search results matching tag: 300

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (702)     Sift Talk (44)     Blogs (90)     Comments (1000)   

Vox explains bump stocks

newtboy says...

I mixed up your two fire rates (.2 and .12) still you said you can keep up 5rps for many minutes (10 for a short time) not 3...."My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute." And that's only really 300rpm if you have a 300 round mag.

....wait...why am I wasting my time on this? It's clear you're not comparing Apple's to Apple's.
You didn't come close to convincing me that manual 120 shots per minute at 400 yards all well aimed is believable...even belt fed. Keep in mind he actually averaged hitting one moving person in the dark at 400 yards per second for 10 minutes. Your generous competition numbers have you double tapping at 45 targets per min (without a hit rate given, or range).

First you claimed .2 second split is 300 rpm, now you say it's 90rpm. I'm so over this. Have fun at the range.
Again, the target was the crowd. He got more lead on that target on auto. No aim needed.
I've been shooting (non competitively) for 40 years btw, after rifle marksmanship courses for 3 years starting at 7...but thanks for the suggestion.

harlequinn said:

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Vox explains bump stocks

newtboy says...

I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.

harlequinn said:

I shoot regularly (often multiple times per week). My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute.

An AR-15 on full auto fires at approximately 600 rounds per minute - twice what I can do on semi-auto. Using a competitive shooter as an example, and taking into account magazine changes (which with training are done much quicker than any of the operators in AR-15 to failure tests I've seen), and assuming lazy splits of 0.30 seconds, a competitive shooter can probably fire at a faster rate per minute than a novice can on full auto (i.e. well more than the approximately 150 rounds per minute a novice shooter achieves when taking into account magazine changes).

The thing is, it is well known in military and firearm enthusiast circles that the massive reduction in accuracy when shooting on full auto does not give the perceived payoff. You have much less control when firing a fully automatic firearm. You hit your target less often. Semi auto plus aiming = hits on target. At the range he was shooting (300 to 350 meters), the same lunatic deciding to aim his firearm would have resulted in less wounding and more fatalities.

Any ex-military here? Chime in.

Vox explains bump stocks

harlequinn says...

I shoot regularly (often multiple times per week). My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute.

An AR-15 on full auto fires at approximately 600 rounds per minute - twice what I can do on semi-auto. Using a competitive shooter as an example, and taking into account magazine changes (which with training are done much quicker than any of the operators in AR-15 to failure tests I've seen), and assuming lazy splits of 0.30 seconds, a competitive shooter can probably fire at a faster rate per minute than a novice can on full auto (i.e. well more than the approximately 150 rounds per minute a novice shooter achieves when taking into account magazine changes).

The thing is, it is well known in military and firearm enthusiast circles that the massive reduction in accuracy when shooting on full auto does not give the perceived payoff. You have much less control when firing a fully automatic firearm. You hit your target less often. Semi auto plus aiming = hits on target. At the range he was shooting (300 to 350 meters), the same lunatic deciding to aim his firearm would have resulted in less wounding and more fatalities.

Any ex-military here? Chime in.

newtboy said:

I think his point is it's not a 10% difference, more like >90%.
Assume they're right and it only shoots 3 times faster, and your finger of steel doesn't get tired 100 rounds in, shooting at max manual speed is even less accurate. Full auto allows far more bullets for a longer time with far more control. In a crowd shoot, it clearly makes a huge difference imo.
It wouldn't make it a non tragedy, but would certainly meaningfully affect the outcome.

My fear is they'll only ban bump stocks and not the dozen other methods of making semi auto go full auto.

Rabbit vs Turtle! The Movie!!

Craigslist Ad for "$25 an hour protesters", for guess where

Super 73 ebike review: the best electric bike!

slickhead says...

60 lbs is not terrible for an e-bike. The extra pounds don't matter so much with electric assist.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/6mz5vg/upgrading_parts_on_ebike_worth_it/
Also, the wider tires don't add resistance.
https://www.schwalbetires.com/wider_faster_page

I like the 70s style (and the copper finish on the edition limited of two bikes .... wonder what that cost?) but this thing is overpriced for the level of tech. If these guys put as much effort into e-bikes as they do hyping stuff on YouTube they might make a nice bike one day. As it stands this is simply overpriced. The narrator thinks he can just call it the "best electric bike" when it's obvious that he knows F-All about the technology. There are much better e-bikes for the money in this niche (within a niche) category alone.

Their 2018 Super 73 is $3200 vs $2750 for the Luna Super Banana

https://lunacycle.com/luna-cycle-super-banana-ebike-racing-edition/

• 1000 watt vs. 3000 watt
• 48V 15.4 Ah (740 watt hours) vs. 72v 11.5 ah (830 watt hours)
• 25-27 mph vs. 40 mph

... for $2,300 the Luna Banana BBSHD has similar specs (more likely to be street legal) and still smokes the Super 73 in performance.

https://lunacycle.com/luna-banana-bbshd-ebike/

Or get the donor bike for $1,150 and add an electric kit for a few hundred more. (which is exactly what Lithium Cycles did!)

https://coastcycles.com/product-category/buzzraw/

https://lunacycle.com/mid-drive-kits/

Exploring the deepest pool in the world on a single breath

CaptainObvious says...

Y-40 "The Deep Joy" pool first opened on 5 June 2014 and was designed by architect Emanuele Boaretto. It is 40 metres (131 ft) deep, making it the deepest pool in the world. It contains 4,300 cubic metres (1,136,000 US gal) of thermal water kept at a temperature of 32–34 °C (90–93 °F).[4] The pool features underwater caves and a suspended, transparent, underwater tunnel for guests to walk through.

Rethinking Nuclear Power

transmorpher says...

One of the things that makes me anti-nuclear is the radioactive and toxic waste. Weaponization, accidents and disasters all have a chance to happen, but are hypothetical. However, nuclear waste is created when things are running perfectly as planned, it's part of the plan.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx
"Direct disposal (after storage) to a geological repository. The material has very long-lived radioactivity, and will take about 300,000 years to reach the same level as the original ore.
Aqueous reprocessing to remove only uranium and plutonium. The material then only takes about 9000 years to reach the same level of radioactivity as the original ore."

I love how they say "only about 9000 years" like it's not a big deal hahah

Renewable green energy all the way :-)

notarobot said:

I used to be anti-nuclear. The basis for this was one part "oh no, meltdowns!" and one part anti-war. The second part of this concern happened when I learned that the material in warheads is refined in nuclear reactors.

As I continued my research I learned that newer reactors can be built that do not enrich weapons-grade material. They can't be used for bombs.

With the new reactor technology, I was left with only the concern around meltdowns. Even with older technology, meltdowns are very rare. Newer technology---like what's mentioned in this video--is even safer..

Now, I'm an old hippie, and I still prefer solar and wind (in my ideal world) but my concern over nuclear was pretty much put to rest with all that I've learned.

As long as the powerplants are designed in such a way that they do not create material that can be weaponized, I'm pretty much okay with it.

If Smart Watch Commercials Were Honest - Honest Ads

What you need to know about the Obamacare repeal

enoch says...

@ChaosEngine

lol.i just deleted a massive ramblomatic that broke down the entire history of the ACA.

figured i better just stick to basics.

many of the early protests you saw were partisan diehards who had been riled up by their favorite demagogue.

socalism!!
communism!!

but really the two great things from the ACA,and were provisions obama fought very hard for were:
pre-existing conditions
and while the ACA did not allow negotiating pharmaceutical prices,they DID put a cap on them.

and while the ACA was not perfect,far from it,those two provisions did a lot of good for people who suffered from long term illnesses.

but when anericans are asked pointed questions,without being directed for a specific goal,the majority support a single payer system.even republicans.

because you are right.it is a no-brainer.
americans already pay into a system:medicare/medicaid.
which operates on a 3% overhead.
and if basic,preventative care is offered early in peoples lives,the resulting savings totals into the 100's of billions.

and when presented to the american people like that,the majority are all for it.

*note( in the first three weeks of debating the ACA,the big 3 health insurance companies(blue cross,humana and cigna) spent a whopping 300 BILLION!

by the end it was almost a trillion they had spent to combat the passing of the ACA.

LeMelons 2017: Racing and Destroying $300 Cars

Tank Restorers Discover Gold Bars Hidden in ex Iraqi Tank

oritteropo says...

That's not how it works in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

The gold could fall under the Treasure Act of 1996, as being:

  • Objects substantially made from gold or silver but are less than 300 years old, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or heirs are unknown.


They are legally required to report the find within 14 days, and if it does fall into that category they are eligible for a reward up to the value of the treasure.

It might also be found to still be property of the Iraqi government.

newtboy said:

I think I might report finding ONE (but not turn it over to anyone until the courts decide the owner, possession is 9/10 of the law), see what happens, and if I'm OK with the outcome, report the other 4. If it's just confiscated and disappears, keep the other 4 and consider it a free tank.

Since they paid for the tank (I assume) anything in it belongs to them, no? That's certainly how every auction I've attended worked.

How could you possibly trace rough cast gold bars? Those looked like they were smelted into sand molds with NO markings. Forcing the government to prove who's it is before getting their hands on it sounds way better to me than handing it over and hoping at some point they admit they can't.

My gold. I stole it, it's mine.

Apple Campus 2 January/February 2017 Construction Update 4K

Mordhaus says...

Well, Steve was an odd duck. He was a huge asshole, but when it came to people coming up with new and innovative ideas, he would support you into either success or failure (god help you if it was failure though). Once he died, there was a noticeable shift in direction towards conformity and the bottom line.

As an example, one of the managers I worked with had a team that was breaking customer satisfaction records because he had them actually caring about the customer. Unfortunately, it also meant they weren't pulling in the same amount of profit because they weren't trying to ram Applecare contracts down customer's throats, they were also supporting some customers that were just outside their free support, and finally they were using the internal program put in place under Steve that allowed escalation reps to go beyond the norm. Like helping a smaller school set up a mac mini server network without forcing them to go to server support and paying 300 bucks for a one time call. Yeah, bottom line wise, Apple lost a 300 dollar support call fee. But they later sold quite a few macbooks to the students who were used to hearing how good Apple was.

Anyway, after some of the other groups started complaining, that manager was quietly removed and put over a non support team. This pattern continued to grow worse right up until the time I left, whatever brought in the most money was king and thinking outside the box was verboten. It certainly influenced my decision to retire early, as it did others who went on to other jobs.

ant said:

I really wished Apple would focus $$ on their own products. Look at their recent products. Argh.

Stress Testing Giant Sequoias | That's Amazing

newtboy says...

I'm disappointed that he neglected to mention that sequoia can get a huge percentage of their water from fog. They are so tall that to pull water up from the roots doesn't cut it, the tugor pressure needed to pump enough water 300' up is immense, far beyond xylem and phloem. That makes them more drought resistant than other types of trees, and explains why they are found only in places that get fog regularly.

Governor of Washington Slams Trumps over Muslim Ban

bobknight33 says...

Down voted for the utter bullshit it is.
Bullshit Leftest Anti American bias news
300 thousand on flights and 109 were affected.
Thank GOD thump is Standing up for America.
Totally legal by law.

The Truth About Trump's 'Muslim Ban'




Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon