1gewehr

British Medical Journal and Centers for Disease Control? Hardly objective sources when it comes to firearms. Both are notorious for anti-gun 'studies' that prove to be full of bovine patties.

I once had a custom Enfield in .416 Rigby. I didn't fire it much as the ammo was $4/round in those days. but it was pretty accurate, and didn't recoil as badly as I feared. It was butter-slick to operate, and I kept it in the hope of one day going on a hunt worthy of the rifle. I sold it to someone who actually WAS going to Africa to hunt. He used to get a Cape Buffalo and a lion. That's the closest I'll probably ever get to such a hunt! Here is an excellent primer on cartridges for dangerous game: Rifles for Dangerous Game

I've got an older Gemtech Outback that I am having upgraded. Gemtech has excellent customer service and is known for the excellence of their products. The main reason I went with the Outback originally was because I knew that the company stood behind it and would take care of me no matter what happened. I use it on my P22 with Remington Standard velocity target ammo. From the P22 barrel, that ammo is subsonic, very accurate and consistent, reliable, and less expensive than the 'subsonic' ammo.

I saw a chain fire once at a CW reenactment. Only blanks, but still an eye-opening experience. No damage to the Colt Navy replica, and nobody was hurt. Chambers were sealed with a greased felt wad, so the consensus was that a spark went under the other caps. When you fire a round, the cap splits and spits sparks. I use a tiny dab of crisco on the outside of the nipple to prevent this. Crisco is good for your holster! Preserves the leather and keeps it nice and soft!

I've got a Rossi in .357. It needed a little break-in before it would function smoothly. It does not like the short 148gr .38Spl target loads. The short rounds do not feed well. Aside from that, it's a nice little carbine. With heavy .357 loads, it's probably good to use on deer at short range. Light .38 reloads are cheap plinking ammo. The Marlin is still a superior rifle. The quality and design are better, and the action is really smooth and slick. If you can spring for the Marlin, you won't regret it.

No matter how you look at it, $3/box means you get to shoot 50% more ammo. I buy components in bulk when they show up on sale. I'd say my cost for reloading 9mm is closer to $5/box with bought bullets, powder, primers, and including new polishing media and compound every 5000rds. Buying 1 pound of powder, a single box of primers, and a couple of hundred bullets at a time is expensive. You really get to save when you buy powder in 8lb jugs, 5000 primers to the case, and 2000bullets in a case. You are correct that the savings get better with larger calibers! Mostly because the brass you are re-using is a proportionally larger expense of the factory ammo. Most rifle ammo gives really great savings.

File your 5320.20 for a permanent change of address and you'll be good to go. When you want to buy additional NFA items, you'll find that TN is a 'must sign' state for Form 4s. Send it to the county sheriff, and they 'must sign' unless they have knowledge that they should not. All NFA items are legal to own in TN with no additional requirements above the Federal ones.

If the frame is brass, do NOT use the load above. Use a very light load with the .44 brass frames, as they will shoot loose in short order otherwise. Even the steel frame Colt copies will shoot loose with heavy loads. If you want to play with compressed loads, get one of the steel, solid frame Remington copies. Black powder is a lot of fun. With a bit of practice, you can get amazingly accurate with those old smoke-poles. If you cast your own bullets, thye can be very inexpensive to shoot as well.

Of course, one could argue that a jury composed of non-firearms owners would not be our peers!

NO. You are reacting emotionally to an argument that has not been stated. The point that has been made is that it is NUTS for the person who shot your father to get out of prison at all! If someone is safe to live among the law-abiding, then they should be able to defend themselves and their family. If they are not, then we should not be releasing them. Releasing violent murderers, rapists, etc is NUTS!!

I've been using the Harbor Freight electronic muffs for the past five years. They are cheap enough to have a couple sets around. While the name-brand ones are undeniable nicer, for $30 it's hard to beat these. Especially if you use a discount coupon (20% off in American Rifleman) and get them for less!

A long time ago in a state other than TN, a Person I Know Very Well (PIKVW) was shooting at a public outdoor range. About two positions down, there was a rather loud and obnoxious group that included a couple of women that should not have been wearing such skimpy clothing to the range. The PIKVW had an FN FAL that would eject brass very precisely. As it so happened, after the ninth or ninetieth time of having these folks call 'Cease Fire' so they could put a couple more cans twenty feet out as targets every time they fired ten rounds, the PIKVW (as well as everyone else there) became exceedingly annoyed. The PIKVW took his FAL out, and started shooting into the berm 100 yards away. With his buddy calling range corrections, the PIKVW was able to adjust his fire and lob a nice, hot .308 brass case directly from the ejection port of the FAL down the excessively exposed cleavage of one of these women. If you think a little, bitty 9mm case is hot, imagine the heat retained by a nice, heavy .308 case. Everyone at the range that day was well entertained by the ensuing dance. It was probably the most exercise that woman had had in the past thirty years. Naturally, the PIKVW apologized profusely (after he stopped giggling) and put away the FAL. But, alas, the damage was done. Another person attempted the same feat from the position next door with his CETME. And he didn't even get on target before the group with those women decided they had been at the range long enough. BTW, I do not recommend that those with a CETME try this trick. Normally, the CETME ejects a bit to the front and about 30 feet right. In order to get the brass to fall behind the firing line, you have to shoot at a target one or two positions to the right, which is bad manners. With it's adjustable gas, the FAL can be tuned to eject within a range of about 20 degrees in front or behind the firing line. By leaning the rifle to the left, you can get the loft necessary to drop the brass into a buck (or other container). I have seen an MP5 that ejected perfectly for this trick. But you have to take off the port buffer. And most MP5 owners don't like to ding their receivers. The purpose of this story is to show that women should avoid wearing a top which would allow brass to get into the cleavage. Crew-neck t-shirts work well. I would like to point out that intentionally pelting someone with hot brass is considered to be very rude. It should be reserved for only the most annoying people.

This is an interesting discussion. I'm seeing a lot of great points. To add my $.02, I do not see it a Constitutional issue at all. It's a contractual issue. If person 'A' wants to receive some of the taxpayers' money, they have a contractual obligation to stay off illegal drugs. In order for person 'A' to certify himself as eligible to receive this money, he must agree to drug testing. If they flunk a drug test, they are no longer eligible to receive our money. Pretty simple. I cannot let this flawed analogy stand. By passing tax exemptions, Congress declares that it favors some individuals over others. So they do not have the same 'fair share'. That is true of every exemption. Sure, I get a tax break for having a mortgage. Should I resent it that others get a huge deduction for having a bunch of children? Second, It is not a straight transfer of funds no matter how you look at it. There is no such thing as a 'fair share' of taxes. There should be, as that is what the Constitution originally required. Article 1, section 9 states "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken". In other words, if Congress taxes citizens directly, it would have to be equal for EVERY person. That is why an income tax was un-Constitutional until the 16th Amendment was passed. Now Congress can exempt some people from paying the tax, and favor others at teh expense of a smaler percentage of the population. According to your analogy, the bottom 49% of income earners are the worst free-loaders as they pay no income tax, and in many cases receive extra money. Is that fair?

And how many people do you know that would be willing to leave the boat with all of the MG42s and artillery firing at them?

Nope, this is an outgrowth of the '60's mostly. Previous to the '68 GCA, some states banned felons from owning firearms, but most believed that if you weren't dangerous enough to be in jail, then you were safe to have a gun. Of course, that was before we started filling the jails with non-violent criminals. You may have heard the phrase "pay his debt to society'. Americans used to believe that crime was ALL property crime. As such, you could 'pay your debt' for almost anything short of murder. And once that debt was paid, you could make a fresh start. Now, of course, we are much smarter and know that once you have committed any felony such as buying some marijuana or bringing a toilet down from Canada that doesn't meet the EPA standards, you are permanently going to be too dangerous to be allowed to mix with normal folks. Therefore, you should be permanently branded as a 'felon', lose basic Constitutional rights, and have to tell the world you are a felon every time you apply for a job, open a bank account, or fill out a loan application or pretty much do anything. Is there any wonder that recidivism rates are much higher now than they were 50 years ago? Then, someone had a chance at a fresh start. Now, that person might as well be branded with a huge red 'F' on each cheek. And since all felons are too dangerous to mix with normal people, we have a much larger percentage of our population in jail, in spite of a lower violent crime rate. I'd like someone to logically explain how that makes any sense?

Ive been riding for over 30 years. The best advice I was ever given was "ride like everyone else is trying to kill you". I had one relatively bad accident where a woman crossed a four-lane road in front of me turned left suddenly. With nowhere else to go, I went off-roading. The bike and I slid across 50 yards of sandy and rocky soil before stopping. Fortunately, it was winter and I was wearing heavy riding gauntlets, heavy jeans, long johns, and an army field jacket with liner and sweater. I ended up with rash on arms and legs, but no serious injuries. All my clothes were shredded! My gloves and helmet were in bad shape. I had a Lexan face shield that was rubbed mostly away by ground contact. If I had been going 65 instead of 60, I probably would have been hurt badly. That incident taught me to ALWAYS wear the gear!!! Don't buy cheap helmets or gloves. I'll second the riding class. In fact, I'll say that taking it every 5-10 years is probably a good idea. You get complacent with more experience. I took it for the second time about 5 years ago and it woke me up to bad habits I had fallen into. It's probably the cheapest insurance you can get. Riding is undeniably more dangerous than driving a car. I imagine THAT is part of the joy of riding. You know that you are further on the edge and need to stay vigilant and skillful in order to survive. I used to commute in to downtown Nashville daily on my bike. Every ride was an adventure!

Laws for locking up guns are stupid and reckless. Studies have shown that criminals take advantage of those laws to burglarize and assault citizens. While incidents like this are sad, they are never entirely preventable. Anyone who has had inquisitive small children knows they can get into almost anything. The key is trying to keep your loaded firearms inaccessible until they have grown up enough to get safety lessons. In my case, my father used his Army .45 to blow up some melons when I was about four. I knew it was kept in his top dresser drawer, but I couldn't get to it until I was about 4. But after that demonstration, I stayed away from it until I was old enough to be taught to handle it at 14. I taught my son the same lesson, and it is simple and effective. If you properly teach older children, they will keep the younger ones away from dangerous objects.

Paul Ryan is a very intelligent man. He has shown that he is not afraid to stand for what he believes. I am also convinced that he is honestly trying to work for the benefit of the country. That does not make him a good Presidential candidate. It's a good start. But there is a good reason why we rarely elect someone straight from the House into the Presidency. Being President requires leadership, management, and executive experience. When we elect Presidents without this experience, it shows up almost immediately. Obama has show this to us almost daily with his constant waffling and trying to avoid responsibility for tough decisions. It's one reason most President come from having been governor of a state. They have had to make tough, unpopular decisions and been in the position of having to make people do things they don't like. That's not to say that Paul Ryan could NOT do those things. But I will find it difficult to support someone for President until they can show that they CAN.

REALLY? How? You wake up to shouts of "POLICE! GET ON THE FLOOR!", and guys in black with guns running up your hall in poor light if not darkness. How can you immediately tell if they really are police? You have 1 second to decide. Choosing wrong could end with you and possibly your family dead. Again, I maintain that this is a failure of the police. Wrong tactic, wrong time. This is NOT a job for the SWAT team.

Blue or stainless? What's the current condition? I've seen them from $250 to $400 used lately.

:lol:Damn! I purely HATE having to clean coffee from the keyboard!!!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is still no excuse for this incident. The use of the SWAT team to break into the guys house with his wife and child there is reckless and unnecessary. Surely there are better, less dangerous ways to arrest someone suspected of violence? Why not a routine traffic stop? Why not have him come in for some routine reason and arrest him then? Without really thinking hard, I can come up with half a dozen ways to arrest someone without endangering the public or causing a huge scene. I understand the desire to keep a SWAT team busy. Those guys train hard, and it's hard to maintain a level of training and proper mental concentration if you don't actually use that training. But the SWAT team should be the LAST resort. Too often, tasking the SWAT team is the first option chosen. When you send in a SWAT team, it should be because the threat of armed conflict is virtually inevitable and other options are no longer valid. In this case, the individual who made the decision to deploy the SWAT team to deal with an arrest should be the one to bear responsibility for this man's death.

OK, listened to Palin's speech. She didn't say anything inaccurate. The British WERE going to Lexington and Concord to seize American arms. Specifically, several small cannon and powder stores. After the warnings given by riders from Boston, those stores were moved further away. Nowhere did she reference the 2nd Amendment. Again, rather than make Palin look stupid, the press just makes themselves look ignorant.

Seems that the book you linked to is based on climate data from NASA Goddard that they admit was inaccurate. In fact, most data that purports to show a warming trend over the past 100 years has been falsified (oops). Possible Conspiracy To Falsify Temperature Data Uncovered | NewsBusters.org Climate trends seem to be caused by several factors, none man-made. The most accurate predictor is solar activity. Volcanoes are another big one. Not much we can do to affect those factors.

Nope. They planned ahead and saved for their own retirement. Just like my wife and I are doing. What you want is for the government to go steal from somebody else to pay for YOUR lack of planning. (finger key back atya.) I'm all in favor of helping out the neighbors and giving a hand when it's needed. But getting the government to force somebody to do it is just legalized theft.