Welcome Home...THANK YOU FOR BEING A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY

iKnife Collector

The online community of knife collectors, A Knife Family Forged in Steel

Have You Joined The NRA?

I want to encourage everyone who is not a member already to join the NRA. The NRA is the most powerful voice we have for our Second Amendment rights. If it weren't for the NRA, we would already have few if any gun rights left. To keep fighting for our rights the NRA needs two things, money and numbers. The money is obvious. It takes a lot of money to fight for us, to lobby in Washington and state governments. But numbers are important too. The more members the NRA has, the more powerful its voice is.

The estimates run from 50 to 70 million gun owners in this country. I am not sure of the exact membership in the NRA but I think it is in the 3 to 4 million range. That means that over 90 percent of the gun owners are not members. With many elections in the country now being decided by paper thin margins, up to and including President, every vote is important. For example the Bush-Gore election was decided by 125 voters in Florida. In the Kennedy-Nixon election, if one more person in each precinct in Illinois had voted for Nixon instead of Kennedy, Nixon would have won.

If just half the gun owners would join the NRA, we would be by far the most powerful voting bloc. We could control the elections. We could ensure that we would never have to worry about losing our Second Amendment rights. We could get the already passed bad laws removed. If even one fourth would join that would at least triple NRA membership and make their voice that much more powerful.

The Feinsteins, the Harry Reids, Obama know this. That is why they hate the NRA. They know it is the reason that they can't do everything they want. And don't for a minute believe that they don't want to take your guns. Diane Feinstein made the statement, "If we could, we would confiscate all guns."

So the NRA needs you and you need the NRA. And right now you can join for $10 off the regular membership fee plus get an NRA duffel bag. Here is the link.

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=fightbackv...

3 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

FeaturedPermalink Reply by Charles Sample on August 24, 2014 at 13:57

Michael, actually most AR type rifles are probably lighter in weight than most traditional bolt action hunting rifles.

And Tobias is absolutely correct. That's why I said the 5.56 is basically the same as the .223. Except it is loaded to higher pressure for the military. It is interesting that in adopting the .223 for the military they increased the pressure but in the case of the .308 they decreased it.

The .223 is an excellent varmint round for such as groundhogs and coyotes. It is definitely too much for small game such as squirrels or rabbits. And although some do use it to hunt and kill deer, I feel it is not an adequate deer cartridge.

Michael D. said:

Charles, thanks for the clarification concerning bullet calibers. Once you said ".223" & ".308" I had an ah-ha moment. I knew they weren't assault rifles and kinda guessed they were for hunting and exotic paper punching. Wouldn't they be a bit uncomfortable lugging around for hunting - as compared to a traditional hunting rifle?

I too belong to the NRA but my shooting is relegated to pistols of all calibers and .22 rifles. I have never hunted game.That's why I have a general ignorance of the more "exotic" calibers.Oh, by the way, I don't fall into the mindset you mentioned. I was just puzzled concerning their usage.

Permalink Reply by Tobias Gibson on August 24, 2014 at 14:59

In the case of the 5.56mm they increased velocity in order to maximize penetration of hard material. In the case of the 1997, the velocity of the round and the composition and weight of the bullet was changed in order to reduce fragmentation of the round. The 5.56mm is a round that is known to tumble when it hits soft tissue, thus causing devestating wounds and an unpredictable bullet path once it enters the body.

They reduced the velocity of the 7.62mm round because at typical combat ranges the bullet had a tendency to pass through a body cleanly thus much of the expended energy was not "dumped" in the body. This meant the person hit would be wounded (often mortally) but not killed quickly.

In both cases the round were manipulated to make them more efficient at killing people at the range most combat was assumed to take place. in the case of the 7.62mm they idea was that engagements were taking place at 300-400 meters so the heavier slower round was thought ideal. This concept was a hold over from as far back as WWI. the 7.62mm was meant to be lethal out to a 1000 meters but the slower velocity was meant to make it more likely that the bullet would not penetrate the body but dump its energy inside the intended target. It was basically a less powerful 30.06 round which was deemed to be over-kill.

Studies on where actual combat engagements were taking place before WWII but the most important studies took place during the Korean War. These clearly determined that actual combat took place at ranges much closer than the 400 meters that was being taught. A more realistic range was 50-100 meters. It was also determined that the larger powerful bullets were actually too powerful and often ineffective at the range of actual engagement (either the solider ran out of ammunition or the bullets passed through a body without killing the person. . The idea that soldiers needed a smaller rounds that stayed in the body and killed the enemy and a lot more of them led to the change from 7.62mm to 5.56mm.

Permalink Reply by Michael D. on August 24, 2014 at 18:25

Very, very interesting and astute observation. Hmmmmm...........

Tobias Gibson said:

I've been told by many hunters that the .223 Remington as well as the 5.56mm are lousy hunting rounds. Too big for small game at any range and too small for medium or large game except at insanely close range. That said, it was developed as a varmint round and adopted by the US military simply because it is an excellent man-stopper in the range that most combat takes places (under 200 meters and most likely between 50-100 meters).

Like it or not, the best of use of a .223 Remington or 5.56X45 NATO is for killing people at relatively close range. If I were looking for a good performing personal defense weapon, I would look at something capable of firing both of these cartridges accurately.

Permalink Reply by Michael D. on August 24, 2014 at 18:29

You hit the proverbial nail on the head with that statement. So true.

Tobias Gibson said:

That said, it is the intent of the shooter and not the rifle or the cartridge it uses that determines good and evil.

Permalink Reply by Tobias Gibson on August 24, 2014 at 19:35

I should also mention if I were looking for a good rifle for survival situations, I think something that fires a .223 would be an excellent choice. As I mentioned it is the best choice for small or large game but it capable of taking down both medium and large in a pinch. Unfortunately it is not going to be quick death for large game. But in survival situations, a clean kill of a deer is not as important as you living another day.

What I find extremely interesting is the USAF seems to rely on a survival rifle that fires .22 LR. I assume they figure you'll be more likely to get a Squirrel or other small game in your sights than a Deer. They're probably correct.

Permalink Reply by Shlomo ben Maved on September 15, 2014 at 16:49

I have been a Life Member since 1964 -- it was a Bar Mitzvah present to myself.

Permalink Reply by Shlomo ben Maved on September 15, 2014 at 16:57

The .22 LR and the .410 gauge shotshell are designed for "SHORT" term survival by an air crew since they will be picked up within a couple of days at most.

As for a .223/5.56mm for a survival round I'd rather have something a little heavier like the 7.62x39mm Russian fired from a CZ bolt action rifle if I was concerned about mil-surp ammo...The minimum that I would consider is .243/6mm if the only animals around were deer and I'd prefer a .25 or .26 (6.5mm) in that situation as I can still take down an elk with it...If elk is the smallest animal then a .28 or 7mm would be my choice

KnifeMakerPermalink Reply by Chris Sievert on September 25, 2014 at 23:02

My dad and I average raising $6000+ a year for the Friends of the NRA. I believe every member of my direct Family are Life Members. I attend on average 10 Friends of the NRA Banquets a year. My dad and I try to attend every Banquet within 150 miles of dad's home. My dad and I attended the very 1st Friends of the NRA Banquet ever held (Columbia Missouri was the 1st ever) and have been supporters of the Program ever since. Both of us have been Instructors for the Young Hunter Safety Clinics in Central Missouri. Lifetime Supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

FeaturedPermalink Reply by Charles Sample on September 26, 2014 at 10:42

Great Chris! That is fantastic! We need more people like you and your father.

My contributions pale in comparison but I have contributed to the NRA ILA several times and have extended my membership. Right now I am paid up until 2019.