Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Joisey
Have you noticed that you never hear from gunnies in New Jersey? Either as a blogger or a commenter. I don't read the forums as religiously as I could, but what I have persused has little showing from the Garden State.
You hear from folks in Illinois, New York (city, even!) and California, but not Jersey.
Are you out there, New Jersey gun enthusiasts?
I understand if you can't talk because the enemy is close aboard, but key your mike or something.
You hear from folks in Illinois, New York (city, even!) and California, but not Jersey.
Are you out there, New Jersey gun enthusiasts?
I understand if you can't talk because the enemy is close aboard, but key your mike or something.
Rank the States
Heinous gun control regimes spread their odoriferous ways in different ways, state to state. Some states are further along the path to tyranny than others. I was wondering, how would you rank them, with number one being the worst.
Illinois and New York are pretty bad, but mainly around the two dominant cities, New York and Chicago. Southern Illinois and upstate New York still have a thriving gun culture. Or is all of New York state as bad as the city?
Massachusetts is bad, but you can still GET a conceal carry permit. You can't in Wisconsin, but I bet there are much more gun friendly folks, otherwise, in WI.
Maryland is bad, but nearly as bad as New Jersey. Case in point: I can buy hollow point bullets anywhere.
Ok, here are the states. Rank them:
California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois , New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island. (I usually forget those last 2.)
Did I miss a bad state? And I don't want to hear "Indiana is a horrible state because I can't get a short barrel shotgun!" I WISH Maryland was as 'bad' as Indiana. I can, however, in MD, buy a sawed off shotgun after jumping through the standard NFA hoops...
nyah.
Illinois and New York are pretty bad, but mainly around the two dominant cities, New York and Chicago. Southern Illinois and upstate New York still have a thriving gun culture. Or is all of New York state as bad as the city?
Massachusetts is bad, but you can still GET a conceal carry permit. You can't in Wisconsin, but I bet there are much more gun friendly folks, otherwise, in WI.
Maryland is bad, but nearly as bad as New Jersey. Case in point: I can buy hollow point bullets anywhere.
Ok, here are the states. Rank them:
California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois , New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island. (I usually forget those last 2.)
Did I miss a bad state? And I don't want to hear "Indiana is a horrible state because I can't get a short barrel shotgun!" I WISH Maryland was as 'bad' as Indiana. I can, however, in MD, buy a sawed off shotgun after jumping through the standard NFA hoops...
nyah.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
October Range Report
I went to the range last week. It had been a while. Beginning of September maybe? No, it was the very end of August.
Here is target number one. .45 ACP is the ragged holes on the left, the clean holes from a hollow point on the right are .40, the 1911 and 229 respectively, all at 25 feet.
Check out the lower left!:
Not bad, hey? Well, no, not really. I was aiming for the target above. That's the bad news. I seem to have developed a wrist break. At least when I am rusty. But, note, they ARE centered. I've been working on improving the trigger pull.
The 229 had a wide, kinda centered, pattern. Not bad, but not good.
Once I settled down with the 1911 the groups tightened and got closer to the center for target 2:
The top 2 are 1911, bottom right Sig.
The last target I aimed at was the top right. The ones on the bottom were early in the string and still wrist breaking a bit (anticipating and compensating...) But later they all seemed to move up and toward the center. My trigger pull is getting much better when I can Zen it out. My standard flaw of 'low and right' from bad trigger work is much lessened, this time. Hopefully I can keep up with that kind of improvement.
It was an ACTUAL group on the top right. Kept clustering in the big hunk near the center on the last couple mags. I don't think the 1911 has been that good to me, to date.
Here is target number one. .45 ACP is the ragged holes on the left, the clean holes from a hollow point on the right are .40, the 1911 and 229 respectively, all at 25 feet.
Check out the lower left!:
Not bad, hey? Well, no, not really. I was aiming for the target above. That's the bad news. I seem to have developed a wrist break. At least when I am rusty. But, note, they ARE centered. I've been working on improving the trigger pull.
The 229 had a wide, kinda centered, pattern. Not bad, but not good.
Once I settled down with the 1911 the groups tightened and got closer to the center for target 2:
The top 2 are 1911, bottom right Sig.
The last target I aimed at was the top right. The ones on the bottom were early in the string and still wrist breaking a bit (anticipating and compensating...) But later they all seemed to move up and toward the center. My trigger pull is getting much better when I can Zen it out. My standard flaw of 'low and right' from bad trigger work is much lessened, this time. Hopefully I can keep up with that kind of improvement.
It was an ACTUAL group on the top right. Kept clustering in the big hunk near the center on the last couple mags. I don't think the 1911 has been that good to me, to date.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Lookie!
Look what came in the mail!
Not the SIG. Nor the book.
Yup, a Milt Sparks holster. Versa Max 2 with shark skin. They were thinking October delivery and sure enough, here she comes.
Pretty!
Not the SIG. Nor the book.
Pretty!
I'm so pleased. Can't wait to try it out in public. Golly it's nice. Initial forays from the living room to the kitchen show it to be confortable. Those snaps are one-ways. You have to roll them in just right to fully engage them
Here is a pic of ALL the holsters I have for the Sig P229 DAK:
The half leather one is a Comp Tac that works ok. And the paddle one is a Serpa. More of an open carry rig, that. Or IDPA if I ever thought about doing that stuff.
I am thinking of maybe getting another VM2 for a 1911 if I like how this one rides, though I kinda like something with a thumb break retention strap for the 1911. I'm a bit chicken that way. Hmm, I was thinking shoulder holster the other week... But Milt Sparks doesn't have a shoulder style. Stick with Galco. IF I go with shoulder.
I figure I need a few dozen more holsters, tho. All the gunnies with a lot more experience shooting have a drawer full of holster rejects. I'm look at YOU JayG.
Here is a pic of ALL the holsters I have for the Sig P229 DAK:
The half leather one is a Comp Tac that works ok. And the paddle one is a Serpa. More of an open carry rig, that. Or IDPA if I ever thought about doing that stuff.
I am thinking of maybe getting another VM2 for a 1911 if I like how this one rides, though I kinda like something with a thumb break retention strap for the 1911. I'm a bit chicken that way. Hmm, I was thinking shoulder holster the other week... But Milt Sparks doesn't have a shoulder style. Stick with Galco. IF I go with shoulder.
I figure I need a few dozen more holsters, tho. All the gunnies with a lot more experience shooting have a drawer full of holster rejects. I'm look at YOU JayG.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Safety Gizmos
I usually come down with Tam on useless extraneous features. But I don’t think a loaded chamber indicator is totally useless.
Yes, it certainly IS dangerous when you use it as a safety device and then rely on it to wantonly violate Rule 2 and 3 while thinking Rule 1 doesn’t apply cuz the indicator says so.
But let’s say you have a prowler in our basement at 2AM. You grab your blaster with a loaded chamber indicator. It’s too dark in your house to do a press check to see if there is a round there, and you don’t want to take off the rail light on your gun to look for brass in the pipe. The house is dim, but not so dim that your can’t shoot a bad guy (and at my house a guy in the basement at 2AM is NOT a good guy, guaranteed. Might not be the same at your house. It could just be your innocent son in law, so don’t air him out.) with your tritium sights and illuminating the area with the aforementioned rail light. You are pretty sure the gun has a round ready to go, as it always does, but you don’t KNOW. The loaded chamber indicator sits proud of the frame and you can feel that and be good to go.
Maybe. I guess the chamber indicator could be broken and shows a round where there ain’t one so when you confront the murderous meth-head in the basement you are gonna get that click instead of a boom.
So… maybe Tam IS right. Relying on gizmos is probably not ideal in any case.
And can a broken chamber indicator gimp an otherwise functioning weapon and make it fail? That would be bad. Like a failed internal lock could kill you with a click instead of a bang. I dislike internal locks, magazine safeties, and loaded chamber indicators on principle, but my dislike of the internal locks is a bit more acute…
I know, I know, the chances of the internal safety lock failing and rendering the gun unusable is vanishingly remote. You know what's more remote? Me pointing a gun at someone because the loaded chamber indicator is down. I still don't want either of them, or the magazine disconnect, on my shooting irons. Full stop.
Yes, it certainly IS dangerous when you use it as a safety device and then rely on it to wantonly violate Rule 2 and 3 while thinking Rule 1 doesn’t apply cuz the indicator says so.
But let’s say you have a prowler in our basement at 2AM. You grab your blaster with a loaded chamber indicator. It’s too dark in your house to do a press check to see if there is a round there, and you don’t want to take off the rail light on your gun to look for brass in the pipe. The house is dim, but not so dim that your can’t shoot a bad guy (and at my house a guy in the basement at 2AM is NOT a good guy, guaranteed. Might not be the same at your house. It could just be your innocent son in law, so don’t air him out.) with your tritium sights and illuminating the area with the aforementioned rail light. You are pretty sure the gun has a round ready to go, as it always does, but you don’t KNOW. The loaded chamber indicator sits proud of the frame and you can feel that and be good to go.
Maybe. I guess the chamber indicator could be broken and shows a round where there ain’t one so when you confront the murderous meth-head in the basement you are gonna get that click instead of a boom.
So… maybe Tam IS right. Relying on gizmos is probably not ideal in any case.
And can a broken chamber indicator gimp an otherwise functioning weapon and make it fail? That would be bad. Like a failed internal lock could kill you with a click instead of a bang. I dislike internal locks, magazine safeties, and loaded chamber indicators on principle, but my dislike of the internal locks is a bit more acute…
I know, I know, the chances of the internal safety lock failing and rendering the gun unusable is vanishingly remote. You know what's more remote? Me pointing a gun at someone because the loaded chamber indicator is down. I still don't want either of them, or the magazine disconnect, on my shooting irons. Full stop.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Hand Owies
THIS is where the gun hurts me.
Doesn't matter if it's double action semi-auto, or single action. Right there in the spot where the nail meets the skin in the corner of the finger tip.
It doesn't hurt their during dry fire practice. I think it's the fact that there is a tiny controlled explosion, that is quite forceful, right there in my hand and that's just the spot that rubs the most.
Where do you guys get your owies? Anyplace different?
I should probably tape up on BIG range days.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Why Eat?
For some reason, I am known as the local zombie expert at work (my day job, not my RoMERO job. Natch.) Someone asked me why zombies don't try to eat other zombies. And why do they eat people anyway.
Short answer: Who knows? Not nobody, that's who.
Long answer: Well, there are lots of theories.
Here are some:
Short answer: Who knows? Not nobody, that's who.
Long answer: Well, there are lots of theories.
Here are some:
- Zombies are hungry (though we don't how their metabolic process works) and other zombies are poisonous. Think about it. Would you eat rotten meat (zombies) or fresh meat on the 'hoof' (us)?
- They have a social taboo against cannibalism, just like humans do, and they are a separate species.
- A bite is how a the virus that make zombies is spread, and the virus evolved this vector for transmission by compelling the infected to bite. If it is a virus. Again, we don't know.
- They have the weight of a thousand hells bearing down on their shoulders, and are kinda disappointed that the living aren't in the same boat.
- They hurt, and brains makes the pain go away.
- They just plain mad. MEAN mad.
- Maybe they've been spending most of their lives living in a zombie paradise.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Zombiewalk Silver Spring
Tonite!
[and no, I'm not going. it might not be zombies. it might be foolish kids dressing UP as zombies on a lark. and if i shoot a bunch of kids in the head that might be a bad thing.]
[and no, I'm not going. it might not be zombies. it might be foolish kids dressing UP as zombies on a lark. and if i shoot a bunch of kids in the head that might be a bad thing.]
Friday, October 23, 2009
Zombieland
Some of you are probably wondering why I haven’t posted a review of Zombieland, the movie, yet.
It’s because I haven’t seen it. And I’m not gonna go to the theater to see it.
Think about it. That’s what the zombies WANT you to do. You’re in a crowded, dark room with limited access to exits. Chock filled with panicky civilians. It’s a death trap! A half dozen undead children could control a room full of 400 and treat it as a great big smorgasbord. Instead of buying popcorn on your way in, you would do them a great favor by just soaking in marinade before you left the house and then pour that butter-esque tropical-oil corn-topping over your head there at the movie house.
It’s already on the Netflix queue. I’ll watch it, from the safety of my bunker, when the DVD comes out.
It’s because I haven’t seen it. And I’m not gonna go to the theater to see it.
Think about it. That’s what the zombies WANT you to do. You’re in a crowded, dark room with limited access to exits. Chock filled with panicky civilians. It’s a death trap! A half dozen undead children could control a room full of 400 and treat it as a great big smorgasbord. Instead of buying popcorn on your way in, you would do them a great favor by just soaking in marinade before you left the house and then pour that butter-esque tropical-oil corn-topping over your head there at the movie house.
It’s already on the Netflix queue. I’ll watch it, from the safety of my bunker, when the DVD comes out.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Ask, and Ye Shall Receive
Well would you look at that. I start talking about National Review being a little too urban oriented with their gun outlook, (not hostile, just not too much on their radar) and they go ahead and post a 2nd Amendment article online today.
It's probably my huge influence on them that sparked the response. Yeah. That's what it is.
"New Jovian Thunderbolt: Neophyte shooter, Conservative POWER broker behind the scenes."
It's probably my huge influence on them that sparked the response. Yeah. That's what it is.
"New Jovian Thunderbolt: Neophyte shooter, Conservative POWER broker behind the scenes."
Hits and a Clairification
Yay, Tam linked to me (AND got my back). A Tamalanche is always good for the hit counter. And so did a nice Luddite guy I hadn’t read before that had some references to William F. Buckley’s actual public support for gun rights. Bully!
One commenter did think I was being derogatory to MetroCons. Perhaps he is right in that some might take away from my post that I was. I want to reassure him and others that I intended no such offense, and I apologize for not being clearer. On the contrary, MetroCons LOVE originalist judges, and apart from appointing ME a Senator of Maryland there is not much better for the cause of Second Amendment advocates than to get more originalist judges on the bench. And originalist judges are good for so many other things. In some separate universe where Ruth Bader Ginsberg is exactly as she is now, but pro-gun, I’d still be less than thrilled with most all of her non-gun rulings and find them detrimental to liberties I hold dear. And I have nothing but respect for the intellectual efforts and writings of Mark Levin. Also, his radio show can be entertaining, especially when he rants.
About the only Conservative type I actively dislike are the retrograde PaleoCons. But that is because of a distinct undercurrent of racism, classism, and anti-semitism inherent in that breed. They don’t oppose illegal aliens because of rule of law issues or their negative impact on public resources devoted to maintaining the welfare state or what have you, but because the skin of illegal aliens is often brown in color. Ick. Heck, PaleoCons are quite often anti-gun in that they want to keep arms out of the hands of what they consider ‘lesser’ peoples, often the poor and non-white. And the left tries to paint the REST of the conservative types with the flaws of the Paleos. I’d be happier if they just went back to being Democrats if they took their taint with them.
But the rest of the types are fitting just fine in the big tent as far as I’m concerned. Buckley’s efforts in the 50’s are a big reason why PaleoCon types were and are marginalized, along with the KookyCons (Flouridated water is a Commie plot to sap our vital fluids!), and why all the divergent Conservative types are pulling on the oars in the same direction (or mostly the same direction…)
One commenter did think I was being derogatory to MetroCons. Perhaps he is right in that some might take away from my post that I was. I want to reassure him and others that I intended no such offense, and I apologize for not being clearer. On the contrary, MetroCons LOVE originalist judges, and apart from appointing ME a Senator of Maryland there is not much better for the cause of Second Amendment advocates than to get more originalist judges on the bench. And originalist judges are good for so many other things. In some separate universe where Ruth Bader Ginsberg is exactly as she is now, but pro-gun, I’d still be less than thrilled with most all of her non-gun rulings and find them detrimental to liberties I hold dear. And I have nothing but respect for the intellectual efforts and writings of Mark Levin. Also, his radio show can be entertaining, especially when he rants.
About the only Conservative type I actively dislike are the retrograde PaleoCons. But that is because of a distinct undercurrent of racism, classism, and anti-semitism inherent in that breed. They don’t oppose illegal aliens because of rule of law issues or their negative impact on public resources devoted to maintaining the welfare state or what have you, but because the skin of illegal aliens is often brown in color. Ick. Heck, PaleoCons are quite often anti-gun in that they want to keep arms out of the hands of what they consider ‘lesser’ peoples, often the poor and non-white. And the left tries to paint the REST of the conservative types with the flaws of the Paleos. I’d be happier if they just went back to being Democrats if they took their taint with them.
But the rest of the types are fitting just fine in the big tent as far as I’m concerned. Buckley’s efforts in the 50’s are a big reason why PaleoCon types were and are marginalized, along with the KookyCons (Flouridated water is a Commie plot to sap our vital fluids!), and why all the divergent Conservative types are pulling on the oars in the same direction (or mostly the same direction…)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Converted Another One
So yet ANOTHER work buddy said, out of the blue, “I’m pretty sure I’ll be getting a Ruger MkIII before years end… went looking at guns yesterday. It’s that or a .45. I think I need to measure my junk before I make my final choice.” This buddy is known affectionately as The Beard.
Frozen owns no guns. Frozen chats with me about guns. Frozen goes out and buys one. Then another. More.
Trollop owns no guns. Then Trollops chats with me about guns. Trollop goes out and buys one. Then another.
The Contrarian used to own guns, but hasn’t for years. Then he talks to me about guns, and decides he needs to get one again, now that he is divorced and there is no wife to complain.
And now, The Beard.
I even got ANOTHER work buddy to check out a few things. But he’s a former Marine. He didn’t need any extra encouragement where firearms are concerned. He is seriously thinking Enfield thanks to my guidance, tho, so there is that. He’s know as Coke Machine. Don’t ask how he got that nickname.
Chuckles and Corky were thinking about getting boomsticks just when I was, so I can’t take credit for theirs.
Not a bad record so far, if I do say so myself.
Gonna be a good day, Tater.
Frozen owns no guns. Frozen chats with me about guns. Frozen goes out and buys one. Then another. More.
Trollop owns no guns. Then Trollops chats with me about guns. Trollop goes out and buys one. Then another.
The Contrarian used to own guns, but hasn’t for years. Then he talks to me about guns, and decides he needs to get one again, now that he is divorced and there is no wife to complain.
And now, The Beard.
I even got ANOTHER work buddy to check out a few things. But he’s a former Marine. He didn’t need any extra encouragement where firearms are concerned. He is seriously thinking Enfield thanks to my guidance, tho, so there is that. He’s know as Coke Machine. Don’t ask how he got that nickname.
Chuckles and Corky were thinking about getting boomsticks just when I was, so I can’t take credit for theirs.
Not a bad record so far, if I do say so myself.
Gonna be a good day, Tater.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
MetroCons
Gun Owners, serious ones, are generally conservative. They may be socially liberal, certainly, but they are definitely taking a more conservative view of the US Constitution. For the 2nd Amendment, as well as all the others. And they want to limit the power of the government. Gun owners also have a libertarian bent. Also... generally.
There are other conservative types, and these are MASSIVE generalizations. PaleoConservative (a bit icky, and often racist, thankfully these are dying out for the most part.) Country Club Conservatives (they like the old social order and their position in it. They often also bleong to Rotary. Old style Blue Bloods.) NeoConservatives (used to be liberal, saw the light about 30-40 years ago.) Social Conservatives (sometimes they don't mind government power, especially when used advance their goals on abortion, homosexual issues, and church related stuff.) CrunchyCons (conservatives that are big into the environment and conservation. they often wear hemp and eat granola. They can look like a hippy while voting for a Reagan.) Many other types. FiscalConservatives, LibertarianConservative, Anti-CommieConservatives, SoutParkCosnervatives, &c. There is also the subject for my post: MetroCons. Metro-Conservatives.
MetroCons are folks that live in or grew up in urban or near urban areas and are conservative. Examples include Bill Buckley and the staff of National Review, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin. Conservative that don't reside in "Fly-Over Country."
Mark Levin came out with a book called Liberty and Tyranny that touched on all of the generally appealing principles of conservatives: Fiscal responsibility, low taxes, rule of law - NOT man, don't be beholden the Gaia religionist, elimination of a gov't monopoly on schooling/indoctrination, entitlement reform, a vigorous national defense policy to meet any outside threat, getting a handle on out of control illegal immigration ending gov't hostility to religion, and an almost absolute faith in the Constitution with an originalist interpretation.
He never once mentions guns. Mr. Levin is typical of most metrocons. Metrocons have probably never been deer hunting or to the range or even held a pistol in their hands. They certainly don't mention 2nd Amendment issue much on their shows and in their written columns. It's as if they don't care about gun issues one way or another. Being urban types, the gun activity around them is often of a criminal variety. If not to them, than a few blocks away to other people. Some metrocons are openly hostile to gun rights.
You can read National Review Online for months without seeing a reference to the 2nd amendment. Longer if no 2A cases work their way through the court system. Only one or two contributors shoots a self-defense handgun regularly or has in the past. And it is hard to blame them. By definition they LIVE in the city. And the 2 cities they live in are NY and DC. Neither are known for having lots of places to practice with your boomstick. Or having a boomstick in your house/apartment.
But even the hostile ones can be on 'our' side in the gun debate when you press them. Why? They are Constitutional Originalists. When rhetoric push comes to intellectual shove they line up on our side. Assuming you, the reader, is a single issue person that is concerned about RKBA issues only. And since this blog is about the aspects of ME that is RKBA it might seem that that is all I think about. Relax, dear reader, (all 3 of you) I am more nuanced that that. I just endeavor to stay on topic.
Metrocons might be hoplophobes, but they don't project their hoplophobia onto others.
Technically, I should be a Metrocon. I grew up in the suburbs and had relatively little contact with hunting and shooting growing up. My proclivities lead me to lean toward downtown, not out to the country. I liked the country, but preferred the conveniences of the city. Or close enough to the city. When looking at military service I eschewed Army like activities because I don't like sleeping in the mud. It's a big reason why I liked the Navy. My family did very little shooting growing up, and most of that was BB guns in tightly controlled situation with adult supervision at ALL times. Even when such supervision may not have been warranted. There is no reason whatsoever that I should be interested in firearms.
Had I been more rurally oriented my interest I have now would have happened 30 years ago. 30 years ago my interest was toward larger machines. Combat aircraft.
But better late then never. Getting my first deer 30 years ago might have been better, but hopefully I can correct that omission now.
Would I like it if MetroCons through their more rural minded brethren a Second Amendment bone? Yes. Do they have to? No. As long as they adhere to their philosophy regarding the Constitution they are still on our side. We'll worry about the fight between Metro-Cons and more rural Conservatives later, when it is no longer Democrats on the Left and the GOP on the right in Congress, but Metro-Cons on the Left and 'Rural'-Cons on the right there.
There are other conservative types, and these are MASSIVE generalizations. PaleoConservative (a bit icky, and often racist, thankfully these are dying out for the most part.) Country Club Conservatives (they like the old social order and their position in it. They often also bleong to Rotary. Old style Blue Bloods.) NeoConservatives (used to be liberal, saw the light about 30-40 years ago.) Social Conservatives (sometimes they don't mind government power, especially when used advance their goals on abortion, homosexual issues, and church related stuff.) CrunchyCons (conservatives that are big into the environment and conservation. they often wear hemp and eat granola. They can look like a hippy while voting for a Reagan.) Many other types. FiscalConservatives, LibertarianConservative, Anti-CommieConservatives, SoutParkCosnervatives, &c. There is also the subject for my post: MetroCons. Metro-Conservatives.
MetroCons are folks that live in or grew up in urban or near urban areas and are conservative. Examples include Bill Buckley and the staff of National Review, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin. Conservative that don't reside in "Fly-Over Country."
Mark Levin came out with a book called Liberty and Tyranny that touched on all of the generally appealing principles of conservatives: Fiscal responsibility, low taxes, rule of law - NOT man, don't be beholden the Gaia religionist, elimination of a gov't monopoly on schooling/indoctrination, entitlement reform, a vigorous national defense policy to meet any outside threat, getting a handle on out of control illegal immigration ending gov't hostility to religion, and an almost absolute faith in the Constitution with an originalist interpretation.
He never once mentions guns. Mr. Levin is typical of most metrocons. Metrocons have probably never been deer hunting or to the range or even held a pistol in their hands. They certainly don't mention 2nd Amendment issue much on their shows and in their written columns. It's as if they don't care about gun issues one way or another. Being urban types, the gun activity around them is often of a criminal variety. If not to them, than a few blocks away to other people. Some metrocons are openly hostile to gun rights.
You can read National Review Online for months without seeing a reference to the 2nd amendment. Longer if no 2A cases work their way through the court system. Only one or two contributors shoots a self-defense handgun regularly or has in the past. And it is hard to blame them. By definition they LIVE in the city. And the 2 cities they live in are NY and DC. Neither are known for having lots of places to practice with your boomstick. Or having a boomstick in your house/apartment.
But even the hostile ones can be on 'our' side in the gun debate when you press them. Why? They are Constitutional Originalists. When rhetoric push comes to intellectual shove they line up on our side. Assuming you, the reader, is a single issue person that is concerned about RKBA issues only. And since this blog is about the aspects of ME that is RKBA it might seem that that is all I think about. Relax, dear reader, (all 3 of you) I am more nuanced that that. I just endeavor to stay on topic.
Metrocons might be hoplophobes, but they don't project their hoplophobia onto others.
Technically, I should be a Metrocon. I grew up in the suburbs and had relatively little contact with hunting and shooting growing up. My proclivities lead me to lean toward downtown, not out to the country. I liked the country, but preferred the conveniences of the city. Or close enough to the city. When looking at military service I eschewed Army like activities because I don't like sleeping in the mud. It's a big reason why I liked the Navy. My family did very little shooting growing up, and most of that was BB guns in tightly controlled situation with adult supervision at ALL times. Even when such supervision may not have been warranted. There is no reason whatsoever that I should be interested in firearms.
Had I been more rurally oriented my interest I have now would have happened 30 years ago. 30 years ago my interest was toward larger machines. Combat aircraft.
But better late then never. Getting my first deer 30 years ago might have been better, but hopefully I can correct that omission now.
Would I like it if MetroCons through their more rural minded brethren a Second Amendment bone? Yes. Do they have to? No. As long as they adhere to their philosophy regarding the Constitution they are still on our side. We'll worry about the fight between Metro-Cons and more rural Conservatives later, when it is no longer Democrats on the Left and the GOP on the right in Congress, but Metro-Cons on the Left and 'Rural'-Cons on the right there.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Smithing a RIA
So MBtGE has a Commander-size RIA 1911 .45. I know, I know, but it works just fine and the price was right, even for an RIA. You cut too much off the price of an RIA and you Pizza at dinner will cost more than your blaster. And MBtGE got a pizza-price type deal.
It's a bare bones 1911. Which means no beaver tail grip safety, and that can be bad. By 'can be' that means it might have a tendency to drive the hammer spur into the meat of your hand between finger and thumb. And this one sure did. This painful phenomenon is called Hammer-Bite. Owie.
Now MBtGE isn't stupid. He doesn't want to spend a lot of money on a RIA to 'improve' it. But hammer bite is unacceptable and could lead to a serious flinch. Luckily, there is a gunsmith next to his church and the simplest and cheapest mod available is bobbing the hammer, like so:
You can see the old hammer shape in the inset.
I haven't seen the mod in person, but I'd like to. This procedure is simple enough I might try it myself if I ever needed to. The danger is you take too much meat off the trigger and it isn't massive enough to drive the firing pin forward and touch off a primer cap. The worry might be overblown and silly, but I'd still emulate the efforts of a professional gunsmith if I ever wanted to butcher my own gun.
Or maybe I'd just pay a pro and not get laughed at after I mung it up.
MBtGE hasn't taken it to the range yet, either. So maybe it still bites and all the expense is for naught.
Alternatively you can guy the following part and have a gunsmith fit THAT to your 1911:
But that costs a bit more.
It's a bare bones 1911. Which means no beaver tail grip safety, and that can be bad. By 'can be' that means it might have a tendency to drive the hammer spur into the meat of your hand between finger and thumb. And this one sure did. This painful phenomenon is called Hammer-Bite. Owie.
Now MBtGE isn't stupid. He doesn't want to spend a lot of money on a RIA to 'improve' it. But hammer bite is unacceptable and could lead to a serious flinch. Luckily, there is a gunsmith next to his church and the simplest and cheapest mod available is bobbing the hammer, like so:
You can see the old hammer shape in the inset.
I haven't seen the mod in person, but I'd like to. This procedure is simple enough I might try it myself if I ever needed to. The danger is you take too much meat off the trigger and it isn't massive enough to drive the firing pin forward and touch off a primer cap. The worry might be overblown and silly, but I'd still emulate the efforts of a professional gunsmith if I ever wanted to butcher my own gun.
Or maybe I'd just pay a pro and not get laughed at after I mung it up.
MBtGE hasn't taken it to the range yet, either. So maybe it still bites and all the expense is for naught.
Alternatively you can guy the following part and have a gunsmith fit THAT to your 1911:
But that costs a bit more.Sunday, October 18, 2009
Loophole Poll
I got a new poll up for folks regarding the gunshow loophole, rightside. Especially Virginians. Apparently 80% of Virginians prefer the victim remain helpless. But the Virginia poll may have had leading questions. I'd never do that...
Schwerpunkt
In reading about the Battle of Wanat that lead to all the discussion about M4 and M249 failures from overheating after continuous use, I ran across a word I had never heard before.
Schwerpunkt
It’s a German military term from WWII. The Wehrmacht, from near the end of WWI were innovators in what is now known as maneuver warfare. It gelled for them as what we know as Blitzkrieg tactics, and progressed on to modern doctrines of Maneuver Warfare the US Military. And it’s a darn sight better than the previous style of static trench style warfare. Static defensive warfare is great for slaughter on both sides. It’s a strategy you employ when you care not for losses because you are either more numerous than your enemy and care not for the impact of mass casualties, or weaker and want to survive a war of attrition by hoping your enemy doesn’t have the stomach for it.
But as to schwerpunkt: emphasis or critical point of a battle. Is the translation. In battle is the point on which you apply maximum effort in order to achieve a decisive result. It can be the turning of a flank or a break through in line. Or it can be defensive, like holding a defensive position in the Wanat battle or the effort of the 20th Maine in the Battle of Gettysburg when, on the far end of the Union left swung out like a barn door, to keep that edge from being turned, then swung back in and surprising the enemy with a bayonet charge after their ammo ran out. The swing of that barn door was the swing of the battle, and the war.
But I just like the sound of the word. Schwerpunkt. The Germans contribution to Modern English for word that there is no real English equivalent is entertaining to me. Like schadenfreude, angst, doppleganger and kindergarten.
Schwerpunkt
It’s a German military term from WWII. The Wehrmacht, from near the end of WWI were innovators in what is now known as maneuver warfare. It gelled for them as what we know as Blitzkrieg tactics, and progressed on to modern doctrines of Maneuver Warfare the US Military. And it’s a darn sight better than the previous style of static trench style warfare. Static defensive warfare is great for slaughter on both sides. It’s a strategy you employ when you care not for losses because you are either more numerous than your enemy and care not for the impact of mass casualties, or weaker and want to survive a war of attrition by hoping your enemy doesn’t have the stomach for it.
But as to schwerpunkt: emphasis or critical point of a battle. Is the translation. In battle is the point on which you apply maximum effort in order to achieve a decisive result. It can be the turning of a flank or a break through in line. Or it can be defensive, like holding a defensive position in the Wanat battle or the effort of the 20th Maine in the Battle of Gettysburg when, on the far end of the Union left swung out like a barn door, to keep that edge from being turned, then swung back in and surprising the enemy with a bayonet charge after their ammo ran out. The swing of that barn door was the swing of the battle, and the war.
But I just like the sound of the word. Schwerpunkt. The Germans contribution to Modern English for word that there is no real English equivalent is entertaining to me. Like schadenfreude, angst, doppleganger and kindergarten.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Shoes
I need a good pair of boots. And Sig-Boy recommended 5-11. So, on that recommendation, I went to a gunstore in Virginia I knew had the 5-11 line for sale to check them out.
I figured they'd have a limited selection, and I was right. But no matter. I can order them online, I just wanted to see how they felt.
Sadly, I was not pleased. No fault of Sig-Boy. My feet are notoriously hard to fit. I am rarely happy with my footwear.
First, I got a bum knee, and heavy boots aggravate it. 5-11 types are pretty light, so I wasn't worried about that.
Second, my feet are weird. Size 11 something, and I have a few sesamoid bones (I even BROKE one, once or twice. How? They aren't attached to anything!). Regular? Wide? Who knows! If they are too narrow across the ball, I'll get near debilitating blisters between my toes. If the shoe is too wide, the huge blister is on the ball of my foot. 5-11s were too narrow in R and too wide in W.
Two types of non-tennis shoes have fit me. One was a set of special mocassins that were custom made for me. And expensive. The other, oddly enough, were one set of Bates Lites I got in the Navy.
When a Boy Scout I eschewed hiking boots on hiking trips. Tennis shoes worked just fine. Better in the poring rain. The other guys saw me with wet feet at the beginning of a hike and thought I would be miserable. But their boots soaked through in a mile and they were just as wet, with heavier boots collecting heavier mud.
Who do I have to elect to Congress to get a pair of shoes that work for me?
I figured they'd have a limited selection, and I was right. But no matter. I can order them online, I just wanted to see how they felt.
Sadly, I was not pleased. No fault of Sig-Boy. My feet are notoriously hard to fit. I am rarely happy with my footwear.
First, I got a bum knee, and heavy boots aggravate it. 5-11 types are pretty light, so I wasn't worried about that.
Second, my feet are weird. Size 11 something, and I have a few sesamoid bones (I even BROKE one, once or twice. How? They aren't attached to anything!). Regular? Wide? Who knows! If they are too narrow across the ball, I'll get near debilitating blisters between my toes. If the shoe is too wide, the huge blister is on the ball of my foot. 5-11s were too narrow in R and too wide in W.
Two types of non-tennis shoes have fit me. One was a set of special mocassins that were custom made for me. And expensive. The other, oddly enough, were one set of Bates Lites I got in the Navy.
When a Boy Scout I eschewed hiking boots on hiking trips. Tennis shoes worked just fine. Better in the poring rain. The other guys saw me with wet feet at the beginning of a hike and thought I would be miserable. But their boots soaked through in a mile and they were just as wet, with heavier boots collecting heavier mud.
Who do I have to elect to Congress to get a pair of shoes that work for me?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Top 5 rifles
Well if the Brown Bess counts as a top rifle, my 5 top rifles are:
- M1 Garand and derivatives
- English Longbow
- Pilum
- Gladius
- Point-ed stick
Pinko
My buddy Frozen? Yeah. He’s got a Commie-Gun jones goin’ on.
Why? The guns are plentiful and cheap. They are generally reliable enough to still work after a Russian Peasant has had his way with it. And the ammo is cheap and plentiful. Or plentiful and cheap. He gets more fun and variety out of his shooting dollar.
Currently he owns:
5 handguns
3 shotties
18 rifles
(He had zero when I started this blog.)
Of those rifles, one is an AR, 3 other domestics, 3 Western Europe, the rest Warsaw pact. 3 Pinko pistols (4 if you count the Czech Springfield XD… but I don’t). Even one of the shotguns is a Russki Saiga.
You could argue that his XD is a Warsaw pact gun. Naw. It was imported by a US company specifically for a US market. You’ll go crazy hunting down some of modern gun parts sources, for many models, not just the XD. It’d be like saying my 1911 is Brazillian. It was made there, but it’s a US design (you know who designed it, don’t ya?) by a US company for a US market.
But an SKS… that was designed by a Red, manufactured behind the Iron Curtain, intended for a Warsaw pact solider. Unquestionably an import. And a Commie import at that.
And Frozen loves em. He has 2 more Red guns are on his “Get soon” list.
He relatively recently picked up a Mauser, Swiss K31, and an Enfield, but he is concentrating on AK types now. He already HAS the Mosin slots filled, and the SKS slots… He wants one of each of the AKs, now. Looking at Dragonov and a Nagant revolver, too.
And he's not the only one out there. I've been to the range and all the guy had with him were half a dozen firearms from behind the Iron curtain.
Why? The guns are plentiful and cheap. They are generally reliable enough to still work after a Russian Peasant has had his way with it. And the ammo is cheap and plentiful. Or plentiful and cheap. He gets more fun and variety out of his shooting dollar.
Currently he owns:
5 handguns
3 shotties
18 rifles
(He had zero when I started this blog.)
Of those rifles, one is an AR, 3 other domestics, 3 Western Europe, the rest Warsaw pact. 3 Pinko pistols (4 if you count the Czech Springfield XD… but I don’t). Even one of the shotguns is a Russki Saiga.
You could argue that his XD is a Warsaw pact gun. Naw. It was imported by a US company specifically for a US market. You’ll go crazy hunting down some of modern gun parts sources, for many models, not just the XD. It’d be like saying my 1911 is Brazillian. It was made there, but it’s a US design (you know who designed it, don’t ya?) by a US company for a US market.
But an SKS… that was designed by a Red, manufactured behind the Iron Curtain, intended for a Warsaw pact solider. Unquestionably an import. And a Commie import at that.
And Frozen loves em. He has 2 more Red guns are on his “Get soon” list.
He relatively recently picked up a Mauser, Swiss K31, and an Enfield, but he is concentrating on AK types now. He already HAS the Mosin slots filled, and the SKS slots… He wants one of each of the AKs, now. Looking at Dragonov and a Nagant revolver, too.
And he's not the only one out there. I've been to the range and all the guy had with him were half a dozen firearms from behind the Iron curtain.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Zombie Types
Just what it says. Some are good to have a few billion of, and you'll survive, some are bad to have just a million of, and you're a picnic lunch.
mmm... tête de veau.
mmm... tête de veau.
Shoulder
A little serendipitous thought is occuring in the gun blogosphere and folks happen to be posting about shoulder holsters right when I was thinking about the topic myself. First Ride Fast, then Ahab... It's like they read my mind.
Sailor Curt brings up the minuses involved with carrying this way. You can end up sweeping the muzzle across some of your favorite body parts with the vertical style, and you WILL sweep against lots of folks if you get the horizontal rig.
Why have I been thinking on a shoulder holster? Butt hurt. An Inside the Waistband holster at 7 or 8 o'clock might give me Fat Wallet syndrome and aggravate my lumbago and sciatica. Also, I haven't figured out the best way to go to necessary room in public with a holster on my belt. Getting your pant back up after finishing your paperwork for that job can be problematic, I've found. I'm not going to hang the pistol on the coat hook through the trigger guard, now am I leave it on the sink outside the stall. Ideally, I want to leave it in the holster so as reduce the time in public monkeying with it. That's how negligence happens. But dangit! My waistband weighs 2 pounds more and it can be awkward. And if the gun fell in the terlet...
I'm also always looking for a way to carry something full size in the hot summer months. You'd need a cover shirt but you could wear gym shorts again. Just an option. You need a cover shirt if you wear belted cargo shorts and an IWB. But a shoulder rig might be perfect for open carry in the summer.
You'll almost need a belted pant of some sort because many shoulder style holsters attach to your belt keep if from flopping around. It gives you some suspenders-action.
They are certainly NOT in fashion right now, but could make a comeback.
But to test, I doubled up with 2 CCW rigs simultaneously while visiting MBtGE. My regular IWB in for the P229, and his .44 magnum in the shoulder holster he loaned me. I was extra strapped. I didn't go out in public with it, but putzed around his house for a few hours. With a light jacket on, he made my IWB before he could make the MASSIVE hog leg under my arm, which was interesting. And I wouldn't wear a .44 if I wore it for real. I'd go with the 1911 sized gun in that case. I didn't notice any shoulder strain, and if the gun was a little less bulky I wouldn't notice it at all. But I am also forgetting the hip gun is there, too. Which is good.
[as and aside: We went scouting for spots for deer hunting blinds and while talking at full volume for a half hour a nice deer went by. Totally oblivious to us. It had a smallish rack too. It crossed close enough I could have hit it with my Sig, easy. Whatcha bet he won't come around when I am sitting in that spot all quiet and armed with a Remington Model 11? If a deer like that was my FIRST deer I'd probably do Blackfork's head boiling trick for a trophy. And eat it. Of course. Not the head, the venison.]
Sailor Curt brings up the minuses involved with carrying this way. You can end up sweeping the muzzle across some of your favorite body parts with the vertical style, and you WILL sweep against lots of folks if you get the horizontal rig.
Why have I been thinking on a shoulder holster? Butt hurt. An Inside the Waistband holster at 7 or 8 o'clock might give me Fat Wallet syndrome and aggravate my lumbago and sciatica. Also, I haven't figured out the best way to go to necessary room in public with a holster on my belt. Getting your pant back up after finishing your paperwork for that job can be problematic, I've found. I'm not going to hang the pistol on the coat hook through the trigger guard, now am I leave it on the sink outside the stall. Ideally, I want to leave it in the holster so as reduce the time in public monkeying with it. That's how negligence happens. But dangit! My waistband weighs 2 pounds more and it can be awkward. And if the gun fell in the terlet...
I'm also always looking for a way to carry something full size in the hot summer months. You'd need a cover shirt but you could wear gym shorts again. Just an option. You need a cover shirt if you wear belted cargo shorts and an IWB. But a shoulder rig might be perfect for open carry in the summer.
You'll almost need a belted pant of some sort because many shoulder style holsters attach to your belt keep if from flopping around. It gives you some suspenders-action.
They are certainly NOT in fashion right now, but could make a comeback.
But to test, I doubled up with 2 CCW rigs simultaneously while visiting MBtGE. My regular IWB in for the P229, and his .44 magnum in the shoulder holster he loaned me. I was extra strapped. I didn't go out in public with it, but putzed around his house for a few hours. With a light jacket on, he made my IWB before he could make the MASSIVE hog leg under my arm, which was interesting. And I wouldn't wear a .44 if I wore it for real. I'd go with the 1911 sized gun in that case. I didn't notice any shoulder strain, and if the gun was a little less bulky I wouldn't notice it at all. But I am also forgetting the hip gun is there, too. Which is good.
[as and aside: We went scouting for spots for deer hunting blinds and while talking at full volume for a half hour a nice deer went by. Totally oblivious to us. It had a smallish rack too. It crossed close enough I could have hit it with my Sig, easy. Whatcha bet he won't come around when I am sitting in that spot all quiet and armed with a Remington Model 11? If a deer like that was my FIRST deer I'd probably do Blackfork's head boiling trick for a trophy. And eat it. Of course. Not the head, the venison.]
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
NRO
You know we are close to a Zombocalypse when mostly 2A neutral metrocons at National Review start to notice the threat.
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
They are good for the environment and your budget, too! They last 7 years! And besides, regular lightbulbs will be verboten, soon.
I HATE them.
First, the light they give off sucks, and they a while to reach full brightness. They are expensive and burn OUT as fast as regular bulbs. I have regular bulbs I have never replaced in this house, and I've lived here 10 years. I used twisty bulbs in a few applications, but they have ALL burned out at least once, and I've only used them for 3 years. Al Gore, you owe me replacement bulbs.
Nigh Perfect
Tam cottoned me onto what may be the MOST perfect semi auto zombie gun. From Lakeside Manufacturing. A belt fed .22 upper for you AR rig. All you need is a bunch of spare magazines and 100 worth of ammo. Here are a couple pictures from their site:
Tam is right. That gun would be awesome fun and the covet-juices are flowing.
With the silencer you'll attract fewer zombies to the Mall you have fortified and are holed up in. And if you already have a LOT of zombie heads to pop, well, you have the ammo to do so. I wonder how long the belts last until they wear out? With some spares, a .50 cal surplus can full of loose .22, a secure rooftop location, and a couple helpers to do reloads of belts you can decrease the horde by 1000s in a short afternoon.
Tam is right. That gun would be awesome fun and the covet-juices are flowing.
With the silencer you'll attract fewer zombies to the Mall you have fortified and are holed up in. And if you already have a LOT of zombie heads to pop, well, you have the ammo to do so. I wonder how long the belts last until they wear out? With some spares, a .50 cal surplus can full of loose .22, a secure rooftop location, and a couple helpers to do reloads of belts you can decrease the horde by 1000s in a short afternoon.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Armor
Saw a link to this guy on Craigs List. Minute Man Armor.
Interesting.
It would have limited application, I think, because of the bulk it adds. And I don't know how quickly the plastic/lexan top shield would stay free from obscuring scratches. Or how misted up it would get in wet weather. A bullet impact could also render that top shield opaque enough to be worthless. But better the shield is messed up than the face or eyeball of the user.
But think about it... You could make that shield the red dot scope reflector.
Interesting.
It would have limited application, I think, because of the bulk it adds. And I don't know how quickly the plastic/lexan top shield would stay free from obscuring scratches. Or how misted up it would get in wet weather. A bullet impact could also render that top shield opaque enough to be worthless. But better the shield is messed up than the face or eyeball of the user.
But think about it... You could make that shield the red dot scope reflector.
I think a SWAT adoption is more likely than an army adoption.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Failure
[update: added some more to this entry. and fixed some spelling errors, as is my wont, when I am embarassed by them]
There is lots of comment out there about the M4 assault rifle issued to our troops failing in the field.
They are getting fired until too hot, then they can't fire no more.
One of the criticisms is that the soldier are relying on that old bugaboo "spray and pray." They are just firing blindly hoping the commotion will force the enemy to retire.
I don't think that is it.
When a unit of soldiers is doing that mad firing I think they are working to doctrine. The object is to place a volume of fire on the enemy to fix them in place, then maneuver to hit the enemy in the flank. If you have no organization to maneuver against them, the attempt to achieve fire supremacy is not halted in the confusion. The failure is not in the rifle that can't keep up the volume of fire, but the inability to effectively achieve fire supremacy quickly enough to allow/use further doctrines of movement against the enemy. Or they are overwhelmed and fire supremacy is never regained because you don't have enough resources so movement on the flanks is impossible. They are outnumbered.
That is the idea at least. When you lose a battle it only looks like spray and pray. And when things fail, all around, it looks bad.
So you have 2 choices. One: You change your doctrine to semi-auto hits when the enemy sticks his head out. But the good guys have to have their heads stuck out to do this, so you better be good. Two: Issue the troops with rifles that don't overheat and jam when you fire a bajillion rounds through it, and be sure you can supply them with a bajillion rounds all the time. We might be able to handle the supply with US forces, but maybe the rifle should be something like the AK, that sets fire to the wooden stock before failure, as opposed to the M-16 types. Or BETTER M-16 types might be a solution.
But the Germans, in WWII could handle the job, generally, using heavy machine guns to fix the enemy in place, while maneuvering around with bolt action rifles. At least for a while. Near the end of the war they and their singl-shots were getting out-supremacied by MANY semi-autos (Garands) or MANY sub machine guns (Russia). You can do this type of fighting with bolt action rifles, but you better not have waves of enemies coming at you or thin logistical tail.
Is it a fatal compromise to adjust your doctrine, permanently, when trying to make do with less? And is the doctrine you'd switch to as effective as the current doctrine? If the answers are No and No to those two questions then stick to the current doctrine, expect to see a lot of what looks like spray and pray for a long time, and SUPPLY the troops with what they need. Robust arms and lots of bullets.
Jeff Cooper was always impressed by a nation of riflemen like the Boers holding their own against the British. Being a rifleman himself he searched for support for his preferences. And the Boers did well hitting their targets. Did they? Of did Brits not apply enough volume of fire to achieve fire supremacy before maneuvering against their opponents? And if the Boers had had the advantages the Brits had would they have used a different Battle Doctrine?
[Note: This doctrine of fire supremacy (fix in place then maneuver against) only works with unit tactics. If you are team of one or two it is not the doctrine you want to adopt. Hit your targets.]
{update: and hey, Farmer Frank had some further comments on this issue and doetails a bit with mine. I guess the real issue is making a reliable platform, that is also accurate. A beefier bullet would be good, too. My heart lies with the 7.62x51, but I'm wondering if they'd go that big. 6.x mm gets bandied about as an idea for longer than we've fielded the 7.62 up til new varieties in the present day.}
There is lots of comment out there about the M4 assault rifle issued to our troops failing in the field.
They are getting fired until too hot, then they can't fire no more.
One of the criticisms is that the soldier are relying on that old bugaboo "spray and pray." They are just firing blindly hoping the commotion will force the enemy to retire.
I don't think that is it.
When a unit of soldiers is doing that mad firing I think they are working to doctrine. The object is to place a volume of fire on the enemy to fix them in place, then maneuver to hit the enemy in the flank. If you have no organization to maneuver against them, the attempt to achieve fire supremacy is not halted in the confusion. The failure is not in the rifle that can't keep up the volume of fire, but the inability to effectively achieve fire supremacy quickly enough to allow/use further doctrines of movement against the enemy. Or they are overwhelmed and fire supremacy is never regained because you don't have enough resources so movement on the flanks is impossible. They are outnumbered.
That is the idea at least. When you lose a battle it only looks like spray and pray. And when things fail, all around, it looks bad.
So you have 2 choices. One: You change your doctrine to semi-auto hits when the enemy sticks his head out. But the good guys have to have their heads stuck out to do this, so you better be good. Two: Issue the troops with rifles that don't overheat and jam when you fire a bajillion rounds through it, and be sure you can supply them with a bajillion rounds all the time. We might be able to handle the supply with US forces, but maybe the rifle should be something like the AK, that sets fire to the wooden stock before failure, as opposed to the M-16 types. Or BETTER M-16 types might be a solution.
But the Germans, in WWII could handle the job, generally, using heavy machine guns to fix the enemy in place, while maneuvering around with bolt action rifles. At least for a while. Near the end of the war they and their singl-shots were getting out-supremacied by MANY semi-autos (Garands) or MANY sub machine guns (Russia). You can do this type of fighting with bolt action rifles, but you better not have waves of enemies coming at you or thin logistical tail.
Is it a fatal compromise to adjust your doctrine, permanently, when trying to make do with less? And is the doctrine you'd switch to as effective as the current doctrine? If the answers are No and No to those two questions then stick to the current doctrine, expect to see a lot of what looks like spray and pray for a long time, and SUPPLY the troops with what they need. Robust arms and lots of bullets.
Jeff Cooper was always impressed by a nation of riflemen like the Boers holding their own against the British. Being a rifleman himself he searched for support for his preferences. And the Boers did well hitting their targets. Did they? Of did Brits not apply enough volume of fire to achieve fire supremacy before maneuvering against their opponents? And if the Boers had had the advantages the Brits had would they have used a different Battle Doctrine?
[Note: This doctrine of fire supremacy (fix in place then maneuver against) only works with unit tactics. If you are team of one or two it is not the doctrine you want to adopt. Hit your targets.]
{update: and hey, Farmer Frank had some further comments on this issue and doetails a bit with mine. I guess the real issue is making a reliable platform, that is also accurate. A beefier bullet would be good, too. My heart lies with the 7.62x51, but I'm wondering if they'd go that big. 6.x mm gets bandied about as an idea for longer than we've fielded the 7.62 up til new varieties in the present day.}
Sunday, October 11, 2009
That Old Saw
I love this old saw, on Munchkin Wrangler. Based on the number of comments on his site and on Tam’s referencing his site, there isn’t a gunnie out there that doesn’t love the debate.
It’s the old hypothetical; a variation on “what do you select if restricted X number of guns in Y number of calibers.”
I've used a lot of brain sweat on this very problem, and posted about it here. As my thinking has evolved I've also come to the conclusion that you just aren't going to get there for the purpose stated. Not pick 2 guns that share a caliber and does everything from self protection to deer hunting. You might have a point for issues with 2-guns-1-caliber for 2-legged varmints (and my enthusiasm, lately, decreases for this, too.) But add in deer hunting and it’s an order of magnitude harder to work.
This discussion is of a kind with the 3 gun system, or 4 or 5 gun system hypotheticals that also gets rehashed.
[the X-Gun system is the minimum required to be considered covered. Shotgun, pistol, rifle for three guns. Add a .22 for #4. And a smaller pistol for conceal carry for #5. Mainly because everyone pistol of the 3 is a full sized pistol of some sort.]
Why do we do it? Why do we go over this and over this? I think it’s partly because we people interested in guns are also a bit of a rugged individualist type. Self-reliant. Alone against the world. If we HAD to. And simplification is a part of that. Lots of us may own 600 guns in dozens of caliber types and good for every specialized purpose. But we can’t carry 600 guns around to stand alone against the world. Much less a decent quantity of ammo to feed each kind. So we do the head games to try to gauge the absolute minimum, and that means what you can carry walking around. One rifle one pistol is doable. One rifle, one pistol, one shotgun is just about not. Add a anymore on top of that and it starts to get kind of silly. Carrying a battle pack of rifle ammo plus a mess of mags, a box of pistol ammo and a few mags, and box of .22, and a slew of 12 gauge along with the 4 guns is an awful lot. If you want to sleep in a sleep bag and have a change of clothes and drink water and eat food out of your pack and all.
The recognized problem with 2-guns 1-caliber is that there is no way, ballistically, to have an ideal gun and caliber for taking deer that also works as a compact enough self-defense handgun. Here are some pistol caliber data with varying rifle lengths. You don’t gain TOO much feet per second with longer barrels, though you do gain some. Nothing like rifle velocities. The hottest pistol loads are around 1300 fps out of a 5 inch barrel, and might get up to 1500 out of 18 inches. Maybe 1800 max for the outlier. Real hunting calibers like .308 are screaming out at 2500 fps, on average, with pedestrian loads, and other rifle rounds are much better than that. 3000 fps is easy with many rifle rounds, including AR-15 .223. If the bullet was a bit heavier .223 would be an acceptable deer round with no argument against it.
The actual debate consensus is generally along the lines of a short N-Frame .44 Magnum for the pistol, and a lever gun that shoots the same. I personally already own that configuration in .357, (second place, followed by Camp Carbine types) so not only have I thought on this 2 gun problem, I DID something about it. The consensus also is the criteria forces too much generalization. You have an ammo type that is ok at many things but master of none. Better just a shotgun and a variety of shell types. A One-Gun system!... That you can't conceal carry...
Box O Truth has a saying. A paraphrase of: “Rifles is rifles and pistols is pistols, and ne’er the twain shall meet.” And hybridizing a rifle with pistol calibers or a pistol of rifle calibers just does cut the mustard.
~~
What would Jeff Cooper pic for his 3-Gun, as an aside? I know of 2 he’d definitely pick. He’d pick his Scout Rifle, bolt action .308 and a Colt 1911 .45ACP, Gov’t size. He might not turn his nose up at few different 1911 manufacturers, and he might even go with a Combat Commander style smaller 1911. Funny enough, Colonel Cooper was a Marine and this combination of bolt action rifle and a 1911 was what a Marine carried during his formative years. WWI through the beginnings of WWII. That’s not ALL the reason he’d select those firearms, but it could easily be a factor. The factor could also be that Cooper was 100% correct and the Marines came to the same conclusion.
As for a shotgun for Jeff Cooper? I have no sure idea. The only one I recall him talking about was a suggestion for a non-gunnie to look at shortish double barrel exposed hammer coach guns. And it’s one he’d put over the kitchen door in his own home. So that is the 3-gun system ala Cooper. Probably. And he’d miss the bigger calibers when thinking about African safaris, I know.
(Can you tell I am hunting for blog fodder? It’s why I posted this Sunday. No one reads my blog on Sunday. Nearly no one. Hi, Mom!)
It’s the old hypothetical; a variation on “what do you select if restricted X number of guns in Y number of calibers.”
I've used a lot of brain sweat on this very problem, and posted about it here. As my thinking has evolved I've also come to the conclusion that you just aren't going to get there for the purpose stated. Not pick 2 guns that share a caliber and does everything from self protection to deer hunting. You might have a point for issues with 2-guns-1-caliber for 2-legged varmints (and my enthusiasm, lately, decreases for this, too.) But add in deer hunting and it’s an order of magnitude harder to work.
This discussion is of a kind with the 3 gun system, or 4 or 5 gun system hypotheticals that also gets rehashed.
[the X-Gun system is the minimum required to be considered covered. Shotgun, pistol, rifle for three guns. Add a .22 for #4. And a smaller pistol for conceal carry for #5. Mainly because everyone pistol of the 3 is a full sized pistol of some sort.]
Why do we do it? Why do we go over this and over this? I think it’s partly because we people interested in guns are also a bit of a rugged individualist type. Self-reliant. Alone against the world. If we HAD to. And simplification is a part of that. Lots of us may own 600 guns in dozens of caliber types and good for every specialized purpose. But we can’t carry 600 guns around to stand alone against the world. Much less a decent quantity of ammo to feed each kind. So we do the head games to try to gauge the absolute minimum, and that means what you can carry walking around. One rifle one pistol is doable. One rifle, one pistol, one shotgun is just about not. Add a anymore on top of that and it starts to get kind of silly. Carrying a battle pack of rifle ammo plus a mess of mags, a box of pistol ammo and a few mags, and box of .22, and a slew of 12 gauge along with the 4 guns is an awful lot. If you want to sleep in a sleep bag and have a change of clothes and drink water and eat food out of your pack and all.
The recognized problem with 2-guns 1-caliber is that there is no way, ballistically, to have an ideal gun and caliber for taking deer that also works as a compact enough self-defense handgun. Here are some pistol caliber data with varying rifle lengths. You don’t gain TOO much feet per second with longer barrels, though you do gain some. Nothing like rifle velocities. The hottest pistol loads are around 1300 fps out of a 5 inch barrel, and might get up to 1500 out of 18 inches. Maybe 1800 max for the outlier. Real hunting calibers like .308 are screaming out at 2500 fps, on average, with pedestrian loads, and other rifle rounds are much better than that. 3000 fps is easy with many rifle rounds, including AR-15 .223. If the bullet was a bit heavier .223 would be an acceptable deer round with no argument against it.
The actual debate consensus is generally along the lines of a short N-Frame .44 Magnum for the pistol, and a lever gun that shoots the same. I personally already own that configuration in .357, (second place, followed by Camp Carbine types) so not only have I thought on this 2 gun problem, I DID something about it. The consensus also is the criteria forces too much generalization. You have an ammo type that is ok at many things but master of none. Better just a shotgun and a variety of shell types. A One-Gun system!... That you can't conceal carry...
Box O Truth has a saying. A paraphrase of: “Rifles is rifles and pistols is pistols, and ne’er the twain shall meet.” And hybridizing a rifle with pistol calibers or a pistol of rifle calibers just does cut the mustard.
~~
What would Jeff Cooper pic for his 3-Gun, as an aside? I know of 2 he’d definitely pick. He’d pick his Scout Rifle, bolt action .308 and a Colt 1911 .45ACP, Gov’t size. He might not turn his nose up at few different 1911 manufacturers, and he might even go with a Combat Commander style smaller 1911. Funny enough, Colonel Cooper was a Marine and this combination of bolt action rifle and a 1911 was what a Marine carried during his formative years. WWI through the beginnings of WWII. That’s not ALL the reason he’d select those firearms, but it could easily be a factor. The factor could also be that Cooper was 100% correct and the Marines came to the same conclusion.
As for a shotgun for Jeff Cooper? I have no sure idea. The only one I recall him talking about was a suggestion for a non-gunnie to look at shortish double barrel exposed hammer coach guns. And it’s one he’d put over the kitchen door in his own home. So that is the 3-gun system ala Cooper. Probably. And he’d miss the bigger calibers when thinking about African safaris, I know.
(Can you tell I am hunting for blog fodder? It’s why I posted this Sunday. No one reads my blog on Sunday. Nearly no one. Hi, Mom!)
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Salon
Even that virtual bird-cage liner Salon is starting to wake up the the threat of the walking dead. Associated Press noticed there wa an ammo shortage last week, and now this.
And this means we need to wok on our OPSEC at RoMERO.
Check out the progression in the article. As if we use zombies to represent other things. As if zombies weren't real. You'll think them real enough when one takes a bite out of your hinder and your 12 year old Niece has to perform "Friendship's Final Duty."
I used to read Salon pretty regularly in the old days. Even after it became Commie-Salon (for opposition intel, same reason I listen to NPR). Then they tried to make it a paid site and I lit off for greener leftist pastures and never looked back. Silly Leftists. Or maybe I just hate commercials...
And this means we need to wok on our OPSEC at RoMERO.
Check out the progression in the article. As if we use zombies to represent other things. As if zombies weren't real. You'll think them real enough when one takes a bite out of your hinder and your 12 year old Niece has to perform "Friendship's Final Duty."
I used to read Salon pretty regularly in the old days. Even after it became Commie-Salon (for opposition intel, same reason I listen to NPR). Then they tried to make it a paid site and I lit off for greener leftist pastures and never looked back. Silly Leftists. Or maybe I just hate commercials...
Zombarella
Great movie idea! Make a send up to all time classic best movie of all time, Barbarella. But with zombies.
We can even get Jane Fonda to play the queen zombie. Wouldn't need much makeup.
Truth be know, I've never seen the original movie. My knowledge of it is 3rd hand, and now, the wikipedia entry. I have never been a fan of Jane Fonda for some reason.
We can even get Jane Fonda to play the queen zombie. Wouldn't need much makeup.
Truth be know, I've never seen the original movie. My knowledge of it is 3rd hand, and now, the wikipedia entry. I have never been a fan of Jane Fonda for some reason.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Gun Show Loophole II
So, lets say a hoplophobic friend/neighbor/coworker lights upon THIS video and shows it to me, knowing I am gun-type-person, then harangues me with, "How can you be against closing that HORRIBLE and dangerous Gun Show loophole?!"
I bring up the fact that the private seller was a felon for selling to a guy that he had reason to believe couldn't pass a background check.
They would respond, "Well, a slightly smarter criminal wouldn't mention that and the same damage is done, criminal gets a gun and only they have broken the law. And a gun is in the hand of a criminal that wouldn't be there if all private sales required background checks."
And I am wondering about the private seller that sold 348 guns and claimed HE couldn't pass a background check either. How do I explain to a non-gunnie how 348 guns a year ISN'T a dealer? Sure, I probably have met people with a personal collection of over 600 guns, and there are still some residual "kitchen table dealers," and those guys sometimes want to stop owning guns and sell off their accumulation, but that isn't easy to convey to a non-gunnie. What is illegal is if he, the dealer, can't pass a background check now, he probably shouldn't possess his collection. And the ATF and police should have already have fixed that. And if he is using collector-sale status to sell guns he recently obtained then he is abusing his status and the ATF should have fixed that and either yanked him, or require him to become an FFL, or desist. (All under current law. Whether the ATF should be involved at all is another argument that the more hardcore enthusiasts make, but that's out of scope of this blog entry.)
But regardless of all the illegality of the buyer and these sellers, a NICS check would be a hurdle that would be preventative. (And, again, the seller isn't currently breaking laws if he is really selling/liquidating a bonafide collection and if the buyer doesn't give him a reason to suspect.) Sure Bloomberg wants to end ALL sales at ALL shows, and the laws he proposes would make shows difficult, if not impossible, AND hamstring a part of legitimate gun culture. Similar to the ways guns shows are gimped in my state, Maryland. But that doesn't change the fact that an extra hurdle would almost certainly lead to fewer sales to prohibited buyers, along with more hassle to legit buyers.
Still, felonies in this video were being committed/simulated. (I'm assuming that the hired 'felons' are local to the show private investigators, otherwise even MORE laws are being broken.) Those transactions were already illegal, and changing the law will only make them 'illegaller,' making, in most situations, a private sales 'loophole' closure superfluous.
And a hoplophobe is still gonna come back with, "Why make it easier for a smart/quiet criminal to have this source of gun supply? A little inconvenience for the legal buyers is a small price to pay for keeping even ONE gun out of the hands, for a while, of one criminal. It's not like the NICS check is a bloody registry, as the law forbids it being used as such. And I know how you gunnies hate gun registries." [That last part is true, but us gunnies don't trust that that law is being adhered to by the Feds. We don't have actionable evidence that they are violating it.]
Also: And where did the stat "30% of crime guns are linked to gun shows" by the ATF come from? The data I've seen is attributed to the FBI and is in single digits. Where does 30 come from?
Anyway. I don't know how to respond to this hypothetical hoplophobe, and in a 3 way converstation between me, the hoplophobe, and an apathetic-until-now person on the fence on the issue... I don't think I'd win that argument. I need something more. What say you?
[Update: I guess there is the true statement that you don't need to close any loophole because there is no legal means for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm. It's already illegal, another law just makes it illegaller. I could use that. But that's not the goal of the banners. They don't want to make it impossible for prohibited person to illegally purchase a firearm. They want to make it impossible for a prohibited person to GET a firearm. The only way to do that is to stuff the genie back in the bottle and make it impossible for anyone, prohibited or not, anywhere, to HAVE a firearm. Fantasy. You have to wish guns out of existence. Then daggers will be the problem.]
I bring up the fact that the private seller was a felon for selling to a guy that he had reason to believe couldn't pass a background check.
They would respond, "Well, a slightly smarter criminal wouldn't mention that and the same damage is done, criminal gets a gun and only they have broken the law. And a gun is in the hand of a criminal that wouldn't be there if all private sales required background checks."
And I am wondering about the private seller that sold 348 guns and claimed HE couldn't pass a background check either. How do I explain to a non-gunnie how 348 guns a year ISN'T a dealer? Sure, I probably have met people with a personal collection of over 600 guns, and there are still some residual "kitchen table dealers," and those guys sometimes want to stop owning guns and sell off their accumulation, but that isn't easy to convey to a non-gunnie. What is illegal is if he, the dealer, can't pass a background check now, he probably shouldn't possess his collection. And the ATF and police should have already have fixed that. And if he is using collector-sale status to sell guns he recently obtained then he is abusing his status and the ATF should have fixed that and either yanked him, or require him to become an FFL, or desist. (All under current law. Whether the ATF should be involved at all is another argument that the more hardcore enthusiasts make, but that's out of scope of this blog entry.)
But regardless of all the illegality of the buyer and these sellers, a NICS check would be a hurdle that would be preventative. (And, again, the seller isn't currently breaking laws if he is really selling/liquidating a bonafide collection and if the buyer doesn't give him a reason to suspect.) Sure Bloomberg wants to end ALL sales at ALL shows, and the laws he proposes would make shows difficult, if not impossible, AND hamstring a part of legitimate gun culture. Similar to the ways guns shows are gimped in my state, Maryland. But that doesn't change the fact that an extra hurdle would almost certainly lead to fewer sales to prohibited buyers, along with more hassle to legit buyers.
Still, felonies in this video were being committed/simulated. (I'm assuming that the hired 'felons' are local to the show private investigators, otherwise even MORE laws are being broken.) Those transactions were already illegal, and changing the law will only make them 'illegaller,' making, in most situations, a private sales 'loophole' closure superfluous.
And a hoplophobe is still gonna come back with, "Why make it easier for a smart/quiet criminal to have this source of gun supply? A little inconvenience for the legal buyers is a small price to pay for keeping even ONE gun out of the hands, for a while, of one criminal. It's not like the NICS check is a bloody registry, as the law forbids it being used as such. And I know how you gunnies hate gun registries." [That last part is true, but us gunnies don't trust that that law is being adhered to by the Feds. We don't have actionable evidence that they are violating it.]
Also: And where did the stat "30% of crime guns are linked to gun shows" by the ATF come from? The data I've seen is attributed to the FBI and is in single digits. Where does 30 come from?
Anyway. I don't know how to respond to this hypothetical hoplophobe, and in a 3 way converstation between me, the hoplophobe, and an apathetic-until-now person on the fence on the issue... I don't think I'd win that argument. I need something more. What say you?
[Update: I guess there is the true statement that you don't need to close any loophole because there is no legal means for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm. It's already illegal, another law just makes it illegaller. I could use that. But that's not the goal of the banners. They don't want to make it impossible for prohibited person to illegally purchase a firearm. They want to make it impossible for a prohibited person to GET a firearm. The only way to do that is to stuff the genie back in the bottle and make it impossible for anyone, prohibited or not, anywhere, to HAVE a firearm. Fantasy. You have to wish guns out of existence. Then daggers will be the problem.]
Thursday, October 8, 2009
It’s all over the blogosphere
It’s all over the blogosphere.
The FTC has been given overbroad authority to go after blogs and social networking site to criminalize folks that get free stuff from manufacturers, and then write positive reviews about this subject.
I say overbroad because in modern America, where rule of man trumps the rule of law, the unelected bureaucratic regulators have full discretion on whom to go after and criminalize. If you got $4000 worth of weight loss materials and say you lost 300 pounds in 4 days thanks to the product you can be penalized if they want to. If you got a free pen from Glock at a gun show and say you kinda like the pistol you bought 2 and half years later they can penalize you if they want to.
All these new rules go into effect on December 1st, I believe.
Ahead of that, I want to make full disclosure now.
Every product or service I write about on this blog? I got it for free. Yup, they GAVE it to me! EVERY SINGLE ONE. The NRA sends me a wheelbarrow full of cash fortnightly. All the local gunstores just hand me ammo and such as soon as I walk in the door. Sometimes it’s hard to lug it all around and get it out to the car. Maryland Firearms Training Group just likes to see my smiling face so all the training I get is gratis. Springfield is constantly sending me guns to test and keep. So is SIG. And Smith. And many more gun factories. And a host of other items, from catalog houses, and surplus stores, and gunsmiths and etc. get thrown my way. I get free bacon from my grocery store, in case I ever talk about bacon, here, in the future, and a truck delivers beer to my house straight from various fine breweries. When I say nice things about other bloggers? Yes, you guessed it. They tipped me a few bills to do that. (By the way, Tam, your last money order arrived a few days late. Don’t let it happen again.) I am awash in swag and payola of every conceivable kind, from guns to shoes to building materials for new driveway. It’s so much, I had to have a U-Store-It place give me free storage space to keep it all.
Now I just need to convince the IRS that all those places didn’t give it to me, and amount to income… Dammit! Uh… these gifts amount to less than $10,000 per year, each, so I guess the gift tax rules are in effect and ergo not taxable. There. That works. IRS is happy and FTC is happy.
And that should cover my FTC disclosure requirements for all time. Scroo you, government, no matter which guy runs it. You need to leave me the heck alone on a buncha stuff. You’re stickin your nose in way too many places. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, no-flush terlet laws, shower-head flow laws, soft-terlet-paper bans, lightbulb bans. Why does the federal gov’t have to be so involved with my personal life? I could understand it if I was doing something they are tasked to be concerned with, like negotiating with foreign powers on the countries behalf and not at the Fed’s behalf, or minting my own money. But I’m not doing that sort of stuff. Why are they so concerned about the minutiae of ME? And you, for that matter, dear reader. And other dear reader. And now, occasionally, a THIRD dear reader.
The FTC has been given overbroad authority to go after blogs and social networking site to criminalize folks that get free stuff from manufacturers, and then write positive reviews about this subject.
I say overbroad because in modern America, where rule of man trumps the rule of law, the unelected bureaucratic regulators have full discretion on whom to go after and criminalize. If you got $4000 worth of weight loss materials and say you lost 300 pounds in 4 days thanks to the product you can be penalized if they want to. If you got a free pen from Glock at a gun show and say you kinda like the pistol you bought 2 and half years later they can penalize you if they want to.
All these new rules go into effect on December 1st, I believe.
Ahead of that, I want to make full disclosure now.
Every product or service I write about on this blog? I got it for free. Yup, they GAVE it to me! EVERY SINGLE ONE. The NRA sends me a wheelbarrow full of cash fortnightly. All the local gunstores just hand me ammo and such as soon as I walk in the door. Sometimes it’s hard to lug it all around and get it out to the car. Maryland Firearms Training Group just likes to see my smiling face so all the training I get is gratis. Springfield is constantly sending me guns to test and keep. So is SIG. And Smith. And many more gun factories. And a host of other items, from catalog houses, and surplus stores, and gunsmiths and etc. get thrown my way. I get free bacon from my grocery store, in case I ever talk about bacon, here, in the future, and a truck delivers beer to my house straight from various fine breweries. When I say nice things about other bloggers? Yes, you guessed it. They tipped me a few bills to do that. (By the way, Tam, your last money order arrived a few days late. Don’t let it happen again.) I am awash in swag and payola of every conceivable kind, from guns to shoes to building materials for new driveway. It’s so much, I had to have a U-Store-It place give me free storage space to keep it all.
Now I just need to convince the IRS that all those places didn’t give it to me, and amount to income… Dammit! Uh… these gifts amount to less than $10,000 per year, each, so I guess the gift tax rules are in effect and ergo not taxable. There. That works. IRS is happy and FTC is happy.
And that should cover my FTC disclosure requirements for all time. Scroo you, government, no matter which guy runs it. You need to leave me the heck alone on a buncha stuff. You’re stickin your nose in way too many places. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, no-flush terlet laws, shower-head flow laws, soft-terlet-paper bans, lightbulb bans. Why does the federal gov’t have to be so involved with my personal life? I could understand it if I was doing something they are tasked to be concerned with, like negotiating with foreign powers on the countries behalf and not at the Fed’s behalf, or minting my own money. But I’m not doing that sort of stuff. Why are they so concerned about the minutiae of ME? And you, for that matter, dear reader. And other dear reader. And now, occasionally, a THIRD dear reader.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Gunsmith idea
My Buddy the Gun Enthusiast advised I might want to try to find a way to combine my gun hobby with my woodworking hobby and do gunsmithing like things with wood. Maybe metal. I don’t know if I have the skill in woodworking/foundry work/machining to do so, but in the conversation we were struck like a Thunderbolt with a brilliant idea.
He suggested making really nice wooden stocks for something common like a Ruger 10/22. Then, almost immediately, the thought of making really nice wooden STEAMPUNK style stocks for a 10/22…
I wouldn’t need a FFL. It’d just be the aftermarket parts. The user would drop in the parts ATF cares about, but the stock could be incredibly fanciful. With brass furniture, superfluous vintage gauges in the stock, maybe LEDs. Even make some little glass bulb with liquid inside that bubbles, somehow, with every shot. Oversized crosshair iron sights…
The thing wouldn’t add much to the shooting performance, but would LOOK REALLY COOL!
He suggested making really nice wooden stocks for something common like a Ruger 10/22. Then, almost immediately, the thought of making really nice wooden STEAMPUNK style stocks for a 10/22…
I wouldn’t need a FFL. It’d just be the aftermarket parts. The user would drop in the parts ATF cares about, but the stock could be incredibly fanciful. With brass furniture, superfluous vintage gauges in the stock, maybe LEDs. Even make some little glass bulb with liquid inside that bubbles, somehow, with every shot. Oversized crosshair iron sights…
The thing wouldn’t add much to the shooting performance, but would LOOK REALLY COOL!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Raccoon City
After seeing Tam’s retro send up to Raccoon City, that zombie infested urban center made famous in the Resident Evil movies, song lyrics popped into my head, unbidden. Sung to the tune of the Gospel of No-Name City from the hit musical Paint Your Wagon.
You have to imagine in your head the dulcet voices of Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, the latter know for having a voice “that sounds like rain coursing down a rusty drainpipe.”
The Gospel of Raccoon City
You wanna see the dead, walking around?
Here it is!
You wanna see zombie gourmands goin to town?
Here it is!
Alice is nice
And nice to ya.
Unless you’re a Zed, then it’s Boo-YA!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
You wanna live ‘death’ in the rottenest city?
Here it is!
ainipulated by the Red Queen, treated as Prey
Here it is!
You wanna work for Umbrella Corp.?
Until the T-Virus gets ya, then you morph?
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
There’s plenty of things to fear.
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
Your reckoning day is near.
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
You’ve at least escaped The Hive
Raccoon City
Raccoon City.
But you’ll never get out alive.
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
Here’s what you’re gonna do
Around THIS town.
Shamblors gobble you down
And good bye to you
Will you leave the place?
Or burn in nuclear fire?
Either move fast, or suffer their ire.
Umbrella will take care of Raccoon City
Comes the end, and it won’t be pretty
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Kaboom!
--
You have to imagine in your head the dulcet voices of Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, the latter know for having a voice “that sounds like rain coursing down a rusty drainpipe.”
The Gospel of Raccoon City
You wanna see the dead, walking around?
Here it is!
You wanna see zombie gourmands goin to town?
Here it is!
Alice is nice
And nice to ya.
Unless you’re a Zed, then it’s Boo-YA!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
You wanna live ‘death’ in the rottenest city?
Here it is!
ainipulated by the Red Queen, treated as Prey
Here it is!
You wanna work for Umbrella Corp.?
Until the T-Virus gets ya, then you morph?
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
There’s plenty of things to fear.
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
Your reckoning day is near.
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
You’ve at least escaped The Hive
Raccoon City
Raccoon City.
But you’ll never get out alive.
Raccoon City
Raccoon City
Here’s what you’re gonna do
Around THIS town.
Shamblors gobble you down
And good bye to you
Will you leave the place?
Or burn in nuclear fire?
Either move fast, or suffer their ire.
Umbrella will take care of Raccoon City
Comes the end, and it won’t be pretty
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Kaboom!
--
Monday, October 5, 2009
Re-Holster
So I am in Virginia over the weekend, helping the Trollop pick up an Urban Assault Vehicle, sold to her by MBtGE.
But that's neither here nor there.
The important part... Virginia... so I'm carrying. And it is cool enough to wear two shirts, on T, on button down cover shirt. So I am going IWB, with a Minotaur.
There are lots of things to get used to when you are unaccustomed to IWB carry.
Not least of which is: How do you re-holster after you draw.
Comp-Tec makes a rigid holster, so it's not like my belt is collapsing the holster.
Any tips on getting the dang thing back in there? I don't always have this problem finding the hole. (That's what SHE said...[hey! leave the wiener jokes to gun-control types!!]) I don't have a problem reholstering a paddle holster, worn outside the belt and usually at 9 o'clock, but IWB is 7 o'clock. I can re-insert the firearm Paddle Holsters upside down, in the dark, and half asleep. IWB I have to hunt for it, and when I find the spot it's still difficult.
Now, when it counts, you want just the VERY important part: the draw. And worry about putting it away when the danger is gone, but still, I'd like to know.
But that's neither here nor there.
The important part... Virginia... so I'm carrying. And it is cool enough to wear two shirts, on T, on button down cover shirt. So I am going IWB, with a Minotaur.
There are lots of things to get used to when you are unaccustomed to IWB carry.
Not least of which is: How do you re-holster after you draw.
Comp-Tec makes a rigid holster, so it's not like my belt is collapsing the holster.
Any tips on getting the dang thing back in there? I don't always have this problem finding the hole. (That's what SHE said...[hey! leave the wiener jokes to gun-control types!!]) I don't have a problem reholstering a paddle holster, worn outside the belt and usually at 9 o'clock, but IWB is 7 o'clock. I can re-insert the firearm Paddle Holsters upside down, in the dark, and half asleep. IWB I have to hunt for it, and when I find the spot it's still difficult.
Now, when it counts, you want just the VERY important part: the draw. And worry about putting it away when the danger is gone, but still, I'd like to know.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
922r
My buddy the gun enthusiast bought a CX4 from Beretta to compliment his Beretta pistol. Both use the same caliber and magazines.
He wants to upgrade the CX4. He could easily transfer the silencer can from his pistol to his new carbine, so he is investigating paying a gunsmith to thread the barrel on the CX4.
Uh-oh. He runs afoul of reg 18 USC 922r.
What is that? Heck if I know, All I know about it is, if you buy something furren and change it, you run afould of John Law. If I were to get an AK for whatever GAWDAWFUL reason, I know enough to leave it stock. 922r is a goofy regulation where a certain number of parts of a rifle have to be domestic or it all has to be import… Heck it’s hard to grok. And I haven't bothered because I am not in the market for imports that I then want to modify.
What was the purpose of 922r? Well, one thing it did was help prop up domestic firearm makers by restricting the inflow of cheap imported guns. Chinese AKs could have been had for a double sawbuck, the way things were going. Well, actually, I think ANOTHER regulation (925(d)(3) ) said you couldn't import a certain subset of non-sporting furren guns, and 922r is how you can if you can make those guns more Muhrikin. Like I said, it's complicated, and I'd personally not like to delve too deep into it unless I want to get an AK or somesuch.
The reg plays HELL with people that want to customize their commie gun, but also applies to the CX4 Italian jobber of MBtGE. Somehow.
He can do it, get it threaded to take his silencer, but he has 2 options to keep it compliant. He can buy $416 worth of domestic parts to make it a domestic gun, or he can spend $200 to get an ATF tax stamp and make it a SBR (short barreled rifle) and 922r no longer applies. No brainer. He’s going SBR.
Heck at that rate he might as well get a whole new second suppressor for another $200 tax stamp. Better than spending $416 to ‘get’ nothing new. Spend $400 and be allowed to have a govvie approved silencer. Well, plus the expense of a suppressor and the work to get the barrel threaded.g
None of this would be a problem if he has bought a CX4 manufactured at the Beretta plant in the Great State Of Maryland, (the Free State!!) instead of one manufactured in Italy. Only one flaw in my thinking. The Maryland factory doesn’t make CX4s that MBtGE wanted to buy. Word on the street was the quality of domestic CX4s wasn't as good. But now he has to pay. Why it works that way is beyond me and is part and parcel of the vagaries of odd and confusing gun laws.
He wants to upgrade the CX4. He could easily transfer the silencer can from his pistol to his new carbine, so he is investigating paying a gunsmith to thread the barrel on the CX4.
Uh-oh. He runs afoul of reg 18 USC 922r.
What is that? Heck if I know, All I know about it is, if you buy something furren and change it, you run afould of John Law. If I were to get an AK for whatever GAWDAWFUL reason, I know enough to leave it stock. 922r is a goofy regulation where a certain number of parts of a rifle have to be domestic or it all has to be import… Heck it’s hard to grok. And I haven't bothered because I am not in the market for imports that I then want to modify.
What was the purpose of 922r? Well, one thing it did was help prop up domestic firearm makers by restricting the inflow of cheap imported guns. Chinese AKs could have been had for a double sawbuck, the way things were going. Well, actually, I think ANOTHER regulation (925(d)(3) ) said you couldn't import a certain subset of non-sporting furren guns, and 922r is how you can if you can make those guns more Muhrikin. Like I said, it's complicated, and I'd personally not like to delve too deep into it unless I want to get an AK or somesuch.
The reg plays HELL with people that want to customize their commie gun, but also applies to the CX4 Italian jobber of MBtGE. Somehow.
He can do it, get it threaded to take his silencer, but he has 2 options to keep it compliant. He can buy $416 worth of domestic parts to make it a domestic gun, or he can spend $200 to get an ATF tax stamp and make it a SBR (short barreled rifle) and 922r no longer applies. No brainer. He’s going SBR.
Heck at that rate he might as well get a whole new second suppressor for another $200 tax stamp. Better than spending $416 to ‘get’ nothing new. Spend $400 and be allowed to have a govvie approved silencer. Well, plus the expense of a suppressor and the work to get the barrel threaded.g
None of this would be a problem if he has bought a CX4 manufactured at the Beretta plant in the Great State Of Maryland, (the Free State!!) instead of one manufactured in Italy. Only one flaw in my thinking. The Maryland factory doesn’t make CX4s that MBtGE wanted to buy. Word on the street was the quality of domestic CX4s wasn't as good. But now he has to pay. Why it works that way is beyond me and is part and parcel of the vagaries of odd and confusing gun laws.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
M1A vs Garand
Commenter Windy Wilson asks:
To address the first... scroll down to the bottom of the blog and look at the rifle there.
To address the second...
I love both guns and both happen to take the same ammo. (The Garand is a 'Navy Garand' converted to 7.62 NATO sometime. Prolly the 60s. I guess they figured shipboard rifles can be a bit more obsolete and the real rifle shooters in the infantry can use the new M14s and M16s for their work, while a sailor has his shipboard artillery to do his talking for him, mainly.)
The M1A has a center of gravity a bit further back so it is better balanced. Unloaded it seems a bit lighter than the Garand, too. Loaded is a different story and that is the obvious advantage it has over the older rifle: a 20 round magazine.
Other than those relatively small details they are practically the same gun. And I like them both.
I have set up the Garand with a Scout scope, so it actually has 2.5x magnification. I will some day add optics to the M1A, but that will almost certainly be a red-dot style device of some kind. Probably EOTech. If I were to go afield hunting the wily white-tail, I'd take the Garand. If the Garand was broken I'd take the M1A. If that were broken, I'd guess I'd have to take the less-adequate (only because it's the old style iron sights) Springfield '03, but I'd hate to get that gun too dirty.
I don't have any other rifle that would be appropriate for deer. 1894 lever gun with .357 is a bit frowned upon by the local Dept of Natural Resources for that.
If I was restricted to one rifle, only, for the rest of my life, it would be the M1A. But man, I'd miss the Garand.
"And incidently, didn't the gun at the top of your webpage used to be an M1 Garand? I've resisted buying an M1A, mostly because of lack of money (almost completely due to that), so I was wondering what you thought of the M1A and how it compares to the Garand."
To address the first... scroll down to the bottom of the blog and look at the rifle there.
To address the second...
I love both guns and both happen to take the same ammo. (The Garand is a 'Navy Garand' converted to 7.62 NATO sometime. Prolly the 60s. I guess they figured shipboard rifles can be a bit more obsolete and the real rifle shooters in the infantry can use the new M14s and M16s for their work, while a sailor has his shipboard artillery to do his talking for him, mainly.)
The M1A has a center of gravity a bit further back so it is better balanced. Unloaded it seems a bit lighter than the Garand, too. Loaded is a different story and that is the obvious advantage it has over the older rifle: a 20 round magazine.
Other than those relatively small details they are practically the same gun. And I like them both.
I have set up the Garand with a Scout scope, so it actually has 2.5x magnification. I will some day add optics to the M1A, but that will almost certainly be a red-dot style device of some kind. Probably EOTech. If I were to go afield hunting the wily white-tail, I'd take the Garand. If the Garand was broken I'd take the M1A. If that were broken, I'd guess I'd have to take the less-adequate (only because it's the old style iron sights) Springfield '03, but I'd hate to get that gun too dirty.
I don't have any other rifle that would be appropriate for deer. 1894 lever gun with .357 is a bit frowned upon by the local Dept of Natural Resources for that.
If I was restricted to one rifle, only, for the rest of my life, it would be the M1A. But man, I'd miss the Garand.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Rhino Intriguing!
I saw t his on Gun Holsters and Gear a bit ago, then Firearm blog yesterday, so i missed out by not posting about it sooner.
It's an interesting snubbie design. The barrel is aligned with the lowest chamber in the cylinder, thus making recoil less flippy, and the gun more FREAKY.
But I am looking for a snubbie. And I dislike Smith & Wessons trigger lock. I'd pay $200 more for THIS pistol if it doesn't have a trigger lock to mess up things, than buy a conventional pistol. Are you listening Smith and Wesson?
So, aside from being freaky looking and probably difficult to get used to, what are the pros to go with the cons?
Well, it unconventional looking and that would help conceal it better, CCW-wise. The imprint in a pocket carry situation might be lessened. It looks like a gun, but not AS much, see?
I bet there are no leather holsters for it, but as a snubbie in a pocket a cheapy generic nylon holster would be fine.
What are the chances I will even SEE one of these, EVER? I've never seen a Matebo. I've never seen a Cooper Scout rifle. I've never seen a .45 Camp Carbine. I've never seen a Medusa multi caliber revolver... Think about how rare this will be... But a man can hope.
It is kinda pretty isn't it? But that angle from the web of your hand down to the trigger seems a little severe. I wonder how it feels to shoot.
But I am looking for a snubbie. And I dislike Smith & Wessons trigger lock. I'd pay $200 more for THIS pistol if it doesn't have a trigger lock to mess up things, than buy a conventional pistol. Are you listening Smith and Wesson?
So, aside from being freaky looking and probably difficult to get used to, what are the pros to go with the cons?
Well, it unconventional looking and that would help conceal it better, CCW-wise. The imprint in a pocket carry situation might be lessened. It looks like a gun, but not AS much, see?
I bet there are no leather holsters for it, but as a snubbie in a pocket a cheapy generic nylon holster would be fine.
What are the chances I will even SEE one of these, EVER? I've never seen a Matebo. I've never seen a Cooper Scout rifle. I've never seen a .45 Camp Carbine. I've never seen a Medusa multi caliber revolver... Think about how rare this will be... But a man can hope.
It is kinda pretty isn't it? But that angle from the web of your hand down to the trigger seems a little severe. I wonder how it feels to shoot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
