HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Revolver advice wanted
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:22:33 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9209101938.AA04789@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
#
#This time, I think what I want is a single-action revolver, stainless,
#with provision for a scope (maybe it can wait...but the gun can't).
#OK, so I'm a little kid in a candy store with a found quarter.)
#
#I might be tempted to go for the Freedom Arms .22, but it seems just
#a tad rich for me.
#
#More likely would be something in .357/.38, .44spl/.44mag, or .45LC.
#Like maybe from (he says, ducking) Ruger like a Redhawk or Bisley.

I'm partial to old Ruger Blackhawks. Not stainless, but an old model
Blackhawk in .44 or .45LC with a 7" barrel is one sweet gun. The
new ones with the transfer bar just don't feel right. The Redhawk is
an ok stainless double action .44, I have one, but it doesn't "feel" 
as good as the single action revolvers. Of course there's the excellent 
stainless Freedom Arms .454 Casull. I can recomend it highly. You can 
plink with .45LC loads, or really crank it up for some fun. Then there's 
the blue Smith Mod 25. That's a really smooth revolver in .45. Aside 
from Freedom Arms, I haven't found most stainless revolvers to be fun 
shooters. That's my primary criteria.

#I would be putting holes in paper most of the time, but occasional
#varminting might be allowed. I'm getting into handloading now, if
#that might affect anything.

I'd take a hard look at the TC Contender. That might make a better
paper puncher and varmint pistol. I have several from a scoped 
.22 Hornet to a Super 14 .30 Herrett. They're fun guns. With the
interchangeable barrels, you could have a large assortment of
calibers to experiment with for not too much money. For the 
experimentally minded handloader and wildcatter, the Contender
is an ideal vehicle.

Gary
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Supressors
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:11:56 GMT
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA

lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu (John Lobaugh) writes:
#I am a complete novice. Why would you want to own a silencer?

Perhaps for the same reason that automobiles and motorcycles have
mufflers?  If you have ever tried to run your car without a muffler
you'd notice how loud, unpleasant, and dangerous the noise is.  It
sounds like a jack-hammer on steroids.  This loud noise would quickly
cause hearing damage to the driver and any pedestrian that had
long-term exposure.  Anyone that had a house anywhere near roads that
carried muffler-less cars would be annoyed anytime that such a car
drove by.  Thats why for automobiles, at least, government regulations
mandate that this annoying and dangerous level of sound be controlled
via the expansion chamber and baffle arrangement we commonly call a
"muffler".

If you go to a range where someone is firing something bigger than a
.22, the first thing that you will notice is that there is a
*dangerous* level of sound at each shot.  The sound level is enough to
actually *feel* in you chest.  Many people claim that hearing damage
results even if one uses a single set of hearing protectors.  These
people will wear foam ear-canal plugs under a set of hard plastic "ear
muff" hearing protectors just to get adequate protection.  I'm fully
convinced that if OSHA were to regulate firearms, we'd all see a 100db
or lower limit on the noise.

The second sound problem is with noise pollution in the "far field".
If one has ever hiked or camped on a mountain *anywhere* near a range
knows what I mean.  There is a constant racket from folks popping off
rounds.  This sound carries quite a ways, and believe me, gets to be
quite annoying after a while (especially if someone *else* is having
the enjoyment of the shooting and one only gets to share in their
sound pollution.)  Again if any other agency than BATF were regulating
firearms, I'm sure there would be strict limits on how loud the noise
could be at a set distance from the range.

In short, I guess I'm more surprised that supressors aren't mandated
by law.

-wolfgang
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) decwrl!wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
From: jaf@a2.cim.cdc.com (James Foster x2197)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Buying fired brass
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:16:25 GMT

I was looking through Shotgun News and saw Widener's Reloading
add.  One section was labeled "Once-Fired Brass Fired Brass".
The prices ($14.75/1000 for 38spl.) seemed darn cheap.  Maybe
too cheap.  Does anyone have any input on what to expect from
this stuff?  Are we talking actually once fired brass here or
reloading company rejects where you can hardly read the headstamp, or
something in between?  Even if there was a 25% throwout rate on this 
stuff it would still only run about $20/1000.  For this I would be using
my favorite wimp load (2.6grn bullseye, 148 grn lwc) so I would be
going easy on the brass.

I would, however, also be looking at 9mm and .223 where I would think
that brass quality is more important.  These are a bit pricyer (is that
a word?) and are not quite as much of a discount off of new brass.  
In these calibers they offer either
military or commercial brass.  Which is "better" (or if you prefer, what
are advantages/disadvantages of each, other than having to set up the
primer pocket swager and make a run through the military brass)?  There is
no price difference on the 9mm but the .223 military (you can select 
either all LC 89 or a mix of IMI/TZZ - either of these have any advantages?) 
is half the price of the commercial (all winchester headstamp).

And lastly, where do most people get their brass? Buy new? Primed or 
unprimed? Range scrounging?  So far I have just bought inexpensive
factory ammo (I like the UMC stuff) and saved my cases, but I'd like
to get a larger brass supply so I can get a better payback from the
(minimal) effort required to change calibers on my press (a piggybacked
Rockchucker).


Thanks in advance,

Jim
From: pertinax@raley.gwinnett.COM (Pertinax)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hand-loads for defense (was Re: Occasional Dud in Glock 20)
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:46:22 GMT

ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:

# the threat. The conditions under which civilians are allowed
# to use deadly force are extremely limited. Only immediate fear of
# loss of life is grounds for use of deadly force. There is a large
# body of case law on what constitutes a *reasonable* person's grounds
# for immediate fear for his life. The acid test seems to be whether
# a *reasonable* person would see a viable way to flee rather than
# fight in a given situation.
# 
# Gary

I disagree.  I may be completely off base however.  But as I read section
16-3-24 of the Code of Georgia, one CAN threaten to use, and use (if
necessary) deadly force in other circumstances.  Section follows:


16-3-24.  Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

   (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat
or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or
other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a 
habitation or personal property:

      (1) Lawfully in his possession;

      (2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family;
or

      (3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to
          protect.

   (b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference
with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not
justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is
necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



Seems to me that "personal property" covers just about everything one would
want to use deadly force to protect.  Your car, your stereo, whatever.  On
the other hand, I AM NOT A LAWYER- NOR DO I PLAY ONE ON TV!  Do NOT base any
decisions on what I say!  Talk to a real lawyer.
From: ole@delab.sintef.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: pressure stamp
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:05:25 GMT
Organization: SINTEF DELAB, Trondheim, Norway.

Yes, you are on the right track. 700 Kp/cm^2 is most likely 700
Kiloponds per square centimeter. 1 kilopond is the weight of a 1 kilogram
mass. 1 atm is roughly 1 Kp/cm^2, so 700 Kp/cm^2 is indeed 700 atm.
Btw, the Kp/cm^2 is a commonly used unit here in Europe, even though
we really are supposed to use pascal/kilopascal.

For those who are really curious about the relationship between
Kp/cm^2, Pascal and atm. :

1 Kp/cm^2 = 1 Kg * g/ cm^2 = 1 Kg * (9.81 m/s^2) / (0.01 m)^2 =
(98100 Kg m / s^2)/m^2 = 98100 N/m^2 = 98100 Pascal ~ 100 Kilopascal

=> 700 Kp/cm^2 ~ 70000 Kilopascal ~ 700 atm.
From: p00056@psilink.com (Faustus)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Black Talon Bullets
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:58:40 GMT
Organization: Inferno

#DATE:   2 Sep 92 20:55:30 GMT
#FROM:   Kenneth D. Whitehead <kdw@icd.ab.com>
#
##I've personally seen the demos on these; they are impressive.  IMHO
##they will prove to be more effective than other jhp's as "stoppers"
##and will change the Marshall statistics after a few years of field
##use results.  They expand into a wide jagged projectile and would leave
##a real mess for a surgeon to repair - if possible.
#
#Well, it sounds like the Black Talons should work, but...
#
#What happens when you dust a bad guy and the prosecutor finds out about this
#b-a-a-a-d ammo you've been using?  Wouldn't you find yourself in the same
#potential fix as the guy who used special handloads?


Rather be judged by tweleve than carried by six...
Faustus
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Mossberg 500 vs Rem 8
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:53:08 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1992Sep10.235725.7049@latcs1.lat.oz.au> jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:

}If a high rate of fire is important, I once saw a hunter with a semi-auto
}(I think) 'Beneli' (spell?) shoot 5 shots in 2 seconds. (which I think was
}the capacity of the shotgun).
}   Does any one know more about such a weapon? And why is it that pump
}action is still more popular I would have thought that technology made
}for very reliable semi-autos.


I've used a Benelli in combat competition.  In my very inexperienced hands
I managed to knock down four targets in 3.5 seconds.  On the other hand, I
saw that same competition won by the only person who used a pump action.

In the hands of an expert there's little to choose as far as speed is
concerned.  The pumps are supposed to be more reliable and require less
maintenance.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: "Battle Rifles" - definition?
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:44:44 GMT


I doubt that Cooper invented the term, as he tends to refer to long guns
firing assault rifle cartridges (5.56x45, 7.62x39) as "carbines".

One could conjecture that the term came into vogue shortly after the
term "assault rifle" became commonplace, in order to distinguish weapons
like the M14/FAL/G3, which have the same features as the latter but fire
full power cartridges.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
Protect the Second Amendment - boycott Ruger products
"That's not true," Bill hissed to his lawyer. "The facts are-"
"Don't worry about facts, Bill, no one else here does. Facts can't
alter this case."       -"Bill the Galactic Hero" Harry Harrison
From: sfaber@ihlpb.att.com (Steven R Faber)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: pressure stamp
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:28:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T

I saw a black powder rifle that had the barrel stamped

700 Kp/cm^2

Can anyone translate this to psi or offer some idea
of what unit Kp is?
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .22 gun for plinking
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:04:56 GMT
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia

mike.federchuk@rose.com writes:

#... What is so special about the S&W 41 that it is
#almost $300CDN more than the S&W 422/622?

Accuracy.

#A 422 costs about the same as the
#Ruger Mark II, is it as good?

IMHO, no.

#Any general impressions, comments, practical experience would be
#appreciated, but remember, I'm not interested in competition
#type shooting.

I know two people who started out with 422s, and sold them back to the
dealer after a few weeks.  They were interested in competition shooting,
and found the guns far too light, with terrible triggers.  OK, this may
not be significant from your point of view, but be aware that if you 
want to do something more than informal target shooting the 422/622 
won't handle it.  (BTW, I assume that "informal" target shooting means
it doesn't matter whether you hit the target or not, in which case the
422 will probably be just fine.)

#Basically, I don't want to wait that long, and then plunk down money for a
#"lemon".

IMHO, lemon is what you'll get with the 422.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
From: krg2@po.CWRU.Edu (Kevin R. Glazier)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: NRA-ILA BBS --> anybody tried this?
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:27:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


On page 61 of the Sept. '92 _American_Rifleman_ there's a full-page ad
for the NRA-ILA BBS called "Gun Talk".  The number is (703) 719-6406 [8N1].
The ad says the cost is a $15 annual access fee.

Has anybody tried this yet?  I was seriously thinking of signing up, but
I think I'll wait until I find out if it's worth the money or not.  The
ad sounds promising--any comments?  

Please reply via e-mail.  I'll post a summary of the responses I get (as well
as my own comments on the BBS if I sign up).

Thanks in advance,

Kevin
-- 
             _-^-_               | Kevin R. Glazier        |  krg2@po.cwru.edu 
            / O O \              | The University of Akron |   That's me!!     
 ---((((---'---U---`---))))---   |--------------------------------------------
        KEVIN WAS HERE!          |  Official Mechanical Engineering wanna-be...
From: bbx!bbxrbk!russ@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Russ Kepler)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: bullet casting residue
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:51:00 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Sep10.121156.29522@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
#I don't cast indoors at all. One reason is the possibility of a pot
#explosion (see my previous detailed posting on the issue in this
#thread). The other reason is ventilation (no greater ventilation can 
#usually be had than the great outdoors). 

I cast indoors, and use all of the equipment in the post that I've
included.  I've got better ventilation indoors than outdoors - I
control the airflow inside and can be sure of clean air at my
workbench.  Outdoors the air can blow from pot to my face and there
isn't much I can do about it.

If you want to cast indoors and not worry about lead pot blowups all
you have to do is to do the primary melting outdoors (if you're
casting from wheelweights) or to use clean ingots.  I use clean
ingots, fresh from the safe where there is a de-humidifying rod (brand
name "Gold'n'Rod" of somesuch).  The ingots I usually cast up once or
twice a year from scrounged wheelweight and monotype or linotype (I've
still got 30 pounds of monotype, enough to make about 200 pounds of
castable alloy for pistol).

I still cast the 200 H&G #68 for .45, a 158 SWC for .38 (took forever
to find a mold, seems that there wasn't current production) and 115
SWC and 124 RN for 9mm.  In the alloy I cast I have to size about .001
from most for the best combination of obduration and minimum leading,
so I use the old Lyman 450 sizer/luber.  I'm sure that casting a Lyman
#2 alloy would bring out the bullets in the right size, but I'm not
willing to blow *that* much money on tin and antimony.

-- 
Russ Kepler, posting from home
Will hack unix for food 		(.sig stolen from dt - sorry, dt)
From: jr@undr.org (Jerry Rochard)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: First Gun Suggestions?
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:57:32 GMT
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania


        I find myself once again calling on the net.wisdom of the
        experienced weapons owners here, to make a suggestion.  The
        subject pretty much says it all.  Now here is the scoop:

        My son (18) is interested in purchasing a gun, his first, to
        develop his skills as a marksman.  He has used rifles and
        handguns before, but never on a wide scale basis.

        His main objective is to purchase a weapon that will allow him
        to get valuable experience.  I have heard that the best marksman
        learned to shoot with a .22 handgun, so this is what I am
        asking:  What gun would truly provide him with experience and a
        good base upon which to build in the future.

        What is the best FIRST gun?

        Jerry
From: FKK@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: SELLING CURIOS AND RELICS IN CA
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:28:35 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


Does anyone know what the current Ca. law says about a resident with a
collectors FFL selling a firearm on the curios and relic list to another
resident?  A 15 day wait is not required for them if purchased from a FFL
dealer.  If a collector takes the proper forms for his own records is that
adequate or does the sale still have to go through a dealer? Knowledgable
answers only, please.  Thanks
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Summary: Concealed Carry...
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:57:36 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group


/ iftccu:rec.guns / hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) /  3:02 pm  Sep  3, 1992 /

#Note:  All three officers are larger than normal people.  They're all over
#6" tall and of muscular build.  I don't know if that mode of carry would
#work as well for someone of slighter dimensions.

This brings up a very good point.  Lots of people go out and buy the gun
of their dreams and then try to figure out "how the hell do I conceal
this damn D.E. 50AE?"  I suggest that this might be the opposite of what
you may want to do.

One of the compromises one must often make is in what size gun you can
carry.  If you are small, or your clothing dictates certain areas of
your body are off limits, you may be forced to get a smaller gun!

I may be out on a limb a bit here again, but it is my impression from
the experts that I've talked to that they would change hardware before
they would change the location that they carry.  Most of us that have
take serious training have probably heard the line:  "Once you decide to
carry, carry all the time, and always in the same place."

This is pretty realistic.  Remember, survival will depend on

1 Tactics,  (training)
2 Skill with your equipment. (training and practice)

and a distant third:

3) Your equipment itself.  (Chosen after at least some training is best.
That way you can take some of the 1400.00 you saved by NOT buying the
D.E. and spend it on more training and ammo!  Of course, if you can
afford it, buy both!)

Remember one hit with a .380 is better than 5 misses with a .454, unless
you are close enough to get them with the concussion of the muzzle 
blast. :-)

Rick.

BTW.  I've talked about handgun retention, LFI and FAS in this forum
before.  The October issue of HANDGUNS has an article on all three.  You
may be interested in reading it, I rather enjoyed it.  And to think, I
just missed having a picture of me getting beat up by a lady in a
national publication....
From: burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Bags for concealed carry
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:31:19 GMT
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA

In article <1992Sep14.163858.24914@netcon.smc.edu> ucla-cs!netcon.smc.edu!agood@CS.UCLA.EDU (Aaron Good) writes:
##Is anyone aware of companies that manufacture "bags" with an easy-access
##compartment for a gun?  I don't mean the readily available fanny packs, but
##something more like a soft attache case- big enough for paperwork or books.
#
#Why not have a competent seamstress (or tailor) make something for you.
#Buy an attache case, fit all of your work day junk into it and figure out
#a good place for your firearm.
#
#I my area, we have a swapmeet for HAM radio operators (TRW), and there is a 
#guy who does custom cordura carrying cases for radios. He started making me 
#some custom duty belt stuff and he is getting popular with my coworkers at the 
#department.

Eagle Industries makes a very nice soft briefcase that has a holster and
a ballistic panel.  I'm not sure of their address or phone but a So. Cal.
dealer is Papac Bros. in Rosemead CA.  Eagle makes a lot of nylon gear for
SWAT teams and military special teams.  The catalog is simple and packed.

Bill	burge@qdeck.com
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Ruger softening his position?
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:57:37 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group


I posted the following to t.p.g., but in light of all the Ruger bashing 
posted here, I thought our moderator might allow this in the spirit of 
general interest.  Followup to t.p.g. please.

[MODERATOR: Okay, we *have* bashed here.  But I don't want to touch off
another flurry in this forum.  Here is what Rick posted over in t.p.g.,
go followup there PLEASE..... (this is the number two hot button after
the "glock vs. sig" topic.... which I hesitate to even utter here ...) ]

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

I'm wondering if Bill Ruger is softening his position on gun control.  I
recently happened to see a copy of his 1992 police catalog.  He had a two
page preface in which he:

1) Firmly embraced the NRA 'punish the criminals' stance.

2) He made the statement that 'Guns do not cause crime.'

3) Made the statement that he thought large capacity magazines were not
an issue in crime control.

4) Stated that he firmly supported the Second Amendment and the right of
all law abiding citizens to bear arms.

5) Quoted one of the surveys of line police officers that supported all
of these positions.

There was more, but in general it was very contradictory to some of his
past positions.

Actions speak louder than words, but I wonder, is he really getting the
message, or is this just advertising?  It might be worth keeping a
slightly less prejudiced eye on him in the future until we can tell for
sure.  Maybe he has reformed.

Rick.
From: C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: RE: SKS Origins
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:08:47 GMT

And another variation on the SKS story...

I've heard that the SKS predates the AK-47, but only by a few years.
It was designed by the Soviet designer Simonov, who also had a hand
in designing the Tokarev semi-auto rifles (SVT-38?  SVT-40?  I forget).
The SKS borrows from the Tokarev design.

As I've heard it, the Soviet troops were issued SKSes as their main
battle rifles, but only for a few years.  I believe the AK-47 was
introduced in (surprise?) 1947.

BTW, what is the proper plural for SKS?  SKSes?  SKS'?  SKSii?

8-)

Rob