|
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:43:47 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:21:23 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list though. === Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk - not as nasty looking however. I like the looks of the Model 5801 http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html but I like the stainless on the 5805 http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his farm). === For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better choice: http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx It looks like all except the 'BDL' require a scope, which I don't want. The 'BDL' appears to be discontinued in the .223 caliber. === Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:14:53 -0400, Harrold wrote:
Thanks to O'Bama's help, Scott should enjoy another term as Gov. of the great state of Florida. === I hope so. At least we know where Scott stands and he's been consistent. Crist is like a leaf blowing in the wind, and being politically indebdted to the M&M guys is a scary thought. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:18:00 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:43:47 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:21:23 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list though. === Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk - not as nasty looking however. I like the looks of the Model 5801 http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html but I like the stainless on the 5805 http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his farm). === For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better choice: http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx It looks like all except the 'BDL' require a scope, which I don't want. The 'BDL' appears to be discontinued in the .223 caliber. === Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/18/14 4:08 PM, wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:17:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Oh, how did Scott avoid indictment? A "deal" was made between his lawyers, and there was an agreement to pay a huge fine. Something like 3 times what they say he took. In the good old days, you could have bought all of SW Florida swampland for that. Yup, before the Fed's devalued the currency so much. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/18/14 9:31 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. It really pains me to offer up a solution to any problems raised in this cesspool of a newsgroup, especially to you, but... You probably should get the distance vision in the right eye. Then to shoot with iron sights, what you need is a reading glass RX for the right eye that lets you see the rifle's two sights and you'll be able to use your left eye for distance vision at the target. It takes a little bit to get used to it, but it does work and you just end up shooting with both eyes open. I need 1.50 reading glasses for my eyes. So, I bought a pair of $10 1.50 readers at the drug store and knocked out the left lens. My right eye with the 1.50 lens sees the rear and front sight on the rifle (or handgun), and the left eye focuses on the target. I can shoot very very tight groups with the metal sights on my pistols and with the metal sights on my rifles. I now have 2 MOA red dots on my AR15 and Win 92, and with red dots you also shoot with both eyes open. No reading glasses needed. I shared this idea with my gunsmith buddy, who didn't believe it until he tried it. He was going to pop for a $450 pair of hybrid Rx shooting glasses, but solved his vision problem with $10 readers. Now, he's going to bead blast my Ruger revolver and a few other tasks at no charge. -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:46:28 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. The question you need to answer is do I want to watch TV or do I want to drive a car? Drive a car distance, watch TV near distance. If you are specifically talking about shooting you need to state whether you are right handed or left handed and that will determine which eye you should get fixed to enable you to see the front sight. Thanks, Bill. I said in the previous I was right handed. The eye that needs work is the right eye. So the choice is - a clear front sight or a clear target. My left eye is still good for distance. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. Forgot to say 'thanks'. Thanks! |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
|
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill
wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/19/14 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I predict a great future for you as a target shooter. -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/19/14 2:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Happy Birthday, old fart. Hope you and yours enjoy many more in decent health. -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:24:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) And it's all up hill from there! |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/19/2014 2:30 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/19/14 2:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Happy Birthday, old fart. Hope you and yours enjoy many more in decent health. Thanks. Me too. My goal is to stay healthy and strong enough to enjoy having another boat somewhere south. It means buying another house as well but I don't want to do that until we have a firm commitment on the sale of the one we have now. I had figured that if it didn't sell by September, the number of potential buyers would drop off but I've been surprised. We've had more activity on it in the last four weeks than we had all summer. Something may pop. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
Luddite says...
"Today is my 65th birthday. *Big year. *Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. *:-) " Congratulations on reaching your 'golden years' I did so in August. Now that my prednisone dosage is down to about a quarter of what I was taking back in April, the PMR symptoms are coming back. Specialist says some pain is to be expected as it's better to try and get off the steroids. Easy for her to say. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:24:49 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Damn! I missed the important part. Happy Birthday! You can also get the seniors discount at your local golf course. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Congratulations on reaching 65. Was in Burger King getting a soda, while waiting for wife's airplane. Senior drink. $0.25. McD's seem to be 75 cents. I think 55 is the age for senior drinks. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/19/14 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Congratulations on reaching 65. Was in Burger King getting a soda, while waiting for wife's airplane. Senior drink. $0.25. McD's seem to be 75 cents. I think 55 is the age for senior drinks. A senior drink should be...a margarita. I've had my two this year, and I'll have another New Year's Eve. :) -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
Bar Sez..
" Serious question. Have you gained weight while taking the steroids? It appears that every time I get put on a 6 day cortisone pack I end up gaining 15 lbs or more." I did gain back about 75 percent of what I lost while suffering the autoimmune disease before it was diagnosed in mid April of this year. I was warned that the prednisone would make me hungry. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/19/14 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Congratulations on reaching 65. Was in Burger King getting a soda, while waiting for wife's airplane. Senior drink. $0.25. McD's seem to be 75 cents. I think 55 is the age for senior drinks. A senior drink should be...a margarita. I've had my two this year, and I'll have another New Year's Eve. :) Damn drunk. You and Don. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
Kalif Swill slurres.....,
Hey, I don't have the nickname 'swill' nor do I slurr my words when posting. It's time to stop the denial and seek professional help. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/14 7:52 AM, True North wrote:
Kalif Swill slurres....., Hey, I don't have the nickname 'swill' nor do I slurr my words when posting. It's time to stop the denial and seek professional help. There are a few posters here whose general incoherency makes me wonder who ties their shoes. -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
Oct On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:06:44 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Now that my prednisone dosage is down to about a quarter of what I was taking back in April, the PMR symptoms are coming back. Specialist says some pain is to be expected as it's better to try and get off the steroids. " That prednisone is a miracle drug but it kills your liver. I took one "dose pack" and stopped. Reading the label is a real eye opener " It also can elevate your blood sugar if you're not carefull. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: Kalif Swill slurres....., Hey, I don't have the nickname 'swill' nor do I slurr my words when posting. It's time to stop the denial and seek professional help. === Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/14 8:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Kalif Swill slurres....., Hey, I don't have the nickname 'swill' nor do I slurr my words when posting. It's time to stop the denial and seek professional help. === Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. Ooooh...Mr. Snarky Bankster criticizing others for making a snarky remark...ooooh. I must admit, though, that I am impressed with what the Bankster has done with rec.boats.cruising. -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/2014 8:31 AM, True North wrote:
Oct On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:06:44 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Now that my prednisone dosage is down to about a quarter of what I was taking back in April, the PMR symptoms are coming back. Specialist says some pain is to be expected as it's better to try and get off the steroids. " That prednisone is a miracle drug but it kills your liver. I took one "dose pack" and stopped. Reading the label is a real eye opener " It also can elevate your blood sugar if you're not carefull. Were you careful, dummy? I'd be more worried about your rotting liver. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
Wayne Sez... " Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. " Wayne, maybe you missed his post stating that Harry and I were drunks. Would that fit under your "speculation and slander" criteria? |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/2014 8:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Kalif Swill slurres....., Hey, I don't have the nickname 'swill' nor do I slurr my words when posting. It's time to stop the denial and seek professional help. === Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. Cuz he aint that bright. That's why. ;-) |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/2014 9:02 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/20/14 8:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Kalif Swill slurres....., Hey, I don't have the nickname 'swill' nor do I slurr my words when posting. It's time to stop the denial and seek professional help. === Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. Ooooh...Mr. Snarky Bankster criticizing others for making a snarky remark...ooooh. I must admit, though, that I am impressed with what the Bankster has done with rec.boats.cruising. You don't think Donnie should be criticized for being snarky? Why's that? |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/2014 9:07 AM, True North wrote:
Wayne Sez... " Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. " Wayne, maybe you missed his post stating that Harry and I were drunks. Would that fit under your "speculation and slander" criteria? Harry has often stated that he is not a heavy drinker (drunk). Maybe he was only half wrong. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:40:06 -0500, Califbill
wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Congratulations on reaching 65. Was in Burger King getting a soda, while waiting for wife's airplane. Senior drink. $0.25. McD's seem to be 75 cents. I think 55 is the age for senior drinks. McD's had free senior coffee for a couple weeks. And I've found the McD's prices range from 50 cents to 75 cents...depending on where you go. North Carolina seems cheaper than Northern Virginia all the time. I do get tired of them checking my ID every time I ask for a senior coffee! :) |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: Kalif Swill slurres....., How much had you drunk when you wrote that? The 'swill' was your display of Krauseish childisness. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:14:47 -0400, Harrold wrote:
On 10/20/2014 9:07 AM, True North wrote: Wayne Sez... " Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. " Wayne, maybe you missed his post stating that Harry and I were drunks. Would that fit under your "speculation and slander" criteria? Harry has often stated that he is not a heavy drinker (drunk). Maybe he was only half wrong. So Bill was only half right. That's still no excuse for Don's comments. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/14 10:22 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:14:47 -0400, Harrold wrote: On 10/20/2014 9:07 AM, True North wrote: Wayne Sez... " Don, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would engage in idle speculation and slander like that. " Wayne, maybe you missed his post stating that Harry and I were drunks. Would that fit under your "speculation and slander" criteria? Harry has often stated that he is not a heavy drinker (drunk). Maybe he was only half wrong. So Bill was only half right. That's still no excuse for Don's comments. It really is funny to see you trashmeisters complain about the behavior of others and ignore your own behavior here. -- The new GOP credo: Hate the people who are being oppressed, love the people who are doing the oppressing. |
Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
On 10/20/2014 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:40:06 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/19/2014 2:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:46:27 -0500, Califbill wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:43:25 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:31:04 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:04:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:36:52 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: Virtually all of the serious target shooters that I know use a scope. At 100 yards it is difficult just getting on the paper consistently without one. With a good rifle, good scope and good ammo, you can shoot 1 inch groups inside the 10 ring. I would most likely never be a *serious* target shooter. My eyes aren't good enough for that. I go to the range only because I enjoy shooting. I haven't really shot a rifle since early Army days with the M-14. I was very good with it. In Vietnam I fired the M-16 only a few times. More or less for familiarization. My First Sergeant and I would go out to the local laterite pit and practiced on beer cans. === A good scope can compensate for just about everything except cataracts or macular degeneration. Just turn the focus ring until everything is sharp. Cataracts can be fixed with surgery of course. This is the one I use on my customized Ruger 10/22 for CMP competiton at 50 yards: http://www.amazon.com/Monarch-Riflescope-4-16x42SF-Matte-BDC/dp/B000OZU92K I used two other scopes prior to the Nikon until I found one I liked. The others both had excessive parallax error. From the prone position I can now shoot 97s and 98s with 30 or 40% in the "X" ring. I've got a cataract in my right eye. Also, I'm right handed, and don't want to learn to shoot a rifle left handed. When I get the right eye operated on, it's my understanding I have to choose between near and far vision. Which would be best for shooting? Now I'm using my right eye, but the front sight is pretty blurry, along with the target. However, with a handgun I can switch to my left eye without much problem. === If you don't mind wearing reading glasses I'd probably go for distance vision. A decent scope can be dialed in for either however. I'll still have to wear glasses. And I'll have pretty good distance vision with the left eye. I guess the question comes down to which is more important to see clearly (without the scope) - the front sight or the target. Right now they're both blurry, but not bad I can't hit the target. I do better with my left eye however. You want distance. When they did my right eye, was what I went for. Now only need the glasses for reading. Left eye cataract is getting worse. Will look in to that problem tomorrow at eye doc appointment. Wife has distance on one eye and her contact on other eye is for close work. I think would confuse me, but she had same for years with just contacts. My doc says the cataract is not bad enough to operate yet. I'll still need glasses though, as the left eye is blurry both near and far. Ah, the joys of becoming senile! I was very surprised when I had my eye sight tested a year ago. I've always had good vision but sometimes have a tough time when tired focusing close up which is very typical for most of us old farts. The last test (after the infection in my left eye due to shingles had cleared up) was 20/20 right eye and 20/15 left eye. Today is my 65th birthday. Big year. Medicare, senior citizen discounts and high dose flu shots. :-) Congratulations on reaching 65. Was in Burger King getting a soda, while waiting for wife's airplane. Senior drink. $0.25. McD's seem to be 75 cents. I think 55 is the age for senior drinks. McD's had free senior coffee for a couple weeks. And I've found the McD's prices range from 50 cents to 75 cents...depending on where you go. North Carolina seems cheaper than Northern Virginia all the time. I do get tired of them checking my ID every time I ask for a senior coffee! :) Feel blessed. If you looked like Harry, they wouldn't ask. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com