'They' being the Brits. I've seen this in several places: "A five-week nationwide knives amnesty is being launched in the summer in an attempt to drive down numbers of stabbings.
They just don't pay attention. They've banned damn near everything, restricted damn near everything, and the crimes keep happening, and they just want to ban something else. On and on and bloody on.
It's not the knives, anymore than it's the guns; it's the CRIMINALS. Do something about them and your crime problem will start going down; keep blaming objects and it'll keep going on. And up.
They won't, of course, not until something so drastic happens that the British people rise up and force it, and I just don't know if that'll happen. They've been disarmed, told that 'excessive' self-defense is illegal, had their schools and public life turned into one big PC playground, and they haven't stopped that. At least partly, it's because of their form of government I think; from what I've read, it's pretty damn hard for them to do anything except on a local level, and most of their politicians are like a bunch of clones of Teddy Kennedy who know better that all the peasants what's good for them.
Few years ago I listed to a guy listing why almost all countries with actual elected governments have a Parliament-type system like Britain with a Prime Minister, and how if we were smart we'd change to that. Having seen how it works out in all those 'enlightened' places, if I ever see him again I may kick him in the ass.
Also, at Kim's place found this: Plans to compel people to produce their ID cards have been postponed indefinitely in an attempt to save Tony Blair from another embarrassing defeat at the hands of rebel MPs.
...Mr Clarke had intended to introduce the cards expected to cost around £93 each on a voluntary basis first, with a view to making them compulsory later. Under the original legislation that would have required only a simple vote by MPs.
Besides the bullshit of the idea in general, I'm wondering why it would cost that much; if I remember right, that's about $175 per card. I said it before and I'll say it again; full credit to Blair for understanding that we have to fight the islamofascists now, or it'll be ten times worse later, but in every other way he's the kind of big-government nanny-state politician I despise. But, I have to admit, he's not the only one with a problem in this kind of thing. Maggie Thatcher, who in other ways was a marvel, had the standard 'disarm the peasants' attitude toward arms.
Maybe it's something in the water...
Friday, February 10, 2006
Accumulated wisdom,
including: "As the test pilot climbs out of the experimental aircraft, having torn off the wings and tail in the crash landing, the crash truck arrives, the rescuer sees a bloodied pilot and asks "What happened?" The pilot's reply: "I don't know, I just got here myself!" - Attributed to Ray Crandell (Lockheed test pilot)
Go see the rest at Cowboy Blob
Go see the rest at Cowboy Blob
I'd forgotten The Rules of Gunfighting
USMC Rules For Gun Fighting
- Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring their friends who have guns.
- If you can, make friends with those on the crew served weapons. Bring them as well. Borrow money from them, it gives them an added incentive to protect you.
- Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
- Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
- If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
- Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
- If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
- In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
- If you are not shooting, you should be communicating (calling for arty or air support), reloading, and running.
- Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting is more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
- Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
- Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
- In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
- Have a plan.
- Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
- Have a back-up, back-up plan in case CentCom or SecDef finds the first two plans "unacceptable".
- Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The only visible target should be in your gun sights.
- Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your flank.
- Don't drop your guard.
- Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
- Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
- Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
- The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
- Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
- Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
- Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
- Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."
Army Rules for Gun Fighting
- See USMC Rules to gun Fighting.
- Add 60 to 90 days.
- Hope the Marines already destroyed all meaningful resistance.
Navy Rules for Gun Fighting
- Adopt an aggressive offshore posture.
- Send in the Marines.
- Drink Coffee and eat donuts.
Air Force Rules for Gun Fighting
- Kiss the wife goodbye.
- Drive to the base in your sports car.
- Fly to target area, drop bombs, (try not to hit the Canuks) fly back to your home base.
- BBQ some burgers and drink beer in your back yard, and talk shit about the Navy, Army and Marines.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
As I mentioned once before, ah, the torment of friends...
You know you've done well when you receive "you SICK BASTARD", followed by "If you lived a state or two closer, I'd come KICK YOUR ASS. Posting pictures of that pretty little cadet rifle, and LINKING to someone who SELLS THEM when I cannot AFFORD THEM."
All because of some pretty pictures.
hehehehehe
All because of some pretty pictures.
hehehehehe
Ask an expert
Researchers found the following symbols cut into the rock wall of a cave:
The section of rock bearing the marks was cut out and taken to a museum. Dating indicated the markings were about three thousand years old.
Meetings were held, conferences attended, meanings argued and disputed. Finally a press conference was held, and the head of the museum pointed to the first symbol and said "This is a woman. We can see they held women in high esteem. You can tell they were intelligent and had domesticated the wild donkey. And the shovel indicates they made and used tools.
"Even further proof of high intelligence is the fish; in times of famine on land, they found food in the sea. And they were, from the last symbol, Hebrews or related."
And there was much applause.
And then a little old Jewish man stood up and said "You idiots, Hebrew is read from right to left. It says 'Holy mackeral, dig the ass on that chick!' "
The section of rock bearing the marks was cut out and taken to a museum. Dating indicated the markings were about three thousand years old.
Meetings were held, conferences attended, meanings argued and disputed. Finally a press conference was held, and the head of the museum pointed to the first symbol and said "This is a woman. We can see they held women in high esteem. You can tell they were intelligent and had domesticated the wild donkey. And the shovel indicates they made and used tools.
"Even further proof of high intelligence is the fish; in times of famine on land, they found food in the sea. And they were, from the last symbol, Hebrews or related."
And there was much applause.
And then a little old Jewish man stood up and said "You idiots, Hebrew is read from right to left. It says 'Holy mackeral, dig the ass on that chick!' "
Martini 12/15
I mentioned this in the post on the Model 8, and here it is
Where the 8 was designed as a 'sporting' rifle, good for both small game and target shooting, the 12/15 was specifically designed as a match rifle. Where the 8 has a 25" barrel, the barrel on this one is 29", and a bit heavier profile, and a much longer, heavier forend. Sights are similar, Parker-Hale match, fully windage and elevation adjustable rear, tunnel front that holds different inserts.
The 8 has a basic stock; the 12/15 has a cheekpiece on the left side. Also, this one was never made as a takedown.
This rear sight came without an eyepiece or insert, but I was able to pick this one up. Originally it had a rubber eyecup that stuck on the rear, and maybe someday I'll find one. Nice thing about this one is the aperture adjustment. See that lever sticking down? There's an iris in the drum, like a camera; slide the lever up or down and the iris opens or closes, so you have adjustment from all-the-way open to a barely-there pinhole. This is also one of the deluxe eyepieces; see that shiny ring at the front? That's a disc holding five different-colored filters, so you can choose from no filter or whatever color gives you the best contrast under current conditions.
The action is identical to the model 8 except for no cocking indicator; as a match rifle it was figured you'd not load until about to fire, so that gets rid of two pieces from the action.
How's it shoot? Better than I would have imagined. It's a bit heavy, but that weight tends to damp movement somewhat so it works nicely for offhand. Though I do try to rest it while reloading. Like the 8, the two best rounds I've found for it are the Federal Lightning and Eley Sport. No, I haven't spent ten or twelve bucks a box for the serious match stuff. Someday if I'm feeling rich I may do so, but for now? From a rest, at 100 yards, it will consistently shoot 1.5" groups, or a little better, with either the Federal or Eley. When I get results like that from 'cheap' ammo(cheap in price only, the quality seems to be very good), I'm not in a big rush to spend ten or fifteen times as much. That being said, remember that .22's can be very picky about what they like best, I just lucked out in getting two that prefer inexpensive stuff.
One of the things you may notice if you find one of the various Martinis is holes in the forend. Sometimes lots of damn holes. You'll notice that both mine have two sling studs in the forend; the 12/15 also has an extra hole a little to the left of center at the rear. As someone put it, some of these look like every damn Brit with a drill liked to move the things around. I saw one picture of a forend the new owner was repairing, and it looked like it'd been run over by a spiked lawn wheel. It had 8 holes spaced along and side to side besides the two he actually used. You'll also find either rails for a handstop or the slot where the rail used to be, sometimes. Happily this doesn't affect shootability of the rifle, so it's just a matter of filling holes and refinishing.
Like I said about the 8, if you get a chance to try one of these out, do. Then you'll probably go searching for one, and happily, they are out there. You can sometimes find one on Guns America or GunBroker, but there are a few dealers that almost always have some. This guy and this guy are two of them- I got mine from the second- and there are others.
Where the 8 was designed as a 'sporting' rifle, good for both small game and target shooting, the 12/15 was specifically designed as a match rifle. Where the 8 has a 25" barrel, the barrel on this one is 29", and a bit heavier profile, and a much longer, heavier forend. Sights are similar, Parker-Hale match, fully windage and elevation adjustable rear, tunnel front that holds different inserts.
The 8 has a basic stock; the 12/15 has a cheekpiece on the left side. Also, this one was never made as a takedown.
This rear sight came without an eyepiece or insert, but I was able to pick this one up. Originally it had a rubber eyecup that stuck on the rear, and maybe someday I'll find one. Nice thing about this one is the aperture adjustment. See that lever sticking down? There's an iris in the drum, like a camera; slide the lever up or down and the iris opens or closes, so you have adjustment from all-the-way open to a barely-there pinhole. This is also one of the deluxe eyepieces; see that shiny ring at the front? That's a disc holding five different-colored filters, so you can choose from no filter or whatever color gives you the best contrast under current conditions.
The action is identical to the model 8 except for no cocking indicator; as a match rifle it was figured you'd not load until about to fire, so that gets rid of two pieces from the action.
How's it shoot? Better than I would have imagined. It's a bit heavy, but that weight tends to damp movement somewhat so it works nicely for offhand. Though I do try to rest it while reloading. Like the 8, the two best rounds I've found for it are the Federal Lightning and Eley Sport. No, I haven't spent ten or twelve bucks a box for the serious match stuff. Someday if I'm feeling rich I may do so, but for now? From a rest, at 100 yards, it will consistently shoot 1.5" groups, or a little better, with either the Federal or Eley. When I get results like that from 'cheap' ammo(cheap in price only, the quality seems to be very good), I'm not in a big rush to spend ten or fifteen times as much. That being said, remember that .22's can be very picky about what they like best, I just lucked out in getting two that prefer inexpensive stuff.
One of the things you may notice if you find one of the various Martinis is holes in the forend. Sometimes lots of damn holes. You'll notice that both mine have two sling studs in the forend; the 12/15 also has an extra hole a little to the left of center at the rear. As someone put it, some of these look like every damn Brit with a drill liked to move the things around. I saw one picture of a forend the new owner was repairing, and it looked like it'd been run over by a spiked lawn wheel. It had 8 holes spaced along and side to side besides the two he actually used. You'll also find either rails for a handstop or the slot where the rail used to be, sometimes. Happily this doesn't affect shootability of the rifle, so it's just a matter of filling holes and refinishing.
Like I said about the 8, if you get a chance to try one of these out, do. Then you'll probably go searching for one, and happily, they are out there. You can sometimes find one on Guns America or GunBroker, but there are a few dealers that almost always have some. This guy and this guy are two of them- I got mine from the second- and there are others.
Further reason to state "Google Sucks"
Chris over at Anarchangel got this from Google:
"Hello Christopher,
Nothing about why or how, just 'not in compliance'. So he sent them this:
"Sirs,
Can you tell me how my account is not in compliance with your policies?
I sent that one question to you initially, and recieved no response. Now I am expanding my question.
I have reviewed your ad-sense policies, and I cannot find any point at which I am in violation, unless a subjective reviewer of the site found my content disagreeable politically.
If my account has been suspended because I present a different political view point than the reviewer of my site... well then you might have a small problem.
If you say that I am a hate site, a violent site, or a racist site, I can refute that conclusively; and will do so for anyone who asks. If you say that I have inappropriate content, I can refute that and will do so as well.
I will also point to many sites that present anti-semitic, anti-american, and in general vile and disgusting propaganda; and yet they have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that depict burning of american flags, and bibles, that have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that are unapologetically pronographic, and have ad-sense ads.
I can only conclude that this action is motivated by political bias. It is my hope that suspending accounts that are politically opposed to a reviewers viewpoint is the action of a single employee and not general corporate policy.
You are of course a private company, and you may choose to allow your political biases to determine who you do business with; but if you do, be prepared to have all of your conservative and libertarian customers do the same.
If you cannot provide me with a legitimate reason for this account suspension, that is not motivated by a bias against my libertarian politics, my staunch advocacy of free speech regardless of it's potential for offensiveness, or the right to keep and bear arms, then I will be going to the blogosphere and the media with this.
Finally, if you insist on closing my account, please forward the remaining outstanding balance due me. As I cannot log in to my account I can't confirm how much it is, but when I checked yesterday it was only about $40.
Thank you,
Christopher J. Byrne IV
Nice, polite, covers everything, right?
And no response. None.
So Google plays footsie with the PRC, and screws people over on AdSense.
As a bunch of people have already put it, screw Google. And their little suckass dog, too.
"Hello Christopher,
Our specialists have found that your account is not in compliance with
AdSense program policies. As a result, we have disabled your account.
We continually review all publishers according to our Terms and
Conditions and program policies, and we reserve the right to disable
publishers or sites that are not in compliance with our policies.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
Nothing about why or how, just 'not in compliance'. So he sent them this:
"Sirs,
Can you tell me how my account is not in compliance with your policies?
I sent that one question to you initially, and recieved no response. Now I am expanding my question.
I have reviewed your ad-sense policies, and I cannot find any point at which I am in violation, unless a subjective reviewer of the site found my content disagreeable politically.
If my account has been suspended because I present a different political view point than the reviewer of my site... well then you might have a small problem.
If you say that I am a hate site, a violent site, or a racist site, I can refute that conclusively; and will do so for anyone who asks. If you say that I have inappropriate content, I can refute that and will do so as well.
I will also point to many sites that present anti-semitic, anti-american, and in general vile and disgusting propaganda; and yet they have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that depict burning of american flags, and bibles, that have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that are unapologetically pronographic, and have ad-sense ads.
I can only conclude that this action is motivated by political bias. It is my hope that suspending accounts that are politically opposed to a reviewers viewpoint is the action of a single employee and not general corporate policy.
You are of course a private company, and you may choose to allow your political biases to determine who you do business with; but if you do, be prepared to have all of your conservative and libertarian customers do the same.
If you cannot provide me with a legitimate reason for this account suspension, that is not motivated by a bias against my libertarian politics, my staunch advocacy of free speech regardless of it's potential for offensiveness, or the right to keep and bear arms, then I will be going to the blogosphere and the media with this.
Finally, if you insist on closing my account, please forward the remaining outstanding balance due me. As I cannot log in to my account I can't confirm how much it is, but when I checked yesterday it was only about $40.
Thank you,
Christopher J. Byrne IV
Nice, polite, covers everything, right?
And no response. None.
So Google plays footsie with the PRC, and screws people over on AdSense.
As a bunch of people have already put it, screw Google. And their little suckass dog, too.
While I'm at it, Jimmy Carter really IS a waste of skin
to borrow from Glenn Beck. On top of his other crapping in the street over the years, he does this at a funeral. Apparently just because he can and he can't help himself.
As Dax says, just Damn!
As Dax says, just Damn!
I shall now step into the pile of religeous dog poo
Moved by various things, a while back I started reading about Islam. No, I haven't gotten around to the Koran; probably will later. One of the things that got me started(kind of like researching HIV/AIDS) was a post at Dean's World. Couple of days ago he did this one. Basic content: anyone who thinks Islam doesn't have tolerance for other faiths and calls for violence toward them is a: bigoted and b: ignorant and hasn't actually studied it.
Well, I've been studying it, and one of the problems I've found with the 'tolerant Islam' idea is this: there were, in the early writings of Mohammed, various bits about 'tolerate the other people of the Book', i.e. Christians and Jews. This didn't keep him from sending people to murder and torment them when it suited him, but pass that for now. Problem is the lastbook of the Koran, Swords(I believe; not digging the book up now to find it). I calls for all unbelievers to be given three choices; convert, pay the tax(which also involved becoming- at best- a step above a slave), or die. Period. And from what I've read, pretty much every Islamic scholar agrees that this last book abrogates every contrary statement in any earlier book; in other words, giving 'tolerance' to other faiths is no longer allowed, the three choices is it.
And giving various quotes from the Bible and saying "See?!? Christians are of a hate-mongering religeon, too according to this!" doesn't cut it. A: nobody except a few nutcases, condemned by everyone else, uses these bits to justify harming others and b: from what I recall(long time since I actually read the thing) these are generally speaking of particular fights. "We're about to fight the Amalekites, after what they've done show them no mercy", type stuff. It never, to my knowledge, calls to go out and kill everyone who doesn't convert.
And that last is the problem. I know there are a lot of Muslims out there who do NOT agree with that. They'll argue the merits of their faith, and if someone is interested try to talk them into converting; no problem. They consider their faith the 'proper' one; no problem. Problem is, there are a whole lot, maybe a majority, who either fully agree with the three choices or aren't willing to publicly disagree with them. And they believe they have the privilege of telling every other society how they will be allowed to speak and act, in particular when it touches on their faith. And that doesn't work here, and it damn well shouldn't.
Side point: One of the things that's been disgusting in this is the double standard shown by many places, Britain in particular. It's been pointed out that(among others) when a bunch of people peacefully protesting the banning of fox hunting showed up to demonstrate, they were flatly attacked by police. No threats of death, no 'we will destroy this country' signs, and they were abused. Nutcase mooselimbs march threatening death and destruction, specifically calling for the murder of people, and all the cops do is take pictures and stand around. Besides the general problem with this, the people pushing this crap see it as weakness that the Brit government doesn't even try to enforce the law against them. And it is..
Getting back to my point, the unpleasant fact is that to probably a majority of the Muslims in the world, the 'three choices' and 'death to anyone who we think offends against Islam' teachings are their True Faith, and they want to enforce it. Against everyone. And calling anyone who points this out a bigot or ignorant or islamophobe doesn't cut it.
Well, I've been studying it, and one of the problems I've found with the 'tolerant Islam' idea is this: there were, in the early writings of Mohammed, various bits about 'tolerate the other people of the Book', i.e. Christians and Jews. This didn't keep him from sending people to murder and torment them when it suited him, but pass that for now. Problem is the lastbook of the Koran, Swords(I believe; not digging the book up now to find it). I calls for all unbelievers to be given three choices; convert, pay the tax(which also involved becoming- at best- a step above a slave), or die. Period. And from what I've read, pretty much every Islamic scholar agrees that this last book abrogates every contrary statement in any earlier book; in other words, giving 'tolerance' to other faiths is no longer allowed, the three choices is it.
And giving various quotes from the Bible and saying "See?!? Christians are of a hate-mongering religeon, too according to this!" doesn't cut it. A: nobody except a few nutcases, condemned by everyone else, uses these bits to justify harming others and b: from what I recall(long time since I actually read the thing) these are generally speaking of particular fights. "We're about to fight the Amalekites, after what they've done show them no mercy", type stuff. It never, to my knowledge, calls to go out and kill everyone who doesn't convert.
And that last is the problem. I know there are a lot of Muslims out there who do NOT agree with that. They'll argue the merits of their faith, and if someone is interested try to talk them into converting; no problem. They consider their faith the 'proper' one; no problem. Problem is, there are a whole lot, maybe a majority, who either fully agree with the three choices or aren't willing to publicly disagree with them. And they believe they have the privilege of telling every other society how they will be allowed to speak and act, in particular when it touches on their faith. And that doesn't work here, and it damn well shouldn't.
Side point: One of the things that's been disgusting in this is the double standard shown by many places, Britain in particular. It's been pointed out that(among others) when a bunch of people peacefully protesting the banning of fox hunting showed up to demonstrate, they were flatly attacked by police. No threats of death, no 'we will destroy this country' signs, and they were abused. Nutcase mooselimbs march threatening death and destruction, specifically calling for the murder of people, and all the cops do is take pictures and stand around. Besides the general problem with this, the people pushing this crap see it as weakness that the Brit government doesn't even try to enforce the law against them. And it is..
Getting back to my point, the unpleasant fact is that to probably a majority of the Muslims in the world, the 'three choices' and 'death to anyone who we think offends against Islam' teachings are their True Faith, and they want to enforce it. Against everyone. And calling anyone who points this out a bigot or ignorant or islamophobe doesn't cut it.
Rimfire Roundup
Mr. Completely has started a Rimfire Roundup. All cartridges, handgun and rifle. First edition is up here. Go give it a look.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Range day, Martini Model 6 (see end)
Went to the range last night, and aside from some pistol practice, put about thirty rounds through one of my favorite rifles. This is a Birmingham Small Arms Martini Model 6 in the wonderful .22LR cartridge:
Mentioned something about the history of these little rifles before, but being too lazy to hunt through my archives for it, I'll repeat: a man named Peabody designed a single-shot breechloading rifle with an exposed hammer, called (who'd have guessed?) the Peabody. Few years later a Swiss named Martini decided he could improve it and did some redesign. Got rid of the external hammer and used an internal striker powered by a coil spring was the big change; he both simplified the action and made it stronger. When the Brits were looking for their first manufactured breechloader(the Snider being a modification of their Enfield rifle musket and intended only as a stopgap), the Martini action was one tested, and it won. Coupled with a barrel with Henry-style rifling it became the Martini-Henry. It served as a military rifle in both the original .577/.450 and the .303, and the action was also used to make everything from shotguns to match and hunting rifles. It became justly famous for strength and reliability, and they kept making them, in large and small actions, until the 1950's(much more history here).
There were a number of different small-action rifles made, and deciding what model one actually is ain't easy; BSA did NOT mark the model on them, there were no serial number breaks between models, etc. Sometimes the width of the action tells you, other times the combination of action size and barrel, etc. From what I've found, this one is an 8.
The action is a 'tilting block'. To load, pull the lever down,
(take note of that screw on the receiver and the round piece above it; we'll get to them later)
and the breechblock tilts down
to expose the chamber
That groove in the top of the block guides the round into the chamber. In the shot above, notice a piece between the block & chamber? That's the extractor. It's an eccentric 'L' shape; when the block rotates down, it pushes down on the lower arm which pivots the top arm back. As it's cut to hold the rim of the cartridge, it pulls the case back. Ease the lever down and it eases the case back; give it a smart pull, and it'll kick the empty out.
This rifle has the original open rear sight base and ladder on the barrel, but the elevator piece is missing, very common on these because with the match sight down low for close range it got in the way. Speaking of sights, this one has Parker-Hale match sights, an aperture rear and tube front. The rear is fully adjustable for windage and elevation, out to a long damn ways out. The eyepiece is separate from the sight itself, and you find everything from different apertures that individually screw in to adjustable like this Hadley. It's got a wide dish for the body, with a wheel that rotates to let you choose among six different size holes depending on conditions.
That bump midway along the breechblock? Cocking indicator; up means cocked, gone means uncocked.
Very handy, especially since most of them had no safety.
The front sight is a tube(or tunnel) sight. There's a threaded insert that fits in from the back, and a slot at the top about midway. Back the insert out a bit, and there are a number of different inserts that drop into the slot. Tighten the threaded piece back up to lock your choice in. They made/make rings, posts, and crosshairs in different diameters/thickness. The old ones tended to be quite thick in outline and mostly post or rings on a post. This is a newer insert, a thin-edged circle held in place by crosshairs.
Remember that screw I told you to take note of? Day is done and you want to give it a thorough cleaning, unscrew the threaded section and pull the pin, and the entire works rotates down and out of the receiver:
And yes, that IS the entire works. Frame, lever, block, extractor, trigger, tumbler. Push out three pins, one each, and the lever, block and extractor come out. A screw/pin holds the trigger and is the pivot for it. There's a screw that holds the trigger spring, and the only other spring is for the striker inside the block. A threaded piece holds the spring and striker in place and the spring under tension, and a screw locks the threaded insert in place. And you can clean the barrel from the breech; in the picture of the sight two shots above you'll see a slot below the eyepiece. It matches up with a hole through the back of the receiver. Earliest models didn't have this, but this mod was made a long time ago.
Remember the piece above the action screw? Not all had this. Look on the left side and you'll see another screw
This one is a tapered pin for takedown models. Pull the pin, open the action(otherwise the extractor won't let the barrel turn), and the barrel unscrews
Makes it very handy for travel. Reassembly is screw the barrel back in and line it up by eye, then insert the pin and tighten it down; the barrel notch and far side hole in the receiver were reamed on the taper so the pin both aligns them exactly and locks them in place.
(See that box on the stock about halfway back? It's brass, and unscrews from the base, and holds inserts for the front sight)
There are a lot of these old rifles in various models out there, used for hunting and target shooting, from short, light ones like this to heavy models intended for prone competition.
How's it shoot? Wonderfully. I've tried this one with a number of different ammo brands/types, and it seems to like two best: Federal Lightning(now Champion) and Eley Sport. Shoots better with these than the match ammo I've tried. 'Shoots better' meaning I've shot half-inch groups at 50 yards with them, the match brands at best equaled that. And since they cost $.69/box and $1.25/box respectively... The trigger is light and clean, couldn't ask for better. For a rifle built- best I can tell- in the 1920's that's had a hard life, very nice indeed.
Personal history on this: several years ago a friend and I went to the range, and he had this interesting little rifle he'd just got to try out. Exterior looked pretty bad- hadn't been cleaned up yet, all he'd done was wipe out the bore so he could shoot it. He got it sighted in a 50, and said "give it a try". And I was hooked. He was using Aguila subsonic ammo, and we were breaking a clay pigeon, then breaking the pieces. So I went looking, and found first a model 12/15(post to come later). Then, about a year after that, the same guy he'd bought his from had another one that looked identical. He promised the bore was pristine and the action tight, so I gave him my credit card number and transfer info. A week later, it was mine. In those with a similar history, you'll find similar appearance; lots of pitting on the exterior, especially on the barrel along the edge of the forearm, and the action was horribly cruddy with old oil and grease and fouling. But the bore was indeed lovely, not a spot on it. It had been lined at some point, which was common; Parker Hale advertised their liners and installation and promised a rifle relined by them would be at least as accurate as the original bore, and I believe them.
In the case of my and my friend's rifles, their hard use came at a school. The same school, as it happens. Both have the school's name and location and their number in the rack stamped into the right side of the stock. And you bet your ass I was very careful cleaning and refinishing the wood. Degreasing, sanding with steel wool only and then rubbing in multiple coats of TruOil brought out the grain of a lovely piece of walnut and made the markings easier to read.
This is one of those I look on as my responsibility to care for until it's passed on. Besides the general history, there's this: my friend managed to get hold of the school, and wrote back & forth with the guy who had last managed the range; according to him, the government regulations for storage, use, and the range finally got so bad that the school closed the range and sold the equipment. Which led to these rifles winding up across the Atlantic and now in our hands. I don't doubt there are a lot of these out there that spent years training kids to shoot; and after long, useful lives there they were sent away due to government BS(in this case) and socialist jackass headmasters who hated guns and closed the ranges(other cases I've heard of). They're now here in the Land of the Free(still, despite the actions of various clowns), and doing what they were designed for; delivering accurate fire on targets from paper to cans to small game.
Some have been relined or rebarreled for everything from .17M2 to .357 Magnum, most still in .22 or .310 Cadet(depending on model); but the keep working. You get a chance to try one out, do so; I think you'll like it.
Added 8/14/10 Originally I thought this was a Model 8; some further checking since has me thinking it's a 6. Whichever, I still like it.
Mentioned something about the history of these little rifles before, but being too lazy to hunt through my archives for it, I'll repeat: a man named Peabody designed a single-shot breechloading rifle with an exposed hammer, called (who'd have guessed?) the Peabody. Few years later a Swiss named Martini decided he could improve it and did some redesign. Got rid of the external hammer and used an internal striker powered by a coil spring was the big change; he both simplified the action and made it stronger. When the Brits were looking for their first manufactured breechloader(the Snider being a modification of their Enfield rifle musket and intended only as a stopgap), the Martini action was one tested, and it won. Coupled with a barrel with Henry-style rifling it became the Martini-Henry. It served as a military rifle in both the original .577/.450 and the .303, and the action was also used to make everything from shotguns to match and hunting rifles. It became justly famous for strength and reliability, and they kept making them, in large and small actions, until the 1950's(much more history here).
There were a number of different small-action rifles made, and deciding what model one actually is ain't easy; BSA did NOT mark the model on them, there were no serial number breaks between models, etc. Sometimes the width of the action tells you, other times the combination of action size and barrel, etc. From what I've found, this one is an 8.
The action is a 'tilting block'. To load, pull the lever down,
(take note of that screw on the receiver and the round piece above it; we'll get to them later)
and the breechblock tilts down
to expose the chamber
That groove in the top of the block guides the round into the chamber. In the shot above, notice a piece between the block & chamber? That's the extractor. It's an eccentric 'L' shape; when the block rotates down, it pushes down on the lower arm which pivots the top arm back. As it's cut to hold the rim of the cartridge, it pulls the case back. Ease the lever down and it eases the case back; give it a smart pull, and it'll kick the empty out.
This rifle has the original open rear sight base and ladder on the barrel, but the elevator piece is missing, very common on these because with the match sight down low for close range it got in the way. Speaking of sights, this one has Parker-Hale match sights, an aperture rear and tube front. The rear is fully adjustable for windage and elevation, out to a long damn ways out. The eyepiece is separate from the sight itself, and you find everything from different apertures that individually screw in to adjustable like this Hadley. It's got a wide dish for the body, with a wheel that rotates to let you choose among six different size holes depending on conditions.
That bump midway along the breechblock? Cocking indicator; up means cocked, gone means uncocked.
Very handy, especially since most of them had no safety.
The front sight is a tube(or tunnel) sight. There's a threaded insert that fits in from the back, and a slot at the top about midway. Back the insert out a bit, and there are a number of different inserts that drop into the slot. Tighten the threaded piece back up to lock your choice in. They made/make rings, posts, and crosshairs in different diameters/thickness. The old ones tended to be quite thick in outline and mostly post or rings on a post. This is a newer insert, a thin-edged circle held in place by crosshairs.
Remember that screw I told you to take note of? Day is done and you want to give it a thorough cleaning, unscrew the threaded section and pull the pin, and the entire works rotates down and out of the receiver:
And yes, that IS the entire works. Frame, lever, block, extractor, trigger, tumbler. Push out three pins, one each, and the lever, block and extractor come out. A screw/pin holds the trigger and is the pivot for it. There's a screw that holds the trigger spring, and the only other spring is for the striker inside the block. A threaded piece holds the spring and striker in place and the spring under tension, and a screw locks the threaded insert in place. And you can clean the barrel from the breech; in the picture of the sight two shots above you'll see a slot below the eyepiece. It matches up with a hole through the back of the receiver. Earliest models didn't have this, but this mod was made a long time ago.
Remember the piece above the action screw? Not all had this. Look on the left side and you'll see another screw
This one is a tapered pin for takedown models. Pull the pin, open the action(otherwise the extractor won't let the barrel turn), and the barrel unscrews
Makes it very handy for travel. Reassembly is screw the barrel back in and line it up by eye, then insert the pin and tighten it down; the barrel notch and far side hole in the receiver were reamed on the taper so the pin both aligns them exactly and locks them in place.
(See that box on the stock about halfway back? It's brass, and unscrews from the base, and holds inserts for the front sight)
There are a lot of these old rifles in various models out there, used for hunting and target shooting, from short, light ones like this to heavy models intended for prone competition.
How's it shoot? Wonderfully. I've tried this one with a number of different ammo brands/types, and it seems to like two best: Federal Lightning(now Champion) and Eley Sport. Shoots better with these than the match ammo I've tried. 'Shoots better' meaning I've shot half-inch groups at 50 yards with them, the match brands at best equaled that. And since they cost $.69/box and $1.25/box respectively... The trigger is light and clean, couldn't ask for better. For a rifle built- best I can tell- in the 1920's that's had a hard life, very nice indeed.
Personal history on this: several years ago a friend and I went to the range, and he had this interesting little rifle he'd just got to try out. Exterior looked pretty bad- hadn't been cleaned up yet, all he'd done was wipe out the bore so he could shoot it. He got it sighted in a 50, and said "give it a try". And I was hooked. He was using Aguila subsonic ammo, and we were breaking a clay pigeon, then breaking the pieces. So I went looking, and found first a model 12/15(post to come later). Then, about a year after that, the same guy he'd bought his from had another one that looked identical. He promised the bore was pristine and the action tight, so I gave him my credit card number and transfer info. A week later, it was mine. In those with a similar history, you'll find similar appearance; lots of pitting on the exterior, especially on the barrel along the edge of the forearm, and the action was horribly cruddy with old oil and grease and fouling. But the bore was indeed lovely, not a spot on it. It had been lined at some point, which was common; Parker Hale advertised their liners and installation and promised a rifle relined by them would be at least as accurate as the original bore, and I believe them.
In the case of my and my friend's rifles, their hard use came at a school. The same school, as it happens. Both have the school's name and location and their number in the rack stamped into the right side of the stock. And you bet your ass I was very careful cleaning and refinishing the wood. Degreasing, sanding with steel wool only and then rubbing in multiple coats of TruOil brought out the grain of a lovely piece of walnut and made the markings easier to read.
This is one of those I look on as my responsibility to care for until it's passed on. Besides the general history, there's this: my friend managed to get hold of the school, and wrote back & forth with the guy who had last managed the range; according to him, the government regulations for storage, use, and the range finally got so bad that the school closed the range and sold the equipment. Which led to these rifles winding up across the Atlantic and now in our hands. I don't doubt there are a lot of these out there that spent years training kids to shoot; and after long, useful lives there they were sent away due to government BS(in this case) and socialist jackass headmasters who hated guns and closed the ranges(other cases I've heard of). They're now here in the Land of the Free(still, despite the actions of various clowns), and doing what they were designed for; delivering accurate fire on targets from paper to cans to small game.
Some have been relined or rebarreled for everything from .17M2 to .357 Magnum, most still in .22 or .310 Cadet(depending on model); but the keep working. You get a chance to try one out, do so; I think you'll like it.
Added 8/14/10 Originally I thought this was a Model 8; some further checking since has me thinking it's a 6. Whichever, I still like it.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Well, crap, all at once?!?
I just looked at Books a Million and found that David Drake has four new books either out or coming out. Dammit, and it's tax time and I'm already short... grumble, grumble.
The Geek speaks truth
In this case, about that idiot 'study' that said people who carry guns are more prone to road rage. Money quote: "While they repeatedly claim that "that riding with a firearm in the vehicle appears to be a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.", they also admit that "we do not know whether there was a gun in the vehicle at the time the road rage incident(s) occurred.", and that "Our study had only two measures of road rage – making obscene gestures and aggressively following – and these have not been validated." Got that? As I recall from my science classes back in the dark ages, this is a fancy way of saying "We don't actually know crap, but this suits our political views so we say it anyway". But this is what passes for 'research'.
The Geek has a very good story about a science teacher he once had and 'studies' that aren't what they're made out to be. Which fits in with something I've been thinking about for a while. Namely, the HIV/AIDS equation.
Sometime last year I was looking through Dean Esmay's site and found a piece he did on the subject that basically said "Can anyone tell me of a study that actually shows that HIV causes AIDS?" Lots of responses, but nobody could answer the question 'yes'. Looked through some other stuff he'd posted on it, and it got real interesting. So I started doing some other reading, including the book Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg. And it's both scary and disgusting. Scary that lots of scientists and doctors just fall into line behind the 'approved' theory, and disgusting that a lot of people were/are being a: scared to death without reason, b: medicated without reason and being given medications that literally will kill you. And let's not skip the fact that a bleepload of money and resources and time have been, in many cases, flat wasted so as to keep in the 'approved' pathway of research and treatment. That is NOT how science is supposed to work. But it so often does, and if you criticize it even people who doubt the mess you're doubting will pile onto you. Especially if you're not a doctor and/or researcher yourself; after all, you're not of the priesthood so how dare you criticize them?
And that, when it comes out, makes people less trusting of the sciences in general, because if you find out they've lied about something this important just to CYA and protect the priesthood, why should you believe them about other things? The medical profession has been whacked by this repeatedly, in that all too often it's been seen covering for incompetent doctors instead of throwing them out of the profession, which helps lead to "You should get a lawyer and sue because otherwise nothing'll be done" which leads to BS suits as well as good ones, and we're in the mess that causes now. Clowns like John Edwards get rich, and good doctors leave the profession because they're tired of being sued for any and everything.
Back during the Clinton administration there was a study released that said "if you have a gun you're 46 times more likely to shoot a relative or friend than a crook". That number was challenged, and the guy revised the number down. Drastically. That number was challenged also, and he revised it downward again. People were arguing that number when it turned out that this clown was giving lectures on this 'study' and using whichever number he thought would go over better with the audience. Turned out the Centers for Disease Control had paid either 1 or 200,000 dollars to do this study(can't remember which offhand). First, what the hell were they doing paying money for such as this? Second, considering they were screaming and crying that they didn't have enough money to study and fight emerging bugs, where did this pile come from? Which brought up that they were apparently willing to use money to push political purposes when they should have been studying microorganisms, which feeds into a whole lot of other BS.
As the Geek says, I have great respect for the scientific method; damn little for the clowns abusing it in the name of money and/or politics.
The Geek has a very good story about a science teacher he once had and 'studies' that aren't what they're made out to be. Which fits in with something I've been thinking about for a while. Namely, the HIV/AIDS equation.
Sometime last year I was looking through Dean Esmay's site and found a piece he did on the subject that basically said "Can anyone tell me of a study that actually shows that HIV causes AIDS?" Lots of responses, but nobody could answer the question 'yes'. Looked through some other stuff he'd posted on it, and it got real interesting. So I started doing some other reading, including the book Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg. And it's both scary and disgusting. Scary that lots of scientists and doctors just fall into line behind the 'approved' theory, and disgusting that a lot of people were/are being a: scared to death without reason, b: medicated without reason and being given medications that literally will kill you. And let's not skip the fact that a bleepload of money and resources and time have been, in many cases, flat wasted so as to keep in the 'approved' pathway of research and treatment. That is NOT how science is supposed to work. But it so often does, and if you criticize it even people who doubt the mess you're doubting will pile onto you. Especially if you're not a doctor and/or researcher yourself; after all, you're not of the priesthood so how dare you criticize them?
And that, when it comes out, makes people less trusting of the sciences in general, because if you find out they've lied about something this important just to CYA and protect the priesthood, why should you believe them about other things? The medical profession has been whacked by this repeatedly, in that all too often it's been seen covering for incompetent doctors instead of throwing them out of the profession, which helps lead to "You should get a lawyer and sue because otherwise nothing'll be done" which leads to BS suits as well as good ones, and we're in the mess that causes now. Clowns like John Edwards get rich, and good doctors leave the profession because they're tired of being sued for any and everything.
Back during the Clinton administration there was a study released that said "if you have a gun you're 46 times more likely to shoot a relative or friend than a crook". That number was challenged, and the guy revised the number down. Drastically. That number was challenged also, and he revised it downward again. People were arguing that number when it turned out that this clown was giving lectures on this 'study' and using whichever number he thought would go over better with the audience. Turned out the Centers for Disease Control had paid either 1 or 200,000 dollars to do this study(can't remember which offhand). First, what the hell were they doing paying money for such as this? Second, considering they were screaming and crying that they didn't have enough money to study and fight emerging bugs, where did this pile come from? Which brought up that they were apparently willing to use money to push political purposes when they should have been studying microorganisms, which feeds into a whole lot of other BS.
As the Geek says, I have great respect for the scientific method; damn little for the clowns abusing it in the name of money and/or politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)