Real Guns

[Omnis]

The arms trade? You mean all those gifts bought by the CIA?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Question. I was watching 'American Guns' earlier on discovery and they made a guy for gator hunting. Bolt actions rifle with bolt handle on the right, as you normally expect. But the customer was left handed!

So, do many left handers grow used to and thus prefer standard bolt position or would most expect a left sided bolt action?

 

[Michael88]

So, do many left handers grow used to and thus prefer standard bolt position or would most expect a left sided bolt action?

Most of the popular bolt action rifles are available in a ''leftie version'', no big deal.
If you're talking about milsurp rifles though lefties gonna have to adjust, the only milsurp bolt action rifle (As far as I know) that can be converted to left side bolt handle is the Springfield 1903.

There are also many ambidextrous rifles out there, the Winchester 92 for example has a top ejection and the operating lever is positioned at the bottom middle of the rifle. (lever action) And lets not forget all the single shot and pump action rifles.

Here is a left handed version of the popular Savage hunting series rifle:

 

[Zenith]

An acquaintance of mine has a left handed Remington 700. I'll post pics sometime.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Most of the popular bolt action rifles are available in a ''leftie version'', no big deal.
If you're talking about milsurp rifles though lefties gonna have to adjust, the only milsurp bolt action rifle (As far as I know) that can be converted to left side bolt handle is the Springfield 1903.

There are also many ambidextrous rifles out there, the Winchester 92 for example has a top ejection and the operating lever is positioned at the bottom middle of the rifle. (lever action) And lets not forget all the single shot and pump action rifles.

Here is a left handed version of the popular Savage hunting series rifle:

Looks like the gun is a Mossberg.

@35 mins 40 secs.

 

[a6m5]

One(maybe two) of my buddie's a left-handed shooter. There are many ambidextrous firearms, but we also run into some that are not lefty-friendly.

Like Michael mentioned, when it comes to bolt-actions, they seem to offer a version for left-handers. My buddy has a pump action .270 Winchester, and as far as handguns go, he just puts up with whatever is easier for his handicap.

 

[Michael88]

*jaw drops*

Do they mean that weapons & ammunition are "pouring in" in support the Syrian tyrant? Surely they don't mean that rebels shouldn't receive any weapons & ammunition, or referring to living under tyranny is somehow better life? This sounds like a bad joke.

Like most politicians Obama doesn't like the idea of simple people having the ability to rise up against their government if it gets too unfair and tyrannic. He also doesn't trust people to own firearms because he thinks they're too stupid. Says a lot about him. 👎

And for the people who think that without guns there is no war and no death. I remember a story where two African tribes were in war but they were so poor they couldn't afford any guns.
What did they do? They armed themselves with homemade machetes. Hundreds of people including children died a pretty gruesome death.
To be honest, I'd rather get shot than getting stabbed and cut to pieces by a sharp rusty blade.

 

[a6m5]

Yeah, count me in on that. If I could choose how I'm gonna go, getting cut up sashimi style is at near the bottom of the list.

Regarding Obama, I think there is no mistaking in his desire to take the guns away from the American people. We had this discussion at work yesterday(sloooow lol), and I mentioned what Solid posted about Obama's anti-gun view, votes as a senator. Nobody at my work believed that the Government, Obama, or U.N. would ever take the guns away. I told them that decades ago, they never thought that pot would be legalized, or same-sex marriage would be allowed. Times do change, and these things are happening right now. I can totally see the guns being regulated so heavily, or outright banned, no one would have, or want guns in the future America. Only time will tell.

And once again, of course, just about all the anti-gun bills would go after the law-abiding gun owners who respect life, and would never shoot another human being, unless in self-defense.

P.S. Lately, more & more I've been noticing science fiction writers from the past sort of predicting the future. 10, 20 years ago, somebody would tell me about overpopulation, food/water shortage, 1984-type surveillance by the Government, I'd just laugh them off. I found them absolutely ridiculous. With the people today starting to see the signs of those things becoming a new reality, call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but for right or wrong, maybe the authorities are starting to see merit in disarming the public? I'm just throwing that out there.

 

[XS]

To be honest, I'd rather get shot than getting stabbed and cut to pieces by a sharp rusty blade.

Both were done to me in the same night. I was working late at the college bookstore I operated. It was the time of the semester we call rush, when students buy their books for the semester, so we had close to a million in the safe, and somebody knew it. As I left a group of gang members jumped me and stole my keys to get into the store. When one moron broke a key in the lock he pulled out a .22 revolver. Right when that happened another gang banger freaked and jumped on the gun screaming ¡no lo maten, tonto!, which means don't kill him fool. Anyway, a bunch of kids in the dorms saw what was happening and ran outside on the phone with the cops, so the gang bangers left. Long story short, I never heard the gun fire, and it was a good twenty minutes before I felt the blood from the shot. They cut my stomach up and my arm when I tried to protect myself. So in a sense you're correct, but I will say when I saw I was shot, and where (pretty close to the family jewels) the pain came on like a flood and my entire pelvis burned like hell. Dunno why I just posted all that, but cheers.

 

[a6m5]

That is crazy. You are one tough mother trucker.

When we were talking about getting cut up, or shot, we are talking getting literally chopped up, or large caliber rounds, but still, what you went through,and survived is pretty amazing. I'm glad you made it. 👍

 

[Crash]

You don't seem to realize that Republicans are anti gun, too. Romney voted for the AWB ban and other anti gun legislation. Neither Ruplicans or Democrats can be trusted, but more so with Democrats.

It's no secret Obama wants to ban all guns like he did in his former district in Illinois. He would love to do the same for the nation. Not going to happen like how he wants, so I agree with you a little, but it's still something to be greatly concerned about. While having a senate position, Obama did the following:

• Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns.
  
• Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer.
  
• Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
  
• While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04).
  
• Made this comment: “I think it’s a scandal that this president [Bush] did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”
  
• As a US Senator, Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting (United States Senate, S. 397 vote 217, 7/29/05).
  
• Obama spent eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization.The Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations. “During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.”The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
  
• Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are widely considered to be anti-second amendment. Sotomayor voted with the minority in the famous Heller decision. “Heller was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home.”
  
• And here’s Obama’s own views on the D.C. gun ban: “Obama personally voiced support for the D.C. ban at other times. In February, Leon Harris, a news anchor for the ABC affiliate in Washington, said to Obama: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control … but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama’s simple response: “Right.” When Harris added “and you’ve said that it’s constitutional,” Obama again said “right,” and he is clearly seen on tape nodding his head in agreement.”
  
• Opposes civilian concealed carry:
  I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. — Mendell, David, “From Promise to Power” (2007), p. 251.
  I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations. — Pittsburg Tribune-Review (April 2, 2008).
  [Obama] backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has “malfunctioned” because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions. — — http://www.icadp.org/page236.html (Citing David Mendel, Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004)

Let's also not forget his attempt to pass anti gun legislation 'under the radar' of the American people. Read below:

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Below describes how the Obama administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action:

The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House’s options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. “Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “

Don't forget Eric Holder and Obama’s botched Operation Fast & Furious was part of their “under the radar” plan to manufacture a gun crisis (US arms being trafficked to Mexican drug cartels) in order to crack down on legal gun sales and ownership in the United States.

So you see, while Romney is not completely 'pro gun,' Obama is much, much worse. There's something greatly to be feared with this bastard in office.

You're right, a lot of what Obama has tried to do with guns is very concerning, (much of which is probably unconstitutional too, but that's another story) and that there are definitely anti-gun Republicans as well. I guess I just don't see many of the drastic changes that Obama wants ever actually happening, so I think much of the encouragement to stock up on guns and ammo, and get ready for battle, just because Obama got reelected, is overblown. The gun lobby has enough influence to stop most of that from happening (for better or for worse).

 

[XS]

That is crazy. You are one tough mother trucker.

When we were talking about getting cut up, or shot, we are talking getting literally chopped up, or large caliber rounds, but still, what you went through,and survived is pretty amazing. I'm glad you made it. 👍

Thanks. Yeah I know but I wanted to share some basic experience on shot vs stabbed LOL, but I still don't want to imagine what it would be like to get hacked up! But in all seriousness, anybody could have gotten attacked the way I did and be just fine. I got so lucky those kids ran outside and helped me and it was just a .22 round into my pelvis. People who have been to war I have so much respect for. To get shot with a .308 or larger and live to see another day, that's tough. Mad respect. You're right, screw all that, no way I'd ever want to actually have to find out which is worse!

 

[Quackjack]

Oh, god. I really wish Romney won now.

Geez, supporting a candidate due to one issue is such a good idea /endliberalrant

I'm refusing to take any sides until I see more on this issue. However, I do agree with Washington trying to limit Syria's arms; Civil War there is accomplishing nothing. As long as I have the right to own a gun, I really don't care.

 

[a6m5]

Geez, supporting a candidate due to one issue is such a good idea /endliberalrant

And when did I make this claim?

I had actually hoped for Romney, although I am no fan of his. Obama Administration in my view was a failure. While I do not believe that things will get better with either candidate, one of the two has already proven that he gets very little done in four years.

Another thing that bothered me about Obama Administration was Benghazi. It sure seemed like a cover up job, probably because, for whatever reason, the White House refused to protect the U.S. Consulate there, actually taking away some of their protection, and as the American diplomats were getting killed, there are now reports that the White House denied the requests from CIA & the Navy SEALS to launch a rescue mission, telling them to stand down.

I don't know about you guys, but that's either some kind of a conspiracy, or covering one mistake with another one, then covering that up by claiming the people were protesting some obscure U.S. film, when the U.S. Consulate was actually taking heavy fire(protesters don't have mortars!).

Sorry for going off-topic, but I had to set QJ's assumption straight. Yes, I had hoped Romney won, and no, it was not based solely on gun control.

I'm refusing to take any sides until I see more on this issue. However, I do agree with Washington trying to limit Syria's arms; Civil War there is accomplishing nothing. As long as I have the right to own a gun, I really don't care.

It accomplished nothing? Have you ever read a new paper, or watch the news? I'll let Gaddafi know of your good news..... damn, too late.

 

[Quackjack]

It accomplished nothing? Have you ever read a new paper, or watch the news? I'll let Gaddafi know of your good news..... damn, too late.

Yes, I'll let tell the White House to let the war continue, it's such a good thing no?

Back on topic, anyone know where to get cheap shooting goggles?

 

[a6m5]

Yes, I'll let tell the White House to let the war continue, it's such a good thing no?

So now war is worse than just getting killed off? I guess mass grave is more peaceful, and it's not like they can oppress & kill you again once they bury you.

Back on topic, anyone know where to get cheap shooting goggles?

Amazon.

 

[fureddo]

Sorry lads, but I really don't see the point in having a gun or practice shooting.
Amongst all those who have one, how many go hunting? My point is that the very purpose of a gun is to kill. If not for killing gooses for instance, why else carrying a lethal weapon? The world would such a safer place if the average guy didn't have access so easily to guns?. Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

 

[oopssorryy]

Sorry lads, but I really don't see the point in having a gun or practice shooting.
Amongst all those who have one, how many go hunting? My point is that the very purpose of a gun is to kill. If not for killing gooses for instance, why else carrying a lethal weapon? The world would such a safer place if the average guy didn't have access so easily to guns?. Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

No, because the criminals would still have guns. Now take guns away from them and then you'll most likely see a rise in stabings. Is that really any better?

 

[acascianelli]

edited...

Thought twice about saying what I was going to say...

 

[Michael88]

Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

Its not that simple. Look at Great Britain, since the weapons ban the crime rate has risen and more people get shot with guns than before the law. How is that possible? Weapon bans only affect law abiding civilians, criminals, gang bangers etc. don't give a crap about laws and keep their weapons.
A ban only makes it easier for the bad guys to hurt the good defenseless people.

And weapons ARE Made for killing, I have killed thousands of paper target and it was fun!

 

[Nicksfix]

Sorry lads, but I really don't see the point in having a gun or practice shooting.
Amongst all those who have one, how many go hunting? My point is that the very purpose of a gun is to kill. If not for killing gooses for instance, why else carrying a lethal weapon? The world would such a safer place if the average guy didn't have access so easily to guns?. Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

Here we go again. .
Do tell fureddo ..... what do you think of what is written on this womans shirt.

 

[Michael88]

Moving away from the politics...

Just one barrel is too 20th century for you? Two barrels = twice the fun? Buy an Israeli ''Gilboa snake'' now!

Double barrel AR15 which is basically two AR15 in a single rifle platform. The Siamese twin of firearms.
One trigger pull sends one round through both barrels simultaneously (and this is what would probably make it a class 3 machinegun I think - so a big no for civilians)

Fun gun, with it you are basically double-tapping your target with a single trigger pull.

There are two problems though - gunsmiths have always been having troubles to get both barrels of a double barrel rifles shoot at the same POI at a mere 100yds - how does it work with this gun?

The second problem is that its impossible to make the rifle fire both rounds absolutely simultaneously, which means that the second round is going to be affected by the recoil from the first round probably resulting in unexplainable fliers or bad accuracy.

Maybe its just meant to be a 50yds max range rifle made for room clearing etc. Interesting firearm none the less!

 

[a6m5]

I very rarely talk at my computer monitor, but the double-barrel AR15 just made me go "WOW!".

On the accuracy, Michael, maybe you just answered your own question? If they are not absolutely in sync, I can see the accuracy of the second bullet out the door being affected by the recoil. My first impression was exactly that this gun was made for close range. It doesn't look very practical to me, but 🤬, it's badass.

Sorry lads, but I really don't see the point in having a gun or practice shooting.
Amongst all those who have one, how many go hunting? My point is that the very purpose of a gun is to kill. If not for killing gooses for instance, why else carrying a lethal weapon? The world would such a safer place if the average guy didn't have access so easily to guns?. Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

This is the left-wing attitude the Americans deal with everyday. fureddo don't see a point in shooting guns. In his opinion, the sole purpose of the guns are to kill. Here is the rub: Democrats in this country are all about respecting others' rights, and political correctness, UNTIL THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU. You just have to laugh, because they are, in effect, pretty much a nice, friendly Nazi, or Soviet Union. "Yeah, we have to save jobs... oh, you want to cut trees? We are going to shut you, and your whole town down", "Our constitution says..... Oh, you shoot guns for sport & recreation, also want to defend your family with them? Yeah, we don't like guns, and we don't agree to disagree, so.....". God bless these hypocrites.

I'm sorry, fureddo, my post is more directed at the hypocritical members of the Democratic Party in the States(Don't get me wrong, plenty of hypocrites on the Right as well!).

My reply to you would be that your view on firearms being used solely to kill is your opinion. Even in self-defense, guns are used everyday as deterrent, or non-lethal weapon to ward off attackers. Where I live, guns are like cars. It's used in sports, people use it to have fun at the shooting ranges, or outdoors. To many I know, they are also collectibles.

I won't even get into how stronger gun control doesn't work in this country(it works perfectly in my native Japan!), here's the actual thread that discusses gun control. Have a great day man. <<<< not a sarcasm, just to be clear.

 

[Crash]

The second problem is that its impossible to make the rifle fire both rounds absolutely simultaneously, which means that the second round is going to be affected by the recoil from the first round probably resulting in unexplainable fliers or bad accuracy.

Is there any sort of built in recoil reduction system? That may help a little? I don't know if this is on this gun at all, but I can see theoretically something where the barrel is adjustable to the individual user; each user can determine what an average amount of recoil looks like between the time the first and second round fires, and adjust/change barrel angel to compensate for it.

I very rarely talk at my computer monitor, but the double-barrel AR15 just made me go "WOW!".

Same here. I talk a lot to my computer, but I saw that and went, "Wow!"


No one here talks about double barrel shotguns, but those obviously has been around for a while, albeit I think with two triggers instead of one.

 

[a6m5]

I'd love to own a double-barrel shotgun someday. Over & under or side-by-side, I think they are cool.

Edit: Somebody needs to buy this: CZ P07

 

[Zenith]

Sorry lads, but I really don't see the point in having a gun or practice shooting.
Amongst all those who have one, how many go hunting?

Guns are interesting and beautiful mechanical devices just like cars are. I shoot for fun more than anything else. Self defense is a good and important byproduct of this practice.

My point is that the very purpose of a gun is to kill.

This is incorrect. This is like saying the purpose of a hammer is to hit nails. A hammer can be used for a variety of purposes. It can hammer nails, it can bend metal, it can destroy structures, it can kill people. A gun can shoot targets, deter criminals, hunt animals for food, and kill people.

If not for killing gooses for instance, why else carrying a lethal weapon?

Because there are bad people who wish to do bad things. A means to defend oneself is the only way to ensure your own safety against criminals and other entities that seek to infringe on your rights to life, liberty, and property.

The world would such a safer place if the average guy didn't have access so easily to guns? Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

No. Chicago banned firearms. It has a higher crime rate than almost any other city. It has two and a half times the amount of violent crime than Mexico City. Here are some facts. I'd suggest you look them over.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I applaud you for asking questions and stating your beliefs. It's far better than the ivory tower BS against guns that I normally hear.

Onto guns...

Moving away from the politics...

Just one barrel is too 20th century for you? Two barrels = twice the fun? Buy an Israeli ''Gilboa snake'' now!

Double barrel AR15 which is basically two AR15 in a single rifle platform. The Siamese twin of firearms.
One trigger pull sends one round through both barrels simultaneously (and this is what would probably make it a class 3 machinegun I think - so a big no for civilians)

Fun gun, with it you are basically double-tapping your target with a single trigger pull.

There are two problems though - gunsmiths have always been having troubles to get both barrels of a double barrel rifles shoot at the same POI at a mere 100yds - how does it work with this gun?

The second problem is that its impossible to make the rifle fire both rounds absolutely simultaneously, which means that the second round is going to be affected by the recoil from the first round probably resulting in unexplainable fliers or bad accuracy.

Maybe its just meant to be a 50yds max range rifle made for room clearing etc. Interesting firearm none the less!

An HK416 10" barrel has a cyclic rate of 1000 rounds per minute. Most users seek to lower that. Who looked at that and said "Not fast enough!"

Seems needlessly heavy and complex. That can't weigh less than 10lbs. Still, I like when people put crazy ideas into practice. A lot of innovation occurs that way.

I'd love to own a double-barrel shotgun someday. Over & under or side-by-side, I think they are cool.

Edit: Somebody needs to buy this: CZ P07

I'm considering a CZ P07 for carry. It seems like a nifty little gun. There are others like the Caracal-C and Glock 19.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Sorry lads, but I really don't see the point in having a gun or practice shooting.
Amongst all those who have one, how many go hunting? My point is that the very purpose of a gun is to kill. If not for killing gooses for instance, why else carrying a lethal weapon? The world would such a safer place if the average guy didn't have access so easily to guns?. Don't get me wrong, guns are not responsible for violence since it is inherent to human nature, but at least diminishing the number of firearms available would mathematically diminish the probability of getting killed by a bullet wouldn't it?

This is not a debate thread. If you want to post your opinions about firearms, go to the proper thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33891&page=66

 

[a6m5]

I'm considering a CZ P07 for carry. It seems like a nifty little gun. There are others like the Caracal-C and Glock 19.

I curse at them for not providing a .45ACP version! By my current plan(yeah, that never change lol), I'm going to get a .22LR handgun first. With the .45ACP & .308, I'm really starting to notice the cost of the ammo. .22LR will give me something I can shoot without feeling the pain, and it could potentially serve as my first carry pistol(who knows when that might be.....). I'm planning on something like Glock 36 after that. For now, Glock 19, or any 9mm is out.

CZ P07 is $428 on Buds! Damn you CZ!

 

[Zenith]

Why not carry the Kimber?

Edit: If that's too big, Kahr makes some compact .45's.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/52707

 

[a6m5]

Why not carry the Kimber?

Edit: If that's too big, Kahr makes some compact .45's.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/52707

I hate compact Kimber and 1911 in general. They look freaky(w/o being offensive lol). I've seen a nice Kahr, but they are pretty spendy. Glock 36's only like $550. And I need at least one Glock. :tup: