Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 85 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10895
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    Maglus , interesting you should say about the M16/ M4 . I work with a guy that was a contractor in Afghanistan , He said that there was a transition period on the base where he was at , where the US forces pulled out and the Afghan forces were supposed to take over , well , there was a few days window between when the Afghan army arrived and the Americans pulled out , where they were on their own . He said everybody picked up an AK because the other weapons did not like cold weather …….he said it sucked and everybody was scared , but at least the AKs would work if they had to use them .

    #10899
    Selco
    Selco
    Survivalist
    member6

    Selco, I was wondering the same thing: What the difference was between your perspective and the guy who shot. Can you elaborate, please? Thanks!

    Guy next to me believed that man relative killed his father, and he was trying to pull more information from the “runner”, and when he did not find anything useful they started something like short fistfight, then he pulled the gun.

    It was not my issue there, I did not want to be part of the problem, when you take someone life (or help somebody to do that) you could become (or someone dear to you) target for revenge.

    And the guy with pistol was nobody important to me, just a guy with who I had some temporary business.

    Maybe hard to explain now, but golden rule was that you mind your own business, stay out of the trouble, and if you are already in trouble then act quickly and without hesitation.

    I always liked to stay on the “mind your own business” part of the rule if I could.

    Shooter could simply raise hand, take moment and kill dude with one or two bullets, but he was in emotional messed up situation, very angry. He missed.

    #10900
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Tolik, I got my history class today, thank you.

     

    #10903
    Profile photo of namelus
    namelus
    Survivalist
    member7

    http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/an-alternate-look-at-handgun-stopping-power

     

    a look at handgun stopping power real world incidents

     

    The projectile is a big part of the gun, most modern designs are based on the  wounding not killing, financial bankruptcy and resource depletion of enemy forces.  Takes more to take care of one wounded than one dead.

     

    Most gun fights  non military/war zone are close and personal  20m or less people practice to aim and hit target of paper that is fix mounted. Real world you  will point gun and shoot, totally different type of target practice required.

     

     

     

     

    #10905
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    The soviets attacked Finland with a lot of bad doctrine , poor leadership ( thanks to Stalin’s purge ), and mediocre equipment , they lost ………but after the Germans invaded , they were forced to change their doctrine and upgrade their equipment to survive .- Tolik

    You mean, upgrade their equipment to the stuff we gave them? Trucks, tanks, planes? Yep. And talk about being on the wrong side of the coin, that corrupt old evil cripple FDR… can’t stand to even talk about him. I can’t think of one good thing to say about that dirtbag. Kissing the Russian’s ass? FDR hopped out of his wheelchair to smooch Stalin’s backside at Yalta… Churchill wasn’t even a player by that time. Britain declares war on Germany for invading Poland, we back Britain (even though we were supposed to be “neutral”, which violated international law) then FDR turns around and just GIVES Poland to Stalin? Where the hell is that fair?

    I think the Finns did their best given a shitty situation… much like Switzerland did, except Finland didn’t have the advantage of huge mountain ranges and narrow passes to deter an invasion. Surrounded, cut off, they played ball and made it clear that anyone who tried to take them out would pay a heavy price… sue for peace rather than annihilation? I’m not going to fault them that.

    And don’t get me started on how FDR deliberately provoked the Axis powers… the US cuts off the flow of oil to Japan because Japan invaded China. Pull your troops back, and you can have oil again, FDR says. The US Ambassador to Japan actually worked a miracle and had the Japs ready to sign an agreement where they would pull out of China if the US would turn the oil back on. That was summer, 1941. FDR told them to get bent. The Japs hit us a few months later.

    MEANWHILE, in the Atlantic, our destroyers were under orders to assist British Firefly anti-submarine planes in destroying German U-boats, even though we claimed neutrality.. when the U-Boats shot at our destroyers, the newspapers howled “GERMANS ATTACK US DESTROYER!”, making no mention of our involvement… then there’s FDR still claiming neutrality and sending war materiel to England on passenger liners (same as his Hero and old boss, Woodrow Wilson did back before the first world war…). The Germans knew damn well which boat was carrying what, in direct, flagrant violation of international law and the laws of war. A neutral party cannot supply only one belligerent and still claim neutrality… either both sides, or neither, or you are a belligerent by default. FDR got around this by shipping munitions and materiel on passenger liners covertly, since public support for another war was rock bottom… and our ships were shot up for the same reasons the Lusitania was sunk.

    My point is, is that nobody had clean hands in that war. Stalin? Obvious. Hitler? Obvious. But what pisses me off is that FDR mostly gets a pass, when he was possibly the worst of the bunch – not because he wasted his own people, but because he claimed the moral high ground in public, all the while being a completely corrupt, lying, totalitarian socialist sack of ****. Worst president since Lincoln.

    Sorry.. .sort of got off topic. We can bat around history in another thread if you want… my bad. :)

    Finns still handed the Russians their asses in the Winter War.. neener neener….

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #10908
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    namelus, this is why I love my shotgun! closeup kill, even in the dark.

    #10911
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    Just goes to show , politics NEVER change . I hate Lincoln as much as you hate FDR for similar reasons . And as far as gettin a pass goes , the Japs got a pass compared to the Germans . Thats why never believe anything the media has to say . Even the tv shows you watch are propagandized . One of my favorite books is a 2 and a half inch thick compilation of short stories , with a moral at the end of each one  …………….the book was made in 1871 .

    #10972
    Mr. Red
    Mr. Red
    Survivalist
    member7

    In my opinion, which isn’t worth a bag of fog, it’s all about how many accurate rounds you can get on target in a short amount of time. Someone who can get 10+ rounds of .22LR in centre mass in just a few seconds is more likely to survive than someone who just manages to squeeze off a round or two of their .45 that only grazes an attackers arm, or a 12ga slug, or a .223, or whatever.

    If you train and get good with your firearms, then being able to accurately put rounds on target would make up for having a smaller round. But, obviously in the real world you wouldn’t have a paper target, you’d have someone who is trying to do you harm with whatever they have at their disposal, thus meaning you really do have to become one with your weapon system. You may not have time to get a proper stance, or control your breathing, or tough the trigger just right. You might have to be shooting while getting to cover, so practice drills like that.

    In a similar side to this, smaller rounds means you can carry more of them. Maybe those few extra rounds may just save your bacon.

    Again, just my opinion on the matter.

    Canadian Patriot. Becoming self-sufficient.

    #10992
    nighthawk
    nighthawk
    Survivalist
    member1

    Sorry to disagree on the M-1 carbine,But for what it was designed for it is a great weapon. Weapon of choice for the French Legion during their time in Nam. (I also have used the carbine in Nam, favored it over the M-16) the weapon is a short range weapon, with the ability to cut through brush, and take the abuse of jungle warfare. Something the M-16, of my day, could not do.

     

    #11007
    Profile photo of Ierax
    Ierax
    Survivalist
    member1

    Some time ago i read a very interesting article on gunshot wounds that opened my eyes over the whole issue and really made all the “hollywood” assumptions i made about a gunfight go away. Here it is for all of you to read. “Gunshot Wounds And You… A mini-analysis about the rate of mortality from gunshot wounds”  Also the site has really interesting information and articles on precision rifles.

    #11031
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Mr. Red, Also the 22lr is one round you do not want to get hit in a SHTF because even doctors have a hard time finding them in you body. So in a SHTF you will not know were it is. Also if you get really good at shooting a 22lr you can carry 1,000 without a problem.

    #11496
    Profile photo of jeepboy1991
    jeepboy1991
    Survivalist
    member1

    Malgus,

    Not picking a fight either but I’m an amateur student of military history. I love the subject and read all I can find about it. Just a little more info.

    It was actually  the .38 long colt  that was ineffective against the Moros. It was  a black powder cartridge with a 150 grain bullet at about 750fps velocity.  The .38 special was developed partially as a result of the failures in this campaign.

    One if the reasons was the Moros would get worked up into a frenzy on some type of drug ( I forget what at the moment) and bind their bodies with tourniquet like straps and take an oath to die killing infidels. Unless you hit the brain or spine, they wouldn’t be stopped by a bullet. Failure to hit that small target usually resulted in being decapitated by the infamous  Bolo. Even the .30-40 Krag had stopping failures.(there were reports of soldiers empting rifles into charging moros and not stopping them) The soldiers made poor man’s dum-dums by pulling the bullets from the issue rounds and putting them in backwards. The .45 worked better but it still had failures to stop in that theater.  The Winchester M 1893 pump shotgun and its later stable mate the M1987 pump got their “baptism of fire” in that theater. They were the only thing that would reliably stop a charging Moro at close range.

    #11512
    Profile photo of jeepboy1991
    jeepboy1991
    Survivalist
    member1

    Darn, forgot to put this in the original post. About the .30 carbine, it was designed to replace the pistol for truck drivers, tank crews, engineers, radio operators, machine gun crewmen, and other troops who needed a weapon but didn’t need a full sized rifle. Pistols are an extreme close range weapon for a battlefield soldier, are difficult to shoot accurately unless you have a lot of training and practice.

    Plus pistols were still in somewhat short supply and there was some reserve capacity in the production lines that was not being used for rifles. Winchester produced the design that won the trials for the “light rifle”. It was designed to weigh half as much as the issue rifle and have an effective range of 300 yards. It was really more of a 100 to 200 yard weapon and was effective in its designed role. When used as a primary weapon, it didn’t fare as well.  It’s reported failures to stop attackers began in the winters in the European theater and later in the Korean war against the heavy quilted uniforms of the Chinese.

    It was superior to the weapons it replaced( the Thompson SMG (11 pounds empty) and the pistol) for line of support troops.

    #11514
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    The M1897… the old thumb buster.

    Owned one for about a month. Loved how badassed it looked, but yeah, it tore up my thumb something fierce. I don’t “do” guns that make you bleed just by using them. Still, your post backs up my advocating the 12 gauge.

    Knew about the Moro/drug thing. The binding thing, not so much. If memory serves, the 38 Spl was also originally a BP round.

    Thanks for the clarification on the other stuff, jeep…

    @ nighthawk

    You’re putting me in a bad place… :)

    On one hand, I got my old man – a Korean War combat vet – telling me the M1 was reviled, replaced at the first opportunity… on the other, I got a Nam vet for whom I got nothing but respect telling me the exact opposite… that it was good stuff – better than the XM16E1’s…

    What to do… what to do??

    Screw it. Carry a shotgun. :)

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #11517
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    There you go Malgus you sound like me! Carry a shotgun.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 85 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.