Discussion in 'User Topics' started by djfly, Sep 6, 2016.
My first guess when I seen the photo was, it was a highly modified pistol with long barrel
Hang on, it can take FOUR different variances of ammo? Cool. My buddy was telling me about a lever-action gun that could swap out it's reciever or assembly to take a variety of ammo types but that one can take FOUR? Awesome. Nice little carbine I guess eh, have fun with er!
A VERY accurate pistol.
An electronic triggering system on a pistol with laser sighting would be elite to see, maybe with radio based telemetry also for connectivity to handheld devices. Accurately making sure each round was designated within the fade of movement between the users holding position and the actual target itself on sighting with wanted outcome
DJFly how many ammo carrying devices do you have in your collection?
You're amazingly correct, but for the wrong reasons. it only works because of the caliber (same reason that pistols are able to function how they do) but the mechanics are completely different (the JRC and a pistol can "get away with" extremely different things) ...
There are old actions out there that would look much like the JR carbines would if you forced them into the shape of a pistol. Same reason an UZI has a such a large lump behind the grip; much like an auto-cocker if you are are an oldschool paintballer.
I shall respond to your randomly random question with a fair response.
1. depending on what you consider "ammo".
-- I was once a tournament paintball player, a "pod" holds ~160 rounds (of 68 cal paint). I own 10-15 such "canisters", for storage and on field. I don't play anymore, the equipment is all boxed up
2. I do own firearms and along with responsible firearm ownership, I own ammo boxes with locks where I keep my ammunition. I own eight of such boxes.
-- When I'm at the range, I don various attire, which might include holsters or straps that might hold various magazines or spare ammunition in some way. I'm unwilling to calculate the number of combinations available to me, but I don't have more than six different "holders"
3. As for actual firearms that could be chambered with a live round, now or ever: I'm licensed, all of my firearms are legally acquired, owned, and possessed. They are all secured and monitored per Canadian law. Any further details (short of my showing pictures of my recreational activities) will require a court order =P
With a kit.
It's not unlike the AR platform really, but as far as Canadians go, it's not an AR (which means it doesn't get restricted by name alone in Canada). That said, the expectations should be incredibly different between an AR15 and any JRC.
To explain it in a practical way, the JRC is a mid-range battle rifle, capable of solid hits out to 200yds. but 200yds is the limit of the caliber (in my opinion at least), but the AR can be configured to hit much further out. The 5.56x45 is a smaller faster round that has the ability to maintain an accurate trajectory over longer distances.
The fun part is that it turns out that these traditional pistol calibers perform really well from the long barrels provided by the JR platform. I haven't had mine out to the range yet, but I've read and watched a few reviews where guys are getting sub-2-MOA groups (1.15"-1.85" at 100 yards) out of these things... shooting nothing more than a readily available 115gr FMJ...
I HAD to have one.
I find it kinda repetitive the amount of people that instantly start talking about AR-15 style rifles as soon as weapons and rifle conversations are brought up. I guess it has just become standard to say and use that as a benchmark against everything else that is out there. Or the classification of it not being allowed in Canada in certain specifications makes everyone want one somehow. Most people don't even realize some of these specific types of firearms are really just a bunch of extra extruded plastic or composite being added onto the outside of relatively the exact same mechanism in the internals of the firing system itself.
This is likely the reason it happens, much like how people compare hammer-fired pistols to the 1911, or striker/polymer pistols to the Glock. He/She who does it right/first becomes the measuring stick.
I think people want ARs because they're customizable and can be outfitted for almost any application. I personally avoid them due to their restrictedness in Canada. What use is a rifle that can only be fired at the range?
I brought up the AR because the JRC uses some AR parts (and it does look a lot like an AR), but the receiver itself isn't an AR and thus didn't get restricted by name alone in Canada.
I live like 100 metres from a Rifle Store that sells Rifles and Rifle related accessories, Sometimes I troll the non hunters buying weapons. You are not an example of that good sir, although it's surprising how much activity happens around these locations early in the morning and near closing. The first month it opened was a constant blur of police sirens and lights until people realized they couldn't enter the premises after hours and jack into those long stocks for profits or otherwise. Now it's just extreme drunks and weird country folk stalking every once and awhile outside the buildings. I had a wager with myself that something bad would happen within the first half a year or so with the locationing being there, I lost to myself. I guess Canada really is the opposite of Merica when it comes to a tonne of stuff and more
I've heard similar stories:
Random old guy who works at one of the Canadian Tire stores that carries firearms told me that though he works in the firearms department, he knows nothing about them. He requested the position because "the gun people are the nicest people". In Canada, that's often true. The hunters and sport shooters are so used to being questioned that they don't tend to ever cause a fuss.
This is about as close as you're going to get right now (this doesn't calculate a solution, it simply get rid of misses):
Yeah, I'd imagine a more refined version of that technology will be the future of combat starship troopers style. Multi tagging every singular objective on the battlefield autonomously and then just seeking out the distance and clear path for the weapon to fire exactly on target. Also a pistol version would be quite the feat for Police to not be able to kill every living life form on duty, instead missing the target or hitting with only non fatal injuries.
I hate how cops use lethal force indiscriminately as in it's a step they escalate to when faced with lethal danger. Why don't they ever shoot to wound? A volley of pistol shots aimed at an assailants legs is just as likely to do the trick as a volley of shots aimed at the torso, and if they fucking thought about it for a second they could be training officers to kill a lot less and wouldnt be looking so bad in the public eye. Too many drunken knife wielding subjects and innocent black people killed by cops indiscriminately aiming at torsos instead of legs.
I have a theory, this one more factual than most my other conspiracy backed ones. That many lethal Police shootings are actually programmed through their encoded radio systems using esoteric commands and timing to maneuver the bullet right into the victim as a kill shot. And this being based as almost every single Police shooting aftermath is then televised and creates a massive amount of fear and panic amongst the public. It is highly likely most the Officers pleading not guilty are doing so because they fully "believe" there was no crime committed. Although from the back channelling system it often results that many officers using radio technology and communication hold a percentage of the criminal responsibility for making each event take place. Even if they all individually "believe that nothing happened", the bigger picture often would render they are all equally at fault by the means of a third programmed party. Kinda like how Pokemon Go was cornering victims into certain locations and taking advantage of them. Instead the Police overlord system comes into play to fuel the overall machine making many of their own patsys for crimes that they don't even hold the clarity too. "Cues Jason Bourne interrogation programming scene"
Anyone who has trained with a pistol knows that what you're asking is nearly impossible. Unfortunately, Hollywood is the only training most civilians get and what is portrayed in movies when it comes to firearms is incredibly inaccurate/unrealistic.
Why less-than-lethal weapons aren't deployed more often is a better question. Though, since we don't hear about all the encounters when nobody was shot, there's no way to know how often lethal action is actually used.
What I'm saying is that they don't have to shoot to kill. Shoot for the legs, and yeah they could do it it's not Hollywood a volley of six shots from a pistol to the lower half is going to incapacitate someone and not kill them. Pistol rounds do damage but are themselves non-lethal when used on the extremities. And the extremities are valid targets! What kind of shooter are you if you say you can't hit someones legs with 6-10 semi-auto shots?
I just watched a bodycam video of some cops UNLOADING on an unarmed civilian vehicle with a CHILD inside for no reason save for that the father led them on a merry little chase. Some cops are BLOODTHIRSTY and thats because of their training and when they are told to press the kill switch. Too soon. They purposefully escalate to lethal force when they could use non-lethal options instead...
And records are kept. Bullets do massive damage to human tissue, hit the legs and they're out AND THEN you can fucking execute them for being a belligerent. Some cops are outta line with the power they've got and I'm pro-police.
Have you trained with a pistol? I've trained with a pistol and I know I could cut someone off at the legs with a semiautomatic pistol if that's what I had to do. You just aim a little lower instead of shooting for the heart and lungs.
Yes. Thousands of rounds down range. Hitting a moving target at 10 yards with any amount of adrenaline is a difficult to begin with. Attempting to hit a leg of someone moving is even more difficult. If this wasn't difficult enough, you need to forget all your training, since you train to aim for centre-mass. A firearm should always be considered a lethal weapon. It is not the tool to use when you only want to slow someone down.
If you're going to mix the emotional "police shootings" discussion into this, the answer is easy. You don't teach police to shoot at legs, you teach them to use a different tool.
Nah, too many times I've seen instances of police shooting people they shouldn't even have been shooting center mass. Cops need to be taught differently and I do respect handguns, I respect them very much. I know what a bullet can do to tissue and I know that taking them out by the legs is a strategy that could work. Much preferable to the murderous bullshit that they teach officers now.
Separate names with a comma.