Zell959

I haven't had any experience with that, but I'm not surprised. It sounded like something that probably does cost them some change to implement and maintain, which is probably only worth doing if a decent percentage of users end up providing them with info that allows them to gain a rate increase.

Statistically, violent crime continues to trend downward. This was one person killing two other people and likely was not random. It's tragic, but is not an uncommon occurence and is NOT another instance of a mass shooting.

What he's thinking: "This grey reticle is a little busy for my tastes."

Oh no, not at all. Honestly, I really do appreciate the fact that you go out of your way to answer questions and provide info to the CR members that post here.

Thank you for continuing to take the time to respond, as you would be well within your rights to tell me I can take my gripes and go pound sand. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear an understandable, logical & practical explination for the rule's existance. At my rules meeting, it was said that the intent was to make sure people aren't shooting at targets high up on the backer and shooting over the mountain when they miss... When I was later advised that a sillouette target was not allowed on the 200-300, the explination didn't even tie it back to the 1 central aiming point rule and I was instead told that anti-gun groups might be hiding in the woods to take pictures that will make gun owners look bad...

So if the rule is only that there has to be a single point of aim, a target like this should be fine, right? http://www.reloadben...les/varmint.pdf. I've been told otherwise at times. I know that at my own sign-up rules meeting, as well as my buddies, it was said that it is reckless rapid fire if you're shooting fast and not hitting what you're shooting at. Since the actual working interpretation of the rule seems to be that nothing longer than a double tap can be considered controlled fire no matter how accurate, I can certainly abide by that. Just another one of those scenarios where the combination of no clarification in writing, a bit of misinformation when people sign up, and varying levels of enforcement by ROs can make the rules seem like something of a moving target. In fairness, I've never found the approach ROs take with correction to be rude or unpleasant in tone.

1) Clearing & flagging a chamber is important. But, if the line is cold and you realize that you have mistakenly left an uncleared gun on your table, DO NOT try to clear or flag it at that point! Just make the RO aware of your mistake [so they don't discover it on their own and assume you don't know or care what the rules are] and make it a point to clear it properly next time. A human being handling a firearm while others are downrange is exponentially more dangerous than having a fully loaded gun siting on a table by itself, so it is a net loss to safety to try to "correct" the mistake at that point. 2)If you have the opportunity to set up in a position where your spent brass will not travel into another persons area, do so. If its too crowded for that, you're not really doing anything "wrong" if some of your brass ends up contacting someone else, as thats the environment they signed up for when they go to a shooting range. That said, if you're consistantly flinging brass directly into someones area/table/etc, it's probably a good idea to at least acknowledge it appologetically with something like 'Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I ususally try to set up to avoid that, but it's kind of packed today'. Most people don't mind the brass itself, but some will take it as disrespect or an insult if you don't even seem to care that your brass keeps hitting them.

I was tempted to reply with everything I find wrong or contradictory about your 1st paragraph, but we're already at least ten paces into Unproductive Internet Argument Land, so I'll instead just focus on this piece. Again, I don't really believe there is a way to turn Camden into a decent place to live, or that destroying it wouldn't just create someplace like it somewhere else. My problem with it's current state of existance is that staggering amounts of money gets pumped in, and yet it still gets worse every year. That said, off the top of my head [and in keeping with the website we;re on], the following might be a means of improving things marginally: 1) Take a complete 180 on gun ownership and endevor to promote a streamlined process for Camden citizens with clean records to obtain gun permits fairly easily. -Actively seek to promote legal gun ownership among the poor, but law abiding portion of the population. -Allow low income residents to receive government assistance to cover the cost of fingerprints, NJSP background check, etc. -Offer free NRA or comparable instruction at the local police department for citizens that have active & valid FID cards. -Reverse default hostility to firearms stores & shooting ranges and actually try to provide some incentive for some to open up within city limits. -Allow Camden residents to purchase a police trade-in pistol at a highly discounted price, with a limit of one per year. Allow additional trade in purchases, but at actual market value. -Instruct police to conduct investigations of home defense shootings under the premise that the home owner is in the right by default, unless there is significant reason to assume otherwise. 2) Fund the above by discontinuing ineffective crime prevention programs such as gun buybacks, gang outreach and any community 'education' program that cannot statistically evidence any appreciable benefit to the community in the time it has existed. Such a change in direction on 2nd amendement rights might even open up the door for good will donations from 2A organizations. Desired Outcome: -Create a slight decrease in the number of criminals on the streets or in prison by making it more common for them to be killed while committing a crime. -Increase the number of supspects that can be caught because they have to seek medical treatment after being shot by the person they targeted. -Shifting the risk/reward ratio for commiting a crime by increasing a perpetrator's risk of picking the wrong house and being killed or injured by a victim that's actually prepared to defend themselves with deadly force. Would slightly depress the criminal activity of opportunistic 'part-timers', but likely not hardened criminals. -Slight increase in incidents of criminals fleeing upon encountering an armed homeowner. -Reducing the number of "soft" targets available to violent criminals by giving law abiding citizens, of all ages/genders/income levels, some teeth to bite back with. -Observable reduction in violent crime by way of the accumulated small gains from the above benefits of more armed citizens.

Thats a healthy dose of intentionally poor reading comprehension coupled with a strong desire to distort the positions of people with different opinions than you, enabling you to believe that your own views are correct because everyone else is clearly an idiot. Also, do you honestly think you're in a position to claim such self righteous indignation after having suggested that the only solution is to summarily execute the majority of Camden's 77,000 residents?

My alternative solution? Because you're suggestion somehow isn't absurd hyperbole that can't actually happen and offers nothing even resembling an actionable idea? Riiight, ok. Anyway, I'm not really that interested in seeing Camden get "better" I just want its continued existence to consume less public money and try to minimize how much of its crime gets exported to adjacent towns. Places like Camden do actually serve a purpose. The individuals that make Camden the Hellhole it is will always exist, and they have to live somewhere, so having them aggregated heavily in a few undesirable areas allows for the existence of lower crime areas elsewhere in the state. Basically, Camden is like a garbage dump. Its a problem if it has surging operating costs and a sickening stench that burden its neighbors, but not the dump itself. However, having a dump in the first place is still necessary, because there will always be trash and it has to go somewhere.

Hey, I hadn't thought of doing that. Thanks for the idea. I was actually already thinking about how to go about offering some feedback on the clubs rules. In particular, a number of rules I've been advised of that aren't spelled out in the written club rules. When paired with inconsistency on how actively different ROs enforce some of these unwritten rules, I've ended up in scenarios where members that shoot during different times of the week don't seem to have experienced the same rules I have, and we're not sure which RO interpretation is correct [assuming a single official answer actually exists]. Examples of things I've been corrected on that others have told me they do frequently without reprimand: No magazine pouches Targets depicting a masked assailant violate the "identifiable person" rule The single point-of-aim rule on the 200/300 is also a no silhouette rule and would extend to a target where a single point of aim is imposed over a depiction of a groundhog/fox/bird/etc. That the reckless rapid fire rule also prohibits anything more than a double tap, regardless of whether or not the additional shots are controlled & accurate.

So, kill tens of thousands of people and spend tens of billions to destroy the entire city and rebuild it from scratch? Are you just going big so that walling the entire city off will eventually seem reasonable by comparison?

But, Camden is already one of the most dangerous cities in the nation. They don't really have the headroom for things to get much worse. The city is basically a 24 hour, living & breathing disaester in and of itself, so how much is there really to lose?

After reviewing the parts list on the website and seeing the listed prices of 686 barrels, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the $225 could include the barrel. The $225 figure may also have just been internet fiction in the first place. May still be an option. Just gonna have to give them a call and get the full story when I get home from work.

I considered that as well, but have decided against that route because it requires: Selling the revolver and getting pretty close to its value. My past experience with selling a handgun were that it's kind of a pain. Even at what I truly believed to be a very good price, I went months without any progress, because I needed a buyer that wanted to buy it AND just so happened to have obtained a permit within the past 180 days. I would have to put in for another permit myself in order to be in a position to pick up a new revolver. In my town, the hours of the clerks office basically require that I take a day off of work to put in the paperwork, as well as a day off work to pick up the permits....4-5 months later when they finally get around to issuing them. Would have to track down the barrel size I'm looking for in a pre-lock model [sticking point for me] and be able to get it at a price that's close to or only slightly above what I was able to sell my current revolver at. LIkely would have to be from an out of state source, so looking at shipping &, obviously, nics charges when I pick it up from a local FFL. The above certainly isn't insurmountable, but I'd definetly categorize it as a pain in the a$$ that could take 6months+ beginning to end, and I can easily see it ending up costing a bit more than the $225 with just a little bad luck. If the barrel swap is a viable option, it's a downright bargain compaired to the above process.

I've got a S&W 686 with a 2.5" barrel and, while I like it, the one thing ive never been wild about is the short barrel and the short ejector rod. I bought it used over a new one with a longer barrel because it was a pre-lock model, but Im more and more realizing that it's short barrel designs really offers no advantages to me, while still carrying multiple downsides. A quick google search turned up some threads on a different forum that indicate it is possible to send a 686 to s&w and pay to have it rebarreled in a different length(including new ejector rod). Haven't confirmed this yet, but indicated cost seemed to be in the $225 range. Anyone ever done this or know someone who has? Any thoughts on potential downsides or things I might be failing to consider? Thanks all

I like the article and all of the content sounds correct. That said, his conclusion echoes something I've heard said many times before and still don't get. Inexpensive bulk 55gr rounds are usually going to be around 2MOA on even a really good day. Someone shooting bulk ammo probably isn't in search of really high end accuracy at 300-500 yards anyway, so I don't see how they gain all that much by going with a 1:9, as a 1:7 is generally going to do just fine with 55gr bullets at shorter distances and has the added benefit of making it possible to use heavier bullets for longer distances. If someone is looking for really tight groups with lighter bullets, sure, 1:9 makes sense. But a 1:8 or 1:7 isn't going to struggle to put 55gr wolf FMJ on target at 100 yards-200 yards.

I think gun or even ammo bans & limitations that are clearly communicated are a political liabilty at this point and not too much of a threat. The greater danger will be bills that should have nothing to do with firearms or ammo that get 11th hour additions shoehorning in such restrictions. The other big danger would be, as usual, justice retirements & appointments tip the scales the wrong way and the next 2nd amendment case goes horribly wrong.

Two thoughts. 1) the stat they're clinging to is "gun deaths" . I suspect they are including justifiable sHootings by police, suicides, etc. even if most of those stats are criminal, its deliberately myopic to just focus on gun deaths. If their case is that guns make everyone less safe, they should be able to evidence corrolation with all violent crime. 2) the reason it's hard to put a statistical response in a similar format is because the idea that just taking away guns will cure everything is an inherently simplistic and stupid idea. It takes much less time to express a stupid idea than to thoroughly debunk it. Picture someone claiming that we could fix every issue with the economy by implementing a silver standard for our currency. That is such a dumb idea that you could write for hours and still have only skimmed the surface of all the reasons that it wouldn't work.

From what I've seen, LEO's tend to book end the spectrum. I've shot alongside officers that aren't really "into" shooting and were just there to get ready for a qualification or something like that, and their lack of skills was genuninely alarming. I've also meet officers who were very into shooting and sign up for any & all supplementary training opportunties they can get through their jobs, in addition to doing a lot of practice & recreational shooting on their own time. Officers in this group have been among the most impressive shooters I've ever seen. Really remarkable speed, efficiency & accuracy. Sorry, /tangent.

Unlike most other consumer products, guns have been manufactured at a level that allows most of them to outlast their owners. IT's been that way for a really long time. Perhaps even 75-100 years. On top of that, guns haven't changed all that much in the past 50 years. Compared to tvs, cars, phones, medical science, etc, guns have progressed at a relatively snail-like pace in terms of new developments. So, old guns are: 1) Generally still functioning at a high level and can usually be expected to keep doing so for a long time 2) Are not "obsolete" relative to the needs of most users. And that's before one even considers collectibility or any other x-factors that can drive up price. Given that, there really isn't much "wrong" with old guns and have the same or higher appeal to those who buy them, so there is no real 'need' for sellers to price them significantly lower than newer weapons.

Honestly, with your budget, the better way to do that would be utilizing one of the shoot & see target varieties so that you're looking for a high-contrast color difference instead of a tiny-tiny black hole.

I owned an Eotech 517 and liked it, but sold it to help pay for a Trijicon TR24. I bought & returned an Eotech XPS2 after finding it didn't work for me. My next purchase is probably going to be an Aimpoint Pro, based on a shooting buddies experiences since buying one. Eotech comes in at a slightly lower price point and always includes the mount. This advantage took a bit of a hit with the release of the Aimpoint Pro, but some of the earlier 511s & 517s are going for less now, so I still think it's slight edge to Eotech on price. The biggest downside with Eotech, compared to Aimpoint, is always going to be battery life. I don't claim to be an expert, but it costs more energy to create a hologram than to project a red dot. For someone looking for an optic for HD, this means you can't leave the Eotech on all the time, because it would go dead to quickly even if it did have an auto shut off. One other wrinkle for Eotech's is that certain kinds of astigmatism can make the reticle look like an absolute mess. The second eotech I bought was an XPS2 and I was surprised to find that my vision seemed to have changed, as my astigmatism was warping the reticle to the point that I couldn't use it. Those with astigmatism can have similar problems with a red dot looking worm-like, but the effect is must less of an issue when it occures with a 4MOA dot [as opposed to the 65MOA boarder of the Eotech reticles] If the above isn't an issue for someone, I think Eotechs are still relable enough for serious use in HD.

IMO, the nice thing about a Glock 19 for an NJ owner is the fact that a stock magazine comes in right at our maximum allowable capacity of 15.

It will probably put some attempts to improve certain things back into neutral, but that's likely the extent of it. Sadly, these kinds of shootings aren't really a new thing. The "shitstorm" your witnessing is really just a function of the 24 hour news cycle and social media. This is a horrible story, but not all that different from shootings we've seen in the past.