Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


AVB-AMG last won the day on February 14 2019

AVB-AMG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

530 Excellent


  • Rank
    NJGF Addict
  • Birthday April 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @voyager9: I guess you missed the thread I had started just about a year ago titled: "Silly Large and Imposing Looking Pickup Trucks & Jeeps" It was a commentary and discussion, asking for the opinion of others on that growing trend, but the topic was deemed too controversial by the NJGF moderators to remain so the entire thread was deleted or in current jargon: CANCELED.... If you are interested, here was my introduction of that thread: "Have you all noticed how in the past 15-20 years, pickup trucks from Ford, Chevy, Dodge, GMC, as well as Jeeps, have become increasingly larger, to the point today where they are enormous, as well as imposing? This design trend has been to not just increase their size, but to also give them a very aggressive look, almost in a caricature or cartoonish way, looking like an animal with a puffed-out chest, flanked by steroid-bolstered fender haunches and flexing muscles. It has reached a point where the designs of these pickup trucks, oversized wheels/tires, along with overlayed front grilles on Jeeps, have evolved to make them appear more menacing, ominous, threatening and scary. Their exagerated, thrust-forward and swelled front-ends, create a ridiculously tall, vertical scowling wall of a grille, along with a significant increase in overall size and weight, reduces the driver's visibility to anything up close to the front of the vehicle. All of this is just from the truck manufacturers, before a customer elects to make any after-market modifications of their own. These would include lifting up the vehicle’s suspension so the body rides even higher, installing even rediculously larger, oversized wheels and large tires, adding even more big-rig lights, silly grille masks, modifying the exhaust system to incorporate big-rig like, large diameter vertical exhaust pipes, the list goes on... These mega/hedonistic vehicles are problematic for a number of reasons. First their scale makes them not just imposing to other drivers in regular cars, but also makes them quite challenging, if not perilous to drive in congested traffic and urban environments with pedestrians, let alone trying to park them. Secondly, their intentional design aesthetic is not just imposing, but is intentionally outwardly hostile, anti-social and presents a massively brutal face of rage and intimidation. What does that say about the owner's of these vehicles since it is a conscious aesthetic and vibe that they want to present to others....? Your thoughts.....?" Feel free to start a new thread on that topic, if you so desire and see if it will be deleted.....
  2. @FairbanksRusty I tend to agree with you. While I have and do enjoy target shooting at an indoor gun range, I am becoming more concerned and even nervous about the lack of seriousness demonstrated by many folks who are first-time gun shooters, regarding all of the gun safety protocols that we are taught in our various firearms training courses. The short perfunctory mandatory watching of a "safety video" at the gun range for these first-time shooters just covers the bare minimum of safety rules and proceedures. While shooting at these indoor gun ranges I have witnessed numerous safety violations, mostly unintentional, but still potentially dangerous to people in other gun ports at these ranges. Then, while I understand that it is a remote possibility, in the back of my mind, is the speculation as to questioning if one of these other people in an adjacent gun port may be one of the few who wants to commit suicide by gun? If so, what if they miss...? Where does that stray bullet go? Therefore, I find that shooting handguns, rifles and shotguns at outdoor ranges and courses appeals to me more than shooting at an indoor gun range. In that situation, I get plenty of fresh air and my ears have to deal with less sound reververation that one is subjected to inside an enclosed indoor gun range. For what it is worth, I applaud some of the regional gun ranges that have instituted dedicated time slots for "members only", or even dedicated ranges for members, as ways to separate them from the general public and these first-time shooters. But that entails an expense of membership that many gun owner's and enthusiasts may not be able to afford.
  3. Apparently, you missed my point. My post was my expression of sadness in the specific incident at RTSP, along with my concern about how it appears to becoming a more frequent trend. I also stated my opinion about suicide by firearm, based on the facts and reality. The issue is not as simplistic as you make it out to be when you say, “It’s not the instrument, it is the intent”. Your comparisons are irrelevant to the point of fact that the majority of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. If you are interested in the facts on this reality, then here they are: Below is a sobering quote from a report published by the bi-partisan Joint Economic Committee in the U.S. Congress, titled: “Guns and Suicide”. The report is very thorough and its sources are well documented with footnotes. This is a web link to a pdf file of the full report: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e4c6a3e3-a170-4cee-8218-0167fe4311e9/jec2019-gunsandsuicide-final.pdf “The U.S. has the highest gun suicide rate of any country on earth. In terms of raw numbers, it works out to roughly just over 24,000 deaths per year. Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides every year. Since 2009, the number of gun suicides has been one and a half times higher than the number of gun homicides each year. Having access to a firearm during a moment of increased suicide risk, such as a job loss, increases the risk of completing suicide. Research shows that the impulse of suicide is transitory and that access to guns is a risk factor for whether a suicide attempt is fatal. The interval between the decision to act and an attempt can be as short as 10 minutes or less, and research shows a substitute to a different method is unlikely when a highly lethal method is available. Among adults who have recently purchased a gun, there is a higher firearm suicide rate, especially within the first year of a gun purchase. The high correlation between access to guns and suicide rates is closely tied to the lethality of firearms—suicide attempts involving a firearm are far more likely to result in death than other methods.” Also, according to the CDC, in 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,979 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three other, less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were unintentional, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined. The total excludes deaths in which gunshot injuries played a contributing, but not principal, role. (CDC fatality statistics are based on information contained in official death certificates, which identify a single cause of death.) Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. The Pew Research Center has determined that suicides accounted for more than half of the gun deaths in the U.S. in 2020, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years. Specifically, 54% (24,292) were suicides and 43% (19,384) were murders. The number of gun suicides has risen in recent years, climbing 10% over five years and 25% over 10 years, and is now near its highest point on record. The 24,292-gun suicides that took place in 2020 were the most in any year except 2018, when there were 24,432. Additional facts about suicide in the US. (Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2020) via CDC WONDER) In 2020, the suicide rates were higher among adults ages 25 to 34 years (18.35 per 100,000) and 75 to 84 years (18.43 per 100,000), with the rate highest among adults ages 85 years or older (20.86 per 100,000). Younger groups have had consistently lower suicide rates than middle-aged and older adults. In 2020, adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24 had a suicide rate of 14.24 per 100,000. Suicide is the 12th leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2020, there were an estimated 1.20 million suicide attempts in the U.S. The suicide rate in 2020 was 7.4 per 100,000 individuals. The rate of suicide is highest in middle-aged white men. In 2020, men died by suicide 3.88x more than women. On average, there are 130 suicides per day. White males accounted for 69.68% of suicide deaths in 2020.
  4. I want to express my sadness regarding the news of this second, most unfortunate recent suicide event at RTSP/Union, in March 2022. Many of us are well aware of the multiple suicides committed by young men at indoor gun ranges in NJ that have occurred in just the past 6-7 years, (i.e. Gun For Hire, Tactical Training Ctr. and RTSP (Randolph & Union locations), etc…). These people have either rented a handgun or used a handgun of someone who owns one and shared it with them at the range. As a result of these awful suicides at gun ranges, a number of gun range owners, working as a consortium, have instituted policy changes that were a joint-effort with the NSSF and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Unfortunately, though, it appears not to be enough. This reality has made me very concerned about going to any gun range that is open to the public and rents firearms for their use. I just do not trust that ALL of these people will learn, accept and practice the safe use of firearms in their port, with others around them. The means and location of this suicide is just one more reason why this type of public gun range venue continues to be a real challenge to those of us who do learn and practice firearm safety protocalls, but are skeptical that others will do the same, let alone if they have hidden suicidal intentions. As a previous member of RTSP, along with my wife, we have the highest regard and respect for everyone at RTSP, from the ownership partners, management, RSO’s, sales, training and gunsmith staff. We understand that the process and procedures that RTSP and other gun ranges have put into effect and continuously modify in ongoing attempts to reduce the chances for this type of incident of being repeated, are the “cost” of doing business. We will certainly abide by whatever additional rules and regulations they institute to attempt to avoid a repeat or similar incident in the future. While some may find these new rules inconvenient it is their business to run as they see fit, abiding by ever more intrusive insurance requirements. Everyone at RTSP has our sincere condolences and best wishes on dealing with the aftermath of this tragic event. Suicide unfortunately, is a fact of life and will never go away. As I believe most of us understand, if someone is determined to commit suicide it is almost impossible to stop them. Usually, using a gun to do so results in immediate results. It is a shame that a disturbed individual, regardless of whether or not they are a new or a repeat customer to a gun range, chooses to attempt, or succeed in this sad selfish act in a public forum. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are surrounded by many other innocent people who are minding their own business. The person who chooses to shoot themselves at a public gun range exposes these other innocent bystanders to witness their horrible desperate act, as well as potentially putting those people in physical harm’s way. I believe anyone who chooses to attempt or succeed in this sad act of suicide-by-gun, in a gun range, (a semi-public setting), is being incredibly selfish, not caring how their suicide death by shooting themselves will profoundly and adversely affect all of their friends and loved ones, let alone the other innocent people at that gun range who happen to be standing and shooting nearby. I think we all agree that suicide is a tragic choice made by someone who, for various complicated reasons, at the very least, wants to call attention to themselves in a desperate act, and/or at the other extreme end, does not want to live any longer and chooses this venue as the most expedient manner to achieve their desired result. Looking at the factual statistics, even though this is beginning to change, historically, the majority of gun deaths have been suicides, and just over half of suicides involve guns. I do not blame firearms for suicides, which is a ludicrous assertion. Firearms are the tool of choice, selected and used by SOME people, mostly males, to commit suicide, since it is usually a very effective and efficient tool, with immediate results. I share the concern of others, that now almost 28 months since the COVIS-19 virus pandemic began and the incredible disruption it has caused, specifically the mandatory lock-downs, and employment disruptions, all contributing to escalating economic decline and mental despair, could be the recipe for even more attempted/successful suicides. We also know that gun sales have risen steadily over the past two years. The on/off/on shutdowns aimed at containing the virus have disrupted lives, destroyed small businesses and led to social isolation. Now, with the shocking invasion and wanton destruction of the Ukraine by Russia, possibly escalating into a broader conflict using nuclear weapons, along with continued price inflation affecting most consumer goods internationally, it is understandable how people’s anxiety and fear levels are continuing to grow. There have been a number of studies that have shown an increase in personal anxiety, sadness and fear could push someone into a real crisis, especially if they are already suffering from some form of mental illness. Therefore, I am concerned that we may very well see an increase in the number of these attempted/successful suicide-by-gun at public gun ranges, not just in NJ, but nationally… AVB-AMG
  5. FYI, here is a very informative article that describes the current state of the A.T.F. and how it arrived at that state…. AVB-AMG How the A.T.F., Key to Biden’s Gun Plan, Became an N.R.A. ‘Whipping Boy’ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/02/us/politics/atf-nra-guns.html?referringSource=articleShare
  6. @Cheflife15 At age 33, you are still young enough to start a completely new job in a totally different field or industry, which seems to now be the norm for your generation. It you find out that you enjoy whatever the new job entails, maybe even developing a passion for it, then it could possibly become a new career for you. As others have astutely pointed out, with your current salary and average hours you are working, a job change involving more money for less time working is quite appealing. I can relate to that scenario since when I was much younger in my 20’s, I also was making less-than-desirable hourly wages and working 60-80 hours a week. The difference between your situation and mine was that at that time, I was not burned out and was passionate about my work in my chosen profession. Yet, like you, in my mid-30’s, I was offered an opportunity in my industry that diverged from the traditional career path that I had gone to school for, but utilized my knowledge and relationships, which also involved potentially a much larger financial reward. I ultimately chose to purse that alternative opportunity and have had no regrets. The change proved to be quite interesting, exposing me to many new and challenging situations and resulted in a significant financial gain, compared to if I had followed through with my original career path. Understandably, change can be frightening due to so many unknowns. Yet, the rational exercise of weighing the pros and cons, of staying in your current job or leaving, still requires courage to jump into a new and unknown situation, environment and life. From what you have shared with us, makes me think that you may very well welcome and benefit from that change now, as will your growing family. It sounds like you’re meeting this coming Tuesday will be some form of feeling out interview. Remember, job interviews are a two-way street. Your friend’s boss will be interviewing you AND you are interviewing him and the company, since that is your chance to ask him/them all of the important questions that you have and get their answers. This is where the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow come to mind: “We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done”. It sounds as if you have established yourself as a talented, industrious, experienced, hard-working individual in a high-pressure environment of the high-end culinary world in the New York City metropolitan region. If, for whatever reason, this new factory opportunity does not work out, you most likely can return to the culinary world in some capacity, if you so desire. By the way, years ago, my company constructed the test kitchens facility at the CIA in Hyde Park, NY, which was a fascinating project. I wish you the best of luck with whatever you ultimately choose to do. AVB-AMG
  7. @10X We are now being informed by various infectious disease health experts that the effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S., is essentially for approximately six (6) months, after one is fully vaccinated. I have read that Pfizer, Moderna and J&J are all currently working on creating and manufacturing a so-called one-shot "booster" vaccine that will address and provide further protection against the number of mutant variation strains of the COVID-19 virus, (for how long remains to be determined....). The head of Pfizer has stated that he thinks their version of this booster shot may be ready towards the end of 2021. Question: Will all of these pharmaceutical companies be manufacturing and presumably distributing these modified "booster" COVID-19 vaccines under the continued authorization of the EUA, or will they have, in your opinion, most likely received final FDA approval for the original vaccines by some time during the 4th Quarter of 2021 and therefore, any booster vaccine would be included in that approval? Thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge and opinion on this... AVB-AMG
  8. “Our proper focus “is not to look at how to keep certain guns from all people, but how to keep all guns from certain people.” As a gun owner and a proponent of maintaining the 2nd Amendment, much of what the author of this Op-Ed piece advocates is the most sensible take on gun control/safety that I have read in a very long time. The obsessive focus on the type of gun, i.e., the so-called "assault weapon" (which nobody is agreement on its definition), is totally misplaced and counter-productive, as this essay points out. Similarly, eliminating guns in general in this country, is a fantasy, given the approximate 300 million guns in circulation today. There are an awful lot of paranoid reactionaries on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate. Both sides, from the fanatical 2A’ers to the fanatical gun-banners, will both likely disparage and deny the author's suggestions for policy, the ones that actually are supported by hard, empirical evidence. The 2A’ers will talk about the slippery slope, say that gun ownership is a God-given right and that the 2nd Amendment only means defending oneself against intruders and "government tyranny" and wrap up with "my cold, dead hands!" The other anti-gun extremists will talk about "weapons of war", evil "Assault weapons" and hit every heart-string about the horrific mass-shootings from Newtown and Parkland up to this past week. No sane person wants mass shootings. But how many actually CARE about urban and inner-city murders, and other wanton shootings and how many ignore it? Talk about the government going after and confiscating guns per se is a non-starter and will not happen, IMHO. Attempting to getting guns out of the hands of the wrong people not only would get a lot more traction, but would be truly effective in mitigating the awful rate of killings. AVB-AMG
  9. Yesterday, April 8, 2021, Dan Gross, the co-founder of the Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility, as well as formerly, from 2012 -2017, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, authored an interesting Op-Ed piece in The New York Times, titled: I Helped Lead the Gun Control Movement. It’s Asking the Wrong Questions. A campaign galvanized by mass shootings and assault weapons will inevitably find itself in a dead end. But there’s a way out. Here is the link to the article with a cut&paste of it below: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/opinion/politics/i-helped-lead-the-gun-control-movement-its-asking-the-wrong-questions.html?smid=url-share My brother was critically injured in a mass shooting atop the Empire State Building almost 25 years ago. Every time another such shooting makes headlines it breaks my heart to know that other families are experiencing the same shock, horror and grief that ours has. It also breaks my heart to see gun control supporters, part of a movement I once helped to lead, repeat the mistakes that doom us all to the unacceptable status quo: tens of thousands of shooting deaths a year. The pattern is as familiar as it is tragic: In the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, the main demand of political leaders and gun control groups is a federal assault weapons ban. The news media, which seems to pay attention to gun laws only in the wake of mass shootings, amplifies that call, mostly taking at face value the idea that an assault weapons ban is the best way to prevent “gun violence.” Then, as headlines about the latest calamity fade, so do the hopes of federal policy change. If this pattern plays out again after the shootings in Georgia and Colorado, no one should be surprised. One of the most common questions I have gotten from journalists has been, “If things didn’t change as a result of (insert previously unthinkable tragedy here), how can we ever expect them to change?” I believe that is the wrong question and illustrates the problem with the gun control debate in the United States. Though it does not grab national headlines, the daily toll of gun deaths and injuries is just as horrifying as our mass shootings, and more preventable as a matter of policy. The gun control movement should focus on the deaths and injuries that are most common, rather than be galvanized by mass shootings like the one that put my brother in a coma. Of the nearly 40,000 deaths involving guns in 2019, well under 1 percent were caused by what the F.B.I. defines as “active shooter” incidents. In an average year, around 60 percent of deaths involving guns are suicides and upward of 30 percent are homicides that don’t meet the “active shooter” definition, like episodes of domestic and gang violence. Even unintentional shootings (about 1 percent of the total) outnumber mass shootings. There are far more effective means to prevent these sadly routine tragedies than by focusing on assault weapons. And that means that it is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disagree with the intent of an assault weapons ban. I led the organization that before my tenure as president helped to pass the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, and I believe there is no place in civilized society for guns that are made for the express purpose of killing people. But the fact is that if one were to objectively list solutions based purely on how much they would lower the number of gun deaths in our country, an assault weapons ban would not be high on the list. When an assault weapons ban is debated, the conversation inevitably becomes a technical and confusing one. While there is no standard definition of an “assault weapon,” much of the focus in the wake of mass shootings is on semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles. Yet most mass shootings, like most gun fatalities in this country, are committed with handguns. As important, though, the name of the policy includes the word “ban.” Gun control supporters like to mention the backing of “the overwhelming majority of gun owners” for “common-sense policies.” But calling for a ban of any sort just makes it easy for opposing politicians and organizations to cast anyone seeking policy change as a “gun grabber” seeking to take away the Second Amendment rights of responsible and law-abiding gun owners. To create real and lasting change, we must end the culture war over guns. Instead, gun control groups are helping to perpetuate it. No decent human being, whether gun owner or not, wants to live in a country with our level of shooting deaths. The most meaningful way to deal with the problem, though, is not to look at how to keep certain guns from all people, but how to keep all guns from certain people — the people almost all of us agree should not have guns. I have spent the past two years building relationships with leaders in the gun rights community, and have found that this framing leads us to common ground. And it points to five specific moves that together would have an enormous impact: Vigorously pursue and prosecute the small percentage of gun dealers who are knowingly contributing to the illegal gun trade (a trade that is disproportionately hurting communities of color). Identify opportunities to strengthen the background check system by adding prohibited purchasers that we all, including 90 percent of gun owners, agree should not have guns. For instance, federal rules governing privacy for health records could be modified to allow mental health clinicians to identify those who are a threat to themselves or others, so that they could be temporarily added to the National Instant Check System. This would have to include exemptions for private sales that may make some gun control supporters uncomfortable; but in the end, in combination with the other measures listed here, it would result in a significant improvement to public safety. Invest in a large-scale education and awareness campaign on the dangers of owning and carrying guns, and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. It is crucial that these efforts be led in partnership with gun rights groups and public health experts and that they remain free from any judgment about gun ownership or connection with political advocacy. There are many initiatives already, such as public education about the warning signs of mental illness and suicide, which have proved effective and could be models. Expand on the work of “violence interrupters” and similar programs proved to reduce gun violence in cities. Clearly define what it means to be a federally licensed firearm dealer, with standards that include sales volume. For years, gun control groups have talked about closing the “gun show loophole.” The real problem is not specifically gun shows but people who are regularly selling multiple guns to strangers, regardless of the venue, without being required to conduct the same background check that a federally licensed dealer must. Not only does this clearly contribute to straw-man purchasing and gun trafficking; it also puts honest dealers at a competitive disadvantage. When I was considered a leader in the gun control movement, a lot of attention was paid by other groups on how to “rebrand” the pursuit of preventing gun deaths: “Gun control?” “Gun violence prevention?” “Gun safety?” As a former advertising executive myself, I always found this conversation superficial and frustrating. It takes more than a name and talking points to shape perceptions of any brand, no less such an important social issue. It takes a fundamental truth, a deep empathy for the people you are trying to reach and a disciplined focus on reinforcing that truth with everything you do and say. The truth is, an assault weapons ban is not the most effective thing we can do to prevent gun violence, and the resulting debate undermines the extent to which the American public agrees on solutions that could bring us closer to what we all want, which is to make our homes, schools and communities safer.
  10. @45Doll, @67gtonut, @JohnnyB, @Pizza Bob, @NJRulz & @GRIZ and others: FYI - Now here is a truly amazing, intriguing and very touching car story about what arguably IMHO, could and should be considered one of “the last forgotten muscle cars”…. It is the story of a car referred to as “The Black Ghost” – a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T SE with a 426 Hemi Engine, ordered new in triple black colors by Godfrey Qualls, a decorated U.S. Army paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne, then Green Beret, who served in Vietnam, who later became a motorcycle cop, married, then a father, who street raced this car in Detroit in the 1970’s and beat everyone he raced. (Also, there is an interesting sidebar story regarding the Shaker Hood….) The car has survived and this YouTube video is the compelling story about the car, its owner and its ultimate fate…. Enjoy AVB-AMG
  11. @Downtownv: The cleaners suggested by others above for the most part work fine, so this really is a matter of personal preference. Some folks here just continue to use what they have always used, uninterested in trying anything new or different that may actually be an improvement. As I am sure you are aware, there are numerous products on the market that are made specifically to Clean, Lubricate and Protect (CLP) firearms, as well as lubricants intended for other applications, (i.e. Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil). Most of them work just fine for firearms and the important thing is to use them on a regular basis. My preference is to use separate products to clean, lubricate and protect my firearms, instead of using one product that claims to do all of the above (CLP), such as Ballistol multi-use spray or Break Free CLP. While these products may work fine for some folks, I do not believe that one size fits all. I find it hard to believe that one product will do as good a job of cleaning, lubricating and protecting all parts of a firearm, as compared to different products that are formulated to do one specific task and do it really well. For the past five years, I have been using the M-Pro 7 military grade gun cleaning system and lubricant product line, using their specific products for each task. Check out their web site for more information: http://www.mpro7.com/ FYI, the M-Pro 7 products are used by the U.S. military and perform above the minimum MILSPEC requirements. For example, the minimum cleaning efficiency for the MILSPEC is 70%. In an independent government funded test the M-Pro 7 Gun Cleaner scored 98% cleaning efficiency for one cleaning pass and worked 4 times faster than most other cleaners, which scored between 50% - 74% cleaning efficiency. Also, I appreciate that all M-Pro7 gun cleaning products are odorless, non-hazardous, biodegradable and non-flammable, unlike some of the cleaners suggested by others. Also, they use a unique blend of modern chemical technologies containing corrosion inhibitors and surfactants with a non-toxic solvent base to provide superior cleaning without the intense smell of other cleaners, (i.e. Hoppe's in particular). The M-Pro 7 Gun Cleaner thoroughly strips the surface of all oil and grease. It breaks up carbon particles from the bore steel, therefore allowing for a very good job of removing both the surface carbon particles along with the embedded metal fouling. In the cleaning process I use brass and soft bristle brushes, cotton patches as well as bore snakes in tandem, treated with the cleaning solution. I then use a can of compressed air to blow out any remaining cleaning solution from those hard to reach areas. Once it is dry, I will apply the appropriate gun oil or grease as the lubricant, where necessary. I hope this helps and gives you another option to consider.... AVB-AMG
  • Create New...