WTF. Where is @Dan Brazos . Is this a troll post or did the post response overwhelm him 🧐🤠🤯😤
WTF. Where is @Dan Brazos . Is this a troll post or did the post response overwhelm him 🧐🤠🤯😤
I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
The lunatics are running the asylum
Shark, brother. I had a cheap Bissell from Walmart for 10 years but it was so loud it'd wake the dead. I like not having bags -- having the see-through collection canister means I can look and be sure that yes, indeed, I did get the cricket. I sucked up a roach once, that thing was still moving like 2 days later. Other bugs arrive dead. Sometimes I have a nightmare about the bugs all coming to life and marching out of the canister, up and then down the tube, out the floor sucky part, and then into my bedroom and up the headboard, and then I wake up.Originally Posted by WeepingAngel
Hmmmm, good idea. I wonder how long it would take to suck up a groundhog with a vacuum.Switching tools would have been more amusing.
Chris
As implied by the OP, you may need a biggerHmmmm, good idea. I wonder how long it would take to suck up a groundhog with a vacuum.calibervacuum.
Maybe one of those big ones used by municipalities to suck up leaves left on the curb by homeowners. They have an inlet tube (caliber) large enough for a critter. I'm not sure about the suction (ft/lbs energy) though.
Chris
Dude. I have a cyclone leaf vac. I could vacuum him right up and deposit him wherever I want. He'd probably clank around a little in the blower fan, but they're tough. It took me 15 minutes to run over one to death with a 4-wheeler when I was 10. Killed another one by starting my welder 20 years ago; he had climbed up into the engine belts overnight. Which reminds me, I need to go check my windows, maybe this one will be out soon. Y'all have fun.
Either I didn't make myself clear or some if you are missing the point, or both.
I wasn't refering to marksmanship as such but the supposed ability to pick your spot on a moving or partially concealed target while under fire and stressed, the 2" wide CNS, for example. Aren't we supposed to be in motion as well?
I was thinking that under most circumstances, putting lead on target, regardless of bullet size would be challenging enough without trying for the cns or cranium.
Don't write me off as a neewby because I tire of hearing the spouting of conventional wisdom. I've been shooting for over 60 years and have competed in several match categories for decades. I'll go up against any of you (shooting paper or steel). I suspect we would all score about the same against a moving, shooting team of thugs running for cover in low light.
Y'all can go on howling at the moon, but this is all I have to say. Gooday
ETA:
The mods here are shit.
Conventional wisdom is that for a reason, because it is usually right. By your logic, it's more advantageous to use a caliber that is has less recoil if the terminal performance is pretty much equal.
If the 9mm, .40, 10mm, and .45 have mostly equal terminal performance, why not choose the one that makes it easier to get hits, and can also offer more rounds on tap in a similar package?
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Getting really good at shooting a specific spot (or as close to it as possible) while under the hardest circumstances possible is kind of the essence of pistolcraft isn't it?
Small, distant, moving target, while moving is going to be really hard. The idea is to improve our odds of making the hit by getting better at shot placement.
The idea that calibur can make up for less accuracy doesn't sound right to me. Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say.
Re: Brazos Dan’s last response:
Seems like there were some guys who researched this.
Dunning and.... Kruger, I believe.
Reply With Quote