|
Post by wordweaver3 on Feb 18, 2019 20:54:54 GMT
I think that's taking safe sex a little far, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Feb 18, 2019 23:27:15 GMT
What if someone accidentally (or purposefully) fired a rifle at your crotch? You'd be laughing, unlike the poor bastard who didn't think to invest in a hard armour codpiece.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Feb 19, 2019 0:09:10 GMT
Seems a somewhat extreme sex act to me.
But whatever floats yer boat.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Feb 19, 2019 0:20:12 GMT
I don't know what to tell you, firing a .22LR at my dick just doesn't do it any more.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Feb 19, 2019 2:25:03 GMT
It starts with nerf and airsoft and ends with
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Feb 19, 2019 2:55:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Feb 24, 2019 2:35:59 GMT
For some reason I expected something horrible to happen in that vid.
Speaking of large(ish) bore rifles. My old man goes to a Pheasants Forever banquet the other day, puts 20 bucks down on a raffle to win a rifle, and walks out with a Ruger No. 1 in .35 Whelen.
Such a nice fuckin rifle. I mean, they're seriously amazing to shoulder. Like they belong there.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Feb 24, 2019 2:55:01 GMT
I've never handled one, though I've heard they're excellent, certainly a strong action. I'm not familiar with .35 Whelan, though they've made that rifle in every calibre under the sun.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Feb 24, 2019 3:37:11 GMT
The .35 Whelen is just a necked up .30-06. For some reason it always has a small but loyal fan base so it never disappears. Might be partly because .30-06 shells are so easy to get for reloading. It's a hard hitting round and has had some popularity as an African game round, but it's more likely to be found in the US for bears and elk.
What's really striking about the No. 1 is that the balance is just perfect. It shoulders marvelously and it holds very steady. I expect it's going to perform very well when shooting offhand.
The mechanism is like a bank vault, locks up solid as a rock.
The only drawback I noticed on the rifle is the finish on the barrel seems to be inferior to what is on the receiver. I think they might be done in different factories.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Feb 24, 2019 23:59:07 GMT
That seems to be the case with a number of odd cartridges, there's a lot of stuff that just hasn't been offered as a chambering in anything but rifles produced in small runs or special orders, but enough people use it for some companies to keep producing it, like .303 Savage.
It's one of those actions that's hard to break, unless you're trying to break it.
Could be, maybe it has to do with differences in the steel used for the barrels and receivers?
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 3, 2019 0:50:52 GMT
Here's a rifle that I keep seeing pushed at a lot of gun stores. It's a Thompson/Center R22. It uses Ruger 10/22 mags and will accept most 10/22 aftermarket parts.
It cost more than a Ruger 10/22.
So the question is, why would someone buy this instead of a 10/22?
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Mar 3, 2019 2:50:30 GMT
Because they want a 10/22, but think Ruger is beneath them?
From what I gather it really is a 10/22 clone, not sure how far parts interchangeability goes, but it's got some features that you don't find on a stock 10/22 standard model; fibre optic front sight, threaded muzzle, last shot hold open, a Picatinny rail machined into the receiver, the sight radius is longer and it uses a peep, and a Magpul stock with a rail for mounting a bipod. If you were in the market for a new semi-auto .22cal, and that's all stuff you wanted on your rifle, it might be cheaper to buy the Thompson Center than buy a standard 10/22 and upgrade it.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 3, 2019 3:55:03 GMT
I guess if that's all the things you want in a rifle it's cheaper than buying a Ruger and spending hundreds to get it where you want it. I'm still not sure why Ruger is so adamant about not putting last shot hold on the 10/22 when everybody else does it. I know they claim it's fine to dry fire the 10/22, but it's still a bug for a lot of folks.
It just seems like putting out a clone of someone else's rifle, stamping your name plate on it, and charging more for it is kinda missing the point of coming out with something new.
I mean they used to make the 22 Classic, which was an objectively better rifle (only had a 5 round mag, but in all other respects it was better). The R22 seems like a step back to simply copy a 1960s era rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Mar 3, 2019 5:06:44 GMT
They must have crunched the numbers and figured it'd be cheaper to manufacture a 10/22 clone than to bring back the R55 or come up with something new, and that the availability of after market parts and accessories would make it more appealing.
I can see what they were thinking, but it is pretty boring, and I'm not sure if it's really the best idea since it doesn't stand out at all from the 10/22 at a glance, and most people are probably going to notice the extra $100 on the price over the Ruger, not the nice features that come stock on it.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 3, 2019 5:26:41 GMT
Getting it to stand out is probably why they put the Magpul stock on it, since people would assume it's worth the extra 100 bucks for the stock. But for the company that's not a 100 dollar upgrade, it's probably more like a 5 or 10 dollar one.
I don't know. It's probably a fine rifle and given what it comes with standard not a horrible deal (actual price would be 320-370 instead of the 400 MSRP). It just seems like an uninspired way to put a .22 rifle into your line-up. Sorta like buying a GM product and realizing it's just a Ford with a hood scoop and different nameplate.
|
|