Page 14 of 34 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 560 of 1350
Like Tree1028Likes

Thread: Guns and Ammo Thread

  1. #521
    RaginCajun's Avatar
    RaginCajun is offline Pissing Excellence!
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Deep Down South
    Posts
    23,624

    Guns and Ammo Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by almostgone View Post
    What scope are you running, RC?
    Currently an older Photon X, at least that’s what I think it is. It’s kinda cool, I bought an external recorder for it so I can video while I’m looking through it. Haven’t taken anything with it since I purchased the video recorder but looking forward to it. Also looking into thermal as the prices are starting to get better.
    almostgone likes this.

  2. #522
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is online now AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    26,239
    Thought that body looked like a Photon. Sounds like you're happy with it?
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  3. #523
    flexin-rph's Avatar
    flexin-rph is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    the drug store
    Posts
    609
    Guns and Ammo Thread-20200509_165727.jpgGuns and Ammo Thread-20200509_165721.jpg

    Always ready for zombie apocolypse....

  4. #524
    Ernst's Avatar
    Ernst is offline Borderline Personality
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    19,171
    Not bad but I think you need a Glock or two to round out your collection.

  5. #525
    flexin-rph's Avatar
    flexin-rph is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    the drug store
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
    Not bad but I think you need a Glock or two to round out your collection.
    Lol I have another beside my bed & one I keep beside me at work.
    Ernst likes this.

  6. #526
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by SampsonandDelilah View Post
    Have you seen the .950 JDJ?

    Holy shit...


    https://youtu.be/8WiLqPB4lU0
    You know they only ever built two copies of that rifle, right? Like 90% of everything JD Jones has created, it's worthless apart from it creating publicity for him. He claimed it was the largest and most powerful rifle cartridge ever created, when in fact it was neither. It's not nearly capable enough a cartridge to justify having to live with an 80-freakin-pound rifle.

    Even the .300 Blackout -- the closest to a commercially successful cartridge JDJ has ever created -- makes me scratch my head because if you load it supersonic, it's a wimpy .30-cal (600 fps slower than the .30 Remington AR with the same weight bullet, and the .30 RAR also will fit in an AR15 platform) and subsonic it's near worthless because there are so few .30 rifle bullets that will expand properly at those low velocities. You'll actually get better terminal performance from most .30 rifle bullets at SSS velocities by shooting them ass-backwards, base-first, because without some serious shock wave helping the cause, the blunt end tears up more meat than the pointy end. They're also easier to stabilize when fired backwards.

    With all that speaking against it, I'm dumbstruck that it ever got popular enough to be SAAMI standardized.

  7. #527
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    I watch a lot of old B&W movies because I love that they had to use something besides profanity, boobies and baby space aliens hatching out of somebody's chest to entertain. Last week I was watching one of those old films about a Royal Air Force pilot who lost both his legs in a crash between the World Wars but defied the odds to continue flying (with artificial legs) and became a major influence on British dog fighting tactics during WWII. During the film his character said something that struck me as profound.

    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

    I looked up the quote and found that it was something the real guy was fond of saying but he was quoting a fellow RAF pilot. Anyway, a day or two later I thought of that quote after I'd come across two separate gun bloggers who were making a point of dumping on what they considered to be instances of unsafe gun handling they had found on the 'web because some random guy was muzzle sweeping himself. However, in both cases there was a complete absence of any evidence to either confirm or deny that the gun handler in question had taken adequate precautions to "safe" the weapon beforehand.

    EDIT:
    Actually, that wasn't exactly true. On reflection, one of the two shooters in question was showing an empty magazine well and had an empty chamber flag in the breech. In that condition it would be more dangerous as a club than as a firearm, so I take exception to the claim that he was doing something unsafe by placing it pointed at himself.
    [/Edit]


    And everybody knows Jeff Cooper's four rules of gun safety, right?

    1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
    2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
    3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.
    4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.

    But here's the thing. Col. Cooper wasn't the prophet Moses. Those rules weren't inscribed on stone tablets by the finger of G-d, they were written by a man, a human man. And the greater community of shooters and guns owners decided many decades ago that sometimes those rules need. not. apply.

    First example. At least two of the widely accepted CCW methods -- shoulder holsters and appendix inside the waistband -- have us routinely muzzle sweeping either bystanders or ourselves.



    With the gun carried horizontally, you sashay around muzzle-sweeping everyone who happens to be behind you. But even if the holster carries the gun vertically, you can't produce it and train it on the target without muzzle sweeping about a third of the planet in the doing. Which is exactly why some LEAs -- Secret Service for one -- forbid shoulder holsters.

    It's all the rage now but there's nothing new about "appendix" carry because people have been sticking their gun in the front of their pants probably ever since there've been handguns. But the simple fact is you can't carry AIWB without pointing the muzzle at your own wedding tackle and/or lower extremities. Yet nobody rags on the companies that make and sell AIWB holsters.

    Then there's this:



    At this moment, somewhere on this planet, there's somebody shooting clay pigeons who's resting the muzzle of his shotgun on the toe of his shoe. It's simply "the done thing." You can even buy a thingamabob to put on the top of your shoe so you don't get a grease and gunpowder muzzle ring on it.



    I'll grant you those skeet shooters are using top-break shotguns with the breeches opened but A) it's still a firearm, and B) not everyone who shoots clays uses a top break. When I was younger, and before liability loomed so large, every trap and skeet range of any size in the country rented out semi-auto Remington 1100s, and it still was permitted to rest the auto's muzzle on your foot, provided the breech was locked open.

    I still shoot a few rounds of skeet every year with an autoloading shotgun in the weeks leading up to the opening of dove season to get the cobwebs out of my follow-through, and I have two of those toe protector thingamabobs that I use. The range where I shoot is operated by a friend who also is a professional skeet, trap and sporting clays referee, and I can assure you he would tear me a new asshole if I did anything he considered unsafe while on his range. And I habitually rest the muzzle of my 12-gauge on the toe of my shoe instead of keeping my sweaty hands in contact with its beautiful blued steel.

    I've tried to research the practice and see when it began and all I could find was that it already was "the norm" before the turn of the 20th Century. So it's been going on for at least 120 years (that I can account for) and yet the vast majority of clays shooters still have two intact feet.

    And there's very little to do with firearms that doesn't come to us by way of the military, so they would never institutionalize any practice that amounted to unsafe handling of a firearm, would they?



    This is the Inspection Arms during the Changing of the Guard ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. FF to about 50 seconds and you'll see the inspecting officer looking down the muzzle of the guard's weapon (for the record, and popular myth to the contrary notwithstanding, the guards DO NOT carry any live ammunition).

    Which raises still another point. Are the bores in you guns clean? How do you know, unless you looked down them? And when you checked them, did you disassemble the weapon and remove the barrel before checking it, or did you simply lock the breech open or open the cylinder before looking? And how was that not an unsafe act?

    With all respect to the ghost of Col. Cooper, sometimes there is such a thing as safe enough.

    Also for the record, I do not think taking exceptions to any of those rules is a good thing. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to take any of those exceptions to Col. Cooper's Rule #2. But if this were a perfect world we wouldn't need governments, policemen, self-defense firearms, or rules for firearm safety in the first place.

    All that said, here's my point. Anybody who blogs about firearms is putting themselves forward as some fashion of an authority on the subject. But in a time when 2A and RKBA are under such extreme threats, you are NO FRIEND to the community if you seek to enhance your own position by beating up on some hapless gun guy (who doesn't even have a platform to use to rebut your allegations) when you don't/can't know to a certainty whether he was doing anything unsafe to begin with. And it's in general pretty gutless to kick someone who can't defend themselves.

    So if you come across some self-anointed safety expert railing on another gun guy when it isn't necessarily deserved (or they're doing it entirely for their own aggrandizement), I would encourage you to take the time to bust their chops for it. Because the gun community has more than enough external enemies, and we should self-police to get the idiots out of our midst whenever and wherever possible. Or at least get them to clean up their act.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 05-12-2020 at 07:44 PM.

  8. #528
    C27H40O3 is offline Admin Sent Me Away.
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    a land far from here.
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by flexin-rph View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200509_165727.jpg 
Views:	170 
Size:	1.28 MB 
ID:	178758Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200509_165721.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	1.30 MB 
ID:	178759

    Always ready for zombie apocolypse....
    Note the handguns arranged by grip size


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #529
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    For the "gadget geeks" among us, I just found an article at Locked Back-dot-Com about a four-year study conducted by a gun training company called Sage Dynamics regarding practicality of use of red dot sights on handguns. I looked up the registry information on their two web sites to see if the former might be a shill for the latter but I couldn't tell either way.

    Also, I can't tell how old this article is because the idiots didn't bother to date either the article or the linked study. The report itself states the 4-year study was begun in 2014, which would mean the study and the article both might be as much as two years old. Also, the data comes from testing under controlled conditions (laid out in detail in the complete report), not "real-world" shootings. And FWIW the overarching focus was on the efficacy of use of red dots for use by law enforcement officers.

    I also should note the possibility of some confirmation bias on my part because owing to the many gifts of Father Time, I recently switched to a red dot on my EDC. But my academic interest in the topic predates that by more than a decade because I learned while I was working in Iraq that the army had concluded that since its 1991 adoption of the ACOG that the per-round hit probability for the grunts had doubled (x2). Which has YUGE implications to the outcome of any firefight and the odds of survival for any red dot equipped soldier. Not to mention the logistics system because it will (somewhat) decrease ammunition expenditure for any given firefight.

    If this is of interest I would recommend you read at least the linked article (if not the 60+page report itself) but here's the upshot.

    Total shots fired in the test was 553, 262 from red dot-sighted guns and 292 from iron sights. The use of red dot sights increased the per-round hit probability by 15% (also decreasing the per-round miss probability by 15%), increased the per-round probability of a hit to a critical area by 34%, also increasing the per-hit probability of a gsw to a critical area by 42%.

    So based on their conclusions, the red dot sights increase the individual officer's odds of surviving the encounter, decrease the number of times a suspect might have to be shot to incapacitate him, and reduces risk to bystanders from out-and-out misses.

    The study also addresses the potential for red dot sight failure. They conducted their own drop testing with the (admittedly limited) selection of red dots they used, detailing the ones that failed and suggesting how training could be adapted to increase the shooter's effectiveness with a failed red dot. Of the sights they tested, based on drop-test failures, they concluded that duty use should be limited to Trijicon RMR and Leupold Delta Point sights. And believe it or not, there also were 'mechanical' failures of batteries, too. Meaning it didn't run out of juice, it just broke. The only battery tested that didn't fail (apart from exhausting its charge) was the Duracell.

    In all, they concluded that in light of the improvements to shooter shooter precision, the red dots were robust enough to be warranted for use on duty handguns. The linked article offers this three-point summary:

    1. Quality modern red dots are durable
    2. Handgun red dots allow the focus to remain on target
    3. Handgun red dots improve accuracy

    (he writes "accuracy" but he means "precision")
    Ernst and Proximal like this.

  10. #530
    flexin-rph's Avatar
    flexin-rph is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    the drug store
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by C27H40O3 View Post
    Note the handguns arranged by grip size


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Yeah, I'm kind of OCD that way....in order in caliber from G42 .380 to the 10mm & .45acp & .45gap lol

  11. #531
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    One other prominent exception to Rule #2 of firearm safety I forgot to note. This is called "Reverse Arms" and is part of manual of arms/drill and ceremonies of every member of the British Commonwealth:



    It's a position of honor and mourning used at memorial services, like at annual service held at the memorial for the WWI Battle of Passchendaele (combined losses for Central and Allied casualties over the 3-month campaign was between 450,000 and 850,000).

    The photo above is Aussies in a modified position of Parade Rest. "Arms Reversed" (below) is an alternative to "shoulder arms" used when marching at the same sorts of memorial services:


    click to embiggen

    British soldiers carrying SMLEs at Arms Reversed forming a corridor of honor for the casket of a fallen comrade. The difference is this is a position used when marching in formation. Which would mean each soldier is pointing the muzzle of his rifle at the kneecaps of the soldier in the rank behind him.

    The US Army's drill & ceremonies included a position of reversed arms until the late 19th Century.

  12. #532
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    You really should make your ablutions before even looking at this photo, because it truly is the Holy of Holies:



    This is the original prototype of the Colt 1911, hand-made by John Moses Browning himself (peace be upon him). In the Browning museum in Ogden.


    The blued-steel Colt
    The new steel Colt
    She runs to stunts erratic
    For she's a darn
    Tough arm to learn
    This Army automatic.

    Yet when you get to know this arm
    and how to coax and pet her,
    She'll do her duty like a charm
    No Gun will serve you better
    She'll stick right closely by your side
    And as the fight grows hotter
    And you are caught in battle's tide--
    You'll thank your stars you've got her.

    The lusty Colt, The trusty Colt,
    The weapon democratic,
    Whose vicious might
    Makes men one height--
    The Army automatic.

    --Songs of the Training Camps


    You may commence drooling.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 05-26-2020 at 12:39 PM.
    almostgone likes this.

  13. #533
    C27H40O3 is offline Admin Sent Me Away.
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    a land far from here.
    Posts
    1,139
    He even put a lanyard loop on it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #534
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    What's amazing about Browning is how long so many of his designs have endured when he didn't spend an inordinate amount of time doing R&D to make sure his designs were durable. The 1911, the M1919 .30-cal MG, the Ma Deuce .50-cal MG, and the HP-35 9mm all are more than 80 years old (some >100) and sill in service somewhere in some military or LEA essentially unchanged from his design. And basically he just ginned up a design in his head, roughed it out by hand and put the parts together to see how it worked. Adjust to smooth out the rough edges and build a prototype.

    When I was trained as an armored cavalryman we still were using M-60 tanks, the commander's cuppola of which was armed with a GE-mfgrd M85 .50-cal MG. Because GE had convinced DoD they could build a heavy MG that was better and cheaper than Browning's M2. Except it was a piece of shit. So comes the M1 Abrams tank and guess what? They ditched the M85 and went back to the 60+ year-old Ma Deuce.

    A couple of months ago the army found a Ma Deuce with the serial number 324. 3-2-4. Which made it more than 90 years old. Still seeing regular service despite the fact that it had never been to depot-level maintenance for overhaul. 90 years use with nothing but cleaning and lubing.

    Eight years ago the Marines ditched the 9mm Beretta 92 and went back to Browning's 101-year-old .45 ACP 1911.

    The only two weapons that have been in the US's military inventory longer than Browning's Ma Deuce are his 1911 pistol and the Marine officer's dress sabre. The army's sabre is slightly older, and both are strictly ceremonial (in truth, by the time of the War Between the States, sabres already were being made too light to be an effective weapon) but the difference is the USMC still issues sabres. In the army you have to buy your own, and that's optional so hardly anybody does except the hard-core cavalry pukes. Garry Owen 'n shit.

    The obvious conclusion is that either JMB was the luckiest son of a bitch who ever designed a firearm or he was pure, natural-born genius.



    Rock Island Auction has a 1911 that provably was carried by a Marine Corps combat photographer on Iwo Jima, the one battle that more than any other is responsible for the mystique of the Corps. The same Marine received the Bronze Star medal for combat actions in the Marianas campaign, so the mere fact he was a "photographer" obviously did not dissuade him engaging the enemy. So it is highly likely that this example took Japanese lives on Iwo.

    85% finish and otherwise shows it's a well-used tool. Expected to fetch a few thousand. I'd like to see it end up in the NRA's museum in DC.
    The road likes this.

  15. #535
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575

  16. #536
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is online now AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    26,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    What's amazing about Browning is how long so many of his designs have endured when he didn't spend an inordinate amount of time doing R&D to make sure his designs were durable. The 1911, the M1919 .30-cal MG, the Ma Deuce .50-cal MG, and the HP-35 9mm all are more than 80 years old (some >100) and sill in service somewhere in some military or LEA essentially unchanged from his design. And basically he just ginned up a design in his head, roughed it out by hand and put the parts together to see how it worked. Adjust to smooth out the rough edges and build a prototype.

    When I was trained as an armored cavalryman we still were using M-60 tanks, the commander's cuppola of which was armed with a GE-mfgrd M85 .50-cal MG. Because GE had convinced DoD they could build a heavy MG that was better and cheaper than Browning's M2. Except it was a piece of shit. So comes the M1 Abrams tank and guess what? They ditched the M85 and went back to the 60+ year-old Ma Deuce.

    A couple of months ago the army found a Ma Deuce with the serial number 324. 3-2-4. Which made it more than 90 years old. Still seeing regular service despite the fact that it had never been to depot-level maintenance for overhaul. 90 years use with nothing but cleaning and lubing.

    Eight years ago the Marines ditched the 9mm Beretta 92 and went back to Browning's 101-year-old .45 ACP 1911.

    The only two weapons that have been in the US's military inventory longer than Browning's Ma Deuce are his 1911 pistol and the Marine officer's dress sabre. The army's sabre is slightly older, and both are strictly ceremonial (in truth, by the time of the War Between the States, sabres already were being made too light to be an effective weapon) but the difference is the USMC still issues sabres. In the army you have to buy your own, and that's optional so hardly anybody does except the hard-core cavalry pukes. Garry Owen 'n shit.

    The obvious conclusion is that either JMB was the luckiest son of a bitch who ever designed a firearm or he was pure, natural-born genius.



    Rock Island Auction has a 1911 that provably was carried by a Marine Corps combat photographer on Iwo Jima, the one battle that more than any other is responsible for the mystique of the Corps. The same Marine received the Bronze Star medal for combat actions in the Marianas campaign, so the mere fact he was a "photographer" obviously did not dissuade him engaging the enemy. So it is highly likely that this example took Japanese lives on Iwo.

    85% finish and otherwise shows it's a well-used tool. Expected to fetch a few thousand. I'd like to see it end up in the NRA's museum in DC.


    Browning was an absolute genius. He revolutionized the firearm world

    Inventive as a child, Browning made his first gun at the age of 13 in his father’s gun shop. In 1879 he patented a self-cocking single-shot rifle, which he and his brother Matthew sold to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company.
    The road likes this.
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  17. #537
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    Hawkins: Last Night We Saw Why Americans Own 16+ Million AR-15s

    As televisions and computers showed a fourth day of protesters turned rioters Saturday, looting and destroying property, it was readily apparent why Americans own 16+ million AR-15s....

  18. #538
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    Hawkins: Last Night We Saw Why Americans Own 16+ Million AR-15s

    As televisions and computers showed a fourth day of protesters turned rioters Saturday, looting and destroying property, it was readily apparent why Americans own 16+ million AR-15s....
    curious where y'all stand on what types of weapons citizens should be able to possess...

    like:
    knives yes guns no
    or knives yes handguns yes assault rifles no
    or assault rifles yes bazookas no
    or bazookas yes tanks no

    Somewhere a line must be drawn or else we'll have people armed with nuclear bombs one day.
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 06-01-2020 at 04:02 PM.

  19. #539
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is online now AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    26,239
    An asssult riffe is somewhat of a misnomer, IMHO. Look at a Ruger Mini 14 or Mini 30. Basically the same capabilities as a semi-automatic AR style rifle or semi-automatic AK-47, but doesn't have reputation that military style arms do.

    Truth be known, in my part of the country, it's the gang bangers you have to watch ( no race intended in that). They go out of their way to steal or divert weaponry and ordnance from the US military...I'm not talking ammo, either.
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  20. #540
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,649
    I am not anti-gun.
    I don't have one true.
    But I choose not to have one.

    I do think that certain loopholes should be closed as far as how easy it is to obtain guns.
    I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere. Let's say left of bazooka by far.

    As far as not knowing what an assault rifle is... I am truly ignorant to that whole world.
    Fired a pistol at a range once and instantly saw how addictive the power was. (to me... probably to others too.)

    But I do believe in guns being part of America.
    Kinda like country and Tito's vodka.

    Little known fact that George Washington himself had his glass of Tito's before bed everynight.
    almostgone likes this.

  21. #541
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is online now AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    26,239
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    I am not anti-gun.
    I don't have one true.
    But I choose not to have one.

    I do think that certain loopholes should be closed as far as how easy it is to obtain guns.
    I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere. Let's say left of bazooka by far.

    As far as not knowing what an assault rifle is... I am truly ignorant to that whole world.
    Fired a pistol at a range once and instantly saw how addictive the power was. (to me... probably to others too.)

    But I do believe in guns being part of America.
    Kinda like country and Tito's vodka.

    Little known fact that George Washington himself had his glass of Tito's before bed everynight.
    Although I wouldn't turn my nose up if I were gifted with a Carl Gustav and ordnance, I agree it really isn't required for most self defense situations.

    I like the way you thing, Dawg. You don't own a firearm, but that's because you choose not to own one, not because your anti-gun.
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  22. #542
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    Assault weapon was the term the Klinton administration created from whole cloth. And their definition was based entirely on cosmetic features that had nothing to do with lethality. Every goddam weapon ever created -- truncheons, crossbows, trebuchets, Molotov cocktails, halberds, bali-song knives -- everything -- was made for assaulting so "assault weapon" is a redundancy.

    However, in military parlance, an assault rifle is a legitimate thing. It's a select-fire (meaning it can function as either semi-auto or full auto) rifle (or carbine) chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power, like 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39. This is a new (post-WWII) thing because up until WWII armies ran on something they called a "battle rifle," which could be a bolt gun or semi-auto but was chambered in a "full-powered" cartridge, like .30-06 Springfield, .303 British, 8mm Mauser, 7.62 Russian or 7.7x58.

    As regards the Second Amendment, George Mason's writings in his own time make it perfectly clear what the 2A's intent was. The Founding Fathers feared the role of a standing army in suppressing (lawful and constitutional) disquiet among the citizenry so much that all standing armies were only authorized by temporary acts of Congress and for only two years duration. The government operated more than a century with only these temporary armies before they made them perpetual. Mason explained repeatedly that 2A was meant to enumerate the right of the citizen to meet a rogue military with whatever arm that military was bringing to bear against them.


    Of late the hoplophobes have tried to raise the argument that the founding fathers could never have conceived of any weapon with the firepower of an AR-15 (the "A" in AR-15, BTW, stands for Armalite, not assault), therefore 2A should not be regarded as approval of them. But to imply that the Founding Fathers had no concept of a repeating weaponry is to display sheer ignorance of the history of firearms.

    Thomas Jefferson owned a Girandoni 20 or 22 shot repeating air rifle and all 20 shots could be discharged in about as many seconds. You shouldn't scoff at the fact it was an air rifle because 1) firearms at that time had a very fickle ignition system, which the air rifle did not, 2) the Girandoni fired a 46-caliber ball with about the same energy as a .38 Special, so it was quite lethal, and 3) the same Girandoni was the standard-issue infantry rifle of the Austrian army. Jefferson was so fond of it he saw to it that Lewis and Clark were equipped with two of them before they set out on the Corps of Discovery, and those evolved to become their primary meat-getting guns, for a number of reasons.

    George Washington obviously knew about them as well, even during the War for Independence, because in 1777 he signed a contract with inventor Joseph Belton to buy 100 of his flintlock rifles that used a "superposed charges" principle, much the same as the modern Metal Storm family of arms. But Washington backed out of the deal because Belton was asking for "unreasonable compensation."

    There are no known surviving Belton rifles but this is a photo of the 'sliding' action of a Ellis-Jennings Repeating Flintlock Rifle, a copy of the Belton design that they sold to the New York State Commissary General in 1829. Even half a century after Washington shit-canned the deal, it still was a very avant-garde design.


    Click to embiggen

    Going back before that, even before the metallic cartridge had been invented, a London lawyer named James Puckle invented what was essentially an oversized flintlock revolver he hoped to sell to the navy to be used to repel boarders.



    Going back even further, in 1680 an Italian gun designer named Michele Lorenzoni was selling a lever-action repeating flintlock rifle. It had no need of a cartridge because as its lever was cycled it would first load the ball from an internal chamber followed by the charge of gunpowder from a separate chamber.


    Lorenzoni repeating rifles

    An Englishman named John Cookson made copies of the Lorenzoni repeater in his shop in London in the late 1600s. Some made as early as 1690 still exist.

    An Englishman named John Shaw set up shop in Boston in about 1750 selling copies of the Lorenzoni/Cookson repeating rifle under the name "Shaw's Cookson Volitional Repeater." And his product obviously would have been known to any man of letters from the Boston area at the time of the Revolution.

    Back further still, the Kalthoff family of Denmark was selling a lever-action flintlock repeating rifle that operated in a manner similar to the Lorenzoni, possibly as early as 1630. The Kalthoffs were a wealthy family who made gun barrels as a spin-off from their iron works. Apparently they didn't design the gun but it became known as the Kalthoff repeater because they manufactured it but who designed it remains a mystery.


    action of a Kalthoff repeater

    (split to skirt six-image limit)
    almostgone and GearHeaded like this.

  23. #543
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    (continued to skirt six-image limit)

    Back further still, a late 14th Century Chinese military historical work called the Huolongjing depicted a weapon it called the "divine fire arrow shield," which was basically a box full of big-ass bottle rockets with arrowheads on them.



    What all this clearly demonstrates is that even back before anyone thought to build a firearm that shot a projectile out of a barrel, they already were dreaming of a gun that could shoot a shitload of projectiles in a big damn hurry. All they were lacking was the technology to make the dream possible.

    So anyone who contends that 2A shouldn't apply because the FFs couldn't conceive of an AR-15 is either an ignoramus or a liar.

    The only reason machine guns ever became a restricted item (no, they're not illegal, just difficult to buy) is because the gangsters in the Roaring 20s got hold of the Tommy guns that Thompson couldn't get the military to buy. Like I'm sure Capone and his boys would have complied if there had been a law against it.

    Before that, Sears sold the Tommy gun out of its catalog. No shit. Ace Hardware sold fully-automatic rifles. With no paperwork. It was never a problem until the gangsters got hold of them.

    And it's still argued to this day whether the 1934 Gun Control Act was constitutional because on the face of it it violates both the 2nd and 10th Amendments. But that shouldn't be surprising because it was passed when the first unabashed socialist occupied the White House, plus there were demoncrat majorities in both chambers of the Congress and a liberal majority on SCOTUS.

    According to data made public by the ATF, there are on the order of a quarter of a MILLION (!!!) civilian-owned machine guns in the US. Since the enactment of the 1934 GCA, there have been exactly two (2) murders committed with a lawfully-possessed machine gun and in both cases the criminal was an officer of the law (comes to one murder every 42.5 years).

    There also are civilians who own bazookas. And tanks. And jet fighter planes. But you don't often hear about them in the news because they don't do anything criminal with them, so it doesn't suit the mainstream media's political agenda.

    There's a reason we call criminals criminals and enacting a law to keep machine guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and expecting it will deter criminals from doing criminal shit is as stupid as banning skinny people from eating at Baskin-Robbins in an attempt to curb obesity.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 06-01-2020 at 07:10 PM.
    almostgone and GearHeaded like this.

  24. #544
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    [CENTER]
    There also are civilians who own bazookas. And tanks. And jet fighter planes. But you don't often hear about them in the news because they don't do anything criminal with them, so it doesn't suit the mainstream media's political agenda.
    Don't leave out Shawn Nelson.... but then again.... it was a stolen tank.

    And as far as politics stand... I would rather leave them out the best we can.

    I appreciate all you have written. You are far more knowledged on this than I am.

  25. #545
    GearHeaded is offline BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Bragging to someone
    Posts
    8,550
    Beetelgeuse never seems to amaze me with his insight

  26. #546
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575


    The gun control movement died in this weekend’s riots. Its grave is always shallow, but it will take years to claw itself out. Too many people understand exactly why the 2nd Amendment is crucial now. It will take a while for them to forget again.


    C27H40O3, Cuz, GearHeaded and 1 others like this.

  27. #547
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    FBI: May 2020 Shatters Firearm Background Check Record

    The number of National Instant Criminal Background System Checks (NICS) conducted in May 2020 shattered the record for the most checks conducted in any May since the inception of background checks....


    Retailers: 40% of 2020 Gun Buyers are First-Timers and 40% of Those are Female

    ...[R]etailers reported an increased number of first-time gun buyers, estimating that 40 percent of their sales were to this group. This is an increase of 67 percent over the annual average of 24-percent first-time gun buyers that retailers have reported in the past. Semiautomatic handguns were the primary firearm being purchased by first-time buyers, outpacing the second-most purchased firearm, shotguns, by a 2 to 1 margin. Modern sporting rifles, revolvers and traditional rifles rounded out the top five types of firearms purchased by first-time gun buyers.

    Retailers noted that these new customers were spending $595 on an average sale and that 40 percent of first-time gun buyers in the first four months of 2020 were female. The main purchase driver among the group was personal protection, followed by target shooting and hunting. Also of note was that 25 percent of first-time buyers had already taken some form of firearms safety course and 63 percent inquired about taking a firearms safety course in the near future.

    All this equates to more than 2.5 million new gun owners in a very short period of time. Past NSSF research has shown that in order to keep these new owners active and avoid them becoming lapsed participants, they will need information on topics such as how to safely own, operate and secure their new purchase....

  28. #548
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,649
    Happy we have background checks.
    Hopefully it stops some criminals from obtaining guns.

    Wish they would get rid of the loop-hole for private party sales.

  29. #549
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    Happy we have background checks.
    Hopefully it stops some criminals from obtaining guns.

    Wish they would get rid of the loop-hole for private party sales.
    Criminals still have guns so obviously background checks do not in general stop criminals from getting them.

    And to call something that's codified as law "a loop-hole" is both legally and syntactically incorrect as well prejudicial.

    One of the premises of common law established at the founding of this country is that what's mine is mine and without "due process" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) the government may not impede me in doing with it whatever I choose.

    Looks to me like you're oh-fer on that post.
    C27H40O3 likes this.

  30. #550
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    Criminals still have guns so obviously background checks do not in general stop criminals from getting them.
    those criminals could've purchased their guns legally at private party sales where they don't need to get background checks.

    Therefore, you can't say background checks do not in general stop criminals from getting them.

    I am not saying to outlaw guns.

    I am saying that background checks should always be required.

  31. #551
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    Well, just damn! My finger slipped and I accidentally hit the IGNORE button.

    ... how the hell did that happen? ....



  32. #552
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,649
    I get it.
    You are pro-gun and like many who are pro-gun you feel threatened by and/or dislike any attempt to restrict the purchase of guns.

    I am for background checks.
    I don't think it is 100% effective but it is a deterant.

    I don't think criminals should be able to buy guns at private party sales.
    I think private party sales should require background checks.

    If you think criminals should be able to buy guns at private party sales without background checks then that is your right.
    If you think we should do away with all background checks then that is your right.
    This is still America last I checked.

    Remember, I am pro gun.
    I was simply trying to have a conversation with other people who are pro-gun.

    But I realize that I shouldn't bring up guns.
    People tend to get very emotional over their beliefs or religion or sense of identity.

    I will do my best to steer clear of your threads.
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 06-03-2020 at 06:46 AM. Reason: added "and/or dislike"

  33. #553
    C27H40O3 is offline Admin Sent Me Away.
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    a land far from here.
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    Criminals still have guns so obviously background checks do not in general stop criminals from getting them.

    And to call something that's codified as law "a loop-hole" is both legally and syntactically incorrect as well prejudicial.

    One of the premises of common law established at the founding of this country is that what's mine is mine and without "due process" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) the government may not impede me in doing with it whatever I choose.

    Looks to me like you're oh-fer on that post.
    It’s like saying protests use the free speech loophole to protest against government tyranny.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  34. #554
    C27H40O3 is offline Admin Sent Me Away.
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    a land far from here.
    Posts
    1,139

    Guns and Ammo Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    those criminals could've purchased their guns legally at private party sales where they don't need to get background checks.

    Therefore, you can't say background checks do not in general stop criminals from getting them.

    I am not saying to outlaw guns.

    I am saying that background checks should always be required.
    They dont stop anyone who really wants one. It’s like saying that if my supermarket is sold out of eggs, it will stop folks from buying eggs. It will just inconvenience folks who really want eggs. It they dont want eggs bad, they might be too lazy to go across the street, maybe.

    And its the criminals who really want the guns that you have to fear.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  35. #555
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    This Is Why We Need Guns

    Defending their lives and their property as they see fit is exactly what those who have been abandoned by the authorities are doing in droves.

    ‘Only the cops need guns” simply could not live forever alongside, “The cops are racist and will kill you.” And so, at long last, the two circles of the Venn Diagram have filed for an amicable divorce. In the end, the differences proved irreconcilable.

    At least, they proved irreconcilable without descending into farce. I have been told more times that I can count that “if you want to own an AR-15, you should join the army or the police.” Oh, really. Why? So that I can be pulled back when the rioting starts, lest I inflame those wielding bricks and Molotov cocktails? So that I can be called a fascist, acting in the service of a dictator? So that I can be part of the problem? In light of the new fashions, these old injunctions look rather silly, don’t they? “You don’t need 15 rounds; you’re not a cop! Also, the police are corrupt from top to bottom, and should probably be abolished.”

    Pick one, perhaps?

    In The New Republic, Matt Ford argues that the police were a mistake per se. They have, Ford writes, “become the standing armies that the Founders feared.” As it happens, unreconstructed small-r republican that I am, I have more sympathy for this idea than many might expect. But I’m sure as hell not going to entertain it at the same time as I subordinate my unalienable right to bear arms to the personal prejudices of the bureaucracy and commentariat. Don’t call the cops! Also, wait three months for a gun permit! Again: Pick one.

    In any case, the idea that the existence of police officers in some way negates the right to bear arms has always been a ridiculous one. Police are an auxiliary force that we hire to do a particular job — there to supplement, not to replace, my rights and responsibilities. Every time we debate gun control in the United States, I am informed that the Sheriff of Whatever County is opposed to liberalization. To which I always think, “So what?” My right to keep and bear arms is merely the practical expression of my underlying right to self-defense. That, as a polity, we have decided to hire certain people to take the first shot at keeping the peace is fine. But it has no bearing on my liberties.

    And how could it, given that I do not live in a police station? The old saw that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” is trotted out as often as it is because it is unquestionably true. Whether the average police department is virtuous or evil is irrelevant here. What matters is that no government has the right — and in America, mercifully, no government has the legal power — to farm out, and then to abolish, my elementary rights. It would not fly if the government hired people to speak for me and then shut down my speech; if would not fly if the government hired people to worship for me and then restricted my right to exercise my religion; and it will not fly for the government to hire a security agency and then to remove, or limit, my access to weaponry. This is a personal question, not an aggregate question: I have one life, and I am entitled to defend it in any way I see fit against those who would do me harm. If there is a single principle that has animated this realm since the time of the Emperor Justinian, it is that.

    Happily, defending their lives and their property as they see fit is exactly what those who have been abandoned by the authorities are doing in droves. Like father, like son, we have seen the return of the Rooftop Koreans — supplemented, this time, by Rooftop African-Americans, Rooftop Hispanics, Rooftop Pakistanis, and the rest. The NAACP is helping to organize armed patrols of minority-owned business. Gun sales are up by a staggering 80 percent over this time last year. During the coronavirus lockdown, there was a public debate over whether gun stores should be deemed “essential.” During this outbreak of rioting, such an inquiry seems quaint. Now, as ever, there is no greater prophylactic against a criminal on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.

    Underlying most of the arguments that are leveled by the gun-control movement is the assumption that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is historically contingent: upon a time, upon a people, upon a place. They are wrong. The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was during the totalitarian 20th century; as it was when Ida B. Wells was observing that “the only case where [a] proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves”; as it was in the revolutionary era; as it was when all roads led to Rome. There will be no age in which it becomes unnecessary, nor any transmutation of the human character that renders it moot. This is History. Right now. And Samuel Colt ain’t abandoning anyone.
    C27H40O3 likes this.

  36. #556
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    NRA:

    NEWS: During the first half of 2020, more than two million Americans have become first-time gun owners!
    Honkey_Kong and Cuz like this.

  37. #557
    Beetlegeuse's Avatar
    Beetlegeuse is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,575
    Remember the über-sophisticated Tracking Point scope that did all the ballistic computations for you, everything from spin drift to Coriolis effect, ... everything but the wind call?



    Now The Drive is reporting that the US has snake-eaters in Syria who are using a similar device called the SMASH 2000 that doesn't bear much physical similarity to the Tracking Point but it's list of capabilities bears an uncanny resemblance. It's made by an Israeli company called Smart Shooter. Justification is it has this enables a grunt with a rifle to shoot a drone out of the sky.


    Which has me wondering what was deficient about the Texas-made racking Point that they felt they needed the Israeli-made device. Or maybe they just wanted to subsidize the Israeli's R&D costs.

  38. #558
    Honkey_Kong's Avatar
    Honkey_Kong is offline Superbowl XLIX Champs!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Dude Abides
    Posts
    10,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
    Not bad but I think you need a Glock or two to round out your collection.
    The problem I have with Glocks (besides their ugly design) is the polymer frames. They're fine and dandy when we can just send them in to Glock to get fixed or replaced, but when SHTF (and we're getting there), you're going to want something a little more robust.

  39. #559
    Honkey_Kong's Avatar
    Honkey_Kong is offline Superbowl XLIX Champs!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Dude Abides
    Posts
    10,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    This Is Why We Need Guns

    Defending their lives and their property as they see fit is exactly what those who have been abandoned by the authorities are doing in droves.

    ‘Only the cops need guns” simply could not live forever alongside, “The cops are racist and will kill you.” And so, at long last, the two circles of the Venn Diagram have filed for an amicable divorce. In the end, the differences proved irreconcilable.

    At least, they proved irreconcilable without descending into farce. I have been told more times that I can count that “if you want to own an AR-15, you should join the army or the police.” Oh, really. Why? So that I can be pulled back when the rioting starts, lest I inflame those wielding bricks and Molotov cocktails? So that I can be called a fascist, acting in the service of a dictator? So that I can be part of the problem? In light of the new fashions, these old injunctions look rather silly, don’t they? “You don’t need 15 rounds; you’re not a cop! Also, the police are corrupt from top to bottom, and should probably be abolished.”

    Pick one, perhaps?

    In The New Republic, Matt Ford argues that the police were a mistake per se. They have, Ford writes, “become the standing armies that the Founders feared.” As it happens, unreconstructed small-r republican that I am, I have more sympathy for this idea than many might expect. But I’m sure as hell not going to entertain it at the same time as I subordinate my unalienable right to bear arms to the personal prejudices of the bureaucracy and commentariat. Don’t call the cops! Also, wait three months for a gun permit! Again: Pick one.

    In any case, the idea that the existence of police officers in some way negates the right to bear arms has always been a ridiculous one. Police are an auxiliary force that we hire to do a particular job — there to supplement, not to replace, my rights and responsibilities. Every time we debate gun control in the United States, I am informed that the Sheriff of Whatever County is opposed to liberalization. To which I always think, “So what?” My right to keep and bear arms is merely the practical expression of my underlying right to self-defense. That, as a polity, we have decided to hire certain people to take the first shot at keeping the peace is fine. But it has no bearing on my liberties.

    And how could it, given that I do not live in a police station? The old saw that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” is trotted out as often as it is because it is unquestionably true. Whether the average police department is virtuous or evil is irrelevant here. What matters is that no government has the right — and in America, mercifully, no government has the legal power — to farm out, and then to abolish, my elementary rights. It would not fly if the government hired people to speak for me and then shut down my speech; if would not fly if the government hired people to worship for me and then restricted my right to exercise my religion; and it will not fly for the government to hire a security agency and then to remove, or limit, my access to weaponry. This is a personal question, not an aggregate question: I have one life, and I am entitled to defend it in any way I see fit against those who would do me harm. If there is a single principle that has animated this realm since the time of the Emperor Justinian, it is that.

    Happily, defending their lives and their property as they see fit is exactly what those who have been abandoned by the authorities are doing in droves. Like father, like son, we have seen the return of the Rooftop Koreans — supplemented, this time, by Rooftop African-Americans, Rooftop Hispanics, Rooftop Pakistanis, and the rest. The NAACP is helping to organize armed patrols of minority-owned business. Gun sales are up by a staggering 80 percent over this time last year. During the coronavirus lockdown, there was a public debate over whether gun stores should be deemed “essential.” During this outbreak of rioting, such an inquiry seems quaint. Now, as ever, there is no greater prophylactic against a criminal on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.

    Underlying most of the arguments that are leveled by the gun-control movement is the assumption that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is historically contingent: upon a time, upon a people, upon a place. They are wrong. The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was during the totalitarian 20th century; as it was when Ida B. Wells was observing that “the only case where [a] proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves”; as it was in the revolutionary era; as it was when all roads led to Rome. There will be no age in which it becomes unnecessary, nor any transmutation of the human character that renders it moot. This is History. Right now. And Samuel Colt ain’t abandoning anyone.

    The only time "The Powers That Be" observe the Constitution is when it suites their fancy. The rest of the time they'll pretend like it doesn't exist and most of the marks will go along with it. Hell, how many willing demanded red flag laws and bump stock bans? The fact of the matter is guns exist so that We, The People, can take back the country in a violent revolution from those, in power who have perverted it.

    The NAACP is in a frenzy, because some cops murdered a black guy. Well, they abuse their power and murder white people on a regular basis. This "revolution" that they're pushing should be expanded to everybody. But I doubt it will. Because it's in fashion for the media (right and left) to push this Helter Skelter while the people in power will sit tight in their bunkers.
    Cuz likes this.

  40. #560
    C27H40O3 is offline Admin Sent Me Away.
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    a land far from here.
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    Also, I can't tell how old this article is because the idiots didn't bother to date either the article or the linked study. The report itself states the 4-year study was begun in 2014, which would mean the study and the article both might be as much as two years old. Also, the data comes from testing under controlled conditions (laid out in detail in the complete report), not "real-world" shootings. And FWIW the overarching focus was on the efficacy of use of red dots for use by law enforcement officers.
    Metadata from the webpage:

    <meta property="og:site_name" content="Locked Back" />
    <meta property="articleublished_time" content="2017-08-18T05:06+00:00" />
    <meta property="article:modified_time" content="2017-12-29T00:01+00:00" />
    <meta property="og:updated_time" content="2017-12-29T00:01+00:00" />

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •