Boomershoot and the Vatican

Background:

And back to present day for a comment from Katy Zatsick on Facebook:

Barbara, don’t know if you remember when I asked Joe to help me get Pink Smoke? 2005. There is now a movie called “Pink Smoke over the Vatican” which is the herstory of our RC women priest movement (a movement for justice and authority in the most misogynist institution to exist). The Pink Smoke in Chicago is in it! I get to tell the story of how it came to be as I have shown the movie to 3 groups so far and it is scheduled to be shown here in SCC next Sunday! And it all came to be because of the boomer shoot.

If you watch the slide show here long enough you will see a pot of pink smoke. I helped make that happen.

Quote of the day—Robert Higgs

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

Robert Higgs
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Multiple failures

In December I noticed there was a small amount of snow dusting a table in the back end of the shipping container (aka Boomershoot Mecca) we use for Boomershoot target manufacturing. It had come in through a vent in the ceiling.

The vent is to keep it from getting too hot in the summer time. If the ammonium nitrate gets too hot it will undergo a phase change and change from prills to dust. We require prills for easy detonation.

I figured plugging the vent for the winter shouldn’t be a problem. So I plugged it and didn’t give it a second thought.

I didn’t count on a leak in the roof at the opposite end of the shipping container.

WP_000525Corrected

Even if I had imagined the leak I wouldn’t have thought it through.

What happened was the shipping container got a fair amount of water on the floor near the door. The shipping container gets pretty warm (maybe a 15 F increase above ambient on a windless sunny day) inside. This drove a lot of moisture into the air. The air probably stayed in the 80% to 90% relative humidity because there was no venting with the cool dry air from the outside. When the sun went down the interior temperature dropped and the air became supersaturated with water. It condensed on essentially everything. Not good.

I had thought things through enough when placing the container that I had about four inches of drop between the back end and the door. This meant the water drained toward the door rather than back to the cardboard target boxes and the chemicals. It destroyed one cardboard box that had stuff that was essentially immune to moisture like tie-wraps, wires, and bungee cords. But because of the lack of venting the water was migrating to all interior surfaces as the temperature cycled. All because I had not thought through the consequences of not having a vent in the winter simultaneous with a roof leak.

I think I caught it soon enough that it didn’t do any serious damage. One mixer was acting strange but I think I can fix it.

I fixed the roof leak and removed the plug from the vent. Then I put a tarp over the “drop zone” for the snow that might blow in through the vent.

WP_000527Corrected

I’ll inspect again when Barb L. and I go back for a visit later this month.

Charge imbalance

WP_000525_2Web2013

The contents of the cottage cheese container is Boomerite surrounding a cardboard tube containing glass frit around a copper bar. The bottom of the cardboard tube makes contact with the bottom of the cottage cheese container.

Take a guess which direction the bar will travel when the Boomerite detonates.

IMG_3965Web2013

If you guessed slightly up and to the right you would be correct. See the red circle in the picture above.

The backstory is that Ry was trying to make a piece of art. It was mostly a failure.

IMG_3979Corrected

Next time it will be a five gallon bucket instead of a three pound cottage cheese container. Oh, and we will be about 250 yards away so Ry won’t have to worry about it coming out of orbit on top of him.

IMG_3977Corrected

A zombie outbreak in Moscow Idaho

Via email from Mike B. we have a letter from the mayor and city council of Moscow Idaho advocating for a kitchen sink full of gun restrictions including an “assault weapon” ban, magazine restrictions, ballistic fingerprinting, armor piercing ammo ban, explosives ammo ban, recording ammo sales, mandatory safe storage, waiting periods, elimination of private sales, restricting the number of firearms purchased in a given time period, and all guns be sprinkled with fairy dust daily.

It appears the zombie infection broke out far from the front lines. Don’t worry. We know how to handle it.

Gun cartoon of the day

FeelSafeNow

The only thing demonstrated by this cartoon is the artist does not have a clue about the issue, nomenclature, or the scale of various firearms.

Quote of the day—Phelps

The fundamental difference between them and us is that we think they are stupid, and they think we are evil. Thinking we are evil justifies, in their minds, all the offenses and abuses they heap on us.

It’s been a good thing that this division existed, though, for a long time. I say that because when we think we have confronted evil, we destroy it.

Phelps
February 4, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Sebastian
[He has some very good points.—Joe]

Nobody is trying to take your rights

Never underestimate the stupidity or gullibility of people.

I’m not sure if Moan-ami thinks we are gullible or they are just incredibly stupid. But who could believe these two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time? Let alone say them in consecutive sentences?

Nobody is trying to take away your gun rights. Just military style assault weapons and limiting magazine gun clips.

Those guns and features most subject to attack are those in most need of protection, and are protected, by the Second Amendment.

All you need to know

The anti-gun people keep changing the definition of an “assault weapon”. Is it two or one “evil features”? Does it have 10 or seven round capacity? Does it have to have a pistol grip or just a thumbhole stock?

All you need to know is what the ultimate definition will be. When RebelNOTRacist asked:

Please define for me what you mean by “assault weapon.”

Gail Cornelius candidly responded with:

Anything that is no[t] muzzle loaded.

Quote of the day—Ann Tinkham

If Freud were alive today, he just might contend that gun-obsessed guys in America never made it out of the phallic stage. With such a fun plaything, who would want to—right? If you substitute “penis” for “gun” in our national discourse, you’ll understand the gun thing. The right to bear a “gun.” Obama’s not going to take away my “gun.”

Gun owners contend that they should have the right to a concealed carry and should be able to stand their ground, in other words, whip it out whenever they feel threatened or whenever they feel like it period. Whip it. Whip it good.

If you’re reading this and you’re filled with indignation, you may just need a high-capacity gun to make up for your shortcomings. In the meantime, I’d recommend some good old fashioned Freudian analysis to move past the phallic stage.

Ann Tinkham
January 23, 2013
Freud and the Right to Bear Arms
H/T to timmytink (@timmytink) who, on January 30, 2013, tweeted:

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Amazingly enough there is a lot more in her blog post. What isn’t amazing is that my friendly comment congratulating her on becoming QOTD for a Markley’s Law Monday was in moderation for a while then deleted (Reasoned Discoursetm!). Anti-gun people are so predictable. It’s no wonder we have names for their behavior. I’ll bet evidence of Peterson Syndrome would be easy to find too.

She really gets into the gun equals penis thing. I started wondering if it was penis/gun envy or simple deprivation. It doesn’t really matter though. Dr. Joe’s cure for everything should solve her problems.—Joe]

It’s linear but does it scale?

Paraphrasing Ry as we discuss the fireball for Boomershoot 2013:

One pound explosives one gallon gasoline, no problem. 14 pounds explosives, 14 gallons gasoline no problem. The gasoline is damping the explosion and it’s not breaking any windows. It’s linear! So, 1000 pounds of explosives and 1000 gallons of gasoline should be fine. Right? What could go wrong?

As Barb L. said when Ry and I were leaving for Idaho, “I suspect that you and Ry together equal trouble, sort of like Ruth and me together equal trouble. And it is Superbowl weekend again.

Ry has a history with Superbowl weekend.

Quote of the day—Grimjaw5

Glock40.

Grimjaw5
January 26, 2013
Suggestion for the serial number of the first hand grenade built and documented using the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
[It’s an inside joke for gun owners but it is so funny I had to share.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Gun control advocates really do not understand the fire they are playing with, with much of what is being proposed. How many millions of Americans are you prepared to imprison? How many are you prepared to kill? What is the count of ruined lives, broken families, and ruin are you willing to inflict to try to achieve your rainbow farting unicorn utopia where every gun turns into a flower? Widespread disrespect for the law by millions of Americans is not going to bring that about, and in fact, may only serve to create larger unregulated markets, and far more willingness to engage in law breaking people would not be willing to engage in under normal circumstances.

Sebastian
January 28, 2013
Gun Control Requires Our Willing Compliance
[Another way to look at this is that people generally “play by the rules” as long as the rules are reasonable and the other side plays by the rules as well.

If the rules are unreasonable and/or the other side does not play by the rules people get angry and have a strong tendency to ignore the rules. They “play” rough and play to win by any means possible. The new New York State “rules” for gun owners are completely unreasonable. They were pushed through without input from those most affected and are a gross violation of the Second Amendment “rule”.

The other side in this political contest shouldn’t push us so far that we decide to play to win by any means possible. They wouldn’t like us when we get angry.—Joe]

Crazy talk

For a long time I never really understood battered person syndrome where someone would stay with, go back to, or find a new partner that also abused them. Why couldn’t they see what everyone else thought was obvious? How could they think that was normal?

I understand better now. Even though I’m not a psychologist I’ve dealt with a number of crazy people in my life and I’m getting pretty good at recognizing “crazy” when I see it and what to do about it. This book helped a bunch: Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone You Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder.

It turns out a close parallel can be drawn between those that tolerate and even seek abuse in their personal relationships and our current relationship with the anti-gun people and our governments.

Read this and look at the parallel:

Since the victim is not at fault and the violence is internally driven by the abuser’s need to control, this self-blame results in feelings of helplessness rather than empowerment. The feeling of being both responsible for and helpless to stop the violence leads in turn to depression and passivity. This learned depression and passivity makes it difficult for the abused partner to marshal the resources and support system needed to leave.

We are told that “gun violence” is our fault. We are abused for something we had nothing to do with. We are told we must change and tolerate yet another abusive act. But no matter how much we concede, no matter how much abuse we put up with they always come back and abuse us more.

It’s driven, as in the battered person syndrome, by the abuser’s need to control. It is not because of anything we have done wrong.

We are dealing with a form of insanity and we tolerate it.

You don’t think so? Let me give some examples (see also this blog post).

Goldilocks guns

The anti-gun people want to outlaw guns that are “small and easily hidden”. They want to outlaw “.50 caliber sniper rifles” that are large and powerful . They want to outlaw guns that are “deadly accurate”. They want to outlaw guns that can be used for “spray shooting from the hip”.

You would think that perhaps a gun that fires an intermediate cartridge and is of medium weight and is not easily hidden would be acceptable to them. Nope. Such a gun, when capable of full auto” was called an “assault rifle” by the Germans during WWII. The anti-gun people, utilizing their talent for twisting words and preying on the ability of the public to be easily confused, banned these type of guns as “assault weapons”.

These intermediate power, intermediate size, with intermediate rates of fire, semi, not fully, auto guns were called “assault weapons” and banned.

So some guns are too big. Some guns are too small. But no guns are “just right”. Some guns are too accurate. Some guns can be wildly “sprayed”. But there are no guns that are “just right”.

That’s crazy talk!

1000 round arsenals

To anti-gun people and the press even a hundred rounds of ammunition found in the trunk of a car or in someone’s home is cause for concern. If the police decide to search someone’s car or home the finding of a few hundred rounds of ammunition will nearly take the breath away from the talking heads in the media. If it was within a few blocks of a school they make sure the implication is that each one of those rounds could, and should, be translated into the intent of the gun owner was to kill at least that many children.

This fascination with the number of rounds of ammo reached the point that in 1994 the U.S. Congress was contemplating requiring an arsenal license for people that had more than 1000 rounds of ammunition. There was talk of something similar again after the Newtown Connecticut shooting.

If I am going to the range for practice it is about 400 rounds per handgun and 100 for a rifle. If I were to go to a regional match I would take at least 1000 per gun. If I were to attend a weekend class the minimum round count is typically about 1500.

1000 rounds and they want to require a special license? I can put 1000 rounds of .22 LR in my coat pockets. Do they want me to license my coat?

And even in the most horrific mass shootings only something on the order of 100 rounds are fired. How could a restriction on owning more that 1000 rounds possibly make any difference?

That’s crazy talk!

Registration of guns

Of what benefit is it for guns to be registered? I’ve blogged about this many, times before. It is exceedingly costly and contrary to what you see on T.V. and at the movies it has near zero impact on solving crimes. But still the anti-gun people insist on gun registration.

That’s crazy talk!

Safety

If there were a very clear correlation between highly restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime, suicide, and/or accidental injury or death by gunshot then we could have a meaningful discussion about the merits of firearm regulation. But despite over a 100 years of gun regulation in this country there still isn’t any conclusive data any of the gun laws have improved public safety in any of the instances where they have been implemented.

A decent case can even be made there is more violent crime where firearms are banned. Yet in response to a mass shooting in yet another “gun free zone” they demand still more “gun free zones”.

That’s crazy talk!

Background checks

I’ve blogged about this too. But the more succinct version can be expressed in two sentences.

Background checks to prevent some people from gaining access to firearms is like checking ID to prevent underage drinking and smoking. How long does it take your average high school dropout to find a way to light up while drinking a beer?

Yet even most gun rights activists and gun rights “leaders” don’t object to something that is expensive, time consuming, and open to abuse.

The anti-gun people want to expand a system that clearly doesn’t and can’t possibly work any better than ID checks for underage drinking and smoking.

That’s crazy talk!

One gun a month

Who needs to buy more than one Bible a month? Why do Bible owners get all upset about the minor inconvenience of restricting people to just one Bible a month? It would cut down on trafficking of Bibles from states with lax Bible laws to those with strict Bible laws.

Is that crazy talk? Yup. It’s also crazy talk when you substitute “gun” for “Bible” in that paragraph.

[If you want to claim Bibles aren’t “responsible” for killing people like guns are then substitute “Koran” or “Communist Manifesto” and reevaluate before you engage me in that debate.]

Waiting periods

The anti-gun people want waiting periods before someone can take home a newly purchased gun. When asked why, even in the age of nearly instant background checks, they said they wanted a “cooling off period” so people wouldn’t buy a gun when angry or depressed and used it to harm someone else or themselves without having a few days to think about it.

It that were true then why did they insist on waiting periods even for people that already owned dozens of guns?

That’s crazy talk!

Conclusion

It’s not going to get any better if we continue to tolerate this misbehavior. It’s not in the psychology of the individual that batters their partner and it’s not in the history of governments.

We are better than this.

We must do something about this bad relationship. We need to recognize we are enabling it and we need to place the blame where it really belongs. Only then can we have a normal, healthy relationship. But most of all we have to recognize we have made only feeble attempts at “couples counseling” (the courts) when we probably should be trying to “get out of the relationship”.

Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey

I submit that every politician, federal or otherwise, who runs on a claim of support for the 2nd Amendment should be faced with the following question:

What gun control laws will you work to repeal first?

I look forward to a day when gun haters are forced to debate the question of how they can reasonably accommodate our demands.  If that day does not come, and soon, our defeat is inevitable.

Brennan Bailey
January 31, 2013
From the gun email list at work.
[Only in rare cases can you win a battle or a war if you only defeat the attacks of your enemy. To win you must eventually go on the attack.

When you attack you are better able to chose their weakness which is far superior to defending your own. That is why we made progress on concealed carry for the last 20 years. Their denial of the right of self-defense was their greatest weakness. Prior to this strategy our opponents were close to banning handguns. The names of our opponents reflected this. Examples include National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc. They say, in their own strategy documents, they should delay the attack on handguns in favor of an attack on “assault weapons” because of lack of progress.

“Assault weapons” were a softer target than handguns even though they had more interest in banning handguns. Our attack on their denial of a right to self-defense is a good part of the reason they could not make further progress on the handgun front.

With our success on the concealed carry and self-defense front we were able to make progress in the culture war and in the courts. We now need to find a new weakness to attack while continuing the attack in the courts on their continued denial of the right to self-defense.

At this point I don’t have any clearly winning ideas for a new front to attack. The most plausible would seem to be:

  1. Elimination of the registry and heavy tax on suppressors.
  2. With our huge debt, anything that costs money such NICS. California is currently unable to confiscate firearms from people they know have guns illegally because they don’t have the money (H/T to Mitchel M. from work for the link). We may be able to leverage this on multiple fronts. This is especially true if we can demonstrate the law not being enforced is pointless anyway.

The problem with the suppressor front is that it probably doesn’t motivate the vast majority of gun owners.

The problem with attacking the NICS check is that background checks seem like a great idea on the surface. It’s a “no-brainer” at first and even second thought. This will generate even less support from the majority of gun owners than making suppressors easy to obtain. It will be difficult to convince even strong gun rights activists background checks are pointless.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Background checks to prevent some people from gaining access to firearms is like checking ID to prevent underage drinking and smoking.

How long does it take your average high school dropout to find a way to light up while drinking a beer?

VPC admission on “assault weapon” ban

I haven’t said much on the Feinstein “assault weapon” ban because at the Federal level I don’t think it has that great of chance at passage. That isn’t the case with “universal background checks”. I therefore have put some effort into addressing the stupidity of background checks.

I am, however, going to give a token effort to the “assault weapon” ban.

Surprisingly the Violence Policy Center is our friend here. This was from September 13, 2004 in response to the expiration of the previous AWB:

…renewal would have done little to stop this flood of assault weapons. Conversely, the end of the ban only makes official what was already known: assault weapons are readily available in America. The only difference is that the arbitrary distinction between pre- and post-ban assault weapons is now gone.

They are admitting that the 1994 AWB made no difference and that the renewal of it would make no difference either. Since then there have been millions of “assault weapons” sold to the general public and tens of millions of magazines for them. So just exactly what do they think the benefit would be to an AWB today? Either they must advocate for something like confiscation or they must concede such a ban will have near zero effect in “stopping the flood”.

Quote of the day—CSGV

@sebastiansnbq @antvq16 @tedcruz They certainly enhance a firearm’s lethality and accuracy, and allows shooters to fire from the hip.

CSGV (@CSGV)
Tweeted on January 30, 2013 in regard to the function of a pistol grip on a rifle.
[Spoken like a complete ignoramus. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence once again proves they don’t know what they are talking about.

  1. The pistol grip does not affect the speed, size, material, construction, or shape of the bullet or the rate of fire of the gun. Those are the only variables that affect the lethality of any firearm.
  2. If they were interested in the truth CSGV should buy a copy of Rifle Accuracy Facts. But they have given us far too much evidence to the contrary to believe they will ever change their ways. It’s too bad it is out of print and the cheapest used paperback copy is nearly $80. If I could do it for $10 I would send them a copy just so I could point out they should know better the next time they say something demonstrating their ignorance again. It’s an awesome book. You won’t find any mention of a pistol grip enhancing a firearms accuracy. The primary factors affecting a firearms accuracy are the bullet construction, the barrel construction, and the sights. The stock matters some but mostly that has to do with whether the barrel touches the stock or not.
  3. If someone is going to be shooting at me then them shooting from the hip would be an advantage for me since it would not involve using the sights. Please keep advocating this CSGV. Of course since the majority of their audience are pro-gun people who know better it really doesn’t matter.

—Joe]

Gun geek writing exercise

Yesterday I received an email from a book author wanting to know what a homemade bomb used to assassinate someone would look like. She didn’t want to know the details of how to build it. She just wanted to know what it would look like so she could describe it well. She more than adequately distinguished herself from the usual bomb help losers so I agreed to help her.

Then as almost an aside she asked, since Boomershoot was about guns as well as explosives, if I could read over her long range shot scene and comment on it. After I read it, and finished laughing, I agreed to help with that too.

I totally rewrote it for her. Apparently she liked it because she responded with, “I really like the scene, have you ever thought of doing some story writing yourself?”

I included Barb L. on the Bcc line and she gushed (I suspect a bias), “Wow. Yours is really good. Ok, yet another thing you should do professionally, technical and writing consultant for ballistics and guns.”

So, here is the result of my writing exercise from last night. I did this instead of something productive like unpack some boxes, finish the cleanup from the mess of the blog conversion, or organize the contents of my multiple hard drives:

She rolled up a corner of the blanket to get a steady rest for her range finder at eye level when she laid down. As she prepared she let her mind ease into the “bubble” where everything else outside of her task at hand disappeared. It became just another very careful shot like a thousand others she had made into paper targets. The importance of this one being a live target was pushed from her mind. Her beating heart had to be calmed so that even the pulse present in her hands was diminished. At this range each pulse of blood in her limbs moved the gun enough to change the point of impact by several inches.

She moved slowly and calmly as she went through the almost ritual of making her first shot through the cold clean bore a direct hit. As she laid down she automatically pointed her feet with the toes to the sides so that both heels and toes would lie flat to the ground. Any wiggle would be transmitted to the gun and reduce the accuracy. She pointed the laser range finder at her target and she could see the jiggle from her pulse in reticle of the magnified optic of the instrument. She put a rock under the rolled up blanket and made the base steady enough to get a good reading. At this range bouncing the laser off of something just 10 yards further away could cause her to overcompensate for the drop and make the shot high by nearly 10 inches. Just an error of 5 yards would move the shot out of the vitals–the triangle formed by his nipples and the top of his sternum. After getting three readings in a row that agreed with each other she entered the data into her exterior ballistics app on her smart phone. It already had the altitude from the GPS and the weather conditions from the weather service. It still needed the incline, her rifle had an incline meter on it but with her new rangefinder she found herself using that instead. She punch in that number too. Her rifle was zeroed for 200 yards at standard sea level conditions. She had to adjust her point of aim to shoot 24.25 minutes of angle (MOA) higher. There were four clicks per MOA on her Leupold  scope. That meant 97 clicks. She was glad she didn’t have to count them off individually. The target turrets were numbered with 15 minutes per complete revolution. She did the math in her head and cranked on the elevation she needed.

The windage was a tougher problem. The anemometer gave her the wind here but it did told her nothing about the 993 yards between her and her target. Being on a hill meant the majority of the bullet’s path would be high above the tall grass, bushes, and trees she would normally use for judging the wind speed. The trees at the far end of the bullet path would help some but that wind would only cause a slight deflection compared to the wind in the first half of its 1.4 second journey. What she needed was the wind 100 feet in the air 200 to 500 yards ahead of her. For that she needed to look through her scope. She put the gun in position with its short bipod extended. A small bean bag was put under the butt of the rifle.

She moved into position behind her rifle. Again she lay her entire body flat on the ground. She scooted the rifle forward an back to get the bipod on firm ground. She then shifted and squeezed the bean bag until the crosshairs found their place. “Find your natural point of aim!”, she heard her instructor of a decade ago bark at her. No muscle could be straining to make the shot. Everything had to be relaxed so the tremors would not be transmitted to the rifle. She adjusted her body position until she could close her eyes, relax, and open them again and the cross hairs would still be resting on the target the same as before she closed her eyes. She adjusted the focus back from infinity and watched the shimmering of the air against the out of focus straight vertical edge of the bench the target was sitting on. It was called mirage. You can see it with the naked eye on a hot summer day just above the surface of a road or other hot objects. If you know what to look for and you have the right optics you can see it in cold open air as well. The angle at which the mirage moved and wiggled was a good clue as to the wind at the range the scope was focused at. It was a little bit of science and a lot of art as she adjusted for the 2 MPH left to right wind here on top of the hill, 5 MPH out at 500 yards and judging from the bushes near the target and the ripples on the lake, a 3 MPH right to left wind at the target. She dialed in a correction of 1.75 MOA left.

She confirmed she still had her natural point of aim and the wind hadn’t changed. As she adjusted the focus on her scope back to the target she felt her awareness “bubble” tighten into a universe composed only of her scope reticle and the target. Her awareness of even her trigger finger faded away. She would find that perfect Zen moment when the two pound trigger on her Remington “just went off” without her consciously thinking about it. It was all about the focusing of the jiggling cross hair on the distant target. The bubble settled in tight and her sense of hearing disappeared as did her sense of touch and pressure from the rocks under her blanket. The smell of the crushed plants faded to nothing and even her vision narrowed within the tiny window of vision granted her from the 14 power scope. The cross hairs did their random dance of six inches or so about the chest of the target. He tossed a piece of bread to a duck so she waited as he leaned back and put his elbows on the back of the bench on either side of him. It was like he was making himself a wider and more stable target for her. The cross hairs hung in the exact center of the triangle for just a moment and the gun recoiled. She had no recollection of pulling the trigger and only a dim sense of the muzzle blast through her hearing protection. It was a very clean trigger break. A half second later the gun came back down almost into the same position as before it fired. She quickly squeezed the bean bag to get her line of sight a little bit lower and “waited” for the remaining quarter second for the bullet to arrive. She could see the trace, the distortion in the air from the supersonic shock wave, as it arced down into her target and hit it at 1600 feet per second. That delivered more than half again the momentum of a .45 fired from 10 feet away and the target showed the effects. It was a good shot, maybe three inches to the right of her point of aim. Not quite enough adjustment for wind but the elevation was right on.

Quote of the day—DirtCrashr

Sadly that elevator doesn’t even get up to the point of cognition where a gun can protect the innocent from harm. You’re conversing with a mollusk.

DirtCrashr
In a January 4, 2010 comment to Tilting at windmills
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]