fullauto glocking [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : fullauto glocking


jimbullet
06-02-2006, 21:05
Just wanted to find out has anyone experienced glocks at full auto? Im just interested if the shots are controllable - meaning are shots hitting the targets?

chocoboy
06-02-2006, 23:48
tried a fullauto glock 17... out of 15 rounds fired fullauto at a 7yard target, only half of the bullets hit the target. The bullet holes were lined up vertically...

deenoh
06-03-2006, 00:54
Very hard to control and I've been told that the splits between a double tap and a burst from a full auto are almost the same.

jimbullet
06-03-2006, 05:17
Out of curiousity though, taking a poll, would you guys rather have the option for your glocks to go auto for self defense or do you think such feature serves no purpose at all except to waste bullets?

sundancekid
06-03-2006, 05:29
i'll come to the most relevant question to this thread......

can someone convert a glock to fire full auto? :rock: :dancingbanana: :mememe:

jimbullet
06-03-2006, 05:32
Doable as in any semi auto weapon:upeyes:

jimbullet
06-03-2006, 05:34
But seriously, if you guys could own the G17C...that could do full auto, would you rather have one? Or is it so uncontrollable that it defeats whatever purpose it had and simply a waste of bullets

horge
06-03-2006, 06:37
Just a note:

It's been brought up before by Eric, our GT Administrator...
Conversion of Glocks to auto is a delicate subject in this forum.
Bottom line is that no discussion promoting or facilitating illegal
behavior is allowed on GT. Since Band of Glockers forum welcomes
US participants, we have to be careful with R.P. and U.S. gun laws.

Commenting on the shootability of full-auto pistols is fairly neutral
stuff, but discussing the how-to of full-auto conversions or even
posting the sources for conversion kits crosses the line into actual
promotion and facilitation of illegal activity.

Have a nice day!
:)

Kiddo
06-03-2006, 07:14
Originally posted by jimbullet
Out of curiousity though, taking a poll, would you guys rather have the option for your glocks to go auto for self defense or do you think such feature serves no purpose at all except to waste bullets?

If yung ka enkwentro mo are regular street gang bangers or burglars, then hearing a full auto burst would scare the crap out of them and they would probably get out of the area fast! On the other hand if they were pros, they'll probably just wait for you to reload. I don't think there are a lot of pros here in the Phils. though. Either way, its fun shooting at the range! Hehe. ;)

Allegra
06-03-2006, 07:23
IF it as legal and if I had a 17c, I'd put one in
But it's not, and I dont , so I wont

royal glockster
06-03-2006, 07:39
For me, spray and pray is not ideal for pistols. Bcoz it is hard to control, marami madadamay when the "time" comes. Full-auto is best reserved to carbines.my 2 cents mga bro! :cool:

9MX
06-03-2006, 07:52
Originally posted by horge
Just a note:

It's been brought up before by Eric, our GT Administrator...
Conversion of Glocks to auto is a delicate subject in this forum.
Bottom line is that no discussion promoting or facilitating illegal
behavior is allowed on GT. Since Band of Glockers forum welcomes
US participants, we have to be careful with R.P. and U.S. gun laws.

Commenting on the shootability of full-auto pistols is fairly neutral
stuff, but discussing the how-to of full-auto conversions or even
posting the sources for conversion kits crosses the line into actual
promotion and facilitation of illegal activity.

Have a nice day!
:)

+1 its legal here in the philippines but illegal in the USA,hence the sensitivity. unless you wanna meet a troll that talks to the hand:alien: and have this thread locked.

anyway, glocks with fssgare fun to shoot at the range, its like having a poor man's uzi. unless you're prepared to waste moolah on ammo to work on accuracy.....

imho, just put the money on practice ammo, join us at the matches:beer: eyecutter, gundog, taurus, batangueno, and mcoliver will be at armscor marikina tomorrow to practice starting at 10am.

Allegra
06-03-2006, 09:48
Originally posted by royal glockster
For me, spray and pray is not ideal for pistols. Bcoz it is hard to control, marami madadamay when the "time" comes. Full-auto is best reserved to carbines.my 2 cents mga bro! :cool:


di naman spray and pray ang FA glock
skilled mp shooters can fire short bursts at a target and have it all in the a-zone
One of the pioneer shooters here sa range namin can empty a whole 33rnd mag FA in the A zone w/ one hand ( he's around 60+ yrs old )

Just dont know kung may advantage kasi our pistol times are the same sa multiple targets as w/ his FA G17

deenoh
06-03-2006, 09:56
9mx, as far as I know coverting a semi auto Glock to full auto is not legal for civilians here in the Philippines. After the conversion it will be considered as a machine pistol and machine pistols are not allowed for civilians.

mc_oliver
06-03-2006, 11:31
It's still all about skill level. If you can barely keep your shots on paper with a .30sec split, forget about hitting your target with "full auto" splits.

One thing I noted with full auto pistols is that it helps you learn to keep your eyes open when it's firing and buckling in your hand. For a newbie, that's a good learning experience, that is, if you don't get trapped in it's "fun & cool" factor. ;)

horge
06-03-2006, 16:32
deenoh,

Actually, there is no Philippine law I know of that addresses such
modification of pistols.

Clearly, if a new receiver or barrel is obtained, that is tantamount
to owning a separate firearm and major retailers act accordingly:
SGAC and Armscor/Squires will tell you to register any new barrel or
frame with FED. That's about it. Tinkering doesn't seem to be an issue.

What about ownership of full-auto pistols and guns?
E.O. 194 (2000) hasn't been repealed, so it isn't that it is illegal
to own select-fire firearms, but that it is procedurally difficult
to maintain properly-documented ownership.


[/rant mode on]

There is a disconnect between the law and application thereof:

FED chooses to ignore E.O. 194 insofar as providing licensing service
(which is essentially FED's raison d'etre!) is concerned.

FED procedures are based on the repealed/defunct/obsolete, Marcos-era
G.O. 7, 7A, 7B and 7C. FED guidelines and issuances have incomprehensibly
continued to cite those discarded G.O.'s as their empowering or enabling
legislation.

Bottom line, AFAICT:

1. The law openly allows a private individual to own a select fire
firearm, but demands registration and up-to-date licensing.

2. The law tasks FED with taking care of registration and licensing.

3. FED doesn't want to register/license select fire firearms.
(save perhaps on a case-to-case, pag-usapan natin nina Chief basis? :upeyes: )


This gulf between the law and its actual application/enforcement
by the assigned agencies is responsible for much confusion
regarding firearms ownership.

The thing is, I don't know if we should demand legal clarity,
and conformity between the law and its enforcing agencies' actions.
Baka kapag kinalikot 'yan ng both Houses of Congress, we'll
wind up with even more-restrictive (and even more-confused) gun laws.

Our legislators' track record has been abjectly miserable thus far.
Iyang "Revilla Law" pa lamang (Republic Act No. 8294, of 1997), e...
sasakit ang ulo mo sa dami ng mga grammatical and logical lapses.
:freak:

[/rant mode off]


h.

jimbullet
06-03-2006, 19:25
Guys, Im not promoting anything illegal here as my basic question is simply if you could own a glock, which has full auto capability (assuming)is it really worth the extra bucks? I heard several people saying its uncontrollable and yet I came across a video from the US, where it shows the g17 doing burst fire with all hits inside the paper target at 7 to 10 meters....Well, it just got me thinking and wanted to here what the other BOGs think about the full auto feature.

My apologies if I may have "miss - worded" my posts on this topic.

9MX
06-03-2006, 19:59
Originally posted by horge
deenoh,

Actually, there is actually no Philippine law I know of that
addresses such modification of pistols.


+1 ulit. in the shooting magazine that came with our 2006 PPSA ID, Congressman Jack Enrile (One of the PPSA founders, and IPSC Regional Director) mentioned something about lobbying for a law that would forbid full auto modifications (or something to that effect) on pistols as this is against sports shooting.

horge
06-03-2006, 20:49
jimbullet,

Don't apologize! :)
I floated the warning to pre-empt anything questionable,
in effect, BEFORE anything questionable had been posted.
No harm, no foul.

:)
h.




Mannix,

Has the PPSA has become "anti", then?
By lobbying for a restriction on something merely
because it doesn't hew close to the spirit of a GAME,
Enrile would prejudice non-gaming firearm owners.

Some of us do own guns, but don't race them.
That describes most firearm owners, actually;
who cannot afford to play your fine game,
or else find it uninteresting.

If Enrile had cited public safety, that might have been something.
Heck, I MIGHT agree, as a full-auto pistol seems silly.
But the reason actually cited smacks of narrow-minded, rich boy elitism.
God, I hope that article distorted the congressman's intentions.
Otherwise, ...where's the puke icon when you need it?



h.

Alexii
06-03-2006, 21:20
Just want to share my perspective on this.

Bear in mind that we are ultimately responsible for every single bullet that leaves our gun muzzles, be it on the range or a self defense shoot. If you cannot employ full control of even just one shot in a full-auto burst, then I say use the full-auto burst feature of your handgun EXCLUSIVELY on an isolated range with a backstop broad, high, and thick enough ala Helm's Deep.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

riddler
06-03-2006, 22:00
Originally posted by jimbullet
Just wanted to find out has anyone experienced glocks at full auto? Im just interested if the shots are controllable - meaning are shots hitting the targets?

DON'T apologize! Your question is not promoting anything illegal,...rather it is only asking for other's opinion based on their experience.

Eric's rules here in GT may be strict but they are fair. I am sure that for as long as your posts adhere to his rules, they will be heard,......or responded to appropriately.

Allegra
06-03-2006, 23:39
Originally posted by horge
jimbullet,

Don't apologize! :)
I floated the warning to pre-empt anything questionable,
in effect, BEFORE anything questionable had been posted.
No harm, no foul.

:)
h.




Mannix,

Has the PPSA has become "anti", then?
By lobbying for a restriction on something merely
because it doesn't hew close to the spirit of a GAME,
Enrile would prejudice non-gaming firearm owners.

Some of us do own guns, but don't race them.
That describes most firearm owners, actually;
who cannot afford to play your fine game,
or else find it uninteresting.

If Enrile had cited public safety, that might have been something.
Heck, I MIGHT agree, as a full-auto pistol seems silly.
But the reason actually cited smacks of narrow-minded, rich boy elitism.
God, I hope that article distorted the congressman's intentions.
Otherwise, ...where's the puke icon when you need it?



h.



Coz sport shooting is the only way we wil be allowed to own firearms in the future.
Would you belive civilians in Macau, HK, Singapore are now allowed guns because of IPSC ( dati they'll be hanged )
Kaya kung ako kayo , mag bisikleta nalang kayo

horge
06-04-2006, 00:52
:D

Well, hello Allegra.

Humor aside, if I take your citation accurately, then
Macau HongKong and Singapura citizens are allowed guns
as 'sporting equipment' only.

No?
Do they now issue CCW's as a result of IPSC's holy radiance?
Do they now allow home-defense firearms for the general population
because of IPSC beneficence?

Or is it pretty much the can-afford gamers only who benefit?
For some, gaming is all there is to firearms. Good for them.
I might prefer a more catholic (and traditional) view of firearms'
functions, ditto those of the shooting sports.

I know IANSA is working overtime to ban all private gun ownership,
and if a country offers scant freedom to keep and bear,
then shyeah, IPSC can be a boon to expanding firearm ownership.
But the Philippines already HAS reasonable gun laws. If IPSC
'philosophy' is now a reason to begin reducing my ability to keep
and bear, then the PPSA can go slide-bite its withered nads off.

PPSA should be standing up to IANSA pressure, rather than
carrying the latter's poisoned water.
:frown:

Now...
Just in case someone's hot to charge into pedobuccal exercises:
I think machine pistols are almost worse than useless --they're
a mite dangerous to owners and bystanders, relative to
whatever defensive OR 'gaming' value they offer. (I base this
on having tried a burst from a PA officer's CZ75 Selekt.)

What got me irritated is this reported attempt (again, maybe
that PPSA 'newsletter' was mistaken, or misquoting) to
force any philosophy of a mere firearm-sports association
onto a whole country of defensive firearm owners.

Haaaay. Hijo de p --weh.
:freak:

Allegra
06-04-2006, 03:28
Originally posted by horge
:D

Well, hello Allegra.

Humor aside, if I take your citation accurately, then
Macau HongKong and Singapura citizens are allowed guns
as 'sporting equipment' only.

**************************
correct!


No?
Do they now issue CCW's as a result of IPSC's holy radiance?
Do they now allow home-defense firearms for the general population
because of IPSC beneficence?


****************************
No on all counts
Pang range lang
Still , it's a beginning
Couldnt believe there are Singaporean IPSC shooters



Or is it pretty much the can-afford gamers only who benefit?
For some, gaming is all there is to firearms. Good for them.
I might prefer a more catholic (and traditional) view of firearms'
functions, ditto those of the shooting sports.


****************************
Syemps! Pang rich lang naman talaga baril a
Yang mga hampas....este mga mahihirap na yan eh , aanhin naman nila ang baril. Mag aral sila tumakbo!




I know IANSA is working overtime to ban all private gun ownership,
and if a country offers scant freedom to keep and bear,
then shyeah, IPSC can be a boon to expanding firearm ownership.
But the Philippines already HAS reasonable gun laws. If IPSC
'philosophy' is now a reason to begin reducing my ability to keep
and bear, then the PPSA can go slide-bite its withered nads off.


******************************
There was a time recently when we were a little worried about firearms ownership
Everytime, may threat , it's the gamers who feel it first
So we think of ways to lessen the possibility that a cowboy wanna be turns public opinion against us
Lahat kasi ng sabit , mga non-gamers may gawa eh ( traffic shootouts between civvies )


PPSA should be standing up to IANSA pressure, rather than
carrying the latter's poisoned water.
:frown:


*******************
I dunno , TRAP na ako ngayon not PPSA :)


Now...
Just in case someone's hot to charge into pedobuccal exercises:
I think machine pistols are almost worse than useless --they're
a mite dangerous to owners and bystanders, relative to
whatever defensive OR 'gaming' value they offer. (I base this
on having tried a burst from a PA officer's CZ75 Selekt.)

What got me irritated is this reported attempt (again, maybe
that PPSA 'newsletter' was mistaken, or misquoting) to
force any philosophy of a mere firearm-sports association
onto a whole country of defensive firearm owners.

Haaaay. Hijo de p --weh.
:freak:


no philosophies involved
probably just being realistic

horge
06-04-2006, 04:30
:)

Still , it's a beginning
Couldnt believe there are Singaporean IPSC shooters
Obviously, for Singaporeans (who are starting from zilch),
any adjustment towards gun sport culture means an expansion
of firearm ownership possibilities. But in the Philippines,
what was being proposed is a REDUCTION of such possibilities.

Pang rich lang naman talaga baril a
Yang mga hampas....este mga mahihirap na yan eh , aanhin naman nila ang baril. Mag aral sila tumakbo!
Careful, haha...
If guns are only for sport, then sure, those who can't afford
the sport have no business getting into it. As I said, people
own firearms for other, very carefully-weighed reasons and
real-world necessities. I'm one of them, and I'm not rich.

no philosophies involved.
probably just being realistic
No philosophies? Then the nature of the thing to be outlawed
being 'against sport shooting' should not have been brought up,
although I have no confirmation that the indicated PPSA
article did not mangle the congressman's intentions.

Anyway, thanks for your input, and if you know of any discount
scatterguns I can nab (for kalikot/tinkering) please let me know.
:)

Allegra
06-04-2006, 07:59
Originally posted by horge
:)


Obviously, for Singaporeans (who are starting from zilch),
any adjustment towards gun sport culture means an expansion
of firearm ownership possibilities. But in the Philippines,
what was being proposed is a REDUCTION of such possibilities.


Careful, haha...
If guns are only for sport, then sure, those who can't afford
the sport have no business getting into it. As I said, people
own firearms for other, very carefully-weighed reasons and
real-world necessities. I'm one of them, and I'm not rich.


No philosophies? Then the nature of the thing to be outlawed
being 'against sport shooting' should not have been brought up,
although I have no confirmation that the indicated PPSA
article did not mangle the congressman's intentions.

Anyway, thanks for your input, and if you know of any discount
scatterguns I can nab (for kalikot/tinkering) please let me know.
:)



***********************************
There are a lot of pretty good people sa PPSA , I trust them

umm....TRAP means Triathlon Association of the Philippines, not the trap/skeet shooting :) Kamelot is our resident expert on scatterguns :)

Poor and gunless din ako ngayon. Pero mabilis ako tumakbo :)

9MX
06-04-2006, 10:13
horge my man, hold your horses!;)

when i posted this morning, i was in anilao, batangas enjoying the sand, sea, sun and of course s... nevermind:supergrin:

didn't have the magazine then, but i do now. so here goes..

here is the gist of PPSA's official position as stated by the IPSC Regional Director in his column:

"1. The firearm licenses should be issued to responsible individuals as matter of personal privilege and not attached to a firearm unit per se as a de factor certificate of ownership.

In short, PPSA is batting for FA licensure to take place just once, just like when you take a board/bar exam, or a driver's license.

Subsequent acquisition of FAs would just be registered as we do now with our cars.

2. Ther should be no limit as to the number of firearms that may be owned or possessed by a licensed firearm owner.

In short, only one's capacity should limit his owning of additinal firearms.

3. That there should be no limit as to the number of ammunition used by a firearm owner for purposes of practice or competition.

4. That all firearm owners must demonstrate an acceptable level of firearm proficiency for each type of firearm owned or possessed.

5. That no civilian firearm owner should be allowed to onw or possess fireamrs with selective fire capabilities.

The primary consideration of the PPSA in advocating firearm ownership and possessing is that for purposes of sporting arms. Firearms with selective fire capabilities deviate from this specific purpose and as such, the PPSA is of the position that such firearms be restricted for use of the military and law enforcement agencies.

It is however understood that present rules and regulations being promulgated by the PNP-FED allows for the ownership and possession of firearms with selective fire capabilities. The PPSA is of the position that the mechanisms of such firearms be changed or deactived in order to allow said fireamrs to be legally kept by their owners."

IMHO, I understand all the points above except No. 5. For pistols, I do agree that full auto capabilities must be outlawed for safety reasons. It is reasonable for PPSA to take such a position since the org's advocacy is sporting arms.However, how about the rifles used in IPSC?, Don't they have select fire capabilities (though not used in matches)? IPSC Rifle is suspended now because the Ate Glow threw a tantrum after a politician in Pasig was shot to death by a.... pistol! how logical di ba?!:alien:


I'd be happy to fax you a copy of Cong. Jack's column if you want
:beer:

horge
06-04-2006, 17:05
Hi Mannix,

Fax? If you can, scan it so everyone can read it, although
I trust your above synthesis of the congressman's intentions.


Sadly, they sound even WORSE than I imagined, and far more
prejudicial vs. firearm ownership freedoms than I feared.

On items 1,2 and 3:
He proposes a FOID (firearm owner ID) system, which
reduces State receipts from licensing. The trouble is
that the assigned state agency will likely inflate the
cost of a single, first ID application to make up for
the loss of multiple applications per person. This would
be oppressive to the non-gamer, first-time owner, for
whom maintaining just one home-defense gun becomes
more expensive.

It does however spare wealthy multiple-gun owners from
the (doubtless!) life-or-death ordeal of multiple renewals.
If the congressman can guarantee no inflation of
application cost for a first gun, then I see less of
an issue.


On item 4
Ensuring a minimum of competency in firearm handling is
already embedded in existing firearm law and regulation,
no matter how inadequately-applied. So, what novelty lies
in this proposal?

Might I imagine that the PPSA is to be the entity
newly-tasked with 'certifying' new owners? A novel idea!
This would make PPSA recruitment easier and better
ballast its coffers! The PPSA would be a de facto
'professional organization', like the PMA, IBP, UAP, and
so forth. Government-guaranteed income, eh?
That's my imagination for ya.


On item 5
A ban on all select-fire firearms?
Because they don't fit PPSA needs/uses/beliefs?

Even if the PPSA exists to promote its ideology,
promotion is NOT imposition. Rather than try to
win over converts, the PPSA would push a law
to REQUIRE nationwide conversion.

The PPSA can go dictate its philosophy to its membership.
That merry lot all signed up for it anyway. But...

if the PPSA declares to impose its beliefs upon us NON-members,
reducing any of OUR freedoms and privileges, that makes
the PPSA my enemy, and the enemy of all who value the freedom
with which they keep and bear WEAPONS. Not sporting equipment.


---------------

That's item by item.
The big-picture analysis is worse.
To set into law the banning of select-fire weapons, requires
a repeal of E.O. 194 (2000). Only the President can do that.
The President has been reluctant to touch E.O. 194 thus far.
If the PPSA pushes for its repeal, then look out. She's NOT
going to leave E.O. 164 (1999) standing, either.

We'll revert to Marcos era G.O. 7 and its siblings.
One handgun and one long arm up to .22LR.

Unless of course, the President writes up her own E.O.
on just what firearms are permitted for civilian ownership,
and man, I guarantee none of us --not gun dealers, owners,
not even the tiny minority of gamers-- will be pleased.


h.

9MX
06-04-2006, 18:17
horge,

Obviously, its difficult to make everyone happy. ;)

IMHO, among the reasone that the PPSA exists is to promote the sport of practical shooting and protect/uphold the interest of its members in the IPSC shooting community. Should any of the propositions become law, imposition of course, becomes mandatory even to non-PPSA members. To level the playing field, defense minded individuals may band themselves together and lobby for laws that are congruent to their advocacies. Recently, IDPA Nationals were held in the bicol region hosted by the Philippine Federation of Gun Clubs (PFGC). Maybe the PFGC can lobby for laws that are suited for defense purposes:beer:

i'll try to scan the document and post it here.

mx

horge
06-04-2006, 18:30
Mannix,

Saying I can 'band together' with others to
hold on to certain freedoms doesn't make it any less
painful that someone wants to take them away.
Fellow gun-owners no less!
:frown:


Thanks for offering to scan/post.

isuzu
06-05-2006, 00:38
IMHO, if select-fire pistols are effective, special units/forces of rich nations would be carrying them.

I'd stick with a stock Glock 17, a BHP MKIII, a Taurus/Beretta 92 series, or a finely tuned 1911 pistol.

cebuboy
06-05-2006, 04:13
howdy there horge, its nice to know that there are people who also share my views on firearm ownership. not all firearm owners here own firearms for ipsc.

9MX
06-05-2006, 05:36
after several attempts, i'm unable to attach the file. for those who want to read the article, click on the link:

Article (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=62DF63CA6C60B9C8 )

mikey177
06-05-2006, 07:02
Thanks for scanning and uploading the article, Mannix.

Aside from the points raised by Horge regarding the stand of the PPSA on select-fire weapons, I noticed some items that don't bode well for non-game oriented gun owners.

First, item #3: That there should be no limit as to the number of ammunition used by a firearm owner for purposes of practice or competition.

Does this mean that if I don't practice for or participate in PPSA matches, the FED is going to set a limit to the amount of ammo I can keep in reserve (which is a pathetic 100 rounds per firearm under present laws, right)? Well, that sucks.

Then there's the wording of item #1: The firearm licenses should be issued to responsible individuals as matter of personal privilege and not attached to a firearm unit per se as a de factor certificate of ownership.

So much for the defense of one's life being a basic human right. Yes, I know that the Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that firearms ownership is only a privilege, but I would've expected the PPSA, being the more active shooting oriented body in our country (PROGUN being the less active or nearly comatose one) to work for a change in this viewpoint from ownership being a privilege to being a right.

horge
06-05-2006, 09:03
Thanks for the file, Mannix.

Enrile is writing in his capacity as IPSC Regional Director,
and his outline of PPSA dogma/beliefs is apparently a reaction
to some internal 'heresy'. He does not imply that he is pushing
for legislation to impose his/PPSA's beliefs upon all Filipino
firearm owners.

Naughty Mannix!! :)
You'd led me to believe such legislation was being planned!

Originally posted by 9MX
in the shooting magazine that came with our 2006 PPSA ID,
Congressman Jack Enrile (One of the PPSA founders, and IPSC Regional Director)
mentioned something about lobbying for a law that would forbid
full auto modifications (or something to that effect) on pistols
as this is against sports shooting.


The article does betray the PPSA's arrogance (yes, arrogance):
Even though private ownership of select-fire firearms does not
in any way infringe upon nor obstruct PPSA's ability to indulge
in its games, it STILL wishes to prevent non-PPSA'ers from owning
select-fire firearms --because such weapons 'deviate' from what
the PPSA finds useful for shooting sports.

This implies that the PPSA genuinely believe that firearms are
only for sporting purposes, else, why meddle with a class of
firearms that are outside the PPSA's uses and needs and
ALREADY in the possession of private, non PPSA'ers?

Now, in case some are too distracted to figure out my point:
If what is legally mine does not prevent you from
believing/doing what you legally wish, you have
no business meddling in what is legally mine.

Merely WISHING to curtail my freedoms/rights is arrogant,
if my freedoms/rights don't inhibit yours.


The article also seems to slip into incoherence.
It argues for a single licensure to cover multiple firearms,
using Drivers' Licenses and vehicle registration as a model.
This no doubt spares PPSA'ers from multiple FA license apps
and renewals, so I can understand.

And yet, it swifly thence argues for proficiency-testing on a
regular basis, which is rather AGAINST the Driver's License
model so heartily-extolled just prior.

It would replace multiple license renewal and its fees payable
to FED, with multiple proficiency testing and its fees payable
to... well, one wonders which organization it has in mind
for the task of regularly judging competence in 'shooting skill'.
The arguments flip-flop, spinning on their heads, depending,
it seems, on what can profit the PPSA.

I've responded to sentiment with sentiment. To words with words.
If/when the extreme minority that is the PPSA decides to put its
words into action, it may expect a response in the same coin,
with interest added, and from more than just this solitary
non-PPSA'er.


h.

Allegra
06-05-2006, 09:11
Yup , I heard you must be able to hit a 6inch target at 50m to be judged proficient and be licensed

horge
06-05-2006, 09:18
Originally posted by Allegra
Yup , I heard you must be able to hit a 6inch target at 50m to be judged proficient and be licensed



:laughabove:
It's possibly all a question of motivation.
Use that article as the target, and I might even redo
the bloody punctuation for you.
:supergrin:

9MX
06-05-2006, 19:54
horge,


my apologies, like i said, i was posting from anilao then. let me be clear however that i don't have any intention to put the IPSC Regional Director in a bad light (ano ako hilo? hehehe:clown: )

horge
06-05-2006, 20:22
:)

Let me also be clear:

The current State-recognition of freedoms I cherish are CLEARLY
creditable to the PPSA, and directly to the efforts of IPSC
RD Jack Enrile, Chepit Dulay and many others. All firearm owners
today owe them: big-time.

E.O 164 (1999) was the big luscious fruit of PPSA's hosting the
Cebu World Shoot, and of its unrelenting effort to promote
safe shooting sports. That E.O. softened Marcos-era restrictions.

Without the precedent of said E.O. 164, there would never have
been momentum to issue E.O 194 (2000) which is what removed all
Marcos-era basis for the oppression of firearm owners. This
particular E.O. specifically allows us to own select-fire firearms.

RD Enrile and the PPSA must obviously cherish E.O. 164 (1999), but
they are now clearly distancing themselves from E.O. 194 (2000).

It is saddening that, having contributed to howsoever-hedged a
State recognition of our naturaliter rights as a free people,
RD Enrile and the PPSA now publish a desire to eliminate some of
those freedoms --even though such freedoms do not in any way harm
or constrain (nor should even concern, by their very own admission)
the PPSA.




And Mannix, old salt...
If I was enjoying the aforementioned 'S's on some seashore,
I'd also be pretty sketchy on stuff from outside the immediate
shore's environs.

:)


h.

9MX
06-05-2006, 21:24
Originally posted by horge
:)

And Mannix, old salt...
If I was enjoying the aforementioned 'S's on some seashore,
I'd also be pretty sketchy on stuff from outside the immediate
shore's environs.

:)


h.

What the foxtrot! Who are you calling old?:soap: :supergrin: \

As for the "S", i meant soundtripping :clown:

Let me post a quote from the RD himself in an another article found in the same magazine:

"The Philippine Practical Shooting Association exists to promote the practical shooting sport in the country. It is not a socio-civic organization, it is not an NGO and neither is it a party-list organization.":)

horge
06-05-2006, 21:39
:)
I know it's a sport association.
That's why I don't fault the PPSA for not proactively
pursuing a codified RIGHT to keep and bear.
(**nudges mikey and double-winks at him)

As for your age, Amang Mannix...
If you reflexively toss out old slang like 'soundtripping',
then I rest my foxtrotting case ....po.

J/K!!!
:supergrin:

RATRAT
06-06-2006, 17:29
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by royal glockster
For me, spray and pray is not ideal for pistols. Bcoz it is hard to control, marami madadamay when the "time" comes. Full-auto is best reserved to carbines.my 2 cents mga bro!


Originally posted by Allegra
di naman spray and pray ang FA glock
skilled mp shooters can fire short bursts at a target and have it all in the a-zone
One of the pioneer shooters here sa range namin can empty a whole 33rnd mag FA in the A zone w/ one hand ( he's around 60+ yrs old )

Just dont know kung may advantage kasi our pistol times are the same sa multiple targets as w/ his FA G17


And lets not forget na its a selector switch so you still have the option to have your regular semi auto like your stock glock..di ba if its only clearly legal sa RP laws its good to have the option to go full auto if you want to,and its another variation sa ating shooting pleasure sa range from bang bang bang...to ratatatatatatatattttttt:50cal:


Band of Glockers #423
________________________
"Be afraid of no man,
No matter what size.
When trouble threatens, call on me,
For I shall equalize”– Glock 17

Glock_19_9x19
06-08-2006, 18:29
May kilala me nagbebenta at nagiinstall ng FSSG copy :) 5mins install/uninstall lang...the catch is that its worth P10k.

It would look good and may added stability pag may stock. Saw 1 (Glock tactical stock copy cguro)sa Final Option in MCS..P4k.

It looks similar to these:
http://www.globaltactical.com/gts/_img/int/gsbr2.jpg

http://www.globaltactical.com/gts/_img/int/gsbr3.jpg

jimbullet
06-09-2006, 07:40
Now thats an ultra loooong barrel:shocked:

Out of curiousity, how long is that thing?

sundancekid
06-15-2006, 04:01
just tried installing the select fire copy of fssg on my G19.... all i can say is... sarap! though need to do some training with full auto if i'm gonna keep it! :) however the rate of fire is simply... incredible! 15 rounds gone in half a second or less! now that's firepower! :50cal:

Glock_19_9x19
06-15-2006, 22:40
Originally posted by sundancekid
just tried installing the select fire copy of fssg on my G19.... all i can say is... sarap! though need to do some training with full auto if i'm gonna keep it! :) however the rate of fire is simply... incredible! 15 rounds gone in half a second or less! now that's firepower! :50cal:

Bro, mind if i ask magkano kuha mo sa fssg?

sundancekid
06-16-2006, 01:39
Originally posted by Glock_19_9x19
Bro, mind if i ask magkano kuha mo sa fssg?

you have pm sir

magsasaka
06-24-2006, 23:11
gup pm sir sundance, pa pm rin po ako pls?
thanks...

jojo_G19
06-26-2006, 07:21
ako rin po sundancekid..:supergrin: