| Author | Message | ||
     Ducbsa |
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic- dishonesty-on-assault-weapon-bans/ | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-18/mcmaken- why-joe-biden-winning-gun-control-debate | ||
| Ratbuell |
I can see the perspective the Biden article was written from. But...they missed the mark by just a bit. Gun advocacy isn't so we can "fight against a standing army", at least not in today's vernacular. I personally - and I think many other people feel this way as well - don't see our troops as the threat. The "Generals in D.C." (see article) are the threat. I'm not worried about the boots on the ground - they are us. I'm worried about the elites running the show, who seem to have forgotten they are elected to REPRESENT, not to RULE. WE tell THEM what to do. | ||
| Rick_a |
People are so malleable it's really quite disheartening. The lack of any standards or consistency is crazy. People are literally losing their minds today over what they supported yesterday...because they've been told to in various ways.  | ||
| Sifo |
The "Generals in D.C." (see article) are the threat. I'm not worried about the boots on the ground - they are us. I'm worried about the elites running the show, who seem to have forgotten they are elected to REPRESENT, not to RULE. WE tell THEM what to do. Very true. The rank and file soldier is well conditioned to follow the chain of command though (Numerous examples in our nations history). It's a big thing to refuse an order. Bigger thing to undermine an order. No doubt, some would fire upon their fellow citizens if ordered to do so. I don't think such a conflict would last long though. Such orders would be questioned at all ranks quite quickly, and could split the military. Of course, the group being fired upon has to be able to defend themselves long enough for that to happen. If they are unarmed, the conflict is over before the foot soldiers get a chance to assess what's happening, even if a certain percentage of them stand down against the orders. | ||
| Aesquire |
But...they missed the mark by just a bit. It's biased as heck you mean. Or perhaps full of...it. I thought the perspective worth posting. The argument that defending yourself against tyranny is futile since the Military has F-15s is specious. It's a lie to discredit the reality. It's best phrased a bit differently. "I'll order your entire family murdered, and burn your block down with zero care for the lives of innocents, to shut you up". And the author of the piece seems fine with the government burning families alive, as long as it's "His Kind" of government. Never mind the technical errors. He's either ignorant, or knows better and is lying. The reality is they ( leftist politicians ) really fear you with any weapon. Not because you are going to assault supersonic bombers with a .22, but because they know you are a real threat on a personal level. They've gone from impolite discourse, which is normal, to ad hominem attacks on political rivals, which is normal, if dishonest, to the very heart of racist thinking, considering people as a group, not individuals, which is, well, normal for Democrats, to actually calling for the Mob to attack journalists, and folk at public speeches. It's gone from Purple shirt SEIU Union thugs beating old men, & masked Antifa beating old ladies and gay journalists, to screaming mobs outside the home of people they PERSONALLY pointed Mobs at. They crossed a big line, know it, ( but are secure in thinking the Press will never call them on it ) and they project their evil on everyone else. They assume that You will go to their homes and shoot them if they go too far. They would. And they plan to go very far indeed. | ||
| Thumper74 |
"Charity begins at home. So does education. Take your neighbor and his old enough kids to the range, make sure they are safe, then that they have a good time. The more people with a positive view of guns & gun owners, the better. It makes you not be a scary THEM." Aesquire, I've been saying this for eternity! The more we normalize gun ownership outside of hunting and the survivalist types, the better. There are groups that would not normally associate with gun owners by choice, such as women (outside of marriage/boyfriends), black people, urban demographics, etc. My cousin and I reach out to any person who wants to learn. During the current administration, we both had friends that were LGBT and were terrified that Trump is empowering people to hurt them. We offered to take them shooting and teach them what they needed to make an informed decision on how to protect themselves. A few took us up on it and had fun. They all own at least one gun now. I can't say they will vote against a candidate that advocates for gun control, but they are a voice counter to what you would expect. My wife and MIL were ambivalent to guns when I came along. Both now have CCWS. Nancy carries the camp G42 I posted before or a Walther. Her mom carries a Ruger 357 revolver! My step sons are both mixed and have shot a bunch. My favorite YouTube channels are Demolition Ranch, Colin Noire, Black Rambo, and 32Icon. Demolition Ranch is a veterinary doctor who has tons of videos with guests of all backgrounds, but he has fun and it's not training, tactics, reviews, etc. Colin Noire is a well spoken dude that is counter to the normal narrative and tells it better than I would ever be able to. He gets flack for not towing the line... I stumbled upon Black Rambo, who is a Marine vet, gold teeth, tattooed up, etc. and has gaudy guns, but has a huge following, including those outside of expected fan bases. 32icon is a black woman who does gear reviews, etc. The reason I love her channel is that she's real. She talks about selling a gun or two to finance one she likes more. Budgets. Plus, she's a black woman who can inspire more people who may not conventionally like guns to at least try it and get someone else interested. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_o f_Isher And a very pro second amendment comic with great tecnobabble. Start at the beginning. https://www.quantumvibe.com | ||
| Zac4mac |
Hmmmm Maybe that's why my favorite things to collect are guns, ammunition and knives/swords.  Z | ||
| Rick_a |
I like Mr.Gunsandgear, MAC, Forgotten Weapons, InRangeTV, AK Operator's Union, TFB TV, and Iraq Veteran 888 is okay. I watch Demo Ranch on occassion and Hickock 45 when I wanna nap. There's a gun lawyer guy that's pretty good, too...TheGunCollective. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Another 900 rounds heading my way from Underwood  | ||
| Rick_a |
I've got a line on a pretty nice Del-Ton rifle for under $400. It would make a nice girlfriend gun. However, once it's put together with sights, a red dot optic, a decent stock, a good muzzle device, and a good light...it's at least double that...aand I'm broke. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/g uns_and_property_what_the_elites_think_americans_n eed_has_nothing_to_do_with_individual_rights.html | ||
| Zac4mac |
At my CCW class, they asked us to stand up, identify ourselves and say why we were there. I said "I'm 63, too old to run, too old to get beat up, I want a gun". | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/liz-warrens-radica l-anti-second-amendment-agenda/ | ||
| Ratbuell |
And, oh, by the way, all my firearms and ammo were lost in a tragic fishing accident, and I was too drunk at the time to remember which lake. Yup. Can't tax it if I ain't got it. Buh-bye. | ||
| Zac4mac |
Yesterday I visited my favorite gun shop that was supposed to close two years ago. Bob didn't have much on the shelves but he still had some interesting ammo. All the .22WMR i had were 30 grain but Bob had a couple of boxes of 45 grain Hornady Critical Defense. nice... I told him my spring was weak in my 1911, he didn't have any springs though. Then he pulled a little baggie off the wall and handed me a little piece of silicone rubber that looked like a cat head. Got home and stuck on the recoil pin and slid the spring in. Tight as new. Put about 100 rounds downrange and thought that 1,000 rounds of ammo really isn't a lot. wouldn't know it from the news... Z | ||
| Aesquire |
Can't tax it if I ain't got it. Buh-bye True, but you also can't take what you ain't got to the range to practice. A lot of people are in exactly that situation. When I gave away my varmint rifle, I still could take my deer rifle out to target shoot. But the deer rifle has iron sights and more expensive ammo. It's not the same. I've been searching for a used single shot in 5.56 NATO suitable for a high power scope and paper punching at my local club's 200 yard range. A Ruger #1 by preference. I keep finding them in odd chamberings like .338 Winchester Magnum, ( ow ) .270 Weatherby, ( my aching wallet ) and, I was tempted, .458 Winchester Magnum. I wonder if it's louder than my buddy's Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine? | ||
| Ratbuell |
Can't tax it if I ain't got it. Buh-bye wink, wink, nudge, nudge... You missed the connection to the "boating accident" comment. Put about 100 rounds downrange and thought that 1,000 rounds of ammo really isn't a lot. And the irony is...here in the PRM (People's Republic of Maryland), I had to put 200 rounds downrange for my carry qualification test. Admittedly, a fun day - four targets, max score of 250 per target, brand-spanking new firearm (my XDs, which I'd literally put 3 rounds through prior to testing)...and I shot a 250/248/248/250. Rangemaster looked at my first 3 targets and said "you don't HAVE to shoot a fourth, I think we're good". I replied "I paid for the ammo, let's shoot!"  But you're absolutely correct - for those of us who practice regularly, 1,000 rounds really isn't a lot. Fortunately, 9mm target loads can be had for around $.14/round nowadays for non-reloaders like me...and I pray every day that I won't have to use up any of my Critical Duty. I ran a box (25) through the XDs when I bought it, just to make sure it fed alright, and I honestly hope that's the last time I have to put any of those through the firearm. | ||
| Rick_a |
The only thing I can somewhat afford to shoot right now is 22lr. Otherwise, my ammo cache continues to dwindle. I was gifted 28rds of 45ACP to shoot through an H&K UMP, which I graciously accepted. Three round bursts were controllable, but five round bursts got a little wild. Still, I only got one shot out of the scoring ring of a B27 style target. It would've been a solid shoulder hit, which I'm sure wouldn't be pleasant...especially after a few shots to the chest. I have been seeing a glut of poorly built AR-15's in the wild. While their owners tend to be quite proud of them, they're essentially worthless, and despite how easy they are to put together, many of them don't or hardly work. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/liber al_hysteria_on_guns_obscures_the_real_enemy.html Rick, I was going to build my own AR from parts before the State banned them. My small amount of research to that end included some of the common malfs that poor maintenance causes. It's not a surprise that poor assembly of even high quality parts can result in useless junk. The massive growth of bargain AR clones with the huge demand during the Obama regime, spurred in part, by the fear of a ban, gave us a lot of cheap crap made by make a quick buck garage shops. What's astonishing isn't that you see useless junk, it's that so much of it works at all. | ||
| Rick_a |
That's true. Specifications vary wildly, and the excuses some people make for their no name Chinese and other unknown origin components are ridiculous, such as the oft repeated, "you're only paying for the name for X brand." No, you're paying for years of R&D and manufacturing experience, superior material specifications, proper tolerances throughout, and a proper balance of components for a properly functioning gun out of the box. I have barrel lengths ranging from seven to sixteen inches and they each require their own formula to run properly. Anything out of balance and you could have a problematic firearm. I also have a blowback 22lr and 9mm which are their own animals. Sometimes you have to research what manufacturers and/or military procurement programs have done to ensure reliability/long term durability over the years in order to assemble your own. The most comical is the people that believe that the sum of their assemblage of parts is what their gun is worth. Not even close. Even an expensive clone with nearly unobtainium parts will be a substantial loss. | ||
| Aesquire |
You are solidly correct about quality control, tolerances, and the decades of R&D behind successful firearms. The U.S. Military has invested billions in refining Stoner's design. It's mature technology. They have made some poor choices in some things, I just read an article blasting the Army for the M4 barrel length/gas system. & the Forgotten Weapons/In Range crew had the excellent WWSD project. ( ongoing, but slowly...budget & time limits ) Which focused on weight reduction with superior accuracy and durability. Most interesting may be the project by the designer of the AR-15, to correct the flaws in the design. Stoner designed the AR-10, but passed the responsibility to convert/redesign for 5.56 to Jim Sullivan. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MRzMCjMr9kc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gOUKXIrDE0I | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/gun-sell ers-exploit-loophole-facebooks-marketplace-sell-gu ns-online-0 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-23/red-flag -gun-laws-connecticut-mans-firearms-seized-because -his-son-shared-meme | ||
| Rick_a |
It could be said that the M16A1 and A2 were the best of the military variants for reliability and longevity. Only now is the military catching up to what the commercial industry has been doing for years...though only in a limited capacity. The 14.5" M4/M4A1 has been the accepted standard for some time, though the gas system was designed for a 10.3" barrel and mods have been implemented through testing to make it reliable...though bolts break prematurely and the gas ports tend to erode more quickly. The URGI takes on a modern rail and midlength gas system designed for 16" barrels on the commercial market...but pairs it with a 14.5" barrel oddly enough. An intermediate gas system would have been more appropriate. It would be interesting to know how such decisions are made. Methinks it's probably a matter of using a good known configuration with proven parts. That said, the basic M4gery is still a capable and iconic configuration. I don't think that the "fixes" proposed by Sullivan are necessary or practical in a properly spec'd gun. | ||
| Aesquire |
Necessary? Next generation military procurement, yes. But not for you or me. That's assuming the bureaucracy buys it which I doubt. That's a light machine gun variation which is a proper replacement for the BAR & M249. That may be overkill as a M4 replacement, but that's a doctrine question. The infantry squad has been built around a machine gunner since WW2. Slight changes over time, and grenadiers go in & out of fadhion. In my father's day it was an "automatic rifleman" with a BAR, & by Vietnam it was a M60 gunner which copied the German universal machine gun ( MG34/MG42 ) centered squad. They periodically try a "give everyone a machine gun" squad, and Spec ops troops cone close, but there really hasn't been a suitable gun. The Stoner 63 was close & the SEALs loved it, but it wasn't robust enough for general issue. The Sullivan improved gun might do the job, but I doubt they would want to give one to everyone in a platoon. There's a reason there's only 1 machine gun in a squad. Ammo carrying capacity. Do I need the,Sullivan mods on my next AR-? NO. Don't want the complexity of select fire open bolt mechanism and it wouldn't be legal. But for a squad of infantry in the light machine gun role? A real winner. | ||
| Aesquire |
I do get your point. I can fire a heavy barrel AR, aimed, at slow machine gun speed semi auto manually. Even hit the target a few times, but I'm not getting bolt bounce messing things up since the hammer isn't following the bolt, I'm not THAT fast. And I don't think anyone fields a machine gun with a rate of fire that slow anymore. So If I dump a magazine, a laymen would think I was firing full auto, but you'd just know I was a halo player.  Ditto the continuous recoil feature. Not needed in semi auto fire, although if you designed a gun with that magic timing of spring & mass & enough room to NOT hammer the back of the receiver, then you'd probably love it. Smoother, more pleasant recoil, longer lasting parts. My point I suppose is that a real expert, and Sullivan is, spends years refining the design to work properly. 2 years to make the AR-15 work acceptably in the first place with the resources of a leading precision manufacturing company, and now years to "perfect" one aspect of the design. The quality control & tolerance stacking issues you mentioned were my profession for decades, and you nailed that. You also covered the customization needed to make the different barrel lengths pretty well. You need the right combination of bolt weight, spring, and gas port diameter to make a gas operated automatic run right. Gas pressure curves! In WW1, the best light MG was, arguably, the Lewis Gun. It took years to get it to work near perfectly for it's primary customer, the British, with .303 rimmed ammo. And it started as a horrible, jam-o-matic overheating mess that bankrupted multiple companies before it evolved beyond recognition into the gun known today. When the U.S. wanted to adopt it, it just. didn't. Work. The .30-06 had a very different gas pressure curve and volume than the .303. The adaptation was developed in England, and was a disaster. Months of fail. Correspondence between the English BSA factory & the U.S. military was by mail, transAtlantic calls and cables were too expensive, so it dragged on & on. They'd get a sample gun, and it didn't work. Until the English side, told the American one, "why are you having this problem? We sent you the fix months ago" Then went through the files, and discovered the gas port fix they had developed had never been sent to America.... That fixed the problem. There's a whole lot of insane politics and personality clashes involved too, if you are interested... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlsEmE5pM10 This doesn't rise to the level of supreme incompetence, butt covering, and bull %^&* that was the Mk14 Torpedo debacle, but it's close. One note on that, the issue torpedo to submarines at the beginning of WW2 was the shiny new Mk14. It had actually only been fully tested, once. Hey, they're expensive! There were multiple issues, but one was that the "exploder" the part that sets off the explosion, didn't work. After Pearl harbor, the Submarine fleet was sent out to sink the Japanese merchant fleet, and the Japanese navy, if they ran into any. The Submarines proceeded to fire all their torpedoes with very few working. It must have been frustrating to shoot 6 torpedoes at a Japanese Cruiser, and hear 5 impacts, metal on metal, but no bang! Which was a mission fail, and made the Enemy ship notice they were under attack. Subs were lost. The Bureaucracy insisted the Mk 14 was perfect, and the Sailors were doing it wrong. They even claimed the Submarine captains were cowards and the sailors were sabotaging the torpedoes. This crap went on for about 2 years. Search mk 14 torpedo for multiple documentaries on the subject. | ||
| Rick_a |
My main issue is that making an AR derivative a selective open bolt squad support weapon is a rather stupid idea to begin with. Making an assault rifle derivative (the real kind) assume the squad support role has been tried for decades with little success and it still doesn't make sense. The M27 IAR is the latest attempt and it has had limited success in the role at best. It's best to keep rifles as rifles. I believe that we haven't had a proper automatic rifle since the BAR. A modern interpretation of that concept would work better than a repurposed heavy barreled assault rifle. An unacceptably large beaten zone, poor durability, the inability to maintain a sustained rate of fire, and inability to work with well worn magazines are a few things that've plagued such ideas. As an engineering exercise, I can respect the undertaking. As a concept, I think it sucks. (Message edited by Rick_a on August 25, 2019) | ||
| Aesquire |
I respect that opinion. The notion of a lighter weapon is always tempting. You contend that sustained fire is more important than weight has ample historical examples of guns lightened so that troops can move with them, but lose the sustained firepower. OTOH, that means that the perfect weapon is a Vickers machine gun with a water jacket, and the Brits just stopped using those a few years back. Which is the improved Maxim gun. So, zero progress in over a century? Obviously not. So did the squad automatic peak with the MG42? | ||
| Ourdee |
So did the squad automatic peak with the MG42? I tended to think so. I really liked the MG42. Mr. H's buzzsaw. It is a fast shooting beast. If shooting the MG-42 while mobile, I liked it more than the M-60. |
