What is the silliest thing you've heard in a gun discussion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The dumbest thing I heard was someone talkiing about an AK knocking someone back several feet....

I told them that due to the laws of physics that if the shootee gets knocked back several feet then the shooter would be subject to the same
effect.

Never got through to them.
 
Stupid remarks

The only difference between a 28" and a 30" shotgun barrel is that a 30" shoots 2" farther. Because the rifleing makes the bullet spin it travels in
a circle . If it could travel far enough it would come back and hit you in the
back of the head. I heared both of these comments from salesmen in
gunshops. One more. A 16 guage shootgun has the recoil of a 20 ga.
and the power of a 12 ga.
 
"Hollow point bullets are illegal 'cuz they can penetrate the body armor a police officer wears" :rolleyes:

He also said the same of the .357Mag :banghead:
 
The VPC's current lines that (1) a pistol grip stock makes a rifle easier to fire from the hip. (2) that firing from the hip is more "lethal."
 
My brother had just graduated from Army Ranger school. We were discussing the M16 and he told me, dead serious, that "it shot absolutely flat for 500 yards". I don't think I ever convinced him otherwise.
 
From a guy looking at an Auto-Ordnance Thompson...
"These are classified as Curio & Relics, because they didn't stop making them since they started back in 1927."
Recently my brother said something to a guy who runs a store in the nearby mall about me getting a Thompson. The guy then tells my brother to tell me I need to get a Class III weapons license. Believe or not, this guy is an FFL and has firearms store in a nearby city. Youd think he'd know they made semi versions...
 
A fellow I use to work with said " the government found a termite that eats nothing but steel and were trying to transport it to our enemies to eat all there arms, but were having trouble getting them there as they consumed the airplains or ships they were being transported on"
This was no Joke as he also said he was with Lews and Clark in 1803.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firing a .45 automatic one-handed will break your wrist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Damn, then my wrist should have been shattered from firing that Taurus Titanium .41 mag snub with 210gr. loads one handed


No, no, no! You don't understand! The .45 is so powerful it will shoot through a whole platoon of enemy soldiers and penetrate the tank behind them!!! :what:
 
Posted by Freightman
A fellow I use to work with said " the government found a termite that eats nothing but steel and were trying to transport it to our enemies to eat all there arms, but were having trouble getting them there as they consumed the airplains or ships they were being transported on"
This was no Joke as he also said he was with Lews and Clark in 1803.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whooo Boy.....:rolleyes:
 
Catch Bullet in Flight
The guy that told you if you fired a 3000fps bullet from a platform going 3000fps, you could catch it, needs to seriously go back to school and re-study basic relativity. This bullet would have a velocity of 6000fps in reference to the Earth, 3000fps in reference to the aircraft, negating air resistance. It's a simple concept you experience everyday in driving in your car.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question456.htm

What would happen if you fired a gun on a train moving as fast as a bullet?

This is a good question because it involves the concept of reference frames.

The quick answer is that relative to you, the bullet will always travel at the same speed. In other reference frames, however, unexpected things can happen!

You may have heard of Newton's first law:

"Every body persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it."

We could rephrase this a little and say that a body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an external force.

Imagine you are on a perfectly smooth speeding train, moving at a uniform speed (not accelerating or turning), in a car with no windows. You would have no way of knowing how fast you are going (or if you were moving at all). If you throw a ball straight up in the air, it will come straight back down whether the train is sitting still or going 1,000 mph. Since you and the ball are already moving at the same speed as the train, the only forces acting on the ball are your hand and gravity. So the ball behaves exactly as it would if you were standing on the ground and not moving.

So what does this mean for our gun? If the gun shoots bullets at 1,000 mph, then the bullet will always move away from the gun at 1,000 mph. If you go to the front of a train that is moving at 1,000 mph and shoot the gun forward, the bullet will move away from you and the train at 1,000 mph, just as it would if the train were stopped. But, relative to the ground, the bullet will travel at 2,000 mph, the speed of the bullet plus the speed of the train. So if the bullet hits something on the ground, it will hit it going 2,000 mph.

If you shoot the bullet off the back of the train, the bullet will still be moving away from you and the gun at 1,000 mph, but now the speed of the train will subtract from the speed of the bullet. Relative to the ground, the bullet will not be moving at all, and it will drop straight to the ground.

What's true for bullets, however, is not true of some other things that you might "shoot" from the front of the train. A great example is sound waves. If you turn on the stereo in your living room, sound waves "shoot out" of the speaker at the speed of sound -- something like 700 mph. The waves propagate through the air at that fixed speed, and they can go no faster.
So if you put a speaker at the front of the 1,000 mph train, the sound waves will not depart the train at 1,700 mph. They cannot go faster than the speed of sound. This is the reason why planes traveling faster than the speed of sound create sonic booms.
 
Just remembered a good one.

"That the presence of guns can be construed to be probable cause that a crime has been committed even if the investigation is of a non violent or misdemeanor nature, b/c there are so many guns and crime committed with them thats its reasonable to assume that they were party to a crime and are therefore immediately and obviously incriminating, even if later found to not have been used in a crime"

Courtesy CSPD & El-Paso county court.:rolleyes: :fire:
 
FYI....


howstuffworks.com is a good place to get bad information. Not EVERYTHING on the site is wrong, but enough to make it a poor resource.


It's a great example of the triumph of advertising over substance...
 
2. guns like the Joker used;


I'd like to hear more about this one!!!!!!!



One of the dumbest gun related things I've heard is from fellow peers whe they say,

"Carrying a gun on the street will put you even more at risk, because if a criminal finds out you have a gun, he is likely going to shoot you first. Better to not have a gun at all, then he won't kill you, and if you do get in a armed holdup, you won't be able to pull your gun out anyway."


:rolleyes: :barf: :banghead:
 
The VPC's current lines that (1) a pistol grip stock makes a rifle easier to fire from the hip. (2) that firing from the hip is more "lethal."

Yes. The U.S. military doesn't have clue, they've been firing their weapons the wrong way for decades. VPC really ought to send someone over to the Pentagon, and show them the far superior hip-firing method, so they can be "more lethal" and do a better job of "hosing down the area".:rolleyes:
 
The Milwaukee County District Attorney at a legislative hearing (9/10/03) on CCW: "I don't have any statistics. I oppose CCW based on my years of experience. You know, road rage incidents, or a CCW holder having a few beers, coming across a crime-in-progress and becoming 'John Wayne.' But I don't have any statistics"

[Editor's note: I heard him make these remarks. I was at the hearing.]

The Wisconsin State Senator (T. Carpenter) on the same bill, same hearing: "Now Mr McCann (the DA above), if the criminals know that there are citizens with concealed weapons, don't you think that the criminals will get LARGER weapons, and then the citizens will get EVEN LARGER weapons...?"

[To my knowledge this is the first time that CCW was blamed for the nuclear arms race.]
 
Found a good one in the local paper today, in the sporting goods for sale section:

"Remington 742 Woodsmaster .30-06. Pre-64. 3-9 Scope, soft case. Exc shape. $465 (503) 636-****"

Except for the phone number editing, this is exactly as it was printed. Last time I checked a Pre-64 remington wasn't worth more than a post-64 remington. I was under the impression that the term "Pre-64" only applied to Winchester firearms...
 
Snipers in vietnam could hit targets from a mile away, they used a .50 machine gun caseing necked down to a 7mm(prolly a special one). My dad talked to two snipers at Doung Wan with this set up and said the best shoot was almost 2 miles (clean head shot), the thing they were worried about was someone walking in front of the target because it takes so long to get there.

What about Carlos Hathcock's shot in Vietnam when he took out the enemy sniper (through the scope IIRC, shot was so far, he aimed at the sunlight glinting off the BG's scope)? Anyone know the range of this shot? It escapes me at the moment... :confused:
 
Anyone know the range of this shot?

do NOT hold me to this, as my memory of the place where i heard the following info is slightly hazy (plus i'm taking cold meds at the moment adn it's 1:30am as i write this...) but..

i seem to recall either hearing in a TV interveiw, or reading in a print interveiw of The Gunny, that the distance for that shot was under 300 yards, (possibly as short as 50-100yrds).

Hathcock ALWAYS maintained a number of "lucky conditions" relating to that particular shot... 1.He [hathcock] was "up sun" so the OTHER guy's scope lens flashed not his, 2. that He got off his shot a split second faster than the other guy (the VC sniper's scope was pointed AT hathcock at the time the gunny fired, otherwise the rest of the conditions of this "legendary shot" would NOT have happened), and 3. that it was pure coincidence (other than "aiming where the flash was") that he centerpunched the guy's scope.

i also seem to remember hathcock commenting that until he and another Marine went to confirm the kill he of course had no idea where he hit the guy, and in fact except for the evidence of "no further shots fired" he had no proof that he HAD hit the guy.


again this is the fuzzy remembering of a guy on nyquil,:scrutiny: (need "drunk as a skunk" icon) i could be off in out space someplace, but i don't think so :D
 
I seem to recall either hearing in a TV interveiw, or reading in a print interveiw of The Gunny, that the distance for that shot was under 300 yards, (possibly as short as 50-100yrds).

An excerpt from the book "Marine Sniper" says the shot was 2500 yards. Which is 1.42 miles! :eek:
 
RE: Raging Glock Thread: To the best of my searching ablilities, I cannot find it. It was on GlockTalk, but I believe it has been deleted. Maybe someone saved it for posterity? Anyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top