On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination,
I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on
the track to win the prize.
Something I've noticed:
Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.
They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.
Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——
Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?
Don't know.* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.
"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this
is not
the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem
with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”
Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,
"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."
Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.
Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)
"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.
It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.
I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".
Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.
Too much thinking on my part.
Mini-14's are legal in MA:
Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c.
140, § 121:
Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;
https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-
--
Freedom Isn't Free!
The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.
I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.
I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.
The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a
little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can
safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the
Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.
Here's a better explanation from Hornady:
Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.
The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.
The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125” longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.
The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.
The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a
223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not
be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems
start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle with a 14.5” (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder
charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when
it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle
improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5” should
function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.
https://is.gd/13tegV
That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification. I am not as
knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and
others here are although it was
my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO
round. Is that accurate?
Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the
..223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is
rim-fired.
This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification. Her statement
defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to
include .22 cal *rim-fired" as being legal. It's confusing as hell
but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com