An order for that many squibs and prop dicks must have raised more than a few eyebrows.

*promote more squibs!

No, I don't need to research "properly cleared" firearm. You do.

By definition if it is properly cleared then it has no cartridge in the chamber and is safe.

If a person makes a mistake and assumes a firearm is cleared when it is not - then they have not - by definition - properly cleared the firearm.

If a person is shot by a firearm they assumed was cleared or they did not clear properly then by definition they have not cleared it properly.

"not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel" is usually caused by a squib load. It is easily detected both when it happens and visually by looking for light down the chamber end of the barrel (no light = projectile stuck in barrel). If you mean to say that you had a cartridge in the chamber and 30 people familiar with cleaning firearms didn't see it then you have 30 people in need of reeducation.

A self discharing firearm is not common but yes it does happen. That's why we practice muzzle safety at all times with a loaded firearm.

"Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself."
I don't know where you got this from. I never wrote any sentiment similar to this. I wrote about the difference between design and use. A firearms first use was for killing animals (people included). This is now outnumbered by sports shooters by an order of magnitude.

I think it is pretty obvious I'm familiar with firearms and you don't need to describe a 22lr Hammerli, 22lr Anschutz, etc. sports pistol or rifle to me. These are not nearly as common as other multi-use sporting firearms. Sporting includes all the disciplines in my link a few posts back and hunting game animals.

"if you truly truly deep down in your gun loving heart believe an AR-15 was invented for sport . . . well, there's nothing anyone can ever say to make you see reason."
I never suggested I did.

"If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world."
I never suggested I did. They're for expansion upon contact with body fluids to help bring about hydrostatic shock and give a larger hole with expansion of the bullet. They may have been intended for hunting (which is a sport) by its designer - I don't know and I doubt it's recorded in the history books.

"If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport"
This is getting boring.

Look it's pretty obvious you're confusing "intent of design/invention", with "design", and "purpose of use". They are three different things.

The intent of the original design for firearms was for it to be used as a weapon to kill animals (again people are animals). No two ways about that.

A firearm is designed to accelerate a projectile down the barrel.

A firearm is used for more than it's original intention. So nowadays we use it more for sports using paper, cardboard or clay targets than hunting (which is also a sport) or killing other people.

"Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there."
Now that you've finished your embarrassing diatribe could you try to be a little nicer and pay attention to what I write - not what you imagine I wrote.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^dannym3141:
Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.

Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.

Respectfully disagree sir, though i accept your opinion. A desire to improve rating doesn't just mean they take away squibs and f-words.

The decision to make the movie PG-13 instead of R was made after production was well underway. There actually is an R rated cut on the DVD. It's the same movie, with CGI blood and more profanity. I don't have time to get into it right now, but that movie sucked because John McClane wasn't the same guy we knew from the first one (and the two sequels, to a lesser extent), the overblown action was generic and unexciting, and because of Len Wiseman's slick, uninspired direction, among other things. Again, the lack of an R rating sucked but it was the least of that movie's concerns.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing though, and it's very easy to watch a "cut" on a dvd (which is probably just money for old rope anyway) and think "hey this stinks too".

I say that the desire to hold back a bit can affect the flow and atmosphere which are quite hard things to quantify. I'll agree to disagree though.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^dannym3141:
Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.

Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.

Respectfully disagree sir, though i accept your opinion. A desire to improve rating doesn't just mean they take away squibs and f-words.


The decision to make the movie PG-13 instead of R was made after production was well underway. There actually is an R rated cut on the DVD. It's the same movie, with CGI blood and more profanity. I don't have time to get into it right now, but that movie sucked because John McClane wasn't the same guy we knew from the first one (and the two sequels, to a lesser extent), the overblown action was generic and unexciting, and because of Len Wiseman's slick, uninspired direction, among other things. Again, the lack of an R rating sucked but it was the least of that movie's concerns.

Technically, Sarzy's opinions about film are actually facts. So...>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^dannym3141:
Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.

Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.

Respectfully disagree sir, though i accept your opinion. A desire to improve rating doesn't just mean they take away squibs and f-words.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^dannym3141:
Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.

Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.


Respectfully disagree sir, though i accept your opinion. A desire to improve rating doesn't just mean they take away squibs and f-words.

>> ^dannym3141:

Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.


Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.

Thank you for your intelligent, reasoned, measured response. You truly are an asset to the Sift community.

Not to belabor the point, but it was a legitimate question. I simply don't understand what people are responding to in this clip. There's not a compelling story. It's not particularly well-shot. Sure, there are some simply After Effects VFX squibs and such, but nothing that your average indie filmmaker can't do in a few hours.

I ask again, what are people responding to in this clip? Did I simply miss something, a meme or whatever? Genuinely befuddled.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^dvst8download:
This is lame. Why the upboats?

Fuck your world.

Siftbot is right about the 90% part. I would guess that the shooter is a reloader. Squib rounds are common with reloads. the first charge is not strong enough to send the round downrange and it jams in the barrel; the second round comes through and the added pressure either pushes the squib round out, or the pressure exits via the barrel. the bolt is locked in the breech and the pressure needs to go somewhere. the barrel is the weaker of the two and it goes, rather that driving a broken bolt through the shooters face.

Speculation follows:

"I'd like to select 2 bullets Mr. armorer. You'll fire another round, just to make sure that the rest of these aren't filled with sand."

doubt they were using blanks. The shot at the end was out of frame. Probably a squib in the handle of the gun, or the guy's coat sleeve.. and the cans probably were to keep the kid from hearing the numbers that were called out.

>> ^bcglorf

Well, professors of engineering from Northwestern University and MIT both dismiss the controlled demo theory out of hand in published and peer reviewed scientific journals. Sorry, I'll take their view over yours on what a controlled demo looks like.
As for the 'squibs' supposedly visible, they aren't nearly 30 floors down and they will not be caused by air, but by the smashing of the tower's concrete support beams. When several floors of skyscraper come crashing down on those beams they will shatter, explosively, and that should happen a few floors down too, not just where they are immediately in contact.


*****

There's plenty of Professors of engineering who say the exact opposite. Not to mention actual controlled demolition experts. So how are we to come to a concensus?

There are "squibs" that are 30 floors down...if not more. Deny it if you want but I've seen the footage and it certainly is unambiguous.

Please explain what physical process causes support beam 20 to 30 floors below the point of collapse to explode and while you are at it please provide a scientifically verified source for your claim. Seriously, I am keen to see how you have reached that conclusion.

>> ^Fade:
I'm sorry Bcglorf, that is entirely not the case. Show me some controlled demolition footage where the floors collapsing above caused an explosion of material 30 floors below that wasn't the result of explosives, but was the result of expulsion of air. While we're at it, show me a building that has collapsed in on itself without demolition control.
The only time I've ever seen those little puffs of material on a collapsing building is during controlled demo.


Well, professors of engineering from Northwestern University and MIT both dismiss the controlled demo theory out of hand in published and peer reviewed scientific journals. Sorry, I'll take their view over yours on what a controlled demo looks like.

As for the 'squibs' supposedly visible, they aren't nearly 30 floors down and they will not be caused by air, but by the smashing of the tower's concrete support beams. When several floors of skyscraper come crashing down on those beams they will shatter, explosively, and that should happen a few floors down too, not just where they are immediately in contact.

Hilarious! I loved the "squibely blap".

Though, not to be confused with the 80s Heavy Metal scene, which was damn good.

>> ^pho3n1x:
um, wow. read the comments in the other vid and you guys get bent outta shape for the strangest reasons sometimes.
realism? really? and wait, where does this happen in real life?


Personally witnessed someone attacking another person recently. Yeah, I have two essentially unrelated stories in the one post. <shrug>

Bizarrely enough, I found myself at the same 'camera angle', so to speak, pulling the attacker off the victim.

Even if there's no squibs going off, it's a sickening, *dark sight to behold, and I'm sickened with each and every one of you for enjoying this.

For shame.