First gun purchase.
So, I have about 300 to put down for a handgun. I have never owned a gun before and have done little shooting.
I am just looking for something reliable, with cheap ammo.
I also am a bit of a history buff, so any historical significance would be appealing to me.
What should I buy?
ah, /k/ is failing me
>>29849897
nigga it takes more then 4 minutes.
Makarov or a P64 is probably your best bet for sub compact
Yugo or Romanian tokerev if you want full size
>>29849855
Nagant Revolver, the gas seal on the cartridges insures complete reliability and accuracy and the adds a silencer effect, as well as high velocity power to the 7.62 FULL METAL JACKET ammo, it is the best gun my older brother brought one back from syria when he was in the special forces
Saw one at lgs for around 600$, thinking about picking it up for a new meme ccw.
Any good iwb holsters you know of?
That's a heavy meme gun
>>29849848
You can't carry that, won't be no jamal left.
for 45colt cowboy loads. do those replicate black powder loads or are they only for plinking and safety for older guns used in sass comps?
I am looking to buy my first handgun but I am not sure what caliber to get.
I have three primary reasons for wanting this gun. I may be willing to get 2 handguns.
1) hiking/backpacking
>I am currently thinking either a 9mm or 10mm
>possibly a G26 or G29 (i am open to non-Glock alternatives)
>I do not expect to take down a bear
>I would want to conceal it
>I am have an estremely slender build (think Auschwitz-mode)
>either ankle or inside my waist-band
>I fully understand that concealing it increases my draw time
I live in an open carry state, but I would like this gun to be small enough that an Auschwitz survivor could conceal it in summer time, but not so small that my wife decides to buy a strap-on.
2) Hunting/scouting sidearm
>does not need to be light since I will mostly be on an ATV
>does not need to be easily concealable, but compactness would still be a plus
>I have never fired a .45 or .50, do they have a lot of 'kick'?
3)Home defense
I feel that a pistol would be better than a shotgun in a home defense situation
>be me
>wife is at her bull's house
>baby princess daughter is at her bull's house
>I am sleeping soundly since I get the entire king sized bed to myself and am not fighting for sheets.
so_I_became_comfy.jpg
>suddenly window breaks
>a wild nigglet appears
Option 1
>I sleepy wake up
>"sorry Jamal, Annonette is not home right now
>yes, please help yourself to the tv
>here is my wallet
Option 2
>grab 12ga
>12ga is wrestled out of my weak sleepy arms
>I get shot
Option 3
>grab pistol
achievement_unlocked.jpg
>Home protected
tl;dr - what gun should I conceal carry for protection from medium sized animals while backpacking.
You sound beta ass fuck
Enjoy getting your face eaten off by a grizzly
A G26 would fit nicely under your bra
>>29849439
Baseline
1. CCW - S&W 642 or Ruger LCR in .38 SPL revolver
2. Hunting Scouting - S&W or Ruger .357 Magnum revolver (also can shoot .38 SPL)
3. Home Def - Glock 17/19 with light and sound suppressor
>>29849439
>1) hiking/backpacking
G26
>2) Hunting/scouting sidearm
G19
>3)Home defense
G17
I found this gun, came here since I figure you guys can help me identify what it is and maybe it's worth, in it I also found a full mag and they're 25 auto I think if it helps
Yeah, it's a .25 acp or 6.35 Auto as godless europeans call it.
J.P. Sauer & Sohn Model 1913. Don't think it's worth much.
http://www.ai4fr.com/main/page_militaria__collectibles_germany_sauer_1913.html
So I'm taking an economics class and we were going over a 'supply and demand' concept. Basically the way I understand it, the more people want something, the higher the price goes, until more of that thing is made and sold, and then the price falls. It's a strict law of nature that if less people want something the price will go down, and if more people want something the price goes up.
I'm thinking about it, and I'm thinking this could be applied to the new gun market. Everyone bitches that new guns undergo horrible loss in value when you buy them, right? A 3k gun could turn into a 2k gun the second it leaves the dealer's hands. That's a huge amount of money just totally vanished and removed from the economy forever, and it's the reason why it's a better idea to always buy used.
What if everyone collectively decided to not buy new guns for a few months? By law the price of new guns will go down, and eventually it'll get to the point where a new car could be at the price of a used gun, and at that point everyone could just buy the new cars at used prices and avoid the depreciation hit. This way, everyone saves some money and it's not removed from the economy. Any thoughts?
>>29849109
>make gun manufacturers go out of business just so we can trade cars for guns
No.
>>29849109
you're fucking stupid man
>3k gun could turn into a 2k gun the second it leaves the dealer's hands.
made me kek
>>29849109
If your firearm purchase depreciates 33% instantly, you are making bad purchases and Econ-100 won't save you. Ideally, the utility of a firearm and remaining service life should allow it to retain more value than that, Gucci ARs need not apply.
Supply-demand curves fall apart when the market value is at or below the cost of production, which would be about where this scenario would end. No one is working for zero margins and will make widgets if it pays better than ARs.
People in uniform thread
>>29848935
I wear a uniform but it has nothing to do with /k/.... what's this thread really about.
What did you put on your Form 1 /k/?
>will this fly?
Would
>It's klobberin' time
get rejected?
I'm pretty sure they don't even look at that considering someone once wrote "remove kebab" in the box and it got approved.
>>29849092
Didn't that ATF examiner go on /k/ and tell him his form was denied, because of another reason?
Also, if they deny your form, do you just get to fix it or do you have to start all over?
It's there a youtube course to learn about weapons, as to be able to understand what you guys are talking about
>tfw new to the board
>tfw illiterate in terms of weapons
>tfw can't understand the /k/ memes
Free bump. Welcome aboard! Lurking is recommended
>>29848532
Hickok45
>Making a thread whining about being new
What a fucking cretinous bitch
http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html
>Fires can't burn in the oxygen-free vacuum of space, but guns can shoot. Modern ammunition contains its own oxidizer, a chemical that will trigger the explosion of gunpowder, and thus the firing of a bullet, wherever you are in the universe. No atmospheric oxygen required.
>The only difference between pulling the trigger on Earth and in space is the shape of the resulting smoke trail. In space, "it would be an expanding sphere of smoke from the tip of the barrel," said Peter Schultz an astronomer at Brown University who researches impact craters.
Is it true /k/? Can cartridges fire in space?
In my thinking I bet the primer would work. But would the powder itself?
Would muzzle velocity be much higher because there's no friction in space?
Would shots be incredibly accurate because of the lack of outside forces like gravity and wind?
We've had this thread hundreds, possibly thousands of times.
Yes, and the Soviets actually did it with autocannons back in the 70s, in case their space station was attacked by American Space Shuttles.
>>29848060
It is true that gun propellants contain their own oxidizer. So yes, guns would fire. I'm sure there are many things we can do to optimize guns in space, but they'd work as-is.
>>29848060
Your gun would heat up and melt very quickly because it cannot dissipate heat in a vacuum.
Because it's cool as fuck
Martin P6M SeaMaster
>>29847855
Convair R3Y Tradewind
>>29847858
My planefu
Macchi M.7
>>29847873
Aichi E11A
I found a better use for your gun sleeves.
is that ur benis
>>29847776
mabe
>>29847721
>Silicone infused socks
No thanks
German Newfag her.
Facts:
- Twin Engin Figthers a constructed for superior Speed, Power and Arming.
- WW2 Aerial warfare Figthermantra: "Speed-Height-Suprising" or "ZACK-BOOM"
No WW1-Dogfights
Reality
-Even the P-38 Lighting had serious problems agiants a fucking IAR-80(Like early war Me BF-109)
Question:
-What went wrong?
>>29847608
Twin engine fighters were for strike fighting and attacking bombers? Not intended to fight against far, far more agile single-engine fighters.
>>29847608
Turns out the benefit you get from twin engines isn't enough to make up for the performance losses you get from the added weight and drag. You're effectively relying on the added power of the second engine being enough to make up for the massive performance losses you're going to get in just about every aspect other than speed.
If you look at the places where heavy fighters generally worked, it was where the targets they encountered were massively outperformed. That generally means interception of bombers and whatnot (aerial interdiction, night fighter, etc), or operations in areas where enemy fighters are so far behind that they're not nearly fast enough to compete (Pacific theater).
The P-38 also had some issues with poor design that made things worse. The wings performed poorly at high speeds because they had an unusually low critical mach number, meaning that they hit transonic effects far sooner than a lot of the fighters they encountered. That killed the one advantage they were supposed to hold (speed), really hurting their prospects.
>>29847608
You don't think there were maneuvering or turning fights in WW2? Not everything got decided by zoom and boom and zoom off again.
If you can find a book called Wing Leader it give excellent descriptions of air war in Europe from the early days of WW2 until the end, it's also entertaining as hell; written by the highest scoring allied ace against German fighter aircraft. Even late war when both sides were fielding very fast aircraft there was still turning and rolling and stuff, you always zoomed in the initiation stages but there was still a melee after that. And unless you were in a jet you just didn't have the speed to leave everything behind, at any given altitude.
Just bought this last night and it's actually not that bad. Brand new $60 out the door couldnt beat it don't be jelly
i guess a sixty buck pistol is sixty bucks meh spent
hows it like
>>29847551
It ain't bad at all went out and shot it has never been fired before and it did real well
>>29847535
>$60
>hi point
Was the seller a red guard by any chance?
So basically I've been planning to join the army but now that my parents know they want me to join the Navy or the Air Force. They're under the impression that I'm gonna be killed if I join the army. How far off ate they from the truth and do any of you /k/ommandos have any suggestions on what branch of the military to join? Btw I'm 6'1 and 150 lbs so take that into consideration.
>>29847525
Well what do you plan on after the military? The Air Force and Navy may be better options if you want to find cushy jobs after serving.
>>29847547
Not really sure yet. Currently in school for Computer Science but a career in the military does sound kind of nice.
>>29847547
Not really sure yet. Currently in school for Computer Science but a career in the military does sound kind of nice
What is the absolute cheapest way to reload ammo that's safe enough so it doesn't break the gun?
I'll be dealing with 8mm mauser for the record
Single stage press would be pretty cheap and precise.
I think cast lead bullets can be very economical if you learn to make them yourself, as well as being very easy on the gun and bore.
Negatives is they are limp dick as fuck and drop like stone + gotta watch for bore leading it can be dangerous to fire fmj through a leaded bore
>>29847410
If you are hoping to use surplus 8mm brass you might be in trouble. I don't know any surplus 8mm that isn't berdan primed which is not worth reloading even if you somehow find berdan primers.