Deadly Weapons on Parade Part 2! Which gun is more effective in combat?

[Irreverend IX]

Poll question: Deadly Weapons on Parade Part 2! Which gun is more effective in combat?

In the interest of educating DU's population on the topic of guns and exposing preconceived notions about weapons I'm posting another "deadliest gun" poll. Below are pictures of two pistols. Which do you think is a more effective combat weapon? Which one do you think can be used to shoot and kill enemies more easily and efficiently? Here's a hint--the guns below shoot the same ammunition (9mm Luger) so it's not a question of which one fires a more powerful round. Also, please disregard the laser sight mounted on Gun A. Such a device could be attached to Gun B just as easily, thus it has no bearing on the relative utility of the two weapons.

GUN A:



GUN B:

[Kutjara]

1. I'd say B.

A is probably very good at spraying bullets around randomly, but B might actually be useful for hitting something intentionally.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. Or C... equally effective depending on

the user.

and I don't believe that is a laser sight, it appears to be a flashlight

[madeline_con]

3. Close combat?

Up against heavy artillery, we need more here.

[Irreverend IX]

6. Close to mid-range combat with other handgun users.

The kind of combat a cop or civilian might encounter, not warfare. Let's assume an urban setting. Personally, my opinion on the relative utility of these guns for warfare is the same as my opinion on their usefulness for domestic combat situations.

[GreenZoneLT]

20. Nobody buys a TEC-9 for combat

They buy it to spray unarmed people, or better, to scare the shit out of unarmed people so they do what they want. It's a gang banger and armed robber's weapon.

[benEzra]

26. They fire the same ammunition at the same rate.

The difference is, the TEC-9 is less concealable and less reliable. It was the Volkswagen Thing of 9mm pistols, except it wasn't as reliable as a VW.

BTW, Intratec went out of business a while back, IIRC. Their guns (TEC-9 and TEC-22) were very cool looking, but had a bad reputation as jam-o-matics, and wouldn't do anything that a more conventional looking 9mm pistol would do better, except look different. So despite the media hype, the market just wasn't there.

The gang banger and armed robber's weapon is the .38/.357 revolver, not some boutique 9mm pistol that most people couldn't conceal.

[GreenZoneLT]

32. That's not true

I used to be a cop reporter, and I've seen the guns they take off those guys. They love TEC-9s; they're not very savvy consumers for the most part, and TEC-9s are a) cheap and b) intimidating-looking.

By armed robbers, I mean the guys who knock over liquor stores, not professional bank robbers, who use even scarier and much more effective short-barreled shotguns.

Gang bangers carry whatever they can get, mostly Jennings .22s and other extremely inexpensive crap. But they also love TEC-9s if they can get them, because they're BAD.

The CZ-75 and the TEC-9 have the same cyclical rate of fire, but the TEC-9 has a higher EFFECTIVE rate of fire, because you don't have to change magazines as often. In a drive-by, that's useful. But the main reason to have a TEC-9 is because it's scary-looking; like any sensible person, criminals generally prefer intimidation to gunfights.

You don't see that many TEC-9s any more, of course, because they quit making them.

[benEzra]

35. Thoughts...

I was primarily responding to the idea that a TEC-9 "sprays" bullets while a Beretta does not. They fire at the same rate, and one is not more lethal than the other, as the OP pointed out.

But having said that, I suspect that it would actually be the Beretta that would have the higher sustained rate of fire, for reliability reasons (the Intratec was notoriously unable to feed hollowpoints, and didn't feed FMJ very well, either) and I suspect mag changes are probably faster for the Beretta due to better ergonomics and the presence of a slide stop, though I've admittedly never tried a mag change on an Intratec. But if you compare apples to apples, e.g. same size magazine for both guns, the Beretta is by far the more effective weapon.

As far as use in crime, the percentage of TEC-9's used in crimes was always overstated due to the gun's notorietey. I'm sure that if an officer were to pull a few guns out of the evidence room to show a visiting reporter, Intratecs would be preferentially selected, but statistically they were never all that highly represented, as I recall. (You see the same thing with rifles--even though rifles are rarely used in homicides, the perception exists that they are.) I think one could argue that if Intratecs were popular, Intratec wouldn't have gone out of business.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. 'Combat'? 'Enemies'?

Your language in the original post strongly suggests warfare.

[brokensymmetry]

4. Voted for gun B...

Gun A...A tech-9, I believe?...probably has a
30 round magazine. I suppose that B has a 14 or
15 round magazine. But I think the more compact
firearm, with less "junk" hanging on it would
be more effective.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I'd suggest A -

I don't recognise it, but it looks like it is full auto, with a 30rd mag. It may not be as accurate as the semi-auto below, but then, it wouldn't need to be, would it.

[Irreverend IX]

8. Not full-auto...

Some people have tried crudely converting Gun A to full-auto, but the weapons so altered were as dangerous to their users as to a target.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. In that case, I switch to B.

To tell the truth, though, I haven't handled a hand gun in 35 years. Don't know if greater accuracy would help me or not. Having twice as many round sounds good...

I reckon I'd just get myself shot, while dithering.

[sakabatou]

7. I'd trust the Baretta look-a-like

over the mini machine gun

[cynatnite]

9. For me it's be Gun B

I'd have more control over the weapon and more likely to hit what I'm aiming at. I can hit pretty much anything I aim at with a handgun. Not so sure it would be the same for the first gun.

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. Neither or both

Not a fair or informed question really. lets say * is using gun b. He is an idiot and would most likely shoot his own face off. Or vise versa. I would say a fair test would be * vs cheney at 10 paces.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

13. Oh man what I'd give to see that on pay per view!

I'm a one shot, one kill kinda guy myself so I would choose B. The 30 round clip in A would just get in the way, and if you can't get the job done with 10, 20 more are not gonna help. On the other hand, like the post below, I vote for a Remington 870 with an 18" barrel, 5 round extension, folding stock and a combo of 00buck and slugs.

[Irreverend IX]

25. Come to think of it...

I've never seen a pic of Dubya with a gun. Something tells me he'd have the worst trigger discipline in history and would end up blowing holes in surrounding objects and people. Fortunately, that would only happen if he had aides load the weapon beforehand; if he had to prepare a gun for firing himself he would probably break his finger in the slide (if it's a pistol) or load the ammo backwards and cause the thing to jam.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

29. Yeah, I heard somewhere that Condi

was very disappointed in Georgie's "trigger discipline".

[spag68]

12. I vote for a 12 gauge magnum Streetsweeper

[johnaries]

14. Oh, jeez. Not again.

Please, what are you REALLY trying to "educate" us about?

[Irreverend IX]

16. Weapons that look "scary" and "evil..."

Aren't necessarily any more powerful, deadly or dangerous to society than more socially acceptable weapons. In many cases, they are less so. That's it in a nutshell. Judging by the poll results, most DUers already know this. That fact surprised me--I've asked questions like this of several friends who are ignorant of guns, and most assumed that black coloration and large numbers of Picatinny rails give rifles catastrophic death-dealing powers. This is the kind of thinking that spawns assault weapon bans and similar paranoia. I've even talked to people who thought pistols were deadlier than rifles based on what they'd seen in movies. After all, when it comes to raw damaging power nothing can top Grandpa's wood-stocked shotgun inside a 25-meter radius, but no one's afraid of guns with wood attached so legislators won't touch them. Anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation on gun issues, be they pro-gun or anti, should have some understanding of what weapons can and can't do.

[GreenZoneLT]

21. Pistols are more dangerous because they're concealable

That's been the common sense behind gun control since civilians were banned from carrying wheellock dags in the 16th century.

That's why sawed-off shotguns are illegal. It's not that they're more effective than regular shotguns, it's that you can carry them under your jacket.

"Ugly guns" aren't just ugly; often they're more concealable and have higher ammunition capacity than "civilian" firearms. If you're trying to limit the damage of school and office rampages, limiting magazine capacity is a logical way to go.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it's not illogical and emotion-based.

[Irreverend IX]

23. Concealability?

The Tec-9 is certainly a lot less concealable than the CZ. And an AR-15 with a foregrip, a scope, multiple rails and a bunch of other toys stuck to it is pretty hard to hide compared to a plain Mini-14, not to mention how much more attention it attracts. Now magazine capacity does make a difference, but in theory there's no capacity limit for any weapon that accepts a magazine. Glock and Beretta make mags with 30-40 rounds that stick far below the grip, and there are hundred-round mags for 1911s that look like round drums hanging off the gun.

I don't know if such exist for the CZ (its magazine holds 18 rounds) but you can have that kind of capacity in a pistol if you're willing to put up with a long magazine. The magazine restriction was the only logically defensible part of the old AWB, but the lack of bloodbaths since the ban's expiration suggests that the availability of high-cap magazines is not a danger to the public.

[GreenZoneLT]

34. You're changing the subject

You said pistols were less dangerous than hunting long arms, which isn't necessarily true because of concealability.

The argument that "assault weapons" are more dangerous has to do with their higher effective rate of fire compared to standard arms of similar size, not that they're concealable.

I'm not arguing for the AWB; I think it was just grandstanding and so riddled with loopholes as to be meaningless. High-cap arms and magazines were legally available during the "ban" in most states, just not for newly manufactured weapons. When we're as awash in used guns as we are, it's just silly to think laws aimed at manufacturing and imports would have any effect.

The law that really pisses me off is the Clinton-era ban on imported Russian military arms. I collect Soviet small arms, and I don't want a freakin' semi-auto Yugo or Romanian AK clone; I want an actual select-fire AKM, on a Class III. But can you get one? Hell, no, unless I want to risk years of imprisonment by having one of my Iraqi buddies pick one up in the market for me, and somehow smuggle it home.

I'm not THAT avid a collector.

[benEzra]

36. That was actually the Bush the Elder ban...

The law that really pisses me off is the Clinton-era ban on imported Russian military arms.

That was actually the Bush the Elder ban, reportedly the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, and was only later codified into 18 USC 922(r) under Clinton. But the BATFE always excepted Russian collectibles, e.g. my wife's 1952 Tula SKS was imported under a Curio and Relic exemption. Russian semiautos are still importable as well, as long as you play the parts count game (the Vepr civilian AK/RPK lookalike is Russian made, for example).

I collect Soviet small arms, and I don't want a freakin' semi-auto Yugo or Romanian AK clone; I want an actual select-fire AKM, on a Class III. But can you get one? Hell, no, unless I want to risk years of imprisonment by having one of my Iraqi buddies pick one up in the market for me, and somehow smuggle it home.

That'd be the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. Actual Russian AK-47's (Class III's) are indeed legally available, and if you jump through all the hoops to get a BATFE Form 4 (application forms at http://www.titleii.com), you can legally own one.

The downside is, pre-'86 Russian AK's are among the scarcest and most collectible of Class III firearms. At the moment, even a cheaply made Chinese AK-47 clone (Title 2/Class III civilian transferable) will set you back $15,000. I have personally never seen a Russian AK-47 on Gunbroker, but have seen early M16A2's for $75,000, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Russian AK's (real ones) in the same price range.

FWIW, I own a Romanian AKM lookalike (civilian, NFA Title 1, non-automatic, $379). It's actually a pretty convincing stand-in for an actual AKM, even though it's a 2002 model (full-capacity mags but no brake or bayonet lug). It would be even more convincing if I added a muzzle brake and milspec gas block (w/bayonet lug) now that the AWB is dead.



There are custom makers out there that will build you an authentic looking civilian AK based on a Russian parts kit, with a civilian receiver marked to look like a real one (down to a fake 3-way selector, with Russian markings). Pricey, but cheaper than a real Class III AK by a couple orders of magnitude. The only way you'd ever know it wasn't real would be the import markings/manufacturer's stamp (discreet), and the fact that it would be incapable of automatic fire. I have also seen civilian RPK lookalikes based on RPK parts kits and new-manufacture civilian receivers.

[Der Blaue Engel]

15. Why isn't this in the Guns forum?

If we want to learn what DUers have to say about guns, we know where to go.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. Firepower is rounds on target, not rounds fired

tec-9s and its cousins are hard to hit a single targets with.

[Evoman]

18. Is the top one a Tec 9? They are both dangerous.

Gun A is dangerous to anybody but the person the gun is actually aimed at, and the second is dangerous to the intended target.

Both can kill a man.

[GreenZoneLT]

19. Ammo capacity matters

Gun B is a pretty decent piece of hardware, considering it's made in Eastern Europe. Gun A is a cheap piece of crap. But it has twice the ammo capacity, so you can keep shooting longer before reloading.

So, if I'm planning to randomly spray a group on a street corner, I'd go with gun A, assuming it's in good enough running order that it doesn't jam. If I want to shoot back at someone shooting at me, I'd go with gun B.

BTW, do NOT buy Gun A. A gunsmith I know said he wouldn't work on them because they're so prone to runaway full-auto fire (where they keep shooting even after you release the trigger).

[benEzra]

28. You can get 10-round mags for A, and 30-rounders for B...

the only limit is, if you go over 15 for B, it starts to become less concealable. A 20 wouldn't stick out much, but a 30 would.

[michreject]

22. The CZ is more reliable

ergo, more effective. Tec-9's are junk. IMHO.

[krispos42]

24. gun B

They are both in about the same scale.

The top pistol, a TEC-9, is longer, heavier, and more awkward to carry without any of the advantages of those characteristics. And look at that charging handle sticking out literally like a sore thumb! Made to catch on clothing!

The top pistol has a shorter barrel than the bottom pistol, a CZ75. Because it has a longer barrel, the CZ75 will have more muzzle velocity (and thus momentum and energy) than the same cartridge fired from the TEC-9.

Because the magazine of the CZ75 is in the grip instead of seperate, the CZ75 able to be put into a holster, and it is both shorter and lighter.

And you can get long 30-round magazines for pistols like the CZ75 as well. This in particular is a 9mm Glock pistol with a 32-round magazine.



So, to summerize: The CZ75 is lighter, shorter, more concealable, and more powerful shot-for-shot, and you can get 30-round magazines for them. And as an aside, it's a quality pistol, not like the TEC-9.

[LWolf]

27. Other: Why do I care?

I'm never going to use either one of them. :shrug:

[-..__...]

30. Don't mean a thing...

without the bling...

[Richard Steele]

33. Depends upon WHO is using it. Next question.

[benEzra]

37. Exactly. (n/t)

[Orsino]

39. Yeah, and on how many can be delivered to the combat...

...and maintained in working order. A smaller, lighter weapon may have the edge, ultimately, if it's simpler and cheaper.

[derby378]

38. I used to own Gun A

In retrospect, I chose poorly. Gun B would have been more reliable.

[benEzra]

40. Darn, I just noticed...

that's a CZ, not a Beretta. I never realized how much the grip and trigger guard of a CZ superficially resemble a Beretta 92. Oops!

In my posts above, read "CZ" for "Beretta"...

[Wickerman]

41. locking - now we all know which is most effective

and can sleep better for it. The problem with these threads is that once the question is answered, they turn into gun porn threads, evidence the previous one.