Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 76
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Velocity26 Click here to enlarge
    Attachment 14517

    This is a common 38 Super Open gun with optical sight, hybrid barrel porting and compensator. The mags hold about 30 rounds (rules limited) and it shoots like a very loud 22 cal.
    So awesome! So no kick and obviously really quick/accurate target acquisition? I don't even know where to look to build something like that.... any ideas?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,587
    Rep Points
    2,017.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Yes Reputation No
    That is a beauty. Is this yours? May I ask how much?

    Looks like you are into comp shooting - where you located?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    177
    Rep Points
    541.8
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    I am in Central Florida and have been shooting competition for many many years.

    There are obviously cheaper alternatives but the gun in the picture is an Infinity Open that is made by SVIGUNS.COM. They are the actual factory and build every part that goes into the gun themselves. You select the model and options and they build it to your specifications. Nothing is cast, it is all CNC machined from bar stock and they can make certain parts from steel, stainless steel. titanium, or aluminum to alter the weight and balance of the pistol. The barrels are coated in some proprietary coatings (inside and out) to reduce friction.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,616
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Velocity26 Click here to enlarge
    I am in Central Florida and have been shooting competition for many many years.

    There are obviously cheaper alternatives but the gun in the picture is an Infinity Open that is made by SVIGUNS.COM. They are the actual factory and build every part that goes into the gun themselves. You select the model and options and they build it to your specifications. Nothing is cast, it is all CNC machined from bar stock and they can make certain parts from steel, stainless steel. titanium, or aluminum to alter the weight and balance of the pistol. The barrels are coated in some proprietary coatings (inside and out) to reduce friction.
    Do you ever go to OK shooting over near the lake? I go there sometimes, super chill place. I shoot my rifles, they have 200 yard range.
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Interestingly, that vid shows a homeowner fending off 4 armed assailants with a semi-auto weapon. Unless it was a full-auto that he left in semi-auto mode.
    I'm not saying he used an auto I'm saying if that situation ever happens I would definitely like a full auto considering I am outgunned and outmanned.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    And, the founding fathers' philosophy was that the world evolves, and the goverment's laws need to as well. That's why they allowed for a legislative branch to enact changes, and a judicial branch to offer legal opinions on the suitability and interpretation of the laws.
    That's right. They also enacted this thing called the bill of rights which they saw as the 10 most important rights for government to guarantee. They did not pick very direct language saying having arms will not be infringed thinking they should limit gun choices, they picked direct language saying arm choices will not be limited in any way. It is spelled out right there.

    The reason they are limiting gun choices is because people armed as well as the government are a threat to the government. That was the point, that if the government ever got out of control you could defend yourself from it. They have curbed that power and you even justify and accept it.

    The founding fathers would be sitting on a stockpile of automatic rifles while chugging beers and smoking stogies saying $#@! that.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    The monitored/regulated ownership of machine guns, silencers, etc. isn't new - the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934.
    The Constitution was enacted a bit before that I believe. It was also the foundation and the 2nd amendment was not put where it is by accident. It directly follows free speech. You think that was an accident?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pretty sure I am in Mexico
    Posts
    922
    Rep Points
    930.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'm not saying he used an auto I'm saying if that situation ever happens I would definitely like a full auto considering I am outgunned and outmanned.



    That's right. They also enacted this thing called the bill of rights which they saw as the 10 most important rights for government to guarantee. They did not pick very direct language saying having arms will not be infringed thinking they should limit gun choices. It is spelled out right there.

    The reason they are limiting gun choices is because people armed as well as the government are a threat to the government. That was the point, that if the government ever got out of control you could defend yourself from it. They have curbed that power and you even justify and accept it.

    The founding fathers would be sitting on a stockpile of automatic rifles while chugging beers and smoking stogies saying $#@! that.



    The Constitution was enacted a bit before that I believe. It was also the foundation and the 2nd amendment was not put where it is by accident. It directly follows free speech. You think that was an accident?
    Holy $#@!....I agree with Sticky completely (2nd time ever), well said sir.Click here to enlarge
    Never thought I would see the day...
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Life is so much more fun with a nemesis. I miss Shiv. Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'm not saying he used an auto I'm saying if that situation ever happens I would definitely like a full auto considering I am outgunned and outmanned.



    That's right. They also enacted this thing called the bill of rights which they saw as the 10 most important rights for government to guarantee. They did not pick very direct language saying having arms will not be infringed thinking they should limit gun choices, they picked direct language saying arm choices will not be limited in any way. It is spelled out right there.

    The reason they are limiting gun choices is because people armed as well as the government are a threat to the government. That was the point, that if the government ever got out of control you could defend yourself from it. They have curbed that power and you even justify and accept it.

    The founding fathers would be sitting on a stockpile of automatic rifles while chugging beers and smoking stogies saying $#@! that.



    The Constitution was enacted a bit before that I believe. It was also the foundation and the 2nd amendment was not put where it is by accident. It directly follows free speech. You think that was an accident?
    The Constitution was earlier? No kidding?

    My point is that the legislature, even back then, felt certain classifications of then-modern weaponry required additional regulation, and passed a law (NFA) that's been on the books, what, about 80 years. In that time, neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court, have considered those regulations to require removal or to be unconsitutional - and they have for others. In fact, a couple major cases as recently as 2008 and 2010.

    Another point to consider - yes, you have a right to free speech - with limitations. Your right to free speech doesn't supercede others' rights to security (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater for fun is the classic example). Individual rights are important, but so are the rights of the collective group - it's a balance.

    I'll leave it at this: responsible, law-abiding citizens in the United States have an unlimited ability to legally possess pretty much any firearm they wish - from the most basic .22 rimfire to a bespoke .700 H&H and everything in between. And, yes, including fully-automatic machine guns, and/or sound suppressors - owned and used legally. So I'm having a hard time understanding how one's right to bear arms is being infringed in some way? The only people I can think of who're infringed, are those who cannot (for whatever reason) pass the background checks... and one can argue that they had, but subsequently forfeited, their rights with their prior transgressions. Frankly, gun-control in this country is much more lenient today than during the Clinton-administration.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    My point is that the legislature, even back then, felt certain classifications of then-modern weaponry required additional regulation, and passed a law (NFA) that's been on the books, what, about 80 years.
    And my point is the founding father's didn't pussy foot around the issue. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is pretty simple isn't it?

    Just because the government managed to pass a bill limiting our second amendment right does not make that right. The fact you defend it and accept it is exactly the problem. They have already convinced people they need to be protected from themselves and that the government should be the one's protecting/controlling them when the whole point of the second amendment is the exact opposite.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Another point to consider - yes, you have a right to free speech - with limitations.
    No, it's all or nothing. It is a right worth dying for which is exactly what many people did during the revolution or are our memories really that short?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Your right to free speech doesn't supercede others' rights to security (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater for fun is the classic example). Individual rights are important, but so are the rights of the collective group - it's a balance.
    Go ahead, keep whittling away at my rights for the illusion of "security" for others. The threat of a person getting hurt outweighs free speech? BS, yes, people may get hurt but the philosophy of free speech is worth it. There are no limits, it's all or nothing or else we really don't have the right we were supposed to be guaranteed.

    Liberty comes with risks.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    I'll leave it at this: responsible, law-abiding citizens in the United States have an unlimited ability to legally possess pretty much any firearm they wish - from the most basic .22 rimfire to a bespoke .700 H&H and everything in between. And, yes, including fully-automatic machine guns, and/or sound suppressors - owned and used legally. So I'm having a hard time understanding how one's right to bear arms is being infringed in some way?
    You are justifying this with a loophole that allows automatic weapons produced before a certain date to be purchased. The existence of the law you mentioned which does not allow me to go purchase a brand new fully automatic super technologically advanced assault rifle is being infringed in some way. I'm sure you can see that.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    And my point is the founding father's didn't pussy foot around the issue. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is pretty simple isn't it?

    Just because the government managed to pass a bill limiting our second amendment right does not make that right. The fact you defend it and accept it is exactly the problem. They have already convinced people they need to be protected from themselves and that the government should be the one's protecting/controlling them when the whole point of the second amendment is the exact opposite.



    No, it's all or nothing. It is a right worth dying for which is exactly what many people did during the revolution or are our memories really that short?



    Go ahead, keep whittling away at my rights for the illusion of "security" for others. The threat of a person getting hurt outweighs free speech? BS, yes, people may get hurt but the philosophy of free speech is worth it. There are no limits, it's all or nothing or else we really don't have the right we were supposed to be guaranteed.

    Liberty comes with risks.



    You are justifying this with a loophole that allows automatic weapons produced before a certain date to be purchased. The existence of the law you mentioned which does not allow me to go purchase a brand new fully automatic super technologically advanced assault rifle is being infringed in some way. I'm sure you can see that.
    Of course boundaries need to exist; to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Go to LAX and scream "Bomb! Bomb! He's got a bomb!" and see how far "but, but, the First Amendment..." gets you.

    Should an everyday citizen be allowed to purchase a shoulder-fired anti-air missle launcher? A shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket launcher? They're "arms" that citizens' rights are infringed upon. Click here to enlarge

    I'm done with this thread - agree to disagree (yet again).

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13



    Yes Reputation No
    The funny thing is, people with the right amount of money CAN find connections to get new automatic weapons, lower-tech missile/RPG type weapons and other military items.

    Hell, some guys hire ex-special forces to guard their lawns....

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    177
    Rep Points
    541.8
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    One of the problems that I have is with the BATF is the "Destructive Devices" (DD) designation that they can randomly give certain items. They do not need a rationale, the Secretary can simply "make it so" and it is no longer available. One such example is the USAS-12, it is basically an AR-15 style 12 gauge shotgun. The fact that it is a detachable magazine-fed shotgun, with available magazine capacity over a specified number, it was declared a destructive device, even if you did not own one of the high capacity magazines. I think they are similar to Class-3, (tax-stamp, license, etc) but they are further restricted in that no more can be produced or imported. There has been some discussion where the Saiga-12's were under review since someone developed a drum magazine for them.

    There is another interesting situation with the "no legitimate sporting use" clause that BATF uses to restrict or ban firearms. They were challenged on their interpretation of that phrase and they used circular-logic to support it. They stated that the largest, and fastest growing, firearms "sport" that includes rifles and shotguns, was NOT a legitimate sport. Why would they do that? Because admitting that it was a legitimate "sport" would legalize many weapons that are currently banned. The fact is that, it IS a legitimate sport, they just refuse to acknowledge it because it would undermine their ability to arbitrarily ban certain classes of weapons that would otherwise be legal to possess.


    As has been mentioned, enough money can solve any problem. If you have JRCart's money, you can buy a small island (or a big one) and have anything that you want. Tanks, airplanes, rocket launchers, nukes. Your country, your rules.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,616
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Question: What does the title mean: More
    Guns, Less Crime
    ?

    John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest
    increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes.
    Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow
    adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal
    record or a history of significant mental illness.

    Question: It just seems to defy common
    sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more
    people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

    Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher
    penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the
    risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or
    herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of
    law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain
    permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional
    year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3
    percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

    Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they
    reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which
    potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a
    much better position to defend themselves.

    Question: What is the basis for these
    numbers?

    Lott: The analysis is based on data for all
    3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

    Question: Your argument about criminals and
    deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people
    are killed by someone they know?

    Lott: You are referring to the often-cited
    statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or
    acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this
    "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang
    members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they
    picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on.
    "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of
    murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of
    adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

    Question: But how about children? In March
    of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys
    in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are
    allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making
    gun ownership laws more lenient?

    Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas
    occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These
    laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves
    from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United
    States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more
    people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the
    type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another
    crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these
    crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of
    multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings
    plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

    For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are
    protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

    Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there
    is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases
    accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is
    extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take
    care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about
    1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of
    age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put
    into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200
    million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is
    much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and
    fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from
    accidents involving guns.

    Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed
    weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense
    situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become
    very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot
    each other in the heat of the moment?

    Lott: During state legislative hearings on
    concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears
    that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following
    car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite
    millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having
    these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a
    permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in
    self-defense.

    Question: Violence is often directed at
    women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

    Lott: Murder rates decline when either more
    women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger
    change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An
    additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women
    by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun
    reduces the murder rate for men.

    Question: Aren't you playing into people's
    fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to
    mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban
    minority crime?

    Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but
    the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods
    with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime
    when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

    Question: What about other countries? It's
    often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the
    USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

    Lott: The data analyzed in this book is
    from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and
    Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries
    have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult
    to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries,
    and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and
    cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership
    is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where
    gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.


    Question: This is certainly controversial
    and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you.
    How will you respond to them?

    Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible
    ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to
    them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding
    citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories
    illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered
    by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

    All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that
    people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both
    sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do
    is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if
    you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and
    develop an informed opinion.
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Of course boundaries need to exist; to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Go to LAX and scream "Bomb! Bomb! He's got a bomb!" and see how far "but, but, the First Amendment..." gets you.
    You don't think that is a problem? You think fires or crying wolf so to speak didn't exist when they wrote the Constitution? Don't you think they made it clear that free speech outweighs any dangers associated with it? It's all or nothing. Justifying chipping away at rights is exactly what led to sedition acts in this country. Ever research what the government did to people who spoke out against World War I?

    Once you start coming up with situations where the rights no longer apply you can justify taking them away whenever it suits you. Once the government is allowed this power they never let it go and they never have.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Should an everyday citizen be allowed to purchase a shoulder-fired anti-air missle launcher? A shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket launcher? They're "arms" that citizens' rights are infringed upon.
    According to the second amendment, yes. If the British were suppressing the revolution with tanks wouldn't people have stockpiled anti-tank rockets? Just because the technology changed doesn't mean the philosophy has. If our government puts us all down with tanks I sure would like to have some anti-tank weaponry to protect myself. That is the point of it. Curbing the peoples ability to arm themselves but allowing the government to continue to do so unabated just means any sort of balance for the people is taken away.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    I'm done with this thread - agree to disagree (yet again).
    That's fine, I definitely disagree with you.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Velocity26 Click here to enlarge
    As has been mentioned, enough money can solve any problem. If you have JRCart's money, you can buy a small island (or a big one) and have anything that you want. Tanks, airplanes, rocket launchers, nukes. Your country, your rules.
    It would be an interesting experiment to create a place called anarchy island where everyone can do whatever they want and each person must be responsible for themselves. Probably a good idea to only visit it if armed.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    177
    Rep Points
    541.8
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    I am showing my age here but I have been competitively shooting, several times a month, for 21 years. At these shooting matches the vast majority of the participants are Type "A" personalities, everyone is heavily armed and highly skilled. I have NEVER seen a physical altercation or major disagreement at any match. It is extremely rare for anyone to even raise their voice about anything.

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that everyone there has the ability to kill you, or there is just that much mutual respect. They say that an armed society is a polite society but everyone also understands and respects the responsibilities that go with gun ownership. I think that it is a disparity of power leads to aggression.

    Some people call gun ownership a "right" but it really comes down to being a privilege, like driving a car, and it is a privilege that we all want to keep. Something as simple as getting into a fight, while wearing a gun, could lead to loss of the privilege. Any act of domestic violence could lead to loss of the privilege. People carrying guns are some of the most polite and humble people that you will ever meet.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    129
    Rep Points
    253.0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Yes Reputation No
    thank god NY state allows rifles and shotguns without permits . I happen to have a typical home invasion special called a mossberg !!! flat black in color loaded with bird shot and slugs . i hate to be the guy who comes in here and catches the slug !
    Click here to enlarge Click here to enlarge

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,616
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DAGREEKNYC Click here to enlarge
    thank god NY state allows rifles and shotguns without permits . I happen to have a typical home invasion special called a mossberg !!! flat black in color loaded with bird shot and slugs . i hate to be the guy who comes in here and catches the slug !
    I prefer dragons breath rounds!!
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Valley Stream NY
    Posts
    3,347
    Rep Points
    2,757.4
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    28


    Yes Reputation No
    DBFIU is preaching the truth. Dammit they need to allow handguns and suppressors. Stupid libs.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Miami, FL.
    Posts
    1,892
    Rep Points
    771.0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    I own a few firearms too, as shown in other threads, (and if there's interest I can re-post my reply) but my favorite firearm is a radically new design that will hopefully change the bolt mechanism of firearms in the near future (conventional ballistics). It's called the Kriss Vector, and before I make myself sound like an idiot trying to explain how it works, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRISS_Vector . It basically uses the round's rearward force to mitigate the recoil felt by the shooter. Really, ingenious if it is shown reliable in the field, where it can get dirty/muddy/sandy and if it still shoots, I think we'll have a winner (in terms of bolt design). If I were to buy one I'd choose the .45 but I hope they will offer something other than pistol calibers.
    Click here to enlarge
    2007 335i Coupe
    Mods: Check the Garage

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    538
    Rep Points
    1,302.2
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    This one:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by oddjob2021 Click here to enlarge
    I own a few firearms too, as shown in other threads, (and if there's interest I can re-post my reply) but my favorite firearm is a radically new design that will hopefully change the bolt mechanism of firearms in the near future (conventional ballistics). It's called the Kriss Vector, and before I make myself sound like an idiot trying to explain how it works, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRISS_Vector . It basically uses the round's rearward force to mitigate the recoil felt by the shooter. Really, ingenious if it is shown reliable in the field, where it can get dirty/muddy/sandy and if it still shoots, I think we'll have a winner (in terms of bolt design). If I were to buy one I'd choose the .45 but I hope they will offer something other than pistol calibers.
    Looks absolutely badass:

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    Yep, that's the gun... It's a great firearm, and is very versatile. A little on the expensive side, and scratches a bit easy - but is my favorite weapon I own. It's extremely accurate, holds a good amount (20+1) - and has little to no recoil (comparable to a 22 magnum?)... It's lightweight, and ... I have nothing but good things to say about this thing. You can see why it's expensive, and used ones hold their value - they are good. This is the ONLY gun I have had that has NEVER jammed - although, it's sort of understandable as the manufacturer of the gun is the manufacturer of the ammo.

    The ammo thing is a bit off - but no one has a good grasp on the legality of it. It's the steel core ss190 that the gun was originally designed for that is illegal to purchase (even this isn't clear - as you can buy this legally online for 200 dollars a box). The ss197/195 are the ones that we as civilians can legally buy. It is polymer tipped (197) or hollow (195) to promote frangibility - the ss190 with a steel core is not meant to do the same, so it has armor piercing capabilities. As you said, however - the round moves so fast - that there is a group of people that claims the 195/197 will STILL pierce light armor just because of it's speed. This has not been proved by science - so we are still able to get the high velocity ammo. They sell subsonic, but you are right - it's literally crap. It's good if you have a silencer - but you are basically at .22 LR capability at this point.

    Hope that helps.
    How much does it cost? Seems like the perfect handgun.

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,865
    Rep Points
    31,850.6
    Mentioned
    2092 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
    Attachment 14481

    Attachment 14482

    Taurus 410 shot handgun...

    It's just an up close murder weapon, good for nothing else...
    So this is close range only?

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,587
    Rep Points
    2,017.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    How much does it cost? Seems like the perfect handgun.
    It is a great gun. I picked mine up during the "peak" of it's popularity, so I paid around 1300. My friend just picked up the olive/drab one for 1100 though. I personally like the flat black, but if you don't care about such things - you can grab the black one for right around 1200 with 3 magazines.

    In my opinion, it is the perfect gun - others will say the caliber is too small. From a pure physics perspective (if the bullet doesn't leave the target) - it's about kinetic energy not force - so it's a function of velocity squared vs. just velocity. It's a nasty round - especially if you can get your hands on SS190 ammo - or if you reload.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •