The New Patch

Skreshavik wrote:

I think Gnarly doesn't like me though. I rage too much and curse the VOIP system BF3 uses.

I don't see you on battlelog anymore...

PLAY MORE!!

and yes, Skype, or a Vent/TS/Mumble server is really the best bet.


I hope PS2's supposed GOOD in game VOIP fixes this for that game at least

Ok, I'll get back on Tuesday after I cash in my check and put a layaway on a .357 Ruger.

Fido wrote:

2) If face to face, runjumpsprintwaddle away and repeat

I'll have to consider that.

Skreshavik wrote:

I think Gnarly doesn't like me though. I rage too much and curse the VOIP system BF3 uses.

Reminds me of when I was playing with you. Most of our time was spent inventing insults and swearing at every nobhead that shot us. And you were playing recon like a faggot.

Recon es numero uno

Gentlemen,

Let's not resort to childish insults about the recon kit.

Skreshavik wrote:

Ok, I'll get back on Tuesday after I cash in my check and put a layaway on a .357 Ruger.

Many years ago I had a ruger single action .357, a big long green motherfucker, carried it around in my pants, I guess I thought if someone messed with me I was gonna fan the hammer at them or something.

Luckily, it got stolen before I could ever make too much of a moron out of myself with it.

gut wrote:

Skreshavik wrote:

Ok, I'll get back on Tuesday after I cash in my check and put a layaway on a .357 Ruger.

Many years ago I had a ruger single action .357, a big long green motherfucker, carried it around in my pants, I guess I thought if someone messed with me I was gonna fan the hammer at them or something.

Luckily, it got stolen before I could ever make too much of a moron out of myself with it.

What's the longest you've ever owned something?

Ha. Ha. Haha.

Heh.

Heh.

.....

Haaaaaaaa.

Fucker

gut wrote:

Skreshavik wrote:

Ok, I'll get back on Tuesday after I cash in my check and put a layaway on a .357 Ruger.

Many years ago I had a ruger single action .357, a big long green motherfucker, carried it around in my pants, I guess I thought if someone messed with me I was gonna fan the hammer at them or something.

Luckily, it got stolen before I could ever make too much of a moron out of myself with it.

I just want a single-action revolver for shits and giggles. If I actually wanted an effective OC/CCW, I'd just grab a Glock 17.

Also, lol @ Fido.

I had this fantasy a good while back where i was gonna buy a 17 and just quickly and easily turn it into a g18.

Its fun to think about shit like that till you actually read aboutit and discover how difficult and stupid it really is.

Anyway i see no reason to choose a 9mm over a .40 for keeping close. Maybe you can educate me but i doubt it, .40 is better in every way other than capacity. O and recoil but idgaf about that to be honest my ..40 settles instantly anyway.

Doesn't matter. Shoot with what you want and become familiar with it. Only thing I'd recommend against is .22 lr (rimfire bad for self-defense,) .25 ACP, and .410 shot.

.22 lr and the .25 ACP can kill no doubt, but it isn't a very viable round because they're so damn weak. .410 from a handgun is like shooting airsoft pellets at people. Hell, it didn't even kill that senator Dick Cheney shot at 15 yards out with a shotty.

Edit: Given some thought, the weaker rounds would be pretty decent if you lived in an apartment. The buckshot from the .410 will not penetrate anything 'cept the person you're shooting at. .22 lr and the .25 ACP won't have enough velocity to severely injure or even moderately injure anybody past the walls.

But gut's a redneck who prolly lives in some shack in the middle of dicksville.... so random rounds at worst might hit some deer or 1 of his cousins... either way, bonus.

@Skroichnavicht: Main ones Id avoid would be .25 and .32. Wouldnt really want anything less than a 9mm.

Really if I knew ahead of time something crazy was up Id have no less than a 12 guage. You know youre gonna do some serious damage with that.

As far as the .410, Ive heard that using large buckshot with it from one of those governor revolvers is the same thing as plugging someone with 4 .380 shots all at once. The shot is right at the same size, and the power behind each one is similar to the power behind a .380 (which isnt much really, but it will put holes in meat) Whether thats true or not, I still wouldnt have it. Ive heard lots of bad things about these guns. They make compromises for each type of round they shoot, so they really sorta suck at shooting any of them compared to a gun designed specifically for that round.

Id like a dedicated 20 guage shotgun revolver id walk around with it loaded with 3 1/2 inch 000 buckshot and call it my Primal Masher

@ronin: naw i live in a pretty dense area lol

Haven't heard of a hand-held 20ga outside of bubba'd shotguns and custom modifications.

As for the .410 revolver you're talking about, it's the Taurus Judge (don't remember the real name.) I don't really care for it since it's supposed to be a weapon for casual people defending their car/house. .410 birdshot is garbage and it's pretty rare to find 2 1/2" buckshot shells for the .410. And if you just want to keep .45's in it, you're limited to 5 shots before you need to reload (as opposed to a compact 1991 colt which holds something like 7+1 rounds.) Price is also another serious issue I have with the gun. You're looking at 400-500 dollars for it. You might as well buy a Glock 17 for the same price and have 17+1 rounds of ammunition.

I mean, sure? If you put birdshot in the first chamber then 45's in the next four, you can point-blank a car-jacker then unload, but why not just finish the job with a different weapon with the first round?

Quote :

Skroichnavicht

I like that name.

S&W governor is the same thing with 6 shots

An extra shot will be added to your chamber for the extra payment of only $99.99!

I dunno... I certainly wouldn't make it my first purchase...

But if I had a nice car or something and wanted to protect it with a gun.... one of those bird shot guns would be perfect really.

You don't WANT massive firepower if your shooting in those conditions. Why? Cause you're fucking responsible for the collateral damage you cause!

Now if zombiez start lumbering down the sidewalk... ok, it's full on dual .45's or a goddamn pump action time. But put a face full of even non lethal shot into someones face and they're gonna leave you the fuck alone. I mean yah... the damage caused from those pellets hittin someones torso ain't gonna be much.... but it gon' hurt like a mother fuck.

What a joke.

"collateral damage" get the fuck out of here. What are you shooting him with, a god damn railgun? Hit him with a hollow point and so much energy is delivered to his meat that the bullet (if it was even still in one piece) wouldnt even penetrate a car door.



birdshot.

COME ON man you are trolling.

It's a non-lethal weapon if you aren't tryin to kill a mother fucker

Well, collateral damage shouldn't be an issue since you're gonna be firing from an angle (upwards.) It will be an issue if you step out and you're level with the earth. It is a good point, but again, horribly overpriced for what it's designed for.

As for the shoot to injure...it's...a very slippery slope. You bet your pasty white ass that the shitbag lawyer is gonna bring up "Well your life wasn't threatened, so why did you choose to maim my client?" Or "This person intentionally chose the 26-shot four-hundred and ten gauge shell to cause as much damage as possible to my client without killing him."

Would it pass? Probably not if the jury isn't a bunch of bleeding-heart idiots. But still, something to consider.

Why wouldnt you want to kill him? What is this polly anna bullshit? If its to the point where you need to shoot him, kill him. If its not, dont shoot him at all, just punch him, or run from him, whatever you have to do.

Dont pull out fucking birdshot though. I honestly feel like you are trolling me with this retarded shit.

I didn't say I would numb nuts.

I was simply stating the intent of the design.

It's more appropriate for someone who would normally be incapable of defending themselves and hesitant to kill somebody...

but that's why we have tasers

I don't like those shoot to kill/shoot to injure philosophies. The correct one should be shoot to STOP. Whether he/she dies or lives is their luck, my responsibility is to make sure they're not a threat.