On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:12:56 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:06:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >On 7/24/2023 9:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> "He returned armed with an AR-15-type rifle and opened fire..."
> >>
> >> Sounds like the people in the crowd he fired at were very,
> >> very lucky. Much luckier than the kids in the follow-up
> >> paragraph:
> >>
> >> "The shooting comes after a teenage gunman killed 21 people
> >> at a Texas primary school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle
> >> that had been purchased legally."
> >>
> >
> >Great example. The Uvalde armed civil servant professionals
> >decided to not risk their pension payouts and dithered while
> >children were being killed. In contrast to the woman
> >mentioned in my link:

Yes, there are occasional incidents where one person stops a mass shooting.
But it would be pretty stupid to hope that such a person would be available
to stop the next whacko with an AR.

And Uvalde illustrates the problem: If a perpetrator is armed with something
that is likely to kill multiple policemen, are you really surprised at reluctance
to charge the perp? You can say "It's their job," but most police signed on with
the expectation that there would be little chance of a truly serious gun battle.
Cops even 20 years ago didn't have to contend with the likelihood of an
AR blasting away at them.

> The Uvalde shooting, at the time, an isolated instance ...

What the _hell_ are you talking about, John??
Follow this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Sort by time. There are at least 25 such incidents before Uvalde. And note
the increasing frequency of incidents as time goes on. Also note the high
percentage done with semi-auto weapons.

> Why hasn't there been an outcry to ban those terrible Model 700
> rifles?

You want to ban them because of _one_ incident? But you don't want to ban
ARs despite the dozens of incidents?
> Or ban the most common firearm used in homicides, the lowly pistol.

John, as I've said before, feel free to propose much stricter regulations
on handguns. I won't object. But I've chosen to personally concentrate
on a type of gun which I think is even more blatantly without value.

> Or for that matter hands and feet. Used in far more homicides then
> "rifles".

Wow, the concept of "benefits vs. detriments" is completely beyond your
understanding!

How often do discover a use for your hands and feet?
How often do you discover a use for an AR?

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:50:43 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:28:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 7/24/2023 2:53 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:45:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/23/2023 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 7/22/2023 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without know just what firearm Frank's friend designed it
>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>> hard to comment, but I did look at what Ruger offers today
>>>>>> and I see
>>>>>> no innovative new designs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't. His patent was related to design and
>>>>> manufacturing methods of some critical parts. A lot of
>>>>> engineering is not visible to tyros examining consumer
>>>>> products.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words Frank's "Gun Expert" that he bragged about was far more
>>> likely to be some sort of engineer concerned with manufacturing the
>>> bits and pieces.
>>
>>Bad guess, yet again. I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
>>animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
>>designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
>>other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
>>almost entirely his design.
>
>Holy bar shifters, Batman, now, Krygowski is claiming that he was
>actually in on the design of a this unidentified gun. Does he really
>expect anyone to believe this nonsense?
>
>>You're guessing and blathering like a little kid - or a deluded old man.
>>It doesn't make you look impressive.
>
>Ring the irony bell.

Is the proper term, "Hoisted on his own petard"?

First Frank posts. "His patent was related to design and manufacturing
methods of some critical parts."

And then he posts.
it involved other components and their innovative manufacturing.

And NOW! But the gun is almost entirely his design.

But what gun does Ruger manufacture that is a new design? What I have
seen of Ruger firearms is that they are, basically, a common design
with some slight modifications, usually to make them easier or cheaper
to make.
The first Ruger pistol, the Ruger Standard Model, for example, used
piano wire coiled springs in the lockwork in lieu of the flat springs
most manufacturers were using at the time, and forming the receivers
from two stamped and welded sheet metal halves and the cost savings it
produced allowed Sturm and Ruger to radically undersell the
competition which still used older and more expensive manufacturing
techniques.

But really, is simply "cheaper" really "better"?
It might be noted that among serious .22 pistol target shooters the
S&W Model 41 is the most popular. M-41 - average price of $1,777.36,
RUGER MARK II TARGET New $470.00
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:18:59 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 8:22:53?PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 18:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >When I say I'm worried about your memory, I'm being honest. You've got
>> >to stop assuming you remember things correctly. Lately, you're not doing
>> >much better than Tom.
>> Maybe "Functional Cognitive Disorder" fits the observed symptoms?
>> <https://neurosymptoms.org/en/symptoms/fnd-symptoms/functional-cognitive-symptoms/>
>> I hate to admit it, but I've had every problem listed. I'm currently
>> far from being dysfunctional, but the trend for me seems to be
>> downhill, which is worrisome.
>>
>> Anyway, everyone please continue the verbal artillery duel about guns.
>> When the talking stops, the shooting starts, which is something I want
>> to avoid.
>> --
>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
>Liebermann, the American version of Slocomb.

Goodness! Are you saying that, like Slocomb, Liebermann also tells the
truth about you?

But the real question, which neither I nor Jeff have addressed is, "do
you tell these lies out of stupidity?" or "do you tell these lies in
an effort to make yourself look important?"
You can't possibly be telling lies to make others believe you as
everyone could "see through you" as long as 17 years ago.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:12:56?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:06:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >On 7/24/2023 9:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "He returned armed with an AR-15-type rifle and opened fire..."
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like the people in the crowd he fired at were very,
>> >> very lucky. Much luckier than the kids in the follow-up
>> >> paragraph:
>> >>
>> >> "The shooting comes after a teenage gunman killed 21 people
>> >> at a Texas primary school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle
>> >> that had been purchased legally."
>> >>
>> >
>> >Great example. The Uvalde armed civil servant professionals
>> >decided to not risk their pension payouts and dithered while
>> >children were being killed. In contrast to the woman
>> >mentioned in my link:
>
>Yes, there are occasional incidents where one person stops a mass shooting.
>But it would be pretty stupid to hope that such a person would be available
>to stop the next whacko with an AR.

It would be pretty stupid not to hope for that.

>And Uvalde illustrates the problem: If a perpetrator is armed with something
>that is likely to kill multiple policemen, are you really surprised at reluctance
>to charge the perp? You can say "It's their job," but most police signed on with
>the expectation that there would be little chance of a truly serious gun battle.
>Cops even 20 years ago didn't have to contend with the likelihood of an
>AR blasting away at them.

80/90/100 years ago cops had to contend with full automatic Tommy guns
and BAR's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle

>> The Uvalde shooting, at the time, an isolated instance ...
>
>What the _hell_ are you talking about, John??
>Follow this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>Sort by time. There are at least 25 such incidents before Uvalde. And note
>the increasing frequency of incidents as time goes on. Also note the high
>percentage done with semi-auto weapons.
>
>
>> Why hasn't there been an outcry to ban those terrible Model 700
>> rifles?
>
>You want to ban them because of _one_ incident? But you don't want to ban
>ARs despite the dozens of incidents?
>
>> Or ban the most common firearm used in homicides, the lowly pistol.
>
>John, as I've said before, feel free to propose much stricter regulations
>on handguns. I won't object. But I've chosen to personally concentrate
>on a type of gun which I think is even more blatantly without value.
>
>> Or for that matter hands and feet. Used in far more homicides then
>> "rifles".
>
>Wow, the concept of "benefits vs. detriments" is completely beyond your
>understanding!

IT's usually called risk vs reward and thousands of people have
weighed that and bought an AR15 type gun.

>How often do discover a use for your hands and feet?
>How often do you discover a use for an AR?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/defensive-ar-15-uses/

>- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:38:23 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:50:43 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:28:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/24/2023 2:53 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:45:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/23/2023 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/22/2023 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without know just what firearm Frank's friend designed it
>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>> hard to comment, but I did look at what Ruger offers today
>>>>>>> and I see
>>>>>>> no innovative new designs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't. His patent was related to design and
>>>>>> manufacturing methods of some critical parts. A lot of
>>>>>> engineering is not visible to tyros examining consumer
>>>>>> products.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words Frank's "Gun Expert" that he bragged about was far more
>>>> likely to be some sort of engineer concerned with manufacturing the
>>>> bits and pieces.
>>>
>>>Bad guess, yet again. I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
>>>animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
>>>designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
>>>other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
>>>almost entirely his design.
>>
>>Holy bar shifters, Batman, now, Krygowski is claiming that he was
>>actually in on the design of a this unidentified gun. Does he really
>>expect anyone to believe this nonsense?
>>
>>>You're guessing and blathering like a little kid - or a deluded old man.
>>>It doesn't make you look impressive.
>>
>>Ring the irony bell.
>
>Is the proper term, "Hoisted on his own petard"?
>
>First Frank posts. "His patent was related to design and manufacturing
>methods of some critical parts."
>
>And then he posts.
> it involved other components and their innovative manufacturing.
>
>And NOW! But the gun is almost entirely his design.
>
>But what gun does Ruger manufacture that is a new design? What I have
>seen of Ruger firearms is that they are, basically, a common design
>with some slight modifications, usually to make them easier or cheaper
>to make.
>The first Ruger pistol, the Ruger Standard Model, for example, used
>piano wire coiled springs in the lockwork in lieu of the flat springs
>most manufacturers were using at the time, and forming the receivers
>from two stamped and welded sheet metal halves and the cost savings it
>produced allowed Sturm and Ruger to radically undersell the
>competition which still used older and more expensive manufacturing
>techniques.
>
>But really, is simply "cheaper" really "better"?
>It might be noted that among serious .22 pistol target shooters the
>S&W Model 41 is the most popular. M-41 - average price of $1,777.36,
>RUGER MARK II TARGET New $470.00

He can't name the man he claims to be notable enough to have been
mentioned in a magazine article. He can't even name the gun, fearing
(correctly) that it's something that can be checked out.

There's no end to Krygowski's pretensiousness.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 02:14:56 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:12:56?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:06:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> >On 7/24/2023 9:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "He returned armed with an AR-15-type rifle and opened fire..."
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds like the people in the crowd he fired at were very,
>>> >> very lucky. Much luckier than the kids in the follow-up
>>> >> paragraph:
>>> >>
>>> >> "The shooting comes after a teenage gunman killed 21 people
>>> >> at a Texas primary school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle
>>> >> that had been purchased legally."
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Great example. The Uvalde armed civil servant professionals
>>> >decided to not risk their pension payouts and dithered while
>>> >children were being killed. In contrast to the woman
>>> >mentioned in my link:
>>
>>Yes, there are occasional incidents where one person stops a mass shooting.
>>But it would be pretty stupid to hope that such a person would be available
>>to stop the next whacko with an AR.
>
>It would be pretty stupid not to hope for that.
>
>>And Uvalde illustrates the problem: If a perpetrator is armed with something
>>that is likely to kill multiple policemen, are you really surprised at reluctance
>>to charge the perp? You can say "It's their job," but most police signed on with
>>the expectation that there would be little chance of a truly serious gun battle.
>>Cops even 20 years ago didn't have to contend with the likelihood of an
>>AR blasting away at them.
>
>80/90/100 years ago cops had to contend with full automatic Tommy guns
>and BAR's
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
>
>
>
>>> The Uvalde shooting, at the time, an isolated instance ...
>>
>>What the _hell_ are you talking about, John??
>>Follow this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>>Sort by time. There are at least 25 such incidents before Uvalde. And note
>>the increasing frequency of incidents as time goes on. Also note the high
>>percentage done with semi-auto weapons.
>>

Yup,, The Washington Post recorded 163 mass shootings in the United
States between 1967 and June 2019.[7] Mother Jones recorded 140 mass
shootings between 1982 and February 2023.[8] The Associated Press
recorded 59 mass shootings between 2006 and August 2022. The Violence
Project of the National Institute of Justice recorded 185 mass
shootings from 1966 to December 2022.[

Lets see, Washington Post - 2.6 a year, Mother Jones - 3.4 a year,
Associated Press - 3.6 a year, the Violence Project - 3.3

So, perhaps not "isolated" but certainly rare.

And your reports list some 534 mass shooting deaths from 1966 through
2022 and in contrast there were 1053 children killed in auto crashes
in 2019. Nearly two times as many children killed in auto crashes in a
single year as killed in 56 years of mass shootings.
One can only assume that it isn't dead kids that you care about, only
the kids killed by the terrifying AR that count. The others? ... "Oh,
we don't bother with them".

In closing, I might add that your reference states that:

"The Violence Project data set, perpetrators used handguns in 77.2% of
cases and semi-automatic rifles in 25.1% of cases. An earlier 2016
study by James Alan Fox and Emma E. Fridel similarly concluded that
"rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons
of choice for most mass shooters."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:12:56?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:06:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >On 7/24/2023 9:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "He returned armed with an AR-15-type rifle and opened fire..."
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like the people in the crowd he fired at were very,
>> >> very lucky. Much luckier than the kids in the follow-up
>> >> paragraph:
>> >>
>> >> "The shooting comes after a teenage gunman killed 21 people
>> >> at a Texas primary school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle
>> >> that had been purchased legally."
>> >>
>> >
>> >Great example. The Uvalde armed civil servant professionals
>> >decided to not risk their pension payouts and dithered while
>> >children were being killed. In contrast to the woman
>> >mentioned in my link:
>
>Yes, there are occasional incidents where one person stops a mass shooting.
>But it would be pretty stupid to hope that such a person would be available
>to stop the next whacko with an AR.
>
>And Uvalde illustrates the problem: If a perpetrator is armed with something
>that is likely to kill multiple policemen, are you really surprised at reluctance
>to charge the perp? You can say "It's their job," but most police signed on with
>the expectation that there would be little chance of a truly serious gun battle.
>Cops even 20 years ago didn't have to contend with the likelihood of an
>AR blasting away at them.
>
>> The Uvalde shooting, at the time, an isolated instance ...
>
>What the _hell_ are you talking about, John??
>Follow this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>Sort by time. There are at least 25 such incidents before Uvalde. And note
>the increasing frequency of incidents as time goes on. Also note the high
>percentage done with semi-auto weapons.

Only 25% done with semi-auto rifles.... 25% of 25 = 6, and that's with
all semi-auto rifles, not just AR15s.

>> Why hasn't there been an outcry to ban those terrible Model 700
>> rifles?
>
>You want to ban them because of _one_ incident? But you don't want to ban
>ARs despite the dozens of incidents?
>
>> Or ban the most common firearm used in homicides, the lowly pistol.
>
>John, as I've said before, feel free to propose much stricter regulations
>on handguns. I won't object. But I've chosen to personally concentrate
>on a type of gun which I think is even more blatantly without value.
>
>> Or for that matter hands and feet. Used in far more homicides then
>> "rifles".
>
>Wow, the concept of "benefits vs. detriments" is completely beyond your
>understanding!
>
>How often do discover a use for your hands and feet?
>How often do you discover a use for an AR?
>
>- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:10:27 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:12:56?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:06:59 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> >On 7/24/2023 9:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "He returned armed with an AR-15-type rifle and opened fire..."
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds like the people in the crowd he fired at were very,
>>> >> very lucky. Much luckier than the kids in the follow-up
>>> >> paragraph:
>>> >>
>>> >> "The shooting comes after a teenage gunman killed 21 people
>>> >> at a Texas primary school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle
>>> >> that had been purchased legally."
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Great example. The Uvalde armed civil servant professionals
>>> >decided to not risk their pension payouts and dithered while
>>> >children were being killed. In contrast to the woman
>>> >mentioned in my link:
>>
>>Yes, there are occasional incidents where one person stops a mass shooting.
>>But it would be pretty stupid to hope that such a person would be available
>>to stop the next whacko with an AR.
>>
>>And Uvalde illustrates the problem: If a perpetrator is armed with something
>>that is likely to kill multiple policemen, are you really surprised at reluctance
>>to charge the perp? You can say "It's their job," but most police signed on with
>>the expectation that there would be little chance of a truly serious gun battle.
>>Cops even 20 years ago didn't have to contend with the likelihood of an
>>AR blasting away at them.
>>
>>> The Uvalde shooting, at the time, an isolated instance ...
>>
>>What the _hell_ are you talking about, John??
>>Follow this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>>Sort by time. There are at least 25 such incidents before Uvalde. And note
>>the increasing frequency of incidents as time goes on. Also note the high
>>percentage done with semi-auto weapons.
>
>Only 25% done with semi-auto rifles.... 25% of 25 = 6, and that's with
>all semi-auto rifles, not just AR15s.
>
>>> Why hasn't there been an outcry to ban those terrible Model 700
>>> rifles?
>>
>>You want to ban them because of _one_ incident? But you don't want to ban
>>ARs despite the dozens of incidents?
>>
>>> Or ban the most common firearm used in homicides, the lowly pistol.
>>
>>John, as I've said before, feel free to propose much stricter regulations
>>on handguns. I won't object. But I've chosen to personally concentrate
>>on a type of gun which I think is even more blatantly without value.
>>
>>> Or for that matter hands and feet. Used in far more homicides then
>>> "rifles".
>>
>>Wow, the concept of "benefits vs. detriments" is completely beyond your
>>understanding!
>>
>>How often do discover a use for your hands and feet?
>>How often do you discover a use for an AR?
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski

Frantic Frankie :-)

I assume that you notice how Frank's arguments get, well rather
unrealistic as the discussion moves along... I particularly like the
benefits vs. detriments argument. For example, what is the benefits of
a bicycle to a bloke that has an expensive electric car and a
motorcycle? It can't be transportation as he has two other perfectly
usable vehicles. Exercise? As I've pointed out you can get more
exercise, much cheaper, running or jogging. The detriments are, of
course, you've sent your money on something that you don't need.

Of course Frank will now leap into the fray screeching "But guns they
kill people", which is true.... And so do automobiles, some 38,824 in
2020 while firearms killed 13,620.

And then, of course, we get the benefits vs. detriments argument
again, but really? Do you think if (God Forbid) Frank's wife were to
be killed in an auto crash he'd be jumping up and down shouting, "Oh,
the benefits! I'm so lucky! My wife was killed in a car crash."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:23:51 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:38:23 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:50:43 -0400, Catrike Rider
> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:28:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 7/24/2023 2:53 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:45:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/23/2023 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/22/2023 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Without know just what firearm Frank's friend designed it
> >>>>>>> is pretty
> >>>>>>> hard to comment, but I did look at what Ruger offers today
> >>>>>>> and I see
> >>>>>>> no innovative new designs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You wouldn't. His patent was related to design and
> >>>>>> manufacturing methods of some critical parts. A lot of
> >>>>>> engineering is not visible to tyros examining consumer
> >>>>>> products.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words Frank's "Gun Expert" that he bragged about was far more
> >>>> likely to be some sort of engineer concerned with manufacturing the
> >>>> bits and pieces.
> >>>
> >>>Bad guess, yet again. I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
> >>>animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
> >>>designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
> >>>other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
> >>>almost entirely his design.
> >>
> >>Holy bar shifters, Batman, now, Krygowski is claiming that he was
> >>actually in on the design of a this unidentified gun. Does he really
> >>expect anyone to believe this nonsense?
> >>
> >>>You're guessing and blathering like a little kid - or a deluded old man.
> >>>It doesn't make you look impressive.
> >>
> >>Ring the irony bell.
> >
> >Is the proper term, "Hoisted on his own petard"?
> >
> >First Frank posts. "His patent was related to design and manufacturing
> >methods of some critical parts."
> >
> >And then he posts.
> > it involved other components and their innovative manufacturing.
> >
> >And NOW! But the gun is almost entirely his design.
> >
> >But what gun does Ruger manufacture that is a new design? What I have
> >seen of Ruger firearms is that they are, basically, a common design
> >with some slight modifications, usually to make them easier or cheaper
> >to make.
> >The first Ruger pistol, the Ruger Standard Model, for example, used
> >piano wire coiled springs in the lockwork in lieu of the flat springs
> >most manufacturers were using at the time, and forming the receivers
> >from two stamped and welded sheet metal halves and the cost savings it
> >produced allowed Sturm and Ruger to radically undersell the
> >competition which still used older and more expensive manufacturing
> >techniques.
> >
> >But really, is simply "cheaper" really "better"?
> >It might be noted that among serious .22 pistol target shooters the
> >S&W Model 41 is the most popular. M-41 - average price of $1,777.36,
> >RUGER MARK II TARGET New $470.00
> He can't name the man he claims to be notable enough to have been
> mentioned in a magazine article. He can't even name the gun, fearing
> (correctly) that it's something that can be checked out.
>
> There's no end to Krygowski's pretensiousness.

Ruger's differences to other pistols is almost entirely visual. Why does Frank believe that he knows ANYTHING about any kind of gun? Do you suppose changing the anchor point of the trigger spring is a clever feature that improves a thing?

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:23:51 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:38:23 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:50:43 -0400, Catrike Rider
> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:28:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 7/24/2023 2:53 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 10:45:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/23/2023 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/22/2023 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Without know just what firearm Frank's friend designed it
> >>>>>>> is pretty
> >>>>>>> hard to comment, but I did look at what Ruger offers today
> >>>>>>> and I see
> >>>>>>> no innovative new designs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You wouldn't. His patent was related to design and
> >>>>>> manufacturing methods of some critical parts. A lot of
> >>>>>> engineering is not visible to tyros examining consumer
> >>>>>> products.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words Frank's "Gun Expert" that he bragged about was far more
> >>>> likely to be some sort of engineer concerned with manufacturing the
> >>>> bits and pieces.
> >>>
> >>>Bad guess, yet again. I worked with the guy. He used his solid model
> >>>animations of the gun mechanism to explain it to me while he was
> >>>designing it. The patent didn't involve that mechanism; it involved
> >>>other components and their innovative manufacturing. But the gun is
> >>>almost entirely his design.
> >>
> >>Holy bar shifters, Batman, now, Krygowski is claiming that he was
> >>actually in on the design of a this unidentified gun. Does he really
> >>expect anyone to believe this nonsense?
> >>
> >>>You're guessing and blathering like a little kid - or a deluded old man.
> >>>It doesn't make you look impressive.
> >>
> >>Ring the irony bell.
> >
> >Is the proper term, "Hoisted on his own petard"?
> >
> >First Frank posts. "His patent was related to design and manufacturing
> >methods of some critical parts."
> >
> >And then he posts.
> > it involved other components and their innovative manufacturing.
> >
> >And NOW! But the gun is almost entirely his design.
> >
> >But what gun does Ruger manufacture that is a new design? What I have
> >seen of Ruger firearms is that they are, basically, a common design
> >with some slight modifications, usually to make them easier or cheaper
> >to make.
> >The first Ruger pistol, the Ruger Standard Model, for example, used
> >piano wire coiled springs in the lockwork in lieu of the flat springs
> >most manufacturers were using at the time, and forming the receivers
> >from two stamped and welded sheet metal halves and the cost savings it
> >produced allowed Sturm and Ruger to radically undersell the
> >competition which still used older and more expensive manufacturing
> >techniques.
> >
> >But really, is simply "cheaper" really "better"?
> >It might be noted that among serious .22 pistol target shooters the
> >S&W Model 41 is the most popular. M-41 - average price of $1,777.36,
> >RUGER MARK II TARGET New $470.00
> He can't name the man he claims to be notable enough to have been
> mentioned in a magazine article. He can't even name the gun, fearing
> (correctly) that it's something that can be checked out.

One thing is for sure, we certainly don't have to worry about you or kunich checking anything out. The factual accuracy of you two idiots is something only matched by George Santos.

>
> There's no end to Krygowski's pretensiousness.

Just as there is no end to your narcissism.