Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Quote of the Day for this week

This quote has to do with voter fraud, specifically, the type I talked about here.

The quote:
My Grandparents never voted Democrat until after they were dead.

Seen in the signature line of a poster on

This post is for Right Minded

And other sadistic individuals that like to shoot pumpkins and other defenseless plants.

Link to carnage.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

More posturing on Guns in Restaurants

Nashville attorney David Randolph Smith just won't give up on "Guns in Restaurants."

Link to article.

Here are some facts: the actions of the legislature did not create a new law that could be challenged. They removed a restriction in the law. Now that part of the law (prohibiting HCP holders from carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol) no longer exists. 

Hard to challenge a law in court that does not exist. That would be like forcing the courts to create a law - which is clearly the role of the legislature, not the courts.

This is what the legislature should have done in 2009 - but the Republicans compromised with the Democrats. Republicans on all levels are always compromising with Democrats, with no compromise in return.

This is a lesson in politics, too.

How the other side plays:

I have long held to the notion that the Democrats try to win by all means. When caught, they lie, deny, and make counter accusations.

It has also been suggested they cheat. But when they get caught, the media never focuses on that like they do the Republicans.

How many of my readers knew about the recent (2 years ago) voter fraud in Memphis?
There's a whole web site dedicated to that issue.

Recently, Florida Gubernatorial Democratic candidate cheated in a debate. The violation of the rules is not punishable by law - because the rules were developed by and agreed upon by the candidates themselves!

So, the bad guys have no moral or ethical standards to adhere to, but will hold the Republicans to much higher standards at all times?
Not fair.
I say they should all live up to the highest of standards.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Coming back from lunch:

A dump truck was overturned into somebody's yard.

It had spilled asphalt in the yard.

A nearby backhoe was salvaging the asphalt into another dump truck.

Funny story from this past weekend

A while back, I posted about how my current employer made a foolish decision. In response, I am looking to make a change.

Until the change can take place, I have decided to take up part time employment. I will also likely sell a gun or two, and quite a few accessories.

This weekend, I applied for part-time work at Wal Mart. After completing the computerized questionnaire and submitting an electronic resume and application, I spoke with a manager. 

He advised me they have evening and weekend part-time work in three main areas: a) unloading trucks, b) cashier, and c) gun counter.

I drooled!

A brief explanation later, coupled with a sincere comment that I was willing to do whatever they had an opening for, and I was on my way.

Fingers crossed for the gun counter!

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Movie Review - Godfather Trilogy

By request, some thoughts on two of the best movies ever made, and an abortion that was named the third film in the series.


This film should be seen by all adults at least once.
Most will like it.

Plot Holes:
Minor Hollywood inconsistencies.

This is a very intricate movie, focusing on human interaction. One can learn a lot from it.
This is one of those movies that must be seen several times before one picks up all of it.
I like the new version, interwoven with the second film, in chronological order.
This film has many good quotes. Many of them have made mainstream America.
Lots of old-fashioned guns. I am a rifle-lover, and there are few rifles in the movie. But the pistols and shotguns are in force and are time-period accurate. 
This movie ranks very high on most top 100 lists, and for good reason.


This film should also be seen by all adults at least once.
Again, most will like it.
I think it is one of the very few sequels to actually surpass the original in quality.

Plot Holes:
Again, minor Hollywood inconsistencies.

Much like the first, this film has some very good quotes, and very useful information on life in general.
The film focuses on things beyond just mafia interactions.
Again, there is a version out that interweaves the stories from this film and the first and places scenes in chronological order. I like that version a lot. I like the originals a lot, too.
A lot of guns in this one. And a really good knife scene.
This movie ranks very high on most top 100 lists, and for good reason.


This movie exists.
I have yet to meet a person that enjoyed it.

Plot Holes:
A movie must have a plot for there to be holes.

In case you can't tell, I didn't care for this movie. Made 16 years after the sequel, I cannot honestly believe the same folks made this movie. Puzo should have been ashamed that his name was associated with it.
In an interesting spin, Sophia Coppola (daughter of Francis Ford Coppola - Director of all three films) had appeared in the original Godfather film, as a baby being christened. She returns in this movie as a more central character. This provided the only upside - as a teen, when I first saw the movie, she provided the "eye-candy."
There were guns in the film, but they were misrepresented in several instances.
There exists a "Godfather Saga" where all three movies are presented with scenes all in chronological order. I haven't seen that version. Probably won't - it's over 9 hours long.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Movie Review

This will be for the "Predator" Series:
Note: I'm not going to outline the plot, name characters, or that wort of thing. Go to the Internet Movie Database for that information.


See this if you like:
Anything Schwarzenegger.
Action films, slightly sci-fi films, films with lots of guns.

Plot holes:
None outside of the usual Hollywood plot holes such as how many bullets can be fired from a magazine, or that mud could completely erase your heat signature. I chalk these up to exaggeration.

Used to watch this a lot as a kid, with my brother, and our friend, Kevin.


See this if you like:
Action films, slightly sci-fi films, military films, films with lots of guns.
Danny Glover films before he came out as a raging libtard.

Plot holes:
The predator is less of a match for Danny Glover (a cop, in the movie), than the previous one had been for Arnold (a special ops soldier). Maybe because Glover had a bit more information on the Predators? No, I still don't think of Glover as more of an alpha-male than Schwarzenegger.

This movie introduced the (sometimes controversial) notion that Predators hunt Aliens (aka Xenomorphs), when we see the skull of the Xenomorph in the Predator's spaceship. We see many other skulls in the ship, too.
The Predator also has a few more weapons this time, with the spear and the blade-disc (somewhat of a shuriken). These weapons are not often associated with hunting these days, and the concept surrounding predators is that they are hunters. This started the progression towards the concept that they are warriors, too. Of course, if one is hunting game that can fight back, the tools might more closely resemble a warrior's weapons.


See this if you like:
Action films, sci-fi films, films with lots of guns.

Plot Holes:
The first two Predators get killed by a single Alien? Nope. Even with the fact that they don't have their guns, the Predators are (according to the story) warriors about 100 years old (young for Predators), and have been honing their skills and hunting increasingly more dangerous game for most of that time. Plus, one would have to believe the Predators have studied the Aliens, and would be prepared for them.
I could see the Predators making mistakes along the way and getting killed (maybe even like the first one did) by Aliens (hey, Aliens are pretty mean and very dangerous), but losing in one-on-one combat? Nope. Obvious plot hole to take the three predators down to one.
The Predator's spear and shuriken will slice through the Aliens, no problem; but their wrist blades get melted by the acidic blood? Nope.
Predator's gun gets destroyed way too easily. But then, the movie had a general anti-gun feel to it.
Predators do not check their dead for hidden chestbursters? Obvious plothole - they wanted a second AVP.

I think I am the only person in the US that claims to like this movie - the critics and fanboys of the two franchises didn't like it.
A lot of people (fanboys, particularly) didn't like the backstory, so they went and researched the facts on pyramids and all that. Fine, but for someone who doesn't know, or otherwise care, it served its purpose.


See this if you like:
Action films, sci-fi films, films with lots of guns.

Plot Holes:
The Predator intentionally goes out on a "clean-up" mission. Alone. Without notifying any others for possible backup. Against a known deadly species. Nope - not buying it.
The Predator, on his "clean-up" mission, decides to go one-on-one with the Predalien Queen at the end. Nope, I don't buy that, either.
The Predator in the opening fires his gun, which blows a hole in the ship. I don't think he would have taken the risk. 
The Predator's weapons are all impervious to the Alien blood, unlike AVP. This is a plot hole more for AVP, than for AVPR.
Once again, the guns were too easily destroyed - but the director might have been trying to stay true to the first AVP film. Or, he might have been slightly anti-gun. Or, it was probably just a plot device so that the Predator was not so completely invincible as he really was.
Rifle bullets bounce off Predators. Yes, they are 5.56mm, but they would do some damage. The .308 hurt a Predator in the original movie, and the .338 did in "Predators."

The director stated that after AVP, he wanted to get back to a more dominant Predator, as would be expected of a species that intentionally seeks out the galaxy's most dangerous game to hunt.
I loved the line: "The government doesn't lie to people!"


See this if you like:
Action films, sci-fi films, films with lots of guns.

Plot Holes:
Predators have fewer weapons. The Director stated he wanted to get back to the feel of a real sequel to the original Predator film, and disregard what the AVP and AVPR movies added to the lore, but he only did this to his own liking, as other parts of the lore from AVP and AVPR were made note of later in the movie.
A medical doctor understands botany. On an alien planet. Or did Predators plant seeds on multiple planets, too?
Again, it seems we have magazines with limitless ammo in this one. I would pay a lot for one of those.
The Director said the AVP movies went in directions that were "too outlandish" yet added a tracker Predator and a Falconer Predator?
The minigun does not do the damage it would have really caused.

I liked the idea of a planet as a game reserve. I liked that there were no Aliens on the planet - as they would have likely killed off all other large life forms, or have been killed off (if small in number) by the other dangerous beings.
I liked the fact that the characters got killed off in order of strength. Made sense.
I liked the .338 Lapua sniper rifle.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The blog world challenges Colonel Cooper

Specifically, his 4 safety rules.
Link to one.
Link to another.
And a link to yet another.

Col. Cooper's 4 rules:
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.

Conversely, the NRA has a simpler set:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

So, let's analyze:
If one performs Cooper 1, then they would do NRA 1, NRA2, Cooper 2, and Cooper 3.
Cooper 1 is, therefore, redundant. In fact, to a newer shooter, it is irrelevant, as it does not explain what to do... certainly not like Cooper 2 & 3 and NRA 1 & 2.

One of the links talks about how rules are better if they tell you what to do as opposed to what not to do. I agree with this, so The NRA rules have an advantage here, too.

However, the NRA rules do not address being aware of one's target, and what is behind / beyond it.

Baseball Update

Since I miss reading Right Minded's updates, I'll make one of my own.

After last night's action, The Giants lead the Phillies 3 games to 1. The Giants could win the series in front of the home crowd tonight. Games 6 and 7, should either be necessary, will be played in Philadelphia.

The Rangers lead the Yankees 3 games to 2. The Rangers can close the series tomorrow at home with a win over the Yankees. Game 7, if necessary, would also be held in Texas.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Science discovery

Scientists recently discovered a Galaxy that is estimated to be over 13 Billion Light Years away.

Guess that blows the lid off the "theory" that the universe is 4-5 billion years old (which is what"science" has been claiming since I was in Elementary school). Now, the wishers that there would be no God will have to fabricate a new number.

Link to a timeline of how that number has changed. 

How do I come to this conclusion?
The speed of light (often denoted as "c" in scientific arenas) is a constant - about 182,282 miles per second. It never changes in a vacuum. It slows down a bit in air, water, and other mediums. But in space, where there is no air or water to slow it down, the speed remains unchanged.

If you know a speed, and that speed is constant (182,282 miles per second), and if you know the distance (light-years - or the distance traveled by light in a year), then you can calculate the time.

(Speed of light)  / (Distance light has traveled) = Time it took to travel that distance.

At 13.7 Billion light years in distance, it would take the light 13.7 billion years to reach our eye. We could not see this Galaxy if the light from it had not reached us. Since we can see it, by definition, we know that light from this Galaxy has reached us.

If the Milky Way (our galaxy), and UDFy-38135539 (this Galaxy) came to be at the same time, and started moving away form each other at the same speed, this would represent the very youngest the Universe could be - 6.85 Billion years old.

How can the Universe now be 6.85 Billion years old when only 20 years ago, it was 4-5 Billion years old. In that time, I've only aged 20 years. The Universe couldn't have aged 2 Billion years or more!

The problem with Liberals

Liberals say they only want to increase taxes on the rich.

However, there are two problems with that course of thought:
1. The rich will pass the expense along to the consumer (you & me), effectively raising the taxes on the poor & middle class.
2. The liberals think you and I are rich!

Obama has been hesitant to extend the "Bush tax cuts." He has been reluctant to want to allow all of the tax cuts to be extended. He has not pushed Congress to extend them. Congress has, due to liberal leadership, passed the buck until "later."

Of course, Liberals touted these tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich!" When the fact of the matter is that when these tax cuts expire, the median American family will pay $1500 more per year in taxes.

I used the calculator provided at the link and the estimate was $2000 in additional taxes for me. I don't know about you, but I don't have an extra $125-$200 per month to just give away with no return.

Quality Triangle

I am a long-time believer in the "Quality Triangle" which is often also referred to as the "Project Triangle."

Simply put, there are three attributes one can ascribe to on a project:
1. Quality
2. Speed
3. Cost

You may pick and control any two - but the third will be compromised.


For example, if a person wants to build a quality AR15 in a short amount of time, price will be the compromise (it will be more costly than normal). If one wants a quality AR15 at a reduced price, time will be sacrificed.

Another common place to see this dynamic is in the hiring world. A company can hire a quality individual at a low price, but time will be sacrificed.

Alternately, many companies hold price as a constant, and waiver back and forth between quality and time. Once exasperated by the time, they compromise the quality. This often appears as the dynamic of companies hiring the last decent applicant they interview - and is one reason I always suggest that candidates try to schedule interviews later, rather than sooner.


I have observed this fact in most facets of life - hiring, work, food, you name it.

Some will argue that all three aspects can be controlled. I would point out that in finite circumstances, that is true. But ultimately, a compromise is made

I plan to refer back to this concept in the future. I welcome comments.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

On a wedding

This past weekend, I attended my sister's wedding.

The weather was perfect.
The location was great!
The ceremony was short - and that was really good!
My son (ring bearer) behaved - and that was good, too!
The food, music, and cake was all good, too.

Monday, October 18, 2010

How to zero a rifle

I have seen far too many people who go to the range to sight in a rifle, and leave a couple hours later no closer than when they started. So I am putting this together as a reference point.

What you need:
- a rifle
- sights (iron or scope)
- a rest of some sort to put the rifle on.
- instructions to sights, if needed.
- 20 rounds of ammo. Use the same type of ammo for all shots. Use the same type as you plan to hunt / shoot with.

Make sure:
The sights are firmly secured to the rifle, according to manufacturer's specifications.
If the sights move or wiggle, then you will not be able to sight in.

Adjusting sights:
Most scopes and iron sights are adjustable. You need to know how to adjust your specific sights, so read and use the instruction manual. I will give general tips - based on common adjustments. Naturally, your sighting system may have variances, so again, please consult its instruction manual.
Windage - Adjustments to the left and right
Elevation - Adjustments up and down
MOA - "Minute of angle" - it is a measurement. 1MOA is approximately 1 inch at 100 yards. 
POI = Point of impact
POA = Point of Aim
Sighting in is the act of making the sights' POA = POI at a given range. In other words, "where ya aim is where the bullet impacts."
Most sights adjust in either whole MOA increments, or common fractions thereof (1/2, 1/4, 1/8)

Most sighting systems have adjustments relative to the POI (point of impact). Meaning, suppose your sight says a turn of 1 click clockwise = 1 MOA adjustment to the right; then 1 click will shift the point of impact of the bullet 1 MOA to the right.

Step 0

Yes, I meant "Step 0" - as in, a preliminary step.

If you have a laser bore-sight, use it. Turn it on and install into the bore. Inside your home, put the laser about 15 yards away, or closer. Move your sights to be about 1" - 2" high at that range - meaning your crosshairs are above the laser by an inch or two.

If no laser boresight, do this: Put your rifle (unloaded, of course) on the rest in your house. Aim at the far wall. Look down the bore, and move the rifle to a rested position where a specific object on the far wall is appearing in the center of the bore. Move your sights until the crosshairs are 1" to 2" above the object.

Step 1

At the range, at 15 yards, put up a large target.
Aim dead-center.
Fire once.
Observe where the bullet impacts.

If you cannot see where the bullet impact is, take one of two actions:
1. Use a larger target.
2. Shoot at the corners - slow fire.
Check for impact at each corner of the target after each shot. When you see the impact, you know where the gun is shooting.

If your bullet is, say 2" low f the bullseye and 1" to the right, make the adjustments.
Remember, most sighting systems have indicators on which way the adjustment moves the POI. In this example, I would adjust the sights 1" to the left (usually counter-clockwise). I would either leave the elevation alone (if my sights were 2" above the bore), or adjust 1" up (if sights were about 1" above bore).

Make the POI = the POA - where ya aim is where it hits. 

Step 2

Repeat Step 1 at distances of 25 yards, and/or 50 yards.
Do the same at the desired range you want to establish a zero.

Instead of firing a single shot, some folks use a 3 or 5 shot group. That is fine, too.

Some conversions:
1 MOA:
1" at 100 yards
2" at 200 yards (etc.)
0.25" at 25 yards
0.50" at 50 yards

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Patriot Rifle of Choice

A couple of readers have written me in regards to my report on range activities last week. It would seem that my suggestions that the AR15 being a superior weapon to the M1 leave some folks puzzled. So I have researched some information on why I like the AR15, and its advantages as a platform.

Generally, the AR15 uses .223 / 5.56 mm rounds. However, it can be chambered in other rifle rounds (7.62x39 and 6.8 SPC to name a few), as well as most pistol cartridges (9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP). It also has .22LR models.

My 5-year-old has shot the rifle. My wife can shoot it, too. And I can shoot it comfortably. Both the dimensions and the weight of the platform are well suited to most people.

Are there more accurate rifles out there? Sure. Any in a semiautomatic configuration? Well, none that are really more accurate - certainly not without a dramatic increase in price.

The old stories from the early days in Vietnam are long behind us. The AR15 was designed for different ammo and operation than the way it was fielded in the Army in the early 1960's, and has been redesigned multiple times for optimal performance since then.

These days, the AR15 can run with any semiautomatic platform in terms of reliability. Parts are cheap and plentiful when replacement is needed. Ammo is as cheap as it comes in centerfire rifle.


The AR15 can be modified and used in multiple roles. It is almost never the single best rifle for any one role, but it can easily adapt to different purposes with minimal changes.

Sniper Use
Are there better sniper rifles out there? Sure.
Can an AR15 with a 20" or 24" barrel make sniper shots to 1000 meters. Yes. Even the M4 has confirmed kills out to 600 yards. That distance increases with the longer barrel platforms. The longer barrels assist in accuracy, and velocity.

The Squad Designated Marksman (SDM) is a squad-level individual that provides accurate fire in intermediate ranges - longer than the standard soldier or Marine, but not as long-range as a sniper. Generally, the SDM operates in the 300-800 meter range. The AR15, again with either a 20" or 24" barrel fills the role nicely.
Is the M14 more powerful at those ranges? Yes.
More accurate? Nope.
The AR15 is also significantly lighter, and has ammo and mag compatibility with the standard infantry troops.

Standard troop use
Tough one here - since the Marines use the M16 (an AR15 variant) and have since the 1960's. The Army uses the M4 (a shorter AR15 variant), and has since the 1980's. Before that, the Army used the M16 - and had since the 1960's.
So we have 50+ years of reliable troop usage. I'd say that is about as good as it comes in a standard issue rifle / carbine.

Special forces use
The Army Rangers and Navy SEALs are the outfits that the current standard issue M4 was designed for.
Enough said?

Police use
Most police departments issue the AR15 of some variant to their officers and / or SWAT teams.

Civilian use
Since 2008, no other single type of firearm has been sold in the US more than the AR15 and its variants. The 5.56 mm style rifles and carbines are excellent for home defense. They are also quite effective for hunting. The 6.8 SPC cartridge is really catching on in the civilian markets for hunting and home defense.

Currently, one would be more likely to find the carbine styles than the rifle styles, and that is fine for what most people need or want.

And the aftermarket accessory market is huge. One can purchase all sorts of add-ons. It is not uncommon to find more money invested in accessories than the rifle itself.

Many people shoot in competitions with their AR15's. Some shoot NRA High Power (long distance precision shooting), and some shoot 3-gun (short range, high speed shooting). The AR15 is well represented in most major shooting sports, with notable exceptions in shotgunning, and cowboy style shooting.

Some folks, often associated with marksmanship programs, competitions, or survival organizations, will point out that M1's and M14's would translate better for self defense "SHTF" situations, because they are more powerful. I will not argue that the .30-06 and the .308 are more powerful. However, I will point out these facts:
- The AR10 is functionally identical to the AR15, but shoots the .308 round.
- The 5.56 mm projectile has a higher confirmed kill rate in shots above the collar bone since Vietnam.
- For the same weight, a person could carry 2-3 times more 5.56mm ammo.
- In such a situation, a person is highly unlikely to be making shots past 400 yards, where the greater power is more useful.
- The larger calibers carry more potential for over-penetration. Collateral damage is not a good thing.
- Training is everything. I'd much rather endure SHTF with an AR15 I've fired thousands of times, than an M1 I've only fired a few times due to harsh recoil and high cost of ammo.
- 5.56 is more widely used - by civilians, police, and military. Therefore, having a commonality in weapons is to be preferred. in a 30-caliber situation, one would have to procure almost all of one's ammo. Not as much sharing.
- Some folks say that at long range, the 5.56 wounds like an ice pick. This is true. The fragmentation  tendencies of the 5.56 mm are all but gone past 200 yards. However, the ice pick style wound is virtually identical to that of a .30-caliber projectile, save for it being 0.08" smaller. And, ice picks in the hands of a killer are deadly weapons.

Good judge

A WI judge ruled that the state's ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional.

Link to story.

My favorite part:

"In his decision, Counsell states the law forces citizens to 'go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law or carry openly,' but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a 'realistic alternative'."

Every Marine a Rifleman

But it might just be that this does not mean what it once did.

Link to story.

The USMC's marksmanship program is flawed, according to a study (paid for by the USMC).

Some of my thoughts:

Among other issues, it seemed to me that the study found there might have been cheating on annual qualifications. This cheating might have been facilitated by the Marines doing "pit duty" (pulling and scoring targets). There was a recommendation to use electronic scoring instead. This would be an improvement, I think.

Course of fire
Also recommended for upgrade is the USMC's ranges. The study suggests a more contemporary and realistic environment would be more productive for Marines who are likely to be engaged in rifle combat. I agree.

The old course of fire (which is much like NRA High Power, Camp Perry, and similar) is all but irrelevant for current combat conditions. The only applicable part is the marksmanship portion - hitting what you aim at. It should, therefore, be retained, but only as a part of a more well-rounded combat shooting program.

The US Army uses a more combat-oriented course. But the marksmanship portion is lacking. Perhaps meshing the two might yield a well-rounded program?

I don't know if this is funny, or really bad:

A man was struck by a stray .22LR bullet recently. He was over a half-mile away from the shooter at the time. His injuries seem to be limited to a nosebleed.

I remember Pops showing me the box of ammo on the .22's we would shoot as a kid. The box always had a warning on it: "Range - 1 mile" and a word of caution.

As I got older, I questioned the range of 1 mile - it would have to be set up to exacting detail, much like the Mythbusters often do.

But we have a story here of a long range injury with a .22 - so I will reconsider and continue to handle my .22's properly.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

And again on the Gubernatorial Race in Tennessee

The Tennessean has endorsed Bill Haslam.

Link to article.

I cannot condone a vote for either the liberal, or the Democrat (Haslam and McWherter, respectively).

I can and gladly do suggest my readers vote for Brandon Dodds.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Comprehensive Range report

I went to the range twice this past weekend. Once by myself, once with my wife, son, and pops. The second trip, with the family, was fun. I shot a bit, but was there more to help the wife and son.

Family part:

Pops was shooting man-sized targets at 100 yards with a pistol. A short-barreled .380, no less. Talk about a "dangerous old man." This guy can shoot you dead at ranges that no pistol should be used, with an "inferior caliber," while not having vision in his right eye due to cataracts (and he is naturally right handed, which makes this feat all that much more difficult), and while standing on only one natural leg and one prosthetic.

Oh, and my 5-year-old son can shoot a man sized target at that range with his Crickett rifle and a red-dot sight. No support. Sitting.
He also shot squirrel and rat sized targets at 15 yards with the same rifle. Sometimes he misses. Other times he hits. Either way, it is amazing to me he can do it at that age.

Mrs. Usagi is quite the pistol shot. And her Marlin 60 hits where she points it.


Recently, I purchased an M1 Garand rifle. Depending on who you ask, this is either one of the premier rifles ever made, or is antiquated and still revered. After this last weekend, I am leaning toward the later.

Make no mistake, I really enjoy the M1, and it shoots well. Using it while attached to it via sling and in a prone position is actually a bit better than using an AR15 in the same circumstances. The M1 s a true battle rifle. It helped us win two wars, and is a rifle that should be in every collector's possession. It is also the last rifle issued to the US military that can be owned by a civilian, unless laws change drastically.

But, the AR15 is the Patriot Weapon of Choice. It is superior to the M1 in every way but one, and here'smy analysis on it:

The M1 is a beast. I don't mind it, but I'm 6'3" and 275. Most people are not. My son cannot even hold the rifle. My sister and my wife both grumble when picking it up due to the weight.
The AR 15 is lightweight. Of rifles I'd actually use in combat, it is second only to the M1 Carbine in terms of which rifle is lightest.

.223 / 5.56 mm vs. .30-06? Really? If you have to ask...

Rate of fire:
Due to the more modest (read: almost non-existent) recoil of the .223, one can get back on target more quickly with an AR15. I'd say I could take as much as 20-30 well aimed shots with an M1 in one minute. I could easily double that in an AR15.

Volume of fire:
Every 8 shots, the M1 needs reloading.
The AR15 holds 30 per mag. Mags are much easier to change than clips with the M1. Plus, nobody's ever heard of "AR15 thumb," but go and Google "M1 Thumb."

The "books" will say that the AR15 and the M1 are both about 2 MOA rifles with bulk ammo. Add the factors of weight, recoil, and bullet design, and it is no wonder that most AR15's do better.
NRA High Power competition has made a separate class for AR15 shooters - because the platform is more accurate than the M1 and M14. Some time back, when AR15 shooters switched to heavy bullets and fast twist rates, they shattered old records held by M1A shooters. Up to that point, highly modified M1A's had outshot M1's with consistency.
With bulk ammo and rack grade barrels, the AR15 has the edge.

Hands down, the AR15 takes the cake.

No comparison, the .30-06 round is superior to the .223. Here is the lone category the M1 wins.

Eugene Stoner designed his platform to be easier to handle than the standard military rifles at the time. Add to this the fact that AR15s hold more rounds, and it becomes painfully obvious which rifle is a clear cut winner.
A shooter must adapt himself to an M1. The AR15 can be adapted to the shooter. Enough said.

Position Shooting:
Standing is clearly the AR15's winning area. It is lighter and easier to control. Since most combat is done while standing (or some derivative of it), the AR15 would win based on this fact only.
Sitting - again, I'd have to go with the AR15. The center of balance on the rifle is closer to the shooter, and the weight is also a smaller factor, lending to the success.
Prone - the only advantage of the M1 is the flat underside, assisting in the classic prone position. However, the AR 15 can easily be propped on its 30-round magazine for support. This steadies the rifle tremendously - more so than the same shooter could steady the rifle with a proper hold position. It is also easily modified to take a bipod.

The initial purchase price favors the M1 - mine was $595, vs. the AR15 price tag of $895.
However, ammo favors the AR15 by a wide margin. Currently, surplus .30-06 ammo for the M1 is, at best, $0.50 per round - and is not plentiful. .223 ammo can be found everywhere, and surplus is about $0.30-$0.40 per round.
Average that, and the $0.15 per shot savings means that the shooter only needs to fire 2000 rounds over the lifetime of the rifle to save money.

I know, this is blasphemy in the M1 world. But if you would like to alter your M1 in any way, there are very few alterations that can be done. And they are all difficult to do, and fairly expensive.
An AR15 is more like a Lego set - many different parts that can be easily and inexpensively swapped out. In most cases, no gunsmithing is necessary.

Sports update

Since Right Minded no longer blogs, I thought I'd update any readers of his that happen this way.

The Phillies won their opening round series yesterday against the Reds. 

As of this post, the Braves trail their series 2 games to 1 with the Giants.

Taking it to a new level

A bank in Florida gets extreme over prohibiting law-abiding folks from entering.


You know, even the most advanced security system won't keep the bad guys out...

Even more ironic

I blogged last night about getting a door flyer from Mt. Juliet city councilman Will Sellars - despite my yard sign for his opponent, James Maness.

This morning, I got to meet James Maness in person, as he and his wife were holding campaign signs at the entrance of my subdivision. We spoke for a few moments.

That meeting, in and of itself, was a moment of irony, I though.

Even more so, since James informed me that a number of his signs in my subdivision went missing over the weekend. This coincides with the flyers from the competition.

Coincidence? You know how I feel about 'coincidence.'

How Ironic

This weekend, a flyer for Mt. Juliet city councilman, Will Sellars, was placed on my door.

I have a sign in my yard for his opponent, James Maness, for whom I will be voting this fall.

It was too bad I wasn't home at the time to talk to the representative!

Friday, October 8, 2010

Dora sues Nickelodeon

I just read this article about the actress who portrayed Dora the Explorer suing Nickelodeon.

The actress claims Nickelodeon only paid her about $5000 per episode, and no royalties. Dora is a multi-billion dollar brand now.

My son and daughter enjoy Dora, hence my interest in this situation.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Not really wacky - just an odd combination of events...

I was recruited by Enterprise Rent-A-Car out of college. I interviewed with them about a month after graduation, but did not hear back from them.

I thought I lacked relevant experience, so I discovered what they wanted - often good retail or sales or rental experience - and I got jobs with companies that provided that experience.

A year later, I interviewed with them, and was hired. I thought it was because of my experience. I was wrong. At this point, I did think it was strange that there was a different recruiter working there this time. But, they said people got promoted all the time, and the previous one had been promoted almost a year ago, so it was no big deal.

About a year later, I was taking Enterprise's Management Qualification Interview ("MQI"). The recruiter who had hired me had just been promoted. A new one was taking her place, and going through old boxes.

One of the boxes had resume's from two years prior. She holds one up and says, "I wonder if we should hire him?"

It was my resume.

Evidently, the first recruiter had spoken with me, then been promoted. The next recruiter never really worked the "old" files.

C'est la vie.

Over-reacting? I think so

Recently, I was sent a Facebook request by an acquaintance who wanted me to join a group "Say no to GMO's."

Needless to say, I declined.

I believe God intended man to try to make things easier to use, and more efficient, not because His design was imperfect, but because part of His design was our brain capacity.

"Genetic Engineering," as referred to by this group, means little more than selective breeding. Man has been doing this for thousands of years. The earliest documented example of selective breeding is in the Bible - Genesis Chapter 30, Verses 28 - 43 - Jacob selectively bred goats.

Another example is the banana. People have selectively bred the banana to be a food plant. Wild bananas are not tasty, and have many large, hard seeds. However, through selective breeding, man has developed a banana that is edible, tasty, and highly nutritious. The selectively bred banana is sterile (cannot reproduce), so it must be continually cultivated by people.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Well-deserved retirement

The last draftee who served in Vietnam just retired. It was well-earned.

Link to story.

He served just shy of 40 years.

Now this is cool

A financial blogger has advised homeowners to buy guns, and be prepared to use them.


It would seem that repo men, sent from banks to foreclosed homes, are often breaking into the wrong house, and causing all kinds of trouble.

One or two good self-defense shootings will all but guarantee that the banks and the repo men they hire will act in accordance to the law - nobody likes getting killed because they made a (HUGE) mistake on the job.

PS - in the article, the author references Florida's Castle Doctrine Law - which we have in TN, as well. Our version here in TN is almost word-for-word identical to the law quoted.

Another failure on the hiring front

A recent article on LinkedIn gave some insight as to the fascinating hiring practices in play out there.

From the article:
"During the “first cut”, when paring down a pile of 200 resumes into 30 to 40 resumes to closely examine, hiring managers are in the mode of “things that scare me” rather than “exactly who should I hire”.
Here is a short potential list of “things that scare me”:
• They don’t meet the basic job requirements (e.g. bachelor’s degree, 3-5 years of business-to-business sales experience).
• They live more than 35 miles from our company.
• Their last position wasn’t with a local company.
• They don’t have a 615 (Nashville) area code."

Making a decision out of emotion (fear, in this case) is never a good idea. I can understand that if something stands out, then that candidate should not make the cut. However, actively looking for things that "scare" is a way to be overly sensitive to just that, and see things that might normally be good selling points as potential negatives.

Point by point, I can detail how many hiring managers fail when they see one of these "scary" things and preclude a candidate based on that emotion:

"They don’t meet the basic job requirements"
Often, hiring managers are unsure of the basic job requirements.
Often, hiring managers are incapable of determining if a candidates experience is relevant - when it clearly is.
Often, hiring managers do not read the resume, and still use this excuse.
Often, hiring managers don't see exact experience they want, and use this excuse.

"They live more than 35 miles from our company."
How do you know? Perhaps the address listed is a PO Box, or a permanent address (IE a house belonging to family, etc.) 
What's to say that living over 35 miles is a problem for the candidate.
Why not ask the candidate if that is a problem. If they say no, continue on the interview process.
Why not look at the candidate's credentials, and see if they are qualified for the job first.

"Their last position wasn’t with a local company."
Perhaps they had a remote office?
Perhaps they were home-based?
Perhaps the company had a local office, and the  corporate HQ was out of town.
Perhaps they just moved here.

They don’t have a 615 (Nashville) area code.
Ever stop to think that maybe it's a cell phone - most people use them nowadays!
Maybe they live just outside of the 615 area code.
Perhaps they just moved here?

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Election Endorsements - November, 2010

Mount Juliet - District 2 City Commission:
James Maness

TN State Representative - District 47:
Heather Scott

TN State Senator - District 17:
Mae Beavers

US congress - TN District 5:
David Hall

TN Governor:
Brandon Dodds

Have questions? Want to know about a candidate in your area?
Email me or reply below and I'll give my $0.02 on your candidate.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Statistics - September 2010

I think I'll start doing this - just for the fun of it. Give my readers a monthly update on who reads this blog.

Top referring sites: - I made a post about Gubernatorial Candidates, and linked to it. - My post on tube-fed rifles for Appleseed is a consistently linked and referenced post.
right minded - fewer referrals from Right Minded as he ended his blogging career.
Google - people find stuff I talk about.

Pretty neat stuff.

Red Light Cameras - the truth

I've posted several times on the unfair taxes brought on by red light cameras.

Here's yet another study showing they are simply a revenue generator - not a safety device as advertised. 

Mt. Juliet Mayor Linda Elam is running for the spot left vacant by Susan Lynn for State Representative, and will not get my vote due to her initial stance on Red Light Cameras.
Instead: I will vote for Heather Scott. 

Additionally, Mt. Juliet City council member Will Sellars (who "represents" the district I live in) will not be getting my vote this fall due to his vote on red light cameras, and "guns in parks."
Instead: I will vote for James Maness.

Obamacare to the "Rescue?"

Principal Financial Group announced that the changes brought about by Obamacare will force them to leave the health insurance market. This will result in the layoff of 150 employees immediately. No word on the long term effect of them leaving the market.