Who has the best .22LR conversion for Glock 23?
It's not a 4th-generation. Aside from that, all I can tell you is the serial number.
Flinch needs to be programmed out of the spousal unit.
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Sunday, 29 August 2010
QFTD
In comments on Reason.tv's coverage of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor event, M. said:
Pop quiz: which would our Founders have thought the smaller of the two entities?
'nother: how much smaller would it have been, say as a measure of how many persons were employed by, or paid by, one entity versus the other. Or say as a measure of how much spending is done by one versus the other.
I caught some of Beck's radio program last week, as he and his staff were discussing Brian Williams's appearance on Letterman. Letterman was asking Williams, as if asking Beck and the Tea Partiers through him: "taking our country back from whom?"
At the time I couldn't answer concisely, and in a way that wouldn't spawn countless challenges. Maybe the answer is concisely right there.
Jefferson and Washington would never [have] confused the public sphere with the machinery of government.
Pop quiz: which would our Founders have thought the smaller of the two entities?
'nother: how much smaller would it have been, say as a measure of how many persons were employed by, or paid by, one entity versus the other. Or say as a measure of how much spending is done by one versus the other.
I caught some of Beck's radio program last week, as he and his staff were discussing Brian Williams's appearance on Letterman. Letterman was asking Williams, as if asking Beck and the Tea Partiers through him: "taking our country back from whom?"
At the time I couldn't answer concisely, and in a way that wouldn't spawn countless challenges. Maybe the answer is concisely right there.
Friday, 27 August 2010
It just occurred to me . . .
. . . that Hannibal Lecter cut his hand off needlessly at the end of Hannibal.
Note that he cut his hand off to escape the handcuff that Clarice slapped on him in the scene right after Hannibal fed Ray Liotta's character part of his own brain.
But didn't Hannibal free himself from handcuffs in the Silence of the Lambs, in seconds, while the deputies were bringing him dinner? And he did so under spartan conditions, where he had to find or smuggle an improvised handcuff key.
So back to Clarice's kitchen. If Clarice had a frigging meat cleaver suitable for severing a man's hand at the wrist, she probably had many other items lying around, as in within three steps of the cleaver, that would have gerry-rigged a handcuff key as easily as the ballpoint pen tube that he used in Silence.
Clarice was heavily doped and not likely to put up much of a fight to this improvisation---the handcuffing was all she could pull off without passing out.
I must conclude that the cleaving of his hand was a dramatic flourish, not a true necessity for a fiend as clever as Hannibal Lecter. I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether that even happened in the book, and the book controls.
Discuss. Submit your coursework in the Comments, in APA 6th edition format.
Note that he cut his hand off to escape the handcuff that Clarice slapped on him in the scene right after Hannibal fed Ray Liotta's character part of his own brain.
But didn't Hannibal free himself from handcuffs in the Silence of the Lambs, in seconds, while the deputies were bringing him dinner? And he did so under spartan conditions, where he had to find or smuggle an improvised handcuff key.
So back to Clarice's kitchen. If Clarice had a frigging meat cleaver suitable for severing a man's hand at the wrist, she probably had many other items lying around, as in within three steps of the cleaver, that would have gerry-rigged a handcuff key as easily as the ballpoint pen tube that he used in Silence.
Clarice was heavily doped and not likely to put up much of a fight to this improvisation---the handcuffing was all she could pull off without passing out.
I must conclude that the cleaving of his hand was a dramatic flourish, not a true necessity for a fiend as clever as Hannibal Lecter. I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether that even happened in the book, and the book controls.
Discuss. Submit your coursework in the Comments, in APA 6th edition format.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
An exposure to 60Co
Still catching up on back issues of Liberty, which yields another QFTD, May '07 in fact:
Jason's post was inspired by discovery of salmonella contaminating peanut butter.
Would irradiation have worked on eggs?
Contaminated food scares seem to be more common now than when I was a kid. I don't know whether it's true or just more noticeable. It it's true, I'd like to know whether it's because food processors (or regulators) are just more careless, or we're just producing so much more, or exchanging foods more widely across the planet, or perhaps the contaminating organisms are just tougher now and breaking through the formerly adequate measures that processors have deployed against them.
Regardless, a few more scares like this one and maybe more Americans will be open to a broad use of irradiation, and vigorous tracking of which foods, and handling methods, yield better safety.
. . . only about 1% of our meat and produce is irradiated. The FDA has dragged its feet, considering irradiation some kind of food additive. They allow irradiation of meat, but with a warning label about possible risks! No such label is required for untreated meat that is laden with microbes . . if Public Citizen, food activists, and the FDA had been around in Pasteur's time, we wouldn't have pasteurization today.Gary Jason in Bug Out, Reflections
Jason's post was inspired by discovery of salmonella contaminating peanut butter.
Would irradiation have worked on eggs?
Contaminated food scares seem to be more common now than when I was a kid. I don't know whether it's true or just more noticeable. It it's true, I'd like to know whether it's because food processors (or regulators) are just more careless, or we're just producing so much more, or exchanging foods more widely across the planet, or perhaps the contaminating organisms are just tougher now and breaking through the formerly adequate measures that processors have deployed against them.
Regardless, a few more scares like this one and maybe more Americans will be open to a broad use of irradiation, and vigorous tracking of which foods, and handling methods, yield better safety.
Monday, 23 August 2010
QFTD
The right to honestly acquired private property does not depend on people's deserving their property. People do not deserve their livers or good looks, either; yet they have a right to them.
Leland Yeager paraphrasing Tibor Machan in Liberty, July 2007; sorry, article itself not online
Sunday, 15 August 2010
45 ACP Shotshell Handloads for Revolvers
(In the CD player: Ixnay on the Hombre, The Offspring)
As most of you are aware, CCI is pretty much the "industry standard" for pistol-caliber shotshells. The little buggers are sold mostly to snakeaphobes, though I'm sure a few are bought just for kicks. CCI makes these shotshells in three (centerfire) semi-auto calibers: 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP. Unfortunately, CCI specifically calls-out that these three shotshells are not to be used in revolvers of respective caliber. They bind-up the cylinder in rather unpleasant ways. Because I'm an RTFM kinda' guy, this has not happened to me personally. I've learned from others' mistakes.
While I'm sure that heapin' plenty of God's little critters have succumbed to CCI's factory loadings across the available calibers, I've always felt that the .4X were the smallest loadings I'd trust for serpent. I have a handy-dandy SP-101, which would be an ideal setup were I trusting in the 357 shotshell. But not so much trust here. Next up is the 44 Mag, of which I have two candidates. One is a Redhawk that's a bit too unwieldy for the task, the other a 2-1/2" Taurus Tracker. The latter has a ported barrel which, unfortunately, CCI says is a "no-no" for the shotshells. (RTFM, remember??...) So the 44 is out. The other two .4X offerings are 45 ACP and 45 Long Colt. I want something that can guarantee a follow-up shot so the 45 ACP in a semi-auto is out. I don't have a 45 Long Colt so that's a non-starter.
What's a girl to do?
Well, what I do have are two 45 ACP revolvers. A S&W 625 and a 325 Thunder Ranch, both with 4" barrels. The 625 isn't a whole lot lighter than the Redhawk but the 325 is very light, being divined of a magical Middle Earth compound known as scandium. Knowing that I can't use CCI's 45 ACP shotshells on this platform, I figger'ed I'd set out to roll my own 45 ACP revolver loads.
And roll'em I did!
(It's at this point that I must interject that reloading data follows. This data worked wonderfully for me, in my gun, with the batch of components I had on hand, on the day I did the testing. The same cannot be assumed for you. By duplicating these loads for your own use, you assume all risk of death, dismemberment, or damaged guns and hold harmless Yours Truly in the case that any or all of those unfortunate events actually come to pass. Legal mumbo-jumbo, blah, blah, blah...)
Referring back to an article written by Mike Venturino (American Handgunner, Jan/Feb 2007), I started formulating a plan. Mike loaded his 45 Long Colt shotshells with 45 caliber Speer shot capsules, #12 shot, and Unique powder. So I snagged a box of the capsules, scrounged a ten-pound bag of #11 shot, whipped out my own jug of Unique, and set myself to loading. I went with #11 shot since I wanted something larger than #12. (If you've ever seen #11 or #12 shot, you'll understand that "larger" is a strictly relative term...)
The shot capsules hold 163.5 grains of #11 shot, or about 408 pellets. The capsule and shot combined weighs almost exactly 180 grains. Mike used 9.0 grains of Unique in his 45 Long Colt load. Speer recommends 7.5 grains for the 45 Long Colt. So I figger'ed I'd start with 6.5 grains of Unique for the 45 ACP. I seated the capsules by hand -- squishing them in place between a scrap piece of 2x2 and my reloading bench -- to an OAL of 1.55", +/- 0.03 depending on who manufactured the shell casing. I used a 45 ACP Lee Factory Crimp die to make a taper crimp. (Since I also have a 45 ACP roll crimp die, I tried that. Fail. It just managed to crack the capsule and send #11 shot scattering everywhere...)
As you can see, the capsule extends quite a ways out the mouth of the case, despite a rather deep seating.
But it still fits in the 325's cylinder with plenty of room to spare.
Just for grits-n-shins, I tried chambering one of them in my 1911. It didn't work, the capsule catching the rifling well before the case could headspace.
Then it was off to the range. (Unfortunately, I forgot the camera. So here are your thousand words...)
In a nutshell, the experiment was a success!! The patterns made at roughly 10 feet were exactly what you'd expect: ~18", with good distribution. Recoil was noticeable but mild. There was nothing untoward as a result of using the capsules: no plastic shards flying about or jamming up the cylinder works. Cases extracted w/o problem. Sorry, no chrono data.
One thing I wanted to check -- and I'm glad I did -- was "capsule creep" due to recoil. I loaded one moon clip with five of my 200-grn FMJ match rounds and one shotshell. I "staged" the cylinder so that the shotshell fired after the five match rounds. Indeed, the capsule crept out of the case and would have bound the cylinder. Admittedly, I didn't have the tightest taper crimp on these loads. I'll need to do a bit more experimentation on the crimp. Probably a few cycles of "tighten it until it snaps, then back off a 1/4 turn." Even if I can't get the exact crimp I want, the shotshell would always be staged to fire first and recoil creep would be a non-issue. Still, I wanna' get it right...
Finally, Mike V. used the "potato test" as criteria for an effective shotshell load. He believes that if one of these babies blasts apart a raw potato, it's good enough for snakes. Well, my 45 ACP loads sent a spud to the Big Potato Patch in the Sky. In many pieces!
So, if you have 45 ACP revolver that you wanna' roll some shotshells for, have at it. It can be done.
TCM
As most of you are aware, CCI is pretty much the "industry standard" for pistol-caliber shotshells. The little buggers are sold mostly to snakeaphobes, though I'm sure a few are bought just for kicks. CCI makes these shotshells in three (centerfire) semi-auto calibers: 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP. Unfortunately, CCI specifically calls-out that these three shotshells are not to be used in revolvers of respective caliber. They bind-up the cylinder in rather unpleasant ways. Because I'm an RTFM kinda' guy, this has not happened to me personally. I've learned from others' mistakes.
While I'm sure that heapin' plenty of God's little critters have succumbed to CCI's factory loadings across the available calibers, I've always felt that the .4X were the smallest loadings I'd trust for serpent. I have a handy-dandy SP-101, which would be an ideal setup were I trusting in the 357 shotshell. But not so much trust here. Next up is the 44 Mag, of which I have two candidates. One is a Redhawk that's a bit too unwieldy for the task, the other a 2-1/2" Taurus Tracker. The latter has a ported barrel which, unfortunately, CCI says is a "no-no" for the shotshells. (RTFM, remember??...) So the 44 is out. The other two .4X offerings are 45 ACP and 45 Long Colt. I want something that can guarantee a follow-up shot so the 45 ACP in a semi-auto is out. I don't have a 45 Long Colt so that's a non-starter.
What's a girl to do?
Well, what I do have are two 45 ACP revolvers. A S&W 625 and a 325 Thunder Ranch, both with 4" barrels. The 625 isn't a whole lot lighter than the Redhawk but the 325 is very light, being divined of a magical Middle Earth compound known as scandium. Knowing that I can't use CCI's 45 ACP shotshells on this platform, I figger'ed I'd set out to roll my own 45 ACP revolver loads.
And roll'em I did!
(It's at this point that I must interject that reloading data follows. This data worked wonderfully for me, in my gun, with the batch of components I had on hand, on the day I did the testing. The same cannot be assumed for you. By duplicating these loads for your own use, you assume all risk of death, dismemberment, or damaged guns and hold harmless Yours Truly in the case that any or all of those unfortunate events actually come to pass. Legal mumbo-jumbo, blah, blah, blah...)
Referring back to an article written by Mike Venturino (American Handgunner, Jan/Feb 2007), I started formulating a plan. Mike loaded his 45 Long Colt shotshells with 45 caliber Speer shot capsules, #12 shot, and Unique powder. So I snagged a box of the capsules, scrounged a ten-pound bag of #11 shot, whipped out my own jug of Unique, and set myself to loading. I went with #11 shot since I wanted something larger than #12. (If you've ever seen #11 or #12 shot, you'll understand that "larger" is a strictly relative term...)
The shot capsules hold 163.5 grains of #11 shot, or about 408 pellets. The capsule and shot combined weighs almost exactly 180 grains. Mike used 9.0 grains of Unique in his 45 Long Colt load. Speer recommends 7.5 grains for the 45 Long Colt. So I figger'ed I'd start with 6.5 grains of Unique for the 45 ACP. I seated the capsules by hand -- squishing them in place between a scrap piece of 2x2 and my reloading bench -- to an OAL of 1.55", +/- 0.03 depending on who manufactured the shell casing. I used a 45 ACP Lee Factory Crimp die to make a taper crimp. (Since I also have a 45 ACP roll crimp die, I tried that. Fail. It just managed to crack the capsule and send #11 shot scattering everywhere...)
As you can see, the capsule extends quite a ways out the mouth of the case, despite a rather deep seating.
But it still fits in the 325's cylinder with plenty of room to spare.
Just for grits-n-shins, I tried chambering one of them in my 1911. It didn't work, the capsule catching the rifling well before the case could headspace.
Then it was off to the range. (Unfortunately, I forgot the camera. So here are your thousand words...)
In a nutshell, the experiment was a success!! The patterns made at roughly 10 feet were exactly what you'd expect: ~18", with good distribution. Recoil was noticeable but mild. There was nothing untoward as a result of using the capsules: no plastic shards flying about or jamming up the cylinder works. Cases extracted w/o problem. Sorry, no chrono data.
One thing I wanted to check -- and I'm glad I did -- was "capsule creep" due to recoil. I loaded one moon clip with five of my 200-grn FMJ match rounds and one shotshell. I "staged" the cylinder so that the shotshell fired after the five match rounds. Indeed, the capsule crept out of the case and would have bound the cylinder. Admittedly, I didn't have the tightest taper crimp on these loads. I'll need to do a bit more experimentation on the crimp. Probably a few cycles of "tighten it until it snaps, then back off a 1/4 turn." Even if I can't get the exact crimp I want, the shotshell would always be staged to fire first and recoil creep would be a non-issue. Still, I wanna' get it right...
Finally, Mike V. used the "potato test" as criteria for an effective shotshell load. He believes that if one of these babies blasts apart a raw potato, it's good enough for snakes. Well, my 45 ACP loads sent a spud to the Big Potato Patch in the Sky. In many pieces!
So, if you have 45 ACP revolver that you wanna' roll some shotshells for, have at it. It can be done.
TCM
Saturday, 7 August 2010
more Grendel reloads
Crosswinds exceeding 30mph today.
BobbieJo sent some more 95 grain Hornady V Max downrange today. All were CCI 200 primers, Wolf brass. 5-round samples at 100 yards.
29.0 grains WC846, mild crimp. Average 2528 fps, SD 13.0 fps. All stayed in a 4" square at 100 yards
29.5 grains WC846, no crimp. Average 2591 fps, SD 25.1 fps. Not as well confined to 4" square.
29.5 grains WC846, mild crimp. Average 2600 fps, SD 17.2 fps. About the same spread as without crimp.
Elevation 6300 feet above sea level.
BobbieJo sent some more 95 grain Hornady V Max downrange today. All were CCI 200 primers, Wolf brass. 5-round samples at 100 yards.
29.0 grains WC846, mild crimp. Average 2528 fps, SD 13.0 fps. All stayed in a 4" square at 100 yards
29.5 grains WC846, no crimp. Average 2591 fps, SD 25.1 fps. Not as well confined to 4" square.
29.5 grains WC846, mild crimp. Average 2600 fps, SD 17.2 fps. About the same spread as without crimp.
Elevation 6300 feet above sea level.
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Gear Review (of sorts): Fenix LD20 R4
[In the CD player: Lush, Gala...]
The wife and I currently use two 20th century bicycle headlights that use incandescent bulbs and lead-acid battery "cells". Categorizing these systems as marginal is something of an understatement. They're heavy, bulky, and not all that bright, even with recently-replaced battery packs. Unless it's absolutely pitch black and we're pedaling along at a lazy 10 MPH, they cannot be trusted to properly illuminate the roadway for us to clearly identify road hazards. At best, they'll alert a driver to our presence at night. Maybe. Bicycle lights have come a long way since I first invested in these systems almost 15 years ago. But they can still be expensive.
Then I found an alternative.
What we're gonna' talk about today is the Fenix LD20 R4 flashlight. (This is the newer LD20, that has a max 205 lumens...) I first caught wind of this little guy by way of the kind folks over at EcoVelo. There'd been a couple posts over there about using flashlights for bicycle lights and I really liked the idea. What appealed to me about the LD20 was (1) it's price, given that it can fill two roles, (2) the fact that it can take AA batteries, and (3) that it uses a constant-current LED drive circuit.
.JPG)
.JPG)
Most of the really bright flashlights (Surefire and Streamlight, for example) run off of CR123A batteries. These flashlights are great and I own several of them. The Missus gifted me a Surefire LED model that's bright enough to weld with! But I want something that uses rechargeable batteries, specifically rechargeable AAs. The problem with using the AA rechargeables is that their charged voltage is only ~1.2 volts. This voltage is low enough that most of my electronics gear fusses that the power is running low when I just installed freshly charged batteries. This is where the LD20's constant-current circuit comes in handy. Within reason, it doesn't care what the battery voltage is, as long as the batteries have the capacity to run the circuitry. Which the AA rechargeables do!
I won't go into a lot of detail about the LD20 'cuz you can get all that info for yourself just by following the linky. But the "added value" of the time you've spent reading this post is how the LD20 behaves while using different battery types. The Fenix web-site gives out the basics on time-vs-brightness, but what they don't tell you is under what conditions the tests were conducted. Well folks, I think I can answer a few questions about that since I was curious enough to conduct my own tests.
I borrowed a PIC microcontroller board and a photocell from work. I rewrote a mess of C code to turn the board into a data logger, rigged a cardboard box to act as the test rack, and proceeded to test the LD20 with five different types of batteries: Energizer Ultimate Lithium, Energizer Rechargeable (older), Energizer Rechargeable (newer), Energizer Alkaline, and Sony Eneloop rechargeable. The older Energizer rechargeables are probably four years old, though their charge/discharge count is pretty low. The newer ones are spankin' new, not even two weeks old. I used the 50 lumen setting for all the tests, which Fenix says provides 13 hours of runtime. (And the 50-lumen setting provides quite a bit more light than our current bicycle light systems.) Testing was done inside, so, say............, 75F.
.JPG)
The following graph shows relative brightness over time. I couldn't tell you what the exact brightness is in lumens, it's just the reading off of the A/D converter attached to the photocell. Just assume it's the advertised 50 lumens. This graph makes it obvious that the constant-current circuit is doing its thing: when the batteries are dead, they're dead!!
As one would expect, the Ultimate Lithiums produce significantly better results than the other batteries. However, they're not rechargeable and they're wicked expensive at over $2 each!! They would be a good choice, however, for emergency operations where long run-times (and shelf-lives) are important -- and cost is not. (Lithiums will also perform better at temperature extremes than the other batteries will...) The other four batteries are quite comparable in their performances. The good news is that the rechargeables -- even with their lower full-charge voltage -- have capacities nearly equal to that of the alkalines.
To summarize the run-times:
It looks like we have a winner! Of course it remains to be seen how the rechargeables will work in colder weather, which is really the only time we need to use lights on the bicycles. But even if they give us a full week's commuting between charges (~6 hours, worse case), then they'll work great. So check back in about 6 months and we'll update on how this arrangement works. Until then .............. ciao!!
TCM
The wife and I currently use two 20th century bicycle headlights that use incandescent bulbs and lead-acid battery "cells". Categorizing these systems as marginal is something of an understatement. They're heavy, bulky, and not all that bright, even with recently-replaced battery packs. Unless it's absolutely pitch black and we're pedaling along at a lazy 10 MPH, they cannot be trusted to properly illuminate the roadway for us to clearly identify road hazards. At best, they'll alert a driver to our presence at night. Maybe. Bicycle lights have come a long way since I first invested in these systems almost 15 years ago. But they can still be expensive.
Then I found an alternative.
What we're gonna' talk about today is the Fenix LD20 R4 flashlight. (This is the newer LD20, that has a max 205 lumens...) I first caught wind of this little guy by way of the kind folks over at EcoVelo. There'd been a couple posts over there about using flashlights for bicycle lights and I really liked the idea. What appealed to me about the LD20 was (1) it's price, given that it can fill two roles, (2) the fact that it can take AA batteries, and (3) that it uses a constant-current LED drive circuit.
.JPG)
.JPG)
Most of the really bright flashlights (Surefire and Streamlight, for example) run off of CR123A batteries. These flashlights are great and I own several of them. The Missus gifted me a Surefire LED model that's bright enough to weld with! But I want something that uses rechargeable batteries, specifically rechargeable AAs. The problem with using the AA rechargeables is that their charged voltage is only ~1.2 volts. This voltage is low enough that most of my electronics gear fusses that the power is running low when I just installed freshly charged batteries. This is where the LD20's constant-current circuit comes in handy. Within reason, it doesn't care what the battery voltage is, as long as the batteries have the capacity to run the circuitry. Which the AA rechargeables do!
I won't go into a lot of detail about the LD20 'cuz you can get all that info for yourself just by following the linky. But the "added value" of the time you've spent reading this post is how the LD20 behaves while using different battery types. The Fenix web-site gives out the basics on time-vs-brightness, but what they don't tell you is under what conditions the tests were conducted. Well folks, I think I can answer a few questions about that since I was curious enough to conduct my own tests.
I borrowed a PIC microcontroller board and a photocell from work. I rewrote a mess of C code to turn the board into a data logger, rigged a cardboard box to act as the test rack, and proceeded to test the LD20 with five different types of batteries: Energizer Ultimate Lithium, Energizer Rechargeable (older), Energizer Rechargeable (newer), Energizer Alkaline, and Sony Eneloop rechargeable. The older Energizer rechargeables are probably four years old, though their charge/discharge count is pretty low. The newer ones are spankin' new, not even two weeks old. I used the 50 lumen setting for all the tests, which Fenix says provides 13 hours of runtime. (And the 50-lumen setting provides quite a bit more light than our current bicycle light systems.) Testing was done inside, so, say............, 75F.
.JPG)
The following graph shows relative brightness over time. I couldn't tell you what the exact brightness is in lumens, it's just the reading off of the A/D converter attached to the photocell. Just assume it's the advertised 50 lumens. This graph makes it obvious that the constant-current circuit is doing its thing: when the batteries are dead, they're dead!!
As one would expect, the Ultimate Lithiums produce significantly better results than the other batteries. However, they're not rechargeable and they're wicked expensive at over $2 each!! They would be a good choice, however, for emergency operations where long run-times (and shelf-lives) are important -- and cost is not. (Lithiums will also perform better at temperature extremes than the other batteries will...) The other four batteries are quite comparable in their performances. The good news is that the rechargeables -- even with their lower full-charge voltage -- have capacities nearly equal to that of the alkalines.
To summarize the run-times:
It looks like we have a winner! Of course it remains to be seen how the rechargeables will work in colder weather, which is really the only time we need to use lights on the bicycles. But even if they give us a full week's commuting between charges (~6 hours, worse case), then they'll work great. So check back in about 6 months and we'll update on how this arrangement works. Until then .............. ciao!!
TCM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)