Diamondbackaz

Bob is right that it is a black powder substitute. I should not have used the word smokeless. There may be issues in some states because this powder is best used with sabots, and must also be used in 209 guns. As far as I know AGFD recognizes muzzleloaders at the way the are loaded, not what they shoot, or what they shoot.

I bought a pro hunter and haven't got out to shoot it yet. After talking to another individual with the same gun who has shot his a lot. He advised me to use Blackhorn 209 which is a smokeless powder for muzzle loaders. You don't have to clean the crud after every shot because there is no crud. His groups tightened up considerably. Yes it costs more but it's worth every penny for extra accuracy with a lot less cleaning. Here is the link: http://blackhorn209.com/

The only thing worse than hearing the bad news is seeing it!!!!

I researched them a few years ago and everybody said the same thing as above, they suck. You can always find someone trying to unload them even on this site.

Got through at 2:00 am and not drawn

I expected it. This will alow them to get out of building leases of closed stores. I also heard they are closing their central distribution center. Now they need to let the individual store managers do the inventory control to get the stuff in that people want; and to also get rid of the crap that people don't want.

Don't waste your money on the Swaro doublers as I have not heard anyone say anything good about them when I did some research. Stopped me from buying them. You can always find them for sale because the owner wants to unload them.

I only use cashiers checks also so know wya of knowing.

This thread got off track when I disagreed how this guy does things back at post #17 and people tore into me. I feel he does things that opens himself up. Here is the article out of Tuesday's citizen: A federal jury in Tucson found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed he detained them at gunpoint in 2004. The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment. But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages, $60,000 of which were punitive. Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said those who sued lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost. "They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking," Hardy said. All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom live in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they reside. Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated." David Urias, attorney for those suing, said, "Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs." For years, Arizona has been the busiest stretch along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States. For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants. The plaintiffs claimed that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape. Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle. Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, another 10 people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings. Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9 mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona." The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years. His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident. In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexico border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land. I love the play badge

Your whole implication of the post implies that you feel it is ok to shoot someone over protecting property. I will use deadly force to stop anyone that is putting my life in imenent danger. But I didn't pick that up in your post since it was not articulated well. Your post seemed to be about using force to protect property.

Defending yourself and family is different from defending things.

Okay.....you guys are slamming diamondbackaz big time when all he has tried to imply is be careful with how you go about the situation. Hunterdude......you are putting all kinds of words and scenarios up trying to imply what kind of person he is, do you even know him??? READ what he has written. Thank you Daryl, you got my point across.

Hey Diamondback so if I was a S**T Bag and breaking into your truck to steal a gun are you saying that you would not shoot me? No, I would not shoot you. I have already given you an example of what happens to people who shoot people for breaking into a car. You are a real moron to think that you can shoot someone because "you feel you have the right". You can go ahead and do it if it makes you feel good, but don't whine when you become Bubba's little girl when your in prison I guess that you also believe that we owe everything to the Government and that we should let them control our health care and make us live in a socialist country! Not sure where you are going with that one? We are a country that respects the rule of law which is one thing that separates this country from most others. If you feel that you have the right to take the law in your own hands by shooting someone because they broke into your car, go for it. If you owned a large farm and grew fruits and vegitable and everyone on this site "just this Site" was to drive across your fields and leave our trash and ruined your crops, you would have no hard feelings or even try to stop us becuase it is not costing you any money or hurting your land for future crop growth. Keep in mind you are the one working this land to help make a living for yourself and your family! If there is nothing wrong with any of this let me know! This has got to be the dumbest statement I have ever read on this site. But since you brought it up in reference to the Barnett situation, I will reply. I would not own, or even consider owning, property near the Mexican border. It is his choice to own the property that he does and he can deal with the crap that goes with it. It is true that he shouldn't have to put up with any of that crap as a US citizen. Nothing will change until you have change in Government policy.

Do I?? Yep...almost everynight. A full auto M4 barrel or a freshly racked Rem. 870 12 ga. speaks in ways that I never could.. You tell me how you can tell the diff. between Juan from Chiapas, who is headed to the fields of San Joaquin simpily to pick lettuce, and from Jose, who is returning to New York and who has raped 2 small children, and murdered an innocent woman.. Oh yeah, he likes to travel the "open desert" armed to the gills and has a true hatred of being caught. I treat everyone with an iron fist until I'm out of the pitch dark desert, have backup, and they have all been searched... If you can tell the difference between the two folks I've mentioned above just by simpily looking at them, while your alone in the desert, its dark, and your backup is 10 miles away, I know about 15K BP Agents who'd like to know. You could sell your expertise to us and get really rich. And please, don't insult me.. Do I remember the Agents in TX?? This is the only country where to come in illegally wont land you in the slammer for a good stint. And its guys like you, with your mentality that have made it that way.. Go sneak into Mexico, get caught, and report back to us what happens to ya.. One thing's for certain, you'd have a diff. attitude when you were finally released. Your aproach is appropriate since it is your job do so and apprehend border crossers. Yes, you have a tough job and I value all that BP does and I applaud you for it. Is it Barnett's job to apprehend? I supported those Texas agents and I supported Bushe's commutation of their sentences. I did not support them lying about what happened.

Wrong!!! Read my posts. My argument has never been that a person doesn't have the right to protect his property, he does. If someone is inside his house, heck yes, stop him with deadly force if need be. What about a person just walking across open desert doing no damage other than simple trespassing, do you drop your gun barrel on them? My argument is how you do it. If you are going to use fire arms, you have to be careful not to open yourself up to trouble. Are you willing to give up everything you worked for poor judgemnet? Remember the border patrol agents in Texas that got in trouble for shooting a known drug smugler. Go here and read pages 39-41 of this document by DPS. http://ccw.azdps.gov/procedures/documents/ccw_legal.pdf

The castle refers to inside your house, not in the middle of the desert. Big difference

One of my ex students was standing next to his friend while he was breaking into this guys jeep. The jeep owner came running out and shot and killed my ex student. Most people on here feel that the Jeep owner was in the right. But, he was on the wrong side of the law. The Jeep owner lost his Jeep because he is doing 20 to life. Hard price to a "feeling" of what is right.

Holding an armed bank rbber at gun point is the same as holding an unarmed a trespasser at gun point??? He did try to protect his property from legal US citizens, remember how that turned out http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...&hl=barnett It doesn't matter how hard you've work, how much land you own, and how much money you've spent. You need be within the law when you drop a gun barrel on someone. This guy owns a large towing company and a propane business plus ranch land. Is it worth losing it all to prove a point.

Here we go again

You best know when you can lower a gun barrel on someone and when you can't.

I believe this is the same rancher that lost a suit recently for $98,000 for doing this to some hunters that were on state land. I think he is a baffoon for holding anyone against thier will at gun point, even illegals. He brought this on himself.

Good luck finding exactly what you want. Stores are getting cleaned out of autos

Thats pretty neat. I have seen many times people using the club get burned cause the thiefs just cut the steering wheel with bolt cutters and slip it off. Not with that contraption. Plus coming from Europe they would not see it alot. I got mine from the US dealer, but their web site is being redone. here is their current site http://www.disklok.com/

This is what I use on my duramax and most crooks have never seen one http://www.disklokuk.co.uk/products.html

Wrong! Buying them new now comes with the adaptor. http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovs...arovski15x56slc