Range Time

[Gnoman]

I’m talking about tritium/fiber optic “iron” sights (there are a lot of brands). They basically glow in the dark so you can see your sights and acquire a proper sight picture in lowlight/darkness and they don’t run on batteries

Something else to consider.

If you own or wish to own a home defense firearm, you might want to consider getting one that you won’t mind “losing”. If you’re ever forced to use it to defend yourself and your family, there is a VERY good chance that the police will confiscate the weapon and store it in their evidence locker until things get sorted out. You might never see it again depending on the viewpoint of the Law enforcement forces in your area.

In my town, Last year someone broke into an elderly gentleman’s home while he was away and stole some of his antique rifles. I don’t know if they ever recovered them (the news report is old and doesn’t say), but it said that if they do, because they’re old and don’t have serial numbers he probably won’t be seeing them again. Which is a tragedy, since these guns were not used in a crime, however because they’re old and don’t have serial numbers the police were going to confiscate them anyway.

If they're old enough, they're not legally guns at all. It is very likely that the news reported things wrong, as they often do.

It would be a shame to lose an heirloom gun or a gun of personal significance to the law because you had to use it against someone. So i suggest buying a gun that you don't have a personal connection to, regardless of how much you choose to spend on one.

There's also the personal emotional issue to deal with. While there's plenty of people that would look at a gun they'd used in a defensive situation and thing "Thank god that was there", just as many, if not more, wouldn't be able to look at that specific gun without remembering the time they had to use it. Personally, I'd never keep a non-"virgin" gun around.

[TheThan]

If they're old enough, they're not legally guns at all. It is very likely that the news reported things wrong, as they often do.



There's also the personal emotional issue to deal with. While there's plenty of people that would look at a gun they'd used in a defensive situation and thing "Thank god that was there", just as many, if not more, wouldn't be able to look at that specific gun without remembering the time they had to use it. Personally, I'd never keep a non-"virgin" gun around.

it's possible, I dislike the local news sources around here anyway.

But think of it like this.
Which would you rather lose?
A Luger your grandfather took off of a German soldier in WWII that’s been passed down to you

Or a Glock you bought a few years ago specifically for home defense.

Personally I’d rather lose the Glock, it’s not significant to my family’s history and not an heirloom that’s been passed from father to son.
“shrugs” I’m guess I’m just big on that sort of stuff.

[blacklight101]

I cant wait til my kids are old enough to start learning about this kind of stuff (the fun aspect, not the crazy law/regulation in other places bit). I hope they find it as fun as I do.

[BizzaroStormy]

it's possible, I dislike the local news sources around here anyway.

But think of it like this.
Which would you rather lose?
A Luger your grandfather took off of a German soldier in WWII that’s been passed down to you

Or a Glock you bought a few years ago specifically for home defense.

Personally I’d rather lose the Glock, it’s not significant to my family’s history and not an heirloom that’s been passed from father to son.
“shrugs” I’m guess I’m just big on that sort of stuff.

Considering the Luger would probably be worth several of the glocks if it were a function WWII bringback, that would make the loss devastating enough. THEN you'd have to deal with any emotional attachment to it. The whole idea reminds me of a WoD character I ran once that exclusively used a garand (to amazing effect) throughout the entire campaign. Dude basically spent his free time visiting vet at his local VFW so he could hear the stories about the war that the mens' grandchildren didn't want to hear. When one of them had passed in the early stages of the game, my character received word that he was left one of the old mens' entire estate which consisted of an old apartment and a storage unit. The storage unit ended up being full of various war-related sentimental items which was basically uniforms, medals, weapons, Axis equipment, and a few "gruesome" war trophies. The GM had intended for this to be a source of income for the group, but the character ended up keeping it all. Later into the game, I noticed the GM would write something down each time I killed and enemy. One point after a kill, the weapon screams in a ghostly voice "I killed fiddy men!!!" and nearly doubled its stats.

[blacklight101]

The GM had intended for this to be a source of income for the group, but the character ended up keeping it all. Later into the game, I noticed the GM would write something down each time I killed and enemy. One point after a kill, the weapon screams in a ghostly voice "I killed fiddy men!!!" and nearly doubled its stats.

That sounds like it was a pretty cool game, I love somehow that it was a magic weapon. Laughing at that trying not to wake up the kids.

[BizzaroStormy]

The explanation was something along the lines of his geist inhabiting the weapon.

[Crow]

I just saw a Luger at the store today. Original magazine and holster, matching numbers, $3900.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Slight shift in conversation to address the recent tragedy.

Safety on the range is everything. I have made far more than my share of mistakes with firearms, mostly due to complacency. Thankfully in no instances were there any injuries, as the cardinal rule (muzzle discipline) was always in play. I am even more careful when with a novice shooter. Teaching my wife to shoot was a learning experience for both of us.

Of note are the points made in this article.

[Crow]

I'm quite frustrated in how this tragedy is being outright used by certain groups. They don't give a darn about that little girl or the instructor, but they're glad to use them to push their agenda. I feel for that little girl, and how people are going to use her to attain their goals by playing a video of what is probably going to be the most painful moment of her life, millions of times. I really hope she understands that what happened was not her fault.

The instructor violated several safety rules. This incident, tragic as it is, should be used to teach firearm safety. Done in this manner, this sad event could even save lives in the long run. Instead it will be used to villify the guns themselves.

I'm not going to say anything more on the topic, otherwise I may stray into political territory.

[Gnomvid]

I digress though, as long as the person can pass the checks and whatnot, give 'em a gun. Make them a little more expansive if need be, but we should all have the right to own and buy firearms.

The only reason you have this "right" is because you needed militia to help fend of the British when you became a nation, and you never modernized your constitution.

[SouthpawSoldier]

The only reason you have this "right" is because you needed militia to help fend of the British when you became a nation, and you never modernized your constitution.

Wrong. Deliberately offensive. Political, insulting, and reported.

[SouthpawSoldier]

The instructor violated several safety rules. This incident, tragic as it is, should be used to teach firearm safety. Done in this manner, this sad event could even save lives in the long run. Instead it will be used to villify the guns themselves.

Of a relief is a news report this morning stating no criminal charges will be filed. The deceased is the one who placed the weapon in the girl's hands, and who violated the safety rules listed in the article I posted earlier.

Still a sad state of affairs all around.

[Brother Oni]

Following this thread with interest, even though I have very limited exposure to firearms due to being in the UK.

Gun culture does exist here, although we have to jump through a number of hoops, not to mention some ambiguously worded laws (for example to own a rifle, you need a good reason as defined by the firearms officer approving your application).

Here's an example of one the hoops we have to jump through: firearms less than a certain barrel/overall length are banned, so in order to use a pistol, they extend the stock and barrel:

Spoiler: Long Barrelled Pistol

Show

The only shooting with gunpowder weapons I've done is with a L85 as part of the cadets well over 20 years ago. I'm interested in either a Brown Bess musket or a Baker Rifle, but they both need a good reason, not to mention a separate good reason for the black powder license.

[Asta Kask]

Long barrel? This is a long barrel!!

[rs2excelsior]

The only shooting with gunpowder weapons I've done is with a L85 as part of the cadets well over 20 years ago. I'm interested in either a Brown Bess musket or a Baker Rifle, but they both need a good reason, not to mention a separate good reason for the black powder license.

...Wait. What?

I do American Civil War reenacting with my father (although he isn't getting out to fight as often), and we've got several reproduction Civil War era weapons. There are no restrictions on them, didn't need a background check, didn't need to justify why we got 'em, and definitely didn't need a license. They're single-shot black powder muskets. The Brown Bess can't hardly hit anything at over 75 yards! You've got a weapon that's not much more accurate than a modern pistol, bigger than a modern rifle, can't get much more than 3 rounds a minute, and they still feel the need to restrict who can use them?

The only "good reason" you should need is that you're a law-abiding citizen who agrees to follow the laws when using it and feel a need or desire to have one.

[blacklight101]

Ooh, reenacting. That was some fun stuff the few times I was able to do it. I would love to have the time and money to do that some more.

[rs2excelsior]

Ooh, reenacting. That was some fun stuff the few times I was able to do it. I would love to have the time and money to do that some more.

What time period/unit did you do? I mostly do Civil War as I said above (18th Virginia Infantry, Company B), and I've recently gotten into doing a bit of WWI (5th Battalion, Australian Imperial Forces).

[blacklight101]

Just some Civil War, 2nd Virginia, D company. Great guys to fall in with, I just moved away from them.

[Brother Oni]

...Wait. What?

I do American Civil War reenacting with my father (although he isn't getting out to fight as often), and we've got several reproduction Civil War era weapons. There are no restrictions on them, didn't need a background check, didn't need to justify why we got 'em, and definitely didn't need a license. They're single-shot black powder muskets. The Brown Bess can't hardly hit anything at over 75 yards! You've got a weapon that's not much more accurate than a modern pistol, bigger than a modern rifle, can't get much more than 3 rounds a minute, and they still feel the need to restrict who can use them?

The only "good reason" you should need is that you're a law-abiding citizen who agrees to follow the laws when using it and feel a need or desire to have one.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my post, I'm in the UK where gun laws are very different.

Spoiler: Brief overview of British gun law

Show

Please note that this only provided for information - I won't be discussing them as it falls under prohibited board topics.

There are two main separate licenses, a Firearms License and a Shotgun License.
A Shotgun License is split up into a Class 1 and Class 2 and there are different weapons covered under each class. A black powder weapon would fall under the more relaxed Class 2, provided the calibre isn't above a certain diameter.
A Firearms License is mainly used for anything not a shotgun and more high powered weapons like rifles. It is also significantly tougher to get.

A 'good reason' is typically defined as being part of a gun club or other such organisation (for example an re-enactment society), or having access and permission to land where you can shoot. Personal protection is not a 'good reason'.

As part of your application, the firearms officer will conduct an interview with you, to check that you're not an idiot and will be sensible - they'll will also want to inspect your gun safe and will attempt to pull it loose (law requires it must be bolted to the floor/wall, or otherwise well secured).

As mentioned earlier, black powder requires a separate Explosives License.

If you're interested at all (if only to realise how lucky you are over there), here's a link to government guidance.

If you want silly, you don't need a license or background check for a bow or crossbow - you can walk into an archery shop, buy a bow/crossbow and walk back out without a question asked.


There's an English Civil War re-enactment group near me (shamless plug The Sealed Knot), but my main interest is in earlier historical periods.

[TheThan]

I'm quite frustrated in how this tragedy is being outright used by certain groups.

You’re not the only one.

This is a tragedy and some are taking advantage of it to push their agenda. It’s not right.
Few people are killed or injured by accidental shootings at the range (I really wish I could find trustworthy statistics here), when compared to the number of how many kids are injured in junior and high school team sports.

A 'good reason' is typically defined as being part of a gun club or other such organisation (for example an re-enactment society), or having access and permission to land where you can shoot. Personal protection is not a 'good reason'.

As mentioned earlier, black powder requires a separate Explosives License.

Wait what? Personal protection is not a good reason? Don’t you guys have violent crime out there?

Also, you need an explosives license for black powder but not for regular ammunition? That doesn’t make sense. Both black powder and smokeless powder are explosives. What if I wanted to shoot black powder cartridges or I had an antique gun that can only shoot black powder cartridges because of the pressures involved? Would I still need a license for that?

[Gnoman]

That actually makes a twisted sort of sense. Black powder is an explosive, and if you're going to be firing a muzzle-loader, you're buying the powder loose rather than prepackaged into cartridges in the way that normal ammunition is sold.

[blacklight101]

[QUOTE]

If you want silly, you don't need a license or background check for a bow or crossbow - you can walk into an archery shop, buy a bow/crossbow and walk back out without a question asked.
QUOTE]


Same thing here, though not really that silly. In the states we can buy black powder stuff (at least in my state) with no background check as well. no matter what, it still takes a couple minutes to load that cylinder even with pyrodex pellets. Effectiveness is relative, and considering how many people in the states carry "real" guns, it wouldn't be an issue anyway. What, does the guy carry 4-5 preloaded cylinders, patches to clean it and brushes, of course. Not that im trying to make this a concealed carry issue, but im happy some laws are a bit lax and im happy some are a good bit stricter.


Realistically, if you use guns like we all seem to, there wouldn't be so many problems, but far too many are left undereducated in the world as it is. Its a true shame, the bad things that are done with them, and all we can do is out part and educate people to use them responsibly and for nothing else than range time or self defense. I will admit, im not always the best with gun safety when im by my lonesome, but others show up and that routine tightens right back up. I just wish people were taught before they judge and all that, whether its "gun control" or some other inflammatory, potentially misconstrued, issue.

Sorry if I went a little too political there, im trying to stay as neutral and positive as I can.

[Crow]

Wait what? Personal protection is not a good reason? Don’t you guys have violent crime out there?

Pssh. The police will be there in like...20 minutes. You'll be fine.

[Joran]

Pssh. The police will be there in like...20 minutes. You'll be fine.

I live in one of the wealthiest counties in America, the public safety department is literally down the road, and a police officer lives down the hill. My house is in a dense townhouse community where I can hear my neighbors.

I don't have a fear for a home invasion or violent crime and don't see much use for a gun, outside of having some fun at a range or maybe going hunting.

I know my experience is unlike a lot of people's, just wanted to present a different viewpoint.

[Crow]

We have a 40 minute response time where I live. Break-ins are common, gang and drug activity are not unheard of. Even when I lived right across the street from the Sheriff's station, it took five minutes for a deputy to arrive when we heard gunshots from the neighbor's house.

[BizzaroStormy]

As I mentioned at the beginning of my post, I'm in the UK where gun laws are very different.

Spoiler: Brief overview of British gun law

Show

Please note that this only provided for information - I won't be discussing them as it falls under prohibited board topics.

There are two main separate licenses, a Firearms License and a Shotgun License.
A Shotgun License is split up into a Class 1 and Class 2 and there are different weapons covered under each class. A black powder weapon would fall under the more relaxed Class 2, provided the calibre isn't above a certain diameter.
A Firearms License is mainly used for anything not a shotgun and more high powered weapons like rifles. It is also significantly tougher to get.

A 'good reason' is typically defined as being part of a gun club or other such organisation (for example an re-enactment society), or having access and permission to land where you can shoot. Personal protection is not a 'good reason'.

As part of your application, the firearms officer will conduct an interview with you, to check that you're not an idiot and will be sensible - they'll will also want to inspect your gun safe and will attempt to pull it loose (law requires it must be bolted to the floor/wall, or otherwise well secured).

As mentioned earlier, black powder requires a separate Explosives License.

If you're interested at all (if only to realise how lucky you are over there), here's a link to government guidance.

If you want silly, you don't need a license or background check for a bow or crossbow - you can walk into an archery shop, buy a bow/crossbow and walk back out without a question asked.

Makes me thankful that the state I live in, the only question im asked (outside the normal background check) when purchasing a gun is whether or not I want some ammo and a half-hour on the range with my purchase.

[Don Julio Anejo]

As I mentioned at the beginning of my post, I'm in the UK where gun laws are very different.

Spoiler: Brief overview of British gun law

Show

Please note that this only provided for information - I won't be discussing them as it falls under prohibited board topics.

There are two main separate licenses, a Firearms License and a Shotgun License.
A Shotgun License is split up into a Class 1 and Class 2 and there are different weapons covered under each class. A black powder weapon would fall under the more relaxed Class 2, provided the calibre isn't above a certain diameter.
A Firearms License is mainly used for anything not a shotgun and more high powered weapons like rifles. It is also significantly tougher to get.

A 'good reason' is typically defined as being part of a gun club or other such organisation (for example an re-enactment society), or having access and permission to land where you can shoot. Personal protection is not a 'good reason'.

As part of your application, the firearms officer will conduct an interview with you, to check that you're not an idiot and will be sensible - they'll will also want to inspect your gun safe and will attempt to pull it loose (law requires it must be bolted to the floor/wall, or otherwise well secured).

As mentioned earlier, black powder requires a separate Explosives License.

If you're interested at all (if only to realise how lucky you are over there), here's a link to government guidance.

In the same vein, here is a brief overview of Canadian gun law:

Spoiler: Canadian gun law

Show

Overall, it's more similar to the British one, though slightly less stifling (probably because 'Murrica is right next door).

Wanting to own a gun for self-defence is a huge no-no. Pretty sure it puts you on a bunch of police watchlists. Basically the police have to demonstrate to courts that your life is in imminent danger and police may not be able to protect you. So, unless you're in witness protection or something, you're not getting a gun for self-defense, and if you have one, you weren't allowed to use it for that until very recently, when it became legal to defend your property from invaders.

Otherwise, we have what's called a PAL - Possession and Acquisition License, or basically, gun license. You need it to own and buy guns. If you have a gun that was grandfathered and you don't have a PAL, you need to get a Possession-Only License, which is the same thing but doesn't allow you to buy new guns. To get a PAL, you have to take a 2-day safety course (usually ~$150-200), pass an exam (you can do it with the instructor), and send in your paperwork + application fee to the RCMP. It takes several weeks to months to get it, they do a thorough background check + phone several references and also try to make sure you're not a crazy ex or don't have a crazy ex. They phone your partner if you have one. You do need a reason to apply for a PAL, but something like "I want to get into target shooting" or "I want to start hunting" is perfectly acceptable. I don't think "I want to plink at cans" would fly, however.

There are three firearms classes: restricted, non-restricted and prohibited. Non-restricted is basically any rifle or shotgun as long as it's not and was never automatic in its original design. So something like a .50 cal Barrett would be non-restricted (provided it's not M82, which is prohibited by name, but M82 knock-offs are fine too). An AR-10 semi-automatic knock off would be restricted. Restricted guns are all handguns with barrels over 4", modern military-grade rifles (i.e. AR-10 variants) in semi-automatic. Prohibited guns are some specifically named models (i.e. all AK-47/74 variants or knock-offs), handguns with barrels under 4," all automatics, all bullpup rifles, and all magazines above a certain capacity. Almost all modern military weapons are prohibited by name, but you can get semi-automatic Chinese/Czech knock-offs classified as restricted. AK is a special case as the action itself, not the gun, is banned - you can get an AK look-alike, but it won't use the same mechanism.

Non-restricted weapons are easy to acquire, don't have to be registered, and can be treated the same way in the US, provided you have a PAL. You can stick them in a truck, have a few lying around the house, don't need locks, etc. Only restriction is the gun or magazine cannot be touching ammo until you're actually shooting. You can also shoot non-restricted guns in the bush provided it's either crown (government) land, or you have the owner's permission. They are the only weapon type you can use for hunting.

Restricted weapons are a massive hassle. To get one, you need an ATT (authorization to transport). Which is only given out if you're a member in good standing in a gun club + have access to a range. Then you get an authorization to take the gun home, and then to and from the range... Here, the laws get extremely draconian. You are *only* allowed to take the gun out to the range. When you apply for an ATT, you must specify specific days on which you will go to the range, you can't just say "I want to be able to go on the weekends." It's more like "I will go to the range on 10, 11 and 12th of every month." You are *not* allowed to make any detours when you go to and from the range. From what I hear, cops won't care if you stop by Safeway for some snacks, but you'll most likely lose the license if they catch you taking the gun to work so you can hit the range afterward.

Also, you need a safe + trigger lock for restricted guns, but this provision is at least logical.

Prohibited guns are prohibited. The only exception is if they were grandfathered in (i.e. grandfather brought over a Walther PPK he took off a German in World War II). Collection reasons are allowed, but guns are only qualified as collectible if they were made before 1896, or something like that (I didn't look into it).

[Brother Oni]

Wait what? Personal protection is not a good reason? Don’t you guys have violent crime out there?

We do, but carrying any sort of weapon explicitly intended for self defence (pistols, chemical sprays, certain types of knives, collapsible batons, etc) is generally banned.

One thing I will mention is that violent crime is reported differently over here, so looking at straight numbers won't give you a like for like comparison match.

Also, you need an explosives license for black powder but not for regular ammunition? That doesn’t make sense. Both black powder and smokeless powder are explosives. What if I wanted to shoot black powder cartridges or I had an antique gun that can only shoot black powder cartridges because of the pressures involved? Would I still need a license for that?

As Gnoman said, you would need to buy the black powder separately, so as mentioned earlier, you'd need a Class 2 Shotgun license for an antique firearm (or replica) plus a separate Explosives License for buying the black powder.

Realistically, if you use guns like we all seem to, there wouldn't be so many problems, but far too many are left undereducated in the world as it is.

That's a bit of a misconception - we have plenty of people who own and use guns, although use and ownership tends to be concentrated in rural areas, particularly farmers who need to kill vermin (my friend gets regular invitations to sit on the back of a tractor and shoot crows as the farmer is either harvesting or planting).

We have our own version of the NRA and even in the heart of London, there are a number of ranges (eg The Stock Exchange Rifle Club). This guy shoots a .22LR AR15 and he's posted a video of how easy it is to transport his guns to and from the range (note that he does have some restrictions in the event that he's stopped by the police, for example he must be either on his way to or from a gun shop or range).

[J-H]

Primaries:
AR-15 (16") w/ Eotech, Surefire G2 Nitrolon, M-14 sling, and free-float front handguard
Springfield XD 9mm subcompact
Saiga 12 w/ Surefire & 10-round mag loaded with 00 buck next to the bed for home defense.

After I got married we selected the AR platform specifically for logistics issues (over 7.62x39) - a .22LR adaptor is a great way to make practice affordable.

If you live in the US and can't hit a 4MOA target without a benchrest, want to, and want to learn some history in the process, check out www.appleseedinfo.org. HIGHLY recommended.

Re: The question on Page 2 about 147gr bullets on a 9mm. I did some research a few years ago, and found the results of some FBI testing of different 9mm rounds for an acceptable mix of reliable penetration and reliable expansion (= wound channel = damage = stop being a threat). The ones that got the highest scores were:

Spoiler

Show

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 105 & 115gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical Bonded 124gr+P JHP (LE9T1)
Speer Gold Dot 124gr+P JHP
Winchester Ranger Talon 124gr+P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester Partition Gold 124gr JHP (RA91P)
Winchester Ranger Talon 127gr+P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical Bonded 135gr+P JHP (LE9T5)
Federal HST 147gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147gr JHP
Winchester Ranger Talon 147gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester Ranger Bonded 147gr JHP (RA9B/Q4364) FBI Load

Most of those, you will note, are +P. I don't like to run +P, and I'm pretty sure my wife would not like to shoot it, so we now have a case of 147gr Golden Saber as primary defense ammo.


For some discussions on a prior forum, I've done enough research to be able to point to culture as the primary driver of crime and violence, and not the availability (or lack) of weapons. That gets into politics (well, probably) so PM me if you want to discuss.


Someone was talking about accessorizing rifles too much a few pages back. Here you go:

Spoiler

Show

http://www.reoiv.com/images/random/tacticoolAR15.jpg
(There are more like this if you do a bit of Image searching)

[FLHerne]

Wait what? Personal protection is not a good reason? Don’t you guys have violent crime out there?

Firearm homicides are literally* a one-in-a-million occurrence here.
Compared to the 36-per-million over the pond, that's pretty insignificant.

Other gun-crime statistics are similarly tiny - the very strict gun laws mean that the criminals don't have guns either. Of course we have twice the knife crime instead, but knives are quite a bit less dangerous; we have a fifth of your homicide rate overall.

*Yes, really - average of 62 gun murders/year and 62 million population over 15 years.