HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hayes@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: RE:Shotgun amo sequence.other view.
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:48:15 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Wish to register disagreement with Barry concerning size and type of load,
particularly in view of his urban environment shooting parameters.  The 
type of load suggested could/would readily penetrate gyprock, most siding, etc
and raise potential danger to next door neighbor and her/his sleeping guard
dog.  Suggest that 12 gauge loaded with #2 or #4 shot as anit-personnel round
has in the environmental constraints of an indoor usage all the stopping
potential appropriate to task being discussed.  Controllable discharge of
20 gauge magnum using shot specified would meet most human target knock down
capacities even remotely possible.  As well, lowers threat potential to that
sleeping dog next door to much less than the near "anti-armor" capabilities
Barry is suggesting.  Prefer # 2 or #4 because of superior pattern and more
shot density. 
If you are in an semi-urban or rural situation Barry's remarks are pretty close
to right on, though I would argue for a rifle over a shot gun. 
Point I would make, according to an  RCMP (for your Southerners: Royal Canadian
Mounter Police) most home defence shots are made at very close range.  3 - 8
feet.  If that is the case, target acquisition comes from instinctive quick
point and shoot, which means if you are ever faced with the situation, the
amount of practice and target specification/acquisition practice you have
behind you may make the difference between shoot/no shoot, hit/no hit,
live/no live.
Blast on Barry!
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: AMT .380, Colt Mustang, or other?
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:11:35 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

moore@tc.fluke.COM (Matt Moore) writes:

#In article <1992Nov10.054607.10721@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

##So you got a gun you like.  There are lots of people who are happy
##using guns that can't be cocked with the trigger: 1911s, Mustangs, 
##Glocks, Firestars, etc etc.   If it's your gun, you're supposed to
##learn how it works.

# You are wrong about the Glock "safe action". It is best to think of the
#Glock as a "cocked and unlocked" single action automatic. With a round in
#the chamber, the Glock can always be fired by a 1/2", 5 lb or so pull of
#the trigger, and no external control exists to disable the firing

So I could take the safety off a 1911 and "shroud" the hammer and
it would be just the same in that regard.

I'm not saying the Glock is bad, but it is single action: the gun
cannot be cocked using the trigger.   

Jim Del Vecchio
From: tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Class III again
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:38:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


In article <199211041808.AA07031@cherokee.advtech.uswest.com>, kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
# 
# My question is that can I pay the $200 federal tax to the BATF and 
# get a permit to convert my rifle into a full auto or select fire one?
# If not, are there any legal ways to do that? Thanks.

Only if you also purchase an already-registered auto-sear. The 1986 changes
to the Title II weapons law prohibit new machineguns in civilian hands.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. Gerhard + Joe))
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Update RE: What handgun to buy?
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:06:37 GMT
Organization: Technical University Vienna, Dept. for Realtime Systems, AUSTRIA

se08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth Adam Eliot) writes in reply to another
article whose author is lost to me:
##4. I was advised to buy a S&W 586/686.
#Why do you need such a big frame gun.  A S&W 66 will save you some $ and
#still deliver performance.  Better yet, a Taurus 66 is even less
#expensive, and still high quality (it's comparable to the S&W 66)

I'd rather take the big frame gun for two reasons:

Firstly, gun mass dampens recoil.  For  recoil  management,  it's
the bigger the better (as long as you can tote it, of course).

Secondly, bigger frames  stand  up  to  full-power  magnum  loads
longer.  I was told by my local gun dealer that K-frame guns need
more maintenance than L-frame revolvers due to higher  mechanical
wear  by  magnum  loads.   Hence, in the long run, you might even
save $$ by shooting a revolver with a bigger frame.

-- 
| Holger Reusch                             |
| Technical University of Vienna, Austria <-+--- No kangaroos here,
| Dept. for Real-Time Systems               |    sorry!
| holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at                 |
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Pistol Grip On A Shotgun ( was: Re: Why are there no reliable semi-auto shotguns? )
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:18:06 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality

In article <199211090404.AA28009@cherokee.advtech.uswest.com> kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:

#(1) Is pistol grip a good idea on a shotgun?

I hate 'em. I think the only way to fire a shotgun (except at extreme close
range) is the way God intended--from the shoulder. Contrary to Hollywood
legend, a shotgun has to be aimed, and the only way to do that is with the
stock against your shoulder. Also, the recoil of a 12 gauge is more
difficult to control when firing from the hip--I find rapid fire _much_
more manageable when the gun is shoulder-fired. And if I _must_ fire from
the hip, I find it helpful to tuck the stock under my elbow, and press it
against my body--this helps steady my aim for followup shots. Obviously,
you can't do that with a pistol grip.

...

#(3) I understand it has a 3" chamber. Can it accept reliably smaller
#    size loads, such as 2 3/4" shells?

It should chamber any shell 3" or shorter. Whether it will function
reliably with them is another matter. I don't know.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Thi_Huynh@univel.COM (Thi Huynh)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Problem with the Berettas?
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:52:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuc.9211091805.AA01457

jstrait@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (strait jeffrey c) wrote:
# 
# Beretta has a limited one year warranty. They specifically warn
# against using +P and reloaded ammo.  So if you do that and crack
# the slide you are screwed.

Beretta only warns against using +P+ and reloaded ammo.

-tt
From: drj@dev-null.phys.psu.edu (Dan Jeuch)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Small autos for carry (was Re: I picked PPK/S over Mustang and 380 backup....)
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:25:31 GMT
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics

In article <17Vc02Ns2a8k01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> efk00@cd.amdahl.com (Eddie Kieger) writes:
#
#1) Must be double action
#2) Should be roughly thge same size as the guns previously mentioned 
#   (Mustang, 380 backup, etc.)
#3) MUST have a decent trigger pull.
#4) I would prefer a 9mm parabellum, but it must be .380ACP minimum.

As for point #4, I believe one of the smallest 9mm guns available is the
Firestar.  Personally, I've never fired it, and I think it's a bit heavy.
For carry, I prefer something light.  Anyway...

I bought my girlfriend a Walther PPK/S (stainless) because of a couple
reasons.  Partly was admittedly the name.  Another was that it WAS
stainless, and I want her to have as much of a care-free gun as 
possible... not that she doesn't know how to strip and clean it, but
it's nice to have stainless for her.  As for shooting it, she fires
fairly accurately, but I don't like two aspects.  The recoil spring is a bit
too strong, and the double-action pull sucks.  However, I got the gun
for $400, so I can't complain! :-)

About 2 weeks ago I decided my Taurus PT-99 was just a bit large to carry
on a regular basis, but I didn't want to drop caliber size.  I saw a Sig
P230 for sale for $409, and I couldn't pass it up.  The trigger pull must
be half that of the Walther for double-action, and a little lighter for
single-action.  It's also a lighter gun (I have the non-stainless) and
I can hit a soda can at 20m with two shots without sighting it in.  I'm
extremely impressed.  The lighter weight isn't a problem.  In fact, I
think it's a plus.  Your mileage may vary, tho.

IMHO, it's perfect for me.  If you get a chance, it's a definite must-try.

-Dan
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: AK-47 Question
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:29:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Nov13.045441.14434
Organization: Western Washington University

Panu.Kolju@lut.fi (Panu Kolju) writes:
#The bullet was designed to go through engine block according to the co-worker 
#who had it. I think the block must be made of aluminium if so...Nice test 
#anyhow. Shooting distance was about 2 meters. I wonder how steel bullet would

		2 meters??  sounds like coffin bait to me!
JD
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re:fun things to shoot at
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:47:23 GMT
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.

Pulled an interesting hollow-point expansion test over the weekend 
using Federal Nyclad 125 gr. HP .38 specials.  Not having any ballistic
gelatine handy, we filled up a half dozen 1-gallon plastic milk jugs with
water and set them in a row, then fired a single round into the end.

The slug mushroomed perfectly, rupturing the first jug and punching
neatly through the second, coming to rest in the third jug in line.
Considering the fact that the human body is supposed to be about 98% water,
I imagine that this is sufficient penetration to go all the way through,
but just barely.  Most of the energy definitely gets dumped on impact.

I tried the same test with a 158 gr. wadcutter, using the 3 remaining milk jugs;, 
the first shot blew the smithereens out of all 3 jugs, and the slug was lost.

(It really seemed like the wadcutters had more "oomph", but they were just
reloaded "range rounds", so I'll stick with the factory Nyclads for self-D,
at least for now.   Can't wait until Black Talon comes out in .357/.38 sp.)
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Sale Prices on Gun Safes
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:27:30 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov8.191938.12782@ncsu.edu> hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
# ...
[re: American Security Products safe]
#  For example the 6022 model (empty) is $411 with either of the
#8 or 18 gun interiors being $45.  The 6022 is a 275 lb safe,
#with a manipulation proof combination lock, 8 locking bolts on
                                             ^6
#the door, etc.

  The six bolts are each cylindrical pieces of steel, about 3/4" 
diameter which go behind a double thickness channel of the body.
# ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: les@ulysses.att.com (Leslie Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Springfield .45, and Unique
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:18:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

In article <9211061547.AA27853@rutgers.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
#One thing I did notice is that on some cases it dings the case mouth,
#but it was only with one brand (Remington 230gr FMJs).  I'm in love.

Most 1911's will dent cases if they aren't relieved at the back of the
ejection port on the slide.  Notice a sort of half-ellipse carved out
about 3/8" back of the port on many IPSC and "combat" modified 1911's
that also have beavertail grip safeties, etc.  I did mine with the ol'
Dremmel with a cylindrical stone about 1/2" in diameter.  The dents
I've seen aren't on the case mouth though, but about a 1/4" up from
the base.
--
  - Leslie Johnson  (les@ulysses.att.com) 1+908-582-5493
       "One Bell System - It Works"
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Springfield .45, and Unique
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:59:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: rutgers.9211061547.AA27853
Organization: Indiana University



Many thanks to those who answered my questions on the Llama .45.
Basically, the summary was that it was a good gun for plinking, and
target shooting, but was too unreliable for self-defense (I know, I
know, somewhere out there someone has a Llama that has never jammed
and feeds HPs like they were candy).  This in mind, I was in a local
gun store (I'm gonna miss going into a gun store in the future.
Sigh...) and had in mind to pick up a used Colt Officers model.  Well,
they had sold it that evening (and I had been there 2 days before!).
So, I traded my Llama (and a lot of cash) in on a Springfield 1911-A1.
Took it out yesterday and put about 100 rounds through it.  Very nice.
It has an 8rnd mag.  Sustained fire at 21' 9rnds, in about 7 seconds
put a grouping evenly distributed over about a 10" diameter circle.
It fed every HP I tried in it, and did not have a single feed problem.
One thing I did notice is that on some cases it dings the case mouth,
but it was only with one brand (Remington 230gr FMJs).  I'm in love.
The only problem now is that I still need a small gun for a back up
(that was why I was interested in the Colt.).  Seems kinda backwards
to carry a .45 to back up a 9mm, but hey, the more the merrier :-).

So, anything I need to know about the Springfield, and quirks, or past
histories?  Stories?


Also, thanks to all who responded to my Unique questions.  Basically
everyone said that the conversion tables are weighted low, which I
know.  Most other powders weigh .1-.2 gr less than the tables say, but
what there me was the fact that this load weighed a *lot* less.  The
best advice I got was to compare with a brand new can of Unique, which
I'll do and then report back here.

Bye all, happy shooting, and WRITE YOUR CONGRESSCRITTER.  Tell them
what you think of a misguided ban on "assault weapons".  Tell them how
you value you RKBA, which says that your rights to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.  Ask them if a ban on *any* type of weapons for
personal protection constitutes "infringement".  Ask him to instead to
support a ban on congresscritters who don't uphold the constitution.
	[MODERATOR:  Uhhhhh.  I generally don't mind long goodbyes, but
	 I think if anyone says 'goodbye' back like this then it should
	 be over in t.p.g.  (no matter how much we might agree with the
	 message.....)]


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: "Cooler Powders", Say what?
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:25:28 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Nov5.155632.22058@ra.msstate.edu> dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:
#If you have seen this month's American Rifleman, there is an article
#by Finn Aagaard on "cooler burning" nitrocotton powders from the UK.
#The idea is that these powders burn cooler while still pushing the
#bullet at the same velocity. This, we are told, will reduce barrel
#erosion. Now thermodynamics was never my strong suite, but I am having
#trouble understanding how a powder can burn "cooler" and still produce
#the same pressure and, hence, the same velocity. Mr. Aagaard's article
#did little, to put it mildly, to explain this or prove that it was
#true.
#

I believe Winchester has (at least in the past) referred to their
ball rifle powders (Win 680, 748, 760, 785) as "cooler burning".
The actual basis for this I don't recall offhand. I know it is a popular
belief that due to the granule shape, ball powders cause less
bore erosion that the extruded powders (such as the IMR series
like 3031, 4198, etc.). I've always been under the impression
that the extruded IMRs burn faster and hotter than the Winchester
(and clone) ball powders. I believe that the burning curve for
ball powders is supposed to be more gradual than for extruded
(although I really have no particular evidence for this
belief at hand at this moment). I'll look in my old Winchester powder 
catalogs (and other reference books) this evening if I remember and see 
if I can find the basis for my recollections.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Class III again
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:57:59 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

Thanks all who responded to my post.

In article <7898@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
#
#In article <199211041808.AA07031@cherokee.advtech.uswest.com>, kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
## 
## My question is that can I pay the $200 federal tax to the BATF and 
## get a permit to convert my rifle into a full auto or select fire one?
## If not, are there any legal ways to do that? Thanks.
#
#Only if you also purchase an already-registered auto-sear. The 1986 changes
#to the Title II weapons law prohibit new machineguns in civilian hands.

How much does an already-registered auto-sear cost? I would imagine
it will be hundreds, if not thousands, times higher than the auto-sear
cost itself. Two more questions follow:

(1) If I empty my checking account to purchase an already-register auto-sear
    and go through all the legal processes to transer the title ( is this
    the correct term? ) to me, will I have to pay such a high premium again to
    purchase a new one after the old auto-sear breaks?

(2) Am I expected to receive lots of trouble from the law enforcement people?
    Will my name appear in some sort of list? Is the rock-'n-roll fun worth 
    the troubles?

Happy, safe, and responsible shooting,
David
-- 
 K. David Lin, Ph.D.              | E-mail: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com  
 Communication Services Research  | Defend your life with style! -- Beretta
 U S WEST Advanced Technologies   | Disclaimer: Only personal opinions
From: mitcha@sail.labs.tek.com (Mitch Aigner)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: (null)
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:29:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: sail.9211130405.AA10529

OFFICIAL REC.GUNS BALLOT:
------------------------------------------------

1) Should the group remain moderated   Y/N?  Yes

2) Should "magnum" continue to do this Y/N?  Yes

------------------------------------------------

Arguments in Favor:

1) As a subscriber to several un-moderated newsgroups, I am always relieved
to spend a little time in the calm sanity of rec.guns, free from the @#$%^*,
angry tirades, loonies, and sensless net-debates that won't die.

2) In my opinion, the postings released to the net-world by this invisible
"magnum" character stick very closely to the agreed-upon charter, and the
personal comments he occasionally adds are brief, infrequent, and un-intrusive.
I believe that he has performed exceptionally this year, however my fiscal 
budget does not contain suffucient funds to give him a raise. Sorry.

General comments: Censorship is a difficult issue. While it is generally
viewed as a bad thing in this country, there are those rare exceptions where
it can be used constructively (see #1 above). But that's not the question
here. The question is "DO I AGREE to be censored in this particular case?".
Yes, I do,... and thank you very much for asking me. That was very polite,
civil, and democratic of you. Keep up the good work.

                                       mitcha@sail.labs.tek.com
.
From: sutin@helios.UCSC.EDU (Brian Sutin)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: LONG, rec.guns discussion
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:29:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.1dveknINNb0a
Organization: Lick Observatory UCSC

Please do not change the format of this group.  Rec.guns is the only group
I read with any volume at all which cantains so little garbage (with a
little help from a 100 line kill file) Besides, I enjoy the Moderator's
editorializing.

Brian Sutin				sutin@lick.ucsc.edu
Lick Observatory, UCSC			Santa Cruz, CA 95064
    Fred:   "May I rescue you?"
    Ginger: "No, thank you.  I prefer being in distress."
From: rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Dana Rigg)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: fun things to shoot at
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:48:03 GMT

Several people have already discussed the litter thing, so I won't rehash
it, I'll just add my vote to the "clean up after you shoot" crowd.

I use to shoot at plastic jugs filled with water, but I could never take
enough targets.  After one hit, the target is destroyed.  After 20 hits,
there are no more targets.

Yes, I have a solution!  I called a local bowling alley and asked what 
they do with their old bowling pins.  Those that look really nice they
will sometimes give to kids that are in childrens bowling leagues.  The
rest get pitched so the manager simply gave them to me (yes, for free!).

Advantages of pins over water jugs?  Smaller, lighter (than one gallon
of water), no mess, reusable.

Disadvantages?  They don't explode when hit with heavy loads.

Dana Rigg
Chandler, AZ.
rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: INFO WANTED: Automag III cal. 30M1
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:05:59 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

bbx!bbxrbk!russ@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Russ Kepler) writes:

##	Less power, more noise.

#Uhhh - it's not clear in your answer, but the .30 Carbine will have
#some 740 ft/lbs at the muzzle of a pistol vs. 550 ft/lbs for .357
#(averaging common .357 loads).  The .30 wins the energy race (and
#losing the "muzzle blast" race.)

I could be wrong, as I don't have pistols for either, but I think
that all things being equal, (same bullet wt. and barrel length),
the .357 beats .30 Carbine hands down any given pistol, revolver,
or rifle barrel length.

I don't have charts handy, so handloaders correct me.

Jim
From: tmoore@tinton.ccur.com (Tim Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: rec.guns digest SPECIAL EDITION
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:54:31 GMT

Mr. Moderator.

[please forward to r.g if you want since I am unable to transmit news at this
time] 

I think you are doing a fantastic job.  Im actually supprised that you take
the time to put in the effort that you do.  Mr. Klausner has a burr up his
butt for no reason apparent to me.   You get my vote easy.

Please carry on,  Tim
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Selling Home-loaded Ammo?
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:16:49 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


  I attended my first gunshow and was struck by the number of people
  selling home-loaded ammo.  I'm kind of curious about how easy or hard
  it is for someone to start selling ammo (or reloading services).

  Beyond the loading equipment and components, what are the minimum
  requirements for selling home-loaded ammo 1) at a gunshow or flea
  market 2) through the local classified ads 3) mail order 4) to gun
  dealers/shops and 5) retail?  Is there an FFL or something equivalent
  required?  Are there other considerations or problems? 
 
  How profitable is it?  For most people, I doubt that there is much 
  profit, but one guy I talked to claimed he sold about 100,000 rounds
  per month.  Is there a certain point where you have to start worrying
  about environmental protection regulations, manufacturing codes, sales
  tax, etc?
  ==

  Bob (bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu)