The Spanky Show

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
My ex-girlfriend, who moved in with me for a while, did not like the open door policy. She got all territorial with the house. She got nailed with one of those super soaker squirt guns and lost her temper. On advice from the neighborhood kids, I had to let her go.

You should have just given her this one - to get even.



Your competition will be frozen in their tracks when you bring out the ARCTIC SHOCK blaster! The sleek, powerful blaster contains an Ice Core tank that chills the water in this 40-ounce capacity soaker. Pump up the blaster, shoot out the powerful streams of water up to 35 feet away, and drench your opponents in icy water! The quick-fill cap means you don’t waste any valuable soaking time! Just fill it with water and it won’t leak out!

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You get dumber by the day.

Someone has a case of morning whiff? Let me translate my post for you, receptionist boy. That was a Slave Insidie Joke of the Day that wasnt really all that inside or that funny. WHere is greatestshit(lave) when you need him?

[SlaveNoMore]

paigowprincess
Someone has a case of morning whiff? Let me translate my post for you, receptionist boy. That was a Slave Insidie Joke of the Day that wasnt really all that inside or that funny. WHere is greatestshit(lave) when you need him?

Repeat: You get dumber [and more pathetic] by the day.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Someone has a case of morning whiff? Let me translate my post for you, receptionist boy. That was a Slave Insidie Joke of the Day that wasnt really all that inside or that funny. WHere is greatestshit(lave) when you need him?

Piece of advice?
Dear, you really shouldn't show this side of you here. We're trying to let S see us all as kinder and gentler than he might have remembered.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Wait? Do you and Spanky know each other IRL>??????

Yep -- Slave got to him first.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yep -- Slave got to him first.

And what is that supposed to mean?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And what is that supposed to mean?

Kevin Bacon's characeter to Micky Rourke's in diner:

Ever get the feeling there's stuff going on we just don't know about?

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Spanky
My ex-girlfriend, who moved in with me for a while, did not like the open door policy. She got all territorial with the house. She got nailed with one of those super soaker squirt guns and lost her temper. On advice from the neighborhood kids, I had to let her go.

I guess this also explains the brief, but torrid relationship with the ice cream lady.

[Spanky]

Anyone know the answer to this: The revolver was invented prior to the civil war. So why didn't they produce revolving rifles. Maybe they did. But if they did why in all the movies are the soldiers carry muskets - where they have to drop the ball in, followed with the stick, and then shoot. But the officers are carrying revolvers. If all the men had revolvers wouldn't they be able to take on a group of men five times their size? Why didn't they mass produce the revolvers (or revolving rifles) so everyone could have them? It is not like the North was low on cash or didn't have the manufacturing base.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone know the answer to this: The revolver was invented prior to the civil war. So why didn't they produce revolving rifles. Maybe they did. But if they did why in all the movies are the soldiers carry muskets - where they have to drop the ball in, followed with the stick, and then shoot. But the officers are carrying revolvers. If all the men had revolvers wouldn't they be able to take on a group of men five times their size? Why didn't they mass produce the revolvers (or revolving rifles) so everyone could have them? It is not like the North was low on cash or didn't have the manufacturing base.

this is a new angle so it might work, but most people try and close the deal with paigow by pop culture references. I don't know if she has a hard on for gun posts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone know the answer to this: The revolver was invented prior to the civil war. So why didn't they produce revolving rifles. Maybe they did. But if they did why in all the movies are the soldiers carry muskets - where they have to drop the ball in, followed with the stick, and then shoot. But the officers are carrying revolvers. If all the men had revolvers wouldn't they be able to take on a group of men five times their size? Why didn't they mass produce the revolvers (or revolving rifles) so everyone could have them? It is not like the North was low on cash or didn't have the manufacturing base.

I believe that there have been manufactured revolvers with a longer barrel and a stock. I think the reasons you don't see more of these are that the chamber on a revolver is not suitable for the larger charge in the round you'd use in a rifle, and that most rifles use a necked cartridge incompatable with a revolver's chamber, but suitable (e.g.) for a bolt-action rifle. But I'm no expert.

yrs in arming bears,

t.s.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe that there have been manufactured revolvers with a longer barrel and a stock. I think the reasons you don't see more of these are that the chamber on a revolver is not suitable for the larger charge in the round you'd use in a rifle, and that most rifles use a necked cartridge incompatable with a revolver's chamber, but suitable (e.g.) for a bolt-action rifle. But I'm no expert.

yrs in arming bears,

t.s.

OK maybe. But it still doesn't explain why they didn't use rifles. Why the muskets. Wouldn't a rifle be better. And wouldn't a revolver that could shoot five quick shots be better than a single shot rifle and especially a musket?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK maybe. But it still doesn't explain why they didn't use rifles. Why the muskets. Wouldn't a rifle be better. And wouldn't a revolver that could shoot five quick shots be better than a single shot rifle and especially a musket?

How far did the pre-civil war rifles shoot, as compared to muskets? What was the rate of misfires, as compared to muskets? What was the effect of a misfire, as compared to a musket? What was the accuracy, as compared to a musket? Would being shot with a rifle kill or effectively disable the opponent?

These are all pretty obvious and logical questions. If you are assburgery, I would think you would think of these things faster than, say, me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK maybe. But it still doesn't explain why they didn't use rifles. Why the muskets. Wouldn't a rifle be better. And wouldn't a revolver that could shoot five quick shots be better than a single shot rifle and especially a musket?

Rifles are unquestionably better than muskets. If they were using the latter, it was for lack of technology and/or production capacity.

Revolvers are better at close range, for a few reasons, but rifles have a much longer range and better accuracy (it's the rifling). Although at close range, you can put a bayonet on the end of a rifle or musket.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK maybe. But it still doesn't explain why they didn't use rifles. Why the muskets. Wouldn't a rifle be better. And wouldn't a revolver that could shoot five quick shots be better than a single shot rifle and especially a musket?

They did use rifles (the muzzle-loading muskets were a species of rifle), and also repeating ones at that. The Henry rifle was one lever-action repeater that saw service in the War Between the States.* The Spencer was another. Their higher cost and relatively exotic ordnance kept them from being as widely issued as the muzzle-loading rifles, which in turn were only six-year-old technology at the start of the war and therefore relatively exotic.

A.K.A. The War Among the States.