5/28/2012
Memorial Day 2012
Hope everyone enjoys their day off work and spending time with family and friends around some good food and good fun. But. Never forget what it has cost us to obtain this freedom we enjoy.
5/26/2012
Hippo Birdie Two Me.
Yay! I had a birthday yesterday... I think. Couldn't tell you for sure since I slept thru most of it and had to be at work for the rest of it. Further study of this phenomenon maybe required.
5/16/2012
My 2 cents.
For what its worth.
Doing my rounds of the blogosphere and noticed several posts about your first gun purchase. Every one of them I read were full of useful information that shouldn't be discounted. But. I noticed, in particular, that nearly all of them steer you away from the lightweight snubbie revolvers with the usual; poor sights, recoil, etc. All valid reasons. However I noticed there wasn't much in the department as to the fleshing out of those details. I will attempt to do this. Probably poorly.
For starters, snubbies do recoil, a lot, I own exactly 1 for a reason, it isn't fun to shoot unless you are a recoil junkie and this is for a 5-shot .38 spl. Even with the porting the muzzle flip and palm bruising is more violent than anything else I've shot and that includes my Dad's .44 magnum. To put it simply, it hurts to shoot. I know I'll hear it (if anyone outside the usual suspects chooses to respond, if at all). "Aww does the itty-bitty gun hurt your wittle hands?" Short answer, yes. Beyond that, well, my "wittle" hands could be described as hams in some parts of this country and I'm not little unless you are around guys that make André the Giant look like common folk. At any rate I keep my snubbie for one reason, it's a spurless hammer, stainless steel and it fits in a pocket, no muss no fuss. Also being a revolver there is little to no chance of a jam, and no chance of a FTF or FTE (failure to feed and failure to eject respectively).
Second to the recoil is the sight radius, or lack there-of, if you prefer. Mine has a total of 3 and 5/8ths inches of it, vs my next smallest pistol which is 5 inches, in this case, size matters. The longer the sight radius the more accurate you can be. Because at longer distances any variation in the sight alignment is more noticeable and easier to correct. The reason I'm comfortable carrying a firearm that is lacking in comfort and accuracy is that I know its abilities and limitations. It is designed as a close range piece, not much over speaking distance. (Find out your abilities and know your limits). The snub is the next logical step in the evolution of the belly gun so to speak. (Formerly 2-shot pistols lumped under the common "Derringer" class). Which were designed to be hidden by a belt buckle and employed at card table distance (about 4.5 - 5 ft) or less, usually less. Hence the term "belly gun", its not only where you carried it, its also where you stuck the muzzle on your target. It serves that purpose well. Having 5 shots vs 2 also gives you extra firepower and more firepower never hurt unless you are the one facing it. Another reason I'm comfortable with carrying it is that I know what I can do with it under stress. I practice. Your mileage will vary. However, the key with any firearm is P-R-A-C-T-I-C-E. I don't as much as I should, but enough to remain confident in knowing what my skills are and more importantly, are not.
In closing, a snubbie in my opinion is the wrong platform to learn on. It doesn't let you figure out your abilities and limits for yourself, it tells you, painfully. It is a purchase best left til you have garnered some skill and knowledge with various other firearms so you know what it is and is not capable of. Forget what you have seen on TV too, most of it isn't real. What parts are real, are performed by people that don't do much else beyond send lead down range for a living. As an aside, I know people both personally and on the internet that are superb shots with small revolvers and sub compact semi-autos. This is because they shoot them, a lot, and already know what they are doing as well as what to expect.
Doing my rounds of the blogosphere and noticed several posts about your first gun purchase. Every one of them I read were full of useful information that shouldn't be discounted. But. I noticed, in particular, that nearly all of them steer you away from the lightweight snubbie revolvers with the usual; poor sights, recoil, etc. All valid reasons. However I noticed there wasn't much in the department as to the fleshing out of those details. I will attempt to do this. Probably poorly.
For starters, snubbies do recoil, a lot, I own exactly 1 for a reason, it isn't fun to shoot unless you are a recoil junkie and this is for a 5-shot .38 spl. Even with the porting the muzzle flip and palm bruising is more violent than anything else I've shot and that includes my Dad's .44 magnum. To put it simply, it hurts to shoot. I know I'll hear it (if anyone outside the usual suspects chooses to respond, if at all). "Aww does the itty-bitty gun hurt your wittle hands?" Short answer, yes. Beyond that, well, my "wittle" hands could be described as hams in some parts of this country and I'm not little unless you are around guys that make André the Giant look like common folk. At any rate I keep my snubbie for one reason, it's a spurless hammer, stainless steel and it fits in a pocket, no muss no fuss. Also being a revolver there is little to no chance of a jam, and no chance of a FTF or FTE (failure to feed and failure to eject respectively).
Second to the recoil is the sight radius, or lack there-of, if you prefer. Mine has a total of 3 and 5/8ths inches of it, vs my next smallest pistol which is 5 inches, in this case, size matters. The longer the sight radius the more accurate you can be. Because at longer distances any variation in the sight alignment is more noticeable and easier to correct. The reason I'm comfortable carrying a firearm that is lacking in comfort and accuracy is that I know its abilities and limitations. It is designed as a close range piece, not much over speaking distance. (Find out your abilities and know your limits). The snub is the next logical step in the evolution of the belly gun so to speak. (Formerly 2-shot pistols lumped under the common "Derringer" class). Which were designed to be hidden by a belt buckle and employed at card table distance (about 4.5 - 5 ft) or less, usually less. Hence the term "belly gun", its not only where you carried it, its also where you stuck the muzzle on your target. It serves that purpose well. Having 5 shots vs 2 also gives you extra firepower and more firepower never hurt unless you are the one facing it. Another reason I'm comfortable with carrying it is that I know what I can do with it under stress. I practice. Your mileage will vary. However, the key with any firearm is P-R-A-C-T-I-C-E. I don't as much as I should, but enough to remain confident in knowing what my skills are and more importantly, are not.
In closing, a snubbie in my opinion is the wrong platform to learn on. It doesn't let you figure out your abilities and limits for yourself, it tells you, painfully. It is a purchase best left til you have garnered some skill and knowledge with various other firearms so you know what it is and is not capable of. Forget what you have seen on TV too, most of it isn't real. What parts are real, are performed by people that don't do much else beyond send lead down range for a living. As an aside, I know people both personally and on the internet that are superb shots with small revolvers and sub compact semi-autos. This is because they shoot them, a lot, and already know what they are doing as well as what to expect.
5/13/2012
Food for thought. High blood pressure edition.
Just finished listening to The Squirrel Report from Friday. I had a thought after listening to everyone describe the cars now vs the cars we had.
My first car was a 1987 Mercury Lynx with an A/T and a 1.9L, 4-cyl engine. Now granted the 4-banger is a pretty economic engine in itself but the fact they are touting newer cars as some of the most fuel efficient ever is utter crap, the only way most of the ones that still burn gas get that way is by using plastic and carbon fiber as the primary structural components. However...This, on the other hand:
This pile of rolling scrap metal got ~30 MPG highway and no less than 25 MPG city, with over 200,000 miles on it. With a drive train that wasn't designed to last past 100k. I know you're gonna say, "Well duh." Simple description on how I drove that car: I drove it like I stole it. At the time what I spent on it was less than a week's pay. If I tore it up, no big loss, I buy another one with the next check. I drove that car hard for almost 3 years before it finally started having more mechanical issues than it was worth to get fixed. Beyond that it had a metal body, not something you're gonna find on pretty much anything that claims to be uber efficient these days, not in this class anyway.
I coulda crashed that little 80's econobox into a newer econobox, other than the smart car, and still been able to drive it to the mechanic afterward. Provided of course ala smart cars, (that over-weight, plastic, waste of a shoebox) didn't have the 9-ton unobtainium roll cage it wouldn't even rate as a hood ornament. Which in turn might be good for the illusion of safety but makes the car weigh 3 times as much as that itty-bitty thing should. Which screws the fuel economy. Unlike my Lynx which was a uni-body with internal steel supports and weighed exactly 2,100lbs without the wheels and tires. Although it could hold 5 people rather than 2. Now... you little tofu-eating, Gaia-fellating, PETA-petting, pinko-commie pricks, tell us again how the new cars are soooooooooo much better than the old ones? F**ktards.
*While not my car exactly, it is similar. Mine was the 2-door hatchback, with 14" steel rims rather than the standard 13" rims like this one. Mine also looked a lot rougher, same color though.
My first car was a 1987 Mercury Lynx with an A/T and a 1.9L, 4-cyl engine. Now granted the 4-banger is a pretty economic engine in itself but the fact they are touting newer cars as some of the most fuel efficient ever is utter crap, the only way most of the ones that still burn gas get that way is by using plastic and carbon fiber as the primary structural components. However...This, on the other hand:
 |
| Pic found HERE.* |
I coulda crashed that little 80's econobox into a newer econobox, other than the smart car, and still been able to drive it to the mechanic afterward. Provided of course ala smart cars, (that over-weight, plastic, waste of a shoebox) didn't have the 9-ton unobtainium roll cage it wouldn't even rate as a hood ornament. Which in turn might be good for the illusion of safety but makes the car weigh 3 times as much as that itty-bitty thing should. Which screws the fuel economy. Unlike my Lynx which was a uni-body with internal steel supports and weighed exactly 2,100lbs without the wheels and tires. Although it could hold 5 people rather than 2. Now... you little tofu-eating, Gaia-fellating, PETA-petting, pinko-commie pricks, tell us again how the new cars are soooooooooo much better than the old ones? F**ktards.
*While not my car exactly, it is similar. Mine was the 2-door hatchback, with 14" steel rims rather than the standard 13" rims like this one. Mine also looked a lot rougher, same color though.
5/01/2012
Past due for expression.
Wanted to say something I've felt for awhile. Pretty much since I started getting active with RKBA. After reading Robb's post I felt it was the right time to express it.
To all whom it may concern:
I'm willing to fight and die to protect my rights, are you willing to die to try and take them? Or will you just send someone else to die in your place? Because I won't go silently into that good night!
Sincerely,
JRebel
To all whom it may concern:
I'm willing to fight and die to protect my rights, are you willing to die to try and take them? Or will you just send someone else to die in your place? Because I won't go silently into that good night!
Sincerely,
JRebel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)