We had a special guest at the range...
- Thread starter Gunhead
- Start date
- Status
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I like that pistol's width a lot, but those grips... Well, they're... They're just... Well, they're not as ugly as Shillary Snopes Clinton, but...
I know we'll never get it here in the original Russian bottleneck cartridge chambering, because of the round's ability to penetrate Kevlar (and I'm OK with that, personally), but I'd sure like to get it chambered in .32 ACP with clip-grip arrangement. That's a nice-sized, skinny gun perfect for carry.
Bob
Bob
Drakejake
Member
OK, where can I get one?
Drakejake
Drakejake
Sox
Member
Great pics gunhead. Heck, someone needs to bring that thing out in a titanium frame/slide version chambered for the new NAA .32ACP!
WonderNine
member
Very cool looking gun. Never heard of 5.45X18mm before. Sounds cool.
Too bad they're selling the ammo for $3.00 a round.
Too bad they're selling the ammo for $3.00 a round.
cratz2
Member
If I could, I'd be all over that thing.
Thanks for sharing the very good pics!
Thanks for sharing the very good pics!
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Gunhead-
Pretty cool peice ya got there. Any more info on it?
Pretty cool peice ya got there. Any more info on it?
I agree completely. While we're at it, we should be forbidden other calibers that can penetrate kevlar like .223, .308, .30-06, .243, etc.
chaim
Member
Something just isn't right if people over in Hungary have that gun chambered in that round but here in the good ole USA, "Land of the free and the home of the brave", we can't get it because it is in a caliber that the powers that be have decided is too dangerous for us mere mortals.
Cheer up, this pistol was a special guest, it's definitely not as easy to get piece in Hungary.
Some info on the PSM:
http://www.milparade.com/1996/18/46-47.htm
http://www.baikalinc.ru/eng/prod/hguns/psm/
http://mcp.cpu.lu/handguns/database/Handguns/PSM/psm.htm
Some info on the PSM:
http://www.milparade.com/1996/18/46-47.htm
http://www.baikalinc.ru/eng/prod/hguns/psm/
http://mcp.cpu.lu/handguns/database/Handguns/PSM/psm.htm
I'm sorry, Justin-I guess I wasn't specific enough.
As a guy who has to wear Kevlar on occasion, I'm not real fond of the idea that there a round designed for use in a highly concealable handgun which will penetrate my body armor at close range. In fact, my understanding is that this particular round was developed by the Russians for the specific purpose of defeating body armor and I can't see any other useful application for it.
Rifle rounds generally are fired from rifles or big handguns which are not highly concealable.
Perhaps that distinction is not important to you, but it is to me. I am just as supportive of handgun ownership as anyone else here, but I think there is really no need to introduce such a cartridge here.
Not trying to start an argument-merely stating an alternate point of view, OK?
Bob
As a guy who has to wear Kevlar on occasion, I'm not real fond of the idea that there a round designed for use in a highly concealable handgun which will penetrate my body armor at close range. In fact, my understanding is that this particular round was developed by the Russians for the specific purpose of defeating body armor and I can't see any other useful application for it.
Rifle rounds generally are fired from rifles or big handguns which are not highly concealable.
Perhaps that distinction is not important to you, but it is to me. I am just as supportive of handgun ownership as anyone else here, but I think there is really no need to introduce such a cartridge here.
Not trying to start an argument-merely stating an alternate point of view, OK?
Bob
El Tejon
Member
gum, there are other calibers that will defeat armour (dependent upon level) commonly worn that are commonly available and very popular (at least with gun dorks) now. Why the worry about the Soviet .22???
El, the Soviet .22 is the subject of this column and Justin is the one who brought up the issue about my concern regarding that particular round after I stated merely that it was OK with me that the round is not available here.
You're right. There are other handgun rounds which will defeat body armor and I'm not real fond of those, either, but they are ALSO not readily available on the retail market (for which I am thankful) and they were not the subject of this column.
I will also point out that I am very interested in the gun itself and think it could be useful for some purposes, such as deep concealment.
Look folks, all I'm saying is that ammunition which will defeat body armor is a concern to law enforcement officers who otherwise support private ownership of firearms. Since this entire subject is presently nothing more than rhetorical at best, let me ask you-is it unreasonable to show some concern for the safety of those officers, or, in your view, if a law enforcement officer is in favor of banning such ammunition as a matter of self-preservation, is he by definition nothing more than yet another cop who does not support your 2nd Amendment rights? More importantly, in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, is it absolutely necessary to allow general distribution of such single-purpose ammunition? Do we really want officers to be killed if such ammunition was generally available to the criminal element of society in order to prove that we support the 2nd Amendment?
Can we not approach this issue from the standpoint of reasonableness? Do we not have enough effective personal defense ammunition on the market already that we need to have this single purpose ammo as well?
I am satisfied that it is possible to be pro-gun, pro-law enforcement and anti-Kevlar defeating ammo. I am all three. I see no need for such ammo here. I am glad it is not available and I don't want cops to die as a result of making such ammo generally available in order to prove how pro-2nd we are. If that makes me a sellout, so be it. I'm comfortable with my stance on the subject.
One more time-I recognize that this is a RHETORICAL discussion.
OK?
Bob
You're right. There are other handgun rounds which will defeat body armor and I'm not real fond of those, either, but they are ALSO not readily available on the retail market (for which I am thankful) and they were not the subject of this column.
I will also point out that I am very interested in the gun itself and think it could be useful for some purposes, such as deep concealment.
Look folks, all I'm saying is that ammunition which will defeat body armor is a concern to law enforcement officers who otherwise support private ownership of firearms. Since this entire subject is presently nothing more than rhetorical at best, let me ask you-is it unreasonable to show some concern for the safety of those officers, or, in your view, if a law enforcement officer is in favor of banning such ammunition as a matter of self-preservation, is he by definition nothing more than yet another cop who does not support your 2nd Amendment rights? More importantly, in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, is it absolutely necessary to allow general distribution of such single-purpose ammunition? Do we really want officers to be killed if such ammunition was generally available to the criminal element of society in order to prove that we support the 2nd Amendment?
Can we not approach this issue from the standpoint of reasonableness? Do we not have enough effective personal defense ammunition on the market already that we need to have this single purpose ammo as well?
I am satisfied that it is possible to be pro-gun, pro-law enforcement and anti-Kevlar defeating ammo. I am all three. I see no need for such ammo here. I am glad it is not available and I don't want cops to die as a result of making such ammo generally available in order to prove how pro-2nd we are. If that makes me a sellout, so be it. I'm comfortable with my stance on the subject.
One more time-I recognize that this is a RHETORICAL discussion.
OK?
Bob
denfoote
Member
Gumshoe,
I assume you are an LEO. While I can see your point about not wanting to get shot, the view you espouse is unconstitutional. Please re-read the second amendment with an eye toward the phrase "shall not be infringed" What part of that do you not understand????? :banghead:
Not to cause any trouble, just my personal opinion and that of many, if not all, pro gun legal scholars.
I assume you are an LEO. While I can see your point about not wanting to get shot, the view you espouse is unconstitutional. Please re-read the second amendment with an eye toward the phrase "shall not be infringed" What part of that do you not understand????? :banghead:
Not to cause any trouble, just my personal opinion and that of many, if not all, pro gun legal scholars.
BulletinBoardToughGuy
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2003
- Messages
- 16
Is body armor LEO only?
Gum- LEOs aren't the only ones with body armor, bad guys have it too. Should the need arise to put down a "bulletproof thug", this would make it easier. Also, there are uses for this weapon besides poppin' cops: my wife wants a gun that kicks like a .22 and hits hard. I would say that this is that weapon meets both criteria. Besides, if someone wanted a LEO dead, a failure drill with the third round in his forehead negates his body armor. The type of person to carry an armor-piercing pistol for killing cops, so deprived of such a weapon, would simply do the same.
Gum- LEOs aren't the only ones with body armor, bad guys have it too. Should the need arise to put down a "bulletproof thug", this would make it easier. Also, there are uses for this weapon besides poppin' cops: my wife wants a gun that kicks like a .22 and hits hard. I would say that this is that weapon meets both criteria. Besides, if someone wanted a LEO dead, a failure drill with the third round in his forehead negates his body armor. The type of person to carry an armor-piercing pistol for killing cops, so deprived of such a weapon, would simply do the same.
WonderNine
member
Exactly...that's why I like the 7.62X25.
ANother thing, thugs have been known to work for governments....
H
Handy
Guest
Regardless of caliber, an interesting and well thought out design.
I'd buy one in .22 or .380, if offered.
I'd buy one in .22 or .380, if offered.
TheMariner
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 154
I see Gum's point... If I had the leg up of armor, I sure wouldn't want to have peeps around with something to best me.
But on the other hand, there was teh LA bank robbery where two guys taped/strapped armor all over their bodies, making them near walking tanks. It took a couple LEOs renting some M16s from a local store to bring these guys down...
And if you are so worried Gum, get a depleted-uranium or titanium plate to put on underneath your kevlar. Unless you are willing to do that and sacrifice mobility, I suggest not standing around to see which bullets punch through body armor. Body armor is never a guarantee. Remember that.
But on the other hand, there was teh LA bank robbery where two guys taped/strapped armor all over their bodies, making them near walking tanks. It took a couple LEOs renting some M16s from a local store to bring these guys down...
And if you are so worried Gum, get a depleted-uranium or titanium plate to put on underneath your kevlar. Unless you are willing to do that and sacrifice mobility, I suggest not standing around to see which bullets punch through body armor. Body armor is never a guarantee. Remember that.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Gumshoe, I know it wasn't your intention to turn this into a thread debating the relative legal merits of a gun we both think is kinda neat.
However, let us imagine for a moment that this little popgun isn't on the BATFE's list of all around nastiness and evil.
What would the result be?
A bunch of gun aficionados like me would buy one to add to their collection of Eastern Bloc pistols from the Cold War. Surplus ammo would be readily available through the web and Shotgun News. You more than likely wouldn't see them at gun stores, nor would you see the ammo. Criminals wouldn't buy them because they're too enamored of Lorcins and Rugers, and I seriously doubt that any of them have ever read Cruffler to dig up the ballistics stats on guns made by defunct totalitarian dictatorships.
However, let us imagine for a moment that this little popgun isn't on the BATFE's list of all around nastiness and evil.
What would the result be?
A bunch of gun aficionados like me would buy one to add to their collection of Eastern Bloc pistols from the Cold War. Surplus ammo would be readily available through the web and Shotgun News. You more than likely wouldn't see them at gun stores, nor would you see the ammo. Criminals wouldn't buy them because they're too enamored of Lorcins and Rugers, and I seriously doubt that any of them have ever read Cruffler to dig up the ballistics stats on guns made by defunct totalitarian dictatorships.
There are two kinds of general statements that immediately raise my dander. Claiming that something is 'for the children' is number one. Claiming that something is 'reasonable' is number two. If such a supposition is indeed reasonable, then logic dictates that I'd have come to the same conclusion given the same basic set of facts. Nearly every time someone feels that they must point out how reasonable they are being I find that they are, in fact, being quite unreasonable. After all, Tom Diaz thinks it reasonable to ban handguns, so-called 'assault' rifles, and .50 bmg competition guns. Americans For Gun Safety think it's reasonable to shut down gunshows and deny anyone from selling a gun without letting the fed.gov stick their fingers into it. Maybe it's just my inner curmudgeon talking, but claims of 'reasonableness' don't float my balloon because they are not objective, they are an appeal to emotion.
El Tejon
Member
gum, we are fortunate that rights are not defined by "need."
Yup, just as every LEO who wants a database of all citizen DNA does not support the 4th Amendment. And they are out there.
If we start the dog and pony show of "I'm a cop who supports you. Won't you support me by banning those things which put me at danger?" then you can forget about the Constitution. You either support it in its entirety, or you don't.
Gordon Fink
Member
Wow! I’m glad to hear that criminals have started to obey gun-control laws and ammunition regs, but I didn’t know there was such a big problem with law-abiding citizens shooting AP rounds at cops.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Yes it's a good thing the BG's obey the gun laws.
We ought to ban all rifle and shotgun ammo since they can tear up vests good.
Wait, we should just ban all guns as the BGs would surely turn theirs in. Then all cities would be as safe as NYC and Washington DC.
WAIT! Why don't we just outlaw shooting cops? Oh, it's already illegal... and the BG's still do it? Damn...
BTW thanks to you and your buddies we don't have cheap steel core 7.62x39 ammo anymore ,because one company produced one stupid prototype of a pistol that could shoot it.
I'm sure cops everywhere are safer thanks to that...
You guys have to realize that any cop who believes that banning certain guns will make him safer is a closet gun control activist. He will start off saying he supports people having handguns and sporting rifles. But when you explain rifle ballistics to him, his logic will require him to admit that rifles should be banned. When he understands that the traditional 30/30 round will go through his vest easier than the banned full auto UZIs, he will decide that should be banned as well.
Ultimately if you believe banning one type of gun or ammo will make you safer, the logical conclusion is that banning all will make you completely safe.
This is the gun control party line. Guns kill people, not people. Ban guns and you have eliminated murder.
We ought to ban all rifle and shotgun ammo since they can tear up vests good.
Wait, we should just ban all guns as the BGs would surely turn theirs in. Then all cities would be as safe as NYC and Washington DC.
WAIT! Why don't we just outlaw shooting cops? Oh, it's already illegal... and the BG's still do it? Damn...
BTW thanks to you and your buddies we don't have cheap steel core 7.62x39 ammo anymore ,because one company produced one stupid prototype of a pistol that could shoot it.
I'm sure cops everywhere are safer thanks to that...
You guys have to realize that any cop who believes that banning certain guns will make him safer is a closet gun control activist. He will start off saying he supports people having handguns and sporting rifles. But when you explain rifle ballistics to him, his logic will require him to admit that rifles should be banned. When he understands that the traditional 30/30 round will go through his vest easier than the banned full auto UZIs, he will decide that should be banned as well.
Ultimately if you believe banning one type of gun or ammo will make you safer, the logical conclusion is that banning all will make you completely safe.
This is the gun control party line. Guns kill people, not people. Ban guns and you have eliminated murder.
biere
Member
I have to agree with those who feel we should be able to get the gun and ammo.
Limiting what I can use to protect myself so that police are more protected hurts me more than the police.
Limiting what I can use to protect myself so that police are more protected hurts me more than the police.
- Status
