The price point rather speaks for itself, and this is a very positive review.  Quick.  Take a look before some snowflake objects and the Bolsheviks at Google remove the video.

Again.

Guns were drawn, even on small children, when Chicago officers raided a family’s home. Dave Savini is investigating why this happened and how this family will never be the same.

“One guy said you better shut the F up if you know any better,” said Peter Mendez.

Peter was 9 when the trauma began. It was dinner time when Chicago police busted his front door open, invading his family’s home.

“Assault rifles, maybe like a few pistols,” Peter recalled.

His little brother Jack was by his side that night shaking with fear. Savini also spoke with Jack.

Savini: “They pointed a gun at your Dad and your Mom?”
Jack: “Yeah”
Savini: “and then did they point a gun at your brother?”
Jack nodded yes.
Savini: “What was it like when that gun was pointed at you?”
Peter: “It was like my life just flashed before my eyes.”

Mom and Dad say cops screamed profanities at the family as they tore the house apart and ordered them all to the floor at gunpoint.

Savini: “You never thought a police officer would do that to you?”
Peter: “No.”

“I could hear my babies screaming, ‘Don’t shoot my Dad. Don’t kill my Dad. Leave my Dad alone. What did my Dad do?’” said Peter’s father, Gilbert Mendez.

Peter’s dad Gilbert Mendez says his family did nothing wrong and what’s even worse the police had no right to even be there because they were raiding the wrong home and now the Mendez’s say police are trying to cover it up.

The CBS 2 investigators found officers from the 11th district used a search warrant filled with mistakes, even the judge’s printed name as required by police order is missing.

In fact, police tell CBS2 they don’t even have their own copy of the warrant or any record the warrant even exists.

I guess it got their rocks off to point guns at little kids.  And the imperative ” … you better shut the F up if you know any better” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  What is that – gibberish or “Pig Latin”?

The worst thing of all is that no cops got shot.  Cops getting shot pulling idiotic stunts like this might bring an end to violations of the fourth amendment to the constitution.

Sierra Match King 5.56X45 77 grain rounds being pushed by Midway.

Sierra MatchKing bullets have very thin jackets and are held to exacting tolerances in diameter and weight. These Hollow Point Boat Tail bullets have a small meplat to produce a higher ballistic coefficient.

Federal Syntech Ammunition.

Syntech is Federal’s proprietary Total Synthetic Jacket polymer bullet jacket, intended to reduce metal-on-metal contact, reduce fouling, and extend barrel life.

Well, it sure looks different enough!

Shooting Illustrated:

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), which, among many other tasks, creates and publishes industry standards for safety, reliability and interchangeability for the firearm industry, accepted two new Hornady-designed cartridges. Chamber and cartridge drawings for the 6.5 Precision Rifle Cartridge (6.5 PRC) and .300 PRC are already availableon the organization’s website.

I had heretofore seen very little on the 6.5 PRC, but I had seen at least some analysis of it.  It has become difficult to keep up with the cartridges.

Outdoor Hub:

I am a big fan of compact carbines and a companion pistol that can share the same caliber of ammo and magazine. What a great approach for a survival/hunting package. Some folks may not realize that Kel-Tec offers what I consider to be a great duo of guns in the 22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire); the CMR-30 and its companion the Kel-Tec PMR-30 pistol also in 22 Magnum. Aside from survival and hunting applications either of these two guns have practicality in defensive and target shooting uses. Additionally the 22 magnum cartridge has been time tested for hunting small to medium size game (there has also been more than just a few deer taken with the 22 magnum). Most outdoorsmen are acutely aware of the 22 WMR and its inherent accuracy. When you consider this compact carbine and a its companion pistol has magazine capacities of 30 rounds each and total weight for the two combined is about 5 lbs., well its makes any survivalist sit up and take notice.

Yea, I’m a fan of that concept too.  But given my review of the PMR-30, which problems have not yet been remedied by a new magazine design based on Aluminum rather than polymer (among other possible fixes), I’d think a better combination would be the FN 5.7 and the CMMG Mk57.

Frank Clarke poses an interesting thought experiment on immigration.

As much as I admire David Codrea, I retain the opinion that he is flat wrong when he worries about immigration. A hundred years ago and more our forebears came here seeking to build a new life unaided and unhindered, and they were the ones who made America great. They did not expect that the American system would protect them if they failed, but they did expect that the American system would not get in their way, either. Today we have a welfare system that steps in when people suffer from their own bad decisions, and a regulatory system that purports to prevent such bad decisions from being made. Naturally, both systems are abject failures where they aren’t merely counter-productive.

We don’t have an “immigration problem”; we have a “welfare state problem”, and the immigration problem is merely its symptom. You may choose to cure the symptom, but I’m 100% certain it will return next year in a slightly different guise.

Yes, it’s a far bigger job to undo the welfare state, but if we don’t do that, we will spend all our energies battling ghosts.

This requires a separate analysis and I had decided to grant some space to it.  This should be seen as an amicable discussion between friends, not an internet throw-down battle to the death, and so I’d like the comments to reflect that.

It’s a disagreement between allies, but an important one nonetheless.  To be sure, I have more than a little direct experience with the entitlement state and its appurtenant give-aways.  To begin with, I strongly feel that, along with the author of the Holy Scriptures, “The good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.”  This is no small matter, and I see forcible taxation as confiscatory and therefore wicked.  Only wicked rulers do that.

I may be unable to provide for my children’s children as I’d like because of such government intrusion in my life’s work.  Furthermore, my own daughter works as a health care provided in a hospital.  Where do you think immigrants go for doctor visits as well as any pseudo-medical emergency?  That’s right, the emergency room is the primary care physician for all of those immigrants, as well as dead weight we already have on the rolls in America.

How would you like to say no to providing more narcotics to feed a habit, only to have lice-infested, diseased, drug-addled ne’er-do-wells spit on you?  But in the end, Frank is right, the welfare state creates this mess and the remedy for what we see in the hospitals is the same as with confiscatory taxes – repair the political system.

But that doesn’t even begin to touch the core issue with immigration.  As I’ve pointed out before, the Hispanics and Latinos arriving on the Southern border have been taught and raised in a totally different world view and cultural paradigm.

Any force trying to work for a democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist transition has to win a base among the rural poor. But for historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition: we are not dealing with the atavistic Russian peasants, but a country in which there has already been a bourgeois-democratic revolution led by the peasantry.

One consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology (leaving aside the EZLN, which is a slightly different case). Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations. A good example of this is the OCSS (Peasant Organisation of the Southern Sierra), which would have no difficulty in getting the dictatorship of the proletariat written into its program.

The general conclusion about strategy which needs to be emphasised is that, far from Mexico having ceased to be an oppressed country, today it is more oppressed than 20 or 30 years ago.

It’s not a difficult decision for them to support gun control.  They are steeped in statist views.  Time and space don’t permit a detailed and thoroughgoing explanation of liberation theology, so readers can do their own search and study of this abomination and bastardization of the gospel.  But suffice it to say that liberation theology easily gained a following among the Catholic priests in Latin America.  One former Soviet spy claims that the Soviet Union created liberation theology.

I learned the fine points of the KGB involvement with Liberation Theology from Soviet General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, communist Romania’s chief razvedka (foreign intelligence) adviser – and my de facto boss, until 1956, when he became head of the Soviet espionage service, the PGU,  a position he held for an unprecedented record of 15 years.

On October 26, 1959, Sakharovsky and his new boss, Nikita Khrushchev, came to Romania for what would become known as “Khrushchev’s six-day vacation.” He had never taken such a long vacation abroad, nor was his stay in Romania really a vacation. Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as the Soviet leader who had exported communism to Central and South America. Romania was the only Latin country in the Soviet bloc, and Khrushchev wanted to enroll her “Latin leaders” in his new “liberation” war.

The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology. During those years, the KGB had a penchant for “liberation” movements. The National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), created by the KGB with help from Fidel Castro; the “National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB with help from “Che” Guevara; and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), created by the KGB with help from Yasser Arafat are just a few additional “liberation” movements born at the Lubyanka — the headquarters of the KGB.

The birth of Liberation Theology was the intent of a 1960 super-secret “Party-State Dezinformatsiya Program” approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party’s international policies. This program demanded that the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC), based in Geneva, Switzerland, and use it as cover for converting Liberation Theology into a South American revolutionary tool. The WCC was the largest international ecumenical organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations throughout 120 countries.

In any case, it’s imperative that we understand the cultural proclivities and world and life views of those we allow to become citizens and vote.  The constitution won’t protect us because it outlines a bill of rights or a form of government.  It is a covenant between men, and that covenant no more protects malfeasance than the marriage covenant protects a woman whose husband is bent on adultery.  The parties to the covenant matter.

We don’t just want to turn over a heritage of financial security to our children’s children, but as I have stated to my own children, I want to turn over a heritage of Christianity to them.  Statism is opposed in all of its ways to Christianity, and Christianity denies the state the rights only belonging to God.  The foundations of the American experiment are Christian.

We care about immigration for more reasons than having stuff.  To reduce this debate to having stuff is an ungracious charge, and the reasons for control over our borders and approval of the men whom we would call our fellow countrymen run deep and wide.

Via Fred Tippens.

Well, whatever.  Don’t expect me to adopt such a beast, and I hope they don’t decide to have a child.

Danish resistance fighters disarming Germans.

The picture appears to be legitimate.  I’m reminded of two things.  First, a comment on TCJ.

At the end of WWII, a German prisoner who knew English quite well asked my father if he could just see a .45 acp cartridge. He asked why they exploded when they hit. My father explained that they didn’t. The guy then showed him a large exit wound on his leg from a .45 slug the German took during the retreat from Paris.

Second, while I can’t seem to locate it at the moment, Mike Vanderboegh had a very good writeup on the utility of a mere pistol.  I’m sure some enterprising reader will find and link it for us in the comments.  After all, I have the best readers on the interwebz.

Smokey Merkley:

Anyone who has spent time at the range shooting high-powered rifles knows that sustained fire or continuously shooting without letting the barrel cool down between strings of shots will get the barrel so hot that accuracy will suffer and shots can be thrown off a couple of inches. It isn’t hard to fire a military-style rifle in semi-auto mode at 100 rounds a minute, and many owners of these rifles do just that at times when shooting at the range.

Even when shooting a semi-auto rifle in rapid fire mode, an enormous amount of heat is generated, which can quickly ruin a rifle barrel .

The leade, which is the unrifled portion of the barrel just forward of the chamber as well as the first few inches of rifling, are subjected to enormous temperatures approaching those on the surface of the sun as well as pressures exceeding 50,000 PSI during rapid-fire exercises.

During slow-fire conditions, this area is allowed to cool sufficiently between strings of fire.

Under sustained rapid fire, however, there is no time for the heat to dissipate and temperatures soar into the thousands of degrees Fahrenheit.

Currently there are four very different methods used by shooters to protect and extend the service life of their barrels.

Those who participate in bench-rest and long-range completion use very heavy and long barrels which can last much longer than the barrels found on most sporting and hunting rifles. Still, those big heavy barrels have to be replaced when accuracy begins to deteriorate.

Currently, the military hard chrome lines the barrels of their rifles to protect them from the excess erosion that occurs during sustained fire. This greatly extends the barrel life of rifles that are fired for prolonged periods in full auto or semi-auto mode. It takes a very knowledgeable professional person to evenly apply the hard chrome lining to the inside of a barrel, but the barrel will have approximately twice the service life of an unprotected barrel. Both the military and civilians who shoot semi-auto versions of military style rifles swear by the hard chrome lining of the barrels.

Some claim that hard chrome lined barrels aren’t as accurate as unprotected barrels because the rifling of hard chrome lined barrels is not as sharp as in unprotected barrels. This is true, but the difference in accuracy will never be notice by the majority of shooters. One MOA is pretty common in most of the military rifles and their semi-auto counterparts being built with hard chrome lined barrels today.

Another method of dealing with the heat and pressure that rifle barrels can be subjected to is a process where the un-blued barrel is immersed in a very hot liquid nitride salt bath for a period of time. The process is known as “ferritic nitrocarburizing.” This is not a new technology but has recently been applied to rifle barrels to protect them from the heat and pressure from sustained fire.

Most people will recognize terms like Melonite, Tennifer, Ni-Corr, Blacknitride or Salt Bath Nitride. They are all variations of the same process …

Read the rest.  I always like to catch everything that Smokey writes.  I’ve exchanged email with him and find him to be a very nice guy, and always very knowledgeable.

From what I understand it’s a good idea to keep muzzle velocity under the 3000 FPS – 3200 FPS threshold, and that guys who shoot the .243 in competition approach 4000 FPS with the lighter loads and have to change out barrels every several hundred rounds.

Those folks would have to be sponsored.

So here’s the deal, Late Boy Scout.  The bloodthirsty, Soros-funded, liberty-hating Bolsheviks who work for Google-YouTube won’t explain it to you or anyone else because it would betray the fact that the decisions are capricious and designed with one thing in mind.

The destruction of liberty and freedom.  They won’t stop until you and everyone who owns a firearm are in a reeducation camp.

It’s really a shame that the rest of us are late to the game when it comes to having a viable competitor to YouTube.  I guess it has to do with naivety or laziness.

I don’t often cite, link or quote Charles C.W. Cooke because he’s an atheist and often at odds with my world and life view.  It isn’t so much that I won’t link to someone who doesn’t agree with me in every aspect of life, so much as it causes a fundamental difference in the framework in which we operate and I end up having to qualify, caveat, and explain the subtle or not-so-subtle differences.

This is an exception.

Given the way the Second Amendment is written, it is perhaps unsurprising that the confusion came to pass. Indeed, in 1880, the great scholar Thomas Cooley all but anticipated it in what was likely the most widely read legal textbook of the era. “It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia,” Cooley noted in his General Principles of Constitutional Law. “But this,” he explained, “would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.”

The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

[ … ]

Indeed, to be cognizant of the history is to arrive at one clear and unmistakable conclusion: that the “collective right” theory is just nuts. As a 1982 Senate report on the meaning of the Second Amendment concluded bluntly, it is “inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

That word, “inescapable,” is a good one, for it is simply impossible to review the post-Revolution era and come away with the impression that the Second Amendment protects some convoluted state-led right. Even if we ignore that the word “people” is used in the self-evidently individual protections that surround the Second Amendment — and even if we ignore that James Madison proposed to insert the “right to bear arms” next to the other individual rights listed in Article I, Section 9, and not next to the militia clause in Article I, Section 8, clause 16 — a brief audit of contemporary interpretations tells us all we need to know.

It may seem remarkable to modern sensibilities, but it was not at all unusual in the 19th century to read politicians and scholars openly worrying that the people might be left unable to remove their government should the course of human events run sour. In Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, Richard Henry Lee proposes that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” You will notice, I assume, that Lee’s purpose in hoping that “the whole body of people always possess arms” is “to preserve liberty” rather than, say, to “defend the country” or to “prevent domestic insurrection.” That matters a great deal, demonstrating as it does that we are talking here about something other than a proto–National Guard.

Lee’s view was neither outré nor limited to his particular anti-Federalist worldview. On the contrary: His assumptions were echoed across the political spectrum and throughout the century that followed. Explaining the unamended Constitution in the Pennsylvania Gazette in February 1788, the Federalist Tench Coxe celebrated that “the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” A year later, in the course of endorsing the proposed Bill of Rights, Coxe confirmed that the Second Amendment was designed not to protect the nation, the states, or the federal government, but to protect the people: “Whereas civil-rulers,” he wrote, “not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” It would, of course, be preposterous to suggest that such a rebellion would be carried out under the auspices of a federal government that enjoyed plenary power over the militias

He begins with the usual focus on militia (usual for most commentators on the second amendment) and the utility and uses of peaceful carry.  But eventually he reaches the apex of his argument, and I am in total agreement with it.

We need to see the use of the term militia in the context of the time in which this was written.  The notions that a man had a right to weapons, or that he also had the right to overthrow his government if it was guilty of tyranny, were so widely accepted as to be pre-theoretical.  Thus, the notion that the right had to be codified in order for it to be understood or accepted is preposterous.

On the other hand, all the founders needed in order to object to federal control over such God-given rights is to find a single example of such an infringement that would be found unacceptable.  The militia served as this example.  That doesn’t mean that it is, would have been, or must have been, the only example or reason for the amendment.  The amendment clearly states what the FedGov shall not do, not what it can or may do or the sole reasons for its existence.

So a man has a right to the ownership of weapons if he is a paraplegic and unable to serve in the militia.  A people have the right to overthrow their government whether there is such a thing as a militia or not.  I can tell the militia (whatever that is in this context or any future context) to go pound sand and that I refuse to join, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with either [a] my God-given rights to keep and bear arms for self defense or the amelioration of tyranny, or [b] the fact that that right is recognized in the constitution, which is a covenant under which we have agreed to live.

My rights (and duties) flow from the Almighty, the very fountain of liberty.  The constitution is a mere covenant.  The Bolsheviks should tread carefully.  Breakage of that covenant means more than they think it means.  To them I say, be careful what you ask for.