Do you own any guns?

[Ethereal Cereal 84]

This is my kind of thread.

 

I own...

 

Mossberg 590 pump

 

Česká Zbrojovka Mod.70 in .32ACP

 

Russian Nagant M1895 Revolver in 7.62x38mmR (which is a pain in the neck to find ammo), Tula Arsenal, 1944

 

Yugoslavian M59/66 SKS dated 1969.

 

Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk.I in full military dressing with Weaver K4 fixed-power scope that features the rare German 3-post reticle

 

Russian M44 Carbine dated 1946, late-year Izhevsk production model, numbers-matching except the bolt.

 

Japanese Arisaka Type 38 6.5x50, early 1920's Koshikawa Arsenal production with 16-petal chrysanthemum symbol intact.

 

Remington Armory Model 1917 Mosin-Nagant converted by the famous Francis Bannerman & Sons company to .30-06 Springfield. INCREDIBLY rare example, all original except the stock.

 

Tanfoglio .22lr single-action revolver

 

Ruger 10/22 Carbine

 

Finally, I'm going to be acquiring another Arisaka, a wartime production Tokyo Juki Kogyo Arsenal Type 99, also with 'mum intact. Almost have it paid off.

Edited February 15, 2012 by CadenceAndCascade

[NewCalamity 3,454]

Yes I do.

Here's my AK-47

 

*flexes left arm*

 

...and here's my Gatling

 

*flexes right arm*

 

You totally stole my joke.

[Finesthour 7,284]

No, because I have no need to.

[I_wesley125 393]

No, because I have no need to.

 

Home defense?

[Simcity11100 770]

No respect for the AUG assault riffle huh?

[Finesthour 7,284]

Home defense?

 

Excuse me for not living in a neighborhood where I need a giant rifle to survive.

[Yellow Diamond 7,564]

Nope. Never had, probably never will. I'm pretty much in the same boat as Rose.

[DashingRainbow36 263]

Well they aren't my guns but we have a sawed off shotgun, .9mm, and a glock 45 in the house. Havn't shot any of them though.

[Larko 77]

Well they aren't my guns but we have a sawed off shotgun,

 

lol in my area we have the funniest law, you can have a .50 cal sniper rifle but you are now allowed to own a sawed off UNLESS you don't saw off a shotgun and instead build up a pistol to fire shotgun shells.

[Ethereal Cereal 84]

Where I'm from, you can get most anything so long as you have the money and the patience to deal with the Feds. So, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, fully automatic weapons, destructive devices (anything explosive, anything like the Armsel Striker-12), suppressors etc.

[DashingRainbow36 263]

lol in my area we have the funniest law, you can have a .50 cal sniper rifle but you are now allowed to own a sawed off UNLESS you don't saw off a shotgun and instead build up a pistol to fire shotgun shells.

 

I'm not sure what the laws are in North Carolina. I don't know shit about guns actually.

[Comet Tail 808]

I don't know the exact kinds, but a few shotguns and 7mm rifles, with some pretty fancy scopes. 9mm handguns in certain hidden spots throughout the house. And I'm very proud of an AR-15 my dad owns. Finest assualt rifle in the world, IMO. And a Japanese rifle (which my dad insists is a sniper rifle) I suspect to be a Type 98, from a grandparent who was in the pacific in WWII (no scope, bolt-action). It's got a new wooden body, but the metal rifle itself is still the same one.

 

Some people say the AK-47 is better. I agree, if you can't take care of guns and you need something cheap because your army doctrine is "cheap, disposable soldiers".

 

Seriously, the weight's all in the front, 7mm recoil will be awful for an assualt rifle, wooden stock doesn't help the case at all, the sights aren't great...

 

M16/AR-15: Titanium/aircraft-grade aluminum, soft high-quality polymer adjustable stock, some of the best iron sights in the world, mine has a nice scope on it, 500 yd effective range, much farther than the AK47, and the round may be smaller (5.56 mm vs 7mm), but it has a 3200 ft/s muzzle velocity, much, much higher than every other rifle (~2700 ft/s), which makes a huge difference in effective range, penetration ability, and accuracy.

 

As you can see I'm into the engineering side of it, too

 

.50 cals are so expensive, I'd probably send in designs to a machine shop and have mine custom-made to be a lot cheaper. What? I'm sure it's legal somewhere XD

 

Excuse me for not living in a neighborhood where I need a giant rifle to survive.

 

Nope. Never had, probably never will. I'm pretty much in the same boat as Rose.

 

Three other reasons to own firearms:

 

1) Fun. Wonderful machines, they are.

2) Practicing personal rights - throughout history, the people who didn't own weapons have always been the slaves.

3) The Apocalypse... What? Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't... (It has before. Fall of the Roman empire, rise of the Nazi party, fall of the Aztecs and Incans...)

[Ethereal Cereal 84]

I'm a little wary of anyone making a case about the AR-15 over the AK-47 in that manner. Wood is heavy and absorbs more recoil, plus it's much more appealing to the eyes (at least to me) than some plastic fantastic stock. Ever seen an M1 Garand in glass-smooth Black Walnut? Changed my whole outlook on what a gunstock should look like. NEVER seen anything so smooth.

 

Also, not particularly fond of Direct Impingement. Way too tight and the guns are far more finicky. AK-47 will digest anything you put through it, and it'll do it properly too. Plus, long-stroke gas piston reduces the number of parts that are likely to become dirty from carbon fouling and/or unburnt powder. Not only that, but if you were particularly concerned about recoil you could just buy an AK-74 and get the same lethality of the 7.62x39 in a 5.45x39mm instead. Personally, I'd trust an AK with my life far earlier than I would trust an AR. But that's just me.

 

Also, Braun, you might be thinking of a Type 97, which is based off of the Type 38, utilizing a 2.5x telescopic sight. D'you know the caliber? Is it 6.5 or 7.7?

Edited February 14, 2012 by CadenceAndCascade

[Yellow Diamond 7,564]

Three other reasons to own firearms:

 

1) Fun. Wonderful machines, they are.

2) Practicing personal rights - throughout history, the people who didn't own weapons have always been the slaves.

3) The Apocalypse... What? Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it won't... (It has before. Fall of the Roman empire, rise of the Nazi party, fall of the Aztecs and Incans...)

 

1.) I find firearms interesting to study, though I have no practical use for them. New York City laws are also very strict with respect to the possession of firearms.

2.) Weapons can also be used to infringe upon the rights of others. And the historical argument for possessing personal weaponry is not as pervasive as it may seem.

3.) Those were events driven by economic and socio-political factors. The Nazis triumphed by virtue of their political and social manipulation; they were just as willing to placed armed thugs on the streets, so refer to point two. To resist that ideology requires a dimension beyond weapons---not to imply the Allied war effort and anti-Nazi guerrilla movements were unjustified. They very much were.

[Comet Tail 808]

I'm a little wary of anyone making a case about the AR-15 over the AK-47 in that manner. Wood is heavy and absorbs more recoil, plus it's much more appealing to the eyes (at least to me) than some plastic fantastic stock. Ever seen an M1 Garand in glass-smooth Black Walnut? Changed my whole outlook on what a gunstock should look like. NEVER seen anything so smooth.

 

Also, not particularly fond of Direct Impingement. Way too tight and the guns are far more finicky. AK-47 will digest anything you put through it, and it'll do it properly too. Plus, long-stroke gas piston reduces the number of parts that are likely to become dirty from carbon fouling and/or unburnt powder. Not only that, but if you were particularly concerned about recoil you could just buy an AK-74 and get the same lethality of the 7.62x39 in a 5.45x39mm instead. Personally, I'd trust an AK with my life far earlier than I would trust an AR. But that's just me.

 

Also, Braun, you might be thinking of a Type 97, which is based off of the Type 38, utilizing a 2.5x telescopic sight. D'you know the caliber? Is it 6.5 or 7.7?

 

Okay, I'm not a huge expert on rifles, but generally my view on AK v.s. AR comes down to this: In the middle-east, the M16 has proven to be perfectly trustworthy, it's reliability isn't a huge issue with modern variants, assuming you take good care of it. It uses a lighter round, which is easier on logistics and just as effective (in most circumstances), the recoil is easier to handle, making it more accurate for 3-shot bursts (which the '47 doesn't have, to my knowledge), and it's effective range is 500 yds, while the AK's is 400m. Furthermore, the muzzle velocity of 2,350 fps is really low for most rifles, but especially compared to the AR's 3,200 fps.

 

Consider: a smaller round has less surface area, but also less mass. It's also shorter, so it's decrease of mass goes by the cube, while decrease of area goes by the square. So, true, a smaller round will have less pressure at the same velocity, but not by much. Meanwhile, kinetic energy goes by the square of the velocity, which means a muzzle velocity almost 50% and 1,000 fps higher will drastically increase the kinetic energy on impact, which means higher penetration, which means less things make effective armor or cover for the bad guys to hide behind. (for example, M4 rounds (5.56mm NATO) have penetrated entire car doors).

 

Also true, that aerodynamic drag goes by the square of the velocity. The effect of all this is, that at short range the 5.56 will perform better on impact, at mid range the 7mm will perform better on impact, but then the 5.56 has longer effective range and is more accurate, which makes up for it's lack of performance at longer ranges.

 

(I could find that exact range the 7mm round becomes better; all it would take is some math and a ballistics reference table for each round. But that requires too much effort, lol. There's a chance that the round only becomes more impact-effective outside of the 400m range, but there's also a chance it happens as close as 100m, so...)

 

The real reason, undeniably, though, IMO, for using the 5.56, is that it's a lighter round (not bullet, the entire round), which means much easier logistics, and troops can easily carry more ammo and larger magazines, which in a firefight will be a lifesaver.

 

 

In the end; the U.S. military has chosen the AR-15 and 5.56mm round, instead of developing a new 7mm rifle. These guys are pretty smart, they make all their decisions for good reasons, I trust they know what they're doing. So why do the Russians and most of the world use the AK? They're smart, too. In their circumstances, the AK47 is the better choice. Why? Simple. It's cheaper. Much, much cheaper. And if your military doctrine isn't to go the extra mile to protect your individual soldiers' lives, then it is the better choice.

 

But because of publicity and such (and I would like to think some moral obligation), the U.S. is much more pressed to make each individual soldier as high-quality as possible. They're not nearly as "disposable" as soldiers are in other militarys' warfighting doctrine, so we're willing to spend more money on each soldier, and give them the finer, more expensive, harder to maintain (means extra training) rifle.

 

So, it's not so much that one country is smarter than the other and made the better rifle, it's that one country has a different approach: spend more on each soldier, and make each individual soldier more valuable. This means give them a better, but more expensive, rifle. And it makes sense for an all-volunteer army where men are in lower supply, too.

 

 

-

Lol, I think I was mentally mixing the Type 97 and 38. Honestly, I can't recall it's mm size. I'd have to go look. Last I remember, my dad was calling them "Jap 7mm", so I'm not sure...

 

 

1.) I find firearms interesting to study, though I have no practical use for them. New York City laws are also very strict with respect to the possession of firearms.

2.) Weapons can also be used to infringe upon the rights of others. And the historical argument for possessing personal weaponry is not as pervasive as it may seem.

3.) Those were events driven by economic and socio-political factors. The Nazis triumphed by virtue of their political and social manipulation; they were just as willing to placed armed thugs on the streets, so refer to point two. To resist that ideology requires a dimension beyond weapons---not to imply the Allied war effort and anti-Nazi guerrilla movements were unjustified. They very much were.

 

1. ) I probably wouldn't own a gun if I lived in NY, either. Much freer here in AL...

2. ) True, but I don't plan on doing that. I plan on carrying concealed at college (which this one does allow it) so if there's a shooter I can save my friends' lives...

3. ) Truedat. But don't crush my zombie apocalypse dreams XD lol _jk.

[Ethereal Cereal 84]

Well, the fun's been sucked out of this conversation.

[Comet Tail 808]

 

The AR-15 is a joy to shoot XD

 

'keep it going, peeps.

[Robert3186 45]

*walks in*...*reads thread*.........*leaves*

[Ethereal Cereal 84]

I'm kind of interested in firing a rifle chambered in .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum. I have to wonder the recoil on something that small, but with that much wallop. Sure gives a loud report.

[Neko-Chan 34]

Home defense?

 

 

Covered.

(j/k...but that is my dog)

Edited February 14, 2012 by Neko-Chan

[GrooveBroove 680]

I own 129+ guns

[SrFrog 926]

Only gun I ever owned was a Mondragon Rifle, never got to shoot it since finding rounds for guns in Mexico can be difficult at times.

[FLARE 951]

I've never seen a gun IRL.

[Marshmallow 1,134]

No, and nor do I see the point in owning one either.

 

And that "home-defense" argument is just silly to me. Sure I don't live in a dangerous neighbourhood like some of you might, but wouldn't a small pistol be enough for self defence? You don't need a freaking automatic assault rifle for that!

 

And what're you gonna do if someone breaks into your house? Shoot him? You'll just end up in jail...

Guns should be illegal imo. They just make it easier for criminals to get what they need for their crimes.

 

And besides, large guns are really expensive. They're a fucking waste of money in my opinion.

[Skullbuster 1,906]

i dont, but i wish i did

 

No, and nor do I see the point in owning one either.

 

And that "home-defense" argument is just silly to me. Sure I don't live in a dangerous neighbourhood like some of you might, but wouldn't a small pistol be enough for self defence? You don't need a freaking automatic assault rifle for that!

 

And what're you gonna do if someone breaks into your house? Shoot him? You'll just end up in jail...

Guns should be illegal imo. They just make it easier for criminals to get what they need for their crimes.

 

And besides, large guns are really expensive. They're a fucking waste of money in my opinion.

 

pistols are recommended fro home defense, and im pretty sure you need a special permit to even own an automatic weapon