|
Bernie...
Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:47:46 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 11:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 11:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 11:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 10:07 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 9:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 9:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. Isnt he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? I think he'll pick a female for a running mate, and I'm hoping it'll be Amy Klobuchar. I think Kamala Harris may be hiding in the wings also. Probably, and both of them believe in science, which is several steps higher on the evolutionary scale than Pence. I don't know much about Pence's personal beliefs other than he has expressed strong religious faith. But I've seen *nothing* in any of his statements as VP that suggests he has no belief or faith in science. Claims that he doesn't respect science is yet another example of the Fake News BS* perpetrated by those who don't like Trump. Pence has a history as governor of Indiana of letting his bizarre religious beliefs interfere with proper governance that involved science. Sure he has.* Says who?* You? Given your demonstrated prejudices in both political and religious subjects, your claims are hardly credible. Pence, who was the governor of Indiana, initially rejected advice for his state allowing a clean-needle exchange, despite the advice of health officials. In 2000, Pence published an op-ed in which he said it was time for a quick reality check over what he claimed was overblown hysteria about the effects of smoking cigarettes. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesnt kill, he wrote, before citing smoking statistics. Despite scientific evidence that shows condoms are highly effective in reducing the spread of sexually transmitted disease, Pence told CNNs Wolf Blitzer in 2002 that condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted disease. During the segment, Pence added that he believes the only truly safe sex is no sex. Again, your comments are general in nature and do not accurately reflect (or even cite) the *reasons* Pence took some of the positions he did. They weren't based on religion. They were based on science and some common sense. If smoking kills, why are all the new laws allowing marijuana smoking being allowed? Maybe something else than the smoking part kills you. Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/ -- Freedom Isn't Free! But the comment was smoking kills. Not the tobacco, the drugs, etc. The smoking. |
Bernie...
Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:22:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. Isnt he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? Don't know.* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control initiative. "I want to make something clear. Im going to guarantee you this is not the last youve seen of him, Biden said Monday night during a campaign stop in Texas. "Youre going to take care of the gun problem with me. Youre going to be the one who leads this effort. Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles. In one of the early primary debates he said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also. Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed pumps and lever actions (The Australia model) "Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read what they really want to do. It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's. I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho. I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large magazine". Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22. Too much thinking on my part. Mini-14's are legal in MA: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121: Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the states Approved Firearms Roster, available here. * Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations; Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle; Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon; https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?- -- Freedom Isn't Free! The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal". It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not. I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but am not sure. I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO round. It isn't. The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round. Here's a better explanation from Hornady: Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on performance, safety and weapon function. The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is loaded to approximately 55,000 psi. The second and most important difference between the two is the fact that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125 longer throat. This allows approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223 Remington cousin. The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223 chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is 10,000 psi higher than the 223s normal functioning pressure of 55,000 psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse, cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both. The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a 223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223s 55,000 psi will not be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle with a 14.5 (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5 should function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition. https://is.gd/13tegV That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification. I am not as knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and others here are although it was my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO round. Is that accurate? Not necessarily. Depends on the manufacturer's directions. The Ruger Mini-14 can fire either. Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the .223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is rim-fired. Correct. This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification. Her statement defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to include .22 cal *rim-fired" as being legal. It's confusing as hell but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them. That would indicate that the Ruger Mini-14 is still legal. It has the same capabilities as the AR-15 in terms of ammo and capacity and rate of fire. But the stock is wooden. Silly law. -- Freedom Isn't Free! If chamber3e for .223 Remington, unsafe to fire 5.56 NATO. Can fire .223 rem in a 5.56 NATO chamber. My M&P is chambered for 5.56 and specifies will shoot either. Throat is he difference. |
Bernie...
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 10:25 AM, wrote: On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:53:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. —— Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? Don't know. I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control initiative. "I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a campaign stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.” Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles. In one of the early primary debates he said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also. Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed pumps and lever actions (The Australia model) "Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read what they really want to do. It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's. I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho. I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large magazine". Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22. Too much thinking on my part. Mini-14's are legal in MA: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121: Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here. Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations; Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle; Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon; https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?- -- Freedom Isn't Free! The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal". It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not. I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but am not sure. Yeah, they call it the 10-22 ;-) It is not really the same gun tho except in the most superficial outward appearance. (An M1 Carbine sort of look) My Ruger .44 is very similar looking too, actually just a slightly bigger version of the 10-22. They are both straight blow back operation. The Mini-14 is a rotating bolt thing. I had a Ruger 10-22 for a while but it was the model that looks like the M1-Carbine. I gave it to my grandson after he joined the Army. I won one at a Ducks Unlimited dinner. Nice rifle. Gave it to my older daughter husband for her family. |
Bernie...
On 3/6/2020 10:32 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:10:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2020 9:59 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:53:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. —— Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? Don't know. I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control initiative. "I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a campaign stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.” Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles. In one of the early primary debates he said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also. Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed pumps and lever actions (The Australia model) "Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read what they really want to do. It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's. I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho. I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large magazine". Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22. Too much thinking on my part. Mini-14's are legal in MA: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121: Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here. Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations; Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle; Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon; https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?- -- Freedom Isn't Free! The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal". It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not. I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but am not sure. Apparently that hasn't yet made the link I put above. As of December, last year, Bud's Gun Shop still thinks they're legal. Note page 2: https://www.budsgunshop.com/feeds/st...strictions.pdf -- Freedom Isn't Free! It's all up in the air now because the AG's office apparently doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. From GOAL (Gun Owners Action League): The Gun Owners’ Action League, which has been organizing rallies in protest of Healey’s (MA AG ) actions in the past several weeks, holds the new information only muddies the waters even more. “Upon viewing the page there are many new questions, which make this untenable situation increasingly murky,” reads a statement from the group. GOAL points out that Healey states rifles in .22 caliber are acceptable but there is no clarification as to if the statement includes both rimfire and centerfire chamberings. They are further puzzled by the exclusion of the “Ruger Mini 14 or substantially-similar model weapon” saying that, “virtually every semi-automatic magazine fed rifle is substantially similar to the Mini 14.” Indeed, the Mini-14 uses a rotating bolt which was very similar to that of the M1 Garand — that is not considered an assault rifle by Healey’s office — while the same type is also used on the Springfield M1A, which is. “This is disturbing considering that Healey has threatened gun owners not in compliance with a ten-year felony charge for transferring items that are legal to transfer according to Mass General Law,” notes GOAL. Lotta stupidity floating around up there. -- Freedom Isn't Free! That's only half of it. All firearms sold in MA also have to pass a rigorous "safety" test done by another MA agency. Unless it has changed, every manufacturer has to submit five (5) guns of each model they want to sell in MA and they are subjected to various tests, some destructive. But even if the gun model passes all the safety tests and is ok'd by the testing agency, the AG can still ban it if it looks too much like an assault rifle or, in the case of a handgun, the AG just doesn't like it. For these reasons many manufacturers have told MA to take a hike and don't even bother submitting their guns for testing or to try to sell here. Good thing I am not a gun nut. I still have a shotgun that has never been fired and four handguns. I have another handgun in my safe that I am holding for someone who was not supposed to have a gun because he was undergoing treatment for mental health issues. I still have an active LTC, but rarely take a gun with me if I go out anywhere. Where we live is also very unlikely to have problems with home break-ins, so "home defense" isn't a big reason to have a gun. When I first got a LTC years ago I got caught up in the interest, bought several different types of rifles and handguns, joined a shooting range and went fairly often. But after a while the interest in shooting holes in paper targets diminished and I lost interest. I'll probably keep what I have and renew the LTC every six years as required (over 70 years old, it's free) but I really don't have a lot of interest in guns. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
Bernie...
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text - I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here and insult you...” —— No pretending at all with you, Harry. |
Bernie...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:
Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:47:46 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 11:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 11:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 11:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 10:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 10:07 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 9:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/5/2020 9:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/5/20 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. ?? Isn?t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? I think he'll pick a female for a running mate, and I'm hoping it'll be Amy Klobuchar. I think Kamala Harris may be hiding in the wings also. Probably, and both of them believe in science, which is several steps higher on the evolutionary scale than Pence. I don't know much about Pence's personal beliefs other than he has expressed strong religious faith. But I've seen *nothing* in any of his statements as VP that suggests he has no belief or faith in science. Claims that he doesn't respect science is yet another example of the Fake News BS* perpetrated by those who don't like Trump. Pence has a history as governor of Indiana of letting his bizarre religious beliefs interfere with proper governance that involved science. Sure he has.* Says who?* You? Given your demonstrated prejudices in both political and religious subjects, your claims are hardly credible. Pence, who was the governor of Indiana, initially rejected advice for his state allowing a clean-needle exchange, despite the advice of health officials. In 2000, Pence published an op-ed in which he said it was ?time for a quick reality check? over what he claimed was overblown hysteria about the effects of smoking cigarettes. ?Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn?t kill,? he wrote, before citing smoking statistics. Despite scientific evidence that shows condoms are ?highly effective? in reducing the spread of sexually transmitted disease, Pence told CNN?s Wolf Blitzer in 2002 that condoms are a ?very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted disease?. During the segment, Pence added that he believes the only ?truly safe sex? is ?no sex?. Again, your comments are general in nature and do not accurately reflect (or even cite) the *reasons* Pence took some of the positions he did. They weren't based on religion. They were based on science and some common sense. If smoking kills, why are all the new laws allowing marijuana smoking being allowed? Maybe something else than the smoking part kills you. Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/ -- Freedom Isn't Free! But the comment was smoking kills. Not the tobacco, the drugs, etc. The smoking. My bad. For smoking to kill, one must be smoking something. I assumed you were comparing cigarettes to marijuana. To what were you referring? -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Bernie...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:03:44 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:
Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:22:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. ?? Isn?t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? Don't know.* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control initiative. "I want to make something clear. I?m going to guarantee you this is not the last you?ve seen of him,? Biden said Monday night during a campaign stop in Texas. "You?re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You?re going to be the one who leads this effort.? Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles. In one of the early primary debates he said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also. Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed pumps and lever actions (The Australia model) "Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read what they really want to do. It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's. I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho. I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large magazine". Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22. Too much thinking on my part. Mini-14's are legal in MA: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, 121: Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state?s Approved Firearms Roster, available here. * Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations; Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle; Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon; https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?- -- Freedom Isn't Free! The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal". It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not. I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but am not sure. I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO round. It isn't. The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round. Here's a better explanation from Hornady: Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on performance, safety and weapon function. The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is loaded to approximately 55,000 psi. The second and most important difference between the two is the fact that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125? longer throat. This allows approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223 Remington cousin. The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223 chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is 10,000 psi higher than the 223?s normal functioning pressure of 55,000 psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse, cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both. The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a 223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223?s 55,000 psi will not be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle with a 14.5? (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5? should function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition. https://is.gd/13tegV That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification. I am not as knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and others here are although it was my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO round. Is that accurate? Not necessarily. Depends on the manufacturer's directions. The Ruger Mini-14 can fire either. Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the .223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is rim-fired. Correct. This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification. Her statement defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to include .22 cal *rim-fired" as being legal. It's confusing as hell but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them. That would indicate that the Ruger Mini-14 is still legal. It has the same capabilities as the AR-15 in terms of ammo and capacity and rate of fire. But the stock is wooden. Silly law. -- Freedom Isn't Free! If chamber3e for .223 Remington, unsafe to fire 5.56 NATO. Can fire .223 rem in a 5.56 NATO chamber. My M&P is chambered for 5.56 and specifies will shoot either. Throat is he difference. The mini-14 can fire either. -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Bernie...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:36:15 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze - show quoted text - I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here and insult you... No pretending at all with you, Harry. ....and he never insults anyone! -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
Bernie...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:24:09 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/6/20 9:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Keyser Soze Wrote in message: ...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize. Something I've noticed: Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the election. They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump. Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy. If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be very important. —— Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ? Don't know.* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control initiative. "I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a campaign stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.” Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles. In one of the early primary debates he said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also. Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed pumps and lever actions (The Australia model) "Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read what they really want to do. It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's. I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho. I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large magazine". Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22. Too much thinking on my part. Mini-14's are legal in MA: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121: Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here. * Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations; Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle; Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon; https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?- -- Freedom Isn't Free! The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal". It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not. I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but am not sure. I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO round. It isn't. The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round. Here's a better explanation from Hornady: Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on performance, safety and weapon function. The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is loaded to approximately 55,000 psi. The second and most important difference between the two is the fact that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125” longer throat. This allows approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223 Remington cousin. The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223 chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is 10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000 psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse, cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both. The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a 223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle with a 14.5” (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5” should function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition. https://is.gd/13tegV That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification.* I am not as knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and others here are although it was my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO round.* Is that accurate? Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the .223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is rim-fired. This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification.* Her statement defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to include .22 cal* *rim-fired"* as being legal.* It's confusing as hell but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them. I don't know if it is still in production, but at one time Ruger made a special target version of the mini-14 that would only work safely with the .223 round. But most modern ARs can fire either of the two rounds, as can most modern mini-14s. They are all center-fire rifles. The target version of the mini 14 had a "harmonic damper" hanging off the muzzle end of the barrel in order to improve the inherent inaccuracy of the rifle. It isn't inaccurate for practical shooting, or for hunting game, typically, but it's not so good for precision target shooting. The plain old .22LR, by the way, can be shot very accurately at reasonable distances out of a rifle or a pistol. The bullets themselves are typically somewhat lighter (20% or so) than the most common .223 round and travel, typically, at half the speed, but they are deadly bullets, even at considerable distances. The .22LR ammo I use has a 40 grain bullet, while the .223 rounds I use have a 55 grain bullet. There are many lighter .22LR bullets, a few heavier ones. The .223 rounds typically are 55 grain, but there are a few heavier bullets. I have some .22rf with 65gr bullets. It will operate semi autos as reliably and hit as hard as a supersonic .22rf while still remaining sub sonic. That is probably aimed at rifles tho since most pistols will be subsonic anyway with regular .22lr |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com