Other Resources The Political Joe » 'The' Gun Thread Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 48
 
 
2013-05-07 12:25 PM
in reply to: #4731391

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 1:20 PM

Has anyone seen this article on gun giveaways?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/activist-plans-nyc-gun-giveaway...

Here's my take:

1) In principle, I'm fine with it. They're saying that they only want to give the guns to people who pass background checks and who attend the free training they provide. Assuming the training is legit and comprehensive and is a genuine prerequisite for getting the free shotgun, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens is fine with me. If someone wants to responsibly exercise their 2A right and can't because they can't afford to buy a decent gun, good for them for providing one free of charge.

2) Having said that, is it necessary in NYC? Or more specifically, would this program not have greater benefits elsewhere? NYC already has the among the lowest crime rates of any major city. It seems to me that if this was genuinely about altruistically preventing crime, rather than engaging Mayor Bloomberg in a political peeing match, as I suspect it is, they would be better served focusing their efforts on other areas of the country with higher violent crime rates.



NYC is just the latest place they're doing it. They've done or started in Chicago, Somewhere in Nevada and Houston. Can't remember where it started but was not in Houston.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57582990/group-aims-to-give-out...
The group is called the Armed Citizen Project, and as, their name says they want to arm citizens by giving them shotguns.


They aim to give out shotguns to people in fifteen cities including Chicago.


2013-05-07 12:26 PM
in reply to: #4731395

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 1:22 PM

So the M-16 was modeled from the AR-15? Interesting trivia-- I always assumed it was the other way around.


One more removed too, the AR15 was modeled after the AR10, which is a .308 Winchester version. They were looking for a lower powered version with less recoil and one that you could carry more ammo using the same weight limits.

2013-05-07 12:29 PM
in reply to: #4731395

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

I decided to not post the response since everyone beat me too it...

I guess what I was wondering, do the the latest versions still use the direct impingement system or have they gone to a gas piston?  Maybe the varients or AR-15 type?

 

Not sure if anyone watches Sons of Guns.  It's a bit campy and barely worth watching at times, but it's good enough when nothing is one.  It looked like they were revamping an AR design to be gas piston ala the AK.   That can't be the first time anyone has tried to do that successfully.

2013-05-07 12:31 PM
in reply to: #4731395

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 10:22 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:17 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 12:57 PM This is probably a dumb question, but here goes: So, then, "AR-15" is a type of gun the way a sedan is a type of car? I guess I always thought that it was a particular model of rifle by a particular manufacturer, but it sounds like you're saying that several different manufacturers make AR-15's? Or is there one "true" AR-15 and other companies make something that looks like it and "AR-15" has become an umbrella term for a rifle that sorta looks like an M-16 but lacks full auto and is made for non-military use?
AR 15 was made by Armalite Rifle (AR) from a model AR-10 made by Eugene Stoner. Armalite made more than a handful of rifles, all with an AR prefix. All these were bolt action and semi-auto. Armalite had money problems and sold the AR-15 to Colt who made a full auto version and sold it to the DoD who named it the M16. AR-15 has become a generic term but only in the userspace. The model AR-15 is made by Colt who owns the trademark. If you look close you'll see "AR15 type" or "AR15 style" or some other "15" model name unless it's a Colt lower receiver. It's not exactly something Colt really pushes or sues for so you do see a lot of AR15 models that aren't Colt. Bushmaster, for one. Stag Arms for another. Before long, Colt will lose the trademark for it and not be able to sue. The chamber of a 5.56 rifle is slightly (IIRC .02") longer than a .223 Rem chamber so it's perfectly fine to shoot .223 in a 5.56 chamber but you can get into pressure problem fast if you shoot 5.56 in a .223 chamber.
So the M-16 was modeled from the AR-15? Interesting trivia-- I always assumed it was the other way around.

I can't tell you how many documentaries I have watched on discovery and military channels and how much I read, and I still can't sort it out sometimes.  I end up referring back to wkipedia or something in a pinch.

It's like Game of Thrones with dozens of different names and nicknames and entire family histories to remember.



Edited by Kido 2013-05-07 12:32 PM
2013-05-07 12:45 PM
in reply to: #4731391

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 1:20 PM

Assuming the training is legit and comprehensive and is a genuine prerequisite for getting the free shotgun, I wouldn't have a problem with it.


You seem to actually be interested in a discussion of this and not just gum flapping about it so I'll pick on this one line and give you something to think about.

I'm all for training and wish everyone would get as much as they could afford. Hell, I honestly wish hunter's safety training were a HS prerequisite just to catch all those who will come in contact with a firearm but their parents would never, EVER, send them to any type of safety training.

I am against mandated training for any type of ownership, though.

Put aside all of what you feel, believe, or thing "should be" for a minute. Here's an interesting thing to just contemplate.

I don't know of any place that requires training for ownership so I have to use something that does require it in some form to compare, CCW.

VT, AK, AZ (carry instate), WY, AR (Starting June 2013), parts of ID, parts of MT, parts of NM no training, no permit required.

AL, PA, CA, WA, DE, (these are offhand, I know there are more) do not require a lick of training to carry concealed.

VA, ID, AZ, UT, many others accept classroom only, some online only, including hunter's safety courses to carry concealed.

TX, FL, SC, and many others require unGodly amounts of training, 8 hours, plus range time, etc. to carry concealed.

Here's the part to think about. all the ones I posted up there for zero training requirements have had either shall issue or permissive may issue (CA has some no-issue counties but most of it is permissive may issue) permits since around the '60s.
The ones with classroom only have been available since the '80s and '90s so there's 20-30 years of information on them.

So far I have not seen any indication that training does much of anything. Again, stop with what you would prefer, ignore what you believe, look at the states' postings for pulled permits and look at the news items about misuse. As far as I can tell, there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference in misuse and illegal use of concealed carry weapons between all of those training requirement bands. Even the VPC has to pad their "CCW Killers" page with misuse within the house (has nothing to do with CCW), misuse of long guns and police shootings and legit defense shootings.

Just something to contemplate in one's personal decisions of what should or shouldn't be required to exercise a right. Poll taxes and literacy tests come to mind, to me.

2013-05-07 12:47 PM
in reply to: #4731391

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 12:20 PM Has anyone seen this article on gun giveaways? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/activist-plans-nyc-gun-giveaway... Here's my take: 1) In principle, I'm fine with it. They're saying that they only want to give the guns to people who pass background checks and who attend the free training they provide. Assuming the training is legit and comprehensive and is a genuine prerequisite for getting the free shotgun, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens is fine with me. If someone wants to responsibly exercise their 2A right and can't because they can't afford to buy a decent gun, good for them for providing one free of charge. 2) Having said that, is it necessary in NYC? Or more specifically, would this program not have greater benefits elsewhere? NYC already has the among the lowest crime rates of any major city. It seems to me that if this was genuinely about altruistically preventing crime, rather than engaging Mayor Bloomberg in a political peeing match, as I suspect it is, they would be better served focusing their efforts on other areas of the country with higher violent crime rates.

Violent crime as a whole in NYC has gone down over the years (think it's rising slightly again), but NYC is a very large city with lots of people and neighborhoods.  I bet if you looked at the statistics just for the poor neighborhoods targeted by these giveaways the crime rate would be a LOT higher.



2013-05-07 12:49 PM
in reply to: #4731415

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Kido - 2013-05-07 1:29 PM

I decided to not post the response since everyone beat me too it...

I guess what I was wondering, do the the latest versions still use the direct impingement system or have they gone to a gas piston?  Maybe the varients or AR-15 type?



I just bought one that was made at S&W less than 6 months ago and it's the gas pushing onto the bolt carrier group, so I guess that's the direct impingement from what I've read.

It works so I'm not sure there's a huge push to change it.


2013-05-07 12:53 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

 

No, Sons of Guns is not the first place to make a piston (AK style) AR. You can get them but you will spend more on it. Not sure how much but I remember it was enough for me to just get the regular style. 

2013-05-07 1:03 PM
in reply to: #4731462

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:49 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 1:29 PM

I decided to not post the response since everyone beat me too it...

I guess what I was wondering, do the the latest versions still use the direct impingement system or have they gone to a gas piston?  Maybe the varients or AR-15 type?

I just bought one that was made at S&W less than 6 months ago and it's the gas pushing onto the bolt carrier group, so I guess that's the direct impingement from what I've read. It works so I'm not sure there's a huge push to change it.

I'm not an expert on this, but I did research it quite a bit on it when making my purchase.  My understanding is the piston driven is "better" in the sense that it runs cleaner and cooler.  The DI rifles are cheaper and all the parts are interchangeable with pretty much any mil-spec rifle.

Here's a video showing how they work differently:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ShwUfi4CIY

So, if you're shooting a lot and your life is on the line I would say Piston.  However for me, I will shoot mine every month or two and clean it well after each shooting so I decided DI is just fine.

2013-05-07 1:07 PM
in reply to: #4731470

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-07 10:53 AM

 

No, Sons of Guns is not the first place to make a piston (AK style) AR. You can get them but you will spend more on it. Not sure how much but I remember it was enough for me to just get the regular style. 

For sure.  We have the luxury of taking it home and cleaning it.  I may push for the piston system if I was in the bush and needed it ready 24/7....

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

That's one thing I like about shows like that (and they don't even get into it deep enough, IMO).  It may SEEM simple, but there is a lot of science and physics into firearm design.

I seem to recall they hand an issue with the weapon on the show.  The smaller round needed a different piston system to cycle in full auto.  The spring system they had in there wasn't correct and they needed a pneumatic?  - something like that.

2013-05-07 1:08 PM
in reply to: #4731492

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-05-07 1:03 PM
DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:49 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 1:29 PM

I decided to not post the response since everyone beat me too it...

I guess what I was wondering, do the the latest versions still use the direct impingement system or have they gone to a gas piston?  Maybe the varients or AR-15 type?

I just bought one that was made at S&W less than 6 months ago and it's the gas pushing onto the bolt carrier group, so I guess that's the direct impingement from what I've read. It works so I'm not sure there's a huge push to change it.

I'm not an expert on this, but I did research it quite a bit on it when making my purchase.  My understanding is the piston driven is "better" in the sense that it runs cleaner and cooler.  The DI rifles are cheaper and all the parts are interchangeable with pretty much any mil-spec rifle.

Here's a video showing how they work differently:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ShwUfi4CIY

So, if you're shooting a lot and your life is on the line I would say Piston.  However for me, I will shoot mine every month or two and clean it well after each shooting so I decided DI is just fine.

Oh, and also as for the "latest version" the manufacturers will often sell a Piston and a DI version of the same newer gun.  My Colt SP6940 has a DI and a Piston variant (SP6940P) however my next one which is the Barrett Rec 7 6.8SPC is only a piston.



2013-05-07 1:09 PM
in reply to: #4731492

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-05-07 2:03 PM

DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:49 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 1:29 PM

I decided to not post the response since everyone beat me too it...

I guess what I was wondering, do the the latest versions still use the direct impingement system or have they gone to a gas piston?  Maybe the varients or AR-15 type?

I just bought one that was made at S&W less than 6 months ago and it's the gas pushing onto the bolt carrier group, so I guess that's the direct impingement from what I've read. It works so I'm not sure there's a huge push to change it.

I'm not an expert on this, but I did research it quite a bit on it when making my purchase.  My understanding is the piston driven is "better" in the sense that it runs cleaner and cooler.  The DI rifles are cheaper and all the parts are interchangeable with pretty much any mil-spec rifle.

Here's a video showing how they work differently:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ShwUfi4CIY

So, if you're shooting a lot and your life is on the line I would say Piston.  However for me, I will shoot mine every month or two and clean it well after each shooting so I decided DI is just fine.



The vast majority of the people who used to buy AR15s are the ones getting out of the military after being used to M16s. So they bought the familiar setup. That's the primary reason I cannot see AR15s changing all that much, they would lose that whole target audience.

Yeah, I can see where piston would be cleaner but I can also see the "shoot what'cha know" school of thought. Which means I should pick up a S&W Model 10, a Singer Sewing Machine 1911 (yes, I was issued one of those), or a Beretta. I hate Berettas.

2013-05-07 1:12 PM
in reply to: #4731505

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Kido - 2013-05-07 2:07 PM

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round. 


Arsenal Inc and Draco make 5.56 AKs so I'm sure others are out there.

The 7.62X39 is not a very powerful round, though about a 30-30 power, and is more available than .223/5.56 right now so it would be worth it to get the original 7.62 version. Matter of fact, if you're going to hunt with it, the 7.62 will be legal in more states than the .223 version would.

2013-05-07 1:15 PM
in reply to: #4731505

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Kido - 2013-05-07 12:07 PM
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-07 10:53 AM

 

No, Sons of Guns is not the first place to make a piston (AK style) AR. You can get them but you will spend more on it. Not sure how much but I remember it was enough for me to just get the regular style. 

For sure.  We have the luxury of taking it home and cleaning it.  I may push for the piston system if I was in the bush and needed it ready 24/7....

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

That's one thing I like about shows like that (and they don't even get into it deep enough, IMO).  It may SEEM simple, but there is a lot of science and physics into firearm design.

I seem to recall they hand an issue with the weapon on the show.  The smaller round needed a different piston system to cycle in full auto.  The spring system they had in there wasn't correct and they needed a pneumatic?  - something like that.

I doubt you can get an AK style with the 5.56 round, at least I haven't heard of it. But there really isn't much reason to do that. The 7.62 is a good round and is almost as easy to shoot as the 5.56. I have a bullpup SKS and my wife has a full length SKS with a tactical stock on it. She loves the gun and shoots it well and enjoys it. She likes the AR too but she said there isn't a lot of difference between them. My follow up shots are a bit better with the AR as the muzzle rise on the SKS is higher, but I don't have a brake on the SKS yet. I think I will be able to get that tamed down and then they should shoot pretty similarly. 

I like the AR platform but I also wanted something simple and rugged like an AK. In my reading I found that everyone said the SKS was more accurate and just about as rugged as the AK. I managed to find a Norinco Sporter model SKS so it takes AK mags. So I have AK mags and reliability with the improved accuracy of the SKS in a bullpup kit that makes it about 28" in total length. Pretty sweet gun!

2013-05-07 1:18 PM
in reply to: #4731520

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:12 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 2:07 PM I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round. 
Arsenal Inc and Draco make 5.56 AKs so I'm sure others are out there. The 7.62X39 is not a very powerful round, though about a 30-30 power, and is more available than .223/5.56 right now so it would be worth it to get the original 7.62 version. Matter of fact, if you're going to hunt with it, the 7.62 will be legal in more states than the .223 version would.

Beat me to it. I stand corrected on the 5.56 in AK.

And yes the 7.62 is usable for deer hunting and I like it as a round. Fun to shoot!

2013-05-07 1:22 PM
in reply to: #4731510

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-05-07 1:09 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-07 2:03 PM
DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:49 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 1:29 PM

I decided to not post the response since everyone beat me too it...

I guess what I was wondering, do the the latest versions still use the direct impingement system or have they gone to a gas piston?  Maybe the varients or AR-15 type?

I just bought one that was made at S&W less than 6 months ago and it's the gas pushing onto the bolt carrier group, so I guess that's the direct impingement from what I've read. It works so I'm not sure there's a huge push to change it.

I'm not an expert on this, but I did research it quite a bit on it when making my purchase.  My understanding is the piston driven is "better" in the sense that it runs cleaner and cooler.  The DI rifles are cheaper and all the parts are interchangeable with pretty much any mil-spec rifle.

Here's a video showing how they work differently:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ShwUfi4CIY

So, if you're shooting a lot and your life is on the line I would say Piston.  However for me, I will shoot mine every month or two and clean it well after each shooting so I decided DI is just fine.

The vast majority of the people who used to buy AR15s are the ones getting out of the military after being used to M16s. So they bought the familiar setup. That's the primary reason I cannot see AR15s changing all that much, they would lose that whole target audience. Yeah, I can see where piston would be cleaner but I can also see the "shoot what'cha know" school of thought. Which means I should pick up a S&W Model 10, a Singer Sewing Machine 1911 (yes, I was issued one of those), or a Beretta. I hate Berettas.

lol, I carried a Beretta 92F when I was in the Navy and it was the first gun I bought when I got out for that very reason.  I knew it inside out, backwards, and forwards.

I've since moved on, and even got rid of my 92F because I really didn't like it that much once I saw what else was on the market. 



2013-05-07 4:01 PM
in reply to: #4731505

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Central Mass
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Kido - 2013-05-07 2:07 PM 

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

The AK-47 and AKM were chambered for the 7.62 x 39.

The AK-74 (it's replacement from, wait for it, 1974) is chambered for 5.45 x 39

The 7.62x39 round is barely used by the Russian military - most of their rifles are now 5.45 across the board (LMG, rifles, etc).  AFAIK only their sniper rifle uses 7.62x39 today.

 

edit: 5.45 is even cheaper than 7.62x39.  Even today, you can buy a 1080 can for $190 (that's 0.18/round )  7.62 runs around 0.30/rnd



Edited by scorpio516 2013-05-07 4:05 PM
2013-05-07 4:18 PM
in reply to: #4731527

User image

Champion
5376
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-07 2:15 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 12:07 PM
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-07 10:53 AM

 

No, Sons of Guns is not the first place to make a piston (AK style) AR. You can get them but you will spend more on it. Not sure how much but I remember it was enough for me to just get the regular style. 

For sure.  We have the luxury of taking it home and cleaning it.  I may push for the piston system if I was in the bush and needed it ready 24/7....

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

That's one thing I like about shows like that (and they don't even get into it deep enough, IMO).  It may SEEM simple, but there is a lot of science and physics into firearm design.

I seem to recall they hand an issue with the weapon on the show.  The smaller round needed a different piston system to cycle in full auto.  The spring system they had in there wasn't correct and they needed a pneumatic?  - something like that.

I doubt you can get an AK style with the 5.56 round, at least I haven't heard of it. But there really isn't much reason to do that. The 7.62 is a good round and is almost as easy to shoot as the 5.56. I have a bullpup SKS and my wife has a full length SKS with a tactical stock on it. She loves the gun and shoots it well and enjoys it. She likes the AR too but she said there isn't a lot of difference between them. My follow up shots are a bit better with the AR as the muzzle rise on the SKS is higher, but I don't have a brake on the SKS yet. I think I will be able to get that tamed down and then they should shoot pretty similarly. 

I like the AR platform but I also wanted something simple and rugged like an AK. In my reading I found that everyone said the SKS was more accurate and just about as rugged as the AK. I managed to find a Norinco Sporter model SKS so it takes AK mags. So I have AK mags and reliability with the improved accuracy of the SKS in a bullpup kit that makes it about 28" in total length. Pretty sweet gun!

 

The SAR 1 is a 7.62, the SAR2 is a 5.45 and the SAR3 is a 5.56 AK.  The WASR and Saiga's can be had in all three calibers as well.

As for AR in gas piston or DI, keep in mind that DI has an advantage over gas piston in that if you do not have an entire mass of metal shifting back and forth, you can stay on target a lot easier for follow up shots.  If you keep your AR clean, you will not have a reliability problem.  Finally, if you want a gas piston AR, buy one that is already set up that way.  I had a SIG556 which was gas piston but I ended up selling it during the hype.  It was heavy and no better than my built guns. 

I do not recommend the conversion kits.  Look up carrier tilt and  you can see why.  Some people have issues with conversion kits causing buffer tube issues.  Others regard it as myth. 

2013-05-07 4:21 PM
in reply to: #4731940

User image

Champion
5376
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
scorpio516 - 2013-05-07 5:01 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 2:07 PM 

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

The AK-47 and AKM were chambered for the 7.62 x 39.

The AK-74 (it's replacement from, wait for it, 1974) is chambered for 5.45 x 39

The 7.62x39 round is barely used by the Russian military - most of their rifles are now 5.45 across the board (LMG, rifles, etc).  AFAIK only their sniper rifle uses 7.62x39 today.

 

edit: 5.45 is even cheaper than 7.62x39.  Even today, you can buy a 1080 can for $190 (that's 0.18/round )  7.62 runs around 0.30/rnd

I was cleaning my garage over the winter and I stumbled across a crate (two 1080 cans) of 5.45 that I got for $225 at a gun show.  I forgot I had it.  I sold my SAR2 but I still have a WASR2 and over 3000 rds for it.  I love finding ammo that I forgot I bought.

2013-05-07 4:28 PM
in reply to: #4731985

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Pector55 - 2013-05-07 2:21 PM
scorpio516 - 2013-05-07 5:01 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 2:07 PM 

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

The AK-47 and AKM were chambered for the 7.62 x 39.

The AK-74 (it's replacement from, wait for it, 1974) is chambered for 5.45 x 39

The 7.62x39 round is barely used by the Russian military - most of their rifles are now 5.45 across the board (LMG, rifles, etc).  AFAIK only their sniper rifle uses 7.62x39 today.

 

edit: 5.45 is even cheaper than 7.62x39.  Even today, you can buy a 1080 can for $190 (that's 0.18/round )  7.62 runs around 0.30/rnd

I was cleaning my garage over the winter and I stumbled across a crate (two 1080 cans) of 5.45 that I got for $225 at a gun show.  I forgot I had it.  I sold my SAR2 but I still have a WASR2 and over 3000 rds for it.  I love finding ammo that I forgot I bought.

If you had a fire in your garage, the FD would love you...

2013-05-07 4:34 PM
in reply to: #4732001

User image

Champion
5376
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
Kido - 2013-05-07 5:28 PM
Pector55 - 2013-05-07 2:21 PM
scorpio516 - 2013-05-07 5:01 PM
Kido - 2013-05-07 2:07 PM 

I wonder if you can just get am AK chambered for a smaller round.  But then again, the small round may not be able to produce enough pressure to cycle the weapon.

The AK-47 and AKM were chambered for the 7.62 x 39.

The AK-74 (it's replacement from, wait for it, 1974) is chambered for 5.45 x 39

The 7.62x39 round is barely used by the Russian military - most of their rifles are now 5.45 across the board (LMG, rifles, etc).  AFAIK only their sniper rifle uses 7.62x39 today.

 

edit: 5.45 is even cheaper than 7.62x39.  Even today, you can buy a 1080 can for $190 (that's 0.18/round )  7.62 runs around 0.30/rnd

I was cleaning my garage over the winter and I stumbled across a crate (two 1080 cans) of 5.45 that I got for $225 at a gun show.  I forgot I had it.  I sold my SAR2 but I still have a WASR2 and over 3000 rds for it.  I love finding ammo that I forgot I bought.

If you had a fire in your garage, the FD would love you...

It would certainly be exciting.



2013-05-07 5:08 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Master
1970
10005001001001001002525
Somewhere on the Tennessee River
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

Rounds that are set off outside a rifle don't do near as much damage that they do when fired from a rifle.

That doesn't mean that they aren't potentially deadly.

 

Don't ask me how I know this....Cool

2013-05-07 5:55 PM
in reply to: #4731450

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-05-07 12:45 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 1:20 PM

Assuming the training is legit and comprehensive and is a genuine prerequisite for getting the free shotgun, I wouldn't have a problem with it.


You seem to actually be interested in a discussion of this and not just gum flapping about it so I'll pick on this one line and give you something to think about.

I'm all for training and wish everyone would get as much as they could afford. Hell, I honestly wish hunter's safety training were a HS prerequisite just to catch all those who will come in contact with a firearm but their parents would never, EVER, send them to any type of safety training.

I am against mandated training for any type of ownership, though.

Put aside all of what you feel, believe, or thing "should be" for a minute. Here's an interesting thing to just contemplate.

I don't know of any place that requires training for ownership so I have to use something that does require it in some form to compare, CCW.

VT, AK, AZ (carry instate), WY, AR (Starting June 2013), parts of ID, parts of MT, parts of NM no training, no permit required.

AL, PA, CA, WA, DE, (these are offhand, I know there are more) do not require a lick of training to carry concealed.

VA, ID, AZ, UT, many others accept classroom only, some online only, including hunter's safety courses to carry concealed.

TX, FL, SC, and many others require unGodly amounts of training, 8 hours, plus range time, etc. to carry concealed.

Here's the part to think about. all the ones I posted up there for zero training requirements have had either shall issue or permissive may issue (CA has some no-issue counties but most of it is permissive may issue) permits since around the '60s.
The ones with classroom only have been available since the '80s and '90s so there's 20-30 years of information on them.

So far I have not seen any indication that training does much of anything. Again, stop with what you would prefer, ignore what you believe, look at the states' postings for pulled permits and look at the news items about misuse. As far as I can tell, there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference in misuse and illegal use of concealed carry weapons between all of those training requirement bands. Even the VPC has to pad their "CCW Killers" page with misuse within the house (has nothing to do with CCW), misuse of long guns and police shootings and legit defense shootings.

Just something to contemplate in one's personal decisions of what should or shouldn't be required to exercise a right. Poll taxes and literacy tests come to mind, to me.


Sorry for the long reply.

I'm not saying that the government should make mandatory training a prerequisite for owning a gun. Personally, I think it would benefit society, but I also recognize the pitfalls inherent in attaching any mandatory requirements to a constitutional right.

I'm talking specifically about the training as it relates to this gun giveaway. The organizers have said that this gun giveaway is specifically being done with crime deterrence in mind--it's not just simply about encouraging people to exercise their 2A rights and handing out guns. With that end in mind (crime deterrence) it make sense to me that the organizers have said that mandatory training (which they have organized) is part of the deal if you want the free shotgun. Put a shotgun in the hands of an inexperienced user with no training and that weapon has as much chance of being used accidentally as it does being used for the purpose for which it was given away in the first place--again, deterrence.
So what I'm saying is that if the organizers are being true to their stated purpose of making these neighborhoods safer, I would hope that the training they plan to give is legitimate, and not some perfunctory "point at bad guy, pull this, boom comes out here." If it is that, then it signals to me that this is nothing more than a political exercise. If the point is simply to get more people to exercise their 2A rights (and maybe tweak the anti-gun mayors a little as well), then by all means, go hand out guns to anyone who can pass a background check. Once they own the gun, safe and responsible use of that gun is up to the owner, just as it is for any other gun. But, if they''re really trying to make a neighborhood safer, I think they have a responsibility to make sure they ensure that the people they are handing the guns out to are at least minimally trained to use them safely and effectively.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-05-07 5:58 PM
2013-05-07 7:12 PM
in reply to: #4731452

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-05-07 12:47 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 12:20 PM Has anyone seen this article on gun giveaways? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/activist-plans-nyc-gun-giveaway... Here's my take: 1) In principle, I'm fine with it. They're saying that they only want to give the guns to people who pass background checks and who attend the free training they provide. Assuming the training is legit and comprehensive and is a genuine prerequisite for getting the free shotgun, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens is fine with me. If someone wants to responsibly exercise their 2A right and can't because they can't afford to buy a decent gun, good for them for providing one free of charge. 2) Having said that, is it necessary in NYC? Or more specifically, would this program not have greater benefits elsewhere? NYC already has the among the lowest crime rates of any major city. It seems to me that if this was genuinely about altruistically preventing crime, rather than engaging Mayor Bloomberg in a political peeing match, as I suspect it is, they would be better served focusing their efforts on other areas of the country with higher violent crime rates.

Violent crime as a whole in NYC has gone down over the years (think it's rising slightly again), but NYC is a very large city with lots of people and neighborhoods.  I bet if you looked at the statistics just for the poor neighborhoods targeted by these giveaways the crime rate would be a LOT higher.


Sure but that's true everywhere, isn't it? Why not start in cities big and small with the highest crime rates (like St Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta) and go into those cities poor neighborhoods first? Granted the crime rate in Brownsville NY is higher than it is on the upper east side, but the crime rate in West Baltimore is much greater than Brownsville, so why not go there first? (The answer is, because the mayor whose jurisdiction includes Brownsville is an outspoken critic of guns and the mayor of Baltimore is less so.)
2013-05-07 9:17 PM
in reply to: #4732245

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 7:12 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-07 12:47 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 12:20 PM Has anyone seen this article on gun giveaways? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/activist-plans-nyc-gun-giveaway... Here's my take: 1) In principle, I'm fine with it. They're saying that they only want to give the guns to people who pass background checks and who attend the free training they provide. Assuming the training is legit and comprehensive and is a genuine prerequisite for getting the free shotgun, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens is fine with me. If someone wants to responsibly exercise their 2A right and can't because they can't afford to buy a decent gun, good for them for providing one free of charge. 2) Having said that, is it necessary in NYC? Or more specifically, would this program not have greater benefits elsewhere? NYC already has the among the lowest crime rates of any major city. It seems to me that if this was genuinely about altruistically preventing crime, rather than engaging Mayor Bloomberg in a political peeing match, as I suspect it is, they would be better served focusing their efforts on other areas of the country with higher violent crime rates.

Violent crime as a whole in NYC has gone down over the years (think it's rising slightly again), but NYC is a very large city with lots of people and neighborhoods.  I bet if you looked at the statistics just for the poor neighborhoods targeted by these giveaways the crime rate would be a LOT higher.

Sure but that's true everywhere, isn't it? Why not start in cities big and small with the highest crime rates (like St Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta) and go into those cities poor neighborhoods first? Granted the crime rate in Brownsville NY is higher than it is on the upper east side, but the crime rate in West Baltimore is much greater than Brownsville, so why not go there first? (The answer is, because the mayor whose jurisdiction includes Brownsville is an outspoken critic of guns and the mayor of Baltimore is less so.)

I'm sure we could both come up with places that could be better suited, but they're a private entity so they get to choose where they want to go. 

It's hard to say why he chose to go there, but you may be correct in that he wants to rub it in the nose of the Mayor.  Either way, I think it's a cool thing to do.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » 'The' Gun Thread Rss Feed  
 
 
of 48