Agree on all points, especially staying inside. Stupid prize won, indeed.

Because my cost is dealer cost at distributors which is $1,100

clicky for full size - easier to read

https://i.imgur.com/9tJJ07N.png

Torn between a browning mark for cheap range practice or another 9mm

I liked Jack Ryan on Amazon Prime a lot, especially their choice of Jim from The Office to play him since the Jack Ryan character is a desk jockey through and through


I just wished he looked at the camera and made funny faces more





I don't know about that.Although only anecdotal,I think a lot of in-person stores do overcharge (and more than just by $50) because their target market is people who don't shop for guns online (and especially don't know how to/that you can). If they make it seem like they're the only option, then they can get away with overcharging.

Sort of like how you can get a pack of 2 25 round Ruger 10/22 magazines on Grabagun for the same price you can get 1 in any store. I don't know if I believe that that's because he has to pay a ton more for those magazines than Grabagun does, he just wants to make a bigger profit on less sales vs a smaller profit on more sales

The other thing that happens is big dealers especially online or gunbroker volume dealers buy when manufacturers or distributors do "buy x number of guns get 1 free".

Say its buy 5 ruger precision rifles get one free, so they order 20. So thats $1,100 x 20 for total of $22k. Now add in the 4 free guns. They got 24 guns for $2200, which lowers their cost per gun to $916 so they can sell well below dealer cost and still make money.

meanwhile smaller dealers can't compete as we would have to sell the gun at a loss, before all the CC fees and gunbroker listing/final value fees

You moving to Alabama or nah?

What's your point?

Chest CT scans are bad for you?

Lol not this month bro. Wouldn't be until next year

It's a trend across all small business, unfortunately. Manufacturers selling to distributors for rock bottom but maintaining higher pricing to wholesalers is killing it, but they don't care because they're maximizing profits.Only an idiot thinks the NHL helped the Sharks in any way lmfao

Ruger charger with a brace for plinking gains. I have a 22lr kit for my P220 when I want to plink with it. To think, I used to not like plinking and it grew onto me.

That you're wrong. You're spewing so much misinformation its not even worth reading your posts on anything nuclear related.

The 201 number of deaths is so far off most estimates that I don't even know where you're getting it from. The UN/Russia/Ukraine reports from like a decade ago was 4,000-93,000 - long term effects are nigh impossible to measure as Farles mentioned previously.

You mean we aren't about to start fling planes with small fusion reactor using water as power source?

subtle hasn't actually watched any of the games and has successfully trolled me. gg.

Morning guys.

Doesn't seem likely in the next handful of years. Decades maybe. Unless LM gets it to actually work, but it sounded like they patented an idea that doesn't work yet.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1412164.html

I looked at .22 kits for my p226, but thought it's a bad idea. I want .22 so I can shoot 500 rounds a week and be cheap about it. Shooting 25k rounds per year through a $1000 gun seems like a poor plan. lol

I just want to get to the pre-Fallout times where our cars are driving around with nuclear power

Without the radioactive explosion from a few rifle rounds part

Let's back up here. This started as a conversation, not a formal argument, where someone brought up the HBO Chernobyl show. I had seen the trailer/preview of the show and iirc there was sentiment and dialogue saying thousands died. I then commented that they're grossly over exaggerating it. I provided two videos where the people in the videos presented evidence that:

1) The amount of ionizing radiation (measured in sieverts) from different sources, and how these nuclear disasters don't cause as much radiation as you'd think.
2) Nuclear energy is superior to wind and solar.
3) Nuclear energy disasters have killed less than 200 people to date.

So I then recited things from memory of things I read in the past, and from when I had watched those videos years ago. So yeah I'm going to get some stats wrong. Again, I'm conversing, not arguing.

Then you come in with the benefit of pulling up your own sources and "AHKCHUALLY 1 Fukishima guy will die". So I say "ok less than 201" then I cited the actual study, linked to it, that the dude in the video was talking about less than 200.

All I'm telling you is what I've read/watched. I am not a scientist, and neither are you, but you are saying I, Millz, am wrong? Don't tell me that, tell the scientists that are making the claims that I am citing.

Now as for the post you quoted above, yes I said dental x ray, oh damn sorry bro I remembered that one incorrectly when talking about something in a conversation casually. It wasn't an xray, it was a ct scan, some other common medical procedure, how could I have forgotten that detail from years ago? (I simply remembered the sentiment that "common medical procedures expose you to more radiation than Chernobyl evacuees", then incorrectly said dental xray) **** damn what an egregious error I made.

Then with regards to the commercial flight background radiation. To my memory of watching the video, the guy showed Geiger counter readings of him on a flight and it was reading something like 3 to 5 micro sieverts. When he was at Chernobyl walking around outside it was like 3 micro sieverts. That's what the video showed. But, again, good for you for having the benefit to look up and pick your own source, rather than recalling something from memory in a casual conversation.

Regarding my statement that the citizens watching from afar, this says they received an average of 1.65 micro sievertsover the course of a year. Yet a single full body ct scan gives someone 12 micro sieverts at once.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiati...ckgrounder/en/


Oh **** guess I was wrong about that too, sorry bro

l m a o

Jesus dude stop posting the huge pics

Only footage out right now of the new Legion X5. This was a prototype gun so it doesn't feature the new skeletonized trigger and it has the mechanical loaded chamber indicator on the M17 that we opted not to use in the X5. But still shows how flat it shoots.

Those thumbs are all over the slide for a guy calling himself "Gun University"

You must be new here.

Have you not met Farley?

Just enjoying the UFC on ice continuation and maybe occasionally poking a stick at the nuke fire

Buy a better scope

If any of you anti-nuclear guys really want your feelings hurt check out the radiation hormesis hypothesis which hasn't been disproven yet lol.

This is the report that says less than 200 have died.

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/...08_Annex_D.pdf

If you don't agree with it or believe it, that's fine, idgaf, but I'm not just making shiit up. In my previous post I explained the ionizing radiation statements, also wasn't making shiit up. Hawaiifivebro works in the field and he backs me up, not saying that makes us both correct (though the scientists that have written the report believe so), just saying that I'm not randomly making this shiit up.

You guys pointing out Lockheed Martin patents don't work. The article you cited was written after I had read about the LM stuff, so okay that's news to me, that's too bad. Again, I'm just conversing information I've heard/read and citing it from memory, and I'm not that far off to an egregious level. But there is the fact that we've been able to contain a fusion reaction. I don't think it's too far off from using it to reliably generate electricity (20 to 50 years is a long time for tech).

That's my closing statement. I hate all of you. *stomps off to bedroom and slams door*