The Coming Constitutional Crisis

The following motion was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 22nd, and entered earlier today.

This is an amended filing from the earlier motions (as is clear from the text); based on the state of the case as of the 22nd.

Earlier, the Obama campaign filed a motion to dismiss, and a motion to prevent discovery. Neither of these motions have been granted.

The Obama campaign has not filed substantive responses to Bergs motions and assertions; and has missed several deadlines.

Theoretically, by the rules of civil procedure, the judge has to rule in favor of the plaintiff, unless he finds the plaintiffs motions have no merit; however the judge could decide to dismiss, or to hear the case instead.

Also, the plaintiff has requested a jury trial if summary judgement is not entered; and the Obama campaign failed to respond to this request; so if the judge decides not to enter summary judgement and instead hear the case, he is again required by civil procedure to order a hearing before a jury.

Judges have a lot of leeway within the rules, but if they decide to do something outside of normal practice that leaves a lot of room for appeal. I've looked at this judges rules for civil procedure (judges can set their own rules to a certain extent) and he is a hardcore stickler for the rules.

The Obama campaign clearly thought the judge wasn't going to take this case seriously, and that they could either get it dismissed our of hand, or delayed until after the election.

It seems clear now this isn't going to happen.

At this point, the Obama campaigns only response is to claim jurisdictional defect and lack of standing. They are saying that the court can't hear the case, and that even if they could, Berg can't bring the case. Their grounds for such assertions are weak at best.

Read the filings. If you don't believe me, go log in to P.A.C.E.R. and look at the totality of the case. Berg has affidavits from Obamas grandmother, officials from the Kenyan ministry of state, officials from the hospital he is alleging Obama was born in...

This is going to be messy. Even if the case is dismissed by jurisdictional or standing defect, it will simply be refiled immediately by someone who has standing (that shouldn't be hard to find) in the proper jurisdiction.

This isn't going away.

Whether the allegations are true or not, by not taking this case seriously, Obama is in trouble.

UPDATE:

Understand, I am making no claims as to the validity of the case; only that it has not been dismissed, and the Obama campaign is treating it as if it already has been.

By doing so, they have invited trouble they really don't need.

I’m inclined to think if the judge were going to summarily dismiss the case, he would have done so before Oct. 21st.

I have a feeling the judge will at the very least have a hearing on jurisdiction and standing.

If the Obama campaign address this only as a jurisdictional issue, or a standing issue, it’s going to come back.

Right now, the Obama campaign isn’t even arguing the merits of the case; and if they DON’T get it dismissed on the merits, the exact same allegations and information are going to be used to file cases from now, until he is out of office presuming he is elected.

I’ve spent the last three years arguing a federal case, responding to motions and appeals with no merit. Because our opponent had even the slightest validity in his cause of action, it was strongly advised BY THE JUDGE, that we respond to all motions in a timely manner; even though we had a motion to dismiss pending the entire time (it was eventually granted).

Until this case is heard on the merits, and dismissed on the merits, I think it’s going to be a MAJOR issue for Obama; even after the election, whether he is elected or not.

All Obama has to do is get a federal judge to make a finding of fact that he is a natural born U.S. citizen. Until he does that, I believe this will continue to be a problem.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv-04083 Plaintiff : PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :: vs. Defendants : BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R. Barclay Surrick on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the Motion and any response thereto and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(c) is GRANTED. This Court Declares Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. The Democratic National Committee is hereby enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and both the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency. It is an ORDER of this Court that Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States. BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 27 It is further ORDER of this Court; Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $48,300.00, representing all fees and costs associated with this suit to date. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: October ______, 2008 ______________________________ Hon. R. Barclay Surrick United States District Court Judge For the Eastern District of PA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083 Plaintiff : PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :: vs. : Defendants : BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] files the within Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in support thereof and moves this Court for an Order granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff and against Defendant’s, Barack Hussein Obama [hereinafter “Obama”] and The Democratic National Committee’s [hereinafter “DNC”] on all Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c) on the following grounds: 1. Plaintiff served Discovery by way of Requests for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents upon Defendants, Obama and DNC, on September 15, 2008. 2. Although Defendants, Obama and DNC, filed a Motion for a Protective Order staying all discovery pending the Court’s decision on a Motion to Dismiss, Defendants failed to serve Plaintiff with any Answers and/or Objections to the Requests for Admissions Served upon each Defendant, Obama and DNC. To date, the Court has never issued any Protective Orders. 3. Failure to Answer or Object to Requests for Admissions within thirty [30] days deems the Request for Admissions “Admitted,” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c). 4. Since the Requests for Admissions are now deemed Admitted, there are not any genuine issues of material facts remaining and Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against Defendants, Obama and the DNC, as a matter of law. 5. To date, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, has expended considerable time in pursuing this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests counsel fees and costs. In the amount of $48,300.00. WHEREFORE, for the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, Obama and the DNC as to all his claims and award counsel fees and costs to Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire in the amount of $48,300.00. Respectfully submitted, s/ Philip J. Berg Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________ Philip J. Berg, Esquire Attorney in pro se 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 (610) 825-3134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083 Plaintiff : PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE :: vs. : Defendants : BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL : PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, THE DNC AND OBAMA A. OVERVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party. Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Plaintiff and many other citizens of the United States have donated money and time to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee, in reliance on promises and assurances made by the DNC in the Democratic Party Agenda. It provides that the Democrat Party’s goals, among others, are to “restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government”, to “restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans” and to “uphold the Constitution.” To uphold the Constitution includes making sure that the Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair and legitimate campaign. In vetting the Presidential candidate the DNC and FEC are required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential candidate, if elected, would be eligible to serve as President. To be eligible and qualified to run for and/or serve for Office of the President of the United States a person must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I. The natural born citizen clause has prohibited many prominent Americans from becoming President, including Governor Schwarzenegger and former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status: 1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen? 2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen? 3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia? If the answer to the first question is “yes” then Obama meets the citizenship requirements to be President. On the other hand, if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second or third question is “yes”, Obama is not eligible to be President. Plaintiff has learned through extensive investigation that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Plaintiff learned that Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a United States citizen who was not old enough and did not reside in the United States long enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen. Under the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in 1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire “natural born” United States citizenship if the United States citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for ten (10) years prior to the child’s birth, five (5) of those years being after age fourteen (14). Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998). Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet the age and residency requirements for her child to have acquired “natural born” United States citizenship. Therefore, Obama may not be considered a “natural born” United States citizen. There is no indication that Obama is a naturalized citizen either. In response to requests from Plaintiff and the general public for Obama to produce proof of his citizenship, Obama allowed the Daily Kos to post on their website an image of a Certification of Live Birth with Obama’s name on it purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate at www.dailykos.com. This same image was also placed on Obama’s website, http://fightthesmears.com and on another website located at http://factcheck.org. The image placed on these websites is of a Hawaiian document which is provided for children’s births in Hawaii as “natural born”, as well as births abroad, which have been registered in Hawaii, whether the citizenship status was “natural born” or “naturalized”. Thus, the posting of Obama’s purported birth certificate did not prove Obama was a “natural born” citizen. Further, the images placed on these three (3) websites were later discovered by Document Image Specialists to be altered and forged images. It appears that Obama became an Indonesian citizen. Plaintiff discovered through investigation that Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who either signed a government form legally “acknowledging” Obama as his son or “adopted” Obama, either of which changed any citizenship status Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Obama was registered in a Jakarta public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was no other way for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools and any time a child was registered for a public school, their name and citizenship status was verified through the Indonesian Government. These facts indicate that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, and therefore, he is not eligible to be President of the U.S. Plaintiff filed suit on August 21, 2008 seeking proof of Obama’s citizenship status. Defendants, Obama and the DNC’s Answers were due on or before September 24, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Motion on September 09, 2008 for Expedited Discovery, Extensive Discovery, Deposition of Obama and Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman and a request for the appointment of a Special Master to be present during the depositions. Defendants failed to respond or oppose Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, which is still pending before this Court. On September 15, 2008, Plaintiff served discovery by way of Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants Obama and the DNC. Instead of filing an Answer, Defendants, Obama and the DNC filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff did not have standing and failure to state a claim which relief can be granted. Plaintiff Opposed the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and requested to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint and attached his First Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A” on the early morning of October 6, 2008, document number fourteen (14) on the docket. On the afternoon of October 6, 2008, Plaintiff received a call from John P. Lavelle, Jr., counsel for the DNC and Obama in order to meet and confer regarding discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f). Mr. Lavelle requested a stay of discovery pending this Honorable Court’s decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss currently pending. Plaintiff declined this request as Obama’s citizenship status is of National security as he is running for President of the United States. Mr. Lavelle stated he was filing a Motion for a Protective Order staying discovery pending a decision on the Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Shortly thereafter, Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order was filed with this Court as document number fifteen (15). This Court has not ruled on Defendants’ motion. The Presidential election is only two (2) weeks away. Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as President of the United States. As aresult, Plaintiff as well as many other United States citizens have been harmed and will continue to be harmed until Obama proves his citizenship status or withdraws as the Democratic Presidential candidate. Plaintiff as well as many United States citizens will have been deprived of their constitutional right to vote for an eligible candidate and will lose the money they have invested in Obama in the elusive hope of “change”. The citizenship status of Defendant Obama is a critical issue and of concern to Plaintiff as well as the general public, which needs to be addressed prior to the Presidential election on November 4, 2008. Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status. The fact Obama is a U.S. Senator for Illinois and a Presidential candidate, he is open for public scrutiny and Plaintiff as well as all American Citizens have a right to question and receive proof of Obama’s citizenship status. Moreover, Defendants have failed to answer Plaintiff’s requests for Admissions in a timely manner, and those matters are automatically deemed admitted in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a); McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. B. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO UNDISPUTED FACTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF: Request for Admissions were served upon Defendants, Obama and the DNC on September 15, 2008. Answers and/or Objections were due within thirty [30] days. Although Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order on October 9, 2008, the Court has never ruled upon their Motion and therefore, a Protective Order was not granted and discovery has never been stayed. Failure to Answer or Oppose Requests for Admissions deems them Admitted. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36, McNeil v. AT&T Universal Card, 192 F.R.D. 492, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2000), Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732 (1977); Siss v. County of Passaic, 75 F. Supp. 2d 325, 331 (D.N.J. 1999). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 states in pertinent part: “(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Defendants were simple and straightforward recitations of fact which could be admitted or denied and to which Defendants should have personal knowledge and familiarity. Despite the simplicity, Defendants failed to Answer and/or Object to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions. Since Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions are based solely on Plaintiff’s Complaint which addresses Obama’s non-natural born United States citizen status (Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions served upon Obama are attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions served upon the DNC are attached hereto as Exhibit “2”), the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen was automatically deemed admitted upon Defendants’ failure to answer Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission in a timely manner. The admitted matter is conclusively established for purposes of the pending action. See American Auto Ass'n v.AAA Legal Clinic, 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991) (conclusive effect of admission applies equally to matters affirmatively admitted and those established by default). Therefore, there are no issues of material fact that remain and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims. Admissions of fact made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 are “unassailable statement of facts that narrows the triable issues in the case.” Airco Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.29 1028, 1037 (3rd Cir. 1988). For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, Obama and DNC, should be immediately granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims. C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE and MUST BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF: Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c), Summary Judgment should be granted to Plaintiff because there are no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986), Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 786 F.2d 564, 568 (3rd Cir. 1986). The Third Circuit Courts have considered the question of the proper interplay between the granting of a Summary Judgment and requests for admissions and have held that failure to respond to properly served admissions permits the entry of summary judgment when the facts deemed admitted are dispositive. See Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 176 (3d Cir. 1990) (deemed admissions sufficient to support summary judgment); Freed v. Plastic Packaging Materials, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 550, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1975). In this case, Defendants’ deemed admissions warrant the entry of a Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff because the deemed admissions address every element of Plaintiff’s claim and no genuine issues of material fact remain. For the above aforementioned reason’s Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, the DNC and Obama should be immediately granted to all of Plaintiff’s claims. D. CONCLUSION: For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Grant his Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants, Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee, as to all of Plaintiff’s Claims. Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to declare Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” United States citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. Plaintiff further requests this Honorable Court to Order The Democratic National Committee to remove the name of Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro from the Presidential ballot and to enjoin Defendants from any further Presidential campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al. In addition, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to Order the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al to pay all fees and costs associated with this suit in the amount of $48,300.00. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, /s Philip J. Berg Dated: October 22, 2008 ___________________________ Philip J. Berg, Esquire Attorney in pro se 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 (610) 825-3134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support thereof, were served via electronic filing on the ECF System, this 22nd day of October 2008 upon the following: John P. Lavelle, Jr. Attorney I.D. PA 54279 BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 864-8603 (215) 864-9125 (Fax) lavellej@ballardspahr.com Joseph E. Sandler SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC 300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102 Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: (202) 479-1111 Fax: (202) 479-1115 sandler@sandlerreiff.com Robert F. Bauer General Counsel, Obama for America PERKINS COIE 607 Fourteenth Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-2003 Telephone: 202.628.6600 Facsimile: 202.434.1690 Attorney’s for Defendant’s RBauer@perkinscoie.com Barack Hussein Obama and The Democratic National Committee

Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

Earlier today, I participated in a conference call with Missouri governor Matt Blunt, on the subject of gun rights, John McCain, and Barack Obama.

You may recall that recently, the Obama campaign worked directly with democratic party elected officials in the state of Missouri; engaging prosecutors and county sheriffs, to intimidate local media outlets, and prevent them from taking advertising criticizing Barack Obama.

Governor Blunt delivered a scathing rebuke of this blatant ethical misconduct (and violation of at least federal election regulations, if not federal law):

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s
Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Governor Blunt, who has decided not to seek re-election; has been campaigning in Missouri, and across the country, for gun rights, and for John McCain.

On the call with me were the organizers, Bryan Pick and John Henke from QandO.net, Jonathan Blank of the Cato Institute, Nicky Fellenzer from The Liberty Zone, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute and DaveKopel.com, David Codrea of The War On Guns, JR of A Keyboard and a .45, Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell, Cam Edwards of NRA News and the Cam and Company radio show, Bitter of The Bitchgirls, Dustin of Dustins Gun Blog, John Donovan of The Donovan, and Caleb of Call me Ahab.

It has been agreed that we can release the full audio of our conference call with the governor. I've put it up here:

Sorry, I cant get the embeddable streaming widget to work. Here's a link to the full file, and an embedded player that works, at archive.org.

Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

I have edited nothing from Governor Blunts comments; only the introductions and some chat between my fellow bloggers at the beginning and end of the call.

If time permits, I will post a transcript later.

Wond'ring Aloud

"Wond'ring Aloud"

Wond'ring aloud --
how we feel today.
Last night sipped the sunset --
my hands in her hair.
We are our own saviours
as we start both our hearts beating life
into each other.

Wond'ring aloud --
will the years treat us well.
As she floats in the kitchen,
I'm tasting the smell
of toast as the butter runs.
Then she comes, spilling crumbs on the bed
and I shake my head.
And it's only the giving
that makes you what you are.

Saturday (October 25th) will mark the 40th anniversary of the first full album released by Jethro Tull.

Now I'm not normally one to wax overmuch on a single band or artist... Elvis or the Beatles notwithstanding (and that's about the cultural impact, not the music). I do have my favorites of course and I talk about them some, but most music just passes me by... as it passes you by too I'm sure.

Of course there are those artists and albums which are different. That have an impact. That change you.

Tull is different.

When I was a teenager, I built my own apartment in the house that we rented from my grandfather. It was a 90 year old (at the time) house, two main living floors with an attic and a basement; split up as a two family house. At the time, my mother, my brother, my aunt Maureen and I lived in the upstairs half, and my aunt Susan and her husband Carl lived in the bottom half.

The basement was unfinished... would have been hard to have it otherwise, since it was literally carved out of a solid granite hillside; and the other side was aggregate blocks (kind of like concrete except instead of sand you use granite dust and granite pebbles); and the whole thing was taken up by a massive heating oil tank, and the two furnaces and water heaters... with just enough room for two pairs of washers and dryers, and a door to the outside...

It's amazing the little details you remember about your childhood isn't it.

Anyway, because the house was built into a hillside, the basement had an entrance on one side, and there was a front entrance at the top of a flight of entry stairs, and another entrance around the other side of the house; that opened into the back stairs.

Those back stairs went from the basement all the way up to the attic; separate from both living floors, by their back doors. That way both apartments had access to both non living floors without having to pass through each other.

Well, when I was 13, we took the attic, which was the size of the entire house (about 50x50 square) and converted it into an apartment for me. I walled it in so that instead of extending all the way down to the outside walls of the house, I had six foot walls. That left a huge storage space in behind the walls (that we used quite effectively), and about a 30x30 living space for myself.

Importantly, I also thoroughly soundproofed the whole place. You could set off a bomb up there and no-one would have heard it.

I built my own furniture in there; set up my own library, my own workshop... my own life. It was my own apartment with my own private entrance...

A place away from my family. A place I needed... it would have been bad otherwise... worse maybe I should say.

I've mentioned this before, but my teenager years were... not good. Oh I had some good times, some good friends; but my life in those years... I've talked about my mother, my brother, and my aunt before... I'm not sure how I made it out of there sometimes.

My family was bleeding to death around me, and trying to drag me down with them... and I was busy on my own trying to dive down a different, but just as deep... maybe deeper... hole.

I needed to escape. More than anything... and I did, as soon as I could; but those years in between... I would escape where I could, when I could.

Anyway, I had this jury rigged stereo. An early Sony five disc CD changer I'd picked up for free as broken, and fixed myself. It was playing into some junk bookshelf stereo... I think it was an Aiwa maybe?

At any rate it sounded like playing music through two tin cans. So I jumpered into the clean channel on my Fernandez guitar amp and cabinet... it was an interesting effect. It could easily fill up my world with sound... and I built it into the headboard of my bed (a waterbed, that I'd also built myself).

Hey, I thought it was cool at the time.

I've been an insomniac since I was five years old; but when I was a teenager, my sleeping became markedly worse. I would sometimes go days without sleeping; then sleep for 12 or 14 hours.

When I couldn't sleep.. when my brain just wouldn't let me rest; I would just put on five albums on repeat, as loud as I could stand, to drown out my brain:

Jethro Tull - Aqualung
Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick
Deep Purple - Machine Head
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV
Pink Floyd - Wish you were here

The sound would just pound out my mind. Drown out the thought, the trouble, the pain, the anger... just let me sleep.

I would leave them on repeat, and they would wash over me for hours and hours. Filling my world with sound, and driving out everything that made me not want to be there.

That helped keep me sane... or at least as sane as I am, whatever that is.

There were other, darker and harder times; and darker, and harder music to go with them. It was then that I really became a metalhead.

... but it always came back to those five albums. Over and over, for years.

Still today, when I hear those first flute notes from "Thick as a Brick", it takes me somewhere else.

One of the moments of pure joy in my life, was a few years back: I had just come back from Ireland a few months previous, but my life was pretty chaotic. I was traveling all over, doing contract work, and my mother was in ever worse and worse shape... and my brother moved back 'round and started sucking off my mother again...

I'd picked up my black 5 series a few weeks earlier, and had just put the new stereo in with Sirius satellite radio (10 alpine components inside, going into 500 watts on 4 digital channels; plus 1000 watts into 2x12" alpine R2s); and then had to go to New York for two weeks on business.

Well, I was really stressed out, burned out.. coming home I was just in one of those moods where you ask "Why the hell am I bothering doing this".

I got out into the long term parking, and started to head for home... but instead I took it out on a night drive up highway 89, from Phoenix up through Prescott; and I was really wringing it out.

I got out past Wickenburg, and had the radio pumping, trying out the Sirius, on the classic "vault" station, the DJ started up the whole album "Thick as a Brick"

Really don't mind if you sit this one out.
My words but a whisper your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.

And I just flowed. That way that sometimes, if you're lucky, you can get where everything just fits together. Motion to motion, thought to thought.

It's like it's all in one piece; and you start in one spot and 45 minutes later you're 6o miles away, and you know and remember and feel every second and every foot of that 60 miles; but you really have no idea of time or distance passing.

That's what I mean when I say some music is different. Some music moves you. Jethro Tull is different.

A slight profundity

A question was asked of me recently: “Why don’t libertarians and real conservatives win elections”.

Simple really.

True libertarians and conservatives share the same electoral disadvantage:

True libertarians and real conservatives, CANNOT win electorally, in a climate where everyone is allowed to vote; and that “everyone” includes the huge politically created classes (both underclass, and “elite”) that exists because of governments meddling, and live at government sufferance.

True libertarians and conservatives only have answers that make those folks, and those who “support” or worship them, feel bad about themselves; and solutions that are against their short term interests.

Until these permanent classes of government dependents are eliminated (or at the least, politically neutered); government will continue, with the active support of these people (and those who “support” and worship them); to vote in the GOVERNMENTS interest:

That is, to increase the size, scope, reach, and power of the government, and to use that power to redistribute ever more wealth; making the class of government dependents ever larger, and reinforcing that dependency ever more.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville

Blatantly stolen from Newsweek

I don't much care for their coffee tips here; but I loved the graphic.

FINALLY McCain hits back

Ha Ha Only Serious

This has to be John McCains Best Speech Ever

Seriously, McCain delivers what is certainly the best speech he's ever given... and it's a comedy routine.

Part 1:



And part 2:

Holy crap... I just got a promotion

So my boss called me just before our staff meeting, and said to me "I'm going to announce something at the meeting. We're fully merging the teams from the two divisions. The other chief architect position is being eliminated, and you're now both the chief architect, and the team lead for what was both teams, and is now one larger team".

So now instead of being just the chief architect for the smallest division; I'm now both the chief architect for the largest division (since the two divisions are merged), and the team lead for the entire team that had been supporting both divisions.

That's in addition to my enterprise wide role as consulting architect to the enterprise; my role as the architectural representative for my (now two) division(s) within the enterprise; and my roles as enterprise architectural subject matter expert on enterprise storage, backup archive and disaster recovery, high performance computing, clustered and distributed computing, information security, regulatory compliance, and virtualization.

Yes, seriously, those are all my roles and responsibilities. Yes, that is too much workload and too many roles for one person. Yes, I spend 40 hours a week on the phone.

Oh and that's not even taking into account the fact that we are about to nearly double in size from mergers and acquisitions; and that my division(s) will see the biggest impact of that. The next 18-36 months will be a nightmare for integration.

It's more responsibility, and big for my career as whole; though it's not a grade bump, or a salary change (our grading system doesn't work like that). It will mean a bigger bonus, and a bigger raise at my performance review however.

More importantly though, my boss is 2 years from retirement; and he intends to finish out his time positioning me to take his job when he does. This is just one more step down that road.

Wind Up

When I was young and they packed me off to school
and taught me how not to play the game,

I didn't mind if they groomed me for success,
or if they said that I was a fool.

So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm --
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.

So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said -- I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers --

I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.


Well you can excomunicate me on my way to Sunday school
and have all the bishops harmonize these lines --

how do you dare tell me that I'm my Father's son
when that was just an accident of Birth.

I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth.

In your pomp and all your glory you're a poorer man than me,
as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

"Wind-Up" -- Jethro Tull

Obama costume

Do Want

The Thousand Yard Conspiracy - Part 2: .300 winmag vs. .300 wsm

I've chosen to chamber my 1000 yard rifle in .300 winmag, for various reasons I listed in part 1 of this series.

I've had a couple comments, and more than a couple emails, trying to convince me the .300 wsm is the better choice.

Seriously, I'm being lobbied behind the scenes by hardcore WSM boosters guys. These folks are PASSIONATE about their choice.

So, I'm willing to listen. Let's talk about this and come to a conclusion.

First, lets just look at the plusses and minuses of each, as I see them:

.300 Winchester magnum

plus

• Well known and proven performer at all ranges within my envelope
• Lots of great load data and accessories
• Lots of great factory match grade ammo in heavy weight loadings
• Lots of great long and heavy bullets
• Feeds reliably
• You can find good quality ammo almost anywhere
  

Minus

• Belted magnum cases are a pain for reloading
• Longer
• Heavier
• Slightly more recoil
• Actions are slightly less rigid
• Slightly less effective barrel length because it's longer
• Slightly lower performance with shorter barrels

.300 wsm

Plus

• Lots of new benchrest, competiton, and hunting data
• Can also use most .300 winmag data
• Can generally use the same bullets as .300 winmag
• Shorter
• Lighter
• Actions slightly more rigid
• Slightly better performance with shorter barrels
• Slightly more effective barrel length because it's shorter
• MAY be very slightly more accurate
• Easier to reload

Minus

• Far less available commercial march grade ammo
• Long and heavy bullets may need to be seated deeper than optimal
• Limitations on length to feed from box magazine
• Problems with feed reliability due to fat case with steep shoulder, and long cartridge for action
• No factory loadings above 180gr
• Ammo is much less available than .300 winmag
  

As of right now, my choice is winmag, based on feed reliability, the ability to use long and heavy bullets in a repeater without seating too deeply, and the availability of good factory ammo, nearly everywhere.

So, while I can still change my order if I want to, somebody convince me one way or the other; that I should go with the wsm, or the winmag.

The Thousand Yard Conspiracy - Part 1: Paper and Parts

So, on the way out of Reno Sunday morning; I was told in no uncertain terms (by my wife and Joe Huffman) that I would be attending Boomershoot next April.

Along with that, I'd be receiving a new rifle, as my combined Christmas and birthday presents, from all my friends together.

Apparently she'd been working behind the scenes for a few weeks getting all my friends in on the conspiracy etc...

Amazing woman my wife.

However this leaves me with a dilemma. I've been planning on building a long range rifle for a while, but I thought I'd have 18 months or so to do it... and even than that's pushing it. Usually a custom rifle project will take you at least two years, and I now have six months to build a 1000 yard rifle rig.

Whooo boy...

Honestly I don't know if it can be done that fast, but were surely gonna try.

Step One - Budget

First thing we need to do, is define what our limits are for this project. A fully built custom from a well known custom smith can run anywhere from just about $3,000 to north of $5,000 (no optics).

You can save some money by picking up a factory long range tactical model, like the FNH SPR, or Remington 700 SPS, or 700 PDM (which start around $700 and go up to about $2500); and then have it gone over by a top class rifle smith... and most likely have a re-barrel and a new trigger installed... and maybe a new stock... and...

Well, basically, by the time you get done with the factory rifles, you might as well have done a custom buildup. Factory rifles are perfectly adequate for 600-800 yards, but in the 1000 yard game, you just have to do everything right.

Then there's optics on top of that, where you MAY squeak by at $1,000 but $1,500 minimum is more like it... and it's no bother to run past $3000 with Schmidt and Bender, or U.S. Optics.

Unfortunately, we're thinking without some difficult stretching, a max budget of $3,000 to maybe $3,500... unless that is one of my friends gets stupidly generous.

Oh and I need a rangefinder, and a spotting scope that'll work at that range. That's another $700-$1300 for the rangefinder, and at least that much for a spotting scope that will resolve at 1000 yards.

So for now, I'm going to address the budget just to the rifle itself, and leave the optics and accessories for another post, and another budget.

Step Two - Objectives, Requirements, and Constraints

Decisions, decisions...

Alright, the first step in any project is to determine your objectives. Only when you'r objectives are clearly defined can you plan how best to meet them.

So, our overall objective is as follows:

Build or buy a field rifle (which means not a benchrest or target queen. Something suitable for lying in the dirt with), capable of consistently shooting into 1 minute of angle or under, at 1000 yards, with absolute reliability.

Tall order, but very doable with the right design and build.

Next what are our constraints and requirements within that objective

1. Build or buy to the lowest cost possible while still achieving the objective
2. Build or buy within six months
3. Build or buy to the highest possible standard of reliability
4. Choose a chambering capable of meeting the objective
   
5. Choose a barrel capable of meeting the objective
6. Choose an action capable of meeting the objective
7. Choose a stock capable of meeting the objective
   
   (these next few will be covered in other posts)
   
   
8. Choose optics capable of meeting the objective
9. Choose ammunition, and supporting accessories capable of meeting the objective
10. Train to meet the objective with the equipment, ammunition, and accessories chosen
    

Again, tall order, but doable.

The biggest decision is build or buy, but we need to analyze the technical requirements first, to understand if buying is an option, and if so, how much it will cost; vs. the cost of a ground up build.

Step Three - Plans, Parts, and Design

There are a lot of decisions to be made, as stated in the objectives above; technical, preferential, and economic.

1. Chambering

The single most important technical decision you can make when choosing or building a rifle, is the chambering. The chambering determines the size, the cost, the materials etc... for every other part of the rifle.

There are quite a few chamberings out there capable of making 1moa at 1000 yards. Any of the hot 6.5mm magnums or super 6.5 benchrest rounds; most of the 7mm magnums; and any of the .300 to .338 magnums can do it with the right loading and bullet selection.

Heck, even some of the big .350 to .420 magnums can do it, if they're loaded with high ballistic coefficient bullets instead of the low BC solid smashers generally chosen. Even the .378 Winchester magnum can be a 1000 yard round with the right bullet; and some of the MANY necked down variants using it as a parent case can reach over 1500 yards.

What you want for a 1000 yard tactical rifle, isn't cloverleafs at 1000... that's what the super 6's are for. You've got guys regularly shooting 3" and 4" groups from BR rifles at 1000 with super 6 and super 6.5 class cartridges, and that's amazing (the "light gun" record is 1.56"); but you don't need that kind of precision for tactical shooting and tactical shooting competitions.

What you need is 1moa, down to maybe .75 moa. Basically you want to keep into an 8-10" "kill zone"; and you want to retain at least 400 ftlbs doing it.

Why 400? That's the minimum threshold for a reliable kill shot. 600-800ftlbs would be better.

You also need a bullet that is resistant to changes in weather, and wind.

What you DON'T want though is excessive recoil.

Of course, you don't give up accuracy where you can get it; you just don't want to compromise the other factors too much to do so.

All of that means a high initial velocity, with a relatively high mass bullet, and a high ballistic coefficient; but not so high a mass or velocity, that you can't shoot 100 rounds of it in a day.

To me, that leaves the .300 to .338 class magnums and short magnums. Yes, you might be able to do the job with a heavy, high BC 6.5mm or 7mm (.257 or .284); but to my mind you really want the extra mass for crosswind resistance and retained energy.

Well, if you want the ultimate in killing power out to 1500 yards, the .338 Lapua was specifically designed for the job.

I'd love to own one; really I would; and I thought HARD about a .338 Lapua, but there are issues. First, I need 800 to 1000 yards, but not beyond; and the Lapua is overkill for that... Most importantly, it's over-recoil for that.

I can shoot most of the .300 class magnums all day in a medium weight gun, and still have a shoulder left at the end of the day. 20 rounds of .338 in a heavy gun, even with a muzzle brake, and I'm done. Without the brake, it's more like 5 rounds.

Honestly though, I could build a heavy gun with a thick pad and a brake, and deal with the recoil, if I wanted to pay for that performance.

And I don't.

Basically, the Lapua is too expensive.

• It's expensive to shoot, with loaded match grade factory ammo going for $4-5 a round or more.
• It's expensive to load for, with new brass at $2-3 a case, and case life on the order of 5 shots.
• It's expensive, and often slow, to get barrels and actions for; since it's an extra long, very high pressure round, with an uncommon reamer (though this is changing)
  

The killer to me though, is that it's impossible to find ammo locally in an emergency. I have NEVER seen match grade .338 lapua on the shelf at a local gun shop unless they happened to have an owner who shot 1500 yards as a hobby; and I've never seen ANY kind of .338 load at a walmart, or target, or even bass pro (Cabelas usually has a box or two).

When it comes to firearms that will be used in the field, I'm a firm believer in the "walmart ammo" school: If you can't find at least some kind of acceptable ammo at a normal local retailer (i.e. Wal-Mart) anywhere you'd be traveling with a particular gun, you shouldn't have that particular gun.

.338 Lapua fails the walmart test miserably.

Leaving aside the .338 then, there are still quite a few options in the .300 to .325 class of magnums, ultramagnums, short magnums, and even supershort magnums.

Now again, this is a tactical rifle; and I think one should take into account the huge amount of data, accessories, and components available for long range tactical shooters, in well known chamberings.

Of course the best known chamberings for tactical shooters, are the ones that shoot .308 bullets... which is STILL a pretty big group, including the .308 winchester, .300 winchester magnum, .300 winchester short magnum, .300 Weatherby magnum, Lazzeroni patriot and warbird (short and long magnums respectively), .300 Remington ultramagnum, .300 Remington short action magnum... I think you get the point....

The king of tactical chamberings is of course the .308 winchester/ 7.62x51 nato; and it will reach out to 1000 yards, but it's VERY difficult to be consistent with at that range. It's not a flat shooter, it doesn't resist crosswinds well at range, and it doesn't retain a lot of energy out past 800 yards.

The step up option best known in the tactical shooting world, is the .308s big brother, the .300 Winchester magnum. It's been around since 1963, and tactical rifles have been chambered in the round since viet nam. More data is out there for .300 winmag than any other 1000 yard class chambering, and certainly more component selection.

Critically, there is also VERY good factory match grade ammo available in .300 win mag, in a number of different bullet weights from 135gr (used for long range varminting) all the way to 240gr; from Federal, Black Hills, Cor-Bon, RWS, Lapua, Norma, Remington, and Winchester.

You can even find match grade .300 win mag at Wal-Mart, in addition to white box type practice ammo.

Recently however, another option has become available, that is ballistically nearly identical to the .300 winmag; in fact so much so that the same bullets, and same external ballistics data as the .300 winmag, can generally be used.

That option, is the .300 winchester short magnum, or .300 WSM.

Basically, it's all the velocity of a .300 winmag, in a shorter, fatter, case, with a faster burning powder. The .300wsm fits into short action guns, as it is the same nominal length as the .308 win (actually, generally it's seated out to a little bit longer OAL, to max out potential case capacity).

In the process, it manages to use slightly less powder, and generally deliver slightly less recoil... and with some bullets, it can even be slightly more accurate (a very tiny amount).

Oh and because of that faster burning powder, the WSM is effective in 24" or even 22" barrels, while .300 winmag really works best in 26" to 28" barrels.

Needless to say it's made some solid inroads into the 1000 yard competitive shooting scene, and taken the 600 yard and under tactical shooters by storm; but it's having a little more difficulty penetrating the long range tactical shooting market.

Basically, 1000 yard tactical shooters are a conservative bunch, and they know what works and what doesn't, and what their priorities are, from long experience.

Yes, the WSM performs well at under 800 yards; but it works best with bullets in the 160gr to 180gr range; whereas best performance in the wind at 1000 yards is best with the 190gr to 210gr bullets that are too long to properly feed in a short action.

Also, the WSMs shorter, fatter case has feeding problems out of many actions; really requiring a center feed to be reliable, and even then with it's steep shoulder it has difficulty.

Finally, near as I can tell, none of the wsm/wssm/rum/rsaum etc... are commonly available in general sporting goods stores and sporting goods departments; though there are decent selections of loads available at many gun shops (this may change for the .300 wsm over time, as it seems to be gaining wider acceptance).

All that said, I'm willing to be convinced on the .300 wsm. The ability to use a standard length action opens up a lot of lower cost options. Also, using that standard length makes a detachable box magazine easier, and that's a big plus to me.

So, I talked with several rifle smiths, and I told them what I wanted to do, and every single one of them came to the same conclusion I did, it was either .300winmag, or .300 wsm.

I was leaning towards the .300 win mag for a combination of ballistic performance, and ammo availability. I plan to primarily handload, but it's nice to have the ability to get walmart ammo if necessary.

Every single one of the rifle smiths I talked to (and I ended up talking to eight well known names in the game) said that unless I was building a stalking rifle, or a primarily 600 yard rifle that would occasionally be fired at 1000 yards; that the feed reliability, and the heavy bullet selection of the .300 winmag, outweigh the advantages of the .300 WSM.

EVERY last one of them.

Well, I think that's my decision made for me.

2. Barrel

The next most important technical factor for a long range rifle is the barrel. More than the trigger or action, the barrel is the heart of a rifle. It is the first and last point of contact for the bullet when you're taking a shot.

There a few basic choices to make when selecting a barrel for long range shooting

1. Maker
2. Material
3. Twist rate
4. Length
5. Contour
6. Muzzle brake or not
   

Maker

There are a LOT of barrel makers out there... several hundred in fact... but it's not TOO hard a decision to make; because the enormous majority of all tactical competition, and long range competition rifle barrels are made by a half dozen companies:

• Hart
• Lilja
• Douglas
• Krieger
• Shilen
• PacNor

Honestly, choose a top grade barrel from any of these makers and you can't go wrong. There are others out there who are just as good (maybe better, maybe not), but they're usually VERY small volume makers with waiting lists you have to be a friend to get on etc...

My advice here is to deal with whoever you are comfortable with. I personally happen to be a big fan of Kriegers barrels, and like dealing with them as a company; so I've decided to go with Krieger.

When you've chosen you maker, you can also decide whether to have them cut, crown, thread, chamber, and mount your barrel to your action; or to have your rifle smith do it.

Custom barrel blanks start out life as a straight cylinder; usually 1.250" in diameter from end to end, and from 28" to 32" long. Generally speaking, the first 1/2" and last 1" or so of a barrel blank are unusuble, and should be trimmed off; resulting in a max usable barrel length of 26" or 28" from most blanks.

A barrels contour is it's external profile; which is to a large extent what determines how rigid a barrel will be, and how much it weighs. Some riflesmiths prefer to cut their own contours on barrels; but most like to have the barrel maker do it, as it's a lot of work, and wear and tear on the lathe cutters.

After cutting and contouring, a barrel must be threaded in order to be mounted to the receiver. Barrel makes can supply blanks threaded and end faced, or unthreaded. Most riflesmiths prefer to cut their own threads and face the end so they can match the exact thread length to the receivers mating surfaces.

Finally, a barrel must have the chamber, and crown cut into them. These are the two most critical stages of barrel preparation, and understandably most riflesmiths prefer to do it themselves; though again, the barrel makers can do it for you to save time and gunsmithing cost.

Chambering, involves reaming out a chamber to accept the cartridge you intend to shoot, and is the single most important operation in the creation of your rifle.

The difference between a factory chamber, and a custom cut chamber, is this:

• A factory chamber has to be cut intentionally loose, so as to accommodate just about any barely in spec or maybe a little out of spec ammo out there, no matter who it came from.
  
  
• A custom cut chamber can match the exact ammunition and specification you want to use; even if it is a little bit tight, and wont feed the generic white box ammo very well.

This exact chamber dimensioning, allows for FAR greater precision shot over shot as compared to a loose factory chamber.

If you want the best possible accuracy, you can even load up a cartridge using the exact bullet you want to shoot, with the same dies you'll be using to load the cartridges; and have your gunsmith ream the chamber to the exact dimensions of that sample cartridge.

The final step in barrel preparation is cutting the crown; or the end of the muzzle where the bullet exists the barrel.

The crown is a critical operation, because it is the last contact the bullet will have with the weapon; and also because following the bullet out the barrel will be a cloud of supersonically expanding turbulent high temperature gas.

Also, the crown is hanging out there on the end of a two foot plus metal rod; and is susceptible to damage.

Cut the crown wrong, or ding the crown up with rough handling or improper cleaning; and instability will be imparted into the bullet as it leaves the barrel. Instability means inconsistency, and inconsistency means misses.

All of this is why I say even on a $2500 factory semi-custom rifle, you may need to re-barrel to get the results you want; because although the factories do a very good job with the materials they have, they are still starting with the same production barrel blanks, and using the same production tooling, as the 2moa at 300 yard rifles. Maybe you get a 1moa at 1000 rifle out of that, maybe you don't.

I'm personally going with Krieger for the whole thing, because they'll do it cheaper, and just as good if not better (and importantly, faster) as any riflesmith I'd care to use.

Material

At one point, the metallurgy of stainless alloys and their use in barrels; and the techniques for smoothly boring and rifling stainless without microchatter and microburrs; were not well understood. In that time, stainless barrels were considered poorer for best accuracy in comparison to chrome-molybdenum alloys (chromo or chromolly).

That time has passed.

Although you can get barrels in any number of materials and alloys, I see no reason to have a barrel for a field gun in anything other than a high grade stainless steel.

The ease of maintenance alone is worth it; and most custom barrel makers use some grade of stainless as their default metal... in fact some only offer stainless barrels.

The only reason I would choose a non-stainless barrel at this point, is if I were hot bluing a gun; because stainless doesn't take conventional bluing.

However, I would also not be bluding a field gun like this one. I'll save the hot blue for a fine safari rifle, if I ever choose to build one.

Twist

Twist rate is determined by how long a bullet you want to shoot... which is generally directly proportional to the weight of the bullet in question (I wrote extensively about twist rate and stabilization here, and here).

It should be noted however, that differences in bullet profile, and the construction of a bullet, can mean two bullets of the same weight, and even of the same length, might stabilize differently (Bergers VLD bullets are known for not needing as much stabilization as their length might otherwise suggest).

As I've said, I plan on shooting high ballistic coefficient, heavy, low drag design bullets; and that means long bullets, which means I need a fast twist rate.

.300winmag barrels are generally rifled to 1-12", 1-11", or 1-10".

1-12" is for those who want to shoot light weight bullets for long range varminting.

I still haven't decided whether I'm going to get my barrel 1-11" or 1-10"; mostly because I haven't decided if I want to shoot primarily the 190gr Sierra Match King, the 190gr Berger VLD, the 210gr Match King, or the 210gr Berger VLD.

Length and Contour

The length and contour of a barrel come down to a tradeoff between ballistic performance, and weight.

The thicker the contour, the more rigid the barrel, which means better performance; but also more weight.

The longer the barrel the more powder can be burned in the barrel, which means the less recoil, and more velocity (and maybe slightly more accuracy), but again, more weight.

Additionally, longer barrels are less rigid then shorter barrels of the same contour (a longer beam to vibrate); so once you've reached a certain point (and it's different with every bullet weight, and charge, so there's no hard and fast rules) you're actually losing precision as you go longer.

Finally, more length means the barrel is more likely to hang up on terrain, be spotted, or have the crown damaged.

Since this is a field rifle, I don't want a full cylinder contour, as is on some benchrest rifles, and I don't want a 30" length; but It's not a stalking rifle either, so I don't want a 24" 12lb gun.

This rifle is going to be primarily used either off a bench, off a rest, or prone from a prepared shooting position. That means, while I don't want a 40lb gun, I don't mind a little weight.

Also, a heavy gun, is a gun with less felt recoil. That means less shooter fatigue, thus better accuracy and precision as the day wears on.

The minimum barrel length for .300 winmag is 24". Any shorter than that and you don't see enough velocity gains over .308 to make it worth the extra noise and recoil. Also, with most commercial loadings of winmag, a 24" barrel will end up with a tremendous muzzle blast and flash from all the unburned powder.

If you're going to suppress a winmag, 24" barrels are generally preferred, simply because the 8" to 10" of a can hanging off the end of a barrel works better with a shorter beam. In fact, cans tend to improve the accuracy of short barrels, because they act as harmonic dampeners, and they eliminate the turbulent muzzle blast such a short barrel engenders.

Generally speaking though, 26" and 28" barrels are preferred for winmag; 28" for guns with no muzzle brake, and 26" for guns with a muzzle brake. Not because a brake magically allows you to have a 2" shorter barrel; but because a brake adds another 2" or 3" (or more) to the barrel, and as we said above, too long isn't a good thing.

The weight difference between 24" and 28" is generally going to be around 1/2-3/4lb for the heavy contour target barrels we're dealing with; and for most isn't worth the tradeoff.

The only reason to really consider the shorter barrel for a gun primarily fired off the bench or prone from prepared positions, is if you do a lot of airline travel with the gun; because long cases can be very unwieldy, and can incur extra baggage charges.

Do remember, a 28" barrel, on a magnum action and a target stock, can be quite long.

A "typical" non magnum or short magnum hunting rifle may only be 42" long; with a 13.5" length of pull, 6" from the breech face to the trigger face, and a 22" barrel.

The standard length of pull for a tactical target stock for a tall guy like me is 14.5". 14.5" LOP plus 28" barrel, plus 3" of muzzlebrake, plus almost 8" of action between the breech face and the trigger face in a .300 win mag; that's 53.5" OAL. Add in at least an inch on either end for the case itself, and it's more like 56".

That by the way is the main reason why .300WSM is becoming so popular. It allows you to use a shorter action, and a shorter barrel; which saves length and weight. A .300wsm built for 600 yards or less, can be a full 4lbs lighter than an equivalent performing .300 win mag.

If weight IS a big concern, but you want to maintain rigidity, and barrel length, you may want to consider fluting. Fluting is when relief cuts, or "flutes" are made in the barrel, either along the long axis, or in a spiral. These cuts can be made to various depths, and in various shapes; for weight reduction as well as style.

Fluting has been very popular over the past few years; and it does provide certain advantages. For a given weight of metal, a fluted barrel can be of a greater diameter; which means greater rigidity for weight. Also, a fluted barrel increases the surface area of a barrel, aiding in heat dissipation. Properly done, a fluted barrel can also help in reliving uneven barrel stresses.

Of course there is a flip side to this.

Fluting does not increase rigidity over an unfluted barrel of the same profile... no matter what the guys at the gunshop... or even some riflesmiths who should know better, will tell you.

A rifle barrel is a solid beam, not a piece of sheetmetal, where flutes DO increase rigidity. Anyone who has taken a class in solids or dynamics (engineering physics) will understand this. In a cylinder, even if it is a modified cylinder, mass equals vibration resistance and diameter increases vibration resistance, and fluting reduces mass.

So you can have a fluted barrel be more rigid than a smaller diameter barrel with the same weight; or you can have it be less rigid than the same diameter barrel, but weight less; you don't get both.

And yes, fluting does increase surface area, which improves cooling of the barrel; but as it removes mass, it means the barrel heats up more in the first place.

Finally, although properly machined, fluting CAN reduce uneven stresses in the barrel; it can also INDUCE them, or exacerbate pre-existing stresses; and there is really no way to tell until you shoot the thing.

All in all, I personally recommend against fluting, unless weight is a primary concern; in which case you are better off shortening the barrel a couple inches first; then slightly reducing the countour; and then only finally going to fluting if you still need to trim the weight.

Given these tradeoffs, I've decided to go with a 26" barrel. I'm thinking a fairly heavy contour, at least a #7 and maybe as much as a #10; and of course unfluted.

Of course, I understand that with a field target/tactical stock (like a McMillan A5 or HS Precision pro 2000), heavy high magnification optics, and accessories; such a barrel will result in a rifle with a weight around 20lbs.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I'm happy with that weight. I think I'd rather see a weight in the 17lb range; so I may end up going with a slightly lighter contour barrel, and even a slightly lighter stock. What I won't be doing is reducing the barrel length any, or fluting it.

Of course that has a direct impact on the final question...

To brake, or not to brake

This is kind of a controversial question. On the one hand, there is no question that muzzle brakes can dramatically reduce felt recoil. Even a basic brake can often reduce felt recoil by 40%, and some of the best by as much as 55%. On the other hand, muzzle brakes make rifles MUCH MUCH LOUDER.

Less felt recoil means less shooter fatigue, less flinch, and better accuracy. These are all very good things.

Unfortunately, more muzzle report means MORE shooter fatigue, more flinch, and worse accuracy. All bad things.

The fact is, for the .300 winmag, whether you use a muzzle brake or not is really dependent on your personal tolerance for recoil, for muzzle blast, and for the weight of your gun.

Anything harder shooting than .300 winmag, you definitely want a brake; anything softer shooting you probably don't need one, unless it's in a lighter weight gun, or the rifle has a barrel of 24" or less.

Personally, I haven't decided whether I'm going to have a brake or not. The gun is going to be heavy enough that it probably doesn't need one; but I think I'd like to have the option.

What I think I'm going to do, is have Krieger thread and install a brake, but also make me a thread cap so I can use the barrel without it if I so choose.

3. Action

The action (and trigger and bottom metal) are next on the list.

Production factory actions and triggers, are really designed to shoot into 2moa at 300 yards; and of course to protect the factories from liability lawsuits. They may do much better than that, but there's no guarantees.

Given this, we can't really go with a stock factory action.

Also, we have to keep the price down as far as possible, and build the rifle as fast as possible; which means going with an action that has commonly available parts and accessories, suitable for a 1000 yard rifle.

For the most part, that leaves out full custom design actions; as well as actions from Howa, and Savage, which produce excellent rifles at quite low cost.

Either option would make great rifles; but they don't have the common, high quality parts and accessories available for them at short notice, that is necessary for a project like this.

We really have four options

1. Trued up Winchester Model 70 Classic/FN Police action (factory or custom smithwork)
   
2. Trued up Remington 700 action (factory or custom smithwork)
   
3. Factory custom Remington 40x action
4. One of the many custom target/tactical actions based on the Rem 700

We could buy an off the shelf rifle based on actions 1-3 for around $2500-$3500 and be done with it; but at that point, we wouldn't have any control over the barrel or stock; so I don't think we want to go that route.

Besides, with careful parts selection (and the right riflesmith) we can beat both that price, and that quality

There are some other parameters for the action that will influence my decision. First among them is the availability of high quality triggers, from vendors like Jewell, Timney, and Shilen.

Thankfully, all three make good triggers for the 700, and Model 70 actions.

Another question is whether you want a blind magazine, a drop plate magazine, or a detachable box.

Personally, I'd love a 5 or even 10 round detachable box magazine, but I don't know of anyone making a non-custom action anymore that supports it, in .300 winmag. There are however plenty of custom actions that do, as well as modifications to the Remington 700 and Winchester model 70 that do (HS precision and Badger ordnance spring to mind immediately). Otherwise, a 3-5 round drop plate mag is fine.

I know blind mags will give me more rigidity, but I'm not convinced they're a good idea in a field/tactical repeater. On a benchrest rifle sure; but I want to be able to clean out and replace my mags without taking the action out of the stock.

That still leaves us the four main options; and what it comes down to really is price, and availability.

You can get a factory FNH or Rem 700 action for around $400-$800 (depending on exact features), then have them trued up for another $600-$800 or so; or just buy trued up versions for around $1000-$1400.

On the custom side of things, you can get into a full custom action for as little as $1100; or one of the many Remington 700 custom clones, for as little as $750; and have them be better than the trued factory actions you're paying as much or more for when the labor is accounted for.

Given this, I've chosen to go with a Remginton 700 clone action; and believe me, you're spoiled for choice.

Among the reputable manufacturers offering actions that work with Rem 700 stocks and parts, are the following commonly used in long range tactical, and 1000 yard benchrest shooting:

• BAT machine works
• Nesika (formerly Nesika Bay)
• Barnard
• Lawton
• Pierce
• Bordon
• Surgeon
• Stiller

There are many others, but those are probably the strongest competitors in the Rem 700 clone market. Again, you can't really go wrong choosing any of them.

I spent several hours talking with various riflesmiths; and then calling the action makers directly; and eventually narrowed my decision to two, Surgeon, and Stiller.

Both manufacturers offered all the features I wanted in an action; but at a reasonable price.

Surgeon had the additional advantage of milling a built in rail into all their receivers; but Stiller actions are a few hundred dollars cheaper, and near as I can see, every bit the quality of Surgeon.

So, I called them both up, and talked with them about options, cost, their experience and advice etc... After talking with both Surgeon and Stiller, I've made a decision on the action.

I ended up talking with Curtis over at Stiller for about a half hour, and I was so impressed with him personally, that he convinced me that they were the way to go. I think what sold me the most was that he wasn't trying to sell me.

Honestly, he didn't need my business; they sell as many actions as they can make, and more; but he took the time to talk with me about exactly what I was trying to do, and how he thought he could best help me out.

I also had a discussion with a few folks, including Curtis, about feed reliability of the shortmag cartridges in these actions; as well the performance of the heavy bullets at 800-1000 vs. the lighter bullets; and tactical performance in wind vs groupings etc... and that was what finally convinced me to stick with the full .300 win mag over the .300wsm.

So, I'm now on the list for a Stiller Tac 300, with the heavy recoil lug. Delivery will be between 6 and 12 weeks depending.

That leaves the trigger and bottom metal to deal with on the action side of things.

There are a LOT of triggers available for the Remington 700; but to my mind, none of them are as good as the Jewell HVR. It's nearly infinitely adjustable, reliable, and reasonably priced at around $225; and it's a bolt in right from the factory, no expensive hand stoning required.

There are both cheaper, and more expensive options; but really, why bother. I think you'll find probably half the folks out there running a Rem 700 action have a Jewell trigger... maybe more.

The bottom metal is a little trickier. As I said, I want a detachable box magazine; and there are several companies out there that do bottom metal for box mags.

The two leaders are probably HS Precision, and Badger Ordnance. Near as I can tell both are as good as the other, and both cost about the same.

I'm still trying to figure out which one I want to go with; but at least I can budget properly, since both run around $350.

Stock

More than any of the other parts of the rifle, the stock is the most subjective piece. So much is based on personal preferences and comfort that it can be very hard to give, or get advice or recommendations.

A stock should be suited to the shooting you are going to do with it, and to the scope and mounting system you will be using on the rifle.

Why is the scope important to the stock choice??

In a word: Consistency

You need to have proper optical alignment and a good cheek weld, to ensure consistency in your shooting.

A scope with 50mm or larger objective lens will generally require extra high rings (on most guns); and therefore a high comb, Monte Carlo, or adjustable target type stock and cheekpiece, to get a proper cheek weld.

One of the reasons I say even a factory tactical rifle may need to have the stock replaced, is that most of the factory tactical rifles have what is essentially a modified sporter stock.

For example the factory Remington stocks on their tactical rifles are actually quite good; they're a stable composite, free floated and pillar bedded; in fact they're designed by HS precision, so they're about as good as you can get without going to a hand fitted custom stock; but in all but the sniper system models, they are still basically a slightly modified standard sporter stock.

So why is that a bad thing?

Well, it isn't if you're out hunting in the field; but for tactical and long range target shooting, you'll generally be either seated or prone.

If you're doing any long range shooting at small targets (or small circles on paper); a sporter stock isn't the best choice, because it is optimized for fast mounting and fast followup shots, preferably offhand (standing up). When you are holding a sporter stock in shooting position, you are putting a fair bit of opposing tension on the stock to hold it steady, by design.

These are all good things for a rifle out in the field; but on the bench, or from prone, they induce a slight wobble, and are fatiguing over time.

A proper target or varmint stock is designed to minimize errors induced by the shooter, and reduce shooter fatigue during long shooting sessions. They are designed to be shot from a stable rest, and to keep the shooters hand, forearm, shoulder, neck, and head, all in as neutral a position as possible; with just enough body contact to ensure consistent sight picture and trigger pull.

Importantly to this specific situation, high comb target/tactical stocks allow for better cheek weld and optical alignment, with large objective lens scopes. Larger objective lenses need higher rings, and higher rings need higher combs to get that good cheek weld.

Target tactical stocks are also optimized for use with bipods, target rests, and sandbags; all of which help you steady your long range shooting for long sessions.

In the tactical shooting field, there are two unquestioned dominant players: McMillan, and H.S. Precision. Both produce excellent stocks, at a similar price point, and with similar strengths and weaknesses.

The primary difference between the two companies, is that all McMillan stocks are made to order; whereas HS precision are more production oriented (though they also make to order on request).

From a technical standpoint, the only major difference is in the bedding.

Many H.S. precision stocks use a monolithic aluminum bedding block, and do not require glass bedding at all (though some shooters and riflesmiths still do so; most of the time it produces no noticeable difference in results).

McMillan stocks are either fully glass bedded; or pillar glass bedded with two metal pillars that are glassed into the stock. Best performance is achieved with pillar glass bedding; though it is only very slightly better than straight pillar bedding, or bedding blocks (as used by HS precision).

Technically, the absolute maximum accuracy possible is very slightly higher out of the McMillan; but the difference is so small as to likely be inconsequential. On the other hand, the HS precision system requires slightly less skilled work to make very accurate.

Generally speaking, I prefer McMillan very slightly over HS precisions; though I'd be happy with either.

Unfortunately, McMillan has very long delivery times (since all stocks are custom made to order). I spoke with them, and I wont be able to get a stock from them in time to get the rifle built and tested before boomershoot.

I won't have that same problem with HS precision, and in fact with the HS Precision bedding block system, I don't need to have a highly skilled smith bed the action (you just use consistent torque on the action screws, and ensure even contact with the bedding block).

So, I'm going to go with the HS precision Pro 2000, extended length of pull (14.5").

Oh and since I'm going with the HS precision stock, I'll probably go with their bottom metal, and have them custom fit it for me (which they do for a nominal fee).

Step Three - Taping Out

So, the decisions that have to be made right now, have been made. Let's total things up and see where we are.

First thing, is to account for labor. I'm going to be using an HS precision stock, and I'm a skilled enough smith; that I don't need to pay for final assembly or bedding.

Stiller is going to mount the toprail, and mount and lap the rings for me; and I'm having Krieger crown, chamber, and mount the barrel to the action.

The costs are looking something like this:

1. Stiller Tac 300 action, complete, lapped, with pinned, oversized recoil lug - $775
2. 20moa base, custom fitted for action, with custom high rings, lapped - $125
3. Jewell HVR trigger, fitted - $225
4. HS precision bottom metal, and mag - $350
5. Krieger 26" barrel, mounted, lapped, crowned, and chambered, with brake - $700
6. HS Precision pro 2000 stock - $600
7. Harris bipod, swivels, fittings, and small parts - $150

Total $2925

Ouch... that's a lot... but it's actually a much better rifle than any of the factory custom tactical rifles; and for less money too.

Of course with that price, I don't have much if anything left for optics or accessories... I'm going to need to get creative, and to find some more money somewhere.

I've also totaled up the weights,

1. Action - 2lb
2. Barrel - 7lb
3. Bottom metal and mag - 1lb
4. Scope - 2lb
5. Stock - 6lb
   
6. Bipod - 1lb
7. Mounting hardware etc... - 1lb

Total = about 20lbs

At 20lbs, and with a muzzle brake, this thing should be a VERY soft shooter; in fact it should have less felt recoil than most .308 rifles.

Of course it'd be a stone ass bitch to hump the thing; but it should get the job done all day every day, at 1000 yards; and that's the important thing.

The Next Step

So we've got the plan done for the rifle, the action is ordered, I'm in the queue for a barrel and stock; and we're getting the money together.

Over the next couple posts in this series, lets talk about the other big part of a 1000 yard rig*: the optics and supporting gear

*Well, one of the other two parts; the final part being the shooter; and believe me we'll talk about that later as well.

Unintentional Irony

I was just checking to see how badly my 401k has been hit over the past few weeks, and the internal website was down for maintenance.

I called the 877 number instead... and was accidentally connected to a phone sex line, offering to ream me with a strap-on.

I dialed back, and this time got an actual plan specialist, who informed me my account was down 22% over the past 4 weeks.

... I think I'd rather have been reamed with the strap-on.

A Perfect Thing

There are very few things in this world that are perfect; and even then those things rarely last long.

There are "greater" rock albums, and "greater" bands than Deep Purple, and their third album "Machinehead"... but it is an absolutely perfect album from an absolutely perfect band.

The Mark II lineup of Deep Purple; Ian Gillan (vocals), Ritchie Blackmore (guitar), Jon Lord (keyboards), Roger Glover (bass guitar) and Ian Paice (drums); was literally perfect. There could not have been a better band possible at that moment.

Sure, Clapton and Page are a little bit better than Blackmore; Mercury and Plant a little bit better singers than Gillian; Bonham and Moon a little bit better drummers than Paice; but could you imagine a band with better talent in EVERY position like this?

Then they produce what is the ultimate hard rock album of the 60s and early 70s. There isnt a second of that album that isn't truly perfect, and it was released at exactly the perfect moment.

So what other perfect albums are out there, from the perfect band (or artist), at the perfect time?

NRA Press Conference

Last week, the gunbloggers at the Gunblogger Rendezvous, were asked by the NRA to cover the final press conference of their McCain endorsement announcement event.

They started the day out in Pennsylvania, then proceeded through several critical swing states as the day wore on; hitting Springfield MO, Denver CO, and finally Reno NV.

You might note, all four are heavy hunting states, and critical swing states for this election.

It would have been a great day long event, but for the fact that they gave essentially the same announcement speech in each location. They ran through a littany of Obamas poor record on firearms, and announced their official endorsement of John McCain.


Not exactly a huge surprise.

After the event I spoke with the media relations rep, Ashley Varner (a great lady by the way), and I expressed my concern that they had wasted an opportunity there, by not staggering out more interesting bits throughout the day; instead basically blowing that major cross country effort, since AP had the story at 8am eastern.

Frankly, we were hoping for something bigger.

After the announcement, we had some time for Q&A with Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox.

Unfortunately, there were a lot of members of the audience, who didn't quite understand that the NRA is not an ANTI-OBAMA organization, they are a GUN RIGHTS organization; and some time was wasted dealing with people asking why the NRA wasn't trying to prove Obama was really a closet muslim, not an american citizen, and a communist.

To his credit, Wayne LaPierre made it very clear, the NRA isn't anti-democrat, or pro-republican by nature. The NRA is non partisan, caring not for party, only for the position of a candidate on gun rights.

When then right wing nutjob questions were over, this woman stood up:


Her name is Ly Chho, and she escaped from Cambodia as a child. She stood up to say that she had seen communism, how fast it moved from soft socialism to death camps, and that Obama made her frightened, because it had happened before... it could happen here (Kevin Baker has more).

I was able to ask three questions of Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre:

1. Is the NRA currently pursuing, or will they pursue, an FEC complaint against the Annenberg foundation, for their actions in Chicago, and their explicit advocacy for a candidate within six weeks of an election, in violation of the BCRA (McCain Feingold); as well as their unlawful co-ordination with the Obama campaign directly.

2. Is the NRA currently pursuing, or will they pursue, an FEC complaint against the Obama campaign for their actions in Missouri, and other states, to influence and intimidate media outlets, and voters, through the improper use of state agencies and officials; as well as the unlawful direct co-ordination of the campaign with elected officials.

3. Is the NRA currently pursuing, or will they pursue, a civil complaint of malfeasance or misfeasance of office, ethics violations for abuse of public trust, or criminal complaints of conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil rights; against those public officials involved in the actions of the Obama campaign.

Cox was unable to give me a direct positive or negative answer; saying that they were strongly pursuing all opportunities and avenues open to them.

I got the impression from the response that they WOULD be pursing an FEC complaint, and ethical complaints; but most likely they would not be pursing a civil suit, or criminal complaint.

After the questions were over, Chris Cox came up to me and personally thanked me for asking the questions (apparently no-one else had asked him that day), and for what I was doing for gun rights, with the various websites I write on.

Finally, we had a photo opportunity with Cox and LaPierre.


The first photo was taken by Ashley Varner, and includes me; and I took the second here, including Ashley in the picture:

Full Retard

Blogging from the road home

I couldn't get Blogger working on the iPhone for the trip home, but twitter did work; so I'm publishing the tweets from the whole weekend here now, while I take the day off to recover from the trip.

A lot more about GBR 3 to come.

chrisbyrne: I hate twitter, but I have to use it because everyone I know is now using it. So it's either use twitter or not know what's going on - 03:45 PM October 09, 2008

chrisbyrne: Back from the not so drunken revelry. Kinda hard to get sloppy on the macallan. - 11:30 PM October 09, 2008

chrisbyrne: Just back from the gunblogger range day. Great time had by all. Had 10 shots out of a Barrett M82A1 at 1000 yards, hit 8, bullseyed 2 - 03:00 PM October 11, 2008

chrisbyrne: Well GBR 3 is just about done, cept for breakfast in the morning. Great times, good shooting, great people, and great conversation. - 12:34 AM October 12, 2008

chrisbyrne: On our way home now. 750 miles and 13 hours to go. - 11:16 AM October 12, 2008

chrisbyrne: Yerington Nevada is gorgeous - 01:07 PM October 12, 2008

chrisbyrne: Walker lake is even more beautiful - 01:51 PM October 12, 2008

chrisbyrne: 13 hours and 670 miles so far; bout 80 more to go... Maybe 75 minutes to home - about 22 hours ago

chrisbyrne: Home. 750 miles in 11.5 hours drive time, 14 hours totaltrip time. - about 20 hours ago

the special event that was so secret...

is no longer secret.

Today Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox are making a special election-oriented announcement in 4 swing states.

Their last stop is Reno.

Those of us attending GBR3 have been specially invited to attend and blog the press conference, and we'll be given the opportunity to ask questions and get a few photo ops in.

This is all happening at 5:30 PST.
Obviously we'll be covering the event on this blog and I will also be posting to my Twitted feed under MelodyByrne.

Stay tuned.

Mel

blogging from the road up

Well, we made it up to boulder city (280 miles), in just over 4 hours, including crossing the dam (20 minutes or so), so were making great time and great gas mileage. Gorgeous, comfy, and relaxing trip so far. I love a car that can accellerate from 80 to 110 up a 6% grade without complaining.

We just had lunch at the coffee cup (it was on diners driveins and dives), good burgers and MEGA enchilladas, thou with another 500 miles to go we decided against going Mexican.

Gotta get through Vegas before the traffic hits. Next stop Tonopah or Hawthorne, and finally Reno, round 11.

On The Road to Reno

Well, we're off on the road to Reno; racked, stacked, and packed, for the third annual Gun Blogger Rendezvous... Plus a couple extra days of the first paid vacation time I've taken in almost a decade.

Now it's time for 750 miles of audio books, good beef jerky, bad road food, and the company of my beautiful wife; as we drive though the emptiest portion of America (and I mean that literally. central Nevada is used for weapons testing for a reason).

We'll be back next Tuesday. 'Til then there will be periodic updates and pictures of the GBR, but don't expect much else in this space.

Have fun doing whatever you are doing that is not as cool as meeting up with 30 of the coolest people on the planet, in a casino, to eat, drink, and shoot (after recovering from the drinking that is...).

GBR3 Change of Plans and Awesomeness

The bloggers attending this year's Gun Blogger Rendezvous have been invited to a very special event Thursday night. We can't release any details, but if you are attending GBR3 you will not want to miss this opportunity! This is a huge, awesome deal and if you do not attend you will be kicking your ass for the next year!

Meet up is at the hospitality room at 5:30 and wear something you wouldn't mind being photographed in (although that really applies to the whole GBR, our readers like photos).

As a result of the special event Thursday night, the Basque banquet has been moved to Friday night at 6 (meetup at 5:30). Please RSVP to melody.byrne AT gmail DOT com so I can give the restaurant a headcount.

As for all of the bloggers and readers missing this year's GBR, stayed tuned.

Mel

Controlled Round Feed

A few days ago, I had a question from someone who knows pistols, but not rifles "What exactly is CRF, and why do rifle snobs think it's so important" (I'm paraphrasing here).

Good question.

Controlled Round Feed (CRF) is the property of certain weapons that keeps positive control of a round while the weapon is cycling, so that the round can be pulled back halfway through the loading cycle (at least once the round has been stripped from the magazine), or the weapon can be turned upside down without the round coming out etc...

The other common method is push feed, where the round is pushed ahead of the bolt. In a push feed gun, if you half stroke the bolt, then pull back, the round will be left where it was. If you turn a push feed gun upside down during the feed stroke, the round may fall out, or jam.

It is possible to double feed or otherwise jam a push feed gun with multiple cartridge cases or live rounds; it is nearly impossible to do so with a controlled round feed gun.

CRF guns are more difficult to single load rounds in, they are much more sensitive to magazines and feed angle, and much more sensitive to cartridge OAL.

An aside: push feed vs. controlled round feed applies to pistols as well. The 1911 with internal extractor is a CRF design, but many more recent auto pistol designs are push feed.

Critically, it is also much more difficult to design, and manufacture, a controlled round feed weapon than a push feed weapon; which is why the majority of rifles made over the last 40 years are push feed. It's also much of the reason why "rifle snobs" tend to give a disproportionately large weight on CRF in their overall evaluation of a rifle; not only for the direct properties, but also as an overall indicator that quality was valued over cost, in the design and manufacturing of the rifle.

Most tactical rifle users, and almost all dangerous game hunters, feel the positive control of the round, is worth the tradeoff of more sensitivity to external factors, and of more cost.

The Winchester model 70 classic, and pre '64 model 70, are both CRF; as is the Remington 40x (a special target/tactical version of the 700 action, used as the basis for benchrest and sniper rifles), and any true Mauser 98 actioned rifle (including most CZ rifles, Brno rifles etc...).

Winchester model 70 rifles made between 1964, and the reintroduction of the Model 70 "classic" in 1992 (non "classic" models are still push feed), as well as the Remington 700 (the most popular centerfire bolt action rifle in the world); are push feed.

Savage and Weatherby rifles are variable based on model and options. Most non magnum Savage and Weatherby are push feed, most magnum are CRF.

For any two given rifles, otherwise identical, you can expect that the CRF model will be about 20% more expensive.

Guns

Surprising to me...

David Letterman has totally lost his mind... I've watched Letterman for decades now, and he's always managed to funny, and biting, without going crazy, and without getting nasty.

Even in this election he'd avoided the nastiness, until McCain stiffed him. Since then he has spent almost every night getting really nasty, and very vindictive about McCain, and especially about Palin.

Also, Brian Williams is pretty funny, very smart, and quick on his feet.

Of all the major network anchors (now that Tim Russert has passed on) is the least biased, and most gracious.

I wonder, with Russert and Williams, if their Catholicism (Russert remained until his death, and Williams still is, a very sincere catholic), and specifically the Jesuit education they shared; had a big hand in that ability to remain fair and gracious, though both are self identified democrats.

My Electoral Prediction - One Month Out

The only states I have even the slightest doubt about here, based on the state of the world as it is today, are New Mexico and New Hampshire.

If they both break McCains way, McCains in.

If they split(which I think is most likely), again, McCains in.

If they both break Obamas way that leaves McCain still in.

The only problem I can possibly forsee, is the next 30 days in Ohio and Virginia, where something insane might happen.

Oh and for those who've been postulating the Bradley effect is dead... not a chance.

Mel is a PopCap junkie... it's like crack for housewives

Choices

Posted at Chris's Request

What if he makes up several entire languages...

...and histories and mythologies... Yeah, you know who I'm talkin 'bout...