DescentBB

Earl Bassett: "Man Burt, you put a whole new shine on the word 'overkill'."
Burt Gummer: "When you need it, and don't have it... you sing a different tune. "


lol @ Burt- I suppose that is me.

Woody, Nah.. no problem with hammer springs, but it doesn't have many rounds through it either. I'm not a big Taurus fan because I believe they use inferior metals which are prone to stretching on larger calibers. The Titanium Tracker in a 17 hummer I think is pretty safe. It's a high velocity cartridge with reasonably low case pressures so the chance of stretching is pretty slim.

Love affair with bulls? I won't buy a rifle without a bull barrel unless I'm only using the action to build a race gun. If I'm doing that I'll get the least costly I can get, strip it to the action and sell everything(but the action). Besides, who likes to deal with whippy barrels?

Quick quiz- Know the reason the BB was originally designed?

B-

At my CCW training class a woman had a nice little 8 shot .22 Tauris...except the hammer spring was fubar and wouldn't fire the rounds. The pistol was brand new.

As to the BB, I suppose I could of googled it and sounded euridite, but no I don't know the reason.

Bummer about the gals pistol. She'd better get it fixed or she's got a super short club.

The BB was designed to control barrel harmonics by way of a stiffer barrel. When the round is fired it causes vibration down the barrel. You want the round to exit the muzzle closest to the same point in the harmonic wave as it was ignited in the chamber to produce accuracy. The side benefit is better heat exchange from greater surface area.

You guys think an assault weapon ban is a bad thing?

Duh. Taking away decent rifles from The Good People does absolutely nothing to affect The Bad People since The Bad People don't care about those silly things called "laws" (all 22,999 of them), mmkay.

Zuruck,
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "bad".
A more appropriate question would be: "Has the AWB been effective?". The answer is- It depends on who you ask.
I don't think the AWB has been effective simply because all of those weapons are/were available at any time to anyone who wanted them, illegally of course. The purpose of the AWB wasn't to keep AW out of the hands of honest citizens, it was to keep them out of the hands of criminals.. the honest citizens obviously had to pay by being restricted from owning them because a few criminals used them in crimes.(as a side note, I don't own any AW and have no interest in owning any.. but I support the fella who wants to own them). Once again, when you sit and think about the intention of the law, there is no way it can be effective simply because criminals don't obey laws, only honest citizens do.
The answer to your question is-
Yes! It was effective in reducing the ammount of AW that were sold legally, which was part of its goal- to reduce the amount available for criminals to get ahold of through theft, etc.
The second answer is-
No! it did absolutely no good in stopping criminals set on getting AW from getting them.

The goofy thing about the AWB is that there are hundreds upon hundreds of other non-assault weapons( based of DOJ ATF classification) that shoot the same cartridge and can cause just as much damage(a .308 bullet is a .308 bullet and aside from MV, it doesn't matter what you shoot it from, it will do the same damage) as any of the classified assault weapons. I sort of laughed when the ban was to sunset and HGI gave press conferences stating that "blood will again flow in the streets... etc, etc.." The ban sunset in NOv of last year and now all those evil AW are available again, but not a single case of them being used as HGI suggested.
The truth is, assault weapons and big and scary(and yes, they are scary looking), but beyond that they are no more dangerous( whats available to civilians) than another rifle that shoots the same cartridge and has always been available.

here's an example:
This one is an AR-15 and shoots a 5.56x45 nato round.
http://www.dlsports.com/home/ar15_eotech_02_med.jpg

This is my Remington 700 that shoots a .223 round
http://www.bakercountyonline.com/md-238 ... CF0011.JPG


Guess what? the 5.56 nato is the same round as the .223 and the terms are interchangable.They're just different terms for the same round. Why wasn't my Rem 700 illegal but the AR was?
I would be far more worried about a fella with a deadly accurate 700(or any bolt action rifle for that matter) than I would be about a fella with an AR. What's more alarming, a fella that can throw 10 pieces of lead in various places sacrificing accuracy, or, the fella that can place 1 bullet exactly where he wants it to go?


Note- You AR guys stay off my back, I know there are some AR's that are accurate, but they'll never be as accurate as a finely tuned bolt rifle.


Just some food for thought, Z.

B-

Zuruck, aside from FP's good rejoinder, what do you think a "assault" weapon actually is? Define it and I will further discuss it.

FP, didn't have a clue to the BB. I do understand the harmonics though. One reason you want a free floating barrel is so the stock does not interfer with the harmonic. If I remember right cryogentically treating a barrel will relieve the stress's in the barrels steel. The stress's will interfer with the harmonics. Also I seem to recall a article in Precision Shooting where a guy was experimenting with barrels that had metal forends directly attached. The forends acted as dampeners to mid-barrel harmonic distortion. Been awhile so I'm a little fuzzy on it though.