[sterling_archer]

Old but gold.

Tokarev TT-33


Zastava made its version called M57 "Tetejac". It was a really popular gun, reportedly rugged as AK47. Unfortunately I haven't shot with it, but I saw it in person. Even though grip looks weird, its actually comfortable.

[ShotgunUppercuts]

They no longer make that gun?

[Hoser]

I shot a Tokarov. Not exactly slick, and the sights were criminally bad, IIRC. It reliably put lead downrange, however, and that's the most important thing.

[ms224]

7.62 tok / mauser is a woefully underappreciated round.

A modern pistol, say a glock, with modern hollowpoints and +p rounds would be awesome.

[weambulance]

Unfortunately the 7.62x25mm doesn't fit in anything in common use. It's too long, at 1.340" vs the 1.275" max length of the 45 ACP. There are handful of modern niche pistols--Coonan 1911, Desert Eagle--that could fit it with significant custom work including having magazines made but they don't offer any real advantage over just using a TT-33 because they're still single stack.



7.62x25mm Tok, 9x19mm, 45 ACP. Besides the length, there are issues of case taper to worry about as well. In effect, you'd need even more extra length in your magazine well than it seems at first glance.

You're not really missing out on anything, though. Common cartridges like 9mm are better in every practical respect unless you're assaulted by a guy wearing soft body armor and happen to be carrying ball ammo (pretty unlikely). If you're using hollow points, you lose the AP ability of 7.62x25mm, make significantly smaller wounds than 9mm HP, gain a bunch of muzzle blast, and have the exact same capacity as a 9mm or 38 Super version--7.62x25mm might even cost you a round or two to case taper issues--of any given platform anyway.

I do like these funky old school cartridges, don't get me wrong. But the dominant cartridges are dominant for (mostly) good reason.

10mm strikes me as the most underappreciated practical cartridge around, though to be fair most people don't need the power. It's a good thing I really like the Glock 20 Gen 4. I'd think I died and went to heaven if HK made a scaled up 10mm version of the VP9.

[ms224]

but it would be soooo cool.

I still want my Mauser.

I want one of these.

[Hoser]

When it comes to choice of sidearm, I wonder: how much do we value badassery vs practicality?

I once had an HK USP in 45 (the "flying ashtray" HP round) carried in a Galco horse leather shoulder rig. I felt bad ass AF, but I was extremely uncomfortable with the massive print I was always trying to hide.

My go-to setup these days, when not needing to be extra discreet for work purposes, is a Glock 27 (subcompact 40cal w 10 rds) carried IWB in kidney position. Armed, yes, but nothing to brag about.

Switch to my S&W 642 scandium / titanium 357 snubby, which has half the capacity of the Glock, but is rather more powerful per shot, and I feel a little special again.

Interesting.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-18-2017 11:46 PM)ms224 Wrote:  

but it would be soooo cool.

I still want my Mauser.

I want one of these.

Suppressors have always suffered from a "jack of all trades, master of none" issue where in the absence of being engineered for a specific gun are stuck with a generic tubular configuration in order not to rule out certain firearms being compatible with them.

Having said that, the gun above will not achieve any mainstream popularity IMO. It fills no particularly useful niche except as a range queen, where you typically have to wear ear-gear regardless due to other people's guns.

It's not a carry gun. It's not a hunting gun. What is it? Basically an overpriced toy with a suppressor that you can't put on any of your other guns.

Interesting fun-fact, though. Australian suppressor laws (at least in my state) very specifically refer to a device which you attach to your gun. Technically guns with integrated, non-removable suppressors are legal, although the plod would still fuck you six ways from Sunday just to make a point.

[ms224]

Its the first integrally suppressed gun for the commercial market.

Right now silencers are on the NFA and require a bunch of paperwork, $200 tax and a lot of bullshit.

If suppressors are removed from the nfa (ie you can just buy one, which is a big hope now that Trump is in office) that thing will be
over the counter.

Anyways, the reason is, I think its fucking cool. also at $1500 its not really mainstream right off the bat.

[J. Spice]

(02-19-2017 03:18 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(02-18-2017 11:46 PM)ms224 Wrote:  

but it would be soooo cool.

I still want my Mauser.

I want one of these.

Suppressors have always suffered from a "jack of all trades, master of none" issue where in the absence of being engineered for a specific gun are stuck with a generic tubular configuration in order not to rule out certain firearms being compatible with them.

Having said that, the gun above will not achieve any mainstream popularity IMO. It fills no particularly useful niche except as a range queen, where you typically have to wear ear-gear regardless due to other people's guns.

It's not a carry gun. It's not a hunting gun. What is it? Basically an overpriced toy with a suppressor that you can't put on any of your other guns.

Interesting fun-fact, though. Australian suppressor laws (at least in my state) very specifically refer to a device which you attach to your gun. Technically guns with integrated, non-removable suppressors are legal, although the plod would still fuck you six ways from Sunday just to make a point.

I agree that it's more of a 'proof of concept' product than anything commercially viable at this point, but integrating a suppressor into a combat handgun makes a lot of sense for certain roles. For home defense and police use it's perfect. If you've ever had the poor judgement to fire a weapon indoors without ear pro you know why. I think once more companies experiment with it and competition drives the price down (and the ridiculous NFA regulation goes away) these guns will become a lot more commonplace.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The thing is huge, though. Imagine what it would look like once you mounted a torch to it.

I don't know. I'm not in a position to talk about how easy it would be to carry a gun like that around all day, but I've never heard anyone say "bigger is better" in that regard, and even when carrying openly as per the police, they use their guns so infrequently (maybe never) that it doesn't seem like a reasonable trade-off, especially if you wanted to mount a light to the bottom rail.

For home there's really no reason for yanks not to use a short barrelled rifle. If you're in the unenviable position of having to deploy a gun to defend yourself at home then you might as well be reaching for something with some punch, and if you want to slap a suppressor on the end of it then all the better.

As an afterthought I think it could make a fantastic bug-out weapon for an urban survivalist, but that's about it.

[torridon747]

Shotgun are considered the best for HD for a reason. Ease of use, spread, and the noise a pump makes should be good enough to fend off an attacker in close quarters.

You don't want to try shooting a wmoving target with a short rifle (carbine) from <10 ft especially without any training or ever really.

I would suggest a high capacity lower calibered handgun before a carbine.

[CaptainChardonnay]

Yeah gotta watch out for whats behind the target when shooting indoors with a carbine

[Leonard D Neubache]

There's a whole lot of mythology involved with that. You'll find that there's no relevant benefit for using pistols over carbines when considering over-penetration unless you're using ammunition designed to defeat armour, which would be pointless unless you're planning on shooting a SWAT team.

Taking into account having to use more shots from a pistol than a rifle in any case (both in accuracy and stopping power) then the supposed benefit of pistols indoors becomes inverted.

There's a website with all sorts of real world ballistic tests called "box o truth". I highly recommend it.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

[Hoser]

My local SWAT team justifies its use of 5.56 by celebrating the round's "tumbling" property. This assertion is rife with controversy, but it has at least some merit. 7.62, not so much.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Shooting enthusiasts are the absolute worst for loudly and persistently spreading superstitious nonsense about this and that. Gun forums are factoid city and it's only recently with the advent of easy video hosting that much of the bullshit has been swept aside (remember how .50BMG rounds supposedly rip off an arm or face, even with a near miss?)

"Controversy" in this instance is typically the same as "agenda". From the left it's "we hate the police and will find fault with anything they choose". From the gun nuts on the right it's "haw haw haw, muh knowledge, muh ego, evreewun's dumb on guns 'cept meeee!"

[sterling_archer]

How cannot .50 bmg rip off arm when shot in it?

[polar]

(02-23-2017 01:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

There's a whole lot of mythology involved with that. You'll find that there's no relevant benefit for using pistols over carbines when considering over-penetration unless you're using ammunition designed to defeat armour, which would be pointless unless you're planning on shooting a SWAT team.

Taking into account having to use more shots from a pistol than a rifle in any case (both in accuracy and stopping power) then the supposed benefit of pistols indoors becomes inverted.

There's a website with all sorts of real world ballistic tests called "box o truth". I highly recommend it.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Some fascinating and amusing reading here. Based on some of his empirical tests,, it seems that:

dick gun measuring contests aside, with most standard calibers and ammo, you have more to worry about over penetration than under penetration. Most indoor walls won't hold a round, nor will doors, for that matter. Always be aware what's behind your target.

A corollary then seems to be that accuracy is more important than caliber.

Books are good for stopping bullets. Even a rifle only penetrates about 15 inches, and handguns around 7 inches.

Doors, including metal covered doors, don't stop anything bigger than 22 or birdshot.

Body armor may stop a round, but you're still going to feel a hell of a blunt impact.

Hollow points may not expand as well when penetrating heavy clothing.

Shotguns do big damage at small distance. Beyond 25 yards, more pellets will be off target than on target - you're still responsible for where they end up.

If you're taking fire while inside a car, you're fucked unless you speed off into the distance, run the fucker over, or get out and hit the ground. Shooting back while doing all of the above doesn't hurt.

[Leonard D Neubache]

What I found amazing was that the way that when shooting at the front window of a car (from the inside or outside) the bullet deflects in the opposite direction to the one I'd assumed.

Rounds fired from inside the car through the front windshield impact higher than the point of aim, while rounds fired from outside in impact lower than the point of aim.

Pistols were used for that test. The difference in deviation seems to once again be one of bullet weight more than velocity. Reasonable to guess that you'd see similar results with rifle rounds.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-23-2017 08:55 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

How cannot .50 bmg rip off arm when shot in it?

The myth was that even if you missed (slightly) with a .50BMG that the air-drag from the bullet was still powerful enough to rip off an arm. Even with a hit I very much doubt it would remove the arm. Skin is quite tensile and while I have no doubt the arm would be functionally dead it would still be "hanging on" so to speak. Besides, there would not be enough meat for the round to deliver it's full energy. It would punch a large hole and create a terrible exit wound but most of the round's energy would continue on with the bullet beyond the initial target.

No source for that, but I've observed ballistics while hunting and no matter how powerful the round, if it doesn't have enough meat to expand in and slow down then the results are not as spectacular as you'd think.

[Number one bummer]

(02-24-2017 03:26 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 08:55 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

How cannot .50 bmg rip off arm when shot in it?

The myth was that even if you missed (slightly) with a .50BMG that the air-drag from the bullet was still powerful enough to rip off an arm. Even with a hit I very much doubt it would remove the arm. Skin is quite tensile and while I have no doubt the arm would be functionally dead it would still be "hanging on" so to speak. Besides, there would not be enough meat for the round to deliver it's full energy. It would punch a large hole and create a terrible exit wound but most of the round's energy would continue on with the bullet beyond the initial target.

No source for that, but I've observed ballistics while hunting and no matter how powerful the round, if it doesn't have enough meat to expand in and slow down then the results are not as spectacular as you'd think.

The myth started because the first Call of Duty video game involved a guy getting his arm shot off by a 50BMG. There use to be videos of small animals getting hit by 50BMG and getting torn apart on youtube which made people think the same result would happen to a person. I've shot a groundhog at close range with my Mini-14 and it turned inside out so you can't compare small mammals to humans.

[sterling_archer]

What if .50 bmg is shot at torso? It will probably leave huge hole but not "cut" you of course?

[J. Spice]

(02-24-2017 05:37 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

What if .50 bmg is shot at torso? It will probably leave huge hole but not "cut" you of course?

It depends on the round and where it impacts. A FMJ impact to the front will leave a big hole but not cut you in half. A hit from side to side with a Raufoss round? Different story. More than likely there would still be some tissue connecting top and bottom halves but all the important stuff would be severed.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I suppose much of it is a question of luck. I've seen a cat shot from front to back with a .223 and that literally turned it inside out. Same sized cat shot from side to side will piss off and die hours later. I've also seen roos hit with a .308 centre mass before bounding away as if nothing happened.

Sometimes bone gets caught. Sometimes just soft tissue. Sometimes the flesh it too soft to force the round to expand. Other times it might find a joint first thing and go to work. It's all a bit of a crap-shoot.

quickedit: I've heard tell that the soldiers involved in the real life events that the movie Blackhawk Down was based on complained that the locals were so skinny that the fmj rounds the soldiers were issued had serious issues with stopping power. Evidently the "skinnys" were too skinny for the rounds to work properly.

[J. Spice]

(02-24-2017 08:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I suppose much of it is a question of luck. I've seen a cat shot from front to back with a .223 and that literally turned it inside out. Same sized cat shot from side to side will piss off and die hours later. I've also seen roos hit with a .308 centre mass before bounding away as if nothing happened.

Sometimes bone gets caught. Sometimes just soft tissue. Sometimes the flesh it too soft to force the round to expand. Other times it might find a joint first thing and go to work. It's all a bit of a crap-shoot.

quickedit: I've heard tell that the soldiers involved in the real life events that the movie Blackhawk Down was based on complained that the locals were so skinny that the fmj rounds the soldiers were issued had serious issues with stopping power. Evidently the "skinnys" were too skinny for the rounds to work properly.

Ballistics is such a weird field of study. So much of it is speculation and inadequate testing due to the inability to confirm hypotheses without someone dying. The only rules that seem to stick around are make sure you hit a vital area and don't stop shooting until the other guy goes down.