Friday, February 21, 2014

Guess where all the QE money is going?


If you haven't yet read Matthew Taibbi's latest exposĂ© for Rolling Stone magazine, 'The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet', you really need to make time to do so.  It shows more clearly than anything else I've read just where all the excess liquidity that the Fed keeps pumping into the markets under the label 'Quantitative Easing' is ending up.  Here's an excerpt.

Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years.

. . .

A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is "complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally."

Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?

"From the perspective of the banks," says Saule Omarova, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, "pretty much everything is considered complementary to a financial activity."

. . .

Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals. They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

. . .

... banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home. Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets – buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.

Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation. It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays.

The situation has opened a Pandora's box of horrifying new corruption possibilities, but it's been hard for the public to notice, since regulators have struggled to put even the slightest dent in Wall Street's older, more familiar scams. In just the past few years we've seen an explosion of scandals – from the multitrillion-dollar Libor saga (major international banks gaming world interest rates), to the more recent foreign-currency-exchange fiasco (many of the same banks suspected of rigging prices in the $5.3-trillion-a-day currency markets), to lesser scandals involving manipulation of interest-rate swaps, and gold and silver prices.

But those are purely financial schemes. In these new, even scarier kinds of manipulations, banks that own whole chains of physical business interests have been caught rigging prices in those industries. For instance, in just the past two years, fines in excess of $400 million have been levied against both JPMorgan Chase and Barclays for allegedly manipulating the delivery of electricity in several states, including California. In the case of Barclays, which is contesting the fine, regulators claim prices were manipulated to help the bank win financial bets it had made on those same energy markets.

And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

There's much more at the link.  Go read it.  It'll make it clear why the Fed and the banks will do anything they can - anything they have to - to keep kicking the fiscal and budgetary can down the road, rather than address the enormous systemic problems currently affecting our economy.  If they did address them, their opportunity for such windfall profits and control over so much of the world's economy would slip away.  They'll fight that tooth and nail.

When the economy finally crumbles, this sort of greedy manipulation will be a big part of the reason.  We'll just have to make sure that those responsible for it are held accountable in any way possible.  It's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll never be charged with any wrongdoing - after all, they control the national purse strings - so we'll have to find other ways to do so.  Tar and feathers are the least of the remedies that come to mind . . .

Peter

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Remember I mentioned Hi-Point firearms?


In my article last week about 'Defensive firearms on a bare-bones budget', I mentioned that a low-cost yet seemingly reliable pistol was made by Hi-Point Firearms.  I said that 'I actually like their carbines much better than their handguns'.

Here's a news report about a woman in Detroit who fought off three home invaders using a Hi-Point carbine.  The model displayed in the news report looks similar to the 995TSFG model.  It certainly did its job in keeping her and her children safe.





Apparently the cops caught all three home invaders.  I'd like to think they'll lock them up for years to come, but you and I know that's probably not going to happen.  They'll most likely just get a slap on the wrist, perhaps a few months in juvenile hall . . . then they're going to get out and do it again.  Next time, hopefully their selected 'victim' will be able to put a stop to their shenanigans once and for all.





Peter

Crud update


Miss D. and I both seem to have got over the feverish light-headed stage of the flu, and hopefully we'll no longer be infectious within another day or so.  We're still coughing (hacking would be a better word for it), and relying on nebulizer and inhaler treatments to keep our lungs reasonably operational.

I can't stress too strongly, friends:  if you get the flu that's going around now, take it seriously.  It's not to be trifled with.  The CDC reports that death rates due to flu and pneumonia are 'above the epidemic threshold'.  That should give you pause for thought, right there!  The son of friends volunteers at a hospital out West, and he reported that all available beds in that institution are filled with flu patients.  They're having to turn others away due to lack of space.

I can see us needing two to three weeks to fully shake off the effects of this season's flu bug.  Again, friends, please take good care of yourselves.  I don't want to lose readers, and I'd sure hate you to lose an author!

Peter

Steampunk steam train races. What's not to like?


This tickled my funny-bone.  Watch it in full-screen mode for the most amusing results.








Peter

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

This is a strange fusion, but very interesting


Take a troupe of acrobats and gymnastic dancers.

Mix with a classical music string quartet.

Shake well, and what do you get?  You get Opus, starring Circa and the Debussy String Quartet.

Yaron Lifschitz's legendary Australian perfomance troupe, Circa, has joined up with the Debussy String Quartet to set acrobatics to Shostakovich and, in the process, they've refined away all the circus's Big Top crudities. Opus is cut-glass, caviar circus. It's black tie and ballgown circus. And it's an astonishing thing to watch: graceful, bombastic. Profound.





Even the simple collision of art forms is thought-provoking. Why is one high and the other low? What makes a musician virtuosic and a circus performer freakish?

Here acrobatics looks as disciplined as ballet: all arched feet and hyperextension. Circus becomes poised and noble. Not unruly. Not cocksure.

Violinists start to seem sexy and fierce. Why does no one ever run away to join a string quartet, I wonder?





There's more at the link.  Readable, thought-provoking, and definitely stretching boundaries.

Peter

Investigative journalism FAIL!!!


Last weekend CBS's '60 Minutes' program did a special report on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II strike aircraft program.  Asking whether it was 'worth it', their conclusion was that it probably is.

Unfortunately, according to the always readable War Is Boring milblog, they goofed.

On Sunday, 60 Minutes ran a story about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter entitled, “Is the F-35 Worth It?” But watching the piece, I saw no debate whatsoever of that very important question.

And for good reason. All the interview subjects were government employees or contractors. They’d have been crazy to criticize their own program.

What I did see on Sunday was an ill-informed reporter — David Martin — touring the military side of the $400-billion F-35 program ... and throwing in just a few boilerplate questions.

These questions were softballs, considering how big of a blunder this program actually has been. The F-35 is meant to replace 2,400 existing warplanes in the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. Complex and badly compromised by the need to meet all the military branches’ diverse needs, the JSF is overpriced, unreliable and sluggish.

60 Minutes mentioned that the F-35 is behind schedule and over budget, has some bad lighting and unsatisfactory tires … and that’s about it. Those gripes barely scratch the surface of the JSF boondoggle.

. . .

... where was the long list of design and quality-control issues with the aircraft, 12 years after development began? What about discussing the many alternatives to this under-performing machine, such as F-22s and drones plus rebuilt F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s? Why not point out how many experts in the defense journalism and analysis worlds see the JSF program as detracting from America’s security rather than enhancing it?

And how could 60 Minutes have not sought the opinion of someone — anyone — who is not receiving a paycheck from the F-35 program? The widely-seen spot included no third-party aerospace or defense experts and cited not a single independent study.

There's more at the link.

War Is Boring's analysis is confirmed by Breaking Defense, which notes:

The most surprising thing about the F-35 video was the complete absence of any of the plane’s critics. While avoiding Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey and some others might be a fairly easy editorial decision, what about Sen. John McCain or perhaps Phil Coyle, the Pentagon’s former top tester. McCain seems to go hot and cold on the plane, so perhaps he wasn’t interested in speaking right now. Or perhaps he wasn’t approached.  Coyle’s status as the former head tester would seem to make him an obvious choice. But there you go.

Again, more at the link.  Both reports' criticisms certainly tally with the many observations I've made about the F-35 program in these pages over the years.

'Checkbook journalism' used to refer to the practice of journalists - or their employers - buying exclusive access to stories by paying for them.  More and more, as in cases like this, it looks like the new meaning of that phrase is that companies with deep pockets and open checkbooks buy the journalists!

Shame on you, CBS.  You've let down not only yourselves, but the nation.





Peter

For my readers in the Frozen North . . .


. . . proof that every (snow) cloud has a silver lining for at least one person.





Cool!  (Literally!)



Peter

The next interventionist crisis?


Ever since the heady days of 'manifest destiny', the USA has faced internal conflict between - for want of better terms - isolationists and interventionists.  The former want to concentrate on domestic issues, leaving the rest of the world to get on with its own affairs - but unfortunately they all too often fail to see that gathering storm clouds over the horizon will sooner or later cross that horizon and rain all over this country too.  The latter want to go out and deal with those storm clouds before they can develop into a threat - but unfortunately they often do so without a real, clear and compelling national interest that will justify the expenditure of American lives, political and diplomatic capital, and the national treasure.

Interventionism has tended to triumph over isolationism in US foreign policy, although not without bitter internal conflict at times.  The positive outcomes of interventionism have included both World Wars (including the establishment of the United Nations and other international structures during and after the latter), Korea and Gulf War I.  Its failures include Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq.  The upshot has been that US troops are currently deployed in almost 150 foreign nations.  The costs of these deployments (including personnel, equipment and operations) are usually borne by the US taxpayer.

We're facing a budgetary nightmare at home, in which all categories of government spending are going to have to be cut, whether our politicians like it or not.  Sooner or later the fiscal shenanigans played by Congress, the Senate, the President and the Fed will collapse.  The financial chickens will come home to roost.  As Stein's Law reminds us, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop".  It's already done that in Detroit and in several California cities.  It will shortly do that to several more of our cities and counties and to the most profligate and spendthrift of the 50 states, and eventually to this nation as a whole.

Yet, in the midst of this historical legacy and critical financial crisis, the cries of the interventionists are rising yet again.  They're pointing to one crisis area after another - North Korea, or Syria, or Venezuela - and demanding that the US "do more" in the name of humanity, or democracy, or whatever.  Trouble is, they never address the compelling questions that I believe must be asked if our intervention is to have any legitimacy - and, for that matter, if we're to ask a single US serviceman or -woman to risk his or her life for that 'cause'.

I feel very deeply for those suffering in these situations.  I know more about what they're going through than most - I've traveled extensively through Third World hellholes where life is cheap and death even cheaper.  They're the sort of places I hope and pray my readers never have to experience for themselves.  (Take a look at the top - or should that be bottom? - 10 states on the Failed States Index for some examples.)  I can't help but notice that many of the nations on that Index - Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan - are countries where the US has intervened militarily.  So much for 'truth, justice and the American way'.  The Biblical standard to assess the worth of anyone (or, by extension, any policy or action) is 'by their fruits you will know them'.  Bitter fruit, indeed . . .

I've also seen how foreign intervention in such hellholes has merely resulted in the ousting of one set of thugs in power, to be replaced by other thugs who seized the opportunity to 'help' the intervening forces, then made sure they grabbed the reins of power when the latter left.  In the same way, I've seen how foreign aid has been siphoned off by corruption, leaving the needy to starve, or die of disease or famine.  As the largest donor of aid in the world, the US - and its taxpayers - have been hardest hit by this corruption.  (We've lost a fortune to corruption in Afghanistan since we occupied that nation.)  If you want me to support intervention in another country, you'd better have some compelling and convincing arguments to persuade me that we won't end up in yet another corruption quagmire as a result.

Finally, the members of our Armed Forces swear an oath upon enlistment.  It reads:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I accept that 'obeying orders' might be sufficient justification, in the eyes of some, to send our forces in harm's way:  but for myself, unless there's a direct and immediate connection between deployment and 'defend(ing) the Constitution' (which can include aiding our allies with whom we have Constitutionally valid treaties), I have a problem.  Why should a single American be forced to go in harm's way in defense of a fundamentally corrupt system or state that almost certainly will not profit from his or her death?  How can we possibly tell any more parents, siblings, spouse and children that their loved one 'will not die in vain' when historically, the odds are pretty high that they probably will?

Are we intervening to make a difference, or simply to feel good about ourselves?  And is that enough to justify the death of US troops?  I fear not.  Unless there's a compelling national interest at stake, I see no reason to commit US troops to any more foreign adventures.  In fact, I'd pull a lot of them out of the countries where they now serve.  Just why are we stationing them in almost 150 foreign countries anyway - at our expense, in a time of budgetary crisis, when the Armed Forces' budgets are being slashed?  Tell me again how this makes sense?

Peter

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Blogging delayed due to crud


I'm still a bit under the weather tonight, as well as dosed up on three different kinds of medication (over and above what I take every day for other problems).  I just don't have the energy to blog much right now.

Please go read some of the folks in the sidebar, and come back in the morning.  I'll put up more posts then.

Sleep well, y'all.

Peter

Crud report


So (inevitably) Miss D. started showing the same symptoms as myself.  We toddled off to the doctor this morning to get an official diagnosis of what ails us, and the appropriate treatment.  (My diagnosis of 'crud' or 'the dreaded lurgy' is apparently considered insufficiently scientific.)

Lessons learned:

  • There are some questions that should be answered very carefully.  Example:  When your wife asks you lovingly whether there's anything she can get for you, it's not necessarily a good idea to reply "A red-headed virgin?"  Retaliation is a bitch when you can't move fast enough to get out of the way.
  • Husband and wife getting shots in the butt in the same examination room leads to hilarity.  This can cause difficulties when the nurse is laughing so hard she has to stop the injection until she recovers.
  • Saying I felt feverish was one thing.  Seeing the reading of 101.6° and realizing that I felt worse and more feverish yesterday tends to bring me down to earth with a bump.

While I collapsed into bed, Miss D. (who's feeling less under the weather than I am) picked up our prescriptions, and I woke to pills, cough medicine and an inhaler.  Hopefully they'll help both of us shake off this stuff within two to three days.

Seriously, people, be warned:  this crud is nasty.  Don't hesitate to seek professional help if you get it.

Peter

Monday, February 17, 2014

I need a legal citation, please


I need some help from the lawyers and legal-minded readers out there.

I understand the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that to exercise a constitutional right is not, in itself, grounds for suspicion.  For example, if someone wants to buy a gun, and they're asked all sorts of intrusive questions by local law enforcement (probably acting on instructions from NICS) about why they want it, that's out of line.  They're legally entitled to buy it, so why the questions?

Unfortunately, law enforcement is often notoriously heavy-handed in cases like this.  I want to help the person concerned (one of my students) by being able to cite that Supreme Court ruling.  (If there are other rulings along the same lines, either from lower levels of federal courts or from state courts, those would be useful, too.)

If you can help, please leave a comment with that information.  Thanks!

Peter

This flu sucks!


The crud that's going around at the moment is really nasty stuff.  If you haven't yet caught it, be thankful, and stock up on medications just in case.

I've been running a fever all day, and spent most of my time in bed.  Every few hours I'd get up, drink some water, some tea, and another glass of TheraFlu, then totter back to bed.  I'm now too rested to be able to just lie in bed, so I'll probably be up until the small hours, finding something to do.  (There's always Maxwell Volume 4 to write!)

Peter

Big badaboom!


This video clip is said to show a Russian truck carrying cylinders of oxygen - well, what used to be cylinders of oxygen . . .








Peter

Inflation is hitting harder - but not officially


I've written a lot about inflation in these pages over the years.  In particular, I refer readers to an analysis of the elements of inflation that I published in 2012.  It's still valid.  Furthermore, those relying on government benefits to pay their monthly bills have seen their overall purchasing power either flat-line or gradually reduce over the past decade, even as food and fuel have increased significantly in cost.

A report at CBS drives home this reality.

Writer Jen Singer, the mother of two teenage boys, wrestles with her grocery list every week to keep the household budget from getting away from her.

"I'd like the government to stop by my house, come food shopping with me and see where the real costs are," she said.

. . .

It's not her imagination. While the government says prices are up 6.4 percent since 2011, chicken is up 18.4 percent, ground beef is up 16.8 percent and bacon has skyrocketed up 22.8 percent, making it a holiday when it's on sale.

. . .

Many are concerned that while economists paint a benign picture, middle-class families are quietly struggling.

"The disconnect is severe, because it's the economists that make policy but it's the people who have to live with the outcome of that policy and that disconnect is growing to the point where I think it has to break soon," Colas said.

There's more at the link.

In case you missed it in my earlier articles, let me point out again that the official rate of inflation, as calculated by the US government, excludes food and fuel costs.  Would you please tell me how that can in any way be an accurate reflection of the prices we're actually paying?

Sooner or later - probably sooner - the economic chickens are going to come home to roost.  When they do, it's not going to be pretty.

Peter

Sunday, February 16, 2014

The dreaded lurgy has me in thrall


I've been running a fever all evening, and took to my bed about 7 p.m.  Woke up shivering to beat the band, so I got up, had a glass of water, am now drinking a mug of hot tea, and I'll finish with a mug of Theraflu with an added shot of white rum before I head back to bed.  Guaranteed to help you sleep!

As a result, blogging will be sparse tonight.  I'll put up more posts in the morning.

(If you're wondering what 'the dreaded lurgy' means, it's from a famous Goon Show episode first broadcast in 1954, 'Lurgi Strikes Britain'.  It never fails to crack me up.  It seems insane to think that the show was broadcast 60 years ago . . . )

Peter

The Gun Show Gods smiled on me today . . .


I dropped in to our local gun show this morning, hoping to find some reasonably priced .22LR ammunition.  No such luck - all of it on display was ridiculously overpriced, even brands I'd never heard of before, imported from who knows where.  I walked the tables, didn't find anything, and decided to cut my losses and return to my truck.

As I headed for the door, I met a man with an old pump-action shotgun over his shoulder.  As he turned and I saw it, my heart skipped a beat.  It was a Winchester Model 12, often called 'the perfect repeater'.  I asked him if he was selling it and he nodded, offering it for inspection.  I looked it over, noting a silvery patina over all the metal (but not a speck of rust) and a low-six-digit serial number.  It was clearly a relatively early-production gun that had been well used, but lovingly cared for.

I was sure it would be outside my price range, but I couldn't resist.  I asked, "How much?"

"I need to get $400 for it."

I think my fingers left scorch-marks on my trousers as my hand dived into my pocket to retrieve my wallet.  I wasn't about to let this one get away!  I'd guess it's worth quite a bit more than he was asking - Model 12's aren't cheap these days.

I got home with it, only to have to fend off our housemate as he tried to persuade me to sell it to him.  (I don't think he's forgiven me yet for my refusal).  Checking the serial number online, it looks like this one was made in 1920, so it's 94 years old.  The action is buttery-smooth and the barrel and magazine tube lock solidly to the frame - it's probably seldom if ever been taken down into its two halves.  I'll have to look for a second 12ga. barrel for it, to cut down into a more defensive configuration (the original is serial-numbered to the frame, so I'd rather not alter it).

I may not have found the .22LR ammo I was looking for, but there sure were compensations today!



Peter

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Looks like Big Brother's at it again . . .


Here's a news report about a school in Wisconsin where the authorities seem to have an inflated idea of their own importance, and the amount of control they have over the children entrusted to their educational care.





I can fully understand the concerns of the parents.  Consider:

  • What business does the school system have in asking kids such intensely personal questions?  It's none of their business!
  • Young children are very impressionable.  They can be coerced or pressured into saying things about their families that are simply untrue.
  • What guarantee is there that what the kids say in class won't be reported to Child Protective Services or some other organ of the state, that might decide to remove the kids from their parents' custody while they investigate what may be a spurious charge or complaint?  (Just do an internet search on 'CPS abuses' to see what I mean.)

Sounds like these particular incarnations of Big Brother need to be slapped down hard . . .





Peter

The print edition of 'Adapt and Overcome' is now available


After some unfortunate delays caused by formatting issues, the print edition of my latest book, 'Adapt and Overcome', is now available on Amazon.com.  At present there are two editions listed there, one for print and one for e-book, but they'll be combined during the next few days.  Until that happens, please use these links to find them:





Thanks again for all your support - and, if you've read the book, please leave a review on Amazon.com!  That really helps prospective readers to form an opinion of the book, and decide whether or not to invest their hard-earned dollars in a copy.  Thanks!

Peter

Around The Blogs 2014-02-15


I've had a very busy week preparing the print edition of my latest book (of which more in the next post), so I haven't been cruising around the blogosphere as much as usual.  Nevertheless, several articles caught my eye.

# # #

Karl Denninger takes an irascible, cynical, jaded look at the tertiary education nightmare in the USA in three blog articles:






If you have kids about to enter the college or university system, you really need to read all three articles.  More to the point, make them read the articles, and see the trouble the system is storing up for them.  Karl's conclusion:

Debt-funded post-secondary education, on the numbers, especially when the quoted figures are intentionally understated by as much as 50% for the typical case, is simply not a supportable decision.

To support his contention, I refer you to three articles that appeared in mainstream media over the past couple of weeks:




All three articles are also worth reading.  Bottom line:  college is a financial risk so great that its utility is questionable - so question it for all you're worth!  (Pun intended.)

# # #

Max Velocity brings us a very funny video on 'How To Be Tacticool'.  Not safe for work!




# # #

Commander Zero loses his cool (you should pardon the expression) at the driving habits of Southerners when it comes to snow and ice.  A sample:

Apparently the only thing that caused more destruction in the south than the Civil War War Of Southern Overconfidence is a couple inches of snow.

. . .

Despite what television commercials tell you, four-wheel drive (or All-wheel drive) does not make you an automotive Superman. All it does is let you get overconfident and get stuck in really bad ways that folks with two-wheel drive vehicles could only dream of. It is amazing the number of ‘soccer moms’ who bought SUV’s because ‘they're safer’ and now think that they have had some sort of magic ability conferred upon them that allows them to defy physics and ignore frictional coefficients. Bonus points for her if she’s yapping on her cellphone as the blows down the interstate at 75 mph and cuts in front of the plow.

(Miss D., being from Alaska, wholeheartedly agrees with him!)

# # #

Monday made Odysseus laugh.  Go to his blog to find out why.  (Yes, I laughed too!)




# # #

American Mercenary has a series of articles describing how he, his wife and their two young children fared when they decided to test a 30-day survival food pack from Augason Farms to see whether it would actually feed and satisfy them.  In sequence, his articles are:




Interesting reading with many lessons to be learned, particularly for those of us who store emergency supplies.

# # #


The Adaptive Curmudgeon's word for the day is 'Negative Knowledge'.  He has plenty of examples, including:

  • I do not know what “twerking” is. I think it’s associated with someone formerly called Hanna Montana and now known as Miley Cyrus? A 3 second Internet search indicates a young lady(?) who apparently divides her time between looking like a teenage boy and acting like fembot who drank too much Red Bull. I don’t care to know more.
  • I do not care that hotels at the Olympics are funky. It’s Russia! Three quarters of a century as a socialist paradise followed by Putin’s iron fist led to the crap you see. If you want clean roomy hotels stay in Cincinnati.
  • If you’re from Cincinnati and don’t like my analogy, I don’t want to know that either.




# # #

Finally, Blue tells us what's really wrong with society.  Reading the headlines, I find it hard to disagree with him . . .

# # #

That's all for this week.  More soon.

Peter

Score!


Heartfelt thanks to everyone who's responded to my appeal for leads on where to find some .22LR ammunition for disabled shooters.

  • A couple of readers have e-mailed me offering to send money to buy some, whenever and wherever I can find it.  I have a couple of leads, so when the money gets here I hope to be able to 'stock up the larder' over the course of the next month or two.  Prices for quality ammo are through the roof, though . . . what used to buy a case of 5,000 rounds in 2012 won't buy even a fifth of one now at most retailers.
  • Two readers (so far) have offered ammunition from their stocks.  I hope to meet one in Nashville next week, and I set up a rendezvous with another one this afternoon at a large regional firearms store.  He came through with well over a thousand rounds.  Squeeeee!
  • It was a good day for my own ammo supplies as well.  While at the firearms store, my eyes fell upon some Federal buckshot with their spiffy Flitecontrol wad, which greatly extends its effective range.  Double squeeeee!  I grabbed every box of full-power buckshot they had (not many), plus a few of the reduced-recoil offering.  Finding that stuff around here is very difficult indeed, so I wasn't about to let it get away.

I think future training will have to be conducted using BB and/or Airsoft pistols for several hundred rounds, followed by 50-100 rounds of .22LR ammo.  That will still enable students to learn the fundamentals, plus give them enough experience with the real stuff that they'll be comfortable with it.  Next year's training plans are in abeyance until we see what happens to the ammo supply (and prices) this year.

Thanks very much to everyone who's offered to help.  Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Peter

Friday, February 14, 2014

.22LR as a defensive round


I've had a few readers take issue with my article on Wednesday about defensive firearms on a budget, particularly my comments about training disabled shooters using table tennis balls or equivalent targets.  Some people seem to think that such results are impossible - in other words, they think I'm lying.  Others believe it's irresponsible to recommend the 'puny' .22LR as a defensive round.  I'd like to take a little time to address both perspectives.

Let's start with .22LR's viability for defensive use.  I completely agree that a defensive round should have adequate power to get the job done.  The trouble is, all handgun rounds are deficient in energy, not to mention the nebulous concept known as 'stopping power', when compared to almost any centerfire rifle or shotgun round.  The 'gold standards' of handgun cartridge effectiveness are widely perceived to be .45 ACP in pistols, or .357 Magnum in revolvers.  However, there have been many 'failures to stop' using both rounds.  They're far from infallible.  Furthermore, most modern defensive ammunition appears to offer very similar performance, irrespective of caliber or cartridge, when results are compared in uniform test media such as ballistic gelatin, as the image below shows.




The image is taken from this excellent discussion of the topic, which I highly recommend you read in full.  Given an effective round, defensive success appears to be far more dependent on shot placement - putting one's bullets where they'll do the most good (or harm, depending on one's perspective) - than on bullet diameter, weight or energy level.

The average muzzle energy of all six of the above rounds is 404.33 foot-pounds.  In comparison, a .22LR hollow-point round weighing 36 grains, fired at a muzzle velocity of 1020 feet per second from a 4" handgun barrel, offers muzzle energy of a mere 83.2 foot-pounds - about one-fifth that of a handgun round considered more suitable for defensive use.  That's pretty weak.  However, it will also generate very much less recoil than the better-performing rounds.  For example, the first round in the illustration above, a 124gr. 9mm. bullet fired from a Glock 19 pistol at a muzzle velocity of 1181 feet per second, produces free recoil energy of 7.69 foot-pounds.  (Most of the other rounds mentioned in the image will produce greater recoil energy than that from a typical handgun.)  The .22LR round described above, fired from a Ruger SR22 pistol, will produce free recoil energy of only 1.37 foot-pounds.



Ruger SR22 pistol



That recoil figure is why the .22LR is a game-changer for some people.  I've worked with disabled and handicapped individuals who have limited upper body strength and/or mobility, including their arms and hands.  They find it difficult or even impossible to control an average handgun in recoil.  However, the very low recoil impulse of a .22LR handgun is a different kettle of fish.  Basically, if they can pick up a tennis ball, they can cope with a .22's recoil.  Therefore, such individuals are much better served being able to shoot something in self-defense, even if it's generally considered less than optimum, rather than be left with nothing at all.

That brings us back to the training I provide to such individuals - the training some readers seem to think is 'impossible'.  It's not.  In fact, I'm going to challenge all of my readers to try this experiment for themselves.

First, I'm assuming that you're capable of keeping all your shots from a handgun inside a 6" circle at a range of 20-25 yards, firing slowly and deliberately.  If you're not yet at that level of competence, you should work on that before proceeding with this exercise.

Next, you'll need a BB pistol and ammunition, given the high cost and limited availability of .22LR ammo right now.  If you don't already have one, I suggest this one (that's the model I use, but there are many alternatives - do your own research and select one you like).  Buy also a pack of CO2 cartridges and a supply of BB's.  All three purchases together will cost you about $62, which will give you up to 2,400 shots for a total cost (including the pistol) of about 2½ cents per round.  If you want to go to 4,800 shots (which I frankly recommend), buy two packs of CO2 cartridges and two of BB's for a total investment of under $84 - well under 2 cents per round.  (If you'd prefer to use an Airsoft pistol rather than a BB, that's your call.  Personally, I find the BB more effective as a training tool.)

Once you've bought those things, you need to invest in some suitable targets.  60 cheap tennis balls will cost you a dollar apiece and are tough enough to last for a long time, but might be a bit heavy for BB pellets to roll them across uneven ground.  These 'small balls' are even cheaper and weigh less, but probably won't last as long.  I've used both options.  (I know one shooter who invested in a small ball pitching machine to help his training.)  As your skills improve, you'll need smaller targets.  I use these mini practice balls, and also bulk packs of ping-pong (table-tennis) balls - the latter don't hold up well to multiple bullet impacts, but they react very well when hit, making them a lot of fun.  You'll also need hearing protection and eye protection (VERY important, particularly the latter!).

Finally, find an open area of bare ground on which to place the balls, with a suitable backstop (an earthen berm, a solid wooden fence, etc.) to stop the BB's ricocheting off the ground and endangering others.  (A grassy surface isn't optimum, as the grass will slow down the balls, perhaps even prevent them from rolling at all under the very light impact of BB's.  However, if a grass surface is all that's available, consider laying down a tarpaulin or old carpet on top of it as a rolling surface.  It'll get torn up, so don't use anything you want to keep in good condition.)  As a commenter has noted, you can also use the interior of your garage provided you line the walls with old carpets, or cardboard boxes, or something else to absorb BB's that ricochet off the cement floor.  You don't want them bouncing off the walls and coming back at you!  (A great source for old carpets is a carpet seller/installer.  They rip out old carpets by the mile every week, recycling the best and throwing away the worst.  You can often get old carpet rolls from them free of charge, or for nominal sums.)

Start by laying out a few of the larger tennis balls or 'small balls' at random.  From a range of about 10 feet, try lining up your sights on each one and hitting it with a magazine full of BB's, moving it along the ground.  Don't try for speed at first, but concentrate on accuracy.  As you get better, start shifting your sights between balls with each shot.  Hit one ball, start it moving, swing to another ball, hit it and start it moving, then swing back to the first and hit it again.  Do this until you can make every shot count, then move back to first 15 feet, then 20 feet, then 25 feet.  Practice until you're competent at every distance, including putting balls at varying ranges from near to far and hitting them all.

When you've got this down pat, move to the smaller balls and repeat the process.  Practice until you can hit a stationary table-tennis-ball-sized target with every round at ranges up to 25 feet.  When you achieve that, you'll need to call upon a friend for help to get to the next level.  His job will be to stand next to you, or just behind you, and toss the balls ahead of you so that you have to hit them while they're moving.  When you've acquired that skill, he should start bouncing them off a plank or other obstacle to either side, so that they're moving across your front instead of away from you.  This makes them much harder to hit.  As you're able to hit more and more balls one after another, increase the speed and frequency at which they're thrown, making the shooter's task more difficult.  You can work up to a point where he's throwing several balls at once.

The object of the exercise is to reach a level of skill where you can hit 7 out of 10 randomly moving table-tennis balls within 5 seconds.  I find even disabled or handicapped students can reach this level of skill after about 3,000-4,000 rounds of practice.  The best can hit all 10 in that time.  (A few shooters, after much more practice, can even hit several balls firing from the hip, without using the sights.)  Once you can attain that standard using a BB pistol, it's not hard to do likewise with a .22LR handgun (assuming your backstop is adequate to prevent the bullets from ricocheting outside your range area and endangering others - I use a field with a hillside behind it to prevent that happening).

Now, consider this from a defensive shooting standpoint.  You're capable of hitting 7 out of 10 moving targets not much bigger than a human nose, using a .22LR handgun, at typical defensive ranges.  Using the same handgun, do you think you could put 7 out of 10 rounds into the inverted triangle formed by the human eyes and nose (a larger, easier target) at the same distance - even if your target is moving?  You bet you could!  I think we can take it for granted that any bad guy receiving a faceful of high-velocity hollowpoints (my standard recommendation for defensive use in .22LR is CCI Velocitor ammunition, with CCI Stinger as a second choice) is going to be discouraged. Three of my disabled students (so far) have already demonstrated that to their (and my) complete satisfaction.  They're still here, and uninjured.  Their assailants . . . not so much.

Under those conditions, for shooters with physical limitations but with that sort of training, you'd better believe the 'lowly' .22LR is a viable defensive round!

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  A few years after writing this article, I did a follow-up piece examining how Israeli operators used .22LR weapons in combat - very successfully, too.  You'll find it here.


No, really - why DID the chicken cross the road?


Courtesy of the latest Daily Dispatch newsletter from Casey Research, here are the answers they envision from various politicians and public figures to the time-honored question:  "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Sarah Palin: "The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!"

Barack Obama: "Let me be perfectly clear: if the chickens like their eggs, they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period."

John McCain: "My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road."

Hillary Clinton: "What difference, at this point, does it make why the chicken crossed the road?"

George W. Bush: "We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. Heh, heh! We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here."

Dick Cheney: "Where's my gun?"

Colin Powell: "Now, to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road."

Bill Clinton: "I did not cross the road with that chicken."

Al Gore: "I invented the chicken."

John Kerry: "Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it."

Al Sharpton: "Why are all the chickens white?"

Dr. Phil: "The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before he goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems."

Oprah: "Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens."

Anderson Cooper: "We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road."

Nancy Grace: "That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks."

Pat Buchanan: "To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American."

Martha Stewart: "No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the farmer's market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information."

Dr. Seuss: "Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told."

Ernest Hemingway: "To die in the rain, alone."

Grandpa: "In my day, we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us."

Barbara Walters: "Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road."

Aristotle: "It is the nature of chickens to cross the road."

John Lennon: "Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace."

Bill Gates: "I have just released eChicken2013, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2013. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot."

Albert Einstein: "Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?"

Colonel Sanders: "Did I miss one?"




Peter

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Driving hints for Southerners caught in the snow and ice


Here's a helpful visual driving guide for those in the Southern states affected by this week's snow and ice.








Peter

A Valentine's Day thought from England


In the midst of some of the worst flooding in England in living memory, the Telegraph's cartoonist Matt thinks about Valentine's Day.







Peter

Good riddance!


So Ray Nagin finally got what was coming to him.  It's long overdue.  He was one of the most egotistical blowhards ever inflicted upon New Orleans by its voters, and proved utterly incompetent during the Hurricane Katrina crisis.  Like Edwin Edwards and other corrupt Louisiana officials, his dishonesty was legendary.  Everyone knew what he was up to, but no-one in the State of Louisiana criminal justice system would do anything about it.  It took Federal prosecutors to nail him down.

I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars . . . in a prison in a high-risk area for hurricanes . . . with no prospect of evacuation if one comes ashore.





Peter

An unhappy anniversary, but with compensations


Ten years ago today, on February 13th, 2004, I was a fairly healthy man, working as a prison chaplain.  On that date I suffered an injury to my spine at work that would eventually lead to two surgeries.  The first was a laminectomy that didn't work, resulting in failed back syndrome.  That necessitated a second surgery in 2005, resulting in spinal fusion.  This stabilized my spine, but left me with titanium hardware in my lower back and permanent damage to the nerves in my left leg, and forced my medical retirement.  I've been partly physically handicapped since then.

I guess I shouldn't complain too loudly.  There are those who've suffered similar injuries to mine who can't walk any more, and are confined to wheelchairs.  I need the aid of a walking-stick to cover any sort of distance, and I can't move fast, but at least I'm still able to walk.  Even so, it's sobering to think that the only times I've been free of pain in the past ten years have been when I've been under the influence of total or local anesthesia.  (I can vividly recall the last time I was conscious and pain-free.  It was in 2005, after undergoing epidural anesthesia for the administration of steroids directly into my spine.  For six blissful hours I couldn't feel a thing below my waist.  I couldn't walk properly, couldn't even pee - but I felt no pain.  It was wonderful!  Unfortunately, the anesthetic wore off in due course . . . )

A neurosurgeon told me in 2005 that I'd never be able to work again, and I should resign myself to living on disability income.  I refused to believe him, and set about learning the craft of writing to prove him wrong.  This blog has been a big part of that, and I most sincerely thank all of you for staying with me on the journey.  My latest book has been on the market for only eight days, but it's selling better than any of my first three.  At the time of writing it's well inside the top 1,000 books in Amazon's Kindle store (out of something like 2½ million books for sale there).  That's both astonishing and gratifying to me.  I know I owe a great deal of that success to you, my blog readers and followers.  I'll never have enough words to thank you sufficiently for helping me to find a new way in which to support myself and my wife.  Just goes to show that the old proverb's true - every cloud does have a silver lining, if you're prepared to look for it and work hard to earn it.

My injury and resulting disability were also important elements in my courtship of Miss D., who is now my wife.  She's been the "pedestrian filling in a two-car sandwich", as she likes to put it, and has suffered other serious injuries on previous occasions.  It's a blessing to both of us that when one complains about pain or weakness, the other really does understand exactly what they mean!  We don't have to wonder whether the other 'gets it'.  We know they do.  Our shared pain draws us closer together, and helps us support each other on the bad days.

Thanks for being part of this journey with me for the past six-plus years on this blog.  Here's looking forward to many more years of writing, many more years with Miss D., and many more years of hobbling around!  As for the pain . . . it reminds me that I'm alive.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Peter

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Defensive firearms on a bare-bones budget


Following my article last night on how to prepare for economic hard times, I've had a couple of queries from readers about my emphasis on security.  They state that they know little or nothing about firearms, and have very little money to spend, but would like to be able to defend themselves and their families if push comes to shove.  What should they buy?

This is a very tricky question to answer.  Money definitely counts in terms of the quality of the firearms available to us.  Low cost often equals low quality - sometimes very severe safety issues as well.  (For example, I can't recommend handguns offered under the Lorcin, Jennings, Bryco, Cobra, Raven or Jimenez brand names.  On the other hand, some low-cost handguns have proved surprisingly reliable in operation.)

The first and most important consideration is that it's pointless to buy a firearm unless you're prepared to learn how to use it safely, accurately and effectively.  You can literally be more of a danger to yourself and your family than to an aggressor if you try to use a firearm without any training or practice.  For that reason, my initial recommendation to any novice firearm purchaser is to buy a training weapon first.  This will not be a firearm as such, but a BB or Airsoft gun of similar type to what you plan to use for defense.

  • If you plan to purchase a semi-automatic pistol, buy a BB pistol like this one (I've bought three of them so far, and highly recommend them) or an Airsoft pistol like this one (which I also know from personal experience).  Of course, you don't have to select one of those - there are many other choices out there.  Do your own research.  Buy also enough air cylinders (for gas-operated pistols) and ammo (BB's or airsoft pellets) for at least 1,000 rounds of training - I personally prefer 5,000.
  • If you plan to purchase a double-action revolver, buy a similar BB revolver or Airsoft equivalent for training purposes, again with enough ammo as described above.  (I don't have personal experience with either model, so I can't make any promises about them.)
  • If you want to buy a pump-action shotgun, try this as a training equivalent.
  • If you're after a lever-action rifle, how about this one?
  • If you haven't yet decided what type of weapon you want to buy, start training anyway!  Buy a basic BB or Airsoft handgun or long gun and put it to good use.  You'll find that basic shooting skills translate relatively easily between weapon types.  While you're learning the basics, you can save your money to buy the real thing.

You can find equivalent BB or Airsoft clones of many regular firearms, and typically buy one of them and air cartridges and ammunition for well under $100 total.  Use them, plus instructional video clips from YouTube (ignore the 'tacticool' over-the-top videos with rock music soundtracks - look for sober, sensible presentations without hype) and the help of friends who know what they're doing, to get a basic idea of how to aim and fire a weapon.  Concentrate on slow, accurate shooting at first, until you can put all your rounds into the center of a target (I use the cheapest grade of 8" paper, plastic or foam disposable plates).  Start at close range (10-15 feet) and extend it as you get better, until you can group 10 rounds inside 4"-6" at 15-20 yards on demand.  (This assumes your training weapon is capable of such accuracy, of course.)

Once you've learned the basics of accurate shooting, try to shoot faster without losing accuracy.  Defensive shooting is typically at close range, so set up small targets (e.g. tennis balls to start, later progressing to even smaller table-tennis or squash balls) at varying distances (10-15 feet at first, moving out in stages to 15-20 yards) and try to hit them.  I've trained several wheelchair-bound shooters to hit a rolling squash or table-tennis ball (or a target of similar size) with at least 7 out of 10 rounds from a handgun at distances of 10 to 20 feet, all within 5 to 6 seconds.  That may sound daunting, but after a few thousand rounds of practice, starting with a BB pistol and progressing to a .22LR firearm, they didn't find this too difficult.  As I said to them, if they can hit a small, moving target that often at that range, they should have little trouble hitting someone threatening their safety!

I highly recommend taking a basic training course from a qualified instructor if possible.  Many shooting ranges offer NRA courses, and some police and sheriff's departments offer firearms training for citizens.  They'll probably expect you to use a real gun when you attend the course, rather than a BB or Airsoft 'toy', but they may be able to arrange a 'loaner' firearm for you.  There's no harm in asking.  Expect to pay $50-$100 for this level of training, plus the cost of ammunition.

All right - you've invested in a BB or Airsoft weapon and practiced enough to be able to hit what you're aiming at.  That's a great start.  Now, on your very limited budget, what's worth buying for defensive use?

I recommend a shotgun as a basic home defense weapon.  It's mechanically simple, usually pretty reliable, and powerful enough to stop most intruders in their tracks if the worst comes to the worst.  I've written about shotguns for home defense in a three part series of articles - follow each of those links to read more about the subject.  There's also an excellent introduction to defensive shotguns here.  You can buy a perfectly serviceable new Chinese-made shotgun for $200-$250, and used models of US shotguns are available for similar prices.  Look for a shorter barrel (18"-20") and, if possible, magazine capacity of at least 5 rounds - some offer up to 8 rounds.  If you want maximum ammunition versatility, go for the 12 gauge offerings;  20 gauge is almost as effective (and my recommended choice for those who are new to shotguns), but defensive ammunition (buckshot and slug) isn't always as freely available.  (You can get reduced recoil buckshot and slug ammo for 12ga. shotguns that's easier to control than full-house loads.)



Mossberg 500 Bantam 20ga. youth model shotgun



I recommend any of the following shotguns (if used, have an expert check their condition before you buy them):


There are many others out there that may serve you well;  but in terms of quality and value for money, the four I've mentioned have worked for me.  YMMV.  You should be able to get a new or used example of any of the above, plus enough cheap birdshot ammunition to become familiar with it and some buckshot and/or slugs for home defense, for not more than $300 in all.

If you want a handgun instead, that can be a problem.  A quality name-brand handgun will usually cost $300-$500 used, and $500-$750 new.  There's a plethora of designs and variations out there, and choosing the right one can be bewildering.  However, if price is the ultimate consideration there's one handgun that's relatively low-cost ($175-$250 retail, depending on model and caliber), but runs surprisingly well in practice.  That's the Hi-Point range of pistols (manufacturer's Web site here).



Hi-Point 9mm. pistol



I don't like them;  they feel over-large, clunky and ungainly in my hands, and give the outward impression of poor quality.  Nevertheless, many people who own them report that they're reliable and accurate enough for defensive purposes.  Those that I've fired have lived up to that reputation.  Therefore, don't let my prejudices put you off;  try them for yourself.  They're certainly much more affordable than most of their competitors.  The company also makes a line of pistol-caliber carbines that have earned a reputation for reliability.  (I actually like their carbines much better than their handguns.)  I'd still rather save my money until I could afford something better, but that's my opinion.  A bad guy will hate to get shot by any gun!

I don't know a low-cost double-action revolver that's of adequate quality to satisfy me.  If I'm going to have to spend $300-$400 to buy a Charter Arms or Rossi model, I'd rather spend as much or a little more on a higher-quality used Smith & Wesson revolver.  (Get an expert to check it out before purchasing it, to make sure you aren't buying someone else's problem.)

(EDITED TO ADD:  Reader Sport Pilot has offered one alternative that seems intriguing - see the foot of this article for details.)

However, there's one low-cost revolver for trail and camping use that can also serve for defensive purposes in a pinch.  It's the Heritage Arms series of single-action revolvers, available in rimfire and centerfire calibers.  Their .22LR and .22WMR revolvers are very affordable, many costing less than $200 retail - I own a couple myself, and like them.  (I agree that .22 rimfire, either LR or WMR, is marginal as a defensive round;  but it's better than nothing).  Their centerfire models are more expensive, but still offer value for money compared to higher-grade competitors.



Heritage Arms .22LR/.22WMR single-action revolver



Most instructors (including myself) agree that a single-action revolver is slow to reload and not as fast to shoot as a double-action revolver, making it less than optimum for defensive use.  Nevertheless, I can't help remembering that the Old West was settled with the aid of such revolvers, and their modern users like the members of the Single Action Shooting Society (SASS - also known as 'cowboy action shooting') demonstrate remarkable speed and accuracy with them.  (Look on YouTube for videos of their prowess.)  A single-action revolver will serve you as well as you train yourself to use it.

Whatever you buy, make sure you also purchase enough practice ammunition to familiarize yourself with your weapon of choice, and also buy some premium defensive ammo to take care of "things that go bump in the night".  In today's market, ammo can be hard to come by, so don't buy a gun that uses a cartridge you can't find for love or money!

In my experience, you can buy a BB or Airsoft training weapon, plus enough gas cartridges and pellets to train yourself to an adequate level of performance, plus a defensive weapon (one of the shotguns or handguns mentioned above), plus sufficient practice ammunition to become familiar with it, plus a small quantity of higher-quality defensive ammunition, for a total expenditure of under $500.  If you wish to ignore my advice to get a BB or Airsoft training weapon and/or attend an entry-level training course, you can knock $100-$200 off that total.  I don't think you'll be able to do much better than that.

What do you think, readers?  Any suggestions?

Peter


EDITED TO ADD:  In a comment, reader Sport Pilot tells us about the M5 12-gauge shotgun and the M200 and M206 .38 Special revolvers, all made by Armscor in the Philippines.



Armscor M200



I have no personal experience of these firearms, but I found this review of the revolvers that seems positive.  I was interested to read that one can use grips made for the Colt Detective Special to replace those supplied from the factory - an important consideration to improve a revolver's fit and feel in one's hand.  I'm going to see about getting one to test in due course.  Thanks for the heads-up, Sport Pilot.  At a retail price that appears to be in the $220-$250 range (if one can find them) these might be a value-for-money proposition.

A couple of readers have suggested single-shot shotguns like these (a review is here).  I like them as 'fun guns', but I tend to argue against them for defensive use, because for not much more money you can get a pump-action shotgun with greater magazine capacity.  However, for those with so little money that they can't afford any of the firearms I've discussed above, I suggest these as viable 'last choice' weapons.  I've found several used examples for disabled students who had less than $100 to spend.  They were able to buy the gun, a 25-round box of birdshot for familiarization and training, and a 5-round box of buckshot for defensive use within that budget.  It's hard to beat those numbers.

I need help locating .22LR ammo for disabled students


I'm trying to line up various defensive shooting classes for disabled and/or handicapped students during 2014.  I usually use .22LR handguns for this purpose, as students can handle the minimal recoil even if their disabilities are significant.  I was lucky enough to trade into a couple of cases of .22LR ammo late in 2012, which made last year's classes much easier to arrange:  but this year is looking bleak.  I don't want to switch to BB guns for training, because they lack several features of 'real' firearms:  but if I can't find ammo at a reasonable cost (students on a disability income can't afford scalpers' prices), I may have to.

Can any readers help me?  Here's how:

  • If you have contacts at any ammo manufacturer or wholesaler or dealer, and think you can arrange for them to sell me a couple of cases of ammo for this purpose at affordable prices, I'd love to hear from you (my e-mail address is in my blog profile).
  • If you have a brick or two of .22LR ammo that's surplus to your requirements, would you consider donating or selling it for a good cause?  Again, please e-mail me.

I'd be most grateful for your help.  The only conditions are that the ammo should be reasonably reliable (powerful enough to operate the mechanism of most semi-auto pistols - some cheap ammo isn't loaded to the right power levels to do that) and accurate (in other words, shoot to point of aim rather than scatter its bullets about like shotgun pellets - don't laugh - some cheaper brands have done that, in my experience!)

Thanks in advance for your help.

Peter

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

A seldom-seen airport


Here's an interesting (and visually spectacular) video taken from an Embraer Phenom 100 VLJ (very light jet) landing at Narsarsuaq Airport in southern Greenland.  The airport was established by US forces during World War II for anti-submarine patrols and as a ferry airfield for aircraft transiting the North Atlantic Ocean.  It's little used today except as a refueling stop for shorter-range aircraft like this.





Lovely scenery.

Peter