BL> A rotary magazine? I've never heard of such a thing! Like to
 BL> old Thompson submachine gun? Is that .22 long or something like
 BL> a Hornet?

 BG> Standard .22 LR. The Ruger's magazine looks like a 1" square
 BG> box, and the cartridges load in a rotary fashion, not unlike
 BG> the old Thompson .45. The whole idea is to make it sit flush
 BG> with the stock, without protruding. 

  Terrific!

 BG> Ruger also make a superb gas-operated .44 magnum SLR which is
 BG> almost identical in appearance to their .22 (at 10 feet, you
 BG> can barely tell them apart). That one will now be classified as
 BG> illegal too. :( 

  .44 Magnum pistol rounds? What a strange calibre. It would be rather
effective at killing people, but not very good at range. Rifles are
things of great beauty, but so are viruses, and both are dangerous on
the loose. You can always join the CMF, I suppose, or a rifle club.

 BG> My Zs are subsonic, 25g at less than 1000fps.

 BL> Yair... that's 1/4 the energy. It makes a huge differecne.

 BG> Not to cats though, if they're within 25m or so. :)

  (grin). At what range would the bullet become harmless... 100m or
so?

 BL> Yes... it's 16x the energy, but even so, the .22 auto would be
 BL> the weapon of choice for a drive-by shooting. 

 BG> Why is that? Given a choice, why wouldn't a drive-by loony
 BG> choose the weapon with the greatest killing power and magazine
 BG> capacity? I sure would. 

  In Los Angeles they like a Uzi, but your average Lebbo hoon can't
get his hands on one here, so they use .22L in semiauto. It *has* to
be semiauto for drive-by, otherwise they only get one shot. Full auto
would be better.

 BL> At close range, a .22 is the weapon of choice for the Mafia,
 BL> for instance. The bullet stays in there,

 BG> Sure, it's cheap and effective at close range. One shot in the
 BG> back of the head will generally do the trick, but I think
 BG> you'll also find that part of the reason they use .22s is that
 BG> they're very cheap, extremely quiet, harder to match gun with
 BG> projectile because the .22 is plain lead, and fragments quite
 BG> dramatically when it hits bone, plus they can also be fitted
 BG> with silencers (which only work properly with subsonic rounds
 BG> anyway). 

  All true... except the cost. I don't think a professional hit man
would include ammunition in his contract price.

 BL> and is quite as lethal as a 76mm at a thousand yards.

 BG> Sorry Bob, but at 1000m the .22 has used almost all of its
 BG> muzzle energy, and is at the extreme end of its maximum range
 BG> (and only then if it's been fired at an angle of say 30-40
 BG> degrees).

  I know that, but you misread what I wrote.

 BL> At close range, a .22 is the weapon of choice for the Mafia,
 BL> for instance. The bullet stays in there, and is quite as lethal
 BL> as a 7.6mm at a thousand yards.

  I meant the .22 at close range is as lethal as a 7.6mm at a thousand
yards. And it is. English sucks.

 BG> I was able to put 7 out of 10 shots into a 12" diameter
 BG> bull's-eye (on a 4' target) at 600m. Now try doing THAT with a
 BG> rimfire .22. :)

  Why on earth would I think a .22L was any use at 1000 yards?

 BL> In an urban situation, I think I'd rather face a loony with a
 BL> 303 than a hoon with a 22 semiautomatic.

 BG> Jeeze, I wouldn't! You could probably take a few .22 hits and
 BG> survive, but a .303 will cause absolutely MASSIVE tissue and
 BG> bone daamage as it passes right through your body (and may even
 BG> hit somebody behind you). 

  I know all that, but a loony with the 303 will only get off one shot
before I'm over the urban horizon, and he'll probably miss. The hoon
will enpty the entire clip, and as soon as I'm hit and immobilised,
he'll empty what's left into me. If you gave me the choice of a 303
or a .22 semiautomatic at Port Arthur, being about as good a marksman
as the fuckwit with the Armalite, I'd take the .22. I wouldn't kill
35, but I'd go close to a dozen. Someone would jumnp me while I was
working the bolt on the old 303.

 BL> Bolt-action was preferred. A geniune hunter, or a shooter, is
 BL> not going to need an SLR.

 BG> A "sporting" hunter, you mean. If I was a professional pig
 BG> shooter, I'd sooner have a rifle which was capable of rapid
 BG> fire, just in case I became surrounded by a pack of pissed-off
 BG> boars (which has in fact happened to me). 

  In fact, they'd choose the rifle with the cheapest ammunition and
carry a 357 magnum as well. 

 BG> That actually varies with the terrain. In scrubby country where
 BG> visibility is somewhat limited (say 50m or less), a 12g pump
 BG> shotgun is the preferred choice (and is what I once
 BG> specifically use on pigs), although the professionals out
 BG> around St George and Goondiwindi seem to prefer 7.62mm SLRs or
 BG> the Ruger .44 magnums (some prefer this calibre as they can use
 BG> the same cartridges in both their rifles and revolvers). It's
 BG> definitely a regional thing though. 

  I went shooting pigs at Mooree in swampy scrub like you said, and
the local publican used an old 303 (in the 60s) plus a 357 you could
hardly lift, let alone fire. I stayed well out of it! I reckoned the
shooters and their dogs were more dangerous than the pigs. No one had
a shotgun, but they had everything else. It was a funny weekend.   

  But in those days, the FN SLR was military and there were no other
semiautomatics except a Bren. ROFL! I remember fondly the way they
looked at Peter's .343 that was his pride and joy with a 6X scope that
cost him a fortune. The idea of hunting pigs with a proper hunting
rifle had never occurred to them. They just let the dogs find the pig,
yelled madly, and shot anything that wasn't a dog.

Regards,
Bob


___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---