35 - 0 to go to 7 - 3

Woot! Woot I say!

With the Jets losing today, it's all but mathematically certain that the Patriots will take the division.

Tonights San Diego - Denver game should be interesting; and the entire country is looking towards Dallas right now to see if they can knock the Colts off the undefeated mark (doubtful, but with Dallas you never know).

Either way, It is also all but mathematically certain that either Denver or San Diego will take their division; and the other will get one of the wild card slots. The race for the second slot though is getting more complicated, with Kansas City going past the Radiers, the Jets going down to 5-5, and Jacksonville going up against the Giants tomorrow night at home. The Giants are, by a bit, the better team; but I wouldn't count the Jags out, so we may see a three or even four way race for the second wildcard slot as the season runs down.

Whoever wins in Denver tonight will also be tied with New England for third in the AFC, behind Indy and Baltimore; which funny enough puts pretty much the entire top half of the AFC ahead of the NFC, with only Chicago having more than six wins (that should change tonight or tomorrow though, with Seattle at San Francisco; or the Giants - Jags game). In fact, it's entirely possible both Seattle and New York will be at 7 - 3 tomorrow night - of course if by some miracle SF wins, and the Jags pull it out past the Giants, then yeah that would be bad for the NFC as a whole.

Oh, and in case anyone was paying attention; the AZ Cardinals continue to be the worst team in the NFL, though Oakland, Tennessee, and Detroit are all making a valiant effort to claim that coveted title.

The Cardinals are in fact the oldest organized football franchise; and are now, as they always have been, one of the worst. Thus far, the Cardinals have played 1151 games in their 86 year NFL history (they were founded in 1898, 22 years before joining the NFL); winning only 451 of them; for the worst winning percentage (.392) of any team other than the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (at .390).

Up until this year the worst team historically was generally considered the New Orleans Saints, but the recent reversal of the saints fortunes has put them at least part way over the top of the Cardinals with a 244-366 record for a .400 win/loss percentage.

There is some debate as to which team really is worse, because the Cardinals HAVE won their divison four times; and during the pre-superbowl era the Cardinals did win two NFL championships; neither of which the Saints can claim (2 division championships, no conference championships, no superbowls).

Also, the Cardinals have had more over .500 seasons, and a greater percentage of over .500 seasons than the Saints. Unfortunately, their last season over .500 was in 1998 (9-7 with a first round playoff loss); and the last before that was 1984.

In the superbowl era, the Saints have had six playoff appearances, the Cardinals only five; and both teams only have one playoff victory. The next worst team, the Buccs, has had 14 playoff appearances including six wins, in 30 years; and has actually won a superbowl.

Yes, they really are that bad.

UPDATE: Well, the Cowboys (and the Chargers too) brought their game today, and there are no longer any undefeated teams in the NFL.

It didn't suck

"It" referring to the new James Bond filem, "Casino Royale".

So,

The good:

Lots of great action, and very little cheese. Other than a couple of the fight sequences being somewhat Jacky Chanish (awesome physicality, just a little unreality); the action of this film is gritty, dirty, and entirely believable. Without trying to wow with big fancy effects or gadgets, this is one of the best straight action films I've seen in a long while. The freerunning sequence in the beginning of the film is mindblowing, and still believable at the same time. I never said to myself "no way could they do that".

The pacing of the film is absolutely relentless; though it's over two hours long (2:24 actually), you never notice it; and I don't think more than five minutes goes by without an action piece.

Better though, this film marks a return to the Bond of the books. James is hard, cold, angry, a sociopath... This is James Bond, looking like Hoagie Carmichael, but with a cruel smile; and a comma of hair that never quite stays in place.

Oh and one more for the fans of the book; the movie is without doubt the truest to the book Bond movie yet made; and I hope there are more in this vein. In fact, I wouldnt necessarily take exception to remaking the original movies, in the order written by Fleming, IF they would keep to the books.

The Bad:

Dialogue? Was there any, I didn't notice? Story, plot, not so much. Of course in the original book, there wasn't very much either; it was really an overlong short story. The pacing of the movie didn't really allow for any story, and real character development etc...

Also, the editing of the movie was somewhat irritating; with a lot of odd camera angles, bad jump cuts, and some chronological discontinuities that I found disorienting and distracting from the story. Several points were left hanging badly, where I felt there was resolution, that may have been cut out.

On a purely story front, I think there was a LOT chopped out, and a lot that could have been done that wasn't taken advantage of.

The Ugly:

Daniel Craig. No, he himself is not an ugly man; in fact he was chosen for how good he looks with his shirt off; and the physicality of his part here is amazing.

The problem with this James Bond is simple: Daniel Craig has all the personality, charisma, charm, and presence, of dimensional lumber.

They didn't give him much to work with; and he didnt do much work with what they gave him. At no time did I ever feel the character as a live human being through his dialogue. The only real spark he had, was when he was showing the cruel cold side of James. Perhaps this was intentional; an effort to reinforce the characterization of Bond the sociopath, but I don't think so; I don't think Craig is that good an actor, and I think if he was, he would have done a better job of conveying that sense.

Overall, the movie wasn't bad; it was a typical action movie, and about middle of the road for Bond films. Better than all the Roger Moore pics; far better than the Dalton movies (though Dalton himself wasn't bad) or the excerable OHMSS (which should have been one of the best movies, it was one of the best books; and Diana Rigg is awesome, but the writing and acting of everyone else was awful), and even better than the last couple of Connery films (I don't count Never Say Never Again, it never happened, do not speak of it again).

Actually, if craig had even a bit of the charm of charisma of either Connery or Brosnan, this movie would best all but Connerys first four (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball), or perhaps even the first three (thunderball had great moments, but isn't exactly great when taken as a whole); though of course Craig can't hold a candle to Connery.

I like the leaner, more stripped down production, less gadgetry and gimmicks, more action, and more real James Bondfrom the books; I don't like Daniel Craig. I won't say he was awful, because he wasn't; but he wasn't great. Daniel Craig isn't a star, he's a good action man who worked cheap in comparison to Brosnan. I predict he will pull a Dalton here, and we'll see another Bond in two movies (the next movie is already in production).

Oh, and I saw another movie today; one that I wholeheartedly and without reservation will tell you you should go watch right now if you are any kind of fan of noir, or neo-noir of the Tarantino/Rodriguez variety.

Lucky Number Slevin. Go watch it right now. I'm not kidding.

A fitness progress report

Well, as of the 11th of this month, it was two months since we started our diet; and a month into our excercise program.

I've got pretty good news, and some not so great news.

The pretty good news? I've menaged to drop 40 lbs. I'm down from 425, to 385 as of this morning. I've actually seen as low as 377, and I've been floating up and down around 380-385 for about two weeks. I'm consistently dropping around 4 pounds a week, actually as much as seven and as little as one averaged out; which I'm pretty happy with.

Mel has had somewhat less dramatic results, she's down to about 210, and has pleateaued for a while. She's been losing 1-1.5 pounds a week average; with as much as 4lbs, and as little as even money, with no weight gain excluding water retention.

We're not hungry all the time, we're happy and satisfied with what we're eating, and we don't much feel like we're on a diet; certainly we don't feel deprived... though Mel is sometimes irritated because she cant give in to her cravings for candy.

Even better news, I've lost almost 7% bodyfat; which I'm THRILLED with (just another 25% or so to go...)

The not so great news?

Well, our excercise plan has hit a stall; or at least mine has anyway, as Mel hsan't settled on a routine.

I went camping two weeks back; and on the trip I managed to bugger up my knees a fair bit; so I've had to limit my excercise somewhat. I'm easing back into it now.

The weeks that I was excercising heavily were very dramatic in my tone, my energy levels etc... though my weight loss was reduced. I think that the significant bodyfat loss in that time period, is primarily from the heavy excercise weeks, which again I'm very happy about.

Now I just need to get back into the regular moderate excercise.

Happy Feet review

I love animated movies. I think 10 times more creativity and time goes into animated movies and it shows. I do however prescreen animated movies for my kids as I am a fan of anime (wonderfully done and usually bloody Japanese animation) and more “adult” cartoons. I now have another reason to prescreen my movies: Ferngully is no longer the worst indoctrinationist kids’ movie I have ever seen. Happy Feet is.

But first, the good parts. It’s gorgeous and extremely well done, and the voice acting is flawless.

The not so good is that for a certain age group, the movie is extremely inappropriate. For one thing, one premise of the movie is that penguins attract mates through their singing. A few songs chosen: “Kiss” by Prince (you don’t have to be beautiful to turn me on, I just need your body baby from dusk to dawn”, and “I’ll Make Love to You” by Boyz II Men. Yeah, slightly inappropriate there.

Now, the really bad.

At first, I thought the storyline was good. It was about a penguin (Mumble) who instead of sings (which he does badly), dances. For this he is shunned, and he eventually meets a group of penguins who accept him for this and actually think it’s kind of cool. I can deal with that kind of storyline.

But then Mumble returns to his colony, bringing his dancing buddies with him and subverting his fellow youth. The elders get really upset, because they think Mumble has created the new food shortage by offending the great Penguin God with his un-penguinlike dancing. Mumble doesn’t agree, so in order to prove it’s not his fault he goes in search of who is really causing the shortage of fish, which of course turns out to be overfishing by MAN.

He tries to chase the fishing trawlers but fails, and is spit up by the ocean onto a beach somewhere. He’s taken to an aquarium where he tries to talk to the humans but fails because they don’t speak “Penguin”. He eventually figures out that he can get the necessary attention with his dancing and the humans start “listening”. Somehow, by some miracle that the movie doesn’t explain, he is let back into the wild with a radio transmitter and finds his colony. He convinces all of them to dance to get the attention of the humans following his transmitter. The humans find him and the penguins dance for the humans who figure out, “oh, they’re trying to tell us something!” All of this is interspersed with film of real humans (very artfully done actually) and these real humans tape the dance and it gets sent around the world.

Because of this display of intelligence, the humans figure out the penguins are starving and due to overwhelming public support of the penguins’ cause, the U.N. BANS ALL FISHING, and eventually all eating of fish. And this is the great big happy ending, showing the penguins happily devouring THEIR fish.

Yes, it is and environmental nutjob and PETA wet dream. I wasn’t kidding.

Am I exaggerating? Unfortunately NO. I wish I was. I had high hopes for this movie. I’m just glad I pre-screened it before taking the kids.

Mel

Just call me Mel, everyone else does.

Tell it like it is

When Police Behave Criminally

I want you to watch something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3GstYOIc0I

This is one of the clearest examples of criminal misuse of "less lethal" force that I have ever seen.

I watched the video; the kid shouldn’t have been tasered. No way that was a justifiable use of force. The security officer didnt use any escalation protocol, and it seems to me (and this is me talking, I’m FOR sensible profiling) to be a clear case of profiling; combined with an overreacting undertrained campus cop.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe that the UC system campus cops are in fact sworn law offficers in California; and also that in order to lawfully carry a taser in California you have to be certified in it's use, including escalation of force training.

Actually, I believe the Cal state standard uses "continuum of force" training, which is intended to emphasize the de-escalation of conflict;in addition to minimizing the use and degree of force.

The proper response to a beligerent subject is to follow a force progression/escalation protocol. They vary from organization to organization, but would typically look something like this, in escalating order of threat/response:

1. Verbal
a. Polite command
b. Strong command
c. Close Physical presence and strong command (optional)
d. Moderate physical reinforcement of command (including a hand on a shoulder or something similar, optional)

2. Physical restraint, compliance, or control technique (arm bars, wrist locks etc...)
a. Restraint of a subject by hand
b. Use of a compliance device in a restraint, compliance, or control technique (come alongs, batons used for compliance)

3. Use of direct physical force to provoke complaince through pain, with or without a device (striking with a baton, striking sensitive areas of the anatomy etc...)

4. Use of a less lethal pain complaince device such as pepper spray, stun baton, or taser (
May be used in some protocols before the use of direct physical force such as batons)

5. Use of lethal force

Now, if officer safety is ever in question, it is acceptable to progress to a higher level of response; but it did not appear that either the officer was in any way threatened; nor, other than beligerence was the victim (and yes, that's what he was), non-compliant. He was exiting the building, and reacted beligerntly to the officer putting a hand on his arm; however this is not even close to grounds for the officer to feel threatened, or to escalate their response.

They tased the guy four more times while he was on the ground, and clearly presented no threat. Even if he was beligerent, repeated tasing was inappropriate. They could have very easily subdued him (by that time there were four officers completely surrounding him) and restrained him if they believed there was really a threat.

They repeatedly tased him for refusing to stand up; when in fact many people are unable to stand after being tased, and certainly after being tased repeadetdly.

Not only that; but if you believe someone is a threat, you do not order them to stand up when you have them surrounded and subdued (that would simply give them greater opportunity to injure an officer), you have them lie flat on their stomach with their hands clear, and you restrain them.

The officers then repeatedly told the victim to stand up, and stop fighting them. At no time was the victim physically fighting back, or threatening the officers; he was merely beligerent and non-compliant.

Even if it isn’t profiling; this guy has a serious Barney Pfife problem. He shouldnt be allowed anywhere near any kind of weapon.

Some security officers are taught that Tasering isn’t all that serious; if they’re taught anything at all. They are dead wrong.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/12/less-lethal.html

Less lethal force is never really a good option (it's there so you can avoid having to shoot someone, not simply for officer convenience); and because it’s “less lethal” or worse “non lethal”, lots of people think it’s acceptable to use it in situations that have not reached a significant level of force/compliance escalation.

Since the rise of electrical and chemical "less lethal" force response technologies and methodologies has become popularized (mainly in the last 15 years); the escalation of force beyond the verbal/simple restraint phase has skyrocketed. If this were simply because the "less lethal" technologies had given officers another option less serious than the use of a baton or a gun; then one would expect a corrseponding decrease in the use of those levels of force; however not only is there no decrease, there is a huge increase.

We grant the police a conditional monopoly in the use of legitimate force to enforce civil order; in exchange for the guarantee that they will behave lawfully, and enforce the law legitimately.

When the lawful representatives of the state excercise legitmate authority, they are protected under the law and by the full force of the state. When those agents act with no authority, or illegitmate authority, they are no longer granted the protection of the cloak of state.

These officers should be stripped of the protections offered them by the state; and should be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon. Quite simply, what they did was criminal; and it should be treated as such.

Yes, I know cops have a hard job. I train cops all the time, and I have quite a few cops in my family. Yes I know that they put their safety, and their wellbeing on the line every day. Yes I know they get huge amounts of stress and aggravation from the worst people in the world, who they deal with every day.

None of that excuses criminal behavior; or treating every person they meet like a criminal, or like the enemy.

The police have a monopoly on legitimate force against civil crimes; but when that force, or the authority they use that force with is illegitmate, they have commited a crime themselves; and they must be punished for it.

Quis custodiet ipso custodes?

Godspeed Milton

Milton Friedman, perhaps the most important economist of the 20th century after Hayek, and Von Mises; has passed on today from heart failure at the age of 94.

Though I don't fully subscribe to his monetarist and NAIRU theories; he was one of the most significant and influential proponents of free market economics ever; and certainly of this century. His thoughts on the nature of income and consumer choice are I think among the most important economic insights into behavior patterns and markets.

"I am a libertarian with a small l and a Republican with a capital R. And I am a Republican with a capital R on grounds of expediency, not on principle; but I think the term classical liberal is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person."

Happiness found in an unexpected place

Wow, life has been odd lately.

It feels like I haven't posted anything in ages, and there is a reason for that. I've been a bit busy preparing a court case, getting ready for Christmas, and generally getting things done. I am, in other words, completing my transformation into a Catholic housewife. There is, however, one problem with the situation

No one warned me this life would be so good.

I know writing about things going well isn't nearly as interesting, but this is honestly something that I don't think gets enough press. Being a full-time wife/mother/member of the community is far more pleasing and rewarding than any leftist/feminist/metrosexual would have you believe.

Granted, I am lucky in that I have Chris and friends to help take the load off when I need it, and I am grateful that Chris's income more than covers our expenses so I can DO this. However over the past couple of months I've met more women like me who make do with much less, and are just as happy with their circumstances, if not more because they don't have spiteful ex-husbands and court cases to deal with.

Forget what everyone learned in the 80's and 90's, that money is power and money is the only truly "fulfilling" pursuit. Money is a tool to alleviate worry, nothing else.

Over the past couple of months I have almost completely taken on the lifestyle of a Catholic housewife. I've been taking care of the household and my usual duties taking care of the family, participating and helping in church and school functions, and being a better mother than I have ever been. I've been doing something far more fulfilling than any work I've ever done, I've been raising my kids and involving myself in the community. And it's been GREAT.

Has there been any monetary reward for all of this work? Well, no, unless you count the money I save by not working elsewere. The rewards are much more intangible amd incalculable.

Now my mother was a stay-at-home mom until I reached grade school, and when I originally stopped working I thought my life would be more like hers. Except my parents were always short on money, and for some reason short on friends, and I always considered my mom's time staying at home to be a rather lonely and stressful affair. I couldn't understand why all of these "overly religious" full time mothers were so happy. I honestly thought they must have been brainwashed. Now I know better.

What a stay-at-home mom with a religious community nearby gains is incalculable. And when I say community, I really mean it. What is gained by having multiple families who send their kids to the same school, go to the same church, and engage in the same charity work together is a sense of community I've never had before. Even in the small town where I lived (and my parents still do) the community isn't nearly as tight knit. I now understand why the Amish and Quakers are so happy with their life; it's the same concept, and the same feeling of belonging. It doesn't matter how you feel about their beliefs, there is something to be said for the lifestyle.

Religion isn't even a necessary part of the lifestyle. The sense of community I get through helping the school and getting to know the other parents is immensely gratifying. We all have something in common, that we're sending kids the same age to a private school and we're all heavily involved in our kids' education, and therefore everyone else's kids' education. That alone ties us together in a way I never experienced in a public school. If I had to work as well, I would miss all of these opportunities to get involved and miss the community as well.

Do I think more women should take on this sort of lifestyle? If they can handle it and their spouses can handle it, yes. But it's not for everyone. That being said, I don't think enough good things could ever be said about how fulfilling the life of a full-time mom and member of the community can be. For decades the media has told us that stay-at-home moms are downtrodden and miserable. And like in most things, the media is wrong. I'm not downtrodden or miserable, and I've never been happier.

Mel

Just call me Mel, everyone else does.

Second Half Predictions

Okay, other than that completely inexplicably bad performance against the Jets, and the total domination of the Vikings (I was expecting a much closer, hard fought game), the pats are about where I expected for the season so far.

At the beginning of the year, I predicted at best a 14-2 season, and most likely a 12-4 season; well three of those four losses are down already, so let's take a look at the rest of the season:

1. @Green Bay - Likely win
2. Chicago - Likely loss
3. Detroit - Almsot certain win
4. @Miami - Almost certain win
5. Houston - Almost certain win
6. @Jacksonville - Likely win, but a tough game
7. @Tennessee - Almost certain win

So again I stick by my likely 12-4 prediction; barring another Jets type debacle. Brady really needs to get his head back in the game, and stop making those turnovers.

Now as to the playoff picture; things are certainly intereting in the AFC, with Indy remaining undefeated going in to week 10; and a three way tie for second place between Baltimore, Denver, and San Diego (the pats are in 3rd/5th behind the tied teams).

I had predicted good things from Baltimore and Denver this year; but SD was a surprise to me.

Looking at schedules and records, It would surprise me very much if this wasn't pretty close to the playoff picture for the year; with the second wildcard slot being uncertain at this point.

Baltimore and Indy have pretty much clinched their division championship; either Denver or San Diego are mathematically certain to take the west division leaving the other to fight for wildcard; with the Patriots are likely to take the east. It 's possible the Jets could make a comeback, with the easiest second half schedule in football; but it's unlikely they are going to win all seven of their remaining games (especially against chicago this week); which is likely what they'd have to do to beat New England.

The Denver/San Diego games this week and on the tenth are likely to decide that division title; with the losers fighting for the first wildcard; because it's entirely possible both teams will win all their other games for the year. It could even end up in a tie, in which case Denver would win the tiebreaker.

The second wildcard picture is wide open; or even both slots, if SD loses both it's games to the Broncs (which I dont think is likely). The Jets, the Chiefs, and Jacksonville all seem like reasonable prospects; with the playoff cutoff for this year likely to be 10-6 or 11-5. My money is on San Diego and the Jets being the wildcards, but a lot could happen in the next seven weeks.

As to the eventual results of the playoffs; god only knows. If the playoff picture looks like New England, Indy, Baltimore, and Denver, with San Diego and New York in the wildcards, as seems entirely likely; the AFC championship race is wide open. Of course Indy is heavily favored to be in that game, but between the rest I dont think there are any clear competitive advantages or disadvantages; and it really comes down to any given Sunday, with maybe a slight edge to New England, and Denver.

All in all, a pretty exciting year for the AFC.

The NFC is a complete mess; as it has been since the downfall of the Cowboys in the late 90s.
Who would have thought at the beginning of the season that the Giants, Bears, Saints, and Seahawks would all be leading their divisions?

Ok, I predicted a good performance this year from Chicago and Seattle, and I thought the Giants could be strong contenders if they got their act together, but the current parity (excepting CHicago), is pretty interesting.

Even more interesting, is the Saints. They are historically the worst team in the NFL; but this year they are just on fire.

It seems likely that the division leaders right now, will finish that way; with Atlanta, Carolina, Philly, and Dallas duking it out for wildcard slots. I was hoping for more from Philly and Dallas this season, but I don't think they're going to hang together for the rest of the season, and I'm guessing we're going to see Atlanta and Carolina in the hotseats.

As to the championship game? Well I'd love to see Saints Bears; but I jsut don't think the Saints will sustain this momentum through the playoffs. The bears on the other hand I'm almsot certain will. Really though, I can't predict their opponent at all.

Now, who wouldn't love to see a Patriots Bears superbowl again? Though I think the result may be a bt different this time. I wouldn't say it would definitely be a patriots win, though I honestly think the Pats are the better team (they've just got tougher competition so the record isn't as good); but I can damn sure guarantee it wouldn't be a 46-10 blowout.

The "top ten" battle rifles huh?

So, I'm watching the military channel; and the "Top Ten Military Rifles" comes on. This went around the gunblogs a few months back, but I never got to see it, so I didn't comment.

Well, I'm watching it now, let's see how they do.

First thing, the presentation is unbearably cheesy; and while some of their experts really are (William Atwater was one of their primary experts, and he's the curator of the national military small arms museum for example); some of them are most definitely not (random Canadian journalists).

They're rating each rifle by the following criteria

1. Accuracy
2. Combat effectiveness
3. Innovation
4. Handling
5. Service length

Unfortunately they provide no explanation for the ratings they have given; or the standards by which they are judging, so these data points are not very meaningful.

We'll just live blog this as we go.

10. M14:
Accuracy: Excellent
Combat effectiveness: Excellent
Innovation: Average
Handling: Average
Service length: Very Low

Well, if you only count the original service life I suppose you can say it's low (only 8 years), but if you recognize the fact that the weapon has been in continuous (if limited) service since 1956...

The rest of the ratings I have no trouble with (the rifle as originally issued is a bit long and heavy; but in more recent variants I would say handling becomes excellent); I'd simply rate the rifle much higher in the list of great rifles.

Oh, and I think properly, the M1 garand, BM59, and M14 should all be grouped together.

9. Stg44:
Accuracy: Poor
Combat effectiveness: Excellent
Innovation: Very High
Handling: Average
Service length: Very Low

Yup, the very first assault rifle; and definitely a milestone, but honestly it's not that great a weapon. It paved the way for a LOT of great weapons though, and should be recognized, but above the M14?

The weapon itself had mediocre accuracy; not much in the way of killing power, and was fiddly to manufacture, and maintain.

Of course it also led pretty much directly to the AK47, so...


8. 1903 Springfield:
Accuracy: Excellent
Combat effectiveness: Low
Innovation: Low
Handling: Low
Service length: Very high

The grandaddy of modern US battle rifles; and one of the most successful Mauser variants; but it IS a Mauser variant, and as such I don't think it should be taken as it's own design. To my mind, it should be grouped in with the Mauser 98 and its derivatives; AND they collectively should be listed as the number one battle rifle of all time.

As to their ratings, WTF are they smoking rating combat effectiveness low? Yes, it's a bolt action rifle and as such you can't use suppressive volume fire (as an individual rifleman anyway), but I don't know very many well trained riflemen who would consider themselves poorly armed with an '03. Worse, rating the '03s handling as low? No, just flat out wrong.

7. Steyr AUG:
Accuracy: Average
Combat effectiveness: Very good
Innovation: Very High
Handling: Excellent
Service length: Low

The first widely successful bullpup; but I won't hold that against it. I think the entire concept of the bullpup as a general issue weapon is flawed; but the AUG is an excellent weapon. It's well made, accurate, reliable and durable, versatile... really the only faults I find with it are in ergonomics; and that's a LOOOONG discussion that I've already covered elsewhere.

Lest anyone think I'm an anti-bullpup bigot; let me say again, I think the Steyr AUG is an excellent weapon; I just think the bullpup concept as a whole is not a very good idea; except in those applications where minimum length is a high priority.

As to their ratings, I don't know where they got their rating ideas from. One of the best things about the AUG, is it's accuracy. Also, it handles better than any other bullpup I've tried, excepting the odd trigger.

Oh, and it's also seen fairly limited deployment and use around the world; so it's track record is somewhat limited for me to consider it a "great battle rifle".

6. Mauser 98K:
Accuracy: Excellent
Combat effectiveness: Average
Innovation: Very High
Handling: Average
Service length: Very High

Honestly, as I said before; I think all the Mauser variants should be grouped together and then collectively rated as the greatest battle rifle of all time.

Simply in terms of impact, the Mauser 98 alone should be declared number one; even without collecting all the variants together.


5. FN FAL:
Accuracy: Average
Combat effectiveness: Average
Innovation: High
Handling: Average
Service length: Very High

The first of the modern black rifles to see wide deployment, the FAL is a truly excellent weapon; though it has some ergonomic oddities, and is a HEAVY SOB.

Reliable, accurate, widely distributed with TONS of parts available... really the only problems with it are the weight, the sometimes clunky operating controls, the difficulty of controlling it in full auto (common to almost all 7.62x51 weapons), and the issue of inch vs. metric guns.

Oh, and rating the FAL as just average in combat effectiveness? No, I don't think so.

4. M1 Garand:
Accuracy: Good
Combat effectiveness: Excellent
Innovation: High
Handling: Good
Service length: Average

The first widely deployed, successful, full power semi-auto battle rifle; and the weapon that in the main won the infantry war of WW2. Described as the "finest battle implement ever devised by man".

There's only a few issues with the gun. First, the en bloc clips work; but they aren't the worlds greatest solution. Second, the gun is long and heavy. Third, they are just a bit ammo sensitive, in that very hot rounds can bend the op rod and bind the weapon up, and not hot enough rounds wont cycle reliably.

As to their ratings, I would say the accuracy of the M1 is excellent; and the service length was from 1936 to 1954 officially, and there were M1s being used by our allies all the way 'til the 70s, so that should be rated higher.

3. SMLE:
Accuracy: High
Combat effectiveness: High
Innovation: Average
Handling: High
Service length: Very Long

One of the best bolt action rifles every deployed; reliable, accurate, slick and smooth, and with a 10rd. magazine. The same basic pattern of gun stayed in service from the 1895 until 1956, and all the way until the 1970s in some variants.

Honestly; a well trained infantry company armed with Enfields can manage almost the same rate of aimed fire as modern semi-autos.

The only rating I'd change here is moving combat effectiveness from high, to excellent.

2. M16:
Accuracy: High
Combat effectiveness: High
Innovation: High
Handling: High
Service length: Long

I'm a big fan of the Stoner AR system and it's variants; though I prefer the 7.62x51 variants to the M16. I've trained with and carried an AR variant, I've owned many of them, I think they are excellent rifles; for all their faults.

The 5.56x45n cartridge on the other hand... well that's just not on, but hey. Of course it also means you can carry twice as many rounds, and control the gun during full auto better. Tradeoffs are what they are.

The gas system is of course the second biggest point of contention; and yes, it is higher maintenance than an op-rod or tappet based system; but they are nowhere near as bad as the haters of the system (and that hate is amazingly hyperbolic; and mostly, though not entirely unjustified) would have you believe.

The current issue with the rifle, to my mind, is that they are issuing a short barreled carbine with a marginal cartridge (and a marginal loading of that cartridge) as a general purpose rifle; when they should be issuing a full barreled rifle with a more effective chambering, or at the very least a more effective loading of the primary chambering.

I can definitely see it in the top five on this list, but not number two.

As to their ratings, I would say the accuracy and handling are excellent, but otherwise I don't much disagree.

1. AK-47:
Accuracy: Average
Combat effectiveness: Excellent
Innovation: Excellent
Handling: Excellent
Service length: Very Long

Dead simple, dead reliable, easy to manufacture (you can make one in your garage with sheetmetal, basic tools, and a basic parts kit fer chrissakes)...

There is no more widely distributed rifle in the world (though the Mosin Nagant is up there); and I would venture to guess that no individual cartridge firing small arm has killed more people (take that as you will). It just plain works.

To my mind, it's the second greatest battle rifle of all time.

Now, as to their ratings though, I think they are all off. The rifle is clunky to handle, heavy, very inaccurate, and not particularly innovative.

Ok, so what are MY choices?

First, we need to refine the parameters here:

Assuming we limit this list to modern cartridge based battle and assault rifles and carbines, that were widely issued either by a large military, or by multiple small militaries; and assuming we exclude full light machine guns and machine rifles like the SAW and the BAR, and sniper/special operations only weapons, what's my list?

1. Mauser 98 and variants (including the '03 Springfield)
2. AK47 and variants
3. M1 and variants, including the BM59 and M14
4. AR-10/15 system and variants
5. Lee Enfield and variants
6. FAL
7. HK G series, and variants (including the CETME)
8. Winchester lever action repeating rifles, all variants (other than the 1895, the post Henry rifle/carbine models are similar enough to be taken as one; and I think the '95 should be included as well)
9. Mosin Nagant and variants
10. Stoner AR-18 system, and variants (including hybrids of the 18 and other designs, like the FNC and SIG rifles; and those actions based on the design, of which there are dozens)

The Swiss K30 and 31 are incredible rifles; but they weren't very widely used or issued, or it would have replaced the Winchester up there.

A lot of people have their own favorite issued boltie; but I'll be you that almost all of them are a variant of one of the rifles listed above; presuming we are adhering to the restrictions listed. There are maybe a half dozen widely issued, and effective, military bolt action rifles that aren't a variant of one of those listed for example.

There are a LOT of really great rifles out there, that I don't consider for the list because of a lack of wide deployment, or very short service life, because they violate my restrictions (like the BAR, or Remington M700), or because they are essentially a variant of one of the designs I listed.

I don't think I missed any of the "best battle rifles" ever, based on my criteria and restrictions, but if you can think of something, remind me.

Actually, they got three of their own questions wrong

You paid attention during 100% of high school!

85-100% You must be an autodidact, because American high schools don't get scores that high! Good show, old chap!

Do you deserve your high school diploma?
Create a Quiz

I know, because the first time I took it; it said I only got 86%, so I went back and looked at the three I thought they had wrong, I changed the answer to the ones I thought they wanted to hear; and I got 100%.

Also, they figured their percentages wrong; or rather they more likely rounded improperly, which is a common programming mistake.

I'll give you one of them: Yes, in fact Columbuses ships DID land in North America in 1492. They landed in the Carribbean, then Hispaniola and Cuba, in October of 1492. All of those places are by traditional continental grouping, in North America; unless you take the communist revisionist position that Hispaniola, Haiti, and Cuba are not in North America, but in fact are either their own special area, or are part of South America (to set them up in opposition to American interests).

Yes, I'm aware that geologically those islands are not part of the North American plate; however for 400 years before we figured that out, the islands were included in NA; and politically should be.

Happy Anniversary Honey

So Saturday was our anniversary; and Mel hates jewelry and impractical gifts (she feels guilty about wasting the money), so I decided to go a little bit of a different direction from the traditional anniversary gifts.

They were at least packed in paper... cardboard is paper after all; and the back of my expedition was completely full of the stuff.

The big thing was one of these:

But instead of six chairs, we got four chairs, and one of these:

Also, we have a lot more stuff than we have shelving and storage space, so we also picked up some book cases, including 3 of these:
Except in the shorter (countertop height) birch version.

We also grabbed one of these in birch, to act as a room divider in our overlong living room:
The picture doesnt really show what it looks like very well: it's just under 32" high, and about five feet long; so it should act both as storage, and as a good divider.

Along with those, we grabbed extra shelves for our existing utility shelves, and our other book cases.

We also alleviated our massive workspace shortage (every horizontal surface in our house becomes a vertical surface pretty quick); by picking up two basic utility table/desks, one 4 foot by 3 foot; one 6.5 foot by 2 foot.
Finally, we picked up a replacement mattress. We had originally gone for a lower end Sealy; but when I went to the warehouse to pick it up they had a couple of higher end Sealy, extra thick, extra firm innersprings with sewn in memory foam toppers on closeout; originally $800, marked down to $500, and I walked out the door with one for $485, with tax.

Let me tell you, this mattress is a dream, no pun intended. In just a couple days of sleeping on this mattress my back pain has gone WAY down. The thing is both twice as firm as the old mattress, and twice as soft (and twice as thick). If you understand the difference between firmness and hardness, thats a VERY big deal.

I HATE pillowtops, and generally I hate foam toppers (even the sewn in ones); but honestly this is the second most comfortable mattress I ever slept on (the most was a special belgian orthopedic luxury mattress I owned when I lived in CA, but it cost $3000).

The best thing is, through the wonder of eil globalization, and the exploitation of third world workers and resources (which they are thoroughly glad for by the way, since it's more money than they could possibly make any other way); I was able to pick up all of this for a very low four digit number.

No, it's not heirloom quality stuff; but it will suffice until I have the time to make our own from good hardwoods; and THAT WILL be heirloom quality.

I learned to build furniture in my first real job, restoring and refinishing antique furniture in my uncle Carls refinishing shop. My work is certainly far better than Thomasville or Ethan Allen type crap for one fifth the cost; and I get the satisfaction of knowing my family is eating off the table I made with my own hands (plus it means I get to buy all the tools I want to make them).

In the mean time, this will do just fine.

I have jsut this to say about the patriots and jets

FUUUUUCK!!!!!

Two Minutes...

Just called up my dad

Reading Johns tribute... I jsut called up my dad, thanked him for fighting, and for not dying. Thanked him because I don't have to toast to his honor and his absence.

Last year I thanked some of my friends and family on this blog, let me do so again:

Thank you Dad (USA '66-'74 SFC) - a 15 year old Irish immigrant with a forged birth certificate; grew up on the streets, but became both a citizen, and a man in the Army. Almost 9 years in, almost all of it in SF, and almost all of that in SEA. By the end he was broken, and he only recently put himself together again. I love you dad.

Thank you uncle Patrick (USN '68-72 GM3) - My fathers brother, who spent most of those years sending steel over the coast of VN.

Thank you uncle Brian (USMC, '79-87 SSgt. USANG '88-92 SFC) - My mothers brother, who fought the war we pretended didn't happen in the phillipines, and then again in the gulf.

Thank you Ben (USA '97 - 2001, Cpl, Inf, Rgr, 3rdBt. 75th rgt.) - Lead the way, then lead his family.

Thank you cousin Jesse (USN, '97 - present, UDT, BM1) - Only one thing he ever wanted in life, to be a SEAL. He got his wish, and he's off god knows where doing god knows what; and couldn't be happier.

Thank you cousin Johnathan (USN 2001 - present, MM2 ) - dropped out of college after 9/11 to join the Navy, because in his own words, it was the right thing to do for his country.

To everyone still serving, good luck and god speed.

A Pittance of Time

Thanks John, for writing this

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006656.html

I read it while listening to the linked Terry Kellys "A Pittance of Time"... and I was crying long before I was done.

In Rememberence...

It is now the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, at Compiegne...

Today is three things:

First, it is Mel and my first anniversary.

Second, it is Veterans Day.

Third, it is Rememberence Day, or Armistice Day

In America, Memorial Day is for the dead, and Veterans Day is for the living. As such, first I wish to give thanks.

I thank all of you, still serving to defend out country; and those of our friends and allies; and those who are fighting to preserve freedom, liberty, justice, and humanity.

May god bless you and keep you.

I thank all of you who have served in the past; for the risks you have taken, and the sacrifices you have made.

It was over twelve years ago that I first put on my countries uniform. It was almost five years ago that I wore it last. Every day I miss it; every day I feel guilty I'm not still out there with my friends and my brothers.

But... today is also my anniversary; and it would not be if I had not changed my course, and I don't regret what has brought me here. I love my wife, and my children more than I can possibly imagine; or possibly express to you. Actually, I'm writing this now, because for the rest of the day, I want to spend as much time as possible with Mel.

Finally, today is Remembrance Day (sometimes known as Armistice day); celebrating the moment that the first great war of the last century was ended; in the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of the year of our lord nineteen hundred and eighteen.

On this day I also give thanks; for those who laid down their lives, and for those who lived; to keep Europe free.

Eighty eight years gone, and still every year we mark this day (though in America we reserve Memorial day for our dead, from all wars).

Rememberance day though; it still means something here as Armistice day; and it most certainly still means something around the world.. for now; for as long as the people remember... which I hope shall be always, but I fear shall be for not much longer.

Why is it called poppy day?

Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Russia... and on the other side Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary (and the remains of the holy roman empire), Turkey (and the other ottomans)... an entire generation of young men in Europe were lost to the most futile, worst run war, in modern history.

In four years, 18 million men died (or went missing, which is mostly the same thing), and 22 million men were wounded.

In fact, europe has never recovered from this greatest of historical mistakes. It was the direct aftermath of world war one that lead to world war two; which created the postmodern european culture that is slowly being destroyed from without and within by self hatred, depression, defeatism, socialism, and islamic fascism...

But I digress; I was talking about why it is called poppy day.

Flanders is a region of Belgium; where the fighting in the great war was at it's worst, along with Walloon, and northern France. The worst battles of the war were at Ypres, the Marne, the Somme, and Verdun.

At Verdun alone, the British lost 20,000 dead in one single day; and the allied forces (mostly British) lost 120,000 dead, and over 375,00 wounded total; with 100,000 dead and 350,000 wounded on the German side. The battle lasted from February 21st, til December 19, 1916. Almost ten solid months of the most brutal trench warfare ever seen; and nothing to show for it but blood, and mud.

Perhaps 200,000 total dead at the Marne (1st and 2nd), perhaps 50,000 at Ypres, Perhaps 300,000 total dead at the Somme... the bloodiest battle of the war, though Verdun had the bloodiest day; and nothing to show for it but blood and mud.

There was an amazing thing though; that blood, and that mud... it became magnificently fertile soil; and soon after the fighting ended, all over these horrific battlefields, poppies began to bloom.

In the first great war; as had been tradition for most of western history; those killed in battle were buried in the fields where they fell. Their memorials were raised there; a tribute to those who fought and died, and a reminder to those who did not.

And there, in Flanders and Walloon, and in France, and in Luxembourg; there lay an entire generation of men. Millions upon millions of white crosses, millions upon millions of unmarked graves in farmers fields; surrounded by millions upon millions of poppies.

A symbol of life, of blood, of the fight for liberty and freedom. The poppies among those men who died were taken up; first by the French and the Belgians, then the Canadians and British and Americans.

Today, the poppy is a symbol of rememberance; expressed best perhaps by this poem:

In Flanders Fields
--Lt. Col. John McCrae, M.D. (1872-1918)
Royal Canadian Army

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Today, I say, do not break faith with those who have died; those who have fought, and laid down their lives for freedom, for liberty, for humanity. Do not make them rest uneasy. Do not give up this fight for our civilization; for our lives.

I do not wish to see the poppies bloom once more in Flanders fields; but I fear that is the fate of our world, should we not stay the course...

Oh, and today is one more thing. Fittingly, it is also the day of the feast of St. Martin; a soldier who retired from the life of war, and became a man of peace. A veteran, who embodied the truism, "A warriors fondest prayer, is for peace".

Aww HELL YEAH!

The Green Berets, followed by Patton.

Patton was born November 11th in fact, tomorrow would have been his 121st birthday.

Damn I feel a powerful urge to kill somthing ;-)

1, 2, 3, 4, Happy Birthday Marine Corps

For all I make fun of them (and god knows I do), and for all their ooh-rah sometimes irritates me, I love Marines. D'you know why? Because they well and truly believe in five words:

Semper Fidelis

and

Improvise, Adapt, Overcome

Let me tell you something; with the belief in those five words, a motivated individual can do anything humanly possible, and some things that just shouldn't be; and a motivated team can do even more than that.

The Marine Corps Hymn

From the Halls of Montezuma
to the Shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country's battles
On the land as on the sea.
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean,
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.

Our flag's unfurl'd to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun.
In the snow of far-off northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes,
You will find us always on the job
The United States Marines.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve.
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

Reposted from this day last year

Screw Rumsfeld or Gates...

TONY STARK FOR
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

I wholeheartedly support this plan

Yep

The Coming Depression in Arizona

So, last night four ballot measures passed, which will serve to almost guarantee a major economic down turn in the state of Arizona.

Prop 201 effectively bans smoking in all public places in this state. Any restaurant, bar, or workplace effectively.

Prop 202 raises the minimum wage in Arizona to $6.75, AND even worse, index links it to cost of living; which means the minimum wage here is going to go up 2-5% every year.

Those two propositions right there are going to put thousands of Arizona bars and restaurants out of business; and tens of thousands of service workers out of work. Then there's the convenience stores and gas stations that will be closing... the list goes on.

Prop 203 adds an $0.80 tax to all cigarette packs, to pay for "universal pre-school" for the children of Arizona. Of course it also creates a huge, unelected commission to administer this, and a new bureaucracy surrounding it, and hundreds of new government jobs etc... etc...

Proposition 204, would require every livestock owner in the state to rebuild all their livestock pens and stalled to be larger. Yes, every farmer, every pen.

This of course is going to put many of those farms out of business; and will almost certainly cause those that aren't bankrupted by the change to fire large numbers of their staff; combined with the minimum wage increase which is likely to do the same.

Combine that with the democrats taking control of congress, and possibly the senate nationally (there's a strong republican majority in both houses in this state); and I predict a HUGE economic downturn in Arizona in the next two years.

Aaaaaaaargh

So, as of right now, it looks like the democrats (counting the two so called "independents" as democrats), have captured the house with a 25-30 vote majority (there are still at least 7 statistical ties to resolve, and at least a few recounts to happen), and are currently in a dead heat for control of the senate at 49-49 with two ties as yet unresolved.

It would seem the most likely result in the house is (D)234-(R)201, give or take one or two seats; and in the senate it seems entirely likely that there is going to be a 50-50 tie; with at most a 2 vote majority either way.

Of course a 50-50 tie would leave the senate in republican control, just barely, because of VP Cheneys role as president of the senate, but that's not exactly reassuring.

I forsee a huge number of vetos in the next two years; perhaps more than any presidents since Johnson, or Jackson.

The democrats gaining control of the house is a very bad thing for the country in general; as they are now going to attempt to forece every hare brained far left bullshit scheme, invesitgation, inquiry... hell maybe even an impeachment hearing, down our throats.

If the Republicans can maintain control of the senate, that will mitigate almost all of the negatives; but will basically jsut result in total grid lock.

Now, some folks have been sayign they think gridlock is a good thing; and in some ways they are right; but deals are made, and things happen that really need to be addressed (military budgest for example) that need action, and it's going to be very difficult to get the right thing done with democrats in control of the house.

If they get the senate as well; well all we can do is hold on tight, and watch as Bush vetos everything possible; because there is no way the dems will get enough votes for an override.

Why did this happen?

Well, what it comes down to, is that a lot of republicans decided not to vote; and pretty much every democrat made sure everyone they knew didnt.

I don't so much think it was a referndum on Bush however; as it was a statement of general dissatisfaction with the last 2 years of republican performance as a whole. I don't think the scandals had much to do with it, but as a commenter on a previous post said, they all suck so I'm staying home; and apparently a lot of other folks felt the same way.

Personally, I think those folks are idiots for ding so, because the damage one liberal congress can do can take decades to roll back; but the one thing it SHOULD do, is kick the republicans in the ass and get them to start acting like republicans again, not jsut democrats with better posture and worse haircuts.

Now, that said; I think this is pretty bad for the deomcrats as a whole; because they are going to spend the next two years being petty, scheming, conniving, slimy, bastards; and they're going to do it as the majority, so they can't amke any excuses this time.

If they had stayed out of the majority, they could have spent the next two years blaming everything on the republicans; and by then enough people might believe them to actually do something in 2008 with a democratic presidential candidate, and a bunch of coattail riders in the house and senate.

As it is; I think they've effectively killed whatever chance they had of winning in 2008. I would expect a HUGE anti democratic backlash to build up in jsut the next two years as they very publicly screw up an already screwed up situation; and they can try as much as they want to blame it on Bush and the republicans, but it jsut won't stick.

Of course, I'm still buying all the guns I can afford next year; as early as possible in the year, and all the magazines and all the ammo etc...

Why Not a Wheelgun?

I’ve written quite a bit before about carrying, and using revolvers for self defense.

Carrying Revolvers
The “first handgun” question
The “One Gun” game
Getting serious about home defense
Basic Ammo Questions
Serious Chamberings for Serious Purposes

My wife carries a revolver on a regular basis; and I WOULD if I had a suitable revolver for carry.

At the moment the only revolvers we own are a Ruger SP101 (my wifes carry piece), and a Smith and Wesson 625, that I use as my field carry piece; but I deeply regret that state of affairs, and intend to rectify it as soon as possible.

Although I am a huge fan of the 1911 type pistol, the Browning Hi-Power, and the pistols from CZ, SIG and HK (I like Glocks professionally, but personally don't care for them); I almost always recommend a revolver to people for their first gun, for their only handgun, for woods and hiking carry… pretty much any application where flatness or ammo capacity aren’t the most important considerations.

The “Serious” revolver chamberings; .357 magnum, .41 magnum, .44Spl and Magnum, .45 colt and the like; are in general more effective than the chamberings offered in auto pistols of equivalent size (excepting the 10mm); and the larger revolver chambering like .454 .460 and.500 can do far more than any auto pistol chambering (excepting perhaps .50ae and .45win mag); so when flatness isn’t the primary concern, a revolver can often be a better way to go.

I personally plan on purchasing a Smith and Wesson 340pd as a pocket carry piece, replacing (or maybe supplementing) the KelTec P3AT that rides there every day. The 340 is just as light as the KelTec (loaded), it uses a far more effective cartridge (I’d take 5 rounds of hot .38 spl +p+ or mild .357 mag over 7 rounds of .380 any day)… really the only disadvantage is that it is a fair bit thicker, at 1.3 inches vs .77 inches.

Of course that’s also comparing it against the thinnest gun on the market. For comparison purposes let’s look at a common subcompact carry auto pistol, the Glock 30, at 1.27” .

Not just for pocket carry; I also highly recommend the medium frame .357 revolver in 2-4” barrel lengths for concealed carry as well; and both the medium, and large framed revolvers in the above mentioned “serious chamberings” for open carry, and woods carry.

A lot of people think of revolvers as bulky or unwieldy, but that just is not true at all. If they think that, it’s because they don’t have the right experience with the right guns.

There are three pictures in this post. The first, is a Smith and Wesson 686p, in my hand, with the topstrap aligned with the edge of my hand an dthe muzzle with the tip of my fing.

The second is that same 686p in a size comparison against my daily carry automatic, my Custom 1911.

The third is the 686p in a size comparison against my small (very small) 9mm carry automatic, a Kahr K9.

The 686, is a full framed (S&W L frame, which is an “extra medium” frame) 7 shot .357 magnum revolver. This particular model has a 2.5” barrel (equivalent to a 3.7” barrel on a .45 auto pistol, because auto pistol barrel length is counted from the breech face, while revolver barrel length is counted from the forcing cone) and an ergonomic rubber grip which extends perhaps a bit more than 1/2” below the butt of the frame. This same gun is (or was) available in 3”, 4”, 6” 7” and 8” barrelled models.

The 1911 is a commander length Springfield champion, carrying 8+1 rounds of .45 acp; and as a commander, the barrel and slide are a bit less than an inch shorter than a full size 1911, which many people carry every day.

The Kahr K9 is an all steel compact carry gun, holding 7+1 rounds of 9mm.

Now, you’ll note that the 686 doesn’t extend all that far outside the edges of my hand. In the second picture, which was taken with the muzzles and topstraps of the guns lined up, you’ll also note the 1911 is longer in the slide and barrel area, and the 686 is only longer in the butt area, and more protruding in the trigger guard. If a more compact concealment grip had been fitted to the 686, the guns would have been effectively the same size (trading the hump on the back corner for the hump on the inside corner). The 4” model of 686 would only be about 1/2” longer than the commander, and in fact would be about 1/2” shorter than a full sized 1911.

In the third picture, again the muzzles and topstraps are aligned; and the upper half of the full sized .357 revolver, is exactly the same length as the very compact concealed carry piece; and in fact the revolver has the longer barrel. The size difference here comes entirely in the butt of the gun. Again, with a concealment grip, that size difference would be much smaller.

Now, look at the shape of the butt on the revolver, vs the shape of the auto pistols butts; and think of your own hip. Which one would conform more naturally to your bodys contours? Which one would be less noticeable under clothing, especially with concealment grips? Which one is thicker or more angular, or has more sharp edges?

Now look at the shape of your hand, and the shape of the revolver, and of the auto pistol. Which one do you think might fit your hand better?

Right, it’s the revolver.

Ok, what about weight? Revolvers are heavy right?

Well, my 1911 weighs 36oz empty, and 44 ounces loaded and chambered with 8+1 .45acp (mine is about 2oz heavier than a standard commander because I have rubber grips and a mag well). The 2.5” 686 weighs 34.5oz empty and 38 oz loaded with 7 rounds of .357 magnum. A full size 1911 weighs about four ounces more, and a 4” 686p weighs about 3.5oz more for 46oz and 41.5oz loaded weight respectively. The 4” 686p loaded, is actually lighter than either the commander or full size 1911.

Then of course there's the 686ps lighter cousin the 386 mountain light; which is essentially the same gun as the 686p; but has a 3-1/8" barrel (effectively the same as a commander), and only weighs 18.5oz empty, and 220z loaded. With that barrel and grip it's a half inch shorter than a full size 1911, and maybe 1/4" taller; but it's also 24 full ounces lighter. In fact, you could carry TWO of the 386s for the same weight as a full size 1911 (I used to own one of these, and I deeply regret selling it).

Really, the only areas where a revolver isn’t at least as good a carry choice as an automatic, are thickness, and ammo capacity.

Well now, I don’t know about you; but 7 rounds of full power .357 magnum does not leave me feeling under armed as compared to 8+1 rounds of .45acp, or 7+1 rounds of 9mm… but that’s just me.

What about reload speed? Speed strips are relatively fast and very concealable; speedloaders are faster and a little less concealable; and moon clips are actually faster than most magazine fed autoloaders to reload (with practice), though still a bit less concealable.

Ok, what about accuracy, and speed of fire?

Two words, Jerry Miculek.

Jerry is the fastest handgun shooter ever; unofficially besting Ed McGiverns speed shooting records (also with a revolver) using a Smith and Wesson 625 (coincidentally I have one of them), a reolver that shoots .45acp using moon clips. Jerry doesn’t miss very much, misses don’t count.

Then there’s long range metallic silhouette, PPC, and Pin shooting; the best of all of which are significantly packed with revolvers.

Now, the modern auto pistol is a very reliable beast; but even the most reliable weapon can be jammed up by bad ammo, or very commonly bad magazines. That issue does not exist with revolvers. If the gun doesn’t go bang, pull the trigger again and your malfunction is cleared. It’s a lot faster to pull the trigger again than it is to rip rack rack slap tap bang.

So, I’ll say it again, the only area where auto pistols are markedly superior to revolvers, is in their thickness. There are several areas where revolvers are markedly superior to auto pistols, including reliability, and effectiveness of chambering, two critical factors in defensive shooting.

If you are large enough, or wear appropriate clothing, there is no reason why you WOULDN’T choose a revolver as a carry piece; excepting personal preference.

So, why don’t I carry a revolver as my primary carry? Well as I said, I intend to carry a revolver for my “always have it” piece as soon as I acquire one.

But what about my general sidearm, where my 1911 currently does the duty? If I HAD a suitable revolver for primary sidearm carry, I would not hesitate to do so with the right clothing and holster. The only real issue I have, is that I prefer to carry IWB, and you can’t really carry a full sized revolver inside your waist band easily; so it’s a matter of suitability to my preferred style of carry.

Additionally, I live in Arizona; where much of the year I can’t wear suitable cover garments; excepting the classic Hawaiian or bowling shirt over a t-shirt look (which is what I usually wear outside of work anyway, whether I’m carrying on my hip or not), and the flat auto pistol conceals better under a light overshirt.

Ooops, foiled again, the reason I don’t use a revolver as m primary CCW, is the only really objective advantage auto pistols have over revolvers; and that’s thickness.

That said, if you don’t carry IWB; if you open carry; or if you carry with suitable cover garments, I see no reason why not to, and plenty of reasons why you should carry a revolver.

Oh and like I said, that 340 PD is just a dandy little pocket pistol.

I dunno about you, but the thought of never being without 5 shots of .357 (vs 7 of .380, or .32, or worse .25 or .22 - the other likely pocket pistol choices) is pretty comforting… heck I might even feel a lot better about just having my pocket gun when I can’t have my sidearm.

And THAT, is one VERY good reason to carry a revolver.

I'll agree with that

Why no politics lately?

After all, it is election season... in fact tomorrow is election day; why hasn't a brilliant and insightful commentator such as myself opined on this election?

Honestly, I just can't stand to write anything about politics right at this moment. I'm getting two dozen (no exaggeration) political calls a day between my home phone, and my and my wifes cell phones; then theres the commercials (nonstop and particularly nasty this year)...

The last thing I want to do right now is write about politics.

... buuuuut I'm gonna anyway, just a little bit anyway.

Tomorrow, I am voting against every democrat. Note, I am not voting for republicans, I am very explicitly voting against democrats.

It's not that I particularly like Republicans; it's that I will never, ever, do anything that is in my power to do, to aid democrats in gaining any kind of power ever again.

I would very much like my children to not either be dead or forced to be muslims, in 20 years; and if democrats are not absolutely crushed at every turn, I would be willing to bet money that will happen.

Oh and there are no viable libertarians who aren't nut jobs that I can vote for, as usual, so I won't be voting for them either; and the way the Libertarian party is these days, they're just as bad as the democrats on foreign policy, if not worse.

Additionally I am voting no any any proposal "for the children", "for the workers", or "for the environment"; because in my experience any time a law is "for" those things, it is against freedom, liberty, responsiblity, and the individual rights of man.

I am voting against any proposition or candidate endorsed by teachers unions, organized labor, PETA, MoveOn, NOW, NARAL, the VPC, HCI, and any other number of far left interest groups; because if they agree with it, I KNOW it's horrible.

I'm voting against any candidate that has had an automated war dialer call me... guess what, they're all democrats too. Oh and all the groups above? Yeah they've been wardialling too.

I'm voting against every proposition that gives the government more power over citizens; but yes on the four that give the government more power to deal with illegal aliens.

I'm voting no on any proposition that gives the government the power to steal more money; but yes on allowing legislators a pay raise, because our legislature only pays $24,000 a year, and it's silly that a waitress should make more than a state senator; even if our legislators hold other jobs.

You might note; primarily I'm voting against things; and boy am I just plain sick of that.

Home, Safe, and Mostly Sound

So we're back from our weekend camping at Rumpshots Revenge, shooting and blowing things up.

We're safe, sore, and exhausted; so I'll be putting up a full range report some time later today.

Benchwarming

So, a few weeks ago I asked about various ideas for shooting benches; and I got a lot of feedback, most of which weren't exactly what I was looking for, so I went out and designed my own.

It's essentially the same as the booger bench really, though I used full length doublers, and a single cutout.



Excuse the shadowed pics, the daylight was so bright it was washing out on the bare wood.

Also, since I was building for both myself, and for a friend who drives a Camry, we went a little shorter; and that let us use some plywood left over from a previous project.

Basically all it takes is about 1/3 sheet of plywood (the top is 1/4 sheet, but you need doublers for the table legs), figure on being able to make 2 from 1 sheet of plywood, with quite a bit left over. You could in theory build it with jsut 1/4 sheet, but hoenstly, plywood is relatively cheap, and the cost differen between 1/2 and 1/4 sheet isn't going to be big enough to make it worth the trouble, or the slight compromise in strength in using short doublers to save plywood.



We built them 24” wide and 36” long to easily fit into a car trunk. I used 3/4” hardwood A/B ply, a set of Waddell legs, and a bunch of 1-1/4” galvanzied deck screws.

The bench top is two rip cuts for dimension, then a slot cut for the bench cutout (I built it with a single side cutout), six scroll cuts to round the corners, a full permitier 1/4” roundover around the top, and a rough and finish sand.



The doublers are jsut chopped for length, sanded, and then glued and screwed into the bottom, to provide a stable foundation for the legs, and to reinforce the top. This is one STRONG bench.


It takes me about two hours to build one, start to finish (well, actually that's un-finished, but fully constructed); but if I were building a bunch of them it would probably only be an hour a piece because I could use the same setups over and over again.

Rather than use two full length doublers as I show in the plan views, I used the scraps of my previous cuts (oh and I freehand cut 2” radius corners, because I like them better than 1"). Either way, it’s plenty strong; though with the two full length doublers, glued and screwed, I’d guess the top would handle several thousand pounds without splitting.

The depth of the shooters cutout we chose, was about as deep as we could get with the width of the legs we chose, and still have the legs centered. If we offset the legs we could make a much deeper cutout, but I don’t think thats necessary; and as it is, the thing is stable as concrete. Oh, and it would also be very easy to do a double cutout, as in the original booger bench.

It would be easy to build a screw in leg variant that WOULD take several thousand pounds of pressure, be even more stable, and have as deep a cutout as you wanted; using splayed brackets and threaded pipe legs; but I prefer the quick and tidy portability of the folding leg version.



I believe Waddell rates their legs for 400lbs; I know that were it the right height I would have no qualms about sitting on this table, it's that solid.

Oh, and we chose the 24” x 36” dimensions for portability (JohnOC drives a Camry, and biggger table might not fit), and convenience using the plywood I had on hand; it would be trivial to extend the dimensions out to as much as 48"x32" and still only use a half sheet of plywood.

Honestly though, I like the smaller size. It’s tidy and convenient; and it makes a good lunch table as well.



The cost? About $50 assuming you have the tools necessary to build it (Circular saw, power drill, skill saw, router, power sander); and about $300 if you don't.

The cheapest way to go is with some random rough grade plywood, but I'd really recommend against that. The generic 3/4” “hardwood” plywood that I used runs about $35 a sheet, and it works just fine. You might save $10 or $15 on wood, but your result won't be as good.

If you want better plywood, or thicker plywood, it’s more expensive. Going up to a full double layer of plywood would bring your wood costs way up; but that would make it 1.5” thick, and suitable for long term use as a workbench or something similar.

You could also do a double layer of 1/2” ply instead, for a solid inch of thickness; and it would be quite strong, lighter than the double 3/4", and probably handier; plus 1/2" thicnkess of good hardwood plywood is a LOT cheaper than 3/4".

Hell, if you have access to a marine supply place, they sell teak plywood that would look awesome and last about 1000 years; but would be a bit expensive.

If you are going to do any gunsmithing (or other work with hammering, clamping, and the use of solvents) on it I suggest surfacing it with 1/4” MDO board, or a hard surfaced laminate or particle board; which I would run you an extra $20 or so.

If you want a bigger one, you can do that, all the way up to as I said 48x24, or 48x32; which in addition to being a shooting bench, would make a decent portable picnic table for four to six people; a good folding desk or worktable etc… and the expense is just about the same. The wood costs the same, but it’s a bit more time, and a bit of extra sanding, gluing, and screwing.

You actually could go bigger, but I wouldnt recommend it; the table wouldn’t be as stable, and you'd use more plywood.

For finishing, I recommend marine spar varnish or something similar. I used six coats of heavy duty acrylic, but that's because I needed it dry in 24 hours; otherwise I'd have put 4 coats of spar varnish on.

For a seriously tough finish, seal it, and put three coats of marine varnish on it; but don’t expect a furniture grade finish. If you want that, you need to use more expensive plywood, like a good oak, beech, walnut, or birch furniture grade wood. Then you have to do a LOT of finish sanding; including sanding between coats; and put on three or four more, thinner coats; but honestly why bother.

I'll post some pictures of the fully finished benches tomorrow after the last coat of acrylic dries.

Fuck you very much JK

Stolen from: PDB

The Problem with Fundies

Ok folks, this is a long scroller, but you need some context here:

Without a warrant, they're just another goblin

I have said before; if people burst into my house late at night claiming to be police, I will respond exactly as I would if they were clearly burglars; I will shoot them.

The police have no right to burst into my home. Even with a warrant, that is not reasonable search or seizure; it is clearly unreasonable. There is no probable cause to perform a dynamic entry on my home, no matter what they think I may have inside.

Unless there is a hostage situation, or a clear and grevious risk of bodily harm or harm to the officers or to the public if they approach and announce; all searches or arrests should be performed through a standard entry, after announcing presence and intention, and presenting an authorized person with a warrant.

Aside from fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property; there is a very practical reason why you should treat ANYONE bursting into your home as a criminal, whether they claim to be police or not.

This is one reason why:

Man shot by intruder posing as FBI agent

By MIKE MORRIS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/30/06

A south Fulton County homeowner was shot early Monday by a masked intruder claiming to be an FBI agent, police said.

The suspect kicked in the back door of the home on Hidden Court, in a subdivision off Welcome All Road, about 4 a.m., setting off the home's burglar alarm, Fulton police Cpl. Gary Syblis said.

The 53-year-old victim told police he got out of bed and heard the suspect coming up the stairs, yelling, "FBI, FBI, FBI," Syblis said.

Syblis said the homeowner confronted the suspect, who was wearing a ski mask and dark clothing.

The suspect fired four times, striking the victim once in the stomach. The victim returned fire, but apparently did not hit the suspect, who fled the home after the shooting.

The victim, whose name has not been released, was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital. His condition was not immediately available.

Go, Read, Now.

From Brussels Journal:

"Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead."

Honesty, from the seat of the EU...

HT: Kim DuToit