TexasCHLforum.com

You have to go to Academy for them. They are under the imported firearm section.

And according to several theories of anti-matter, if it comes into contact with everyday matter, it will rearrange the molecules of the normal matter, and create more anti-matter. When it does this, it releases a massive amount of gamma radiation, and expands the amount of the anti-matter exponentially. Of course, this is all assuming a chain reaction is started. Everyday interactions can be explained by simply stating that the reaction is not stimulated in any manner, similar to the everyday nuclear reactions that occur in various rocks and minerals in the Earth. These don't cause Hiroshima-type explosions because the quantity is limited, and there is not enough of an interaction to continue the reaction. In the case of suddenly injecting 230 grains of anti-matter into a matter-dense environment is theorized to be able to set off a chain reaction large enough to destroy the Earth, or at least part of it.

txinvestigator wrote:

txmatt wrote:

FightinAggieCHL wrote:If he were shooting anti-matter bullets, people in China would have died from the gunshot.

Actually, if it were anti-matter, the moment the anti-matter had come into contact with actual matter (ie, anything) it would have set of a chain reaction, rearranging all of the molecules on the planet into a massive ball of gamma radiation and antihydrogen. Thus eliminating all life, and the planet as we know it.

For these reasons, it would be tough to fire a bullet made out of anti-matter out of a gun.

Um, I don't know what you're shooting but a 230 gr. bullet in my .45 has a mass energy equivalent of 1.34E15 J or about a third of a megaton of TNT. Not exactly an end of the world thing, but certainly non-trivial. I'm not even going to touch the gamma death ball thing as that makes no sense whatsoever. Not that an anitmatter bullet makes sense, but aside from some bullet handling and delivery issues, it is at least physical.

As to the topic at hand, I had a great experience with my CHL class. No one else showed up, so it was just the instructor and myself, so all the dumb questions were mine (and no one else was there to be annoyed by my new to me 1911 jamming repeatedly-at least I knew how to safely clear it, though). The three months it took to get my CHL after turning in the paper work gave me plenty of time to work out the feeding/ejection issues.

When one teeny, tiny molecule of anti-matter came into contact with a teeny, tiny molecule of matter, both particles would cease to exist and HUGE amounts of energy would be released.

Exactly, so see? It does make sense, if you're in to that whole anti-matter deal. I'm not sure it would be conceivable to handle and deliver an anti-matter anything. Supposedly, scientists are trying to figure out a way to use anti-matter as a source of energy, but I'm not entirely sure on how that would work either. You'd probably have to suspend it in an electromagnetic field in a vacuum to keep it from touching anything. It shouldn't be too hard, with the exception that anti-matter protons have a negative charge, so the field would have to be backwards from normal.

If he were shooting anti-matter bullets, people in China would have died from the gunshot.

Actually, if it were anti-matter, the moment the anti-matter had come into contact with actual matter (ie, anything) it would have set of a chain reaction, rearranging all of the molecules on the planet into a massive ball of gamma radiation and antihydrogen. Thus eliminating all life, and the planet as we know it.

For these reasons, it would be tough to fire a bullet made out of anti-matter out of a gun.

I heard that something like 95 - 97% of gunfights were from 7 yds or less. That's an interesting statistic to note if you're ever out (or, whenever you're out) practicing on a range.

Seriously, 3 yards is a joke. Although, I suppose that 3 yards could be more difficult if someone is attacking you at that distance. Either way, I almost meleed (or whatever the past tense of "melee" might be) the target.

*edit for grammar*

At 3 yards, I almost brought out my knife to go H2H. It felt uncomfortable shooting the target that close. Like, it didn't even have a chance!

Sorry for the long post, but I felt that these warranted a post. My class was full of intelligent individuals... or, or maybe less than intelligent ones. I've got a couple stories for y'all:

We'll call the first guy Marty (because that's what he looked like to me). We are out on the firing range, and Marty is very unfamiliar with his weapon. That scares me into thinking that he's probably carrying now, but whatever, I just hope I never see him. I might have to shoot him for fear of my life if he has that pistol on him. Anyways, Marty is on the range loading the ammo into his magazine, but for some reason, the ammo won't stay in! Everytime he puts a bullet in, it pops out. Finally he gets frustrated, and calls the instructor. The instructor comes over and tells him to show him, and sure enough the bullet pops out of the mag. After looking at Marty for a second, the instructor leans in and says in a hushed voice, "You're putting the bullets in BACKWARDS." Upon hearing this, I snarf half of the bottle of water up my nose.

Well, we commence shooting, and I proceed to make a gigantic hole where the X used to be on my target. I decided that they may start counting my shots as missed because at this point, the hole is so big that you can see that I'm hitting paper anymore. We scoot back to 7 yds, and start popping away. Our targets were on turning mechanisms. The target was on a wooden post, about 3 feet tall, with the bottom foot being covered by a steel shield that guards the turning mechanism. We're shooting along, and all of the sudden, *CLANG!* The lady two stations down from me (a REQUAL, no less) shot the base of the target with her carry weapon! AT 7 YARDS! I was shocked, a second time. At this point, the instructor used the situation to explain the merits of practicing with the weapons that we were soon to be carrying.

FINALLY, we'll call this last guy Bernie, we get into our final instruction phase, and start discussing different scenarios and whatnot. A few of the people in there posed some very good scenarios, but, leave it to Marty and Bernie to lighten the mood. Bernie's was this: If I'm on a motorcycle, and there's some dude in a truck, and he's getting a little disrespectful to me, can I just like, you know, show him my piece? The instructor looks at him and says, "Are you serious? Not only would that be brandishing a firearm, you're on a motorcycle, and he's in a TRUCK! If he runs you over, he can say you were brandishing, and felt threatened by your actions." Needless to say, Bernie thought twice about his scenario, and we all got a pretty good laugh.
Marty's turn came up and his question was this:
I leave my garage open sometimes, and these kids came by at like 2 in the morning and stole my weedeater. Since it was 2 in the morning, I could shoot them right? The instructor looks at him and says, "Would you have a justification, possibly. But come on, shooting someone over a weedeater?" And thus, we had a lecture about "People over property."


I guess that this goes to show you that not everyone who needs a CHL has one, and not everyone that has one needs one.