How many members would like a firearms discussion area

He's good.

I guess this is the guy -- or his dad -- that Eastwood was imitating in his spaghetti westerns.

Open carry has the advantage of speed over concealed.

 

Well, there might be a little debate about it. Drawing a pistol from the 1:00 appendix position is, in fact, noticeably faster than from the 3:00 position. The hand has less distance to travel. Numerous force-on-force drills have proven that out.

 

Sure from the open carry position with a single action handgun having a big hammer that you can snap back with your thumb quickly.

But most carry guns are not like that.

The discretion of concealed is required in most social settings. And in that case 3 oclock works best. We are only debating fractions of a second here anyway. I can draw and shoot from concealed in about 0.5 second. That's fast enough for any perp I am likely to meet.

 

Sure there is a contra point.
You are facing a drawn gun by an assailant, you cannot draw from a holster, 1-3 O'clock, you draw a wallet holster clad pistol as if surrendering your wallet and shoost the assailant.
This happened to me.

 

I had freinds in other Countries that carried either a double column Beretta or Browning .380 acp, in a custom leather planner case with easy access to the pistol, most folks never guessed they were carrying a gun, and the case contained pens pads and other accesories.

 

This is why I carry about the wallet.
Might be faster to draw from 0100 but the person on you is likely to react faster as well.
If he asks for your wallet and you produce a gun, you have an element of surprise

 

I carried at the 3'o'clock for years, occasionally pushing it back closer to 4:00 for better concealment, and got to where I was very fast with it. Then, I was introduced to appendix carry. No, you don't need a single action pistol. Using a Glock pistol, and carrying from the 1:00 position I was noticeably faster - dramatically faster - using the appendix position than carrying at 3:00, and this was proven after all of an hour of practice despite 15 years of practice and training from the 3:00. It was more concealable than the 3:00 position, with even a full-size service pistol disappearing under an untucked t-shirt. The gun can be accessed with either hand, and can be drawn with a much more subtle movement if necessary than a gun at 3:00 can be.

Obviously, YMMV; but I've found the appendix method a far more versatile, useful, and concealable method than 3:00. Admittedly, it's also a more comfortable method considering some shoulder injuries I've suffered, but that's just me.

 

Let me lose 20 pounds and I'll consider it.

 

Could we open it up to all arms? I'd love to pick people's brains about their favorite EDC pocketknives as well.

 

I have a DeSantis "holster" that fits my SW Bodyguard, It looks like a wallet, I carry it like a wallet, It is designed to allow me to shoot the gun-several times through it. its a great back up piece or when some mope has the drop on you and demands your wallet

 

Now why dudn't I thin of dat ?
lol

 

The internet is littered with forums to discuss the merits of one firearm compared to another. As you observed it happens here too and there is nothing to stop it happening.

The issue the OP is raising is about a form of "control" only it is focused on controlling those who are opposed to the gun culture in this nation. In essence the OP wants the ability to "control" those posters by accusing them of "derailing" a thread discussing the merits of one firearm compared to another.

But isn't it already possible to do that in the OP. Just stipulate that the topic is about comparing firearm A to firearm B and that attempts to derail it will be reported as off topic. From a mod perspective how would that be any different than having a separate forum?

It isn't as though all of the forums are strictly defined. We have threads in current events that are old news and threads under science that are pushing theist concepts. The mods appear to use their discretion and it appears as though they do a good job that keeps everyone mostly happy.

From the perspective of eyeballs is it going to make a difference to PF as a whole whether there are two forums about guns or only this one? Will it create more work for the staff?

Since I try to avoid gun threads because they degenerate way too quickly I am trying to look at this as objectively as possible. If it makes those who want to discuss guns happy them go ahead but if it is nothing but a means to CONTROL and EXCLUDE comments from other members then I am opposed. I suspect that the latter is the motivation but perhaps I am biased.

Let's take a hypothetical example. If a new firearm was developed that had a setting that could essentially fragment the bullet as they are fired turning them into shrapnel that would be an interesting topic for a Gun Discussion forum. However it would also contain elements of gun control because "cop killer" bullets were banned because essentially they were shrapnel. Would that be an attempt to derail the discussion on the new firearm to bring up that point? Since it would be up to the staff to make that call and they felt the point was justifiable would that mean that they would have to move the thread from Gun Discussions to Gun Control?

Not sure if this helps or not but just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

 

Here's where the discussion around technical details comes into play. With regards to your example, I believe you're conflating frangible ammunition like the Black Talon with armor piercing handgun ammunition. The former is not banned, while the armor piercing g handgun ammunition is what is generally called the cop killer ammo and is banned.

We already have ammo that turns into shrapnel when fired. It's what a shotgun uses. Also, terminal ballistic effects of handgun ammo depends upon penetration, and ammo for a low powered handgun that fragmented upon firing would not have the same terminal effects as a typical hollow point and would not have the same accuracy.

I write specifically of handgun ammunition as all centerfire rifle ammunition will pierce standard police body armor.

 

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to have such a technical discussion but it is also legitimate to point out that were a handgun to have the capability of turning ordinary ammunition into armor piercing ammunition then the issue of gun control would be pertinent to said discussion.

 

how many cops have been killed with AP ammo-and by that I mean ammo that allows a given caliber to defeat the body armor normally rated for that cartridge. A Level II vest-designed to defeat say 38 Special or 9mm ball that is penetrated by a 30-06 FMJ M2 ball--that round is not armor piercing because the Level II vest was never designed to stop centerfire rifle cartridges

ONLY TWO CASES I KNOW OF-two of the officers who tried to siege the Davidian compound in WACO Texas. They were killed by a then novel style of AP ammo that used the rotation of "teeth" on a round to cut through the spectra fibers that the vests they had on were made of. Only problem-only federal agencies had that ammo. Friendly fire casualties

 

I can see a discussion on technical issues could stray into a discussion on legality; it can't be avoided. Whether the issue is discussed in this subforum or is moved to the general forum is something that could be discussed, too.

As an example, a discussion on which caliber is better for an SBR for home defense, 5.56mm or .300 Blackout could include discussion around SBR vs AR pistol which would lead to NFA 1934, of the attempts by the ATF to subvert current law to summarily outlaw M193 ammo on the basis that it has enhanced barrier penetration capabilities and can be used in AR pistols, even though it is specifically protected by law, ordinary FMJ ammo fired in an AR pistol/SBR will penetrate body armor and that the executive branch isn't empowered by the Constitution to arbitrarily change laws put in place by Congress.

It could be an interesting but typically unresolved discussion but wouldn't really help the OP decide which upper to purchase for his or her SBR/AR pistol.

 

No handgun, nor any other firearm, has the physical capability to discharge a round of ammunition in a way that imbues it with armor piercing capabilities it did not already have. Certain factors, such as basic physics, cannot be bypassed. Lead and copper remains lead and copper, and velocity is not enhanced in any fashion.

However kevlar vests can be defeated by knives and arrows. A law enforcement officer may be able to recover from being hit with a round of buckshot thanks to wearing their vest, but a crossbow will easily render the vest useless.

 

Technical discussions on firearms need not be bogged down by legality since the First Amendment protects the Right to Free speech.
Talking about machine guns is not the same as buying them.

 

Which is it WHY it was called a HYPOTHETICAL example.

 

Hypothetical only extends for so far when the discussion involves a complete abandonment of what is known physics.

 

https://homedefensegun.net/armor-piercing/

https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...rs-ban-on-type-of-ammo-that-can-pierce-vests/

Obviously it is not so hypothetical at all since it is physically possible to accomplish.

 

The first example raises more questions than it provides answers.

The second example deals exclusively with rifle ammunition, not handgun ammunition. The issue of the M855 round was discussed at length years ago, and it was continually pointed out, and even proven, that the specific type of ammunition was no more capable of armor piercing capabilities than any other type of ammunition in the same round, when discharged from the same firearm.

 

Thank you for proving my point that a hypothetical example such as I proposed was actually discussed in the past.

Have a nice day!

 

How exactly was such a point proven? You spoke of a physical characteristic of a firearm generating performance results in the ammunition that the ammunition itself would not normally possess.

 

So your impossible scenario, that is
in the category of;
If pigs could fly, we would need more gun control because people would shoot at flying pigs and cause more deaths, so let's have more gun control discussions, peradventure one future day, there are genetically altered flying pigs.

"If" scenarios rarely make sense.