Nouns - Verbs - Terms: for Shooters

FISMA

Have you invented any terms or words for shooting that you care to share?

Have you any pet-peeves when it comes to terminology that you care to share?

For example, and perhaps I am a purist, however, I cannot stand it when people use the term clip when they really mean a magazine.

As I was taught, a clip feeds a magazine.

Favorite quote on this matter: "Saying "Clip" when you mean "magazine" is rather like talking about socks when you mean boots."
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/clip.html

Not trying to start a semantics debate, just wondering

Sparks

I have a bit of a problem with people talking about Weapons when they're really talking about Firearms

Rovi

My personal favourite is "the shoulder thing that goes up"

Tackleberrywho

I love a good tripod on a rifle, and some bullets for my shotgun.

And eating the best of veal off deers

sikastag

Silencer.................:cool:
Dont like it when people shoot fallow stags either!

Sparks

And it's "Airgun" or "Air Rifle" (or "Air Pistol", obviously). It doesn't use legumes for ammunition and we don't use them for targets either, so it's not a pea shooter

(It's not a BB gun either!)

IRLConor

"Is there much kickback off them yokes?"

A kickback is something a politician gets. Recoil is what a shooter feels.

greenpeter

Did you catch anything

boc121

Armed:eek:

dCorbus

+1 on the w-word!

Also, anyone asking if I use a "sniperscope" on my "weapon" particularly get's on my wick:D

"Olympicky-shooting" - Now, that's one i've unfortunately had to use myself on occasion - sorry, i don't like it either!:o

And the mis-use / misappropriation of the description "tactical" applied to anything black and vaguely militaristic - Such as using the description: tactical stock for a cz452 or 10/22 (neither of which are massively utilised by anyone for tactical purposes) - In this case, oddly enough, I'd prefer to use the term tacticool!;):rolleyes::D

dCorbus

Oh god, just remembered: Muzzle Break!
Hate dat!

(Only applies if you've managed to snap something off your rifle!)

zulu_dawn

greenpeter wrote: »

Did you catch anything

my wife has been asking me this for sometime as well, god bless her

fishing versus shooting, so easy to get mixed up!

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

Oh god, just remembered: Muzzle Break!
Hate dat!
(Only applies if you've managed to snap something off your rifle!)

And then only if it's the very end of your barrel. This is not a muzzle break!

mister gullible

..... when someone talks about harvesting deer when they mean shooting, hunting or killing deer. Another annoying Americanism.

LostCovey

mister gullible wrote: »

..... when someone talks about harvesting deer when they mean shooting, hunting or killing deer. Another annoying Americanism.

Well I think rough shooting is a terrible term.

Why is walking a few miles across country with your dog and taking a shot at whatever fair game you flush 'rough shooting'.

Surely having a team of young fellas beating everything out of a wood towards a line of well-fed guns who have paid dear for the experience is what is really 'rough'??

LC

jwshooter

A protestant would not have fired at that .

tac foley

Bullet 'head'.

tac

deerhunter1

Sparks wrote: »

I have a bit of a problem with people talking about Weapons when they're really talking about Firearms

Ya I am bugger for calling them weapons, keep making the same mistake every time, must be my military training, bad habit

Manic Moran

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I love a good tripod on a rifle,

(Granted, the rifle is on the tripod)

and some bullets for my shotgun.

Would a slug not count as a bullet?

I have a bit of a problem with people talking about Weapons when they're really talking about Firearms

Yeah, but...

arm (ärm)

noun

1.any instrument used in fighting; weapon: usually used in pl.

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yeah, but...

No buts. A "firearm" is defined in most english dictionaries as a portable gun; a "weapon" is anything used to harm another. The two terms are orthogonal in definition. Granted, what you're carrying over there is a weapon, without question; but not all dogs are poodles. (Besides, I've yet to hear a Garda say the word "weapon" when talking about what is a piece of sports equipment, without them managing to pronounce it "weapon" but spell it "likely to go on a shooting spree at any moment").

Tackleberrywho

Manic Moran wrote: »

(Granted, the rifle is on the tripod)
When I show them my Haris Bi-POD they say I like the Tri-pod


Would a slug not count as a bullet? No slugs in Ireland except on cabbage

Tackleberrywho

jwshooter wrote: »

A protestant would not have fired at that .

??

murphy125

When people who havent a notion about firearms and see a scope on a rifle and call it a 'sniper rifle':rolleyes:

Tackleberrywho

"I've a great aim, I can hit the tree in the back yard with the shotgun"

Neighbor said to me a few weeks back

kay 9

Shooting deer and vermin miles away is the most annoying thing I encountered. Even heard upto a massive 5 miles. Too much discovery channel for some people I think:rolleyes: Do these people actually shoot or are they wannabes.

dCorbus

Even heard upto a massive 5 miles

Yeah, right!:rolleyes::D
With what? A feckin' mortar?:D

That's a good one!

Sparks

Well... technically, you could shoot vermin at five miles with something like a .338 lap mag... just not deliberately

dCorbus

Very true, Sparks, you might hit a lot of things 5 miles away - by accident and with a few lucky/unlucky bounces - just not what you'd be aiming at, though!;) You'd still have to mortar the shot in!:rolleyes::D

Big difference between 1500-1600m (a smidgeon under a mile) and 5 miles!!!!
Sure, didn't Mr. C. Harrison of HM Horsey Fellas only manage a mere 1.54miles!

A rabbit at 2k anyone?:D

Sparks

It's not really a noun so much, but it does bewilder me when people can't tell a rabbit from a penguin.

dCorbus

Damn those penguin - Vermin the lot of 'em!
They wander out of the Park, cross all the roads, disrupt traffic, and then wreak havoc in my small-but-perfectly-formed Urban Oasis of Tranquil Zen Calmness / Yarden!

Penguins are EVIL, I tell ya!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fntzGquZE

dCorbus

But them Special Forces (Specialist Demolition) Penguins are by far the worst!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5UiThBb44U

landkeeper

do we have to be that pc that we cannot refer to our guns as 'weapons' and have to call them firearms instead
my rifles and shotguns are 'sporting weapons ' allways have been allways will be in my vocab , same as the ammunition for them cartridges for the shotgun and bullets for the rifles
why everyone insists on rounds i don't know
do you really think that changing the terminology changes how joe public perceives them



asbestos suit on

Sparks

landkeeper wrote: »

do you really think that changing the terminology changes how joe public perceives them

Yes. Language shapes thought.

Besides, aren't you sick of seeing the PTB say the W word when talking about our firearms in the media and managing to convey that it's pronounced "weapon" but spelt "nutjob who's a heartbeat away from a shooting spree"?

landkeeper

no because i'm a realist and know that most people know that my 'firearm' is a weapon and visa versa and that its not the actuall object that does the harm but the nut behind the but or the wife with the knife !!!!
and that being nicey nicey about what it's called makes not one jot of difference in the greater scheme of things .

Sparks

landkeeper wrote: »

no because i'm a realist

Then be a realist and ask "do journalists know or care about what I do, or is their job to sell advertising space with a demographic that wants to read about dunblane and nutters" and then ask "would half the stupid things I have to do today to get my licence be there if we had a better public image"?

most people know that my 'firearm' is a weapon and via versa

(a) Mine's not, so don't call it that please; and
(b) "most people" don't know a firearm from a hole in the ground.
The total number of people who have ever seen one for themselves in this country is something along the lines of one in ten people. The total number who know anything about firearms (anything that's correct at any rate) is far lower.

"Most people" take their information on topics they know nothing about from the media; and the words the media use matter because of that.

and that being nicey nicey about what it's called makes not one jot of difference in the greater scheme of things .

It's not about being nicey nicey. It's the complete opposite. In fact, it's you who's being nicey nicey by thinking that Joe Average knows what's what.

Calling a firearm a firearm and being careful about your public image is about being realisitic, pragmatic, and generally convinced that Joe Average is a mouth-breathing idiot who gets his view of the world from listening to Joe Duffy but who still gets to vote for unscrupulous politicians who would ban your firearms just to gain a few extra votes at the next election. Until there's more shooters than non-shooters in the electorate, we can't afford the sense of entitlement that you need to ignore public opinion and public image.

landkeeper

sorry lad but i live in a rural community where almost everyone knows what a weapon is be it a shotgun or a rifle , their brother/husband/father/uncle /etc etc etc shot have shot or will shoot , if you ask them what a firearm is they would look at you as if you had two heads
1in 10 are you sure sound extremely low to me
i don't know what you shoot so i won't comment on what you want to call your firearm , but please don't berate people when they call theirs what they wish to
prehaps if we were a little more sensible and less sensitive in our approach to terminology then joe average wouldn't be upset by the use of certain words

i know lets just call them guns everyone knows what one of those is

dCorbus

It's not really a PC v's Non-PC thing IMO.
The use of the word "weapon" in this context and in modern usage implies an intention and purpose to inflict damage and / or physical harm. Whilst my rifles may very well be designed to potentially inflict damage and / or physical harm, that is neither my intention nor the purpose to which I put them. So in the context of my usage and intentions towards my firearms, they are not weapons - they are firearms, sporting guns, sporting firearms, whatever - but they are not weapons.

They would become weapons the instant I intended to use them for the purpose of inflicting damage and / or physical harm.

Whilst, strictly speaking, we should be able to call all firearms "weapons" (as this is an accurate and dictionary-correct use of the definition), the context in which the word is used, it's modern usage, and the connotations which may be implied or inferred from the use of the word should also be taken into consideration - and that's why I personally prefer not to use the word "weapon" to refer to my own rifles or others, and why I prefer that others don't refer to them as such either.

For examply, I have a knife - I don't ever refer to it as a weapon, it's a tool, a piece of equipment, a knife, cutlery, etc. - but if my intentions when using it where to inflict damage or physical harm, then it's a weapon and can rightly be described as such.

Although, one other slightly pedantic way of looking at this would be: Not all weapons are offensive weapons, under our laws (ref. Firearms & Offensive Weapons Act 1990):

"weapon of offence" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

Under that particular bit of legislation, it's only a "weapon of offence" if the actions are toward a person, so the inflicting of damage and harm to an animal or a piece of paper doesn't come into consideration of that definition.

It's also interesting to note (kind of) that it is the "Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act" - This would lead me to infer that a firearm is not by the legal definition deemed to be, automatically, a "weapon of offence" (i.e. an offensive weapon), but only becomes a weapon if intended to cause injury to a person. For example, a shotgun is not made for causing injury to or incapacitating a person - it's made for shooting ducks, rabbits, foxes, etc.

Sparks

landkeeper wrote: »

sorry lad but i live in a rural community where almost everyone knows what a weapon is be it a shotgun or a rifle

Or a slash hook or a rolling pin or a car.
"Weapon" is something used to harm someone else. At a stretch, something else like a deer or other quarry, but that is pushing the definition a bit.
Just because they know it doesn't automatically mean it's right.
And while I'd love to live in a place where you could call a firearm a weapon or any other term without negative side-effects or inferrals, I don't. And you don't either, unless your rural community is a seperate country from Ireland.

1in 10 are you sure sound extremely low to me

220,000 firearms licences before the new licencing system (we don't know the current number yet as the new system's not fully in place).
Approximately 190-200,000 people licenced. Plus their spouses/families. Their friends who see their firearms are generally people they shoot with because you generally don't go to the pub or your school reunion with a firearm over your shoulder. So double the number, for a rough estimate of how many folk see a firearm day-to-day, and add a few for the members of the PDF/RDF who don't own their own (and would thus be in the 200,000 or so). You get 400-500,000 people in a population of about 4.5 million. So roughly one in ten to one in nine people.

We're a small group when seen against the overall population. That's just a cold fact we have to deal with.

i don't know what you shoot so i won't comment on what you want to call your firearm , but please don't berate people when they call theirs what they wish to

Can I berate them when their wilful ignorance of: the general ignorance of Joe Average; the unscrupulousness of TD Average; and the advertising sales of the Average Times, manages to eliminate my right to medical confidentiality in order to own an olympic air rifle so I can take part in my sport? Or gets me and the others in our community portrayed by the Minister as being only a bad mood away from walking into a school to commit an atrocity like Dunblane?

Sparks

landkeeper wrote: »

i know lets just call them guns everyone knows what one of those is

Works for me. The navy and artillery lads disagree, but I can live with that
Firearm, gun, shotgun, airgun, air rifle, air pistol, rifle, pistol - those are all perfectly fine and frankly, far more accurate terms anyway.

dCorbus

please don't berate people when they call theirs what they wish to

Fair enough, call it what you want to.
But would the word "gun" not suffice (it has far lesser aggressive and violent connotations, than the word weapon)?

No-one's berating anyone here AFAIK - Just suggesting / arguing for the use of a different word, which has less potential connotations of aggressivity and violence, in the perception of the general non-shooting public.

Just because "everyone" calls it a weapon (which they don't IMO), doesn't mean we should?

My rifles are not "weapons" - fullstop!
They are potential weapons - but that's an entirely different ball of wax.

if you ask them what a firearm is they would look at you as if you had two heads

Come now, I think the average man / woman on the streets of Ireland has an educational standard which would at least be at the level which would provide them with an understanding of the word "firearm"?:rolleyes::D

i live in a rural community where almost everyone knows what a weapon is

I live in an urban community where everyone most definitely knows what a weapon is - And it's not what I have sitting in my gunsafe, or as you'd put, my weapon-safe (or is it my arsenal, weapon-locker, or emergency-supply-cabinet?:rolleyes::D)

their brother/husband/father/uncle /etc

Hmmmmm, that's very telling - what about their sister/wife/mother/aunt, or is it only the men in your area that have weapons? (Some freudian analysis anyone?):D:D:rolleyes:

dCorbus

its not the actuall object that does the harm but the nut behind the but or the wife with the knife

So, by that definition, a block of nice mature parmesan cheese is equally a weapon, and should in all cases be referred to as such, just because one could, if one was so inclined, beat in the head of a person with said cheese?

Or does it only become a weapon when wielded as one?

See, what i mean? It's the intention not the equipment.:D

FISMA

Being a bit picky, I dislike it when people say crosshairs when they mean reticle.

All crosshairs are reticles but not all reticles are crosshair.

deerhunter1

dCorbus wrote: »

Yeah, right!:rolleyes::D
With what? A feckin' mortar?:D

That's a good one!

Mortar wont go Five miles:rolleyes:

BELOWaverageIQ

I always bring my "weapon" with me with as many "rounds of bullits" when I go out to "catch" "fallow Stags"

Sparks / d'corbus ...
Lads...... Your going to get wrist strain with all that typing !

:D:D

Tackleberrywho

Referring to a rifle as a gun

This is my rifle, this my Gun..........

Sparks

BELOWaverageIQ wrote: »

Sparks / d'corbus ...
Lads...... Your going to get wrist strain with all that typing !

Blame the nuns. They insisted everyone had to learn to touchtype up to about 70wpm back when I was doing my inter cert (I think they'd not yet figured out that their school had just gone co-ed ). And on manual typewriters to boot - I wound up breaking two keyboards when I hit college and started using PCs as a result of the finger muscles that gave you.

Grizzly 45

The "horns" of a deer.Antlers or blades or even shovels in the case of fallow bucks or moose.
The ducks feet..Paddles

The high powerd.22 sniper rifle.The 22 pump action shotgun,the AK16 the pump action semiautomatic double barrel.:eek: [Two Spas 12 or Benelli M4s joined together???]
The word "tactical" hung on everything as a market ploy,which has caused us no end of trouble here.
The "deadly.....chose whatever calibre or gun type! Usually followed or preceded by the worst journalistic Hack comment "tough new laws":rolleyes:

pedroeibar1

Stuff like this, from another thread.

not always possible to get an outright kill but you always have the second barrel for the finishing shot though i suppose you cant always depend on that either.
its very rare that the dogs be that close on the fox as it knows the pads its running and they usually start to run when they hear the dogs cumin.the safety of the dogs always cum first

newby.204

The one i most hate, with a passion, generally said by idiots, and not exclusively in the non-shooting community either!!

"Sniper Rifle"

why the f$$k is it automatically a "snipers rifle" because theres a scope on it!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

kay 9

dCorbus wrote: »

Yeah, right!:rolleyes::D
With what? A feckin' mortar?:D

That's a good one!

I thought it was fair funny too D, was laughin in me gut but didn't have it in me to laugh aloud at such an innocent person. No use in telling them nor teaching such people either, it doesn't work and wont work. They keep coming up with such out of this world b*******;)

Tackleberrywho

FISMA

I think they were just slapped together in the Bourne pic.

Movie props are a major annoyance for me, especially when one can see the blank firing adaptors on machine guns :D:D