Completing the Collection

I got asked the horrible question the other night of "When will your gun collection be complete?".

Apparently the answer "Never." doesn't go over well in wife land.

We also have a disconnect on the meaning of the word "recent". In past conversations, my acquisition plans have been addressed along the lines of "How many guns am I allowed to purchase this year?". However, the conversation turned towards how many acquisitions I've made recently and I interpreted that as described.

So I answered honestly: "Four.".

• M1 Carbine
• Mosin-Nagant M1891/30
• MAS-36
• Martini-Henry Mark II "Nepalese"

I was wrong. It meant in terms of "how many since we've been together". Whoops! Well, then the list gets longer and it seems to apply back to the summer when we started dating and included two pistols I had on layaway before we met. If that's the case, then yes, the number is a little higher than four. There's the two pistols, an Enfield in there somewhere, a CETME battle rifle, FN FAL receiver plus parts kits, perhaps a Mosin sniper, a Swiss K.31 and a .22 target gun. So yes, "recently", I've purchased a little more than four guns.

Joking aside, my fiancee wants me to sock more money aside and I can certainly agree with that position. To her it is not just the guns but the attendant costs. Every gun show I pick up ammo or parts and that does add up. So she is asking when does it start to settle down?

I'd say I've pretty much reached that point and the purchases can made further apart. I need to start curbing my "wants". I need to start limiting my acquisitions to one or perhaps two at most per year.

So this got me thinking about which point would I consider my collection complete. Admittedly, no gun collector is ever finished collecting. More simply satisfied for the moment due to a lack of funds to continue acquiring for whatever reason. But I did think about what would have to be in my cabinet for me to be happy for say the next 2-3 years?

It turns out to be a pretty short list when I get right down it. I have to divide it into three areas: "must-haves", "would like to have" and "holy grail".

I did explain to her the economics of gun collecting. Quite simply, the longer I defer an acquisition, the more expensive in the future it will be. Guns are one of the few goods that don't suffer much depreciation. They always acquire value steadily until reaching a plateau. They'll still increase in value but at a rate in relation to other like types on the market. But the more rare the type or if the supply dries up, prices will shoot up and keep going for some time.

I'm trying to avoid that. I'd rather spend $700 now than $1400 two years from now.

But when I got right down to it, must list really isn't all that bad. So here are my lists:

Must-Haves

I would consider my collection immediately complete with the following guns present in the cabinet:

• M1 Garand ($650-$900)
• Springfield 1903A3 ($550-$1200)
• M96 Swedish Mauser (rifle or carbine) ($300-$500)
• Martini-Henry Mark IV ($595-$795)

That's it. These are the holes I would like to fill and give me examples of all of my favorite or nice-to-shoot guns out there. Everything else I already either have or the means to complete. Hence why the FAL and AKs are absent since I have means to complete them by assembling the parts I have on-hand or will have shortly. As are AR-15 based rifles since I already own three and I can build additional variations by assembling new uppers.

$2000 would acquire all four of my "must-have" guns along with a small quantity of ammunition for each. I'd be happy to stop there for a while.

Would Like To Have

Now on to the "would like to have". These are "opportunity" guns. Guns that if presently and I have the means, permission and opportunity, I would like to have them. Unfortunately, some of these tend to get pricey:

• Remington 870 "Tactical" ($300+)
• Russian SKS ($450+)
• Springfield M1A ($1400-$2200)
• MAS-44 ($700+)
• Egyptian Hakim ($450-$800)
• FN-49 ($800-$1100)
• Snider-Enfield Mk.III ($750-$1200)
• Enfield .22LR Trainer ($450-$850)
• Martini-Enfield .303 ($350+)
• Martini-Henry .577/.450 Carbine ($400+)

These would round out the collection to the point I could sit back and sigh happily for a long time. The monster acquisitions on that list being the M1A, MAS-44 and FN-49. Just because of sheer cost and availability. I consider the M1A to be between "like to have" and "holy grail" status since it is the only remaining .308 NATO battle rifle I do not possess. But to complete the triad, I will eventually want to acquire one. I already have the remaining two members.

The one I would really like to have of them all is the Enfield .22LR trainer. For the simple reason it was the first gun I ever fired in my life as an Air Cadet. I have fond memories of that experience and would like to repeat them. The Enfield .22 conversions are really fun to shoot.

Holy Grail

Then comes the last list. These are the "holy grail" acquisitions. These are what I lust over. I'd sell kidneys to get these. Odds are at least one will grace my cabinet within the next decade. This list is much shorter for a reason:

• Barrett Model 95 or Model 99 ($6500 and $4000 respectively)
• FN SCAR Mk.17 "Heavy" (Expected 2009 MSRP of $2500)
• M1919A4 semi-auto ($1800+)
• FAMAS ($10K+)

Given the price tags involved, it is easy to see why these are in "holy grail" status. It isn't a long list but it is obvious the reason why any of them would be the centerpieces of my collection. Given a choice of Barretts, I'd opt for the Model 95. At that price point, a $2500 difference isn't all that much given the cost per shot. If I'm going to spend several thousand dollars on such a gun, I might as well enjoy the one I want. But if I needed a "budget" Barrett, I'd settle for the Model 99.

The SCAR "Heavy" I just plain want. Don't care about practicality. I just want a carbine length, modern .308 caliber rifle. I like the ergonomics of the gun. Sorry, no justification save pure, unadulterated, boy-toy lust.

The M1919A4 would just be cool to own. I would want that to bring to group shoots and let new shooters sit behind it on the tripod. Come on, a belt-fed, tripod-mounted semi-auto rifle that isn't even an "assault weapon" under cosmetic definitions. What's not to like other than cost? To me, it is Title 2 fun without the hassle.

Lastly, the FAMAS. These puppies are incredibly rare. I've only ever found two listed anywhere for sale in the past ten years. I know, who on Earth would want a French bullpup rifle? Sorry, can't complete the "Rifles of the Foreign Legion" set without one. I have two members of that set, the third is on the "like to have" list (MAS-44) and the FAMAS would take me into modern day. If I am ever sufficiently wealthy to commence the search, I might have one someday.

My reward on the day of my US citizenship will likely be one of the rifles on one of these lists. I dream about it being the Barrett. Time will tell though.

But taken together, this would represent my total collection along with everything else I currently own. The only issue would be whether I would be willing to part with any of them in retirement.

Would you?

Holiday Cheer

Yes folks, I am still alive. I apologize for the lack of posting lately. Been absolutely slammed at work trying to get this software project deployed for testing and it has been one problem after another. I have been working 12 hour days for the past two weeks and just haven't had time to get material together.

On a brighter note, I did make a holiday purchase. Here is my latest acquisition, on its way to me as my holiday bonus:


It's a French MAS 36 bolt action rifle. It will be a nice companion to my MAS 49/56 carbine. It's very pretty and based on the photos provided by the FFL as seen above, it is in very good condition. I got it for a good price.

So alas, yet another (chamber) mouth to feed. I know, feel sorry for the woes I must endure. And because it is a French rifle, it needs a special diet of 7.5mm French. Fortunately, that is not hard to find with several dealers at the Chantilly gun show so I will stock up in February. It's not like there's a lot of folks out there with rifles in this caliber so I am sure I can play "Let's Make a Deal" on a decent quantity.

Happy Holidays everyone! Back after Christmas/Hannukah!

A Thought Exercise

I would like to engage you in a thought exercise.

At age 18, you become a legal adult with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. Except for one. You don't have the right to vote immediately. Instead, in order to vote, you have to prove yourself worth of such a responsibility. To do so, you are required to do the following:

1. File Federal and State income taxes for five continuous years. You cannot be eligible to vote until you have five years of taxes on file at the time you wish to register to do so.
2. Paid any Federal and State taxes owed and have no taxes outstanding at the end of those five years.
3. Have been convicted of no crime greater than basically a traffic ticket or non-violent, non-drug or non-gun misdemeanor from age 18 onwards. Anything else disqualifies you for life.

Only after those five continuous years of filing and paying taxes and been a good, upstanding person with no history of violence, drug or gun violations (to name but a few) can you claim your right to vote as a citizen. But you have to claim the right for yourself before you can exercise it. Think of it as a "shall-issue" voter card.

What do you think? Crazy? Insane? No one would stand for it? Riots in the streets at such a violation of your rights?

Interestingly, what I've just described to you is the process any US permanent resident has to go through (minus the "voter card" application) in order to get US citizenship and earn their right to vote. There is a lot more to it than just this but these are the major items on the checklist.

I bring this up in the light of the election and comments in many quarters about how something needs to be done about how elections are run and who should, and more importantly, who shouldn't be allowed to vote in them. Of course, the moment you begin seriously suggesting limiting the voting franchise or imposing requirements on it, people go absolutely nuts.

The notion of an earned franchise is not unique. I first read about the concept in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. I've found over the years that a number of you are in support of such an idea in theory but don't know how it would be implemented in practice. Everyone gets twisted up over the fact that someone, somewhere will be stripped of their right to vote by someone else.

Hence my thought exercise above. Why not simply impose the procedure you already apply to those seeking citizenship in this country to those already here? After all, you force potential citizens to demonstrate fine, upstanding behavior before you give it to them. So why not demand it of the native-born as well?

Admittedly, merely suggesting the necessary amendment to the Constitution to limit the franchise in this way would make for interesting news and television for some time to come. But maybe it might start to get people thinking about civic duty and the responsible exercise thereof.

For example, from an article on CNN today regarding the sad state of Illinois politics:

Two years ago, most Illinois citizens suspected what they now know about Rod Blagojevich. But on Election Day, fewer than 37 percent of the eligible voters in Illinois went to the polls and a majority of them elected him to another four-year term. In order to fix Illinois politics, we need to start by taking a long look at ourselves in the mirror.

37 percent of people eligible to vote did so in Illinois to elect their corrupt governor.

37 percent. Barely over one-third. Which means two-thirds of the voting public didn't bother or even care about their voting rights and let them languish.

So, do people who care so little about their rights deserve to keep them without showing they value them?

It wasn't always the way it is now. If you study the history of the United States, you will find the notion of popular franchise wasn't even supported by the Founders. It was only meant to be exercised by property owners. Subsequent modifications to the Constitution extended the voting franchise to everyone. Call it progress, I guess. But not all progress is good in my opinion.

Maybe we need to regress a little. Make the right to vote universal, to be sure, but make sure you understand it well enough to exercise it in a responsible manner and actually treat it like the cherished right it is supposed to be. Too many citizens simply don't care about it and certainly wouldn't miss it in anywhere from 30-50% of the population if past voting turnouts are any indication. They wouldn't even realize they were missing anything of value at all and would simply go about their lives unaffected.

Right up until they want to change the system. Then they'll realize how valuable that power can be and earn it. And by my definition, it would not be difficult to do so. Most law-abiding citizens would qualify. For those between 18 and 23, you have five years, minimum, to prove yourself worthy.

I bring this topic up because in the wake of such discussions about voting and possible limits on it, you also often hear the media report on new citizens voting for the first time. It has been pointed out by Kevin and many others that naturalized citizens tend to be fiercely proud of their citizenship, go to great pains to exercise their duties and responsibilities under it and tend to be very protective of their rights as compared to many native-born citizens.

Maybe it's because we hold those new citizens to a higher standard. To force them to be what one would desire from the citizenry as a whole but a majority fail at. Perhaps it is time that the average citizen be made to actually earn a right they too often crow about and then turn their backs on or denigrate as some kind of entitlement they can simply waste and toss aside.

I think we need to change that. A right fought for is cherished, appreciated and defended than one simply handed to you without condition.

Thoughts on my little exercise?

A Sordid Christmas Story

CNN had this article up regarding the movie "A Christmas Story" that has become a sort of modern Christmas tradition for many Americans. I like the movie even though my Christmas tradition was the black-and-white version of "A Christmas Carol" starring Alastair Sim.

What I want to point out in the article is an amusing case of journalistic restraint. From the article:

"It transcends generations. It doesn't matter if you're 5 or you're 85, you always remember that one particular holiday... when you wanted that one particular gift," said Scott Schwartz, who played Ralphie's friend Flick in the film.

Schwartz was 14 when he was cast in the movie, appearing in one of its most famous scenes: Flick's tongue freezes to a metal pole when he touches it on a dare.

"It's very funny to have the world's second most-famous tongue: [KISS frontman] Gene Simmons and me," Schwartz said.

Filming the scene was actually much less excruciating than it looked. The pole was made of plastic with a suction tube inside and a little opening for his tongue, Schwartz said. When he touched it, the vacuum effect made it look like he was stuck.

"It was an absolutely painless experience other than the bitter, bitter cold," Schwartz recalled.

Cable hit

Schwartz still keeps in touch with Peter Billingsley, who played Ralphie and continues a career in show business. Billingsley, 37, most recently produced the Vince Vaughn-Reese Witherspoon comedy, "Four Christmases" and had a cameo in the film.

(Emphasis mine).

Note the highlighted portion regarding Scott Schwartz above. I find the whole "continues a career in show business" line to be absolutely hilarious.

In addition to playing Flick in "A Christmas Story", Schwartz also played "Eric Bates*" alongside Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason in the movie "The Toy". So he had a start as a child actor playing at regular roles.

It's the afterward that the article writer seems to have understated. You see, after "A Christmas Story", go check out Scott Schwartz's entry on IMDb and look at his work after "A Christmas Story". Right around 1996.

Yup, our wholesome child actor became a porn star.

"Continues a career in show business". Snort.

Good weekend everyone!

* In "The Toy", Eric Bates was a rich, spoiled brat referred to as "Master Bates" by the household staff. Little did Schwartz know at the time such word play was a prediction of things to come.

Why Take Up Arms?

Dock, in relation to this post, asks:

I have read, and re-read, your post with a certain fascination.

Please do not mistake my tone for anything more than sheer curiosity... but...

... your position is that you would take up arms against the Quebecois if they declared sovereignty? Why would you feel the need to do that?

The short answer to your question Dock is: Because a unilateral declaration of an independent Quebec state would have been illegitimate and the ramifications of that action unaddressed would have torn Canada apart.

Now for the long answer...

The minority separatists, the Bloc Quebecois, felt that the French-speaking population of Quebec and its associated culture deserved special status within the fabric of Canada. Specifically, the right to set their own language laws and culture protections that, if enacted anywhere else in Canada, would have been highly discriminatory if not outright illegal.

For example, language laws that would have prohibited the use of English in commerce (government, signage, education, etc) within Quebec's borders despite the fact Canada is a billingual nation. Don't speak French in Quebec? Oh well, suffer.

Many of these types of "one rule for me but not for thee" laws already exist in Quebec.

The separatists also believed the interaction with and culture of Anglophone (English-speaking) Canadians diluted the distinct character of Quebec. Over time, they felt that eventually Quebec would cease to be "French" and Francophone (French-speaking) Canadians would simply be another minority just like any foreign enclave within the country.

As a result and because past history at the time of Confederation gave Quebec a stated "distinct personality" within Canada, there has been conflict between the two languages and cultures.

Over time, this has manifested into a call for special recognition of Quebec as a special province unique and distinct against all of the others and deserving of special protections. The separatists felt that the Federal system didn't go far enough to protect Quebec's distinct character and culture and that long-term, the Federal system was conspiring against them.

This first manifested with the FLQ terrorist bombings and acts in the 1960s and 1970s. Later, it arose in the desire to alter the Canadian constitution to bring "equality" to Quebec and recognition of its "distinct society" status within Canada. These were the Meech Lake Accords (1990) and to a lesser degree the Charlottetown Accords (1992), both of which failed to pass.

Since the question of Quebec's "distinct society" status and its failure to be recognized, some separatists felt their only option was to pursue the prospect of unilateral separation. This they began to push toward as they gained power at the Federal and provincial levels in the 1990s.

The issue with many Canadians wasn't the idea of Quebec separation per se but rather how they wanted to go about it. Canada in many ways is divided along language lines (among others) but once you got outside Ontario and small French enclaves in other provinces, most Canadians didn't really care if Quebec wanted separate. It was the "how and what" that bothered them.

Quebec wanted to become an independent nation within Canadian borders. But they wanted to retain the Canadian dollar as their currency and continue to receive Federal funds from the rest of the country to support themselves. They wanted the ability to set tariffs and control trade at their borders. They wanted control of all Federal facilities within Quebec's borders upon separation including government buildings, military installations (which included CFB Bagotville, the primary East Coast fighter base) and Federal projects such as the hydro dam in the northern section of the province. All without compensation to the rest of the country.

Suffice it to say, this pissed off the average man or woman on the street. Most of the people I talked to about this at the time it was happening shared the opinion if they wanted to go, let them go. But they were to be treated like a petulant child running away from home and cut off from further support. What angered everyone was this "have their cake and eat it too" approach that the rest of Canada would essentially be subsidizing their independence.

Sorry Quebec but that just not how it's done. If you become independent, you sink or swim on your own and you sure as hell don't do it with money and facilities that were paid for by the rest of the country. If they wanted to keep them, they were expected to pay for them.

Given that set of circumstances, can you understand the anger and resentment the rest of the country felt at Quebec engaging in a private referendum to go their own way? Especially given that they weren't consulting with the rest of the country to ask what they thought of it?

So why take up arms against it?

Many reasons and I will try to be brief.

1. The separatists were primarily concentrated in the south in Quebec City. Outside of Quebec City in the rest of the province, rural areas and Montreal, most people were happy with the status quo. By engaging in a separation vote, this small band of extremists in a small area were deciding the future for the rest of the Quebec population.
2. Roughly 80% of the rural areas of Quebec were not French but belonged to or were claimed by various Native Indian tribes such as the Cree. Since they already had special recognition and privileges under the Federal system, they had no desire to depart Canada. Who spoke for them? How would their interests have been resolved?
3. Any seizure of Federal facilities would be seen as outright theft by other Canadians.
4. It would divide members of the Canadian Forces since some would choose to violate their oaths to Canada and side with Quebec. There would be serious chain-of-command and control issues with that not to mention theft of military equipment to the Quebec side by sympathetic personnel who felt their loyalty lie to their language rather than the country.
5. An independent Quebec would be able to exercise control of the strategic St. Lawrence seaway that could have been detrimental to the rest of Canada upstream near the Great Lakes but as well as the United States. How would that affect sovereignty and agreements that affected access to the seaway with a rogue breakaway on its shores?

And lastly:

By Quebec engaging in a unilateral separation, it would both weaken Federal authority and give rise to similar thoughts among various other provinces who had grievances within the Federal system. Notably the Western provinces who often see themselves as distinct societies and resentful of Federal interference in their life and affairs. Sound familiar?

It would have only been a matter of time before such a small matter over perceptions of language and culture would have ripped the country apart as factions began looking to have their issues addressed. Worst-case, the country would have fragmented into smaller states and who knows what the outcome of that would have been?

But it can be said it would not have been good for the country at the time and would have likely caused severe churn, economic collapse and conflict among people, their communities and between various language and racial groups. How long would a vibrant mixed culture such as Canada survive in the face of such squabbling? Not long was my guess.

The taking up of arms would be in an attempt to reign in Quebec's overreach on their part for independence before it had a chance fragment the country beyond repair. Hindsight as a result of the Canadian Supreme Court decision that decided the "Quebec Question" shows that Quebec, on its own, had no legitimate authority to unilateral depart Confederation. They did not meet internationally recognized thresholds to form their own nation-state by rebellion.

They were not an oppressed people in any identified area. In fact, the Court found precisely the opposite that the rest of the country bent over backwards to keep Quebec happy. Their language was not oppressed. They were not persecuted for religious reasons. There were not subject to discriminatory laws on account of their race, culture or beliefs.

In short, they were acting like two-year olds and expecting Canada to give them whatever they wanted.

It might have been solvable politically but I and many other Canadians would see it as an act of rebellion at the rest of the country's expense. That could not be tolerated. Quebec, honestly, had no case or grievance strong enough to shatter Confederation on its own. I would have fought to prevent it from doing so.

I don't often speak of national or cultural pride but Canadians like Americans, by and large, are principled people. We will fight for principles we hold dear and try to correct the wrongs we perceive. It takes a lot to push a Canadian to violence but once pushed, they will persist doggedly albeit with a heavy heart, to accomplish what needs to be done so they can go home and back to living quietly.

Many of us would fight on principle. To correct the unfairness at Quebec's actions. To rescue those caught in the middle who didn't want to separate. To restore what was taken from the rest of the country. To punish those who placed their own selfish interests over the stability and integrity of everything Canada stood for as a tolerant, principled, multicultural nation.

Others may disagree but that is my perception on the situation. Most of my friends shared similar views. My parents generation was even more outspoken in them.

Or, if you prefer, I would take arms to fight against what I would have rightly perceived would have been an act of high treason by Quebec's leaders. I am supported in this by the fact that at the time, Lucien Bouchard, the premier of Quebec, used a Canadian government plane and taxpayer dollars to fly to France and ask if France would support an independent Quebec as brothers-in-arms. The President of France rightfully did not involve himself in answering to that request.

Had any State governor done that Americans would have been forming lynch mobs outside the State Capital. But the Quebec Premier got away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist. By rights, he should have been tried and shot.

Treason is as good a reason as I can think of to take up arms.

Does that help?

Dock follows up with:

Part of the reason I ask is that, as a Texan, the establishment of a new Republic of Texas is something that gets bandied about from time to time (happened before, you know.) It's legal for us to do so, as I understand it.

Would you advocate taking up arms against Texans for doing so?

Interestingly, I spent my first 18 months in the USA in Texas. So I know about Texas statehood and its special provisions for declaring independence. Whilst we can argue whether or not that is still a right for Texas to exercise, you ask would I advocate taking up arms against Texas for separation?

Not initially, no. For the simple fact that unlike Quebec, Texas has codified into its founding documents the arguable legal authority to do exactly that. Other states do not, I believe. Whether the rest of the country would see Texas separation as legitimate is an open question but Texas could at least point to actual historical documents that led to their statehood and say "Yes, we have the right to do this.".

Whether arms would be taken up against Texas by the Federal government would depend on the manner of Texas' departure. And around the various issues within Texas towards how it would interact with the remaining United States, their treatment of Federal property within its borders and what its demands on the rest of the country vis a vis what the conditions of their independence would be.

But if Texas simply held a vote, declared independence and gave the rest of the country the big Texas salute without rhyme or reason, I probably would support the raising of arms against it. Especially if said independence was done by the State government with no input or attention paid to the populace-at-large.

Sorry for the long-winded answer. I hope this satisfies your curiosity or at least serves as the venue to ask further questions. It is fascinating stuff and in my case, not abstract.

Investment Advice

A conversation at work recently went something like this...

Co-worker: What are you doing to deal with keeping to lose money in this economy?

Me: I'm investing in commodities.

Co-worker: Really? Which ones? Gold, silver?

Me: No. Can't afford gold or silver. I'm investing in copper, brass, lead, steel and aluminum.

It took them several second to realize what I meant. Others got a chuckle out of it. Right now, my investment strategy looks to be paying off.

To The Threshold

You want to know one of the differences between the Armed Canadian and my American compatriots?

You've never had to contemplate actually bearing arms against your own countrymen in your lifetime.

Sebastian and others have talked about the "Three Percenters". Like everyone, I have my own "line in the sand" and when I think it would be appropriate to engage in armed revolution. I just don't discuss it.

Despite the respect I have for any "three percenter" who publicly and proudly states "here and not one step further", I am going to state that you are nowhere near the threshold of action.

Yesterday, some of you may have seen the headline along the lines of "Canadian Prime Minister Suspends Parliament". Now, an average American reading that headline would think that a coup was breaking out north of the border. The reason they would is because they are applying their own world view and experiences with American government and would equate that with "President Fires Congress". Here, it would be a blatant, Unconstitutional power grab and oiling and loading might be an appropriate response.

In Canada though it's politics as usual. The actions of the Canadian PM were perfectly legal and done according to procedures long laid down. Now, had the Prime Minister asked for an indefinite suspension of Parliament, there better have been Inuit zombie hordes shambling down from the Arctic or a sudden disappearance of the national supply of poutine to warrant such an action and get the Governor General to go along with it.

Such was not the case on October 30, 1995.

On that date, the province of Quebec held an internal referendum on whether or not to secede from Canada and form an independent country. And let the rest of the country sit by and watch while they did it.

The referendum failed by the slimmest of margins: 50.58% No to 49.42% Yes.

Had it passed, the separatists in Quebec had plans in place to entice Canadian Forces officers to defect to form a new Quebec Army, seize Canadian Forces fighter jets and facilities within Quebec as well as Federal government facilities.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a "Three Percenter" scenario.

Most Americans aren't aware this ever took place unless you were in one of the border cities near Ontario or Quebec. I'm sure Buffalo and upstate New York heard about it as did folks in Vermont. The rest of the United States was probably clueless as to just how close Canada came to open civil war.

I'm serious about that. I sat with friends and family as this played out in the weeks leading up to the referendum and during the night the results were tallied on the news like it was just another election and talked about "what if?". It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that had Quebec voted to leave and then actually tried it, arms would have been taken up to prevent it.

It would have torn the country apart. In recent conversations with my best friend back in my hometown reflecting upon that time and events since, I believe Canada would have ceased to exist as the country we know it as today. My homeland is only intact today because of a margin of less than one percent in a vote where the wayward province decided the opinion of the rest of the country didn't matter.

To this day, there is an active, if minority, separatist movement. Their party holds many seats in the Federal government in Canada. The issue arises every decade or so. The 1995 referendum was the second referendum on the issue. One shift in public opinion or an single, unpredictable event may be all it takes for Quebec to get enough support to secede.

My homeland would cease to exist if that happened.

I was there. I sat and discussed the prospect of bearing arms to rein in a breakaway Quebec in order to save my country from national disintegration.

Here, this would have been the equivalent of a repeat of the circumstances that led to the American Civil War minus the issue of slavery. But imagine governors holding internal votes in the public sphere on whether to break away from the Union. You can't. I'd say an average American can't fathom such a thing happening. What grievances would be so bad as to challenge the very fabric of the nation and threaten outright rebellion if they weren't corrected?

That's serious stuff. We aren't even close to that threshold. If you want to know where one of my "lines in the sand" is, that's one of them. Even then, you'd have to be able to demonstrate to me that armed conflict was the only way to save the country in some form rather that let the states go and deal with the consequences.

There were no such options in Canada. National destruction was the expected outcome as the political and cultural differences in a post-secession Canada would have been too great to overcome.

Something for you to contemplate if you think we're on the edge of the abyss here. I've been a lot closer to the edge than most of you have and I dare say I didn't much enjoy the destination that awaited me.

Draw your lines carefully, my friends. Those steps cannot be reversed so think long and hard before contemplating taking the first one.

Evil on the Porch

Happiness is getting a package from DSA!

Inside were things to make Baby Obama cry. We had long, lethal, accuracy enhancing flash hiders (two of them!), a hip-hugger, blood rage pistol grip, those murderous high-capacity 20 round magazines that no mere mortal civilian can possibly control and worst of all, a tome of pure, undistilled, pants-wetting horror: an AGI armorer's course for the FN FAL on DVD which includes instructions on how to build a baby-killing, puppy-maiming nigh uncontrollable, black-hearted, high-powered bullet hose from a parts kit!

The box even had black burn marks on the sides where the evil within had burned away the manufacturer's marks on the outside. A hint perhaps?

Call it an early Christmas present. Unfortunately, without the heart of the beast, the hammer/trigger/sear kit, I really can't assemble the rifle. I've been running down the list and it is not possible for me to be 922(r) compliant without either the HTS kit or replacing the barrel. At this point, I am looking at ordering the medium contour barrel from DSA. I prefer to have the HTS kit simply because with it, I fall well below the "10 or less" parts threshold as required by law and allows to me to either use foreign or US made furniture.

If these are the worst decisions I have to make over the next couple months, I think that's a good thing. But I do think I will be placing a second order and getting more 20 round magazines. 9 is ok but I'd prefer 14 or 19. If a permanent ban on standard capacity magazines happens, those cheap FN FAL magazines become good investments. I keep 7-9 of the best ones and sell the rest at a tidy profit.

Personally, I'd prefer to not be in that position. Happy times ahead!

Quote of the Day - Volokh Edition

I don't normally do "Quotes of the Day" but this one is too good to let go. From the comment thread on David Kopel's treatment of Judge Wilkinson's disagreement about Heller comes this beauty from user NaG on the Volokh Conspiracy. Specifically, against Judge Wilkinson's notion that the Courts should defer to the legislatures in matters of regulating rights as much as possible.

I worry about the notion that the government should always win a tug-of-war between delegated power and individual rights. That seems to me to be the exact opposite inclination borne by the Founders, and for good reason.

(Corrected spelling for 'borne' vs 'bourn' in the original comment).

I'm going to use that one. Thanks NaG!

100 Things Meme

Greg did it so here's my list...

1. Started your own blog. - You're here, aren't you?
2. Slept under the stars. - Yes. Many places.
3. Played in a band. - No. Can't play an instrument to save my life.
4. Visited Hawaii. - Someday. Want to get my "4 Iowa-class battleship card" and USS Missouri is #3. Also want to visit the Keck Telescope. Told you I was twisted.
5. Watched a meteor shower. - Yes. Perseids and Geminids.
6. Given more than you can afford to charity. - Sure.
7. Been to Disneyland. - Not yet. When/if I have kids it is almost an American requirement.
8. Climbed a mountain. - Appalachians count? If so, yes since I am under two hours from the Blue Ridge Mountains.
9. Held a praying mantis. - It hitched a ride on the fur of one of my cats sitting on the apartment porch. She went nuts chasing her tail. Took it off and let it go.
10. Sang a solo. - Tone deaf.
11. Bungee jumped. - When I want to simulate suicide, I might.
12. Visited Paris. - No. I'll do it when I've hit bottom and I'm standing outside the gates of Fort de Nogent.
13. Watched a lightning storm at sea. - Yes. At night on a Royal Carribbean ship this past summer.
14. Taught yourself an art from scratch. - Sure. Model building.
15. Adopted a child. - If I can't have one naturally, yes.
16. Had food poisoning. - Yes.
17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty. - Nope. Never been to NYC.
18. Grown your own vegetables. - Yes.
19. Seen the Mona Lisa in France. - No.
20. Slept on an overnight train. - No. Day trips only.
21. Had a pillow fight. - Of course. Sometimes loaded the pillows down to make them more effective versus siblings.
22. Hitch hiked. - Nope. Not interested in becoming lunch for the next Jeffrey Dahmer.
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill. - Sure. Call them "I.T. Holidays" or "Mental Health" days as Greg says.
24. Built a snow fort. - Many. Not allowed to build them with the entrance facing the street for fear of being entombed by snowplows. School used to show this film showing kids getting buried alive every winter. Thanks Canada!
25. Held a lamb. - At a petting zoo,
26. Gone skinny dipping. - Yes. Alas, no girls.
27. Run a Marathon. - No thanks, I like my lungs in my chest.
28. Ridden in a gondola in Venice. - Not yet.
29. Seen a total eclipse. - Yes.
30. Watched a sunrise or sunset. - Even seen a green flash once.
31. Hit a home run. - Only in gym class.
32. Been on a cruise. - Many now.
33. Seen Niagara Falls in person. - Yes. Lived an hour away and didn't see it until I was an adult.
34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors. - Which set? Yes and No. Yes because my grandmother was born in my hometown and been to the house where she was born. Both my parents were born in my hometown a few blocks apart. No because my grandfather and all subsequent relatives on both sides came from various parts of England.
35. Seen an Amish community. - Called them Mennonites. I'm claiming this one.
36. Taught yourself a new language. - Do programming languages count? Otherwise no since I was forced to learn French.
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied. - Not yet because I am still working. I don't need a lot, just enough to let me pursue my mostly intellectual hobbies without having a pressing need to work. I want to work for pleasure, not survival.
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person. - No. Want to.
39. Gone rock (wall) climbing. - Yes. Loved it. A great way to teach someone the true meaning of the word "trust" and gives you a "yes" for #89 since you can't belay without saving someone's life each time they fall. Especially if you're lead climbing.
40. Seen Michelangelo’s David. - Some day.
41. Sung karaoke. - You'd have to pay me a large sum of money. Both for my embarrassment and the torture I would be inflicting upon others.
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt. - On the list.
43. Bought a stranger a meal at a restaurant. - Do dates count? I think so, so yes.
44. Visited Africa. - On the list. Egypt is in Africa.
45. Walked on a beach by moonlight. - Yes.
46. Been transported in an ambulance. - No. Hope to never do.
47. Had your portrait painted drawn. - Corrected: Yes. My mother took her favorite childhood picture of my sister and me and had it done up as a watercolor.
48. Gone deep sea fishing. - No.
49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person. - Perhaps someday.
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. - See #12 above.
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling. - Yes. Love being underwater.
52. Kissed in the rain. - Yes.
53. Played in the mud. - I fed my sister mudpies as a kid. My sister loved dirt. She nearly fainted as a child on her first visit to a beach since there was so much dirt, she didn't know where to start.
54. Gone to a drive-in theater. - Yes. In both countries even.
55. Been in a movie. - No. Have missed opportunities to do so though.
56. Visited the Great Wall of China. - On the list.
57. Started a business. - Almost but no.
58. Taken a martial arts class. - No.
59. Visited Russia. - Want to. I want to go to Monino.
60. Served at a soup kitchen. - No and I'm now officially a selfish, heartless bastard.
61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies. - Yes. For girl scouts in the family.
62. Gone whale watching. - Not yet.
63. Got flowers for no reason. - Yes, actually. From my fiancee at my office.
64. Donated blood, platelets or plasma. - No. Needles make me squeamish. Would need lots of money to do it. So yet again, I am a selfish, heartless bastard.
65. Gone sky diving. - Been offered three times in my life to do it for free. Turned it down each time although I am not afraid of heights, I have this fear about parachutes failing and I see no reason to throw myself out of a perfectly good airplane.
66. Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp. - I think it should be required for any fool who denies history. I want to go to one to make sure others will never forget. That will be at the end of a vacation because it will not be pleasant. A cousin in my family wept openly at Auschwitz upon seeing his family name listed there. He couldn't take it.
67. Bounced a check. - Only once and not deliberately. I am very careful about such things.
68. Flown in a helicopter. - I'd like to. Perhaps even become a rotary wing pilot. Always thought a helo pilot would be a fun second career.
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy. - My Teddy bear. Among others.
70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial. - I live near it.
71. Eaten Caviar. - Yes.
72. Pieced a quilt. - No but not because I can't sew.
73. Stood in Times Square. - No.
74. Toured the Everglades. - Not on foot. Flown over them.
75. Been fired from a job. - Yes and proud of it.
76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London. - No.
77. Broken a bone. - Yes. Nose.
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle. - The fastest I have ever gone on land was on a bike. Redlined my little Ninja in top gear just to see if I could do it. Extremely stupid and something that was only done once. But it was a rush.
79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person. - On the list. Will be a stopping point along with Davis-Monthan.
80. Published a book. - Want to. I have ideas for several that I write on sometimes.
81. Visited the Vatican. - No. Probably shouldn't risk that one (the whole "struck by divine lightning" thing).
82. Bought a brand new car. - Yes. Learned the meaning of the words "don't ever co-sign for anyone" the hard way.
83. Walked in Jerusalem. - I will be doing that. I live in a Jewish household.
84. Had your picture in the newspaper. - Yes. In middle school.
85. Read the entire Bible. - I have as a teenager.
86. Visited the White House. - Despite living in the area, I haven't had the desire to.
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating. - Fish. Tried for deer and failed. Haven't had the urge to hunt tree rat yet but I think I have the basics down to turn those little pests into tasty stew.
88. Had chickenpox. - Twice. Didn't develop enough immunity the first time as a child so I got it again at 23. That's no shit serious stuff right there but came out of it without any problems. Very odd. My family doctor had never seen that in his entire 45 year history of his practice.
89. Saved someone’s life. - Every time I rock climbed and my partner fell, so yes.
90. Sat on a jury. - No. Didn't get called in Canada and I am not yet eligible here.
91. Met someone famous. - Yes. The Mythbusters. Updated: Dick Heller too.
92. Joined a book club. - Military book club. They keep bugging me to sign up again but Borders is cheaper for the same books.
93. Lost a loved one. - Of course.
94. Had a baby. - No.
95. Seen the Alamo in person. - Yes. Smaller than you might think. The Riverwalk in San Antonio is nice though.
96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake. - Want to. I want to see that part of the country someday.
97. Been involved in a law suit. - No. Prefer not to.
98. Owned a cell phone. - Own one now as my only number and owned one in college when it was unheard of to do so.
99. Been stung by a bee. - Yes. Thankfully not allergic.
100. Read an entire book in one day. - This is a complaint I have heard since childhood by parent and spouse alike. I read at 2200 words per minute with comprehension if I put my mind to it. So yes, consuming not one but several books a day is possible for me with ease. I can do two or more a day on fiction. Technical subjects will slow me down since I am after more retention. This is also one of my great skills in life and I am pleased to have it. Books are cheaper than drugs.

Holiday Fun

Joanna has her thoughts up on her shooting introduction. Go give it a read! I'm glad she had fun and sorry about her bruise. Yes, Joanna, tucking the stock into the pocket of your shoulder will prevent that from happening. Hence why I use AR-15s and not Mosin-Nagants! I come home with bruises from those rifles.

They gave us a little holiday bonus here at work! Just enough to cover the cost of a milsurp. Yours truly now will not feel guilty about finding a MAS 36 to add to the collection. I know. I'm twisted. But I need a companion to my MAS 49/56 and I just like stuff carried by the Foreign Legion. Debating only whether I should wait until February for the next Chantilly show. One dealer has had a MAS 36 for the past several shows. Do I wait and see if he still has it or just go on GunBroker and find one there? There are always several available (not exactly a common, popular milsurp) in roughly the same price range. Decisions, decisions.

DSA has shipped my FN FAL parts! Well, most of them. I got the confirmation e-mail that indicated the HTS (hammer, trigger, sear) set was back-ordered. But everything else in this first round is coming. Good. Now I'll have the tools to disassemble the lowers and prep them for when I do get the HTS set.

On the subject of FAL lowers, I've gained some knowledge. My two Imbel kits have complete, functional lowers. Including the full-auto sear. I could flick the selector and the hammer would cycle without being caught. Just as it should in a machine gun. I had always thought that mere possession of those parts in the presence of its semi-auto counterpart was illegal. You can buy NFA parts through the mail but you are required to know the laws that apply and remain in compliance with them.

So I was freaking out that by having my FAL receiver in the presence of an unmodified FA lower that I was engaged in "constructive possession". Given that, I got the lowers out of the house and stored them with a friend with the idea that I would disassemble them off-site once I had the proper tools and dispose of the FA fire control parts before bringing them home.

There is where the knowledge part comes in. You see, until I am actively working on a project, I don't immerse myself too deeply into the details. Now that I've started towards assembly of my FAL, I am lining up the information I need to complete the job and I began to look seriously at the lowers. It turns out my paranoia was unfounded.

You see, I was applying the AR-15 standard with regard to full-auto. In that gun, a full-auto sear can function in it with the necessary illegal modifications to the semi-auto lower. So I simply assumed the FAL lower for civilian semi-autos operated similarly. Not thinking that the BATFE would never permit a drop-in sear to be sold with a parts kit if it could. In all other cases such as the AK, the full-auto parts are removed and destroyed as part of the demilling process since all it would take to install them illegally into a semi-auto receiver is to drill a hole or remove some metal.

Not so in the FAL. What I learned is in the FN FAL, it is the upper that determines the usefulness of the full-auto parts. Not the lower. There are cuts that need to be present in the FAL upper receiver to allow the full-auto sear to function. To make a FAL permanently semi-auto those cuts are simply not made. As a result, you can stick an unmodified full-auto lower onto the rifle and even with the selector on the automatic setting, the gun will still only shoot semi-auto. The missing cuts in the upper receiver prevent the full-auto sear from fully travelling and permit it to disconnect from the hammer. As a result, the full-auto setting is just another semi-auto setting.

Hence why my FAL lowers are fully complete with the full-auto parts. They cannot be made to function on a semi-auto FAL upper receiver without machining the receiver to accept them. And since we all know merely making the attempt serves as prima facie evidence of attempting to manufacture an illegal machine gun, it isn't an issue. Turns out it is just like the AR-15 but in reverse. I did not know that.

So I stored my lower receivers away from the semi-auto upper for no reason. They're home now waiting for disassembly and cleanup. Once I get the HTS set, I'll be able to assemble one with compliance parts, a semi-auto only selector (which can't travel to the full-auto position), US-made furniture and new springs. That's half the rifle right there and saves me money since I don't have to buy a US-made lower like I thought I had to.

The things you learn. Another piece of gun trivia I'll never forget now.

The only remaining decision on the FAL is whether or not I want to install and index the barrel myself. That requires a receiver wrench, a barrel vise, a bench vise and a breaker bar. Essentially, you screw the barrel into the receiver until it can't go in anymore. That will leave it some number of degrees off-center. You clamp the barrel in the barrel vise, put that into the bench vise and put the receiver wrench on the receiver. Attach one breaker bar (a long one) and crank just right so the receiver is perfectly lined up with the top of the barrel. Requires a little bit of strength to do this (hence the breaker bar).

The problem with this is if you screw it up by going too far, you strip the threads of the receiver or over-torque the barrel. Too little and the barrel and gas tube don't line up. It can be done in a basement with simple tools but is a pain to get right.

You also need the tools to do it. They cost nearly two hundred dollars for all of them.

DSA offers gunsmithing services. So I am giving serious consideration to buying my barrel, tell them to sit on it and sending them back the receiver that took them six months to get to me along with the needed gas system parts. Then have them install and check the barrel for me have them more or less complete the upper for me. That will cost $135 or so and not require me to buy tools. Big toss-up. With shipping of the receiver back and forth, it almost evens out.

What do you think I ought to do?

Such are the things that happen over the holidays.

Musket Questions

Greg of West, By God, posted a question to me on this post:

Does anyone use original muskets for reenactments? Do you know anything about the value of originals?

I found an interesting one for sale locally... I'm trying to figure out if its a good deal or not. It looks like a springfield 1863 with the breechloading modification.

To answer your first question, Greg, the answer is "Yes, absolutely!".

Many skirmishers use original weapons. Prices vary but a good condition, shootable musket will run anywhere from just under a thousand dollars all the way to the five figure range. The bulk of original period rifle muskets will set you back $1200-$5000.

In some cases, originals are the only models of a particular gun available. The Austrian Jager rifle musket is such a gun. To my knowledge (admittedly limited), no one makes a reproduction of this fine two-band musket so all the guns of this type are originals. Most sell for between $3000 and $7000. $3000-$4000 seems to be average for these guns changing hands.

Another example is the Maynard breech-loading carbine. Although reproductions are available, they cost more than a good quality original. Hence, virtually all of the Maynards used in the skirmishing carbine competition are the real deal. A Maynard will run from say $700 for a beat-up but serviceable examples up to $2500 or more for one in exquisite condition. $1200-$2200 seems to be average for these guns and an $1800 Maynard is a nice gun indeed.

These are just two examples. Many skirmishers use original guns or parts of them. Several of the old muskets have bores that are worn out beyond use so they simply have them relined and keep them shooting. From the outside, you'd never know. This, of course, diminishes their collector value but for a rifle musket that is rusted and worn away to be a smoothbore, most of the value is gone already unless it is a really rare type. Most aren't so they get fixed up and put to good use.

And yes, some skirmishers use original, unmodified muskets. You will find original muskets worth many multiples of a thousand dollars shooting next to $600-$800 replicas. In many cases, the old guns shoot just as well as the moderns. Sometimes, all it needs is a good shooter behind the trigger. Some people are purists and will only shoot the originals. Make of that what you will. To me, a skirmisher shooting an original will be taking good care of it and it is a cool thing to see that 150+ year old gun being put to use once again albeit peacefully.

Nowhere else will you get to see and touch so much history in one place.

To your second question Greg, in looking at the link you provided (which I omitted here deliberately to give you first crack at it), I'd say the price being offered on that Trapdoor Springfield is pretty average for the type. A commonplace Springfield Trapdoor in fair to good condition will run in the $800-$1300 price range. I've seen several nice examples in that range. Provided the gun you provided is complete with all parts, functional and the bore looks to be in ok to decent shape, I'd say snap it up. Without more detail on the manufacture date and cartouches, that is all I can recommend. If it is a rarer type, that price is not only good but an absolute steal.

If you plan to shoot it, be fussy about the action, chamber condition and especially the bore. For a black powder with shooter potential, it better work when the trigger is pulled and have no serious pitting, rust or corrosion on either the inside or outside of the barrel. Some pitting on the outside is ok but inside it more critical. Better to spend a few dollars more to get a better condition example that you can shoot than to hang a cheaper one on the wall and have to spend the money again on a usable one.

Hope this helps!

New Shooter Report #4

On Saturday, I did another new shooter introduction. In this case, it was a regular reader who maintains her own blog. Joanna and Jonathan were down for Thanksgiving and Joanna asked if I would be willing to do an introduction for her. Although being pro-2nd Amendment, she felt she was hypocritical for having never handled or fired a gun. This she felt needed correcting and asked for my assistance. I was happy to oblige!

Like past introductions, this one followed what has become my standard pattern. We met up at the NRA Range and I spend the time introducing the new shooter to a pretty standard mix of firearms.

Joanna and her husband Jonathan arranged to met me at 11am on Saturday at the NRA Range in Fairfax. I got there early and found the parking lot packed. That did not bode well and sure enough, the waiting list was a mile long. I got on the list immediately and waited for them to arrive. They did so shortly after I got there.

Both signed in and did the range test. Afterwards while waiting for our lanes, I went over the four rules, showed them some of the different cartridges the various guns I had brought along fired and did some preliminary prep since I knew the time on the range would have to be maximized.

After about 45 minutes, I was called, got up, paid for the lanes and targets (Jonathan was shooting on his own with a couple of pistols he had brought along), got our eyes and ears on and headed out onto the range proper.

I unpacked the guns as quickly as possible. Hence the preliminary step of unlocking the cases and removing the cable locks from the guns that had them before we went out. I laid out the guns we were going to use and in what has become a tradition, I had brought along my usual six introduction guns plus a seventh. For Joanna, she would get the opportunity to shoot the following:

• Heritage Single Six cowboy revolver in .22LR
• Walter P22 semi-auto pistol in .22LR
• Sig Sauer P220 in .45ACP
• Eagle Arms AR-15 tactical carbine in .223
• Eagle Arms/Bushmaster A2 AR-15 rifle in .223
• Savage 93R17 bolt-action rifle in .17HMR
• Inland USGI M1 Carbine in .30 Carbine.

If you're familiar with my prior introductions, you'll recognize the first six guns. They have become my "standard package", so to speak. Since I had room for one extra in the cases I brought along my M1 Carbine. This was new since I have only had the rifle since July and I felt a new shooter would find it a fun and comfortable rifle to shoot.

While Jonathan took up residence on the lane next to us, I started Joanna on the Single Six revolver. This is a really fun gun for new shooters. I showed her how to load the gun by going to half-cock and feeding the rounds through the loading gate, safety, going to full cock, grip and sight alignment. After going through it, I rolled a Shoot-N-See target out to 3 yards and let her load up the pistol. In short order, she had put 6 rounds neatly in and around the bullseye. A very good start.

I asked if she wanted to do another string with the Six or move on. She indicated although she would like to try it again, she stated she wanted to try all the guns first and then come back to the ones she liked. That was fine by me so we moved on to the P22.

After getting used to the controls, which are more numerous on the semi-auto, and loading the magazines, she put 20 shots into the center of the target. She was surprised at getting pelted with brass but didn't have any issues other than momentary surprise. I guess when you've only shot a revolver which doesn't eject brass, having shiny bits of hot metal pelting your arms and hair can be a bit disconcerting. Despite that minor issue, she handled the P22 fine.

The only thing I did notice was she was gripping the pistol too far back on the first magazine. The web of her hand was off the backstrap. The second magazine she tightened it up. Not a criticism, just a correction. The revolver doesn't exactly promote a solid grip.

Next we moved onto the .45. She had some trepedation with this gun given its size. I went over the controls and explained it was pretty much the same as the P22 minus the external safety and the presence of the decocker. I then handed her the unloaded gun to get used to.

She had trouble getting the slide to release. This is not an uncommon problem with smaller shooters and is no way a slight on Joanna or anyone else. The recoil spring in the Sig is very stiff and a lot of males who've never handled a full-frame .45 like the Sig have trouble with it. I did when I first got it. I've had several years to get to know that gun inside and out. She hasn't.

So I loaded 4 rounds into a magazine and handed her the loaded pistol. I don't want a new shooter frustrated with a gun they aren't familiar with and may not choose for themselves. I brought it along because a) I have nothing else larger than a .22LR and b) to expose the shooter to a typical pistol one would find in a gun shop. Which is all this was intended to do. She fired four shots, put them low and center on target and handed the gun back to me. She didn't like it and I'm fine with that. The big .45 is not for everyone. Should I ever find myself doing this on a very regular basis (say once a month), I will likely invest in additional pistols and long guns solely for introductory purposes.

With the Sig out of the way, we went back to the revolver for another string since she stated she really like that gun. By all means, play away! Another cylinder out of that and we rolled the target in and switched to the rifles.

Rifles are my thing. I'm a rifleman so I prefer to see new shooters behind them. They're easier to shoot and will usually get folks grinning in short order. First up was my sweetheart rifle, the Savage 93 in .17HMR. I always start rifle introduction with this gun. It gives someone experience with a classic scoped bolt-action "hunting style" rifle but without the kick but with the accuracy. I sent a target out to 50 feet, showed Joanna the basics of operation and let her have the bench. Ten supersonic cracks later, we had ten little holes, many overlapping, on the 8 inch target.

Joanna was smiling by this point. I brought the target in and set it aside as a keeper. For a first timer with any rifle, that was good shooting and I always want new shooters to have conversation trophies for later. Unlike a lot of other newbies, she didn't attempt to steal my gun during or after the session. Odd, the Savage must be weakening with its mind control powers. Most people want to take it home as their own.

Now it was time for the big boys, the teasers. Joanna had specifically requested exposure to "evil black rifles" and I wasn't going to disappoint her. She got to see them when I first unpacked them and they had been laying in the booth as temptation. It was time for her curiousity to be satsified.

I brought up the shorter carbine first. Mainly because it is now configured with the holographic sight and the collapsible stock, it was an easier rifle to shoot. I had trouble on my last intro with the AR-15 using the iron sights. Not everyone has an easy time getting a usable sight picture with the peep-and-post. I think new shooters try too hard to get that perfect sight picture rather than relax and let natural biology win out. The holosight on the other hand provided you can see the dot or circle or cross means you'll hit what you're aiming at. It is a much more newbie friendly setup.

(For fellow bloggers and folks introducing folks to black rifles, I highly recommend fitting a holosight. EOTech is obviously the best (and I will be refitting my carbine with one soon) but even the cheap $70 NCStar four-reticle holosight I bought on a gamble has worked out well. It does hold zero. It is a great investment for introductory shooting.)

I showed Joanna the controls in the order they would be used. She observed that it seems confusing at first but makes sense once you do it. It does seem that way given what seems to be a lot of switches and buttons to use a gun but is actually the same number as on a pistol. They're just scattered around both sides of the gun hence why it seems complex.

But she got it quickly, sat down, set the rifle on the bag and I handed her a magazine. I guided her through the step and once she was locked and loaded, I stepped back to let her fire away. 10 shots appeared in nice, ragged hole at the center of the target. Now she was grinning. She now understood why I told her the AR-15 is all bark and no bite before we went onto the range. Lots of new shooters associate the loudness of a gun with how hard it must kick. Everyone knows a loud 12 gauge shotgun packs a punch in the shoulder and we hear stories about smaller shooters nearly getting knocked over by one. The AR-15 is loud therefore it must kick hard.

Joanna had just learned it does not. She found it quite easy and gentle other than the loud noise. Especially indoors inside a booth which amplifies it. I handed her a second magazine and she sent those rounds downrange with the ease of the first. I'd say she was hooked.

We brought the target in and switched to the standard rifle. I explained how to use the sights but otherwise, all the controls where the same. A fresh target went out wand she fired twenty rounds into it with ease. Very nice shooting for any first timer using iron sights.

We saved both targets. Great shooting and Joanna can now claim her "Evil Black Rifle" shooter's card.

Given time was running short, we came to the last gun of the session, the M1 Carbine. I explained that it was essentially very similar to the AR-15 in operation and behavior. In fact, I told her the M1 Carbine was the World War 2 equivalent of it. Similar weight, firepower and capacity. Since she was familiar with the sighting system, I showed her the controls and sent out a new target. Twenty rounds, twenty holes. The only issue she had was not using the bolt handle with authority. The little M1 really needs to be pulled back and just allowed to fly forward. The bolt hung up for her on both magazines. We also had a couple of "failures-to-eject" but that seems to be an ammo issue. Other than that, the carbine did wonderfully and that target was added to the collection as we got the five minute warning from the RSO.

To cap off a great hour, I told her to pick up the AR-15 carbine and handed her a twenty round magazine with instructions to simply get them off as quickly as possible. She had been suffering from a little triggeritis when she was firing it previously and I think she needed to work on treating that condition while I started to pack up. Acknowledging the disease is the first step towards treatment but alas, I think the only proper treatment for triggeritis is a generous application of plentiful ammunition. But Joanna did her best and perhaps may never acknowledge her affliction, perferring to live in blissful ignorance. That's fine; most shooters suffer in loudness the same way.

With that rapid-fire blast, the session was over. We packed up, cleaned up and headed off-range.

All in all, I'd say Joanna had done well as any newbie shooter often does. She showed no fear on the range and was very open-minded and willing to ask questions. By the latter half of the hour, she didn't really need me except to clear issues as they arose. I'd say she was comfortable with the guns and enjoyed shooting them immensely.

Afterwards, we adjouned for lunch at the nearby watering hole I usually hit after the range and chatted about a variety of topics. Joanna and Jonathan are from New Jersey so their gun laws came up. They agreed those laws suck badly and make places like Maryland and especially Pennsylvania across the river much friendlier to gun rights by comparison. So I am sympathetic to their plight. It is unfortunate that day-to-day life can force you to curtail otherwise desirable law-abiding interests. I despise New Jersey for what they do to nice law-abiding people like my guests.

I do have to point out some geekery that occurred during the visit. Jonathan turned up at the range with a shirt labeled "HHS" with "Harrington Steading" written underneath it. I think I took him aback when I said, "David Weber fan, eh?". It is the first time I've met anyone who was a fan of the Honorverse series of books and he definitely out-geeked me by wearing that shirt. I was duly impressed.

I also impressed him in turn when talking about gaming interests and the subject of FASA games turned up. We got to talking about miniature wargames and we were both players of Warhammer 40K. I mentioned my first miniature game was Battletech and how I enjoyed FASA games but my real favorite was a series called Renegede Legion. I caught him offguard because he asked which one. Running into a Weber fan isn't too hard to do. Running into someone deeply familiar with the Renegade Legion series of games is almost as hard as winning the lottery and I was stunned he knew the games well. Much geek talk commenced across the table.

In all, we chatted over lunch for over two hours before we finally had to get going so Joanna and Jonathan could start heading back to the Garden State. Both had enjoyed themselves immensely and I was very pleased to have helped out a pair of regular readers of my blog. So thanks Joanna and Jonathan for a wonderful time! I enjoyed meeting you and hanging out with you both on and off the range. You have a standing invitation to look me up anytime you're in the DC Metro area. If you enjoyed the NRA Range, you'll love the Chantilly Gun Show or a trip to Quantico if the timing is right!

If Joanna has any comments to send me, I'll post them here at her request or point you to them on her own blog here.

Rack up another notch on the New Shooter's tally. Much fun was had by all!