Allow me to remind you all that it is precisely one month away:

100 rounds or more of your favorite gun fodder.

A couple suggestions, this one from our friends at CheaperThanDirt:


..and this one from Lucky Gunner:


…and one more for luck, from Sportsman’s Guide:


…but if you want to splurge and get yourself some top-shelf hunting ammo, try this from Graf & Sons:

(That’s $256.45, for the math-challenged.)

Of course, feel free to purchase a little more than 100 rounds, e.g. this offering from Georgia Arms:

…or this branded AR-15 food, from Ammoman:

Of course, you’ll want something to store it in, so from MidwayUSA:


This year, November 19th falls on a Sunday, so get it done. I will be in Britishland on that day, but that’s not gonna stop me from buying ammo, you betcha; and the fact that I can do it from behind enemy lines, so to speak…

I love the Internet.


At some point in the near future, I’m going to be bringing my newest acquisition home from Bitishland. I’m referring of course to this little sweetheart, the Mauser M12:

…lamentably without that fine suppressor, but hey.

My M12 really, really likes a certain brand of 6.5x55mm Swedish ammo, namely the RWS 140-grain HP (as seen here). Well, it turns out that you can’t get RWS centerfire ammo of any kind Over Here — I checked with Anschutz, the importer, and no joy.

Well, I’ll just have to find another brand of 6.5 Swede ammo that Madame enjoys shooting. In Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer I have what my Son&Heir describes as “two lifetimes’ worth” of the above, but the vast majority of it (+/- 2,000 rounds) is Hirtenberg mil-surp; in commercial ammo, I don’t have that much at all. Here’s what it looks like:

What I do have, though, is a decent range of ammo to test, to see which brand works best. (All the ammo is 140gr except for the Hornady, Wolf and Norma stuff.) The unboxed ammo — the Federal Premium — is what my M1896 likes to shoot when not shooting the mil-surp; it’s matched to lot #, even, so I’ll probably test it last, if at all. The ammo in and on the stock sleeve on the right is the same as the Federal in the top left corner (I have no idea why I don’t have it boxed).

Once I find the right match… Let The Buying Begin.

Anyway, it looks like January / February 2018 will be filled with many, many hours at the range while I figure it all out. What a tiresome chore…


In the Comments to an earlier post, Reader JoeInPNG said: “…I’m often surprised and pleased how accurate my Colt 1903 and 1908 are.”

And I was immediately reminded of the time I got to shoot one of the aforementioned, a Colt 1903 in its native chambering of .32 ACP (7.65mm Browning). The owner had had the gun re-blued in Colt’s Royal Blue, and it was so beautiful a gun that I swear I had larcenous / covetous thoughts about a gun for the first time since the Colt Python Episode of 2003. Here’s an un-refinished example, courtesy of Collector’s Firearms in Houston:

…and let me tell you right now, were it not sinfully expensive (well over $1,500), I’d be reporting it as mine.

A parallel thought occurs to me about the .32 ACP –and let me remind everyone, “ACP” stands for “Automatic Colt Pistol” — which by today’s standards is woefully underpowered as a self-defense cartridge.

I don’t care. If I had a 1903, I’d buy as much .32 ACP as I could afford — Visa and Mastercard executives would be booking their Bermuda vacations by now — and I would probably shoot out the 1903’s barrel in about six months. Yes, it’s that much fun to shoot.

The Colt 1908 (.380 ACP) is about the same size as the the 1903, despite being chambered for the larger cartridge:

In its label description the 1903 is called the “Pocket” model, while the 1908 is called the “Vest Pocket” model. Both guns are lovely — can a John Moses Browning design ever be called ugly? — and they would make a fine addition to the collection of anyone who loves craftsmanship and beauty.

The shooting fun, of course, is the joyful bonus.

Not Surprising

Oh boo fucking hoo. A bunch of tatted-up, pierced and hairstyle-challenged kids are having difficulty landing jobs, and of course it’s all The Man’s fault:

In 2017, individuality and creativity are widely regarded as desirable traits in an potential employee.
But it seems some firms still judge prospective hires on appearance, as well as experience.
Jobseekers have been revealing the pettiest reasons they’ve ever been overlooked for a position on the anonymous secret-sharing app Whisper – and tattoos feature heavily in the surprising confessions.
One man with dreadlocks who was turned down for a job said it was not a coincidence that all the other staff members had ‘preppy hair’.
Another woman who had the word ‘hope’ tattooed on her wrist to cover a self-harm scar was informed she was out of the running as a result.

Here’s a pro tip to the author of this piece: employers are looking for individuality and creativity in employees, all right — but self-mutilation and peacocking attitudes aren’t that.

One commenter had the perfect response: “Make a statement about yourself with a tattoo, and be prepared to be judged by it.” 

I note that a large number of these jobs involve interaction with the public, and surprise, surprise: people are turned off by freaky-looking employees.

And then, of course, comes the classic whine of the narcissist: “We shouldn’t have to change our appearance (no matter how freakish); you should change your attitudes because insensitivity.”

Fuck off, the lot of you. Enjoy your welfare existence.


So now we have this foolishness:

“Unacceptable costumes” listed on a University of St. Thomas diversity flier are “wearing Native American headdresses, dressing up as a ‘Mexican’ by wearing a sombrero, dressing as a ‘geisha,’ any form of blackface.”

“Cultural appropriation is defined as ‘the act of taking intellectual and cultural expressions from a culture that is not your own, without showing that you understand or respect the culture,’” explains a University of St. Thomas diversity memo to students.

“This can be as simple as wearing a Dashiki without knowledge or respect to West African culture, and as serious as wearing a fake Native American headdress without any regard of its sacredness,” adds the memo. “It generally incorporates a history of prejudice and discrimination by perpetuating long-standing stereotypes.”

At UC Santa Barbara, a social justice workshop set for Tuesday will delve into how Halloween costumes abuse “indigenous wear” and teach students how to “spot appropriation with the help of bell hooks’ essay ‘Eating the Other.’”

At a “Conversation Circle” at Princeton University this Sunday, students will “engage in a dialogue about the impact of cultural appropriation, Halloween, and why culture is not a costume.”

Oh FFS, I wish these priggish, self-righteous shitwits would just lighten up.

Sounds like an excuse for a nationwide “Clothing Optional” Halloween on campus… although feministicals will no doubt start squealing that swinging dicks create an atmosphere of terror for women or some such bullshit. What a bunch of wussies.

And let’s face it: there’s no fun in everyone dressing in fucking togas, which seems to be the only costume I can think of that’s safe to “appropriate” because all the Romans are dead. (No, modern-day Italians are not Romans except by proxy. Look it up.)

I am so glad I’m not a student anymore, because I would get into shit on at least a daily basis. I just wish that more students could do the same, but they’re the ones calling for all this sensitivity crap. Snotty snowflakes, all of ’em.

Nostalgia #846

Why does this pic make me feel nostalgic?

  1. The cops are all men.
  2. They’re doing crowd control, but aren’t dressed up like Imperial stormtroopers.
  3. They’re ogling a pretty girl without some shrew accusing them of [insert feministical outrage of choice here].
  4. The girl is alluring, pretty and sexy; and yet somehow she manages to do all that without looking like a total slut.

Yeah, I miss the old days.