I would haggle but thats just me. The optic is easily worth half that

Matthew 5: 11-12
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Defiantly_Not_Bender said:

I bring receipts




I ran the numbers. I used U.S. federal minimum wages (1968 and today) and current spot gold to compute how many troy ounces a full-time minimum-wage worker could buy per week in 1968 vs today, and then calculated the annual income today that would be required to match 1968’s gold-buying power.








Key source numbers I used

• Federal minimum wage (effective Feb 1, 1968): $1.60 / hr.
• Federal minimum wage today (federal floor, still in effect in 2025): $7.25 / hr.
• Spot gold price (used for “today”): $3,648.25 per troy ounce (spot; source sampled Sept 2025).
• Historical 1968 gold market prices: after the London gold-pool stresses 1968 saw market prices above the $35 official parity; daily fixes cluster around ~$38–$40/oz for much of 1968 (I used $38.50/oz as a representative 1968 market average).

Calculations (step-by-step)








Assumptions: full-time = 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year. Gold measured in troy ounces.





1968 (using $1.60/hr and $38.50/oz):

• Weekly earnings = $1.60 × 40 = $64.00.
• Ounces of gold/week = $64.00 ÷ $38.50 ≈ 1.6623 oz/week.

Today (federal minimum $7.25/hr and spot gold $3,648.25/oz):

• Weekly earnings = $7.25 × 40 = $290.00.
• Ounces of gold/week = $290.00 ÷ $3,648.25 ≈ 0.07949 oz/week.

Relative buying power:

• 1968 oz/week ÷ 2025 oz/week ≈ 1.6623 ÷ 0.07949 ≈ 20.9.
  So a minimum-wage worker in 1968 could buy ~21× more gold per week than a federal minimum-wage worker can buy today (using the numbers above).

How large would yearly income


today


need to be to match 1968’s gold-buying power?








Take the 1968 annual gold quantity (1.6623 oz/week × 52 weeks = 86.44 oz/year). At today’s spot price:

• Required annual income today = 86.44 oz × $3,648.25/oz ≈ $315,370 per year.

Equivalently, you’d need about $6,065 per week (which ×52 ≈ $315,370) to buy the same gold annually a 1968 minimum-wage earner could.​

Click to expand...

And it's not just minimum wages, I ran the same math for average income for each year.

1968 - 124 ounces

2025 - 20 ounces

Therefore the average American is getting paid 620% less in real wages today compared to 1968.

This is what most boomers don't see.

theLBC said:

i'm scrolling through shorts looking for hate, and can only find the guests being rude or hateful.

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

You have to think like a Democrat. You see anyone who disagrees with them is using hate. If you argue with the Democrats it’s hate speech.

RUN8 said:

According to the judge that isn’t the case. You can bitch and cry about it all you want, but a judge who has the authority to make that decision has already ruled.

The logic is pretty simple.

Ask yourself if your name and contact information were in Epstein’s contacts list because you were his lawn care service in NY, would you want to have your information released with no context?

Sure you will have committed no crimes, and no charges will be forthcoming much less a conviction. All the same your name and reputation will be unjustifiably covered in shit.

Click to expand...

Yes. I would demand all names be released including mine because abuse, rape, and trafficking of children needs to be eliminated no matter the cost.

I ran the Cayuga 151gr today in the 7PRC (22" proof barrel) with H4831sc. I probably have around 600 rounds thru this barrel.
First I did a ladder test with Fed 215 LRM primers, Peterson brass 5x fired and annealed. COAL is 3.160"
Reminder: I'm at 156' elevation, and the temp today was 74F, 66% humidity.
Results:
66 gr- 2961 fps
66.5 - 2986
67 - 3043
67.5 - 3043
68 - 3087
68.5 - 3086
69 - 3095 No obvious pressure signs
Then I threw another 68 and 68.5 gr with a COAL of 3.180" for the heck of it to see jump/velocity sensitivity
68gr - 3059 fps
68.5 - 3065 fps
The target: Shots 8 & 9 landed over shot 6)

lariat said:

100% as the Lord intended. He gave us OCD as a gift for a reason.

Click to expand...

Get it right it's CDO.

RUN8 said:

So Max Blumenthal cites a nebulous “anonymous source” and you automatically believe it?

Has it occurred to you that in the world of journalism as it currently exists, that any source who won’t go on the record equals made up conspiracy theory bullshit?

For fuck’s sake it’s been the MO of these turds for going on several decades now. Remember all the nonsense uncited sources used to gin up the Trump Russia nonsense?

Now you will fall for the same shit because it fits with a narrative you want to be true.

Seriously you lack either intellectual honesty, or critical thinking abilities.

Click to expand...

Why not both?

gunjunkie45 said:

Done it! Look lower. He's still 1/4"- 1/2" wider than the lower, already applied trim. Great fit, but that's where he loses it. Sorry, I've been a finish carpenter for 26 years.

Click to expand...

That is easy to fix after matching the profile and was probably deliberate.

gunjunkie45 said:

Done it! Look lower. He's still 1/4"- 1/2" wider than the lower, already applied trim. Great fit, but that's where he loses it. Sorry, I've been a finish carpenter for 26 years.

Click to expand...

He gonna rip the backside with a table saw. Painter will hide the imperfections

newguy2k3v2 said:

But will it satisfy the people who are bae or bust?

Click to expand...

There are no “BAE or bust” people

There ARE:

1. People who have recognized the superiority of the BAE components and engineering as demonstrably superior to the competition to date.

2. People who have warned (and been proven right over and over and over again) when someone promises the next new product will be “a UTC killer”, only to find that it’s not. Not by a long shot. Not in the image and not in the engineering. We warned you all about the Tig, and the Theon, and the FLIR Boson core, and the LWTS-LR, and more. Each time, money was spent and regretted.

Whether BAE keeps making cores or not, they WILL at some point be beaten, and then you’ll realize there never were BAE or bust people, because we’ll be rocking the new toy.

BAE people are simply people who’ve actually compared BAE products to actual physical competing products instead of comparing marketing materials.

I’ll be first in line when a company steps up to finally beat 20 year old tech. It’s long overdue.

It would be miserably sad if it’s FLIR who achieves this, as they hate civilians with a passion. Anyone who doesn’t remember this probably shouldn’t be giving people hope for the future of thermal tech.

RUN8 said:

Because a federal judge ruled they can’t release the files as it would impugn a bunch of people who haven’t been proven guilty of any crimes thus far.

I know that innocent until proven guilty is a tough concept for some of the retards on here but they is the reason the Epstein files have not, and probably never will be released.

Click to expand...

Releasing the Epstein files will not, and has no power to, convict any of the people mentioned.

Only a court can convict.

Under our system someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore the release of documents has no legal impact on those mentioned therein, and the excuse being used is spurious.

Release them all and stop lying.

P-Squared said:

OK, I'm a boomer (1954) and I essentially did this in a fortune 500 company, except my line was "I can't afford to fund this operation forever' meaning I can't work at the entry level for very long. He absolutely understood what I was saying. I had just told him my credentials, as in what I had done at previous companies. He said, "You need to talk to Alan" (one of his VP's), took me over to Alan's office, interrupted a meeting and said "You need to talk to this guy". Alan asked everyone to leave and we proceeded to have a meeting. To be honest, I was shitting my pants, but there was no turning back. Five years later I reported directly to the CEO. True story!

Now get off my lawn. You damn kids. (OBTW - No Degree)

Click to expand...

You could have just quoted statistics and said it wasn’t possible. Every generation has people that make it and people that don’t..

Bump… make me an offer.

Defiantly_Not_Bender said:

They are the most entitled, selfish and spoiled Generation. They got to ride the economic wave of easy after WWII till they retire and blow money at casinos. The most propagandized generation with “Judeo-Christian” “tHeY aRe oUr gReAtEsT aLlY” Zionist lies of all of them. Watching TV for 60+ years believing what was fed to them. They will find it offensive when reminded of this and come out swinging. But it’s ok. They will be gone soon. We just have to wait.

Click to expand...

Then what?

Defiantly_Not_Bender said:

I bring receipts




I ran the numbers. I used U.S. federal minimum wages (1968 and today) and current spot gold to compute how many troy ounces a full-time minimum-wage worker could buy per week in 1968 vs today, and then calculated the annual income today that would be required to match 1968’s gold-buying power.








Key source numbers I used

• Federal minimum wage (effective Feb 1, 1968): $1.60 / hr.
• Federal minimum wage today (federal floor, still in effect in 2025): $7.25 / hr.
• Spot gold price (used for “today”): $3,648.25 per troy ounce (spot; source sampled Sept 2025).
• Historical 1968 gold market prices: after the London gold-pool stresses 1968 saw market prices above the $35 official parity; daily fixes cluster around ~$38–$40/oz for much of 1968 (I used $38.50/oz as a representative 1968 market average).

Calculations (step-by-step)








Assumptions: full-time = 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year. Gold measured in troy ounces.





1968 (using $1.60/hr and $38.50/oz):

• Weekly earnings = $1.60 × 40 = $64.00.
• Ounces of gold/week = $64.00 ÷ $38.50 ≈ 1.6623 oz/week.

Today (federal minimum $7.25/hr and spot gold $3,648.25/oz):

• Weekly earnings = $7.25 × 40 = $290.00.
• Ounces of gold/week = $290.00 ÷ $3,648.25 ≈ 0.07949 oz/week.

Relative buying power:

• 1968 oz/week ÷ 2025 oz/week ≈ 1.6623 ÷ 0.07949 ≈ 20.9.
  So a minimum-wage worker in 1968 could buy ~21× more gold per week than a federal minimum-wage worker can buy today (using the numbers above).

How large would yearly income


today


need to be to match 1968’s gold-buying power?








Take the 1968 annual gold quantity (1.6623 oz/week × 52 weeks = 86.44 oz/year). At today’s spot price:

• Required annual income today = 86.44 oz × $3,648.25/oz ≈ $315,370 per year.

Equivalently, you’d need about $6,065 per week (which ×52 ≈ $315,370) to buy the same gold annually a 1968 minimum-wage earner could.​

Click to expand...

Fucking genius sir.

End of thread here.

5RWill said:

If it’s really usable to the magnification they claim it is, I’ll be stoked

Click to expand...

Hell, 2/3 or half the useable magnification claimed would have me stoked. If I'm remembering correctly they said up to 20 - 30 magnification. I'm wrong a lot though. RTR

bohem said:

Quick Update:
I took out some 170's this morning and shot them to just inside 700yards and didn't have problems with repeatability on steel. I didn't have an issue with a known 8 twist, however it seems there's something happening here that is causing some people issues with this particular bullet.

I made some tweaks today to increase the stability about 6% and I'm making some prototypes (likely) tomorrow. I will test some here as well as send a few off to @Conrad to test in his rifle since it's one of the guns having problems. I will pass along results.

Click to expand...

I have some results above and below.

Guys

Just flush the shithead. (Dildo)
It's taking up too much bandwidth.

P-Squared said:

OK, I'm a boomer (1954) and I essentially did this in a fortune 500 company, except my line was "I can't afford to fund this operation forever' meaning I can't work at the entry level for very long. He absolutely understood what I was saying. I had just told him my credentials, as in what I had done at previous companies. He said, "You need to talk to Alan" (one of his VP's), took me over to Alan's office, interrupted a meeting and said "You need to talk to this guy". Alan asked everyone to leave and we proceeded to have a meeting. To be honest, I was shitting my pants, but there was no turning back. Five years later I reported directly to the CEO. True story!

Now get off my lawn. You damn kids. (OBTW - No Degree)

Click to expand...

I am a Gen Xer and did something similar.

I still love the video.

-Stan

Barneybdb said:

View attachment 8766828

Click to expand...

Done it! Look lower. He's still 1/4"- 1/2" wider than the lower, already applied trim. Great fit, but that's where he loses it. Sorry, I've been a finish carpenter for 26 years.