
J.c. Devine Auction
#101
Posted 12 March 2004 - 09:58 PM
#102
Posted 12 March 2004 - 10:20 PM
#103
Posted 12 March 2004 - 10:25 PM
#104
Posted 13 March 2004 - 11:39 AM
So you are saying that a large company, like Kraft or GM, has a greater than 10% chance of having an MP5 or M16 on the property?
#105
Posted 13 March 2004 - 02:05 PM
I myself have not fully figured out if my home defense solution is a Benelli with a Surefire and Eotech and 000 buck (a single shot is like firing an 8 shot burst from a Mac11/.380 yet looks better in court) or a .357 Magnum 16" Winchester 1894 or an AR-15 with M4 upper.
I think the levergun would look good in court, but I don't have a light on mine. I could gaffer tape a light to it and then just remove it after. I could put an Eotech on it with a quickrelease. The shotgun holds as many shots but has more power and is semi-auto, and has a light -- and looks nearly as good in court. The AR-15 has much less recoil and holds more shots, but looks worse in court. And the MP5/40 might look unfair to some, even if they are in my house at 2am.
Which brings up the whole point -- a shotgun does not put you at a disadvantage, and is much more acceptable in the US than a subgun (though I hear the opposite is true in Europe where they consider the shotgun too brutal for police). So my guess is a corporation has private security with an AR-15 and shotgun in the trunk of their car. If they have a subgun, they did not really point it out to the corp and they are subcontracted with a contract that removes liability from the corp. If they have a specific threat they might bring a gun inside the building. Otherwise, they just drive around with it in the trunk.
#106
Posted 13 March 2004 - 02:43 PM
I doubt that he bought them to shoot gophers on his soybean farm.
#107
Posted 13 March 2004 - 03:14 PM
#108
Posted 13 March 2004 - 03:32 PM
#109
Posted 13 March 2004 - 06:44 PM
Ole Henry turned the tommy loose on strike breakers?...you must mean strikers...I always did have dislike for Fords...except when I get paid to fix`em.out.

#110
Posted 13 March 2004 - 07:32 PM
1. It would look bad in court.
2. If it was a good weapon some military would use it.
3. Alternating ammo types is lame.
#111
Posted 13 March 2004 - 08:15 PM
Yah, I meant ole Henry turned the choppers over to the strike breakers to set loose on the strikers....HF was a definite antisemite. With GM, who needed Ford anyway?
#112
Posted 13 March 2004 - 10:37 PM
I could see it now, the poor burgulars eyes reading "This Side Toward Enemy" as he looks up


I know thats illegal, but a nice sign in the front yard that reads: THIS HOME IS PROTECTED BY CLAYMORE MINES. BREAK ANY WINDOW OR DOOR TO SEE WHAT 700 BALL BEARINGS IN YOUR FACE FEELS LIKE.
I got carried away on that one...
Jr
#113
Posted 14 March 2004 - 11:36 AM
As for #4, I think #1 is the smallest to use as it is the smallest that will go in 12 inches into 10% ballistic gelatin. And it has 1.5 square inches of wound surface area -- more than 00 or 000. On the other hand, I am actually leaning toward 000. It is equal to an 8 shot burst from a Mac11/.380 with every shot.
#114
Posted 14 March 2004 - 12:04 PM
#115
Posted 13 August 2004 - 12:17 PM
#116
Posted 13 August 2004 - 04:36 PM
If I didn't say it before, Congratulations!
Rat-tat-tat!
#117
Posted 14 August 2004 - 06:55 AM
Congrats.
michael
#118
Posted 14 August 2004 - 03:21 PM



