noobie advice
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
alright /k/ im sure you'll all bust my balls but im buying my first sidearm and need advice and dont really have anywhere else to get it. first of all i live in Pennsylvania so the laws are kinda loose. im looking for a simple handgun.
i like revolvers because they are strong, simple, and dont jam so they seem like a good first gun.
but im worried about my lack of skills.
is there a handgun you would recommend for a beginner?
>>28435321
I know this sounds like a canned answer, but most handguns these days are pretty good (sig, beretta, glock, hk, etc). It's all about personal preference, how it feels in your hand etc. Go to a range and rent a couple of guns and see which you like best. I'm not a huge revolver guy, but you're right that they're durable and don't jam much, but I would still recommend a semi-auto.
>>28435321
>revolvers
>dont jam
Yes, they do.
For semi-autos look for a 9mm in the $550 range. That covers GLOCKs, CZ, the XD series, the M&P series, etc. Everything in that price range is pretty good and what you get will boil down to personal preference.
For revolvers look at Ruger's SP101 and GP100, or S&W's 686 and k-frames or l-frames or whatever they're smaller stuff is.
>>28435414
I said don't jam MUCH, champ. In terms of jamming, revolvers jam less frequency. I would definitely go 9mm though. I prefer the Beretta 92fs
>>28435428
>I said don't jam MUCH, champ.
See:
>>28435321
>i like revolvers because they are strong, simple, and dont jam so they seem like a good first gun.
Where is the word "much" in that sentence?
smith model 27 if you want a revolver
if you want simple, glock 17 is a pretty good choice. I wouldn't recommend any different striker fired guns, except maybe an m&p 9. most of the hammer fired guns are equal except in preference, ie different weights, ergonomics, features, etc.
can somebody post the /k/ approved chart of 9mm pistols?
>>28435488
>can somebody post the /k/ approved chart of 9mm pistols?
It's in the sticky you lazy bastard.
>>28435503
found it, thanks
>>28435321
out of the ones on this chart, I can personally recommend the 92, 75b for all metal designs. the hi power is OK, but the capacity is low and trigger is pretty meh, plus the cz does everything the browning does and more. glock 17/19 or m&p 9 are the only striker fired models i can recommend. all the others are just trying to emulate those two. some people say the walther ppq is max comfy, but i didn't like it much. the hk p30 is a good mix of polymer comfort and hammer fired mechanics. i guess the usp isn't listed. it's a good gun, a little big, and i find the grip isn't as comfy as the p30.
>>28435414
>>28435450
i think it's worth noting that revolvers don't jam from limp-wristing, which is a common mistake among newbie shooters. the first time i ever shot a pistol was a 92fs and i got a stove pipe on the very first round because i wasn't holding it tight enough
>>28435321
Handgun Advice:
Get the book, "Principles of personal defense" by Jeff Cooper
Modern handguns are so reliable that ergonomics are generally more important than anything else unless the gun can be bought for less than $300 new.
Go to funz store and hold the following in your hand to check for comfort and ease of access to the magazine release, trigger, and any safeties.
Glock 19, 26, 42, or 43
CZ P01 or 75 Compact
Lionheart LH9
Ruger SR9, SR9c, LCR, LCP, LC9, GP100
S&W M&P9, M&P Compact, Bodyguard, Shield, or any revolver.
Walther P99, PPS, or PPK
Bersa Thunder
Springfield XDS or XDM
Sig P238, P938, P229
These pistols are almost all 9mm but there are a couple that aren't. This is on purpose. The 9mm with a quality modern hollowpoint is usually the correct answer against human attackers, if you can't have a rifle or shotgun. The revolver equivalents are .38 special or .357 magnum depending on the 9mm load you are trying to replicate. The .357 will also safely shoot .38 so unless you have a good reason, get that if you get a revolver.
Jeff Cooper didn't like the 9mm because of caliber prejudice and the fact that he didn't live to see the advances in ammo these last few years, but other than that, the advice in the book is solid.
Get live fire training from a NRA certified trainer as soon as you can. Be safe, follow the law, talk to a lawyer, and carry responsibly.
>>28435637
>>28435579
>>28435488
>>28435375
thanks guys, i have a slid list of 5 or 6 im really looking at seriously (and reading material thank you) just looked up some shops in my city where i can try them out at a range too. i really appreciate it.
>>28435428
>Didn't take the time to read
>Took the time to throw out an insult
/k/ in a nutshell. I know you've probably left the thread in embarrassment, but I can't not call you a dumbass.
>>28435321
>im looking for a simple handgun.
Obrez
>anon looking for simple revolver
>immediate response of INCH ALLAH BEHEAD THOSE WHO DO NOT CARRY POLYMER STRIKER-FIRED DOUBLESTACK PISTOLS IN 9MM CALIBER
>ALLLLLAAAAAAAHU AKKKBBBAARRRRRRR
Holy fucking shit
Anon, look into S&W Revolvers chambered in .357 or .38spcl. 357 is statistically the best firearm for self/home defense (96% one-shot-stop rate from a sampling of over 400 real shootings) and a firearm chambered in .357 can shoot the lighter .38spcl rounds as well.
Plus, a decently sized .357 revolver will have little to no felt recoil.
A good S&W .357 can be had for less than $500, especially if you buy used.
Do not fall for the polymer jew if that's not what you want.
On the off-chance you're looking for a good compact CCW for cheap, it's really hard to beat an imported Bulgarian Makarov. $330 brand new, chambered in 9x18 (aka 9mm Makarov, as opposed to 9x19/standard 9mm), holds 8+1 in the chamber and shoots as straight as you can point your finger.
Other strong CCW weapons are the Beretta Cheetah (.380), CZ 75P-01 (9mm doublestack), and Bersa Thunder (.380)
>>28435951
>im looking for a simple handgun
>i like revolvers
>is there a handgun you would recommend for a beginner?
read >>28435488
>>28435974
>undercuts the 27 with a Glawk because it's more "simple"
>more simple than a fucking DA/SA trigger pull
This board is turning me into a Fudd with everyone's obsession with tacticool polymer even when it's not relevant.
>>28435985
>implying i'm undercutting anything
you're overanalyzing the post. it's just extra info, no strings attached
and you're a rose-tinted glasses wearing nostalgic le wrong generation fag if yuo think glocks aren't relevent to the qualifiers
>simple handgun
and
>handgun you would recommend for a beginner
>>28436003
OP specifically expressed interest in a revolver, I don't know why that triggers this board's autism so goddamn hard that everyone feels the need to start shilling Glocks and redundant Glock clones at the same time.
>hey guys what's a good battle rifle in .308 for-
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GET A KALASHNIKOV PATTERN IN 7.62
You're just not even fucking answering the OP's question at this point. Now if he was asking for something unmanageable to start off with I'd understand steering him in a different direction but now this thread has got him running around town looking at 20 different guns of wildly varying price range, weight, performance quality, etc and he's gonna end up more confused than ever.
>>28436023
and i specifically recommended a smith 27
but he also asked for the handgun (read it: "handgun") i would recommend to a beginner, which is the glock 17 or maybe an m&p9
So i'm perfectly within the realm of reasonable responses to this thread.
Kindly direct your ire to these
>>28435962 >>28435637
people who may have gone a bit wild with the suggestions.
>>28436076
You're right, but every time someone asks for first time gun recs it seems like half this board shits itself.
There was a thread yesterday or day before where the OP was basically looking for .380 CCWs and because he said "classic" or something half the posts were sperglords and the other half were still pushing Glocks and Shields.
Sometimes I just hate this fucking board.
>>28436110
thanks, and you make a good point; everybody thinks their POS budget sub sub compact striker fired pistol with 17 safeties and a magazine diconnect is the best carry gun.
Different poster, getting a first handgun, what would be a good first gun/fun/CC/hostler(maybe) in the 200-500 range? Thinking of that hammerless ruger snugnose or a judge, anything else I should be looking into? Also in Texas if info helps.
>>28436191
Ruger LC9 or SR9 are both pretty nice first handguns. Common, easy to shoot round.
LC9 easier to conceal, and cheaper. SR9 easier to shoot, and more accurate.
Anything under 300 is probably trash. Check the sticky, there's good poorfag suggestions there.
>>28435321
>revolvers are strong
Depends.
>simple
No.
>don't jam
No.
You ought to be worried.
>>28436191
Looking specifically for revolvers? S&W Model 10 trade-ins for ~$300 if you don't mind buying (barely) used. Chambered for .38spcl which is a great learning tool until you're ready to spend on .357, purpose built as carry guns so excellent marks there, and if aesthetics matter they've got that covered.
Outside of revolvers I'd go with
>>28435962
Keep in mind that you need to factor costs for anmo, holsters for carrying, and any other accessories, so if $500 is your budget don't necessarily bottom out on that
>>28436237
>>simple
>No.
Uhhhh
Are you retarded?
>>28436255
>ur retardit!
Open the sideplate of an S&W sometime fuckstick.
>>28435321
Get the Canik TP9. It's cheap, well made, comes with tons of accessories, and is actually a good handgun. It will come with a manual too which is good for you to read to get familiar with your gun.
>>28435321
Take this
>>28435951
>96% one stop shot rate
ive never seen anything remotely reflecting this, not even for shotguns
>>28436259
They're still piss easy to operate which is what OP was talking about, fuckwit. If something fucks up with your internals you should be taking it to a gunsmith anyways, but go on about how you fixed your Glawk Brand Blawk's internals with a paperclip and some string because they're so simple.
>>28435962
>>28436245
Different guy, but where could I get one of those Makarovs? They seem pretty damn great and those holsters that put one in the chamber while you're drawing are pretty fucking cool.
>>28435321
>>28436265
And take this
>>28436267
Statistic was compiled from some compilation of like 415 self-defense incidents where .357 magnums were used, it's cherry picking (albeit cherry picking at fairly high sample sizes)
Overall I'd say that's an irrelevant statistic though imo, anyone who can handle their gun and does range practice can easily put more than a single round into an assailant, especially after the first shot.
Usuallt that statistic gets brought up to counter mall ninjas that think you need no less than 27 shots to the head to flinch an oncoming assailant
>>28436270
>They're still piss easy to operate which is what OP was talking about, fuckwit.
Almost nobody's ever fucking talking about how easy they are to operate, "fuckwit", the "revolvers are super simple" and "revolvers are super reliable" memes go hand-in-hand and you assuming otherwise is unbelievably dishonest.
Not to mention that modern handguns and double-action revolvers are both fucking point and click anyway you unbelievable cocksmoker.
>>28436273
SouthernOhioGun and Classic Firearms have them for $330, SOG's come with 2 grips (bakelite and plastic) and 1 magazine plus a ruskie logbook
>>28436191
I'll just predicate this response with the usual /k/ boilerplate so we can get it out of the way:
>first handgun
Is this the first handgun you, personally, will own, or is it the first handgun you will ever shoot? If you've never shot a handgun before, it's worth considering getting a larger one to start. They're easier to handle and learn to shoot with than a pocket gun.
If this will be your first time shooting a handgun, you'll have to factor in the cost of practise ammo (at least 500 rounds IMO, 100 round practise session x5), a durable holster (practise with what you'll use), and defensive ammo (after you learn to shoot the gun in general, you'll need to get used to your carry ammo. throw in at least 50 rounds of practise carry ammo on top of what you'll need to carry).
Again, if this is your first handgun experience, the most versatile handgun is, IMO, the glock 19. It's a no-nonsense, simple piece that is easy to CC and comfortable to shoot at the range and have some fun with. There's no safety except the trigger, so in a CC situation all you have to do is point and click.
There are plenty of used glocks on the market that can be had for cheap, and they hold up pretty well. But if you don't like the way the glock feels, the m&p9 (full size) is essentially the same gun with a rounder grip shape. some people have told me they found the glock grip too boxy.
Anyway, with that out of the way;
>Ruger snubnose
I'm assuming you mean the LCR... It's the "hammerless" version, like the gun Walter white uses on breaking bad. Comes in a variety of calibers, but the 357 version only has 5 shots, which might be a turn off. there's a .22lr version that has 8 shots.
I don't have anything bad to say about it; ruger makes good guns. Just be sure it feels comfy in your hand, and try to demo it if you can. 357 or 38 is very snappy when coming out of a snub nose revolver, so it's not exactly something you'd take to the range.
>>28436303
>Not to mention that modern handguns and double-action revolvers are both fucking point and click anyway you unbelievable cocksmoker.
Yeah point and click the 38 affirmative safeties on your Glock clone
>>28436309
Now's my turn to ask if you're retarded.
>>28436273
Those holsters are shit. The mak is safe with the safety on and has a very heavy pull when its off. Why would you carry without one in the chamber when it only has 8 rounds to begin with? Secondly you're better off getting and lc9 or shield which is smaller, lighter, and shoots a heavier caliber and has the same capacity as a mak.
Maks aren't $180 anymore, there's no reason for /k/ to still have a boner for them.
>>28436298
its a very rare round. id be surprised if it was more than a handful of the 400 shootinga. btw for atatistical reliability at .05 alpha you need about 2000.
only 1/7 handgun shootings with torso injuries end in death. if the perp doesnt get shot in the head or heart, then he will bleed out. whoch means he can still kill you
im wary of a statistic counting perps who went to the er, and survived, as being "stopped" given that many perps are shot 6 times and still survive
not aaying its underpowered. but when shot placement and # is more important than power beyond 9mm, im doubtful one shot is enough. ever.
>Revolvers in use for well over a century,at a time period where getting a firearm serviced may happen once or twice in your life
>people arguing about whether or not they're 'simple' enough for EDC
I declare Exterminatus on this threat, and in doing so, sign the death warrants for billions of shitposters.
>>28436273
Why would you carry without a round in the chamber?
>>28436324
>.357
>very rare round
uhhhhh.......
>>28436320
This. They are good guns but there is much better for carry out there.
>>28436327
Most of the kids on here are nogunz.
>>28436320
Anon, I know this is hard for your autismal brain to comprehend, but the nice people are talking about Makarovs. We are all adults who can make our own decisions. Nobody needs, or wants, your opinion about fucking Shields in this conversation.
You are the cancer, anon.
>>28436338
>you are cancer
>his post is ironically cancerous too
The irony
>>28436334
in terms of shootings? almost all shooting happen with 9mm because of the prevalance of the round and its widespread use by criminals, and its endorsement by governments
come on buddy
>>28436320
They're still way cheaper than LC9, + muh slavshit
>>28436330
If it chambers one when you draw, there's no reason to keep one in the chamber, unless you plan on getting into a shooting and using all eight of your rounds
>>28436343
Repeating words at people is a telltale sign of autism
>>28436349
>I cant be cancer!
>you're an autist because you think so!!!
Double irony
>>28436346
if you carry a gun you should be prepared to use it
if youre going to use ot, you better empty thr goddamned thing
no such thing as pausing to see if mr. nigger is on pcp or not
>>28436344
No, moron, there are still huge numbers of people who carry .38 and .357, not to mention that S&W revolvers used to be considered the standard for carry protection due to their use as police carry guns
If you actually think .357 is a "rare" round or that 9mm is the only common round in shooting incidents you're helplessy stupid.
>>28436346
Or you keep one chambered and don't waste money on stupid gimmicks
>>28436353
>told to stop posting irrelevant nonsense
>loses his shit and starts repeating insults and throwing a temper tantrum
Did mommy forget the tendies again? >>>/r9k/
>>28436359
>see threat
>instant magdump
>>28436361
The holster offers a tactical advantage by catching your enemies off guard by drawing downward, anon.
>>28436369
Yes.
Unless you have problems identifying what is and isn't a threat, this is the correct response.
>>28436376
That's dumb
You're dumb
What are you gonna do when that gimmick holster doesn't feed correctly?
>>28436379
Probably die, but at least I looked cool while doing it.
>>28436327
>>28436337
>whether or not they're simple enough for EDC
>a thing I never said
>nogunz!
What I said isn't that they aren't simple enough for EDC, what I said is that they aren't "simple", not in comparison to modern automatics.
I expected better of you, but I'm starting to understand what people mean when they talk about tripfags.
Regarding whether revolvers are simple enough to EDC (lol), the fact that the S&W 10, 13, and 19 were almost universally carried by police across the US back in their time should answer that question: unequivocally yes.
>>28436361
look rare is relative. 10%? its probably less than that
either way its not a miracle round. marginally better than 45 probably
>>28436387
And yet you're the one who, when told that OP was probably talking about simplicity in terms of use, immediately tried to steer the discussion to the topic of mechanical simplicity.
>>28436307
>>28436191
Part 2:
>taurus judge
despite the whole taurus: not even once meme, the judge is a reasonably versatile and powerful gun. It'll shoot .45 long colt (lookout cowboy) and .410 shotgun shells.
However, being that it was designed to fire shotgun shells, the thing is huge, ugly and heavy for a short barrelled revolver. And, in third party testing the .410 buckshot wasn't very accurate outside a few yards.
It is definitely a fun gun to play with if you don't mind a little recoil. Good for killing snakes and shit in the desert.
>makarov
Neat piece, proper size, weight and performance for a CC piece. big enough to have some range fun with too. But, it's chambered in a somewhat rare pistol caliber. That might be a turn off for you.
>.380 compact auto
Bersa thunder if you're on a budget, Walther PP variant if you're not. Both quality firearms, though the walther is certainly tighter. .380 is what a lot of people consider the minimum caliber for defense, it's not too snappy in a smaller gun so new users can shoot it easily. Small .380 autos make great IWB, ankle or purse carries.
>subcompact 9mm
items like the glock 43 or 26 are very popular, and it should be obvious why: fires a solid defensive round, very lightweight and easy to conceal, yet nearly as functional as a full sized pistol except in capacity. I'll recommend glock brand glocks, but if you're on a budget there are other small polymer striker fired guns to consider (m&p, springfield, etc.)
>mid sized revolver
smith K or L frames. They're powerful guns in .357, but double action revolvers take practise to shoot well because of the long trigger pull. You're not going to be manually cocking the hammer for each shot in a defensive scenario, are you? Another setback is limited capacity compared to an auto of the same size. Good fun on the range, but if you don't mind carrying a heavy piece, why not carry a service sized automatic, right? Riggs vs Murtaugh argument once again.
>>28436402
>rare is relative
>10%
>doesn't know that .45 has dogshit ballistics
>doesn't understand the basic purpose of magnum design ammunition
You're so fucking noguns it hurts my brain
>>28436368
>talking about himself
>dat delusion and triple irony
>>28436369
even if you magdump they can still shoot any shot that doesnt hit their brain, heart or upper spine gives them at least 30 seconds to.kill you
>>28436408
>You're not going to be manually cocking the hammer for each shot in a defensive scenario, are you?
The goal of .357 is to make that first round all that matters
>>28436368
>hurrr yur cancer
>proceeds to shitpost
>hurr yur autistic for calling me an autist!
>hurrr ad hominem temper tantrum
nice try kid
>>28436415
Could you repeat that, but in English please?
>>28436406
>immediately tried to steer
The first post was made on the assumption that:
>Almost nobody's ever fucking talking about how easy they are to operate, "fuckwit", the "revolvers are super simple" and "revolvers are super reliable" memes go hand-in-hand and you assuming otherwise is unbelievably dishonest.
From the OP:
>i like revolvers because they are strong, simple, and dont jam
I was evidently answering the classical conjunction. You're the one who "steered" the discussion away from what I was talking about in the first place.
I love revolvers to a fault, but myths should not be left well alone.
>>28436415
if they already have their gun pointed at you, why are you drawing yours?
if they're threatening you with a knife, I would guarantee two shots of .357 would give you time to run away
>>28436410
ballistic gel isnt flesh ans bone anon
unless you immediately destroy essential anatomy, i dont care if your hollowpoints make cool patterns
i care about number of shots and shot placement.
it isnt a miracle round.
>>28436368
Contain your butthurt.
>>28436415
Go get shot in the chest a couple times and tell me you're still going to be swinging
Yes people can be hopped up on adrenaline or drugs, but that situation can't be planned for regardless, you can't account for people going batshit.
6+ rounds of ANY handgun caliber is going to royally fuck up 99.99% of people
>>28436421
true enough. and if OP's looking for a range gun first and a CC gun second, I would definitely recommend one of those.
For most crooks, you really just need a smith 27 with a 5" barrel and have the dirty harry line memorized. Though he used a 29, but aint nobody on /k/ got money for .44mag
>>28436443
>S&W 27 with a 5" barrel
Could I possibly love you any more?
If it's your first revolver, Ruger's .357 offerings aren't a bad choice.
>>28436432
if their gun is holstered, and you dump into them, if youre unlucky, they still have time to draw their weapon and shoot you
it happens a lot
theres no such thing as two shots and you can be certain theyre done. sometimes two shota wont even drop them
>>28436433
Nobody said it was a "miracle round". Stop moving goalposts
What was presented was a study of over 400 real incidents where .357 magnum was used and in roughly 96% of those incidents, it performed as a one-shot-stop. This isn't to say it's better than any other round, it merely highlights that .357mag is a solid choice for self defense
Instead of addressing that with any level of common sense you tried to make up some nonsense about how .357 is uncommon or some idiocy.
It's very clear you don't know what you're talking about, especially now that you're throwing "muh ballistic gel" meme
>>28436453
>>28436443
Why get an N-frame for .357? I mean, it makes a little sense for a 686, but other than that?
>>28436439
thats not what im saying. im saying if we take shooting records to be accurate, for 45 the AVERAGE is two shots to incapacitation and for 9mm its 2.5 or three. which means a full HALF require.more.
which is WHY you magdump.
>>28436443
>at LGS for first time a few days ago
>really crowded place because the Trout Artisan Shoppe is swamped with Fudds
>as I walk in the door I hear out of some 78 yo crooner
>DATS A DIRTY HARRY GUN DAT THREERFIDDYSEBBUN MAGNUM
>on all levels but physical, I am knifehands
>>28436463
Not for carry, but for range shooting and home defense. N-frames are fuckhuge and nicely weighty - translates to less felt recoil and is generally more pleasant to shoot.
Also they're pretty.
Nothing's wrong with going L-frame for general purpose use though.
>>28436468
Well yeah, shoot until your assailant is on the ground, I don't think anyone is arguing against that
>>28436456
>two shota wont even drop them.
You should use a minimum of three.
>>28436462
i first adressedvthe fact that SHOTGUNSdont have that statistical level of stoppage in any study i have seen. then addressed the small sample size of the round as a concern you fag.
96% would be a miracle round, every police force and nato oytfit would make it mandatory. for reference one shot stoppage for rifles is around 70%
shit, fuck rifles. lets just give everyone.revolvers
btw, its a fine round. im addressing your retarded stats if you havent figured it out
>>28436463
what >>28436477 said, and also durability. when shooting a lot +++++++++P rounds, like cops did back in the dey, the N frames are a lot sturdier, especially if it's only a 6 shooter.
You can also get a .357 N frame that holds 7 or 8 shots if you know where to shop. But then you trade the durability of the cylinder for extra ammunition.
>>28436245
That kinda revolver is what I was thinking of/ been wanting for some time, saw some where more expensive, way out of my price range, maybe different models. Thanks.
>>28436307
>>28436408
Really helpful, saw they have larger/longer barrel forms of the judge, like 10 inch plus. That was the gun I was talking about yes, the LCR.
>>28436498
It's the L-frame 686s that have 7-shot variants. The 8-shots are 327s and 627s, and as far as I know, don't necessarily have any less durability; I've seen no negative reports after long-term use and the cylinder's heat treat is probably suitable for the purpose, the same way the 625's cylinder is not necessarily as strong as 629s or 657s while having little to do with the amount of remaining metal in the cylinder.
>>28436519
If you want something LCR-sized but a little heavier (read: a little easier to shoot), look for SP101s, or perhaps S&W 60s.
>>28436485
>>28436498
At that size, you could get a .44, which is more fun in both chamberings.
I generally don't get a lot of the love for the .357, but I recognize that it's niche is with smaller frames. And Pythons.
>>28436534
"More fun", certainly, but you don't get 8-shot *27s and great recoil characteristics. Unless you go .44 Special. Which, ah, isn't that common.
I mean, if we're going the "but at that size you could go this big!" route you could just buy an S&W 69 (lol), the L-frame .44 Magnum.
I want to see someone shoot one of those with a full-house bearfucker load someday.
>>28436485
>he doesn't understand the differwnce between a sample size of Millions and a sample size of 400
>he thinks that 96% was meant over every single instance of .357 being used
This thread gets more idiotic every post
>>28436534
plus .44 is a bit expensive to shoot
unless you really need the extra power or get off on shooting a bigger caliber there's no reason to choose .44 over .357.
>>28436562
this thread was idiotic when it was just me and one other guy arguing about whether OP wanted a pistol or a revolver
now it is a shitstorm
>>28436565
What the fuck are you going to do when a kodiak bear attacks? Shoot them with a pussy .357?
rip anon.
>>28436574
Resit in the Clouds Clucker
>>28436562
you get more idiotic over every post. if the percentage of stoppage isnt applicable to any large scale, it is a POOR MEASUREMENT
one more time... if it doesnt represent what it is SUPPOSED TO.REPRESENT it is a poor measurement
>>28436547
I can…totally get why you'd want a L-frame .357, and not a .44. But I can't wrap my head around why you'd want a N-frame without getting something in exchange.
And yeah, +2 rounds is certainly something. It's something that the M27/28 lacks.
>SW 69
I wonder how much lighter it is than an Anaconda, cylinder notwithstanding.
>>28436578
>going into bear territory without at least .454 Casull
RIP
I
P
>>28436588
All it's "meant" to represent is that .357 has good potential as a carry gun - not necessarily better than 9mm or .45. You're trying to read too much into a statistic that basically exists to reaffirm what anyone who knows firearms (which OP doesn't, hence why it was brought up) already knows.
Though I would posit that one would be hard pressed to find 400 examples of 9mm or .45 one-stops, if only because of the tendency to mag dump automatics
>>28436565
I, perhaps unique to all humanity, like the recoil and noise level better.
.357 is aggravating on several levels.
>>28436591
>going intobear territory without a pipebomb wrapped in bacon
come on people its (current year)
>>28436605
>bacon
>killing pigs
>not gluten free
>2016 intensifies
>>28436589
>without something in exchange
The weight, for like the third time! Big means comfortable shooting.
>I wonder how much lighter it is than an Anaconda
Ten ounces.
>>28436603
Try it in a 5-inch N-frame, like I said. A little more barrel length might dull out the spiky report a bit, maybe. Could be wrong; I don't venture into .44 Mag territory often.
I am only slightly ashamed to admit that I am one of the .41 Mag hipsters.
>>28436617
>.41 Mag
Whut
>>28436601
you bring up a good point. but at the same time you cant only take one shot situations because it would.be skewed very heavily in favor of lucky shots, whoch is not representatove of the power of the round
this is why you stay in school kids.
but the stat is so ridiculously inaccurate as to be worthless. period. and potentially dangerously misleading. juat tell him its better than 45 and leave it at that.
70% of shotgun blasts to the tprso are one shot stoppers, for comparison
>>28436647
(Annie), are you okay?
>>28436578
>unless you really need the extra power
if i thought i might get attacked by a kodiak bear, I would probably anticipate a need for extra power and carry something even deadlier than a .44 (think 12ga with 3" brenneke black magic magnum slugs)
>>28436617
I've shot .357 from N-frames, and Troopers/Pythons. Some of them 6"
Recoil/Noise was more manageable from a 4-inch .44.
Maybe I'm just a mutant?
>.41 Mag
Eww, cooties! As long as you shoot what you like, that's fine by me.
>>28436658
any accounts of.shooting bears? if im to understand it correctly unless you get the.brain, youre fucked during a charge
im moving up there next year. innawoods intimidates me
>>28436650
>shotgun blasts
Not a good comparison unless you can tell me gauge and load type. Are we talking 12g 0000 buckshot? Soft lead sligs? Etc
>>28436652
I had just never heard of .41 magnum, now I'm intrigued. Any good revolvers chambered for .41 that won't break the bank?
>>28436670
Number 1 rule for bears:
If you're in range to shoot a bear, you fucked up, nor the bear
>>28436671
you just admitted the tenability of your math is nil but now youre asking this? 96% was wrong. not even remotely accurate. period.
the study i looked at didnt break down sjotguns by type. i imagine 20 ga still performa better than most handguns and 12 ia close to your 96%
>>28436663
>Recoil/Noise was more manageable from a 4-inch .44. Maybe I'm just a mutant?
I have never been so confused in my entire life.
>Eww, cooties!
:3
I am amused for more reasons than one.
>>28436671
>I had just never heard of .41 magnum
Haha, yeah; hence "hipster".
>Any good revolvers chambered for .41 that won't break the bank?
Depends on your definition of "break the bank" ... shouldn't be too bad, though, honestly. We're not exactly looking at over $1,200 here.
>>28436679
you use whistles as you walk or what?
would a grizzly even.be afraid of that?
>>28436695
>96% was wrong
I don't think you understand ratios, mate.
If I have a 5:10 sample size, that's 50%. It doesn't matter if that 10 sample size isn't indicative of reality, that's still my sample size.
Obviously ~400 incidents is not a large enough to base a full appraisal of any round on, but it's certainly enough to offer a quick understanding of how a round performs for EDC/SD purposes. And out of the ~400 incidents cited in this study (think it was closer to 430 or so), 96% was the ratio of one shot stops.
I get that you don't see that study as valuable, which is fine as it's not particularly in depth and doesn't provide much hard information beyond "oh .357 sounds like a good Self Defense round", but stop trying to discredit the math itself.
>>28436705
Basic situational awareness, nigger. If you just so happen stumble upon a fucking 2 ton bear out innawoods, you shouldn't be outside the kitchen anyways
>>28436702
The high pitched whine of the .357, and the sharpness, is my nemesis.
.44 produces a shoveboom, which I've grown accustomed to.
FWIW, .41 magnum is generally built on .44 frames, and doesn't have a factory 'special' load. Not my cup of tea, but it is what it is.
>>28435321
>Pennsylvania
>Loose Laws
Pick One
>>28436748
Sounds like you should get into handloading magnum rounds so you can low-charge them, at least for range time
>>28436670
depends on the bear
the rule of thumb is what >>28436679 said, most bears will avoid humans. attacks only happen if you sneak up on a bear, eg you walk silently thru the woods and find one by accident, or you startle one, eg you've left some food out, bear comes to have a bite of lunch, you go to see what all the ruckus is about and the bear is surprised by you.
anyway
black bears are fuggin pussies and will dip even if you sneak up and frighten them. firing a gun into the air will certainly give them the message to fuck off. they'll hide in a tree before they fuck with you in most cases. either way they're small so don't worry about them
brown bears are too fat to climb trees so they've evolved to stand their ground. they will fuck with you if you startle them. so if you come across a brown bear cub and haven't seen mom yet, run the fuck away before you do. if mom sees you before you see her, she will come running. at that point you empty your entire tubular magazine of 3" magnum slugs into the bear before taking cover behind a nearby tree, or running at a right angle from the charging bear. hopefully you're wearing a bandolier so you can reload.
>>28436776
>at that point you empty your entire tubular magazine of 3" magnum slugs into the bear
>only then do you start street sweeping operations
>>28436748
>The high pitched whine of the .357, and the sharpness, is my nemesis.
That's about what I expected, though I'm still a little confused that it seems such an obstacle.
>FWIW, .41 magnum is generally built on .44 frames
Oh, I know. Big N-frame 57s and *57s.
>doesn't have a factory 'special' load
Part of the magic of .41 Mag is that it was supposed to be its own "special" load! There's always handloading, too, like >>28436758 said.
>>28436793
wut?
>>28436884
I'm memeing out iver the wording of that post
What's wrong? Can't handle meme dankness?
>>28436903
about as well as the guy in your pic handles that axe
>>28436915
>that 5
Give it back
