SpudFiles

i have rifles and handguns.

I designed and built a 3/4' pneumatic.

I have no desire to make it look like a store bought gun.

I think that pneumatics should have their own personalities and not look like a firearm.

When you go over a 1"-2" barrel, the firearm appearance becomes a mute point.

FWIW

BoyntonStu

What's the point/discussion topic of this thread?

I don't want my airguns to be identical to a firearm, though I do appreciate a gun-like appearance and feel.

In over 1"-2" the barrel can be disguised as a shroud, a grenade launcher, noob tube and the likes.

inonickname wrote:What's the point/discussion topic of this thread?

I don't want my airguns to be identical to a firearm, though I do appreciate a gun-like appearance and feel.

In over 1"-2" the barrel can be disguised as a shroud, a grenade launcher, noob tube and the likes.

To encourage designs that look un-gunlike.

To validate folks who feel proud of their un-gunlike looking designs.

To voice my humble opinion.

BoyntonStu

P.S. Technician's guns work great and look great, and are as un-gunlike as any gun can be.

Regular firearms look the way they look for a reason....because after hundreds of years of experimentation, the most efficient, ergonomic and safe designs have risen to the top and become defacto.

It's fine with me how someone wants to build their gun as long as it functions properly and is SAFE. However, the more you divert from known and documented norms of firearm designs, the higher likelyhood exists that your design will suffer in some area...such as efficiency, ergonomics, safety.

starman wrote:Regular firearms look the way they look for a reason....because after hundreds of years of experimentation, the most efficient, ergonomic and safe designs have risen to the top and become defacto.

It's fine with me how someone wants to build their gun as long as it functions properly and is SAFE. However, the more you divert from known and documented norms of firearm designs, the higher likelyhood exists that your design will suffer in some area...such as efficiency, ergonomics, safety.

Efficiency: What does adding a stock contribute to efficiency?

Ergonomics: If the gun feels comfortable and there is no kickback problem, what is the issue?

Safety: How does adding a stock increase safety?

i can see where attempting to hide valves etc. within the gun profile, would decrease safety by having to modify their design to fit a 'look'.

There is one safety rule that makes all weapons safe:

'DO NOT POINT THE WEAPON AT ANYTHING OR ANYONE THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO KILL OR DESTROY'

SO you made the to post a simple opinion of yours, and then argue about it with anyone else... GREAT CONTRIBUTION

I personally think that a spudgun should look however the builder wants and for you to say otherwise is like me telling you how to do your hobbies...

Adding a stock contributes to ergonomics, ability to steady aim, and offers a very efficient way to absorb recoil ...all for a low low price. What's your beef with a stock?

Okay Stu.

You go ahead and build something with the chamber end of the barrel resting on your forehead.

I'll stick with convention, and put it into my shoulder.

You try yours...I try mine...and then we'll talk about ergonomics.

Okay?

Efficiency? More than one way to define that too Stu. Speed and ease of aiming might be a good one to consider.

Safety...the hold you have on something is important under recoil. Something like techs canon, might slip away from you under recoil. (watch the videos eh.)

That's not too good IMO, but is pretty unavoidable with something that large as well.

I'm left wondering if you feel slighted in some way because of some response to your own slightly unorthodox design?

Just my .02

Edit: Beaten by the Starman...running with all thrusters in the green again.

Gippeto wrote:You go ahead and build something with the chamber end of the barrel resting on your forehead.

I'll stick with convention, and put it into my shoulder.

You try yours...I try mine...and then we'll talk about ergonomics.

Okay?

OK you got my funny bone with that one....

There's quite a few firearms out there that don't look that different from spudguns:



If it's got a barrel, trigger, stock and sights, it's going to look like some gun or another, and if not a personal weapon, a small artillery piece.

IMO spudguns shouldn't look like real guns because that makes them look more dangerous in the eyes of others

but I have to agree that it's good to have a stock (or at least a part that acts as a stock) and more less the design that's used on traditional guns

POLAND_SPUD wrote:IMO spudguns shouldn't look like real guns because that makes them look more dangerous in the eyes of others

That's the same sort of logic that lead to the "assault weapon" ban in the states, which was basically a law against firearms that looked dangerous and "tactical", when in reality they were no more lethal than their hunting counterparts firing the same ammunition.

It's good to present a more publicly acceptable face, but at the same time it shouldn't be forgotten that most spudguns can be just as lethal as any firearm if abused or taken for granted, so they should always be regarded with the same respect as firearms.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:That's the same sort of logic that lead to the "assault weapon" ban in the states, which was basically a law against firearms that looked dangerous and "tactical", when in reality they were no more lethal than their hunting counterparts firing the same ammunition.

And that particular ban is now thankfully history.

starman wrote:What's your beef with a stock?

I do NOT want it near my face!

A stock is for your chin to rest against.

I don't want my chin anywhere near my gun.

I shoot from the hip. No stock needed.

I was on the rifle team in college and I was in charge of a 40 mm gun crew in the Navy.

i am not slighted in any way by comments that do not agree with me.

i do have over 60 years experience with all sort of weapons.

My only accident was a .25 automatic that double loaded and it shot some brass into my thumb. (Not bad in 60+ years of shooting.)

BoyntonStu

starman wrote:And that particular ban is now thankfully history.

Not in all states.



As for the whole "spud guns that look like guns" debate... I think in form and function it's actually GOOD for them to look like firearms for many of the previously stated reasons (ergonomics, etc.). However, I still feel that it's important to make them clearly distinguishable from firearms. Nobody wants a SWAT team called on them because they had a spud gun and somebody mistook it for something more sinister(*). For that reason, I strongly frown upon those spud guns that are painted black.

In brief: Form and function looks like a firearm? Cool. Coloring to match? NOT cool.




(*) For what it's worth, I've a coworker who actually had this happen to him and ended up with Federal-level firearms charges against him. I guess it all shook out in the end, but who wants to be staring up the barrel of an M-16? Not me!