vladimir wrote:The first two used to jam terribly.

The FN was a piece of crap, often jamming.

AK47 was king, Yanks never took notice when they went into Korea/Vietnam.

Only ever had one problem with the FN and that was (could only happen to me) a broken firing pin! I never actually liked the thing it was too cumbersome. However most guys I knew that served in Vietnam seemed to like them, stating they had better penetrating power through jungle foliage. We also were issued with M16 A1's which were used by the forward scout. Guys I knew did not rate this much but I realy liked it. It is the only weapon that I have never actually had a stoppage with.
The Steyer was a dissapointment to me, light and easely handlable but prone to double feeds if you were anything but super gentle with the trigger, awkward to reload and diffacult to do IA drills if you were stressed.
Agree about the AK47 it always works and I would certainly prefer that to the Steyer if I was in a sticky situation. The R4 that the SADF converted to was basically a Galil which was basically an AK but better finish!

I think the Americans learned from the episode at the Yalu River which resulted in the development of the M16 used in Vietnam. It did seem to have problems, mainly related to maintenance and rounds failing to extract. As I say I never had a problem with this weapon but I did suffer from OCD (obsessive cleaning disorder) and I think the later amunition was better quality.

I owned a Beretta 93R for a while which for the time was quite good, however on burst fire was only good for barn doors at less than 10 metres.

I would disagree with an FN jamming, if looked after. Its major drawbacks where length and having the front and rear sights on two separate pieces of metal, joined only by a hinge (not a cleaver design)

Pelvic shots in favour of chest shots - Interesting this, I can see the larger bone idea and the rounds tracking internally, increasing the 'vital' area contact rate. ( this was further developed using the FN SS109 and the US 5.56 AP Cart) but I think the main reason for choosing the pelvic area, as opposed to the chest is more to do with ballistic armour plates and low velocity vests.

I think is still comes down to size (conceal ability) against stopping power and in most civilian defensive situations a small pistol, with the right round and the element of surprise, would win out every time. Obviously, 'Horses for Courses' and a whole different weapon is required to protect an isolated farm or a moving vehicle.

But a great thread and throwing up some great and clearly knowledgeable posts, long may it continue and I look forward to all the interesting tangents it takes. ( I bet we will be in the kitchen cupboard before we know it)

Time served in the forces aside, have any of you hand gun owners actually shot anyone at close range yet yet, be it in the pelvis or elsewhere?

StroppyChops wrote:You DID actually read the the original post, right?

ok, let me make it simple for YOU. A shotgun. a fucking shotgun is the smallest *I* would use.
I did say small is ok if you like to gamble, but I would not carry, and only use a gun for home defense.
It IS a bit vague topic. Use? use where? The smallest gun I'd use to defend me from what? One guy went off about bears. You had no problem with THAT.

oh
I saw what looked like a gun ad and my mind blanked. Then I actually replied to the topic question. Silly me, haha. Now a few of the posts make more sense.
you imp!

lol, nice one Stroppy. I have made a note to myself to read posts carefully in future, lol

Mr Curious wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:You DID actually read the the original post, right?

ok, let me make it simple for YOU. A shotgun. a fucking shotgun is the smallest *I* would use.
I did say small is ok if you like to gamble, but I would not carry, and only use a gun for home defense.
It IS a bit vague topic. Use? use where? The smallest gun I'd use to defend me from what? One guy went off about bears. You had no problem with THAT.

Yeah, THAT guy read the OP, but let's not dwell on it.

Tim Linkinwater wrote:Time served in the forces aside, have any of you hand gun owners actually shot anyone at close range yet yet, be it in the pelvis or elsewhere?

SC and I visited a shooting range just before we left oz. It only took one shot for me to realize that it was NOT for me in any way shape or from. I could not get out of there fast enough!

^ Terribly nice, I'm sure.

Hopefully,though, some of our, civilian, gun-totin' friends will come out and tell us what it's like to actually waste some mofo - bust a cap in his ass at close range in the pelvis, or other area as appropriate.

It must be a real pain to carry them around all day if you don't use them. I find an iPhone irritating enough.

Tim Linkinwater wrote:^ Terribly nice, I'm sure.

Hopefully,though, some of our, civilian, gun-totin' friends will come out and tell us what it's like to actually waste some mofo - bust a cap in his ass at close range in the pelvis, or other area as appropriate.

It must be a real pain to carry them around all day if you don't use them. I find an iPhone irritating enough.

Can you get a 'Gun' app for the iPhone? Opening the app, instantly makes the owners penis 1" bigger?

actually a Freedom Arms .22 5 shot revolver is quite small, they make a belt buckle that can hold it. It'll fit in the watch/change pocket on jeans.

Stroppy, see my edit