Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: KillroyII
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 112 next>>
May 9, 2024 18:44:50   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
Blaster34 wrote:
Question…I’ve noticed there’s not ONE response from you to any of the replies, 8 pages worth, curious as to Why? Maybe you’re the fly in the ointment and your post is just what it is, trolling.


I had wondered too. My guess is that the mention/picture of guns sets him off and he has seen (I hope) the lack of any logic/meaning in his post-during-rage
Go to
May 9, 2024 18:39:04   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
Linda From Maine wrote:
Clarifying, and adding to, JohnSwanda's comments:

1. by "General Photography," John means the Main Photography Discussion section.

2. The Report Issue button (located below every single entry in a thread) can be used by anyone regarding any entry. Click it to see the categories of "report."

3. Many of us view topics shortly after they are created (via the "newest topics" link at top of any UHH page), so we see them in the sections where an OP puts them initially. Those who read UHH via the emailed Daily Digest see only a sampling of "yesterday's" news, and miss much of the action, including knowing whether a topic has been moved from one section to another.
Clarifying, and adding to, JohnSwanda's comments: ... (show quote)


Thanks to you and JohnSwanda.

I just kept seeing "it has been moved" comments and wondered if there was some sort of f**g on the post that I had not seen.

I am not likely ever to know, absent someone's comment since I view, sometimes later in the day, and use the daily digest.

I can't imagine I would ever use "Report Issue" or ask for a topic to be moved... other than mine... while I see that sections are useful it just not rise to a priority in my life to comment to the poster or ADMIN.

By the way, I still do remember your kind words on one of my 1st posts with questions... when others were being a bit rough
Go to
May 8, 2024 18:21:26   #
(Photo Gallery)
Glock Model 21 in 45 ACP Caliber
dennis2146 wrote:
All very interesting. I may have to check into Glock to see about when my guns were made. My 21 was purchased at Cabelas in Denver as I recall and was a police trade in. It has the original box and is definitely a Blue Label.
My 21 rail is different than yours in that it has just one slot where yours seems to have several.

Congratulations on the Sig P365XL. I have heard they are very popular.

Dennis


1st, I am not an expert but this is my understanding. The multi slot rail in my previous picture, my 21, is a "1913 Picatinny rail" (I think 1913 is a government reference/standard... like 1911). The single slot is a "Glock rail". The number of slots is not the only difference... the "Glock rail" is a slightly wider cut. While many add on accessories today fit both that is not always the case. One advantage of the 1913 is it lets you choose placement of the accessory (sometimes)... and back in 2009, when I bought my 21, my understanding was not all accessories were a good fit on a Glock rail.

I am trying to get a Blue Label purchase of a new Glock 47 MOS Gen 5 now and running in to multiple aggravations. Oddly enough, many military base PX/BX/Exchanges now sell guns... but are NOT Blue label dealers. They can do price match on sales downtown, and there is no sales tax, but a Blue Label price is cheaper even if you pay tax... and the local BX is inept... they ordered me a gun but didn't bother to call me when it came in.
Go to
May 8, 2024 17:59:00   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
Linda From Maine wrote:
Are you directing this question to the OP? He created this topic in Main Photography Discussion on May 7. Admin moved the discussion to chit-chat later that day.

The photos he's complaining about are in Photo Gallery, nothing to do with wandering or with chit-chat. You'd understand this if you read any of the responses before commenting.


Not related to this thread... but it is related to your reply.

Here, and in other threads/posts, you say that ADMIN moved a post... how do you tell when a post has been moved by ADMIN?
Go to
May 8, 2024 17:47:28   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
Nosaj wrote:
HHH is a photography internet site. It exists to provide a forum for showing, reviewing, commenting, appreciating, understanding, and sharing member’s photographs. It’s not intended to provide an outlet for any personal hobby, pastime, or following having nothing to do with photography. It should not at all need to have an “Attic” category!


The posts """PICTURES""" and solicited feedback on their quality and his setup

How can """PHOTOGRAPHS""" / """PICTURES""" (of anything) have ... you say... have "nothing to do with photography"?

I, and it appears many others, consider """PHOTOGRAPHY""" a "hobby, pastime, or following"

Maybe you could carefully read what you wrote and consider what the others reading it could possibly get what you mean
Go to
May 8, 2024 17:34:49   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
MRF wrote:
Agree

I read this to learn photo sk**ls not politics or other unrelated subjects


Agree with who or what?

If you wish clarity, in what your comment responds to, you can use the "Quote Reply" button below each post... as I did to direct my response to you
Go to
May 8, 2024 17:30:27   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
cambriaman wrote:
With the past few days postings it appears this site needs to be re-named: "Guns and Ammo and BTW a Few Words About Photography".

How has this happened? Aren't the editors reviewing postings any longer?

For we photographers it is a waste of bandwidth.


Do you have limited bandwidth... or just a lack of tolerance?

I believe the majority of those posts are from a """PHOTOGRAPHER""" """THAT CLEARLY SOLICITED""" feedback on his setup to do commercial """PHOTOGRAPHY""" of items small enough to fit his area covered his """PHOTOGRAPHIC""" lighting, etc., and the resulting quality of his """PHOTOGRAPHIC""" results. And later in the process reminded readers that, while he appreciated comments on the guns but also wanted feedback on the quality of the """PHOTOGRAPHS"""

Your obvious dislike, dare I say h**e, for guns should not disqualify them from being the subject of """PHOTOs""" on a PHOTOGRAPHY site.

I would suggest that you read the title and avoid UHH posts of pictures of guns (or cars, or birds, or landscapes, or wh**ever else fuels your rage)... since it gets you agitated enough to possibly get your blood pressure too high. And maybe title your future post appropriately so we can avoid posts that are just anti-gun rants. I would like to see any positive posts/pictures you have but avoid posts like this.

Why should the persons who own/edit this site give in to your personal preference for the subject of photographs... as long as it does not violate the rules of the site.

I will admit that a lot of the replies (including mine) are mostly about the guns... but so are the replies about cars largely about the cars... and the same for pets, wildlife..... and most everything on UHH.
Go to
May 8, 2024 16:40:47   #
(Photo Gallery)
Glock Model 21 in 45 ACP Caliber
dennis2146 wrote:
Thank you very much KillroyII for your great comments. As for the picture of your Glock not only do I not mind but for this series I want and encourage others to send photographs of their firearms. I would be happy if you and others would send in photos of their guns, all of them. I would be interested in the photographic techniques used to get good photos of firearms. The multi finishes of firearms, blue, brown, stainless, nickel along with the grip finishes to wood, plastic, ivory and stag could be discussed as to exposure as well as composition. Composition would be another big topic to discuss. I added cartridges to my photos and handcuffs in some for firearms that would be classed as LEO type firearms. But other items could certainly be used such as treasured pocket knives, holsters and so on. I would bet someone out there has a holster more valuable than some of the firearms presented.

I have the rail on my Sig Sauer P229 and the Glock 23 but have never used it. I doubt I would ever hook a light up to it. But it is nice I could if desired.

My Glock Model 21 is probably the most accurate of my Glocks. My Model 21 is not stamped with a Generation number so I ASSUME it might be a First Generation. It does have a rail and the box is marked, Law Enforcement Sales Only. It has the 5 pound trigger. The box is also marked .45 Cal (FG/R). I can only think it would be Finger Groove grips and the Rail.

Sorry about your tremors. I hope that works out for you. My best to you and the lovely young lady by your side.

Dennis
Thank you very much KillroyII for your great comme... (show quote)


Gen number not on mine either. I e0mailed Glock customer service, with my serial number, and they promptly replied ... see screenshot. I think they prefer you email to the customer service address although the person that replied email is visible.

On the "Law Enforcement" only... sounds like one Glock designated for "Blue Label" sales. I recently realized that retired military qualifies for Blue Label and the prices are better... but a Glock dealer can't sell anything he has in stock under that program... each gun leaves the factory designated/priced under that program and MUST have the sale documenting the qualification of the buyer under that program.

I keep thinking about hanging a light/laser combo under mine, but haven't yet. Since I, for a time, quit carrying (due to weight size) the Glock 21 just stays in my nightstand unless at the range. I started carrying again when I bought a Glock 26... then got a Sig P365 XL when my wife talked me out of the 26... I was shopping for her a 26 but couldn't find one and at a shop a guy showed me 3 other guns and I bought the Sig... and have been very pleased with it. It has a Sig MOS optic that after having a while had an optic that the battery could be replaced without removing from gun... but that may mean a larger size as well... and low profile is good for carry.


Go to
May 8, 2024 15:59:21   #
(Photo Gallery)
Original Ruger .44 Magnum Flattop Revolver
dennis2146 wrote:
Thank you very much for telling us of your friend and him shooting a deer with his Ruger revolver. It is a very lightweight revolver but for just plain carrying and not shooting more than a few shots, hopefully just one, it is an ideal revolver for hunting or walking through the woods. I love my Freedom Arms in 454 and it did a great job on a mule deer on a ranch in Wyoming. But it is more power than needed and a much heavier revolver to carry around. Here in Idaho where we have grizzly bears and they occasionally dine on humans I would carry the 454 if I was only carrying a handgun to shoot a deer or other big game. Otherwise if I was carrying a rifle for the hunt and wanted to have the sidearm for other game it would most likely be this lightweight .44 Magnum.

Been to Vietnam too and thank you very much for your service. I never fired a shot with a 5.56 in two tours there other than the familiarization course. I was there in April 1966 and was issued an M14 that I took on the helicopter with me. My usual armament was an M60 and then a Browning M2 from a helicopter window.

Dennis
Thank you very much for telling us of your friend ... (show quote)


I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE! The last sentence of my comment, which was: "Actually, I fired more than 1,000 rounds of 5.56 in Vietnam without hearing protection as well." was about lack of hearing protection but could obviously be taken as I fired those rounds at some "un-friendly" persons.

Actually, those rounds were to perform a quick test of the large shipment of M-16s for our base (I fired 3 rounds from each one I was handed for maybe a week and a half). I was no war hero... just a young troupe (who worked as an augmentee to the security forces because the electronic equipment I was trained on didn't arrive till over half my year had gone by). I mainly manned a foxhole if the enemy got close and did guard duty for those 7 months. Absent that situation, I would not have daily carried an M-16 for those 7 months... just had one assigned to me and kept in the orderly room. I had volunteered for that detail because I was carrying the M-16 but had never fired one... had qualified with an M-1 Carbine... and wanted the chance to do so.

PS... I am blaming my wife, who was waiting for me while I completed that previous comment.
Go to
May 8, 2024 12:35:16   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
nervous2 wrote:
As I recall, the gun shots were pretty clearly labeled. I for one enjoyed them. If they're not your cup of tea, don't click on them. I'm not big on birds, but I would never think to suggest that there are too many shots of them. I like to see a variety of subjects so I can see what interests my UHH friends. OK, now I'm going to crawl back under my rock.


but you don't need to crawl under a rock
Go to
May 8, 2024 12:34:13   #
(The Attic)
Isn't This a Photography Forum any More?
Mac wrote:
There have been a number of photos of guns in the photo gallery. Since they were titled as photos of guns they are easy to identify. Since I wasn’t interested in looking at them I skipped past them without looking. That is a technique you should try.


Go to
May 8, 2024 11:37:21   #
(Photo Gallery)
Remington 1911 pistol
M1911 wrote:
Here is one from several years ago. I know the safety should be on or the hammer down.


good looking gun and picture
Go to
May 7, 2024 14:19:16   #
(Photo Gallery)
Glock Model 21 in 45 ACP Caliber
dennis2146 wrote:
This Glock pistol is in .45 ACP Caliber. ACP is Automatic Colt Pistol, probably in common use since at least 1905. Of my three Glock pistols I think this one may be the most accurate but all do well in the accuracy department.

Dennis


You continue with some great photography... and beautiful guns

I mentioned previously that the only .45 I had was a Glock 21 SF. It is a Gen 3 that I special ordered and while filling out the order the shop owner asked if I desired a 1913 rail... and I said yes. Don't see those much on Glocks any more. Hope you don't mind if I insert a picture... and it is not a quality picture... just documentation of my guns for me and our insurance company.

It is also the handgun I currently get the best accuracy with. I think part of that is the weight... and steading it with my essential tremor helps me hold it on target better. The tremor is being treated, by a neuroglist, but a slight bit remains. The 1st drug totally stopped the tremor but made me crazy (in multiple ways).


Go to
May 7, 2024 13:57:41   #
(Photo Gallery)
Ruger Stainless .22 Target Pistol
dennis2146 wrote:
This is one of Ruger's best sellers, the original Model (this is variation 3) .22 target pistol. The series began life in 1949 as I recall.

Dennis


I also had one... blue version. While engaged (1968), took my wife-to-be to be out to shoot and "show her about shooting". We set up some cans at a range that I thought with a little practice she could hit them... her 1st shot she hit dead center on a can... her 2nd shot she hit the bottom of the can (back when cans had a heavier metal rim) and while it was back spinning in the air (not much but off the ground) she shot it again. I took the gun and said OK lesson over.

Many years later on, both my wife and our teenage daughter would shoot the .22. My daughter also enjoyed shooting the Security Six... even with heavy magnum loads but mom not so much.... and the daughter's boyfriend wouldn't even touch the magnum after hearing the noise.

I saw other comments about assembling the gun. Best I remember hold it barrel up at about 45 degrees and shake it slightly back and forth till the lever catches... but that was a long time ago.
Go to
May 7, 2024 13:46:16   #
(Photo Gallery)
Original Ruger .44 Magnum Flattop Revolver
dennis2146 wrote:
I have owned this revolver for a number of years, maybe going on 20. It was manufactured I think in 1962 and is the 6 1/2 inch barrel model. It is a dream to carry due to its light weight but is hell on recoil for some due to the light weight. I occasionally shoot .44 Magnum cartridges from it and they are controllable for some who are used t shooting heavy caliber six-guns. But it is at its best with heavy .44 Special Keith type cartridges and are also very accurate in that cartridge. Those who are aware of Elmer Keith and his loads for the .44 Special will know they are pretty much powerful enough to drop deer and elk if placed properly.

Dennis
I have owned this revolver for a number of years, ... (show quote)


Beautiful.

I have an old friend and co-worker multiple times who has this gun and has a great story about taking a good sized deer with it (around 1981 or 82). We heard the story fresh, on Monday morning, after he had taken the deer while he was crawling thru brush and briers to get a shot at it... and he had the scratches on his face and neck to verify the foliage he described.

In a previous reply to you, I described my Ruger Security Six... this guy is the one who saw it in a shop and went with me to buy it. We couldn't wait and drove to a spot to fire it (without hearing protection) before going home. Actually, I fired more than 1,000 rounds of 5.56 in Vietnam without hearing protection as well.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 112 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.