While I am not a gun owner, I still find it interesting that guns remain today the most common weapon used by military and civilians alike. During their long history, no one has come up with a suitable and as-popular alternative (such as a ray gun). This list looks at ten of the greatest firearms in history – and in the bonus section poses a question.
“Hitler’s Buzzsaw,” invented in 1942, is infamous around the world as the weapon used at Omaha Beach to mow Americans down, but it was used in Russia to much more brutal effect. It fired 1,200 rounds of 8mm rifle ammunition per minute, which is sufficient to cut a man in half. It was air-cooled, and could melt its barrel if fired non-stop for 5 minutes.
That’s why the Germans had several barrel at hand, and could change to a new one in only 60 seconds.
The Glock is the ultimate in modern reliability. You can pour sand down the barrel and it will shoot. It will shoot underwater. It is commonly used in 9mm, but is chambered for .40 Sig and .45 ACP among others. It is the standard law enforcement sidearm today and will continue to be for a long time. It almost never jams, is waterproof, mostly plastic.
The British equivalent of the German Mauser has one trump on it, a 10 round magazine, compared to 8. The British adopted it into the army in 1895 and used it exclusively until 1957. Soldiers were drilled until they could perform “the mad minute,” firing 30 rounds in 60 seconds and hitting 30 targets. This required reloading twice, and working the bolt back and forth in less than half a second.
The rifle is accurate to 1,000 yards with open sights, and served in India (notoriously used against unarmed civilians), the Boer War, both World Wars, and many others.
The Browning Machine Gun is chambered for the most awe-inspiring shoulder-fired cartridge to date. It is designed with one thing in mind: power tends to corrupt; absolute power is kinda sweet. The 800 grain powder load has 14,895 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle, which is enough to put a full metal jacketed round through three approaching vehicles. It has shot down helicopters with one round.
Now imagine a belt-fed machine gun spewing a curtain of these rounds at you at 1,200 rounds per minute. Special Sabot rounds can go clean through tanks.
Made famous by Dirty Harry in 1971, it was invented in 1955, and is still thought of as one of the most powerful handguns in the world, though it has been eclipsed by the .500 magnum, the Desert Eagle .50 AE, the .454 Casull and a few others.
But what those other hand cannons lack is controlability and comparatively low cost. The .44 Magnum will still run you at least $800 new, which is a lot for a revolver, but very cheap compared to other magnums. You will not break your wrist shooting it, and yet it can drop Cape Buffaloes and Polar Bears. If I may be afforded one bad joke, it will make your day. Provided that you feel lucky. Punk.
The bolt action had been kicking around since at least 1824, when Paul Mauser and Co. patented the 1893 version in 7mm. It has become the benchmark, on which all bolt action rifles are based, and against which all are compared. There are three primary bolt action systems: the Lee-Enfield, the Mauser, and the Mosin-Nagant.
Of the three, the Mauser system is by far the most widespread, the most reliable, and the most battle-proven rifle mechanism the world has ever seen. The 1893 Mauser was the first, and original models still operate perfectly.
The icon of the Old West, the Colt .45 revolver was invented in 1873 and immediately caught on as extraordinarily accurate at close range, compared to the ball and cap conversions popular at the time. Its caliber was sufficient to flip a charging man backward off his feet. It can be used today to hunt deer and black bears. The larger powder loads can take down grizzly bears.
It’s as famous as the gun of Wyatt Earp, among other Old West celebrities.
The granddaddy of all lever-action firearms. Benjamin Tyler Henry invented it in 1860, but neither the Union nor Confederacy wanted much to do with it, as they were afraid their soldiers would fire too quickly and waste ammunition. If I may use a cliched joke, “military intelligence.” Thank you.
It fired a revolutionary, self-contained cartridge in .44 caliber, with 568 foot-pounds of stopping power, more than enough to put a man down. It held 16 rounds in a tube magazine, and a good man could fire 28 rounds per minute, so much better than 3 per minute with a muzzle-loading percussion cap musket, that if either side had adopted the rifle as standard for infantry, that side would certainly have won.
Accurate enough to do the job out to about 400 yards, which is all anyone usually needs in a battle, the AK-47 is the ultimate pinnacle in rugged reliability. It will not break down under fire unless something catastrophic happens to it. You can drive a tank over it, throw it against a wall, submerge it in sand, water, mud, and every time it will go right on firing when you pull the trigger.
I know a Vietnam veteran who was walking through triple canopy jungle one day in 1966, came across an abandoned AK-47, and couldn’t get the bolt to slide back. It was too corroded from the rain and weather. The wood was rotting off. But he put it butt first on the ground, stomped the action open, and it chambered a round, which he fired accurately at a tree 50 yards away. He stomped the action open again, and it chambered another round, which he fired accurately.
Every bit as rugged and reliable as the AK-47, this handgun was invented by John Browning for the Colt Company, in 1911, as a sidearm for American soldiers. It immediately proved itself a world beater in WWI, again in WWII, and has been a cornerstone of the American military ever since.
But its most impressive feat has been the ease with which even untrained civilians can fire it accurately, keep it in working order, and defend themselves ably with it. 7 + 1 rounds of fat, man-stopping power perfect for close-range self-defense. Soldiers have dragged it through swamps in the Pacific Theater of WWII, with their fingers on the trigger, then whipped it out of the muck and fired all 8 rounds accurately.
The only way to improve on it would be to make it cheaper. You’ll spend $1,000 on one.
In the United States, everyone has the right to bear arms. As a non-American my question is: is this a fundamental human right which should be extended to all people in the world? Should all Iraqi’s have the right to bear arms? If all Chinese people had the right, would they be living under an oppressive regime today or would they have risen up and put it down?
oh and not to mention the first true AR to come to life…
STG44
the nazis invented it but heck it was revolutionary
@ Chanchita – To better your chances of not being shot.
Get a job and buy your own stuff, don’t try to steal someone else’s. Don’t try to enter someone else’s home and threaten their family. Don’t dress up as a deer or some other game animal and go out in the woods. Call and report crime to the police-get criminals off the street.
Sean – I can respect your service record while disagreeing with what you say. Or, at least, how you say it.
My ancestors (both of my grandfathers, to be precise) fought in WWII, altering the outcome of the war. Without the USA, the UK probably would have survived, albeit with a few years’ worth of starvation on the mainland. Once Hitler started to lose Germany to the USSR, he probably would have ordered France annihilated – he hated losing things.
That’s all I’ll say about what-ifs for WWII. I don’t think you should speak about all Europeans as you do. It’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it – you helped see to that.
This “criminals will be the only ones with guns if they are restricted” argument is idiotic. What is a criminal? A normal law-abiding citizen until he commits a crime. Arming these people with guns and letting them carry them everywhere is begging for trouble. Violent crimes aren’t limited to habitual criminals by a long shot. At least do away with personal hand gun usage. Wouldn’t a shot gun be a better way to protect a house anyway?
Subject or citizen? That is the question.
Because you feel comfortable and safe today doesn’t mean you (or your children, or grandchildren) won’t be subjugated by the state next year, or ten years or even a hundred from now. Those who believe that the state should be central to the lives of all who live there tend to grow frustrated by the benighted masses resistance (electorally) to their infinite wisdom. The “messiness” of democratic republics are lamented by the self-anointed “elite”. The result has often been to bring the population to heel by force. History, the best teacher, is rife with examples. Armed CITIZENS are the single best bulwark against tyranny.
also, statistically, if you carry a gun when being mugged or robbed, you yourself is the one most likely to get shot.
whoops.
the 2. amendment is basically the right to carry a device that scares criminals into shooting you.
@ Handy Mandy: Burglars and deer are not the only ones who get shot. The simple fact is, if guns are allowed, there will be more guns around. The more guns that are around, the higher the probability ANYONE has of being shot. (Stray bullets, crossfire, mugging etc)
Great list. But i can’t find the Krag Jørgensen Storm Rifle. It was the first Storm rifle and without it there wound’t be a Mauser. But great list.
I’ve read quotes in many books that claim the M1 was the edge that won the European ground war in WWII. That, the Tommy and BAR seem like some important guns to have on the list.
Sean – same old US WWII crap ? You saved us ? Yeah – only after Pearl Harbour when your own skins were in peril, as usual.
Thanks for the support in the falklands too… that was sweet.
Btw – “hearts and minds” is not a Shania Twain album…
OKAY, SHUT UP FOLKS, and I’ll clear this all up for you.
A) The right to bear arms is, like it or not, an American tradition even more than it is an actual right; but in fact it IS a right which the founding fathers felt was a vital one, seeing as they stuck it in the Bill of Rights right off the bat—which means that we as a culture placed it higher on our priority list, at the time, than, oh… say, granting the right to vote to women or abolishing slavery. This business about it referencing ONLY a militia is kind of a chimera. YES, the amendment SAYS that, but it’s never been wholly clear what it was actually supposed to mean. Gun nuts say it means that the founding fathers simply meant us to have guns, period. No debate. Gun opponents say, uh uh, it means that the ONLY legitimate reason for owning a gun is to act in defense of your country, and that you must, as a prerequisite of this, belong to a militia. But both sides are wrong, and two centuries of legal argument have borne that out. The fact is that when you weigh the second amendment by the same standards as the other amendments–i.e., you consider its wording in the same light as the wording of the others–it becomes clear (it’s the only thing about this question that DOES become clear) that the founding fathers meant THIS question, also, to be one which WE in their future were supposed to determine the answer to. In other words, each successive generation is supposed to define what it means to have a “right to bear arms.” The militia clause is a justification, a set-up to this, but it is not the end-all and be-all of it—if that were the case, we would never have had private gun ownership in the first place. Now, clearly, the founding fathers didn’t know about powerful automatic handguns and assault rifles and the like. We’re talking about an age when you had a gun to hunt with and to defend yourself and your land. Maybe they didn’t foresee the lengths to which technology could take the firearm. But I don’t think that was ever the point for them. That was for the future to take care of. These guys weren’t mystic visionaries, they were just wise-ass sages who coughed up the finest blueprint for a government mankind has yet produced. Good for them, but they weren’t supernatural or perfect. And they knew that. So their focus on this particular question was the same as with others—there is, they believed, a clear and obvious right to freedom of speech and the press—but we aren’t going to lay out all the little nuances and minutiae of that—YOU need to decide that in the future. Yes, we find the establishment of state religions repugnant, and we aren’t going to allow that, but you folks in the future need to determine what distance between the state and spirituality or religion is appropriate. Owning a firearm is a basic right, because, in the first place, a stable society has to have a populace that can defend itself against foreign AND domestic tyrants and well, just plain defend itself. But we aren’t going to go into detail about it and tell you in advance all the rules or which rules are appropriate and which aren’t. YOU in the future need to figure that out. And that’s us, here and now.
B) Now, is this appropriate for ALL societies? Well, if it’s in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, then by our own revolutionary principles, we inherently believe it applies to all mankind. Being a good American in the revolutionary spirit and philosophical senses, I am therefore bothered by the idea of other societies where guns are outlawed. Many of them are no less violent than ours; many of them are oppressive regimes. Many are democracies which are peaceful and decent places to live. Clearly, guns per se don’t grant you anything special. And NOT having guns doesn’t change the mix much either. It’s the POTENTIAL of guns that we’re really thinking about when we look with an approving or disapproving eye at other societies. Bottom line is, though, that while we believe our American model to be the best form of government there is, we can’t *really* go around *acting* that way, because mighty as we are, it ain’t real nice to be the bully on the block, even if you think you’re right and big-hearted. What right do we have to tell Britain that they should allow their citizens to freely possess and carry handguns? Their society seems to get along fine without that. And for all our grand philosophies about it over here, we have to face up to the fact that our love of the gun has made our society even MORE violent and nasty, at times. It’s our tradition, yes, but that tradition can also be very dark and bloody.
C) Which brings me to my next point of prescience that you should all be listening to. The real problem with America, vis a vis firearms, is not that we have them, but that we basically make f**king LOVE to them. We’re not just a gun culture—we’re sick about it. We have a love for the gun that is almost as strong as our love for the automobile. That’s f**king twisted. And if you don’t think it’s twisted, then you’re part of the problem. The issue isn’t the RIGHT to bear arms, really—the issue is how we conduct ourselves around that right. Which is always the problem with us. We are a big, fat, greedy, uncouth and vulgar society that doesn’t know how to act with any finesse or self-control. And it’s repellent. It’s no wonder that much of the world, while sliding between like and dislike of America itself over the years, (that is America as a concept and as a helping hand or a stalwart ally) has never much liked AMERICANS per se. Oh, individual Americans, yes. An individual is an individual. Can be a sweet person or a total cock. But Americans, as a collective group—we’re a bunch of loudmouth *****s, and let’s face it–we are. That isn’t just some perception—that’s what we’ve allowed ourselves to be, out of self-satisfaction, smugness and downright provincialism.
No less than with anything else, it’s our sick love affair with violence and the gun in particular that partly defines us. And that’s a problem. It’s a big problem. It isn’t that we OWN guns… it’s that we GLORIFY them. It isn’t that we’re a violent people—we are, but so is the rest of mankind. But we GLORIFY violence. And we also vulgarize these things… and so it’s no wonder that a vast swath of our under classes act violently, and carry guns and USE them with such abandon. It’s no wonder that kids bring guns to school, or shoot each other in inner cities as though it meant no more than crossing the street. It’s no wonder that f**ked up middle class brats snap and shoot up their schools and schoolmates with automatic weapons. We live in a f**king cartoon in this country—a sick and twisted cartoon—and violence and guns here are viewed in the same light as we view Sylvester the Cat taking it on the head with a sledgehammer.
Our problem isn’t, then, constitutional. It’s SOCIETAL. Now, me personally—I would have no problem with banning handguns. I don’t see the need for them. Or at least banning automatic weapons. Why do we need MORE and more efficient ways to kill? But I accepted long ago that this is never likely to happen, and if tomorrow I was made King of America, banning handguns wouldn’t be top on my priority list of Things to Fix. Would it do something to reduce the effed-up gun culture in this society? Yeah, of course it would. Is the way to fix this problem amputation though? I’m not so sure.
The real answer is that America needs to grow the f**k up. We need to start showing some self-restraint and some sense of humility. Do you think this land o plenty and this superpower ***** is going to last forever? Ah ha ha, silly Americans. No sense of f**king history. A country a little over 200 years old, and we think we’ll be on top of the world forever. That’s what we’re like. We’re children. And we play with guns just like we play with everything else.
So here’s something that could make it stop. Be honest about it. Stop pretending that all these weapons are innocent devices for self-defense and “hunting.” Bull*****. We LOVE them. And we love them for their power and destructive capability. So stop and think about “loving” a weapon, a weapon that kills people horribly and brutally. How would Jesus look at that, people? He’d shake his head in sadness and disgust, and you KNOW he would.
The gun is a necessary evil, and one that we shouldn’t love, but have a revulsion for, even while we go on believing that we ought to by every right posssess them. Start looking at it THAT way, and in time we wouldn’t have to have this debate about the gun. The place of the gun in our society would reduce to what it OUGHT to be, and not what it is—which at present is one of the centerpieces of what we are. And that’s f**king sick.
@Cernunnos
the number of firearms per person in Canada and the USA is similar, with the total amount being largest in the US.
and your partially right with the AK47 and the selector, it shows the opposite of what you claim, it goes from Safe, to Full auto, to Semi. Indicating it was NOT meant as a single shot weapon, but as an assault weapon to be used by untrained conscripts to lay down massive amount of fire, similar to how the Russians used SMGs in WW2.
Sorry, Randall, are you PROUD of the American gun culture?
@ Chanchita – Stray bullets, crossfire, mugging- take the criminals off the street. I know only in a perfect world, but it seems we expect so little out of people these days. And the prisons are overrun anyway. There are alot of changes that need to be made all the way down the chain.
MY town if where the lee-einfield was first made
111 Garash:
Not just conservative blood — liberal and moderate blood, too.
I would be happy to see all guns disappear, but THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. It’s not possible.
Therefore, because I live in an area with bad guys, I choose to carry. I have a license, and I practice. No one has a right to take away my constitutional rights to own my guns, and I will not give them up.
This doesn’t mean I’m crazy, or angry at the world. It doesn’t mean I’m stupid. It means I recognize that since criminals use guns to commit crimes, if I want to defend myself from them, I need to carry a gun to prevent them from turning me into one of their victims.
No one needs to apologize for me. I simply refuse to be a victim when I have a choice in the matter.
HandyMandy: And does it occur to you that ordinary citizens may become criminals once in possession of a gun? And then we have to take them off the street as well? I don´t see that helping the overcrowding problem.
what’s that knife shown next to the colt 1911?
Isn’t there some kind of gay marriage thread you anti-gun nuts can go comment on?
@everlast:
maybe it was 4 firearms per person in canada? the total could still be larger in the u.s. even if each canadian statistically owned more weapons. not sure.
exactly, safe to full auto to semi. in the heat of battle, try putting the pin from safe to full auto.
the M4 on the other hand goes from safe to semi to full.
@Randall:
let me know when thats available in paperback.
The M 134 should be on this list. I fired hundred of thousands of rounds through it and NEVER had a malfunction.
I saw a couple mentions of the M4/M16… that should be saved for the WORST firearms in history list.
Chanchita – Also, my earlier post-if we held parents more responsible for their children and their actions, I think we would have less criminals. And I’m not talking about the government getting involved, I’m saying people in general. Expect more from your fellow man.
@Chanchita (134):
Uh, try READING my post this time. No, I’m not proud of it—I DETEST it.
Here’s my one and only experience with a gun: I was about 15 or so and my friend wanted to show me how to shoot his bee-bee gun. We were on his farm and he TOLD me how to do it-not show me-and I accidentally shot one of his horses in the butt. I cried. He laughed (at me) and I never tried it again. However, being a single mom [Hi Randall
] I wouldn’t mind learning how to shoot a gun properly. I’m not really up on my statistics so I won’t throw a bunch of numbers around blindly-but I’m pretty sure more gun control would not stop the criminals from carrying. Right?
Holy ***** Randall. I don’t know who your neighbors are, but I’m glad I don’t live there. I live in a rural community (and in several others previously) where guns are omnipresent; a part of the fabric of those societies. I see no “gun waving”, or idle threats, or gun driven machismo. Firearms are simply considered tools and are not a badge of masculinity.
The sickness you describe is foreign to me, and I have been around for a long time. If the entertainment industry glorifies violence, or if the media markets news coverage of geographically and socially isolated violent subcultures, that is certainly not an accurate reflection of our society as a whole.
I know you are a sharp guy, but that ***** was over the top.
guns are kool yo
Chanchita – Ordinary people would not need to be criminals. I’m not a criminal, I know other gun owners and they’re not criminals. We are called productive citizens.
Panda, if you dedide to attempt to defend yourself without a gun in a violent assault, the odds are against you, because more than half the time, the bad guy will have a gun. Good luck. Twice, I have only had to show my gun to stop a criminal. Talanic, you are right about your own opinion, and I have another. Please tell, me, if you can, who was it that kept Central Europe from mass starvation 1945-1948? Could it have been the Great Satan? I’ll lay odds it was not the Soviet Union. The reason I’m down on the Euro types is because they are so ashamed of themselves, of how they absolutely screwed up the 20th century, and so ashamed of how we pulled their asses out, twice, and kept them from starving to death from the results, that all we hear over here is rubbish about how bad WE are. Don’t ***** down my back and tell me it’s raining. The petulant children of the EU couldn’t win a schoolyard brawl against the special needs kids, and all they do about the imminent threat posed by Iran and the rest is talk. We’re not riding to the rescue this time, so you better warm up that prayer rug, and bend over, because it’s coming, and we ain’t.
What about the Remington 870 12GA pump action?
I’m not sure about the world having guns, but I sure do like americans having the right, especially now that we have an ever growing government. They can only do so much when everyone is packing heat in their closets at home, I love that. I’d like to see those sons of *****es in the Whitehouse try and take our guns away, it would be the biggest civil war in history.
Asimonsays243: I served in Iraq myself. Most Iraqis did not and could not own guns before the invasion. Now almost all households have an AK! My overall points is an armed person is not a victim. I currently live in a country where owning ammo will get you the death penalty, let alone a gun. The only thing that makes me fell safe is my special forces training. Guns need be only in responsible hands, that’s why a convicted felon can’t own one, or let me rephrase a concealable weapon. But most guns used in stranger to stranger violence are unregistered ‘hot’ ones from the street. I stand by my point, as long as Americans have guns we will never be successfully invaded or oppressed! Period! I am proud of the fact that my state (Oregon) has an air-force, and armored troops. In a world like this it is damn good that my state alone has a military that rivals most of developed world! And to my European friends, if I lived that close to Germans I would want as many guns as I could get! To which you have never learned your lesson. But don’t fret America and Canada will come to your rescue again, NATO = American protection. I do not say this to offend, it is just the facts. ( I have served with SAS, if only Europe had more of those type of guys)
@cernunnos
“The AK-47 was the result of Soviet combat experience during World War II. Studies of battlefield reports showed most combat occurred within 300 meters, and the winner was usually the side with the most firepower.”
“Soviet doctrine placed an emphasis on the use of armored spearheads in an attack, followed closely by troop transports like the BTR-70″
“It gave the average soldier a high rate of fire rendering an AK-equipped squad’s firepower equivalent to submachine guns at close range, while also having a sufficiently powerful cartridge to engage moderately distant targets.”
its primary use was short ranged automatic fire, NOT single shot rifle style shooting.
@Alamo (146):
Bull*****, Alamo. You are in denial, which is EXACTLY the problem I was addressing.
Don’t try to ***** me, dude. I have roots in the big city, but I’m basically as rural as you can get, so don’t try to tell me it isn’t like this.
“Firearms are simply considered tools and are not a badge of masculinity.”
BULL*****. If you’re going to tell me that guns are simply considered tools, you’re either a blind fool or a liar, or both. And I never brought up “masculinity.” The word was never mentioned in my lengthy missive. I know WOMEN who love their guns just as equally as men do. I have a friend, a woman, who is so gun nuts you’d think she was Ted Nugent.
An innocent tool with no other associated emotions around it? You’re full of it, Alamo. Maybe you just can’t see it, you’re in denial—but it hardly matters. You’re dead wrong.
“The sickness you describe is foreign to me, and I have been around for a long time.”
You’re inured to it and in denial about it. Pure and simple.
“If the entertainment industry glorifies violence, or if the media markets news coverage of geographically and socially isolated violent subcultures, that is certainly not an accurate reflection of our society as a whole.”
Society AND the media glorify guns and violence, Alamo. Don’t try to slough it off as “the media’s fault.” Your head is in the clouds about this. It isn’t because of some movies and TV shows that we have the problems we have with this issue. It’s because of the way PEOPLE view guns and violence. And your attitude is typical of the problem—denying that it even exists. You’re as full of it as a person can be.
“I know you are a sharp guy, but that ***** was over the top.”
Hardly. It was in fact restrained. YOU are blind and outrageously foolish.
alright, its fine the m16 and m14 are not on the list, neither are historic changes and the m16 was actually less of a rifle then the ak during the Vietnam war. the m14 carbine is a good upgrade and is in wide usage now but neither deserve to be on this list just because of their popularity. maybe the Springfield and the garand. but then again two major drawbacks of the m1 garand were the sites, and the cartridge that could not be reloaded half way through. i recently fired the cv58 which is very similar to the ak, and let me tell you, in real combat, there is no real use for accuracy more then 300+ yards away. 100 is diffcult considering the recoil, sites, and adrenaline you would have in combat situations
Handy Mandy: I´m not saying that guns turn people into criminals. But neither do they turn people into ´productive citizens´.
All it takes is one moment of anger for a person to kill another person. It´s been known to happen because of garden borders. Humans are susceptible to passionate fits of rage, and if they´ve got a gun handy, that can so easily become a tragedy.
What´s more, I read in the news that just last week, in England, a ten-year-old boy was killed in an air rifle accident. He was killed because his family owned a gun and for no other reason.
Ok, I have to correct some things that are on here. First, the argument that the second amendment applies only to the National Guard is utterly false. The well regulated militia section is just an explanation by the founding fathers for WHY they put the second amendment in there, it is NOT a restriction placed on that right. Even if you were to make the argument that it was, that would still hardly restrict anyone from carrying firearms. Why you ask? Because the militia of the United States consists of every able bodied male in good standing between the ages of 18 and 65. That’s the historically accurate definition of the militia when the constitution was written. And as for those that say the Second Amendment won’t last long or is doomed, get real. The government of the United States will fall or massacre its citizens before that happens. Because they’ll have to pry our guns from our cold, dead, hands. (Which will be kind of hard considering the majority of military and law enforcement are pro-second amendment)
What about the AA-22? Have you seen this shot-gun?
@everlast:
i never said it wasnt mostly used as a automatic firearm, just that it was indeed designed as a semi-automatic with an option for full automatic fire. my cellphone isnt an mp3 player, but it has the abillity to play the format.
when used as a semi-automatic its as accurate as any other weapon (almost, at least), and can therefore not be slandered as lacking in accuracy.
@Chanchita (155):
how can someone be killed with an air rifle?
Alamo – You are so right in your observation, they are tools, and should be used as so when needed.
@Randall (132): Well said
I’m an american who served in Iraq and I thought I’d clear up something for you all. Every family in Iraq is allowed to own one AK47 and one 30 round clip of ammunition. Let me give you a little history lesson also. One of the first things Hitler did when he gained power was to outlaw the private ownership of guns. He said it was for the safety of the citizens, but I think hindsight shows that wasn’t the case.
@ Davy:
He was hit at close range and died of internal bleeding, apparently.
@Eclecticpoet (163):
True
so just because hitler wanted to ban guns it means its bad?
126 Alamo
A well educated and tolerant society (this including the political elite) are the best bulwarks against tyranny. If you haven’t realised… tyrants across the world use armed citizens to enforce their rule.
I love instigating. First it was the Jesus/no Jesus debate. Now guns/no guns. Gotta think of a crusher for the third one.
@Chanchita (164):
thanks
Having actually killed several people with the M-16, I can say it works, is dependable, and up to the task. .308 is of course, more powerful, and has better range, as well as accuracy. I wonder how many of it’s detractors have actually carried the M-16 in combat, as an infantryman? I thought so. It’s lighter weight translates into more rounds carried, which means longer staying power in a fight, and if you hit a target, rather than spray and pray, they’ll go down. There’s more than half a dozen Viet-Cong that don’t write home so much, because they ran in to me, and my M-16, so spare me the .308 stories, I’ve
heard most of them already. And every pound you carry in combat translates into more water and food needed for the strength and endurance to do so. AK’s are fine, if you don’t need to actually hit anything beyond 100 meters. And, they, and their ammo, magazines etc., weigh more. Sing Loy. Shotguns are Number One, GI.
As an American citizen myself I hate the fact that we “have the right to bear arms”, it scares the crap out of me. I think gus should be left to police officers and military, not everyday street thugs. I hate knowing that at anytime I could be out eating with my family and some crazy person who ordered his steak well done and got it rare could potentailly pull out a gun, go bananas and shoot up the place. Some People don’t respect the power guns have, they think it’s “cool” to flash around a gun and they have no remorse if that hurt or even kill someone. I know there are individuals out there that don’t take owning guns lightly and they know the proper safety and care it takes to own one. But with so many people owning guns now and days it makes it that much easier for people that shouldn’t have guns to steal them. My neighbor actually had his gun stolen and who knows whos hands that wound up in.
The whole gun thing scares me, i don’t like them one bit. I hate when people have them around me. I can recall one time when I was younger I got picked up for curfew and the cop had me ride in the front seat, and right next to me was a shotgun. I had a panic attack because of it, thats how much I don’t like them.
But this is just my opinion and as an American tha is one thing I love… freedom of speech!
@ Davy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/rhys-johnson-air-gun-death
@sean:
serving in a war, and taking lifes out of neccesity os one thing. but: “There’s more than half a dozen Viet-Cong that don’t write home so much, because they ran in to me, and my M-16″
bragging about it is another, and its disgusting.
@ Kristin: Found myself nodding along to your comment. You make the same point as me about people being prone to flip out at any point over stupid things.
I´m from England, where police are not armed, and I had never seen a gun in the flesh (as it were) until I moved here to Chile. I find them frightening and don´t like talking to police officers.
The family owned a gun, and handled it irresponsibly. So a ten year old died. I’m not saying that isn’t tragic, but where is the responibility?? With the family. Educate people. Expect more from people.
@Chanchita (172):
Yeah, now I remember seeing that in the news a week or so ago. Pretty shocking.
without getting into the whole ethical issues on weapons and coming back to the actual list…..
i think you are right regarding the ak47, its is a stupidly easy weapon to use and is as tough as old boots (you might even want to include the chinese varients of this but i have no experience of them)
however as a ex member of the british army who has been to afghanistan (specifically helmand province…sangin, geresk, musa qala)they might question the accuracy of this weapon. of course the person who is firing it makes a massive difference to the accuracy but saying this is accurate to 400yds is slightly out – especially when firing automatic!!!!
slightly suprised a heckler and koch weapon has not been added to the list as it has been used by police/special forces throughout the world and is proven in close quarter battle – even if the recoil on the mp5 feels like you are firing a spud gun!!!
EVERYONE should have access to self-protection. There could always be a breakout of zombies, or an alien invasion.
HandyMandy: Also, with the government. If we could go back in time and make it illegal for that family to get the gun, no matter whose responsibility it was, it would be worth it if it saved just one child´s life.
Wow.
I appreciate your effort to psycho*****yze me (denial?) and open my eyes. That you know “people” (male or female) who display this unhealthy affection is hardly convincing. Other than my point about the media and entertainment industries (that you seem to agree with in part), you seem to heavily weight your own anecdotal evidence.
I don’t deny that there are folks who are exactly as you describe them; that they are representative is highly debatable. That the average American, in particular the average American gun owner, glorifies violence is (I’m sorry to join your insult festival, but I must), stupid- beyond stupid. If that small subset of gun owners you have personal knowledge of are of this ilk, you have my sympathy.
If that is your idea of restraint, I suppose I understand why you tend to congregate with the more outlandish personalities in your area.
They protect us from our government (The USA) plain and simple. The Liberals in Washington D.C. would love to have total control of the country but they can’t. Why? Because we would shoot the hell out of them and that is awesome.
@Cernunnos:
My point was not that Hitler did it so it must be bad. My point is that de-armament of a population is the first step in subjugating it. If the German citizenry had remained armed the Nazis would never have been as powerful as they were and the destruction they wrought would have been lessened. Also, I was illustrating the irony that guns were banned in Germany purportedly to protect the populace, but millions of German citizens were rounded up and killed by the soldiers and police. How do you think it would have went had all the German Jews been armed when the gestapo came for them?