Yep. Nice little piece. I have a 19 and a 24, which is the long-slide .40. They don't make it anymore.Nice..
But I like Glockenspiel. So
No problem with the little Glock. I just chose the Ruger, as I said, because it's slimmer. 0.88 inch vs. 1.13.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
No problem with the little Glock. I just chose the Ruger, as I said, because it's slimmer. 0.88 inch vs. 1.13.
Christopher di Armani | Author. Mentor. Entrepreneur. | 404 Page Not Found
Christopher di Armani | Author. Mentor. Entrepreneur.
christopherdiarmani.com
More specifically, it's a purpose-designed weapon of war, and the most-issued weapon of war in human history.
If the 2nd ammendment was only about hunting rights...somewhere between the declaration of independence and the constitution hearings, the forefathers of America must have change their minds about 'we the people'
Actually, the need for a militia presupposes not having a standing army, but it don't matter.
In the U.S., it don't even matter if you ban future sales of guns, with more guns than people in the country. You'd have to confiscate.
And that WOULD lead to rebellion, not just the Charge of the White Brigade.
Not to mention, it is both semi-automatic and twice as powerful as any 5.56 (like the AR 15) Thanks, Moms, for the laugh.
Gotta love 30.06.
My father and his hunting buddies couldn't figure out why it barely went through the skull of the first deer he shot with his new rifle in the early 60s, till they realized it had gone straight through a 4 inch oak sapling first.
My father and his hunting buddies couldn't figure out why it barely went through the skull of the first deer he shot with his new rifle in the early 60s, till they realized it had gone straight through a 4 inch oak sapling first.
Twice? Four or five times, I'd say. Heck the ball is more'n three times as heavy as a standard 5.56. And a gigantic load of powder pushing it.
The Garand was overpowered, and the U.S. seriously debated going to a .308 (7.62x51). Reason they stuck with the .30.06 (7.62x63) is that the entire ammo industry was already tooled for it.
There was actually a thread of opinion in the U.S. military when I was in that the 5.56x45 was chosen because, in terms of combat effectiveness, it's actually better to f*ck up an enemy soldier than to kill him, because you tie up enemy resources in taking care of him.
Last edited:
Naw, it's because getting the job done right with one round is beyond a lot of you rapid fire/short range type shooters.
Yeah. I was basing power on muzzle energy stats..........which makes the .30-06 something a little over twice as powerful.
And yeah, I heard the 5.56 ability to wound was the reason it was adopted..........but I think a more reasonable explanation is the weight of the ammunition. It weighs one half the weight of a 7.62 x 51 NATO round, so a soldier can carry twice as much ammunition.
A lot of reasons went into the decision, I imagine.
It's easy to get firearms into any country that has a market for them and a coastline, airport, or border crossings for trucks or trains.
Whenever people talk about banning guns in the U.S., I always suggest that we employ the same tactics that have been so successful at keeping illegal drugs out of the country.
Damn, one should NEVER handle an illegal weapon of any kind or the parts with your bare fingers, FFS.
even if you intend to keep it.
just sayin...
Also one would be well advised to never make ILLEGAL deals of any kind on camera as well.
even if you intend to keep it.
just sayin...
Also one would be well advised to never make ILLEGAL deals of any kind on camera as well.
