Jonnin

Is taking a step backwards from the knife waving idiot "standing your ground" ? Nope, he moved away first, and some states even have laws or rules that the defender has to try to get away first. IMHO he tried to get away and could not, and then shot, which is different from stand your ground, and a more clear cut case of self defense. Where stand your ground gets nutty is the provoke and defend case, which I do not know if any have happened (possibly trevor case?). Aggravating someone verbally or whatever then standing your ground when they attack... is questionable. Another comment: he fired from inside the pocket and made a perfect shot? Wow. I would probably gut-shoot the attacker if I tried that.

How to explain it.... Oil aside. Forget oil and energy. Capitalists will not fund quality research that does not lead to a path of profits. Not all R&D is profitable: take a cure for a disease that only 1000 or so people have in the world: not profitable to spend billions over decades to find a cure, is it? Or military R&D: it is not all that profitable to do R&D on a new bomb or whatever during peacetime, so cut that research because no one will be buying up the tech in bulk until the next war. Or the next generation of airplain or unmanned whatever. The govt buys 10 of them to play with, but not billions of them to make war, its not profitable. But when war breaks out, and the other guy out-techs you, those R&D dollars seem like a better idea even if not profitable for the deveopers..... Green energy is the same. Dirty will always be cheaper, more profitable, and capitalists will always destroy to get better profits. Always. yes, get politics out of it is very important. You posted that after I slowly typed this one.

I am going to say that I do NOT think that capitalism works best for all R&D. Take oil: what oil company executive would spend a few billon from profits on making hydrogen based fuel cars? That would kill the demand for oil in a decade --- all their infrastructure and investments would be worthless! It is often not in the interest of a company to produce a new thing that makes the existing, profitable setup obsolete, and not only will companies not invest in such things, they may even use clout to prevent others from doing so as well (by buying up the company, patent, or whatever). A pure capitalist model of energy is not going to go green, it is not going to conserve or plan for the future. It only exists to make a big profit ASAP, and while I applaud this, profits do not always make the best society or long term models.

They do NOT do that at all. At the one I use, we have to spend 15 min to track down the person who has the keys if they are not back there (almost never are back there, actually). It gets old, but if that is what is required, I understand. By the way, some folks are just picky about the straw purchase thing. I made that mistake ONCE at a gunshow --- wife wanted a gun, so I hand her the money and the guy has a fit over it and refuses to sell it. I even told him he could run both of our background checks if it made him happy and he still all but called us criminals. So he kept the gun and we got it elsewhere, and I always hand the money over away from the vendors now.

Many of the products we use daily are the result of government funded R&D. It is one of the BEST uses of taxpayer money we have, actually --- most are complete waste, while R&D is only 75% or so waste. And of the waste, a lot of it is "well, now we know what does not work" which is of benefit, indirectly, to development. Ive been on hugely successful projects and total failures. More successes than fails but most of what we look into is a modest advance in existing, working tech rather than totally new concepts. For green energy, we KNOW a lot of stuff that will work but it costs too much today to use it.... so the goal should be a hefty investment in making the known solutions cost less so they can be used. That will NOT happen under this administration (and lets be honest, probably not under MR either) but with the right leadership, it would create jobs AND reduce energy costs long term, a win/win scenario.

its not easy to stick a regular pistol case and there is no reason to over-lube those. It has to do with surface area. When a case is stuck, the more surface area that is stuck against the die wall, the more force you need to get it out. A 9mm, short of accidentally using glue instead of grease to lube the case, is never going to stick hard enough to need heroic efforts to fix. A 44 mag or 45 maybe, but anything smaller, probably not. The worst stuck pistol cases should pop right out with a little force. Kroil is excellent but it can, as I understand it, neutralize primers (sometimes?) so clean up afterwards. Rifles, with 3 times the length translating to a LOT more surface area, those can get stuck in the die very hard. An unlubed rifle case is asking for trouble.

absolutely green energy is worth the effort. Now, there are plenty of scammers looking for a handout (grant) from government, same as some other R&D areas, but that is not the same question (should the govt insist on results from R&D of any sort?). But what can we do with green energy? LED lightbulbs use a fraction of incandescent and will one day replace the toxic spiral flourescent ones. They are nontoxic, have a long life, and come in a variety of colors allowing for not ultra bright white only lighting. Hybrid cars. Say what you will, my mom has a prius and her gas bill should make anyone who drives "around town" want one. The car is awful on the interstate or anything much over 50 MPH, but for her needs, its a big money saver that has been reliable and worth it. XXX-ane gas cars. Burns clean (typically C02, H20, Carbon/burn, and not much else produced). We can make as much as we want (hydrogen will work too, and it burns SUPER clean). My uncle has has a propane running farm truck since the 80s. Letting some real engineers (not enviro science whackos or save the whale types) have a go at the problem can produce outstanding results. We CAN produce goods that use less energy or fuel and alternate fuels/energy sources. The problem is that R&D has failures even under ideal circumstances. Under "far less than ideal" circumstances where grants are given to buddies instead of qualified researchers, or if the grants are given with a pre-set agenda (global warming research, etc) then results are sketchy. So, cutting all green R&D is bad. Putting someone with some sense in charge of it is good. Its just like anything else, really: put an idealist with a liberal arts degree in charge of engineering and you get a horrible mess. As for windmills: when the wind stops, you have a capacitor. We know how to store electricity, whether in a battery or whatever. You store it and use on demand, produce when you can. I think windmills are fail currently, sure, but someday, who knows? Covering the planet in 1 kilowatt producing windmills in a bunch of "wind farms" is idiotic. But if some egghead has a breakthru and can get 10 megawatts out of one windmill, .... that will be a game changer.

I was gonna say... ^^^^^^^ they split up years ago and are not allowed to play the old songs due to some lawsuit or other.

I would say that firing the guy would indeed fix stupid.

I do believe that if a seller decides it looks like a straw purchase they can elect to not sell it but am not 100% sure what the exact rules are here. However they cannot refuse due to it being too much for the person, or held wrong, or any of that. Its the typical bad clerk issue. Lots and lots of gun clerks have a serious hangup about female shooters and discourage them in every possible way, patronize them, and are generally completely sexist about it. A lot of shooters do too, they see a woman with a gun and try to "correct" or "help" her when they would have let a male alone. Then people wonder why their wives do not care to shoot, and they have to sneak gun purchases around the wife, etc.

great choice! I would clean the cylinder if you shot many 38s, it can make sticky that the 357s will expand into and create difficult extraction.

exactly. Up to a point, of course. I personally dislike powder compression, so up to that point, fatter is better. But, fatter costs more, all powder is about the same price and using twice as much = twice the cost. Just depends on what you want. Also if the burn rate is too slow, it may perform poorly even if consistent.... just gotta pick and choose with a dash of trial and error thrown in.

I advise a case filling powder. .25 grains out of a 3.5 grain load of wai2hot powder is getting close to 10% variation! .25 grains of a 7 grain load of wai2wimpy powder is half the variation in every load. Of course a $$$$ scale can eliminate this issue but every measuring device has error, and that error is fixed (volume or mass in this case). Using a fatter powder always makes that error less of the total and the loads more consistent. You can put all the shots in a 1 inch group at 25 with a .45 1911 target pistol, fired from a bench rest.

I feel it is important to RED both of those.

All the clinton ban really in practice did was triple the value of magazines that held more than 10 rounds. There never really seemed to be any shortage of guns of any type here in TN. I remember paying $50+ for a 15 round mag for a common pistol. I remember the same tables and tables of AR and AK rifles for sale at shows, so if the actual guns were banned and grandfathered in there were pleny of them (not sure about the prices though).

What I meant by slip is I do not think he planned to be so bold on the subject right before the election. I think he wanted to attack Mitt so much that the opportunity to point out this flip flop got the better of his common sense and usual desire to duck the subject.... this will throw stir the pot, but I am really not sure what the effect will be .... anti gunners happy, sure, but we know who they were voting for. Pro gunners, sure, but they knew the score too. The guy with 1 pistol bought after 911 and not so sure even at this late date.... hard to say how such folks will feel. Going after handguns... is a bold move.... AR aside.

Obama lets it slip early, before the election, I am surprised he admitted this ahead of time. http://abcnews.go.co...lt-weapons-ban/ While the news harps on the AR side, he is after handguns as well, if you read his quotes.

try another brand of ammo, and if that one does it too, I dunno.... I have no idea what could be wrong in a gun to cause this?!

I have only shot a p22 a few times, and no one I know has tried to make one a serious target pistol. I have no idea what the potential of this pistol might be, but no one uses them in the sport, even beginners, and there is probably a reason. The ruger, its easy to get target grips designed for 1h shooting, and quality trigger jobs are drop in parts, and they take an optic easily as well. The aftermarket is one of the big reasons you hear the ruger ruger ruger chant for the introductory pistol. A few use buckmarks or S&W 22a guns. A common theme here seems to be a fixed barrel, SAO trigger, and aftermarket options, along with modest to low cost. I would go out on a limb here and say 'no' as an educated guess, but if you can hit the target with it, go for it! Here is 20 shots with my ruger at 10 yards, 1 hand. It has a red dot sight and trigger job. I cannot even get close to this with my 1911. Its one of my best targets to date, a very good day.

its .22 and 45, no one actually shoots centerfire in anything but 45 to keep from having to have 3 guns. most shooters make their own .45 ammo and buy .22 that ranges from cheap to about what 9mm costs (for the pro stuff). I do not even know if anyone MAKES target grade .45. Lot of the guns have various reduced springs for ligher loads, so target ammo need to be tailored for the specific gun. You can shoot it casually / locally with a ruger 22 and any 1911. Some clubs just do the .22 and some do both. Some shooters only do the .22 at the full matches. It varies. You have a 1911 so you just need a target .22, so you could play at it for $500 or less. If you get serious, throw in $300 more for a couple of red dot sights. If you get pro, new guns for $2-3k each is where the sport starts to really eat your wallet. From scratch, $2500 would get you a 1911, a 22, and 2 red dots + a little gunsmithing like target grips or a 1911 bushing fit or something minor. Which is plenty for doing it casually. If you skimp on the 1911 you could reduce that by 300+

its possible to be off the backstop but that is quite a distance for it. Possibly from another shooter who hit something?? It also looks like a JHP not a FMJ. But its hard to guess. My wife got hit by most of a .45 a couple of months ago -- guy shot the target frame and it came back to her lane hit in the hip. It did not have any energy by then, it did not even bruise her thru her jeans, thankfully. The range took steps to make the target frame much more difficult to hit. At a friend's outdoor range, I stoopidly hit a steel with a 454 (at 20+ yards) and a frag cut a guy on the shoulder, not serious but would have done a number on an eye (we stopped hitting steel with big stuff, I was not thinking when I did it as it was hung and had "give" to it in the swing on its chain). So, um, be careful and try to figure this out. Tell the range officer about it --- the range folks usually want to know if metal is flying back at the shooters hard enough to punch paper at a couple of yards from the firing lane...!!!

You might like to try your hand at conventional pistol competition. Gets expensive if you take it seriously, but plenty of casual shooters have fun with modest equipment.

To break up like that, your bullets have to be hitting something substantial.... the target frame, the ground in front of the target, or shooting at non-paper targets, or something ???? It could be hitting a backstop and ricochet back as well (??). If that is happening from shooting straight into paper with a distant or soft backstop, then something odd is going on... paper should not be enough to deform a jacket, let alone frag a bullet. Anyway, normal depends on what you are actually doing, its pretty normal for a hard backstop to fragment a bullet and bounch frags around. You should, by the way, not shoot handguns at hard targets that are closer than 10 yards for this reason!!!

The current problems belong to Obama, but Bush made a fair number of major mistakes. Its not propaganda or wrong to say that. We could not afford his wars. His bailout set precedence and was just as wrong as Obama's bailouts. The patriot act is downright scary --- the slightest pretext and you are out of the system, with no due process. Hammed up the so-called tax surplus (which it was not, as we were still in debt at the time) to enable tax cuts that, while I approve of them, are not helping reduce debt (if you cut taxes, you gotta cut spending too --- basic math here). I liked bush and feel he was a few billion times better than gore would have been. But IMHO he screwed up multiple times. Can't blame him for the last 4 years of epic failure, that is just stupidity, but neither can we claim his record was some outstanding example of doing it right either.