Jump to content


Member Since 05 Oct 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 12:45 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Techpb Gun Club

Yesterday, 12:39 AM

Not sure what yall are debating about but if some dude were to pull a knife on me, and threaten my life, regardless of the pocket change, I would probably shoot him. Like I would tell him to leave first, and that if he were to approach me, I would consider it him trying to assault me. I'm sure I have some law stuff wrong but anyways.


I'm sure other countries have bizarre laws (or rather, ones that seem bizarre to us) concerning assailant's rights and such.  Like, I think I've heard that in Italy even if someone is breaking into your home if you shoot him it's considered attempted murder and you will see trial for defending your "castle".  It might even be the case if he physically assaults you, something to the tune of "escalating the situation".  In other words, the only way you can use a gun in self defense is if he uses a gun to attack.  Could be hearsay, I don't remember where or from whom I got it.


I'm more on the doctrine that if you are mugging me or invading my home, you are doing so under the condition to do me harm.  Burglary is one thing, robbery is another.  The only reason you would force your way into my home while I'm there is to do me harm, and I will respond with violence.

Of course, though, having a guy pull a knife out in an alley on you and the first thing you do is reach for a gun you'll be stabbed before you can even get it close to being on target.  The distance required for draw and shoot is a lot bigger than you'd expect.  In that situation it would be better to cooperate unless you are trained in hand-to-hand and willing to risk your life and safety over a wallet and maybe a watch.

If you are cooperating, then when the guy has your valuables and is fleeing you kind of have no right to shoot him in the back since he's no longer a threat to you.  It's a tough call.

In Topic: The Techpb Gun Club

02 March 2015 - 03:58 PM

Having that particular piece of equipment in the wrong position could be potentially devastating. If I'm expecting it to be on, and I pull the gun out without discipline, I could accidentally shoot myself or an unintended target. If I'm expecting it to be off, what happens when I need to use it to defend myself, but find that the gun just "clicks" because the safety catch isn't where it's supposed to be. In a defense scenario, you probably aren't going to have time to diagnose why the gun didn't fire and correct it before it's too late to use the weapon.

Well, if you are just making an assumption about the position of the safety that's pretty inconceivably irresponsible. On top if that, training should make it so your safety control is as subconscious as breathing. At least in the case of my 1911 and SR9, it is drawn with the safety on, and when my left hand comes in and my thumbs lay down the safety is captured by my right thumb and its held down. 100% natural. It remains off in my grip with my thumb riding on top until my left hand comes off, and I slip the safety up and on, and either holster or place the gun on a table.

I've also never heard of a safety that would allow the gun to "click" without firing. Either the trigger will not pull at all or it will be limp. Either way you would know immediately and 100% why your gun didn't fire, and would take a fraction of a second to correct. While a fraction of a second later could be a fraction of a second too late, its still all about your level of training and if you aren't training enough to be completely subconscious with your weapons manipulation then I don't think you have any business carrying that gun.

As far as a carry gun not coming in and out of the holster all the time, do you mean to tell me you don't train your draw? And if not, how do you expect to have a precise and fast reaction when you need a precise and fast reaction?
Its like having a car and a driver's license yet never driving anywhere and just using public transit everywhere. You are going to need that car at some point, and if you are "rusty" all you are is a safety risk to yourself and those around you.

Shit happens, and I'd rather a belt AND suspenders.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion in the end. I just feel the need to rebuttle people who say safeties are 100% unnecessary...

In Topic: The Techpb Gun Club

01 March 2015 - 01:56 AM

Sorry, but that's kind of a lame reason. If you rely on any mechanical safety, then you shouldn't shoot.My personal opinion is a pistol doesn't need a safety, if you are carrying a handgun, you should always carry it in condition 1 (one in the pipe, ready to shoot), if it is loaded in your home, it should be in a place where a small child  cannot get it. I really can't find a reason to have a safety on a carry gun. A hunting rifle, sure, but not on a sidearm. 


I feel exactly the opposite.  I feel a carry firearm absolutely has to have a safety, and it's not for peace of mind or to "rely on", but as an additional means of inhibiting a firearm.  You can be the best and most attentive firearms handler on the planet but accidents do happen, and anything that can force the trigger to press can force the trigger mounted safety to press.  It's a retarded spot for it.  Springfield's XD's grip-safety makes more sense to me as the trigger can't be pressed unless the gun is properly gripped, but I can still see it as problematic.  On a range gun or hunting gun where the action will be open or a round won't be chambered until you are in position and ready to fire maybe it's not such a big deal.  But for a carry gun that will be going in and out of a holster or in and out of a pocket it absolutely must have a safety, period.

If you are like me, you carry a lot of shit in your pockets like knives, pens, flashlights, lighters, etc.  Any one of those things has the potential to enter the trigger guard and become a safety risk in a pocket carry situation.  For holster carry, a thumb-break, pull tags on your jacket, or even just debris from your environment has the possibility of entering the trigger guard and becoming a safety risk.  Bottom line is if I am going to be nearly muzzling myself, relinquishing control over one side of the weapon, and shoving it into a blind hole, I'm going to make damn sure the trigger is simply incapable of being pressed.

Plenty of people shoot themselves, especially while holstering, and it's almost always a Glock or similar.  In the competition scene, especially with Serpa type button release holsters, people have been known to shoot the gun on the way out because they force their finger on the button too hard and it slaps the trigger once the weapon clears the holster.  In both cases, if a manual safety was present and utilized properly the NDs could have been avoided.


People arguing the safety being present is just one more thing to worry about in a self defense situation either don't train enough or are just making up a rationalization for their purchase.  M4s and M16s, M9's, M14s, M40s, Barret M107s, M1 Garands, 1911s, what do they all have in common?  1, they are all used by the US armed forces.  2, they all have manual safeties.  If it's really that hard to do under stress or they are really unnecessary, why are they still present?


If you don't want one, that's fine, but I don't think there is a serious argument for why you should avoid one...







So I shoot a lot of shotguns, and frankly, after reading the recent posts in this topic, I have no fucking clue what you guys are talking about. I didn't really think rifles and pistols were so complex (referring to the posts about bullets made of depleted uranium, 10mm bullets being loaded with 40 S&W amounts of powder, etc). Don't get me wrong I'm not hating on you guys at all, because you seem to all know what you are talking about. It actually seems pretty cool. That gets two thumbs up from me.

Just expect me to jump in if shotguns ever come up.



I've got two shotguns.


I have a Mossberg 590A1 12 gauge.  20" barrel, 9-shot version, bead sight.  Love that thing!  It's fast, it's light, and it's simple.  A little long for a home-defense gun, but that's what my AR and handguns are for...


I also have a J.C. Higgins branded SEARS Roebuck 16 gauge shotgun.  Model 583.21, bolt-action with a 26" barrel, full choke.  It's a fun clay-buster, but you can't really do more than one clay at a time since the action is so... let's say "unrefined".  Very hard to work from the shoulder, the bolt comes so far back you'd smack yourself in the face if you kept your cheek weld and the stroke is so long it's not fast into battery.  I've done 2 at once but you really push it on the distance.

16 gauge has nice recoil.  Enough thump to feel it, but it won't beat you up like a 12 gauge will.  Especially shooting bird shot.  It sucks to find, though, and ends up pretty expensive compared to 12 gauge.  Last time I bought shot I was spending about $8.99 for 25 of 12 gauge #8 1-oz and about $14.99 for the same load in 16 gauge...  Too bad the 590A1 can't really handle bird-shot.  Cylinder bore and 1oz of #8 usually means if you can't hit the clay within 15m or so you can't hit it at all, lol.

In Topic: The Techpb Gun Club

19 February 2015 - 04:59 PM

Yeah, but birds are more a winged predator...

I know this is techPB, and not everyone is expected to be polite, but the two legged predator thing can be vague to someone not interested or concerned with self defense. Just because its over someones head doesn't make them an idiot. Let's keep it more civil in the gun club, can we?

In Topic: The Techpb Gun Club

16 February 2015 - 07:22 PM

Corrupted said it right.


I modify it slightly in caliber debates.  Someone might try to argue that a larger caliber has better stopping power, but I always mention that rounds on target is better than missing.  If a .380 is a little big for her to handle, try a .32.  I've even seen the opposite, like 9mm and .45. Ballistically they are so similar that I will say 9mm >45 just by capacity, but I have seen shooters handle a .45 great and handle a 9mm sloppy, even on the same platform.  9mm would make sense as the easier caliber, but the recoil impulse really is quite different.  9mms have a quick snap while .45s have a hard push, and Ive seen shooters whose muzzle is all over with the 9mm and rather flat with the .45.

In a serious debate I'll still push 9mm but when the cards are down you gotta go with what you shoot best.

If all you can handle is a .22, it'll kick a sharp stick's ass and that's a fact.

I wouldn't exactly want to carry a .22, I'd likely carry a subcompact 9mm.  But I can put all 10 shots in the 10 ring as fast as I can pull the trigger with my buckmark so I know I can be effective with a .22...