raz-0

Also of note, it's piracy, and a federal felony.

whoops take it back. They had something that looked like the mv500, not the sv500.

Edison had a few last time I was there. No idea where you are finding the coupon though unless I missed a flyer recently.

midsouth has 2230 in stock as I type this. https://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item/00079pb223008/accurate-nopoint-2230-smokeless-powder-(8-lbs) Also has x-terminator https://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item/00079xterminator8/ramshot-x-terminator-smokeless-rifle-powder-(8-lbs)

I've got that acu rite but without the hub. Didn't know it exists, so might have to add it. About the years, no problems until recently when the anemometer skinny thing split from a crack. Got a replacement on the way.

The manufacturers are making 10mm because with contraction in the market, you have to sell something to everyone rather than everything to somebody. Hard hitting pistol calibers is a niche that exists and 10mm is the go to carriage for that. .357 never was and has limited appeal. I don't know anyone who likes shooting it. It isn't remarkably accurate. It more or less fails at its intended goal and its a pain in the ass to reload for. The only redeeming property is that demand is low and conversion from forty is basically a barrel. So you can buy a barrel and be able to source ammo when there's a run on it in general.

3rd party you rely on whatever they do or don't do. For your own practices, IMO, you have one or two options to up your QC. 1) Watch the powder load. IMO the best practices for this is either batch reloading with loading blocks, in which case you do a visual inspection for uniformity, or you have bullet and case feeders in a progressive setup and your job is to watch powder charge. 2) You use a powder check of some sort and drop either case feed, bullet feed, or get a press with enough stations to support all three. IMHO the best for this is the RCBS lock-out die.

damn, haven't been there in like 13-14 years. Whenever I got my first rifle, because they had a publicly available 200 yard range. They don't appear to have moved, so I wonder what happened to make all the changes they did. The side of a large hill seems to be a pretty solid backstop, and google satellite doesn't shot any development on the hill.

If the FFL was honest and running things correctly, it should go a few ways. 1) They know things are messed up and have time to get their stuff in order. They should contact another ffl and move the inventory onto their books, and you go collect your stuff from them. 2) They have no time to get their affairs in order. The estate either oversees the transfer of their business, or does the same FFL dance as in #1. You collect your stuff from the appropriate entity. 3) They kick it with no one to get things in order. Minions of the state will try to sort it out. State laws come into play, because likely first "transfer" from the FFL will be to a law enforcement agency who doesn't necessarily have the legal right to effect transfers to just anyone.

Not really. I mean technically that is what it challenges, but the premise is that fund managers aren't worth it. HEdge funds have, in theory, the best managers. To eliminate jackpot luck for one, or a truly exceptional manager amongst a group of supposedly exceptional managers, he groups them together.

OK. If your father is taking them and mailing them.. you created a transfer between you and your father. Most states, this poses zero issue. However he is then mailing them to an FFL who will transfer them to you. Which will need permits. It's the same as when your father transferred them to you without being dead and having them in the will. DAD->FFL->YOU means either your dad is breaking the law or you are unless you get the permits and do the transfer as if your father owned them. The legal way to do it is either go down there and ship to yourself. Or go down there and travel back with them.

the cock bloc is one of the new ones. The other is the pachmayr rack-it. The handiracker has been around a while. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/28/pachmayr-rack-pistol-slide-racking-assist-tool/ Then there's a different rack-it http://rack-it.org

Hmm ran the CJ match for a few years using my 2011. It never had issues with the CJ sand. Runs factory length .40 fine. Shoots everything from 135pf .40 up to 178pf just fine. Runs my major loads just fine in weather from 16F to 102F. Frankly my respiratory system has more mechanical issues with the CJ sand than my 2011.

You do know that even on the gold/silver standard, you could have put a dollar or some gold in a drawer and the vlaue of both decreased right? That's how bretton woods came ot an end, too much un-agreed upon dicking with the vlaue of the underlying metals.

It depends on where you want to draw the line. The regular barrel is a bit luck of the draw. Mine was not that accurate, but would do for soda cans out to 75 yards at least. Others I have handled were tack drivers. It really doesn't matter though, they are up there with ARs for easy tinkering. I have like a $90 adams and bennet barrel on mine now and with federal UMB1 ammo it would do 0.18" groups at 25 yards indoors. Of course that ammo costs like $15 a box even back then. I got about 500 rounds for $1.95 per box from someone selling on and estate sale find.

yeah these aren't obscure for the most part. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who liked the park is mine. I'll see that with "black moon rising" Still tommy lee jones, much more obscure. Ones I haven't seen: Ice Pirates Suburbia (director later brought you wayne's world, black sheep, etc.). I'll also put in a joh cryer tri-fecta dudes hiding out Penn & Teller get killed.

I will also point out the the US dollar has failed multiple times already. It's not the end of the world. We chugged along in the end.

Venzuela attempted to trade oil not in the petro-dollar, and attempted to bypass the various groups that rig the pricing of the petro-dollar. They also skipped useful things like planning to pay for food with their political decisions. You are correct about how the dollar exists within the law. But there is the practical matter of how the dollar exists in the global economy, and it's not that simple. It's based on good will, hope, the might of the US military, the strength of the US economy, and a bunch of other things. Also if it is unclear, the petro dollar is not hte federal reserve note. It's the various acts of collusion to ensure that oil trades occur in us dollars. This collusion has ensures it remains the global reserve currency. This is also not something inherent to how the currency exists from a legal standpoint.

General ergonomics. Trigger quality. Simple to field strip. Level of accuracy. level of quality control. Most of what is going for it can be found elsewhere. If it was a $500 gun it'd be awesome. They seem to be a tad cheaper now at ~$800 than last time I had reason to look. They were around $1000 then. There really isn't a shit ton more to it than being a semi automatic pistol.

My opinion is that SIGs fit my hand better than a single stack 1911 and they shoot and handle well. But most of what they have going for them I can find in other guns for cheaper. Sigs process are way to high for their qc these days. And since they aren't a broadly supported platform like a 1911, ar, flock, or 10/22, I can't go to anyone but SIG to fix what SIG doesn't want to do right in the first place. That list of guns above provide a level of enjoyment I don't get from the other guns I own.

This dude is bullshit, ignore whatever he's shilling for. Not that I don't think a correction is coming, we are due, but there's correction and there's collapse. Is collapse possible? Yes, but his shittastic reasoning is "something is coming" and it will be big. That's like some scam artists doing a cold read of a room. Look, if it is BIG big, The vase majority of the "economy" is the ledger economy of banks and investors. 99% plus of that doesn't participate in the actual economy. 2007 resulted in a shit storm because we wanted to patch a ~5% hole in the ledger economy with real economy money. That wasn't possible, but we did patch a chunk of it that way, and printed money for the rest. It filled a hole where real transactions aren't which is why there wasn't a shit ton of inflation. The printed money didn't compete for assets it just essentially replaced shit that caught on fire. In the case of shit getting REALLY bad we just lop that segment off and let it burn. There are options to deal with a failure isolated to the financial sector. As for fiat currencies being doomed. The tools in existence now aren't what we had in the past. Most of these tools and strategies were designed to promote a fiat currency. Second I would argue that we don't truly have a fiat currency. What we have is the petro dollar, and it not only involves oil transactions, it is a global reserve currency. I do think there are massive risks on the horizon to the economy as we know it and things could get seriously fucked. I'm pretty much at 100% odds that the economy in the next 50 years won't look like something we recognize as normal-ish. 1) mass automation of jobs. This is super high risk, but not as near term as people think. It could go well or badly, but either way it will affect drastically how money flows and how stable nation states are. Good or bad we aren't ocming out the other end of this looking remotely like how we went in. 2) Boomers - They are going to fuck us all for a series of reasons, and it won't even be deliberate. a) They are going to put a shit ton of real estate on the market when they head for their death beds. b) We are going to hit the middle of the boomer bubble making claims on pension funds that are FUBAR, and that will officially be put up or shut up time. c) They are going to kick the living shit out of federal and state budgets for medicare costs. d) They are going to liquidate a shitload of assets besides real estate, and it isn't like the echo boomers of gen-y/millenials are going to be prepared to buy in in similar quantities. 3) 1+2 = deflation. Deflation is a bitch to manage. 4) As demonstrated in the last decade or so, deflation and inflation are simply no longer broad based. We have 7.5 billion people on earth and it is growing. Flat screen TVs will deflate. Food, water, rare minerals with practical uses not so much. On the up side, item 1 has the potential to temper inflationary food prices with decreases in labor costs for food production. 5) skilled vs. unskilled employment. If1 above doesn't decrease barrier to participating in skilled labor, we have a serious problem. When the productive lifespan of a human is 40-50 years and we have the system set up that becoming skilled requires about 5 years of work and about 20 years of debt, switching skills 3-5 times in a lifespan is just mathematically not possible. Stabilizing emplyment is going to be hard without massive population reduction. 6) Materials science. Look. efficiency makes things cheap. We will have to learn to live with each other. Because right now advances in materials science has put some seriously destructive forces within reach of a small number of people acting together. The price and number of people needed will shrink, and more and more dangerous stuff will be readily available.

So reloads with retention while people are shooting at you? I'm guessing the answer is think about and do whatever the fuck you want when you have the time and engage your fucking brain. When people are shooting at you keep shooting back at them until you run out of bullets, then add more bullets. As for unload show clear, don't be an idiot about it. Unload when someone tells you to unload or key off of some stimulus, internal command rather than just dumping a mag and jacking out the last round. It's not hard, it's off the clock, and it's not penalized. No actually come up with more rather than copping out cause you can't think of it. You made a frikin thread about it and you are all "But I digress". Once again prove your fucking point or shut the fuck up. Stop pretending you are proving your point while copping out.

OK response to the article, which at least tries. 1) Carrying too much shit: This is not a competitor problem. The author's preferred amount of shit to carry is approximately the amount of shit competitors carry. 2) Engaging multiple targets in the open: His argument... you can't focus on more than one thing at a time in a complex manner. If really discussing it in detail, he should probably bring the OODA loop into it about here. But here's the kicker. Competitors, when faced with a situation they can't premeditate operate under normal human limits. That includes the level of focus needed to decide what to do next. Competition does let you practice an O and an A out of that loop to improve your speed there, but most competitors forced to deal with novel situations will not proceed into maximal target exposure knowingly/intentionally. It has nothing to do with training for threat, it has to do with simply having the D step take over when presented with enough information that the D step seems really pressing. I doubt it's as much of a liability as people think. What it is NOT though is practicing advantageous behavior for assessing a novel situation. I would regard that as tactics, which competition isn't really training you in, even to scar you. I would argue that a competition shooter might not fare as well as someone well trained and practiced in good tactics. 3) Not using cover. There is precious little cover in the modern world. It's concealment, and in terms of people shooting at you, how useful is it. Which is worse not using concealment to maximal effect or running around pretending it will stop bullets? Did the guys he see stop in the open because of competition? Or did they stop in the open because they felt they had reached a point where they had to take the risk of engaging vs the risk of exposure while seeking concealment and they chose poorly? (Or chose well in a totally shit situation) If you see a sufficiency of people making a mistake who are doing it without being competitive shooters, attributing the behavior to competition seems pretty sketchy. Since it's not data but anecdotal evidence on his part, I'd expect he knew the people well enough to determine if they were competition shooters. IMO if you are training to use concealment as cover, you are engaging in security by obscurity. It may be aided by instinctual reaction that if you can't see it you can't act on it, but inherently if you aren't just using poor terminology, your strategy is faith in that psychological perception rather than simple physics. If you can do as the author says and arrange a shooting rather than a gunfight, that's probably sufficient. It might work out poorly when it isn't a shooting though. 4) Shooting on the move. It's a useful skill to have. If you stick with competitive shooting to be competitive, you will find that the use of it is selective and very often the answer is don't do it. This is something the competitive world has a different opinion on what optimal is a now than it did a decade or so ago. It's not an ingrained, single option, always do this strategy these days. Kind of like competition has moved away from cadence shooting to go faster. Some folks may leave making the shoot on the move decision to the premeditated stage plan. Some folks may make the decision rapidly while evaluating progress ont he course of fire. Which I'd argue is practice at cycling through the OODA loop rapidly. Possibly effectively if you don't choose wrong. 5) Speed and closing with a target. There is an interesting conversation to be had there. I can't find it at the moment, but I was reading an interesting set of experiments being conducted regarding evasive maneuvers. A lot of the results were counter intuitive. I believe this is referencing one of them: https://survivallife.com/running-zigzag-pattern-actually-effective/ . That aside, the author (and the tests) say move fast. Guess what run and gun games tell you you need to learn and train to be able to do? The author and I do agree that step one is do everything to make it an unfair fight in your advantage before the shooting starts. That takes a number of skills competition doesn't teach. I don't take the position competition is sufficient. I take the position that it isn't by and large negative work and beats that shit out of doing nothing and never learning or simply letting skills atrophy. Where I'm open to the notion of it being negative work is if one can point out a skill or tactic involved in making that fight unfair that competition negatively impacts. I will also point out that it's hard to tell if the guy is saying "I shot competitively, but you shouldn't it'll get you killed when it didn't get me killed," or if he is saying "don't let competition supplant other skills you need to be learning, especially without realizing it." The former is kind of hard to swallow, especially hearing it over and over again from people who engaged in competition and didn't die form it. The latter I fully agree with.

I disagree with some of the evidence being the evidence. The ruger american pistol is selling at the price ruger sold their previous models that were investment cast frames. It's cheaper to produce and is residing in the market niche they already had which was definitely not dominating the segment. They likely increased their margin on the position they already had. In general I think ammo and accessory sales might increase in volume, but I'm doubtful margins will remain and revenue will go up.

The thread was fucking stupid and dredging them up is boring as shit. Howabout you ask about 9mm vs .45 again? Last I checked none of the people asked ,essentially, to put up or shut up ever actually put up. Skimming it again, I can also add being irked by the constant reference to IDPA and training to take cover. The real world has shit all for cover, it has concealment. Also every comment about how to be good at IDPA is wrong. You win IDPA by beign fast enough that the SOs can't call your rule breaking, that's about it. Every place you can you say fuck the tactical reload and dump rounds fast and claim you were making up shots. You foot fault cover all over the fucking place but do it blazing fast. IDPA separates jack and shit from USPSA performance. Go look at the top IDPA shooters. They are almost entirely USPSA shooters. Beyond that, there is almost zero understanding in threads like that of training for a single option or multiple options from people who should know better. Almost every account I have ever read of training scars having injurious or fatal results comes down to training insisting on a single option of execution for a task. I've run into multiple examples of people in real world situations crediting their practice at run and gun games for giving them the tools to survive a violent situation. Tools they weren't getting elsewhere. I've read articles by infantry setting up USPSA style matches on deployment because they get near zero handgun training. We have had LEOs come to matches because they can't get more training form their department and want practice time. We have had LEOs SENT to matches because their department wanted them getting more trigger time and just had an ammo budget. No, competition isn't the only place you can get said skills, but it is widely accessible and relatively affordable, and it beats the shit out of static range shooting, and you'll figure out things about how you do stuff that you won't in a class with a common firing line. It's virtually always a shittily articulated argument with the vast majority of people on the gun games get you killed side coming up with shit evidence and doing things like completely misunderstanding fine vs gross motor skills and referencing made up crap like muscle memory, which generally indicates they don't understand what is going on there either. Which is unfortunate, because if they were critiquing from a position of actually understanding that shit it would be highly informative. So I'll put in my $0.02 Fuck you unless you take the burden of proof of your position on yourself instead of the bullshit move of making it someone else's problem to disprove your two sentence theory.