+- RepairmanJack.com Forums (https://repairmanjack.com/forum)
+-- Forum: F. Paul Wilson Related (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: F. Paul Wilson Main Forum (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette (/thread-810.html)
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - NewYorkjoe - 03-27-2005
From reading a recent thread, it seems that gun gabbing degenerates sometimes from sharing information and views to a oneupmanship pissin' contest with strident overtones. Everyone has their own opinions and experience and certainly they are welcome to share them, but how about taking disagreements a little less personally?
For example, if Ken V. wants to inform me that the Sten Mk. II has its barrel ported to bleed gas and reduce bullet velocity and that the silencer is built over the barrel and adds no extra length (after I've already stated that the silencer is "integral" to the weapon), well, that's just fine! And, if he wants to state that the sound of the firing pin striking the primer could be discerned before the weapon's action cycles (open bolt), well, he's entitled to that also.
If he wants to inform me that 2-liter pop bottle silencers just aren't practical (when I've already filled a bottle with styrofoam peanuts, reinforced it with duct tape and held it over the barrel of my Ruger Mk II .22 semi (with the front sight removed), just to see/hear), I've no problem with that either.
We need to be able to have an open discussion, opposing views, and honest disagreement/argument a little more impersonally. After all, this isn't Capitol Hill, where you can't disagree with someone without attacking their moral fiber, intellectual development, ancestry, etc.
So maybe we can disengage our self-image, ego, and masculine identity from the discussion of firearms? Whadda ya tink?
NewYorkjoe
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - law dawg - 03-27-2005
NewYorkjoe Wrote:From reading a recent thread, it seems that gun gabbing degenerates sometimes from sharing information and views to a oneupmanship pissin' contest with strident overtones. Everyone has their own opinions and experience and certainly they are welcome to share them, but how about taking disagreements a little less personally?Works for me as I am not a "gunnie" in the sense that many on this forum are. They are tools in a toolbox to me. I know a lot about using them on the range and even more about using them in the real world, but not a whole hell of a lot about their mechanics, etc.
For example, if Ken V. wants to inform me that the Sten Mk. II has its barrel ported to bleed gas and reduce bullet velocity and that the silencer is built over the barrel and adds no extra length (after I've already stated that the silencer is "integral" to the weapon), well, that's just fine! And, if he wants to state that the sound of the firing pin striking the primer could be discerned before the weapon's action cycles (open bolt), well, he's entitled to that also.
If he wants to inform me that 2-liter pop bottle silencers just aren't practical (when I've already filled a bottle with styrofoam peanuts, reinforced it with duct tape and held it over the barrel of my Ruger Mk II .22 semi (with the front sight removed), just to see/hear), I've no problem with that either.
We need to be able to have an open discussion, opposing views, and honest disagreement/argument a little more impersonally. After all, this isn't Capitol Hill, where you can't disagree with someone without attacking their moral fiber, intellectual development, ancestry, etc.
So maybe we can disengage our self-image, ego, and masculine identity from the discussion of firearms? Whadda ya tink?
NewYorkjoe
I'll leave that to you knowledgeable folk.
However I will call on the carpet anyone who talks about using weapons for self-defense (SD) who never has used them if what they are saying is tactically or physically unsound. I try not to use ad homineum attacks either, but will respond in kind if attacked. Big boy (and girl!) rules apply.
It amazes me people listen to others talk about SD and accept their word as gospel when those they are listening to have never had to defend themselves. I mean, they would take swimming lessons from someone who has never been in the water, or skydiving lessons from someone who has never jumped, no matter how sound the theory?
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - hipshot49 - 03-27-2005
NewYorkjoe Wrote:From reading a recent thread, it seems that gun gabbing degenerates sometimes from sharing information and views to a oneupmanship pissin' contest with strident overtones.
So maybe we can disengage our self-image, ego, and masculine identity from the discussion of firearms? Whadda ya tink?
NewYorkjoe
I think you are right and I apologize for my part in the particular "pissin' match" you are referring to. I allowed Mr. V to get my goat and I shouldn't have. Apparently he has most of those folk on that thread thoroughly convinced as to his expertise on all things related to firearms, so there seems to be no way to disseminate correct information if he doesn't agree with it. The discussions are not fun nor interesting so I am unsubscribing from the thread and will no longer be participating.
I actually only came to the forum because I had just read "The Tomb" (I've read all the other RJ novels, but had to get that one through a used book dealer online) and wanted to ask about the incorrect referral to silencing a Ruger .357 Magnum. It seems that I read the 1984 edition and this has been corrected in subsequent editions, so I got my question answered anyway.
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - Ken Valentine - 03-28-2005
NewYorkjoe Wrote:From reading a recent thread, it seems that gun gabbing degenerates sometimes from sharing information and views to a oneupmanship pissin' contest with strident overtones. Everyone has their own opinions and experience and certainly they are welcome to share them, but how about taking disagreements a little less personally?
For example, if Ken V. wants to inform me that the Sten Mk. II has its barrel ported to bleed gas and reduce bullet velocity and that the silencer is built over the barrel and adds no extra length (after I've already stated that the silencer is "integral" to the weapon), well, that's just fine!
I wasn't necessarily speaking to you Joe, I was speaking to the board at large, and merely elaborating on your statement by addressing why the "whip-crack of the 9-mm round" was not a problem. And I didn't say that the suppressor on the Sten didn't add any length. (I don't know whether it did or not.) I was merely adding to your statement (which I understand to be correct) about the Sten.
Quote:And, if he wants to state that the sound of the firing pin striking the primer could be discerned before the weapon's action cycles (open bolt), well, he's entitled to that also.
I know that the Sten fires from an open bolt. So does the Schmeisser MP-40, the various Ingram Models, the full-auto UZI, and various other firearms. I made the firing pin reference on another post where we were again talking about revolvers. And I didn't say that it could be discerned, I made the statement in comparing it to all the extraneous noises produced by an autoloader.
Quote:If he wants to inform me that 2-liter pop bottle silencers just aren't practical (when I've already filled a bottle with styrofoam peanuts, reinforced it with duct tape and held it over the barrel of my Ruger Mk II .22 semi (with the front sight removed), just to see/hear), I've no problem with that either.
NOW you give details. In your original post you said: "Expedient supressors can be made from a plastic soda bottle or rubbers (put some protection on your protector), good for one shot."
You didn't make any mention about the size of the plastic bottle, that you filled it with styrofoam, that you reinforced the bottle with duct tape, or that you used a .22. I had always heard about the plastic bottle suppressor, but with no details, so when I tried it, I used a one liter water bottle (I rarely drink soda) and just taped it onto the barrel of a single action revolver chambered in .38 special. It blew the bottle to pieces. I then tried it on a .22 revolver, again, just taping it onto the barrel. It blew the bottle off of the barrel -- splitting it in the process. Same thing with my High Standard .22. As I said to Hipshot49, (in effect) "We didn't do it the same way, so the experiments weren't comparable."
That was the only criticism I made to anything you said. And now that I know how you did it -- and what you did it with -- I take it back. :o
Quote:We need to be able to have an open discussion, opposing views, and honest disagreement/argument a little more impersonally. After all, this isn't Capitol Hill, where you can't disagree with someone without attacking their moral fiber, intellectual development, ancestry, etc.
So maybe we can disengage our self-image, ego, and masculine identity from the discussion of firearms? Whadda ya tink?
NewYorkjoe
Fine with me. The only "negative" statement I recall having made was that Hipshot49 didn't have any experience in suppressing revolvers. Which he misunderstood, and I corrected.
Hindsight being an exact science; what I probably should have said at the outset was, "Yes, revolvers can be suppressed, it's just harder than it is too suppress an auto-loader." But then, it's also harder to accurize a revolver than it is an auto-loader as well.
Ken V.
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - Ken Valentine - 03-28-2005
hipshot49 Wrote:I think you are right and I apologize for my part in the particular "pissin' match" you are referring to. I allowed Mr. V to get my goat and I shouldn't have. Apparently he has most of those folk on that thread thoroughly convinced as to his expertise on all things related to firearms, so there seems to be no way to disseminate correct information if he doesn't agree with it. The discussions are not fun nor interesting so I am unsubscribing from the thread and will no longer be participating.
That's fine, I think the thread's pretty much dead anyway.
When I first read that, I thought you were going to unsubscribe from the board. I'm glad you're not. As I said before, welcome to the board.
I'm sure we can find something we can agree on.
Ken V.
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - Biggles - 03-28-2005
Ken Valentine Wrote:That's fine, I think the thread's pretty much dead anyway.
When I first read that, I thought you were going to unsubscribe from the board. I'm glad you're not. As I said before, welcome to the board.
I'm sure we can find something we can agree on.
Ken V.
I'm sure we can all agree, for example, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and is flat.
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - Bluesman Mike Lindner - 03-28-2005
Biggles Wrote:I'm sure we can all agree, for example, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and is flat.
Biggles, for Christ's sake, I would =really= appreciate it if you'd incorporate the latest findings into your rap. For example, the Earth is slightly =off-center= as far as the mighty Universe goes (NATURE, 2/05, Erikson, Phillips, Wilson, et al.) And the world is =certainly = not flat. It's like a fine pancake, with all the hills and valleys that implies. A =good= pancake, that's what I'm tellin' yez! (WAFFLE WORLD, 3/05, Lindner.) Let's be scientists, hombre--that's the ticket!
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - Biggles - 03-28-2005
Bluesman Mike Lindner Wrote:Biggles, for Christ's sake, I would =really= appreciate it if you'd incorporate the latest findings into your rap. For example, the Earth is slightly =off-center= as far as the mighty Universe goes (NATURE, 2/05, Erikson, Phillips, Wilson, et al.) And the world is =certainly = not flat. It's like a fine pancake, with all the hills and valleys that implies. A =good= pancake, that's what I'm tellin' yez! (WAFFLE WORLD, 3/05, Lindner.) Let's be scientists, hombre--that's the ticket!
I was thinking more of a tortilla or crepe than a pancake. Mmmm! Fajitas!
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - KRW - 03-28-2005
Biggles Wrote:I was thinking more of a tortilla or crepe than a pancake. Mmmm! Fajitas!
I'll second that! Mmmm fajitas! I need sour cream and very hot sauce though!
KRW
Gunny Gab Tone and Etiquette - KRW - 03-28-2005
law dawg Wrote:Works for me as I am not a "gunnie" in the sense that many on this forum are. They are tools in a toolbox to me. I know a lot about using them on the range and even more about using them in the real world, but not a whole hell of a lot about their mechanics, etc.
I'll leave that to you knowledgeable folk.
I'm the same. But every firearm I own, I know intimately.
law dawg Wrote:However I will call on the carpet anyone who talks about using weapons for self-defense (SD) who never has used them if what they are saying is tactically or physically unsound. I try not to use ad homineum attacks either, but will respond in kind if attacked. Big boy (and girl!) rules apply.
He's not foolin either!
law dawg Wrote:It amazes me people listen to others talk about SD and accept their word as gospel when those they are listening to have never had to defend themselves. I mean, they would take swimming lessons from someone who has never been in the water, or skydiving lessons from someone who has never jumped, no matter how sound the theory?
We've had this discussion also.
KRW