bsu legato Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 I'd rather have the big caliber weapon, so I can blow him away further away, or blow parts off of him up close. Marksmanship is dead. At least, as far as most western armies are concerned, anyhow.
pfunk Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 I too like larger calibers. Right now I have a .45acp kimber and a remington 870 3.5". I think Im leaning twards a AK-47 (which is best to buy) or a M1A (308) or a HK G3 What are the pros and cons of both 7.62x39 and the NATO round, in both guns and ammo
Mechamaniac Posted November 18, 2003 Author Posted November 18, 2003 I too like larger calibers. Right now I have a .45acp kimber and a remington 870 3.5". I think Im leaning twards a AK-47 (which is best to buy) or a M1A (308) or a HK G3What are the pros and cons of both 7.62x39 and the NATO round, in both guns and ammo Well, it used to be that the AK would be your best option due to price. I bought my AK for $ 200 bucks back in the day. Of course, after the Democrats in Maryland passed their infernal "we don't like the way they look" ban, the price skyrocketed, and I sold it for a grand a scant two years later. So, accept the fact that the rifle is going to cost you at least a G for an AK, and probably closer to $1500 or $2K for an M1A, or a G3. Most of those AK's are el cheapo Norinco chinese specials, and not actual Soviet made models so caveat emptor. Then you have to take other things into account. The M1A is a super fine weapon ,but is basically a semi auto version of the M14, so you get a 20 round box mag, a nice long barrel, super bedding in the stock etc etc, making it a fine long distance weapon. Add on another G for a nice Springfield Armory scope, and you're in business. The G3 on the other hand is one of those "evil assault rifles". It's all black and scary and has a pistol grip with a magazine in front of it. Accuracy will be less because the M1A is (at this point) pretty much standard built for national match rifle shooting. The G3 on the other hand is essentially a big bore battle rifle. My personal preference would be the G3. Taking caliber into consideration. The 7.62 X 39MM AK round is cheaper to buy in mass quantities, and shoot. However, most of that ammo is berdan primed, which means you could not reload it and reuse it. Also, ballistically, the 7.62 x 39MM is about the same as your granddad's old .30-.30 Marlin deer rifle. 7.62 x 51mm NATO on the other hand is more expensive, but a larger bullet can be fired because you have a larger case to pack more powder into, hence it is a more powerful cartridge. Add to that that it can be reloaded, and reloaded with a variety of bullets means you have a more versatile platform to begin with.
Opus Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 I too like larger calibers. Right now I have a .45acp kimber and a remington 870 3.5". I think Im leaning twards a AK-47 (which is best to buy) or a M1A (308) or a HK G3What are the pros and cons of both 7.62x39 and the NATO round, in both guns and ammo AKs are too sloppy for me. They're great for full-auto but suck as a semi. If you get an AK avoid the Romanian stuff like the plague. There is a reason why they're so much less expensive. The M1A is excellent unless you're a liite guy then it can be somewhat unwieldy. The G3 is an excellent balance of size and power but you need to thoroughly inspect them before you buy one since most have seen 20-30 years of military sevice.
pfunk Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 . The G3 is an excellent balance of size and power but you need to thoroughly inspect them before you buy one since most have seen 20-30 years of military sevice. What about the US high quality remakes like here for example http://gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?...p?Item=13686509 I might be leaning twards one of thiese, they have a target grade for a little more Im a pretty big guy, shooting my rem 870 with a 3" mag slug aint no thing
Opus Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 . The G3 is an excellent balance of size and power but you need to thoroughly inspect them before you buy one since most have seen 20-30 years of military sevice. What about the US high quality remakes like here for example http://gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?...p?Item=13686509 I might be leaning twards one of thiese, they have a target grade for a little more Im a pretty big guy, shooting my rem 870 with a 3" mag slug aint no thing Those are surplus parts on new recievers. The thing to look for is the condition of the barrel and bore. If it's really an NRA excellent grade the it's probably OK.
Warmaker Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 Regarding the US military and it's old M16's... there was an article at the Marines' website www.usmc.mil In it there's a short bit of US Marine and German MP's crosstraining in each others' weapons and tactics. Djibouti!!! I've also heard of the US Army's testing of H&K's XM8. Sounds interesting and it's an obvious nod to the Germans' G36 with tweaks for us quirky Americans. If the Army does adopt the thing as a service rifle the Marines will likely have to follow suit for the sake of logistics. The military really doesn't need 2 types of service rifles running around. Not to mention the parts.
bsu legato Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 What about the US high quality remakes like here for examplehttp://gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?...p?Item=13686509 I might be leaning twards one of thiese, they have a target grade for a little more Interesting. I followed their link from the auction to their website, but I couldn't find out anything more about these "new" receivers. There seems to be one or two different makes they carry, and for some reason the name "Century Arms" rings a bell in my head. Hmmmm.... But at less than $400, that CETME version of the G3 would be pretty tough to turn down.
Opus Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 What about the US high quality remakes like here for examplehttp://gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?...p?Item=13686509 I might be leaning twards one of thiese, they have a target grade for a little more Interesting. I followed their link from the auction to their website, but I couldn't find out anything more about these "new" receivers. There seems to be one or two different makes they carry, and for some reason the name "Century Arms" rings a bell in my head. Hmmmm.... But at less than $400, that CETME version of the G3 would be pretty tough to turn down. It appears to be made by Special Weapons. I've never heard of them but from looking at thier website I'd say they specialize in HK knockoffs. Sorta the Joons of assult rifles. http://www.specialweaponsinc.com/
Mechamaniac Posted November 19, 2003 Author Posted November 19, 2003 You have to be careful with those too good to be true cheap HK's. A friend of mine bought one at a gun show, the lower receiver was more or less normal, but the upper receiver was made out of this shitty pig iron looking material, it had the outer consistency of poured cement, and I would not have been surprised to find out that it was molded, not stamped.
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 Special Weapons are crap, nuff said. They basically bought up a bunch of H&K's parts seconds and demilled guns and then cobbled them together with a mish-mash of low quality US made parts (to get around the crime bill) and made them into a bunch of sorta working guns which they are selling for outrageous prices. Their logic is that you are getting mostly German H&K parts... so by that logic you should pay mostly German H&K prices... yeah... right... I have known three people who have bought Special Weapons guns... all three had serious issues right out of the box. Everything from constant jams to shoddy build quality to finishes that wash off with one cleaning. Weapons lore comes into play once again: if you want a H&K just bite the bullet buy a real H&K product. All these knock-offs running around tend to be low quality clones at best and pure crap on average. The old addage of you get what you pay for comes into play with firearms a lot. Only on some very very rare occasions can a "knock off" gun maker match or better the original maker in quality... unless the original maker is a total f#ck up out of the gate like Colt.
bsu legato Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 unless the original maker is a total f#ck up out of the gate like Colt. Ouch! Again, ouch! It seems that Colt joke have become to you as Duke Nukem Forever jokes are to me. It looks like they were too good to be true after all. I now add my voice to the chorus telling you to buy a real H&K. Specifically, one of the G3's with the early style pistol grips and handguards. Speaking of knockoffs, JsARC, remind me to PM you a couple of links I've found. You'd be very surprised at what some of my fellow canucks have to say about the batch of Norinco M-305's that showed up in Canada this summer. I sure as heck was.
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 You know me, Bsu... I will walk a mile out of my way to sucker punch Colt in the ding ding.
pfunk Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 You know me, Bsu... I will walk a mile out of my way to sucker punch Colt in the ding ding. In that case, I think I will stick with the good ol' springfield M1A .308 for about $1500. A seal buddy of mine at work swears by his. Unless I come up with a magical $2000 more for a H&K. I want to still get my Desert Eagle and a nice rifle,,,,,,,,not too mention my financee has the hots for my Kimber Eclipse .45. which I wont part with. Im trying to talk her into the std SS version. I do spell like crap, but thats not a misspelling on financee
Mechamaniac Posted November 19, 2003 Author Posted November 19, 2003 Only on some very very rare occasions can a "knock off" gun maker match or better the original maker in quality... unless the original maker is a total f#ck up out of the gate like Colt. My dad has a Norinco M-14 that is a real gem actually. Of course, only the receiver is original, he has had the rest replaced, but it shoots like a dream. And yes, on the issue of Colt. I shelled out big bucks for a Colt Combat Commander .45 ACP a few years ago, and not 200 rounds into it, the spring part between the slide stop and the safety came flying off, and wound up halfway down range. Yay Colt, I traded it off shortly afterwards, and got a Sig P220.
valkyrietestpilot Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 question for you guys.i want to get an AK-47. the rumanian 1 goes for $250 & i've seen a nice chinese 1 going for $1200. i've heard the rumanian ones are crap,but what about the chinese ones? the 1 at my local gun store seemed to be really well made.was a while back that i saw it. how were the AK's affected by the ban? i noticed that i haven't seen alot of chinese ones lately.
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) question for you guys.i want to get an AK-47. the rumanian 1 goes for $250 & i've seen a nice chinese 1 going for $1200. i've heard the rumanian ones are crap,but what about the chinese ones? the 1 at my local gun store seemed to be really well made.was a while back that i saw it. how were the AK's affected by the ban? i noticed that i haven't seen alot of chinese ones lately. Ok, where to start... 1) a recent presidential order put in place last year bans any and all imports of firearms from the Chinese exporter known as Norinco. They where the ones brining over all the Chinese semi-auto AK variants... hence you will not be seeing very many of them from now on. This also explains the rise in imports of Romanian guns, people can't get the Norinco models so they buy the Romak ones instead for about the same price. 2) the reason that Chinese AK at your local shop is over a grand is most likely because it is a pre-ban weapon. Pre-ban weapons go for much, much more than new post-ban ones. (See #3 for more explaination) 3) in late 1994 congress passed a law called the Omnibus Crime Bill which outlaws the building, importing and production of what have come to be known as "Assault Weapons". What constitues an assault weapon you ask? Funny you should ask because technically any weapon used to attack another person is technically a weapon used in an assault... thus it is an "assault" weapon. But our knowledgeable and all wise government has seen to it to classify certain guns as "assault" weapons based on their physical characteristics and not their actual capacity to assault people. By rule of law an "assault" weapon is any weapon that has the ability to accept a detactchable magazine and possesses any two of the following features: - a pistol grip that protrudes "conspicuously" from the bottom of the action (actual verbage in the law) - a bayonet lug or provisions to accept a bayonet - a threaded barrel capable of attaching a flash hider - a folding or telescoping stock - a grenade launcher or special barrel attachment to support the use of rifle grenades So basically if you remove the threaded barrel and bayonet lug and have a non-telescoping or folding stock then you have a post-ban AK that is exactly the same as it's pre-ban brother in ability... just missing a few hood ornamnets. Bascially the only way AK model rifles were affected by the ban is that A) they can no longer be called an AK, MAK or other "evil" name listed on the law and B ) they cannot have any of the "evil" features... that is about it. If you ask me the only difference between a pre-ban and a post-ban Kalishnakov clone is about $700. Unless you just have to have that clunky folding stock buy a post-ban. Quality on Soviet Bloc stuff is all about the same anyway, AK's are all notorious for loose tollerances and sloppy workmanship. The only way to get a good one is to somehow get an original Ismash Armory model made in the Soviet Union and those are some of the highest priced pre-bans on the market. Edited November 20, 2003 by JsARCLIGHT
myk Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) question for you guys.i want to get an AK-47. the rumanian 1 goes for $250 & i've seen a nice chinese 1 going for $1200. i've heard the rumanian ones are crap,but what about the chinese ones? the 1 at my local gun store seemed to be really well made.was a while back that i saw it. how were the AK's affected by the ban? i noticed that i haven't seen alot of chinese ones lately. I just noticed this thread, but do you mean to tell me that you could order one of these guns, have it shipped somewhere and then just pluck it from a shelf?! It can't be that easy! Edited November 20, 2003 by myk
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) I just noticed this thread, but do you mean to tell me that you could order one of these guns, have it shipped somewhere and then just pluck it from a shelf?! It can't be that easy! No, you legally cannot do that without propper permissions and licenses. The only legal way to get a weapon in any state involves going to gun dealer and filling out the federally required NICS background check sheet (mandated by the Brady Law) and after you are approved you can buy a gun. Most states have laws stating that you as a private citizen can sell a long gun (rifle) to another citizen of your home state in that home state with no NICS check but that is the one and only time that is true. You may purchase weapons from out of state and have them shipped to your local gun shop for you to pick up after submitting the above paperwork as long as the gun is legal to import to your state (looking at you again Kalifornia). Check all local laws before trying to buy a gun as they vary from state to state. Some states like Kalifornia make you jump through more hoops than a trained poodle to own even a simple long gun. Edit to add: I forgot about the one type of gun that requires no license whatsoever: BB guns and Black Powder guns. Those you can order through the mail or over the internet and have them sent right to your front door with no background checks at all. (please note: Airsoft is a toy not a gun) Edited November 20, 2003 by JsARCLIGHT
bsu legato Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) Were those semi-auto Beretta BM-59's that Springfield imported in the 80's and 90's included in the assault weapon ban? In civilain configuration, they're not that different from an M1A. Minus the optional grenade launcher, of course. Edited November 20, 2003 by bsu legato
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 Were those semi-auto Beretta BM-59's that Springfield imported in the 80's and 90's included in the assault weapon ban? In civilain configuration, they're not that different from an M1A. Word of note: Anything exsisting in the country before the cutoff date in September 1994 that exsisted as a weapon (meaning fully assembled and in working condition) was grandfathered into legality and they are what is known as pre-ban. The Omnibus Crime bill did not outlaw those guns, just outlaw them from further production. Much like the National Firearms Act of 1968 and 1986 which regulated the creation and sale of automatic weapons, the Omnibus Crime Bill simply prevents more from being made and does nothing to prevent the sale and use of guns exsisting in their "evil" configurations before the ban. For example (this is where people get confused on the whole thing): Joe owns an AR15 carbine with telestock, flash hider and bayonet lug and has it in his possession as a complete gun before September 1994. After September 1994 that gun has become a "pre-ban" and is legal to own in that configuration. Joe owns an AR15 lower receiver that has not yet been built into a complete firearm before September 1994. After September 1994 Joe can only assemble that lower receiver into a post-ban compliant gun as it was not a complete firearm before the cutoff date. Joe owns an AR15 lower receiver or complete firearm made after September 1994. These guns can only exsist with the features they have, adding any of the "pre-ban" features like folding stocks, flash hiders or bayonet lugs will make that an illegal "Assault Weapon" and Joe will be breaking federal law. Now you all see how goofy this law really is. In risk of stepping on the soap box here, recent federal studies have proven that the Omnibus Crime Bill does nothing to prevent the types of crimes it was intended to stop. People who are in favor of more and harder gun regulations and laws somehow see it the opposite way and are striving for more laws to be enacted. IMHO making laws that restrict law-abiding people from buying certain guns in certain configurations does nothing to prevent a criminal from buying one off the back of a truck in an alley. We need new and better laws making the use of a gun in a crime a severe offense punishable by super harsh penalties... but alas it is easier to fear the gun than the person behind the trigger. Stepping down from the soapbox now.
bsu legato Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) Now you all see how goofy this law really is. In risk of stepping on the soap box here, recent federal studies have proven that the Omnibus Crime Bill does nothing to prevent the types of crimes it was intended to stop. Heh. Canada's super duper gun registry isn't working any better. It's funny....you'd think that since handguns have been registered in Canada since the 30's, by the government's "logic" there shouldn't have been any handgun crimes in the country in decades. The best part? When it was sold to Parliament and the unwashed masses, our then-justice minister promised that if the 1 Million dollar program ever exceeded 10 million, it'd all be scrapped. The latest estimates place the cost at somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion by 2006. So BM-59's are legal then, or grandfathered as pre-ban? Cool. They're like the missing link of the M1 family. Now if I could only find one up here... Edited November 20, 2003 by bsu legato
pfunk Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 Damn it, a guy from work just told me he got a HK G3, off his military buddy (sniper) friggin got an original ussed condition G3 for $300 yeah, cause thats the price he paid. This thing looks brand new and its original. Hes also selling a M1A and a sniper set up bolt action,,,,,,,,maybe I can get the M1A for $300 damn it, I want the G3 now. That gun is so sweet, just had to vent cause we were just talking about it and BAM
bsu legato Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 If that's an honest-to-god G3 and not one of those remanufactured p.o.s. ones, then $300 was a steal for it! It just goes to show that there's still deals to be had out there. Good luck finding an M1A for that price, though.
Druna Skass Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 I was beating the crap out of my friend in Soul Calibur 2 with Nightmare and we started talking about how big his swords are. How big can you make a sword until it becomes un-wieldable?
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) I was beating the crap out of my friend in Soul Calibur 2 with Nightmare and we started talking about how big his swords are. How big can you make a sword until it becomes un-wieldable? Technically you can make something as big as you can handle. If you get a strong enough person I'm sure they could use something the size of a phone pole if it where made out of light enough materials... The big issue is really how effective something that big would be... and the honest answer is: it's size would more likely get it's user killed rather than be an effective weapon. Most effective blade weapons are short swords and knives that offer a very good balance that most people prefer. But when it comes to bladed and hand weapons not of the firearm ilk you hit the "pyramid" of weapon weight versus damage inflicting capacity versus speed/ease of use... and with almost all bladed and hand weapons you can only pick any two of those characteristics. For instance: some of the largest swords known are the Scottish two-handed Claymores, some are almost up to 7 feet long. Those Claymores, when in propper hands, can down horse and rider in one good swipe... the drawbacks are that the thing is so huge, heavy and requires both hands that the user is very very defenseless against just about everything out there unless he has a bunch of other guys backing him up. Two handed weapons mean no shield so you are pretty much screwed if the opposition brings in archers... and unless you know what you are doing with that Claymore a rather quick foot soldier with a short sword and shield could make short work of you. Bladed and hand weapons are all about balance, finding that right combination of characteristics that makes them effective. You can most likely field any size weapon you want if it is a one on one fight (like those fighting games) as some encounter like that will come down to the skill of the fighter with his weapon to see if he lives or dies... but most fights of yore with ye olde sword and shield took place on the battlefield with tons of you versus tons of them and in a melee with arrows flying, the possibility of cavalry and armored knights, pikemen, maces, axemen... you name it... no matter what you had in your hands your chances of living through the fight were not that good... especially if you happened to be on the front end of an advancing line of troops. Edit to add: it should also be noted that with today's lighter. stronger metals and alloys you could make something ten times bigger and stronger than the ancients could... but all it takes is some jackass with a gun to down you in today's world of war. Edited November 21, 2003 by JsARCLIGHT
Lynx7725 Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 I was beating the crap out of my friend in Soul Calibur 2 with Nightmare and we started talking about how big his swords are. How big can you make a sword until it becomes un-wieldable? You said it -- until it becomes unwieldable. As JSArchlight mentions, first you must be able to carry and use the weapon in combat. If you are a muscular fellow, you might be able to carry extremely heavy weapons into combat. And that's what they do with broadswords and claymores -- in some sense they are just a sharp club, and they do as much damage from the weight as the cutting edge. But heavy normally means delayed reaction times, which isn't the best thing. The second part is effectiveness. If you build something really big (and presumably long), you have reach but you aren't really good close in, and you telegraph your intentions. Also, weapon length gets to be a pain in cluttered terrain -- a pike in a town is a pain to move around. Talking about pikes, I personally think they are about as long as effective weaponry are.. and they are a very specialized weapon. Great as a hedgehog defence, but if the opponent can get within the pike's length there's really nothing much the pikeman can do other than bash with the stick, fall back to utilize the pike, or drop the pike and use something else. It's really great against cavalry though. Personally, I prefer a (short)sword and shield setup myself, possibly with a 6~7ft spear.. that gives a nice balance. The rule-of-thumb should be that the weapon you use is something that is heavy enough to cause damage, and that it's something you can (a) swing quickly, (b) swing often and © has a decent reach. You're really free to work with whatever you have within these parameters, but step outside and you'll really have to justify the effectiveness of the weapon.
Mechamaniac Posted November 21, 2003 Author Posted November 21, 2003 the drawbacks are that the thing is so huge, heavy and requires both hands that the user is very very defenseless against just about everything out there unless he has a bunch of other guys backing him up. Two handed weapons mean no shield so you are pretty much screwed if the opposition brings in archers... and unless you know what you are doing with that Claymore a rather quick foot soldier with a short sword and shield could make short work of you. Actually, the two handed sword was not all that unwieldy in combat. I have read some manuals, and seen a demonstration by the british museum, that showed how you could be pretty damned efficient with one of those things. First off, most of them have the ricasso (the area immediately in front of the crossguard) dulled, and flattened on the edges for a reason. The user could swing, and thrust the sword, and then grab the ricasso, and actually swing the pommel around, and use it as a club, or to hook an opponent with the crossguard. Example: Braveheart - Despite it's myriad historical inaccuracies, you can actually see Mel Gibson use his Claymore to both correctly deflect a blow, and grab the ricasso, and use it as leverage to run someone through. In the hands of the right person, the two handed sword could be as deadly as any other. And most of the casualties of medieval battles were either caused by archers, or cavalry, or were actually due to POST battle infection. Their idea of curing a sword gash was to stitch it shut with just about whatever was available, and cover it with a rag. Add to this that hygiene wasn't very high on anyone's list, makes for one big pusball.
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 I have also seen "specialists" handle Claymores... myself being part of a Scottish Clan I grew up seeing top heavy men sling those things around at gatherings and fairs. A big burly Scottsman can easily wield a Claymore... but doing so in the middle of a battle is very very hard to do effectively. Much like Axemen, a man with a giant two handed sword had to keep the thing moving in combat to keep his advisary off guard and to keep up momentum so he could deliver repeated blows without having to "reset" himself and his stance. You get tired out very quickly doing that, no matter how in shape and burly you are... hence why most of europe favored the short sword and shield for combat. But still I have to admit that in a one on one duel a giant two handed sword has just as good a chance as winning as anything else... but in the end most victories come from fast agile motions and quick stabs and slashes. I personally would hate to be on the other side of one of those brutes but if you know their weaknesses they are easy to exploit.
Hurricane29 Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 That is pretty close to the hand and a half style right, of swordfighting?
pfunk Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 I have also seen "specialists" handle Claymores... myself being part of a Scottish Clan I grew up seeing top heavy men sling those things around at gatherings and fairs. Cool, Im part Scottish myself, Whats your clan/family name, Mine is Ritchie shortened from McRitchie. I was thinking of getting the family crest tatooed on my right arm. Anywho I really like the looks of a broad sword, but I thing something a like more weildable and quicker would "take the cake" in a fight. Like those Japaniese swords that were made by folding the blade in a forge quite a few times. Does anyone have info on those? I cant remember the name.
JsARCLIGHT Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 Cool, Im part Scottish myself, Whats your clan/family name, Mine is Ritchie shortened from McRitchie. My last name is Anderson and I can trace my lineage through my fathers into the clan up through the 17th century, My Grandfather is an immigrant from Scotland. The name Anderson is particularly found in Aberdeenshire and the Lowlands, where my Grandfather and his family are from. The name means son of Andrew and appears in the Highlands as MacAndrew and in the Gaelic as Gilleaindrais meaning St. Andrew's servant. I'd say do some research, who knows what you'll find when you go digging in your family past.
bsu legato Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) Woot! Scots unite!! Edit: Can anyone guess which tartan this is? Edited November 21, 2003 by bsu legato
pfunk Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) Woot! Scots unite!!Edit: Can anyone guess which tartan this is? I do have a flannel that looks like that I would like to get some tree info. I know my family landed in Canada 3 gens ago and most came to the states like my grandfather. Most are farmers and the others are store/restrant owners and engineers/designers (like myself) Oh, Ritchie is from the clan MacKintosh Edited November 21, 2003 by pfunk
bsu legato Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 My last name is Anderson Missssterrrrr Aaaaander...son. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Recommended Posts