compressed-air drills

That statement is plausible; your guesstimate of the distance at which you can see them, however, is certainly not.

If you think that you can see an object 3mm x 10cm at a range of 500 meters, then you're full of ... well, you're deceiving yourself. How do you measure the distance, anyway?

The theoretical limit of human visual acuity is 0.4 minutes of angle. It's completely impossible that you can see something only 3mm thick at *one* hundred meters (0.1 minutes), let alone *five* hundred (0.02 minutes).

I didn't refer to any particular incident. Perhaps you were so excited to prove something wrong you just responded to anybody.

The old "bury 'em in bullshit" ploy. 238,000 hits on google indicates something very infrequent--"moon landing" gets more than 2 million and that has happened only six times in all of history.

Take out the references to scenes in movies, one incident in which someone was shot in the head 34 times with one, and "CSI: Miami" and that 238,000 goes to 54,000.

But it was your assertion that a specific incident occurred and now you can't show any evidence that it did.

It took me less than a minute to find , which seems to be the incident you have in mind. The device was a Ramset intended for sinking nails in concrete, which uses gunpowder, and which shot the nail completely through a 2x4. A framing nailer that shot nails completely through studs wouldn't be very useful now, would it?

Perhaps if you fixed your quoting so that one could tell what part of the message was your statement and what part was quoted?

I guess the jig was up on the old troll and the "posting style" troll will now start?

You tried this "posting style" troll in other groups and it didn't get yyou anything but in everybody's bozobin. Welcome to the 90s.

On 5/25/2010 10:46 AM, Josepi wrote: I didn't refer to any particular incident. Perhaps you were so excited to prove something wrong you just responded to anybody.

Take out the references to scenes in movies, one incident in which someone was shot in the head 34 times with one, and "CSI: Miami" and that 238,000 goes to 54,000.

But it was your assertion that a specific incident occurred and now you can't show any evidence that it did.

It took me less than a minute to find , which seems to be the incident you have in mind. The device was a Ramset intended for sinking nails in concrete, which uses gunpowder, and which shot the nail completely through a 2x4. A framing nailer that shot nails completely through studs wouldn't be very useful now, would it?

On 5/25/2010 1:01 AM, Josepi wrote: Here is 238,000 occurances to look through.

BTW, I think the case in question was a Hilti. ...a little different beast than a pneumatic nailer.

On Mon, 24 May 2010 23:07:24 -0500, -MIKE- wrote: There's probably a reason you can't find it.

If you're talking about the ones that use .22 caliber shells, then yeah, basically a hand gun. Apple to orange.

Yeah, because a guy being shot, point blank, 30 times in the head is such a common construction accident.

wow. this is pointless

coffee through nose.

Thanks, J. :-)

He can't because it fell to the ground after a hundred feet. :-)

ISTR it was bigger than a .22, but yes.

I would have to invite you up, sign the papers, and stand 100 metres away and let me fire a few nails at you. They are too small to see in the air and wouldn't cause any damage to the flesh, being so small and wouldn't reach you anyway.

After the game and hospital visit, we can have a beer together, if you can still hold liquids....LOL

Game on?

Still bullshit.

I would do that, without eye protection. Not only would your aiming skills have to be better than an marine sniper, but the nail would never reach me.

In any case and whatever the outcome of this hypothetical experiment, or this little internet debate... I would always welcome a pint in person. Cheers! :-)

The .22 calibre short charge Hilti gun example is moot. Many air rifles have higher muzzle velocities than powder charged firearms. Many air rifles have been used in the miltary due to more power and other reasons.

Time to do your research, again, or the first time.

If you're talking about the ones that use .22 caliber shells, then yeah, basically a hand gun. Apple to orange.

When they start using military air rifles to pound nails on the job site, then you can start lecturing me on research.

Keep digging that hole.

I bet your mom could lick my dad with both his hands tied behind his back.

One way to avoid losing face is to change the subject and be insulting.

Do your research and stop playing know-it-all. Many have tried to tell you the toy nailguns you played with are not a problem.

Maybe re-read my posts.... slowly.

Here, I'll make it less embarrassing for you.

When they start using military air rifles to pound nails on the job site, then you can start lecturing me on research.

Keep digging that hole.

You're right, so maybe tell that to that other guy who's doing it.

I'm not the guy claiming his air nail gun can shoot a half mile.

Many? I count you and the other guy who started throwing the ad hominems.

Wow. I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

Let's talk about embarrassing.... show me ONE nail gun on that wiki page.

Shall we go back and re-read the entire thread? The debate is and was always about framing pneumatic nail guns.

YOU are the one who claimed that framing pneumatic nail guns are misfiring all over job sites, causing all kinds of injuring. YOU are the one who claimed that framing pneumatic nail gun fired some ten feet away and dented a steel toed boot. YOU are the one who claimed that framing pneumatic nail gun can shoot

500 meters.

YOU are the one who keeps trying to change the object of discussion to completely different devices. What's next, are you going to show me an air powered cannon?

YOU... I repeat... YOU are the only one who should be worried about embarrassment, my friend.

You forgot to mention that he also claims he can see the nail at that distance.

Indeed.