"Combat: "Kill Or Be Killed" 1943 War Department; World War II; US Army Training Film" (10 min.). Words of wisdom from back when we fought to win wars.
- "Keeping hot barrels accurate"--Idaho State Journal. The author writes:
Anyone who has spent time at the range shooting high-powered rifles knows that sustained fire or continuously shooting without letting the barrel cool down between strings of shots will get the barrel so hot that accuracy will suffer and shots can be thrown off a couple of inches. It isn’t hard to fire a military-style rifle in semi-auto mode at 100 rounds a minute, and many owners of these rifles do just that at times when shooting at the range.
Even when shooting a semi-auto rifle in rapid fire mode, an enormous amount of heat is generated, which can quickly ruin a rifle barrel .
The leade, which is the unrifled portion of the barrel just forward of the chamber as well as the first few inches of rifling, are subjected to enormous temperatures approaching those on the surface of the sun as well as pressures exceeding 50,000 PSI during rapid-fire exercises.
He then discusses different types of barrel construction and coatings that can reduce wear and tear from heat: using a long heavy barrel, chrome lining, nitriding, and carbon wrapped barrels.
- "Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass-shooters worldwide debunked; figure less than 1.5 percent"--Fox News.
- "LIVE FIRE RANGE WORK IS NOT ENOUGH"--Gabe Suarez. He lists what is missing from square range practice, or even competition, including context in relation to an enemy, a visual start signal from the enemy, visual processing of information to justify your actions, reactive movement, ability to develop and practice techniques. He then gives a broad overview of how to fill the void.
- How's that gun control working for ya? "Lorry Driver Caught Smuggling Guns into the UK"--The Firearms Blog. Police found 10 Heckler & Koch P2000 pistols, each packaged together with some ammunition.
- For when you want to reach out and touch someone: "Top 5 'Budget-Priced' .50 BMG Rifles"--Shooting Illustrated. "Budget" is relative in this case. The least expensive is $1,850.
- "Mil-Dot vs BDC: Considerations for a DMR Part 2"--The New Rifleman. The author suggests that one of the considerations should be whether you have the time to put in the training required for using the Mil-Dot system, an especial problem when we have wife and children on top of our work schedule:
If your time is precious, a fixed BDC system may be the best option for you. Having a bullet and reticle matched system makes sense if you don’t have lots of time for the deeper learning curve of the mil system. A good BDC reticle will have several tools on board to allow you to range, hold for wind, and to match your drop. Are they perfect? No, they are limited… but in some cases so is our time. Having the ability to pick up a rifle after months and hit targets from 0-700 yards with a single load / optic is no joke…
- "Why I Carry a Spare Magazine"--The Defender Blog. The author lists reasons such as "no one ever complained about having too many bullets," and that the magazine helps balance out the weight of the firearm, but the primary reason is in the event of a malfunction caused by the magazine in the firearm: "The truly important factor – the most likely item to fail on a modern semi-automatic pistol is the magazine."
- Of course, if magazine problems worry you, you can always carry a revolver: "Tested: Ruger GP100 Seven Shot Revolver"--American Rifleman. My main criticism of the GP100 series has always been the full underlug. It made the Colt Python look more powerful, but on the GP100, it has always seemed to me to make the gun just look bulky. I might be biased, however, because I cut my teeth on a Security-Six.
- "A MATTER OF PURPOSE: STRIKER FIRE VS. HAMMER FIRE"--Small Arms Defense Journal. From the article:
A hammer fire’s disadvantage is the inherent delay caused by rotational travel of the hammer. While this delay is negligible, it is present, and its travel timing must be accounted for in automatic weapons. Secondly, in autoloading firearms like the AR, for example, the hammer is cocked by the bolt carrier group passing over it on the recoil back stroke. The opposing force of the hammer dragging on the base of the bolt carrier group causes wear if not lubricated. It can also slow the rate of fire or cause a failure to eject, or a failure to feed malfunction if not maintained and lubricated properly. In some blowback operating system designs, hammer drag is used to time the rate of fire by slowing the slide’s or bolt’s backstroke.
* * *
Why then do most military assault-style weapons and machine guns utilize hammer fire? The answer is subtle and little understood. Because the hammer rotates on axially and is powered by a spring, its mass can be made more robust (heavier) than a striker. Additionally, the fact that it springs forward on an axial pivot point allows its inertial travel momentum greater leverage and thus, a consistently harder strike upon the firing pin / primer. Therefore, the rotational operation of the hammer mass provides a more energetic primer strike.
- "DIY: Make a Bug-Out Kitchen in a MOLLE Pouch"--Baugo Blades. The pouch the author used is a 200 round SAW pouch. In it, he was able to cram a basic mess kit, cooking stove and fuel, means of lighting it, and some seasonings and coffee. Good ideas, in my opinion, so check it out.
"Outlawing White Neighborhoods & Freedom of Association"--Red Ice TV (11 min.)
A damning critique of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act. Not for the faint of heart.
- The big news story dominating the headlines is the anonymous op-ed in The New York Times yesterday. The author of the op-ed, entitled "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration", claims that he (or she) is a senior official in the Trump administration. I'm sure that you have seen many commentators already dissect the piece and give their opinions regarding the character (or lack thereof) of the author. But there are a few quotes in the op-ed that stuck out.
For instance, the author attempts to justify his and other's work to undermine or stymie President Trump by claiming "[t]his isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state." Trump, of course, was elected on the basis of his promise to change course. Those in the government that want to keep the old course in defiance of the American people are, ipso facto, the Deep State. They are the ones that need to be rooted out and, metaphorically speaking, dangle from a light post.
More evidence that the author is a Deep Stater and globalist: he complains that the President "displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations." What nations? What ties? What "like-mindedness"? The WTO?
The author also whines that the President isn't a true RINO because "the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people," and "President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic." By "free minds," I can only suppose that the author means "enslaved to the main-stream media"; by "free markets," he means "outsourcing our industry to China"; and by "free people" he means "crushed under the heels of the Deep State."
Another telling point is that the author bemoans the fact that the President is not like the recently departed traitorous (see also here) and duplicitous John McCain:
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
McCain was the quintessential RINO. He and those like him were what the American people rejected when they voted for President Trump.
There are many speculating that the author was Mike Pence, because of the use of the word "lodestar"--apparently a phrase Pence has used on occasion. I didn't even associate it with Pence because the phrase was most famously used by Justice William J. Brennan in a 1985 speech, where he proclaimed:
Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline. The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked. Its majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure. This ambiguity of course calls forth interpretation, the interaction of reader and text. The encounter with the constitutional text has been, in many senses, my life's work.
Perhaps the author used the phrase to throw people off his scent, but I think that it was used purposefully as message to readers that the author is opposed to a strict construction and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and favors judicial activism: i.e., he is opposed to Brett Kavanaugh being nominated to the Supreme Court. The phrase is also used in a vague formula that the federal courts employ in determining attorney's fees for civil rights litigants. So, it suggests that the author is or was an attorney--perhaps an attorney with the DOJ?
- "Those stupid Americans as seen in the eyes of our superiors"--Fabius Maximus. Commenting on a New Yorker political cartoon suggesting that America can only be led by its self-appointed philosopher kings, FM observes:
The twentieth century is noteworthy for [the elite's] great experiments confidently conducted on a vast scale, with entire peoples used as lab rats. They devised and implemented communism, destroying nations (e.g., Russia has yet to fully recover). Urban experts remolded cities, destroying communities – leaving behind the wreckage of today’s inner cities.
Now they are conducting even larger experiments. Bolder experiments. Such as radical changes to gender roles, a foundational stone to our society. Opening borders to people from drastically different cultures, driving massive demographic change. Both campaigns are being conducted at fantastic speed, guided by nothing but ideology.
- Heh. "China Is Getting Less Bang for Its R&D Buck Than Peers"--Bloomberg. "Data on patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty show that for every $1 million in R&D expenditure, China generates 0.08 patent applications -- that’s less than half the OECD average, and below Japan, South Korea and Germany." The author attributes the inefficiency to centralized planning.
- According to our so-called betters, illegal immigration is a victimless crime: "Accused Sex Murderer of Mollie Tibbetts, Cristhian Rivera, Worked as 'John Budd'"--The Unz Report. Key point: "Farm officials have said Bahena Rivera presented an out-of-state photo ID and a Social Security number when he was hired in 2014, and they believed he was the person depicted in those documents until his arrest last month." Also, "Lori Chesser, an immigration employment lawyer advising the farm, said that companies cannot discriminate against workers based on how they look or how their names sound."
- My oldest son has been of dating age for several years, and I've tried to give him useful advice when dealing with the opposite sex, as opposed to the feel-good pablum that was dished out to me. So, I've paid attention to articles that deal with dating and marriage issues. One I recently came across was "The LDS Dating Problem" from Mormon Red Pill. Essentially, the post is a response to the lectures from Church authorities over the past decade chastising young men for not being proactive when it comes to dating. These comments are because of statistics showing declining dating and older marriage ages among young single adults in the Church. The author suggests, however, that rather than blaming the men, it would also be helpful to look at the single women:
So what is her response to all of this male attention, and why isn’t it leading to dates and finally marriages? She responds to this attention in the following ways:
1. “Uw, get away from me you unattractive creep.”
2. Avoids him as much as possible, and talks trash about him to all of her girlfriends. (Do you think he will have a chance at dating any of them?)
3. Keeps him around, because it’s nice to have a guy friend. Never sees him in a romantic light. Does hang out with him (although he might actually count this as a date or a move towards a date, she doesn’t). She probably thinks he is a really nice guy, would make a great husband, for some other girl, but not her.
The author adds:
Young men that fall into the third category think they are doing their part. They are going on “dates” with a girl. They go over and talk to them. Take them out to eat, and other small trips. However, the girl never sees any of this as a date, or anything romantic. It is just a couple of friends “hanging out”. It only counts as a date if she is attracted to him. She really does think he is a great guy, but as I have said before, always for another girl. Although pretty obvious to pretty much just about everyone but the boy, he doesn’t stand a chance with her. Unfortunately, no one bothers to tell him. Especially the girl because then she would lose him as a friend.
I disagree with the author on one point. Based on my experience back when I was dating, I believe the girls know that the guy is trying to be romantic, but, although they don't reciprocate, they also don't want to drive the guy off because they love the attention ... and free meals, movies, etc. I learned pretty quick that if there were no sparks by the second or third date, it was time to move on.
In any event, the author also suggests that women have become more picky because they are more focused on developing their own careers over marriage (at least, in their 20s).
Most women seek after a career for a much different reason, they want the status it brings. They have bought into the lie that their life cannot be complete without a good education and career. Being a mother isn’t enough anymore. They must be more. However, in their pursuit for a good career, they only increase their own perceived status. They do not increase their attractiveness to men. Men can care less about a women’s status. Men only care about two things, good looks and a nice personality (spirituality being included with the personality). So as women are busy increasing their status and not increasing their attractiveness, they are making their pool of attractive men smaller and smaller. Eventually, only the highest status men are attractive to a majority of the women, and those men have lots of options.
In my singles wards, and those I have observed after getting married (having worked closely with college wards and students), there are 3-4 young men actually dating, 2-3 young men that all of the girls want, and the rest of the young men.
However, this impulse in women doesn't go away, and, combined with no-fault divorce, drives divorce according to the author of "See how women’s calculus of marriage shapes America." The author of that piece notes:
Husbands are needed to father children. Husband’s work helps in their first few years. But once the youngest is in school, the calculus changes. Child support will extract money from husbands, so that women can pursue their separate destinies.
Women are raised to value their independence. We consider it commendable to put such values of mercenary considerations.
Women are often raised to see themselves as leaders (e.g., in school, in sports, in Girl Scouts). Most men grudgingly accept wives as equals; few accept wives as leaders in marriage. Divorce resolves this struggle for control.
There are indications that women rate most men (roughly 80%) as below average in physical attractiveness, and hence lower than them. It is another example of the Pareto principle. The best known is a study by the dating ap company OkCupid of their internal data. They deleted it (very un-PC), but fragments remain (e.g., here). The most detailed explanation is in Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity–What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves by OkCupid co-founder Christian Rudder. Others have replicated its findings on small scales (e.g., here). So many women will feel that they have married down, vs. their hypergamous “instinct” to “marry up.” This makes them more willing to divorce.
Update (Sept. 7, 2018): Added reference to the Fair Housing Act.