• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

BARF Militia

I got 7/10, but my answers about "what cartridge is this round based off of" were wild guesses.
 
Aha carbon fiber wrapping. I thought that answer was a joke. Everybody knows if you wrap something in carbon you "add lightness"
 
xtasie99 said:
Aha carbon fiber wrapping. I thought that answer was a joke. Everybody knows if you wrap something in carbon you "add lightness"
Click to expand...

Nope, this is some genuine stuff. Are you familiar with it?


Normally to get a stiff barrel that doesn't flex (and shoot somewhere else) when it gets hot, they make it really thick: heavy barrel.

Someone realized you can take a skinny barrel, and wrap it really tight with lots of carbon fiber, and the CF will keep it straight, and it's lighter than a heavy/thick barrel.

For instance, check out the
Christensen Arms rifles. You wind up with a rifle that weighs ~7 lbs instead of ~12 lbs.
 
Remington has(had?) a carbonfiber barreled 700 for awhile. It also has(had?) electronic trigger. Needless to say it was also crazy expensive for a factory rifle.
 
I'd like to get a Ruger 10/22 and add a carbon barrel - make it super accurate without the weight.
 
Well, 6/10 with the "based on" questions guessed at incorrectly. And no freakin clue who the bullet maker was.
 
It makes plenty of sense. I'm not dogging it at all. But from a steel spaceframe fabrication point of view, its funny. I actually have a steel tube wrapped in a carbon/glass/carbon sandwich laying around somewhere because we were trying to make a carbon tube and it stuck to the mold.
 
zefflyn said:
If you want to read a really stupid editorial, hunker on over here:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/oped/ci_2607579
Click to expand...

I'm sending this in response to the Daily Review's editorial:

It is always interesting when a legislator expressly displays her bias and ignorance of a subject as the basis for her legislation. Monday's Our Opinion in the Daily Review illustrated this point when linking Senator Diane Feinstein's continued desire to pass an "assault weapon" ban.

Oddly, Feinstein uses an example proving that gun bans don't work, to attempt to prove that the ban is needed. Per the article, Feinstein cited the shooting deaths of two LA city workers by a co-worker as proof that an assault weapons ban is needed. Initial AP reports claimed that an AK-47 assault weapon was found in the shooter's car.

Now, the AK-47 was banned by the first President Bush in 1989, It was banned by name in California by the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989. It was re-banned federally by President Clinton in 1994, and again re-banned by California's Assault Weapon act (SB23) in 2000. Clinton's Federal ban of 1994 is the only one of those 4 gun bans to have expired.

To find that a criminal can, still, in California, obtain an assault weapon, despite all these controls, would be to prove that assault weapon bans are absolutely useless, feel-good measures, based on irrational emotionalism, rather than common sense.

This, of course, confirms the findings of a 328-page report on gun-control laws issued in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel was assembled by the Clinton administration, which is significant, given that it was the administration's goal to restrict gun ownership as fully as possible.

However, after reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

What's more, the panel ignored studies showing that firearms are used by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from violent criminals upwards of 2 million times every year, frequently without firing a shot. If these citizens were disarmed by Feinstein, would she expect the criminals to simply stop victimizing the disarmed populace?

Feinstein has stated that if she could get the votes, she would have had all the good people of America turn their guns in, and it is understandable that she could still be shaken and paranoid after the deaths of her co-workers in 1978 and 1993. However, it is time for her to seek treatment for her hoplophobia, and admit that criminals committed those crimes, and not guns.

When she stops misplacing blame for crime, perhaps she'll propose effective legislation to affect a positive change in our great country.
 
W00t, 8/10, I didn't know the 300 RUM and the lone wolf question...
but good lord am I a gun nut.
 
Yea, great response bro, but it'll be a cold day in hell before anything that lucid gets printed.
 
Ha! The paper just called to verify that I wrote the editorial! I hope it gets printed tomorrow.

The Daily Review gets hardly any letter to the editor. At most, 3 in a day, but sometimes none!

I re-wrote the last two paragraphs, made it a bit less specifically Feinstein-mocking, even though those jabs were the most satisfying part.
 
Well shit.


Hell_Froze_Over.JPG
 
Damn Hippies! :twofinger

And that girl looks like she is in for a world of hurt.

Glad that you are bringing some to the dark side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top