New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 9:08:39 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:44:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2020 9:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 6:02:27 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2020 3:08 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2020 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:15:31 -0400, 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?

Frank, you have spent the past several days exposing, over
and over,
and over again, your complete ignorance of guns and shooting.

As above, you state that service rifles used for target
shooting
aren't optimized for accuracy which, once again, exposes
your total
ignorance of the subject as to my personal knowledge
"service rifles
ranging from the M1903 Springfield all the way up through
the AR/M16
type have been optimized for accuracy and your argument
that they
aren't is yet further evidence of your lack of knowledge..

Lets just end this discussion. You have demonstrated your
almost total
lack of knowledge about firearms and you have explained
your apparent
fear of the AR/M16 - it goes pop, pop, pop, as you
described it.

By the way, the Glock series of pistol can be fitted with
a 30 round
magazine and go pop,pop,pop, too. Why aren't you
condemning them?

So Frank, given your lack of knowledge about fire arms -
you seem to
know that the AR type was originally made for the army and
goes
pop,pop,pop and that is bad, but you don't seem to know
that the
plastic Glock pistols were also designed for the army and go
pop,pop,pop, just as many times as the AR type, but
apparently they
aren't bad - I'm ending this discussion.

As you have demonstrated, you simply lack sufficient
knowledge about
the subject to continue the discussion.

(Or to put it another way, "The dumb ass doesn't know what
he is
talking about)

So instead of answering my question, "In the competitions
you linked in videos, how many shots did a typical
contestant fire _in one minute_?" you choose to say "Let's
just end this discussion."

OK. We know the answer well enough without you admitting to it.



Popular competitions use regular rifles, mostly because
people have them:
https://www.nssf.org/shooting/3-gun/

Some situations, very long range targets and specialty
military snipers, use super precision bolt action rifles
(https://barrett.net/products/firearms/model99 for
example). That's a decided outlier among firearms.


That Barrett Mod 99 rifle is built for one thing: "to get the job done." What is the job? Why not get this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZHF...arrettFirearms The Mod 99 is relatively cheap at $4,600-ish, but I could see the discussion with the wife, "I need that rifle to get the job done, honey. C'mon. How'm I supposed to get the job done if I don't have that rifle?" I could see getting it for home defense, but not my home -- some home ten blocks away.

-- Jay Beattie.

I paraphrase the arguments to he

2x12 derailleur bicycles are way too complex. Nobody needs
all those gear selections. Who do you think you are, a Pro?

OK then. Here's my fixie. Light, simple, low maintenance,
fun and nobody borrows a fixed gear!

You must be some kind of fanatic on that offbeat machine.
I don't think there is any comparison between a fixie and a 50 cal sniper rifle, really. It's not like you can use a 50 cal sniper rifle to get to work. It doesn't "get the job done" unless your job is being a sniper or imagining that you're a sniper. I have better things to do -- like basically anything. If the time comes that I need to shoot invaders at 1,000 yards, I'll move to the desert. But wait! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcsL...l=CryTremorFan

-- Jay Beattie.
That is a 50 caliber gun and shot from its tripod it has almost NO recoil which means that Frank can wet his pants because it could be fired onto the 1,000 yard target 8 times a minute. t isn't as if anything would walk away from a 50 caliber strike so one shot to the center area of any living thing would blow it to pieces. Well, there is one thing - you actually have to know how to shoot and those kinds of people are rare. That was the point I was attempting to make concerning my friend. At 50-100 FEET he could hit 10 times out of 10. At 100 yards with a rifle I could shoot three times as fast and hit every time and he could rarely hit because you don't fire a rifle like you do a pistol.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:02:10 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2020 12:08:39 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:44:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2020 9:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 6:02:27 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2020 3:08 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2020 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:15:31 -0400, 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?

Frank, you have spent the past several days exposing, over
and over,
and over again, your complete ignorance of guns and shooting.

As above, you state that service rifles used for target
shooting
aren't optimized for accuracy which, once again, exposes
your total
ignorance of the subject as to my personal knowledge
"service rifles
ranging from the M1903 Springfield all the way up through
the AR/M16
type have been optimized for accuracy and your argument
that they
aren't is yet further evidence of your lack of knowledge..

Lets just end this discussion. You have demonstrated your
almost total
lack of knowledge about firearms and you have explained
your apparent
fear of the AR/M16 - it goes pop, pop, pop, as you
described it.

By the way, the Glock series of pistol can be fitted with
a 30 round
magazine and go pop,pop,pop, too. Why aren't you
condemning them?

So Frank, given your lack of knowledge about fire arms -
you seem to
know that the AR type was originally made for the army and
goes
pop,pop,pop and that is bad, but you don't seem to know
that the
plastic Glock pistols were also designed for the army and go
pop,pop,pop, just as many times as the AR type, but
apparently they
aren't bad - I'm ending this discussion.

As you have demonstrated, you simply lack sufficient
knowledge about
the subject to continue the discussion.

(Or to put it another way, "The dumb ass doesn't know what
he is
talking about)

So instead of answering my question, "In the competitions
you linked in videos, how many shots did a typical
contestant fire _in one minute_?" you choose to say "Let's
just end this discussion."

OK. We know the answer well enough without you admitting to it.



Popular competitions use regular rifles, mostly because
people have them:
https://www.nssf.org/shooting/3-gun/

Some situations, very long range targets and specialty
military snipers, use super precision bolt action rifles
(https://barrett.net/products/firearms/model99 for
example). That's a decided outlier among firearms.


That Barrett Mod 99 rifle is built for one thing: "to get the job done." What is the job? Why not get this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZHF...arrettFirearms The Mod 99 is relatively cheap at $4,600-ish, but I could see the discussion with the wife, "I need that rifle to get the job done, honey. C'mon. How'm I supposed to get the job done if I don't have that rifle?" I could see getting it for home defense, but not my home -- some home ten blocks away.

-- Jay Beattie.

I paraphrase the arguments to he

2x12 derailleur bicycles are way too complex. Nobody needs
all those gear selections. Who do you think you are, a Pro?

OK then. Here's my fixie. Light, simple, low maintenance,
fun and nobody borrows a fixed gear!

You must be some kind of fanatic on that offbeat machine.

I don't think there is any comparison between a fixie and a 50 cal sniper rifle, really. It's not like you can use a 50 cal sniper rifle to get to work. It doesn't "get the job done" unless your job is being a sniper or imagining that you're a sniper. I have better things to do -- like basically anything. If the time comes that I need to shoot invaders at 1,000 yards, I'll move to the desert. But wait! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcsL...l=CryTremorFan

-- Jay Beattie.

A LOT of people buy certain firearms because those people ENJOY firing them. Those people don't pretend to be snipers or soldiers; they just enjoy the experience of using their rifle.

Similar to people who buy the high end bicycle with high-end components and then all the bicycling clothing. Those people may not intend to ever race their bicycle but they enjoy their bicycle and their kit. That doesn't make them a nut.
Sure, I get it. I've shot a lot of military weapons because I had a friend who was a SWAT officer and one who was just a gun nut with a MAC-10, auto shotguns, etc., etc. I even own an M-1 carbine, which I inherited. In fact, I inherited a bunch of handguns and rifles. I understand the desire to go plinking with an AR15 variant.

Nonetheless, there is no comparison between owning a fixie or wearing a polka-dot jersey or being fat and owning an S-Works and owning a 50 cal sniper rifle. "Hey, I'm just an ordinary guy with a 50 cal sniper rifle." You don't just buy that. And I got to tell you, my friends with big shoot-em-up guns definitely trended towards survivalist. That is far too much paranoia for me. There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.

Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that a "survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he has.

On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:47:25 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
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.

The military snipers used Remington 700 and Winchester 70 bolt action rifles. Now days they might use Barrett rifles that shoot a 50 caliber cartridge. All are bolt action rifles. The Remington and Winchester are standard hunting rifles. Customized I am sure for military sniping.
I'm guessing they used 30-06 in the sniper rifles but I do not know. The M-16 and AR-15 rifles use .223 and/or 5.56 NATO rounds. Not a round designed for mile long sniper shots. Its a small (22!!!!!) round designed to maximize internal injuries at medium range. Where most army infantry fighting occurs.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
Sure, I get it. I've shot a lot of military weapons because I had a friend who was a SWAT officer and one who was just a gun nut with a MAC-10, auto shotguns, etc., etc. I even own an M-1 carbine, which I inherited. In fact, I inherited a bunch of handguns and rifles. I understand the desire to go plinking with an AR15 variant.

Nonetheless, there is no comparison between owning a fixie or wearing a polka-dot jersey or being fat and owning an S-Works and owning a 50 cal sniper rifle. "Hey, I'm just an ordinary guy with a 50 cal sniper rifle." You don't just buy that. And I got to tell you, my friends with big shoot-em-up guns definitely trended towards survivalist. That is far too much paranoia for me. There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.
Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that a "survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he has.

???????? Have you been out of touch with reality and living in a cave? Survivalists do not pretend that they intend to shoot people. Ask any of them and they come right out and tell you they have 6 months of military K rations stored in the basement and one hundred clips for their dozen AR-15 rifles. And they will gun down anyone and everyone who comes for them when the apocalypse or commies come. Look on YouTube and you will see thousands of videos of people saying this. Now it is not a crime to say these things and so they do say the truth. I assume it is a crime to say you are going to murder people but it is not a crime to say you will kill anyone coming to get you when the world comes to an end. You need to have a somewhat valid reason to say you are going to kill people. Self defense is supposedly valid.

On 10/2/2020 5:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
Sure, I get it. I've shot a lot of military weapons because I had a friend who was a SWAT officer and one who was just a gun nut with a MAC-10, auto shotguns, etc., etc. I even own an M-1 carbine, which I inherited. In fact, I inherited a bunch of handguns and rifles. I understand the desire to go plinking with an AR15 variant.

Nonetheless, there is no comparison between owning a fixie or wearing a polka-dot jersey or being fat and owning an S-Works and owning a 50 cal sniper rifle. "Hey, I'm just an ordinary guy with a 50 cal sniper rifle." You don't just buy that. And I got to tell you, my friends with big shoot-em-up guns definitely trended towards survivalist. That is far too much paranoia for me. There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.
Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that a "survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he has.

???????? Have you been out of touch with reality and living in a cave? Survivalists do not pretend that they intend to shoot people. Ask any of them and they come right out and tell you they have 6 months of military K rations stored in the basement and one hundred clips for their dozen AR-15 rifles. And they will gun down anyone and everyone who comes for them when the apocalypse or commies come. Look on YouTube and you will see thousands of videos of people saying this. Now it is not a crime to say these things and so they do say the truth. I assume it is a crime to say you are going to murder people but it is not a crime to say you will kill anyone coming to get you when the world comes to an end. You need to have a somewhat valid reason to say you are going to kill people. Self defense is supposedly valid.



Capt Bryan Suits says regularly, "If you have food, water,
fuel and blankets in your basement you think you're
prepared. Well, your neighbor doesn't. Once his children are
hungry, if you're not armed, you're not ready."


I take no position but Mr Seaton correctly describes a great
many of our fellow citizens' thinking.

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

On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:41:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 5:47:25 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
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.

The military snipers used Remington 700 and Winchester 70 bolt action rifles. Now days they might use Barrett rifles that shoot a 50 caliber cartridge. All are bolt action rifles. The Remington and Winchester are standard hunting rifles. Customized I am sure for military sniping.
I'm guessing they used 30-06 in the sniper rifles but I do not know. The M-16 and AR-15 rifles use .223 and/or 5.56 NATO rounds. Not a round designed for mile long sniper shots. Its a small (22!!!!!) round designed to maximize internal injuries at medium range. Where most army infantry fighting occurs.


The U.S.Army and, I believe the marine corps, have used the M24, the
Remington 300, in several versions until, at least 2017. The M24 was
chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO and the, later, M24A3 for the .338
Lapua Magnum.

The M24 seems to be superceded by the M2010, in several versions, said
to have been in service from about 2011. It is a bolt action rifle
firing the .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge. and is said to have been
in service from 2011 until the present.

The U.S. Army plans to field the Barrett MRAD (Multi-Role Adaptive
Design) in 2021 as their primary sniping weapon.
Interestingly the MRAD is a bolt action design that can be converted
to a number of different calibers in the field. The 7.62×51 mm NATO,
..300 Norma Magnum, .338 Norma Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, 6.5
Creedmoor and .300 Precision Rifle Cartridge are mentioned.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 19:23:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/2/2020 5:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
Sure, I get it. I've shot a lot of military weapons because I had a friend who was a SWAT officer and one who was just a gun nut with a MAC-10, auto shotguns, etc., etc. I even own an M-1 carbine, which I inherited. In fact, I inherited a bunch of handguns and rifles. I understand the desire to go plinking with an AR15 variant.

Nonetheless, there is no comparison between owning a fixie or wearing a polka-dot jersey or being fat and owning an S-Works and owning a 50 cal sniper rifle. "Hey, I'm just an ordinary guy with a 50 cal sniper rifle." You don't just buy that. And I got to tell you, my friends with big shoot-em-up guns definitely trended towards survivalist. That is far too much paranoia for me. There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.
Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that a "survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he has.

???????? Have you been out of touch with reality and living in a cave? Survivalists do not pretend that they intend to shoot people. Ask any of them and they come right out and tell you they have 6 months of military K rations stored in the basement and one hundred clips for their dozen AR-15 rifles. And they will gun down anyone and everyone who comes for them when the apocalypse or commies come. Look on YouTube and you will see thousands of videos of people saying this. Now it is not a crime to say these things and so they do say the truth. I assume it is a crime to say you are going to murder people but it is not a crime to say you will kill anyone coming to get you when the world comes to an end. You need to have a somewhat valid reason to say you are going to kill people. Self defense is supposedly valid.



Capt Bryan Suits says regularly, "If you have food, water,
fuel and blankets in your basement you think you're
prepared. Well, your neighbor doesn't. Once his children are
hungry, if you're not armed, you're not ready."


I take no position but Mr Seaton correctly describes a great
many of our fellow citizens' thinking.

Probably the most accurate method of looking at what is required to
survive in the U.S. is to look at what happens in real life disasters.
The, or at least one of the, greatest disasters in the U.S. was the
flooding of New Orleans, in 2005.

So the question is "was it necessary to possess a gun, in that local,
during that period"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:23:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2020 5:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
Sure, I get it. I've shot a lot of military weapons because I had a friend who was a SWAT officer and one who was just a gun nut with a MAC-10, auto shotguns, etc., etc. I even own an M-1 carbine, which I inherited. In fact, I inherited a bunch of handguns and rifles. I understand the desire to go plinking with an AR15 variant.

Nonetheless, there is no comparison between owning a fixie or wearing a polka-dot jersey or being fat and owning an S-Works and owning a 50 cal sniper rifle. "Hey, I'm just an ordinary guy with a 50 cal sniper rifle." You don't just buy that. And I got to tell you, my friends with big shoot-em-up guns definitely trended towards survivalist. That is far too much paranoia for me. There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.
Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that a "survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he has.

???????? Have you been out of touch with reality and living in a cave? Survivalists do not pretend that they intend to shoot people. Ask any of them and they come right out and tell you they have 6 months of military K rations stored in the basement and one hundred clips for their dozen AR-15 rifles. And they will gun down anyone and everyone who comes for them when the apocalypse or commies come. Look on YouTube and you will see thousands of videos of people saying this. Now it is not a crime to say these things and so they do say the truth. I assume it is a crime to say you are going to murder people but it is not a crime to say you will kill anyone coming to get you when the world comes to an end. You need to have a somewhat valid reason to say you are going to kill people. Self defense is supposedly valid.



Capt Bryan Suits says regularly, "If you have food, water,
fuel and blankets in your basement you think you're
prepared. Well, your neighbor doesn't. Once his children are
hungry, if you're not armed, you're not ready."


I take no position but Mr Seaton correctly describes a great
many of our fellow citizens' thinking.


What I love about the survivalists is that they don't agree on what will cause the end of the world -- floods, race wars, earthquakes, virus, volcanoes (literally, and around here plausible), world war, etc. At least when I was a kid, we could share a common paranoia -- getting nuked by the Ruskies..
https://timeline.com/pictures-nuclea...s-e524e17bce14

My family never built a bomb shelter. We were content to get blown-up, and if there were an end-times event in my old hometown, the Kiwanis would probably put-on a picnic at Oak Meadow Park -- with a raffle. In Portland, all the cargo bike guys would go nuts, and we'd have emergency food stations with kale and edamame. The horror of edamame and getting hit by a rescue guy on a cargo bike. https://bikeportland.org/2012/03/28/...response-69571

Now I'm worried. Maybe, just in case, I'll go buy a crate of MoonPies and a 50 cal sniper rifle. "Stay away from my f****** MoonPies!"

My question is this: when is it O.K. to shoot, and can you shoot kids if they come for the MoonPies? If someone just says, "hey man, could you spare a MoonPie," is it O.K. to shoot? Does he/she have to make a move for the Pie?

If it were an end-times event, and we were all F'd, I'd just shoot myself and maybe my wife if she asked nicely. I'd say "O.K., honey, now go down to the end of the block, I'm taking the shot with the 50 cal sniper rifle." She would say "Why did you buy that stupid sniper rifle. You could have gotten a fine ordinary rifle for half the price." The world will end with mild complaining.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 15:23:46 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no
control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably
do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that a
"survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he has.

Lol, it is a major topic of conversation on their lists.
Yet not one of them has a workable plan to survive the forthcoming zombie
apocalypse.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 15:56:30 -0700, wrote:

Nonetheless, there is no comparison between owning a fixie or wearing
a polka-dot jersey or being fat and owning an S-Works and owning a 50
cal sniper rifle. "Hey, I'm just an ordinary guy with a 50 cal sniper
rifle." You don't just buy that. And I got to tell you, my friends
with big shoot-em-up guns definitely trended towards survivalist.
That is far too much paranoia for me. There is a point at which there
is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.
Now it doesn't matter what you think you know. You simply have no
control over what someone wants to buy unless the reason is to provably
do harm to another human in the immediate future. Your pretending that
a "survivalist" intends to shoot people is far more paranoia than he
has.

???????? Have you been out of touch with reality and living in a cave?
Survivalists do not pretend that they intend to shoot people. Ask any
of them and they come right out and tell you they have 6 months of
military K rations stored in the basement

Aaah, there is a plan. Just keep them locked up in their basement/
compound until they are forced to eat all those rations and they'll ****
themselves to death.