Most annoying Gun Myths


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

FilJos
October 8, 2006, 01:16 AM
So there I was at a Cabela's today and I overheard several conversations that just made me grind my teeth in frustration. My favorite was the skinny little girl who was looking for something for home protection, but didn't know what she wanted, but claimed to be a firearms expert because "I was in the military. As a matter of fact, I was a gunner."

The salesman then decided to show her a pump action shotgun that I did not see, I only heard the ensuing conversation.

Shotgun: "Ch-Chunk"

Salesman: "Hear that? That's all you need. If someone breaks into your house and they hear that you won't even have to fire a shot."

I think that advice is, at best, gross negligence. This is one of my most hated gun myths or pop-culture confusions. What Gun Shop myths have you overheard that make you want to...:banghead:?

If you enjoyed reading about "Most annoying Gun Myths" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Huddog
October 8, 2006, 01:20 AM
Back in the LEO days, I constantly heard the story about how an officer ch-chunked one time upon entering an unlawfully entered building and the BG called out "I give up" and came out of hiding. But I certainly would not count on it. Never did find out who said officer actually was.

I hate that one and the one about a .45 in the shoulder either spinning someone around as they die or blowing their arm off. This one has kind of disappeared but occassionally you still hear it.

NailGun
October 8, 2006, 01:22 AM
My favorite: "That old 30-30 is obsolete, I don't understand why you even carry it. It couldn't knock down a deer at 50 yards. You NEED a .300 Mag. for deer!!!"
I'm betting you have heard that too.

Geronimo45
October 8, 2006, 01:22 AM
Geneva convention and hollow points.

History Prof
October 8, 2006, 01:37 AM
Not so much a myth, but I've seen at least two cop shows over the past ten years or so where SWAT shot the gun out of a bad guy's hand. If they keep that up, lib-idiots will expect all police to "aim for the gun hand." Afterall, that's how the Late, Great John Wayne used to do it! No reason to be killing that gun-toting bad buy, now, is there?:barf:

Wesker
October 8, 2006, 01:38 AM
^^^^^

While we're at it, flamethrowers.

So I can blow your stomach onto the ground with a shotgun but I can't kill you with liquid fire?

crunker
October 8, 2006, 01:39 AM
My favorite not true gun myth is that hollowpoints are cop-killer bullets that are deadlier than normal FMJs.

lionking
October 8, 2006, 01:42 AM
that the 2nd amendment is for the national guard and not for the rights of the individual.

actually I think that would be considered more of a lie than a myth.

Limeyfellow
October 8, 2006, 01:46 AM
My favorite: "That old 30-30 is obsolete, I don't understand why you even carry it. It couldn't knock down a deer at 50 yards. You NEED a .300 Mag. for deer!!!"
I'm betting you have heard that too.

Ain't that the truth. They tried that to my cousin and said you couldn't hit anything at a 100 yards with a 30-30 round and needed one of their fancy high calibre rifles. So he bet them all $20 he could hit a target at that distance and did so through the old iron sights and took $140 of them. They then cried when they tried and somehow didn't know their scopes had been set to 400 yards and were all hitting above the target. That seems to happen alot it seems around the country.

Axman
October 8, 2006, 01:49 AM
Any Hollywood stunt that depicts guns defying the laws of physics. Like firing a rifle at a car and the hood flying open. My favorite is the A-Team shooting at a Jeep causing it to veer off the road and spiral over a convenient mount of dirt that is suspiciously ramp-like in appearance.

Erebus
October 8, 2006, 01:55 AM
"Guns kill people" - Hands down the most annoying

FilJos
October 8, 2006, 01:58 AM
My favorite: "That old 30-30 is obsolete, I don't understand why you even carry it. It couldn't knock down a deer at 50 yards. You NEED a .300 Mag. for deer!!!"
I'm betting you have heard that too.

I heard one similar at a Gander Mountain.

Guy asks, "Which rifle should I buy, a 30-06, or a .300WSM?"

Salesman, "Oh, absolutley buy the .300."

Guy, "Why, what's the diff?"

Salesman, "Well, its more."

Guy, "What do you mean more? Is it bigger?"

Salesman, "No they are the same caliber, its just more."

:rolleyes:

dasmi
October 8, 2006, 02:02 AM
Glocks can be snuck through metal detectors because they are plastic.

bouis
October 8, 2006, 02:06 AM
"Use a shotgun. You can't miss."

btsyshsbnd
October 8, 2006, 02:09 AM
I don't know if the ch chunk would work every time but I do know it worked when someone was trying to come in my house. As my brother put it the bg instinctivly knew he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and fled. the cops picked him up a few blocks away and he was outraged that they wouldn't arrest me for "trying to kill him"

plexreticle
October 8, 2006, 02:17 AM
.45 will blow a man off his feet

Semi Auto spraying bullets

Too many to even mention about shotguns.

Pretty much everything on TV and in the movies about guns

Erebus
October 8, 2006, 02:32 AM
Shooting a car anywhere behind the doors with a rifle or handgun will cause the gas tank to explode and send the car flipping through the air.

A bullet in the radiator stops a car almost instantly.

5 bad guys can spray down a 5 foot alley with full autos, miss everything and the hero spins around with a handgun and 5 shots later the bad guys are all dead.

"If you get shot in the hand with a .357 Magnum or .44 Magnum it will tear your whole arm off at the shoulder." - Heard this one more than once

"An M16 can hit you in the foot and come out the back of your neck because the bullet is designed to tumble."

Zen21Tao
October 8, 2006, 02:37 AM
One of my biggest gun pet pieves is the way sales people in gunstores think they know more about guns than every customer they have just because they work behind a counter.

For example, I was in a local gunstore looking for Lake City Federal ammo the other day. I had called the day earlier and talked with a female emplyee that gave me a price on some they had in stock. When I went in that day to get it I had 2 sales people swear up and down to me that Federal XM 193 is NOT made in Lake City. There is a town named Lake City just 45 miles North of the Gainesville area. I tried to explain to them that it was Lake City Missori I was talking about. I even went as far as to show them the LC headstamp. But no, they are the gun experts not me. :banghead:

Snowdog
October 8, 2006, 03:49 AM
Any coating, whether Lubalux, Nylon or Moly being inevitably referred to as Teflon and undoubtedly added to help defeat LEO body armor.
This myth really gets me steamed as it's the epitome of mindless "aping".

Speaking of coatings, some of our own, perhaps even some here, are still under the assumption that Winchester's black-Lubalux-coated Black Talon was pull from the civilian market by the Federal Government. Nope, not even close.
It was a decision by Winchester to protect their image and silience the mouth-foaming mindless morons who continuously described Black Talons as "PTFE-clad-cop-killers".

Depending on one's locale, there may be State or municipal statutes banning them from civilian use, but folks... the Feds never pulled Black Talons from the shelves, there are no Federal laws banning the sale, use or ownership of Winchester Black Talons and the "Law Enforcement Only" inclusion on boxes of Winchester Rangers is corporate policy only to satisfy the rabid bug-nut antis.

Zedicus
October 8, 2006, 04:25 AM
Here's a list of Myths & just plain old Annoyances


Annoyances:

Gun-shop Bubas.
"Mags" being called "Clips".
1000 Rounds is a "Lot" of Ammo. (then why dosn't it last longer than it does?)
Simi-Auto's being misrepresented as Full-Auto's. (IE the Brady camp & VPC)
The 9mm vs .45 "my cal is better than yours" war...
People who think all newbies can only start out with .22's.
Anyone who thinks the Tec 9 is even a marginally good gun. (A steaming pile of dog crap is more dangerous)
Gun-shop "you don't want that, you can't shoot skeet with it" bozos.
Any round capable of penetrating crappy LEO body armor being called a "Cop Killer" Round.:barf:


Myths:

Shooting to wound.
You can't Hunt with a .223.
1000 Rounds is "allot" Of Ammo.
The Infamous "Porcelain" glock. :rolleyes:
Teflon Coated "Cop Killer" Bullets.
Guns that Shoot people all on their own.:rolleyes:
Claims that .50 BMG rifles are Anti-Tank Rifles.
Claims that a .50 BMG rifle can shoot down an airliner.
Claims that a .50 BMG round can kill you even if it misses you.:rolleyes: (& I got a bridge I can sell ya on mars)
Claims that the .44 Magnum can "Blow a mans head Clean off".:rolleyes:
Claims that Gang-bangers can hit anything shooting a pistol sideways.
Claims that AK's & AR15's can be shot from the Hip with 100% accuracy.
Claims that Gun owners go around shooting people for little or no reason.:barf:
"Sniper Rifles" that can kill people from several Miles away and never miss.
Claims that the 2nd Amendment is only about Hunting or shooting Skeet.


I could go on for hours/pages.....

mike101
October 8, 2006, 08:23 AM
I'll second what lionking said, about the Second Ammendment not applying to individuals. :banghead:

Glockfan.45
October 8, 2006, 08:41 AM
That the .223/5.56 round was adopted to wound not kill the enemy so their fellow soldiers would be slowed down by caring for their wounded.

That the .223 can go in your toe and come out of your head.

That the Geneva convention states you cant target personell with a .50BMG round, but it is ok to aim at the enemies helmets, belt buckle, etc.

Anything about shotguns, but my biggest gripe with then is people claiming you dont need to aim with one.

The media calling semi-automatics "automatic" just to put fear in the hearts of sheeple everywhere.

People who think the 2nd Ammendment has anything to do with hunting, or that it only grants the right to arms to the National Guard......which last time I checked wasnt a "Militia".

That pistol grips make a rifle more dangerous because they make shooting from the hip easy, and we all know how accurate that is.

That bayonete lugs make a rifle more deadly, and banning guns with them would put a stop to all the drive by bayonetings.

I will stop here but I could go on :banghead:

Molon Labe
October 8, 2006, 08:48 AM
Some of these have already been alluded to:

- "A bullet (shot from a gun) can knock someone off their feet." (No true.)

- "The bullet's kinetic energy equals the recoil energy." (No true.)

- Anyone who mutters "hydrostatic shock" or "energy dumping" doesn't know what they're talking about.

- "Militias are full of crazy, toothless, right-wing rednecks bent on overthrowing the government." (Not true. I'm a member of one.)

- "The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms." (No it doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms existed long before our Constitution was ever conceived.)

- "Full-auto weapons are illegal for civilians to own." (Not true.)

- "For handguns rounds, bullet expansion is the most important factor when it comes to lethality." (Not true. Depth of penetration is the most important factor.)

- "The Glock doesn't have a safety." (Not true. Anyone who claims this doesn't understand the purpose of a safety.)

- "A handgun must be pointed, not aimed." (Not true. Unless the target is extremely close, the sights should be used.)


And then there are annoyances, like:

- Calling a magazine a "clip".

- Referring to cartridges as "bullets." (Example: "I'm going to load bullets into the gun.")

- Referring to a semi-auto rifle w/ pistol grip & detachable magazine as an "assault rifle." (An assault rifle is a select-fire weapon. What they mean is an assault weapon. But I don't even like that term, as it was invented by antis. I prefer "Homeland Defense Rifle".)

Lone_Gunman
October 8, 2006, 08:49 AM
Gun-shop Bubas.

I am annoyed by people who can't spell Bubba.

mnrivrat
October 8, 2006, 09:10 AM
I was watching a TV show last night which was about a self defense shooting that happened on a hiking trail in AZ? I didn't catch the whole thing.

The shooter was convicted of 2nd degree murder, but one of the things that struck me is the interview with a couple of the people on the jury.

The women brought up that old crap about the shooter using "hollow points" . She apparently bought into the portrail that anyone who used hollow points were just out to kill someone.(the myth)

This is a dangerous mind set to face for all of us who believe in self defense and I wondered why the defense failed to dispense this idea in the minds of the jury.

Maybe I am incorrect but don't many LEO's carry hollow point ammo in their duty guns ? Wouln't it be somewhat effective to get an LEO on the stand in such cases and ask him why they carry hollow points ? I get the impression most defense attorneys are gun dumb and do not prepare a proper response to such crap.

Not sure what this jurer expected people to save their lives with when it comes to having to shoot somebody - maybe she thinks there are nurf bullets that are effective ?

razorburn
October 8, 2006, 09:15 AM
"The bulletís kinetic energy equals the recoil energy." (No true.)

almost true. Some of the energy is soaked up by the guns action if it's semi-auto, some is lost as heat. But still, laws of physics, equal and opposite.

The Lone Haranguer
October 8, 2006, 09:25 AM
"A .22" -- rimfire -- "is deadly because the little bullet bounces around inside you and tears you up."
:scrutiny:

stephen m
October 8, 2006, 09:29 AM
Glock 7's are made to defeat metal detectors (no such thing), Podbyran?

(again, no such thing) is the most powerful handgun made. That a Desert

Eagle is a good carry gun. Basically anything that comes out of a movie or

video game that is taken as the truth / real training.

That my Ar-15 is an assualt rifle, and that it is 'more deadly' than my 30-06

hunting rifle. That self loaders are automatics.

That anitis have a legitiment point or know anything about

firearms! :banghead:

Fly320s
October 8, 2006, 09:56 AM
Myth: A gun will save your life.

Fact: Having a proper mindset will save your life; a gun is just a helpful tool.

YodaVader
October 8, 2006, 10:23 AM
Looking at a 26" Barreled Rem 700VLS in .223 at Gander Mountain one day. Mention that I own a 20" 700 LTR also in .223.

"Oh, this 26" 700 will give you better accuracy" The old - the longer the barrel on the rifle , the more accurate the rifle syndrome.

Rembrandt
October 8, 2006, 10:47 AM
(Gun shop) "Yep, the Remington Etronix concept is the future....within 10 years all new guns will be using this type of ammo."

wuchak
October 8, 2006, 10:50 AM
Leaving your magazine loaded will wear out the spring.

Brother in Arms
October 8, 2006, 11:12 AM
apparently my freind said he overheard a guy talking smack about AK's. How they are pieces of Junk and within 40 rounds they will explode. My friend was pretty irate about this I guess he did the best to counter this man's opinion but he said I should go his work and disprove him of this opinion. knowing how difficult it is to convince someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I said why don't you take him shooting.

Brother in Arms

EvisceratorSrB
October 8, 2006, 11:30 AM
I'm surprised no one mentioned this before.

The "A shotgun can't kill anything 20 ft from it..."

My medium choke can probably kill someone at 20 ft, but a tighter choke would definitely be plenty of range capability for 20ft+

Molon Labe
October 8, 2006, 11:41 AM
almost true. Some of the energy is soaked up by the guns action if it's semi-auto, some is lost as heat. But still, laws of physics, equal and opposite.Nope.

A bullet has a lot more kinetic energy than the kinetic energy of recoil. As an example, a .308 bullet has about 400 times the kinetic energy as the energy of recoil for a typical .308 rifle.

LkWinnipesaukee
October 8, 2006, 11:50 AM
- "The bullet's kinetic energy equals the recoil energy."


Isnt this true?

Newtons 3rd law- For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

edit: just read your above comment

Then where does all the energy go?

22-rimfire
October 8, 2006, 11:54 AM
My most disliked term is "Cop killer bullets."

wuchak
October 8, 2006, 12:01 PM
The bullet's kinetic energy does equal the recoil energy. There's no escaping the laws of physics. The energy that goes into recoil has to overcome the inertia of the firearm which is why heavier guns kick less than lighter ones, is distributed over the entire acceleration time of the bullet leaving the barrel so it does not hit all at once, and is spread over a much larger area.

mio
October 8, 2006, 12:12 PM
Dont know if any of you have heard this before because ive only heard it once and firmly believe its impossible.
I have an old .35 remmington pump that has been passed down a couple times and on occasion i use it for deer hunting if i have a couple days off during the season.
About 6yrs ago i went into the local sporting goods store (small owner works it himself) and asked for a box of shells. He asked why i hunt with a lever action and i told him its for my pump. (dont know why anyone would have a problem hunting with a lever gun) He then went on to explain to me that they have problems with those guns if you fire once they can keep fireing till theyre empty.
I havnt been back to that store since. I now drive 30miles to kmart or 60 to jays sporting goods.

dfaugh
October 8, 2006, 12:25 PM
Black Talons = "cop killers"

And were taken off the market because the government made them "illegal"

slicknickns
October 8, 2006, 12:26 PM
That Glock and beretta make only one model handgun each.

that a beretta 92 is just a beretta

All glocks look the same. That glocks are ****ty and over rated and that only gangbangers carry them.

the .44 mag will stop a car, if shot into the engine block---bull****!

That you must constantly rack the slide to make that sound (funny i never noticed a sound while at the range) I cant even imagine what this would do if there was already a round in the chamber.

That every 9mm carries 16 rounds. Funny, every rap song i hear that talks abot guns talks about carrying 16 rounds, the only gun that i know has a 16 round mag is the CZ.

Manedwolf
October 8, 2006, 12:41 PM
All glocks look the same.

Well. That one's kinda true. To a non-Glock disciple, myself included, they're a black rectangle with another black rectangle at an odd grip angle to it, in various sizes. I certainly can't identify any of them at a glance, nothing distinctive about them at all to me. They're bullet-throwing hand tools. Yeah, they work, but personality, lines? No, they're pretty alike, to me.

grislyatoms
October 8, 2006, 12:59 PM
"Fully automatic .9mm caliber revolver" and the like in news stories.

ID_shooting
October 8, 2006, 01:05 PM
This one annoys me, but since it is only semantics I usually don't voice it. Since we have a thread on what annoys us, here it goes.

"Civillian AKs and ARs are jult like my "whatever" hunting rifle."

Bull pucky! Callit what it is, A BATTLE RIFLE

Civillian AKs and ARs are semi-auto versions of full-auto battle rifles, true. But they ARE battle rifles. The only differnce between my AK and a full AK is two holes in the receiver and the FCG. Should I desire to, I can drill the two holes and drop in a full auto trigger and have a full blown AK. Since I do not like prison, I choose not to. Come TEOTWAWKI, who knows?

In the army, we were trained to use semi mode on our M-16s, if civilian semi only versions weren't effective battle rifles, the Army and USMC would not train to use semi 90% of the time.

Face it, your AR/AK clone with a full capacity mag is just as effective as any M16 or AK you would encounter in Iraq. Calling them "no different than my 30-06" is not true.

Sould the Militia be called forth for combat in the homeland, I will show up with my AK and 7 mags full of ammo. I will not feel under gunned. In fact, I will feel much more ready for battle then hunter Jow who shows up with a semi-auto Remington.

Manedwolf
October 8, 2006, 01:09 PM
Sould the Militia be called forth for combat in the homeland, I will show up with my AK and 7 mags full of ammo. I will not feel under gunned. In fact, I will feel much more ready for battle then hunter Jow who shows up with a semi-auto Remington.

Vs any hostiles who have trained to operate in squads, I'm afraid you'd be target practice like that. In THAT sort of scenario, I think a lifelong hunter with a scoped 30-30 is a lot more dangerous to hostile forces than any semi-trained non-drilled person with one short-range battle rifle. A hunting rifle becomes a sniper rifle when you change what the target is.

A group of trained, well-armed hostiles being successfully put down by civilians with battle rifles is "Red Dawn", sheer Hollywood, to me. But individual hunters taking single extreme-range shots from trees, bushes, houses, one at a time, unplaceable rifle cracks from all around the landscape, that's plausible.

Candiru
October 8, 2006, 01:09 PM
Isnt this true?

Newtons 3rd law- For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

edit: just read your above comment

Then where does all the energy go?


Newton's Laws apply here, but what is conserved is momentum. The momentum of the bullet as it leaves the barrel and the momentum of the recoiling firearm are equal, minus whatever was soaked up by the action. However, momentum is equal to mass times velocity; kinetic energy is equal to one half mass times the velocity squared, so the much higher velocity of the bullet grants it disproportionate kinetic energy, even though the gun is heavier.

Here's an example: Suppose we have a 32 oz. revolver (using a revolver to avoid the issue of a semi-auto action absorbing some momentum) shooting 125-grain projectiles at 1400 fps. To keep the units consistent, let's convert the revolver's weight to grains: 32 oz = 2 lbs x 7000 grains / 1 lb. = 1,400 grains.

First we get the momentum of the projectile:

p = m * v --> p = 125 grains * 1,400 fps --> p = 175,000 grains * ft/sec

Momentum will be equal and opposite, so we plug that into the momentum equation for the gun to get the gun's recoil velcity:

p = m * v --> 175,000 grains * ft/sec = 14,000 grains * v --> 175,000 grains / 14,000 grains = v ft/sec --> v = 12.5 ft/sec

Since we have the masses and velocities of both bullet and gun, we now drop them into the equations for kinetic energy:

KE = 0.5 * m * v^2

KE(bullet) = 0.5 * 125 grains * 1,400^2 ft/sec --> KE(bullet) = 0.5 * 125 grains * 1,960,000 ft/sec = 122,500,000 grains * ft/sec

KE(gun) = 0.5 * 14,000 grains * 12.5^2 ft/sec --> KE(gun) = 0.5 * 14,000 grains * 156.25 ft/sec --> KE(gun) = 1,093,750 grains * ft/sec

Hope that helps clear things up.

Prince Yamato
October 8, 2006, 01:16 PM
You can't hit the broad side of a barn with an AK.

If that's true, then I encourage you to stand 200 yards downrange whence I fire my Maadi. Provided you are still alive, I think your opinion concerning the AK's accuracy will have changed.

SigfanUSAF
October 8, 2006, 01:26 PM
"Fully automatic .9mm caliber revolver" and the like in news stories

Obviously a farce. the Webley Fosbery was only made in .455.
I'm sure a few of the ones in service in 1914/15 had disconnecter parts break, its feasible.:rolleyes:

Deer Hunter
October 8, 2006, 01:30 PM
Every myth mentioned in this thread annoys me, but the one that annoys me the most hasn't been said yet.

"Owning a gun will make someone more prone to violence. School teachers shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun, because they would freak out and blow a small child's brains out."

ID_shooting
October 8, 2006, 01:31 PM
Manedwolf,

For the most part you are correct. I did spend 8 years active duty, trained and practiced in small unit tactics. Should need be, I have no troubles giving a group of civilians a crash course in basic soldiering. Never underestimate the will of an NCO. ;)

Ditchtiger
October 8, 2006, 01:41 PM
Is nobody going to mention what happens if a window gets shot out of an airliner?

Manedwolf
October 8, 2006, 02:17 PM
Oh, yes, that a small bullet hole in a fuselage will depressurize the aircraft. :banghead:

I've explained to so many people that the airsystem outflow is ALREADY a hole in the aircraft that can be closed a bit more to compensate for far more loss, and that the only effect of a bullet hole might be an annoying whistle...until someone stuck something over it.

And the windows are thick Lexan. The inner pane is plastic so the passengers don't scuff it up. But it would not "blow out".

Axman
October 8, 2006, 02:23 PM
Don't forget, the said bullet hole in said aircraft will suck all of the passengers though the hole!

MachIVshooter
October 8, 2006, 02:29 PM
Three of Hollywood's favorites:

1: Automobiles are cover from rifle fire.

2: Handgun rounds will easily penetrate an automobile windshield, incapacitating the driver.

3: Bullets make sparks when they hit steel, concrete or other hard surfaces.

All glocks look the same

They do.

A half-ton Chevy is a half-ton Chevy, whether it is a short bed, long bed, standard, extended or crew cab, 2 or 4 wheel drive. Still the same body style.

carterbeauford
October 8, 2006, 02:41 PM
...the .45 caliber bullet that was designed to tumble end over end, making it more deadly than a spinning bullet. And this came from my dad of all people :scrutiny:

I am not aware of any .45 caliber handgun or long gun made today without a rifled barrel, are you?

Silver Bullet
October 8, 2006, 02:58 PM
"It just went off."

Manedwolf
October 8, 2006, 03:31 PM
3: Bullets make sparks when they hit steel, concrete or other hard surfaces.

That actually came about as a result of expediency and price and dramatic emphasis. They didn't have fancy CG earlier in this century to show bullet hits. The cheapest method was and still is tiny charges called "squibs" that can be hidden on a surface and set off electrically to make it look like some projectile is hitting it.

The same goes for gun sounds. Even now, they use much quieter blanks and fill in the sound later, since obviously, they don't want to ruin the actors' hearing with a load approaching the sound levels of "the real thing"...and the microphones might drop out at the impulse noise anyway.

Plus some rounds just don't sound all that impressive. They're too high in pitch to convey "I'm shooting a gun!" to a lot of the audience. So they use a deeper, more impressive sound, and the ever-present ricochet sound effect.

Hence why people are so surprised they first time they fire a 9mm and it goes POP POP, not BANG BANG. :D

(also why people on the news report that gunfire sounded like firecrackers outside)

wuchak
October 8, 2006, 03:58 PM
Someone who has never picked-up a handgun before can shoot while running, driving a car, riding a motorcycle, etc. and easily hit moving targets.

Someone who is a handgun expert can shoot while running, driving a car, riding a motorcycle, etc. and easily hit moving targets.

If you shoot someone with a shotgun they will fly back 10 feet and be knocked down.

Rifles and shotguns are easy to aim from the hip and this is the preferred shooting method of hunters and solidiers.

All rifles with a scope are "sniper" rifles.

Police are all highly trained expert marksmen.

Anyone who has a passion for football, baseball, basketball, soccer, golf, hockey, NASCAR, etc. is a fan. Anyone with a passion for shooting sports is a "fanatic" and must be slightly unstable to have such interests.

The best way to store your home defense firearm is with the bullets and gun locked in seperate locations with a trigger lock on the gun.

Children cannot be taught to be safe and responsible around firearms because they are especially susceptible to the evil field firearms give off that sucks people in and causes them to become violent.

Karate is a viable defense against a firearm.

Most criminals are just normal people who became criminals due to the influence of guns.

You can discharge a shotgun or .45 inside a house and still hear the slightest sound made 3 rooms away.

Manedwolf
October 8, 2006, 04:01 PM
Anyone who has a passion for football, baseball, basketball, soccer, golf, hockey, NASCAR, etc. is a fan. Anyone with a passion for shooting sports is a "fanatic" and must be slightly unstable to have such interests.

I find that ironic for one simple reason. Fans of the first ones DO NOT DO ANYTHING. They sit on their ever-larger behinds, mostly, shoveling chips in their faces and bellowing at a television. Generally, football fans do not play in games with uniforms. Racing fans do not own a car and race, themselves, even autocross.

Shooting sports enthusiasts are PARTICIPANTS. They go out on a nice day, get outside, and take part in their sport.

Big difference.

Skywarp
October 8, 2006, 04:10 PM
John Moses Browning (God rest his blessed soul) did not design the 1911, God did and handed it down to mankind through the PRophet JMB (God rest his blessed soul) therefore it is blasphemy to consider any other weapon system before the 1911.


Revolvers do not fail

Semi Autos are unreliable.

30-30 bullets are unaffected by brush and leaves

The 30-30 is the most versatile rifle round EVER created

Inertia driven shotguns have to be held very tightly to the body to operate.

A 22 in the hand is better than a 45/9/357/40/10 in the safe.........unless you have a 45/9/357/40/10.

wuchak
October 8, 2006, 04:14 PM
The 30-30 is the most versatile rifle round EVER created

Everyone know the most versatile rifle round is the 30-06.:)

Erebus
October 8, 2006, 04:58 PM
Karate is a viable defense against a firearm. Kung Fu is better because you can pull the slide off a handgun before the shooter can react and pull the trigger.

Of coarse I would like to see them try that with a 1911.

RNB65
October 8, 2006, 05:03 PM
Barratt .50cal rifles should be banned becasue they can be used to shoot down airplanes!

jbharned
October 8, 2006, 05:16 PM
That Glock handguns can pass through metal detectors.

ID_shooting
October 8, 2006, 05:38 PM
3: Bullets make sparks when they hit steel, concrete or other hard surfaces.

Errr, some do. One of the places we shoot has a big pile of bassalt as the backstop. We shoot rifles there. I have seen sprks from inpact on 30-06, .308 and 7.62x39. Non were steel core, all new production Wolf or reloads with Hornady bullets.

Now, copper and lead should not spark, so my guess is that the inpact of the bullet was causing rock fragments to spark off the side of the rock. The point is, make in impressive light show in the late evening.

Snap
October 8, 2006, 06:09 PM
Three pages and not one mention of the classic "Anyone with a gun is compensating for something..." I once heard somebody say that it had been statistically proven that gun owners had smaller penises than the rest of the population. Of course, he made this claim with no evidence whatsoever.

Gun Wielding Maniac
October 8, 2006, 06:20 PM
Now, copper and lead should not spark, so my guess is that the inpact of the bullet was causing rock fragments to spark off the side of the rock. The point is, make in impressive light show in the late evening.

Most of the wolf ammo is bi-metal jacketed. IE, there is some steel in there. Now, they do produce copper jacketed ammo, but it is in the minority.

I've seen showers of sparks when shooting 5.45x39mm Wolf at steel silhouettes at night. Very cool.

Never in the daytime though.

xd9fan
October 8, 2006, 06:25 PM
"No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will."

Jeffery Synder from essay "Nation Of Cowards"

otasan
October 8, 2006, 06:55 PM
I used to hear from various macho men that 5.56mm bullets tumble end-over-end in flight. I would tell them that the thousands of bullet holes I have seen in targets at military ranges employing the 5.56mm, the holes were all quite round.

LOL!

JMusic
October 8, 2006, 07:14 PM
History Prof your right that shot to the gun should have not been performed. The shot was I believe around 65 yds. The problem with making the shot is simple. If the round was to bank into the suspect and kill him was the shot made to disarm or was there a true need to use deadly force. If deadly force was needed why not shoot to a fatal area.

Shotgun and ch- chunk. That story is told over and over. Thats why I cock my shotgun real slow!:D

Jim

razorburn
October 8, 2006, 07:26 PM
Newton's Laws apply here, but what is conserved is momentum. The momentum of the bullet as it leaves the barrel and the momentum of the recoiling firearm are equal, minus whatever was soaked up by the action. However, momentum is equal to mass times velocity; kinetic energy is equal to one half mass times the velocity squared, so the much higher velocity of the bullet grants it disproportionate kinetic energy, even though the gun is heavier.

Here's an example: Suppose we have a 32 oz. revolver (using a revolver to avoid the issue of a semi-auto action absorbing some momentum) shooting 125-grain projectiles at 1400 fps. To keep the units consistent, let's convert the revolver's weight to grains: 32 oz = 2 lbs x 7000 grains / 1 lb. = 1,400 grains.

First we get the momentum of the projectile:

p = m * v --> p = 125 grains * 1,400 fps --> p = 175,000 grains * ft/sec

Momentum will be equal and opposite, so we plug that into the momentum equation for the gun to get the gun's recoil velcity:

p = m * v --> 175,000 grains * ft/sec = 14,000 grains * v --> 175,000 grains / 14,000 grains = v ft/sec --> v = 12.5 ft/sec

Since we have the masses and velocities of both bullet and gun, we now drop them into the equations for kinetic energy:

KE = 0.5 * m * v^2

KE(bullet) = 0.5 * 125 grains * 1,400^2 ft/sec --> KE(bullet) = 0.5 * 125 grains * 1,960,000 ft/sec = 122,500,000 grains * ft/sec

KE(gun) = 0.5 * 14,000 grains * 12.5^2 ft/sec --> KE(gun) = 0.5 * 14,000 grains * 156.25 ft/sec --> KE(gun) = 1,093,750 grains * ft/sec

Hope that helps clear things up.

Where did you get the figures for the revolvers weight and recoil velocity from? If you use quantitative observed data, we have to know where you got them from.

Edit-oops, nevermind, you figured it using the assumption that momentum of the two were equal. But you can't prove something by doing an equation based off that what you're trying to prove is true. You'd need the weights and velocity of the gun and bullet measured independently, then compared in relation to KE and momentum. Not figured out using a formula where you assume the point you're trying to prove is true. All you proved was that velocity has a 4x larger role in KE than mass, which we already knew.

hirundo82
October 8, 2006, 07:47 PM
"For handguns rounds, bullet expansion is the most important factor when it comes to lethality." (Not true. Depth of penetration is the most important factor.)I'd argue that shot placement is more important as long as you get a basic minimum of penetration.

As for another--really more of an anti lie than a myth--guns in the hands of criminals are incredibly dangerous and you should not resist and give them whatever they want, but a citizen legally using a weapon is incompetent and is more likely to injure himself and a busload of kindergarteners with their puppies than stop a crime using his (or her) lawfully carried weapon.

Starter52
October 8, 2006, 07:56 PM
This is the most interesting thread I've seen on THR in ages. :)

My favorite (an old one) "If you shoot someone with a hollowpoint bullet at point blank range, the bullet will go through without mushrooming because it is going too fast."

wuchak
October 8, 2006, 08:25 PM
But you can't prove something by doing an equation based off that what you're trying to prove is true.

Sir Isaac Newton proved this several hundred years ago and it became his Third Law of Motion. Note that it is a Law of Science, not a hypothesis or theory. It is always true that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." If you think that for some reason Newtonian physics don't apply to bullets it would be up to you to prove that is the case.

JMusic
October 8, 2006, 08:27 PM
Another myth is if you "miss" someone and hit someone else you are neglegent and will be sued. What do you think happens when you shoot through someone and hit another.:eek:

Jim

MachIVshooter
October 8, 2006, 08:42 PM
Errr, some do. One of the places we shoot has a big pile of bassalt as the backstop. We shoot rifles there. I have seen sprks from inpact on 30-06, .308 and 7.62x39. Non were steel core, all new production Wolf or reloads with Hornady bullets.

You know what I meant. It's the Hollywood Roman candle displays when bullets are impacting the back of a car, or the staircase of an apt. bldg., etc.

Bullets going into automobiles make holes. No sparks, no explosions. Holes.

12GA00buck
October 8, 2006, 09:18 PM
You cant hunt small game with a larger caliber rife because the animal will explode and you wont have anything left but a few bits of fur. Depending on the bullet construction, it will probably pass right through creating a permanent wound channel the size of the original projectile.

Geno
October 8, 2006, 09:21 PM
Guns kill...that's my favorite myth.

Doc2005

sacp81170a
October 8, 2006, 09:43 PM
Myths that make me grit my teeth:

The one-shot stop with a handgun.
Everyone who gets shot dies (I'm living proof that it ain't so, twice over).
That if there's not a body of a dead BG lying at your feet, it wasn't a defensive gun use (a favorite way of the antis to skew statistics).
That bad guys care what caliber you're using.
That a gun in your hands will be taken away and used against you, but that a gun in a BG's hands is an awesome weapon that cannot be overcome.
That guns kill people. Guns don't kill people, gaping holes in vital organs kill people. :D

mr.trooper
October 8, 2006, 10:56 PM
Vs any hostiles who have trained to operate in squads, I'm afraid you'd be target practice like that. In THAT sort of scenario, I think a lifelong hunter with a scoped 30-30 is a lot more dangerous to hostile forces than any semi-trained non-drilled person with one short-range battle rifle. A hunting rifle becomes a sniper rifle when you change what the target is.

A group of trained, well-armed hostiles being successfully put down by civilians with battle rifles is "Red Dawn", sheer Hollywood, to me. But individual hunters taking single extreme-range shots from trees, bushes, houses, one at a time, unplaceable rifle cracks from all around the landscape, that's plausible.

i think the point is that 10,000 semi-trained militia members with semi-auto AKs will triumph over 1,000 enemy soldiers every time. Even Navy Seals teams loose when they get caught by 10-1 odds; thus we have the reason they rely so heavily on stealth. ;)

A more likely roll for the militia is security detail while the Army and national guard duke it out with the invaders. Esentialy acting as third line troops. This is why realistic militas practice things like how to execute a patroll, or secure a building: not focusing completely on shooting paper targets.

Prof. A. Wickwire
October 8, 2006, 11:32 PM
Three pages and not one mention of the classic "Anyone with a gun is compensating for something..." I once heard somebody say that it had been statistically proven that gun owners had smaller penises than the rest of the population. Of course, he made this claim with no evidence whatsoever.

Snap,

Actually, I think if you average the penis size of all American gun owners you will get a size smaller than the national average. Of course, this is because many gun owners are WOMEN with a penis size of about zero.

Also, if I am compensating for something, why do I collect pocket pistols?

Sincerely,

Prof. A. Wickwire

razorburn
October 9, 2006, 12:14 AM
Sir Isaac Newton proved this several hundred years ago and it became his Third Law of Motion. Note that it is a Law of Science, not a hypothesis or theory. It is always true that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." If you think that for some reason Newtonian physics don't apply to bullets it would be up to you to prove that is the case.

wuchak I think you're confused. I'm the guy saying there should be an equal and opposite reaction, I said it at the 2nd page, top post. Then another guy says that it's the momentum and not the kinetic energy of the recoiling weapon that's equal to the bullet. This may or may not be true, but he did an equation where he assumes that the momentum of the two are equal, and uses it to prove that velocity has a 4x greater effect on kinetic energy calculation than mass. But without having any actual data, we can't really prove whether it's kinetic energy or momentum that's equal. Should be that an equal amount of energy was transferred to the gun as was transferred to the bullet though.

scout26
October 9, 2006, 12:20 AM
I was going to start a seperate thread/rant about this:

Illegal guns. [Rant mode: ON]

Tain't no such thing. A firearm has no freewill, it can not do anything on it's on. Therefore, it can never be "Illegal". What is illegal is for said person to own/possess it.

If my car is stolen and used to knock over a bank, it is not referred to by the headline writers as an "Illegal Car Used in Robbery."

If I sell my car to someone who does not have a licence, it does not become a "Illegal Car", even if the new owner is twelve years old, has twenty DUI's, gets wasted and goes out runs over a bunch of schoolkids and little old ladies. (Yes, I'm an idiot for selling it to twelve year old with prior DUI's and without a licence, but that's a whole different story. :neener: )

It's like "Assualt Weapon". Whoever can define/shape the battlefield greatly improves their chances of winning. That's where we're losing, we're reacting to their choice of verbage/wording.

[/Rant mode: OFF]

jhco50
October 9, 2006, 12:23 AM
That my friends was started in the gun magazines many years ago. They were trying to sell elephant poofers for deer. They pretty much killed much of the popularity of the 30-30 because the manufacturers paid good money to advertise in their rags. Seems they may be partly responsible for the demise of the Winchester 94.:(

A couple of years ago, one of my younger brothers was asked to go hunting for the first time. His friend suggested a 7mm Mag. I told him he had the perfect hunting rifle in his Win 30-30 and he informed me his friend told him it wasn't big enough for mule deer. :what:

My favorite: "That old 30-30 is obsolete, I don't understand why you even carry it. It couldn't knock down a deer at 50 yards. You NEED a .300 Mag. for deer!!!"
I'm betting you have heard that too.

mcosman
October 9, 2006, 02:32 AM
IF you double the velocity of an object you double it's momentum, this is a nice neat linear relationship that is shown in Newt's 3rd law. Higher weight slower speed gun vs lower weight high speed bullet.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of an objects velocity. Double the velocity Quadrouple the KE. This is what is reffered to earlier. He is right and did not make assumptions. He did an excellent job of simplifying and providing the math for his real world example. He just didn't show the math for the gun and bullet being the same momentum, probably because the guns velocity during recoil is not a readily measured or published #. But bullet velocity is.

Momentum = mass X velocity 1000Kg object at 1 meter/sec = 1000kg M/sec.
Kinetic energy = 0.5 X mass X velocity(Squared) thatss 0.5X1000KgX1m/s = 500 Joules

So a smaller objet moving faster

Momentum = 1kg object moving 1000m/sec(Squared) = 1000kg m/s same momentum as above but.....
KE = .5X1kgX1000m/s(squared) = 500000 Joules

So you can clearly see that two objects with the same momentum can have very different Kinetic Energy, thats why people on this forum prefer to stand behind the larger object with the same momentum. Newtons 3rd applies to momentum, equal and opposite reactions but with physics on our side.

I hope this helps clear that up.

earthworm
October 9, 2006, 02:54 AM
No matter what gun you own/carry/are considering buying/are discussing everyone owns/has owned/knows someone (usually an ex-Marine sniper) who owns/has owned one & 50% of those "can hit a hummingbird on the fly at 50 yards & it never jammed,etc." while the other 50% "couldn't hit a barn wall if I wuz in the barn & it wouldn't fire twice without jamming".

pete f
October 9, 2006, 04:16 AM
Clips as always being wrong for cartridge feeding devices. For years manufacturers call them this. I have Marlin, Remington, Winchester and Stevens Savage catalogs from the 50's 60's 70's and 80's that list .22 repeaters as clip fed, and list spare parts/extras available as 5, 7 and 10 shot clips.

I have a 99C (C for Clip Fed as per the manual) Savage model 99. I have a 88 winchester which states in the hang tag that "extra clips may be purchased from Winchester or Winchester Authorized dealers"

When I was growing up. A magazine was a location where ammunition and powder was stored prior to use. A En bloc was M1 extra. A stripper was a device that held ammunition ready for use in your pocket.




I have had it with guys making decisions about what guns are too big for women to shoot.

Statements that begin with "it was 450 yards away." about the only people I really trust with visual distance estimation are professional caddies.

Guys who are built like John Candy or Rudolph Wanderone who talk about being "force recon" or "team six" members.

People who have read a question about laws in NY and give an answer about the laws in North Carolina or Wisconsin.

People who answer questions about rifles and or cartridges who have never shot one, handled one, or read the ballistics tables about one.

The 300 WSM is far superior to the 300 winmag.

Get a 30-06 for a light kicking chambering in a LTWT rifle.

A 1911 is too hard to carry concealed, get a Sig/hk/CZ/XD instead.

A 12 gauge loaded with BB is about as useful as a club for home defense.

A load of 6 shot can be stopped by a heavy coat at inside-the-house ranges.

My 870 broke.

Your lucky to get a whole clip full of rounds to fire thru a 742/7400.

My brother had a Savage 110 that would not shoot.

Any answer to "why did you shoot that guy" that is not "I was really scared and I am in no shape to talk right now, I am going to wait for my attorney to show up." Memorize this, write it on your palm if you have to.

'' You need to glass bed that "remwinmarrugweabrosako" to get it to shoot, everyone needs to do this as a first step"

posted ? "I am looking at a Dakota, Cooper, or D'arcy Echols rifle, I am going to be spending 3 months in Zimbabwe, and Mozambique, Which do you like better" Answer. "I think you should buy the H&R Handi Rifle."
Answer 2 "buy a Moisin Nagant because you can get surplus ammo for cheap. The guy is admitting to looking at guns that start at 2K and is wealthy enough to take three months off work and spend $30K on tags, airfare, guides and taxidermy fees and someone tells him to get a $200 gun.

A baikal or mossberg is competition to a Perazzi or Rizzini.

Bill Ruger made a deal with the Anti-Christ, no one should ever buy a Ruger

For White Tail deer in deep woods and brush, you need a 338 winmag.

My $3500 M1A Super National Match built on a Virgin Winchester receiver with a Air gauged Krieger barrel is an "Assault weapon". The only thing it ever assaulted was my wallet.

A rifle that shoots 1.5 inch groups all day long, hot or cold, to the same point of impact is not accurate enough to hunt white tails.

Prairie Dogs are endangered.

That shooting any animal you do not recover does not count against your tag or possession limit.

That a model 19 4" or a model 13 4" is not a good house gun.

That a stock series 70 Colt 1911 is not adequate for HD.




I have more just ask

BobTheTomato
October 9, 2006, 07:51 AM
Gun free school zones

btsyshsbnd
October 9, 2006, 09:09 AM
that it's ok to open the cylinder of a revolver then close it with a snap of the wrist, I cringe everytime I see that

Molon Labe
October 9, 2006, 09:20 AM
So you can clearly see that two objects with the same momentum can have very different Kinetic EnergyYep.

In this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3042772&postcount=26) post, I calculated that the bullet exiting the barrel of my FAL has over 400 times the kinetic energy than that imparted onto the the rifle.

Keith Wheeler
October 9, 2006, 09:52 AM
Thompsons have uncontrollable muzzle-climb.

MACs are completely uncontrollable.

Suppressed weapons either make no sound at all or sound like a sci-fi laser gun.

Submachine-guns can be used in a "spray and pray" area control manner.

Machine guns are "illegal".

High ROF belt-feds can be continually operated (MG42 operators changed barrels every 100 rounds).

High ROF weapons are uncontrollable and useless (ever seen an American 180?).

There's no real advantage to fully-automatic fire (depends heavily on the situation).

repsychler
October 9, 2006, 09:55 AM
"They won't take away my duck gun."

I can't stand anti-gun gun owners. Get a clue! The notion that hunting rifles are "sniper rifles" is already out there, and once they have everything else, you can rest assured they'll come for yours, too. Your duck/deer/skeet/whatever gun is NOT safe from the antis.
:cuss:

learn2shoot
October 9, 2006, 10:03 AM
Go one wants to take your guns away (+1)

A shotgun is not useful for home defense. (actually - A ______ gun is not useful for home defense)

Guns should be licensed and registered like cars

_____ is the right gun for _____


nobody need a gun in ___________

of course it is true that nobosy kneads a gun.... maybe that is what they are talking about.

The Second amendment is a collective right.

I read in the New York Times ___________

Mikee Loxxer
October 9, 2006, 10:36 AM
That serving in the military or being a law enforcement officer makes you a weapons expert.

Phil DeGraves
October 9, 2006, 11:41 AM
That the 357 magnum is powerful enough to "penetrate an engine block".

That DA revolver cylinders make a clicking noise when you spin them.

That a hollow point bullet blows out a four inch circular hole through the back of a bad guy when it goes through him.

That bullets can be bounced off multiple surfaces with the same accuracy of a billiard ball bouncing off the banks of a pool table.

Someone actually told me once that bullets melt from the ignition and friction of the barrel, so that they are actually only molten blobs of lead as they pass through the air and harden only after they hit something when they cool off.

Radjxf
October 9, 2006, 12:28 PM
This one from my mother-in-law: "Guns just go off". She has some story about a gun that went off and killed a kid in a house a mile away or some such BS. :scrutiny:

Green Lantern
October 9, 2006, 12:51 PM
I gotta respect my elders, but they're all "revlover guys..."

Which is FINE, excpet ANY semiauto in their eyes = a "hair-trigger job." :banghead:

Let's just say the fact that I carry with one in the pipe is a "don't ask don't tell" proposition....

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 9, 2006, 01:11 PM
The group of myths that annoys me the most has already been mentioned, but since it's so pervasive and destined to reappear here, I'll list it.

"________ is against the Geneva convention to use on people. That's why we are trained to aim at their equipment."

mdao
October 9, 2006, 01:13 PM
Guns are XX times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

wuchak I think you're confused. I'm the guy saying there should be an equal and opposite reaction, I said it at the 2nd page, top post. Then another guy says that it's the momentum and not the kinetic energy of the recoiling weapon that's equal to the bullet. This may or may not be true, but he did an equation where he assumes that the momentum of the two are equal, and uses it to prove that velocity has a 4x greater effect on kinetic energy calculation than mass. But without having any actual data, we can't really prove whether it's kinetic energy or momentum that's equal. Should be that an equal amount of energy was transferred to the gun as was transferred to the bullet though.

Razorburn:

You've confused the Conservation of Energy with Newton's Third Law of Motion.

The Conservation of Energy just says you can't destroy energy, only change it's form. Guns follow this law by turning chemical energy into kinetic energy + heat energy + light energy + sonic energy + etc. This says nothing about the kinetic energy imparted to the bullet or rifle. (Not completely true. By using the Conservation of Energy and the Conservation of Momentum laws together, we can find the momemtum and kinetic energy of the bullet and the gun. But, do the math and we'll find that the kinetic energy of the gun and bullet will not be equal.)

The Newton's Third Law of Motion is the "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This refers to force not energy as Newton's Three Laws of Motion are only concerned with motion. Using Newton's Third Law along with the Second Law (F=m*a), the force applied to the bullet is equal (and opposite) to the force applied to the gun. Integrate that quantity over time and we find that the momentum of the gun + brass is equal to the momentum of the bullet + gasses.

tenbase
October 9, 2006, 01:18 PM
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but the idea amongst non-shooters, particularly antis, that using a handgun is a simple draw, point, and click affair, regardless of distance. Point, click, and the target drops. One-handed, at that. Under stress. In a snowstorm. Shooting uphill.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm lucky to hit the backstop with a pistol unless I really concentrate. Okay I'm not that bad. But still.

Yeah, I know, practice makes perfect. But with the above mentality, this is not an issue. Anyone can simply pick up the gun and shoot someone! It's that simple! :rolleyes:

Badbunny
October 9, 2006, 02:19 PM
The Sten smg was designed for the Normandy landing and it's magazine was welded on, because it was cheaper to make that way. If you managed to empty yours, all you had to do was pick one up from a dead guy.

GrayBear
October 9, 2006, 02:19 PM
I get irritated by people who waste time and band width on trivia such as being upaet by people who, with all good intentions, confuse "clip" and "magazine" or "bullet" and "cartridge" or even "shell."

If they get their meaning across, *** cares?

My advice is to "Get a life!"

:cuss:

GrayBear

PlayboyPenguin
October 9, 2006, 02:30 PM
People who think all newbies can only start out with .22's.

This one always bothers me. I am supposed to take a 250lb man out and say "since you are knew you will only be able to learn properly if you use this little plink gun". I myself find .22 calibers super boring to shoot and I am sure alot of newbies do too and my goal is to make the experience as fun for them as possible. I have found I always get more "I wanna do this again" responses when I take out the big boys along with some smaller calibers like .32acp pistols.

StopTheGrays
October 9, 2006, 02:56 PM
Shotguns cannot be used/were meant for war.
Playing FPS video games or watching Tales of the Gun makes one a weapons expert.
500 S&W is the gangbangers choice of weapon or made just to kill people.
45-70 is not effective past 100 yards.
Handguns are not used for hunting.
Handguns are not effective on deer/wild pigs/etc.
LEO=gun expert.

learn2shoot
October 9, 2006, 03:11 PM
People who think all newbies can only start out with .22's

I have to say that all new shooters SHOULD start out with a .22

not to say that all new shooters MUST start out with a .22

If someone has never shot a gun in their life there is no way you can know how they will react. Size doesn't matter, this 350lb guy thing... he could still react like a 8 year old city girl if there is something in his life which happened to condition him to that. (no offense to 8 year old girls intended) Depending on the person graduate to other calibers at the person's own pace perhaps after only 1 magazine.

I would feel bad if the 450 lb tough guy never shot a gun again because I thought he was tough enough to shoot a .357 mag and he wanted to be tough in from of the other guys. In actuallity he needed a little more time.

Aside from re-actions there is the flinch factor. A .22 has less recoil and it is easier for the shooter to develop good habits.

I realize that I have gotten off topic here and posted a bit of a straw man, but my teaching style is to start with a .22, others choose differently. I am always open to being proven/shown wrong if it will make be better at what I like to do.

PlayboyPenguin
October 9, 2006, 03:15 PM
I have to say that all new shooters SHOULD start out with a .22
See, it never fails.

I have been through alot of advance handgun training in my life. Military, police academy, marksmanship training for competition shooting, and even SASS training and none of them advocate starting with a .22...I am not sure where this really started.

learn2shoot
October 9, 2006, 03:41 PM
I have been through alot of advance gun training in my life. Military, police academy, marksmanship training for competition shooting, and even SASS training and none of them advocate starting with a .22...I am not sure where this really started.

Ok... what do they recommend starting with?

Also I am not talking about advanced firearms training, which it seems your examples are. I am talking about a person who has never fired a gun in their life EVER. If a person wants training for CCW purposes or whatever and says they have been shooting since 3 years old and wants to shoot their 9mm I am not going to force them to use a .22.

PlayboyPenguin
October 9, 2006, 03:57 PM
Most of the training I have received either started you with a 9mm or a .38 caliber.

Most of the people in every class I have ever been in where newbies too. Small .22 caliber guns are good for killing small pest, seeing how tight a group you can make, saving cost on ammo, etc but as far as being better to learn with I think that is bunk. People I know that learned on a .22 were like teaching newbies once they moved onto a gun that had real power and needed to be controlled.

djstaehlin
October 9, 2006, 04:05 PM
Ok... what do they recommend starting with?

Also I am not talking about advanced firearms training, which it seems your examples are. I am talking about a person who has never fired a gun in their life EVER. If a person wants training for CCW purposes or whatever and says they have been shooting since 3 years old and wants to shoot their 9mm I am not going to force them to use a .22.

The first time I touched a firearm was in basic training at age 18 courtesy of the United States Navy. First was the M1911A1 .45 pistol, then the M14 rifle, 7.62mm and finally shotguns. They certainly didn't start us off with a .22.

DJ

mr.trooper
October 9, 2006, 04:06 PM
I started shooting handguns with a 6" model 19, loaded with 38s. light recoil, and easy to aim.

learn2shoot
October 9, 2006, 04:10 PM
People I know that learned on a .22 were like teaching newbies once they moved onto a gun that had real power and needed to be controlled.

I see that as valid.

However, I keep coming back to the concern that if you put too much gun in a person's hand you may scare them off. I know you can develop good habits starting off with a .38, but I think it is easier with a .22. hmm... :confused:

American By Blood
October 9, 2006, 04:19 PM
From the New Orleans Times-Picayune (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1152685594130100.xml&coll=1)

The SKS...

one of the most dangerous weapons on the streets

can blast through engine blocks as easily as it can bones

Faust said the steel core bullets used in an SKS strike the body then follow bone, so a bullet can "enter your shoulder and come out of your toe."

wuchak
October 9, 2006, 04:21 PM
I don't think people NEED to start with a .22 but I encourage everyone to get one sooner rather than later since it's the cheapest way to have fun doing a lot of shooting. If you already have a larger caliber then getting one with a similiar grip angle / configuration or a conversion kit is ideal. The one drawback to shooting a .22 without something larger thrown into the mix is the lack of recoil with the .22 will allow bad habits to form. If you mix it up that shouldn't be an issue and it's a lot more fun.

PlayboyPenguin
October 9, 2006, 04:22 PM
However, I keep coming back to the concern that if you put too much gun in a person's hand you may scare them off. I know you can develop good habits starting off with a .38, but I think it is easier with a .22. hmm...
I doubt that will be an issue with most men or with most women who seriously want to learn. It might be a concern with the wife who doesn't really want to shoot but wants to learn for SD carry just in case or with small kids. Otherwise I say start with a 9mm or at least a .38...easier to teach them how to shoot when they are actually shooting something they can feel.

I have no problem with people who want to learn with a .22 instead of something larger. I just have a problem with the guys who want to jump on people like they broke an unwriiten law by teaching someone on something other than a .22...like they are the gun gods or something.

I know I could go to the range and shoot my Ruger Mark II (the only .22 I own) all day and not spend much on ammo but I would also not have any fun or really develope any skill.

crunker
October 9, 2006, 04:30 PM
It is mechanically correct to refer to a semi-automatic "assault weapon" as an assault rifle or machinepistol.

F.A.s offer a damn load more firepower than semi-autos, why do you think f.a.s, and not semis, are in the NFA?

EddieCoyle
October 9, 2006, 04:48 PM
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but the idea amongst non-shooters, particularly antis, that using a handgun is a simple draw, point, and click affair, regardless of distance. Point, click, and the target drops. One-handed, at that. Under stress. In a snowstorm. Shooting uphill.

Good one!

A non-shooter friend (a preacher) and I were having a discussion last New Years Eve. He knows I carry and he asked me if I would shoot to kill if my life depended on it. I told him that if my life, or the life of a family member depended on it, I would do so without hesitation. He asked me why I wouldn't just shoot for the bad guy's gun hand. I told him that if he'd go to the range with me sometime, I'd show him.

In June, we went to the range. After some instruction and practice, I had him shooting my Ruger Mk III. I traced my rather large paw onto a paper plate and stapled it to the target stand. From 15 yards, I asked him to shoot it. No luck. At 7 yards, taking his time and aiming carefully, he hit it with two out of ten shots. I asked him if he remembered our previous conversation. He did.

razorburn
October 9, 2006, 05:47 PM
Razorburn:

You've confused the Conservation of Energy with Newton's Third Law of Motion.

The Conservation of Energy just says you can't destroy energy, only change it's form. Guns follow this law by turning chemical energy into kinetic energy + heat energy + light energy + sonic energy + etc. This says nothing about the kinetic energy imparted to the bullet or rifle. (Not completely true. By using the Conservation of Energy and the Conservation of Momentum laws together, we can find the momemtum and kinetic energy of the bullet and the gun. But, do the math and we'll find that the kinetic energy of the gun and bullet will not be equal.)

The Newton's Third Law of Motion is the "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This refers to force not energy as Newton's Three Laws of Motion are only concerned with motion. Using Newton's Third Law along with the Second Law (F=m*a), the force applied to the bullet is equal (and opposite) to the force applied to the gun. Integrate that quantity over time and we find that the momentum of the gun + brass is equal to the momentum of the bullet + gasses.

Then if we use that force equation of mass x acceleration as being what's equal between the gun and bullet, it means that assuming equal momentum is wrong if that momentum is defined as = m x v, since acceleration is the 1st derivative of velocity.

KC&97TA
October 9, 2006, 05:53 PM
There's a TV Commercial out here in CA that I just love. There is a Uniformed LEO holding a .50 BMG round, saying some other guy voted to allow this dangerous military assult rifle to be legal. Then to top it all off they show a little clip of a bullet going through 2 cartoon police cars and out the other side, while the Uniformed LEO says "this bullet can travel through 2 police cars and come out the other side and still kill you".

1. What's the Cheapest .50 BMG Rifle? Say around $2500?

2. How much does a .50 BMG round cost, like $2 each

3. When was the last time some Criminial killed someone with a .50 BMG?

4. I forgot everyone that owns a .50 BMG is trying to shoot down Planes at the LA and San Diego Air Ports ... cause a .50 BMG will make anything that's shot with it explode.

But hey, I'm in California, were I legally have permited AR's and extended capacity mags, but have to wait 10 days to buy a double barrel trap gun that has huge chokes on it that won't allow it to shoot slugs or balled shot numerically smaller than 6.

mdao
October 9, 2006, 07:32 PM
razorburn:

mass x acceleration as being what's equal between the gun and bullet

does not lead to

equal momentum is wrong if that momentum is defined as = m x v.

Given constant acceleration and over t time, integrating acceleration over time gives (a*t) which is equal to (v) as velocity is equal to the time integral of acceleration.

So, momentum is = m*v = m*a*t.

Rearranging gives, m*a = (m*v)/t.

Setting F1 = m1*a1 as the force acting on the bullet and F2 = m2*a2 as the force acting on the gun. (Newton's Second Law)

Toss all that into Newton's Third Law F1 = m1*a1 = F2 = m2*a2.

Substitute m*a for (m*v)/t.

Result is (m1*v1)/t = (m2*v2)/t. Simplify by multiplying both sides by t gives (m1*v1) = (m2*v2).

End result, the momentum of the bullet is equal and opposite to the momentum of the gun.

If acceleration varies as the bullet travels down the barrel, which it does, then the integral becomes messier, but as long as F=m*a holds, which it does, then the momentum of the bullet and the firearm will be equal.

MartinBrody
October 9, 2006, 07:33 PM
Will someone explain to people that 'automatic' does not mean 'machine gun'.

And for that matter, set them straight on "I don't know why you need an AK-47 to hunt?" & "Why do you need a gun like that?"

Hardtarget
October 9, 2006, 08:23 PM
I was at the range when two more shooters came to the line. One was trying to sell his rifle. Listening to his "gab" about how great his rifle was,( it was a Lazzeroni of some sort ), I heard this..." this bullet is so fast it actually rises..." Um.m.m.m , its not a wing, so if you fire at "dead level", doesn't gravity affect every bullet the same? Does the bullet start to drop as soon as it leaves the barrel? Maybe I'm wrong but that statement just sounded all wrong to me.
Mark.

SoCalShooter
October 9, 2006, 08:34 PM
Maybe his bullet was fin stablizied...

annoying gun myth is that (atleast where I live and in cali) everyone who owns a gun must be a god fearing, republican,anti-abortion yadda yadda yada and well you know what it just aint true.

ID_shooting
October 9, 2006, 08:35 PM
"Maybe I'm wrong but that statement just sounded all wrong to me."

Yes and no.

If there bore were parallel to the gound, yes, the bullet would immediatly start to drop. In fact, if you drop a bullet for the same height as the bore at the same time a bullet is fired, and the ground were perfectly flat, they would hit the groud at the same time.

Now, there is a BUT in all of this. sights/scope are above the bore axis. At some point you want the bullet to meet the line of sight. To do this, the bore has to be at a slight up angle, so in most insaces with most rifles, the bullet does climb before it goes back down.

Joe Demko
October 9, 2006, 08:51 PM
WRT starting noobies out with a .22...I always do so. The .22 is CHEAP to shoot. We're talking 1/10 the price of practicing with centerfire rounds. More practice is better and, as long as I am footing the bill, practice will be with the less expensive rounds. Once the basics of marksmanship are thoroughly learned, then we move on to heavier rounds. Remember, if you are a lousy shot with a .22, picking up a heavier caliber won't magically make you a marksman. On the other hand, if you are a good shot with a .22 you are much more likely to be a good shot with something bigger.

Molon Labe
October 9, 2006, 09:01 PM
At some point you want the bullet to meet the line of sight. To do this, the bore has to be at a slight up angle, so in most insaces with most rifles, the bullet does climb before it goes back down.

This is true for all guns... coming out of the barrel, the bullet rises (relative to the line-of-sight), intersects the line-of-sight, goes above the line-of-sight, reaches its apex, comes back down, and intersects the line-of-sight again at the target. (This assumes the rifle is zeroed for the target distance.) The bullet never rises above the barrel axis, even when shooting uphill or downhill.

When you adjust the elevation of the sights, don't think of it as adjusting the sights. Assume the sights are fixed, and you're adjusting the elevation angle of the barrel.

TheComradical
October 9, 2006, 09:32 PM
I was just wondering, me and my friends were having a conversation with a Marine recruiter at school, and somehow the topic of .50 rifles came up and he said that "A .50 cal rifle cartridge can tear you in half from over a mile away!"

Is it true that a .50 cartridge can tear you in half from any distance?

chipp
October 9, 2006, 09:59 PM
a sharp stick is better then a 22

you might as well throw it at him

any 22 is worthless

hit him with a brick instead of a using a 22

SoCalShooter
October 9, 2006, 10:00 PM
TheComradical : that was rethorical right?

TheComradical
October 9, 2006, 10:08 PM
No it wasnt. So I'm guessing it can? Sorry I dont know much about it.

SoCalShooter
October 9, 2006, 10:10 PM
Actually the right type of round can tear you in half from about as far away as it impacts...basically its gotta hit you unless its some type of air burst round but I dont think they make that for fifty.

jburks
October 9, 2006, 10:13 PM
Thanks Comradical. That's my new favorite Gun Myth:D

DRMMR02
October 9, 2006, 10:24 PM
WRT starting noobies out with a .22...I always do so. The .22 is CHEAP to shoot. We're talking 1/10 the price of practicing with centerfire rounds. More practice is better and, as long as I am footing the bill, practice will be with the less expensive rounds. Once the basics of marksmanship are thoroughly learned, then we move on to heavier rounds. Remember, if you are a lousy shot with a .22, picking up a heavier caliber won't magically make you a marksman. On the other hand, if you are a good shot with a .22 you are much more likely to be a good shot with something bigger.

I agree. Maybe because my first time shooting was with a .22 pistol. You can put a lot of rounds downrange for next to nothing. The bulk Federal 525 rounds for less than $10. That's a hard deal to beat. Also, if that 250 lb guy can handle the .22 easy, then just move him up. I think the importance of it is to guage where they are. Maybe he will be able to move to a 9mm quickly, maybe not. But I think it's wise to find out first. I would hate to assume someone can handle something larger, and then have them freak out and lose control on the firing line. Someone's first time firing a gun should be the safest most in=control thing ever. Give them a .22, if it's easy, then great, move on to something else. If not, then keep working until they can.

Side story. I have this friend who is basically a leftist hippy. We went to high school and are in college together and such. I take a Right stance on everything, he tends to be Left on everything. He's in some band, I'm in the military. So anyways, I convinced him to come to the range one time and let him have at it with my Walther P22. He thought it was great. Well a few months pass and we were talking to some other college people we know, and they of course are leftist too. One of them said something about "handguns are only meant to kill" and my friend who I took to the range actually defended handguns and told them how much fun they were. I was pretty surprised, but pleased.


And yes, a .22 is better than a brick or whatever. Obviously, basically any other caliber is preferable, but in a pinch a .22 is better than nothing. 6 or 7 CCI Stingers in the chest has got to be worth something.

saspic
October 9, 2006, 11:10 PM
originally posted by Snap:
Three pages and not one mention of the classic "Anyone with a gun is compensating for something..." I once heard somebody say that it had been statistically proven that gun owners had smaller penises than the rest of the population. Of course, he made this claim with no evidence whatsoever.I am compensating for something when I carry a gun. I'm compensating for the inability to throw a 200 grain jacketed hollow point at 1250 feet per second. :neener:

Also, I'm not a rocket scientist, but from that whole physics discussion:
To keep the units consistent, let's convert the revolver's weight to grains: 32 oz = 2 lbs x 7000 grains / 1 lb. = 1,400 grains. Doesn't 2x7000=14,000? Not sure if that really affects the discussion.

Here, though, is the king of all annoying, if not injurious gun myths, just brought up again in the wake of the tragic Amish school shooting:

"We need more gun control to make us safe." :banghead:

EatBugs
October 10, 2006, 01:31 AM
Not exactly a myth per say, but this is some advice I've gotten. while getting ready to go squirrel hunting last year, had an "expert" ask me what I was using. When I told him my .410 shotgun, he told me that if I used it the squirrels were only going to laugh at me. He then told me no to put my cheek against it when fireing because the recoil will give me a black eye.

right

Snowdog
October 10, 2006, 02:09 AM
People who have read a question about laws in NY and give an answer about the laws in North Carolina or Wisconsin.

Hey, what's this clumping North Carolina with the likes of Wisconsin? :(

:D

pete f
October 10, 2006, 03:32 AM
would rather have had me lump you with NY state? or Massachusetts. 'sconi aint a bad place, just the example used

TimboKhan
October 10, 2006, 03:57 AM
My most annoying gun myth ever came from a tool that worked at a "home security" store in the mall. I went in to look at the nunchakus and the special edition Orc swords (note sarcasm), and noticed that they had a honest to god taser pistol. My buddy and I were laughing at it, and the tool said "These are more effective than a handgun", to which I replied "You stand on one side of the room with that, and I will stand on the other side of the room with my .357. We will each shoot each other and see which is more effective". He did not accept my challenge, making him, if nothing else, a slightly brighter tool than I had imagined.

LadySmith
October 10, 2006, 04:37 AM
From my female perspective:
1. Being beaten, raped, tortured and murdered is morally superior to using a firearm for defense.
2. Ignorance of firearms is bliss.
3. Guns are a guyís thing.
4. If you shoot a bad guy, youíll only make him mad and then heíll really hurt you.
5. Women canít handle the larger calibers.
6. Women canít be trusted with firearms.
7. Martial arts such as karate or kung fu are better than being armed with a gun.
8. Firearms training is not a martial art.
9. Itís funny to do things to make shooting as unpleasant as possible for those new to it.
10. Itís better to rely or hide behind others with guns than to use one yourself.

FilJos
October 10, 2006, 09:40 AM
Quote:can blast through engine blocks as easily as it can bones


Quote:Faust said the steel core bullets used in an SKS strike the body then follow bone, so a bullet can "enter your shoulder and come out of your toe."

:rolleyes:

Do the bullets blast through bones, or blast through soft tissue and then follow the bone? You can't have it both ways Mr. NOPD.

jeepmor
October 10, 2006, 10:05 AM
"Guns CAUSE crime"

Deanimator
October 10, 2006, 11:05 AM
Karate is a viable defense against a firearm.

It is... if you're Yamaguchi Gogen and the guy with the gun stands too close.

I'm not the former, and I'm not counting on the latter.

Duramaximum
October 10, 2006, 12:19 PM
I asked the guy at the counter if they had some of Hornaday's Light Mags for my .30-06 in 180 gr because I was sure I had seen some on their website.

Gun Counter Guy: "If they made it, we would have it. They put so much powder behind the 165 gr, it makes it equal the force of a standard 180 gr."

I bought the box just because I wanted to see how they performed regardless of grain. I double checked the website...Gun Counter Guy = Authentic Moron.

The same guy was talking to me about .45s and said if you catch someone's jacket with it they're going down.

Phil DeGraves
October 10, 2006, 12:23 PM
Anything about stopping power that includes the words "energy transfer".

Axman
October 10, 2006, 12:59 PM
Only police/military should have guns!

So, every other person in the world is a homicidal maniac when handling a firearm? Police/military personell never go bezerk? C'mon, what's this statement mean???

imprezagm4
October 10, 2006, 01:12 PM
Not a myth but.

"Why do you need an ar15?"

Response "Why do you need a Porsche?

*Note I do not own an ar15, just was talking about them.

PlayboyPenguin
October 10, 2006, 01:15 PM
Only police/military should have guns!
This always sounds like "baaaahhh, baaahhhhh" to me. Because I consider this type of person a sheep. They are unable to think or act on their own and feel the need to be protected and told what to do.

1911Tuner
October 10, 2006, 01:25 PM
Quote:

>unable to think or act on their own and feel the need to be protected and told what to do.<
***************

Lemme see if I can fix that for ya...

unable to think or act on their own and need to be protected and told what to do.

There! That's a little more accurate!:D

Rumble
October 10, 2006, 01:34 PM
Anything about stopping power that includes the words "energy transfer".

Anything about stopping power, pretty much at all. :)

Gewehr98
October 10, 2006, 01:56 PM
Energy transfer is more plausible. A bullet:

A. zips completely through the target with an itty-bitty exit hole.

B. hits bone/tumbles/deforms/mushrooms/hollowpoints inside the target, staying inside or tearing a massive exit hole with corresponding wound channel.

Which one transferred more energy (kinetic, specifically) into the target?

swacje41
October 10, 2006, 02:35 PM
I would think my most annoying myths are the ones that so many gun owners and shooters believe and spread themselves.:
Only major caliber guns are good for self defense.
Shooting somebody with a mousegun will only make them mad.
Point shooting is useless.
Chamber empty carry is as bad as having no gun at all.
You can successfullly fight off large numbers of determend criminals as long as you carry plenty of ammunition with you.
If you shoot a criminal he will immediately stop his attack.
If the criminal has a gun pointed at you, you can easily defeat him by drawing your own gun and shooting him before he shoots you.
There are many others, but I think you get the idea.

swacje41
October 10, 2006, 02:40 PM
I have been through alot of advance handgun training in my life. Military, police academy, marksmanship training for competition shooting, and even SASS training and none of them advocate starting with a .22...I am not sure where this really started.
It started with the military and the police. Many armies have used .22 rifles as trainers because, as others mentioned, it is much cheaper and the shooter can still get the basics of gunhandling and marksmanship. And many police departments used to start recruits out with .22 revolvers on the range, and then later introduced them to the .38s they would carry on duty.

RNB65
October 10, 2006, 02:43 PM
Guns are bad!

PlayboyPenguin
October 10, 2006, 03:23 PM
swakje21,

I was never trained on a .22 handgun in neither the army nor the police academy. I was trained on a 9mm from day one of handgun training in the military and on a .38 from day one in the police academy.

For the ones that do use .22 caliber handguns, do you think they do it because it is better technique or simply because it is cheaper? The only real adantage to a .22 I can see for training is practicing trigger pulls since there is little recoil. But then I still feel that alot of men get frustrated when you try to teach them on a .22 and loose interest. it might be different for mandatory training for a job but when it come to recreation I think .22 calibers are an unnecessary step.

PlayboyPenguin
October 10, 2006, 03:26 PM
Guns are bad!
Not all guns. I think it comes down to parenting. I must admit a couple of my Rugers do sometimes have bad attitudes and I did catch one smoking once... and I caught my Walther downloading internet porn but those are just guns being guns. It is just a phase. :D

baranjhn
October 10, 2006, 03:32 PM
This myth amazes me that an airgun can safely/humanely harvest rabbits and squirrels, but the "lowley" .22 short ain't worth beans! My Webley Tracker air-rifle can propel a 14.3 grain .22 caliber pellet to about 650 fps, and knock a squirrel silly! However, when I'm using .22 shorts all the little forest animals have great fun at my expense for using such a worthless cartridge! I guess it's been a fluke that when I use my Browning semi-auto .22 short or my Marlin 39 TDS (with .22 shorts), that many rabbits and squirrels have met their demise. I guess a 27 grain hollowpoint at about 1100 fps, can't cut the mustard. Only a hyper velocity .22 lr can do the job.

ZeSpectre
October 10, 2006, 03:39 PM
While I understand the concept of "time compression" in movies (I.E. making things happen much faster than in real life) I hate the constant showing of 1 shot (pretty much anywhere) and the bad guy just drops stone dead. (I hate it worse when they show the same thing with knife wounds).

Flopsy
October 10, 2006, 03:58 PM
Most annoying myth: "Glocks are ugly."

:D

BigG
October 10, 2006, 04:07 PM
Correction: While I agree with most of the pet peeves, myths, etc. that have been listed.

I do not agree with the several that have asserted that Self Loaders are not Automatics.

The term "automatic" has been used in time honored fashion for more years than most of you have been around to describe self loading shotguns, rifles, and handguns. Just because you have decided to become PC, you don't need to reinvent the language. You can leave that to the Violence Policy Center and other liberal institutions. :)

The same is true for those who insist that a revolver can never be a pistol. I've heard people go on and on about that. It's not worth getting so worked up about, believe me! A revolver is a form of pistol, get over it. Again, :)

The Deer Hunter
October 10, 2006, 04:10 PM
Men flying across rooms when they get shot

tenbase
October 10, 2006, 04:16 PM
The same is true for those who insist that a revolver can never be a pistol. I've heard people go on and on about that. It's not worth getting so worked up about, believe me! A revolver is a form of pistol, get over it.

word

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3070/images53572xi3.jpg

Axman
October 10, 2006, 04:19 PM
Men flying across rooms when they get shot

This only happens after they're dead as the fly off into the afterlife!




I get a kick out of the misinformitive myths. "The wind from my .44 Magnum bullet flying past your head will cause you to lose your hearing!" ...etc.


The same is true for those who insist that a revolver can never be a pistol. I've heard people go on and on about that. It's not worth getting so worked up about, believe me! A revolver is a form of pistol, get over it. Again,

This also applies to the clip vs. magazine debate.

mpmarty
October 10, 2006, 04:34 PM
Revolver = pistol, NO??????? How 'bout "pistol packin mamma"?
Semi-autos not automatic, NO??????? How bout that .45 acp (Automatic Colt Pistol)? or 32 acp etc. And those of you impressed with the ma duce round please bear in mind the 8 bore punt guns we used to use on geese, the 460 WM and some of the even larger custom african guns. On and on it goes; what if we had no firearms and mindless thugs simply tossed molotov cocktails into school cafeterias?

Mr White
October 10, 2006, 04:57 PM
My pet peeve myth is that in the heat and noise of a WWII or Korean War battle, enemies could hear the distinctive ping of an enbloc clip ejecting from a Garand and know that the soldier needed to reload.

ProguninTN
October 10, 2006, 05:11 PM
A lot of good ones here. I will add one. The myth that experienced dealers always know more than their customers. :rolleyes:

Manedwolf
October 10, 2006, 05:15 PM
My pet peeve myth is that in the heat and noise of a WWII or Korean War battle, enemies could hear the distinctive ping of an enbloc clip ejecting from a Garand and know that the soldier needed to reload.

That just reminds me of a vintage comic I'd seen, wherein someone in a gunfight stopped shooting for a moment, yelled "CLICK!", then opened fire on the bad guy when they popped up to see if they'd run out of ammo. :D

tenbase
October 10, 2006, 07:31 PM
Just thought of another gun myth, also perpetuated by non-gunnie types, and even some gunnies.

The assumption that all guns are registered, and/or you have to have some sort of license/permit to buy/have/carry/look at/think about them. I realize this is true to varying degree in some of the more enlightened, nuanced urban enclaves within the US, but thankfully Virginia is not one of them.


"Oooh, thats a sweet gun. Is it registered? Do you have a permit for it?"


:rolleyes:, No, and no! Then I get the :confused: look. (or sometimes the :eek: look...though sometimes I'll get the entire :confused:...:scrutiny:...:D enlightenment sequence)


Yep. It would be nice if people wouldn't automatically assume everything is restricted by the gov and we are merely permitted to do this and that.

Of course it would be even nicer if that weren't seemingly true.

*slips and falls off soapbox, hits head, doesn't spill beer*

The Grand Inquisitor
October 10, 2006, 07:53 PM
You can't hit the broad side of a barn with an AK.

If that's true, then I encourage you to stand 200 yards downrange whence I fire my Maadi. Provided you are still alive, I think your opinion concerning the AK's accuracy will have changed.


100% spot on.

I'm so tired of hearing about how the AK was designed to accomidate the average illiterate and brain dead Russian. The AK is totally inaccurate and is only useful for playing around with.

The truth is is that the Kalashnikov is a brilliant design and has totally re-defined the way small-arms conflicts are fought. The AK has allowed for an accurate, reliable, and mostly easy to produce weapon to be employed by under-privilaged groups so that they may fight against whoever is oppressing and holding them down.

Unforuntately, many Americans have been on the wrong end of Kalashnikov rifles, but the Kalashnikov has also been employed by the East Timorese struggle against the violent and murderous Indonesian state - the same goes for other smaller hot zones brewing up around the world.

There is still a stigma in the US against the AK - a great many Americans that grew up during the Cold War (myself included) saw the AK as the right arm of the Soviet military - while that is true, the AK is far more than the issue rifle for a single nation, it's a phenomenon.

TimboKhan
October 10, 2006, 11:29 PM
The assumption that all guns are registered, and/or you have to have some sort of license/permit to buy/have/carry/look at/think about them. I realize this is true to varying degree in some of the more enlightened, nuanced urban enclaves within the US, but thankfully Virginia is not one of them.

I explained to a buddy of mine not once, not twice, but 5 times that you don't have to register a gun in Colorado. I also had to explain that target shooting didn't require a hunters safety card.

Redneck with a 40
October 11, 2006, 02:26 AM
Here's one that really bothers me:

Law abiding citizens carrying guns will result in the "wild, wild west shoot-outs" in the street, over trivial arguments.:barf: :barf:

Florida has only revoked 157 CCW permits out of 1.1 million issued, so much for that statement.

LadySmith
October 11, 2006, 03:07 AM
I heard this one today at the range from an assistant firearms instructor:
"The way those 9mm are made, if you hit a guy in the chest the bullet can travel around and come out of his big toe."

Duach Laidir
October 11, 2006, 05:16 AM
I have just read the entire post.
Brilliant.
But my favourite didn't get a mention,

"Don't shoot at long range as it strains the barrel"

BigG
October 11, 2006, 10:08 AM
Quote:
The same is true for those who insist that a revolver can never be a pistol. I've heard people go on and on about that. It's not worth getting so worked up about, believe me! A revolver is a form of pistol, get over it. Again,

This also applies to the clip vs. magazine debate.
__________________

I've seen the Remington magazines packaged for sale. Guess what they're marked? "MODEL 760 CLIP 30'06" :neener:

Phil DeGraves
October 11, 2006, 10:22 AM
"Don't shoot at long range as it strains the barrel"

That is beautiful!

I wonder if the AK suffers from the perception of soldiers that are fighting poorly trained individuals. I hear from soldiers back from Iraq how inaccurate the AK is, when actually it's just that the majority of the people they are up against don't know how to operate the thing properly and can't shoot worth a darn.

ZeSpectre
October 11, 2006, 12:17 PM
Ooh, just remembered another one...

Hollywood movie stuff,
Good guy shoots a fairly big gun in a confined space (car, small room, elevator, etc) and a few seconds later can still hear the stair or floor creak or the cocking of another gun that lets him/her know right were to shoot the next badguy.

Gordon Fink
October 11, 2006, 12:34 PM
The assumption that all guns are registered, and/or you have to have some sort of license/permit to buy/have/carry/look at/think about them.Ö

Where sales from licensed dealers are concerned, this is not a myth at all.

~G. Fink

Phil DeGraves
October 11, 2006, 12:56 PM
But it is not illegal to buy from a citizen in a private sale. Therefore no 4473, no "registration" and it's not illegal.

tenbase
October 11, 2006, 12:59 PM
Where sales from licensed dealers are concerned, this is not a myth at all

I suppose one could make that argument, but a 4473 is not proof of ownership, and a drivers license isn't really a permit.

bowfin
October 11, 2006, 01:49 PM
Playboy Penguin,

If someone else is not footing your ammunition bill for you, (i.e., Uncle Sam, the Police Department, the club, or the team) then the .22 long rifle is indeed the most logical cartridge to start your shooting career in either handgun or rifle, especially if it is a group of people. The .22 long rifle is found lacking on the trap or skeet range though...:p

My most annoying myth:

"You don't need a <fill in the blank> magnum cannon for deer or antelope..."

How the heck do you know what I need!? We never hunted together. You've never seen where I hunt, or how I hunt, or the land, or the weather, or the circumstances. Half of the time, I don't know which gun and cartridge I needed until the critter shows itself, and sometimes it wasn't even a rifle I found myself "needing".

One should say "I, myself, haven't needed one yet, and I can't imagine the circumstances where you or I would need one." Then we can go from there.

We have an annoying personality at the rifle club who proclaims every time I see him that "all you need is a .32-20, it's the best deer cartridge ever invented." He has never put sights on a deer in his life, doesn't know anybody who has used or is using the .32-20 for deer, but somehow he figured all this out, and preaches it with the zeal of an Old Testament prophet.

Gordon Fink
October 11, 2006, 01:56 PM
I suppose one could make that argument, but a 4473 is not proof of ownership, and a drivers license isnít really a permit.

A 4473 isnít proof of ownership, but it and your dealerís bound book are a form of registration, and a NICS query is a request for permission.

~G. Fink

tenbase
October 11, 2006, 02:20 PM
Granted, but I think you know what I meant :p ...my original post said "all guns", which includes the six gazillion guns not in the inventories of licensed dealers...and besides, once that piece leaves the store the 4473, bound book entry, and NICS check are pretty meaningless....

Lonestar
October 11, 2006, 03:01 PM
Here's one that really bothers me:

Law abiding citizens carrying guns will result in the "wild, wild west shoot-outs" in the street, over trivial arguments.

Florida has only revoked 157 CCW permits out of 1.1 million issued, so much for that statement

Someone I work with dropped this one after finding out that a relative got a permit to carry. "The only reason someone would want to carry a gun, is because deep inside, they want to kill someone." I had to bite my lip on that one.

Carl N. Brown
October 11, 2006, 03:45 PM
""The only reason someone would want to carry a gun, is
because deep inside, they want to kill someone.""

Remember, psychological accusations reveal more about the
psychology of the accuser than about the accused.

People who believe that are the ones who should not ever
be allowed to have a gun. Antigunners are so bloody minded.
Most folks I know who carry a gun, do so to be able to protect
themselves and, deep inside, would be happy to never have to
shoot to live.

Gordon Fink
October 11, 2006, 05:46 PM
[O]nce that piece leaves the store the 4473, bound book entry, and NICS check are pretty meaningless.Ö

You know that, I know that, and the prohibitionists know that, and yet we go round and round and round on the registration issue. The only myth, however, is that guns are not registered in the United States, when all new sales have been registered since at least 1969.

~G. Fink

PJR
October 11, 2006, 05:54 PM
My most annoying myth:

"You don't need a <fill in the blank> magnum cannon for deer or antelope..."
This is my most annoying FACT.:D

MatthewVanitas
October 11, 2006, 06:09 PM
I wonder if the AK suffers from the perception of soldiers that are fighting poorly trained individuals. I hear from soldiers back from Iraq how inaccurate the AK is, when actually it's just that the majority of the people they are up against don't know how to operate the thing properly and can't shoot worth a darn.

That might be part of it. Bear in mind that AKs in Iraq vary from brand new Bulgarians to Egyptians that were literally dug out of a riverbed. Ditto for ammo.

Tons of Iraqi cops/soldiers I worked with were enormously terrible shots, particularly the ones who insisted "I know what I'm doing and no Yankee is telling _me_ how to shoot a gun". We're talking literally missing-a-coke-can-at-six-feet-with-Glock bad.

I met Americans who would shoot AKs into the sand berms for fun, and one EOD sergeant could keep 15rd bursts on a silhouette at a _measured_ 100m. I was lucky to keep a burst of three on the berm. A few guys met Bedouins that could do trick shooting (hit a water bottle from hip with burst at 100m), but I didn't personally see.

Leads me to another myth: that the entire U.S. military wants to go .45/.308, based on their collective wealth of experience.

The only Marines I knew who wanted 1911s and M14s were already THR/ARF types, so they would have said the exact same thing even if they never left CONUS. Most troops are only dimly aware that there even _are_ other cartridges or platforms. You can get them excited by asking "do you want a gun that's twice as powerful as what you have?", but that doesn't mean that they know diddly about actual ballistics.

I'm not a Snake Eater, but nor am I a pure Chairborne Ranger. My only notable ballistic personal experience: 155mm provides satisfactory stopping power with tolerable recoil, though concealment does require extra effort.

-MV

tenbase
October 11, 2006, 06:20 PM
In an effort to clarify, allow me to reword my original post:

The assumption amongst many of the non-shooters I've encountered over the years that all guns are registered in ones name with the local PD or some other 'authority', and/or you have to have some sort of gun-owning license/permit approved and issued by said authority (not counting the two forms of ID required to complete a sale at a licensed dealer, assuming the gun was not purchased from an intrastate private party) in order to buy/have/carry/look at/think about them. I realize this is true to varying degree in some of the more enlightened, nuanced urban enclaves within the US, but thankfully Virginia is not one of them for the most part, although we cannot carry concealed firearms without a permit issued by Our Most Benevolent Overlords, and some jurisdictions use every means at their disposal to make getting a CHL a pain in the rear. Oh, and there's that silly restaurant ban, which makes it illegal to carry concealed in any restaurant that serves alcohol (one has to open carry in those establishments). But I digress.

Better? :p

Gordon Fink
October 11, 2006, 06:29 PM
Never mind. :banghead:

~G. Fink

Anna's Dad
October 11, 2006, 06:55 PM
...but I just saw a TV show last week where the slide was racked on an auto-loader with one hand. Now that's some impressive wrist action.

CypherNinja
October 12, 2006, 01:56 AM
How did they portray that? :scrutiny:

Starter52
October 12, 2006, 09:18 AM
Here's another myth:

If you saw back the barrel of a 12 ga, a birdshot load will spread out "wide enough to cover a wall" at 25 feet.

I heard a "firearms instructor" say this to a class back in the 1970's.

swacje41
October 12, 2006, 12:56 PM
I was never trained on a .22 handgun in neither the army nor the police academy.
Limited personal experience is a poor thing to use when discussing broad topics. Whether you were trained in that manner or not is somewhat irrelevant. Many recruits began their training in that manner. It is an old technique, pretty much done away with after WWII, but prior to that quite common. In fact, .22 military trainer rifles are a very interesting segment of the gun collecting world. FWIW (as mentioned above, individual experiences are of limited value in a discussion such as this) a close friend of mine had his initial marksmanship training for the military in the early 1970's with a .22 at a National Guard unit, and until the move to autoladers the local PD kept a number of .22 K-frames at the range for remedial training purposes.

swacje41
October 12, 2006, 01:04 PM
Not so much a myth with most of us, but an earlier post reminded me of an experience training native militia troops in Africa. When we took them to the range, the first thing they did when they went to the line was fix bayonets. When I asked why the local militia head seemed astonished thta an experienced troop such as myself did no know that puttting the bayonet on made the rifle longer, thus it would shoot with more accuracy!:)

PlayboyPenguin
October 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
swacje41,

We are not saying that it is not done, nor that it is not benefical for some people. We were arguing against it being a necessary step. The point being, not everyone needs to start out on a .22 if they can handle bigger arms. We are also saying that people that learn with something else first (like myself) can become just as good as those that started with a .22 caliber firearm. But there are always a few people that go ballistic if you start someone out on anything else.

PS: I would argue that topics of which you have personal experience are the ones you really have the most right arguing anyway. I can read a million times that a certain weapon never jams, but if I hear people that own one relaying how it jams on them I will be inclined to believe the ones who have actually experienced it.

guninhand
October 13, 2006, 12:51 PM
For me the most annoying, and common, are in movies and TV where the good guy picks up a gun to chase after or engage the bad guy....and never even checks to see if it's loaded, on safe or whatever, never looks for exta mags (or clips, if you will) or ammo. Getting hold of the gun is the big turning point, and not a sliver of thought given to ammo.

Secondary to that are guns that never run out of ammo.

Third, the guns that are racked, shucked, or cocked to as tesnion builds, then are racked, shucked, or cocked again as tension reaches the breaking point. Never mind that the chambers should have been loaded at the start.

Makes me wonder if the directors are that stupid or they think the viewers are that stupid.

Phil DeGraves
October 13, 2006, 01:01 PM
Some of both, I'm afraid.

DRMMR02
October 13, 2006, 01:11 PM
The slide-racking really does get on my nerves. Especially when you have already seen the weapon fired and no round is ejected.

Steven1281
October 13, 2006, 09:05 PM
...that anyone who wears (or even owns) a shoulder holster is an FBI Secret Agent/John Dilinger/Gangster wannabe. God forbid someone wear one because that mode of carry fits their individual clothing style, build, and level of activity in life.

progunner1957
October 14, 2006, 12:15 AM
that the 2nd amendment is for the national guard and not for the rights of the individual.
Ah yes, one of the favorite lies of the antigun bigots.

Here are the facts:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1787.
The National Guard did not exsist until 1917 - 130 years later.

So when The Founders wrote the Second Amendment, they were referring to an institution that did not exsist and of which they had no knowledge, right?

Well of course...:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

NEWSFLASH: Sylvia Brown was not one of The Founders...:D

progunner1957
October 14, 2006, 12:28 AM
Another favorite of mine: "Handguns are too inaccurate to use safely for self defense" (parotted to me by one of my wife's Democrat/liberal/socialist girlfriends from college).

My reply: "Then why do they let the police carry handguns if they are so inaccurate and dangerous to innocent bystanders?"

I also offered to take her to the range so she could watch me shoot a one hole group at 50 feet with my 1911 (of course she didn't go)...:D

PlayboyPenguin
October 14, 2006, 12:29 AM
I think the antis argue that the 2A was for a well organized militia and that the National guard replaced that need therefore the need for the 2A was negated.

I try not to base my arguments on the 2A..too many different interpretations and no way to really prove one or the other so it just goes in a circle and becomes frustrating.

douglasd53
October 14, 2006, 01:08 AM
Police are all highly trained marksmen. (Wuchak)

And along with that one:

If you want to know what the law is on a particular firearms issue, ask a cop.

51Cards
October 14, 2006, 01:54 AM
I think I'd go with the "start with a .22" approach.

Years ago, I was "started" with .22's. When I got back into it, my first purchase was a Sig 229 (40). The NEXT was a Ruger Mark III. Followed by SA's, Colts, etc.

I understand the caliber-training argument, but I don't think it's reasonable to think .22's are "boring." Today I mixed Mk III, P-3AT, Defender, and 229. Each is its own animal. I still love my .22's --- it's fun to obsess over putting 10 onto an X. It's also fun --- and pragmatic --- to put a bunch of .40's and .45's into as much of the center of the target as I can manage.

It's not much of an analogy, but shooting pool and mountain biking are both fun. The bike gets you somewhere.

This probably made as much sense as putting a $300 Bushnell on a .22 pistol.

OldBillThundercheif
October 14, 2006, 02:07 AM
"Don't dry-fire that gun, you'll break the firing pin!"

Yeah, yeah... I know about the Tokarev. I am usually holding an Anschutz when people say this to me.

I also get irritated when you see a cop on the news holding a SKS saying:
"This is the deadly AK-47, the most dangerous machine gun on the streets"

Diamondback6
October 14, 2006, 02:21 AM
If it hasn't already been mentioned, "explosive decompression."

C'mon, somebody conclusively BUST THAT MYTH ALREADY! Adam & Jamie? Bueller... Bueller... Anybody?

I know aircraft, I've been a semifrequent visitor to the Boeing assembly lines and have studied aviation/aerospace engineering my entire life, and the only thing that's ever come close to ExD is a case where somehow a large sheet of airliner skin peeled off in flight, with predictable results from structural failure.

cyco668
October 14, 2006, 04:21 AM
Alot of the "myths" have some truth to them. While staying over my sister's house, I came in really late one night. I walked in the door, set-off the alarm, and heard a "ch-chunk". That sound is a definite deterent. Almost made me poop my pants. I then got to see my brother-in-law in his underwear, carrying a shotgun, and my sis's 120lb rottweiller.A sight I never want to see again!

"Guns don't kill people"
"Ya, people kill people"
"No! Bullets kill people" - Sledgehammer

Pete F : "Prairie Dogs are endangered" - not yet, but I'm working on it.

LadySmith : "6. Women canít be trusted with firearms." - True. Never trust a woman with a gun. Or a knife. Or with money, credit cards, your car, the remote control... um.. why don't I have a wife??

Deer Hunter
October 15, 2006, 06:38 PM
Yeah, I've heard that one a BUNCH. Ususally with the under 25 crowd. Usually, they will tell me "You're a wuss for doing that, learn martial art/be a man and fight someone.", etc etc. I hear from these little white kids raised on Japanese anime that it is not "honorable" to use a gun in a fight. First off, I didn't ask to be in this "fight" (more like struggle away from death), secondly what's honorable about some jerk trying to rape a woman?

AndyC
October 15, 2006, 06:49 PM
If it's a silver handgun, it's automatically a Magnum :scrutiny:

lionking
October 15, 2006, 06:50 PM
quote progunner1957;Quote:
that the 2nd amendment is for the national guard and not for the rights of the individual.

Ah yes, one of the favorite lies of the antigun bigots.

Here are the facts:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1787.
The National Guard did not exsist until 1917 - 130 years later.

So when The Founders wrote the Second Amendment, they were referring to an institution that did not exsist and of which they had no knowledge, right?

Well of course..

indeed progunner,though the lame brain antigunners would then shrug the truth off and then say "well maybe so,but now that there is a national guard people don't need guns".Which brings me to a peeve that I hear all too often which is"why do you NEED that anyway?" or "why do you NEED that MANY anyway?"

And gun owners themselves are guilty of asking others "why they need that"

AndyC
October 15, 2006, 06:51 PM
Well, when people ask me that, I ask them "Why do you need a car that is capable of doing 160 mph when the speed-limit is only 65 or 70?"

AndyC
October 15, 2006, 06:58 PM
Another one I despise: "If you shoot someone outside your home, drag the body inside."

olivedrab
October 15, 2006, 07:03 PM
the myth about

"Statistics show that there is a 1828393.5%* chance that your gun will be used on you!!!!!"



*like 97%** of anti's, I made the percentage up on the spot

**that one too

Working Man
October 15, 2006, 07:07 PM
Most annoying myth: "Glocks are ugly."

Hey.... this thread is supposed to be about myths... not facts. :evil:

Another one I despise: "If you shoot someone outside your home, drag the body inside."


Andys right. If you want to go to jail do as my brother's, friend's, teacher's, uncle is a cop and says and its ok.
A good shoot is a good shoot, inside or out. Responsible firearm owners should know which is which. Sadly, TV
has spawned its own set of truths about what can and can't (should and shouldn't) be done.

And gun owners themselves are guilty of asking others "why they need that"

Real gun owners only ask themselves that when they don't really want to spend the money... or have to answer to the Misses. :eek:

LadySmith
October 16, 2006, 05:30 AM
cyco668: "6. Women canít be trusted with firearms. - True. Never trust a woman with a gun. Or a knife. Or with money, credit cards, your car, the remote control... um.. why don't I have a wife?? "
:D :p :D

Fu-man Shoe
October 16, 2006, 10:55 AM
The idea that a .30 carbine round had a hard time penetrating thick
winter coats, but the .357 Magnum round was developed to shoot through engine blocks. :rolleyes:

Ohen Cepel
October 16, 2006, 11:11 AM
The fact that many people in the military still think that an M16/M4 has to be dripping oil for it to function correctly.

OldBillThundercheif
October 16, 2006, 11:05 PM
You can spot those guys by the coating of CLP spattered all over their faces and arms

michaelbane
October 17, 2006, 04:00 PM
The worst myth I've ever read was from and anti-ccw website (don't remember which one). It said that since only 2-3% of people who are eligible to get a CCW permit actually do so, that proves that the other 97-98% of the population must be opposed to CCW being legal.:banghead:

B yond
October 17, 2006, 08:54 PM
That DA revolver cylinders make a clicking noise when you spin them.

some do, if you hold the hammer half way back. :)

dfaugh
October 18, 2006, 10:08 AM
WRT starting noobies out with a .22...I always do so. The .22 is CHEAP to shoot. We're talking 1/10 the price of practicing with centerfire rounds. More practice is better and, as long as I am footing the bill, practice will be with the less expensive rounds. Once the basics of marksmanship are thoroughly learned, then we move on to heavier rounds. Remember, if you are a lousy shot with a .22, picking up a heavier caliber won't magically make you a marksman. On the other hand, if you are a good shot with a .22 you are much more likely to be a good shot with something bigger.

I'm one who often recommends starting with a .22, and I stand by it. NOT necessarily (or at all) for handguns...But definitely for beginning rifle shooters. A coupla reasons: they can buy a good accurate .22 for not much money, they can shoot all day for a few dollars in ammo, and most everything "good" they learn shooting the .22 will transfer to a larger rifle.

I've recently (re)started taking my accurate .22 to the range EVERY time I go. I'll usually shoot 100 rounds, sometimes 200. And my shooting with my "big" rifles has improved considerably.

Martial arts training is effective against a handgun. Someone said it wasn't.

Sorry, but it most certainly is. If the BG is close enough, he can be disarmed, and its not even very difficult. if you're holding a gun to my face, and its less than an arms reach away, you WILL get it shoved where the sun don't shine. In fact and reality, you can be somewhat farther away than that, and I'll STILL take it away/make it useless, as well as causing you SEVERE bodily damage. Obviously, this won't work if the BG is 30 feet away, but at "close range" disarming (gun or knife) an opponent is not at all difficult.

Phil DeGraves
October 18, 2006, 11:21 AM
Quote:
That DA revolver cylinders make a clicking noise when you spin them.


"some do, if you hold the hammer half way back."

In the movies, the cylinder is swung out and still makes the clicking noise. That's what I'm talking about.

Eleven Mike
October 18, 2006, 11:26 AM
The most annoying myth: That gun owners enjoy shooting their guns more than shooting their mouths off on the introweb. :neener:

Starter52
October 18, 2006, 11:36 AM
Some non-gun people believe that gunowners actually enjoy cleaning their guns. :barf:

Eleven Mike
October 18, 2006, 12:36 PM
I like how actors always clean guns by endlessly wiping the exterior of the piece, usually in one spot.

Axman
October 18, 2006, 12:37 PM
Some non-gun people believe that gunowners actually enjoy cleaning their guns.

Kinda like polishing a prized 1953 Corvette, with big s#!t eating grin?

Charles W Webb
October 18, 2006, 03:54 PM
Yeah, I've heard that one a BUNCH. Ususally with the under 25 crowd. Usually, they will tell me "You're a wuss for doing that, learn martial art/be a man and fight someone.", etc etc. I hear from these little white kids raised on Japanese anime that it is not "honorable" to use a gun in a fight. First off, I didn't ask to be in this "fight" (more like struggle away from death), secondly what's honorable about some jerk trying to rape a woman?


Hey now I was raised on them japanese animes and I don't think it's unhonorable to do that. I think it's smart :P(Then again all I watched was the shoot 'em up ones like hellsing and gunsmith cats). People just say that cause now they don't have the advantage:neener:

Anyway my most annoyin gun myths:
Mosins are ugly

Glocks are usefull:neener:

.30-30 is outdated and too inacurate for deer

The SKS can shoot you in the foot and come out your neck

If I shot you in the shoulder with the .45 acp you would spin around and hit the ground.(From my grandpa)

That pulling both triggers at once on a stagecoach loaded with 3in mag 00 buck doesn't hurt(I still do this o.O)

That if you were to point a pistol at a king or queen you would drop to your knees and sit there in, how do you put it? In ahhh.(English Bob:neener: )

Eleven Mike
October 18, 2006, 04:12 PM
That if you were to point a pistol at a king or queen you would drop to your knees and sit there in, how do you put it? In ahhh.(English Bob )
Come again?

1911Tuner
October 18, 2006, 04:18 PM
Eleven Mike...That was a line from the movie "Unforgiven." English Bob was remarking on the attempted assassination of the US President, and saying why no one would ever attempt it on a King or Queen, because they would stand there..."In awe" at the sight of royalty.

It occurred shortly before Little Bill kicked the soup out of him.:D

Joe Demko
October 18, 2006, 04:47 PM
It occurred shortly before Little Bill kicked the soup out of him.

In as much as that movie has a "hero," it's Little Bill IMO. English Bob, Munny, et. al. are lowlives and killers. Little Bill and his deputies do a pretty fair job of keeping them from plaguing the town. Yeah, I know Little Bill pissed all over the RKBA, but I still liked the character.

sicario103
October 18, 2006, 04:54 PM
Bleh I'm tired of hearing:

*how someone in martial arts can easily disarm somone with a gun. Yes, it can be done under the right circumstances such as being super close where the retarded gun man for some inexplicable reason has his gun all the way stretched out (extended). If I have somone real close to me and I can't back away from him then I would make myself less square (position myself more diagonal) and protect my gun by lowering it close to my belt line and semi raise my other arm like if I was checking someone in basketball. I can fend off the attacker if he tries to get close and shoot him if I have to. But ofcourse in every martial art demonstration the gun man has his arm fully extended. Listen, there was a martial arts expert who said that he can disarm someone easily but in real life freeze is freeze.

*And the most hilarious myth that I ever heard (from third world countries). If you pull the bullet out and put salt in the casing will make a bullet wound impossible to close up.

Big Calhoun
October 18, 2006, 04:57 PM
These have probably already been mentioned, and this is very general, but...

I can't stand myths about the mindsets of gun owners, in general. For instance, if you own more than one gun, then someone wants to say it's an "arsenal" and you must be in a militia or a gang. Or just the fact of owning a gun someone makes said owner a barbarian with no regard or respect for human life...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?!?!?

The biggest annoyance is that to some, my gun owning ways somehow automatically make me a right-wing conservative. I'm actually a registered independent with more leanings towards the liberal side. But, hey, whatever. Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

ZeSpectre
October 18, 2006, 05:03 PM
In as much as that movie has a "hero," it's Little Bill IMO. English Bob, Munny, et. al. are lowlives and killers. Little Bill and his deputies do a pretty fair job of keeping them from plaguing the town. Yeah, I know Little Bill pissed all over the RKBA, but I still liked the character.

Part of the point was that movie has no hero. People who believed what they were doing was right or just, but certainly not heroic at all.

Okay, back to the topic.

Eleven Mike
October 18, 2006, 05:05 PM
The biggest annoyance is that to some, my gun owning ways somehow automatically make me a right-wing conservative. I'm actually a registered independent with more leanings towards the liberal side.

Stick around. We'll square you away. :)

ProguninTN
October 18, 2006, 07:10 PM
[QUOTE]You're a wuss for doing that, learn martial art/be a man and fight someone[./QUOTE]

I've heard that. I will challenge them to go against an armed attacker with no weapons. Let's see them disarm somebody who's been practicing with the Tueller Drill. :evil:

Brass Fetcher
October 18, 2006, 07:27 PM
the M-16 bullets tumbling in flight? Or what about the rotation of the bullet from the rifling as a wounding mechanism?

JE223

Double Naught Spy
October 18, 2006, 07:40 PM
1. The little hole in the buttstock of an AR15/M16 is to release gas pressure.

2. Gun owners aren't sheeple (implied by various statemens on various gun forums)

SixForSure
October 19, 2006, 11:03 AM
If it hasn't already been mentioned, "explosive decompression."

C'mon, somebody conclusively BUST THAT MYTH ALREADY! Adam & Jamie? Bueller... Bueller... Anybody? Adam and Jamie did a segment on that an I believe that they did indeed BUST it.

GlenJ
October 19, 2006, 07:20 PM
Gunshop owners who try to sell SKS's and Mausers as GI bring backs just because they don't have an import mark. But yet they don't have bring back papers.

gak
October 21, 2006, 04:34 AM
The usual:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j234/gakk/sg.gif

and: "The bad guy has a gun in his hand, I'll shoot it out of his hand 60 feet away with my 9mm in one shot. Now he'll rub his hand, grimace, and surrender. I've never had to hurt anyone because I'm so accurate.":rolleyes:

Combat Controller
October 21, 2006, 04:50 AM
Wierd, I started a thread just like this one on another forum I moderate on.... Glad I found it. Here are a few things below (reposted) that got up my nose that have not been mentioned yet IIRC.

ďOne week after the balloon goes up, iron sights will rule the worldĒ

This is one of the more pugnacious statements I have heard. It gets repeated a lot at appleseed shoots (an otherwise very good learning experience) and the like on certain forums. I guess you have to define the balloon going up first, and then you will have to explain to me what happened to disable every scope in the world. Every ACOG will suddenly stop working in a civil insurrection? War with Iran? What? I understand that having BUIS (back up iron sights) on your general purpose rifle is always a fantastic idea, but why a week after TEOTWAWKI does every scope stop working? I think that you can reinforce the idea that reliance on too much technology can weaken you, but if the statement really means 50 years after a major disaster that we have not recovered from, then I think knowing how to knapp flint will be as much, if not more important than, your now most likely useless rifle. I heard this again today, and had to address it.

Here is another one:

ďYou are an idiot if you donít use XYZ for PDQĒ When someone has already stated that what they have is all that is available.

Well, if you are grizzly hunting with a .22 you might just be, but you also may be the best, most stealthy hunter in the world. Ditto concealed carry, etc. Now, when it comes to ammo selection, we want something more effective, but if you need to work with what you have, then using your primary weapon (hint: itís located above your shoulders) first to determine how to deploy it is important. In training we were told to to improvise, adapt, and overcome. If all you have is a pocket LED and a 28 ga single shot, then by gum letís figure out how to use it to itís maximum potential rather than give up and declare that it wonít work.

dfaugh
October 21, 2006, 09:21 AM
how someone in martial arts can easily disarm somone with a gun. Yes, it can be done under the right circumstances such as being super close where the retarded gun man for some inexplicable reason has his gun all the way stretched out (extended). If I have somone real close to me and I can't back away from him then I would make myself less square (position myself more diagonal) and protect my gun by lowering it close to my belt line and semi raise my other arm like if I was checking someone in basketball. I can fend off the attacker if he tries to get close and shoot him if I have to. But ofcourse in every martial art demonstration the gun man has his arm fully extended. Listen, there was a martial arts expert who said that he can disarm someone easily but in real life freeze is freeze.

I will challenge them to go against an armed attacker with no weapons. Let's see them disarm somebody who's been practicing with the Tueller Drill.

Sorry, if you are close enough, it doesn't matter what weapon you have, or how you hold it...it can be taken away, easily(unless you're Superman). It really just a matter of human physiology...it called REACTION TIME. That's to say that someone who initiates the attack, can complete it before you have time to react.

Note the underlined part...yes, it does require that you be a reasonable (relatively short) distance away. Although, I've seen a few accomplished martial artists that could close distance far faster than you would think humanly possible. Faster than even I would believe possible, if I hadn't seen them do it.

Crosshair
October 21, 2006, 01:28 PM
HOW would some super duper martial artist keep the gun from going off? I know when I practive defencive shooting I have my finger wraped around the trigger, not like when you target shoot and have just your fingertip on the trigger. I can see you MABEE doing it with a DA gun, but with anything single action, the gun is going to go off.

Eleven Mike
October 21, 2006, 11:11 PM
Well, this thread has ceased to be amusing.

dfaugh
October 22, 2006, 11:45 AM
HOW would some super duper martial artist keep the gun from going off? I know when I practive defencive shooting I have my finger wraped around the trigger, not like when you target shoot and have just your fingertip on the trigger. I can see you MABEE doing it with a DA gun, but with anything single action, the gun is going to go off.

Well, first of all, it doesn't matter if the gun goes off....most disarming techniques involve (as a first step) getting the gun pointed away from you. Maybe not so good for innocent bystanders, but it'll keep YOU from getting shot.(although most disarming techniques actually involve moving the gun upward, and away, so the risk to bystanders is minimal) And, of course the second step is disabling the guy with the gun. Most disarming techniques are counter-intuitive, in that you aggressively move TOWARDS the attacker (gun holder) and get inside his ability to shoot you. (same applies for knives). Disarm (or render weapon useless) THEN disable.

I used to teach self-defence classes (mostly to women, when I was heavily involved in martial arts) at the college I went to. One of the demonstrations I always did was to allow a student to hold a knife about 1/2 inch from my throat. And tell them to jam it in me as soon as I moved (from a position with my hands up and to the sides). While we used a butter knife, I would've had no fear of using a VERY sharp knife. We used the butter knife, because it would always end up flying across the room when I disarmed them. Again, there is NO WAY you can react as fast as needed. I also taught them to move in the middle of a sentence (pleading for mercy or WHATEVER)...this lulls the attacker in to a false sense of security (for some phsycological reason, no one expects you to attack while you're talking).

Now, some one that's REALLY fast, and knows exactly what they're doing, can probably snatch the gun away before you can fire EVEN IF YOUR FINGER IS ALREADY ON THE TRIGGER. Try holding onto ANYTHING while someone is bending you fingers backwards---the automatic (really autonomic) reaction to the pain is to release whatever you're holding. Again, if you manage to fire, so be it...but the gun will now be pointing in a different direction (possibly at YOU.)

So, in short (can't really explain it without demonstrated it), you first control the weapon, as you move inside the effective radius of the weapon, rendering it harmless, then follow with a disabling (or fatal) blow. (I usually taught it with a throat strike...fatal (in a coupla minutes if done properly, but definitely disabling, even if not).

aspen1964
October 22, 2006, 01:11 PM
..someone snatching the gun away from you(snatch the pebble
from my.hand)...you are holding them at gun point too close & if they are trying to close in on you..it is an attack and you shoot...and only a dumbell would hold his gun out at arms length on a person at close proximity...you hold the gun close to your body where he can't grab it(about where your kidney is)...and as to martial arts vs. firearm..martial arts doesn't have the same range of effectiveness:neener:...karate kid is only good if he can get his 'flesh weapons' close enough to a gun-holding opponet before the opponet pulls the trigger, otherwise you go to meet the dragon guarding the gates of heaven...

brerrabbit
October 22, 2006, 01:38 PM
Not going against the h2h types, but devils advocate does have a role,,,

If I am pointing a gun at someone, I will do it at a distance. A gun is a distance weapon, from a distance of one to fifty feet, there is no aprecable loss of force in the bullet. Only a fool of a gunman would get close enough to someone to allow them the chance to remove the gun or hold it at extended arm position like in most of the H2H scenarios.

A knife against the throat? Why? The primary strength of a knife at close quarters is stabbing, not cutting. If I am holding someone while using a knife, I am going to stick them with it about an inch deep against their back while keeping them captive with my other arm. If they turn towards me, they stab themselves, if they turn away, my other arm keeps me and the knife in place. Any resistance and the knife goes deeper. This is an actual historically tried and true method of mugging and has used quite often.

Most H2H combat once a weapon is deployed will only succeed if the hostage is very skilled in hand to hand, and the man with the weapon is extremely unskilled. But then again, resistance in any form is usually benificial if you believe you are about to die.

Myth that I hate the most, that a .22 will not kill or penetrate to the point of being lethal. Or that the majority of people will shrug off getting shot with a .22

a HD myth that I hate, only guns that will kill with one shot are useful for home defense.

The biggest myth is that every home invader is a pcp crazed psycho that is not affected by being shot repeatedly by smaller caliber weapons and that is what you must prepare for by getting larger weapons.

ProguninTN
October 22, 2006, 06:18 PM
..someone snatching the gun away from you(snatch the pebble
from my.hand)...you are holding them at gun point too close & if they are trying to close in on you..it is an attack and you shoot...and only a dumbell would hold his gun out at arms length on a person at close proximity...you hold the gun close to your body where he can't grab it(about where your kidney is)...and as to martial arts vs. firearm..martial arts doesn't have the same range of effectiveness...karate kid is only good if he can get his 'flesh weapons' close enough to a gun-holding opponet before the opponet pulls the trigger, otherwise you go to meet the dragon guarding the gates of heaven...

I have to agree with aspen.

novaDAK
October 22, 2006, 06:51 PM
Shotgun: "Ch-Chunk"

Salesman: "Hear that? That's all you need. If someone breaks into your house and they hear that you won't even have to fire a shot."
I heard this exact thing last week at a shop in VA. :barf:

FM2Wildcat
October 22, 2006, 07:57 PM
Claims that a .50 BMG rifle can shoot down an airliner.

Well actually it could but it depends if your close enough, what type of airliner and where exactly you hit it. It would have to be a very very lucky shot.
Remember that 50 cals were used in our WWII fighters and even our Korean war era jets such as the F-86 Sabre. But they were throwing a lot of lead to shred the other plane.

A .50 BMG round can cut you in half..
If a 50 hit you in the side, it might not cut you in half cleanly but there would not be much left holding you together. :(
But I do think it would blow your head-clean off..

Loved the Little Bill reference too, I see there are other fans of his here too. :D

Great forum all and just glad to be here. :)

Cheers!

FM2

LEVRLOVR
October 22, 2006, 10:17 PM
All "kung fu" aside,The myth that the Marlin is easier to scope than the Winchester.

shark40sw
October 23, 2006, 12:36 AM
I've always been a huge fan of the experts telling me how a metal detector wouldn't find a Glock. I'd hear that one at least once a month when working the door at one of our more popular clubs. A slight disagreement would start and then I'd look at them in all seriousness, scan my hip (where my keys were, under my jacket) and say Funny, it finds mine okay.
Or the "my so-and-so has a 44 magnum. It's so powerfull it will shoot thru a engine block and th reciol so sever it knocks him on his ass" . Funny how a full grown man would have that happen when my ex (all 5"5" and 112lbs of her) never had any such problem when she shot my 2" 629. Although she wasn't a fan of it, especially with 240s in it (hot 180's were a no no) I never once saw her fly thru the air or fall back.
And maybe more of a pet peeve than a myth, but what the hell is with the bad guy going out to rescue anyone and arming himself with only a handgun. Case in point, Pink Cadallac with Eastwood. End part of the movie and they are trying to get away. They are in a room full of rifles and assault rifles and he takes 2 grenades ( cause everyone likes a good explosion of course) and a few mags for the 45. What about the AK's on the wall and the stack of mags? If my dog starts barking her head off at God knows what hour of the night (fairly secluded area with a decent length driveway), with intent, I have a light on the shotgun for a reason. It's the same reason I have a 45 in a paddle holster. Or why I have a spare tire and a cell phone in the car.

If you enjoyed reading about "Most annoying Gun Myths" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!