Dumb questions about guns

Soccer Mom said:

Anyone have some good links or advice to share on how to become more informed about guns. I have lots of stupid questions and some really specific ones like: How does the safety work on an H&K nine?

Thanks for helping a newbie out!

Click to expand...

Hi,

Your ref: “…an H&K nine?” Is to bit too broad, as H&K have many 9mm handguns.

For a start I would check the following link:

http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/index.jsp?loc=5&REFID=A0000&SITEID=A

From there you can find/match the specific model or if you already know the mode just enter it, and it will give you all the specifications.

Happy hunting!

I would agree with Robert. HK is known for innovative projects and one line of their handguns is modular and can modified about nine different ways. Most semi-autos have a safety lever somewhere around where the thumb rests on the frame. Good luck on the WIP.

Soccer Mom said:

Thanks so much to both! I've added the link to my favs. See, I told you I had dumb questions.

Click to expand...

Your most welcome

BTW - On this site, there is no such thing as a dumb question

Why not visit a gun shop and ask questions? Most clerks in gun stores LOVE to answer questions. Tell them you are a writer and they'll be happy to help you - well most of them. I think it helps to be able to actually hold a gun, see where the magazine fits, etc. It there's a shooting range in your area - go and fire off a few rounds. They rent ear protectors along with the pistols and should be able to help you.

Carlene

Yeah--go to a gun store! Most of the people there are absolutely DELIGHTED to help a writer get their firearms details right. They read too!

It saved me from putting a safety on a revolver and kitting it out with a silencer. The clerk explained the design of a revolver makes that impossible. Later I read a thriller where the hero pulled out his "automatic silenced revolver and flipped off the safety." I'm sure that somewhere there is such a thing, but it won't ever be in one of MY books!

Another clerk talked me out of using the wrong kind of gun for a scene in one of my books--it seems that model hadn't yet been invented!

There's a book called "Weaponry For Writers" which is pretty good, but be sure to get the latest edition. The first editions were full of errors.

One weapon savvy writer is Massad F. Ayoob, who has a number of highly informative, entertaining books that I've found to be very useful in my research. He also outlines the legalities of firearm protection. (If your character drags a body into the house and claims self-defense he will be in for a baaad time with the law.)

Good luck!

guns

Gillhoughly said:

Yeah--go to a gun store! Most of the people there are absolutely DELIGHTED to help a writer get their firearms details right. They read too!

It saved me from putting a safety on a revolver and kitting it out with a silencer. The clerk explained the design of a revolver makes that impossible. Later I read a thriller where the hero pulled out his "automatic silenced revolver and flipped off the safety." I'm sure that somewhere there is such a thing, but it won't ever be in one of MY books!

Another clerk talked me out of using the wrong kind of gun for a scene in one of my books--it seems that model hadn't yet been invented!

There's a book called "Weaponry For Writers" which is pretty good, but be sure to get the latest edition. The first editions were full of errors.

One weapon savvy writer is Massad F. Ayoob, who has a number of highly informative, entertaining books that I've found to be very useful in my research. He also outlines the legalities of firearm protection. (If your character drags a body into the house and claims self-defense he will be in for a baaad time with the law.)

Good luck!

Click to expand...

I saw a TV show just the other day where the bad guy had a silencer on a revolver. Drives me nuts. I'm lucky enough to have grown up using weapons of all sorts, and then had small arms and sniper training, and have had jobs where carrying a weapon was required. I carry one almost every day, in fact.

So it really irks me to see such silly mistakes on TV, or to read them in books.

Though in fairness, there is an old French revolver that can take a silencer. The cylinder has a cone that slips in and out of the barrel and forms a seal so a sliencer works.

Jamesaritchie said:

So it really irks me to see such silly mistakes on TV, or to read them in books.

Click to expand...

I've a vivid memory of a TV hero using tin trash cans as cover. The bad guy's bullets were bouncing, not going through as they should. Bwah!

I lost a bit of respect for a fav writer who had someone smuggling "plastic guns" onto planes. (The dang things have more metal in them than the average machete AND show up on X-ray machines.) He let his politics get in the way of his research--which in other books was meticulous.

Then there was the mystery writer who had the hero loading a revolver with a clip of ammo, slamming it home, and putting the safety on. Of course one page later he totally forgot about the safety, delaying his shot, thus were readers subjected to a bad cliche in addition to no research.

My least favorite cliche is having an anti-gun character turning into Rambo on steroids when the plot sags--uh--I mean--the going gets tough. Yeah, right, like they could hit anything...

Gillhoughly said:

I've a vivid memory of a TV hero using tin trash cans as cover. The bad guy's bullets were bouncing, not going through as they should. Bwah!

I lost a bit of respect for a fav writer who had someone smuggling "plastic guns" onto planes. (The dang things have more metal in them than the average machete AND show up on X-ray machines.) He let his politics get in the way of his research--which in other books was meticulous.

Then there was the mystery writer who had the hero loading a revolver with a clip of ammo, slamming it home, and putting the safety on. Of course one page later he totally forgot about the safety, delaying his shot, thus were readers subjected to a bad cliche in addition to no research.

My least favorite cliche is having an anti-gun character turning into Rambo on steroids when the plot sags--uh--I mean--the going gets tough. Yeah, right, like they could hit anything...

Click to expand...

The trash can is sort of my favorite pet peeve, only with cars. Who the heck came up with the idea of having bullets bounce off cars with an accompanying shower of sparks? I've shot cars. I've even been in a car that was being shot at. Bullets do not bounce off. Just ask Bonnie and Clyde. But I rarely watch a TV show without being forced to watch bullets bouce off cars with a shower of sparks.

Er, ah, loading a revolver with a clip of ammo? That'd be a neat trick.

Jamesaritchie said:

The trash can is sort of my favorite pet peeve, only with cars.

Click to expand...

What does happen? Does the bullet go through?

My pet peeve is the Foley sound of a gun being cocked or a slide being racked every time the gun-toting hero or villain moves in a different direction (or the actor does it him/herself). One day, I'd love to see a movie where the hero racks the slide repeatedly and then when he goes to fire, his gun is empty because he dumped all his ammo on the ground.

You are so right James and Deadly. Movies are the worst though, and I completely agree that people's political views often lead to technical inaccuracy. It's inexcusable. Here is a really fun site with good information:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot17.htm

In this section they tested a steel door with standard ammunition. The only thing that didn't penetrate the door was #6 bird shot.

The only protection provided by an auto would be the engine block.

Ooh I love Mythbusters! Haven't seen it in forever though -- I should seriously start watching it again. Thanks for the push.

And thanks for starting this thread -- I'm finding it very interesting.

the1dsquared said:

I completely agree that people's political views often lead to technical inaccuracy. It's inexcusable.

Click to expand...

Not to mention boring!

That writer who had the hero racking the slide on a revolver--I wrote an anonymous letter to his editor. Point by point I listed ALL the things he had wrong in that book, from the gun stuff to a snake having eyelids to a 4-seater plane flying faster than an F-16 to the fact that there is no such kind of horse as a bay palomino. The works. By the time I was done I wondered why I ever liked his stuff in the first place.

It must have gotten to the writer. His very next work was full of utterly accurate gun stuff, but he'd spent the entire book making a statement that THIS political party was GOOOOOOD and THAT political party was EVUUUUUL. Every bleeping page had a rant on it with that theme. Of course the bad guys were all in the political party the author didn't like and came to bad ends. I never read another of his books 'cause I don't shell out money to twerps on a soapbox. There's plenty of twerpism available for free on the 'Net.

And yes, I very purposely did not mention the names of those parties so as to avoid political debates on this thread. There are other places to rant.

And Mythbusters RAWKS!!!! They rawk like a great big rawkin' thing! WOOOOT!

You my friend are a wise man.

Soccer Mom said:

In past episodes they have busted the "bullets sparks", "water stops a bullet", "the exploding gas tanks when shot by a bullet" and the "bullet throws the guy six feet backwards when hit" myths. It is very entertaining.

Click to expand...

They even busted the cartoon myth, the one where a finger in the muzzle makes the barrel explode, and the finger is unharmed. It was awesome!

DeadlyAccurate said:

What does happen? Does the bullet go through?

.

Click to expand...

Yes, the bullet goes through. Even a .22 will poke a hole in most modern cars. A large caliber handgun makes a big hole. A .44 Magnum can actually crack an engine block.

And taking cover behind a car door? Forget it, unless that door has a Kevlar lining.

force

Soccer Mom said:

My son is addicted to the show Mythbusters and now I am too. They have taken on a lot of gun myths. If you've never seen the show, the premise is they take myths of conventional wisdom and Hollywood and subject them to actual scientific testing. They try to recreate the sequences from movies.

In past episodes they have bustedthe "bullets sparks", "water stops a bullet", "the exploding gas tanks when shot by a bullet" and the "bullet throws the guy six feet backwards when hit" myths. It is very entertaining.

Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone hit with a handgun or a high-powered rifle be thrown at all. Handguns lack the power, and a high-velocity round from a rifle goes through so fast very little energy is expended on teh body. But I once saw a man "thrown" at least six feet by getting hit in the chest with a 12ga Brennekeslug.

Part of this is certainly what the muscles do when something like this occurs, rather than impact of the round. But a Brennekeslug is .70 caliber hunk of soft lead traveling about 1,475 feet per second, which may not sound fast compared to a high-powered rifle, but muzzle energy is 2,535 fps. And most of the energy is transferred to the body. The man I saw was standing on the road when hit, and when he landed his head was alsoxt shoved through a fence five feet from the road.

My own opinion is that sudden muscle contraction and release from shock causes this, but the effect can be the same.

One big mistake I've seen made is trying to test impact by firing at buckets of water. Of course the bucket doesn't move. Every bit of the energy is transferred in the wrong direction by the water itself. Just because a human is largely fluid does not mean a body reacts the same way a bucket of water, or ever a gel pack, reacts. You have to take muscle and brain reaction into account.

I've seen the same thing happen to deer. Ninety-nine out of a hundred drop right where shot, but the hundredth flies about six feet, even when hit with the same round in the same spot.

I believe this is how the myth got started. In a sense, it isn't a myth, it just doesn't happen very often, or for the reason everyone assumed it happens. In other words, when this does happen, it's not so much because of the impact, but because of the body's muscle/brain reaction to the impact.

Another peeve is re-cocking guns all the time. In Demolition Man during the melee in the museum Sly lets his pistol go empty before swapping magazines, so the action's back... he loads it and releases the slide which chambers a round from the magazine--he then pulls the slide back a second time to "cock" it, ejecting a live round right past his face. And presumably nobody noticed.

And of course, the "Golden Goose" never-ending ammunition theme - "He fired a dozen shots into the canyon, spotted Hector and fired nine more times..."

With a handgun.

This is more of a problem on TV & in movies where I wonder where all that handgun ammunition is coming from...they only run out at opportune story moments - "click, click" after they have run 70 or 100 rounds through on a single clip or in a single standard cylinder.

Shows

It really bugs me how bad guys can shoot realy well when they're murdering someone, but can't hit a bull in the butt with a baeball bat once the hero shows up.

Trust me, folks. In real life the bad guys can usually shoot very well. It's the cops who generally can't hit anything, especially in the heat of a gunfight. Bad guys often have much more experience at shooting people, at staying calm under fire, than do most police officers.

Most police officers go a lifetime without shooting anyone, and without being shot at. Many bad guys shoot people regularly, or are shot at by rival gangs, etc.

Gang-Bangers are always shooting innocent bystanders and missing their intended target.

Gang-Bangers don't CARE if the bullet goes through a wall and kills a child.

Gang-Bangers are never trained in shooting or in firefight tactics.

Gang-Bangers rarely qualify in a legitimate sense with their firearms.

Police must be aware of where their bullets will go if they miss the target.

Police HAVE to care if their bullets go astray and kill or injure bystanders half-a-mile away.

Police are carefully trained in firearms and firefight conditions. Particularly well-trained in shoot or don't shoot scenarios.

Police officer MUST pass qualification tests with any firearm they carry-on the job or off-duty.

To say that bangers are better trained because they are more likely to have killed than police is really dumb. It shows that you have not much understanding of firearms or tactics.

Regards,

Scott

<One big mistake I've seen made is trying to test impact by firing at buckets of water. Of course the bucket doesn't move. Every bit of the energy is transferred in the wrong direction by the water itself. Just because a human is largely fluid does not mean a body reacts the same way a bucket of water, or ever a gel pack, reacts. You have to take muscle and brain reaction into account.
>

Most serious research on gunshot wounds are done on pig carcasses or ballistic jell.

Regards,
Scott