"The traditional reward for fighting out of uniform was a drumhead trial, a blindfold and a cigarette, (although we probably wouldn't use the cigarette these days because they cause cancer.)"
Tam. From: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/08/like-twisted-disney-cartoon.html
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
All Comments
10 August 2010
09 August 2010
06 August 2010
03 August 2010
Mayhem In Mass
Approximately thirty people were killed in Massachusetts during a "blogger shoot". The presence of semiautomaticassaultweapons is suspected to be the principle cause of the carnage.
Several of the bloggers slain in the massacre claim that nobody was hurt, let alone killed, but we all know how "those people" lie.
http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2010/08/bloggershoot-recap-round-two.html
Several of the bloggers slain in the massacre claim that nobody was hurt, let alone killed, but we all know how "those people" lie.
http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2010/08/bloggershoot-recap-round-two.html
02 August 2010
Everything Old Is New Again
The new M855A1 round has an exposed steel tip to increase penetration against hard targets.
Gene Stoner added a 4-40 screw to the nose of some early 5.56x45mm, creating an exposed steel tip, to accomplish much the same thing back when there wasn't even an XM16 yet...
Gene Stoner added a 4-40 screw to the nose of some early 5.56x45mm, creating an exposed steel tip, to accomplish much the same thing back when there wasn't even an XM16 yet...
I Suspected But Could Not Prove
I've said for a long time that the media spoke with a suspiciously unified voice.
I had attributed it to there being so very few owners of the large outlets and that they just happened to agree with one another.
The recent kerfluffle about JournaList shows that the members of the media are willing to conspire to push their agenda. Conspire and lie about it.
This explains a great deal.
It was impossible to talk about how Bill Clinton committed perjury when all we could talk about was that getting fellatio was OK or even admirable.
When the topic was how admirable fellatio was, it was impossible to talk about how that act was sexual harassment.
It was impossible to talk about how I disagreed with Bush Jr's spending when I had to prove he wasn't Hitler.
It was impossible to express my concerns about how Obama assassinated the character of Joe the Plumber while attempting to explain that Sarah Palin wasn't really a moron.
I couldn't talk about my concerns about how the Obama campaign squelched the local media in Missouri or how ACORN might have been committing voter registration fraud when the media flat refused to report on it and was unified about how the one channel, Fox, that talked about it was wholly owned by the Republican party. I notice that nobody is talking much about how the margin of error in the Minnesota senate campaign was determined by illegally registered felons.
Never mind that if the Republicans owning Fox is wrong, then the Democrats owning the rest is just as wrong.
A republic hinges on a well informed electorate. Intentional misinformation runs counter to the needs of a free nation. I would call it treasonous; I am not alone.
Comments
I had attributed it to there being so very few owners of the large outlets and that they just happened to agree with one another.
The recent kerfluffle about JournaList shows that the members of the media are willing to conspire to push their agenda. Conspire and lie about it.
This explains a great deal.
It was impossible to talk about how Bill Clinton committed perjury when all we could talk about was that getting fellatio was OK or even admirable.
When the topic was how admirable fellatio was, it was impossible to talk about how that act was sexual harassment.
It was impossible to talk about how I disagreed with Bush Jr's spending when I had to prove he wasn't Hitler.
It was impossible to express my concerns about how Obama assassinated the character of Joe the Plumber while attempting to explain that Sarah Palin wasn't really a moron.
I couldn't talk about my concerns about how the Obama campaign squelched the local media in Missouri or how ACORN might have been committing voter registration fraud when the media flat refused to report on it and was unified about how the one channel, Fox, that talked about it was wholly owned by the Republican party. I notice that nobody is talking much about how the margin of error in the Minnesota senate campaign was determined by illegally registered felons.
Never mind that if the Republicans owning Fox is wrong, then the Democrats owning the rest is just as wrong.
A republic hinges on a well informed electorate. Intentional misinformation runs counter to the needs of a free nation. I would call it treasonous; I am not alone.
Comments
01 August 2010
Out
Instead of the party of no, I want the party of out.
Out of my gun cabinet.
Out of my medicine chest.
Out of my cigarette case.
Out of my humidor.
Out of my liquor cabinet.
Out of my marriage.
Out of my bedroom.
Out of my bank account.
Out of my garage.
Out of my life!
That covers it; generally and specifically.
Out of my gun cabinet.
Out of my medicine chest.
Out of my cigarette case.
Out of my humidor.
Out of my liquor cabinet.
Out of my marriage.
Out of my bedroom.
Out of my bank account.
Out of my garage.
Out of my life!
That covers it; generally and specifically.
20 July 2010
I Don't Care
Seems a private of the 1st Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles took the head of a dead Taliban commander when time was short so that they could prove they had, indeed, killed the right guy.
Local rabble rousers are all up in arms about how this is a great insult to Islam. Something about how the entire body has to be interred to have chance at heaven.
I don't care. C'est le Guerre! You want to be buried whole, stop shooting at Allied troops. Stop setting up IED. Stop making war on us and we'll stop making war on you. That's how we operate.
Because it is war, and I aim that you be dead because of it, I don't give two shits about how you feel about it. I don't care that you don't want to be dead. I don't care if you approve of the methods employed to kill you. I don't care. I could, perhaps, care if you showed any inclination at all to fight like men and follow the generous framework of the rules of war we follow while hunting you. You don't respect my beliefs about how to treat prisoners or their corpses; why the hell should I respect yours?
You're insulted by what this Gurkha did? I am insulted by Mogadishu and Fallujah. You showed me how you wanted your corpses to be treated then, I am just following your example. See how this works? You want me to follow your rules, you have to also follow mine.
Local rabble rousers are all up in arms about how this is a great insult to Islam. Something about how the entire body has to be interred to have chance at heaven.
I don't care. C'est le Guerre! You want to be buried whole, stop shooting at Allied troops. Stop setting up IED. Stop making war on us and we'll stop making war on you. That's how we operate.
Because it is war, and I aim that you be dead because of it, I don't give two shits about how you feel about it. I don't care that you don't want to be dead. I don't care if you approve of the methods employed to kill you. I don't care. I could, perhaps, care if you showed any inclination at all to fight like men and follow the generous framework of the rules of war we follow while hunting you. You don't respect my beliefs about how to treat prisoners or their corpses; why the hell should I respect yours?
You're insulted by what this Gurkha did? I am insulted by Mogadishu and Fallujah. You showed me how you wanted your corpses to be treated then, I am just following your example. See how this works? You want me to follow your rules, you have to also follow mine.
19 July 2010
Evil Zionist Rifle Conspiracy
Kaylee and Jasmine together.
I can't explain the allure of the Izzy configurations for me.
As far back as high-school I wanted a Galil ARM. I never got one, kinda glad now, but the interest in what the IDF issues has remained.
I Use .380
I am going to attempt to prove [my LiveJournal] is really a blog.
The Firearm Blog, in association with Lucky Gunner is running a contest where a blogger posts about the contest and is put into a drawing for 1,000 rounds of .380. This is my entry.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/07/17/bloggers-win-1000-rounds-of-380-acp-ammo-from-lucky-gunner/
http://www.luckygunner.com/
If this is a blog, then I will be a contestant.
The Firearm Blog, in association with Lucky Gunner is running a contest where a blogger posts about the contest and is put into a drawing for 1,000 rounds of .380. This is my entry.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/07/17/bloggers-win-1000-rounds-of-380-acp-ammo-from-lucky-gunner/
http://www.luckygunner.com/
If this is a blog, then I will be a contestant.
15 July 2010
Advice
Hey, NAACP:
Calling someone who is a bigot a racist tends to work because they know they are and are aware that society disapproves. You can get a bit of shame going on there and that gets them to change. If that shame thing doesn't work out, they tend to overcompensate and become obviously bigoted to others and then the changes are affected by outside pressure.
Calling someone who is not a bigot a racist, however, doesn't work. They know they are not a racist and that you are wrong. This doesn't have any incentive to pressure them to change; they know they are already embodying the ideal you are espousing. Enlisting outsiders to pressure them into "changing" doesn't work because they are already not racists and can't change into something they already are.
What this accusation really does is make them think (or realize) that your organization is not working for the ideal of racial equality at all, but rather have another agenda only tangentially related to racism (at best) or that your organization is just as racist as white power groups (at worst).
You should also take note that the people whom you are calling racists formed a group large enough to affect policy nearly spontaneously in a very short time frame. A group that is likely large enough to be able to ignore you because the sanctions you impose are readily and easily bypassed. Your one tool to influence the majority was guilt over slavery and "Jim Crow". When you abandon the high ground and make baseless accusations, that guilt evaporates as if it had never been; and honestly your tirades have been tiresome for some time, you're making this easy for us. But this is the hill you've chosen to die on, so be it.
Calling someone who is a bigot a racist tends to work because they know they are and are aware that society disapproves. You can get a bit of shame going on there and that gets them to change. If that shame thing doesn't work out, they tend to overcompensate and become obviously bigoted to others and then the changes are affected by outside pressure.
Calling someone who is not a bigot a racist, however, doesn't work. They know they are not a racist and that you are wrong. This doesn't have any incentive to pressure them to change; they know they are already embodying the ideal you are espousing. Enlisting outsiders to pressure them into "changing" doesn't work because they are already not racists and can't change into something they already are.
What this accusation really does is make them think (or realize) that your organization is not working for the ideal of racial equality at all, but rather have another agenda only tangentially related to racism (at best) or that your organization is just as racist as white power groups (at worst).
You should also take note that the people whom you are calling racists formed a group large enough to affect policy nearly spontaneously in a very short time frame. A group that is likely large enough to be able to ignore you because the sanctions you impose are readily and easily bypassed. Your one tool to influence the majority was guilt over slavery and "Jim Crow". When you abandon the high ground and make baseless accusations, that guilt evaporates as if it had never been; and honestly your tirades have been tiresome for some time, you're making this easy for us. But this is the hill you've chosen to die on, so be it.
14 July 2010
Izzyfication Of Jasmine
This is how she came.
Then I added a carrying handle and ditched the P-Rail for the sheet-metal dust cover. FALs really aren't tack-driving accurate enough to rate optics.
Then I added a set of Israeli heavy barrel handguards. The standard FN style are way too narrow and they cause unnecessary fatigue from gripping too hard.
Thanks to DSA making a lot more parts in the USA with the SA58 than they did with the StG58, this change does not affect the 922r compliance. Nor will changing the buttstock to a wooden one later because that part was never US made from DSA. Ironwood makes stocks here in the USA, so I should get one of those and my count will go up!
Thanks to Marv I now have a set of light barrel handguards and an Israeli buttstock. The wood sure is handsome!
The HB handguards were modified to fit and were just wrong. Marv heard my whining and volunteered to buy me a complete set of furniture. A loan, really, but still.
I have changed the charging handle and latch to the proper Israeli variations. The Izzy charging handle is unique in the FAL world in that it incorporates a forward assist. A real Romat has a groove cut in the rails of the bolt carrier; the knob of the charging handle can be pressed in, extending a stud into the groove allowing the bolt to be pushed forward. I have not bothered to cut that groove, so the charging handle just works like a normal one. I've also added a leather H&K G3 sling to be more period; the IDF used K.98k slings on their FALs.
Then I added a carrying handle and ditched the P-Rail for the sheet-metal dust cover. FALs really aren't tack-driving accurate enough to rate optics.
Then I added a set of Israeli heavy barrel handguards. The standard FN style are way too narrow and they cause unnecessary fatigue from gripping too hard.
Thanks to DSA making a lot more parts in the USA with the SA58 than they did with the StG58, this change does not affect the 922r compliance. Nor will changing the buttstock to a wooden one later because that part was never US made from DSA. Ironwood makes stocks here in the USA, so I should get one of those and my count will go up!
Thanks to Marv I now have a set of light barrel handguards and an Israeli buttstock. The wood sure is handsome!
The HB handguards were modified to fit and were just wrong. Marv heard my whining and volunteered to buy me a complete set of furniture. A loan, really, but still.
I have changed the charging handle and latch to the proper Israeli variations. The Izzy charging handle is unique in the FAL world in that it incorporates a forward assist. A real Romat has a groove cut in the rails of the bolt carrier; the knob of the charging handle can be pressed in, extending a stud into the groove allowing the bolt to be pushed forward. I have not bothered to cut that groove, so the charging handle just works like a normal one. I've also added a leather H&K G3 sling to be more period; the IDF used K.98k slings on their FALs.
11 July 2010
Interesting
On the recent talk about the New Black Panthers getting away with voter intimidation.
Florida forbids firearms within polling places, but doesn't say how far away they must be kept.
Florida forbids "electioneering" within 50 yards of a polling place. It's a felony.
Voter intimidation is covered both under electioneering and assault.
It is legal for me to shoot someone to prevent a felony from taking place. Jurisprudence confirms that shooting someone to stop a violent felony is a rubber stamp item. Assault is a violent felony; especially since our New Black Panthers were armed with blunt instruments, making it assault with a deadly weapon.
So. Bring it; you racist hate mongers. I intend to vote and you will not stop me.
PS: I would not feel the need to point all of this out if the damned government had done a damn thing to prevent its future occurrences. Once again, it's up to the individual to do what needs be done.
PPS: I suspect that there will be no need for me to do anything since Florida is not Philadelphia.
Florida forbids firearms within polling places, but doesn't say how far away they must be kept.
Florida forbids "electioneering" within 50 yards of a polling place. It's a felony.
Voter intimidation is covered both under electioneering and assault.
It is legal for me to shoot someone to prevent a felony from taking place. Jurisprudence confirms that shooting someone to stop a violent felony is a rubber stamp item. Assault is a violent felony; especially since our New Black Panthers were armed with blunt instruments, making it assault with a deadly weapon.
So. Bring it; you racist hate mongers. I intend to vote and you will not stop me.
PS: I would not feel the need to point all of this out if the damned government had done a damn thing to prevent its future occurrences. Once again, it's up to the individual to do what needs be done.
PPS: I suspect that there will be no need for me to do anything since Florida is not Philadelphia.
08 July 2010
06 July 2010
Observation On Racism
I'm watching BAT*21 on Encore.
Danny Glover does an excellent job, no complaints about his role.
To make a concise story about a real event you almost have to composite characters. There was not a single observation plane with just one pilot doing all the flying. There were many planes and crews associated with the rescue.
That is not what this observation is about.
Danny Glover's character represents a composite character of all those crews. He is also black. I notice that this doesn't bother me. I realized that if the story as shown had been 100% accurate and Capt. Clark had been black, but was played by a white actor the race baiters would have a conniption.
Because there were so many crews, it's unlikely they were all black. The composition of the forces in that time frame makes it unlikely that many were. But they hired Danny Glover to play the character representing them.
No problem for me! I think I know where the racism is here.
Danny Glover does an excellent job, no complaints about his role.
To make a concise story about a real event you almost have to composite characters. There was not a single observation plane with just one pilot doing all the flying. There were many planes and crews associated with the rescue.
That is not what this observation is about.
Danny Glover's character represents a composite character of all those crews. He is also black. I notice that this doesn't bother me. I realized that if the story as shown had been 100% accurate and Capt. Clark had been black, but was played by a white actor the race baiters would have a conniption.
Because there were so many crews, it's unlikely they were all black. The composition of the forces in that time frame makes it unlikely that many were. But they hired Danny Glover to play the character representing them.
No problem for me! I think I know where the racism is here.
05 July 2010
OH! Him
I was reading this: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/06/lott_on_gun_law.php and the first comment gave me pause. I asked myself, "Who is this idiot?" Then I noticed the name and recognized it. It's Weer'd's bestest buddy!
Comments
Comments
He's Right This Is Ironic
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-–-incorporation-irony-and-history/
Money quote: "We have conservative justices authoring opinions which squarely confront the tragic legacy of race and its impact on American Constitutional history, while we have liberal justices wanting to largely skip over that history. We have on the other hand liberal justices pleading for states’ rights and federalism while conservative justices make the case for the soundness of incorporating the Bill of Rights as a matter of original intent."
Money quote: "We have conservative justices authoring opinions which squarely confront the tragic legacy of race and its impact on American Constitutional history, while we have liberal justices wanting to largely skip over that history. We have on the other hand liberal justices pleading for states’ rights and federalism while conservative justices make the case for the soundness of incorporating the Bill of Rights as a matter of original intent."
02 July 2010
Playing With Camera Now With BEER!
Sam Adam Imperial Stout is tasty.
And DARK! That's my 2009 Hot Rod Power Tour glass. Clear glass with a black logo. Can you see it?
I had the camera in its normal program mode without flash, set on the tripod with a 2 sec delay on the shutter to let the vibration from pushing the button settle. The second picture required the use of the manual focus, which is very clunky.
And DARK! That's my 2009 Hot Rod Power Tour glass. Clear glass with a black logo. Can you see it?
I had the camera in its normal program mode without flash, set on the tripod with a 2 sec delay on the shutter to let the vibration from pushing the button settle. The second picture required the use of the manual focus, which is very clunky.
01 July 2010
Shaved Wookie?
I only got a 63% Mostly because war is the killer app of the state and anarchy is the most fragile form of government, it falls apart at a touch.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
A Pleasant Thought Occurs
Heller referred to "weapons in common usage" several times when finding that the 2nd amendment really does protect and individual right.
Depending on how one defines common, that could mean anything the police are carrying. Perhaps especially so, since the police often state they carry firearms for self defense.
This line of reasoning could be an inroad to at least open up the registry to new MG applications. We should aim for repeal of the GCA 1934 while "compromising" and taking repeal of the Hughes amendment to the FOPA.
While we're there we should insist that since Title II firearms are "in common usage" that state bans on them should be nullified.
A possible outcome of my line of reasoning is that the police, being civilians, would have to abide by the same laws we do. I can accept that; for now. I don't think the cops will give up the MG's, so would go along with NFR registrations to keep from being included in the ban with the rest of us.
Depending on how one defines common, that could mean anything the police are carrying. Perhaps especially so, since the police often state they carry firearms for self defense.
This line of reasoning could be an inroad to at least open up the registry to new MG applications. We should aim for repeal of the GCA 1934 while "compromising" and taking repeal of the Hughes amendment to the FOPA.
While we're there we should insist that since Title II firearms are "in common usage" that state bans on them should be nullified.
A possible outcome of my line of reasoning is that the police, being civilians, would have to abide by the same laws we do. I can accept that; for now. I don't think the cops will give up the MG's, so would go along with NFR registrations to keep from being included in the ban with the rest of us.
29 June 2010
Prophetic
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)