Firearms

[Backlighting]

Adam, thought I'd continue the discussion in a separate, more appropriate thread.

Can't go wrong with that Remington. A multi-use, light, well made firearm in an affordable caliber.

I use this 22lr here in the desert for plinking. Only difference is mine is a 2013 model that has rubber grips. A real tack driver.

.22lr rounds still relatively cheap. I have a Sportsman's Wherehouse near-by & need to get there at store opening on Saturday (that's when they put it out). About $.05 a round + tax. I also like to hone my skill with a .40 S&W Glock. About $.38 a round.

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=006B&cid=051&tid=379

Down the road I'd like to get one of these. The SOCOM edition has a 16 1/2" barrel. 20 round mags are available.

While in the Army I trained with the original M-14 military name...M1a Civilian name, made by Springfield Armory. Flat shooting, powerful .308, still in use by our military. Hitting a half silouette some 250 yards away, with iron sights, was challenging, but accomplished with several trips to the range and some dead serious instructors. We had to strip these down with only moonlight. I know it well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A_rifle

P.S. The Linux-powered rifle would sit in my collection if I could afford it.

[Brant Gaede]

I trained with the M-14 too. Auto fire was worthless except with a bipod and next to worthless with one. You ran out of ammo much too fast. The belt-fed M-60 machine gun was best for that. The M-14 was designed for a European battlefield replacing the famous M-1 Garand firing the standard 7.62 NATO round. Knock down accuracy at a fair distance was paramount.

--Brant

generally even the M-16 was more effective on semi-auto than full auto unless you used 3-round bursts

[Backlighting]

I trained with the M-14 too. Auto fire was worthless except with a bipod and next to worthless with one. You ran out of ammo much too fast. The belt-fed M-60 machine gun was best for that. The M-14 was designed for a European battlefield replacing the famous M-1 Garand firing the standard 7.62 NATO round. Knock down accuracy at a fair distance was paramount.

--Brant

generally even the M-16 was more effective on semi-auto than full auto unless you used 3-round bursts

Hello Brant,

I remember speaking with a few soldiers fighting in Vietnam and on R&R in Japan, where I was stationed.

What struck me most was they all seem to agree the M-16 was useless in jungle fighting, since the bullet was light and deflected easily in the thick brush. They all preferred the M-14.

-Joe

[Brant Gaede]

I trained with the M-14 too. Auto fire was worthless except with a bipod and next to worthless with one. You ran out of ammo much too fast. The belt-fed M-60 machine gun was best for that. The M-14 was designed for a European battlefield replacing the famous M-1 Garand firing the standard 7.62 NATO round. Knock down accuracy at a fair distance was paramount.

--Brant

generally even the M-16 was more effective on semi-auto than full auto unless you used 3-round bursts

Hello Brant,

I remember speaking with a few soldiers fighting in Vietnam and on R&R in Japan, where I was stationed.

What struck me most was they all seem to agree the M-16 was useless in jungle fighting, since the bullet was light and deflected easily in the thick brush. They all preferred the M-14.

-Joe

Could be. I didn't fight there in the jungle, but what they preferred was one thing, what they got another--jamming, for instance.

--Brant

it was improved, but no AK-47 reliability

[Jonathan]

Speaking of firearms, it's that time of year again: JFK nutters are out pushing their nutty theories.

Here's one of my favorite debunkings:

There have been many other similar tests using animal cadavers and very advanced simulations of humans, but they're not as fun as Penn & Teller's.

J

[Backlighting]

I trained with the M-14 too. Auto fire was worthless except with a bipod and next to worthless with one. You ran out of ammo much too fast. The belt-fed M-60 machine gun was best for that. The M-14 was designed for a European battlefield replacing the famous M-1 Garand firing the standard 7.62 NATO round. Knock down accuracy at a fair distance was paramount.

--Brant

generally even the M-16 was more effective on semi-auto than full auto unless you used 3-round bursts

Hello Brant,

I remember speaking with a few soldiers fighting in Vietnam and on R&R in Japan, where I was stationed.

What struck me most was they all seem to agree the M-16 was useless in jungle fighting, since the bullet was light and deflected easily in the thick brush. They all preferred the M-14.

-Joe

Could be. I didn't fight there in the jungle, but what they preferred was one thing, what they got another--jamming, for instance.

--Brant

it was improved, but no AK-47 reliability

Brant I remember reading on one of the firearm blogs some time back that the jamming (M-14) was caused by the ammo it first used. It was substantially improved, but by then the military had adopted the M-16 for the infantry and resigned the M14 to sniper use. BTW a heavier bullet vs a lighter one traveling at approx. the same speed WILL be less likely to deflect in heavy brush.

-Joe

[Brant Gaede]

I was thinking of the jamming in the M-16.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Sorry Brant, I misunderstood.

-Joe

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry Brant, I misunderstood.

-Joe

Yeah, but with facts, so no harm done.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Here's a top shelf firearm being reviewed by a knowledgeable, top shelf shooter, having fun.

[Backlighting]

Selling around $1,700 it's not cheap, but neither is the rifle. Ruger SR-762 – Piston Driven 7.62NATO New Gun Review http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ruger-sr-762-piston-driven-7-62nato-battle-rifle-new-gun-review/

[Selene]

Here's a top shelf firearm being reviewed by a knowledgeable, top shelf shooter, having fun.

Smooth shooter. When he rapid fired at the oil drum in slow motion at the end, to watch him subtley "guide/pull" the rifle back onto his shooting line makes you realize how much control is required to operate weapons so that you get maximum efficiency from them.

Excellent instrutor.

[Backlighting]

Hello Adam.

This guy has over 800 videos on UTUBE. Apparently the firearms manufacturers value his opinion, since most have sent him firearms for review.

I love his range set-up. Wouldn't mind spending an afternoon there.

-Joe

[objectiveMan]

Thought I will revive this thread for discussion about guns in general.

As you may guess, it is very difficult to get a firearm license in Finland. You can get a shotgun or a bolt action rifle for hunting purposes, but semi-automatics or handguns are extremely hard to get a license for. Still, for any gun, it is quite a hurdle of things you must go through.

In any case, I used to own a .308 Tikka T3 Varmint rifle. I sold it later as I ended up not using it often enough to justify it.

Here is the link:

http://www.tikka.fi/rifles/tikka-t3/t3-varmint

I found it great fun to shoot at the range. The recoil was a bit unpleasant for any lengthy shooting, and if I made the choice today, I would probably pick something slightly smaller than the .308.

In my military service I used the RK 95:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_Tp

[Brant Gaede]

Did you also sell it because using deadly force in self defense is illegal in Finland?

--Brant

[Backlighting]

The .308 round, though a potent performer, is costly and not too shoulder friendly...especially if you shoot it for an extended time.

An alternative would be a 7.62 x 39 chambered rifle, such as an AK47 which is chambered for it. Ammo and rifles are reasonably priced and the selection plentiful.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Semi-Auto-Rifles/BI.aspx?Keywords=7.62x39

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm

[objectiveMan]

Did you also sell it because using deadly force in self defense is illegal in Finland?

--Brant

Maybe also that, but even if it was allowed, I wouldn't consider that weapon particularly suitable for indoor use. Would make me deaf for one, and the bullet could go through a wall and hit a poor neighbor. I would rather have a neat little handgun for that type of situation.

[Brant Gaede]

I get you don't have a felt need for any gun for self protection.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Did you also sell it because using deadly force in self defense is illegal in Finland?

--Brant

Maybe also that, but even if it was allowed, I wouldn't consider that weapon particularly suitable for indoor use. Would make me deaf for one, and the bullet could go through a wall and hit a poor neighbor. I would rather have a neat little handgun for that type of situation.

The Smith & Wesson 638 is a neat little handgun for a pocket carry or back up.

They can be bought for about $400.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/smith-wesson-638-review/

[Backlighting]

Looks like those "evil black" guns are finally getting some love:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/11/majority-americans-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-first-time-20-years-nyt-polling/

[Backlighting]

Completed a concealed carry class yesterday.

8 hrs of classroom (about 50 in the class, several women)...a written test... and then at the indoor range 6 rounds fired, unsupported, rt and left hand each at a 3 yd target. Then 12 rounds, supported with the hand of your choice, at a target 6 yds away and then the same at 12 yds. Used a 9mm Glock. It was a long day.
Now off to the police station with the certificate and a check for $95. Unfortunately, here in Nevada, it will take up to 120 days to get the "official" permit. Once issued, it's good for 5 yrs.

[Brant Gaede]

What states don't honor your NV concealed carry?

I can get a cc here in AZ but it increases my potential liability if the firearm is determined to be misused hurting or killing someone on the assumption I was trained to know better.

Without a cc I can still cc in AZ. Without a reciprocal agreement with other states respecting possession and c. carry I am held to their laws regarding carry and possession.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

What states don't honor your NV concealed carry?

I can get a cc here in AZ but it increases my potential liability if the firearm is determined to be misused hurting or killing someone on the assumption I was trained to know better.

Without a cc I can still cc in AZ. Without a reciprocal agreement with other states respecting possession and c. carry I am held to their laws regarding carry and possession.

--Brant

Hello Brandt,

Nice in Arizona. You can carry legally without the dam "permit" As you know, liability will be an issue with or without the permit.

If one wants to carry legally (otherwise it's a felony if caught) in Nevada one must have a permit, which is fairly easy to get though.

Going in the right direction, the Gov. here recently abolished gun registration.

Here's the list of the anti-gunners that don't honor Nevada's cc permits... probably the same for Ariz:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New York City, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, American Samoa, N. Mariana Islands

Here's a link to an interactive site with a map of the states and their cc status:

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

-Joe

[Backlighting]

Smith & Wesson, or any other producer he doesn't like, is in Barry's crosshairs:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/second-amendment-2/obama-targets-gun-maker-smith-and-wesson-with-bogus-sec-charge

[Brant Gaede]

Thank you!

--Las Brant