Which gun myth(s) did you used to believe?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by 38-45 Special, Apr 12, 2021.

  1. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,862
    Location:
    WNY
    Flame on - the Second Amendment is totally clear to everyone and SCOTUS will void gun laws in the golden future.
     
  2. John_R

    John_R Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    Florida
    The NRA will fix things.
     
  3. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,256
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Yaaaay!!!

    Oh wait .... that was sarcasm, wasn't it? :scrutiny::thumbdown: .......... :confused:
     
    theotherwaldo and 270OKIE like this.
  4. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,404
    Location:
    Near Gettysburg, PA
    Heard a rumor, which I never quite believed anyway, that the Russians invented a wartime caliber just larger than the 5.56 so that they could use captured 5.56 ammo in their rifles while the Russian caliber would be too big for their enemies to use.
     
    Terry G and 1KPerDay like this.
  5. earplug

    earplug Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,029
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Mil-Spec is the best
     
    Poper and theotherwaldo like this.
  6. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,425
    discussing cartridges compared to one another was a topic that had a conclusion ...
     
  7. ojh

    ojh Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    175
    Location:
    Finland
    Glock needs an aftermarket barrel for shooting plain lead bullets.
     
  8. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    North Carolina
    1) All bullets can and will take unusual paths once they enter the body. One of our guys shot himself in the chest with am M16A2 through his vest, the bullet passed through his heart, bounced off a back rib, exited his torso at the armpit, entered his upper arm, hit his humerus, slid down it, exited his elbow, and landed harmlessly on the lap of the person next to him in the truck. Another guy was hit in the forearm by an AK round at close range (about 20 feet), the bullet hit his ulna, slid up the bone and exited his elbow (it did crack the bone, but did not shatter it.) Bullets take the path of least resistance, sometimes that's in one side out the other, sometimes it meanders around a bit.

    2) As to the cyclic rate of fire of the M16 . . .

    To quote MIL-R-45587 - Military Specification - Rifles, 5.56mm: M16 and M16A1:

    3.3.9 Functioning. Each rifle shall operate without malfunctions or unserviceable parts when tested as specified in 4.8.5. The cyclic rate of fire for a 20 round continuous burst shall be within 700 and 900 rounds per minute when firing standard M193, 5.56mm ball cartridges conforming to MIL-C-9963.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but 750 rpm is in between 700 and 900 rpm, right?

    The M16/M4 is the subject of much mis-information, myths, and downright lies. Despite the fact that the truth has been published right from the very beginning of the M16 program, people would rather believe the myths.

    • Ball powder was the problem - myth
    • No chrome bore was the problem - myth
    • Not putting chrome bores was just stupidity - myth
    • Stoner made it right, the Army screwed it up - myth
    • Tumbling bullets - myth
    • Bouncing off twigs - myth
    • etc.
    • etc.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
    270OKIE, theotherwaldo and JR24 like this.
  9. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,923
    Location:
    Northern KY
    I think I lost 20 IQ points reading some of this.
     
    270OKIE, Coop45 and theotherwaldo like this.
  10. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    12,879
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    Back atcha with:

    If it was perfect from the get-go, why have there been continual upgrades and modifications since 1964?

    Methinks Mr. McNamara and his bean counting buddies in the Pentagon believed some myths also, particularly:

    "The M16 is not issued with a cleaning kit, because it does not need to be cleaned."

    I can tell you from much experience that it will run wet for quite some time before it fails, but they do need to be adequately cleaned and maintained.

    Wear and other factors, particularly by the time I was working on them (86-89) slowed them down a little bit. Just speaking from my personal experience, not MIL-R-45587.
    Most of ours ran right about the same rate as the M60's which were rearsenaled, and spittin' 'em out at the reg. 550.
     
  11. Deus Machina

    Deus Machina Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,049
    Location:
    Brandon, Florida
    "Revolvers are always going to be more reliable than autos."
    I've had autos that I bought new years ago and haven't had a malfunction since they came out of the box. Conversely, I have yet to own a revolver that hasn't jammed up, whether it's gumming up around the cylinder face, somehow getting a shell stuck under the ejector star (that's still a mystery to me) or even the S&W 586 that managed to get a round to jump crimp (also a mystery).

    Indeed, that's someone that listened to the accountants, not the engineers.
    There's a reason a lot of IT workers won't own things that must be wifi enabled and mechanics won't own a car without differential or transmission dipstick or fill holes. Things will go wrong and must be maintained.
     
    270OKIE and entropy like this.
  12. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,298
    Location:
    The Dark Side of the Moon
    Growing up spoon fed on Hollywood action movies, I used to believe that shooting handguns accurately was something that anyone could easily learned.

    Even though I seem to have some natural talent for it, I now know different.
     
    .308 Norma likes this.
  13. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Actually, the M16/M16A1 developed into a reliable weapon between 1963 and 1967. After 1969 there really were never any "reliability improvements". The M16A2 was more of a reputation enhancement than anything else, and that is how some engineers from Picatinny viewed it.

    New rear sight - the old one worked, maybe it wasn't as user-friendly as it could have been, but it was adequate.
    Square front sight post - makes it a better target rifle, but otherwise, nothing.
    New barrel - does absolutely nothing.
    Increased pull - makes it a better target rifle, but otherwise, nothing.
    3-round burst - not really and improvement.
    Brass deflector - Okay, this make shooting left handed easier on the face.
    New handguards - Actually, the "new" handguards were designed back in 1967, the Army just couldn't justify buying new hanguards for something they just bought
    Compensator - Useful
    New grip - there was nothing wrong with the old one

    So, out of nine major changes, only three of them corrected an actual short coming of the M16A1, and really could have been implemented as attritional improvements.

    The M4 is a completely different animal, it needs to be quite different, so it needed a complete development cycle, which ran from 1990 to about 2004, the long duration was mostly due to the Army indecision on how much of a hit they were willing to take in reliability for the sake of commonality.

    Then they changed the ammunition. which mean things had to be tweaked again.

    I honestly do not think anyone actually believed that at the time the M16 was being fielded. The Army certainly did not. I think the main problem was the people in charge of the program at the SecDef level did not view rifles and cleaning kits as things that needed to be integrated and issued together. "Just use the existing cleaning supplies . . . sheess, do I have to think of everything?"

    We had some pretty "well-used" M16A1 in basic, and none of them ran anywhere near the "chug!-chug!-chug!" of the M60, they were more akin to the faster M240s.
     
    270OKIE, theotherwaldo and entropy like this.
  14. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    North Carolina
    That is caused by trying to eject the cases up, or sideways, as opposed to ejecting them down.

    The ejector stroke is slightly longer that the case, so you can eject loaded rounds. If you try and eject the cases upward the ejector star, which only touched about 80 degrees around the rim, looses control of the case and it falls down. Sometimes neatly in the chamber, which is a pain because the ejector is now on top of it.

    If you want a speedy reload from a hand-ejector type revolver, point the muzzle up when ejecting.

    Top-breaks don't have this problem because the the ejector has enough velocity get the cases to clear the cylinder, but for utmost reliability, break the weapon in the horizontal plane.
     
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  15. MistWolf

    MistWolf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,575
    This thread isn't about what gun myths you've been told. We've done that a million times, already. It's about which gun myths you believed. My list is myths I once believed. Of course, I was pretty young at the time and each one has since been proven to be wrong.

    Don't waste our time with myths other people believe. Tell us which myths you used to believe.
     
  16. John_R

    John_R Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    Florida
    You're a moderator? o_O:rofl:
     
    hey smepl this, .308 Norma and JR24 like this.
  17. Encoreman

    Encoreman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    657
    Location:
    on the edge, Tn.
    That it was unlawful to make your own firearm.
     
  18. Kevin Rohrer

    Kevin Rohrer Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,377
    Location:
    Medina, Ohio USA
    That the Wonder-9 Punibellum is a superior round for SD.
     
  19. Bfh_auto

    Bfh_auto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Messages:
    4,711
    I was just told that one today by a 58 year old Co worker.
    I just said okay and when in our conversation.
     
  20. tinhorn

    tinhorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2020
    Messages:
    9
    No, that would be a 20 gauge slug.
     
  21. DustyGmt

    DustyGmt Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,011
    Location:
    Green Mountains Vermont
    Your wife sounds cool.;)

    My wife goes about 120 or a lil less. I wish I could get her to shoot a 9mm efficiently. If I'm honest I'd like her to shoot more, but don't push it as much as I'd like to because I figure if she really wanted to, she would take me up on my invitations. Sometimes she will humor me, and she likes to shoot .22lr's, and she lies about liking to shoot other stuff, but it's so few and far between range trips for her that every time she shoots a centerfire, it may as well be the first. Maybe I'm not giving her enough credit, she can get on a paper plate at 15 ft, but not quickly or efficiently.
     
    .308 Norma likes this.
  22. MistWolf

    MistWolf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,575
    No, just guy who's more interested in what myths people used to believe and seeing how they've grown since. Another thread just rehashing "What old myths have you heard?" is dull boring and tedious.

    From the first post-
     
  23. Deus Machina

    Deus Machina Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,049
    Location:
    Brandon, Florida
    Oh, I know how it happens under normal circumstances. And would be no surprise if it was on a .357 or with a proper full-length ejector. This one happened on my Taurus M85, which has an ejector length that isn't even as long as the .38 cartridge.
    It somehow lost grip on a cartridge still partially supported by the chamber, with no extra force, which slipped under the star under nothing but gravity and its own weight, but then absolutely would not come out in any fashion short of bending the case. Like some sort of blackmith's puzzle.
     
  24. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,256
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    How does a round "jump crimp???" Perhaps I should ask what is the "crimp" that was being jumped?
     
  25. Jimbo80

    Jimbo80 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2020
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Florida
    That story is not a myth.
     
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice