Who was that brilliant thinker who said this?:

Listen, i'm not saying i think people should have rushed him or anything like that. If i was unarmed, and i was a guy, i'm not sure i would have had the guts to rush him. Even if a couple of other guys went with me. In the spur of the moment, I can understand hesitating, who wants to be the one guy who gets shot so the others can jump him? Bravery like that doesn't exist in our culture anymore, as Professor Librescu demonstrated. What i am saying is that one guy with a gun could have stopped the whole thing. And every. body. fucking. knows. It. One guy. Because, think about it... If you're unarmed, it takes a hell of a lot of guts to jump a guy with two guns, but if you're sitting in that room, and you know you've got a gun in your pocket there is absolutely no way you're not going to use it. How could you live with yourself if 32 people die and you know you could have stopped it? You'd have to intervene. Whereas, unarmed people don't have that kind of motivation. They are more likely to wait for the Librescus of the world to save them.

Update: Part 2 is here.

Posted by: annika at 07:31 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

So un-PC.

But he's right, the action is smooth on that thing.

Posted by: annika at 09:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd been ruminating on a post about the efficacy of violence in modern international conflict, when I came across Publicola's miniseries on the efficacy of violence in personal security. I may get to my own thesis this weekend, but I want to recommend Publicola's post today. It's especially timely when you consider what's been going on in Phoenix for the last year.

Publicola's divided his essay into three parts (with more on the way). The first deals with the philosophy of self-defense in an introductory way, the second deals more specifically with the use of firearms for self-defense and suggestions for proper training, and the third part contains recommendations on proper gun selection.

[A brief aside here: Publicola, like many others I've consulted, is a big fan of the shotgun for home defense. That's all well and good, and I understand his argument, but in my opinion the best firearm for home defense has got to be the Pistolet-Pulemet Shpagina model 1941, otherwise known as the PPSh or "burp gun."

It's the gun that kicked the Wermacht's ass. Check it out. At 900 rounds per minute, tell me that couldn't neuter any or all rapists and burglars you'd care to name. I'd like to try it on this asshole.]

If you're curious about what I've chosen for my own protection, here she is.

Posted by: annika at 05:34 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 2 kb.

Anyone got opinions on this sweet baby?

I like it. I like it a lot.

Posted by: annika at 01:26 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Allow me to introduce you to Mistress Annika:

Annika's Journal reader Hannes has bestowed the distinct honor of naming his newly purchased Yugoslavian M48 Mauser after yours truly! Here's how this all came about:

[I]t is a variant of "der Mauser Karabiner 98k". Yes, in 1898 this was considered a carbine! The design dates back that far, but this one rolled off the line in Yugoslavia in the late 40's or early 50's. Designated the M48, it was built in a factory that not been bombed out using captured German machine tools and designs. It was meant as a military surplus rifle for issue to reserve troops and sales to various conflicts around the world at the time. . . . My new toy has been sitting in a warehouse only to be test fired every five years. It may be 50 to 60 years old, but for all intents and purposes, it is brand new.

I wasn't planning on buying a Mauser when I walked into that gun store three-plus weeks ago . . . . I picked up a brand new M1 Garand and liked it until I saw the price tag: $2700. Yeesh! It's a shame I don't have any children, because then I could sell them to a wandering band of gypsies and buy the thing. Plus maybe some ammo.

Finally I relented and asked what was all the way in the back row right where the shotguns start -- their lowest priority rifle sales location. "The one with the hogsticker," I said. I was expecting it to be yet another Chinese SKS with a folding bayonet ... yawn!

The saleman said, "That's a Mauser."

Hannes thinks, "Mmmmmm, Mauser!"

So I bought the thing right then and there for half the price I was going to pay for the jilted rifle, complete with its first aid kit for wounded jihad monkeys ... er, I mean the bayonet! How insensitive of me.

But enough about the rifle, let's talk about the bullet. It's fires an 8x57 mm cartridge. . . . the expended shell casings are as long as a full AK-47 round ready to fire. It will propel a 170-grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of almost 3000 fps. . . .

OK, after I offered my rifle to one of my younger shooting buddies he ran out and set a can about 15 meters away and then took aim at it. He's an absolute newbie to shooting, but indignant to CA's idiotic gun laws. While he's doing this, I'm remembering that the Mauser 98k first saw action in the Boer War and that, at Spion Kop, Afrikaners were using them to pick off British soldiers from 1000 meters away without a scope ... and he's aiming at can at pointblank range.

I was expecting the can to be empty, but no. It was full of mandarin nectarines. And when he hit it on the first try, it disappeared into an orange cloud. Afterwards, the most we found of the can was what was once its bottom and a small speck of a nectarine -- perhaps 1/8 of an inch long -- that the wind had blown back onto one of our sweatshirts.

Even more bottom line, 60 rounds through the thing gave me a fat lip. And I have this nasty snaggletooth on the right side of my jaw that means I should invest in a football player's mouthguard when shooting this thing lest I want it to tear up my inner lip again.

What can I say? German Kannonenthumpenboomen in das Haus! Ya.

When I picked up the Mauser, I got a butt pad with it. The salesman was fumbling around looking for a black one after he found a brown one. I told him that it's OK since the rifle is brown. He countered that MY rifle is blonde.

I had been struggling for a woman's name to give it. Right then and there I decided on "Annika". And after the beating it gave me last weekend, I've amended that to "Mistress Annika". I hope you don't mind ...

Posted by: annika at 05:59 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 700 words, total size 4 kb.

Wherein i toot my own horn and pretend like i'm an expert, just a little.

i'm ready to say it now. After only eight week's experience shooting pistols, i'm pretty confident that i can take down any assailant at 25 yards, given a quality firearm, and assuming i don't freak out when the time comes.

i was uncomfortable making that boast before now, because i'm basically a self-taught shooter. But everytime i go to the range i'm amazed at how much other people suck at pistols. i look around at the other targets and the holes are shotgunned all over the place. Many of these guys are law enforcement types, too. i consistently outshoot my boyfriend, who learned how to shoot in the military. At the ranges i go to, i've noticed most guys like to shoot at 7 yards predominately. i've gotten to the point where 7 yards is no challenge for me anymore, and i shoot that range with my prescription glasses off.

Am i that good or are other people just that bad? i have no idea. i'm not going to go tap a stranger on the shoulder and say "hey, why do you suck so bad?" Especially if that other guy is armed. So i'm left only with my theories.

My first theory is that people look at aiming and pulling the trigger as two separate and sequential actions. i think that's my boyfriend's problem. He takes aim, then he pulls the trigger. In my humble novice's opinion, i think you have to concentrate on aiming the whole time, and the trigger pull should be slow and almost unconscious.

i read somewhere that you should be surprised when the gun fires. i also harken back to a book i read long ago, called Zen in the Art of Archery. In that book the Zen master constantly harped on letting the arrow go only as a natural unconscious act. Like snow falling from a bamboo leaf, the arrow should fly when it's ready, no sooner and no later.

i think the same philosophy can be applied to trigger pulls. So i take aim and concentrate on lining up the sights properly, keeping the gun as steady as i can. As i'm doing this, i begin pulling back on the trigger. Once i begin that action i try not to think about it anymore. i especially try not to anticipate the shot. i keep my mind focused on the sight picture and when the shot happens, it happens. That's one reason why i hated the Glock. i need a heavier trigger pull because my squeeze is so slow.

Another theory is my stance. i've done some research about the Weaver stance, but i never really felt comfortable using it. i think it allows for too much movement in the elbows, especially since it requires the muscles of both arms to be working against each other. Here's a good site that describes the various stances.

My stance is more like the modified Weaver described as the Chapman in that website. First i take a 45° stance with my left foot forward (i'm right handed.) i lock the elbow of my gun arm and point the elbow down. Using my left hand, i then pull the gun arm toward my body until it lines up on the target. i also pull my right shoulder blade rearward until it stops.

The main difference in my stance is that i place my left hand under the grip, palm up. The fingers of my left hand go around the outside of my right hand, instead of covering the fingers of my gun hand. i think this allows my left hand to support the weight of the gun better, and also makes it easier to pull my right arm against my body.

Another advantage to my hold is that it gets my left thumb out of the way. Using the conventional hold, i once noticed a temptation to use my left thumb to assist my trigger finger as i got tired. My new method eliminated that temptation.

So does it work? i'll let you be the judge. Last weekend, i shot the target on the right using a Sig Sauer P226 in .40 S&W. The cartridges were Magtech 180 gr. FMC, which have a muzzle velocity of 990 feet per second. As you can see, i was least accurate at 25 yards, aiming at the head. Actually, i'm better with the HK at that range. i like to leave a target like that out there for a while so the other suckers at my range can see it and be properly impressed, before i swagger out of there.

Posted by: annika at 06:23 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 790 words, total size 5 kb.

Here's the next in my series of novice gun reviews. This post should be subtitled "Teutonic Target Shooting, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

My quest for the perfect handgun to purchase started out with the 9mm Sig Sauer P226. i think you all remember how crazy i was for that gun. i'm glad it was the first pistol i ever fired because it has become the benchmark by which all others are measured. In fact Sig Sauer has reinforced my long-standing preference for Teutonic engineering. So i figured, as long as i'm test driving guns, i should check out all the German makes i can get my hands on. more...

Posted by: annika at 12:16 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 1361 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Am I the only one who finds hot, young, conservative women waxing eloquently about German handguns arousing?

Posted by: Robbie at September 15, 2005 06:16 AM (lbWbV)

2 Well I'm glad you at least gave the Glock a try. Now you know why people either love them or hate them. In the Auto Dept. as far as I'm concerned you aren't going to find a better gun than an H&K. I have shot thousands of rounds through them and I love them. They might be ugly but they are the best thing going in the semi-auto. Plus they also make my favorite CQB weapon which is the MP-5. If you ever get a chance to play with an MP-5 just for fun don't pass it up as they are a blast to shoot. So will you be trying any revolvers or is your heart set on an auto?

Posted by: Andy at September 15, 2005 06:37 AM (688sS)

3 I have shot all three guns and swear by the Glock. The biggest reason is its simplicity. If you draw a gun from a holster and need to shoot someone you don't want to mess with an external safety. The fine motor movements needed to disengage it will be exceedingly difficult under stress. I also like the fact that I've shot over 5,000 rounds through it with only one or two malfunctions. I used to own a ParaOrdnance 1911 that probably had 1 every 200 rounds. I don't like the HK which is otherwise a fine gun, because if you've shot 1911s you are trained to ride the safety. Meaning, you draw from the holster with thumb on safety. You push down on safety when your eyes are on the sight and the barrel is pointed downrange. If you keep your thumb on safety--which is simplest and the typical 1911 style of shooting--then as you shoot if you push down on HK USP safety you'll tend to engage decock. If you pull trigger when decock is engaged, the gun won't shoot. You'll think you had a failure to fire so you'll "tap rack bang;" at that point, you'll be losing confidence in gun, especially if it happens again. Great shooting Annika. The key for someone with basic safety and marksmanship down is transitioning from the "square range" mentality to combat shooting. In other words, investing in software (your skills) and not just hardware. I strongly recommend Scotty Reitz in the LA area for his pistol course. He's LAPD SWAT and has a great course; I took his precision rifle course a few years ago and loved it.

Posted by: Roach at September 15, 2005 07:36 AM (MRlvg)

4 "It's plastic, sure, but it feels like the kind of lightweight plastic that toys are made out of." Light is good if you are carrying it all day. "It's basically point and shoot, no nonsense." Which in a stressful situation is a good thing. If you have to remember if you gun is cocked or uncochked, safty on or off when you want to use it, that could take vauable time. "And the trigger pull itself was way too light, which i can't believe is very safe" You can get a heavier trigger, which many do. It is called a New York Trigger. I know you have ruled out glock, but I still want to highlight why in some cases they things you don't like can be fixed or they are good things. Also, several of the things you don't like about the glock are fixed in the spring field XD. It has a fully supported chamber. It has the 1911 grip angle (the USP does also). It is a little heavier than the glock. Though it still has the DOA action, but it does have a grip saftly. As a side note, check out the price of the HK. It is an excellent handgun, but you also pay for the priviledge of owning one. Another thing about HK is that their customer service is not all that great (from stories I have heard), unless you are a police department or miltary department. That basiclly stems from the fact that in Europe their is no civillian gun market, but in America there is. So many european comapnies end up getting miltary contracts (IE HK and SIG picked up the DHS contract a year ago.)

Posted by: cube at September 15, 2005 07:42 AM (nyNr0)

5 Yes, Roach, but the HK can be configured by the user without the de-cocking lever if that is a concern.

Posted by: annika at September 15, 2005 07:44 AM (o9z5e)

6 That's the way to go with HK; either DAO or SAO style or DA/SA without decock (don't know if that last one's available). I also found ergonomics on it were weird, because when you pushed gun in front of you front sight pushed was low and you had to pull it up. Glock's high, but I'd rather see sight and align it that not see it and try to find it. But that's probably a matter of hand ergonomics that is neither here nor there. All three of these guns are good guns, but I urge you to run them through different drills besides square range drills to see which one you like. Consider how you'll use it, whether you'll carry, how easy is it to work controls under stress, how well does it shoot fast, how well does it shoot in low light etc. Plus get yourself a G2 Nitrolon by Surefire to go with any home defense gun.

Posted by: Roach at September 15, 2005 08:31 AM (MRlvg)

7 Was ist mit dir los? Hast du Walter vergessen? Meine P-5 ist prima. Sie ist schnittig und zuverlässig. Wenn sie ladete ist, ist sie ganz sicher. Aber sie fast nur neun Patrone. Ich eige zwei Sig Pistolen und sie sind auch sehr gut. Aber du sollst eine P-5 oder P-5C ausprobieren. - Verstehst du mein schrechlich Deutsch? Tschüs!

Posted by: Jasen at September 15, 2005 08:59 AM (tx57x)

8 WHAT! Outrage! No snarky comments on Brittny & Kevin's demon offspring?

Posted by: Victor at September 15, 2005 10:17 AM (L3qPK)

9 Well, annie, I won't try to dissuade you. Guns are like wome. . . er, the opposite sex: There's no accounting for taste. To be fair, though, I did say the H&K has good ergonomics, and I certainly have no beef with its accuracy. (In general, though, accuracy and reliability are inversely related. E.g., the AK is noted for its reliability, but its accuracy is mediocre. Eugene Stoner's brainchild is an inherently accurate design, but not noted for going bang each time the trigger is pulled.) I very much doubt you'll find any Walther that you prefer to the H&K, if that's your cup of tea. For one thing, I don't think any of their current production full-sized pistols have external safeties. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any DAO pistol that has a true external safety, other than (some configurations of) the H&K. (I assume you want DAO, not DA/SA? It's not completely clear from your post, but I really don't like mixing the two and I find it hard to imagine why anyone else would want to do so.) It's a shame; there are some great pistols out there that you're missing by insisting on an external safety and, apparently, DAO. Heck, you're excluding essentially the entire universe of revolvers! What would Harry Callahan say? On the other hand, if you do decide to go with the USP perhaps you'll be inspired to dress up like a blonde Lara Croft and have some pics taken -- pics that you'll then post here, naturally. (For the sake of the single guys, of course.) P.S.: I never get hit by ejected cases from my Glock. The precise direction that cases eject varies from individual pistol to individual pistol.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2005 10:24 AM (2mxBl)

10 "itÂ’s a good case for keeping your booger-hook off the bang-switch" lol I admire H&K engineering. I don't know anything about their pistols, but their rifles are incredible. I used to have an H&K 91, what a weapon. Too fucking heavy to carry around unless you're Ahnold. The great thing about H&K is that they create a superior basic design, and then carry it through their entire series. Learn one weapon, you know the entire series.

Posted by: Casca at September 15, 2005 10:41 AM (qBTBH)

11 One problem with DA/SA guns is that you have two different weighted trigger pulls, such that your first and second shots may go in very different places and your muscle memory on the trigger will be very different. One other advantage to glocks. I went through multiple 1911s an HK and a few other guns before settling on the Glock.

Posted by: Roach at September 15, 2005 12:20 PM (MRlvg)

12 I gotta admit, I never saw the beef with the traditonal DA/Sa that most folks do. Way I see thing is that if you need to draw & fire in a hurry your trget is going ot be close enough where it won't matter much if your first shot is a few inches away from your second. If the target is far enough away where you have to be a little more deliberate with your aim, then cocking the pistol shouldn't be that much of an issue, or hauling ass to some cover while you do so for that matter. A DAO - I always thought it was yet another great solution in search of a real problem. The same could be said of the traditonal DA/SA but I think if it applies to the latter then it applies to the former by a factor of 3. Maybe it's just the way i was raised, but having an external safety never presented much of a problem for me. Flip it down on the draw then move the thumb below it. More motions than not messing with a safety at all, but for SA pistols it never seemed that much of a chore. I have a DA/Sa with a decocker & never ever had an unintentional decocking while shooting, even doing rapid fire drills. Again, could just be the way I was raised, but I don't see an eternal safety or a decocker as much of an issue. Jasen, I didn't know you spoke french. (& yes; I still remember the chambering you wanted to have a Garand built in. Heretic. lol) Matt, I think the young lady wants a traditonal DA/SA. I thought I recalled her not being enamored with the DAO things. & on behalf of single guys I appreciate the attempt to get her to post more pics. Alas, methinks the young lady is too modest. Roach, To each his/her own but I still don't see what the big deal is in transitioning from DA to SA in a pistol. If it is that big of a deal then a SA would be a better choice. Usually you get a lighter, crisper trigger pull. You'd have an eternal safety to deal with, but seeing as how miss Annika wants one of those I don't see it as much of an issue at all. & the gentleman you recommend from the LAPD SWAT team - you wouldn't know if he was part of the group of that august body that wanted the .50 BMG banned for civilians would ya? Robbie, Nope you're not alone. But to be fair you'd aks the same question if the subject was creamy pasta. Miss Annika, As enthusiastic as you seem to be about handguns I can't wait till you start trying out rifles. & I second (or perhaps third) the call for more pics of the reviewer with the reviewees. But lost causes are a habit of mine. CZ or EAA Witness. Try one of those next. Along with a Browning Hi Power. & a Beretta 92 (9mm)or 96 (.40 S&W/.357 SIG) or its Taurus equivilent (PT-92 or PT-100 repsectively) should be on your list as well (the main difference is the Taurus has its safety on the frame rather than on the slide, so it's more like a 1911 safety than a Walther safety). & give the .357 SIG cartridge a try. More expensive ammo but you might dig it. It's like a souped up 9mm more or less & is supposed to try to duplicate the .357 magnum's stopping power in an auto. Never set one off myself but always heard they were interesting to try out. Plus in theory the bottlenecked case of the .357 SIG is less prone to feeding errors than a straight walled case like the 9mm or .40 S&W has. & did I second (or third) the motion for more pics?

Posted by: Publicola at September 15, 2005 01:09 PM (vC8Ev)

13 i'd post pictures, but since my range is a nudist range, they don't allow cameras, so sorry. ; )

Posted by: annika at September 15, 2005 01:23 PM (zAOEU)

14 Sketches then? A nice chalk? At least stick figures? We're really not that picky.

Posted by: Publicola at September 15, 2005 02:31 PM (vC8Ev)

15 "my range is a nudist range" ... what's the address again?

Posted by: mike at September 15, 2005 03:42 PM (oCke8)

16 Nobody'll believe it, but back in the old days three or four years ago, Anni had a stack of skin pics around here. I of course had the good judgment to save local copies of these. I particularly like those from the Jamaican vacation, mwahahahaa.

Posted by: Casca at September 15, 2005 04:09 PM (qBTBH)

17 Well, Annie, if Publicola's right about your wanting a DA/SA pistol, then you probably should try the Beretta. That said, I personally think the Beretta is a GIGANTIC FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT THAT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T WON A REAL WAR IN 2000 YEARS. In case it's not clear, I really, really, really, REALLY don't like the Beretta (or its clones). At all. I'm not just some old fart who's bitter about the decision to phase out The Greatest Pistol Ever Made -- you know, the one that single-handedly won two world wars, would vaporize a man's torso with one near miss, and in a pinch could serve as a not-half-bad anti-ballistic missile system. (Don't take my sarcasm the wrong way: I love the 1911. Some folks just tend to get carried away.) No, my animosity is born of intimate familiarity. I trained on the Beretta at The Basic School (and fired the highest pistol score in my class), carried it for seven years (three of which involved really carrying, Condition One in a shoulder holster, on a very regular basis), qualified expert with it seven times, supervised the training of literally hundreds of Marines with it, and later supervised an armory responsible for maintaining about a hundred of the infernal things. My distaste for the pistol arises from several factors, but the most egregious is the tendency of the locking block to crack when you need it, which puts the pistol down hard. (It usually won't even cycle once the block has cracked. Occasionally it will, though I wouldn't be keen on firing one that way.) It happened in 5 of the first 6 Berettas and Beretta clones that I ever fired, and the fun didn't stop there. When I was a platoon commander in a security force company our locking block breakage rate on any given trip to the range was rarely less than 10%, sometimes close to 20%. Admittedly, those guns got used harder than most are; nevertheless, I've never seen any pistol in which mechanical failure was so frequent or predictable. Beretta supposedly has redesigned the locking block to correct this problem. Yeah. And monkeys might fly out my butt. Screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me; screw me dozens of times and you've made an enemy for life. Nothing anyone can say will ever persuade me to give the Beretta 92, or any of its clones or variants, another chance. I wouldn't allow one to defile my gunsafe by its presence if it were free. In fact, before I die I hope to travel to Italy again, this time for the express purpose of personally pissing on Bartolomeo Beretta's grave. This is the heir to the 1911? For that, may God have mercy on Ronnie Reagan's soul. That said, I'll at least give the Beretta defenders this much: It's quite accurate, and easy to shoot even though I really don't like the DA/SA transition. The grip's a bit oversized IMHO, but it's just a 9x19 and darn near as heavy as a GI .45 (maybe heavier, when both are fully loaded) so it doesn't really present a control problem. Not than any 9x19 ever really does. I certainly concur with the recommendation to try a CZ, and a BHP (though I was under the impression that you'd already tried one of the latter). I'd strongly recommend giving a Kahr a whirl, but I don't think Kahr makes a pistol with an external safety. Publicola, As to whether external safeties and DA/SA actions are big deals, it really all depends on the individual. The negatives can be trained around pretty well (not perfectly), as can just about anything. It largely depends on how much and how realistically one trains, and how well one handles stress. For the average person who doesn't train regularly, whose training doesn't involve any significant amount of stress, or who just doesn't respond well to stress even after lots of training, either one can cause problems. But even so, a person might reasonably conclude that, for him, the probability of problems due to a DA/SA action or an external safety is smaller than the probability of problems due to the lack thereof. (E.g., if you don't train much you may have problems keeping your finger off the trigger at inappropriate times, especially while under stress. This really is a prerequisite for using a pistol without an external safety. Heck, I've known people who were very well trained who've had "accidents" with Glocks.) And he might be right, just as another guy might be right to decide the opposite. As you say, to each his own.

Posted by: ```````` at September 15, 2005 07:10 PM (2mxBl)

18 I don't know how my name became ```````` in that last post but, just for the record, ```````` is me.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2005 07:16 PM (2mxBl)

19 Dear ```````` (if that is indeed your real name) I've heard that about berettas (not beretta copies) & I'll be the frt to admit the pistol design isn't perfect. The grip is a bit wider than it perhaps should be; the trigger out of the box is not great (at least on Taurus' copies); The repetability of the slide/barrel connection isn't great (which means neither is the accuracy) & lastly it has a damned aluminum frame. Look, sya whatever you wish about aluminum being good enough for frames. That's cool. My contention is the weight. We're talking about a pistol with a 5" barrel (Taurus - the Beretta has a 4.9" barrel) . I ain't gonna be tucking this in th old ankle holster whilst I jog around the park. I'd have much prefered a steel frame just to add a few ounces to help soak up some recoil & make me feel a little better about testing my handloads in it. Beretta does have a steel framed version they came out with last year (IIRC) & it'd be cool if Taurus did likewise. But the locking block - from what I recall it seemed to be a metalurgy problem rather than an engineering one. But I'm not as up on that as I should be. & don't go urinating on P. Beretta's gravestone just yet. Before you do that I must remind you of the BM-59. you kno - the rifle that should have been G.I when they erroneously decided the Garand wasn't up to snuff (heretics - all of them!). Want to piss on someone's grave? Find the idiot in the JCS who figured that since the AF was doing fine with that mickey mouse looking poodle shooting french-designed-gas-systemed carbine that the boys ont he front line would be fine with it to. But lemme see... Marine, 1911 fan, throws in italics & other coding (presumably by hand) to stress points about why a handgun is or isn't cool, capitalizes glock like it's a proper name instead of a design fostered upon some folks by a P.T. Barnum wannabe from Georgia who had to have his product made in Austria (what was that about a country not winning a real war...*), & partial offers a refute to some of his own opinions...hmmm...If I didn't know better I'd say that reminds me a bit of a guy I know from some of the blogs. Now which one was it... Oh, & Miss Annika tried a BDM if I recall. Not quite a Hi Power. * sorry - had to slip that in there.

Posted by: Publicola at September 15, 2005 08:09 PM (vC8Ev)

20 Since the 1911 is finally getting some of the respect it deserves, allow me to make the case. It's simple and safe in competent hands. Seven rounds to hit what's in front of you, and if he's survived that you can literally club him to death with it. It was a travesty when we bought that plastic piece of shit from the eyeties, but they were NATO allies and it was a bone.

Posted by: Casca at September 15, 2005 10:55 PM (qBTBH)

21 In my experience, the locking block problem extends to Tauruses as well. I don't think it's a matter of metallurgy; it seems to be (or, allegedly, to have been) a matter of geometry. I actually consider the Beretta surprisingly accurate, all things considered. (It's every bit as accurate as a GI .45, and then some.) I've long thought that a tapered collar threaded onto the end of the barrel to act as a bushing could make it better -- heck, you could even port it, if you're into that -- but it's really not necessary for practical purposes. Accuracy isn't the problem. I freely admit that Beretta has made lots of good guns. The 38/42, the Model 12, a variety of shotguns and, yes, the BM-59 were/are all good. Even their pocket pistols aren't bad, as pocket pistols go. And that's to say nothing of Franchi and Benelli, both of which Beretta owns. But none of it -- NONE OF IT, I say -- redeems the colossal clusterfuck that is the Model 92/M9. Bartolomeo will pay. (I don't actually know who Pietro is. As far as I know, Bartolomeo is the first Beretta known to have been in the gunmaking business. I presume Pietro was one of his descendants, who founded the corporation we know today.) You do realize, of course, that Gaston Glock is an Austrian, and that they started making Glocks in Georgia only after they'd already been making them in Austria for some time? "partial offers a refute to some of his own opinions..." I did no such thing. I said it sucks, and it does. I just don't think it sucks in every way.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2005 11:06 PM (2mxBl)

22 Matt, Actually I thought gaston was from Georgia but had his design made overseas. Then again I never really paid much attention to glock as I'm not a member of his fan club. & for some reason I thought Pietro was the first, but you are correct in that Bart started the whole thing & one of the Pietro's took the company into the modern manufacturing age. & I'd be interested to know more about the geometry problems, & most importantly when they did a redesign - if you happen to have some info handy. & I did hear back in the 90's that the Army Marksmanship Unit did have some sort of conelike barrel they used to make the M9's lock up more consistently. Can't recall if it was something they added onto existing barrels or if it was a specially made tube. & I wonder if miss Annika realized the kind of comments sections she'd have whenever she mentioned the word "gun" in one of her posts? I mean the discussions of likes & dislikes of certain models, designers, engineering, etc... was pretty much a given. But did she know we'd be asking for pics (or sketches, or chalks, or at least stick drawings - we're really not that picky) of her with the guns?

Posted by: Publicola at September 16, 2005 01:49 AM (vC8Ev)

23 The locking block problem has unfortunately seems to have been fairly well hushed-up/minimized, so I don't know many details about the cause or the exact measures taken to fix it. I say that I think it was a geometry (design) problem because (1) it also happened with Tauruses, and I suspect Taurus wasn't using Beretta's steel to make its pistols and (2) references to a fix refer to "redesign" of the block. The only sources I've found that mentioned the problem have been quite vague as to its cause, and have always hastily concluded that it's all fixed and everything's OK now. See above for my response to that. Probably the simplest form of research would be to buy a new locking block and compare it to an old one (if you could find one). But I'll leave that to people who actually care. The 92 is dead to me.

Posted by: Matt at September 16, 2005 07:12 AM (10G2T)

24 I absolutely love my H&K USP Compact .45 with only one caveat. The damn mags are $50+. With enough mags to feel comfortable, I spent the price of a new Taurus Millenium. Other readers have commented that you should try the Springfield XD and I second that. I carry the H&K in the winter when I have plenty of clothes to cover it (the gun being fairly chunky), but in the summer I carry the XD40 Compact for the smaller silhouette. The XD is almost as nice as the H&K but with an easier take down to clean and a much lower price.

Posted by: Brass at September 16, 2005 08:42 AM (6TLEO)

25 'cola Now that I own a Garand, I contend that I never said anything about rechambering a Garand..... I swear it....... I was talking about a MAS 49/56...you misread....or perhaps you're projecting your twisted chamber preferences on me... you've got a Garand chambered in .35 Whelen don't ya or maybe a 25-06 hidden in the back of the closet.(lol) BTW where can I reference SN's for the old girl, she's a bit of a Frankenrifle, but I'd like to know where she's been at least in part.

Posted by: Jasen at September 16, 2005 09:59 AM (DNre1)

26 Jasen, I used to know of a site that gave as much info as could be found (what unit a rifle was assigned to - at most) but alas I can't recall the url. There is a site that wil give you a date for the SN. I'll dig it up & try to e-mail it to ya. & yes, you clearly said, "-But hey since we're dreaming could I have a Garand chambered for 5.56x45mm. **Jasen exits swiftly, as he hears Publicola fumbling for a clip for his Garand and mumbling," insolent,good fer nothin'heretic"**" & for the record I'm not a purist; a Garand in damn near any '06 or .308 Win case based chambering is alright. Even did some digging once for the cost of barreling a Garand in 7x57 (just for the helluvit as Mr. du Toit always liked that cartridge). But you will not that even the .243 Winchester (which a Garand could be chambered for) willl take down a deer, unlike the cartridge-that-shall-not-be-named. Matter o' fact there's a fella up in Washington state (IIRC) named McCann who outfits Garands in .338 Win Mag. & people said Garands wouldn't make decent African plains rifles. heh. Matt, I appreciate the info. & I understand how ya feel. But just so ya know it could be worse, here's a Handgun Club of America article on the Ten Worst Handguns in History. I can't say my list would be the same but they do bring out some good (err, bad) points.

Posted by: Publicola at September 16, 2005 03:36 PM (vC8Ev)

27 A long time ago, I found myself in Kangneung, a city on the northeast coast of South Korea, when I walked by a large tank filled with live octopi. Gripped by a sudden urge, I leaped over to the tank, grabbed an octopus, aimed it at some plastic jugs about fifty yards away, and blasted every single jug on the first try-- all without ever having had prior training at firing octopi. The next day I went back and started experimenting with other sea creatures, and finally settled on the Korean "nakji" (dwarf octopus) and "ojing-aw" (squid) as my arms of choice. Since then, I've taken courses run by some ex-Special Forces guys, and now consistently rate "Kickass" with both molluscs. After about 500 rounds, the nakji tends to heat up and stiffen, which can affect accuracy, but also makes for a tasty meal. (I don't recommend eating your firearm in the middle of a firefight, though.) The ojing-aw is fantastic for long-range kills: I took the head off a dog at about 500 yards (soup's on!). The ojing-aw's main problem (aside from the stench, which only worsens over time) is the frequent jamming. Keep your ojing-aw clean and well-inked, and it'll serve your assassination needs for a long time. Nakji, unfortunately, carry a bit too much ink, so after you buy one, you have to field-strip it, remove the ink sac, and reassemble it. I've had no problems with this approach. I've heard that the Italian calamari is, like the Beretta mentioned by other commenters above, pretty accurate, though I've also heard that it tends to wriggle a bit too much in your grip. Women agree that calamari do make better condoms than ojing-aw, though ("Fluked for Her Pleasure"). The coolest thing about the nakji is that the tentacles wrap securely around your ankle, making the dwarf octopus the perfect concealed weapon. For men, the nakji can be worn like a fanny pack and disguised to look rather convincingly like a scrotum. Try not to load your nakji with .50 caliber rounds, however; I've heard scary stories about some truly messy misfires. In a pinch, most molluscs also serve as decent surrogates for tonfa, kusarigamma, and the Chinese three-section staff. One of Bruce Lee's lesser-known pre-Hollywood works, "Damn You, I'll Sprain Your Soul," shows the Little Dragon defeating an entire gang of Japanese thugs with a lightning-quick Nine-Tentacle Technique. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 17, 2005 01:05 AM (1PcL3)

28 Kevin, Dude, you just ain't right. I read somewhere that ojing-aw/calamari enjoys great popularity as a stand-alone sex toy when used whole and alive. Any comments?

Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2005 07:27 AM (2mxBl)

29 I have the H&K USP in .40 S&W and I love it. Incredibly accurate. Thanks for explaining why the recoil is so light...that ''thingamabob''.

Posted by: Rhythm Master at September 17, 2005 09:03 AM (AjmQV)

30 Matt, What am I supposed to say? You asking me whether I've jammed a live octopus up my urethra? SHIT, no, I haven't. But thanks for the idea. My weekend now has a fuckin' PURPOSE. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 17, 2005 10:56 AM (1PcL3)

31 Well, if you're in Korea and looking to have sex, at least the Octopussy doesn't smell like Kimchae.

Posted by: Casca at September 17, 2005 03:34 PM (qBTBH)

32 Nice range report. Did you send it into the Carnival of Cordite? (See Ferdy's Carnival submission page over at Conservative Cat.)

Posted by: Zendo Deb at September 17, 2005 07:38 PM (S417T)

33 I've been ignoring this posting because I am but a simple soul. When I fire my weapon, I expect it to be at about 7 to 10 years maximum. I have a simple Glock 9MM. It has high power, hollow nose slugs that will stop whatever I hit. (Chesty Puller said "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em") But Kevin, you need to take your meds. Casca, everything in Korea smells like kimche.

Posted by: shelly at September 18, 2005 07:44 PM (ywZa8)

34 Nah, you need to cleanse your senses with Soju. In truth, Korean women are lovely enough to be forgiven the halotocular stench of garlic.

Posted by: Casca at September 18, 2005 08:01 PM (qBTBH)

35 Someone is conspicuously silent. However, next week is the first real team, someone other than the Little Sisters of the Poor. I can't wait to see the prophylactics take a stab at the Beavers.

Posted by: Casca at September 18, 2005 10:26 PM (qBTBH)

36 I had to leave at halftime last night to take my grandson home, did USC pull it out? I was curious to hear how the Numero Uno Offense in the nation did against the untested USC Defense. If you are talking abbut the Rubber Duckies, I'd guess that USC will be about a 21 1/2 point favorite. Morning line out tomorrow afternoon sometime. Does Cal play anybody challenging before USC? UCLA might give them a game, come to think of it. They ate Oklahoma's lunch yesterday as well. Oklahomans will not be talking about the wimps in the PAC 10 any time soon. Methinks they've had enough of Southern California football for a while.

Posted by: shelly at September 18, 2005 10:58 PM (ywZa8)

37 You get some of the strangest comments here.... :-) I'm glad you found something you like and can shoot well. You'd better watch out, though, as guns tend to be highly addictive. If you like HKs, the next thing you know you're going to be toting an HK-91 and hanging out on the corner with a sign that says "Will work for ammo".

Posted by: Bill at September 19, 2005 05:56 AM (Tx0EW)

38 Vanderbilt? VANDERBILT?? It's like beating small girls! Ah yes the Rubbers Vs Ducks match. We shall see. It's hard to judge a team when they're playing others who are inferior to their own seconds. I'm sure they're heavily favored, but they're a tough bunch up there, and as we all know, when it rains the wheels fall off the chariot in the mud. I recall when the mighty Hurricanes were invincible just three short years ago. Someone always comes along and wakes you up. I'm thinking it's that Weir fellow.

Posted by: Casca at September 19, 2005 09:17 AM (qBTBH)

39 "...and hanging out on the corner with a sign that says 'Will work for ammo." Like that's a bad thing (Not that I've ever done it myself. Personally. Everyday. For weeks on end.)

Posted by: Publicola at September 19, 2005 01:55 PM (vC8Ev)

40 Remember, technically the SIG is Swiss and the Glock is Austrian. Only the HK and Walther are properly German. Honestly, the whole safeties thing is a matter of preference, but remember, any gun is absolutely safe from bad-trigger-control/dropping/unholstering discharges if there's no round in the chamber, and if you practice, a draw-rack-aim-fire sequence is pretty darn fast. I personally can't stand DAO either, unless the trigger is light and consistent (as Glocks are reputed to be, but somehow I've never gotten around to firing one...).

Posted by: Sigivald at September 19, 2005 04:49 PM (4JnZM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Me and my roommate Megan tried two more pistols today, both Smith & Wesson. Here's my novice review.

The first was the venerable Smith & Wesson Military and Police .38 special. The particular model we rented was the Model 64. Someone told me that this gun is used by California prison guards, but i have not been able to verify that information.

i chose this revolver because it's what i always pictured when i thought of the word "gun." The design dates back to 1899. It's simple to operate and easy to shoot, but i didn't like the sights. The rear sight is really a groove along the top of the cylinder. i had trouble lining it up with the front sight in the low light of the range, and consequently i shot worse with the .38 than i have with any other gun.

The S&W 64 retails for $583, but i wouldn't buy it. Here's what Dirty Harry said about .38 calibers in The Enforcer:

Kate: You're 'cold bold Callahan with his great big .44'. Every other cop is satisfied with a .38 or a .357. Why do you have to carry that cannon for?

Harry: So I hit what I aim at, that's why.

Kate: Oh I see. So that's for the penetration.

Harry: Does everything have a sexual connotation with you?

Kate: Only sometimes.

Harry: The .357's a good weapon, but i've seen .38 slugs bounce off of windshields. That's no good in a town like this.

The next gun we tried was the Smith & Wesson 4006TSW, which shot the .40 S&W cartridge. Now this was more like it. i had been curious about the .40 S&W round, because i'd been told that it had more power to stop an attacker than a 9mm, while still being easy on the arm. i found the kick of this gun comparable to the Sig and Browning 9 millimeters i loved so much.

i also like the fact that it had an actual safety, unlike the Sig Sauers, which have none.

Megan and i split a box of 50 bullets, and i shot 17 rounds at ranges of 7 and 15 yards. i kept all but three inside the 9 ring, which for me is okay. Then i switched to the head at 25 yards for the last eight rounds, and missed only once. So i'd say this is a pretty accurate pistol.

Another neat feature of this weapon was the rack on the bottom of the barrel, which can be used to attach a flashlight or a laser sight. i love accessories!

This might be the all around defensive weapon for me. It satisfies a number of requirements i have. Good power, reliable (it jammed only once), it has a safety, it's accurate, not too much recoil, has a comfortable grip, and holds at least ten rounds. i also like that it's made in America, and the stainless steel is supposed to resist corrosion.

i don't like the sights as much as the Sig Sauer's three dot system, which is really easy for me to see. The Smith & Wesson has a white dot on the front sight, but the rear sight is all black. i like the three dot system better because i can tell whether the gun is lined up from left to right by judging if the three dots are equally spaced apart. i can't do that on the 4006 because i only see one dot.

i don't think they make this model anymore. i picked up a Smith and Wesson catalog for 2005 and the closest thing they had with a 4 inch barrel was the model 410, which doesn't come in stainless steel. But i'm not ready to buy anything yet anyway. There's plenty of other pistols i need to sample first.

Update: Boone Country wrote a spirited defense of the .38 special way back in 2003 that is worth reading.

Posted by: annika at 09:33 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 751 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Annika, Nice range report. I'm impressed by your extended range work before buying. (I'm also impressed by the time you have for blogging and the range while in law school. When I was a Baylor, I hardly had time for breathing.) You'd be surprised how many people impulse-buy a pistol. My wife and I have his-and-hers Springfield XDs in .40 S&W, which we're quite happy with. When we tried it at the range before buying, the grin on her face said, "Yeah. This is the one."

Posted by: Bryan at September 04, 2005 11:46 PM (G5PGV)

2 Don't buy without taking the Glock 9 MM for a test drive...

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 01:38 AM (ywZa8)

3 I believe that the ammo they sell you at the range are called "wadcutters", for the very reason that all they need to do is make holes in paper. All of the above stuff is true, but you will note that ranges do not allow you to bring your own ammo. Take a walk in a quiet part of the country, away from where people live, and some tin cans or other type targets and see the difference between the wadcutters and the real thing.

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 07:02 AM (ywZa8)

4 If you like .40's you should really give the Glock 23 a try. It is chambered for the .40 but has a small enough frame to be easy on folks with small hands. I'm not a huge fan of S&W for Auto's ( they seem to jam more than other's for me ) although some people swear by them. My choices in order of brand for 40 would be Glock 23, H&K USP chambered for .40, Sig Sauer P229, and only as a last resort I would go with a S&W or Ruger P94. I like auto's but not nearly as much as I love my true passion which is large bore revolvers. My current favorite is my .454 Casull. I hunted with it a while back and took a nice deer with it. You really can't beat it for reach out and touch something power. For personal defense though it would be a bit much So give the Glock 23 a chance if you can and let us know what you think. Also steer clear of 9mm they simply don't have enough knock down power unless the round hits in exactly the right spot which can be hard to do under pressure even for people who have been well trained. In school they told us most urban gunfire exchanges take place at under 7 yards and 90 percent of all shots are missed. Not sure if it's true or not but that is what our instructors told us. ( Marine Corps. CQB training Chesapeak Va. ) So even more important than knock down power is that you have to be able to hit something when that something is trying to kill you.

Posted by: Andy at September 05, 2005 07:50 AM (l04c2)

5 Shelly, most ranges let you use any ammo you want in your guns. There's one around here that insists you buy their ammo for anything you shoot & I avoid that place. Most all ranges do make you buy their ammo for rentals. & wadcutters are a type of ammo that is sold at ranges (usually) but it's not 'the" kind, just "a" kind. Glocks - feh. If anyone likes them so be it. But with glocks two things come to mind - they have an unsupported chamber which means using really high pressured rounds might not be a good idea. The other is more common - they have polygonal rifled barrels. More or less this means using eposed lead (i.e. no jacket) ammo is discouraged. An aftermarket barrel takes care of both of those problems but still - no, I won't go into it. It's just a matter of preference. But glocks never fascinated me. Then again I never cared for any pistol w/o an exposed hammer.

Posted by: Publicola at September 05, 2005 03:32 PM (vC8Ev)

6 Never heard of the Casull, but my brother had a 454 Chevy that he absolutely loved.

Posted by: annika at September 05, 2005 08:59 PM (0VDIG)

7 As Publicola rightly pointed out, the .357 is longer than the .38 Spl. If Range Dude isn't aware of that simple, well-known fact, Range Dude is not someone from whom you should take advice on firearms. I won't get into the specific of these particular pistols. (I do second the suggestion that you should check out a Glock or two.) Generally speaking, though, I recommend that anyone interested in buying only one handgun for self-defense and general plinking choose a revolver, unless he/she plans to do a great deal of practicing. Semi-autos are just plain harder to learn to use effectively; there's more than can go wrong with them and it takes a fair amount of training and practice to learn to deal effectively with potential problems -- especially under stress.

Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2005 04:10 AM (Ur3KC)

8 Matt, course the counter argument is that with some training (not quite as much as I think you're implying) those potential problems with semi's can be solved on the spot with minimal fuss. With revolvers a problem usually involves tools & a set of schematics to sort out (granted such problems are rare but it wouldn't be an argument if it was nonexistent). Revolvers are great & I don't mean to knock them at all but I don't think it's that much harder to learn to work a semi. Now a good argument in favor of revolvers would be that they're omnivorous. A semi needs a certain power level of ammo to work reliably. A revolver can shoot a full power cartridge right after a subsonic target round followed by a shot round with just a pull of the trigger (course the shot round may bind - best to try those out in each revolver to be sure). & there's always the tried & true argument my grandfather used on me when I tried to talk him into getting a semi - if ya can't hit it with 6 shots you need to be running. But in the end it's a matter of preference. If a person feels more comfy with a semi, cool. Ditto for revolvers. Course I am surprised that miss Annika took Range Dude at his word when he said that his (.38 Spl) was just as long as the other one (.357 Magnum) was. I thought all women, especially California women weren't that trusting when it came to a guy's sense of measurement...Or maybe size doesn't really matter after all?

Posted by: Publicola at September 06, 2005 06:05 AM (vC8Ev)

9 "reliable (it jammed only once)" That is NOT reliable for a carry gun. Though I do understand you are using range guns, which you should not hold it against them if they jam because normally the guns are not well cared for. Though if you find a range gun that you like and it jams, try to find another example of it owned by a person. Also read about it on the net and take a look at the customer service and see how good it is.

Posted by: cube at September 06, 2005 07:47 AM (nyNr0)

10 you guys are harshing on the nice range dude so much, i have to come to his defense. due to my sloppy sentence structure it looks like i attributed that statement about the cartridges being the same size to him. Actually the only thing he said was about the wadding. What happened was that he showed me a .357 cartridge and put it next to a .38 cartridge to compare. It was i who thought the cases were the same size (although i did notice a difference in length, which i attributed to the bullet) My bad.

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2005 07:49 AM (bpSIb)

11 There is very little I can add to the current debate waging in here other than this. For home defense, the best weapon you will ever buy will be a shotgun. The pistols work great when you're out and about, but when you are stumbling around in the dark at 3:00am, the best way to hit your target is with a 12 gauge and a full choke.

Posted by: Charlie Gordon at September 06, 2005 09:33 AM (D3+20)

12 Charlie is absolutely right. If you are buying only one gun, and it's for self-defense, and you don't care about being able to carry it concealed, a shotgun (and here I prefer the semi-autos to pumps because of the high probability of short-stroking under stress [get your minds out of the gutter!]) is very, very hard to beat. And it's cheap. And it's only slightly less destructive than a tactical nuclear weapon. Now we can have a lengthy, spirited debate about the proper choice of shot size for said shotgun. This place is starting to remind me of some of the shooting boards I used to frequent! Publicola, I love semi-autos -- some of my favorite handguns are semi-autos -- and lean heavily toward them, but I stand by my recommendation of revolvers for relatively unpracticed shooters. Here's why. If you have a misfire with a revolver (and of course I'm assuming we're talking a DA revolver, here), the immediate action is simple: Pull the trigger again. That's it. Whatever was wrong with the last cartridge is now irrelevant, because the simple, reflexive act of pulling the trigger cycles that cartridge out of the way and gives you a second chance almost instantly. (Of course if your firing pin is broken you're screwed, but that could happen with a semi-auto, too.) If you have a misfire with a semi-auto, your pistol is out of action until you clear the chamber and get a fresh round in there. You will, if you've been properly trained and have practiced until it has become second nature, remember to execute "tap-rack-bang." If that doesn't solve the problem, you'll hopefully remember to hunker down behind cover and execute the much longer procedure for that situation. If you haven't been properly trained, or haven't practiced until it has become second nature, you'll pull the trigger real hard once or twice more, realize that Bessy ain't gonna go boom, turn her sideways and look dumbly at her for a second or so, and then start trying to remember/figure out your immediate action. (Of course if you have a truly DA semi-auto, or one with an external hammer that can be thumbed back, you can try a quick follow-up with the same cartridge. That may do the trick, but it may not. If seconds count, I'd prefer not to waste time fiddling with a cartridge that's already screwed me once.) A revolver will never stovepipe, fail to extract, fail to eject, double feed, or do nearly any of the other nasty, ammo-related things that our beloved semis sometimes do. (Or if it does fail to extract for some reason, it'll only be an issue after you've emptied the cylinder at the bad guys. That's a lot better than having it happen after the first round.) A revolver has no magazines that can become dented, or whose lips can get bent, or whose follower spring can become anemic -- all of which can take a magazine and thus the entire gun out of action. A revolver doesn't care if you stuff it with some weird hollow-point that would never work reliably in your semi-auto of choice without a massive reconfiguration of the feed ramp. In fact, as you pointed out a revolver doesn't much care what the hell you feed it, as long as it's of the appropriate caliber. A revolver will never need its feed ramp or throat polished in order to function reliably. A revolver doesn't have a safety that you'll forget to flip to "fire" under stress. (Of course, to be fair, some modern semi-autos don't have external safeties, either. But they usually have much shorter trigger pulls than revolvers and, as a result, are apt to go bang if you get careless with your trigger finger -- which, again, people tend to do under stress.) Speaking from personal experience in situations much less stressful than actual threats to life and limb, the typical reaction when one forgets that the safety's on is -- again -- to pull the trigger real hard once or twice. This practically never makes a semi-auto go bang, at least if it's a quality firearm that hasn't been monkeyed with. It will almost always make a revolver go bang. By definition, the chamber on a revolver is always fully supported. It is relatively hard to blow up a revolver, even if you handload carelessly. (Of course it can be done -- it's just harder than with most semi-autos.) This should not be an issue for a shooter using factory ammo and a quality, modern handgun designed for that ammunition, but it's worth mentioning. These are the main reasons I recommend revolvers for shooters who don't practice a great deal and/or haven't received much training with semi-autos.

Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2005 12:13 PM (10G2T)

13 Matt, you don't comment here enough. have i ever told you that? : ) Anyways, if i was a smartass, or if i really had more experience with the things, i might say that all of the above problems you mentioned with semi-autos could be solved by simply purchasing a Sig Sauer. i should also alert you shotgun fans that your arguments have merit. However, you may not know (how could you, i didn't know until three weeks ago) that i absolutely love target shooting. i really do. i can't imagine buying a shotgun and just letting it sit in the closet for that rainy day when i could be over at my favorite range cutting pretty patterns in a piece of paper. Oh i could take up trap shooting, but i'm juggling too many hobbies as it is. Besides, i should brief cases once in a while, don't you think? Please stay tuned for upcoming "New Gun Nut Progress Reports." On deck is a post entitled: "The Becker Stance?" and "Reasons Why i Want... errrr... Need Three Guns."

Posted by: annie at September 06, 2005 07:13 PM (aTy6U)

14 You clearly are a smartass, but that's part of what makes you the Annie we know and love. I ne'er speak ill of the Swiss or Germans (SIG-Sauer is both, actually; SIG was Swiss, Sauer was German) when it comes to chocolate or fine machinery, including guns. (I'd add beer, but I've had a couple of really horrible Swiss beers.) That said, their semi-autos are vulnerable to the same general problems as the rest of the class; they're just not as vulnerable as most. Staying tuned . . .

Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2005 10:38 PM (Ur3KC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As a brand new gun nut, i thought it might be interesting to give you regular updates on how things are going.

i've now shot a total of 150 rounds through a pistol. The Sig Sauer P226 is still the gun to beat, in my estimation. But i recently tried two other guns, which i'll critique for you from my novice's viewpoint.

The first was a Kimber Tactical Pro II in .45 ACP caliber. i did not like this gun. First of all, it dang near took my arm off. Big bang, big kick. That's to be expected from the larger cartridge, i imagine. But i know the Kimber's sights were off, too. Look at the photo of my target. You'll see that nothing hit to the left of center out of 50 rounds at ranges from 7 yards to 25 yards. i think that's unusual. It also shot low and i had to compensate by aiming above the bullseye, which was annoying. i normally line up the sights just below the bullseye.

Also, the Kimber's grip was too short and didn't feel right. The gun was double action only and had a grip safety and a thumb safety. i liked the idea of two safeties, but i'd rather have a single action option because i tend to squeeze the trigger very slowly and watching the hammer go back was distracting to me. i want to try another .45 just to give them a fair shake, but i wouldn't buy a Kimber. They retail for over a thousand and i expected better for that kind of price.

Most recently, i tried the Browning BDM 9mm. Now, after researching this post, i learned that the BDM can be switched from "double action" to "double action only" by use of a little slotted swich on the side. i noticed the switch at the range, but since nobody told me what it was for, i didn't mess with it.

The Browning was nice, despite some problems. i found it to be accurate at all the distances i tried. It fit my hand comfortably and the trigger was easy to squeeze. It's a good looking gun and it was well behaved when it didn't jam, which was too often for my liking. The range dude said it probably needed cleaning. Also, the slide sometimes failed to lock open after the last round was fired. i expected a little more from the famous Browning name, but it was a fun gun to shoot. i still prefer the Sig Sauer's big bright sights. The Browning's sights had smaller dots and one of them had been rubbed off on my rental gun.

Next week i think i'll branch out and try a revolver.

P.S. Last night, i had a dream that i met Kim du Toit. What's happening to me?!

Posted by: annika at 10:51 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Give the Glock 9MM a fling.

Posted by: shelly at August 30, 2005 07:12 AM (M7kiy)

2 In particular, give the Glock 17 or 19 a fling. Stay away from the 26 for now; even in wimpy cartridges like 9x19, the baby Glocks have enough recoil and muzzle blast to teach a new shooter bad habits. I'm a strong advocate of learning the fundamentals on easy, non-abusive guns, and having them firmly ingrained before moving to more challenging fare. If you learn bad habits now -- and the chief teachers of bad habits are recoil and muzzle blast -- you'll have a damned hard time unlearning them. It's probably just as well if you stay away from the Kimber for now, for precisely that reason. That said, methinks you're being a bit too hard on the Kimber, accuracy-wise. A "tactical" or "combat" pistol like the Kimber should be accurate enough -- and, judging from your groups, the Kimber appears to be. It's almost certainly not intended for a six o'clock hold like you're describing (that's usually reserved for bullseye), and range and choice of cartridge (muzzle velocity) will affect elevation to some extent, too; any or all of those may have contributed to your group being a tad lower than you expected. The front sight might need to be drifted right a bit, although lighting problems can cause rounds to strike left or right of the apparent point of aim.

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 07:56 AM (10G2T)

3 By the way: Nice shootin', kid. ;-)

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 07:56 AM (10G2T)

4 Annika, ItÂ’s nice to see you having so much fun and exercising your rights. I wonder if you got any feedback from Freddie L. Cranshaw before he went out and had a little fun too exercising his rights. I wonder how tight his groupings were, or if anybody noticed he was insane before they sold him his cache. Remember, nobody ever got shot by someone with out a gun. You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime. Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun. I canÂ’t verify this next statement but I would wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s). A fellow I know, runs the check cashing place by the projects, was gut shot a few years back for the bank bag he was carrying at the end of the day (he lived). The stupid assholes (and yes most criminals are stupid) wanted his bag not realizing that at the end of the day check cashers are going to the bank with paper, not cash, but the point is the check casher wears a revolver in plain sight. So instead of just hitting him in the head or pointing a gun at him, the thieves KNEW they had to shoot him. This was his big benefit for having a full carry permit. I have another true story, if youÂ’ll indulge me? A friend of mine, we shall call him Bill, has only a target permit but carries his Glock in his suite jacket pocket. One day he interrupts a robbery in a furniture store in a strip mall. He sees a gunman menacing the female cashier and he starts to sneak towards the front of the store to help. Along the way, an unseen accomplice gets the drop on him and orders him to the front of the store. BillÂ’s gun is still not visible. While walking to the front, Bill who is now convinced he is going to die, drops to one knee, turns and shoots the guy in the neck, killing him. The second gunman leaps over the cash counter and get two rounds off missing Bill both times. Bill shoots back and hits him twice. End of robbery. The second guy lived. LotÂ’s of issues here to be sure. Bill should be dead but lucked out and the robbery might have proceeded with out any violence if not for BillÂ’s intervention. Bill can, in NY, go to jail for his involvement, but he lied to the police and said he was carrying his Glock in the box and took it out of the car so as not to leave it unattended while he shopped on his way to the target range. Bill having acted so heroically the authorities did not push on this matter. Since that incident, Bill has drawn his gun on two black men he though wanted to rob him in a deserted parking lot, no shots fired and he has stuck his gun through the car window of a driver he thought was harassing him. Annika, I do not feel safer in a society that has more guns in the hands of citizens do you? Those who enter criminal enterprise and use guns I can do nothing about, but I am not convinced that more guns in the hands of citizens is the antidote. If you want to target shoot, just rent the use of a gun and have fun there is no need to take it home. If you are compelled to shoot animals; therapy is a better choice than going into the woods with a rifle. One will raise your self esteem while the other makes you question your sanity as you confront your homicidal impulses. (yes, yes, you hunters can turn the last sentence around but IÂ’ll leave it anyway) Criminals don't run from guns, they shoot first while citizens hesitate. Or they just run amok exercising their right to be crazy and refuse medication. For the record, I have shot hand guns, killed animals with rifles but came to my senses as I grew older. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm offers some real questions about the nature of the second amendment. There is plenty of room for debate on the constitutional issue but far less room in the court of common sense.

Posted by: Strawman at August 30, 2005 09:39 AM (0ZdtC)

5 I thought I was looking forward to the jeopardy questions, but these posts are my favorites by a long shot now. Strawman's comment is just comedy gravy on a heathly serving of gunpowder-seasoned goodness.

Posted by: Trevor at August 30, 2005 10:46 AM (RwZxT)

6 Strawman (how apropos), You're kidding me. This is a fucking joke, right? Seriously. No? Well then, congratulations. You may have just set a record for volume of shit spewed in under 1000 words. It's utterly mind-boggling. Let's look at just a sample. "You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime. Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun. I canÂ’t verify this next statement but I would wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s)." That entire paragraph displays jaw-dropping ignorance. Start by reading Kleck's "Targeting Guns", which summarizes a lot of the most relevant evidence. The best estimate is that the ratio of defensive gun uses to gun crimes (even very loosely defined) is between 3:1 and 5:1. The problem of heat-of-the-moment acquaintance killing is tremendously overblown. It arises from the fact that a significant proportion of violent crime victims are acquainted with their attackers. Childlike, kumbaya-singing anti-gunners like you picture thousands of loving moms and dads getting into spats over the decor for the remodeled bedroom and ending up dead, because it fits your preconceived notions of guns and the people who own them. The truth is that the statistics don't not distinguish between such people and, for example, rival gang members from the same neighborhood. Which group do you honestly suspect contributes most to acquaintance homicide. (Hint: This question is intended to test your sanity.) As far as whether guns make anyone think twice about committing a crime, see Wright's & Ross's "Armed and Considered Dangerous." (Brief summary available here.) Wright & Rossi found that 40% of convicted felons they surveyed said they had ever decided not to commit a crime because they feared the intended victim was armed. (That's 40% who had done it at least once. No word on how many were repeat deterees.) 34% said they'd been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen." You want to talk Second Amendment? Don't even try until you've read these: 1 2 3 4 5 6 You, sir, are a Buffoon First Class, and I hereby award you the Fucking Simpleton's Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster and Bronze "A" for arrogance.

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 11:18 AM (10G2T)

7 matt, check into what they defination of "strawman" or "straw argument" is. I know it got pissed just reading the frist paragraph....then i stopped and was looking for the joke. Annika, Frist, I would suggest trying everything with the gun if it is unloaded. Unless you are on some funky time limited range or something like that. Take you time with a gun, dry fire it, rack the slide, press the switches, just make sure the thing dry fires correctly before you fire it (you might have hit the take down lever or somthing). If you like the multipe safties on the Kimber, try the spring field XD. It is a glock with a grip saftey (with a grip angle of the kimber you fired).

Posted by: cube at August 30, 2005 11:40 AM (nyNr0)

8 in general, the audience for this blog is pretty vocal about the second amendment. Strawman brings up some interesting points which i'm sure will be addressed thoroughly. My own thoughts are not necessarily in line, but i'll need to wait until later to write them.

Posted by: annika at August 30, 2005 12:00 PM (zAOEU)

9 Miss Annika, Addicting, no? A lot of handguns have fixed sights. This is more or less to keep the sights from shifting under moderate to heavy use. What the proper thing to do is take a handgun with fixed sights, establish a load you're going to use in it (say Remington 230 grain Golden Sabers asopposed to Federal 230 Grain Hydrashoks) & then have the sights adjusted (or adjust them yourself) to be where you want them at. Everybody looks at sights slightly differently, so if my sights are adjusted for me & the way I shot that won't mean that they'll hit exactly where you'd expect. Don't judge a handgun too harshly cause the sights aren't lined up exactly with the point of impact. Also your technique will cause a change in sight picture. with the Sig you mainly shot it single action. With a double action only you have a longer, heavier trigger pull. That usually means you'll pull your shots to the right a bit. The feel not being right for you though is something you should pay attention to. with handguns it's especially important to have a good feel & if one model doesn't do it for you then you should pass on it despite any other virtues it has. The Browning - they have a good rep & for a reason. However any firearm that is neglected will not perform well. You're working with rental guns that get cleaned when they absolutely have to be. If you were shooting mine or Matt's or any other serious gun nuts handgun odds are you'd notice it was fairly well cared for & in good operating condition despite the brand. But ammo has something to do with things too. As do magazines. A lot of feed problems in semi's are attributable to A: ammo B: magazines or C: inadequate maintenence. It's possible that you just had a bad combination of all three (like there's a good combination).Were ya using range ammo? As in reloaded or range brand ammo? or were you using a recognizable name brand of commercial ammo? The frustrating part is that some ammo just isn't liked by some firearms, no matter how otherwise reliable it is. If the slide wasn't locking back all the time then either something is wrong with the slide catch (very possible in a well worn rental gun) or perhaps the ammo wasn't as powerful as needed to be to work the slide reliably. But in general you're doing real well. Honestly you're shooting better than I do with handguns & "proud" wouldn't be appropriate mainly because it doesn't convey that emotion enough. Dreaming about Mr. du Toit though? Hopefully it involved a range trip - a shootin range trip? The again compared to the met'ro'seks-uls in your current enviroment perhaps it was trying to show you it's time to walk a different path? Yeah; it be nice if you escaped to Colorado, but Texas wouldn't be someplace I'd bitch about considering wher eyou're at

Posted by: Publicola at August 30, 2005 02:05 PM (vC8Ev)

10 cube, I'm fully aware of what a strawman is, but I'm pretty sure he's serious. Unless someone has decided to adopt his identity, "Strawman" is Mike from, e.g., this comment thread, and this one, and especially this one. I'm pretty confident it's the same guy. Same condescending tone, same lack of hesitation to spout off without evidence, and the same e-mail in all cases.

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 02:22 PM (10G2T)

11 Dream away, Annika. But you'd be better off dreaming about a Browning High Power (single-action only), one of the best pistols ever made. Note: ignore Glocks, which are ugly plastic things, spoiled somewhat by their excellent reliability and decent accuracy. Get over to Dallas sometime, and we can get you shooting some decent handguns. Oh, and never mind the GFWs (Gun-Fearing Wussies) like Strawman. Shoot lots, shoot safely.

Posted by: Kim du Toit at August 30, 2005 02:44 PM (gOz51)

12 Annika, Contrary to what Mr. Toit says I wish you well in your gun play. Enjoy the feel of a finely made gun, revile in its power and smell. Feel its heft and the density of the loads. Come to know the death and destruction it was designed to cause and then move on. People like Publicola are stunted and dim, lacking in imagination and breadth; imagine devoting vast blocks time on such a thing. Listen to the tenor of his voice as he extols the virtues of guns to you and welcomes you to his fold. Remind you of anything? Hello Matt, Why don't you take a pill, and breathe. I am not entering your house and taking your guns. I have suggested that there is some serious debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and I suggest that the constitution be interpreted now and then with an eye toward the notion that what was salient and deemed necessary in 1775 may not be so today. I don't want the limited vision of the framers necessarily dictating the course of the society I live in today without a little bending of the meaning of the original language from time to time. This has been referred to as a “Living Constitution”. Just as “rights” have been found that specifically were not mentioned e.g. privacy, some “rights” that appear to have been mentioned may not need protection today, e.g. the right to bear arms. I think it is pretty clear that an armed citizenry, able to form itself into a viable militia, rather then “troops” of the central government, was the goal of the authors. They were concerned that the government not have the right to disarm the people and then use troops to impose unfair and unjust policies. I hope you’ll agree that that is no longer an idea with any merit. Did you read the Miller decision? Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force." "In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence." This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11, n1 which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders.The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm. Matt, you think this gives citizens the right to carry a hand gun or to hunt? Any State could prohibit hunting in a minute, or taking your rifle out of your house. The amendment allows you to own a proper musket and ammunition and keep it at the ready and if needed to meet on the common to fight to defend your liberty. Nothing more. I think your argument distinction about that the amount of gun violence between people that know each other is specious. You agree that most gun violence is between people that know each other but assume that since two rival gang members know each other they are part of the data base which includes husbands and wives, uncles and other family relations. Then you arrogantly assume that the familial component of the data base is insignificant and the gang violence significant. Why? Compared to the small number of people in gangs the numbers of familial relations is staggering. It is only reasonable to assume the violence in that group is far and away more prevalent regardless of how violence prone the gang members are. What do you think the ratio of citizens to gang members is? I will look into the stats you quote on guns used for defense. I think you numbers are wrong but I’ll wait and see. I read the summary of the Rossie article. Nothing new, most criminals that use guns don’t buy them in gun stores, so? So, are you against background checks, keeping the records and waiting periods? I will also not call you names and lump you into a group that may not hold or want you. And yes I was mike. Not hding.

Posted by: Strawman at August 30, 2005 04:57 PM (0ZdtC)

13 Strawman, I'm working on a more in depth refutation of your initial comment, but I can't let the second one slide. Stunted? 9 out of 10 of yo' women would disagree. The tenth would remain silent cause your mother is like that. Dim? by contrast that would make you a black hole, which would also be a useful analogy in regards to your claims that I'm stunted. Lacking breadth & imagination? That's amusing as well. Now Casca would be the first to point out that one of my faults is being a long winded bastard, but I doubt even he would come close to the depth of personal attack you've tried to initiate. You wish to discuss the lack of merits of what you were saying? Fine. I can be as civil as you'd hope for. But I'm not above aking this to a game of deoens like you ain't never done seen before. I'm barbaric, remember? (you implied that w/o directly stating it). Always amazes me that those "emlightened" folks of the socilaist/statist persuasion rely on name calling & denial of facts rather than using logic as a basis for their disagreements. As I said I'll have a substantive response to your initial comments directly. & right now I consider us even (mor eor less) so it'll be up to you to decide if you wish to conduct yourself in a rational manner, or if I have to get ghetto on your ass. If th elater come to my blog as miss Annika doesn't need the band width going to me schooling you in insult & derisions.

Posted by: Publicola at August 30, 2005 06:47 PM (vC8Ev)

14 "Listen to the tenor of his voice as he extols the virtues of guns to you and welcomes you to his fold. Remind you of anything?" Almost forgot about that part. Tell me, what is it reminiscent of? ow can you extrapolate the tone of my voice from fairly static type? Would that also be the clairvoyance that should allow gun dealers to judge the intentions of those they sell to? What it should remind a perosn of, & what I assume miss Annika views it as, is a friend trying to help another friend become self reliant & independent. I want her to be able to defend herself. I don't want her to rely upon the state, or perhaps even worse, a statist such as yourself. I would much rather she develop an affinity for the shooting sports that would translate into an increased ability for her self protection than to see her take your view & be at the mercy of any violent confrontational criminal who wanders into her life. But please do tell me what it's supposed to remind her of.

Posted by: Publicola at August 30, 2005 06:54 PM (vC8Ev)

15 If you can believe it, in my dream Kim responded to my email invite by flying to San Francisco of all places, so we could chat about blogging and Browning. But of course that could never happen in real life because neither Publicola nor Mr. du Toit would ever set foot in that city, i'm sure. Anyways Kim, i read your old review of the Browning HP, and it's on my list. Thanks Publicola for easing my mind about those sights. i will try to watch that rightward pull on DAOs next time. As for the ammo i used in the BDM, i saved the box. It says "Magtech 9mm Luger 7,45g (115gr.) FMC (9A)" whatever that means. And my range requires that you buy their brand for use on the range, but it's retail, not handloaded stuff.

Posted by: annika at August 30, 2005 07:59 PM (cJsT2)

16 "You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime." Strawman, with regard to gun possession and the Constitution, I regret that you are uninformed. Please read CAREFULLY John Lott's "The Bias Against Guns." Imagine Joe DiMaggio hitting a baseball. That's how easily Lott refutes your statements on guns.

Posted by: Mark at August 31, 2005 02:38 AM (UESXD)

17 Miss Annika, You'll find that for almost unexplicable reasons some firearms perform really well or really poorly with a specific kind of ammo. If you're lucky yours works well with the cheap stuff, but the one that comes off the assembly line right before yours might only do well with the expensive stuff. But be careful; some ranges will use handloads packed in factory boxes. they're not so much trying to defraud you, it's just the factory boxes are for some unexplicable reason very convenient for storing ammo in Magtech though is usually decent stuff. & there are circumstances where I would set foot in San Fran, but I doubt that the people of that city will call me to help liberate themselves from Cali. Mr. du Toit though doesn't have the same opposition as I do. Oh, he wouldn't be happy about it, but I know he's been to Chicago recently & Chicago is much worse than Cali. Then again there is another circumstance that would cause me to go to Cali... A few years back my then g/f went to Mexico for a few months. I feel the same about Mexico as I do about Chicago but I found myself planning a trip there. Course said trip was for the purpose of rescuing said g/f while holding off the entire damned country but still... & the box - 9mm Luger is a common name for the 9x19mm cartridge, also called the Parabellum. Parabellum came first as it means "for war" (if i recall my german correctly) & since it was the chambering of the Luger pistol eventually 9mm Luger became more commonplace. 115 gr is the weight of the bullet (which I know you knew, or would that be I mu you nu?) FMC means Fully Metal Contained which more or less just means the lead is totally covered by a jacket of metal (presumably copper) 9A is just the product code to distinguish that 115 gr FMC load from the 6 other 9x19mm loads w/o having to write it all out. Btw, your bullet should have been traveling at around 1,135 feet per second. Strawman, Here's a more thorough reply to your initial comment.

Posted by: Publicola at August 31, 2005 04:58 AM (vC8Ev)

18 mmmmmm chicks n' ammo.....

Posted by: Pursuit at August 31, 2005 06:51 AM (n/TNS)

19 Publicola's reply to "Strawman" will probably send him back to Moxie's under a new alias where he can again pretend to be gay.

Posted by: d-rod at August 31, 2005 11:02 AM (xmskQ)

20 Mike/Strawman, Whoa there. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We're not done with your original comment: Your response tells me that you aren't familiar with Kleck, or Wright & Rossi (and you completely missed the point of my cite to W&R). In other words, you haven't read or even heard of some of the leading literature on guns and crime. I'm no criminologist, and I don't claim to have read everything that's been written on the subject. But this is not esoteric stuff I'm citing here; anyone who wants to be able to consider himself reasonably well-informed on the guns-crime issue simply has to be at least passingly familiar with them. If you were familiar with Kleck, and Wright & Rossi, but disagreed with them, I could at least respect that. But you're not. You're simply ignorant. That's inexcusable in anyone who presumes to hold forth on this subject with sweeping statements such as yours. The results of Wright's and Rossi's interviews, alone, completely demolish your claims that "guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime" and "Criminals don't run from guns, they shoot first while citizens hesitate." If you want a little more detail about acquaintance crime, let's do so. The anti-gun groups commonly trot out statistics about crime among families and acquaintances in order to support their claims that most "gun violence" results from tragic, heat-of-the-moment incidents involving otherwise decent, law-abiding people who could not control themselves in the presence of a gun. In a claim reminiscent of that stupid old movie, Reefer Madness, they assert that the mere presence of guns leads to homicides by encouraging otherwise sane, law-abiding people do to bad things when they're upset. (They lump in acquaintance crime with family crime, despite the fact that we know almost nothing about the actual relationships between the parties in acquaintance crimes, because it boosts their numbers.) That's an important argument for them, because if it were true it would suggest that by severely restricting the availability of guns among the law-abiding -- the group of people most likely to obey gun laws -- we could significantly reduce crime. But the only "evidence" for this proposition is that a majority of violent crime -- IIRC, about 55% in the case of violent crime other than homicide, and an unknown proportion of homicides (but likely greater than 50%) -- is committed by family members and friends or acquaintances of the victims. This is a non sequitur. One cannot conclude from the aforementioned facts anything about the state of mind of the offenders, whether they loved or liked their victims, whether the crimes were premeditated, whether the criminals "regret" their actions, whether they acted in the heat of some sort of passion, or whether they were ex ante law-abiding people. All we know is that people are somewhat more likely to be victimized by someone they know, at least in passing, than by someone they've never seen before. (Which makes perfect sense, since most people aren't likely to have many beefs with complete strangers.) So are these offenders generally law-abiding, peaceable people before they commit their violent crimes? The several studies that I've seen or read of suggest that they're not,. For example, most estimates conclude that between 70% and 90% of domestic homicides are preceded by incidents of violent abuse. (The studies have been limited in geography and time, so the results have varied. I have seen no good national-level data on this question.) About 3/4 of domestic homicide perpetrators (depending on what study you look at) have adult criminal records for violent felonies or burglaries, and more than half (in most studies) of their victims also have criminal records. Juvenile offenders appear even more likely to have violent criminal records, and their records appear to be more serious on average. IIRC, similar numbers apply for most people who commit violent crimes against victims with whom the offender has no preexisting relationship. It does not appear, empirically, that violent criminals are average, peacable, law-abiding people suddenly gone bad in the heat of one moment; instead, they seem largely to be criminals doing what they've been doing for years. The truth is that violent crime in this country is largely a problem of a violent criminal underclass. If you are not a member of that underclass, you are not very likely to commit or be victimized by a violent crime, even if you own guns -- or perhaps especially if you own guns. (And note that if crimes of passion "caused" by the presence of firearms really were a significant proportion of violent crimes, we'd generally expect to see relatively high numbers of homicides where firearms are readily available. But the states and localities with the highest gun ownership rates tend to have relatively fewer homicides than those with very restrictive gun laws.) As to my supposed arrogant assumption that, "that the familial component of the data base is insignificant and the gang violence significant," the fact is that roughly 1/6-1/5 of violent crimes, including homicides, involve an offender who is a family member or person in an intimate relationship with the victim. That's a pretty small proportion, compared to friend and acquaintance crimes. Period. And I can't help it that DOJ's definition of "acquaintance" is in fact broad enough to encompass the relationship between rival gang members, between a prostitute and a john, between a drug dealer and drug buyer, between a bookie and a bettor, or between two strangers who strike up a conversation in a bar. We don't know for sure how many non-family acquaintance murders fall into those counterintuitive "acquaintance" relationships. (There's no particular reason that I know of to think that it's not a significant proportion.) But by the same token, there's simply no persuasive evidence of which I'm aware to support your claim that "Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun." If such evidence is out there, please provide it. Moving on to the Second Amendment, I'm not sure I see the point of a debate. Debate requires a minimal set of shared assumptions. Since I am not a living constitutionalist (I view that theory of constitutional interpretation -- if indeed it deserves to be called a theory -- as a lawless usurpation of powers shared by the States and Congress under Article V of our Constitution), I don't think you and I have that minimal set. You can quote me Quilici v. Morton Grove or Cases v. United States day long, and I simply don't care because I view those cases as wrongly decided and intellectually dishonest. Likewise I can quote you the Founders, and eighteenth and nineteenth century commentators and cases, all day long, and it won't matter because you simply don't care about what the Founders (and/or the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment) intended the Second Amendment to accomplish. We can discuss United States v. Miller, and I can explain to you why it's a strongly pro-individual rights decision that implicitly vindicates my right to own a machine gun; but even if I persuade you of that fact (which is true, by the way) you'll simply say that the Court was insane and that, even if they were right as a matter of original intent, times have changed. So what's the value in this exercise? While you're at it, who are the participants in this "serious debate" about the meaning of the Second Amendment? Explain. What is the subject of the debate, exactly? Whether the Amendment secures an individual right? It clearly was intended to, if that's what you mean. Even Larry Tribe now agrees, reluctantly. (Of course it doesn't do so as a practical matter because a great many judges are committed to ignoring the Second Amendment, but that only indicates that many judges think might [the judicial power] makes right, no matter how intellectually bankrupt they may be.) So is the debate about the scope of the right, what is and isn't permissible in the field of firearm regulation? What? There is one thing that I can't let pass without comment, though. You claim that, "The [Second A]mendment allows you to own a proper musket and ammunition and keep it at the ready and if needed to meet on the common to fight to defend your liberty. Nothing more." Are you serious? So I suppose you believe the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the data on your computer, because computers didn't exist circa 1790? And the government can freely censor online speech because the Internet didn't exist circa 1790, either? And freedom of the press applies to the New York Times only as long as it uses circa 1790 printing presses? I hereby award you a second Oak Leaf Cluster for your FSC. Oops, I almost forgot: Even the anti-gun scholars concede 65,000-80,000 defensive gun uses per year (an estimate that is deeply flawed for a number of reasons that Kleck explains). According to the CDC (Table 12), in 2002 there were 762 accidental deaths by firearms, nationwide. Since 65,000 is a whole lot more than 762, your "wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s)" is out the window, even accepting gross underestimates of total DGUs. Wrong again.

Posted by: Matt at August 31, 2005 01:50 PM (10G2T)

21 Annika, I came by way of Publicola's place. Glad to see that you're learning to shoot. If 9mm is your thing, you might want to try a Springfield XD9. I bought one for my daughter to use, and she loves it. Fits her well and shots well. I like it as well, but I'm more of a 1911 kinda guy. As far as what Strawman has said, it is unimportant, and we do not hear his words.

Posted by: Bill at August 31, 2005 06:49 PM (Tx0EW)

22 i haven't shot a Springfield, but i've looked at their website because they make a replica WWII style 1911. i also noticed that a cool looking gun in the movie Sin City was made by Springfield Armory. i was shocked to see that they are made in Brazil though. i mean, i don't want to sound prejudiced, but when i think precision machinery and quality control, i don't think Brazil.

Posted by: annika at August 31, 2005 07:08 PM (3I5eq)

23 Actually Taurus makes some decent stuff & they're based in Brazil. Matter of fact I have this nice little affordable 12 gauge side by side shotgun that came from Brazil. & if I recall right Harley-Davidson engine blocks are made in Brazil. we ain't talking things that will be looked at by artisans 300 years form now as a sign of our prowess with metal working, but if cared for they'll probably still function. Course shame of it is Brazil passed some major gun control laws recently.

Posted by: Publicola at September 01, 2005 12:24 AM (vC8Ev)

24 It looks like another Eloi has accepted his fate of being Morlock food. I have a spare tire in my trunk ... I do not fear flat tires. I carry a firearm ... I do not fear evil. If he ( or the state, acting as his agent ) comes for my firearms, I will simply kill them.

Posted by: Kristopher at September 01, 2005 01:07 PM (lupHh)

25 "If you are compelled to shoot animals; therapy is a better choice than going into the woods with a rifle. One will raise your self esteem while the other makes you question your sanity as you confront your homicidal impulses." Deer are a good dinner. Therapists write notes, nod and say "hm-mmmmm . . . ." On the whole, the deer is better company. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the subtlety of the differences between a deer and a therapist has spent too little time with deer and too much time with therapists.

Posted by: jerry the geek at September 02, 2005 12:44 AM (zWQj7)

26 If you want to give .45 another try, rent a Glock 30. It is the softest shooting .45 I have ever used.

Posted by: g at September 02, 2005 09:09 AM (eXUzJ)

27 Let me be the first to compliment Annie's fine collage. Her t-shirt reveals the letter "IG" and "SAU" "Pig sauce"? "Big Sausage"?

Posted by: Mark at September 04, 2005 02:06 AM (qI3ib)

28 ...just wandered over here from Instapundit, via Kim do Toit. It *IS* fun, isn't it Annika? Just a coupla thoughts: For fun & practice, try a .22. They're easy to shoot, easy to pay for (including the ammo) and even moderately priced ones are accurate. Revolvers: your experience will depend heavily on how the grip fits your hand. Fortunately, they are hugely adaptable, so you needn't live with the grip that came on the gun. Look for something that fills the space behind the trigger guard.

Posted by: Doug at September 13, 2005 10:26 AM (TEZnx)

29 The Kimber is a single action only gun.

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 08:18 AM (m3L4P)

30 Hello friends, its impressive post concerning educationand completely explained, keep it up all the time.

Posted by: walther at January 16, 2013 12:32 PM (aak7F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You ever go on a blind date? i did this weekend, in a way. You know how you're nervous but you try not to let it show, cuz you wanna look cool, you know people are watching you. Then you meet and he's kinda dangerous and scary, but sexy too. And you stay back for a bit while he talks to some others, but then you get your chance for some one-on-one time and it starts going good. Surprisingly good. Then you finally get your chance to hold him, and it's all fireworks and loud noises and yes, Yes, Yes! and so freakin fun you can't believe it. And you can tell by the sparks flying that he's into it too. Even though you were nervous and he looked so powerful at first, he treats you surprisingly gently and does exactly what you want him to. But then it's all over so soon. Way too soon. So you go back to acting cool while you say goodbye, but inside your heart's beating fast, and you can't seem to hide that big smile, and you can't wait to see him again. And you plan something for next weekend and you can't stop thinking about him and trying to remember what it was like holding him?

Well, last weekend was like that for me. He's Swiss, but he was born in Germany. His name is Sig, and by now you probably know i'm not talking about a guy. But we will be seeing each other again, you can count on that. And i'll let you know how it goes. i may even start seeing some of his friends, too.

Posted by: annika at 08:48 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Excellent, LOL

Posted by: Jake at August 15, 2005 09:09 PM (CT8rN)

2 Oh Annie, you are suuuuuuucccccchhhhh a tease. I have a soft spot for Miss Ruger, myself.

Posted by: Wayne at August 15, 2005 09:30 PM (6brYo)

3 yes, Yes, Yes! I can even see you taking on a double blind date with some identical twins.

Posted by: d-rod at August 15, 2005 10:57 PM (5DT2a)

4 Tsk. Naughty you.

Posted by: Desert Cat at August 15, 2005 11:03 PM (xdX36)

5 I guess you're too young to remember the Beatles. "...happiness is a warm gun...".

Posted by: shelly at August 16, 2005 02:05 AM (6mUkl)

6 Actually, I'm partial to the Glock 9MM myself.

Posted by: shelly at August 16, 2005 02:06 AM (6mUkl)

7 And a gun wont take your credit card and go shopping.

Posted by: Kyle at August 16, 2005 04:10 AM (4t42C)

8 Hey. He's my boyfriend too! Maybe we can have a threesome.

Posted by: ginger at August 16, 2005 04:19 AM (jK/kA)

9 Heh. Glad to see you found yourself a good man. A good thing about Sig is he won't get jealous if you go out with his buddies.

Posted by: Trevor at August 16, 2005 04:54 AM (RwZxT)

10 Whenever the one-on-one time with Sig starts getting stale, I'll need to introduce Annika to a friend(born and raised in the US) that I know.....they call him "Bushmaster". Here's his personal web page: http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/bcwa2s20.asp Just for the hell of it, I'll throw in a pic of his little brother as well: http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/bcwa3f16m4.asp Aw shit. I just remembered that California ethnically cleansed his entire family. Never mind, I think he hates blue states anyway.

Posted by: reagan80 at August 16, 2005 06:49 AM (U9/fw)

11 Typical...women tend to go for the pretty Europeans. Colt 1991 Series, thank you very much.

Posted by: Jason O. at August 16, 2005 07:07 AM (2CAKL)

12 Have you looked at the sig pro line of pistols, they have adjustable backstraps if default grip does not fit your hand. I have held one sig pro, and it felt really good.

Posted by: cube at August 16, 2005 07:25 AM (nyNr0)

13 Very cute Annie. Well, if you're ever in Texas, I'd love to play "matchmaker" with my M4, Iron Brigade Armory Custom .308 Tactical Precision Rifle, Glock 23, Keltec .32, Mossberg 590, or any of these other fine matches. ; )

Posted by: Roach at August 16, 2005 07:27 AM (MRlvg)

14 You had me completely fooled by the way.

Posted by: Mark at August 16, 2005 07:54 AM (Vg0tt)

15 Yeah, you had me fooled too. I thought gosh, it's awfully soon to be sharing so many details... and then I clicked the link. Happiness is a warm gun, I'm told by those who would know better than I.

Posted by: Hugo at August 16, 2005 01:19 PM (LNc8S)

16 Watch out, he'll go Sauer on you for sure!

Posted by: Becker at August 16, 2005 01:20 PM (Nlp5A)

17 I think some of ya'll underestimate miss Annika. She's a lady no doubt; refined & sweet, but not niave. So when trying to fix her up don't kid yourself into thinking that size doesn't matter. now it's not that I'm happy about Cali's ethnic cleansing that has caught up some of the less endowed options but do you really think that lady would be satisfied with a shooter of poodles? Miss Annika, I realize that the emotional stimulation can seem overwhelming. & what a lady does is her buisness. Still you might want to look at this over every now & again, just to make sure you're not maintaining...er I mean losing control.

Posted by: Publicola at August 16, 2005 01:33 PM (vC8Ev)

18 I'm in lurve with my SIG, too. He's my favorite.... Nice choice!

Posted by: SondraK at August 22, 2005 08:39 AM (vqCwo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Guess who shot a pistol for the very first time today?

Those are my first twenty rounds. Not bad eh? i can't believe how much fun that was.

Posted by: annika at 09:50 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

1 All depends on how close you were too him, and if he was shooting back at you.

Posted by: Casca at August 13, 2005 10:24 PM (qBTBH)

2 Lighten up, Casca. The girl just lost a portion of her virginity, and you are busy explaining fine lovemaking. Annie, you need to tell us the caliber of the weapon, whether it was a pistol or a rifle and the distance from the target. You needn't go to Fallujah or Downtown Youngstown to prove that you can shoot under pressure. For a first timer, I'm sure it was exciting. I hope they taught you to clean and store the weapon after you were done shooting. I also hope they taught you gun safety. If not, start with rule number 1. Always assume a weapon is loaded when handling it. More on this later. However, for the compulsive amongst us, please finish this maddening game of Jeopardy, so we can stop checking your site all the time. If you go into Double Jeopardy, count me out. I need to get a life.

Posted by: shelly at August 13, 2005 10:36 PM (6mUkl)

3 couple years ago at shooing range in seattle i used to go to, a college girl and her beau went shooting. her hand gun (semi auto, i think) "kicked", her boyfriend standing right behind her, got shot in the face. he died. be careful. i think those places are too relaxed.

Posted by: mike at August 13, 2005 11:42 PM (e1ToJ)

4 How does a person get shot while standing BEHIND the shooter?

Posted by: M at August 14, 2005 12:00 AM (jVEXT)

5 The anagram for "Axl Rose" is "oral sex." The anagram for "Pro-Life" is "Flip Roe."

Posted by: Mark Off Topicalooza at August 14, 2005 12:39 AM (jVEXT)

6 Now it's time to graduate to the .44 Magnum Automag, the gun favored by Mack Bolan the Executioner. And, in "Sudden Impact," by Dirty Harry. It's kind of cool to imagine Annika blowing a much larger man's head off with that gun. We should start a round-robin crime blog-novel: Avenging Lawyer. I used to write Mack Bolan-style short stories in high school. It'd be a cinch to re-adopt that tone for the blog novel: *** *** Dirk's meaty hand was wrapped around Annie's throat, and he was squeezing. Chunk was closing behind, ready to help Dirk out. Annie hit Dirk with an atemi strike to the corner of the forehead, just enough to make him loosen his grip slightly. The moment his hold slackened, Annie seized Dirk with a wrist lock that caused him to yelp in involuntary agony. She continued to twist until Dirk was bent nearly double; Annie's foot lashed out and caught him in the teeth, smashing a few back into his throat. Chunk saw his buddy was in trouble and closed faster, hoping to surprise the lithe attorney, but Annie had already smelled him. With one hand controlling an already-prone Dirk with the wrist lock, Annie reached into her enormous purse and brought out Cassandra, her huge, silver-plated .44 Automag. She looked at Chunk for only as long as it took to find the bridge of his nose. Annie squeezed the trigger, and Cassandra sent 240 grains of death at almost 1100 feet per second straight into Chunk's face. At such close range, the burly man's head behaved no differently from a watermelon shot by the same weapon. Chunk's head, true to its owner's name, disintegrated into wet chunks and his body slumped to the ground with a gruesome thud. Annie swung Cassandra around and planted her muzzle at the base of Dirk's skull, right next to the foramen magnum-- a straight shot into the brain. Dirk got the message. "Another move, asshole, and you're next." Dirk, in shock and thoroughly beaten, nodded vigorously. Annie leaned close. "Okay, big boy," she whispered. "Let's talk." *** *** Woo-hoo! Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at August 14, 2005 02:39 AM (1PcL3)

7 casca - nothing but class you are. Kick any puppies on your way to the comment box? Shelly, rule No. 1 is more properly to never point a firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy. It seems semantic but most if not all negligent discharges could have been prevented by following that rule alone. Mike, that was kinda like telling the details of a nasty divorce at a bridal shower. But I doubt the place was too relaxed. Even if they were safe handling is a personal, not an institutional responsibility. M - "How does a person get shot while standing BEHIND the shooter?" Easy. By earlier in the day telling her that " it wasn't what it looked like" Miss Annika, You did very well. Hell you probably did better than I could. If you practice a little bit I've no doubt you could be a great shot. Course you'd have to change the blog name to something more appropriate - like Annika Oakley's Journal, Poetry & Match Scores. Really though I'm proud of ya.

Posted by: Publicola at August 14, 2005 03:11 AM (vC8Ev)

8 Nice groupings, Annie. Hell of a good start.

Posted by: Mike Jericho at August 14, 2005 03:34 AM (lWN0C)

9 Sorry, Pub, but Number 1, for beginners, especially, is to always assume that the gun is loaded. Period. Lots of idiots shoot themselves just looking at it, sometimes down the barrel, assuming it is empty. Your rule is a close Number 2, and it is true. It is especially true for pointing at people, because doing so sometimes evokes an unexpected response, like, they may have one themselves and not be willing to wait to see if you are serious or just messing around. People taking others to shoot should spend a lot of time explaining that more people die from being shot by "unloaded" guns each year than from lot so others diseases. Whether it is a Magnum, or a .45 or .44 or a 9 MM or even a "cute little gun"* .22 or .25 it can kill you really quick and really dead. * Nancy Reagan's description of her weapon to some reporter years ago.

Posted by: shelly at August 14, 2005 03:41 AM (6mUkl)

10 Was it a 9mm (or .380) at 20-25 meters? Nice grouping. At least you didn't do what my wife does when I take her to the range. She saves her last round or two for the groin of the target. Lowers her score a bit, but really unnerves me.

Posted by: james at August 14, 2005 05:32 AM (blfs0)

11 it was the sig 9mm at 15 and 20 yards. ps, i'm gonna start practicing with throwing stars now that they're gonna allow them on airplanes.

Posted by: annika at August 14, 2005 07:20 AM (4tJ5S)

12 Way to go, Annika. It's always good to see someone introduced to guns properly. Now that you've shot a Sig though, you've probably spoiled yourself for any other handguns.

Posted by: Trevor at August 14, 2005 07:37 AM (GtBBB)

13 Archie Bunker was right over thirty years ago when he observed that if you really wanted to stop hijackings you'd make sure that EVERYONE on the plane was armed. I'm personally and philosophically opposed to teaching women how to shoot handguns. I taught my ex-wife how to shoot early in our marriage, and never had a good nights sleep afterwards.

Posted by: Casca at August 14, 2005 08:34 AM (qBTBH)

14 It's already been established in evidence that Shelly is in at least some stage of senescence, so like the old folks at the Turkey Day table, one humors him. Publicola on the other hand is the quintessential gasbag whom one avoids at partys.

Posted by: Casca at August 14, 2005 09:01 AM (qBTBH)

15 Well done, Annika! A couple thousand more rounds practice, and you'll be good to go. And as soon as you get your very own gun, you become a member of the Nation of Riflemen (ie. armed citizen), complete with secret handshake and so on. [/joke] Unlike Casca, I'm a HUGE fan of getting women to shoot, even ex-wives. Keeps everyone polite and honest, you see. Annika: Swing by my website to meet other lady shooters.

Posted by: Kim du Toit at August 14, 2005 09:07 AM (CZLro)

16 Very nice grouping, annika. I think you should frame it. Mike, you can't blame the "place" for your that dude's death. I guaranGoddamntee you someone did something that was (first) stupid and (second) preventable, and that's what happened. James, you're probably the World's Best Husband, aren't you? :~)

Posted by: Victor at August 14, 2005 09:39 AM (l+W8Z)

17 Chicks and Ammo. Who in the world could be against that? Well done. I've introduced my daughters to trap and 22 shooting. In a couple years I think they'll be ready to join you on the pistol range. Blast on Annie.

Posted by: Pursuit at August 14, 2005 10:35 AM (n/TNS)

18 Shelly, Treating a gun as if it were loaded is more properly a reason why you should always be mindful of where you point it. See whether the firearm is loaded or not if you always maintain good muzzle control (I mean watching where the barrel is pointing; not keeping the one that Casca should be wearing nice & tight) then nothing seriously harful will happen. But I mention this mainly cause understanding why you follow a rule is the best way to ensure you do follow a rule. The bottom line is if you follow about 4 simple rules there will be damn near no chance of a negligent discharge. & I hate to but I must agree with Casca; the proper solution is not to bar folks from having weapons on planes, but to not hinder their exercising their Right to Arms. The attacks of September the 11th were particularly appaling cause one of the only nation's with a written acknowledgement of the Right to Arms lost an arms race to 20 guys with small knives. Oh & miss Annika - most gunfights happen at a distance of 7 yards or less. From your target you're doing well at over twice the distance that most people will ever have to really shoot at.

Posted by: Publicola at August 14, 2005 11:25 AM (vC8Ev)

19 Casca: LOL Guilty. Or, maybe just Nolo Contendere. I forget which.

Posted by: shelly at August 14, 2005 11:27 AM (6mUkl)

20 Pistol shooting is a great deal of fun, and addictive. When my buddy was the manager of an indoor range, I would shoot 500 rounds a week. If you want to have a little more fun, go watch a cowboy action shoot. The Yolo Sportsmans holds a shoot the first Sunday of the month. All the fun of pistols (2 of em) rifles and shotguns shooting metal targets that go Clang! when you hit them, and you get to dress up. I have been out shot by more than a few saloon girls in competition. Keep em in the 10 ring.

Posted by: Yolo Cowboy at August 14, 2005 09:16 PM (TS5Sy)

21 ANNIKA: By the looks of the target you are well on your way to "gun control", i.e. putting the second shot in the same hole as the first, Welcome to the shooters world.

Posted by: ejd at August 15, 2005 02:13 PM (/ljO0)

22 Nicely done, Miss Annika. I'm going to change the bonfire to be nicer to you now...

Posted by: Kevin at August 15, 2005 04:32 PM (08J5o)

23 "it was the sig 9mm at 15 and 20 yards. ps, i'm gonna start practicing with throwing stars now that they're gonna allow them on airplanes." Nice. Good job, I think you might even be a little better than me. Now the next time to shoot will be the hard part, you might have picked up an flinch.

Posted by: cube at August 16, 2005 07:42 AM (nyNr0)

24 Cube, I'm just curious - how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion (about the flinch)?

Posted by: Publicola at August 16, 2005 02:30 PM (vC8Ev)

25 Annika, If you're in the LA area, come shoot with us sometime.

Posted by: Jon at September 04, 2005 01:32 AM (uDS0n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment