This Anderson rifle's claim to fame is that it can be run completely dry, without lubricants. That keeps sand and other debris from attaching itself to moving parts.
![]()
↧
Another .223 sniper rifle
↧
Looking at the US involvement in WW1
Seems to me that the most patriotic action at the time would have been a refusal to fight in that other people's war. The "Great" war was used as the excuse to perpetrate numerous domestic infringements, it taxed the country of capital and lives and eventually set up an even less stable Europe. Alvin York may have been a hero in saving his immediate comrades but he and the others come off, at least from the modern perspective, as the cat's paws of Wilson and Congress. While US interests may have been aligned with the UK to a degree, the WW1 involvement certainly damaged our national interests more than letting the Entente co-belligerents deal with the Central Powers on their own.
I can appreciate heroism in purely defensive wars, but kicking ass and taking names in either offensive or pointless fights comes off as misguided.
I can appreciate heroism in purely defensive wars, but kicking ass and taking names in either offensive or pointless fights comes off as misguided.
↧
↧
Environmental pollutants
In your opinion, what are the most worrying pollutants commonly found in the US?
↧
Second-curtain synchronization with Canon 5D mk2 and non-ETTL flash?
Is it possible to make 5D2 synch second curtain with non-TTL flash, such as a studio strobe? My old film bodies had that function but I can't see where it's provided in 5D2 menus. Please advise.
↧
The Maiden of Appleseed
One of the youngest shooters at Appleseed today. She was a Russian orphan from Kazakhstan. Adopted by American parents, she's growing up as an all-American kid in the most constitutional meaning of that concept.
↧
↧
Neat rifle seen at Appleseed
10-22 with Archangel stock chambered in 22WMR. The shooter made his own barrel for this rifle. High-power Nightforce scope is used primarily for testing accuracy (this rifle consistently shoots better than 0.5MOA).
![]()
Shooting this rifle accurately unsupported is a different challenge. That's why this man and his son were at the shoot this weekend -- and both did quite well.
Shooting this rifle accurately unsupported is a different challenge. That's why this man and his son were at the shoot this weekend -- and both did quite well.
↧
Why war on guns must fail.
Making a gun is easy. A conventional gun is a tube or a box with propellant (powder, gas, atomized liquid fuel or something else) on one and and a projectile (a bullet, a ball, a beverage can filled with concrete, an arrow in a sabot or something else). Enclosing one end is option, an RPG doesn't have that. Sights are optional, many guns, especially those with multiple barrels, lack those. Even safety to the operator is optional as long as remote triggering is possible: the directed mines like American "Claymore" or Russian MON are essentially explosive shotguns. Medieval artisans who had poor materials and no knowledge base at their disposal could still make cannon capable of battering down a stone tower. Early Renaissance gunmakers, working with primitive hand tools made rifles capable of hitting and killing an armored knight at 200m.
Gun controllers really don't credit their compatriots with much imagination or skills if they think that a 21st century person cannot make at least a 20th century level design.
Poles under German occupation were able to copy British STEN submachine guns. Would gun control advocates suggest implementing a heavier level of repression and surveillance than practiced by the Nazis to stop people from doing that today?
Looking further at the STEN, we find that the magazine and the rifled barrel are the hardest parts to make well. The magazine can be made of metal or plastic or even hardwood. The rifled barrel may be made at home, as done by many people today. But let's assume that even the basic machine tools are unavailable.
A thick enough pipe can contain sufficient pressure to be used as a barrel. Steel liners wrapped in plastic or aluminum or wood have been used to reduce weight or to make up for lack of availability of adequate pipes. Rifled barrel isn't necessary for spin stabilization, as the use of short rifled choke tubes on smoothbore shotguns. Rifling isn't necessary for stabilization in general, given the availability of plastics or wood for sabots to convey arrow-type projectiles through smooth barrels. The side effect of such an expedient is much increased penetration of things like body armor or car bodies.
But let's assume no fancy projectiles. Assume nothing but two pipes, some sheet metal (steel, aluminum, brass would all would do fine) or plastic, three springs (one each for trigger/sear return, magazine and bolt) and...that's it. A fourth spring for an extractor is optional for blowback firearms, especially if the ejection port is on the bottom. Look at this STEN-like design and envision it without the barrel jacket, with buttplate integral to lengthened receiver (which would also reduce the cyclic rate) and a smooth, unrifled pipe for a barrel. The chamber can be reinforced with a larger pipe segment to help contain the pressures. Use any shotgun ammunition, slug or shot. Sights are optional: just a front post or bead would do, or a laser pointer taped to the barrel.
The end product would fire automatically but slowly enough to make single shots possible. With loose clearances, it would leak some gas but away from the operator and generally be effective to 15-20m with shot and perhaps 50m with slugs. Would it be a viable defensive weapon? Hardly. It would be bulky, heavy and a little slow to handle. Would it make a good offensive weapon to take down state enforcement personnel...could be, but military and paramilitary troops are generally armored and at least somewhat trained, so going after a soldier or a policeman for his weapon would be a perilous undertaking. Not that the risk ever stopped Filipino guerrillas from fighting either Spaniards, Americans or Japanese troops with even lesser weapons, but they had to take heavy casualties in such fighting. When successful, they gained access to better weapons from the enemy casualties.
So for what purpose would such a weapon be ideal? Would taking out a politician supporting gun control come to mind? After all, not many politicians or heads of regulatory agencies rate effective bodyguards, nor do they wear military-grade armor with helmets most of the time. While remote controlled mines are the favored tool in the rest of the world, improvised small arms are another tool that would be available to the resisters.
Can guns be banned so effectively that they cannot be re-created by motivated people? Yes. It would require destroying all industrial capacity, exterminating anyone with knowledge of weapons or related industries (such as engine making, as firearms are merely heat engines with bullets instead of pistons) and continuing to kill off all new inventors. Such a path isn't very practical and I hope that anyone in favor of enforcing gun control legislation thinks long and hard about it even being desirable.
Some fans of gun control say they aren't against guns, only against those people -- variously defined -- having guns. That is also a pipe dream for reasons that I will address in another post. For now, meditate on the impossibility of putting the genie back in the bottle and on the risks already incurred by so carelessly informing the well-armed freedom genie of your desire. In other words, step away from the gun control platform and keep your tentacles where we can see them!
On both sides of the road which the retreating army had to traverse the Spaniards had placed in ambush a large force of arquebusiers. It was a weapon which Bayard held in detestation; for while skill and courage were required to wield a spear or sword, any skulking wretch could pull a trigger from behind a stone. From one of these hated weapons he received his death. As he was retreating slowly with his face toward the foe, a stone from a cross-arquebus struck him on the side. (source)
Pierre Terrail mentioned in the passage above habitually ordered enemy gunners captured in battle mutilated. Even such extreme measures didn't keep him from falling to a stone from a matchlock arquebus. His opponent's use of stone instead of lead made no difference to the outcome.Gun controllers really don't credit their compatriots with much imagination or skills if they think that a 21st century person cannot make at least a 20th century level design.
Poles under German occupation were able to copy British STEN submachine guns. Would gun control advocates suggest implementing a heavier level of repression and surveillance than practiced by the Nazis to stop people from doing that today?
Looking further at the STEN, we find that the magazine and the rifled barrel are the hardest parts to make well. The magazine can be made of metal or plastic or even hardwood. The rifled barrel may be made at home, as done by many people today. But let's assume that even the basic machine tools are unavailable.
A thick enough pipe can contain sufficient pressure to be used as a barrel. Steel liners wrapped in plastic or aluminum or wood have been used to reduce weight or to make up for lack of availability of adequate pipes. Rifled barrel isn't necessary for spin stabilization, as the use of short rifled choke tubes on smoothbore shotguns. Rifling isn't necessary for stabilization in general, given the availability of plastics or wood for sabots to convey arrow-type projectiles through smooth barrels. The side effect of such an expedient is much increased penetration of things like body armor or car bodies.
But let's assume no fancy projectiles. Assume nothing but two pipes, some sheet metal (steel, aluminum, brass would all would do fine) or plastic, three springs (one each for trigger/sear return, magazine and bolt) and...that's it. A fourth spring for an extractor is optional for blowback firearms, especially if the ejection port is on the bottom. Look at this STEN-like design and envision it without the barrel jacket, with buttplate integral to lengthened receiver (which would also reduce the cyclic rate) and a smooth, unrifled pipe for a barrel. The chamber can be reinforced with a larger pipe segment to help contain the pressures. Use any shotgun ammunition, slug or shot. Sights are optional: just a front post or bead would do, or a laser pointer taped to the barrel.
The end product would fire automatically but slowly enough to make single shots possible. With loose clearances, it would leak some gas but away from the operator and generally be effective to 15-20m with shot and perhaps 50m with slugs. Would it be a viable defensive weapon? Hardly. It would be bulky, heavy and a little slow to handle. Would it make a good offensive weapon to take down state enforcement personnel...could be, but military and paramilitary troops are generally armored and at least somewhat trained, so going after a soldier or a policeman for his weapon would be a perilous undertaking. Not that the risk ever stopped Filipino guerrillas from fighting either Spaniards, Americans or Japanese troops with even lesser weapons, but they had to take heavy casualties in such fighting. When successful, they gained access to better weapons from the enemy casualties.
So for what purpose would such a weapon be ideal? Would taking out a politician supporting gun control come to mind? After all, not many politicians or heads of regulatory agencies rate effective bodyguards, nor do they wear military-grade armor with helmets most of the time. While remote controlled mines are the favored tool in the rest of the world, improvised small arms are another tool that would be available to the resisters.
Can guns be banned so effectively that they cannot be re-created by motivated people? Yes. It would require destroying all industrial capacity, exterminating anyone with knowledge of weapons or related industries (such as engine making, as firearms are merely heat engines with bullets instead of pistons) and continuing to kill off all new inventors. Such a path isn't very practical and I hope that anyone in favor of enforcing gun control legislation thinks long and hard about it even being desirable.
Some fans of gun control say they aren't against guns, only against those people -- variously defined -- having guns. That is also a pipe dream for reasons that I will address in another post. For now, meditate on the impossibility of putting the genie back in the bottle and on the risks already incurred by so carelessly informing the well-armed freedom genie of your desire. In other words, step away from the gun control platform and keep your tentacles where we can see them!
↧
The magic of guns.
The "magic" of guns is that they are not magic. Despite the legend and lore of firearms, they just a subset of weapons. At appropriate distances, an assegai or a fougasse or a longbow would work just as well as a revolver or a rifle. What makes firearms, especially the handguns and other hand-held small arms is their defensive nature.
It is seldom practical to defend an individual with land mines because they don't move with the person being protected. Hand grenades are not sufficiently directional in their effect. A sword or an ax or a spear require getting closer to the threat for effect precisely when retreat would be advised for de-escalation. A crossbows is similar enough to a single-shot firearm and regulated in most jurisdictions for the same reason.
Confiscation of guns and restrictions on their use all have the effect of reducing safety of those affected. They have a secondary effect described long ago by Niccolo Machiavelli: "among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible". Lest you think I am overstating the effect, how do TSA agents treat those they disarm? Guns as the defensive subset of personal weapons are a major component of liberty. It is still possible to be dependent while armed, but independence without arms is impossible.
Back to the magic of firearms. Gun owners are as mortal as everyone else, they mostly survive by not motivating others to kill them. Being armed is an edge, not a guarantee of surviving a well-planned attack by motivated enemy. Gun control by its very nature -- removal of rights and property -- breeds motivated enemies. They may lack defensive weapons but the offensive types -- from a sharp stick to remote-controlled bomb and everything in between -- are even harder to eradicate. Improvised offensive weapons with strong motivation to use them is what keeps armies from winning against insurgents. The same could trouble bureaucrats and politicians who commute in less well armored vehicles than M1A Abrams.
It is seldom practical to defend an individual with land mines because they don't move with the person being protected. Hand grenades are not sufficiently directional in their effect. A sword or an ax or a spear require getting closer to the threat for effect precisely when retreat would be advised for de-escalation. A crossbows is similar enough to a single-shot firearm and regulated in most jurisdictions for the same reason.
Confiscation of guns and restrictions on their use all have the effect of reducing safety of those affected. They have a secondary effect described long ago by Niccolo Machiavelli: "among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible". Lest you think I am overstating the effect, how do TSA agents treat those they disarm? Guns as the defensive subset of personal weapons are a major component of liberty. It is still possible to be dependent while armed, but independence without arms is impossible.
Back to the magic of firearms. Gun owners are as mortal as everyone else, they mostly survive by not motivating others to kill them. Being armed is an edge, not a guarantee of surviving a well-planned attack by motivated enemy. Gun control by its very nature -- removal of rights and property -- breeds motivated enemies. They may lack defensive weapons but the offensive types -- from a sharp stick to remote-controlled bomb and everything in between -- are even harder to eradicate. Improvised offensive weapons with strong motivation to use them is what keeps armies from winning against insurgents. The same could trouble bureaucrats and politicians who commute in less well armored vehicles than M1A Abrams.
↧
Snipers in orange vests.
A funny set coincidences came to mind today. Did you know that white tail and mule deer are almost the same weight as a typical American human? Some are a little heavier, most have slightly tougher hide, but the weight differences are minor. In the US, hunters kill about 3,000,000 deer every year.
Did you know that most police snipers use Remington 700 bolt action rifle, the same model typically used by deer hunters? Most other makes and models of police sniper rifles are also similar to hunting guns, the main difference being barrel weight and the optic magnification. Typical calibers range from .223 to .300 Win Mag with .308 being most common, slightly more powerful than a typical round for deer deer and slightly less powerful than a typical round for elk.
Police snipers very rarely take shots at ranges over 100 yards, with 60 being closer to average. Deer hunters often fire out to 200 yards, often with good accuracy. About 11,000,000 Americans are considered deer hunters on the basis of deer tag purchases, more have the equipment and the skills typical of deer hunters but do not hunt at this time.
With those facts, is it any wonder that sitting and aspiring politicians are careful to claim that they "don't want to ban anybody's deer rifle". Gun owners, including hunters, vote. At present, they vote with paper and touch screens.
Did you know that most police snipers use Remington 700 bolt action rifle, the same model typically used by deer hunters? Most other makes and models of police sniper rifles are also similar to hunting guns, the main difference being barrel weight and the optic magnification. Typical calibers range from .223 to .300 Win Mag with .308 being most common, slightly more powerful than a typical round for deer deer and slightly less powerful than a typical round for elk.
Police snipers very rarely take shots at ranges over 100 yards, with 60 being closer to average. Deer hunters often fire out to 200 yards, often with good accuracy. About 11,000,000 Americans are considered deer hunters on the basis of deer tag purchases, more have the equipment and the skills typical of deer hunters but do not hunt at this time.
With those facts, is it any wonder that sitting and aspiring politicians are careful to claim that they "don't want to ban anybody's deer rifle". Gun owners, including hunters, vote. At present, they vote with paper and touch screens.
↧
↧
How could I back up files from G4 Mac?
I need to move a substantial number of files (40GB) from a G4 Max (OS 10.3, I think) to Windows XP or 7. Tried to write DVDs using an external writer but, for some reason they all fail. The Mac won't mount an external PC-formatted USB drive nor correctly format it for Mac when attached. Suggestions?
↧
Western Digital external USB drive comes up as "Initio Default Controller"
My 250GB external drive now comes up that way on both (Windows 7) desktop and laptop. I looked at on-line resources but the advice there varied considerably and wasn't helpful. I don't need the data from that drive but do need to format it and haven't found a way to do that so far. Advice?
SOLVED: Bad power cable. Thanks to everyone for advice!
SOLVED: Bad power cable. Thanks to everyone for advice!
↧
Gun banners want to protect Communist leaders
Violence Policy Center paper on sniper rifles contains this gem: "On August 25, 1998, a federal grand jury indicted seven Cuban exiles on charges of plotting to murder Cuban President Fidel Castro with a sniper rifle."
I note that they have no objections to the use of rifles, sniper or other types, by Castro's thugs against regular Cubans. I am surprised they haven't pushed for a ban on ice axes.
I note that they have no objections to the use of rifles, sniper or other types, by Castro's thugs against regular Cubans. I am surprised they haven't pushed for a ban on ice axes.
↧
What makes TSA different.
Unlike ATF and other federal agencies with bad reputation, TSA is an equal-opportunity offender. They pick on the babies and they pick on retirees, they pick on pregnant women and on invalids in wheelchairs. They do so in plain view. They also seem to hire bottom of the barrel personnel, the kind of creatures who need charm lessons from skunks and who need affirmative action to be considered for hire in place of possums.
Their current efforts to offend almost every segment of the American people means they will be the test case. What will the American public do about them? This will be fun to watch with Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons coming up. Few people would want to drive across the country in winter to see family, so many will fly and get mistreated. What are the chances of TSA becoming the national bullseye for derision, legal and lobbying action and --- should all those fail -- direct retirement actions by concerned individuals? Nobody likes bullies or child molesters, especially those who abuse official capacity for the purpose.
Their current efforts to offend almost every segment of the American people means they will be the test case. What will the American public do about them? This will be fun to watch with Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons coming up. Few people would want to drive across the country in winter to see family, so many will fly and get mistreated. What are the chances of TSA becoming the national bullseye for derision, legal and lobbying action and --- should all those fail -- direct retirement actions by concerned individuals? Nobody likes bullies or child molesters, especially those who abuse official capacity for the purpose.
↧
↧
Further questions about old Macintoshes
With the help of a friend, I got an FTP connection set up between the G4 and the new PC. Got about a third of the files moved when the Mac became unresponsive.
Now it won't boot into OS 10.28, only into 9.1. Pressing and holding X key on start-up doesn't help. 9.1 freezes upon bootup, so I can't switch the preferences to starting in 10.28 the next time.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Trying to boot from a CD isn't working, either. The computer just sits there with the screen off. Not sure why it just started failing now. I have more than one bootable drive in it, both couldn't have failed at once.
Update: after sitting idle for 10 minutes, it booted to 9.2 successfully. Seems the hard drive with 10.2.8 is unrecognized. I tried to boot to 10.1 on another drive but it seems to be hanging at that point also: goes through the loading progress display, then just stops on a blue screen with a mouse cursor but nothing else..
I may have to write off that unrecognized drive and try to network OS9.2 and Windows 7, though not sure how. But I wonder if the "unrecognized" drive can be recovered. Could dead memory backup battery be causing some of these problems?
Now it won't boot into OS 10.28, only into 9.1. Pressing and holding X key on start-up doesn't help. 9.1 freezes upon bootup, so I can't switch the preferences to starting in 10.28 the next time.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Trying to boot from a CD isn't working, either. The computer just sits there with the screen off. Not sure why it just started failing now. I have more than one bootable drive in it, both couldn't have failed at once.
Update: after sitting idle for 10 minutes, it booted to 9.2 successfully. Seems the hard drive with 10.2.8 is unrecognized. I tried to boot to 10.1 on another drive but it seems to be hanging at that point also: goes through the loading progress display, then just stops on a blue screen with a mouse cursor but nothing else..
I may have to write off that unrecognized drive and try to network OS9.2 and Windows 7, though not sure how. But I wonder if the "unrecognized" drive can be recovered. Could dead memory backup battery be causing some of these problems?
↧
TSA screeners prefer molesting teenagers.
"After a thorough risk assessment and after hearing concerns from parents, we made the decision that a modified pat-down would be used for children 12 years old and under who require extra screening" (From US Today)
In other words, an 11yo won't be groped and a 13yo would, thought their degree of danger is functionally the same. Nice of TSA to admit that their action are arbitrary.
In other words, an 11yo won't be groped and a 13yo would, thought their degree of danger is functionally the same. Nice of TSA to admit that their action are arbitrary.
↧
Illustrator CS4 crashes when I try to save. (Windows 7)
About 80% of the time, Illustrator crashes when I try to save a file. Looking on-line didn't turn up any obvious solutions. Any suggestions on where to even begin figuring it out?
↧
Achtung! TSA! Available on tshirts soon.
↧
↧
The unfairness of it all.
"Molest one person, and you may be going to prison for rape. Molest hundreds daily and you are just an average TSA agent."
↧
Bison Armory 6.8mm upper, HD7
↧
Battlemug: conspicuous beer consumption.
In a pinch, it makes a fair impact weapon.
Battlemug
When the actual beer is inexpedient, a shirt would have to do.
↧