OCD - Obsessive Clarkson Disorder

So for the last three days or so I've been deep in the YouTube soup, watching every episode of the "new" (since 2002 anyway) BBC "Top Gear", 9 minutes at a time.

I lived all over euroland for a few years (mostly in Ireland), and honestly one of the things I miss the most is the cars.

Let's face it, other than the pickup truck, and a couple of sports cars; pretty much every American car made since 1974 is shit. Not just objectively shit by todays standards (I mean even a 70s Mercedes is shit in comparison to a Toyota Camry today) ; American cars were shit in comparison to other countries contemporary cars. A 1977 Ford Grenada is even worse than a 1977 Morris Marina (and for those of you who don't know, that's really saying something).

In fact, American passenger cars are so bad, I'd still rather have a 70s Mercedes today than a brand new Ford Galaxie (and isn't THAT a blasphemy against a classic name), or aChevy.. well, anything really 'cept a 'vette.

The shtick of Top Gear, is that it's three real car guys; Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond; thrashing the hell out of every kind of car their is, from 70s econoboxes (which they usually destroy in fun and funny ways) all the way up to million dollar hypercars.

I absolutely love the show. It's fun, it's funny, it's irreverent... it's brilliant.

...but it has one major problem; they are all deranged America haters, especially Jeremy Clarkson (in fact, Hammond quite likes American muscle cars - he collects them; he just doesn't like America).

Now, I really like Jeremy Clarkson. You know me, I think sarcasm is the highest form of humor; and nobody brings the snark better than Jezza. Thing is though, he has a pathological hatred of America, and all things American. He's actually said, on the air "I absolutely love this car, it's brilliant in every way, except it's American"... and he wasn't joking... or at least no more than anything else he says.

They did a series of episodes in America, and Jeremy pissed people off so much with his nastiness that they were actually physically attacked by a bunch of good'ol boys down in Alabama.

It's kind of sad really, you can see him, any time he actually likes an American car he has to desperately grasp for things to hate about it to outweigh it's good points. Sometimes he just flatout makes stuff up, or contradicts stuff he said in other shows.

Now, often he makes a lot of very good points. American cars, even high end American cars, tend to have interiors that you wouldn't find on a $10,000 micro hatchback made in Germany. Also, we seem to want cupholders far more than we want road feel.

...But heres the thing, American cars feel cheap, because they ARE cheap, at least in comparison to European cars.

Here's an example, look at this Alfa 156:












It's just gorgeous. Every inch of it, even though it's just a mid level managers sedan, is just beautiful. Of course it's an Alfa so it loses 50% of it's value in a year, and compared to other European cars the quality is shite; but it's just amazing, and moving, and sexy, and incredibly fun to drive.

I know, because I used to own one; the earlier model 156GTA that was even sexier actually; though I wasn't stupid enough to buy one new. I bought it for half price 18 months from new; then sold it for 3/4 what I bought it for after a year (I replaced it with an Opel Astra - a big step down).

I LOVED this car; but most motoring journalists thought it wasn't very good... because in comparison to the other European (mostly German) competition, it wasn't.

But in America, this would be it's competition:


That's a Buick Lacrosse, the closest market segment competition to the Alfa that America has to offer.

They have a similar trim level, similar size, similar straight line performance, and they are aimed at the same target market... at least in theory.

The problem is, the Buick is, quite frankly, shit. In fact it really ISN'T competition for the Alfa, because if you were looking at an Alfa, the cars you'd be comparing to wouldn't be American, they'd be German: the Audi A4, BMW 3 series, and Mercedes Benz C-Class.

The Alfa is the slowest, lowest spec, lowest power, lowest quality of the European bunch, and it's still MILES ahead of the Buick.

BUT...

I started off saying American cars were comparatively cheap; and so they are. That Alfa, turnkey cost in the UK today (well, last year. They've just replaced it with a new model, the 159) would be approximately $64,000.

The Buick?

About $25,000.

For $64,000 in America you can buy a Cadillac CTS-V; a much better car than the Alfa (actually, the CTS-V is a spectacularly good car in it's own right):

... and still have enough left over for two years worth of gas and insurance.

Or you could buy the Buick, and another one for your mother, and still have enough left over for a nice sport bike... and two years worth of gas and insurance for all three of them.

So yes, American cars ARE cheap nasty shit compared to the European cars; if I were paying $65,000 I wouldn't want the equivalent of the Buick either (Actually, I very well might buy the CTS-V... but honestly I'm more likely to buy an M3).

But for 16,000GBP you get what exactly?

Wait a sec, that's about $4000 more than the cost of the Buick... what the heck? The problem is, anything cheaper in the UK would be a small hatchback. You don't get very much at all for 13,000GBP.

But, for 16k, you get a Ford EUCD platform car. Over here they've just renamed the larger version which was the Ford 500 (from the old Galaxie 500) to the new Taurus (it's also the base for the much higher end Volvo S60). They sell a slightly smaller version in europe, and call it the Mondeo:

Which is not a bad car actually, but I wouldn't pay that much for it... 'course I wouldn't pay that much for the Buick either (oh and in America, you don't pay that much. The larger Taurus runs right about the same as the Buick here which is one of the reasons why I used it).

The Ford is probably still the better car actually, but that's because Ford interiors are on the whole a hell of a lot better than GM interiors... and because Buicks suspensions and transmissions are set up for 70 year old golfers with a hot coffee in each cupholder and a self imposed speed limit of 45mph in the middle lane with the left blinker on.

The point being, the difference in quality there is relatively small. TO offset the worse interior and suspension the Buick is probably a fair bit faster, though it doesn't handle quite as well; and it has a bit more room... and is a better looking car.

Or, if you want to keep it in the GM family, you can get an Opel/Vauxhall Vectra, which is sold in this country as a Saturn ION and which sells for pretty much the same as the Mondeo in Europe, and pretty much the same as the Galaxie (now Taurus), and the Buick here in the US.

Now, let me just say, I still think American cars are mostly shit. I wouldn't buy that Buick, fully loaded, for $10,000 never mind the $25,000 I could take it off the lot for (which is about $5000 less than list. Car buyers are almost being paid cash to take them off the lots).

...BUT

Dollar for dollar, American cars are just as good as European cars; it's just that our cars cost a lot less dollars than theirs do. The price they pay for an economy hatchback is what we expect to pay for a medium sized family car.

If I were spending $30,000 on a Chevy Cavalier, I'd want it to be as nice as a Volkswagon Golf GTI too... but to do that I'd have to pay for the Golf GTI; about twice the cost of the Cavalier.

So Clarkson, next time you want to start complaining about how awful our cars are, remember the Z06 Corvette is nearly as fast as the Porsche 911gt3 (both in a straight line, and on the track), costs 1/3rd the price, and gets twice the gas mileage to boot (we... if you keep your foot out of it. )

A funny thing though...

Clarkson...

D'ya know what he drove until a few months ago?

One of these:

An American Ford GT; which on numerous occasions he's called the greatest sports car ever built...

...unfortunately though he also called it the most unreliable sports car ever built; because his electrics failed repeatedly... which coming from an Englishman is a bit of a laugh really. I mean after all, this is the home of British Leyland, and Lucas. For those sins alone no Englishman should ever be allowed to complain about a cars unreliable electrical system ever again.

No content today

Hurt myself last night, feel like shit today (nothing serious, just, yaknow, owwwwww).

I've got a couple big posts coming up, I jsut don't feel like finishing them off when I feel like shit.

Amazing, frightening, and of course... shocking

This is both amazing in it's technical achievement, and frightening in its potential for abuse and inappropriate use.

It's the new Taser XREP (Extended Range Electronic Projectile), and its coming to your local PDs 12 ga shotguns next year.

I had two flash vids embedded here but I couldn't stop the damn things from auto playing, so heres the links instead:

Video 1: Promo Video

Video 2: Informational Video

Warning, loud auto-play and a near critical case of mallninja marketing bullshit to follow.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious...

That Amex would use this in a commercial?



I was inspired to post this thought (which has been rattling around in my head since the commercial premiered a couple months back) by Scalzi posting this:

"Your question for today: Is Spinal Tap, at this time, a rock band in its own right?

If your answer is "yes," do you think there's a legitimate argument for including the band in the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame? We're only a couple years away from when the band would be eligible (25 years after the release of their first album, which in this case would be the This is Spinal Tap soundtrack, released in 1984).

I have my own opinion both questions (you might be able to guess what they are simply by the fact I'm posing these questions at all) but I'm interested in hearing some general discussion on the matter. "

Well, they are real enough to have sold out and had one of their songs being used as the theme in a major corporations commercial; a major milestone for any real band after all.

...though they were "the thamesmen" then ;-)

Hell, Harry Scherer, Christopher Guest, and Michael McKeon can really sing and play quite well, together and onstage even. That's better than a hell of a lot of bands manage to do today.

Thank you Ann Coulter

For getting me to join the conservative book club.

You can get John Lotts new book "Freedomnomics" for $3.95 shipping, and only have to buy two more books from the club over the next year.

Somehow I think that won't be a problem.

Here's her article on the book

Lock-N-Load Report #5 - The Final Roundup

Well, I've got my LnL completed, built, mounted, adjusted, and I've loaded a few hundred rounds with it; I figure it's time to turn this into a resource for others who'd like to know about the press.

So, here's the links to the previous posts on the LnL:

• Progressive Experiment
  
  
• Lock - n - Load Report #1: The Unboxing
  
  
• Lock-N-Load report #2 - The first 150 rounds
  
  
• Lock-N-Load Report #3: Feeding the addiction even faster
  
  
• Totaling up the costs for red vs. blue

That oughta cover the complete Lock-N-Load experience from order to your first few hundred rounds, and the financials surrounding it. Now you just have to decide if it's worth it to you to go progressive, and whether you want to spend the extra cash on the Dillon, or go cheaper for the Lee (I wouldn't even consider the RCBS pro2000. It's more expensive than the Dillon, and less capable).

If I missed anything anyone had questions about or would like me to cover, let me know and I'll give it a shot.

1,337 words - 231 Years

The Declaration of Independence

---

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

--And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Lock-N-Load Report #3: Feeding the addiction even faster

In the Lock-N-Load Report 1 post, I unboxed, setup, and tested my new Hornady Lock-N-Load progressive press. I initially ordered the press and one shell plate, just to see if I was happy with it.

In "the first 150 rounds", I decide that I was indeed quite happy with the LnL, and that it was a keeper; so I ordered the case feeder, and the remainder of the shellplates I needed to load for all my major chamberings.

They arrive last Thursday, and I thought I'd share the setup here with you.


Well, first, the condition on arrival, in it's rather large box:



UPS definitely munged it up a bit; thankfully when I opened it up nothing was damaged; probably in part because the huge box was mostly filled with cardboard buffering:

After taking out said cardboard, the box was mostly empty space, except the feeder bin and parts boxes.

Oh and here's the rest of the stuff that wasn't in the big box:


Laid out, here's what all the parts and pieces looked like... something of a mess of little pieces there:


Assembly was a bit of a pain. The first step involved unmounting the whole press; taking that plate/bracket assembly you see on the lower left corner, and sliding it in under the press, and then remounting it on top of the plate:

Above you can see the old cartridge bin bracket which the new mounting plate replaces; but honestly the new plate doesn't do very much... nothing that would structurally require having that large stable surface bolted under the press.

Not that I'm complaining about strong hardware, it's just a pain to have to install it when the only thing it does that the old bracjet doesn't, is provide a locating reference for the case bin strut which is bolted to the frame of the press here:


and a mounting tab for the cam rod pictured here:

The cam rod actuated the case pusher slide along the ram subplate extension, as pictured here:


That pice is what picks up the cartridge from the feeder tube, and pushes it into the shell plate. It has interchangeable v-blocks on the face for different sized cartridges; and at the top of it's stroke it hits the case drop actuating rod as shown here, in the case drop escutcheon (a small plastic guide piece that holds the cam rod in place is missing here):


Fully assembled, there is the case drop escutcheon, which has the drop tube installed in the bottom, and the drop cam block on top.

The feed tube (the clear tube above) drops cases from the feeder bin into the drop cam block, which is actuated by the case drop rod when the case pusher slide (both shown above, with vblock installed on the pusher) pushes up on the rod the bottom of the actuating levers stroke:


It's all actually simpler than it sounds. Here's a close up of the case drop assembly with a .45acp casing in it to illustrate:


You can see that the feed tube has dropped a case into the cam block. It is held there because the cam block isn't aligned with the drop tube. When you pull the loading lever, the case pusher block moves up and slides back on the sub plate (along the cam rod). At the bottom of the stroke, the pusher slide hits the drop rod, which pushes on the cam block, rotating it into position over the drop tube, and the case drops into the vblock at the front of the pusher slide.

Again, it's all straightforward when you actually see it in person.

Here's a picture of the assembled feeder and press:

So how does it work?

Ehhhh.....

It's very fiddly. Much more so than the Dillon casefeeder, and that's saying something. I have to really slow down and carefully control my stroke or I get a misfeed. The case drops just fine, but it won't seat properly in the shell plate.

The whole thing also has to be very carefully adjusted to work properly; and that may just be my problem, I may not have it completely adjusted just right. I'm still working the bugs out.

I got it set up and adjusted to the point where I was only getting a misfeed every 20 cases or so, then I loaded up 100 rounds as a test. Overall, I had about twice as many stoppages with the case feeder as without it; but I was still about 30% faster.

I figure once I get the adjustment down fully, and I figure out the right rhythm and speed (and I rig up a bullet tray); that I'll end up consistently increasing my speed over loading without the feeder by somewhere around 50%. That means going from between the appx 450-550 rounds per hour I can maintain now, to between 675 and 825 rounds per hour... realistically I think 650 to 750 is a good and achievable goal.

Next week I'll be doing a run of 500 to 1000 9mm for a friend of mine (well, 500 for my friend, and whatever I have left over in components, which will be somewhat less than 500, for me) and I'll let you know how it goes.

iDon't think so

Ahhh the iProduct of the month, the iPhone.

It's pretty.

Now, I absolutely run my life on my smart phone. I have so many meetings in different places, time zones, conference bridges etc… and so much email, that if I didn’t have it I couldn't do my job.

I also keep all my reference docs on there, all my policies and procedures, hundreds of manuals for every circumstance, contacts from everywhere, and hundreds of “recreational reading” type ebooks. I’ve been stranded in the middle of nowhere for a couple weeks; where I had power but no transpo; I’ve learned the value of ebooks the hard way.

The great thing is that I can do my job from anywhere. I was being paid to work (and working from the road) while driving to and from Texas for example (the rest of the crew were doing the driving, I was on the phone and laptop half the day each way).

The bad thing is, I can work anywhere. The only way I can get away from work is to go where there is no cell signal.

So obviously I'm a big fan of smart phones, I'm a heavy user, and I'm an early adopter of tech.
Given all this, I'm the ideal customer for an iPhone...

... but iDon't want one.

The problem is, it's not a particularly good phone, or pda, or portable computer, or anything really other than a personal media player (music and video for those non gadget freaks out there) ...

It's on a crappy network, it costs $499 or $599 for 4gb or 8gb of storage, its only got EDGE data and WiFi (my two year old MDA has both as well) no keyboard, no pushmail, no additional applications... It's crippled.

Overall it's got all the tech of a three or four year old device, excepting the nifty big and bright LCD, which admittedly is kinda nice.

Here's the real problem though; it's hard locked to the network (it will take a firmware update to unlock it, which will void your warranty), and the penalty for cancellation of your contract is the full two year value of the contract, even though you're paying full retail price for the phone. Not just some $175 early cancellation fee, the full value of the contract.

And just what is that full cost?

The absolute minimum price of the phone and the contract over two years, without taxes, is $1900. Add in the taxes, fees, and activation, and you are talking about another $350 or so (depending on your state and city. In NYC it’s more like $450). If you get the 8gb model with the 1350 minute unlimited data plan then the total is more like $3500 over 2 years. If you want text messaging you can either pay $0.10 a piece, or pay $10 a month extra for 1500 or $20 for unlimited.

If you want the AT&T unlimited hot spots plan it's an additional $30 a month, but I won't include that here since it is optional functionality (the data plan most definitely is not optional if you mean to sue the damn thing for what its intended).

My T-mobile MDA, which is more than two years old at this point, is significantly more capable than the iPhone. It's got GPRS, EDGE, WiFi, Pushmail, an actual full qwerty keyboard; everything but the huge LCD (my LCD is plenty big enough thanks), and the pretty UI.

Importantly though, I'm not locked in to Apples restricted platform, I can use any windows mobile software out there. Not that I care for Windows Mobile all that much, but there are literally millions or applications available for it; the iPhone has about a dozen.

Oh and I’ve only got 4gb of storage, but it’s in changeable cards and I can use as many as I want. The iPhone doesn't take any external storage at all. Not only that, but using SDIO, I can add peripherals through that storage slot, like GPS systems for example. Or I can add them with bluetooth.

Not only does the iPhone not have any expansion slot, but it's bluetooth is limited only to headsets... because Apple doesn't want you syncing your iPhone over bluetooth, or WIFI or EDGE for that matter. See, because it's also an iPod, and to ward off those evil pirates,Apple has completely locked out any filesystem access, or sync access through anything other than the USB port and iTunes.

This also means no Linux, and no 64 bit windows for your iPhone by the way.

But really, I could live with msot of that, if it weren't for the price.

The MDA cost me $299 not including the rebate (which was $100). My 1000 minute a month service with unlimited data, 1000 text messages, and unlimited t-mobile hot spots, including all taxes etc… is $90 a month. Oh and I can upgrade to 1500 minutes for $10 more.

My two year costs, including the phone, taxes, and fees are $2450, minus the $100 rebate, plus $240 to bring the minutes up to 1500; for a grand total of $2590. To match just what the MDA can do, the iPhones costs over two years would be $4300 ($600 phone, $2400 in basic services, $240 in sms, $720 in hot spot fees, $350 in taxes and fees).

Give it 3G, an expansion card slot, and a choice of networks, and I'll be all over it. Until then... $1700 to look “cool"…

iDon't think so

Unkillable

[no spoilers that aren't in the trailer]

A few years ago, Bruce Willis starred in a very strange and interesting movie titled "Unbreakable", where he somehow had the supernatural power of being impossible to kill. Train derailment? Just a couple scrapes and bumps. Gunshots? No big deal.

We just saw "Live Free or Die Hard" last night, and it appears John McClane has inherited this magical power from his previous character.

Jesus H. Christ, you just can't kill this guy. He's like the terminator without the accent. I have never seen someone take a beating like this on film and keep going, and I watch hong kong action movies.

This movie is two hours of non-stop ass kicking; mostly of Bruce Willis, but also by him. From the opening scenes, the longest the action ever stops is about two minutes, and whenever it does, it's just a setup for more beatings, shootings, and blowing crap up.

Die Hard was the quintessential action movie. It set the mold for all single protagonists actions movies to follow it (buddy and team based movies are a bit different). Die Hards 2 and 3 were at best mediocre shadows of the first. Well, "Live Free or Die Hard" brings the franchise CLOSE to its former glory.

Now that isn't to say it's as good. For one thing there isn't nearly as much humor in this movie... Oh it's there, but there not nearly enough time for it in between all the ass kicking. There's even LESS plot or story or character development in this one than the others if you can believe it.. again, less plot, more boom.

That's perfectly fine with me. This is a frikken Die Hard movie, not frikken Truffaut.

Some have expressed concern that the movie is rated PG-13... well, honestly, I have no clue how they managed to get that rating. There's more violence in this one than the other three combined; including one scene of a bad guy being turned into kibble by a completely implausible cooling fan/chipper shredder.

Really there's only one annoyance from the PG-13, and that's the language was toned down a hell of a lot. McClane is a rough guy with a foul mouth in the other movies, in this one, not so much.

All the violence in the world is ok, but almost no swearing and no sex so its fine right? Huh MPAA?

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

...But overall, it was great fun.

Maggie Q as the main villains trim... I mean side kick.

Yaknow...I think all Bondian villains have to have a hot piece who kicks ass (preferably Asian) now. It's like a union rule or something...

Anyway she was great physically, but she can't act. Don't bother listening to her lines, she only has about four of them... and two facial expressions I think; and none of them really matter.

Timothy Olyphant as the big bad was pretty damn good. I loved him in Deadwood, and I'm looking forward to seeing how he handles "Hitman" later this year. He has a great sense of controlled anger and menace (even when he's playing a good guy).

The rest of the bad guys are interchangeable, except for some reason one French freerunner that they probably threw in there after seeing Sebastien Foucans magnificent romp at the beginning of "Casino Royale". Yes, freerunning kicks ass, but in a Die Hard movie, it's more than a bit out of place.

Oh and mac kid? Yeah, I didn't hate him. He didn't suck. Sure he was kinda whiny and annoying but thats what his character was supposed to be; and he played it with a fair emotional realism... if not quite natural.

There are a couple spots that were clearly intended as parodic of the genre. McClane engages in single combat with an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter using a big rig, and a (ridiculously high four level corkscrew which doesn't exist) highway cloverleaf as his weapons... and in the process pretty much recreates a scene from "True Lies".

It's so over the top, there's no way it isn't meant as a funny jab at Arnold (and James Cameron, one of the most pompous pretentious asses out there; and the director of "True Lies").

Oh and for anyone who knows anything about information security, cracking, phreaking, breaking, crypto, comsec, radio telecoms, ham and CB ... basically any security or communications technology... just shut your brain off before you walk into the theater, or you're going to be irritated. They don't mangle it as bad as most Hollywood action movies, and remember reality has no save against plot device.

Other than that though... well, and the aforementioned unkillable John McClain... the movie isn't too far beyond the realm of realism.

On summary:

• Brainless action level: high
• Bad guys getting killed in fun ways: high
• Good guy getting the crap beat out of him: high
• Things going boom: medium
• Witty repartee: medium
• Hot chicks: low
• Over the top: medium

Other than the distinct lack of babeage (which has been consistent across most of Willis's action movies by the way), and a bit less boomy goodness than there could have been; a straight up by the book ass kicking summer action movie.

Oh and yes, he does say it... but it's PG13 so they futz with it a bit... you'll see.

A random thought or two

Has anyone ever been combobulated?

How about ritated?

Peptic?

Anthropic?

God Help Us...

We've bought a deep fryer; in particular, one of these:
It's a EuroPro 5 liter (3lb capacity) digital controlled 1800 watt fryer; coincidentally the same one that Alton Brown uses on "Good Eats"

This one is big enough that I can do about a dozen wings at once, maybe 18... I'd wanted one that would hold two dozen or more; but looking at them, they didn't really fit in our kitchen.

Well.... technically speaking, you could do 2 dozen in there, but I wouldn't. When you deep fry, you really need to be careful about three things:

1. Oil level: Too much food in too little or too much oil and you've got a problem. Too little, and the food won't cook or will get greasy, too much and the oil level will be too high and could overflow while cooking (even if it doesn't boilover right away).
   
   You deal with this by making sure your fryer has a enough capacity for your oil, for your food, and for boilup; and that your oil level is right for that capacity.
   
   
2. Boilover: When you put your food into the hot oil, you're going to get a big boilup as the steam begins to escape your food. If you have food that's too wet (or as a lot of ice crystals on it), or the oil level is too high; you're going to get an very high boilup, and possibly a boilover, which is enormously dangerous.
   
   Again, as with the oil level issue, the important thing here is to have enough room in the fryer for boilup; and of course to minimize the boilup in the first place by frying food that's dry on the outside.
   
   
3. Heat Retention: When you put your food into the hot oil, the temperature is going to drop a heck of a lot. Cold oil soaks into your food and makes it greasy; so you want the temperature to drop as little as possible, and you want it to recover as fast as possible.
   
   To ensure proper heat retention, you need a large mass of oil (mass means volume in this case), and you need a high powered heater in relation to that mass. Then, control how much food you put into the oil to keep the temps from dropping too far. Too much food drops temperatures to the point where grease will soak in.
   

We've been frying with six quarts of purified lard an 8qt dutch oven. It works great, but takes forever to heat up or cool down, the temperature control is non existent because we've got an electric range, the thing is messy (the splatter is substantial), it's a pain to clean up, and it takes up our biggest burner...

Actually it really takes up the whole range because it's not really safe to cook around a six quarts of 400 degree oil.

Of course, we had to try it out tonight. We have some uncooked tortilla, so just for the heck of it, we dropped in a couple of tortilla wedges and made sopapilla. Normally I don't like sopapilla, but hot and fresh like that... oh lord they were good; and unlike most restaurants, not greasy at all.

Well, those were so good Mel made up some yeast dough, and we dropped two dozen doughnuts; about half cinnamon and sugar, half maple, and all damn good. Oh and of course don't forget the doughnut holes.

We bought the thing for a specific reason though; I'm doing my buffalo wings, and some corn dogs for the BBQ on the fourth (small one, just like 8 people). I'm pretty sure I can drop four corndogs at once in there, and as I said about 18 wings... so for the 8 of us probably three batches.

The funny thing, and what people don't expect if they don't know; is that deep frying is actually a LOWER fat cooking method than most pan frying, and even some baking.

What?

No, seriously. If you are deep frying properly, the food actually absorbs very little of the fat; especially if you are using a batter not a breading (or just frying a bare, skinned food).

If you keep the oil hot enough, the surface water in the food will flash to steam immediately; and so long as steam is bubbling out, grease isn't soaking in. Plus, by frying in lard you avoid all trans fats, and all of those fun bad fats that are in vegetable oils; and you don't get near the cholesterol of butter.

It's not dry grilling; but it's actually better for you than a sautee or a pan fry.

Of course that presumes we have the restraint to not start deep frying twinkies and oreos....

Fair and Balanced

Apparently, the average number right is only 18...

Uhhhh ok, I can see getting one wrong... maybe two... but 7?

I weep for the nation.


Oh and here's the breakdown on race and gender that they provide... I wonder why they are bothering. Perhaps a social experiment, or jsut for gits and shiggles:

Male Average:	19.12
Female Average:	17.45

East Indian	19.1
White/Caucasian	18.37
Pacific Islander	17.75
Asian	17.45
Native American	17.37
Middle Eastern	17.35
Black/African Descent	17.3
Other	17.3
Latino/Hispanic	17.08

Why is ammo so expensive?

Yesterday, I was reading the gun thing forums, and the question was asked (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"Dear everloving god .30-06 hunting ammo is expensive. I've seen .30-06 anywhere from $8.50 a box to $30 a box, what's the difference and why are they sucking m life blood away with every shot?"

Well, that's an interesting question; and like most interesting questions, it's got a long, and somewhat complicated answer.

The first thing is that the price of ammo has gone up at least 50% over the past few years (and in some cases has doubled or more). It used to be $4 a box for 5.56 55gr Mil-Ball and now (if you can get any), its between $6.50 and $9 depending on who made it, where, when etc...

This is for two reasons:

1. The war has made demand for new ammo skyrocket all over the world (not just the U.S.). There is only so much production capacity available.
   
   For example, Syria took up pretty much an entire years worth of production of 7.62x39 from Russia; leaving none on the market from the major Russian producers for that entire year except what was already stocked.
   
   Ohlin is the primary manufacturer of 5.56 ammo and components in the world (they ARE Winchester ammunition; and they make the components for many of the other ammo companies) and most of their production capacity has been spent fulfilling orders from the US, and NATO allies.
   
   
2. The price of the metals used in ammunition production (copper, nickel, lead, tin, antimony) have all gone through the roof as well. Over the past four years, the price of copper has quadrupled from recent lows. Copper is the main component of cases and jackets.
   
   This increase in demand for commodities is primarily due to increased demand from China and India; as well as a reaction to the drawdown in the mining industry in the mid 90s. The industry added too much production capacity in the late 80s (which itself was a reaction to housing booms, and computer manufacturing booms) which glutted the market with cheap copper, causing the prices to collapse. This made mining less profitable, therefore they reduced capacity to compensate, which would have naturally settled the price to a reasonable, profitable but not ridiculous level.
   
   Well, no-one foresaw this major upswing in demand, they reduced production capacity too far, and the cycle continues to rollercoaster. In a couple years the commodity prices should come down a bit, and stabilize; because additional production capacity will have come on line (it takes 2-6 years for mining production capacity changes to catch up to the market).
   

Anyway, this whole issue has made ALL ammo more expensive; but the biggest impact is on the low end; both because it's the low end where raw materials cost is the largest percentage of their production cost; and because high end ammo is already priced about as high as the market will bear (at least what it will bear today anyway).

What we're seeing in response is a reloading renaissance over the past three years. From the 60s through the mid 80s, good factory ammo was REALLY expensive (relative to income, even more so than today); and after '86 the availability of surplus ammunition was poor (rule changes in how the gov't disposed of surplus); so lots of folks handloaded/reloaded.

In the 90s the cost of ammo fell precipitously, because of the aforementioned copper glut; and because of new sources of cheap surplus ammo from abroad. In fact, a large number of ammunition manufacturers went out of business (partly form the price changes, and partly from liability costs); and many ammunition factories in the U.S. closed, because their bare production cost was higher than the retail cost of the imported ammo.

As a result, you couldn't load it yourself for less than the cost of buying the imports; and handloading became far less popular. Basically, instead of being the best way to shoot on the cheap; handloading was reduced to those for whom it was a hobby in and of itself; or an adjunct for competition shooters (who need large volumes of premium quality ammo), and shooters who shot rare chamberings (for which cheap ammo wasn't available).

Well, most of that imported ammo supply has dried up; partly because of the war, and partly because the UN and the ATF are working together (no, not a conspiracy theory, it's verifiably true) to reduce global ammo exports (and thus imports into this country).

This has resulted in the near complete removal of South African surplus ammo from the market for example. They had been our best source of good quality surplus 7.62x51 and 5.56n ammunition. Other countries have of course been effected as well; but it's the SA stuff being missing that really hurts us EBR shooters.

Now, addressing "premium" ammo specifically (by which I mean hunting and defensive ammo primarily, but premium target ammo as well), there is another set of conditions added on top of that which increase the costs.

Typically speaking, at todays prices, generic FMJ ammo is about $16 a box of 50 retail for .45acp, $13 a box of 50 retail for 9mm, and $6.50 a box of 20 retail for .223.

Those same chamberings in a premium defensive or hunting ammunition would run you about $19 a box of 20 for .45, about $17 a box of 20 for 9mm, and about $23 a box of 20 for .223... maybe a bit more or a bit less depending on which exact load you are talking about.

Thats a swing from about $0.30 a round to about $0.95 a round for .45; from $0.26 to $1.17 a round for 9mm; and from $0.33 a round to $1.15 a round for .223

Basically, you typically pay three to four times as much for "premium" ammo as you do for generic stuff... and it used to be a bigger disparity before the commodity crunch made low end ammo so much more expensive.

Ouch.

Ok, Why? Are the ammo companies just gouging?

Well, no they aren't gouging; but they are charging what the market will bear. As I said, the increase in ammo prices overall has only bumped premium ammo up between 10 and 20% while it has bumped low end ammo up 50% to 400%. Part of that is because the materials costs are a lower percentage of the total price of premium ammo (which we'll get to in a minute), and part is because the ammo companies just can't charge any more without hurting sales badly.

Ok, so they are charging as much as they can get for it; but why is premium ammo so much more expensive to make?

It comes down to the type and construction of component used; and the care taken with the construction of the round overall.

1. Quality components are more expensive
   
   
2. Making ANYTHING to a high degree of precision is more time consuming, requires more skill, and has a higher rejection rate; and that's even more so with ammo. Ammunition requires more precision than most other products to begin with, never mind premium ammunition (which has tolerances measured in ten thousandths of an inch and ten thousandths of an ounce).
   

The fact is, it takes a lot of time to make top quality ammo. In your own home you can crank out 1000 rounds per hour of medium quality ammunition in the same time it takes to make bulk ammo, using a progressive reloading machine just like the smaller premium ammo manufacturers use (the Dillon Super1050) ; just by using better quality components.

Just about every major manufacturer has a line of ammuniton that uses better quality components, and are built to a better standard. These rounds are naturally more expensive; but they aren't any more time consuming to make on standard production machinery. These are their medium priced rounds (the difference between an $8.50 box of .30-06 and a $15 box)

Making the best match grade ammunition though, it takes a lot of time. You go from 1000 rounds an hour on a progressive machine, to 20 or 30 rounds per hour on a single stage; because every step has to be carefully controlled, monitored, weighed and measured, to ensure consistency (the difference between a $15 box and a $30 box).

Of course the big ammunition manufacturers aren't loading their ammo by hand at 30 rounds per hour (though some of the smaller specialty places will, for an enormous amount of money); they've spent tens of millions of dollars on manufacturing technologies that allow them to load thousands of rounds per hour at the top quality; but that's still a lot less production capacity than the hundreds of thousands of rounds per hour they can get with bulk ammo from the same investment in machinery.

The "super premium" rounds from Federal (the gold match line), Black Hills, Norma, Dynamit Nobel, Lapua, Eley etc... are all substantially more expensive than even the "premium" rounds, because they use even higher quality components, and take a lot more care in loading to ensure consistency (which means accuracy and precision); thus use more expensive and time consuming production techniques and equipment.

As to why premium hunting and defensive COMPONENTS (bullets, cases, and primers; as opposed to the full assemblage of the rounds they are made into), theres a few reasons:

1. Manufacturing time, technology, and tooling are expensive
   
   
2. There is a lower volume of sales of such components to amortize the costs of said development and tooling
   
   
3. There is a much higher level of precision, quality control, rejection rate etc… for such bullets; which both increases production time overall, and which requires even MORE expensive manufacturing technology and tooling.
   

All told, the bullet is generally the second most expensive component of a loaded round (the brass case is generally the most expensive, though sometimes those positions reverse); but it’s the quality control that really ups the cost.

Just to give you an example of how MUCH the quality control ups the cost vs how much the cost of components does; let's look at the costs of handloading bulk rounds vs the absolute best quality match rounds.

This isolates the differences in productions costs for the loaded rounds. Though it incorporates the cost differences in components, you'll see those are actually rather small compared to the actual manufacturing costs - labor, production line time, and quality control.

Using .223 as an example, the costs per 1000 rounds are as follows:

Bulk Ammo:

• Primers - $22
  
• Cases - $152
  
• Bullets - $83
  
• Powder - $35
  

Super Premium Match Grade:

• Benchrest primers - $29
  
• Match grade cases - $200
  
• Match bullets - $133
  
• Match grade powder - $43
  

As you can see, there is a substantial difference in cost per round for just the components of bulk ammo vs. top quality. The bulk ammo costs us $292 per 1000, or $0.29 per round; the premium $405 per thousand, or $0.41 per round.

A side note: I used the average of several different brands of match grade brass here, because the absolute top quality brass (from Lapua of Finland), is insanely expensive. In fact, even the most premium ammunition from all but a few specialty manufacturers doesn't use special benchrest brass, because it costs two to three times the price of standard bulk production brass, for a very small increase in performance over the match brass which is only 50% more expensive than bulk. Ammunition made with such brass sells for $40 per box (of 20) or more.

Compare though the price difference in those components, with the price difference in the loaded rounds:

• Bulk component cost was $0.29 per round, bulk loaded cost was $0.33 per round. The labor, production line time, and QC component of the rounds price here was only $0.04. That's only about 13% of the cost of the loaded round.
  
  
• The premium components were $0.12 more expensive per rounds (almost 30%) at $0.41; but the loaded cost of a premium round is about $1.15. This means that production costs (labor, production line time, and QC) were $0.74 more than the component cost; 65% of the cost of the loaded round.
  

If premium loaded rounds were made to about the same standard as bulk ammo, as a cost percent, they would only cost about $o.53 per round; less than half their actual cost.

Of course you see the difference at the other end. A rifle that will group 5 shots into 8" at 300 yards with the bulk ammo may group into under 1" with the higher quality ammo (and in fact this happens every day).

Alright, but what if you aren't a target shooter; and you don't need that 1/4 moa grouping; or a handgun shooter where 8 MOA is generally considered pretty good shooting?

It's all about consistency of performance. With target shooting you're worried about pinpoint accuracy; but with defense and hunting you need good (though not spectacular) accuracy with the best possible terminal performance.

To achieve this, you can't significantly reduce the quality control required, and you actually have to increase the technology required.

Now as I said above, technology and quality control are also factored into the price of those premium components themselves. We've talked about QC costs already, but why, other than good quality control, are the component bullets expensive?

Simple, because a lot of technology and development went into making them perform properly for their intended role.

A lot of development? It's just a hunk of metal that weighs a half an ounce (or less), just how much development could there be?

A whole hell of a lot actually.

Premium defensive hollowpoint ammunition is designed to penetrate well, but still expand to the maximum possible extent, while retaining all of its weight and not fragmenting; across a range of pressures and velocities appropriate to the weapons it will be shot from.

That's not easy; in fact it's fantastically difficult.

The hollowpoint bullet was invented in the late 1880s, but it wasn't until the late 1980s that hollow points that would reliably feed, expand, and not disintegrate were fully developed. It was the mid 1990s before you could find a whole selection of them from various manufacturers; and we are STILL trying to figure out how to optimize the performance of such bullets; and improve their capabilities across a broader range of weapons (short barreled guns perform very differently from long barreled guns for example).

The story in hunting bullets is similar; only there are even more variables, because instead of trying to stop a relatively fragile, thin skinned human being at short range, you have to design bullets that will stop everything from tiny furry ground squirrels at short range, to huge relatively (compared to humans) thick skinned elk, ram etc... at VERY long ranges; to damn near armored hide rhinos, elephants, hippos, and other dangerous game, at medium to short ranges.

Each type of game, and type of hunt, requires different performance characteristics from the bullets. Thin skinned small game require shallow penetration and radical expansion. Thick skinned game require very deep penetration with very little expansion. Dangerous thin skinned game (mountain lions for example) require both deep penetration and expansion.

The technology of those bullets goes into managing their penetration and expansion; and developing that technology has been a long, difficult, and expensive process.

Now, if you’re just plinking or casual target shooting, there is no need to buy ammo built to this standard; and in the common calibers there are several sources of mil-surp or generic ammo available at much lower cost than the various hunting and defensive loads.

Just a note on mil-surp, and imported generic ammo. Some are corrosive, some not, and some maybe/iffy. They almost all use FMJ (though some use lower quality JHP or other designs); and are generally made to various foreign military standards. Those standards are generally pretty good, but not something to trust a match, or a trophy buck to, and certainly not something I'd trust in a defensive handgun situation.

For hunting, match use, or defensive use though; theres a pretty good reason why you want to use the best ammo you can: You only get one shot at doing it right.

Would you bet your life on a cheap bullet?

Three Questions

I have three questions for those of you who would like to ban guns (though why you would be reading this I have no idea; my website must give you seizures).

You have to answer all three, in a logical and consistent manner; without emotional justification, circular logic, evasions, appeals to the precautionary principle, appeals to authority, statistics (most of the ones you would be quoting are false anyway, and I can prove it to you if you like), appeals to motive, or any other logical fallacy:

1. You say you feel safer knowing that guns are banned; why is that?
   
   
2. Do you recognize that when guns are banned, the only people carrying guns will be criminals (who ignore such bans because they are criminals. no law will stop criminals from carrying guns); and as such by supporting gun control, you are saying that you're fine with criminals having guns but not law abiding citizens?
   
   
3. Given this, do you believe that the mere possession of a gun turns a law abiding citizen into a criminal menace?
   

The front sight offer controversy

Welcome visitors from Ace of spades( and minx, and any other non-blocked alias), Arf.com, THR, Gunnutz, ArmedPoliteSociety, WarRifles, and everyone else who has been making up the majority of my traffic the last three days.

It seems that as the Front Sight training offer gets close to expiration (it expires tomorrow by the way), more folks are hitting my page. It also seems like I'm the main source of information on the web for the offer.

Which is kinda funny 'cuz it went out to everyone who gets the Front Sight newsletter; which is a lot of folks. Funny enough, I'm not one of them, but a friend of mine who was forwarded it to me.

Ok, well, some people have raised some questions, and some objections to the post and or its related content.

First thing, yes it is a tremendous amount of linkwhoring; and I'm usually against linkwhoring. I don't trade links with people for publicity or more traffic etc... I only link to those things that I like, and to those sites that I read or recommend.

This one is a bit iffy for me; because it is a LOT of links (40 of them in fact), and not all are strictly relevant to stuff I would read or recommend. I do like, and recommend Front Sight however, so it's not like I'm linkwhoring strictly for profit. That said, I wouldn't have put that many inks to that much stuff if I weren't getting the certificate for it.

The second thing is; it seems like I was the first major gunblog to go for it; and not a lot of other major gun blogs (a few, but not many) have followed up.

From comments on other sites, it looks like a lot of people seem to think it's a scam. It isn't. I got my certificate last week. My wife (who is also a gunblogger) should be getting hers shortly, several of my friends have already received theirs.

SO, how can it NOT be a scam?

Easy: Publicity and promotion.

What this offer does is get people in the gun world thinking and talking about Front Sight; essentially for the cost of a few instructor hours, which are a sunk cost anyway. Not only that but they get to write off the cost of every certificate they send out (whether it's redeemed or not) as a promotional expense against potential realized revenue.

Then, when the bloggers all take their free courses, they are going to write about their experiences, and give the place more publicity.

More importantly though; in the hard core gun world the gun blogs and gun forums are the opinion shapers now; and have been for the past few years.

The glossy gun mags have largely lost influence over those serious about the pursuit of arms, because they write the same crap over and over; and because it seems they are unwiling to say a bad thing about a sponsor (more on that in a minute).

Finally, every time the link list gets posted, or linked to by someone else, Front Sights google ranking goes up; without having to pay google for ad-words.

Dr. Iggy is not a dumb man, nor one to waste money.

Some folks have a concerned that you wont get the same quality of training from the free course as you would from paying for it.

When you redeem your certificate, you will get the same course that other people have paid $2000 for; and from all indications, it's a good course that's worth the money.

The only thing that some may find objectionable, is that while you are there, they are going to try and sell you more courses, and a lifetime membership. They do this to every attendee, not just to the free ones; and if you don't want to listen to the sales pitch, you don't have to.

Another point, a lot of folks don't like the founder and owner.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza... well he's a bit of a character. A lot of folks have a problem with Dr. Iggy. A lot of folks have sued Dr. Iggy in fact. Some have even won. There may be a valid principled objection to taking a course a a facility this guy owns. From what I know, and it's a fair bit though certainly not everything; I don't think so.

I've been to the Front Sight facility (which is not in Vegas BTW, which some folks seem to object to for some reason; they're in Pahrump, a fair ways a way) and it's excellent. Their instructors and course work are also excellent. I've never taken one of their courses, and I'm not going to turn down good, free, firearms instruction; even if their founder is not well liked.

As I said before, Jeff Cooper and Gabe Suarez are disliked intensely by a lot of people. I'm a Gunsite grad and I certainly have no problem with taking training from Gabe either.

Some folks just have a problem with bloggers "selling out", or in any way receiving compensation for what they are writing.

Well, what exactly is a sellout? To my mind the glossy gun rags have for the most part sold out, in that they seem to exist mostly as a vehicle for press releases and friendly product reviews for their sponsors. I've canceled all my subscriptions except to Small Arms Review; which I consider the best magazine for following developments in military small arms and the Class II world (I also recommend Gun Tests, Concealed Carry Magazine, and Shotgun News).

Bloggers linking to stuff they actually like and believe in, and receiving benefit from it... I don't think that's selling out at all.

Now, if you have a moral objection to the concept of linking for stuff; fine and dandy, that is your prerogative; but I don't think it's a problem. So long as it doesn't change the way I blog, and the subjects I blog about; and so long as I disclose what I'm getting for it; I'm good.

I was a professional writer at one point (about technology, and security; during the .bomb); and I never wrote what I was told because of sponsors then, when I was getting actual cash. I don't intend to start now.

Any other questions?

The one crack that doesn't mean a dead gun

A few weeks ago in "When not to buy a pistol" I wrote:

Oh, and a note for someone who isn't averse to a little gun smithing work, or a good bargain; there is one specific, common, very small crack that doesn't ruin a 1911: If there is a small crack in the bridge of metal over the slide stop notch (not the pin hole, the notch in front of the plunger tube), and that crack doesn't extend beyond the corners of the notch; the metal can be machined out, and the frame saved.

Yesterday, I wrote about rebuilding Kommanders pistol... well... funnily enough, I now have a perfect example of the problem I mentioned above:

Before we go any further, let me just make a note about the pictures here. I've deliberately blown out the contrast and sharpness on these pics to highlight the problems; the metal in no way looks this roughly machined, pitted etc... The photographic enhancement I've done kida makes it look like the surface of the moon, when in actuality its no worse a final machines surface than any other gun. Also, sorry for the focus issues. They all looked properly focused to the eye, but I didn't use the right depth of field. I don't have a very good short lens, and should have shot these with aperture priority and manual focus.

Anyway, what you see here is a classic example of the "slide stop notch bridge rail" crack (yes, seriously, the little piece is called the "slide stop notch bridge rail").

That one little spot is the weakest point on a 1911 frame; and it's a load bearing part. Not only that, but it just happens to be the point of greatest torsion and flexion in the frame... and to top it all off, they take a big bit out of the supporting structure below it, making a natural stress rise...

Let's just say it's not surprising to see a crack here. In fact it's so common, that many 1911 manufacturers and custom gunsmiths simply modify the frame to remove that section of the rail by default.

In the case of this 1911, the crack has probably been there for a while, but it was never noticed before. These cracks generally start small and thin; and they aren't always apparent with a basic field strip under the lube and light dirt (even a clean gun still has some grease, lube, particulate etc...). Often, you need to clean the gun off thoroughly and view the rails under a bright white or green (higher contrast) light to even see the crack; and if you don't know what your looking for, you might not even notice it.

In this case, the process of refinishing (heating the gun up to 200, degreasing it, repeating that; then heating the gun up to 350 degrees to cure the epoxy) probably very slightly widened the crack; then shooting it chipped the coating off, highlighting the crack perfectly as you see above.

That's why I call it a perfect example.

Now... repairing it. Aye, there's the rub.

I mentioned in that same piece that one of the most critical factors in accuracy in a 1911 is the rail fit and geometry. Well, we're about to chop a section of rail out here; it is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that in doing so, we don't change the fit of the rails, the geometry, or the surface hardness.

If you cut or grind too hard or too fast on the rails, you are going to differentially heat them, which will induce torsional warping, as well as de-temper the areas around the cut. It could reduce the hardness of the rails is some areas, increase it in others; and can cause both inaccuracy, and the premature failure of the frame.

The way you avoid that is to work quickly, at as low speed as possible, while maintaining a good clean cut that doesn't bind or bog down. As the part heats up (before it gets too hot to touch) you stop, move off the work piece, and come back to it after letting it cool.

Before we continue, let me make my standard disclaimer:

If you bugger up your gun based on any advice or information I give you; you are an idiot and you deserve whatever you get. I wash my hands of it.

...Now, what tools to use?

You could do this job very quickly with a number of different tools. A bench grinder would do it, a band saw, a die grinder; even an angle grinder; but I find that they all are lacking in fine and precise control; and they don't fit into the angles I want to get into (reader Mark also points out that the proper tool for the job is an end mill. Yes Mark, it is; but I don't have a mill... yet...)

Also, I think that a conventional die grinder, or a bench grinder would heat the work piece too much too fast.

I have a die grinder, but really a micro die grinder is what I think is called for here. Unfortunately I don't have one of those (I DO have all the other tools I mentioned above, just not a micro die grinder). What I do have, is a couple of different Dremel tools.

For this job I used a Dremel XPR (variable speed moto-tool) with a flex shaft, and a reinforced abrasive cutoff wheel:

These particular pieces are the favorites of gun butchers everywhere; but if you are careful, slow, and deliberate, you can do a very good job with them. Professional gunsmiths almost all use Foredoms flex shaft grinders (or the Chinese copies thereof) for their heavy duty work; but I don't know a single gunsmith that doesn't have a few Dremel tools around.

As I said above, the proper technique is to have the work piece properly braced, and your hands and tools properly braced in relation to it. Then go as slow as you can while maintaining a good cut; without getting too much heating of the piece, and at as low an rpm as possible.

If you see any more sparking than this, you're going to fast:

For any heavier work you'll generally want to clamp the frame in a padded vise; but in this case you aren't removing a lot of metal, and you're going to need to reposition a lot, and get into some tight spaces and angles; so I'm risking life and limb, and bracing the frame on my thigh and knee (with a flame resistant leather pad under it) with a solid hand grip.

Obviously you can't see here, but I am wearing safety glasses. Any time you're using power tools you should wear safety glasses; but this is especially true when you're cutting or grinding metal, and doubly so again when you're using a tool that's spinning at high speed. Those cutoff wheels throw off tiny bits of abrasive at very high speed, and they sometimes shatter catastrophically; believe me you want to be wearing safety glasses for that.

You might want to wear gloves for something like this.. it's probably a good idea; but I think you lose too much feel for fine metal work if you wear gloves. Also, my hands are so scarred up, burned, and calloused anyway (cooking, welding, shooting, knife and sword work, unarmed martial arts, and playing guitar)... I'm not too concerned about it.

What you want to do is to cut out the entire portion of the rail above the frame opening; and then cut the rails back a bit at a slight angle on both sides. You're probably going to want to take the cut in a couple passes, one to create a larger hole to work the cutoff wheel in (which reduces the heating) and then a final cut on both sides. Here it is after the first rough cut before finish grinding:

I'm showing the rough cuts here, because the final finished ground and polished surfaces don't photograph well.

What you're trying to do is eliminate and prevent any stress risers; which means no sharp corners. Heres a couple views from above showing the first steps in chamfering the ends of the rails:

From these rough cuts, what you do is refine the angles and surface grinds, using a hard rubber or compounded abrasive impregnated stone like this:

You don't want to be using a carbide, carborundum, or silica type stone here; they are too hard and abrasive, and they will heat the piece too much, as well as removing too much material.

What I did with this stone, is bevel the notch back to a shallow keyhole shape; and then I put a bevel on each of the sides of the rail (you can see the start of the bevel above). I broke and relieved all the edges, lightly radiused the square corners, then wire brushed and polished the edges.

Oh, and while I was at it, I also chamfered all the edges of the mag well, top and bottom (as you can see in the first overhead pic above), and just for the heck of it, I did a full ramp and throat job for him. His stock ramp and throat were pretty rough, and I had the Dremel out already so...

When you do a throat job, unless the angles are really bad, you don't want to mess with them. In this case, I didn't change the geometry at all, I just used a soft polishing stone to properly smoothly radius the whole thing, 'til a fingernail wouldn't catch on the feed path. I usually finish up with a fiber polishing swab and compoundl but this one was so smooth I didn't bother:

When it's done properly this repair doesn't compromise the strength of the gun at all, and actually INCREASES reliability; so not only is the gun fixed, it's better than it was before.

The best discussion of the high forward grip I've ever seen on the web

I saw this over at the Heartless Libertarian this morning:

Breaking down the "Combat" or "Straight Thumb" grip.

Of course it SHOULD be the best discussion about it; it's with Brian Enos, one of the guys who "invented" it. I've actually spoken with Brian about this a bit, read his book, seen a couple videos etc...

The straight thumb grip is one of the variants of the high, forward, thumb over thumb grip; as opposed to the "Gunsite grip", or the "low thumb over thumb" where the support hand thumb is actually curled on top of the dominant hand thumb (I only recommend this grip for shooting revolvers, were it works very well).

I've mentioned this grip before; and that I had for years generally used the gas pedal grip (a variant of this where the dominant thumb rides the safety and the support thumb indexes on the slide stop pin) on my 1911s, and just whatever grip worked for my other guns.

A couple years ago I switched to the Plaxco grip (a variant of the above where your support hand index finger wraps around the trigger guard), because the Plaxco grip works for guns where the straight thumb grip doesn't (a lot of guns other than the 1911); because it rotates the support thumb out and down a bit, away from the slide stop (some guns, like the BHP, can have an accidental stoppage under recoil if your thumb is in the wrong spot). I prefer using the same grip on all my guns if possible, and I shoot guns other than a 1911 on occasion.

Honestly, in my testing out of various grips, the Plaxco grip hadnt been any slower or less accurate than the way I was doing the straight thumb grip. Maybe a bit less, but the advantage of not having to change grips for different guns outweighed that for me.

When I was in Texas though, Len Baxley showed me a little change on the way I was shooting straight thumb, literally a quarter inch move in one direction and a quarter inch in another, that shrunk my rapid fire group sizes with my 10mm in half.

It didn't make as much difference with the .45s; but it was still better.

Unfortunately that still leaves me with two different grips for my different guns; but I think I can train around the problem; especially since I now have an ultra compact 1911 to use as my small concealment gun.

It probably means I won't shoot my other guns quite as well as I shoot my 1911s, but honestly, I'm good enough for defensive purposes with my other guns whatever grip I use (well, assuming it's a proper grip anyway.. not shooting gangsta or anything); and if I'm concerned about my best possible shooting, I'm shooting a 1911 anyway.

Given it's a very small tradeoff on the other guns for a big improvement with the 1911, it makes sense to me to shoot the best that I can with my primary defensive pistols, rather than try and generalize to all my pistols.

The good news is that the straight thumb grip works fine with my USP compact (actually the accessory rail groove makes a great indexing point), which is my other primary carry that isn't a 1911; but on the Hi-Power it just doesn't work at all, because the support hand thumb will tend to kick the slide stop on.

What I do with the Hi-Power is I keep everything else in the same position, and curl my thumb around the trigger guard (I have huge hands, and thumbs like Hendrix. I can just about fret the high E string on a strat' with my thumb). This works for revolvers as well; and pretty much for the rest of my guns, with some slight variations.

With the minimal change, I don't think that having two different grips for my guns is going to throw me off so much.