The Black Rifles issue from Gun Buyers Annual has a article on Stocks and it gives such wonderful info as the commercial RE is stronger than the milspec version as it is thicker and has stronger threads.
Can these guys who make a living from writing research things before they open their uneducated know it all traps?
Don’t worry about it, Shihan. I’ve got you covered. I’ve just bought you another comma, two apostrophes, a period (and a capital T), and a “then” to complete your “if… then” statement.
There’s no need for a PM. You can pay me back someday by correcting my spelling or grammar or syntax or punctuation (or correct someone else’s: I’m a giver, not a taker).
You’ll have to forgive me for pointing out the semi-literate nature of your rant against “guys who make a living from writing.”
I make my living from writing (though not for gun rags), and I find rather ironic and amusing your use of 2nd-grade level writing skills to express your anger at professional writers.
In any case, it’s not that I “don’t like” your punctuation. Your lack of punctuation is simply wrong. Punctuation isn’t a matter of personal preference.
For what it’s worth, one of the reasons that I cancelled my subscription to Guns & Ammo was the poor writing and copy-editing…
Ben
PS: Perhaps you’d like to edit the thread title to remove the extraneous O from “wonderfulo?”
Personally, I think your post was rather childish and insulting. He was simply commenting on the CONTENT of the gunrags which more often seem to be filed with crap not the ability of the writer or his grammar.
Don’t worry, “Iraq Guns,” I’ve got you covered, too. I bought you a couple commas , too!
You’ll have to excuse my amusement at someone who can’t write ranting about people who write for a living.
I’d suggest that Shivan write a letter to the editor of the gun rag in question, but having Shivan do any more writing hardly seems like a good idea.
Here’s the point: no matter how knowledgeable a person may be (and I don’t have any reason to doubt that Shivan is knowledgeable), he can only disseminate that knowledge as well as he can communicate effectively.
Poor syntax, lackadaisical punctuation, bad grammar, and mis-spelled words just make one’s audience think that one is lazy, ignorant, dumb, or apathetic.
I have to agree with Bimmer. What is the saying about glass houses and throwing stones?
But to keep this thread on topic, I’m curious as to why a commercial tube isn’t stronger than a mil-spec. I’ll admit that I’m not up-to-speed on the difference, but it would seem to me that if a commercial tube has a larger OD than a mil-spec, yet has the same ID for the buffer to ride in, the walls would be thicker. If the walls are thicker and they are made out of the same material, why wouldn’t the commercial tube be stronger?
I’ll refrain from saying what I was going to say because I like coming here. Having said that, I am sure you are smart enough to know that on the internet and particularly in forums such as this people have a tendency to slack on their spelling and grammar. I am sure that if he was going to contact the editor of said gunrag, he would have done a better job.
You apparently don’t get it though. It’s not the writing that he is criticizing. It is the stupid bullshit that the writers try an pass off in the articles. Such as, a Troy Ind. back up iron sight being adjustable for windage and elevation. That tells me that the author doesn’t know jack shit and didn’t even take the time to understand the gear he is working with.
On a side note. If you want to sharpshoot people, you should do it at “the other site” they thrive on that silliness, we don’t.
If “poor syntax, lackadaisical punctuation, bad grammar, and mis-spelled words make one’s audience think that one is lazy, ignorant, dumb, or apathetic,” what does your mistake say about you? I have a guess…
The threads are weaker on the commercial tubes and dont fill the reciever like the milspec tubes. The milspec tubes are forged and are of a stronger material.