A bit earlier than usual,

but I'm a bit more wiped out than usual.  

So, without further delay, the seventh eve video data is here.

If your definition of a 'successful operation' includes 'al Qaeda isn't there

and the Taliban is helping us', you really are out of your damned mind.

Not to mention the whole "Clusterfuck for the ages" aspect of what you were in charge of.

Sixth evening has rolled around again, so

here is the data for tonight

Why, you'd think these people had things to hide...

“As you know, I try to always communicate on gmail because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly,” wrote David M. Morens, a high-ranking NIH official, in a September 2021 email, one of a series of email exchanges that included many leading scientists involved in the bitter Covid origins debate. “Stuff sent to my gmail gets to my phone,” he added, “but not my NIH computer.”

After noting that his Gmail account had been hacked, however, he wrote to the group to say that he might have to use his NIH email account to communicate with them instead. “Don’t worry,” he wrote, “just send to any of my addresses, and I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times.”

Seems Governor Hair Gel can't remember the stuff that happened during his reign

Hair Gel:

Among the responses:

Including that Californicated voters rejected an attempt to end the ban, as noted, during Gel's reign.

Article here

Bud Light & Co. have not lost nearlyenough money

Bud Light is serving as an official sponsor of the Toronto Pride parade, where video footage shows naked men standing around and riding bicycles in clear view of children attending the event.
And yes, there's a lot more at the post.

A bunch of people are selling the chant as satire; put it along with all the rest, and if it is they're idiots.  If you have naked people on public streets parading in front of kids, twerking and all, and you start chanting "We're here, we're queer, and we're coming for your children!", people will take you at your word.  Especially after all the shit that's been coming out of schools.  And that leads to bad things.

As I sit here recovering

from the heat or something, I will say that I think I found my 'try it at longer ranges when I can' loads with .45-70.

Using that 525-grain Steve Brooks bullet cast of 30-1 alloy, 60.0 grains of 1.5f Swiss powder in Starline cases, at 200 yards gave this

with that low-right I'm pretty sure I pulled.

All the same except with 62.0 grains of the same powder,

You bet I'm happy with both.  Both of them gave good groups before and this shows both are consistent, those previous groups weren't just chance or luck.

I will note that the same 62.0 grain load in Winchester cases was not good, but with 60.0 grains not bad at all.  And yes, I'll try that again.

One of the things I've learned is that Winchester brass indeed having thinner walls, the same dose of powder does not fill the case as much.  60.0 in Starline gives a slight amount of compression, in Winchester cases it appears none, the wad just being right on top of the column.  With 62.0 grains in Starline more compression(about 1/10" I think), just a tiny bit in Winchester.  Which makes me like Starline with that 60.0 load because with that bit more I know there's no air space; the Winchester having so little compression worries me.  Yes, I know that if it has any it would have to be a space that would need a micrometer to measure, but I want NONE.  And to be certain of it.

Hornady has ballistics tables you can use for free, and I ran these loads through it, using the ballistic coefficient from the Lyman manual for their 535-grain Postell bullet, the Brooks being virtually identical but ten grains lighter, and it gave me elevation settings out to 500 yards.  Beyond which I don't think I could see the target well enough to shoot.  I will be interesting finding out if these settings match up to what actual shooting shows.

About those problems with analysis of stuff from crime scenes,

went looking for something I remembered reading, and found some of it.  This one is from 2003:
A panel of government scientific advisors has found that an FBI forensic technique long used to link bullets with assailants is scientifically flawed and potentially misleading to juries -- a finding that could affect hundreds of past convictions.

The method, which measures the likelihood of a chemical match between bullets found at crime scenes and those found in the possession of a defendant, has been used for more than three decades in criminal cases involving gun violence. The Times obtained a draft of key sections of the report, which is expected to be formally released by the National Research Council in early December.

More here on the same FBI mess.

Add this to other "No, you cannot say this matches that" rulings

The Maryland Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that firearms experts will no longer be able to testify that a bullet was fired from a particular gun. The decision is likely the first by a state supreme court to undercut the widespread forensic discipline of firearms identification, which is used in criminal cases across the country.

In a 4–3 decision first reported by The Baltimore Sun, the Maryland Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction of Kobina Ebo Abruquah after finding that a firearm expert's trial testimony linking Abruquah's gun to bullets found at a crime scene wasn't backed up by reliable science. In the majority opinion, Maryland Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader wrote that "firearms identification has not been shown to reach reliable results linking a particular unknown bullet to a particular known firearm."