RobertNashville

Aimpoint is definitely on my short list of ones to check out!

Thanks for the info...I'll take you op on looking at you supply this weekend! I've always been sort of partial to Trijicon products but very willing to look at other options as well...although I've never used them I've heard nothing but good about Aimpoint and Eotech.

Hello everyone! I need some expert advice...since I likely won't get that, I'll settle for opinions! I have a SCAR; primary use for (other than the fun of taking it out and shooting it at the range) is for home defense purposes (and with that I'm assuming such a need to use it would most likely be at night in a low or no light condition). In other words, I would most likely be dealing with distances of 15-20 feet in most cases. I have a Sig front grip with an integrated tactical light which aside from the very bright steady light also has a strobe feature so I have plenty of blinding white light available! I'm thinking that a red-dot setup might would work best but I'm really undecided about it. Actually...I'm wondering if I need an optic at all as I'm (or at least the rifle) is pretty accurate with just the iron sights (I usually shoot at either 50 or 100 yards). I've never used a red-dot sight before...in fact, although I've shot quite a few different rifles over the years, my SCAR is the first rifle I've ever owned personally and I've virtually no experience with modern optics for a rifle like this. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter and for the sake of discussion; I would want to spend less than $1K and hopefully keep the cost in the $500-600 range. Thanks!!!

I just want to add my $0.02 cents here and encourage folks to come...you don't have to be a member of TFA to come to the meetings. I truly don't know who is going to get my vote for Gov. this year so I'm really looking forward to meeting and hearing from both candidates.

I'm probably going to go to the IDPA match this Saturday (the 18th) in Dickson put on by Music City Tactical Shooters (what can I say...I like frustration!) and if so, I this Saturday is out as far as Cedar City goes...the following Saturday (the 25th) I'm out of town for the weekend so Saturday October 2 is my first Open Saturday...if that can work for you; shoot me a PM and we'll meet up someplace and maybe have breakfast before going to the range! Robert

I too took up skeet shooting for the first time this year and I love it...I haven't gotten a chance to do much for the past three months but it's a lot of fun. I belong to the Nashville Gun Club/Tennessee Clay Target Complex (Nashville) and also the Cedar City Gun Club (Lebanon). I have to echo the thoughts on a coach...the lessons really do help a great deal. I believe they do a "fun shoot" at Henry Horton on Sundays (but I've never been...need to check on that), Cedar City does one on Monday evenings and Nashville Gun Club does theirs on Thursday nights but you have to belong to the club to do their shoots. Cedar City is open to everyone on Saturdays. Let me know if you ever want to go; I've been looking for an excuse to go again! Anyway...skeet is a LOT of fun...I think the best description is that it's like golf with shotguns...which also means, prepare for some frustration before you really get good at it!

I would love to have come to this...I just didn't know about it until today I guess I just need to stay on top of things and visit TGO more often!

Based on all his comments it's difficult to say how much he supports or doesn't support "gun rights" in general. There are people who don't particularly "like' firearms and don't own them and may even think that other people "shouldn't" own them but who DO believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says even if they don't personally like what it has to say. In any case, maybe he has changed his mind about Katrina and/or the need for firearms for protection when the government of a city, etc has broken down (or in the case of Katrina, run away)...I do think he is sincere in his desire that the balance of the court not shift to those who want the court to become a legislative branch of government that re-writes social policy in their own, liberal worldview. There is more at stake than the Second Amendment if that happens!

As we approach another July 4th and amid all the grilling and fireworks, I think this column by Bill O'Reilly is scary and worth a read. <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Carmentr%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-alt:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Shooting Down the Constitution By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, July 1, 2010 <o></o> "Even a simple guy like me can figure out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's contained in the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week vote to infringe on the right to bear arms? The court ruled 5 to 4 that 76-year-old Otis McDonald, an African-American Democrat who lives in Chicago, can own a handgun. Mr. McDonald, a retired working class guy, sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald was blunt. He said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he, Otis, has to protect himself from harm. But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all basically told Mr. McDonald to take a hike. They opined that guns cause a lot of damage to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that is a policy belief, is it not? Where in the Constitution does it say if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does it say that? The Founding Fathers well understood the need for individual protection. Under King George, British soldiers routinely threw Colonial families out of their homes using a bogus law called the "Quartering Act." Also, the colonists had little protection from harm because there was no federal authority and state governments were in their infancy. The Founders also recognized that armed rebellion was a possibility even after we threw the British out. So they allowed the new American citizens the right to "bear arms" as protection and, indeed, wanted the folks to form "militias" in case of emergency. A smart fifth-grader understands all that, but apparently four Supreme Court justices do not. If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of ten years. That would mean that any thug who carried a gun illegally, or used one to commit a crime, would be facing a ten-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done. You want bad guys with guns off the streets? That's the way to do it. My opinion on gun control changed drastically when I saw the chaos in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>New Orleans</st1></st1:city> following Hurricane Katrina. Armed bands of looters in boats cruised the city, taking pretty much any thing they wanted, because the local police presence had collapsed. If you had remained in town in order to protect your property, you would have been at the mercy of these looters unless you had the firepower to ward them off. That is why all Americans have the right to bear arms. It is depressing to think that the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of this world do not care a whit about the welfare of Otis McDonald and other Americans who find themselves at risk. For Justice Ginsburg, it is all about her liberal philosophy, not what benefits the American people. The Supreme Court is just one justice away from giving Ms. Ginsburg and her leftist crew the power to completely usurp the Constitution. Be very afraid." LINK: Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Column - Shooting Down the Constitution

I appreciate all the input and the great suggestions! It doesn't look as if I'll have a boresight before the weekend so I won't be able to try that right away but I will still likely go back to the range on Sunday and start at the 25 yard mark and to have some fun! Other then the fun of shooting this (and yes, it is a 5.56) my primary purpose for this is as my home defense gun. As such, I don't have a critical need for the ACOG at all yet alone that it be perfectly zeroed. However, ultimately, I would still like to have it zeroed at least at the 100 M mark.

I've thought about a laser boresight but, not to be too stupid, are these things bright enough to use at an outdoor range in bright sunshine or would I need to start at an indoor range???

Forgive the somewhat silly/simple post but I need some help. I purchased a used ACOG TA33-9 from a private party to use on my SCAR light and after taking it to the range for the first time with the ACOG I'm wondering if there is either something terribly wrong with the ACOG (seems unlikely - I have all the original paperwork, case, etc. and there is nothing obviously wrong with it) or something terribly wrong with how I was going about trying to use it (which frankly, seems a lot more likely). For a little bit of background, while I've shot rifles before, the SCAR is the fist rifle I've ever personally owned and I've never before used optics or tied to zero a scope. Most of my rifle experience prior to the SCAR was with an M1 Garand and an M14 (eight years active duty USN). At the range this past weekend I was only shooting at 50 yards and perhaps that is part of my problem but the bottom line is that I could shoot decent groups with the iron sites but even using a "Led Sled" (first time for that as well) with the ACOG and I never put a single round on target. I've talked with customer service at Trijicon and they suggested that if the ACOG is significantly off center (which it might be) one way to bring it back to near center/zero is to turn both adjustment screws all the way to the stop in the direction of the arrows, then turn them back all the way counting how many clicks it took...divide the number of clicks in half and then them back the other direction by that number of clicks (hope that makes sense). I will be going back to the range this weekend but I can't shake the feeling that I'm missing some critical yet simple step that is causing my problems. If anyone has any suggestions, links, etc. I would certainly appreciate them and if anyone is interested, I'm likely going to go back to the range at the Montgomery County Shooting Complex on Sunday (assuming they are open!). Thanks!!!

States and cities that don't want the populace to enjoy their rights will always keep trying to find ways to quash those rights and that's true whether we are talking about the Second Amendment or the First or any other. I would suggest that the pendulum swung so far to the "anti-gun" side because the people elected politicians who ultimately don't like the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution who passed anti-gun legislation (sometimes with the support of well meaning but nevertheless totally wrong conservative/moderate politicians) and who also put left-wing "I know better than you do" judges into place which liberal/socialist/communist/dirt people groups have used to try and re-make the United States into "Russia light" with lawsuits that did what they couldn't get the legislators to do for them directly. These groups took many decades to get us to what I fervently hope was the "low point" for gun rights and we aren't going to swing the pendulum back with one or two Supreme Court decisions...we have some momentum now but it's going to take electing politicians who actually DO believe in the Constitution who will dismantle some the the onerous legislation currently in place and who will start to put judges in place who also think the Constitution means what it says and says what it means and then groups who believe as we do will have to continue to file lawsuits and continue to push back against any who would seek to take away any of our rights.

Thanks for posting that link...great read. The best line in the entire story is the last paragraph where is says... "Lowy, the Brady Center lawyer, wants to make it clear that "this case isn't about Mr. Palmer or what anyone thinks of him. If you recognize a constitutional right to carry loaded guns on the streets of Washington, what you're saying is that thousands of people have the right to carry loaded guns." Palmer (the plaintiff suing for the right to carry in public in DC) couldn't agree more. "

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Carmentr%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-alt:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I claim no specific expertise in this case or its potential impact on firearm laws in general but of the experts I have read and/or listened to, they don’t seem to be expecting any earth-shattering changes from this ruling (even though the ruling is expected to be positive for gun owners). <o></o> I believe we are going to keep seeing progress toward restoring the Second Amendment to its actual, simple to understand meaning in many states but we have a long, long way to go. Moreover, I would say we aren’t just fighting against incorrect/emotion-based arguments against firearms by those who would like to see all of them disappear (except of course for the ones carried by their own personal bodyguards) but we also are fighting against a large (and seemingly ever-growing) segment of the population that simply don’t know or don’t like or don’t believe in or don’t want “individual rights’ to anything. Such people are as much the enemy of the Second Amendment as Sara Brady is. Even those people who can’t articulate the thought seem to have an innate understanding that you can’t have personal, individual RIGHTS without ALSO having personal, individual RESPONSIBILITY and there are a lot of people out there in society today who truly don’t want responsibility and seem more than willing to give up whatever rights are necessary to avoid the responsibility. I would say that the mindset of “wanting to be taken care of” is as much a danger to the Second Amendment as is the mindset that “guns are bad” and should be banned.

Has anyone here had any experience or checked into foodinsurance.com ( Get an Emergency Food Supply and Survival Food Storage )? I've been thinking about trying their small "back pack" set-up and if the food seemed decent then perhaps buying enough to last a while but I'd like the hear from someone who has already tried it before spending the money!

HANDGUNS: 357 Sig 38 special 45ACP Rifle: 5.57 Shotguns: 12ga

This is an interesting thread as this is something I've been thinking about for quite a while now. It's been in the back of my mind for years now (at least since 9/11) and has been more prominent with the tornadoes in Murfreesboro on Good Friday (2009); when the tornado passed withing a mile of my house and especially with the flooding in May. I suppose I haven't done much about it yet, however, because I haven't been sure "where" or "how" to start! I am not someone who thinks the sky is going to fall (commies invade, etc. etc.) but I think we all know that "bad" things can and do happen; whether they are natural disasters or man-made ones.

This is an interesting thread as I've spent the last couple of years selling off some and acquiring others so that what I was left with were weapons that I truly wanted to have (and when the time comes, will pass on to special people who will appreciate them)...a couple are "tools" (carry weapons) but the rest are for the shear joy of ownership and the enjoyment of using them. That said, there is one I've had for many years that I think I could never sell under any circumstances that while not my "best" gun, it's sort of like an old friend that I always feel comfortable with. It's a .45ACP Colt Mark IV/Series 70 Gold Cup National Match (1975). The other that I would probably never sell is a Les Baer Custom TR Special (Stainless - .45ACP).

I would call and ask Mike at at the Safe House and ask (the Safe House delivered my new Browning Copper series two weeks ago today!). Mike can easily tell you what the pros and cons are of putting the safe in the garage. Personally I think you should avoid putting the safe in the garage if possible - security concerns aside, the more controlled the environment the better off the contents of the safe will be whether the contents are firearms, papers or whatever.

Whenever and wherever you have the next one I will be there!

My safe will be delivered this Thursday; a Browning (Copper series) from Mike at the Safe House. Until recently, I really only had one handgun and I wasn't much worried as, when I traveled, I generally had it with me. Although my "collection" is fairly small, what I do have is fairly valuable and, obviously, only my carry gun comes with me when I travel which leaves the others vulnerable to theft or fire. Having a good safe to keep them in will definitely take some of the worry out of traveling. Thanks to all who posted!

I have to say that I'm very glad I was wrong about all of this... In the other thread, I had said and was very sure that we likely would not get a very good bill out of the legislature this year at all and that even if we did, with this being an election year and everyone eager to get out and campaign (and an assumed veto by the governor); the chance of getting the veto set aside seemed very unlikely at best. At this point, however, it seems that we have a good bill and I am at least fairly optimistic that the veto will be overridden...let's keep the pressure on our reps/senators to do just that.

I have decided that I will get a safe; all I have to do now is pick it out and get it delivered and set-up! I just re-carpeted my house and didn't want to have to deal with moving a safe before that was done!

I agree. I wasn't really dealing with the legal/criminal ramifications of an armed citizen who finds himself (purposely or inadvertently) in a posted property; I was merely supporting the basic concept that if a business/property owner doesn't want armed citizens in his business/on his property that that he has a the right to "say so" by posting. In the event someone does carry in a posted property; I see no justification for "criminal" charges against that person simply because he is "there"....however, if the person is asked to leave and refuses it's another matter...at that point, as I understand the law, that person is guilty of criminal trespass, armed or not.