Did you ever notice...
Did you ever notice that it is only people who do stupid things who feel the need to justify what they do?
My example is an ongoing conversation I'm having with a know-it-all Civil War reenactor.
(NOTE: before reading this, be aware that this is not about a gun that failed, it is about a gun that needs a new nipple because it's threaded portion is too long, not a safety problem, I can go over the details and teach you all you ever wanted to know about nipples in a future post if anyone is interested)
Here are some excerpts from his latest email "...we were testing the barrel in case a double load happens on the firing line, apparently you have never been a reenactor or had a new recruit overload a rifle. If the rifle wont take a double load then its a piece of unsafe junk. Dont get high and mighty about safety because we test all of our rifles like this before any new recruit even touches it. A double load can and does happen during battles. The rifle has to be tested before to insure it wont blow a hand off or take out an eye...But I see what kind of people you are, a powder charge does not hurt the bore..."
What we were discussing is the dumbassed habit of firing 130 grains (of unspecified powder type) in a gun whose regular load should be 60 grains of FFg.
Without even going into the fact that if a recruit can't control how much powder he puts in the gun, he shouldn't be on the field and maybe THAT is what the so-called "safety officers" should be concentrating on instead of making believe they know anything about guns or that firing an overload (I hesitate to use the term "proof test" here because the practice as described isn't really a proof test, it's just dumbassery) without taking barrel measurements before and after proves NOTHING, this conversation led me to another observation:
Did you ever notice that the people who manage to blow guns up are not all of the hunters and target shooters out there? You know: the folks who actually maintain their guns, carefully measure the powder, and ensure that it is the correct powder for the gun. Nope...it is the reenactors who think they can dump as much powder in a muzzleloader because it is just a blank, and as this guy says "...a powder charge does not hurt the bore...".
It is the reenactors who believe this that think it is OK to dump 5, 6 7 or more cartridges in a gun because "it is just a blank". It is the reenactors who seem to think that you can put double loads in a brass barreled blunderbuss and then act shocked when the brass gets work hardened and brittle, then say stupid things like that it is a "historic load" (it isn't, there is a big difference between consistent double 150 grain blanks which are double loads all by themselves and the 70 grains of FFg that should be used in a .69 cal gun).
Like I said at the beginning of this post: Did you ever notice that the people who use common sense, follow the instructions, and actually think things through using known data never have to come up with dumb excuses to justify their unsafe behavior?
My example is an ongoing conversation I'm having with a know-it-all Civil War reenactor.
(NOTE: before reading this, be aware that this is not about a gun that failed, it is about a gun that needs a new nipple because it's threaded portion is too long, not a safety problem, I can go over the details and teach you all you ever wanted to know about nipples in a future post if anyone is interested)
Here are some excerpts from his latest email "...we were testing the barrel in case a double load happens on the firing line, apparently you have never been a reenactor or had a new recruit overload a rifle. If the rifle wont take a double load then its a piece of unsafe junk. Dont get high and mighty about safety because we test all of our rifles like this before any new recruit even touches it. A double load can and does happen during battles. The rifle has to be tested before to insure it wont blow a hand off or take out an eye...But I see what kind of people you are, a powder charge does not hurt the bore..."
What we were discussing is the dumbassed habit of firing 130 grains (of unspecified powder type) in a gun whose regular load should be 60 grains of FFg.
Without even going into the fact that if a recruit can't control how much powder he puts in the gun, he shouldn't be on the field and maybe THAT is what the so-called "safety officers" should be concentrating on instead of making believe they know anything about guns or that firing an overload (I hesitate to use the term "proof test" here because the practice as described isn't really a proof test, it's just dumbassery) without taking barrel measurements before and after proves NOTHING, this conversation led me to another observation:
Did you ever notice that the people who manage to blow guns up are not all of the hunters and target shooters out there? You know: the folks who actually maintain their guns, carefully measure the powder, and ensure that it is the correct powder for the gun. Nope...it is the reenactors who think they can dump as much powder in a muzzleloader because it is just a blank, and as this guy says "...a powder charge does not hurt the bore...".
It is the reenactors who believe this that think it is OK to dump 5, 6 7 or more cartridges in a gun because "it is just a blank". It is the reenactors who seem to think that you can put double loads in a brass barreled blunderbuss and then act shocked when the brass gets work hardened and brittle, then say stupid things like that it is a "historic load" (it isn't, there is a big difference between consistent double 150 grain blanks which are double loads all by themselves and the 70 grains of FFg that should be used in a .69 cal gun).
Like I said at the beginning of this post: Did you ever notice that the people who use common sense, follow the instructions, and actually think things through using known data never have to come up with dumb excuses to justify their unsafe behavior?
posted by MVTCoPete | 2:20 PM
|
0 comments
