You *could* always *try* to steal one ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Printable View
You *could* always *try* to steal one ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
What those guys were talking about is surplus Enfields that, when decomissioned, the bolts were removed and thrown into one pile and the rifles into another. It happened that post-war surplus Enfields sometimes were sold with mismatched bolts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Personally, I have never come across one, but it has happened. You do have to check the serial numbers on the bolts and make sure they match the serial number on the rifle.
The Lee-Enfield was in frontline sevrice for decades and Canadian closets are brimming with sporterized models used for deer hunting. They are utterly solid and fast as lightning. Hell, the greatness of the Lee-Enfield is the one thing Gawain and I agree upon. ~:cheers:
I will never, ever forgive myself for selling a gorgeous Lee-Enfield MKV. Shmuck that I am.
Perhaps you saw what happened in New Orleans: people defending themselves from roving gangs with shotguns and other long guns.Quote:
Fair enough, but I never fully swallowed the self defense argument when it comes to anything bigger then handguns.
Do people carry them to work, to malls, have them in the backseat of the car just in case somebody might mug them in public?
Do you keep them under your pillow so you have them handy when somebody enters your house?
Why isn't a handgun enough to defend yourself? Are assault rifle owners worried they might get attacked by the North Korean army in their backyard
Finally, what sounds better:
A) A guy broke into my house and I saw myself forced to shoot him 3 times with my 6-shot revolver
B) A guy broke into my house and I saw myself forced to perforate him with my M-16 with night vision, 72-round drum magazine and laser pointer
?
Long guns are much more effective than handguns at pretty much anything other than carrying concealed in your normal life. So why not have them at your house?
As for the American Hunters and Shooters Association, it is most definately a front group for gun control. It was started by a group that does PR compaigns for-and almost exclusively for- democrats in congress, and is located in the same building as the democrat committee for something or other. Here's a wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...rs_Association
A casual surf of their website reveals where there true feelings lie:
1)Their position on the bill immunizing gun makers from frivolous lawsuits:
They're worried because the gun control act of 1968 might not be suitibly enforced! Or that the jerks at the BATF, which like to resort to conniving and trickery to take guns from gun owners, would be hampered! No true gun-rights advocate would say those things.Quote:
Specifically, the current provisions of H.R. 800 would make it extremely difficult for the Attorney General to enforce key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. (Chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.) Specifically, H.R.800 would hamper efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers or dealers that violate federal or state gun laws.
2)The language pervading the site; the words 'responsible', 'common sense', etc., which are used all the time by gun-banners calling for 'responsible/common sense gun laws'.
3) Their position on the FBI checking national firearms records: they want it to happen, and try to bring up the old 'terrorists will come here and buy assault weapons'. Again, the position of the gun-banners.
Here's some gay (literally) commentary on this:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=165454&\
4) The president (also found of an anti-gun group) won't even encourage people to keep a gun in the home for self defense, and talks about the "the responsibility to safely store firearms" i.e. they want guns locked away in safes. They then say:
A study that has been ripped apart and its author acknowledges the flaws.Quote:
There are certain factors that weigh heavily against keeping a gun in the home for self-protection. One of the most widely quoted statements about guns is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.
5) Going down the page we see:
Was I right or was I right when I said they wanted safes for guns? (I know, in this case its just trigger locks, which would make it much harder to get the gun ready in time, or for one's SO to use.)Quote:
Realistically speaking, in order to safely keep a firearm in the home for self-protection, one must create a situation in which the firearm is readily available when needed, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others.
Quick release trigger locks, chamber/cylinder locks or special locked cases that can be instantly opened by authorized individuals are options that should be considered.
They probably wouldn't like that city that passed a law requiring a gun in each home, and this is most definately not a gun-rights position.Quote:
The American Hunting and Shooting Association emphasizes that keeping a firearm for home protection is not appropriate for all homes or all individuals.
6) They follow the Brady anti-gun campaign playbook step by step in saying we need 'background checks at gunshows' and to 'close the loophole'.
7) They come out against .50 caliber rifles, using the old 'this weapon is really powerful and has no use, ban it!' line. I won't bother refuting all the silly charges they list, but read the gay link above for some funny commentary on this. EDIT: They actually believe these rifles should be regulated as strictly as machine guns! (i.e. Almost noone could buy them.)
In conclusion, this is most definately not a pro-gun organization.
Crazed Rabbit
Ceasar010, don't take my comment as an insult, cause that's not meant to be one, but I find your attraction for firearm trully disturbing, and well, sickening.
If France, all other teenagers and all your classmates you laught at someone like you, and well, you'd have no friends, except a few extreme-right or gang member nutjobs.
Are you representative of an important part of the American youth ? of the american people ?
I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just wondering.
I think people should be allowed to have hand guns,shotguns and hunting rifles. But please somebody explain why it is so disgusting for Americans to register your guns?~:confused:
He wouldn't be out of the ordinary here. (Or in Switzerland for that matter, though the Swiss can get better guns, for now at least). It's the american gun culture, bub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Registration will not help at all in criminal investigations, and for recovering stolen items you should keep a list of registration numbers somewhere in case one of your guns is stolen.Quote:
But please somebody explain why it is so disgusting for Americans to register your guns?
Most importantly, registration is always a precursor to confiscation. It's been said by Attorney General Janet Reno (durring Clinton's terms), anti-gun Senators who want to ban all guns, and has happened in several states where the state required registration and said they wouldn't confiscate, but several years later they did.
Crazed Rabbit
I guess that either your comment was meant as a sarcasm, or that you never went to Switzerland ^^.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Hmmm. I haven't been to Switzerland, but I was under the impression that they could own full-auto rifles if they wanted to and many people participated in target shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Crazed Rabbit
LoL I have had many a discussion about hunting and shooting before class starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Many american youth go shooting and hunting, many are not into it as much as me.
When some one wants a new slug gun(for deer) they almost always ask me what to get, and class mates will often come up and ask me about a certain gun what I think of it etc. Every deer season we all swap stories before class starts. Guns don't interfere with my social life that much at all really.
The only time it interfered was when I went to a pin shoot instead of a party. (people did think that was kind of crazy but I don't care I came in 3rd)
Part of my obsession can be explained by my career choice.
I want to be a gun smith(for hand guns mostly) and well you can't be a gun smith if you don't know your stuff... you think I really care about the proper way to polish the feed ramp, or how to remove the mag disconnect from a p35. But those are all things I will need to know.
Posted by Grazed rabbit:
Registration will not help at all in criminal investigations, and for recovering stolen items you should keep a list of registration numbers somewhere in case one of your guns is stolen.
Most importantly, registration is always a precursor to confiscation. It's been said by Attorney General Janet Reno (durring Clinton's terms), anti-gun Senators who want to ban all guns, and has happened in several states where the state required registration and said they wouldn't confiscate, but several years later they did.
I dont see the logig in there but maybe its a cultural thing. Here in Finland we have a hunting rifle or Shotgun in almost all households. But those are registered and we know where are guns are. Hell i have a friend whos hobby is target practicing and he owns many guns including fully automatic reservist rifle and a russian dragunov sniper rifle, but those are registered. Our guns are registered and there have been not ever even a talk here about confiscating fire arms.~:confused:
Rabbit I did not know you were a high roader. I don't go there but I am at TFL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Here we have the brady bunch trying to conficate em' all the time.
Well, its different in America. Its a prime tactic for the gun-banners to get guns registered and then confiscated. It hasn't only happened in some states, but in other countries as well:Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Even where guns not in danger of confiscation, I wouldn't support registration, due to its uselessness at solving crime and the fact that, if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to report my activities to the government.Quote:
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)
In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.
On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.
"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)
Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)
More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
EDIT: Yeah, I lurk occasionally at THR and TFL. And to Kagemusha; since when am I a "Grazed Rabbit? ~;p
Crazed Rabbit
Sorry m8! Little typo.~;)
And that's EXACTLY why the good French people (did Kaiser just say that? Why yes he did...) cannot put down the riots....THEY DON'T HAVE THE FIREPOWER.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Heck send in my town and we could put those riots down in a day!
"High roader"?
~:confused:
I call the people here "high roaders" http://thehighroad.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2
Like when I am at tfl I will go "I saw this posted by a high roader"
Can't you disengage the magazine disconnect on a P35 by taking the slack off the trigger then popping the mag?Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Granted, it's a ridiculous way to do things, but I think it works.
What a masterpiece of ergonomics though. The P35 is absolutely my first choice. I had a hot rod Colt Series 70 with all the bells and whistles, Pachmayr grips, custom sights, complete action job, Bar-Sto barrel, Magnaported, Wilson magazines, the works! But I never felt as comfortable with it as with my old man's WWII army issue P35.
Then again, I had a WWII army issue revolver, I think it was a Colt, but it could have been a S&W, and this thing had the finest trigger I have ever seen on any gun. Broke like the proverbial icicle. Smooth as a glass of milk.
Well If you remove the mag disconnect the trigger gets smoother.
The p35 will soon be gone. FN is phasing it out...they make the parts for brownings p35 so.....hopefully spring field or para ordnance take over.
I plan to buy a p35 (aka hi power) from cdnn the 450 dollar one. I will take the disconnect out on it.
The revolver was probably a colt police positive or s&w model 10. It was a 38 special right?
Was it one of these
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=39841702
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=39867656
The p35 is my second fave, the ruger service six beats all!
It was the Colt. As soon as I saw the Colt cylinder release in your pic I remembered. Yep, 38 Special. Had that gun back in the early '90s I think. Didn't have it long, a buddy ended up with it.
Never knew removing the mag disconnect would improve the trigger. That's a new one on me. After 20+ years of reading Guns + Ammo, Shooting Times, The American Handgunner and all the other mags I thought I knew it all. ~;) Mind you, I've been out of the circle for years now. I'm pretty rusty.
It's to bad about the 935 I always hoped the 1911 died first~:mecry:
What do you think of glocks and khars and all that other polymer stuff coming out lately?
I put about fifty rounds through a 9mm Glock at a gun shop/indoor range in Tampa. We always spent an expensive day there while on vacation. They had a great selection of guns to try.
It worked perfectly (for all of fifty rounds~:rolleyes: ) and felt good, but I found the trigger felt like an elastic band. It's obviously a great handgun, but I'm not sure how it would fare for serious target work. I tried the Ruger semi-auto 9mm. It worked and felt ok, but nothing special.
I haven't heard many bad things about any of the new pistols. In reality, you don't hear much negative about any pistols. It's not like the major manufacturers are going to release crappy handguns. The lawsuits would destroy them in minutes. The only seriously bad press I've read is about the 9mm Major pistols. Every review I read said they were inherently dangerous.
There were bad reports about the 92F at the start, slides cracking and shearing off, but they say most of that was caused by firing ammo built specifically for open-bolt submachine guns that used heavy primers and high pressure loads. The 92F I had worked perfectly. Might have stovepiped once, but that was it. The gun is a bit too beefy in the hands though.
For my money, you can't beat the old stuff. A P35 or a 1911 or a good old fashioned S&W will handle anything. It's the shooter, not the shot. Mind you, some of the new ammo is just downright nasty. A P35 full of Black Talons is a serious thing.
I hate glocks with a passion. I saw one of these wonder nines jam 4 times in one outing.
I dont have 92f but I have a taurus pt92 which is an inexpensive (but good) clone, never jammed yet(about 2000 rounds through it so far). I have shot the 92f and I have yet to see a difference in the 2 except for the safety.
I plan to have my folks get me a p35 blued with wood grips for xmas.(I will try and remove the disconnect my self) I will probably give my dad a 22 of some sort he loves them...probably a walther p22 or ruger mark 3.
Well antis what do you think of the AHSA?
That's such rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
The entire cause of the riots is a complete failure to deal with social issues. It's not even that violent. There's been what? One death? I'm sure having people gunning each other down would have really helped ease tensions and put the riots down.
Hey Ceaser you gone hunting yet this year
I own the 92S, the precursor of the F. The clip ejector is at the bottom instead of by the thumb, and it lacks the snazzy cock n lock of the 92F, but its a smooth piece that has never failed me. I put the best and the worst ammo through it, a wide range of loads, still works everytime. I've got a 30 rd clip for it cause I'm a horrible marksmen. With Pachmeyer grips its a wide body so I agree about the beefiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Easy to clean too. By far my favorite auto, but I wonder about the stopping power of the 9mm Luger rounds. But when you shoot like I do 7 rounds ain't enough.
ichi:bow:
The stopping power of a hand gun is in the foot pounds of force created at impact. One of the best handguns for stopping an individual in his tracks is the Colt 45 - any variance - I myself perfer the 1911 model. It has a slight accuracy problem but one that is easily identified and corrected. The .38 calbier handguns are also good for this the bullet travels at a lower velocity and has more mass.
The Browning 9mm I shot in the military had better range and accuracy - but the bullet travels at a greater velocity then the .45. Several times I hit the man size targets and the round did not knock down the popup. THe .45 always knocked it down.
BTW I qualified expert everytime I fired a pistol in the military be it the 1911 or the Browning.
If I was ever going to own a hand gun for self protection - it would be the 1911. A great weapon, easy to care for, always reliable, and packs plenty of stopping power in its 7 shot magizine.
IIRC they did not in fact get compensation. Whatever you feel about the ban that was wrong.Quote:
"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...
I'm struggling a bit with the concept of buying people guns as christmas presents but there you go.
I still don't see the problem with registration. The argument that it will be used to confiscate "legally owned" guns is wrong, since if they are being lawfully confiscated they aren't legally owned and if they are being unlawfully confiscated you will get them back. It seems to me someone who opposes registration is saying, in effect, if some of the guns I own become illegal in the future I want to carry on owning them illegally.
Being charitable this may all depend on the rather odd American attitude to thweir own government, but I'm not too sure someone thinking like that should be given any firearms licence.