The Paradox and Absurdities of Carbon-Fretting and Rewilding

Herschel Smith · 28 Jan 2024 · 4 Comments

The Bureau of Land Management is planning a truly boneheaded move, angering some conservationists over the affects to herd populations and migration routes.  From Field & Stream. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently released a draft plan outlining potential solar energy development in the West. The proposal is an update of the BLM’s 2012 Western Solar Plan. It adds five new states—Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming—to a list of 11 western states already earmarked…… [read more]

Bolt Throw

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

I had never really thought of bolt throw in the practical terms he discusses it, i.e., interference with scopes and mounts.  That seems to be basically the only reason it really matters unless you’re really into the mechanics of bolt lugs and how they fit up.  Let me know in the comments if you disagree.

For the record, I could listen to Ryan Muckenhirn discuss tying his shoe for an hour and it would be interesting to me.  But even more interesting would be to get an invitation to a hunt with him.  Any kind of hunt – pronghorn, upland birds, anything.

Necessary Reading Material On Radios

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

At All Outdoor they have published a list of reading materials, which is necessary for me at least.  It’ll be a good way to spend a rainy day or four.  The Ham Radio Guide: UV-5R Basic Ham Radio Setup.  It lists four articles on this subject.

It looks fairly comprehensive, and combined with the various videos I have sent to myself, this should keep my busy for a while.

Wildlife Agent Says Black Bears Now “Hunting” Humans In Canada

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

Cowboy State Daily.

A retired Canadian fish and wildlife agent has voiced concern that black bears are “hunting” humans more frequently in Alberta, but that’s not a big concern in Wyoming, some biologists said.

Veteran wildlife agent Murray Bates says he’s noticed a disturbing shift in the pattern of black bear behavior over the course of his 34-year career.

“Grizzlies were protecting their territory, young and food, but certainly, on occasion, killing a human,” he said. “The key word here is hunt. During my tenure I was starting to notice a shift in black bears attacking humans and grizzlies maintaining traditional patterns of attack or kill.

“The records and experts may state otherwise, but I found myself investigating more complaints of black bears tracking humans as prey, then killing and feeding on them,” Bates added.

[ … ]

“I would still rather encounter a predatory black bear than being involved in a surprise encounter with a grizzly bear at a carcass; time is not on your side in the latter whereas with a proper response a predatory black bear can be deterred (first choice is bear spray, followed by standing your ground and fighting with rocks, sticks, and etc.),” he said.

I’m not surprised.  When hunting is discouraged and guns are outlawed, the predators will roam free to do what they want.

Suck it up, Canadians.  There’s more to come with the impending laws against basically any firearm, including hunting with bolt action rifles.  Get used to it, change your government, or carry non-permissively.

And as for his advice to “stand your ground,” that’s not even done in America without a weapon.  The whole notion is legalization of the use of weapons in stand your ground cases rather than having a duty to retreat.

It’s probably not a big concern for Wyoming because they carry guns.

NYT Publishes Insulting and Trivial Commentary on Christian Gun Owners

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

Surprising no one, The New York Times published one of the most insulting commentaries I’ve ever witnessed, directed mainly at Christian gun owners.  It’s a guest commentary written by Peter Manseau, who claims to have published elsewhere, but I’ve never read any of this books, nor will I considering the lack of scholarship displayed here.  We’ll start, lift some commentary out, and I’ll make remarks along the way.

Is our gun problem a God problem?

The AR-15-style rifle used in the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, last month was made by an arms manufacturer that regards selling weapons as part of its Christian mission. In a state where Gov. Greg Abbott declared, six months after an earlier massacre, “The problem is not guns; it’s hearts without God,” the gun’s provenance challenged pious suggestions that declining religiosity might bear some of the blame.

That this paragraph made it through editing is amazing.  Provenance is “the chronology of ownership, custody or location of a historical object.”  In the following paragraphs he takes aim at Daniel Defense and the religious beliefs of Marty Daniel, but no editor worth his salt would have let this paragraph go unmodified.  Presumably the writer is trying to link Daniel’s views with the gun he built, but that case cannot possibly be demonstrated.  I know plenty of irreligious men who own AR-15s, and many more who work on them.

Daniel Defense, the Georgia company whose gun enabled the slaughter at Robb Elementary School, presents its corporate identity in explicitly religious terms. At the time of the shooting, the company’s social media presence included an image of a toddler with a rifle in his lap above the text of Proverbs 22:6 (“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it”). For Easter, it posted a photograph of a gun and a cross resting on scriptural passages recounting the Resurrection.

So Marty Daniel is a Christian.  What of it?  What does that bring to bear on the case he’s trying to prove?

While some might suggest a Christian firearms company is a contradiction in terms, Daniel Defense is hardly alone. According to a Public Religion Research Institute study, evangelicals have a higher rate of gun ownership than other religious groups. Across the country, they account for a significant share not only of the demand but of the supply.

So now the writer has expanded the sweep of his analysis and is targeting all evangelicals.

In Florida, Spike’s Tactical (“the finest AR-15s on the planet”) makes a line of Crusader weapons adorned with a quote from the Psalms. Missouri-based CMMG (“the leading manufacturer of AR15 rifles, components and small parts”) advertises its employees’ “commitment to meet each and every morning to pray for God’s wisdom in managing the enormous responsibility that comes with this business.” And in Colorado, Cornerstone Arms explains that it is so named because “Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of our business, our family and our lives” and the “Second Amendment to our Constitution is the cornerstone of the freedom we enjoy as American citizens.”

For many American Christians, Jesus, guns and the Constitution are stitched together as durably as a Kevlar vest.

“We are in business, we believe, to be a supporter of the Gospel,” Daniel Defense’s founder, Marty Daniel, told Breitbart News in 2017. “And, therefore, a supporter of the Second Amendment.”

He is on the outside looking in.  Most of my readers would say that the constitution (and thus the 2A) only matters the extent to which is comports with Biblical law.  The foundation of our rights is to be found in the Holy Writ, and our philosophical pre-commitments are to the Lord of the universe and His law, not a piece of paper.  The piece of paper is a covenant and contract, null and void upon unfaithfulness.  You don’t have to be a Christian to understand my point of logic.  If the writer is targeting Christians, he’s gotten it exactly backwards.  The constitution isn’t infallible and wasn’t written by God.  Christians don’t turn to the constitution to ascertain rightness and wrongness in their lives.

Entwining faith and firearms this way has a long history. It encompasses the so-called muscular Christianity movement that began in England in the 19th century with a focus on physical fitness as a path to spiritual strength and that in America made exemplars of pastors roaming the frontier armed with Bibles and six-shooters.

More than a hundred years ago, this trope was already so well established that a popular silent western from 1912, “The Two Gun Sermon,” told the story of a minister assigned to a rough-and-tumble outpost; when ruffians menace him, he holds them at gunpoint until they listen to him preach. The film’s message is one with which 21st-century Christian gun enthusiasts would probably agree: Sometimes guns are necessary for the Lord’s work.

It is easy to miss, but this melding of evangelism and the right to bear arms is a step beyond the “natural rights” argument for gun ownership, which holds that self-defense is a law of nature required to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are often said to be God-given in the sense of being taken for granted, and they are enshrined as such in the Declaration of Independence. As interpreted by many evangelicals, the distant deistic “creator” Thomas Jefferson credited with endowing such rights has become a specific, biblical deity who apparently takes an active interest in the availability of assault rifles.

He has now turned to an irrelevant English movement and a movie to prove his point.  But here he misses so badly that it’s going to take a few moments to sus this out.

If he was a scholar he would have first turned to OT law, where the right of being armed is founded in the Pentateuch.  As I’ve observed so many times before, John Calvin discusses this aspect of the ten commandments and makes it clear that defense of life is not only allowed, but required as a good work by the Godly man.

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

Calvin has here expressed the Biblical position.  “Thou shall not kill” also means “Thou shall protect life.”  This is of course at least partially why Jesus himself commanded his disciples to sell their robes and buy a sword.  He won’t have His followers being defenseless against the onslaught of ne’er-do-wells.  Any loss of life, trials or tribulations, will be by His hand, in His timing, for purposes that He knows, not by anyone else.

But here it’s important not to miss one of the main points of the command in Luke 22:36 like so many do.  Quite literally, He is commanding the purchase of weapons in spite of strictures against ownership and carry of said weapons at the time.  He is commanding His followers to be law-breakers for the sake of self defense.

… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).

Jesus knew the law, and the potential legal troubles He was exposing His disciples to by issuing this command, and yet, that didn’t stop Him.  So going back to the law of Moses, to the command of Christ, and then on to the Crusades which were primarily defensive in nature, the history of armed self defense isn’t traced back to an English movement a few years ago or a silly movie.  It’s in the very nature of the beliefs.

But then the writer can’t stop at merely misunderstanding the subject he purports to analyze.  He then decides to expand his (ill-fated) analysis to insults.  “As interpreted by many evangelicals, the distant deistic “creator” Thomas Jefferson credited with endowing such rights has become a specific, biblical deity who apparently takes an active interest in the availability of assault rifles.”

Christianity has always been about a specific, living being who loves us and redeems us and commands us, not about a distant deity who once interacted with His creation.  If he means that the second amendment would have been written differently if Jefferson was not a deist, that point is unproven at best and misguided and simply historically incorrect at worst.  Jefferson wasn’t responsible for the second amendment.  Maddison wrote the text, but the entirety of the colonies insisted on it, most of the Southern colonies being Presbyterian.  It’s too much to discuss in the present context, but in English circles they knew the basis for the war of independence and called it “The Presbyterian Rebellion.”

Why does this subtle shift in the meaning of “God given” matter? It’s important to understand that for the manufacturer of the Uvalde killer’s rifle, and many others in the business, selling weapons is at once a patriotic and a religious act. For those who hold them to be sacred in this way, the meaning of firearms proceeds from their place at the intersection of American and Christian identities. Proposing limits on what kinds of guns they should be able to buy — or how, when, where and why they can carry them — is akin to proposing limits on who they are and what they should revere.

He’s just making things up now.  Ownership and bearing of arms, if a God-given right, doesn’t depend in the least on where one lives or what system of government obtains.  It didn’t in the case of the Armenian Christians who were slaughtered in the deserts of Turkey by the Muslims, it didn’t to the Christians targeted by Idi Amin of Uganda, and it didn’t to the Russians and Ukrainians starved by Stalin.  He wants a scary boogieman to blame, but the intersection of Christians and America has nothing to do with it except in his imagination.

Since then, despite being debunked by data showing that firearms are more likely to injure their owners or their owners’ families than safeguard them, the protection offered by good guys with guns has emerged as an article of faith, supported with anecdotal evidence passed around like legends of the saints.

I vow never to use that word, debunked.  It has become the wordy-word of progressives trying to prove something wrong and who have run out of ideas.  Guns are only unsafe to those who do not treat them with respect and obey all the rules of gun safety.

As the historian Daniel K. Williams has noted, “Gun rights advocacy is not an intrinsic feature of every brand of evangelicalism.” While recent surveys find that four in 10 white evangelicals own guns, the majority do not, and other denominational affiliations offer examples of religious participation discouraging a fixation on firearms. It is possible that the less one sees oneself as an itinerant loner in a hostile world, like the armed preacher in a silent western, the less one is likely to look to guns as a source of salvation.

Nonetheless, the ways Christian ideas may be contributing to a gun culture that abets our epidemic of mass shootings by helping to keep the nation well armed should inspire reflection. None of the recent mass shootings had explicitly religious motivations, but the religious contexts of our seemingly eternal problem with gun violence — its history, its theology, its myths — are too important to ignore.

Mass shootings are, in a way, assaults on the idea of community itself. They occur where there are people gathered — for entertainment, for learning, for shopping, for worship — in the spaces we create together. Some believe that such attacks are the fault of armed individuals alone and can be addressed only through armed individual response. Others believe they occur within the framework of what we collectively allow and must have communal solutions.

After blaming Christians for mass shootings, he has finally, at long last, divulged his own philosophical pre-commitments, or religion.  He is a collectivist, and says that the solutions to problems are to be found in the collective.

What he doesn’t mention is that in the twentieth century alone there were over 212,000,000 mass murders by governments across the globe.  The writer doesn’t explain how his collectivist solutions would be better than ours, nor do I believe he can.

The New York Times has paid for another loser commentary that wanders and fails to stay on point, refuses to interact with the real scholarship of its intended target, insults a large constituency of Americans, and considers neither the history of the subject nor the failures of its own solutions.

Is it any wonder that they’re constantly begging for money?

Shooting With Both Eyes Open

BY PGF
1 year, 9 months ago

In light of AmmoLand’s lawyers pitching a fit over linked articles here at TCJ, we’ve been working on getting permissions from quality sources that don’t mind sharing praxis while driving traffic back to them. Quality training, ideas, and techniques you may not have considered, and specific instruction to get better with our tools is the goal. We’ve already posted several Handgun Training exercises. We’ll tag those and all upcoming training posts with ‘Tactical Drills and Training,’ so we’ll have one tag to use as a reference resource.

Many of the readers here will find some of these to be entry-level. However, there are some with less experience who don’t comment much. The idea is that we all teach and share, encouraging one another. We’ll have higher experience/skill level posts soon.

The first article we’ll link is handgun training from Shooty McBeardface. If you’ve never heard of him, he’s at the usual online places.

From a defensive standpoint, habitually shooting with both eyes open is vastly superior to just using the one. Here I’ll explain a simple method that works; one you can use starting today.

When any of us first starts shooting we make a point to close our off eye so that we can have a clear sight picture. That clear, unambiguous sight picture is vital at this stage because we typically have no trained mechanics or muscle memory to assist with our effort to shoot accurately. What’s more, most of us are unaccustomed to directing our focus into one eye while the other eye remains open.

All of this is to say, there’s a bit of a learning curve to proper defensive firearm technique (of which the eyes are just one component).

I say defensive firearm technique because there is little benefit in target shooting with both eyes open. This doesn’t mean one shouldn’t target shoot with both eyes open, but the point of having both open is so that your field of vision remains as wide as possible so that you don’t miss something important or deadly in a fight for life; yours or someone else’s. However, since humans are creatures of habit, it is best to make a habit of shooting with both eyes open.

Picture: Shooty McBeardface

He continues with some basics and explanatory photos, including finding your dominant eye, aiming, and encouraging you to get out there and practice your new shooting technique to build lifelong skills. Please give him a click.

How I teach folks to check for their dominant eye is to extend both hands out straight in front of the face with the back of the hands facing you, forming a triangle (pictured below). Then focus on an object 20 feet away—close first one eye, then the other. You should be able to see the object with your dominant eye and not the other. I happen to be opposite-eye dominant, which means my dominant eye is not on the side of my dominant hand.

A History of Gun Control in Canada

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

From a comment at this video.  I have not checked each statement or date.  I’ll leave that to some enterprising Candian reader.  But assuming it’s all true, remember, the controllers in parliament are there because they are elected.  There’s a solution for this.

And by the way, if you’re a man living in Canada and have done nothing compared to this woman to protect and defend gun rights in Canada, you should be ashamed of forcing women to take the leadership role you should have had to protect and provide for your families.

Shame.  Abject shame.

A history of gun control in Canada.

In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2001, licensing became mandatory. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts’ analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.) which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime. We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms. It didn’t affect us, as it didn’t apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.

• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns. We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.

• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place. And yet violent crime continues to escalate. So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes? Absolutely none.

But remember.  This isn’t about public safety.  You never really believed that, did you?

What is Headspace? (And Why It Matters)

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

Ian does a very good job of explaining head space and the potential risks of having it wrong.

Florida Will Pass Constitutional Carry, DeSantis and Renner Say

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

Source.

TALLAHASSEE (FLV) – Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida House Speaker Paul Renner said Florida will pass constitutional carry legislation.

DeSantis was asked at a press conference if his administration will be able to pass constitutional carry.

The governor responded and said “I’ll let Paul [Renner] answer that because I’m ready, so you guys gonna do it?”

“Yes,” Renner responded.

Let’s hope it happens this time, but another delay is highly possible given the weak state of legislative leadership in Florida.

I’m especially interested in seeing open carry legalized in Florida, as I know The Armed Fisherman is.  If we can get open carry, it won’t be necessary any longer to do stuff like this.

It’s my understanding that constitutional carry includes open carry, but if they don’t formulate the law this way, that is, if they formulate a bill that only removes the permitting scheme, this fight will have to continue.

Competing Views on Whether the Requirement to Serialize Firearms Violates the Second Amendment

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

Reason.

From U.S. v. Reyna, decided yesterday by Judge Robert Miller, Jr. (N.D. Ind.) (for a case reaching the opposite result, see this post):

[ … ]

Guns with obliterated serial numbers belong to “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” so possession of such guns isn’t within the Second Amendment’s scope. Heller. Guns with obliterated serial numbers are useful for criminal activity because identifying who possessed a firearm is more difficult when the serial number is destroyed. By using a gun without a serial number, a criminal ensures he has a greater higher likelihood of evading justice.

Mr. Reyna might be right that a deserialized gun is just as useful for self-defense as a gun with its serial number intact, but that doesn’t suggest that deserialized guns are typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Nice try.  Now do Bruen.

Do like Judge Benitez ordered and go find me laws written at the time of the 2A requiring serialization of firearms.  I dare you.  Supply us with a complete catalog of said laws.

We all know how you want the 2A to read: “Given that intermediate scrutiny allows us to prioritize our view of public safety, the right of law enforcement to know at all times what you’re building in your basement shall not be infringed.”

But the 2A isn’t really about the rights of law enforcement is it, and Bruen did away with the idiotic notion of scrutiny, didn’t it?

A .30-30 Is All You Need (If You Know How to Hunt)

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago

Field & Stream.

There is a 150-grain hunting bullet that at 100 yards will penetrate at least 23 inches and expand as much or more than either with similar bullets. Not only that, but it will do so while producing just 13 foot-pounds of recoil energy when fired from a 7-pound rifle. That’s 6 and 11 foot-pounds less than the .308 and .30/06, respectively. So, what is miracle cartridge? It’s the .30/30 Winchester.

How could the ancient .30/30 possibly outperform two 30-caliber cartridges that are considered by many to be the best big-game cartridges of all time? The answer is simpler than you might think. With conventional bullets, the higher velocities of the .308 and .30/06 cause more bullet erosion, which reduces weight, and in turn, penetration.

You might argue that the higher impact velocities of the latter tend to create more tissue damage. That’s true, and if sufficient penetration is reached by all three of these, the ones fired from the .308 and .30/06 might in fact put an animal down faster. But not any deader, and none of that is quantifiable. What really counts is penetration …

In his 1970s book, The Hunting Rifle, Jack O’Connor talked about an old hand he’d encountered who’d hunted Wyoming, Montana, and the Yukon, and typically took 17 or 18 elk with a single box (20 rounds) of .30/30 ammo. He told O’Connor that a moose, lung shot with a .30/30, would run about 75 to 100 yards and die. Well before that, African professional hunter Wally Johnson took a .30/30 Winchester to Africa and used it to kill lions. The effectiveness of the .30/30 Winchester on big game should never be questioned; it has more than a century of proof sanctioning it.

Given the untold numbers of deer taken with Winchester Model 94s and Marlin 336s over the last century, it should come as a bit of a shock that some of today’s younger hunters will ask: Is the .30/30 good for deer hunting? Um, yes. For decades and decades, it was consider the deer cartridge.

Right on.  Preach it!

The normally reliable Ron Spomer did a recent video favorably comparing the 300 Blackout to the 30-30.  It’s so wrong in my opinion that I’m not even linking it.

The 300 BO has a 125 grain bullet travelling at 2215 FPS.  The box of 30-30 I’m looking at now shows a 150 grain bullet travelling at 2390 FPS.  25 grains and 175 FPS is enough difference to make a difference.  Remember, the energy computation squares the velocity.



26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (704)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (40)
Air Power (10)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (22)
Ammunition (282)
Animals (297)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (377)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (87)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (29)
Australian Army (7)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (3)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (227)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (18)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (3)
Blogs (24)
Body Armor (23)
Books (3)
Border War (18)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (38)
British Army (35)
Camping (5)
Canada (17)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (16)
Christmas (16)
CIA (30)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (3)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (218)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (210)
Department of Homeland Security (26)
Disaster Preparedness (5)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (15)
Donald Trump (27)
Drone Campaign (4)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (2)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (39)
Featured (189)
Federal Firearms Laws (18)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (1,792)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (15)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (44)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (9)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (1,665)
Guns (2,332)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (8)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (5)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (16)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (3)
Horses (2)
Humor (72)
Hunting (37)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (114)
India (10)
Infantry (4)
Information Warfare (4)
Infrastructure (4)
Intelligence (23)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (171)
Iraq (379)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (64)
Islamists (98)
Israel (19)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (3)
Jihadists (81)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (7)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (6)
Lawfare (14)
Leadership (6)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (50)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (280)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (68)
Medical (146)
Memorial Day (6)
Mexican Cartels (41)
Mexico (61)
Michael Yon (6)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (5)
Military Equipment (25)
Militia (9)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (25)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (25)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (96)
NATO (15)
Navy (30)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (3)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (3)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (62)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (221)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (7)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (73)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (4)
Pizzagate (21)
Police (656)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (980)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (495)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (75)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (37)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (683)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (28)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (23)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (59)
Survival (188)
SWAT Raids (57)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (38)
Tactical Gear (15)
Taliban (168)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (21)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (96)
Thanksgiving (13)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (25)
TSA Ineptitude (14)
TTPs (4)
U.S. Border Patrol (6)
U.S. Border Security (19)
U.S. Sovereignty (24)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (10)
Uncategorized (98)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (3)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (419)
War & Warfare (41)
War Movies (4)
War Reporting (21)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (79)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (21)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2024 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.