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.



.

Browsers

Rivrdog recently ranted about the non-support of Firefox 2.0 by his IP ... Comcast, which is also my IP.

I agree. Comcast doesn't support firefox/mozilla type browsers worth a darn, and that includes my all-time favorite, Netscape. I've noticed that, for example, some emails I send via Netscape/Comcast just don't get delivered (Rob at Majornyne Guns can attest to that.)

Rivrdog wondered:

Have they ever even surveyed to find out which browsers their subscribers actually use? I've never been contacted, but I'm willing to bet that at least a third of them use Firefox, so cutting that third of their subscribers off at the knees, just as Verizon FiOS looms to undercut their price by a third and offer better services, is just piss poor management.

I have a subscription to a statistical service (statcounter) on my blog, and one of the options is to view the frequence of viewing by various browsers. If you click on the image on the left, ImageShack (a photo-hosting service which I find more convenient than hosting full-size images myself) will pop up a readible sized image.

Of the most recent 1,100 views of this blog, MSIE was by far the most commonly used, 725 times out of 1100.

Firefox, in various versions, accounted directly for 216 views.

Netscape was used 98 times.

Safari, Opera, Camino, Omniweb and (unknown) accounted for the straggling 61 "other" views.

Note: don't pay too much attention to the exact numbers; if they don't add up to 1,100, it's because it's a rough count and I added them up in my head. I'm sure you won't mind because we're only looking at trends here.

However, most of the non-MSIE browsers are variants of the original Mozilla design, which leads to the conclusion that about 325 are Firefox look-alikes.

Considering that MSIE is used approximately twice as often as Mozilla-type browsers, it's clear that IPs would focus their support on compatibility efforts for MSIE browsers.

On the other hand, since fully one third of the browsers in this (admittedly crude and unofficial) survey are basically Firefox-types, it seems clear that Rivrdog is essentially correct, if you include Netscape with Firefox.

Go Get 'em, Dog! You speak for all of us.

The Baretta Law

Remember "Baretta"?

That was the television series starring Robert Blake as NY Detective Tony Baretta.

Remember Robert Blake?

That was the Hollywood actor (and a darned good actor) who starred in the series.

His tagline:

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

I'm sure you remember that one. It probably dissuaded countless felons (it's good advice) from "doing the crime". Well, it may not have stopped Blake from shooting his egregious wife, but that has never been proven ... but never mind.

(Case 0): Let's use this as a basepoint in our evaluation:

Using your Baretta to Shoot your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.

The point of this exposition is that while some of us get away with murder, many of us don't get away with lesser crimes.

Let's look at three case examples, all of which were high-lighted in today's news (October 26, 2006):

(Case 1) from the Bay City Times (Michigan): Man Charged with Bestiality

A 44-year-old Saginaw man remains jailed today on charges of bestiality after he was seen engaged in sexual acts with a dead dog, Michigan State Police troopers said

Ugly story. At least.. The dude was getting it on with a dog that was three days dead. Is this a "Three Dog Night"? Decidedly not. It was his g-friend's dog, had been run over by a Honda Civic (I'm making that up, but it seems to fit) and there was a whole school-yard of children watching as he did the dirty deed.

In the words from Gremlins (or was it Gremlins II) :

"Civilized? Decidedly not.
Funny? Yes!"

Okay, we have a loser who can't get it on with his honey, or even his honey's dog until he/she (the dog, not the honey ... although who can tell?) is three days dead.

What do the authorities charge him with?

A "Crime Against Nature":
Sounds pretty lame, right?

Wrong.

Here's the Money Quote:

The official charge of crimes against nature carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. If the person is a repeat offender, the maximum is life in prison.

SO, for those of you who care to know, 'molesting' a dead Labradore Retriever is gonna cost you 1.5 decades in the slammer.

Boy, when you get out, I bet you never do 'that' again!

(Note: an earlier version of the report mentioned that the officers on the scene approached the "witnessing" children in the school-yard and reassured them that the 'victim' was 'not hurt'. I have NO idea how they came to that conclusion, or why they felt it was important to mention it to the drooly-mouthed kids whose only comments were "Holy Cow" and "Bitchin".
Yes, I am making this up. in part; this is what I would have said under the circumstances. So sue me.)

Another note: I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a "Crime Against Nature" in that state, but I'm pretty sure I'm glad I'm not a resident. And I don't even KNOW a Labrador Retriever!~ I swear I'm not making that up.

Let's summarize:

Shooting your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.
Porking a dead dog in the street: 1.5 Baretta points.


( Note: 1.0 Baretta points is equal to one decade in the slammer.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Besides, how satisfying is it to pork a dead Lab? Is it going to wake up and go "
HOWWWLLLLLL~ in an attempt to acknowledge your sexpertise?)

Get real, Dude. Get a life.

Get a room!

Or at least a kennel,

---

(Case 2) Here's a guy who drowned his 5-year-old daughter in the bathtub because, as nearly as anyone can figure, the voices in his head said it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Kam Shing Chan, also known as Daniel Chan, was convicted of murder after drowning his 5-year-old daughter in 1989.

He was found guilty of murder and ruled criminally insane after the drowning of his daughter Cindy in their SE Portland apartment’s bathtub on Dec. 6, 1989, according to a 1990 article in the Oregonian.

According to court records, Chan was found incompetent to stand trial due to his mental condition and institutionalized.

He was released conditionally from Oregon State Hospital in 1996.

Court documents stated Chan believed he was acting under God’s orders when he drowned his daughter. He interpreted two sirens he heard the previous night as God’s signal to kill her.

That's right folks. Kill your daughter, it's worth seven years

Then ... you walk.

Well, of course you were NUTSO at the time, so you get a free ride, essentially.

Do I have to tell you that this is A Bad Thing, or are you such a nutso freelance jerkoff that you need the input?

An update on the Summary:

Shooting your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.
Drownng your five-year-old daughter for no apparent reason: 0.7 Baretta points.
Porking a dead dog in the street: 1.5 Baretta points.

NB: There's more on the story of Kam Shing Cam. I don't want to confuse the issue now, but I'll tell "The Rest Of The Story" at the bottom of this article

.

----

(Case 3): A Brazilian man murders 42 children, and he is convicted of the first count of murder (whatver degree). Word is, he mutilated ast least some of his victims. The penalty?

Twenty years in jail. Total. (More to come: film at eleven!)

Oh, well "THAT'A Harsh!"

Francisco das Chagas Rodrigues de Brito, a 41-year-old bicycle mechanic, was given 19 years for homicide and one year and eight months for hiding the body of the 15-year-old victim, the court said in statement.

The box score is now:

Using your Baretta to Shoot your wife in your Chevrolet: zero Baretta points.
Drownng your five-year-old daughter for no apparent reason: 0.7 Baretta points.
Porking a dead lab in the street: 1.5 Baretta points.
Murdering and mutlating the bodies of young boy children, 2.0 Baretta pointsper child.

I'm not sure here, you will have to tell me.

Is "Porking a Ded Dog" more egregious than killing your wife, and getting away with t?

Is it worse than drowning your daughter?

Is is almost 3/4 as bad as killing and mutilating a child?

What's the objective standard here?


MORE ON KAM SHING CHAN:


Remember the guy who drowned his five-year old daughter?

Here's a quick review:
The authorities decided he was crazy, and put him in the hospital for mental evaluation, where he was treated. In 1995, (previously reported as "1996) after five years of 'treatment', they determined that he was safe to be released from the asylum. For the next 11 years he was "a model patient".

Last Wednesday, October 15, 2006, he entered a local church with a can of gasoline and a zippo with the full intention of burning everyone at the service alive.

He set several fires in the church, and couple of fires on the person of the congregation. Fortunately, nobody was killed (one lady was reported as having successfully used the "Drop and Roll" technique to put out the fire on her clothing) . Members of the congregation rushed Chan, immobilizing him, and managed to put out the fires he had set within the church.

The church members are to be congratulated, I suppose, for not rending him limb from limb. But they might have saved the Great State of Oregon a lot of awkward decisions if they had.

Now the State of Oregon finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why this man, who for the past 10 or 11 years has been described as "a model patient", suddenly snapped.

Two possible explanations occur:

1. He was never really 'cured', or his insanity was never really 'controlled' by his medication; only by him as he waited his chance:
2. He was never really insane; he is just evil

Not only can the judicial authorities establish a reasonable scale of 'evilness' to assign appropriate punishment according to his actions, but the medical authorities can't tell the difference between sanity/insanity/evilness.

When the "religious community" was exposed to the depth of his depravity, their decision was to pray for him.

I think he's past all of that. Sooner or later he will be released, again; and then it's only a matter of time until he strikes, again.

Lion 1, Pakistanis 0

As long as we're surfing YouTube, here's an interesting video titled "Lion Attacks Boy".

Looks to me as if it's a powerful argument for "Domesticated Lion Control".

It's appropriate here, because of the many proclamation by sheepish liberals in America who seem to feel that if there's a gun in the home, sooner or later it's going to shoot someone in the family. As if it had a mind of its own

Lions, on the other hand, obviously DO have their own minds and make their own decisions regardless of who owns them.

This lion would surely have been safer if it had been kept in a locked lion-safe, or if federal law would have mandated that it had been stored with a jaws-lock to protect the children in the home from an accidental shooting fang-attack.

But do we have Lion-control laws in America?

NOOooooooo!

We have 20,000+ gun control laws, and they work about as well as the non-existant Lion-control laws.

Moral of the story is, if you have a dangerous weapon/beast in your home, it behooves you to treat it with respect and caution.

On the other hand, if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family with bodily harm, don't bother pointing your Lion at them in hopes that they will be intimidated. Lion doesn't give a rat-fart whether you get robbed, as long as nobody pokes their paw with a bony knee.

Guns don't either, but you can control a gun.

Think about it.

Air-Soft Accuracy

I received an unsolicited email from a guy who identifies himself as "OKJOE". He's shooting an air-soft pistol in what appears to be some kind of private indoor range.

It's a nice setup, and he has taken full advantage of the non-lethal character of air-soft pistols to set up some fine down-range angles.

I liked his videos, and I was a bit envious of his one-hand shooting ... flying pop cans (point shooting) taking pie-plates on the move, and hitting 5 out of 5. Here's one where he's getting 10 shot out of 10 in the a-zone.

That last one kind of knocked me off-balance. It claims to be a 10-shot run, but I only see/hear five shot. And the picture at the end shows the pie plate with bullet holes in it, but the sound levels aren't consistent with live ammo. Frankly, all I can here are the pellets (?) hitting the tin plate; I don't see holes in the plate during the video. Maybe your eyes and ears are better than mine. Or maybe it's a typo. I don't know. I wasn't present at the filming (I never heard of the guy), so I can't attest to the accuracy of the captions.



He also had some "real-gun" videos where you could see him making a five-shot display ... not entirely impressive split times, and you can't see the score ... but he's doing it strong-hand-only, and starting from low-ready, using a really ugly gun.

Now, here there's no question: it sounds like a live-ammo stage to me.

And here's another real-gun stage, ostensibly using two hands, where his splits are noticably faster.

It looks like he's taking two shots at the paper target on the right, shooting at a steel plate (or is it the target hanger, and is he hitting the plate or the target-carrier protective bar?) and then shooting two shots at the target on the left.

Well, whatever it is, he has a good rythm ... his shots are paced so it sounds like the split times are about equal to the index times.

Maybe you can analyze what's going on better than I can. I present this for your enjoyment, and in hopes that you can figure out what's going on here.

Joe, I replied to your email and included the URL of this post. I would appreciate it if you can find the time to provide some descriptions of what's going on in the COMMENTS section.

Miscellaneous Current Thoughts

(I thought that "Miscellaneous Current Thoughts" sounded better than "October Blogmeat". You may not agree. So start your own blog.)

CNN is 'embedding' with "insurgents" in an effort to ... well, I'm not sure what their thinking is. CNN says they're trying to report the news. There's a revelation.

According to a foxnews article, CNN says:

... the decision to air the insurgents'video was"a difficult one, but for a news organization, the right one. Our responsibility is to report the news."

Isn't this the same television news-gathering organization which chose to suppress news of Iraqi atrocities under Sadaam Insane, because they wanted to protect their indiginous staff from reprisals?

Am I the only one who sees at least two levels of hypocracy here?


And in Hawkins, Tennessee, a bailiff (deputy sheriff) 'shot' an inmate with what appears to be an Airsoft pistol.

The powers-that-be canned his ass.

Why? Was anybody hurt? Was the guy who got 'shot' disconforted, discommoded, or disrespected?

Perhaps disconcerted, but that's about it.

Hawkins County Sheriff Roger Christian ...

... characterized the shooting as a horseplay incident involving what is basically a toy pistol, but he said it crossed the boundaries of professionalism that he has established for his staff.

The deputy should have lined up every inmate in the jail, plunked them all with his plastic pellet-shooter, and said "That's for nothing. Now, try something!"

Okay, maybe it would have hurt their feelings. I wonder what these people did to put themselves in jail in the first place.


And ....

according to Reuters, more victim remains have been found at the 9/11 (Twin Towers) atrocity site.

Good.

More 'closure' for the victim families, evidence that NYC Public Services people are serious about accounting for all of the victims.

Right?

Wrong.

Some Victim Families protested that NYC hasn't done enough. The insinuation is that this is part of a cover-up for an imperfect search for remains.

"It had very little to do with the families," said Monica Gabrielle, who has no identified remains of her husband, Richard. "This is another spin _ it's a diversion away from the issue, which is that management failed, not the workers. And management needs to be held accountable."

Uh huh.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have wanted to be part of the effort to find and identify body parts at the site. My understanding is that most of the search team members were volunteers. To me, this means that they didn't HAVE to risk their health and their life seaching through the debris for body parts; they did it because they realized it was a nasty job that someone had to do, so they did it.

The cited victim-survivor lady places the blame on 'management'.

I'll be damned if I can figure how ANYONE could have 'managed' this kind of search, and I think it reflects well on the NYC 'management' that they supported the searchers for years during the attempt to clean up the site.

NYC mayor Bloomberg admits that the search was driven by the need to identify victims:

"Were we under time pressure? Absolutely," Bloomberg said Tuesday. "I don't know any family member that didn't want to find out whatever they could about the loved one that they lost. And we did it as fast as we could, consistent with safety and completeness."

Do the families of the 9/11 victims adknowledge their gratitude that NYC is still trying to 'do the right thing' by announcing the discover of more victim 'body parts'?

No.

I understand the grief of the victim families, and certainly we all commisserate with them for the death of their loved ones. But I would think that a woman who still hasn't been given the small gift of receiving confirmation of the death of her husband would channel her anger in a more appropriate direction: toward the terrorists who caused this tragedy, not at the people who are doing their best to positively identify the victims, and doing so in the most transparent manner possible.

The Birthday Party Trip

I'm happy to report that I have returned from my trip to far-off Utah, where I was priviliged to join with my Son and Favorite-Daughter-In-Law (FDIL -- she who discounts my protestations of affection on the spurious grounds that she is my ONLY Daughter-In-Law) in celebrating the 2nd birthday of my grandson, Jakob.

(By the way, FDIL was careful to bake a separate cake for Jake, which he enjoyed very much. Whatever you THINK it looks like, he is really eating chocolate cake.)

I spent three days driving the 900+ miles from Corvallis, Oregon, to the Provo, Utah, area; it took me only two days to drive back, because I was really tired of sleeping in cheezy hotel beds. I missed SWMBO, I missed my waterbed, and I missed my predictable work schedule.

Okay, so I didn't miss being at the office. In fact, I took today off for 'recovery time'. (More on that later.)

The Damned Old Ford (TDOF) got me there and back with no problems. Hrummph! I'm still fully prepared to hate TDOF, but I can't deny that I wouldn't have attempted the trip with the Geek Geep which I traded in on TDOF on July 1. It probably didn't hurt to take TDOF to Oil-Can Harry's for servicing before I left. Sure, it cost me a hundred bucks to make sure that everything worked as well as could be expected, but it was worth it for the peace of mind.

Before I left I went to the local library and borrowed some Books On Tape (actually, CD). I distracted myself during the 7-hour driving days by listening to Appaloosa, by Robert B. Parker (of Spenser For Hire fame), "The Dilbert Principle" by Scott Adams (BORING!), Martin Cruz Smith's "Wolves Eat Dogs" (you may remember "Gorky Park"; this is a continuation of Arcady Renko's adventures), and Lillian Jackson Braun's memorable "The Cat Who Knew A Cardinal".

I had brought four other books-on-CD with me -- including Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code" -- just in case, and I expect to listen to them, too, before I return them.

You may have noticed that I haven't provided a lot of detail about my visit with my son, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren (which includes Connor and Lizzie.) That's because I don't feel obliged to talk about my family in this public forum. You may assume (properly) that I enjoyed the opportunity to see my son and FDIL, my Utah grandchildren, and the impressive state of Utah.

BTW, if you're driving to Utah from the NW via Interstate 84, you should be advised that the last 66 miles out of Idaho is entirely without gas stations. I filled up at the first Utah exit (Snowville) with less than 2 gallons left in the tank, because I had no idea that I should tank up at Burley, Idaho, before transversing The Great Wasteland.

Well, that pretty much describes all of Idaho ... at least, the SW part.

Blogus Interruptus

I'm going to be away for a bit, so don't be surprised if you see NO NEW TRAFFIC on this website for the next week (give or take a few days.)

I will be driving to Utah, from Oregon, so I can see my grandchildren. Not incidently, I look forward to renewing my acquaintance with my son, Ben and his lovely wife, Alysha. They're a young couple just starting out in life, suffering the same "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that many of us have already experienced, and struggling to make a good life for their family.

Perhaps I can't smooth out some of the speedbumps/potholes in their road through Life, but at least I can be a significant presence in the lives of their children.

They're good kids, Ben and Alysha. And the children are charmers!

I went to the Used Book Store here in Corvallis this evening, and bought ten or twenty "you can read this for yourself" books to read to the tiny ones.

It's impossible to start children too early, when it comes to loving books.

So excuse me if I don't blog as much as I want, or as much as I should.

I have more important things to do for the rest of this week, and much of next week.

Britain Announces "Latex Glove Control" Program (and other stories)

Former husband guilty of attempted murder with latex glove

Yes it's true (if you believe The Guardian.)

Some Idiot tried to kill his ex-wife by capitalizing on her alergy to latex gloves.

Given that Great Britain has totally banned the private ownership of firearms (including posession of toy guns in public), most knives, pepper spray, tasers, lasers and phasers ... they should be an entirely peaceful crime-free society.

Sadly, not. Who knew?

Well, of course the ex was an American, and she should have known that all Americans are red-necked cowboys. And gangsters. Still, one wouldn't normally have expected such -- originality from an American.

Worse, he was a potential mass-murder.

He had six more latex gloves in his pocket.

No 'film at 11', but expect the Brits to enact a law which prohibits purchase of more than 1 latex glove per month. (That's the way WE would handle it!)

------------------------------------------

Wait, it gets better.

Do you recycle?

If you don't, and you live in the 99 - 44/100% of the world with something better to do than promote a nanny state, you're only guilty of being socially incorrect. (San Francisco may be America's "Nanny State".)

In London, it can cost you big bucks ... up to £2,500. (I can't tell you what that is in real money, but figure it will cost you something like $4,000 for putting your London Times in the 'dustbin' instead of in the recycling bin.)


-------------------------------------

Here's the capper:

British police "want spy planes to fight anti-social behavior".

That's right. The police are so overwhelmed with the need to write out warnings, they can't patrol anymore. They're looking for high-tech gadgets to do their job for them.

Don't know what "anti-social behavior" means? Neither did I, until I went to the website (see link) and discovered the elements of anti-social behavior:

Anti-social behaviour has a wide legal definition – to paraphrase the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it is behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator. Among the forms it can take are:

• graffiti – which can on its own make even the tidiest urban spaces look squalid

• abusive and intimidating language, too often directed at minorities

• excessive noise, particularly late at night

• fouling the street with litter

• drunken behaviour in the streets, and the mess it creates

• dealing drugs, with all the problems to which it gives rise.

All these are issues which concern everyone in the community. They cannot be written off as generational issues – they impact on the quality of life of young and old alike. And they require a response which puts partnership into action.

Incidently, Answers.com provides some profound insight into the "Antisocial Behavior" phenomenon. Essentially, it considers it a "personality disorder" (Specifically, "Antisocial Personality Disorder") and states that "Antisocial Behavior" is characterized by, well, "Antisocial Behavior":

A personality disorder characterized by a history of continuous and chronic antisocial behavior that is not attributable to severe mental retardation, schizophrenia, or manic episodes.

And we wonder why the Brits are so fixated on "Antisocial Behavior"? They don't know how to define it, but they 'know it when they see it'.

Unfortunately, they see it all too often. See "Yobs".

Here's a thought:

To my Dear British Friends,
Why, when you see "Antisocial Behavior", do you not act upon it? Instead of just writing out an "Antisocial Behavior Order" (ASBO), why don't you just ... stop it?
Your most obedient servent,
Jerry the Geek

The answer, of course, is because a significant portion of the public is so politically correct that they object to even this minimalist approach to widespread social "issues".

Here's one Brit's take on it:

Criminalizing Anti-Social Behavior

Should the state have the power to throw you in jail because you're obnoxious, annoying, or generally a community nuisance? That seems to be what is occurring in Britain: police can obtain an "Anti-Social Behavior Order" that restricts a person's ability to do legal things. Violators can be thrown in jail.

Oh dear, that would be ... bad ... wouldn't it?

Here's my Geekish take on it.

You see that people have no respect for themselves, each other, or authority. They act out in public. But instead of penalizing them for doing "bad things", you write them a TICKET saying they shouldn't do that any more.

When they continue to act out, you write them another ticket ... read, 'ASBO'.

Here's a thought, courtesy of that 'lazy thinker', Albert Einstein:

Insanity may be defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

Until you get your heads around the fact that what you are doing does not yield the hoped-for results ....

... you people are so screwed. SCREWED!

I trust I have made myself sufficiently clear.

CCS Junior Team at USPSA Production Nationals

I have mentioned before in these pages how proud we in the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) are of the young men * in our Junior Team.

This team sent several members to the USPSA Open/Production National Match (starting October 11, 2006) at the new range in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and coach Mike "Mac" McCarter provides this description of their first National Match experience:

... we made it back safe and sound with two national champions; Chris
Cordoza and Andrew Wesley. In addition Chris only missed top Junior
Production by 20 +/- points.

Our trip included Jeff & Barb Cordoza, Nick Leonard, Mike Kennedy, 6 of the
Junior team and myself. Two of us got busted in the Portland Airport before
we ever got off the ground because we had glock magazines (unloaded) in our
carry on's. When they saw the xrays of the mags they called a red flag and
almost shut down the whole airport. After a little discussion and talking to
the Portland police we were allowed to check them thru with our other
baggage. The NW airlines website doesn't say anything about magazines which
TSA considers part of a handgun.

We landed at Tulsa in the rain but shot Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and
Saturday in dry weather. Nick Leonard did the photography for the team and
we got team pictures with most of the big hitters, sponsors and coffee
girls. They (USSA Range People) had 6 or 7 blonde bombshells driving around
serving coffee and snacks. Needless to say we told the junior team that this
was the norm for national events.

The whole team had brand new Techwear Junior team shirts and represented our
section very well. I had multiple people come up to me and say how impressed
they were with the team. I have to say everything went well until the
shaving cream fight 1/2 hour prior to leaving for the awards ceremony; but
oh well! they are juniors after all.

We should have pictures out soon, Nick did video discs and picture discs for
each of the team members. You should see the range. At less than half
finished it already has 20 bays completely covered with turf, including the
berms. I believe it will have 45 bays when done including long range rifle
bays. The rumor is that Multi-gun Nationals and one pistol national will be
there next year plus the other pistol national in Missoula.

The match results are available in the USPSA Members' Area (unfortunately, not available to the general public, but you can try here.)

Comments:

This letter from Mac only mentioned the Class Winners from the CCS Junior Team, but I think we should also acknowledge the fine performances of the rest of the team.

In Open, both Ryan Leonard and Nathan Swan finished above 50% of Open Match Winner Chris Tilley's score. In a field of 239 competitors, that's at least as well as I have ever done in a National Championship.

Especially considering that there were no less than eight (8) Match DQ's in that division. I know there are some stories to be told, but I won't tell them.

I've competed against both Ryan and Nathan, often ending up on the short end of the stick. Nathan is competing in C-Open, and Ryan (Nick's son) in B-Open. Ryan has been competing for about a year longer than Nathan, and I'm sure the gap will narrow within the next year. We're looking forward to watching these two battle it out for top junior Open in the future, especially since Zac Bright (son of Norm the Ungrateful), another B-Open Junior and a similarly tough competitor, was unable to attend the Nationals this year.

It's not easy being a B-Open shooter in CCS. Especially when you are being beaten by competitors who are young enough to be your grandchild.

An unmentioned Production Division Junior shooter, Stephan Kemper, also ended up at over 50% of Match Winner Rob Leatham's score. Again, if I did that well against The Great One, I would be strutting around with great pride. Stephan is one of those shooters who impress spectators because he is always giving 110% in every stage. It will take a couple of years for his accuracy to catch up with his blinding speed, but I have great expectations for young Stephan. My only solace is that, while he can shoot faster than I can with a Production Gun, my beard is longer than his. (And greyer, too!)

Junior Justin Bagget obviously ran into some trouble on this match, which isn't surprising in the Nationals. He might be comforted by the knowledge that he beat a Grand Master, and was within striking distance of a B-Production shooter. We're glad Justin was there to represent Team CCS,


* Note: CCS now has a young woman in the Junior Team. She began shooting just a month ago, and was unable to participate in the Team effort at the National match this year. I join my friends and neighbors in hopes that she continues to shoot with us and will be eligible to participate in the 2007 USPSA National Match.