gun thread

[Furrytwen]

Recently got my lady to do a women's firearms course for a day. Started out .22 pistol/rifle and was then free to browse through an assortment of firepower brought by various instructors... know she shot a big game rifle and a S&W revolver. First time shooter, said she liked the S&W best because she felt like Dirty Harry. Can't be mad about that. Came in at the end and had her fire these before leaving (not mine), looked pretty sexy dropping 3 round bursts.

 

[ATTACH=full]247215[/ATTACH]

 

That's amazing! I'd also like to try a firearms course soon.

[misteraven]

That's amazing! I'd also like to try a firearms course soon.

 

What city / state do you live in? I’d suggest starting with a fundamental proficiency course if you don’t have military experience or grew up hunting (even then it’s not a bad idea). If you google map Logan gun shops and gun ranges for the ones with best reviews, then maybe swing by the three most promising looking ones. Virtually all will have a community board or something with courses listed or people offering to do courses. Likely they’ll also offer their own safety or CCW (concealed carry permit) course, which is really just a safety course for the most part. Start with that, then move on to some local marksmanship courses. Once you thoroughly understand safety, know the general theory / practice of marksmanship and know how to safely disassemble, clean and reassemble the firearm you shoot with, then I’d say you’d be ready (and fairly comfortable) with some of the national circuit type tactical courses. Especially if you’ve managed to squeeze in plenty of range time and hopefully have someone experienced that you’re friends with to partner up with.

 

Sounds like a lot, but it’s not too deep and mostly a ton of fun. Also, videos don’t substitute hands on training and real world experience, but you can learn a lot and it’s a great primer as well as good supplement to real work training and experience.

 

Though fairly old at this point and some of the technique have evolved a little, the Magpul Dynamics series with Chris Costa and Travis Haley are still the gold standard for training videos IMO. Worth a watch, even if you’re just curious and want an intro glimpse at it.

 

*Keep in mind the videos are fairly advanced and not what you’d encounter at one of the fundamental courses you’d be starting with. Also, these are usually about $20 per set if you look around. Might even find a stream or at least excerpts on YouTube or online.

 

Magpul The Art of the Dynamic Handgun https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00373PEVW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UasiBbGD4KVAE

 

 

Magpul 2nd Art of Tact Carb (Set of 4 Dvd) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007P5551W/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_AbsiBbANABWDH

 

 

Magpul Art of Tact Carb V2 2nd 4 Dvd https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007DN5T1C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.bsiBb7BMBTZ6

 

[misteraven]

@6Pennies We should really get this thread going man. Lots of knowledge, experience, suggestions, insight and even a lot of really cool pictures you could share (if you don't mind doing so). Honestly, just reposting a lot of your earlier Instagram stuff would be a great start.

[One Man Banned]

That's amazing! I'd also like to try a firearms course soon.

 

There are a lot of them out there from beginner to advanced. Do you own a firearm/have you shot before? Check with your local range or gun club for what's available. I really don't care for or about the NRA, but you can check through them too if you like.

[One Man Banned]

Raven- thought you might like this. Old game seen in an antique/junk shop, another example of something you won't see made today.

 

[misteraven]

Reminds me of another thing I found interesting in regards to the gun debate... it’s clear there are cultural shifts in regards to what we find acceptable or not, in addition to differences in lifestyle, ideologies and ethics.

 

What few people ever consider in regards to debates like the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment, is that language also evolves.

 

It’s most obvious when you hear, or more often read, words that are antiquated and fallen out of the common vernacular. Further to that, however, are words that remain in use, but have shifted significantly in meaning or have had words obfuscated purposefully (there’s an entire discipline on that which is commonly applied in politics called Psycholinguistics).

 

For example:

 

Excerpt sourced from Cornell University School of Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 and https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-“well-regulated-militia”-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean

 

 

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

 

The meaning of the word “Militia” was later codified under the Militia Act of 1792 which holds in part that the militia is made up of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States” who “shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Naturally once the Thirteenth Amendment made African Americans free and equal citizens, the “white” part was made invalid.

 

The Federalist Papers (Number 29, Alexander Hamilton) gives us our clue as to what “well regulated meant.”

 

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

 

So, “well regulated” really meant “properly functioning.” It didn’t have anything to do with setting rules and laws for the militia. They also commonly imagine that doing the “regulation” should be done on a federal level where the founders expected the militias to be organized at the state level and not under federal control.

 

As to the individual vs collective right claim, libertarians and conservatives both say that the Constitution obviously confers the right to own a gun on the individual. Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this individual right.

 

Lastly, we all know that those of the right of center generally assume the Constitution to be the law of the land, a fixed document that only has to be read, not constantly “interpreted” in new and unusual ways.

 

The Future:

 

The recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald) have thrown a bone in the left’s argument that the Second Amendment is only a “collective right.” From these two momentous decisions, courts are revisiting strict gun laws across the country. This will continue and many more cases will likely head toward the SCOTUS for debate. We will also see states and federal laws written to push the envelope.

 

Commentary:

 

Several things need to be pointed out. Firstly the founders did not want to exclude any standing, national army. After all, the army is taken care of elsewhere in the Constitution. The militia was supposed to exist concurrently with the standing army but operate separately.

 

Secondly, the founders expected that the right to self-protection was an inalienable right given to us by God. After all, without the power to protect ourselves and our property–and the sanctity of personal property is key, here–we were not free men. Those that must look to others for protection of life, liberty, and property are beholden to someone else and, therefore, not free men.

 

In this light, Thomas Jefferson was adamant in his drafts of the Virginia Constitution of 1776: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

 

You see, the founders based a lot of their ideas of the law on the ideas of an English lawyer named William Blackstone whose works were widely reprinted in the colonies.

 

Here is what Blackstone said about being armed in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 2, 1765: “…since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society…”

 

I mention this to explain why the founders did not include in the Constitution any language that specifically notes the individual’s rights. It was taken as granted and therefore unnecessary to reiterate in a document they were trying to make as concise as possible.

 

So, in modern terms, you cannot take away from a man the right to self-defense on either the micro or macro level. This hardbound natural right codified by Blackstone led Supreme Court Justice Joseph story to put it in clearer terms where it concerns the purpose of the militia: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms,” Story wrote, “has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

 

Thirdly, the founders also located power over the military/militias in four places to further prevent its tyrannical use. Congress regulated all branches of the military, but the president was the ultimate commander of that military, yet the states were placed over the militias when not in federal service. Finally, the individual citizens were in control of their firearms never to be disarmed.

 

As founding father Samuel Adams said during Massachusetts’s convention to Ratify the Constitution: “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

 

One last point needs clarification and that is the discussion of muskets vs today’s arsenal.

 

The word “bear” meant to be able to carry or hold. In some parlance of the time “bear” even meant to be able place in one’s coat. This necessarily restricts the sort of arms we are talking about as it means we are talking about an arm that is operated by one person, not a team of men.

 

Certainly the founders meant Americans to “bear” military grade arms. One cannot be a member of a para-military group using small caliber plinkers and varmint guns. In their day arms meant military weapons. Muskets, pistols, even swords were “arms.” Cannons, land mines, and ships of war, however, were the “weapons of mass destruction” of the founder’s era. They never expected that the people had any right to those weapons of war. Such weapons of mass destruction are more properly, then and now, called ordnance as opposed to arms. It is also why the Navy is dealt with elsewhere in the Constitution.

 

This means that when the left taunts you by saying, “what, did the founders think you should have a rocket launcher, a jet fighter plane or a nuclear weapon?,” they are revealing their ignorance, not making a valid argument. The founders meant for the people to have military grade rifles and pistols. They excluded ships of war and cannons so by logical extension modern ordnance would similarly fall outside the rights of the Second Amendment.

 

So, no, the founders would NOT have thought we had a right to a nuclear weapon.

 

In conclusion, the Second Amendment clearly gives an individual a right to firearms, those firearms can be military grade, they can and should be expected to be used for both personal protection and to prevent government from become tyrannical by arranging themselves into para-military groups, and the government has no right whatever to take your firearms away from you.

[misteraven]

And if you think that psycholinguistics and the gun control debate is some tin foil hat conspiracy theory craziness, have a look at the attached PDF and then ask yourself what else is being manipulated to get you to rally behind a certain political position or social topic.

gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

[6Pennies]

Brown Momento Mori shirt FTW

[misteraven]

@6Penniesgot that secret cool guy shit...  ???

[misteraven]

Thought this was interesting... Once thing to see a box logo on dudes pelican case, but custom PMAGS...

 

Definitely will do yup a batch of hydro dipped PMAGS for 12oz once of these days.

 

 

[One Man Banned]

 

 

Now this last one may represent irresponsible use of firearms but who knows, I wasn't there and he may be legally defending himself.

 

 

[LUGR]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XpX_xPJxiwo

 

guns & skateboarding don’t mix...except for the Drehobl pic.

[misteraven]

49 minutes ago, LUGR said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XpX_xPJxiwo

 

guns & skateboarding don’t mix...except for the Drehobl pic.

Beg to differ, by presenting my friend Erik Munday...

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gjdkx/skate-mercenary-erik-munday-221

 

[LUGR]

@misteravenI didn't say guns & skateboarders don't mix...

 

Interesting read about your friend.

 

The thought of him skating around the deck of that ship shooting pirates is intriguing....maybe need to rethink my comment if that is what he is doing. 

[misteraven]

HA! Just thought it was a funny intro to an interesting story. I’ll try to get him in here one of these days. 

[Kults]

[misteraven]

Wonder what purpose that last one has in that it's .223 but doesn't appear to share much with the AR? Also, wondering why they've got it promoted as .223 instead of 5.56 NATO unless its not multi cal. Cycling bolt is kind of dumb I think, considering better options exist for a fully ambidextrous platform. Also wonder why they ditched all the top rail space? Gun doesn't make a lot of sense, especially with everyone dropping that caliber.

 

Reminds me a little of the ACR. 

[Kults]

I found the pic on some Russian AK conference site. I'm frankly amazed you were able to break it down like that just from those specs, its cool. I couldn't understand what most of it meant. I just though it looked really modern in a stripped down way.

Do some Russian rifles use the NATO rounds or do they have their own? The profile def reminds me of the Bushmaster ACR your'e spot on. Who would use those? Specialized units? 

[Kults]

Reading up on it now.. "Other features, unique in the world of AK-type rifles, include a cross-button manual safety above the trigger guard, a last round hold-open device with a release lever located on the left side of the receiver above the magazine catch, and a funneled magwell for faster mag change."

 

This sounds pretty cool

Edited July 6, 2018 by Kults

[misteraven]

Thats all pretty basic. Flared magwell is hardly a feature since it's typical for fast mag changes. That one doesn't look that flared to be honest.

 

Yes, most military small weapons platforms are spec'ed in a NATO equivalent or are at least multi cal to accept. Increases market share when you can sell to anywhere and have ammo be easily accessible. Only makes sense to get into specialized ballistics and odd calibers when the weapon has a specific usage, like precision shooting (snipers). Otherwise, they usually take whatever is most commonly available with 7.62 being the most common since the AK platform is the most common small weapons platform on the planet.

 

Platforms like this and the ACR are usually responses to government contracts. ACR was Bushmasters submission as a replacement to the M4, that never really went anywhere. I have one myself and its better than their version of the AR and is a decent carbine, but they never fulfilled the promise of allowing for quick field conversions to other calibers like .308 / 7.62. Believe that FN won the US contract with the SCAR Heavy (17), but I don't really keep up with that stuff. Own one of those as well, but in general the USA seems to be phasing out 5.56 as its just too underpowered for a modern small arms platform, especially when 99% its going up against 7.62, which has a fair bit more range and hits harder. Plus the ammo is literally everywhere so makes sense to adopt a platform chambered in what is most widely available. Spec Ops have been running it for a while, but thought I read that it'll be standard issue for USA military soon. Definitely better than most AK's, though @6Penniescan chime in since he loves the draco shit. Wish it allowed for parts swap with the AR platform (at least he trigger group), but you can still get good after market stuff for it. Biggets fault IMO, is that you need an after market lower to run PMAGs in it and though the FN mags are solid, they're expensive. Hate guns that only accept proprietary mags when there's a PMAG available in whatever its chambered in.

[Kults]

Thanks for explaining it. It makes perfect sense. Anything proprietary or restrictive can't be too good. The SCAR is nice too, the ACR is just so sexy it has such a killer profile and looks like it would be fun to shoot.

[misteraven]

ACR shoots almost identical as an AR. I have AR's that shoot much flatter though since my ACR is mostly stock (just an after market trigger in it). SCAR isn't much more being 308. A touch more thump in the recoil. Really doesn't start to kick much until you get over 308 / 7.72 into some of the hunting and precision shooting calibers. Lot of people confuse the ACR for a SCAR since they both have that Ugg boot type stock and monolithic type upper. Bushmaster isn't really known for quality, but they did a decent job with the ACR. I've run it through a few classes that are the equivalent of a torture test and out of maybe 10k rounds only had one casing really jam it up. Still far from the design Magpul had when they created it though and a long ways from the custom AR builds I've made since, but I think with proper ammo and a crisp Geissele trigger, you can pull 1 MOA or maybe even sub MOA precision out of it.

[~KRYLON2~]

i like AR's for the versatility but i'm not really a fan of the 5.56 round, 7.76/308 and 30/30 is what i learned to shoot with when i was a kid. 30/30 lever action is great in the winter when your wearing gloves, and follow up shots come quick with practice. my experience with the 7.62 round is with the M1A and Remington 700 bolt action. both great rifles that have awesome accuracy and easily to mod and maintain. other then that i like shotguns, they are the jack of all trades when hunting or self defense. as far as hand guns, i always had a glock 17 or 1911. one day i would like to dip into the browning high power and sig p226 territory. 

[Kults]

I love how much you know about this subject. Im a lay-man at best with it. Its super informative and appreciated that you take the time to break it down like that. I had no idea about Bushmaster not being top notch regarding quality. How did MagPull make the leap to designing it with Bushmaster? Weren't they more into making accessories? 

[misteraven]

9 hours ago, ~KRYLON2~ said:

i like AR's for the versatility but i'm not really a fan of the 5.56 round, 7.76/308 and 30/30 is what i learned to shoot with when i was a kid. 30/30 lever action is great in the winter when your wearing gloves, and follow up shots come quick with practice. my experience with the 7.62 round is with the M1A and Remington 700 bolt action. both great rifles that have awesome accuracy and easily to mod and maintain. other then that i like shotguns, they are the jack of all trades when hunting or self defense. as far as hand guns, i always had a glock 17 or 1911. one day i would like to dip into the browning high power and sig p226 territory. 

Would agree with all of this. 5.56 is a wimpy round which is why everyone is moving away from it. Always laugh at the irony of the gun control debate to get rid of AR’s when all it’s just a high profile scale goat. If you actually looked at crime stats or understood ballistics at all, you can easily understand why it’s a silly gun to target. They are fun to shoot though. 

 

I think 7.62 is a nice balance between cost, ballistics and portability but if we’re looking at performance (and again, it’s really more about usage), I’d lean 6.5 creedmore or if you really want to reach out, 3.38 lapua. 

 

Shotguns are great, but I enjoy the discipline in precision shooting. Even intrigued by the math of it, so not super into shotguns. Is a great tool and you’re right that it’s very versatile. 

 

I run G17s as my go-to pistol. Own several Sigs including the p226. Fortunate to have the MK25 version of it that’s also had some custom trigger work. Keep debating on whether to send it to Salient for a full work over. I love the ergonomics of it, but not a fan of double action / single action pistols cause that first round always sucks.

 

Don’t own any 1911s yet but will likely be my next move. Feel like all my friends have become big 1911 advocates lately and feeling left out of that conversation. I know some people are nervous about the safety on glocks (or lack thereof), but carrying a 1911 cocked and locked actually makes me nervous, but then again I lack experience with that platform. 

[misteraven]

9 hours ago, Kults said:

I love how much you know about this subject. Im a lay-man at best with it. Its super informative and appreciated that you take the time to break it down like that. I had no idea about Bushmaster not being top notch regarding quality. How did MagPull make the leap to designing it with Bushmaster? Weren't they more into making accessories? 

Yeah man, no sweat. I’m an enthusiast but far from an expert. I try to do my homework and then gain a little experience by putting it in practice. 

 

Bushmaster is basically a Walmart brand. They’re huge and well distributed at big box retailers. They aren’t terrible for the audience they’re intended for, which isn’t usually guys pushing 1k rounds through them in an afternoon of training. Granted, that’s really a torture test short of running it full auto, but if there’s anything you own that you want to be reliable, it’s the stuff your life depends on like your gun and your car. 

 

Magpul does much more than mags and accessories. They do a lot of research and development as well as tactics and training (though the latter seems to have died when Chris Costa and Travis Haley left Magpul Dynamics). They created the Magpul Masada, which is what the ACR was supposed to be. But Magpul wasn’t big enough to bring it to market in terms of having the tooling and scalibility, especially when this was developed as a response to a military contract request. So they partnered and brought it to market as the ACR. Corners got cut and then Bushmaster didn’t follow through on the promise of field conversions between a family of parts for quick barrel and caliber swaps. 

 

Could have been a great platform, now is just a good one. Like I said, I own one and I’ve run it hard at a few classes and seen better guns break. It’s expensive for what it is though so if you were looking to get one, I’d suggest a good AR or pushing up to a SCAR Heavy if you want quality and to run something a little different than what everyone else is probably running. 

[Kults]

That makes it even more appealing.  Not as high end as I'd originally thought, I've been schooled. I kinda like that analogy, a mass produced quirky half failed project has a nice ring to it. I like that's it's just different. Agreed that it shouldn't be used as a go to but as a cool collection piece. You're really lucky to have one.

[misteraven]

It’s a fun fun for sure, but knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t have bought it. My main gripe is that it is indeed a specialty gun with no real world benefit over the AR platform. It’s uses the same cartridge, so might as well use an AR. My main issue is the weapon controls are off from that of the AR so training on it is a bad idea unless you’re committing to the ACR. 

 

I ran mine early on. It was my main carbine. I spent a fair premium for it over a comparable AR, spent extra on a nice trigger and accessories and trained only with it. Then at one particular class, switched over to the AR, as that’s essentially the standard carbine in the USA and wanted the flexibility / availability it comes with over pretty much any other gun type or platform. Ended up fumbling a few times with the weapons control when running it under pressure. Though it’s unlikely you’d be in some SHTF scenario, but if I were to happen, you’re most likely to come up on AR since they’re so prolific. What is likely, is being in a class and have your weapon go down. Like I said, you’re pushing 1k+ rounds through it daily and even quality weapons will go down occasionally. So you might have a backup, and most likely it would be an AR. If you don’t, you’re maybe borrowing from a team mate, which almost certainly would be an AR. So I’m either scenario, you’re suddenly faced with transitioning to slightly different controls. Sounds stupid, but the way training works is you’re building muscle memory through repetition. The saying goes that under pressure, you fall back to the lowest level you train at. So leaves you in kind of a jam (no pun intended). 

 

At least if you move to the AK platform or a SCAR (17), then you at least gain something with ballistics (and possibly more) in exchange for having to build muscle memory with a different control system. With the ACR you don’t gain anything with ballistics, it doesn’t deliver the flexibility that it was engineered to have, it doesn’t have the 3rd party eco system of parts and accessories so refining it is almost certainly custom work ($$$) and you’re investing your time into training on a slightly odd control system. 

 

One of the original features touted on the ACR is that it’s fully ambidextrous, but truth is that most quality ARs are now these days, at least as far as the key controls (safety, mag release, etc). 

 

Anyhow, just my opinion on it. 

[Kults]

You brought up some really strong points. I never looked at it like that but I gotta say you're absolutely right. Whats the use in acquiring all that trigger time and practice if it's so specialized. That latest carbine you posted in the balling thread looks really light, sexy profile too. 

[misteraven]

Yeah, it is fairly light. It looks slim cause it’s a slightly longer barrel so the proportions are off from what you’re used to seeing.