Saturday, September 09, 2006

Ah, yes, freedom of speech

Unless you piss off the Clintons. And their suckups.

I've been listening to the noise about the 9/11 show ABC put together. And the screaming and, now, flat-out threats by the Clintons and their buttmonkeys for DARING to hint that, just maybe, they might not have exactly done a really good job of whacking terrorists.

Ace of Spades has this roundup, including this quote:
"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats.
'Conservative attempt'. From ABC/Disney. Snort. Choke. Hahahahahahahaha!. These people are out of their freakin' minds.

And at Wizbang, Bill Clinton has his lawyers writing letters to ABC demanding the show not be shown at all. That's on top of various Democrats threatening ABC's broadcast license.

Oh yeah, they'd just DIE to protect THEIR freedom of speech. Screw yours.

Just how nutty and threatened are some by the very concept

of self-defense?

Take a look here:
But make no mistake, they continue to fight such legislation. Their latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a "murder," they have launched a Web site opposed to these new self-defense laws, dubbed

"It's Not a Movie. It's the Law," says the Web site. "The NRA is working to pass a law that makes murder legal in the United States. It's been called the 'Shoot First,' 'Make My Day,' or 'Deadly Force' law, but call it what you want, it's a License to Murder. ... One killer has already been set free, and other criminals and their lawyers are already drooling at the thought of using the NRA's 'Shoot First' law as a legal defense."

I can tell you who's drooling, and it's not lawyers; it's the friggin' morons who wrote and buy this crap.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Practical vs. 'best' accuracy

Was thinking about this in relation to the M1 Carbine, but it holds for a lot of firearms. There are two types of accuracy, which can depend on the firearm itself or the user or both.

Best accuracy is what you can get under ideal conditions; the best possible load for accuracy under the best possible firing conditions with the best possible aiming system.

Practical is what you can get with the best ammo for THAT USE with standard sights under field conditions. That's how I put it, anyway.

You can set a rifle up to get the finest possible accuracy; match sights or scope, load tailored for accuracy, solid bench with solid rests fore & aft, etc. It may be accurate as hell, but not much use for hunting or, if things go to hell, fighting. That's 'best' accuracy.

Practical is what you can get with, call it 'working' loads and sights and a stock you'd actually carry around, working from either a field expedient rest or shooting position.

The sights on the M1 Garand and Carbine both are NOT designed for match shooting; the front blades are thick to be easier to see in bad light and faster to line up, the rear aperture sized for the same(though for field use it could actually be a bit larger with no problem). They can deliver very good accuracy, but there's a reason people trying to wring the best out of a Garand use different sights; to get a more precise sight picture on targets.

I like shooting iron sights, especially on something like the M1's. I decided to try out the scope idea for two reasons: to get a better sight for testing loads, and to see how the idea would work out for field shooting. And fact is that on some indoor ranges the light makes it a bit difficult at times for me to shoot a rifle well; harder to hold a good sight picture in dim light. So far, I think this setup would work quite well for field use, the mount- with a tight-fitting handguard- doesn't shift, fast pickup, same things that have the military using lots of optical sights now.

I don't think this mount idea would work as well on an M1 Garand. The rear handguard, for best accuracy, HAS to have a bit of fore & aft play, maybe 1/10 of an inch, and that is not a good thing to mount a scope on. Especially on a hard-recoiling rifle like this. So I think the type that mounts directly to the barrel, replacing the handguard, would be better. I'll have to see how taking the handguard off & replacing on the carbine affects things, I think it should hold zero pretty well.

We'll see.

I love it when an idea actually works

the way it was supposed to. Also, an ammo report.

Note: no pictures, as my daughter has borrowed my camera for the next week or so. I'll either update this or do a new post with pics when possible.

In this case, the homemade scout mount for the M1 Carbine. I took it to the range today to try out. Indoor range, so it's only 30 yards, but enough for a trial. And it worked nicely. I'd wondered if the handguard would be stable enough for a solid mount, but over about fifty rounds nothing shifted. Started off way high & right(no surprise) and a little trial & adjust put it on point of aim, after which tried for accuracy. I was using- in effect- three different loads. Main was some GI-spec I bought from GI Brass, the rest some reloads I put together using Lake City brass and 110-grain FMJ bullets. First group of five with the GI stuff produced one long hole less than 3/4" long and about one bullet-width wide; not what I expected from this little rifle. The reloads were made up of

(DISCLAIMER: These are loads I got from the Lyman manual. They worked in MY rifle; that's no guarantee they'll work in yours or with your reloading style. As with any loads, START at the minimum and work up from there. What you do with load info and the results you get are NOT under my control.)

Lake City brass and bullets, Winchester small rifle primers and 2400 powder. There are several recommended for this cartridge, 2400 being one of them, and since I already use it I started with it. The minimum load functioned with no problems, but the next step up I used both functioned perfectly and gave accuracy equal to the GI stuff. I'll need to try both the GI and handloads at 50 and 100 from a solid bench, I think both will give good accuracy.

So far, the only problem with the mount is what I mentioned before, that the scope sits higher than I like. I could either find/make a lace-on cheekpad, or find the lowest-rise scope rings I can and put those on. I think the low rings would make a big difference. This setup would also work very well with a red-dot sight, and a good one would make the not-so-good cheek weld less of a factor if it sits a bit high.

As to ammo, a while back I bought one of the cans of .30 Carbine from GI Brass; it's made with Lake City components, and of the two hundred or so I've fired there have been zero problems and- as noted above- good accuracy. And as I fire it it gives me good-quality reloadable brass. I used some of their bullets for the reloads, and they are of fine quality and worked beautifully.

The other ammo was with the Benelli, some Federal Tactical Low Recoil slugs I picked up at the gun show. They throw a 1oz. slug, no velocity listed on the box. I fired five rounds at 30 yards, just resting my left hand on the bench. Four produced one big hole a little less than 1.75" long and a little under 1" wide, measuring center-to-center; one called flyer landed an inch or so left of the bottom of the group and a little low. Recoil was noticeably less than the S&B 00 buck I fired before this. I want to try this stuff off a bench at 50 and 100, too; if this is any indication this Federal stuff is a winner.

Now, about the light. I tried a suggestion; painted the inside of the mounting clamp with contact cement, let it dry thoroughly and then clamped the light in. This is why I started the shotgun with the S&B buck, to try this out, and the idea didn't work. After five rounds the light had shifted a long ways forward, so on to the next idea. I'm thinking take a Dremel and cutoff wheel(got to get a new Dremel, mine died) and cut some grooves in the inside of the mount, then put something like a piece of bicycle inner tube between mount & light; that might grab on both enough to hold it in place. For home defense this shouldn't be a real big factor, but I don't like having a setup that I don't KNOW will hold steady however many rounds I fire. The light itself, by the way, still works perfectly.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

As Kim reminds us,

An experiment

Ever since Jeff Cooper started the scout rifle noise, you've been able to go to any gunboard and write "What do you think of this?" and start a fight. Responses will range from "Greatest thing ever!" to "Idiotic idea".

I'm in the middle. Not the best of all worlds, but it definately has its uses. A red-dot is very nice, but at a distance some magnification can be good, and I think, despite what Kim says, a low-power scope out front on a .30-30 is a wonderful idea for hunting.

While back had a chance to shoot a M1 Carbine, and- despite expectations- fell in love with the damn thing. And had a chance to buy one a while later, and grabbed it(seeing what prices have done lately, I'm damn glad I did). So I've got a batch of ball ammo for it, and I've been enjoying shooting it, and I had the thought this would be a fine rifle for the scout-mount concept. You could use the same mount for either a scope or red-dot depending on which suits you.

Looking around I found Sportsmans's Guide has this Carbine Tactical Tri-Rail Forearm Mount,
which replaces the handguard and clamps directly to the barrel. That was the only one I saw; it would do, but a: I don't need the tri-rail setup, just wanted one on top and b: being cheap I didn't want to spend that much without knowing if I'd like it. So, the experiment.

At the gun show over the weekend I found an old carbine handguard. Took a piece of walnut(it's hard, and I had a scrap piece) and rounded one side to match the groove in the handguard top, then sanded it so the top would be level. I had a short piece of scope base, so put this guard on the rifle and marked the centerline, then took it off and drilled two mounting holes. Screwed the base on, stuck on a scope I had on a .22 pistol with some rings I'd picked up a while back(nice to have spares), and here 'tis:

It sits a bit high; lower rings would make a big difference there. And there's the possibility the mount being on the handguard as opposed to the barrel may not be as solid as I'd need, it only taking a tiny bit of shifting to make a big difference. However, this is not a 200-300 yard rifle, it a 150 at most(no matter what the sight says). In any case, it's a good testbed for this. If I really like it, I can do things to sit it lower or lock it a bit more solidly, or if the concept is good but I need a mount on the barrel, I can get one of the units from SG, idiot side rails and all.

Times like this I wish I had some machinist training and access to a milling machine, I could make a base that locked solidly to the barrel and mounted the scope nice and low. Maybe later, for now I'll have to see how this works.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Basic Training update

They qualified with their M16s, and he missed Expert by one point. Which I'm confident he'll make up next time. Training with night-vision sights and CCO(Close Combat Optics).

Speaking of CCO, anybody recognize which one this is?

I know I've seen it before, but can't think of the name/maker to save my ass.

From what he's said, the worst day so far- no including the gas chamber- was the day on the range when, at 112 degrees, the odd late-summer storm blew through and soaked everyone; the next few hours in soaked clothes and armor in 100+ temps were fairly miserable.

Apparently big advances have been made in military cooking, as he says the food is pretty good.

No sick call, no "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?!?" reported, I'd have to say so far, so good. Whether from his preparation and expectations or their having toned it down, he still says Basic is a lot easier than expected, which is a bit worrisome. It SHOULD be tough; if it's not tough enough, will it get the training through to the class?

In any case, life continues.

The Crocodile Hunter bites the big one

in a truly strange fashion.

A stingray barb through the heart? How the hell do you manage that? At the risk of being overly insensitive, considering some of the crap he's done it was pretty obvious when he bought it it would be messing with some animal; it just caught up with him.

If by some chance a member of his family reads this, you have my condolences. No strings, no exceptions. Losing a family member almost always sucks.

I can't help it, though; can anyone think of a more oddball way for a guy who works with animals to buy it?

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Gun show

Had a nice one at the fairgrounds this weekend. Lots of stuff to look at and people to talk to. Picked up some ammo and parts, and courageously walked away from some things I really, really wanted... dammit.

One man had a National Match M1 Garand, that on closer inspection turned out to have a Krieger match barrel. And he wanted $1000 for it. Let's see, the barrel alone costs $400, and a rifle with the match sights, trigger, etc... damn, I need more money.

At least they didn't have one thing. Few days ago I went by H&H range to look around and take another drool at the S&W 1911PD I mentioned before. And Will, the bastard, had to show me something. They make a full-size 1911 with the Scandium frame. Heavier than the compact size but not by much, and that extra weight out front would be real nice when shooting heavy loads, and it only cost a few dollars more than the compact. Will is an evil man, I must warn you: "Who can afford anything? Since when is that an excuse not to buy it?" So I didn't have to look at one of those again, at least until I go shooting at H&H again.

One thing I've noticed is that the shortage of 7.62x39 is well and truly over, and so are the prices that you used to find. Best I saw worked out to about $3/box and a lot of it was higher. Made me glad I bought some when I did. A while back Sportsman's Guide had some listed for a decent price, and I had a $10 off coupon, so I ordered. And at the checkout they had a deal: join the Guide Club and get double the usual discount a member gets AND free shipping. I'd been thinking about joining for a while, so went ahead, and it wound up with the cost of the ammo being about $2.40/box. By the way, one thing I've noticed about their shipping: on a case of 1000 rounds it's listed as a 'heavy/bulky' item they tack an extra shipping charge onto, but ordering two cases of 500 did NOT have that added on. Odd, but handy.

One thing I've noticed at shows is a lot fewer shotguns with pistol grips on the tables. Never really understood why the damn things were popular. I don't mean the pistol grip on a stock, I mean a pistol grip only with no shoulder stock. Recoil on a 12 guage being what it is, I cannot imagine wanting to fire one of them. Chris at Anarchangel has written on them and notes that as big as he is, he can't handle more than one or two rounds with one. I guess a few of the people who bought them told friends how they wound up with their wrist in a brace and word got around.

All in all, a good show.

Forced conversions

There's been a lot of stuff written and said over the forced conversion of the two Fox news people. It really seems to point out that the 'Religeon of Peace' noise is just exactly that: noise.

Here you have people being told "You will convert- on camera so we can broadcast it- or we will kill you". So they do the 'conversion' and(may have been the idea the whole time, who knows?) are released. Guess what? The fact that they were forced into it doesn't matter, by not living up to it they are now considered apostates and subject to being killed for it.

Christianity has had its share of idiots who thought forcing people to convert was a good thing. There was a book written a few years ago about how it used to be a somewhat common thing in Italy for a housekeeper or some other christian working in a Jewish household would tell a priest that they had 'baptized' a baby or child, upon which the authorities would take the child to be raised as a Christian; I believe it was actually illegal for a 'Christian' child to be raised in a Jewish home. Well, that crap ended a long time ago. Oh yeah, there are those who still think it's a good idea, and they are a small minority that everyone else looks on as a retarded fool. A 'conversion' attained by force means NOTHING. Lots of Jews were put in that position during the Inquisition, and those who chose 'conversion' were watched closely for years because they were not trusted. The bastards who did this knew that most didn't mean it, they just didn't want to die in some horrible manner; and the vile excuses for men figured that if they kept parents acting like Christians out of fear, their kids would be raised as Christians so it didn't matter that the parents were doomed to hell for lying about converting; a few less 'official' Jews and some more kids raised in the church. A more contemptable, disgusting mindset is hard to imagine. And this was at a time when many, in many places, had written specifically that forcing someone to convert was a travesty, meant nothing, and was to be condemned. Zealots aren't known for seeing the holes in their thoughts, or caring about them when pointed out.

So what we're dealing with is an attitude the civilized world dumped a long time ago(barring the few idiots) that is the reigning attitude for much of Islam. They have the attitude of the bad guy in The Shadow: "Join me; or die". Don't care if you were forced; hell, that's part of the rules for them! If you say you are/act as moslem for any reason, that's it. If you ever then say you're not, that the conversion was not true, you're under a death sentance. Which is one reason so many people are pissed at places like that CA school that had students dressing and acting like muslims for classes; according to the idiots, that makes them muslim and subject to sharia law. Period.

I've given up on the 'moderate muslims' of the world. With a few exceptions they won't speak out against it. They either believe that's the way it should be, or defend it because "Hey, they're of the umma(sp?) so I won't say anything against them", or are in fear of other muslims. So we've got muslims in the U.S. who know people planning terror operations, raising money for terrorists, etc., who won't report them because "they may be jihadi assholes, but they're our jihadi assholes". Which means, for all practical purposes, they are the enemy.

That's about as blunt as you can put it, and I'm sure it would piss various people, especially the usual suspects, off. I don't care. I'm sick of it being avoided at all costs by the major media, I'm sick of politicians who care for nothing but sucking up to some group who might get him votes actively ignoring it, and I'm tired of being called a racist or bigot for saying it. By the way, 'muslim' is not a race, it's a religeon. And I won't plead guilty to being a bigot for recognizing a threat to our civilization. I really don't give a rats ass what religeon someone practices unless their practice of it makes it- and them- a threat to me and mine. At which point my tolerance goes out the window. Whena religeon sees forced conversions as a good thing, and wants everyone who won't convert dead(dhimmi will do in some cases, but death is better according to the BPMs), and their sincere belief says they have to conquer the world for their religeon, they are a threat. And those members of that religeon who really don't agree with it but won't speak against it, well, they're part of the threat.

This has teh potential to get monumentally more ugly than it is now, and I'm afraid the only thing that would prevent it is naked violence; taking Syria or Iran, maybe both, and stomping the place flat. Figuratively speaking would be better; decapitate the governments and stomp the armed forces that enforce their rule. The aftermath would be messy as hell. But not nearly som messy as having President Tom(as Glenn Beck calls him) of Iran getting nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.

Additional: Malkin points to this by Diane West on the subject, well worth reading