In article , Gunner says...

One could make a case the invading their country is a good
way to alienate the citizens.

One could. But it wouldnt be true for them all.

Once again, I urge you to read "Imperial Hubris."
I could lend a copy if desired.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 21 Apr 2005 20:27:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

One could make a case the invading their country is a good
way to alienate the citizens.

One could. But it wouldnt be true for them all.

Once again, I urge you to read "Imperial Hubris."
I could lend a copy if desired.

Jim

Ill have to do that someday.

Have you finished "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must):
The World According to Ann Coulter," yet?

Gunner
Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:47:05 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

snip


IF you were correct then clearly "terrorists" are of little
threat as it did not happen G.

Your theory assumes that the scenario has reached a conclusion. This
scenario has a time scale of years, not days or months.

How many more do you wish to murder & terrorize?

Pretty good way to make long term friends, eh?

Or are you thinking of gunner's loonie buddies with their
rants of taking over the government with a few flintlocks
if the "liberals" try to get them health care (probably in
fear of Lithium)?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:47:05 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

snip


IF you were correct then clearly "terrorists" are of little
threat as it did not happen G.

Your theory assumes that the scenario has reached a conclusion. This
scenario has a time scale of years, not days or months.

How many more do you wish to murder & terrorize?

Pretty good way to make long term friends, eh?

Or are you thinking of gunner's loonie buddies with their
rants of taking over the government with a few flintlocks
if the "liberals" try to get them health care (probably in
fear of Lithium)?
--
Cliff

What relevance does that comment have to my comment about your flawed
reasoning terrorist attacks? You implied that since the US didn't
collapse after 911 that there was no threat of that from terrorist
attacks. Two attacks does not in any way indicate a conclusion, only a
beginning. It's also only a beginning locally since it has been going on
for years outside the US. The events in Spain clearly indicate the
dangers of an emotionally reactionary population.

Pete C.

In article , Gunner says...

Once again, I urge you to read "Imperial Hubris."
I could lend a copy if desired.

Ill have to do that someday.

Is that a yes?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 22 Apr 2005 06:41:22 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Once again, I urge you to read "Imperial Hubris."
I could lend a copy if desired.

Ill have to do that someday.

Is that a yes?

Jim

Sure! Send it on.

How did you like the Coulter books?
And did you get a chance to finally read Unintended Consequences yet?
I mentioned you should read that one several times over the last few
years.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:37:15 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Robert Sturgeon
wrote back on Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:08:21 -0700 in
misc.survivalism :
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:20:23 +1000, "Tom Miller"
wrote:

70 caliber! What the hell is that?

Could be a 12 ga. shotgun.

.75 "caliber". I've never fired a 12 gauge with a slug or ball. That
might be "fun".

More like .72". Slug loads are usually fairly heavy loads -
about like a heavy load of bird shot. They have a decent
amount of recoil, but not enough to tighten your fillings...

That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a stock!
I shoot a 12 ga. often. So far - no time travel.

There is no educational value in the second time you get kicked by a
mule. Or don't hold a shotgun tight to your shoulder.

Doesn't everyone know better than that?

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Robert Sturgeon
wrote back on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:27:29 -0700 in
misc.survivalism :
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:37:15 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Robert Sturgeon
wrote back on Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:08:21 -0700 in
misc.survivalism :
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:20:23 +1000, "Tom Miller"
wrote:

70 caliber! What the hell is that?

Could be a 12 ga. shotgun.

.75 "caliber". I've never fired a 12 gauge with a slug or ball. That
might be "fun".

More like .72". Slug loads are usually fairly heavy loads -
about like a heavy load of bird shot. They have a decent
amount of recoil, but not enough to tighten your fillings...

That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a stock!
I shoot a 12 ga. often. So far - no time travel.

There is no educational value in the second time you get kicked by a
mule. Or don't hold a shotgun tight to your shoulder.

Doesn't everyone know better than that?

In the words of Tommy Smothers "Not Again!"

I'm reminded of my friend and the keltec pistol. First time he'd fired
a semi-auto other than a 22. Left his left thumb on top of the grip, and
he got a slide bite. Rest of the day, you could watch him take the pistol,
get a good grip, and then move that thumb out of the way. One can imagine
the mental checklist: "Good grip, sight picture, left thumb out of way,
sight picture, squeeze, squeeze ..."

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:36:46 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:47:05 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

snip


IF you were correct then clearly "terrorists" are of little
threat as it did not happen G.

Your theory assumes that the scenario has reached a conclusion. This
scenario has a time scale of years, not days or months.

How many more do you wish to murder & terrorize?

Pretty good way to make long term friends, eh?

Or are you thinking of gunner's loonie buddies with their
rants of taking over the government with a few flintlocks
if the "liberals" try to get them health care (probably in
fear of Lithium)?

What relevance does that comment

Lithium?

have to my comment about your flawed reasoning

No Lithium?

terrorist attacks? You implied that since the US didn't
collapse after 911 that there was no threat of that from terrorist
attacks.

Your "reasonong" was flawed, such that it was.

Two attacks does not in any way indicate a conclusion, only a
beginning.

So who's next on your list of nations to attack?
Canada? Mexico?
Might be cheaper ...

It's also only a beginning locally since it has been going on
for years outside the US.

There are always a few and always will be.
Did anyone else bomb the wrong nations over the criminal
acts of a few?

The events in Spain clearly indicate the
dangers of an emotionally reactionary population.

LOL .... THEY DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN.

Pete C.

Winger's Disease getting really bad?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:36:46 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:47:05 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

snip


IF you were correct then clearly "terrorists" are of little
threat as it did not happen G.

Your theory assumes that the scenario has reached a conclusion. This
scenario has a time scale of years, not days or months.

How many more do you wish to murder & terrorize?

Pretty good way to make long term friends, eh?

Or are you thinking of gunner's loonie buddies with their
rants of taking over the government with a few flintlocks
if the "liberals" try to get them health care (probably in
fear of Lithium)?

What relevance does that comment

Lithium?

have to my comment about your flawed reasoning

No Lithium?

terrorist attacks? You implied that since the US didn't
collapse after 911 that there was no threat of that from terrorist
attacks.

Your "reasonong" was flawed, such that it was.

Your reasoning is apparently nonexistent.


Two attacks does not in any way indicate a conclusion, only a
beginning.

So who's next on your list of nations to attack?
Canada? Mexico?
Might be cheaper ...

Don't know where AQ&CO plan to attack next although I suspect that
Mexico is at the bottom of their list. Canada is not out of the realm of
possibility, but is likely low on the list. If I were the betting type,
which I am not, somewhere in Europe would be the most likely.


It's also only a beginning locally since it has been going on
for years outside the US.

There are always a few and always will be.
Did anyone else bomb the wrong nations over the criminal
acts of a few?

Historically, yes, or the equivalent thereof pre bombs and aircraft. In
the present sense, which countries might that be? Not Afghanistan, their
"government" was knowingly supporting AQ&CO. Not Iraq, their
"government" was playing games with the UN inspectors manipulating the
UN oil for food program while starving the civilian population and of
course playing games with the chemical weapons thing.


The events in Spain clearly indicate the
dangers of an emotionally reactionary population.

LOL .... THEY DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN.

No, they didn't, and yet they were attacked by terrorists anyway which
should teach them something about the risk of ignoring terrorists just
because they don't appear to be a direct threat. Terrorists will
inevitably become a direct threat at some point and the longer you
ignore the threat, the larger it becomes.


Pete C.

Winger's Disease getting really bad?
--
Cliff

Apparently yours is. I'm in the center bud, and I look left and right
and see the wingers and their nonsense. Then I look at the real world
which is strikingly different from either of the ones the left and right
wingers try to paint. Perhaps you should consider looking past the
propaganda of your left wing buddies at the realities of the world.

Pete C.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:04:15 GMT, Gunner
said:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:20:23 +1000, "Tom Miller"
wrote:

70 caliber! What the hell is that? That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a stock!

Its the evil assault weapon known as the Brown Bess.

http://footguards.tripod.com/01ABOUT.../01_WpBess.htm
http://footguards.tripod.com/01ABOUT...s.htm#pictures

And the folks in those days tended to be around 5' 6" tall.

(black powder firearms hardly kick)


Yup, it's more like a sudden shove. Black powder takes longer to burn
than modern powders. A cannon with 2-3 pounds of powder is a whole
differnt matter.

n.

"Tom Miller" wrote in message
...
70 caliber! What the hell is that? That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a
stock!

The French made a .70-cal (roughly; it was metric) anti-tank, shoulder-fired
rifle during WWI. I suspect most shooters didn't actually put it up against
their shoulders, however. g

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a couple of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber) or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

For years I was amazed that anyone could shoot a cannon like that until I
saw a painting of one in use. The whole punt was a sort of cannon carriage.
There was a raised V-notch at the bow end, in which the barrel rested. And
mounted to the transom was a very thick, heavily braced plank that extended
up a foot or two above the gunwales. The butt end of the stock rested
against that, while the shooter actually wrapped his arm around the
buttstock.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:52:24 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

terrorist attacks? You implied that since the US didn't
collapse after 911 that there was no threat of that from terrorist
attacks.

Your "reasonong" was flawed, such that it was.

Your reasoning is apparently nonexistent.

Absence of an event does not proove apples.

Two attacks does not in any way indicate a conclusion, only a
beginning.

So who's next on your list of nations to attack?
Canada? Mexico?
Might be cheaper ...

Don't know where AQ&CO plan to attack next although I suspect that
Mexico is at the bottom of their list. Canada is not out of the realm of
possibility, but is likely low on the list. If I were the betting type,
which I am not, somewhere in Europe would be the most likely.

"Two attacks": Iraq & Afghanistan.

http://www.mgm.com/mgm/uk_images/box..._DVD_HIRES.jpg

It's also only a beginning locally since it has been going on
for years outside the US.

There are always a few and always will be.
Did anyone else bomb the wrong nations over the criminal
acts of a few?

Historically, yes, or the equivalent thereof pre bombs and aircraft. In
the present sense, which countries might that be? Not Afghanistan, their
"government" was knowingly supporting AQ&CO.

They asked for proof to make a criminal case.
It was blatently refused.
In point of fact, the US fleets were already on their way
to attack. The decision had been made.
Perhaps even before 9-11, as it had been to attack Iraq.

Not Iraq, their
"government" was playing games with the UN inspectors

Those the ones bush threw out to keep them from finishing
their inspections?

manipulating the
UN oil for food program

I take it that you did not read the report.

while starving the civilian population

Cites?

and of
course playing games with the chemical weapons thing.

WHAT "Chemical weapons"???

The events in Spain clearly indicate the
dangers of an emotionally reactionary population.

LOL .... THEY DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN.

No, they didn't, and yet they were attacked by terrorists anyway which
should teach them something about the risk of ignoring terrorists

So they did not have troops there?

just
because they don't appear to be a direct threat. Terrorists will
inevitably become a direct threat at some point and the longer you
ignore the threat, the larger it becomes.

So you ignore Gunner & the wingers?

Q: WHAT CAUSES "TERRORISTS"?

Murdering ~100,000 of their close relatives?
Torturing others?
Bombing their homes?
Attacking their religions?
Supporting other terrorists for decades?

Things like that?

Pete C.

Winger's Disease getting really bad?
--
Cliff

Apparently yours is. I'm in the center bud, and I look left and right
and see the wingers and their nonsense. Then I look at the real world
which is strikingly different from either of the ones the left and right

I don't think that you see a lot of it.

wingers try to paint. Perhaps you should consider looking past the
propaganda of your left wing buddies at the realities of the world.

What "left wing buddies" might these be?
The ones asking for proof?

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:52:24 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

terrorist attacks? You implied that since the US didn't
collapse after 911 that there was no threat of that from terrorist
attacks.

Your "reasonong" was flawed, such that it was.

Your reasoning is apparently nonexistent.

Absence of an event does not proove apples.

So you're now confirming your flawed reasoning?


Two attacks does not in any way indicate a conclusion, only a
beginning.

So who's next on your list of nations to attack?
Canada? Mexico?
Might be cheaper ...

Don't know where AQ&CO plan to attack next although I suspect that
Mexico is at the bottom of their list. Canada is not out of the realm of
possibility, but is likely low on the list. If I were the betting type,
which I am not, somewhere in Europe would be the most likely.

"Two attacks": Iraq & Afghanistan.

http://www.mgm.com/mgm/uk_images/box..._DVD_HIRES.jpg

Not interested in any winger propaganda.


It's also only a beginning locally since it has been going on
for years outside the US.

There are always a few and always will be.
Did anyone else bomb the wrong nations over the criminal
acts of a few?

Historically, yes, or the equivalent thereof pre bombs and aircraft. In
the present sense, which countries might that be? Not Afghanistan, their
"government" was knowingly supporting AQ&CO.

They asked for proof to make a criminal case.
It was blatently refused.
In point of fact, the US fleets were already on their way
to attack. The decision had been made.
Perhaps even before 9-11, as it had been to attack Iraq.

They asked for classified information knowing full well who they were
harboring and that no sane person would turn over such information to
them.

US Fleets moving does not in any way indicate that a decision to attack
has been made. It's called "posturing" and it's also called keeping your
options open since it takes some time to get equipment into position.


Not Iraq, their
"government" was playing games with the UN inspectors

Those the ones bush threw out to keep them from finishing
their inspections?

Bust didn't throw anyone out, Saddam did several times. The inspectors
were so mired in UN bureaucracy that they couldn't accomplish anything
anyway. Every site they inspected, as they drove in on one side a convoy
of trucks was seen leaving on the other side. They had no way to get to
a site unannounced and no way to stop and inspect whatever was being
moved out as they arrived. Those are the facts.


manipulating the
UN oil for food program

I take it that you did not read the report.

Did you? Saddam was manipulating and funneling funds to support himself
and his troops and weapons and virtually nothing was reaching the
civilian population.


while starving the civilian population

Cites?

Too many to list, look at the UN reports, look at old NPR reports, it
was abundantly clear that the UN sanctions were only hurting the
civilians and having no effect on Saddam and his cronies.


and of
course playing games with the chemical weapons thing.

WHAT "Chemical weapons"???

The ones the first UNSCOM teams located and inventoried. The reports are
out there, try reading them.


The events in Spain clearly indicate the
dangers of an emotionally reactionary population.

LOL .... THEY DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN.

No, they didn't, and yet they were attacked by terrorists anyway which
should teach them something about the risk of ignoring terrorists

So they did not have troops there?

Your point? You're the one who said they didn't attack Iraq or
Afghanistan.


just
because they don't appear to be a direct threat. Terrorists will
inevitably become a direct threat at some point and the longer you
ignore the threat, the larger it becomes.

So you ignore Gunner & the wingers?

I see a larger threat from the naieve left wingers than from the right
wingers at the moment. The potential issues from the right wingers
aren't ones that threaten my physical safety.


Q: WHAT CAUSES "TERRORISTS"?

Murdering ~100,000 of their close relatives?
Torturing others?
Bombing their homes?
Attacking their religions?
Supporting other terrorists for decades?

A: Radical failed religions in conjunction with collapsed societies.


Things like that?

Pete C.

Winger's Disease getting really bad?
--
Cliff

Apparently yours is. I'm in the center bud, and I look left and right
and see the wingers and their nonsense. Then I look at the real world
which is strikingly different from either of the ones the left and right

I don't think that you see a lot of it.

I see far more that you do apparently, you seem to have your left
blinders on.


wingers try to paint. Perhaps you should consider looking past the
propaganda of your left wing buddies at the realities of the world.

What "left wing buddies" might these be?
The ones asking for proof?

Proof of what? Their conspiracy theories? We know who AQ&CO are, we've
known about them for years. Your leftie buddies ignored them during
their administration and 911 and the previous WTC bombing were the
result. The various embassy bombings in Africa and some assorted other
incidents were additional early warnings that your buddies chose to
ignore.


Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

Yes, as a matter of fact I have, and you're one of them. It was the
negligent inaction of the naieve left wingers that allowed 911 to
happen.

Pete C.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:02:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Tom Miller" wrote in message
...
70 caliber! What the hell is that? That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a
stock!

The French made a .70-cal (roughly; it was metric) anti-tank, shoulder-fired
rifle during WWI. I suspect most shooters didn't actually put it up against
their shoulders, however. g

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a couple of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber) or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

That would be a 2 gauge shotgun, not a .200 caliber rifle. ;-)

Strider


For years I was amazed that anyone could shoot a cannon like that until I
saw a painting of one in use. The whole punt was a sort of cannon carriage.
There was a raised V-notch at the bow end, in which the barrel rested. And
mounted to the transom was a very thick, heavily braced plank that extended
up a foot or two above the gunwales. The butt end of the stock rested
against that, while the shooter actually wrapped his arm around the
buttstock.

Ed Huntress wrote:


When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a couple of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber) or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

Ed:

Wouldn't a 2" diameter be 2.00 caliber, not .200 caliber?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

"Strider" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:02:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Tom Miller" wrote in message
...
70 caliber! What the hell is that? That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick
you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a
stock!

The French made a .70-cal (roughly; it was metric) anti-tank,
shoulder-fired
rifle during WWI. I suspect most shooters didn't actually put it up
against
their shoulders, however. g

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a couple
of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one
shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber)
or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

That would be a 2 gauge shotgun, not a .200 caliber rifle. ;-)

Yeah, firstly, I had the decimal in the wrong place. Secondly, a 2-inch bore
would be about 0.6 gauge. (Shotgun gauge being a measure of how many round
lead balls, each of which just fits in the bore, weigh one pound. A 2-in.
bore is about 1.7 lb/ball.)

Unless you're into .410 gauge shotgun terminology, in which case this one
would be a 2.000 gauge.

I think they actually measured them by how many pounds of nails they could
fire in one shot. g

Did you ever see one of those suckers? They gave them names, and passed them
down through generations. The history of each named punt gun was famous all
over the Eastern Shore.

--
Ed Huntress

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a
couple of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one
shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber)
or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

Ed:

Wouldn't a 2" diameter be 2.00 caliber, not .200 caliber?

Yeah, Bob, I got the decimal in the wrong place.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:58:11 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:02:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Tom Miller" wrote in message
...
70 caliber! What the hell is that? That's nearly 18 mm. It would kick you
into the middle of next week to fire it. That's just a cannon with a
stock!

The French made a .70-cal (roughly; it was metric) anti-tank, shoulder-fired
rifle during WWI. I suspect most shooters didn't actually put it up against
their shoulders, however. g

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a couple of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber) or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

That would be a 2 gauge shotgun, not a .200 caliber rifle. ;-)

Strider

Actually...not a 2 gauge. "gauge" is determined by how many round
lead balls of bore diameter size you can cast from a pound of lead.

20 balls for 20 ga, 12 for 12ga etc.

A bit odd...but there it is.

But then..its no odder than defining a yard as the distance from a
kings fingertip to his nose...

G

Gunner



For years I was amazed that anyone could shoot a cannon like that until I
saw a painting of one in use. The whole punt was a sort of cannon carriage.
There was a raised V-notch at the bow end, in which the barrel rested. And
mounted to the transom was a very thick, heavily braced plank that extended
up a foot or two above the gunwales. The butt end of the stock rested
against that, while the shooter actually wrapped his arm around the
buttstock.

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:58:11 GMT, Strider wrote:

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a =
couple of
museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of =
those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one =
shot.
The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber)=
or
more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

That would be a 2 gauge shotgun, not a .200 caliber rifle. ;-)

Using the original English classification it would be an "A" caliber =
punt
gun, which was the largest of them all. The "letter" caliber scale =
followed
the alphabet, each caliber diminishing 1/16" until the "gauge" scale took=
over
with four gauge as the largest.

Another system badly in need of some metrication! g=20
--=20

-JN-

Ed Huntress wrote:

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a

couple of

museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one

shot.

The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber)

or

more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

Ed:

Wouldn't a 2" diameter be 2.00 caliber, not .200 caliber?


Yeah, Bob, I got the decimal in the wrong place.

--
Ed Huntress


Isn't 2" = 200 caliber ! like 0.50 = 50 caliber.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"lionslair at consolidated dot net" "lionslair at consolidated dot net"
wrote in message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"BottleBob" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

When I was a kid living in Maryland I used to love to go down to a

couple of

museums on the Eastern Shore, where they had about a half-dozen of
those
"punt guns" that were used to shoot an entire flock of ducks with one

shot.

The bore varied but I remember several of them around 2" (.200 caliber)

or

more, with barrels maybe 12 feet long and a regular, very fat shoulder
stock.

Ed:

Wouldn't a 2" diameter be 2.00 caliber, not .200 caliber?


Yeah, Bob, I got the decimal in the wrong place.

--
Ed Huntress


Isn't 2" = 200 caliber ! like 0.50 = 50 caliber.

Martin

Yeah, I don't know what the decimal places are doing in there at all,
anyway. I guess it's a tradition.

Anyway, it's a sort of scattergun cannon with a buttstock. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:30:13 GMT, the inscrutable pyotr filipivich
spake:

There is no educational value in the second time you get kicked by a
mule. Or don't hold a shotgun tight to your shoulder.

Doesn't everyone know better than that?

In the words of Tommy Smothers "Not Again!"

That reminds me of my first time shooting a 30.06. My father's friend
had his and I, being wise and brave at age 10, wanted to fire it. He
told me to hold it an inch away from my shoulder. When it almost took
my shoulder off and knocked me to the ground, I was tempted to wish
that he had put another round in there. I wanted to rip the guy's head
off, and I stayed mad at my dad for a week for not warning me. The
bone and cartilage bruises only lasted about six months, no biggie.
Needles ta slay, I didn't need to be reminded about holding a rifle
firmly against my shoulder after that.


I'm reminded of my friend and the keltec pistol. First time he'd fired
a semi-auto other than a 22. Left his left thumb on top of the grip, and
he got a slide bite. Rest of the day, you could watch him take the pistol,
get a good grip, and then move that thumb out of the way.

The first time I shot my pistol I had my grips wrong. My right hand
backed up my left at the back and the slide caught my right thumb
knuckle, taking a neat 1/16" x 1/4" slice out of the skin, much like a
cheese grater. It was then I remembered that the bracing hand goes in
FRONT of the shooting hand. C'est la guerre, non?


One can imagine
the mental checklist: "Good grip, sight picture, left thumb out of way,
sight picture, squeeze, squeeze ..."

....squeeze, squeeze, (Jayzuss, doesn't this thing ever fire) BANG!
4 feet of travel at a ten pound pull is what my P-11 seems to have.


--== May The Angst Be With You! ==--
-Yoda, on a bad day
--
http://diversify.com Ending Your Web Page Angst.