TR Forums

paulWTAMU · Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:36 pm

Dalton played the character closer to the books, and in my opinion was an excellent but underrated Bond.

We should start a Dalton Bond Appreciation Club. Closer to the books than anyone before Craig, and pretty damned good (he's also got serious acting chops!). I don't mind Brosnan as an actor, but the Bonds he was in...oh man they sucked. Except for Goldeneye.

cphite · Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:38 pm

OsakaJ wrote:
StrangeDay wrote:
OsakaJ wrote:
Can anyone recommend an inexpensive brand of rifle that has decent quality? Also, I'd like to get a scope that's good, but not too expensive.

I have the same question, but about buying a handgun. Is it okay to piggyback on this thread or should I start a new one?

A few months ago I decided to get something that would be easy to carry (small enough), but still effective if I truly needed it. "Research" on the net led to lots of opinions, but very little hard, tested facts. One link led to a guy in Georgia, I don't remember his name, but he'd done years of forensic work; he reported that of the years of gunshot wounds he'd seen in the morgue, the smaller calibers required more rounds to send the body to his table.
No surprise there. Specifically, 9mm and .380 victims often had as many as 10 rounds in the abdominal region; .357 SIG, .40, and .45 deaths were often attributed to as few as 1 to 3 rounds. The 9mm and smaller rounds were sometimes unable to penetrate to the deeper organs, and were easily deflected by ribs and heavy clothing. The heavier rounds plowed through to decisively injure the deep vital organs.
There are limits for each type round, even the big ones. The .40 and .45 were ineffective if you needed to shoot through something, like a car door. The .357 SIG maintained killing power even through a car door. For a police officer the SIG seems the best choice. But, for me, that extra penetration power might result in the round striking some innocent kid who happened to be behind my attacker. I can't see many reasons why a civilian would need to shoot through a car, or wall.
From past experience I knew that I couldn't hit a fat elephant with a 1911 .45. So I tried out a Glock model 23 (.40 cal) and it fit my hand very naturally. The older gen 3 model 23's can be found used, but in good condition for around $500. I got a new gen 4 for about $600, and I'm still very happy with it.
At this point some of the more knowledgeable people here might be complaining that I have unnecessarily dismissed the virtues of the 9mm, and other rounds. I've read that the newer 9mm rounds are extremely effective.
So, you might want to go to a range which rents weapons, and try out several types. It's more important that you can hit the bad guy, even with a smaller slug, than miss him with a bazooka. BTW, don't forget to measure in the cost and availability of the bullets. Around here 9mm and .357 SIGs are hard to find; .40, and .45s are cheap and available.

See, these are the things people need to be thinking about.

For me, the whole point of carrying a firearm is to be able to protect myself and my loved ones. I'm not looking to kill anyone; in fact I'd prefer it never come to that. I'm looking for something that stops the bad guy from being a threat anymore. For that to happen, I have to be able to reliably hit what I'm shooting at. I have to be able to fire as many rounds as possible - because the reality is, even when highly trained shooters are involved the hit-to-miss ratio is pretty low when the shooting is for real.

Personally, I like .40 as a good balance between stopping power and actually being able to hit things.

cphite · Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:46 pm

Dagwood wrote:
And in case of zombie attack you must have a shotgun handy.

I'm not a fan of shotguns for zombie invasion. I get that you've got a wide kill pattern and can do a ton of damage, but the range is just too short. Zombies tend to travel in packs, and by the time you're in range to effectively use a shotgun, you're practically overrun.

My weapon of choice for a zombie invasion is the AK-47 and here are the reasons why:

1. The AK-47 is extremely simple to use.
2. It has decent range and accuracy; while not the best, it'll get the job done especially since the enemy isn't shooting back.
3. It is extremely reliable. These things are designed to continue working after serious abuse and without routine cleaning. And let's face it, once the zombie invasion starts, it's gonna be tough as hell to find replacement parts for weapons.
4. 7.62×39mm is used around the world and in massive quantities.

madmanmarz · Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:01 am

vargis14 wrote:
Here you go,
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/08/1 ... under-500/

I have two older savage 110's in 30-06 and they work flawlessly for the last 40+ years.

The Marlin comes pre scoped for 460$....I am sure once you site it in it will shoot fine.

I've got an old Savage 110 in 308. My dad bought it in the early 60's. A few years back I got a new scope for it, bedded the action and refinished the stock. Accurate as balls.

teronjonnz · Sat May 24, 2014 8:18 am

If you are brand new to shooting, and just want a rifle to learn with, a .22 caliber is probably the best. And it comes with much recommendation that you make that .22 a Ruger 10/22, as it is very user friendly, easy to field strip, and is extremely modular with aftermarket parts. The author's first rifle was a 10/22, and over the years, it has been modified bit by bit into something resembling a sub machine gun, so you will probably never grow bored with this model.

TR Forums

Choosing a new rifle.

Re: Choosing a new rifle.

Re: Choosing a new rifle.

Re: Choosing a new rifle.

Re: Choosing a new rifle.

Re: Choosing a new rifle.

Who is online