Saturday, September 24, 2016

About Elections And Gunowners

In the 1980's when a Republican senator or congressman was confronted about voting for some gunowner control law, the reply was typically, "Yeah, I voted for it. So what? My opponent in this election would have voted for it and a whole lot worse. So if you don't want what the Democrats will vote for you'll shut your pie hole and pull the lever with an "R" beside it this November. Besides, the NRA was fine with it and I've got a good rating from them. Now go away."

With the 1990's came a change in attitude. In a surprise move, gunwoners got kinda tired of being told to sit down, shut up and vote for republican anti-gunners cause the democrat anti-gunners were worse anyway.

In 1992 George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton. This was partly because of his "no new taxes" betrayal, but also in large part because he ordered the "assault weapons" import ban into existence through administrative action (urged along by that petulant slug Bill Bennet, lest we forget).

In 1996 Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. Dole allowed the Brady bill to go through. He voted for the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act which contained the 1994 federal "assault weapons" ban (although he voted against it in its final form). He then, less than four months before the election, changed his mind about making a repeal of the 'assault weapons" ban a primary focus of his presidency, and implied he'd veto a repeal if it his his desk.

In 2000 George W. Bush won against Al Gore. Bush (indeed his entire family from the looks of it) is not pro-gunowner. He supports a lot of gunowner control laws. But one gunowner control law is seen as a plus by a lot of gun owners, and that's Shall-Issue concealed carry permit laws. Bush signed such a bill into law in 1995, after having made such a law a campaign promise. This was seen as at least pragmatically pro-gunowner and helped Bush win the election. Gore was of course no pal of gun owners.

In 2004 George W. Bush won against John Kerry. This was because the 1994 Federal "assault weapons" ban expired on Bush's watch. Bush had mouthed support for renewing the ban, but a lot of gun owners gave him credit, some even saying he was a "stealth pro-gun" politician, having to publicly support renewal whilst working behind the scenes to make sure it expired.

In 2008 Barack Obama won against John McCain. McCain was good on "assault weapons" but he supported a bill that would have eradicated almost every gun show in the country (by making the sponsors of any show criminally liable for non-compliance of their employees).

In 2012 Barack Obama won against Mitt Romney. The GoP offered us a choice between someone who wanted to sign an "assault weapons" ban and someone who already had. The "already had" was their guy and unsurprisingly he lost.

Gunowner control has been viewed as a losing platform for democrat candidates. And rightly so. In fact, it cost the dems in Colorado control of the state senate in 2014. But currently the democrats are pushing a very anti-gunowner platform. This is due to two things, which are connected.

The first is that the progressives took effective control of the democrat party in 2008. They drove off all the blue dog dems and asserted control of the party apparatus.

The second is that a nasty little fascist from NYC (to narrow it down I'm referring to Bloomberg) started throwing money to anti-gunners. There's a theory going around that the gunowner control movement would be non-existent if it weren't for Bloomie the Hut's cash propping it up. I think that notion has merit.

However progressives have also taken control of the republican party. Not ideological progressives, but those that are culturally progressive. Usually they're simply labeled as "establishment" (or rino's) but from what I gather they're simply folks of the progressive culture that didn't go down the left wing path that others did.

(It really requires much more elaboration, which I'll hopefully get around to soon, but the progressive culture and the progressive ideology share the same two base tenants; a belief that society should be structured from the top down, and that the collective [or collectives] are the most important aspect of society. This is in marked contrast with the Scots-Irish culture, which is built on a bottom up structure with a focus on the individual.)

I don't think there's hope of the progressive dems seeing reason. But hopefully there's enough pressure within the GoP to remind the progressives currently running things there that without gunowner support they won't win much. Granted, I'm mainly referencing presidential elections over a relatively short period, but unless things change moreso than I think they have then the following holds true:

Republicans may lose with gunowner support, but they simply cannot win without it.

Make sure to remind whatever politician you favor of that.

Friday, August 05, 2016

Its Not A Conspiracy Theory If They Actually Conspire

 If it seems like the MSM is working for the other side, then you've reached a plausible conclusion. It's also as likely that they aren't working for the other side, they are the other side.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Meeting In The Ladies Room

I'm happy to see that Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam and others have decided to not play in NC due to NC's unconscionable law concerning  permits to purchase handguns.

Oh wait - that's not the law they were bitching about?

Here's a FAQ concerning NC's bathroom law. And here is the text of NC's Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act in .pdf form if you care to read the thing.

In a nutshell, the city of Charlotte passed a law that would have required government and businesses to allow folks who claimed they identified with the opposite sex to use the bathroom of their choice. The state passed this law in reaction to that, in order to clarify that for the purposes of bathrooms, lockers, showers, etc, biology trumped feelings, and that non-government entities could do as they wished.

Then a bunch of folks cried "Oppression!" and launched a boycott of NC. Let us look at those pinnacles of moralism, shall we?

Friday, May 06, 2016

Be Vewy Vewy Kwiet

Garands can be loud. Someone did something about that.

In this vid you can better hear the difference twixt suppressed and unsuppressed Garands

Fitting a suppressor to any semi-auto can be tricky. In this case there's a lot of blowback (hence wearing ski goggles when firing) and an adjustable gas cylinder lock screw to get the right amount of pressure in the gas system. In a thread on this build it's mentioned that the point of impact was about 27 MOA lower with the suppressor on. Details of how this was built can be found here

That Does Not Meme What You Thought

You've probably already heard about the school district in Colorado that bought some AR's for its security personnel. I was scanning through AM radio some weeks back and stumbled on the Joe Pags show, where they were discussing this event. A caller was hitting some familiar talking points, but I hadn't heard them in this context before.

The caller questioned buying AR's for the security staff, saying that it seemed the money could be better spent on training with the handguns they already had than buying rifles. When it was brought up that rifles were generally more effective and accurate than handguns, the caller retorted that a modern 9mm would be just as effective as an AR's projectile and claimed he was an avid handgun shooter.

This takes two trendy meme's and applies them to their logical and ridiculous ends.

The Firearms Blog has this post which does a decent job of explaining the thinking behind the "9mm is better" argument in relation to other handgun cartridges. Here and here are articles emphasizing the importance of training over cartridge selection for handguns. (Here is a more lengthy discussion of terminal ballistics, and Wikipedia has pages on both terminal ballistics and stopping power respectively. No discussion of this would be complete with The Anarchangel's Lies, Damn Lies and Ballistics post.)

Now I'm not in 100% agreement with those two points (a 9mm is just as good as any other, and training makes cartridge selection irrelevant) but I can understand their appeal when applied to handguns (though I still believe in 10mm magic). Rifle cartridges, even relatively weak rifle cartridges are another ball of wax entirely.

I'm not a fan of the .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO. But I'd take either of those over any 5" barreled handgun in any chambering any day of the week*. If I had a set budget, and could train twice as much with a 9mm handgun or half as much with a .223 rifle (and let us pray to a deity of choice it never comes to that) I'd pick the rifle (or carbine**) every time. It's harder to tuck a long gun under your photographers vest, sure, but for around the house or serious social interactions a rifle (or carbine) is simply more advantageous, in terms of ease of use, effectiveness and range.

I'll grant it was just one caller on an AM radio talk show, but I'd be concerned that he's not the only one that takes an arguable idea or two and applies it all wrong.

Personally I'd have preferred that the school district had purchased AK-47's (simply because it's too much to hope for that they'd plunk down the cash for Garands or M1A's). But damn near any long gun will be an improvement over damn near any handgun for stopping humans with evil intent.

Perhaps meme's should come with warning labels - or at least disclaimers...

* When dealing with humans. Colorado has bears though, and I'd have more faith in a hot loaded, nigh nuclear 10mm to reach a bruin's vitals than a .223. Ditto for .41 or .44 magnums or the hotter .45 offerings.

** I simply can't bring myself to consider anything with less than a 20" barrel a rifle. To my thinking they're more properly carbines. So most AR's and most AK's, for example, are carbines, not rifles.

Friday, April 22, 2016

A Prince Lived

Prince definitely wasn't a member of the gun culture. He was a progressive whenever anything remotely political came up. So most readers here may not have liked him that much.

I was a musician. I played a lot of Prince's stuff over the years, from his more popular tunes like Purple Rain or When Doves Cry to more obscure pieces, such as Starfish and Coffee to Sometimes It Snows In April (generally regarded by many as the saddest song in the world). In my professional opinion he was one of the most talented songwriters to date. Genius in fact would not be an exaggeration of his ability. Not all of his songs were likeable; some were better than others, but his ability to craft sounds into emotions was incredible.

I usually try to keep the writing here PG-13'ish, but there's simply no way to talk about Prince without some cussing, so you've been warned.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Remembering Things Right

Freddie Gray died a year ago today. All last night on the radio I kept hearing an interview which made me think the interviewee just didn't know the meaning of the word he was using, or was deliberately misusing it. Just to double check I did some searching and found the same word being used to describe the same event in multiple sources, sometimes by the reporters themselves.

That word is uprising.

For example, from this article (which isn't a bad summation of what's occurred in Baltimore since last year):

"Alston, of Kids Safe Zone, said the unrest galvanized organizations to do more for their communities instead of waiting for the city to help. 'What the uprising did? I wouldn't be in a position to offer the services that I do had that not happened,' she said." (emphasis mine)

There are several other places, in both professional and social media where I see that word used to describe the reaction by some in Baltimore to Gray's death.

From Merriam-Webster:  
Uprising: an act or instance of rising up; especially :  a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government

Again, from Merriam-Webster
Riot:  2 a :  public violence, tumult, or disorder b :  a violent public disorder; specifically :  a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

The Seventeen was an uprising. The Forty-Five was an uprising.
What started on this day in 1943 in the Warsaw Ghetto was an uprising.
What happened in Baltimore after Freddie Gray's death was a riot.

When the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto started killing the Nazi's that were seeking to murder them, that seems to me to fall under the category of uprising. 

When a mob burns down a CVS store I'm just straining to see a connection with government, unless they're really ticked about the FDA (and we all should be) and think that CVS is in cahoots with them. 

Here's the Wikipedia page on the 2015 Baltimore protests (their title) which will give you an overview of what all happened and when.

Now let me remind y'all of something which I think gets overlooked too often: Gray was arrested ostensibly because he carried a switchblade (though it's been said that Gray's knife was not actually a switchblade, but an assisted opening knife.) Here's a CNN piece discussing whether the knife was legal or not. The difference is semantic because the city of Baltimore declares it a crime to possess either. But even trying to figure out what type of knife (that to my knowledge no one has seen since the Baltimore PD took custody of it) is unnecessary.

Let me quote y'all a lil' sum'fin sum'fin with which you should all be familiar by now:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  (emphasis mine)

That good ol' 2nd Amendment. It doesn't say "guns". It doesn't say "hand cannons". It doesn't say "hoglegs" It doesn't even say "firearms". It just says "arms". I would argue, and in fact I am arguing, that "arms" would include knives of all sorts and sizes, including that Ken Onion that some of y'all reading this may have in your pocket right now. That little palm sized tool you might own and possess is the reason a man was arrested and as a consequence killed by the police in his own city. Not for threatening them with it, just for having it.

Freddie Gray was chased down because he ran when some cops saw him. After they detained him they saw a clip outside his pocket, searched him and charged him with illegal possession of a knife. If we assume that it's hunky dory for the cops to run a person down with no other suspicion than "he must've done something cause he ran from us" we still have the very damn sticky wicket of him being arrested for enjoying a constitutionally enumerated Right. 

His treatment and ultimately his death were tragic and criminal on the part of the Baltimore PD. If there would have been an uprising last year because of that - a man dying from at best criminally negligent treatment after being arrested for exercising a basic, fundamental Right - then I would have been proud of them. That's not what happened. 

What happened is that some of the people in Baltimore took the Underwear Gnome approach to redress their grievances:

1: Loot, damage and burn privately owned businesses
2: ?
3: Governmental reform

That's so not uprising. 

It's important to remember Gray's death and the circumstances leading up to it. It's important to remember the evil that was done to him and to reflect on why it was done to him. But the riots that took place allegedly in his name shouldn't be recalled with any sort of reverence or sentiment, and upgrading them to the status of uprising diminishes not only the victims of those riots, but the participants in actual uprisings, such as those folks in Warsaw 73 years ago today.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Putting The J In SW

If you haven't seen The Force Awakens yet there will be spoilers in this post.

I mentioned previously that I was concerned about how Disney would handle Star Wars. I finally watched it last week and I'm not thrilled with it at all. I'll explore why below the fold, and part of it does have to do with the culture war. It'll be lengthy and there will be hard core geekery involved, so you've been warned. With any luck I'll get back to my irregularly scheduled posting on more familiar topics, but for now here are my thoughts on this new Star Wars:

Friday, April 01, 2016

Mea Maxima Culpa Peccavi

Brothers and sisters, it vexes me, pains me - nay; it wounds me to admit this shortcoming, this failure, this iniquity, for I hath not found it amongst the papers of today, or amidst the tales of scandal so oft told of the heathens against whom we struggle to convert. It comes from my own bosom, and I cannot hide it from you, my companions in, but not of, this dark world full of misery and blight.

I have sinned.

Arrogance was mine, so much that I thought, not that I was perfect, but that I had immunity from this manner of error; I thought it could not happen to me, yet I am guilty of it, as sure as grits are groceries. I cannot expect your forgiveness, though I am compelled to explain my error in the hopes that I am the last lead astray in such a manner, that I will be the last ensnared by such a trap.

For years I opined - nay, preached - against the Gospel of Stoner, deriding it as an apocrypha, an heresy, at best a trifle to be indulged no more than occasionally, at worst a disease that must be eradicated. I shouted from the rooftops that direct impingement was not the answer - that only a long stroke (or at least a short stroke) could deliver us to the promise land. I testified that a .22 bullet was not seemly to use agin anything more than 70 pounds, that it was not a cartridge fit for warriors, nor adequate for the protection of their families. And the sproing - verily, the sproing did I mock, comparing it in an unfavorable light with a gun meant for BB's.

But I have seen the sign in the sky, the writing on the wall, and now my wits have returned and the most righteous message Brother Stoner (may peace be upon him) tried to bring to us all, for our betterment.

It is only now, after wasting all those years with claims of heresy that I now know to be false, have I seen the light at the end of the two tenths of an inch diameter tunnel. The .223 Remington is a superb cartridge for battle and beast alike, readily felling with a mere graze the most zealous warrior as well as stopping the charges of Cape Buffaloes mid-stride, and the AR-15 platform is surely the most divine manner of delivering them.

So I will give up my sinful ways that I thought for so long were wise. The '06 shall I speak of no more. Its .30 pill, both heavy & slow compared to the .223, shall darken my ammo shelves no longer. It is tempting to beat my clips into magazines, and turneth mine gas cylinders into windchimes, as the prophets of old saw visions of. Yet atonement must be made.

I have been shown the light, and guided to the edge of the promised land where I may look over its valleys. But I have too much sin on me, and I cannot cross over. I am not worthy of an AR, or its .223 cartridge.

But I have seen the truth now; to quote the prophet (may his parking ever more be validated), "Whenst thou picketh a projectile, let its weight be light and its speed be fast..." Though I am not deserving to possess the mighty .223 Remington (or its nearest equivalent the blessed 5.56x45mm NATO) I shall not stray from the path again.

My Garands shall be reworked, with the laborers of metal installing new tubes, ones which may be judged as near to the perfection preached by the prophet as a lowly sinner such as myself is allowed. As was the M1E10 so too shall mine be converted to an impingement that is direct! And verily, I will have them rechambered for the mighty .17-06! Surely, 17 grains of blessed boattail exceeding 5,300 fps will prove that I have mostly humbly repented of my apostasy. And maybe, after I have done sufficient penance for my depraved ways, I can step just a bit closer to the light and have them rebarreled in .17-06 Ackley Improved! Though I dare not look too far forward, lest I stumble and resume my haughty ways that lead only to ruin.

Thus let my folly instruct you, lest your path becomes as crooked and your steps as backward as mine hath been. Revere the AR-15 (was it not described as the greatest battle implement ever devised? Wise was he whose words offered such just praise!), adore the .223 Remington (as another elder proffered from his trove of wisdom, "there's nothin' a man can't fix with 700 dollars and a .223 Remington!"), and give thanks for the prophet Stoner (may Haagen-Dazs create a flavor in his honor). Wasteth not thine time and precious coin on battle rifles and cartridges capable of taking down game larger than coyotes - it is surely vanity! Buy an AR and thousands of rounds of .223 Remington that your days may be long and your nights in bear country no longer filled with dread!

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

A Tangled Weber

A Better Way to Tackle America's Gun Problem

The linked piece is another call for more gunowner control, this time in the form of mandating certain tools and accouterments be kept only at licensed ranges. But there's something important nestled in the paragraphs of justification leading to this proposal:

"The state has been defined as whatever authority possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. It is this monopoly on violence that fosters social order and permits civil society to flourish and thrive. When a mass shooter opens fire on a crowd, he is also taking aim at civil society and striking a blow for chaos and barbarism. But when citizens respond to this act of anarchism not by empowering the state to make it more difficult for the next mass shooter to carry out his murderous plans but by putting even more guns in circulation, they further degrade public authority by refusing to grant the state the authority it needs to preserve order and keep us safe.
Down that road lies the dissolution of politics, and a return to a pre-political state of nature in which every individual acts as his own highest authority, using violence to defend himself against violence found all around him." (emphasis mine, link in original)

The piece concludes thusly:

"Let's make it just a little bit harder for the barbarians to wreak their havoc — and a little bit easier for the rest of us to take a stand for civilization."

This notion, that the state is responsible for societal growth through a monopoly on legitimate use of force, is antithetical to the concept of Natural Rights.  It's one of the chief demarcations betwixt the Progressive Culture and the Scots-Irish Culture (which is arguably synonymous with the Gun Culture, or Gun Culture 2.0).

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Prescribed Burns

David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh respectively have been on top of the situation near Burns, Oregon.

The Hammond Family Does Not Want An Armed Standoff

Respecting Wishes

Oregon Standoff Report

Perfect Timing for the Regime...

The Collectivists Have Begun to exploit It

3% of Oregon Official Press Release

Oregon Situation on the Web

The MSM has been taking notice as well...

Militants Continue Occupation of Oregon Refuge, Police Keep Low Profile

WTF is Happening in the Oregon Militia Standoff, Explained

David and Mike are the best places to go to for updates on the events in Oregon. Mike points out that the twitter feed of Les Zaitz (a reporter for TheOregonian/OregonLive) is also a good source for keeping up with things.

The TL;DC version (Too Lazy; Didn't Click) is that on Saturday, January 2nd, a group of people occupied a previously unoccupied (it was closed for the holiday weekend) federal building on a remote wildlife refuge about 30 miles outside of Burns, Oregon. Estimates of the number of occupiers range from 15 to 150. These folks split off from various patriot groups who were in nearby Burns to protest the treatment of the Hammond family. Those patriot groups have disavowed the occupiers' actions, stating the purpose of coming to Burns was to peacefully protest the Hammonds plight, not entice an armed stand-off. The occupiers are being represented by Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven Bundy was the centerpiece of a dispute and stand off with the feds.The occupiers have stated they in addition to the Hammonds release, they want the federal government to return land to the loggers and ranchers of Harney County, and they're prepared to use the occupied building as a staging area for years if necessary.

The Hammonds patriarch Dwight and his son Steve were convicted of arson for burning land the feds owned (which was next to the Hammonds land) without permission. The conviction was under a 1996 anti-terrorism act which carried a mandatory 5 year sentence. The trial judge thought 5 years was absurd and sentenced them to less than a year respectively. The feds appealed and the 9th circuit court of appeals upheld the mandatory 5 year sentence, but graciously allowed them to delay reporting for prison after the holidays. A fairly good write-up of their plight can be found here.

The Hammonds were not asking anyone to do anything, saying they'd report to prison as ordered to serve their remaining sentence. The residents aren't happy about this situation, though they seemed at least tolerant if not supportive of the original protests earlier.

David, and especially Mike are speculating that the feds not only have people inside with the occupiers, but they instigated this situation to begin with, via agent provocateurs

The big wild card is the feds. For now they're hanging back, but I don't expect that to last much longer than it takes for Obama's team to plan out how to spin this situation.

Let us not forget, that in the Oval Office sits the most politically minded president ever to set foot in D.C. - which is saying something. No situation, crisis or opportunity to pass the salt is not sifted threw his "how can I make this work for me politically?" filter. Anyone thinking Obama will let this crisis go to waste hasn't been paying attention. It's just a matter of what angle he'll play.

He could not do much and point to this as an example of "domestic terrorism", urging congress to pass legislation that he wants passed to deal with this situation. Or use it as justification for executive action. He could also clamp down and put on a show of force to bolster his base. Doing the latter wouldn't negate the previous options. It's merely a question of what Obama think would be the approach most advantageous to him politically.

Obama wants more gunowner control laws, and he's planning on using executive action to get as much as he can. It's not debatable if he'll use this situation to that end, but how.

That the cops aren't doing much doesn't surprise me; the feds are in charge, which means the FBI. I have no doubt their inaction up to this point is because they're waiting for Obama's team to give them instructions. I'd assume explicit instructions, of the micromanaging variety. I doubt Obama's team wants this to get away from them as did the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

The Hammond family plight is worth protesting, as is the amount of land in the west controlled by the feds and their treatment of the locals. Occupying a remote building on federal land, trying to provoke a confrontation isn't how I'd go about things, based upon what I know of the situation currently. Politically this plays directly into Obama's hands and I'm a firm believer in it being unwise to attempt to out-democrat a democrat. I won't rule out the notion that government infiltrators had some part, small or large, in orchestrating this event. It is entirely possible I'm missing some information that would change my mind, but as it stands I think this occupation is a mistake that our enemies will use against all of us.

I don't plan on going to Oregon, but I fear Oregon may soon come to us.

Saturday, January 02, 2016

Odds and Ends

Criterion is going to have Garand barrels in .35 Whelen available this spring. I assume they'll only be in the u.s.g.i. contour, though they do make tanker as well as gas trap barrels. You can also opt for one of their barrels in .308 Winchester as well as .270 Winchester, but .35 Whelen definitely has more punch than anything else offered (at least since McCann passed away and his .338 Winchester Magnum and .458 Winchester Magnum Garands went out of production).

Speaking of non standard cartridges for Garands,  Lothar Walther has Garand barrels in diverse chamberings. In addition to .30-06, .308 Winchester and .270 Winchester they have tubes in 7x64, 8x57IS, and 9.3x62.

Henning has made a "cone fit" guide rod for the Tanfoglio (EAA Witness) pistols for years. The shape of the rod reduces frame distortion that can occur with the factory guide rod and heavy loads, especially in 10mm and .45 ACP. Well now he has a variation on that, called "Last Defense". The muzzle end of the guide rod is sharpened into a spear point.

Being a firm believer in bayonets for long guns I of course wholeheartedly approve of this product. Henning notes that on long slide Tanfoglio's (such as the Limited, Stock III and Match) the spike will only protrude when the slide is locked back, which means you won't have to alter your holster.

Clement Custom Guns is doing a cool little conversion. If you send him your GP-100 in .357 magnum (along with some money) he'll send you back your GP-100 in 10mm. I'm tempted.

Course a 10mm is okay, but I do ponder getting a decent size pistol, say in .64 caliber. Not only would it be .14" better than a 10mm, but in that 1733 configuration it'll be great for non-permissive environments! Though even a flintlock pistol will still get you a felony indictment in New Jersey, but who'd want to go there anyway? Unless of course to liberate the place.

Friday, January 01, 2016

Movie Watching

I'm not crazy about the way Hollywood treats certain stories. For example, the Harry Potter flicks diverged too much from the books for me to really approve. (Actually the first two weren't bad interpretations, but after Harris passed things went downhill fairly quickly.) After the 6th, someone pointed out that they were successful at the box office, and I answered that they could have a movie comprised of stick figures and it'd still sell well - and lo and behold, in the last movie they did feature a segment with stick figures. But the story, as relayed by the books, was compelling enough that people would go see the movies no matter what. That provides a false metric for movie makers to go by, and reinforces their tampering with, and in some cases completely screwing up a story.

The usual justification is that some changes had to be made to transfer a tale from pages to film. My usual response is "bullshit!". While some changes are necessary for the switch in mediums, most are simply a director wanting to tell his story, not the story.  The omission of The Scouring of the Shire from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Ring films, and the Burning of the Burrow which was inserted into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince are two examples of a director's whims adversely affecting the tale they claim to be telling. Of course Starship Troopers, Noah, and Exodus: Gods and Kings are atrociously different from the source materially, to the point that only the names give a clue as to what story they're claiming to tell.

With that in mind I'm real damn skittish about Disney's handling of Star Wars. I've been a Star Wars fan since about 1977, and in fact it could be argued that John Williams (the composer, not to be confused with the other John Williams, who's a helluva guitarist) score pushed me in the direction of a musical career. So I want to like it, I really do. But I know how Hollywood has a way of screwing up stories - hell, Lucas did a fair job of screwing up the story that was his! (I of course refer to the prequels that must not be named).

In short, I don't really want to know what color Pinocchio's nose saber is gonna be, or find out that there is, indeed, a Darth Jiminy.

Le sigh.

(I did watch the first season of Star Wars: Rebels and thought it was decent, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high.)

So I reluctantly did some looking online. It's been about a decade since I went to a theater to watch a movie and wanted to see what theater options were available. Turns out none. The theaters within my town all have no weapons policies. Of course I could just keep my coat on & no one would be the wiser, but that would mean I was giving money to folks that want me to be disarmed. I'll pass on that.

My personal boycott won't cripple any of the theaters around here, and I doubt if all the gun owners in the area called them and reported their disdain for the no weapons policy that the theaters would change their tune. But I just don't want to do business with those that would prefer I was defenseless. I don't want any part in sustaining their distasteful practices.

I still may look around for a theater in a neighboring town (other than Denver proper of course) or I may just wait til it comes out on DVD. Should be around May or so, which everyone but the execs at Disney know is the proper time to first view a new Star Wars film. (The heathens!) Besides, I can smoke while watching DVD's, and not have to go through a credit check and establish collateral for an extra large bag of popcorn that may or may not be fresh. Plus, should anyone bust in and try to shoot up the place I'll have better options than a hogleg with which to quell the miscreants.

For now I'll make do with an in depth review of the BlasTech DL-44 from Jerry Miculek, which can be found here.

More Maths

There have been calls by some for "mandatory buybacks" of firearms. This of course is nothing more than a misleading euphemism (how can government "buy back" what it never possessed?) for confiscation. Proponents of such measures have neglected their calculators. Luckily I'm here to help.

I'd estimate there are 150 million gun owners in America, but let's go with the more common figure of 100 million. 1/2 of 1 percent of that would be 500,000.

There are about 800,000 police officers in the u.S. That's in total, not just on duty at any given moment. Let us assume that all of those 800,000 policeman would follow orders and go about confiscating firearms.

If one half of one percent of the gun owners in this country forcibly resist attempts at confiscation, only 4/5th's of us would have to shoot twice before we went home. That would leave an entire field army of gunowners with no law enforcement agents standing twixt us and the politicians. Even if all of us were killed and we each took 1.6 of the enemy out with us, that would completely eliminate the police forces in the united States.

Keep in mind that's an extremely low estimate of how many gun owners would forcibly resist confiscation, and an unrealistically high estimate of the numbers of policemen that would try to carry out such a dictate. I'd guess that between 5% and 10% of the police force would openly switch sides in such an event, and another 10% to 30% would refuse to obey such an order, either openly or covertly, which would leave only 680,000 at most to try to round up all our guns. I'd also be disappointed if less than 1% of my original estimate of gun owners didn't participate in the resistance, which'd place the number of defenders at 1.5 million.

What I think most politicians fail to realize, is that the constitution's enumeration of the Right to arms isn't there to protect us, it's there to protect them.

But as has been said, maths r hard.

Maths R Hard

I dislike using statistics. When the methodology isn't flawed and everything is on the up and up (which is damned rare) the most they can do is point in a general direction. Correlation is not synonymous with causation after all, and often the results will lead one down a false trail. In addition it tends to negate individuality.

That being said I see a lot of talk about the number of people killed in the u.S. with firearms and clamoring for a way to reduce that number by restrictions or even outright prohibitions on firearm possession by non-government agents. There are a few numbers to keep in mind.

Around 30,000 people are killed each year with firearms in the u.S. Roughly 16,000 are suicides, a little less than 1,000 are negligent shootings (what are erroneously referred to as accidental shootings), and the rest are homicides, both justifiable and non-justifiable.

So 30,000 people a year, if constant would mean that in a decade 300,000 people die as a result of gunfire. In a century that'd be 3,000,000 people dead from gunshot wounds.

That means it'd take an entire century to equal the number of people killed during the 2 years of the Holodomor (if we go by the lowest estimates). It'd take between 2 to 4 decades to equal the number murdered during the 2 years of the Yezhovshchina. It'd take from 3 to 5 decades to match what happened in the 4 years of the Medz Yeghern. (But combined with the 6 years of the Sayfo and the 9 years of the Greek Genocide, another 2 or 3 decades could be added to equal what the Ottoman government did around World War 1.) It'd take about a decade to match the body count from the 6 weeks during the Rape of Nanking.

To match the death toll from Hitler's 4 years of murder would take 2 to 5 centuries. For 30 years of Stalin (including the above mentioned Holodomor) it'd take from 7 to 14 centuries. The 30 or so years of Mao would take a little over 2.5 millennia.

For the number of people killed with firearms in the u.S. per year to be equal to the number of people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century, it would take about 8.7 millennia.

If 30,000 people a year were killed by gunfire from the beginnings of the Copper Age til present, it'd still take another 1,200 years before the numbers equaled what governments did to their own people in the 20th century alone.

It's estimated that around 100 million Americans own firearms. I think that number is low and would assume around 150 million Americans own at least one firearm.  But going with the low figure that'd mean for every 3,300 or so gun owners, 1 person dies as a result of gunfire.

There are roughly 2.7 million people working for the u.S. government. If we use that number and apply it to other governments from the 20th century (which is most assuredly a very high estimate), then for every government worker in Nazi Germany 5.5 people were murdered. For every government worker under Stalin 16 people were murdered. For every government employee of Mao almost 30 people were murdered.

Yet because 30,000 people are killed with firearms in a given year by government and non-government actors, some folks are insisting that all firearms be turned over so that only government may posses them?

Indeed, maths r hard.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Ol Hickey

I looked up wikihow's 11 easy steps to remove a hickey, but the bastard only persists. Attempts to hide it have failed as it spoke with NPR today:

"Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS inspired terrorism..."

The gist is that he thinks an AWB would be difficult to pass or enforce, but says that if more mass shootings occur it could be on the table. He did mention mental health as a possible approach to the gun owner control problem, as well as keeping folks on the No-Fly list from obtaining firearms. He mentioned domestic violence convicts again, as well as restraining orders (makes ya wanna send him a highlighted copy of federal law, don't it?). Children. He mentioned children. And firearm storage. Oh, and he did make a deal about Colorado Springs being well populated with concealed carry permit holders and that not stopping the Planned Parenthood attack. He wasn't saying that a high gun toting population caused the attack, he just used that bit of asininity to slam the idea that more folks carrying weapons would deter mass shootings.

(Now just twixt you, me and the entire free world, I think it's safe to say that no matter what the demographic is of the block surrounding block the number of concealed carry permit holders, or even just gun owners that carry sans permit, would only approach zero from the negative side of the scale inside Planned Parenthood. It's like a democrat campaign rally - it may not say it's a "gun free zone", but no one in Vegas would lay money down otherwise.)

What I gathered from our states most annoying hickey is that the dems here will try to push through some sort of mental health bill relating to firearms. There's even a chance they will try to ban anyone in state from possessing weapons if they're on the No Fly list. I think some sort of push for a safe storage law (For The Children, of course) may happen.

If you're thinking there's no chance any of that will pass, I wish I could share your optimism, but I know the local GoP. I can see some "law and order" type of stupidity being used to justify a reach around across the aisle, and ol' hickey has mentioned that he's been talking with some people that were opposed but now open to more gun owner control laws. Hopefully it's no one with any power or influence within the local GoP (such as the one defector we know of), but they ain't called "the stupid party" for nuffin'.

I also think there may be an attempt to up the magazine capacity limit to 30 rounds. This is a mistake as there are better ways to attack the entire law (through the courts as well as through the legislature), not just put out our hats as we beg "Please sir, may I have some more". 

Colorado has a hickey that just won't go away. A very embarrassing hickey (which usually you can't see because it's covered up by that nasty little fascist from NYC's Bloombergs boot on our throat...). I wonder how many gallons of witch hazel it'd take to... oh, nevermind. I fear we'll just have to wait this one out. Anyone got a state-sized turtleneck we can borrow?

Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at:
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at:
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at:
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at:
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at:

Saturday, December 05, 2015

Foreign And Domestic

The case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome in California appears to actually be an episode of Premature Jihadilation (as explained by Nikki). Though Cali has arguably the strictest gun owner control laws in the nation, that didn't stop Jihad Joe and Jane from simply ignoring them and others (such as the ones prohibiting murder). The reaction form some quarters has been predictable in direction, though a bit surprising in degree. Michael Bane points out that indeed, they want to take away our firearms. The NYT editorial that Mr. Bane mentions is fisked by Miss Claire, who notes that the first front page editorial from the NYT since 1920 is all about gun owner control with innuendos of confiscation. David Codrea notes that it may be time to add another line to the Hickenlooper Blues. He links to a Denver Post interview where Bloomberg's that nasty little fascist from NYC's chief public servant in Colorado claims he's talking with folks about adding more constitutionally repugnant gun owner control laws here. For those of you with any sort of faith in the Colorado GoP, I'd point to the DP article Mr. Codrea links to, wherein Hicky claims he's in talks with those who previously opposed any more gun owner control laws but now say they're open to them, and this was prior to the latest breakout of SJS (or PJ) in Cali. Given the talk about cutting a deal for 30 rounders a while back, I'd also keep an eye on the local (and national for that matter) pro-gun groups to make sure they aren't trying to pull a Chamberlain Gottlieb (again or again).

It's easy to see who are enemies are when they call for disarmament, whole or partial. But I would also caution that our enemies aren't just the ones that try to enact new laws to impose upon our Rights, but also those that try to protect laws that currently impose upon our Rights. Y'all have probably heard that attempts at passing new gun owner control laws were stopped in the senate last week. What I fear may be overlooked is that an attempt to loosen a very burdensome situation was also stopped. Via David Codrea I found this article from the Hill, explaining Rand Paul's attempt to force D.C. to issue concealed carry permits to residents and non residents as well as honoring out of town permits. Of course I'm not happy with anything short of constitutional carry (no permit required to carry a weapon, openly or discreetly), but no one voting against Paul's measure, including Kirk from Illinois (who for some inexplicable reason has an "R" beside his name) did so for the sake of a constitutional carry bill being brought to the floor.

Billll contemplates calling out the militia. While making a formal call may not be uncalled for, it may not be necessary either, as most folks I know of are making it a point to be not only cautious but prepared. With advanced warning, calling out the militia may just be the thing to do. But the threat we have is non specific; there's no particular area or even type of place that we're certain the enemy will fling itself against (though it's not a bad bet that there'll be a victim disarmament sign outside whatever locale they pick next). Militia historically have not always been summoned by some central authority. If the Reivers descended upon your village, you didn't wait for word from the chief - you cried the alarm as you grabbed your spear and sword and went out to repel the invaders.

I'll also remind folks, cause it's worth reminding folks about, that a little over 14 years ago the militia, who had been disarmed by the feds, was called into service. But instead of having a .380 in his pocket as was his birthright, the Feds gave Todd Beamer a food cart and told him to go do his duty. They have not admitted their mistake, and in fact have doubled down on unconstitutionally disarming the citizenry that wish to travel. So in Detroit, upstate NY and D.C. you have public servants that are in effect calling forth the militia, telling folks to be prepared and to be vigilant. But in those places, and too many others, an immoral process of permitting or licensing is in place that has at the least a chilling effect on people exercising their Right to carry weapons.

We have enemies outside of this country that seek to send their agents in for the purpose of attacking us. Bear in mind that we also have enemies within this country that, while being too cowardly to attack us directly, would use the law to disparage our Rights to the point that we are defenseless against direct attacks. While being cautious and looking out for the former, don't get blindsided by the latter.

And in case you've forgotten, appeasement is for chumps.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

A Few Losses

Sadly, Dean Dillabaugh passed in mid-October. He ran Dean's Gun Restorations whose motto is "Life's too short to shoot an ugly gun". The business he started is still operating and from what I've seen doing nice work.

Also, Jim Dubell of Delta Gun Shop and Clearwater Reboring passed away back in July.

I never had occasion to do any business with either of the aforementioned gentleman, but their work was reputed to be of the highest quality in their respective fields. They will be missed.

What They Think Of You

 Joe Huffman has a category on his blog labeled as "This is what they think of you". When I stumbled upon the following story it definitely came to mind.

A Nazi who worked at Auschwitz was tried for complicity in the murders of 300,000 people. He received a 4 year prison sentence.

Keep in mind, having a shotgun with a barrel that's 17.99" long sans a $200 tax stamp can land you as much as 10 years in the pen.

In Cali, possessing an "assault weapon" or a .50 BMG rifle contrary to the law will net you a minimum of 4 years in prison.

In Illinois possessing a firearm without a FOID will land you up to 1 year in prison.

In NY possessing three or more firearms, an "assault weapon" or a "high capacity ammunition feeding device" carries up to a 7 year sentence. If you have five or more firearms, or one that's loaded, then it's up to 15 years.

Possessing a handgun without the proper permit in Iowa or Massachusetts can fetch 2 years in prison. In NJ it's 3 years minimum.

Merely exercising a constitutionally enumerated Right if your papers are not in order can cause you to spend anywhere from 1/4 to almost 4 times the prison sentence of a Nazi that helped the death machine at Auschwitz murder 300,000 people. (Granted, the Nazi should have gotten more - I've long thought that the nooses at Nuremberg should have had cooks & clerks as well as commanders - but the point still stands, that if you own or carry a firearm then you're equivocal to an evil person that belonged to an evil group.)

That's what they think of you.

Friday, November 20, 2015

What Chesty Would Say

In late 1950 the Chinese managed to sneak an army into north Korea and surround X corps. This was a bit problematic, as you can imagine. MacArthur's staff had vehemently denied that the Chinese would get involved, and when reports of Chinese assaults were relayed, Willoughby (MacArthur's Chief of Intelligence) snorted "That's another goddamn Marine corps lie".  There were a lot of internal politics involved and MacArthur did not want to believe that the Chinese had entered the war. Reality tends to trump politics though.

Chesty Puller was commanding the 1rst Marine Regiment at the time. When the embedded press asked him about his plans concerning the distressing situation they were in it's reported that he replied;

"We've been looking for the enemy for several days now. We've finally found them. We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem of finding these people and killing them."

It is also told that when informed by his intelligence staff that they were surrounded, he quipped;

"Great. Now we can shoot at those bastards from every direction."

The order was given for X Corps to turn around and march back down to Hungman, to establish a perimeter under the guns of the Navy.  Puller's regiment, acting as rearguard for X Corps, not only smashed up 7 Chinese divisions on their way out, but managed to take a bunch of equipment the Army had abandoned. When they reached the safety of Hungman, Chesty told some reporters, "Remember, whatever you write, this was no retreat. All that happened was that we found more Chinese behind us than in front of us, so we about-faced and attacked".

I bring all of this up not only because it's fascinating history, or that brave men and their deeds should not be forgotten, but to highlight that Puller was not "nervous in the service" so to speak. He wasn't prone to exaggeration or paranoia or unwarranted concern. In fact the actions mentioned above got Chesty his fifth Navy Cross and a Distinguished Service Cross from the Army.

On the road from Koto-Ri to Hungman, Puller admonished his troops, especially the tank commanders, to not let the civilians that were tagging along get too close. Most were merely North Korean refugees that just wanted to get the hell out of there and find some semblance of safety (and food and shelter). But scattered among them were North Korean and Chinese soldiers that had donned civilian clothing. Under their coats they had grenades and submachine guns. The instructions were to fire over the heads of the civilian crowds to keep them back. If that failed then firing into the crowds was the only thing to do. It was gruesome and a sorry thing to go through, but necessary. A few commanders didn't follow those orders and at least 3 tanks were lost because of it.

When talk of bringing refugees from the middle east over here comes up, I recall what Puller went through in North Korea. I remember the unwillingness of the brass to acknowledge the realities of the situation, and the danger that was hidden amongst folks that were naturally sympathetic.

The reality is that for every hundred or thousand refugees that only want a safe place to live there's probably a few miscreants who wish to get as close as they can before they attack. It's entirely possible, given the relatively porous state of our borders, that dozens of such infiltrators are already here, waiting for the moment to strike at us. But I see no benefit in flying more groups in here when they're possibly contaminated by those who only want to get their jihad on.

The federal government here is even blinder than MacArthur's folks back then; the current administration will refuse to see beyond the politics of the situation and thus dismiss the notion that they cannot control every single immigrant once they're here.

Being vigilant is definitely something to strive for (as it always has been). This country has plenty of soft targets - schools, malls, movie theaters - too many of which are "gun free zones". This country has plenty of places where self defense and effective tools for same are discouraged. If you have to be in any of those locations I'd advise keeping your eyes open as well as having a plan to deal with any sudden jihad syndrome that infects the place. With the holidays approaching, many of those aforementioned places will be much more crowded than usual, and thus be more tempting targets as well as being harder to notice signs of danger in.

If several places are hit on the same day across the country it'll create a panic. I'm confident that in such an event the federal and state governments will take immediate, decisive and inarguably wrong steps, bolstered by folks who are just downright scared. The upshot of this cheery prediction is that, as you probably already figured out by now, you're on your own.

So have a plan, not just for dealing with a crackhead who really needs your money and has a knife to prove it, or for some emo punk that thinks killing folks before offing himself is somehow the thing to do, but for being in a place that has 2 or more attackers that desire to punish the infidels in as great a number as possible before moving on to the next location on their quest for religious purity. I'd go ahead and assume they would have something thicker and more bullet resistant than a T-shirt on under their coats, for what it's worth. (If you're thinking, "Gee, it'd sure have been nice if they hadn't outlawed armor piercing handgun ammo now wouldn't it? then allow me to welcome you to the Libertarian Party).

That means having an escape plan, and having the means and skills to fight back if escape isn't desirable or feasible. Some folks suggest putting the trunk gun back in your trunk, though I'm still wondering why anyone would drive around without at least one there in the first place. If you can't keep a medical kit on you, at least have one in your vehicle. And for Vishnu's sake, don't walk around in a blissful daze thinking your I-phone's screen is more important than your surroundings. If you end up in Valhalla because you were reading a semi-funny text and didn't notice Jihad Joe whipping out an AK and deciding you were a perfect first target, Thor will make fun of you. For millennia.

I'll leave you with another admonition from good ol' Chesty:

"I want you to make 'em understand; Our country won't go on forever, if we stay as soft as we are now. There won't be any America - because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race."

Thursday, November 12, 2015

A Bone To Pick

Winter's Bone is a book written by Daniel Woodrell in a style he calls country noir. It was made into an independent film back in 2010 starring Jennifer Lawrence. As usual, I'd suggest reading the book after watching the movie, but the movie was a much better telling of the story than a typical Hollywood effort (for example what they did to Starship Troopers, or Percy Jackson, or how they distorted LotR and Harry Potter). It's about a poor family in the Ozarks and their struggle to survive a crisis caused by the meth trade. Woodrell writes decent prose and tells a good story. I was impressed by Lawrence and the other actors, as well as the way the movie transferred the story to film (minus one semi random polarized shot of squirelliness, which I'll give a pass on since it was an independent film going for an award). so I do recommend reading the book and watching the movie. In fact, here's the trailer:

Now, what I wanted to chat about was a review of the movie, which I think not only highlights the anti-Southern prejudice prevalent in so many places, but provides another glimpse into the culture war we've been fighting for a few millennia now. Oh, and there'll likely be spoilers.

Ten I See

Over at Unc's place, there's an amusing little poster whose aim is to further the caliber wars. Just to catch anyone up who wasn't munching on popcorn whilst perusing gun nut forums for the last decade-ish, there's a disagreement as to whether it's best to have a lot of rounds of a smallish caliber, or a few rounds of a biggish caliber, usually simplified as 9mm vs .45 acp (or .40 S&W). PapaDeltaBravo has a pic to illustrate the smaller caliber advocates position.

A 9mm loaded with modern JHP's of a sufficient velocity (which you'll find in most "defense" loading of said cartridge) is probably fine for most situation where someone would have occasion to fling rocks at someone. Most people will be well served by that cartridge.

I don't carry a 9mm. I carry a 10mm. (cause it's 1mm better!)

Looking at the pic PDB has up, you'll see that penetration of several different projectiles is virtually the same, thus leading one to conclude that since each projectile is practically the same as another, then using a projectile in a cartridge with increased magazine capacity and reduced recoil would be a wise decision.

That pic however is not all inclusive. I note that the .40 S&W rounds weren't loaded to their full potential for example. And it was not all inclusive, as the 10mm among others wasn't shown. Also, I presume it was bare gelatin.

In WW2 (and The Korean War) the most prevalent round on the battlefield was not M2 ball. It was M2 AP. That's because there was a helluva lot of metal all over the place, and having a projectile that could reach the other side of some of that metal was desirable. M2 ball would have worked just fine on the itinerant fascist, imperialist or (later on) communist soldier who hadn't seen the wisdom in surrendering, but it had to reach said enemy combatant before it could do its job, and with the metal prevalence it was best to just go ahead and use AP ammo.

That's what I think a lot of folks neglect when proclaiming their choice in cartridge, especially when accompanied by "stopping power is a myth" or other such rallying cries. I'm sure 9mm will do fine if its trying to reach vitals covered only by denim and skin, but what if there's a more substantial barrier?

Bears live out here. There's been occasion when they've wandered into my neighborhood, and I'm only 15 minutes from downtown Denver. A 9mm won't reach anything terribly important in a bruin. It's arguable that a hot loaded FMJ in .40 S&W wouldn't do enough to put a bear down. A 10mm loaded relatively hot will.

I know my luck well enough to speculate that if I am attacked in such a manner that I think making real loud noises whilst throwing rocks is warranted, that the assailant(s) will likely have more than just a winter coat on. Depending on how thick any body armor is, a 10mm may not penetrate though it'd be more likely to than a 9mm (though less likely than a hot .454 Casull). But the loads I carry have more muzzle energy than a 9mm, thus a better chance of distracting an attacker even if the hit doesn't go through body armor. I may even be fortunate enough to crack a rib, which will make that assailant less effective in attacking me.

For any number crunchers out there, I found this test of several different types of 10mm ammo. I'll note that all but two type of 10mm achieved at least 12 inches of penetration (the two that didn't had more than 100% expansion). Here's a ballistic chart showing velocity and energy of various 10mm loads. (And for what it's worth here's a forum thread discussing 10mm ballistic gelatin tests).

You can find 10mm pistols with capacities varying from 2 to 20 rounds, with concealability decreasing proportional to the yield of the cartridge box. In general it's usually about the same number of cartridges in an otherwise identical pistol chambered for .40 S&W, and two or three less rounds than you'd find in a comparable 9mm. My 10mm's have noticeably more recoil than a comparable 9mm, and thus follow up shots are a tad slower. Accuracy is equivalent for all practical purposes.

Where the 10mm shines is that it can go places the 9mm or arguably even the .40 S&W and .45 acp just can't go, namely to the vital zone of something with a moderate to heavy barrier twixt you and it. (A .44 Magnum would accomplish that even better, but at the cost of increased firearm weight, increased recoil and much lower capacity.)

I mention all this to illustrate that when most folks start pointing to that PDB pic of gelatin tests or otherwise proclaim the 9mm equal or superior, they're neglecting the qualifiers, such as having the target being a human sans any sort of artificial barrier.

If you carry a 9mm and are happy with it then cool. I won't attempt to alter your selection. If you carry a .380 acp, a .22 magnum, a .357 Sig, a .455 Webley, a .32 H&R Magnum, or even a .22LR then as long as you're proficient with it and understand the cartridge's capabilities and limitations then that's groovy.

There is no one best cartridge, only cartridges better suited to particular tasks than others. a large part of what determines that suitability is little more than personal preference. If you lack bruins and discount the small but not improbable likelihood of being attacked by armor wearing thugs (here's where I'll remind y'all of the Tyler Texas courthouse shootings, and Mr. Wilson), then the 10mm may not be the best choice for you.

For me and the way I think, the 10mm makes the most sense in a carry gun. However it's still a compromise and if a bruin or armored miscreant was something I knew I was gonna face, I'd grab a Garand loaded with AP. (that's if I couldn't get my hands on a Bofors of course).

The Keyword Is Fight

Firearms are usually the best tool to use to exert force against another entity. Usually. Being gun nuts a lot of us have a tendency to over-emphasize firearms use. Now I don't want to be misconstrued - if you're 5'4" and barely tip the scales over the 100 pound mark, then a firearm is definitely the most effective way to stop that unknown and uninvited fellow from busting all up in your house (unless you've got a lightsaber). But as the old saying says "a .25 in your pocket is more useful than a .45 back at your house" it also is true that whatever you have in hand when the fight starts is more useful than anything you have to unholster.

Let's say you're sitting in a bar. You have a glass half full (cause we're optimists on occasion) of your favorite beverage. You have a very cool automatic knife with adamantium blade on your belt and a handgun in an IWB holster under your light jacket. Suddenly, seemingly out of that proverbial nowhere, a large, angry, somewhat substance-altered fellow comes rushing at you with a machete raised. So how would you get to your primary weapon?

You wouldn't - your primary weapon is already in your hand. It's the glass with liquid in it. You throw the liquid in the fellow's face, then fling the glass itself at the same face that should be drenched with that raspberry-strawberry smoothie you were enjoying just seconds before.

Even a full glass of berried up smoothie isn't anywhere nearly as effective as a handgun. But when a fight starts you don't have time to organize your equipment to your liking. The number one task is to stop this hypothetical miscreant from making you test how effective your health insurance is. Yes, shooting him once or thrice would be more effective than a face full of juice if you had time to draw and fire. In our hypothetical you don't. You do have time to hinder his eyesight by dousing his ocular region with liquid. If things go well with that, he'll falter long enough for you to introduce pain into the equation via a glass to the face. Those things will hopefully give you enough time to create some lateral distance and grab one of your other weapons.

It's a simple idea to test; have an assistant standing well off to the side with a glass of water. Place an object a few feet ahead of yourself that you intend to cleave with a machete (or axe, or tire iron - whatevs). At a signal, move forward and try to strike the object while your assistant throws water in your face. You may be able to pull it off, but you'll know you weren't nearly as efficient as you'd have otherwise been. You'll have taken longer, and that delay is the important part as it gives an opponent more time to react.

Someone, and I forget who exactly, once criticized the notion that in a theater shooting the audience should have pelted the attacker with popcorn. But that's exactly what folks should do. A bag of popcorn, even day old mostly stale popcorn like you'll find in some theaters, isn't as effective as a .45, or even a 9mm. There's not gonna be any ballistic gelatin tests or one-shot stop ratios concerning a bag of Redenbacher. But its purpose is not to stop, but to distract and/or delay.

Again, use an assistant. set up a target 25 yards away. Use whatever weapon you like. At a signal, try to fire 5 rounds into the target, but at the signal your assistant will throw popcorn at your face (from the side of course). The result will be that you'll take longer to shoot those shots, and your shots will not be as precisely placed.

If a punk decides to shoot up a movie theater, folks should throw popcorn, drinks, purses, cell phones, canes, chairs - anything they have at hand. This will distract said punk enough to decrease his ability to hit what he's aiming at. It will also remove his focus from anyone who may be trying to rush him form off to his side. And it should overwhelm his senses enough that he won't see the two or three people reaching behind their back to draw a handgun (all things being ideal).

When you're attacked your primary weapon is whatever you can use right damn now. Be that a glass or a bag of food or an electronic communications device or a barstool. Whatever you have to draw or otherwise whip out isn't. At that point when aggression is initialized against you, that slick 10mm on your belt is a goal. Just like it's said that a handgun is a good thing to use to fight your way to your long gun, whatever you have in your hand (or close enough to grab without much effort) is a good way to fight your way to your handgun.

Firearms are real damn cool once you break them out, but they are just a type of tool, and not the only type. A gunfight is just a type of fight. While the gun is a real cool component to have, the most important part isn't the gun, it's the fight.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

What Really Matters

Over at Sipsey Street Irregulars I stumbled upon this post which contained the following photo:

Which is yet another flagrant example of Direct Impingement Supremacy rearing its ugly head! (not to mention it's displaying a carbine, not a rifle.) Black Rifles aren't the only rifles that matter. For instance:



So in short:

Which technically is misleading since I pictured two carbines. Lemme try this again:

See? That's much more inclusive of our inherent diversity, isn't it? :)

Oh, and just cause shorty's need love too:

How To End The Colorado Magazine Capacity Limits

There was for a while talk of cutting some sort of deal to increase the magazine capacity allowed by an unconstitutional law. The method was legislative and for a number of reasons I was not in favor of such a move. The most practical reason is that increasing the limit to 30 rounds would negate a fatal weakness in the law as it stands now. That particular flaw is that the magazine capacity limit law interferes with interstate commerce, and thus is unconstitutional. I'll spell it out below the break.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Garand Stuff

Just a quick update on the Garands around here. I have the new barrels about 1/5th of the way broken in. I've added optics to 2 out of 3 I plan on putting some form of glass on. I acquired new springs and pins for them all, as well as butt stock cleaning kits, plus a few accessories here and there.

In case anyone that reads here missed it, I had one of my Garands worked on by Tim Shufflin of Shuff's Parkerizing. He offers a modification he calls the Mini-G, which shortens the Garand's barrel to 16". his turn around time is measured in weeks and I his customer service is superb. I heartily recommend him for any of the services he offers.

Here's my Mini-G is as currently configured:

That's an Aimpoint Micro T-1 with a 4moa dot with an LRP conversion kit (basically it turns the Aimpoint mount into a QD affair) sitting on top of an Ultimak M12 rail. On the back is an Olongapo stock pouch. The front sight is a Smith Enterprise Tritium post. An M1 web sling and an M1 bayonet round out the package.

When I took it to the range I was pressed for time and didn't get around to everything I wanted to that day. The Mini-G and another Garand both have new Krieger barrels and I was hoping to get them both properly broken in, but I fell woefully short of that goal. I did manage to get everything sighted in with irons (or reconfirm the sighting in some cases). That was before I got the optics. With the Aimpoint it's not that big an issue, as the iron sights are usable through the glass, so I just adjusted the dot to sit on top of the front post as I sighted through the rear aperture. It'll have to be verified at range of course, but that should get me minute of windbreaker on anything within self defense range.

After initial sigtht in I did manage to get off a few shots at 100 yards to get an idea of how the Mini-G will work:

Considering the HXP ammo and my old eyes, I'm thinking that 16" barrel is gonna work out fine, just fine.

Recoil was a bit more pronounced and the report was louder than a full length Garand, but nothing too harsh for me. I did acquire a rubber boot meant to soften the recoil from launching grenades on old '03 Springfields. It slips on a Garand buttstock with some effort and off again. I'm unsure how much a difference it'll make (as I don't find the recoil that bad to begin with) but I'll try it next time I hit the range. I still had to consciously refrain from yelling "PULL!" every time I threw that thing to my shoulder. This may become my go-to pheasant gun... (I kid, but not by much)

Another Garand got new glass:

This one is set up almost identical to the Mini-G - Smith Enterprise Tritium front sight, Olongapo stock pouch, M1 sling and M1 bayonet. It also sports a GarandGear Ported Gas Cylinder Lock Screw (which they call a Gas Plug) as well as a Burris 2x7x32 handgun scope in Warne Maxima QD medium rings.(Note: I tried the low rings but didn't quite get enough clearance aft, so went with the medium.)  I haven't had a chance to sight in this scope yet, but it seems like a promising set up, judging from how things looked as I got the eye relief adjusted when I mounted it on the rifle.

The others are coming along but nothing too exciting to report. I'm still trying to decide on a scope for the Griffin and Howe mount, and the remaining Garand I'll leave as is (except I did add a GarandGear Ported Gas Cylinder Lock Screw). I'm also contemplating having Rock Creek Barrels whip me up some G.I. contour tubes but with a 1:11 twist, as well as a few other odds and ends. The main thing left now on almost all of them is to refinish the metal and wood and do some adjustments to the triggers to smooth things up a bit. I'm also look real intently at this DMR adjustable trigger. It's pricey but it's very interesting, as is their drop-in competition hammer and their selection of reduced and rectangular apertures (for Garands, M1A's and a few other types of rifles) Oh and of course I still need to remedy the lack of grenade launchers round here.

I'm hoping things slow down enough in the next few weeks that I can hit the range again and get all these fundamental operations out of the way so I can start putting these hole punchers through their paces (and start load development for those new barrels). Knowing my luck, weeks could turn into months. So when I can I'll keep y'all updated on how these projects are coming along.

I Am Offended

Speaking (er, typing) on behalf of those of us who self-identify as Operating Rods (personal pronoun of choice being "You mother*&%^$%^!!!!!") I am deeply, gravely and perhaps even gustationally offended by someone I thought was more sensitive - nay - someone whom was a pal, a friend, a fellow who wouldn't steal towels at the beach while everyone else was in the water. In other words, Michael Bane (a wolf in self identified Llama's clothing!).

In this post Mr. Bane perpetuates the Direct Impingement Supremacy (Hereon after referred to as DIS) propaganda with the following hurtful words strung together as if to form a sentence of pain and entitlement:

"...the AR-15 platform carbine, which should of course be the first long gun purchase."

There it is. Bold and brazen for all to see. A first long gun purchase should never be some dirty, ill used, socially irrelevant thing with a piston on it. Oh nooo, why that would just  upset the social order and cause people to whisper loudly at the theater now wouldn't it? But it gets worse...

In this post he continues his unabashed DIS'ing and in this one, the micro-aggressive macro-aggressions are enough to offend your offensibilities! To wit:

"We also got so see a bunch of new products for the AR platform…they are every bit as thoughtful and well-designed as the rifle itself."

See that? His subtle implication is not just that the AR platform is well designed (a contention that those of us around here would dispute if we weren't so sensitive to other people's feelings!) but that any and all piston involved firearms are thus inferior, brutish, of sub-standard comprehension capability and should be sent off to reeducation scrap metal camps! Oh, how we have been DIS'ed!

It gets worse. In that last linked bit of hurt and woe and DIS, he links favorably to a piece entitled "If You Only Had One 5.56 Carbine", wherein the gentle reader is shocked to find these words:

" And yes, trust us on this: you really want an AR, not an AK or G3 clone or Valmet or AUG or Tavor."

See? The DIS is not hidden or subtle or even deftly concealed in an Eastern Barbecue sandwich - it's right there in the open for all to see and be viscerally injured by!

Yet it gets even worse. Michael Bane Felabeorbt unleashes more DIS in this post, wherein he intones the chant of:

"Black Rifles Matter!"

Mr. Bane? Michael? Felabeorbt? Don't Brown Rifles Matter too?

Can we live in a world where all Gas Operated Reloading methods - Direct Impingement, Long Stroke, Short Stroke and even Gas Traps - get along? Can we have a conversation about the validity of the variety of Gas Systems available? Can we just celebrate diversity? As long as Direct Impingement Supremacy continues to repress us, I fear the answer is no.

Oh, the pain of being DIS'ed! Oh, the emotional trauma of being treated like we're Children of a Lesser Gunsmith!

As a result of these tetra-aggressions I have become not merely offended, but More Offended Than Thou (which consequently makes me eligible for a Senate seat in New York state or tenure at CU Boulder, possibly both...). Now if you will excuse me, after all these emotional blitzkriegs I really need to go hug a Garand. Or two.