The AnarchAngel

Moving Progress - But baby it's COLD IN-side

Moving proceeds apace; much thanks to Keith, John and Ben who have been helping us out since last Wednesday. We've got all the big stuff moved excepting my work bench (with all my reloading gear clamped to it of course) and a few shelf units.

We spent our first night here last Thursday, and all was well. The house is great, the kids love it, Mel loves it, I love it.

There is just one problem, we have no heat. Oh we have a working furnace, and we HAD heat, on Wednesday, Thrusday, and most of Friday.

But since then it has been quite cold.

Oh and we have no hot water either.

The reason for this?

Well, on tuesday I called the gas company to get the gas account transferred to my name, and the gas turned on. They said that the gas was turned off, and that they couldn't send someone back out to turn it on until Wed. the 22nd.

Only the gas wasn't actually turned off. While we were moving, the gas man came by to turn it off; saw that we were here, and said "well, why make two trips if you're already moved in, I'll just read the meter, note the transfer, and you should be all set".

Which he apparently did, on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, this seems to have left the gas shutoff workorder open, so some time late friday afternoon while we were out, some other enterprising soul came and turned our gas off. We discovered this early Saturday morning when it got down to 45 inside the house. Yes this IS Phoenix, but it's still February. Added to this of course is the lack of hot water, the moving which has made us both stiff and smelly... yeah fun.

The gas company was closed of course, and only responds to "gas emergencies" of which mistakenly shut off gas is not one. Even better, they are also off today for the holiday. The earliest our gas will be turned on is tomorrow, and I'm guessing it wont get done until the date on the original turn on workorder, that being Wednesday.

Thankfully we were well provided with thick blankets, and a thick pillowtop mattress pad, so Mel and I were all cozy comfy. The kids were at grandmas for the weekend, and the house got up to 65 during the day, but they came back last night, and we had to resort to putting a fan in front of the running oven (electric) to get some heat into the house. We of course shut that down before going to sleep (fire danger being what it is, especially at 38% relative humidity), and again woke up to a 49 degree house.

Even better, both kids have some major colds right now; which are not being helped by this. It's either have the oven on with exposed heating elements and fan with kids running around the house; or have said kids freeze their little tukus's off.

Thankfully they know not to go near a hot stove.

At this point ... actually for the last two days... I have been seriously considering jsut dremeling the lock off the meter and turning it on myself. It's not like it's unsafe, and if they lose a lock because of their screw up, so what. A pox be upon their hosue for freezing my family anyway. Mel however is paranoid that they'll permanently turn our gas off and refuse to supply us, or give us some huge fine or something.

Aahhh the joys of the home eh.

And the moving continues...

Holy crap that's funny

Dirty, but funny. Mostly safe for work. Priceless

Hunt or Ride

A meme has been going around conservative circles in the last few days since the VP shot his friend in the chest...

Boy isn't that just a surreal statement? Of course it isn't really true either, but it sounds fun don't it?

Anyway, the meme goes like this "Would you rather go hunting with Dick Cheney, or drive over a bridge with Ted Kennedy". This of course is a reference to Teds apparent drunk driving and negligent homicide of MaryJo Kopechne in 1969 on chappaquidick island off of Marthas Vineyard.

Now, I'm not goin to say this isn't at al serious, any time there is an accident with a firearm it's serious; but liberals are trying to make something huge out of this.

Not only that, but they are trying to say that what Cheney did was far WORSE than whatever Kennedy "allegedly" did.

Ok, no.

This came by my email from a maling list I'm on:

Indeed, it is quite obvious the the Vice President has committed a crime just like a Senator did. He shot someone, who may wind up dying as a result, he tried to keep it quiet, and now he refuses to respond to questions about it openly.

Such criminal activity from the administration and Republicans!

Well, at least he was polite. Completely wrong, but polite. What's sad is that I know the person who wrote this is a smart man. I know he FACTUALLY knows what he has said is ridiculous, but it doesnt matter, because he finds what he said emotionally satisfying and ideologically sound.

Seriously, there is no comparison here. Let's break down Cheneys so called "crime"

Cheney was following a rising bird with the muzzle, ignored his surroundings, didnt clear his front arc, and fired too closely to his friend Harry Whittington, who was standing about 30 yards away. The cone of shot spread out far enough that Whittington was struck by several pellets of birdshot.

1. No crime was commited under any penal law in Texas, or most any other state

2. No serious injury resulted from the shot itself. The pellets barely broke the skin. In fact the guy was hurt worse than almost everyone ever shot with birdshot from 30 yards away has been, because 1 #8 pellet (which is 1/16th of an inch across and weighs less than a grain of rice) managed worked its way under a rib, he's 78, and he suffers from arrythmia. It was more the shock of being shot than anything else.

3. The VP tried to keep it quiet? Please. That statement is ridiculous on its face

4. He won't answer questions about it? So what. The full details of the incident have been reported, the only purpose for answering further questions is to try and embarrasss the man further.

I do just wish someone would get these "Cheneys tried to kill a man" idiots to understand that getting hit with a few birdshot pellets from 30 yards away while wearing heavy clothing, is generally a lot like having sand thrown at you when a car speeds off (yes I’ve had it happen).

There are people who do stupid shit like this for FUN, getting dressed up in heavy leather clothing, and shooting at each other with very light bird shot, or rock salt. Some people used to train dogs with a light load of birdshot even; shooting them in the ass with it as negative reinforcement.

Is it painful, sure; but it's not usually life threatening.

This guy was spectacularly unlucky to be at exactly the wrong spot (probably just off the bore axis), and Cheney was an idiot for focusing on the bird to the exclusion of everything else, but seriously, birdshot at 30 yards? I mean come on.

Suggesting this is anything more than stupidity and negligence on the part of the VP the worst sort of tinfoil hattery.

I would direct all of you who think that this is all that serious to this link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007971

Now let us compare and contrast. Cheney is one man ignoring safety rules while shooting, and a few pellets of birdshot hit his friend accidentally.

Chappaquidick was a drunken overgrown fratboy who jsut happened to be a senator leaving the scene of a fatality accident, not reporting it for hours, then using family influence and money to avoid jail time.

Let's leave aside theory and speculation, and not even consider what we can prove (which is pretty daming); let's jsut consider what Kennedy admitted to:

Kennedy pleaded to, and was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury, normally a felony charge. As part of his plea he admitted to responsibility for the accident; that he had been drinking, he left the scene knowing that the girl was drowning, and he then waited several hours before notifying police; contacting his lawyer in the mean time.

In exchange for this plea, Kennedy recieved a two month suspended sentence for an offense would normally carry a minimum two year sentence (though all but 180 days would normally have been suspended).

This would normally mean his censure and expulsion from the senate as a convicted felon, however there is an interesting technicality of Massachusetts law, in that misdemeanors and felonies are not directly counted as such. In Massachusetts, for most crimes, if you recieve a sentence of greater than two years, you are accorded felon status; if less than two years you are simply a misdemeanant (yes, we have had misdemeanor murders before).

This technicality LEGALLY allowed Kennedy to remain in the senate. His extreme popularity in the state, and the recent asassination of his other brother allowed him to do so politically.

NOTE: I grew up in Boston, and more relevant to this discussion I grew up in Massachusetts politics. My grandfather was Robert Dinsmore, a former state rep, and state senator who ran against Kennedy for U.S. senate in '76. He of course was soundly defeated.

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, and basically everyone in Massachusetts politics were regularly guests at my family functions. My grandmother even has a picture of Kennedy holding me as a baby.

Theres an old saying from Huey Long "The only way I could lose this election, is if they found me in bed with a dead girl, or a live boy". Well the girl was dead, but she wasn't in bed with him, so teddy got a free pass.

By any rational measure, Kennedy should have been removed from the senate for his negligence; and really he should have been charged with, and convicted of, negligent homicide in the death of MaryJo Kopechne. He didnt because of money and politics.

Cheney ignored the four rules, and a man was hurt because of it.

We shouldn't make light of this; it is a serious issue, but it isn't a crime.

The first rule of firearms safety is always treat all weapons as if they are loaded
The second rule is to never point the muzzle at anything you arent willing to destroy or kill
The third rule is to always keep your finger off the trigger until your target is clearly identified, and you are ready to fire
The fourth rule is to always be sure of your target, and what is beside and behind it

Cheney ignored three out of these four rules, and a man was hurt because of it. That is a big deal.

Any shooter that I'm training that covers anyone else with the muzzle of an unloaded gun gets one warning, they do it again and they are ejected from the class. If they do it with a hot weapon they are immediately ejected, and banned from ever attending one of my classes again.

There are some friends I won't shoot with anymore, because I consider their firearms handling to be unsafe. Cheney has proven that he is not a responsible shooter.

That said, it has nothing to do with his performance as VP; and it isn't a crime.

The press is all energized because, well frankly they don't like the man, but more importantly, they are OUTRAGED, that they weren't brought into every tiny detail immediately; and that the VP wont answer their questions personally.

I'm sorry, but who the hell do they think they are?

Seriously, WHY SHOULD HE talk to the press about it? Because they expect him to? So what. The so called "publics right to know" is bull. Thats nothing more than the press masturbating. Hell, even if the PUBLIC wants to know about it, it's not like we have the right to demand he answer whatever question we can think up. That's just crass.

There is no scandal here; no coverup... hell theres nothing to coverup except a little embarassment. Unless the guy dies, it's basically nothing; and if the guy DOES die, it's because he was 78 had arrythmia,and got the shock of his life.

NOTE: Actually, there would be one hell of a civil suit here if Whittington wanted to pursue one.

By all reports Whittington is fine, but that said, if he does die I suppose you could make a case for negligent homicide. Cheney was clearly negligent in not making sure his forward arc was clear, which is the most basic principal of safe shotgunning. If Cheney is to be charged with negligent homicide, he must resign to face the charges (he can't be charged while serving as VP).

Negligent homicide or not, it's not like they have tired to hide the facts of the case. Just because the press thinks they deserve to be spoon fed everything as it happens doent make it true. Politicians don't have to tell the press a damn thing if they don't want to. THe press arent judges or juries, they dont have the power to compel testimony; and they don't have "the right to know". Honestly, neither does the public, unless a crime has been commited, or it seriously effects the way the country is run.

The public has a right to know about how this country is run. What a politican does on their own time, providing it is legal and ethical, is none of our damned business (and I said the same thing about Clinton by the way).

Shooting someone by accident isn't a crime, and it isn't an ethics violation, its a stupidity violation.

Unfortunately, stupidity does not disqualify one for office.

Do you need glasses?

Yes, yes you do.

Even if you have perfect vision, you still need glasses; by which I mean you need a good set of binoculars. Or at least you do if you do any boating, hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, shooting, flying... I could go on.

A 7x50 marine binocular is the basic all purpose set of field glasses that everyone should have. Fancy addon features like range finders, compases and the like can be nice (especially on the water), but they may detract from the ruggedness and light transmissivity of the glasses.

Binoculars, aka field glasses are there to let you see detail at a distance, to spot relatively small objects at a distance, and in general to make that far away world a little bit close to your eyes; especially in the dark, or at twilight time, when your eyes are confused and inefficient.

A good set of 7x50s can actually see better than you can. The light gathering and transmissivity of a decent pair of binocs can actually give you BETTER vision (light gathering and contrast) than with the naked eye, never mind the magnification. In fact a good pair of 10x70s can make a medium moon look like an overcast day. That may not sound impressive at first, but it's pretty startling when you try it out the first time. Some of the giant spotter glasses (like the 20x120) can take a full moon night, and make it damn near as bright as the morning.

Now, as to picking out glasses, how do you choose? There are literally thousands of models out there, with a bunch of different specifications, brands, and price points.

First things first, general quality. If you are looking for an all around set of glasses, you want to go for decent quality. A set of compacts you can fold up and stick in your coat pocket are fine for $30 but dont expect them to be a decent pair of primary field glasses. Expect to pay $200 to $500 for a good pair of 7x50's for example, from a reputable brand; and from $500 up to about $1500 for a premium brand.

The brands I generally look at in the "reasonable" price range include Bushnell, Steiner, Nikon, Pentax, Fujinon, Zhumell, and Bausch and Lomb. There are others, notably from scope manufacturers and camera manufacturers, but that list right there covers the majority of the field. Oh, and several of these manufacturers has a lower end economy orented line that I would stay away from, some under their own name (Bushnell), and some under another trade name (Bosch and Lomb)

The "premium" brands include Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, Newcon, Oberwork, and Kowa, among others.

Honestly, unlike rifle scopes or spotting scopes, where high end glass can be worth every penny; in this case you don't necessarily get what you pay for.

What I mean by that is, I don't think you get much value for money by going to the premium brands, unless you are buying very high magnification glasses, you're using your binocs in extremely low light conditions; or unless you require a specialty feature like image stabilization (which reduces the visible shaking in the image from hand held glasses at high magnification).

There is definitely a difference in optical clarity between the low end (which I wouldn't even consider) and the middle, and the middle and high end... I just dont think the 10% extra clarity from a Leica makes it worth three to five times the cost of a Steiner.

The important considerations, other than overal quality of the optics and contruction, are the objective lens size, the magnification, and the field of view.

When I talk about a 7x50 pair of binoculars, what I am saying is that the magnification is 7 power, and the objective lens is 50mm across. If You see 7-24x56 it means that the optics will zoom from 7 all the way to 24 power, and have a 56mm objective lens.

Why is the objective size important? Well, two reasons. The first is, the larger the objective size, the more light is gathered by it (as I described above). The second is related to that, because the larger the objective, the large the exit pupil size will be for a given magnification.

Whats that? Well the exit pupil is the diameter of the light that is being projected onto your eye by the glasses.

In full darkness, a young eye will dilate up to about 7mm, to take in more light from the surroundings. With optics, the wider the exit pupil, the more light YOUR pupil can gather, to form a clearer brighter image. In an ideal world, you want to use all 7mm if you can.

To figure the exit pupil diameter, you divide the size of the objective lens in millimeters by the magnification power. So a 7x50 would have an exit pupil diameter of 7.14 millimeters; which is just about the most your eye can use.

All that said, most of your binoculars use if you're an "average" person will be in the day time. It's important to note that in broad daylight your pupils normal at rest state is around 2-3mm, and in bright light your pupils will be at their smallest. Also note that as your eyes get older, the lose flexibility and dont dilate as widely, so that by the time you are in your fifties, the average puil dilation is down to around 5mm.

Given those factors, although I don't generally recommend that your primary glasses have anything less than a 5mm exit pupil at max magnification, even down to a 2-3mm pupil will still transmit useful amounts of light in the day time.

Now, the other import specification to look at is the field of view (FOV). This is generally given either in degrees, or in feet at 1000 yards. 1 degree is 60 minutes of angle, or just under 5 feet at 100 yards, 50 feet at 1000 yards etc (actually it's about 48 feet, but estimating to 50 is usually sufficient)... You can find binoculars with fields of vew as narrow as 2 degrees, or as wide as 18 degrees, but the normal range is from 4-8 degrees. Anything more than 8 degrees is considerd a wide field binocular, and you will pay a bit more for them.

Generally speaking the higher the power, the narrower the field of view, though this can be compensated for with different optical configurations. Also generally speaking a wider field of view is an advantage, because it lets you glass more area, faster, without scanning as much; thus you are less likely to miss something completley when you are moving relatively quickly. Now, here's the thing though; field of view is important, but WIDE field of view isn't necessarily better. In some situations a narower field is an advantage. Picking out a small object at great distances can be quite difficult with a wide field of view; and if you already know where to scan, a narrower field of view helps you focus in on difficult to spot objects. You have to make a more careful search, but you get better results, and will see more detail. Basically you need to pick your FOV based on your needs.

Okay, so what do you buy?

Well, About the best binocs out there are MilSurp 10x70, 15x80, and 20x120 "BigEye" marine spotting glasses. They were made on contract spec by various manufacturers, including Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, Leitz, Newcon, Steiner, Fujinon, and Nikon. Technically speaking I dont think the navy officially remaindered any of them, but you can find them on the MilSurp market for a fairly high, but not ridiculous price. Unfortunately they are quite heavy (the 120mms are only tripod mounted), so they aren't exactly ideal for field use; but if you have to glass long open spaces (prairie, long mountain views, or water) in the dark; they are indispensible.

Realistically thoguh, most of us don't need that kind of light gathering, most of the time; and a tripod mounted glass isn't exactly usful while hiking; so as I said above, a compromise is in order. The 7x50 is generally the best all around compromise position between cost, size, power, ruggedness, weight etc... I also recommend you chose a 7x50 marine, whether you are boating or not, because they are generally more rugged, and almost always more waterproof than other glasses.

Grab yourself a 7x50 from a reputable, medium grade brand and you won't be sorry. I have a pair of Steiner 7x50 marine glasses somewhere, but I can't find them. I may have lost them when my storage unit went bye-bye; in which case I'll be replacing them, probably with the same make and model.

Oh and while you're at it, a half decent pair of compact field glasses, and a very decent compact monocular are also things I recommend anyone carry out in the field at all times. I have both, they only weigh a few ounces each, they ride in a vest pocket and on a lanyard around my neck, and they instantly give me a quick up close view.

You obviously can't get the quality and light gathering of larger glasses, but my bushnell 8x25 compacts are just fine for a well lit day. They fold, and they have a 7 degree FOV so I can spot distant objects fairly quickly. If you ARE hunting or tracking at twilight, you can get compact glasses with a 5mm exit pupil; and there are compacts with up to an 18 degree FOV. My monocular is also an 8x25, but it is very small, and it has a narrower field of view, basically acting as a mini spotting scope.

Add in a set of 10x70's for your house, car, or boat; and your field glass needs are pretty well covered.

Of coures then we get into rifle scopes, and spotting scopes; and thats a whole nother post... hell it's a whole nother BOOK.

THe King of offensively funny comic strips, and this is all he can do?

I was expecting better Aaron.

My Girls in about 5 years

Blatantly stolen from Tam who blatantly stole it from Oleg Volk:

Needless to say (though I will anyway), Oleg is big about teaching kids about proper handling of firearms, and their proper purpose in society; that of defending ones life and freedom

I've already told Mel that the girls were getting ARs at like seven or so, but I had thought of this one first:

There's only one problem, Mel HATES Barbie with a passion that burns like a thousand suns, so now we have our solution.

Although, if we wanted to start them out even earlier, theres always one of these from Crickett:

HT: Eric Sivula

Moving starting tonight

Ok guys, the next few days are going to be rough, we're moving without benefit of truck or moving crew, so dont expect much in the way of blog posts.

Wish our backs and knees luck.

UPDATE: Hey sweet, my bud Keith saw this post and volunteered his truck (S-10) tomorrow. We should be able to get the couches, bed, shelf units, desk, entertainment center chairs and tables moved in like three or four trips now.

Everything else fits in passenger cars thankfully.

Come to a fight...

See a hockey game break out...

You Are Hockey

Tough, athletic, and not afraid of a fight. You don't mind putting your body on the line!

The Big Blogiversary

Ayup, it's been one year, and 200 some odd thousand visitors since starting this blog..

My first post was modest, in scope if not in demeanor:

First Post!!!!!

Ok folks, people have been telling me to write my own blog for two years now, so finally, here it is.

Yeah I said I'd get around to it before, but I'm lazy, what can I say.

The initial content is mostly going to be stuff I've written for other peoples blogs, and fora etc...

Suggestions, praise, worship, and deification are all welcome.

Chris Byrne at 2/14/2005 08:53:00 AM

But then I started right off into the Recipes for REAL Men series, and the AnarchAngel blog was born.

In between we've had lots of guns, lots of laughs, a fatwa and a few other assorted death threats... overall I'd say a good time.

Now it's one year, and almost 600 posts later. I've added a family to my life, and now to my blog (Mel, take a bow)...

Well, it's been a hell of a year, lets hope for just as interesting this year... weeeellll maybe not QUITE so interesting, but still, just as good or better right?

Let me repeat what I said in march of LAST year, around my one MONTH blogiversary:

Let me tell you, things build up inside for a guy like me, and I have to let them out. I'm a pretty intense guy in some ways, and a pretty laid back in others. I'm easy going, I don't get angry or mad like other people do, I'm not a yeller, but I get very... forceful when Im passionate; or I get VERY sarcastic or just humorous, but it has to come out somehow.

A lot of things in this world strike me as absurd, or funny, or sad, or appalling... hell, a lot of things just strike me. I look around, I notice things... mostly I notice other people NOT noticing things, and that bugs me.

I love the free and open exchange of ideas. I love debate. I love argument. I hate PC bullshit that stifles these things. I hate when people look at conversation as a competition that has to be won. I hate that people take disagreement personally.

I want to talk about things. I want people to think about things in new and different way. I want to be contentious, and to stir people up, because then, you're actually think about things, rather than just going though the motions.

If I can do that, then maybe those things can change, or get better; or the good things may get stronger, and maybe people will give a damn a bit more. Yeah, it's corny, but if each of us, one at a time, starts changing peoples minds about things, then eventually the good guys CAN win.

If I can do that, than anything else I do won't matter, and I'll be damned happy, and consider myself damned lucky (emphasis on the damned part I think).

I feel profoundly grateful that I am able to express myself in this way; that I have both the capability, and the forum; and that I have people who want to read what I write.

Well, don't thank me boys and girls, I need to thank you.

Happy Birthday Mike

In addition to being St. Valentines day, it's my friend Mikes birthday.

Mike isn't a cowboy as shown in this rather bad pic, he's actually from Southern California, and an engineer with a rocket scientist for a father (literally); but he's a cowboy at heart.

He and I have been friends for over ten years now; and I haven't physically seen him in eight of those. Fortunately that's going to change in a couple months when I'll be the best man at his wedding.

I hope.

I say this because Mike has been engaged more times than anyone I know, and thus far none of the weddings have come off. He was even left at the altar one time.

He's a great guy, reasonably good looking, fun in a wholesome/sweet/not-quite-boring/LDS sort of way; he's just had bad luck with the whole marriage thing.

Which is all the more ironic, considering his birthday.

So, happy birthday Mike, and I hope things are going as planned for the wedding. See ya in May buddy.

Valentines Day Gift

There's chocolates, and then there's CHOCOLATE!!!!!!!!; and this stuff definitely falls into the latter category.

This was my valentines day present to my honey; 38% - 78% chocolate solids drinking chocolate. In case you didnt know, "hot chocolate" is to drinking chocolate as Mad Dog 20/20 is to The MacAllan 25 year old fine oak.

Instead of some powdered sugar, condensed milk, and cheap synthesized cocoa powder, this is essentially drinking liquid chocolate mixed with hot milk. If you want a similar flavor, go to Starbucks and order a "chantico". This is MUCH MUCH better, but the richness is similar.

Oh, and so are the calories, and about 400 per serving, 200 of them from fat. When I said this was drinking melted chocloate, I wasn't kidding. You are basically drinking a really good german chocolate bar.

I specify German chocolate for a reason. American chocolate has, if you are lucky, about 20% chocolate solids, and if you are buying Hersheys, under 10%. The chocolate we use tends to be more bitter, grainier, and chalkier than the chocolates common in europe, where 25%-40% chocolate solids are more common (and in some cases required by law), and you can get confections with up to 70% chocolate solids.

Here in the U.S. the balance of most chocolates are made up with condensed milk, milk sugar, artificial vanilla flavor, whey protein and soy lecithin; whereas in a fine european chocolate you basically get cocoa solids, cocoa butter, natural vanilla, cream or milk, and sugar (although most drinking chocolate perparations also include the lecithin to help emulsify the chocolate). Also in a good chocolate all the fat should be provided by the milk and cocoa butter; but in cheaper chocolates they often use hydrogenated coconut or palm oil.

Basically, a hershey bar isn't even in the same category as a Lindt couverture (just as an example).

The difference in flavor and mouth feel is HUGE. Those used to european chocolate tend to take abite, and then stop eating out of disappointment. Of course on the other hand that means if you are used to Hersheys, having some real chocolate is going to be an entirely new, and quite tasty experience for you. I HIGHLY recommend doing so as soon as is humanly possible.

Yes, my honey and I are chocolate lovers of the first order, and we stocked up on this stuff. No we didnt buy the whole package above, but we did get five of them, plus the cocoa powder.

The cost... well it's not cheap. Each tin is about $17 (including shipping), and makes eight 8 oz servings of drinking chocolate, so it's a bit more than $2 a cup; and it's worth every penny.

It's soooo much better than some plain old box of chocolates; and we can both enjoy this together (and have several times so far. We'll definitely be buying more of this), plus none of those icky green fruit flavored ones, or weird raspbery syrup filling.

Mel wants to get their baking chocolate, and make some brownies with it. Sure they'd cost like $4 a brownie, but they'd be worth every penny.

Captain Kirks new power tools

Ok so I was cruising Dremels web site, and I saw the new Dremel Stylus tool... and all I could think was "Wow, some fanboy must have designed this":

Mighty Rat

In the hot rodding world, there are generally two types of Chevy motors; Mouse motors are small block V8's, and Rat motors are big block V8's.

Each of the major manufacturers has small and big blocks. Each small block was available in a large number of displacements and configurations, as was each big block, but they were all based on the same two cores (a large and a small) with similar mounting points, accessories etc... and they can often be installed in the same cars. The traditional mouse and rat motors are the Small Block Chevy (available between 265 and 400 C.I.D, but most commonly a 350), and the Big Block Chevy (from 348 to 560 C.I.D., but never more than 455 from the facotry, and most often seen as the 454).

I don't know who coined the term, but it's been around for a loooong time.

A couple months back I wrote about my new pocket tgun, the Kel-Tec P3AT, that we've taken to calling "Mighty Mouse". Well, mighty mouse now has a big brother.

Everybody say hello to Mighty Rat:

From the press release:

The PF-9 is a semi-automatic, locked breech pistol, chambered for the 9 mm Luger cartridge. It has been developed from our highly successful P-11 and P-3AT pistols with maximum concealability in mind. The PF-9 has a single stack magazine holding 7 rounds. It is the lightest and flattest 9 mm ever made. Firing mechanism is Double-Action Only with an automatic hammer block safety. The PF-9 will be available in blued, parkerized, and hard chrome finishes. Grips will be in black, grey, and olive drab.

The PF-9 accessory rail will accept the latest compact weapon lights and lasers.

The PF-9 retains the best features from our P-11 and P-3AT pistols combined into the flattest and lightest single stack 9mm configuration ever made. The barrel, locking system, slide stop, assembly pin, front sight, recoil springs and guide rod are adapted from the P-11. The PF-9 is nearly identical to the P-11 in length and height and shares the same exterior controls. The shorter trigger system with integral hammer block and the extraction system are adapted from the P-3AT. Just like the P-11, the PF-9 will accept +P ammunition, however, not with continuous use.

The rear sight is a new design and is adjustable for windage with the supplied allen wrench as well as for elevation with the use of shims (not included). The included 7 round rectangular magazine is supplied with a finger extension base plate and numbered holes. The under barrel accessory rail shares the dimensions of the MIL-STD-1913 picatinny rail although there is only one locking notch in the forward position.

SUGGESTED RETAIL PRICES
Description -- Price
PF-9 Pistol, Blued -- $314.00
PF-9 Pistol, Parkerized -- $355.00
PF-9 Pistol, Hard Chrome -- $368.00

The PF-9 pistol comes with one 7 round magazine, and includes a gun lock.

Expected availability: May 2006

I need one; hell EVERYBODY needs one.

Kel-Tec is definitely going right after Kahr with this model.

The P9 is half the price, thinner, and ligther than the smallest Kahr, a bit taller WITH the finger grip mag extension, but it holds 1 more round (putting the grip extension on the on the kahr makes it 1/2” taller than the Kel-Tec).

Comparing the P9 to the non-micro standard frame polymer kahr’s which have the same 7+1 capacity as the kel-tec, it’s half an inch shorter in length, .25” shorter in height, and 3 oz lighter.

In fact the only smaller 9mm made is the Rohrbaugh; and theres a 1+ year waiting list for a $900 gun that only writers have got their hands on so far.

Compared to the P3AT in .380, already about the smallest and lightest pistol in IT’S class, the 9mm P9 is only 4.4oz heavier, .65” longer and .8” taller (again with the finger extension. The extension adds .5” to the p3at).

I own a Kahr, and it is a GREAT CCW piece, but it really is definitely a belt gun because it is just a bit too long, a bit too tall, and a bit too heavy for a pocket. The new P9 is jsut the ticket for a 9mm pocket gun. It’s big enough to be controllable, but still small enough for the pocket.

I could live without the rail, in fact I think that cros slot may catch in a pocket; but you can alway fill it in, or slap a rail cover on there.

Hell I showed it to Mel, and she wants one too for her purse/jeans gun for when the sp101 doesnt fit.

Oh and why mighty rat? Shouldnt the rat be a .40 or a .45... Well the Small Block chevy started with the 265, and ended up as big as a 400. The little Kel-Tec mouse gun started off as a lowly .32, and is currently in a .380. The rat here is starting of as a 9mm, but who knows, maybe it can end up a .357 sig?

Summer rituals and old trucks...

Today I officially began my annual summer ritual of parking spot searching. This is the time of year where the worth of a parking spot is no longer determined by proximity to the front doors, but instead determined by the amount of shade available. As I am now driving a jet black car with leather interior, this has become quite important in the past week. Anyone who has not spent any time in a car that has baked in 100 degree weather can not fully appreciate the effects of hot leather on bare skin.

Honestly I'm used to it, whether it's Max (my current vehicle, formerly in Chris's name), The Big Red Beast (my father's truck), or the 'Burban (part of the family since I was 6) I am always looking for the parking spot with the lowest ouch factor. Of course my favorite will always be my old truck Catti.

The last 3 vehicles all have something in common. At one point or another they all belonged to another member of my family, and they are all old Chevys. The Big Red Beast originally belonged to my oldest brother, and is a 1976 Chevy 1/2 ton with a full-size bed and cherry red paint. She has a 292 straight 6, and 3 gears on the floor with a granny gear. And, of course, a goose-neck hitch. I drove her to and from work for a full 4 months before giving her back to my father. The truck and I have a love-hate relationship, but she did okay.

The 'Burban is a '78 Chevy Silverado Suburban, blue with white stripes. She's been in the family since I was 6 and at last estimate (odometer is long dead) has 400k miles on her with one engine rebuild. Also 3 speed with a granny the 'Burban of course has a 454. I drove her for almost a year and loved every minute. I took her almost everywhere in the state, included Flagstaff on a day when everyone ended up snowed in (including me).

Catti, however, Catti was mine. '72 Chevy 1/4 ton pickup, full size bed, black with absolutely no extras (NONE). Add that to a three on the tree with a big V8 engine (307 small block, but big enough) and god I loved that truck. Originally my father's, he ended up giving it to me upon my mother's request upon me departure for Vancouver. I had been driving her since I was 17; before that I had driven my brother's truck Bertha, a 76 GMC High Sierra that looked like crap but had a fully-functional 454. Many of the teenage boys in the area were quite surprised when they revved their engines, tried to beat me after a stoplight, and lost horrendously. When I received Catti I was even worse, only losing twice, once to a sports car and once to a similar truck. I adored that truck. I could quite literally do everything I ever needed to with one toolbox, and I had enough room that I could actually sit in the engine compartment.

After replacing all of the seals and gaskets I drove 1700 miles with Catti, non-stop, from Phoenix to Vancouver, with a cat. A year later I had to sell the truck because Rosie was born, and my (ex)husband sold it for a measly $1000 Canadian. I call that grounds for a divorce, don't you?

But I love old trucks, particularly GMs. There's nothing like them, and most likely will be nothing like them again. Sunday Chris and I were driving and passed an old Chevy truck for sale... I made the supposed "kitten noises" and all. I love the BMW, but I will always have a soft spot in my heart for good ol' steel trucks.

Mel

Call me Mel, everyone else does.

Our New House

Well, we did it; we signed the lease earlier today, and we're moving starting Wednesday... (and I mean actually physically moving not just moving the blog, which will also be happening thanks to googles political bias disguised as policy, but thats another post entirely).

This is our new house:

And more importantly, why we chose THIS particular house:

It has a nice big yard, with a bunch of trees (including a tangerine tree), a nice patio (with a cool mist sprayer systems - a must in PHX), and a seven foot high red cedar privacy fence with a secure gate. Even better, it's in a doglegged cul de sac, close to but well off of (and well separated from the noise and traffic of)a main road.

Of course you know, this means pets. In particular we're planning on a puppy and a cat as soon as we're settled in. The puppy is for me (I MISS having dogs), and the kitty for the girls.

The house is old, but well maintained, about 1800 sq ft. and it's typical of the style of homes built in Scottsdale in the fiftes (it's a 1957 house); though the interior has been substantially updated.

Lest you think the interior is hideous, allow me to present, our new living room:

You can't really tell from this pic, but the living room is about 12'x28'. Pretty much HUGE. There is a new central air system with seperate AC and furnace untis, and bothe are over specced for the house; and theres a supplemental AC unit in said massive living room (which was there when the central air was piddly and weak).

The main living area is open plan, with a waist high divider wall separating the living room from the rest of the house, and opening out into the decent sized pass through style kitchen; with attached laundry room.

and the separate dinette area:

Through the kitchen is another den/office area thats 12' x 16', with a bunch of windows. We're thinking that's going to be our craft/hobby/game room (a poker table is in our future).

It's got the basics, 3 fairly small bedrooms (1957 had different standards for bedroom size), one with a 3/4 bath for the master, and all having nice sized closets. It also has a full tile family bathroom. Actually it's the original tile from '57, and it's in remarkably good shape. The bathroom is almost Lileksian in it's 50's style charm. Of course that also means it's relatively small as well.

The neatest thing about the place is something we'll probably never use, and is even more of that "Lileksian charm"; it's got a central vacuum cleaner system, with vacuum outlets in every room. Ahhhh the fifties.

It has the standard Arizona car port, with a six car sized driveway, and a graveled side area suitable for more parking, or storage, plus parking in front; so parking will NOT be a problem unlike our current condo which sometimes requires our guests to make a 1/4 mile walk.

Theres a storage shed on the side of the house, and plenty of interior closet space.

The owner is a decent guy from Marina Del Ray; a TV producer who makes documentary programs for discovery, th history channel, the learning channel, and national geographic. He was trying to sell the house for the last few months, but now he's happy to lease to us; and he's interested in doing alease to buy, which may be a decent option for us next year.

Honestly though, none of that really matters. We drove up to the place, opened the back gate and the kids started running and playing right away. Before we left Rosie said "Can we live here", and Mel started making kitten noises.

One cannot resist the power of the estrogen...

Well, I'd rather an HK416...

...but since HK doesnt want to sell me one, and Robarm still isn't shipping; this could do

SIGARMS press release:

New SIG 556 Rifle: The time Has Come
SIGARMS® introduces U.S. made version or legendary Swiss rifle.

EXETER, NH – No other semi-automatic rifle has captured the imagination of the shooting public like the SG 550 series rifle. For years this legendary Swiss made rifle has been restricted to law enforcement and military sales where it has continuously built on its reputation for outstanding performance, accuracy and durability. Now, SIGARMS® has announced that the time has come for a U.S. made version and introduces the new SIG 556.

The SIG 556 features the same high-performance two position adjustable gas piston operating rod system engineered by SIG’s sister company Swiss Arms and marries it to a trigger housing that not only cuts the rifle’s weight by a pound but is designed to accept standard AR magazines.

Originally developed to work under the extreme situational pressures and environmental conditions of the Swiss Army on alpine duty, the new SIG 556 delivers when it counts regardless of ammunition type and variances in gas pressure or case material.

The SIG 556 features a 16” military grade cold hammer forged barrel with a twist rate of 1 in 9”. The barrel is locked to the steel receiver through a unique system that allows the user to easily change out the barrel.

The forearm housing the gas operating system is a vented non-slip polymer featuring the SIG TriRail design with three integrated Picatinny rails for mounting accessories. There is a forward mount for right or left side sling attachment. The flip up front combat sight is adjustable for windage and elevation.

The Picatinny rail equipped receiver is made of high strength carbon steel with a durable wear-resistant Nitron® X rifle finish. The trigger housing is made from a heat treated aircraft grade aluminum alloy with a hard-coat anodized finish designed to survive extreme conditions. The rifle comes equipped with a smooth two-stage trigger.

The SIG 556 also features an ambidextrous safety and is designed to accept standard AR magazines. A rugged 30-round polymer magazine is supplied with each rifle.

Spare battery compartments are provided in the ergonomically designed pistol grip as well as the rubber padded watertight adjustable butt stock. The butt stock also offers sling attachment points.

In addition to the standard model SIG 556 which will begin to ship in late summer of 2006, SIGARMS will also offer a SIG 556 L featuring a longer forearm but also equipped with the 16” barrel. The 556 L will be ideal for upgrading to the 20” barrel for more precision oriented shooting.

The third model planned to 2006 is the SIG 556 SWAT. The SWAT model will feature the same compact design of the standard SIG 556 with 16” barrel but will feature a flat top Picatinny railed receiver and a tactical quad rail.

These three rifles are the first of several new SIG 556 models that are currently in development at SIGARMS. The wait is over. The new U.S. made SIG 556 begins shipping in late summer – because the time has come.

Theres some great pics under that link to the sig forums. I jsut didnt want to stel them from a site I support. When sigarms puts up their pofficial press pics on their site, I'll steal away.

Anyway, to the rifle...

Well, I don't care for the forearm (though it's better than the stock SG550), and it's a might spendy for what you get, but I've fired several guns in the SG550 family, and it's a damn fine weapon, so I'm very glad to see this as a civvy option.

Best features? Hmm, piston operated, adujustable gas regulator, quick change barrel (they only have 16" and 20" listed but 24s are available in the line under the "precision rifle" model they sell to LEO so...), and of course 1913 and stanag compatible so those AR accessories will mostly work.

HT: Sig Forums

Don't be Evil? Ok, how about politicially biased then?

I recieved this email a few hours back:

From: Google AdSense

to: me

Hello Christopher,

Our specialists have found that your account is not in compliance with
AdSense program policies. As a result, we have disabled your account.

We continually review all publishers according to our Terms and
Conditions and program policies, and we reserve the right to disable
publishers or sites that are not in compliance with our policies.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

Obviously I was somewhat puzzeled... but only somewhat. After all, others around the blogosphere have had problems with google inexplicably cutting them off, apparently for political reasons, and I'm generally more offensive to the lef tthan they are.

But I kept an open mind. I sent back a one line question:

From: Me
To: Google AdSense support

Sirs,

Can you tell me how my account is not in compliance with your policies?

And I recieved no response.

And I got kinda irritated, and then I got kinda mad; so a few minutes ago, I sent this out:

From: Chris Byrne Mailed-By: gmail.com

To: Google AdSense
Cc: Sergei@google.com, ESchmidt@google.com, LPage@google.com, MRivera@google.com, Press@google.com, mmayzel@google.com
Date: Feb 8, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Disabled

Sirs,

Can you tell me how my account is not in compliance with your policies?

I sent that one question to you initially, and recieved no response. Now I am expanding my question.

I have reviewed your ad-sense policies, and I cannot find any point at which I am in violation, unless a subjective reviewer of the site found my content disagreeable politically.

If my account has been suspended because I present a different political view point than the reviewer of my site... well then you might have a small problem.

If you say that I am a hate site, a violent site, or a racist site, I can refute that conclusively; and will do so for anyone who asks. If you say that I have inappropriate content, I can refute that and will do so as well.

I will also point to many sites that present anti-semitic, anti-american, and in general vile and disgusting propaganda; and yet they have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that depict burning of american flags, and bibles, that have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that are unapologetically pronographic, and have ad-sense ads.

I can only conclude that this action is motivated by political bias. It is my hope that suspending accounts that are politically opposed to a reviewers viewpoint is the action of a single employee and not general corporate policy.

You are of course a private company, and you may choose to allow your political biases to determine who you do business with; but if you do, be prepared to have all of your conservative and libertarian customers do the same.

If you cannot provide me with a legitimate reason for this account suspension, that is not motivated by a bias against my libertarian politics, my staunch advocacy of free speech regardless of it's potential for offensiveness, or the right to keep and bear arms, then I will be going to the blogosphere and the media with this.

Finally, if you insist on closing my account, please forward the remaining outstanding balance due me. As I cannot log in to my account I can't confirm how much it is, but when I checked yesterday it was only about $40.

Thank you,

Christopher J. Byrne IV

I wonder what the response will be.

Anyone know how to move a blog off of blogger?

My 350,000th visitor

Ok as I said, this mmorning I hit 200k on the blog; but a few minutes ago I hit 350,000 on the web site for all time; this includes my blog and main web page. My 350,000th visitor

My 200,000th blog hit

Well, about two hours ago, my blog passed the 200,000 individual visits mark.

Yay me

Eh, why not

Little Britneys and Christinas

So the other day I am at Wal-Mart shopping for clothes for my little girls (ages 4 and 2) and I finally have to do something I have been dreading for well over a year - navigate the girls' section. My oldest is very tall for a 4 year old (47") and she is outgrowing the baby/toddler section. Now normally I believe in high (or at least medium) quality clothes for myself and my kids, but the kids outgrow clothing so quickly that spending so much money on clothing seems a bit ridiculous. Plus the girls have very different body types (Rosie is long-legged, Shai has a long torso) so the clothes I buy for the older can't be passed down to the younger.

Now keeping in mind that Rosie is a very TALL 4 year old I have recently started buying her size 5/6 (XS) girls' jeans just so they are long enough. Unfortunately this means navigating Mary Kate and Ashley land at Wal-Mart. This, I discovered, is a dangerous pursuit.

I am a fairly attractive woman when I want to be. I am certainly capable of catching a man's eye when I put the necessary effort into finding and wearing flattering clothing. I am a 25 year old woman who is certainly not past her prime and I wouldn't wear most of the clothes I found in the girls' section.

Bras and bikini-cut underwear. Flared skirts short enough to be mini-skirts. Skin tight jeans. And of course shirts and boleros designed to show off cleavage. What kind of cleavage can a 5 year old have?! And why the hell would you want to show it off?!?!?!?! I mean, I've seen the shoes with heels in the girls' section of the show store, but I didn't think there were actually clothes to WEAR with them...

It's even worse when swimsuits are taken into account. This is Arizona after all, so I've already been through this season's swimsuits. Bikinis, boyshorts, sheer coverups... whatever happened to good ol' monochromatic full-size swimsuits? I believe in always leaving myself enough room for negotiation, but what happens when my eventual 15 year old daughter asks me if she can buy a string bikini? "But Mom, you let me wear one when I was 5, why not now?" Gah...

I am lucky in that I can afford higher-priced clothing and if I need to, I will go that route in order to help preserve my daughters' innocence. But whenever I look at the clothing at Wal-Mart I remember the single mom I used to be and how I couldn't afford anything else. Are we raising a generation of little Britneys and Christinas by default?

As for that shopping trip, I returned to the toddler section and bought some cheap shirts and shorts for the summer until I can find something better. I bought one pair of pants from the girls section, the cheapest and most unattractive I could find. I then dropped the kids off with my mother for the weekend. When I picked them up on Sunday my mother asked me why in the world I would buy Rosie a pair of hip huggers. I think catalogs are going to become my new best shopping friends...

Mel

Mel's Intro

Hello everyone!

For all of you who don't know who I am, I am the Anarchangel's dearly beloved practically wife. I am going to be posting on this blog time to time with my own rants and raves, and general insights on life. No recipes from me (yet) but most likely lots on raising kids and dealing with disgruntled muscular minarchists. Oh, yes, and the occasional bitch about men in particular and, of course, life.

Mel

Just call me Mel, everyone else does.

Recipes for REAL Men - Volume 12, Lard Ass Buffalo Wings

So the bowl game is over, and I've finally perfected my Buffalo wing recipe (actually during halftime in fact). There was much winged love goin down, though I maybe mixed them a bit too hot for my crowd... which means they were damn near hot enough.

Actually they weren't entirely perfect, initially I included less Habenero and a tablespoon of cayenne powder, but it made for a slightly unpleasant after burn (cayenne powder stays in your mouth and on your lips for a loooong time; and adds a kind of bitter heat without adding much flavor). I also included a bit too much mustard, and I used prepared yellow mustard (frenches). For this recipe I eliminated the cayenne powder entirely, upped the habanero content, and substituted powdered mustard and apple cider vinegar.

NOW it's perfect.

Ingredients:

You are also going to need the following:

8lb, or 4 quarts frying medium (lard or rendered beef fat (tallow) preferred)

Large thick walled deep pot (a cast iron chicken fryer, or dutch oven work best) or a professional quality deep fryer with at least a six quart capacity and a 400+ degree temperature control

Frying thermometer capable of reading at least 400 degrees farenheit

A steel mixing bowl large enough to comfortably toss all four pounds of wings in with plenty of room to spare

1 cup of cornstarch and a large plastic bag (optional)

Preparation:

There's only one way to cook real buffalo wings, and that's deep frying them. None of this baked wing crap.

Welllll... unless that is you want to bread the wings and then bake the flavoring in AFTER deep frying; and that can work pretty well, but it isn't necessary, and it isn't really a buffalo wing then.

So before we start, you have a choice to make, to starch or not to starch.

When you deep fry anything unbattered or unbreaded, it should be perfectly dry before you put it in the oil. If the wings are frozen, you should either defrost and dry them completely, or you should roll or shake them in cornstach wixed with salt and pepper (or do both). You MIGHT be able to get away with not starching the wings if there's NO ice on the surface of the wings.

Now, if you DO starch the wings, you are going to end up with a light breading effect. This breading will soak up more sauce, but it will also hold in more grease, and it tends to clump, burn, and get soggy. Also if your oil isnt hot enough the cornstarch will clump off the wings, cloud the oil, and burn.

Obviously, in general I prefer to put the wings in bare.

While you are prepping the wings, heat the frying medium to 400+ degrees, but be careful not to smoke your oil.

Oh and related to that, another one of those decisions; what do you want to fry the wings in? Since you're cooking chicken, it would make sense to use chicken fat right?

Well, not really because chicken fat burns and smokes when used as a deep frying medium. Plus, bulk chicken fat is kinda icky, and can taste kinda funky unless you cook it fr quite a while.

Basically it's just not suitable for deep frying, though it CAN be good for shallow frying depending on what you're frying with it (like frying goose liver, it's just plain good, though goose fat is even better - oh and it makes a good spread with salt and garlic. Schmaltz can be yummy if made properly).

The ideal frying medium for flavor is either bacon grease or rendered beef suet (tallow), mixed with butter; but that gets expensive very fast. Plus butter starts burning at around 250 degrees, and smokes at 400 degrees, and bacon grease starts to burn at around 350; so you can't really deep fry in it (though shallow frying is aaawwww yeah good).

Beef tallow alone would work; but unless you have a good butcher around, it can be hard to find food grade tallow (and obviously candlemaking supplies arent food grade), and you have to be careful of your smoke point.

That leaves lard; and lard is a pretty darn good choice, because it doesn't start burning or smoking 'til WELL over 400 degrees (commercial lard anyway. Gourmet lard is usually not as "pure" and so it smokes at lower temperatures, but has better flavor). It's the highest smoke point animal oil you can get, which makes it almost ideal for deep frying. Also lard has less cholesterol than butter, and no transfats like most high smoke point vegetable oils have (including frytex and other solid oils sold for use in professional deep fryers), plus it doesn't taste bad for frying.

Oh and one more thing, lard is CHEAP; as in about $4 for the 8 lbs you'll need for deep frying (which can be used and reused repeatedly if filtered and not burned); and thats if you buy it in the SMALL tubs. If you get the economy sized 5 gallon buckets you pay damn near nothing, especially in comparison to peanut oil (which is about the best deep frying vegetable oil and which runs about $20 a gallon, though can cost as little as $5 a gallon in bulk).

Oh and in case you didnt know, the proper way to season your new cast iron pans is to sand the cooking surface mostly smooth, thoroughly wash the pan, then rub the entire cooking surface with lard to cover it with a thin layer, and carbonize the stuff at 450-650 degrees for from 30 minutes, to two hours depending on the size of the pan, and the heat of the oven. Then you take the heat down to about 300 degrees for a half hour, then 200 for an hour, then shut te heat off and let the pan cool in the cooling oven until it has reached room temperature. You WILL set off every smoke alarm in the neighborhood during this process; so unplug yours, get a fan, watch out, and keep a fire extinguisher handy.

Now, on to the actual prep work.

Defrost and dry the wings, then rub fine flake or crushed kosher salt and pepper into them, and if you feel adventerous lightly sprinkle a little cayenne powder over them (it's not bad here, it just doesn't work too well in the sauce).

When the oil is over 400 degrees, place all the wings into the oil as quickly as is safely possible. It's important to distribute evenly.

If you put frozen wings into the fryer, the temperature is going to instantly drop from about 400 degrees, to about 200 degrees, and it won't go back up to browning temperature (about 280- 300 degrees) until all the excess water from the wings cooks off. That takes about 20 minutes, and you end up with crispier, greasier wings with drier meat. They arent at all bad that way, but if you want a plumper wing with more meat and meat jucies, you want to use thawed wings.

If you use the thawed wings, the temp is still going to plummet down to between 250 and 300, but it's going to come back up to 350 or so much quicker.

Fry the wings until golden brown, basically the degree of brownness you'd want in a chicken you were roasting in the broiler. It should take about 15 minutes AFTER the temp of the oil climbs back over 280. Dont let the oil climb over 400, or start to smoke (there will be LOTS of steam and splattering oil however so be careful).

Once the wings are all thoroughly browned, drain them individually back into the fryer (just let them drip dont pat them off), and throw them into a large metal mixing bowl with some of the wing sauce on the bottom...

Ohh yeah, we have made it yet... well here is,

The Sauce:

Alright, when it comes to wings, sauce is the key right? How hot, how sweet, how sour, how smoky... How about VERY, a little bit, a little bit more, and not very much...

Some folks like to include a lot of sugar, molasses, smoked barbecue sauce, or god forbid liquid smoke (Actually I shouldnt be that hard there are actually some tasty liquid smoke flavors these days) but really none of that is supposed to go on buffalo wings.

Buffalo wings are supposed to have three strong flavors:

1. Cayenne Pepper Sauce
2. Vinegar
3. Butter

Thats it. They aren't smoked, glzed, honey seared or anything else. Yeah those kinds of wings taste great, but they aren't buffalo wings. Save the other flavors for times when you don't want buffalo wings.

So, first step, your Cayenne sauce. Now there are some folks who swear by tabasco for their wings, and lord knows I do love tabasco sauce, but it isn't really the right flavor or consistency for buffalo wings. Then there Daves gourmet "cool cayenne pepper sauce" which would work really well, hell maye even great... maybe even better than Franks... but for my money it isn't a buffalo wing if it isn't made with Franks Louisiana Red Hot Cayenne Pepper Sauce.

That's right, I said it; it HAS to be FRANKS.

Yeah I know, Franks is too sour, too astringent, too thin, not hot enough etc... Ehhhh forget about that. If it's a buffalo wing, it's got to be Franks. Anything else is some other kind of wing.

Now, that said, there's no law against combining Franks with other things; and therein lies the secret of good buffalo sauce.

Now, you can do this two ways, either in the microwave without simmering, or in a small saucepan, simmered. Simmering melds the flavors together more, brings them out more, takes longer, is harder to clean up, and singes your nostrils something fierce. Microwaving is faster, and doesnt stink up the place.

I recommend simmering personally.

So, start by melting the butter in the bottom of the pan, then when the butter starts to brown add in the red hot sauce. Bring that sauce up to just below simmering and add the rest of the dry ingredients, and the vinegar, stirring thoroughly.

Keep stirring at jsut below simmer for about 4 minutes. At this point you want to set your sweet and sour balance, by adjusting the vinegar and the brown sugar to suit your taste. Make it just a bit less sour, and a bit more sweet than you'd like the final product to be, because we'll be adding more flavors in the next step.

So now a few minutes ago I said that Tabasco isn't right for Buffalo wings, and now I'm telling you use it? Why do I speak such crazy moon language...

Basically, because I love tabasco, and it has a distinct fermented pepper flavor that you dont get with Franks. A couple tablespoon is all it takes to give your wings jsut a HINT of that distinctive Tabasco flavor. If you want more tabasco flavor, go ahead and add more tabasco; it can't hurt.

Now the fun part, the REALLY hot stuff. Here's where you decide if you want your wings mild, hot, or WILD.

For traditional mild to slightly hot buffalo wings (the wings from your local pizza joint proably rate less than mild so if you can't handle those... what the hell are you doing making buffalo wings?), dont add anything else. The dominant flavors will be slightly sweet, sour vinger, and a slightly sour spicy pepper bite.

If on the other hand you want some HOT wings, now's the time to break out the habenero. I listed Arizona Gunslingers hot habanero sauce above, but you can substitute any habanero hot sauce to taste. Gunslinger is appx. equal in heat to Daves Temporary Insanity sauce, and about half as hot as Daves Insanity sauce; with Total Insanity falling somewhere in between. My recommendation? Start with one tablespoon of the sauce, stir it in and simmer for three minutes, then try it out. If it's not hot enough, keep adding more sauce in half a tablespoon at a time.

If you really want to get insane, put in 4 tablespoons of Daves Insanity sauce; but if you do that I recommend serving the wings with a yoghurt based dip (tsatziki for example), and glasses of whole milk. Oh and really, honestly, dont serve this to anyone who isn't a serious chilehead, you might hurt them badly, or make them sick (no I'm not kidding).

Importantly, no matter how hot you want it, you need to balance out the heat with the sourness of vinegar, and the sweetness of the brown sugar; so after you've reached your desired degree of heat, simmer for three minutes, and make a flavor adjustment with sugar and vinegar; but leave it jsut a bit less sour, and a bit less sweet than you really quite want.

Finally simmer for three to ten minutes after you've made your final adjustments and let stand; and whatever you do don't boil or burn the sauce.

This sauce is best if it's prepared the night before and allowed to mellow overnight; then heated up to just below simmering just before tossing; but it's not necessary to do so. You can just make it and toss the wings in with it and it's still damn good.

The final step before tossing is to add the fresh squeezed juice of one lime (unless of course you don't like citrus in which case, leave it out), and then stir throughly.

Final Prep:

So, sauce the bottom of your large mixing bowl, and toss a layer of lightly drained wings into it. Then pour more sauce, and drop more wings in until youve got all of both in the bowl; and throughly toss the wings in the sauce, coating all of the wings completely and evenly. Let stand for about 3 minutes, and toss again before serving.

My personal preference is to serve straight out of the bowl, with baby wipes, and paper towels kept handy. Serves four as an appetizer or 2 as a meal. Have milk handy.

And be sure to check out:

Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 11 - Bacon Double Macaroni and Cheese
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 10 - It's the meat stupid
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 9 - Labor Day Potatos

Recipes for REAL men, Volume 8 - It's a pork fat thing
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 7 - It may not be Kosher...
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 6 - Andouille Guiness Chili
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 5 - Eazza the Ultimate Pizza
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 4 - Two Pound Meat Sauce
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 3 - Highbrow Hash
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 2 - MuscleCarbonara
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 1 - More Beef than Stew

Nearing 200k

Well, all the traffic generated from the various forum posting of team infidel over the past few days has moved this announcement up about a week, but some time today or tomorrow I'll hit 200k total uniqe visits since I opened this blog 357 days ago.

Based on NORMAL traffic patterns, within a day or two afterwards I'll also reach 350,000 total hits on my main site since I first started tracking stats around '97. Of course my traffic has been well above normal the last few days, so who knows when it might happen.

Hooray me.

Offense and Tolerance

Muslims have found some of my actions offensive. In response, some of those muslims have harrassed and threatened to kill me and my family.

Muslims have found a dozen catoon in a Danish newspaper offensive. In response, some muslims have murdered priests, rioted, and burned down embassies.

Web sites, newpapers, commentators from around the world in every medium have roughly split into a few camps.

Some say "Well of course there's been violence, what do you expect. You offended someone like that, that much and you dont expect violence?".

Others say "Well we should have free speech, but you shouldn't ever offend someones religion like that so we shouldnt ever publish these cartoons".

Still others have said "Free speech is absolute; and if you DON'T publish this offensive material you are censoring me, volation my rights, and giving in to terrorists".

There are the folks who are saying "Well, I don't care for offending someones religion, but it's none of my business what other people publish, and no-one has the right to stop them... of course I don't have to read their newspaper either".

Personally, I don't exactly share any of these views; and heres why. Some offenses must be tolerated, some offenses must not be tolerated, and we need to talk about the difference.

I personally think that everyone has the right to be offensive should they choose to be, so long as no-one else is FORCED to tolerate, endure, or participate in that offense; and that offense does not otherwise violate someones rights. You do not have a right to not be offended; but generally no-one has the right to FORCE you to be offended either.

One is also completely free to not associate with those whose beliefs or actions you find offensive; and one should not be FORCED to associate with or support those things one finds offensive; excepting as those things are part of the legitimate functions and expressions of a society in which one is a member.

For example, I find most abortion offensive, but it is the law of the land and I have no right to try and stop it except by changing the law, or changing an individuals mind; and in fact I don’t think the law SHOULD be changed; but as many peoples minds as possible SHOULD be.

I also believe that anyone who fully and completely believes in and follows either the Koran OR the Bible in their literal entirety is wrong and perhaps even evil (of course that's also logically and physically impossible but that's another argument); just as those who followed the little red book are completley wrong, and perhaps evil.

I believe this because all of those documents advocate killing those who do not follow YOUR rules, and YOUR laws.

Many many people find this belief offensive; but they have no right to stop me from having it, talking about it on my property and most often publicly, or acting on it. They certainly have no right to kill me for it. Importantly though, if they run a newspaper, or a web site, they don’t have to let me publish and proseltyze that belief either; nor do they have to be my friend, hang out with me, or put up with my rantings.

Finally, there is a difference between what response to offense is expected, and what is reasonable, appropriate, and to be tolerated.

If you deeply offend muslims (and lord knows I’ve done so quite handily), you should certainly expect a violent, agressive, and perhaps deadly (or at least the postuing thereof) reaction. It is expected, because we are aware of these tendencies in Islamic cultures, to expect otherwise would be stupid.

Just because something is expected however, doesn’t mean it is reasonable, appropriate, or to be tolerated.

If I go to a Nation of Islam (which isn’t islam, it’s black supremecist fascism with a thin skin of religion thrown on top) rally dressed in blackface I should certainly expect to be beaten up; and possibly killed. That doesnt make it reasonable, appropriate, or to be tolerated.

If I go to a NAZI rally with a yarmulke, a star of david, and a torah I can expect the same thing. That doesnt make it reasonable, appropriate, or to be tolerated.

It is not reasonable or appropriate for muslims to riot in the streets at the cartoon depiction of Mohammed, and it must not be tolerated. It is not reasonable or appropriate for muslims to threaten death, and even kill those (and their friends, and their families) who offend them (and I include myself in the former); and it CAN NOT be tolerated.

These things must not be tolerated, they must be stopped. The islamic world cannot be allowed to impose it’s standards, and it’s behaviors upon us; nor can any other enemy of freedom and liberty; including NAZIs, fascist, genderists, communists, racists, Political Correctists or anyone else.

I don’t believe that we should passively allow anyone to make offense illegal, or punishable by ANYTHING more than social stigma.

I believe we must be active in defending our right to have offensive opinions and ideas. I believe that sometimes it is necessary to give offense to react against those who would make doing so illegal, or deadly.

It’s not just muslims, it’s ANYONE who would force everyone else to live and think by their rules; should those rules restrict legitimate freedom.

I’m a fat guy. A few years back the city of San Francisco tried to make insulting people because of their appearance illegal. Sometimes you need to insult fat people, not because you hate fat people, but because the San Francisco city council tried to make it illegal to do so.

NOTE: Actually let me qualify that, Not you necessarily, you don't have to do anythign you don't want to; but SOMEBODY has to do it.

You don't have the right to hit a fat guy over the head, but you do have the right make a fat joke. The fat joke doesn’t infringe on my rights, I don’t need to listen to it, I don’t need to pay you to do it, I dont need to publish it; but I don’t have any right to stop you from saying it, either in public, or anywhere other than on MY private property.

Is it in poor taste? Absolutely. Do you have to support it or agree with it? Absolutely not. Should you be forced to look at it, much less publish it? Certainly not.

...But YOU shouldn’t be allowed to stop it either, unless it is infringing on YOUR rights; no matter how offensive it is to you, or whatever other reason you wish to.

Does the U.K have a democratic government?

On the NoR forums someone asked a thetorical question about the U.K.

"The crazy didn’t write the laws. You have a democratically elected government, yes?"

Only vaguely... The commenter obviously intended to make a point about how the people get the government they deserve, but because of the structure of the British government this isn't as true as you might think.

Here's the thing, in the British system, you dont actually vote for a person to be prime minister, or any other position within governemnt. Every burrough elects their own member of parliament (MP), and the MP's all get together and decide who get's to do what.

That means if you want good local representation, you elect someone to storngly represent the issues and values of your burrough. Unfortunately, you have no control over who actually runs your country, because there are no nationally elected positions. The political parties control who gets to run things, and everything is done within the party structure; so if you want to effect things nationally you choose the party you prefer no matter who their candidate is or how you think they'll do their job. Of course by this you give up "effective" local representation.

Parliamentary systems as a whole tend to be very representative [of the will of the people] on local issues (whether they act on that will or not), and very poorly representative on national issues, because there they almost exclusively express the will of the party; but in the U.K this system is even more skewed. In the U.K. with most local government handled by local councils; MPs who are in theory elected on local issues almost never address them; and spend their time on national issues, or rather on party issues; and of course on their primary concerns, gaining more power, and getting re-elected.

Getting more power means being made a part of the government i.e. given a ministerial appointment or a party position. No-one else has any real power. In order to gain a position, one must make nice within the party. Independence is almost entirely not allowed. The party (or coalition of parties) in control decides who fills what position, and everyone else is relegated to the "back benches".

Getting re-elected almost entirely requires the support of your party. Without it, it is POSSIBLE to be re-elected, because elections are VERY local in the UK; but if the party is plainly against you, you might as well forget it unless you are a 100% lock in your burrough.

In fact, it is entirely possible for a popular party leader, whom the majority of the country believe should be prime minister, to lose their seat entirely because of local issues. The people of the nation have no say, only the people of the constituency; and as always, the party.

Because of the nature of the system, MP’s are almost entirely locked into their party lines (excepting a few fringe elements who are personality cultists, useful idiots, or complete nutters. Either way they distract the press and the people from what is really going on); and given a strong enough majority or coalition, they can do damn near everything they want; including controlling when elections happen so that they are always in a position of advantage (for example by scheduling the elections jsut after a sex or financial scandal rocks the other party).

Unlike the American system, there is no separation between executive authority, and legislative authority; except in the person of the monarch, who functionally acts as a rubber stamp on whatever the government tells them to do. The chief executive of government is also the head of the legislative branch of the government, AND the head of the party in control.

NOTE: To Americans, this particular concept simply does not compute. How can one perform in all of these roles without conflict of interest? Simply speaking, one can't; it is assumed by parliamentary systems that this is an appropriate means of government.

Combine this with the fact that there is no written constitution (the only things close are the Magna Carta, and the Bill of rights, which are not the rigths of “the people” as such, but those of the lords and the government); and the structure and limits of government are a matter of common law, and tradition.

So what gets done is generally a matter of who has the bigger political club membership (the party); and the party in power has very few actual limits on what it can do. Basically the only thing stopping them from doing whatever the hell they want is tradition, public opinion, and the level of control the party has over it's members.

Combine that with a FAR more partisan press than we have in the U.S. ; who are more interested in reporting personal scandal, smear, gossip, and naked women than what’s actually going on…

Yes, it’s pretty much a pigs breakfast.

The only thing that’s kept the british system on the rails are very strong traditions of moderation, and respect for precedent.

Unfortunately over the past 100 years or so, the Labour party (and it's predecessors) have been willing to almost entirely throw out, twist, or take advantage of every precdent and tradition they can.

Read this section on the wikipedia article about parliament for an example:

The supremacy of the House of Commons was clearly established during the early twentieth century. In 1909, the Commons passed the so-called “People’s Budget,” which made numerous changes to the taxation system in a manner detrimental to wealthy landowners. The House of Lords, which mostly consisted of powerful landowning aristocrats, rejected the Budget. On the basis of the Budget’s popularity and the Lords’ consequent unpopularity, the Liberal Party won a general election in 1910. Using the result as a mandate, the Liberal Prime Minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, introduced the Parliament law, which sought to restrict the powers of the House of Lords. (He did not reintroduce the land tax provision of the People’s Budget.) When the Lords refused to pass the bill, Asquith approached the King and requested the creation of several hundred Liberal peers so as to erase the Conservative majority in the House of Lords. In the face of such a threat, the House of Lords reluctantly passed the bill. The Parliament Act 1911, as it became known, allowed the Lords to delay a bill for a maximum of three sessions (reduced to two sessions in 1949), after which it could become law over their objections.

Yes, the labour (actually he was a liberal party PM, but modern labour is their inheritor) prime minister didn't like the results of the voting, so he simply decided he was going to get the balance of power changed to reflect what he wanted better... and this is considered a BRILLIANT manouvre.

The labour party have built a base with the enviable position such that it is almsot impossible for them to lose power. The way they have structured the burroughs, and the control of the elections combined with the co-operative highly partisan press almost completely locks labour in; and the only real contention is between different factions within Labour.

The conservatives on the other hand are fractured, unfocused, and nearly irrelevant; except as a bete noir for the press. The conservative party is almost completely unwilling or unable to either be pragmatic and do whatever is necessary to win control; OR stay ideologically pure so as to act as an effective opposition. Given this, the conservatives end up in a pointless muddle with no focus, no direction, and no power; dependent on the utter screwups of labour to occaisonally take power and form tenuous governments with weak majorities that they inevitably lose whenever the press manage to get the public to forget about the screwup that lost labour control in the first place.

Yes, it really is that bad. U.K. Subjects are pretty much screwed all the way around.

Saraceno Delenda Est - Due

Thanks to all Jaggle and Badmutsen readers coming here for a look, no matter your opinion of Team Infidel; excuse the babelfish here, I'm sure the translation is horrible but I don't speak Dutch and my two Dutch friends are unavailable at the moment:

Wij in tribune America met u tegen de Barbaren, voor dat zijn wat zij zijn. Zij hebben geen eer. Zij zijn vreselijke lafaards; en zij zullen worden verslagen.

Now, if we can just see some .DK folks over here as well, because:

I am Gilettes Bitch

Speaking as someone who even gets razorbumps from a properly pre-oiled, post balmed, extra hot in the shower shave with a mach 3 power nitro (yeah they might as well just call it the TestostoBlade - Shit I've even shaved using astroglide), razors suck.

What's this here? Is it a new sex toy? Perhaps some strange piece of Japanese fetish gear?

No, in fact it is a razor.

In particular it's the new gilette moneymaking scam, the power fusion. It's expensive, it's ugly, it's more than a bit ridiculous... hell you might as well just be mounting a few dozenblades on the wall and rubbing up against them.

Unfortunately, the damn thing works. In fact, the new power fusion kicks ass.

No razorbumps.

None.

Just as a test, I shaved dry; and there was no irritation.

I haven't tried the "built in beard trimmer on the back of the blade" because 1. I like my face and 2. I have an actual nice beard and moustache trimmer to keep neat with.

Of course at 3+ bucks a blade is it worth it (considering you MIGHT get a week out of a blade)?

Is it worth the faintly shameful feeling of putting something that ridiculously self parodic to your face? Worse, is it worth it knowing that you are Gilettes bitch.

Yes, yes it is. All that and more. No seriously it is the best shave you will ever have short of the worlds most perfectly honed straight razor.

Unless you have the aforementioend cuthroat or sharpness, go and buy one of these badboys.

The Day The Music Died

47 years ago, Feb 3rd 1959; 1:05am central standard time, somewhere in the vicinity of Clear Lake Iowa en route to Fargo North Dakota; Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and The Big Bopper (J. P. Richardson) were killed, along with their pilot when their Beech Bonanza crashed in heavy weather.

Narrowly avoiding death were Waylon Jennings, who Richardson replaced on the flight, Tommy Allsupp, who Valens replaced, and Dion (of Dion and the Belmonts) who didnt want to fly that night.

The song American Pie from Don MacLean was written with inspiration from the event:

A long, long time ago I can still remember how that music used to make me smile and I knew if I had my chance that I could make those people dance and maybe they'd be happy for a while but February made me shiver with every paper I delivered, bad news on the door step, I couldn't take one more step, I can't remember if I cried when I read about his widowed bride but something touched me deep inside, the day, the music, died. So...

CHORUS
Bye, bye Miss American Pie drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry an them good ol' boys were drinkin whiskey and rye singin this will be the day that I die, this will be the day that I die.

Did you write the book of love and do you have faith in God above, if the bible tells you so, and do you believe in rock n' roll, can music save your mortal soul and can you teach me how to dance real slow? Well I know that you're in love with him cuz I saw you dancin in the gym you both kicked off your shoes and I dig those rhythm and blues. I was a lonely teenage bronkin buck with a pink carnation and a pick up truck but I knew I was out of luck, the day, the music, died. I started singin...

Chorus

Now for ten years we've been on our own and moss grows fat on a rollin stone but that's not how it used to be, when the jester sang for the king and queen in a coat he borrowed from James Dean and a voice that came from you and me, oh and while the king was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown the courtroom was adjourned, no verdict was returned, and while Lenin read a book on Marx, the quartet practiced in the park and we sang dirges in the dark, the day, the music, died. We were singin...

Chorus

Helter Skelter in a summer swelter the birds flew off with a fallout shelter, eight miles high and fallin fast, its the land that falled on the grass the players tried for a forward pass with the jester on the sidelines in a cast, now the half-time air was sweet perfume while the sergeants played a marching tune we all got up to dance oh but we never got the chance oh as the players tried to take the field the marching band refused to yield do you recall what was revealed, the day, the music, died. We started singin...

Chorus

Oh and there we were all in one place, a generation lost in space with no time left to start again, so come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack Flash sat on a candle stick because fire is the devils only friend, oh and as I watched him on the stage, my hands were clinched in fists of rage, no angel born in hell could break that satan's spell and as the planes climbed high into the night to light the sacrificial right I saw satan laughing with delight, the day, the music, died. He was singin...

Chorus

I met a girl who sang the blues and I asked her for some happy news but she just smiled and turned away, I went down to the sacred store where I'd heard the music years before but the man there said the music wouldn't play and in the streets the children screamed, the lovers cried, and the poets dreamed but not a word was spoken, the church bells all were broken and the three men I admire most, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, they caught the last train for the coast, the day, the music, died, and they were singin...

Chorus

They were singin... Bye, bye Miss American Pie drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry an them good ol' boys were drinkin whiskey and rye singin this will be the day that I die.

What about .45 GAP?

In my post "Why no .45 from Browning" I mentioned that I would kill to have a Browning HiPower in .45acp; but unfortunately you can't do it without making the pistol just a bit larger, and a good bit stronger.

A commenter posits the question:

"What would making a BHP in .45GAP give us in terms of

1. modifications to the design

2. Ballistics compared to the .357SIG and .40S&W

--Randy"

Which is a pretty good question, because the point of the .45GAP, is to allow for a .45 caliber pistol, with standard .45acp ballistics, in .40S&W sized frames.

The immediate tradeoff of the GAP is of course you lose a round in capacity to the .40; and that's if your slide has enough clearance, and enough strength with the thinner metal over the sides that it would necessitate.

It's no coincidence that Glock came up with the .45GAP, because it has some of the strongest pistols ever made, and theres PLENTY of clearance and thickness of metal in it's slides.

The problem is the case head dimensions on the GAP are still too large to feed in a standard BHP breech face. The Browning slide is about as thin as you can get for the .40. I'm not sure exactly how much wiggle room there is left in the .40 BHP slide for this; but it can't be much.

Hmmm... though with the external extractor it may not be as big a deal as in say a 1911, and the .45gap is still a low pressure round in comparison to the .357 sig...Honestly, I'd need to know the metalurgy a bit better, but I don't think it would work. The early production .40's had slide cracking problems already (though they were fixed with improved heat treating).

So, to chamber the .45GAP safely and reliably, we'd still need to thicken the slide just a bit (call it .05" probably).

The thing is though; I don't think the .45GAP would even be an improvement over the .40S&W

How can that be? Pressure. The .45GAP is very near it's pressure ceiling giving .45acp ballistics out of a much shorter case than the ACP. There isn't a lot of room voer velocity improvements, even in the lightest bullet weights.

The same is not true of the standard pressure .40S&W. In fact theres a HELL of a lot of overhead in the round; presuming a gun designed to handle it.

Given this, a hot and heavy +p .40S&W gives a lot more energy (165gr at 1250 fps 572ft/lbs) than the hottest .45GAP factory load (185gr at 1050fps for about 450ft/lbs).

Actually (and this is proven in street statistics, not just ballistics numbers) +p .40 is a better stopper than standard pressure .45acp in light bullet weights (say 165gr .40 vs 185gr .45). Theres only going to be a 20gr difference in bullet weight at that point, and only a .05 diameter increase with a velocity around 1050fps and 450 ftlbs ... Yeah, I'm giving the edge to the .40.

Now this is just taking standard pressure loadings of the .45gap vs. +p loadings of the .40 so is that fair? Well, yes; because there isn't a lot of headroom for the .45gap to push without running into serious pressure problems so there ARE no hot +p loadings, and there won't be (because there CAN'T be).

The same isn't true of the .45 ACP; which in +p loadings stomps over the .40 quite handily.

In a modern, properly prepared gun chambered in .45acp with a fully supported chamber and a heavy recoil spring, you can get 1050fps out of a 230gr bullet without too much of a strain (there are factory loads available), and handload up to 1150fps at the same weight if you are careful (though I wouldn't recommend it - SuperVel used to do it, but it was well over max pressure).

We can make more direct comparisons to the .40S&W by going down in bullet weight to the lightest standard .45acp (or .45GAP for that matter) at 165 gr. which is also the heaviest standard bullet for the .40.

With a bullet that light and a properly prepared gun, you can push 1350fps out of the .45acp without danger (from hot factory loads no less) for almost 670ft lbs, and handloaders have taken it to 1450fps (and 770ftlbs) but I think they're nuts. This is in comparison to about 1150fps from the .45GAP, and 1250fps for the .40.

The GAP comes off even worse in comparison to the .357sig. The only advantage the GAP has over the .357 is bullet weight and diameter. Of course thats a significant difference (about 40gr minimum, and up to 115gr maximum and .09 inch), but I'm still giving the advantage to the .357 over the GAP.

Considering the track record of ballistically identical loads to each, there is no question as to which is the better stopper, AND you'll have 1 more round of the .357 available to you.

I won't say the .45gap is useless, clearly it has decent defensive potential. What I think it is, is the new .41AE. Sure it's good, but it's redundant and doesn't give any advantage over the other options.

Yet more unsurprising...

You Are an Espresso

At your best, you are: straight shooting, ambitious, and energetic At your worst, you are: anxious and high strung You drink coffee when: anytime you're not sleeping Your caffeine addiction level: high

I'm not generally that anal, and a bit more impulsive, but yeah...

Your Personality Is

Guardian (SJ) You are sensible, down to earth, and goal oriented. Bottom line, you are good at playing by the rules. You tend to be dominant - and you are a natural leader. You are interested in rules and order. Morals are important to you. A hard worker, you give your all at whatever you do. You're very serious, and people often tell you to lighten up. In love, you tend to take things carefully and slowly. At work, you are suited to almost any career - but you excel in leadership positions. With others, you tend to be polite and formal. As far as looks go, you are traditionally attractive. You take good care of yourself. On weekends, you tend to like to do organized activities. In fact, you often organize them!

Been hit twice actually

You Are Lightning

Beautiful yet dangerous People will stop and watch you when you appear Even though you're capable of random violence You are best known for: your power Your dominant state: performing

Free at last...

So my hell contract is finally over with... Oh wait it's "On hold while {insert company here} re-evaluate their options and priorities".

Yeah, I can't tell you how glad I am to be out of there.

As a contractor you are used to being in position where you have all the responsiblity, with none of the authority to get things done, and none of the power to change it. It's part of the job. That said, I've never seen a company so willing to throw away money and effort over it's own internal politics (excluding public universities).

We had an architecture, that if executed properly, would work jsut fine even given the RIDICULOUS constraints we were under (15 year old, unsupported hardware and OS. No hardware solution allowed. No upgrades allowed... even wrose than that really); IF THEY WERE WILLING TO DO THE WORK NECESSARY.

But they werent.

The entier company is nothing but project managers managing project managers managing other project managers etc... and no-one really has any understanding of how to get a damn thing done.

The few actual hands on people they have left are so enmeshed in the job security assurance mentality that they wont accept ANY changes to the environemnt.

THey're supposed to add 40% transaction volume over the next year; and if they restructured their jobs and actually used their capacity effectively they'd have plenty. As it is, they're going to break the system completely.

Worse, they are supposed to have a hard migration date off their current platform by the end of 2007. They havent even started.

Free at last...

So I've got a really good Full Time perm gig lined up in about six weeks; and I need to find something to do in that time. I'm going to be moving into a new house (still just renting) by the end of this month so I'm glad for the time off, but income for that six weeks would be a useful thing. I hate spending off of savings with nothing coming in.

Technomancers Lament

Why no .45 from Browning

Everybody makes a .45 these days. In fact, almost everybody makes a few of them, including a 1911 clone. Even SIG makes a 1911 (it's called the GSR, and it's a very decent pistol). But Browning doesnt have a single weapon chambering .45acp in their catalogue... why is that?

Actually, at this point, the only cernterfire pistols Browning catalogues are the Hi-Power (the second greatest pistol design of all time behind the 1911):

Of course since SIG's copied their operating system from Browning, it's only fair that Browning copies back. I think I even remember there being some kind of deal between SIG and FN (Brownings parent company) about this gun, but I may just be halucinating again.

Parent company FN doesnt list any .45acp chamberings either... why on earth is that? The .45 is by far the most marketable choice here in the U.S. and we are by far the largest small arms market in the world...

There are a lot of folks out there who would just about kill for a .45acp version of the browning HiPower, including me.

See, I consider the BHP to be damn near ergonomic perfection (a small beavertail, a rowel hammer, a little lever and trigger tweaking, pull out the magazine disconnect if you are unfortunate enough to have one, and stick on a good set of grips and it's perfect). It's slim, it balances nearly perfect... overall it's a just plain excellent gun. In fact, in it's STOCK form, I'd say it's a better gun than the original 1911, 1911a1, and it's unmodified clones and variants. When it's done up right, as a custom gun... well I've got a pretty hard time picking between it and a custom 1911 really.

Problem is though, the BHP only comes in 9mm and .40S&W. Both excellent chamberings, but with everyone doing .45's why not Browning?

Now, if you want a BHP-like pistol; and dont mind a little extra bulk, you can get a CZ-75 copy chambered in .45acp. CZ, Tanfoglio, and IMI/Magnum Research all took the basic CZ-75 design (which itself was substantially based on the BHP only beefed up a bit and made a double action) and bulked it up considerably to take the .45 (and the 10mm in the case of Tanfoglio).

Honestly, that's not too bad a way to go. The CZ-97, and the Baby Eagle (the IMI CZ clone) are both excellent pistols, chambered in .45 acp. Unfortunately neither has quite the ergonomic feel and grace of the original BHP (both are a tiny bit thick through the middle and in the grip). See the BHP is just a tiny bit too small for the .45acp. It needs to be slightly scaled up for the length and girth of the cartridge by a couple hundredths.

In manufacturing terms, a couple hundredths is a big deal.

Personally I would LOVE to see a genuine BHP in .45; but can it be done at a reasonable cost without ruining the lines and feel of the pistol? I don’t think it can be, at least not by Browning. It would have to be subbed out to a firm with a lower cost of labor and manufacturing overhead.

So, barring the .45, I’d like to see Browning take their .40S&W version of the BHP, maybe reinforce it just a bit, and release a factory .357sig version. After all, the entire purpose of the .357 sig, is to give me near .357 magnum power levels, in a .40 sized frame. If I can't get a .45 it's an adequate substitute.

Make it in "detective" length (as FN have done on their own branded version, and the Argentines have been doing for a while in their clones), with the 4” barrel and full size grip frame, and I’ll buy it for my daily CCW in a heartbeat.