The Gun thread

RdKetchup said:
That's the feeling I also have when I look at that picture.

I'll try to fetch the other pictures that where taken, specially with the .40, maybe it will be clearer.

Edit: Here is one. My left hand really looks too low, I'll keep that in mind next time I go shooting...

IMG_0329.JPG
Click to expand...

Redliner said:
Crossposting:


I bet Spectre and other will be much better at this, but I think your left hand is a little low.
AFAIK your thumbs should be parallel and at the same height, pointing forward.
Click to expand...

Forgot to respond to this earlier.

There are a few different popular/valid self defense grips out there. Here's an article on some of them: http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/articles/handguns/maximizing-the-combat-grip/ (Note: Writer is an advocate of the Leatham-Enos grip, which does work - but not for me. More below.)

I generally use a variation on what the above writer calls the 'Revolver Grip' - which many people know well (not my image):
shootingthlapped.jpg


This was what was taught by many US services and academies for years. Source of image and more info here: http://www.christiangunowner.com/correct_handgun_grip.html

What grip you use also depends on what stance you prefer. This lady has a good review of the common effective stances: http://www.corneredcat.com/article/the-shooting-basics/stance/

She also has a good discussion of the main grip types: http://www.corneredcat.com/article/the-shooting-basics/grip/

Okay, facts out of the way, my opinion: I shoot using a Chapman/Modified Weaver stance because that is what I like the best, and what seems to work best with my body mechanics. I grip the weapon with the Revolver Grip variant because this works best with my body mechanics in the Chapman stance and because it is a more secure grip (in terms of retention - keeping your weapon from being torn out of your hands by an assailant) than most others. The L/E grip is better in terms of competition, but it is easier to be disarmed from L/E than Revolver.

No matter what grip you use, the hands should be almost at the same height and not staggered as badly as they are in the above picture.
 
Last edited:
Now here's something interesting. From http://www.guns.com/2013/03/25/serbu-firearms-refuses-to-sell-50-cal-sniper-rifles-to-nypd/ - embedded links are at source.

Serbu Firearms Refuses to Sell .50 Cal Sniper Rifles to NYPD
3/25/13 | by Max Slowik

Serbu Firearms, a manufacturer of bolt-action and semi-automatic .50 caliber sniper rifles, is refusing to sell their wares to the NYPD. Their reason, of course, is that owing to unfair gun laws, they will not support law enforcement in New York.

Serbu is one of almost 150 companies that has officially refused to sell to law enforcement in New York following the passage of the SAFE Act, the controversial gun control package that has been met with scorn by gun owners across the nation.

The company posted the NYPD?s inquiry as well as their refusal to their Facebook page, with names omitted.

Company founder Mark Serbu said, ?Unfortunately, we have a policy of selling to state law enforcement agencies only what is allowed to be sold to private citizens in that state. Since the passage of the NY SAFE act, the BFG-50A is considered an assault weapon and as such is no longer available to private citizens in the state of New York. Therefore we have to respectfully decline to supply your department with BFG-50A rifles.?

He also said he felt bad about not being able to outfit the officers, because although he would like to get his guns into ?as many police departments as possible,? his decision is a matter of principle.

?Because of a stupid law the venerable NYPD won?t have the best tools for the job.?

What?s interesting about this is that while Serbu makes a fine firearm and impressive .50 BMG rifles, they?re not a first-tier company in the sniper rifle world and are perhaps best known for their compact Super-Shorty shotguns.

Two of the biggest names in sniper rifles, Barrett and ArmaLite, have already stated that they will not sell to the police departments of New York. If the NYPD is calling Serbu, we have to wonder how many other companies have told them to keep walking.

Serbu is the 137th company to halt sales to New York law enforcement according to the unofficial official New York Boycott list, which is now up to 142 companies (at the time of writing) and likely to keep growing.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA affiliate, along with the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Sportsmen?s Association for Firearms Education, Blueline Tactical Police Supply and sever other plaintiffs have filed suit against the state of New York and the SAFE Act.

If you want to let them know what you think yea or nay, of just ?like? them, head over to the Serbu Firearms Facebook page.
Click to expand...

1. Why does the NYPD need .50 BMG anti-materiel rifles?

2. As the article notes, Serbu isn't even vaguely one of the big names you call when you're looking for one of these things, and one wonders just how many people have told NYPD to go sod off for them to have to resort to Serbu. To put it in car terms, they've just been turned down by the equivalent of Dacia or Mitsubishi.

One also wonders where, if anywhere, they are going to find someone to sell them what they're looking for, and just how terrible whatever they find is going to be.
 
Last edited:
Barrett is probably the biggest name good to see them to continue good politics.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
1. Why does the NYPD need .50 BMG anti-materiel rifles?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that after events like the North Hollywood shootout and certain terrorist attacks/attempts, some police departments choose to stock bigger weapons for a variety of eventualities. Is it likely an armored vehicle will be used in a crime? No, but a department the size of the NYPD could afford to have a handful of BMGs on hand just in case.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireMK461 said:
I'm guessing that after events like the North Hollywood shootout and certain terrorist attacks/attempts, some police departments choose to stock bigger weapons for a variety of eventualities. Is it likely an armored vehicle will be used in a crime? No, but a department the size of the NYPD could afford to have a handful of BMGs on hand just in case.
Click to expand...

Except:
1. .50 BMG is massive overkill for most such situations (not to mention the over penetration issues) but it won't actually stop most armored vehicles or even hardened limousines. This is why the military no longer uses them as such. They use RPGs and other missiles instead.
2. North Hollywood did not have anything it would have taken a .50 BMG to deal with. Neither have any such events in recent US history.
3. Most of the usage of .50 BMG rifles by police is to trot them out at political meetings to declare how dangerous these things are and how they should be banned.
4. Worst of all, there are no usable sight lines in NYC where a .50 BMG rifle can safely be used.

The NYPD needs to be spending money on teaching their officers to not ventilate nine other people in the process of stopping one guy - or teaching their 'elite' SWAT officers not to put their holographic sights on backward so they're useless instead of dumping fifteen thousand dollars per copy on rifles they can't reasonably or safely use.
 
Last edited:
1. I mention North Hollywood because of the perpetrators armor being greater than the officers' weapons. Of course a BMG is overkill but a person, but it shows that police can be out-gunned (-armored?).

2. I wouldn't say "most" armored vehicles can't be stopped by a BMG, civilian armoring comes in many different grades (hell, so does military *cough*humvees*cough*). Some will only stop small arms, some can defeat mines. Armor can also come in the form of walls which are involved in many stories of military snipers using BMGs on.

3. Yes, the police dislike civilian populations from having big guns that they might be on the receiving end of. No surprise there.

4. What is your definition of "usable sight lines." There are straight avenues in NYC that are miles long, far longer than the usable range of any personal rifle. More to the point, I doubt engagement distances in any NYC firefight would be at any significant range. I imagine the only purpose of a BMG the NYPD can reasonably conceive of is armor-piercing and anti-material, not long range sniping.

The whole point of my post was covering an assortment of situations, being prepared for any eventual outcome. A .50 BMG is not unreasonable for such a large police organization to have a few of just in case.
 
Spectre said:
Except:
1. .50 BMG is massive overkill for most such situations (not to mention the over penetration issues) but it won't actually stop most armored vehicles or even hardened limousines. This is why the military no longer uses them as such. They use RPGs and other missiles instead.
2. North Hollywood did not have anything it would have taken a .50 BMG to deal with. Neither have any such events in recent US history.
3. Most of the usage of .50 BMG rifles by police is to trot them out at political meetings to declare how dangerous these things are and how they should be banned.
4. Worst of all, there are no usable sight lines in NYC where a .50 BMG rifle can safely be used.

The NYPD needs to be spending money on teaching their officers to not ventilate nine other people in the process of stopping one guy - or teaching their 'elite' SWAT officers not to put their holographic sights on backward so they're useless instead of dumping fifteen thousand dollars per copy on rifles they can't reasonably or safely use.
Click to expand...
I was thinking something along those lines, a fiddy cal sniper would probably go through a couple of people around here (we are tightly packed). Possibly for airport hostage situations or in the further parts of Queens which is somewhat more rural.
 
Jim Carrey comments on Gun Control....

[video]http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey?playlist=featured_videos[/video]

...with his usual understated methods...
 
warden said:
Jim Carrey comments on Gun Control....

[video]http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey?playlist=featured_videos[/video]

...with his usual understated methods...
Click to expand...

So... people who use guns (like soldiers, police, law abiding citizens, etc) or simply support the 2nd, all have small dicks and are going to hell? Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireMK461 said:
1. I mention North Hollywood because of the perpetrators armor being greater than the officers' weapons. Of course a BMG is overkill but a person, but it shows that police can be out-gunned (-armored?).
Click to expand...

North Hollywood was actually a training failure more than weapon failure. LAPD was never taught failure drills to that point in time, so the officers kept going for COM shots (where the bad guys armor was thickest) instead of going for the head after COM shots failed (where they had NO ARMOR.)

2. I wouldn't say "most" armored vehicles can't be stopped by a BMG, civilian armoring comes in many different grades (hell, so does military *cough*humvees*cough*). Some will only stop small arms, some can defeat mines. Armor can also come in the form of walls which are involved in many stories of military snipers using BMGs on.
Click to expand...

Um... the base HMMWV isn't armored. As in, none. Nothing. Nada. It was never intended to be.

Most vehicles worth the name 'armored' will shrug off a .50 hit. Armored cars of the type used to collect money from banks will, and most companies manufacturing armored limousines say their product will resist .50 BMG. They even have advertising videos:


3. Yes, the police dislike civilian populations from having big guns that they might be on the receiving end of. No surprise there.
Click to expand...

Big guns they will likely never be on the receiving end of because the damn things cost so much. Entry level for one is $10K for a single shot bolt action and they go well into six digits from there. Also, number of crimes committed in the US with a .50 BMG, including murder: 0 to date.

4. What is your definition of "usable sight lines." There are straight avenues in NYC that are miles long, far longer than the usable range of any personal rifle. More to the point, I doubt engagement distances in any NYC firefight would be at any significant range. I imagine the only purpose of a BMG the NYPD can reasonably conceive of is armor-piercing and anti-material, not long range sniping.
Click to expand...

Usable sight line in the sense of a sight line to a target, with NOTHING within the lethal range of the bullet behind him but a solid backstop. No innocent bystanders, nothing. There just isn't any of that in NYC - you fire a .50 anywhere, it's going to be going through some buildings and probably killing and/or wounding a whole bunch of people.

Keep in mind that while the .50 has a maximum effective range of 2000 yards, but the bullet is still lethal for over 7000. So if you miss, that bullet could run the width of the island and kill someone.

If they were really wanting armor piercing, they could get the 20mm Anzio rifle, which fires the 20mm Vulcan cartridge and is FAR better at it than the .50BMG. The drawback is that it is not as accurate at longer ranges. So it doesn't appear that they want it for that purpose.

The whole point of my post was covering an assortment of situations, being prepared for any eventual outcome. A .50 BMG is not unreasonable for such a large police organization to have a few of just in case.
Click to expand...

It is unreasonable when they are unlikely to ever be able to employ it safely or, given the obvious and photographically demonstrated ineptitude of the NYPD with firearms, correctly.

Here is the video record of the recent NYPD police shooting where they shot 9 people aside from the target. Spoilered due to graphic violence and death.

You have but to look upthread for the picture of the NYPD officer with his Eotech sight on the rifle backwards, which renders it completely useless. Edit: But I'll reproduce it anyway:
herkimer3.jpg


So, again, what need do these Keystone Kops have for new .50 BMG rifles??? Especially when they already have some. (Ignore the technical stupidities about firearms in the article - it is linked to show NYPD admitting they have some already, back in 2011.) Why do they need more $15,000-per-each rifles when they have some already and they obviously need to better train and educate their officers???
 
Last edited:
Assuming it isn't like the grand jury system here in Texas and some other states, I would guess that it would be because he used -gasp!- a firearm. As if the person would not have been just as dead if he had properly used a knife, cricket bat, crossbow, diver's spear gun or other such implement.
 
Spectre said:
Most vehicles worth the name 'armored' will shrug off a .50 hit. Armored cars of the type used to collect money from banks will, and most companies manufacturing armored limousines say their product will resist .50 BMG. They even have advertising videos:

Click to expand...


Interesting. I hear all the time how thieves use the AR-15 against armored cars because it has the ability to defeat the armoring etc.
Are our armored cars flimsy or is the press just spouting nonsense?
carro_forte.jpg
 
Redliner said:
Interesting. I hear all the time how thieves use the AR-15 against armored cars because it has the ability to defeat the armoring etc.
Are our armored cars flimsy or is the press just spouting nonsense?
carro_forte.jpg
Click to expand...

Well you presumably COULD use armor piercing bullets (they are basically made of some harder/heavier metals) but I'm not sure if 5.56 packs enough of a punch to begin with. I know AKs are pretty good at going through lighter body armor but vehicle armor idk...
 
LeVeL said:
What exactly are you supposed to do when attacked in Australia? Just stand there and die?
Click to expand...
Tell them to wait while you unlock your shotgun, load it, then scare them off with it, that's if you have one I guess.

So its the Biden defense for them.
 
LeVeL said:
What exactly are you supposed to do when attacked in Australia? Just stand there and die?
Click to expand...

Apparently.

Redliner said:
Interesting. I hear all the time how thieves use the AR-15 against armored cars because it has the ability to defeat the armoring etc.
Are our armored cars flimsy or is the press just spouting nonsense?
carro_forte.jpg
Click to expand...

Your armored cars are pretty flimsy. 5.56 armor piercing will not go through the armor of the US counterpart to the pictured vehicle.
 
Last edited:
avanti said:
Lawyer says:

If that is the case why did they arrest him?
Click to expand...

Because you have to prove in court that you didn't use EXCESSIVE force.

However, if you were one of the few people who live in Aus who have a weapon (mainly farmers) which must be kept in a locked safe that is bolted to the floor with the ammo stored in a separate area. (The police do random checks and revoke licenses for breaches of these conditions), And you managed to load your weapon while someone was breaking in and shoot them. You would have to prove in court that you didn't use excessive force, and if the intruder wasn't armed with a gun, you would have a hard time proving so, even if they had a bat or knife.
 
Last edited:
I've never really gotten the "excessive force" laws. If you're in immediate danger, it's dark and you can't really see if your assailant is pulling out a knife or a gun, are you supposed to stop and turn on the lights so you will be able to see that he has a gun and it's safe to use yours? Or are you supposed to go ahead and defend yourself with your gun and when it's over realize you should have put your gun down and grabbed a bat?

As someone who's never been in a position to know how I'd act, I can only say that as of where I sit, I'd like to have as much defense/deterrent as possible, rather than have to worry about grabbing something that may not do me any good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top