The Shooting (Firearms) Thread

[BUDFORCE]

Apparently there are a few old threads on a similar subject but I thought I'd start a new one.

I have checked with a mod if this was ok to make a thread about.

Can I ask, that all discussion is kept 100% legal and within the law. Responsible grown up people kind of chat where possible. But I'd like to hear what others do, and what guns they have - if they are comfortably sharing that on a public forum. Where they shoot etc?

So anyone into this sport?

I am very new, recently joined up with a local rifle club on a probation period to start, so far been fireing .22 rifles at paper targets, good fun so far, I take my 12 year old son with me, he is also welcome (and a pretty good shot!)

According to the club rules, due to the size of the range, they limit things to .22 rifle, or apparently you can use a pistol chambered rifle, I think they said either up to 70 or 90 grain ammuniation - I'll need to double check.

I already have my eye on a potential rifle if I progress which is chambered for .357, a Ruger 77 series rifle, which is a bolt action rifle and is legal in the UK with the appropriate licence. I am not sure if I could find ammo light enough ammo though for it, I need to do more research.

I have actually fired several guns previously when I used to live in New Zealand, a Glock 17, a few different shotguns, a .22 rifle and a couple of .308's.

One of the .308 was a shorter, almost carbine style rifle, that apparently saw action in some war in south asia, it has tradional iron sights but also a "jungle" combat sight which was jjus ta round circle. That thing kicked like a mule I'll tell you.

(Below is Hickok45's review of the rifle I have been eying up)

 

[BlueMerle]

I own several guns (big surprise given where I live ). Enjoy going to the range on a lazy Sat. and punching holes in paper.

I've owned many makes over the years but some time ago I settled on Sigs. They just fit my hand better. As for rifles, I don't hunt so I only own a couple ARs. I break them out a couple of times a year.

Glad to hear you're taking the boy with you. It's important that they learn about firearms properly and not half truths from other kids at school. Besides it's a great chance to bond.

Enjoy!

 

[something daft already!!]

I used to fire a lot of weapons as a kid. I was in the Army cadets and was introduced to many rifles, machine guns, tanks and Artillery guns. My favourite to fire would have been the Lee Enfield MK3 .303 rifle. Old school weapon. The SA80 Mk2 was a much lower powered weapon, nowhere near the same range or damage, The SLR was similar in range and power to the 303 but auto reloaded and use 7.62 ammo, no need to use the bolt each time you fire. These weapons (SA80) using. 556 ammo are more designed to injure than kill. As this is more effective at stopping a battle. 1 injured person take up three soldiers to deal with him. A dead one takes none.

 

[BlueMerle]

These weapons (SA80) using. 556 ammo are more designed to injure than kill. As this is more effective at stopping a battle. 1 injured person take up three soldiers to deal with him. A dead one takes none.

Sorry, but I totally disagree with the bolded. Reagan was almost killed by a .22 and I have witnessed a murder by a .22

There's just no such thing as a weapon designed to 'injure' and not 'kill'. It simply doesn't exist. Smaller calibers were designed for game and not people. The .22 is a great squirrel gun, but when fired at a human it can still be lethal. The fact that it doesn't have the muzzle velocity to completely penetrate the human body in many cases is exactly what makes it so dangerous. If the round hits something hard like the spine or a rib it simply bounces off and creates more damage internally.

If you're not sure about this then ask a buddy to shoot you with a .22 . Let me know how that goes.

Don't forget that the AR-15 uses .223 ammo and is very lethal. F=MA. A small projectile traveling at a high speed imparts a great deal of energy.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood depictions of guns. It's total Bull.

 

[Rroff]

SA80 not being designed to kill IIRC was a myth dreamed up my soldiers disgruntled about the loss of the SLR which in some cases (but not all) was popular.

I had wanted to get into rifle shooting more but they closed the rifle range near me due to lack of use and only do shotguns with clays apparently there is a decent rifle range near Bridport but a bit of a trek from me. There is a place near me that does experience days on all kinds of weapons but that isn't the same.

If the round hits something hard like the spine or a rib it simply bounces off and creates more damage internally.

.22 is an odd one in this respect - I've seen it go through a pretty substantial block of wood in one instance but bounce off a car windscreen from the wrong angle in another (at similar ranges).

 

[BUDFORCE]

I own several guns (big surprise given where I live ).

Enjoy!

Which ones do you have I'll look them up maybe Hickok45 has done a video on them.

 

[something daft already!!]

Sorry, but I totally disagree with the bolded. Reagan was almost killed by a .22 and I have witnessed a murder by a .22

There's just no such thing as a weapon designed to 'injure' and not 'kill'. It simply doesn't exist. Smaller calibers were designed for game and not people. The .22 is a great squirrel gun, but when fired at a human it can still be lethal. The fact that it doesn't have the muzzle velocity to completely penetrate the human body in many cases is exactly what makes it so dangerous. If the round hits something hard like the spine or a rib it simply bounces off and creates more damage internally.

If you're not sure about this then ask a buddy to shoot you with a .22 . Let me know how that goes.

Don't forget that the AR-15 uses .223 ammo and is very lethal. F=MA. A small projectile traveling at a high speed imparts a great deal of energy.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood depictions of guns. It's total Bull.

You can kill someone with a finger.

My point, or the point being that the bullets were smaller calibre but not only that, the way the bullet behaves after entering a body. On a 7.62 or .303 round, the round will fragment as it enters the body. It leaves a nice clean entry wound but rips a massive exit wound as the spinning round fragments inside the body. The lower calibre and slower round of the 5.56 does much less damage. Of course it can still kill but that's not the point.

 

[BlueMerle]

Which ones do you have I'll look them up maybe Hickok45 has done a video on them.

Pistols:
Sig Sauer P226 (full size) - .40
Sig Sauer P229 Legion (compact) - 9mm
Sig Sauer P220 Nitron (full size) - .45
Springfield Armory 1911 Mil-Spec Defender Series - .45
KelTec P3AT - .380 auto (Able to conceal this while wearing cargo shorts. Love it but it's an up close and personal gun. Not accurate)
Glock G23 (compact) - .40 (Collects dust in a safe... can't stand it, won't even take it to the range. Should sell it..)

That's my current lineup. Through the years I've owned, and subsequently sold, many others.

Rifles:
2 Springfield Armory Saint AR-15 - 5.56 (Rem. .223) Stupid name, great weapon.

 

[BlueMerle]

You can kill someone with a finger.

My point, or the point being that the bullets were smaller calibre but not only that, the way the bullet behaves after entering a body. On a 7.62 or .303 round, the round will fragment as it enters the body. It leaves a nice clean entry wound but rips a massive exit wound as the spinning round fragments inside the body. The lower calibre and slower round of the 5.56 does much less damage. Of course it can still kill but that's not the point.

We may be arguing semantics here, but you literally said: "more designed to injure than kill" . That's a direct quote. No such thing. Doesn't exist.

 

[BlueMerle]

SA80 not being designed to kill IIRC was a myth dreamed up my soldiers disgruntled about the loss of the SLR which in some cases (but not all) was popular.

Now this I can believe.

.22 is an odd one in this respect - I've seen it go through a pretty substantial block of wood in one instance but bounce off a car windscreen from the wrong angle in another (at similar ranges).

True. They can do some weird stuff.

 

[BUDFORCE]

True. They can do some weird stuff.

Well I guess a ".22" can be vastly different depending on a load of variables, I mean .22 can be .22, or .22 LR or .22 WMR (rimfire) I guess there are others also.

Then it depends of the grain of the ammunation used. Then the type of bullet, being pure soft lead, or hardcast, FMJ etc.

Then barrel length also.

 

[BUDFORCE]

So went back to the range today, fired a bolt action .22 today mainly, 100 rounds on that.

Then had a go on some muzzle loading black powder pistol, which looked like it was from the late 1800's but was actually a pretty new replica apparently. The guy warned me it had a light trigger and he wasnt joking, had my finger over the trigger guard, went to put it on the trigger i literally touched it and the thing fired, i hadnt quite got it aimed yet, but oh well, hit the target at least just not where I had intended lol.

Then had a go on .38 lever action rifle, that was good fun, but the iron sights on it were terrible.

Also I checked with them and apparently that .357 chambered Ruger rifle will be fine provided I can find soft lead ammo with a light enough grain.

 

[BlueMerle]

So went back to the range today, fired a bolt action .22 today mainly, 100 rounds on that.

Then had a go on some muzzle loading black powder pistol, which looked like it was from the late 1800's but was actually a pretty new replica apparently. The guy warned me it had a light trigger and he wasnt joking, had my finger over the trigger guard, went to put it on the trigger i literally touched it and the thing fired, i hadnt quite got it aimed yet, but oh well, hit the target at least just not where I had intended lol.

Then had a go on .38 lever action rifle, that was good fun, but the iron sights on it were terrible.

Also I checked with them and apparently that .357 chambered Ruger rifle will be fine provided I can find soft lead ammo with a light enough grain.

Sounds like you had some fun!

Question about the bolded. When you say "soft lead ammo" are you referring to what we call "ball ammo"? That is, exposed lead with no jacket.

If so, why?

If the range you go to is only able to deal with that, as opposed to fmj then ok. If not, I would never put ball ammo through any firearm I owned. Actually, I would find another range. ( I understand that that might not be possible for you... sorry.)

 

[Rroff]

Well I guess a ".22" can be vastly different depending on a load of variables, I mean .22 can be .22, or .22 LR or .22 WMR (rimfire) I guess there are others also.

Then it depends of the grain of the ammunation used. Then the type of bullet, being pure soft lead, or hardcast, FMJ etc.

Then barrel length also.

I was talking about bog standard .22 LR BTW - I can't remember anything more specific than that. I've always found it a bit weird in that in some ways you get the perception it is "baby" ammo especially with the delay on longer range targets but it is still pretty capable really.

 

[BUDFORCE]

Question about the bolded. When you say "soft lead ammo" are you referring to what we call "ball ammo"? That is, exposed lead with no jacket.

If so, why?

If the range you go to is only able to deal with that, as opposed to fmj then ok. If not, I would never put ball ammo through any firearm I owned. Actually, I would find another range. ( I understand that that might not be possible for you... sorry.)

Yea exposed lead, yea it's because the range is small, there is some steel plating at the back and then a brick wall, they specifically say you cannot use FMJ as they are concerned you'll shoot through the steel plate, go through the brick wall, behind that is a public area.

I didn't realise ball ammo, as you call it can damage your barrel. I definitely don't want to be doing that if I buy that rifle.

As for other ranges there are a few around, but we have weird laws here so I'll need to stick at this one for the time being at least till I can get my firearms license, which will take maybe 6 months from now.

Maybe I'll buy a cheap second hand .22 and then investigate other ranges later.

I'm jumping ahead though, all takes a little time and several hoops to jump through, not like America I'm afraid, we don't enjoy some of the freedoms you do.

 

[ttaskmaster]

My point, or the point being that the bullets were smaller calibre but not only that, the way the bullet behaves after entering a body. On a 7.62 or .303 round, the round will fragment as it enters the body. It leaves a nice clean entry wound but rips a massive exit wound as the spinning round fragments inside the body. The lower calibre and slower round of the 5.56 does much less damage. Of course it can still kill but that's not the point.

Well, speaking just of the NATO cartridges....

It's more about the deformation and tumbling than actual splintering or fragmentation.
Each round is prone to yawing and tumbling, but the 5.56 does so at shorter ranges, doing far greater damage than a 7.62 would at the same distance. Contact ranges have generally become quite short these days and in more built up areas, ie less than 200m and in many cases less than 50m, so 5.56mm is considered much more effective.
But studies and analyses undertaken since the introduction of .223 ammo in Vietnam have shown far greater damage from that than the 7.62mm in the majority of cases, no it's not exactly news.
Also, the thinner 5.56mm is faster than 7.62 - 993m/s vs 850m/s on average - Making it well suited to armour penetration, without the over-penetration of a target that 7.62mm has. This is why so many countries have adopted the 5.56mm for general issue, resigning 7.62 to specialist applications and suppressive fire weapons - It's just not needed.
Moreover, the weight is a big factor - A soldier can carry 120 rounds of 7.62 or 360 rounds of 5.56 for about the same weight and space. Multiply this up to Company level quantities and then figure out how many crates in how many vehicles on how many ships you'll need to supply your forces, and the advantages become very evident.

But then, I was never an Army Cadet, so what would I know?

Question about the bolded. When you say "soft lead ammo" are you referring to what we call "ball ammo"? That is, exposed lead with no jacket.

Are things different in the civilian world, then?
Every single British and US military round designated 'ball' that I have ever encountered has been FMJ.

 

[BlueMerle]

Are things different in the civilian world, then?
Every single British and US military round designated 'ball' that I have ever encountered has been FMJ.

Sorry, I misspoke. You are correct. I have some kind of mental block with the term 'ball ammo'. I always associate it with exposed lead, no idea why.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Sorry, I misspoke. You are correct. I have some kind of mental block with the term 'ball ammo'. I always associate it with exposed lead, no idea why.

Too much time stuffing lead balls down muzzle-loaders, inhaling the fumes and trying to manage 3 rounds a minute in any weather?
"If ye grind it t' fine, ye'll blow yer bloody 'ead off. Then no booger'll know 'oo's the best shot. Thee, or me..."

 

[BlueMerle]

I'm jumping ahead though, all takes a little time and several hoops to jump through, not like America I'm afraid, we don't enjoy some of the freedoms you do.

Depends on where you live here. I have friends in New Jersey & New York that have to jump through hoops to get a gun. Can take them months to get all the licenses and that's for every single gun they want.

With my license to carry here in Texas, I can buy a gun over my lunch break.

 

[BlueMerle]

Too much time stuffing lead balls down muzzle-loaders, inhaling the fumes and trying to manage 3 rounds a minute in any weather?
"If ye grind it t' fine, ye'll blow yer bloody 'ead off. Then no booger'll know 'oo's the best shot. Thee, or me..."

Ha! That's probably it.