Pistol-Caliber Carbine Match : MechTech Works!

I am delighted to report that the Mech Tech (MT) Carbine Conversion Unit (CCU) worked just fine in the "Pistol-Caliber Carbine Match" hosted on Saturday, December 2, 2006, at the Tri-County Gun Club (TCGC) in Sherwood, Oregon.

(UPDATE- December 4: Match scores are now available here. Good news for The Geek, I didn't actually zero any stages, although I got only 8 out of 120 points on one stage, and 3 out of 115 points on another! The low scores were not the fault of the gun, but rather a combination of an unfamiliar gun, crappy 'Polarized Filter' on the PDP1 scope which wouldn't keep its setting, and a shooter who wasn't as good as the equipment. Also, there are some videos available ... I will be adding more as time permits ... on Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.)

UPDATE - December 8:
All videos have been edited and added to the Video Album.

No, I did not win the match. I didn't win a single stage. In fact, I finished the first stage (Bay 4) down six misses and one 'failure to engage' penalty.

This was after squad-member Chris showed us all how to do it with his AR-15 type carbine, with no misses and about half the time it took ME to finish the stage.

No alibies from me about using a ten-round magazine; Chris didn't spend a lot of time trying to find the targets, trying to find a comfortable shooting position (on that first stage "Bay 4: Sniper Qualified"), the available shooting positions included kneeling, and hunkered down in a semi-crouch. I managed to expand the position choices to "flat on my butt with my heels in the air" when I tried to stand up ... sort of, after kneeling for 45 seconds ... from the first shooting box.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I find it increasingly difficult to extract myself from the kneeling position. Or any other position besides standing, come to think of it. And this match was so challenging that I found myself in either physical or competitive difficulties in every single stage.

Except the last stage. By that time I was beginning to get the hang of shooting the MT-CCU and changed my mindset from "I think I can, I think I can" to "Wow! What a rush!".

Experience counts. Also, being allowed to shoot on the move at targets which aren't 'impossibly far away' add to the shooting enjoyment when you're not ... well, when you're not me.

BACKGROUND:
Let's go to the "Way-Back Machine" to November of 2004.

That month two years ago, the Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) under the direction of Mike McCarter hosted a "Mech Tech Match". This was a "pistol caliber carbine" match intended specifically to provide a venue for competitive use of the Mech Tech Carbine Conversion Unit.

I didn't happen to own a MechTech, but I was fortunate in that The Hobo Brasser not only owned one but it was chambered in .45 acp. His own 1911 frame (I believe it was purchased some years earlier through the mail-order company Montgomery-Ward) was not entirely compatible with the CCU. However, some experimentation before the match established the fact that the Kimber Custom frame I had been using for competition worked perfectly. We were able to not only use my range-brass .45 ammunition, but his expensive .460 Rowland ammunition with equal reliability. In fact, we could mix the two ammunition types in the same magazine without any failure to function.

About 15 competitors showed up on an icy November morning, and the result (enhanced by a fortuitous warm air front which didn't appear until after the match started) was a gleeful appreciation of the advantages of using short-barrelled, pistol-caliber long arms in an IPSC-type competitive venue.

The smaller bays of a pistol range were completely appropriate to the caliber. Relatively long shots (about 20 yards) were not a problem with the barrel multiple times longer than the typical pistol, and the course designs even provided the opportunity for competitors to attemp, and succeed in, shoot-on-the-move techniques.

Unfortunately, follow-up matches were never scheduled, so this firearm genre received no further encouragement for the next two years.

BACK TO THE FUTURE:
In the summer of 2006, The Hobo Brasser (perhaps because of his acquisition of a Beretta CX4 "Storm" 9mm semi-automatic Carbine) determined that his MechTech was 'superfluous to his immediate needs'. He offered the CCU for sale at a price significantly under current list for a new CCU, and I bought it from him.

This was a "firearm" (so-called, because it was not legally a firearms due to its lack of an action) for which I had no definable use.

I had no sights for it either; the unit came with a sight rail suitable for Weaver mounts, but no iron sight mechanism was included.

I had owned a Tasco PDP1 for several years ... again, it had never been used ... and had sold it to a friend for use on his MechTech. I checked with him and discovered that he had replaced it with another sight, and was willing to sell it to me for the same price he had paid for it. For fifty dollars, I had a fine dot-sight and upon installation it was ready to run. It took a couple of trips to the range before I had it properly mounted and sighted in, but there were no doubts in my mind that it would shoot to point of aim at 30 yards.

The December, 2006 Match:
When the "Pistol Caliber Carbine" match was announced a week prior to the match, I was ready to sign up for it immediately.

Having determined where the match was to be held (there was some confusion in my mind at first, a situation which I find increasingly common lately), I showed up at the host range at about 9am.

SAFETY:
I didn't really know much about "practical rifle matches", but I did know that (a) this was to be run under IPSC-type rules, and (b) firearms must be either bagged when off the firing line, or shown to be unloaded by implementation of a Chamber Flag.

The Chamber Flag (also known as a "Chamber Checker" is a brightly colored device inserted into the chamber of a rifle and extending beyond the ejection port, designed to exhibit to the casual observer that the rifle has no ammunition in the chamber. I didn't happen to own a Chamber Flag, but upon talking to Match Director Gary T. I determined that all rifles must either be fitted with a Chamber Flag or transported between stages and to the firing line in a rifle case or bag.

I didn't own either of these. Fortunately, checking with other shooters on the range, I found that Shaun H. had an extra Chamber Flag and was willing to loan it to me for the duration of the match. (Note to Shaun: I still have your Chamber Flag, I'll give it back to you at the next IPSC match.)

After signing up for the match, this was the final hurdle in my qualification for entry into the match.

It happens that the majority of the competitors at this match were IPSC-certified, so they were aware of the proper range commands and the standard safety rules for competition. ALL participants had competed in 'action' shooting sports. However, some competitors were S.A.S.S. competitors only, and others were 'practical rifle' or 'tactical rifle' certified only. Since the rules of competition, range commands and safety standards to which they were accustomed were often significantly different from IPSC, we decided (at least in the squad to which I was assigned) to limit Range Officer (RO) duties to those members who were IPSC-certified as Range Officers. This provided a standard criteria for safety.

In fact, although my RO experience was limited to IPSC and two "Practical Shotgun" matches, I was able to serve as RO for part of the time during the match. The rules for this match were significantly different only in the actual considerations for unloading and showing clear, and safe stowage of firearms:

"If you are finished; bolt forward, hammer down. Bolt back, insert chamber flag or bag a safe weapon." (Or words to that effect.)

The Walk-Through:
As the match director walked us through the stages in the match, a couple of circumstances attracted our immediate attention.

First, the stages didn't always fit into the bays for which they were originally intended. The reason is that the stages were much LONGER than the bays would accomodate, so the stage numbers didn't always exactly fit the sequence of the numbering system. That is, the targets were very far from the place where we were allowed to shoot at them!

Second, the stages were not as 'user friendly' as I had expected.

Specifically, there was a positive dearth of up-close-and-personal hoser stages. ALL of the stages featured many very small reactive targets at very long (20 to 40 yards) distances, and at least half of the cardboard IPSC-type targets were either moving targets, largely masked by hard-cover or no-shoot penalty targets, or required "Mozambique" engagements: Three hits on the target, at least one of which must be in the upper A/B zone of the target. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with the terminology, this "A/B Zone" is a four-inch square flap at the top of the cardboard target. The highest-scoring A-zone here is a 3" x 1.5" rectangle in the center of the flap.)

STAGES:
On one stage (I believe it was in Bay 8 - "Delta Team Standards"), there were six steel targets, six IPSC targets (at 20, 30 and 40 yards distance) mostly overlayed by no-shoots so that the only practical scorable surface was the A/B-zone, and two "Mozambique" targets at 40 yards. This was presented as a "Virginia Count" (VC) stage, meaning that extra shots (to make up misses) would be penalized!

Some "whiney old guys" (The Hobo Brasser and some Geekish fellow) raised an immediate outcry, complaining that this was an egregious misuse of stage designer authority, without quite mentioning that such a stage would be illegal under strict IPSC rules which prohibit the use of steel targets in Virginia Count stages.

The MD was only slightly apologetic, so when walking through the rest of the stages in the match there were several loud comments asking that some IPSC targets be designated "Mozambique", and other times requesting that the stage use VC scoring. The MD promised to look into it to determine whether it was too late to change the computerized scoring templates to accomodate these requests.

The remark was made that "I hope the match is as much fun as the Walk-Through was".

Immediately after the start of the match, the MD came by our squad to announce that the stage in Bay 8 had been changed to Comstock, because of the unseemly complaints of a bunch of "Whiney Old Guys". Then he changed his story and admitted that there had been a printing error on the official Stage Procedure, and it had been originally intended to be a Comstock scoring stage all along.

In truth, it was because of a bunch of "Whiney Old Men". Just another example of "You Know You're Over 50 when ... you give advice, and somebody actually seems to be listening."

Our squad of 8 men started on Bay 4, which featured steel plates sitting on the ground (and their grey color was virtually indistinguishable from the gravel on which they rested), two five-target arrays at 40 yards consisting of Bowling Pins, and a Dueling Tree whose four steel plates were difficult to see against the brown-dirt background of the berm.

Chris started out with an excellent time and got all of his hits, using an AR-16 variation in, I think, 9mm.

My run was different.

I managed the bowling pins okay, but I only even SAW one of the three plates (it was in shadow and I never engaged it.) I got the Dueling Tree plates okay, but when I tried to stand up from the uncomfortable kneeling-over-a-table position, I lost my balance and fell on my butt. After that, I merely moseyed over to the second shooting box, got the two steel plates and the dueling tree plates 'okay', but couldn't hit a bowling pin to save my life. I emptied a ten round magazine at the pins (35 yards distance) without ever seeing where my rounds were hitting, and declared myself done.

Result: 1.5 embarassing eons spent on the stage, six misses and one failure-to-engage penalty. After the first stage, I had approximately zero points.

Everyone in the squad, including the 'first match' guy, Vic, finished with a higher score. Well, I knew I was shooting for fun before I got out of bed, but I didn't DQ so I figured I was ahead of the game.

As the match progressed, I became increasingly comfortable with the MechTech CCU. The .45 round was death on plates, which was not always the case for competitors shooting 9mm. Mostly, the 9mm killed plates when hit squarely and toward the middle of the plate. Often, the 9mm rounds would not knock down ground-based 10" square plates when hit close to the ground. But with the .45, if I touched it ... it was down. My ammunition was loaded a bit heavier than required in IPSC competition (about a 180 power factor), but the blow-back design of the CCU bolt didn't absorb as much of the power as I had expected. The 200 grain LRN bullet maintained sufficient momentum to spin-down or just flat knock down even the heaviest plate, which is more a recommendation for the CCU than for my personal accuracy.

The only criticism of the MechTech design is that the blow-back bolt is so massive, it moves slow enough to demonstrably slow-down the ability of the competitor to shoot fast splits. I found myself waiting for the bold to move back into battery. This sounds like a major criticism, but in this match the targets were so far away, or so tiny, I could rarely get back on target fast enough that the delay could be said to slow me down.

However, on a close-target 'hoser' stage, thsi would constitute a competitive disadvantage compared to faster actions.

Subsequent stages featured:
Bay 9 - "Search and Destroy"
Seventeen steel targets, including a Texas Star at 30 yards. Most shooters did fine when they hit the eight-inch plates on the star, but many found that they had bitten off a bitter chew when they engaged the lower plates first. This cause the target array to rotate around its axis, imparting ore angular momentum than was convenient to hit at that distance. I was impressed in that, although some competitors didn't know the best way to engage the targets with making it spin like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, they still managed to bang-and-clang fast moving plates at even that great distance.

Bay 10 - "Fire and Maneuver"
In this stage, you had to shoot ALMOST all of the steel targets from the "Hell Hut", then engage ALMOST all of the IPSC targets from outside the "Hell Hut". Then you engaged three Pepper Poppers through a horizontal 'barrel'. Two of these three Poppers activated disappearing targets (DT); you had to engage the Disappearing Targets from OUTSIDE the barrel.

The kicker on this was that three members of our eight-man squad hit one of the activating poppers from through the barrel, but found himself with an empty magazine ... and unable to reload a fresh magazine and engage the moving IPSC target before it disappeared.

The funny/sad part of it was, the competitors went in with 40-round magazines (in once case, with a double-drum magazine holding something like 60 rounds), and were so confident in their 'everlasting ammo supply' that they either forgot to reload when they should have, or fully expected to shoot the entire 32-round stage without reloading.

Mozambique targets at distances from 7 to 40 yards. The most visually impressive display of shooting expertise on Mozambique targets was on the last stage we shot, in Bay 11 - "High Value Targets". We started out with two IPSC targets at 7 yards, starting position with the carbine resting on top of the barrel and the shooter's hands touching the rim of the barrel. Alex, at the buzzer, grabbed his Baretta Stormer in 9mm and shot two to the body, one to the head on both IPSC targets from the waist ... and got all of his hits (2-Alpha to the body, 1-Bravo, on both targets). I was the RO on that performance, and when he had completed the stage I cursed Alex for his stellar performance when I didn't have the camera rolling.

Actually, that was the most fun stage. There were plenty of opportunities to take steel targets on the move, and since it was the last stage our squad shot I was becoming fairly confident in my ability to shoot the gun. I would have loved to shoot the whole match over, which is probably a positive review of the match. In fact, the walk-through made the stages seem like difficult memory courses, but in the actual event it wasn't usually too difficult to know what you had to do to complete the course of fire successfully. Well, that was true if you weren't one of the first shooters; we all went to school on the mistakes of the first competitor on most stages.

After we completed that stage, I regaled some of the squad members with tales of IPSC competitors who had just recently move to Open division (with 25 round magazines) who confidently shot their first match in Open with full expectation of never running out of ammunition. They invariably, I recounted, ran out of ammunition somewhere during their first match; often on the first stage, necessitating a standing reload.

I found the story much more amusing than they did. Perhaps it's because they just experienced the phenomenon for the first time, while it has been a while since I committed the cardinal sin 'bad ammunition management'.

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:
I didn't impress anybody in my first Pistol-Caliber Carbine match, but it wasn't because of equipment limitations. Instead, by the end of the match a couple of squd members complimented my perfomance given my limited magazine capability. (Not that I would have done any better with hi-cap magazines; it's not the gun that ruins your game, it's your inability to hit the targets in a timely manner.) I appreciate their encouragement despite my poor personal showing, and I hope to find more opportunities in the future to use the Carbine Conversion Unit in competition.

Actually, most of the problems I encountered were due to my unfamiliarity with the firarm and the scope (the PDP1 has a paralax filter which rotated because of vibration of the wire-frame stock, so I couldn't clearly see the targets.)

I have posted still photographs of the match at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery
( http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/gallery/mt06 for those whose computers or email hosts are link-challenged). At the moment, there are only a couple of dozen still photographs on this album, and they don't really show much of the stages or the action.

However, I have 26 videos (850MB in the original un-edited versions) which I will add as a sub-album as soon as I ... well ... as I edit them. Which may take a couple of days.

In the meantime, I want to express my appreciation to the Dirty Half-dozen who were willing to squad with me and, although they demonstrated no compunctions about laughing at me, were fun people to go spend a sunny day at the range with. In no particular order, they are:

• Jeff
• Vic
• Chris
• Alex
• Dave
• Gary
• Mark (The Hobo Brasser)

I made a conscious effort to film videos of each of the squad members, so please check back at Jerry The Geek's Video Shooting Gallery to see them in all their radiant glory. Except for Alex, who saved his best stage for when I couldn't take pictures. Well, all of them did that.

The Rascals.

IN APPRECIATION:

Match Director Gary from TCGC hosted the IPSC match this month, and cheerfully suffered through the criticisms of "whiney old guys" during the walk-through.

Gary also shot the match, and arranged it so that (for an extra $2 each) there was a support crew available who tore down the stages after the match so that the competitors didn't have to do it. We all appreciated it, except for the one guy who missed "the comeraderie" of tearing down the stages. Not me. I would have paid more not to suffer through stage tear-down, and it was a real selling point in my decision to shoot the match.

Most important, though, was that Gary saw the niche for this kind of match, and earned $360 into the club coffers at little expense to the club, plus got the stages torn down for under $50 ... which the participants were happy to pay. There's a lesson here for other clubs, although I can't think what it could be.

NOTE that the original reference to the TASCO PDP1 dot-sight includes a link to an image which is actually the PDP2. This was a deliberate error, because I couldn't find a reference to the PDP1 (which is no longer in production). However, the PDP2 looks very much like the PDP1, which is why I chose this link. The difference betweeb the PDP1 and the PDP2 is that the PDP1 has a 'Polarizing Filter'. This was probably provided to allow the shooter to reduce the effects of glare. Unfortunately, the adjustment ring which sets the polarizing effect tends to move during the course of fire, due to the vibration in the system caused by firing several rounds. The result is that, by the end of the stage, the competitor can't see the target clearly ... it's like shooting in the dark. By the last stage, I had learned to set the polarizing filter to 'wide open' and hold it in place with masking tape. Yes, I realize this sounds very much like an alibi. It's the best I could do on short notice, and when I come up with a better alibi I'll replace this section with the improved version.


I can't provide a comparison between the two generationally different models, but I note that the PDP1 uses a pair of A640 batteries. (I note it so I have a place to reference when I need to buy new batteries, but I forget which battery the scope needs.)

UPDATE - December 4:
If you've been reading the comments, you caught Jeff's note about who was using what firearms.

Jeff and Chris were using AR-style 9mm carbines.
Dave and Alex seemed to be sharing a Beretta Storm CX4 in 9mm.
Gary and Vic seemed to be sharing a Beretta Storm CX4 in 9mm with a forearm pistol grip.
The Hobo Brasser was using his own Beretta Storm CX4 in 9mm, and loaning hi-cap magazines to other squad-members when they thought they needed it.
And Jerry the Geek was using a MechTech Carbine Conversion Unit in .45 acp, with the frame from The Beloved Kimber and 10-round magazines.
Life is good, when you're me!

IPSC: You know you're over 50 when ....

A few years ago, the Unofficial IPSC List indulged in "IPSC HAIKU". Jeff Maass posted the results to the internet, and the response from IPSC'ers was surprising. (Thanks, Jeff.)

It's about time we tried that again, so I've chosen to publish a list of the things "You know you're over 50 when ..."

I stole the concept from the SASS Forum (my bad) but it looked like fun. So I'll try it here.

Got better ideas? Send 'em in. I'll add to the list, and attribute your suggestion unless you specifically say I shouldn't. Add suggests to the COMMENTS section of this page, or send me an email at the address listed at the very bottom of this page. Not the bottom of the article, the bottom of the PAGE.

You Know You're Over 50 When ...

1. (Geek) -You go to The Dark Side because you can't see those fuzzy sights on your Limited Gun.
2. (Geek) - On the firing line, you can see your pistol grips, you can see your magazine basepads, but you can't see your belt. Or your toes.
   
3. (Geek) - When you give advice, somebody actually seems to be listening.
4. (Geek) - You decide to shoot for accuracy, not for speed.
5. (Geek) - A new shooter calls you 'sir', and he's displaying Male Pattern Baldness.
6. (Geek) - You go to a match, and they've left your usual parking space for you ... by the privy.
7. (Geek) - During the match walk-through, you raise a finger and say "Excuse me", and the MD says "Oh geez, not again!"
8. (Geek) - Your best stage at the match involves no movement after the draw.
9. (Geek) - You win "Top Old Coot" prize for the match, and you are proud of your accomplishment.
10. (Geek) - You tell someone how long you've been shooting IPSC, and they're impressed.
11. (Geek) - You know the significance of "The Toilet Paper" version of the rule book.
12. (Geek) - You own a golf-shirt that looks like this on the back.
13. (Hobo Brasser) - You are beyond the point in the curve where ability (falling) and age (rising) cross.
14. (Mr. Completely) - You have three pairs of glasses, one pair to wear driving to the match, one pair if most of the targets are close in, and the third pair for when most of the targets are farther out. Even so, most of your shots are guesses!
15. (Your contribution here)
    

UPDATE (December 3):
I'm seeing a trend here.
So far, all of the contributions are by guys who are over 60.

I also received an email from friend Bob H. ("Antipoda") from Texas, who contends that the condition of being "over 50" is NOTHING compared to being "over 60". He's hoping to wake up and discover that 7 years and 5 months have been deducted from his age, so he is qualified to whine about being "over 50".

He is probably correct. I can attest to the fact that I didn't start slowing down until after I turned 50. But I still could see iron sights until about the time I turned 60. (Actually, a few months before my birthday.)

Perhaps I should have titled the article: "You know you're over 60 when ... ". I had thought that there would be fewer people interesting in discussing the differences between 40 and 50 than 50 and 60, but perhaps I was wrong.

Could be. I've been wrong before.

I'll let this run as "over 50" for a while, in hopes that someone will be able to pinpoint the trauma of turning fifty. And I'll detail an incident which is specifically pertinent to "whiney old men" (all of them over 60) in my forthcoming review of the "Pistol Caliber Carbine Match), probably later tonight.

Administrative: Comments by Holoscan

Last year I replaced the Blogspot comments function with Haloscan. I did that mainly to provide myself with more options to edit and filter the comments. I had been getting a lot of junk mailfrom people who were using my comments section only to tout their own "blogs", most of which were commercial websites completely unrelated to the subject matter in the article they were commenting on.

It worked just fine. Now, when I get junk mail on my comments, I can easily delete it and also ban the author from further posts. Mostly.

More important, I discovered, when I make a comment and later discover an error in what I wrote, I can correct my comment in place instead of having to write another comment describing the error and offering the correct verbiage.

Blogspot is working to improve their comment function, but when they finally catch up with Haloscan I probably won't change back because, well, by then Haloscan will have made even more improvements.

A couple of days ago, I installed one of those improvements. It's a summary of the most recent comments that appears on the sidebar, between the links and the archive directory. I had to modify the code a little bit to get the comment summary to appear against the dark blue background (comment text is in a dark grey, which keeps it subtle so it's not distracting when you're reading articles .... but it's so far down the extended webpage that you probably won't see it unless you're going more than a couple articles down the page, or you're looking for it.)

I added it mainly for my own convenience. Sometimes people comment on old articles, and I often miss them until I deliberately page through articles LOOKING for new comments. This way, it's easy to find them in the summary and then I can read, edit and even repond to them with a minimum of fuss.

Why do I care? The comments I receive on this blog are the reward I get for writing. True, I usually write because I have something to say, because I feel compelled to write. But your responses reinforce the effort. If I haven't made myself clear, or I've said something that is factually incorrect, it helps me to maintain minimum standards of quality in the text.

Often comments prompt me to either expand on the subject (cf: the MechTech article) or to write a new article on a related subject.

Most important, it's a measure of my audience. I read EVERY comment, even if I don't reply. Sometimes the comments give me a much better idea of what people are interested in reading.

I do have a statistics service which tells me how many people are reading me (summarizes the last 1100 visitors) and which articles are repeatedly read because they are are listed in search results. For example, every week I have at least 40 people who just connect to watch Travis Tomasie's "Perfect Reload", which they only find because they have searched for it.

But if a new article is of interest to people who read the blog regularly, the comments are the only indicator I have that readers are interested enough to reply.

I encourage comments. I very rarely have to delete comments, because the people who write them are courteous (with the possible exception of The Hobo Brasser) and on-subject.

In fact, most of the links on the sidebar are there for my use. These are the places I like to read, or which I frequently use as reference sources. It's easier for me to call up my own blog and then access these other websites by clicking on the link.

If you have an idea for a link which might fit within the general IPSC/USPSA Competition venue, please let me know. If I find it as interesting as you do, I'll add it to the sidebar.

Thanks for reading. And for writing back.

A case for Football Helmet Conrol?

A Florida home-owner assaulted a pedestrian with a football helmet.

The passer-by, who was innocently plying a screwdriver against the screen-door of the home, is "... nursing a bruised head ... after being beaten with a football helmet.."

This is clearly prima facea evidence that the mere possession of a football helmet is bound to drive an otherwise normal person to violence.

It's high time we, the American People, call upon our legislators to demand that they enact common-sense helmet control laws restricting private ownership of these deadly weapons.

Anyone who has witnessed a football game is aware that football helmets serve no useful purpose in the life of the average citizen. This deadly device is useful only as a blunt instrument to bludgeon our fellow man.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has studied the problem, and determined that private ownership of football helmets almost invariably leads to aggressively violent behavior.

In a study of School Associated Violent Deaths, CDC offers the following observations:

FACTS: What has research shown to date about school-related violence?

To date, CDC research on school associated violent deaths found:

• The number of children and youth homicides that are school-related make up one percent of the total number of child and youth homicides in the United States.

• Most school associated violent deaths occurred during transition times such as the start or end of the school day, or during the lunch period.

• We have also seen that school-associated homicides are more likely to occur at the start of each semester.

• Nearly 50 percent of the homicide perpetrators (this includes adults, children and youth) gave some type of warning signal (e.g., a threat, a note) prior to the event.

• Among the students who committed a school-associated homicide, 20% were known to have been victims of bullying and 12% were known to have expressed suicidal thoughts or engage in suicidal behavior.
  

Given that High-School Football games are increasingly popular (especially in rural areas, where the residents are typically less well-educated than populations in urban centers such as Atlanta, Georgia), it's clear that this is the time to remove this deadly instrument of aggression from the hands of our neighbors, who may be driven mad from the mere possesion of a football helmet, and preferably institute helmet-control measures all across this great country.

As a recent caller on a radio talk show observed:

We don't need to hit people, and we don't need to carry around guns football helmets!

Write your congress-person today, and encourage him/her to sponsor federal legislation which will protect us from unfettered football helmet posession.

Do it for the children.

NEXT WEEK: Infant Deaths due to other deadly instruments in the home.

A clear case for governmental control of buckets, water, nipples and nursing, TV, chewing gum, bed sheets, plastic bags, toys, cribs and food.

4. Deaths due to Drowning and Other Asphyxiants
In this group, 11 cases of death due to drowning occurred (10 cases in buckets of water in the bathroom, 1 case in a bucket on the balcony); the eldest victims were aged four years.

Seven infants died during nursing by choking on the nipple (the eldest victim being 14 months of age), one was asphyxiated by a plastic bag on the head, one was smothered by the bed sheet, one by strangulation with crib cording and one by strangulation with a long TV cable while playing.

Fifteen of 17 children who died by foreign body (food) aspiration were aged 0-3 years. Fourteen had died due to aspiration of food, like beans, mandarins, or pieces of apple (found on the floor or while eating). In one case, a piece of a toy was aspirated. A 16-year-old girl died by aspiration after having fallen asleep with chewing gum in her mouth.

A case for piscean control?

A San Diego Man, a trainer for Shamu the Killer Whale, was attacked by his charge during a show at SeaWorld.

Also;

An Australian fisherman has survived being stabbed in the chest by a stingray, the marine creature that killed Aussie crocodile hunter Steve Irwin two months ago, police said.

Coming so soon after the death of Steven Irwin, this is an obvious argument against private possession of ...

uh ...

er ...

Never mind.

you tube down - temporary loss of videos

Tuesday Evening, 10:20.

You Tube was off-line for two hours, performing some scheduled maintenance. If you were looking for videos tonite, go check out Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.

This post WAS just a temporary announcement, but it just occurred to me that I have a lot of edited videos (especially the most recent ones) which I have uploaded to YouTube, but not to my own video gallery.

While waiting for YouTube to come back up, I started posting some of these videos to my own gallery and put them in a separate album...


Look under the "Columbia Cascade Section 2006 Matches" menu at the very bottom for Blogspot Videos for 2006 (click to go there directly).

The link will also be added to the sidebar.

Note that these videos will ALWAYS be higher resolution (read: easier to see details) than the YouTube version, but they will also ALWAYS be bigger files, slower to download.

My webhost (Thank You Brian B!) provides download speeds at about the same rate as Comcast can take the feed, so if you have hi-speed internet access the delay shouldn't be a burden.

In the future, I'll try to provide the Gallery site address for videos which are presented in YouTube format. That gives you a choice, if you see something that seems interesting.

Yes, it takes a bit longer to upload the video to the internet (at about one fifth the download rate), but every time I present an edited video through YouTube I've already got about an hour invested in editing it, plus the time needed to load it to YT, plus the time for writing and editing the blog post. Another ten minutes added to the process isn't really that much of a burden. This isn't the sort of recreational activity one assumes without a willingness to spend a lot of time slaving over a hot keyboard.

Mothers, don't let your children grow up to be bloggers.

X Games

This is pure IPSC.

THere's no content in this post except for the stage design, and the way each person chooses to shoot it.

Twelve IPSC targets, shoot 'em as you see 'em. Vision barrier restrictions apply.

Here is the stage design. There's nothing clever about the stage, except that I didn't have a 'big stick' magazine so I knew I had to reload somewhere on the stage. As it turned out,the solution to the shooting problem I discovered was probably one of the best ways to shoot it. But I got a miss on one target, so I wasn't rewarded.

(The match scores are available here. This is Stage 6.)

I'm going to put them all together in one big file. You can decide what is the best way.

Hint the first shooter has a good solution, but it may not be the best solution.

You decide.

Mechtech: Heartache Tonight!

The Columbia Cascade Section, under the leadership of Mac McCarter, has announced that there will be a "pistol-caliber Carbine match" next weekend at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club Tri-County Gun Club. (Saturday, December 2. Ice, snow, rain ... whatever the weather, we WILL be there!)

We did this a couple of years ago, but then it was announced under the REAL name:

MECHTECH MATCH!

A couple of months ago I bought The Hobo Brasser's MechTech (which I had used at the last MechTech match, with great glee), and I have .45 ACP ammunition left over from the summer Single-Stack Match ... because at that match I opted to take photographs, rather than compete.

I have experienced rapid degradation of my vision for the past three years, so shooting Single Stack with iron sights isn't as much fun as it use to be.

But I have a Dot-sight mounted on the MechTech, so there's no holding me back now.

If you're not familiar with it, the MechTech is an 'upper assembly' consisting of a stock and barrell, with a few frills attached.

To make it into a complete firearm, you need only remove the slide and barrel from a 1911 (or Glock) gun, slide the frame into the MechTech upper, lock it in place with the slide-lock from the pistol, and you're Good To Go.

I'm using The Beloved Kimber, in .45 acp caliber.

I've jazzed up the combination by adding a Tasco PP1 dot-sight, which makes the concept do-able for me.

The blow-back recoil system of the MechTech (including the bolt) is much heavier than the slide and recoils spring of The Beloved Kimber. The manufacturer recommends a heavy load, which is no problem for me because I load my .45acp ammunition heavy ever since I almost made Minor Power in the 1999 Area 1 match in Reno.

(When I competed in the 1999 Limited Nationals, a month after the Area 1 match, my ammunition chronographed at about 189PF; I haven't significantly lightened the load since then, except now I'm using 200gr SWC or 200gr LRN instead of my favorite 230gr LRN bullet.)


Even better, The Hobo Brasser sweetened the deal with a bucket of the robust .460 Rowland ammunition. I've already tested it. It feeds just fine in the magazines and into the chamber. I can even mix the .460 Rowland with .45 acp ammo in the magazine, and the gun doesn't hiccup.

And of course, the combination of the MechTech and The Beloved Kimber is much more attractive considering the ease of assembly.

The assembled gun is lightweight, easy to handle and (with the addition of the Dot-Sight) easy to use.

I would be happier if the reloading process was less cumbersome, but I'm not complaining.

I would be even MORE enthusiastic if the stock consisted of something more robust than a tuning fork; every time you shoot it, you have to put up with the "Twangggggggggg" in your ear until the spring-steel wire frame quits vibrating. However, the optional stock cover (a vinyl plastic jacket which wraps around the 'stock' and fastens with Velco) at least keeps it from tangling up in my beard.

The badnews is, when I first got the gun I tried to sight it in and I couldn't get it to zero. I ran the PP1 adjusting screws up so far that the came off the threads, and I was still shooting 3" low at 20 yards.

The good news is, when I went to Utah to visit my son Ben and his family, we went shooting and I adjusted the fit of the scope to the mount. Apparently, it wasn't seated into the notch in the rail before, so when I re-set the scope I was able to seat it properly and sighted it in at 30 yards with just a few shots

Ben tried it out, and consistently hit the 4" target at 30 yards. He liked it. It shoots like a .22.


UPDATE:
Due to input from Cowboy Blob, it occurs to me that this article could use some more 'straight from the source' information about the Mech Tech.

First, they (the good folks at Mech Tech Systems, Inc.) now have a different design for the stock. Two of them, in fact.


There's the telescoping stock (shown here with a Glock).
The manufacturer adds $69 to the $339.95 base price for this option. You can also buy the "retro-fit" kit for $119 to fit it on the MT you own now.

And then there's the "PolyStock Insert System" ($22.95), which I would assume provides a more rigid ... and relatively vibration-free ... cover than does the "Padded Nylon Stock Cover ($17.95)) that's on the Carbine Conversion Unit I now have.

Second, in the Technical Section of their website, MT emphasizes that your ammuntion must be 'hot enough' to reliably and consistently move the weight of the blow-back bolt. I mentioned this earlier, although I didn't emphasize it was a blow-back system. The website specifically states:

The first consideration is that the ammo must be 'hot' enough to reliably cycle the CCU with proper ejection. 'Target' loads and other pussy cat loads are too weak to do this and you can tell by the too-frequent occurrence of 'stovepipes' and other fail-to-eject phenomenon.

You can get a better idea of 'how hot' is hot enough by going to their Technical Page and refering to the table. For example, using a 200gr bullet in my .45, I need a load that chronographs to 950fps (although with a 230 grain bullet I can get by with 850fps. This works out to a power factor of about 190. These minimum velocities are measured in your 4-1/2" or 5" barrelled handgun, not through the Mech Tech.

Power Factor = bullet weight X velocity / 1000

And by the way, thanks also to The Hobo Brasser for including the comment that the match will be held in Portland, not in Albany as I had previously said. I have corrected my original error.

S&W659 Fieldstrip Video

Field-stripping the S&W Model 59 (the one shown here is the stainless 659) can be problematical, both in the disassembly and in the assembly.


The disassembly is difficult because the decocker interlock can cause the slide to hang up, even after the slide-lock is removed, if the hammer is not at full cock. I suspect this is a 'safety feature', because it insures that the slide has been pulled fully back before disassembly, insuring you a good look at the chamber to confirm that the gun is empty.

Or it may just be that S&W designers were in a grouchy mood, or ... well, certainly it couldn't be a design error.

Here's a look at the kind of difficulties you may experience if you fail to fully cock the hammer before attempting to remove the slide.

Figure 1: Disassembly The Wrong Way

Insuring that the hammer is fully cocked (locked back), however, allows you to:

1. remove the slide-stop (make sure the magazine is removed from the gun and no rounds are in the chamber, then move the slide back until the notch in the slide aligns with the slide-stop flange; then holding the slide in place, push the slide-stop pin from the right side of the frame, and use thumb and forefinger on the slide-stop on the left side of the frame to pull it out)
   
2. remove the slide from the frame
3. remove the guide rod from the slide assembly
4. remove the recoil spring from the guide rod (hint: compressing the spring while holding the muzzle-end of the guide rod against a solid surface, such as the top of the work bench, makes this much easier)
5. remove the barrel bushing
6. remove the barrel

Figure 2: Disassembly The Right Way



Note that the fieldstrip disassembly does not include removing the extractor, as this is a much more complicated operation than can be easily performed in the field.

For a more detailed cleaning, you may wish to remove the grip-screws and pull the grips.

A fully detailed cleaning would perhaps involve steps which are not covered here. Personally, since the 659 is stainless, I just put the frame and the slide in the dishwasher and run a full cycle ... with detergent and including the drying cycle. After the dishwasher performs its first-world magic, zap it with a degreaser/high-volitility spray such as brake-cleaner, lubricate THOROUGHLY with light oil, and reassemble, (The small parts you removed, especially including the barrel, would be cleaned by more conventional methods. If nothing else, this insures that nothing gets lost in the dishwasher.)

REASSEMBLY
The steps required to put the Model 59 back together are essentially the reverse sequence of disassembly:

1. insert the barrel into the slide
2. insert the barrel bushing, being sure to rotate it to full counter-clockwise lock
3. reassemble the guiderod/recoil spring (Make sure that the crimped end of the spring leads; you can check this by tugging on it. As is the case with the 1911 firing-pin spring, if the spring slides easily along the shaft of the guiderod, remove the recoil spring and lead with the OTHER end of the spring.)
4. Insert the guiderod assembly into the slide. The tricky part is here, as the base of the guide rod must be lodged firmly into a shallow cut on the barrel lug. This is often difficult to accomplish under the tension of the recoil spring.
5. Return the slide to the frame
6. Align the barrel link with the slide-stop hole in the frame and insert the slide stop.

Figure 3: Re-Assembly



Note that the OTHER difficult part of reassembly is that the two levers at the rear of the frame rails must be manually depressed before they will fit into the grooves in the slide. Hold the frame in your strong hand, move the slide back along the rails with the weak hand, and as the back of the slide is about to touch one of the two frame levers just push it down with your strong hand thumb. The levers (safety interlocks) are spring-loaded, and the springs are very weak.

Perhaps next week we should go through the whole process again, but this time using still photographs to illustrate each step in better detail. If you're interested in step-by-step photos (especially of assembly of the guiderod assembly into the slide assembly), I hope you'll let me know by writing to me at the email address cited at the very bottom of this page.

I should mention that the person performing the disassembly/reassembly is my son, Ben. Ben hadn't even held this pistol in his hand since 1997 (when he used it to beat me in the first stage of his first and only IPSC match). It took him several tries, and several minutes, to disassemble and reassemble the 659 when he first tried it again last month. After a few run-throughs, he was able to disassemble it in 30 seconds and reassemble it in about a minute. Eventually, he was able to reassemble it as quickly as he disassembled it.


Who, me? No, I couldn't do it that quickly. Fortunately, Ben is smarter than his father.

UPDATE: January 9, 2007
Thanks to reader MARK, I've finally been encouraged to post the still photos which show the steps on both disassembly and assembly of the Model 59 S&W. You can see them here, and I've also included detailed information about the process.

Here's what Mark had to say:

Jerry loved the page on the SW659 my neighbors husband died and she gave me his model 59 with no manuals or anything and as you may know this model hasn't been around since the 80's I searched the web and found your videos so I could get this thing apart to clean out the decades of dust and dirt. You mention you have photos of the dis/reassembly if you still have that it would be great to have for reference. I must admit as my first S&W it sure takes some agility and finese versus my glock but I love the look of this gun. I may never own one of the fancy 1911 race guns but this one still has the look. Thanks again and if you get a chance I would love to email you about competition shooting sometime too I'm thinking about getting into that to justify shooting next spring.

Good neighbors are hard to find.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

ATTENTION !

ALIENS ARE COMING TO ABDUCT ALL THE GOOD LOOKING AND SEXY PEOPLE ON EARTH.

YOU WILL BE SAFE; I'M JUST EMAILING TO SAY GOODBYE.

J

(H/T to AJ, who has been spaced since the 6o's)

Bad Plates

According to USPSA/IPSC rules, plates must be set up so that a scoring hit will 'knock down' the plate.


APPENDIX C3



A small block of wood (indicated by dark shading above), approximately 2cm x 2cm, and about the same width as the plate, should be affixed in front of the base of the plate, to help prevent the plate from turning sideways when shot.

Unfortunately, in club matches, this rule may sometimes be abrogated during set-up because of accident or because the people setting up the stage just don't understand the rules (or don't understand the reasons why some sort of 'baffle' is included in the plate stand.)

Here we see a situation where the host club has used bolt/nut combinations in the plate stand to establish a mechanism which is intended to stop a plate from turning sideways when shot.

The stage procedure is to start sitting in a (very comfortable) chair with unloaded pistol and all magazines on a low table in front of the shooter. On the start signal, pick up & load the pistol, then engage two IPSC targets, two 10" plates, and two US Popper on one side of the stage. Then make a mandatory reload, engage a mirror-arrangement of IPSC targets, plates and US poppers on the other side. The average (Median?) stage time was about 20 seconds.

The plate stands are set up backwards, so instead of serving the intended purpose, they prevent the plate from falling when hit with a low (but legal) 'hit'.

Here's what it looks like, from the target point-of-view. Note that the impediments (the nuts) would have worked well to insure that the plate is always set to present the same aspect to the shooter. Instead, rather than preventing the plate from "turning sideways when shot", it actually serves to INSURE that the plate turns sideways when shot, and prevents the plate from falling, when it is hit low (so that reaction is prevented by the bracing nut/bolt combination).

During the match, in a single squad we witnessed four incidences of the plate setup acting as a detriment to the competitor being awarded credit for the first-round hit.

In the first incident, Doug (not pictured) hit the second of four plates low, with a hit which would have obviously knocked down the plate. Doug did not contest the Range Equipment Failure, but instead continued to engage the plate until it fell from the plate stand. This increased his stage time by two or three seconds.

In the second incident (not pictured), SWMBO likewise struck a plate "low", and continued without protest to engage the other targets on the stage. However, after completing the stage she protested the Range Equipment Failure and was granted a reshoot.

In the third and fourth incidents, during SWMBO's reshoot she hit the 2nd plate low and turned it, but continued to engage the plate and knocked it down with the next shot. However, on the fourth plate she again hit it low which caused it to turn over thirty degrees so that the aspect presented was a target which was only 3 or 4 inches wide, rather than the original ten inches wide. She shot four more times until she was able to knock the plate down.

Her choice was to accept the stage time, which was at least 8 seconds longer (on a 20-second stage) than should have been necessary to clear the stage. The alternative was to accept ANOTHER reshoot due to Range Equipment Failure, and as this was the last stage of the day it was a Hobson's Choice.

Here's how it looked in the actual event.



The stage should have been corrected when the first squad shot it. Because it was a "Club Match", the stage wasn't tested and the error wasn't noticed until the last squad shot it. Consequently, the scores ... however erroneous ... were allowed to stand.

Note that your host (Jerry the Geek) DQ's due to an AD on that stage.

RO Question: If the stage results had been discounted ... if the stage had been 'thrown out' ... would the DQ have been allowed to stand?

Interesting question. There is no real reason to champion one opinion (allow the DQ and the stage to count) over the other opinion (disallow stage points to count as match points, disallow the DQ and allow the Geek match scores to count) because the match had no significant meaning.

However, if it was a Major Match such as the USPSA National Match, I wonder how the Arbitration Board would have ruled?

What do YOU think?

Geek KaBOOM!

It wasn't a true "KaBOOM!", at least not in the classic sense which I've described (or linked to descriptions) here and here before.

But the gun did go "Bang" when I didn't really expect it, and I did accept (insist on!) a Match Disqualification (DQ).

It happened on the last stage of the monthly IPSC match ... ironically, on Veterans' Day; I don't get no respect! ... and AFTER I had successfully completed the course of fire. The 16-round stage had the shooter sitting in a chair while firing, and the chair was situated under overhead cover. We had expected rain, so all of the firing positions for the entire match were set up inside the 3-sided buildings on Bays One through Seven which make it so nice to compete at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) during the rainy season (nine months out of the year).


In retrospect, the only draw-back I can perceive in reference to shooting under cover is that the light-source is attenuated. That is, it's not bright enough to provide an acceptable level of brightness to a round in the chamber. This wasn't obvious at the time, but read on; you'll eventually see that this is a factor which must always be considered in terms of range safety.


After I had completed the course of fire, Gene the RO gave me the normal "If you are finished, unload and show clear" command. I dropped the magazine and racked the slide. I didn't see the last loaded round fly out. I blinked.

The RO looked in the chamber, didn't see a round there, and appropriatedly gave the next command:

"IF clear, hammer down, holster".

This is right out of the rulebook (2004), and has been slightly changed from previous versions which were:

"Gun clear, hammer down, holster".

The reason for the change in verbiage?

It absolves the RO from all responsibility if the gun is NOT clear.

Keep this in mind, because it is an important point, if subtle. The RO is NOT responsible for the consequences if the chamber turns out not to be 'clear'. However, if the RO isn't satisfied that the gun is unloaded, he will not allow the shooter to prove that the gun is not clear by dropping the hammer (by pulling the trigger).

This is not intended as an excuse; it merely acknowledges that the next action by the shooter is entirely up to the shooter. If that person is not entirely confident that the gun is clear, he should NOT continue with the normal chain of events. That is to say, the shooter should NOT pull the trigger.

Moving on:
Normally, I hold the pistol approximately gang-banger level and when I rack the slide the round flies into the air. Inappropriately, I usually catch the live round so it doesn't hit the ground, but I was sitting down and the stage was sufficiently bizarre that I changed my normal routine a bit.

Puzzled, I racked the slide again. Again, no round is ejected.

I looked at the ground around my feet. Didn't see an ejected cartridge lying at my feet ... but there was a short-legged table in front of me (the stage started with unloaded gun and all magazines on the table) and I couldn't see EVERYTHING; I thought the ejected live round must be lying under the table.

Just to be sure, I squinted at the chamber while holding the slide back. Nope, couldn't see the glint of brass in the chamber.

Just to be sure, I racked the slide two, three, four times more. Nothing happening here folks, move along.

It was the last stage, and I felt a certain amount of urgency because we all wanted to get off the stage so the rest of the squad could complete the stage before the threatened big rains came. (We had about 10 minutes of gusty winds and light rain earlier in the day, and we felt lucky that we hadn't had to bag the targets, because that makes it terribly difficult to see your hits AND to paste over the hits for the next shooter.)

Ultimately, I sighed, pointed the gun carefully at the berm down-range, and pulled the trigger.

Ka-BOOM!

Hmmmmmm ... I guess there was a round in the chamber after all.

Absolute silence in the bay, followed by a flurry of comments.

Gene, the RO, said "I saw you rack the slide, several times, and I thought it was empty!"

I said "Me too, but it wasn't empty. My responsibility. I'm DQ'd."

And so it was, after another flurry of comments.

The Hobo Brasser, the Match Director who was in the same squad, said "I wasn't watching because I was talking to someone, but I HEARD you rack the slide several times. The only way that round couldn't have been extracted is if your extractor was broken. " (There's a rule that if a discharge was caused by a mechanical failure of your gun, it's not a DQ.)

I opined that under these circumstances it didn't matter. I was the shooter, it's my responsibility to make CERTAIN that no round is left in the gun before I complete the "Unload And Show Clear" sequence. I pulled the trigger, there was a round in the gun, I'm outta there.

I wasn't really upset, there was no safety issue (the gun WAS pointed downrange), and I wasn't sure that it was safely unloaded. I admittedly did not KNOW that the gun was safe, pulling the trigger was my decision and I pay the penalty.

I was unhappy later when it turned out that I came within small percentage points of having actually won a stage, and I'm disappointed that the things I "did well" wouldn't get the recognition I felt I observed. In fact, it was one of the better matches I have shot recently. Except for that "one thing" (shades of "Curly" in City Slickers!)

----

The Next Day

The Hobo Brasser sent me an email citing rule 10.4.9:

10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the dis­charge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor’s scores for that course of fire will be zero. The firearm must be immediately presented for inspection to the Range Master or his delegate, who will inspect the firearm and carry out any tests necessary to establish that an actual breakage of a part caused the discharge. A competitor may not later appeal a match disqualification for an unsafe discharge due to the actu­al breakage of a part if they fail to present the firearm for inspec­tion prior to leaving the course of fire.

When I read this, I immediately dismissed it because I had pulled the extractor and performed a cursory inspection. I looked at the AFTEC extractor, and it looked okay to me. Besides, it doesn't matter if the extractor was broken. I pulled the trigger, it's my responsibility to make SURE that the gun is safe, and I failed in my responsibility. The reason for the Ka-BOOM is that I pulled the trigger. Nothing else matters.

But when I was checking the gun, I took some digital pictures as well, from several angles, because I thought it was a good subject to write about.

When I got home this evening and downloaded the photos, I discovered that the naked eye is NOT the best way to best way to inspect an extractor. My bifocals were not up to the requirements; I needed a lot of visual enhancements to perceive the problem, which you can only get with a strong magnifying glass OR photo enlargement.

(NOTE about the following photographs: the thumbnails you see are much-diminished in resolution. When you click on the image, you see the full-size image. To give you an idea about how much enlargement is required to perceive the damage to the extractor, look at the background. The extractor is presented on a background of a commercial cleaning patch. The grey grid you see in the enlargement is the weave in the material!)


Picture 1, looking square-on at the extractor, looks fine. This is what I saw when I looked at the photo through my bifocals. You can't see squat by looking at the extractor through bifocals, or via the thumbnails. You really need to click on the FOLLOWING pictures to see the full-size image.



But Picture 2, looking at the left corner of the extractor, displays a chip out of the metal. (This probably shows up better in the full-size photo ... click each picture to show it full-size.)

Picture 3 shows the right corner of the extractor, which isn't typically involved in gripping the case. This is what the left corner SHOULD have looked like.

Picture 4 is another square-on view of the extractor, under slightly different lighting. You can see the shadow indicating that the extractor material doesn't reach all the way to the left corner.

The extractor typically fails at the left corner, which is the fail-point of the part because the extractor doesn't usualy engage the case at the center of the extractor face, which is what you would naturally expect.

Typically, the only portion of the 'hook' of the 1911 extractor which catches the rim of the case is the left (or 'lower') end of the engagement face. This may be a design flaw, because I've had a half-dozen extractor failures in the 23 years I've been competing in IPSC and ALL of the failures were caused by a chip out of the left corner of the hook.

So far we've established that the reason the round didn't extract was because of extractor failure.

But why didn't I, or the RO, notice that there was a round in the chamber?

After careful consideration, I went back to my ammunition.

They're color-coded.

SWMBO and I have a routine we follow in loading ammunition. I tumble all of the brass we pick up, and reload it.

Then SWMBO (usually) inspects the ammunition by first using a case-gauge to determine whether it will fit into the chamber. The STI Open Gun she is using is the same caliber as the STI Open Gun I am using ... .38 Super.

However, the chamber in the gun she is using is much less forgiving; ammunition which is too fat for that gun will often fit quite reliably in the gun I am using.

Also, she has an extractor which is tuned for one case profile only: .38 super.

The gun I am using is fitted with an Aftec extractor, which will reliably eject .38 super, .38 super comp, .38 TJ, .38 AP, and any other rim-size.

After the case-gauge, she boxes the ammunition in Dillon ammunition boxes and the subjects it to a visual inspection. She is looking for high primers (which are pulled and either placed in the "BAD AMMO" bin or run through the primer-seating stage of the XL650 reloading press; the advisability of this step is a subject for a later article, which will probably never be written by ME because I obviously don't see a problem in reseating a primer in a loaded cartridge.)


Consequently, we mark our ammunition in hopes that people who brass after the stage has
been completed will know who 'owns' the brass:

RED: Every round which drops cleanly into the case-gauge, and is not some variation of .38 super comp, is marked red and she can use it with confidence.

RED WITH BLACK STRIPE: Rounds which drop cleanly into the case-gauge, but are a variation of the .38 super-comp, are marked RED with a BLACK STRIP so we know I can use it in my gun, but it may not extract reliably in her gun.

NO MARKING: Rounds which are too fat to fit the gun she is using, but drop clean into the chamber of the gun I am using, are not marked. If we don't get it back when we brass after shooting, we're not too worried.

BLACK: During ONE loading this month, I decided to mark FAT/COMP brass separately ... for no good reason. I suspect it was because I wanted people who were brassing the stage to be able to identify OUR brass, and return it to us rather than confuse it with the .38 super brass that they had shot without marking it. Admittedly, it was an experiment.

BLUE: Every round which is loaded using new (Winchester) brass is marked BLUE on the base. It has also passed the case-gauge test, and she can use it with confidence. Because we want to be SURE to recover this never-fired brass, we mark it specially so we only use it in classifer stages or any other stage where we are reasonably confident that we can find all of the brass,.

I'm not certain about this, but I suspect that the BLACK-marked brass (really, should have been saved for practice) was mixed up with the lighter-color-coded brass. We had used most of it the previous match, at Dundee, and got some of it back. But I noticed a few rounds of this black-based brass before the ARPC match started, and failed to consider that it might cause a problem.

NOTE: I've been competing in IPSC for 23 years, and STILL didn't see any way this might cause a problem.

Conclusion:

IPSC/USPSA safety regulations represent the Belt AND Suspenders And Staple-to-the tummy approach to multiple safety factor insurance. If, after all of the safety rules have been compromised, any unhappy moments experienced are the fault of the shooter.

1. At UNLOAD AND SHOW CLEAR, you (as the shooter) need to make certain that your chamber is really really clear. If you have any doubts, don't worry about slowing up the match. Notify the RO that you're not certain that the chamber is clear, even if it requires calling for a Squib Rod to ensure that the chamber is not occupied by the EEEEEEVIL Loaded Round.
   
2. An expansion on Point One: If you are not comfortable pulling the trigger ... DON'T PULL THE TRIGGER!
   
3. It's a really BAD idea to mark your brass by applying a 'dark' color to the base of the case. Use only bright, 'happy colors' to mark your brass. Test your marked brass to be sure that they show up when the chamber is inspected under 'normal' light levels.

FINAL QUESTION:

Here's an RO test for you.

If you find yourself in a similar circumstance, and discover that the reason that the live round in the chamber didn't eject because the extractor was broken, does rule 10.4.9 apply? Or instead of the shooter sticking around for the awards ceremony, does he spend the afternoon salving his conscience at Dairy Queen?

Lest We Forget

Veteran's Day (once, Armistice Day)






Also, just a little bit late, the Marine Corps Birthday.

Pirates: Sharia Law Not A Deterent?

Piracy on the High Seas is a recurring theme here in Geekistan.

I think they're among the lowest of life forms on earth (well, after Terrorists, which they strongly resemble, and perhaps even after Lawyers, which come to think of it they also resemble although in perhaps a more ... physical ... manner.)

If you got back far enough into the Archives, you'll see that I've talked about them before.

The last time was January 23, 2006, when I talked about the US Navy seizing a pirate 'ship' off the coast of Somalia.

Before that, on January 6, 2006, I talked about the Somalian pirates being 'the worst in the world'.

The theme started out on May 4, 2005, when I described a pair of private yachts fighting off an attack by four (or more) pirate ships of the coast of Yemen. (The post is burried in a "BlogMeat" article, but you can still read the original article here.)

I am delighted to announce that I have another Pirates story for you, but this time it is something of a "on the third hand" story in that Somalian Militia, as directed by the Islamic Court which rules Somalia, have attacked pirates who hi-jacked a ship and were holding it (and the crew) for ransom. The Militia overcame and captured the pirates, and released the ship to its owners. None of the crew were injured.


The pirates, however, face Sharia Law which is typically much more ... punitive ... than Western law.

A spokesman for the "Seafarer's Assistance Program" in Kenya "... told Associated Press news agency that the pirates will be tried under Islamic law and if found guilty could have their hands cut off."

While that seems a bit extreme to my Western sensibilities, I have to admit that this would probably tend to minimize the likelihood that they will immediately resume their bad habits. Recidivism is difficult when you lack the means to grip an AK-47 when capturing the crew of a ship.

My understanding of Sharia law is that a thief is subject to the punishment of having their( right?) hand cut off. Since the right hand is reserved for eating, and the left hand for wipping the muslim bumm, this would seem to put the malefactor in something of a quandry. Either refuse to eat, due to the lack of a right hand, or eat with the left hand and not only violate Muslim law/practice/convention, but also risk sickness due to E.Coli contamination.

It's a particularly poignant sentence, applied only to Muslims, in that it requires the thief to suicide by starvation, by sickness, or (if he's lucky) only lose his God because he has perforce become 'unclean'.

I think tje sentence also makes a statement about the people who devised this particular punishment. As far as I know, the sentence for stealing a one-million pound ship, and its crew, is the same for stealing a fig from the marketplace.

At any rate, in this particular circumstance I don't really care. Piracy is bad business, kidnapping is worse (given the probability that the pirates would encourage a reluctant ship-owner by piece-mill killing the crew one by one in particularly odious and spectacular fashion. The fate of Daniel Pearl comes immediately to mind, which says something else which I choose not to expand upon in this forum.)

As I say, I don't care. It's difficult to propose a sentence for Pirates which I am unwilling to defend, because they are such an odious bunch.

On the 'gripping' hand, I consder this a bit extreme for fig-stealers.

Jerry the Geek Stage of Shame

This time I did it all.

(EXCUSES ON)

First I overloaded my reload magazine, so it wouldn't click into the magwell smoothly.

Then I allowed myself to be distracted by "a stage gone wrong", and didn't notice that I had missed a steel target ... so I didn't make up the sho

Finally, I leaned too far outside a Bianchi Barricade, had to fall out of it, and consequently tripped over my own big feet and almost fell.

How can a stage that started out so well, turn to shit so quickly?

Answer: years of experience.

See it all here ... just for fun.



Note: if this looks like a 'black screen of death', you may be accessing it before YouTube has finished processing it from a clean, honest hi-res WMV file to a shock-wave file. Try coming back to it tomorrow, or in a few days. YouTube was never expected to be so over-subscribed, and I'm doing my share to monopolize the bandwidth!

Or ...

you can watch the hi-rez, slightly-slower-to-download version on the Geek Video Gallery.

ATF vs Gun Dealers: who do you believe?

A Baltimore gun-dealer whom I will call "Sam" (I won't name the FFL holder, or the name or the store, because I'm not looking for links here) has lost his Federal Firearms License because of 'irregularities' discovered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE, more commonly known as ATF.

Sam took over the store in 1996 after the death of his father, who started the business in 1954.

This year, ATF revoked his FFL, charging that he had lost as many as 900 firearms and suggesting that this is due to his illegal traffic in firearms to people (criminals, juveniles) who are not legally permitted to buy them.

Sam (who is a NRA Board Member) contends that the number of 'missing' firarms is more on the order of 19 rather than 900, and the difference is due to the intransigence of the ATF in accepting his paperwork because of minor errors in filling out the necessary forms.

Here's the paper trail:

On July 23, 2006, the Washington Post published an article recounting the long battle between ATF and Sam. Much of the timeframe is taken from this article.

WaPo ( notoriously Liberal publication) describes the situation:

In 1997, he couldn't account for 45. In 2001, it was 133. In 2003, there were 422 firearms missing -- more than a quarter of his inventory -- including semiautomatic assault rifles, 12-gauge shotguns and Glock 9mm pistols, according to federal investigators.

The article continues to explain:

(Sam), a member of the National Rifle Association's board of directors, did not dispute the substance of more than 900 violations of federal gun laws filed against his store. But he called them unintentional recordkeeping errors that posed no threat to public safety and said it is impossible for anyone to comply with all firearms regulations.

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence provides its own interpretation on events:

Continuing decades of hostility to federal law enforcement, the NRA is now supporting the most sweeping rollback of gun laws in more than two decades. Pending federal legislation, H.R. 5092, would protect rogue dealers like NRA Board Member (Sam), whose Baltimore gun shop was cited for 900 violations of federal gun laws before ATF was able to revoke his shop's firearms license earlier this year. If H.R. 5092 is enacted into law, it would virtually eliminate ATF's ability to revoke the licenses of lawbreaking gun shops.

Politics rears its ugly head early in these matters, and the organization (formerly known as "Handgun Control, Inc." or HCI) has spent a lot of time following this investigation.

In support, they've got Quaker bloggers involved, and a group called "The Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice".

The very title of that last organization makes me cringe. Groups crying for "peace & justice" are typically those who find being Soccer Moms insufficiently fulfilling.

I could be wrong about them. I don't think so ... I've read their webpage ... but it's possible. Their motto is, and I quoted (including the elipses): ...working toward the creation of a world free from violence and injustice ...

If that's true, why aren't they trying to talk Palestinians into laying down their suicide vests? How about convincing folks that stoning is not the answer to marital infidelity, or that prosecuting the victims of gang rape for 'riding in a car with a man who is not her husband' is a prima facia example of injustice? Never mind, I'm obviously being too insensitive to moral equivalence and cultural nuances.

Oh, I almost forgot GunGuys. This blog title is entirely (and perhaps disingenuously) misleading. These guys are NOT 'pro-gun', which would be suggested by the name. I would think that "gunguys" are two or more men who enjoy shooting guns. In the actual event, their posts are 100% anti-gun ( or 100% pro-gun-control), and focus entirely upon tragic results from gun ownership. In my limited browsing of their website, I can find NO positive testimonials to the benefit of firearms possession. They seem incapable of considering the benefits of sporting uses of firearms, or a positive view of the Second Amendment, or the beneficial use of a firearms for personal defense. I don't find a direct linkage to HCI sponsorship, but there is certainly nothing there to suggest that they are not in lockstep with the HCI party line.

According to HCI, the NRA is The Devil (perhaps even more than GWB) and H.R. 5092 ... a bill which restricts the powers of ATF to revoke FFL without proof of 'intent' to violate existing gun control laws ... is the work of The Devil.

In regards to Sam's situation, John R. Lott published an article in National Review on July 26 of this year. (Lott republished an 'editorial opinion' article two days later in the Washington Times, a notorious Conservative publication, which was essentially a clone, with hair.)

The thrust of the Lott opinion is that :

It is tough operating a gun shop with harassment from the federal government and unjustified media attacks. But the harassment could get a little better with legislation by Reps. Howard Coble and Bobby Scott which may fix some of the problems.

Lott goes on to explain that FFL licensees have declined 80% since 1992, largely due to pressure (harrassment?) from ATF and a growing anti-gun feeling in the country. Also, because of increased fees required by ATF, which has driven out many of the 'kitchen-table' dealers. Also, the unreliable availability of the "Instant Check" system has made firearms retail a shakey way to run a business, especially when the mandatory check system is unavailable for extended periods of time, with the result that sales are lost.

In regards to the tribulations experienced by this specific dealer, here's Lott's extended take in response to articles such as that published by WaPo and commentary by HCI:

Taking all these mistakes since (Sam) took over the store in 1996 and comparing them to his current inventory, not the 25,000 guns that he has sold over the last decade, borders on journalistic malpractice. It surely doesn't provide readers with an accurate understanding of what is happening.
So, what is the right number of missing guns? (Sam) claims it is 19. Nineteen out of 25,000 isn't perfect, but .076 percent is a lot less scary than 25 percent -- a difference of 329 fold. More importantly, the government has apparently never connected any of those guns to crimes committed. As (Sam) notes, "we have had the paperwork and successfully traced every gun whenever [the government] asked."
Is this the type of gun dealer who should lose his license? The BATFE thinks he is a prime candidate. Nine hundred rules violations over 10 years certainly sounds impressive -- that is until you realize that violations include writing "Balt." instead of "Baltimore" or that his government-approved ledger was apparently missing a column. Of course, the information the column was supposed to record was redundant anyway.
Part of the problem may simply be a government agency that manipulates numbers to make the problem seem a lot worse than it is so that it can fight for more resources. But Messrs. Coble and Scott's legislation would reduce the discretion currently available to the BATFE and allow licensees who face revocation to be heard before a neutral administrative judge.
Over the years we have had Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley's undercover sting operations with video but no audio of the conversations in the gun shops. This was perfect so that CBS' "60 Minutes" could twice show the tapes with the city's version of what was said. Their legal cases against the sellers were flops, but the press had lost interest by then.
The Coble-Scott legislation may not reverse the massive decline in licensed firearm dealers, but it is a start.

Note: The Coble-Scott legislation referred to here is H.R. 5092.

What is H.R. 5092?

HCI claims it would "... protect rogue dealers ..." like Sam.

Other sources such as this October 27, 2006 article in The Free Republic, claim that the bill has been presented to protect firearms purchasers ... not dealers ... from ATF harrassment.

The article refers to ATF "Sting" operations in Richmond, Va., in which local police agencies were co-opted by ATF to profile firearms purchasers at gun shows, and use the data available on ATF forms to go to the declared home address of the purchasers and not only verify residence, but also to talk to family members about the purchase. This process not only delayed the verification of eligibility to purchase a firearm, but harrassed the family and the

These reports are confirmed (and expanded on) by CNS News Reports dated September 1, 2005, and February 17, 2006.

According to CNS, ATF agents flooded the floor of gun shows and profiled those who they considered potential 'straw purchasers';

John White, a former law enforcement officer who is now an FFL operating under the business name "The Gunsmith," said female customers who approached his sales area at the Richmond shows were immediately targeted by the "undercover" officers.

"If a woman showed up at my table, she was surrounded by law enforcement," White recalled. "If the lady walked off and suddenly stopped, they would have bumped into each other. Their surveillance methods were pitiful.

"Every woman that makes a purchase, every woman who comes to my table to buy a gun was automatically [treated as] a straw purchaser," White said. (A "straw purchaser" is a person who can otherwise legally purchase a firearm, but who does so with the intent to illegally provide it to an ineligible buyer such as a convicted felon or an illegal alien. "Straw purchases" are illegal.)

The same CNS News article identified the author of H.R. 5092 more completely as "Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security".

This connection implies that the genesis of the House Bill was directly related to congressionally perceived excesses by ATF agents (and leadership) of their mandated powers.

Yet HCI chooses to interpret it as an power-play by NRA to protect a member of its Board of Directors who has been caught red-handed by the ATF making illegal sales.

The opinion here in Geekistan is ... there are so many lies being told, it's impossible to separate the bullion from the dross.

It seems apparent that ATF has been caught taking liberties with their powers; the activities in Richmond (and Pittsburgh, we see a trend here) are apersuasive argument that ATF is exceeding its mandate.

On the other hand, we really don't KNOW whether Sam has 'lost' 900 guns over the past ten years, or whether the true count is 19. Still too many, but an order of magnitude LESS egregious.

Sam's argument that "it's almost impossible" to comply with ATF reporting requirements? I reject it out of hand. It requires careful attention to detail, takes more time, costs money (as the CNS article points out), but it's do-able. Annoying? Sure. But that's the cost of doing business. If Sam really has taken over a store which his father ran for over 40 years, one must assume that Sam had ample opportunity to 'learn the business'. I have to ask how he managed to balance his books, when he couldn't even keep track of the product. Did it come as a complete surprise when he was audited, and couldn't account for his merchandise? You can't help but wonder how he managed to stay in business, even if he only lost '19' firearms in ten years. Did he write them off as "pilferage" and fail to notify the authorities?

This has been a difficult article to write. I want to blame governmental regulations and Red Tape with which is impossible to comply, but I don't really believe that.

There's more to the story than we have been told, that much is clear.

I do not WANT to believe that a large firearms retailer is guilty of allowing straw purchases, or is selling firearms under the counter to individuals who are not legally qualified to buy. However, the water in Baltimore is so murky that it's impossible to determine the character of the actual purchases.

Lott has done a great job of muddying the waters even farther. He may have done a Good Thing for FFL holders, or he may have only obfuscated the issue. Impossible to tell.

And H.R. 5092 may be necessary to curb the excesses of ATF.

H.R. 5092 may instead be found to curb the ability of ATF to identify and stop the excesses of unscrupilous firearms retailers. (You KNOW there are some out there!)

I'm left with only an unsatisfying confession that I can't find the truth of the story. I can't tell if Sam is an Oppressed Citizen, or a Slimy Bad Guy. I'm not casting aspersions here, I'm just saying that under the existing conditions, it's impossible to be objectively certain about anything!

If I had a Boo-Foo wrap-up here, it would talk about how HCI's publicity is making a already difficult situation even more impossible to resolve.

I can't say that, in all honesty.

For all I know, HCI and ATF is right, and all of the gun-rights supporters are wasting their time and their credibility on a dishonest businessman.

This last sentence is the reason why I refuse to identify "Sam". I have not compelling reason to paint "Sam" as dishonest, so the best I can do (if I am determined to write about his situation) is to protect his name and, as much as possible, protect his good name.

Why?

Because I have no convincing evidence that he has deliberately broken the law in the conduct of his business. HCI and ATF, the driving forces behind this 'investigation', may reliably be identified as organizations which have private agendas. Their actions bring them into disrepute under certain circumstances, and these circumstances are sufficiently obtuse that they must stand by their reputation of past acts to lend credence to their actions in this case.

They fail the test of confidence.

Those are the reported FACTS, and the suggested accusations as well.

Do with them as you will. I admit, I have no grounds for accusation against "Sam", and I regret that he finds himself in such difficult circumstances.

Whether he brought his troubles on himself, or whether he is entirely a victim ... that is for you to decide.

I offer NO opinion. I only offer the reportage as it is availble to me and to you.

Star Crossed

The last weekend of October, 2006, we attended a "Points Match" at the Dundee range.

I'm a bit late in posting this, but I've been busy. Mostly, I've been procrastinating. But never mind that.

The match was the usual Barsoom wet dream, with weird stages which we've come to expect and love. Because it was October, however, there were concerns about rain. Consequently, the stages were designed to be stable and quick even if the weather turned rainy.

We lucked out. No rain on match day, so the Misery Quotient was WAY low. In fact, we had a great time with cool days, little or no wind, and you never had to worry about getting the target pasters to stick on damp cardboard. We didn't even have to bag the cardboard targets, to protect them from the rain.

Barsoom had been surfing the internet (again!) in search of 'interesting' stage designs, and this time he found a doozy.

You set up a Texas Star, and 12 yards or so uprange of it you set up a cafeteria table. There are four IPSC targets downrange of the table, and four 10" plates just a little closer than the Texas Star.

There's a starting box uprange of the table, extending under the table downrange, and far enough uprange for a big man to lay prone.

There are two X's marked on the table, shoulder-length apart and approximately centered on the table.

Start position: standing in the box with palms on the X's.
Procedure: At the start signal, draw and engage all targets. IPSC targets must be engaged 'over the table', steel targets must be engaged 'under the table'. Seventeen (17) rounds, 85 points.

Note that the bottom of the cafeteria table is about 3' (or less) above the ground, so a kneeling position makes it very difficult to engage the Texas Star plates if they are at the top of the frame. Generally speaking, you want to engage Star plates from top to bottom, to keep it from spinning. This means you need to assume a low shooting position, either sitting or prone.

Just to make it completely clear, I've posted a lot of photos and videos on Jerry The Geeks Video Shooting Gallery.


It was immediately obvious to us that the key factor SHOULD be the amount of time required to assume the low shooting position, since we were required to start standing. As I filmed various competitors shooting the stage, I noticed that there was a wide variety of techniques used to change positions ... ranging from Airborne Norm, who simply tucked his heels under his butt and dropped, to Big Dawg who assumed a full prone position. Well, there was a trade-off involved between a quick assumption of the secondary shooting position and having a stable shooting position.

(Norm later admitted that he lost a little time on the stage because when he hit the ground the pain was so intense that he couldn't even think about shooting for a moment. I didn't notice any significant hesitation; you might, when you download the 3mb video.)

SWMBO attempted to use the edge of the table to carefully lower herself to a sitting position. Unfortunately, she lost an acrylic fingernail in the process, but it certainly didn't slow her down.

I had major problems quite unrelated to the change of position. The battery on my C-more was run down a lot more than had been apparent during the 'load-and-make-ready' sight check, and it degraded dramatically as I shot. I eventually resorted to almost point shooting techniques, which worked more as a matter of luck than of skill. Since I took almost twice as long as most competitors to complete the stage, my scores weren't very good. I'm sure there's a lesson to be learned, and you may figure it out when you watch that video.

I've resisted the temptation to provide links to every individual video, because I want to encourage you to go to the video gallery and select the more interesting clips there.

However, I could NOT resist the temptation to create a video montage of the individual squad members moving to the low-port position. The diversity of techniques was too interesting. You can see a high-quality (6mb) copy of that video here, or you can just watch the low-quality / fast download version which I posted on You Tube.



.