How do we know this? Read and see. And be nauseated.
What's that? Why not stick the crooks in prison and keep them there for robbing and raping and murdering? What kind of barbarian ARE you, anyway?
Friday, March 10, 2006
Ref the 1903 Springfield sights,
Take a look at this:
This is the rear in the laid-down position. At the right bottom, that large knob? Windage adjustment; it turns a pinion gear which meshes with teeth in the front of the sight and rotates it right or left; at the far left end you can see adjustment marks. Just right of the marks, see that hole? For 100 yards up to a couple of hundred, you were supposed to flip the ladder up and use the aperture for aiming. From that range(and there was an exact distance for these, but I'll look that up later, if I can find it again) on for a ways you used the notch in the base of the triangle above the aperture. For serious long range, that smaller knob is for elevation, loosen it and the whole notch/aperture setup slides up & down; please note that the elevation marks run all the way up to 2700 yards.
Now, if you look at the top of the aforementioned triangle, on the slider, you'll see a notch that's on top when the ladder is down, that's your battlesight. Remember I mentioned that most military rifles were set so that, with the sight in its' lowest position, it was actuall sighted for 300 yards/meters? Well, when this sight was designed for the original 1903 cartridge, it was. That one used a 220 grain roundnose bullet at about 2200 feet per second. Then the word came that the Germans had gone from a heavy roundnose bullet to a sharply-pointed bullet(spitzer) of much less weight, dropping from 220 to 150 grains. That allowed much higher velocity out of the Mauser, which meant a much flatter trajectory over distance, and- this bullet being more aerodynamic- longer effective range. So we did the same. The experiments led to the case being shortened .10", a 150 grain bullet was adopted at a velocity of about 2800 fps, giving us the ever-popular .30 Government 1906, later renamed the .30-06. However...
I can't remember the details(I do know where I can get a book that covers it, though) but the ballistics data for the new cartridge wasn't available in time for the sights to be made, so they were- mostly, at least- made with the markings from the 1903 cartridge. Which, with the higher velocity, more efficient projectile, meant that a battlesight originally designed for 300 yards actually was on at 500-something. Which means that at 100 yards, it's WAY high; where most are 3-6" high at 100, this hits about 8-10" high(rough numbers). And I have to point out that while that aperture for 'short' ranges works, that dinky little hole ain't worth crap in low light or bad weather(at least for me). Combine that with a thin front blade...
Gerry in comments brought up an old saying from WWI that the Americans had the best target rifle, the Germans had the best hunting rifle, and the Brits had the best battle rifle. Largely seems to cover it.
By the way, I've wondered for years, why did the Germans keep using that inverted 'V' front sight with the sharp point? THAT is also a bitch to use at times. The Swede Mausers use a similar, but it's got a flat top that's wide enough to use in low-light conditions, so why didn't the Germans use it?
For that matter, when the British were looking at a new rifle and designed the 1915(?) Enfield, I understand the different sights, but why did they go to a 5-shot magazine with it? The 10-shot of the #1 Mk3 worked so nicely, why change that?
Note: nice picture of 1903 sight found here, along with lots of other good pics of the rifle and parts.
This is the rear in the laid-down position. At the right bottom, that large knob? Windage adjustment; it turns a pinion gear which meshes with teeth in the front of the sight and rotates it right or left; at the far left end you can see adjustment marks. Just right of the marks, see that hole? For 100 yards up to a couple of hundred, you were supposed to flip the ladder up and use the aperture for aiming. From that range(and there was an exact distance for these, but I'll look that up later, if I can find it again) on for a ways you used the notch in the base of the triangle above the aperture. For serious long range, that smaller knob is for elevation, loosen it and the whole notch/aperture setup slides up & down; please note that the elevation marks run all the way up to 2700 yards.
Now, if you look at the top of the aforementioned triangle, on the slider, you'll see a notch that's on top when the ladder is down, that's your battlesight. Remember I mentioned that most military rifles were set so that, with the sight in its' lowest position, it was actuall sighted for 300 yards/meters? Well, when this sight was designed for the original 1903 cartridge, it was. That one used a 220 grain roundnose bullet at about 2200 feet per second. Then the word came that the Germans had gone from a heavy roundnose bullet to a sharply-pointed bullet(spitzer) of much less weight, dropping from 220 to 150 grains. That allowed much higher velocity out of the Mauser, which meant a much flatter trajectory over distance, and- this bullet being more aerodynamic- longer effective range. So we did the same. The experiments led to the case being shortened .10", a 150 grain bullet was adopted at a velocity of about 2800 fps, giving us the ever-popular .30 Government 1906, later renamed the .30-06. However...
I can't remember the details(I do know where I can get a book that covers it, though) but the ballistics data for the new cartridge wasn't available in time for the sights to be made, so they were- mostly, at least- made with the markings from the 1903 cartridge. Which, with the higher velocity, more efficient projectile, meant that a battlesight originally designed for 300 yards actually was on at 500-something. Which means that at 100 yards, it's WAY high; where most are 3-6" high at 100, this hits about 8-10" high(rough numbers). And I have to point out that while that aperture for 'short' ranges works, that dinky little hole ain't worth crap in low light or bad weather(at least for me). Combine that with a thin front blade...
Gerry in comments brought up an old saying from WWI that the Americans had the best target rifle, the Germans had the best hunting rifle, and the Brits had the best battle rifle. Largely seems to cover it.
By the way, I've wondered for years, why did the Germans keep using that inverted 'V' front sight with the sharp point? THAT is also a bitch to use at times. The Swede Mausers use a similar, but it's got a flat top that's wide enough to use in low-light conditions, so why didn't the Germans use it?
For that matter, when the British were looking at a new rifle and designed the 1915(?) Enfield, I understand the different sights, but why did they go to a 5-shot magazine with it? The 10-shot of the #1 Mk3 worked so nicely, why change that?
Note: nice picture of 1903 sight found here, along with lots of other good pics of the rifle and parts.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Not having enough problems,
I shot a round in the current rifle postal match Mr. Completely & Friends has up. Not knowing when/if I'd have another chance on this one, I took the Martini 12 along the other day and shot this at 50 yards
First, let me say (whine)the wind was blowing strong, and it was gusting, and I didn't get much sleep the night before, dammit!(/whine). That being said, biggest problem was the size of the targets and my vision. At 50 yards, these suckers are little blurs, and I'm frankly amazed I did as well as I did. Usually, for an iron sight target at that range I use a black bullseye about 2.5" across; lots better contrast than this multi-colored !!&*%!.
In any case, there's mine. Where's yours?
First, let me say (whine)the wind was blowing strong, and it was gusting, and I didn't get much sleep the night before, dammit!(/whine). That being said, biggest problem was the size of the targets and my vision. At 50 yards, these suckers are little blurs, and I'm frankly amazed I did as well as I did. Usually, for an iron sight target at that range I use a black bullseye about 2.5" across; lots better contrast than this multi-colored !!&*%!.
In any case, there's mine. Where's yours?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Range day
Having once again decided to hell with various things I probably should have done, I went shooting today. Nice day for this time of year, though a bit windy and gusty. No serious testing or whatever, though I did get to try out a Finnish M39
Short version, this is the rifle the Finns made using Mosin-Nagant receivers. I've heard that they're the best version made of this rifle type, and having shot this one I believe it. For the full rundown on these go over to Head's Bunker and look down the sidebar; he's got a lot on them. Short version:
heavier stock, particularly in the forend. Instead of a long, skinny one it's a heavier piece dovetailed into the buttstock.
Better sights. Instead of a shallow notch in the rear and a post up front, it's a wing-protected front blade and a very clean rear notch. And where every other rifle of the type, although the low setting says '100' is actually set for 300 meters? This Finn rifle has a low setting marked '150', and it means it; with the ammo I used(Czech and Polish light ball) it hit just about dead-on at 100, I'd guess would be on at 150.
Windage adjustment on other Mosins means drifting the front sight in the dovetail, and if you've ever done that you know it's a bit touchy at times to get it just right. With this? There's a screw on each side of the sight base; to move the sight left, you'd back the left screw off a bit, then tighten the right screw. Presto, very controlled, positive adjustment. I like it.
And it's got the best trigger I've personally seen on a Mosin, long first stage, positive stop, then a light, clean second stage. Very nice. I've fired much newer sporting rifles with worse.
First five shots were done at 50 yards
Which impressed me. Then moved back to 100
The flier I blame on myself, which gives a 1" group. Which was not a fluke, I got several more this tight with it, though the rifle showed a bit of a preference for the Polish ammo.
If I were going to set one of these up for target shooting, I think the main thing I'd do is get another front blade and mill it a bit thinner. These are battle-rifle sights, not match sights, and for the purpose I imagine they served- would serve- very well.
As an aside, I read that when the M1 Garand was first officially introduced to the public at the Wimbledon matches, the two big gripes were the coarse sights and 'too heavy' trigger. The Springfield people kept telling them "It's not a match rifle, it's a battlefield rifle, too fine a sight and too light a trigger can be a problem". This is my big gripe with the 1903 and 1903-A3 Springfields; fine rifles with lousy sights for woods or battlefield use. With the -A3, a fine rear aperture sight combined with that damn thin front blade; with the '03, skinny front blade and a too-complicated rear. Excellent on a target range, a pain anywhere else. In my humble opinion, anyway.
In any case, back to the M39, this is a fine rifle, and happily there are a bunch of them out there. I get my finances back on track, I may have to search around for one.
Short version, this is the rifle the Finns made using Mosin-Nagant receivers. I've heard that they're the best version made of this rifle type, and having shot this one I believe it. For the full rundown on these go over to Head's Bunker and look down the sidebar; he's got a lot on them. Short version:
heavier stock, particularly in the forend. Instead of a long, skinny one it's a heavier piece dovetailed into the buttstock.
Better sights. Instead of a shallow notch in the rear and a post up front, it's a wing-protected front blade and a very clean rear notch. And where every other rifle of the type, although the low setting says '100' is actually set for 300 meters? This Finn rifle has a low setting marked '150', and it means it; with the ammo I used(Czech and Polish light ball) it hit just about dead-on at 100, I'd guess would be on at 150.
Windage adjustment on other Mosins means drifting the front sight in the dovetail, and if you've ever done that you know it's a bit touchy at times to get it just right. With this? There's a screw on each side of the sight base; to move the sight left, you'd back the left screw off a bit, then tighten the right screw. Presto, very controlled, positive adjustment. I like it.
And it's got the best trigger I've personally seen on a Mosin, long first stage, positive stop, then a light, clean second stage. Very nice. I've fired much newer sporting rifles with worse.
First five shots were done at 50 yards
Which impressed me. Then moved back to 100
The flier I blame on myself, which gives a 1" group. Which was not a fluke, I got several more this tight with it, though the rifle showed a bit of a preference for the Polish ammo.
If I were going to set one of these up for target shooting, I think the main thing I'd do is get another front blade and mill it a bit thinner. These are battle-rifle sights, not match sights, and for the purpose I imagine they served- would serve- very well.
As an aside, I read that when the M1 Garand was first officially introduced to the public at the Wimbledon matches, the two big gripes were the coarse sights and 'too heavy' trigger. The Springfield people kept telling them "It's not a match rifle, it's a battlefield rifle, too fine a sight and too light a trigger can be a problem". This is my big gripe with the 1903 and 1903-A3 Springfields; fine rifles with lousy sights for woods or battlefield use. With the -A3, a fine rear aperture sight combined with that damn thin front blade; with the '03, skinny front blade and a too-complicated rear. Excellent on a target range, a pain anywhere else. In my humble opinion, anyway.
In any case, back to the M39, this is a fine rifle, and happily there are a bunch of them out there. I get my finances back on track, I may have to search around for one.
Refugee asked, so
Here's a closer shot of the blooms
And I must correct myself; the blooms open from the bottom up
And I must correct myself; the blooms open from the bottom up
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Ever seen an aloe vera bloom?
I hadn't, until my parents gave me this one. About nine years ago, I believe; as much hot metal as I handled at the time, it came in very handy for burns. I moved it indoors when winter came, and sometime in February I noticed a stalk rising from the center. It grew to about a foot or so higher than the rest of the plant, the head opened up into lots of little buds, and they finally started opening from top to bottom, each a small bloom.
No scent that I could catch. After opening, they withered and fell off, again from top to botttom. First time that I'd ever seen it.
And so far, the first time of anyone I've told about it. Every year, about the same time, it sends up a stalk. The first couple of years just a single head, since then it's branched off and produced two.
Just think it's interesting.
No scent that I could catch. After opening, they withered and fell off, again from top to botttom. First time that I'd ever seen it.
And so far, the first time of anyone I've told about it. Every year, about the same time, it sends up a stalk. The first couple of years just a single head, since then it's branched off and produced two.
Just think it's interesting.
Friday, March 03, 2006
A good place to check out
is Samizdata. I hadn't been over there in quite a while, then today remembered to go by. You should check it out, if for no other reason than that it'll scare hell out of you by noting things happening in once-Great Britain. If you've ever though we should copy where they're going, this should cure you of it.
Carnival of Cordite #50!
The fiftieth one of these things, up at guest host AnarchAngel. Including a really good video for those who've thought "I could end that movie right now!"
Hello? Illinois, Chicago? You paying attention?
Probably not; one of these items the clowns will probably see as a bonus, and the other they'll ignore.
'These items' being the following: while over at the High Road I found a thread "More job losses for Illinois, YYYEEEAAAHHH!!" It seems that a number of gunmakers have said flatly that if Illinois passes the current 'Ban the Eeeville Guns' law, they'll leave the state. Taking their jobs and revenue with them. Guys, may I suggest Oklahoma? I think I'd like to work for Springfield Armory or ArmaLite. Full story here.
Second item was an article also on the Illinois State Rifle Assn. site, "Brady Gun Control Campaign All Wet Say Nation's Top Cops". Good reading in general.
So the National Association of Chiefs of Police says the Bradys and their buttmonkeys are full of crap, and if the IL legislature doesn't have a moment of intelligence(in Daley-Land, how likely is that?) I might have a place moving here that I'd take early retirement to get a job at.
Speaking of liberal asshats('redundancy alert' as Kim says), mAss Backwards notes this: "Security Grates Cause Crime". I have to ask, how does that idiot Mumbles get into and stay in office? Jeez.
'These items' being the following: while over at the High Road I found a thread "More job losses for Illinois, YYYEEEAAAHHH!!" It seems that a number of gunmakers have said flatly that if Illinois passes the current 'Ban the Eeeville Guns' law, they'll leave the state. Taking their jobs and revenue with them. Guys, may I suggest Oklahoma? I think I'd like to work for Springfield Armory or ArmaLite. Full story here.
Second item was an article also on the Illinois State Rifle Assn. site, "Brady Gun Control Campaign All Wet Say Nation's Top Cops". Good reading in general.
So the National Association of Chiefs of Police says the Bradys and their buttmonkeys are full of crap, and if the IL legislature doesn't have a moment of intelligence(in Daley-Land, how likely is that?) I might have a place moving here that I'd take early retirement to get a job at.
Speaking of liberal asshats('redundancy alert' as Kim says), mAss Backwards notes this: "Security Grates Cause Crime". I have to ask, how does that idiot Mumbles get into and stay in office? Jeez.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
And if you're as sick of the UN as I am,
Mark Steyn lays out everything you need to tell people who still trust it here.
Remember the kid who blew up in Norman?
Outside the packed stadium? Who the university and various people assured us was 'just a troubled kid who killed himself'?
"A Norman police bomb expert said Tuesday he does not believe University of Oklahoma student Joel Henry Hinrichs III committed suicide by blowing himself up outside a packed football stadium. "I believe he accidentally blew himself up," Sgt. George Mauldin said."
Link to the article here at Powerline, Michelle Malkin's post here. Among other things found at his apartment "A pint-size Tupperware container on a counter was filled with TATP Hinrichs had manufactured, Mauldin said." That's on top of what blew him up. Which was "Mauldin said Hinrichs, 21, an engineering student, had two to three pounds of triacetone triperoxide, commonly known as TATP, in a backpack in his lap when it exploded Oct. 1." Two to three pounds?!?
'Troubled youth suicide' my ass.
"A Norman police bomb expert said Tuesday he does not believe University of Oklahoma student Joel Henry Hinrichs III committed suicide by blowing himself up outside a packed football stadium. "I believe he accidentally blew himself up," Sgt. George Mauldin said."
Link to the article here at Powerline, Michelle Malkin's post here. Among other things found at his apartment "A pint-size Tupperware container on a counter was filled with TATP Hinrichs had manufactured, Mauldin said." That's on top of what blew him up. Which was "Mauldin said Hinrichs, 21, an engineering student, had two to three pounds of triacetone triperoxide, commonly known as TATP, in a backpack in his lap when it exploded Oct. 1." Two to three pounds?!?
'Troubled youth suicide' my ass.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Once again, I shall preach
on tolerance. And the lack thereof on some subjects. In this case, smoking.
As of today, all restaurants in this state have to either have a separate smoking area, with separate air-handling, or be smoke-free. And it's being pushed to, within a few years, make all smoking in public places illegal. All day the news has had interviews with the Cancer Society rep and various Health Department personnel and politicians speaking of the evils of smoking and secondhand smoke and so on.
I can only say to these people, WILL YOU FUCK OFF?!?
Once again, the nanny-state politicians and busybodies have managed to further criminalize something mostly on the basis of "We disapprove, and it's for your own good, you know!". I repeat, FUCK OFF! If I go into a restaurant or club and it's smoky and I don't like it, I leave and go somewhere else. I don't go whining to some politician to pass a law, and don't scream about violations of my 'rights', I just spend my money elsewhere.
One of the commercials these assholes had running over the past few months spoke of the 'hundreds' of people killed in this state every year by secondhand smoke. BULLSHIT. Unless some actual honest study has been pulled out of the hat lately, there's still no actual proof that ANYONE has been killed by it. Yeah, it's annoying. So what? So are busybody idiots and vote-hungry suckup politicians. That doesn't make it lethal, and lying about it doesn't make it so. The clowns who want to ban anything they disapprove of and claim is 'unhealthy' are a bigger threat to me; they're actually punishing people and attacking personal freedoms and actions, which DOES threaten me where secondhand smoke doesn't.
Makes me want to get a pipe and light up where the clowns can see me, just to annoy them. Maybe I'd be lucky and their indignation would rise so high it'd choke them.
I'm too pissed by all this to continue. Amen, and follow me to the bar.
Cigars, pipes and all.
As of today, all restaurants in this state have to either have a separate smoking area, with separate air-handling, or be smoke-free. And it's being pushed to, within a few years, make all smoking in public places illegal. All day the news has had interviews with the Cancer Society rep and various Health Department personnel and politicians speaking of the evils of smoking and secondhand smoke and so on.
I can only say to these people, WILL YOU FUCK OFF?!?
Once again, the nanny-state politicians and busybodies have managed to further criminalize something mostly on the basis of "We disapprove, and it's for your own good, you know!". I repeat, FUCK OFF! If I go into a restaurant or club and it's smoky and I don't like it, I leave and go somewhere else. I don't go whining to some politician to pass a law, and don't scream about violations of my 'rights', I just spend my money elsewhere.
One of the commercials these assholes had running over the past few months spoke of the 'hundreds' of people killed in this state every year by secondhand smoke. BULLSHIT. Unless some actual honest study has been pulled out of the hat lately, there's still no actual proof that ANYONE has been killed by it. Yeah, it's annoying. So what? So are busybody idiots and vote-hungry suckup politicians. That doesn't make it lethal, and lying about it doesn't make it so. The clowns who want to ban anything they disapprove of and claim is 'unhealthy' are a bigger threat to me; they're actually punishing people and attacking personal freedoms and actions, which DOES threaten me where secondhand smoke doesn't.
Makes me want to get a pipe and light up where the clowns can see me, just to annoy them. Maybe I'd be lucky and their indignation would rise so high it'd choke them.
I'm too pissed by all this to continue. Amen, and follow me to the bar.
Cigars, pipes and all.
Further thoughts from range evening
Two things I've picked up from reading over the last year or so are a: to change my primary aiming point and b: get more practice both close & fast and moving. Instead of center of mass, upper center of mass; last night that meant moving the smurf from about 5 yards back up to 3, about half the shots at each. 'Moving' in this case meant shifting side-to-side and back-&-forth within about a 3x5' space. Indoor range, other folks around, so keeping the jumping and etc. for later. Results:
Fifty rounds, including mag changes. It's not the best way, but somewhat careful mag changes; I didn't want to drop the damn things on the concrete floor, so they were a bit slow. All in all, not too bad. Aiming and firing while shifting around, even over a small space, really makes a difference from a steady, fixed firing position.
This kind of thing is where having a .22 conversion for a pistol is nice, you can go through a lot of ammo getting the hang of it without going broke or spending a lot of time at the loading bench. If you're at a range where they're understanding about such things, or- as I prefer- the outdoor one I usually go to for rifle practice(often nobody else at the handgun section), you can really move; jumping or stepping quickly back a ways, moving a few steps side-to-side, and moving at a quick pace along the line and engaging two targets as you pass along. It pumps your heart up a bit, it prevents you from standing still, and it gives some feel for shooting on the move. I can't remember if it was Kevin or the Geek who originally pointed out that you need to move; it was that very nice post of the Geek's on aiming point that started me aiming a bit higher. One thing that brought out is how strong habit is; even after working on this over time, I still sometimes will catch myself firing my first shot or two COM. They hit where I'm aiming, but it's not the aiming point I'm training myself to.
Oh, the head shots? Last few rounds. Well, hell, I had to try it, didn't I?
Something else I wanted to write about, which will undoubtedly annoy some people. Currently 'Keep your finger off the trigger 'till your sights are on the target' has come to mean 'keep your finger straight along the frame'. While it does indeed keep your finger away from the trigger, I have to point out that it's not required to keep it straight. I was taught handgun by my father, and he was taught combat shooting by the LE agency he worked for. You could have your finger inside the trigger guard, as long as it did not touch the trigger. This was in the days of almost everybody carrying a revolver, and if your finger did brush the trigger, it wasn't a big deal; it still took an actual pull to cycle the action and fire. I read somewhere that having the finger straight came from the fact that a rangemaster could see that and know you weren't on the trigger without having to look closely; makes sense. I've noticed that when I'm using a revolver I still do it that way; finger inside the guard, but at the front so I'm not touching the trigger. With a semi-auto, I keep it outside the guard. With a single-action auto pistol, my though when I started handling them was that, if the safety was off it wouldn't take much to fire a shot accidentally if you had that finger inside, so keep it out. Yeah, you shouldn't take the safety off until lining up to fire, and I don't; it's the principle of the thing. So, without thinking about it, I use the two positions depending on which type of pistol I'm firing. Works quite well so far.
Anyway, there's my two cents worth about it.
Fifty rounds, including mag changes. It's not the best way, but somewhat careful mag changes; I didn't want to drop the damn things on the concrete floor, so they were a bit slow. All in all, not too bad. Aiming and firing while shifting around, even over a small space, really makes a difference from a steady, fixed firing position.
This kind of thing is where having a .22 conversion for a pistol is nice, you can go through a lot of ammo getting the hang of it without going broke or spending a lot of time at the loading bench. If you're at a range where they're understanding about such things, or- as I prefer- the outdoor one I usually go to for rifle practice(often nobody else at the handgun section), you can really move; jumping or stepping quickly back a ways, moving a few steps side-to-side, and moving at a quick pace along the line and engaging two targets as you pass along. It pumps your heart up a bit, it prevents you from standing still, and it gives some feel for shooting on the move. I can't remember if it was Kevin or the Geek who originally pointed out that you need to move; it was that very nice post of the Geek's on aiming point that started me aiming a bit higher. One thing that brought out is how strong habit is; even after working on this over time, I still sometimes will catch myself firing my first shot or two COM. They hit where I'm aiming, but it's not the aiming point I'm training myself to.
Oh, the head shots? Last few rounds. Well, hell, I had to try it, didn't I?
Something else I wanted to write about, which will undoubtedly annoy some people. Currently 'Keep your finger off the trigger 'till your sights are on the target' has come to mean 'keep your finger straight along the frame'. While it does indeed keep your finger away from the trigger, I have to point out that it's not required to keep it straight. I was taught handgun by my father, and he was taught combat shooting by the LE agency he worked for. You could have your finger inside the trigger guard, as long as it did not touch the trigger. This was in the days of almost everybody carrying a revolver, and if your finger did brush the trigger, it wasn't a big deal; it still took an actual pull to cycle the action and fire. I read somewhere that having the finger straight came from the fact that a rangemaster could see that and know you weren't on the trigger without having to look closely; makes sense. I've noticed that when I'm using a revolver I still do it that way; finger inside the guard, but at the front so I'm not touching the trigger. With a semi-auto, I keep it outside the guard. With a single-action auto pistol, my though when I started handling them was that, if the safety was off it wouldn't take much to fire a shot accidentally if you had that finger inside, so keep it out. Yeah, you shouldn't take the safety off until lining up to fire, and I don't; it's the principle of the thing. So, without thinking about it, I use the two positions depending on which type of pistol I'm firing. Works quite well so far.
Anyway, there's my two cents worth about it.
This ain't no Polish joke
In it's way, this is Poland declaring war. Or at least what side they're on.
Poland fought the German National Socialists long and hard. Then they fought, in a much more low-key way, against the Soviet tyranny. Now they're looking the Islamic fascists in the eye and spitting.
I can only say, Well Done!
Poland fought the German National Socialists long and hard. Then they fought, in a much more low-key way, against the Soviet tyranny. Now they're looking the Islamic fascists in the eye and spitting.
I can only say, Well Done!
Range night
Went to the range last night, having a desire to blow off some steam and make loud noises. Mostly stuff I've shot before(with one exception I'll write of later), and general practice.
Shot the Enfield .380/200 revolver I wrote of before, using that handload put together for it. Every time I've fired one of these before it's been with the Remington loads(which are fairly light) or handloads meant to duplicate it. And it's not an impressive load. This uses a 190-grain bullet loaded to duplicate the original British military load for it, and it's a different matter. For one thing it actually shoots to point of aim, where the light stuff hits way low; for another it's much more authoritative. It's not a .38 Special Hydra-Shok, but I don't think it's that far behind. 190 grains of somewhat soft bullet at 650-700 fps is NOT something a bad guy would shrug off. I understand why the commercial loads are so light; there are a lot of old revolvers out there not in very good condition, and they don't want to overstress them. Thing is, there are also a lot out there that are in fine condition and have no problem with their original load, and it's too bad you have to handload to get what they were designed to put out.
It's also a lot more accurate than people tend to think. That double-action(when clean and lubed; a lot of them you might get hold of are bone-dry inside) is very smooth, and that helps to put the shots where the you want. With these loads, this would make a good home-defense gun. Solid, accurate and dependable; what more could you want?
Shot the Enfield .380/200 revolver I wrote of before, using that handload put together for it. Every time I've fired one of these before it's been with the Remington loads(which are fairly light) or handloads meant to duplicate it. And it's not an impressive load. This uses a 190-grain bullet loaded to duplicate the original British military load for it, and it's a different matter. For one thing it actually shoots to point of aim, where the light stuff hits way low; for another it's much more authoritative. It's not a .38 Special Hydra-Shok, but I don't think it's that far behind. 190 grains of somewhat soft bullet at 650-700 fps is NOT something a bad guy would shrug off. I understand why the commercial loads are so light; there are a lot of old revolvers out there not in very good condition, and they don't want to overstress them. Thing is, there are also a lot out there that are in fine condition and have no problem with their original load, and it's too bad you have to handload to get what they were designed to put out.
It's also a lot more accurate than people tend to think. That double-action(when clean and lubed; a lot of them you might get hold of are bone-dry inside) is very smooth, and that helps to put the shots where the you want. With these loads, this would make a good home-defense gun. Solid, accurate and dependable; what more could you want?
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Followup on cleaning: sanding
Whether you're just touching up an old stock or completely refinishing, you'll find that, even after a good degreasing, the sandpaper will clog up fast. For just touching up, no big deal, you're not doing that much. For complete refinishing, it is a big deal, you'll go through a lot of it. So if you're taking all the old finish and surface off, I will suggest using a scraper.
A scraper will cut fast and clean, and won't clog; at most you'll just have to wipe off the edge every so often. You can buy commercially-made scrapers at woodworking shops and suppliers, or you can make your own. Two ways to make them.
DISCLAIMER: the first method yields a good scraper that will, if you're not careful, slice you worse than what you're working on. Use gloves and be damn careful, and if you start hemmoraging don't blame me.
The simplest, cheapest way is to use glass. Get something like a mayonnaise jar, wrap it in something and break it, or break a piece of almost any piece of glass. The edges will be VERY sharp, and if you're not careful will slice you as you work, so use gloves and BE CAREFUL.
The other way is to make it of metal. What was recommended to me some years ago was an old hand-saw blade. Use a Dremel and cutoff wheel, or a grinder with said wheel, or just use the corner of a grinding wheel to cut a groove along which you can break a piece off. Then grind the edges you cut square, and as smooth as possible. Here a sanding drum or belt sander works very well. You also want to touch up wth sides, to the edge is square a smooth. Now comes the tricky part. For a very fine cut you can use it as is, but to take off material fairly quickly you need to forma 'hook' along the edge. The way I was shown was to clamp the piece in a vise, take a screwdriver with a round shank- the smooth part of a round file, basically anything rounded, smooth and hard enough will work- and push and pull it along the edge, tilted toward the edge you're forming the hook on. It forces the corner to curl over a bit, giving you a very aggressive cutting edge. You can do all sides if you wish, I'd suggest only hooking the edge or edges you plan on using, so you don't have to worry about cutting yourself on a fresh edge.
Generally, with glass or steel, you want a piece with a curve to the edge, which will let you work around the curves in the stock better. Hold the scraper(Carefully, I said!) with the working edge trailing your hand; you're not pushing it into the wood, you're dragging it across the surface. A little trial and error will show you the best angle, that varies according to the wood and the tool. Drag it a ways, see how deep and wide it cut, make the next pass and observe; you'll find the best angle to work the piece at. You'll also produce lots of fine shavings, and in the case of an old gunstock you'll be removing the crud at the surface along with the wood. You can work the entire piece, or just in an area that needs serious cutdown.
When you're done, you'll have a stock with a much cleaner, smoother surface, ready for sanding. And you'll have much less trouble with the sandpaper clogging.
Note: I'm going to splice this into the 'Cleaning' post, so as to keep it all together.
A scraper will cut fast and clean, and won't clog; at most you'll just have to wipe off the edge every so often. You can buy commercially-made scrapers at woodworking shops and suppliers, or you can make your own. Two ways to make them.
DISCLAIMER: the first method yields a good scraper that will, if you're not careful, slice you worse than what you're working on. Use gloves and be damn careful, and if you start hemmoraging don't blame me.
The simplest, cheapest way is to use glass. Get something like a mayonnaise jar, wrap it in something and break it, or break a piece of almost any piece of glass. The edges will be VERY sharp, and if you're not careful will slice you as you work, so use gloves and BE CAREFUL.
The other way is to make it of metal. What was recommended to me some years ago was an old hand-saw blade. Use a Dremel and cutoff wheel, or a grinder with said wheel, or just use the corner of a grinding wheel to cut a groove along which you can break a piece off. Then grind the edges you cut square, and as smooth as possible. Here a sanding drum or belt sander works very well. You also want to touch up wth sides, to the edge is square a smooth. Now comes the tricky part. For a very fine cut you can use it as is, but to take off material fairly quickly you need to forma 'hook' along the edge. The way I was shown was to clamp the piece in a vise, take a screwdriver with a round shank- the smooth part of a round file, basically anything rounded, smooth and hard enough will work- and push and pull it along the edge, tilted toward the edge you're forming the hook on. It forces the corner to curl over a bit, giving you a very aggressive cutting edge. You can do all sides if you wish, I'd suggest only hooking the edge or edges you plan on using, so you don't have to worry about cutting yourself on a fresh edge.
Generally, with glass or steel, you want a piece with a curve to the edge, which will let you work around the curves in the stock better. Hold the scraper(Carefully, I said!) with the working edge trailing your hand; you're not pushing it into the wood, you're dragging it across the surface. A little trial and error will show you the best angle, that varies according to the wood and the tool. Drag it a ways, see how deep and wide it cut, make the next pass and observe; you'll find the best angle to work the piece at. You'll also produce lots of fine shavings, and in the case of an old gunstock you'll be removing the crud at the surface along with the wood. You can work the entire piece, or just in an area that needs serious cutdown.
When you're done, you'll have a stock with a much cleaner, smoother surface, ready for sanding. And you'll have much less trouble with the sandpaper clogging.
Note: I'm going to splice this into the 'Cleaning' post, so as to keep it all together.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Carnival of Cordite #49
Up at Gullyborg.
Side note: Gullyborg may have to cease hosting the Carnival in the future. MAY have to. Check out the Carnival, and get the details.
Side note: Gullyborg may have to cease hosting the Carnival in the future. MAY have to. Check out the Carnival, and get the details.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Do medical people forget their patients don't know what they're talking about
when they use medical terminology? I mean, for God's sake, you send someone results written in med-school gobbledy-gook and wonder why they call you and ask "Just what the hell does this mean?"
When my back was giving me trouble, the doctor prescribed the two meds and had some x-rays shot. And the radiologist mailed me a copy of the report, with a nice drawing of the spine and arrows pointing to the areas he's noting, and everything is in language that doesn't tell me if I'm just suffering the slings and arrows of time and wear, or something nasty is wrong and what should I do about it?
I took it in to the followup visit and asked the doctor to translate to something a normal human can understand, and she did. Time and wear. She did agree that it doesn't do much good to send someone a report that they don't have the background to understand, and that searching on the internet won't necessarily tell them just how it applies to them.
'Course, then they'd have to deign to translate into english, instead of using all the $3 words they learned in school.
When my back was giving me trouble, the doctor prescribed the two meds and had some x-rays shot. And the radiologist mailed me a copy of the report, with a nice drawing of the spine and arrows pointing to the areas he's noting, and everything is in language that doesn't tell me if I'm just suffering the slings and arrows of time and wear, or something nasty is wrong and what should I do about it?
I took it in to the followup visit and asked the doctor to translate to something a normal human can understand, and she did. Time and wear. She did agree that it doesn't do much good to send someone a report that they don't have the background to understand, and that searching on the internet won't necessarily tell them just how it applies to them.
'Course, then they'd have to deign to translate into english, instead of using all the $3 words they learned in school.
Updated: Cleaning, old greasy guns this time
I originally put this together about a year ago. I've picked up some more information in the time since, so I've updated it and instead of just editing the original I'm posting the new version.
Old military guns in particular. If you've ever bought an old surplus rifle you'll know what I mean. Some aren't too bad, others are awful. Especially British and some U.S. rifles. Many stocks were oiled to help preserve them, and they soaked up oil from the metal. A lot of them soaked up so much that when the wood gets hot from either the sun or shooting, oil seeps out. And then, of course, there's Cosmoline.
Cosmoline is a grease that was designed for one thing: to protect metal from corrosion in long-term storage. And it works, very well. The bad thing about it? Getting it off. It is the stickiest stuff you've ever ruined your pants on, and the British in particular used a lot of it; the climate I would assume. When a rifle was sent back for service/storage they would dismantle it; anything needing work was repaired or replaced; then the bore was filled, the action & barrel greased thoroughly and replaced in the stock; and sometimes the wood was given a coat. When it was placed in the rack or crate, it could- did- sit there for years into decades, well protected from rust. Which means when you get it...
Did I mention that if it has sat long enough, the stuff can harden? Petrified Cosmoline is even worse to get out.
The metal's not that bad. Most any cleaning solvent, including hot water & soap(I've know of people taking one to a car wash and using the engine cleaner spray on it) will cut the grease off; my favorite is either low-odor mineral spirits or a can of carburetor cleaner. Either will cut the stuff and leave no residue behind(yes, use rubber gloves and ventilation). For mineral spirits, first get a wallpaper tray(plastic, $2 or $3 bucks) and a stiff paintbrush. Put the barreled action in the tray, pour over some ms, and start brushing it on. You can do this without taking trigger, etc., off, and you can throw the bolt in also; getting it all off makes it easier to dismantle completely and oil later. This stuff cuts old grease and crud very nicely, and when you're done you can set the metal aside and the ms evaporates quickly. Then you can do complete disassembly with a lot less mess.
I mentioned carb cleaner. It or brake cleaner is good for a number of things, as it cuts grease and oil and evaporates leaving no trace of itself. Unless you want to use a case at a time, it's not good for a really greased-up piece. For light degreasing, and hitting the corners you find you missed with the brush, it's great, as the spray helps cut and blow the stuff out. Same as ms or anything else of the type, use gloves and good ventilation.
One thing you can do if you've got a: a really greasy gun and b: want to get it started but you don't have time for the above right now is make a soaker. I took a piece of 4" PVC pipe about four feet long and put a permanent cap on one end. Pour in about a gallon of laquer thinner, mineral spirits, or kerosene. Take the barreled action out of the stock and lower it action first into the pipe. Slosh it up and down a few times, then let it down to the bottom and slip a cap on the open end and prop it up somewhere securely so it won't fall over. You can leave it there up to overnight, and the stuff will cut a lot of the grease off. Note: I do not know how long you can leave one in this without a chance of rust; some of the stuff will attract moisture from the air(which is another reason for capping it). I do know that I've left a piece in overnight with no problems at all; it depends, I would think, on the humidity in your area. Two more points:
Some will fit inside with the bolt in, some you'll have to remove the bolt and(maybe) the trigger for it to fit inside the pipe.
Second: if you're going to do a number of these things over time, you might consider either building a rack to hold the pipe or finding a place you can bungee-cord it solidly. You might also consider getting piece of steel or iron pipe and having a plug welded on one end; some solvents might attack PVC.
Now you come to the wood. There are all kinds of methods that work, including spray oven cleaner, degreasers and lots of rinsing, etc. However, some of this stuff can harm the wood. And, they only clean the surface, leaving a lot of stuff soaked in; and it WILL bleed out over time, especially when the wood gets hot. The only thing I've found that really 'deep-cleans' the wood is heat and time. My favorite method, is the kitty-litter method; details later.
Let me throw in here, some of this depends on your long-term intent. If you have a really beat-up stock that you plan on refinishing(as in sanding down to remove all or most of the dings), you have more methods open. If you plan in keeping it in as original a state as possible, you're more limited. In either case, you might want to clean the surface to see what's there first. Sometimes there are armory markings and cartouches, individual touches, etc., hiding under all that crud on the surface. For instance, the first mil-surp firearm I ever owned was a #4 Mk1 Enfield; cleaning brought out a row of small 'x' marks on the bottom edge of the stock; apparently someone was keeping count. If I'd started sanding before looking it over, I never would have seen them. You can use a degreaser and water to clean the surface, but that can harm/hide small markings. What seems to work very well at surface cleaning with less chance of damaging the wood is odorless mineral spirits. Use that wallpaper tray I mentioned before. Take all the metal you can off, although you can leave everything except the action, barrel & trigger assembly in at this stage with no problem. Pour some ms in and use a brush to work it all over the surface. Let it sit a few minutes, then use the brush to work it around again. Just keep doing this for a while, and you'll notice the wood looking better and a lot of stuff collecting in the bottom of the tray. When it's clean enough to see all the details, take it out and set it aside to dry, and pour the ms back in the can. By the way, do have a good-sized funnel for this as you can reuse the ms a number of times.
When it's dry, you can look it over and see what's on the surface. You might be surprised both by the markings and by the look of the wood; a lot of these firearms turn out to have some very pretty wood in the stock. On the other hand, it may have no markings at all left; many U.S. firearm stocks were refinished more than once, and all the markings disappeared into sanding dust. If this is the case, sanding it down will harm nothing. Personally, if I do find armory or personal markings, I'd try to preserve them, but that's a decision you'll have to make. If you decide to keep them but still want to sand it a bit to clean up the dings, splinters, etc., you can put your thumb over the marks and sand around them; just keep the sanding light, maybe using #000 or 0000 steel wool only if all you need is a touch of smoothing.
If you've got dents you want to get rid of, steam is your friend. Use a soldering iron or clothes iron and a cloth. Get the cloth wet, put a fold of it over the dent, and apply the iron; the iron boils the water to steam and the only place for some of it to go is into the wood. You may have to do it several times, but you might be surprised how much it'll raise the surface of the dent. When done, let it dry & sand lightly to remove the whiskers.
Ok, you've looked the stock over and decided how you want to refinish it. Even if you plan to sand it down completely, I'd still recommend doing a deep-clean degreasing, otherwise that old crud will seep out and ruin the finish you put on. I mentioned the kitty-litter method, and here it is: Strip the stock to wood only and wipe off any grease that was hiding under barrel band springs, buttplate, etc. Get some heavy plastic and make a bag wide enough to put the stock in and about a foot longer, make sure you seal it well enough to hold some weight. Put the stock in, and then fill the bag with either cheap unscented kitty litter or oil absorbent. Close the bag and lay it out in the sun all day. Next day, put it back out on the other side. Depending on temperature and how much oil/grease the thing had soaked up, a week to ten days should do it. The heat will cause the oil/grease to bleed to the surface and the litter will soak it up. When done take it out and go over it with a brush to make sure you get all the dust out of the holes and inletting. You may want to use the mineral spirits and brush right now; it'll cut the last of the stuff on the surface and get rid of it(you can also use a degreaser and water to clean the surface now, though if you're trying to preserve cartouches and such I'd advise against it). I've seen an old stock come out of this treatment looking almost like new wood. Don't throw the absorbent away, save it for when you spill oil on the driveway and such. Or the next rifle. You can also, in cooler weather, put it in the truck or backseat of your car when it's parked in the sun; just make sure the bag is sealed.
The other way to do this is much faster, but only works if the stock is short enough to fit in the oven. Prepare the wood as before. Take a roll of cheap paper towels and stuff the receiver area, barrel channel, etc. with them, if it's got a butt trap stuff that, then wrap the entire stock with at least two layers. Wrap the whole thing in aluminum foil, stick it in the oven and turn it to 'low'. Please make sure the stock is not touching the coil or right on the bottom above the burner, whichever. Leave it there for at least an hour, pull it out/yes, it will be rather warm/ and unwrap. Throw away the paper, which will be soaked, repack & wrap the stock and put it back in. It does the same thing as the litter treatment, it just does it faster. For smaller pieces you could probably either use a metal pan full of litter, or a length of metal tubing; put the wood in, cover with litter, seal the end of the tube and bake.
Another thing that works well on smaller pieces is to make a mix of one part ammonia to three parts water, get a soft brush and start brushing that over the piece. My understanding is the ammonia converts the oil/grease to a form of soap which the water can wash away. This works well on pistol handgrips, handguards & such. You may not want to use this on pieces that are very thin, as it can cause warping. The piece will then need to dry thoroughly before you can refinish it. I can attest that this will get crud out of a piece of wood that looks clean, used on an oily pistol grip or handguard it can be amazing how much stuff winds up in the bucket.
Theres a forum here that specializes in this subject(their home site has lots of interesting forums), there's a lot there on both cleaning and refinishing. Some of their methods I've never tried, some I wouldn't. I keep using the kitty litter method because:
A. I'm lazy
B. Once it's set up and heating, I can do something else
C. Again, If there are, or you suspect there may be, markings of interest on the wood, this method will not damage the surface as some others might. I have to stress might; people on the Milsurp forums swear by some of the other methods. You makes your choice and takes your chances.
Whether you're just touching up an old stock or completely refinishing, you'll find that, even after a good degreasing, the sandpaper will clog up fast. For just touching up, no big deal, you're not doing that much. For complete refinishing, it is a big deal, you'll go through a lot of it. So if you're taking all the old finish and surface off, I will suggest using a scraper.
A scraper will cut fast and clean, and won't clog; at most you'll just have to wipe off the edge every so often. You can buy commercially-made scrapers at woodworking shops and suppliers, or you can make your own. Two ways to make them.
DISCLAIMER: the first method yields a good scraper that will, if you're not careful, slice you worse than what you're working on. Use gloves and be damn careful, and if you start hemmoraging don't blame me.
The simplest, cheapest way is to use glass. Get something like a mayonnaise jar, wrap it in something and break it, or break a piece of almost any piece of glass. The edges will be VERY sharp, and if you're not careful will slice you as you work, so use gloves and BE CAREFUL.
The other way is to make it of metal. What was recommended to me some years ago was an old hand-saw blade. Use a Dremel and cutoff wheel, or a grinder with said wheel, or just use the corner of a grinding wheel to cut a groove along which you can break a piece off. Then grind the edges you cut square, and as smooth as possible. Here a sanding drum or belt sander works very well. You also want to touch up wth sides, to the edge is square a smooth. Now comes the tricky part. For a very fine cut you can use it as is, but to take off material fairly quickly you need to forma 'hook' along the edge. The way I was shown was to clamp the piece in a vise, take a screwdriver with a round shank- the smooth part of a round file, basically anything rounded, smooth and hard enough will work- and push and pull it along the edge, tilted toward the edge you're forming the hook on. It forces the corner to curl over a bit, giving you a very aggressive cutting edge. You can do all sides if you wish, I'd suggest only hooking the edge or edges you plan on using, so you don't have to worry about cutting yourself on a fresh edge.
Generally, with glass or steel, you want a piece with a curve to the edge, which will let you work around the curves in the stock better. Hold the scraper(Carefully, I said!) with the working edge trailing your hand; you're not pushing it into the wood, you're dragging it across the surface. A little trial and error will show you the best angle, that varies according to the wood and the tool. Drag it a ways, see how deep and wide it cut, make the next pass and observe; you'll find the best angle to work the piece at. You'll also produce lots of fine shavings, and in the case of an old gunstock you'll be removing the crud at the surface along with the wood. You can work the entire piece, or just in an area that needs serious cutdown.
When you're done, you'll have a stock with a much cleaner, smoother surface, ready for sanding. And you'll have much less trouble with the sandpaper clogging.
Finishing up depends on whether you're trying to keep the finish historically accurate or just get a good-looking finish that will protect the wood. You can use boiled linseed oil, you can use shellac, you can use Birchwood Casey's gunstock finish, there are lots of possibilities. Do some research and give something a try. Personally I don't use linseed anymore for two reasons: first, on old wood it can actually soften it, and second, it darkens the wood; a LOT. If you want it real dark, that's fine, but it can actually darken enough to hide the pretty grain you found. One thing I'm trying is a method recommended by the Fulton Armory site for M1 rifles; degrease, do any sanding, etc., then give the wood a coat of Minwax Natural Stain(no color, it just seals the surface) followed after appropriate drying time by a coat of Minwax Tung Oil Finish. I've got a stock I'm trying it out on, 'trying' still because NOBODY around here has the Tung Oil Finish. However, using the Natural Stain on an old walnut stock looks wonderful; the wood looks new, and seems pretty well protected from moisture. I'm keeping it clean, and as soon as I find the finish(probably have to order it) I'll apply it and update this with the new info.
Ref the kitty litter method, if you'll be cleaning a number of stocks, you might want to make a sturdier container. I recently bought a 5' section of 5" diameter stovepipe for one. Cut it to 50" long, then mashed it into an oval cross-section, then made two plugs out of 5/8" plywood. One's screwed and caulked into one end, the other uses two screws to hold it in place. I also drilled a hole in the removable plug and set an eyebolt in it to make it easier to pull out. Then I painted the whole thing flat black. To use, pour a couple of inches of litter in, set the stock in, then fill it up, insert the plug and lock in place, then lay it in the sun.
Old military guns in particular. If you've ever bought an old surplus rifle you'll know what I mean. Some aren't too bad, others are awful. Especially British and some U.S. rifles. Many stocks were oiled to help preserve them, and they soaked up oil from the metal. A lot of them soaked up so much that when the wood gets hot from either the sun or shooting, oil seeps out. And then, of course, there's Cosmoline.
Cosmoline is a grease that was designed for one thing: to protect metal from corrosion in long-term storage. And it works, very well. The bad thing about it? Getting it off. It is the stickiest stuff you've ever ruined your pants on, and the British in particular used a lot of it; the climate I would assume. When a rifle was sent back for service/storage they would dismantle it; anything needing work was repaired or replaced; then the bore was filled, the action & barrel greased thoroughly and replaced in the stock; and sometimes the wood was given a coat. When it was placed in the rack or crate, it could- did- sit there for years into decades, well protected from rust. Which means when you get it...
Did I mention that if it has sat long enough, the stuff can harden? Petrified Cosmoline is even worse to get out.
The metal's not that bad. Most any cleaning solvent, including hot water & soap(I've know of people taking one to a car wash and using the engine cleaner spray on it) will cut the grease off; my favorite is either low-odor mineral spirits or a can of carburetor cleaner. Either will cut the stuff and leave no residue behind(yes, use rubber gloves and ventilation). For mineral spirits, first get a wallpaper tray(plastic, $2 or $3 bucks) and a stiff paintbrush. Put the barreled action in the tray, pour over some ms, and start brushing it on. You can do this without taking trigger, etc., off, and you can throw the bolt in also; getting it all off makes it easier to dismantle completely and oil later. This stuff cuts old grease and crud very nicely, and when you're done you can set the metal aside and the ms evaporates quickly. Then you can do complete disassembly with a lot less mess.
I mentioned carb cleaner. It or brake cleaner is good for a number of things, as it cuts grease and oil and evaporates leaving no trace of itself. Unless you want to use a case at a time, it's not good for a really greased-up piece. For light degreasing, and hitting the corners you find you missed with the brush, it's great, as the spray helps cut and blow the stuff out. Same as ms or anything else of the type, use gloves and good ventilation.
One thing you can do if you've got a: a really greasy gun and b: want to get it started but you don't have time for the above right now is make a soaker. I took a piece of 4" PVC pipe about four feet long and put a permanent cap on one end. Pour in about a gallon of laquer thinner, mineral spirits, or kerosene. Take the barreled action out of the stock and lower it action first into the pipe. Slosh it up and down a few times, then let it down to the bottom and slip a cap on the open end and prop it up somewhere securely so it won't fall over. You can leave it there up to overnight, and the stuff will cut a lot of the grease off. Note: I do not know how long you can leave one in this without a chance of rust; some of the stuff will attract moisture from the air(which is another reason for capping it). I do know that I've left a piece in overnight with no problems at all; it depends, I would think, on the humidity in your area. Two more points:
Some will fit inside with the bolt in, some you'll have to remove the bolt and(maybe) the trigger for it to fit inside the pipe.
Second: if you're going to do a number of these things over time, you might consider either building a rack to hold the pipe or finding a place you can bungee-cord it solidly. You might also consider getting piece of steel or iron pipe and having a plug welded on one end; some solvents might attack PVC.
Now you come to the wood. There are all kinds of methods that work, including spray oven cleaner, degreasers and lots of rinsing, etc. However, some of this stuff can harm the wood. And, they only clean the surface, leaving a lot of stuff soaked in; and it WILL bleed out over time, especially when the wood gets hot. The only thing I've found that really 'deep-cleans' the wood is heat and time. My favorite method, is the kitty-litter method; details later.
Let me throw in here, some of this depends on your long-term intent. If you have a really beat-up stock that you plan on refinishing(as in sanding down to remove all or most of the dings), you have more methods open. If you plan in keeping it in as original a state as possible, you're more limited. In either case, you might want to clean the surface to see what's there first. Sometimes there are armory markings and cartouches, individual touches, etc., hiding under all that crud on the surface. For instance, the first mil-surp firearm I ever owned was a #4 Mk1 Enfield; cleaning brought out a row of small 'x' marks on the bottom edge of the stock; apparently someone was keeping count. If I'd started sanding before looking it over, I never would have seen them. You can use a degreaser and water to clean the surface, but that can harm/hide small markings. What seems to work very well at surface cleaning with less chance of damaging the wood is odorless mineral spirits. Use that wallpaper tray I mentioned before. Take all the metal you can off, although you can leave everything except the action, barrel & trigger assembly in at this stage with no problem. Pour some ms in and use a brush to work it all over the surface. Let it sit a few minutes, then use the brush to work it around again. Just keep doing this for a while, and you'll notice the wood looking better and a lot of stuff collecting in the bottom of the tray. When it's clean enough to see all the details, take it out and set it aside to dry, and pour the ms back in the can. By the way, do have a good-sized funnel for this as you can reuse the ms a number of times.
When it's dry, you can look it over and see what's on the surface. You might be surprised both by the markings and by the look of the wood; a lot of these firearms turn out to have some very pretty wood in the stock. On the other hand, it may have no markings at all left; many U.S. firearm stocks were refinished more than once, and all the markings disappeared into sanding dust. If this is the case, sanding it down will harm nothing. Personally, if I do find armory or personal markings, I'd try to preserve them, but that's a decision you'll have to make. If you decide to keep them but still want to sand it a bit to clean up the dings, splinters, etc., you can put your thumb over the marks and sand around them; just keep the sanding light, maybe using #000 or 0000 steel wool only if all you need is a touch of smoothing.
If you've got dents you want to get rid of, steam is your friend. Use a soldering iron or clothes iron and a cloth. Get the cloth wet, put a fold of it over the dent, and apply the iron; the iron boils the water to steam and the only place for some of it to go is into the wood. You may have to do it several times, but you might be surprised how much it'll raise the surface of the dent. When done, let it dry & sand lightly to remove the whiskers.
Ok, you've looked the stock over and decided how you want to refinish it. Even if you plan to sand it down completely, I'd still recommend doing a deep-clean degreasing, otherwise that old crud will seep out and ruin the finish you put on. I mentioned the kitty-litter method, and here it is: Strip the stock to wood only and wipe off any grease that was hiding under barrel band springs, buttplate, etc. Get some heavy plastic and make a bag wide enough to put the stock in and about a foot longer, make sure you seal it well enough to hold some weight. Put the stock in, and then fill the bag with either cheap unscented kitty litter or oil absorbent. Close the bag and lay it out in the sun all day. Next day, put it back out on the other side. Depending on temperature and how much oil/grease the thing had soaked up, a week to ten days should do it. The heat will cause the oil/grease to bleed to the surface and the litter will soak it up. When done take it out and go over it with a brush to make sure you get all the dust out of the holes and inletting. You may want to use the mineral spirits and brush right now; it'll cut the last of the stuff on the surface and get rid of it(you can also use a degreaser and water to clean the surface now, though if you're trying to preserve cartouches and such I'd advise against it). I've seen an old stock come out of this treatment looking almost like new wood. Don't throw the absorbent away, save it for when you spill oil on the driveway and such. Or the next rifle. You can also, in cooler weather, put it in the truck or backseat of your car when it's parked in the sun; just make sure the bag is sealed.
The other way to do this is much faster, but only works if the stock is short enough to fit in the oven. Prepare the wood as before. Take a roll of cheap paper towels and stuff the receiver area, barrel channel, etc. with them, if it's got a butt trap stuff that, then wrap the entire stock with at least two layers. Wrap the whole thing in aluminum foil, stick it in the oven and turn it to 'low'. Please make sure the stock is not touching the coil or right on the bottom above the burner, whichever. Leave it there for at least an hour, pull it out/yes, it will be rather warm/ and unwrap. Throw away the paper, which will be soaked, repack & wrap the stock and put it back in. It does the same thing as the litter treatment, it just does it faster. For smaller pieces you could probably either use a metal pan full of litter, or a length of metal tubing; put the wood in, cover with litter, seal the end of the tube and bake.
Another thing that works well on smaller pieces is to make a mix of one part ammonia to three parts water, get a soft brush and start brushing that over the piece. My understanding is the ammonia converts the oil/grease to a form of soap which the water can wash away. This works well on pistol handgrips, handguards & such. You may not want to use this on pieces that are very thin, as it can cause warping. The piece will then need to dry thoroughly before you can refinish it. I can attest that this will get crud out of a piece of wood that looks clean, used on an oily pistol grip or handguard it can be amazing how much stuff winds up in the bucket.
Theres a forum here that specializes in this subject(their home site has lots of interesting forums), there's a lot there on both cleaning and refinishing. Some of their methods I've never tried, some I wouldn't. I keep using the kitty litter method because:
A. I'm lazy
B. Once it's set up and heating, I can do something else
C. Again, If there are, or you suspect there may be, markings of interest on the wood, this method will not damage the surface as some others might. I have to stress might; people on the Milsurp forums swear by some of the other methods. You makes your choice and takes your chances.
Whether you're just touching up an old stock or completely refinishing, you'll find that, even after a good degreasing, the sandpaper will clog up fast. For just touching up, no big deal, you're not doing that much. For complete refinishing, it is a big deal, you'll go through a lot of it. So if you're taking all the old finish and surface off, I will suggest using a scraper.
A scraper will cut fast and clean, and won't clog; at most you'll just have to wipe off the edge every so often. You can buy commercially-made scrapers at woodworking shops and suppliers, or you can make your own. Two ways to make them.
DISCLAIMER: the first method yields a good scraper that will, if you're not careful, slice you worse than what you're working on. Use gloves and be damn careful, and if you start hemmoraging don't blame me.
The simplest, cheapest way is to use glass. Get something like a mayonnaise jar, wrap it in something and break it, or break a piece of almost any piece of glass. The edges will be VERY sharp, and if you're not careful will slice you as you work, so use gloves and BE CAREFUL.
The other way is to make it of metal. What was recommended to me some years ago was an old hand-saw blade. Use a Dremel and cutoff wheel, or a grinder with said wheel, or just use the corner of a grinding wheel to cut a groove along which you can break a piece off. Then grind the edges you cut square, and as smooth as possible. Here a sanding drum or belt sander works very well. You also want to touch up wth sides, to the edge is square a smooth. Now comes the tricky part. For a very fine cut you can use it as is, but to take off material fairly quickly you need to forma 'hook' along the edge. The way I was shown was to clamp the piece in a vise, take a screwdriver with a round shank- the smooth part of a round file, basically anything rounded, smooth and hard enough will work- and push and pull it along the edge, tilted toward the edge you're forming the hook on. It forces the corner to curl over a bit, giving you a very aggressive cutting edge. You can do all sides if you wish, I'd suggest only hooking the edge or edges you plan on using, so you don't have to worry about cutting yourself on a fresh edge.
Generally, with glass or steel, you want a piece with a curve to the edge, which will let you work around the curves in the stock better. Hold the scraper(Carefully, I said!) with the working edge trailing your hand; you're not pushing it into the wood, you're dragging it across the surface. A little trial and error will show you the best angle, that varies according to the wood and the tool. Drag it a ways, see how deep and wide it cut, make the next pass and observe; you'll find the best angle to work the piece at. You'll also produce lots of fine shavings, and in the case of an old gunstock you'll be removing the crud at the surface along with the wood. You can work the entire piece, or just in an area that needs serious cutdown.
When you're done, you'll have a stock with a much cleaner, smoother surface, ready for sanding. And you'll have much less trouble with the sandpaper clogging.
Finishing up depends on whether you're trying to keep the finish historically accurate or just get a good-looking finish that will protect the wood. You can use boiled linseed oil, you can use shellac, you can use Birchwood Casey's gunstock finish, there are lots of possibilities. Do some research and give something a try. Personally I don't use linseed anymore for two reasons: first, on old wood it can actually soften it, and second, it darkens the wood; a LOT. If you want it real dark, that's fine, but it can actually darken enough to hide the pretty grain you found. One thing I'm trying is a method recommended by the Fulton Armory site for M1 rifles; degrease, do any sanding, etc., then give the wood a coat of Minwax Natural Stain(no color, it just seals the surface) followed after appropriate drying time by a coat of Minwax Tung Oil Finish. I've got a stock I'm trying it out on, 'trying' still because NOBODY around here has the Tung Oil Finish. However, using the Natural Stain on an old walnut stock looks wonderful; the wood looks new, and seems pretty well protected from moisture. I'm keeping it clean, and as soon as I find the finish(probably have to order it) I'll apply it and update this with the new info.
Ref the kitty litter method, if you'll be cleaning a number of stocks, you might want to make a sturdier container. I recently bought a 5' section of 5" diameter stovepipe for one. Cut it to 50" long, then mashed it into an oval cross-section, then made two plugs out of 5/8" plywood. One's screwed and caulked into one end, the other uses two screws to hold it in place. I also drilled a hole in the removable plug and set an eyebolt in it to make it easier to pull out. Then I painted the whole thing flat black. To use, pour a couple of inches of litter in, set the stock in, then fill it up, insert the plug and lock in place, then lay it in the sun.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Yeah, I worry about tomorrow
And the day after, especially for my kids. Primarily because I worry about the outcome of the First Terrorist War if we don't do this harshly. And I has to be harshly, because the fascist idiots we're fighting will see anything else as weakness. We stomp them hard enough, long enough, the really stupid ones will die and the others will get the idea that trying to force Mohammed the molester down our throats isn't a good idea.
I wrote once before that what may have been a mistake on our part was prosecuting this war in such a 'clean' fashion; 'clean' in that we've spent so much time and effort trying to keep the innocent out of it. Overall I cannot regret it, but the fact is the assholes see it as weakness to be exploited. If they've thought of it, I don't think the actually believe that the West, the U.S. in particular, has the balls to say "Screw it, we're tired of this" and really, really stomp them. No big surprise when the 'clams' as Jeff Cooper calls them(Congressional left, academia, media) keep wailing about how we're at fault, and the terrorists are not to blame, etc. And lots of brainless, bigmouthed celebrities praise them as 'minutemen' and such bullshit. And if they do push it to that point, they'll be in the mindset of the rapist whose intended victim shoots his balls off and is wailing that it's not fair, she shouldn't have done that, etc. Someone said, I can't remember where, that what he really feared was the Islamists would push us to the "Fuck it" point and make us do things we would later regret; I worry that it's coming. Right now we've got CAIR and idiots in mosques here in the U.S. calling "death to America" and all the usual crap, and if you so much as flip them off they start screaming "Hate crime! Bigot" and so forth. I really wonder if they've actually considered what'll happen if their little pets actually do dump some anthrax or smallpox into the air, or set off a nuke in a major city? The feds and co. will be the least of their worries; people will remember who was calling for jihad against America and calling for death for the infidels, and they'll do something about it.
Which is another reason to be pissed that the law enforcement people seem to do so little, largely out of fear of being called names and sued, about these clowns; if people think, truly believe, that the authorities won't take care of self-professed enemies of this country, they'll do something about it themselves, and it won't be pretty. Or nice. Or neat.
A little earlier was looking at 'ShrinkWrapped' and found this and this, about time running out for moderate Muslims, and the long-term consequences to a lot of countries of radical Islam. Virtually no progress in the sciences or arts in countries they control, living off the sales of oil, and trying to destroy what progress has been made in the latter; how the fascists are pushing the moderates out in the former. One of the things he notes is that, discounting what we'll do, is that "The rest of the world is not as “nice” as America has been," and will, if anything, be even nastier when it comes to it. Assuming they decide to act in time. Hell, France rammed and boarded boats, and sank one with a bomb just for annoying them about nuclear tests and that worm president of theirs has already spoken of using nukes if he thinks necessary; do the islamists really think that- especially considering past history- France would have a problem with nuking them? Or that Russia will be restrained in action of the idiots do something sufficiently bloody?
And speaking of the extremists taking over, he notes something I wrote about before, that while so many countries are living almost entirely off oil sales, western countries are working on other energy sources and more efficient uses for oil. What happens when someone actually produces a really efficient solar cell that's worth using in numbers? More efficient ways of synthesizing oil, and/or using organic waste to make it? For that matter, not counting cold-fusion research, building more nuclear power plants? Oil and gas demand drops, and the economies of those countries go in the toilet. When the kleptocrats who run many of them can no longer pay their army enough to suppress the people, or buy off the imams to go somewhere else to spill blood?
We may be reaching a tipping point of our own, the point between being able to stomp the bad guys and prevent the Big Bangs, and the other side of massive, no-shit War with all that entails. One way is messy and upsets the 'elites' but may fix the problem as much as it can be fixed; the other will fix the problem, and leave a very, very big mess behind. The islamists have themselves convinced we don't have the balls to decisively act, and if we don't prove them wrong early, they'll call down the wrath on their heads, and a lot of innocents will get hurt in it.
But then, the innocents don't count to them, do they?
Additional: thoughts about stuff 'appearing from Mars' here.
I wrote once before that what may have been a mistake on our part was prosecuting this war in such a 'clean' fashion; 'clean' in that we've spent so much time and effort trying to keep the innocent out of it. Overall I cannot regret it, but the fact is the assholes see it as weakness to be exploited. If they've thought of it, I don't think the actually believe that the West, the U.S. in particular, has the balls to say "Screw it, we're tired of this" and really, really stomp them. No big surprise when the 'clams' as Jeff Cooper calls them(Congressional left, academia, media) keep wailing about how we're at fault, and the terrorists are not to blame, etc. And lots of brainless, bigmouthed celebrities praise them as 'minutemen' and such bullshit. And if they do push it to that point, they'll be in the mindset of the rapist whose intended victim shoots his balls off and is wailing that it's not fair, she shouldn't have done that, etc. Someone said, I can't remember where, that what he really feared was the Islamists would push us to the "Fuck it" point and make us do things we would later regret; I worry that it's coming. Right now we've got CAIR and idiots in mosques here in the U.S. calling "death to America" and all the usual crap, and if you so much as flip them off they start screaming "Hate crime! Bigot" and so forth. I really wonder if they've actually considered what'll happen if their little pets actually do dump some anthrax or smallpox into the air, or set off a nuke in a major city? The feds and co. will be the least of their worries; people will remember who was calling for jihad against America and calling for death for the infidels, and they'll do something about it.
Which is another reason to be pissed that the law enforcement people seem to do so little, largely out of fear of being called names and sued, about these clowns; if people think, truly believe, that the authorities won't take care of self-professed enemies of this country, they'll do something about it themselves, and it won't be pretty. Or nice. Or neat.
A little earlier was looking at 'ShrinkWrapped' and found this and this, about time running out for moderate Muslims, and the long-term consequences to a lot of countries of radical Islam. Virtually no progress in the sciences or arts in countries they control, living off the sales of oil, and trying to destroy what progress has been made in the latter; how the fascists are pushing the moderates out in the former. One of the things he notes is that, discounting what we'll do, is that "The rest of the world is not as “nice” as America has been," and will, if anything, be even nastier when it comes to it. Assuming they decide to act in time. Hell, France rammed and boarded boats, and sank one with a bomb just for annoying them about nuclear tests and that worm president of theirs has already spoken of using nukes if he thinks necessary; do the islamists really think that- especially considering past history- France would have a problem with nuking them? Or that Russia will be restrained in action of the idiots do something sufficiently bloody?
And speaking of the extremists taking over, he notes something I wrote about before, that while so many countries are living almost entirely off oil sales, western countries are working on other energy sources and more efficient uses for oil. What happens when someone actually produces a really efficient solar cell that's worth using in numbers? More efficient ways of synthesizing oil, and/or using organic waste to make it? For that matter, not counting cold-fusion research, building more nuclear power plants? Oil and gas demand drops, and the economies of those countries go in the toilet. When the kleptocrats who run many of them can no longer pay their army enough to suppress the people, or buy off the imams to go somewhere else to spill blood?
We may be reaching a tipping point of our own, the point between being able to stomp the bad guys and prevent the Big Bangs, and the other side of massive, no-shit War with all that entails. One way is messy and upsets the 'elites' but may fix the problem as much as it can be fixed; the other will fix the problem, and leave a very, very big mess behind. The islamists have themselves convinced we don't have the balls to decisively act, and if we don't prove them wrong early, they'll call down the wrath on their heads, and a lot of innocents will get hurt in it.
But then, the innocents don't count to them, do they?
Additional: thoughts about stuff 'appearing from Mars' here.
He who dies with the most ammo,
didn't go shooting enough
How much is enough? How much for which gun? And so forth.
A couple of years ago a friend of mine was over in Wales, and at one point discussion turned to firearms. Friend mentioned the several Enfields he owns and someone asked how much ammo he had for them. He thought a bit, then said "Only about 200 rounds right now". Shocked silence for a moment at the very thought of such a mass of ammo. Short time before a couple had been arrested and their firearms and ammo confiscated; the newspapers were aghast at the 'arsenal' of a couple of rifles, a shotgun, and almost two hundred rounds of ammunition! The firearms and ammo were legal, mind you, and they hadn't done anything illegal with it; it was just the opinion of the authorities that nobody should have such a collection of potential mayhem.
His description of the shock, etc., started me laughing. At the time I had about 400 rounds of .303, and enough stuff total- counting .22's to 8mm- to give Scotland Yard a hernia and the galloping trots just thinking about it. And on a few things, I thought I was running short. Ah, one of the wonders of this country; I buy a 400-round can of .30-06, or a 440-round can of 7.62x54r, or- as was the case one day- a case of 1140-rounds of 7.62x39(already on clips, don't you just love it?) without any hassle other than carrying it out. When the kids were small and I could finally afford it, I tried to never be at less than 2000 rounds of .22's(have you ever seen what two kids can do to a brick over a couple of hours?!?), and when I started messing with military surplus('milsurp' for short) rifles, let's see, a sealed 440-round spam can of 7.62x39 for $34.95 plus shipping here, 500 rounds of 7.62x39 for fifty bucks here(when it's back in stock), and so forth. And the stuff you can sometimes find at an Evil Loophole Gun Show, Oh, the Wonders!
Last year at the big Tulsa gun show I got three cans of .30-06(one for Dad), friend got a 440-round can each of 7.62x54r and 8mm, and some smaller boxes of various stuff, and they even dollied it out to the truck for us!
No, I did NOT take up a chunk of the evening counting everything. I do know that I'd like to have more 6.5x55 Swede, some of the Wolf 150-grain 7.62x54r to try out in the Mosin, and some more of those Winchester sabot slugs in 12guage to try out, and so on. More .303, of course, it's getting hard to find in milsurp anymore. I've got one old .50 caliber can full, but I don't really want to shoot it; I unsealed the can it came in and found that every box was dated 1942. I did take one box to try out, and it shot beautifully through my Enfield. But I felt like I was using up pieces of history, so the rest is stored.
Anyway, here's another reason to tell people like Schumer and Feinstein and Boxer and Clinton to go to hell; the freedom of being able to pick up a whole pile of ammo on sale without having to get approval from some minion of government to do so.
Including the two bricks of Eley Sport I ordered for the Martini. Thanks, Britain, for at least not putting Eley out of business, you GFW weenies.
How much is enough? How much for which gun? And so forth.
A couple of years ago a friend of mine was over in Wales, and at one point discussion turned to firearms. Friend mentioned the several Enfields he owns and someone asked how much ammo he had for them. He thought a bit, then said "Only about 200 rounds right now". Shocked silence for a moment at the very thought of such a mass of ammo. Short time before a couple had been arrested and their firearms and ammo confiscated; the newspapers were aghast at the 'arsenal' of a couple of rifles, a shotgun, and almost two hundred rounds of ammunition! The firearms and ammo were legal, mind you, and they hadn't done anything illegal with it; it was just the opinion of the authorities that nobody should have such a collection of potential mayhem.
His description of the shock, etc., started me laughing. At the time I had about 400 rounds of .303, and enough stuff total- counting .22's to 8mm- to give Scotland Yard a hernia and the galloping trots just thinking about it. And on a few things, I thought I was running short. Ah, one of the wonders of this country; I buy a 400-round can of .30-06, or a 440-round can of 7.62x54r, or- as was the case one day- a case of 1140-rounds of 7.62x39(already on clips, don't you just love it?) without any hassle other than carrying it out. When the kids were small and I could finally afford it, I tried to never be at less than 2000 rounds of .22's(have you ever seen what two kids can do to a brick over a couple of hours?!?), and when I started messing with military surplus('milsurp' for short) rifles, let's see, a sealed 440-round spam can of 7.62x39 for $34.95 plus shipping here, 500 rounds of 7.62x39 for fifty bucks here(when it's back in stock), and so forth. And the stuff you can sometimes find at an Evil Loophole Gun Show, Oh, the Wonders!
Last year at the big Tulsa gun show I got three cans of .30-06(one for Dad), friend got a 440-round can each of 7.62x54r and 8mm, and some smaller boxes of various stuff, and they even dollied it out to the truck for us!
No, I did NOT take up a chunk of the evening counting everything. I do know that I'd like to have more 6.5x55 Swede, some of the Wolf 150-grain 7.62x54r to try out in the Mosin, and some more of those Winchester sabot slugs in 12guage to try out, and so on. More .303, of course, it's getting hard to find in milsurp anymore. I've got one old .50 caliber can full, but I don't really want to shoot it; I unsealed the can it came in and found that every box was dated 1942. I did take one box to try out, and it shot beautifully through my Enfield. But I felt like I was using up pieces of history, so the rest is stored.
Anyway, here's another reason to tell people like Schumer and Feinstein and Boxer and Clinton to go to hell; the freedom of being able to pick up a whole pile of ammo on sale without having to get approval from some minion of government to do so.
Including the two bricks of Eley Sport I ordered for the Martini. Thanks, Britain, for at least not putting Eley out of business, you GFW weenies.
Monday, February 20, 2006
The complications of life
In a number of ways. There's been a lot printed, electronically and on paper, about how modern communications has changed things. 'Things' from talking to friends to sending mail to ordering a product to spreading news and on and on. Someone can whip out their phone and take a picture of something and send it to friends; someone in a newspaper makes a claim and people can check it out, and spread the word if it's not true or inaccurate, as fast as the paper put it out(sometimes faster); and news that many major media types don't want to report travels around the world at roughly the speed of light. It makes for lots of information getting out faster, and in some cases getting out at all- or at least spreading faster- than ever before.
Instapundit had a link to this from the PRC; a guy not only got information out without it being censored, but it spread far faster than the reaction of the PRC government could try to chase it down. Big changes in China, changes that, like the genie, cannot be put back in the bottle, enabled and fueled by this marvel of tech. It's happened and is happening in other places, too.
Speaking of stuff the major media doesn't want to deal with, let's move to the cartoons and other stuff dealing with Islam, fascist and otherwise. How many western papers and magazines and networks have refused to print or show the cartoons? Most. Lots of excuses: 'respect for Islam', 'do not want to inflame the situation', and so on. They'll report endlessly on the 'grievances' of muslims and how we should be 'understanding' and 'tolerant', while not demanding the same tolerance from the idiots burning and rioting and murdering in the name of their prophet and deity. Tim Blair has a post up on this mess, and has a quote from one as to why he published the cartoons:
"Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn’t intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
Exactly. Big difference between saying that religeous values are a good thing, or to be tolerated, and saying "You will be ruled by my beliefs, no matter what you believe". As the picture shows:
The freedoms of speech and expression this clown places no value on is why he can run around with his little sign and show his comtempt for us, and he sees those freedoms as weaknesses to be used to help destroy us.
I mentioned once before that I've been reading about Islam, and if you're going by the writings and teachings then a religeon of peace it ain't; it's a religeon of submission, and to the devout and nutcase levels who go strictly by the Koran and hadiths, it's a case of ALL must submit or be destroyed. I understand the 'moderate' muslims being scared of the nutcases, but they're going to have to stand up to them anyway. Someone once wrote that in a guerilla war all the locals had to do to be on the side of the guerillas was 'nothing'; not speak of them, not report them, simply do nothing to oppose them whether they agreed with them or not. Well, if the moderates do that, we have to see them at least somewhat as being on the side of the enemy. No, that doesn't make me happy to say; I doubt they're happy to be looked at that way. But unless they do at least speak out against them we have to see them that way; and the more people go out of their way to avoid 'offending' the jerks, the harder it is for the moderates to speak out. We ALL have to speak out, which includes refusing to be censored by their demands that we live/speak/think according to THEIR demands.
Further thoughts from TigerHawk and sisu
And while the French are rattling nuclear sabres, they're also refusing to call hate crimes what they are. At least in some cases.
For further commentary from less, er, 'reputable' sources, go here.
Instapundit had a link to this from the PRC; a guy not only got information out without it being censored, but it spread far faster than the reaction of the PRC government could try to chase it down. Big changes in China, changes that, like the genie, cannot be put back in the bottle, enabled and fueled by this marvel of tech. It's happened and is happening in other places, too.
Speaking of stuff the major media doesn't want to deal with, let's move to the cartoons and other stuff dealing with Islam, fascist and otherwise. How many western papers and magazines and networks have refused to print or show the cartoons? Most. Lots of excuses: 'respect for Islam', 'do not want to inflame the situation', and so on. They'll report endlessly on the 'grievances' of muslims and how we should be 'understanding' and 'tolerant', while not demanding the same tolerance from the idiots burning and rioting and murdering in the name of their prophet and deity. Tim Blair has a post up on this mess, and has a quote from one as to why he published the cartoons:
"Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn’t intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
Exactly. Big difference between saying that religeous values are a good thing, or to be tolerated, and saying "You will be ruled by my beliefs, no matter what you believe". As the picture shows:
The freedoms of speech and expression this clown places no value on is why he can run around with his little sign and show his comtempt for us, and he sees those freedoms as weaknesses to be used to help destroy us.
I mentioned once before that I've been reading about Islam, and if you're going by the writings and teachings then a religeon of peace it ain't; it's a religeon of submission, and to the devout and nutcase levels who go strictly by the Koran and hadiths, it's a case of ALL must submit or be destroyed. I understand the 'moderate' muslims being scared of the nutcases, but they're going to have to stand up to them anyway. Someone once wrote that in a guerilla war all the locals had to do to be on the side of the guerillas was 'nothing'; not speak of them, not report them, simply do nothing to oppose them whether they agreed with them or not. Well, if the moderates do that, we have to see them at least somewhat as being on the side of the enemy. No, that doesn't make me happy to say; I doubt they're happy to be looked at that way. But unless they do at least speak out against them we have to see them that way; and the more people go out of their way to avoid 'offending' the jerks, the harder it is for the moderates to speak out. We ALL have to speak out, which includes refusing to be censored by their demands that we live/speak/think according to THEIR demands.
Further thoughts from TigerHawk and sisu
And while the French are rattling nuclear sabres, they're also refusing to call hate crimes what they are. At least in some cases.
For further commentary from less, er, 'reputable' sources, go here.
Range report
Also known as "Crap! I can't believe I did this!"
This is one of the reasons having a C&R license is a mixed blessing. You get lots of sales flyers with lots of neat stuff to look at, and sometimes buy. Which can cause you to wind up saying "Budget? What budget?"
Case in point. Interordnance had been saying for months that they were going to get in Mosin Nagant PE and PU snipers, and then... they did. And sent me a flyer. And the next day I called, and asked some questions, and decided I'd find a way to rearrange my non-existent budget(please I hope I get a refund this year) because I'd been wanting one of these for years, so...
I present the Mosin Nagant 91/30 PU sniper
in, as Kim puts it, the manly 7.62x54r cartridge, a rimmed design that is still in use by the Russians, both in the SVD sniper rifle and in machine guns. This design was used WWII and after, and was supplied to Soviet client states into the 1970's.
The PE was the earlier version scope, phased out early in WWII; the PU was the replacement, issue starting in 1942. It fits into a side-mount that can be removed from the base and replaced without changing the point of impact.
It's a fixed 3.5x scope, and has no provision for adjusting focus; if your vision is not either naturally perfect or corrected, you will be looking at blurry images. The mount holds it high enough that the iron sights can be used, and the short straight MN bolt handle was replaced with a long, turned-down handle. That leather strap and cup you see is my homemade lens covers, copied from an illustration I found.
Here's the other side of the receiver and the scope assembly
That big screw you see at the back is what locks the mount into place in the base. Back it out, and loosen the top elevation screw, and the mount/scope lift out:
Not visible are the elevation adjusting screws top and bottom; they're in the base above/below the rear of the mount where the lock-screw bears and they're important. Important because while the scope does have elevation/windage turrets, they move the reticle itself in the field of view, so if you need much adjustment you can wind up with the reticle way over to one side and high or low, which is not good. So you center the reticle, and adjust elevation by using the screws to tilt the mount; raise the back to raise the point of impact, lower it to lower POI. Trial and error, but it works quite well. Windage adjustment? Well, no screws. Instead, here's the rear of the mount:
See those two extensions on the right? If, with the mount locked down, the POI is off to the left, you'd file or grind those down just a bit, then mount it back up and test fire, working off just a bit at a time until it's dead-on. If the POI is off to the right, you'd shim it, adding a thin shim between the extensions and the base to bring it over. Normally, these two adjustments were done at the armory by an expert, and the bottom screw was often punched to lock it in place. The top screw has to be left free to turn if you want to be able to remove the mount. There's a very good description of the process here, and the main site has history and other information on the MN rifles.
The scope reticle is a sharp-top vertical post with two horizontal arms
Not the best for bullseye type shooting, but said to be very good for field use, and the Soviets and client states made very good use of it. The elevation turret is calibrated for the 7.62x54r cartridge, and I've read that it works quite well for range adjustment. They're not click-adjustments, just a smooth rotation, and a little bit of turn goes a long way.
One thing to note, you have to consistently place your eye in line with the scope; being a little to one side or up or down will cause the POI to shift.
The rifle itself was turned out in the millions, from the original 1891 model to the revised model in 1930(thus the 91/30), and the 1938 carbine version(which had no bayonet) and the 1944(which had a bayonet hinged to a permanent mount on the barrel). There are a lot of 91/30 rifles and later versions out there, haven't seen many of the 1891's available. Many were restored at the arsenals after WWII and can be had in what amounts to new condition(the Soviets apparently never threw anything away, just cleaned it up and stored it; so now we get to buy the things at very good prices). It's a pretty simple, very rugged design, and the trigger pulls range from long and rough to long and smooth to a pretty decent two-stage to single-stage, depending on the particular rifle.
This one has a somewhat rough, heavy first stage, then a light, clean second. The action is typical Mosin, with the extended bolt handle giving more leverage than the short, straight standard one. Long 29" barrel with a hooded front post sight and a notch rear.
The scope optics are sharp and clean, the adjustments smooth and positive. The reticle took some getting used to, having never used anything except crosshairs before.
So we get to the range. I used some Czech silver tip ammo, which has a 147 grain bullet, FMJ of course. I've read descriptions of this as match-grade, but most sources say the silver tip simply identifies it as light ball. In any case, I started out at 50 yards to make sure the POI would be roughly where I wanted before moving to 100. Then put about forty rounds through, taking my time. Note: you have to lock the mount down solidly, and check it after a few shots; it will work loose if you don't, and your POI will start shifting. Which I read about, but snuck up on me anyway. And once the elevation screws are set to your liking, use some threadlocker on the bottom one; if it's left free to move, it WILL back out as you shoot, and let things shift just a touch...
When I did my part right, this was typical:
The circled group was fired , the one low and right was the fourth shot after I'd taken a minute to look through the spotting scope, etc. The lockscrew had loosened just a touch. After adjusting the windage just a touch, and finding the elevation had shifted also(damn screws), fired the next two, the top group:
Adjusted the turret down a touch, then fired the second pair, at which point I left things the hell alone and just did some more shooting. At this point my shoulder was calling me names(firing the Marlin .45-70 I mentioned a few days ago beat me worse than all the shots fired from this), so I broke for the day.
Overall, quite impressed. The trigger could use some smoothing, but the second-stage break is clean and that makes up for the heavy, rough first stage. The scope is, as mentioned, sharp and clear. I can see this would work very well at causing severe heartburn to the enemy. I consistenly got very good groups with this standard ball ammo; with true match-grade, or handloads tailored to it, should be even better. I had several fliers on shots that felt like should have been right in the group, while I may have shifted it may also have been the ammo.
This particular setup? The flyer said they were in excellent condition, and some of the scopes 'may be post-war production'. Rifle made in 1943, scope marked 1942, and they are indeed excellent, the rifle having a bore that looks almost new. And the bolt matches the rifle, no force-match. The mount is marked with the rifle serial number, and the extensions showed marks of having been cut down to zero it, so if it is a later replacement it was properly matched to the rifle. The rifle has the high left sidewall on the receiver, and from that and the markings I believe it is an actual WWII sniper, not a later-modified rifle. The particular scope and mount may not be original to the rifle, no way to tell(I don't think the Soviets matched scope serial numbers to the rifle, and even if they did a damaged scope would have been replaced with another), but the rifle and scope both date to the war, which makes me very happy. Especially since I looked at the Interordnance site the other day, and the price has gone up.
So this goes on the list as something that I shouldn't have bought, but I'm damn glad I did.
This is one of the reasons having a C&R license is a mixed blessing. You get lots of sales flyers with lots of neat stuff to look at, and sometimes buy. Which can cause you to wind up saying "Budget? What budget?"
Case in point. Interordnance had been saying for months that they were going to get in Mosin Nagant PE and PU snipers, and then... they did. And sent me a flyer. And the next day I called, and asked some questions, and decided I'd find a way to rearrange my non-existent budget(please I hope I get a refund this year) because I'd been wanting one of these for years, so...
I present the Mosin Nagant 91/30 PU sniper
in, as Kim puts it, the manly 7.62x54r cartridge, a rimmed design that is still in use by the Russians, both in the SVD sniper rifle and in machine guns. This design was used WWII and after, and was supplied to Soviet client states into the 1970's.
The PE was the earlier version scope, phased out early in WWII; the PU was the replacement, issue starting in 1942. It fits into a side-mount that can be removed from the base and replaced without changing the point of impact.
It's a fixed 3.5x scope, and has no provision for adjusting focus; if your vision is not either naturally perfect or corrected, you will be looking at blurry images. The mount holds it high enough that the iron sights can be used, and the short straight MN bolt handle was replaced with a long, turned-down handle. That leather strap and cup you see is my homemade lens covers, copied from an illustration I found.
Here's the other side of the receiver and the scope assembly
That big screw you see at the back is what locks the mount into place in the base. Back it out, and loosen the top elevation screw, and the mount/scope lift out:
Not visible are the elevation adjusting screws top and bottom; they're in the base above/below the rear of the mount where the lock-screw bears and they're important. Important because while the scope does have elevation/windage turrets, they move the reticle itself in the field of view, so if you need much adjustment you can wind up with the reticle way over to one side and high or low, which is not good. So you center the reticle, and adjust elevation by using the screws to tilt the mount; raise the back to raise the point of impact, lower it to lower POI. Trial and error, but it works quite well. Windage adjustment? Well, no screws. Instead, here's the rear of the mount:
See those two extensions on the right? If, with the mount locked down, the POI is off to the left, you'd file or grind those down just a bit, then mount it back up and test fire, working off just a bit at a time until it's dead-on. If the POI is off to the right, you'd shim it, adding a thin shim between the extensions and the base to bring it over. Normally, these two adjustments were done at the armory by an expert, and the bottom screw was often punched to lock it in place. The top screw has to be left free to turn if you want to be able to remove the mount. There's a very good description of the process here, and the main site has history and other information on the MN rifles.
The scope reticle is a sharp-top vertical post with two horizontal arms
Not the best for bullseye type shooting, but said to be very good for field use, and the Soviets and client states made very good use of it. The elevation turret is calibrated for the 7.62x54r cartridge, and I've read that it works quite well for range adjustment. They're not click-adjustments, just a smooth rotation, and a little bit of turn goes a long way.
One thing to note, you have to consistently place your eye in line with the scope; being a little to one side or up or down will cause the POI to shift.
The rifle itself was turned out in the millions, from the original 1891 model to the revised model in 1930(thus the 91/30), and the 1938 carbine version(which had no bayonet) and the 1944(which had a bayonet hinged to a permanent mount on the barrel). There are a lot of 91/30 rifles and later versions out there, haven't seen many of the 1891's available. Many were restored at the arsenals after WWII and can be had in what amounts to new condition(the Soviets apparently never threw anything away, just cleaned it up and stored it; so now we get to buy the things at very good prices). It's a pretty simple, very rugged design, and the trigger pulls range from long and rough to long and smooth to a pretty decent two-stage to single-stage, depending on the particular rifle.
This one has a somewhat rough, heavy first stage, then a light, clean second. The action is typical Mosin, with the extended bolt handle giving more leverage than the short, straight standard one. Long 29" barrel with a hooded front post sight and a notch rear.
The scope optics are sharp and clean, the adjustments smooth and positive. The reticle took some getting used to, having never used anything except crosshairs before.
So we get to the range. I used some Czech silver tip ammo, which has a 147 grain bullet, FMJ of course. I've read descriptions of this as match-grade, but most sources say the silver tip simply identifies it as light ball. In any case, I started out at 50 yards to make sure the POI would be roughly where I wanted before moving to 100. Then put about forty rounds through, taking my time. Note: you have to lock the mount down solidly, and check it after a few shots; it will work loose if you don't, and your POI will start shifting. Which I read about, but snuck up on me anyway. And once the elevation screws are set to your liking, use some threadlocker on the bottom one; if it's left free to move, it WILL back out as you shoot, and let things shift just a touch...
When I did my part right, this was typical:
The circled group was fired , the one low and right was the fourth shot after I'd taken a minute to look through the spotting scope, etc. The lockscrew had loosened just a touch. After adjusting the windage just a touch, and finding the elevation had shifted also(damn screws), fired the next two, the top group:
Adjusted the turret down a touch, then fired the second pair, at which point I left things the hell alone and just did some more shooting. At this point my shoulder was calling me names(firing the Marlin .45-70 I mentioned a few days ago beat me worse than all the shots fired from this), so I broke for the day.
Overall, quite impressed. The trigger could use some smoothing, but the second-stage break is clean and that makes up for the heavy, rough first stage. The scope is, as mentioned, sharp and clear. I can see this would work very well at causing severe heartburn to the enemy. I consistenly got very good groups with this standard ball ammo; with true match-grade, or handloads tailored to it, should be even better. I had several fliers on shots that felt like should have been right in the group, while I may have shifted it may also have been the ammo.
This particular setup? The flyer said they were in excellent condition, and some of the scopes 'may be post-war production'. Rifle made in 1943, scope marked 1942, and they are indeed excellent, the rifle having a bore that looks almost new. And the bolt matches the rifle, no force-match. The mount is marked with the rifle serial number, and the extensions showed marks of having been cut down to zero it, so if it is a later replacement it was properly matched to the rifle. The rifle has the high left sidewall on the receiver, and from that and the markings I believe it is an actual WWII sniper, not a later-modified rifle. The particular scope and mount may not be original to the rifle, no way to tell(I don't think the Soviets matched scope serial numbers to the rifle, and even if they did a damaged scope would have been replaced with another), but the rifle and scope both date to the war, which makes me very happy. Especially since I looked at the Interordnance site the other day, and the price has gone up.
So this goes on the list as something that I shouldn't have bought, but I'm damn glad I did.
Remember the ATF / VA gun show hearing that was coming up?
Uncle has a post on it, linking to this article at CNS news. Very worth reading. And it was worse than I originally heard.
It seems that they seized firearms from at least 50 people, and "African-American and female gun buyers in Richmond, Va., and Pittsburgh, Pa., were profiled based on their race or sex and some in Pittsburgh were threatened with arrest by ATF agents for alleged actions that are not violations of law." Now think about that; apparently if you were black or female and bought a gun, you were assumed to be a straw-buyer(of course, the agents couldn't imagine a black or a female making a legitimate purchase of a firearm). At another show, ""When I asked them what their criteria was for the people that they collected the 4473s on at the Pittsburgh show, the answer I got back was, 'If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. That's all we need,'" McComas continued. "Translation: Under 30 and black, period. That's all they were looking for. Anyone who meets those criteria, they're doing a follow-up on."
Want to bet that the agents doing this crap are some of those who bitch the most about people not 'cooperating' with them? If you knew somebody was treating you and your customers this way, would you want to 'cooperate' with them?
And the final bit: "ATF representatives present at Wednesday's hearing reluctantly identified themselves by raising their hands when asked to do so by Coble. They would not respond to the new allegations raised in the hearing, but referred questions to their press office." At a Congressional hearing, they referred questions to the 'press office'?
I've said it before: every time a bunch of jerks- and I include the supervisors who thought of/approved it- carry out a mess like this, it makes it that much harder for them or anyone else to do a legitimate investigation because it gives people reason not to trust them. Legitimate law enforcement work isn't being done because people are busy doing crap like this. And the usual suspects will probably be heard soon, defending these 'noble federal agents' from these 'horrible attacks on their integrity'.
Maybe if the defenders had more integrity themselves, that'd carry more weight, but it'd still be crap.
More from earlier articles here by Publicola
It seems that they seized firearms from at least 50 people, and "African-American and female gun buyers in Richmond, Va., and Pittsburgh, Pa., were profiled based on their race or sex and some in Pittsburgh were threatened with arrest by ATF agents for alleged actions that are not violations of law." Now think about that; apparently if you were black or female and bought a gun, you were assumed to be a straw-buyer(of course, the agents couldn't imagine a black or a female making a legitimate purchase of a firearm). At another show, ""When I asked them what their criteria was for the people that they collected the 4473s on at the Pittsburgh show, the answer I got back was, 'If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. That's all we need,'" McComas continued. "Translation: Under 30 and black, period. That's all they were looking for. Anyone who meets those criteria, they're doing a follow-up on."
Want to bet that the agents doing this crap are some of those who bitch the most about people not 'cooperating' with them? If you knew somebody was treating you and your customers this way, would you want to 'cooperate' with them?
And the final bit: "ATF representatives present at Wednesday's hearing reluctantly identified themselves by raising their hands when asked to do so by Coble. They would not respond to the new allegations raised in the hearing, but referred questions to their press office." At a Congressional hearing, they referred questions to the 'press office'?
I've said it before: every time a bunch of jerks- and I include the supervisors who thought of/approved it- carry out a mess like this, it makes it that much harder for them or anyone else to do a legitimate investigation because it gives people reason not to trust them. Legitimate law enforcement work isn't being done because people are busy doing crap like this. And the usual suspects will probably be heard soon, defending these 'noble federal agents' from these 'horrible attacks on their integrity'.
Maybe if the defenders had more integrity themselves, that'd carry more weight, but it'd still be crap.
More from earlier articles here by Publicola
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Ok, it's been busy
What with babies being born and such. I've got some things in mind, but they'll have to wait for tomorrow, when I've slept and I'm thinking straight(er). In the meantime,
a nice piece on the relation between homicide rates and racial groups and background at Smallest Minority.
A possible piece of real, first-class police-state BS noted at the Geek's place.
And this picture from a protest in Pakistan; interesting the sign's in English, isn't it?
That's all for now
a nice piece on the relation between homicide rates and racial groups and background at Smallest Minority.
A possible piece of real, first-class police-state BS noted at the Geek's place.
And this picture from a protest in Pakistan; interesting the sign's in English, isn't it?
That's all for now
Friday, February 17, 2006
It's a girl!
No, not mine; I don't think I could take starting that all over. One of the best friends I've ever had and his wife just had a 8lb, 20" girl. All are doing well, and he made it through the c-section delivery without passing out or doing anything else undignified.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got pictures to burn to disc.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got pictures to burn to disc.
And I'm supposed to trust the major media why, again?
They don't have the balls to print the cartoons(with a very few exceptions), they will keep printing pictures from Abu Ghraib that show coalition troops abusing some prisoners(got to keep the outrage up, don't you know?), they won't print pictures or show video of the Sept. 11 attacks because 'they might upset people', and they won't print these. For whatever BS reason they can come up with.
And at a time the Iranian government started enriching uranium- again- all they think is worth talking about is trying to paint Cheney as a drunk and/or director of a conspiracy to scare some people...
And at a time the Iranian government started enriching uranium- again- all they think is worth talking about is trying to paint Cheney as a drunk and/or director of a conspiracy to scare some people...
Canada shows signs of sanity
and begins scrapping the gun registry.
Found this over at Captain's Quarters, which also linked to Alphecca on the matter. Among the important points:
"Canadians will be shocked by the true cost of the federal government's ill-fated gun registry, says new Public Security Minister Stockwell Day.
There's been a lot of criticism of this mess since it began, including, as I recall, some western provinces basically saying "We don't have the money, people and time to waste chasing someone because they didn't want to register their rifle or shotgun, so we ain't enforcing this mess". And yet it kept going, eating money and time at a prodigeous rate, and why? A quote from an article Alphecca linked to in the past:
"And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear). But what troubles me most is what it says about its supporters' attitude toward the people and government. Backing most gun laws amounts to proclaiming trust in government over trust in one's fellow citizens."
That pretty much covers it; "It needs to be done, so we'll keep doing it even though it doesn't actually work, because we have to". I think Kevin at Smallest Minority refers to it as the "It doesn't work, so we have to do it harder" mindset.
This could have some interesting repercussions internationally, too. Brazil votes down a gun ban and kicks the personal disarmament groups in the crotch, and now Canada- long held up as a country 'doing it right'- trashes the registration system. And warns the people that when the find out the actual cost, they're going to be very upset, which admission will upset the gun banners still further("What's money when we're doing the Right Thing? What do you mean you don't want to go broke paying for it? It's for The Children!") Add that to the fact that it has not worked, that crime has continued to rise and so forth(with people who were burglarized being charged with 'unsecure storage' when their vault took two days to break into), it'll be some interesting points to bring up to people.
Found this over at Captain's Quarters, which also linked to Alphecca on the matter. Among the important points:
"Canadians will be shocked by the true cost of the federal government's ill-fated gun registry, says new Public Security Minister Stockwell Day.
Day told The Canadian Press that figures bureaucrats have shown him during briefings for his new portfolio are much higher than previously thought. He would not divulge what the tab is, but said it's upsetting. ..." and
"At last estimate, the gun program was said to be consuming $90 million a year to maintain."
There's been a lot of criticism of this mess since it began, including, as I recall, some western provinces basically saying "We don't have the money, people and time to waste chasing someone because they didn't want to register their rifle or shotgun, so we ain't enforcing this mess". And yet it kept going, eating money and time at a prodigeous rate, and why? A quote from an article Alphecca linked to in the past:
"And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear). But what troubles me most is what it says about its supporters' attitude toward the people and government. Backing most gun laws amounts to proclaiming trust in government over trust in one's fellow citizens."
That pretty much covers it; "It needs to be done, so we'll keep doing it even though it doesn't actually work, because we have to". I think Kevin at Smallest Minority refers to it as the "It doesn't work, so we have to do it harder" mindset.
This could have some interesting repercussions internationally, too. Brazil votes down a gun ban and kicks the personal disarmament groups in the crotch, and now Canada- long held up as a country 'doing it right'- trashes the registration system. And warns the people that when the find out the actual cost, they're going to be very upset, which admission will upset the gun banners still further("What's money when we're doing the Right Thing? What do you mean you don't want to go broke paying for it? It's for The Children!") Add that to the fact that it has not worked, that crime has continued to rise and so forth(with people who were burglarized being charged with 'unsecure storage' when their vault took two days to break into), it'll be some interesting points to bring up to people.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Notes from the range
After 60 rounds of 7.62x54, 20 of .30-06, 30 of 7.62x39, cleaning a bit at the range(corrosive priming), cleaning after I got home, I'm tired.
Guy at the range had a Marlin buffalo gun or whatever they call it; carbine length lever-action in .45-70. He let me put four rounds through it.
A: very smooth action
B: very accurate; first try with it got a 1.5" group at 50 yards
C: if you decide to get one, I have two words: RECOIL PAD. That thing beat on my shoulder worse than everything else I shot. Damn!
There's been two kinds of Korean-made M2 ball in .30-06, the 'PS' headstamp that's non-corrosive and the 'KA' that is mildly corrosive. The 'KA' is a fair bit less expensive than the other- which seems to be hard to find now- so I got a can of it to try out. As should be expected, every bit as accurate in my '03 as the other. I'd prefer not to use it in the M1, so as to not have to worry about the gas system, so I'll keep this stuff for the bolt rifles.
Note to self: shoot groups with .22 handgun before shooting all the other stuff.
Guy at the range had a Marlin buffalo gun or whatever they call it; carbine length lever-action in .45-70. He let me put four rounds through it.
A: very smooth action
B: very accurate; first try with it got a 1.5" group at 50 yards
C: if you decide to get one, I have two words: RECOIL PAD. That thing beat on my shoulder worse than everything else I shot. Damn!
There's been two kinds of Korean-made M2 ball in .30-06, the 'PS' headstamp that's non-corrosive and the 'KA' that is mildly corrosive. The 'KA' is a fair bit less expensive than the other- which seems to be hard to find now- so I got a can of it to try out. As should be expected, every bit as accurate in my '03 as the other. I'd prefer not to use it in the M1, so as to not have to worry about the gas system, so I'll keep this stuff for the bolt rifles.
Note to self: shoot groups with .22 handgun before shooting all the other stuff.
What do we import from Turkey?
And after hearing about this, why don't we boycott ANYTHING from the place?
Heard about this a few days ago, and I've been pissed ever since. Turkey lectures us that we should not 'allow' speech that bothers muslims, and makes this crap? And let's not forget, one reason some things during the Iraq war didn't go as they should have was because at the last minute the Turk government didn't allow us to move troops in from their territory.
They want boycotts and lectures? Here's your damn boycott, we ain't buying anything you have to sell.
Heard about this a few days ago, and I've been pissed ever since. Turkey lectures us that we should not 'allow' speech that bothers muslims, and makes this crap? And let's not forget, one reason some things during the Iraq war didn't go as they should have was because at the last minute the Turk government didn't allow us to move troops in from their territory.
They want boycotts and lectures? Here's your damn boycott, we ain't buying anything you have to sell.
First handgun
This seems to have been a very popular first, the Ruger Single-Six:
This one is the New Model Super Single-Six, to use the whole thing. Big difference between the new and old models was the old was like the Colt SAA; if you wanted to carry it loaded, you had to leave an empty chamber under the hammer. The new model uses a transfer-bar mechanism to allow carry with all six loaded; if it hasn't been cocked and you're not holding the trigger back, the transfer bar is down and the hammer cannot strike the firing pin. Offhand, I don't know if the old model had adjustable sights, new model does, nice square ramp in front.
It also, as Mr. Completely noted, comes with a .22lr cylinder, and another chambered for .22 Magnum. Push the release, pull the cylinder pin, trade cylinders, replace pin and go back to shooting. Now, the bullet for .22 Mag is slightly larger diameter than .22lr, so the bore diameter is a compromise between them. While that probably has some effect on accuracy, it's not enough to worry about unless you're a serious bullseye shooter, and even then if you find the right ammo... This group was shot with Eley Sport from ten yards:
For me, after several hours with centerfire rifles, that's pretty damn good. And no, I didn't remember the magnum cylinder, so I don't have a comparison to show. Next time.
I have no idea how many rounds have gone down the barrel of this, first from me and then from my kids. It's solidly made, reliable and accurate, and for teaching kids it slows them down a bit since they have to cock it for each shot. And it's got one more neat thing: since it was made in 1976, stamped into the top of the barrel is 'Made in the 200th year of American Liberty'. Ruger didn't advertise it, just did it.
I'll agree with the Mr.: if you can pick one up, you should. You'll like it.
This one is the New Model Super Single-Six, to use the whole thing. Big difference between the new and old models was the old was like the Colt SAA; if you wanted to carry it loaded, you had to leave an empty chamber under the hammer. The new model uses a transfer-bar mechanism to allow carry with all six loaded; if it hasn't been cocked and you're not holding the trigger back, the transfer bar is down and the hammer cannot strike the firing pin. Offhand, I don't know if the old model had adjustable sights, new model does, nice square ramp in front.
It also, as Mr. Completely noted, comes with a .22lr cylinder, and another chambered for .22 Magnum. Push the release, pull the cylinder pin, trade cylinders, replace pin and go back to shooting. Now, the bullet for .22 Mag is slightly larger diameter than .22lr, so the bore diameter is a compromise between them. While that probably has some effect on accuracy, it's not enough to worry about unless you're a serious bullseye shooter, and even then if you find the right ammo... This group was shot with Eley Sport from ten yards:
For me, after several hours with centerfire rifles, that's pretty damn good. And no, I didn't remember the magnum cylinder, so I don't have a comparison to show. Next time.
I have no idea how many rounds have gone down the barrel of this, first from me and then from my kids. It's solidly made, reliable and accurate, and for teaching kids it slows them down a bit since they have to cock it for each shot. And it's got one more neat thing: since it was made in 1976, stamped into the top of the barrel is 'Made in the 200th year of American Liberty'. Ruger didn't advertise it, just did it.
I'll agree with the Mr.: if you can pick one up, you should. You'll like it.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Remember the ATF and the VA gun show?
Illegally getting yellow sheets and going to people's homes and talking to neighbors? That mess?
Well, according to Uncle, they ARE being investigated for it. And a damn good thing, too.
I wrote once before that the reason why I always get ticked off when some politician or LE brass hat calls for some new database of people and/or objects is that I know how badly the ones out there now are abused. This was a fine example of the abuse. Let's hope they get their heads handed to them, both in Congress and in the courts when the people affected sue them.
Well, according to Uncle, they ARE being investigated for it. And a damn good thing, too.
I wrote once before that the reason why I always get ticked off when some politician or LE brass hat calls for some new database of people and/or objects is that I know how badly the ones out there now are abused. This was a fine example of the abuse. Let's hope they get their heads handed to them, both in Congress and in the courts when the people affected sue them.
Carnival of Cordite #47
Friday, February 10, 2006
They just won't learn...
'They' being the Brits. I've seen this in several places: "A five-week nationwide knives amnesty is being launched in the summer in an attempt to drive down numbers of stabbings.
They just don't pay attention. They've banned damn near everything, restricted damn near everything, and the crimes keep happening, and they just want to ban something else. On and on and bloody on.
It's not the knives, anymore than it's the guns; it's the CRIMINALS. Do something about them and your crime problem will start going down; keep blaming objects and it'll keep going on. And up.
They won't, of course, not until something so drastic happens that the British people rise up and force it, and I just don't know if that'll happen. They've been disarmed, told that 'excessive' self-defense is illegal, had their schools and public life turned into one big PC playground, and they haven't stopped that. At least partly, it's because of their form of government I think; from what I've read, it's pretty damn hard for them to do anything except on a local level, and most of their politicians are like a bunch of clones of Teddy Kennedy who know better that all the peasants what's good for them.
Few years ago I listed to a guy listing why almost all countries with actual elected governments have a Parliament-type system like Britain with a Prime Minister, and how if we were smart we'd change to that. Having seen how it works out in all those 'enlightened' places, if I ever see him again I may kick him in the ass.
Also, at Kim's place found this: Plans to compel people to produce their ID cards have been postponed indefinitely in an attempt to save Tony Blair from another embarrassing defeat at the hands of rebel MPs.
...Mr Clarke had intended to introduce the cards expected to cost around £93 each on a voluntary basis first, with a view to making them compulsory later. Under the original legislation that would have required only a simple vote by MPs.
Besides the bullshit of the idea in general, I'm wondering why it would cost that much; if I remember right, that's about $175 per card. I said it before and I'll say it again; full credit to Blair for understanding that we have to fight the islamofascists now, or it'll be ten times worse later, but in every other way he's the kind of big-government nanny-state politician I despise. But, I have to admit, he's not the only one with a problem in this kind of thing. Maggie Thatcher, who in other ways was a marvel, had the standard 'disarm the peasants' attitude toward arms.
Maybe it's something in the water...
They just don't pay attention. They've banned damn near everything, restricted damn near everything, and the crimes keep happening, and they just want to ban something else. On and on and bloody on.
It's not the knives, anymore than it's the guns; it's the CRIMINALS. Do something about them and your crime problem will start going down; keep blaming objects and it'll keep going on. And up.
They won't, of course, not until something so drastic happens that the British people rise up and force it, and I just don't know if that'll happen. They've been disarmed, told that 'excessive' self-defense is illegal, had their schools and public life turned into one big PC playground, and they haven't stopped that. At least partly, it's because of their form of government I think; from what I've read, it's pretty damn hard for them to do anything except on a local level, and most of their politicians are like a bunch of clones of Teddy Kennedy who know better that all the peasants what's good for them.
Few years ago I listed to a guy listing why almost all countries with actual elected governments have a Parliament-type system like Britain with a Prime Minister, and how if we were smart we'd change to that. Having seen how it works out in all those 'enlightened' places, if I ever see him again I may kick him in the ass.
Also, at Kim's place found this: Plans to compel people to produce their ID cards have been postponed indefinitely in an attempt to save Tony Blair from another embarrassing defeat at the hands of rebel MPs.
...Mr Clarke had intended to introduce the cards expected to cost around £93 each on a voluntary basis first, with a view to making them compulsory later. Under the original legislation that would have required only a simple vote by MPs.
Besides the bullshit of the idea in general, I'm wondering why it would cost that much; if I remember right, that's about $175 per card. I said it before and I'll say it again; full credit to Blair for understanding that we have to fight the islamofascists now, or it'll be ten times worse later, but in every other way he's the kind of big-government nanny-state politician I despise. But, I have to admit, he's not the only one with a problem in this kind of thing. Maggie Thatcher, who in other ways was a marvel, had the standard 'disarm the peasants' attitude toward arms.
Maybe it's something in the water...
Accumulated wisdom,
including: "As the test pilot climbs out of the experimental aircraft, having torn off the wings and tail in the crash landing, the crash truck arrives, the rescuer sees a bloodied pilot and asks "What happened?" The pilot's reply: "I don't know, I just got here myself!" - Attributed to Ray Crandell (Lockheed test pilot)
Go see the rest at Cowboy Blob
Go see the rest at Cowboy Blob
I'd forgotten The Rules of Gunfighting
USMC Rules For Gun Fighting
- Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring their friends who have guns.
- If you can, make friends with those on the crew served weapons. Bring them as well. Borrow money from them, it gives them an added incentive to protect you.
- Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
- Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
- If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
- Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
- If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
- In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
- If you are not shooting, you should be communicating (calling for arty or air support), reloading, and running.
- Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting is more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
- Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
- Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
- In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
- Have a plan.
- Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
- Have a back-up, back-up plan in case CentCom or SecDef finds the first two plans "unacceptable".
- Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The only visible target should be in your gun sights.
- Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your flank.
- Don't drop your guard.
- Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
- Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
- Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
- The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
- Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
- Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
- Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
- Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."
Army Rules for Gun Fighting
- See USMC Rules to gun Fighting.
- Add 60 to 90 days.
- Hope the Marines already destroyed all meaningful resistance.
Navy Rules for Gun Fighting
- Adopt an aggressive offshore posture.
- Send in the Marines.
- Drink Coffee and eat donuts.
Air Force Rules for Gun Fighting
- Kiss the wife goodbye.
- Drive to the base in your sports car.
- Fly to target area, drop bombs, (try not to hit the Canuks) fly back to your home base.
- BBQ some burgers and drink beer in your back yard, and talk shit about the Navy, Army and Marines.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
As I mentioned once before, ah, the torment of friends...
You know you've done well when you receive "you SICK BASTARD", followed by "If you lived a state or two closer, I'd come KICK YOUR ASS. Posting pictures of that pretty little cadet rifle, and LINKING to someone who SELLS THEM when I cannot AFFORD THEM."
All because of some pretty pictures.
hehehehehe
All because of some pretty pictures.
hehehehehe
Ask an expert
Researchers found the following symbols cut into the rock wall of a cave:
The section of rock bearing the marks was cut out and taken to a museum. Dating indicated the markings were about three thousand years old.
Meetings were held, conferences attended, meanings argued and disputed. Finally a press conference was held, and the head of the museum pointed to the first symbol and said "This is a woman. We can see they held women in high esteem. You can tell they were intelligent and had domesticated the wild donkey. And the shovel indicates they made and used tools.
"Even further proof of high intelligence is the fish; in times of famine on land, they found food in the sea. And they were, from the last symbol, Hebrews or related."
And there was much applause.
And then a little old Jewish man stood up and said "You idiots, Hebrew is read from right to left. It says 'Holy mackeral, dig the ass on that chick!' "
The section of rock bearing the marks was cut out and taken to a museum. Dating indicated the markings were about three thousand years old.
Meetings were held, conferences attended, meanings argued and disputed. Finally a press conference was held, and the head of the museum pointed to the first symbol and said "This is a woman. We can see they held women in high esteem. You can tell they were intelligent and had domesticated the wild donkey. And the shovel indicates they made and used tools.
"Even further proof of high intelligence is the fish; in times of famine on land, they found food in the sea. And they were, from the last symbol, Hebrews or related."
And there was much applause.
And then a little old Jewish man stood up and said "You idiots, Hebrew is read from right to left. It says 'Holy mackeral, dig the ass on that chick!' "
Martini 12/15
I mentioned this in the post on the Model 8, and here it is
Where the 8 was designed as a 'sporting' rifle, good for both small game and target shooting, the 12/15 was specifically designed as a match rifle. Where the 8 has a 25" barrel, the barrel on this one is 29", and a bit heavier profile, and a much longer, heavier forend. Sights are similar, Parker-Hale match, fully windage and elevation adjustable rear, tunnel front that holds different inserts.
The 8 has a basic stock; the 12/15 has a cheekpiece on the left side. Also, this one was never made as a takedown.
This rear sight came without an eyepiece or insert, but I was able to pick this one up. Originally it had a rubber eyecup that stuck on the rear, and maybe someday I'll find one. Nice thing about this one is the aperture adjustment. See that lever sticking down? There's an iris in the drum, like a camera; slide the lever up or down and the iris opens or closes, so you have adjustment from all-the-way open to a barely-there pinhole. This is also one of the deluxe eyepieces; see that shiny ring at the front? That's a disc holding five different-colored filters, so you can choose from no filter or whatever color gives you the best contrast under current conditions.
The action is identical to the model 8 except for no cocking indicator; as a match rifle it was figured you'd not load until about to fire, so that gets rid of two pieces from the action.
How's it shoot? Better than I would have imagined. It's a bit heavy, but that weight tends to damp movement somewhat so it works nicely for offhand. Though I do try to rest it while reloading. Like the 8, the two best rounds I've found for it are the Federal Lightning and Eley Sport. No, I haven't spent ten or twelve bucks a box for the serious match stuff. Someday if I'm feeling rich I may do so, but for now? From a rest, at 100 yards, it will consistently shoot 1.5" groups, or a little better, with either the Federal or Eley. When I get results like that from 'cheap' ammo(cheap in price only, the quality seems to be very good), I'm not in a big rush to spend ten or fifteen times as much. That being said, remember that .22's can be very picky about what they like best, I just lucked out in getting two that prefer inexpensive stuff.
One of the things you may notice if you find one of the various Martinis is holes in the forend. Sometimes lots of damn holes. You'll notice that both mine have two sling studs in the forend; the 12/15 also has an extra hole a little to the left of center at the rear. As someone put it, some of these look like every damn Brit with a drill liked to move the things around. I saw one picture of a forend the new owner was repairing, and it looked like it'd been run over by a spiked lawn wheel. It had 8 holes spaced along and side to side besides the two he actually used. You'll also find either rails for a handstop or the slot where the rail used to be, sometimes. Happily this doesn't affect shootability of the rifle, so it's just a matter of filling holes and refinishing.
Like I said about the 8, if you get a chance to try one of these out, do. Then you'll probably go searching for one, and happily, they are out there. You can sometimes find one on Guns America or GunBroker, but there are a few dealers that almost always have some. This guy and this guy are two of them- I got mine from the second- and there are others.
Where the 8 was designed as a 'sporting' rifle, good for both small game and target shooting, the 12/15 was specifically designed as a match rifle. Where the 8 has a 25" barrel, the barrel on this one is 29", and a bit heavier profile, and a much longer, heavier forend. Sights are similar, Parker-Hale match, fully windage and elevation adjustable rear, tunnel front that holds different inserts.
The 8 has a basic stock; the 12/15 has a cheekpiece on the left side. Also, this one was never made as a takedown.
This rear sight came without an eyepiece or insert, but I was able to pick this one up. Originally it had a rubber eyecup that stuck on the rear, and maybe someday I'll find one. Nice thing about this one is the aperture adjustment. See that lever sticking down? There's an iris in the drum, like a camera; slide the lever up or down and the iris opens or closes, so you have adjustment from all-the-way open to a barely-there pinhole. This is also one of the deluxe eyepieces; see that shiny ring at the front? That's a disc holding five different-colored filters, so you can choose from no filter or whatever color gives you the best contrast under current conditions.
The action is identical to the model 8 except for no cocking indicator; as a match rifle it was figured you'd not load until about to fire, so that gets rid of two pieces from the action.
How's it shoot? Better than I would have imagined. It's a bit heavy, but that weight tends to damp movement somewhat so it works nicely for offhand. Though I do try to rest it while reloading. Like the 8, the two best rounds I've found for it are the Federal Lightning and Eley Sport. No, I haven't spent ten or twelve bucks a box for the serious match stuff. Someday if I'm feeling rich I may do so, but for now? From a rest, at 100 yards, it will consistently shoot 1.5" groups, or a little better, with either the Federal or Eley. When I get results like that from 'cheap' ammo(cheap in price only, the quality seems to be very good), I'm not in a big rush to spend ten or fifteen times as much. That being said, remember that .22's can be very picky about what they like best, I just lucked out in getting two that prefer inexpensive stuff.
One of the things you may notice if you find one of the various Martinis is holes in the forend. Sometimes lots of damn holes. You'll notice that both mine have two sling studs in the forend; the 12/15 also has an extra hole a little to the left of center at the rear. As someone put it, some of these look like every damn Brit with a drill liked to move the things around. I saw one picture of a forend the new owner was repairing, and it looked like it'd been run over by a spiked lawn wheel. It had 8 holes spaced along and side to side besides the two he actually used. You'll also find either rails for a handstop or the slot where the rail used to be, sometimes. Happily this doesn't affect shootability of the rifle, so it's just a matter of filling holes and refinishing.
Like I said about the 8, if you get a chance to try one of these out, do. Then you'll probably go searching for one, and happily, they are out there. You can sometimes find one on Guns America or GunBroker, but there are a few dealers that almost always have some. This guy and this guy are two of them- I got mine from the second- and there are others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)