Even more Shooting Wire: Cost of Competition

During the past month, I have been peripateticaly whining talking about the cost of competition.

Here is my original post, and here is my reference to Jim Shepherd's article in The Shooting Wire on the subject.

A few days ago, Shepherd asked for comments from his readers about how the rising costs of ammunition (and reloading components) has affected participation in the Shooting Sports.

Here is his June 16, 2008 resulting article, presented (for a first) with no apology for quoting his article in full ... for reasons which will be obvious:

Reader Feedback on Shooting Costs

The response to our three questions as to whether rising costs were impacting shooting have been, to say the least, overwhelming. As the general survey results recapped last week verified, although unscientifically, it seems a majority of the shooting public is tightening belts in order to continue their shooting hobbies. Unfortunately, a small minority is finding that shooting is simply out of the budget until the economy turns.

There's no future in preaching gloom-and-doom for our economy in general or shooting specifically, but it is no sweeping generalization or oversimplification to say that rising energy costs are impacting everyone.

How drastically was made obvious to me last week as I saw workers scrounging together their change in order to buy enough gas to get to work. They were going to worry about getting home later.

It was brought into absolute clarity afterwards when I parked my car in the hotel lot (in broad daylight) only to come out later to a fuel gauge that read three-quarters of a tank. Someone had lightened the fuel load by around five gallons, effectively stealing a twenty-dollar bill out of my pocket in the process.

Money is getting tight for the average American, and very tight for those who were already struggling to make ends meet.

That same frugality is obvious at shooting ranges, too. Where I shoot, people used to routinely police up their brass and toss it into a communal recycling drum. Not anymore. The question "do you reload" or quick comment "I'll take that" has replaced the laid-back attitude toward reloading components.

Last week, I asked you to share with me some of the ways you were being impacted - and reacting - to rising costs.

Today, excerpts from those responses. I think you'll see why we think the cost of shooting is another of those areas that must be addressed in next week's Shooting Industry Summit.

______________________________________

"I have been reloading for handguns since 1979 and for rifles since the 1980s. In that time I've built up a good supply of components so the big increases haven't hit my handgun and rifle shooting hard yet. I got some .38 and .45 bullets at a reasonably good price from a local bullet maker last fall and hope he still has some available this summer. Bought some pulled 9mm bullets so I can start reloading that caliber again sometime this year. I've been buying up all the "bargain" shotgun loads I can find and will get some more this payday. I put the word bargain in quotes because there aren't that many real deals out there at the moment. I can get though this fall with what I have on hand, after that it's going to get interesting. So far, high gas prices are doing more damage to my shooting than high ammo prices. If I wasn't a reloader..."
______________________________________

"I too have gone to shooting more .22. I all ready owned a conversion kit for my AR, but I use it more and more now. My next purchase may be another .22, instead of a concealed carry 9 mm pistol as I was originally planning to do. I am also thinking about getting a high quality BB gun to plink with-at least it is something I can afford to shoot."

______________________________________

"I read your article in The Shooting Wire, and while I don't have a solution, I do have a comment. You said a lot of people don't shoot regularly or at all anymore. I am one of those. Even though I handload, and budget all my money down to the dollar, I can no longer afford the gas to go out to the range. The range I normally go to is about 20 miles out of Edmonton, The Spruce Grove Gun Club. Suburbs are boxing it in and everyone is sure it will be closed down within the next year or two because subdivisions are now being prepped for houses within 2 miles. The next range closest to me is Genesee. This range is about 50 miles out of town. The cost to drive there and back exceeds the cost of the ammo I shoot. Going out to shoot is now like a small vacation. If I get out twice this summer, I will consider myself lucky."

______________________________________

"Jim, those "no lead" video deer and big game hunting games are pretty fun. Outside of the initial cost, no more ammo to buy! Kids love 'em, too."

______________________________________

"One of my ways of coping with the rising cost of shooting is to buy two rounds for every round I shoot. Aas [sic] the cost rises, I get some protection. It also allows me to bank against a Democrat takeover of our Federal government."

______________________________________

"As for coping with the high price on ammo, I usually look for sales. Cabela's usually has some in-house sales. Because prices are high and people are not buying as much, some stores do run specials. Second, I shop around on websites for closeouts, bulk purchase, etc. I usually try and keep a handle on prices so I know if something is a good price, I can buy in bulk or case quantity. I also go to gun shows and buy reloads for good reload sources. However this ammunition I only use for range purposes. The third thing I did in my purchasing of firearms was to limit myself to specific calibers. I own a 9mm and .45 in handgun and .22, .223 and .308 in long guns. Again when I find good prices I stock up and do not have to spread my purchases over several calibers. I look forward to see what you hear from other shooters."
____________________________________________

"In your June 11 article, you asked about "sharing [my] suggestions". I'm not certain that this would be applicable or even feasible for many of your readers, but I'm in an unusual situation: Most of my close friends compete, and reload to keep the costs down. One of our members is a "dealer" and is able to float the costs of quantity buying. We buy bullets, powder and primers in large lots and split the expenses. We buy Montana Gold Bullets, for example, in shipments of over 11 cases. Each case weighs about 85#, which constitutes 4,000 115gr .355 RN bullets. I take a case every 4 to six months (it use to be a case every other month). In those quantities, shipping is free.

We buy powder (Vihta Vourhi) in minimum 100# lots. I bought 16# this month, which will load about 15,000 rounds and should last me a year ... at $85/#. (*)Primers we buy in 5,000 primer 'sleeves', which early last year cost $85 but now ... I don't know. We can't get large shipments anymore. Primers which use to cost $15/brick (1,000) cost over $20 last year; now it costs $30, in the retail store.

The math seems hazy, because our Dealer friend can no longer afford to 'front' large shipments and most of us are still relying on reserves we bought last year. By the end of this year, we will all be re-evaluating our dedication to competition, and will doubtless have to pony up the price of components at least 2 or 3 months before our expected need. And of course, the cost of new brass has doubled in the past year ... when you can get it. This is the best arrangement we can make, and it is definitely not satisfying. Too-many of us are not shooting as much, or not shooting at all any more. With each participant falling by the wayside, the options of 'bulk purchase' are decreasing.

However, I am happy to inform you that the sport is attracting new shooters every month, who seem willing and even eager to absorb not only the cost of buying ammunition at retail prices but at the same time budgeting for new pistols, holsters, magazines, magazine carriers, and all the other accoutrements of competition shooting. Unfortunately, I predict that they too will soon be overwhelmed with the increasing costs of ammunition, and too many will fall by the wayside.

It's a shame, really. We in USPSA have worked for decades to 'grow the sport', and it is reaching new levels of interest. Now, just when interest is at a new high, we're bracing ourselves for the gloomy near-future when we can only expect that all the eager new faces will discover that it costs as much to shoot for a year as it costs to buy a new pistol.

Not everyone -- not most of us -- can afford this. That means that people who are likely to increase demand on retail products will leave the 'customer base' because the market cannot provide us the means to practice our skills at a bearable price.

This is becoming too depressing to continue. (Sorry for the pun.)

EDITOR's NOTE: The last comment comes from Jerry ("The Geek") *******. Jerry's among our favorite bloggers (and not because he occasionally quotes us) you can check his blog out at: http://jerrythegeek.blogspot.com.

--Jim Shepherd

* NOTE: The "$85 /#" quote for the price of VV gunpowder is accurate, in that this is what I wrote; however, it is not the cost incurred. It should have read "$85/4#", which is considerably less! I apologize for the misleading information.

Shooting Glasses, Part 2

In response to my earlier article about shooting glasses, I received a question in the COMMENTS asking about specific brand names and whether "they are all polycarbonate lenses".

A few minutes of online research provided more useless information than you want to read here. Essentially, the named brands are "fashion sunglasses", and the emphasis is on shape and finish (or tint). There are categories for "sport glasses", but even there I was unable to find information on "impact resistance" or even, most commonly, UV protection or thickness/light-weight/flexibility of the material of which the lenses are made.

If we're looking for answers, here are a few:

• Polycarbonate plastics are generally regarded as the standard for impact resistance
• Polycarbonate lenses provide UV A and UV B protection.
• UV C protection is that provided in Welders Goggles, and are not typically provided by Polycarbonate materials in lightweight glasses.
• If the purpose of wearing Range Glasses is to protect your eyes from damage or industry due to the high-velocity impact of small particles of foreign matter, lenses should be made of Polycarbonate plastics at a minimum.
• When buying Range Glasses, it is not safe to assume that the lenses are made of Polycarbonate material unless the manufacturer specifically says they are.

What other materials are available?

During my research, I ran across this article which defines and describes Polycarbonate plastic as Impact Resistant lense material.

The article also identifies and describes (briefly) another, newer (and more expensive) material called "Trivex".

An article on Trivex vs Polycarbonate describes the differences:

Polycarbonate

Born from the space race in the 1960's and introduced to the ophthalmic lens market in the late 1970's, polycarbonate has been around the block a few times and enjoys a sizeable [sic] market share, particularly in children's and safety eyewear due to its superior impact resistance. With a higher index of refraction and lower specific gravity, polycarbonate lenses are thinner and lighter than their plastic and glass counterparts. Inherent UV protection and wide product availability also contribute to its popularity.

Polycarbonate, however, is not without its drawbacks. One of the chief complaints about polycarbonate is its optical quality, or lack thereof. With an Abbe value of 29, polycarbonate's chromatic aberration is the highest of any lens material in use today. Furthermore, with the increase in popularity of drill mount frames, some dispensers are hesitant to use polycarbonate because of its lack of tensile strength and likelihood of cracking around drill holes.

Enter Trivex

Introduced in 2001 by PPG [Pittsburgh Plate Glass], as the only lens material other than polycarbonate to pass FDA Impact Resistance Test ... the High Velocity Impact Test, and meet ANSI Z87.1 '89 standards, Trivex has been slowly increasing in both popularity and availability. While Trivex has a slightly lower refractive index (1.53 compared to 1.58), it's specific gravity, 1.11g/cm3, makes it the lightest of any lens material available today. Like polycarbonate, Trivex also has inherent UV protection. However, unlike polycarbonate, Trivex has an Abbe value of 45, making it optically superior. Further distinguishig [sic: 'distinguishing'?] itself, Trivex is ideal for drill mounting. The tensile strength of Trivex makes it highly resistant to cracking around drill holes, so much in fact, Younger Optics guarantees its Trivex products (Trilogy) for life, against stress fractures and drill mount cracking.

Summary

In summary, Trivex has the impact resistance and inherent UV protection of polycarbonate. With a lower index of refraction, Trivex may be slightly thicker than polycarbonate, but is lighter, and can be surfaced to the same 1mm center thickness. Trivex rises above polycarbonate with both its optical quality and suitability for drill mounting, however since Trivex is still a relatively new product, availability may be limited.

Finally, when comparing the price of Trivex to polycarbonate, make sure you are comparing apples to apples. If you are looking at an aspheric Trivex product, compare it to an aspheric polycarbonate product; likewise if you are looking at a spherical polycarbonate product, compare it to a spherical Trivex product. You'll likely find the difference to be less than you might think.

I admit, that last paragraph is a little difficult to follow. My understanding is that Trivex is significantly more expensive than Polycarbonate, but may provide other benefits (higher impact resistance, lighter glasses, thinner lenses) that justify the price difference.

Further translations: Polycarbonate lenses may not be as 'clear' (some distortion of the image may be detected), and the frames should provide a heavy, continuous surface because of the relatively lower tensile strength of the material. That last means that an impact may not break the lense, but if the lense is only attached to the frame by a couple of screws the lense may break loose from the frame under impact even if it doesn't break the lense at the point of impact.

Frame-to-Lense construction:

Taking another look in way the three pair of shooting glasses are attached to the bows or frames of the glasses, we can benefit from what we have learned to evaluate the relative 'ruggedness' of the assembly: (Click on the images to see a larger view)


The Claypro is attached to the one-piece lense with two screws, one smaller than the other. There is no other support for the lense. This makes a nice, light pair of sunglasses but based on the above reading) may not keep the lense from breaking loose from the bows.



The Silencio SD one-piece lense is also attached to the bow with only two screws, although they may be more robust than the Claypro because the plastic (Polycarbonate?) material of the frame is 'wrapped' on both sides of the frame. The screws go through the frame, through the lense, and again through the frame. Whether this provides more support to the lense than the Claypro is debatable, but intuitively it would seem to be the case.


The Silencio Nemesis frame is of completely different construction. The plastic (?) frame provides support to the entire top of the frame. There is a nosepiece in the front of the frame, supporting the very narrow section in the center of the lense, which seems to be either glued or otherwise adhered to the lense. The nose supports, on the inside of the lense, is attached to the nosepiece and is between the lense and the face of the wearer. Again, that may provide only marginal support but it may also help prevent the lense from breaking loose from the frame.

Given that the way the frame is attached to the lense may make a difference in the structural integrity of the assembly, it would seem reasonable to assume that the Silencio Nemesis would provide better protection to the eyes and the face from frontal impact.

Getting back to the question of Polycarbonate vs Trivex:

An article from a vendor, ADS Sports Eyewear, provides even more valuable information.

Polycarbonate is virtually indestructible, and it is used exclusively by many of the world's finest sports glasses manufacturers. It is thinner, lighter, and stronger than glass. What's more, polycarbonate lenses can survive a 12-gauge shotgun blast from 10 yards away. (Warning!: If you try this at home, take the glasses off first.)

Polycarbonate naturally blocks almost all of the sun's harmful UV rays. No coatings are required to block UV rays on a polycarbonate lens, so don't let anyone sell you this option.

The strength of polycarbonate is partially derived from its flexibility. It is not brittle and will not shatter. This strength also contributes to its main weakness. Because polycarbonate is so flexible, it is also easily scratched. New lens coatings and hardeners have significantly improved polycarbonate's durability, but choosing a polycarbonate lens still requires an informed consumer. Quality lens treatments match the refractive index of the lens material and allow light to pass directly through. If light passes through the lens coating and the lens at two different speeds, vision will be blurred.

....

Trivex is a new lens material that is quickly becoming the best thing that has ever happened to sports eyewear. Originally developed for military applications, Trivex is stronger, clearer, and lighter than polycarbonate. Most importantly for sports applications, Trivex minimizes distortion called "chromatic aberration", which is distortion that occurs when objects are viewed away from the optical center.

Chromatic aberration is best measured by its "Abbe value." In prescription eyewear, a higher Abbe value indicates less distortion as your gaze moves away from the center of the lens. Trivex has an Abbe value of 43, while polycarbonate has a value of 30.

Trivex naturally blocks 100% of the sun's harmful UV rays, similar to polycarbonate. Trivex has better scratch resistance than polycarbonate.

Trivex has only been available to the general public since 2003, and is still not offered by most manufacturers as a lens choice. ... Trivex is usually about $25 to $40 more expensive than polycarbonate.

Another point about Trivex, for your general knowledge:

TRIVEX TM

Recognizing the strength of polycarbonate as a safety material for plastics lenses, PPG Industries (Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries), the originators of CR39 monomer, has introduced its own lightweight safety plastics material known as Trivex'. It is a normal-index material and is claimed to be even stronger than polycarbonate but more flexible, to enhance even further its safety aspect. It offers 100% UV attenuation and is easily tinted by the usual surface dyeing process. Minus lenses can be surfaced down to just 1.0mm centre thickness without the lens losing its inherent safety features. Two lens manufacturers now produce lenses in Trivex" material. Younger Optics calls its lenses Trilogy" and Hoya calls its lenses Phoenix" (PNX). Each company has modified the monomer to its own needs.

In an earlier article, I mentioned that when I bought my latest pair of reading glasses I asked about polycarbonate lenses (which I had specified before) and mentioned that they had been scratched, over time, by the bows when I put them in their carry case. He recommended a new material which they called "Phoenix" ... and reading the above article jogged my memory. I paid the extra expense for "Phoenix" lenses, in a Flexor frame. (This is a light metal frame which completely wraps each lense, and can be flexed over ninety degrees without damage.)

I had wondered if I could use them for shooting glasses, so I could use the bifocular portion of the lense to focus on iron sights and still use the non-corrective 'upper' part of the lense to see objects more than 30 inches away.

The experiment was not as positive as I had hoped. Bifocals tend to be confusing in Action Sports, and while I didn't actually wander around half-lost in a complex Field Problem stage, my shooting wasn't sufficiently improved to make the effort worth the results. There was too much confusing input, being fed to my brain from my eyes, to process as quickly as needed.

Also, it was a sunny day and the reading glasses were clear; I was defeated in the last stage by too much bright sun.

Obviously, a competitor needs at least two pairs of Range Glasses to compensate for different light levels: a smoke or 'dark' pair for bright sunlight, and either a clear or amber pair for low-light conditions, which are prevalent during much of the year here in Oregon.


Summary:

Polycarbonate lenses are, as stated above, the standard for impact resistant eyewear.
Trivex lenses are even better.

Polycarbonate lenses have been around for several years, and are widely available in a variety of styles, colors, and eyeglass designs. The price of shooting glasses with Polycarbonate lenses will vary based mostly on fashion and trademark. We have seen no evidence that $200 glasses from Oakley, for example, are more effective at protecting your eyes and your face from injury due to impact from small high-velocity fragments.

Trivex lenses have only been available since 2001 (or 2003, depending on your source). They probably are not yet widely available "off the shelf" in your local shooting sports store. At a minimum, they are more expensive. More likely, if you wish to wear impact resistance shooting glasses made from Trivex, you will have to go to your optometrist (or, if you need no optical correction, an optician) and order them custom-made.


When I can buy a pair of Trivex glasses off-the-shelf for no more than twice what I pay for Polycarbonate glasses, I'll make the switch in a heartbeat.

In the meantime, I'll wear only polycarbonate on the Range, and I'll be using the Silencio Nemesis for it's superior rugged design of the frame.

Okay, I'll probably wear the Silencio SD when I lose the Silencio Nemesis . But the Claypro glasses are only for driving, and when I shot Sporting Clays. (Which is never.)

Shooting Glasses

I've been using 'cheap' Silencio shooting glasses for several years, spending about twelve dollars each, and while I've never had them seriously challenged by experiencing the joy of saving my eyesight by intercepting a bounce-back bullet (as sometimes happens when shooting at steel targets), they've always been comfortable, light-weight, and have stopped the potentially debilitating effect of rock particles, bright sunlight, and wind.

We're talking Polycarbonate lenses here, folks.

What is Polycarbonate material?

Polycarbonate lenses are thinner and lighter than traditional plastic eyeglass lenses. They also offer 100 percent ultraviolet (UV) protection and are up to 10 times more impact-resistant than regular plastic lenses.

This combination of lightweight comfort, UV protection and impact resistance makes polycarbonate lenses an excellent choice for children's glasses, sports eyewear and safety glasses.

Polycarbonate was developed in the 1970s for aerospace applications, and is currently used for the helmet visors of astronauts and for space shuttle windshields. Eyeglass lenses made of polycarbonate were introduced in the early 1980s in response to a demand for lightweight, impact-resistant lenses.

Since then, polycarbonate lenses have become the standard for safety glasses, sports goggles and children's eyewear. Because they are less likely to fracture than regular plastic lenses, polycarbonate lenses are also a good choice for rimless eyewear designs where the lenses are attached to the frame components with drill mountings.

Essentially, we're talking (in the context of Shooting Sports) about frames and lenses which offer an unique combination of lightweight, non-intrusive sunglasses which not only cut out 100% of ultra-violet light, but also are extremely resistant to shattering under the impact of a bullet, parts of a bullet (jacket, etc.) or debris such as rock chips.

In a word: eye protection.

Okay, that's two words.

How "good" are Polycarbonate lenses in terms of protecting your eyes from injury?

Pretty good.

A few years ago, the "Front Sight" Magazine ran an article which compared the then-state-of-the-art glasses from a number of vendors using a variety of materials. The Polycarbonate lenses resisted shattering under the greatest number of assaults, including bird-shot from a shotgun, a .22 caliber rounds, and small-caliber pistol rounds.

(Trust me, if you get shot in the eye at appreciably close range from almost any kind of gun, you will end up looking like Johnny Depp as "Agent Sands" in the closing scene of "Once Upon A Time in Mexico" ... blind, and bleeding copiously from your empty eye socket. We're not talking 100% anytime, anywhere, anything protection here. We're just hoping for a reasonable degree of protection from splash-back, which IS possible.)

Polycarbonate is not perfect.
A couple of years ago I bought a pair of reading glasses and specified Polycarbonate lenses. I discovered that the material was not appropriate for daily use. After less than a year, the glasses were scratched by the wear caused by the (plastic coated) bows as they rode in the glass case.

On the other hand, I once (accidentally) drove my Jeep Cherokee over a pair of Polycarbonate shooting glasses in an asphalt parking lot. The glasses were, predictably, seriously scratched. but the lenses were not broken, shattered, or otherwise compromised as far as the overall integrity of the lenses was concerned. These were Silencio "SD" glasses. (See below)

Today there is a much more scratch-resistant material available: I don't have the link yet, but they are stronger, and they cost more. A lot more ... say, 2 to 10 times as much for the material. (I bought new reading glasses glasses this year, and with the cost for grinding the lenses it's hard to tell how much is spent for the material.)

Here are three glasses types using Polycarbonate material (click on the images for full-size):


Silencie SD: Original cost, about $12.oo




Silencio Nemesis: about $10 if you can find them in your local gunshop



Claypro "Radians":


Personally, I like the Claypro glasses the least, because the wire frames seem more likely to break under constant hard usage.

The heavy plastic frames of the Silencio glasses seem more durable, but perhaps that's just the Buddy Holly in me.

All of the glasses pictured here feature Polycarbonate lenses, rest on the ears and nose bridge without touching eyebrows and cheeks, and offer varying degrees of "wrap-around" protection.

Also, they look pretty weird. That may be a selling point to you; it is to me.

Note that there are a few things to avoid when shopping for shooting glasses. The most important is that the frames shouldn't be heavy, because the become uncomfortable and they tend to droop (as you do) by the end of the day. If the frames are reinforced with extra material which may cause them to touch your forehead, this will soon become unbearably uncomfortable, and may in fact encourage sweating on hot days. Similarly, frames which touch your cheeks will not rest easily on your face for the length of a summer's day.

Note that I also looked at S&W frames. They seemed similar to the Silencio, if more expensive. I saw no added value for the price, but seemed more widely available. If you can't find Silencios, these S&W glasses will probably provide similar protection and comfort, if at a greater price.

Bowling for Columbine - The Truth!

David T. Hardy, back in 2003 (right after Michael Moore won the Academy Award for Best Documentary for "Bowling for Columbine"), posted a detailed refutation of the concepts presented in the film. The article is titled "The Truth About Bowling".

By "a detailed refutation", we mean he fisked the crap out of it. That's a big job, because if Hardy is to be believed there was more crap than substance.

The link is offered here FYI, in case you ever want to explore the veracity of Michael Moore's assertions about Firearms Ownership. In truth, it has very little to do with the Columbine Massacre, and even less about the Second Amendment (except as a vitriolic attack, unsupported by the facts, and as an example of Yellow Journalism, 2002 style.)

The most interesting thing about this subject is that a "documentary" must specifically be "Non-Fiction".

In fact, the awards ceremony was when Moore took the opportunity to give his infamous "Shame on You, Mister Bush" speech"

"I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to--they're here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up," said Moore. The audience half-booed, half-cheered his angry words.

After Moore left the stage, host Steve Martin joked, "The Teamsters are helping him into the trunk of his limo."

Given that Moore's expert editing of interviews and statements has patently encouraged the viewer to misunderstand the material presented, it is difficult if not impossible to conclude that his personal interpretation of history can be construed as anything but fiction.

Some of the independent critical comments about this film are summarized here:

There are two ways to look at Bowling for Columbine. It is a great piece of entertainment, and only a mediocre serious examination of a real issue. ...

In going about proving his point, Moore develops a scattershot approach at looking for causality. It eventually boils down to a culture of fear, perpetuated by the media and government. Stations televise each bit of news of murder and mayhem because it delivers ratings. It's a long trip to get here, and because of the way that Moore works, it's never that convincing. Instead of presenting a well-developed set of arguments, Moore opts to himself pander to his audience and go for what is most entertaining. In effect, he is creating his own brand of fear. Why interview experts when ambushing Dick Clark or interviewing random dumb people is so much more fun? Granted it makes for great cinema, but feels like tabloid journalism.

... [T]here are ... parts of the film that show just how much of a media whore Moore can become. ... The most potent example of Moore at his best (worst) is when he brings two Columbine survivors with bullets still in their bodies to the Kmart corporate headquarters, asking for refunds on the bullets (they were bought at Kmart). He is extremely effective in using the media to get his point across, to the point of shaming this large corporation into submission. Yes, Moore is good at what he does, but at times there is little to separate the media he demonizes with the way he portrays his ideas. [emphasis added]

(See also Roger Ebert's analysis here.)

In short, Moore has indeed become a Media Whore, and never shows his colors more truly than in this "documentary". The sad part of the story is that, even today, there exist people who are all too willing to take his commercial efforts as fact, rather than media-managed fiction.

Microstamping: Rhode Island Measure Off Agenda

NRA-ILA :: Legislation

According to a recent NRA-ILA release, H7834, the Rhode Island House "Microstamping Ammunition" bill (which would have required that all new pistols sold in the state of Rhode Island be equipped to "Microstamp Ammunition" with every shot fired, has been "... pulled from the agenda of the House Finance Committee."

This essentially sounds the death knell of the legislative bell for this intrusive, expensive and unproven technology in the state of Rhode Island.

We originally reported on this bill on April 20, 2008. As we said then:

This bill came before the House Committee on Judiciary this week, where it will either be passed back to the House for a vote and then advance to the Senate for consideration, or it will 'die in committee'.

This latter result is much preferred by honest gun owners; criminals, of course, don't care. They won't be using firearms which they purchased under their own name from retailers, so microstamped ammunition left at the scene of a crime will never be traced back to them.

Apparently Rhode Island voted for Door Number Two: "Die In Committee".

You may recall that we engaged the "Inventor of Microstamping Technology", Mr. Todd Lizotte, in a dialogue about Microstamping earlier this year. We have yet to hear from Mr. Lizotte in response to our May 5, 2008, concerns about Replacement Parts and other consequences of Microstamping Technology.


Rhode Island also introduced bills requiring "Encoded Ammunition" (encoding by the ammunition manufacturer, not by the firearm) as reported here in March 3 and March 4 of 2008. We have no current information about the status of these bills.

The "Encoded Ammunition" technology is completely different from "Microstamping Ammunition" technology.

However, the consequences of passage of either bill would be / would have been the same: an economically unbearable burden on the ownership of firearms; a dramatic increase on either the cost of ammunition or firarms/firearms replacement parts; and legal accountability imposed on the firearm owner with no demonstrable improvement in the notational areas of crime prevention or delivery of tools to the Law Enforcement Community to resolve crimes.

With all due respect to the contributions of Mr. Lizotte, we cannot help rejoicing in the rejection of either of these measures. Lacking any proof of realistic benefits to society of their passage, and deeply appreciative of the Unspoken Consequences to firearms owners, we must conclude that both technology proposals constitute nothing less than a back-door attack on the Second Amendment by economically targeting the purchase or accountability of ammunition in support of results which are dubious, at best.

June USPSA Training

I arrived at the ARPC range an hour early Saturday, to set up the bay for the "Introduction to USPSA" class. I discussed the exercises to be presented during the class with Mike McCarter ("Mac"), who was responsible for the instruction, and almost as an afterthought I asked him how many students had pre-registered for the class.

"One", Mac said, "and he hasn't shown up yet."

This wasn't as disappointing as you may expect.

While preparing to set up the bay, I had met and introduced myself to an older gentleman, Pete, who explained that he had brought his grandson for Mac's Junior Team Training and Practice.

During our conversation, I mentioned that the sport is addictive, and added "You realize, of course, that if you're going to be bringing your grandson to USPSA matches, you'll soon want to start competing yourself."

Pete said that he had already planned on that. He explained that he had competed in 1996, and although he hadn't participated in over a decade he expected to shoot the matches along with his grandson.

When I told him that certification & training classes were available, he wondered aloud whether he should repeat the training that he had already received in 1996.

I told him that (as an example) I had dropped out of competition for a while in the late 1980's, and when I re-entered the sport I made it a point to re-take the training. I had realized that my shooting skills had atrophied along with my understanding of the rules, so I benefited from the refresher course.

Pete thought it over quickly, and asked if he should register for the July training.

"No need for that," I replied. "I'm teaching the course today. If you have a pistol, holster, magazine carriers and some ammunition with you, why don't you just take the class today? Since you're a returning competitor, I'm sure there will be no problem. And the class is free."

Pete agreed, and after I had double-checked with Mac I had one confirmed student for the class.

In the meantime, Brian B. showed up with his son, Nathan, who was also there for the Junior Practice. Brian had brought along his friend Adam, who was ex-Coast Guard, specifically for the Introduction to USPSA course.

Brian had loaned Adam a Glock, along with an equipment belt (belt, race holster, magazine carriers, and three magazines.) Adam had a brick (250 rounds ... far more than was needed) of ammunition for the Glock, and a healthy attitude toward training.

That's two, which is one more than is necessary to justify a class.

I should mention that the class is essentially a "Field Exercises" class. The students are expected to have completed an online-workbook (requires MS Word) to demonstrate that they have read the current USPSA Competition Rules. They should have completed an open-book test, and they can expect to be questioned about their answers before the range portion of the class begins.

The entire class, both the 'classroom' component and the 'field training' component, is scheduled for two to three hours, total.

Pete hadn't seen a rule book since (assumedly) 1996. Adam had received the workbook, but hadn't completed the test. He had not brought his test, which is a guide for the instructor to re-affirm the basic principles and rules of USPSA competition.

Since I didn't know what my class participants knew ... and worse, what they didn't know ... we had to wing it.

Just to add flavor to the experience, Adam was using a borrowed gun, which he had never fired.
Pete was using a new gun, which he had never fired.

However, both had experience with shooting pistols, so all we had to do was (in nor particular order) :

1. Gun-handling skills, how to use your pistol, learn the controls (both trigger-safety);
2. Basic rules of USPSA competition;
3. Safety rules;
4. How targets were scored, and how scores are ranked compared to other competitors;
5. Penalties (Miss, FTE, etc): how , when and why they are applied;
6. Match Disqualification (DQ) for violation of Safety Rules, and why and when they could be expected to be imposed;
7. Range etiquette: be ready when it's your turn to shoot; everybody works ... taping targets, resetting steel, painting steel between shooters, etc.
8. When and how to reload;
9. Movement, reload, clear jams ... finger obviously OFF the trigger!
10. Range commands, what the competitor does in response to each command;
11. Definition of 'in the shooting box', what is 'not in the box', what is 'out of the box';
12. How to interpret stage procedures, with emphasis on starting position ("Hands naturally at sides", "wrists above shoulders", "facing uprange" [turn, then draw], "pistol laying flat on table" (how to pick up a 'grounded' pistol');
13. Barricades and ports (stay well back of barricades and ports, don't point the pistol in the air or at your feet when moving to the other side of the barricade, etc.);
14. "Other" technical considerations [How to avoid tension in shoulders & back when engaging targets, keep hips & shoulders square with the targets, pivot with the legs, not the shoulders, etc.]

Obviously, some of these (especially the last couple of points) are beyond the normal course syllabus. However, although we had to start with basic essentials which are assumed to be already understood before the session begins, we managed to discuss a lot of 'helpful hints' during the allotted time: we started a couple of minutes before 1pm, and completed ... including answering questions ... at 3:08 pm.

Better, we managed to discuss 'New Shooter Self-Consciousness', which in my mind is one of the primary concerns for the person who is looking forward to shooting his first match.

Both Pete and Adam completed the class with the sense that this was not too complicated, that they were welcome by more experienced shooters, and they could expect as much supported as they needed (and probably more help than they really wanted) at future matches.
________________________________

It's a fact that most USPSA competitors truly enjoy having New Shooters join them. It's a complement to a squad to have a New Shooter assigned to their squad; it is demonstrable affirmation that the squad is sufficiently mature and responsible that they are willing and able to support a nervous "NuGuy", and make him or her feel entirely welcome.

Mike McCarter is the USPSA Junior Program Coordinator, and as such he is dedicated to welcoming and training Junior competitors ... who are the future of The Sport.

At a local level, Mac is committed to ensuring that ALL new competitors enjoy the support and encouragement which they may justifiably expect from a sport which actively recruits. USPSA not only wants to retain as many members as possible, we want to "Grow The Sport". This implies that we are willing and eager to make the shooting experience a positive experience, and that we will take whatever steps are necessary to insure that every competitor is safe, knowledgeable, and welcome.

USPSA competition is a volunteer sport. Only a few people are paid for their contributions; most of the community works for expenses; usually, not even for that.

We enjoy the sport, and there will come a time when every participant is given the opportunity to "Give Back To The Sport".

This is how we pay our dues. If we didn't really enjoy it, we wouldn't do it.
________________________________

When we completed our training session, Adam and Pete asked if they should help put away the props and targets on the bay.

I explained to them that they don't need to worry about that. The Juniors brought everything to the shooting bay before they started their own practice session; when that is finished, they'll clean it all up and put everything away. Their equipment and ammunition is supplied for them, and this is how they "Give Back To The Sport".

Pete and Adam need to find their own way to contribute. I have no doubt they will find a way.

ARPC: - A Safe Place to Shoot

A recent (June 5, 2008) article in the Albany Democrat-Herald gives the Albany Rifle Pistol Club credit for providing Oregon residents with a Safe Place to Shoot.


(Image courtesy Albany Democrat Herald)
The reporter, Les Gehrett, notes:

Finding a place for target practice didn’t use to be that difficult in Oregon.

That’s no longer the case as an increasing number of public and private property owners no longer welcome the practice, leaving many marksmen nowhere to go.

The shortage of options is driving more and more people to join organizations such as the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club

The club added about 250 members over the past year, bringing its total membership to almost 1,300.

“With the difficulty of going up in the woods and finding a place to shoot, and the high price of gas, our membership is growing,” said club president Steve Shippey. “A lot of people are just wanting a nice, close place to shoot, and we offer that.”

To meet this increasing demand for safe, legal shooting venues, the Albany, Oregon club has asked for a change in its conditional use permit to allow for expansion of range facilities, to include improvements on existing bays on the East side of the range and development of an archery-only area.

Gun control? How about Dead Fish Control?

Assault with fish lands man in jail

A series of incidents involving a fish and his own private parts landed a Fredericksburg man in jail Sunday, police said.

City police spokeswoman Natatia Bledsoe said the suspect's troubles started Saturday about 8:30 a.m. at the 7-Eleven on Dixon Street.

Three people were at the gas pumps when the suspect entered the store. The witnesses said they noticed the suspect because he was singing very loudly.

A 40-year-old man was looking at the suspect when he came out of the store still being loud. This caught the attention of the suspect, who picked up a rock and hit the man in the neck.

Bledsoe said the man's 32-year-old friend then got out of the car and confronted the suspect about throwing the rock. The suspect grabbed a fish out of his car and hit the friend in the face with it.

The suspect threw a beer bottle onto the vehicle at the gas pump, which belonged to the fish victim's girlfriend. Witnesses said he dropped his pants and flashed his private parts to all three.

As our British Friends would no doubt suggest, this is obvious justification for legal restrictions on the possession and transportation of Dead Fish. (Perhaps, also, "Loud Singing In Public".)

It may also be a clarion call for restrictions on the possession and transportation of Rocks.
Similar restrictions might conceivably be imposed on the possession and transportation of Beer Bottles.

However, we are not yet convinced that it is practical to impose restrictions on the possession and transportation of "Private Parts".

What do you think?

Is there a limit to the listing of inanimate objects which should be restricted because they may lead to anti-social behavior?

[Perhaps the term "inanimate objects" may not be applicable to "private parts", unless you are very old.]

We are all AOL now

Time Warner Cable tries metering Internet use



Remember when your Internet Access was through AOL, and you had to pay by the hour?

Guess what? You thought it (Internet Charges based on traffic/usage) was dead, but like Nosferatu it has risen from the grave to plague you again.

Time Warner Cable is toying with the concept of "metered internet access".

On Thursday, new Time Warner Cable Internet subscribers in Beaumont, Texas, will have monthly allowances for the amount of data they upload and download. Those who go over will be charged $1 per gigabyte, a Time Warner Cable executive told the Associated Press.

Metered billing is an attempt to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among Time Warner Cable's subscribers, said Kevin Leddy, Time Warner Cable's executive vice president of advanced technology.

Just 5 percent of the company's subscribers take up half of the capacity on local cable lines, Leddy said. Other cable Internet service providers report a similar distribution.

"We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure," Leddy said.

Metered usage is common overseas, and other U.S. cable providers are looking at ways to rein in heavy users. Most have download caps, but some keep the caps secret so as not to alarm the majority of users, who come nowhere close to the limits. Time Warner Cable appears to be the first major ISP to charge for going over the limit: Other companies warn, then suspend, those who go over.

Phone companies are less concerned about congestion and are unlikely to impose metered usage on DSL customers, because their networks are structured differently.

Time Warner Cable had said in January that it was planning to conduct the trial in Beaumont, but did not give any details. On Monday, Leddy said its tiers will range from $29.95 a month for relatively slow service at 768 kilobits per second and a 5-gigabyte monthly cap to $54.90 per month for fast downloads at 15 megabits per second and a 40-gigabyte cap. Those prices cover the Internet portion of subscription bundles that include video or phone services. Both downloads and uploads will count toward the monthly cap.

I thought it sucked when I was an AOL customer, and I couldn't wait to close my account when I switched to Comcast (whose email service sucks, but that's another story.)

But don't be surprised if you, sometime in the next year or two, discover that your IP (Internet Provider) switches to this new/old billing scheme.

After all, we'll soon be paying state sales taxes on Internet purchases.

Books: Vince Flynn

My friend, The Hobo Brasser, loaned me a book a couple of weeks ago.

So far, this free book has cost me about fifty bucks, and I am fated to spend twice that amount in the next couple of years.

The book was "Consent to Kill", by Vince Flynn. It's a 'thriller' and the main character is Mitch Rapp. (This was the 8th of 9 books in the series ... so far.)

Rapp is described as an "assassin for the CIA". Although the author has no military or governmental experience, he has managed to capture the reader with "insider" information about "secret" stuff, which has been promulgated within the more secretive governmental agencies.

Really. Read the details on Flynn's website. You can believe as much of that as you will.

Getting back to the theme, as soon as I read what turned out to be the 8th of 9 books in the series, I had no choice but to buy as many of the books as I could find in my local Used Books Store.

Last week I went to Borders Book Store, where I bought the books I couldn't find "used": the 7th, and also the 9th in hardbound.

The tenth will be out in October of 2008, and at least four more books are promised in the series.

This is going to cost me, because I unwisely give the first book in the series to SWMBO. She let it sit on her coffee table for a week, while she finished her current Nora Roberts book, and then instead of picking up the J.A. Vance book which was missing from our collection until I went to the Used Book Store, she picked up the Flynn book.

I received an email from her two days ago: she's Hooked on Flynn. Now I have no choice but to buy every Flynn book as it comes out (God grant him a painless death, but soon, for the sake of my pocketbook.)

Wait, it gets worse.

I thought that Lee Child had achieved literary thermodynamic equilibrium, but I've just learned that he has another "Jack Reacher" book out, as of June 3, 2008. The title is "Nothing to Lose", and it was released two days ago.

God help me, I ordered the book tonight.

It should be delivered to me early next week.

Expect Light Blogging from me next week.

Note to The Hobo Brasser: I will not lend this book to you for six months. If you can't wait, either buy your own copy ($14 from Amazon), or amuse yourself by reading the Tom Kratman and Michael Z. Williamson books I sent you last month.

I am that angry that you hooked me on another excellent author. Like I needed the distraction. (What other new authors do you have that I haven't discovered yet?)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: John Ringo has another book out in August.

Sixty years ago, when I was 3 years old, my mother convince me to let her pull my loose tooth with the promise that she would read me a book. I did, and she did, and it hurt me. At that moment I decided that I would learn to read my own darn books as soon as I could, so I would never again suffer the pain of allowing some other person to determine what books I could read.

Apparently, I didn't learn the lesson as well as I thought I had.

USPSA Training Continued

Last month I talked about a USPSA New Shooter Certification Class at ARPC where I was privileged to help teach people who wanted to start shooting in USPSA matches, and needed an introductory course to show them what they could expect and (not incidentally) introduce them to the skills needed to safely participate in USPSA competition.


As reported, I found this to be an immensely rewarding activity, and I hope to be allowed to continue to contribute to this worthy endeavor.

I note that the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club will offer another such FREE course next Saturday, the first Saturday of the month.

Today I sent an email to Mike McCarter, locally the USPSA Discipline Director at ARPC, offering to help with the class if there are any students who have requested this training. I haven't received a response yet, so I don't know if I can work the class.

And I probably won't know until the last minute. Last month, you may recall, the schedule said there were six students signed up as of 2 days before the class. On class day, we had 13 students.

Actually, we had 14, but one backed out (although he showed up and 'audited' the class) because his son was taking the Junior training, and they had only one pistol between them.

This is what makes working this class so rewarding.

The people who attend really want to learn. They want to shoot, they want to know the right way to act at matches, and they want to know what they have to know to avoid looking like a bozo at their first match.

More important, they want to be safe.

If you have the experience, and minimal skills as a teacher, this is the easiest class in the world to teach. That's because the students are more highly motivated than one would expect in, for example a Basic Gun-Handling or a Defensive Pistol class.

In those classes, the motivation is usually to achieve some kind of certification in the form of a certificate of completion. (In Oregon, this is needed to qualify for a Concealed Handgun License.)

After they finish their class, the students in these courses can either get their CHL or delude themselves into believing that they know enough about guns to handle them safely and competently under, perhaps, the most stressful circumstances imaginable. Humans are prone to self-delusion, and teaching a man how to handle a gun is like teaching him how to drive a car; he believes that he knows everything there is to know about the subject before he starts the training, and nothing you can do or say will undermine his confidence.

(Women are not this way. They enter the class with the ingrained understanding that they know little or nothing about the subject, and they will not leave until they believe that they have learned something ... and they are more inclined to practice, if it is recommended to them.)

But in the USPSA training, the students are told that their certification is not awarded until they complete one USPSA match safely. They don't have to be fast, they don't have to be accurate, they only have to be safe. And the definition of "safe" is rigidly defined in the most practical terms, so they are aware that a moment's inattention during the class may cause them shame and embarrassment the next weekend, when they are expected to shoot in competition.

The students are trained, by example and explanation, in all the ways to avoid failure. They listen and, if they are not completely brain-dead, they ask for explanations of the points on which the instruction has not been made crystal clear.

They want to know this stuff.

They are intrinsically motivated.

They're not there to go through the motions, they are there to learn and they will learn or they will accuse the instructing staff of not giving them value for the cost of the instruction ... which is free.

Example: last month, at the match which followed the USPSA training class, one student approached me (we were squadded together) and suggested sternly that it would have been very helpful if we had taught them how the scores were entered on the score-sheets. He had me there; we had glossed over the subject during the class. My only defense was to point out that we had 13 students when we had only expected six, we had only one instructor, and we had gone an hour over the alloted 2 hours of instruction attempting to cover all of the most important safety and gun-handling points for every student.

He understood immediately, of course, but that didn't convince him that he had received the best training available. In truth, he was right: it would have been better if we had taught him how the scoring worked. There wasn't sufficient time or staff available to give him all of the information that would have been useful, but still we should have met this (admittedly tertiary) need.

I'm learning on the job about how to teach people about USPSA competition. I consider myself a good teacher, and I think I know everything there is to know about the subject.

I'm wrong on both counts.

No matter how motivated I am to 'produce' highly trained competitors after two hours of range training, I will always fall short of adequacy.

That's why I want to continue to participate in the training of new USPSA competitors. Nobody can be a perfect trainer, but I want to do everything possible to insure that the people who I have trained will inevitably meet the highest standards possible of gun-handling and competitive skills.

This isn't possible, of course. But it's still a worth-while goal.

In the effort, my reach should will always exceed my grasp.

If I can impart that dedication to the people I teach, I've achieved a worthy something.

Last month, I taught 13 students. Of those, 2 have violated a basic safety rule in their first two matches.

I can do better, and I will.

After all, I will be shooting with these folks, and I want them to be safe shooters.
___________________________________________
UPDATE: 05-JUN-2008
I received an email from "Mac" today. Yes, some folks have signed up for the USPSA class this weekend, and I will be teaching the class, or assisting.

There's no word on how many people have signed up. It doesn't matter: some won't show up and some other people who have not pre-registered will be there instead. The training is free, regardless of ARPC club membership status.

And that's the way it should be. Nobody is making any money from this. The intent is to provide the training, so new shooters will know what to expect when they show up to compete in their first match. If money is an issue, it may discourage some prospects, and that does not support the primary goal of making New Shooters feel comfortable ... and insuring that they are familiar with range commands, safety rules, and the basics of Gun Handling Skills.

The students will be doing all the shooting. Although I need to practice, I probably won't bother taking my competition pistol with me.

I only hope that nobody points a pistol at me. That happened last month, and it was an un-nerving experience. It's a strange phenomena, but no matter how much you preach "Muzzle Control", folks just don't find it natural to be always aware of the deadly nature of the gun, and how important it is to keep it pointed in a safe direction.[

I suspect it's the consequence of watching to much Television.

Shooting Wire: Cost of Competition

After I had completed yesterday's article on the "Cost of Competition", I wondered if I had come across as having been too whiny. After all, I was focused on my personal expenses and the way that my limited budget was forcing me to make some difficult decisions about what matches I could afford to patronize.

Is it just me? Or is everyone reacting to the exigencies of The New Economy?

Trust Jim Shepherd of "The Shooting Wire" to come to my rescue.

As he describes it, this is not a subject which is not only hurtful to "The Whiny Community". The consequences of inflation, shortage of materials (supply and demand) and "The Fuel Situation" are not only negatively affecting the choices made by shooters. Others ... clubs, ranges, and suppliers are feeling the second-level pinch of lessened supply and consequently lessened demand of their products and services.

(NB: As usual, The Shooting Wire does not provide a permalink to Shepherd's article, and as usual I'll have to quote substantially rather than to supply the link. I apologize for what might otherwise be considered a copyright infringement.)

In fact, not only are the customers, the ranges, the shooting clubs and the vendors suffering from the effects of this economy; even the gun-writers are taking a whipping.

Increasing Prices A Growing Concern

Over the past year, we've incurred the wrath of more than one company by reporting on the growing costs associated with shooting. More specifically, the rapidly rising cost of ammo. Costs of metals used in bullets have risen to the point that some ammunition has doubled in price over the twelve months. Strangely enough, China and its modernization has gotten the majority of the blame in that situation.

Now, as the fuel situation continues to grow worse, it's apparent to everyone that the costs associated with anything delivered by vehicle - unless it's floated downriver via flatboat or hauled via wagon train - is rising. If you think that's an exaggeration, take a look at the produce section of your local grocery. If you want to see the same impact on the shooting sports, look at the cost on what used to be the "cheap" shotgun and rifle shells.

With the 2008 Shooting Sports Summit slightly more than two weeks away, it's just another concern to discuss during the industry's first focused gathering in the past six years.

Yesterday, I spoke with a friend attending a similar session in another sport. According to his statistical information, shooting isn't the only sport looking at a bleak future. Any recreational activity requiring travel or "expendables" (targets and ammunition in shooting) is feeling the pinch. In fact, the golf industry is seeking ways to bring local residents to areas normally dominated by tourists. The tourists, it seems, are staying home in droves. That hurts everyone associated with the tourist - from the bellman to the owner of the five-star restaurant up the street.

In short, it's ugly out there. Unfortunately, "out there" is pretty much synonymous with "everywhere".

For sporting clay shooters, the bite is certainly increasing. Nationwide, prices for shotgun shells have risen - in some locations as much as $4 per box for the heretofore "cheap" shells. Reloading components are more expensive, and every aspect of the sport is looking at cost hikes that are attributed to "fuel adjustment charges".

As Steve McQueen's character ("Vin") famously said in The Magnificent Seven: "We deal in lead, Friend". Lead is heavy, and shipping charges from the mine to the refinery, to the bullet manufacturer, and to the retailer and to the customer are becoming increasingly expensive.

Earlier this year, I thought there might be a little profiteering going one. Today, however, I'm more convinced that everyone - and I mean everyone - is getting hit in the pocketbook by rising energy costs. And I'm not going to hammer the gas companies either. The same price increases that hammer us pound on their people (yes, they are still people) too.

As we look to hold the existing shooting participants in the sport, we're looking at a potential double-whammy: rising costs keeping new prospects from giving shooting a try, and increased costs forcing out the participants who have seen their disposable income shrink to the point that shooting is simply out of the discretionary spending budget. When families are turning to "staycations" rather than "vacations" it's apparent they feel the bite.

At this point, shooting clubs are reporting they are really feeling the bite - especially when they discover that a 12 month supply of clay targets (we're told by purchasers) has more doubled since they last replenished their supplies over a year ago. Some sporting clay clubs are passing the increases on to members. In response, some members are allowing memberships to lapse.

Across the discussion boards in the industry, there are a variety of responses to the price increases. Some clubs are passing on the costs. They say they are losing members. Others say they're still operating, but would "entertain offers" for their machines. Some smaller private clubs are saying they simply can't handle the cost increases and are going to close.

Hopefully, the situation won't get this grim for the rifle and pistol clubs. There, fortunately, the direct costs of many elements fall to the individual members. And if you're like me, you're getting more creative about how you maintain your level of participation.

Yeah. I'm so creative, I'm cutting back my match participation by 50% or even 75%. It's not a deliberate boycott, but the end results are the same.

Shepherd describes how he is, among other means, spending more time with bows than with guns. Then:

Like the rest of you, I'm coping. But it's not always easy.

We're going to be looking at the issues that impact the industry up to- and through - the industry Summit beginning June 23 in Colorado Springs.

Like the rest of the industry, we're looking for answers that will keep all of us involved in the sports we love.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

We're coping, we're looking for answers, and "we'll keep you posted."

Here's an Industry Insider who admits that, in the final analysis, the best he can do is to 'cope'.

This is no reflection on Shepherd ... far from it. It's just an acknowledgment that nobody, no matter how well-established or 'connected' he may be, is able to avoid the consequences of a flailing, if not failing, marketplace.

If Shepherd has no answers, I certainly don't. It's scant comfort that I find myself in the same situation. There is no schadenfreude here, but I do wish that someone, anyone, could offer some encouragement that the market will soon improve.

I need some range time. But my pocketbook won't let me have it.

Whiny? Fretful? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

Dillon Precision Dies

I like Dillon Precision Products, Inc.

I like the equipment they make. I like their 'No-BS' Warranty. And I like their customer service, including their technical help.

I'm a klutz, so I should like Dillon because the folks there take care of me when I screw up their un-screw-up-able machinery.


I've told you before about the problems I have with bending decapping pins. It doesn't matter who makes them, I can bend them. Most frequently, I bend them because small pieces of gravel get stuck inside the .38 Super cases when the brass hits the ground, and they become so lodged that they don't shake out when I tumble the brass.

The result is that what I assume is the normal resistance you feel when you're punching a primer out of a fired case and, at the same time full-length sizing the case, metering powder into the previous case, seating a bullet into the case before that and crimping the case before that ... well, that 'resistance' is sometimes the natural result of a thin pointy thing (the decapping pin) meeting an immovable object (the gravel thing).

It doesn't take much lateral pressure to bend a decapping pin, and the only way to fix it is to replace the pin.

Hence, my problem of the week: I've replaced so many Decapping pins that the threads have been stripped on both the "Decapping Shaft" and the "Retaining Cap". (I had to search the Dillon website to find the nomenclature on their Dillon Die Instructions pdf. You can find it in their online list of manuals.)

After the Decapping die for my .38 Super became unusable, I applied the 'easy fix' of yanking the innards out the Decapping die for my 10mm (they're the same parts) and went on reloading.

Did I take the obvious, basic precaution of ordering replacement parts? That would be reasonable, and sensible, but I did not.

It was only after I had bent so many Decapping pins from that parts group that the threads were stripped on it, too, that I realized I absolutely, positively, needed to get new parts. I couldn't reload any brass that had a firing pin.

(Actually, I reloaded another 500 rounds of new, unprimed Winchester .38 Super brass without the decapping pin. This is not a good idea, because every now and then you will run across new brass where the flash hole, between the primer pocket and the chamber of the case, has not been completely cleared. This can cause imperfect ignition, even insufficient ignition of the powder. This can cause a squib, and a squib can cost you a new barrel. See Evil Bill's Glock KaBOOM! here, and here, and especially here, for a similar result.)

Looking in the Dillon Catalog, and the online Dillon resources, I discovered that you can't find a parts number for the things that go inside a reloading die. Sure, you can order a new die, but I didn't need that.

So I got onto the "Write Dillon" page of their website and sent them an email. I explained my problem:

I have Dillon Carbide Pistol dies for both 10mm/40S&W and 9mm/38 Super. When replacing bent/broken decapping pins, I'm [sic] managed (through my own incompetence) to screw up the threads on the Decapping Shaft and/or the Retaining Cap for these two dies.

I need replacements (a set of 3 ... I'll do it again, I need a spare) for both the Decapping Shaft and the Retaining Cap.

These appear to be the same dimensions for both, and if they are not this may be part of the reason why I have screwed them up.

If they're different, I need one for 10mm/40S&W and two for 9mm/38 super. Most of my current reloading (90%) is .38 super, and replacing the internal parts for this caliber is my priority.

Please tell me how to order replacement parts.

There's a check box where you can specify whether you would like to receive a response by phone or email, and I checked 'email'. Sent the note, and settled back to wait.

It took a couple of days before I got their answer. It was shorter than my request:

No charge part(s) on the way via US mail and will take about 3 to 5 days. All the pistol decap assemblies are the same.

Thank you,

Dillon Precision Products, Inc.

Jeepers! I hadn't expected them to actually send the parts. All I wanted was the parts numbers.

I received the shipment in the mail today, which may have been sitting in my mail box for a couple of days.


They had not only put it all on Warranty, at no charge to me ...
they had not only not charged me for shipping and handling ...
they had not only sent me replacement decapping pins, although I didn't ask for them ...
they actually sent me the two replacements PLUS an extra of everything!

(Click on the image for a full-size picture and to see the bill of lading.

I'm not only astonished, I actually feel guilty. I feel like I've taken advantage of their good and kindly nature.

Darn right I did!

The only thing I can do in response is to thank them in the most material way I can, and that is to offer this advice to you, a potential Dillon customer:

If you're thinking about buying reloading equipment or components, shooting equipment (holsters, belts, eye or ear protection, etc.) go look at what Dillon has before you make your final decision.

You may not find exactly what you're looking for; I don't always, so I don't always buy from Dillon.

But if they have what you need, I encourage you to consider buying from Dillon. They support the sport, they have good stuff, and their warranty and customer service is truly superior to any company with which I have every done business , with the exception of STI.

The Cost of Competition

There was a time when I could load .45acp ammunition for about $2.50 a box of 50, or less than five cents a round.

Hard-cast lead bullets, cheap powder and primers, the brass lasted forever and it was easy to pick up 'used brass' from the local indoor shooting range for next to nothing.

When I started shooting .38 super, things got more expensive.

But now, what with the skyrocketing increases in all materials used to reload ammunition, the cost is almost astronomical.

I want to compare the cost of reloading components today with the cost five years ago. These are actual costs (although for convenience I may round off some numbers).

Here's the load I will use as a standard; although it is not actually the load I use, so please do NOT assume that I am providing you with a safe, reliable .38 super load:

Brass: Winchester .38 super, unprimed.
Primer: Winchester or CCI Small Rifle, per 1 brick of 1000 primers.
Powder: Vihta Vourhi Nxxx (never mind the actual details) at about 7 grains per round, or 1000 rounds per 1# container of 7000 grains.
Bullet: Montana Gold 115gr FMJ .355" dia., at 4,000 bullets per case

Note about the BRASS:
I expect to lose about half the brass every time I shoot. I buy them in lots of 1000. The loss to split cases is negligible, but given the loss factor, here's how many times I can expect to reload them.
1: 1000 loaded rounds, half of them are lost;
2: 500 loaded rounds, half of them are lost;
3: 250 loaded rounds, half of them are lost;
4:125 loaded rounds, half of them are lost;
5:70 loaded rounds, half of them are lost;
6: 35 loaded rounds, half of them are lost, and other losses end up with no cases left out of the original lot.

So out of 1000 cases in the original order, I can prorate the cost over less than 2000 loaded rounds. When calculating cost of brass, I'll divide the purchase price of 1000 rounds by 2 to arrive at the cost of brass per 1000 rounds.

Note about the BULLETS: I buy bullets by the case, which is 4,000 bullets. The cost per 1000 rounds is the price of a case of bullets, divided by 4.

_______________________

2003 cost of reloading:

Here are the approximate costs of components ...

Brass: $72/k loads 2000 rounds, extends to $36/k
Primer: $15/k
Powder: $18/k
Bullet: $185/4k = $46/k

Total: $116/k, $11.60/100, $5.80box, 11.6 cents per round

_______________________

2008 cost of reloading:

Here are the approximate costs of components ...

Brass: $176/k loads 2000 rounds, extends to $88/k
Primer: $30/k
Powder: $22/k
Bullet: $274/4k = $69/k

Total: $209/k, $20.90/100, $10.45/box, 20.9 cents per round

_____________________________________________

While normal inflation would not account for this dramatic 56% increase in price (NB: See UPDATE, below), or about 11% per year (an annual inflation rate of 5% hasn't been seen since 1990), the demand on ammunition, components and metals has been most often attributed to the requirements of providing these materials to the military.

Well, I'm as patriotic as the next man. I'm not advocating a military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan to relieve my own petty economic turmoil.

But the fact is, in recent years I've been increasingly reluctant to compete in "Lost Brass" Matches; that is, matches where the competitor is not allowed to pick up his brass on each stage.

In fact, at this time I have about 800 round of multiply fired brass, 300 rounds of once-fired brass, and about 500 rounds of new brass. It's my habit to keep at least 2,000 cases, and order another 2,000 cases when my on-hand stock of brass falls below this level.

Now, when 2,000 cases of new Winchester brass will cost me $350, and if both SWMBO and I would compete in any Major Match the lost brass would double in price, I can't afford to shoot a 250-round Major Match ... it would cost me $130 for ammunition, plus travel, food and other expenses.

This is leading up to the announcement that I will NOT be shooting the (218 round minimum) 2008 Area 1 match, which has historically been a "Lost Brass" match. The entry form doesn't say it is NOT a "Lost Brass" match, so one can only assume that it is. The entry fee is currently $125.

The cost of ammunition, match fees and gasoline would be on the order of $430 for what is, essentially a local match.

I'm not sure that I could afford to shoot this match even if we were allowed to recover our expended brass, which would only save me about $70 ... but I would appreciate the gesture.
__________________________________________
UPDATE: 4-Jun-2008
I just corrected a typo; I had left out a decimal point in the 2003 per-round cost.
Norm the Ungrateful just corrected my calculation on price increase (thank you, Norm). I won't dispute that I badly under-calculated, I was doing the math in my head on the fly. If nobody corrects other calculations I'll be very surprised.

ARPC SS and Plastic Gun Championships

I mentioned last week that the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club would be hosting a couple of "Special" matches on the weekend of May 31 and June 1, 2008.

Single Stack Guns:
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the 12th Annual Oregon Single Stack Championship, because of Family considerations. Also, I haven't seen the front sights of a 1911 since 2003, so it's probably just as well that I didn't compete, although it would have been nice if I had shown up to take some pictures and report on the match. You can see the scores from this match here.

It's absolutely no surprise that Keith T. won the match, and that Chuck A. took 2nd and Rob S. was 3rd ... just as it would have been not surprising if the order of finish was shuffled among them. This is the Triumvirate of Top Finishers in any Oregon match, even though Chuck usually competes in Production Division.

These three men are deadly with any pistol in their hands. Keith and Chuck are LEOs and Rob is a gunslinger of high repute, and is currently expanding into his own gunsmithing business. (I call on Rob to perform maintenance and repairs on the pistols that SWMBO and I use.)

Scroll back a paragraph: note that the top two finishers are LEOs. If you are a devotee of the concept that Cops Can't Shoot, I invite you to consider that 4 of the top 11 competitors earn their living with a badge, a uniform and a pistol.

In fact, the only surprises are the two DQ's in this field of 86 competitors, and the presence of USPSA Area 1 Director Bruce Gary and USPSA Executive Director Dave Thomas. Bruce competes in as many Area 1 Major Matches as he can, but Dave is more often found behind a camera than behind a gun.

Now I'm really disappointed, that I was unable to visit with these two USPSA stalwarts who have given so much to the sport over the years.

As for the DQ's, both are experienced competitors and are not known for unsafe gun-handling; rather the opposite.

Also, please note that there are two Divisions represented in the match: Single Stack and Limited 10. This was not a "pure" Single Stack match, in that Double-Stack shooters are invited to compete. Note also that the top 11 overall finishers were competing in Limited 10 Division. I'm sure this is a meaningful statistic, possibly in that Limited 10 is allowed to use 10-round magazines while Single Stack Division competitors are limited to 8-round magazines. But then, I wasn't there ...

Plastic Guns

This was originally hosted by the ARPC as "The Glock Match", but this year it is a "Plastic Gun Championship". (Match results are available here.)

Again, I was unable to attend due to other obligations, and again I am disappointed that I missed the opportunity to watch an interesting "Special" match.

Not that I would have been able to shoot it. The only "Plastic" gun I own is a Kel-Tec P3-AT in .380 caliber, which is not legal in this kind of Practical Pistol competition. Not only can I NOT see the sights, the sights are minimal at best and it is hardly a competitive pistol ... although it is not a bad little Carry pistol.

The 53 participants competed in four divisions (to my surprise) : Open, Limited, Limited 10 and Production.

The over-all results were a hodge-podge of finishers, and I saw no logical evolution of placement. Some of the competitors who finished high in the match were not who I would have expected, and some who were way down in the order of finish are those whom I would have expected to turn in much higher relative scores.

Twenty-five of the fifty-three competitors were 'category' shooters: 2 Juniors, a scattering of Super Seniors, and mostly Seniors.

Cutting the commentary short (for once), I can only say that the people who chose to compete in this match were obviously highly motivated, and often they were shooting pistols with which they were very familiar.

This was not often the case in the Single Stack Championship Match. Most of the competitors there were not known for regularly using the pistols with which they there competed.

The "Plastic Gun" match, on the other hand, may have been set up with a much more lenient definition of acceptable equipment. (I note that of the top six competitors, four were competing in "Open" division.)

____________________________________

Congratulations to everyone who competed, special attention to those who finished high in the list, and special commiseration to those who ... as I would have ... found themselves overwhelmed by the exceptional quality of competition.

I suspect that next year the competition will be much tougher, as the reputation of these matches attracts even more competitive participants from around the country.

____________________________________
UPDATE: 3-JUN-2008
In my recognition of USPSA luminaries, I completely overlooked Dave Stanford, who signed a USPSA membership card or two for me, and whom I would have loved to finally meet in person. Thanks to Bruce Gary for correcting the oversight in the comments section, and unintentionally giving me one more reason to regret skipping the match.

Also, when I went back and reread the article today, I noticed that I had bemoaned the lack of an appropriate "Plastic Gun" to shoot in the eponymous match. I hadn't realized that the STI Tru-Bore was acceptable to compete in Open Division, even though I did mention in the article that this was one of the available divisions.

Internet Hell

If you're like me, you live and die by the Internet.

On the other hand, if you're a normal person, you may not be aware that access to many websites has, for the last couple of days, been severely curtailed by what seems to be a problem at a single server site.

(I am predisposed to assume that any malfunction of the Internet is the result of a concerted attack, but there is as yet no direct evidence that this is true today. On the other hand, The Principle of Hanlon's Razor suggests that we "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.')

Or, in the quote from Forrest Gump:

Bumper Sticker Guy: [running after Forrest] Hey man! Hey listen, I was wondering if you might help me. 'Cause I'm in the bumper sticker business and I've been trying to think of a good slogan, and since you've been such a big inspiration to the people around here I thought you might be able to help me jump into - WOAH! Man, you just ran through a big pile of dog shit!
Forrest Gump: It happens.
Bumper Sticker guy: What, shit?
Forrest Gump: Sometimes.

[Ed: "Shit Happens"]

Here's the dialogue from the Unofficial IPSC List, bemoaning the fact that it is currently (as of this time) impossible to enter the Brian Enos website and forum:

R** B***** posted some information on the USPSA forums - apparently a datacenter had an electrical fire, and one of the [thousands of] sites they hosted is the benos forums. Last info I saw said that they estimated it would be back up mid-day today (Sunday)


At 05:08 AM 6/1/2008, B**** Po***** wrote:
>There are more and more sites east of me that I can no longer reach... I wasn't too worried, it's just the internet.... NOW I CAN'T REACH BE [sic -- "ME"?] !!!! Something has gotta be done!

Another possible resource is the Kim Komando Show; specifically from her weekly newsletter (dated Saturday, May 31, 2008):

THE WEB IS STRUGGLING; IF THINGS ARE SLOW, THAT'S WHY
You might already have heard about the Internet's problems. One of the Internet's main lines is not moving data properly.

I'm writing this on Friday evening. The Internet has been working sporadically all day for us. My director of IT, Ray, compares it to a highway that's partially closed. Traffic is moving, but it is slow. All you can do is grin and bear it.

If you received this newsletter early Saturday, you might be OK. If not, now you know why. If you can't get into my site (or another site), try later.

My experience it that the situation is inadequately described by "Traffic is moving, but it is slow."

When I signed on at 5:30 pm on Sunday, I discovered that my weblog comments (hosted by Haloscan) were not available. A half-hour later, they appeared.In the meantime, I attempted to enter an order to www.tigerdirect.com which is an online vendor of computer stuff. Things went just fine until I attempted to verify my order and confirm my VISA card, at which time I received a warning that the URL was "not available". (An hour later, I could confirm my "check-out" of my "cart", which should be familiar terminology to those of you who order goods online, although the quantities had been modified ... I'm still waiting for the order to be posted online so I can correct the order via telephone.)

Going further back, on Tuesday I received an email from www.statcounter.com, which is an online service which tracks traffic on my blog. The email stated that my recurring (monthly) billing was interrupted because my VISA card expiration date of record indicated that the card had expired. I replied via email that "My VISA card is not expired" and suggested that the email was a "Phishing Expedition". A reply from the vendor assured me that the original email was legitimate. Eventually, I had to re-enter all of my billing information to resume the service.

Again in the meantime, I received an email from the same service to the effect that PayPal service had been "interrupted", and it was no longer reliable: payments from PayPal had been double-entered, then all payments later deleted from the account, and charges were either missing, doubled, or otherwise found to be erroneous. These emails were sent both Wednesday and Thursday. No, they were not duplicated, but it indicated a great deal of uncertainty about the reliability of on-line financial transactions.

Finally, after 6pm today (Sunday, June 1, 2008), I found that accessing my blog was delayed to the point of non-accessibility. I cannot, as of this moment, access my Haloscan account ... although it was readily accessible an hour ago.


IF you are experiencing similar incidents of "Internet Hell", my only advice is to mirror Randy Cassingham's "This Is True" website (you may choose to subscribe, it's worth the price of admission" and get a bunch of "Get Out Of Hell Free" cards.

As nearly as I can tell, nobody has any better ideas.

Watch this space.
If you can't see it, the problem has not yet been resolved.