Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

General conversation and chit chat - The place for non-shooting specific topics. Introduce yourself here.

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by duncan61 » 20 Oct 2016, 1:53 am

go the 458 win mag
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by Gwion » 20 Oct 2016, 6:07 am

Rifle realist wrote:I made the mistake of telling him about this forum as he was getting interested in club shooting when he retired to the coast some where, he was disappointed with what he read on here, to the point of saying to me yesterday not to bring anyone new up. Like most station people they are mostly very hospitable and are pleased to see people,


How very sad indeed!
Again, the overly vocal minority (like those few but highly visible irresponsible idiots with guns) create a bad image for shooters; this time among other shooters!

Tell your friend we aren't all that bad and that he will have a blast if he find himself a suitable discipline to shoot.
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by happyhunter » 20 Oct 2016, 8:00 am

Heckler303 wrote:Image


Hmm...wouldn't mind the field model..


There was an old loophole that now closed where you could register the 870 fitted with a rifled barrel as Cat B.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by on_one_wheel » 20 Oct 2016, 8:08 am

happyhunter wrote:
Heckler303 wrote:Image


Hmm...wouldn't mind the field model..


There was an old loophole that now closed where you could register the 870 fitted with a rifled barrel as Cat B.


I wouldn't mind finding a wormhole to get me back to that loophole.

I've got a mate with a Remington 870 so at least I can have the occasional play.
Such a well made shotgun.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3938
South Australia

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by doc » 20 Oct 2016, 9:47 am

Rifle realist wrote:Either a troll, or some idiot "hobby farmer" who has a bolt action .22 and slanders anyone who thinks they need anything more powerful.


Indeed. I think this is a classic definition of an apathetic attitude?

I liken this to someone who drives a Toyota corola saying "I am a car driver, and I do not see the need for any 4WD. I don't need one, neither should anyone else. They are big, take up more room on the roads, and bull bars could hurt pedestrians"

The other bit that interests me is the phrase: "I don't see the need for this shotgun, or any semi-automatic weapon.". Is this indicating that the writer doesn't even know that the Adler shotgun is a lever action, and not a semi-automatic? If so, it wouldn't surprise me if the author isn't a gun owner, but someone affiliated with the grabbers - doesn't know squat but is a self confessed expert. (or in this case 'owner').
doc
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 200
-

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by happyhunter » 20 Oct 2016, 10:00 am

on_one_wheel wrote:
happyhunter wrote:
Heckler303 wrote:Image


Hmm...wouldn't mind the field model..


There was an old loophole that now closed where you could register the 870 fitted with a rifled barrel as Cat B.


I wouldn't mind finding a wormhole to get me back to that loophole.

I've got a mate with a Remington 870 so at least I can have the occasional play.
Such a well made shotgun.


$249 Retail for the 20" barrel black ones in Arizona. So much gun for so little money.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by Heckler303 » 20 Oct 2016, 3:15 pm

happyhunter wrote:
on_one_wheel wrote:
happyhunter wrote:
Heckler303 wrote:Image


Hmm...wouldn't mind the field model..


There was an old loophole that now closed where you could register the 870 fitted with a rifled barrel as Cat B.


I wouldn't mind finding a wormhole to get me back to that loophole.

I've got a mate with a Remington 870 so at least I can have the occasional play.
Such a well made shotgun.


$249 Retail for the 20" barrel black ones in Arizona. So much gun for so little money.



And a standard Adler's $800! You could buy two 870's and have all the spare parts to make it both of them tacticool, field-beautiful, or as crazy as you want!

(Or put them both together and make a remington 1740 :thumbsup:)
If something doesn't work, apply rule .303!
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
User avatar
Heckler303
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 824
Tasmania

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by happyhunter » 20 Oct 2016, 7:10 pm

Heckler303 wrote:
happyhunter wrote:
on_one_wheel wrote:
happyhunter wrote:
Heckler303 wrote:Image


Hmm...wouldn't mind the field model..


There was an old loophole that now closed where you could register the 870 fitted with a rifled barrel as Cat B.


I wouldn't mind finding a wormhole to get me back to that loophole.

I've got a mate with a Remington 870 so at least I can have the occasional play.
Such a well made shotgun.


$249 Retail for the 20" barrel black ones in Arizona. So much gun for so little money.



And a standard Adler's $800! You could buy two 870's and have all the spare parts to make it both of them tacticool, field-beautiful, or as crazy as you want!

(Or put them both together and make a remington 1740 :thumbsup:)


Have a good look at the Remington 7600 and 7615 pump rifles. Those and the 870 are not that different in feel, based on the same design.

Sports Dept. is like Sports Co here except big as a Bunnings with *everything* sports. If you think the 870 is cheap, they had Bushmasters on the rack for under $700 all kitted out. If you ever handled one, they feel like a plastic toy gun
:D
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 20 Oct 2016, 8:11 pm

duncan61 wrote:go the 458 win mag

naaah, you soft? minimum Lott or preferably the 458Foxtrot :thumbsup:
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 20 Oct 2016, 8:17 pm

mmmmmm pumpies... the positive out of this recat of levers to B (because theyre like a semi-auto they say).... is that 'we' will have ground to argue the pumps, which must logically also be 'like' semis... should also go to B!!! and while theyre at it, semis, which are also most definitely like semis.... should follow suit :D :thumbsup: :huh:

Bring it on hoplotards.........

(sorry, I still dont exactly understand what a fudd is, at least where the word comes from...)
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by Rifle realist » 20 Oct 2016, 10:07 pm

Hi Genesis93
I like your reasoning
Hi Duncan I will probably go the .458 it would make a great Micky bull stopper and big bull camels in heat, besides it should upgrade my man card to gold status. Brett must have a platinum man card that is almost irrevocable.
Hi Gwion I have to go up that way in about 2 weeks time so I will see him then and explain that not every one here is adamant that anybody should have totally unrestricted access to all and any firearm and be able to shoot where ever they want.
Sako quad .22 WMR 3-9X40 Leupold VXI
Anchutz 1430-1434 .22 Hornet 4 X 40 Bushnell
Sako 85 Varmint .260 Rem 4.5-14X50 Leupold VXIII
Sako 85 Hunter .338 Win Mag 3.5-10X40 Leupold VXIII
Marlin 1895 45/70
Assorted .22s & Shotguns
Rifle realist
Private
Private
 
Posts: 71
Western Australia

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by Gwion » 21 Oct 2016, 6:38 am

Genisis...

Fudd: Elmer Fudd, only wants a single barrel (non repeating) shotgun.

"Shhhhh... Be vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits!"
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: Definition of a fudd (disgraceful!)

Post by Tiger650 » 24 Oct 2016, 10:41 pm

One comment i read, attributed to a fed minister, was to the effect that the Adler was a potential "Terrorist Weapon".
My view of that is that the cowardly traitorous bastards are importing terrorists, at my expense, and using that threat to justify denying my access to previously legal firearms.
I hope there will be an accounting some day.
Tiger650
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 471
New South Wales

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Off topic - General conversation