Gothmog

Well, yes, higher motives are better ... the trouble is Dems will ascribe low motives to Reps and vice versa. Does anyone here believe that Clinton's gun control moves were 'high minded'? Similarly, few lefties would consider the Iraq war a noble enterprise.

My guesses would be vanity, a sense of duty, or a desire to effect certain changes based on either deeply held beliefs or less high motives. Or it could be some combination of the above ....

Sorry to read the news .... Tye was possessed of an excellent sense of humour in spite of his generally surly tone. After a series of ferocious internet fights with 'yours truly', Tye 'accidentally' answered a question of mine on another forum. See here: http://p205.ezboard.com/fsteyrmannlicherfr...opicID=18.topic We got along ok after that. Here is his profile from EZBoards: He was also capable of quite poetic moments, and I will post the excerpt if I can find it. From what I recall, it would be fitting to see it here. Godspeed, soldier ....

Nah we don't sound much like Brits ... far more like you guys, as you see. The 'Cali accent' may be affected to a certain degree, as we tend to put it on to ridicule others, or just when poking a little fun at someone and that is certainly what the young lady is doing in the video. I suppose she is 'playing dumb', pretending not to understand why the Registry and other aspects of the Firearms Act don't deliver what was promised, hence the 'Valley Girl' affectation. BTW, she is the daughter of an Ontario (Canada, not California) Gunsmith who is engaged in a legal battle with the government over the current Firearms Act.

... about gun control. I thought you folks might enjoy viewing this video ... remember, its satire. I suspect there will be a few wry smiles out there.

Hey Karl, next time be a pal and let us know what stock you're about to sell. All kidding aside, it seems I do the same thing at times ... its the nature of things I'm afraid.

Hi Guys, I just noticed the recent responses to this thread now .... I still haven't gotten around to dealing with this gun, I'll probably take it to a gunsmith friend of mine for an initial consultation. Are these guns reasonably easy to take apart and work on? Getting it back together correctly would be a bonus too! I suppose once it has a clean bill of health I would consider shooting it. Anyone have any info on BP loads for the 45 Colt, or a good place to look?

I'm not posting much (just in case I'm one of those you might be referring to), but not mad at anyone ... for once in my life I haven't a whole lot to say!

Hi Karl, Speer lists Unique at 5.5 gr to 5.9 gr MAX for a 124 gr bullet, but I have never used that powder. Bullseye is listed between 4.6 and 5.0 gr ... Red dot is listed from 4.5 to 4.8 gr but please note that is with a 125 gr bullet. I use Winchester 231 at 4.6 gr, MAX is at 5.0 gr of powder. A couple others I've never tried are contained in an old Hornady manual, once again for 125 gr bullets. LMK if they might be of use to you. My Speer manual maintains that bullet seating depth is quite critical with the 9mm Luger round. Avoid seating bullets too deep and use bullets with a cannelure as very little crimp can be used to prevent the bullets being accidentally seated deeper when shooting. Hope that helps!

A few pics in case its of interest ...

Thanks Swamprat ... I suppose I'll just have to take it in to the Gunsmith and see what can be done. I'm not sure if its possible or even desirable to repair existing parts in a collectable. I suspect replacing them with modern parts is good from a functional point of view but may also adversely affect collectability.

I just acquired a Colt M1878, built in 1885 and discovered that the double action trigger works ok but the hammer will not lock into place for single action shooting, nor will it lock in the half cock position (safety). I've looked over parts diagrams and suspect that a worn sear is the issue, but I am woundering if anyone else might offer some suggestions as to the likely culprit here.

FC, that's a classic! Is it your own or did ya poach it?

I quite enjoy the sci fi writings of Jack Vance ... The Dying Earth and Eyes of the Overworld are fine books. The Demon Princes series is very good as well, a mix of mystery, intrigue and a quest for interplanetary revenge. The original Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle are quite enjoyable too ... interesting as stories and descriptive of the social climate of the time. In the classics, The Golden Ass by Apuleius (sp?) will keep you in stitches, as will The 12 Caesars by Suetonius. No one should omit the reading of Don Quixote (Cervantes) either ... belly laughs galore! In a more serious vein, Lives of the Noble Greeks/Romans by Plutarch is an indispensable 'who's who' of ancient times and great reading. The Prince by Machiavelli is a worthwhile review of politics and power. I'd have to spend a little time trying to sort out which of the dialogues of Plato to choose as well. Ancient literature includes the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles, especially the Orestia, the Theban Plays and the Agamemnon. The Clouds by Aristophanes is a humourous expose of the dangers inherent in teaching the young. Apparently a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing indeed. Most of these require some grounding in the culture of the times to fully appreciate. George Orwell's Animal Farm is a hilarious satirical jab at totalitarian government, and makes its point simply and effectively ... for my money better than 1984 if somewhat irreverent. That's all I can think of for now, but a good start, I think.

Your comments remind me (in a roundabout way) of how some of the participants of WW2 fought that war. I was reading an account of British Commandos operating in Yugoslavia with Partisans and their reaction to some of the Yugo mine clearing procedures. They would have children walk through suspected minefields first and the fighters would follow afterwards. When asked about this procedure, the response was that they could afford to lose the children, but not trained soldiers! That leads me to believe that their ROE were similarly 'practical' if a perhaps little shocking to those of us with no experience of 'total war'.

I have no doubt that America can handle any conventional force set against it, there is not even a need to use nukes. However, the problem is with long term occupation of a country and the resulting attrition to a highly trained force. The other side gets to trade pawns off for major pieces .... and they have a lot of pawns. The other thing to consider is the stunning cost of this campaign. How much longer can America keep this up? Osama Bin Laden's game plan to beat the Soviets back in the 1980's was to get them to spend themselves into bankruptcy and it seems to have worked ... is America next? I don't particularly care if America plays 'nice-nice' or not, but 'smart-smart' would be a good idea.

I just see it as 'fighting smarter', that's all .... it's not about being 'ugly' or not, its about getting the job done that one set out to do. If somehow the whole area unravels I think that plays into the hands of Iran and Al Quaeda, not the USA. Then the billions spent here would not only be wasted but actually counter productive. Again, as evil a tyrant as Saddam was, he knew how to maintain stability in Iraq ... I suspect brute force was only one element at play. Others would include an intimate knowledge of local culture and the ability to carefully play one side off against another. The US has toppled Saddam from power and must at least replace him with something just as stable or the whole game was for nothing. I believe the goal was to destroy the regime but not the nation of Iraq, as that would leave Iran a free hand to expand its influence in the region. As to how much influence the US had in the execution, well I'm not sure .... it would have required anticipating what might have occurred here, something that a more intimate understanding of the culture would have helped with. Certainly the US has the power to punish those who put it in an awkward position, but its a delicate balancing act to be sure. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a general mood to wash ones hands of the entire situation .... the only problem with that being that without US intervention the resulting catastrophe would never have occurred, so you do have a certain amount of self interest at stake if not responsibility. Regarding your comments on civil war, I have to disagree with your premise that Iraqis might prefer it. There are certain elements inside Iraq who would like to see it occur, because it will bring them advantage. I believe it is in America's interest to try to prevent it happening as all the things you have fought and died and paid for will be lost. Your enemies will gain more power in the region, the supply of oil from Iraq will be jeopardized as will the supply of oil in the entire Gulf area ... I don't think 'letting it happen' will be a productive event for the US.

This is why some people suspect the decapitation was deliberate .... the point is not how humane the execution was but whether an insult was made to the Sunnis by means of this act. Unless you want the US to be caught in the middle of an Iraqi civil war and potential massive local war in the region it would be wise to be attentive to the values and customs of the locals. Thank goodness US representatives insisted on the return of the body, but sadly enough there has been no shortage of blunders during this period of occupation.

It's been going on quite a long time .... in Canada a sharp distinction has been made between handguns and long arms since about the turn of the century. In the 1930's registration of handguns began. In 1978, full auto firearms were banned from public ownership and permits were required for pistol owners to transport their property. In the early 1990's we had increased storage requirements for handguns, and further bans on 'assault weapons', namely AK's and FN's and G3's and various HK rifles. During the period of time between the 1970's and the mid 1990's (the time of the gun registry), the prevailing attitude was one of 'long guns good, short guns bad'. The line promoted by the government was that handguns were the firearms most likely to be used in crime and the argument used to support it was that they had no hunting purpose ... a similar argument had been made with respect to full auto firearms. Oddly enough, the gun registry of the mid 90's put things on a more even footing .... handgun owners were no longer alone in suffering from bureaucratic entanglements designed to discourage ownership of their property. Furthermore, an increase in interest in handgun ownership/shooting occurred as a result of laws that appeared to place both types of firearm on the same basis: registered by government. Many more Canadians have become involved in organized shooting sports as a result of regulations making club membership mandatory and because government had moved away from the policy of demonizing handguns exclusively. The hunting crowd were outraged, but unfortunately their outrage has stopped short of uniting with other gun owners and sportsmen once it appeared that their own issues would be addressed. It's very selfish and short sighted of this group and has been the means for governments to divide and conquer while stripping away our rights one bit at a time. Hopefully enough of this group has learned from recent experience to appreciate that once our guns are gone, theirs will be next, and that they need to make common cause with other gun owners.

Hey, I didn't mind it posted in "Fightin' Words', it just struck me as funny, that's all. Anyways, things are ok for the time being, but the new government hasn't done a whole lot for us yet. I suppose the fact that it is a minority government does tie their hands somewhat, but it is increasingly clear to me that the best that can be said of political friends is that they won't treat you quite as badly as your enemies ... getting anything out of them will likely cost them popular support (from their point of view) and so nothing gets done in a hurry. Add to that the fact that you are seen to have no where else to vote and there is always the danger that gun people will act as sacrificial lamb on the altar of the next general election. In other words, I am skeptical that a political solution will get us what we want although I was hopeful at one time. I have also found that there is no shortage of 'fellow' gun owners who think it quite all right to sell out the rights of handgunners or semi auto rifle owners as long as their particular pastime/property isn't affected. By and large I've witnessed this behaviour from folks whose only connection to firearms is through hunting. Mind you, that kind of statement tends to open the floodgates, perhaps we'll wind up in the other place after all ... Anyways, not to tar all with the same brush, just something I've observed up here. To quote one fellow who remarked slightly sheepishly: "You do realize that a ban on semi autos wouldn't really affect me all that much ... " . He further added that it was a good thing that the long gun registry might be scrapped (for hunting firearms) because it was expensive and unnecessary but that handguns were a fine and proper thing to keep lists of! It kind of made me feel like retorting that a ban on hunting didn't sound half bad .... we should stop the cruelty now! As the saying goes: "With 'friends' like that, who needs enemies?"

Things are great Karl, but very busy. I'll go into more detail tomorrow afternoon on that. Any particular reason you posted this in the "Fightin' Words" forum?

Not a bad site ... a few of the fellows I know (in an internet sense) hang out there.

That is an interesting twist Karl, we'll see what happens ... I had thought it too late to take on Iran but I suppose a punitive campaign isn't beyond the possible. What's your read on the Iraq timeframe for withdrawal/stay?

I agree with you that staying the course (now that the US is there) is the right thing to do, but have the feeling that isn't what will happen. All this talk about the rest of the allied Arab world needing to step up to the plate to put the brakes on Iran doesn't sound either promising or possible. I like having the smilies again, btw ...

It sure looks less like a last attempt to complete the job than to lay the groundwork for an exit, should that become necessary. Too little, too late ...? Who knows, maybe GWB will pull off yet another squeaker although this one looks like very long odds to me. Mind you he won 2 elections more than I thought he would, given the odds against him, so I don't think the possibility can be entirely discounted. How long do the rest of you think American forces will remain in Iraq? Permanently? For the foreseeable future? 3 to 5 years? Out within a year? I'm beginning to think the last choice is correct ... this is a late blitz to knock down the opposition as much as possible before leaving in order to give the Iraqi government the best possible chance for surviving what is likely to be a period of serious internal conflict.