Saturday, April 19, 2008
It was expensive, so while I was impressed it always seemed far beyond my means.
While I was surfing around the net today, though, I found a slicker looking setup that doesn't require a stand, and can be run on your kitchen counter top.
It's not my policy to tout commercial ventures which I have not tried, but it's worth a few minutes to consider this Weapons Cleaning system.
The LawmanLab.Com HCS-200 Ultrasonic Gun Cleaner 'tank' is a little under 12" long, 6" wide and 4" high. (inner dimension of the 'tank', which I presume is the stainless tub at the left of the picture.)
If the documentation is any accurate measure, it will clean and lubricate one 6" revolver or two semi-auto pistols in 20 minutes.
The price is just on the near side of affordable for the dedicated competition shooter at $399.
I'm wondering how well it handles the powder-cake in the compensator of a Race Gun.
If you're not daunted by the $400 price tag, you might want to consider the "Professional" version: The F275HT will take a single handgun (or maybe 2 revolvers ... there may be a typo in the boilerplate) in its "Heated Tank", which features a 9" x 5" mesh basket. There is no information about how long it takes to clean the pistol(s), nor is there any discussion about whether the 'heated' cleaner compares to the home version.
However, the arrangement looks more like something you would see in a gunshop, and sells for a head-swiveling $850. My guess is that this is designed for daily (rather than weekly) use, and is probably more robust and designed to have it 'up' all day, every day, as a gunsmith shop cleans pistols prior to repairs or modifications.
There are larger versions, for multiple handguns or for long guns, but the 2-handgun version of the "professional" grade cleaner is offered for $1,340. (The prices go up, rapidly, with higher capacity or longer tank sizes, and it doesn't take long before you're buying a stand to mount the tank.)
Both prices are a little steep for a working man (pencil-necked Geek), so I'm not likely to plunk down a couple of days' pay to provide you with a Product Evaluation.
But I have to admit, I like the idea and I sure do wish I could report that "Hey, this stuff really works!" Cleaning pistols every week, gets old really fast, and it's very tempting when some guy walks up to you on the Internet Street and says "Son, I can clean that gun for you and you won't even have to get your hands dirty".
Well, perhaps not that, but I'm every bit as curious as you are.
If any of you have seen one of these, know anybody who has, or (most especially) if you OWN one ... would you please provide the information via the Comments page?
I'm still going back and looking at that puppy. Just think ... what if it really works?
It just might be worth the price of admission.
Commenter "Overload in Colorado" mentions that Harbor Freight offers a selection of ultrasonic cleaners for a significantly lower price. I did a search and found a few that might work for pistol cleaning. The highest priced item is a 1.5 quart counter-top cleaner for $160; the tank is 4"x9"x5-1/4", which may or may not accommodate Race Guns' compensated barrels. You could put them in at a tilted angle, that might work.
Still, I'm curious about the LawmanLab.com claim that you could "... clean and lubricate [your] pistol in 20 minutes." I guess they must have a solvent which also serves as a lube, if that makes any sense. Here is a list of the cleaning solvents they sell. The also offer a FAQ page, and links to other suppliers and brands. (Note that I haven't found any of the chemicals which obviously provide a cleaning and lubrication capability.)
We still don't know the whole story (we may never know), and I'm not one who is inclined to whitewash "Negligent Discharge" incidents under the common exculpatory term "Accidental Discharge".
But it seems to me that the grounds have been fairly laid that the TSA holster/secure requirements are problematic, which suggests that the blame may be shared between " ... Capt. James Lengenhahn, the pilot whose firearm accidentally discharged in the cockpit during a flight last month ..." and the TSA.
I suspect we have not yet heard the last about this incident.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Last year, I posted (on an alternate blog) an article by Ted Nugent. The concept was that "Universal Health Care" was a Socialist invention which was doomed to failure (because it required that productive members of society would be required to support non-productive members, with the predictable result that the well would run dry.)
Today I received a comment by a person who not only is unable to definitively identify himself, but expressed only contempt for the concept:
From: Malicious Matt
Malicious Matt has left a new comment on your post "Ted Nugent: Nothing is free":
Right on! Compassion and decency is for liberal sissies! The world needs bigger, greedier corporations, more right-wing gun toting morons screaming "freedom" while boycotting records by artists who openly criticize Bush, less black people, and more wars to fuel the military industrial complex! HAHA!!
Oh, and by the way, the American healthcare system is NOT envied around the world. I know, because I've been there, and the majority are afraid the same will happen in their countries. So somebody's been fuckin lying to ya on that point, m'kay? Great.
I realize that the email address is not workable, but I replied to it anyway. (And I'll soon post the reply to the the original article.)
But because it is a slow blogging day, and because the comment demonstrates a lamentable (if pathetic) all-too-common attitude, I include both the original response and my reply here.
(Note that my reply is, predictably, "Geek-Length".)
Jerry the Geek:
I'm the guy who blogged (last year!) the Ted Nugent article about "Nothing Is Free". You raised some interesting .. if self-serving ... comments.
Let's look at them, shall we?
"Compassion and decency is for liberal sissies!"
I'm just guessing here, but apparently you think that a National Health Care Law (such as exists in England and Canada) is A Good Idea.
You do realize, don't you, that this is rampant socialism?
You do realize that a National Health Care Law, as envisioned by both Obama and Clinton, includes garnisheeing your wages if you do not sign up for a (mandatory) weekly donation to a National Health Plan?
Did you realize that English and Canadian citizens often find themselves at the end of a long, long line of prior applicants for such immediately necessary procedures as MRI or CAT-SCAN?
Let's say that your physician (if you can get an appointment) diagnoses you as having Cancer, and prescribes both of these procedures to determine whether and what treatment would be most likely to arrest the progression of your disease. Did ou know that you will be scheduled after all the soccer injuries have been processed ... because they put their names in earlier than you? Did you know that Cancer can be arrested with early treatment, but is less likely to be survivable if diagnostic procedures are not made available in a timely fashion?
Let us further suppose that (unlikely as it seems today), you are gainfully employed and can afford to spend, say, $1,000 out-of-pocket to confirm the diagnosis.
Did you know that you are not legally permitted, under the National Health Care Law, to seek technical diagnostic help because you need it immediately to save your life, and you can afford it? But you can't get it?
That's why Canadians are commonly driving from, say, Ontario to Milwaukee to get an MRI. America has the resources, and will prioritize your access because if you don't get it quickly, you will die.
On the other hand, let's say that you are an American citizen and receive the same tentative diagnosis. Did you know that you will be placed at the head of the line for necessary emergency medical care, based only on the immediacy of your need even though you can't personally afford it?
That's right, the American system of medicine places need above resources ... and in fact, that is true even if you are not a citizen and are, in fact, in America illegally.
And that, incidentally, is why hospitals in border states such as Arizona and Texas are closing; foreign nationals may have illegally crossed the border to avail themselves of emergency medical treatment, even though they may not have contributed to the general fund by virtue of having performed useful labor and contributed to the tax base.
"Oh, and by the way, the American healthcare system is NOT envied around the world"; but 900,000 Mexicans a year are risking arrest and deportation ... and death by dehydration in the Arizona deserts ...every year, in part because they can access (at little or no cost to them) medical services which are not available in their home country.
This sounds not only envious, but downright avaricious.
Let's look at who does NOT envy the American health-care system.
How about the French?
Matt, do you work for a living? Do you pay your own way, or do you sit back and let someone else pay your bills?
In France, recently, students (and I am only assuming that you are a student, correct me if I'm wrong) rioted because the French socialist government attempted to pass a law stating that people who were hired into a job could be fired in the first year of employment if the employee proved to be incompetent.
Think of that. What a concept. You are hired to do a job, but you can't do it; so your employer discharges you to find employment for which you are qualified. Current French law does not permit that, and students (who are unemployed, because no employer is willing to accept the risk of hiring someone who thinks they are ENTITLED to a job even if they can't/won't do it) are literally up in arms. They can't get a job, but they are outraged by the threat that if they DO get a job, they may be fired because they can't do it.
That's the face of Socialism, Matt. That' s the system you are defending.
Let's scroll back and look at a word slyly embedded two paragraphs back:
What does that mean?
It means that people who are ENTITLED to something don't have to earn it; they don't have to prove that they freely enter into a quid-pro-quo relationship with their employer (or their government). It is, if you will, a God-Given right.
Got to the Constitution of the United States and look at the Bill of Rights. These are "entitlements", because 226 years ago (give or take, given the lengthy process of agreeing the rights are truly God-given) our Founding Fathers determined that citizens are definitively ENTITLED to some freedoms and/or rights.
Note that the constitution doesn't guarantee that, for example, you are ENTITLED to happiness. It only suggests that all men are (entitled) to the pursuit of happiness. That is, the Government (big-G) won't guarantee happiness; but the government (little-g) won't stand in your way if you have the initiative and the determination to actively pursue it yourself.
You don't seem to have a lot of faith in America, Matt. It may be because you have always been given everything you needed (even though your parents spoiled you rotten in the process). It may be because you are, at heart, a slacker who has no intention of earning your own way in life. It may even be because you have been seduced by a hopeful philosophy such as communism ("from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs") which seemed to have promised you "something for nothing".
Communism isn't like that. Instead, as the Russian people learned over 74 years of painful experience, that communism and its handmaiden Socialism is more likely to guarantee you nothing in return for contributing everything you have or can produce.
Because you offer only cat-calls and slogans, Matt, it's difficult for me to understand your resistance to the concept that "you get what you earn", so some of my assumptions may seem far from applicable. Well, your cognitive processes don't demonstrate an intellectual response to the proposition inherent in the article, so perhaps you may forgive me if I don't seem to respond positively; after all, your comments do seem more nihilistic than constructive criticism, so how seriously can we take your disjointed rambling?
Let me put this in the most simplistic terms (which are all you seem to be able to grasp), and in the kindest, most gentle manner possible:
You don't think about life. You have no philosophy. You are nothing more than a spoiler, willing to criticize the expressions of people with more experience and more hard-learned lessons .. only because you can. Everything you write is less significant than graffiti on the wall of a tavern mens-room, and as likely to be taken seriously. If you ever had an original thought, it would be
original only in your own mind, and only because you are too drunk with cheap beer to realize that you are parroting the words of the last person who spoke to you.
Matt, that last person regrets having spoke to you because you make their words look bad. You embarrass them.
If you were sufficiently thoughtful to think for yourself, you would not have
written those disjointed drivel.
Oh, as as for your claim to "... know, because I've been there"? I doubt it. I strongly suspect you have been no further from the place where you were whelped than the nearest tavern; your words are not as cosmopolitan as the illiterate scratchings in your middle-school English Composition essays ... you know, those penciled scrawls with the big red "F" on them.
Which may be why ("So somebody's been fuckin lying to ya on that point, m'kay?")...strongly suggests you don't know how to spell "Fucking", "You", or "Okay".
Go get a job, or get an education.
Jerry the Geek
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
(H/T Conservative Scalawag)
Those well-intentioned folks who would restrict access to firearms (eg: "Gun Grabbers") have a quiver full of arrows which they can use to propose "Sensible Gun-Control Laws".
One of the "sensible" requirements which they propose is "training".
Lord knows I'm in favor of training. I spend a lot of time on shooting ranges, and I see people who aren't trained and who have no clue what to do when they have a gun in their hand. Scares the pee-wadding out of me. The first thing I want to do is to walk over to them and make gentle suggestions about what they should do that is right ... not what they do that is wrong. They usually get the idea within the first five minutes, and 'new shooters' are typically eager to learn the nuances of safe gun-handling.
This isn't what the Gun Grabbers have in mind.
Instead, they want to legislate a minimal 30+ hours of formal education, and to certify every gun owner as being 'safe' to shoot. At least, that's what they say.
The truth of the matter is, they aren't so much interested in safe gun-handling as they are in registering the folks who own guns, so they know whose door to knock on when it comes time to take those guns away from them.
What? You say I'm paranoid?
Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
Look at the history of Lundgen and SKS "Assault Rifles" in California.
If we ever doubted that "Registration" equals "confiscation", this defines the process. (A man who was moving to California from out-of-state asked if his SKS was legal. The California Attorney General affirmed that it was legal, requiring only registration of the rifle. Two years later, California changed its laws and the man, because his his firearm was 'registered', was legally required to turn in his SKS without compensation.)
Let's look at the opinion of Mr. Richard Oppelt's opinion, as stated in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The author has "permitted" nothing in regard to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In stating the 'exclusion' of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, he has defined the amendment as being an individual right, disregarding the militia content.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." —- full text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The judiciary has interpreted the Second Amendment to exclude the first part of this foundation of our constitutional set of rights. We have permitted our government to abandon the commitment to a well-regulated militia. Perhaps a solution to the senseless shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois is to reinvigorate the commitment to a well-regulated militia by mandating training as a requirement for gun ownership.
What is left of that amendment neither states nor implies "training" as a precursor to the right to Keep and Bear Arms; yet he proposes it as a requirement, which is nowhere in the Constitution. Everything in this first phase of his quote is automatically rendered void.
The problem is not guns per se. It is when those guns are in the hands of people who should not have them. A requirement that gun owners undergo mandatory training would provide an opportunity to assess the fitness of a gun owner to have the weapon. Those people on medication for mental illness could be restricted until they have recovered.
It's true; "the problem is not guns per se. It is when these guns are in the hands of people who should not have them."
The problem is defined; but the author makes no attempt to pragmatically define those "... who should not have them." Nor does he offer a reasonable definition of that group of people. Reading his statement, the presumption is that the problem is with gun-owners who are not trained. That's a fallacious statement. "Gun Violence" has nothing to do with training, but it has everything to do with malicious intent. Legal firearms owners, and those who adhere to local (county?) requirements necessary to acquire a Concealed Handgun License are definitively not criminally inclined. They may not be trained in the safe gun-handling practices needed to demonstrate the ability to safely use a handgun, but this is not a source of public peril.
Mandatory training would not take the guns from criminals, but would better assure a well-regulated militia to guard the populace from criminal elements. Perhaps over time it would reduce the availability of weapons to criminals, as the waiting period on buying a gun would be replaced by training that the applicant would have to complete before receiving the weapon. This would facilitate the background checks necessary to authorize the gun buyer to be included as part of the militia.
No. No, and No.
The entire thrust of the original article is obviously to present impediments to those law-abiding citizens who would be willing to present evidence of their responsibility of firearms ownership. The author admits that his proposed steps " ... would not take the guns from criminals ..." and if he were sincere about making a 'safer world' for us all, this would be his priority. Instead of presenting a scheme which would restrict firearms access to criminals, he presents a scheme which would restrict access to firearms for law-abiding citizens.
Different levels of training would be required depending on the weapon. Huntsmen with long guns might only be required to attend a periodic refresher course timed with the various hunting seasons. The training for guns in urban areas would be different. People having guns to defend their home would be trained for that use, including the safe storage of weapons. They would also be taught to use the weapon effectively. Lastly, members of the militia carrying weapons in public urban areas would obtain the highest level of training. They would be trained in not only the handling of the weapon but also conflict resolution.
Again, no. He proposes 'levels' of training, which have nothing to do with reducing crime; he only proposes burdensome, expensive and difficult state-regulated training courses which would often duplicate current training (eg: "Hunter Safety") without the benefit to honest citizens.
Providing mandatory training would be a new service industry, funded partially by fees paid by owners and partially by our taxes. Commercial interests could prosper. Conscientious people should embrace training and engaging with other people having similar interests in responsible gun ownership.
Oh, swell! Not only has he suggested encumbering our system of allowing honest citizens to use the firearms they already own, but he has established a system which imposes new taxes, fees and other expenses for the "privilege" of exercising our rights under the Second Amendment. Apparently, there is nothing under the Constitution which is available without fees. (Consider a "Fee to attend church" or a "Fee to write a letter to the Editor of your local newspaper." This guy is a total dweeb!
With the right of gun ownership comes the responsibility of being part of the militia. However, legislatures cannot take action in this direction until such time as the judiciary puts the pieces of the Second Amendment back together and validates the requirement for a well-regulated militia for modern times.No, No, No, No!
The 2nd Amendment does not establish a RESPONSIBILITY to be a member of the Militia, it establishes a RIGHT to be a member. Also, and more important, it establishes a right to personally possess the basic tool of a Militia: a firearm.
If you never understood the Second Amendment, read this article. And everything this guy says ... assume that he has turned it around entirely back-assward.
That's the closest to 'reason' you will ever get, if you are willing to waste your time reading this opinion.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
It looks like the New York Assembly is considering a Microstamping Ammunition bill. The Senate may follow with their own (probably not dissimilar) version. Stay tuned, film at 11.
Note: No response today from Todd Lizotte to my many questions regarding his new Microstamping technology, in spite of the fact that he came here and volunteered to discuss the issues.
According to a 27-JUN-2008 NRA-IRA Alert emailed to members today, this bill (A09819) has not been passed during the just-ended legislative session.
The effect is that it will not pass. Bills with this status will not be considered in the next legislative session; if there remains an interest in the issue, a new bill will have to be proposed. Given this year's underwhelming lack of interest by the New York Assembly, chances are this will not happen.
Color this bill dead Dead DEAD!
Monday, April 14, 2008
Yesterday we received a comment on the "Microstamping Ammunition" article from Todd Lizotte, the man who invented the technology.
In his comment, he invited questions. So we spent a while throwing out perhaps 60% of the questions which came most immediately to mind, and settled back to allow him time to respond.
We did not receive his reply.
No response from Mr. Lizotte.
Well, it takes a while to catch up with your email in-basket. We can understand why it would take a while to formulate responses.
There were a lot of questions, and scenarios described, and they were framed in an open format, so it was not a matter of simply saying "yes" or "no" to each question.
While we're waiting, here is the introduction to the email which I posted to Mr. Lizotte:
Dear Mr. Lizotte,
Thank you for your comment on my recent Cogito Ergo Geek article: "Industrial Laser Solutions:
Your comment is searchable here:
I am grateful for both your concern, and your willingness to discuss the issues. May we use these points of apparent contention as an opportunity to open a dialogue?
Looking at Microstamping as a legal concern, rather than a strictly technological concern, gun owners (who I vainly claim to represent) want to know more about the details of the process in both the manufacturing and the societal ramifications of accepting Microstamping as a legal requirement. It is my hope that you are willing to openly represent the technological end of the discussion, and that you are willing to allow me to publish your views in an interview format.
Unless you specifically forbid me to publish your comments, may I take it that your responses are tacit authorization to publish them on my weblog?
(More tomorrow, when I will probably receive Mr. Lizotte's first reply of many.)
Sunday, April 13, 2008
THE Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.
Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain.
The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.
In 2005 there were almost 40 attacks by pirates and 16 vessels were hijacked and held for ransom. Employing high-tech weaponry, they kill, steal and hold ships’ crews to ransom. This year alone pirates killed three people near the Philippines.
Ow, wait! This is The Nanny State speaking, and it's Alice in Wonderland speaking, so whatever seams right and reasonable to you is suspect because victims are always in the wrong, and villains must always be protected. Poor sweet babies they are.
I've talked before about pirates, victims, Sharia Law and Somalie (and cabbages and kings).
My opinion on Pirates does not include special consideration of Jack Sparrow:
Hang 'em all, and let their bones rot in public "For The Encouragement of Others". (Or more pertinently, "Pour Les Encouragement d'outre", which is an archaic French Military term referring to the practice of imposing corporal punishment upon soldiers to teach their fellows that encroachment upon accepted practices will not be allowed).
No, I do not much like the French, Sam I Am, but some concepts are universal and among them is that a Pirate shall not be allowed to live.
They're predators, they're barbarians, and they do not recognize the Rule of Law. The consider themselves Beyond the Law and, as they are neither individually nor collectively Stephen Segal, they don't get to break the rules with impunity.
Short story: They are pirates, and if they are caught pirating they are dead men.
Unless they are caught by the Brits, apparently, who are so terribly, terribly concerned with the rights of their fellow man (who sometimes don't respect the same rights upon which they rely upon to 'give them a break) that the authorities are more willing to give the pirates a walk than to prosecute them.
Because The Brits may be required by circumstances to find the Pirates guilty of ... well .. "piracy". and The Brits may consequently required (by law) to turn the Pirates over to the country of their origin.
And the Pirates' Country of Origin may turn out to be one which is ruled by a Barbarian Code (Sharia), which (a) proscribes piracy, and (b) punishes said proscribed activity by mutilation.
The Brits aren't so concerned about what the Pirates may do, as they are concerned about what the Pirates' Home Country may do.
Note that this is the same country in which the pirates were born and raised, and in which they Presumably) understand might be the consequences for Piratical action.
So, the pirates are born and raised under a certain set of rules (however barbaric), and deliberately choose to risk the known set of punishment established by their homelane; yet if Somalian citizens choose to predate British subjects and are caught in the act, The Brits are prevented from turning the Pirates over to their own government simply because their home government is "too harsh" under British standards?
I offer you this phrase for consideration:
"Hail Britania!Look it up.
Britania Rules the Waves.
Britons never never never
Shall Be Slaves"
Well, as Flip Wilson might have mentioned 35 years ago, that's not part of "The Court of What's Happenin' Now".
Serves 'em right, the Nanny-State Freaking Idiots.
And when American court make the same ruling, we'll deserve whatever happens to us, too.
One more thought:
"From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli".
Look it up.
Last week we talked about the (supposedly) 'sole-source" vendor of "Microstamping Technology" - the mechanical process which allows firarms to stamp an unique code on any cartridge fired from that firearm.
*(Note: this is entirely different from "Encoded Ammunition", which stamps an unique code on each round of ammunition during the manufacturing process, and which does not reference the unique firearms which fires the encoded ammunition.)*
This week we received a comment from the inventor of "Microstamping Technology", Todd Lizotte. He noted the difference from "Microstamping Ammunition" and "Encoded Ammunition", and generously offered:
" If you have any questions, please send them to me and I will answer them directly."
Taking him at his word, tonight we sent Mr. Lizotte a reply which detailed many of the concerns of legitimate, legal and responsible Firearms Owners with the expectation that in due time he will respond to them individually and collectively.
We think that we have represented the concerns of firearms owners with fairness and respect, and the questions that we asked are entirely of the "What if ...?" genre.
Because we intended to evoke thoughtful, well-considered responses from a man who presumably was aware of the issues involved (both technical and legal), we made no effort to soft-pedal the question. We are reluctant to be confrontational, and even less willing to undermine the readiness of Mr Lizotte to respond candidly to the posed questions, so the actual content of the questions posed will not here be presented "out of context".
If it needs to be said (and we think it does), we owe a debt of gratitude to a man who presents a technological advance which is so universally opposed by legitimate firearms owners, and then proposes to defend it in a public forum.
As soon as we receive a response, which may take a while, we will deliver them to you unedited, unexpurgated, and without comment.
Thank you, Mr. Lizotte.
The unseasonable seventy-four degree weather showed up on time, and we actually found that it was too warm to be comfortable. We were clumping in the shade of the covered bays to keep from overheating. The unspoken agreement was the nobody would complain about the heat, but at least one person eventually complained about being 'too hot' and we laughed him down.
This is April in Oregon, right? Early April, in the Pacific North Wet. But there was more sweat than wet, even though I found at least one mud puddle in the margins of the access roadway. (No, I didn't take a picture of it; I figured you would take my word for it.)
SWMBO and I were both suffering from the debilitations of recovering from bad colds, so we couldn't RO very much. By the end of the match we had had enough, and we left before the awards ceremony. We would have liked to congratulated the winners, even though we knew we wouldn't have been among them. (Match Results available here. you can always find ARPC match results on Brian Berkley's excellent ARPC-INFO website here.) It didn't much matter, though, because we had a great time. We had great weather, challenging stages, and we got to see a lot of old friends and perhaps make some new friends.
Rob Shepherd of Major Nyne Guns and his charming (and very competitive) wife Caryn were there to deliver my repaired and thoroughly cleaned STI Race Gun in plenty of time for me to install my own backup Guide Rod Assembly before the match.
I'll never know how Rob got all the crud out of the compensator, but it looked good and shot great!
Except ... the backup Guide Rod Assembly (which I supplied ... no reflection on Rob's workmanship) wasn't right for the gun. I had two malfunctions, where the slide locked back on the next cartridge in the magazine requiring tap/rack/bang emergency recovery techniques. You can see them in the video (below). Fortunately, Rob had a spare Guide Rod which I'll use to replace the one I used today, along with a new ISMI ten-pound recoil spring which I got from Chuck Bradley at Shooters' Connection. I'll install the new Guide Rod and Spring before the match next weekend at Tri-County Gun Club.
Other than that, the gun (which Rob had sighted in for me at 12 yards ... I'll resight it again at 50 yards using my own ammunition) worked great. The only problem was that the gun hit at point-of-aim, and my personal point-of-aim was too frequently wandering across the no-shoot targets which were so frequently featured on these Mike McCarter designed stages.
There are times when I think that a pistol which is not sighted in has a better chance of giving me a high score. I excuse myself because I haven't done much competitive shooting for the past six months, but I realize that this is not an acceptable excuse. Fortunately, I already have enough ammunition reloaded for the next match, but I'll be doing more reloading. (Unfortunately ... remember the problems I mentioned a few months ago about bending decapping pins? I bent another one Thursday night; now I have to find the two-dozen pins I bought from Brownells and stored "in a safe place", which means I'll probably never see them again. But that's my problem.
Guy Neill (author of the RELOADING column in USPSA's Front Sight magazine recently relocated to Oregon, and although he had mentioned months earlier that he was thinking about moving West to shoot with us, this was the first we knew that it was a fait accompli. Better, he had squadded with us so we had some time to make him feel welcome. Also, he kicked Geek Butt, if you'll excuse the expression. (Not that it was much of an accomplishment this week, but he proved once again that he is not only a charming friend but also very competitive.)
The Hobo Brasser just got back from umpteen months Snow-Birding in Texas, and he was full of stories of his excursions to Mexico ... maybe I should call them "incursions" if half of what he says is accurate. He and Whitefish spent a lot of time swapping stories with Guy, and at one time I wandered into a discussion of college mathametic tests for Engineering Students with Guy, The Hobo Brasser, and Vern. I wandered out as quickly as I can. Computer Geeks I can deal with, but I'm way over my head when confronted by an unholy trinity of Engineering Geeks. This is way too Dilbert for me.
Pictures and Videos:
I promised Brian Berkley (did I spell that right) that I would post a couple of videos I took of him. I suspect I won't have time to do that tonight, which is disappointing because he some good stages. Brian, I'll probably get to that Monday night (but see below).
I haven't even reviewed the 1GB+ photos and videos that I took at the match. I may never get them all posted, I went a little crazy. Fortunately, Mitch M. was on our squad and he not only took a lot of videos, he wasn't distracted by much more than a 100 mile commute from Bend to Albany; he sent me the link to a YouTube video of the match. I'll post it here, now, with the only comment that Mitch is doing a great job of filming and editing Action Videos of USPSA matches.
I've verified the link, but I haven't tested it. If you experience problems with this link, or any others here on Cognito Ergo Geek, please let me know by writing to me at the email address displayed at the bottom of every page.