Topics: Concealed Carry Right to Carry Gun Control Books on Guns Gun Rights

Gun rights, Anti-media, Gun Culture, American Gun Culture, Propaganda, Select Reviews of Books, Firearms and Equipment

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Anti-Trump Propaganda, Wishing and Hoping

Media Experts Try to Explain Trump Away
The Propaganda of Negative Interpretations 
Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law
Stephen L. D’Andrilli
Edited by Brian Anse Patrick

With the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries fast approaching, centrists of both parties are squirming because the so-called extremist candidates Trump and Cruz command an imposing lead over Republican Party status quo moderates Bush, Rubio, and Christie. Meanwhile on the left, extreme socialist Bernie Sanders is giving Democratic darling Hillary Clinton a run for her donors’ money.
The curious thing is that, for months, mainstream media have operated to discredit the “extremist” candidates, extremist here being defined as those who have not fallen into lockstep with status quo party Bigwigs and major donors. Recall how mainstream media such as the ├╝ber-liberal New York Times and the big business-oriented Wall Street Journal had for months previous pointed to the impossibility of a Trump primary victory.
Propaganda thrives in the realm of hopeful interpretations such as the above. These interpretations, stories we might call them, tend historically to reflect the wishes and dreams of the people doing the interpreting. Media professionals may call this “reporting” or “analysis,” but it is merely an attempt to bias perceptions. For an excellent example, during the entire decade of the 1990s, New York Times consistently reported in straight news and editorials how the National Rifle Association was defeated, dwindling and in decline. We all know, however, that NRA was anything but, and came out of the 1990s stronger than it went in in terms of membership, influence and finances. But media professionals tended to hate NRA and acted as cheerleaders for its destruction. So much for the notion of objective news!  See   and also
And it’s the same game they are now trying with Mr. Trump. First they reported Mr. Trump was merely a flash-in-the-pan. Then they likened him to a petulant child who would bow out of the race if he should encounter difficulties. Third came the claim that Mr. Trump’s support consisted of disaffected rank and file Republicans who were financially poor, uneducated, older, white, male, and blue collar, the implication being that no one really should worry about such supporters. Now they are attempting to the attempt to nudge rank and file voters back to the vacuum of the center by means of the doubtful argument—that that neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cruz could win a general election.
Democratic Party oracles are telling similar stories about Mr. Sanders, namely, that he is not electable. The Democrats, though, contrary to the claims of the mainstream media, have a bigger nut to crack than the Republicans, contrary to the protestations and remonstrations against Trump and Cruz. For, even among the rank and file of the Party faithful who would vote for Clinton come Hell or High Water, virtually all of them agree that Hillary Clinton is a person who is completely dishonest, lacking any semblance of personal integrity. The alternative is Bernie Sanders, a self-styled economic Socialist, but a person whose talk consistently reflects his convictions. So, whom will the Democrats put up for election: a former first lady with obvious sociopathic tendencies, or a somewhat whacky character who comes across as Pete Seeger without the banjo?
Average Americans are not buying into the claptrap interpretations and self-serving explanations (the very definition of propaganda) that continue to be fed to them by the mainstream media, the bigwigs of our two-party system and by the moguls who own and run the major news outlets. The propagandists don’t seem to understand, or don’t care, that large segments of the public have turned them off.


Saturday, January 9, 2016

A Brace of Savage 99 Wildcats Part II: 338 Federal Thumper

Not Many of These Around in Savage Model 99

A Brace of Savage Wildcats

Part II: Model 99 Conversion to .338/308 (aka .338 Federal)

Brian Anse Patrick

After a having achieved a workable .270/.308, the second step in my conversion scheme was a Savage Model 99 in .338/.308, a cartridge long known to wildcatters that is now available factory-loaded as the .338 Federal. For part I of his article on the .270/.308 conversion see:
The conversion platform was a late Model 99 EG in .308 Winchester, factory drilled and tapped for scope mounts, with the tang-style safety and cartridge counter/window. The stock featured the high comb suitable for scoped rifles. Overall the rifle was in very good condition, and I was a bit sorry at not finding a more beat up specimen to convert. I perceive that good quality 99s are becoming more and more collectable; accordingly prices have been rising. Still, one makes do.
After doing such a fine job on the .270/.308, gunsmith and gun-maker Mr. Steven P. Durren working out of Johnson's Sporting Goods in Adrian Michigan was asked to do the work on the .308/.338.  We specified a Shilen or a Douglas barrel, whichever was most available, 24 inches in length, of a medium but not-too-light profile, with a one-in-ten-inch rate of twist suitable for the 200-210 grain bullets that I planned to shoot. No sights were necessary as this would be a scoped rifle.

Practical Experiences with .338s

My experiences with .338 caliber cartridges had been largely limited to a .340 Weatherby Fibermark with a 26 inch barrel that I purchased back in 1989 while living in Montana, and which has served me well after a few basic modifications to suit my needs and tastes: a 6X42 Leupold scope, Cone-trol projection-less scope rings and mounts, a barrel-mounted sling band, a crisp Timney trigger and the magazine floor plate pinned so as not to accidentally dump all the cartridges, as happened to me once on a Montana mountainside.  I also cut much of the safety tab away because it was way too big and prone to snagging on brush and such and turning off, a dangerous situation. I haven’t had any problems with it since making it less prominent. It is an accurate rifle, too, no heavier than it needs to be, for I have little use for a lightweight rifle when it comes to making deliberate shots.  A certain amount of weight seems essential for good shooting. I have slain three elk, a bear and miscellaneous deer with this rifle using 210-grain Nosler Partition bullets, and admire its range and penetration. It is not a pleasure rifle in the sense of being a casual plinker because it’s expensive to shoot and rears back a bit, but I find the recoil no worse than the several .300 magnum rifles that I have fired.  
Compared to the .340, the lesser .308/.338 cartridge propels a 200-grain bullet at about 2,700 feet per second, quite a bit below the .340 at 3,200, but still quite respectable.  (Actually I don’t entirely believe the 3,200 FPS figure attributed to the .340 and tend to think it closer to 3,000, which is still very good.)  This Savage Model 99 in .338/.308 is intended as an elk rifle.

I also thought the .338/.308  cartridge to be perhaps optimal in the 99 because of it’s compact efficiency, both cartridge and rifle. While I have seen bolt action rifles so chambered, in my view a bolt action rifle in .338 caliber would be better in the longer .338 Winchester or .340 Weatherby calibers. While I understand the appeal of short bolt actions, and a firearm should be no more than what it needs to be, what little advantage may be gained by the short action is perhaps not offset by the loss of power/range with the .308/.338.  Also people talk about the shorter bolt being quicker, which no doubt it is, but I have never noticed a longer bolt as being a handicap in any significant way, not even as unnecessary weight. But the Savage 99 in this caliber is perhaps a different matter, being compact to carry and easy to work.   Truth be told, though, I regard it as more an interesting novelty that is only redeemable if it shoots and carries well.   

Although lacking his vast experience, I agree with Elmer Keith’s strongly expressed views that a long heavy large caliber bullet is superior on elk compared to a smaller lighter one. The reason?  Elk are big tough animals, and have not in my limited experience cooperated with this hunter by leisurely displaying themselves broadside in meadows at comfortable ranges. 

A digressive example, this November in Montana I could not rely on my .340 because the scope had developed a problem. Instead I hunted with my Father’s old Fabrique National Mauser in .270 Winchester. This is a fine, fine rifle and caliber. I killed a nice 5X5 Whitetail at about 220 yards with one shot, just like in the hunting videos on Youtube.  He ran about 30 paces and dropped, the aortal bundle at the top of his shot away by the 130-grain Remington Core Lokt bullet, as perfectly as could be imagined. Even though the bullet never penetrated the other side, it killed splendidly and virtually instantly. Also I had done my job by placing the bullet well from a good shooting position. Conditions were ideal.

But the elk that I harvested was an entirely different matter. Conditions were not ideal and neither was I. The following day, much higher and further, at about 7,000 feet and 350 or so yards, I shot a bull elk. It had been my intention to take a cow, as it was getting late in the season, and I wanted to go home with meat. My super-guide Mitch and I had climbed up after spotting with binoculars from the valley below a group of five or six cows. Actually he climbed up while I panted up, to be more precise. We were just trying to set up on the cows, when a legal bull joined them. Thank you, elk gods.

But I was beset with problems: the range was far; I was out of breath; heart pounding; my hands so cold as to be numb; the snow fell and the wind blew; and did I say he was far away? We were as close as we were going to get, too, for we were on one mountainous bump and the elk on another separated by a grass-lined declivity. I could achieve no firm or comfortable shooting position, and settled for a yoga-like torture position where my back was arched like a striking snake and left elbow rested the rifle atop Mitch’s pack. It was not good. Much of my problem was related to the fact that I am a fat flatlander when it comes to clambering up mountains. Nevertheless, there I was and so was the elk. It was time, even though my right hand was so numb from cold that I couldn’t tell the difference tactilely between the trigger and the trigger guard. As the song goes, “My brain was writing checks that my body couldn’t cash,” and had written a whole series by that point.

I fired, I think, about six rounds total and suspect that I missed the first. The second connected because he moved his left foreleg a bit and begin to favor that side.  I am also sure I hit him on a raking shot as he moved slowly away from the cows and into a drop-off of a well-wooded drainage. After a wait—it took us a half hour to get to his original location—we found a bit of blood, but not enough, and followed. My hope was that I had placed a bullet deep enough where he would bleed out internally. But I was unsure and worried that I had merely wounded or crippled a wonderful game animal who would go off and die somewhere uselessly because of my mal-performance. Worse yet, I felt like the quintessential dude.

Mitch, who could cover ground up there at five times my rate, went ahead and came back with the news that the tracks had joined other elk tracks. It was getting late and snowing, quickly covering what little blood trail there was, so we decided to go back down and return in the morning. I believe had I been shooting the .340, my first hit would have gone through and produced a clear and copious blood trail. Perhaps he would have gone down on that shot, as I have seen other elk do. 

We returned early the next morning, Thanksgiving Day, in the clear zero degree air while the full moon was still high and the sun rising, and Mitch found him dead in the drainage, but had I been by myself without expert advice and much help, I don’t believe I would have been able to recover that elk, although I would have tried my best. Obviously, personally, I did not do well, and still question my ethics in taking the shot, for the .270 with 130-grain Core Lokt bullets is not the ideal long-range elk rifle. Under conditions where one can pick and choose maybe, but not when conditions are adverse and one is lucky even to get any shot. I felt relief, joy and gratitude at finding the bull. A more appropriate bullet in the .270 might have been an RWS H-Mantle or a 150-grain Nosler Partition. Next time, however I will use a .338 caliber rifle with a well-functioning scope and perhaps save elk, guide and myself considerable grief. As my Father used to say, attributing it to "The Old Dutchman":  “Too soon old, too late smart.”

L to R: 99E in 270/308, 99M in 284 Winchester, 99 in 338 Federal

A benefit of the .308/.338 is the availability of factory produced ammunition.  Federal markets several weights of bullets for their .338 Federal cartridge, ranging from 185 grain to 200 grain to the 210 grain Nosler partitions. Having little interest in the 185 grain, and unable to find the 210 grain in stock anywhere, I bought a few boxes of 200 grain for my experiment. This also saved the trouble of expanding the necks on .308 Winchester cases, although I did make a batch just for the educational benefits of doing so.

Despite it being an efficient and useful caliber, I would not be surprised to see the .338 Federal quietly disappear from the line of factory loaded cartridges in the next few years because it lacks perhaps an ideally compatible, off-the-rack rifle out of which to shoot it. For example, the old .300 Savage cartridge was probably such a success because it so well matched the Savage 99 rifle. I hesitate to use a trendy adjective such as synergetic, but the 300 Savage in the 99 well fit this description. So does the 99 in .338 Federal, in my opinion. But for my use a .338 bolt rifle would be in a caliber such as the .338 Winchester or the .340 Weatherby. And while I admire the ballistic performance of the newer cartridges such as the .338 Lapua, I see such big boomers more as social calibers with purposes that lie outside of the game field and my general personal interests. (I would play with one if I had it.)

L to R: 308 Winchester, 338 Federal, 340 Weatherby Magnum
Once again, the conversion took less time than anticipated.  The finished product look good.  It handled well. I ran a Hoppes-soaked patch down the bore to clean out residual oil or grease, and went back to the range. I sighted the rifle in beginning at 25 yards, dead on, which only required three rounds, a trick that has saved me much ammunition and bother compared to back in the days when I would begin sighting in at 100.  At 100 yards, the rifle was on paper and required scope adjustment down and right to print where I wanted it, about 2-3 inches high. 

Firing ten rounds total, I noticed some of the cases extracted with difficulty. I believe the pressure may be high in the 2,700 feet-per-second, 200-grain factory loads. They print well however, and recoil while brisk is nothing worthy to flinch about.  The case pictured below shows what I interpret as evidence of  high pressure, a cratered firing pin impression. I will handload ammunition in the future to alleviate this problem, with the goal of finding an accurate and reliable 210-grain load with Nosler Partition bullets. Experiments will continue. 

Alleluia! Another successful conversion! Now to find me an elk.  I am booked for a hunt this fall. 

9 January 2016  

Excess pressure sign.  Note cratered firing pin impression.

Note added 01/09/2016.  

The useful online Speer datafile on the .338 Federal reports: 

"Owners of custom 338-08 rifles should not use factory 338 Federal ammunition; many custom 338-08 chambers are slightly shorter than the 338 Federal case. "

This came as news to me, and I wonder if it might somehow affect my problem with high pressure. My next lot of loads will use modified .308 cases and a 200 grain bullet, probably the Hornady interlock, as I happen to have a couple of boxes of them around, and a powder charge from the Speer data. 

I also consulted the equally useful Hodgdon online datafile on the 338 Federal, which I especially like because it also reports chamber pressures of loads. The Savage 99 is a good rifle, the king of lever actions, but not as strong as a mauser-style bolt action. I have no desire to test its limits. Ultimately the goal remains a safe and accurate load using the .210 Nosler Partition, but I could certainly settle for a good load with a 200-grain bullet that would stay together and penetrate on a thick-bodied elk.  


Thursday, January 7, 2016

Brian Anse Patrick Radio Interview with Gary Rathbun on College Meltdowns

This is a one-hour radio interview conducted by Gary Rathbun for his show "An Economy of One" while I was in a MacDonald's Restaurant in Hardin, Montana, on the edge of Crow Country, and just a few miles from where General George Armstrong Custer got his ticket punched.   I was on my way to an elk hunt. Mr. Rathbun was in Toledo.

Monday, January 4, 2016

European Mounts

Boiled and peroxided, my Montana elk and whitetail from this past November
My heads are wall-ready. Boiled out and peroxided. Left is the Thanksgiving elk, right the Ruby Valley whitetail taken on Nov 24. Both taken with my Father's old .270 F.N. Mauser. Those Montana mountains get steeper every year.

Friday, January 1, 2016

Trump Phenomenon Part III: New York Times v. Reality

Mainstream Media Mislead Public and Themselves Over Constitutionality of Donald Trump's Proposed Immigration Policy

New York Times Blathering Nonsense


Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law

Stephen L. D’Andrilli

Edited by Brian Anse Patrick

Republican Party bigwigs remain frustrated at the American electorate’s continued refusal to support their hand-selected favorite, Jeb Bush. But while their money may not buy public support it can certainly buy media coverage.

The latest episode in the big media attack on establishment outsider Donald Trump falsely asserts that Mr. Trump’s ideas on limiting immigration are unconstitutional. The assertion is absurd on its face. Syrians and citizens in foreign countries do not enjoy the rights privileges and immunities granted under the U.S. Constitution. In legal terms, they are not party to the U.S. social contract.
The more the threat of Mr. Trump’s popularity grows, the more desperately the leftist-leaning New York Times and the big business-centric Wall Street Journal have attacked him. Mainstream media attempt to demonize Trump by sheer name-calling, using “devil words” such as demagogue, toxic, extremist and racist. Even though FBI Director James Comey admits that the hundreds of thousands of potential Middle-eastern immigrants cannot be vetted, and clear evidence shows that Islamic terrorists pose a tangible threat to the U.S, media bigwigs treat Mr. Trump’s appeal for a reasonable exercise of prudence as if were an outrage.

Mr. Trump simply proposes to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists by employing the temporary expedient of banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the U.S. But there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes Congress from enacting quotas, consistent with its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And the editors of The New York Times must know this.

Nevertheless an NYT editorial of December 10, 2015,“The Trump Effect, and How It Spreads,asserts:

Trump has not deported anyone, nor locked up or otherwise brutalized any Muslims, immigrants or others. The danger next year, of course, is giving him the power to do so. And the danger right now is allowing him to legitimize the hatred that he so skillfully exploits, and to revive the old American tendency, in frightening times, toward, vicious treatment of the weak and outsiders.

Beyond its yellow journalism aspect, this passage comprises a classic straw man argument. The newspaper attempts to beat up Mr. Trump on matters he has never countenanced. Mr. Trump has never said, nor suggested, that he would take or wish to take any illegal action against U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslims, or who happen to practice Islam, or that he would encourage Congress to do so. And Mr. Trump has never said nor intimated that America’s Muslims cannot or ought not be able to practice their religion. Nor has Mr. Trump ever said or suggested that American Muslims should be deported or interned. If it were not for the U.S. constitution’s guarantee of Freedom of the Press concerning political speech, such wild assertions as made by The Times would be deemed actionable as character defamation.

The same NYT edition conveniently features an essentially misleading article, “Is Trump’s Plan Legal?” by Peter J. Spiro, constitutional law professor at Temple University. This article seems intended to support The Times’ quasi-legalistic mumbo jumbo, but this legal expert has virtually nothing to say on supposedly unconstitutional aspects of Mr. Trump’s proposal. Can it be because there is no sound legal argument to be made? Instead Mr. Spiro dithers on about history and morality.
Even The Times editors appear to admit that their assertions do not stand, at least not on any legal footing. This is reflected when the original title of the article, Is Trump’s Plan Legal?” was altered in the digital version to read: “Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan is Awful. And Constitutional.” With the professor’s academic reputation on the line, one suspects that he could hardly have been pleased with the original title that seemed to advance NYT’s ridiculous unconstitutionality claim under his name. Mr. Spiro apparently, one guesses, requested a change to the title after the print version of the newspaper had gone to press. The digital version of the article reflects the change.

Since Mr. Spiro cannot sensibly assert the illegality, under the U.S. Constitution, of Mr. Trump’s proposal, temporarily barring non-citizen Muslims from entering this Country, he instead argues that the proposal is “awful,” that is to say, immoral. Deep philosophy this is not. Mr. Spiro then makes a tortuous attempt to tie morality and constitutionality together by drawing a distinction between a colloquial meaning for the word constitutional and the legal meaning of the word.

Mr. Spiro claims, highlighted by the Times, that Mr. Trump’s proposal might pass judicial muster.” That doesn’t make it constitutional.”

But once again this appears as an absurd remark. It is doubly absurd in that it appears paradoxical in view of the altered title of Mr. Spiro’s article: Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan is awful. And Constitutional. That Mr. Trump’s proposal would pass judicial muster remains the only salient point. And it certainly would.

Mr. Spiro, however, appeals to a vague metaphor, asserting that Mr. Trump’s proposal is illegal in the court of public opinion. But unless there is something in our system of laws that demonstrates that Mr. Trump’s proposal, if implemented, would be illegal as determined by a court of law, whatever the fictive court of public opinion has to say about the matter counts for nothing. One must suppose that the editors of The Times imagine themselves as the chief spokespersons for this illusory court. But it is the legal sense of the meaning of constitutional that is relevant here. And, what is the legal meaning of the word, ‘constitutional?’ The word means, “consistent with the constitution; authorized by the constitution; not conflicting with any provision of the constitution or fundamental law of the state.” And this is certainly true of Mr. Trump’s proposal.

The bottom line is that Mr. Trump’s proposal is legally sound, despite NYT’s assault on Mr. Trump policies, principles and character. One wonders after reading the above cited articles, who exactly is it that The Times editors are trying so very hard to mislead —the public or themselves? We suggest that they are doing a fine job of the latter.