Search results

First off—can we agree the only way that anyone taking a shot at someone 25, 50, however many yards is because that person at a distance is shooting at them? Are those incoming bullets still deadly? Even if they aren’t aimed with skill, are you any less dead from a lucky hit than an aimed...

Just get a S&W 627/628 Pro or PC.

Bullet design has a lot more to do with reliable expansion than velocity. Modern JHP’s are designed for optimal expansion in a certain velocity “window”—usually +/- 10% of their listed velocity, to account for shorter or longer barrels than the test barrel. And the flutes have been around for...

There was also a reason the M1 Carbine was very popular with the troops; it was 2/3 the weight of the Garand. For a weapon that was supposed to be for support troops, etc…it sure was used a lot in front line fighting.

WW2 soldiers weren’t wearing 30-40 pounds of body armor, either. It’s the cumulative weight that’s the issue more than just the weight of the rifle.

Thread drift is inevitable. Embrace it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/11/oregon-police-portland-drugs-bag?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1aCblZTpJOhvvq5lIQQZ_f7OYiYXTKhZ0rkc7oiWKJWBmG3dF61UnjoB0_aem_8EjHeeBVTc5DneVz7bo81w Sweet, delicious irony.

If the ARC is the same as the Ruger ARX load that came out several years ago, I’ve actually done some (non scientific, admittedly) testing with them. As I recall, their main claim was that they would do good in flesh, but not overpenetrate through walls, due to their polymer/metal...

I tend to drop my 640 Pro in my coat/jacket pocket.

Can confirm.

They aren’t just gold—they’re gold lame'. I’ve seen the video. The horror. The horror.

No worries. I’ve worked a rotating shift for 20+ years, and am usually up for 24+ hours a couple of days a month. I’m used to it. I’ve learned that, usually, after 28-30 hours I “hit the wall” so to speak, and basically shut down for 8-10 hours. I feel that coming on. There are those times...

Looking for a “Got Wood?” joke, here, someplace…been up since 4:00 yesterday, though, so it’s eluding me.

Use what you shoot best. If you’re not required to qualify with what you plan on carrying…don’t see why you shouldn’t.

Regarding ballistic gel: The reason it is invalid as to the ammo manufacturers’ claims is because they (the manufacturers) are trying to say that the gel is measuring something it isn’t designed to do—that is, damage beyond the permanent cavity (what the bullet actually physically touches)...

Alright. That’s kinda sexxxy.

These bullets have been around for 10+ years. If they were as good as they claim, there’d be top-tier guys using them. They don’t. Those neat-o gel test? They ignore one very important, basic fact—that gel is only designed to test expansion/permanent cavity and penetration. These tests are...

I’ve said this before… I used to say there was no difference between, say, my Leupold VX3 and a Zeiss/Swarovski, etc… UntiI literally saw the difference. High end glass has clarity that lower end scopes just don’t have; even in bright daylight, the ability to see 1/2 inch zebra lines at 200...

I initially learned the Harries; now, I prefer the “syringe” technique…with the right light (I use a Z2 Combatlight with an upgraded LED head; 250lm, iirc?). Works for me.

I’ll just put my 10/22 with a Leupold VX3 3-9x50 away…