Firearm Recommendations

[Farm_or]

Gun ownership is a very difficult responsibility. You are absolutely fit to question it. But ultimately, it should remain an individual decision. That is freedom, period.

For the people not fortunate to live in low crime, low druggie community, they are in a different place. They know victims. They might have friends in law enforcement that tell them stories censored by the liberal news media.

Evacuating your house from a drug induced burglar is a whole lot different than say a fire drill. Someone has to be responsible for the safety of the family. When someone is bold enough to enter the sanctity of your locked home, can you be sure of the limitations of their intentions? You bet your life? Or your less capable loved ones?
That is a decision that we must take very seriously.

[Mister Imperceptible]

If I were a thief, knowing someone had a gun would not make me say “Oh good, that’s something else I can steal.” It would make me think “Let me find an easier target.”

Not growing up with guns means I have to be educated and trained. Most of us didn’t grow up with ERE values either; we came around to it ourselves.

[enigmaT120]

If you want semi auto and want to avoid plastic rifles and AKs - consider an SKS. Slightly more punch out of a longer barrel than the AK47, longer sight radius, and less scary - other than the attached folding bayonet in my case.

Very cheap ammo too, nice for plinking. It's every bit as much of an "assault rifle" as an AR15 but like steelerfan says, not scary looking. Sorry for the quotes, but that term pisses me off when used to refer to semiautomatic rifles.

[jacob]

I don't mind the vernacular understanding of an assault rifle, but I took this opportunity to look up the technical definition.

By US Army standards (according to the gospel of wiki), an assault rifle is defined by

• Capable of selective fire (e.g. some M16s are capable of full auto, others have a 3-shot burst mode)
• Use an intermediate-power cartridge (between a pistol/submachine gun and a rifle)
• Detachable magazine
• Effective range >300m

So by that definition, civilian AR15s only meet the last 3 out of the 4 criteria. So that's the theory. In practice, infantry doctrine seems to discourage the use of burst/auto fire preferring well aimed single shots (even a semi can fire much faster than what one would use in practice for well-aimed shots). As per army doctrine, the selective fire capability is the weakest criteria from a functional standpoint, since nobody uses it anymore anyway. It's therefore not hard to see how e.g. AR15s pass the duck-test of an assault rifle for many voters.

Also, while military assault rifles are proscribed by the Geneva convention from firing anything but full-jacketed rounds, there is AFAIK few limits on what civilians can load their "3/4"-assault rifles with. In a no-holds barred war, a soldier would seem to be better off sacrificing their selective fire option in favor of using the more lethal civilian ammo (hollow points, etc.).

Nitpickers and lawyers may instead use the term "assault weapon" which does include guns with semi-automatic mode only. Here the criteria vary (legal definitions) but generally include

• Semi-automatic
• Pistol grip
• Detachable (large) magazine
• And a few others...

[enigmaT120]

Scary looking.

[Riggerjack]

@ Jacob
Going to a site called military.com seems like it would get what you want. It won't. It's mainly clickbait.

What you want is FM 7-8. That's the infantry field manual, with all the basics. It's not restricted distribution, anyone can download a copy, the army really doesn't care. They distribute to all active, guard and reserves, but it is approved for public distribution on page c-1.

They made a change in 2001, I haven't read yet, but I would be shocked, just shocked, to find that an FM called for no burst fire, or that the next purchase of M-4's didn't specify burst fire in the RFP.

A right handed shooter will place 3 shots, close together, in a diagonal line, lower left to upper right, with burst fire. If I could get it, I would. But I have zero interest in full auto.

Burst fire came on the scene in the late 80's with the M-16A2, just as Reagan was signing the firearm owners protection act. That is what stopped gun manufacturers from making any new automatic or burst fire weapons for civilians. Before this, you could order up such a gun, go through the paperwork, get a sign off from a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (sheriff, chief of police, or DA) pay a $200 special tax, wait for BATF (no E back then) approval (around 4 months), and submit to regular unannounced BATF inspections, and you couldn't sell the gun to anyone who wasn't willing to do the same.

So, while I might go through all that for a burst fire AR, maybe, there just aren't any. They were getting banned as they were becoming semiavailable. In the history of NFA weapons, one was used in a crime. By a deputy, who didn't need to go through all the headaches, shooting his wife. So I guess this was another successful gun control law, right?

I know you think this assault weapons thing is splitting hairs. A mere technicality. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, one side wants the facts known, and one side spews misinformation at strategic times, when emotions are running high.

Kinda like climate change. When someone consistently provides misinformation in that debate, is it a technicality, or mischief? Are they more, or less, likely to have the public interest at heart? Are their proposals likely to improve the situation or just quiet the electorate?

[jacob]

@RJ - As far as splitting hairs go, any definition eventually boils down to legalese, since lawyers are the only ones who care about definitions. My concern (whether it's guns or climate change) is functionality. What does the gun do? What does the climate do? Not, what is it called or how shit's ultimately defined. To me arguing about definitions of what is and what is not is a straw-man. It focuses the discussion on a point which in this case has very little relevance; non-used auto-fire. Another straw-man is whether the gun is painted black (scary). Painting it pink doesn't change its function. So making black an issue (as in "black guns") is irrelevant to the function. But is allows the debate to get stuck at the point of hashing out details. It's another form of whataboutism. This is standard practice in politics.

Such kinds of "facts" miss the forest to focus on the trees. It's wanting to argue to small picture to divert attention from the big picture. It's form over function. I look at function over form. I understand that a gun with a pink stock can also be "assaulty". However, I also understand that voters and juries comprise at least some people who understand neither form nor function. And that law is just a crude technology that needs precise definitions in the pursuit of justice. So, that's where the politics go ... down the drain.

After posting, I realized that squad tactics in which several soldiers use assault rifles to lay down suppressive fire until a machine gun or an air strike can be brought to bear might call for different weapons that being the lone civilian defender of a home castle. I think if you were trying to break into a home, second-thoughts might be experienced more intensely if you heard automatic fire coming at you than if you just heard rapid fire or a few shotgun booms. So there's that ... Geneva conventions don't necessarily have to apply to civilians.

Strangely .. war seems more like a sporting game ... whereas home defense really is life and death (or run or buy a bus ticket and move away already).

[saving-10-years]

@ffj Yes, I am getting the idea now. The robbers have guns, the householders have guns, its not that unusual a thing there. (And they could even be an investment).

[Riggerjack]

@ saving10years, a series of good questions. Let me see if I can clear some things up.

Armed residential burglaries are very uncommon in the US. Mainly because the penalty for bringing a gun along adds huge risks to what is really an amateur crime. Why bring a gun? Because you are afraid the homeowner is armed? What happens then? Nothing good, safe or profitable. Interviews with burglars in prison reinforce the intuitive sense here. Most residential burglaries are drug related. Get something, sell it, go get your fix. That is the plan. Every once in a while a small gang will figure out that 4 armed guys kicking in a door can shut down resistance in a hurry, but this makes them a very high priority, and they don't last long.

For this reason, firearms in the home just aren't likely to be much use. Most likely, unsecured guns are a reward rather than a deterrent. I don't have guns to protect my stuff.

Robbers with guns and victims with guns is mainly played out in small, public facing businesses. Well outside the scope we are talking about.

What does a burglar look for to indicate that a gun may be in the home? Mainly neighborhood. Most burglars are locals. It just doesn't pay well enough to commute. Or, at least that was how it was before eBay and Craigslist, fences paid pennies on the dollar, and few of those. But now everybody knows about eBay, Craigslist, etc, and the burglary detectives as well. I'll let them play cat and mouse, not my game.

So what to look for in a target. Young people. Bernie stickers (and that's why my "I am the NRA and I vote" sticker is next to my Bernie sticker. Well, that and watching people's eyes cross trying to process that message.) Any of the ways people signal loyalty to causes that are politically parallel to gun control. Avoid danger signs, like bars on windows, reinforced doors, alarm signs, alarm sensors, signs people are home, and any of the ways people signal loyalty to causes that are politically parallel to gun rights. Still, plenty of miscommunication, leading to mischief.

So if I don't think guns will stop a burglar, and I think odds are very good that you will never need one, and that if you do, running is better than shooting, why am I such a gun enthusiast? That is going to take some explaining.

So let me just change the subject in an awkward analogy.

We talk about F you money here, a lot. But why? It's not going to be enough to retire on, and it won't stop your retirement savings from tanking with the markets, it makes you more vulnerable to fraud and theft and liability to have ready cash, so surely f you money is a net loss, right? No. Having f you money changes one's relationship with your work. Having that bit of savings, means not automatically accepting whatever your boss offers. Not coming in for an extra shift when they just expect you to. Not taking the pay cut, or whatever your issue is with work. It gives you the freedom to reject the expectation of compliance, and going your own way. It empowers you to choose to accept those conditions, as well. But the choice is yours. Even if you don't exercise the option, it's better to have it. Having that option changes your relationship with your employer, and coworkers.

And when someone looks at the world, for what it is, and decides that some parts are to be avoided, and makes the plans, decisions, and preparations necessary to exclude those factors, this is equally empowering.

You can do this with martial arts, building a safe room, training with a gun, or what have you. Look at the advice in this thread. Plenty about gun choice, but just as much about influencing factors and why one should make this or that choice. Nobody is recommending going out and getting a gun so you can blast away at a bump in the night. No, the advice is to match the gun to the need and the environment. To be safe, to get it right.

I don't come from safe, middle class neighborhoods. I have seen plenty of violence, but little gun violence. For me, growing up, I just knew I wanted a different life, and in my twenties, I got it. I was out, and living in those safe neighborhoods, and that was good enough for a while. Right up until I heard someone coming in through the sliding glass door, as I described in the guns thread. It was a false alarm, but it was definitely an alarm. It got me thinking about the people I knew growing up, and what they did to people like me, now. This is what got me going on security.

And I found that having a gun, having looked at security, having made the decision to exclude parts of the world from my life, changed my relationship with the world. A similar change to the "f you money" effect I described above. Bad things still happen, but there are now limits. I feel backstopped. I don't control everything, but I can stop some things, close to me.

I have my little space, where I exercise both authority and responsibility. A place where I decide what doesn't belong. A place where I can determine what matters, and what doesn't. And just as importantly, having that space, let's me let others do as they wish outside of that space. And that is what I am endorsing, when I talk about guns.

[saving-10-years]

@RJ Thanks for the answers. Totally understand. Especially the bit about thinking of what people you grew up around might do/be capable of.

I feel that it might sound like I am picking on @Mr_I but when he suggested that killing the intruder by shooting him through a wall sounded like a positive result what came to mind was Oscar Pretorius. (Maybe Mr_I was sharing a gun joke I did not get?) Buying an NRA bumper sticker sounds like a cheaper and effective investment - no training required. (Not as much fun as using a gun for leisure - but that was not the reason he gave for purchase).

Were guns an option here I suspect that I would not be able to a) locate the gun in our house should I need to use it, b) hold onto a gun if challenged - physical tussle stuff with determined person, likely male, c) use it to harm someone if I needed to. So would not be effective for me if I decided to stay and fight. On the other had there are extremely pointy heavy tools which I do have skill in using and could do real damage with and happen to have hanging around the place. Things like these ...



No bumper sticker but one which said I was a spinner would in any case probably not give over the right message?

Went back and read the thread about Front Door Security, things seem to have moved on in terms of mood since then.

[bryan]

Buying an NRA bumper sticker sounds like a cheaper and effective investment - no training required.

Did you consider the potential cost of repairing vandalized property due to you displaying an NRA bumper sticker?

[bryan]

Since OP asked about how to protect family/self,

OP explicitly said he is not protecting a family, but it could be a concern for the future. Many comments talking about home/personal defense. Odd to me since I agree that for the most part a more ERE-like approach would not involve buying a gun at all (let alone an expensive one). There are some exceptions, obviously.

I think OP is more caught up in the potential for a good becoming scarce and the desire to acquire that good beforehand. Sort of an Alpha Strategy investment or hedge (though not really in the financial sense.. he's not going to buy a crate of AKs). I can't blame him since I do the same thing (@jacob's first reply seemed to fit this motivation as well).

I do think OP has gotten some good feedback regarding considerations/suggestions.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@Riggerjack, Augustus et al

Thanks again for all the fine material, you have given me much to work with to start.

@saving10years

My comment about shooting thru walls and leaving an intruder unable to testify is something I heard from a real life gun nut, and repeated half-jokingly. Sometimes it’s hard to see when I am being serious and when I am dryly joking, and given the subject matter I understand your concern. Rest assured I do not want a gun for the purpose of blasting away Oscar Pretorius style as soon as I hear a “bump in the night.”

In high school, someone slashed my tires. I remember feeling violated. I had no idea who did it. When I think what would happen if I had more to defend than a 10-year-old Honda, it makes me want a gun. You could say I have a “personality” that puts me at odds with some people. But I refuse to kowtow to idiots and sycophants. I want to be able to sit on my private property with my gun and collect dividends and not have to get along with everybody, if I don’t want to. I do not apologize for that.

I have a taste for beautiful women and that might make me and a future paramour/wife even more at risk.

Your response might be to “work on my personality.” That would be like asking a kid in drama club to go home and write in his diary instead, to avoid being targeted. Did I mention I was president of my high school drama club and starred in all the plays?

If this “stubbornly being oneself” seems like a uniquely hard headed American phenomenon, it isn’t. Think Dr. Thomas Stockmann in Ibsen’s “Enemy of The People.” Or, if you want a real life example, look at what happened to Ignaz Simmelweis.

I look at gun ownership like I look at having gold in one’s investment portfolio. It’s utterly pointless, up until the point it becomes absolutely essential. By the time your house is being attacked by persons infected with weaponized smallpox looking for canned food, it will probably be too late to get a gun and learn how to use it.

In short, there are a multitude of reasons to have a gun, at least that’s what I’m thinking beneath this tin foil hat of mine.

[Riggerjack]

Or, if you want a real life example, look at what happened to Ignaz Simmelweis.

You are afraid a friend will lure you to a new asylum, and commit you, where you will then be beaten by orderlies, and die of gangrene 2 weeks later? Uh, I don't think a gun will help with that.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Like Dr. Simmelweis I have a tendency to speak my mind. This makes enemies. I have noticed that these neo-left barely-closeted Marxists would very much like to impose their way of life on everyone. I really do not care what people do. If they want to demonstrate in public (read: bitch), they can be my guest. But I have noticed they have especial vitriol for anyone who disagrees with them. I have been on the receiving end of it. If I have the choice of speaking my mind or remaining mum, I would just as soon remain mum and get on with my life. But if they come to my door and demand an account, I will speak my mind and I will not mince words. I would rather not be at their mercy, hence the need for self-defense.

Don’t worry Riggerjack, I might be speaking in sweeping generalizations. It is a violent world and like you I am not content to hide underneath my blankets and hope that everything will be okay. My wanting a gun is preparation and insurance for and against what will likely never happen.

I just want to assure saving10years that this is not me:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lQNMOGFI-Ks

[Mister Imperceptible]

“Get some powdered food, plant some zucchini, get a windmill. That’s all well and good, but if you don’t know how to fight, all you’re doing is gathering supplies for the toughest guy on the block.

What am I gonna do when some guy turns me upside down and starts shaking the gold coins out of my pockets?”

“You get a pool, you immediately increase your risk of drowning.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QHqB2t-DGb8

[Mikeallison]

The glock I shot chambered in 9mm was much snappier than my 1911 in 45. Sometimes the design and material of the gun is more important than the round in terms of recoil. I think the 9mm is a better choice, but I like my 45 and shoot it more so that is what I use for my bedside.

I have a 20 gauge Mossberg pump in the bedroom closet. I do like the above poster and stack it so birdshot is the first one down the pipe, and buck follows after. I went 20 over 12 because the recoil is much easier for my girlfriend to manage.

In my opinion "why do you need a gun?" is a silly question. It is a constitutionally protected right, that was put in the document specifically to protect people from the kind of person who asks "why do you need a gun?". Because the kind of people who ask those questions of others will inevitably start to question why you need other things they don't like. It is not a gun control argument so much as a people control one, and that question really is "why should an individual have the power to challenge the herd?".

Just laws are necessary, and no man is an island. However gun grabbing presumes guilt before any crime has been committed. It would be like banning both cars and alcohol because a few irresponsible people kill others when driving drunk. Do you see how nonsensical this is? What matters is an individual's actions, not what he owns. If we are to presume guilt based on the capacity for violence, then the first thing we should disarm is our military, and federal agencies! They are far more dangerous to the world than a redneck like me with a rifle or two. Just ask anyone from Iraq or Afghanistan.

A person with spare time and an internet connection can build a bomb out of easily found chemicals that can blow up an entire building in Oklahoma. Where are the marches against easy access to fertiliser? The answer to "why do you need a gun?" Is "because you think you have the right to question if I can have one". Simple as that.

Sorry for the tangent, I just have some very strong feelings on this one.

[Mister Imperceptible]

It is strange. Being a certain type of american, gun ownership and having a prepper mentality seems hard-wired. I feel our country is polarized and I am somewhat distrusting these days. However, it makes you question what you are protecting. Possessions or people?

The joke told me by a former colleague who escaped Soviet-controlled Poland driving through an underground tunnel so tight the rear-view mirrors on the VW Bug were taken off:

Capitalists only care about their money.

Socialists care about their people.

Capitalists love their money so they lock away their money.

Socialists love their people so they lock up their people!

[Mister Imperceptible]

@Mikeallison

+1

[Freedom_2018]

Gun issues are a real hot button with my lefty friends these days especially given what's been happening recently. They are in no mood to hear another viewpoint, if only for the sake of debate. I am afraid that soon it might start impacting long standing friendships...but I will try and not let that happen.

As for me, a couple ofbyears ago, I sold my Volquartsen 17hmr target rifle as I realized it would not fit my mobile lifestyle and having to contend with different gun laws in different jurisdictions. I miss it sometimes but I think it was the wise choice for me.