Now that's credibility

The official photo apparently depicts Obama – wearing protective glasses and earmuffs -- firing the rifle Aug. 4, 2012. It was released Friday on the White House’s Flickr account.

 I guess thats it.  We can all breathe easier.  Obama is on our side.  He must be pretty good to shoot clay pigeons with a rifle, especially a big bore like that one appears to be.  Takes a serious gun nut to take that kind of punishing recoil to develop his skills.

I think it is great that he is such a great second amendment supporter.

Update:  Some were suggesting it is fake.  I don't think so.  The only reason to fake it would be if he was afraid to actually shoot it.  It looks like a over/under shotgun with ported barrels.  It is what any classy liberal would use to try to impress the bitter clingers.  John Kerry would go hunting geese with it.  [Hillary would use a rifle for waterfowl].

If the president enjoys shooting the shotgun, he ought to run a few thirty rounders through an AR.  It's a blast.

Update Part Two:  Well they did ask for it.

American By Choice, and welcome.

 Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing - Hartford, CT - 1/...

The economics of stupid

Why can't this kind of thing fall into my lap once in awhile?  I heard they actually took in a half dozen scary black rifles.  I would have definitely outbid them.  No mention in the MSM of the side action. 

Told you.

I said we would see copycats due to all the media coverage.  Not over yet.  End freedom of the press now!

Don't forget the first.

With all the calls to infringe on our second amendment rights coming as a result of some asshole in Colorado, lets not forget our first amendment rights. 

The endless attention the media gives this tragedy will result in copy cats.  It happened before with the school shootings.  It will happen again.  The media is partially to blame.

Why isn't anybody (besides me) suggesting we put a muzzle on the media?  Lets get rid of all of our freedoms.

Range Report

Yesterday I made my first bullets. I was given a Lee lead furnace and I had bought moulds. I've had them for quite awhile. I don't know what I was waiting for, other than nice weather and a little free time.

I (sort of) followed the manufacturers directions to prepare the mold, but I didn't have alox lube, so I used the lee liquid alox. I plugged in the furnace, and soon had liquid metal. I skimmed the dross off the top with a screwdriver. Need to acquire or improvise a lead dipper.

The first pair of bullets out of the two cavity mold had one perfect, and one not so good. After awhile, I figured out the bottom pour pot, and my mould got heated up properly, and I started getting mostly good bullets without running molten metal all over the place.

A stopped when I had about 50. I lubed them with the tumble lube. I bought lee tumble lube moulds, as I figured that sounded the easiest. No sizing really necessary, unlike other types. I expect I may need to size for my .45 acp, so I bought the sizing die for that.

The tumble lube is supposed to dry overnight. I didn't wait. I loaded five and shot them with a mild load. Then I loaded those five cases and about 30 others with a full power blue dot load.

I went outside and shot most of them. I wish I could tell you how accurate they are, but I am a terrible shot with my .44. I got about a 3" group from a standing position from 30 feet. I don't think that says anything about the loads, rather my poor shooting ability with a handgun.

Next, I suppose I'll have to buy about 50 lbs of lead.

On the velocity of an unladen.......

So I've been re-reading Surgical Speed Shooting over the last few days. The book is ok. The info in it isn't too bad but the book jumps around and is a little hard to follow. The book is about the isosceles shooting postition for shooting handguns. The author claims it is superior to the Weaver stance. I can't really say, I'm not proficient in either. But I was practicing the hand and arm positions and I found that the method really seems to align the pistol exactly where I am looking, the natural point of aim.

I stepped out my font door with my Ruger Mark II, and noticed a swallow flying towards me. I had seen several flying up under the eaves from inside the house earlier. They want to build a mud nest up there, and I don't really want them too. I assumed the stance as best as I knew it, and fired a shot as the bird turned and flew across my field of view about 15 feet away, leading it an inch or two. Imagine my surprise when it dropped. That is probably the best shot I have ever pulled off with a handgun, although it was mostly luck. I tried a shot at a bird on the ground 30 yards away and came very close. I am going to work on this some more, and maybe my handgun shooting will improve.

Probably irrelevant

Like Obama's citizenship, or lack thereof, the Leviathan will probably ignore this. It's unconstitutional anyway, so that fact that the amendment was never actually passed can't possibly mean anything to them.

I want! I want!

What do I want for Christmas? I don't know. So many things I want, so little money for it. Christmas isn't about that anyway.

I have been looking at rifle scopes. I had the idea that I wanted a better scope for deer hunting. Trouble is, I don't need it. I have a decent one now on both deer rifles. I helped my uncle pick one out for his rifle last month. I am conviced I did pretty well.

This is what I picked for him: http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3974 That is the best price I have seen on it too. Nearly $100 cheaper than everywhere else.

I might get the same one for me. I decided this year that I wanted a better scope for hunting in the timber. My 4.5-14x40 doesn't have a wide enough field of view. I had a nice buck running through the trees, and I had a hard time finding him in the scope. I still got the deer, but I could have made a better shot. I figure I want one gun, my .30-06, set up for hunting in the woods. Most shots would be less than 200 yards. Now, I am not going to use open (iron) sights. I wanted to get one of these: I still might. I dunno. I read on a couple forums that the image is not flat. Maybe doesn't matter. I would like to look through one before I buy it. Nobody round here carries them. Another minus is the 1/2 MOA adjustment clicks. I'd prefer 1/4. I think it is more meant for muzzleloaders and shotguns. Anyway, it has pretty good optics with a wide field of view, and the ballistic plex reticle if I ever need it for a longer shot. I would use the rifle at home too, were shots can be 20 yards out to who knows. It is very light weight also. You end up carrying your rifle a lot more than you shoot it. This rifle currently has a Swift 3-9x40. Which is not as bright or as sharp as the Nikon. It was a good scope for the money, I and really can't complain about it.

The other scope that I want, is for my 'beanfield' rifle. This rifle would be used out in the wide open. Shots could be pretty far. I don't know how far, I'd have to see how well my rifle and I can shoot. As far as I can hit a paper plate every time I guess. For that, this is the scope I want. The optics are as good as scopes costing quite a bit more, the eye relief is constant, and generous, the exit pupil is large, at over 5mm. Field of view is actually wider than the 3-9x40 Light transmission is really good. If I could have only one rifle and scope, this is the one I would want. (Thank God you can have more than one!) It has side focus adjusment, another really cool feature. Only downside is I would need new rings for the 30mm tube. That is minor. And the cost, which is not minor. This rifle currently has a Weaver Grand Slam 4.5-14x40 on it. Which really is a pretty good scope. If I got a new scope, I have other rifles that have el cheapo's that I could replace with the Weaver. This is the rifle mentioned above. As to why I was using it in that situation in the first place, well, it is a long story.

Anyways. I want a bullet drop compensating reticle. All of these scopes have that. I don't know why I need this, the money would probably be better spent on a good laser rangefinder.
I want bright sharp optics that work well in low light. Both of the Nikons have that. I think the Burris is pretty good too. Nikon does make a 2-7 power, but it doesn't have the BDC and it costs more.

It is pretty sad to be dreaming and drooling about stuff like this that I don't really need.