Some thoughts

Everybody is talking about the tragedy on Ft Hood, and there are a few things I'd like to point out that I haven't seen mentioned.

First is that the public at large is entirely clueless as to how military bases work in regards to weapons possession. Despite what you may think, these bases are "Gun Free Zones" in every sense of the term. A news anchor asked a Senator or Congressman yesterday if all Soldiers just walked around armed, and was under the impression that that is policy. To clear things up, weapons are stored in armories that are very much secure, and ammunition is stored in fortified bunkers at a different location on the base. Personnel, which includes active duty uniformed individuals stationed on the base, are not allowed to carry any weapon -- personal or government owned -- on base in any way they please. The only time Soldiers or Marines will be wandering around with weapons is during training.

I stress though, that this policy will not stop a shooter from buying ammo at Wal-Mart, loading up their personal weapon, and bringing it on the base. To think so is fantasy.

If you live in base housing, sometimes you are allowed to register personal weapons with the base Provost Marshal's office and keep them in your residence, but I don't believe that every base allows this. If you live in the barracks, personal weapons must be stored in the armory, and cannot be carried about freely on post. There are procedures and regulations for bringing firearms onto base for shooting events or hunting, but again, the gun(s) cannot be carried around freely.

I'm not advocating these rules, mind you. It's just the way it is. I have engaged in conversation with many people over the years who defend these rules because, it is argued, that Soldiers or Marines cannot be trusted with firearms. Firefights will break out at the drop of a hat, and there will be negligent discharges every day in the chow halls. To anyone who has spent any time in combat, these arguments are largely false.

On forward operating bases (FOBs), civilian contractors and military personnel alike are armed and in possession of ammunition at all times, and shootings --negligent or intentional -- are rare. There is a high level of stress, exhaustion, and complacency on FOBs, and while many have seen some dumbass officer fire a live round into the clearing barrel at the chow hall, NDs are not an every day occurrence. The main thing missing from a FOB that would be present on a mainside post would be alcohol, and that would no doubt cause problems. I am convinced it is an American issue. Americans are stupid when it comes to the drink, but there are other nations that do not share in our stupidity. Alcohol is a constant safety issue on bases despite the weapons policy, and our culture is to blame for it.

For those who do not understand what a readiness center is, let me fill you in. These are large buildings that usually have some sort of gymnasium or other open space in them. Soldiers, Marines, and personnel are jammed into these buildings by the hundreds in order to do all of the administrative stuff that they need to complete before heading overseas into combat, or coming back from combat. There are processing stations/booths set up for all sorts of things, like, for instance, a dental booth where a Soldier's dental records will be looked at to see if their fangs are in good enough shape to not cause any problems while they kill people in a foreign land. There will be a station where medical records will be checked and shots will be given. The chaplain station will be where a Soldier can express their concerns about Susie cheating on them in their absence, and the legal station is where your will and power of attorney will be closely monitored to make sure the stripper that you just married will be able to access every dime you make while at war. Personnel going through this hell are stacked ass to nuts in a maze of hallways while they wait for their chance to get to the open area where all the stations are. These are not nice places to be to begin with. To be gunned down in one by a scumbag wannabe hajji is the epitome of shitty.

Now you know.

For closure, if you think that the weapons policy on bases will stop a killer, just look at the news this morning. It doesn't. I am not under the belief that my fellow man cannot be trusted with a personal weapon at all times. To have been where I have been, with every swinging dick on a FOB tired, pissed off, dirty, stressed beyond all belief, and homesick after a day of being shot at; armed with automatic weapons, handguns and live ammunition; heading into a long line of people that are waiting to get into the chow hall, with nothing eventful happening day after day - tends to make me think that it's no big deal to let them keep arms on a mainside base if they want to. The alcohol thing would have to be looked into, but it could be done, and events like mass shootings would be far less painful.

The new 90%

Here again, the ATF is talking about the number of guns confiscated in Mexico from the cartels, and how many of them are traced to the US. Originally the press had touted the 90% of guns canard, until it was pointed out to them that that was not so.

Now the ATF is at least being a little more clear by emphasizing that the percentage is a result of the number of guns submitted for trace by Mexico, and not by the amount confiscated. There's a huge difference.

So the story is still "about 90%", which is just what the press is going to state over and over again anyways. My concerns are not just with the amount of guns now being stopped at the border that would have gone to the cartels -- I mean, buying up rifles and sending them south has got to be jacking up the prices here in the states; I would rather some productive citizen get one vice some dirty thug -- but also to the amount of illegal firepower being carried from Mexico into the US for nefarious purposes. I'm worried the focus of the ATF may be to only Mexico's advantage, and not enough of our own.

It's not too far of a stretch to think that if these guys are brazen enough to engage the Mexican army in an open shooting war on some idle Tuesday, that they would be just as brazen to cross into the US and shoot it out with some of our guys. Some ATF and Border Patrol agents may not mind a little action, but my concern also extends to some poor rancher or land owner who may run across some of these crazies.

So I guess my question is whether or not we're stopping any of this mess from coming North?

I would also like to point out that the picture in this article of the agent "inspect[ing] a 50(sic) caliber rifle", that he is actually inspecting an AK type weapon. And yes, I do see the buttstock of what looks like may be a .50, but still, the caption is wrong.

Don't inject me bro!!

Funny, I don't recall Dean Meyers getting to ask for a reprieve from his execution.

Perhaps James Martin, Sonny Buchanan, Premkumar Walekar, Sarah Ramos, Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera, Pascal Charlot, Kenneth Bridges, Linda Franklin, and Conrad Johnson should have pleaded for clemency from their executioner by any means necessary; maybe by saying that they were too mentally ill to receive a fatal bullet.

I get the anti-death sentence arguments. I really do, and I agree with them 99%. This, however, if carried out, will be righteous justice.

Using children as a shield

The 2nd Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and The Pink Pistols are getting their activism on by challenging a gun ban by the city of Seattle.

Good on them.

The city is taking the line that their ban, which is against state law, is still legal because they say it is. As for some of the reasons Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is citing for keeping the ban, we have these gems:

In June, a group of teen boys flashed a gun at several girls outside of the Alki Community Center. - In 2004, a woman was shot dead at a Red Cross shelter set up in the Miller Community Center on Capitol Hill. - Last year a man pulled out a gun at the Folklife Festival at the Seattle Center. Three people were injured when he opened fire.

Let me break this down to show you how jacked up the mayor's logic is with these examples.

In the first one, we have a group of teen boys committing a crime by first having the gun to begin with, and then by flashing or brandishing the thing. So they committed two crimes, but by the mayor's account they would be deterred by a law that says they couldn't bring the gun that they illegally possess to the Community Center to start with, and so logically they wouldn't also commit a crime by brandishing it there because it's already illegal. What they did was illegal without the gun ban in place, but Nickels wants to make it super illegal to keep kids safe. Common sense, right?

Next example has a woman murdered outside a shelter. She was presumably gunned down by some scumbag who no doubt would have just stayed at home if he knew that carrying his gun outside the shelter would be illegal. "Damn! You mean it's illegal to carry my weapon there? I guess I won't be killing anyone today! Gun Free Zone!!! Not Again!!"

And last, there's no telling what to think of this example. If the guy just pulled a gun at random and started shooting, then that's illegal without the ban. Nickels is saying that with the ban in place, the guy wouldn't have shown up to begin with. Sounds absurd to me.

Nickels is using kids as a shield for his illegal gun ban. There is no dispute in this article that the ban runs counter to state law, and the "common sense" logic that is used, as well as the examples given, noticeably lack anything that resembles sense. Gun bans don't stop killers from killing, and they don't stop scumbags from being scumbags. They do keep law abiding citizens away, which in my experience with state and national parks is really the entire goal anyways.

Concealed carry madness!

I'm all about carrying concealed, but come on, who really needs to carry fourteen pythons?

Range Report

So, I got in my order from MidwayUSA containing a beautiful new Streamlight TRL-1 light for my Kimber, as well as a box of 175grain Federal Gold Medal Match.

Last week I outshot the 168gr FGMM rounds at 285 yards with my handloads, but I wanted to see if my barrel likes 175 grain rounds. I originally thought my barrel was a 1:10 inch twist, but a quick check shows it to be a 1:12, so in theory it should favor bullets in the 155 - 168 grain range. It seems to be a pretty fast barrel, so I figured what the hell.

My results were astonishing to say the least. The range was 100 yards on private property. I started out by shooting five rounds of my handloads to warm and foul the barrel, and then followed up with a 5-shot group of the 168gr FGMM after a minute or two to allow the barrel to cool. That last part is pretty pointless since it takes about twenty rounds to get the 20" Fulton Armory Titan barrel to get warm. After about five minutes, I touched off five rounds of the 175gr FGMM, and couldn't believe my eyes:


The top group is the 168 grain FGMM, which measures 1.142" center to center. The flyer in the center diamond was my last shot. Out of those five rounds, I had three blown primers, as well as some really obvious extractor wipe on the case heads. The fourth round was one that blew a primer, which caused a jam. I had to loose my cheekweld while I dealt with the jam, and I attribute my group growing from .586" CTC to the 1.142" group to that loose primer keeping the bolt from closing. Now we know why the military insists on crimped primers.

As for the bottom target, the one shot hole at 9 o'clock just outside of the orange is from a Browning BAR in .300 Winchester Magnum, and is not from my DPMS LR-308. That .331" group by the calipers is five rounds of the 175 grain FGMM that I got from MidwayUSA. It could be a fluke group, as things like that are relatively common. However, I have never had that happen on the first string. Unfortunately, I didn't get to print another group of those as I didn't have any more time. I will buy some more and give them another shot in the near future. You can count on that.

When stuff warms up in the spring, I'm gonna do my best to duplicate those 175 grain rounds. I didn't shoot them over the chronograph, but will when I get some time.

Open carry righteousness

I love open carry. I could care less about whether or not it gives up some sort of advantage over concealment; whether it scares people, or whether it is smart or not. Open carry is comfortable.

In Virginia it's pretty common, and is probably the best example of any state on how it's not a big deal. There is more to it than that, and SailorCurt runs it aground with this post on a comment that he made on the subject. It's a quick read that fleshes out precisely how I feel about the rest.