Originally posted by: JD50
An AK-47 in my hands is much less dangerous than a two shot derringer in a murderers hands.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Sounds like PMS to me??
Originally posted by: exdeath
Definitely on the 3850 fps. Hardly any recoil due to the weight of the rifle. Squeeze the 3 lb zero creep trigger and see a hole appear on your target, and hear a boom and a crack about 5 minutes later First time I fired this rifle he had just finished it. Handed it over to me, said it was sighted in at zero @ 300 yds. I held about 2" low on a golf ball on the berm at 110 yards and hit it twice after finding where it went between shots He gave it to me for $800! The barrel is from a SEAL sniper rifle that only had 100 rds through it, powder coated.
I'll get you all the other stuff out of my log book when I get home
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: exdeath
Definitely on the 3850 fps. Hardly any recoil due to the weight of the rifle. Squeeze the 3 lb zero creep trigger and see a hole appear on your target, and hear a boom and a crack about 5 minutes later First time I fired this rifle he had just finished it. Handed it over to me, said it was sighted in at zero @ 300 yds. I held about 2" low on a golf ball on the berm at 110 yards and hit it twice after finding where it went between shots He gave it to me for $800! The barrel is from a SEAL sniper rifle that only had 100 rds through it, powder coated.
I'll get you all the other stuff out of my log book when I get home
When I first got my 220 Swift I loaded up some 40 grain bullets to max load, 4400fps according to the book.
Anyway, I was driving around the farm doing some shooting and I noticed that when the sun was behind me a little I could "see" the bullet going to the target. So I got a good angle where the sun was right and was shooting at a big rock 300 to 400 yards away. I could see the bullet most of the way to the rock, but I never heard it hit it. After shooting it a half dozen times I went over and looked and there were NO marks on the rock?? The only explanation I could come up with is that the bullet was completley vaporizing itself before it got to the target.
I guess I don't know for sure if that was what the deal was, but I don't ever load anything hotter then 4000fps anymore.
Originally posted by: Vic
LOL! I swear he's like 10 years old. :laugh:
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Haha, that's definitely not me. I wouldn't have been so nice.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: exdeath
Definitely on the 3850 fps. Hardly any recoil due to the weight of the rifle. Squeeze the 3 lb zero creep trigger and see a hole appear on your target, and hear a boom and a crack about 5 minutes later First time I fired this rifle he had just finished it. Handed it over to me, said it was sighted in at zero @ 300 yds. I held about 2" low on a golf ball on the berm at 110 yards and hit it twice after finding where it went between shots He gave it to me for $800! The barrel is from a SEAL sniper rifle that only had 100 rds through it, powder coated.
I'll get you all the other stuff out of my log book when I get home
When I first got my 220 Swift I loaded up some 40 grain bullets to max load, 4400fps according to the book.
Anyway, I was driving around the farm doing some shooting and I noticed that when the sun was behind me a little I could "see" the bullet going to the target. So I got a good angle where the sun was right and was shooting at a big rock 300 to 400 yards away. I could see the bullet most of the way to the rock, but I never heard it hit it. After shooting it a half dozen times I went over and looked and there were NO marks on the rock?? The only explanation I could come up with is that the bullet was completley vaporizing itself before it got to the target.
I guess I don't know for sure if that was what the deal was, but I don't ever load anything hotter then 4000fps anymore.
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: exdeath
Definitely on the 3850 fps. Hardly any recoil due to the weight of the rifle. Squeeze the 3 lb zero creep trigger and see a hole appear on your target, and hear a boom and a crack about 5 minutes later First time I fired this rifle he had just finished it. Handed it over to me, said it was sighted in at zero @ 300 yds. I held about 2" low on a golf ball on the berm at 110 yards and hit it twice after finding where it went between shots He gave it to me for $800! The barrel is from a SEAL sniper rifle that only had 100 rds through it, powder coated.
I'll get you all the other stuff out of my log book when I get home
When I first got my 220 Swift I loaded up some 40 grain bullets to max load, 4400fps according to the book.
Anyway, I was driving around the farm doing some shooting and I noticed that when the sun was behind me a little I could "see" the bullet going to the target. So I got a good angle where the sun was right and was shooting at a big rock 300 to 400 yards away. I could see the bullet most of the way to the rock, but I never heard it hit it. After shooting it a half dozen times I went over and looked and there were NO marks on the rock?? The only explanation I could come up with is that the bullet was completley vaporizing itself before it got to the target.
I guess I don't know for sure if that was what the deal was, but I don't ever load anything hotter then 4000fps anymore.
220 swift is an awesome gun. I got a ruger M77 Mark II chambered in 220. great gun, trigger was worked on, would like to know what the actual weight is on it, gotta be like 1 1/2 lbs. I let my buddy shoot it, I told him the trigger was very sensitive beforehand. He gets it on the sandbags and goes to place his finger on the trigger, and bang. needless to say he didn't hit the target. Never shot handloads thru it, just factory loads. You get those hand loads up to the speed you did, I would start worrying about the barrel burning out.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Originally posted by: exdeath
It looks as if you are the one not wanting to admit you are wrong now isn't it? You completely circumvented someone else's point because you couldn't offer a counter-point. You did not make the claim that a derringer is ineffective in a sniping position on a roof top. You made the claim that "some weapons are more dangerous than others". Cho wasn't sitting on a roof, and he didn't have a sniper rifle or a derringer. But he still killed 32 people. You blanket statement that one type of weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, without regard for the human role in implementing those weapons, is blatantly wrong.
A gun is a tool, and like other tools, they each come with difference capabilities suited for different things, such as range, ammo capacity, accuracy, penetration against hard or soft targets, ease of concealment, etc, all of which have trade offs for differing circumstances. Simply sitting there however, an AK47 is no more dangerous than a derringer, and a derringer is no less dangerous than a nuclear missile offline in a underground silo or a Skilsaw sitting on a work bench all by itself. Being more powerful or more capable at something does not make any tool more dangerous than another. Do you care if you cut your hands off on a 7 1/4" saw blade or a 36" saw blade? Human skill, intention, and intervention, is required in all cases.
The point was the illustrate that any person intent on doing harm to others will competently use any tool at his disposal in order to do so, thereby completely rendering the anti-gun arguments null and void. Tell me why Cho chose a G19 9mm if a AK47 would have been more dangerous and deadly? Last Monday, his 9mm handgun was infinitely more dangerous than everything in my house, which includes AK47s, AR15s, etc.
Like a Skilsaw or a book of matches, it is only in the hands of a competent individual that weapons of differing types can be used to kill people in different circumstances. A sniper on a roof top isn't going to use a derringer any more than an assassin is going to stuff a semi automatic .50 BMG in his pocket. One is no more inherently dangerous than the other; conversely, and more accurately, you could say that no gun is safe at all. It all comes down to the needs of the application. Bottom line, if you are against private ownership of any guns, you are against them all, as they all have the same purpose in the end: to launch a projectile at high speeds by means of chemical propellant.
And you know this, assuming you are as smart as you claim you are, and you can't even state your pro-gun or anti-gun stance for what it is and speak your peace. You just want to make a fuss for the sake of fussing in and of itself.
PS: I'll take that silenced .22 and you can have a .50 cal machine gun. Unless you provide me your serial number so that I can confirm whether or not I have plausible reason to believe otherwise, I will win. Are you going to blame my weapon and claim that I cheated because I had a superior and more dangerous weapon?
End of debate. Go home.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
It looks as if you are the one not wanting to admit you are wrong now isn't it? You completely circumvented someone else's point because you couldn't offer a counter-point. You did not make the claim that a derringer is ineffective in a sniping position on a roof top. You made the claim that "some weapons are more dangerous than others". Cho wasn't sitting on a roof, and he didn't have a sniper rifle or a derringer. But he still killed 32 people. You blanket statement that one type of weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, without regard for the human role in implementing those weapons, is blatantly wrong.
A gun is a tool, and like other tools, they each come with difference capabilities suited for different things, such as range, ammo capacity, accuracy, penetration against hard or soft targets, ease of concealment, etc, all of which have trade offs for differing circumstances. Simply sitting there however, an AK47 is no more dangerous than a derringer, and a derringer is no less dangerous than a nuclear missile offline in a underground silo or a Skilsaw sitting on a work bench all by itself. Being more powerful or more capable at something does not make any tool more dangerous than another. Do you care if you cut your hands off on a 7 1/4" saw blade or a 36" saw blade? Human skill, intention, and intervention, is required in all cases.
The point was the illustrate that any person intent on doing harm to others will competently use any tool at his disposal in order to do so, thereby completely rendering the anti-gun arguments null and void. Tell me why Cho chose a G19 9mm if a AK47 would have been more dangerous and deadly? Last Monday, his 9mm handgun was infinitely more dangerous than everything in my house, which includes AK47s, AR15s, etc.
Like a Skilsaw or a book of matches, it is only in the hands of a competent individual that weapons of differing types can be used to kill people in different circumstances. A sniper on a roof top isn't going to use a derringer any more than an assassin is going to stuff a semi automatic .50 BMG in his pocket. One is no more inherently dangerous than the other; conversely, and more accurately, you could say that no gun is safe at all. It all comes down to the needs of the application. Bottom line, if you are against private ownership of any guns, you are against them all, as they all have the same purpose in the end: to launch a projectile at high speeds by means of chemical propellant.
And you know this, assuming you are as smart as you claim you are, and you can't even state your pro-gun or anti-gun stance for what it is and speak your peace. You just want to make a fuss for the sake of fussing in and of itself.
PS: I'll take that silenced .22 and you can have a .50 cal machine gun. Unless you provide me your serial number so that I can confirm whether or not I have plausible reason to believe otherwise, I will win. Are you going to blame my weapon and claim that I cheated because I had a superior and more dangerous weapon?
End of debate. Go home.
Ah, so you give up. You should be the one to "go home" then, not me. My statementt is not "blatantly wrong". LOL It is obviously true. It's an interesting technique to tell someone their viewpoint, as if you can convince anyone that way...
One gun may be inherently more dangerous than another. A sniper rifle is inherently more dangerous than a small derringer. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. One shoots projectiles with more force and accuracy, and has more range. Similarly, an automatic weapon is inherently more dangerous than a non-automatic weapon that is otherwise similar.
You are incorrect that one who is against one gun must be against them all. Look at the legislature's treatment of automatic weapons-- does that show a different level of restriction or not? I guess, typically, that you haven't thought this through. You're just eager to make blanket statements that will be pleasing to other gun nuts on this board.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
It looks as if you are the one not wanting to admit you are wrong now isn't it? You completely circumvented someone else's point because you couldn't offer a counter-point. You did not make the claim that a derringer is ineffective in a sniping position on a roof top. You made the claim that "some weapons are more dangerous than others". Cho wasn't sitting on a roof, and he didn't have a sniper rifle or a derringer. But he still killed 32 people. You blanket statement that one type of weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, without regard for the human role in implementing those weapons, is blatantly wrong.
A gun is a tool, and like other tools, they each come with difference capabilities suited for different things, such as range, ammo capacity, accuracy, penetration against hard or soft targets, ease of concealment, etc, all of which have trade offs for differing circumstances. Simply sitting there however, an AK47 is no more dangerous than a derringer, and a derringer is no less dangerous than a nuclear missile offline in a underground silo or a Skilsaw sitting on a work bench all by itself. Being more powerful or more capable at something does not make any tool more dangerous than another. Do you care if you cut your hands off on a 7 1/4" saw blade or a 36" saw blade? Human skill, intention, and intervention, is required in all cases.
The point was the illustrate that any person intent on doing harm to others will competently use any tool at his disposal in order to do so, thereby completely rendering the anti-gun arguments null and void. Tell me why Cho chose a G19 9mm if a AK47 would have been more dangerous and deadly? Last Monday, his 9mm handgun was infinitely more dangerous than everything in my house, which includes AK47s, AR15s, etc.
Like a Skilsaw or a book of matches, it is only in the hands of a competent individual that weapons of differing types can be used to kill people in different circumstances. A sniper on a roof top isn't going to use a derringer any more than an assassin is going to stuff a semi automatic .50 BMG in his pocket. One is no more inherently dangerous than the other; conversely, and more accurately, you could say that no gun is safe at all. It all comes down to the needs of the application. Bottom line, if you are against private ownership of any guns, you are against them all, as they all have the same purpose in the end: to launch a projectile at high speeds by means of chemical propellant.
And you know this, assuming you are as smart as you claim you are, and you can't even state your pro-gun or anti-gun stance for what it is and speak your peace. You just want to make a fuss for the sake of fussing in and of itself.
PS: I'll take that silenced .22 and you can have a .50 cal machine gun. Unless you provide me your serial number so that I can confirm whether or not I have plausible reason to believe otherwise, I will win. Are you going to blame my weapon and claim that I cheated because I had a superior and more dangerous weapon?
End of debate. Go home.
Ah, so you give up. You should be the one to "go home" then, not me. My statementt is not "blatantly wrong". LOL It is obviously true. It's an interesting technique to tell someone their viewpoint, as if you can convince anyone that way...
One gun may be inherently more dangerous than another. A sniper rifle is inherently more dangerous than a small derringer. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. One shoots projectiles with more force and accuracy, and has more range. Similarly, an automatic weapon is inherently more dangerous than a non-automatic weapon that is otherwise similar.
You are incorrect that one who is against one gun must be against them all. Look at the legislature's treatment of automatic weapons-- does that show a different level of restriction or not? I guess, typically, that you haven't thought this through. You're just eager to make blanket statements that will be pleasing to other gun nuts on this board.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
It looks as if you are the one not wanting to admit you are wrong now isn't it? You completely circumvented someone else's point because you couldn't offer a counter-point. You did not make the claim that a derringer is ineffective in a sniping position on a roof top. You made the claim that "some weapons are more dangerous than others". Cho wasn't sitting on a roof, and he didn't have a sniper rifle or a derringer. But he still killed 32 people. You blanket statement that one type of weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, without regard for the human role in implementing those weapons, is blatantly wrong.
A gun is a tool, and like other tools, they each come with difference capabilities suited for different things, such as range, ammo capacity, accuracy, penetration against hard or soft targets, ease of concealment, etc, all of which have trade offs for differing circumstances. Simply sitting there however, an AK47 is no more dangerous than a derringer, and a derringer is no less dangerous than a nuclear missile offline in a underground silo or a Skilsaw sitting on a work bench all by itself. Being more powerful or more capable at something does not make any tool more dangerous than another. Do you care if you cut your hands off on a 7 1/4" saw blade or a 36" saw blade? Human skill, intention, and intervention, is required in all cases.
The point was the illustrate that any person intent on doing harm to others will competently use any tool at his disposal in order to do so, thereby completely rendering the anti-gun arguments null and void. Tell me why Cho chose a G19 9mm if a AK47 would have been more dangerous and deadly? Last Monday, his 9mm handgun was infinitely more dangerous than everything in my house, which includes AK47s, AR15s, etc.
Like a Skilsaw or a book of matches, it is only in the hands of a competent individual that weapons of differing types can be used to kill people in different circumstances. A sniper on a roof top isn't going to use a derringer any more than an assassin is going to stuff a semi automatic .50 BMG in his pocket. One is no more inherently dangerous than the other; conversely, and more accurately, you could say that no gun is safe at all. It all comes down to the needs of the application. Bottom line, if you are against private ownership of any guns, you are against them all, as they all have the same purpose in the end: to launch a projectile at high speeds by means of chemical propellant.
And you know this, assuming you are as smart as you claim you are, and you can't even state your pro-gun or anti-gun stance for what it is and speak your peace. You just want to make a fuss for the sake of fussing in and of itself.
PS: I'll take that silenced .22 and you can have a .50 cal machine gun. Unless you provide me your serial number so that I can confirm whether or not I have plausible reason to believe otherwise, I will win. Are you going to blame my weapon and claim that I cheated because I had a superior and more dangerous weapon?
End of debate. Go home.
Ah, so you give up. You should be the one to "go home" then, not me. My statementt is not "blatantly wrong". LOL It is obviously true. It's an interesting technique to tell someone their viewpoint, as if you can convince anyone that way...
One gun may be inherently more dangerous than another. A sniper rifle is inherently more dangerous than a small derringer. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. One shoots projectiles with more force and accuracy, and has more range. Similarly, an automatic weapon is inherently more dangerous than a non-automatic weapon that is otherwise similar.
You are incorrect that one who is against one gun must be against them all. Look at the legislature's treatment of automatic weapons-- does that show a different level of restriction or not? I guess, typically, that you haven't thought this through. You're just eager to make blanket statements that will be pleasing to other gun nuts on this board.
As I said, two different purposes. A sniper rifle in it's intended role of hitting a target 2000 yards away will indeed impact it's target with the same force as a derringer held to the back of someones head point blank.
The fact that the sniper rifle fires a more powerful charge is irrelevant in this discussion because:
a) sniper rifle point blank or derringer point blank? Doesn't matter, the person will be dead either way. If a 124gr bullet at 1200 fps is sufficient to kill, the excess of the sniper rifle is irrelevant, and if anything, overkill and wasted energy.
b) nobody sticks a sniper rifle in their pocket and shoots people through a scope from 10 feet away, so comparing it to a derringer in this way makes no sense in the first place.
c) even if they DID commit b), and even though the sniper rifle IS more powerful, that doesn't make it more deadly. The argument isn't about one weapon being more powerful, it's about one weapon being more deadly. Indeed a sniper rifle is more powerful than a derringer, but that doesn't make it more deadly. See point a)
d) we are talking levels of dangerousness, not power. you are confusing "powerful" with "dangerous". The power of a weapon has nothing to do with it's lethality. If a 9mm can already kill someone and be considered dangerous, how is a .45 "more" deadly? Dead is dead. Period. Sure a 120mm tank cannon is more powerful than a 9mm. But hold both up to your head and pull the trigger, either will kill you just as dead.
Next?
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
Hahaha
Always funny when a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion as everyone else.
Or an alter ego of one of you gun nuts. Yes, hilarious. Even more hilarious that death threats and extreme personal insults go unpunished. One of you must be friends with a mod, hmm?
Haha, he's starting to crack. Calling people gun nuts and imagining conspiracies involving alter egos and mod payoffs.
I still think it's funny that the hypocrite went back and edited the post where he called somebody a reject.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm shocked you're not on vacation already-- or not so shocked. It proves my point.
Originally posted by: smack Down
Proves your point, find anyone that was banned for calling you an asshole and you might have a point.