The Gun thread

Luca

is meh.
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
630
Location
Vienna, ?sterreich
Isn't the success of the glocks just their utilitarian design and no extra features as well as that two piece trigger? That and maybe just giving out big discounts to gov agencies. Although the 1911's have a two stage system if you count the grip safety which has been around forever. I wouldn't get to hung up on the "perfection" thats just marketing.

I have little experience, shot the g17 and 26, I prefered the hammer fired cz because it was heavier and feels less fat/wide on the grip.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Glocks are affordable, reliable, simple, the same platform is offered in a plethora of sizes and calibers (basically same grips, same triggers, etc), huge aftermarket, and great customer service. Not the best looking guns, not the best trigger, and so on, but quite possibly the best jack of all trades. Since you mentioned 1911s, I consider them beautiful pieces of history but they're heavy, unreliable, low capacity, and expensive.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Picked up something new to play with:



An HK P2000SP. It's a subcompact that manages to weight more and feel more hefty than a comparable Glock 26. The gun feels as well build as HK's reputation would have you believe. I'm really not a fan of pinky finger cutouts at the bottom of mag wells, necessitating large base plates for magazines, but oh well.





The sights are standard three-dot, which I don't particularly like:



The Euro-style magazine release is just terrible design, imo. A tiny little lever (connecting to another one on the opposite side of the gun, making it ambidextrous) that has to be pushed down to release - impossible to do while performing a fast reload. Easily my least favorite thing about this gun.





The detail work is interesting though:



This is my first pistol with a decocker. Having the hammer fall forward when decocked is quite unnerving at first :lol:



Here's a better look at cocked vs decocked vs fired. The different between the last two is subtle.



Here it is with the mag inserted. Barely, and I mean barely, leaves room for my pinkie.




This is my first DA/SA pistol. The DA pull is 11lbs (according to what I've read online) - pretty insane considering that my revolvers are a little less than that. At least it feels reasonably good in DA, as opposed to SA where it's vague and spongy. The reset point is obvious but you have a long way to go before actually tripping it. Honestly, I like a stock Glock trigger more. I'm also not used to the grip angle. The gun did run very reliably with zero malfunctions, even with defensive ammo.

Overall it's not bad. Not sure how long I'll keep it but at least it's fun to shoot.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,035
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '11 Multistrada, Yamaha R6
I have a hard time with HK. I think their triggers are pretty cruddy out of the box for the price, my CZ was far less expensive than a similar HK and the trigger was miles better. Also, that mag release bugs me, maybe it's because I'm just used to the grip button, but I hate that feature. My FN manages to have an ambi mag release without having some weird lever near the trigger.

Kiki, on the other hand, loves HK and just purchased an HK 45.; not that it matters, she still won't give back my FN...
 

Kiki

Registered Bone Marrow
DONOR
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
1,392
Car(s)
'13 Ford Taurus, '20 KTM 890R, '16 Yamaha R3
Oooh, HKs.

I am enjoying the prices hitting rock bottom recently. I've been watching HK45s for a couple of years now and finally, I was sent/came across one for a steal. It turns out the seller was an HK collector who had too many toys, and the gun was very clean and maybe had a few hundred rounds through. Also, it has sub 1700 serial too.

Kiki, on the other hand, loves HK and just purchased an HK 45.; not that it matters, she still won't give back my FN...

What, I like my big .45s. Plus, the FNP and I have been through a lot. How many times has it given me a bullseye on the cold shot of the day? :lol:

That and I nearly cried when Blind tried taking the FN away from me for a week. :cry:
 
Last edited:

RdKetchup

Snow Mexican Surender Monkey
DONOR
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,025
Location
Montreal, Qc, Canada
Car(s)
FoRS, Japanese touring triple
I accidentally a BCL 102 in OD Green:

(not my pictures, it's a presale, I should have mine in a few weeks):










Picture of another one next to smaller AR-15s:

j4R19mk.jpg



A non-restricted AR in .308/7.62x51.

Now I need to figure out an optic solution, it doesn't even come with iron sights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC

73GMCSprint

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
1,032
Location
Southern UT, USA
Car(s)
1973 GMC Sprint, Buick 455/TH400; 1994 Jeep XJ 4.0
I like me some large-frame AR. Are those DPMS pattern or something proprietary?

I didn't bother with iron sights on mine. I went with a 3-9x40 since it'll mostly be used for hunting, but I could see some more zoom in the future, maybe 4-16x or something like that.
 
Last edited:

RdKetchup

Snow Mexican Surender Monkey
DONOR
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,025
Location
Montreal, Qc, Canada
Car(s)
FoRS, Japanese touring triple
I'm leaning towards the Primary Arms 1-8x scope with ACSS reticle. I don't think I will shoot long distance (no nearby range that I know of), so that should do for now.

I already ordered a Vortex cantilever mount.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I'm leaning towards the Primary Arms 1-8x scope with ACSS reticle. I don't think I will shoot long distance (no nearby range that I know of), so that should do for now.

I already ordered a Vortex cantilever mount.

If you're not going to use the full range of the .308, I'd suggest something like the Burris TAC30 or MTAC. These would be more useful close up than the PA ACSS reticle - you can pick up the larger reticle loop better for use at closer range.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Gun-related observations from my recent trip to Yellowstone and Grand Teton:

Flying with guns is really easy. I had my pistol unloaded (slide off the frame actually - it fit better that way), loaded magazine next to it, inside a locked hard-sided case, cable locked to my luggage on the inside. TSA locks on the outside. Walked up to the Delta counter, told them I'm flying with a firearm, and they simply asked for my ID and had me sign a "firearm unloaded" declaration and slip it into my suitcase next to the gun case. Upon landing, my bag didn't come out on the regular carousel but rather I had to go into the luggage office (or whatever it's called) with my bag tags to retrieve my suitcase. The return flight was similar, except that TSA actually wanted to inspect my suitcase - never opened the gun box though, just swabbed everything with me present. Super easy overall.

Out west, no one bats an eyelid at a gun. Old guns are on display everywhere (statues, display cases in stores, etc - one store even had old Colts as door handles). Saw a bunch of people printing and one person open carrying inside Yellowstone - the people that notice don't care and the rest are oblivious tourists. I was carrying OWB for comfort - I know my shirt blew open several times exposing the gun and no one cared at all. But... I probably won't bring mine next time. The small towns we went through felt very safe and inside the parks guns are useless, since any animal I needed to worry about would laugh at my little cute 9mm rounds. I knew this would be the case and brought it more for the novelty of the experience of getting it on a plane. That said, I was glad to have bear spray handy when hiking in the back country.

Another reason not to bother bringing a gun is the laws. In Montana you can't carry concealed into any establishment that serves liquor, which meant that whenever we went out for dinner I left the gun behind, even though I wasn't going to drink (and I'm really not a fan of open carry). In Wyoming, no-guns signs have the force of law and I saw several restaurants inside the parks that were posted, so the gun had to stay in the car. Federal buildings (e.g. visitors' centers) are off-limits by law so even a restroom stop involved disarming. Honestly, too much hassle in the end - like I said, I probably won't bother when I go back, or maybe I'll just leave it in the hotel room the entire time.

I now completely understand why people love rifles so much out west. There is so much open room and so many predators (e.g. coyotes that attack livestock) that a landowner really does need a long gun, preferably one that can be used as bear defense. In the woods, a long gun is burdensome to carry around but bear spray is a better option anyways. That said, I'm glad we don't have large hungry predators where I live - back home I just hike with my every day carry pistol and feel just fine, though I might pick up a .357sig barrel.

I might post about the trip overall in detail, if I get around to it. Let's just say it was a blast. We went through Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming - all four offered absolutely stunning scenery. 80mph speed limits are awesome and even back roads had high limits. The drivers are far, far better than in MA, except for those with CA plates. Huge trucks with bullbars are everywhere and they do get used and abused. Wildlife is all over the place and bison like to stand in the road for the fuck of it. If you've never been to that part of the country, you must go - incredible experience.
 

RdKetchup

Snow Mexican Surender Monkey
DONOR
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,025
Location
Montreal, Qc, Canada
Car(s)
FoRS, Japanese touring triple
If you're not going to use the full range of the .308, I'd suggest something like the Burris TAC30 or MTAC. These would be more useful close up than the PA ACSS reticle - you can pick up the larger reticle loop better for use at closer range.

I still went with the PA, because reasons.

I did find an 200m outdoor range within reasonable distance, where I do not need to be a member to shoot, and where steel core ammo is probably ok (need to confirm on site). So for now the plan is to get a membership at the expensive indoor range near my place when I finally get my restricted licence (still waiting), and shoot non-steel core ammo on their 50m riffle range when I feel like it, and do walk-ins at the outdoor one when I want to do outdoor shooting at longer range.

Or find some crown land where I can safely shoot the 308 at longer ranges since it's a non-restricted riffle. Just not sure where that would be, best guess would be to learn from other shooter at the range.
 

Redliner

Y'all got any lamps?
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
23,319
Location
Lamp
Car(s)
I don't drive, I fly.

Question:
If one of the motorcycle riders was carrying a gun, could he legally shoot the trucker beating his friend and/or the other truckers showing off their guns?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Disparity of force says that if the opponents are not evenly matched, the defender (the one losing the fight basically) can resort to the use of a weapon.

So... if someone comes at you with a shotgun, you can draw your own firearm and shoot in self defense - they've demonstrated the ability, opportunity, and desire to harm you.

With the biker that got beat up it's more complicated. On one hand, there is disparity of force between a skinny 40 year old and a younger, stronger, larger assailant, so (barring the former having martial arts skills) you'd be justified in drawing on that big dude because he can seriously mess up the biker. However... the biker is wearing a helmet, which complicates things because that arguably evens out the playing field.

Obviously the best option is to not get involved in road rage to begin with and, if confronted by an angry driver, call the police and keep riding/driving, but none of these knuckleheads heeded that advice. I imagine that all of those idiots ended up in handcuffs over this.
 

Redliner

Y'all got any lamps?
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
23,319
Location
Lamp
Car(s)
I don't drive, I fly.
Disparity of force says that if the opponents are not evenly matched, the defender (the one losing the fight basically) can resort to the use of a weapon.

So... if someone comes at you with a shotgun, you can draw your own firearm and shoot in self defense - they've demonstrated the ability, opportunity, and desire to harm you.

With the biker that got beat up it's more complicated. On one hand, there is disparity of force between a skinny 40 year old and a younger, stronger, larger assailant, so (barring the former having martial arts skills) you'd be justified in drawing on that big dude because he can seriously mess up the biker. However... the biker is wearing a helmet, which complicates things because that arguably evens out the playing field.

Obviously the best option is to not get involved in road rage to begin with and, if confronted by an angry driver, call the police and keep riding/driving, but none of these knuckleheads heeded that advice. I imagine that all of those idiots ended up in handcuffs over this.

Well, yeah. There are idiots on both sides, I was just thinking about the legality of responding with a firearm.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,435
I imagine there would be a lot of similar defenses/excuses in court on that one. According to the YouTube video, there were 12 bikers and they were following the truck for 20 miles or something. The video conveniently doesn't show what instigated the whole thing, surprise surprise.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC

Question:
If one of the motorcycle riders was carrying a gun, could he legally shoot the trucker beating his friend and/or the other truckers showing off their guns?

LeVeL's answer is good as far as it goes... for his People's Republik Of Massholes. His state has the exceedingly shameful concept enshrined in its laws that outside the home, you must always flee attackers.

A person cannot lawfully act in self-defense unless he or she has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to force.

Fortunately, other states have different and arguably better laws.

Here are the laws governing force and deadly force in self defense or the defense of others in the state of Texas, for example. They're pretty simple and easy to understand. I'll bold the parts that apply here. (Please note that these are only the laws for self defense or defense of others - the laws on the use of force in defense of or the recovery of property are separate and considerably different - in some ways they're even *less* restrictive.)

Code:
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

      (1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

            (A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

            (B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

            (C)  was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

      (2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

      (3)  was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

[B](b)  The use of force against another is not justified:

      (1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;[/B]

      (2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

      (3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

      (4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

            (A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and

            (B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

      (5)  if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

            (A)  carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02;  or

            (B)  possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

      (1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

      (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
[B]
(e)  A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.[/B]

[B](f)  For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.[/B]

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by: 

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  [B](a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

      (1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

      (2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

            (A)  to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

            (B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.[/B]

(b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

      (1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

            (A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

            (B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

            (C)  was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3)  was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c)  A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d)  For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by: 

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.


[B]Sec. 9.33.  DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1)  under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and[/B]
[B]
(2)  the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.[/B]

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

That is, quite literally, it in the state of Texas. No more, no less.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I've spoken to many lawyers about this sort of incident, I'd had legal training as part of CCW training and I've watched the course of cases like this. For actual legal advice, consult a lawyer - but I'm reasonably sure I know what the legal standing would be in Texas.

Legally speaking, I believe this is over and done at 1:22-1:30. Without any physical provocation, the one truck driver fires a shot in the air (automatically escalating this to a deadly force incident and bringing 9.32 into play), and the other uses unlawful force against the motorcycle rider. The second driver has just violated 9.31(b)(1) and is now using unlawful force against the rider in the form of physical assault without physical provocation - verbal provocation is not sufficient to justify the use of force. This driver continues to use unlawful force against the motorcyclist who begins (unsuccessfully) defending himself. When the other people start getting out of their trucks to confront and threaten others, they commit further crimes - brandishing firearms, for one. At this point one of the other riders would have been justified in drawing and firing under 9.32(a)(2)(A) and all of 9.33, especially since all of this was on video. The motorcyclist would have been well advised to tell the other side to back off, back down first before firing, but in Texas it's not strictly necessary.

You don't wave your gun around like that one idiot. That's brandishing and is illegal. Firing a shot in the air is illegal use of deadly force, reckless discharge of a firearm and more. Pointing your weapon directly at the justified potential threat is not illegal, but that's not what shotgun guy was doing. What that guy did was stupid and automatically releases the wronged party or parties to use deadly force as he has already done so.

Or put another way, under Texas law, if this had happened in Texas, were I in the group of motorcyclists and this had unfolded in front of me, I would have been perfectly justified in shooting the guy with the shotgun and the guy in the truck who was beating the motorcyclist - should I have decided this was what needed to happen to end the threat. Strangely we don't have a lot of this sort of road rage incident in Texas. I wonder why.

Fortunately the fat guy in the blue denim shirt belatedly realized where this was going and he successfully tried de-escalating things. Mind, these motorcyclists were idiots, but that still doesn't excuse the truck driver's illegal use of force or the other's illegal attempted use of deadly force. Non-physical idiocy (sadly) is not usually something that legally justify any use of force; this would have been different if the one idiot hadn't fired the shotgun and if the motorcyclist had struck first. However, the former happened and the latter didn't and it was all on video, so a hypothetical legal pistol carrier would have been within their rights in the state of Texas if they had shot the shotgun wielder and shot the assaulting truck driver. (Which, by the way, would have been the order in which I targeted them.)

Please note that there is no such BS about 'disparity of force' or anything like that in the Texas self defense rules.
 
Last edited:
Top