Forum: Author Hangout

It's also possible to manually chamber a round in a semi-auto pistol before inserting the magazine, giving you one extra shot. This is not advisable with guns that don't have manual safeties.

Except for Glocks. A design feature, recent I believe, is the trigger can't be pulled unless the gun is held. Or so its claimed. Thats why it's the one I carry. With a chambered round.

Another key factor is to never have a finger on the trigger unless you are ready to actually shoot the gun. More accidental shootings occur because that rule is not followed than people would believe. I know its a rule that was made for single action revolvers, but its another example of how a basic rule applies to many things.

I might have said "he removed the same model" instead of compatible, to make sure it was clear the spare magazines would work, but that's a bit of a nit-pick. Otherwise, it works as-is. Most mags are model-specific, although many Glocks can swap mags around in the same caliber.

What are the odds he would have the exact same gun?

It depends. Some models are VERY popular.

Let me know if I screwed up.

It's not a screw up but you might want to know that most police forces converted to semi autos in the 70s and 80s. Hence if the story is set in the present, she wouldn't have been carrying a revolver.

Let me know if I screwed up.

1. Time setting is important. Nearly all US police departments today issue semi-automatics, usually in 9mm Lugar, and usually the make is Glock.

The shift from revolvers to semi-automatics for standard issue duty weapons started in the 1960s.

This article has some useful info on that: http://www.lawenforcement.com/article/5735909-The-history-of-law-enforcement-weapons/

Fun Fact: The iconic pistol carried by the US army was the Colt M1911 in .45ACP (automatic Colt pistol). The 1911 in M1911 is the year it was designed. Semi-automatic pistols have been around longer than most people think. The first commercially successful semi-automatic pistol was designed in 1893.

2. Gun serial numbers are not that easy to file off successfully. Frequently, an acid dip will bring the remains of the number out as the stamp impact affects the whole thickness of the metal to some extent and it will respond slightly differently than the base metal.

ETA:
Also, to defeat attempts to file off serial numbers, many modern guns have the serial number in more than one place. Only one is visible when the gun is fully assembled.
end ETA:

3. A gun with a filed off serial number is seriously illegal. As in federal charges.

While it's almost impossible in the real world to hold cops accountable for violating the law, in your story, you need to think about Cherry's role in the story. Is she a good guy or a bad guy? As a cop, is she crooked or is she clean?

Yeah, much easier to have a gun with a serial number that can't be traced to you.

Yep, Guns are made of some of the hardest steel available today, and the serial numbers are stamped reasonably deep. If you work at it, you might be able to file down the number to where it isn't visible, but a pencil scrubbing on a piece of paper would probably be enough to recover it.

An acid bath will bring it back out even if you manage to file it down enough that a pencil scrubbing won't work.

It's easier to get one off the black market, or for a cop that's looking for an untraceable gun, steal one from the evidence locker.

My cop in my first novel hunts down and kills people. Is he a good guy or a bad guy?

Depends. Are they bad guys. It may be illegal, but just. That was part of the appeal of Death Wish

It may be illegal, but just.

I just can't see cops who see themselves as judge, jury and executioner as good guys anymore.

I just can't see cops who see themselves as judge, jury and executioner as good guys anymore.

The law exists to protect the innocent, not to punish the guilty. It's true. The 4th Amendment(to the extent that it's obeyed) exists to ensure that the innocent are protected. The entire legal system of the US is geared to the same principle. If justice happens to occur, so much the better. But that isn't the legal system's purpose.

So how is justice achieved? Interesting question. And one each individual must answer for himself/herself. And live with the consequences. Personally, I know how far I'd go.

Strange, but it comes down to an individual decision. And in this respect, cops are no different than you or me. Whether in performance of their duty or outside of it.

My opinion. FWIW

The entire legal system of the US is geared to the same principle.

Go look up the Innocence Project some time. If the US legal system is geared to protect the innocent, it's doing a piss poor job of it.

Go look up the Innocence Project some time. If the US legal system is geared to protect the innocent, it's doing a piss poor job of it.

And your point is? Anything invented by man is imperfect. Looking at government throughout history proves the point. The point is that the US system is the first time in history where it was attempted. So at least the human race is making progress. I think....

And your point is?

Our legal system is far worse than simply imperfect, it's become hopelessly corrupt.

The point is that the US system is the first time in history where it was attempted.

Epic Fail!

Epic Fail!

You're underestimating the importance of the attempt.

You're underestimating the importance of the attempt.

Recognizing the importance of the attempt does nothing to fix the broken system we have in practice.

It will never be fixed until we are willing as a nation to admit that the attempt was a failure.

Recognizing the importance of the attempt does nothing to fix the broken system we have in practice.

It will never be fixed until we are willing as a nation to admit that the attempt was a failure.

I never addressed improvements on what we have. Of course it's imperfect. Of course it can be improved. It's our duty to do so.

But my comment was directed at your lack of appreciation at the attempt to address the rights of the innocent. Realize that that had never been attempted. And that is my point. Human history has been improved by the US and what the Founding Father cobbled together. I think that most US citizens don't fully realize that. Nor world citizens for that matter.

I never addressed improvements on what we have. Of course it's imperfect.

Again, you fail to understand. Calling the system imperfect is an epic understatement.

The system as it exists today in practice (not what the founders imagined) is an abject, abysmal, unmitigated failure at protecting the rights of the innocent.

The system is so badly broken and corrupted that the it is likely necessary to start over from scratch to even come close to fixing it.

The system is so badly broken and corrupted that the it is likely necessary to start over from scratch to even come close to fixing it.

Is it? Really? Methinks you're suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. I differ.

And you keep missing my point. That the rights of the innocent had not been addressed adequately ever in history. Grant brought up the Magna Carta and habeus corpus. Neither approached what the Constitution and US jurisprudence introduced to history. Look at what existed in the world when the Constitution was drafted. No comparison. Just no favorable comparison.

That the rights of the innocent had not been addressed adequately ever in history.

I don't deny that, but so what? They are largely ignored now.

Methinks you're suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm suggesting that the baby has been dead for at least 50 years.

I'm suggesting that the baby has been dead for at least 50 years.

To respond to both your posts with questions.

How many innocent prisoners are in jail?

How many guilty are free?

I'd opine that a larger percentage of guilty are free than innocents in jail. That's the price of our system.

Next question. What's your suggestion for improvement? No pie-in-the-sky peace, love and understanding (or some other unrealistic, idealistic) response. I want real, concrete suggestions that have a potential to succeed.

I'll open up and say I don't have a clue here for a response to the previous question. But to jettison what is still a viable solution compared to what exists in Iran, Afghanistan, China, Venezuela, Cuba or some other 3rd world anal orifice just isn't acceptable. Or show me another system that's superior in protecting the rights of the innocent. Not even Canada, Great Britian or Australia, close cousins though they are, can lay claim.

I'm not naive enough to think we're God's gift to the work in this regard either. It's obvious that the system could be better. It's also obvious that the system currently in place doesn't live up to the ideals of 1776. So what? Show me something that does.

Most of your posts seem centered on the fact that we aren't perfect in the implementation of the ideal. Like any system ever is. Methinks you have impossible standards to meet.

Enough said. If you want to consider extending this discussion, may I suggest finding some way to take it to email rather than further hijacking this topic.

may I suggest finding some way to take it to email rather than further hijacking this topic.

I don't consider it a hijack as it goes to the central conflict of the story at hand.

But my comment was directed at your lack of appreciation at the attempt to address the rights of the innocent. Realize that that had never been attempted.

Magna Carta, Habeas corpus come to mind.

Magna Carta, Habeas corpus come to mind.

Agreed. But do either of those compare to the depth of the US's attempt? Those were built upon by the Founding Fathers, and maybe the FF wouldn't have come up with what they did in the absence of those two. But, still, comparatively. Is there a doubt?

If I understand what you are referring to, then I would say the Magna Carta back in 1215 was the first attempt; but there may have been earlier attempts.

A hundred thousand years ago some cavemen-chief might have had the same noble plans ruling his tribe. Words on paper don't mean a lot when at the same time half the country's law abiding citizens are forcing slaves to work their fields.

What slaves?

I'm no historian of American history but weren't from the year 1796 until the end of the civil war in 1865 still quiet a few slaves working in the South of the U.S.?

But what does that have to do with the Magna Carta?

I thought you might be referring to the serfs who labored in fields during the Middle Ages in Europe.

It has nothing to do with the Magna Carta. Like you I was referring to: 'The point is that the US system is the first time in history where it was attempted' (i.e. The Bill of Rights from 1776).

he Magna Carta is England's equivalent and it was signed by King John on June 15, 1215.

And the Magna Carta had as much importance to the reality of the world in 1215 as the Bill of Rights in 1776, or the dreams of a caveman a hundred thousand years before.

You're off by about two decades on that.

Sorry, I wasn't present at the time and simply cited what I read about it.

As Ross already pointed out, the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution ratified in 1791. But the ratification date itself never was in question.

Ratification of the Constitution only required 9 of the 12 states. The ninth state to ratify the Constitution was New Hampshire on June 21st, 1788. The last of the initial 12 states to join the United States was Rhode Island on May 29th, 1790.

http://constitution.laws.com/ratification-of-the-constitution

IMHO the quoted text is misleading, it says 12 states, but then names Rhode Island as the last to join as thirteenth state.
IIRC from the 13 initial states Rhode Island rejected the Constitution outright, then finally joined the other 12 states.

HM.

The Bill of Rights from 1776

The Bill of Rights was not in the original US Constitution. It is the collective name for a swag of Amendments to the Constitution ratified in 1791.
Meanwhile, the French made a similar declaration in 1789 and abolished slavery in their colonies in 1794.

The American experiment was by no means original. I would say the Founding Fathers were students of history and cobbled together a selection of ideas that had been attempted with various levels of success before.

I expect anyone from the Indian subcontinent would laugh at some suggestions made here and point to Ashoka's attempt in the third century BC!

Meanwhile, the French made a similar declaration in 1789 and abolished slavery in their colonies in 1794.

As long as you ignore Haiti the French abolished slavery.
But it took the Haitians fighting against France from 1791 through 1804 to throw off the most brutal practice of slavery in the world.

There have been attempts to protect the innocent and to compensate the injured, but they come in well behind the above three aspects.

I disagree, Ernest. Examine in detail US jurisprudence and you will find an overwhelming emphasis on protecting the rights of the innocent. I am not as familiar with other countries jurisprudence as I am with the US but I challenge you to show me one that assumes innocence to the degree that the US does. I'm not saying that it's better. I'm just saying that it is.

he entire history of laws and law making have had three major aspects, in the following order of importance:

1. Protect the society, and its leaders;

2. Protect the community;

3. Punish the guilty.

You have the list/order wrong.

1. Protect the society, and its leaders;

2. Punish someone, anyone (as long as it's not someone covered by #1);

3. Protect the community;

You have the list/order wrong.

I have to agree. The proof is in where the harshest sentences are imposed by the courts. Query: what was Bernie Madoff's sentence. Remember, all he did was steal. He got 150 years. What mattered is who he stole from.

Now find your typical murder of a black in any inner city.

I rest my case.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The entire history of laws and law making have had three major aspects, in the following order of importance:

Also good for story telling that reasonable people can disagree on so fundamental a question.

The leaders can be crafting the law to protect themselves while at the same time citizens can be violating the law to protect the community and punish the guilty.

The leaders can be crafting the law to protect themselves while at the same time citizens can be violating the law to protect the community and punish the guilty.

Our societies are based on compromises. One of these compromises is to abstain from executing your personal view of justice. Everyone who refuse to accept this compromise moves outside of society borders, as it's one of its most basic rules. The powerful and wealthy, as well as the criminals and vigilantes. There is no glory to achieve and personal justice is a highly doubtful goal.

Our societies are based on compromises. One of these compromises is to abstain from executing your personal view of justice. Everyone who refuse to accept this compromise moves outside of society borders, as it's one of its most basic rules. The powerful and wealthy, as well as the criminals and vigilantes. There is no glory to achieve and personal justice is a highly doubtful goal.

I agree.

The premise is what happens when society becomes so bad that people are tempted to do it themselves. The characters have an opportunity to be quite internally conflicted.

So how is justice achieved? Interesting question. And one each individual must answer for himself/herself. And live with the consequences. Personally, I know how far I'd go.

Strange, but it comes down to an individual decision. And in this respect, cops are no different than you or me. Whether in performance of their duty or outside of it.

I hadn't read down when I commented, but this is what I'm talking about. Interesting point about protecting the innocent. I knew that, but not quite so clearly. I'll steal that idea (name a character after you)

I just can't see cops who see themselves as judge, jury and executioner as good guys anymore.

Excellent example- the Philippines.
No need for a trial; if the cops consider you a drug user or dealer it is perfectly OK for them to kill you if you resist in any way.
Interestingly a large number of minor users & "dealers" have been killed since Duterte came to power; but as for major dealers, importers etc? Well, they can afford to pay the bribes. So no shooting them.
Officially over 3,800 have been killed to date. Unofficially the numbers vary from double to 4 times that.

I just can't see cops who see themselves as judge, jury and executioner as good guys anymore.

I've been working on a dystopian concept for several months, but unfortunately events on the ground are outpacing my imagination.

Picture a situation of growing civil unrest in the United States. I'm planning on using my knowledge of civil breakdowns in many countries over the past century as a guide. Armed gangs, both right and left, vandalize, assault and murder. The police and government are unable or unwilling to stop the violence. Regular folks, who just want a return to a normal life, are caught in the middle. One day your own kid is killed.

If you and your friends know who is in the gangs and know where they are, but the police aren't doing anything about it, does your posse take care of the situation themselves? Is it right or wrong? I want to ask the questions without providing clear answers. If cops are told to stand down while people die around them, will they join in with the vigilantes to restore order? Of course they will be questioning themselves along the way.

When a soldier fires a gun at another soldier and kills that soldier even though that soldier was not pointing or firing their weapon at the first soldier, then that killing is deemed to be acceptable and we define the soldier as a good guy.

Depends on the rules of engagement. Currently US troops are only allowed to return fire even if they see an armed combatant. They can end up in front of a JAG for violating that.

I wanted the magazines she brought with her (in the pouches) to fit the untraceable pistol Steele gave her.

That might be a stretch unless they're the same caliber and same manufacturer.

He asked her if it was a 9mm. Then he asked to see her gun. Only then did he give her a compatible pistol. "Compatible" should cover it. That would mean the same manufacturer or even the same gun.

You might want to add dialogue/verbage to emphasize the point. This is delicate, though. How much detail do you want to include? Too much turns off the average reader. Not enough leaves you with your original dialogue.

Glad I'm a reviewer/editor and not an author. :)

Only then did he give her a compatible pistol.

'He gave her a compatible pistol' is telling. "Here, I've got one of those" is showing, which is better.

'He gave her a compatible pistol' is telling. "Here, I've got one of those" is showing, which is better.

I suggest you be careful about making comments like that here.
1. You're preaching to the choir when you tell EB that, and he's been in the choir much longer than you.
2. Make sure your 9 mm and all other weapons are fully loaded before saying anything like that to those here who are not in the choir.

I suggest you be careful about making comments like that here.

A noble try but I fear you're too late.

Their motives (morality) differentiates them.

I'm happy enough to see that in fiction; in real life I'll take imperfect laws enforced imperfectly any day.

So both Steele and the bad guys had a hidden arsenal of a cache of illegal weapons. Is one really good and one bad? Their motives (morality) differentiates them.

I like it.

That might be a stretch unless they're the same caliber and same manufacturer.

If she has a common weapon and Steele has a large collection he should be able to match it.

I don't spell it out, but Steele has "contacts" from his years working for the government...If the reader doesn't get that... *shrugs* ...it's the fear an author has when they show rather than tell.

Just lay out the facts. Let the readers know by then about his past work and no one should bat an eye if he opens up his weapons closet and says "I have one for you."

Law enforcement love better stopping capability.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical.

.40 S&W with 7.45 g bullet has 500 foot pounds - that close to 50% higher impact.

Law enforcement love better stopping capability.

More foot pounds isn't necessarily better.

Too much energy and you start seeing over penetration. That means the bullet isn't transferring all of it's energy to the target and you can actually loose stopping power vs a lower energy round.

Plus over penetration increases risks to bystanders, which law enforcement should see as a negative (but they don't)

is the bad guys who wear body armour - which is a lot more common now.

It might be more common than it used to be, but it still isn't a tenth as common as the cops would like people to believe.

True, but the guys wearing it are more likely to be killing cops than the majority of those who don't wear armour.

The guys deliberately killing cops are extremely rare.

The US has over 800,000 law enforcement officers. Nationally in 2016 only 66 were killed by felonious (criminal) means.

The vast majority of cops who die on the job are killed in traffic accidents.

And relatively speaking, there isn't that many of them either.

In the US, one of the most violent of the OECD nations, law enforcement doesn't even make the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs. Law enforcement ranks 12th or 13th IIRC. Trash collection rates higher on the list than law enforcement.

More foot pounds isn't necessarily better.

A couple of points in response.

1. I think foot pounds of energy delivered vis-a-vis better control of the weapon. That was partly the reason for the transfer.

2. Penetration can be ameliorated by the type of cartridge used. Cop killer ammo designed to penetrate Kevlar would probably go through 10 houses (and a few of the bodies contained therein) before coming to rest. However, hollow core ammo imparts the vast majority of those foot pounds being delivered to what it hits. In other words, if the bullet exits, it leaves a big hole as its surface upon exit is around 4 times the diameter of the original slug. Even if it does pass through, collateral damage is minimized as velocity is severely degraded.

If you're not a CCW holder, this might be new. But one of the things emphasized in the required courses to obtain same is that you're 100% responsible for whatever leaves your weapon. And I do know that cops face the same standards.

In summary, more footpounds, greater control, appropriate ammo all translate into improvements over existing armature. My earlier post referencing campaign contributions was a sad attempt of humor, which obviously has fallen flatter than a .45 hollow core hitting a brick wall.

That's why the better self-defence people recommend people buy frangible rounds for their normal usage, and only get cheap solids for practice shooting.

Full metal jacket (FMJ) ammo is normally considered range ammo. At least in my experience. Hollow core is self defense ammo at least as I understand it. I'm unfamiliar with Glasser ammo but if improves on the already outstanding performance of hollow cores, sign me up.

ETA: A quick look at the internet shows me how expensive Glasser is. About twice hollow core. Maaaaaaaaaaybe I'll say with hollow core.

In other words, if the bullet exits, it leaves a big hole

If it exits at all, it hasn't transferred all it's energy to the target.

That means a round with lower initial energy could still have the same stopping power.

. And I do know that cops face the same standards.

No, they don't.

If it exits at all, it hasn't transferred all it's energy to the target.

Yes it does as the exit velocity is way lower than the entrance velocity and that difference results, in part, in energy imparted.

No, they don't.

Where I'm at, they're responsible for anything leaving their weapon. However, they do receive much more training regarding being aware of what's behind their intended target.

Yes it does as the exit velocity is way lower

No it does not, if the exit velocity is greater than zero the round still has some of it's initial energy, so the energy wasn't all transferred to the target.

I didn't say it wouldn't transfer any energy to the target, just that it hasn't transferred all of it's energy to the target.

ETA: If a round exits the target with just one foot pound of energy left, a round with one foot pound less initial energy would have exactly the same stopping power.

Where I'm at, they're responsible for anything leaving their weapon.

Then clearly, you do not live in the US.

Then clearly, you do not live in the US.

Yes I do.

I'm assuming, given your ammo stores, that your consumption is high. If so, why not consider reloading?

between my woodworking equipment and other stuff, I just don't have space. (Or the time, honestly.)

My dad did his reloading on a work table in a cellar room. He installed shelves and attached vices and other gadgets to the table.

But if I were reading the story, I wouldn't have known what "racked the slide" meant. Am I better off with the way I wrote it?

Depends on the kind of audience you are expecting to draw. Fans of police dramas will most likely be familiar with the expression already.

I don't know how early in her career you are starting the story.

One way to handle that if you expect a lot of readers not familiar with the expression would be to early in the story, have another character tell her to "rack the slide" then use the description "She pulled the slide back and released it" to introduce readers to the expression, then you can use the expression later in the story in the narrative having introduced it to the readers.

A couple of possible scene setups for this are:

1. Cops have to be certified in proficiency with their sidearms. They have to be periodically re-certified. How often varies from department to department. Early in the story, add a scene with her at the range and have the instructor handling her re-certification use the phrase.

2. Have her partner use it while they are prepping for the day at the precinct.

And I added the "to load a round into the chamber" for others ignorant about semi-automatic pistols. Is it redundant to have that part?

Maybe, maybe not. The actions involved in racking the slide would also be used when unloading the weapon if there was a live round in the chamber.

You would eject the magazine, then pull back and release the slide. Of course in this case, if there is no magazine, or an empty magazine in the weapon, the slide will lock open, rather than closing.

Of the top of my head, I don't know if the "rack the slide" expression applies to this case.

Another possibility for a cop, is if they take a weapon off a suspect, they might rack the slide just to see if there was a round in the chamber or not.

And I added the "loading a round into the chamber" for others ignorant about semi-automatic pistols. Is it redundant to have that part?

I cannot find that meaning in dictionaries, so I think you definitely need an explanation.
It could be just, '... she racked the slide to load a round', or perhaps 'the first round'.

I want the woman to load a round into the chamber. I wrote:

Cherry unholstered the semi-automatic pistol Steele had given her. Pointing the muzzle up, she pulled the slide back and released it, loading a round into the chamber. "Let's go."

In this situation why not then remove the magazine and load a new round into it so she still has a full magazine?

HM.

Cherry unholstered the pistol Steele had given her. Making sure it wasn't pointed at him, she pulled the slide back to lock and then hit the release. She checked the trigger pull, knowing that a single dry fire wouldn't harm anything. Liking what she felt, she then loaded a magazine and racked the slide again. "Let's go.

It sounds you took a look inside Cherry's mind. I guess Switch will be jealous.

It sounds you took a look inside Cherry's mind. I guess Switch will be jealous.

I guess Switch will be okay so long as he doesn't attempt to look inside that blouse.

Yeah, I thought that was head-hopping.

Cherry could nod before saying, "Let's go" which would indicate she found all to be well, but it would likely exclude the 'single dry fire' comment.

I wanted it to have more impact than that. This is what leads up to it:

Looks good. Cherry seems very business like.

I want the woman to load a round into the chamber. I wrote:

Cherry unholstered the semi-automatic pistol Steele had given her. Pointing the muzzle up, she pulled the slide back and released it, loading a round into the chamber. "Let's go."

If she's experienced with handguns, the FIRST thing she would have done, BEFORE holstering any weapon, would have been to at the very least, do a 'press check' to see if there was a round in the chamber. A 'press check' is a partial rack of the slide, enough to visibly confirm the presence of a round in firing position. Some guns have a loaded chamber indicator that's visible from the exterior, some have a space where you can see a portion of the chambered round, many have neither. She would have, most likely, dropped the mag as well, to visually confirm her round count, and check any safety that might be present and engaged - again, all this would be done in seconds, as soon as she came into possession of the weapon, well before she would holster a fresh gun. Most have a habit of doing this even to their own guns, even knowing their status, because it's just ingrained that deeply. Trust, but verify.

She didn't check the chamber, but Steele told her it was empty. I'm going to keep it that way. My audience isn't gun experts, but those who are, I don't want glaring mistakes.

There is a glaring mistake, according to what doctor_wing_nut said above.
Nobody who was very familiar with guns would accept anyone else's word on whether a gun they were being given was loaded.
They would go into autopilot as soon as they receive it and check for themselves before saying anything.

Okay, fixed it.

Okay, but don't trust me.
I've only ever fired one shot in my life. The darn things scare the bejesus out of me.

I've only ever fired one shot in my life. The darn things scare the bejesus out of me.

Haven't fired a rifle since I was about 21. Started practicing at at 6, out in the woods hunting at 12.

Okay, fixed it.

That works well enough. Again, don't want to nit-pick the scene to death, I think most folks will be good with that.

For the purists, what would typically happen goes something like this:

The person offering the weapon will drop the mag, rack the slide open to ensure and display an empty chamber, and the weapon would lock open (if there WAS a round in the chamber, it would be ejected upon doing this). Most all semi-auto pistols will lock open on an empty or missing mag and chamber. Then, they would pass all the components to the other party (this is called condition 4), who would now KNOW the status for a certainty, and THEY would decide if they wanted to carry it with a round chambered (condition 0,1, or 2) or, as you describe, no round chambered (condition 3).

Probably TMI, but at least now you know, so when some nitwit sends you a snarky comment you can impress the snot out of 'em with your leet skillz.

http://concealednation.org/2015/08/firearm-condition-readiness-condition-0-condition-1-condition-2-condition-3-condition-4-what-do-they-all-mean/

My audience isn't gun experts, but those who are, I don't want glaring mistakes.

That's why the characters in my stories are only allowed to play with blades and blunt trauma weapons.

But you miss out on all the copulatory metaphors about Steele putting his pistol in Cherry's holster ;)

Bah, I've swords sheathing scabbards and daggers piercing soft flesh. Who needs pistols and holsters?

But you miss out on all the copulatory metaphors about Steele putting his pistol in Cherry's holster ;)

But you can have copulatory metaphors about Steele sheathing his sword in her scabbard instead. :)

a strong name for the character.

Jack Armstrong

Jack Armstrong

The Throwin' Samoan

Now I'm confused. I thought "semi-automatic" meant that once a round is in the chamber all you have to do is pull the trigger.

Technically, all modern firearms (even full auto) have a hammer, it's what drives the firing pin forward into the primer on the cartridge in the chamber.

Most semi-auto's (pistol or long guns) don't have exposed visible hammers, but a few do.

Generally racking the slide on a semi-auto pistol will automatically cock the hammer.

However, on any semi-auto with an exposed hammer, it is possible to hold the hammer with your thumb, pull the trigger, and then gently set the hammer down on a chambered round so that it doesn't fire.

This is sometimes done as a secondary safety for carrying with a round in the chamber, as thumbing the hammer to re-cock it is faster than racking the slide.

But if there's a round in the chamber, you don't have to cock the hammer.

You might need to for the first shot, if and only if the semi-auto has an exposed hammer and you deliberately set the hammer down on the loaded chamber.

Which isn't the case in the novel. I definitely don't want to overcomplicate it.

Which is a good idea, but you might need to know some of these things to avoid accidentally over complicating it.

Browning Hi Power pistol was double action.

The original FN Herstal Belgium Hi Power was single action only.
Later models (early 80's) introduced in the US were double action.

When I started this novel I thought a clip and a magazine were the same. See how far I've progressed?

Let me throw this in then to further add to your confusion (I'm nothing if not helpful :) ) -- with handguns, magazine and clip are often synonymous, though not so with shoulder weapons. Go figure.

I believe that a lot of US soldiers used box magazines during the Vietnam war, and they also had stripper clips for speed loading of the magazines.

The US military has 10 round stripper clips for quick loading 30 round M16 magazines. They are still in use today.

The stripper clip is more familiar to most people than the en bloc clip due to the stripper clip being used to load the M1 Garand and Lee-Enfield rifles.

True, but the en-block clip is probably the source of the confusion between clip and magazine.

A box magazine for a firearm consists of 4 major parts, the shell, the block which holds the cartridges in position, the feeder plate, and the spring.

The spring pushes the feeder plate up which pushes the rounds towards the top of the magazine so the top round is in position to be caught by the bolt as the bolt comes forward and can then push the cartridge into the chamber. This is true of every box magazine regardless of the action type.

Typically, the box magazine is all one piece whether it is integral to the weapon or it's removable.

With rifles designed for an en block clip, the magazine is split into two pieces. The shell, spring and feeder plate are integral to the weapon, but the block is a separate removable piece that is called a clip.

With a stripper clip, the clip it placed on the top back edge of the magazine and the rounds are pushed down into the magazine removing them from the clip.

With an en block clip, the entire clip is put into the weapon, completing the integral magazine.

Here is a video that shows how an en block clip works with an early bolt action rifle that used that style of magazine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwH1RwIboeY

Only because many people misuse the term clip

Ernest,
My comment isn't directed at correct usage but what I've seen as common verbiage. That's how language ends up evolving, i.e. words start taking on different meaning. There are a lot of words from the 50s/60s having totally different meanings in the modern world (need I mention gay?). And check out English from Colonial American times to current US spoken English. In any case, I think that's whats happening here. Not saying you're incorrect, Ernest. You're not. But it is what it is.