Wednesday, March 07, 2018
March Sixth Two Thousand Eighteen
Sunday, February 25, 2018
It's Not About The Gun It's About The Good
I notice that a lot of progressives are having trouble internalizing a concept; what matters is the substance, not appearance. For example, if a person has double bit axe & a flannel shirt that does not make him a lumberjack; if a person has a 28 oz. waffle headed Eastwing & faded jeans that does not make him a framing carpenter; if a person possesses a ten gallon Stetson and a horse that does not make him a cowboy, and if a person possesses a doctor's stethoscope and a pastel shirt that does not make her an RN (right Miss Behar?)
Case in point:
"A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"
Simple enough, right? Not to progressives. Ya see, it has the word "gun" in it, which therefore becomes the fixation. Trips them right up, every time.
The thought (I use the term loosely) is that because Brave Sir Deputy failed to stop the mass murderer at the Parkland high school then voila! It is now proven that a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun.
I present to you this dribble from one Elliot Hannon over at Slate:
"The problem is that there was a good guy with a gun at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that day" (emphasis in original)
This is very easy to clear up, and I shall in a moment.
Case in point:
"A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"
Simple enough, right? Not to progressives. Ya see, it has the word "gun" in it, which therefore becomes the fixation. Trips them right up, every time.
The thought (I use the term loosely) is that because Brave Sir Deputy failed to stop the mass murderer at the Parkland high school then voila! It is now proven that a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun.
I present to you this dribble from one Elliot Hannon over at Slate:
"The problem is that there was a good guy with a gun at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that day" (emphasis in original)
This is very easy to clear up, and I shall in a moment.
Pardon My French, But GVRO Hell No
David French writes glowingly of Gun Violence Restraining Orders. In a fantastically doublespeakish introduction, French claims that GVRO's "...make us all safer while empowering the individual and protecting liberty."
(Hugh Hewitt has also been talking about a principal or some other school administrator being able to call NICS and place a "no buy" type of hold on someone. Most of my objections to GVRO's fall along similar lines so I won't deal with that proposal directly here.)
The concept is thus: Person A (family member, spouse, roommate, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.) calls the cops and makes a claim that Person B is too dangerous to have firearms. The cops along with Person A (in theory) go in front of a judge and the judge decides whether or not to grant this GVRO. Person B may be allowed to defend himself against the claims at the initial hearing, but an ex parte hearing is also an option for a temporary GVRO, with a 72 hour or so duration. If it is issued then the cops take away Person B's firearms. There should be an expiration date with either type of GVRO so that the claim must be reviewed and the GVRO either continued or rescinded.
That's the basics of it. French's piece is fisk-worthy of itself, but I lack the time to really dissect his arguments bit by bit.
I will say I think this is a great idea - if the republicans are tired of being a majority party. Otherwise it's problematic in all of its' aspects.
(Hugh Hewitt has also been talking about a principal or some other school administrator being able to call NICS and place a "no buy" type of hold on someone. Most of my objections to GVRO's fall along similar lines so I won't deal with that proposal directly here.)
The concept is thus: Person A (family member, spouse, roommate, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.) calls the cops and makes a claim that Person B is too dangerous to have firearms. The cops along with Person A (in theory) go in front of a judge and the judge decides whether or not to grant this GVRO. Person B may be allowed to defend himself against the claims at the initial hearing, but an ex parte hearing is also an option for a temporary GVRO, with a 72 hour or so duration. If it is issued then the cops take away Person B's firearms. There should be an expiration date with either type of GVRO so that the claim must be reviewed and the GVRO either continued or rescinded.
That's the basics of it. French's piece is fisk-worthy of itself, but I lack the time to really dissect his arguments bit by bit.
I will say I think this is a great idea - if the republicans are tired of being a majority party. Otherwise it's problematic in all of its' aspects.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Literary And Literally
In Poul Anderson's War Of The Gods there's a tale about a king's hoardkeeper. Allow me to summarize (but do indulge in Anderson's book as it's a decent read):
Glum was an old man, and had been a warrior in his youth. He was appointed hoardkeeper under Haddings father, stayed in the post through the next king, and so Hadding decided to keep him on when he ascended the throne. He was housed in rooms at the front of the king's storehouse, and was given food, drink, clothes, and a servant and was treated with honor.
One day King Hadding visited the storehouse to take some of his treasure, intending them as gifts for some of his allies and servants. After Glum opened the door to the storeroom (as only he had a key) Hadding discovered thieves had been in and did some plundering. Glum protested his innocence and Hadding discovered the thieves had tunneled in some time in the preceding month or so. He agreed that Glum had been no thief, but charged he was negligent, in that he should have checked on the treasures himself from time to time, or not been so drunk as to not hear the noise of thieves tunneling into the building he dwelt in.
Hadding had Glum before his court and related what had happened, concluding with the charge that Glum was negligent, having allowed thieves to make off with things under his care. He pronounced that Glum should die and asked Glum if he had anything to say. Glum admitted he was negligent, said that he was too old to do the job properly and the king should have appointed a younger man to the post, but the king could do with him as he wished; just leave his honor intact. Hadding, in concession, agreed and ordered that Glum die on the gallows (which was a more honorable death than the other options) to which Glum consented that it was good.
Robert A. Heinlein has told a story on numerous occasions of an accident that occurred when he was a child. If you'll pardon me I'll paraphrase it:
A lady and her husband were walking through town. when crossing over a railroad track the lady's foot got stuck. The husband started trying to free her with no luck. Then a man - presumed a hobo - happened along and joined the husband in his efforts. A train was approaching and they worked steadily trying to free the lady's foot. They were still engaged at that task when the train hit all three of them. The lady and the hobo were killed instantly, and the husband lived just long enough to tell what happened. The lady was stuck; she had no choice in the matter. The husband did have a choice and he chose to do what a husband should do. The hobo - if indeed that's all he was - had a choice as well. He could have jumped aside at any moment and no blame or shame would have been incurred. Yet he stayed, helping with his last mortal efforts a lady whom he did not know; a couple whom may not have accepted him socially or sat down with him for lunch. He stayed and whatever fear he felt was quelled by something inside him that told him saving a lady whom he had no bond with or connection to was worth his very life. This is how a man dies, and this is how a man lives.
Heinlein does a much better job of telling the story, but I think I got all the important points. Now contrast those two tales with this:
Four Sheriff's Deputies Hid During Florida School Shooting
Glum was an old man, and had been a warrior in his youth. He was appointed hoardkeeper under Haddings father, stayed in the post through the next king, and so Hadding decided to keep him on when he ascended the throne. He was housed in rooms at the front of the king's storehouse, and was given food, drink, clothes, and a servant and was treated with honor.
One day King Hadding visited the storehouse to take some of his treasure, intending them as gifts for some of his allies and servants. After Glum opened the door to the storeroom (as only he had a key) Hadding discovered thieves had been in and did some plundering. Glum protested his innocence and Hadding discovered the thieves had tunneled in some time in the preceding month or so. He agreed that Glum had been no thief, but charged he was negligent, in that he should have checked on the treasures himself from time to time, or not been so drunk as to not hear the noise of thieves tunneling into the building he dwelt in.
Hadding had Glum before his court and related what had happened, concluding with the charge that Glum was negligent, having allowed thieves to make off with things under his care. He pronounced that Glum should die and asked Glum if he had anything to say. Glum admitted he was negligent, said that he was too old to do the job properly and the king should have appointed a younger man to the post, but the king could do with him as he wished; just leave his honor intact. Hadding, in concession, agreed and ordered that Glum die on the gallows (which was a more honorable death than the other options) to which Glum consented that it was good.
Robert A. Heinlein has told a story on numerous occasions of an accident that occurred when he was a child. If you'll pardon me I'll paraphrase it:
A lady and her husband were walking through town. when crossing over a railroad track the lady's foot got stuck. The husband started trying to free her with no luck. Then a man - presumed a hobo - happened along and joined the husband in his efforts. A train was approaching and they worked steadily trying to free the lady's foot. They were still engaged at that task when the train hit all three of them. The lady and the hobo were killed instantly, and the husband lived just long enough to tell what happened. The lady was stuck; she had no choice in the matter. The husband did have a choice and he chose to do what a husband should do. The hobo - if indeed that's all he was - had a choice as well. He could have jumped aside at any moment and no blame or shame would have been incurred. Yet he stayed, helping with his last mortal efforts a lady whom he did not know; a couple whom may not have accepted him socially or sat down with him for lunch. He stayed and whatever fear he felt was quelled by something inside him that told him saving a lady whom he had no bond with or connection to was worth his very life. This is how a man dies, and this is how a man lives.
Heinlein does a much better job of telling the story, but I think I got all the important points. Now contrast those two tales with this:
Four Sheriff's Deputies Hid During Florida School Shooting
Friday, February 23, 2018
CNN's Town Hell
I'm going to - well I guess I can't say live blog since I'm watching a recording - watch the CNN Townhall on the Parkland, Fla. mass murder (so you don't have to) and type about it as it goes.
Regular font will be what I'm seeing happening, my thoughts will be in italics.
Regular font will be what I'm seeing happening, my thoughts will be in italics.
Muh Narrative
There was an earlobe malfunction at the FBI's tip line that caused swift inaction when someone saw something and said something. Earlier the FBI investigated a tip from a youtuber but were stumped when confronted with someone that clandestinely used his legal name on teh internetz. (also see End The 9/11 Syndrome At The FBI: Terrible Things Happen, And There's Little Accountability, and What Do We Do About The Biased And Incompetent FBI?, and last but not least Fire The FBI Chief)
To paraphrase a tweet I saw a few days ago :
A loose group of bored kids in their mom's basement used flight data from web cams to track down a flag hidden someplace in the u.S. in their spare time.
Paid professionals at the FBI couldn't track down someone that threatened to shoot up a school even though he signed his real name.
The local school board had reason to believe the student was troubled and dangerous. A few years back the school board implemented a policy to downplay the seriousness of student incidents because the arrest statistics from previous years were not helpful to their identity politics.
The Broward County Sheriff's office (Headed by gunowner control advocate Sheriff Scott Israel, for now) had received from 18 to 39 calls since 2010 concerning the murderer's address (depending on the source). The Deputy that was the school resource officer bravely stayed outside when the murders were going on inside. (He was suspended, but then retired.) ( Aside: why did they ask him to turn in his weapon? Clearly there was no danger of him actually using the thing.) Brave Sir Deputy also refused to share info with Social services about a visit to the murderer's home back in '16. Two other deputies were suspended amidst concerns that they did not follow protocol during some of the contacts they had with the murderer prior to the murders. (Also, no need to worry; Brave Sir Deputy is receiving a protective detail while he eases into his retirement.)
So of course, the media responsibly pushes for more gunowner control, as lax firearms laws is the only thing that could've led to this mass murder.
Not being content at demonstrating why Socrates won't return their calls, the fine folks in authorized media decided to use teenagers as human shields in their attempt to push for more restriction on Rights, because ratings. CNN is arguably the worst offender, but if you've looked around the last week or so you'll note that other MSM groups have followed their lead. The teenage survivors efforts at promoting gunowner control are organized enough that to some it smacks of astroturf. In short, the MSM is using these kids to push the MSM's agenda, and it's detrimental to those kids.
Miss Althouse asks what effect the coverage is likely to have on anyone thinking of becoming a mass murderer. I'd venture that "encouragement" is an understated response to her query.
CNN held what they called a Town Hall, because Show Trial, Anti-Gunowner PSA, or 2x53 Minute Hate seemed too obvious as titles, or perhaps too honest. Amidst calling a pro-gunowner lady a murderer, booing a story of a rape survivor wishing she'd had a gun, cheering at the thought of a complete semi-auto ban, and generally equating gun owners and the NRA as child murderers, they might have provoked a result opposite what they intended (though in an unsurprise move, the event mattered, according to the Atlantic). Oh did I mention the Antigunowner witch hunt was moderated by the ever neutral journalist Jake Tapper? I guess that makes things even since CNN never mentioned Tapper used to work for Handgun Control, Inc as a spokesman. There's also some debate over whether or not CNN scripted the questions for the ritual sacrifice. Sheriff Israel, whose deputy courageously sought cover outside while the murderer was murdering inside, accused the NRA (read that as "every gunowner everywhere, except cops) of not caring about the children. But as with the Atlantic piece linked above, the MSM is declaring a victory in the alleged televised conversation, getting heady with the notion of this being a path forward in the Children's March for Gunowner Control.
Sadly their efforts are gaining some momentum, which I'll try cover in another post.
Edited: 2-24-18 1:30 MST fixed a few typos, added 3 word to a sentence that somehow got deleted without my notice.
To paraphrase a tweet I saw a few days ago :
A loose group of bored kids in their mom's basement used flight data from web cams to track down a flag hidden someplace in the u.S. in their spare time.
Paid professionals at the FBI couldn't track down someone that threatened to shoot up a school even though he signed his real name.
The local school board had reason to believe the student was troubled and dangerous. A few years back the school board implemented a policy to downplay the seriousness of student incidents because the arrest statistics from previous years were not helpful to their identity politics.
The Broward County Sheriff's office (Headed by gunowner control advocate Sheriff Scott Israel, for now) had received from 18 to 39 calls since 2010 concerning the murderer's address (depending on the source). The Deputy that was the school resource officer bravely stayed outside when the murders were going on inside. (He was suspended, but then retired.) ( Aside: why did they ask him to turn in his weapon? Clearly there was no danger of him actually using the thing.) Brave Sir Deputy also refused to share info with Social services about a visit to the murderer's home back in '16. Two other deputies were suspended amidst concerns that they did not follow protocol during some of the contacts they had with the murderer prior to the murders. (Also, no need to worry; Brave Sir Deputy is receiving a protective detail while he eases into his retirement.)
So of course, the media responsibly pushes for more gunowner control, as lax firearms laws is the only thing that could've led to this mass murder.
Not being content at demonstrating why Socrates won't return their calls, the fine folks in authorized media decided to use teenagers as human shields in their attempt to push for more restriction on Rights, because ratings. CNN is arguably the worst offender, but if you've looked around the last week or so you'll note that other MSM groups have followed their lead. The teenage survivors efforts at promoting gunowner control are organized enough that to some it smacks of astroturf. In short, the MSM is using these kids to push the MSM's agenda, and it's detrimental to those kids.
Miss Althouse asks what effect the coverage is likely to have on anyone thinking of becoming a mass murderer. I'd venture that "encouragement" is an understated response to her query.
CNN held what they called a Town Hall, because Show Trial, Anti-Gunowner PSA, or 2x53 Minute Hate seemed too obvious as titles, or perhaps too honest. Amidst calling a pro-gunowner lady a murderer, booing a story of a rape survivor wishing she'd had a gun, cheering at the thought of a complete semi-auto ban, and generally equating gun owners and the NRA as child murderers, they might have provoked a result opposite what they intended (though in an unsurprise move, the event mattered, according to the Atlantic). Oh did I mention the Antigunowner witch hunt was moderated by the ever neutral journalist Jake Tapper? I guess that makes things even since CNN never mentioned Tapper used to work for Handgun Control, Inc as a spokesman. There's also some debate over whether or not CNN scripted the questions for the ritual sacrifice. Sheriff Israel, whose deputy courageously sought cover outside while the murderer was murdering inside, accused the NRA (read that as "every gunowner everywhere, except cops) of not caring about the children. But as with the Atlantic piece linked above, the MSM is declaring a victory in the alleged televised conversation, getting heady with the notion of this being a path forward in the Children's March for Gunowner Control.
Sadly their efforts are gaining some momentum, which I'll try cover in another post.
Edited: 2-24-18 1:30 MST fixed a few typos, added 3 word to a sentence that somehow got deleted without my notice.
What Do You Call Fuddites On Skis?
The u.S. Olympic Biathlon team, sadly enough.
Over at National Progressive Radio I found this piece from early February on the plight of the poor, underfunded u.S. Biathlon team. If you got a little miffed at miss Dunklee's comments towards the end of the article, get ready to hold their beers:
One of America's Best Marksmen on Gun Control: "There's just no reason for assault rifles to be in the hands of ordinary citizens"
The quote in the headline was from Lowell Bailey, who is the u.S.'s first world cup champion. Here's the full quote:
Over at National Progressive Radio I found this piece from early February on the plight of the poor, underfunded u.S. Biathlon team. If you got a little miffed at miss Dunklee's comments towards the end of the article, get ready to hold their beers:
One of America's Best Marksmen on Gun Control: "There's just no reason for assault rifles to be in the hands of ordinary citizens"
The quote in the headline was from Lowell Bailey, who is the u.S.'s first world cup champion. Here's the full quote:
“We’re
a sport that uses a .22-caliber rifle,' Bailey said. 'A .22-caliber
rifle that shoots a single round is a much different thing than an
AR-15. In my opinion, there’s just no reason for assault rifles to be in
the hands of ordinary citizens.'
Bailey said he does not own an AR-15 and has no desire to get one.
'I
have no interest in owning a weapon that can kill another human being –
that’s designed to kill another human being,' he said. 'And to do it in
an expeditious way. Why is that allowed? It’s maddening.”
Not content with turning his back on fellow gun owners, Bailey asks us to hold his beer while we're still holding his beer:
“There
was a time in our country when the means to defend yourself against an
oppressive government was an appropriate justification,' Bailey said. 'That time has passed.'
He
paused for a second before continuing: 'That’s a debate. But I think
there needs to be a respectful dialogue, an open dialogue without
special interests involved. It’s time our politicians sat down and made
some tough choices. What’s more important? Owning an AR-15 or having
innocent school children get killed?” (emphasis added, stupidity as in original)
I'll go ahead and point out the obvious - if a person wants a respectful dialogue then perhaps they shouldn't imply that you owning a rifle causes the death of youngins. It tends to insinuate that the person one wants to have a conversation with is a child murderer, which is usually not taken well. It also leads to the conclusion that the asker not only failed in basic logic, but his parents were remiss in the use of a hickory switch to instill basic manners.
Any sympathy I had for their funding plight has evaporated, along with any desire to watch them or support them in any way.
Bumpers
I'll omit yet another trillion word rant on the importance of preserving principle, or not being afraid to fight even if there's a chance of losing, or by making bad laws "better" it hurts us in the long run. Instead, I'll simply pose a question.
If you were a lawyer and wanted to win a case - any case - which of the following would you choose:
A challenge to a regulation that narrowly banned bump stocks, arguing it's unconstitutional
A challenge to a law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks that also criminalized lightened strikers, firing pins, and hammers; extra strength trigger springs, hammers springs and recoil springs; any lubricant with more viscosity than the heavy preservative grease slathered on at the factory by the manufacturer.
Related:
Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!
And Another Things
If you were a lawyer and wanted to win a case - any case - which of the following would you choose:
A challenge to a regulation that narrowly banned bump stocks, arguing it's unconstitutional
A challenge to a law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks that also criminalized lightened strikers, firing pins, and hammers; extra strength trigger springs, hammers springs and recoil springs; any lubricant with more viscosity than the heavy preservative grease slathered on at the factory by the manufacturer.
Related:
Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!
And Another Things
Thursday, February 22, 2018
I Kant Even
Another Youtuber (name of Roaming Millennial) has a nice little piece on the concept of Rights, and does a decent job of providing a secular justification for Natural Rights. It's worth the 10-ish minutes or so, so give it a watch when ya can.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Nix NICS
Liberty Doll (over on the youtubes) sums up some of the objections to the "Fix NICS" act which has been added to the national reciprocity bill in the house. For myself it's simple; if any changes to the prohibited persons list do not involve eradicating the prohibited persons list then it's not cool enough. Background checks exist for one purpose only - to deny the wrong people their Rights. And lest we forget, upwards of 94% of the time that denial is a false positive. Then there's that pesky little thing about putting government in God's place (the theory being, since God granted Natural Rights then only God may legitimately interfere with them, so since government is deciding who may or may not engage in a natural Right - owning or carrying weapons in this case - then we've put government in the place of God) which, at least for folks of a religious inclination, should give folks pause about such a system no matter its (allegedly) benign intentions.
But listen to the Doll le Liberty as she makes the case concisely for not supporting the "Fix Nics" amendment.
But listen to the Doll le Liberty as she makes the case concisely for not supporting the "Fix Nics" amendment.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Lotophagi
Just the yearly post (albeit a bit later than I was planning) full of well wishes & music of questionable utility. Now let me see if I remember how to embed stuff...
Monday, October 09, 2017
And Another Things
I thought I'd covered everything in this post about using bump fire stocks for appeasement purposes. I was wrong.
Saturday, October 07, 2017
Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!
I can't leave y'all alone for a minute...
Appeasement is for chumps.
I see I'm gonna have to break that phrase down for some folk.
If you're being chased by a bear and you think "Gee, that bear looks hungry. Perhaps if I let him eat my pinky toe I can keep him from devouring the rest of me. It's not like I use my pinky toe that often anyway. Yeah, I'll just do that." then you're gonna die. The bear won't be satisfied with just dining upon your pinky toe, and you'll have put yourself in a position where it's much, much easier for the bear to eat the rest of you.
You'd think after all this time the concept would be taken to heart, but nope. In the calls to do "something" after the Las Vegas shooting it seems some gunowners and even the NRA are wanting to throw bump fire stocks under the bus.
I've seen comments here and there claiming that this ban on bumpfire stocks is inevitable. That's a self fulfilling prediction. Keep telling yourself you're defeated and you will be. Others have argued that this isn't a hill they'd die on. I don't see why not though; are there better hills anyplace at the moment? Or do they merely look at the grass and scree and not think it aesthetically pleasant enough for risk, yet not see that this hill is an encumbrance to the anti gunowners? That the loss of this hill gives the enemy a firing position on our very homes? Think it's just bump stocks the enemy wants? Hell, that's not even all they're going after now.
Appeasement is for chumps.
I see I'm gonna have to break that phrase down for some folk.
If you're being chased by a bear and you think "Gee, that bear looks hungry. Perhaps if I let him eat my pinky toe I can keep him from devouring the rest of me. It's not like I use my pinky toe that often anyway. Yeah, I'll just do that." then you're gonna die. The bear won't be satisfied with just dining upon your pinky toe, and you'll have put yourself in a position where it's much, much easier for the bear to eat the rest of you.
You'd think after all this time the concept would be taken to heart, but nope. In the calls to do "something" after the Las Vegas shooting it seems some gunowners and even the NRA are wanting to throw bump fire stocks under the bus.
I've seen comments here and there claiming that this ban on bumpfire stocks is inevitable. That's a self fulfilling prediction. Keep telling yourself you're defeated and you will be. Others have argued that this isn't a hill they'd die on. I don't see why not though; are there better hills anyplace at the moment? Or do they merely look at the grass and scree and not think it aesthetically pleasant enough for risk, yet not see that this hill is an encumbrance to the anti gunowners? That the loss of this hill gives the enemy a firing position on our very homes? Think it's just bump stocks the enemy wants? Hell, that's not even all they're going after now.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Yoda Was Mistaken
The Army is looking at cartridges with larger bullets and contemplating a new rifle.
I have a theory on this; my people were big Braves fans (so don't you try to tell me what optimism is!) all through the 1970's and 1980's and even to this day. My maternal grandfather was chiefest amongst them. He passed away in the middle of one of the worst seasons ever for the Braves (which for the Braves is saying something). The next year they went to the World Series (lost, but went), battling their way to the pennant from a 39-40 record . They also played in the 1992 World Series. When folks we knew would express wonder at the turn around in fortune the Braves seemed to be experiencing, my relatives would say it wasn't unexpected - my grandfather was now able to directly intercede with the Good Lord on their behalf.
With that in mind, perhaps the late Col. Cooper has been making the case to the Good Lord that the poodle shooter's time has come and a more manly weapon is needed to smite the enemy (or at least let ol Chesty take a fiver cause you know he's been making the same appeal since he got there).
As for considering a bigger cartridge, I'm not surprised by this one whit. Once the Army went co-ed I knew eventually they'd realize that bigger is better. After all, you try to tell any woman that "size matters not". Go ahead. I dare ya. (Even a green Jedi master wasn't about to try to tell that BS to anyone but a guy. Luke mighta bought it, but Leia? puh-leaze!)
In the 1920's there was an argument for a 7mm-ish round, but this was downsizing from the mighty .30 that our doughboys took over there. It took final form in the .276 Pederson. That cartridge lobbed a 140 grain pill at 2400 fps from a case that was a tapered 2 inches (51mm) long and all together the cartridge was 2.8 inches tall. (The .280 British was similar, but still-born due to the u.S. shoving the 7.62x51mm down NATO's throat.)
Contrast that with the .260 Remington - 140 grain bullet launched at 2750 fps from a case that's 2 inches (51mm) long and all together the cartridge is 2.8 inches tall.
I've said for years that the best* general issue long gun** for the military would be a BM-59 chambered in a hot little 6mm or 7mm cartridge. The .260 Remington would fit the bill nicely (with a 1:8 twist).
A BM59E is roughly an inch longer than a standard Garand, while the other BM59 variants are slightly shorter than a standard Garand. Loaded weight is similar to a Garand (albeit with 20 rounds vs. 8) so about 1 and 1/2 pounds more than an M16. (that's with 7.62x51NATO ammo though - a .260 may trim some weight off of that.)
Replace the rear handguard with a rail mount, add an electronic sight or LER scope, add a tritium front sight and start passing them out. Oh, use an elevation knob calibrated in yards (cause Murica) and add about 3 and 1/3 inches to the bayonet - cause size matters.
And great Bastet bouncing on a beach ball - the first person that "suggests" "upgrading" to a plastic stock should be [censored due to punishment being too graphically described and possibly causing a PETA civil suit] until they repent of their sinful ways. If for some reason walnut ain't good enough there's always a nice laminate. (You don't want the third option. You just don't.)
(Want to get all slick? Add a variable gas system, with a dial from say 1 to 6. Then issue a guard round for close in work - say a 140 grainer pushing 2400 fps. Adjust the gas system for reliability and you've got a very controllable automatic carbine** for going into a city. Though this wouldn't be essential it's a nice thought.)
Price would be a problem; BM59 receivers are Garand receivers with some additional cuts on them. But if a company such as Ruger cast the receivers instead of having some middle aged fellow wearing a brim with a cigar hanging out of his mouth machine-whittle them out of raw organic free range steel then they might be cost competitive-ish. I'm sure MagPul could make polymer mags, possibly even adding 5 or 10 rounds to what the steel mags currently carry.
Speaking of mags, Fulton Armory has a page up contrasting M14 feeding devices with those of the BM59. I do not think a BM59 mag would survive a direct hit from a nuclear missile, but I'm confident the pieces would be identifiable.
A BM59 in .260 Remington (6.5 .26 NATO anyone?) would be about perfect for any branch of our military. It'd be a good general purpose carbine for us civilians as well (especially if the fun switch was intact). Aside from social purposes, it'd make a decent little target rifle (tell me one of these at a 3 gun match wouldn't just be fun) and could handle almost all game duties in the continental u.S. (.260 Remington may be a bit light for the bigger bears and moose and maybe a bit heavy for prairie dogs, though I'm sure handloaders could argue otherwise.)
Shame the military brass that handles procurement hasn't been hitting on all eight since about 1957-ish or I'd get my hopes up. Ah well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.
* I could still make an argument for a Garand, but in a concession to all the damned whippersnappers who think not having a box magazine is just too damn much hard work, or they might chip a fingernail, I'll posit Beretta's variant on Mr. Garand's rifle as the best design to date. Now don't say I never compromised (and don't ever expect me to do it again, ya heathens.)
** I consider 20 inches the dividing line between rifles and carbines. The BM59 models (except the BM59E and BM59SL) have 19 and 5/8" barrels or less, so to my mind they're still carbines, as are most all AR's and AK's and anything else with a pipe shorter than a cubit. Great carbines but carbines none the less.
I have a theory on this; my people were big Braves fans (so don't you try to tell me what optimism is!) all through the 1970's and 1980's and even to this day. My maternal grandfather was chiefest amongst them. He passed away in the middle of one of the worst seasons ever for the Braves (which for the Braves is saying something). The next year they went to the World Series (lost, but went), battling their way to the pennant from a 39-40 record . They also played in the 1992 World Series. When folks we knew would express wonder at the turn around in fortune the Braves seemed to be experiencing, my relatives would say it wasn't unexpected - my grandfather was now able to directly intercede with the Good Lord on their behalf.
With that in mind, perhaps the late Col. Cooper has been making the case to the Good Lord that the poodle shooter's time has come and a more manly weapon is needed to smite the enemy (or at least let ol Chesty take a fiver cause you know he's been making the same appeal since he got there).
As for considering a bigger cartridge, I'm not surprised by this one whit. Once the Army went co-ed I knew eventually they'd realize that bigger is better. After all, you try to tell any woman that "size matters not". Go ahead. I dare ya. (Even a green Jedi master wasn't about to try to tell that BS to anyone but a guy. Luke mighta bought it, but Leia? puh-leaze!)
In the 1920's there was an argument for a 7mm-ish round, but this was downsizing from the mighty .30 that our doughboys took over there. It took final form in the .276 Pederson. That cartridge lobbed a 140 grain pill at 2400 fps from a case that was a tapered 2 inches (51mm) long and all together the cartridge was 2.8 inches tall. (The .280 British was similar, but still-born due to the u.S. shoving the 7.62x51mm down NATO's throat.)
Contrast that with the .260 Remington - 140 grain bullet launched at 2750 fps from a case that's 2 inches (51mm) long and all together the cartridge is 2.8 inches tall.
I've said for years that the best* general issue long gun** for the military would be a BM-59 chambered in a hot little 6mm or 7mm cartridge. The .260 Remington would fit the bill nicely (with a 1:8 twist).
Replace the rear handguard with a rail mount, add an electronic sight or LER scope, add a tritium front sight and start passing them out. Oh, use an elevation knob calibrated in yards (cause Murica) and add about 3 and 1/3 inches to the bayonet - cause size matters.
And great Bastet bouncing on a beach ball - the first person that "suggests" "upgrading" to a plastic stock should be [censored due to punishment being too graphically described and possibly causing a PETA civil suit] until they repent of their sinful ways. If for some reason walnut ain't good enough there's always a nice laminate. (You don't want the third option. You just don't.)
(Want to get all slick? Add a variable gas system, with a dial from say 1 to 6. Then issue a guard round for close in work - say a 140 grainer pushing 2400 fps. Adjust the gas system for reliability and you've got a very controllable automatic carbine** for going into a city. Though this wouldn't be essential it's a nice thought.)
Price would be a problem; BM59 receivers are Garand receivers with some additional cuts on them. But if a company such as Ruger cast the receivers instead of having some middle aged fellow wearing a brim with a cigar hanging out of his mouth machine-whittle them out of raw organic free range steel then they might be cost competitive-ish. I'm sure MagPul could make polymer mags, possibly even adding 5 or 10 rounds to what the steel mags currently carry.
Speaking of mags, Fulton Armory has a page up contrasting M14 feeding devices with those of the BM59. I do not think a BM59 mag would survive a direct hit from a nuclear missile, but I'm confident the pieces would be identifiable.
A BM59 in .260 Remington (
Shame the military brass that handles procurement hasn't been hitting on all eight since about 1957-ish or I'd get my hopes up. Ah well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.
* I could still make an argument for a Garand, but in a concession to all the damned whippersnappers who think not having a box magazine is just too damn much hard work, or they might chip a fingernail, I'll posit Beretta's variant on Mr. Garand's rifle as the best design to date. Now don't say I never compromised (and don't ever expect me to do it again, ya heathens.)
** I consider 20 inches the dividing line between rifles and carbines. The BM59 models (except the BM59E and BM59SL) have 19 and 5/8" barrels or less, so to my mind they're still carbines, as are most all AR's and AK's and anything else with a pipe shorter than a cubit. Great carbines but carbines none the less.
Friday, May 12, 2017
My Bullets. Mine. My Mags Too
Living in a ban state is damned aggravating. A few observations though:
I've become even more aware of vendors listing restrictions on their sites. For example Centerfire Systems has a page devoted to restrictions among the various states. I'm not just picking on them; many other sites have something similar (Luckygunner for example), and usually a statement that they follow all federal, state, and local gunowner control laws.
Contrast that with Buffalo Bore:
I've become even more aware of vendors listing restrictions on their sites. For example Centerfire Systems has a page devoted to restrictions among the various states. I'm not just picking on them; many other sites have something similar (Luckygunner for example), and usually a statement that they follow all federal, state, and local gunowner control laws.
Contrast that with Buffalo Bore:
Monday, March 06, 2017
March Sixth Two Thousand Seventeen
Presented without comment (well except for the comment stating that there would be no accompanying comment, which I'm sure is some sort of paradox...)
Thursday, February 23, 2017
These Go To Ten
Some interesting (to me at least) options for 10mm firing platforms have appeared on my radar as it were, so I'm going to share them with y'all.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Xmas Marks the Spot
I'm just parking some Christmas songs here that I always got a kick out of. Y'all might enjoy them too so feel free (or at least minimally charged) to check them out. Hope y'all have a happy Hanukah and/or a merry Christmas.
Friday, December 23, 2016
Don't Worry
For some reason I've gotten about half a dozen queries from ex lovers the last month or so. The preponderance have been in text form, but a few actually were upset enough to call. I've replied to them first with the qualifier that while I'm fairly confident of my assessment I could very well be wrong, then going on to give an abridged version (my texting thumb ain't as spry as it used to be ya know) of the answer to this most pressing enigma they woke up to find staring them in the face. So I figured I'd park a post giving a bit more detail as to what my conclusion is (as my reply of, "They tried to screw us, but the condom broke and now they're trying to victim blame/slut shame everybody to avoid paying child support and hoping they wife don't find out" probably requires some expansion). That way instead of texting around the bush I could just point any stragglers here.
The question they've all been asking is some variant of,
"Publicola? Hi, it's [insert name here]. Listen, I'm really upset and so confused and I just don't understand this at all. I've been trying to figure it out and then, well, I remembered that you're a redneck, so can you please tell me how the [multiple expletives and a vow to Tyr deleted] Trump won????"
The question they've all been asking is some variant of,
"Publicola? Hi, it's [insert name here]. Listen, I'm really upset and so confused and I just don't understand this at all. I've been trying to figure it out and then, well, I remembered that you're a redneck, so can you please tell me how the [multiple expletives and a vow to Tyr deleted] Trump won????"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)