• Firearms VI - Mosin McNuggets and Tokarev Tartare
    10,000 replies, posted
I just don't know. Could it have been emptied to do some MacGuyver crap?
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34998700]I'd say Glock They can take one hell of a beating and are very simple. Same applies to the CZ, but the Glock is cheaper and better for a beginner.[/QUOTE] Alrighty. Also did Glock go through with discontinuing the Olive Drab style? I really liked that. :v:
[QUOTE=Big Ben;34998765]Alrighty. Also did Glock go through with discontinuing the Olive Drab style? I really liked that. :v:[/QUOTE] Why do you even have to think about getting a CZ versus a glock???
[QUOTE=Mr 23;34998877]Why do you even have to think about getting a CZ versus a glock???[/QUOTE] I don't get it, are you saying that I should get a CZ over a Glock or a Glock over a CZ?
[QUOTE=Big Ben;34998920]I don't get it, are you saying that I should get a CZ over a Glock or a Glock over a CZ.[/QUOTE] A CZ for the love of god. You wont regret getting one.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34998878]Pretty sure they offer frames in OD/CT still Dunno if it's only for selected models, though [editline]5th March 2012[/editline] nvm they apparently have discontinued them [url]http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4177523[/url][/QUOTE] sadface
[QUOTE=Big Ben;34998920]I don't get it, are you saying that I should get a CZ over a Glock or a Glock over a CZ?[/QUOTE] Well putting the obvious favoritism aside. Glocks are cheap (Relative to other handguns of similar quality) and will survive quite a bit of abuse. They take down easy and have tons of after market mods for 'em. On the other hand they be fat and, for some have an odd grip angle, otherwise they are pretty nice. CZ's are steel for the most part so they are heavier but not necessarily tougher. They have a better sized grip, in my humble opinion, and a better feel, again my opinion. Either way you can't go wrong. Personally I have this sick love for the Springfield XD's... I know it's wrong but their so ugly they are practically modern art.
Well, it really all depends on what my local gunstore has in stock. :v:
[QUOTE=Skullivan21;34999246]Well putting the obvious favoritism aside. Glocks are cheap (Relative to other handguns of similar quality) and will survive quite a bit of abuse. They take down easy and have tons of after market mods for 'em. On the other hand they be fat and, for some have an odd grip angle, otherwise they are pretty nice. CZ's are steel for the most part so they are heavier but not necessarily tougher. They have a better sized grip, in my humble opinion, and a better feel, again my opinion. Either way you can't go wrong. Personally I have this sick love for the Springfield XD's... I know it's wrong but their so ugly they are practically modern art.[/QUOTE] Agreed for the most part. Not a big fan of the glocks I shot. Plus I don't like the safety system. Not a big fan of polymer frames in general. However, I did shoot a Springfield XD in .40 S&W, and I thought it was pretty great. Its an ugly motherfucker, though. Same goes for glocks, IMO.
[QUOTE=Skullivan21;34999246]Well putting the obvious favoritism aside. Glocks are cheap (Relative to other handguns of similar quality) and will survive quite a bit of abuse. They take down easy and have tons of after market mods for 'em. On the other hand they be fat and, for some have an odd grip angle, otherwise they are pretty nice. CZ's are steel for the most part so they are heavier but not necessarily tougher. They have a better sized grip, in my humble opinion, and a better feel, again my opinion. Either way you can't go wrong. Personally I have this sick love for the Springfield XD's... I know it's wrong but their so ugly they are practically modern art.[/QUOTE] Springfield XDs ugly? What you smoking?
9mm Luger will be easier to come by in most places than 7.62x25, as well. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cardfan212;34999381]Springfield XDs ugly? What you smoking?[/QUOTE] The XDms are, IMO. Too thin and long. They look awkward.
[QUOTE=Ridge;34999386]9mm Luger will be easier to come by in most places than 7.62x25, as well. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] The XDms are, IMO. Too thin and long. They look awkward.[/QUOTE] Oh, I just really like them for some reason. I think they look cool.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;34999381]Springfield XDs ugly? What you smoking?[/QUOTE] It looks very similar to a glock, so yeah. The front below the barrel and the shape of the grip are pretty much the only 2 cosmetic differences.
CZ's ergonomically are gorgeous handguns. Glocks are very good aswell. Both are super accurate. Me personally I'd be leaning towards the CZ. But Glocks have a trigger that I love and the sights on them are veeeery nice. Which CZ are you looking at specifically?
The CZ-75. I don't have my sights set on a particular one yet. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] Could someone explain what a decocker is? I just saw people debating which version of the CZ-75 was better, the decocker and the non-decocker.
[QUOTE=Big Ben;34999698]The CZ-75. I don't have my sights set on a particular one yet. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] Could someone explain what a decocker is? I just saw people debating which version of the CZ-75 was better, the decocker and the non-decocker.[/QUOTE] A decocker, which is usually combined with some sort of safety, allows you to safely lower the hammer of a double action pistol on a live round without firing it. Without it, in order to lower the hammer, you would have to completely unload the gun and then pull the trigger, or very carefully slowly lower the hammer on the live round.
[QUOTE=Big Ben;34999698]The CZ-75. I don't have my sights set on a particular one yet. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] Could someone explain what a decocker is? I just saw people debating which version of the CZ-75 was better, the decocker and the non-decocker.[/QUOTE] Oh boy..Okay CZ 75's have an external hammer. Say the hammer on the gun is cocked back and you don't want it to have the sensitive SA trigger pull, you use the decocker and it basically puts the trigger back into a half-cocked/decocked position.
So... Why the fuck wouldn't you want a decocker? Am I missing something? :v:
[QUOTE=The Luftwaffle;35000204]A decocker, which is usually combined with some sort of safety, allows you to safely lower the hammer of a double action pistol on a live round without firing it. Without it, in order to lower the hammer, you would have to completely unload the gun and then pull the trigger, or very carefully slowly lower the hammer on the live round.[/QUOTE] And this aswell. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Ben;35000231]So... Why the fuck wouldn't you want a decocker? Am I missing something? :v:[/QUOTE] Glocks have an internal hammer, a stryker fired system. You really need to study more.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;35000233]And this aswell. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] Glocks have an internal hammer, a stryker fired system. You really need to study more.[/QUOTE] I meant on a CZ-75.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;34999381]Springfield XDs ugly? What you smoking?[/QUOTE] A whole bunch of things...
[QUOTE=Big Ben;35000257]I meant on a CZ-75.[/QUOTE] Blagh, sorry if what I said came across as condescending :( If I remember correctly people can change the pistol's decocker to act as a manual safety instead. It's to do with the trigger pulls, preference and such. I'm tired as shit so I'm going now, I've kinda blanked on all the details, which isn't very helpful.
Hey, do you guys know if the PPSh-41 is considered a rifle or a pistol? The law here in the US likes to be finicky on this sort of shit.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35000479]Hey, do you guys know if the PPSh-41 is considered a rifle or a pistol? The law here in the US likes to be finicky on this sort of shit.[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, a PPSh-41 would be a short barreled rifle (or just a rifle if you have a longer barrel). The new PPS-43s being made in Poland are different. The version with a foldable stock is considered a rifle, while the version with a folding stock that is fixed closed (eg. no stock) is legally a pistol.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35000479]Hey, do you guys know if the PPSh-41 is considered a rifle or a pistol? The law here in the US likes to be finicky on this sort of shit.[/QUOTE] I think it is classified as a pistol since it fires a pistol round.
So I pretty much decided that when I get a handgun, it's probably gonna be the CZ-75BD. Gonna call the local gun store tomorrow and see if they have them and check the price if they do. :v:
[QUOTE=cardfan212;35000553]I think it is classified as a pistol since it fires a pistol round.[/QUOTE] Doesn't have anything to do with it. There are many AK-47 and AK-74 variants that are manufactured without stocks that are legally considered pistols. The definition is as follows: "Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and (b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled. Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." In this case, short stock is synonymous with pistol grip. As soon as you put a shoulder stock on a weapon designed to be fired with one hand, it is legally considered an AOW (Any Other Weapon) as far as I can tell. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] (There are a few named exemptions from the rule. The C96 is one of them. However the PPSh-41 is not.)
[QUOTE=The Luftwaffle;35000884]Doesn't have anything to do with it. There are many AK-47 and AK-74 variants that are manufactured without stocks that are legally considered pistols. The definition is as follows: "Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and (b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled. Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." In this case, short stock is synonymous with pistol grip. As soon as you put a shoulder stock on a weapon designed to be fired with one hand, it is legally considered an AOW (Any Other Weapon) as far as I can tell.[/QUOTE] This is essentially the law. To put it in simpler terms if it was originally built as a pistol then it is a pistol, if it was originally a rifle it is a rifle. If you add a stock to, lets say a pistol AR or a Draco, then it is an SBR (same goes for cutting down the barrel to less than 18" and if it is a shotgun under 18" or a stock-less shotty where you add a stock then it is an SBS [Short Barreled Shotgun]) an AWO is any weapon that is concealable and is not a pistol or revolver (An UZI would be an AWO or a MP5K from what I can gather). Of course this is America only stuff so your mileage may vary.
Upcoming toy purchase is L1A1. :dance:
[QUOTE=Skullivan21;35000991]This is essentially the law. To put it in simpler terms if it was originally built as a pistol then it is a pistol, if it was originally a rifle it is a rifle. If you add a stock to, lets say a pistol AR or a Draco, then it is an SBR (same goes for cutting down the barrel to less than 18" and if it is a shotgun under 18" or a stock-less shotty where you add a stock then it is an SBS [Short Barreled Shotgun]) an AWO is any weapon that is concealable and is not a pistol or revolver (An UZI would be an AWO or a MP5K from what I can gather). Of course this is America only stuff so your mileage may vary.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I messed that up. If you add a foregrip to a pistol (not a shoulder stock) it is considered an AOW. A stockless shotgun manufactured with a barrel less than 18 inches is also legally an AOW.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.