Guns you think are just a bad idea.
 

Was in cabelas and saw a j frame airweight snubnose in 357 mag and a smith 629 PD, a 22 ounce 44 mag. (and what PD would use a .44.) How can smith sell a airweight 44 mag with a straight face? Theres already reports of idiots firing full magnum laods and breaking bones. Then i see american derringer making 45-70 derringers, there apaprently was a thunder 5 in 45-70 and thompson center made a 2 inch contender barrel chambered in rifle rounds..

Because this is America and that's what we have here.

Most of the time with those airweights, you'll fire .38 special or .44 special. They might be alright with lighter magnum loads. Those are concealed carry guns that aren't made to fire a lot of rounds. I think the PD stands for personal defense not Police Department.

The appeal of airweight revolvers is understandable: They're good six-guns for conceal-carry. Whether or not they should be made to shoot full-power, large-diameter loads is another question entirely. I guess they figure some people might be OK with the kick as long as they get more stopping power.

Personally, I think it's equally absurd that gun manufacturers have put out compact and even sub-compact polymer-frame pistols that shoot rounds like 10mm and .45 ACP (the Glock 29, 30 and 36 come to mind here). I remember when the Glock 36 first came and gun rags were praising Glock for introducing an easily concealable .45 pistol. My reaction at the time was that it seemed like a bad idea because of how light Glocks are and the inherent power of .45 ACP recoil (and the G36 has by far the smallest, lightest frame of any Glock). But it seems a lot of people really like that gun, even though I personally can't understand its appeal.

Ive seen the 329 pd advertised as "lightweight hunting or trail gun." I saw one review where they had to put on x frame rubber grips and shooting gloves to make the 44 mag bearable. One forum a guy put pics of cut webbing on his hands from a 357 airweight.

Subcompact 45s don't make sense to me either. The desighn of the 45 cartridge is for service sized autos. Subcompacts are not known to work well in a .45 acp. The .40 is known to work okay, but the .40 kicks even harder than the 45. I personally would never get a subcompact above 9mm. The kahr pm40 seems rediculous too, I should add that to the list.

It might not be such a bad idea if you were going for a metal-framed .45 ACP sub-compact. But polymer framed? That just strikes me as a dumb idea, even though I admit I've never shot any of these guns (since I tend to avoid .45 ACP pistols generally).

In Glock's case, what's even more ridiculous is that they've never put out a compact .45 ACP pistol (by which I mean, G19-sized). Yet they have already put out two different sub-compact models chambered in .45 ACP (or three, if you count the G30SF as a separate gun), which are way less practical in comparison.

Russian Kord HMG. .50 cal designed to be fired from a bipod. No thank you.

I don't get the point of civilians wanting short barrel rifles. They aren't very accurate, or like Olympic arms with their short AR-15s, no stocks for recoil control. I don't get it.

I just want to say... I love Thrice.

I don't get it? Who's Thrice?

I don't get the shorty craze. I saw on one of the ar-15 sites (arfcom or m4carbine.net) someone got a scar and did a range rpeort. Several people told him he should go class 3 to get a 14.5 inch barrel. I dont see why, 1.5 inches wont give you a close quarters advantage. I like when someone buys a 20 inch ar-15 since there pretty much target shooting anyway and people say to get tacticool carbines since you can room clear and dismount vehicles faster......

The taurs judge sucks.

I just assumed... Your icon has Thrice lyrics.

how bout:

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepa...under_50_.html

Shorty rifles and snubby revolvers just look cool. I think most folks at least once or twice or more will buy a firearm because it looks cool. Firearms are a consumer product and people often buy their product based on look, smell, touch etc. I own a Luger and a Webley just because they look great (IMHO) and I had wanted one of each for a couple decades. Finally own both. Almost never shoot them, but so what? They look cool and I own them. :cool:

I gotta admit, id love an all original .455 webley (not one of the rechambered ones) myself :)

http://www.imfdb.org/images/d/d7/XM8.JPG

'Nuff said.

I see that and i raise you:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/aicw-2005.jpg

and this:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/oicw.jpg

Enough said.

It wasn't a completely bad idea...if it could have been achieved at a much lower cost and resulted in a lighter, less complex weapon. The technology just wasn't ready yet at the time (still isn't today, either).

Mostly just a redundant idea. I mean, H&K might as well have just offered them the G36 as it was - because the original G36 was a more developed and refined design at that point.

The XM8 was pretty much a G36 in a new body. It's the same kind of internals and same charging handle and magazines. Originally the US army was close to adopting it

I don't know why. The M4 and M16A4 are great weapons. And no, they don't jam that often.

I was with the 10th Mountain Division in the spring of 1998 when we were assigned the M4 carbines. They were brand new. We actually recieved them still in the packaging. It was the only time in fourteen years of serving in the U.S. Army that I was issued a brand-new weapon. I was very excited.:D

We didn't have any issues with the M4's failing to feed - no more so than with any other semi-automatic rifle. But we did have issues with rounds "cooking-off" while in the chamber. This usually happened after a soldier had fired two or three 30 round magazines through the weapon and it was hot. We had a few carbines fire off the chambered round even though the soldier did not have his or her finger on the trigger. At least this was what the troops were reporting.

This happened when we were at the range getting familiarized with our brand new carbines. Also some of the troops thought the heat waves coming off the shorter barrels interefered with the sight picture.

I didn't have any trouble and I never heard if there was any resolution to the cooking off of rounds.

No they weren't. The XM8 was basically just a last-ditch attempt to get SOMETHING out of the XM29/OICW program. By the time the XM8 was being tested, the military had already more-or-less selected the M4 and M16A4 with SOPMOD kit to replace the M16A2 as the main front-line infantry weapon. And remember that the M16A2 is the weapon that the OICW was supposed to replace, not the M4.

I've never had a jam firing live rounds with my C7. Blanks when in training, yes, but they're filthy and you tend to shoot alot more of them than live rounds. Interestingly, I've found the best thing for keeping it running in Afghanistan is the cans of compressed air they issue for cleaning your computer. Blows the moon dust right out of it.

I wonder if the cooking off problems had something to do with the lighter barrel on the M4 vice the M16A2 / A4. When we first got into serious fighting in Kandahar, people were finding that the barrels on the C8 / C8A1 heated up too fast (14.5" A1 profile). That's why they went to the extra heavy 16" on the A2. Of course the M4 has a heavier barrel than the original C8 and I've not heard any complaints about them since.

I'd imagine it was meant to save a few careers as well...

I've read comments on firearms blogs about the C7/C8 allegedly proving more reliable than the M16/M4. If that's true, it makes me wonder what you guys are putting in those things and why the heck we aren't doing the same thing down here...

Can't imagine why, under the skin it's the same weapon.

The glock subcompact .45s seem like a bad idea, as the record of subcompact .45s in general is not very good. As far as recoil, subcompact .40s make even less sense, as the .45 is pleasant next to the snappy .40.

Just saw that kahr makes a .40 caliber version of the pm9, the pm40. The PM9 seems like a great CC/BUG, but a palm sizedd .40? must kick like a beast and be impossible to control. Also, the waltehr pps in .40, all the tiny guns in big calibers make no sense.

My uncle owned a .40S&W Kahr. Nice feeling gun - it fit my hand fine. But Jesus Christ, .40 is way too big a bullet for a gun like that. After assuming a well-coached grip that I considered very decent and taking good aim at a condemned soda can, I promptly planted two rounds firmly into North Carolina dirt. I gave the gun back, not wanting to burn through all of his ammunition just trying to get one round on target.

Oh, and they're loud as all hell.

The pm40 isnt even big enough for your whole hand is its problem, i cant see firing a 40 where only a few fingers get on the grip.

You're in North Carolina? Or just your uncle?

Or he imported a crate of dirt from North Carolina to shoot at. :p

Back on topic, I've always thought a short barrel AR-15 was good for close quarters, but then, I see barrels that are just too short to the point where they can only be used in doors and when you're that close inside a building, wouldn't a shotgun be much better or a pistol?

i saw a 5.5 inch barreled ar-15 upper.

I live in Maryland; he's in Virginia. The shooting was done at some family property in NC several years ago. I also tried out an over/under 12 gauge of his (don't know the exact model, unfortunately) and did much better with that. This was a shocker to me - my ears rang a lot less after using the 12-gauge than they did firing the .40.

I saw something similar in a book I have.