I have, on occasion, expressed that while I didn't particularly care for President Bush (43) I regarded him as far better than Gore or Kerry would have been.
Yesterday gave me the most concrete example I've ever had.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are Bush appointees and both Heller and MacDonald were 5-4 rulings.
A Gore or Kerry win would have meant that Rehnquist and O'Connor would very likely have been replaced with justices who would not have supported the 2nd amendment. A 3-6 ruling on Heller would have prevented MacDonald from being filed and we would not have 14th amendment incorporation today.
I also note that Sotomayor did exactly as I expected her to.
Thomas did not do what I expected at all, and that's a good thing! I think his concurrence should have been the majority opinion. He seems to be the only member of the court who bothered to read the 14th. The slaughterhouse cases are a bad decision; refusing to fix that because it's been a long time since falls under "justice delayed is justice denied."
Scalia's concurrence can be paraphrased in one sentence, "Fuck you Stevens!"
I hate to mention it after mocking Sotomayor's "wise latina" line; but Thomas has an obvious reason to be more aware of the history of the 14th than the other justices.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
All Comments
29 June 2010
28 June 2010
Fixing The Wrong Problem
I recently read that the main problem with Arizona's new anti-illegal immigrant law is that the police can pull anyone over for any reason because the traffic laws are so Byzantine that you essentially cannot operate a vehicle at all without breaking one. This, in turn, allows the police to target brown people disproportionately.
I'd buy this, except... Nothing about the new law changes the traffic laws that the cops are supposed to be abusing. About the only thing valid about it is that the cops may now target people who "look Mexican" with the specific intent of checking their immigration status. But it doesn't change that the cops could single them out before the law change.
If you really want the police to be unable to profile like this, you need to make traffic enforcement less discretionary.
I'd buy this, except... Nothing about the new law changes the traffic laws that the cops are supposed to be abusing. About the only thing valid about it is that the cops may now target people who "look Mexican" with the specific intent of checking their immigration status. But it doesn't change that the cops could single them out before the law change.
If you really want the police to be unable to profile like this, you need to make traffic enforcement less discretionary.
Comments
The Good News Just Keeps On Coming
First I hear that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment and that it applies to the states via the due process clause.
Then I hear that Sen Byrd has finally shuffled off this mortal coil.
Then I hear that Sen Byrd has finally shuffled off this mortal coil.
23 June 2010
Of Lever Actions And .45 Colt
I am interested in Cowboy Action Shooting.
It looks a lot like the SCA, with guns.
I loved the dress-up aspects of SCA, but disliked some of the rules.
I don't want to complicate my life with an additional chambering if I can help it.
My Anaconda is in the cowboy legal .45 Colt, so it seems logical to look at that round. I can get just about any cowboy revolver in it, I'd love a Schofield repro but SAA and Rem 1875 are also available.
The rifle is a bit of a problem. In the real old west, there wasn't a lever gun chambered for .45 Colt.
Today, however, there are several Winchester 1892 clone makers and some are in .45 Colt. Marlin makes a spiffy Model 1894 just for cowboy shooting in this caliber. The gun that gets my juices flowing is a reproduction Spencer 1865 Carbine.
Oh, what to do, what to do?
Comments
It looks a lot like the SCA, with guns.
I loved the dress-up aspects of SCA, but disliked some of the rules.
I don't want to complicate my life with an additional chambering if I can help it.
My Anaconda is in the cowboy legal .45 Colt, so it seems logical to look at that round. I can get just about any cowboy revolver in it, I'd love a Schofield repro but SAA and Rem 1875 are also available.
The rifle is a bit of a problem. In the real old west, there wasn't a lever gun chambered for .45 Colt.
Today, however, there are several Winchester 1892 clone makers and some are in .45 Colt. Marlin makes a spiffy Model 1894 just for cowboy shooting in this caliber. The gun that gets my juices flowing is a reproduction Spencer 1865 Carbine.
Oh, what to do, what to do?
Comments
19 June 2010
Butt Hurt Forever
Sung to the tune of the Motorhead song "Stone Dead Forever"...
Once a gun person gets offended by a company, they tend to stay offended forever.
I've got my own list of companies that I don't like to do business with too.
This is not a comprehensive list; just a list of my personal peeves.
Colt (said much of this recently):Colt tossed the civilian AR buyer under the bus. Unshrouded bolt carrier. Oversized hammer and trigger pins. Front take down screw. Lower receiver block. No muzzle device. No bayonet lug. Some now say that Colt was strong-armed into the decision by members of Congress threatening their military contracts; it sure seemed voluntary from where I was watching. It's also funny to hear people saying that if they hadn't done the neutering, they would have lost their mil contracts and gone bankrupt. In 1992 they went bankrupt anyway. In 1994 they were sold to new owners who dropped almost all of their non-military products from the line-up. Then came the smart-gun crap and the CEO being an idiot. That led to a boycott. They still don't cater to the civilian market. Long gone are their double action revolvers and their other handguns are boutique offerings.
I don't buy from Colt for two reasons; 1. They really don't offer me what I want at a competitive price. 2. The goddamned furry kool-aid drinkers.
Smith and Wesson:
In 1987 S&W was purchased by Tompkins PLC. During the Clinton administration there were many lawsuits against gun manufacturers attempting to hold the manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their products. In 2000 the company made a deal with the Clinton administration to become exempt from those suits. The terms of the agreement would have led to some unpleasant effects on gun dealers who wished to carry S&W products on sales that had nothing to do with S&W; so a boycott started. In 2001 Tompkins PLC sold the company to Safe-T-Hammer.
There are still people who will not do business with S&W because of the 2000 deal.
Safe-T-Hammer made many changes to the design of the iconic S&W revolvers. The inclusion of the locking mechanism is what offends most. There is a small keyway on the side of the gun. A little tool that is included with the gun can be used to lock the mechanism so that the hammer cannot move. This feature has failed in some guns to the point where the gun would not fire without major repairs. These failures were very well publicized, but seem to be exceedingly rare.
Many people refuse to buy a S&W with a lock. The backlash from this is large enough that S&W has recently introduced (reintroduced?) models without the lock.
The lock doesn't bother me and while I joined the 2000 boycott, the Safe-T-Hammer people's repudiation of the the Clinton deal was strong enough for me to forgive them their trespass; especially since the people responsible for the deal took a gigantic loss selling to STH!
Ruger:
Where to start? I guess it can best be summed up with two words, "Bill Ruger". He had some, shall we say, unique ideas about gun ownership for someone who owned a gun company. He very definitely divided his customers into government and non-government groups. I think it's best summed up here: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html at that dead link...
He's dead now. I still won't buy Ruger. Why? My Mini-14 wouldn't hold a zero. There are claims that they've fixed this issue with them, but they are also now more expensive than an AR. Their AR is more expensive than measurably better ARs. Much like Colt, they just don't make what I want at a price I want to pay when their competition does.
DPMS
Most people cite their quality when they refuse to buy from them. I don't like their requirement that I fax a form promising I am a good person and their refusal to sell me a shorter than 16" barrel. Only mil and police departments can buy short barrels from DPMS. There is nothing inherently illegal about owning a short AR barrel. An AR pistol doesn't even require any special paperwork and a short barrel rifle is readily legal to people in most states once they've filled out some paperwork. Flat refusing to sell these people parts because they are not from the government offends me.
Bushmaster
One; they are liars. Two; local sales tax.
I've been lied to them on three things now.
First was getting a replacement part for Geff's M17S. The person I talked to told me, several times, that it would ship "tomorrow". It took three weeks of tomorrows to get it shipped and then two more weeks of shipping. I got told when I complained that since they gave it to me for free (warranty claim) I should be happy I got it at all. Considering I originally called to buy the part; I was pissed off by that.
Second was the status of my lightweight barrel I needed for my SBR project. Since the gun I was cloning didn't have a bayonet lug and would be shortened by 4.5" I ordered a "post ban" barrel. Then the shit-storm from the 2008 election started. After six weeks, I called to ask about the status of my order. "It will be a month." So I called in a month. "Just another month, we're swamped with orders." So I called back in a month... but this time I had been reading about people who'd ordered after me receiving their orders! "Oh, those were preban barrels, not post ban like you ordered." Can I change my order to a pre-ban? "Sure, but it will be like 90 days." Ninety days later, I call asking about my barrel. "We've been swamped!" I don't fucking care, you've been telling me to wait for six months now while I read about others getting their barrel orders filled. (Finally he tells the truth) "We're tooled up to make M4 profile barrels and we're selling all we can make of those so we don't want to lose the money lost while changing over the machine to what is, to us, a limited demand item. So wait us out or find someone else." I opted to wait, but got my barrel a week later.
Third lie was about the local sales tax. They charge state and local sales taxes on internet orders. They claim they are required by law to collect it. If that were true, they would also be required to remit it back to the state/local tax offices. They don't. They are padding the bill 7% in my case and pocketing it. If I want to pay sales tax, I can buy local; from a competitor: Spike's Tactical.
Once a gun person gets offended by a company, they tend to stay offended forever.
I've got my own list of companies that I don't like to do business with too.
This is not a comprehensive list; just a list of my personal peeves.
Colt (said much of this recently):Colt tossed the civilian AR buyer under the bus. Unshrouded bolt carrier. Oversized hammer and trigger pins. Front take down screw. Lower receiver block. No muzzle device. No bayonet lug. Some now say that Colt was strong-armed into the decision by members of Congress threatening their military contracts; it sure seemed voluntary from where I was watching. It's also funny to hear people saying that if they hadn't done the neutering, they would have lost their mil contracts and gone bankrupt. In 1992 they went bankrupt anyway. In 1994 they were sold to new owners who dropped almost all of their non-military products from the line-up. Then came the smart-gun crap and the CEO being an idiot. That led to a boycott. They still don't cater to the civilian market. Long gone are their double action revolvers and their other handguns are boutique offerings.
I don't buy from Colt for two reasons; 1. They really don't offer me what I want at a competitive price. 2. The goddamned furry kool-aid drinkers.
Smith and Wesson:
In 1987 S&W was purchased by Tompkins PLC. During the Clinton administration there were many lawsuits against gun manufacturers attempting to hold the manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their products. In 2000 the company made a deal with the Clinton administration to become exempt from those suits. The terms of the agreement would have led to some unpleasant effects on gun dealers who wished to carry S&W products on sales that had nothing to do with S&W; so a boycott started. In 2001 Tompkins PLC sold the company to Safe-T-Hammer.
There are still people who will not do business with S&W because of the 2000 deal.
Safe-T-Hammer made many changes to the design of the iconic S&W revolvers. The inclusion of the locking mechanism is what offends most. There is a small keyway on the side of the gun. A little tool that is included with the gun can be used to lock the mechanism so that the hammer cannot move. This feature has failed in some guns to the point where the gun would not fire without major repairs. These failures were very well publicized, but seem to be exceedingly rare.
Many people refuse to buy a S&W with a lock. The backlash from this is large enough that S&W has recently introduced (reintroduced?) models without the lock.
The lock doesn't bother me and while I joined the 2000 boycott, the Safe-T-Hammer people's repudiation of the the Clinton deal was strong enough for me to forgive them their trespass; especially since the people responsible for the deal took a gigantic loss selling to STH!
Ruger:
Where to start? I guess it can best be summed up with two words, "Bill Ruger". He had some, shall we say, unique ideas about gun ownership for someone who owned a gun company. He very definitely divided his customers into government and non-government groups. I think it's best summed up here: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html at that dead link...
He's dead now. I still won't buy Ruger. Why? My Mini-14 wouldn't hold a zero. There are claims that they've fixed this issue with them, but they are also now more expensive than an AR. Their AR is more expensive than measurably better ARs. Much like Colt, they just don't make what I want at a price I want to pay when their competition does.
DPMS
Most people cite their quality when they refuse to buy from them. I don't like their requirement that I fax a form promising I am a good person and their refusal to sell me a shorter than 16" barrel. Only mil and police departments can buy short barrels from DPMS. There is nothing inherently illegal about owning a short AR barrel. An AR pistol doesn't even require any special paperwork and a short barrel rifle is readily legal to people in most states once they've filled out some paperwork. Flat refusing to sell these people parts because they are not from the government offends me.
Bushmaster
One; they are liars. Two; local sales tax.
I've been lied to them on three things now.
First was getting a replacement part for Geff's M17S. The person I talked to told me, several times, that it would ship "tomorrow". It took three weeks of tomorrows to get it shipped and then two more weeks of shipping. I got told when I complained that since they gave it to me for free (warranty claim) I should be happy I got it at all. Considering I originally called to buy the part; I was pissed off by that.
Second was the status of my lightweight barrel I needed for my SBR project. Since the gun I was cloning didn't have a bayonet lug and would be shortened by 4.5" I ordered a "post ban" barrel. Then the shit-storm from the 2008 election started. After six weeks, I called to ask about the status of my order. "It will be a month." So I called in a month. "Just another month, we're swamped with orders." So I called back in a month... but this time I had been reading about people who'd ordered after me receiving their orders! "Oh, those were preban barrels, not post ban like you ordered." Can I change my order to a pre-ban? "Sure, but it will be like 90 days." Ninety days later, I call asking about my barrel. "We've been swamped!" I don't fucking care, you've been telling me to wait for six months now while I read about others getting their barrel orders filled. (Finally he tells the truth) "We're tooled up to make M4 profile barrels and we're selling all we can make of those so we don't want to lose the money lost while changing over the machine to what is, to us, a limited demand item. So wait us out or find someone else." I opted to wait, but got my barrel a week later.
Third lie was about the local sales tax. They charge state and local sales taxes on internet orders. They claim they are required by law to collect it. If that were true, they would also be required to remit it back to the state/local tax offices. They don't. They are padding the bill 7% in my case and pocketing it. If I want to pay sales tax, I can buy local; from a competitor: Spike's Tactical.
18 June 2010
A Chilling Thought
I've been one to compare the Democratic party to Nazis, Fascists and Communists.
It just hit me: What party was in charge when the US set up concentration camps during WW2?
It just hit me: What party was in charge when the US set up concentration camps during WW2?
17 June 2010
I Have Figured It Out
I was reading this: dead link and he pointed out the definition of commerce:
commerce
Main Entry: 1com·merce
Pronunciation: \ˈkä-(ˌ)mərs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-, merx merchandise
Date: 1537
1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
3 : sexual intercourse
synonyms see business
Since we are being fucked by congress using the commerce clause, I think they are using definition 3 not 2.
commerce
Main Entry: 1com·merce
Pronunciation: \ˈkä-(ˌ)mərs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-, merx merchandise
Date: 1537
1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
3 : sexual intercourse
synonyms see business
Since we are being fucked by congress using the commerce clause, I think they are using definition 3 not 2.
New Sling
Marv took advantage of a great deal on a SIG-Sauer G-LAD (green aiming laser). It came with a leather sling.
He asked if I wanted it, and I said yes.
It's perfect for Jasmine; but I expect her to burst into flames at any moment. The sling is a genuine H&K G3A3 sling (I can feel it hating me because I suck from across the room). The G3 was a fierce competitor to the FAL back in the day.
It's appropriate for my almost Romat clone. Israel used K.98k slings for their rifles; this sling is also German...
He asked if I wanted it, and I said yes.
It's perfect for Jasmine; but I expect her to burst into flames at any moment. The sling is a genuine H&K G3A3 sling (I can feel it hating me because I suck from across the room). The G3 was a fierce competitor to the FAL back in the day.
It's appropriate for my almost Romat clone. Israel used K.98k slings for their rifles; this sling is also German...
14 June 2010
Do They Owe Us
Do the gun companies owe we customers anything?
I was in a discussion where the topic of Colt's treatment of the civilian market while they are flush with government contracts came up.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=500570
CTbuilder1 said: "They are a company like any other. They will do what is profitable and in there best interests. It doesn't mean they are anti civilian. Why is it that so many people feel they are owed something by gun companies?"
I don't feel that Colt owes me anything. I just think that if their best interests are ignoring us for the fat government contract we should ignore them when they come back, hat in hand, for our business when those contracts expire.
I am getting damned sick of hearing what great products Colt makes and how I should ignore their actions in the early nineties. "They were forced to do that or lose their military contracts," is what several people have said about the large hammer and trigger pins and the deletion of the bayonet lugs and flash-hiders, "if they hadn't done that they would have gone bankrupt!" In 1992, they went bankrupt anyway. In 1994 they were bought out. They have not been a large presence in the civilian gun market since. In 1998 their CEO, Ron Stewart, stated that he would favor a federal permit system with training and testing for gun ownership. He was replaced because of the boycott that followed, but his successor pursued "smart gun" technology, something that there was zero market for naturally but got a lot of gun-control people drooling to make a requirement for ownership; who were they trying to sell that to? It wasn't us private buyers.
Yes, you can buy a Law Enforcement line gun as a normal schmoe, but for several years Colt threatened dire consequences to the dealers who sold the LE line to non-departmental customers. There are rumors of Colt refusing to warranty LE line guns that were sold to private individuals. The threats proved hollow and the rumors appear to be false; but your gun will have "RESTRICTED MILITARY/GOVERNMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT/EXPORT USE ONLY" stamped on the side. That sure doesn't give me the impression they want private ownership of those guns.
I get the distinct impression that their defenders are totally unaware that there are companies like Bravo Company and Spike's Tactical who are making AR-15's that are every bit as good, perhaps better, than what Colt sells.
For a long time Colt's 1911 has been just more expensive than several competitors, not better made.
Their Single Action Army is, indeed, still the standard by which all other SAA are measured, but you could buy two of the next most expensive brand for the price of that standard.
All of this makes me seem like a Colt hater. I am not! I want them to court me actively while they are flush with government largess and act like they want my business too rather than treating the markets as mutually exclusive or a zero sum game where a sale to a person is a lost government sale. It's not true.
There are people pining for the return of the Python or Detective Special. I would love to see the return of the Anaconda. Smith and Wesson is managing to make money selling revolvers in those sizes and there are several other companies sharing the market with them, like Charter Arms, Rossi and Taurus.
SIG is making big money selling a clone of the Colt Mustang! Colt could have owned that market, but they gave it away by sucking up to the politicians.
Comments
I was in a discussion where the topic of Colt's treatment of the civilian market while they are flush with government contracts came up.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=500570
CTbuilder1 said: "They are a company like any other. They will do what is profitable and in there best interests. It doesn't mean they are anti civilian. Why is it that so many people feel they are owed something by gun companies?"
I don't feel that Colt owes me anything. I just think that if their best interests are ignoring us for the fat government contract we should ignore them when they come back, hat in hand, for our business when those contracts expire.
I am getting damned sick of hearing what great products Colt makes and how I should ignore their actions in the early nineties. "They were forced to do that or lose their military contracts," is what several people have said about the large hammer and trigger pins and the deletion of the bayonet lugs and flash-hiders, "if they hadn't done that they would have gone bankrupt!" In 1992, they went bankrupt anyway. In 1994 they were bought out. They have not been a large presence in the civilian gun market since. In 1998 their CEO, Ron Stewart, stated that he would favor a federal permit system with training and testing for gun ownership. He was replaced because of the boycott that followed, but his successor pursued "smart gun" technology, something that there was zero market for naturally but got a lot of gun-control people drooling to make a requirement for ownership; who were they trying to sell that to? It wasn't us private buyers.
Yes, you can buy a Law Enforcement line gun as a normal schmoe, but for several years Colt threatened dire consequences to the dealers who sold the LE line to non-departmental customers. There are rumors of Colt refusing to warranty LE line guns that were sold to private individuals. The threats proved hollow and the rumors appear to be false; but your gun will have "RESTRICTED MILITARY/GOVERNMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT/EXPORT USE ONLY" stamped on the side. That sure doesn't give me the impression they want private ownership of those guns.
I get the distinct impression that their defenders are totally unaware that there are companies like Bravo Company and Spike's Tactical who are making AR-15's that are every bit as good, perhaps better, than what Colt sells.
For a long time Colt's 1911 has been just more expensive than several competitors, not better made.
Their Single Action Army is, indeed, still the standard by which all other SAA are measured, but you could buy two of the next most expensive brand for the price of that standard.
All of this makes me seem like a Colt hater. I am not! I want them to court me actively while they are flush with government largess and act like they want my business too rather than treating the markets as mutually exclusive or a zero sum game where a sale to a person is a lost government sale. It's not true.
There are people pining for the return of the Python or Detective Special. I would love to see the return of the Anaconda. Smith and Wesson is managing to make money selling revolvers in those sizes and there are several other companies sharing the market with them, like Charter Arms, Rossi and Taurus.
SIG is making big money selling a clone of the Colt Mustang! Colt could have owned that market, but they gave it away by sucking up to the politicians.
Comments
10 June 2010
08 June 2010
Playing With My Camera
I've had my Canon Powershot S5IS for almost three years now. I am only just starting to play with the settings that a point and shoot doesn't have.
I also have a nice compact collapsible tripod now.
I swapped out the 4.5" moderator clone on Sabrina for an A1 flash-hider just to see what it looked/felt like and decided to take some pics to play with the settings.
I also have a nice compact collapsible tripod now.
I swapped out the 4.5" moderator clone on Sabrina for an A1 flash-hider just to see what it looked/felt like and decided to take some pics to play with the settings.
Manual mode. 2 sec delay. F3.2. 2"5 shutter. Without flash.
Program Mode. 2 sec delay. Exposure -2. Without flash.
Program Mode. 2 sec delay. Exposure -2. With flash.
Program Mode. 2 sec delay. Exposure ±0. Without flash.
Program Mode. 2 sec delay. Exposure +1.33. Without flash.
Automatic Mode. 2 sec delay. Without flash
Automatic Mode. 2 sec delay. With flash.
An Observation
Where once I noticed a bit of chaff in my wheat with some blogs I enjoyed; several of them have transmogrified to the point where there's a bit of wheat in the chaff.
06 June 2010
04 June 2010
There are quite a few gun vendors that no longer do business with anyone in California. The reasons for doing so vary from person to person, but it boils down to California having stupid gun laws.
In more than one comment thread you'll find a Californian being angry about the seller's refusal to do business with them. Occasionally this will also include a reciprocal refusal to buy from this vendor in the future.
Wow, that's convenient, you aren't going to buy from someone who is not going to sell you anything. You sure put him in his place. Yup, sure showed him!
Comments
In more than one comment thread you'll find a Californian being angry about the seller's refusal to do business with them. Occasionally this will also include a reciprocal refusal to buy from this vendor in the future.
Wow, that's convenient, you aren't going to buy from someone who is not going to sell you anything. You sure put him in his place. Yup, sure showed him!
Comments
01 June 2010
Moment Of Bravado
"Just give the robber what he wants!"
OK. I will.
I intend to shoot him.
It is what he wants.
If he didn't want to be shot, he would not have tried to rob me.
Comments
OK. I will.
I intend to shoot him.
It is what he wants.
If he didn't want to be shot, he would not have tried to rob me.
Comments
29 May 2010
The AR Is Not Direct Impingement
Direct impingement is where the gas bled from the barrel is fed through a tube to strike the face of the bolt carrier, causing it to move to the rear and open the bolt. As far as I am aware, there have only been two production designs that used direct impingement: The French MAS 49 and Swedish Ljungmans AG m/42 (which spawned the Egyptian Hakim and Rashid).
You can see in the Ljungmans patent drawing that gas will travel down the tube (10) and strike the bolt carrier at (12).
In the AR system the gas is fed inside the bolt carrier through the gas key. There is an expansion chamber inside the carrier. With the bolt closed, the rear of the bolt is inside this chamber. When gas enters the chamber it forces the bolt out. Since the bolt cannot go forward because it is held by the rear of the barrel, the bolt carrier goes to the rear.
The rear of an AR bolt is really a piston!
The confusion between these systems stems from the gas tube being placed in-line with the bolt carrier. Gene Stoner's original prototypes had the gas tube running along the left side of the rifle and entering the expansion chamber through a hole in the side of the bolt carrier.
In the AR system the gas is fed inside the bolt carrier through the gas key. There is an expansion chamber inside the carrier. With the bolt closed, the rear of the bolt is inside this chamber. When gas enters the chamber it forces the bolt out. Since the bolt cannot go forward because it is held by the rear of the barrel, the bolt carrier goes to the rear.
The rear of an AR bolt is really a piston!
The confusion between these systems stems from the gas tube being placed in-line with the bolt carrier. Gene Stoner's original prototypes had the gas tube running along the left side of the rifle and entering the expansion chamber through a hole in the side of the bolt carrier.
27 May 2010
Things That People Ignore
The M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3 and M16A4 have 20" barrels.
Colt made several carbines based on the M16 series with 10-14.5" barrels for military service. So far, only the M4 has gotten wide issue.
Where did those carbine barrel lengths come from? The 10" barrel comes from the old Colt R607, the first carbine they offered. This is basically placing the gas port where the pressure curve has dropped to the point where it's just barely safe to open the bolt. Since the front sight base is common with the M16 and they left room for threads for a flash-hider it dictates the 10" length.
The 10" barrel was not very reliable because the pressure dropped very quickly once the bullet had passed the gas port. Colt introduced a 3.5" blast moderator to help with both the flash and to increase back-pressure for more reliable function. While it helped with the blast, further flash reduction and reliability was desired, so a 4.5" slotted moderator was introduced. This was carried over into both the XM177 and XM177E1.
Reliability was improved, but more "dwell", the time between the bullet passing the gas port and exiting the barrel, was needed. The M16 had 8.5" more dwell than any of the early carbines. Increasing the barrel length to 11.5" and using the 4.5" moderator made the XM177E2 even more reliable. Unfortunately, the Vietnam war ended and the funding for the project mostly dried up. Some issues were never resolved entirely.
Where did 14.5" come from? If you took the barrel that extends from the front of the front sight base on an M16 and put it in front of a front sight on a carbine, you have a 14.5" barrel. It is reasonably reliable and can accept an M16's bayonet; which the XM177E2 cannot. It also ends up being about 5/8" shorter than an 11.5" barrel with a 4.5" moderator! The SEALs adopted this 14.5" carbine; Colt called it the R653. The Philippines even manufactured them.
All of these guns used the same M193/M196 5.56x45mm ammunition that the M16 and M16A1 used. It was noted as far back as Vietnam that the shortened barrels had a dramatic effect on the effective range. Since the R607, and XM177 series were issued primarily to special warfare troops where the short length and lighter weight combined with different tactics from the infantry compensated for the lack of range.
The M16A2, M16A3, M16A4, M4 and M4A1 use M855/M856 ammunition.
Like the M193, the M855 was designed with a 20" barrel in mind. Like the R607, XM177 series and R653, performance dropped because of the reduced muzzle velocity from losing 5.5" of barrel. The shorter weapon was definitely handier for riding around in the back of a Bradley and the lack of long range was not a factor in urban environments.
Like so many times in the past, we ignored that the war we just fought, or the conditions we are currently encountering, will not be the environment of the next war or even engagement; thus the M4 became the primary issue service "rifle" for the Army. The Marines retained the M16A2 and adopted the M16A4. The current conditions in Afghanistan are screaming for something hard hitting with long range and even the Marines are having some issues reaching out to the ranges required. The M14 in 7.62x51mm has made a triumphant comeback in these conditions.
Will we abandon the M16 platform altogether for a 7.62x51mm rifle? Will we change the caliber of the M16 and M4 to something with a bit more reach? Will we develop something completely new? Will we look back at the rifle developed for the conditions in Afghanistan right now and wish we still had the M4?
EDIT
By they way: the 16" barrel we see on civilian versions of the carbines comes from a legal requirement.
Colt made several carbines based on the M16 series with 10-14.5" barrels for military service. So far, only the M4 has gotten wide issue.
Where did those carbine barrel lengths come from? The 10" barrel comes from the old Colt R607, the first carbine they offered. This is basically placing the gas port where the pressure curve has dropped to the point where it's just barely safe to open the bolt. Since the front sight base is common with the M16 and they left room for threads for a flash-hider it dictates the 10" length.
The 10" barrel was not very reliable because the pressure dropped very quickly once the bullet had passed the gas port. Colt introduced a 3.5" blast moderator to help with both the flash and to increase back-pressure for more reliable function. While it helped with the blast, further flash reduction and reliability was desired, so a 4.5" slotted moderator was introduced. This was carried over into both the XM177 and XM177E1.
Reliability was improved, but more "dwell", the time between the bullet passing the gas port and exiting the barrel, was needed. The M16 had 8.5" more dwell than any of the early carbines. Increasing the barrel length to 11.5" and using the 4.5" moderator made the XM177E2 even more reliable. Unfortunately, the Vietnam war ended and the funding for the project mostly dried up. Some issues were never resolved entirely.
Where did 14.5" come from? If you took the barrel that extends from the front of the front sight base on an M16 and put it in front of a front sight on a carbine, you have a 14.5" barrel. It is reasonably reliable and can accept an M16's bayonet; which the XM177E2 cannot. It also ends up being about 5/8" shorter than an 11.5" barrel with a 4.5" moderator! The SEALs adopted this 14.5" carbine; Colt called it the R653. The Philippines even manufactured them.
All of these guns used the same M193/M196 5.56x45mm ammunition that the M16 and M16A1 used. It was noted as far back as Vietnam that the shortened barrels had a dramatic effect on the effective range. Since the R607, and XM177 series were issued primarily to special warfare troops where the short length and lighter weight combined with different tactics from the infantry compensated for the lack of range.
The M16A2, M16A3, M16A4, M4 and M4A1 use M855/M856 ammunition.
Like the M193, the M855 was designed with a 20" barrel in mind. Like the R607, XM177 series and R653, performance dropped because of the reduced muzzle velocity from losing 5.5" of barrel. The shorter weapon was definitely handier for riding around in the back of a Bradley and the lack of long range was not a factor in urban environments.
Like so many times in the past, we ignored that the war we just fought, or the conditions we are currently encountering, will not be the environment of the next war or even engagement; thus the M4 became the primary issue service "rifle" for the Army. The Marines retained the M16A2 and adopted the M16A4. The current conditions in Afghanistan are screaming for something hard hitting with long range and even the Marines are having some issues reaching out to the ranges required. The M14 in 7.62x51mm has made a triumphant comeback in these conditions.
Will we abandon the M16 platform altogether for a 7.62x51mm rifle? Will we change the caliber of the M16 and M4 to something with a bit more reach? Will we develop something completely new? Will we look back at the rifle developed for the conditions in Afghanistan right now and wish we still had the M4?
EDIT
By they way: the 16" barrel we see on civilian versions of the carbines comes from a legal requirement.
Big Boy Blog
This _IS_ my blog, dammit!
I really don't see how Livejournal is different from Blogger, Blogspot or others in the main. I can't post a blog-roll in the margin is just about the only difference I can see.
What makes a Blogger or Blogspot blog superior to this one?
I really don't see what makes those other methods better than this one. Perhaps Weer'd can explain, he's made the change recently.
I really don't see how Livejournal is different from Blogger, Blogspot or others in the main. I can't post a blog-roll in the margin is just about the only difference I can see.
What makes a Blogger or Blogspot blog superior to this one?
I really don't see what makes those other methods better than this one. Perhaps Weer'd can explain, he's made the change recently.
Update 28APR17
This was imported from Livejournal, before I moved my posts here to Blogger.
Maybe I Have Found Something To Say
t is the president's duty to stand his ass at The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and place the wreath on Memorial Day.
The current president intends to shirk this duty onto his vice-president.
As much as I disliked Clinton, he still did the duty.
The current president intends to shirk this duty onto his vice-president.
As much as I disliked Clinton, he still did the duty.
24 May 2010
Nothing Much
I think I am going to let the lights burn out here. I find that I just don't have much to say about much anymore and the things I do say, I have said before.
23 May 2010
Fascinating
I note that the same congress members who supported the assault weapon ban in 1994 are the same congress members who say we need a new ban to stop the drug violence in Mexico.
Dianne Feinstein
Dick Durbin
Chuck Schumer
Not a comprehensive list, but it's always the same few people. The justifications change, but the solution doesn't.
Dianne Feinstein
Dick Durbin
Chuck Schumer
Not a comprehensive list, but it's always the same few people. The justifications change, but the solution doesn't.
22 May 2010
Going Out On A Limb
I detest the militarization of the police. I cannot express my distaste enough.
I do not bow to the argument, "If we save even one cop's life..."
Bullshit!
When he's on duty he is The State. And The State has a vast supply of individual officers. Yes, a police officer is a person, with rights. As such, his rights should be identical to mine, since I am a person too.
The laws we are wrapping around the cops is making me a second class citizen with regards to many rights.
Conceal carry comes with the badge in most places, in particular in places where a normal citizen is not allowed to carry at all.
Self defense laws are far more lenient on the police than on common folks; especially so when you consider that a cop is typically put on paid leave while the shooting is investigated and legal counsel is provided by the department. The investigations are typically very cursory and are conducted by the police force itself as if it's impossible for it to have no interest in the outcome.
Speaking of self defense, I know when I can shoot a normal assailant. It's codified in the law and confirmed by jurisprudence. When can I shoot a cop? In theory, it's the same as any other assault. In practice, it's never legal. In some jurisdictions, it's possible for a cop to shoot almost as many people as he'd like with impunity.
The police are the ultimate in "circle the wagons" and band together groups.
How many times have you seen a cop flagrantly breaking traffic laws?
The police are people, just people. On average no better (or worse) than the rest of us. I dislike the pedestal we've made for them.
I detest the militarization of the police forces. Heck, I detest it's called a police FORCE. I'm of the opinion that if a cop needs an M113A2 APC to do the job then we need the Army to make the arrest (and the Army doesn't arrest people). We might discover that the cops don't need tracked armored vehicles if they cannot have them.
What about cops lives? What about them? As agents of the state, there are plenty more where they came from. The state can afford the losses. Any argument about a cop needing a piece of military equipment applies just as fully to me in regards to my safety. Ban me from having something, you don't get it either. Being a policeman should not be a path to elevation above the people he's been hired to protect.
I would feel a lot better if the rules the cops followed were the same as the rules I have to follow. They really aren't too onerous.
Here comes the narrowest part of my limb.
I feel that, as agents of the state, the infractions committed by the police should be punished more harshly than if the same thing had been committed by a normal citizen. That's not just an individual violating your rights, that's the agency and government violating your rights.
I have some token solutions.
Police uniforms will be distinctive from military in color and cut. While a cop on a SWAT team might need something very much like BDU's or ACU's a pair of dark blue coveralls will do.
If a cop shoots someone; instead of paid leave they get six months where they don't collect a penny from any government source, including unemployment. That tells me, emphatically, that the officer needed to pull the trigger. If the police unions want to pay his salary while he's suspended, let them. A private citizen who has to defend themselves with lethal force is subject to more, actually, after losing time to court appearances, costs of legal fees, stress, etc...
Again, if the cops need military hardware and training to get the job done, then it's obviously a military job not a police job. Full. Stop. I think that once we take away the cool tactical hammer then not every problem will be a nail.
In my threeperish moments I have to think that the first ones to be shot will have to be the local police. They will be the first ones sent to quell an insurrection. The gun community had better get happy with the idea that it's not going to be the faceless ATF ninja at the forefront of this, but the local police. Thoughtlessly supporting the police in every situation is being mindless. They are people, just like you.
Please note, this is not a call to start shooting the police.
Comments
I do not bow to the argument, "If we save even one cop's life..."
Bullshit!
When he's on duty he is The State. And The State has a vast supply of individual officers. Yes, a police officer is a person, with rights. As such, his rights should be identical to mine, since I am a person too.
The laws we are wrapping around the cops is making me a second class citizen with regards to many rights.
Conceal carry comes with the badge in most places, in particular in places where a normal citizen is not allowed to carry at all.
Self defense laws are far more lenient on the police than on common folks; especially so when you consider that a cop is typically put on paid leave while the shooting is investigated and legal counsel is provided by the department. The investigations are typically very cursory and are conducted by the police force itself as if it's impossible for it to have no interest in the outcome.
Speaking of self defense, I know when I can shoot a normal assailant. It's codified in the law and confirmed by jurisprudence. When can I shoot a cop? In theory, it's the same as any other assault. In practice, it's never legal. In some jurisdictions, it's possible for a cop to shoot almost as many people as he'd like with impunity.
The police are the ultimate in "circle the wagons" and band together groups.
How many times have you seen a cop flagrantly breaking traffic laws?
The police are people, just people. On average no better (or worse) than the rest of us. I dislike the pedestal we've made for them.
I detest the militarization of the police forces. Heck, I detest it's called a police FORCE. I'm of the opinion that if a cop needs an M113A2 APC to do the job then we need the Army to make the arrest (and the Army doesn't arrest people). We might discover that the cops don't need tracked armored vehicles if they cannot have them.
What about cops lives? What about them? As agents of the state, there are plenty more where they came from. The state can afford the losses. Any argument about a cop needing a piece of military equipment applies just as fully to me in regards to my safety. Ban me from having something, you don't get it either. Being a policeman should not be a path to elevation above the people he's been hired to protect.
I would feel a lot better if the rules the cops followed were the same as the rules I have to follow. They really aren't too onerous.
Here comes the narrowest part of my limb.
I feel that, as agents of the state, the infractions committed by the police should be punished more harshly than if the same thing had been committed by a normal citizen. That's not just an individual violating your rights, that's the agency and government violating your rights.
I have some token solutions.
Police uniforms will be distinctive from military in color and cut. While a cop on a SWAT team might need something very much like BDU's or ACU's a pair of dark blue coveralls will do.
If a cop shoots someone; instead of paid leave they get six months where they don't collect a penny from any government source, including unemployment. That tells me, emphatically, that the officer needed to pull the trigger. If the police unions want to pay his salary while he's suspended, let them. A private citizen who has to defend themselves with lethal force is subject to more, actually, after losing time to court appearances, costs of legal fees, stress, etc...
Again, if the cops need military hardware and training to get the job done, then it's obviously a military job not a police job. Full. Stop. I think that once we take away the cool tactical hammer then not every problem will be a nail.
In my threeperish moments I have to think that the first ones to be shot will have to be the local police. They will be the first ones sent to quell an insurrection. The gun community had better get happy with the idea that it's not going to be the faceless ATF ninja at the forefront of this, but the local police. Thoughtlessly supporting the police in every situation is being mindless. They are people, just like you.
Please note, this is not a call to start shooting the police.
Comments
11 May 2010
Take Note
Go here. Scroll down to pic 13.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
I want you to take note that the soldier on the right is holding a hand gun by the barrel. His handgun is in its holster. The soldier on the left is holding an AK, not an issue item for the ARVN. Notice also that the prisoner is not wearing a uniform. These firearms were taken from him moments before the picture was taken.
Pic 14 is the famous one.
Under both Hague and Geneva persons found under arms and out of uniform during a time of war in a combat area can be summarily executed. That was exactly what General Nguyen Ngoc Loan did.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Ngọc_Loan
I really despise the "suspected Viet Cong officer" in the caption. It doesn't matter. Found under arms, out of uniform is all that does. If we started being less generous about the application of this rule, we might find that we will be more successful against a people who respect this form.
By the way, it is brutal. I agree. C'est la guerre.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
I want you to take note that the soldier on the right is holding a hand gun by the barrel. His handgun is in its holster. The soldier on the left is holding an AK, not an issue item for the ARVN. Notice also that the prisoner is not wearing a uniform. These firearms were taken from him moments before the picture was taken.
Pic 14 is the famous one.
Under both Hague and Geneva persons found under arms and out of uniform during a time of war in a combat area can be summarily executed. That was exactly what General Nguyen Ngoc Loan did.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Ngọc_Loan
I really despise the "suspected Viet Cong officer" in the caption. It doesn't matter. Found under arms, out of uniform is all that does. If we started being less generous about the application of this rule, we might find that we will be more successful against a people who respect this form.
By the way, it is brutal. I agree. C'est la guerre.
08 May 2010
Home Improvements Continue Apace
We finally got the last crank window in the house replaced with nice double glazed single hung windows. There is already a noticeable difference in temperature in both The Boy's and our bedrooms.
Window removed.
Marv remembered to wear his work boots.
Marv brought up his air compressor and air-hammer. It made short work of the grout that was surrounding the opening. For previous installs we had used hand chisels and hammers. That took hours; this took minutes. Figures we'd learn how to do it right on the LAST window.
It's in!
Window removed.
Marv remembered to wear his work boots.
Marv brought up his air compressor and air-hammer. It made short work of the grout that was surrounding the opening. For previous installs we had used hand chisels and hammers. That took hours; this took minutes. Figures we'd learn how to do it right on the LAST window.
It's in!
Computer Stuff
Way back in Oct 2007 I bought The Lovely Harvey a spiffy new 15" MacBook Pro (2.4 GHz). This was a twin to mine that I had bought in May 2007.
The video on mine failed in May of 2008 just days before its warranty expired. Apple repaired this machine, but thanks to the repeated warnings of possible data loss and up to 90 day turn-around on repairs I ended up getting a new machine (just in case) too. Three day turn around, no data loss. "Well, at least we have a spare," I thought.
Good thing we did. In February ago The Lovely Harvey's laptop died exactly like my first one did. Since we were well out of warranty there was much despair; but since we had the spare...
Her machine would fire up in target disk mode so I could transfer the data from her machine to the spare. I did a fresh install of OSX 10.5 onto the spare and then moved her stuff over. Simple.
The old machine got tossed into the closet until we had the $500-$900 to fix it.
Fast forward to yesterday.
I was talking with Anglave about his ancient work laptop and joked around that he should just get a new one. Ha ha. I then suggested a Mac, you know even more money he didn't have. Then I suggested he fix our broken one since the repairs were almost the same as a new Win7 machine. He expressed doubt that those price comparisons were correct, surely a logic board would be more.
So I googled to find some prices for logic boards and found:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/MacBookPro_video_failure.html
That led to
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377
Whereupon I discovered that the repair would likely be covered for free.
It is now 8 PM. There is an 8:40 appointment slot at the Genius Bar available 37 miles away. To the Jalopy! Triple digit speeds were achieved several times and the Escort 8500 paid for itself at least three times. I made it to the Apple Store with minutes to spare.
The Genius™ ran a diagnostic and confirmed it was the GPU. He then gave me a receipt, warned of data loss and slow turn around and all will be well.
Side Note: Coming out of the Apple Store I picked up a tail. Two thuggish looking guys were loitering outside the entrance to the store and followed me back to the car. They broke off when they saw that I was alert, looking at them and had my hand in my pocket. And by "broke off" I mean they did a 180˚ and went back into the mall.
Additional Side Note: The Genius™ got a kick out of my "I'm Not Carrying A Concealed Firearm (Or Am I?)" t-shirt. The charitable side of me would like to think that the thugs just wanted to read my shirt and having done so went back to loitering.
The video on mine failed in May of 2008 just days before its warranty expired. Apple repaired this machine, but thanks to the repeated warnings of possible data loss and up to 90 day turn-around on repairs I ended up getting a new machine (just in case) too. Three day turn around, no data loss. "Well, at least we have a spare," I thought.
Good thing we did. In February ago The Lovely Harvey's laptop died exactly like my first one did. Since we were well out of warranty there was much despair; but since we had the spare...
Her machine would fire up in target disk mode so I could transfer the data from her machine to the spare. I did a fresh install of OSX 10.5 onto the spare and then moved her stuff over. Simple.
The old machine got tossed into the closet until we had the $500-$900 to fix it.
Fast forward to yesterday.
I was talking with Anglave about his ancient work laptop and joked around that he should just get a new one. Ha ha. I then suggested a Mac, you know even more money he didn't have. Then I suggested he fix our broken one since the repairs were almost the same as a new Win7 machine. He expressed doubt that those price comparisons were correct, surely a logic board would be more.
So I googled to find some prices for logic boards and found:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/MacBookPro_video_failure.html
That led to
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377
Whereupon I discovered that the repair would likely be covered for free.
It is now 8 PM. There is an 8:40 appointment slot at the Genius Bar available 37 miles away. To the Jalopy! Triple digit speeds were achieved several times and the Escort 8500 paid for itself at least three times. I made it to the Apple Store with minutes to spare.
The Genius™ ran a diagnostic and confirmed it was the GPU. He then gave me a receipt, warned of data loss and slow turn around and all will be well.
Side Note: Coming out of the Apple Store I picked up a tail. Two thuggish looking guys were loitering outside the entrance to the store and followed me back to the car. They broke off when they saw that I was alert, looking at them and had my hand in my pocket. And by "broke off" I mean they did a 180˚ and went back into the mall.
Additional Side Note: The Genius™ got a kick out of my "I'm Not Carrying A Concealed Firearm (Or Am I?)" t-shirt. The charitable side of me would like to think that the thugs just wanted to read my shirt and having done so went back to loitering.
01 May 2010
Quote Of The Random Interval
Small bullets may expand to create bigger holes, but large bullets don't shrink.
AKsarben posting on the 6.8 forums. http://68forums.com/forums/index.php
AKsarben posting on the 6.8 forums. http://68forums.com/forums/index.php
28 April 2010
This Just Doesn't Work
It would seem that Florida is poised to allow red-light cameras.
I am not advocating running red lights in my opposition to them.
Heck, I would accept them as a fine idea if they were done properly. But they won't be and they never have been.
Study after study has shown the way to reduce the number of accidents at light controlled intersections is to make the yellow longer and give a brief pause before changing the cross traffic's light green. Absorb that for a second. Giving people a bit more time to get stopped and then giving some time for the intersection to clear of traffic before releasing the side traffic reduces the number of accidents more than any other factor.
But red light cameras are not about reducing the number of accidents.
Why do I say that?
I say that because every single article about them mentions revenue generated.
Studies again: They show, over and over, that when first implemented, there's a lot of tickets issued; then over time the number of violations drops to nearly zero. If this was about safety, we'd declare victory at this point. But these cameras always come with a company that processes the tickets and maintains the cameras. If there are no tickets issued, there's no money for the company and (depending on the contract) threaten to take their cameras and go home (with dire warnings about the chaos that will ensue should there be no robotic guardian watching the maniacal drivers)or they collect their fee without the ticket revenue stream to support the expenditures.
What does the municipality that installed the cameras do now?
They invariably shorten the yellow time! Creating a situation where it's more difficult to get stopped safely in time; on purpose to get more money.
Remember what I said about increasing the yellow being the single most effective means for increasing safety at a light controlled intersection? Some places have shortened the yellow so much that you cannot safely stop from the speed limit before entering the intersection.
"But you said the number of violations drops to nearly zero, doesn't that mean there are fewer accidents?"
No, that does not mean there are fewer accidents. That means there are fewer t-bones. What we trade them for is rear-endings. People don't want a ticket for running the light, so they slam on the brakes. With the shorter yellow, they know they don't have much time to get stopped. Think a 2,800 lb Civic can out brake a school bus? I know it can.
While we are talking about accidents... The recent articles on the topic stated that just over 50% of the accidents in Florida occur at light controlled intersections (they infer that it's because people are running red lights, but don't actually say it). Light controlled intersections are not 50% of the intersections, by a wide margin. I could make a statistical case that the lights are causing a disproportionate number of accidents.
If we are going to be honest about this, we also need to look at why people push that yellow and run the red. I've been conducting an experiment. I've been driving the speed limit, accelerating very moderately and stopping when the light turns yellow. At a few key intersections, if I catch the red I will have to stop at the next ten red lights. If my timing is good, and I catch that one light green, I catch the rest of them green along this route as well. Congratulations traffic planners! You have created an incentive to run that key light.
I have also noticed that if I take a detour and sit at one of the cross streets that I am staring at a clear intersection for the entire red light (30-90 seconds). When the glob of traffic that was stopped at the previous light arrives at the intersection, it turns red for them and green for me. Seems to me that the time to let the cross traffic out is during that huge gap.
Let us also add in another observation. People have figured out they are going to have to stop at the next light so they don't bother getting up to the speed limit; they lolly-gag along at 5-10 under. This can be very frustrating.
Now, lets correlate the frustration with the timing. I know that if I'd made that first light green I would not have to stop at the second one. This means there's a much faster than the posted limit speed that will allow me to get back in sequence with the lights and catch the rest of them green. If the traffic in front of me doesn't get up to the limit and pulls the rolling road-block routine, that just means that when I get clear air I have to go even faster to make that next light. Fast enough that there's no way I can stop for the red given the short yellow. Look! An accident!
If this was really about safety, they would have the lights timed so that the huge mass of cars didn't have to stop at every light. They yellow would be long enough so that someone obeying the speed limit has plenty of time to stop. But they don't because this isn't about safety at all, it's about money.
EDIT!
I forgot to mention that a good third to half the red lights in the greater Tampa area were put there in response to some gruesome accident. One in particular locally stands out.
Where the intersection of Old Highway 54 T's into FL-54. The original plan was to have old 54 dead end where the intersection is now. When they first opened the new section it was simply a stop sign. Then one night around 2am a mother and her two young children stopped at the sign, looked both ways, pulled out to turn left... and were killed when a drunk driving 110 mph broadsided her. So we have a light to keep drunks from driving a buck ten? In addition to the idiot drunk, that section of road was planned with the idea that there was not going to be an intersection there at all, the sight distances suck. The deceased likely never even saw him. The question that should have been asked is not, "why wasn't there a light there?" but "why was there an intersection there?" Guess why the plan was changed. Yup, MONEY! There were a few businesses along that short stretch were 54 used to dogleg. Those businesses lobbied hard to keep that section from becoming a dead end; they said it would hurt their business when people stopped driving past.
I am not advocating running red lights in my opposition to them.
Heck, I would accept them as a fine idea if they were done properly. But they won't be and they never have been.
Study after study has shown the way to reduce the number of accidents at light controlled intersections is to make the yellow longer and give a brief pause before changing the cross traffic's light green. Absorb that for a second. Giving people a bit more time to get stopped and then giving some time for the intersection to clear of traffic before releasing the side traffic reduces the number of accidents more than any other factor.
But red light cameras are not about reducing the number of accidents.
Why do I say that?
I say that because every single article about them mentions revenue generated.
Studies again: They show, over and over, that when first implemented, there's a lot of tickets issued; then over time the number of violations drops to nearly zero. If this was about safety, we'd declare victory at this point. But these cameras always come with a company that processes the tickets and maintains the cameras. If there are no tickets issued, there's no money for the company and (depending on the contract) threaten to take their cameras and go home (with dire warnings about the chaos that will ensue should there be no robotic guardian watching the maniacal drivers)or they collect their fee without the ticket revenue stream to support the expenditures.
What does the municipality that installed the cameras do now?
They invariably shorten the yellow time! Creating a situation where it's more difficult to get stopped safely in time; on purpose to get more money.
Remember what I said about increasing the yellow being the single most effective means for increasing safety at a light controlled intersection? Some places have shortened the yellow so much that you cannot safely stop from the speed limit before entering the intersection.
"But you said the number of violations drops to nearly zero, doesn't that mean there are fewer accidents?"
No, that does not mean there are fewer accidents. That means there are fewer t-bones. What we trade them for is rear-endings. People don't want a ticket for running the light, so they slam on the brakes. With the shorter yellow, they know they don't have much time to get stopped. Think a 2,800 lb Civic can out brake a school bus? I know it can.
While we are talking about accidents... The recent articles on the topic stated that just over 50% of the accidents in Florida occur at light controlled intersections (they infer that it's because people are running red lights, but don't actually say it). Light controlled intersections are not 50% of the intersections, by a wide margin. I could make a statistical case that the lights are causing a disproportionate number of accidents.
If we are going to be honest about this, we also need to look at why people push that yellow and run the red. I've been conducting an experiment. I've been driving the speed limit, accelerating very moderately and stopping when the light turns yellow. At a few key intersections, if I catch the red I will have to stop at the next ten red lights. If my timing is good, and I catch that one light green, I catch the rest of them green along this route as well. Congratulations traffic planners! You have created an incentive to run that key light.
I have also noticed that if I take a detour and sit at one of the cross streets that I am staring at a clear intersection for the entire red light (30-90 seconds). When the glob of traffic that was stopped at the previous light arrives at the intersection, it turns red for them and green for me. Seems to me that the time to let the cross traffic out is during that huge gap.
Let us also add in another observation. People have figured out they are going to have to stop at the next light so they don't bother getting up to the speed limit; they lolly-gag along at 5-10 under. This can be very frustrating.
Now, lets correlate the frustration with the timing. I know that if I'd made that first light green I would not have to stop at the second one. This means there's a much faster than the posted limit speed that will allow me to get back in sequence with the lights and catch the rest of them green. If the traffic in front of me doesn't get up to the limit and pulls the rolling road-block routine, that just means that when I get clear air I have to go even faster to make that next light. Fast enough that there's no way I can stop for the red given the short yellow. Look! An accident!
If this was really about safety, they would have the lights timed so that the huge mass of cars didn't have to stop at every light. They yellow would be long enough so that someone obeying the speed limit has plenty of time to stop. But they don't because this isn't about safety at all, it's about money.
EDIT!
I forgot to mention that a good third to half the red lights in the greater Tampa area were put there in response to some gruesome accident. One in particular locally stands out.
Where the intersection of Old Highway 54 T's into FL-54. The original plan was to have old 54 dead end where the intersection is now. When they first opened the new section it was simply a stop sign. Then one night around 2am a mother and her two young children stopped at the sign, looked both ways, pulled out to turn left... and were killed when a drunk driving 110 mph broadsided her. So we have a light to keep drunks from driving a buck ten? In addition to the idiot drunk, that section of road was planned with the idea that there was not going to be an intersection there at all, the sight distances suck. The deceased likely never even saw him. The question that should have been asked is not, "why wasn't there a light there?" but "why was there an intersection there?" Guess why the plan was changed. Yup, MONEY! There were a few businesses along that short stretch were 54 used to dogleg. Those businesses lobbied hard to keep that section from becoming a dead end; they said it would hurt their business when people stopped driving past.
25 April 2010
24 April 2010
Marv's BAG Purchase
It's a SIG-Sauer P238. Colt Series 80 shown for comparison.
Update: Pictures lost because Webshots went all pay-per-view and killed the links.
18 April 2010
09 April 2010
Hey Iowa Friends
Drop an e-mail or letter at your governor and tell him you really, really want him to sign SF2379.
It will make Iowa's Conceal Carry Permit:
Shall Issue!!!
Standardizes training requirements
Places a 30-day time limit on issuing a permit.
Provides a tight appeals process
Universal recognition of all out of state permits The part I care about.
No ability for the Sheriff to record make, model, SN, or ammunition type of any weapon during the permit process
Removal of all individual Federal disqualifiers, replaced with one sentence
Permits good for five years
It will make Iowa's Conceal Carry Permit:
Shall Issue!!!
Standardizes training requirements
Places a 30-day time limit on issuing a permit.
Provides a tight appeals process
Universal recognition of all out of state permits The part I care about.
No ability for the Sheriff to record make, model, SN, or ammunition type of any weapon during the permit process
Removal of all individual Federal disqualifiers, replaced with one sentence
Permits good for five years
08 April 2010
Hey Judge Fuck You Too
"The judge concluded that these weapons are not in common use, are not possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule, and are dangerous."
From: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/new-d-c-gun-laws-upheld/
Your "honor", I am a law abiding citizen, I possess several of "these weapons". I even went the extra law-abiding step of registering my short barrel rifle. Were I not a law-abiding citizen, I would have just lopped off that barrel and called it good.
Not in common use? Time to come out from under your rock, your "honor". Not only are they common, enough are sold to support development of new cartridges that are specifically designed for the platforms. Both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8x43mm would be longer if not so constrained. There are companies, like Magpul, that are surviving nicely making accessories that are exclusively for such arms (and making very little that isn't for such weapons).
Define dangerous, your "honor". Not a single firearm in my house has killed a person since I have owned it. Three have almost certainly been used to kill in the past, but that was at the behest of the State during a war (they are military surplus rifles). Any of my firearms is certainly deadly dangerous to anyone foolish enough to attempt to break into my house, but even you are acknowledging that the first Heller ruling says that's OK.
From: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/new-d-c-gun-laws-upheld/
Your "honor", I am a law abiding citizen, I possess several of "these weapons". I even went the extra law-abiding step of registering my short barrel rifle. Were I not a law-abiding citizen, I would have just lopped off that barrel and called it good.
Not in common use? Time to come out from under your rock, your "honor". Not only are they common, enough are sold to support development of new cartridges that are specifically designed for the platforms. Both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8x43mm would be longer if not so constrained. There are companies, like Magpul, that are surviving nicely making accessories that are exclusively for such arms (and making very little that isn't for such weapons).
Define dangerous, your "honor". Not a single firearm in my house has killed a person since I have owned it. Three have almost certainly been used to kill in the past, but that was at the behest of the State during a war (they are military surplus rifles). Any of my firearms is certainly deadly dangerous to anyone foolish enough to attempt to break into my house, but even you are acknowledging that the first Heller ruling says that's OK.
Magpul AFG Initial Impressions
Right side:
UPDATE: By request of Anglave
Left side:
On the LaRue 4-rail the AFG interferes with the Magpul XTM rail panels. To put the AFG where I was comfortable, I had to remove one section of XTM. In fact, there's no way for the front part of the AFG to put anything on the side rails. The LaRue's bottom rail is closer to the barrel than the top, so there's less room here. I might get out the Dremel if things bug me too much.
I had to move my light from the bottom rail to one of the sides, because of the change in grip angle, this is actually easier than the bottom was.
I took the 'A2' finger stop out of the grip area since, like usual, it was where I wanted a finger instead of between. Even with it reversed.
It doesn't feel at all like I expected it to, but it is more comfortable with Dottie's nose heaviness.
UPDATE: (Already)
The loss of the third XTM panel bothered me because fingers were hitting rail. It's unpleasant. So I took a teeny lip off the underside of the XTM panel and that leaves enough clearance to get the AFG under it.
It doesn't feel at all like I expected it to, but it is more comfortable with Dottie's nose heaviness.
UPDATE: (Already)
The loss of the third XTM panel bothered me because fingers were hitting rail. It's unpleasant. So I took a teeny lip off the underside of the XTM panel and that leaves enough clearance to get the AFG under it.
UPDATE: By request of Anglave
07 April 2010
Spread The Word
Progressives Can't Get Past The Knowledge Problem
One thing we can say about Hayek that I don't think I have seen about Keynes is Hayek's theories are disprovable. Keynes seems to be much more along the lines of, "Let's see what happens!"
One thing we can say about Hayek that I don't think I have seen about Keynes is Hayek's theories are disprovable. Keynes seems to be much more along the lines of, "Let's see what happens!"
05 April 2010
I Don't Know Why I Am Still Astounded
If you cannot afford $400 to fix your car, you cannot afford $750 to replace a TV. Especially when it is not your only TV. Explain to me again why you thought being called an idiot was inappropriate?
04 April 2010
Well Said Sir
"Consistent, understandable to lay-people laws are a good and an end in themselves, a necessary feature of a free and stable society. Punishments roughly proportionate with malum in secriminality, not exaggerated for malum prohibitum defiance are themselves a good thing. Quoting a legal definition not only more precise but arguably at odds with plain English is exceedingly patronizing. The law is what some of us have reservations about, not out of ignorance but out of principle." Dave R in the comments here: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/03/29/feds-raid-radical-christian-group/
03 April 2010
On Teaching Shooting
Tam's post; http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/04/chicks-can-hold-their-smoke.html got me to thinking.
When I met Harvey she was not a shooter. I was her first instructor.
Her first handgun shots were from a Glock 21. Her only difficulty was that the grips were too large for her hands.
Her first gun, of any kind, was a S&W Sigma in .357 SIG. It's still her first love. I had her handle everything first. We looked at both revolvers and autos. At the time, she said that the autos all felt better to her hand, but the revolvers seemed so much simpler. The first handgun I ever fired was an auto, there's more to learn but it's not really that difficult so we decided she'd just learn. And she did. I wish more "mentors" would take this to heart.
When the carry bug bit her, we realized that Sigma was a tad large for handy carry so we sought a smaller gun. A friend of hers had recently bought a S&W 642 (.38 Special) and such a snubby seemed ideal. The idea of an aluminum framed revolver rubs wrong to us so we went with the same size gun in stainless, the 640 (.357 Magnum). Her first shots from her snubby were Hornady Leverevolution rounds. Those are really intended for carbines! Her comments? "LOUD!"
Double-action only snubby revolvers in heavy loads are notoriously hard to shoot well, but she handled the 640 with aplomb. The range staff asked her several times if she was sure she'd never fired a little revolver before.
You Tube is awash with videos of boyfriends/husbands handing a .44 Magnum to their girlfriend/wife and having them shoot. The girl is invariably someone who doesn't seem to like guns and is obviously unfamiliar with shooting. Most of the time the thing jumping out of her hands just scares her and the guy (and his buddies) all guffaw. I hate this kind of thing. Congrats, guys, you just made a non-shooter out of someone you live with. She's going to resist any purchase of anything 'gun' from now on, even if it is in the most subtle of ways.
The Lovely Harvey, on the other hand, had no problem with a 4" Colt Anaconda firing 240gr Speer Gold-Dot. I like to think that is because I taught her correctly and never forced her to do something she wasn't ready to do. I also like to think that when I discovered I was doing something wrong (and teaching her that) that I admitted it, and we learned the new way together.
Harvey is my success story. Laurie is my failure.
Laurie is the friend with the 642. Her husband is the guy I refer to as "Libtard Lenny". He's an odd duck, a flaming liberal who likes guns.
He decided that she, with zero interest in shooting, would get a gun and carry permit. She'd taken the classes, but never processed her application. When Harvey got interested in her CCW, she cajoled Laurie into coming to the classes with her so that she'd have company; so Laurie took the class twice. Lenny strong-armed her into finishing the application this time and then it was time to get a gun.
I did the same thing with Laurie as I did with Harvey. We hit the gun shows and I made her handle every single handgun there. She has nerve damage in her right hand and is right-handed. She doesn't have a enough grip in her hand to work the slide on most small autos (blow back guns have stronger springs than locked breech). She is not mechanically inclined, so the simplicity of a revolver seemed better. The same accident that caused the nerve damage also affected her wrist strength in both hands. So we needed a light gun as well as a simple one.
This kept adding up to a revolver. She was able to work all of the controls every time, the 642 was light enough for her to hold and it was priced in her range. So she bought it and we went shooting.
I had forgotten some things. A lighter gun makes for more recoil. DAO means an atrocious trigger that requires a smooth pull, something Laurie had difficulty with because of the damage. Yet, she managed. We were making progress and she was learning and getting better. Practicing was acting as physical therapy for her left hand and fine motor skills and strength was returning.
Then we made the mistake of going to the range with Lenny and The Lovely Harvey. Laurie was a better shot than Lenny. She'd only been shooting for a whole month and she was better than he. Harvey was a lot better than he. The next time I took Laurie shooting, she was not as good as her first outing. Now her gun, that she had loved, was too big for her purse, to heavy(!), kicked too hard, trigger was too strong, grips felt wrong, etc... Odd, I thought. Turns out that Lenny had started telling her all this behind my back.
A week later she called to go shooting and had a new gun! Woot! It was an FN Browning Vest Pocket 1905 in .25 ACP. She showed that she could work the controls and she exclaimed over and over how happy she was with how it fit her hand. And she shot it well. Problem was, it was an ancient, used, gun. It was unreliable. It needed new springs and the magazine's lips were well worn. Rather than fix it, Lenny traded it in on a Beretta Tomcat. Note that LENNY traded it, not Laurie. This is because he went to the shop where he'd bought it and demanded warranty repairs. "On an 80 year old gun?" the shopkeeper asked. I am confident that the gun was repairable and would have been fine, but Lenny... well he was saying that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Good news, Laurie likes the Tomcat. Bad news, Lenny has taken over her training and she now shoots like he does.
That same day we all went shooting, I was zeroing my M-1903A3. Lenny was shooting his Kel Tec SU-16A at the extreme long range of 25 yards and getting torso sized groups. Once I was happy with my zero at 25 yards, I moved the target out to 100. Lenny said, under his breath, "Harvey, I can't even see it, I'll bet he can't even hit it." The kid in the next lane overheard and aimed his spotting scope at my target. I fired 5 shots unsupported off-hand. The kid says, "He's hitting it. Good grouping too." I had a nice 4" group. Lenny has never gone shooting with me again.
I think it is because he knows all he wants to know about shooting, but when he compares what he knows to what I know, it's obvious there's more to learn. That bothers him. I know several people who know more about shooting than I do. It bothers me. My solution is to attempt to learn what they know! It's working, my shooting is always getting better.
Harvey has a pile of friends who are eager to learn shooting. I am eager to duplicate my success with Harvey.
When I met Harvey she was not a shooter. I was her first instructor.
Her first handgun shots were from a Glock 21. Her only difficulty was that the grips were too large for her hands.
Her first gun, of any kind, was a S&W Sigma in .357 SIG. It's still her first love. I had her handle everything first. We looked at both revolvers and autos. At the time, she said that the autos all felt better to her hand, but the revolvers seemed so much simpler. The first handgun I ever fired was an auto, there's more to learn but it's not really that difficult so we decided she'd just learn. And she did. I wish more "mentors" would take this to heart.
When the carry bug bit her, we realized that Sigma was a tad large for handy carry so we sought a smaller gun. A friend of hers had recently bought a S&W 642 (.38 Special) and such a snubby seemed ideal. The idea of an aluminum framed revolver rubs wrong to us so we went with the same size gun in stainless, the 640 (.357 Magnum). Her first shots from her snubby were Hornady Leverevolution rounds. Those are really intended for carbines! Her comments? "LOUD!"
Double-action only snubby revolvers in heavy loads are notoriously hard to shoot well, but she handled the 640 with aplomb. The range staff asked her several times if she was sure she'd never fired a little revolver before.
You Tube is awash with videos of boyfriends/husbands handing a .44 Magnum to their girlfriend/wife and having them shoot. The girl is invariably someone who doesn't seem to like guns and is obviously unfamiliar with shooting. Most of the time the thing jumping out of her hands just scares her and the guy (and his buddies) all guffaw. I hate this kind of thing. Congrats, guys, you just made a non-shooter out of someone you live with. She's going to resist any purchase of anything 'gun' from now on, even if it is in the most subtle of ways.
The Lovely Harvey, on the other hand, had no problem with a 4" Colt Anaconda firing 240gr Speer Gold-Dot. I like to think that is because I taught her correctly and never forced her to do something she wasn't ready to do. I also like to think that when I discovered I was doing something wrong (and teaching her that) that I admitted it, and we learned the new way together.
Harvey is my success story. Laurie is my failure.
Laurie is the friend with the 642. Her husband is the guy I refer to as "Libtard Lenny". He's an odd duck, a flaming liberal who likes guns.
He decided that she, with zero interest in shooting, would get a gun and carry permit. She'd taken the classes, but never processed her application. When Harvey got interested in her CCW, she cajoled Laurie into coming to the classes with her so that she'd have company; so Laurie took the class twice. Lenny strong-armed her into finishing the application this time and then it was time to get a gun.
I did the same thing with Laurie as I did with Harvey. We hit the gun shows and I made her handle every single handgun there. She has nerve damage in her right hand and is right-handed. She doesn't have a enough grip in her hand to work the slide on most small autos (blow back guns have stronger springs than locked breech). She is not mechanically inclined, so the simplicity of a revolver seemed better. The same accident that caused the nerve damage also affected her wrist strength in both hands. So we needed a light gun as well as a simple one.
This kept adding up to a revolver. She was able to work all of the controls every time, the 642 was light enough for her to hold and it was priced in her range. So she bought it and we went shooting.
I had forgotten some things. A lighter gun makes for more recoil. DAO means an atrocious trigger that requires a smooth pull, something Laurie had difficulty with because of the damage. Yet, she managed. We were making progress and she was learning and getting better. Practicing was acting as physical therapy for her left hand and fine motor skills and strength was returning.
Then we made the mistake of going to the range with Lenny and The Lovely Harvey. Laurie was a better shot than Lenny. She'd only been shooting for a whole month and she was better than he. Harvey was a lot better than he. The next time I took Laurie shooting, she was not as good as her first outing. Now her gun, that she had loved, was too big for her purse, to heavy(!), kicked too hard, trigger was too strong, grips felt wrong, etc... Odd, I thought. Turns out that Lenny had started telling her all this behind my back.
A week later she called to go shooting and had a new gun! Woot! It was an FN Browning Vest Pocket 1905 in .25 ACP. She showed that she could work the controls and she exclaimed over and over how happy she was with how it fit her hand. And she shot it well. Problem was, it was an ancient, used, gun. It was unreliable. It needed new springs and the magazine's lips were well worn. Rather than fix it, Lenny traded it in on a Beretta Tomcat. Note that LENNY traded it, not Laurie. This is because he went to the shop where he'd bought it and demanded warranty repairs. "On an 80 year old gun?" the shopkeeper asked. I am confident that the gun was repairable and would have been fine, but Lenny... well he was saying that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Good news, Laurie likes the Tomcat. Bad news, Lenny has taken over her training and she now shoots like he does.
That same day we all went shooting, I was zeroing my M-1903A3. Lenny was shooting his Kel Tec SU-16A at the extreme long range of 25 yards and getting torso sized groups. Once I was happy with my zero at 25 yards, I moved the target out to 100. Lenny said, under his breath, "Harvey, I can't even see it, I'll bet he can't even hit it." The kid in the next lane overheard and aimed his spotting scope at my target. I fired 5 shots unsupported off-hand. The kid says, "He's hitting it. Good grouping too." I had a nice 4" group. Lenny has never gone shooting with me again.
I think it is because he knows all he wants to know about shooting, but when he compares what he knows to what I know, it's obvious there's more to learn. That bothers him. I know several people who know more about shooting than I do. It bothers me. My solution is to attempt to learn what they know! It's working, my shooting is always getting better.
Harvey has a pile of friends who are eager to learn shooting. I am eager to duplicate my success with Harvey.
31 March 2010
Mandatory Participation Meme
Your instructions:
If you are reading this right now, please post a comment with a COMPLETELY MADE UP AND FICTIONAL memory of you and me.
It can be anything you want - good or bad - BUT IT HAS TO BE FAKE.
When you're finished, post this little paragraph on your LJ and be surprised (or mortified) about what people DON'T ACTUALLY remember about you.
Imported Comments
If you are reading this right now, please post a comment with a COMPLETELY MADE UP AND FICTIONAL memory of you and me.
It can be anything you want - good or bad - BUT IT HAS TO BE FAKE.
When you're finished, post this little paragraph on your LJ and be surprised (or mortified) about what people DON'T ACTUALLY remember about you.
Imported Comments
30 March 2010
Something Subtle Must Have Changed
I have had dealings with three separate Verizon employees in my quest to get rid of collections calls for Shawn Morano.
All three have admitted to owning firearms when the topic brushed against it; they were practically dying to share it seemed.
I am not used to this.
Something seems to have changed in corporate land. If the employees are able to be casual about sharing their ownership with a gunny customer, I think we've won. Won big.
Warm fuzzy feelings!
All three have admitted to owning firearms when the topic brushed against it; they were practically dying to share it seemed.
I am not used to this.
Something seems to have changed in corporate land. If the employees are able to be casual about sharing their ownership with a gunny customer, I think we've won. Won big.
Warm fuzzy feelings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)