>>108009
>what makes you think Trump will legalize new full autos?
bump stocks are dangerous nigger-rigged garbage, people who need high firepower weapons to defend themselves and their property should have purpose built weapons that can be operated safely, not slapped together aftermarket plastic bullshit.

>>107999
Qft

>>107999
Qft

  Trump banned bump stocks by executive order on Dec 18, 2018. “A 90 period now begins which persons in possession of bump stock type devices must turn those devices to an ATF field office, or destroy them by March 21.”
Now, if you're not familiar with what a bump stock is, here is the description of these things from the 157 page finalized rule from the US Department of Justice: "These devices convert and otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by functioning as a self acting or self regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation by the trigger or of the trigger by the shooter."
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13635046/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.0.pdf

It is impossible to know just how many bump stocks Americans own because the devices aren’t traceable, but ATF has estimated that between 280,000 and about 520,000 have been sold since 2010. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said President Donald Trump was “once again fulfilling a promise he made to the American people.” Trump had promised the ban in March, saying the devices “turn legal weapons into illegal machines.” https://www.apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af
President Donald Trump Administration Bans Bump Stocks | NBC Nightly News https://youtu.be/XgI3pRID_bM

>>108014
There's no more reason to restrict this than anything else people home brew or other dumb shit of dubious quality.
Go fuck yourself.

you see the other loophole on that one is that where the constitution of the government united states, it's very being and soul, opens with "we the people" so when the law claims a right to do such and such to place the government above the law as in this case an claims that right for "the united states" they're claiming that for you. you're part of the united states, you're one of us "we the peoples".
it is also nice to note that the people who composed that legislation way back when were educate and skilled enough to obey the no ipso facto claws (rawr) and allow current owners to keep their legal full auto guns. the people trying to ban hi capacity mags don't seem to be as educated, they have a "turn them in" mentality.

>>108047
>no ipso facto claws
Do you mean Ex Post Facto? It's one of my pet peeves when people bring that up in discussions of gun bans. It just means they can't punish you for the act of having bought a gun (or whatever) that was legal at the time you bought it. It doesn't mean they can't criminalize possession of it going forward. It's a pretty simple distinction and people get it wrong ALL THE DAMN TIME.

  Yes, ex post facto (retroactive) criminal laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Ex post facto laws are allowed in civil matters, administrative laws, or in criminal matters that do not strictly create a punishment, such as in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because "these laws do not impose any kind of punishment".

BUT... ex post facto laws may apply to gun possession rights. In the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses and on subjects of restraining orders (which do not require criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to ten years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether the weapon was legally possessed when the law was passed. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive; it is a status offense. United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson

In criminal law, ex post facto laws criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://youtu.be/-RZrFWOVugY

>>108049
>sentenced to up to ten years
>fnord
>not punitive

>>108050
Yeah, I provided the case and citation because people just might not believe that one! A person that has legally purchased firearms but later was charged with (not necessarily convicted) misdemeanor domestic abuse or had a restraining order placed on him better get rid of all of his guns immediately because if he is caught in possession of even a previously legally-obtained firearm, it means ten years in prison. This may be a tactic for using a restraining order to get a spouse or other person arrested for gun possession.

If I remember right, keeping your illegal weapons at a relative's or friend's house (or a storage locker) until your case is adjudicated may not be good enough as the courts may see you are still in constructive possession of the weapons because of your easy access to them.

Here's the whole appellate decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1332436.html

I've always wanted a No.3 Russian but it also looks uncomfortable as fuck to hold/fire.

Would anyone here happen to know why the Russians wanted it with that weird spury thing?

>>108008
Apparently it works really well.

https://youtu.be/JdwPvD8JZ84?t=2141

>>108010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdwPvD8JZ84&feature=youtu.be&t=2333

"Like fighting a squirrel that doesn't want to cuddle." - Othias 2018

>>107988
>the banks just going to take a hit
lol

>>107988
Don't know. That's probably why we don't hear anything about it outside of campaigns for elections. My personal thought is that if we could somehow de-fuck how expensive medical care is in this country, there would be plenty of money freed up to at least think about tackling other problems.
I had to have blood work for allergies done not to long ago. One blood draw, one 15 minute doctor visit, and one lab analysis is costing me just shy of $1k, and that is with health insurance. It's not even cheap health insurance.

>>107990
Wow. I have bloodwork done every 6 months for my thyroid medication, but they also test 4 other things. It only costs me like $41, and that's with no insurance... God damn dude, you might want to talk to another doc.

When going to get tests, make sure that your insurance covers them (in-network labs)!
How A Urine Test After Back Surgery Triggered A $17,850 Bill
Urine drug testing has exploded over the past decade amid alarm over rising opioid overdose deaths. Many doctors who prescribe the pills rely on the urine tests to help reduce drug abuse and keep patients with chronic pain safe. Yet the tests have become a cash cow for a burgeoning testing industry, and critics charge that unneeded and often expensive ones are sometimes ordered for profit rather than patient care. Doctors can decide whether to test patients who take opioids for short periods, such as after an operation. Moreno's surgeon would not discuss her urine test — why he ordered it and why the sample was tested for so many substances.

Three experts contacted by Kaiser Health News questioned the need for such extensive testing and were shocked to hear of the lab's prices. They said these tests rarely cost more than $200, and typically much less, depending on the complexity and the technology used. Some doctors' offices use a simple cup test, which can detect several classes of drugs on the spot and could be purchased for about $10. Bills can climb higher when labs run tests to detect the quantity of specific drugs and bill for each one, as the lab did here.

The experts said the lab's prices for individual tests were excessive, such as charging $1,700 to check for amphetamines or $425 to identify phencyclidine, an illegal hallucinogenic drug also known as PCP. They also criticized a charge of $850 for two tests to verify that her urine sample had not been adulterated or tampered with.

Moreno's insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, refused to pay any of the bill, arguing that the lab was out of network and thus not covered. Had it chipped in, it would have covered the service at $100.92, according to an explanation of benefits the insurance company sent to Moreno.

Sunset Labs says its list prices were "in line" with its competitors in the area. It also said doctors treating pain agree extensive urine testing is "the best course of action" and that a lab "is not in the position" to question tests ordered by a doctor.

Resolution: Fearing damage to his daughter's credit rating, Moreno's father, Dr. Paul Davis, paid the lab $5,000 to settle the bill in April 2017. A retired doctor, he also has filed a formal complaint about the bill with the Texas attorney general's office, accusing the lab of "price gouging of staggering proportions." The lab's attorney said he was not aware of the complaint. A Texas attorney general's spokesperson confirmed to KHN that the office had received complaints about the lab but declined further comment.

The takeaway: When a physician asks for a urine or blood sample, always ask what it&#

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>107775
they weren't, but you certainly are. If I owned a range these dirtbags, blac bloc, Klansmen, NatSoc, and any other loonies sure as shit wouldn't be allowed. I don't care about your politics but I'm not letting hate groups of either left or right stripe on my range. The last fucking thing any owner needs is two opposing groups of these chuckle fucks to show up at the same time and change the range from one directional to omni-directional due to /pol/ tier retardation about which system of oppression is better.

Yeah. 5.56 is more plentiful.

I want 277 Wolverine to gain some traction. Supposedly close to 6.8 SPC in terms of performance with only a barrel change required. No special brass or mags, easily formed from .223 unlike the more difficult to form 300 BO.

  Second bullet is good bullet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.277_Wolverine

  Only 8" barrel.

>>107864
From what I see on FNForums, a "6 bolt" receiver to barrel trunion mounting system, probably among other differences.

> if they put any work in hand-fitting and lapping the bolt to the barrel extension as you should on any precision rifle

I don't have anything to base this on, but I would not expect any hand fitting from a company like FN on a product like this. Probably tighter QC standards, but I don't think they'd pull out the Belgian gnomes for this one.

Versus the "4 bolt" mounting. This pic is from my 16, but the barrel on the 17 mounts up the same way.

And by the way, it does return to zero pretty well. Which I was slightly disappointed with since my aimpoint is cranked 3/4 the way to the right. That's right, it returns to zero, way off to one side.

(But then shoots great... so whatevs.)

Damn, back before the 16's receiver had been thrown into many a dump barrel.

Here's my ACOG zeroed for my AR behind the reddot zeroed for the SCAR. The AR zero is probably pretty centered...

>>107848
I guess in that sense the SCAR's gas system sorta represents the twin turbo 4-cylinder of the Ford Focus RS wherein it squeezes as much out of its input as possible but is very highly engineered and necessarily high-precision. Whereas the system I'm most familiar with is direct impingement or other more crude, higher volume or vented piston systems which is basically like an LS1 that is basically old, crude technology at its most refined that you can basically tune to do whatever you want. But it's always going to be less efficient for its output than the new hotness.

But maybe that's a dumb comparison.

Things that were meant to go in rifles most of the time suffer few constraints and as a result can be all sorts of shapes and sizes.

Calibers and the firearms they go in really is a broad topic so this cursory overview is meant more to help you narrow your question if you want to know more.

  This is an old US Army training video on ballistics that might help shed some light on powder burn rate, pressure curve, barrel length, etc. A lot of it isn't relevant to your question but it helps explain why cartridges on the "pistol" end of the spectrum use smaller volumes of faster burning powder and shorter barrels and and cartridges on the "rifle" end of the spectrum use larger volumes of slower burning powder and longer barrels.

  >>107759
If you're interested in old time .mil training videos, archive.org has them all available as high quality downloads. you don't need to stream them, you can make a big collection and stash them with your anime so you have something neat to watch if the internet dies. http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com has a lot of the old aircraft training films organized.
>altitude is your wealth

>>107762
Just watched the P51 training video, good stuff.

>>107704
absolutely solid dump, thank you for your contribution and for leading by example by being a good citizen of /k/

>>107706
glad you enjoyed it

whatever you choose you can certainly do better than diamondback. how about a nice masterpiece arms carbine?

There is a retarded amount of easy money to be had from posting gun pics to IG. They don't all have to be selfies, you can take picture of the guns if you want.

I think my favorite is ridiculous magnum revolver cartridges being fired from absurdly short barrels. Bonus points if the owner actually got a custom carry rig for the fucking thing. Pic is S&W 460ES.

>>107738
He's probably better of not practicing, otherwise he'll develop the flinch from hell.