My favorite toy
Our Brit friend Jonny Carter goes hunting in Krautland with the legendary Franz Albrecht. It’s a fine way to spend 20 minutes (for you, not all day like Jonny).
I must admit, though, that I would never go hunting with a strange rifle that I hadn’t sighted in for myself. (Tip for Jonny: don’t get there late in future.)
Okay, so you’d like to shoot your 1911 Government, but the cost of the manly .45 ACP ammo is eating into your Booze Fund. What to do, what to do…
Well, in the past you could always just buy one of those ACE conversion kits, but they were spendy and anyway, you were too lazy to do all the mechanical work involved in stripping and reassembling. So you just never bothered. Far easier, therefore, just to buy a .22 pistol like a Ruger or Browning. (This paragraph, by the way, describes me perfectly.)
But in fact there are now a couple of alternatives that enable you to shoot cheaply and keep your eye in with your Colt 1911. Here’s one: the Walther-Hammerli 1911:
…or, if you want to take away that long 5″ barrel for a lighter gun, you could go for the Combat Commander-style shortie:
Finally, of course, if that modern “cheese grater” look grates on you [sic], you could always just go for the Walther-Hammerli “Made under Colt license” 1911 model:
And the best part? The above two retail (ATOW) for about $350, and the licensed model costs only forty-odd bucks more.
No need to wait for those winning lottery tickets, in other words.
That matchless Colt 1911 trigger in an affordable .22 LR package: irresistible.
Note: just as a point of interest, Hammerli’s own .22 pistol (called by the romantic name of “X-Esse”) costs well over a grand. Yes, it has a 6″ barrel:
But in the dictionary under “Tack Driver” you’ll find this pic.
Here it is, in its competitive “Sport” iteration:
Ooooh, something from my local range, Texas Legends of Allen:
If anyone’s interested in joining me, send an email with your preferred date(s). It’s been a long time since I did anything like this, and it’s about time I did. Now, if I can just drag the Son&Heir away from his treadmill at GlobalMegaBank Inc…
Well, here we go again:
Rhode Island Democrat House members are pushing legislation to require Rhode Islanders to obtain a “Firearm Safety Training Certificate” prior to purchasing a gun.
The text of H 7755 requires the would-be buyer of a handgun to “Present to the person selling the firearm a valid firearm safety training certificate issued by the office of the attorney general.”
The text further states: “The firearm safety training certificate shall certify that the purchaser has completed and passed an approved basic firearm safety training course within the previous five (5) years.”
Of course, your initial reaction to this is going to be a snort of fury and the ensuing Red Curtain Of Blood coming impeding your vision — as was my initial reaction.
But then I started thinking.
Somebody remind me: what does that Constitution thing say about guns? Oh yeah (sing along with me):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
…and a damn fine piece of writing it is, too.
Now, for the benefit of the hoplophobes, let’s just get a few definitions out of the way.
“Regulated”, when it was written, did not mean “subject to laws and regulations” (as it might mean today). Back then, “regulated” meant “trained”, as exemplified by how several states used to mandate some kind of monthly military training (marching in step, learning to obey military commands, and so on). That regulation also required learning proficiency in the use of firearms (and other military equipment, such as cannon). We’ll get back to this in a moment.
“Militia”, also when it was written, did not mean the National Guard or anything like that, simply because the Guard hadn’t been invented yet. A militia meant armed citizenry — and the United States Code goes on to define who constituted the armed citizenry as “every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age” (Teh Wimmens were added later, by the way). And just so we’re all clear on the concept: membership of the militia was compulsory.
So let’s take this proposal of the legislators of Rhode Island (lest we forget, one of the first states in the union) and make it comply with the spirit of the Constitution (because otherwise? it’s un-Constitutional).
So, Rhode Island legislators (and others of the same ilk): how about it?
And by the way: this is an either/or choice: either institute mandatory firearms training in high schools, or drop your current idea in the trash because it’s un-Constitutional.
Oh, and fuck you, all of you.
At first, I didn’t think too much about this development:
America’s largest gunmaker, Sturm Ruger & Co., accused the parent company of Italian arms firm Beretta of trying to stealthily seize control of the Connecticut-based business through “self-serving demands” such as cut-price stock buys and veto-like board power.
The Todd W. Seyfert-led giant hit back on Monday at the historic firm’s proxy fight, which was first reported by The Post on Feb. 25, that branded the move as a thinly-veiled threat to launch “a war” and complete a full takeover.
Ruger claimed Beretta quietly built a large stake, refused to halt purchases during negotiations and sought perks that could break US antitrust laws that prevent companies from unfairly dominating markets.
“At that meeting, Beretta’s chair indicated a long-term plan to combine Ruger with Beretta but made no formal proposal,” Ruger said in a statement issued via a spokesperson.
“Beretta’s chair also indicated that he had no interest in the status quo and that he would find a way to increase his position if Ruger remained resistant,” the company added.
Looks like the usual corporate dogfight, dunnit?
Then I looked at some of the small print:
Beretta announced plans two weeks ago to nominate four new members to sit on Ruger’s nine-member board after the publication of The Post’s exclusive story.
The names are William Franklin Detwiler of Fernbrook Capital, Mark DeYoung, the ex-Vista Outdoor CEO, Frederick Disanto of Ancora Holdings and Michael Christodolou of Inwood Capital.
Oh, how nice.
And what do capital funds typically do? Under the guise of “giving more value to shareholders”, these fucking vultures systematically strip and sell assets from companies they come to control. And having four out of nine directors means they can pretty much do whatever they want — unless of course, the other five directors can hold the line and kick back against them, with shareholder support.
Sounds good, but that’s not the way to bet.
So what can we do, as ordinary folks? Not a whole bunch, except make Ruger a priority or a first choice on our next gun purchase. I wish there was more we could do, but there it is.
I have a bad taste in my mouth and a bad feeling in my gut…
“Oh bloody hell, here goes old Kim again, bitching about how ugly new stuff is compared to old stuff.”
Well, yes. I am very aware that the new stuff is streets ahead of the old stuff, technologically speaking. I am also aware that despite this, in many cases this techno-superiority makes very little difference in terms of everyday use. Here’s an example, using this modern iteration of the venerable 1911 handgun:
…versus the traditional:
Now I know that there are all sorts of reasons why the SIG P211 is a great pistol, probably far better than the Gold Cup in terms of, well, everything, from features to function and so on. But at the end of the day, will both guns deliver a half-dozen or so rounds of manly .45 ACP goodness into the desired target area? Yes, the P211 has more rounds to deliver, and yes, it has a tacti-cool red-dot sight which I guess will make this new model x times more accurate than the old-fashioned Gold Cup. If all that floats your boat, have at it. I’ll stick with the old 1911, because it’s enough for me, and it will shoot better than I can shoot it anyway.
Consider another example of this phenomenon, using high-end sports cars this time. Here’s Ferrari’s La Ferrari:
Looks good, is super-fast, has all those holes in the body to make the airflow more efficient, etc. And hoo boy, it sure is super-fast. No argument about that, least of all from me.
So let’s look at an older version of a supercar, the Jaguar E-type Series 2:
It’s for sure not as fast as the Ferrari — hell, a tuned E-type can only manage at best ~150mph compared to the 220mph of the Scuderia creation, and its piddly little 4.2-liter straight 6 engine pushes out at best 265hp (compared to the newer supercar’s 6.3-liter V12 plus the F1-derived KERS system yielding 850hp).
So… no contest, right?
Quite right. I’d take the Jag any day of the week, six ways to Sunday. The looks of the Jag are smoother, less angular and frankly, streamlined enough for me, and the performance is frankly much more than I need. (The Ferrari’s performance is not only excessive, it frightens me because I wouldn’t be able to control the beast.)
Frankly, both the SIG and LaFerrari embody to me a “modern” style that I have come to detest — much as this example of a “modern” building compares very badly to an older one:
Your opinions on all the above examples may vary.