I'm doing some experiments and I'm seeing a lot of recipes for reduced loads, for example 14 grains of benchmark for a subsonic 30.06 from Hodgdons website. But then I keep reading people talking about there's just too much risk of 'flashovers' or detonation because of so little case fill. What is the risk percentage? Anyone shoot these loads regularly, for say their young kids?

I seen this over 20+ years ago. Made sense back when I seen it the first time and still make sense today....

Hi!

I bought a load of stuff, and accidentally ended up with 2 CPS Units. I only really need one, so selling the other!

$600 shipped

I can't take Paypal, it would have to be zelle or money order only. I have lots of feedback as you can see and I would be happy to take additional pictures if needed!

do trial runs. We went over many things months in advance and some said they were surprised what they did not miss after 72 hrs. Two are now building new completely off grid and shedding much of the unneeded societal weight they thought they needed, while stocking more & more long term supplies, tools, ect every month.

looking to sell some Area419 reloading blocks, powder cup and a self centering insert for an FX scale

SOLD - 3 Loading Trays - $40 Each Shipped
(1)- Mag Bolt Face .515
(2) - 308 Bolt Face .485



SOLD: 1 Powder Cup for autotrickler or similar - $50 Shipped



Sold - 1 Self Centering tray for A&D FX scale - $50 Shipped

Place your bets now.

Roe vs. Wade overturned?
Illegal alien amnesty?
Hunter Biden immunity?

So I have a Short Action Customs scope leveling base. That I mount my scope and spur mount to the base. The base is level as well as the spur mount. I put a plum line about 50 yards out in my yard. Now the scope reticle runs along the plum line but at the top of the reticle it looks like it’s on the center of the line and on the bottom of the reticle it looks like it’s on the left side of the line. Almost like a tiny Bit of an offset . I had to set it there so that when track my scope from zero to all the way, as far as it will track it stays on the line. Would that be more important or should I get the reticle to line up perfectly with the plum bob? Thanks Jimmy

Also, this is a brand tangent Theda 7 x 35, I would hope it’s tracking

Looking to buy a Acc Premier or an elite
DM

Well we haven't played this game in a while. I thought about posting this in Fieldcraft but Maggie's is probably better.

Here's a list of what I have in my bag.
1) Super awesome custom built Remington 760 bullpup.
2) Full roll of green paracord
3) 13 condoms
4) 2 pair of socks and 2 pair of underwear
5) Broadsword
6) Fire started kit
7) 2 boxes of .30-06 ammo
8) 3 pocket knives
9) Bag of marshmallows and box of Graham crackers
10) Tweezers
11) Ronco Pocket Fisherman
12) Space blanket
13) Portable GPS
14) Magnifying glass (for burning ants when I get bored)
15) 2 favorite issues of Playboy magazine (pre homo/tranny days)
16) Slingshot
17) Rambo style raincoat made out of a canvas tarp
18) Black book with the GPS coordinates of @Dirty D's dubba wide luv shack, @Threadcutter308's house, @clcustom1911's hair gel stash, the truck stop where @akmike works and @1J04's secret hunting cabin.
19) Half bottle of Maker's Mark
20) Bag of XXL sunflower seeds

I've got 1380 rounds Brand New Rounds of Hornady ELDM 108's for sale
$2100 shipped

I've also got 460 rounds of Black Hills 108's for sale
$750 Shipped

Big wildfire in Ruidoso,Lincoln County NM. Started on the Mescalero Rez and spreading rapidly due to extreme fire conditions and high winds. Unconfirmed reports there were initially seven fires started by an arsonist who supposedly is in custody. We have a family cabin in the Upper Canyon off Main that is threatened and by the way the fire is moving won't be there long. Was in Capitan earlier this month for an F-Class match and there were a number of fire fighting helicopters staged at the airport. But based on the size of the fire and how fast it is moving they will need far more resources.

Given inflation what it is and modest forecasts for the foreseeable future for Gen X retirement, how many of us are truly thinking,

“My Social Security will be an important component in my retirement income."



I don’t know about anyone else, but I can’t refrain from chucking at the prospect of SS being much even if it is paid in full, which as you will see, is not the plan for us....

Social Security: 4 Things that Gen X can expect
"Born between 1965-1980, the oldest Gen Xers are now just four years away from being eligible for Social Security in 2027. The youngest will have to wait until at least 2042. Either way, the Social Security program that awaits all of them might look much different than the one they were promised.

Congress Sealed Gen X’s Fate in 1983​

Eligible workers can claim their Social Security benefits as young as 62, but claiming early comes with the tradeoff of smaller payments. Only those who wait until their full retirement age get 100% of what’s coming to them.

Unlike the baby boomers, all Gen Xers become eligible for their full Social Security benefits at the same age — 67.

The minimum age for receiving full benefits was 65 from the dawn of the program in 1935 and remained the same for nearly half a century. Then, Congress drafted the Social Security Amendment of 1983, which mandated a new retirement age of 67 phased in over 22 years.

Gen X is the first generation of Americans that become eligible for full benefits at the new higher age without exception.

Gen X and the Countdown to 2035​

Gen Xers who are 50 today will become eligible for early Social Security benefits when they turn 62 in 2035. Those who are 55 will be 67, and therefore eligible for full retirement benefits that same year. However, “full” might look much different then.

Social Security is funded by trusts, which the SSA says will be depleted in 13 years. When that happens, incoming taxes will be enough to pay for only 75% of scheduled benefits unless something changes. That change — whatever it may be — can only come through Congressional action."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 4 things seem to be:

Gen X will be the first generation to have to wait to 67 to collect full SS benefits.
Only 75% of the SS Trust can be funded with SS taxes after 2032.
Congress will have to pass some kind of legislation to fund it fully.
There will likely be a combination of cuts to benefits and increases in taxes to keep it solvent.

I personally am willing to exchange the involuntary theft of my labor with false promises that has already happened all these years for something of actual value and forfeit my expectation of payments from the SSA.

I am willing to accept BLM land parcels of my choice that were forcibly stolen from my ancestors anyway, as a compensation for the theft of my labor and our land. I am also willing to accept, as compensation, select defense articles from surplus.

Here’s a Quick Calculator from the SSA that shows the money you can dream about that isn’t there.

I have a Used MPA Matrix Pro Chassis in great shape needing a new home.
The chassis comes with a brand new set of Gray ops internal weight kit, Aluminum Side Rails, MPA Magwell Blocker and MPA Cheek Riser Cover.
Chassis was bought as new build direct from MPA and the color is Tungsten.
$1200 Shipped and Insured OBO
NO TRADES PLZ.........

A feel good video.

Login to view embedded media

Tried the G2 Erik Cortina EC tuner brake and it was not for me due to the concussion. Then moved to the ACE brake and I still have a eye flinch when shooting due to the concussion. With a suppressor or bare muzzle I don’t have this issue.

Any less concussive brakes?

they are losing money when they sell you 2 kids cheeseburgers,3 regular cheeseburgers,1 shake, 1 fry for 72 bucks

Login to view embedded media

TLDNR: Pros/Cons of running the same family of scopes/reticles on all your rifles. I currently have 3 and run 3 different scopes/reticles.

Anyone running the same optic on all their rifles? Currently running 4 rifles with 4 different scopes.

Centerfire 6GT; Bushnell DMR3 3.5-21 with G4P MIL Reticle (Production class)

Centerfire 22GT: Vortex Razor G2 4.5x27 EBR-7C MIL Reticle (haven’t shot this in competition yet but got good price on the scope).

Competition Rimfire 22 #1: Vortex PST G2 5-25 EBR-7C MIL Reticle

Future Competition Rimfire 22 #2 (rifle on the way, no optic chosen yet)

Rimfire 22 #3: Bushnell Match Pro Deploy MILL Reticle (this is my base class rifle which I don’t run anymore – just a loaner for my son and I shoot ARA Rimfire Benchrest Factory class with it).

4 rifles (+ future), 3 different reticles. I like the EBR-7C Reticle b/c it has both 0.2 and 0.5 marks on the windage and 0.5 marks on the elevation. Just enough to not clutter the reticle (IMO). G4P Reticle has 0.5 marks on both elevation and windage. Less information than EBR-7C, but enough to get the job done.

I’ve been thinking about just finding one scope, or at least one family of scopes to run on all the competition rifles to keep my life simple so all reticles are the same. I’ve compared my PST G2 to both the Match Pro ED and the new Leupold Mk4HD. The Match Pro ED looked every bit as good as the PST (and $400 cheaper) and the Leupold looks noticeably better than the PST. Was able to compare all of them outside out to 500 yards. The Mk4HD reticle would be very similar to the DRM3, but with 0.25 marks on windage. The MPED is very busy (0.2 wind and elevation marks).

I was thinking of either running the Match Pro ED on the rimfire #1 and #2 and leaving the DMR3 on the 6GT. Still have decent glass on all the rifles but different reticles. This would obviously be the cheapest option (Match Pro ED x 2 ~$1,400).

Or putting the Leupold Mk4HD 6x24 on the 6GT and a 4.5x18 on the two rimfires (I’ve don’t think I’ve ever zoomed out past 15 in a rimfire/NRL match). Put the PST on the #3 rimfire for the ARA matches. I’d leave the Razor on the 22GT as I don’t know when, or if I’ll ever use it in a competition. This would be the most expensive as it 3 new scopes and could sell the others but maybe get $1,500 for the DMR3 + PST ($4,300 - $1,500 = $2,800).

Am I just being too picky. I’ve maybe had one or two occasions out of 100’s of chances that a reticle has ever caused confusion when shooting a stage (like I got lost in the reticle). Just seems like having the same set up for all my competition rifles would make a lot of sense. Same dial feel, same parallax, etc. Everything is the same (or at least very similar with the Bushnell option) rifle to rifle.

I want to purchase a new barrel for my rifle and have decided on a .223, Wylde chamber ,1/8, 20", rifle gas . Wilson combat Super Sniper or the White Oak Predator. All the reviews seem that both are going to be good shooters and they are the same price. Any help one way or the other???

Hold and behold, just received cadex chassis i have bought from EuroOptics,

When tightening the hand grip it just snapped. I barely put any pressure, low quality screws. for 2400$ this is disgrace

Here is a different way of spending the rimfire budget - not sure it would get you on the podium at a comp, but you would be the most elegant of the losers.

anyone try the 22 CM at a 1000 yds using 80.5 berger i have a 1/8 twist barrel 28 inch krieger with defiance action. maybe bullet a little light but with 1/8 can’t go much heavier or longer.

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA JUNE 12, 2024

SUMMARY:

* The Biden administration on May 20, 2024 had rammed in a highly illegal executive order which places ALL gun owners under the 'dealer' banner if they even want to sell one firearm from their personal collections, essentially requiring everyone to become FFL holders and conduct background checks to engage in private trade.

* Two months before the order was even to take place, the Biden administration's weaponized ATF already began it's systematic harassment of private gun sellers, culminating in the raid and assassination of Bryan Malinowski.

* GOA Temporary Restraining Order against Biden and ATF applies to ALL GOA members, members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Tennessee and VA gun owners, be sure to also support your state firearms organizations. The TFA and VCDL are also frontliners alongside GOA in the neverending fight to protect RKBA.

* Order also applies to residents of Texas, Utah, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

LINKS TO SUPPORT AND JOIN THOSE WHO ARE ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE RKBA FIGHT:

Gun Owners of America:

Virginia Citizens Defense League:

Tennessee Firearms Association:

GOA PRESS RELEASE AND TEXT:


----------
----------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2024

Washington, D.C. — Late yesterday, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) helped secure a preliminary injunction against Biden’s Universal Registration Check rule, which could require any person who sells just one gun in a year to obtain a Federal Firearms License and conduct background checks. Under the judge’s order, the ATF may not enforce the new rule against members of GOA, the Tennessee Firearms Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and residents of the States of Texas, Utah, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The original rule took effect on May 20th, but GOA helped previously secure a partial Temporary Restraining Order blocking its enforcement against our members and certain other plaintiffs.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“This is a massive victory for our members, and it comes at a crucial time. Before the rule even took effect, the ATF was involved in an early morning raid in Arkansas on a citizen’s home who was accused of not abiding by these rules, and ultimately, he ended up being killed. This Administration’s ceaseless aggression towards gun owners has already turned deadly, and the enforcement of this rule would have inevitably led to more unnecessary bloodshed. GOA and our valued partners will continue to fight back against this lawless and tyrannical administration.”

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA's Press Center.
----------
----------

Bought this new back in March and it is in like new condition. Used for 4 matches. Comes in Area 419 Mount with diving board, send it attachment, and send it level. Wrapped on day one with black multicam Ranger wrap which can be easily removed if wanted.

Not looking to trade or separate. I’m leaving the PRS world.

$3500 shipped via PayPal F&F, Zelle, or Venmo.

Excellent article. This is a very brief scientific article for those that hate reading and learning new stuff…

The established scientific community of today is acting exactly like the established scientific community did to Darwin during his time. Most scientists are no different than other people when resisting change.


The status quo is such an enemy to progress and always has been. I have heard the same is happening in astrophysics and bio-engineering.

Mankind goes through periods of rapid growth fueled by unfettered imagination and invention, then stagnation for long periods of time. Until something or someone(s) make break through discoveries that can't be denied. We are currently in a period of stagnation, in more than one way.
————————

“Where are all the genetic cures?” asks Denis Noble, a frustrated biophysicist, Royal Society fellow and pioneer of the field of systems biology. “They don’t exist. Where will they be? They won’t exist.” Since mapping the human genome in 2003, research priorities and funding shifted significantly towards genetics. The investment improved disease detection and management but failed to deliver on its promise of cures for our most common deadly diseases like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s and most cancers. Compounding the issue, a large-scale, 2023 study concluded that genetic risk scores perform poorly at predicting who’s going to develop common diseases. For Noble, the billions invested annually in genetic research represents less of a strategy and more of a scientific confusion—that we are our genes.


The scientific story of who we are is a reductionist, gene-centric model that forfeits natural phenomena like purpose due to its association with intelligent design and a transcendent, intelligent designer. Noble is neutral on religious matters. Yet he sees compelling evidence that purpose may be fundamental to life. He’s determined to debunk the current scientific paradigm and replace the elevated importance of genes with something much more controversial. His efforts have enraged many of his peers but gained support from the next generation of origins-of-life researchers working to topple the reign of gene-centrism. If successful, the shift could not only transform how we classify, study and treat disease, but what it means to be alive.

Emergent Heart Beats​

One of the earliest biomedical computer programmers, Noble created the first model for a working human heart in 1960 on a vacuum tube computer. The project led to his discovery that heartbeats are emergent properties—new phenomena—arising from feedback loops, transforming our understanding of heart function and underpin treatments for heart conditions that we use today. His research on the heart’s pacemaker demonstrates a prioritization of the organism as a whole over its genes alone. “Several genes could individually be knocked out but the process continues,” says Noble. These genes are responsible for heart rhythm, yet other mechanisms can take over to get the job done.

In the 1960s, Noble served as the dissertation examiner for the then-unknown Richard Dawkins. Dawkins—a prominent figure in the New Atheism movement—would go on to author the 1976 classic The Selfish Gene that popularized the gene-centric theory of evolution. Gene-centrism says evolution acts on genes, not individual organisms. We are merely vessels for our genes that are driving evolution by Darwinian natural selection. Noble's analysis suggests that evolution acts on the organism as a whole, with the organism harnessing randomness and variation to create and heal itself—on purpose. In this re-evaluation, Noble believes that purpose, creativity, and innovation are fundamental to evolution. He argues that we experience these processes as drives, but they are not purely subjective. They also progress non-consciously in other parts of our body. These natural processes harness randomness and unpredictability—stochasticity—to survive, make decisions, and thrive. “Stochasticity is the center of creativity in organisms,” says Noble.

Evolution on Purpose​

Noble’s formal training is in cellular electrophysiology, the study of the differences in electrical charges inside and outside of a cell membrane. He suspects that crevices of ancient rocks served as cradles for emergent self-sustaining systems. Eventually, membranes evolved from lipid-coated bubbles, replacing the fissures in rocks as containers for these emergent systems. This gave rise to the first living entity—a single-celled organism. According to Noble, the constraints of a cell’s membrane and the restriction of freedom of molecules inside a cell, made purpose both possible and necessary. This development required a sort of intention or cognition within emergent networks of molecules to create and sustain biological functions.

Reinterpreting Existing Evidence ​

Noble sees evidence of purposive and intentional evolution in our immune response to viruses. Detection of the invader triggers a flurry of rapid mutations in the genes of B cells, creating a legion of gene variants. These variants are antibodies, the most effective of which are deployed to combat the virus. In a defensive assault, the immune system self-modifies its own DNA. “It changes the genome. Not supposed to be possible,” says Noble. “Happens all the time.”
The Future of Evolution
Noble is part of The Third Way, a movement in evolutionary biology that views natural selection as part of a holistic, organism-centered process. He co-authored Evolution “on Purpose," published by MIT Press in 2023, which argues that organisms evolve with intention.
Recent research calls into question whether genetic mutations are even entirely random. A 2022 study in Nature shows a mutation biassupporting the organism as a whole. Noble doesn’t understand why studies like these aren’t making bigger waves. “Do you, you people working in gene-centric biology, do you realize what has already been published?” asks an incredulous Noble.

This is one of his central criticisms of Richard Dawkins, whom Noble dubs the primary exponent of gene-centrism. Dawkins is one of the world’s foremost science communicators. Noble considers Dawkins an exceptional writer who simply hasn’t kept up with the science. When asked for comment, Dawkins responded, “I have a whole chapter dealing with Denis Noble in my next book, The Genetic Book of the Dead. It will be available in September.”

Where Evolution Went Wrong​

Noble attributes our legacy of missteps to rigid assumptions put in place over a century ago to stand in for a lack of evidence. Darwin’s namesake theory of evolution by natural selection was first published in 1859. This slow process alters instructions to build an organism only through genetic mechanisms like random mutations and recombination that get passed down to offspring.

Near the end of his life, Darwin was corresponding with physiologist George Romanes, exploring additional mechanisms of inheritance and the role of physiology. Despite Darwin’s broadening views, his theory was scaled back posthumously. Following Darwin’s death in 1882, biologist and ‘Neo-Darwinist’ August Weismann promulgated the idea of a one-way barrier cordoning off reproductive cells from the rest of the body. This barrier required that reproductive cells were the sole vehicles for inheritance. Neo-Darwinists would go on to revive a theory of genes and genetic recombination. Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s natural selection were synthesized. The reproductive cells became the housing for genes which ascended to the centerpiece for evolution.
In 1894 at age 46, Romanes died of a cerebral hemorrhage. And so died the lone voice advocating for Darwin’s ultimate views—views of evolution which emphasized more complexity and physiology. Noble suspects if Romanes had survived, we may have avoided a gene-centric paradigm paralysis. Instead, Noble feels “our genetic hope is more about faith than facts.”

Mortality And A New Biology​

Noble is urgently reviving and expanding on Darwin and Romanes. Last month, a special edition of The Journal of Physiology, co-edited by Noble and Michael Joyner of the Mayo Clinic, featured 21 articles challenging current evolutionary theory and advocating for the inclusion of phenomena like agency and cognition.

These articles corroborate the general theme that Genes Are Not The Blueprint For Life, the title of Noble’s review in the journal Nature,heralding science writer Philip Ball’s primer How Life Works: A User’s Guide to The New Biology. Ball, a former editor of Nature, admonishes the life sciences for ignoring obvious natural properties of living systems like agency and purpose because of “quasi-mystical” associations with intelligent design. In the book, Ball illustrates the resistance to letting go of the “tidy tale” of gene-centrism and the idea that genes control health more than “‘a bit’ and ‘somewhat’.” Like Noble, Ball is advocating for a new biology.

Noble’s urgency is more than academic. “This is critical to the future of health care,” says Noble, who feels the public is paying the ultimate price for gene-centrism. “I face the same problem as many other people face,” says Noble. “Families having to deal with serious illness, with social care that costs more than you can ever afford. I've been through all of that. I know what it does to families.” He considers it a foregone conclusion that aging populations will strain health systems to the point of rupture if we continue with gene-centrism.

The Critics​

Noble’s critics worry that entertaining religion-adjacent views subverts established science and the entire scientific project. But Noble’s research doesn’t challenge the scientific method. It challenges a scientific epoch marked by a purely mechanistic view of nature that coincided with the Industrial Revolution and age of mechanization. Noble appreciates concerns raised by skeptics, yet refuses to exclude natural phenomena from scientific inquiry.

Noble’s critics also accuse him of exaggerating the importance of physiology, while Noble insists physiology has been unjustly sidelined since Darwin. “Physiology now has to come to the rescue of evolutionary biology,” says Noble.

Another objection is that Noble is contesting a theory of evolution that has since been revised to address new evidence. For Noble, this is exactly his point. New evidence doesn’t merely refine the theory, it undermines it.

Biology’s existential crisis reached a flashpoint in 2016, when Noble and a group of scientists and philosophers organized a conference on New Trends in Evolutionary Biology with the Royal Society of London. Royal Society members petitioned—unsuccessfully—to kill it. The protest letter (Royal Society member Richard Dawkins’ signature was noticeably absent) read “...we wish to express our concern that this meeting will severely damage the reputation of the Society among the worldwide community of evolutionary biologists (it has already attracted adverse comments among colleagues in the USA).”

They never name their U.S. colleagues, although American biologist and prominent anti-creationist, Jerry Coyne uses words like "stupid," "rotten" and “blundering tyro” in his public condemnation of Noble. Canadian biologist Laurence A. Moran echoes Coyne’s outrage adding, “It's difficult not to be very angry at people like Denis Noble.” Moran writes that if science was working properly, Noble would “fade into the woodwork of the Senior Common Room at some college in Oxford.” It’s true Noble didn’t raise serious objections to evolutionary theory until after he retired as Chair of Cardiovascular Physiology at the University of Oxford in 2004. He says “coming out” would have invariably damaged the reputation and careers of the research team in his lab.

The Next GeneRation​

“We need to shame them. I'm sorry, but we do,” says bioengineer and origins-of-life scientist Joana Xavier about Noble’s caustic critics. Xavier, a next-generation evolutionary theorist, resents “bullying” from prominent scientists that shuts down young biologists and stymies scientific progress. She and her peers have new tools and fresh perspectives, yet Xavier says their academic careers are jeopardized by demeaning attacks.

Xavier’s research made headlines for her discovery of emergent, cooperative networks of molecules that mutually catalyze each other's formation in ancient bacteria. These systems were first theorized by complexity scientist, Stuart Kauffman, as a candidate for the origins-of-life story that challenges gene-centrism. Xavier studied under Noble and Kauffman before launching the Origin of Life Early-Career Network (OoLEN) with over 200 young, interdisciplinary researchers from around the world. This group co-authored an inaugural scientific paper The Future of Origin of Life Research: Bridging Decades-Old Divisions.

Xavier has identified another indication of intention at the cellular level of emergent systems: cooperation. She doesn’t understand why it’s acceptable to think of evolution as competitive but evidence of cooperation is considered taboo. “I think to solve life's origins, we'll need to look much more at cooperation. And emergence really brings cooperation into the scene, whether you want it or not,” says Xavier, who also sees creativity as fundamental to life. “It's so obvious, you either accept that it is true that life is creative or you don't.”

Xavier says her field is at an inflection point with gene-centrism holding back progress in health and medicine. “I think we’re completely stuck,” says Xavier. She’s actively pushing in a new direction even if she has to leave academia for the private sector to do it. “The gene-centric paradigm,” says Xavier, “That has to go. It's urgent.”

These days, Noble is surrounded by young researchers eager to reopen the case of evolution. “I have young people helping me with all of this because, believe me, I can't do all of this on my own,” says Noble. Creativity, purpose and organism-centered evolution are still only postulates that need rigorous testing. Noble is eager to explore both his theory and others. With theories of who we are, how we heal, and how we came to exist, Noble stresses “we should have more than one horse in the race.”