OTL Poseur or nincompoop: I'll leave the choice to you.

[Alan Baker]

'Staunch gun rights advocate Ted Cruz is here seen holding a shotgun
while being interviewed by CNN. Can you see what he’s doing wrong?
That’s right, he’s violating the first two rules of gun safety.

When you learn to shoot, apply for a hunting or carry license and any
time you’re at a gun range, there’s four basic rules of gun safety that
— and this is impressed on you very strongly — must be observed at all
times:

Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
Never point a firearm at something you’re not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Properly observed, these rules are almost entirely capable of preventing
accidental shootings. And I can’t emphasize how thoroughly they are
drilled into shooters both as they’re learning and as they visit any gun
range, gun store or participate in any organized hunt.

I asked local hunter and media personality Scott Nathan to explain what
he sees in this video:

“While his action is visibly open, he is still not in control of muzzle
direction. In a break-action gun [as Cruz is carrying here] the muzzle
should always point down.”
You can see buildings and people in the background — presumably other
hunters — being swept by Cruz’s muzzle as he speaks.'

<http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/hey-ted-cruz-youre-holding-your-gun-backwards-1740325931>

'“He’s either a poser who doesn’t really hunt, or just a blindingly
dangerous nincompoop,” concludes Scott. “He’s got moves like Cheney.”'

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> <http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/hey-ted-cruz-youre-holding-your-gun-backwards-1740325931>
>
>
> '“He’s either a poser who doesn’t really hunt, or just a blindingly
> dangerous nincompoop,” concludes Scott. “He’s got moves like Cheney.”'

From another dumbfuck who doesn't know shit about guns. Bbbbbut I'm not
a troll. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! SUCK IT PIPSQUEAK!

[Alan Baker]

Actually, the quote was from a lifetime NRA member...

...and he's completely right.

And if you meant me, personally, Pussy-boy: I started with firearms when
I was about 8, and did a stint in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 11/3/15 4:04 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/hey-ted-cruz-youre-holding-your-gun-backwards-1740325931>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> '“He’s either a poser who doesn’t really hunt, or just a blindingly
>>> dangerous nincompoop,” concludes Scott. “He’s got moves like Cheney.”'
>>
>> From another dumbfuck who doesn't know shit about guns. Bbbbbut I'm not
>> a troll. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! SUCK IT PIPSQUEAK!
>>
>
> Actually, the quote was from a lifetime NRA member...
>
> ...and he's completely right.

No. He isn't.

>
> And if you meant me, personally, Pussy-boy: I started with firearms when
> I was about 8, and did a stint in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves.
>
> :-)

And yet, you still don't know shit about it.

[awool...@gmail.com]

IT suffers from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

And this was just another troll attempt by a stupid fuck trol, with too much time on IT'S hands.

The defining phrase from the dumb little shits link is; "While his action is visibly open"

As any shooter worth his salt knows, if the action is open, it can't fire.

Ignore the stupid Cunt.

[MNMikeW]

The DC from BC also obviously has never handled a over-under shotgun and
has never shot birds/trap/skeet.

The video shows he DOES NOT have his finger on the trigger.
There is NOBODY behind him.
The action is CLEARLY open.
And holding a over-under shotgun in this method is perfectly fine. Now
if there were people directly behind him, then he should be holding it,
action open in his arms.

This so-called "expert" is nothing of the sort. And I also bet he is NOT
an NRA member and is just your typical, run of the mill fucked in the
head liberal tool much like Baker.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/4/15 7:20 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 11/3/15 4:04 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/hey-ted-cruz-youre-holding-your-gun-backwards-1740325931>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> '“He’s either a poser who doesn’t really hunt, or just a blindingly
>>>> dangerous nincompoop,” concludes Scott. “He’s got moves like Cheney.”'
>>>
>>> From another dumbfuck who doesn't know shit about guns. Bbbbbut I'm not
>>> a troll. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! SUCK IT PIPSQUEAK!
>>>
>>
>> Actually, the quote was from a lifetime NRA member...
>>
>> ...and he's completely right.
>
> No. He isn't.

In what way was he wrong?

>>
>> And if you meant me, personally, Pussy-boy: I started with firearms when
>> I was about 8, and did a stint in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves.
>>
>> :-)
> And yet, you still don't know shit about it.

Says the man who never actual makes any point...

[Alan Baker]

And no one said he did.

> There is NOBODY behind him.

There clearly ARE buildings and vehicles behind him. How can you
possibly know for certain that there aren't people there? At times in
the video, the muzzle swings to his left as he turns and faces more to
the right and it's pointing in a direction you can't even see in the
video. How do you know there is "NOBODY" in a direction you can't even see?

> The action is CLEARLY open.

It most definitely is open.

And you still always point the muzzle of a firearm in a safe direction.

> And holding a over-under shotgun in this method is perfectly fine. Now
> if there were people directly behind him, then he should be holding it,
> action open in his arms.
>

And yet you can tell for certain that the buildings behind him have no
people in them?

> This so-called "expert" is nothing of the sort. And I also bet he is NOT
> an NRA member and is just your typical, run of the mill fucked in the
> head liberal tool much like Baker.

LOL

I guess these guys are just "liberal tools" too:

'1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the
gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause
injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or
front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates
the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.'

<http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx>


Oops.

Cruz is pointing the muzzle in a direction where he is not looking. He
cannot KNOW that that is a safe direction unless he is on an island out
in the middle of the ocean all by himself.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> LOL
>
> I guess these guys are just "liberal tools" too:
>
> '1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
>
> This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the
> gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause
> injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or
> front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates
> the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.'
>
> <http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx>
>
>
> Oops.
>
> Cruz is pointing the muzzle in a direction where he is not looking. He
> cannot KNOW that that is a safe direction unless he is on an island out
> in the middle of the ocean all by himself.

LOL!!!!! You keep having a cow over nothing little man. Your desperation
to be relevant is showing.

"Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different

circumstances." Which in this case, where there were people in front of
him, he was holding it correctly.

But you rave on cunt-boy and dazzle us with your bullshit.

[Alan Baker]

So you think the only other possible option to holding the gun with the
muzzle pointed parallel to the ground and towards buildings and vehicles
is to point it directly forward and parallel to the ground?

What about holding it with the muzzle pointed at the ground immediately
to the front and right of him? There were clearly no people there.

What about not grandstanding by putting the shotgun down back in its case?

The point is that he was holding it in a direction where:

1. He couldn't see precisely WHAT it might have been pointing at as he
swung it around.

2. There were clearly buildings and vehicles in the area through which
the muzzle was traversing. Where there are buildings and vehicles, there
are usually.... ...people.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/4/15 9:02 AM, MNMikeW wrote:

Really?

Take a look at this second video:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8WqjFok0U>

Check out what happens 5 seconds in.

I assume you've heard of Jeff Cooper. The rules quoted are his and here
is a more complete version of rule 2:

'RULE 2

NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY

You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that
you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow
a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should
always be treated as such.'

<http://myweb.cebridge.net/mkeithr/Jeff/jeff6.pdf>

So there he is: sweeping the muzzle back and forth...

...ACROSS PEOPLE STANDING DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM.

BTW: this is when you usually cut and run, Pussy-boy.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

> 'RULE 2
>
> NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
>
> You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that
> you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow
> a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should
> always be treated as such.'
>
> <http://myweb.cebridge.net/mkeithr/Jeff/jeff6.pdf>
>
> So there he is: sweeping the muzzle back and forth...
>
> ...ACROSS PEOPLE STANDING DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM.
>
> BTW: this is when you usually cut and run, Pussy-boy.

Ohhh, so now there is a , cough, 2nd video is there, lol!!!!!! Keep
grasping wee man.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> 2. There were clearly buildings and vehicles in the area through which
> the muzzle was traversing. Where there are buildings and vehicles, there
> are usually.... ...people.
>
>>
>> But you rave on cunt-boy and dazzle us with your bullshit.
>>
>

Another point is the ACTION IS OPEN AND EMPTY. One you seem to ignore.
Again, rave on about nothing as usual cockbreath.

[Alan Baker]

There is most definitely a second video...

...but it is immediately obvious to everyone why you don't want to admit it.

And why you carefully snipped out all reference to it.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8WqjFok0U>

What's your theory on this: someone forged this?

Someone hacked the Tea Party YouTube page and put up this video?

Your reply was you cutting and running... ...literally.

Way to go, Pussy-boy. Bravo.

[Alan Baker]

I agreed the action was open, Pussy-boy.

"> The action is CLEARLY open.

It most definitely is open.

And you still always point the muzzle of a firearm in a safe direction."

You read that and replied to it.

You snipped it out of your reply, but that's par for your course, isn't
it, Pussy-boy?

:-)

[MNMikeW]

My reader makes me snip stuff as I have mentioned numerous times. But
continue to rave on about NOTHING. Much like your NOTHING life. Amazing
what you nutless liberals get outraged about.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

> You snipped it out of your reply, but that's par for your course, isn't
> it, Pussy-boy?
>
> :-)

I snip a lot of stuff candy ass mommas boy. Get used to it.

[Alan Baker]

Riiiiiiight.

And your "reader" makes the choices about what to snip and how to reply
to content you've then altered, as well, does it, Pussy-boy?

DEAL WITH THE FACTS.

You claim that there was "NOBODY" behind him was bullshit. It was
bullshit when you made it, but now it is SHOWN to be bullshit.

[Alan Baker]

I AM used to it, Pussy-boy: it's the coward's way.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Not at all douchey one. I snip until it lets me send. If I happen to
snip stuff you don't like. Please feel free to go fuck yourself. God
knows no woman would.

>
> DEAL WITH THE FACTS.
>
> You claim that there was "NOBODY" behind him was bullshit. It was
> bullshit when you made it, but now it is SHOWN to be bullshit.

This entire thread is bullshit. Started by the king of bullshit.
Continue to rave on though if it makes you feel important.

[Alan Baker]

Riiiiiight.

>>
>> DEAL WITH THE FACTS.
>>
>> You claim that there was "NOBODY" behind him was bullshit. It was
>> bullshit when you made it, but now it is SHOWN to be bullshit.
>
> This entire thread is bullshit. Started by the king of bullshit.
> Continue to rave on though if it makes you feel important.

Run away, Puss-boy!

[awool...@gmail.com]

Yeah, the DLS is ass backwards....yet again.

The DLS hasn't a clue about what IT'S babbling about, as usual.

Just trolling for attention to fill in all those empty hours. IT can only play with IT'Self for so long.

[awool...@gmail.com]

And you are the prime example of a coward,DLS.

A prime example of a keyboard warrior.

Too frightened to meet me at Sebring.

[MNMikeW]

awool...@gmail.com wrote:

>>
>> I AM used to it, Pussy-boy: it's the coward's way.
>
> And you are the prime example of a coward,DLS.
>
> A prime example of a keyboard warrior.
>
> Too frightened to meet me at Sebring.
>
>

Baker is the ultimate poseur.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[awool...@gmail.com]

And, the ultimate nincompoop.

Too bad the things IT excels at are all negative.

[Nashton]

There goes the moron with the snipping argument, always a sign that he's
cornered. You're sickening, always were, liar.

[Nashton]

No family, no kids, a GF that lives thousands of miles away. What's
there not to love and be proud of? The joy of seeing my grand daughter
(there is another grand child in the oven :) ) beats everything one can
ever experience. He'll never know that. Sad

[Alan Baker]

I was simply factually correct:

Mike claimed I ignored the fact that action was open, despite having
read my previous post where I explicitly acknowledged that fact.

But what do you know about firearms safety, Nicolas?

[Alan Baker]

On 11/14/15 6:20 AM, Nashton wrote:
> On 2015-11-05 2:01 PM, awool...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> awool...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I AM used to it, Pussy-boy: it's the coward's way.
>>>>
>>>> And you are the prime example of a coward,DLS.
>>>>
>>>> A prime example of a keyboard warrior.
>>>>
>>>> Too frightened to meet me at Sebring.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Baker is the ultimate poseur.
>>
>> And, the ultimate nincompoop.
>>
>> Too bad the things IT excels at are all negative.
>>
>
> No family,

Mother, step-father, two brothers and their wives, one niece, dozens of
cousins and their kids...

> no kids, a GF that lives thousands of miles away.

Yup. I wouldn't trade her for everything you have.

> What's
> there not to love and be proud of? The joy of seeing my grand daughter
> (there is another grand child in the oven :) ) beats everything one can
> ever experience. He'll never know that. Sad

I will probably never know that...

...but if I had to be you in order to experience it...

...no thanks. I couldn't live with myself if I had no integrity.

:-)

[awool...@gmail.com]

Lying again Liar-Boy? Or fooling yourself. You have zero integrity.

The world would be better off if you were dead.

[awool...@gmail.com]

Oh Right!!! You are a "small arms expert" today.

And yesterday you were a "Tube Draw Expert" and 'Nuclear Industry expert".

So many non talents....how do you manage that, Luzer?

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

MNMike writes:
> Another point is the ACTION IS OPEN AND EMPTY. One
> you seem to ignore.

It is another safety measure, but do feel free to cite a credible
source such as the NRA that clearly states that when the action
has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
if its loaded' rule/etc.

It would be handy to have this citation so that we can see
about getting relaxed some local safety requirements from
the current 'Pointing + Open/Cleared + Chamber Flag' level
of redundancy.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

"Expert"?

Only compared to someone who doesn't understand the ironclad rule that
you don't point the muzzle at anything you don't want to shoot.

:-)

[awool...@gmail.com]

OK, so you admit you're not. A first, but a start in the right direction.

I have an engagement. Play with yourself.

Hopefully Snit will come around and kick you head in some more.....if you haven't bored him into a coma, and fill in some of your empty hours..

[Alan Baker]

LOL

Compared to you, I'd bet I am.

I did receive a fair amount of arms training while in the Canadian Armed
Forces Reserves.

:-)

>

[awool...@gmail.com]

You would lose, Luzer.

>
> I did receive a fair amount of arms training while in the Canadian Armed
> Forces Reserves.

Golly!!! Lots of know nothing assholes such as you, have had, "military training".

Did you keep your eyes shut tight when you pulled the trigger.

If you're ever in NY, ping me. I'll take you to a range. We can shoot one of my rifles offhand....your choice.

The loser pays the winner......$5K. Should make it interesting.

Now, unless you have a date....STFU. Your Bullshit babblings are just that, bullshit babblings.


:-)

[Alan Baker]

Sign pics or they don't exist.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

-hh wrote:

> MNMikeW writes:
> > Another point is the ACTION IS OPEN AND EMPTY. One
> > you seem to ignore.
>
> It is another safety measure, but do feel free to cite a credible
> source such as the NRA that clearly states that when the action
> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
> if its loaded' rule/etc.

"Bump".

[Alan Baker]

On 11/16/15 11:55 AM, recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> MNMikeW writes:
>>> Another point is the ACTION IS OPEN AND EMPTY. One
>>> you seem to ignore.
>>
>> It is another safety measure, but do feel free to cite a credible
>> source such as the NRA that clearly states that when the action
>> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
>> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
>> if its loaded' rule/etc.
>
> "Bump".

Weird, huh?

Mike has so much to say...

[me]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:2Lo2y.44764$ij2....@fx08.iad...

Well, I see how this is going.

I post pics, you say the rifles belong to someone other than me.
Then you make a new demand.
And another.
We've been down this road before, you Dumb Little Shit.
Why not make it easy and just say "NO", Luzer?

ROTFLMAO

[Alan Baker]

So they don't exist...

> Then you make a new demand.
> And another.
> We've been down this road before, you Dumb Little Shit.

Really? When have you ever posted anything to back up one of your claims?

[MNMikeW]

Talking guns to idiots such as you and HH is a waste of time.

[awool...@gmail.com]

You're getting desperate now, Asshole.

[awool...@gmail.com]

Upon reflection, I posed proof via a pic. that I was selling Pystar computers.

You had a dozen answers as to why I really wasn't.


I posed a vid of v$3K in currency, which you then claimed was counterfeit.

And that....was and will be....the last "Proof" I ever submit to a lowlife scumbag such as you.


To post a pic., to an epic Scumbag like you, who will discount it anyway, is a no win. And unlike you, I am a winner.

Three times shy, Asshole.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

What is your background in firearms, Mike?

Amaze us.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Alan Baker]

Did you really?

Let's see the link.

>
> You had a dozen answers as to why I really wasn't.
>
>
> I posed a vid of v$3K in currency, which you then claimed was counterfeit.

Let's see the link...

>
> And that....was and will be....the last "Proof" I ever submit to a lowlife scumbag such as you.

And we'll never see the links!

>
>
> To post a pic., to an epic Scumbag like you, who will discount it anyway, is a no win. And unlike you, I am a winner.
>
> Three times shy, Asshole.
>

LOL

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Thanks for that reply Mike: it means you no longer have any excuse of
not having seen the post.

And since historically (see the Camp Perry thread from 2013 as an example) you
lose these OT discussions, its quite understandable that you consider them to be
'not fun' and as such a 'waste of time'. As such, I'll not call what you said to be
a lie, but rather, its close to an admission of truth as your ego will allow.


-hh

[awool...@gmail.com]

What part of; "And that....was and will be....the last "Proof" I ever submit to a lowlife scumbag such as you.", didn't you understand, Asshole?


And, what part of; "To post a pic., to an epic Scumbag like you, who will discount it anyway, is a no win. And unlike you, I am a winner.", didn't you understand, Asshole?

[MNMikeW]

I have been a competitive trap shooter for over 20 years with a 0
handicap. Not to mention avid hunter for over 30 years. I know a thing
or two about handling shotguns.

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:

>> Talking guns to idiots such as you and HH is a waste of time.
>
> Thanks for that reply Mike: it means you no longer have any excuse of
> not having seen the post.
>
> And since historically (see the Camp Perry thread from 2013 as an example) you
> lose these OT discussions, its quite understandable that you consider them to be
> 'not fun' and as such a 'waste of time'. As such, I'll not call what you said to be
> a lie, but rather, its close to an admission of truth as your ego will allow.
>
>
> -hh

BWHAHAHAHA! A baker wonder twin.

[awool...@gmail.com]

What is your background in being an asshole, Asshole?

I would also ask you to "amaze us", but a DLS such as you is incapable.

[awool...@gmail.com]

Nothing to say, but compelled to say anything.

LOL

[Alan Baker]

What part of "if you actually had the hand, you'd like nothing better to
show it" don't you get?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[awool...@gmail.com]

Still projecting, Luzer?

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 9:54:09 AM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 11/16/15 2:06 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:

> >>> -hh wrote:
> >>>> -hh wrote:
> >>>>> MNMikeW writes:
> >>>>>> Another point is the ACTION IS OPEN AND EMPTY. One
> >>>>>> you seem to ignore.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is another safety measure, but do feel free to cite a credible
> >>>>> source such as the NRA that clearly states that when the action
> >>>>> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
> >>>>> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
> >>>>> if its loaded' rule/etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Bump".
> >>>
> >>> Weird, huh?
> >>>
> >>> Mike has so much to say...
> >>>
> >> Talking guns to idiots such as you and HH is a waste of time.
> >
> > LOL
> > What is your background in firearms, Mike?
> > Amaze us.
>
> I have been a competitive trap shooter for over 20 years with a 0
> handicap. Not to mention avid hunter for over 30 years. I know a thing
> or two about handling shotguns.

Experienced? The same was said about Dick Cheney too:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident>
<http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/02/15/3749/cheney-drinking/>
<http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1159061,00.html>
<http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010819>

And you've still not cited a credible source such as the NRA that
clearly states that which you claimed, namely that when the action

has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
if its loaded' rule/etc.

-hh

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

MNMikeW wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>
> >> Talking guns to idiots such as you and HH is a waste of time.
> >
> > Thanks for that reply Mike: it means you no longer have any excuse of
> > not having seen the post.
> >
> > And since historically (see the Camp Perry thread from 2013 as
> > an example) you lose these OT discussions, its quite understandable
> > that you consider them to be 'not fun' and as such a 'waste of time'.
> > As such, I'll not call what you said to be a lie, but rather, its

> > [as] close to an admission of truth as your ego will allow.

>
> BWHAHAHAHA! A baker wonder twin.

So sayeth a buuba from the Dick Cheney school of firearms safety...?

In any case, such prairie chicken strutting is precisely why I
wasn't really interested in mere opinion, but had asked for your
claim to have been substantiated by citation to a credible
source such as the NRA. One that clearly states that when the
action has merely been cleared that it then becomes perfectly
acceptable to go point the gun around at people/not maintain

muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as if it

is loaded' rule/etc.

Come through successfully and I'll check to see if I still have
some empty brass for ya, if you're interested (I know that I used
to have a couple hundred once-fired 12ga Remington AA's, but can't
recall if I gave them away or not)...with the local Trap & Skeet
ranges closed down due to environmental, I'd just assume have
someone else get some use out of the stuff.

-hh

[MNMikeW]

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident>
> <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/02/15/3749/cheney-drinking/>
> <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1159061,00.html>
> <http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010819>
>
> And you've still not cited a credible source such as the NRA that
> clearly states that which you claimed, namely that when the action
> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
> if its loaded' rule/etc.
>
>
> -hh

He was NOT pointing it at people dumbass.

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:

>
> Come through successfully and I'll check to see if I still have
> some empty brass for ya, if you're interested (I know that I used
> to have a couple hundred once-fired 12ga Remington AA's, but can't

> recall if I gave them away or not)...with the local Trap& Skeet

> ranges closed down due to environmental, I'd just assume have
> someone else get some use out of the stuff.
>
> -hh

They are referred to as hulls, not brass. And it is Winchester who makes
AA's, not Remington. Guess we know who the poseur is.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

> He was NOT pointing it at people dumbass.

He wasn't controlling its pointing and there's definitely buildings
designed for occupancy clearly visible within range. It counts.

Besides, that carry style is simply downright sloppy. Far smarter
to have it rest broken over the elbow IMO.


-hh

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

MNMikeW wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> > Come through successfully and I'll check to see if I still have
> > some empty brass for ya, if you're interested (I know that I used
> > to have a couple hundred once-fired 12ga Remington AA's, but can't
> > recall if I gave them away or not)...with the local Trap& Skeet
> > ranges closed down due to environmental, I'd just assume have
> > someone else get some use out of the stuff.
>

> They are referred to as hulls, not brass.

Perhaps in your region, but locally with the guys I used to
shoot with, it was all called 'brass' regardless of if it was
composed of brass, plastic or aluminum.

> And it is Winchester who makes AA's, not Remington.

Ah, I think you're correct. My bad.

> Guess we know who the poseur is.

Weak. The industry's been through quite a bit of change
over the years, including ownerships and who has which
contract for what plant, such that there's not any good
reason to bother to keep close track of it unless it has
some direct impact on daily life...which it doesn't.
Even so, if I still do have that stuff around, I known that
I'm not going to be reloading it anytime soon so I should
really just get rid of it on general housecleaning principles.
Ditto on some other stuff: found some old stuff including
a "tri-tround" the other day. Know any collectors who would
want to buy one? PITA to demil.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Yes. He very much was...

...as a second video...

...THAT YOU WERE ALREADY SHOWN...

...proved.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/17/15 2:17 PM, recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident>
>>> <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/02/15/3749/cheney-drinking/>
>>> <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1159061,00.html>
>>> <http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010819>
>>>
>>> And you've still not cited a credible source such as the NRA that
>>> clearly states that which you claimed, namely that when the action
>>> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
>>> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
>>> if its loaded' rule/etc.
>>
>> He was NOT pointing it at people dumbass.
>
> He wasn't controlling its pointing and there's definitely buildings
> designed for occupancy clearly visible within range. It counts.

It was far worse than some buildings in the distance...

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8WqjFok0U>

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident>
>>> <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/02/15/3749/cheney-drinking/>
>>> <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1159061,00.html>
>>> <http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010819>
>>>
>>> And you've still not cited a credible source such as the NRA that
>>> clearly states that which you claimed, namely that when the action
>>> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
>>> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
>>> if its loaded' rule/etc.
>>
>> He was NOT pointing it at people dumbass.
>
> He wasn't controlling its pointing and there's definitely buildings
> designed for occupancy clearly visible within range. It counts.

Within range you say? How far do you figure they are away?

>
> Besides, that carry style is simply downright sloppy. Far smarter
> to have it rest broken over the elbow IMO.
>

That is a perfectly acceptable method of carrying an over/under. Just
like Cruz was doing as well. You can also carry it with the barrel
forward and stock over shoulder. But then he would have had the barrel
pointing at the reporters feet wouldn't he?

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> MNMikeW wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> Come through successfully and I'll check to see if I still have
>>> some empty brass for ya, if you're interested (I know that I used
>>> to have a couple hundred once-fired 12ga Remington AA's, but can't
>>> recall if I gave them away or not)...with the local Trap& Skeet
>>> ranges closed down due to environmental, I'd just assume have
>>> someone else get some use out of the stuff.
>>
>> They are referred to as hulls, not brass.
>
> Perhaps in your region, but locally with the guys I used to
> shoot with, it was all called 'brass' regardless of if it was
> composed of brass, plastic or aluminum.

In the industry, they are referred to as hulls. The guys you used to
shoot with are about as knowledgeable as you it appears.

>
>> And it is Winchester who makes AA's, not Remington.
>
> Ah, I think you're correct. My bad.
>
>> Guess we know who the poseur is.
>
> Weak. The industry's been through quite a bit of change
> over the years, including ownerships and who has which
> contract for what plant, such that there's not any good
> reason to bother to keep close track of it unless it has
> some direct impact on daily life...which it doesn't.
> Even so, if I still do have that stuff around, I known that
> I'm not going to be reloading it anytime soon so I should
> really just get rid of it on general housecleaning principles.
> Ditto on some other stuff: found some old stuff including
> a "tri-tround" the other day. Know any collectors who would
> want to buy one? PITA to demil.

With the price of metals these days (lead or steel). Reloading for trap
does not make a lot of sense unless you REALLY enjoy reloading. You can
literately buy a case of Federal Top Guns for less than the price to
reload them. Was not the case a decade ago.

My shotshell reloader has quite a bit of dust on it.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/17/15 3:34 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident>
>>>> <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/02/15/3749/cheney-drinking/>
>>>> <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1159061,00.html>
>>>> <http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010819>
>>>>
>>>> And you've still not cited a credible source such as the NRA that
>>>> clearly states that which you claimed, namely that when the action
>>>> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
>>>> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
>>>> if its loaded' rule/etc.
>>>
>>> He was NOT pointing it at people dumbass.
>>
>> He wasn't controlling its pointing and there's definitely buildings
>> designed for occupancy clearly visible within range. It counts.
>
> Within range you say? How far do you figure they are away?

From 8 to about 20 feet behind him:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8WqjFok0U>

It's in the first 5 seconds of the video, so it should really strain you
that much to look.

>>
>> Besides, that carry style is simply downright sloppy. Far smarter
>> to have it rest broken over the elbow IMO.
>>
>
> That is a perfectly acceptable method of carrying an over/under. Just
> like Cruz was doing as well. You can also carry it with the barrel
> forward and stock over shoulder. But then he would have had the barrel
> pointing at the reporters feet wouldn't he?

No. Because if you have the barrel in your field of vision, you can
point it away from anything inappropriate.

>
>
>

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

MNMikeW wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> > MNMikeW wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>> Come through successfully and I'll check to see if I still have
> >>> some empty brass for ya, if you're interested (I know that I used
> >>> to have a couple hundred once-fired 12ga Remington AA's, but can't

> >>> recall if I gave them away or not)...with the local Trap & Skeet

> >>> ranges closed down due to environmental, I'd just assume have
> >>> someone else get some use out of the stuff.
> >>
> >> They are referred to as hulls, not brass.
> >
> > Perhaps in your region, but locally with the guys I used to
> > shoot with, it was all called 'brass' regardless of if it
> > was composed of brass, plastic or aluminum.
>
> In the industry, they are referred to as hulls.

Merely a niche term from just the shotshell part of the industry,
but which proves nothing about what terms have been commonly used
within the larger small arms industry as a whole (eg, all calibers).

You're free to try to pedantically make a big deal about it, but
all you're really doing is advertising that you're a small fish
in an even smaller pond.

> The guys you used to shoot with are about as knowledgeable as you it appears.

<http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2012/coin+X.jpg>

> >> And it is Winchester who makes AA's, not Remington.
> >
> > Ah, I think you're correct. My bad.
> >
> >> Guess we know who the poseur is.
> >
> > Weak. The industry's been through quite a bit of change
> > over the years, including ownerships and who has which
> > contract for what plant, such that there's not any good
> > reason to bother to keep close track of it unless it has
> > some direct impact on daily life...which it doesn't.
> > Even so, if I still do have that stuff around, I known that
> > I'm not going to be reloading it anytime soon so I should
> > really just get rid of it on general housecleaning principles.
> > Ditto on some other stuff: found some old stuff including
> > a "tri-tround" the other day. Know any collectors who would
> > want to buy one? PITA to demil.
>
> With the price of metals these days (lead or steel). Reloading for trap
> does not make a lot of sense unless you REALLY enjoy reloading. You can
> literately buy a case of Federal Top Guns for less than the price to
> reload them. Was not the case a decade ago.
>
> My shotshell reloader has quite a bit of dust on it.

No, it doesn't. Prices went up during the war ramp-up and jitters,
but escalated to stupid crazy with all of the "Obama is going to..."
kook rants which lead to shortages which drove the panic higher.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Baker wonder twin wrote:

>>
>> In the industry, they are referred to as hulls.
>
> Merely a niche term from just the shotshell part of the industry,
> but which proves nothing about what terms have been commonly used
> within the larger small arms industry as a whole (eg, all calibers).

It's NOT a niche term dumbass. YOU calling them "brass" is a niche term.

>
> You're free to try to pedantically make a big deal about it, but
> all you're really doing is advertising that you're a small fish
> in an even smaller pond.

Calling them brass shows you are a poseur.

I'm guessing your have never reloaded any type of cartridge or shotshell.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

MNMikeW wrote:
> Baker wonder twin wrote:

Lame namecalling: as per Bell's Law, a sure sign that the
poster has lost the debate on its own merits.

> >> In the industry, they are referred to as hulls.
> >
> > Merely a niche term from just the shotshell part of the industry,
> > but which proves nothing about what terms have been commonly used
> > within the larger small arms industry as a whole (eg, all calibers).
>
> It's NOT a niche term dumbass. YOU calling them "brass" is a niche term.

Are .223 cases called "hulls"? Are .308s? Or Caliber .50? Rimfire?
9mm? .45 ACP? Any pistol caliber for that matter, or centerfire rifle?
Nope, nope, nope. The facts of the matter are that the world of small
arms encompasses a lot more breadth than merely shotgun shells.

> > You're free to try to pedantically make a big deal about it, but
> > all you're really doing is advertising that you're a small fish
> > in an even smaller pond.
>
> Calling them brass shows you are a poseur.

Calling them anything other than a case is pedantically incorrect,
yet well-rounded people recognized that alternative and slang terms
for many such items do exist. Another example is that classical
small caliber dispersion tests are called "accuracy" even though
they're actually (pedantically) a dispersion test method. Similarly,
a lot of bubba shooters try to impress their buddies on how good
their gun supposedly is by firing 3 or 5 shot groups and measuring
extreme spreads without any understanding of statistics, particularly
as applied by Grubbs.

> >> The guys you used to shoot with are about as knowledgeable
> >> as you it appears.
> >
> > <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2012/coin+X.jpg>

Golly, silence from Mike. Dare one point out that the
implications are of this that Mike apparently doesn't even
know enough about the overall industry to even understand
how it disproves his claim?

> >>>> And it is Winchester who makes AA's, not Remington.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, I think you're correct. My bad.
> >>>
> >>>> Guess we know who the poseur is.
> >>>
> >>> Weak. The industry's been through quite a bit of change
> >>> over the years, including ownerships and who has which
> >>> contract for what plant, such that there's not any good
> >>> reason to bother to keep close track of it unless it has
> >>> some direct impact on daily life...which it doesn't.
> >>> Even so, if I still do have that stuff around, I known that
> >>> I'm not going to be reloading it anytime soon so I should
> >>> really just get rid of it on general housecleaning principles.
> >>> Ditto on some other stuff: found some old stuff including
> >>> a "tri-tround" the other day. Know any collectors who would
> >>> want to buy one? PITA to demil.
> >>
> >> With the price of metals these days (lead or steel). Reloading for trap
> >> does not make a lot of sense unless you REALLY enjoy reloading. You can
> >> literately buy a case of Federal Top Guns for less than the price to
> >> reload them. Was not the case a decade ago.
> >>
> >> My shotshell reloader has quite a bit of dust on it.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Prices went up during the war ramp-up and jitters,
> > but escalated to stupid crazy with all of the "Obama is going to..."
> > kook rants which lead to shortages which drove the panic higher.
>

> I'm guessing your have never reloaded any type of cartridge or shotshell.

Golly, how ironic it is that Mike "guesses", despite having just read
a prior post which offered to give away some old reloading supplies.


-hh

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:41:25 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 11/17/15 3:34 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> > recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident>
> >>>> <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/02/15/3749/cheney-drinking/>
> >>>> <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1159061,00.html>
> >>>> <http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010819>
> >>>>
> >>>> And you've still not cited a credible source such as the NRA that
> >>>> clearly states that which you claimed, namely that when the action
> >>>> has been cleared that it is then ok to point the gun at people/not
> >>>> maintain muzzle control/can now ignore the 'always treat a gun as
> >>>> if its loaded' rule/etc.
> >>>
> >>> He was NOT pointing it at people dumbass.
> >>
> >> He wasn't controlling its pointing and there's definitely buildings
> >> designed for occupancy clearly visible within range. It counts.
> >
> > Within range you say? How far do you figure they are away?
>
> From 8 to about 20 feet behind him:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8WqjFok0U>

That's the second video that I was also looking for; thanks.

> It's in the first 5 seconds of the video, so it should really strain you
> that much to look.

Which is so close that the barrel choke isn't even relevant to range.

> >> Besides, that carry style is simply downright sloppy. Far smarter
> >> to have it rest broken over the elbow IMO.
> >>
> >
> > That is a perfectly acceptable method of carrying an over/under. Just
> > like Cruz was doing as well. You can also carry it with the barrel
> > forward and stock over shoulder. But then he would have had the barrel
> > pointing at the reporters feet wouldn't he?
>
> No. Because if you have the barrel in your field of vision, you can
> point it away from anything inappropriate.

Which is why the 'broken over forearm' is the smarter carry: its
barrel is (a) definitively pointed down and (b) within the holder's
normal field of view.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> MNMikeW wrote:
>> Baker wonder twin wrote:
>
> Lame namecalling: as per Bell's Law, a sure sign that the
> poster has lost the debate on its own merits.
>
>>>> In the industry, they are referred to as hulls.
>>>
>>> Merely a niche term from just the shotshell part of the industry,
>>> but which proves nothing about what terms have been commonly used
>>> within the larger small arms industry as a whole (eg, all calibers).
>>
>> It's NOT a niche term dumbass. YOU calling them "brass" is a niche term.
>
> Are .223 cases called "hulls"? Are .308s? Or Caliber .50? Rimfire?
> 9mm? .45 ACP? Any pistol caliber for that matter, or centerfire rifle?
> Nope, nope, nope. The facts of the matter are that the world of small
> arms encompasses a lot more breadth than merely shotgun shells.

Jesus Christ you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about firearms. You
should stick to scuba and STFU.

>
>>> You're free to try to pedantically make a big deal about it, but
>>> all you're really doing is advertising that you're a small fish
>>> in an even smaller pond.
>>
>> Calling them brass shows you are a poseur.
>
> Calling them anything other than a case is pedantically incorrect,
> yet well-rounded people recognized that alternative and slang terms
> for many such items do exist. Another example is that classical
> small caliber dispersion tests are called "accuracy" even though
> they're actually (pedantically) a dispersion test method. Similarly,
> a lot of bubba shooters try to impress their buddies on how good
> their gun supposedly is by firing 3 or 5 shot groups and measuring
> extreme spreads without any understanding of statistics, particularly
> as applied by Grubbs.

More jibberish.

>
>
>>>> The guys you used to shoot with are about as knowledgeable
>>>> as you it appears.
>>>
>>> <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2012/coin+X.jpg>
>
>
> Golly, silence from Mike. Dare one point out that the
> implications are of this that Mike apparently doesn't even
> know enough about the overall industry to even understand
> how it disproves his claim?

My dog knows more about guns than you do.

Which means nothing. Have you ever reloaded shotshells or cartridges?
You offered up some once fired hulls, big deal. I can get those by the
truck load any day I wish at the club.

[John B.]

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 4:12:30 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> 'Staunch gun rights advocate Ted Cruz is here seen holding a shotgun
> while being interviewed by CNN. Can you see what he's doing wrong?
> That's right, he's violating the first two rules of gun safety.
>
> When you learn to shoot, apply for a hunting or carry license and any
> time you're at a gun range, there's four basic rules of gun safety that
> -- and this is impressed on you very strongly -- must be observed at all
> times:
>
> Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
> Never point a firearm at something you're not willing to destroy.
> Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
> Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
> Properly observed, these rules are almost entirely capable of preventing
> accidental shootings. And I can't emphasize how thoroughly they are
> drilled into shooters both as they're learning and as they visit any gun
> range, gun store or participate in any organized hunt.
>
> I asked local hunter and media personality Scott Nathan to explain what
> he sees in this video:
>
> "While his action is visibly open, he is still not in control of muzzle
> direction. In a break-action gun [as Cruz is carrying here] the muzzle
> should always point down."
> You can see buildings and people in the background -- presumably other
> hunters -- being swept by Cruz's muzzle as he speaks.'
>
> <http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/hey-ted-cruz-youre-holding-your-gun-backwards-1740325931>
>
> '"He's either a poser who doesn't really hunt, or just a blindingly
> dangerous nincompoop," concludes Scott. "He's got moves like Cheney."'

As for rule no. 2 above, I've never intended to destroy the ground
or the sky.

I was in Israel once a long time ago and the Israeli soldiers,
who are everywhere, treated their loaded M-16s as if they were
squirt guns. They paid no attention to where they pointed them. I was
sitting in a cafe in Jerusalem and a soldier sat down at the next table
and laid his rifle across his lap so that it was pointing directly at me.
I said, "would you mind not pointing that at me?" and he looked at
me as if I were crazy.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/18/15 9:18 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
>> MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Baker wonder twin wrote:
>>
>> Lame namecalling: as per Bell's Law, a sure sign that the
>> poster has lost the debate on its own merits.
>>
>>>>> In the industry, they are referred to as hulls.
>>>>
>>>> Merely a niche term from just the shotshell part of the industry,
>>>> but which proves nothing about what terms have been commonly used
>>>> within the larger small arms industry as a whole (eg, all calibers).
>>>
>>> It's NOT a niche term dumbass. YOU calling them "brass" is a niche term.
>>
>> Are .223 cases called "hulls"? Are .308s? Or Caliber .50? Rimfire?
>> 9mm? .45 ACP? Any pistol caliber for that matter, or centerfire rifle?
>> Nope, nope, nope. The facts of the matter are that the world of small
>> arms encompasses a lot more breadth than merely shotgun shells.
>
> Jesus Christ you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about firearms. You
> should stick to scuba and STFU.

Hilarious!

>>
>>>> You're free to try to pedantically make a big deal about it, but
>>>> all you're really doing is advertising that you're a small fish
>>>> in an even smaller pond.
>>>
>>> Calling them brass shows you are a poseur.
>>
>> Calling them anything other than a case is pedantically incorrect,
>> yet well-rounded people recognized that alternative and slang terms
>> for many such items do exist. Another example is that classical
>> small caliber dispersion tests are called "accuracy" even though
>> they're actually (pedantically) a dispersion test method. Similarly,
>> a lot of bubba shooters try to impress their buddies on how good
>> their gun supposedly is by firing 3 or 5 shot groups and measuring
>> extreme spreads without any understanding of statistics, particularly
>> as applied by Grubbs.
>
> More jibberish.
>>
>>
>>>>> The guys you used to shoot with are about as knowledgeable
>>>>> as you it appears.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2012/coin+X.jpg>
>>
>>
>> Golly, silence from Mike. Dare one point out that the
>> implications are of this that Mike apparently doesn't even
>> know enough about the overall industry to even understand
>> how it disproves his claim?
>
> My dog knows more about guns than you do.

If you weren't such a jerk, you'd have some idea by now of what HH's day
job is...

...but blooking out stuff like that makes you look HILARIOUS.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Alan the cunt Baker wrote:

>>> Golly, silence from Mike. Dare one point out that the
>>> implications are of this that Mike apparently doesn't even
>>> know enough about the overall industry to even understand
>>> how it disproves his claim?
>>
>> My dog knows more about guns than you do.
>
> If you weren't such a jerk, you'd have some idea by now of what HH's day
> job is...
>
> ...but blooking out stuff like that makes you look HILARIOUS.
>
> :-)
>
>

Day job? LOL!!!!!! Probably a lot like yours. What is blooking?

[Alan Baker]

Indeed: "day job". It's an expression.

You might want to take a look at the JPG he posted and ask yourself
where he got it.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Garage sale probably.

[Alan Baker]

Hilarious!

Dude, I'm trying to help you here.

[MNMikeW]

So, how many supposed 50 year olds use the word "dude"? I know you are
the family failure but isn't it time to start to mature just a little?

[Alan Baker]

You go right ahead and focus on my term of address...

...and keep making yourself look foolish about a long time poster and
what he knows about armaments.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Alan the cunt Baker wrote:

>>>
>>> Dude, I'm trying to help you here.
>>
>> So, how many supposed 50 year olds use the word "dude"? I know you are
>> the family failure but isn't it time to start to mature just a little?
>>
>>
>
> You go right ahead and focus on my term of address...
>
> ...and keep making yourself look foolish about a long time poster and
> what he knows about armaments.
>
> :-)

He has proven what he knows about armaments. Very little. Just like you.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Seriously: do a little checking, see if you can figure it out.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

LOL!

[Alan Baker]

Double-down, Mike!

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Alan Baker wrote:
> MNMikeW wrote:

> > Alan wrote:
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >> You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> >> Seriously: do a little checking, see if you can figure it out.
> >> :-)
> >
> > LOL!
>
> Double-down, Mike!

Oh, I'll be kind throw poor Mike a bone. When I said:

"Another example is that classical
small caliber dispersion tests are called "accuracy" even though
they're actually (pedantically) a dispersion test method. Similarly,
a lot of bubba shooters try to impress their buddies on how good
their gun supposedly is by firing 3 or 5 shot groups and measuring
extreme spreads without any understanding of statistics, particularly
as applied by Grubbs.

Here's the 'Grubbs' that this statement was referring to:

<http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-measures-accuracy-riflemen-engineers/dp/B0006RA7ZA>

BTW, this listing is for the 2nd Edition, which differs from
the first edition.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Whatsamatter cunt? Dont like your own bullshit thrown back at you?

[MNMikeW]

baker wonder twin wrote:

>
> Oh, I'll be kind throw poor Mike a bone. When I said:
>
> "Another example is that classical
> small caliber dispersion tests are called "accuracy" even though
> they're actually (pedantically) a dispersion test method. Similarly,
> a lot of bubba shooters try to impress their buddies on how good
> their gun supposedly is by firing 3 or 5 shot groups and measuring
> extreme spreads without any understanding of statistics, particularly
> as applied by Grubbs.
>
> Here's the 'Grubbs' that this statement was referring to:
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-measures-accuracy-riflemen-engineers/dp/B0006RA7ZA>
>
> BTW, this listing is for the 2nd Edition, which differs from
> the first edition.
>
>
> -hh

More meaningless jibberish.

[Alan Baker]

No, pussy. I'm finding you utterly hilarious!

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Actually, both his original comments and that it seems like he may have
read that book suggest to me that perhaps you should do a little
checking before you dig yourself in deeper.

[MNMikeW]

Alan the cunt Baker wrote:

>>

>> More meaningless jibberish.
>
> Actually, both his original comments and that it seems like he may have
> read that book suggest to me that perhaps you should do a little
> checking before you dig yourself in deeper.

dig deeper, LOLOLOL!!!!!! you wonder twins are something.

[Alan Baker]

I simply know a little about HH you don't, and I'm trying hard to let
you know that perhaps you should learn a little before you draw
conclusions about how much he might know about armaments in general and
small arms in particular.

I'm getting considerable amusement from you continuing to avoid it, so
my all means: make yourself look an even bigger fool.

:-)

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Using actual statistics is commonly called "jibberish" by the
macho gunner bubba's ... but Grubbs is actually pretty easy to
use once one has been shown how. IIRC, there is a copy out
on Google Books for interested readers to follow along.

For example, to statistically compare an n=3 Extreme Spread
group to an n=5 ES, use Table 6 (either edition) and look up
the 'Mean Value' metrics for both n=3 and n=5. These values
are 2.406 and 3.066 respectively.

At this point, it is ES(n=3) = (2.406/3.066)*ES(n=5), which is
ES(n=3) = 0.785*ES(n=5).

Applying, when Mike brags that his 2.75" three shot group is
better than Alan's 3.25" five shot group ... Mike is wrong,
because that 2.75" ES group is actually statistically equivalent
to a (2.75)(3.066/2.406) = 3.504" ES five shot group ...

Or if you prefer, the 3.25" ES five shot group is equivalent
to a 2.55" ES three shot group.

Similarly, an n=10 target such as is very commonly used in
US military lot acceptance testing, the acceptance is usually
a metric of Mean Radius, which if you want to know what the ES
would statistically have been on that same target, Mean Values
from Tables 5 & 6 are used, namely 1.189 and 3.805, which works
out to be to multiply the MR by 3.200 to get the ES.

But do note that this is an ES(n=10), not a five shot target.
Fortunately, all the information needed to perform a statistical
conversion to a five shot target has already been provided, which
is now left as an exercise for readers to actually demonstrate to
the group that they know how to apply this in ballistics.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Alan the wonder twin cunt Baker wrote:

>
> I simply know a little about HH you don't,

You two should get a room.

>
> I'm getting considerable amusement from you continuing to avoid it, so
> my all means: make yourself look an even bigger fool.
>
> :-)

You have no other life outside of usenet. Not surprising.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/18/15 3:43 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan the wonder twin cunt Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> I simply know a little about HH you don't,
>
> You two should get a room.

Awww... so cute!

>
>>
>> I'm getting considerable amusement from you continuing to avoid it, so
>> my all means: make yourself look an even bigger fool.
>>
>> :-)
>
> You have no other life outside of usenet. Not surprising.

Seriously? You're here... ...answering as you are, and /I/ have no life?

LOL

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:

>
> For example, to statistically compare an n=3 Extreme Spread
> group to an n=5 ES, use Table 6 (either edition) and look up
> the 'Mean Value' metrics for both n=3 and n=5. These values
> are 2.406 and 3.066 respectively.
>
> At this point, it is ES(n=3) = (2.406/3.066)*ES(n=5), which is
> ES(n=3) = 0.785*ES(n=5).
>
> Applying, when Mike brags that his 2.75" three shot group is
> better than Alan's 3.25" five shot group ... Mike is wrong,
> because that 2.75" ES group is actually statistically equivalent
> to a (2.75)(3.066/2.406) = 3.504" ES five shot group ...
>
> Or if you prefer, the 3.25" ES five shot group is equivalent
> to a 2.55" ES three shot group.
>
> Similarly, an n=10 target such as is very commonly used in
> US military lot acceptance testing, the acceptance is usually
> a metric of Mean Radius, which if you want to know what the ES
> would statistically have been on that same target, Mean Values

> from Tables 5& 6 are used, namely 1.189 and 3.805, which works

> out to be to multiply the MR by 3.200 to get the ES.
>
> But do note that this is an ES(n=10), not a five shot target.
> Fortunately, all the information needed to perform a statistical
> conversion to a five shot target has already been provided, which
> is now left as an exercise for readers to actually demonstrate to
> the group that they know how to apply this in ballistics.
>
>
> -hh

And what exactly does this have to do with reloading dumbass? Again, you
can spew your statistical bs all day, I know it impresses cunt-boy but I
could give a fuck. So loser, have you ever reloaded either shotshells
or cartridges?

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 6:47:07 PM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> >
> > For example, to statistically compare an n=3 Extreme Spread
> > group to an n=5 ES, use Table 6 (either edition) and look up
> > the 'Mean Value' metrics for both n=3 and n=5. These values
> > are 2.406 and 3.066 respectively.
> >
> > At this point, it is ES(n=3) = (2.406/3.066)*ES(n=5), which is
> > ES(n=3) = 0.785*ES(n=5).
> >
> > Applying, when Mike brags that his 2.75" three shot group is
> > better than Alan's 3.25" five shot group ... Mike is wrong,
> > because that 2.75" ES group is actually statistically equivalent
> > to a (2.75)(3.066/2.406) = 3.504" ES five shot group ...
> >
> > Or if you prefer, the 3.25" ES five shot group is equivalent
> > to a 2.55" ES three shot group.
> >
> > Similarly, an n=10 target such as is very commonly used in
> > US military lot acceptance testing, the acceptance is usually
> > a metric of Mean Radius, which if you want to know what the ES
> > would statistically have been on that same target, Mean Values
> > from Tables 5& 6 are used, namely 1.189 and 3.805, which works
> > out to be to multiply the MR by 3.200 to get the ES.
> >
> > But do note that this is an ES(n=10), not a five shot target.
> > Fortunately, all the information needed to perform a statistical
> > conversion to a five shot target has already been provided, which
> > is now left as an exercise for readers to actually demonstrate to
> > the group that they know how to apply this in ballistics.
>

> And what exactly does this have to do with reloading dumbass?

It disproved your broader claim...you've tried to lay it on thicker than
merely just handloads.

> Again, you can spew your statistical bs all day, I know it impresses cunt-boy
> but I could give a fuck.

Translation: Mike can't even hack doing this level of math in basic ballistics.

Oh, and here's another Easter Egg for you:
<http://www.huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/Grubbs>

> So loser, have you ever reloaded either shotshells or cartridges?

Perhaps you should have taken Alan's advice to do a little research before
you inserted your foot into your mouth. Perhaps if you would have done so,
you would have even found that the answer is most definitely yes, based on
my same day response to a braggart handloading post that you made back on
October 31, 2013. Do ya need the cite, Mike?


-hh

[MNMikeW]

2013? LOL!!!!!!! You no loads really need to get a fucking life. Of
course, you could have simply answered the question a few posts ago. Yet
your are of the baker school of "debate".

Let me guess, you also come to usenet to be an argumentive asshole just
to spare your friends like Baker has admitted to.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 9:39:00 AM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 6:47:07 PM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For example, to statistically compare an n=3 Extreme Spread
> >>> group to an n=5 ES, use Table 6 (either edition) and look up

> >>> the 'Mean Value' metrics ...

> >>
> >> And what exactly does this have to do with reloading dumbass?
> >
> > It disproved your broader claim...you've tried to lay it on
> > thicker than merely just handloads.
> >
> >> Again, you can spew your statistical bs all day, I know it
> >> impresses cunt-boy but I could give a fuck.
> >
> > Translation: Mike can't even hack doing this level of math
> > in basic ballistics.
> >
> > Oh, and here's another Easter Egg for you:
> > <http://www.huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/Grubbs>
> >
> >
> >> So loser, have you ever reloaded either shotshells or cartridges?
> >

> > ...the answer is most definitely yes...

Apparently, this wasn't clear enough for Mike to understand.

> > ... based on my same day response to a braggart handloading
> > post that you made back on October 31, 2013....
>
> 2013? LOL!!!!!!!

Indeed, a concrete object lesson to the free clue that you had
been graciously granted yesterday, namely to go do a little bit
of research to minimize your ignorance before running your mouth.

> ...you could have simply answered the question a few posts ago...

I prefer to give people a chance to recognize their errors by
giving them extra rope. Not my fault that Mike then used it to
hang himself with it.



> Let me guess...

Because *guessing* is all that Mike knows how to do; QED.


-hh

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

-hh wrote:
> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 9:39:00 AM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> > > MNMikeW wrote:
> > >> -hh wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> For example, to statistically compare an n=3 Extreme Spread
> > >>> group to an n=5 ES, use Table 6 (either edition) and look up
> > >>> the 'Mean Value' metrics ...
> > >>
> > >> And what exactly does this have to do with reloading dumbass?
> > >
> > > It disproved your broader claim...you've tried to lay it on
> > > thicker than merely just handloads.
> > >
> > >> Again, you can spew your statistical bs all day, I know it
> > >> impresses cunt-boy but I could give a fuck.
> > >
> > > Translation: Mike can't even hack doing this level of math
> > > in basic ballistics.
> > >
> > > Oh, and here's another Easter Egg for you:
> > > <http://www.huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/Grubbs>

Here's another:

<http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2004/france/FR_LTL_(DSCN4284).JPG>

If you have problems identifying, its an Alsetex Cougar; if memory
serves, the 40mm version (not 56mm). Payload was a BLINIZ...which
also has a funny payload development story that's worth two beers ;-)