Viper and Active handling
- Thread starter agentf1
- Start date
eucharistos
Enthusiast
Warfang
Enthusiast
Wf, starts out that way but can you look him in the eye and say that
I can never say no to a cute dog... but I AM Asian... so that can mean anything.
Who's teasing Asian pepo now?
Nine Ball
Enthusiast
Well, since the Viper is deemed dangerous because it does not have electronic save-your-a nannies on it, I am forced to wear a helmet at all times when driving it. Safety first!
jdavis
Enthusiast
That does it! I'm having the safety and adjustable sight removed from my rifle. That way I can have the respect I deserve for my shooting skills without any aids to my safety and that of others. Of course, I suppose that I could simply switch off the safety and not use the sight adjustments but why have them at all. Manufacturers should give us a choice of not having such devices because it would save weight and cost plus allow me to enjoy the full capabilities and raw power of my rifle to the full extent of my considerable natural abilities.
And another thing, I may as well remove that restrictive seat belt and shoulder harness to allow complete freedom of movement when shifting gears and steering during aggressive
driving. Then again, I could just not use them, but if they weren't there at all others would realize that I am able to handle this beast without those nanny items.
And another thing, I may as well remove that restrictive seat belt and shoulder harness to allow complete freedom of movement when shifting gears and steering during aggressive
driving. Then again, I could just not use them, but if they weren't there at all others would realize that I am able to handle this beast without those nanny items.
Chuck 98 RT/10
Enthusiast
WILDASP
Enthusiast
Since you like that analogy, I have a couple of suggestions. I think, that in the interest of safety, we should restrict that rifle of yours to a muzzle velocity of not more than, say, 450 fps. That would make it less likely that you would hurt yourself or anyone else with it in case of an accident. I also think that one safety is clearly inadequate, and you should have a backup keyed safety, which you would have to deliberately unlock, before you can flip the other regular safety to the "fire" position. That should take care of most of the accidental discharge problems associated with rifles. You may keep the adjustable sight however. This should not be too inconvenient,; after all, you can still demonstrate your skill by puncturing a sheet of paper at about 25 yards or so, and isn't that the object of the exercise?That does it! I'm having the safety and adjustable sight removed from my rifle. That way I can have the respect I deserve for my shooting skills without any aids to my safety and that of others. Of course, I suppose that I could simply switch off the safety and not use the sight adjustments but why have them at all. Manufacturers should give us a choice of not having such devices because it would save weight and cost plus allow me to enjoy the full capabilities and raw power of my rifle to the full extent of my considerable natural abilities.
And another thing, I may as well remove that restrictive seat belt and shoulder harness to allow complete freedom of movement when shifting gears and steering during aggressive
driving. Then again, I could just not use them, but if they weren't there at all others would realize that I am able to handle this beast without those nanny items.
As to your other point, I once raised on another forum a question as to why it was illegal for me to wear an approved 5 or 6 point harness on the street, instead of the OE diagonal belts, given the known deficiencies of the latter system. One guy there ( I suspect he makes his living as a bureaucrat), replied that the harness was not NHTSA approved, that's why. I remarked that I found this curious, especially since the stated "public purpose" for most mandatory seat belt laws was something along the lines of "restraining the driver during sudden violent manuevers, so as to allow continued control of the vehicle", and the harness would do a better job of that. His response was that I must be an idiot to not know that the harness was part of a system that included a roll cage. I replied that I was quite well aware of that, and that I also would love to have a full cage for the street, but unfortunately the regulatory powers that be had decreed that item a no-no as well. As I recall, I also said that since I consider the public roads a far more dangerous environment than a track, I thought we should have a fire suppression system as standard, and that a firesuit and helmet should also be required. I would have loved to proceed further with our discussion; but for some reason, he got upset, called me a "smart a**", and refused to continue the conversation.
