Author Archives: Lyle

Just a Reminder

Posted on by

In case anyone has forgotten;

 

That in response to this story.

Shooting Fun

Posted on by

I’ve had an 1858 Remington New Model Army revolver for a while, but was never able to get decent accuracy from it.  Maybe it was the wrong grip fit for my hands.  Maybe it was the extra weight and maybe it was the very long creep in the trigger.  Don’t know, but it had been sitting for a long time, such that the grease was getting stiff, so I took it out alone for some exercise yesterday.

I’d been experimenting with bird shot loads in handguns because I’m interested in handgun trap shooting.  Turns out the rifling pretty well renders that a losing proposition (I could get a spare barrel for the 1851 Colt repro, and ream out the rifling. we’ll see).  Anyway, I ended up with a selection of fiber wads and cards for the .44 Remington, and since my current charge of 28 grains 3F Goex takes up little room in the chambers, and since everyone says the projectile should be close to the forcing cone for best accuracy, I added a quarter inch fiber wad on top of the powder, with a felt wad on top of that.

Now the revolver shoots OK.  Don’t know if it was the extra spacing, or that I’d been handling the gun a lot more, but I was able to match my long standing 25 yard grouping (previously held by the 1851 Colt) several times that day, with this gun.  It may not be anything to brag about, but it’s better than I’ve done with any automatic so far.  That’s 25 yards, standing, two hands, unsupported.  I’m sure there are people who can do a whole lot better, but as the saying goes, “This is my group. There are many like it, but this one is mine.”

That’s the way it went several times– four shots in a decent group, with one flier.  It didn’t matter whether the group was fired from one cylinder, the other cylinder, or a combination of the two.  I shot a smaller group that day, but this one gives me hope that those four in the middle better represent the gun’s potential.

There was zero wind that day, such that when I was all done, there was a layer of white smoke that covered the whole 5 to 7 acre range.  Cool.  It also means that you have to learn to aim through a cloud of smoke.

Several shooter have written about this other phenomenon; I found myself contentedly driving under the speed limit on the way home, which is something I practically never do.  I’m usually irritated by people who drive under the limit, the lot of serene bastards.  It seems that shooting can have a pronounced relaxing effect that can last for several hours after the fact.

Politicians Respond to Wa State ‘Assault ban’

Posted on by

Writing to one’s state or U.S. representatives is quite easy, thanks in part to Algore’s internets/tubes, and it is often an important thing to do.  They need to know what we’re thinking, whether or not they agree.  More importantly, they need to be reminded of their duties in upholding the state and/or U.S. constitution, as they are so prone to (eh-hem) forget.  Soon after writing my WA state senators, cc-ing the house, thusly;

—–Original Message—–
From: Lyle
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Schoesler, Sen. Mark
Cc: Fagan, Rep. Susan; Schmick, Rep. Joe
Subject: Stop This Nonsense

HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO:  Senator Mark Schoesler

CC:  Representative Susan Fagan
     Representative Joe Schmick

FROM: Lyle

BILL:  6396 (Against)

SUBJECT:  Stop This Nonsense

MESSAGE:

Senate Bill 6396, the “assault weapon” bill is not only an affront to the Washington state and federal constitutions, it cannot possibly do anything to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”.  Criminals by definition don’t obey such laws, and if certain guns are outlawed, criminals will be the only ones using them.

Further, it is well known that the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994 (expired in 2004) did nothing to reduce or prevent crimes.

This new state bill can only be described as gun owner harassment, and an attack on the very concepts of liberty and self defense.

I point out that the AR-15 style rifle has recently become the most popular rifle platform in the U.S., and it would be outlawed by SB6396.  Millions of handguns carried for defense would become illegal under this bill also.  Is this how we are to fight crime– by disarming or harassing the potential victims?

I urge you and your colleagues to stop this in its tracks, by any means necessary.  Further, I expect you to take decisive action within both the House and Senate against any law-maker who so brazenly attacks our personal liberties.  We will be watching.

Thank You.

I received the following response;

From: Schmick, Rep. Joe [mailto:Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Lyle
Subject: RE: Stop This Nonsense

Thank you for your comments.  I have heard an overwhelming objection to this bill from others in the 9th legislative district.

I oppose any gun regulation.  I fully support your second amendment rights to bear and keep arms and rest assured, I will vote accordingly.

Sincerely,

Joe Schmick
State Representative

Good for Joe Schmick.  Just one little bone to pick; he makes no mention of going after law makers “who so brazenly attack our personal liberties”.  No big surprise there.  This is a new concept.  Even pro-liberty politicians (or is that an oxymoron?) are accustomed to playing defensive holding actions 99 to 100% of the time.  We’ll let that one go for now, though at some point this will have to change.  Your team will never make it to the SuperBowl with the greatest defense and no offense.  I replied;

Thank you very much for your response.  If it helps to convince others who may be on the fence, I invite you to recall that state initiative 676 back in the 1990s, which was a sweeping weapon restriction scheme, failed overall by a margin of about 69 to 31.  Washington citizens may be evenly split on some issues, but [this] is certainly not one of them.

Best Regards,

Lyle

No one else responded for about a week.  Then came this bit from state rep Susan Fagan (oh boy);

Lyle,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns and comments.  I appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your views with me.

I am humbled and honored to represent our constituents in the 9th District.  As legislators, we have hundreds of issues to consider.  We need to be fiscally responsible and work towards stimulating the economy.  We also need to help protect our most vulnerable citizens and maintain individual rights and freedoms.

Please know that I am working hard to make the best decisions possible towards responsive and efficient state government.  Your input alerts me to issues of major concern and helps me to effectively serve our district.

Best regards,

Susan Fagan
State Representative
9th Legislative District

439 John L. O’Brien Building
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA  98504-0600
(360) 786-7942
Fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov

It’s a form letter, designed as a blanket response, no matter the issue, no matter the position.  The only clue in there as to any sort of a position is that the term “individual rights and freedoms” appears.  A hard-core communist revolutionary probably wouldn’t say that, but then again a hard-core communist revolutionary is also a chameleon, or a liar, by definition.  Not much to go on as part of a universal “I don’t have the time to respond to you directly so here’s some crap for you to chew on.  Now go away and don’t bother me” letter.  A bit insulting.  She could have at least hired a junior high school delinquent to send a form letter addressing this particular issue as part of his public service requirement.  Such is life.  Very few politicians have the courage to actually say things.  No one else responded, but they did get my letter and that must count for something (so I tell myself).  If nothing else, the sheer volume can tell them a lot, and volume they have been getting.

Israel and Guns

Posted on by

I know there’s a perception that in Israel, by golly, practically everyone has guns and that makes for great security.  They may have an effective military.  I don’t know.  When was the last time it was really tested?

From our friend in Israel, we get a more accurate picture of how the government treats private gun ownership there;

Friends:

Something new has been inserted into the firearms regulations here.

When your rifle (includes all .22 caliber rifles, even Olympic small bore .22s and air-guns) license comes up for renewal, if you are not an active member of the new Israeli Rifleman Association– a new branch of the Israeli Shooting Federation arisen out of the ashes of the Civil Guard Sharpshooters Association in 2009 – you must turn your rifle into the police or get a licensed firearms dealer to carry it on his “books” for you or sell it. 

1. Since no one can obtain a rifle license, you can’t find anyone entitled to buy your rifle. 

2. I know of almost no gun dealer who wants the headache, even for a fee, of having to deal with the Ministry of Interior inspectors about having “your” gun on his book.  Even though it is “kosher.”

3. Turning your rifle(s) into the police, because your license to possess (even exclusively in your home) your private and valuable property is not renewed because of an administrative decision not to renew it, is confiscation.

And they will send the anti-terror unit of the Border Police to knockdown your door and destroy your home in the process of taking your rifle and you will be arrested and carted away – the TV cameras will be rolling and the newspaper photographers will be snapping photos of the event – you can be sure that the police will invite the media.

If you are a member of the new Rifleman Association you must be “active.”  The Ministry of Interior regulations define active as you participating in a minimum of 5 national competitions per year.

GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMMENDMENT and the entire Bill Of Rights!  Things Israel lacks.

Enjoy the Shot Show.

Howard

This resembles the UK more than it does our popular ideas of what Israel is supposed to be.

NRA; What’s up?

Posted on by

I’ve been seeing ads for the new NRA on-line national firearms museum, and I’ve also been working on building a period rifle.  I therefore thought it would be great to go and see if I could find some original examples of said period rifle at this new-fangled on-line museum, rather than having to, say, drive to Wyoming and visit the Cody Museum or pay 5 to 10 thousand dollars for an original rifle.  I tried it from home using my Mac G4 to no avail.  OK, I can forgive that.  The old G4 still has an old version of OS-X and Safari, and I sometimes have problems using other web sites.  Here at work I use XP Pro, IE 8, and a 700+ KBps ADSL connection.  I patiently try nationalfirearmsmuseum.org a few times from work and I’m redirected to nramuseum.org which displays a black screen, this tiny little sentence in the middle, and a heap big helping of nothing else;

The full NRA experience requires a broadband connection.  Click here to go directly to the standard NRA.org website.

From the standard NRA.org website you can eventually find a link to the museum, which then gives you said black screen.  Repeat as needed to become convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you’re not going to see any museum, no matter what, in spite of the fact that said non-viewable museum is currently being advertized all over the NRA publications.  Denied.  I then tried “compatibility view” in IE 8, which made quite a difference– it put that sentence at the bottom of the black screen instead of the middle.  Double denied.

If my setup can’t work, who’s does?  I thought DSL was about as broad as broadband gets, while the only clue to the denial is a note telling me my connection speed is too low, with no indication of what they consider to be “broadband”.  Have I missed some new and wonderful breakthrough in IT that everyone else knows about and uses already?  Do I need a cable ISP?  Do I need to get Win 7 or what?  In any case I think that if your web site doesn’t work with the vast majority of existing computer setups, you’re doing something wrong.  That is, if you want the majority of people to see it, and you’re not just interested in being cutting-edge for the sake of it, being satisfied with catering to an exclusive audience.

Then again, maybe I’m doing something wrong that makes it impossible to see this web site, though all the others I visit seem to work OK.

Dear NRA; I’d write you directly about this, but a black screen with nothing on it includes, as an accompanying feature, the non existence of a “if you can’t view this page, please notify our web designer by clicking here” or anything like that.

Update Jan. 10; Without my having contected them directly, NRA Tech Support wrote me this morning and fixed my problem.  Wow.  That’s service.  More in comments.

Pistols with Rifle Receivers

Posted on by

I guess I’ll call them “PRRs” or “RRPs” (Rifle Receiver Pistols).  A few of us made comments over at at Say Uncle about the use of such pistols.  There was the assertion that Blackwater personnel have been using AK pistols out of vehicles.  I don’t get it.  Here’s my last comment;

A cut down, folding stock carbine I can see (AKS-74U et al) but I have yet to understand the allure of the “pistol” version (no shoulder stock at all).

“They became very common with Blackwater in Iraq.”

You’re not referring to a folder rather than a pistol?

Stateside, I see the rifle receiver pistol as a political creation (if it has a shoulder stock it falls under the NFA [as a short barreled rifle, or SBR]) rather than something that arose for a particular application.  Otherwise we’d be seeing handguns more along the lines of an Automag with 30 round mags, and/or the Tech 9 or some iteration thereof would be popular, which it isn’t.

There must be something I don’t understand.  Is it all about suppressive fire?  But in that case what’s wrong with having a folding stock on there just in case you want to, you know, aim, or something?

Can anyone fill me in on the particulars?  Why an AK pistol, AR pistol, etc., other than the fact that the stocked version comes with the NFA hassles and tax for civilians?  I mean; why are such pistols desired for defense and/or in combat?  Or are they?

Does this Mean We Should Encourage R. O’Donnell to Buy More Spoons?

Posted on by

Not that it would surprise anyone who’s been seeking facts, but murder is down while gun and ammo sales are way up.  NRA’s ILA discusses the latest FBI crime report.  They link to this tidbit also.  Wow– what happened in 2006?  See that little spike in the last quarter of 2001?  We felt that one, so we already knew about it.  We has recently started selling our ground breaking AK optic mount, and people started buying them up in droves after 9/11, along with high-end optics.  You attack the U.S. and we prepare to respond as individuals, should individual action become necessary.  That is as intended by our nation’s founders.

I’d like to have seen some mention of the word “rights” or of the second amendment, and how a right is not contingent upon certain crime rate parameters, but the ILA article will have to do.  I can help them understand things a bit further;

At the expense of undercutting a future post I have planned, here’s the danger in these types of arguments; crime will at some point rise.  For one reason or another, these things cycle up and down.  If you place too much stock in the assertion that gun rights should be protected because crime is dropping while gun ownership is rising, you’ll eventually lose that argument and have to start over with a different one, in danger of looking like a hypocrite (Republicans? Are you listening?).  Crime will increase and gun buying will at some stage decrease, and they will probably at some other point happen both at the same time.

If violent crime were high and increasing, wouldn’t access to the tools of self defense be that much more important?  Hmmm?  And again I ask; Hmmm?

Principles.  It can’t be overstated.  Gun rights should be protected because a right is a right.  Violators of rights should be punished because they are criminals and we can’t afford to tolerate criminals.  Principles don’t change with the ebb and flow of statistics just as Rosie would have gotten fat with or without legal access to a spoon.

Dear Republicans

Posted on by

This is addressed to Pete Sessions, but it serves as an open letter to the Party.  I don’t for a minute expect it to go anywhere, or make a difference if it did, and I could think of several ways to make it better after the fact, but someone has to say it.

Pete,

“The Obama/Pelosi agenda has been proven to be a failure…”

That’s true, but what exactly is the Republican agenda?  Remember Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, TARP, and the fact that McCain supported TARP and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hoax?  I sure do.

It is well and good to point out the Democrats’ mental problems and their anti American mindset, but I’m looking for some distinction between Dems and Republicans other than the message I’m getting now, which is, “Give us money—we’re not as corrupt as those other guys.”
 
In my lifetime the distinction has been, More Socialism Faster, verses More Socialism Slower.  No thanks.  I want to see your plan for;

A) Dismantling socialist programs in the U.S. (going back to the Wilson Administration and un-doing the damage).  This would involve the elimination of multiple government “departments” and laying off thousands of federal government workers (if they’re worth something, they’ll thrive in the private sector. If they’re not, they shouldn’t have been hired in the first place) so as to allow the markets to do what they do best—excel, by weeding out the poor performers and elevating the best performers.

B) Holding accountable those who have promoted or supported socialism (government intervention in the markets for the purpose of social engeneering, i.e. economic stagnation and the erosion of property rights) of any kind within the halls of government.  That would include, but not be limited to, charges of fraud and/or racketeering and/or misappropriation of public funds against the perpetrators of the AGW hoax.

C) Restoring compliance with, and faith in, the U.S. constitution.

D) Cutting tax rates across the board to a small fraction of their current levels, thereby moving boldly forward in restoring capitalism and the liberty and prosperity that comes along with it.
 
The socialist/Progressive movement has been gaining ground in this country for over 100 years, and all that time the Republican Party has been there, either in idleness, in complacency, or themselves actively leading us down this rat hole.  I have had enough.  Do not ask me to take you seriously until you’ve demonstrated some seriousness of your own, plus some clarity, specificity and bold action with regard to the above points.

Sincerely,

Lyle

I’m not supporting any squishy, cowardly Republicans and neither should you.  There is no time for playing games.

Food Processing. Protein; Step One

Posted on by

It Was a Bright and Calm Morning…

My son and I both decided to hunt Late Muzzleloader season this year for a simple reason– there are far more does and “antlerless” bucks in our little hunting spot than antlered bucks, and this season allows harvesting of “three point minimum or antlerless” white tail deer.  Hunting muzzleloader season gives us a high probability of harvesting deer within walking distance of home.

We have one functioning muzzleloader rifle (step one food processor) so Son was given the first watch at the tree stand.  The second time out he took a decent young buck (small nubs for antlers) on Thanksgiving Day.  He spotted it while climbing down the tree, and shot it with the rifle still tied to the cord we use for raising and lowering things from the stand.  After that I started going out to the stand, but saw nothing in several days.  That’s unusual, but a deer had just been taken right there by Son.  Maybe they’re a bit spooked.  Don’t know, but on the morning of the last day of this one-week season, I got tired of sitting in the stand (besides, it was cold) and decided to take a walk.

It was a beautiful morning, just after sunrise, so if I never got a deer, it would still be worth the nice walk along the top of the picturesque basalt cliffs above the Palouse River.  There are always a lot of deer tracks up there, as it’s their only option for traveling between their feeding grounds (farmer’s fields) and their primary source of water.  My trouble that morning was that if there were any deer, they’d be immediately alerted to my presence.  Every 50 yards or so as I was walking along the ridge, a pheasant or two, or about 50 quail, would explode up from near my feet.  I might as well have been blowing an air horn every 50 yards and carrying a boom box playing rap music.

There’s a place along that ridge that’s down in a depression, and has some flat land with 360 degree concealment.  I knew in advance that if I was going to see a deer along the ridge away from our tree stand, it would likely be there.  As I topped the rise, getting ready to look down into the depression, I went slowly, making no sudden movements.

Sure enough, there were two deer, and one of them was a very nice eight-point buck!  About 200 yards away, he’s looking in my direction.  The sun being directly behind me, I was casting a 100 yard-long shadow right in his direction.  Pure stealth isn’t much of an option, but I was moving very slowly so as not to alert them too much.  Whack-a-Whack-a-Thump-a-Thump-a-Thump!!!  A pheasant exploded up at that moment about six feet away from me, so the buck got real nervous and trotted away.  It’s been years since I saw a nice buck up there, and, aware of my presence, this one and the doe are now on the move away from me.  Oh well. (but they didn’t bolt, as often happens)

I can either back-track less than a mile, cross the bridge for home and get ready to go to work, or I can go on, crossing another bridge about a mile ahead.  That’s an easy choice– I keep going forward in the direction of those two deer.  Wham, Slam, Whack!– quail and pheasants continue to announce my presence.  This is getting hopeless.  But it’s sure a nice day for a walk.

The deer never panicked, I guess, so what ended up happening was that I was dogging them.  They’d put some distance between us,  I’d close in, and they’d make some more distance.  Repeat.  Eventually they made a wrong move.  Some more quail (announcing my presence, but not telling exactly where) must have startled them out of the thick brush and into the open field.

I did not expect that.  They were in range, barely, but moving away fast.  Too far away to attempt a shot on a moving target.  No shot.  What do you do in this situation?  I whistled.  Deer whistle (I guess it’s more of a fast hiss than a whistle) at each other as an alert message.  Anyhow, it worked.  They stopped, turned 90 degrees broadside and looked back at me.  From that moment, circumstances dictate action.  No time for kneeling, and that might scare them off, so standing it is.  We’re all in the open.  Lock to full cock.  Backstop?  Check (there’s a hill a couple hundred yards behind them).  Front sight.  This is a longish shot for this weapon with open sights from standing– about 80 to 90 yards (I’ve never fired this rifle at anything more than 100 yards distant – maybe that has to change, but I’m confident at 100 and this is a bit less).  Some vacillating takes place for about a second.  One shot, one chance.  Too far?  Wobble area looks good.  Too far?  They’re still standing there, stone still.  This is a hair trigger.  Sight’s right on the sweet spot, what’re you waiting for?  Too far?  Nope.  Bang!

The two deer took off running.  The usual question comes to mind; did I miss?  They’re running fast and far.  200 yards and they’re out of sight over a rise in the undulating fields.  Oh well.  It’s a nice day for a walk.  Should I reload?  Maybe.  Have to cover 200 yards to look over that rise and try to spot them.  Better do that.  There they are; waaaay out there and still running.  I must have missed, though the let-off felt fine.  Damn.  But wait.  The doe’s way ahead of the buck.  Buck slows down and stops.  Then he looks like he got tired and decided to have a little lie down.  That’s odd.  They only ran about 1,000 yards.  No, it can only mean I got him.

He’s lying down with his head up.  Better reload.  I carry two reloads– plastic cartridges that contain a measure of black powder, a ball with lubricated patch, and a percussion cap.  They’re nice because you can use the cartridge structure as a short ball starter.  It’s easy– you just place the ball end over the muzzle and smack the other end, like so… Oops!  Forgot to pour the powder in first.  I have just dry-balled the gun and there’s an injured buck (I don’t know how injured) down there.  He could get up and run away.  I could lose an injured deer.  This sucks.  My chosen method of removing a dry ball is to seat the ball all the way down, remove the nipple and trickle a few grains of powder through the flash channel into the breech chamber, cap, then fire.  Works like a charm.  I have no nipple wrench.  Who needs to remove a nipple in the field on a half-day hunt? (it’s coming with me from now on)  The nipple’s seated tight– can’t break it free with the Leatherman tool.  Damn, damn, damn.  I eventually was able to pry the ball out at the muzzle, using the awl accessory (if I’d rammed it down I’d be hosed).  Cool.  Didn’t scratch the muzzle ’cause the patch protected it.  That ball is toast, but I have one more reload.

Meanwhile, the buck is lying there, looking around…head up, head down, head up, head down again.  Did he die?  Head comes back up.  Crap.  I had to get close enough for a 100% sure CNS (Central Nervous System) shot.  Walk slowly.  40 yards, take aim.  No.  Why not get closer?  30 Yards, kneel, full cock, put a shot through the neck at the base of the skull.  He drops like a stone.

This is not a good place from which to pack out a large deer.  Good net coverage.  Kamiak Butte, with the cell towers, is only 6 miles to the southwest.  I call Son on the phone.  No answer.  I wait and call again.  No answer.  I call my wife– she should be getting ready to drive to school.  Maybe she can meet me on the Colfax highway a few hundred yards over a hill and bring me home to get the pickup.  No answer.  I’d also been dogging a coyote along the way, and I’d seen the ‘yote running along the same path as the deer.  Can’t gut this buck yet.  That’s just inviting that ‘yote in to come and mess up my deer while I’m gone.  Leave it whole.  I walk a couple miles home, get Son out of bed and drive back to the Colfax highway.  We get permission to drive over a planted field to the deer.  No dice.  The frozen mud had thawed enough at the surface that a 4×4 with studded snows can’t get a grip to climb over the hill.  We’re on foot.  We go back home to grab a saw and a sled.

Below; the buck fell about a 1,000 yards from where he was hit, which was out of the frame to the upper right.

Looking closely, I find an entry wound in the deer’s left hind quarter.  Odd.  I could have sworn he was broadside to me when the gun fired, and I know I didn’t pull the shot that much.  And there’s a ball, just under the skin behind the right shoulder, exactly opposite where I was aiming, but I can’t find a corresponding entry wound.  Oh well, I’ll find it when I skin the carcass.  Someone else must have shot this deer before me, which would explain the entry wound in the hip.  That’s plausible, since I’ve been hearing shots in the area all week.  Weird.

Hours later we had the big buck hanging in the garage after getting the workout of the year.  Man, this hunting business is getting more like hard work.  After gutting (in the field) and skinning the deer (in the garage) there was only the one entry wound to be found.  The ball had struck the left “ham” at a shallow angle, passed through the intestines doing very little damage, passed through the stomach, blew a three-finger-sized ragged hole through the liver, punctured the diaphragm, punctured a lung, glanced off a rib and stopped just short of exiting the hide on the right side.  I measured 25 inches of penetration, from a ~180 grain round ball that left the muzzle at ~1,920 fps.  That deer ran about a thousand yards with all that damage.

My best guess is that the buck was all wound up tight, having spotted me, knowing that I’d been following him.  The cow-sized cloud of backlit, white smoke that erupted at extra-sonic speed from the muzzle must have made him jump slightly, changing the angle of impact from broadside to less than 45 degrees.  I calculate he had about a quarter second to move from the emergence of the smoke cloud.  I dunno.  Maybe he wasn’t so fully broadside to begin with as I’d thought.  The “act of grace” neck shot did not penetrate more than three inches, but shattered the vertebra.

Here’s one reason to have children.  They can pull your sled;

 

Observations on penetration and “stopping power”
Starting last season, we’ve shot three deer with the same exact load from the same muzzleloading rifle.  The first shot penetrated an adult whitetail fully, straight through the ribcage, severing a rib fully on each side, from <30 yards.  The same shot from Son hit a smaller deer broadside through the ribs, hit the heart and blew it completely apart, such that you could lay it out like a pancake, and did not exit the hide on the far side.  Less than 14 inches penetration.  Hitting the big buck in the heavy hip muscle from almost three times the distance, the ball went through 25 inches of animal, and the second ball (on the buck's neck) was demolished after about three inches.  The same load (110 grains of Old Black pushing a ~180 grain .495" round ball) penetrated between 3 and 25 inches (a factor of 8.33) depending on shot placement.  Sort of makes you wonder about penetration figures given for defense loads.  It all depends and what's being penetrated, from hide, to muscle, to the liquid chambers inside the heart, to lung and liver tissue that doesn't explode like that heart did.  And stopping power?  Each one of these deer was hit with a 100% lethal shot, and they ran from eighty to one thousand yards after being hit.

We’ve had similar “stopping power” experiences using modern rifles, but never has a modern rifle load failed to penetrate completely, regardless of what it hit inside.  I’ve been wondering whether the stories of recovered, modern hunting rifle bullets are just mythology, but if the differences in penetration can be so great with the muzzleloader they must be fairly large with modern systems too.

(With that I think I’ve outdone myself—- 2,000+ words.  It’s my first nice buck.  Can’t I prattle on and on about it?)

Below; Along the bottom, near that ditch behind the small rise is where the buck fell.  Kamiak Butte is in the distance, top right in the frame.

Below; this .495″ (well, formerly .495″) lead ball traveled 25 inches into the animal.  I’d not believe it if I hadn’t seen it.  I bet I could load it again and kill another deer with it next year.

My Appliances are in Heat

Posted on by

That is to say, they’re inside the heated space in my home and it’s heating season.  I can therefore use them all I want, or leave them on when I’m not using them, and it costs me nothing in energy use.  I wrote about this a while back, and Say Uncle has a post that touches on the subject.

There are some qualifiers though.  A dishwasher dumps warm water outside the heated space, as does a clothes washer.  A dryer dumps hot air outside the heated space too, but you can leave your television or oven on all day and it costs you no extra energy useage.  If the appliances or the incandescent lights aren’t heating your home, the furnace takes over and uses that same amount of energy anyway.  I submit that using the appliances more may actually save energy.  Here’s how I got there; at least in my case, the furnace ducts are under the house, outside the heated space.  Some of the losses from that extra-hot air running through the ducts under the house might be avoided by keeping the heat generation all inside the house.  There was also a chapter in my college physics book that explained how inductive loads may be getting you some free energy, because of the way the metering works.  I forget how that happens, but if it’s true then over-use of motors and transformers (florescent lights or anything that uses a power supply transformer) as opposed to relying more on the resistive loads in your electric furnace may be saving on your energy bill.  Though that particular difference would be very small for a single home, IIRC the physics book says that this difference, this un-billed energy, is significant on a large scale.

If you want to save energy this heating season, using CF bulbs, turning off your lights, and using super efficient appliances (with the above caveats) isn’t the way to do it.  Not during the heating season.  Tightening up the house, adding insulation, using a heat recovery system on your dryer vent, etc., using less hot water (assuming that water’s being dumped outside the heated space) or turning down the thermostat, will save energy.  Otherwise, don’t let ignorance and simplistic thinking influence your lifestyle.

Someone mentioned last time that some of the light from your evil incandescents (or any other lights) is being lost through your windows.  True, but the visible light is a small fraction of the total output unless you’re using LEDs.  In any case it’s the energy you don’t see that’s being lost in far greater quantity through your windows, and that loss takes place whether or not your lights are on.  Use double or triple panes, and close your blinds at night.  We use opaque (to visible and IR) venetian blinds.  My friend, who I helped build a house on the Yukon/Kuskokwim delta, had a large, triple pane picture window with an insulated door that swung down from the ceiling and had magnetic seals like a refrigerator door.  The house also has 18″ to 24″ of insulation in the walls and floor (double framed) and more in the ceiling.  We had to insulate the house from the tundra underneath too, to keep the tundra from thawing in summer.  That was an interesting project, but now I have digressed.

Sneak Peek

Posted on by

We’ve wanted to design an optic mount for the M1 Garand rifle for years, and people have been asking us for one, but it always seemed like there was something else we had to do.  Well, here’s our M1 rifle optic mount prototype.  I think it’s going to be designated the M12 optic mount.  You saw it here first.

I don’t know how many people have told me that their “old eyes” can’t make use of the iron sights like they use to, or that it would sure be nice to have a simple way to mount a scout scope or dot sight on a Garand, etc., but it’s been a lot.

If you’re not familiar with the M1 rifle, it has to be loaded from the top, and when the clip of ammo you shove into the magazine runs empty, the clip is ejected forcefully out the top when the last shot is fired.  That means you can’t put an optic over the top of the receiver, ’cause it gets in the way of loading and ejection.  Some M1 rifles were used with scopes mounted off to the left side, but few people like that arrangement.  It works, but you need a special mount and I understand you have to drill the receiver on your classic rifle, plus your manual clip eject button (“clip latch”) is there on the left side.

This new mount replaces the handguard just in front of the receiver, clamping solid to the barrel with steel clamps and screws similar to the UltiMAK M8 for the M-14 rifle.  This is the prototype, and is left “in the white”.  The production units will be anodized and finished in black.  It sits low enough to co witness (use the iron sights without removing the optic, right through the optic, in case the dot fails) with most tubular dot sights which also means you need no comb riser to get a decent cheekweld.  On this example (a vintage Springfield war horse – Thanks Mr. Devoe) I can center the dot in the Aimpoint Micro, with the rear iron sight all the way down hard, and the rear aperture is completely out of the way, yet I can still aim with the irons if I want.  It’s as if the rifle, mount and Micro sight were all made for each other.  That’s the way we like it.

[shameless self promotion = “off”]

I’m not putting it on our web site just yet, because we have more tweaking to do, and a lot of other things before it goes into production.  This post is just what the title says.

The M1 rifle is fascinating for several reasons.  One reason is that the gas port in the barrel (where high pressure gas is bled off to operate the action) is right near the muzzle, under the front sight, so the operating rod goes full length form the charging handle to the front sight.  We were talking here the other day about how much machining went into one of these rifle, and how many were made in a short time.  Amazing.  Its design led to a whole family of long guns, including the M-14, M1A, Mini-14, Mini-30, and the M1 Carbine shares some things in common with it.  Back in the day the M1 was state of the art, but today it would be considered on the high end of heavy for a battle rifle, it holds a small number of rounds in the magazine, doesn’t lend itself to “tactical reloads” very well, but it sure is a lot of fun, and its .30-06 cartridge packs a punch.  And look how pretty it is.  Just..just look at it.

Question

Posted on by

What do you call a bunch of people, hated by our enemies, stuck in close quarters with no means of self defense?

Answer; “Fish in a barrel”.

“Target Rich Environment” comes to mind also.  This in response to that perpetual blithering idiot, Paul Helmke.  I don’t really even like talking about him, because in reality it’s probably a complete waste of time.  That and he’s getting, right here, far more attention than he deserves.  We should spend more time talking about good or interesting things, or ideas that can solve problems and he’s none of the above.  Flies, ants, hornets, and mosquitoes, do tend to get one’s attention though, even at the best of picnics.  If he can take credit for something, I suppose that’s it– being the annoying parasite at the gathering of minds.  Where’s my fly swatter?

It Boggles the Mind

Posted on by

Reading the swarm of comments over on Oleg’s blog, it seems a lot of military folks, those with real experience, favor keeping people disarmed in barracks and around the base;

It may be hard for some to comprehend, but putting on ACUs doesn’t make you a weapons proficient commando. If they let every cook, clerk, and nurse carry around loaded weapons 24/7 there would be many more “accidental” deaths than this per year.

Exactly what the anti gun rights activists say about the population in general, and it’s been proven wrong.  We have more guns than ever, and the accident rate continues to fall.  Not weapons proficient?  Them train them, then arm them.  In that order.  Takes only a short while.  Put the second amendment back in force and more of them will be proficient, to some degree, when they arrive, which was of course the original idea, wasn’t it, Skippy?

The average “soldier” doesn’t shoot for a living and non-combat arms (the vast majority is support) troops are lucky to even see the range twice a year.

Poor training.  Basing policy on poor training is worse than just poor training alone.  So, we can afford billion-dollar bombers, and gazzillion-dollar satellite networks and all that, but a few extra cartridges for a week of training is out of the freaking question.  Even then, I assume there has to be at least a few in the barracks who know one end of a gun from another.  I know– I just don’t understand.  I’d understand if I were in the military, that you don’t train too many people too well, ’cause that’s “dangerous”, even though I see every day here in the real world that that line of thinking is pure horseshit.  The more people equipped and trained in the use of arms, the safer your whole society, and the more versatile and effective your military.  If you people don’t trust your own, you need to seriously get the f^#K out.  Now.

They would also have to lock the base down from un-verified (without prior clearance) civilian entry as weapons would be too easily accessed.

“Civilian entry”?  Like at my house, where there’s infinitely more firepower than in military barracks?  Like at a gun store or a gun show, or a shooting range, practically anywhere in the country?  So then, it’s fine to just let any stranger onto a military base so long as that base is almost as unarmed as a kindergarten-school-gun-free-zone, and it would be worse to let strangers in if people on the base were mostly all armed and capable of defending themselves?  That’s hippie logic, right there, folks.  It’s right out of Diane Feinstein’s teeny tiny little bird brain.

Somebody (re)educate me here (haul me to a camp or something) ’cause I figure that if you’re training an army, any time, any where, they should all know how to handle a weapon, from the nurse, to the cook, to the electrician, to the floor sweeper, to the truck driver, etc. (just like in the civilian population) all the way through to the actual combat units.  Falling short of that (because you’re in the military and afraid of guns?) I would think that, at the very least, anyone trained in weapon handling should be well-trained, and should be hauling at the very minimum a sidearm around at all times (just like millions of civilians do every day already).

Very Good Post

Posted on by

Most of you probably already visit Kevin’s blog regularly.  If you don’t, please go and read this piece.  It’s by one of his readers, formerly of the U.K.  It’ll take you a few minutes, but it’s well worth it.  It’s an overview of what’s been happening in the U.K. and what, I submit, has been happening here in the U.S. though more slowly (until now).

Yards, Meters and BDC

Posted on by

So maybe I’m an idiot.  I was out firing a Colt AR-15 HBAR with a Trijicon ACOG scope.  I’d gone the extra step and drilled through the A2 carry handle on this otherwise pristine Colt so as to add the second mounting screw for the scope.  The BDC (Bullet Drop Compensating) reticle has different crosshairs for elevation at different ranges (wind is of course still up to your doping skills).  You zero at, say, 100 using the main crosshair, and your elevation is supposed to be correct at all the other indicated distances.  One comment on that; it would be much better to refine your zero at greater distances, using that other crosshair, say, at 500 using the number 5 crosshair or etc.

Out in the real world though, your targets aren’t placed at nice, even, measured distances, so it gets just a little bit more complicated.  I’d brought a laser with me to do range measurements.  The laser registered a particular target at 385 yards.  Said right there, so it couldn’t be wrong, “385 yd”.  That’s close enough to 400 that I opt for the number 4 crosshair.  Shot went high.  “Not possible– I called that shot dead on.”  Same thing again.  Walking the shots onto the target, I find I have to hold halfway between the number 3 and 4 crosshairs*.  “Crap.  This shouldn’t be happening.  I have nigh on three grand worth of equipment in top condition, the right ammo, and a standard length barrel.  What the hell?”

Some of you will already have figured out the problem (I seem to recall something about an interplanetary probe oblitorating itself on Mars due to a similar error).  The ACOG scope is calibrated in meters and the laser was set to display in yards.  A yard is 0.9144 meters.  In realistic rifle shooting distances, we can simplify that to either adding or subtracting 10% to do the conversion in our heads, and be close enough.  At 385 yards I was rounding up to 400, which made sense, but I was still thinking all in yards.  I didn’t convert.  385 – 10% (simplify further and subtract 38) =  about 347 meters, or close enough to the 350 meter crosshair for this target.  *Ah Hah!

Better yet would have been to take all of half a minute (only because I don’t mess with the settings much and I’d have had to take that long to figure it out) to set the laser to read in meters.

On a nice, relaxing day with a full belly and a Thermos-full of hot coffee (as backup this time) the sun shining and the birds chirping among the beautiful North Idaho scenery, this was more of an amusing lesson than anything serious.  If there is ever a situation in which it really matters, you’ll want to be aware of these things in advance, and have taken the necessary steps already.

Part of my problem is that I fool around with so many different weapon systems, in addition to being an idiot.  How does that saying go?  “Beware the man with only one gun.”  Something like that.  He knows his weapon backwards and forwards, right and left, upside down and every which way, in the dark, summer and winter, and with one hand tied behind his back just to make if fair he’ll still kick your ass.  Hmm.  Maybe there’s a new IPSC stage in there somewhere.

Update: With the low recoil of the 5.56 round and a low power optic, you can usually spot your own hits even at longer distances.  Take that for what it’s worth.

More on the Practical Application of Principles

Posted on by

It’s time to restate this.  I posted it last year, and I wonder if anyone really “got it”.  It cannot be overstated.  Reading Joe’s recent post about the open carry debate among the pro gun rights camp reminded me of it, once again.  That debate can be said to be between people with the same basic principles.  We’ll see how Rand’s “rules of engagement” as I call them, apply.  Last year I noted;

In the essay, Rand defines three rules “…about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals.” 

Wait.  What?  “the working of principles in practice”?  What’s that?  “The relationship of principles to goals”?  Sounds pretty juicy if there’s anything to it.  Well, there is.

 Leaving out her extensive lead-in:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

Open carry verses keeping it hidden so as not to scare or offend anyone.  Which position is more consistent with the basic principles of RKBA?

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

It applies to any situation, but the idea of government “taking care of” the American people, shared by Republicans and Democrats, comes to mind.  Democrats win here.  Every time.  Republicans will never understand this.  It’s not in their DNA to understand this rule.  It’s in their DNA to deny it.  The NRA had a similar problem about 15 years ago, but they seem to be getting over it, like getting over a very long-lasting flu.  You cannot collaborate with someone who holds different basic principles and expect a nice outcome.  It’s better to do your own thing, unless you want to be the more evil and irrational one.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;

Gun control debate.  Practicing rule 3, without fully understanding it, is the one and only source of our recent successes.  Understand it, Little Grasshopper, and you will go far.  Some of us think that we’ve been trying to appear rational as a selling point, or trying to get the opposition to think that we aren’t bad people after all, but it is by simply being rational, and by being rational in a public way, and sometimes in an in-your-face way, that we win.  There’s a fine distinction here, but a very important one.  Selling ourselves as people is what Republicans do.  That argument says, “I’m a nice, decent person, so you should agree with me.”  Blech.  Selling our ideas, on their own merits, and damn the torpedoes because we know we’re right and we can prove it, we know our opposition is wrong, disastrously wrong, and we can prove that, is what rational people do.

when they (principles) are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Taking RKBA in light of that last bit; hiding your (our) position (that guns in public are a good thing) or evading it, tends to work in favor of the irrational side (gun restrictions).  We’re trying to coddle those who are wrong, trying to sell ourselves in a way tailored so as to appeal to their stupidity and bad behavior.  In so doing we lend them an appearance of credibility or legitimacy that they do not deserve.  Like it or not, that’s how it works.  We have to understand that there are some people who have no credibility, have no legitimacy and deserve no accommodation (anti gunners in this case, or people who are offended or “scared” by visible guns [I think most or all of the “fear” is a cheap act perpetrated for maximum drama]) and we have to be ready to point out why.

I believe there are enough examples in most people’s day-to-day lives that these basic axioms, Rand’s rules of engagement, will be seen as not only valid but very useful once you look at things with them in mind.  Working with institutions installing and troublshooting PA systems (I have an appointment tomorrow) I’ve run into all these situations.  They’re political events as much as anything else.

Carbine Credits and C.O.A.L. Pollution

Posted on by

For someone who reloads metalic cartridges, I’ve done it very little.  Still, I’ve had problems, with several calibers, in seating bullets.  The seating plug that comes with the die set (you only get one plug) doesn’t fit every bullet shape ever made, which means it doesn’t fit the bullet you’re actually using, even if the dies and the bullet were made by the same company.  As a partner to this phenomenon, the loading manual (also written by the bullet company whose sister company made the loading dies) says very little about seating plugs, or the fact that a plug made for one bullet shape might be a real problem when seating a bullet of some other shape.

With some bullet/seating plug combinations, I find it impossible to maintain a cartridge OAL to within 15 or even 20 thousandths, yet the construction of the press should be capable of easily maintaining a seating depth to within a thou or two.

Another part of this cascade of problems is that depending on the bullet type, the bullet itself may be part of the problem.  Softpoints can be distorted in packaging and shipping, can mash during seating if the plug touches soft lead, or a jacketed hollowpoint match bullet’s meplat can be inconsistent to several thousandths.  The latter inconsistency isn’t all that much of a problem if the seater plug fits OK.  The bullet’s ogive is still being seated to the same position and the base is still seating to a consistent depth inside the case because the seater plug doesn’t touch the meplat (assuming it fits OK) and you can always trim the meplats.

Today I got the primers I ordered last April or May, so I decided to load some of the 110 gr “Varminter” HPs I’d gotten to try out in .30 Carbine.  Brand new cases, all prepped and flared the same, and I can barely hold C.O.A.L. to within 15 thousandths.  The seater plug was made for the round nose 30 Carb FMJ, and the HP’s round nose, made by the same company, has a distinctly different shape from the FMJ, which makes the seater plug impinge on the soft lead corners at the very tip of the bullets.  These HPs, by design, are very soft at the tip.  Some of the bullets get swaged inward at the tip, narrowing the hollow tip opening, raising a burr at the tip and lengthening the bullet.  Others don’t distort much at all.  The phenomenon is binary– either I get a distorted nose and the OAL is 10 to 13 thou over, or the nose stays intact and the OAL is within a couple thou of nominal.  Nothing in between.

Long story short; Die makers should be discussing seater plug issues a lot more, and they should offer a plug for just about every bullet shape, especially plugs that don’t impinge on the soft lead of hollowpoints and softpoints unless the plug is going to match the bullet shape perfectly.  Another plug/bullet mismatch I’ve had results in the mouth of the plug cutting a circle around the bullet like a sharpened punch– the extremely small contact surface area isn’t conducive to repeat accuracy.  As it is, I can always make my own seater plugs, but what a pain just so I can try out some different bullets as a lark.  On a positive note; standard reloading dies are priced unbelieveably low.  You may connect the dots.

We had a rep from Speer in at UltiMAK several weeks ago, setting up some M1 Carbines with our forward optic mounts and high-end combat optics for a LE demonstration of their new .308 110 gr Gold Dot loads (offered to LE only last time I checked).  I’ve thought for a long time that the M1 Carbine would make a good patrol carbine or “truck gun” if one were to use good HP loads in it.  Haven’t heard back from the rep about how the demo went, and I’d sure like to try some of those new Gold Dots.  I guess when they release them to the public they’ll be backordered eight months within a week.  I’ll take a thousand, please.

Quote of the Day–Ayn Rand

Posted on by

Just so we’re all clear;

Such is the state of today’s most critical issues: political rights versus “economic rights”.  It’s either or.  One destroys the other.  But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights”.  The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.

Ayn Rand – from the appendix “Man’s Rights” in her book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”

If you don’t have a copy, get one.  The first copy I saw had every other sentence or paragraph highlighted by the owner.  It’s that kind of book.  It was written back in the 1960s, though it seems to be directly addressing our current crop of idiots, moonbats, loons, thugs, bounders, cads, hucksters and charlatans in Washington (to say nothing of the Democrats).

Machine Screws and Other Weird Numbers (rambling alert)

Posted on by

Maybe I’m the last to know, but I just found out that the nominal outer diameter of a gauge-numbered machine screw is defined as the gauge number multiplied by .013″, plus .060″.  The actual diameter is usually two or three thousandths or so under nominal.  I know ’cause we tried it.  And as you are all know doubt aware; once you reach a quarter inch, you’re going by fractional inch dimensions instead of gauge.  Wood screws go by their own, as yet mysterious to me, system, probably developed by some guy and his partner making screws by hand 250 years ago.

Who cares?  Well, we have run into problems with what we refer to as “stacking tolerances” in our production– a threading tap varies slightly (both initially and over time with wear) the anodizing depth varies slightly, and screw dimensions vary slightly even if you stick with one supplier.  If these variations all go in the wrong direction at once, you end up with customers calling you saying the screws are so tight in the mount that some of them are breaking, even though you’ve been doing everything exactly the same for years and it’s always worked nicely.  We started using +.001″ and +.002″ oversized form taps a few years ago, to make up for the thickness the anodizing adds to the threads, and then some, and the problem went away.  Now at least we can measure screws and know exactly how they vary from “nominal” as opposed to making simply comparative measurements.

This new (to me) tidbit of information is just icing on the cake for you engineers out there, in the unlikely event that you were as ignorant of such things as I was a few minutes ago.  What I still don’t understand is why we call a number eight screw a number eight screw instead of a .164″ screw.  Too many digits?  But then you’d not have to remember gauge x .013″ + .060″.

Some of these oddities come down from the past in “organic” ways.  Firearm bullet and bore diameters are a good example.  Who the hell came up with .223, .308 or .452, as opposed to, say .200, .250, .300 .350, etc?  Some of these unlikely numbers, at least in part, come from the days of black powder, wrought iron barrels, soft lead bullets, and the manufacturing tolerances of yore.  The realistic tolerances back then were nowhere near what’s possible now, and it resulted in some pretty weird numbers that became standards out of expediency and in response to backward compatibility issues.  I use a .454 ball (that number’s still with us) in an 1850s .44 percussion revolver for example, because the oversized ball gets better purchase on the sides of the chamber and on the rifling.  We would now refer to a .454 bullet as caliber 45, though you were shooting it from what was called a .44 caliber pistol back in the 1860s, and the modern 45 cal bullets are .451″ and .452″.  Modern 44 caliber bullets are .429″.  Huh?  I definitely need to learn more about this stuff.  In another .44 percussion revolver I have I use a .457″ ball– you want a ball that’s bigger than the cylinder, and a cylinder that’s bigger than the barrel groove diameter, so everything gets a sure, tight fit with the soft lead ball.

We still use grains as a unit of measurement, which came from some king somewhere telling us that the official definition of a pound was “seven thousand plump grains of wheat” (what poor saps had to count them, then recount them, and who verified their work?).  Shotgunners use the dram, which converts to the tidy number of 27.34375 grains, or the “dram equivalent”, which is a charge of modern smokeless powder that generates about the same energy as that number of drams of black powder.

If we were to start all over and reinvent guns from the beginning today, we’d no doubt end up with simpler units and numbers, but the world doesn’t work that way.  Each incremental development is built upon the previous one, and you don’t immediately re-tool everyone in the business, make all the old versions unusable, and change all the established experience and data, just for that little increment of improvement.

Still, I keep saying someone needs to reinvent the computer OS (or the very concept of the computer OS– maybe the very use of the term “OS” is thinking too much inside the box) from the beginning.  There is of course no basis– no established school of thought or system of evaluation that would warrant such a claim.

Sneetches, and Anti Capitalist Indoctrination

Posted on by

This post inspired by Say Uncle’s post about bedtime stories.

Dr. Seuss was clearly a socialist, and the Sneetches story is but a minor example of it.  The Lorax is worse.  Maybe I’ll do a post about that later.

I’ve always wondered why the plain-bellied sneetches didn’t just host their own beach parties instead of being all butt hurt and envious over being excluded from the star bellies’ parties.  Ayn Rand would tell us that the star bellies were attempting a monopoly, which in a free market (that is to say, a market without some means of enforcing the monopoly through legislation or outright brute force) is merely enticing capital into start-up competition.  If the plain bellies’ started throwing really good parties of their own, some of the star bellies would eventually want to attend.  If the plain bellies let them attend, the plain belly organized parties would begin to dominate, or take over altogether unless the star bellies changed their discriminative ways.

A free market is self correcting in so many ways, and correcting against arbitrary discrimination is but one example.  We see this in real life just looking at music or sports pre civil rights era, where excluding black players meant missing out on some of the best.  By the time I was in middle school (late 1960s) Motown was well-represented, if not dominating, the top 40 on AM radio.

That’s what I tell my kids.  If their public school teachers can’t handle it, well, it’s their own problem that they choose to make fools of themselves.