In article . net,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


Except for cars, right?

I'd rather have a 5-year-old luxury car than a brand-new econobox. How
about you?

Um. Give me something with no electronics or smog or plastic
bumpers. My dream car? Volvo 303.

Okay, it's a military troop transport and the baddest mama-jama
off-road. Makes a Hummer look like a Tonka toy. Second would
be a Unimog.

Oh - *passenger* vehicles? Probably a BMW 3.0CSI or Porsche 930.


Explain the Corolla, then.

I do not own a Corolla. My newest car ever was a 1990 Volvo 240,
and it had too many high-tech features for my liking.

Wow. I've never seen a 240 called too high-tech before. The basic design
dates to the 60s.

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Speaking of offbeat vehicles, have you seen "Arrested Development"?
And I'm not referring to George Sr.'s Caddy that is slowly being
hacked to pieces by the various bad drivers in the family.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:48:27 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Scott Gardner said:

Obie-Wanna-private-mechanic said:

Why drive a connuter-box when you can drive a piece of history?

So as to avoid spending $10K a year on repairs and two days a week
driving a crappy rental car.

Actually, after the initial restoration/renovation is complete

Thank you for admitting you don't know squat about restoring cars.

What makes you say this? The simple fact is, some people buy "basket
cases" and restore them or have them restored, while others buy
vintage cars that have already had the work done, which saves them
large amounts of money. I'll admit that the initial restoration of a
basket case involves HUGE amounts of money, but not everyone buys them
that way. My point was, after the big work of the
restoration/renovation is done, if any was needed, the day-to-day
maintainance of a vintage car isn't nearly as onerous as you made it
sound, from the standpoint of either cost or time. At times, it can
even be significantly cheaper. I just replaced the fuel and air
filters for three of our vehicles - a 1995 Honda Civic, a 1995 Toyota
Paseo, and a 1983 Dodge Ram pickup truck. These two filters totaled
$32 for the Honda, $42 for the Toyota, and $11 for the truck. In
fact, parts cost is pretty much lower across the board for older
American cars - as long as the part you want is either still in
production, available as NOS, or being faithfully reproduced by the
aftermarket.

Scott Gardner

Scott Gardner said:

Thank you for admitting you don't know squat about restoring cars.

What makes you say this?


Draw near, ye of concreted skulls. Lay forth your attentiveness to my
narration of the **** of RAO Past. Or in contemporary slang: duh!


Exhibit 1:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It's not worth it , Mr. Krueger.

Thanks for admitting that you critique what you haven't investigated,
Mr. Samangitak

Any indication of other tests that don't coincide with yours, you
will claim the tests were suspect.

False claim.

You've been there and done that?

Thanks for admitting that you haven't, Mr. Samangitak

So has the audio testing bus that came to me in 3rd grade and junior high.

Thanks for admitting that your ears haven't been tested since junior
high. How many years ago was that?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 2:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The original point was that Oakland College is a second-tier regional college.

Thanks for admitting that you have lost total track of the topic of
the discussion, Mr. Phillips. I've never had any kind of association
with Oakland College. I don't even know if such a place exists in any
place but your jumbled mind.

Compared with MIT, Cal Tech, and C-M, Oakland
College is indeed second-tier, and it does not have a reputation for sending
its engineering graduates to top companies.

But Mr. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you lied to this "real
engineer" by making up this false story that I think that OU is
"first tier".

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 3:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thanks for pointing out that you haven't been paying attention.

It's not a matter of paying attention Weil, its a matter of not
caring. Frankly, I don't read every post on this newsgroup. But thanks
for admitting that you do. My problem is that I have a life --- you
obviously don't.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 4:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

What's the difference between opining and reporting, Mr. Krueger?

Thanks for admitting that you can't tell the difference. I'll bear
that in mind the next time you report anything?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 5:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You'd know this Richman if you posted there more than once a week!

Irrelevant.

Thanks for admitting my claim about your light participation in RAHE
is true.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 6:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I haven't "gagged" at the thought of trying Spectralab, Mr. Krueger.
I was recommending inexpensive FFT-based analysis tools to Carl Valle.

To[sic] bad your recommendation wouldn't work as you made it. Also,
thanks for admitting it.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 7:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I know that any English above the 3rd grade level is difficult for
you. Maybe you can get one of your kids to explain it to you.

Weil, thanks for admitting by means of insult, that not even you
can't make sense of what you wrote.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 8:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It certainly appears that way from a posting of his today as a
follow up. In any event, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Mr. Lyle, thanks for admitting that losing sleep over your own
demonstrated incompetence is not what you do. That's one reason why
you remain incompetent...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 9:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

No, Krüger, it doesn't work like that. Your claim, your proof. Provide an
example of your "evidence" or your claim falls - as it has done over and
over again previously.

Thanks for admitting that for you Mr. Bamborough, "evidence" is a
moving target.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 10:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

As for the question about CU's use of science to evaluate audio
equipment, I don't know since I didn't read Consumer Reports' audio
equipment reviews. But if its past auto reviews are any indication,
I don't think I will be impressed with their audio equipment reviews.

[...]
However, thanks for admitting that in fact you have zero experience
with CU audio equipment reports to base your comments on.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 11:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, you are a lot more and a lot worse than threatening.

Thanks for admitting that I've taken quite a few figurative licks on
you, sockpuppet Yustabe.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 12:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Yet you're still sitting at
the breakfast table in your underwear, eating cereal, and playing on the
computer. Nice visual, loser. LOL!

Hey Mr. Phillips, it's a living. Thanks for admitting how endlessly
rigid, narrow, bigoted and prejudiced you are. I'm sure that you've
impressed the heck out of everybody else here, especially those who
make their living by working with computers.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 13:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It just keeps getting worse and worse for you, Arny. I haven't the
slightest idea why you don't just ignore me completely. I guess you
like getting ****ed up the ass figuratively.

Thanks for admitting that you are obsessed with sodomy, Phillips. Do
you do this with your spouse, or just people you pick up?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


In case you still don't get the point, Google found "about 106" posts
in which Krooger thanks people for "admitting" things they never said.

Do I have to quote a bunch of posts in which Krooger says "Can I quote
you...." ?

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Speaking of offbeat vehicles, have you seen "Arrested Development"?
And I'm not referring to George Sr.'s Caddy that is slowly being
hacked to pieces by the various bad drivers in the family.

I've missed out, though I like Jeffrey Tambor. I might catch up a bit
this week on a rare Wednesday night off.

Stephen

George M. Middius wrote:


Obie-Wanna-private-mechanic said:


Why drive a connuter-box when you can drive a piece of history?


So as to avoid spending $10K a year on repairs and two days a week
driving a crappy rental car.

10K? You must be smoking good stuff. Can I have some?

If you buy a beater, sure - but a fully restored car show winner?

MINe 109 wrote:

In article . net,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:



Except for cars, right?

I'd rather have a 5-year-old luxury car than a brand-new econobox. How
about you?

Um. Give me something with no electronics or smog or plastic
bumpers. My dream car? Volvo 303.

Okay, it's a military troop transport and the baddest mama-jama
off-road. Makes a Hummer look like a Tonka toy. Second would
be a Unimog.

Oh - *passenger* vehicles? Probably a BMW 3.0CSI or Porsche 930.


Explain the Corolla, then.

I do not own a Corolla. My newest car ever was a 1990 Volvo 240,
and it had too many high-tech features for my liking.


Wow. I've never seen a 240 called too high-tech before. The basic design
dates to the 60s.

It was okay. After about 1985 or so, they went to the flat plastic
headlight models and they were chock full of sensors and modules
and such. It was tolerable. My father's 1997 LeSabre? ICK. Plastic
and computers and cheezy buttons galore.

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Heh. Who was the first?

MINe 109 said:

Speaking of offbeat vehicles, have you seen "Arrested Development"?
And I'm not referring to George Sr.'s Caddy that is slowly being
hacked to pieces by the various bad drivers in the family.

I've missed out, though I like Jeffrey Tambor. I might catch up a bit
this week on a rare Wednesday night off.

Well, I think the Bluth family vehicle would be quite the showpiece
for Obie.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:00:27 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) said:

Hey, if you hanker after that kind of unreliability - buy a TVR!

drool

You also won't be troubled by nonsense like traction control or even
anti-lock brakes. 'Bye, been nice knowing you.......................

I'm driving DS's and CX's for 14 years now, without ABS, traction
control and airbags, and I'm still here :-)
Dutch traffic does an average of around 25 km/h..............

Ah yes, but a TVR will do 300 kph........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:13:27 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Hey, I'd *love* a Unimog for country expeditions - makes a Range Rover
look positively pedestrian! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:42:21 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

But if you really have to reach out and touch someone, you want the
338 Lapua Magnum round, ideally made by RUAG, in an Accuracy
International AWM. Modern weaponry at its finest..................

Oh, I'm a big fan of mass over velocity.

600 Express, then? :-)

I think our military has
it all backwards. One shot, massive damage. That's my idea of
combat effectivenss, because that 2-3 seconds it takes them to stop
firing at you is another 10 chances for their AK to get lucky.

Gotta love those .50 BMG snipers that we sent over there.
1 mile kills.

The .338 Lapua Magnum has almost identical ballistics to the .50 BMG
round, it just delivers a little less energy to the target. Given that
the BMG is really an antivehicle round, and is actually illegal for
use against unarmoured troops under the terms of the Geneva
Convention, the .338 is perfectly capable of kiliing a man in body
armour at more than a mile.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:43:28 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:44:50 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:


Frugality is the highest virtue in the Hive. You want luxury? You want
class? Don't look to Obie.

Let's see - used mint condition 1975 3.0CSI lists on manheim gold
for $14,500 in showroom/car show condition.

That's my idea of being frugal. Let's see - Corolla or CSI?
Gosh - what a rought choice.


Certainly is, when a Ford Focus RS or Honda Civic Type R will
obliterate either of these cars on a real road, plus having more
comfort and better build quality than the BMW. BTW, even the Corolla
(T4) will run and hide from a 3.0CSi - it's called progress......

Last I checked - those sport versions were - a tad more than $14K.

They also depreciate fast, while the CSI goes *up* in value while
I drive it. At worst, it stays the same.

Well, that's undeniably true. Personally, I'd like a 1964/5 E-Type Jag
Coupe as a weelkend toy, the Series 1 with faired-in headlights, but
with the 4.2 engine and the all-synchro gearbox. Much more style than
the Beemer, about the same running costs, and similarly bulletproof
residuals.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:59:04 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:44:50 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:


Frugality is the highest virtue in the Hive. You want luxury? You want
class? Don't look to Obie.

Let's see - used mint condition 1975 3.0CSI lists on manheim gold
for $14,500 in showroom/car show condition.

That's my idea of being frugal. Let's see - Corolla or CSI?
Gosh - what a rought choice.

Certainly is, when a Ford Focus RS or Honda Civic Type R will
obliterate either of these cars on a real road, plus having more
comfort and better build quality than the BMW. BTW, even the Corolla
(T4) will run and hide from a 3.0CSi - it's called progress......

You *do* know what a Porsche 930 is?

Sure I do - but you didn't mention it in that post.

It was also on my list.

Not in that post, it wasn't. Besides, the Ford, Honda and Toyota will
still run and hide from a 930 on a twisty wet road, where you'd expect
a *real* sports car to excel - it's called progress, and good design.

Yeah, it's $25K for a show condition one, but that turbo 6 is
a SLIGHT bit different than the typical 911.

Yup, it's very quick - up to the first bend.........

I've done a 360 in one of those on a wet bridge - never again. I like
my cars to have the centre of mass in a sensible place! As it happens,
the guy who lives next to our village pub has a 1972 911T (the slow
one), and he *never* takes it out in the wet.................

And mustangs - you like Detroit steel? 20-25K will get you
a shiny 350+HP GTO or Mach 1 or...

Why drive a connuter-box when you can drive a piece of history?

The Mustang? Unless it's a Shelby 500, it was always a dog - just like
the pre-85 'Vettes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:13:27 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Hey, I'd *love* a Unimog for country expeditions - makes a Range Rover
look positively pedestrian! :-)

I'd rather see one here than yet another Humvee or Escalade...

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

I'd rather see one here than yet another Humvee or Escalade...

Did your own Escalade get jacked?

In article . net,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article . net,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:



Except for cars, right?

I'd rather have a 5-year-old luxury car than a brand-new econobox. How
about you?

Um. Give me something with no electronics or smog or plastic
bumpers. My dream car? Volvo 303.

Okay, it's a military troop transport and the baddest mama-jama
off-road. Makes a Hummer look like a Tonka toy. Second would
be a Unimog.

Oh - *passenger* vehicles? Probably a BMW 3.0CSI or Porsche 930.


Explain the Corolla, then.

I do not own a Corolla. My newest car ever was a 1990 Volvo 240,
and it had too many high-tech features for my liking.


Wow. I've never seen a 240 called too high-tech before. The basic design
dates to the 60s.

It was okay. After about 1985 or so, they went to the flat plastic
headlight models and they were chock full of sensors and modules
and such. It was tolerable. My father's 1997 LeSabre? ICK. Plastic
and computers and cheezy buttons galore.

I know what you mean about hideous modern interiors. How much of that
will crumble to dust after ten years?

After the initial purchase repairs, my late-model 240 hasn't needed
anything but routine maintenance and a new battery in three years.

But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...

Heh. Who was the first?

An acquaintance with a family farm back East. I had never heard of
Unimogs until the New York Times ran an article about them.

Stephen

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

I'd rather see one here than yet another Humvee or Escalade...

Did your own Escalade get jacked?

The price of fame...

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

I'd rather see one here than yet another Humvee or Escalade...

Did your own Escalade get jacked?

The price of fame...

And from a church parking lot, no less....

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message thlink.net...
George M. Middius wrote:


Sander deWaal said:


Except for cars, right?

Nope. The older, the better.
New cars stink, they don't have sex-appeal, they all look alike and
they're all too damned rational-built and reliable.



Then there's the venerable 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser. It is to
this day one of the very best rounds out there.

The 6.5mm Remington Magnum is a better round. The 140 gr. Swedish
Mauser 6.5x55, tops out at 2651 ft/sec. The 140 gr., 6.5mm Remington
Magnum tops out at 2943 ft/sec.

Why our
military doesn't just chamber this instead of the underpowered
5.56mm NATO or the overpowered .308 I don't know.

I hope I'm never in a situation where someone is running at me with a
bayonet on his rifle. In that situation, I think I would most prefer
the old "overpowered" .308. Call me old fashioned :-)

Bob Stanton

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:13:27 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:


But you're the second person I've met who would consider an Unimog...


Hey, I'd *love* a Unimog for country expeditions - makes a Range Rover
look positively pedestrian! :-)

Gotta love that foot-plus clearance Third place would ba a Volvo Sugga.
http://www.real4x4.com/custom.shtml(third from bottom picture)

First is a Volvo 303. 16 inches clearance. Makes a H2 look like a Yugo.
Okay, a 4-Runner makes a H2 look like a Yugo, so that's probably not a
fair comparison

www.real4x4.com - take a look at the third and fourth pictures down and
you'll understand why Oh - it's not ugly like the Pinz.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:42:21 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


But if you really have to reach out and touch someone, you want the
338 Lapua Magnum round, ideally made by RUAG, in an Accuracy
International AWM. Modern weaponry at its finest..................

Oh, I'm a big fan of mass over velocity.


600 Express, then? :-)

Um - within reason. I like to have a shoulder afterwards.


The .338 Lapua Magnum has almost identical ballistics to the .50 BMG
round, it just delivers a little less energy to the target. Given that
the BMG is really an antivehicle round, and is actually illegal for
use against unarmoured troops under the terms of the Geneva
Convention,

Which we didn't sign off on(whichever agreement it was that deal with this
item) - we just play nice to get along with them.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Well, that's undeniably true. Personally, I'd like a 1964/5 E-Type Jag
Coupe as a weelkend toy, the Series 1 with faired-in headlights, but
with the 4.2 engine and the all-synchro gearbox. Much more style than
the Beemer, about the same running costs, and similarly bulletproof
residuals.

Aww - man - that's my #4 choice. How come we disagree on audio so much
and have identical tastes in vehicles?

Lol.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:04:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

George M. Middius wrote

Obie-Wanna-private-mechanic said:

Why drive a connuter-box when you can drive a piece of history?

So as to avoid spending $10K a year on repairs and two days a week
driving a crappy rental car.

10K? You must be smoking good stuff. Can I have some?

If you buy a beater, sure - but a fully restored car show winner?

If you *buy* a fully restored show winner, then 10k a year should be
more than adequate. There's a perfect analogy in the field of
ocean-going yachting - idiots build yachts for wise men to buy.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:25:53 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

I know what you mean about hideous modern interiors. How much of that
will crumble to dust after ten years?

None, if you buy an Audi.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Bob-Stanton wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message thlink.net...

George M. Middius wrote:


Sander deWaal said:



Except for cars, right?

Nope. The older, the better.
New cars stink, they don't have sex-appeal, they all look alike and
they're all too damned rational-built and reliable.



Then there's the venerable 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser. It is to
this day one of the very best rounds out there.

The 6.5mm Remington Magnum is a better round. The 140 gr. Swedish
Mauser 6.5x55, tops out at 2651 ft/sec. The 140 gr., 6.5mm Remington
Magnum tops out at 2943 ft/sec.

The idea is to do a good job with as little recoil as possible.
It would make a great 5.56mm replacement for urban fighting.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

None, if you buy an Audi.

Any German car are perfect for Pinkie. As he's told us several times,
the Germans had the right idea in the mid-20th century.

Joseph Oberlander said:

It would make a great 5.56mm replacement for urban fighting.

Have you filled out an app yet? Grosse Pointe Woods is suburban.
Should be a cakewalk for a pro like you.

On 28 Dec 2003 07:42:03 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

I hope I'm never in a situation where someone is running at me with a
bayonet on his rifle. In that situation, I think I would most prefer
the old "overpowered" .308. Call me old fashioned :-)

Personally, I'd prefer the MP5 or MAC-10 in that situation.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Stewart Pinkerton said:

None, if you buy an Audi.

Any German car are perfect for Pinkie. As he's told us several times,
the Germans had the right idea in the mid-20th century.


One of their ideas was to invade and subjugate the British Isles.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Any German car is perfect for Pinkie. As he's told us several times,
the Germans had the right idea in the mid-20th century.

One of their ideas was to invade and subjugate the British Isles.

As I was saying......

In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:25:53 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

I know what you mean about hideous modern interiors. How much of that
will crumble to dust after ten years?

None, if you buy an Audi.

Great! I can afford a ten-year-old Audi...

Stephen

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message ft/sec.

The idea is to do a good job with as little recoil as possible.
It would make a great 5.56mm replacement for urban fighting.

That's right.

It's always recoil and ammo weight vs stopping power. That answers the
question of why the military went to 5.56mm. Low recoil and lower ammo
weight.

But, with body armor improving to the point where it can stop 5.56mm
bullets, it might be time to take a step backwards to something a
little more robust.

Bob Stanton

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 28 Dec 2003 07:42:03 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:

I hope I'm never in a situation where someone is running at me with a
bayonet on his rifle. In that situation, I think I would most prefer
the old "overpowered" .308. Call me old fashioned :-)

Personally, I'd prefer the MP5 or MAC-10 in that situation.........



Right!

Bob-Stanton wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message ft/sec.

The idea is to do a good job with as little recoil as possible.
It would make a great 5.56mm replacement for urban fighting.


That's right.

It's always recoil and ammo weight vs stopping power. That answers the
question of why the military went to 5.56mm. Low recoil and lower ammo
weight.

But, with body armor improving to the point where it can stop 5.56mm
bullets, it might be time to take a step backwards to something a
little more robust.

Walls and car doors and tree limbs so on - they also tend to do nasty
things to that little bullet before it gets to the intended target.
80-90gr seems to be about the optimal weight - light and fast, yet
will punch through a few inches of armor or various objects.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 28 Dec 2003 07:42:03 -0800, (Bob-Stanton)
wrote:


I hope I'm never in a situation where someone is running at me with a
bayonet on his rifle. In that situation, I think I would most prefer
the old "overpowered" .308. Call me old fashioned :-)


Personally, I'd prefer the MP5 or MAC-10 in that situation.........

12-gauge. Perferable a semi-auto "streetsweeper" with that large rotary
magazine.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:16:08 +0000 (UTC),
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:


Well, that's undeniably true. Personally, I'd like a 1964/5 E-Type Jag
Coupe as a weelkend toy, the Series 1 with faired-in headlights, but
with the 4.2 engine and the all-synchro gearbox. Much more style than
the Beemer, about the same running costs, and similarly bulletproof
residuals.

Enzo Ferrari was once asked in an interview which car (apart from
Ferrari) he wished he had designed. The E-type was his choice, and he
didn't even hesitate.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message
MP5 or MAC-10 in that situation.........

12-gauge. Perferable a semi-auto "streetsweeper" with that large rotary
magazine.



I once sat through a lecture, given by the FBI, on weapons. Their
prefered weapon is shotgun, loaded with O-O Buck.

Say, how about a "streetsweeper" loaded with O-O Buck?

Bob Stanton

Bob-Stanton wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message
MP5 or MAC-10 in that situation.........

12-gauge. Perferable a semi-auto "streetsweeper" with that large rotary
magazine.




I once sat through a lecture, given by the FBI, on weapons. Their
prefered weapon is shotgun, loaded with O-O Buck.

Say, how about a "streetsweeper" loaded with O-O Buck?

Sounds dandy

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Bob-Stanton wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message
MP5 or MAC-10 in that situation.........

12-gauge. Perferable a semi-auto "streetsweeper" with that large rotary
magazine.




I once sat through a lecture, given by the FBI, on weapons. Their
prefered weapon is shotgun, loaded with O-O Buck.

Say, how about a "streetsweeper" loaded with O-O Buck?

Sounds dandy









How about some of this gear for moderators of RAO?


Bruce J. Richman

I have a question,

When did the automobile take over from the horse and cart?

When people got sick of cleaning horse **** off their driveway, I
guess . So what are you implying, that movies have made music
obsolete? I guess that I better trade in my CD's for DVD's while I
still can ?

* Chexxon