New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:25:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/

https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html

There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/

They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/

You're talking about matches that restrict the choice of guns, so as to
disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was talking about "given a
free choice of gun type."

Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to the best of
my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns.

That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free choice of gun
type." Do you not understand conditional clauses?

IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a shooting match, you
would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more
accurate. Don't dance around that fact.

The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly tough-guy fashion.

Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost always choose
jet aircraft. They're much faster than bicycles. Don't dance around
the fact.

You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free choice of
vehicle, no rational person would choose a bicycle. It's just not as
fast as the better choices.

In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of gun, no
rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They are just not as
accurate.

Gee Frank, and here I've even shown you all them pitchers of shooters
at the U.S. National Math, predominantly using AR/M-16 type rifles.
Isn't it amazing that all those stupid shooters use, by choice, an
inaccurate rifle.

Or has Frank just demonstrated, once again, his ignorance?

Well, for those in the know:
https://www.accurate-ar15.com/
NO BULL OUR AR’s are guaranteed to deliver a ½ MOA group size @ 100
yards (that is all hits in 1/2 inch)


The only exception would be a type of match where things like pop-up
targets simulated armed assailants. An AR might be better there, because
the AR design is optimized for killing people.

Nope Frank matches where people shoot at paper targets.
https://tinyurl.com/yawtl8gk
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:08:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 8:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2020 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/



https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/


I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term
hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat
features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best
to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is
armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen"
means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target
shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively,
right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a
high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the
wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/



https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html


There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because
lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion
thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except
that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/



They are very commonly used in matches that specify
"service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/


You're talking about matches that restrict the choice
of guns, so as to
disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was
talking about "given a
free choice of gun type."

Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to
the best of
my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns.

That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free
choice of gun
type." Do you not understand conditional clauses?

IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a
shooting match, you
would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more
accurate. Don't dance around that fact.

The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly
tough-guy fashion.

Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost
always choose
jet aircraft.* They're much faster than bicycles.* Don't
dance around
the fact.

You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free
choice of vehicle, no rational person would choose a
bicycle. It's just not as fast as the better choices.

In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of
gun, no rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They
are just not as accurate.

The only exception would be a type of match where things
like pop-up targets simulated armed assailants. An AR might
be better there, because the AR design is optimized for
killing people.

Frank you have absolutely no idea. You made that up.

https://www.brownells.com/search/index.htm?k=Ar+15+Match+Grade+Barrels&avs|Make_3=A R-15


There's an entire industry devoted to match grade AR.0

I'm not saying nobody ever uses an AR for target competition. I'm saying
it's not the best tool. It fundamentally lacks the features that give
best accuracy, because it's design is optimized for other priorities.

Look at the world championships. Look at the olympics. AFAIK there is no
rule against using an AR style rifle in those target competitions, but
nobody does!

This is not an AR!
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...12/anshutz.jpg

Where are the ARs in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq2u...e=emb_err_woyt

Similarly, you could try to race a Chinese Huffy in a pro level road
race. You could modify it to make it way better than stock. But nobody
does that. It's not the best tool for the job.

Nice try, but as I have repeatedly told you competitive events have
rules about the equipment that can be used. And no, no one uses an
AR15 at an Olympic shoot quite simply because a rifle designed
specifically for the event works better and, by the way is unlikely to
be acceptable in any other match. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon_rifle#Technical

You seem to be flaunting your lack of knowledge regarding target
shooting.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:17:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 11:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:46:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused.

You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six
shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You
were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was
that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't
practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute.

So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a
minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a
minute?


By the way, you might want to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into
service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds.

I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The
person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier
trying to kill other soldiers."

If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his
mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing
it is detrimental to society.

Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your
responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject.

Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then
your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references
to them. some even with moving pictures.

And I've said _repeatedly_ that I know that! Read upthread and see.

But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver:
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/
Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off
16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds.

And I already knew that similar things have long been done. You're not
adding information, John. You're harping on that point indicates you're
not grasping what I'm saying.

Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and
I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to
be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to shoot one clay then shoot
another maybe a second later. Then there's a pause, because the next
competitor gets to shoot. I mean, come on John! Those guns don't come
with drum magazines!

Quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as at
"doubles" they throw two birds at the same time, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BoNq9LM1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4

Thanks, John! Your videos confirmed what I said. Shoot twice, then wait.
The only difference is that the world record holders shoot twice more
quickly. But nobody shoots more than about four rounds in a minute. And
hey, look at those guns! No AR style, and the shooters break them open
and load the shells by hand!

Golly, if you say ARs are so wonderful, why aren't those guys using them?

And yet again you grasp frantically at something that might just
possibly justify your assertions. But the reality is that no one uses
an AR in trap or skeet shooting because they are contests for shotguns
and an AR is a rifle.

You're losing track of the discussion, John. Re-read above!

You posted those videos to counter my assertion that nobody (outside of
man-killing combat) really needs to fire lots of rounds in a minute.
(Note, I never said anything about the time interval between individual
shots.)

You repeated your mischaracterization of my point, by saying "I can
assure you that shooting doubles at trap or skeet you need to be able to
fire as fast as you can pull the trigger."

That's almost true - but only For precisely two trigger pulls. If they
needed to shoot more than (say) ten rounds as fast as they could pull a
trigger, they might be using something with AR features.

They don't use those features. They don't need to. They shoot twice then
wait. Your own examples argue against you.

No Frank, although I would say that you are doing better then Tom at
covering up your ignorance.


I wrote above, "I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or
skeet you need to be able to fire as fast as you can pull the
trigger."

and then you replied, "Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to
shoot one clay then shoot another maybe a second later"

So I posted several moving pictures (so you wouldn't have to read)
showing that in clay pigeon shooting "doubles" are thrown two a time
and shots are about as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.

But, of course you can dispute this and tell us that yet another story
but I did try timing the two shots in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4
and as I time it the two shots are 0.2 to 0.3 seconds apart.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/30/2020 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:25:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/

https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html

There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/

They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/

You're talking about matches that restrict the choice of guns, so as to
disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was talking about "given a
free choice of gun type."

Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to the best of
my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns.

That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free choice of gun
type." Do you not understand conditional clauses?

IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a shooting match, you
would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more
accurate. Don't dance around that fact.

The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly tough-guy fashion.

Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost always choose
jet aircraft. They're much faster than bicycles. Don't dance around
the fact.

You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free choice of
vehicle, no rational person would choose a bicycle. It's just not as
fast as the better choices.

In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of gun, no
rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They are just not as
accurate.

Gee Frank, and here I've even shown you all them pitchers of shooters
at the U.S. National Math, predominantly using AR/M-16 type rifles.
Isn't it amazing that all those stupid shooters use, by choice, an
inaccurate rifle.

Or has Frank just demonstrated, once again, his ignorance?

Well, for those in the know:
https://www.accurate-ar15.com/
NO BULL OUR AR’s are guaranteed to deliver a ½ MOA group size @ 100
yards (that is all hits in 1/2 inch)

:-)

So you point me to a company that does special work to custom assemble
an AR to _finally_ make an accurate one? And you claim that proves ARs
are accurate?

John, that logic is just weird.

Note, I'm not saying you can't hit a target with an AR. I'm saying
accuracy was not a top priority in its design, compared to light weight,
compact geometry, capability of accepting large magazines, etc. Those
attributes are valuable in combat situations - for shooting other people
who are shooting back at you. The AR is a good tool for that.

When someone wants something that's really accurate, like for Olympic
target shooting or long range hunting, they don't tend to choose an AR.
They tend to choose a rifle that was designed for high accuracy, not combat.

It's not impossible to choose an AR for long range hunting, I suppose -
but it's kind of like Jobst doing extreme off-roading with his classic
road bike. He did it to prove some sort of point, but a mountain bike
would have been a better tool.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/30/2020 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:58:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 7:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:49:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and
how silly it is, and how detrimental to society.

You are explaining it??? Frank, you have demonstrated over and over
that you don't know enough about firearms to explain anything.

I'm explaining that the overall configuration of AR style rifles is
optimized for man-killing duty. It is light weight and compact for rapid
movement during combat. It can accept large magazines, can be quickly
reloaded, uses lighter ammunition so more rounds can be carried and
shot. It has other features (like pistol grip) that allow quick motion
and aiming in cluttered combat situations (as opposed to open field
shooting at a distance).

I'm saying that few of those features are optimum for what most people
claim as their intended use of guns. ARs are not the best gun for
hunting anything from deer to mountain goats to squirrels to ducks to
chipmunks. They are not the best gun for hitting a bullseye at a target
range. They are not the best gun for home defense.

They are popular mostly because they look like badass guns, so Walter
Mitty buys one to feel manly. And a few whackos like them because
they're really good at killing lots of people in schools, churches,
night clubs, concerts...

Instead of saying "You don't know anything," get specific. Don't
sidetrack, don't deflect. Tell me exactly what's wrong in what I wrote.


Well Frank, since you insist.

"They aren't the best hunting rifle..."

Actually the AR-15 weighs about 6.5 lbs and I can assure you that
carrying a 6 lb rifle all day is significantly less tiring then
carrying a 9 lb rifle.

The .223 Remingtonj, or 5.56×45mm NATO if you prefer is considered
adequate for up to deer size creatures - wound cavities age generally
larger then those of the 30-30 Winchester.

"They are not the best gun for hitting a bulls eye at a target
range...."

I've already shown you some pictures but here are even mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5XPV-8db0Q
https://tinyurl.com/y76xmcfa
Note the predominance of the AR/M-16 type.

Here's what I just read about that event: "the yearly President’s
Hundred match, held at the National Championships, is a very prestigious
Service Rifle (and Service Pistol) event."

John, if it's an event for "service rifles," it's probably going to have
a lot of service rifles in it, no? IOW, rifles that are optimized for
combat duty, not accuracy.

That's not proof that those service

"And a few whackos like them"
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...uction-is.aspx
The AR-style rifle is the most popular firearm in the country, with
about 16 million Americans owning them.

You truncated my sentence. I said "And a few whackos like them because
they're really good at killing lots of people in schools, churches,
night clubs, concerts..." Unfortunately, that's true, whether or not
others like them for other reasons.

Sure, some others like them because they they can play with and assemble
them with lots of different accessories - kind of like grown up Legos.
But I think most owners like them because owning one makes them feel manly.

BTW, do you own one?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/30/2020 10:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:17:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 11:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:46:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused.

You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six
shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You
were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was
that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't
practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute.

So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a
minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a
minute?


By the way, you might want to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into
service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds.

I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The
person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier
trying to kill other soldiers."

If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his
mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing
it is detrimental to society.

Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your
responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject.

Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then
your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references
to them. some even with moving pictures.

And I've said _repeatedly_ that I know that! Read upthread and see.

But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver:
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/
Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off
16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds.

And I already knew that similar things have long been done. You're not
adding information, John. You're harping on that point indicates you're
not grasping what I'm saying.

Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and
I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to
be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to shoot one clay then shoot
another maybe a second later. Then there's a pause, because the next
competitor gets to shoot. I mean, come on John! Those guns don't come
with drum magazines!

Quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as at
"doubles" they throw two birds at the same time, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BoNq9LM1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4

Thanks, John! Your videos confirmed what I said. Shoot twice, then wait.
The only difference is that the world record holders shoot twice more
quickly. But nobody shoots more than about four rounds in a minute. And
hey, look at those guns! No AR style, and the shooters break them open
and load the shells by hand!

Golly, if you say ARs are so wonderful, why aren't those guys using them?

And yet again you grasp frantically at something that might just
possibly justify your assertions. But the reality is that no one uses
an AR in trap or skeet shooting because they are contests for shotguns
and an AR is a rifle.

You're losing track of the discussion, John. Re-read above!

You posted those videos to counter my assertion that nobody (outside of
man-killing combat) really needs to fire lots of rounds in a minute.
(Note, I never said anything about the time interval between individual
shots.)

You repeated your mischaracterization of my point, by saying "I can
assure you that shooting doubles at trap or skeet you need to be able to
fire as fast as you can pull the trigger."

That's almost true - but only For precisely two trigger pulls. If they
needed to shoot more than (say) ten rounds as fast as they could pull a
trigger, they might be using something with AR features.

They don't use those features. They don't need to. They shoot twice then
wait. Your own examples argue against you.

No Frank, although I would say that you are doing better then Tom at
covering up your ignorance.


I wrote above, "I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or
skeet you need to be able to fire as fast as you can pull the
trigger."

and then you replied, "Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to
shoot one clay then shoot another maybe a second later"

So I posted several moving pictures (so you wouldn't have to read)
showing that in clay pigeon shooting "doubles" are thrown two a time
and shots are about as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.

But, of course you can dispute this and tell us that yet another story
but I did try timing the two shots in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4
and as I time it the two shots are 0.2 to 0.3 seconds apart.

Be honest. Don't deflect.

In the competitions you linked in videos, how many shots did a typical
contestant fire _in one minute_?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/30/2020 10:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:08:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 8:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2020 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/



https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/


I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term
hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat
features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best
to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is
armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen"
means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target
shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively,
right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a
high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the
wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/



https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html


There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because
lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion
thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except
that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/



They are very commonly used in matches that specify
"service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/


You're talking about matches that restrict the choice
of guns, so as to
disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was
talking about "given a
free choice of gun type."

Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to
the best of
my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns.

That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free
choice of gun
type." Do you not understand conditional clauses?

IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a
shooting match, you
would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more
accurate. Don't dance around that fact.

The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly
tough-guy fashion.

Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost
always choose
jet aircraft.Â* They're much faster than bicycles.Â* Don't
dance around
the fact.

You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free
choice of vehicle, no rational person would choose a
bicycle. It's just not as fast as the better choices.

In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of
gun, no rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They
are just not as accurate.

The only exception would be a type of match where things
like pop-up targets simulated armed assailants. An AR might
be better there, because the AR design is optimized for
killing people.

Frank you have absolutely no idea. You made that up.

https://www.brownells.com/search/index.htm?k=Ar+15+Match+Grade+Barrels&avs|Make_3=A R-15


There's an entire industry devoted to match grade AR.0

I'm not saying nobody ever uses an AR for target competition. I'm saying
it's not the best tool. It fundamentally lacks the features that give
best accuracy, because it's design is optimized for other priorities.

Look at the world championships. Look at the olympics. AFAIK there is no
rule against using an AR style rifle in those target competitions, but
nobody does!

This is not an AR!
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...12/anshutz.jpg

Where are the ARs in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq2u...e=emb_err_woyt

Similarly, you could try to race a Chinese Huffy in a pro level road
race. You could modify it to make it way better than stock. But nobody
does that. It's not the best tool for the job.

Nice try, but as I have repeatedly told you competitive events have
rules about the equipment that can be used. And no, no one uses an
AR15 at an Olympic shoot quite simply because a rifle designed
specifically for the event works better and, by the way is unlikely to
be acceptable in any other match.

Hmm. "A rifle designed specifically..."

There's a concept!

Yes, a rifle designed specifically for armed combat works better for
armed combat, especially in relatively close quarters. That's the AR
style. Made to kill people quickly!

A rifle designed specifically for hunting works better for hunting. That
usually includes being designed for accuracy at long range.

A rifle designed specifically for precise or long range target shooting
works better for that use. (ARs do work better at pop-up targets
simulating armed assailants. You know, combat?)

There are exceptions, I suppose. A shotgun probably works better at home
defense even though it's not designed specifically for that duty. Just
point and shoot, no aiming required.

But those aren't trendy with the Walter "Rambo" Mitty crowd.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/1/2020 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:58:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 7:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:49:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm
explaining it, and
how silly it is, and how detrimental to society.

You are explaining it??? Frank, you have demonstrated
over and over
that you don't know enough about firearms to explain
anything.

I'm explaining that the overall configuration of AR style
rifles is
optimized for man-killing duty. It is light weight and
compact for rapid
movement during combat. It can accept large magazines,
can be quickly
reloaded, uses lighter ammunition so more rounds can be
carried and
shot. It has other features (like pistol grip) that allow
quick motion
and aiming in cluttered combat situations (as opposed to
open field
shooting at a distance).

I'm saying that few of those features are optimum for
what most people
claim as their intended use of guns. ARs are not the best
gun for
hunting anything from deer to mountain goats to squirrels
to ducks to
chipmunks. They are not the best gun for hitting a
bullseye at a target
range. They are not the best gun for home defense.

They are popular mostly because they look like badass
guns, so Walter
Mitty buys one to feel manly. And a few whackos like them
because
they're really good at killing lots of people in schools,
churches,
night clubs, concerts...

Instead of saying "You don't know anything," get
specific. Don't
sidetrack, don't deflect. Tell me exactly what's wrong in
what I wrote.


Well Frank, since you insist.

"They aren't the best hunting rifle..."

Actually the AR-15 weighs about 6.5 lbs and I can assure
you that
carrying a 6 lb rifle all day is significantly less tiring
then
carrying a 9 lb rifle.

The .223 Remingtonj, or 5.56×45mm NATO if you prefer is
considered
adequate for up to deer size creatures - wound cavities
age generally
larger then those of the 30-30 Winchester.

"They are not the best gun for hitting a bulls eye at a
target
range...."

I've already shown you some pictures but here are even mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5XPV-8db0Q
https://tinyurl.com/y76xmcfa
Note the predominance of the AR/M-16 type.

Here's what I just read about that event: "the yearly
President’s Hundred match, held at the National
Championships, is a very prestigious Service Rifle (and
Service Pistol) event."

John, if it's an event for "service rifles," it's probably
going to have a lot of service rifles in it, no? IOW, rifles
that are optimized for combat duty, not accuracy.

That's not proof that those service

"And a few whackos like them"
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...uction-is.aspx

The AR-style rifle is the most popular firearm in the
country, with
about 16 million Americans owning them.

You truncated my sentence. I said "And a few whackos like
them because
they're really good at killing lots of people in schools,
churches,
night clubs, concerts..." Unfortunately, that's true,
whether or not others like them for other reasons.

Sure, some others like them because they they can play with
and assemble them with lots of different accessories - kind
of like grown up Legos. But I think most owners like them
because owning one makes them feel manly.

BTW, do you own one?



[raises hand] Yes I do, a bog standard middle quality all
USA model which is plenty accurate for steel[1] and paper
targets.

[1] Steel targets are nice with declining vision. CLANG!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/1/2020 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:58:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 7:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:49:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm
explaining it, and
how silly it is, and how detrimental to society.

You are explaining it??? Frank, you have demonstrated
over and over
that you don't know enough about firearms to explain
anything.

I'm explaining that the overall configuration of AR style
rifles is
optimized for man-killing duty. It is light weight and
compact for rapid
movement during combat. It can accept large magazines,
can be quickly
reloaded, uses lighter ammunition so more rounds can be
carried and
shot. It has other features (like pistol grip) that allow
quick motion
and aiming in cluttered combat situations (as opposed to
open field
shooting at a distance).

I'm saying that few of those features are optimum for
what most people
claim as their intended use of guns. ARs are not the best
gun for
hunting anything from deer to mountain goats to squirrels
to ducks to
chipmunks. They are not the best gun for hitting a
bullseye at a target
range. They are not the best gun for home defense.

They are popular mostly because they look like badass
guns, so Walter
Mitty buys one to feel manly. And a few whackos like them
because
they're really good at killing lots of people in schools,
churches,
night clubs, concerts...

Instead of saying "You don't know anything," get
specific. Don't
sidetrack, don't deflect. Tell me exactly what's wrong in
what I wrote.


Well Frank, since you insist.

"They aren't the best hunting rifle..."

Actually the AR-15 weighs about 6.5 lbs and I can assure
you that
carrying a 6 lb rifle all day is significantly less tiring
then
carrying a 9 lb rifle.

The .223 Remingtonj, or 5.56×45mm NATO if you prefer is
considered
adequate for up to deer size creatures - wound cavities
age generally
larger then those of the 30-30 Winchester.

"They are not the best gun for hitting a bulls eye at a
target
range...."

I've already shown you some pictures but here are even mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5XPV-8db0Q
https://tinyurl.com/y76xmcfa
Note the predominance of the AR/M-16 type.

Here's what I just read about that event: "the yearly
President’s Hundred match, held at the National
Championships, is a very prestigious Service Rifle (and
Service Pistol) event."

John, if it's an event for "service rifles," it's probably
going to have a lot of service rifles in it, no? IOW, rifles
that are optimized for combat duty, not accuracy.

That's not proof that those service

"And a few whackos like them"
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...uction-is.aspx

The AR-style rifle is the most popular firearm in the
country, with
about 16 million Americans owning them.

You truncated my sentence. I said "And a few whackos like
them because
they're really good at killing lots of people in schools,
churches,
night clubs, concerts..." Unfortunately, that's true,
whether or not others like them for other reasons.

Sure, some others like them because they they can play with
and assemble them with lots of different accessories - kind
of like grown up Legos. But I think most owners like them
because owning one makes them feel manly.

BTW, do you own one?


[raises hand] Yes I do, a bog standard middle quality all
USA model which is plenty accurate for steel[1] and paper
targets.

[1] Steel targets are nice with declining vision. CLANG!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
All my guns are gone except for my grandfather's .38 police special with far too long a barrel. This is enough to scare Frank into wetting himself though since I can empty the cylinder in a couple of seconds.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:56:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:25:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2020 4:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/

https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html

There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/

They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/

You're talking about matches that restrict the choice of guns, so as to
disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was talking about "given a
free choice of gun type."

Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to the best of
my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns.

That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free choice of gun
type." Do you not understand conditional clauses?

IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a shooting match, you
would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more
accurate. Don't dance around that fact.

The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly tough-guy fashion.

Given a free choice of vehicle type, racers would almost always choose
jet aircraft. They're much faster than bicycles. Don't dance around
the fact.

You're right! In a long distance race where there was a free choice of
vehicle, no rational person would choose a bicycle. It's just not as
fast as the better choices.

In a target shooting match where there was a free choice of gun, no
rational person would choose an AR style rifle. They are just not as
accurate.

Gee Frank, and here I've even shown you all them pitchers of shooters
at the U.S. National Math, predominantly using AR/M-16 type rifles.
Isn't it amazing that all those stupid shooters use, by choice, an
inaccurate rifle.

Or has Frank just demonstrated, once again, his ignorance?

Well, for those in the know:
https://www.accurate-ar15.com/
NO BULL OUR AR’s are guaranteed to deliver a ½ MOA group size @ 100
yards (that is all hits in 1/2 inch)

:-)

So you point me to a company that does special work to custom assemble
an AR to _finally_ make an accurate one? And you claim that proves ARs
are accurate?

John, that logic is just weird.

Note, I'm not saying you can't hit a target with an AR. I'm saying
accuracy was not a top priority in its design, compared to light weight,
compact geometry, capability of accepting large magazines, etc. Those
attributes are valuable in combat situations - for shooting other people
who are shooting back at you. The AR is a good tool for that.

When someone wants something that's really accurate, like for Olympic
target shooting or long range hunting, they don't tend to choose an AR.
They tend to choose a rifle that was designed for high accuracy, not combat.

It's not impossible to choose an AR for long range hunting, I suppose -
but it's kind of like Jobst doing extreme off-roading with his classic
road bike. He did it to prove some sort of point, but a mountain bike
would have been a better tool.


So the AR/M-16 isn't a popular choice for long range shooting? See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve8FqDq7HpA
shooting up to 600 yards

--
Cheers,

John B.