|
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:14:44 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:03:28 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:01:08 -0500, John H. wrote: Yup. And if you go with a Burris sight, they have dedicated mounts for the Mark III. They do make some really nice looking Mark III's. I already have a more traditional Mark I that I shot when I was a kid with my father. I wanted the unique features the 22/45 had. Hush, damnit! I need reasons *not* to buy the damn thing! === I might be willing to sell mine if you're really interested. There are red dot sights much less expensive than the Burris and just as good in my opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu-Green-Reflex-Sight-Reticles/dp/B00YRIHYIW You're willing to sell your what? Gun or sight? Does that sight mount directly to the gun? === The weaver rail attaches to the top of the receiver, and the red dot sight attaches to the rail. It also has Hogue target grips, 5 magazines and a removable Volquarsten compensator. It shoots well but I subsequently had a chance to buy a really nice customized Hi Standard that I like even better. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ruger+iii+compensator Didn't know what the Volquarsten compensator was, so looked it up. Some funny comments he http://rugerforum.net/ruger-rimfires...tor-mkiii.html Do you still have the original grips? Did installation of the rail require removal of the factory sights? If you got my email of the other day, drop me an email at that address with how much you want and pics if you have any. === Yes, I still have the original grips stashed away somewhere in my copious collection of "stuff". The rail does not require removal of the factory sights. When I get a chance I'll find everything, take some pix and send you an EMAIL. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:49:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 3/9/16 3:07 PM, John H. wrote: I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- The Mark III with the 6.88" barrel is overkill for informal shooting. I know, because I had one, but sold it to buy a model with a shorter barrel, this one, actually: http://www.ruger.com/products/markII...ets/10101.html The longer barrel does improve sight radius slightly, but it adds unnecessary weight and size, and if you are going to mount a red dot on it, is just a waste. The fancy grips add nothing to shootability. The Mark III I now have was sent off to Volquartsen for the full treatment, including barrel threading, so it can accommodate my silencer. It's a great shooter. A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:32:01 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:14:44 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:03:28 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:01:08 -0500, John H. wrote: Yup. And if you go with a Burris sight, they have dedicated mounts for the Mark III. They do make some really nice looking Mark III's. I already have a more traditional Mark I that I shot when I was a kid with my father. I wanted the unique features the 22/45 had. Hush, damnit! I need reasons *not* to buy the damn thing! === I might be willing to sell mine if you're really interested. There are red dot sights much less expensive than the Burris and just as good in my opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu-Green-Reflex-Sight-Reticles/dp/B00YRIHYIW You're willing to sell your what? Gun or sight? Does that sight mount directly to the gun? === The weaver rail attaches to the top of the receiver, and the red dot sight attaches to the rail. It also has Hogue target grips, 5 magazines and a removable Volquarsten compensator. It shoots well but I subsequently had a chance to buy a really nice customized Hi Standard that I like even better. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ruger+iii+compensator Didn't know what the Volquarsten compensator was, so looked it up. Some funny comments he http://rugerforum.net/ruger-rimfires...tor-mkiii.html Do you still have the original grips? Did installation of the rail require removal of the factory sights? If you got my email of the other day, drop me an email at that address with how much you want and pics if you have any. === Yes, I still have the original grips stashed away somewhere in my copious collection of "stuff". The rail does not require removal of the factory sights. When I get a chance I'll find everything, take some pix and send you an EMAIL. Take your time. I'm in no rush. And, thanks. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/16 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:49:51 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/9/16 3:07 PM, John H. wrote: I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- The Mark III with the 6.88" barrel is overkill for informal shooting. I know, because I had one, but sold it to buy a model with a shorter barrel, this one, actually: http://www.ruger.com/products/markII...ets/10101.html The longer barrel does improve sight radius slightly, but it adds unnecessary weight and size, and if you are going to mount a red dot on it, is just a waste. The fancy grips add nothing to shootability. The Mark III I now have was sent off to Volquartsen for the full treatment, including barrel threading, so it can accommodate my silencer. It's a great shooter. A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. How much weight is enough in a mostly steel, fairly long-barrel pistol in .22LR really isn't an issue in a "casual" target, plinking, or hunting firearm, and neither is accurate "rapid fire" with these steel Rugers, since muzzle flip isn't an issue. I have no idea what the practical reasons are for Ruger to offer 6.88" barrels on its Mark III's. I've never seen any valid evidence these longer barrel Rugers shoot better or faster than the Rugers with the 5.88" barrels, assuming all the pistols involved are the "steelies." I don't know how the polymer Rugers in that caliber shoot. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:19:44 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:49:51 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/9/16 3:07 PM, John H. wrote: I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- The Mark III with the 6.88" barrel is overkill for informal shooting. I know, because I had one, but sold it to buy a model with a shorter barrel, this one, actually: http://www.ruger.com/products/markII...ets/10101.html The longer barrel does improve sight radius slightly, but it adds unnecessary weight and size, and if you are going to mount a red dot on it, is just a waste. The fancy grips add nothing to shootability. The Mark III I now have was sent off to Volquartsen for the full treatment, including barrel threading, so it can accommodate my silencer. It's a great shooter. A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. You've obviously never walked dozens of miles a day carrying a rifle and a pistol (for the feral attack-creatures). In those conditions, every gram counts. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:45:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 3/10/16 11:19 AM, wrote: A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. How much weight is enough in a mostly steel, fairly long-barrel pistol in .22LR really isn't an issue in a "casual" target, plinking, or hunting firearm, and neither is accurate "rapid fire" with these steel Rugers, since muzzle flip isn't an issue. I have no idea what the practical reasons are for Ruger to offer 6.88" barrels on its Mark III's. I've never seen any valid evidence these longer barrel Rugers shoot better or faster than the Rugers with the 5.88" barrels, assuming all the pistols involved are the "steelies." I don't know how the polymer Rugers in that caliber shoot. I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. Most people can't come close to affording a Pardini but they may want something that is not a belly gun. My woodsman has a 6" barrel and I think it has a very good balance. OTOH if you are hanging a can on the end, you already have a nose heavy gun. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:46:01 -0500, John H.
wrote: you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. You've obviously never walked dozens of miles a day carrying a rifle and a pistol (for the feral attack-creatures). In those conditions, every gram counts. -- I don't think that is what we are talking about. Harry is charitably called a target shooter and those water bottles are not likely to do a lot of sneak attacks. If he is lugging around a silencer, weight is not that important to him |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/16 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:45:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/10/16 11:19 AM, wrote: A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. How much weight is enough in a mostly steel, fairly long-barrel pistol in .22LR really isn't an issue in a "casual" target, plinking, or hunting firearm, and neither is accurate "rapid fire" with these steel Rugers, since muzzle flip isn't an issue. I have no idea what the practical reasons are for Ruger to offer 6.88" barrels on its Mark III's. I've never seen any valid evidence these longer barrel Rugers shoot better or faster than the Rugers with the 5.88" barrels, assuming all the pistols involved are the "steelies." I don't know how the polymer Rugers in that caliber shoot. I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. Most people can't come close to affording a Pardini but they may want something that is not a belly gun. My woodsman has a 6" barrel and I think it has a very good balance. OTOH if you are hanging a can on the end, you already have a nose heavy gun. As points of information: I stated "casual" target, plinking, or hunting, not competitive target shooting. The Ruger Mark III I currently own, with the 5.5" barrel, weighs an ounce more from the factory than the 6.88" barrel "Hunter" version under discussion, I presume because the version I have has a thicker, "bull" barrel, rather than a fancy fluted barrel, it weighs more. At present, all the Ruger Mark III's designated as "target" pistols come with 5.5" barrels. Remember, I am not "knocking" the "Hunter" model. It is a fine, beautifully finished pistol. I owned one. I don't recall that it shoots any different than the shorter barrel Mark III that I now own. Further, mine has been worked over from top to bottom by Volquartsen, and now can cycle faster and the trigger has shorter movement. You're right about the can making the pistol a bit more nose heavy, but not enough that I've notice a difference in handling or muzzle flip. Unlike Northern Virginia, we don't have a lot of zombies running loose out here, so rapid fire is not necessary. :) I throw a red dot on mine from time to time, just for grins. For the money and even for a bit more money, I don't think you can find a better .22LR pistol than the Ruger Mark III in any of its iterations. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
|
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
|
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:33:49 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 3/10/16 12:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:45:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/10/16 11:19 AM, wrote: A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. How much weight is enough in a mostly steel, fairly long-barrel pistol in .22LR really isn't an issue in a "casual" target, plinking, or hunting firearm, and neither is accurate "rapid fire" with these steel Rugers, since muzzle flip isn't an issue. I have no idea what the practical reasons are for Ruger to offer 6.88" barrels on its Mark III's. I've never seen any valid evidence these longer barrel Rugers shoot better or faster than the Rugers with the 5.88" barrels, assuming all the pistols involved are the "steelies." I don't know how the polymer Rugers in that caliber shoot. I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. Most people can't come close to affording a Pardini but they may want something that is not a belly gun. My woodsman has a 6" barrel and I think it has a very good balance. OTOH if you are hanging a can on the end, you already have a nose heavy gun. As points of information: I stated "casual" target, plinking, or hunting, not competitive target shooting. The Ruger Mark III I currently own, with the 5.5" barrel, weighs an ounce more from the factory than the 6.88" barrel "Hunter" version under discussion, I presume because the version I have has a thicker, "bull" barrel, rather than a fancy fluted barrel, it weighs more. At present, all the Ruger Mark III's designated as "target" pistols come with 5.5" barrels. Remember, I am not "knocking" the "Hunter" model. It is a fine, beautifully finished pistol. I owned one. I don't recall that it shoots any different than the shorter barrel Mark III that I now own. Further, mine has been worked over from top to bottom by Volquartsen, and now can cycle faster and the trigger has shorter movement. You're right about the can making the pistol a bit more nose heavy, but not enough that I've notice a difference in handling or muzzle flip. Unlike Northern Virginia, we don't have a lot of zombies running loose out here, so rapid fire is not necessary. :) I throw a red dot on mine from time to time, just for grins. For the money and even for a bit more money, I don't think you can find a better .22LR pistol than the Ruger Mark III in any of its iterations. Rapid fire is just a different game, more like skeet than target rifle. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500,
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:18:53 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? === One target at 10 yards for the bulls eye stage. We have other stages with multiple targets and times are typically a second or two slower. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:54:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. The ol' green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head, eh Krause? -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:54:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less === I'm shooting a multi-shot weapon. How about you old timer? |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/16 3:33 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:54:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. The ol' green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head, eh Krause? -- Over Mr. Self-Important W'hine? Surely you jest. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:42:48 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: The ol' green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head, eh Krause? -- Over Mr. Self-Important W'hine? Surely you jest. === Says the kettle to the pot... |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:54:54 PM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. None of the women you say? Then how about the guys you've been with? |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:54:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. I didn't realize that was what we were talking about but it does explain why you are so bothered by long barrels, ;-) |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/2016 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Well, they are more experienced based than yours on the subject of popular small arms. As for your socially promoted buddy, Fla Jim, I can't recall one post of his, when I actually read them, that had useful information or data. I can't help it if you can't comprehend useful boating information. As far as your experience with small arms, you should write a book about all the stupid things you've done with guns. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/2016 8:05 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:52:03 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/9/2016 5:38 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:24:33 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/9/16 3:14 PM, John H. wrote: I was in the Fire Direction Control center for an artillery battery. One of our last demos for the brass before the 196th Light Infantry Brigade deployed was a time-on-target air burst of the entire battalion's guns - 18 105's. The calculations were extensive and had to be done by hand then - no computers (1966). I didn't get to see the results, but my lieutenant said it was spectacular. Eighteen rounds going off within a few seconds of each other from about 10 to 50 yards above the target. The batteries (3) shot from different locations also. I would like to have seen it. Saw a demo at Ft. Sill before graduating there - hell of a sight, and that was an 8-inch battery. -- Boys and their toys... The boys and their toys have ensured you don't speak Chinese or Russian, Krause. Weren't you Fighting the Vietnamese...and lost? This all boils down to you having a sore ass because Herring refused to go out in your boat with you. Can you just imagine being withing 25' of that for several hours? -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! Perish the thought. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/2016 8:16 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:57:42 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/10/16 7:46 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:48:05 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/9/2016 5:25 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:04:04 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 3:07:30 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:23:12 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:40:31 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:28:48 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:37:57 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:43:33 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 5:06:05 PM UTC-5, Ryan P. wrote: On 3/8/2016 2:54 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, Ryan P. wrote: On 3/8/2016 1:21 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:16:38 PM UTC-5, Ryan P. wrote: Quiet counts when shooting zombies. Exactly. Everyone knows a zombie is attracted to noise. ;) The Walking Dead is entertaining, but there are considerable gaps in the plot. 3-4 year old gas just seems to happily run. And it took forever for them to start using suppressed AR's. I'm not sure I've ever seen a .22 on the show. A suppressed .22 would be a perfect zombie eliminator. Yeah, the gas thing usually makes me chuckle. Although, anecdotally, I have seen gas weed-eaters that were not drained start after about 3 years. They did NOT run happily, though... Your average .22 doesn't look impressive enough for a post-apocalyptic TV show... that's probably why we don't see them. If you look online, though, you can see a lot of manufacturers that make a .22 in an AR-like configuration. I've been tempted to buy one. Seems like it would be an insanely fun (and cheap) plinker. Absolutely. S&W M&P 15/22. Eats anything thrown at it, tons of fun, can be made very quiet if that's your thing. Ahh.. the key to surviving any apocalypse. A gun that doesn't care what you feed it. :) That's what I like about my SR9. I have a Ruger Mark III with a threaded barrel. Not many rounds through it, but so far it appears to be a good zombie gun as well. The Burris Fastfire 3 on it is sweet! I keep telling myself I don't need a Ruger Mark III. I think I'm losing. Seems like 'the Hunter' would be a great zombie gun. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! I didn't technically get a Mark III. I actually got this one with the two picatinny rails. http://www.ruger.com/products/2245ThreadedBarrel/models.html I was going to ask how you mounted the Burris fastfire on the mark III. === I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- Yup. And if you go with a Burris sight, they have dedicated mounts for the Mark III. They do make some really nice looking Mark III's. I already have a more traditional Mark I that I shot when I was a kid with my father. I wanted the unique features the 22/45 had. Hush, damnit! I need reasons *not* to buy the damn thing! -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! Here's one. Harry's already begun to ridicule others for being obsessed with guns and owning more guns than he currently owns. And it's for damn sure Harry's opinions are very, very important! -- Well, they are more experienced based than yours on the subject of popular small arms. As for your socially promoted buddy, Fla Jim, I can't recall one post of his, when I actually read them, that had useful information or data. Contrary to your narcissistic opinion of yourself, your memory sucks. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! He should write a book. Call it "Idiots guide to firearm neglect and abuse" |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/2016 9:14 AM, John H. wrote:
Didn't know what the Volquarsten compensator was, so looked it up. Some funny comments he You mean like this one? I have one on mine, but only for weight balance. I was getting too much kidding for the wheel weights I had duc taped to my barrel :-) Chip |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/2016 2:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
None of the women I've been with in my lifetime were impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds. We don't need to know that. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/2016 6:15 PM, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1:54:54 PM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. None of the women you say? Then how about the guys you've been with? Have you been reading about his Shenandoah adventures with the boys? |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:15:06 AM UTC-5, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 3/10/2016 2:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: None of the women I've been with in my lifetime were impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds. We don't need to know that. There's only one way Krause would know that. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:10:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:54:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/10/16 2:18 PM, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:07:47 -0500, wrote: I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going home. === With the guys I shoot with 5 shots in 3 seconds or less is par for the course if you want to do well. That includes the time needed to drop your hands from shoulder high, pick the gun up from the bench (or draw from a holster), and get on target. My best ever is 2.6 seconds. Multiple targets? None of the women I've been with in my lifetime would be impressed by a guy who could shoot his load in three seconds or less, but it makes sense for W'hine, most women would say. I didn't realize that was what we were talking about but it does explain why you are so bothered by long barrels, ;-) That deserves a huge ~snerk~, but I'm trying to be on good behavior. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/8/2016 8:24 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:46:17 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 6:43:49 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/8/16 5:06 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 3/8/2016 2:54 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, Ryan P. wrote: On 3/8/2016 1:21 PM, Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:16:38 PM UTC-5, Ryan P. wrote: Quiet counts when shooting zombies. Exactly. Everyone knows a zombie is attracted to noise. ;) The Walking Dead is entertaining, but there are considerable gaps in the plot. 3-4 year old gas just seems to happily run. And it took forever for them to start using suppressed AR's. I'm not sure I've ever seen a .22 on the show. A suppressed .22 would be a perfect zombie eliminator. Yeah, the gas thing usually makes me chuckle. Although, anecdotally, I have seen gas weed-eaters that were not drained start after about 3 years. They did NOT run happily, though... Your average .22 doesn't look impressive enough for a post-apocalyptic TV show... that's probably why we don't see them. If you look online, though, you can see a lot of manufacturers that make a .22 in an AR-like configuration. I've been tempted to buy one. Seems like it would be an insanely fun (and cheap) plinker. Absolutely. S&W M&P 15/22. Eats anything thrown at it, tons of fun, can be made very quiet if that's your thing. Ahh.. the key to surviving any apocalypse. A gun that doesn't care what you feed it. :) That's what I like about my SR9. The M&P 15-22 is a fine, fun rifle. I had one for about two years. A silencer and subsonic ammo will fire quietly, as far as the ammo goes, but the reciprocating parts of the rifle are noisy. I sold mine to buy a bolt action CZ 455... *very quiet* with the silencer attached. :) But slow. A zombie will bite you while cycling the bolt. And 5 rounds won't stop a zombie crew. :) They made a very capable suppressed 10/22 (pre 1986). You can keep the lead flying with one of those. I doubt there are any transferrable select fire M&P 15-22s They made select fire 10/22s? The MP 15/22 can keep some lead in the air, and as we all know, semi is more accurate than full-auto. And is less wasteful of ammo in the post-apocalypse. They ain't making more! :) There's always the option of reloading the cartridges yourself. I can't imagine that's particularly fun with .22lr though... I have a buddy that reloads his wive's .380 cartridges and his .223's. He made it look pretty simple. But he said it takes practice to make a consistently reliable round. If you're just learning, you probably don't want to rely on reloaded rounds in the event of a zombie hoard attack. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/9/2016 5:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/8/16 8:38 PM, John H. wrote: it appears to be a good zombie gun as well. The Burris Fastfire 3 on it is sweet! I keep telling myself I don't need a Ruger Mark III. I think I'm losing. Seems like 'the Hunter' would be a great zombie gun. -- Once you figure out the counter-intuitive way the Mark III's go back together after a full strip-down, they're great pistols. Again, though, with a silencer, the rounds go off quietly but the firearm's reciprocating noises are substantial. That's the complaint I usually see when I read about Mark III's. Casual shooters don't seem to like them because they perceive them as a bitch to field strip. I suppose with a lot of practice, that perception vanishes. What ammo does yours like? I also read a lot about how some Mark III's don't like cheap plinking ammo... not enough power to consistently reciprocate. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:49:32 -0600, "Ryan P."
wrote: The MP 15/22 can keep some lead in the air, and as we all know, semi is more accurate than full-auto. And is less wasteful of ammo in the post-apocalypse. They ain't making more! :) There's always the option of reloading the cartridges yourself. I can't imagine that's particularly fun with .22lr though... === Reloading 22LR is impossible as far as I know. The problem is that the primer is an integral part of the shell case, not removable as it is with a center fire round. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:15:27 -0600, "Ryan P."
wrote: That's the complaint I usually see when I read about Mark III's. Casual shooters don't seem to like them because they perceive them as a bitch to field strip. === Putting them back together is the "interesting" part. There's one little trick required to get the hammer in the correct position but once you know how that works, it is fairly easy. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
Mar
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:54:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: - show quoted text - I didn't realize that was what we were talking about but it does explain why you are so bothered by long barrels, ;-) ----- But H-BAR's are ok, probably because the usually have a thicker girth... |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/11/16 9:15 AM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 3/9/2016 5:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/8/16 8:38 PM, John H. wrote: it appears to be a good zombie gun as well. The Burris Fastfire 3 on it is sweet! I keep telling myself I don't need a Ruger Mark III. I think I'm losing. Seems like 'the Hunter' would be a great zombie gun. -- Once you figure out the counter-intuitive way the Mark III's go back together after a full strip-down, they're great pistols. Again, though, with a silencer, the rounds go off quietly but the firearm's reciprocating noises are substantial. That's the complaint I usually see when I read about Mark III's. Casual shooters don't seem to like them because they perceive them as a bitch to field strip. I suppose with a lot of practice, that perception vanishes. What ammo does yours like? I also read a lot about how some Mark III's don't like cheap plinking ammo... not enough power to consistently reciprocate. Pretty much anything I've tried. My "preferred" ammo is CCI Standard, which is subsonic and cycles nicely and isn't too dirty. Also like CCI MiniMags and I have a boatload of Gemtech Silencer Subsonic and I've tried other ammos that work well with silencers, but I really cannot hear the differences between CCI Standard and the so-called "silencer" ammos. The CCI Standard I shop for is about 8 cents a round. The "silencer" ammo is more, and sometimes I find a deal on MiniMags at 9 cents a round, but usually they are five cents more than that. The CCI ammo branded "Quiet." which is super subsonic, does not cycle in most semi-auto firearms, but it works well in my CZ 455 bolt action rifle and is indeed noticeably quieter than the faster "silencer" rounds. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:32:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:25:18 -0500, John H. wrote: Yup. And if you go with a Burris sight, they have dedicated mounts for the Mark III. They do make some really nice looking Mark III's. I already have a more traditional Mark I that I shot when I was a kid with my father. I wanted the unique features the 22/45 had. Hush, damnit! I need reasons *not* to buy the damn thing! === I might be willing to sell mine if you're really interested. There are red dot sights much less expensive than the Burris and just as good in my opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu-Green-Reflex-Sight-Reticles/dp/B00YRIHYIW There are certainly some decent, cheap red dots on the market. I have a Truglow on my MP 15/22, and it does the job. I just felt that the Ruger deserved a good sight, and the Burris was the right size and is 8 moa, which was right for it's use. The Burris also has a killer lifetime warranty. If it quits or you break it, send it to them and they'll fix or replace it, no questions asked and no receipt required. Now *that's* a warranty. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com