A Gun Too Far

Insty sent me to Tami Keel’s thoughtful post  at Shooting Times :

For the last 10 years or so, though, the standard answer to the “What pistol?” question has been a polymer-frame, striker-fired, double-stack pistol chambered in 9 mm. The temptation is definitely there to think of writing “The End of History and the Last Pistol.” But how did we get here, and what could be next?
For the reasons behind the pistol type itself, it comes down to simple cost. There’s nothing more modern about a striker over a hammer. John Moses Browning’s first semi-automatic pistol, the FN Model 1899, was striker-fired. It’s not intrinsically superior mechanically, either. In fact, it has a few downsides. A hammer generally gets better ignition reliability, and a hammer allows the use of lighter recoil springs since the force required to override the hammer provides much of the initial braking force to the recoiling slide.

Frankly, I would have had a different title — and probably, a different emphasis in the piece altogether.  Let me illustrate why.  Here’s the timeline graphic as it appears in the article:

…and here’s my take on the same graphic:

…which would lead to my headline:

Have We Gone A Gun Too Far?

You see, I question the appearance of the Glock G17 on the chart altogether (and I should point out quite emphatically that I’m not  taking a dig at Tami).  It’s not the first striker-fired pistol (as Tami points out), and it’s certainly not the first semi-auto pistol.

But Tami’s next sentence, while correct, gives the game away:

The striker’s big advantage is simplicity, which translates to a less-expensive gun. There’s just no way to produce a hammer-fired ignition system as cheaply as a striker-fired one. Similarly, there’s just no way to chisel a frame out of steel or aluminum as cheaply as one can injection-mold one out of polymer. When it comes to the real world of accountants and budgets, the cheap gun that works just fine is going to displace the more-expensive gun that also works just fine.

All true, and all well and good.  But just making something cheaper  doesn’t warrant a place on the timeline, any more than making a more efficient (and more expensive) double-action revolver than the Beaumont-Adams (e.g. a Colt Python) would merit a similar inclusion.

Just because the Glock is one of the most popular handguns around doesn’t make it a step on the Gun Evolution Ladder, in other words.

Here’s my final thought on the matter.  For decades, we bought our Coca-Cola in glass bottles.  Then glass containers gave way to plastic bottles — which makes a case for a place on the container  timeline, but not one for inclusion on the soft drink  timeline.

I know, I know:  I’m splitting hairs here, and we all know the Glock is the greatest thing since ice cream etc. etc.  Except it isn’t.  It’s a cheap-to-produce plastic container, and its only real benefit is to the accountants.  As for the “cheaper” part, here’s the Gospel according to Bud:

But whatever.  Y’all can carry a Glock (or any of their copycats), with my blessing.  It’s not a horrible pistol;  it’s an affordable, effective and reliable gun.  Me, I’ll stick to my 1911 (which is on the timeline — and justifiably so) and one day, maybe, a Colt Python.

The rest of the article has to do with ammo, but everybody here knows my opinion about the 9mm Europellet.  Likewise, I’ll stick to .45 ACP and .357 Magnum.

And this exchange in the Comments to Insty’s post had me chuckling:

“Plastic crap”…

Quote Of The Day

This one’s for all those institutions (government and corporations) who just have to know what you’re doing all the time:

“It’s not that I have something to hide.  I have nothing I want you to see.” — Anon

So FOAD, the lot of you.

Deal-Killer

Oh, this is charming:

By now you’ve probably heard at least a little something about California’s shocking new “freelancer” bill that went into effect January 1, 2020.  Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) is sweeping and vague but basically it redefines the relationship between employers and employees, effectively ending independent contract work and killing the “gig economy”.

Independent contractors across the nation could soon be suffering the same fate as their California counterparts.  A federal version has passed through committee and now sits in the House of Representatives waiting for a floor vote.  This is not a drill.  This is real.

As someone who depends utterly on the gig economy to supplement my shitty SocSec income, let’s just say that I’m casting a very baleful eye on this development.

I can’t see this bill making it into law — I can’t believe it would make it through the House, Senate and be signed by POTUS.

Its title is H.R.2474 — the “PRO Act” — and I would recommend that everyone reading this send a letter (not email, those assholes in Congress have installed layers and layers of screeners to ignore us) telling their Congressweasel and Senator to treat this foul bill like the rabid dog it is, and shoot it on sight.

I’m not going to threaten anybody or anything, but if this bullshit makes it into Federal law, I guess we’ll see just how “real” this gets.  I’ve been destitute before, and at age 65 I have no intention of going through that again.

And if any political wiseguy tells me to learn how to code… let’s just say I already know  how to code.  I also know how to grease a fucking rope — and I’ll leave it to someone else to tell me which one I’d rather do.

About Damn Time

I have always pressed for a relationship where the men and women have clearly-defined roles — and preferably, one where the man is the earner and dominant partner, while the woman takes care of the home and children.  Needless to say, the feministicals come after men like me, spitting and clawing, and spouting bullshit about the “patriarchy” and (in times past) “male chauvinist” etc.

Now, after all the feministical nonsense, we finally seem to have something of a return to sanity:

Amid the Me Too movement and radical feminism, a new opposing trend has emerged across Britain – the ‘tradwife’ trend.
Harking back to 1950s Britain, and already established in the US, the trend sees women reverting to the traditional roles of housewives, practiced in the fifties and sixties.
The belief behind the movement is that wives should not work, and rather spend their days cooking, cleaning, wearing modest and feminine dress, and practice traditional etiquette, being submissive to their husbands and ‘always put them first’.

“Tradwife”… okay, I can live with the term.  I could (and do) happily live with someone who believes in it.  Even better is this perspective:

‘My view on feminism is that it’s about choices. To say you can go into the working world and compete with men and you’re not allowed to stay at home -to me is taking a choice away’.
Distancing herself from the movement’s right-wing links, she argued: ‘Being a tradwife is investing in your family and being selfless. So I would say the opposite of that is someone who is selfish and just takes’.

We need more of this, and more women like her.  Society will be all the better for it.

And my favorite line from the article:

‘We say to feminists: thanks for the trousers, but we see life a different way’.

Priceless.

Letting Nature Take Its Course

I like this idea:

Eight terriers kill record 700 rodents in just seven hours – after desperate farmer called in handlers in bid to fix vermin crisis once and for all

Talk about creating a service to address a need:

The terriers are trained to kill vermin and are managed by the rat group, who travel around the region to clear farms of unsightly vermin.
Ed Cook, 34, manages the service and said the Suffolk and Norfolk Rat Pack are dedicated to promoting traditional hunting methods.

Now, if we can only create such a group Over Here to see off the vermin who infest the Government Swamp, Social Democrat party, United Nations and other such foul institutions, the world would be a better place.

Maybe Not

I followed a link from Insty to Amazon (“Top Books In Military History”) and found this:

Priceless.

That said, given the Smithsonian’s increasing descent into woke-based illiteracy, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the cover was printed incorrectly, the book is about WWI, and nobody in the layers and layers of fact-checkers picked it up.

Or else it’s the Ockham principle, which would simply say that Amazon done fucked up.