Boxhead
Member
Small, medium and large bores.
Let's see your tough guns....
- Thread starter gizamo
- Start date
- Status
Kentucky_Rifleman
Member
Tuff Enuff for a century of empire
I have prettier pistols, more powerful pistols, more valuable pistols, and more accurate pistols, but I love the old Webley. It came to me cut for the .45 from my great uncle's estate. No one knows where he came up with it.
It sure does look all business though
KR
I have prettier pistols, more powerful pistols, more valuable pistols, and more accurate pistols, but I love the old Webley. It came to me cut for the .45 from my great uncle's estate. No one knows where he came up with it.
It sure does look all business though
KR
Attachments
people uninformed about guns, and what else?
but you should research the actual facts of that McDonalds lawsuit.
1 - McDonalds had a mandatory policy that the coffee served be comming out of the machine at 200 degrees, in order to reduce the amount of free refils.
2 - McDonalds purchased a style of cup that would maintain that temperature of 200 degrees for fifteen minutes, which would reduce the speed the coffee was sipped, and reduce the amount of refills.
3 - The Jury found the woman 20% responsible for her injuries because she did spill the coffee, and only awarded her 80% of the 200k dollars amounting to compensatory damages.
4 - Liquids above 160 degrees will scald and melt flesh instantaneously.
5 - Coffee machines from the stores usually dispense coffee between 120 and 140 degrees, rarely above 150, because it's common knowledge in the coffee industry that 200 degree coffee is extremely dangerous and not palatable.
6 - The woman had to undergo over 40,000 dollars in surgery to remove the dress that was instantly melted into her vagina, and then reconstruct all the flesh that was seared closed. She will never feel there again, ever. A spill of coffee at 140 degrees would not have had this effect.
7 - The 2 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury was the net profits that McDonalds made off JUST coffee in JUST two days. The jury wanted to send a message, it wasn't the plaintiff (woman) or her lawyer that asked for that amount. That was totally up to 12 normal people.
8 - McDonalds contacted all their media outlets that they advertised on and told them if they presented the full facts (the 200 degree stuff and the corporate policy which was documented) they would NEVER advertise again. Thus, we ended up with
TOTALLY UNINFORMED PUBLIC making broad generalizations about stuff they know very little about.
This is a huge problem with firearms, and we all get up in arms when people make comments that are false when looked at under all the facts. This is why I wanted to point this out, because it's the same thing happening, but against lawsuits that should be brought in order to be one of the methods to keep companies in check.
Yes, I believe this lawsuit had it's place and was important.
back on topic, I agree that the x-frames are pretty tough guns, though they don't hold a candle to the pic in the OP.
Not to get off topic,I am quite amused by the concern over someone else's camera. Even the pictures that we see of people pointing guns at their own heads, what business is it of ours. Unless seeing that activity forces you to do the same, it doesn't affect me at all. Those who are not smart enough to actually understand the implications and hazards of pointing a gun at themselves, we should protect, but for the rest of us with brains enough to think through the situation, we should encourage the use of the brains we have.
I think we protect people way too much which is why people can sue McDonalds for serving hot coffee.
For those of us who understand guns, we should understand that a single action revolver isn't going to fire by itself, accidentally killing the camera.
but you should research the actual facts of that McDonalds lawsuit.
1 - McDonalds had a mandatory policy that the coffee served be comming out of the machine at 200 degrees, in order to reduce the amount of free refils.
2 - McDonalds purchased a style of cup that would maintain that temperature of 200 degrees for fifteen minutes, which would reduce the speed the coffee was sipped, and reduce the amount of refills.
3 - The Jury found the woman 20% responsible for her injuries because she did spill the coffee, and only awarded her 80% of the 200k dollars amounting to compensatory damages.
4 - Liquids above 160 degrees will scald and melt flesh instantaneously.
5 - Coffee machines from the stores usually dispense coffee between 120 and 140 degrees, rarely above 150, because it's common knowledge in the coffee industry that 200 degree coffee is extremely dangerous and not palatable.
6 - The woman had to undergo over 40,000 dollars in surgery to remove the dress that was instantly melted into her vagina, and then reconstruct all the flesh that was seared closed. She will never feel there again, ever. A spill of coffee at 140 degrees would not have had this effect.
7 - The 2 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury was the net profits that McDonalds made off JUST coffee in JUST two days. The jury wanted to send a message, it wasn't the plaintiff (woman) or her lawyer that asked for that amount. That was totally up to 12 normal people.
8 - McDonalds contacted all their media outlets that they advertised on and told them if they presented the full facts (the 200 degree stuff and the corporate policy which was documented) they would NEVER advertise again. Thus, we ended up with
TOTALLY UNINFORMED PUBLIC making broad generalizations about stuff they know very little about.
This is a huge problem with firearms, and we all get up in arms when people make comments that are false when looked at under all the facts. This is why I wanted to point this out, because it's the same thing happening, but against lawsuits that should be brought in order to be one of the methods to keep companies in check.
Yes, I believe this lawsuit had it's place and was important.
back on topic, I agree that the x-frames are pretty tough guns, though they don't hold a candle to the pic in the OP.
Last edited:
Cranky CJ
Member
My megar collection of pistols.
Anybody up for a little 410 shotgun action?? a 10 yr old sure thinks its a tough gun
The newest addition
Anybody up for a little 410 shotgun action?? a 10 yr old sure thinks its a tough gun
The newest addition
Can2boy
Member
Kentucky_Rifleman
Member
Is that a shotgun with a flash suppressor? Seriously; I mean no disrespect at all, but so many flash suppressors are decorative, and it had never occurred to me to put one a 12 gauge... Does it actually work?
KR
Can2boy
Member
^^^^^^ nope! it doesn't work as a flash suppressor because it's a door "breacher". i admit it's more for the looks...... lol. but believe me brother with those sharp teeth, it can easily go through a skull. ( that's if BG is not down after 6 rounds of 000BK)
recoiladdict
Member
this (first post, Fitz Special) is the toughest looking piece of anything I have ever seen. I will refer to this as The Fitz from now on, just so I don't have to try to describe its unusual roughness on every occasion. Some days I'm better with words than I am on other days.
I had a friend in junior high whose grandfather had spent much of his life as a boxer. The old man had the hands of a monster, half human and half steam shovel. At my first glance at this gun, an image of the steam shovel hands flashed across my mind. I imagined the hands bandaged as if the flesh and bone would fly apart if it all weren't wrapped tightly or the old man's will weren't strong enough to keep it all together.
I had a friend in junior high whose grandfather had spent much of his life as a boxer. The old man had the hands of a monster, half human and half steam shovel. At my first glance at this gun, an image of the steam shovel hands flashed across my mind. I imagined the hands bandaged as if the flesh and bone would fly apart if it all weren't wrapped tightly or the old man's will weren't strong enough to keep it all together.
CajunBass
Member
1950 Colt Official Police 38. I'll bet this one could tell a few stories.
Nushif
Member
Cause I still can't quote:
Quote:
What exactly about the photo was unsafe or broke the rules?
Rule #2 - Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Rule #3 - Keep your finger off of the trigger until your sights are on the target.
How is having your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon, pointed at a target you are not intent on killing not violating the 4 cardinal rules?
I realize it was a photo, and the poster has stated that it was taken under controlled circumstances, but the fact remains that it displays unsafe gun handling. If you don't have a problem with that, then fine. I choose to practice safe weapon handling. You are free to choose otherwise.
In my line of work I point loaded weapons weapons at people an awful lot, without the intent to brass their asses up.
And my trigger finger is often less than a quarter inch away from the trigger.
While I understand that these rules are fundamentals of handling a firearm safely, they are designed for hunting and basic home defense.
On the other hand, my first CQB instructor ever told us all:
"Don't worry so much about flagging your buddy, you're breaching a damn house, it's going to happen.""
Then he went on to tell us that the prime difference between a black and white cross is whether you, the shooter in CQB scenarios identified the target before shooting. Also his rule was to not aim within one metre of a friendly.
I understand promoting safe practices, and it's not okay to flag people at a range, or while gutting a deer. But some common sense can surely supplant these rules during a photoshoot aimed at how things look during ... CQB?
Because when I move in any kind of tactical scenario, there's a pretty damn good chance I'm pointing a *gasp* loaded and cocked weapon at a metric ****-ton of things I don't particularly want to destroy.
Quote:
What exactly about the photo was unsafe or broke the rules?
Rule #2 - Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Rule #3 - Keep your finger off of the trigger until your sights are on the target.
How is having your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon, pointed at a target you are not intent on killing not violating the 4 cardinal rules?
I realize it was a photo, and the poster has stated that it was taken under controlled circumstances, but the fact remains that it displays unsafe gun handling. If you don't have a problem with that, then fine. I choose to practice safe weapon handling. You are free to choose otherwise.
In my line of work I point loaded weapons weapons at people an awful lot, without the intent to brass their asses up.
And my trigger finger is often less than a quarter inch away from the trigger.
While I understand that these rules are fundamentals of handling a firearm safely, they are designed for hunting and basic home defense.
On the other hand, my first CQB instructor ever told us all:
"Don't worry so much about flagging your buddy, you're breaching a damn house, it's going to happen.""
Then he went on to tell us that the prime difference between a black and white cross is whether you, the shooter in CQB scenarios identified the target before shooting. Also his rule was to not aim within one metre of a friendly.
I understand promoting safe practices, and it's not okay to flag people at a range, or while gutting a deer. But some common sense can surely supplant these rules during a photoshoot aimed at how things look during ... CQB?
Because when I move in any kind of tactical scenario, there's a pretty damn good chance I'm pointing a *gasp* loaded and cocked weapon at a metric ****-ton of things I don't particularly want to destroy.
Kentucky_Rifleman
Member
Nushif
Member
I can never say it enough ... I *love* concealable guns ... especially snubbies.
LOVE Snubbies.
LOVE Snubbies.
whitecoyote
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 151
Bulldog Pug .44 Special
Colt 1917 Army, .45 ACP
Colt 1917 Army, .45 ACP
shotgunjoel
Member
I know that this is the revolver section, but we need a Remington 1740 in here!
HisDivineShadow
Member
Latest purchase, I dunno how "tough" it is, just wanted an excuse to post it
MCgunner
Member
Revolver forum, I know, but this is a shot of why this one is a "tough gun". I need a similar shot of my NEF 10 gauge.
That one is one tough, bad to the bone shotgun, at least geese that stray within 60 yards would say so.
That one is one tough, bad to the bone shotgun, at least geese that stray within 60 yards would say so.- Status
