Friday, April 30, 2010

Observation of the day

I was into cycling about 15 years ago and did a very small amount of racing. In this sport, especially at the low end of the amateur range, it's a rare mass-start competition of any significant size that doesn't involve a crash of some sort. Personally, I was involved in two, including breaking my wrist in one, and I witnessed quite a few more.

In bullseye competition, where you have 30-40 people firing away all at once, it's an exceedingly rare competition in which anyone gets shot.

Nothing deep here, just an observation I had.

Chicago and the National Guard

I started reading the Gormogons a few months ago, and I continue to be impressed by what I read there. I find myself going to that first when scrolling through my RSS feeds.

This morning's piece on Chicago calling out the National Guard, looking a bit deeper into this publicity stunt than others are wont to do, is worth a read.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

UN humor

If not for other the fact that I'm used to this sort of crap, I would have checked the calendar to see if it was April 1st.

Just one more reason the UN is a joke. Actually, worse than a joke, because some people take it seriously.

Monday, April 19, 2010

First outdoor 2700

I shot a conventional pistol match (a 2700) down at Central Jersey this weekend. This was my first outdoor 2700, so it was an interesting experience. I was also overly optimistic in estimating when we'd be done. I was thinking we'd be done by 2:00 (with a 9:00 start), and I'd be home by 3:00. We were actually done by 3:30, I was out of the parking lot about 3:50, and home by 4:30.

I shot my first full 2700 a month ago, but that was an indoor one, so the slow-fire stages were at 25 yards and not 50 yards. So this time, I got the full effect, shooting at 50 yards for slow-fire. Not that it's significantly different, it's still just a black circle off in the distance.

The other major difference between indoor and outdoor is the wind, and I certainly got the full experience there, too. Luckily, it didn't rain on us, which had been forecast, but it was a very windy day. More than once we had to go chase down targets that had blown off the backer. I didn't lose a target myself, but I started locking mine down with twelve staples rather than the usual four.

Once again, I borrowed a .45 to shoot with. This time, though, I made sure to test my ammo in the gun. I borrowed it from a fellow club member, and I shot it during our informal Wednesday night "700" league (a 900 minus the slow-fire stage.) My ammo failed to fully seat on the first round, and again on the second round, so I finished the 700 with borrowed ammo, too. The owner of the gun suggested I run the rounds through the press again to get the bullets seated just a little deeper. I reseated them all an extra .02" and ended up having no problems whatsoever.

Of course, what I didn't think to check was the zero on the scope. I certainly wasn't shooting 10's and X's in the 700, but I assumed that was just me. And during the 2700 Saturday, I shot worse in the slow-fire stage of the .22 (with my gun) than I did in the timed- and rapid-fire stages, so when I shot crappy slow-fire stages with the .45, I didn't think much of it, especially because it was during the transition from slow-fire to center-fire. Same with the timed- and rapid-fire stages, I just assumed I was jerking the trigger, especially since my shots were grouping so nicely, albeit low and to the left. During the slow-fire stage of the .45 match, though, I concentrated carefully on getting good shots off, and they were still grouping low and to the left. I adjusted the scope a few clicks in the up direction but didn't try moving it to the right any. Not sure why not, really. Lack of experience, I guess.

I actually shot pretty well, all things considered. I shot a 781 for the .22 match, which is a sharpshooter score. I then shot 654 and 649 for the center-fire and .45 matches, for an aggregate 2084. (This assumes my scorer added things up correctly -- I didn't verify the math.) That's much better than my indoor 2700, where I scored in the 1600's. And it's a 77%, which is spitting distance from sharpshooter. If it really was the scope and not me shooting poorly, I expect I'll shoot closer to sharpshooter next time.

Shooting my BAG day gun

I received my BAG day gun a week ago, but I didn't get a chance to shoot it last weekend. I needed to move a scope over to this one, but the rings I had been using were too low for that scope on this gun, so I ordered a new set of rings. I finally got the scope mounted and got the gun out to the range early Sunday morning to try it out.

I zeroed the scope and then shot the light rifle course I'd shot in my club's informal Tuesday night league over the winter. I was pretty happy with how I did. I shot a 376, consisting of a 97, 96, 93 and 90. Compare this to the high 350's I'd been shooting in competition and the mid 360's I'd been shooting in practice, and I'm pretty happy. 376 is the floor for Master on that course, so if I can keep doing that well, I'll be pretty excited.

This is my first bolt gun, so it's an interesting experience. A couple of times, I found myself shouldering the gun for the next shot, trying to pull the trigger, and realizing that I hadn't cycled the action. But it was certainly nice to have all my brass sitting there right next to me instead of having to sweep it all up when I was done.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

April 18, 1775

235 years ago today:
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm, --
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken to listen and hear
The hurrying hoofbeats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

BAG day gun




Here's my Buy-A-Gun-Day purchase. A Savage Mark II BRJ. A heavy-barreled .22 bolt-action gun with a laminate Monte Carlo stock. Purty, ain't she?

I'd have the scope mounted on it already, but the rings I had were medium height, which didn't give enough clearance on this gun. I previously had the scope mounted on a 10/22 with a heavy barrel, but apparently the rings only worked there because of the extra height the receiver gave it. You could see daylight between scope and barrel, but not much.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Scope

The guy at my club who runs out informal light rifle league recently bought a target scope that he wanted to check out. He's mostly an Anschutz-and-Leupold kind of guy, and he bought the scope mostly just to see what it was like. The nice thing about this scope is that is focuses down to 50 feet at high power. (Actually, he says it focuses down to 10 meters, but I shoot at 50 feet, so that's what I'm most interested in.) The scope I've been shooting is a 3-9x, but it loses focus at 50 feet beyond 7x, so that's what I've been shooting.

I've hit a plateau in my shooting, so I was thinking about getting a better scope. I mentioned to him that I was thinking of getting this model, so he offered to sell me the one he'd bought. I decided to take him up on his offer.

I put the scope on my 10/22 last week and took it out to zero it and try it out. He had it set at 20x, so I just left it there. You notice the movement a lot more at 20x than you do at 7x. At 7x, I thought I was holding the rifle steady when I had it on a sandbag, but at 20x, it looked like I had the shakes. Once I got it zeroed, I did manage to shoot a couple of perfect targets from the sandbag. (I mostly just wanted to shoot a couple of perfect targets. I hadn't the one time I tried it at 7x from the sandbag.)

Shooting off-hand takes a bit of getting used to. My first target was pretty sad, an 84. That's the worst I've shot on that target in a while. I got into the low 90's on the next target, but then I shot a 97 on my last one. None too shabby, and it certainly gives me hope that I can start shooting consistently at 370 or above.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

BAD PUN ALERT

So, could the gun lobby also be known as the Molon lobby?

I warned you.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

The question

"Dad, do you have a rifle?"

That's the question my 6-year-old son asked me about a week ago. We hadn't planned on talking about this with him for another couple of years. You see, we live in New Jersey, so if uses any words or phrases like "gun", "rifle", "bullet", "shoulder thing that goes up", or the like, my wife and I will go to jail, and our kids will end up in foster homes.

But I guess it was a little naive to think that I could hide the word "Rifle" on those targets he sees me carrying when I leave the house with my "tools", especially since our efforts to prevent him from learning how to read have met with such little success.

So my son now knows that I have a rifle, and he's seen one. I haven't gotten him out to the range yet, but he wants to make one go bang, so I'll probably do that sometime soon. He knows that he's not supposed to touch one unless I'm present. I keep them locked up in one container or another all the time they're in the house, but I'm certainly not going to trust him not to figure out how to get into locked container.

(I have to admit, though, I'm not that upset that he asked. I would have told him already if my wife weren't the one who has to put up with school, other parents, etc. She convinced me that it was better not to say anything yet.)

The Fatal Conceit

So I finally got around to reading Hayek's The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. The more I read Hayek, the more I like him. In this case, he introduced me to a concept that hadn't really occurred to me before, and that I hadn't yet seen elsewhere. In retrospect, it's logical, and it certainly fits in with other things that I've thought, but I'd never gotten to quite this idea.

The idea is that capitalism is a product of evolution. It's not that capitalism has evolved over time, which is a statement with almost no real content. It's that capitalism is a self-generated order in the same sense that life is a self-generated order (for those who see evolution as a reasonable theory.) And capitalism has survived these many thousands of years because it's a viable system, a system that provides for an efficient allocation of resources based on the information that it produces. As an economic/social system, it has competed with other systems and won because it's a better system.

In contrast, socialism is a creation of those who think they are perfectly capable of designing, from the ground up, a better system. This is the fatal conceit of the title, the idea that socialism can achieve results superior to a system that developed naturally and survived.

Of course, the socialism that's addressed in the book is "sincere" socialism. As we're all too well aware of, those currently in power who are advocating socialism aren't sincere socialists. They simply want the power socialism will give them.