right-handed-based design isn't just a matter of inconveniently-placed controls, it's a matter of hot brass going in your ears.

Meanwhile, I think it'll be a very long time before bullpups have usurped conventional in terms of pure practicality.

You mentioned railguns. Curse you, because you reminded me how much I can't wait until we have small-arms-grade railguns

Well, don't hold your breath. I mean, I hope to see it before I die, but even naval-scale ones aren't going to be in service for at least five years. And to carry one... you'd need a hell of a power source and a hell of a cooling mechanism, both small enough to hold in your hands, accurately point at a target, and spin with in a narrow corridor. I figure at least twenty years before we have railguns on tanks, maybe a sniper rifle in fifty if we're lucky, and a good long time before they get issued to normal infantry. Think of the railguns under development now like the earliest black powder cannons, and then think of everything that went into going from a brass cannon to an assault rifle.

Of course if we get fusion power on a practical scale, or make some huge advance in superconducting or battery storage, that'll accelerate things. But fusion's been five years away for about sixty years now, and nobody can predict how long breakthroughs in material science will take.

Although I suppose that powered armor development would help bridge the gap between what you put on a vehicle and what you hand to a soldier...

[Frost]

Also, I was thinking about the AA-12. Every time you see it pop in fiction, it appears to be being used as some sort of CQB meat-grinder that would be utterly impractical in real combat. However, I was thinking of a different use: switch it to semi-auto, pop a decent optic on it, and (instead of the tiny 8-round box mag or enormous 20-round drum) a decent-sized, double-stack 15 or 20-round box mag full of 3-inch magnum slugs, and you've for a fairly compact, hard-hitting, virtually recoilless 150-250-yard rifle.

[CamoBadger]

I disagree. It still has a shotgun barrel, so it's boreless. And if we've learned anything from un-rifled barrels, they're shit outside 30 feet.

[Frost]

Thus you use rifled slugs. The increased range is, in fact, the purpose of rifled slugs (I'm sorry. When I say "slugs" for a shotgun, I'm implying "rifled slugs" and most people I talk to have talked to me enough to understand that. Should've been more clear)

[CamoBadger]

Still not increadibly accurate. Maybe out to 100m, but there is nothing you can fire from a shotgun to be accurate further out than that. That's just the limitation on the design.

[Frost]

Well, I just dug up my numbers again, and it turns out it is closer to 100m. I don know, I must've been thinking of something else when I said 200.

Still not your best option for a firefight, but it's a better way to use the gun than just slinging buckshot from the hip

[Sindri]

Also, I was thinking about the AA-12. Every time you see it pop in fiction, it appears to be being used as some sort of CQB meat-grinder that would be utterly impractical in real combat. However, I was thinking of a different use: switch it to semi-auto, pop a decent optic on it, and (instead of the tiny 8-round box mag or enormous 20-round drum) a decent-sized, double-stack 15 or 20-round box mag full of 3-inch magnum slugs, and you've for a fairly compact, hard-hitting, virtually recoilless 150-250-yard rifle.

You know what you can use for that? A rifle.

Shotguns are great at about 30m, and they're very versatile weapons, but past 100m they're useless. Yes, every portrayal of them in movies and video games treats them like extra-noisy melee weapons and that's stupid, but there's a good reason that rifled barrels dominate the battlefield. Just because short range in modern warfare means they're a block away instead of a kilometer doesn't mean that a shotgun isn't primarily a short range weapon, and no matter how fancy your ammo gets unless it's self-propelled or fin-stabilized it won't go very far from a smooth barrel without losing accuracy.

[Frost]

It appears I need to repeat myself:

Still not your best option for a firefight, but it's a better way to use the gun than just slinging buckshot from the hip

[Sindri]

It appears I need to repeat myself:

Still not your best option for a firefight, but it's a better way to use the gun than just slinging buckshot from the hip

Yeah, sorry I was replying slowly. There are a lot of good uses for a combat shotgun though... breaching doors, launching small grenades, less lethal loads for crowd control, I've heard of saline rounds to disrupt electronics at range, and of course pretty much nothing matches the stopping power of a shotgun blast at close range. (and yes, you can turn it into a single-shot flamethrower. This will rapidly damage your gun and has little combat application unless you're fighting trolls or vampires)

A rifle is a tool which performs a single task very well, while a shotgun is a tool which performs many decently. Its versatility makes it very valuable in some situations, but the heavier ammunition, lower rate of fire, short effective range, and small magazine will never compete with an assault rifle for mid-to-long range fighting.

[Frost]

As I've (somewhat attemptedly humorously) alluded to on other threads, I'm quite the shotgun fan, particularly a tactical pump-action shotgun.

[Sindri]

As I've (somewhat attemptedly humorously) alluded to on other threads, I'm quite the shotgun fan, particularly a tactical pump-action shotgun.

I'm a fan too; if you're using it right you don't need rapid fire, you can keep the whole magazine full all the time without even stopping pointing it at the enemy, and with the right loads you can do practically anything as long as you aren't too far away. That wide, smooth barrel might not be good for sniping with, but you can get all manner of fun devices built into the shells, from grenades to tazers to gas canisters to a molotov on a stick.

I'm also a fan of light pistols and anti-materiel rifles. Less fond of assault rifles, but I recognize that those ugly, noisy things are the cheapest, easiest, and most efficient way to deal with the most threats. I do not like heavy pistols; I figure any handgun bringing its caliber to .45 or higher would be better served by making the rounds faster and sharper instead of wider and heavier, but I appear to be in the minority in thinking that.

[Frost]

I'm quite good with .45 and 9mm (not so much with .40, for whatever reason) I've shot a .44 a buddy had. It was... alright, but I wouldn't ever think of using it in a serious situation.

I'm really interested in the 5.7, but it being rare as hell kind of subverts my interest in getting some range time with one

[Frost]

So a friend just stopped by and showed me his Ruger P95 DC. I really liked it, but does anyone have any experience dealing with Ruger pistols?

[CamoBadger]

I've only ever used a Ruger .22.
Awesome for illegally hunting rabbits and squirrels if you really don't want to get caught

[StoneSlinger88]

Speaking of .22's, anyone try to find some .22 caliber ammunition lately? The stores I went to were completely out, including Dick's Sporting Goods. .22LR is getting hard to find (never thought I'd ever say that or meet anyone that had). Apparently, Homeland Security has been buying rounds by the millions.

I still have a box of 500 from last year, but when I find a place with .22 I'm stocking up. Probably going to burn through a good chunk of that tomorrow because I haven't shot in forever and want to get some rounds through my new Henry.

[Frost]

I've noticed that. I heard that even non-armed departments are buying rounds by the billion

[StoneSlinger88]

Managed to find some .22 yesterday, Remington high-velocity jacketed shorts. Need I tell you how much I love a lever-action? The store's owner always ordered local, but he has to find suppliers halfway across the country just to keep it in stock; I could count the 50 round boxes he had left on one hand.

Not a fan of the buckhorn sights though, the rear sight aperture's "v" is too wide for my tastes, gonna have to find a way to narrow it up. Any ideas?

[Sindri]

Not a fan of the buckhorn sights though, the rear sight aperture's "v" is too wide for my tastes, gonna have to find a way to narrow it up. Any ideas?

My first instinct is duct tape.

[StoneSlinger88]

*sighs*

That was my first thought too...

[Sindri]

I go with what works.

[Ironmonger]

Related to a recent discussion on the RP OOC thread.

Just adding my thoughts, I think that the magazine ban would piss off companies like Glock who, by standard design, carry well over 10 rounds. Considering that Glock is so popular...yeah, that shit aint gonna fly.

[CamoBadger]

Related to a recent discussion on the RP OOC thread.

Just adding my thoughts, I think that the magazine ban would piss off companies like Glock who, by standard design, carry well over 10 rounds. Considering that Glock is so popular...yeah, that shit aint gonna fly.

It's 15, but it also includes any magazine with a removable base plate, that way nobody can 'modify' them to carry more than 15.
So, you know, about 99% of magazines that exist in the current market. Which means that colorado gun owners will now be clambering for magazines of every kind until July 1 (the date when no more 'illegal' magazines can be sold). Time to burn my wallet and get some. (By the way, this includes giving magazines to family and friends, not just buying. Giving people a magazine for a gift is now illegal.)
Thank you Governor, I love you so much for making my life even MORE annoying.

Oh, and I'm sure the employees at Magpul love you too.

[Frost]

Consider this, for a moment.

Not only did he think this was a good idea, but at NO point druing the drafting, debate, and polishing of this new little idea among his staff did anyone sit down and say "guys, wait a mintue....... this is a fucking terrible idea. Seriously, just fucking think this through."

[CamoBadger]

Consider this, for a moment.

Not only did he think this was a good idea, but at NO point druing the drafting, debate, and polishing of this new little idea among his staff did anyone sit down and say "guys, wait a mintue....... this is a fucking terrible idea. Seriously, just fucking think this through."

Politicians and thinking don't exactly go together.

Honestly, I'm amazed they ever looked at this and said 'yup, this is a great idea!'. Every bit of it sounds fucking retarded.

[Sindri]

Consider this, for a moment.

Not only did he think this was a good idea, but at NO point druing the drafting, debate, and polishing of this new little idea among his staff did anyone sit down and say "guys, wait a mintue....... this is a fucking terrible idea. Seriously, just fucking think this through."

Politicians and thinking don't exactly go together.

Honestly, I'm amazed they ever looked at this and said 'yup, this is a great idea!'. Every bit of it sounds fucking retarded.

As a general rule, the content of the law is irrelevant to them. They look at "assault magazine ban" and tally the votes they gain for claiming to make people safer against the votes they lose from 'gun nuts'. The actual consequences to individuals never factor into the political decision process, just which groups would be for or against a general category of laws like 'gun control', and how many laws in that category they want their name attached to.

[StoneSlinger88]

They don't give a shit if it's a good idea or not-- "Good idea" to them means "What gets me votes". If everybody is seemingly clambering for new bans/restrictions, well that seems like it'll get them votes, so why not? What boggles my mind is that they think restricting a magazine's capacity significantly decreases the efficiency. It takes what, three, four seconds to go from a dry magazine to a loaded one? Cut that in half if you just let the dry one fall.

[StoneSlinger88]

Woohoo! I found some .22! One 325-round tin of hollowpoints. And that's all they'd sell me, they're rationing it like crazy so there's enough for everyone.

[Ketchup]

So, back with the topic of the claim that guns kill fewer people than hammers do in the US, it isn't true.

For shotguns and rifles, from what I can see it holds true that blunt instruments are more frequently used to kill people than those categories.
Handguns are a different story.
Here's the FBI statistics, apparently:

Spoiler:

Regardless, the restriction on large magazines won't help at all with gun violence. A sufficiently motivated criminal will still use illegally-sized magazines anyway.

[IncoherentOrange]

I've been looking into non-restricted firearms in Canada, and for less than four hundred bucks you can buy a Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle in .22 caliber. Since rimfire cartridge magazine sizes are unlimited here (because varmint hunting, I presume), you can, rather humorously, legally buy (they are for sale online) a 120-round drum mag for this particular weapon. The regular magazines come in 10 or 25, though, which is ample.
Someone I talked to said that it's "the best .22 system you can put your money into."
There's also a kit that's kinda neat called the Archangel Marauder that costs nearly as much as the gun itself but alters its features to resemble those of a G36, the rail/sight of which is also available for the kit. Probably wouldn't get it, as that pushes the price to around 750$, which is too much for a .22.

[Sponsored content]