| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<tnq8cjd26q686281q3kmkmbok4gkj9u2j7@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: cyclists attack auto driver Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 18:09:40 +0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 165 Message-ID: <tnq8cjd26q686281q3kmkmbok4gkj9u2j7@4ax.com> References: <v9p1b4$1kr20$4@dont-email.me> <r7m2cjtbv5ukduqa852b1o87o9pfh97o8n@4ax.com> <v9tf33$2fm0s$4@dont-email.me> <4pk4cjh6lokkmah8hu0dfqu0gq99akff7l@4ax.com> <v9u4bv$2is2s$3@dont-email.me> <nns5cjhvfa23vbjhongnv94u0bs1ags6tl@4ax.com> <gj06cj1kimofmc8u9kt250diqmchn1pf2d@4ax.com> <v9voo7$2tip9$4@dont-email.me> <omp6cj9hm1c9bh8l5a9dee0ps37siiqoa0@4ax.com> <bhn7cjldbqvv58f67m3pbo1fcvjdbphser@4ax.com> <va0tks$3793q$4@dont-email.me> <s3o8cjdesesc2mgr60t2t9rdjqrv12m2l8@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:09:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cb3166073051783b98a2cc59c5a88f06"; logging-data="3538431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rlJ+lsjEE/qzAcL0BFoF3jL4mGcIdxaQ=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ouNjauFdcuXnBJyLX/UfvfzdliQ= Bytes: 8494 On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 05:23:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:05:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski ><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>On 8/19/2024 8:50 PM, John B. wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:46:24 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:35:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/19/2024 6:27 AM, John B. wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 03:42:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:41:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/18/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:38:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 11:37 PM, John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But as I've mentioned a number of times my family has had guns for at >>>>>>>>>>> least 4 generations, as close as I can calculate 300 years or so, and >>>>>>>>>>> never shot anyone. Why does Frankie want to penalize us? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My bet is that your family had guns for hunting and pest control. My bet >>>>>>>>>> is also that your family never owned a gun that could fire more than, >>>>>>>>>> say, six rounds in a minute. After all, that capability is essentially >>>>>>>>>> useless for almost all hunting. But it is "useful" if you intend to kill >>>>>>>>>> a roomful of kids, or church attendees. That is the gun style's >>>>>>>>>> significant detriment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As you _should_ be able to remember, I'm firmly in favor of hunting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's nonsense. My dad's old Winchester model 69 (1930s) had an eight >>>>>>>>> round mag. My Colt Woodsman had a ten round mag. That didn't count the >>>>>>>>> one in the pipe. Counting that, put all the Wichester model 94s at 7 >>>>>>>>> rds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know those guns exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No you don't. You never heard of them until I mentioned them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm betting John's family didn't have them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You obviously have no idea how many hunters have had a Winchester 94. >>>>>>> I had one years ago. The one I had was a carbine and only had a 6 rd >>>>>>> mag. The model 94 rifle produced today has an 8 rd mag. The 94 stands >>>>>>> for 1894, by the way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> while I may be wrong, it's certain that the earliest family members he >>>>>>>> bragged about did not have them, but probably still hunted successfully. >>>>>>>> A competent hunter doesn't need even six quick shots. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <LOL> As if you'd know anything about competent hunting. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I really can't figure where Frankie is gets his ideas and I can only >>>>>> assume that like Tom, just makes then up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Above he writes, "also that your family never owned a gun that could >>>>>> fire more than, say, six rounds in a minute." >>>>>> >>>>>> As I've said a number of times my father had a hunting rifle built on >>>>>> a Springfield army rifle base. 5 round magazine and one up the spout >>>>>> is 6 and I could, with no problems at all fire 6 rounds in a minute >>>>>> and if you want to talk about pistols I'm sure that you can fire your >>>>>> Colt Woodman even faster. >>>> >>>> I could probably get all 11 rds off in a couple of seconds, but I >>>> don't think I ever tried. Walking through the gardens, pastures and >>>> cornfields shooting gophers, it was handy not having to stop and >>>> reload. >>>> >>>>> Ah, John! First, please note that I said "MORE than 6 rounds in a >>>>> minute." You gave _one_ example of _one_ gun your father had, but it did >>>>> not shoot _more_ than 6 in a minute. So, thanks for confirming my guess! >>>>> >>>>> And as I said, that capability is essentially useless for hunting. I'm >>>>> betting you (or your father) never blasted six quick shots at an animal >>>>> while hunting with that rifle. >>>> >>>> Krygowski dishonest strawman alert. >>>> >>>>> You could, of course, tell us some of your hunting tales, and let us >>>>> know details of how you actually _used_ those guns. But I suspect you >>>>> won't, because they'll describe one or two careful shots, not a rapid >>>>> blast of shooting. >>>> >>>> Another Krygowski dishonest strawman alert. >>> >>> Note that Frankie says "You gave _one_ example of _one_ gun your >>> father had, but it did not shoot _more_ than 6 in a minute." >>> >>> While I actually wrote, "I could, with no problems at all fire 6 >>> rounds in a minute". >> >>Good grief. Do you not understand the meaning of "more than"? That was >>the phrase I used. >> >>> >>> And then he goes on to ignore the British army reference... >> >>Because I was talking about the guns _your family_ owned. How can you be >>so confused about the matter under discussion? And again, firing that >>many rounds that fast is useless in any normal hunting situation. >> >>Since you're talking about your family's hunting gun use, why not tell >>us how many times you shot six rounds within a minute to kill game? > >Another Krygowski strawman.... Does the term adroit come to mind here, as in Frankie is adroit at changing the terms to justify his ignorance? The original of this 6 rounds in 1 minute discussion was Frankie seeming assertion that 6 rounds a minute was probably all that was possible with common fire arms I replied pointing out that an old army rifle converted to a hunting rice was certainly capable of that rate of fire and adding a British rifleman's test for rounds on the 300 yard target fired in one minute with a bolt action rifle Frankie now starts talking about hunting, a total change of subject (required in an attempt to avoid the fact that Frankie really doesn't know what he is talking about). Reality has it that quite a number of guns that Frankie has yet to condemn are capable of firing at rates far above the 6 rounds a minute and most of this proof is freely available on the web. For example: Jerry Miculek- World record 8 shots in 1 second . Ed McGiven - September 13, 1932, shooting five rounds in 2/5 of a second. While I've never tested one I suspect that all "automatic pistols". actually "semi-automatic" can fire faster then that as the rate depends solely on how fast the shooter can pull the trigger. I hesitate to use my own experience but way back when I was shooting regularly I was invited to shoot in a Maine State Police "police match" and one of the courses of fire was 6 rounds , reload and 6 more at a target 10 yards away in 1 minute and I had no problem doing it with a Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol. (Most of the Cops, with their revolvers, were faster then I was :-) In short we have here a person who doesn't know what he is talking about and when that pointed out runs about trying to justify his stupidity. Another Tommy, one might say :-( -- Cheers, John B.