Saturday, October 11, 2008
WARNING: I am not a gen-u-wine, officially certified gunsmith: this is what I've picked up over time. This is one of those "Do it right the first time, or not at all" things, so if you're going to try it, make sure you've studied it, that you understand exactly what you're doing, that you get/get access to the proper tools, and that you take the time to do it right.
First off, the gentleman is asking for a relative in India. I have no idea what, if any, regulations there are on parts like this(scope bases, drill bits, taps, rings, scopes) being shipped to India; if he buys them locally, no problem(tap and bits shouldn't be any problem, so many of them COME from India nowadays). If he needs to order them, the company should be able to help him figure it out. India being a friendly country, I doubt any problem, but check to be sure if you’re sending them to him. (Gun Parts has a one-piece base for this rifle, the same one I used on mine)
As to whether needs a gunsmith, depends on what tools he has access to and if they feel up to trying this. At the base level, it’s pretty simple:
Remove the barrel/receiver from the stock.
Clamp it in a suitably padded vise and make sure it’s absolutely square and level in both axes, preferably on a drill press table, or milling machine table.
Set the base/s in place and lock them somehow so they’re square and level.
Use a punch to mark where the holes need to be drilled.
Remove base/s and drill the holes.
Thread the holes.
Clean out thoroughly, all cutting oil and chips.
Like a lot of things, basically straightforward. The trouble comes in keeping everything right at each step. Here it's critical to
Keep the receiver level
Make sure the base/s are level/square and do not move while marking the drilling spots
Make sure the drill does not wander while drilling
Do NOT drill too deep
Run the tap straight while cutting the threads.
You really need a drill press and vise; they make both squaring & leveling and drilling a LOT easier and more precise. For a centerpunch to mark the spots for the drill to bite, there are punches made just for the purpose: different diameter shafts with the punch point in the center. You find the one that will just fit inside the holes in the base, set it in the hole and tap to mark the spot. You can take a pin punch, carefully grind a centered point on the end at a very shallow angle, then carefully grind the diameter(belt sander or grinder) so it’ll barely fit the hole and use it. Or,
You can use the scope base for a drilling guide: level the receiver, set the base in place and clamp it so it cannot shift out of place and use the bases as a guide for the drill. If you do that, be careful; many of the bases are aluminum and relatively soft, and you can damage the side of the hole if the bit is just a touch off center. I have heard of gunsmiths using superglue for this instead of a clamp; clean the top and the bottom of the bases absolutely clean and then glue on square and level; after the glue sets drill the holes.
He’ll have to set the press so the hole depth is just deep enough; one thing that cannot be fixed(short of a new barrel, really) is drilling through into the chamber.
Generally, screws for mounts are threaded 6x48, a small, fine thread and not to be found at most tool places(they can be found at Brownell’s or Midway). They’re easy to break, so use lots of cutting oil and go slowly, in a ¼ to 1/3 turn and then back up. Make one turn at most, then all the way out and clean chips from the hole, relube and go back in. You can chuck the tap into the drill press and use that as a guide to help make sure the tap goes in exactly vertical.
If he has some shop skills and can take it slow and careful, he can probably do it himself. If he has any doubts at all, find a gunsmith. With the right tools and experience, a simple job for the smith.
Please note, this is a very short & dirty ‘how it works’, not an in-depth how. If he’s interested in more details, I’d recommend the Gunsmith Kinks books from Brownells. Lots and lots of tips from gunsmiths on just about everything from mounting sights to bluing to trigger and stock work. And I make this sound possibly worse than it is, but understand that with a scope base you really have no wiggle-room: if you have it a little to one side or the other, the scope will be off-center and that's bad. If you're using two-piece bases and they're not aligned exactly, the rings won't be in line and that's bad. If you get one hole in the right place and your mark for the second turns out to be a little off, that's bad. I've done this job a couple of times and practically sweated blood at some points, checking and rechecking to make sure it was right.
His other question was any scope I'd recommend. You want to start a LONG argument(assuming the moderators don't kill it), go to any gun board and ask that question. My opinion:
For general use on a .22, get either a 4x or, if you want a variable, a 3-9x; for anything but a match rifle that's plenty of magnification. Go with a known brand(Weaver, Bushnell, Tasco and such), and you shouldn't have any problems with it. Most scopes will have either a 1" tube or a 30mm; make sure you get the rings to match.
Friday, October 10, 2008
I had the chance to shoot one of these the other day
The Swiss G96/11*. Interesting history as to how this model and the 7.5x55 cartridge came about, found here at Swiss Rifles, including:
Take a hard-boiled egg, wrap it in sausage, roll that in bread crumbs, then bake until done. That’s a Scotch egg. And he loved them. My ex and daughter help out at the booth(long history there), the ex always makes some, and when Fenris started coming by the ex began setting a few aside, so he could have one or two each day. Oh, yeah, he remembered that.
Last year there were no eggs on Friday. Late in the afternoon they came by and, since were on their way out, just stopped out front to talk, and I noticed Fenris looking over the table with an odd expression(if you don’t think animals can have an expression on their face, you haven’t really looked). The chihuahuas were in the booth, but he didn’t pay much attention to other canines(“You are not worthy of my attention”) so it wasn’t that. It finally hit me what the trouble was; I leaned over the table and said “Fenris, there are no Scotch eggs today.” Oh, God, the look he had. “There’ll be some tomorrow, and some are just for you.”
“But what about TODAY!? I was looking forward to it all DAY!”
“None today, but you get some tomorrow.”
That was one seriously disappointed critter.
Next day they came by for a usual stop, and soon as I saw them coming got an egg out. Fenris came to the end of the table and I told him “Yeah, we’ve got it for you today!”
Tossed it to him and chomp-chomp, it was gone. Much happier. He got another before they left, and made it known we were forgiven for Friday.
Another comes to mind:
Fenris was one of the worst beggers I’ve ever seen. Take a 100+ pound wolf, in fine health, and imagine it managing to look hungry, downright starved, at you. “You’ve got food, and I’m starving, can I have a bite?” Etc. He was also sneaky. One Sunday we had a jar of cookies on a table, and Cassie- the daughter of the human part of the pack- took off the lid.
Fenris was sitting just behind her left leg, watching. Waiting.
She lifted the lid, took out a cookie.
He tensed just a touch.
She took out a cookie and held it aside as the replaced the lid.
And he reared forward and up and snapped off the entire cookie outside her fingers.
He’s sitting licking his chops when Cassie looks around and says “Hey!” And he just looked at her, “Do it again.” Pretty much a command. But he didn’t get the next one.
The last few weeks have been a very challenging time for our nation and financial markets as we in Congress and on Main Street have debated about what action, if any, is required to stabilize our national financial system. While we have turned the page on the first chapter of this crisis, our economic problems require a long term fix, and there are surely many more challenges ahead.
We've turned the page into a horror novel.
I share the anger and frustration of all Americans over the current financial crisis. The fact that we have been forced to pass a government intervention of this magnitude is a testament to how great the scope of this problem truly is. I am optimistic, however, that the actions taken in Congress and the deliberate and careful process by which the final economic rescue plan was produced will help to eventually stabilize our economy.
'Deliberate and careful process?!? That mess we witnessed with Congress and the White House yelling "The sky is falling! Give us a blank check OR WE'RE DEAD!" ?
The first hastily drafted version of this bill, presented to Congress on September 29 and voted on that same day, was flawed. It did not contain market reforms, nor did it adequately protect the use of taxpayers' money. I opposed it on these grounds. Like many of my colleagues, however, I understood something needed to be done to keep our economy from further market and job losses.
That you opposed that mess was good. However, anymore, when a politician says 'something needed to be done' I want to put a Claymore on my wallet.
As the week following that vote progressed, I joined my colleagues in pushing for the addition of market reforms that were included into a new and improved version of the rescue package. Raising the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000 was an important step in protecting Americans' savings and small business assets. Additionally, the suspension of "mark to market" accounting rules will add a degree of stability to this volatile climate. While these changes in no way made the new bill perfect, they did mark an improvement over what we saw earlier.
Oh, yeah, LOTS of 'market reforms'. With Chris Countrywide Dodd and Barney Fannie Mae Frank leading the way instead of being the targets of FBI investigations. Real confidence-builders, those. And anyone who thinks this abortion that came out of the Senate was 'more carefully crafted'(I'm assuming that's what she means by 'new and improved version') than the original House version... unless, of course, overlooking all the additional looting added into it makes it look 'new and improved'.
These improvements, combined with a clear need to act decisively, convinced me to offer my support for this new bill. Inaction was not a choice. Although Oklahoma has been fortunate to have a stronger economy than the rest of the nation, the implications of an economic collapse and its potential impact on every American family could not be ignored.
How about 'action to strip out all the pork'? How about 'action to strip out all the bribes to businesses and politicians'? Why couldn't we see THAT action in this mess? THAT kind of 'acting decisively'?
The calls I got from the Fifth District only reinforced that notion. Many in business and banking called to discuss the tightening of credit for business expansion. Families called, worried about the difficulty of getting car and home loans during a credit crisis. Municipalities and universities were concerned over the lack of sale of bond issues to finish or begin new projects. Oklahoma's State Treasurer expressed his concern for teacher pensions, which he estimated would suffer a $42 million loss, along with over $15 million in expected losses to the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement Fund.
Which means you had to vote for something that would loot billions out of our pockets to pay off the aforementioned politicians and their supporters? Wonderful solution, that is.
If the instability in our markets is not aggressively addressed, it will affect the economic security of almost every family and business in Oklahoma. It is for that reason that I decided, in what is surely one of the most difficult decisions I have made while in office, to support the revised economic rescue package.
Therefore deciding that the aforementioned looting of our pockets was worth it. Instability that could have been addressed WITHOUT all the payoffs and bribes. As if all the money taken out of our pockets to pay bribes and buy votes WON'T affect our economic security. As if the Treasury Secretary being given all kinds of neat authority won't screw with things. Yeah. How about 'aggressively addressing' this crap, dammit?
This plan is the first step towards economic recovery, but it is hardly the last. Looking forward, we must seek additional measures to ensure the taxpayers are never placed in this position again. Congress will retain oversight of the process, and I will work to make sure new safeguards are put in place to prevent future problems. Fixing things is not enough. We have to permanently end the bad practices that caused this mess in the first place and punish the bad players in the marketplace.
Yeah, we're hearing about all the 'next steps'. Like the treasury secretary and all the new powers he's been given to play with, and the increased socialization of our nation. And more and more screwing with our lives by corrupt politicians.
And I do not use 'corrupt' lightly. As Scalzi wrote the other day, all those 'sweeteners' written into the Senate bill are properly called 'bribes'. Which means every Senator or Rep. who changed their vote based on them is properly called corrupt, as they were bribed to change their vote. I have no idea if there was something there that helped change Fallin's vote; I'm speaking in general. If she did change it based on one of these 'sweeteners', then she's a corrupt as the rest.
More and more, either a meteor or the rope stand seems like a real good idea.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Google needs a new slogan: "Don't be Evil: Let Us Do It!"
Saturday Night Live notes crooked Evil Party politicians and connections: video disappears(mostly).
And, thanks to a suggestion in comments, it's not my hat: it a ACU Tactical Pet Bed.
Yeah, it's not much, but I'm short on time
Monday, October 06, 2008
I once worked it out for someone. They thought getting rid of all the nasty coal and gas and oil-fueled power plants would be just wonderful, somehow doing so would force clean, abundant alternate sources to appear(the Pure Effing Magic effect). So I asked them if metals would be needed for society to continue? Machines and tools and so forth? Of course, they said.
So how are you going to make them? The metals, and the tools?
I don't think that'd ever really occurred. How DO you make them?
Ok, so at the most basic level, metal tools, that means forging them. Will coal be allowed as a fuel for the fire? No? Too dirty? So back to the original. Charcoal.
Yep. Over time whole sections of forest were cleared by the charcoal burners, turning trees into forge and furnace and cooking fuel. One forge might not use that much, but a bunch? Not to mention the furnaces to refine metal from ore, and recycle steel and brass and copper(to mention a few); say goodbye to a LOT of trees. What? Can't allow that? Well, then, considering that you cannot name one alternate energy source capable of replacing oil and gas and coal(not going into nuke plants right now), in efficiency and cost and space in the next ten years(at least, barring a miracle-level discovery) let alone right now when you turn off the currently operating plants, we're screwed. If you did allow charcoal you'd have to log off most of the forest on the continent to keep a metals industry of any size going.
Which connects to, I wonder if a lot of the enviroweenies have really thought about what the effect is on people in third-world countries when they try to deny them coal or whatever-fired power? That means cutting trees and drying animal crap for fuel; the latter is not exactly fun, the former means cutting trees and spending a lot of time each day to get the fuel just to cook food. I know the real nutcase level greenies have a solution: let die off(or kill off) so much of the population that the nasty humans are no longer any real influence on Mother Gaia; but for the less genocidal/homicidal types, what the hell do they THINK people are going to do? Solar panels won't cut it, wind won't cut it(either one on any real scale), and the greenies break out in hives at the thought of dams, so the question becomes WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THESE PEOPLE TO DO? They want the machinery of civilization, badly. And they get really, really pissed when you tell them they can't have it, to stay in their quaint little villages and be happy.
While back I was driving somewhere and the phone rang, it was he.
"How's things in your part of the world?"
"I no longer have a truck."
Confusion, as his truck was in the driveway five minutes ago. "What do you mean, it's in the-"
"I mean my truck here."
"Oh. What happened to it?"
"It blew up."
Yeah, that does kind of get your attention. However, he was obviously alive and not in pain or something so I figured any injury had to be minor, so "What happened?"
Background: A few months before this they'd gotten MRAPs to replace(for some uses) the humvees. They're big(gunners cupola on top is 12-feet off the ground), heavy, from his report handle such that saying they handle like pig would be insulting to the porcine race, and armored out the wazoo. In fact, during the wet season they couldn't use them on some roads: too big and heavy.
So, they're on patrol, rolling down the road, son in the cupola, when they hit a mine. As he described it it was like getting hit in the face with a hot pillow and then the MRAP stopped. Aw, crap. He's scanning for ambush(like everybody not inside that vehicle) and waiting for the aother shoe to drop. One-legged man this time, apparently an old mine. So once it was determined the bad guys weren't about to pop over the hilltops they assessed the damage and injuries. Injuries consisted of one guy inside who'd been snoozing with his helmet off; banged his head on the "Ow! Dammit!" level. Damage?
Left front wheel gone, suspension trashed(what was left of it), engine and tranny pretty much trashed. Nothing else. They found a 80-pound piece of the run-flat tire 200 yards away. The EOD guy who checked it out thought it was an old mine, at least a month; looked like the driver just happened to be a bit out of line with the vehicles in front so this vehicle tripped it.
No, at the time didn't pass this on to the grandparents, as they worry enough already.
About a month ago, after the unit moved to another area, another of the MRAPs went through an almost identical situation: big mine taking out one side of the front end. No injuries to speak of this time, either. The things are big, heavy and clumsy, but the armor works.
He also mentioned that the M240 he's been using is a very good piece. Among other things, from the vehicle mount he can put a belt into about a 3" group at 50 yards, which is pretty damn good for an MG.
And that was about the most exciting thing he's mentioned over time.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.
There is another, less known, reason.
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” [.pdf available at link] But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
Read the whole damn thing, and spread it around. Especially to anyone of the "He won't bother my shotgun/target rifle" mindset.
And then came Sarah. My reaction to her, and the way the Republican Party threw her in our faces, and the pandering and hypocrisy that was behind their decision to do so, was immediate, visceral, and indeed, vicious. I have crossed every line I believed should never be crossed in public discourse — I have criticized not only her policies and her record, but her hair, her personal style, her accent, her abilities as a mother, etc. I’ve also begun to suffer personally and professionally. I bore my friends with my constant tirades against her, and am constantly distracted from my work by my need to continually update myself on the latest criticism, and indeed, ridicule, of her. In my hatred for her, I have begun to hate myself. I don’t want this woman ruining my life before she even gets a chance to ruin our country. How do I stop? Is there a self-help group for this? A “Hater”
And, if you have the stomach for it(or some tranquilizers), read the whole of the 'response' to it; these people really, truly are freakin' insane. Here's what the proper response should have been:
'This woman' is not ruining your life, YOU ARE. You are obsessed and about to drive away your friends and ruin your career by it. When you get home, have a drink and GIVE IT A REST! She's not the freakin' antiChrist, she's not out to get you, and you need help.
I don't place much faith in what a candidate says and does after declaring his or her candidacy. Once he steps into the spotlight, he's playing to the crowd. He's on good behavior, and he'll tell us whatever we want to hear. This is a demonstration of his acting ability...and a politician is indeed part actor, but there's more to the job than that. The true measure of the man is what he did with his life when he didn't think he was being watched. That's what you're going to get when the candidate is in power, and never mind the speeches.
As we do with celebrities, we tend to project our fantasies onto politicians. The less we know about a person, the easier this is. With Obama's charisma and short history, and with the sympathies of the mainstream media behind him, he's been allowed to remain too much of a blank slate. This is slowly changing, as the reality becomes known and eats away at his mystique. Note that Obama's greatest string of victories in the Democratic primaries came when he was a new thing. As information trickled out, he lost steam. If more facts had been on the table earlier, Hillary certainly would have been the Democratic nominee.
Our job as voters isn't to nitpick and debate every nuance and gaffe. In a world of trivia and spin, we must seek the most essential truths and make them known.
and takes it from there. Including
At this point I'm scratching my head in puzzlement and wondering how Obama's candidacy didn't come to a complete halt when his background became known. He stood at the forefront of an organization that is on the record in promoting a hateful, racist agenda. He did this over the entirety of his adult life, only stepping away reluctantly and when compelled as a matter of political expediency. Something has gone horribly wrong with a political party that takes this damaged man and pushes him to the head of the crowd.
Very worth reading.
Also, a bit more on Obama and Ayers. AND, for your Monday-doesn't-suck-enough enjoyment, how ALL questions of Obama are RACIST!!!
Sunday, October 05, 2008
now have a bit more questioning of their relationship to deal with. And, just to do my part to keep the noise up, I'll note these things Sondra found:
Last week, Ayers defended the September 2001 comments on his blog stating: “I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Vietnam and I say: No, I don’t regret anything I did to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.”
while over here we see
In the wake of the Barack Obama association with Bill Ayers and friends, Zombie pointed out something that many people in the mainstream press conveniently forget or forgive — the Weather Underground wasn’t just anti-war. Instead like ANSWER, WCW, and UFPJ they were, and remain radical communists bent on revolution. Many of their activities occurred after the US had already pulled out of Viet Nam, Zombie recalls a few:
And let us not forget their fund-raising activities loooong after Vietnam was over:
May 18, 1973 - The bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York. WUO states this is in response to the killing of 10-year-old black youth Clifford Glover by police.
September 28, 1973 - The ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy are bombed. WUO states this is in response to ITT’s alleged role in the Chilean coup earlier that month. [NYT, 9/28/73]
March 6, 1974 - Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco. WUO states this is to protest alleged sterilization of poor women. In the accompanying communiqué, the Women’s Brigade argues for “the need for women to take control of daycare, healthcare, birth control and other aspects of women’s daily lives.”
May 31, 1974 - The Office of the California Attorney General is bombed. WUO states this is in response to the killing of six members of the Symbionese Liberation Army.
July, 1974 – The WUO releases the book Prairie Fire, in which they indicate the need for a unified Communist Party. They encourage the creation of study groups to discuss their ideology, and continue to stress the need for violent acts. The book also admits WUO responsibility of several actions from previous years. The Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC) arises from the teachings in this book and is organized by many former WUO members.
September 11, 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation). WUO states this is in retribution for Anaconda’s alleged involvement in the Chilean coup the previous year.
June 16, 1975 - Weathermen bomb a Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York, WUO states this is in solidarity with striking Puerto Rican cement workers.
October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which Kathy Boudin and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, near Nyack, New York on October 20, 1981. The robbers were stopped by police later that day and engaged them in a shootout, killing two police officers and one Brinks guard as well as wounding several others.
Assuming we actually had any reporters worth their salt in the major media, the big questions on the Ayers-Obama connection would've been asked, repeatedly, a long time ago. And the excuses and evasions really reported, and investigated. That this hasn't happened really tells us all we need to know about what's happened to our major media(as if Dan Rather & Co. hadn't already done that).
Tenants have been warned that padlocks can lead to thieves forcing their way through doors and windows of the council-owned sheds to steal garden equipment.
Bristol City Council claims its 'Don't Use a Padlock' initiative will save taxpayers' money because fewer sheds will have to be repaired or replaced.
But a gardener at Bifield Allotments, in the Stockwood area of the city, whose shed was broken into a few weeks ago, criticised the advice.
Terry Nichols, 71, a retired engineering consultant, who has rented a plot at the site for more than 25 years, said: "It beggars belief that the council is telling us to leave our sheds wide open so that anyone can get in them.
"Everyone who has an allotment has been sent a letter. I have never read anything so ridiculous in all my life.
"I doubt the council would pay up if the sheds were burgled while they were left unlocked."
The council acknowledged that not locking the sheds could leave expensive equipment uninsured.
The spokesman added: "It would be a matter for discussion between the allotment-holder and their insurance company which would be able to advise them on the conditions of their policy."
Translation: "If they steal your tools, that's your problem, but if they damage the shed it costs US!"
Of course, the 'US' money comes from taxing the ass off the people, so why are they so upset? They generally act like that's a bottomless well.