| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<va23o0$3chus$3@dont-email.me> 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: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: cyclists attack auto driver Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:55:28 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 169 Message-ID: <va23o0$3chus$3@dont-email.me> 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> <tnq8cjd26q686281q3kmkmbok4gkj9u2j7@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 14:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="34be8109e974c6dddd86e2d0f90e8943"; logging-data="3557340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7JmKbq5SgS+uVefurXXNu" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CZfJlneMw28QRDayX8y5TGuY6kk= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <tnq8cjd26q686281q3kmkmbok4gkj9u2j7@4ax.com> Bytes: 9002 On 8/20/2024 6:09 AM, John B. wrote: > 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 :-( > My double action rimmed cartridge revolver fires no faster and no slower than my M1911. -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971