Mega Rad Gun Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Syaoran Li said:
So, I am thinking of finally taking the plunge and buying that revolver I have been talking about.

I'm thinking of buying something reasonably affordable, preferably below $500 but I can save up more depending on my options.

I want a revolver chambered in either .38 Special or .357 Magnum, since many .357 Magnum revolvers can also fire .38 Special ammo as well as .357 Magnum.

I've always been a fan of the .38 Special, it's a versatile round that is fairly affordable and easy to find. I've fired a .38 Special revolver before (my cousin's old S&W Model 15 he inherited from my great-grandfather) and it's alright by me.

From what I have been told, .357 Magnum kicks heavy and packs a wallop, but is good for pistol hunting. But I do know that magnum bullets are more expensive than standard .38 Special rounds.

I have been looking at the European-American Arms Windicator or maybe one of the Taurus revolvers that my local pawn shop carries, although I am nervous about buying a used gun.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of former police holster-filler S&W .38s out there going for around $250-$300. They're typically not the prettiest gals at the dance but they're solid guns that haven't seen too much use and usually just need a good cleaning. Granted I'd spend a few hundred more and get one of the sexier blued revolvers like a Colt Trooper or Smith Model 19. I really like mirror-polished blue steel and wood grips.

BigRuler said:
regarding shotgun ammo: how does birdshot compare to buckshot when it comes to stopping power? will these tiny pellets actually penetrate clothing like leather jackets and still cause enough damage to the target to put it down?
Click to expand...
Consider the following:
Birds are small, light and hollow boned. Bucks are large mammals.

Don't use birdshot for self defense.

Also, leather jackets? If a gang of 50's greasers is attacking you, you better just call Fonzie.
 
Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:
Can you really improve upon a Cobray?

I have my doubts.
Click to expand...
From what i have seen there are different custom receivers that switch the bolt to the side instead of the huge round handle blocking view, these also come with rails for options like a red dot or better fixed sights. I have also found competition triggers for reduced slapback and pull.
 
Not in the place in my life that I wanna drop a lot of money on a gun that's just really for fun, but I often look and price and consider it.

Top three I like are the Chiappa Rhino(probably .38 with 6,5” barrel), Colt SAA in about the same, and any way I could get my hands on a Mauser C96 style(more inspired from Resident Evil 4 than Han Solo, I also like weird guns).

Rhino is easy, but in my minimal looking SAA copies are usually .22LR which is gay, I'll get a varmit rifle is I need to shoot things with .22LR, and I'm guessing Mausers aren't really replicated cause they go for a lot. Am I just looking in the wrong places (usually local stores that have inventory online)

Also got the guy interested in the PS90, I get it, I like meme guns too(more a fan of the Kriss), but the cool PDWs with civilian barrels look awful and ruin it for me.
 
Polyboros said:
Rhino is easy, but in my minimal looking SAA copies are usually .22LR which is gay, I'll get a varmit rifle is I need to shoot things with .22LR, and I'm guessing Mausers aren't really replicated cause they go for a lot. Am I just looking in the wrong places (usually local stores that have inventory online)
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone making Mauser replicas (guess it's because they're not cheap to make - lots of machining involved and you'd have to re-engineer all the tooling to do so).

There's a couple companies out there making SAA clones though - everyone knows Uberti for example, lots of cowboy action shooters use those. Available in modern cartridges like .357/.38SPL and .44 Mag.
 
The 223 can was a just cause and reduce noise for plinking not aiming for silent I just want to see how hard I can push the quiet factor.

As always thank you so much gun Yoda @Club Sandwich !!

So I picked up this old French girl...
Mas 36. I wanted one for long time got a good deal and someone I know was down sizing so I got 300 shells dies to reload for cheap. Plus when I bought gun it self dude gave me two boxes of this old stuff its crazy dirty tho.

Only shot at 20 yards so far sadly as I got her today and indoor range next to shop but a wonderful shot.

Next to it a parts build turk mauser.

And to piss everyone off indoors and get scolded by the RO..took my #1 out. God damn it's a bruisee. 3 rounds and I called that a day.
 

Attachments

  • 1550117690862m.jpg
    1550117690862m.jpg
    98.4 KB · Views: 146
  • 1550027151175m.jpg
    1550027151175m.jpg
    101.6 KB · Views: 94
Polyboros said:
Not in the place in my life that I wanna drop a lot of money on a gun that's just really for fun, but I often look and price and consider it.
Top three I like are the Chiappa Rhino(probably .38 with 6,5” barrel), Colt SAA in about the same, and any way I could get my hands on a Mauser C96 style(more inspired from Resident Evil 4 than Han Solo, I also like weird guns).
Click to expand...
The Chiappa Rhino (while sexy looking) is a fragile whore and moving the firing-mechanism/barrel down was done with a ton of small brittle little pieces that defy easy service and longevity. Rent one at a range and return it to the owner for expensive servicing, best way.

691866


^I mean, look at that shit!! It's more needlessly complex than the KRISS Vector!
 
Indrid Cold said:
The Chiappa Rhino (while sexy looking) is a fragile whore and moving the firing-mechanism/barrel down was done with a ton of small brittle little pieces that defy easy service and longevity. Rent one at a range and return it to the owner for expensive servicing, best way.
Click to expand...
it is only slightly more complex than a typical S&W or Colt DAA revolver - the addition of an external hammer and cocking lever with a cocking indicator are really the only additions. each piece is hardened steel stampings that were then plated and surface hardened at the wearing edge for longevity.

it is a mistake to call it excessively complex or fragile. the only fragile part is the aluminum frame, which is also fragile on other revolvers. revolvers have a completely different material stress profile to typical autoloaders and so you cannot as easily get away with an aluminum receiver in the same way.

Akran said:
View attachment 692275
Click to expand...
it's an aluminum frame and really can't take the abuse that revolvers are generally built for. scandium and magnesium alloy frames suffer from similar issues with hot loads.
 
Club Sandwich said:
it is only slightly more complex than a typical S&W or Colt DAA revolver - the addition of an external hammer and cocking lever with a cocking indicator are really the only additions. each piece is hardened steel stampings that were then plated and surface hardened at the wearing edge for longevity.

it is a mistake to call it excessively complex or fragile. the only fragile part is the aluminum frame, which is also fragile on other revolvers. revolvers have a completely different material stress profile to typical autoloaders and so you cannot as easily get away with an aluminum receiver in the same way.
Click to expand...

I would love to agree with you, but the Rhino just doesn't have a stellar service record. Again, the DS revolver is VERY aesthetically appealing, but it suffers heavily from obnoxious complexity, and overall fragility. This isn't as much of an opinion, as a statement of fact. Trust me, if you own one, they will appreciate in value like fucking crazy, but as a daily-carry/target/competition revolver I just can't recommend it.

If I can't trust a platform to send 2,000 rounds of P+, P-,HP, whatever safely down range, then I probably wont recommend it for 2 rounds. The Chiappa Rhino is an expensive novelty.

...I'm just more into dependability, reliability, and enough steel-weight so when she runs dry I can still bludgeon you to death with it:

693525
 
Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:
Talks about dependability and reliability
Attaches a picture of a jamteen eleven

:story:
Click to expand...
Colt 1991A1 Series-80 actually, but who's counting, right? She's been in my service for over a decade now and I have yet to jam or pinch a shell, even with hi-cap 15rnd mags/bulk ammo; she's fuckin' mint! I keep my shit clean/oiled though and run a series of small mods (comp-trigger, shock-buffer, custom hammer, etc) which keeps her working reliably.

Sad you've had issues with the 1911 platform. I've really only heard people complain about the cheap knock-offs (Rock Island, EAA, Llama, etc). Next time try shooting a Colt, S&W, or Remington 1911 firearm and know the joy I feel every time I commit homicide or celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

...isn't the 1911 platform going on 108yrs of US military service now? Why would you put an unreliable weapon on a $150,000 investment wearing $25,000 in costly gear? Sidearm or not, soldiers tend to demand working/reliable weapons and for some MAGICAL reason they return to the 1911 platform.
 
Indrid Cold said:
Colt 1991A1 Series-80 actually, but who's counting, right? She's been in my service for over a decade now and I have yet to jam or pinch a shell, even with hi-cap 15rnd mags/bulk ammo; she's fuckin' mint! I keep my shit clean/oiled though and run a series of small mods (comp-trigger, shock-buffer, custom hammer, etc) which keeps her working reliably.

Sad you've had issues with the 1911 platform. I've really only heard people complain about the cheap knock-offs (Rock Island, EAA, Llama, etc). Next time try shooting a Colt, S&W, or Remington 1911 firearm and know the joy I feel every time I commit homicide or celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

...isn't the 1911 platform going on 108yrs of US military service now? Why would you put an unreliable weapon on a $150,000 investment wearing $25,000 in costly gear? Sidearm or not, soldiers tend to demand working/reliable weapons and for some MAGICAL reason they return to the 1911 platform.
Click to expand...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the US military quit using 1911s a long time ago for the most part. Everyone uses some model of Sig or Glock except for MARSOC which still uses a 1911 variant but even they have begun moving towards Glock.
 
TerminalTryHard said:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the US military quit using 1911s a long time ago for the most part. Everyone uses some model of Sig or Glock except for MARSOC which still uses a 1911 variant but even they have begun moving towards Glock.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm aware that 1911s (and variants) are no longer the dominant sidearm issued and while a soldier may choose the Glock-19 (for weight/size) or the Baretta M9 (for availability/accuracy); the 1911 platform isn't rejected for reliability issues and it still seems to finds it's place on the modern battlefield. The last 30 years may be considered "limited service", but the 1911 has been serving armed forces for 108 years all-the-same.
 
Indrid Cold said:
Oh, I'm aware that 1911s (and variants) are no longer the dominant sidearm issued and while a soldier may choose the Glock-19 (for weight/size) or the Baretta M9 (for availability/accuracy); the 1911 platform isn't rejected for reliability issues and it still seems to finds it's place on the modern battlefield. The last 30 years may be considered "limited service", but the 1911 has been serving armed forces for 108 years all-the-same.
Click to expand...
  • Using both boldface and italics in the same post is a sure sign you're losing it.
  • Pistols find their way onto the battlefield for all kinds of reasons. There's probably a general term for that kind of fallacy, but I don't recall it right away. There may be reasons to think the 1911 is reliable, but that's a very bad one.
  • Reasons to favor a pistol on the battlefield may not apply to civilian uses. Bulk purchase price, pork barrel contracts, and other factors matter more to armies; hollow point functionality and other factors may not.
 
Indrid Cold said:
Oh, I'm aware that 1911s (and variants) are no longer the dominant sidearm issued and while a soldier may choose the Glock-19 (for weight/size) or the Baretta M9 (for availability/accuracy); the 1911 platform isn't rejected for reliability issues and it still seems to finds it's place on the modern battlefield. The last 30 years may be considered "limited service", but the 1911 has been serving armed forces for 108 years all-the-same.
Click to expand...
The number of years the military used 1911s doesn't really mean anything, armies around the world have used sharpened sticks for far longer then they've used firearms after all but no one is going to argue that because people spent 1000 years stabbing each other with pointy sticks makes them on par with modern weapons.

Side arms are very low priority for the military with most of the time and resources being put into primary weapons such as rifles, so any change to side arms is going to be a long and slow process. It's the reason that even though the Army has officially adopted the M17 most of the Army still uses the M9, and it's the reason some parts of the USMC still uses the 1911.
 
AprilRains said:
  • Using both boldface and italics in the same post is a sure sign you're losing it.
  • Pistols find their way onto the battlefield for all kinds of reasons. There's probably a general term for that kind of fallacy, but I don't recall it right away. There may be reasons to think the 1911 is reliable, but that's a very bad one.
  • Reasons to favor a pistol on the battlefield may not apply to civilian uses. Bulk purchase price, pork barrel contracts, and other factors matter more to armies; hollow point functionality and other factors may not.
Click to expand...

  • Losing what now? This is a general gun chat with general net-fags, not the Jr.High debate finals. I use boldface, ellipsis, and italics to simulate the cadence of my speech and enunciate points effectively. If wanting to be effectively understood and utilizing various language tools to do so is a "losing position", then yeah, I guess you got me?
  • "There's probably a general term for that kind of fallacy, but I don't recall it right away." Classic. :story: You do realize there are military trials that test arms for service and re-validate serving weapons as well, right? There weren't just 3 prototypes submitted by Browning in 1911 and the US armed forces called it "good"; the pistol has passed comparison testing well up until the late 80's. The military trials include, salt soaks, humidity torture tests, continuous fire testing and various other harsh condition operation to test the weapon's reliability. It sees battlefield use because of it's particular skill set not because some private finds it sitting under the passenger-seat in a humvee.
  • "Reasons to favor a pistol on the battlefield may not apply to civilian uses." Oh yeah, like when? Hunting fowl? Target-practice? I don't have a CWP to scare bears or plink cans, so MOST battlefield tested firearms have a "civilian use", as far as I'm concerned. Light, reliable, effective, accurate, comfortable... sounds like a civilian's dream pistol! I'm with you on government/military bureaucracy, though. Robert McNamara's Whiz Kids, and the M16 are a good example of the many problems you'll face if you forego reliability testing. Luckily that seems to be a rare enough exception that it literally stands-out as a tale of what not to do.
TerminalTryHard said:
The number of years the military used 1911s doesn't really mean anything, armies around the world have used sharpened sticks for far longer then they've used firearms after all but no one is going to argue that because people spent 1000 years stabbing each other with pointy sticks makes them on par with modern weapons.

Side arms are very low priority for the military with most of the time and resources being put into primary weapons such as rifles, so any change to side arms is going to be a long and slow process. It's the reason that even though the Army has officially adopted the M17 most of the Army still uses the M9, and it's the reason some parts of the USMC still uses the 1911.
Click to expand...

...yeah dude, but we aren't discussing some West-Congo rebel tribe here. It's the US Armed Forces, and the DOD. They're in the business to win wars and do so relatively efficiently with a decent amount of resources backing them. The last time soldiers were given sub-par arms was, again with Robert McNamara's Whiz Kids, and the M16. However, that problem took a year (powder, gas-tube and all) to rectify which shows reliability is paramount to the armed forces. Point being, problems are found and rectified quickly in the armed forces (especially at the cost of expensive lives) and the 1911 has never been seen as a reliability problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom