On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:28:52 -0500, Wes wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:


A bone-fide seller would have a bill of sale with serial number, and
this can be checked with the dealer that sold it.

I'm not tuned into gun-buying, but that seems not entirely right -- I
could see a perfectly legitimate sale of a used gun happening without a
bill of sale being exchanged. Maybe not _smart_, but _legitimate_.

You're right, a legit owner might not have a bill of sale. I'd be wary
of buying from such a seller.

I have many firearms that I don't have the sales receipts for. After 5 - 30 years or so,
that stuff gets lost.

Wes

Most person to person sales have no receipt in the first place,
particularly those made before 1994

Gunner

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:44:51
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:28:52 -0500, Wes wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:


A bone-fide seller would have a bill of sale with serial number, and
this can be checked with the dealer that sold it.

I'm not tuned into gun-buying, but that seems not entirely right -- I
could see a perfectly legitimate sale of a used gun happening without a
bill of sale being exchanged. Maybe not _smart_, but _legitimate_.

You're right, a legit owner might not have a bill of sale. I'd be wary
of buying from such a seller.

I have many firearms that I don't have the sales receipts for. After 5 - 30 years or so,
that stuff gets lost.

Wes

Most person to person sales have no receipt in the first place,
particularly those made before 1994

You want a bill-of-sale, wait while I make one out. Or if you're
going to ask for one, let me know and I'll dig it out. (Read that as
"write one up".)


pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

RB wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:16:31 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:


A bone-fide seller would have a bill of sale with serial number, and
this can be checked with the dealer that sold it.
I'm not tuned into gun-buying, but that seems not entirely right -- I
could see a perfectly legitimate sale of a used gun happening without
a bill of sale being exchanged. Maybe not _smart_, but _legitimate_.

You're right, a legit owner might not have a bill of sale. I'd be wary
of buying from such a seller.

It happens every day, and it's perfectly legal.
A bill of sale is a rare thing in my experience.
Just look at their driver's license, or preferable a CHL.
If they are over 21 and live in your state, and the other party does not
look or act like a criminal, you're in good shape.

CHL.
You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
Cash and gun changes hands.
Good enough for me.

RB wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:16:31 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:


A bone-fide seller would have a bill of sale with serial number, and
this can be checked with the dealer that sold it.

I'm not tuned into gun-buying, but that seems not entirely right -- I
could see a perfectly legitimate sale of a used gun happening without a
bill of sale being exchanged. Maybe not _smart_, but _legitimate_.

You're right, a legit owner might not have a bill of sale. I'd be wary
of buying from such a seller.

It happens every day, and it's perfectly legal.
A bill of sale is a rare thing in my experience.
Just look at their driver's license, or preferable a CHL.
If they are over 21 and live in your state, and the other party does not
look or act like a criminal, you're in good shape.

It's legal depending on what state you live it.

west wrote:

CHL.
You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
Cash and gun changes hands.
Good enough for me.


That would work for me. You don't get one if you commited a felony or beat your spouse.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2008-11-19, Wes wrote:
west wrote:

CHL.
You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
Cash and gun changes hands.
Good enough for me.


That would work for me. You don't get one if you commited a felony or beat your spouse.

Not correct.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus11212 wrote:

On 2008-11-19, Wes wrote:
west wrote:

CHL.
You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
Cash and gun changes hands.
Good enough for me.


That would work for me. You don't get one if you commited a felony or beat your spouse.

Not correct.

Exceptions please?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2008-11-19, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus11212 wrote:

On 2008-11-19, Wes wrote:
west wrote:

CHL.
You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
Cash and gun changes hands.
Good enough for me.


That would work for me. You don't get one if you commited a felony or beat your spouse.

Not correct.

Exceptions please?


Replace "committed" with "convicted of".

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

cavelamb himself wrote:

Note the hysteresis diagram on the 4th page down...

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cave-1/


I did not see the diagram but I saw the airplane plans.


I'm assuming you built one. How much does yours weigh, how much do you weigh, how much
fuel to you carry, ect. I want details. Feel free to post a separate thread in RCM, it
would be on topic and a great read now that it is winter up here.

I downloaded the pdf's.

Thanks,

Wes

Wes wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:


Note the hysteresis diagram on the 4th page down...

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cave-1/



I did not see the diagram but I saw the airplane plans.


I'm assuming you built one. How much does yours weigh, how much do you weigh, how much
fuel to you carry, ect. I want details. Feel free to post a separate thread in RCM, it
would be on topic and a great read now that it is winter up here.

I downloaded the pdf's.

Thanks,

Wes


You wondered off into the wrong cave, dude.

The parasol plans are old news.
I've moved on since then.
But yes, I've built several of them.
For details go to the Texas Parasol group at yahoo groups...


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:44:34 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "DoN. Nichols"
wrote on 17 Nov 2008 22:45:02 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 2008-11-17, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:03:01 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

[ ... ]

If "extreme range personel interdiction" is more of a primary
concern....get a heavy barreled Savage in .308, and stick on a decent
fixed power scope, somewhere between 8x and 10x.

If anyone wants to know why most specialists prefer fixed power
optics, Id be happy to expound.

Could it be that the position of the cross-hairs shifts relative
to the target when the focal length is changed, so you have to zero it
at one focal length? (Or even worse -- the sliding components which
implement the zoom may shift with recoil, so even if you stay at a given
zoom point the cross hair point will shift.

So far, all good answers.

Now, think about this. With a variable scope, when you get your
sight picture, how "far away" is the target? Well, that all depends
on what power the scope is set at. E.G., if it is set at 9x and
you're thinking "3x" - "Dang that's close up!", and miss accordingly.
It has been my experience that getting everything "right" for a
shot (cheek weld, eye relief, pulse, breathing, tension on trigger,
site picture, etc) is hard enough without adding the variable of
movable optics. At east, that is my experience. But I do love having
the variable scope to double as a "spotting scope" for post shot
target examination.


tschus
pyotr

you would make an excellent student of mine. You got it in the first
go.

Range estimation is the reason.

Range finders can and do take a **** with great regularity. If you
are using a fixed power scope, you can easily, over a short time,
learn to estimate the range, and apply the proper hold over for the
various distances simply by how big the target is in the scope.
Various "sniper scopes" use multiple crosshairs, horizontal lines and
so forth and yes, they can and do work well, but only at one fixed
power. Fixed power scopes tend to be much sharper and can only be
matched by a far more expensive variable. The Shepard and ART2 scopes
are specialist scopes and work well enough with their compensation
mechanics, but are exceptionally pricey and can be a bit fragile.

Standard fixed powers are 8x and 10x. More magnification and it
really magnifies natural body movement, makes mirage far worse and can
really screw things up if the target is "danger close"... Which is one
of the reasons such a rifle really really needs to keep its iron
(preferably decent peeps) sights.

A personel interdiction scope needs to be rugged, reliable, clear and
have good repeatable elevation and windage clicks, perferablly ones
you can hear AND feel. 16th minute is overkill. Quarter minute is
satisfactory. For this sort of application, your target is the size
of a paper plate if you chose to take head shots, which can be very
hard to do past 400 yrds...Center of Mass shots are approx 12" wide by
20" tall and are easily delivered well out past 1000 meters with even
most stock rifles if they are of decent accuracy....IE..if they will
shoot a 1" 3shot group at 100 yrds, they will likely shoot a 10" group
at 1000 yrds (assuming no mirage, no wind etc etc). A round into that
12x20" area is gonna really ruin the targets entire day. If you think
he is wearing armor, then shoulder, pelvic, hip or neck/head shots are
indicated. Letting him hold a 175gr at 2000+ fps in the shoulder, is
likely to be virtually fatal in minutes, given that the bones will be
blown into the body cavity, acting as shrapnel, shreding the closest
lung at the very least. Same with a round into the hip/pelvic girdle.
Unless he has access to a fast dust off, or is hit in the parking lot
of a good trauma unit...he is likely to be toast in short order. At
the very least, he becomes a HUGE problem for his mates.

A variable scope has its uses, as Pytor says. But..and I cant stress
this enough..it should be shot at the same power each and every time.
It should become natural for you to apply the proper holdover at any
range. And most variables have one power that has minimal parallax,
and the best focus and clarity. You must be able to see how the
grass or leaves are blowing, from the muzzle all the way out to the
target..(often more than one direction at the same time) so you can
judge windage.

If you have a variable, find the best fixed power..usually about 2/3
of maximum. and leave it there as you learn the weapon, and if using
it for a spotting scope...ugg....make it instinctive to return it to
your shooting power.

Does everyone understand the concept of what "point blank range"
really is, and why is critically important to know what your
rifle/cartridges BPR is?

Gunner



Gunner

On 18 Nov 2008 04:56:06 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:


Now, think about this. With a variable scope, when you get your
sight picture, how "far away" is the target? Well, that all depends
on what power the scope is set at. E.G., if it is set at 9x and
you're thinking "3x" - "Dang that's close up!", and miss accordingly.

Intersting -- and I had not even thought of that. I would
expect the magnification to become obvious during the moment of shifting
from direct view to view through the scope. But I guess that in trying
to remember everything else you mentioned, you could overlook that.

If you are out doing the ground squirrel thing, its a nice and relaxed
shooting experience. However when hunting 2 legged game that tends to
have friends...you try to minimize all the thinking stuff and rely on
the KISS princible, so it doesnt **** you up, or slow you down.

It has been my experience that getting everything "right" for a
shot (cheek weld, eye relief, pulse, breathing, tension on trigger,
site picture, etc) is hard enough without adding the variable of
movable optics.

[ ... ]

Enjoy,
DoN.

cavelamb himself wrote:

You wondered off into the wrong cave, dude.

The parasol plans are old news.
I've moved on since then.
But yes, I've built several of them.
For details go to the Texas Parasol group at yahoo groups...


I'll go check that cave out.

Thanks,

Wes

Wes wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:


You wondered off into the wrong cave, dude.

The parasol plans are old news.
I've moved on since then.
But yes, I've built several of them.
For details go to the Texas Parasol group at yahoo groups...



I'll go check that cave out.

Thanks,

Wes

Is your email address here correct?

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:28:04 -0600, Ignoramus11212
wrote:

On 2008-11-19, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus11212 wrote:

On 2008-11-19, Wes wrote:
west wrote:

CHL.
You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
Cash and gun changes hands.
Good enough for me.


That would work for me. You don't get one if you commited a felony or beat your spouse.

Not correct.

Exceptions please?


Replace "committed" with "convicted of".

If you have been arrested for a felony, or even most misdemeanors,
your CCW is the first thing that gets yanked. It may only be
temporary..but you will not be allowed to carry until its been
adjudicated one way or another.

Gunner

cavelamb himself wrote:

I'll go check that cave out.

Thanks,

Wes

Is your email address here correct?


It actually does work. I just have to look at it.

Wes

DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2008-11-18, pyotr filipivich wrote:
I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "DoN. Nichols"
wrote on 17 Nov 2008 22:45:02 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 2008-11-17, Gunner wrote:

[ ... ]

If anyone wants to know why most specialists prefer fixed power
optics, Id be happy to expound.
Could it be that the position of the cross-hairs shifts relative
to the target when the focal length is changed, so you have to zero it
at one focal length? (Or even worse -- the sliding components which
implement the zoom may shift with recoil, so even if you stay at a given
zoom point the cross hair point will shift.
So far, all good answers.

Now, think about this. With a variable scope, when you get your
sight picture, how "far away" is the target? Well, that all depends
on what power the scope is set at. E.G., if it is set at 9x and
you're thinking "3x" - "Dang that's close up!", and miss accordingly.

Intersting -- and I had not even thought of that. I would
expect the magnification to become obvious during the moment of shifting
from direct view to view through the scope. But I guess that in trying
to remember everything else you mentioned, you could overlook that.

It has been my experience that getting everything "right" for a
shot (cheek weld, eye relief, pulse, breathing, tension on trigger,
site picture, etc) is hard enough without adding the variable of
movable optics.

I use a Weaver V4.5 for deer hunting. I sight in the rifle with the
scope at 4.5x so that if it's a little off at lower magnification, it
will be at a shorter range and less of an issue. I hunt with it set to
1.5x and if I see a deer that needs the extra power, it's further away
and I have time to dial it up.

David

On 2008-11-19, Gunner wrote:

[ ... ]

you would make an excellent student of mine. You got it in the first
go.

Range estimation is the reason.

Range finders can and do take a **** with great regularity. If you
are using a fixed power scope, you can easily, over a short time,
learn to estimate the range, and apply the proper hold over for the
various distances simply by how big the target is in the scope.
Various "sniper scopes" use multiple crosshairs, horizontal lines and
so forth and yes, they can and do work well, but only at one fixed
power. Fixed power scopes tend to be much sharper and can only be
matched by a far more expensive variable. The Shepard and ART2 scopes
are specialist scopes and work well enough with their compensation
mechanics, but are exceptionally pricey and can be a bit fragile.

Hmm ... I can think of a design which would deal with the
problem of the hold-over crosshairs shifting with magnification. Put
all of the zoom optics between the reticle and the eye, so the image
relative to the reticle will not shift.

Of course -- this still leaves you with the problem of
estimating range. (Hmm ... for an upright human of average size, adjust
zoom so foot to head range spans two specific cross-hairs (perhaps add
one near the bottom for the purpose), and then read off the range either
on the zoom ring, or on a display in the eyepiece. It might even be
more reliable than the typical rangefinder for that specific target.

[ ... ]

A personel interdiction scope needs to be rugged, reliable, clear and
have good repeatable elevation and windage clicks, perferablly ones
you can hear AND feel.

Something which I have been lucky enough to never need to deal
with, and which I hope to never have to deal with. But who knows what
the future holds?

Does everyone understand the concept of what "point blank range"
really is, and why is critically important to know what your
rifle/cartridges BPR is?

IITC, that is the point at which the arc of the descending
bullet re-crosses the line of the sights. It crosses it once on the way
up fairly close to the shooter, and from then until the PBR it is above
(but not much above) the line of sight. Then after it crosses at the
PBR, it starts getting progressively worse. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 20 Nov 2008 03:50:08 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2008-11-19, Gunner wrote:

[ ... ]

you would make an excellent student of mine. You got it in the first
go.

Range estimation is the reason.

Range finders can and do take a **** with great regularity. If you
are using a fixed power scope, you can easily, over a short time,
learn to estimate the range, and apply the proper hold over for the
various distances simply by how big the target is in the scope.
Various "sniper scopes" use multiple crosshairs, horizontal lines and
so forth and yes, they can and do work well, but only at one fixed
power. Fixed power scopes tend to be much sharper and can only be
matched by a far more expensive variable. The Shepard and ART2 scopes
are specialist scopes and work well enough with their compensation
mechanics, but are exceptionally pricey and can be a bit fragile.

Hmm ... I can think of a design which would deal with the
problem of the hold-over crosshairs shifting with magnification. Put
all of the zoom optics between the reticle and the eye, so the image
relative to the reticle will not shift.

Of course -- this still leaves you with the problem of
estimating range. (Hmm ... for an upright human of average size, adjust
zoom so foot to head range spans two specific cross-hairs (perhaps add
one near the bottom for the purpose), and then read off the range either
on the zoom ring, or on a display in the eyepiece. It might even be
more reliable than the typical rangefinder for that specific target.

[ ... ]

A personel interdiction scope needs to be rugged, reliable, clear and
have good repeatable elevation and windage clicks, perferablly ones
you can hear AND feel.

Something which I have been lucky enough to never need to deal
with, and which I hope to never have to deal with. But who knows what
the future holds?

Does everyone understand the concept of what "point blank range"
really is, and why is critically important to know what your
rifle/cartridges BPR is?

IITC, that is the point at which the arc of the descending
bullet re-crosses the line of the sights. It crosses it once on the way
up fairly close to the shooter, and from then until the PBR it is above
(but not much above) the line of sight. Then after it crosses at the
PBR, it starts getting progressively worse. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.


Absolutely correct. And given that the Center of Mass is a large
verticle zone, Point Blank range is a pretty good distance, where you
dont have to hold over..you simply need to be able to place a round in
that area.
Hold at the top of the COM, and for quite a number of yards going
farther and farther away, a round fired will go into that verticle
area.

Gunner

Gunner wrote in
:

Absolutely correct. And given that the Center of Mass is a large
verticle zone, Point Blank range is a pretty good distance, where you
dont have to hold over..you simply need to be able to place a round in
that area.
Hold at the top of the COM, and for quite a number of yards going
farther and farther away, a round fired will go into that verticle
area.

Which is why I keep my '06 zeroed at 350 yards - with my normal loads that
provides me with no more than a 3" vertical variance (plus or minus) out to
about 450 yards.

After that, the drop accellerates and the kinetic energy diminishes rather
rapidly.

On 20 Nov 2008 14:28:15 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
:

Absolutely correct. And given that the Center of Mass is a large
verticle zone, Point Blank range is a pretty good distance, where you
dont have to hold over..you simply need to be able to place a round in
that area.
Hold at the top of the COM, and for quite a number of yards going
farther and farther away, a round fired will go into that verticle
area.

Which is why I keep my '06 zeroed at 350 yards - with my normal loads that
provides me with no more than a 3" vertical variance (plus or minus) out to
about 450 yards.

After that, the drop accellerates and the kinetic energy diminishes rather
rapidly.

Depending on the bullet and the velocity of course, with a 350 yrd
zero, your point blank range should keep your round inside the COM out
to about 625 yrds. The 175gr International type bullet at 2750fps has
some legs and at 625 yrds, should still have more energy than a 44mag
at the muzzle.

Gunner

Gunner wrote in
:

On 20 Nov 2008 14:28:15 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
m:

Absolutely correct. And given that the Center of Mass is a large
verticle zone, Point Blank range is a pretty good distance, where
you dont have to hold over..you simply need to be able to place a
round in that area.
Hold at the top of the COM, and for quite a number of yards going
farther and farther away, a round fired will go into that verticle
area.

Which is why I keep my '06 zeroed at 350 yards - with my normal loads
that provides me with no more than a 3" vertical variance (plus or
minus) out to about 450 yards.

After that, the drop accellerates and the kinetic energy diminishes
rather rapidly.

Depending on the bullet and the velocity of course, with a 350 yrd
zero, your point blank range should keep your round inside the COM out
to about 625 yrds. The 175gr International type bullet at 2750fps has
some legs and at 625 yrds, should still have more energy than a 44mag
at the muzzle.

Gunner


Yabut the COM on small varmints is fairly small, thus the shorter
distances... G

On 23 Nov 2008 01:53:25 GMT, "RAM³" wrote:

Gunner wrote in
:

On 20 Nov 2008 14:28:15 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
:

Absolutely correct. And given that the Center of Mass is a large
verticle zone, Point Blank range is a pretty good distance, where
you dont have to hold over..you simply need to be able to place a
round in that area.
Hold at the top of the COM, and for quite a number of yards going
farther and farther away, a round fired will go into that verticle
area.

Which is why I keep my '06 zeroed at 350 yards - with my normal loads
that provides me with no more than a 3" vertical variance (plus or
minus) out to about 450 yards.

After that, the drop accellerates and the kinetic energy diminishes
rather rapidly.

Depending on the bullet and the velocity of course, with a 350 yrd
zero, your point blank range should keep your round inside the COM out
to about 625 yrds. The 175gr International type bullet at 2750fps has
some legs and at 625 yrds, should still have more energy than a 44mag
at the muzzle.

Gunner


Yabut the COM on small varmints is fairly small, thus the shorter
distances... G

Two legged varmints, or the 4 legged kind?

EG

Gunner


"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:28:06 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On 23 Nov 2008 01:53:25 GMT, "RAM³" wrote:

Yabut the COM on small varmints is fairly small, thus the shorter
distances... G

Two legged varmints, or the 4 legged kind?

EG

The W.C.Fields recipe: Children? Yes, love them...parboiled or fried.

---
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
--John Wayne (1907 - 1979)

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:28:06 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 23 Nov 2008 01:53:25 GMT, "RAM³" wrote:

Gunner wrote in
m:

On 20 Nov 2008 14:28:15 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
m:

Absolutely correct. And given that the Center of Mass is a large
verticle zone, Point Blank range is a pretty good distance, where
you dont have to hold over..you simply need to be able to place a
round in that area.
Hold at the top of the COM, and for quite a number of yards going
farther and farther away, a round fired will go into that verticle
area.

Which is why I keep my '06 zeroed at 350 yards - with my normal loads
that provides me with no more than a 3" vertical variance (plus or
minus) out to about 450 yards.

After that, the drop accellerates and the kinetic energy diminishes
rather rapidly.

Depending on the bullet and the velocity of course, with a 350 yrd
zero, your point blank range should keep your round inside the COM out
to about 625 yrds. The 175gr International type bullet at 2750fps has
some legs and at 625 yrds, should still have more energy than a 44mag
at the muzzle.

Gunner


Yabut the COM on small varmints is fairly small, thus the shorter
distances... G

Two legged varmints, or the 4 legged kind?

Cartoon from WW2: Willy and Joe were asleep in a barn, Willie has
his flashlight on a barn rat, Joe has aimed his 45. Caption: "Aim
between the eyes, Joe, they some times charge when wounded."
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

pyotr filipivich wrote in
:

Cartoon from WW2: Willy and Joe were asleep in a barn, Willie has
his flashlight on a barn rat, Joe has aimed his 45. Caption: "Aim
between the eyes, Joe, they some times charge when wounded."


My favorite one was when, as Artillery Observers, Willie and Joe are in
their foxhole on a cliff and looking up at the bow plate of a Panzer that
parked right over them.

The caption: "Able Fox 5 to Able Fox - We got you a target but you gotta be
patient!"

Gunner Asch wrote in
news
Two legged varmints, or the 4 legged kind?

EG


4-leggers - Prarie Dog sized.

The 2-leggers aren't that much of a challenge except for shorter barrel
lengths - under 8", for example.

BTW, I'm considering replacing my 40-year-old Weaver V9 [3x9 50mm] with one
of these: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=428407

On 24 Nov 2008 04:06:28 GMT, "RAM³" wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote in
news
Two legged varmints, or the 4 legged kind?

EG


4-leggers - Prarie Dog sized.

The 2-leggers aren't that much of a challenge except for shorter barrel
lengths - under 8", for example.

BTW, I'm considering replacing my 40-year-old Weaver V9 [3x9 50mm] with one
of these: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=428407


http://www.barska.com/swat.html


http://www.opticsplanet.com/msgboard/about1318.html

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-232701.html



Look farther afield....

http://www.nightforceoptics.com/

http://www.authorizedoptics.com/nigh...le-scopes.html


Too pricey? Might want to look at these....

http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/scope_rec.html

http://www.snipercountry.com/

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/ChoosingScope.asp

http://www.snipercountry.com/articles.htm

http://www.snipercountry.com/inreview.htm#Optics


You get what you pay for.

http://shop.ebay.com/items/__leupold...=p3286.c0.m359


"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:36:23 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

http://www.authorizedoptics.com/nigh...le-scopes.html

Too pricey? Might want to look at these....

No kidding, but I'd love one.


http://www.snipercountry.com/articles.htm

From that, this wisdom:
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/MurphysLaws.asp

3 peaches:
"Incoming fire always has the right of way."
"Try to look unimportant to the enemy, they may be low on ammo."
"A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you to slow down."


---
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
--John Wayne (1907 - 1979)

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:49:45
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:36:23 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

http://www.authorizedoptics.com/nigh...le-scopes.html

Too pricey? Might want to look at these....

No kidding, but I'd love one.


http://www.snipercountry.com/articles.htm

From that, this wisdom:
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/MurphysLaws.asp

3 peaches:
"Incoming fire always has the right of way."
"Try to look unimportant to the enemy, they may be low on ammo."

Anything you do will draw fire. Even doing nothing.

"A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you to slow down."


... you forgot to duck.


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

RAM³ wrote:

BTW, I'm considering replacing my 40-year-old Weaver V9 [3x9 50mm] with one
of these: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=428407

I wish you would, and post a report.

I have a set of Barska 20X binocs.
They work for me, but next to a pair of Nikons you can tell the
difference in clarity.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:28:07 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:49:45
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:36:23 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

http://www.authorizedoptics.com/nigh...le-scopes.html

Too pricey? Might want to look at these....

No kidding, but I'd love one.


http://www.snipercountry.com/articles.htm

From that, this wisdom:
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/MurphysLaws.asp

3 peaches:
"Incoming fire always has the right of way."
"Try to look unimportant to the enemy, they may be low on ammo."

Anything you do will draw fire. Even doing nothing.

"A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you to slow down."


... you forgot to duck.


tschus
pyotr


Never worry about the bullet with your name on it.

The ones to be worried about are those addressed to
"To whom it may concern"


Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:32:31 -0600, RB wrote:

RAM³ wrote:

BTW, I'm considering replacing my 40-year-old Weaver V9 [3x9 50mm] with one
of these: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=428407

I wish you would, and post a report.

I have a set of Barska 20X binocs.
They work for me, but next to a pair of Nikons you can tell the
difference in clarity.


I posted some reviews of Barska scopes.

They didnt fare well.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

RB wrote in
:

RAM³ wrote:

BTW, I'm considering replacing my 40-year-old Weaver V9 [3x9 50mm]
with one of these:
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=428407

I wish you would, and post a report.

I have a set of Barska 20X binocs.
They work for me, but next to a pair of Nikons you can tell the
difference in clarity.

I have a pair of their 25x-100x binocs that work fairly well for me. g

That's the only reason that I'm considering a new scope.

The old Weaver V9 on my old Savage 110DL still lets me shoot the occasional
1-hole 100 yd. group with Winchester Factory rounds. (As long as the rounds
are from the same lot the rifle is just as happy with any weight bullet as
with any other.)

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:41:26 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:28:07 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:49:45
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:36:23 -0800, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

http://www.authorizedoptics.com/nigh...le-scopes.html

Too pricey? Might want to look at these....

No kidding, but I'd love one.


http://www.snipercountry.com/articles.htm

From that, this wisdom:
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/MurphysLaws.asp

3 peaches:
"Incoming fire always has the right of way."
"Try to look unimportant to the enemy, they may be low on ammo."

Anything you do will draw fire. Even doing nothing.

"A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you to slow down."


... you forgot to duck.


tschus
pyotr


Never worry about the bullet with your name on it.

The ones to be worried about are those addressed to
"To whom it may concern"

"I've got a bullet in here with your name on it. I'll just keep
shooting till I find it" Caption for a painting of a grunt firing
futuristic mini-gun. You know the sort, forty zillion rounds a
minute, and you only have to reload twice a day ...


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:04:17
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Now, think about this. With a variable scope, when you get your
sight picture, how "far away" is the target? Well, that all depends
on what power the scope is set at. E.G., if it is set at 9x and
you're thinking "3x" - "Dang that's close up!", and miss accordingly.
It has been my experience that getting everything "right" for a
shot (cheek weld, eye relief, pulse, breathing, tension on trigger,
site picture, etc) is hard enough without adding the variable of
movable optics. At east, that is my experience. But I do love having
the variable scope to double as a "spotting scope" for post shot
target examination.


tschus
pyotr

you would make an excellent student of mine. You got it in the first
go.

Dang! I remembered and integrated what I heard somewhere.

Range estimation is the reason.

Range finders can and do take a **** with great regularity.

My "training NCO", Dave, uses one to make sure he is at 100 or
200 yards, then uses the scope. First time we were out together, I
was happy as a clam to be getting a five inch group from the prone
position, he was bitching cause he wasn't holding less than an inch.
Of course, he had experience, and motive.

If you are using a fixed power scope, you can easily, over a short time,

My problem, and I'll admit it,is that I'm not an "outdoors" kind
of guy. So, my range estimates tend to be " plus-minus 20%". Not
good.

Standard fixed powers are 8x and 10x. More magnification and it
really magnifies natural body movement, makes mirage far worse and can
really screw things up if the target is "danger close"... Which is one
of the reasons such a rifle really really needs to keep its iron
(preferably decent peeps) sights.

Going off on a tangent. I've a FAL clone on which I mounted a
decent scope. Had to take off the rear iron sight to get it to fit.
(And then there was the silly experience of swapping the scopes ,
discovering after I had them both tightened down, that I had very
carefully taken the scope off the one rifle, picked up the second
scope, and mounted it on the second rifle, before very carefully
installing new rings and mounting the first scope back on the first
rifle. Which I noticed when it was time to pack up.)
But the last time I was shooting, as the morning wore on, I was
having more and more difficulty finding the target through the scope.
A sort of 'white haze'/halo filled the sight picture. I suspect I was
getting glare off the front (iron) sight - really frustrating and not
conducive to a fun shoot. [If it isn't 'fun' I don't want to do it.
If I'm not getting results I can use, it isn't "fun". Not seeing the
target properly, means I'm not aiming, but guessing. That's not fun,
unless I'm here to just make noise and run through ammo. I've done
that too.]
Anyway later in the day, for round two, I wasn't having the
problem, which is part of why I suspect the glare off the front sight.
I've thought about removing the front sight, but it looks to be a
solid & integral part of the front end. Magic Marker to 'blacken' the
ring, so it doesn't reflect as well?


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Just in case you guys missed it the fiorst time around...

Vaughn Bode - War Lizards

"Love them butterfly chips!"

http://www.ultralame.com/~davies/bode/war/warliz.html

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that cavelamb himself
wrote on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:15:49 -0600 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
Just in case you guys missed it the fiorst time around...

Vaughn Bode - War Lizards

"Love them butterfly chips!"

http://www.ultralame.com/~davies/bode/war/warliz.html

Oh. Wow.

(Do I remember those, or am I have leaks from somebody else's
flashbacks?)
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

pyotr filipivich wrote in
:

I've thought about removing the front sight, but it looks to be a
solid & integral part of the front end. Magic Marker to 'blacken' the
ring, so it doesn't reflect as well?


Try using a matte black paint on the top and rear surfaces of the blade.

This also helps with any set of "iron" sights since it provides better
contrast than blued/parkerized finishes.

Old-time target shooters used to use a sooty-flamed lamp/candle to put a
layer of "lamp black" on their sights for this very reason. grin


--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Eregon
Eregon@Saphira.ørg wrote on 28 Nov 2008 03:48:09 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote in
:

I've thought about removing the front sight, but it looks to be a
solid & integral part of the front end. Magic Marker to 'blacken' the
ring, so it doesn't reflect as well?


Try using a matte black paint on the top and rear surfaces of the blade.

This also helps with any set of "iron" sights since it provides better
contrast than blued/parkerized finishes.

Old-time target shooters used to use a sooty-flamed lamp/candle to put a
layer of "lamp black" on their sights for this very reason. grin

Thought something like that might have helped. And there I was,
the one time I didn't have a sharpy on me...

pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!