Not sure where you live, but many community colleges around me have welding classes where you get a chance to learn the basics from someone who knows how to weld, and after that a cheap stick welder and a lot of scrap will get you far.
The other good thing about an actual class is they will teach you things like, remove your wedding ring or eventually it will wear through your gloves, and gold is a hell of a conductor. And also not to try to weld galvanized metals.
Have fun it is a neat skill to have, like driving a stick, even if you do not do it often.
I dunno if I should share this or not, but the company making this, Spikesâs Tactical, has a âspiderâ logo which some people say looks like two dicks.
Not that bad, Iâd say. Depends on the amount. And mainly depends on the metal plating. A cadmium can do you in fast, even cadmium-alloy brazing in a poorly ventilated area. Zinc is harmless in comparison; worst you can expect is a metal fume fever that will go away in a day or two and only if you vaporize fairly high amount of it. Few tacks on a zinc-coated sheetmetal wonât harm you. But if it is in mating surfaces that should get welded you may like to lick it off with an angle grinder to expose the bare metal. Other kinds of metal coating (chrome, nickel) can be locally removed this way too.
$1400.00 for another piece of gear for people that sit around praying for bad things to happen so they can do bad things.
Chumps. You can hardly fault the manufacturer for taking advantage of this market, not in a capitalist society anyway. These probably wonât be produced in numbers large enough that we will see this particular model in the next few school shootings but maybe a few owners or their children will die from misfires. Especially since itâs a âconversation pieceâ, itâll get handled socially moreso than most & in private will receive more fevered, sweaty âcleaningsâ than a teenage boy with a pron stash gives themselves.
Burst fire is far more accurate than full-auto. Thereâs an old saw among gun nuts 'round hereâŚpray (yeah thatâs how it is in these parts) your opponent is firing full-auto!
I understand that a gun is technically not a sword, nor is it a spear. And I also understand that the swords to ploughshares line is also in the Bible in reverse. Yet, with so many talk of peace, forgiveness and pascifism in the Bible, it is confusing to a non-religious person like myself that so many Christians embrace the hateful and xenophobic parts of the bible.
Such firing mode is also known as âspray and prayâ. (Also applies to high volume fire from non-auto weapons, in that case sometimes called âglockingâ after Glockâs large magazines.) Usable as suppressive fire to keep the adversaryâs head down but not so good when you want to actually hit something.
I personally prefer the one-shot-one-kill approach. Less noise, more results.
I think Matt Dillahunty expressed it best when he said âthe Bible really ought to be titled the âBig Book of Multiple Choiceââ
You can use it to justify most anything as long as youâre willing to argue from the authority of bronze age primitives, and some really misogynistic and racist greek dudes.
We experimented with this in pre-videogame days and discovered that they were so used to using sights that the most important thing was to have the visual input like a gunsight.
But you missed my irony.
Do you know what you learn from doing theology at university (not Bible study)? You learn how many different ways people have of deluding other people - and themselves.
The correct technique with galvanised steel is brazing. The galavanising zinc simply forms part of the brass and doesnât weaken the steel. But you do need fume extract.
A less ambiguous way of making this clear would be nice; but I would argue that there is a (legitimate and informative) sort of âtaxonomicâ use of âassault rifleâ at work here. Yes, selective fire has been removed for regulatory convenience; but an AR-15 still bears most of the hallmarks of the assault rifle that it is directly adapted from, characteristics that many semi-automatic rifles descended from other lineages do not.
âAssault rifleâ is what came of the set of design changes driven by the recognition that the performance of larger, heavier, battle rifle cartridges wasnât worth the weight, recoil, limited effective fire rate, etc. given the ranges at which most of the shooting was actually being done. Moving to intermediate cartridges meant more rounds for the same weight; and the ability to fire them faster without as much difficulty in managing recoil and staying on target. While the AR-15 has some of its potential fire rate capped by regulation, it is otherwise very much the same intermediate cartridge based design. Long range performance sacrificed for improved recoil and reduced weight, better fire rates at expected ranges, and so on.
Compare to, say, a Garand or one of the semi-automatic designated marksman rifles specifically aimed at situations where the assumptions behind the intermediate cartridge either hadnât yet been adopted or are specifically believed to be inaccurate. Those share being semi-automatic; but are otherwise designed around a quite different set of needs; heavier cartridges, better performance at range, sacrifices in maxim realistic fire rate.
I donât mean to say that rifles with and without selective fire are the same. They arenât. Nor is it good that we have only a rather squishy use of âassault rifleâ to use where a more precise term would be nice; but there is an actual distinction that this âtaxonomicâ use makes clear that just âsemi-automatic rifleâ would not. The AR-15 is the closest thing to the American take on a 5.56mm assault rifle that can be sold to civilians without legal hassle. Some other semi-automatic rifles are the same thing in relation to other assault rifle designs; but many arenât. Semi-automatics were a category before assault rifles existed, as well as covering various hunting and marksman applications where assault rifle design assumptions did not apply. Lumping the AR-15 in with all those arguably tells us less about it than viewing it as a somewhat crippled implementation of an assault rifle design.
Like I said. A civilian AR-15 is just the same as a military assault rifle AR-15, except it takes 10 seconds to kill a dozen people, instead of 6 like the full auto assault rifle. Essentially the distinction is meaningless in practice.
Iâm thankfully not in the position to judge exactly how often modes other than semi-automatic are relevant to assault rifles equipped with them; but I just wanted to uphold the value of categorizing things according to their âphylogeneticâ, so to speak, characteristics and their historical development, not just by a bullet point list of features that are present/absent.
Itâs like the question of whether to describe a dog as âa domestic companion mammalâ or âbasically a wolfâ.
Both are true, to a degree: the former strictly avoids being false; but at the cost of putting dogs, ferrets, gerbils, and cats in the same pile. The latter isnât strictly accurate; but will tell you a great deal more about the specifics of how a dog works, at the cost of sloppily conflating it with the non-domesticated version. Ideally, weâd have something more precise; but if we donât it isnât really fair to accuse the answer of being mere ignorant bigotry.
