View Full Version : Internet Gun Forum TRUTHS...
1. The 5.56 round is safer to fire indoors than the 9mm. This is because the 5.56mm will reliably fragment (and thus not penetrate) when it comes into contact with common building materials such as drywall and 2x4 wall studs which the 9mm will penetrate. This is also why pistol ranges with backstops specifically designed to contain not only the 9mm round but the .357 and .44 magnum rounds cannot stop a 5.56 round. So while it is perfectly safe to fire a 5.56 round in your living room without concern of penetration, you should never fire the same round in a pistol range.
2. The 1911 which is a single action, external hammer, .45 semi automatic handgun made of steel and available in capacities up to 13+1 and possessing an excellent trigger is obsolete because Glock made a single action, hammerless, .45 semi automatic handgun made of polymer with a magazine capacity of 13+1 with an inferior trigger.
3. Exotic European rifles such as the HK91/G3 and Steyr AUG have horrible triggers which render the firearm useless and impractical but former Warsaw pact weapons such as the SKS, AK-47 and AKM (even 922r rebuilds done by CAI) are capable of sub MOA accuracy even with cheap Chinese $40 scopes.
4. Revolvers which hold 5 to 6 rounds of .38 or .357 are not a practical CCW weapon and you should get something along the lines of a Glock 36 which holds 6+1 rounds of .45 in a handgun of similar size and weight. The absolute reliability of a revolver vs. an auto and the superiority of the .357 magnum round to the .45 simply do not offset the advantage of that extra round in the Glock. This is because in most defensive encounters only 2 to 4 shots are fired.
5. You should always give a female whose firearm experience is limited to .22 handguns and rifles a 12 ga. shotgun to defend herself. Not only is aiming not required, the dramatic muzzle blast and recoil will terrify her into a state of firearms competency which will allow her to prevail against armed intruders. 3" magnum buck or slugs are especially recommended for novice shooters and children. This is assuming a Desert Eagle is not available.
6. You will always have adequate warning of potential danger and plenty of time to retrieve your defensive firearm from a locked safe, load it and turn on your lights, red dots and other gizmos. Armed home invaders who mean you harm are always honorable and courteous in this fashion.
7. Despite the fact that an attacker has his gun out and pointed at you, you will still have plenty of time to pull up your shirt and draw from a tucked, IWB holster and fire the first shot. And you will always have both hands available to you in order to access your weapon from deep cover concealment. Concealment considerations should ALWAYS take priority over reasonable access of your personal defensive firearm. This is why plain clothes police always keep their firearms in difficult to access carry platforms.
8. There is such a thing as too much gun. It is wrong to take unfair advantage of criminals and home invaders by using superior weapons in more effective chambering and/or greater magazine capacities. You should always strive to be on equal footing with those who intend to harm you or your family. If you are a very good person you will even use a less effective means of defense than your attacker. This will demonstrate to juries what a "good guy" you are and this is always the most important consideration when fighting for your life or the lives of your family.
9. Proficiency with a wide variety of firearms should be avoided. It is preferable to have knowledge of only a single firearm and remain ignorant of other firearms, their function, capabilities and and performance characteristics. You have your one gun, you'll never be in any kind of defensive scenario where you need to know anything else.
thopkins22
08-08-10, 20:30
Number 1 just happens to be true away from the internet too.
Bullets don't behave the same way when they hit drywall and 2x4's as they do when they hit steel plate.
The internet truth isn't that 5.56 bullets don't penetrate drywall. They're just left with less lethality on the other end, whereas pistol bullets tend to cruise on through.
Granted, I've never shot a person through drywall...but I've read some pretty convincing data.
Number 1 just happens to be true away from the internet too.
Bullets don't behave the same way when they hit drywall and 2x4's as they do when they hit steel plate.
The internet truth isn't that 5.56 bullets don't penetrate drywall. They're just left with less lethality on the other end, whereas pistol bullets tend to cruise on through.
Granted, I've never shot a person through drywall...but I've read some pretty convincing data.
And that is why my pistol club is installing drywall so we can shoot 5.56mm.
:D
I don't mean to be intentionally dismissive. It's just that I remember training with some LFI guys who stressed cover vs. concealment and that ducking behind the corner of your average interior wall is not cover.
They went so far as to construct a corner wall (two short walls coming together) behind which they mostly concealed a steel target. Shooters then practiced shooting the "mostly concealed" target through the drywall corner.
Not once did 9mm or .223 fail to penetrate all the way through both sheets of drywall and hit the steel target behind it. Several rounds of both gouged out big chunks of 2x4 as well before striking the steel target.
And IF .223 did reliably fragment on drywall I'd seriously not want to use it because a bad guy IS gonna duck behind the corner and I still want to be able to shoot him.
Now I believe it "can" happen, I've even seen 9mm fragment from time to time. I just don't think either do it automatically or reliably.
I personally think the FBI "materials test" was set up to produce a specific set of results that would allow them to transition to a rifle caliber carbine that they wanted in the first place.
Littlelebowski
08-08-10, 23:02
I don't think that revolvers are more reliable than semi autos.
And that is why my pistol club is installing drywall so we can shoot 5.56mm.
:D
I don't mean to be intentionally dismissive. It's just that I remember training with some LFI guys who stressed cover vs. concealment and that ducking behind the corner of your average interior wall is not cover.
They went so far as to construct a corner wall (two short walls coming together) behind which they mostly concealed a steel target. Shooters then practiced shooting the "mostly concealed" target through the drywall corner.
Not once did 9mm or .223 fail to penetrate all the way through both sheets of drywall and hit the steel target behind it. Several rounds of both gouged out big chunks of 2x4 as well before striking the steel target.
And IF .223 did reliably fragment on drywall I'd seriously not want to use it because a bad guy IS gonna duck behind the corner and I still want to be able to shoot him.
Now I believe it "can" happen, I've even seen 9mm fragment from time to time. I just don't think either do it automatically or reliably.
I personally think the FBI "materials test" was set up to produce a specific set of results that would allow them to transition to a rifle caliber carbine that they wanted in the first place.
I think that's kind of missing the point.
If you take multiple layers of of these types of materials and place them at varying distances from each other(like what would be found in a typical home/building) and fire through them into ballistic gel...That's when the differences become apparent.
At least that's my impression.
A layer or two(in close proximity) of drywall won't stop a high heel at woman scorned velocity.
I think that's kind of missing the point.
If you take multiple layers of of these types of materials and place them at varying distances from each other(like what would be found in a typical home/building) and fire through them into ballistic gel...That's when the differences become apparent.
At least that's my impression.
A layer or two(in close proximity) of drywall won't stop a high heel at woman scorned velocity.
The last part is the issue I was addressing. There are some Kool Aid drinkers out there who swear 5.56 will always fragment upon contact with drywall, 2x4s and even sliding glass doors under the right conditions. Shooting 9mm indoors will always kill the neighbors cat and the friction of it penetrating walls will burn your home down.
I don't think that revolvers are more reliable than semi autos.
I do to the extent that you won't likely see a FTF to the same degree as a small frame auto. Especially in the context of sub compact carry guns.
How the hell did you miss AK's never break, I mean they can be rusted shut, kicked open and empty a mag with out a hiccup. Of course those of us who have had AK's **** up are full of shit.
How the hell did you miss AK's never break, I mean they can be rusted shut, kicked open and empty a mag with out a hiccup. Of course those of us who have had AK's **** up are full of shit.
Because AKs never break. Didn't you see Tales of the Gun? The guy from Jane's covered all this.
:D
The military tested a variety of rounds on common structural materials a few years ago, 5.56 performed worse than 9mm, which was 2nd worse. If 5.56 was completely safe, it wouldn't kill anyone.
Ironically the original reason for teflon coated rounds was to reduce ricochets off of harder surfaces at an angle. IE continue flight through the car door and hit the badguy. Older police officers have told me that .45 ACP (and some other rounds) were more prone to this phenomenon due to a combination of low velocity and bullet shape.
thopkins22
08-09-10, 00:41
Jerm made my point better than I did.
Because AKs never break. Didn't you see Tales of the Gun? The guy from Jane's covered all this.
:D
Dude. They're cleaned with used motor oil and shoelaces. The barrel can even be straightened with a sledgehammer.
jklaughrey
08-09-10, 03:20
Well it would appear that since AK's are cleaned with motor oil, I need one of those instead of an AR and all the expensive lubes, solvents, and cleaning supplies. Anyone have a Chicom AK for sale!
Dude, get a SLR-107, SLR-107 or SGL-31, you'll be pleased. Everybody should own an AK and an HK for a time, at least you get used to firing, tinkering and maintaining them. Never been a better time to get a kick-ass AK for a good price.
Let me just say this about AK maintenance, or the lack there of. If you could get away with treating an AR like people do an AK, nobody would clean AR's either.
jklaughrey
08-09-10, 03:57
I will look into getting one. It might be nice to throw it around like the SKS I got for my son.
John_Wayne777
08-09-10, 07:05
1. The 5.56 round is safer to fire indoors than the 9mm. This is because the 5.56mm will reliably fragment (and thus not penetrate) when it comes into contact with common building materials such as drywall and 2x4 wall studs which the 9mm will penetrate.
With the right load selection the 5.56 absolutely can have fewer penetration worries than even pistol rounds.
2. The 1911 which is a single action, external hammer, .45 semi automatic handgun made of steel and available in capacities up to 13+1 and possessing an excellent trigger is obsolete because Glock made a single action, hammerless, .45 semi automatic handgun made of polymer with a magazine capacity of 13+1 with an inferior trigger.
Firstly, there aren't a lot of 13+1 capacity 1911's that work worth a damn. And yes, the 1911 is kind of obsolete. I love them as much as anyone, but we live in a Glock world now. It is not going to become more favorable to the 1911 over time. Quite the opposite.
4. Revolvers which hold 5 to 6 rounds of .38 or .357 are not a practical CCW weapon and you should get something along the lines of a Glock 36 which holds 6+1 rounds of .45 in a handgun of similar size and weight.
...but with a much different profile that makes the weapon easier to conceal...and with the potential for much faster and more trouble free reloads.
7. Despite the fact that an attacker has his gun out and pointed at you, you will still have plenty of time to pull up your shirt and draw from a tucked, IWB holster and fire the first shot.
Perhaps not...but drawing and getting lead on the bad guy is a vastly superior plan to standing there with your dick in your hand.
9. Proficiency with a wide variety of firearms should be avoided. It is preferable to have knowledge of only a single firearm and remain ignorant of other firearms, their function, capabilities and and performance characteristics. You have your one gun, you'll never be in any kind of defensive scenario where you need to know anything else.
"Proficiency" with a wide variety of firearms is going to depend on how you define "proficiency". If you define it as being able to pick up a weapon and make it go boom with some minimal level of accuracy, then yes...you can be "proficient" with a wide variety of firearms. If by "proficiency" you mean actually being good, then unless you have a lot of time and ammo you aren't going to be terribly "proficient" with a wide variety of firearms.
Rather than waste a bunch of time and money trying to learn guns that you don't carry, it's best to spend the majority of your time on the gun you will actually be using when things go sideways on you. If time and money are unlimited resources for you then by all means become proficient with as many different firearms as possible. After all, who is to say that you'll never need to use a Walker Colt to defend yourself?
There are some grains of truth underlying some of those items. Those on gun forums may not always fully understand why they are true, but that doesn't change the objective reality.
I follow you up until this statement:
I personally think the FBI "materials test" was set up to produce a specific set of results that would allow them to transition to a rifle caliber carbine that they wanted in the first place.
What do you mean by that?
I personally think the FBI "materials test" was set up to produce a specific set of results that would allow them to transition to a rifle caliber carbine that they wanted in the first place.
For the life of me I cannot remember what particular load they used.
I remember when it first came out, I believe the test came from some Police agency in AZ and they used a 40 grain Blitz HP (assuming I remember the name of the round correctly). I am not sure if this round is available anymore, and even if it was, it seems way too light for a 1 in 7 twist rifling to the point that it might leave the muzzle shredded or having the core separate or something.
On the other extreme, I have personally put an M855 round through both sides of a cinderblock at about 25 feet (penetrating the hollow part, not through a cross section. Buckshot might have penetrated this if it was in a clump after it was just fired, but I don't think it would after it had spread out.
I am currently loaded with 75 grain TAP loads for their terminal effects. I imagine that the heavier load, with its tendency to become unstable, would be more likely to do so in building materials.
With the right load selection the 5.56 absolutely can have fewer penetration worries than even pistol rounds.
Again, I was addressing the popular belief that 5.56 instantly fragments upon first contact with drywall. It doesn't.
Firstly, there aren't a lot of 13+1 capacity 1911's that work worth a damn. And yes, the 1911 is kind of obsolete. I love them as much as anyone, but we live in a Glock world now. It is not going to become more favorable to the 1911 over time. Quite the opposite.
My P13 is reliable as any other 1911. I love my Glocks, doesn't make my P13 work less reliably however.
...but with a much different profile that makes the weapon easier to conceal...and with the potential for much faster and more trouble free reloads.
Again, I was addressing the notion that for regular CCW one is suitable and one is not.
Perhaps not...but drawing and getting lead on the bad guy is a vastly superior plan to standing there with your dick in your hand.
Not sure what that has to do with concealing so effectively you have difficulty accessing your weapon.
"Proficiency" with a wide variety of firearms is going to depend on how you define "proficiency". If you define it as being able to pick up a weapon and make it go boom with some minimal level of accuracy, then yes...you can be "proficient" with a wide variety of firearms. If by "proficiency" you mean actually being good, then unless you have a lot of time and ammo you aren't going to be terribly "proficient" with a wide variety of firearms.
Rather than waste a bunch of time and money trying to learn guns that you don't carry, it's best to spend the majority of your time on the gun you will actually be using when things go sideways on you. If time and money are unlimited resources for you then by all means become proficient with as many different firearms as possible. After all, who is to say that you'll never need to use a Walker Colt to defend yourself?
Well that isn't quite what I said either.
There are some grains of truth underlying some of those items. Those on gun forums may not always fully understand why they are true, but that doesn't change the objective reality.
Well sure, if you are willing the change the context from which they were offered.
thopkins22
08-09-10, 12:05
Again, I was addressing the popular belief that 5.56 instantly fragments upon first contact with drywall. It doesn't.
:agree:We're in agreement on that. I don't think anyone here has said that it does. I spend very little time on other gun forums so I'm not sure what's out there.
Not sure what that has to do with concealing so effectively you have difficulty accessing your weapon.
But some of us don't exist in environments where our shirts can always be untucked. Which kind of narrows the options down pretty quickly. At some point is a gun that's a few seconds away better than the one that's 15 miles away at home?
"Proficiency" with a wide variety of firearms is going to depend on how you define "proficiency". If you define it as being able to pick up a weapon and make it go boom with some minimal level of accuracy, then yes...you can be "proficient" with a wide variety of firearms. If by "proficiency" you mean actually being good, then unless you have a lot of time and ammo you aren't going to be terribly "proficient" with a wide variety of firearms.
Rather than waste a bunch of time and money trying to learn guns that you don't carry, it's best to spend the majority of your time on the gun you will actually be using when things go sideways on you. If time and money are unlimited resources for you then by all means become proficient with as many different firearms as possible. After all, who is to say that you'll never need to use a Walker Colt to defend yourself?
Good points. Having a general knowledge of the operations of other firearms is fine. In fact SOCOM trains in a wide variety of military firearms dating back to WWI to ensure that the operator can utilize battlefield equipment. However, gaining proficiency with various makes and models and acquiring some level of muscle memory is a waste of training much of the time. You will be a FAR better gun fighter if you devote the time you spend training on "other" firearms on your particular firearm of choice and mastering that.
"Fear the man who has only one gun.......he will know how to use it."
Lastly, there is no cut and dry, black and white, 1+1=2 answer to ideal equipment selection or ideal tactics. There are infinite scenarios and each requires a balancing of equipment needs to meet them. It really boils down to your ability use common sense and come up with a realistic interpretation of how you should handle each day that you go about your business.
And that is why my pistol club is installing drywall so we can shoot 5.56mm.
:D
I don't mean to be intentionally dismissive. It's just that I remember training with some LFI guys who stressed cover vs. concealment and that ducking behind the corner of your average interior wall is not cover.
They went so far as to construct a corner wall (two short walls coming together) behind which they mostly concealed a steel target. Shooters then practiced shooting the "mostly concealed" target through the drywall corner.
Not once did 9mm or .223 fail to penetrate all the way through both sheets of drywall and hit the steel target behind it. Several rounds of both gouged out big chunks of 2x4 as well before striking the steel target.
And IF .223 did reliably fragment on drywall I'd seriously not want to use it because a bad guy IS gonna duck behind the corner and I still want to be able to shoot him.
Now I believe it "can" happen, I've even seen 9mm fragment from time to time. I just don't think either do it automatically or reliably.
I personally think the FBI "materials test" was set up to produce a specific set of results that would allow them to transition to a rifle caliber carbine that they wanted in the first place.
I don't think anyone believes that .223/5.56 fragments within the first two layers of dry wall.
If you look at the below chart, 77gr ammo starts to fragment in under 9 inches.
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/postimages/40052-MilitaryAssaultRifleWPcopy.jpg
If you look at this below chart, you will notice that 9mm NEVER fragments and penetrates well over 12 inches. So the question you have to ask is if it safer to hit a friendly with a PIECE of a 55, 75 or 77gr bullet or a solid 115, 124 or 147gr bullet? The answer is pretty simple to me and is why most EVERY SWAT team across the country has gotten away from MP5's, Subguns, etc.
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/HomecarbineWP.jpg?t=1232698319
C4
Well sure, if you are willing the change the context from which they were offered.
I fail to see why that is such a problem. It's not as if there is some monolithic internet firearms forum constituency that universally subscribes to the points listed in the OP as described (quite the contrary in fact, particularly here). And that's not even mentioning the fact that some of these points are intentionally left without the context that usually clarifies the opinion in order to make the intended point (for example, JW's elaboration on point 4 to discuss the geometry of the particular firearms mentioned with respect to concealability of a thin semi-auto compared to a similar overall size and weight wheelgun).
CarlosDJackal
08-09-10, 12:47
The last part is the issue I was addressing. There are some Kool Aid drinkers out there who swear 5.56 will always fragment upon contact with drywall, 2x4s and even sliding glass doors under the right conditions. Shooting 9mm indoors will always kill the neighbors cat and the friction of it penetrating walls will burn your home down.
Just like some swear that their favorite brand of firearms could not possibly fail because they had absolutely no problem with the first 20-rounds they put through them. Some even swear to the fact that just because their firearms bear certain letters or names that they are perfect the way they are and can never malfunction.
In general and based on ACTUAL TESTING and ACTUAL INCIDENTS, pistols and pistol-caliber subguns tend to perforate more interior walls than .223/5.56 bullets. But just like anything, this is situation dependent.
I have also seen .223/5.56 bullets punch right through steel that a .308/7.62 would not. But that doesn't mean it happens in every instance against every sampling of steel.
Littlelebowski
08-09-10, 13:12
My P13 is reliable as any other 1911. I love my Glocks, doesn't make my P13 work less reliably however.
I've seen a few of those things fail and heard quite a few similar reports. My brother has one - the finish is air soluble and the weapon needed lots of tuning.
I've seen a few of those things fail and heard quite a few similar reports. My brother has one - the finish is air soluble and the weapon needed lots of tuning.
Maybe I got lucky, I polished the feed ramp on mine and it's been failure free for about 10 years.
Littlelebowski
08-09-10, 13:44
Yeah, it certainly seems to be a trend with these guns but I could be wrong. I know that my brother went through all hell with his.
I fail to see why that is such a problem. It's not as if there is some monolithic internet firearms forum constituency that universally subscribes to the points listed in the OP as described (quite the contrary in fact, particularly here). And that's not even mentioning the fact that some of these points are intentionally left without the context that usually clarifies the opinion in order to make the intended point (for example, JW's elaboration on point 4 to discuss the geometry of the particular firearms mentioned with respect to concealability of a thin semi-auto compared to a similar overall size and weight wheelgun).
Actually a LOT of communities have sacred cows and kool aid. That is one of the reasons this forum exists.
Yeah, it certainly seems to be a trend with these guns but I could be wrong. I know that my brother went through all hell with his.
Wouldn't be the first time I saw a picky 1911 with issues. I'm sure if I tried to feed mine wadcutters or certain reloads I could make it choke.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.