What type of gun or rifle do you have?

john & jean · March 11, 2009

Just out of curiosity!

I'm a gun-newbie and shot fairly good for the very first time (see pic below).

Dimes, quarters, and thumbtags are fairly easy to shoot.

However, i'm looking to buy some really good hand guns or long range rifles.

One problem though, the choices out there are so enormous, that I'm kind of lost in what to pick.

So,....what do you recommend for long range target shooting and home defense?

In addition;

- What type of gun / rifle or shotgun do you have?

- What caliber?

- What kind of ammo do you use & why?

- And what do you use it for?

- Does anybody know anything about the Mossberg 500 Road Blocker below?

This gun>>>

Thanks in advance.[/color i have the same weapon never had a problem. it is a BLAST...

OKIE2 · March 11, 2009

This is my rifle...
This is my gun...

One is for fighting...

One is for fun!!!

I own two rifles

HEY YOU ALL I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO PAGE ONE (1) AND SHOOT SOME PENNIES

if you shoot wheatbacks ... you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer

NO NO NO I SAVE THEM I HAVE MAYBE 50 OF THEM ALSO $2.00 BILL & 1896 SILVER DOLLAR

TO TELL YOU TRUTH THE ONLY PENNY I EVER SHOT WAS WITH A FREINDS RENINGTON 17 CALIBER AT 20 YARDS WHAT SURPRISED ME WAS THE HOLE WAS RIGHT IN THE CENTER AND THE PENNY WAS NOT BENT OR DAMAGED JUST HAD A HOLE THAT LOOKED LIKE I DID IT WITH A PUNCH PRESS NO RAGGED HOLE OR EVEN BURRS ON BACK SIDE

eros_EX_Plumber · March 11, 2009

Home Defense.....are we planning for an INVASION here ? :innocent:

SingleCharles · March 11, 2009

the springfield XD series is overrated and a recent fad. they are OK, but not very good guns. look in your local shops for a beretta 92F in used condition. these sell all day long for $400, and are what the US army carries. the italian made guns are very nice and the guns made in marlyand are made in the contract factory that produces for our GIs.

I have to politely disagree. IMHO the XD is an excellent gun and not overrated or a fad. I have shot the XD9, XD40 and the 92F and have found the XD to be a gun far better for me. With that said, I think that "justashooter" makes a good point.... We can give you a ####### load of advice, but you need to go to a gun shop and try them out as best you can before you buy one. A great example.. I was assisting the qualifying portion of a pistol class. We provided the pistols the students were using. One of the students came up and told me that he was going to use his pistol, a 2 1/2 inch Ruger SP101 in .357 that he had just bought. I was reluctant, but the lead instructor gave me the okay. The student took aim and fired his pistol. His shot removed the target retainer from the target carrier. The recoil and report scared him and he lost control of his pistol. He never shot it before and did not know what to expect. He put the Ruger back in it's case, and continued with the range pistol in a new booth in much improved fashion.

Regarding the changes in the XDM.. Springfield did an excellent job listening to user feedback on the XD, and came up with the XDM. The XDM is a refined XD and has several improvements:

Improved trigger travel
Improved trigger reset
Match grade barrel
Customizable grips

The XDM also comes with a nice case, a holster, a magazine carrier, and two high capacity magazines (for now).

Anyway, that's a whole lot of blah, blah, blah from me. Good luck on your search and let us know what you decide on.

Happy shooting!

Edited March 11, 2009 by Charles/Gabriella

SingleCharles · March 11, 2009

22s
a 9mm

a 1911

SAR1

AR15

M.N. M44

20 GA

as in the .22? 1940's vintage?

He's talking about a Mosin Nagant 7.62X54R infantry rifle. The M44 is a carbine version of the 91/30 rifle, with a side-folding cruciform bayonette. The M38 is similar, sans bayo. The 59 is nearly identical to the 38, but not often seen. They are all fixed box fed 5 shot bolt guns with full stocks and upper handguards, similar in utility, application, and function to a 1903 springfield or K98 mauser.

Biggest difference is that they use a rimmed cartridge nearly identical to the 303 british round, which can actually be fired in the MN guns to good effect, but not the other way around, as the 54R is a slightly bigger case in the shoulder area. Some credible sources indicate that the 7.62X54R was actually designed so that british ammo could be fired in the russian gun as a war time expediency. In the 1890's such thinking was not unusual.

They are great rifles, and i have 3. The ammo is recently $.20 a shot, but i bought 7-8K when it was $.04 a round a few years ago. Most of the ammo available is 50's to 70's surp hardball, but sporting ammo is available, and sporterised conversions are easy to arrange, as there is a support industry with drop in synthetic stocks and scope mounts.

I prefer the mauser types, but the MN series is stout and utterly reliable if kept out of serious mud.

I agree. You cannot beat it for the initial price, ~$100. A friend of mine brought his Mosin Nagant 91/30 to the range. It appeared to be a beat up POS, but was a tack driver once we got it sighted. It is a great value in terms of fun/cost of round.

justashooter · March 11, 2009

A.) We can argue back and forth on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (you might also argue whether a persons right to life outweighs your right to own XYZ type of firearms...or certain types of ammunition...)
B.) There are a number of cops in my family, and if there is one thing that worries them it's loads of untrained trigger happy people wandering around carrying firearms.

C.) And the stats on gun related use and injury in private residences typically show that they are hardly ever used to defend against intruders, and are far more likely to be used for 1) Suicide 2) Domestic violence and 3) Accidental discharge and injury.

D.) So. I would be all in favor of legislation that requires

1) Vigorous mental health and background checks for gun purchase (including from gun shows)

2) Limitations on the number and type of weaponry (particularly automatic and massive destruction ammunition)

3) Required gun safety training for all gun owners as a requirement of having a permit/license

4) Required police check of the safety provisions made for gun storage in residences with children.

E.) People will go on about 'well I have a fundamental right!!'. Well, if you read Supreme Court opinions on Fundamental rights you will find that there is no right that is absolute. The government can interfere with fundamental rights as long as it passes strict scrutiny and compelling governmental interest tests.

A.) You can argue about the meaning, but the Supreme Court's decision in Heller defined the meaning of the 2nd Amend as an individual right to keep and bear for the purpose of defense of self and the State. Like, or don't, the Supremes have weighed in, and the issue is settled. Forcing states to acknowledge the opinion within their structure is a matter for lower courts, and is in process.

B.) Google Youtube, and use the search phrase "glock 40". You will be taken to a video in which a federal officer shoots himself in the foot with his carry gun in a school classroom. More policemen shoot themselves every year than you would imagine. Three policemen have shot themselves in the hand in Pennsylvania this month, alone. Sports shooters are typically much better trained in firearms handling than police officers. Sports shooters fire thousands of rounds a year, while the average policeman "qualifies" (hits a man sized target at 20 feet 7 out of 10 times in slow fire at a target range) twice a year, firing a mandatory 200 rounds per year. Policemen are not typically gun oriented people. They aren't involved in guns for the love of it, rather by necessity. Policemen connect in shots fired at criminals 17% of the times, felons shooting back, about 11%. Private citizens in defense connect with about 29% of shots fired (FBI uniform crime statistics).

C.) your "stats" myst be from the "handgun control" (brady) website, and have been thoroughly discredited by the ...again folks...FBI uniform crime statistics report. READ IT.

D.) Good thing brits are not in control of america, or we'd be in the toilet like britain is.

1.) The National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS) is already in place, and affects sales at gunshows too, sweety. LEARN about it. It includes mental health databases recording involuntary commitments. Failure by the individual States to enter information regarding comitments (Va Tech Korean shooter) should be addressed by enforcement of compliance, not by change in the law.

2.) There is no limit on the number of guns a person may have, just like there is no limit on the size a person's house may be, or on the number of cars or planes a person may own, other than the size of thier wallet. Such is life in America. Automatic weps and destructive devices have been federally controlled since 1934 under the National Firearms Act.

3.) Poll taxes have been illegal in the US for decades. Mandatory training has been determined in court to be a form of poll tax, because it comes with a monetary and practical cost. A lack of money or time cannot be used to limit a civil right.

4.) 4th amendment issues with this one. Police inspections of residences may fly in the UK, but not in the US.

E.) Back to Heller vs DC on this one sweety. Read the full decision and you'll understand that Chief Justice Roberts and a majority of the court interpret the 2nd as a fundamental right subject only to those restrictions that withstand strict scrutiny, such as prohibition of purchase by a felon. Home inspections by the bobbys does not pass strict scrutiny in America.

On a related matter, there have been a lot of news stories lately implying that guns are being smuggled from America into Mexico for use in the drug trafficking related rebellion in the western Mexican states. Nothing could be further from the truth. The automatic weps the Mexicans are using are coming from the Venezuelan military and drug cartels in Columbia, pure and simple. They are mostly Chinese made AK47 types recently sold to Venezuela and include military contract M16 lend leased to various Central American countries, including Panama. I have this from intel sources in Mexico who have examined the recovered weapons after conflict. The most interesting wep they came across in the spoils was an Obregon automatic rifle (very rare/early semi-automatic military rifle from 1910 or thereabouts).

One of the problems with allowing a large influx of immigrants into the US in a short period of time is that they will not be forced to acculturate if thier numbers are above a certain threshold. The immigrants will feel that the existing culture is not compelling, and will refuse to adopt it's mores. The immigrants will, rather, attempt to impose thier own culture.

With regard to the 2nd Amendment, it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Edited March 11, 2009 by justashooter

britbird · March 11, 2009

"Back to Heller vs DC on this one sweety"

'sweety'? Seriously? That's hilarious. In the future please call me pumpkin. Or honeybun.

Actually, the Chief Justice did not write the majority opinion. Justice Scalia did. And he also wrote: "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Also, whether the Chief Justice is on board with a decision is neither here nor there, he gets one vote just like the rest of the Justices.

If you'd like to debate this without using patronizing terminology, and without saying offensive things about other countries then by all means let's continue.

One could make a fairly decent argument that inspections of safety provisions in residences is permissible under a strict scrutiny test. Firstly, one can argue that there is a Compelling Governmental Interest (protection of children, prevention of weapon theft and following from that prevention of illegal gun use). Of course, there would then be the issue of narrow tailoring. One could foresee a future court being open to the possibility - it was a 5-4 decision after all, so it's not exactly set in stone and the Court does reverse itself from time to time (Bowers v. Hardwick for instance).

MarkTexas · March 11, 2009

the springfield XD series is overrated and a recent fad. they are OK, but not very good guns. look in your local shops for a beretta 92F in used condition. these sell all day long for $400, and are what the US army carries. the italian made guns are very nice and the guns made in marlyand are made in the contract factory that produces for our GIs.

I have to politely disagree. IMHO the XD is an excellent gun and not overrated or a fad. I have shot the XD9, XD40 and the 92F and have found the XD to be a gun far better for me. With that said, I think that "justashooter" makes a good point.... We can give you a ####### load of advice, but you need to go to a gun shop and try them out as best you can before you buy one. A great example.. I was assisting the qualifying portion of a pistol class. We provided the pistols the students were using. One of the students came up and told me that he was going to use his pistol, a 2 1/2 inch Ruger SP101 in .357 that he had just bought. I was reluctant, but the lead instructor gave me the okay. The student took aim and fired his pistol. His shot removed the target retainer from the target carrier. The recoil and report scared him and he lost control of his pistol. He never shot it before and did not know what to expect. He put the Ruger back in it's case, and continued with the range pistol in a new booth in much improved fashion.

Regarding the changes in the XDM.. Springfield did an excellent job listening to user feedback on the XD, and came up with the XDM. The XDM is a refined XD and has several improvements:

Improved trigger travel

Improved trigger reset

Match grade barrel

Customizable grips

The XDM also comes with a nice case, a holster, a magazine carrier, and two high capacity magazines (for now).

Anyway, that's a whole lot of blah, blah, blah from me. Good luck on your search and let us know what you decide on.

Happy shooting!

Thanks ALOT 'Charles/Gabriella',....THATS the kind of info I NEED! :thumbs:

Going to a shooting range, and try-out the different hand-guns sounds like a Brilliant plan!

Thanks!

As for everybody who is turning this thread/topic into a Political Debate about "Gun-Control",...do US "fire-arm-lovers" ALL a favor,.........

Start your own thread/Debate about that will ya?, - - - Thanks!

britbird · March 11, 2009

Thanks ALOT 'Charles/Gabriella',....THATS the kind of info I NEED! :thumbs:

Going to a shooting range, and try-out the different hand-guns sounds like a Brilliant plan!

Thanks!

As for everybody who is turning this thread/topic into a Political Debate about "Gun-Control",...do US "fire-arm-lovers" ALL a favor,.........

Start your own thread/Debate about that will ya?, - - - Thanks!

Point well taken.

And I agree on going to a range and trying the guns out - it's HUGE fun, plus the range master would (hopefully) be there to talk you through all of them and their pros and cons. I would say though that some ranges don't keep their hand guns as well maintained as one might like, so try not to dismiss one type of gun just because it might jam up (I have mixed feelings on Glocks because of this...first one I used was one I borrowed at a pistol range, and it was terrible. People rave about them though, so I'll give one a whirl at a different range). Plus doing this gives you the chance to try out some guns you'd likely not think to own.

justashooter · March 11, 2009

"Back to Heller vs DC on this one sweety"
'sweety'? Seriously? That's hilarious. In the future please call me pumpkin. Or honeybun.

Actually, the Chief Justice did not write the majority opinion. Justice Scalia did. And he also wrote: "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Also, whether the Chief Justice is on board with a decision is neither here nor there, he gets one vote just like the rest of the Justices.

If you'd like to debate this without using patronizing terminology, and without saying offensive things about other countries then by all means let's continue.

One could make a fairly decent argument that inspections of safety provisions in residences is permissible under a strict scrutiny test. Firstly, one can argue that there is a Compelling Governmental Interest (protection of children, prevention of weapon theft and following from that prevention of illegal gun use). Of course, there would then be the issue of narrow tailoring. One could foresee a future court being open to the possibility - it was a 5-4 decision after all, so it's not exactly set in stone and the Court does reverse itself from time to time (Bowers v. Hardwick for instance).

Old age is showing on me, honeybun. You might be right about the author. I haven't read the decision since last June, but remember listening to the oral arguments last March quite clearly. Roberts was definitely on board. As usual, the silent one spoke not, but his opinion is well known. Souter was the only one even remotely at risk.

One could not make a fair argument that government intrusion into the sanctity of the home is in compelling governmental interest, unless one has a socialist or facist government. Unfortunately, we seem to be temporarily headed toward the former, hence the importance of this decision in the balance. As the 4th amendment is widely interpreted, barring a reasonably articulable suspicion, the arm of government is constrained:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

One could just as reasonably make an argument that all homes be open to governmental inspection for the protection of children. Their parents might be bathing them in boiling water, ya know? They might be eating dog food. Or, they might not.

Prevention of weapon theft, even by the lawful owner, is not compelled by law in most states. Under existing law, I can allow someone to steal my gun, and don't even have to report it. It would be foolish, and economically unsustainable, but it's not within the purview of government to require me to prevent theft of an object.

Prevention of "illegal gun use"? how about I bring the feds over to inspect your house to ensure the prevention of "illegal frying pan use", or "illegal steak knife use"? This one is so silly it's not even funny. It's like, "prevention of illegal murder". Murder is already illegal. A policeman can't lock you up to prevent it unless he has heard you say when/where, how, and why, and your presentation is credible and within your capability. Even then, it's just conspiracy.

The court changing in composition enough to reverse or even limit Heller? Not likely, as Ginsberg and Stevens are scheduled to kick next, and represent the extreme left in the current make-up. Heller will not be reversed, even in the distant future. It carries the weight of most relevant 2A cases up to, and in spirit, including Miller, and there has been nothing since.

You seem reasonably well informed. Give me something better.

britbird · March 11, 2009