The Gun Thread

Quick question: What use is there for a .50 calibre handgun that's not adequately handled by smaller calibre handguns?

I heard that they're used as backup weapons for hunters in bear country. Outside of that, I think it's just a BFG approach to life.

I don't know that there is one unless you're hunting big game...

I thought large calibre rifles and shotguns with slug rounds were usually preferred for big game.

Well, if your gun jams or is otherwise incapable of being fired, you'll need a sufficiently powerful side-arm to deal with an angry bear/elephant/big cat/etc.

Why a .50-caliber handgun? (be it a .50 AE or an a actual .50 BMG round)

Bragging rights, compensating for something, more money than sense, etc.

It's a niche market.

Barkey: Yes, I really like the ergonomics of the AR.

My only possible gripe is that the selector lever takes a full 90-degrees to rotate from semi to auto/burst, and once there, you can't put it back to semi without moving your hand a whole bunch. But that's a small quibble. I'd like it if it had a charging handle like what the H&K's (and others) do, something you could lock back into a notch, in addition to the bolt-hold button on the side of the receiver, but that would probably mean that the weapon has been redesigned significantly to be a piston/op-rod system of operation.

I was a SAW gunner, and the ergonomics on that were Teh Suck, with all those sharp little edges and crap. Shot beautifully, though.

Does the army still use the SAW, or have the switched over to something lighter and less awesome?

I hadn't heard about them dumping the SAW; it's only been in service since the mid-eighties, and has had some upgrades and improvements since then.

Mine, for example, issued brand new back in '98, didn't have the round-on-feedtray indicator on the feed cover (although the notch for it was still there), it had a handguard attached to the top of the barrel (older ones were 'naked'), the stock was fixed and solid plastic-stuff, not the tubular metal one, and the gas block fire rate selector feature had been dropped, so it fired at a fixed rate. There were some other changes from the original issued ones and the later ones, too. I think the later ones had an improved oil buffer in the buttstock, but I'm not sure.

Nope, we still use the SAW. I carried one on my first deployment.

@Barkey: I've heard that the SAW was a vast improvement over the M60 - at least, soldiers preferred it. This true?

Did anyone see the Future Weapons segment on the SAW's potential replacement? I'm not an expect on fire teams but I have to qestion their judgement on this one.

edited 18th Jan '12 5:13:04 PM by joeyjojo

M249 SAW is still in our military. It does however have a host of modifications. My favourite mod. The one that makes it fire 7.62mm Nato Rounds. Only thing better would be latest Gen M-60.

On Shotguns V Pistols. Shotguns. The reason is the nearly universal sound of a round being jacked into a chamber. The sound alone is enough to get attention, intimidate and signal to the intruder they made a bad choice. The other reasons already mentioned low penetration provided you use the correct variety of ammo for it. Shotguns at point blank range (what you will be firing at in your home) are devastating. You are likely stop and drop whoever you blast on the first shot. Your aime does not need to be as fine to nail the target. You don't need a lot of training to operate a shotgun. They are easier to shoot from the hip.

Pistols are more mobile, light, and carry more ammo but you may need multiple shots to take them down. A skiled shooter with a handgun can be pretty accurate and capable on their own.

Pistols that fire shotgun rounds. The recoil is not all that much greater. They are smaller shells and do not require the additon of stock. There are also bolt action pistols that are usually used for target shooting but they have also been used for hunting.

Large caliber pistols. Either hunting or as 'Range Queens' Ie. Weapons for show and to shoot for kicks. Pretty much the reason for a lot of people to own various firearms.

There are a variety of .50 caliber cartridges on the market. .50 AE, .50 BMG, .500, etc. Some are big game cartridges one is a really big pistol cartridge.

S&W .500

Good website to peruse for unusual fire arms Aireborne Combatengineer I ignore any of the politics oriented posts on the blog but the posts on firearms themselves are interesting.

The SAW did not replace the M-60, the M-240 Machine gun did.

edited 18th Jan '12 5:23:23 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Why do I keep thinking SAW is the designation instead of the actual weapon?

Because it is what it is commonly called. M-249 SAW S.quad A.utomatic W.eapon

The SAW is lighter then a M-60 and fires the same bullets as the M-16.

The SAW and the 240B(the new-gen M60) are different weapons that we use.

The 249 SAW is an automatic rifle, meant to be used to suppress enemies on the move. The 240B is a heavy suppressive weapon, more intended for being mounted on a mobile platform or being in a fixed position(though also used as an infantry support weapon)

I don't like the supposed replacement for the SAW, the IAR. You can't replace the SAW with anything that holds less than a 100 round drum.

I do not think replacing the saw with that weapon will work out either. We can improve the saw platform.

M-240G makes a pretty good man portable infantry support weapon. MG teams attached as part of a suppliment to a squad or companies fire power is nice. The weapon is a bit hefty though. The built in bipod means you can use it sans tripod. But you get a more stable firing platform if you use the tripod.

@Tuefel/Barkey: Thanks for clearing that up, I was always confused as to the nomenclature.

As an aside, perusing imfdb is fun...especially now that they've started cleaning up all the snark directed at actors not handling guns correctly. They are, after all, just actors...occasional mistakes are going to happen.

We have a trope for that IIRC.

We have a trope for everything, why not that?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that the same Beretta 92 was carried by Bruce Willis in the first three Die Hard movies. The same gun was used by Mel Gibson in the first Lethal Weapon. That piece is now (very deservedly) in a museum.

And somewhere, John Woo is scheming to steal that pistol. I just know it.

Ahh the Beretta. A movie staple for some time. I hate that damn pistol. Under powered, overly large handgrip, high trigger pull and only comes in 9mm. Fun gun to tear apart down to the frame though.

Are you referring to the M9 pistol? It was my understanding that its variants include .40 S&w, 9 X 19mm and 9 X 21mm.

The Beretta PX 4 Storm is a superior pistol in my opinion.

edited 18th Jan '12 9:21:18 PM by Aprilla

Beretta 92 F/S. There are more handguns that Beretta makes then the 92 F/S that are actually pretty good. I have a personal hate for the F/S because the grip is uncessarily wide and it has a high (9lbs) trigger pull. The weight is not too bad but I would prefer it be a little bit lighter.

I like the various safety features though. You can have a round in the chamber and throw it up against a wall and it wouldn't go off.

On the issue of safety features, I agree. The grip doesn't bother me, but I probably have longer fingers than you. Speaking of which, I enjoy the adjustable grips that often come with Walther handguns.

The Grip really bothered me the most like you noted it was the grip was really too big for my hand size. I was a pretty decent shot with the 92 F/S though. The trigger pull the Marine Corps requires for their Pistols is kinda high. 9lb on the double action 7 on the single IIRC.

I do like the Walther line of hand guns. Glocks are nice too. The 3rd Gen Glock 22 in .40 Cal with standard grips fit my hand very nicely. I kind of want the Ruger 22 LR Pistol that looks kind of like a Luger because well it looks like a Luger :P

I heard a lot people say the Beretta is unreliable as well, but a poor workman always blames his tools.

On the Glocks, the film US Marshals had throw away line about it being able to fire underwater. Any truth in that?