Rights? What Rights?

North Carolina has passed a state law prohibiting the use of gender specific rest room by people of a gender not identified on the bathroom.

In common terms, men may not use women’s rest rooms and vice-versa.

The Federal Government, specifically the Obama Administration and politically appointed positions of the Obama Administration, has ordered gender specific rest rooms to open to anyone who chooses to use them; regardless of who is already using the rest room.

Note this does not apply only to those persons who have had extensive surgery to remove extraneous sexual organs and features, additionally cosmetically adding the appearance of the desired sexual organs and features; but applies to anyone ‘identifying’ as a member of a sex. So a physically complete, functional female can enter a male rest room at will. Conversely, a physically complete and fully functional male can enter a female rest room at will.

According to the Obama Administration – and a group of supporters presumably and announced as members of the self-proclaimed “GBLT community” (“GBLT” is identified as Gay – Bi sexual – Lesbian – Transvestite or Trans sexual) demand this; as anything less intrudes on their ‘right’ to relieve themselves.

There are several inconsistent and somewhat incoherent thoughts in this.

One: From where does the ‘right’ to use a rest room of the other sex derive? The U. S. Constitution lists no such right along with speedy trials, possessing and carrying arms, security in property and papers, and the ability to criticize the government; probably some others I haven’t mentioned.

The Declaration of Independence – if not the structure of our nation and government as the Constitution, is the spirit of our nation and government – cites ‘inalienable rights’ ‘endowed by our Creator’ as the source of individual rights. I hear no argument nor can I cite such such ‘rights’ as endowed by the Creator. Nor has anyone else heretofore. Ever.

Two: Presuming such rights – and I do not, I speak only for sake of argument – why and how do the rights of ‘this group’ overrule the rights of ‘that group’? In common speech and thought, how does the claimed ‘right’ of a physical male who ‘self-identifies’ as a female, over rule the right of physical females who feel threatened and humiliated by the presence of a physical male in their rest room?

Why is allowing ‘other sex’ people to invade the rest rooms of ‘regular sex’ people so important?

Three: How many of those people who might be considered “LBGT” really want to use the rest room of the other sex? How many Lesbians want to use rest room facilities with men? (Either as the invader or the invadee?) (I see from my spell check I’ve invented another word.) Conversely, how many homosexually inclined men want to use rest room facilities with women? (Again, as invader or invadee?) From my own knowledge derived from the men and women I know to be homosexual, none of them have suggested – to me anyway – they really feel deprived not being allowed in the ‘other’ rest room.

Four: The incidence of homosexuality – including lesbianism – in this country (or among humans world wide) is a very slim minority. There are varying estimates on the percentage. All the scientific surveys and estimates I can find start by saying, “No one really knows” and then proceeds with their best guess. I find it not surprising that most answers tend to support the views of the parent organization or agency. (Non-gay organizations tend to be lower in estimates than gay activist organizations.) However, all groups seem to find the homosexual (male and female) incidence rates are distinct minorities. The rates range from less than four percent to approaching twenty percent.

Therefore, by any count, the number of persons supporting and expecting some form of benefit from the dictate to ‘open the rest rooms’ to any is a rather small minority. What is the desire of the Obama Administration in discomfiting the
majority for the supposed benefit of a distinct minority?

By the way, we are not suggesting – nor does the North Carolina law, nor anyone else – denial of public restrooms to anyone. There is no question of “You have to go home to go”. Unless of course, the ‘open rest room’ faction succeeds; in which case the majority of people will be forced to share facilities with those who want to embarrass and possibly harm them.

Five: President Obama is now threatening to penalize North Carolina and other local governmental agencies if they do not comply with his dictates. All schools receiving federal funds – and of course, ALL public schools have been mandated to receive federal funds – or in the common tongue, individual citizen’s tax money – and therefore, ALL public schools are subject to the extortion by command, to open all restrooms to anyone who feels like it.

What is the purpose of all this? Other than the progressive goal of destroying all morals and values, one does not know. One understands this will expose all school age children – in a very vulnerable state – to the visual review of anyone and everyone. This is desired by the progressive faction of society, but I’m not sure it is desired by many others.

One other thing: If the United States elects a Democrat, either Democrat, to the Presidency everyone may rest assured this attack will continue. The reader may vote as the reader pleases. If getting more money and ‘benefits’ is more important than your children, feel free to vote Democrat.

If one’s children are important, one must consider doing otherwise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Christianity, Civilization, Crime, Idiot Politicians, Nation, Political Correctness

Some Random Observations Regarding God

Following is a rather unconnected and rambling list of thoughts. They are all based on statements or questions presented by non-believers – and a few believers in some cases – and have demanded my explanation. Some of these items have been addressed before in this blog. Perhaps not in exactly the same manner, but hopefully with the same mindset and arguments.

Giving the same old answer to the same old question is to be expected. Asking the same old question after the answer has been provided – and explained, ad infinitum – is rather childish.

1. Dying isn’t the worst thing that can happen.

The stimulus for this is typically a complaint along the lines of someone dying when the speaker didn’t want them to die. The speaker/complainer feels rather victimized because someone – a child, one’s parent or other relation, one’s dog, a favorite actor or singer – has died. Not only has the someone died, but in the opinion of the speaker/complainer, at the improper time or instant. “Why did the little girl (or boy) die because a drunk ran them over? Why didn’t God – obviously God’s fault – stop it?”

In some cases, the dead person died far away and possibly long ago. For instance, “Why did all the various Christians die in the Roman circuses?” Or “Why did God allow the [pick an evil group] to kill such and such a Christian?”

Where I cannot clearly answer all details of all questions, I do have some basic information about the phenomenon.

First, everyone dies. It’s a rule. Not only everyone, but everything. Horses, trees, governments, ideas (perhaps not all ideas, but the ‘fad’ ones anyway), and so on. So even if Uncle Cletus had survived the automobile accident, the cancer would have killed him anyway. Or his age. Or his lifestyle (drank whisky like a fish and smoked like a steam engine). Perhaps an angry husband. But die he would have.

Every so often – less currently – the attack of 11 September, 2001 is mentioned. God is berated for the death of around 3,000 people. Sometimes Moslem terrorists are mentioned in passing, sometimes not. Allow me to point out, had that not happened, would those people have lived forever? Probably not. Dying is often a tragedy and nearly alway inconvenient. But it happens to everyone, sooner or later.

When one accepts the concept of God’s sovereignty and omniscience together, one understands it is God who determines when everyone – anyone – dies; and when it happens, it was the ‘right time’. Just to be sure everyone has a chance to get this, it was the ‘right time’ as far as God was concerned. It may not be the ‘right time’ for the grieving survivor – including me – but it was the right time in God’s plan. If one of the survivors don’t agree, it makes little difference in the long run. One might as well be mad Rembrandt didn’t ‘lighten up’ the painting “Man with a Golden Helmet”. It is decided and done.

Not to mention we haven’t mentioned the sometimes imbecilic decisions which preceded the death. Why blame God when a child is never taught not to run out in the street? Why blame God when a relative abuses his health for years? Why blame God for being God? Some of this thought will be further discussed in section five.

2. Denying God’s existence will not make Him go away.

Many of the non-believers which whom I have discussed the matter justify ignoring God by the simple and circular reasoning of “I just don’t believe it”. One gets the feeling because what I have said does not convince the non-believer on the spot, it is not valid.

I haven’t been convinced of many things, but neither my ego nor faith is enough to convince me they cannot exist simply because I’m not convinced. It seems the non-believer’s faith is great enough to convince them they are the ultimate arbitrator of validity in the known universe.

It really isn’t, of course. It is the near ultimate form of denial. As long as one keeps repeating “Not real…” to themselves, they are safe from any consequence of the entity to be avoided. No doubt someone will post a reply to this essay, denying what I just said. Which proves they really don’t believe and they’re safe from God.

By the way, this denial doesn’t work with many other things in life. The death of a loved one, a diagnosis of cancer, a deadline, insufficient balance in the checking account or a flat tire. Nothing in reality ‘leaves’ just because one is not thinking about it or even honestly unaware of it.

3. The significant difference between ‘love’ and ‘approval’.

“Does God love homosexuals?” Variously, this is phrased as “Does God love [fill in blank of a person or group in opposition to God]?” Examples coming to mind are: Adolf Hitler, NAZIS in general, abortionists, women who abort babies, telephone salesmen, ‘sinners’ (non-specific) and so forth.

It is a ‘trap’ question. If one answers ‘no’, the questioner immediately pounces and announces, “Aha! So God doesn’t really ‘love’ everyone!”

If one answers ‘yes’, the clever questioner immediately pounces and claims, “Aha! Since God loves them, you must be wrong in condemning them as sinners!”

It’s the old ‘heads-I-win, tails-you-lose’, ‘unanswerable question’ gag. Much on the order of ‘Have you quit beating your wife (or husband, I suppose) yet?’

I have provided the answer on several occasions. Yes, God loves everyone, even ‘them’; however, that does not equate to approving or endorsing their actions. This of course is a ‘weasel out’ answer; it doesn’t play into their ‘gotcha’ game. They pretend the answer is artificial and doesn’t make sense, or they don’t quite understand it.

The mistake is in assuming evidence and definitions not given in Holy Writ. Nothing in the Bible suggests that one who rejects God can also ‘claim’ God’s protection.

4. The distinction between a moral code and peer group consensus.

God presents a code of ethics for His followers. In the Mosaic Law, it was seemingly formulated and specific. In Christianity, it is fairly loose in specifics and instead a general set of principles rather than a list of “do and don’t” articles. In fact, the Mosaic Law – the Ten Commandments and associated instructions for living life – was fairly general until the Holy Men of the Rabbinic league decided to specify what everything meant and issued – over a period of time – what everything meant.

This is not to point fingers at the traditional Jewish Rabbis. They did their work with great trepidation and with little monetary gain. Most of them did not get any pay as such for working as a rabbi. The great bulk of them served the Creator to the best of their knowledge and attempted to make others aware of what the Creator – The Name as usually used – wanted everyone to know.

So it has been in Christianity. Since the time of Christ, there have been people who claimed to speak for the Lord, as representatives of Christ and/or the Creator who further defined what Jesus instructed His followers to do. Rather than the formalized teachings of Mishnah and Gemara (look them up), Christianity has issued various documents of instruction in various forms and levels of authority.

The formal, organized, orthodox groups have demanded attendance at certain church functions during the year. Certain dress codes were published, especially for church attendance.

Protestant – as they are called – groups also issued ‘group specific’ rules of conduct and decorum. When I was a young man, a proper Christian was not to drink, smoke (cigarettes), dance, go to movies or engage in any form of sexual conduct with the ‘opposite’ sex. (Hardly anyone really knew if they were the ‘opposite’ sex or the other person was.) Card playing was usually forbidden; whether stud poker or bridge.

Other groups – church denominations – had either more strict or lax sets of rules. Some were very specific and demanding – like no female of any age could use make up or color their hair – and some allowed most everything. This is a whole study in itself and I won’t try to get more specific, other than to say Christianity as a whole has no less ‘commentary’ on what the Bible says than Judaism. It might be mentioned here that Judaism has a few distinctions between ‘groups’ as well. They range from the very Orthodox Jewish to essentially a ethnic, social society.

In the past one hundred years – more or less, it’s been a rather creeping process – many non-believers have set up a parallel belief system to Christianity, but one largely without Christ. The main thrust of the concept is “Christ doesn’t really matter, what He TAUGHT is what matters.” Except for the part about Christ being God, a relationship with Him as the key to salvation, miracles and that sort of thing.

For instance, Christ did teach about helping the poor. Therefore, in the Christianity without Christ religion, ‘giving to the poor’ is of greater significance than knowing and recognizing Christ as God. This ‘giving to the poor’ is also attached to various political systems who claim to assist the poor. For this reason, socialism is deemed to be more friendly to the poor than capitalism. Even if empirical, historic data shows otherwise.

This leads to the view that everyone should be removed from and protected from the results of their actions. “Freedom” is construed as action without limits or constraint. Therefore, birth control and abortion must be available to all women and at public expense. By the same token, medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases – which could be easily prevented by ‘chastity’, the ‘old fashioned’ idea of only engaging in sex with one’s own and single partner – should now be provided to all at public expense. Recognizing a person brought some disaster – either legal, economic or medical – on themselves by their own choices – misdeeds in most cases – is considered ‘judgmental’ and forbidden.

On the same line, ‘environmentalism’ is a holy and required view; espousing ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is far more important than other considerations. This is now to the point where evaluating ‘climate change’ and realizing the claims made are insubstantial and non-substantiable is considered heresy. Seemingly punishable by burning at the stake or at least a total and complete excommunication from society.

All these things – and many other associated – are now ‘assumed’ to have equal – indeed, preferential – standing with the moral code promulgated by God. Therefore, ‘free’ (public funded) abortions are now more important than celibacy or chastity and ‘environmentalism’ is more important than ‘thou shall not steal’.

In this logic, the God who said “Thou shall not steal” is wrong and the pretend god who who said ‘Gaia is the Earth Mother’ is right. Consequently, anyone who recognizes the Creator of the Universe is, at best, out of date and in error.

5. The significant difference between ‘holy’ and ‘happy’.

God commanded His people to be Holy, as He was Holy. This is recorded in the Mosaic Law and re-stated by Christ in the New Testament teaching of Christ. Whereas there are writings and poems or songs in the Old Testament book of Psalms about wealth and prosperity, the record of both Old and New Testament writings demonstrate God does NOT guarantee His followers with health, wealth, prosperity and “a rose garden” at all times. The story of Job, the history of the nation Israel and the deaths of Jesus and many of His followers demonstrate this concept.

What it – the message of God – does teach and guarantee is God keeps His followers in a positive state of mind through bad times. The Bible teaches those who rely on God will be ultimately rewarded in eternity, not immediately.

If it hasn’t been mentioned before, or no one has noticed, one is not issued a Rolls-Royce, a mansion in Beverly Hills and a wardrobe from the most fashionable designer immediately upon becoming a Christian.

Nor have I been protected from injury or illness due to my belief in God. I have to admit, I thought I was dead a couple of times, but God has preserved me. I expect to die at some point. All my grandparents – both sides – and my parents have died. Most of them were better Christians and probably better people than me. I have to replace the tires and oil in my car periodically. My dog got old and had to be put down.

The idea God makes life perfect for His followers is simply NOT part of Christian (or Jewish as I can tell) doctrine. Those who expect all their wishes fulfilled and a perfect life are confusing Christianity with a 1960 television show with Barbara Eden or a Disney movie.

6. “I don’t like it!” is not a valid criticism.

When dealing with those non-believers who justify their non-belief on what God ‘fails’ to do or does wrong, I’ve noticed a commonality. All of them are upset that God doesn’t do things they would do, or not in the way they would do them.

The conversation invariably comes around to ‘God shouldn’t do [such and such] – or allow [fill in the black here] to happen’. In other words, God didn’t follow this person’s wishes and is therefore wrong.

Not only that, but the person objecting demands God comply with their wishes in order to gain the objector’s favor.

So, just exactly is God in this case? Or more properly, who assumes they are God? If I had a nickel for every time some nitwit with a runny nose and no kleenex told me God was in error – I’d have a bunch of nickels.

So what is to be done?

God is going to win. I read the book all the way to the end. God wins. (Go figure.)

For those intellectually honest, admit to yourself God is really God and ask Him to show you the reality. Then have the intellectual honesty to understand God is telling you the reality and listen.

You will NOT have to start dressing like me, or get rid of everything you have. You won’t have to make any ‘specific’ changes prior to becoming a follower of Jesus. You won’t have to exile your girlfriend or boyfriend (regardless of participant’s sex). You won’t have to divest yourself of all your worldly possessions and become a monk or nun and live in a cave or anything.

You may have to make some changes in your life. However, you will not have to change anything until after you become a believer – and only then when God instructs you to do so. You will not have to change anything to placate me. Nor to placate the local pastor or priest. Placating your Mom is up to you and her. I would expect most everyone to change something in their life; but not everyone the same thing. Mostly what a follower of God needs to change are the things which stand between the follower and God.

If one does not believe God exists and continues in that belief; go ahead. No lightning bolt will strike – usually. In eternity – after you die – God will demand some explanations. It is up to you, obviously. I will still talk with you, share with you and even like you – depending, on how we ‘mesh’; there are some Christians with whom I don’t really get along. If you don’t shower often and never change your socks I may not ‘hang around’ as much.

1 Comment

Filed under Civilization, God, religion

One (of several) Perfect Revolver

I must offer an apology. Last night I attempted to post this entry. However, I had a problem with editing the photos to achieve my goal and I ended up deleting the entry. However, in the process I managed to inadvertently engage the ‘Publish’ button and thereby posted the initial, incomplete and to my mind, unsatisfactory, version.

If any comments were submitted, they were deleted with the original mis-posted entry. My deepest apologies.

One of the most lauded self defense cartridges of modern time is known various as the .45 Autoloading Colt Pistol (ACP), the .45 Auto or just the “.45” – which can lead to some confusion with the .45 (‘Long”) Colt. While the round is condemned by some as generating too much recoil, some condemn the pistols as being too limited in round count and others think the cartridge is too ‘brutal’, very few argue the cartridge is incapable of delivering proper self defense.

For the record, I think the .45 ACP cartridge is the bee’s knees as a self defense mechanism. It is also quite useful as a target cartridge, presuming the accompanying pistol is suitable prepared.

.45 ACP and .45 Auto Rim variations.  From left to right:  "Hardball" load for semi-automatic pistol; 185 grain lead semi-wadcutter (reduced velocity) for target use; 200 grain jacketed semi-wadcutter (reduced velocity) for target work; .45 ACP hardball equivalent with lead bullet; .45 Auto Rim cartridge loaded to hardball velocities with lead bullet; .45 Auto Rim cartridge with 255 grain semi-wadcutter loaded to full velocity for defensive use.

.45 ACP and .45 Auto Rim variations. From left to right: “Hardball” load for semi-automatic pistol; 185 grain lead semi-wadcutter (reduced velocity) for target use; 200 grain jacketed semi-wadcutter (reduced velocity) for target work; .45 ACP hardball equivalent with lead bullet; .45 Auto Rim cartridge loaded to hardball velocities with lead bullet; .45 Auto Rim cartridge with 255 grain semi-wadcutter loaded to full velocity for defensive use.

There are some – possibly a majority of persons – who prefer other rounds for the purpose. I must confess to a weakness for .44 Special in the role; admit the .40 S&W round is quite adequate and even have been known to carry the lowly .38 Special at times. However, I know of no knowledgable enthusiast who denies the ability of the .45 ACP round to serve in self defense.

I find the double action (DA) revolver – as built by Smith & Wesson (S&W) from about 1900 to around 1981 or so (the ‘pinned barrel’ ilk) – to be well suited as a personal defense device. Yes, they have their detractors; primarily those who lack self-confidence in their ability to deliver aimed fire on an attack and therefore feel a minimum of twelve or so panic driven shots are needed for self defense, OR those who live in constant fear of being attacked by a full chapter of Hell’s Angels or perhaps a reinforced battalion of the Red Chinese Army.

I find the above described DA revolver rather handy and suitably accurate.

The reader will not – should not – be shocked to learn when I discovered a S&W pinned barrel revolver (in good shape, I might add) chambered in caliber .45 ACP, I was compelled to consider the purchase.

Since I have been seeking such a revolver for a number of years, the consideration took all of about four nanoseconds (my mind was a bit slow that day). I took it home, of course.

The Smith & Wesson Model 25-2

Smith & Wesson Target Revolver of 1955 or Model 25-2

Smith & Wesson Target Revolver of 1955 or Model 25-2 Note Fitz “Gunfighter” stocks

View of the same revolver with the cylinder open.  Note the cavernous chambers.

View of the same revolver with the cylinder open. Note the cavernous chambers.

Sample purchased commercially from Bud’s Pawn at Hastings Gun Show (spring, 2016). For any of those possessed of the ‘gun show loophole’ mania, I was required to establish my identity and complete a form 4473 prior to sale.

Marked 25-2, made after 1969; has N prefix serial number (846,xxx), so 1969 or later. Pinned barrel revolver. Chambers in cylinder are NOT recessed; only ‘magnum’ calibers and rimfire cartridges were recessed. Model 25-3 began in 1977. Therefore, sample made between 1969 and 1977.

Previous owner cut barrel – professionally – to four inches and remounted front sight . Front sight not original configuration – not ‘ramp’ but flat topped with steep angle on rear of sight. Both front and rear sights are uncolored; no inserts, no white outlines.

Front sight treatment.  Sight has been remounted and configured for holster and to provide a reliable sight picture.  Good job.

Front sight treatment. Sight has been remounted and configured for holster and to provide a reliable sight picture. Good job.

Crown work; note actual crown of muzzle is recessed and finished 'flat' without radius or contour.

Crown work; note actual crown of muzzle is recessed and finished ‘flat’ without radius or contour.

Original configuration features square butt; this has not been altered.

Blued finish. Bluing is in excellent condition with no appreciable wear (including muzzle). Does not appear to be refinished.

Weight: 2 pounds, 11 ounces or 1.2 kilograms; unloaded of course. This probably varies from the ‘official’ weight of the 1955 Target Revolver due to the removal of two inches of barrel.

Original trigger has been smoothed, target type (factory) serrations have been removed, ostensibly for double action use. Hammer seems unmodified. Double and single action trigger pull is normal for S&W revolver of this era; the single action pull is right at three pounds, the double action pull is over the limit of my spring scale measuring device, but is smooth and uniform throughout.

All in all, one gathers this revolver was intended for use as a personal defense type sidearm. The shortened barrel indicates an intention to carry the revolver in a normal belt holster. The butt has not been altered to ‘rounded’ configuration nor the barrel cut back to absolute minimum, implying it was not intended as a concealment sidearm. (With proper holster and clothing, it could be done; but the intention presents as a exposed holster type revolver.)

When purchased, the revolver sported Smith & Wesson Target stocks. Target stocks are not bad and very much superior to the previous ‘service’ and ‘magna’ fashioned stocks. However, I replaced the Target stocks with a set I prefer. They appear to me as the old – out of business – “Fitz” stocks of the 1950s and ‘60s. (Not to be confused with the late John H. FitzGerald of Colt revolver fame.) However, the box for the stocks – if there ever was such in my possession – is long gone and the interior of the stocks bear a label of “Made in the Philippines”. However, they do serve properly in connecting my manly metacarpus with the device in question. Not to mention they look proper.

This revolver – the ‘Target Model of 1955’, later given the model number of ’25’ – was originally designed as a Bullseye target revolver for .45 caliber competition. It is chambered for – at that time – the standard .45 ACP round known as ‘hardball’. (The normal military and commercial loading utilized a 230 grain full metal jacket bullet loaded to a maximum – and standard – loading of 21,000 PSI, resulting in an ‘average’ velocity of just over 900 feet per second in a government issue M1911 or M1911A1.)

Typically, as this was a target intended revolver, a lower weight, pressure and velocity round was employed – usually referred to as a ‘wadcutter’. (Typically this is the same construction as for ‘watcutter’ loads in semi-automatic pistols; either a 185 or 200 grain lead semi-wadcutter at velocities of around 700 feet per second [FPS].) The result of this use was a softer report, lessened recoil and less ‘stress’ on the shooter; this presumably made for more accurate shooting. However, the revolver is suited for firing full charge ammunition and need not be carefully protected from standard pressure/velocity ammunition.

The commercially loaded “.45 Auto Rim” or “.45 AR” cartridge – which can be confused with the “AR” of Armalite Rifle to much consternation – was typically loaded with lead bullets of 230 grains; this loading was intentionally loaded to lower velocity to reduce leading. From this loading, the SAAMI standards for pressure was determined. At least, so this has been reported. The current SAAMI publication does not list the pressure limit for .45 Auto Rim cartridge. As the initial revolvers – the M1917 S&W and M1917 Colt revolvers were intended for use with the issue “M1911 Pistol, caliber .45” cartridge – AND the S&W revolvers of the 1950s – the 1950 Military and Police, the 1950 Target Revolver and the 1955 Target Revolver – are all chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge; one must assume no difference in pressure levels allowed. .45 ACP and .45 Auto Rim have the same limitations and construction – other than the rim on the Auto Rim cartridge.

As usual, full charge ammunition will wear on the mechanism more than lower pressure ammunition. Which is not to say one is to never use full charge – standard pressure – ammunition. One finds pistols (M1911 type for use with .45 Automatic ammunition) used in the First World War and thereafter in perfect functioning condition. Perhaps some of the springs need to be replaced ‘sooner’.

The intentional ‘overloading’ of ammunition is not a sound practice. The standard loading of .45 ACP ammunition is sufficient to the purpose of personal self-defense. The standard loading pressure – with suitable projectiles (bullets) – is also sufficient for taking of small to medium game should circumstances demand. One notes numerous better weapons and ammunition for sport hunting under non-emergent conditions.

Normally, .45 ACP rounds – designed and suited for use in semi-automatic pistols, submachine guns or carbines – are ‘rimless’. Which is to say, the projecting ‘rim’, or ‘flange’ as our British brethren say, is absent. Initially, revolver use was facilitated by use of ‘half moon clips’ which fit onto the ammunition (three rounds, hence the ‘half-moon’ adjective) by the recessed extractor groove and provided the function of a rim. This both allowed quick loading of fresh ammunition, provided a headspacing mechanism in some very early revolvers and also gave a surface for the extractor to engage when unloading the revolver. (Hopefully the photos give visual information.) In later years, the ‘clip’ concept was extended to designs for both ‘full-moon’ (six rounds or a total revolver load) and “one-third moon” (two rounds) clips. The idea being to give greater flexibility to the user.

Adapter clips to allow use of rimless .45 ACP cartridges in revolver - bottom view.

Adapter clips to allow use of rimless .45 ACP cartridges in revolver – bottom view.

Adapter clips, side view.

Adapter clips, side view.

The down falls of the ‘clips’ are two and perhaps three fold in nature.
1. If the clip (traditionally a flat metal stamping) is bent, in use this tends to either prohibit use of the device or the bend tends to ‘spring’ and pushes one or more of the loaded cartridges against the recoil shield. This increased the effort needed to fire the revolver and may prevent cylinder rotation altogether.
2. The clips get lost easily. They’re rather thin and small, all things considered.
3. Snapping loaded rounds into the clips can be difficult. Removing fired cases from the clips can be difficult. This is the activity which bend the clips – see #1 again.

Please note the various machines and devices to aid installation and removal of ammunition from clips did not exist until the 1980s or so.

One should probably point out for all but a very few revolvers, the interior configuration and dimensions of the chamber allow for the rimless .45 ACP cartridge to be safely and successfully fired in revolvers so chambered. However, the extractor will NOT engage the cartridge to remove it from the cylinder and expended cases must be pulled – ‘plucked’ – from the revolver by use of a flat bladed screwdriver, pocket knife or fingernails. This can be done, but is less than optimal.

This practice was initiated in roughly 1917 by the use of both Smith & Wesson and Colt large frame revolvers in the U. S. Armed Forces. This engenders a complete story of its own and will not be addressed herein.

However, in about 1920, the Peters Cartridge Company (purchased by Remington later in 1934) developed the .45 Auto Rim cartridge (case). This was essentially a .45 ACP body with a rim (or flange if preferred); it was a revolver cartridge and could be used in revolver so chambered without the need for the the adaptive clips. One notes the rim upon the .45 Auto Rim cartridge is about twice as thick – fore and aft – as most revolver cartridge rims. This is to take up the space taken up by the addition of the half moon rims to standard ammunition.

Comparison of a .45 Auto Rim cartridge and a .45 ACP (rimless) cartridge inserted into an adaptive clip.

Comparison of a .45 Auto Rim cartridge and a .45 ACP (rimless) cartridge inserted into an adaptive clip.

.45 Auto Rim cases (and ammunition) are not plentiful and widespread. They are available, but one much search for them. Of note, HKS speed loaders make a speed loader for the .45 Auto Rim and for use in the Smith & Wesson revolvers so blessed. (They should fit the old Colt New Service revolver if chambered in .45 ACP as well. The ‘half moon’ clips were interchangeable and therefore the spacing of the chambers in the cylinders must be the same.)

One notes the .45 ACP cartridge is manufactured these days in any number of configurations. The ‘standard’ loading mentioned is still widespread and available. Several ammunition manufacturers offer variations in controlled expansion, clever shapes and various coatings as dedicated self-defense rounds. Some offerings are designed for low power – recoil – target work. Not to mention individual reloads with a rainbow of options.

Considering the subject of this report is a revolver, one can load square fronted bullets not suited to semi-automatic pistols. With a semi-automatic pistol of any caliber, the loaded round must – by virtue of being pushed, pulled or prodded from the magazine to the chamber in order to fire. This pushing, pulling and prodding is eased by a ‘streamlined’ or smooth and rounded bullet – the front of the loaded cartridge – which facilitates the operation of the arm.

With a revolver, the operator manually inserts the loaded cartridge into the chamber and closes the cylinder. Far less ‘fiddling’ in that regard.

Also, since a revolver does not rely on recoil and internal pressure to operate the mechanism, an individual can load either very light – as long as the bullet leaves the barrel – or slower burning powders which may not offer a recoil operated pistol the proper ‘impulse’ to reliably operate. In that regard, revolvers are far more versatile.

Because I have a supply of .45 Auto Rim cases, I felt it obvious to reload ammunition for this revolver. Having a keen sense of the blatantly obvious, the primary round is a duplication of the semi-automatic pistol ‘standard’ round.

For general shooting I decided a 230 grain RNL bullet and a suitable charge of WW 231 would serve. (Consult your local loading manual; typos are too easy to miss.) It is essentially what I shoot in my semi-automatic pistols with suitable results. The same loading with jacketed bullets should work, I shoot on an indoor range and the lead bullets are easier on the impact area.

Note: In deference to the noted revolvers of Smith & Wesson, all firing was done double action only. Most was ‘two hand, supported with off side hand’ and some was ‘strong hand only’ as noted.

Fresh B 21xR target from National Target Company.  Known to some of us old shooters as the 'Colt Target' - but I cannot find it listed as such on line anymore.  Probably not politically correct.

Fresh B 21xR target from National Target Company. Known to some of us old shooters as the ‘Colt Target’ – but I cannot find it listed as such on line anymore. Probably not politically correct.

.45 Auto Rim rounds loaded to hardball equivalence from 50 feet on indoor range.

.45 Auto Rim rounds loaded to hardball equivalence from 50 feet on indoor range.

The 230 RNL loading in the Auto Rim case shot almost boringly well. At 50 feet – just shy of seventeen yards – I fired 18 rounds (three full cylinders if that seems an odd choice of group) at the “5X” zone of a B-21xR target (National Target Co.) This target is known to some older shooters as the “Colt Target”. Of the 18 rounds fired, 15 were scored on the “5X” ring (including one on the line). Three shots were out of the ring, but all 18 shots were within the K5 zone. I’m pretty sure the three shots absent from the X ring were due to my shooting. I felt one or two at least were fired out of cadence. In looking at the group resulting, I should probably move the rear sight to the right one click. Maybe two clicks. Recoil and report were commensurate with a full charge load. I must confess the lead (alloy) bullets with ‘lube’ do smoke a bit. For outdoor shooting, I’ll probably use 230 grain FMJ or – more likely as they are cheaper – plated bullets to avoid the smoke problem.

As an experiment, I fired some 18 rounds of conventional .45 ACP (case) loads assisted by ‘third-moon’ clips. These were standard hardball equivalent loads using lead bullets. This is the ammunition I normally use in informal competition with my semi-automatic pistols.

This ammunition didn’t do as well. The registration of the bullet impacts is a bit higher on the target and the group was considerably looser. Hypothetically, perhaps the ‘clip’ arrangement gave a greater area of impact. Perhaps the bore was getting too leaded from the prior shooting (examination of the bore discounts this possibility in my mind). Possibly the coffee I had with lunch was kicking in. Perhaps I was wanting to go home. I will have to re-test this experiment and also move on to jacketed or plated bullets.

Poor results of .45 ACP ammunition held in clips.  Also just a bit high on target.

Poor results of .45 ACP ammunition held in clips. Also just a bit high on target.

The second, and nearly as obvious as the first loading to my mind, is the 255 grain SWCL bullet used in the .45 (Long) Colt cartridge. I use a slower powder with the heavier bullet; something in the nature of Unique or Power Pistol. I’m not sure if 2400 or a similar slow (for handgun) powder would do properly; the pressure range for proper burning may be too high.

The 255 grain loads in Auto Rim cases were equally satisfactory. Firing six rounds at 50 feet put all six rounds into the “5X” ring. Once again, the point of impact of the bullets was the same as the point of aim. Perhaps a bit high, but not enough to warrant concern.

255 grain SWC loading from 50 feet and 25 yards .

255 grain SWC loading from 50 feet and 25 yards .

I then fired six rounds at the same target, same point of aim and same ammunition from 25 yards. The grouping is a bit confusing. Four of the shots were together in a three inch group about four and one-half inch higher (above) the prior group. Which would indicate some trajectory was manifesting. However, two of the shots were mixed in with the 50 feet group. Had I not marked those prior shots, I would have not been able to distinguish which shots came from what group. Which would indicate the two groups – from somewhat different distances – didn’t show enough trajectory difference to matter.

The comforting thought is all those shots registered in such a way to render enemies of the Republic hors de combat. As one of my mothers-in-law said, “It won’t be noticed from a galloping horse.”

The last trial with the 255 grain loads was two strings of six shots at 7 yards. This was fired strong hand only. Twelve rounds fired, eleven rounds were in the K5 zone with a maximum separate – two furthest impacts – of just over nine inches. The twelfth round – I regretfully inform the reader – was a miss, between the K4 zone and the right arm. One also notes the group shape was ovate from high right to low left. This is the customary and traditional manner in which I fling shots in a hurry. I tend to either tighten my shooting (right) hand or twitch in such manner. I have talked to myself about it. It doesn’t seem to do much good.

7 yards, twelve shots from strong hand only.

7 yards, twelve shots from strong hand only.

The 255 grain loads were not particularly shocking Report was reasonable with full charge loads. Recoil was present and appropriate, but not violent.

I am now embarrassed to report I have absolutely NO velocity readings for this fine revolver and ammunition. The range at my gun club (the one of which I am member, not that I am sole owner and or proprietor) is under renovation construction. It is usually full of working men and assorted equipment. Even when the men are not there, the equipment is in residence and the whole shebang is not suitable for chronograph testing. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! I will report velocity findings directly I have them.

The title of this post implies ‘other’ perfect revolvers. The Smith & Wesson “Combat Magnum” (also known as the Model 19) and the Smith & Wesson “.44 Magnum” (or Model 29) in four inch configurations are nearly as perfect. The revolver under discussion strikes me as about the perfect combination. Both of the magnum revolvers temp one to load ammunition with more – uh – ‘enthusiasm’ than needed for self defense. I’ve talked to myself about that as well.

However, should I find a Smith & Wesson Target Revolver of 1950 in similar configuration…


Filed under Firearms and their use

Colt Model M

The Colt Model M. The Colt M1903. The Colt Hammerless Pocket Pistol.
Model M 503,xxx prancing pony at rear of slide
As far as I can tell, these are three names for the same design. It is an early semi-automatic pistol, made by Colt and designed by John M. Browning.

In short, it was released by Colt for sale to the public in 1903 (which probably seems obvious from one of the names). The pistol was initially made in caliber .32 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP) and was also designed – the cartridge, that is – by John M. Browning. The cartridge is also called 7.65 Browning by those of the metric persuasion.

In 1908, this design was somewhat modified and released for sale in caliber .380 ACP (European 9mm Short – or Kurz or Corto depending on language involved.) My interest and discussion is only in the .32 ACP version, the M1903. The .380 ACP is normally referred to as the M1908.

Colt introduced the M1903 (Pocket Hammerless) pistol in – taa daa – 1903. Don’t confuse this pistol with the 1903 Pocket Hammer – they are two different pistols. The Pocket Hammer pistol was chambered for the .38 Automatic or .38 ACP. Claimed (advertising again) more powerful than the 9mm Parabellum (9mm Lugar or 9×19). The .38 ACP was later ‘updated’ to the higher pressure Super .38.

The Pocket Hammerless was manufactured until just after the end of World War Two (one source says 1945, another says 1947; I wasn’t there.) According to one source, pistols were assembled from prior production until 1953. Production seems to have topped 570,000 or so. (I was there, but not watching.)

Although called “Hammerless”, there is actually a hammer in the design. However, one cannot see it, cock it or un-cock it. It is concealed within the rear of the slide. It cannot catch on clothing or a pocket or such. Popular opinion has it this title was a marketing device to advertise the convenience of carrying such a pistol. I think it may also have helped distinguish the “Pocket Hammerless” from the “Pocket Hammer” introduced the same year; the “Pocket Hammer” was in a different caliber and was a completely different pistol.

It should be noted the Model M is hammer fired and not striker fired. I’ve always suspected hammer fired handguns are more likely to ignite the cartridge than striker fired handguns. This is not widely accepted and probably doesn’t really make much difference.

There were five (manufacturing) “types” of the 1903.

Type I; serial number one to 71,999; 1903 to 1908.
The only version with a full four inch barrel. This type also had a separate barrel bushing similar to the Government Model or 1911 pistol.

Type II; serial number 72,000 to 105,050; 1908 to 1910.
This type still had the separate barrel bushing, but barrel length (and slide) was shortened to 3.75 inches.

Type III, serial number 105,051 to 468,789; 1910 to 1926.
Barrel still 3.75 inches, separate barrel bushing deleted, barrel bushing incorporated into front of slide.

Standard grips changed to walnut in 1924. Before grips had been hard rubber or perhaps ‘gutta percha’.

Type IV; serial number 468,098 to 554,099; 1926 to 1941.
Barrel and bushing unchanged, magazine safety added.

Type V; serial number 554,100 to end of production; after 1941.
Improved (more squared off rear sight, serrated rear on forward sight) sights.

Serial numbers 554,447 to 572,214 were type V variation with parkerized finish.

For more details on changes in grips and the slide legend and address, I suggest one check on line at http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/1903C/1903c.html .

Among other brilliant work, the above website has a bibliography for more reference.

I currently own three Colt Pocket Pistols of 1903 in .32 ACP. They are part of my art deco pistol collection and are just marvelous little pistols in many regards. Two are type II and the third is a type III. (With the idiotic magazine safety.) I am planning on getting at least one variation of the other four types. Everyone has to have goals.

The one under discussion is the most recent acquisition; a type III. I purchased it outright at a local gun store. It has a bit of holster wear at the forward edge of the slide – where a pistol rubs on the leather entering or leaving the holster. There are a couple impact injuries, commonly called ‘dings’ on the pistol. I’m not sure how a collector grades ‘dings’ but it appears to have at least 90% finish left, perhaps greater.

Model M 503,xxx on box

The bore is very clean. The other two Models M I have both suffer from corrosive primers and poor cleaning. The bores are pitted, dark and ‘nasty’ looking. They shoot fairly well in spite. The bore in this last Model M looks new.Model M 503,xxx bore condition

This last Model M came with a box and papers. Frankly, the box looks suspiciously new and unworn. The documents inside are a mixed bag; some look freshly printed, some look folded and re-folded; taped and stained. Sadly lacking is a hang tag from the general mercantile or hardware store.

The serial number dates it as being made in 1930. (I hope I’m as functional in another twenty years!) It sports wood (walnut it seems) grips with Colt insets.Model M 503,xxx wood grips (left)
The earlier Models M I have come with rather marginal sights. The rear sight notch is a “U” shape. The later sight on the type III is a squared void, allowing an easier and more precise sight picture.Model M 503,xxx front sight

Model M 503,xxx rear sight

Of course I shot it. It’s not like it’s never been shot.

Trigger pull is at 5.25 pounds and releases well. Not a target modified trigger, but workable.

Chronograph velocity was 769 fps (243.3 mps). Despite the rather small sights (men and women just had better eyes on those days!) I managed to get five shots into the eight ring of a reduced “Prell” (NRA B-29) target at ten yards, one handed rapid fire. Then five shots into the group shown in the head of that same reduced target.
Model M 503,xxx slow fire group with ruler brighter

Model M 503,xxx rapid fire group 10 yards with ruler

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms and their use

Two Constitutional Outrages

I have a problem with pigeons currently. A pair of pigeons found a roof support on the front of my house – I think it is primarily decorative – and have been landing there. In consequence, they defecate on my front steps. Right smack in the middle of the top two steps. For a small pair of birds – pigeons, not more than a couple of pounds each I would guess – they sure process a lot of food. Apparently. They leave the processed food on my steps.

I clean the steps of the pigeon waste regular and have attempted to scare them away by yelling at them. (No poison, shooting – difficult in an incorporated city – or fatal measures. Yet.) They seem to have cleared off temporarily, but I’m watching.

In the recent past, a group of human pigeons have descended upon the Donald Trump campaign. (I classify these people as human pigeons as they are not very bright and leave messes behind.) As they carry ‘Bernie’ placards, one gathers they are Democrat in nature. The sole purpose of descending upon the Donald Trump campaign is to disrupt and prevent the event – speeches and campaigning – from taking place.

This is an outrage. It is a clear and flagrant violation of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech – voicing opinions. Not only is it a violation of the wording of the First Amendment, it is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment. Technically, the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government and by logical extension SCOTUS has held this applies to all levels of government. No government can retaliate or stifle opposing views by force of authority. However, the spirit of the First Amendment in the United States applies to all citizens; no group is ‘entitled’ to deny another group to voice their opinions and forcibly prevent an opposing view.

One notes, the left is famous and notorious for such actions. Over the past forty years, I have read accounts of various left wing groups banding together to forcibly and sometimes violently prevent pro Constitution and pro American speakers and groups from voicing opinions about issues and elections.

For instance, in February of this year (2016) ‘liberal’ (meaning left wing) activists attempted to prevent Ben Shapiro at California State University-Los Angeles (CSULA) from speaking.

Look back at the era of the 1960s and 1970s. I cannot find references to them – odd that – but I recall any number of conservative or Republican speakers who were denied the ability to make a speech in a private venue by anti-American protesters under the ‘liberal’ banner. To deny those things happened is to expose one’s ignorance or fraudulent nature.

Without doubt, the ‘protesters’ – the pigeons – at the Trump campaign event were ‘progressives’ who seek to destroy any real discussion or difference of opinion – opposing opinion – to their agenda of political dominance.

This was not a protest or rally to voice opposing opinions to Donald Trump; it was a concerted attack to prevent Donald Trump from exercising his rights as an American citizen to speak and sway other’s opinions.

The Trump campaign paid for the venue, organized the schedule and provided logistical support at their cost.

No protesters paid for anything regarding the event. They just went to deny others the right to either speak their mind or to hear what was to be said.

That is an outrage.

The second outrage is the ‘media’s” reporting. Most all went out of their way to blame Donald Trump for being ‘inflammatory’ rather than the pigeons from defecating. Not one – initially – brought up the issue of the pigeon’s denying other rights to assemble and voice opinions.

Why not?

The usual suspects in the “media”, the ones who do their best to sound and act like the Democrat Party’s propaganda wing are opposed to Donald Trump from the outset. After all, Donald Trump is a capitalist, not a socialist, believes in individual merit and the idea that one who works and puts out effort should gain wealth by doing so. This is absolute opposition to the goals of the Democrat Party. So they ignore the basic considerations of decency and applaud any move to hamper the cause of Donald Trump. The First Amendment – or the spirit thereof – does not apply to Donald Trump.

One could say much of the “media” are merely pigeons with publishing (to include television and radio) ability.

However, Fox News seemed to be following this mindset; at least part of the cause of the violence and upheaval at the Trump rally was due to Donald Trump’s view on things. Mr. Trump’s views is decidedly not politically correct and this offends many people, but can this be properly seen as ‘the’ cause for the problems of liberal agents violently and unashamedly denying Mr. Trump the right to express himself?

The Republican High Command is both afraid and angry with Donald Trump. Why? Because Donald Trump is very popular and because Donald Trump is not considered a loyal Republican candidate (stooge). The repercussions of a Donald Trump victory bode ill for the security and income of the members of the Republican High Command. One sees the Republican High Command putting pressure on Fox News to paint Donald Trump in a bad light.

Even if it means siding with the Democrat Party to obscure the actual pigeons. And that is outrageous as well.


Filed under Civilization, Idiot Politicians, journalists, Political Correctness, Politics

More Progressive? What Does That Mean?

Secretary of State (former) Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard “Bernie” Sanders are now engaged in arguing who is ‘more progressive’; part of running for the Democrat Party candidate for President.

Really? More progressive?

Progressive in the political meaning as observed by the Democrat Party means “spending other people’s money”. All the agenda items on the progressive platform involves ‘giving’ – what a great word – this or that to those who don’t have it now. Wealth in the form of ‘income equity’, housing, the ability to live freely and move freely. All this wealth without having to work for it.

However, as noted by many thinkers, a government cannot give anything to anyone not taken from someone else first. The government does not ‘produce’ wealth; government only takes wealth away from someone who does produce it.

Consequently, a government – a ‘progressive’ government – gives away ‘wealth’ to supporters at the expense of working people; the actual producers.

So when the two Democrat ‘progressives’ are arguing which is going to raise taxes most and take away more wealth from working people than the other. How delightful.

Of course, one who doesn’t work, doesn’t want to work and quite possibly isn’t capable of doing anything productive is all in favor of this form of ‘redistribution’. This plan is far more profitable than robbing liquor stores or gas stations. This plan is far more profitable than looting. This plan is safer than robbing banks. And it doesn’t result in jail or prison time. Just the thing for Democrat voters.

Of course, ‘progressives’ couch the wealth redistribution plans as “Christian”. After all, Jesus said to take care of the poor. What they miss about what Jesus said is Jesus was speaking to individual Christians. Jesus told His followers they individually were to take an interest in poor people and be individually concerned about them. Jesus never implied or said for a ‘society’ to forcibly take money (tax) from workers and use that money against their will to unquestionably pay non-workers infinitely. In fact, the governmental plan removes the element of concern from the individual about the needy person.

Details, details, details.

So the argument between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders is who is more willing to forcibly take money from anyone who works and give it to anyone who votes for them. Very attractive for those who vote for a living. Not so great for those who work for a living.

Oh, there are other considerations as well. Progressive also means taxpayer paid abortions on demand. Progressive means avoidance of personal responsibility in terms of service to others or national security. Progressive means denial of the value of the United States as a leader in freedom. Progressive means denial of religious freedom (except currently for Islamics). Progressive means denial of freedom to speak out against a repressive government.

Perfect. If one is an insect.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civilization, General Idiocy, History, Idiot Politicians

There’s a Blizzard Out There!

02 February 2016, Hastings, Nebraska.

For those of you not really paying attention to the national (or international, I suppose) news, it snowed all barking night here. There is a local ‘winter storm warning’ about the snow.

How much? When I looked out this AM, the rail on my back porch – a 2×4 essentially – had a ridge of snow about twelve to fourteen inches (thirty to thirty-six centimeters) high perched on the rail. Had the base been wider, I think it might have been higher, but the top layer of snow is falling off.

Temperatures in the climactic area – the snowstorm – is running between fifteen degrees to upper twenties degrees Fahrenheit (roughly negative 10 to 4 degrees Celsius).

Yes, I am aware there on places on Earth which are quite colder and feature more snow. I am not jealous or envious. I do not want any sort of record for amount of snow, length of time snow is on the ground or cold temperature. This is quite enough for your humble correspondent and his faithful and fearless dog.

Blondie, who is faithful and fearless, went out into the back yard to relieve herself. When she walked into the snow, she sank up to her belly, more or less twelve inches (30 millimeters). She did not like it; normally she loves the colder weather and light snow.

There is enough snow on the front porch to block the screen door somewhat. I can get it open enough to get out and clean off the porch, but I haven’t bothered.

The mailman didn’t come today. I don’t know if I just didn’t have mail (most of it junk anyway) or if the carriers were not moving.

There is wind. According to the weather website, currently the official wind rate is forty miles (60 kilometers, according to the conversion table) per hour. Supposedly it was higher velocity earlier, and is now abating.

The house is warm enough for us. I still wear a sweater or house coat, but it’s comfortable. The house could be better insulated and wind proofed. Much better than a tent, teepee or rough cabin.

Good news is the snow is supposed to taper off and stop during the night. But it won’t disappear instantly. Some of the doughy neighbors have fired up their snow blowers and cleaned off sidewalks and driveways to some extent. The city snow plows are scheduled to start at midnight to clear streets (which will probably block my driveway – sigh…)

I do have food in the house to last a week or so. Already I’ve seen a couple of private citizens in pickup trucks moving down the street. Within a day or so, I’ll be able to get out of the house and get to the store or restaurant. I am not snowed in until the spring thaw in April or May. It just seems like it. The cable TV is working, so I have television and internet.

Arizona is sounding better all the time. The ‘low’ elevations in particular.

Of course, I have backup. God is present in all this and cheers me up. If I were deeply depressed, I wouldn’t be writing this at all. It is sort of a nice excuse to not have to do anything.

I’ll finish up my taxes for submission. (I’m getting a pile back from the Feds; not sure about the state yet.) I’ve also managed to spend nearly $200 on an ‘older’ sight for an ‘older’ rifle I bought in January (by phone). I will check on having my chronograph repaired (there’s a wire loose in the ‘brain’). (Which has been mentioned about me in casual conversation; I don’t have a repair facility for that sort of thing.)

So the dog and I are stuck. Sort of. Sort of a glimpse of being really old and not mobile. We’ll watch “Marvel’s Agent Carter” tonight and probably sleep together. Life could be much worse.

Thanks, Lord.

Leave a comment

Filed under Self Revelation, Speculation