Vlad G

Louu .. you are confused, and mostly wrong. There was natural no disaster or emergency, the price of the item was near MSRP, the item was not scarce, not a necessity of life, etc. By no logical, legal, or common definition does this sound like any sort of gauging. If price fixing is your thing, I worry that might feel sad about the outcome of the recent unpleasantness with the voting and the electing.

$30 difference on a serialized component of a firearm is price gouging? Really? Not really sure wth you are talking about, you and I know what expensive 3gun rigs can be for example, I'm not sure that is even %1 of the cost of my rifle.

I'll have to differ, in the days of ultra slick finishes. I used to follow the guidance as well because that was what I read, but now I have two pretty high end BCG's which have "failed" that test from the factory yet have worked flawlessly for lots of rounds so far. Neither my VDI coated Voodoo carrier with a nickle boron bolt nor my JP BCG (qpq finish with a Chromium Nitride bolt) pass this test, not even a little bit, they will barely pass this test holding the BOLT up, nevermind the carrier. The milspec BCGs I have pass it. I think with the increasing use of ultra slick finishes that particular test is not going to be useful for anything other the more standard components. There is just less friction in some of the newer systems and even with the reduced mass components gravity takes it toll, but that doesn't mean there is not a good gas ring to bolt carrier fit .

Well if the elections are going the way the exit polls predict, you may never see one of the 6k cases ever again sold to the public. You'll be lucky if vendors want to sell them by the 100 bullet pack.

Reloading components dry up to during panic buys.

My experience as well. The bolt I broke was at the cam pin hole, and so has every bolt I've ever seen fail. Interestingly, some newer bolt design (like the current JP bolts) re-enforce the area so I guess I'll let you know if I break the current one before I wear out the barrel And I once forgot to assemble it at all and left it at home when I went to the range.

This has been discussed before, it applies to people in BUSINESS. If you are not in business then it does't apply to you.

I don't think it is being sold to anyone right now. I'm not sure if it performed poorly in tests or if federal decided that they weren't selling enough of it, or what but I think the original medium weight EFMJ (124gr in 9) was replaced with the light version (105gr) which is now the guard dog,

I get that top of the line is expensive. I do however think the current approach is broken as hell because we can't afford enough new planes while the old ones are falling apart. The F22 is expensive per airframe because we didn't eat up the dev costs, if they made 500 of them instead of the 120 or so then the cost would be lower. It would in fact be lower then the F35 which is I guess the real problem, the F35 has been a complete disaster. You can't make a plane do everything well and you can't make it do even a few things well without being stupid expensive. I think we would be much better served by a more diverse model lineup of more purpose specific airframes then trying to make a single one do everything, delay it 100 times and have its cost balloon to absurd numbers.

I think it is clear that the F22 is pretty much the baddest thing in the sky right now but is is also frightfully expansive. They are nearly half billion each which is like 4 times more then the most expensive F-15. When you need planes in the air over multiple fronts and you need coverage that is a stupid price. The F-35 which was supposed to be the cheap plane is nearly $200mil for the cheap version and nearly as much as a F-22 for navy version. We have a problem with aircraft costs.

Everyone panics about this but lots of people fly with guns in and out of NJ. I've done it with no issues. Read the airline guidelines, read the TSA guidelines, and you should be fine.

*bow*

Have others do it for you? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5-0-radio-police-scanner/id356336433?mt=8

Surprisingly the good old cheap Lee beam scale is oddly accurate and consistent. Work great if you want to use it check the electronic ones, too fiddly to use for real reloading.

Couple of things, your 100yards group is 0.7", groups are usually measured center to center so when measuring edge to edge you subtract one caliber worth. (I'm ignoring the 3 extra holes, just counting your circled shots and the measurement on the dial) http://www.ammoland.com/2014/04/measuring-group-size-brownells-shooting-tips/ Secondly, in my experience, barrel settle in after about 100rd or so, no so much break in, but mostly the action and the stock and the shooter and the mounts and the scope sorta getting along with each other, Lastly with higher power scopes I also sometimes get better groups at longer distances, in my case because at 100 yards I see too much and I end over controlling the rifle. Push the target further out, I see less, and chill the hell out and squeeze the trigger. This may or may not be applicable to your case but you can test it by cranking down the power on your scope.

I think if he could, he would have by now. The current administration looked really hard at anything they could do via executive order and come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be much.

Did you calibrate it? They don't come calibrated (or they do but shipping messes them up). The various cheap mini-scales are actually surprisingly good. I've been using a Jennings JSR-50 for a decade without issues and it costs like $25. I occasionally check it with test weights and double check it its calibration with a balance beam if I'm loading hot loads, but it has been flawless.

it will be fun when a new AWB is proposed and everyone decided to buy some stuff: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

My setup works awesome. I would say take you glasses to your eye doctor and have them check it to make sure it matches your prescription. It is possible they cut them wrong.

You really should match a scope to the firearm, set it up for it, and leave it alone. I know this is not the questions you asked, but I feel like I need to brings this up. The general rule of thumb that your optics and mounts should cost about as much as the firearm is true. I know that is not in the budget you are asking about and there is nothing wrong with buying some cheap optics to screw around and learn what is important to you, but you should keep it in mind as you shop for additional optics later on. Quality optics are just as much of an investment as the firearm itself and many of the better optics have better warranties then the firearms they live on. There are now many excelent optic options in the $300-$800 range. Again, I know that is not what you are asking, and I've been down the path you are going and I can't blame you. I'm just offering the benefit of my experience. I'm a cheap bastard, and I've discovered I'm better served by acquiring the better items the first time around, its cheaper.

I use the same glasses for everything from scoped rifle to iron sighted pistol, but my primary issues is astigmatism with only very little other prescription. Depending on your prescriptions you needs my be different. I use Rudy's with the prescriptions in the shields and photocromic lenses which means I never pop them out although in theory I could change them out. One warning might be to stay away from polarized lenses they can interfere with certain reddots.

CL bore to optics are not really parallel, or at least not when zeroed or other wise the bullet would never actually impact were desired. The CL of the physical optics may be parallel with the CL of the bore, but not the line of sight, if that makes sense. I'm with you that thousands don't matter, the bullet manufacturing variations even in the same batch will make more difference then small distance measurements would ever make. After all whatever the measurement and ballistic calculators say are only guidelines anyway, and you need to verify them as in practice there are always some differences. To the OP, don't obsesses over small numbers at this point. You if you can get a decent measurement like 2.7 - 2.75, take that and plug it in with you behavior bullet, adjust velocity numbers until you get a trajectory you like, then try to load your ammo to that velocity THEN see how it groups and how it flies. Alternatively if you have a particular ammo brand in mind, shoot it, chrono it, plug its numbers in and see where that gets you. Absurdly accurate measurements of scope offsets won't matter.

Well it is really $199 if you actually want it. In a world full of awesome triggers, Larue is only 10 years late to the party.

My guessing about his needs, but for mine knowing the sight line height over bore is useful for ballistic calculations and matching loads to reticles and the like.

There is a simpler solution to this problem which does a better job of calculating height over bore, IMHO. Take your hand guard off. and measure the total distance between the top of the scope and the bottom of the barrel. Then minus half the diameter of the barrel and half the diameter of the scope as measured at the point you used for the first measurement. You are going to have a number of stacking numbers here, is the receiver perfectly in spec, is the scope mount perfectly measured for its height over rail, etc, Just measure the assembled product.