I think it fits the topic, I shot a hard drive with a 7.5x55 (150 grains at 2900 feet per second / 890 meters per second) straight pull rifle, this is the result:
Entrance:
Exit:
I did not expect it to make such a nasty wound, I'd hate to get shot by one of these.
Also, I shot another hard drive with a 12 gauge shotgun slug:
Another common use is self defense carry in Alaska and the Arctic, against bears. Basically, all big revolver cartridges come into use for that, from .44 magnum upwards, with heavy bullets.
The Linebaughs and .500 S&W are just for those who thinks enough might not be enough. Personally, I'd be more worried about being seriously injured in the face from recoil, by firing such a gun in a frantic, uncontrolled situation, and then unconscious, bleeding, on the ground with an enraged Grizzly or Polar Bear nearby. Nor would my first option be to shoot at the bear.
I am a bit puzzled at the practicality of that rationale.
To be fair, perception bias applies strongly because I don't live in an environment with dangerous animals close around (the worst I'd get is an angry boar, which is still perfectly capable of eviscerating a full grown man with ease mind you, but still, no bear and I'd have to take a hiking to get into a forest where they actually frequent AND somehow find a real nasty one that would attack rather than just trot away), but wouldn't a rifle of comparable firepower be a lot more practical?
The way I see it, the only quality a rifle lacks compared to a high-powered revolver/handgun is ease of portability. Exactly how common/likely is an encounter with such dangerous animals that would require having a gun on yourself frequently enough and/or at places where a rifle isn't feasable to carry around? Do those people have to leave the house armed every time?
Because if not, a rifle should be a lot more practical, plus it's relative ease of operation and similar attributes (larger weapon frame makes handling high-powered weapons arguably easier, more weight helps balancing out the recoil and muzzle climb in case consecutive shots are required (which is likely the case if we're talking bears) and I reckon a decent rifle is cheaper than those handcannons too).
When you're being attacked by a bear you only have time for one shot. Those animals charge you with up to 60 km/h at very close ranges. A second shot is a luxury very few people get in those situations. Also you can draw and aim a handgun much faster than a rifle, its takes much more time to ready a rifle you're carrying on your shoulder with a sling than pulling a handgun from your hip holster, especially for those who have little experience with handling firearms. And speed means everything in those encounters.
Who needs to worry about that on a daily basis? Alaskan guides and people who hike and fish in bear-areas.
I'm a rifleman myself and I dislike super magnum caliber handguns because I find them mostly rather silly, but there are situations where they come in handy.
I think it fits the topic, I shot a hard drive with a 7.5x55 (150 grains at 2900 feet per second / 890 meters per second) straight pull rifle, this is the result:
Entrance:
Exit:
I did not expect it to make such a nasty wound, I'd hate to get shot by one of these.
Also, I shot another hard drive with a 12 gauge shotgun slug:
Seagate sucks! I admire you! 
I am a bit puzzled at the practicality of that rationale.
<Snip>
The way I see it, the only quality a rifle lacks compared to a high-powered revolver/handgun is ease of portability. Exactly how common/likely is an encounter with such dangerous animals that would require having a gun on yourself frequently enough and/or at places where a rifle isn't feasable to carry around? Do those people have to leave the house armed every time?
Because if not, a rifle should be a lot more practical, plus it's relative ease of operation and similar attributes (larger weapon frame makes handling high-powered weapons arguably easier, more weight helps balancing out the recoil and muzzle climb in case consecutive shots are required (which is likely the case if we're talking bears) and I reckon a decent rifle is cheaper than those handcannons too).
But of course.
It's more common with people dragging along rifles, for the same purpose.
The only reason is ease of carry and the fact that it's always there, on the hip. And fast to get into play, if you're surprised. We're talking about people who don't want to carry a rifle, and also (correctly) don't think bear attacks are common events. It's not really intended to be used.
Yeah well I said the Desert Eagle chambered in .357 is absolutely as far as I would go. Chambered in .44 or the completely absurd .50AE that gun is a laughing stock.
No one buys a Desert Eagle for practical reasons. It's an expensive novelty gun, is all. Something to bring to the range with a few friends, so everyone can shoot it and go WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Still totally want one in .50 AE though, because the whole point of the gun is to be ridiculous, so you might as go all the way. Can't justify dropping that kind of dough on one though, when there are so many other nice guns I could buy for the money.
Also, I fail to see how hunting with a handgun would be considered unethical. Yeah, okay, maybe if you use this:
God, that would just be cruel.
Something like this would be just fine, though.
Edit:
Guess I should have read a little closer lol. Oh well.
Still, don't use your PPK for deer, you sick bastards.
Modifié par Cknarf, 01 juin 2015 - 03:11 .
Yeah well I said the Desert Eagle chambered in .357 is absolutely as far as I would go. Chambered in .44 or the completely absurd .50AE that gun is a laughing stock.
Well, the Desert Eagle is a sporting pistol. I would assume the chosen caliber would reflect the sport/use of the gun. For things like bowling pin shooting or hunting (as I said previously, I don't like handgun hunting, but it exists) I can see .44 magnum be a better match than .357. But yea, it's hard to see a use for .50AE. But it could be fun to shoot wet newspaper 
.The gun itself, Desert Eagle, is too slow and unsafe to be used as a carry gun, so it's no choice against the infamous bears ![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
of above discussion.
Also, I fail to see how hunting with a handgun would be considered unethical.
My reasoning is very simple: You have the responsibility to give the animal as clean and quick death as possible. You absolutely don't have any moral right to tamper with this rule for the sake of any 'fun' or fascination with some class of weapons. A scoped rifle provides more accurate bullet placement, by several magnitudes. A scoped rifle provides more killing power, by a magnitude.
Of course, there are plenty people who disagree. But my mind is set on this issue.
Of course, there are plenty people who disagree. But my mind is set on this issue.
I absently wonder how they'd feel about it if they were the prey and had a prospering short future thanks to some wannabe hunter who thought it'd be a great idea to go for a distant headshot with a handgun, but missed just by a few inches and instead just blew their jaw right off. No, you don't bleed out so easily, but have fun dying famished because you can't eat or properly drink, because your bloody jaw has gotten f*cking blown off.
If people go hunting, then they are obligated to do it right. If they just want to shot guns for the hell of it, firing range or a paintball court.
Lets have something a little bigger than these handguns:
No, not the Centurion (although that does deserve an entry here), but the Royal Ordnance L7, arguably the most successful tank gun of the post-WW2 era.
105mm calibre, 5.89m (52 calibres) rifled barrel, with a fire rate of up to 10 rounds per minute.
Developed in the 1950s, in part to counter the T-54 series of tanks entering service with the Warsaw Pact nations, the L7 first entered service in 1959 on later models of the Centurion, replacing the RO QF 20 pounder, itself a successor to the 17lber of Firefly fame (the tank, not the show...). Although not the largest or most powerful tank gun produced by the British (who, after the Centurion, switched to 120mm guns for their MBT), the L7 combined perfectly acceptable performance with being relatively light weight both in terms of the gun itself and the ammunition, thus making it a popular weapon amongst tank crews. Which in turn was likely a major reason behind it's success, as in addition to the aforementioned Centurion, the L7 was used, at some point, by pretty much every tank manufacturing nation outside of the Warsaw Pact and France (who, being French, just had to do things their own way).
L7 equipped vehicles included:
Late model Centurions, Vickers MBT (UK)
Leopard 1 (Germany)
Late model M48 Patton, M60 Patton, early model M1 Abrams, M1128 (USA)
Merkava 1&2 (Israel)
K1 (South Korea)
Type 74 (Japan)
Vijayanta (India, based on the Vickers MBT)
Olifant (South Africa, based on the Centurion)
Type 88, a few modified Type 59s (China)
OF-40 (Italy, export only AFAIK)
PZ-61 and 68 (Switzerland)
Stridsvagn 103 (Sweeden) [the famous "S-Tank"]
TAM (Argentina)
Osorio (Brazil)
as well as being retrofitted onto several Soviet MBTs such as the T54 by other nations.
So, basically, a "who's who" of tanks from the second half of the 20th century....
One of the above of particular interest, that you might have overlooked in favour of more famous names, is the American M1128 Mobile Gun System, a variation of the Stryker armed with an autoloading licensed version of the L7, which is still in active service with the US Army over 50 years after this venerable gun first entered service.
Classic British weapon. I've had some experience with the SA80 line, awfully complex assembly, but a generally effective all round weapon. Going to be phased out of the UK forces in the next decade or so I hear.
Oh I have looots of favourite weapons...
The first one is always going to be Frostmourne 
Love the design, love the blue glowing runes. Basically everything.
Next are some LineAgeII weapons
Draconic Bow. Ah I honestly miss my dark elf from that server. The bow was the pride of the server and it was all mine 
I love the dragon theme in the armour/weapon set here. Technically I doubt it could be used properly, but it's fantasy, so doesn't matter
My favourite Arcana Mace and Imperial Shield combo, I was so in love with the designs even back then.
Of course a total favourite - the Assassin hidden blade. I want some of those IRL. Outside design is not that important, it's the idea and functionality
I believe everyone will recognize the infamous Gunblade - FFXIII. I like the idea that after you stab someone in the guts, you can also (conveniently) shoot him in the head
And these bad boys - Beretta F92 Sword Cutlass - Revy's special. As a huge fan of guns and Black Lagoon, I just couldn't miss listing this one. I myself want to buy a Beretta F92 because of that. As it figures I really love the design.
I really enjoy shooting, but it's very hard to actually obtain a gun for that matter in my country, so when I go shooting with my dad we use rifles I probably miss something on that list, but I couldn't think of anything more now.
The Beretta Neos looks like a space ray gun, and a lot of fun! I love the 22lr.
But I also love big boomers. Here is an actual pic of my 300 Winchester Magnum Savage 110.- Effective range with the load I'M using about 1400 meters.
And the accuracy at 100 meters with my own handloads, 5 shots: (Its high because its sighted in for 150 meters)
My reasoning is very simple: You have the responsibility to give the animal as clean and quick death as possible. You absolutely don't have any moral right to tamper with this rule for the sake of any 'fun' or fascination with some class of weapons. A scoped rifle provides more accurate bullet placement, by several magnitudes. A scoped rifle provides more killing power, by a magnitude.
Of course, there are plenty people who disagree. But my mind is set on this issue.
Agree, hunting should be always one shot, one kill.
I am a bit puzzled at the practicality of that rationale.
To be fair, perception bias applies strongly because I don't live in an environment with dangerous animals close around (the worst I'd get is an angry boar, which is still perfectly capable of eviscerating a full grown man with ease mind you, but still, no bear and I'd have to take a hiking to get into a forest where they actually frequent AND somehow find a real nasty one that would attack rather than just trot away), but wouldn't a rifle of comparable firepower be a lot more practical?
The way I see it, the only quality a rifle lacks compared to a high-powered revolver/handgun is ease of portability. Exactly how common/likely is an encounter with such dangerous animals that would require having a gun on yourself frequently enough and/or at places where a rifle isn't feasable to carry around? Do those people have to leave the house armed every time?
Because if not, a rifle should be a lot more practical, plus it's relative ease of operation and similar attributes (larger weapon frame makes handling high-powered weapons arguably easier, more weight helps balancing out the recoil and muzzle climb in case consecutive shots are required (which is likely the case if we're talking bears) and I reckon a decent rifle is cheaper than those handcannons too).
Wild boars arent dangerous. They rarely attack humans and when they do, its only because of human provoked.
"Sadly, stories over the centuries from hunters have led to charicatures of charging boar with big tusks. Woe on the hunter who was afraid of such a docile creature. Better that he makes a story up of how fearsome the boar was, and how brave he was to kill it!"
http://friendsoftheb...-wild-boar.html
Wild boars arent dangerous. They rarely attack humans and when they do, its only because of human provoked.
"Sadly, stories over the centuries from hunters have led to charicatures of charging boar with big tusks. Woe on the hunter who was afraid of such a docile creature. Better that he makes a story up of how fearsome the boar was, and how brave he was to kill it!"
I thought I made that clear enough when I said I'd have to find a nasty one that would attack rather than flee? Or do you doubt that a boar can be dangerous?
The death note. I can use in bed, on the toilet, on the beach in plain sight. I can wipe out a good proportion of the Human race utilizing social networks.
Clean and precise.
The death note. I can use in bed, on the toilet, on the beach in plain sight. I can wipe out a good proportion of the Human race utilizing social networks.
Clean and precise.
Still analogue?
So backwards. Go with the times, man -> Death Notepad
Mosin Nagant (Finnicized)
The recoil is pretty fierce on this, so I don't fire it all that much. That being said, it does spit a lance of flame at least a foot long every time it's fired. So that's neat. But wearing good ear protection is an absolute must with this.
I'm surprised I don't have a Finn Mosin yet. Or maybe I'm not. Those things can be a little pricey!
Speaking of pricey, the M44 Carbines are going up in price, so I need to scoop one of them before they cost an arm and a leg. Talk about a fireball...
Something like this would be just fine, though.
I'm gonna hunt T-Rexes and Mammoths with it.
I would recommend a Bushmaster II if you're hunting dinosaurs but, that's just my opinion.I'm gonna hunt T-Rexes and Mammoths with it.
While there's been a fair few warplanes and a handful of tanks in this thread, I've noticed a lack of anything bigger. So to begin recifying this, I present a weapon so influential that all subsequent examples of the class took her name. I am of course referring to HMS Dreadnought, sixth of her name.
Around the turn of the 20th century, conventional battleship design emphasised the use of a range of gun calibres - 2-4 large calibre guns (typically between 9-12") for long range combat, and a battery of medium calibre (6-9") guns for the higher rate of fire at closer ranges. However, both gunnery testing and the operational experience learned from the Russian-Japanese War had begun to suggest that this paradigm was inefficient, as the bulk of damage was dealt by the largest guns, and the smaller calibre ones made fire control more difficult by increasing the number of shell impacts thus making it harder to determine which shell landed where. The logical conclusion was to switch the design of warship's main batteries over to entirely high calibre weapons, with only small calibre (3-5") secondary weapons to fend off torpedo boats. The Japanese were the first to attempt such a ship, but shortages of suitable weapons meant that the Satsuma had a mixed battery, leaving to opportunity for a truly revolutionary design of warship open to the British.
Under the guidance of Jackie Fisher, First Sea Lord, an accelerated design and construction process led to the new design of ship, christened the Dreadnought (for she feared nothing but God), was laid down in October 1905, and set sail for her sea trials a year later, a truly remarkable turnaround, albeit at the cost of delaying several other shipbuilding projects. When she was formally comissioned in December '06, HMS Dreadnought almost overnight obseleted every other battleship in the world.
Her uniform main battery consisted of 10 12" guns, in 5 twin turrets - and although due to the turret layout, she couldn't bring more that 8 of those guns to bear on a target, that was still twice the weight of fire of the most powerful ships in the Royal Navy prior to her. But firepower wasn't all the Dreadnought offered, as she was also the first capital ship to use steam turbines as a powerplant, instead of the traditional expansion boilers, giving her an unprecedented top speed of 21 knots. She was also larger, and better armoured than anything else afloat.
With every naval power reaslising that their lines of battle were outdated, an unprecedented arms race ensued over the next decade, most famously between Britain and Germany, but all major powers were involved, and the technology advanced so quickly that by the outbreak of WWI the originator herself was badly outclassed. She did still see service during the war, although she missed the one major battleship engagement, Jutland, due to being in port for refits. HMS Dreadnought's one claim to fame in battle came when the German submarine U-29 surfaced in front of her, in order to launch torpedos, only to be promptly rammed by Dreadnought, making her the first battleship to sink a submarine.
Sadly, despite her historical importance, shortly after the war, HMS Dreadnought met the most unfitting end, being sold for scrap, although the name was reused on the first of the UK's nuclear submarines. Her legacy though, was every battleship constructed between her launch, and that of the last one ever built, HMS Vanguard.
Warspite, Bismark, Yamato, Richelieu, Vittorio Veneto, Iowa - dreadnoughts, all of them, and all because of this:
Retour en haut
