What is the untrue gun myth that irritates you the most

[citizenconn]

I don't know - seriously. Is that a bump stock?

Only to gun-grabbing politicians and their ilk. Here is what Mr. Cicilline said about it for those who missed it:

Rep Cicilline: "No one has said it is a bump stock, but what we are saying is it harnesses the semiautomatic fire recoil and it operates like a bump stock because subsequent shots occur in rapid succession. That's exactly what a bump stock does."

For further reading: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...yesterdays-house-assault-weapons-ban-hearing/

 

[Appalachiannative]

The Second Amendment pertains to hunting rifles.

My father in law always says that. Poor guy. He told me I shouldn't have my SKS with the duck bill mags because "you can't go hunting with that" and "that's one of them man Killin guns" according to him "that's one of them thangs only police and the military are supposed to have" hell he's called it a "machine gun" before lol

 

[KahrDriving]

The 7STW shooters say that it doesn't drop at all.

Bullets from an M-16 tumble.

Yea, it’s amazing how that tumbling bullet just happens to be pretty accurate! No use arguing with these people!

 

[KahrDriving]

Perhaps engines of the middle 1930s were structurally flimsier? Perhaps it was all hype and advertising copy?
Perhaps the smaller diameter bullet was a better penetrator?
Truthfully, I've never shot an engine block of any sort. Never had occasion to do so and most likely won't in the future.
I have read a number of accounts - of those who claimed to be eye-witnesses to such things - who claimed the .357 Magnum was much better than the .38 Special using the 158 grain RNL 'so-what' load. I don't know if the engine was instantly disabled (don't recall any claims of that) or if the engine was cracked enough to loose water, overheat and quit thereby (not many details). I have read that .357 Magnum did penetrate car bodies (sheet metal) better than other rounds.
But I not recall any believable source claiming to either totally penetrate or otherwise instantly destroy an engine block.
I agree. Once I worked for just over a month trying to get a bump stock to work on an old SMLE. Never did.

Most handgun bullets are basically soft lead, maybe a copper jacket which is also soft, compared to cast iron. You might get lucky and crack a water jacket, but you’re still shooting thru the inner fender and outer fender which would take some energy away, the newer cars sheet metal is paper thin and the blocks are mostly aluminum, it might actually break an aluminum block or head, but it would stop right there, would not go clear thru. A rifle round would probably knock a hole in it but I think it would take a .50 BMG to go clear thru it

 

[KahrDriving]

Being a shop owner and perhaps too curious.... ive shot more than one engine with a 44 magnum redhawk with a 7 and whatever inch barrel loaded with pretty hot 240 grain bullets and never done any damage to the block that would stop an engine in time to help anything . Maybe if you had a block made for something smaller and then later bored bigger (305 but later a 400, 352 later made a 390 etc) and you just happened to hit a thin spot you might get lucky but in all my testing it didn't do much. Maybe divine intervention kicks in and it's your day to be lucky and something good happens idk. But the old American v8s and 6 cylinders I shot survived. Best I done was busted a water jacket. A lead bullet hitting an iron block at handgun speed just didn't impress me.

Aluminum blocks and ohc engines would likely be easier to kill. Hit either exhaust or intake vvt solenoid and the car loses the cam position and it quits giving fuel. The cams are hollow to allow oil to move for the phasers etc etc But idk. I'm sure it happens but IMHO you would have to get lucky.

Anyway

One of my biggest myths is the "can be converted to full auto just by using a nickel/ dime" myth. Never a penny though. Lol. I'm sure it comes from truth. And I'm sure it worked in some rifle. But ive heard it since I was a kid hearing folks talking to my ww2 vet grandpa right up to today. (My grandpa told them he never had a nickel to try it out lol) It's been said about every rifle from sks to AK to AR to M1 carbine. And I still hear it from time to time.

I also came from the automotive family, retired from dealership after 35 yrs, basically in parts, but twisted wrenches for some time. You’re right, all these newer alum blocks and heads would definitely be more apt to be damaged than the old cast iron blocks. But, if you have one of the new turbo fours or sixes, the engine will likely self destruct without being shot!

 

[mjsdwash]

57 Magnum would crack an engine block an

When the .357 Magnum came out in 1935, cars were built a little simpler. The initial load for the .357 Magnum was a 158 grain bullet at an advertised velocity of close to 1500 fps. (Soon it was loaded down a bit as it was pushing the limits of the mechanism.) The round was advertised as being suitable for police in stopping cars.
At any rate, then and for quite a while, (perhaps still) a long barreled .357 Magnum would crack an engine block and generally disable an automobile in a short period. As is common, the story got better with the telling.

In the later 1980s, the idea of shooting at a moving car became rather suspect and then (I can't remember when) many agencies and departments by policy forbade shooting at moving vehicles with certain exigent circumstances. Which pretty much put the .357 Magnum out of that game.

don't let it ruin the fun. Back in the early days of the .357, you still had some hand crank cars with generators. Very small hood area. A hit to the generator would stop one pretty instantly. A hit to a battery could as well. Generators weren't that great at adapting to unbuffered charging. Add in the ignition coil, intake (fuel mixture was sensitive and a leak will stall you) carb, fuel, or any vacuum line and that engines stopped within 3 seconds. That means really almost any direct hit to the front of the engine or one side has a decent chance of disabling the car. Not likely after WWII though.

 

[Speedo66]

“Bullets fired from a M-1 Garand go up.” This from some WWII vets long ago.

Trying to explain that the bullet went up because sight adjustment caused the muzzle to be pointed up in order to overcome gravity to hit a target down range, and that one fired from a M-1 with the barrel exactly parallel to the ground would immediately start dropping, was fruitless.

 

[kwguy]

That you can’t fire a gun in space.

 

[aaaaa]

Not just falling over dead, but flying backwards 25 feet from the 1000s of ft/lbs of energy from the lung blowing 9mm.

I want to see the shooter who should also be flying backwards 25 feet from the recoil!

 

[.308 Norma]

Trying to explain that the bullet went up because sight adjustment caused the muzzle to be pointed up in order to overcome gravity to hit a target down range, and that one fired from a M-1 with the barrel exactly parallel to the ground would immediately start dropping, was fruitless.

I've noticed that it's pretty much fruitless to try and explain that to a lot of people even today. And by "a lot of people," I mean a lot of gun people, shooters, that should already understand it IMHO.
As a matter of fact, while it's not the gun myth that irritates me the most, I've heard (read) people right here on THR claim such and such bullet "drops less" than some other bullet at such and such distance.

 

[aaaaa]

Good grief man....there a multi page thread here on THR.
If true, that there IS a national gun registry.......WHY THE HECK would ATF be coming to ask if you still had those guns?

In a REGISTRY, with REAL gun REGISTRATION......they would already know.

I would assume they are overzealously checking that you were not making a straw purchase, so if you can't produce both guns or give reasonable account of where they are if not in your possession, they will likely assume you made a straw purchase. However, I don't believe they have the legal right to request to see your guns.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

I've noticed that it's pretty much fruitless to try and explain that to a lot of people even today. And by "a lot of people," I mean a lot of gun people, shooters, that should already understand it IMHO.
As a matter of fact, while it's not the gun myth that irritates me the most, I've heard (read) people right here on THR claim such and such bullet "drops less" than some other bullet at such and such distance.

Well, that could actually be true; depending on time of flight, which depends on muzzle velocity, ballistic coefficient, etc.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Okay, so I've been known to occasionally watch some cheesy action movies on the tube late at night.

Cars, trucks and SUVs do NOT explode into a ball of flame (or, for that matter, fly up into the air, roll over twice, and then explode) after taking a few rounds from a pistol or rifle... (even from a .50 cal, believe it or not).

Of course, in Hollywood, if a car rear ends another car on the freeway, both will explode into a big fireball. Even Pintos weren't that inflammable.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Well, that could actually be true; depending on time of flight, which depends on muzzle velocity, ballistic coefficient, etc.

They don't really "drop less", they drop at 32.2 ft/sec^2, same as every other object dropped on the surface of the earth.

 

[gila_dog1]

It's ok if I sweep the muzzle of my gun past you. It's unloaded.

 

[crstrode]

Being shot anywhere except the shoulder is instant death.

 

[kwguy]

.

 

[kwguy]

They don't really "drop less", they drop at 32.2 ft/sec^2, same as every other object dropped on the surface of the earth.

Well, if being fired “off axis” while traveling forward at a high rate of speed, depending upon the orientation of the shooting axis (left or right), a bullet can exhibit “jump”, or “drop” compared to when firing the weapon at a standstill.

But I get your point.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

they drop at 32.2 ft/sec^2,

Precisely. Therefore the total drop at a given distance depends on the time of flight.

 

[dogtown tom]

I would assume they are overzealously checking that you were not making a straw purchase, so if you can't produce both guns or give reasonable account of where they are if not in your possession, they will likely assume you made a straw purchase.

True.

However, I don't believe they have the legal right to request to see your guns.

False.
Nothing is illegal about ATF, any other LE agency or your next door neighbor asking to see your guns, your underwear or your college transcript. You DO have the right to refuse to answer the door, refuse to answer questions or tell them to kindly get off your lawn.

 

[.308 Norma]

They don't really "drop less", they drop at 32.2 ft/sec^2, same as every other object dropped on the surface of the earth.

Absolutely.

 

[.308 Norma]

Precisely. Therefore the total drop at a given distance depends on the time of flight.

That's true too. However, that's not what the yahoos that claim their favorite bullet "drops less" at 300 yards (or whatever distance) are talking about. The guys that I was griping about don't even consider time of flight because they're not really sure what that even means.

 

[aaaaa]

True.


False.
Nothing is illegal about ATF, any other LE agency or your next door neighbor asking to see your guns, your underwear or your college transcript. You DO have the right to refuse to answer the door, refuse to answer questions or tell them to kindly get off your lawn.

We need a prohibition on any feds arresting people outside of perhaps DC. They should have to go to the state and get permission or pass it along to the state authorities to deal with. Feds have way too much power.

 

[dogtown tom]

We need a prohibition on any feds arresting people outside of perhaps DC.

So tell us all about all these instances of the feds arresting people outside of DC as it is. Contrary to popular belief, the number of prosecutions for federal firearm violations is pathetically few. For example, in the Northern District of Texas, the US Attorneys Office will not accept charges for lying on a Form 4473. It's not because they don't occur, but because it would tie up their caseload if they chose to accept those cases.

They should have to go to the state and get permission or pass it along to the state authorities to deal with.

Based on what?
What part of the US Constitution grants states the ability to enforce federal law?
As far as "pass it along".....thats what they do in the overwhelming majority of cases. Federal charges are used as a threat when the defendant is also charged with state felonies. As in "plead to this state felony and we won't pursue federal charges". Also used when the defendant beats the state rap, the feds are a fallback to put dirtbags away.

Feds have way too much power.

Yet they rarely exercise it.

 

[aaaaa]

True.


False.
Nothing is illegal about ATF, any other LE agency or your next door neighbor asking to see your guns, your underwear or your college transcript. You DO have the right to refuse to answer the door, refuse to answer questions or tell them to kindly get off your lawn.

One sheriff is not taking it and says if they don't have a warrant, they can be arrested for trespassing and he will do it.