raz-0

Quoting for good info. Also at work in people making stuff up seems to be that people believe they ahve a good model of basic physics in their head. They do not. Some contributing factors to some of the oddities with the JFK shooting. 1) the seats in the car are not all at the same level. That affects where one should perceive the shots should go. 2) JFK was wearing a back brace, he did a lot. That messes with all the expected physical reactions. As a fact, it doesn't seem to come up that often. I've only seen it mentioned a handful of times, and haven't ever seen a picture of what kind of brace it was until recently. I think what really fuels the conspiracy theory is that there are lots of gaps in the story, and you can TELL. So they try to complete the picture. IMO the reality is that what you are seeing is a situation where the government screwed up badly, tried to pretend they did not, and tried to boil it down to something that would have it be over by pointing the finger at one lone gunman. In doing so, what bits they did fill in rang a very off note. What I find odd is that so many people focus on the physical act, when that is pretty easily just what they claimed. As a teenager, it seemed like some inexplicable event. Add some facts and my own experience shooting, and all of a sudden it's not describing anything particularly impossible. A tumbling bullet deflecting off bone on a secondary strike and deflecting only 30 or so degrees? Not really hard to believe. Hitting a the upper torso 2 out of 3 times at under 100 yards? Pretty easy sitting still, not that much harder with some low speed motion. What strikes me is the totally half assed attempt to explain why.

It's like the bear joke. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you. Look like you will be work, and it will go a long way. It's even better to BE hard work, but something beats nothing.

What ammo are you going to shoot. Plug the BC and MV into your favorite ballistic calculator and after weighting your choices for whatever personal preference you have, then pick something that is at or near the sweet spot for the zero to be similar. My bulk plinking load is a 55gr JSP with a flat base loaded to mid 2800 fps. it's a reasonably close proxy for an m193 zero from 0-200. It also works out to be pretty close to the nosler 60gr cannelured varmint rounds over a slightly different range as well as the 62gr winchester hollow point bullets I managed to get a decent supply of cheap. It's also not horribly off for 55gr wolf or the 60 grain nosler partitions. I have to see how the new 64gr nosler bonded stuff works with that zero.

A shoelace and a split ring (like on a keychain) was declared an NFA device when paired correctly with a garand or m1 carbine or 10/22 or whatever it is in the picture. http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/25/registering_my_fingers/

You tell me how to get a law undone in NJ. IMO the best result is to have the law activated with a polished turd like this while federal case law is on our side and there is no center fire variant. Getting spanked by the courts is about the only path in nj.

It wouldn't be the first time they did a 180 after issuing a letter to a manufacturer.

I'm not saying the government won't try anything, but there are some things to keep in mind. 1) The method of "magic piece of jewelry" existed when this legislation was passed. RFID systems were offered up for sale after the legislation was passed, and while we were under more hostile administrations. This is not the first. It's probably around the sixth. 2) heller and McDonald did not previously exist. 3) to date the njit gun has not passed muster for functionality, and it lands much closer to usable than this thing. If it is deemed a smart gun, great. Being it on. It is not suitable for home defense, and there is a buttload of precedence at this point for there being a right to defense within the home. It would also ban tons of firearms in common use for well over 100 years. In order to keep them, you have to be able to acquire them. Even under half assed rational basis, I can't see the compelling argument to be made.

I don't think a 23 upper would operate it. It's got a little lever doohickey out back that is tripped by the carrier going back. The lever forces the trigger forward. It's clever. I can see the batfe getting all worked up having to say yes to this or redefine full auto. It's very much like the shoe string device, but keeping the finger in the equation.

oh yeah, in trying to do a bit more digging, I found this page, very useful http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=110

Hmm, looking into this deeper, nobody can say why they held it. There's no official statement form anyone involved. Holder did ask, but it looks like he wants to hold it to see the outcome of the NRA case and this one would just be a matter of handing it back to the lower court with a version of "yeah that was fine", or "you screwed up, fix it" rather than a ruling. AT this point the legal wrangling is getting above my level of understanding, and frankly I would suggest that anyone not privy to whatever SAF/GURA/NRA's strategy is at this point couldn't say what they are planning or how well it is going. The last thin Gura publicly stated was back in mid october, and he didn't seem to think it was going so well and that he was counting on increased disagreement on various subjects from lower courts spurring them into action. On that point, I'd argue that more often than not it seems the lower courts are ignoring the USSC's admonishment that rational basis is not sufficient scrutiny for 2a cases, and the USSC is not taking them to task on it. This is not what I would consider good news, but I am not a constitutional lawyer. They appear to be currently trying to stir up cases in other districts as the split between 2, 3 and 7 was not enough to get it done. Given the shall issue status in lots of states, that has them hitting 8 and 10 for legal resident alien prohibitions, and they hit up 9 over CA carry laws as practiced. There are additional cases from CA rotting in the 9th with various people backing them. Right now there is a circle jerk of case one is on hold penidng the outcome of case t2 wihcih is on hold pending the outcome of case 4 which is on hold pending the outcome of case 1. Good luck with that. He's also going for a do over by trying to get cert for the NJ case we lost in 3. Honestly, form my place here int the cheap seats as a guy with a good vocabulary, a grasp of logic, a willingness to read through this crap, and some common sense, we have zero traction at the moment and are trying the throw everything at the wall till something stick plan. The one out to that may be the USSC playing politics and delaying things until closer to the mid term elections. The most optimistic take is the possibility they are letting illinois and the ruling in the 7th generate some empirical evidence on the compelling state interest of increasing safety by restricting the number of guns legally out and about in public. If it follows the trend in other states where there were now ild west shootouts and no blood running in the streets and violent crime numbers drop some amount, it would be excellent fuel for handing the 2nd and 3rd their asses with rational basis tests. Especially the decision on NJ where it was argued like poop and the argument was that it was a compelling state interest and we approve most of them anyway.

You have a recession, and people buy less and they drive less. With high gas prices, they have been buying more fuel efficient gasoline vehicles. Diesel hasn't been seeing as large a shift in fuel efficiency in terms of what has been sold vehicle wise. The clean diesel requirements probably cut down on the numebr of gallons of diesel per drum of aoil as well. Then you have the fact that heating oil for heat is probably less elastic than miles driven. Add in that diesel probably drives a lot of the tar sands excavation and such that has been coming on line as well as the increased drilling and pumping of domestic oil (compared to gasoline anyway). The net result is the gasoline demand curve has shifted a lot, the diesel demand curve not so much.

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-2.pdf pinning and welding. Section 2.1.3

It has temperature stuff to point out its 500F to break it down, not over 1100f.

It has temperature stuff to point out its 500F to break it down, not over 1100f.

The lucky gunner article is really really good. They even cover the wear issue I mentioned. However, they seem to be doing their math on cheaper with a benchmark of a $200 chrome lined ar-15 barrel for their cost math, the floor seems closer to about $240-250 now. On top of that, the OP never said AR or chrome lined. a 416 stainless barrel in a box stock 1911 isn't going to fare nearly as well as a chome lined 4150 CMV barrel under friction. Not to mention when it does, barrel replacement isn't as cheap as on an AR. THe barrel costs about the same or more, and installation labor and shipment to a gunsmith to fit it is much higher than DIY on an AR.

You may already be paying for it. I attended two different universities in NJ and getting out of it for a full time student was not an option. You should be able to get in at any semester boundary.

Probably, jb weld faq is here: http://www.jbweld.com/faqs/ They say 500 and do not recommend it's use on exhaust, much less a rifle barrel. I've researched a number of items, and the highest temp adhesive I found is used for permanent mating in the aircraft industry and peaks out in temp resistence in the high 700s for sustained heat exposure. Rockset claims 1200 degrees to remove, but ask them if it makes the cut for BATFE permanent and they say that it currently does not.

As an explanation, silver solder paste on the threads and heating by magnetic induction could be the answer. Ask the BATFE if it is good to go for permanent attachment of a muzzle device for sub 16" barrel to bring it to 16". They will say yes or no.

lightest is the ARFX entryu stock if that works for you. Carbine buffers are lighter than rifle buffers. if you can get your rifle running with a standard carbine buffer, that's the lightest stock assembly I know of.

No, they can drag out cert while they figure out what to do. I suspect the delay is debate rather than ignoring it. Other than Obama, the notion that if everyone gets screwed and it works for nobody isn't generally accepted as the best solution, even on capital hill.

Look man.. te recoils there. There's no way to get rid of it. You can prolong the transfer to your shoulder with a pad or spring loaded stock, or you can absorb it in the gun by adding mass to it. That's it. In my experience with recoil reducing stocks, the gun tends to move more in other directions. For most people recoil is mostly a limiting factor due to psychology and perception. I'd say plugs + muffs as the frist line of defense. The vast majority of people with recoil issues have them due to sound. I'll shoot hard hitting stuff, but if I RO enough loud open guns I'm not even shooting, I'll develop a flinch, especially if doing it indoors. Next up I'd go with reduced recoil loads, or just shoot light bird shot to get someones feet wet. In a pump or break open action, teh winchester AA12FL8 low recoil, low noise AA target loads are about as kind as you get.

In teh past you could get wolf with steel case and copper jacketed projectiles. Hornady steel match is currently that. In terms of the case material, jsut some extra dirt is all that matters. Most if not all of the russian steel cased stuff now is copper washed steel jacketed projectiles. That's really what I do not want to shoot in my guns. THe plating is VERY thin, and the jacket material runs from significantly harder than copper or gilding metal to shockingly hard. They'll shoot, but the degree to which they will beat on your barrel might be significant. IMO, do the cost analysis at this point based on barrel replacement intervals and how many cases you need to shoot to pay for a barrel vs. buyign cheaper brass cased with normal jackets.

Yes and no. I think alternative coatings are not likely to bring much to the table in terms of basic performance and reliability. The internally chromed and externally phosphated mil-spec design works well and are not plagued by inherent shortcomings. That being said, I think they bring a benefit in terms of manufacturing. The more viable options that don't trade away any of the pluses of the mil-spec phosphated carrier mean there's more total manufacturing capacity, more vendors, and less choke points in the production pipeline. Additionally it seems to provide more flexibility to creative manufacturers who want to try something different with BCGs like different profiles for piston system carriers (many of them are polished and melonited). IMO those thing benefit the consumer, although not in the form of brand X or technology Y is clearly superior. Also my pws melonited carrier cost all of $10 more than what I could find a phosphated one for at the time. That's not a lot of ammo or training, and I figured I could see if it was a good approach from an end user perspective. It works fine, and seems to meet or exceed the mil-spec part in performance. It wasn't my first or only AR, so taking that chance wasn't that big a deal.

TRanslation: The terms of their policy are broken because they seem to apply to only on-campus activity and not off campus housing. This was probably deliberate by legal because getting into the business of dictating every iota of people's behavior wherever they might be opens you up to all sorts of liability. This means they would have to declare the housing unit they lived in as on campus. Which would mean they are responsible for the welfare of students there and it increases their Clery compliance radius further into a crap neighborhood. That leaves lease terms, which were probably vague. Although it is within a landlords purview to restrict the possession of firearms (or any items really) by renters, there has been precedence set that doing so increases teh landlords responsibilities in terms of providing for residential security. The school gave them a BS probation because they have to appear to do something for appearing to violate the code of conduct if they want that mechanism of enforcing their contract with students to stand. They are paying the lawyers to see if there is anything they could or should do otherwise. The answer is probably along the lines of "nothing we would commit to in writing," lawyers being what they are.

My guess is becuase the existence of DC is a legal abomination, and it screws things up royally. If you let it stand that you can't cross borders to exercise a right that cannot be exercised where you live, you have no right. Which would contradict the courts ruling in Heller, and head down the road of making the case that incorporation of an amendment means absolutely nothing, and states (or state like entities) can eliminate rights with zero consequences. If you say you can, you are establishing limits on the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce, which they have abused to hell and back and is the foundation of most federal regulation at least since I have been alive. (ACA would be an exception as it can touch on the public welfare issue). In addition to that, you are saying that a state (or state like entity) cannot regulate a right differently than the federal government regulates it. Which is a mess for states rights, and potentially brings up privileges and immunities which was stomped to death in fit of racism by a previous supreme court, and the current justices openly refused to approach with a ten foot pole in heller because reinstating it would basically leave the courts flooded with rehashing 150 years of court cases that have operated ont he precedent that it is a clause of an amendment that does not count. The only way out would seem to say that just DC can't do this, and the court starts making rules for them, except that means that they are taking a power granted by law to congress into the judicial branch. It's a messy, messy case.