Questions

[Pointy Sextant]

For clarfication, I have been wondeing about something. There are certain guns that are called machine pistols rather than submachineguns that baffle me. The reason for this is not just the fact that they are cosmetically
very much rifle like, but that they are chambered in what is usually a rifle round, so how they can be a pistol does not make sense to me. I was wondering if you gentlemen could clear this up for me.

For example:

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?pag...mart&Itemid=37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLR-16

[k9870]

The lack of stock may be it.

Machine gun: Rifle Calibers

Sub-Machine gun: Pistol calibers


Both examples have no stock, and are short. There pistols.

[Gunmaster45]

They should differentiate more. A pistol caliber handgun that fires fully automatic is called a "machine pistol", but it should be "submachine pistol". And the rifle calibered pistols should be called "pistols", because they aren't full auto guns, so machine pistol doesn't apply to these guns. If it was a full auto pistol that fires rifle rounds, THEN it could be considered a machine pistol.

[jdun]

Originally Posted by Pointy Sextant

Strictly speaking, training with firearms should go pistol rifle shotgun not rifle shotgun pistol?

And when training with a shotgun, what style of shell should I use? buck shot, bird shot, or slug?

What are good programs to get a sense for ballistics in an academic sense? Design of bullets, payloads, and weapons? Included in a down to earth understanding of the process I would also like to develop a bit of a clinical understanding of the process involved.

Also, purely as an artist, I regret not seeing the vector on that list. It has such clean lines.

It depends on how old you are. When I was a kid I was train first in rifle, shotgun, and pistol. The military train rifle first then pistol. However pistol training time in the military is very low.

If you're an adult and getting your first firearm it probably should be a pistol, then shotgun, and rifle because pistol are the prefer choice for self defense.

Depends on how much money you have for ammo. Money and time is always the limiting factor in training. Bird shot are inexpensive so you get more for the buck. However for home defense I'll go with 00 buck. Do not use bird shot for personnel defense. They are not design for it.

I belong to a private gun club. Our private club has an outdoor and indoor range. The outdoor range open to our members till 7pm/7 because we do not what to disturb our neighbors. The indoor range open 24/7. Basically every member has a key to the range. There is no range officer.

So if I am the only person or if the members there agree, there is no fireline and no firelane. We can do whatever training we like as long as we fellow the safety rules.

People get high on ballistic. I use to when I was a kid but not anymore. I don't lose any sleep over stopping power between 9mm vs 45ACP or .22 cal vs. 30 cal. because here the absolute truth. There is none. You keep shooting until your opponent is dead. Period.

If you're still hang up on ballistic, check this site.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/
http://www.brassfetcher.com/oldindex.html

Rent a Glock 17 or 19 and buy 100 or two 9mm 115 or 124 grn bullet. Shoot and have fun.

The Magpul dvd is inexpensive compare to other video of its kind. It mainly deals with carbine but touch on some basic pistol shooting, ie transition from rifle/carbine to pistol in combat.

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/M...ining_DVD.html

If you decided that you like shooting go join a pivate Gun Club or complete completing in completion. Like this young lady here. She's using a Glock 17.

http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=c...=577&Itemid=39

[Pointy Sextant]

Another point of confusion.

Flechette rounds fly longer and straighter than conventional rounds. Yet sniper rifles use conventional style rounds. Why is that? It seems to me that Sabot Flechette rounds would extend the range of snipers and thus increase their effectiveness. Is there a specific reason other than availability of ammunition that the changeover to Flechette rounds hasn't been made?

[Gunmaster45]

I'm pretty sure they are banned by the Genneva convention... but for some reason I could buy a box of 100 out of cheaper than dirt if I wanted without any restrictions. The flachette round seemed interesting but I can't see how they wouldn't mess up function since they aren't round at the head.

[Gunmaster45]

Also, purely as an artist, I regret not seeing the vector on that list. It has such clean lines.

You mean the Vector CP1? I think they are kind of ugly personally. I don't know how reliable they are, but it is an interesting enough choice. They looked good in xXx.

[Vangelis]

Originally Posted by Pointy Sextant

Another point of confusion.

Flechette rounds fly longer and straighter than conventional rounds. Yet sniper rifles use conventional style rounds. Why is that? It seems to me that Sabot Flechette rounds would extend the range of snipers and thus increase their effectiveness. Is there a specific reason other than availability of ammunition that the changeover to Flechette rounds hasn't been made?

Flechettes might fly straight, but their wound channels are tiny, they deflect easily [SALVO / SPIW found their 5.6x53mm and 5.6x44mm flechettes could be deflected by raindrops], they're very, very expensive to produce, tend to be loud and have excessive muzzle flash, and since their range largely comes from being light and aerodynamic, their performance against armour is spotty, too; there's something to be said for rounds having high momentum rather than just high kinetic energy.

Gunmaster45: It's been argued that the Geneva Convention forbids deploying artillery flechette rounds in civilian populated areas; people argue they violate the provisions protecting non-combatants, on the basis that an arty flechette is a fragmentation round with 8,000 8-grain nails as well as bits of the casing to kill people with, and so it might kill people. As opposed to any other artillery shell you might fire at a civilian populated area which wouldn't kill anyone, I guess.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

I'm pretty sure they are banned by the Genneva convention... but for some reason I could buy a box of 100 out of cheaper than dirt if I wanted without any restrictions. The flachette round seemed interesting but I can't see how they wouldn't mess up function since they aren't round at the head.

Didn't stop the US Military from using them in Vietnam.

[Pointy Sextant]

Originally Posted by Vangelis

Flechettes might fly straight, but their wound channels are tiny, they deflect easily [SALVO / SPIW found their 5.6x53mm and 5.6x44mm flechettes could be deflected by raindrops], they're very, very expensive to produce, tend to be loud and have excessive muzzle flash, and since their range largely comes from being light and aerodynamic, their performance against armour is spotty, too; there's something to be said for rounds having high momentum rather than just high kinetic energy.

Gunmaster45: It's been argued that the Geneva Convention forbids deploying artillery flechette rounds in civilian populated areas; people argue they violate the provisions protecting non-combatants, on the basis that an arty flechette is a fragmentation round with 8,000 8-grain nails as well as bits of the casing to kill people with, and so it might kill people. As opposed to any other artillery shell you might fire at a civilian populated area which wouldn't kill anyone, I guess.

I'm confused on a kinetic energy level how a raindrop deflects a round. That sounds fantastic to me. I thought that a flecette assault rifle was in therunning to replace the M16 at one point?