Salt!!!!!

Page 2 of 2  
There's not a lot that isn't better than an M-16.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

M-16s aren't a bad weapon, I just think that an AR-10 gives you more bang for the buck. It's an M-16 in a .308 version. A bit heavier to handle the larger shell, but accurate for a lot further and still good up close. If you haven't try one. They are terrific for pig or deer.
Just my .02 Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No, they aren't bad. They're lousy.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson responds:

And I think the latter was the point of the whole deal, because no one needed to come close to precise aiming any more. The concept of a hit that did the job was passed on to a series of hits that did the job and chewed up the landscape.
M1 thumb was an interesting phenomenon, especially if that bolt closed on YOUR thumb.

The Star models of the Springfield were sweet, but even the everyday models would outshoot my talents.

I hated that thing. At 15 yards, I was better off throwing it than firing it. Of course, that was the military version, which had a trigger feel about like driving with a gearbox minus every other tooth. I understand the civilian types are usually tuned. The POS out of the armory wasn't tuned and often hadn't been cleaned well. 'S what happens when ossifers handle weapons, I guess. Us enlisted types only got to check out the pistols on alternate leap years.
Charlie Self I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29 Feb 2004 11:14:20 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

The M-16 seems like a McWeapon to me, while the 03 seems like a real rifle.

I never got bit but I was taught by a man with suspiciously mangled thumbnails.

I used to have a military version but the trigger was tricked. Now I have what they call a 1991 and the pull is heavy but not jerky. I've screwed it to the bench and it's not the most accurate piece in the world but I can slow-fire group it to four inches at fifty feet, and that's plenty good for me.
I'll confess that I am with the man who said, "A pistol is a weapon that you use to fight your way back to your rifle."
Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson writes:

I think that's why they give pistols to officers: they're not expected to really fight. They're there to scream and wave their arms while the NCOs direct the fight.
Charlie Self In a New Hampshire Jewelry store: "Ears pierced while you wait."
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norman D. Crow wrote:

True. It's something called "stoddard solvent." It displaces water.
Where people get into trouble with WD-40 is that it's not an oil. People "oil" something with WD-40, and then it rusts as soon as the "stoddard solvent" stuff has evaporated away. I think that's where the notion of WD-40 --> rust comes from.
It's good for getting water out/off of something, but no good for sealing it against future corrosion. So mayhap shoot the lock with WD-40 and then apply a few drops of oil.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote:

Thanks all! This certainly makes a lot more sense than the notion of an oil-water mix.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, once salt gets on something, it is very hard to insure that it is thoroughly removed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Mackie wrote:

Salt grinders have non-metallic grinders. I have no idea who sells them, but they do exist.
--
Ed
snipped-for-privacy@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski responds:

Chef's Catalog. Just saw one tonight, ceramic grinders. I think it's www.chefscatalog.com
Charlie Self I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.