Quarterbore.Net Forums

Home · Search · Register

» Number of comments : 77 - viewing 10 Per Page

Last Comment by Harvest123 - Posted Date: Wed January 18, 2012 4:02pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 432 x 424 Views: 1434 Filesize: 10kb

Does this have an AR upper for it? Ballistics, etc? I am interested Rating: 10.00

Photo Details: "7mm ARk" by kurtz - Posted Date: Fri October 22, 2010 - Rating: 10.00

Last Comment by Harvest123 - Posted Date: Wed January 18, 2012 4:00pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 400 x 372 Views: 2951 Filesize: 25kb

This touches my heart. If we could just teach the Racoon! They have thumbs, and are smarter than 20% of the population!

Photo Details: "My daughters favorite photo" by sleeper - Posted Date: Mon May 8, 2006 - Rating: 10.00

Last Comment by pjbusche@newnorth.net - Posted Date: Sat October 1, 2011 4:48pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 1100 x 825 Views: 2143 Filesize: 90kb

Regardless of their use with subsonic loads for the .300 Whisper, both of these are likely good choices for 7.62x39 loads in the Ruger Mini-30. Rating: 10.00

Photo Details: "Speer: 125gr TNT vs 130gr Hot Cor" by Fudmottin - Posted Date: Fri March 13, 2009 - Rating: 10.00

Last Comment by pjbusche@newnorth.net - Posted Date: Sat October 1, 2011 4:42pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 432 x 424 Views: 1434 Filesize: 10kb

I really like the looks of this one. Can you tell me any more about the 7mm ARk? I think it would be pretty good as a deer-hunting cartridge. Rating: 10.00

Photo Details: "7mm ARk" by kurtz - Posted Date: Fri October 22, 2010 - Rating: 10.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue August 30, 2011 12:24pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 469 x 800 Views: 210 Filesize: 305kb

This illustration derives from the Griffin Patent, # 1480, dated 1869 and issued in London, England. Though Davis does not cite this particular art in '420, it was studied while composing patent language. This information is offered so as to further prove Davis' intent that a connecting rod could be used to accomplish invention described in Patent 4,458,420. In concept, it is much the same as Dickerman, which is in fact "cited".

Photo Details: "" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Sat August 27, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Sat August 27, 2011 11:55am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 756 x 800 Views: 344 Filesize: 279kb

Here gentlemen, is concrete proof that patent 4,458,420 fully addresses use of a "rod, tang connecting" for use as a shear pin means (as per claim #1, 4,458,420). The specially shaped tang of Dickerman is almost identical to current M-9. Dickerman tang/rod allows '420 to fully anticipate the current M-9 construction. All prior art cited by Davis comes about due to his free choice, and is carefully selected so as to define the invention of patent 4,458,420. Not one single portion of the document was forced upon me, including the exact title. Every bit of it represents free, intentional choice, so as to adequately describe and protect invention. It is generally understood that a patent document defines what is invented, not the opposite. Here is evidence that Davis associated the M-9 hilt assembly with impact resistance & modularity, long before Charles Albert Finn ever even thought about it. Whatever entitles Finn to such rod, establishes Davis' prior claim, especially if such M-9 rod is proven to function according to Davis' clevis, and descriptions of it. Destructive scientific tests are required in this regard. Adequate results of such tests have been sent to Super Moderator Bill Porter (via U.S. mail, over one year ago). Finn cites Davis in his '356, meaning the M-9 cannot selectively shear, without infringing Davis, who is equally entitled to Dickerman---as means of selective, repairable shear. Since the current M-9 DOES provide selective, repairable shear, conjoined with modularity, it infringes Davis. (In other words, Davis is entitled to have '420 lawfully applied to the M-9, and when done, claim #1 is determined to fully describe M-9 operation.) (The M-9/Finn patent cites Davis---therefore the M-9 cannot provide selective, repairable shear, without infringing Davis '420.) It is to be further understood that M-9 configu ration (method of construction) simultaneously provides required modularity from those same elements providing impact resistance. Technical Note: Dickerman rod is number 18, towards right end of figures 1 & 2. Dickerman emphasizes a rod, and prominently features a specially shaped, threaded tang within a substantially hollow grip---as would receive a rod ---generally the same as M-9. The Dickerman pommel holds rod fast with pin, so it may be extended through bore, and threaded onto the tang by turning said pommel.

Photo Details: "Prior Art/Davis/U.S. Patent 4,458,420" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Sat August 27, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Sport Polo Shirts - Posted Date: Sat July 16, 2011 4:07am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 936 x 259 Views: 4750 Filesize: 86kb

It's not genuinely a query that pursuits me getting truthful mate. you understand the very first term I mentioned when I saw the logo for that website was a superb start I believe. I can't wait around both . ^^ I also want to have a match on the appearance is a T-shirt with it

Photo Details: "4th Generation Phrobis M9 Bayonet - Narrow Font" by Quarterbore - Posted Date: Wed December 20, 2006 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Thu June 30, 2011 8:18am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 826 x 1100 Views: 835 Filesize: 112kb

Who was the first person to approach the original M-9 manufacturer with an impact resistant, modular hilt, "designed for the purpose of fighting"?

Photo Details: "correspondence/original M-9 manufacturer" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Mon January 24, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Thu June 30, 2011 8:16am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 847 x 1100 Views: 473 Filesize: 71kb

Who was the first person to approach the U.S. Army with a "state-of-the-art", impact resistant, modular hilt?

Photo Details: "Correspondence; U.S. Army; U.S. Patent 4,458,420" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Mon June 13, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 2:52pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 618 x 800 Views: 422 Filesize: 221kb

Letter Requirement (LR) final page, bearing signatures of two U.S. Army Generals. The document outlines a schedule of events, beginning in the first quarter of 1986, thus establishing the Letter Requirement was completed during 1985. This final page also establishes that the USMC expressed interest in a new bayonet, thus evidencing extensive discussion, leading up to the creation of the "LR". In other words, many top ranking generals were talking. (Other documentation reveals completion date of November 1985.) This entire "Letter Requirement", and all that it establishes, was essentially ignored by U.S. Army Administrative Hearing, as were all other documents herein displayed. Moreover, U.S. Patent 4,458,420 was improperly interpreted and never fully applied to M-9 hilt operation.

Photo Details: "Letter Requirement" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Next Page »