Guns, Can We Speak of Them?

I considered joining the army when I was told as a machinist you spend the first year crafting guns; probably bull but I was very tempted.

I suppose the Air Force was more honest since they said I could have any job I wanted except pilot. - got a problem with one of my eyes.

Hey, I've got two, and one is perfect!

I probably ought to have included in the thread the ammunition, for it is not really sensible to design a gun around just any old thing.

Truly you ought to design the gun around ammunition that is common and goes off every time.

P.S. Last I knew a machinist could make at least a good rifled barrel out of old car axles, if he knew what he was doing, but the overall mechanism is another story.

That is much the same answer I got from the US Navy, I told them thanks, but no thanks... They wouldn't even let me have laser eye surgery to correct the nearsightedness (which was a relatively new procedure then.). That policy has since changed, but there are now some questions about the long term impacts of such surgeries, so I'm glad I never went under the knife.

I remember watching one of the original Star Trek episodes in the common room at Uni'. Kirk made a primitive cannon to shoot the 'Gorn'...(bloke in a bad monster suit)...
We had all the bad 'gorn' jokes.
Here today Gorn tomorrow. He used diamonds as projecttiles and m,ade his own gunpowder...not very feasible but fun.
It was all a 'test' by some higher intelligence...he didn't shoot the Gorn and they all lived happilly ever after.

An oldie but a goodie.

When we were kids... Banger guns in November*...bent pipe, piece of wood hammered into one end. Drop a lit penny banger (firecracker?) down the other end followed by an acorn (acorn?)...

You could buy fireworks in the run up to Nov 5th Bonfire night.
Del

I heard of some guys making a spring cannon but they did it at work and therefore dissambled it after it worked too well! :) I thought about a solenoid cannon but never tested it. Nail guns even have a mild firing range without the safety. Most inferior ballistics work really well but are just heavily frowned upon by legalities. Even paint ball is close to dangerously lethal if tweaked in application. One difference in another ballistics technology could be bulk launch technology, but hurtling went out with catapults I think!

As a kid, we used to launch M-60's with a sling shot. It was a two man affair; one lighting, the other launching.

Well actually Kirk did shoot the Gorn but not fatally. When the wounded Gorn was lying on the ground Kirk was going to finish him off with a stone knife but decided not to kill him. That supposedly impressed the "higher intelligence beings" that humans had potential and they let everyone go on their way.

Depending on where this goes, I think this would be a good discussion topic, so long as we keep to the engineering and balistics and bypass the politics.

I have a variety of pistols and rifles, both modern and black powder.

Lets see where it goes, I'm particularly curious about the transition from cross-bows to the early flintlocks as I suspect that there is a link in there some where.

Hopefully our exhalted moderators will let this fly.

Regards,
Sapper.

The musket replaced the longbow, long before it was a more effective weopon, the main reason being it was esaier to train someone to use a musket.
The longbow could get more shots per minute and had a similar effective range and accuracy, it also didn't obscure the target with smoke.
The crossbow was moe effective as a seige weapon or snipers weapon.
The bow was still used to great effect by the native Americans who could hunt Bison from horseback and drive an arrow right through one! As demonstrated at 'Buffalo Bill's' Wild West show.
Even now, if I had to face some thug with a (short barrel) hand gun at 35yards or a decent archer with a longbow...I'd face the thug, he'd be the more likely to miss! (Although the arrow wound would be easier to treat in hospital....hmm tricky one.)
Maybe we need a vote....which would you rather face?
Del

I knew about the time lines on the Musket\Long Bow, but thanks for the extra info on the comparison between crossbow\musket.

As for the pistol \ long bow....it would depend on the bullet or arrow head.
At 35yd with a short barrel pistol, me thinketh the pistol, archers have a habit of sticking arrows in the dirt before they stick them in your chest, so even if you survive the arrow strike...the infection will likely kill you...the bullet on the off chance he does hit you will likely go straight through, assuming std ammo.

No point in going into the broad head vs hollow point debate...yet

Regards,
Sapper

This (non-exalted) moderator welcomes the topic, Sapper, as long as we can follow your advice and "keep to the engineering and ballistics and bypass the politics". Personally, I'm a member of both the Weaponology and Target Shooting user groups on CR4. Plus, I've written my share of weaponry-related entries for the On This Day in Engineering History blog.

With regard to Transcendian's original question, I'm also interested to learn more about the transition from cross-bows to early flintlocks. Fortunately, it looks like Del the Cat has joined the discussion!

Best,

Moose

There are some interesting crossover weapons.
Bullet shooting crossbows with and without barrels Many years ago a guy at work turned up with one like in the link, he'd 'cleaned it up' with a disc sander . A friend and I restored it into working order, this included building up the trigger mechanism by welding (done by one of the welders at work)
I think they still may use this sort of thing inparts of Europe where crossbows are still V popular for target shooting.
Del

Correction to above.
It's the version with a barrel which is likely to be used today, the other sort with a double string and a pouch for the ball was commonly used for small game.
One doctor apparently wrote a thesis on the occurrence of sleeping sickness in Crows, before he found out it was students living on the otherside of the town square shooting them with a stone bow.
I expect you can guess, that one of these is on my 'to build one day' list.
Del

The original muskets had an effective range of about 10 yards.

At the time a long bow had a range of over 200 yards, the Mongolian heavy bow considerably more (I have seen claims of over 400 yards but I don't know if that is correct). Not sure of the range of the crossbow, but I would guess over 150 yards.

For all the bows, rate of fire was far higher than for a musket and hitting power probably better.

In addition, the early "gonnes" (early 14th century) were heavy and cumbersome to move around.

It always surprises me that firearms at that time were used for anything except heavy artillery, where they had range and hitting power advantages over catapults and were as easy, or even easier to move.

Why did they eventually take over from archery?

When Muskets came to light, they were effectively used as a very big shotgun.

They had range, but not accuracy. As the accuracy improved they began to "push" the bows out of the way.

The developement of rifling put them on an equal footing for accuracy.

Regards,
Sapper.

Someday I hope to have the time to develop my own Gatling-style shot gun.

So will the gun's be gattling or will the shot be gattling?

Too late Bhankiii, one of your compatriots has already done it. I saw a vid sent by an American mate but I didnt save the link.

Chas

I inherited a Martini Henry ±1880 with the serial number 57.

Single load. It is quite heavy and the bullet is big and slow. A sprinter may outrun it.

http://www.martinihenry.co.uk/

I think I have one broken or missing part in the lock.

Unfortunately I had to get it disabled (gun laws only allow 1 rifle per person)

It is a crime against the universe to intentionally damage such a historical firearm!

Hi Milo,

" M16 was a signal that marksmanship was no longer important but volume of fire"

My take on the M16 is that someone finally realized that the average GI couldn't carry enough 30 caliber ammo to remain effective without frequent resupply.

You will concede that the M16 design keeps the recoil energy from producing as much barrel flip as previous designs? The handle? I don't know.

Have you ever fired one? It's nice compared to the M-1. Nicer to carry, too.

BTW, I like my Glock 27/ 10MM

Hi Lynlynch.

I fired M16 at small arms firing school at Camp Perry one summer in the early 1980's. It was just before the presidents match.

I will give you the advantage of the detachable hi capcity box magazine and light to carry. However, if most of the bullets are off target anyway (selector mode) Zippy the handle totin' rifleman will be out of ammo just as fast as one of us slower, more deliberate shootin guys with the .30cals. Except we probably would have hit more - uhh- Targets.

To qualify I had a %$#^&%$ national guardsman "coach" trying to get me to use the sling on it his stupid way in the standing position and it cost me the highest badge.

I don't care how they taught him to do it, I had plenty of rifle team experience and knew what works for me. HE was a little barrel of a guy with no arms, I'm a tall lanky guy with arms as long as his legs. But those boys in uniforms are pretty 'tetchy' on the firing line if they don't get their way...

Dumb a$$.

I was used to pretty stout handloads so I guess I would have to say that the M16 is a "light recoil." My buddy has a .50 cal sniper rig, and that makes something bleed at both ends if you know what I mean. He calls the M16 his "Squaw Rifle."

However, I love my M1 Garand. Despite the silly clips and the inability to refill in a pause. Heavy Yes. Ammo, heavy, yes. But I like wood, I like that it never jams, and i like throwing a 30 cal projectile down the range a piece.

You are out there in flat country, so a highvelocity small caliber projectile makes a lot of sense. I'm in choppy hilly country, and my .30 cal is my shepherd, I shall not want...

But the 8mm Mauser has been my deer gun.

I agree with Del about crossbows, I have a Nice Horton with a walnut stock, but we haven't been out after meat with it yet. I did put a 4X scope on it , the silly pins sights they put on it vibrated loose after every half dozen shots. with or without loctite.

Keep yer powder dry.

milo

Hi,

Thanks for the response. I'll defer to you when it comes to the M16. I've only casually fired them.

Lyn

Milo-

Seems you have skipped an entire generation of US military rifles...Between the M1 and the M16, there was the M14, lighter than the M1 and firing a NATO standard round (7.62 mm). To me, that was probably the best US military small arm since the Springfield...

I'd like to have a SS Mini 14.

I used to have a couple of semi-automatic Mini 14 (by Ruger) many years ago before they banned them. One was chambered in 5.56mm (.223) the other in 7.62mm (.308).

Both very nice to shoot for varmits of the appropriate size 5.56 was great for bunny busting, once you got used to the trajectory, you could just abou shoot over a gentle rise leting the round drop over the back....only good way out bush where you could see what else was back there. The 7.62 did a good job on goats and ferral dogs (ex-domestics) that had been dumped in state forrests.

But they're long gone now..sad but true.

Regards,
Sapper

My dad may still have one for sale. I think it is on consignment in a gun shop in New Hampshire. He used to carry on board his boat when sailing down island just in case they were approached by pirates. My parents used to sail a 41 foot motor ketch that would have made a nice drug running boat due to it's large beam and ample room below decks. Advice at the time was that if a potential piracy target showed any signs of being able to defend themselves, the pirates would move on to an easier target. Thankfully, he never had to produce it at sea.

Yes, that would be a good choice. Compact but plenty of fire power.

Can't understand why someone thought your post was OT.

Semantics here, not politics.

I am told that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and I cannot refute it. On that basis, surely guns cannot change the course of history.

Having said that, I qualified on the Lee Enfield 303 easily, but I had a problem preventing the Bren from walking away from me, so a couple of corporals helped out by putting a couple of rifle bullets into my target.

The 1840 Colt is odd considering what it would do, and it's lack of use by any but Indian Killers as depicted in Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. That is a bleak book.

The skill that it took to make all around such a gun at that time is actually something that awes me.

The Movie Cold Mountain is a combat love story, though if you read the book, it is really more about a man and his gun, than any lovestory. Though the main character is ostensibly returning to Cold Mountain for his love, he returns during the journey to get his LeMatt.

We could make a case for the Henry Rifle, as more important than the Winchester 80.

I have to say that I am fascinated by the LeMatt, for here you have a pistol that fires bullets, and has a last ditch blast capacity.

What machines and from what steel and Iron where these things made is actually unknown to me.

If the entire thing went to hell I might be able to make a bow and some arrows, but to make a gun of any worth, would probably be too much before I starved, or was killed.

As Sapper says "Depending on where this goes, I think this would be a good discussion topic, so long as we keep to the engineering and balistics and bypass the politics".

I don't hunt, but I do like guns. There are TV programs such as "Tales of the Gun", "Load and Lock", etc, that traces the history of guns from the middle ages to the present. Very fascinating viewing; The history of firearms is an integral part of our countries history. I think any technically minded person would naturally be interested in firearms and their workings. I'll start off with a piece of history.

The Lewis and Clark expedition had a large bore air gun that they used to bring down game. I believe it was around 50 caliber. I have heard of large bore air guns taking down bear. Although not the same as a powder weapon, the amount of power is still awesome.

Japanese rifles during WW II could use U.S. 30-06 ammunition, but we couldn't use their ammunition. I believe their cartridge was slightly larger than the 30-06 , but too large to be used in our rifles.

Ronseto-

Your discussion of the Lewis and Clark large bore air gun brings to mind the Chicken Gun at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio Texas. This was a very large air gun used to shoot artificial chickens at various parts of airplanes. A great deal of research went in to developing the artificial chickens (rumor had it that they had to start with live chickens- dead chickens had a totally different impact dynamic...) Since the idea was to study the impact of birds colliding with flying aircraft, these birds had to be travelling pretty fast in a fairly short distance (the Chicken Gun was mounted inside the laboratory, almost directly below my office- I pretty much knew when the thing went off...)

I heard as well they fired some frozen ones, and that was like some really huge hail.

We had one similar when Motorola was doing tests of artillery electronics in AZ. It was in the basement in Scottsdale. They fired electronics into 12x12x12 inch blocks of plywood, using a combination of vacuum and air pressure. The plywood looked as you would expect. This simulated the acceleration encountered when firing a smart projectile from a 155MM cannon.

Then, there were the spin forces to deal with. Going from rest to thousands of RPM in milliseconds is hard on electronics.

Ron,

I've heard (or likely read) stories about the 6.5 Arisaki along the lines of 30.06 being fed through one. The story was about one in civillian hands where the owner had been using 30.06 in it and when he got hold of some 6.5 ammo he took it to the gunsmith for a headspace check. The trump item is, to fire 7.62 pills through a 6.5 bore it obviously had to swage them.

I thought, well that is a strong action and left it at that until I read your post, it makes sense now. From what the Old Man told me (ex Changi) the Japanese advanced largely using captured equipment and that this was their chosen strategy. In that line your post makes perfect sense and it would be great to find some more info about the topic.

The Japanese were heavily underestimated in the early days of WW2 (especially in Australia) and the 6.5 Arisaki was propagandised as being a toy. Obviously not. It must have been carefully engineered. I have no idea what the target ballistics of a swaged round or this kind would be, but I suspect the effect on soft skinned game (humans) would be nasty.

I'm mildly surprised nobody has yet mentioned the Maxim gun, the first fully automatic machine gun. Yes, it was big, cumbersome, not mobile and prone to jamming. The first of any new technology has bugs for others to improve on. But not mentioning this gun is like ignoring Les Paul in a discussion on great electric guitar builders.

John Moses Browning was surely one of the great industrial designers of the late 19th and early 20th century. With so many of his designs still current, his output and variety was phenomenal, starting with black powder and then helping introduce smokeless with excellent designs. Look at a product range across the spectrum of firearms from pistols to shotguns and rifles to heavy machine guns and about every type in between.

If he hadn't been so interested in guns, with that level of ability I'm sure he could have designed whatever product he felt the need to. It was an era punctuated by genius, yet he still stands tall even today.

True, but you are not off topic.

Talking cartridges, I recently saw a Doco "Trench Detectives" which delved into a WW1 tank remains in France. After metalurgical testing of remaining metal they decided it was armoured with "crankshaft steel" and made up samples for target ballistic testing.

The 8mm Mauser (product of yet another genius, Paul Mauser) ball round left a crater and spalled metal and paint plakes that would have injured the occupants of the tank as shown by ballistic gel. There was discussion of how 600 round per minute bursts of machine gun fire would have sent a lot of flakes around.

The next test was with Aromour Piercing rounds, which could puncture the plate releasing even more spall.

The real surprise was the testing of what was thought to be a myth, where the ball round projectile was pulled and inserted into the case backwards looking like a wad cutter round. Turns out it punched a neat hole like a wad cutter. The high speed and the ballistics gel showed that the projectile did not actually enter the space behind whole. Instead both the projectile and the displaced steel entered the area as fragments and left a large, deep and extremely dirty wound in the gel.

The sheer power of the 8mm, 30-06 or .303 rounds is quite awesome when fired from a rifle at steel armour of that vintage. It being doubtful that reverse ball rounds would feed through a machine gun or similar.

What do I have? I want to preface this by saying I am not a hunter. I enjoy going to the range and seeing how well I can place my shots. I also live in a large urban city with a lot of crime. So self defense is another one of my concerns. As such I own handguns exclusively. Two Semi-autos and one revolver. The revolver was my father-in-laws before he immigrated to the great white wasteland of the north where gun ownership is frowned upon. He left it with me. It may be the most accurate gun I own (My Ruger Government target model might argue the point.). It is a Smith and Wesson Model 65-1, nickel .357 magnum, with a 6 inch barrel and oversize walnut grips. It is certainly more accurate than I am. But since .357 magnum ammo (or 38 Spec.) is a tad expensive to throw downrange, I always wanted a true .22LR target pistol, my wish finally came to pass last year when I bought a used (and bastardized) Ruger Mark II Government target Model with a 6" bull barrel. I spent no small amount of time and money rebuilding it, repairing it (the ejector was broken) and putting it right with the universe (the previous owner had removed the iron sights and put an obscured target red dot holographic sight on it from a paintball gun. I removed that obscenity and found aftermarket adjustable sights for it, the factory sights are apparently no longer available). Now I can shoot all day for under $20 worth of ammo, and never have a mark outside the 10 ring. I cannot honestly say which of the two is more accurate, but for shooting fun, the Ruger wins hands down. Given the amount of time and money I spent on that project, It dang well had better have been!

The third weapon I own is a bit of a disappointment frankly. It is a Taurus PT-52 .380 ACP. It is modeled after the Berretta M-92 9MM. But the resultant copy is far from ideal. Don't get me wrong, it is light and relatively easy to conceal and has a very large double stack magazine for it's size, but it is inaccurate as all get out. when switching between the Ruger and the Taurus it is quite apparent that it is not the shooter, but the gun that is the problem. The barrel is captured in the slide assy, not by any kind of rigid mounting member, but by a spring loaded guide rod pushing on the leading edge of the loading ramp and pushing the barrel against the breech. As such the barrel floats and is pointing at a slightly different spot every time the trigger is pulled. At defensive distances I can keep all 13 rounds in the center of mass of a man, but I'm not even going to attempt a head shot with it. It was a gift from my father in law to my wife when we were living in a dangerous apartment complex when we first got married. She however has never been terribly fond of guns and would prefer I took possession of it. Actually she would prefer I had no guns but that is not going to happen. The recoil is virtually non-existent.

I had a Smith and Wesson 22LR Semi Automatic for awhile. Think the Model was UB something, and I was told it was used as a backup by snipers in the case where they may have to throw down the rifle and run for it.

At the shooting range with my cop friend I was able to place shots consistently in the chest sized target at 95 yards.

That particular pistol had a reputation as having a "soft" barrel.

Because my right eye is bad and I am right handed, my shooting teacher taught me to shoot with both eyes open, rifles, left handed. (Though you are supposed to shoot with both eyes open anyway.) I do prefer pistols since I can just hold the thing out there right handed.

For defense I do prefer centerfire cartridges since it does seem that with the 22cartridges you can discover 3 misfires out of a 100. I believe Winchesters are more reliable than Remington, though I may have that reversed.

Generally I recommend Revolvers over Semi Autos for defense since it is not uncommon for those who are not professional shooters, to forget to take the safety off in critical situations.

The guy that taught me to shoot had been one of the Rangers that crawled up the Normandy beaches before the D Day landings, and he said they carried Revolvers because they would work even full of sand.

P.S. As an aside to Del, awhile back I had mentioned that my father in his combat across Germany had expressed a desire for a Bren, gun. What he really wanted was a Sten. He had complained that the Thompson was not very accurate.

Oh I would never EVER use a 22 as a defensive weapon. I got it simply as a practice tool that is cheap to use for hours on end. I would never ever use anything smaller than .355 for defensive purposes, preferably bigger, preferably MUCH bigger. I'm reminded of Danny Vermin in "Johnny Dangerously" and his "88 Magnum" (It shoots through schools!). I have my heart set on getting myself a Springfield Armory XD/XDM in .40 S&W for a CHL carry weapon. I like the passive safeties on it, as well as how small and light it is.

Well, its better than nothing.

All I have now is a .32 revolver, and a singleshot 20 gauge shotgun.

Nice thing about the .32, is at least my wife could hit with it, and it will go off if you pull the trigger.

As a friend of mine did point out, if you actually do have to shoot someone, you had better leave powder burns, since otherwise they were too far away...

A friend of mine who had been in Viet Nam told a story of emptying a 1911 45 at a Cong inside the perimeter, and missing with every shot, but still knocking the man down with powder burns.

Lots of cops like the 40 caliber guns. My friend had the Sig Sauer he let me shoot.

He also taught me how to shoot from the heart, where you hold the pistol close to your heart and fire from your heart.

I was amazed at how accurate you can be holding and firing that way.

He said that this was the way to hold a gun, for house searches when the expectation was that whomever you were searching for was intent on shooting you.

One, it could be that if you hold the pistol out as you round a corner, the gun can be slapped down, and two, you will be able to see, identify and shoot accurately.

I tried it and it is not Hollywood at all, but works.

Too close with a semi auto, and the slide may well hit you in the sternum.

Ultimately, the best gun in a shootout is the one you have with you. So if a 22 is all you got, hey it beats dying any day of the week (well, except maybe monday...). After all, more people have died from .22LR rounds than all other calibers combined, simply because there are so many of them.

I would argue (and most CHL instructors would as well.) that if someone is within 7 yards/meters of you, they are an immediate threat because that is the distance a person can cover in two seconds. Therefore part and parcel of defensive handgun training is learning to maintain separation distance from threats as well as learning to gauge a person's intent by their body language, as well as learning to maintain constant vigilance for the unperceived threat. The guy's accomplice who is circling around behind you while you are focused on the first guy.

Just remember, they forfeited their right to continue breathing when they decided to threaten your life. Don't go all Hollywood and fire a warning shot (it wastes ammunition you may need while giving your assailant a chance to return aimed fire. Besides, you might accidentally shoot some innocent bystander without realizing it.) or trying to shoot to wound/shoot the gun out of their hand. A wounded assailant can still shoot you dead, and a gun is a mighty small target to hit in the heat of battle. Besides, in many jurisdictions, shooting to wound the assailant could put you at risk of being brought up on charges of attempted murder yourself, not to mention being civilly sued by the surviving assailant. Shoot for the center of mass and continue to shoot until the threat stops. If that means they fall to the ground dead, all the better, you've saved society the cost of a trial and execution/incarceration. But if they just fall to the ground, that is good enough if you can separate them from their weapon. If they run, as long as they have a weapon pointed at you or your general direction, continue to fire because they can still shoot you while running away. We had a cop here in Houston that was brought up on charges for shooting an assailant in the back, but security camera video showed that the assailant was turned sideways and was shooting at the officer as he ran away. The officer was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Thankfully in Texas, you have no duty to retreat from an assailant. If they attack you, it does not matter where you are, if you have a right to be there, you can return fire and shoot their useless arse dead. And a dead assailant is the best kind of assailant. Additionally, if the shoot is found to be legal, then the assailant (if he survives) is barred from suing you for damages. But if he survives, you really need to spend more time at the range. =D

My father-in-law has a number of pistols and rifles that he has acquired over the years. Recently when my mother-in-law started walking in the early morning hours for exercise, he had her start carrying a 22 revolver. His reasoning was that it was small, light, has little kick, and will not jam. Also, his opinion is that a larger caliber will punch a hole through a person, but that a 22 can do more damage. If the 22 hits a bone, it will ricochet off of the bone and potentially do more internal damage than just in the location it hits.

And by the way, she got a perfect score at her CWP (concealed weapons permit) class with the 22.

The problem with using a 22 defensively is that stopping power is a function of hydrostatic shock disrupting the ability of the attacker to continue the attack. A 22, being small and without a lot of muzzle energy does not kill by hydrostatic shock pulverizing the meat of the attacker and disrupting the body's ability to send and receive nerve impulses, it kills by blood loss. But blood loss takes time to stop a person. Time that the attacker may use to continue the attack. You could shoot him and he could die at some point but he would still have time to shoot you too.

You might suggest that the solution is to take a head shot with a 22. but the problem is that the head is a relatively small target in the heat of battle, and a 22, since it has so little muzzle energy, is easily deflected if the shot is not square to the skull. If you hit the head with a glancing shot, the bullet will most likely ricochet off and just leave a crease in his skull. If the bullet does manage to puncture the skull it can rattle around in there and do quite a bit of damage without ever leaving the skull. But there have been a lot of instances where for one reason or another the bullet can't enter the cranium, so head shots are not a lock to stop the attack either.

Compounding this is that in general, the shorter the barrel of the weapon, the lower the muzzle velocity of the fired round. What happens is that the propellant charge is still burning and generating gasses after the bullet has left the barrel and those gasses are then wasted energy. So the things that make a small concealable 22 attractive, (small size/low weight) are the features that make the 22 far less desirable as a defensive weapon. Remember that a .22LR is actually intended to be a rifle round so the propellant is slower burning than a .22 short is. I suspect that you may in fact get higher muzzle velocities out of a .22 short in that instance than you would out of a .22LR Magnum round. I need to find someone with a chronograph and a small .22 revolver and test that hypothesis.

Sure a 22 is better than nothing, no argument there, but I would not consider it a primary defensive weapon, more like a last ditch backup gun.

Finally, in Texas, to obtain a CHL, you must qualify with a .32 caliber or larger, and if you intend to carry a semi-auto, you must qualify with one. If you qualify with a semi-auto, then you can carry either type of handgun, but if you qualify with a revolver, you must carry only a revolver. Once you qualify, you can carry a .22, but you can't qualify with it.

What does the law say about single shot wounds and multiple shot wounds? The idea seems to me that if a 22 is the only weapon available, you could take multiple shots with a 22 whereby a single shot from a larger caliber round would be adequate.

In Texas, the case will ALWAYS go to a grand jury for evaluation whether charges are warranted or not. And at that point the facts of the case will be reviewed to determine if a crime appears to have taken place. At that point the caliber of the weapon, the location of the wounds in relation to the shooter, the number of rounds fired, etc. will be examined. Very rarely are charges referred in these cases. There was a case not too long ago involving a man (Joe Horn) who was on the phone with 911 reporting a break-in into his neighbor's house, it was taking so long for the police to respond that Joe Horn told the 911 operator that they were getting away and that he was going to stop them. He did. He went out and confronted them and then shot them dead when the assailants tried to shoot him. He was no-billed by the grand jury and became a bit of a folk hero around here. Everyone wished their neighbor was Joe Horn.

But this is Texas, we don't much care for criminals around here.

I'm not a lawyer in any state but I would expect that the law does not state anything about number of shots fired, caliber of the round fired, or the accuracy of the shooter. I would expect that circumstances of each instance would be the deciding factor for any legal repercussions.

I would expect that the law does not state anything about number of shots fired,

Depends on how many times they reloaded.

No, the law won't specifically say anything about the number of shots fired, it will however give prosecutors and/or grand juries the ability to take that information into account.

Number of shots fired could be construed as wanting to make sure the person was dead and not just wounded.

The philosophy in my city, as stated by the police instructor at the time, was that you continue to fire until the perp obeys your commands. _{I assume the command in that situation would be, "fall to the ground".}

I prefer the command "Die Motherf....!" but hey that's me....

I understood what you meant ronseto, but the point was that it is very hard to legislate that sort of thing so it will always be a judgment call on the part of juries and prosecutors.

I had a 1911 Colt knockoff (Portugese manufacture, I think, but I can't remember the brand.) which I modified to shoot hollowpoints. It did OK, but I really didn't like it that much, even though I LIKE .45s, and was very accurate at self-defense ranges with it (3-20 yards, I could put all 10 rounds from an extender magazine in a 4.5 inch diameter circle in 14 seconds, routinely), so I sold it and bought a new Springfield XD .40. I like it even better, and it fires hollowpoints by design!! Great gun. I shoot a couple of hundred rounds a month through it on the range, and it never fails me. I haven't needed either gun for self-defense purposes, but that's why I have/had them, and I like that dependability very much, thank you!!

Did someone want BIG guns?
Here's a link to a 4 bore underlever shotgun which my Brother bought, restored, reproofed and sold at auction for a tidy proffit.
He did a lot of the engraving and reblued (well 'browned' actually) the barrel.
The 4 bore was generally used as a punt gun for wildfowl (Wild? They were livid!)
He tells a great story about the 'indoor punt gunner' who accidently blew a hole in the wall, his wife in the next room wasn't amused.
Del

More. We want more. We want more. More. More more more more!

milo

Remind me to ship any new projects to your brother!

Guns are a favorite topic of mine. As a kid, I grew up with hundreds of rifles and handguns. Although I enjoyed them, I have spent most of my life on the edge of an urban environment where you have to travel miles for a 100 yard shot. Therefore, I finally became involved with shotguns. These weapons are ideal for my surroundings and I find clay target sports to be thrilling and challenging. My engineering quest is to help solve some of the mysteries of how shot pellets fly. To this end, I have used high speed color video (10,000 frames/sec) and am using a computer to reconstruct 3D images of shot patterns.

Do keep us posted?

Wow, so many over the years!

A .22 single shot rifle to start, a couple 30.06 deer guns replaced by one of my favorites...a Remington .264 Win Mag, flat and stable out to 700 yards easy!

A 10 ga goose gun cut down and loaded with slugs for bear, the Dan Wesson in .44 Magnum with 5 barrels from snub to 6" - what a sweet pistol.

Now I've trimmed down. A pair of S&W .38s, a WASR AK, nice Remington 1100 shotgun.

For the future I'd like to start with US military historicals and perhaps branch into other countries.

Yes, the Mauser Pistols and Lugars, not to mention Nagants with the gas cup to hold back the loss out the sides of a normal revolver.

US martially marked weapons are in high demand and a good choice for a collector. They are also very usable. I'm partial to shotguns and have some nice WWll examples. Bruce N. Canfield has written a couple of books about military shotguns. They are available through Amazon. I recently left a bid of $850.00 for a martially marked Ithaca 37 (worth about $1200.00 retail). I got it for $450.00 because apparently no one else recognized the crossed cannon markings and the arsenal inspector's acceptance stamp. An interesting side story; The Japanese used carrier pigeons in the Pacific to send classified messages. Shotguns and bird shot were sometimes issued to marines to dispatch the messagers. I would have signed up for that duty.

Well, my .45 Colt ACP 1911A1 service sidearm, an Ultralight SKS, my M91 Mossin-Nagant 7.62x54R Sniper rifle, an unusual Marlin Camp carbine in .45 Caliber, (the same clip as the Colt), a .30 Carbine, several .22's including a Hornet, revolvers ranging from .32 to .38 and even a .45 long Colt derringer.

I believe in the Second Amendment, I defended it and the rest of the Constitution of the United States with my life in the U.S.A.F. attached to S.W.A.L.

With the 7.62x54R M91, I once hit a target at over two thousand yards. Thank you Grandpa, for teaching me to shoot at age six, with the .22 rifle that I still have.

Regards Dragon

Dragonsfarm Was it the same target you were aiming at? After my experience with an SKS and a AK-47 I just had to ask. No harm intended and I respect your choice to defend what you believe in. J.Conway

Dear Jarrell, No insult taken. Actually rather funny. This weapon was my issued sniper rifle, A 7.62x54R Mossin-Nagant with six-to-1 twist rifling. marked at over 1000 meters on the iron sights.

We were given the option to use what ever weapon best suited. I fell in love with this incredibly accurate rifle the first time I chambered a round. Incredibly powerful, with a steel jacketed round will penetrate 1/4 inch steel plate at 200 yards.

I believed in what I did then. As for now I am not so sure.

Regards Dragon

Interesting that you were given that option, might I inquire which service (and which country) you were serving at the time?

AFAIK, US snipers are offered either a Barrett M82A1 .50 cal or a M24 7.62x51mm NATO with Leupold Ultra 10x42 Scope, or an M40A1 or M40A3 (All three essentially a Remington model 700 made to mil-spec), or a M25 (tweaked and modified National Match grade M14).

Let me clarify/correct myself, they are offered that option TODAY, I cannot speak to what used to be the case.

Dear Rorschach, We were offered that option then, one of the first to do so I believe. I was technically in the S.W.A.L. group (Special Weapons And Logistics) attached to the U.S.A.F.

Our missions were and still are classified. You are correct in your assessment of the weapons currently used in standard sniper groups.

Our missions were what is known as "zero residual trace". We could not leave so much as a shell casing behind that was identifiable. And that is all I am at liberty to say.

Regards Dragon

gun sales and ammo sales have hit a record high in US

For those who live near Louisiana, this labor day weekend, they are having a sales tax free weekend on any product that is hunting or fishing related, which includes guns, ammo, ATV's, boats, fishing equipment, etc.

Historicly shotguns are probably the most widely owned and widely used guns in the US. The lever action 30-30 has probably put more venison on the table than any other rifle round. The 30-06 will take any North American game animal.

My tastes tend towards side by side doubles, 12ga, field length barrels, improved cyl and mod chokes for shotgunning rabbits and birds with 6 shot.

22 semis for squirrel and pests.

30-30 lever action for deer in the woods, 270 for deer in the field.

I'll vote for the 30 cal M-14 for defense and a good 45 cal semi-auto with double stack mag side arm.

I want a M2 50 cal!

For household defense, one really cannot beat a 12 gauge pump action with an 18.5" inch barrel and a magazine extension loaded with 00 buckshot. just don't get a pistol grip. it is very hard to aim a shotgun properly without a shoulder stock.

The 30-06 will take any North American game animal.
Yeah...so will a native American bow with a stone arrow head...
Del

Perhaps our guest in 73 should have mentioned "from a less intimate distance from a position of safety."

Deer is one thing, but bear, bison, feral hogs, ummm, I'd prefer to 'deliver the package' from a somewhat removed position. I guess the OSHA mentality has crept into my thinking. Noone should place themselves needlessly in danger for food...

50 yards of a cross bow is probably as close as I' d like to be from some of the more, uhh, passionate Game... Haven't tried it yet.

but Del, you are absolutely correct about the efficacy if one doesn't mind the personal risk. Native American bows and flint arrowheads kept the Tribes over here fed for thousands of years.

milo not scared-prudent?

I prefer 250 yards, which would give me time for a reload or two in case the first shot or two doesn't take him down. Bear can be stubborn that way...

I have an acquaintance who is books big game hunts in Alaska. He quit after the hunt for a rogue polar bear. This bear had been relocated three times. It had no fear of man. He told the members of the hunt (all carrying weapons that were quite capable of taking down a polar bear. I believe he said the smallest caliber was a custom .45-70). His weapon was a Weatherby .460 magnum hollow point hydro-shock rounds. He told the "hunters" not to fire until he did. They didn't listen. When the rescue party got there, he was the only one still alive, barely. It tore apart the Arctic Cat that they were using as transport. He lost his left foot to the bear and the only reason that he killed it was that he fired directly into it's mouth severing the spinal cord.

The bear, upon autopsy, was found to have NINE rounds in it, one of which had punctured the left ventricle of the heart and it still managed to kill five men and cripple one other.

The Polar Bear is the largest land carnivore in the world and I wouldn't tackle that old boy without something larger, like a RPG-7!

I was a Sniper in the military and I hunted things that shot back, but there is no way I would want to take one one of those even with Del's help!

Regards Dragon

M-2 Browning, it doesn't get much better than that! Better have some friends to help move it though. Here is a friend "running" one I built from a parts set and registered reciever some years back. Amazing accuracy when fired single shot with a spotter.

CFECO, don't take this the wrong way but.... I hate you (jealousy mode:on) =b

I hate you too!! (Just joking) Very nice work, but a real pain in the a** to hump that thing any where.

Regards Dragon

Completely forgot the new Browning .22 target.

Like the Model 10 S&Ws with the 4" bull barrels, absolute tack drivers.

Go play with other toys, but come back to your Smith when you want to know how you are shooting!

But I've heard so many nice things about the Springfields ....

My wife is getting ready to watch her favorite TV show, and I may have time to squeeze in a gun story.

I was going to Chicago to see my Great Aunt to find out what had made her relationship with my Great Uncle work, since she had been at least as young and distanced in age between my Great Uncle, as I was with the young woman I was seeing at the time.

-over twenty years.

I knew Chicago well enough, that I didn't really want to be there without a weapon, so I rode the bus.

I took a .38 revolver with me in my bag.

During my stay, visiting my Great Aunt I was confronted by her erstwhile and unknown to me drunken boyfriend.

He had pounded on the door a good long time and I finally opened it.

I held the .38 out of sight behind my back, and convinced him to leave.

During our conversation I noticed he was holding a knife.

He was holding it up in his right hand by his side so it was not first to be seen.

My cop friend later said I had done the right thing by not brandishing the pistol, for they can incite some people to further attacks.

During a period of very high drug activity in the neighborhood on the street where I live I was coming home from the bar, and saw a woman in the street being attacked by 3 young men.

I walked in the house, grabbed my .32 revolver, and telling my wife to call the cops, went into the yard and fired two shots into the ground yelling at the same time, that "They.", were to get out of here "Now!"

"They" did.

I am very aware of all the crap they put the cops through if they ever do actually fire their weapon, and I knew that a call had been made from our house, and that the cops had shown up, and I did walk out in the yard to look at them, but they never came over, and never bothered me about it.

-I thought that was nice of them.

T-man, I'm very, VERY glad both situations worked out for the best but I must say that your tactics, especially in the second case, could have used some improvement. I am going to presume your .32 revolver is a six shot, and not a five shot like some compact designs are. Secondly I'm going to assume you keep one cylinder empty for safe carrying since no revolvers I am aware of have safeties (well except for the POS ones with the integrated gun locks which always break at the worst possible opportunity.). So you had at most 5 shots to begin with. You were faced with three attackers (that you know of, there could have been others lurking nearby.) so the very first thing you did was throw two of those shots away. Now you have three shots, which means that you would have to have had a one shot stop/kill on each of your attackers with no misses. That is... very unlikely. Even if you don't keep one cylinder empty, that means you would have one additional shot in case you missed with one of them, not a huge safety margin. Sure, you could reload, but in the heat of battle, will you have time? Besides, a .32 is not exactly known for it's stopping power. How many of those 3 remaining shots will it take to stop just ONE of the attackers? And then what will you do with the other two attackers? (assuming it was only the three you saw).

Now, I'm going to show a personal bias here, but that is why I like semi-autos. You generally have far more shots to work with, despite their inherent lower reliability, and you don't have to throw away one round for safe carry. They also are easier to conceal since they have a flat profile. Additionally, semi-autos allow you to fire a much larger bullet with less recoil than you'd have from a revolver for a similar bullet because they action absorbs much of the recoil energy.

Don't take this the wrong way, the bottom line is that the situation resolved itself with nobody getting hurt, and I am very happy about that, but you took a risk you did not need to take, and put yourself (and the young woman.) in danger. What you did was a common newbie error. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but please understand that it WAS an error to fire warning shots, even worse, two of them. If your assailants had been halfway intelligent and thought for a second, they might have come to the conclusion that I did, that you had squandered two shots needlessly. I sincerely hope that if the situation ever were to arise again that you feel the need to use a weapon defensively, that you would rethink that strategy. Hey, we might disagree on occasion, but that doesn't mean I want to see you get yourself killed needlessly.

Just remember that in most parts of the country the average response time for the police is between 5 and 7 minutes. A lot can happen in 5 minutes.

I'm not going to even touch Chicago's stupid and unconstitutional gun laws. That is a subject for a different time and forum. (the US Supreme Court in just a few months I believe, I predict Chicago will have it's arse handed to it.)

I'm pretty much in total agreement and was aware that I had taken a risk that fortunately worked out all around.

I do leave the little .32 loaded in all six chambers, so I did have four shots left.

It is only recently I have contemplated changing that but I rarely carry, and typically leave the pistol in the bedside drawer.

At one time I did make clear to the local police that I was inadequately armed.

Truly, they pretty much know who I am, and what I do, and I am grateful that they didn't bother me about what I did.

After the event I thought, "Damn good thing they didn't start shooting back. Damn good thing they didn't come back."

"Wow, I was lucky that time!"

Actually Transcendian, you may not have needed the "luck" as much as first thought: Most predatory animals, (man included) react very similarly to an unexpected loud noise and show of strength: THEY RUN. Those pond scum that were attacking this women were not intelligent enough to realize anything other than you were quite capable of defending your self and the woman. They did not think of co-ordinating their efforts and ganging up on you. They thought "Every man for himself!"

One of the best ways to illustrate this is I was on "shore patrol duty" (another way of saying helping out the local police) when I was stationed in the Philippines, when I had to use the "head". I stepped into the alley to relieve myself, and five local tough guys decided to "make an example of me". (I had put one of their gang in the hospital wing of the local jail) I drew my service pistol, .45 ACP Colt, and simply said, "Who dies first? I won't get all of you before you get ahold of me but at least two of you will die before you can touch me. Which ones of you will die for your buddies?" They hesitated. I fired a round into the ground, they ran. The sound of the shot brought my two patrol mates running. I joked that I had just let off some gas. They both saw the five idiots fleeing around the corner at the other end of the alley. But if I stated that I had been accosted there would have been a report filed. I HATE PAPERWORK!

For the record: if there was any possible doubt, I salute you, sir! Only a coward stands by and does nothing when he has the opportunity, and the means to defend the helpless.

Highest possible regards, Dragon

Actually, still R, is still probably right, since I did fire first, and then give instructions, whereas you did not fire till after speaking.

Then again I would have had to get closer to them to make much of an impression, and the sound of the gun worked from a bit farther away.

(Apparently they did know what a gun sounds like. Hence by having maintained some distance they couldn't really be sure what I had either.)

It was dusk, the .32 at least sounds more like a .380, or maybe a 9mm.

I hear that these particular pistols are sometimes called "gentlemens guns", and I do like to think of myself that way. It is not like a gentleman is not capable of violence, but that he does not commit violent acts without a good reason.

I appreciate the compliment.

I am aware that there are many who have put themselves in harms way much more often than I ever have. P.S. At least I did put having my wife call the cops first, and grabbed the gun second. I am getting too old for success in close physical combat. Never lost a fight till I was 36, and now with arthritis in my hands about the best I could do would be to slap somebody.