whining that the nasty 2nd Amendment types are out to get him. The Real Gun Guys have a nice roundup of the situation.
Oh, and they were the guys with the smoke bomb recipe. I need to go shopping...
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
As my experience now says, Don't Buy Pentax
They may make good cameras, but their red-dots suck. And so does their 'customer support'.
About a month ago at Dealer Days at H&H Range, there was a Pentax dealer. One of the things shown was their HS10 red-dot sight. Not bad, I thought, small & light, would fit nicely on the M1 Carbine, and the man said they'd been tested clear up to .454 Casull revolvers for recoil tolerance. So I laid down my money and took it home.
Fast-forward to range day, where I discover this is a piece of crap. The adjustments are uneven(sometimes a slight turn makes a BIG move, sometimes a BIG turn doesn't move at all), so it took a bit to get it zeroed at 50 yards. And then it lost zero. Reseat the battery(I know, but just in case), no difference. Damn thing now wandered all over the place.
I checked the Pentax site and it has their 'customer service' link to contact them. They say someone will get back to you within three business days. Bullshit. I sent and waiting a week, no response. So, just to see, I sent again, being sure to mention the first no-response.
It's been just over a week. And sure enough, no response. Pentax either doesn't read their web contact forms, or don't give a crap about their customers. So I look up their 800 number and decide to have everything handy before I call.
Yeah, you know what's coming.
I can't find the damn receipt, despite having set it with some others. Which means even if Pentax came through I couldn't return it.
Losing the receipt was my bad. Selling a defective product and then not responding to multiple requests for assistance, their bad.
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
About a month ago at Dealer Days at H&H Range, there was a Pentax dealer. One of the things shown was their HS10 red-dot sight. Not bad, I thought, small & light, would fit nicely on the M1 Carbine, and the man said they'd been tested clear up to .454 Casull revolvers for recoil tolerance. So I laid down my money and took it home.
Fast-forward to range day, where I discover this is a piece of crap. The adjustments are uneven(sometimes a slight turn makes a BIG move, sometimes a BIG turn doesn't move at all), so it took a bit to get it zeroed at 50 yards. And then it lost zero. Reseat the battery(I know, but just in case), no difference. Damn thing now wandered all over the place.
I checked the Pentax site and it has their 'customer service' link to contact them. They say someone will get back to you within three business days. Bullshit. I sent and waiting a week, no response. So, just to see, I sent again, being sure to mention the first no-response.
It's been just over a week. And sure enough, no response. Pentax either doesn't read their web contact forms, or don't give a crap about their customers. So I look up their 800 number and decide to have everything handy before I call.
Yeah, you know what's coming.
I can't find the damn receipt, despite having set it with some others. Which means even if Pentax came through I couldn't return it.
Losing the receipt was my bad. Selling a defective product and then not responding to multiple requests for assistance, their bad.
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
PENTAX RED-DOT SIGHTS SUCK!
Dammit!
Couple of days ago I ran across a blog which had-among other things- a very good recipe for making smoke bombs.
Anyone know who it might have been?
Anyone know who it might have been?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
And we're supposed to trust Federal authorities
why?
In one eye-popping exchange, two congressmen—one Democrat and one Republican—confronted Wayne Murphy, the assistant director of the FBI Directorate of Intelligence about the way the FBI uses drug informants. Rep. Dan Lundgren, R-Calif., and Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., told Murphy they were troubled by reports that the FBI had looked the other way while some of its drug informants participated in violent crimes, and that the agency then failed to notify local authorities, leaving many of those crimes unsolved.
Lundgren and Delahunt said they were also troubled by reports that in order to protect the identity of its informants, the FBI had withheld exculpatory evidence from criminal trials, resulting in innocent people going to prison.
Now, just by itself this is reason for tar, feathers and a rail; but it gets worse:
Could Murphy assure the U.S. Congress, Delahunt and Lundgren asked, that the FBI has since instituted policies to ensure that kind of thing never happens again?
Murphy hemmed and hawed, but ultimately said that he could not make any such assurance.
So the damned FBI has knowingly and repeatedly sent innocent people to prison. But when they show up to ask questions, you're supposed to TRUST these people?!?
In one eye-popping exchange, two congressmen—one Democrat and one Republican—confronted Wayne Murphy, the assistant director of the FBI Directorate of Intelligence about the way the FBI uses drug informants. Rep. Dan Lundgren, R-Calif., and Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., told Murphy they were troubled by reports that the FBI had looked the other way while some of its drug informants participated in violent crimes, and that the agency then failed to notify local authorities, leaving many of those crimes unsolved.
Lundgren and Delahunt said they were also troubled by reports that in order to protect the identity of its informants, the FBI had withheld exculpatory evidence from criminal trials, resulting in innocent people going to prison.
Now, just by itself this is reason for tar, feathers and a rail; but it gets worse:
Could Murphy assure the U.S. Congress, Delahunt and Lundgren asked, that the FBI has since instituted policies to ensure that kind of thing never happens again?
Murphy hemmed and hawed, but ultimately said that he could not make any such assurance.
So the damned FBI has knowingly and repeatedly sent innocent people to prison. But when they show up to ask questions, you're supposed to TRUST these people?!?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Another reason not to vote for Giuliani
I've mentioned before that I could not vote for him, if for no other reason than his hostility to the 2nd Amendment. Well, I was over at Confederate Yankee and found a link to The Shield of Achilles who has this on Giuliani and illegal immigration:
At a town hall-style meeting with about 100 voters at a technical college in Concord on Tuesday, Giuliani encountered a voter who asked why the former mayor made "New York City a sanctuary for illegal aliens."
"You must be talking about another candidate," said Giuliani, who went on to argue that his administration urged the federal government to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible.
However,
“Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens,” Giuliani said at the time. “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
As much as the encouraging of illegals, what pisses me off here is that he flat lied about his previous words and actions.
So here's two reasons I could not vote for this man.
At a town hall-style meeting with about 100 voters at a technical college in Concord on Tuesday, Giuliani encountered a voter who asked why the former mayor made "New York City a sanctuary for illegal aliens."
"You must be talking about another candidate," said Giuliani, who went on to argue that his administration urged the federal government to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible.
However,
“Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens,” Giuliani said at the time. “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
As much as the encouraging of illegals, what pisses me off here is that he flat lied about his previous words and actions.
So here's two reasons I could not vote for this man.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Old movies
Some are bad, some are good. And some are very damn good. Not necessarily 'won an Oscar' good, but very good movies.
Over at Seraphic Secret they made mention first of Myrna Loy and a number of her movies, and just before that a bit about screenwriting. Which reminded me of Casablanca.
A few years back my daughter was over for the weekend and I finally got her to sit down to watch it. She was writing(constantly, still does) and not paying much attention for about ten minutes, then something caught her attention and she looked up and asked "What did he say?" Aha, I thought, got her now, so I gave her a ticked-off look, rewound the tape and started it over. And this time she put the notebook and pen down and watched, and listened. Clear through to the end.
When it finished I asked "What do you think?" She sat a moment, then said "You know, everything in that movie is a cliche, but when they made it, they werent."
She liked it. Got her own copy later, too.
Over at Seraphic Secret they made mention first of Myrna Loy and a number of her movies, and just before that a bit about screenwriting. Which reminded me of Casablanca.
A few years back my daughter was over for the weekend and I finally got her to sit down to watch it. She was writing(constantly, still does) and not paying much attention for about ten minutes, then something caught her attention and she looked up and asked "What did he say?" Aha, I thought, got her now, so I gave her a ticked-off look, rewound the tape and started it over. And this time she put the notebook and pen down and watched, and listened. Clear through to the end.
When it finished I asked "What do you think?" She sat a moment, then said "You know, everything in that movie is a cliche, but when they made it, they werent."
She liked it. Got her own copy later, too.
I started agreeing with Charles and calling them Palisimians
when I saw things like this:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Saraa Barhoum picked at the buttons on her pink bellbottom jeans as she twisted on a chair inside the bustling new Hamas television headquarters. The afternoon light bounced off the sparkly outlines of butterflies on her frilly top, and a colorful hijab framed her 11-year-old face.
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Saraa Barhoum picked at the buttons on her pink bellbottom jeans as she twisted on a chair inside the bustling new Hamas television headquarters. The afternoon light bounced off the sparkly outlines of butterflies on her frilly top, and a colorful hijab framed her 11-year-old face.
Saraa wants to be a doctor. If she can’t, the young star of Hamas television’s best-known children’s show said, she’d be proud to become a martyr. Saraa says little Jewish girls should be forced from their homes in Israel so that Palestinians can return to their land.
Eleven freakin' years old.
Saraa is the sweet face of “Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” a weekly, hour-long Hamas television children’s show best known for bringing the world a militant Mickey Mouse look-alike and then having him killed off by an Israeli interrogator.
...
Saraa helps deliver similar messages to Palestinian children from a Hamas TV set filled with colorful numbers and pictures of kittens. During the show, Saraa fields calls from Palestinian children who warble songs about Islam, liberating Jerusalem and finding answers in the barrel of a machine gun.
And one of the things that really pisses me off, as a side issue, is that an awful lot of the people who'll make excuses for this crap will have hissy fits at the very idea of a parent here in the US taking their kids to the range. THAT'S disgusting, but these kids praising death and murder? Why, that's just fine!
Oh, for... If you actually needed further proof that Once Great Britain
is in the toilet, here it is:
DOCTORS and health workers have been banned from eating lunch at their desks - in case it offends their Muslim colleagues. Health chiefs believe the sight of food will upset Muslim workers when they are celebrating the religious festival Ramadan.
Now, this would be bad enough if it were standard multi-culti bullshit. But:
The new guidance comes in the wake of the failed terror attacks on Glasgow and the death of suspect Kafeel Ahmed, 27.
So if there was any doubt, this is because a bunch of chickenshits are terrified of muslims and don't want to do anything that might upset them. Even to the point of telling non-muslims not to eat.
What? You say it only says not eating at their desk? Read on:
But Greater Glasgow and Clyde as well as Lothian NHS boards also issued the advice, warning workers not to take working lunches, and said all vending machines should be removed from areas where Muslims work.
Got that? Vending machines removed, and don't even TAKE your own lunch.
The Englishman and Mr. Free Market & Co., if they haven't already, should consider stocking up on, say, anti-personnel type ammo. They may need to to repel attackers and then to fight their way out of what used to be a great country.
DOCTORS and health workers have been banned from eating lunch at their desks - in case it offends their Muslim colleagues.
Now, this would be bad enough if it were standard multi-culti bullshit. But:
The new guidance comes in the wake of the failed terror attacks on Glasgow and the death of suspect Kafeel Ahmed, 27.
So if there was any doubt, this is because a bunch of chickenshits are terrified of muslims and don't want to do anything that might upset them. Even to the point of telling non-muslims not to eat.
What? You say it only says not eating at their desk? Read on:
But Greater Glasgow and Clyde as well as Lothian NHS boards also issued the advice, warning workers not to take working lunches, and said all vending machines should be removed from areas where Muslims work.
Got that? Vending machines removed, and don't even TAKE your own lunch.
The Englishman and Mr. Free Market & Co., if they haven't already, should consider stocking up on, say, anti-personnel type ammo. They may need to to repel attackers and then to fight their way out of what used to be a great country.
A bit more on point-shooting
I've heard it referred to as 'shooting without aiming', but that's not the case. It's flat wrong, in fact.
No, you don't use the sights. At least not in the standard fashion, which I'll get to later. But you aim. Go back and look at the pictures of Jordan, and you'll notice that the pistol is far enough forward that he can see it while focusing on the target. So by feel and vision you know where it's pointing. As the distance increases, you move the pistol further forward in your field of view. Please note, you're not just pointing in a direction and pressing trigger, you are aiming, using your view of the target and pistol as your reference points. And with practice, muscle memory helps out.
As the range increases and you raise your hands higher, you do see the sights- primarily the front- and that gives a more precise aim*, until- the range being great enough and/or time being available you use the sights in standard fashion.
Few people are good at this right from the start, but with a bit of practice you might be surprised how accurate you can become with this. And it has another advantage for many: if your vision isn't that good(especially dim conditions), or you wear glasses which could be wet or dirty or knocked off/lost, it saves you the time of picking out the sights and aligning them. I have the standard middle-age problem that changing from far to near vision isn't nearly as fast as it once was, which can make switching from target to sights and back a problem if speed is needed. Again, especially in bad light. Since there's not an optical/red-dot available that's small enough to fit on a holstered pistol for standard carry and affordable/reliable enough(been a while since I looked, there may be something now), that means that being able to point-shoot at closer ranges could be a very handy thing.
Generally, it's always a Good Thing to bring it all the way up and use the sights. Developing some point-shooting skill doesn't take the place of using sights, it adds a skill to your arsenal. If nothing else, get hold of a soft-air gun and try it. Which is a good practice tool anyway.
*I was once on a firing line where point-shooting was being practiced and the range master came over and told me to stop using the sights. I wasn't, I was just moving my pistol further up & forward than the others. I don't remember if I was actively noticing the front sight, but that extra bit of reach was making a real difference in accuracy.
No, you don't use the sights. At least not in the standard fashion, which I'll get to later. But you aim. Go back and look at the pictures of Jordan, and you'll notice that the pistol is far enough forward that he can see it while focusing on the target. So by feel and vision you know where it's pointing. As the distance increases, you move the pistol further forward in your field of view. Please note, you're not just pointing in a direction and pressing trigger, you are aiming, using your view of the target and pistol as your reference points. And with practice, muscle memory helps out.
As the range increases and you raise your hands higher, you do see the sights- primarily the front- and that gives a more precise aim*, until- the range being great enough and/or time being available you use the sights in standard fashion.
Few people are good at this right from the start, but with a bit of practice you might be surprised how accurate you can become with this. And it has another advantage for many: if your vision isn't that good(especially dim conditions), or you wear glasses which could be wet or dirty or knocked off/lost, it saves you the time of picking out the sights and aligning them. I have the standard middle-age problem that changing from far to near vision isn't nearly as fast as it once was, which can make switching from target to sights and back a problem if speed is needed. Again, especially in bad light. Since there's not an optical/red-dot available that's small enough to fit on a holstered pistol for standard carry and affordable/reliable enough(been a while since I looked, there may be something now), that means that being able to point-shoot at closer ranges could be a very handy thing.
Generally, it's always a Good Thing to bring it all the way up and use the sights. Developing some point-shooting skill doesn't take the place of using sights, it adds a skill to your arsenal. If nothing else, get hold of a soft-air gun and try it. Which is a good practice tool anyway.
*I was once on a firing line where point-shooting was being practiced and the range master came over and told me to stop using the sights. I wasn't, I was just moving my pistol further up & forward than the others. I don't remember if I was actively noticing the front sight, but that extra bit of reach was making a real difference in accuracy.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The son is now off to a hot and sandy place
I'm not sure what might or might not be a problem so far as information goes, so for the time being all I'll say is left Germany(in the 50's at night when he called) and deplaned into 100's. Be a bit of a shock, that.
Now it'll be a while before I have a mailing address, hopefully most things he'll need will be available there. If not, well, I've got some boxes and padding saved up.
Now it'll be a while before I have a mailing address, hopefully most things he'll need will be available there. If not, well, I've got some boxes and padding saved up.
Shameless pimping of a relative's blog
My daughter has decided to start a new one, on the subject of putting together a Writer's Guide to Weapons. It's just started, The Pen is Deadlier can be found here.
Just a handy little knife
With a bit of fancy
Blade's O1 and about 4", grip is antler, fittings are brass with a bit of filework on the edges.
Blade's O1 and about 4", grip is antler, fittings are brass with a bit of filework on the edges.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Just what IS going to happen to Russia?
The Geek had this up a few days back, and there've been other discussions about this for some time. Barring a miracle, I think Russia is pretty much screwed, and I think the big culprit is communism.
That faith dominated the Soviet Union for decades, and they're going to be dealing with the effects of it for decades longer(assuming Russia doesn't break up completely or get taken over). Lots of countries broke from being run by royal families and did well; Russia made a start and then the commies took over, cementing their control by any means available. Face it, at best a country run for so long by people like Stalin & Co. and their followers would take a long damn time to get over it. With the multiple shocks starting when the Wall came down, it was iffy but they had a real chance. But with so many- mostly older, true, but still...- actually wishing Stalin would come back...
I hate to see it happen.
That faith dominated the Soviet Union for decades, and they're going to be dealing with the effects of it for decades longer(assuming Russia doesn't break up completely or get taken over). Lots of countries broke from being run by royal families and did well; Russia made a start and then the commies took over, cementing their control by any means available. Face it, at best a country run for so long by people like Stalin & Co. and their followers would take a long damn time to get over it. With the multiple shocks starting when the Wall came down, it was iffy but they had a real chance. But with so many- mostly older, true, but still...- actually wishing Stalin would come back...
I hate to see it happen.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Well, Murtha? We're waiting
And waiting. For you to actually show some integrity, considering what a jerk you've been proven to be:
In his recommendation, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, poor forensic evidence and questionable legal theories.
"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in an 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
Which is a fancy way of saying 'innocent of the charges made against him'.
Mr. Murtha, those Marines and their families are waiting for your apology. Just in case you have the guts and integrity to make it.
Which I will not hold my breath waiting for.
In his recommendation, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, poor forensic evidence and questionable legal theories.
"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in an 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
Which is a fancy way of saying 'innocent of the charges made against him'.
Mr. Murtha, those Marines and their families are waiting for your apology. Just in case you have the guts and integrity to make it.
Which I will not hold my breath waiting for.
Human-caused Globular Warmering Updated
my ass:
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
Which article led to this:
Two months ago, I reported on an effort to validate this network. A volunteer group headed by meteorologist Anthony Watts had found serious problems. Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC's requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations -- on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.
Got that? Sites recording weather data, including the temp readings used to say "We're going to burn up!"[/algore] were in not very suitable locations that would give higher readings.
Doesn't matter to the True Believers, as they have The Goreacle to lead them to his Revealed Truth, but for us infidels some very interesting information.
Update: here's moreFriday, August 10, 2007
Point shooting, and the current e-Postal Match Updated with Bill Jordan pictures
The current match is at Carnaby Fudge, and the first stage is 'no sights, point and shoot'. Which I rather like.
Current handgun training tends to be 'always use the sights unless you're at contact range', and without question it's generally easier to hit accurately, even at close range, with sights. But point-shooting can be very fast and- with practice- very accurate. And considering the number of reports I've read where someone said they never really used the sights(in normal manner), I think skipping it is a bad idea. At least some familiarizing would be a good idea.*
James at Hell in a Handbasket has a good piece on it here, and if you look around the gunboards you can find more. If you have time, one book I'd strongly recommend is No Second Place Winner, by Bill Jordan. If you've been around the shooting world a few years, you've probably heard of him; he was a Big Name for a long time, with a lot of years on the Border Patrol and having(as one guy put it) ended more gunfights than most would-be tough guys ever thought about starting. The book's good for the stories if nothing else, but his chapter on 'Combat Style Shooting' is what we're after here. To shorten it quite a bit, the closer the bad guy, the closer you have the pistol to you when you fire. To illustrate his method, I scanned these two pages from the book:
If you've never tried it, or never seen someone who's in practice shooting this way, the accuracy you can get is amazing. Jordan would, for demos, stand aspirin tablets on edge on a table about ten or fifteen feet away, draw and fire(S&W Model 19) and shoot the tablets off without touching the table. The man who handled firearms training for OK Highway Patrol for years, a gentleman named Dan Combs, was about that good, and I got to watch him a couple of times. Flat damned amazing, both accuracy and speed.
I'll throw in, the way dad was taught(and he taught me) was to get both hands on the piece as soon as possible: so for anything beyond contact range to, say, five or six feet, use both hands as the additional control and accuracy is worth it. Jordan was a big, strong man(look at the hand holding that Model 19) and shot with one hand a lot, and could handle .357 Mag loads one-handed with no problem even in rapid fire; most of us ain't quite to that point.
That kind of speed and accuracy takes a LOT of practice for all but a few gifted people, but for the practical need of placing shots in an attacker's vitals at close range, just about anybody can pick it up with a bit of practice. It's a skill well worth working on. Let me close with a couple of paragraphs from the end of the chapter:
"One last suggestion: For 90% of your practice, draw from the holster and fire one shot. It's that first shot that is important and it is the one most difficult to place accurately. Don't practice "hosing" your shots, depending on seeing hits to get you on target. You learn nothing from this and you are lost if you can't see the strike of your bullets. Your crutch won't work at night or with no background to mark your shots, and then you will be in bad trouble. The first shot is all important, and if it is in, the others will follow.
For the other 10%, if you are concentrating on that first shot and it goes in you will have no difficulty with the rest of the burst. your wrist and forearm will stiffen automatically for recoil control. And above all, take al the time necessary but don't dawdle. Remember, "speed's fine, but accuracy's final"- if you are given time to display it!"
*A while back I read a piece by a police officer whose department had gone back to training on point-shooting after numerous reports of close range and/or low-light fights found that officers either didn't use the sights(seldom) or kept moving their eyes from sights to target(very often); if I remember right, the training improved their record quite a bit.
UPDATED It's been two years since I wrote this, and I've got a new post up here that touches on the subject. I'll also add that I think you should practice firing quick pairs in point-shooting, same as sighted fire; What I should have written here originally was 'fire single shots to learn point-shooting, and when you have the idea start firing pairs'.
And please remember: I'm not an Expert, I'm a guy stating opinions and thoughts. Don't think I'm the last word on a subject(I may luck out at some point says ego, but ignore that); if you want to try something I've mentioned, check out everything you can on the subject. There are very good books, like Massad Ayoob's and Jordan's, and nowadays lots of stuff on blogs(remember, some of those folks are just like me, while some of them really are experts), so there's lots out there to read on just about any subject or method you can think of. Do your research.
Current handgun training tends to be 'always use the sights unless you're at contact range', and without question it's generally easier to hit accurately, even at close range, with sights. But point-shooting can be very fast and- with practice- very accurate. And considering the number of reports I've read where someone said they never really used the sights(in normal manner), I think skipping it is a bad idea. At least some familiarizing would be a good idea.*
James at Hell in a Handbasket has a good piece on it here, and if you look around the gunboards you can find more. If you have time, one book I'd strongly recommend is No Second Place Winner, by Bill Jordan. If you've been around the shooting world a few years, you've probably heard of him; he was a Big Name for a long time, with a lot of years on the Border Patrol and having(as one guy put it) ended more gunfights than most would-be tough guys ever thought about starting. The book's good for the stories if nothing else, but his chapter on 'Combat Style Shooting' is what we're after here. To shorten it quite a bit, the closer the bad guy, the closer you have the pistol to you when you fire. To illustrate his method, I scanned these two pages from the book:
If you've never tried it, or never seen someone who's in practice shooting this way, the accuracy you can get is amazing. Jordan would, for demos, stand aspirin tablets on edge on a table about ten or fifteen feet away, draw and fire(S&W Model 19) and shoot the tablets off without touching the table. The man who handled firearms training for OK Highway Patrol for years, a gentleman named Dan Combs, was about that good, and I got to watch him a couple of times. Flat damned amazing, both accuracy and speed.
I'll throw in, the way dad was taught(and he taught me) was to get both hands on the piece as soon as possible: so for anything beyond contact range to, say, five or six feet, use both hands as the additional control and accuracy is worth it. Jordan was a big, strong man(look at the hand holding that Model 19) and shot with one hand a lot, and could handle .357 Mag loads one-handed with no problem even in rapid fire; most of us ain't quite to that point.
That kind of speed and accuracy takes a LOT of practice for all but a few gifted people, but for the practical need of placing shots in an attacker's vitals at close range, just about anybody can pick it up with a bit of practice. It's a skill well worth working on. Let me close with a couple of paragraphs from the end of the chapter:
"One last suggestion: For 90% of your practice, draw from the holster and fire one shot. It's that first shot that is important and it is the one most difficult to place accurately. Don't practice "hosing" your shots, depending on seeing hits to get you on target. You learn nothing from this and you are lost if you can't see the strike of your bullets. Your crutch won't work at night or with no background to mark your shots, and then you will be in bad trouble. The first shot is all important, and if it is in, the others will follow.
For the other 10%, if you are concentrating on that first shot and it goes in you will have no difficulty with the rest of the burst. your wrist and forearm will stiffen automatically for recoil control. And above all, take al the time necessary but don't dawdle. Remember, "speed's fine, but accuracy's final"- if you are given time to display it!"
*A while back I read a piece by a police officer whose department had gone back to training on point-shooting after numerous reports of close range and/or low-light fights found that officers either didn't use the sights(seldom) or kept moving their eyes from sights to target(very often); if I remember right, the training improved their record quite a bit.
UPDATED It's been two years since I wrote this, and I've got a new post up here that touches on the subject. I'll also add that I think you should practice firing quick pairs in point-shooting, same as sighted fire; What I should have written here originally was 'fire single shots to learn point-shooting, and when you have the idea start firing pairs'.
And please remember: I'm not an Expert, I'm a guy stating opinions and thoughts. Don't think I'm the last word on a subject(I may luck out at some point says ego, but ignore that); if you want to try something I've mentioned, check out everything you can on the subject. There are very good books, like Massad Ayoob's and Jordan's, and nowadays lots of stuff on blogs(remember, some of those folks are just like me, while some of them really are experts), so there's lots out there to read on just about any subject or method you can think of. Do your research.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Yeah, just a nice little multi-culti school
As long as it's the RIGHT multi-culti:
Just absolutely freakin' wonderful, isn't it?
The first New York Charter School for Arab girls is selling T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Intifada - New York."
The principle of the school, Dhabah Almontaser, said "I think it's pretty much an opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society ... and shaking off oppression."
Just absolutely freakin' wonderful, isn't it?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Here's another one to hold you over
Spent a couple of days visiting my parents(not long enough, but what time I had) and I need some sleep before work. So here's another past product of the forge:
Blade is 5160 spring steel, about 11" from the guard to the point and about 16" overall. Fittings are copper, and the grip is a piece of leg bone from a whitetail. Yeah, the forge marks on the blade were left there deliberately; I like the way it looks.
Blade is 5160 spring steel, about 11" from the guard to the point and about 16" overall. Fittings are copper, and the grip is a piece of leg bone from a whitetail. Yeah, the forge marks on the blade were left there deliberately; I like the way it looks.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Cutting tests
One thing I've always done, with every blade I've made, is test it. Both for cutting ability, edge-holding and toughness. Reason is, most of the blades I make have been tools, not wallhangers. Something like the dagger, I know, isn't likely to be actually used much, but it might. And it might be at a critical time. The other stuff, even the somewhat fancy, I expect will be used, sometimes a lot. And one thing that could keep me up at night would be the thought of someone really needing a knife I made to work and hold up to stress, and failing. It's not bridge engineering, but it's still not to be tolerated.
So I worked up a routine, varying a bit for different blade types. First step is to look the blade over very closely after heat-treating. Then sharpen it*. The most basic test is toughness, for which I take the blade, clamp the tip in a vise(how much in the vise depends on length/thickness) and flex it back & forth. It should flex and return to straight, repeatedly(amount of flex depending on the blade).
Second is the edge hardness with the brass rod, posted before.
Third is cutting. For edge-holding, I use 1/4" sisal or manilla rope, depending on which I've got or can find. I clamp a piece of 1x3 or 2x4 lumber in the vise. Then I use a marker to mark an area about an inch long. Then lay the rope on the wood, set the blade on it a little back from the end and push it down to cut through, then move the blade back a touch and repeat, over and over. A blade made of O1 or 5160 or harrow tooth, any good high-carbon steel, should make at least fifty cuts, and that area still be sharp enough to shave hair off your arm, and at seventy-five cleanly slice a piece of typing paper**.
That's for all knives. For a big one that might well be used for heavy cutting(firewood, etc.), I save branches pruned from the trees to test with, limb thickness depending on blade size, I usually use 2-3" for this(a lot of makers use 2x4). Set the branch on a solid surface(bigger branch) and chop it in two, then repeat. It's got to do this at least twice with no damage to the edge or bending of the blade, and still be at least usably sharp. The typing paper is good for this; you hold it by a corner, start near your grip and slice. If it won't cut it, or snags the paper where the blade's been cutting, problem: if it just won't cut it dulled too much, if it snags the edge roughened or nicked. If the latter, check the wood. I've seen a knot in some types of wood hard enough to mess with a knife edge, and if it's an old limb or used 2x4 there might have been a nail or staple in it.
That's the general process I use. It is subject to adjustment depending on the individual knife(I wouldn't expect one forged from a railroad spike to hold an edge like harrow tooth, for instance, but it'll be hell for tough).
*Remember, if the final grinding and polishing did not move the edge back any, you may well have an edge with a little bit of carbon loss from the heat-treating. I've read a couple of makers who say they don't expect a knife to show it's best edge-holding until it's been sharpened at least twice to make sure that decarburized layer is removed. And most bladesmiths leave the final-forged blade just a bit oversize, so the final grinding removes that layer.
**This is subject to the type of steel AND the use expected. Make a blade a little too hard and, while it may well pass the tests just fine it'll be a bitch to sharpen when it dulls; pain for the owner. Something of a lower carbon content- generally speaking- won't hold an edge as well, but can be made incredibly tough and will be easier to sharpen. Everything is a balance.
So I worked up a routine, varying a bit for different blade types. First step is to look the blade over very closely after heat-treating. Then sharpen it*. The most basic test is toughness, for which I take the blade, clamp the tip in a vise(how much in the vise depends on length/thickness) and flex it back & forth. It should flex and return to straight, repeatedly(amount of flex depending on the blade).
Second is the edge hardness with the brass rod, posted before.
Third is cutting. For edge-holding, I use 1/4" sisal or manilla rope, depending on which I've got or can find. I clamp a piece of 1x3 or 2x4 lumber in the vise. Then I use a marker to mark an area about an inch long. Then lay the rope on the wood, set the blade on it a little back from the end and push it down to cut through, then move the blade back a touch and repeat, over and over. A blade made of O1 or 5160 or harrow tooth, any good high-carbon steel, should make at least fifty cuts, and that area still be sharp enough to shave hair off your arm, and at seventy-five cleanly slice a piece of typing paper**.
That's for all knives. For a big one that might well be used for heavy cutting(firewood, etc.), I save branches pruned from the trees to test with, limb thickness depending on blade size, I usually use 2-3" for this(a lot of makers use 2x4). Set the branch on a solid surface(bigger branch) and chop it in two, then repeat. It's got to do this at least twice with no damage to the edge or bending of the blade, and still be at least usably sharp. The typing paper is good for this; you hold it by a corner, start near your grip and slice. If it won't cut it, or snags the paper where the blade's been cutting, problem: if it just won't cut it dulled too much, if it snags the edge roughened or nicked. If the latter, check the wood. I've seen a knot in some types of wood hard enough to mess with a knife edge, and if it's an old limb or used 2x4 there might have been a nail or staple in it.
That's the general process I use. It is subject to adjustment depending on the individual knife(I wouldn't expect one forged from a railroad spike to hold an edge like harrow tooth, for instance, but it'll be hell for tough).
*Remember, if the final grinding and polishing did not move the edge back any, you may well have an edge with a little bit of carbon loss from the heat-treating. I've read a couple of makers who say they don't expect a knife to show it's best edge-holding until it's been sharpened at least twice to make sure that decarburized layer is removed. And most bladesmiths leave the final-forged blade just a bit oversize, so the final grinding removes that layer.
**This is subject to the type of steel AND the use expected. Make a blade a little too hard and, while it may well pass the tests just fine it'll be a bitch to sharpen when it dulls; pain for the owner. Something of a lower carbon content- generally speaking- won't hold an edge as well, but can be made incredibly tough and will be easier to sharpen. Everything is a balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)