Fantastic Firearms Part 2 - General

[b]Special edition 7:[/b]To stop a bullet... [img]http://www.int-int.biz/acatalog/covert_vest_kevlar.jpg[/img] It has been a while since I did a special edition but I felt this would be somewhat interesting. What exactly does it take to stop a speeding bullet? That question has been asked by thousands of people ever since guns were invented and even before, when arrows and blades were the primary concern. The answer isn't very strait-forward. Simply put, anything can stop a bullet. Even a .50 cal can be stopped by a block of Jell-O if that block is big enough. Obviously wobbly confections aren't the protection of choice on the modern battlefield since just about everything else can accomplish the same task far better. You wouldn't think of dirt or sand as the ideal bullet-stopper but at just about every outdoor range you will ever go to the backstop is just that, a mound of dirt or sand. There is simply enough of it that it can stop just about any caliber that is shot at it. However this is something video games like to get wrong. In video games you can often duck behind a desk or just simple drywall when in fact neither of those things would offer you much protection at all. They are better than nothing since that way the person shooting at you can't see exactly where you are, but assuming the bullet is going for you and a piece of plywood is the only thing in its way that object simply won't suffice. So while anything can stop or at very least deflect any bullet if it is large enough, most everyday objects won't. In video games anything that simply looks solid (such as a car door) will stop any caliber. This brings us to another factor. Not all bullets are the same. The most dangerous rounds in this regard are the ones that penetrate well as opposed to slower cartridges that have more punch but less pierce. If you are out in a normal street you could probably find a few things to hide behind if someone whips out a .22 gun or a shotgun (A fire hydrant, a small brick wall, a light post, etc.) but if they whip out a G3 in 7.62 NATO there isn't much for you to hide behind. One recommendation police departments often issue is to hide behind the engine compartment of cars since the solid metal engine block will stop just about anything. But since that doesn't stop some of the heaviest calibers and most other objects that are likely to be in your vicinity are even weaker your only real bet is concealment. To get behind something where they won't be able to see exactly where you are. Distance is another factor. All bullets lose some of their power gradually as they fly longer distances. They are literally slowed by their resistance against the air. This means that some objects that can't protect you against a certain caliber at close range can do it at greater distances. For instance the PASGT helmets worn by US troops can't withstand a hit from a 7.62x25mm Tokarev handgun round at point blank while they have been able to hold up against the 7.62x39mm rifle round at 300-400 yards on some occasions. A task for which they were simply not designed. At that kind of range however the bullet would have lost enough force to be defeated by the armor, if barely. So what about armor? Well you can have armor on a vehicle that will stop almost any rifle round, but there is a trade-off with mobility. Police departments and VIPs often normal road cars that are retrofitted with armor. But as a tradeoff they are much heavier which makes them slower, less fuel-efficient and far more difficult to drive. Even opening or closing the heavy doors can be a challenge. But what about personal armor, the kind that you wear? That has been an issue ever since guns were introduced in Europe. At the time guns were introduced there the knights had plate-mail made of iron to defeat swords and bows. But even the most primitive guns could penetrate that armor with ease. There was a brick wall. The only way to toughen the armor was to make it thicker but that just made it too heavy to carry since unlike a car or a tank a human can only carry so much. Even then the less he carries the better he fights. So it is the protection/mobility tradeoff again. With the introduction of steel the armor-makers were able to stop some of the projectiles fired from unrifled, underpowered handguns of the time that used black powder. They would test or "proof" their armor by shooting the breastplate. These marks identified certain armors as "bulletproofed" which is the origin of that particular word. Eventually with the advent of bigger, more efficient guns and bullets the entire concept of armor seemed totally obsolete. Nothing that you could actually carry on your back could top a bullet so why bother? For several centuries that was how it went. The gun-makers rendered the armor-makers obsolete. A number of armors existed but they were made of metal, heavy, largely ineffective and highly impractical. Often relegated to sparse use, if any. There were Flak jackets existed in WW1 and during the Vietnam war but they were vests that contained chunks of steel only meant to stop shrapnel. Although in Vietnam they used aluminum instead since the steel jackets were simply too heavy for infantry use. It wasn't until the advent of Kevlar that things changed. Kevlar is a synthetic fabric that was developed by DuPont in the 1960's and marketed for all sorts of things such as fishing line. It was touted as being much stronger than a strand of steel of the same size which caught the attention of a number of entrepreneurs. NIJ did a study looking into kevlar's potential as body armor if it was woven into multiple layers. this breakthrough essentially caught incoming rounds. They would pierce several layers and so long as the round wasn't too powerful eventually stop. This breakthrough was widely marketed to largely reluctant law enforcement agencies in the 1970's but has been standard issue ever since. To further suppliment the protection offered by such vests there are pockets that allow the user to install metallic or typically ceramic inserts. We aren't talking ceramics like the kind of stuff you find in your dining room. We're talking trauma plates made of silicon carbide or polyethiline. These plates are almost as hard as diamond, yet still relatively light. I say relatively because they do add quite a bit of heft. Never the less, although they do fracture when hit with high power rifle rounds they can stop them while at the same time the vest remains light enough not to pin the user to the ground. Kevlar can stop most handgun/shotgun rounds because it catches them like a net, with the inserts which strait try to stop anything that hits them it can stop some rifle calibers as well. It is still not quite perfect. Such vests are often bulky and difficult to conceal, not to mention highly expensive. The ones that are light, mobile, comfortable and concealable offer less protection. That trade-off is still ever-present. So there you have it. While just about anything can stop any bullet if there is enough of it, very few things can do it efficiently.

can someone explain to me the whole ceramic armor thing? doesn't ceramic shatter? i don't get it.

Hurf. You didn't mention inserts bean-o. Ceramic or Steel inserts majorly help.

It's incomplete.

[QUOTE=aznz888;17037368]can someone explain to me the whole ceramic armor thing? doesn't ceramic shatter? i don't get it.[/QUOTE] It isn't made from the same ceramic as a dish plate, it's made from silicon carbide. They're about 2/3rds an inch thick, about 10 by 12 inches (25 to 30 cms), and weigh around 4 to 8 lbs (1.8 to 3.6 kilos) . Usually most modern trauma plates are designed to stop 7.62 NATO point blank or repeated intermediate (5.56, 7.62x39) caliber fire. Ballistic vests/plate carriers will usually have a slot to insert these plates in the front and back. Sometimes slots on the sides to insert smaller trauma plates.

[QUOTE=LE0N1;17037973]it isn't made from the same ceramic as a dish plate, it's made from polyethiline, they're about 2/3rds an inch thick, about 10 by 12 inches (25 to 30 cms), and weigh around 4 to 8 lbs (1.8 to 3.6 kilos) . Usually most modern trauma plates are designed to stop 7.62 NATO point blank or repeated intermediate (5.56, 7.62x39) caliber fire. Ballistic vests/plate carriers will usually have a slot to insert these plates in the front and back.[/QUOTE] so, does it shatter, or does the bullet get embedded inside?

Both usually. Owait, bit of a correction: They're made mainly from silicon carbide, some are also made from polyethiline

very, VERY informative, this is really nice for gun lovers. Nice guns btw, my friend's dad has a galil.

Ooh, intriguing. Kevlar Body Armour is more effective than I realised. Could a standard issue bullet proof vest take a handgun round from approx. 2 metres away?

You know they are making something better than kevlar, look up "Dragonskin Armor" in google images. its like a big kevlar patch but llots of em covering each other :\

Dragonskin is supposedly quite susceptible to heat and chemical damage though.

[QUOTE=30Spartan300;17042762]You know they are making something better than kevlar, look up "Dragonskin Armor" in google images. its like a big kevlar patch but llots of em covering each other :\[/QUOTE] Gah Dragonskin is the biggest fucking scam on the military market today. If DoD doesn't accept it, there's usually a really fucking good reason, and no, it's nothing to do with not wanting to foot out the extra cash. It failed their testing. The discs lose traction and come apart at high tempteratures over time and rounds still penetrate on an angle, which, ironically is where most shots will come from. There was a bunch of other criteria it failed on I don't care to list, anyone with some spare time who actually gives a shit can track down official testing done on it outside of Dragonskin's circlejerk promoting ring. [QUOTE=Exalion;17042642]Ooh, intriguing. Kevlar Body Armour is more effective than I realised. Could a standard issue bullet proof vest take a handgun round from approx. 2 metres away?[/QUOTE] Define standard issue. Standard issue for one Police department is entirely different to the levels of protection offered by "standard" issue for say a Infantryman. Yes more often than not to answer your question. But it depends on a number of variables, such as caliber, angle of entry, etc etc.

A little off topic but Bean-O, I'm getting a PT 1911 :D

I'd be careful with Taurus. They aren't the worst manufacturer ever but I heard that the automatics they make are kind of iffy. The PT 1911 has however seen relatively favorable reviews in spite of Taurus's poor reputation. [url]http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-PT1911SS.htm[/url] Then there are people that are less than pleased. [url]http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2007/06/bb-gets-disappointed.html[/url] Bottom line, it isn't the worst 1911 ever but there is a certain risk when buying one that you'll get a lemon. Also, article time: 106)Sterling/Patchett SMG [img]http://world.guns.ru/smg/sterling02.jpg[/img] During WW2 Britain had the STEN with which they weren't particularly happy. Seeking a replacement they put out a contract to do just that. The specifications were that it had to be very accurate, as in all 5 rounds out of a 5 round burst hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards accurate. A tough feat for wartime open-bolt subguns. It could also weigh no more than 6 pounds and the rate of fire had to be around 500 RPM. In fact they wanted the fully-automatic setting to be more of an afterthought. Even the troops that were issued STEN guns were trained to shoot it in semi-automatic unless there was an emergency. A man named George Patchett designed just such a weapon for the Sterling Arms Company. Upon submitting his designs the British Army requested 120 for trials. It could take strait STEN magazines as well as its own curved 34 rounders. The gun itself while it clearly showed influence from its predecessor with the side-fed magazine was actually a great departure from the Spartan STEN gun. By contrast Patchett designed his submachine gun to be made almost entirely out of carefuly machined parts utilizing sturdy and effective building techniques. It cost more to make, but it showed. When they were issued to British troops near the end of the war Patchett SMGs quickly earned a reputation for reliability. As far as open-bolt SMGs go the new design was also very accurate and controllable. It wasn't too heavy either. After the war the Brits had a huge stockpile of STENs that were left over. Since they greatly outnumbered the few Patchetts in service (which were only issued for testing purposes) the decision was made to delay adoption. In fact the British didn't adopt it until 1951. They also adopted a silenced variant to replace the silenced STENs already in service. Like many other British firearms both spread throughout UK's sphere of influence. Canada manufactured a slightly improved variant called the C1. India made a copy as well, in fact they still make them today. New Zealand adopted them too. Other countries such as Cyprus, Chile, Malasia, Jamaica, Lestoho and the Phillippines used it for a time. Sri Lanka adopted the variant built in India. These guns remained in service for quite a while too. It wasn't until Britain adopted the L85 that it was replaced along with the L1A1. New Zealand replaced it with the Steyr AUG in a similar fasion. Malasia replaced it with the MP5 since it was a more sophisticated design. But by the time all of that happened almost half a million had been made. They saw service in the Suez Crisis, the Falkland War, various problems in Northern Ireland and even the Gulf War. It had even starred in a Hollywood blockbuster directed by Spielberg. Know the blasters carried by the Storm Troopers in Star Wars? They are all Sterlings dressed up as blasters. While not as prolific or sophisticated as some of the more modern designs it has aged very well. This is why it is still in production and service with a handful of countries. Even the nations that stopped using them handed them down to various law enforcement agencies.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17057725]I'd be careful with Taurus. They aren't the worst manufacturer ever but I heard that the automatics they make are kind of iffy. The PT 1911 has however seen relatively favorable reviews in spite of Taurus's poor reputation. [url]http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-PT1911SS.htm[/url] Then there are people that are less than pleased. [url]http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2007/06/bb-gets-disappointed.html[/url] Bottom line, it isn't the worst 1911 ever but there is a certain risk when buying one that you'll get a lemon[/QUOTE] The one I am buying is used from my local gun range (it was a rental), so they've taken very good care of it. From everyone I've talked to they've said it's a very good deal for what it's worth, especially considering it's condition and the extra features the store had added to it.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;17057971]The one I am buying is used from my local gun range (it was a rental), so they've taken very good care of it. From everyone I've talked to they've said it's a very good deal for what it's worth, especially considering it's condition and the extra features the store had added to it.[/QUOTE] Probably better than the new Colts... Fuck those were a let down. I don't think Taurus' 1911s are really a problem... It's just all their other automatics. The designs are horribly flawed and they yield poor reliability. 1st thing I'd do is get some colt magazines though.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17058065]Probably better than the new Colts... Fuck those were a let down. [/QUOTE] Lol what did you expect from Colt?

[QUOTE=professional;17058171]Lol what did you expect from Colt?[/QUOTE] Eh, I expected all the hate to be unjustified and for there to be something to the hype. I was entirely wrong. I'm so much happier I went with the kimber, especially after I got home and found out exactly what model it was and all of its features. If I was to own another 1911 it'd be another kimber or a taurus, probably.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;17058244]Eh, I expected all the hate to be unjustified and for there to be something to the hype. I was entirely wrong. I'm so much happier I went with the kimber, especially after I got home and found out exactly what model it was and all of its features. If I was to own another 1911 it'd be another kimber or a taurus, probably.[/QUOTE] If it were up to me I'd get a kimber but the price tag is a little out of my range, I think the taurus will work just fine. Not to mention I can always beef it up with after market parts.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17037190][b]Special edition 7:[/b]To stop a bullet... [img]http://www.int-int.biz/acatalog/covert_vest_kevlar.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] A sales man shot himself while wearing a kevlar vest in order to convince a police department that it will stop rounds. He video taped it. Now that takes a lot of guts do that.

[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;17076562]A sales man shot himself while wearing a kevlar vest in order to convince a police department that it will stop rounds. He video taped it. Now that takes a lot of guts do that.[/QUOTE] The guy who invented it did that a bunch of times. The man has huge testicles.

107)Ithaca 37 [img]http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/ithaca37hs.jpg[/img] For starters it is worth noting that Ithaca didn't invent the 37. It was actually originally the Remington 17, which served as the fore-runner to the 870. That gun was designed by Browning and John Pedersen. Rather than buying any kind of license to blatantly rip Remington off Ithaca simply waited for the patent to expire and began planning to call their gun the Model 33 until they realized the Pedersen still held some patents on the design that wouldn't expire until 4 years later. Thus the weapon was put in production after an added 4 year delay. That is also why it is called the 37. Remington didn't care that much because at that point they were already manufacturing more advanced designs. Not like they had any legal recourse anyway since the patents were indeed expired. As for the gun itself the design is naturally a very sound one, being that it is of Browning's and Pedersen's origin. One neat feature is that not only is it loaded from the bottom, it ejects the casings out the bottom too. This has given it a great advantage over other pump-actions over the years since that makes it much easier to use if you are left-handed. It is also a notably lightweight weapon, weighing in at around 6 pounds unloaded. This does however carry the disadvantage of slightly harsher recoil. On top of the legal blunder they encountered earlier where they ended up having to delay production for 4 years the timing of this weapons release into the gun market could hardly be worse. It was the freaking great depression. The simple fact that Ithaca didn't go under is a miracle in and of itself since the '37, in spite of its low cost at the time, struggled to compete with used Winchester 1897s. During WW2 Ithaca stayed alive making 1911 copies and M3 Grease Guns for government contracts. After the war ended the '37 saw some sales with various law enforcement agencies, particularly within the corrections system. The largest user was the LAPD which still has a few in stock although they are replacing it with the Benelli M4. One version offered was the "stakeout" which has a pistol grip and a shorter barrel, meant for undercover work although it is still somewhat bulky as far as concealable weapons go. Not to mention difficult to use. Over the years Ithaca has struggled to stay in business. The company has changed hands numerous times. But the model 37 has never the less stayed in production. Its reputation for its smooth, ambidextrous action and excellent reliability have made it a gun that can just about sell itself. Today it is offered in home defense and hunting configurations. Since it was introduced in 1937 and is still being made today it has seen the longest continuous production life of any pump-action shotgun. The future however is uncertain since the current versions retail at a higher price than the more popular designs such as the Remington 870 or Mossberg 500.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17077358]107)Ithaca 37 [img]http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/ithaca37hs.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] Awesome. I actually have one of those I got like 20 years ago as a present. I've sawn it off and replaced the stock though, good little weapon.

Speaking of shotguns, is the Saiga 12/20/.410 an fantastic firearm or just an average weapon?

[QUOTE=Rageblood;17077717]Speaking of shotguns, is the Saiga 12/20/.410 an fantastic firearm or just an average weapon?[/QUOTE] It is an AK-action and fires shotgun shells. It has been suggested at least 10 times already.

[QUOTE=Rageblood;17077717]Speaking of shotguns, is the Saiga 12/20/.410 an fantastic firearm or just an average weapon?[/QUOTE] It's too early to be here, and from what has been said about it, the Saiga series belongs in the Weaboo Weaponry Thread if it isn't there already.

It was mentioned in Weeaboo Weaponry as a contrast to the various magazine-fed shotguns listed there. By contrast I mean I spoke of the Saiga 12 as an example of a relatively practical design. Can it make it here on the list? I'm not sure since I don't know just how popular it is.

do the deagle and katana pls

article on gun kata pls

[QUOTE=Bean-O;17057725]I'd be careful with Taurus. They aren't the worst manufacturer ever but I heard that the automatics they make are kind of iffy. The PT 1911 has however seen relatively favorable reviews in spite of Taurus's poor reputation. [url]http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-PT1911SS.htm[/url] Then there are people that are less than pleased. [url]http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2007/06/bb-gets-disappointed.html[/url] Bottom line, it isn't the worst 1911 ever but there is a certain risk when buying one that you'll get a lemon. Also, article time: 106)Sterling/Patchett SMG [img]http://world.guns.ru/smg/sterling02.jpg[/img] During WW2 Britain had the STEN with which they weren't particularly happy. Seeking a replacement they put out a contract to do just that. The specifications were that it had to be very accurate, as in all 5 rounds out of a 5 round burst hitting a man-sized target at 100 yards accurate. A tough feat for wartime open-bolt subguns. It could also weigh no more than 6 pounds and the rate of fire had to be around 500 RPM. In fact they wanted the fully-automatic setting to be more of an afterthought. Even the troops that were issued STEN guns were trained to shoot it in semi-automatic unless there was an emergency. A man named George Patchett designed just such a weapon for the Sterling Arms Company. Upon submitting his designs the British Army requested 120 for trials. It could take strait STEN magazines as well as its own curved 34 rounders. The gun itself while it clearly showed influence from its predecessor with the side-fed magazine was actually a great departure from the Spartan STEN gun. By contrast Patchett designed his submachine gun to be made almost entirely out of carefuly machined parts utilizing sturdy and effective building techniques. It cost more to make, but it showed. When they were issued to British troops near the end of the war Patchett SMGs quickly earned a reputation for reliability. As far as open-bolt SMGs go the new design was also very accurate and controllable. It wasn't too heavy either. After the war the Brits had a huge stockpile of STENs that were left over. Since they greatly outnumbered the few Patchetts in service (which were only issued for testing purposes) the decision was made to delay adoption. In fact the British didn't adopt it until 1951. They also adopted a silenced variant to replace the silenced STENs already in service. Like many other British firearms both spread throughout UK's sphere of influence. Canada manufactured a slightly improved variant called the C1. India made a copy as well, in fact they still make them today. New Zealand adopted them too. Other countries such as Cyprus, Chile, Malasia, Jamaica, Lestoho and the Phillippines used it for a time. Sri Lanka adopted the variant built in India. These guns remained in service for quite a while too. It wasn't until Britain adopted the L85 that it was replaced along with the L1A1. New Zealand replaced it with the Steyr AUG in a similar fasion. Malasia replaced it with the MP5 since it was a more sophisticated design. But by the time all of that happened almost half a million had been made. They saw service in the Suez Crisis, the Falkland War, various problems in Northern Ireland and even the Gulf War. It had even starred in a Hollywood blockbuster directed by Spielberg. Know the blasters carried by the Storm Troopers in Star Wars? They are all Sterlings dressed up as blasters. While not as prolific or sophisticated as some of the more modern designs it has aged very well. This is why it is still in production and service with a handful of countries. Even the nations that stopped using them handed them down to various law enforcement agencies.[/QUOTE] Awesome article.