It’s not something I normally do, but I’m gonna go ahead and
+1
this post.
It always makes me laugh when I watch one of those videos (RF does this) where they drop the magazine, show clear, and then rack the slide literally 3-4-5 times in quick succession, because, y’know a round could jump out of the nonexistent magazine and into the chamber if you only rack it once. I’ve seen RF do it 3 times in the same video, simply because he walked out of frame for a second without a break in the running video.
While clearing a weapon, I never consider a single ‘rack’ sufficient. It is not impossible that the extractor has failed to perform its designed function and a live round’s rim has become wedged/hung in the extractor. This could be missed in a single-cycle (without close chamber inspection), especially if done rapidly.
I do understand it can look a bit foolish at times, but its a solid practice to cycle multiple times.
If done after you’ve shown clear, it can help forcibly remove accumulated gunk from frame rails, etc.
Easier and more reliable to clear the chamber visually. Don’t know of any gun-handling evolution that requires you to clear to time.
It’s an acknowledgement of human fallibility. We all know how clearing a semi-automatic handgun is supposed to go: you remove the source of ammunition, you clear the chamber by working the slide, you visually and physically inspect the magazine well, the breech face and the chamber.
So let’s think about what happens if you screw up, specifically if you screw up step one, and forget to take the mag out first. In step two, you work the slide, and a round is ejected. Now, if you always just work the slide once, this will look exactly the same whether or not you did step one correctly: one round ejects. Of course, if step one wasn’t done correctly, you’ve still got a round in the chamber, and the gun isn’t being properly cleared. On the other hand if you routinely work the slide multiple times, things look different if step one happened correctly or not. If step one was done right, then one round ejects on the first rack and then the rest of the racks don’t eject anything. However, if the gun keeps ejecting rounds after the first rack, then you’ve screwed up and need to go back to step one.
So, yeah, it looks silly sometimes, but if you do it consistently, it’ll be there when your brain is conspiring to kill you by making you think you’ve done something when you haven’t.
Didn’t say I wouldn’t prefer Jewel Straithe, even if she is a bit of a hippy. Gina gets bonus points for being a badass in the show as well as for knowing how to actually shoot and for not flinching using blanks like many actors do.
Summer Glau FTW.
Oh, come on guys, get serious.
Morena Baccarin.
Well, CarlosT, yeah, Morena Baccarin. It’s true that she’s achingly beautiful, even more so when all made up as Inara. So beautiful, in fact, that I’d hate to see the look on her face when I inevitably disappointed her.
Jewel, on the other hand, is even better looking in real life than on TV, and she seems tough enough to handle the inevitable disappointment.
‘Paula Broadwell poses with submachine gun in tight jeans and leather boots on firing range’
‘The mistress who brought down disgraced CIA Director David Petraeus was snapped shooting up a storm with the futuristic firearm in December 2011’
The obvious sign that these yahoos are gun Noobes is that they think a Marlin 336/94 is the same rifle as a Win M-92 with identical geometry. Or that Hollywood creative film editing was never involved in the finished cinematic product
Need I state the rebuttal to their belief system??
You guys do realize that John Wayne was twirling a Winchester long before Chuck Conners portrayed Lucas McCain, right? You need to watch “Stagecoach” made in 1939, with the Duke starring as the “Ringo Kid”.
Chuck Connors was 1-2 inches taller than the Duke. He had also been a pro athlete before becoming an actor. He was one of the few men to be both a pro baseball player and basketball player.
Connors model 92 had a couple of modifications. 1 was a device described as a “plunger” in the action of the .44-40 rifle itself. It kept the live ammo, 5 in 1 blanks, from flying out of the action of the rifle during the spinning process. The other mods were to the lever. An enlarged lever and an adjustable screw thru the trigger guard that could allow for the rifle to fire as soon as the action closed, sort of a semi auto device, or to manually press the trigger as for normal operation.
Connors was a Person of the Gun and a natural athlete and he practised for hours to get the drill with the rifle down pat.
Duke had shorter arms and his rifle needed to have a slightly shortened stock so that he could twirl it without fouling it up.
The Rifleman had a screw pin on the loop of his Winchester that would depress the trigger whenever he returned the lever to the firing position. Supposedly, not needing to pull the trigger with his finger allowed him to shoot more rapidly. When he tried to demonstrate his technique on the Tonight Show, he ended up dumping all his rounds on the studio floor.
Back In The Day, I (or a friend, who knows) had a cap gun lever action, and it had a little lever that you could flip that would act as the screw does. It was easy to turn on an off.
I can’t say I’d ever have one on a real rifle, at a minimum I can see it working lose and accidentally engaging, which would be Bad.
Chuck Connors was the original badass before that sissy-boy Chuck Norris came along. He didn’t spin his rifle. The world spun around it.
Right on.
Thank you for not (unnecessarily) showing us the gun was unloaded prior to the demo.
It’s not something I normally do, but I’m gonna go ahead and
+1
this post.
It always makes me laugh when I watch one of those videos (RF does this) where they drop the magazine, show clear, and then rack the slide literally 3-4-5 times in quick succession, because, y’know a round could jump out of the nonexistent magazine and into the chamber if you only rack it once. I’ve seen RF do it 3 times in the same video, simply because he walked out of frame for a second without a break in the running video.
While clearing a weapon, I never consider a single ‘rack’ sufficient. It is not impossible that the extractor has failed to perform its designed function and a live round’s rim has become wedged/hung in the extractor. This could be missed in a single-cycle (without close chamber inspection), especially if done rapidly.
I do understand it can look a bit foolish at times, but its a solid practice to cycle multiple times.
If done after you’ve shown clear, it can help forcibly remove accumulated gunk from frame rails, etc.
Easier and more reliable to clear the chamber visually. Don’t know of any gun-handling evolution that requires you to clear to time.
It’s an acknowledgement of human fallibility. We all know how clearing a semi-automatic handgun is supposed to go: you remove the source of ammunition, you clear the chamber by working the slide, you visually and physically inspect the magazine well, the breech face and the chamber.
So let’s think about what happens if you screw up, specifically if you screw up step one, and forget to take the mag out first. In step two, you work the slide, and a round is ejected. Now, if you always just work the slide once, this will look exactly the same whether or not you did step one correctly: one round ejects. Of course, if step one wasn’t done correctly, you’ve still got a round in the chamber, and the gun isn’t being properly cleared. On the other hand if you routinely work the slide multiple times, things look different if step one happened correctly or not. If step one was done right, then one round ejects on the first rack and then the rest of the racks don’t eject anything. However, if the gun keeps ejecting rounds after the first rack, then you’ve screwed up and need to go back to step one.
So, yeah, it looks silly sometimes, but if you do it consistently, it’ll be there when your brain is conspiring to kill you by making you think you’ve done something when you haven’t.
Laugh all you want. You’ll be the topic of an IGOTD article about your ND eventually.
Next up… Twin Mare’s legs!
I still want a Mare’s Leg, just because of Firefly. While I’m at it, I also want Gina Torres.
I was always a Jewel Staite guy, myself.
Didn’t say I wouldn’t prefer Jewel Straithe, even if she is a bit of a hippy. Gina gets bonus points for being a badass in the show as well as for knowing how to actually shoot and for not flinching using blanks like many actors do.
Summer Glau FTW.
Oh, come on guys, get serious.
Morena Baccarin.
Well, CarlosT, yeah, Morena Baccarin. It’s true that she’s achingly beautiful, even more so when all made up as Inara. So beautiful, in fact, that I’d hate to see the look on her face when I inevitably disappointed her.
Jewel, on the other hand, is even better looking in real life than on TV, and she seems tough enough to handle the inevitable disappointment.
Gina Carano.
I have a Mares Leg, they are awesome.
Next up: Darwin award presentation.
I don’t even need to see the vid,,,,,,,
Lever actions are fun. The original CAR (cowboy assault rifle). And who can really resist channeling their inner Lucas McCain?
‘Paula Broadwell poses with submachine gun in tight jeans and leather boots on firing range’
‘The mistress who brought down disgraced CIA Director David Petraeus was snapped shooting up a storm with the futuristic firearm in December 2011’
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/paula-broadwell-poses-submachine-gun-article-1.1205335#ixzz2Cp8weIli
And this fits the thread because. . . ?
It’s about guns and ammo.
The obvious sign that these yahoos are gun Noobes is that they think a Marlin 336/94 is the same rifle as a Win M-92 with identical geometry. Or that Hollywood creative film editing was never involved in the finished cinematic product
Need I state the rebuttal to their belief system??
I don’t notice anyone making such a claim. The guy is just goofing off. Why do you feel a need to belittle him?
He acts that way because this is the internet, and he mistook our comments section for the one actually on YouTube.
Behold (some NSFW language):
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
http://xkcd.com/202/
+100
Lucas has an awesome last name.
You guys do realize that John Wayne was twirling a Winchester long before Chuck Conners portrayed Lucas McCain, right? You need to watch “Stagecoach” made in 1939, with the Duke starring as the “Ringo Kid”.
Chuck Connors was 1-2 inches taller than the Duke. He had also been a pro athlete before becoming an actor. He was one of the few men to be both a pro baseball player and basketball player.
Connors model 92 had a couple of modifications. 1 was a device described as a “plunger” in the action of the .44-40 rifle itself. It kept the live ammo, 5 in 1 blanks, from flying out of the action of the rifle during the spinning process. The other mods were to the lever. An enlarged lever and an adjustable screw thru the trigger guard that could allow for the rifle to fire as soon as the action closed, sort of a semi auto device, or to manually press the trigger as for normal operation.
Connors was a Person of the Gun and a natural athlete and he practised for hours to get the drill with the rifle down pat.
Duke had shorter arms and his rifle needed to have a slightly shortened stock so that he could twirl it without fouling it up.
The Rifleman had a screw pin on the loop of his Winchester that would depress the trigger whenever he returned the lever to the firing position. Supposedly, not needing to pull the trigger with his finger allowed him to shoot more rapidly. When he tried to demonstrate his technique on the Tonight Show, he ended up dumping all his rounds on the studio floor.
Back In The Day, I (or a friend, who knows) had a cap gun lever action, and it had a little lever that you could flip that would act as the screw does. It was easy to turn on an off.
I can’t say I’d ever have one on a real rifle, at a minimum I can see it working lose and accidentally engaging, which would be Bad.
But it was great for cap gun.