Monday, November 16, 2009
Saw some folks I like and wanted to talk to, pretended I didn't see one guy I can't stand - one of the select group of antique gun dealers who are borderline crooks. This guy deals in Winchesters, hails from Florida, and has some wispy hair quickly turning from red to white... Kinda sad as he reflects poorly on dealers - particularly since there are a couple other guys in Florida who trade in Winchesters and really know their stuff... Wouldn't trust him if I was drowning and he had a life preserver...
OK, that's just catty...
Regardless, if you are going to get into antique guns, learn who is who and what is what, so the education is less expensive...
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
I am about to move to a new job at which no one will care about my politics. I CAN'T WAIT!
Until then, I continue to receive emails like the following:
OK, not only did Olson not write this but the numbers are wrong. This is the kind of crap I have received daily from Conservatives of every flavor for the last five-plus years. I have, on occasion, pointed out to certain individuals that their emails are incorrect and have requested to be removed from mail lists, but have not been able to go further, afraid to out myself and lose my job.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
- Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
- Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
- Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13..2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate,the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes blah, blah, blah...
And for those thinking that this is paranoid in itself, please take a look at what happened to Jim Zumbo, formerly of Outdoor Life, and Dan Cooper, of Cooper Firearms. I'm telling you, the firearms world will eat their own young to survive.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The second article - from MSNBC was decent and helps fill in some holes.
The first, however, confuses the issue. The unfortunate thing about folks who don't know about guns asking gun questions, is that they are often on a deadline or don't know what other questions to ask.
Most of the Slate piece is good enough until the author starts talking about the mechanics of shooting. His characterization that snipers don't usually engage targets at ranges of 100 feet is incorrect. Although they are trained to engage at ranges beyond 500 yards, most shots - especially those taken by law enforcement - are typically within 100 yards.
I also would correct his description of the flightpath of the bullet and the effect of sighting in at 300 yards. With most .30 caliber-class rifle cartridges, sighting in at 250-300 yards results in the bullet striking the bullseye or a hair high (1/4-1/2") at 100 yards. What this means is at the range encountered by the SEALs, they would have been able to aim dead-on with the cross-hairs.
The comment regarding the angle is a moot point. Shots at angles above or below a level plane should be adjusted for as if the target was at a location on that level plane directly above or below the target.
In other words, think back to your high-school trigonometry class and draw a triangle with a line from the shooter to the target (the hypotenuse - H), a line from the target to the plane on which the shooter rests - at a right angle to the plane (the opposite side - O), and a line from the intersection of that line and the shooter's plane to the shooter (the adjacent side - A). Instead of adjusting for the distance to the target (H), adjust for the distance to where a vertical line from the target would intersect the shooter's plane (A). At 100 feet, this is negligible, even at a 20-30 degree angle. At longer ranges, you would need a ballistic calculator (such as this one for the iPhone from Knight's Armament Company) to nail down the appropriate solution to attain first-shot hits.
OK - I have officially spent too much time wonking on this topic...
Monday, April 13, 2009
What allowed these three to operate effectively (in addition to being amongst the best troops in the military) was likely the Mk 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System - AKA the Navy variant of the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System. The capabilities of this system are more apparent at ranges of 100 yards or more than, say, the M16/M4 system, but you also get what you pay for. This system bought on the open market - sans suppressor, is likely about $10,000 right now, what with the public interest in any black rifle they can get their hands on.
If, however, you are planning on padding your 401k via reselling ARs and AKs, hold on to your horses. It appears that the Right may be wrong. Here is one article claiming what most of us on the left have believed all along - the President and the Democratic Party have more important things to do than take away our guns.
OK - now to just wait for people to actually read this and then shower me with abuse...
I want to start this off with this article about the guns getting into Mexico... Fox News isn't exactly my favorite, but this does make some good clarifications about the subject.