Gun books recommendations

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Bully" <bully19.DeleteThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
news:5175r5F1ir3sfU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:rtlsq2d3sptu1ls29sln4av0iva1m3o49s@4ax.com,
> Shute <Shute.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> typed:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:29 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>> <edna_pearl.DeleteThis@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Shute" <Shute.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fijsq215k3i7h24dh6978trgr8elda0d24@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:52:16 +0000 (UTC), DZ
>>>> <8641.DeleteThis@2893123070.1773512763.92.31626.29952> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shute <Shute.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness,
>>>>>>>> in a general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the
>>>>>>>> post should have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it
>>>>>>>> relates to fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each
>>>>>>>> '.', left to right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>>>>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize
>>>>>> something you are going to start with the most general topic and
>>>>>> then work to something more specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in
>>>>> more detail?
>>>>
>>>> Your the last person I would expect to ask that so I can only
>>>> suspect it a trick question. This isn't a very good group to use
>>>> as an example. It is easiest to see in graphical form:
>>>>
>>>> misc
>>>> |
>>>> fitness
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> | | | | |
>>>> aerobic misc walking weightlifting weights
>>>>
>>>> If you where to add say nautilus it would go into a subgroup of
>>>> either weights or weightlifting. Other misc groups would be
>>>> parallel to fitness but not connected with the fitness sub
>>>> categories. So weights falls under fitness which in turn falls
>>>> under misc. Does that make sense now? With groups like:
>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.coby.hamster.ductape
>>>
>>> My god, it's actually on my server. I thought you were shitting me.
>>>
>>> ep
>>> (well, let's go see what that's all about)
>>
>> Well be careful. Many people inhabit dead groups who don't want to
>> be found.
>
> Is Ronnie Biggs out there hiding in one of them? Or did he die? What about
> Jim Morrison? Elvis?
>
>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>
> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>
>> And even when the
>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>
> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?

(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
you.)

ep
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Omelet" <omp_omelet DeleteThis @gmail.com> schreef:

>> I actually did extra fore-arm work when i ordered my gun. I really did.
>> And it helped. I have more control and a LOT less recoil than most
>> people.

> It's why (I suspect) Cohen called me a wuss over my double tap comment.
>

> Extra forearm work is in the plans...... but so is gripping it correctly.

True. But dont forget grip shape/size and material.

My Taurus is almost perfect for me.

I just hold it gently, i barely squeeze it. Most people do and they tremble.
Another thing most people do, because they fear the recoil i asssume, is
"pressing" the gun down when the trigger is pulled.

Which results in missing the target, and the barrel flips up anyway.

Weird thing is, that many experienced shooters here told me the extra mass
in my lower/upperarms and shoulders, and the overall body mass wasnt going
to help.

They were dead wrong.

There are only 2 men in the club with a .454. Me and a huge American guy,
who weighs around 320 punds.
We both shoot single handed, without problems. The gun flips quite a bit,
but nowhere near as bad when a skinny guy tries it. I am quite sure of this.

They usually walk away after one shot. Which amuses me quite a bit ;-O

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

In article <45ae0c50$0$72583$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete \(New & Improved, Version 4.08a\)" <phoutstra.DeleteThis@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet.DeleteThis@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> >> I actually did extra fore-arm work when i ordered my gun. I really did.
> >> And it helped. I have more control and a LOT less recoil than most
> >> people.
>
> > It's why (I suspect) Cohen called me a wuss over my double tap comment.
> >
>
> > Extra forearm work is in the plans...... but so is gripping it correctly.
>
> True. But dont forget grip shape/size and material.

Yes. Some modifications are a consideration but I don't think it'll be
necessary. I believe my hands are of average size.

>
> My Taurus is almost perfect for me.
>
> I just hold it gently, i barely squeeze it. Most people do and they tremble.
> Another thing most people do, because they fear the recoil i asssume, is
> "pressing" the gun down when the trigger is pulled.

A tight grip is actually recommended for competitive shooting.
Seems to help reduce muzzle flip.

>
> Which results in missing the target, and the barrel flips up anyway.

I don't seem to have that problem.
I'm not 100% bullseyes, but I have posted my targets. I have a tendency
to pull to the right (and a hair low) but now that I know what to do to
correct that, it should get better.

Now I just have to make a habit out of it.

>
> Weird thing is, that many experienced shooters here told me the extra mass
> in my lower/upperarms and shoulders, and the overall body mass wasnt going
> to help.
>
> They were dead wrong.

Indeed.
Added hand strength is never a handicap imho?

>
> There are only 2 men in the club with a .454. Me and a huge American guy,
> who weighs around 320 punds.
> We both shoot single handed, without problems. The gun flips quite a bit,
> but nowhere near as bad when a skinny guy tries it. I am quite sure of this.

Shooting one handed does produce more muzzle flip (it's inevitable) but
as long as you can bring it quickly back on target, it's not a big deal.

I hope you also practice weak handed?
IDPA competitions demand that.

>
> They usually walk away after one shot. Which amuses me quite a bit ;-O

Heh! I do at least a full magazine (or cylinder).
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

John Williams wrote:
> "J. Gleixner" wrote:
[...]

> >>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?

D'OH!

New here, Gleix?

> A little advice for your learning experience in THIS newsgroup:

Oh, like you, John Williams, are the paragon of newsgroup virtue! The
font of exemplary behavior! Yes, a peerless example of how to get along
in a virtual environment! HARDYHARHAR!!!!

> The people in this newsgroup who are mostly likely to discuss firearms
> just happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people in the
> newsgroup when it comes to training and nutrition.

And?

> I'm not trying to draw a correlation; that's just how it is.

How it is, Johnny, is that you're something of a TITP at times.

> And those same people often join in firearms discussions because
> they are just plain bored with the discussions of the more basic
> issues in weight training and nutrition. After all, there are plenty
> of newbies, anxious for recognition, who are going to jump all over
> that stuff, anyway.

Like you're not anxious for recognition. Once again, imo, you've proven
yourself something very much like a hypocrite.

> So, depending on what you hope to learn here, you might want to take
> that into consideration. Those who are not discussing what you want
> to read at the moment aren't necessarily those who know the least
> about the subject in which you're interested.

Next time just say he's a dick for dissing Om. And, yeah, guns, dogs,
politics, yadayada are all neatly within the boundaries of misc.

> HTH

Helps you to sound even more pompous than usual? I'd say so.

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a)" <phoutstra.DeleteThis@wanadoo.nl> wrote
> "Shute" <Shute.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> schreef:
>
>> Hmm, do I see a trend here.
>
> Me too!
>
>> All those are women's things except for
>> the knives.
>
> These weighlifting types are bunch of homosexuals!
>
>>I take it you just threw that in so no one would notice
>> you in the closet there. You can come out know David. We don't mind
>> if you want to talk about tampons and water retention.
>
> Water retention is not so bad.
>
> Whats BAD are those cute little, nice and shiny guns, caliber .177. THATS
> bad!

Pete, could you please explain to Shute the difference between "cosmology"
and "cosmetology"?

I don't speak Dumberthanrock, but maybe with your accent, he'll understand a
word or two.

Don't bother explaining why admiring the physical attributes of Faith Hill,
Martina McBride, Shania Twain, etcetera, is a heterosexual male thought
process. Some things are just too stupid to bother with.

Thanks.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Shute" <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hmtsq2pm5g44pq1bmsbe87912quc2hkoso@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
> <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bully" <bully19 DeleteThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
>>news:5175r5F1ir3sfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> In news:rtlsq2d3sptu1ls29sln4av0iva1m3o49s@4ax.com,
>>> Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> typed:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:29 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>>>> <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Shute" <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fijsq215k3i7h24dh6978trgr8elda0d24@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:52:16 +0000 (UTC), DZ
>>>>>> <8641 DeleteThis @2893123070.1773512763.92.31626.29952> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Anderson <twic DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness,
>>>>>>>>>> in a general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the
>>>>>>>>>> post should have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it
>>>>>>>>>> relates to fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each
>>>>>>>>>> '.', left to right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>>>>>>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize
>>>>>>>> something you are going to start with the most general topic and
>>>>>>>> then work to something more specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in
>>>>>>> more detail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your the last person I would expect to ask that so I can only
>>>>>> suspect it a trick question. This isn't a very good group to use
>>>>>> as an example. It is easiest to see in graphical form:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> misc
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> fitness
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> | | | | |
>>>>>> aerobic misc walking weightlifting weights
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you where to add say nautilus it would go into a subgroup of
>>>>>> either weights or weightlifting. Other misc groups would be
>>>>>> parallel to fitness but not connected with the fitness sub
>>>>>> categories. So weights falls under fitness which in turn falls
>>>>>> under misc. Does that make sense now? With groups like:
>>>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.coby.hamster.ductape
>>>>>
>>>>> My god, it's actually on my server. I thought you were shitting me.
>>>>>
>>>>> ep
>>>>> (well, let's go see what that's all about)
>>>>
>>>> Well be careful. Many people inhabit dead groups who don't want to
>>>> be found.
>>>
>>> Is Ronnie Biggs out there hiding in one of them? Or did he die? What
>>> about
>>> Jim Morrison? Elvis?
>>>
>>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>>
>>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>>
>>>> And even when the
>>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>>
>>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>>you.)
>>
>>ep
>>
>
> Are we all in J. Gleixner killfile yet?

I guess so. I noticed he suddenly got pretty quiet.

ep
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

In news:30931@2131724705.2345110508.17036.23871.837,
DZ <8641 RemoveThis @2893123070.1773512763.92.31626.29952> typed:
> Shute <Shute RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Tom Anderson <twic RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness, in a
>>>> general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the post should
>>>> have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it relates to
>>>> fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each '.', left to
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>
>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize something
>> you are going to start with the most general topic and then work to
>> something more specific.
>
> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in more
> detail?

It was written in Shute, that's why it's difficult to follow.

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
<edna_pearl RemoveThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

>"Bully" <bully19 RemoveThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
[...]

>>
>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>
>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>
>>> And even when the
>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>
>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>
>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>you.)
>

You appear to be very easily pleased Edna dear.

Of course your hero worship now means that we will probably have to
endure more of the Bully boy's banalities, as he whets his bullying
appetite on the smallest chap in the school playground, with a silly
little girl shrieking misguided approval.

I thought you had more substance than that, but the inappropriate
apostrophe in "it's" [sic] probably speaks volumes.
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Charles" <jrh DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:hhusq293j1ghrmd4q8562maq8bdnflob38@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
> <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bully" <bully19 DeleteThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
> [...]
>
>>>
>>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>>
>>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>>
>>>> And even when the
>>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>>
>>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>>you.)
>>
>
> You appear to be very easily pleased Edna dear.
>
> Of course your hero worship now means that we will probably have to
> endure more of the Bully boy's banalities, as he whets his bullying
> appetite on the smallest chap in the school playground, with a silly
> little girl shrieking misguided approval.
>
> I thought you had more substance than that, but the inappropriate
> apostrophe in "it's" [sic] probably speaks volumes.

Somebody finally is ragging on me about a typo in one of my posts! Thank
god! I can relax now. It''''''''s like when you get a new car, you should
just go ahead and take a hammer to it so you don't have to worry about
scratching the finish any more. My grammatical accuracy has taken a nice
ding, and now I can relax. Thanks, Charles

ep
(who always allows otters to work in)
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

In news:fijsq215k3i7h24dh6978trgr8elda0d24@4ax.com,
Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> typed:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:52:16 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> <8641 DeleteThis @2893123070.1773512763.92.31626.29952> wrote:
>
>> Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Anderson <twic DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness, in a
>>>>> general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the post should
>>>>> have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it relates to
>>>>> fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each '.', left to
>>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>>
>>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize something
>>> you are going to start with the most general topic and then work to
>>> something more specific.
>>
>> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in more
>> detail?
>
> Your the last person I would expect to ask that so I can only suspect
> it a trick question. This isn't a very good group to use as an
> example. It is easiest to see in graphical form:
>
> misc
> |
> fitness
> |
> |
> --------------------------------------
> | | | | |
> aerobic misc walking weightlifting weights
>
> If you where to add say nautilus it would go into a subgroup of either
> weights or weightlifting. Other misc groups would be parallel to
> fitness but not connected with the fitness sub categories. So
> weights falls under fitness which in turn falls under misc. Does
> that make sense now? With groups like:
> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.coby.hamster.ductape
> it kind of loses the point.

Think of it like a binary shift left logical until the odd register is
blank; then, whatever is left in the even register is the "topic".

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations