• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YAGT: OMG I love guns

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IGemini said:
Pretty much the same as previous answers. If I really was to go with a steel Beretta, it would be the Beretta Cougar over the 92. It's not significantly lighter but it is much more compact (not to mention it's also has a .45ACP chambered option). Newer ones are manufactured by Stoeger, which is the exact same gun made with the same equipment.

Yes, the M9 is still standard issue in the Army. I think the Navy is still with the M11 (SIG P228). SEALs use the P226, and a few other branches have their own sidearms. They've talked about replacing the entire military stockpile at one point or another, but I think they'll do the rifles before the pistols (if they can find the money for it).
Click to expand...

Don't SEALS still use the H&K USP also?
 
Merad said:
I presume you've heard of Massad Ayoob? He disagrees with you. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/the-massad-ayoob-chronicles-part-v/

As I've said, do what you will. It's quite literally your own life that will be affected.
Click to expand...

LOL! Massad Ayoob, use to be against the Glock. He thought they were unsafe.


Also you can make the same kind of arguments against a stock Glock:

"It's an ugly black gun, made only for shooting people. No one is buying them for their looks."

"It doesn't even have a manual safety; the owner didn't care if he accidentally killed someone."

"It can hold 18 bullets. What kind of person wants to shoot someone 18 times? Or was he planning a massacre?"

"It's got a hexagonal barrel to make the bullets untraceable. Why would an honest person need that?"
 
Last edited:
kazaam said:
Do you guys think dry firing damages a gun?
Click to expand...

On a centerfire gun...i say no as long as you arent just dry firing over and over and over. A couple times here and there should be fine IMO.

On a rimfire gun i would say no. The firing pin could get damaged or something along those lines. A couple times should be just fine though. But i wouldnt do it if it can be avoided.

Theres my opinions on dry firing
 
The manual is the best way to check about dry-firing each gun. Ruger SRs with their disconnect safety only recommend dry-firing with a magazine inserted. Springfield virtually encourages it with the XD to practice trigger pull, and it's also a necessary part of disassembly. Others say to limit it or to use snap-cap rounds (most centerfires) or outright avoid if possible (rimfires).
 
Just thought I'd chime in (I haven't read the entire thread).

I was not a gun person until I actually went to the range with a friend. Now, if I could afford it, I would be a gun nut. lol

The gun I had the most "fun" with was an AK47 knock off. (I don't remember what it was called)

However the gun I shot and then immediately said "I want one" was a Ruger Super Redhawk 44. (http://www.ruger.com/products/superRedhawkStandard/models.html)

I'm pretty sure it was the 7.5 barrel cause the 9.5 looks too long in the picture. My friends had wooden grips and was completely engraved... it was beautiful.

I have no idea how it is compared to any of the others discussed in the few pages of posts I have read... but I would get one if I could. 🙂
 
BladeVenom said:
LOL! Massad Ayoob, use to be against the Glock. He thought they were unsafe.
Click to expand...

/shrug
Obviously he's changed his mind... A quick google shows mention of him carrying Glocks for at least the last 10-12 years.

Also you can make the same kind of arguments against a stock Glock:

"It's an ugly black gun, made only for shooting people. No one is buying them for their looks."

"It doesn't even have a manual safety; the owner didn't care if he accidentally killed someone."

"It can hold 18 bullets. What kind of person wants to shoot someone 18 times? Or was he planning a massacre?"

"It's got a hexagonal barrel to make the bullets untraceable. Why would an honest person need that?"
Click to expand...

It'd take a really stupid prosecutor to try those arguments. They'll be destroyed by any semi competent defense lawyer.
 
glenn1 said:
Comparing accuracy is ludicrous since either is likely more accurate than you're capable of shooting freehand at a competitive distance.
Click to expand...

I was reading through this accuracy pissing contest with a bit of a snicker yesterday. Then I took off for an extended lunch with a guy from work and we spent an hour at the range. The below is five shots of Federal LE127 00 buck @ 15 yards. I suppose there might be a more accurate shotgun out there that would allow me to hit my target 1/2 inch closer to where I want, but I suspect this was close enough to get the job done.

shotgunw.jpg



** the scattered holes on the lower part of the target were a few shots with Winchester Ranger 00. Not nearly as tight a pattern as the Federal load.
 
Merad said:
/shrug
Obviously he's changed his mind... A quick google shows mention of him carrying Glocks for at least the last 10-12 years.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "use to" past tense.


It'd take a really stupid prosecutor to try those arguments. They'll be destroyed by any semi competent defense lawyer.
Click to expand...
Same with arguments against lightened trigger pulls and reloading ammo.
 
I will say you guys that refuse to just buy the top of line gun that you proclaim to defend your life are fighting a losing war (not that I agree with it).

Especially those that buy a dozen or more guns (that I sort of disagree with esp. when they are in a roommate or unsecured location).

It goes equally south when many own TV's and PC's worth way more than their guns.
 
kazaam said:
Do you guys think dry firing damages a gun?
Click to expand...

My advice: don't. Buy some snap caps, and use them. It removes the question of "what is excessive" and whatnot. Firing with snapcaps is fine.

BladeVenom said:
Same with arguments against lightened trigger pulls and reloading ammo.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was making earlier.


Jeeebus said:
I was reading through this accuracy pissing contest with a bit of a snicker yesterday. Then I took off for an extended lunch with a guy from work and we spent an hour at the range. The below is five shots of Federal LE127 00 buck @ 15 yards. I suppose there might be a more accurate shotgun out there that would allow me to hit my target 1/2 inch closer to where I want, but I suspect this was close enough to get the job done.

shotgunw.jpg



** the scattered holes on the lower part of the target were a few shots with Winchester Ranger 00. Not nearly as tight a pattern as the Federal load.
Click to expand...

Have a prize for comparing a pistol to a shotgun. Same will apply to comparing a rifle to a pistol.
 
alkemyst said:
I will say you guys that refuse to just buy the top of line gun that you proclaim to defend your life are fighting a losing war (not that I agree with it).

Especially those that buy a dozen or more guns (that I sort of disagree with esp. when they are in a roommate or unsecured location).

It goes equally south when many own TV's and PC's worth way more than their guns.
Click to expand...

Now that I'm out of the military business, I foresee an almost microscopic chance that I'll ever need to defend my life with a sidearm. Even if I did, the weapon platform would be the very least of my concerns; and I certainly don't need a super-tweaked 1911 to do the job. I seriously doubt I would choose it whether for routine carry (which I don't) or even if I were able to select a weapon at my leisure for a later encounter. That's not to say that I would discourage others from using it if that's what they prefer; but I'd feel there are plenty of options out there just as good or better for a lot cheaper. Especially in regards to the OP and other new shooters, I'd recommend something like an FNX in their preferred caliber before a 1911.
 
alkemyst said:
I will say you guys that refuse to just buy the top of line gun that you proclaim to defend your life are fighting a losing war (not that I agree with it).

Especially those that buy a dozen or more guns (that I sort of disagree with esp. when they are in a roommate or unsecured location).

It goes equally south when many own TV's and PC's worth way more than their guns.
Click to expand...

huh? this makes no sense.
 
alkemyst said:
I will say you guys that refuse to just buy the top of line gun that you proclaim to defend your life are fighting a losing war (not that I agree with it).

Especially those that buy a dozen or more guns (that I sort of disagree with esp. when they are in a roommate or unsecured location).

It goes equally south when many own TV's and PC's worth way more than their guns.
Click to expand...

You don't need to spend a fortune to get a reliable gun. The Glock 17 and 19 are very affordable and good luck arguing that they are not dependable weapons.
 
Puddle Jumper said:
You don't need to spend a fortune to get a reliable gun. The Glock 17 and 19 are very affordable and good luck arguing that they are not dependable weapons.
Click to expand...

While I loathe the trigger and look of the glock, they go bang when you pull the trigger. I don't regret owning one, it was an OK first gun. As for reliability, get a revolver if you find semi-autos to be sketchy. Virtually nothing can prevent a revolver from firing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top