Admin Sent Me Away.
Metadata from the webpage:Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse
<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" />
Knowledgeable Member
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.
Knowledgeable Member
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.
Admin Sent Me Away.
He even put a lanyard loop on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Knowledgeable Member
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.
AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
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.
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.
Knowledgeable Member
Knowledgeable Member
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....
Banned
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.
AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
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.
Banned
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.
AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
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.
Knowledgeable Member
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)
Knowledgeable Member
(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.
Banned
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.
BANNED
Beetelgeuse never seems to amaze me with his insight
Knowledgeable Member
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.
Knowledgeable Member
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....
Banned
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.
Knowledgeable Member
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.
Banned
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.
Admin Sent Me Away.
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
Admin Sent Me Away.
It’s like saying protests use the free speech loophole to protest against government tyranny.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Knowledgeable Member
Well, just damn! My finger slipped and I accidentally hit the IGNORE button.
... how the hell did that happen? ....
Banned
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"
Knowledgeable Member
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.
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
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.
Admin Sent Me Away.
Remember, a court ruled in 1981 that the government owes you and your family no protection provided by the police. They dont owe you protection. You are legally on your own.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A. 2d 1 - DC: Court of Appeals 1981
District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.
This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.
This rule of duty owed to the public at large has been most frequently applied in cases involving complaints of inadequate protection during urban riots or mob violence. Many of these cases challenge the preparedness of the police to handle such situations, while others, such as Westminster Investing Corp. v. G. C. Murphy Co., supra, challenge the tactical decisions made to curtail or remove police protection from the riot areas. In Westminster, officials of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia had decided to limit police presence in the area of the Murphy Company's store during the firey 1968 riots. Murphy's store was destroyed and the company filed a claim against the District of Columbia contending that the police department had deliberately or negligently abandoned its policing obligations during the riots and thereby permitted rioters to destroy Murphy's property. In affirming the dismissal of Murphy's claim against the District, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District of Columbia had no direct legal obligation to Murphy and that Murphy, therefore, had "no substantive right to recover the damages resulting from failure of [the] government or its officers to keep the peace." Id. at 252, 434 F.2d at 526, quoting Turner v. United States, supra [248 U.S.] at 358 [39 S.Ct. at 110].
Knowledgeable Member
NRA:
NEWS: During the first half of 2020, more than two million Americans have become first-time gun owners!
Knowledgeable Member
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.
Knowledgeable Member
The Year Gun Control Died
Gun opponents would leave predatory cops armed and their victims helpless.
For fans of legal restrictions on self-defense rights, 2020 is a disaster. It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed, while the communities they terrorize should be helpless. It is also to insist that when police fail at their supposedly core task of protecting the public, people should be deprived of the means for defending themselves. As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what's necessary to shield lives and property, it's unlikely that they'll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don't work for government even more vulnerable to those who do....
reason.com/2020/06/05/the-year-gun-control-died
Borderline Personality
Went to my first Appleseed this last weekend.
I have formal training in pistol and shotgun, zero with rifle. This was my 9th time ever shooting rifles and my first time not off a bench.
Overall a fun event. Enjoyed the history and left a better shooter than when I arrived. I tried to emphasize practicality over ultimate accuracy, shotting only hasty sling, kneeling vs sitting, etc.
I was the only one shooting a bolt-action. Not sure if this worked for me or against me. There were certainly instances where I ran out of time before ammo during timed drills, however I was also the top shooter by the end of both days and I think having to reset and rethink at least to some tiny degree between each shot may have played a part.
Past firearms training definitely helped as the fundamentals translate across platforms to a degree and not giving in to time pressure and stress so much. As for rifle-specific training I really didn't have any bad habits to break, being so inexperienced.
Came up just a few points shy of the Rifleman patch. No one got it. A few folks left early because I think they realized they didn't stand a chance. Crazy how some people just give up when something doesn't come easy.
If you have any formal marksmanship training in your past this will be painfully basic and slow at first. Still, any time at the range honing skills is time well spent and it was cheap and I got to meet and hang with some fun and like-minded folks. Give it a shot.
BANNED
good post
and your absolutely correct. don't underestimate the bolt action rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter
I love my ARs and AKs but love my bolts as well
Knowledgeable Member
Ernst, I'm glad you had the chance to broaden your experience.
What you were shooting was rimfire, yes? If that's the case then you probably were better off with a bolt gun. In shooting all precision begins with uniformity and a bolt action -- which doesn't move at all -- will tend to produce more uniform muzzle velocity than an auto-loader because any variability in the the movement of its action can affect MV. And it's more pronounced with rimfires than centerfires because both the firearm and the ammunition are more cheaply made. And because the powder charge weight in a rimfire is so relatively small that a difference of 0.1 grams makes a more pronounced difference in MV than the same variation in a centerfire round.
That's why autoloaders are the exception rather than the rule with snipers in all of the US armed forces and most law enforcement agencies. Because the autoloader has many more moving parts and it takes high quality design and construction to create a semi-auto action that has as little affect on MV as a bolt action does.
AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
There's a feeling of satisfaction you get when well fitted locking lugs mate up.
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.
Borderline Personality
Yes, I was shooting a Tikka T1X in .22LR. I'm quite pleased with the rifle. Accurate and reliable with a crisp trigger right out of the box.
Knowledgeable Member
I don't think those damn Finns know how to make a bad rifle. Tikka's rimfires are among the best. The Finns were still making quite an effective sniper rifle out of the Mosin-Nagant (the M-28/30) 50 years after the rest of the world -- including the Soviets -- had cast them aside as antiquated.
Admin Sent Me Away.
I like Mosin Nagants.
That link didn’t work for me in Tapatalk, so for anybody with the same issue, here is what Wikipedia said about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
So do anybody here shoot cast bullets? I'm kind of wanting to look in to it. At least for .45 ACP.
BANNED
I wouldn't recommend it ,, unless your loading heavy cast bullets cause you hiking around in bear country and have a need for deep and heavy penetration.
normal range time and most circumstances its not needed
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
