Shooting high in the rain

[mike16]

Freddy,

your so full of it. I recall one time,.... one time! when I dared to make reference to an NRA publication on the FF stamps on LE's and you went off on me. Not The NRA. Not the Author, and not the information stated. It seems that freddy wants to control the flow of knowleg to and from. Its not enough to suck up to you or even agree with you freddy but to simply sit in silence and be awed by your impressive citation of the tomes.

your sources are out dated, and even if they state facts that remain accepted today most people would rely on the most current information rather than books that are 100 plus years old. You would never get buy submitting a GRP for a masters if you relied on references 100 year old or lame hollow arguements like the ones you rely on to attack other people rather than the statements they make..

I hope others who read your drivel recognise that you are not impressing us with just the names of authors but gunsmiths and shooters too. impressive list of names to drop but how many of them did specific tests on water drenched rounds. so how relevent are they, and how relevent since the last 20 plus years when lubed rounds have been marketed commecially. and since the lubed round issue is a dead horse. lets just focus on water drenced rounds. The russians have developed since the late 60's fire arms that shoot while submerged, drenched enough for you? and there are silencers on the market now that function after being submerged in water. drenched enough for you? But since you 100 year old books on LE's dont metion russian developments in the 60's.. it does not apply. Since your 50 year old books on LE's dont mention all the advances made since then. those advances dont apply. and no advances apply because published data does not refference the LE specifically.

do you even hear your self?

But your right because you can quote all of these authors, gunsmiths and shooters in your 100 year old books.....on drenched rounds as decribed by they op's first post....right?....right? I will call you out right now by challenging your implication that all these authors, shooters and gunsmiths wrote on the subject of drenched rounds. I'm betting they all did not, so why mention them? for who's benifit? dont you have to rely on the reader to be a bit stoopit to believe that, as you imply, all of these people wrote on this specific subject and there for you can quote from them. I could be wrong but I'll risk calling you out on that.


Crust's discription was accurate and detailed enough that you could turn to any refference by any author, gunsmith or shooter and say Ah! Yes! so and so refferenced drenched rounds, as decribed by crusty, in his famous reveared tome of 1938 blah blah blah? I bet you wish we were stoopit enough that you could pull that off.

You do more than hint that your credentials carry enourmous weight. well thats better than quoting shooters, gunsmiths and authors except you blow that out of the water as well, the only credential that should matter and conviently does not; is your shooting and engineering experience. But you dont rely on shooting experience too much which is a good thing if you have none that pretains to drenched rounds. and your enginneering prowess? I would suspect that too because of your unsound arguements. I have read of more sound arguements from 9th graders. You play fast and loose with your slight of hand, and maybe that fools alot of idiots. but anyone who takes shooting these rifles seriously see's right through your gibberish and elusive rant.

Your refferences are too old, technology has passed you by, Just because new refferences dont mention LE's does not mean they are irrelevant or not appricable. WE are not wrong simply because you can quote some irrelevant 100 year old text based on myths and misunderstanding.

You would never make a good teacher because you covet all the sources of information you refer to.You must control not just the information but the flow of information. Your the guy behind the curtain in the wizzard of oz.

Crusty did not describe all the conditions with enough detail that we can discern what is relevent or not (excepting your own contributions).

We, none of us know, just how drenched crusty.... and so many other shooters rounds were or how full of water their chambers ware. Who shoots in such conditions that thier rounds are drenched and chambers filled with water. For a test maybe, for competition? I'll bet not. Let crusty chime in here to decribe drenching his rounds in water and filling his chamber with water. is the experiement repeatable?

Freddy, ole boy. why dont you refference your library in aserting why some rifles shot high and others did not. quoting your library of text's. that way nobody can dispute what you say or if you are wrong. You are wrong but at least you got a 100 year old library to surround and comfort you in your ignorance.

By the way,,, impressive collection. too bad its of no value to us. you?...yes....us? none at all. But thanks,,,again for reminding us of where we are in your food chain.