bbk

You realize he was referring to the fact that he can't ship magazines that are over 15 rounds to NJ, right? Or is this just one big stick measuring contest where using your brain is not allowed?

Ha, no worries Shane, I misread you and realized, now, that we both agree on the end results. So, sorry about that for only reiterating your post. As for the BAD, yea, it makes me uneasy sometimes, especially if it gets loose. It goes from being a relatively streamlined piece of kit to a dangling piece of kit/liability real quick, and that is worrisome. I'll do some more researching, and maybe kick some bushes if I still can't find anything more.

A rifle built from the ground up to achieve high levels of accuracy isn't an arbitrary AR, Shane, I think that's a given. But you're right, there is a difference between those types of accuracies, and, honestly, I don't see OBR or MWS as just "another AR." If a person is looking to shoot a rifle for pure accuracy, then why they would choose an AR is head-scratching. I'm curious though, Shane, which catastrophic failures have you seen attributed to the BAD-type lever (and the other types out there)? I'm aware that there are cases of the bolt failing to lock back, but I haven't heard of anything catastrophic. I do sincerely want to know so I can re-assess my usage of it! As for the Accuwedge, if it needs to be modded in some cases, doesn't that also mean its capable of getting dislodged? Maybe not necessarily blowing up and disintegrating into a million pieces hellbent on wreaking havoc. But I could see how a dislodged piece of rubber could mess with some internals causing said havoc.

I don't know what you're referring to, Ray. If a BAD lever becomes damaged, it can be removed with no impact to the rifle. Even if the lever were to be bent or whatever, the bolt catch can still be manipulated. Heck, even with the BAD lever attached as-is, the bolt catch can still be manipulated normally. So, no, a BAD lever in any form would not cause catastrophic failure (unless it somehow rips off the whole bolt catch, which seems doubtful as the BAD lever would probably snap off first). I still stand by my notion that introducing foreign objects, that are capable of wear and tear, to the internals that if manipulated could cause catastrophic failure is a bad idea. Do I believe that magically putting an Accuwedge into an AR will automatically cause the rifle to seize working properly? That the red rubber fairy will trot on by and blow up said rifle? No and no. And, honestly, I could give a damn if a person opts to put an Accuwedge in their rifle. Understand that I never said that it would be the worst thing ever to occur in the history of human civilization. Instead I was suggesting, from the get-go, that the action in doing so would not be the most prudent [logical]. If a person opts to for peace of mind, sure, fine, I don't care. If a person thinks it will make their rifle more accurate, sure, I don't care (though I'd bet that for most all of us our rifles out-shoot us, so, this argument is mostly invalid). Speaking from applied experience, I am aware of and, for the most part, apply the KISS concept. Which, regarding the Accuwedge, deems it not unholy or sacrilegious-- but unnecessary. Regardless, its the user's choice-- and I absolutely respect that. I have only been trying to lend the opposition to what would otherwise be a chorus of red rubber lovers.

But why introduce a solution to a non-problem? A solution that *can* cause actual issues? It just seems counter-intuitive.

I would really avoid getting an Accuwedge, Frank. There is nothing wrong with wobble-- in fact most ARs, regardless of their initial fit/tightness, will develop the wobble over time. This wobble does not affect accuracy from a technical aspect. Maybe the rattle will cause a mental anxiety of sorts (it did for me originally), but that's cheaper to fix then whatever it costs for a piece of rubber. And yes, Accuwedges can break apart, and make a soup sandwich out of the FCG. Chances of it happening vary, but would I want to deal with that, even on a range gun, if its avoidable? IMO, save the pocket change.

mcbethr, nice analysis. You're forgetting about Directive 79 though, which, in a sense, could simplify the whole process you drew out. Of course its ultimately based on discretion of the emergency coordinator, but I'm sure it would be along the lines of, "Leave your **** at home." I agree that there are many more caveats in regards to Directive 79, but, to me, it does dispel some of the assumptions. As somebody else pointed out, understand that sure, the NJ NG would be mobilized, but in a large scale event-- so could other NG units (say from NY or PA), and definitely a few active duty units. In the wake up Katrina, there were boots on the ground of people from active duty units that I knew personally in the NOLA area within a handful of hours (I can't specify). They weren't necessarily doing the grunt work that the 82nd did in the wake of Katrina, or what the guys from Benning are doing in the Carolinas right now (due to the storms). Instead they were tasked with more specific parameters. So, my point being is that the number of troops that could be present would rise exponentially in direct correlation of the severity of the situation. Given, if the event is widespread (say multiple states are involved and require assistance), then the number of troops available would dip.

SpecialK, I think you're being way over-idealistic, and not quite keeping in mind reality. A government exists because a society allows it to exist. Whether or not it is doing the right thing or fails in maintaining its duties does not immediately make the government illegitimate. Look at the countless number of overt and more subtle governments in power who continue this trend (some of whom are being reminded of it in Northern Africa and Southwest Asia). Simply saying that you do not believe that something is what it is does not make it any less then what it is presently. As for this topic-- be careful with what you are saying. I'm not saying that being disgruntled with how things are presently is wrong and not allowed. But suggesting or saying things outright that point towards being outwardly militant/violent will not be tolerated. Remember this is a public space, and what you include in this public space reflects not just the individual but the whole community. If you feel a certain way that treads or stamps on that line, keep it to yourself.

To clear up some confusion, BF: Bad Company 2 is not Battlefield 2. Battlefield 2 came out in 2005, and, IMO, was the bar for multiplayer modern FPS. Bad Company 2 came out 2010, and is more known as BFBC2 or BC2. BC2 was a HUGE step forward for the series, as it really started showcasing the Frostbyte engine. The guys at DICE seem to be getting better and better with this engine, as demonstrated by the video included in the OP. As for the Vietnam expansion, its OK. I feel like I was far more invested in the regular version, plus the fact that there was a whole BF game dedicated to Vietnam already kind of diminished some of that hype for me personally. Regarding COD, I don't get how people think its actually any good. Its a big hype-machine, like the Halo series (which I think are equally as boring). MW1 was a great game, both single player and multiplayer-- I actually take the time to play it still on occasion. MW2 had some epic moments (like the "Wolverines!" level), but multiplayer felt so recycled and bland after the first few weeks. I had high hopes for Black Ops, but the narrative was crap, and the multiplayer only reminded me of why I stopped playing MW2 (the secret classic-ish zombie game is the only high point for those $60 I spent). Why do I think COD is so bad? Because every map on most game modes boils down to running around the map in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise fashion in which the maps themselves are not even layered/complex. Even Counter-strike had better level design and complexity-- COD just throws a bunch of fancy sprites and textures, and somehow people adore the game.

IIRC, the state can stop the sale of firearms during a state of emergency (I also believe there is no such thing as "martial law" in NJ, though, that's simply a label-- so, who knows in application). When I was reading the statutes on the OEM site, I didn't see anything about firearms seizure.

Refer to this link for ongoing discussion: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24091-could-your-shotgun-soon-be-outlawed/

To me, the BF series has always had the more supreme multiplayer. MW1 was a stellar game, and so far the best of the COD series-- but its a pure "twitch" game... compared to BF games which included that twitch aspect, plus actual tactical gameplay with the addition of armor, cavalry, and jets (in BF2, and will be in BF3)-- as well as the fact that you're looking at 32 players (64 in BF2 and other BF games). Nick, I did talk to a EA and DICE rep at PAX East about the whole story thing (without trying to bring up "other" shooter-games, though it was difficult). Generally they admitted that they needed narrative with their games moving forward as more of a way of reaching that price point of $60. They explained that the BF2 model is great, but also gives no context for the user to understand the settings they are in, especially if they opt for certain locales (take for example, I understand that parts of BF3 will take place in Paris and New York, as well as portions of Southwest Asia... would be hard to just throw a NY map into someone's face with little explanation-- as one paragraph is hardly enough like they use too). They had toyed around with the concept of narrative multiplayer with the Bad Company series, and saw that it worked well. Also, in jest, it seemed like the reps were taking shots at the COD series and their tunnel vision approach when it came to driving linear story with game/level design. I'm not sure what I'll get it on yet. This game might be a good reason to finally update my PC, though that would have other benefit (IE. ES5's November release). Admittedly I'll be pretty busy with Uncharted 3 and ES5, don't know how much BF3 I'll be delving in to initially.

I'm almost positive that in one of his videos he does confirm that he is a zoomie (USAF), though I'm not sure to what capacity. As for his content, I wish he would focus more on the actual reviews like he use to instead of overloading his page with videos of him and his buddies shooting in the desert. I do enjoy those videos as well, especially if that video is highlighting a certain system (like the recent ones with the RFB and KSG)... but the majority of them seemingly have nuggets of information in what is otherwise really, really long-winded videos films. Some videos could probably be condensed from 45m to 10-15. A great example of this is probably his SHOT Show videos. His stuff compared to somebody like MSM really shows the difference in philosophy (in that it seems like Nutnfancy enjoys the sound of his voice more then the content itself).

Yea, I was so pumped when this video was released (EA was doing some Facebook thing where they wanted to get a million "Likes") this morning. Its essentially the three mini-episodes that had been released over the past few months, and then some extra footage to fill in the blanks. I couldn't say, but I saw this footage when I was up in Boston at an event-- but it was only in pieces... so, finally really cool to see it all put together. This game is really going to change things for the genre-- which is nice as everybody has just been trying to copy the COD or UT mold for the past few years. I've been a BF fanboy since the 1942 days, and it'll be nice to finally see them leapfrog Activision (which ironically is the "new EA"). With that said, I wouldn't be surprised to see an announcement for MW3 in June during the NBA playoffs (like last year), announcing a Fall release for this year (though I would be a bit surprised if they could get it done within this year).

I'm a big fan of his, and a long time subscriber. I do find myself not watching every video fully because that would take forever. But its always fun and interesting to see how accurate a firearm may be (or seeing how accurate he is for that matter!). My favorites have to be when he nails targets at, I believe, 230 yards with different Glocks (including the subcompacts).

Hey, welcome aboard from a Mercer Co-ish resident, and former L'ville resident (many years ago).

Happy Bday^4

While I do not advocate spending ludicrous amounts of money on clothing, especially not that crazy morale swag (not a fan at all), I do believe there is value in quality clothing (which unfortunately are often more expensive). I remember when I switched over to the ACU, I ripped through four pairs [literally]. Two of them were in the field, but the other two were when I was doing menial, administrative tasks. So, if I'm doing something active, not just shooting, or if I simply need the clothing to hold up, I want quality clothing (stitching, design, material, company, etc). If I'm just bench-shooting, obviously it does not matter. Ultimately, "tactical" is simply a label, and one that I believe is applied to an action and not necessarily a mindset (in regards to material goods). With that said, I do believe strongly that price does not correlate with quality. For example, LAPG offers decent "work"-quality pants for cheap, and a person does not necessarily have to invest in Arc'Teryx to get quality.

Happy Birthday!

Some of you have probably seen this at some point. I ran across it finally in my own time, and had to seriously do a double take. This is a YouTube video from Esquire (the magazine) featuring a female DEA agent showing an Esquire correspondent how to shoot, as well as the least knowledgeable caption editor in the world. I won't say anymore and let the video fail on its own

I'm a fan of the tactical polo (if done correctly). Looks clean, and, more importantly, prevents chafing if I'm wearing something like a sling or a pack-- as it prevents direct contact to my neck. If not done correctly, then the material can be annoying if not down right obnoxious (too heavy, too rough, too weak, etc).

Happy birthday, fellas!

Pelican cases are nice and all, but in application they are kind of useless. I had a 1700, and the case functioned fine-- looked great even though I was only using the pluck-and-go feature (didn't turkey carve it up). What I came to realize is that its: 1. too bulky for range use and 2. not really convenient for range use. Now, if I was constantly traveling with my rifle(s) on flights, then sure, it would be fantastic for that use. But even then, I would not use the foam, and instead invest in a durable soft bag (and then put it into the Pelican). That's just my two cents.

Speaking from experience, having busted up a GI charging handle in the field, the BCM GF charging handle is a huge step up. I run a mod 4 currently, and am not looking back.

Happy birthday! Thanks for everything you have done for the community, and 'thank you' for what you will do. Again, happy birthday and have a great one today.