My dad just bought a new hand cannon from Bass Pro yesterday and they let him walk out with it. Gun box in one hand, ammo box in the other. He said they did call the FBI and got instant approval (he always did have better credit than me!) so I guess my five day wait was just a fluke.

I took my wife shooting (well, I went shooting and she was there) and it was a rather cold day. She stood there for about two minutes, fired off approximately ONE shot, then complained about the gun (Marlin-60 .22LR) being too heavy and the weather being too cold. That's been the extent of our shooting so far. So, if you're going to take your wife shooting, make sure it's a nice day.

She's been telling me for the longest time that the shotgun I keep under our bed is bad Feng Shui and I should move it. I tell her it's the best Feng Shui we have in our whole house and it'll move only after she learns to shoot it well enough to keep it farther away. I'm not concerned for her safety in our house, but knowing it's there, I'm pretty sure she'd make an unwelcome guest feel very unwelcome.

I am going to see if I have an old RG single action 22 around for her to plink with. If not, would like to get that old Ruger single action with the convertible cylinders, 22 & 22 mag. If you have never had a 10-22 before you are going to like it. Did you get walnut or brich stock? Doesn't make it shoot any better but those walnut stocks lookk good. Used to collect steyr rifles unusual, but with double set triggers excellent sear. I used to use an old 22 rem. bolt action for popping squirrels in my backyard (they were eating all my pecans and depriving me of peecan pie ingredients), right here in the middle of town using shorts. Never a complaint from the neighbors. Used to have a Mark II bull barrel with a Ciener hush puppy on it, but it was stolen. Very quiet, would use rat shot in it to remove pigeons but it didn't cycle very well. Great for in town use, local police that patrolled our neighborhood would come over and pop a few rounds with it. Also have a few toys left from my Class III days, mostly rust collectors now. Had a chance to get a m-60 cheap should have, but opted for antique class III stuff. Mistake. Wanted a Beretta 9 with 3 shot burst but it was expensive back in 82' cost $1,250. Oh well life is full of regrets. Will see if Mama wants to shoot any of my old fun stuff, take a photo for her dad perhaps in a military pose.

I think you should buy her a Makarov to honor her culture...and they're quite nice.

The Kalashnikov is also a popular choice!

I do like my 10/22 already. First one. I've had a Marlin-60 for years and it's a blast to shoot, but it's tube fed, so I had to get the 10/22 in order to do some mag changes. The very reason I bought it is to practice military style shooting in a more affordable package. I have a Colt MT-6601 (AR-15) and I'm running my Ruger in a similar set up. I installed some Tech Sites (which are basically the same as the M-16A2 sites) and a polymer stock with a pistol grip so it feels a lot like my AR. It doesn't shoot quite like it yet.....

With the 10/22 I'm hoping to be able to teach my wife and others to shoot. She was a little too young for the Red Army and missed the "Grenade Toss/AK-47 shooting day" in gym class. (She did have to pick potatoes though!) so I'm going to have to show her the basics. I built my 10/22 to be a Liberty Training Rifle (check out http://www.rwva.org for more on building an LTR and what Appleseed is all about) and hopefully I'll get to do some training on it. Last time it was too cold outside so maybe next time it'll get graced by a woman's touch.

Sure wish I had an M-60. What an awesome gun! I remember asking my mom to buy me one for Christmas when I was 12. She said, "NO WAY!" and I remember arguing with her for hours over why a 12-year-old needed a belt fed machine gun. Needless to say I lost that one but about six years later my Uncle gave me one. I had to give it back, but it sure was fun to play with. The 240Bs are cool too, but they don't "feel" like the pig. Nothing feels like the pig. I still remember reporting to my first yard and one of the head NCOs was standing around taking roll or something and one of the new guys was cleaning his M-60. He pulled out the buffer retaining yoke (for those not in the know, it's a little piece in the back of the gun that holds the buffer, which is under spring tension, in place) without holding the buffer and that sucker went flying across the room and hit the NCO right on top of his foot. It not only scuffed his boot, but made him wince and cry out in front of all of us, which shattered his pride. He quickly recovered and to put it mildly, conducted some very extensive "refresher training."

you was calvin from calvin and hobbs when you were growing up, right?
yeah them 60 springs are a bear. even worse on the m-2 "maw duece" .50 cal.

Maw duece was also one of my favorites. When you lubricate a gun by pouring motor oil on it and watching it catch on fire, and then shoot through that.... it's pretty spectacular. Shooting a machine gun that's on fire. There are only a few things in the world better than that!

Amen brother, amen. Been there...a peak experience.

Want to really get a military hardware high...sit in and fire a Quad-Fifty.

Isn't that an anti-aircraft gun similar to a ZSU? I suspect you can lay a hell of a field of fire with quad fiftys on infantry. Can you imagine a sapper running the gauntlet when faced with something like 50s zinging around? Saw a Barrett at a recent gun show. Had a friend with one who was an ex-seal, never did get to pop one off. If memory serves me correctly it is single shot but I could be mistaken. Heavy sucker though. Did you see any fuel-air bombs used in Nam? I heard that they were especially effective for clearing LZs, but came late in the war.

There's nothing left of sappers when .50s are zinging around!

Quad-50 would be very cool. I understand it's possible to shoot one at the Knob Creek shoots when they hold them. I've seen several of the old guys on TV talk about the quads and the look in their eye, the grin on their face, it doesn't get much better than that. The closest I've seen to that is probably the ball turret gunners but they usually had the "crazy" look too, that look that says, "I survived... but just barely! And not because I had the best equipment or I was the best shot or had the best training.... but I was the luckiest SOB out there!"

I too got to mess with the Barretts at a gun show recently. They have two basic models; one is single shot bolt action, the other is semi-auto. Either way, they're extra heavy and not so cheap. I actually had the money to buy one a few years ago (reenlistment bonus from my Uncle) and was going to "invest" the money in buying one. After some careful evaluation, I decided I really didn't need a $8,000 rifle sitting under my bed. Well, that and they were on about a year backorder so I would've had to wait for it anyway. The Barretts are one of those rifles that send up a little red flag at the J. Edgar Hoover building. Whenever there's a 4473 with an M-82A1 on it, they tend to ask, "So, what are you going to do with your .50cal?" I had a good answer already picked out. "Plinking."

The Quad 50 is kind of like what we used to call pom-pom guns...only I think there were only 2 guns not 4. I think they were like 20 millimeter shells. The Q50 was used for base defense most...yes to ward off sapper attacks. I never heard of fuel-air bombs unless you're talking about what we called Foo Gas mines we used to put around the perimeter. Kind of like napalm in a small barrel.

No, I remember fuel air bombs as being a mixture of atomized nape or gasoline that is igntied with a terrrible whomp, maybe I am just dreaming or in my old age forgot. Interesting about the quads used as ground suppression you would have to have a big pair to advance in the face of those babies kicking mud and buffalo dung in your face. I think I would have been cowering, don't thing I would have made a good VC, too claustrophobic for tunnels, and wouldn't want to get a hole in my chest the size of my fist because some zampolit was urging us forward. When the M-16 was first introduced in VN in the early 60's as the stoner system they were supposedly a fierce weapon and a lot lighter to hump than a M-14, and the weight of ammo, yikes. The VC called them black death sticks, and a .223 bulet that hit a branch or leaf had a tendency to tumble. Heard of wounds with a M-16 that literally took a guy's arm off because the bullet tumbled. Also heard Uncle Sam later changed the powder in the cartridges from IMR to something else that burned a little hotter, ergo increased the rate of fire up to 600+ rds. minute. Side effect, it burned dirty and fouled the gas port, causing troops to try to dislodge jams with their cleaning kit. Much disgust and some folks started carrying AKs. Don't know the truth of it, but heard rumors of folks being overrun and the burial detail finding M-16s strewn around with cleaning rods stuck in them.

I heard a story once of a dead doctor being found with the operator's manual in one hand and the M-16 in the other. His base was about to be overrun and he had never fired a weapon before. He couldn't figure it out so he started reading the instructions. By that time, it was too late.


Went to an Appleseed (www.rwva.org) this weekend and there were a whole bunch of ARs running .223, a few Mini-14s, and several M-1s with the big ol' .30cal. Quite a few 10/22s as well since it's marksmanship training. My little brother even shot the course with his lever action Henry rifle. Great time had by all, and if you've never heard of it, check it out. It's a lot of fun and it's a great organization with a real purpose that's necessary today more than ever.

Originally, in the Army's infinite wisdom, they did not issue cleaning kits with M-16s!

When I met my wife, she was making $500 per month as the marketing and advertising Manager of a very large automobile dealership that sells only expensive cars like BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Ford, VW. this amount of money is way above the average and she lived a very, very comfortable life including travel to Spain, Bali, and other foreign places that most Russians could never think of going. If you are sending her $600 per month, she should have no problem inpaying for her own translation, and train tickets without any extra money, unless she is spending it very frivolously. Also, to refuse to talk to someone that can adviser her about the process and to save YOU some money is just a big RED flage. It is my opinion that at the worst she is just scamming you. At best, she doesn not hear you and respect you and your situation. If it was me, i would move on. But you must decide for yourself.

Good Luck!

Just out of curiosity, what city was she living in?

She was living in Saratov.

If you're supporting yourself completely and not living with your family, 600$ is not enough to live a very, very comfortable life in a larger city like moscow or spb. it's twice the average salary in spb, but if you're not paying rent, that's an extra 800+ you're not worrying about. so it all depends where you're living and what the circumstances are...

That's not enough money for my wife to survive on here.

I'm not really sure how she correlates the life she had there and the life she has here as being one-in-the-same, for the same price, but somehow, she tries. And then she tells me I don't work enough.

"So let me get this straight... you make way more than what you made there, I work too, but yet we still don't have nearly enough money for us to live a happy life?"

Images of grandeur......

Yes, I realize that Moscow and SPB are more expensive places to live, however she was living okay, but maybe not wonderfully before she started receiving $600/month. So the $600 really is a windfall. That together with the fact that she refuses to seek or listen to wisdom from others on how to use what she has to better advantage tells me that something is very wrong with this picture. My wife would always seek advice and look for cheaper or better ways to accomplish what needed to be accomplished.

Also let me add that my wife was supproting her daughter and her mother on her $500/month and to some extent her brother who did not make near what she was making. She paid for everything for at least 3 people. Apartment, food, clothing, etc.

Yes, of course, $500/ month is nothing here in the US. My wife is not yet working and I am sure I am giving and spending much more than $500/month on her. Life is much more complicated here in the US.

If you're sending your girl $600/month in Russia, then you're paying for everything. (And probably for her "friend's" stuff too.)

Don't worry, once she gets here, she'll ask for a raise. Even if she has a job making over $1,000/month, she'll still tell you it's not enough. Even if you pay all the bills, it's still not enough.

It's never enough.

No matter how much money you have, you still should have more. Or, she should still have more. anyway.

You can find a woman in the US that will spend all your money and complain it is never enough.

I really think it depends on a girl

It does depend on the girl. My wife is very frugal about shopping...most of the time she looks at the price on something, says it's too expensive, and puts it back. This is especially the case if she could get a similar item in Ukraine for less than it costs here. I usually have to convince her that relative to salaries here it's not expensive before I can get her to buy.

I think "theoretically" two people can live almost as cheap as one. Some costs are fixed regardless of the number of people like rent, utilities, etc.

And i think many Russian women are frugal and/or clever shoppers and bargain hunters. BUT there are two areas where the Russian ladies seem to like to spend money...clothes and beauty items. I look at it this way...if their going to spent money to look great, I'm on board for the most part...but i do think sometimes you have to set some limits.

No kidding. My wife is making over 2k a month and manages to spend it all without contributing to the household expenses.

Although it seems true, it's really not. Almost is correct. Rent goes up with an increased number of people. You can't live in a one bedroom (in the U.S.) with four kids. You can't save money on electric and gas when your wife is always cold and/or holding the refrigerator door open to look for more vegeatables. And even if you get to the point where she's trained to open and close the door quickly, wear a sweater and tapochki, and to be aware of how much a trip in the car costs (using 3 gallons of gas to buy $2 in vegetables is outrageous.) at some point, she's still going to want to "upgrade" from your crappy apartment (or house) to a nicer one in a nicer part of town.

That said, as much as they b!tch about never having enough money, they do seem to find a way to get what they want, usually by foregoing something "necessary" (like $100 facial cream) in order to get something more "necessary." (like going out for a nice dinner on the weekend with that same $100 justifying it by saying that it's good for her spirit.)



There should be limits set. If you were to compare health/beauty items and clothing expenditures in relation to household income, you could probably ballpark it to what a small country's military spending would be in relation to it's GDP. It's amazing to consider that whole percentages of your household income will be spent on tubes of cream and the like. However, my wife has convinced me that it is necessary for both her short term happiness and her long term "maintenance."

"If you want that I be beautiful after 20 years, I must use this cream now. It is necessary. You don't understand?"

I think it's very hard for us dudes to empathize with the ladies in this aspect. 20 years on, we're worried about where we're going to fish or play golf, and they're worried about how many wrinkles theyr'e going to have. One thing that's helped me to not be so irritated over the money spent on beauty stuff is to look at it like an investment similar to what I would be doing to retire somewhere nice or have something nice when I'm older. I work my @$$ off at my job so someday I can have the kind of salary where I can live comfortably when I'm retired and do what I want to do. That's the sacrifice I make. She works her @$$ off at her job so when she's retired her @$$ is still as fantastic as it is now. That's her sacrifice.

I don't try to compare them. It's apples and oranges and you'll go cross-eyed if you try to.



And this is the problem.

The money we (the dudes importing the women) make is for bills and expenses. The money she makes is for her personal expenses.

My money is "our" money and her money is "her" money. It seems budgeting and paying bills is understood, just not adhered to and overridden by the need for "her" stuff (at that time.) The way it's been explained to me here is that it's the husband's job to support the wife no matter what. He should pay for everything. EVERYTHING. That's his job. It's hard enough for her to stay as fashionable and beautiful as she is already without breaking her back to pay the bills. That's your job!

(The antidote that I've found for this is to place a large portion of both of our paychecks onto one of the credit/debit cards and to use it to pay all the bills and expenses. Then, when it's time to make a major shopping trip, "Sorry, there's only $23 left on the card. Can you find something you want for only $23? No? Didn't think so. That's too bad. How about next month, after we pay the rent, gas, electric, phone, cellphones, insurance, both car payments, and buy groceries, then we'll go shopping! How about that?" Then you're going to get in trouble because you're not doing husband job of paying all bills and why she must work like papa karlo cinderella blat and not have money for her stuff blat. The argument will always come down to you not doing husband job after you shut her up with the explanation that 50% of monthly expenses is still more than what she brings in. You still can't win. Logic does not apply. See above. Apples and oranges and you're going to go cross-eyed. Just think of her nice bum in 20 years. All that cream will work, right?)

Yep, I'd rather buy a 70$ anti-aging cream now than plastic surgery later. Preventative care is where it's at.

And that's the part that's hard for us guys to get. Why do you need $70 anti-aging cream when Walgreens has it for $4.99?

I understand now. It took a while for the wife to sell me on this point, but the difference is Sofia Loren and Joan Rivers.

the walgreens one is made for women in their forties and fifties and would burn my face off, and i'd rather have wrinkles later than look like Two Face now. my chanel cream was specifically engineered for women in their 20s and is made with flowers from madagascar or something.

Or so they say!

We have a few French cosmetics here that are also AUX PLANTES, and they don't look or smell any different then the MADE WITH REAL ALOE $1 bottle of "hand lotion" that I bought at CVS, the one I use to keep my typing fingers all nimble and junk. That's the real reason there's a big bottle of lotion by my computer. Yeah. I actually had to tell that story one time... anyway, different story for a different day. Although it just further corroborates the posted topic. The $1 bottle of "hand lotion" is far inferior to the $8 bottle of name-brand "moisturizer" so I'm in total agreement here. I guess that's probably about the best "guy perspective" on cosmetics that I can bring to the table.

well, one makes my face turn totally red and burn, and the other doesn't, so i'll stick with AUX PLANTES for now

What's REALLY amazing are stereotypes.

So you won't agree that stereotypes are rooted in reality?

Or are we back on the stereotypes vs. generalizations debate?

I am with Slim on this. Although stereotypes are clearly not PC, they hold a lot of truth. e.g., in the year I lived in Kazan', well over 90% of all the Russian men I met fit the stereotype.

Ditto.

Of course I do. But I also think that statements like the one in the OP and all they imply are foolish and ridiculous, and at the end of the day, really do not SAY anything. I mean, really - "Russian girls are amazing". Really? One could just as well say:

American girls are amazing.
British girls are amazing.
Polish girls are amazing.
Czech girls are amazing.
Chinese girls are amazing.

They're all fairly empty statements.

i think before we go saying they are amazing, we need a wet t-shirt contest first to pick a winner.

Russian t-shirts are amazing!

Yes, if you buy them in Moscow a large shrinks to a small, and the heavier t-shirts with that beautiful Hind helicopter on it rips. Yes they are amazing, amazingly cheap! Now what is really amazing are its churches. You have to go a long ways to find as ornately decorated places of worship. And Red Square is amazing. And the women, beyond compare, or if you want, amazing.

Guess what? The creams and things do not work. My wife is 44, soon to be 45 and she looks GREAT! I have bought all the majic creams and stuff and she has been talking about the "need" for plastic surgery. Of course, this is wehere I must draw the line. Truly, I am afraid that plastic surgery will make her look worse. It never will end. She also says that here in the USA there is not a salon anywhere like in Russia that can do a real facial.

All of the clothes I bought in Russia are just as nice as the ones I bought in the US, and the same brands as I normally buy in the USA. You just need to know what to buy.

uh... are you sure it was a Hind? I've never heard beauty and Hind being used in the same sentence.



My wife also told me that without using chemicals to burn the outer layer of skin off the face (which will grow back after a week or so with fresh, new, beautiful skin.... WTF?) a true facial can never be had. She's checked around, and no one, thus far, will do that treatment. She said we'll have to return to Russia to get that done.

I'll be dammmed if my $70 face cream and those countless hours I've spent sitting in that uncomfortable chair at the fragrance counter while she gets all that stuff done at the mall goes to waste. There's no way I'm letting them burn all that off. My hard work, blood, sweat and tears have gone into that face. She's keeping the skin she's in.

She's talking about a chemical peel. Here, they're done at a dermatologist's or plastic surgeon's office and it's not considered a "facial." But usually they're done on women much older than her and it will be very, very expensive...
maybe best to keep this information from her.

It's true, Eekee! All you have to do is be careful. Feel the fabric and have a good look and you can tell the quality. I got some very nice bargains on some sweaters and shoes. I miss going to the street market. It was always a great hunt for something decent and at even more decent price.

What has happened to American women can be compared to the UAW union, Changes were needed but they took it too far. Now we are looking to other countries for better quality and something made to last forever!

If she's willing to "burn" her face off repeatedly...just imagine what she would do to yours! Best not to upset her in my opinion.