Thinking about buying a gun for home security?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are*
    available for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy
    to buy.

    They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.

    http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    beenthere Guest

    "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
    >for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
    >
    > They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
    >
    > http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/
    >
    >

    Yea, but you can`t `slip` one in your pocket <g>.
    beenthere, Jun 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. beenthere wrote:
    > "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
    >>for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
    >>
    >>They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
    >>
    >>http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yea, but you can`t `slip` one in your pocket <g>.


    You don't need to have it in your pocket, you can stay at home and kill
    the target from 4 miles away! Hard for me to imagine. One US sniper team
    in Iraq said that the spotter found a guy with an RPG up on top of a
    water tower, I believe they said about a half mile away. The sniper took
    one shot and they said the top half of the terrorist fell off of the
    water tank, the bottom half stayed on top. There was no wondering if the
    shot was lethal.

    Next time my neighbor's dog barks all night, I'm ordering one of them
    babies.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 20, 2006
    #3
  4. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:48:55 -0400, Rôgêr wrote:

    > I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
    > for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
    >
    > They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
    >
    > http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/


    Pretty hard to pull a bead on an intruder inside your house with that
    thing. I'll stick to my Glock 35 or HK USP Variant .40

    --



    Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
    Meat Plow, Jun 20, 2006
    #4
  5. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Leythos Guest

    In article <-meatplow.local>,
    l says...
    > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:48:55 -0400, Rôgêr wrote:
    >
    > > I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
    > > for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
    > >
    > > They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
    > >
    > > http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

    >
    > Pretty hard to pull a bead on an intruder inside your house with that
    > thing. I'll stick to my Glock 35 or HK USP Variant .40


    Don't forget, just about any round from a 38/357/.40 will go through the
    wall, so you might want to consider shot-shell type ammo for use inside
    the home. Most intruders don't wear vests, so, SS ammo does well and
    doesn't go through enough walls to have to worry about your
    kids/neighbors if you miss.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Jun 20, 2006
    #5
  6. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Top Guest

    Rôgêr was thinking very hard :
    > I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns
    > *are* available for civilian use, in fact, if you have the
    > cash, they're easy to buy.


    > They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.


    > http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/


    I don't need any of that for home security, I have a
    mother-in-law.

    Top
    Top, Jun 20, 2006
    #6
  7. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Bill Guest

    Bill, Jun 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Bill wrote:
    > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    > much better


    Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
    put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't respond
    to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Rôgêr wrote:

    > Bill wrote:
    >> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    >> much better

    >
    > Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
    > put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't
    > respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.


    Could you explain that statement?

    Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank? And at over
    4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of 4,000 meters,
    as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm page.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)

    "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500 m,"

    No match for an Abrams that I can see... ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Rôgêr wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    >>>much better

    >>
    >>Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
    >>put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't
    >>respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.

    >
    >
    > Could you explain that statement?
    >
    > Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank? And at over
    > 4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of 4,000 meters,
    > as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm page.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)
    >
    > "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500 m,"
    >
    > No match for an Abrams that I can see... ;-)
    >

    Had you watched the video I posted links to, the Marine doing the
    talking claims an effective range of 2000 yards, with rounds going out
    to 7450 yards, using rounds that are especially made for armor piercing
    (using explosive means). I can't verify any of this, I don't have either
    weapon available for testing. But from what I've read elsewhere, there
    are reported kills on lightly armored personnel carriers at over 2
    miles. The govenator of California had a law passed specifically banning
    the sale of this rifle in that state. It's pretty hard core stuff.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 21, 2006
    #10
  11. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Top Guest

    Rôgêr has brought this to us :
    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Rôgêr wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Bill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    >>>>much better
    >>>
    >>>Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting
    >>> about can
    >>>put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank
    >>> can't
    >>>respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.

    >>
    >>
    >> Could you explain that statement?
    >>
    >> Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank?
    >> And at over
    >> 4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of
    >> 4,000 meters,
    >> as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm
    >> page.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)
    >>
    >> "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of
    >> 2500 m,"
    >>
    >> No match for an Abrams that I can see... ;-)
    >>

    > Had you watched the video I posted links to, the Marine doing
    > the talking claims an effective range of 2000 yards, with
    > rounds going out to 7450 yards, using rounds that are
    > especially made for armor piercing (using explosive means). I
    > can't verify any of this, I don't have either weapon available
    > for testing. But from what I've read elsewhere, there are
    > reported kills on lightly armored personnel carriers at over 2
    > miles. The govenator of California had a law passed
    > specifically banning the sale of this rifle in that state. It's
    > pretty hard core stuff.


    The Abrams has much more protection than an armored personnel
    carrier. Maybe that causes some confusion? :D

    Top
    Top, Jun 21, 2006
    #11
  12. Top wrote:
    > Rôgêr has brought this to us :
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rôgêr wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Bill wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    >>>>> much better
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
    >>>> put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't
    >>>> respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Could you explain that statement?
    >>>
    >>> Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank? And at over
    >>> 4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of 4,000 meters,
    >>> as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm page.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)
    >>>
    >>> "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500 m,"
    >>>
    >>> No match for an Abrams that I can see... ;-)
    >>>

    >> Had you watched the video I posted links to, the Marine doing the
    >> talking claims an effective range of 2000 yards, with rounds going out
    >> to 7450 yards, using rounds that are especially made for armor
    >> piercing (using explosive means). I can't verify any of this, I don't
    >> have either weapon available for testing. But from what I've read
    >> elsewhere, there are reported kills on lightly armored personnel
    >> carriers at over 2 miles. The govenator of California had a law passed
    >> specifically banning the sale of this rifle in that state. It's pretty
    >> hard core stuff.

    >
    >
    > The Abrams has much more protection than an armored personnel carrier.
    > Maybe that causes some confusion? :D


    Of course it has more armor. I'm not confused, but I may be
    "underinformed". I don't know the thickness of the Abrams armor or the
    metallic composition of the armor, but they showed rounds from the 50
    cal that went through 1 inch of hardened armor. The article Shag quoted
    said it was an exaggeration to say the 50 cal could bring down a jet,
    but the articles I've read said it's entirely possible to shoot down an
    airplane with it. Some articles were hysterical about letting these
    rifles get out to terrorists.

    Either way, if I had to choose to have a Barrett rifle or an Abrams tank
    in a shootout, I think I'd go with the tank. But think what a sniper
    could do with a rifle that can kill the enemy behind armor at over two
    miles.
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Jun 21, 2006
    #12
  13. Rôgêr wrote:

    > Top wrote:
    >> Rôgêr has brought this to us :
    >>
    >>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rôgêr wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bill wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm much better
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting
    >>>>> about can put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the
    >>>>> tank can't respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett
    >>>>> weapon.
    >>>>
    >>>> Could you explain that statement?
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank? And at
    >>>> over 4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of
    >>>> 4,000 meters, as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above
    >>>> m1.htm page.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)
    >>>>
    >>>> "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500
    >>>> m,"
    >>>>
    >>>> No match for an Abrams that I can see... ;-)
    >>>>
    >>> Had you watched the video I posted links to,


    Tried, couldn't get it to run.

    >>> the Marine doing the
    >>> talking claims an effective range of 2000 yards, with rounds going
    >>> out to 7450 yards, using rounds that are especially made for armor
    >>> piercing (using explosive means). I can't verify any of this, I
    >>> don't have either weapon available for testing.


    What? No Abrams in your driveway? ;-)

    >>> But from what I've
    >>> read elsewhere, there are reported kills on lightly armored
    >>> personnel carriers at over 2 miles. The govenator of California had
    >>> a law passed specifically banning the sale of this rifle in that
    >>> state. It's pretty hard core stuff.


    I can picture Ahnold carrying one... or a pair, shooting from the hips.

    >> The Abrams has much more protection than an armored personnel
    >> carrier. Maybe that causes some confusion? :D

    >
    > Of course it has more armor. I'm not confused, but I may be
    > "underinformed". I don't know the thickness of the Abrams armor or
    > the metallic composition of the armor, but they showed rounds from
    > the 50 cal that went through 1 inch of hardened armor. The article
    > Shag quoted said it was an exaggeration to say the 50 cal could bring
    > down a jet, but the articles I've read said it's entirely possible to
    > shoot down an airplane with it. Some articles were hysterical about
    > letting these rifles get out to terrorists.


    A .50 cal will certainly bring down an airplane - if you hit the
    airplane in a good spot. The phrase "golden BB" comes to mind. After
    all, many fighter planes used them for just that during WWII.

    > Either way, if I had to choose to have a Barrett rifle or an Abrams
    > tank in a shootout, I think I'd go with the tank. But think what a
    > sniper could do with a rifle that can kill the enemy behind armor at
    > over two miles.


    Whether or not it will open up an Abrams, the Barret is an impressive
    weapon.

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 21, 2006
    #13
  14. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Top Guest

    Rôgêr formulated the question :
    > Top wrote:
    >> Rôgêr has brought this to us :
    >>
    >>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rôgêr wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bill wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
    >>>>>> much better
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was
    >>>>> posting about can
    >>>>> put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank
    >>>>> can't
    >>>>> respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett
    >>>>> weapon.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Could you explain that statement?
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank?
    >>>> And at over
    >>>> 4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of
    >>>> 4,000 meters,
    >>>> as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm
    >>>> page.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)
    >>>>
    >>>> "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot
    >>>> of 2500 m,"
    >>>>
    >>>> No match for an Abrams that I can see... ;-)
    >>>>
    >>> Had you watched the video I posted links to, the Marine
    >>> doing the talking claims an effective range of 2000 yards,
    >>> with rounds going out to 7450 yards, using rounds that are
    >>> especially made for armor piercing (using explosive means).
    >>> I can't verify any of this, I don't have either weapon
    >>> available for testing. But from what I've read elsewhere,
    >>> there are reported kills on lightly armored personnel
    >>> carriers at over 2 miles. The govenator of California had a
    >>> law passed specifically banning the sale of this rifle in
    >>> that state. It's pretty hard core stuff.

    >>
    >>
    >> The Abrams has much more protection than an armored personnel
    >> carrier. Maybe that causes some confusion? :D


    > Of course it has more armor. I'm not confused, but I may be
    > "underinformed". I don't know the thickness of the Abrams armor
    > or the metallic composition of the armor, but they showed
    > rounds from the 50 cal that went through 1 inch of hardened
    > armor. The article Shag quoted said it was an exaggeration to
    > say the 50 cal could bring down a jet, but the articles I've
    > read said it's entirely possible to shoot down an airplane with
    > it. Some articles were hysterical about letting these rifles
    > get out to terrorists.


    While it may be possible to bring down a jet it would seem that
    it would be very difficult at best. It would be interesting to
    see how many jets have been brought down with the 50 cal.

    > Either way, if I had to choose to have a Barrett rifle or an
    > Abrams tank in a shootout, I think I'd go with the tank. But
    > think what a sniper could do with a rifle that can kill the
    > enemy behind armor at over two miles.


    I'll give the person that can see enemy personnel, even with a
    scope, at 2 miles credit for great vision. As you say, I'll take
    the tank also. It has so many more adevantages, such as being to
    lock on a target even when the Abrams is on the move. You won't
    catch me standing 2 miles in front of a Barrett to see if a
    sniper can hit me. :D

    Top
    Top, Jun 21, 2006
    #14
  15. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Gordon Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:

    > I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are*
    > available for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy
    > to buy.
    >
    > They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
    >
    > http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/


    As an ex-infantryman in the REAL army, have any of you guys actually tried
    FIRING a 0.50 in rifle? No, thought not! 7.62 Nato rounds give a reasonable
    kick, and they CERTAINLY won't penetrate any sort of armour plate at more
    than 300 metres. if you have a 0.50 round that is alleged to penetrate
    armour plate at 2000 metres, then you either need rocket propulsion, or the
    recoil would throw you on the ground and break your shoulder at the same
    time.

    the "instructor" also said that the AP round that will go through Abrams
    armour cannot be fired from this weapon! Plus it's an APDS round (that's
    Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) so NOT a normal "rifle" round.

    The max range of 7000 meters is certainly NOT the effective range which is
    about 2000 metres. At 7000 metres you could stop the round with a piece of
    paper.

    --
    Registered Linux User no 240308
    Kubuntu 6.06, Open Office 2
    gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
    to email me remove the obvious!
    Gordon, Jun 21, 2006
    #15
  16. Gordon wrote:

    > As an ex-infantryman in the REAL army,


    Been there meself, years ago.

    > have any of you guys actually tried FIRING a 0.50 in rifle?


    Not invented during my time. Only the big .50 MG was around - those
    kinds you saw on top of tanks or jeeps. The M-60 was introduced just as
    I was getting out.

    > No, thought not! 7.62 Nato rounds give a reasonable kick, and they
    > CERTAINLY won't penetrate any sort of armour plate at more than 300
    > metres.


    I remember a test during basic at Fort Knox. The instructors got some
    steel helmets, those WWII things us US Army guys wore.

    They set up a pair on the ground at 25 meters. Shot one with an M-14 and
    the other with an M-16. The M-14 helmet had a small hole in the front
    and a small hole in the back. The M-16 helmet had a small hole in the
    front, and no back.

    Two more helmets at ~300-350 meters. M-14, small hole front and back,
    M-16, small dent on front. <g>

    I loved the M-14... (which was the 7.62mm NATO round for those readers
    unfamiliar with it)

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 21, 2006
    #16
  17. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Gordon Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:


    > I remember a test during basic at Fort Knox. The instructors got some
    > steel helmets, those WWII things us US Army guys wore.
    >
    > They set up a pair on the ground at 25 meters. Shot one with an M-14 and
    > the other with an M-16. The M-14 helmet had a small hole in the front
    > and a small hole in the back. The M-16 helmet had a small hole in the
    > front, and no back.


    Interestingly the only thing you were really safe behind with 7.62 Nato is a
    dry stone wall-----telegraph poles? Phooweee! Double cavity brick walls?
    Phooweeee! Small trees? Phooweee!

    A burst of 4-5 rounds from a GPMG would almost entirely destroy a
    double-cavity brick wall of 6 ft x 4 ft....awesome!



    --
    Registered Linux User no 240308
    Kubuntu 6.06, Open Office 2
    gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
    to email me remove the obvious!
    Gordon, Jun 21, 2006
    #17
  18. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Bucky Guest

    On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:04:45 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> As an ex-infantryman in the REAL army,

    >
    >Been there meself, years ago.
    >
    >> have any of you guys actually tried FIRING a 0.50 in rifle?

    >
    >Not invented during my time. Only the big .50 MG was around - those
    >kinds you saw on top of tanks or jeeps. The M-60 was introduced just as
    >I was getting out.


    How about one of these
    http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2-b.htm

    >
    >> No, thought not! 7.62 Nato rounds give a reasonable kick, and they
    >> CERTAINLY won't penetrate any sort of armour plate at more than 300
    >> metres.

    >
    >I remember a test during basic at Fort Knox. The instructors got some
    >steel helmets, those WWII things us US Army guys wore.
    >
    >They set up a pair on the ground at 25 meters. Shot one with an M-14 and
    >the other with an M-16. The M-14 helmet had a small hole in the front
    >and a small hole in the back. The M-16 helmet had a small hole in the
    >front, and no back.
    >
    >Two more helmets at ~300-350 meters. M-14, small hole front and back,
    >M-16, small dent on front. <g>
    >
    >I loved the M-14... (which was the 7.62mm NATO round for those readers
    >unfamiliar with it)



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Bucky, Jun 21, 2006
    #18
  19. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Gordon Guest

    Bucky wrote:


    > How about one of these
    > http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2-b.htm
    >


    Kick like a crazed mule and not very effective, either.....(so I'm told -
    I'm not /that/ old!)

    --
    Registered Linux User no 240308
    Kubuntu 6.06, Open Office 2
    gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
    to email me remove the obvious!
    Gordon, Jun 21, 2006
    #19
  20. Gordon wrote:

    > Bucky wrote:
    >
    >> How about one of these
    >> http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2-b.htm

    >
    > Kick like a crazed mule and not very effective, either.....(so I'm
    > told - I'm not /that/ old!)


    Neither am I .. oh wait, I was a tot during WWII. <g>

    The above page says: "and generally disliked using it, particularly as
    it was useless against most tanks . . ."

    ...but good for crocodiles. ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 21, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thinking of Buying MCSE

    Thinking of Buying MCSE

    Thinking of Buying MCSE, Dec 26, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    680
    Well Wisher
    Dec 30, 2003
  2. david kelly
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    307
    Dave Herzstein
    Nov 11, 2003
  3. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    WHY?!? Why am i thinking i need an SLR, and thinking of going 35mm?

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    604
    Greg Campbell
    Feb 13, 2004
  4. Marshall Schuon

    Thinking of buying an Olympus C770 ...

    Marshall Schuon, Nov 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    319
    Christopher Pollard
    Nov 30, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    838
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page