New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On 10/2/2020 2:02 PM, 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.

I once met a guy who enjoyed the experience of setting off bombs.
Seriously.

As it happened, I also knew a guy who bought one from him, undercover,
and helped put him in prison.

But gosh, for such harmless fun! And aren't bombs "arms" under the
second amendment?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/2/2020 6:41 PM, wrote:
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.

Exactly. What a weird thing to become a fashion item!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/3/2020 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2020 6:41 PM, wrote:
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.

Exactly. What a weird thing to become a fashion item!



..223 pretty much displaced .308 and 30.06 which put a lot
more impact on target.

If .50cal became as popular as .223 you'd bitch about that too

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

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 1:18:06 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 3 October 2020 13:19:08 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:20:49 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 10:26:35 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to Rideablot:
There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.

I draw it beyond tanks but just South of an aircraft carrier. You can have more tanks for the price of a single aircraft carrier. QED. -- Andre Jute

Private tank ownership didn't work out so well in one of my cases. https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...tate_of_o.html

Apart from that tank case, I've had two cannon death cases -- sadly, one at a Boy Scout camp. I've done a few gun cases because we represented some big manufacturers, but we don't have that line of business anymore -- or no cases have been filed locally. Gun products cases usually involve stupid reloading mistakes, like the wrong powder or goosing the charge. The guns are fine.

-- Jay Beattie.

I read quite some time ago that the victim had super loaded the cartridges and was warned that the amount of powder he put in them was very dangerous. Not the powder makers fault that the guy loaded too much powder into the cartridges.

Btw, the Hellcat is technically a tank destroyer not a tank.

True, but the Hellcat was very tank-like with a rotating turret. In fact, it seems like modern tanks are closer to old tank killers with lighter armor, high speed, armor penetrating rounds, etc. And yes, it was a problem with ammunition. I would think the open turret would have improved the chance of surviving, but apparently not. Big guns take big bullets, either of which can be problematic for civilians.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 1:30:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/3/2020 2:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/3/2020 12:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:20:49 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 10:26:35 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to
Rideablot:
There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning
serious military hardware.

I draw it beyond tanks but just South ofÂ* an aircraft carrier. You
can have more tanks for the price of a single aircraft carrier.Â* QED.
-- Andre Jute

Private tank ownership didn't work out so well in one of my cases.
https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...tate_of_o.html


Apart from that tank case, I've had two cannon death cases -- sadly,
one at a Boy Scout camp. I've done a few gun cases because we
represented some big manufacturers, but we don't have that line of
business anymore -- or no cases have been filed locally.Â* Gun products
cases usually involve stupid reloading mistakes, like the wrong powder
or goosing the charge. The guns are fine.

-- Jay Beattie.


So not all that different from automobiles, motorcycles or wood chippers
in that regard?

Very, very different in design intent.

Certainly a different risk-utility calculus.

-- Jay Beattie.

Op zaterdag 3 oktober 2020 om 19:19:08 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:20:49 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 10:26:35 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to Rideablot:
There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.

I draw it beyond tanks but just South of an aircraft carrier. You can have more tanks for the price of a single aircraft carrier. QED. -- Andre Jute
Private tank ownership didn't work out so well in one of my cases. https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...tate_of_o.html

Apart from that tank case, I've had two cannon death cases -- sadly, one at a Boy Scout camp. I've done a few gun cases because we represented some big manufacturers, but we don't have that line of business anymore -- or no cases have been filed locally. Gun products cases usually involve stupid reloading mistakes, like the wrong powder or goosing the charge. The guns are fine.

-- Jay Beattie.


I learned a 'lot' from this discussion. As Dutch guy I only dealt with guns and arms in the army (drafted), for me 40 years ago. Can't say that I missed that.

Lou

On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 13:18:03 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 October 2020 13:19:08 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:20:49 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 10:26:35 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to Rideablot:
There is a point at which there is no neutral reason for owning serious military hardware.

I draw it beyond tanks but just South of an aircraft carrier. You can have more tanks for the price of a single aircraft carrier. QED. -- Andre Jute

Private tank ownership didn't work out so well in one of my cases. https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...tate_of_o.html

Apart from that tank case, I've had two cannon death cases -- sadly, one at a Boy Scout camp. I've done a few gun cases because we represented some big manufacturers, but we don't have that line of business anymore -- or no cases have been filed locally. Gun products cases usually involve stupid reloading mistakes, like the wrong powder or goosing the charge. The guns are fine.

-- Jay Beattie.

I read quite some time ago that the victim had super loaded the cartridges and was warned that the amount of powder he put in them was very dangerous. Not the powder makers fault that the guy loaded too much powder into the cartridges.

Btw, the Hellcat is technically a tank destroyer not a tank.

Cheers

If it was the case I read about the guy deliberately loaded additional
powder after being advised not to as it wasn't thought safe. BOOM!

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 10:15:59 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 7:56:29 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
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.
Tell us how you know what survivalists talk about you moronic fool. You
have police beating up women in front of their children because she
isn't isn't wearing a mask on her own property

Oh dear, with comprehension skills like that, no wonder you seen as
stupid.

and some son of a bitch
like you is talking about American survivalists?
Because they don't keep to the US survival nut newsgroups and wander into
the global newsgroup to share their "leet' knowledge, just like you do.

You are sick beyond
repair. Australia has LONG ago gone over to the dark side and every
posting you make proves it.

Gone over? Where we every on the other side, Oh wait, of course,
Australia is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean to you.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 15:42:59 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/3/2020 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2020 6:41 PM, wrote:
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.

Exactly. What a weird thing to become a fashion item!



.223 pretty much displaced .308 and 30.06 which put a lot
more impact on target.

If .50cal became as popular as .223 you'd bitch about that too

Back in the day a .58 caliber rifled musket was considered with
considerable trepidation.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, 3 October 2020 21:08:29 UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 15:42:59 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/3/2020 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2020 6:41 PM, wrote:
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.

Exactly. What a weird thing to become a fashion item!



.223 pretty much displaced .308 and 30.06 which put a lot
more impact on target.

If .50cal became as popular as .223 you'd bitch about that too

Back in the day a .58 caliber rifled musket was considered with
considerable trepidation.
--
Cheers,

John B.

My .58 caliber Hawken muzzle loading rifle can bring down a Grizzly bear or other North American large game.

Then again, according the Guiness Book of World Records a native Amerindian woman killed a grizzly bear from, iirc, three feet away when she shot it with a .22 caliber long rifle cartridge. That was a woman with lots of grit.

Cheers

Cheers