mipafox

I used to poo poo the 300 BLK when it hit the scene. Years ago I was saying that subsonic it was just a .45, so why not use an SMG? Otherwise it's just a 7.62x39 or a .30-30, big whoop. I've come around and I will probably end up with one eventually. Everything said here about the 300 is true. But the focus has been on it's limitations, not its advantages. 1. It is .30-30 (but with far superior ballistics) or a 7.62x39 (with somewhat superior ballistics). I used to say, "big whoop." But now I look at it the other way. You know what? People like ARs. And sometimes people want something more than .223. For hunting deer, for example. And would rather use their AR for it. You still have a .223 with a different upper, and it's all the same rifle. That's a positive. Could you choose 6.8 or 6.5 instead? Sure. But it still does the job unless you need the $ix point five. It's also more accurate (generally speaking) than 7.62x39 or .30-30. 2. It's optimized for short barrels. 7.62, .30-30, and .223 are not. 3. It's one rifle. That now does multiple things. 4. It's extremely quiet suppressed. It's only the energy of a .45, albeit with a much better BC. Does that make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. Why not just use an SMG? Well, because you have both a suppressed, subsonic SMG and a rifle in one gun. How do you change between the two? You switch mags. You don't even have to take the can off. Just switch mags. Heck, you could even load a few rounds subsonic and then switch to rifle ammo in one mag. That is pretty cool. And I know this is not a common concern for most of us, but that's actually fairly interesting from a tactical standpoint. It would make for a very interesting firearm during raids. And it's still an AR. Most of us may not be conducting daily raids, but if you looks at firearms, aspects that give them tactical applications also tend to make them fun at the range. Quick, easy, options, familiar, SMG or rifle, you have that in spades with 300. And, honestly, is there a downside to an extremely effective SUPERsonic round from a suppressed very short barrel AR for home defense? Sure, 6.8 and 6.5 will do that as well, but it still beats the crap out of .223 (my favorite) out of a very short barrel even if it makes a crack after exiting the can. As far as decibels are concerned, I've never looked into that. I'm sure the typical numbers stated here in this thread are correct, and I am sure they are officially above the stated level that might accumulate hearing damage. Many of you have shot subsonic suppressed, many of you have not. For the later, let me tell you something. That noise is extremely brief and it is not a "crack" or a "boom." Several people here have either fired or watched me fire my MAX-11 suppressed with subsonic ammo (feel free to chime in). Throw out any decibel levels you want, if you slept over my house and I dumped an entire mag out the window in the next room you would not wake up. So maybe it brings the decibels but the nature of the noise is that it is VERY quiet to the ear. And the 300 is quieter. So, if you like suppressed or SBR, the advantages are obvious. If you don't or can't, you still have a step up in caliber and a hunting rifle for medium game out to short medium range in an AR. Maybe 6.8 is better, I'm not sure. Maybe 6.5 has better range, but it also costs more. You can buy bolt action rifles in different calibers that do pretty much the same thing as each other as well.

Pretty much. I'm not really a fan of semi pistol caliber carbines. I've never tried this one full auto. A buddy of mine has one SBR'd and suppressed. It's fun but I wouldn't buy it. If I could get one in auto I probably would, but I can't. Just personal preference, I've never seen any problems with it. But since he always uses a can, that sometimes makes guns function more reliably (even though they might get dirty faster).

It's Mark. Some of my friends know him, he lives around here now and I've seen him around. I'm sure Philly misses him

Keeps you pimp hand strong, Purps. Keeps yo pimp hand strong, Brother.

I don't agree with anything you just said. I think there is an argument that can be made that traveling through other states unmolested is within the purview of the interstate commerce clause. I think it's very thin. But if we get rid of the 70,000 illegal federal laws and 2 million federal regulations (I pulled those numbers out of my ass) I will be happy to get rid of FOPA. Point being, yeah, it's wrong. But the federal government is a massive, massive mess of illegal oppression and domination. That's all it does, 24/7, it breaks the law. So when they get rid of all that crap I'm willing to give up the few bones of freedom they have illegally thrown our way against the States. Your move, feds.

Close enough. It is unlikely you will be stopped and harassed. But the cops in Philly believe they can ask to see your permit because of the difference in Commonwealth law, so anything can happen. Most likely they will see your gun and ignore you. It's not as bad as it once was. Philly was sued over that crap and their policies and retraining were changed. So actual harassment is unlikely.

Once you move something to federal there will never be redress. They can change the rules whenever they want and nobody will be able to be represented or fight back. Just clean reciprocity is what we need, and I'm OK with Congress doing that.

Interesting. I bet they could have saved a whole lot of money if they just paid you to come up with the wrong answer in 5 minutes Speaking of which, who keeps claiming PA is a blue state (despite overwhelmingly majority Rs in both our legislative houses) and who said before the election that PA has always been a swing state, and losing the last several presidential elections does not change that? You're welcome, it was my pleasure Straight outta Pottsville.

States don't have rights. But 99% of federal law is usurpation of States' powers or the Rights of the People in violation of The Constitution. I'll take just this one and turn a blind eye, thank you. I think we deserve it at this point, then we can move on to cleanup. If we have to pay for the sin you can hang me. I'm sensing ambiguous duplicity and sarcasm, but not sure. Perhaps you would agree to check the chances they gave Trump to win the Presidency. Either way.

Hear, hear!

Heller does NOT indicate that the Second Amendment does not protect military arms. I suggest the ones that have not read it, give it a read: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf And be sure to keep dicta and the decision separate. The Late, Great Scalia wrote the decision and opinion of the court. He was asked afterwards if the decision means the Second Amendment does or does not protect "assault weapons." He responded that was outside the scope of the decision. REMEMBER - they will never comment on anything outside the scope of a decision. But that pretty much sums it up.

It could have been worse.

Thanks. I don't think that is going to do it for them. Not on its own, but especially in the context of the rest of the decision.

Can somebody show me where that was said in Heller? Because I have never seen it. There is a hypothetical discussion that banning of "M-16"s would or would not prove that we have already detached from the Right of the People, and the argument that exotic weapons are required to defeat tanks and bombers on the modern battlefield, and that makes the 2A moot in that respect but they are saying those arguments are not true. I have no idea where they are getting this, if somebody can show me, please do.

Yes, but you are on the wrong side of the Pines. Or are you one of the guys willing to work with professionals without meeting them? If so, I have a name as a last resort (I prefer to meet with them).

Here you go... It's neither. It's a pact made between people, with the rules they agree upon. It's a deal.

Then commit them. The only other thing that can keep a gun away from them is their family. The government saying, "You can't have guns" does not make a dangerous person "un-dangerous." This is not the government's business outside of committing dangerously insane people.

Ha ha, look at this From an IMDB review "Depressing and pointless (which I suppose is the point, but) 1/10 Author: missnobody717 from United States 12 December 2009 When my husband and I went to see this movie, we chose it purely because a) it wasn't one of the ridiculous movies already out, and b) it got a good rating on Rotten Tomatoes. At the snack counter, a poster proclaimed, "One of the most uplifting and optimistic movies of the year!" After watching that movie, we concluded that the poster reviewer either was completely high, wandered into the wrong theater by mistake, or thinks that Schindler's List was a wacky comedy. The Road has to be one of the most depressing, pointless, excruciating movies you could ever see. It will make you want to go home and stick your head in the oven." Ha ha ha ha! I left out the rest of the review because of spoilers, but it's almost as good as the movie You should still see it.

Sounds like a rough movie. Try renting "The Road." It's similar but a real pick-me-up. "feel good movie of the year"

Well, this is the time to get our shot, and it may not be around again soon. Nothing wrong with a couple irons in the fire, everybody do their part to see what we can get moving.

LOL

Speaking of which, watch your kids when they get home from the service or deployment. We did a lot of studies after WWII and found a ridiculous likelihood of auto accident death that was not tide to any discernible military activity. These risks have more or less held to this day. Speaking of which, POWs have additional health risks, and it's not what you think. Talk to an expert if you know one. These two things are almost never discussed.

I don't know what a "populated state" is, but I would like to know how many states have these requirements you cite. You are right about PA, with the exception of lineage and spouses.

Just wait for O-GAY (One Gun A Year)

Maybe your property values will go up Just trying to cheer you up. Good luck finding a good home. Looks like a good doggie.