OT: Seriously????

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Webstral

“
Let’s be honest with ourselves: no one with any sense buys an AR-15 buys it because he thinks it’s better suited for home defense than a handgun or a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel.

It is a well done article, I do however disagree with you on this point. A pistol is a terrible home defense weapon, the only thing that it has going for it is that it is easy to carry and or move with, for home defense that does not really apply if you are not trained to move with a weapon odds are you will not do it right regardless of what you have. If you are staying put in a locked room as lots of police departments recommend now how easy it is to carry and/or move with makes no difference. Now the shotgun has most of the advantages that the rifle has and as most people know the sound alone is enough to scare most bad men away, plus it is much easier to hit with as you only need to be pointing in the general direction. Both of these are wrong and if you are depending on them may get you killed. My background I did 20 years in the Army, and a bit over 8 as a Federal Police officer (firearms instructor among other ting I did), our shotguns (bought in the 1960's) will put all of the shot in the face at 75ft. I have also had the opportunity to shoot different things, the shotgun penetrated the best (Slug) and the buckshot was about as good as the AR, we use .40 sidearms and they were the worst. The shotgun also has the most recoil now if you have a one shot stop that does not matter much, they do happen not much but does happen. What about if there are more than one bad guy? Multiple attackers are happening more and more, last stats I saw had home invasions on the rise, they do not have to worry about you coming home and surprising them. So my choice for a home defense weapon is my M4 with suppressor it is more accurate than the handgun, easier to shoot so I am more likely to hit. If I do miss the bullet has less chance to penetrate multiple walls as there is only one not nine every time I pull the trigger. A saying we have is you own the bullet from the time you fire it tell it comes to a stop and the average cost of a miss is about $1 mil. But the biggest reason I pick the AR is that with all the training I have with it, it has become an extension of my body. Every time I pull the shotgun out of the rack I have to look at it as I do not remember if left is safe or is right, and if the fecal matter hits the oscillating blade and I need more ammo that is much easier with a magazine feed weapon the a tube feed. So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by CDAT

So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

Your logic is hard to argue with but I would point out that the firearm I have put the most rounds through and therefore would be most effective with is the Commonwealth version of the FN-FAL. Let's be honest, as a home defence weapon that would be massive overkill and 7.62N rounds would probably punch through several home invaders, and the front wall of my house, and the front fence, and travel who knows how far through my neighborhood.

Having said that, I'd still love to have one in my possession at home if it was legal.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Targan

Having said that, I'd still love to have one [FN FAL] in my possession at home if it was legal.

So say we all. As I continue to read on the Rhodesian War 80-90% of the commentary about the FAL is positive. One of my room mates in Cork, Ireland was a reservist in the Army of Ireland while we were attending University College Cork. He loved the FAL. He was trained as a sniper, and one of the things he liked about the FAL was that it offered the ability to reach out and touch targets with something approaching the range and power he was accustomed to, compared to the M16 or AK-47, yet with a semi-auto ability. I've never fired one. I've never even held one in my hands. I wouldn't choose it for a primary weapon in the US due to ammunition commonality considerations. But I do hear good things.

It occurs to me that I never addressed your question, Targan, which is whether gun owners in the United States think they are part of a militia by dint of owning a gun. I can’t think of an easy answer to that question, though you’d think there should be one.

Do most Americans think they are part of a militia that would be recognized by their 1780’s counterparts? Goodness, no! Keep the Devil between me and monthly drill.

Do most Americans think they are part of the so-called “unorganized militia”? This is harder to answer. I can say with confidence that many American gun owners believe whole-heartedly in the “unorganized militia”. And why not? Suppressing the cognitive dissonance resulting from using the term “unorganized militia” enables one to believe that one should have access to the weapons of overthrowing tyranny without having any obligations associated with said possession. Blame Title 10 and Alexander Hamilton for this. I rather doubt that very many gun owners who just have handguns believe they are part of a militia, but that’s just speculation on my part.

There’s a fair amount of mythology associated with the “unorganized militia”. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations started the ball rolling on this thing only a few years after the Constitution was ratified. This is the origin of the term “unorganized militia”. Doubtless you will discern my contempt for the term, my friends. I find “unorganized militia” has all the etymological logic of “dehydrated water”. Calling a mass of civilians in possession of firearms an “unorganized militia” is like calling a truckload of lumber and a bucket of nails an “unorganized house”. Suggesting that the republic shall be kept warm and dry by this “unorganized house” is a farce. Yet Title 10 as written has standing.

Belief in the idea of the “unorganized militia” is reinforced by popular mythology about the American Revolution in general and Lexington and Concord in particular. Americans seem to widely believe that farmers ran in from the fields, grabbed their muskets off the wall, and went off to defeat one of the best professional armies in the world as necessary. The expedient of hiding behind trees and rocks, combined with “true patriotism”, is held up as a force equal to organization, training, and discipline on the part of the British and their mercenaries. While this fantasy does not bear up under the slightest scrutiny, it dovetails with the traditional American aversion to militarization. Americans hate the draft. Believing that it is possible to defeat a well-trained, well-equipped, and well-disciplined professional force by employing a few basic tricks and calling on one’s deep love of country helps justify a general refusal to countenance compulsory service.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Targan

Your logic is hard to argue with but I would point out that the firearm I have put the most rounds through and therefore would be most effective with is the Commonwealth version of the FN-FAL. Let's be honest, as a home defence weapon that would be massive overkill and 7.62N rounds would probably punch through several home invaders, and the front wall of my house, and the front fence, and travel who knows how far through my neighborhood.

Having said that, I'd still love to have one in my possession at home if it was legal.

Yes the 7.62N is a powerful round but depending on the laws you can select ammo that will penetrate less (a hollow point that opens quick), and by being more accurate less likely to miss. One round that hits the bad guy and then goes through the next wall is better (safer) than six rounds that miss, in my opinion. Also there are exceptions to every rule, I do not care how much experience you have with the M2HB a .50 on tripod is not a good choice.

[kalos72]

My families personal preference for dedicated home defense is the shotgun all the way.

Assuming a pistol backup, nothing like filling a hallway with automatic shotgun fire to deter an enemy. With companies like Saiga and their magazine fed 12ga down to 410ga its down right ugly.

For my wife, muzzle control and aim won't be as much of an issue with the 410, just point it in the right direction and fire. Through in some slugs every couple of rounds and its a done deal.

Now if we are talking about armed organized invaders, a short barreled AR is much better suited. But the average burglar is NOT going to stick around long if they are getting suppressed by automatic shotgun fire...

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by CDAT

It is a well done article, I do however disagree with you on this point. A pistol is a terrible home defense weapon, the only thing that it has going for it is that it is easy to carry and or move with, for home defense that does not really apply if you are not trained to move with a weapon odds are you will not do it right regardless of what you have. If you are staying put in a locked room as lots of police departments recommend now how easy it is to carry and/or move with makes no difference. Now the shotgun has most of the advantages that the rifle has and as most people know the sound alone is enough to scare most bad men away, plus it is much easier to hit with as you only need to be pointing in the general direction. Both of these are wrong and if you are depending on them may get you killed. My background I did 20 years in the Army, and a bit over 8 as a Federal Police officer (firearms instructor among other ting I did), our shotguns (bought in the 1960's) will put all of the shot in the face at 75ft. I have also had the opportunity to shoot different things, the shotgun penetrated the best (Slug) and the buckshot was about as good as the AR, we use .40 sidearms and they were the worst. The shotgun also has the most recoil now if you have a one shot stop that does not matter much, they do happen not much but does happen. What about if there are more than one bad guy? Multiple attackers are happening more and more, last stats I saw had home invasions on the rise, they do not have to worry about you coming home and surprising them. So my choice for a home defense weapon is my M4 with suppressor it is more accurate than the handgun, easier to shoot so I am more likely to hit. If I do miss the bullet has less chance to penetrate multiple walls as there is only one not nine every time I pull the trigger. A saying we have is you own the bullet from the time you fire it tell it comes to a stop and the average cost of a miss is about $1 mil. But the biggest reason I pick the AR is that with all the training I have with it, it has become an extension of my body. Every time I pull the shotgun out of the rack I have to look at it as I do not remember if left is safe or is right, and if the fecal matter hits the oscillating blade and I need more ammo that is much easier with a magazine feed weapon the a tube feed. So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

A very good reply, sir. Very reasonable. I almost forget we’re on the Internet.

I must admit that my statement about sense and choosing the AR-15 for home defense is hyperbolic. Point taken on that one. (I’m using you guys as a beta test, so this feedback is very useful.)

That much said, you have a unique comfort with the AR-15 based on your experience. One wonders how many people who might use an AR-15, AK-47, FAL, etc for home defense share your level of training and experience. People who have it and are not well versed in its use indoors are a hazard to themselves and their neighbors. Many who think they are going to be stellar performers in CQB learn otherwise once the real thing comes along. Trigger control under stress requires drill. As you rightfully point out, you own every round that goes downrange. (I wish everyone in Iraq had remembered that.) Based on your observation about the best weapon for self-defense being that which one can use to keep oneself safe without undue danger to those around, I would say that the semi-auto detachable magazine-fed rifle is not the best choice for any but a select few.

I haven't executed CQB with a handgun, so I'm not able to comment on it. I'll readily agree that lack of proper training presents a problem for anyone attempting CQB. I will file your comments about utility for home defense away and think about them some more.

I deliberately left the shotgun out so far because it is so versatile. I think most people would agree with you that the shotgun is far superior to the handgun for almost all purposes. I haven’t gotten to the shotgun in my narrative because this type of weapon defies the easier categorization that marks the handgun v the bolt action rifle v the semi-auto rifle.

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=10

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by kato13

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from the M1911 due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=10

I've heard a rumor that some departments are going back to 9MM because of recoil complaints. I'm a M1911 guy, but an agency with diverse firearms views should get Glocks or revolvers. Same with planning a shelter for SHTF.

[kalos72]

Supposedly the Gen 4 Glocks have very little recoil, I wonder how 45 feels through one now?

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Supposedly the Gen 4 Glocks have very little recoil, I wonder how 45 feels through one now?

They have the same recoil as the previous generations had. The advantage is that you can configure the backstraps to better fit your hand. This reduces muzzle climb and directs the recoil straight back into your hand (for better recoil control). This allows for faster follow up shots. Considering how light most polymer framed guns are; This is a very important upgrade.

Pro tip: You should never "resist" recoil (try to hold down the muzzle during recoil) or "lock" your wrist against recoil. You should hold your weapon as firmly as you would hold a hammer when driving nails. Firm enough to prevent "side to side squirm" but not with a "death grip." You should allow a pistol to "ride up" through it's recoil and concentrate on returning your wrists/hands to their "prefiring position." By not resisting the recoil and focusing on the return of your hands (and the weapon) to your initial "point of aim," you will suffer less "discomfort" in your hands and recover from shot to shot faster.

[kalos72]

Never owning a Glock myself...but I am told that the double springs in the new Glocks make for a reduced felt recoil. Not sure...

[swaghauler]

I have produced an Energy Dump chart for Twilight2000 that uses the caliber's Energy Ratings (determined by bullet weight in grains multiplied by Velocity, then by velocity again, then by the constant 0.000002218) to determine the number of Damage Dice per Range Band in game. I have yet to type it up (It's my trucking co's busy season since we haul pipe). I'll try to post it for your use. All you have to do is look up a round's Energy (both the Shooters Bible and Gun Digest have printed charts in their books for my fellow "Old Schoolers"). You can find these at all of the ammo manufacturers' websites. You then compare the round in question's Energy at a given Range Band to the chart. This tells you the number of damage dice that round does in a given range band. I have ONE set of Energies for pistol and SMG rounds and a second for rifles. Be prepared to be surprised by the chart AND the Energies listed for various rounds. Preparing the chart was an "eye-opener" for me.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by kato13

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=10

I actually have practical experience here. I was the Range Training Officer for Fidelity Armored and assisted my Department's RTO at the County. It wasn't women who were the problem with high recoil weapons. It was everyone we were getting. America HAD a proud tradition of firearms ownership, but starting around the turn of the century that began to change. We began getting recruits who had never fired a gun at all. Many of these men and women came from urban areas and a large number of them had never even been in a fist fight before they came to us.

The 9mm verses, .40 S&W, verses .45ACP has a couple of issues that cause 9mm dominance. First is the size and weight of the weapon's frame. The 9mm has the smallest frame, lightest weight, and highest capacity (13 to 15) of the three primary police calibers. The .40 falls in the middle with an 11 to 13 round capacity, and the .45 has the largest and heaviest frame for an average round count of just 7 to 8 rounds. Here is the real mindblower in the debate though. The average Energy of a 9mm (no matter the bullet weight) is between 340 ft/lbs and 380 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a 180 grain (but NOT a 165 grain) .40 S&W is just over 400 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a .45ACP in a 230 grain loading is just 360 ft/lbs on average. As you can see from those numbers; There is only about a 50 ft/lb variation between the three calibers. If your getting the same Energy dump from all three calibers; You are better off picking the lightest weapon you can easily shoot. The smaller calibers will cost you less in firearms (initial costs and maintenance) and ammo costs. The fact that 9mmP also recoils less doesn't hurt either. My County adopted the .40 in the 165 grain HP loading because we upped our Energy Dump to 480 ft/lbs out of our Glock 23's and SIG 229's. This round had significant recoil compared to the lighter 180 grain loads though (especially in the Glock). We then upgraded to the .357 SIG round which increased our Energy Dump to well above 500 ft/lbs (depending on whether the 125 or 135 grain bullets were used). There were deputies who had significant issues qualifying with the .357 SIG (especially since we used an older qualification that had a 30 meter target in it). This prompted the sheriff to authorize both the .357 SIG and the .40 S&W.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by kato13

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=10

My first MP unit has M10 .38spl revolvers, M1911A1s, and M16A1s in 1991.

Several females and a few males qualified on M10s because the M1911A1s grips were to large. The 70 round MP quals has stages with one handed firing.

[stormlion1]

When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.

Your post reminded me of something I had completely forgotten. White Sands Missile Range, NM for whatever reason had a small armory of national match weapons run by post headquarters. The best shooters from the three active duty units would be tried out on some of these in the hopes that a post competitive team could be formed. I know it had M21s, M1Cs, M1 Rifles, M1911A1s (.45acp and .38super), and M10 .38s along with spotting scopes, rifle scopes, and all other competition gear. That was in the early 90's.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum!

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum!

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?

I remember most of those when I was waiting to check out my privately owned pistols, no AK's or 1911's except my own. Alsoremember seeing the M249's in plastic sitting on the bench.

[stormlion1]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum!

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?

Not a clue. I remember them showing up in the armory. Stayed there for six months. Then in a rush we were all qualified on them and they then were cleaned up and stocked away and just sat there. Probably had a bright idea and someone got an order, took forever to implement it. All done in a rush just so something could get checked off and they were forgotten about.

For on-base exercises we were using spray painted orange cheap airsoft guns and rubber training aids. Remember because we used them for three months, someone complained and they were all shipped out except the rubber pistols which we still used.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

A little with trying to stay out the politics part too much. The FBI was involved in a shootout that did not go well for them. They were looking and found a pair of bank robbers, who they then got in a shootout with. In the about five minute shootout about 150 rounds were fired. In the end both robbers were killed and two agents. The agents were packing a combination of .357 Mags (shooting .38+P), some 9mm, and a pair of shotguns (with buckshot). The robbers one used a shotgun but he was taken out early so not really in the fight. The other used a Mini-14 rifle and he fired about 40 rounds. In the post investigation it was found that of the about 100 rounds fire by the agents they did not have the take down needed. This is were the FBI came up with there testing that is used today, they also made the 10mm as the "perfect" round. However it had to much recoil for most of their agents, was too large for there smaller stature agents. Smith and Wesson took the 10mm and made the .40 S&W. This started the trend in law enforcement to switch over to the .40. here is a link to the wickipedia page about the shootout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

As for the M1911 this was almost all politics, when law enforcement started switching over from the revolver they wanted to stick with the same basic size round (the .38 special and 9mm are basically the same). Some interesting things that I have read from actual shootings, those who have low capacity magazines ran out in the middle of gunfights less then those who had large capacity, as they keep better track of how many rounds they had.

[ArmySGT.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprGoEpDXJQ

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Swaghauler, your answers to questions about shotguns have been great, very informative.
I'd like to add something about the SPAS-12 from personal experience - it's 0.5kg to 1kg (1.1lbs to 2.2lbs) heavier compared to all the other semi-auto shotguns I've ever seen and that extra weight feels like it's all sitting on your off hand.
For all the "cool" it might have for being Arnie's shotgun in The Terminator, it handles "big & heavy" -- A bit like Arnie I suppose haha

[WallShadow]

"4. Licensed attorneys authorized to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)"

Hence the term "boilerplate"....

[Bullet Magnet]

We'll need to get it on tape. Survivors of the war will want some entertainment.

Originally Posted by WallShadow

Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)"