GUNS!!!!!!!!

[Peewee]

No I am not here to cunt up the thread. I just have a question for the gun nuts, and for the first time in a while, I am not trying to start shit. So, the local fly fishing guides around here have taken to carrying shotguns for bears, a la Alaska style. I usually have a .45 LC that I pack with me, simply for noise, but have been thinking for awhile about doing the whole shotgun route. Probably 12 gauge, I think my old 16 clay gun would be too small, and it is too nice to mess up converting. I would like a folding stock, short barrel, easy to sling across back, easy to swing forward and accurate enough that if I point it in the general direction, Mr. Griz gets a face full. Most guys around here alternate between buckshot and slugs: One round shot, one slug, one shot, etc. Good idea? The bears around here have been getting more and more aggressive, and I have heard stories, no bullshit, of people unloading a whole can of pepper spray, and the bear keeps coming. Any ideas? It's either bigger boom, or no fishing in the high country. Thanks.


Oh, and mandatory, guns are evil.

What make is your 45LC? If it's a Ruger Blackhawk, Redhawk, pre-2005 Vaquero, or Bisley I'd suggest shooting the heavy +P loads instead of buying a new gun. Buffalo Bore and Corbon both have hard-cast loads that push the 45LC to 44 Rem Mag performance levels. They'll knock down a grizzly no problem if you can do your part.

If you want a gun that's light, compact, cheap to practice with, yet powerful enough to take down a griz, I'd suggest you look at a .357 Magnum in a revolver with a 4" barrel. Some examples would be a S&W 66, 620, 686, etc or a Ruger GP100 (thought it's a bit heaver than S&W's). You can shoot cheap 38 specials for practice, then load it up with heavy .357 Magnum loads pushing a 180gr hardcast bullet at close to 1400fps. It'll penetrate a grizzly's skull without any problem, and the mild recoil will give you a chance to fire more rapidly than a larger cartridge (if you're lucky enough to get off more than one shot that is).

Regardless of what you buy, be sure to practice a ton because a gun won't do you any good if you can't hit anything.

[gretch6364]

I went and looked at guns tonight and I think I am going to go with the M&P 40..or 357 sig....have not decided yet.

[Peewee]

I went and looked at guns tonight and I think I am going to go with the M&P 40..or 357 sig....have not decided yet.

If you're going with the M&P it's too bad you didn't decide a little sooner. M&P's purchased on or before April 30th qualified for a $50 cash rebate and two free mags (worth $82).

[TNKen]

I went and looked at guns tonight and I think I am going to go with the M&P 40..or 357 sig....have not decided yet.

.357 Sig is not one of my favorite calibers. It has also fallen out of favor with a lot of the law enforcement community. A ton of recoil, meaning it is hard to get back on target. In addition, ammo is very expensive.

Ken

[leroy jenkins]

So I am looking to get a shitty pistol for camping and carrying on bike trips (motorcycle)...any suggestions? I don't want to carry any of my expensive pistols and was thinking about a Glock in 40 S&W. I am not a 9mm fan, and I am not sure that I want to carry a heavy 45. Plus my Kimber is a 45 so I already have one of those.

I was thinking about the Glock because I like to fish and what not and with rain...it will probably get soaked a couple times.

The ballistics of the .40 really aren't all that better than 9mm. Some people call it the .40 Short/Weak, since its really a neutered 10mm. At 50 yards most 9mm rounds will actually outperform the .45, and 9mm will penetrate better than 45 at any distance. But Everyone has their own preference, and the caliber argument has been beaten to death all over the internets, so whatever.

You said you want the gun for camping, do you mean for protection against animals, or just crazy rednecks?

If its for animals, I'd get something in 10mm if you're set on an auto. If its for people, probably anything bigger than .380 will be fine.

[leroy jenkins]

I have a Glock 23 and it feels like I'm gripping a 2x4 in my meat hooks. Nice shooter, easy to field strip, but I prefer my 1911 for concealed carry because of it's narrow profile. I don't take the Glock anywhere.

I feel the same way about glocks, hks too, but the thing the really makes me not like glocks is that the grip angle is "off". If I raise the gun up to what should be natural aiming posture, I always have to correct it by tilting my hand forwards just a bit.

Some people can deal with it, but I can't.

I also just like metal handguns better.

[gretch6364]

I am buying the gun both for animals and crazy rednecks. But I also want a gun for plinking that I can just throw thousands of rounds through. I just don't want to be carrying my Kimber while I am fishing or on my bike touring/camping in the middle of no where in BFE, Wyoming. So I thought I would get a composite gun for under $600 that I could care less about getting wet/muddy.

There is just something deep down inside me that tells me to never rely on a 9mm for personal protection. There is a reason alot of law enforcement agencies are switching to the 40. Also, how much more could the 357 sig kick than a 40? I know it is necked down so there will be some higher pressure...surely it is not any worse than a 45 in one of these light composite guns.

But I have never shot it....I am looking to go with a compact or smaller full size...I checked out the HK's because I have always liked them...but seemed like to nice of a gun with too high of a price tag for what I am looking for. If I got a USP...I would probably care too much about it and I don't want any reason not to carry something in the middle of summer, which is what has happened with my 1911s...just too much gun to hide in the heat.

As far as a 10mm...it just not what I am looking for in this situation. I am not going to go with the glock...after handling them I just don't like the grip angle.

[yippeekiyayMF]

the S&W MP 40 shots well. It's a good price and a good gun for what you are looking use it for. i prefer

i haven't shot the .357 sig in it so i can't comment on that.

i'm not sure about all the balasitics, but a lot of agencies use the 40 because of the combined stopping/pentrating power and low recoil. it's a good caliber to shot in your non-dominant hand and you still feel that you are in control of the gun.

i use to be more on top of all this but since i've moved to california everyone is against me and my guns so i do a lot of this in a dark basement with the lights off while the wife thinks i am doing taxes.

[zion zig zag]

Check out the springfield xd in a 40, 3 differrent sizes and they shoot real well.

[coreshot-tourettes]

gretch.

Realize that all handguns suck at stopping people. Even a .44Mag is outclassed by a rifle too underpowered to hunt deer with in some states. Get whatever caliber is cheap, available, and that you can shoot accurately and fast. Plenty of people have been killed by 9mm and .45, so pick one and buy it.

Look into the CZ-75 series - stone reliable gun, cheap, high capacity, can be had in either a decocker or safety version, and comes in subcompact, compact, and fullsize. I've carried one for years, dropped it in the mud, got it wet, still runs even though I've never cleaned it through 2900 rounds. And it's one of the most pointable and ergonomic guns out there.

The fullsize:



The compact:



A .357SIG gun has recoil like a .40 but a lot sharper. Some people don't like that.

The reason that "A lot of LE is switching to .40" is because S&W told them it was the right thing to do. Police departments are uniformly firearms-ignorant, so I wouldn't rely on what they say.

[TNKen]

The reason that "A lot of LE is switching to .40" is because S&W told them it was the right thing to do. Police departments are uniformly firearms-ignorant, so I wouldn't rely on what they say.

Always remember, public agencies pick the lowest of 3 bids!!! And I would suspect it was Glock that told them it was the right thing to do.

Most of the PD's around here use Glocks, a few Sigs (all in .40), and one uses the HK USP .45.

[gretch6364]

They will pick the cheaper....but that is irrelevant when it comes to picking calibers. I don' really worry about kick too much....just to be clear here...I have several pistols already including a 44 mag and a 45...I am looking for a cheap composite gun to take camping/hiking/fishing.

I would also prefer to buy something built in the US. The Glock and HK are out. Anyone hear of THK? I think that is the right name?

[lemon boy]

[crabby guy]
what you really want is a nice .22 auto and if you're actually worried about bears a can of pepper spray.

All the rest is just caliber masturbation.
[/crabby guy]

[MakersTeleMark]

Does anyone have the 22lr conversion for their Glock, and if so, how do you like it? I think it would be fun to plink a bunch without having to shell out for .40 cal.

[coreshot-tourettes]

Does anyone have the 22lr conversion for their Glock, and if so, how do you like it? I think it would be fun to plink a bunch without having to shell out for .40 cal.

The Advantage Arms conversion is generally unreliable to the point of annoyance.

I would just go and get a Ruger Mkiii and save yourself the headaches.

[MakersTeleMark]

^^^ thanks.

[TNKen]

A collection of FG-42's reportedly in the hands of an anonymous attorney in the midwest.
Worth $120,000-$150,000 a pop.

[coreshot-tourettes]

A collection of FG-42's reportedly in the hands of an anonymous attorney in the midwest.
Worth $120,000-$150,000 a pop.

Those are actually FG-42 mk2 models (one mk1 on the right)

And at that price, it's funny that the FG-42 is widely regarded as one of the least useful rifles ever to see combat. It's a very very light fully automatic rifle in a full power cartridge, near uncontrollable in full auto, bad to worse ergonomics, and terribly expensive.

That said, the FG-42 used to be available post war for about $60 (about $700). Given the prices now, that's about an 11% appreciation per year over 50 years. Not terrible.

(Of course, this neglects the fact that the government illegally passed a law in 1986 that made all new machineguns illegal, meaning the supply was fixed. So market value for the FG-42 is more like $40K).

[arild]

Is that the same as a bren-gun?(referring to the FG-42)

[Gripen]

Is that the same as a bren-gun?(referring to the FG-42)

No Bren gun was used as a support weapon. FG-42 was to used by Fallschirmjäger in more of a commado role. i.e as a hybrid support-direct fire weapon. It was an assault weapon that was too heavy, ungainly and fired too large a round. By all accounts, not very successful.

The MP-44 was light years better.

[coreshot-tourettes]

No Bren gun was used as a support weapon. FG-42 was to used by Fallschirmjäger in more of a commado role. i.e as a hybrid support-direct fire weapon. It was an assault weapon that was too heavy, ungainly and fired too large a round. By all accounts, not very successful.

The MP-44 was light years better.

Indeed. FG-42 = too heavy for a good assault rifle, too light for a squad machinegun.

[arild]

Thanks, I figured there was a huge mag missing on the top there, but I´m guntarded.

[coreshot-tourettes]

Thanks, I figured there was a huge mag missing on the top there, but I´m guntarded.

It may interest you that the reason that a lot of designs have the magazines in weird places (top, side) is so they can be fired from prone more easily. A 30rd bottom-insert magazine tends to be quite unwieldy when laying down.

This is why guns like the FG-42, Sten, Bren, etc. have them.

As modern warfare became more mobile, side- and top- insert magazines went out of favor on infantry weapons.

[Gripen]

On an interesting side note, the Bren was one of the most accurate support MG's ever.

In fact it was a bit too accurate. Soldiers complained it didn't deliver the scatter that is so desired when laying down suppressing fire. I ahve heard of some squadies prefering a worn out barrel as it dispered fire better.

It is however, a highly successful weapon, used by the British until the 1990's and is still in production in India.

[waxman]

and if it wasn't so expensive to produce it would probably still be service in most of the Commonwealth.....