A Little About Noise -- Updated Link Fixed

Recoil does not bother me too much.  Muzzle blast does bother me.   Growing up, I thought hearing protection was for sissies.  OK, so now I'm a sissy.  Actually, I have survived with a considerable amount of my hearing intact more by accident than design.  One reason I can still hear is that most of my youthful shooting was done with a .22 rimfire rifle with a fairly long barrel.  The second reason is that during some of my less prudent post-college years my circumstances precluded much shooting at all.  A third reason is that somewhere along the line I bought a pair of very comfortable earplugs with metal baffles in them.  I used those plugs extensively and exclusively for years until the silicone finally came apart.  I liked them because I could hear pretty well with them in but they kept me from flinching.

Many years ago I was briefly involved in what might be called law enforcement, and I had to qualify with a shotgun, a handgun, and a rifle.  The standards were pretty lax, and most of us in the group of twenty or so passed the tests easily enough.  A few had trouble with the rifle course and had to have two tries.  The shotgun qualification was brief and amusing for almost everybody.  The handgun qualification was just plain fun.  Except for one man.  He was a small, slight fellow who seemed a little nervous all the time.  Apparently he was terrified of the  ancient — even then — Smith and Wesson M&P (Model 10) .38 revolver he was handed.  He failed his first attempt at qualifying.  He failed a second attempt.  Since the handgun portion was not a big deal — in fact firearms usage at all was not a big part of what we were employed to do, the instructors set the rest of us down and took the man alone to the handgun course in an effort to coach him through to qualification. 

As we watched from a safe distance, his problem was obvious.  Allowed to fire that smooth old Smith in single-action, and despite having excellent hearing protection, he was contorting his entire hand as he appeared to be trying his best to back away from the revolver.  Occasionally a round might strike the full-size human silhouette target, but most threw up eruptions of red dirt on the backstop far wide of the mark or on the ground between the shooter and the target.  It was painful to witness.   It was even more painful when the instructors gave up and sent the poor fellow on his way.

I would guess that the leading cause of misses for most people is The Flinch.

The noise issue is one that our friend John brought up a few days ago, and it applies to both the shooter and the environment.  If you live in a rural area with a relatively sparse population, most of your neighbors are not going to know if you fire off a .22 rimfire rifle or shotgun, but they are likely to notice if you start target-practicing with a .308 or .30-06.  There are two components to the report of a firearm, the most obvious being muzzle blast from the exploding powder.  For a shotgun that is typically contained mostly within the chamber and barrel.  The relatively heavy load of an ounce or more of shot in a long barrel tends to use up a considerable amount of the blast from a shotshell.  The same is true of standard velocity .22 rounds from a rifle.  In fact, for .22LRs, in a barrel longer than the optimal sixteen inches, muzzle velocity decreases in some cases.  If only everything we made were so efficient. 

The second element of noise from a firearm is the sonic boom as the projectile accelerates past the sound barrier.  The speed of sound in air is usually quoted as 1126 feet per second.  My Remington #8 low-brass game loads claim a muzzle velocity of 1290 fps which is transonic but not by a lot.  Some of my .223 rounds exceed three times the speed of sound.  A .30-06 round, especially from a shorter barrel, like 18 or 19 inches has a huge muzzle blast plus it is accelerated to more than twice the speed of sound.  I know from experience these are very loud — crack of doom loud.  I have a .30-30 with a 16.5 inch barrel.  It does not burn as much powder as the '06 and barely crosses twice the speed of sound, but it is loud enough to freak out a disagreeable and contentious neighbor even out here in the boonies.  Again, I know that from experience.

You can create a subsonic load for almost any rifle that can be both quiet and effective at shorter ranges.  These are Frank "Paco" Kelly's famous "silent loads".  I can't find his "Silent But Deadly" article, but this one is about light loads — kind of interesting.  Greg Mushial has an extensive list of low velocity loads here  — specific calibers are listed on the right left side (d'oh) of his page. 

Paco's formula was to use a soft cast bullet that is heavy for the caliber, e.g., a 60-grain bullet for a .22, 100-grain for a 6mm, or a 200-grain bullet for a .30 caliber and load the cartridge with a small amount of a pistol powder like Bullseye, Unique, or 2400.  Usually you work up to a load.  But Paco worked backward down to a load that would just clear the end of the barrel.  He would occasionally stick a few, so it was always important to check the barrel during load development.  A crude explanation is that all the propellent gases and explosive noise are "eaten up" getting the bullet out of the barrel so there is little to no blast.  Being subsonic, there is no crack, yet you have a fairly substantial piece of lead flying along at pistol velocities from your rifle.  These are not high energy loads, obviously, but they will do quite well for eliminating pests and vermin without upsetting the neighbors. 

I sometimes get on a kick of using reduced loads in my .223 NEF single-shot to mimic a .22 Hornet or .22 magnum load, but I am not trying for silent, just "kinder and gentler" so I often use a 40-grain bullet and Blue Dot or 2400, whichever I happen to have the most of at the time.  Last time, it looks like I used 40-grain Sierra Match King bullets and somewhere around 13 grains of 2400 — NOTE:  I am not recommending this load or suggesting it would be safe in a particular rifle.  


I have used Remington subsonic .22LR rounds in my Savage Mark II on small game, pests and varmints.  In some cases, particularly on squirrels, the subsonics performed quite well.  The bolt-action Savage, of course, has no problem cycling such rounds and is both quiet and accurate.  In other cases, on armadilloes digging up the yard, for example, I found subsonics to be somewhat less effective than higher velocity rounds.    You just have to find what works.

Noise, especially loud noise, is a good way to attract unwanted attention.  Filling out the paperwork and getting registered for a silencer, which is legal in many states, is a way to attract the government's attention.  That should not be the case, but it will put the purchaser on a list.  I would like to be as stealthy and low-profile as possible, not because I am doing anything wrong but because I am shy and introverted.  Or whatever.   Thus, there is a certain ineffable attraction to weapons that don't disturb the neighbors or the local fauna. 

I am in the process of making my own longbow, but I have been "in the process" for the last two years, and it isn't done yet.  I have a quite serviceable compound bow that I shoot on occasion though not nearly as much as I should to be proficient.  Recurves, longbows, compounds, and crossbows are all quiet and very effective at taking game or removing undesirable pests and varmints.  The crossbow is obviously the easiest for most people to master.  Good crossbows are fairly expensive but so are good compound bows these days.  A bow will take down anything that walks.  Arrows and bolts are reuseable and can be made by hand if necessary.     

Another quiet option is the air rifle.  Air rifles have changed a lot since the old Red Ryder BB gun.  It is easy to acquire a good one which is accurate and powerful enough for humanely taking small game and eliminating pests.  With no requirement for powder and the ammunition being easily storable in large quantities, a quality air rifle or pistol might not be a bad addition to the arsenal of the stealthily prudent. 

There is no way to silence a revolver, despite what is frequently depicted on television and in the movies.  Also, a "silenced" firearm is hardly silenced, it is suppressed.   That is, it is not AS loud, but it is still pretty loud, especially in larger calibers.  And with rifles, you still have to deal with the sonic boom, though, I will say that it is much harder to figure out the point of origin for a suppressed rifle even with transonic rounds.   The sonic boom echoes off objects as the projectile passes and thus tends to confuse the ear. 

Once again we consider the benefit of a good old .22LR.  From a rifle or an autoloading handgun with a barrel of six inches or more, the report of a single .22LR shot is unlikely to attract much attention even in a fairly populated area.  If someone shoots several rounds, hearers might start to realize a firearm is being discharged, but one round could be mistaken for a door slamming, someone using a hammer or the classic "car backfiring".  If there is other environmental noise, say, on a warm Saturday morning, when people in the 'burbs are mowing their lawns, a shot or two is even less remarkable. 

Power is good.  As Ruark said, "Use enough gun."  But there is a down side to using more gun than you need that includes recoil and noise and potentially unintended destruction.  Prudence says there is no need to waste energy or powder or whatever when the same job can be accomplished while expending less.  One of the arguments for reloading is the ability to produce reduced loads for centerfire weapons that will provide more versatility and are less likely to draw attention to the shooter.  Sometimes it is fun to shoot a heavy-recoiling weapon, and sometimes it is not.  Sometimes we like a big boom; sometimes we like quiet.  In every case, it is wise to take some of these points into consideration when planning for the years ahead.

Denninger Succinctly Explains Health Care Costs

Read Denninger's Ticker here. 

This is one of my personal gripes.  Had the government not gotten involved in health care, I would be able to retire.  I could pick up a catastrophic plan with a high deductible to protect my assets in case I get hit by a truck and can't tell the EMTs not to take me to the hospital.  As it is, because of the need to extract sufficient funds from Medicare and Medicaid, health care providers must drastically elevate costs, run unnecessary tests, track medical procedures, etc.  Additionally, providers must protect themselves from lawsuits by practicing defensive (expensive) medicine.

People have trouble understanding the problem.  In a word, the problem is Medicare.  It is going to bankrupt us, and it helps inflated the cost of medical services.  It is the concrete echo of, "We are from the government, and we are here to help you."  Whatever else Lyndon Johnson may have done, he should rot in hell for Medicare.

Denninger is correct that the only solution, ultimately, is to completely dismantle the existing system and rebuild it from the ground up.  There needs to be a movement in this country to remove governments from any involvement in paying for medical services.  Governments can establish their own hospitals, e.g., the VA, "county" hospitals, to provide service to special classes or to the indigent, but they should not be involved in the insurance business. 

Within the last couple of weeks, my wife was sent to the local ER by her primary physician as a result of extreme dehydration related to an existing chronic condition and some kind of acute viral infection.  She was in the "clinical decision unit" for several hours on an IV.  Known charges so far are over $4500.  I will end up paying a few hundred and the insurance company will probably pay no more than $1500.  But if I were uninsured, I would be stuck with the entire bill, excluding what I might be able to negotiate away, knowing what I do about the system.  

The Long Arab Winter Redux

Islamist parties score a crushing victory in the Egyptian elections.  We have gone from Egypt being an ally of the U.S. and a non-threat to Israel to unfriendliness and a lot of uncertainty.  Here's the thrust of the article:

The powerful Muslim Brotherhood, the country s best organised political movement, has claimed the lead through its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).

It has been closely followed by Al-Nur, which represents the ultra-conservative Salafi brand of Islam, raising fears among increasingly marginalised liberals about civil liberties and religious freedom.

What could go wrong?

The Food Price Punch

Gregory MacDonald talks about food price volatility.

I ran across this a few days ago and meant to link it but, Squirrel!

So, anyway, the bottom line is pretty obvious.  Food prices are rising much faster than wages or returns on investments, or even the amount of food stamp benefits being provided to the poor.  I have had people claim that food prices really aren't going up "that much", ignoring the "downsizing" of containers as retailers try to sell you less food for the same or slightly more money.

There are numerous causes, one being the necessity of fossil fuels for intensive, industrial-level agribusiness.  As crude oil prices have spiked, the cost of food has risen.  Corn diverted to ethanol production helped drive up the price of meat for a while -- we hope that fever-dream has passed.  Population growth, the change of diets in China, the loss of arable land, along with decreasing access to water for irrigation are also factors.

Click the link.  It's worth the time to read.

University of Missouri Investment Research

Or what passes for research these days.

As a Mizzou alum, I offer my sincere apology for the absolute waste of taxpayer money spent on this assistant professor’s salary.  I apologize to anyone who has sent their child to MU for an “education” in the last thirty years – but I’m not in a position to refund your expenses or pay off your ill-advised loans.  I also suggest that the professor shut her Yao-p and find a job she’s qualified for – maybe a barker at a carnival sideshow or a salesman at a used Yugo lot. 

Such brilliant investment advice:   Just stop worrying about the fact that you only have a few years to recover from a significant market correction and keep pumping your money into an inflated market.  That makes perfect sense.  

I am no prophet of profit, that’s for sure.  The markets are going to rise and fall.  Equities, right now, have recovered somewhat from their 2009 lows.  There is no clear indication of the direction it will take from here.  There is possibly at least a 25% chance the Dow could go to 6000 or lower.  There’s also probably a 10% chance it ends 2012 over 15,000 then crashes.  It is quite likely that it continues to flop around between 10,500 and 12,500 for several more months. 

Professor Yao’s advice could be:  

  a)  (whispered conspiratorially) bought and paid for by the Wall Street/Pennsylvania Avenue elite; 

  b)  the result of bad anchovies on her Shakespeare’s pizza;

  c)  too many trips to Harpo’s;

  d)  all of the above.

Note, I am not questioning the professor's actual research findings that, "Age has a pragmatic relationship with financial risk".  That does not really require a PhD or surveys to determine.  The professor is also correct when she says, "In addition, individuals approaching or in retirement may shift focus from asset accumulation to asset preservation. These individuals may become relatively more concerned about potential loss of money when they are closer to retirement or no longer have a steady source of income."  True but trivial is how I would classify that.  It is well-known and very common common-sense.  What is it MU is paying this person for?

But look at this statement:  "Investors should not let the economic climate affect their risk tolerance."  In other words, folks, do not allow reality to harsh your mellow.  Fire up the bong, baby.

Fight the Future --- Follow the Link

LINK:   Van on the Pied Piper of Government Indoctrination.

What Do You Have in Your Hand?

River Tam:  Also, I can kill you with my brain.

Your most potent weapon is the one between your ears.  Though I have to admit, if the mind is a weapon, some people are walking around armed with squirt guns. 

I grew up knowing some dangerous people -- not mean people or vicious, ruthless people, but dangerous people.  Without exception they were people who knew how to gain “an edge”, as they say in Josey Wales, to take advantage of the terrain or the obstacles in the room or the clothes they were wearing.  I have fought other guys fairly, but only in a sport or game – boxing, wrestling, football.  For games, you play by the rules.  In real life, you do whatever you have to do.  Learn to analyze and to think and to take any advantage you can get.

My wife has a favorite detective show that is no longer on the air.  I bought her the DVD set of one season from back around 2004 or 2005.  We were watching an episode the other night that involved an intruder in the home of a female protagonist.  The intruder was looking for something on the first floor of a house while the woman and her young daughter slept on the second floor.  The noise of an object knocked over by the intruder awoke the woman who proceeded to creep down the stairs armed with a baseball bat.  I do not know if it was an aluminum assault bat – you know, one of those with no sporting purpose.  Naturally, the intruder grabbed her from behind, and she lost control of the bat during the ensuing struggle.

The scene did not involve the 100-pound woman throwing the 170-pound man around like a ragdoll, so, in that regard, it was much more realistic than most television fights these days.  In fact, though the woman put up a determined fight, she was losing.  But she did not give up.  Penned onto the sofa and being choked by her attacker, the victim groped on the coffee table behind her for a pair of scissors her daughter had been using on a school project.  I’ll bet that’s one time she was glad her little girl didn’t pick up after herself. 

These were obviously tactical scissors.  The woman got a grip on them and very forcefully stabbed her attacker in the upper left side, possibly under the man’s extended arm.  The man immediately fell backward on the floor, stone-cold dead.  I’m getting me a pair of them scissors. 

The average human body has about 10 pints of blood by volume.  If a person has severed both carotid arteries and the jugular vein, e.g., decapitation or having one’s “throat cut”, brain death could occur in a little less than 20 seconds.  In other words, the person subjected to a complete loss of blood supply to the brain would lose consciousness in probably 10 to 20 seconds.  Any injury to a vein or artery not supplying oxygen directly to the brain requires a significant loss of blood -- probably at least one quart, maybe two, to induce unconsciousness.  There is a major vein called the Axillary that runs into the chest and is formed by the convergence of the Basilic and Brachial veins in the vicinity of the arm pit.  Presumably, our heroine’s tactical scissors penetrated such a major blood vessel.  I am pretty sure they did not reach the heart of the attacker from the angle of the strike, or any part of the central nervous system.  That’s not to mention how much force would be required for the scissors to effectively penetrate the bad guy’s clothing, skin, and muscle tissue.  The heroine would have been full of adrenaline. 

We are not too surprised that television is unrealistic in its depiction of how difficult a bad person is to incapacitate.  If anything, film and television go the opposite extreme in depicting the injuries a good person can sustain and yet keep fighting.

Sometime, when no one is watching you, slam a knife into a ham, or perhaps use you kitchen shears.  Be careful.  It is possible to have the hand slip on impact and go up on the blade.  Stabbing into ‘meat’ can require quite a bit of effort, depending on blade geometry.  Conversely, slashing with a sharp blade does not require a lot of force, especially for shallow cuts.  I was told, back in the ‘80s, that prisoners using shanks typically attack with quick, superficial cuts around or above the eyes so that an opponent or victim is blinded by a direct cut or by blood flowing from the vessel-rich skin of the face.   The attacker then moves in with multiple stabs or slashes to the throat.  The aftermath of such an attack is very ugly. 

One of the reasons we train is to learn the strengths and weaknesses of our tools, whether it is empty-hand martial arts or high-tech firearms.  Everything has limitations.  Most tools have some things they can do well.  Most of us as fighters have or can develop tactics that will work well for us as individuals.  I have a cheap and dirty leg-sweep move that has helped me in a couple of scuffles with drunks or other folks who wanted to give me a hard time.  It is surprising how fast a guy will change his mind when he trying to figure out how he wound up flat on his back.  I am certainly no martial artist or grappler, but I usually did not have to be.  A small set of moves that you can execute at full speed without having to think about them will serve you quite well.  If you know a strike, a take-down, an escape, and a submission hold, you are already ahead of the masses. 

My point in all this is that we often spend time and money acquiring some new thing or skill that somebody tells us we need.  There is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it is might be better to learn to use what you already have.   What are your own strengths and weaknesses?  What things do you already do well?  Acquire new skills, sure.  But build on the skills and abilities you already have with the equipment you already have.  Make the fullest possible use of the resources you have right now, or find out now -- when it is not a matter of life and death, that something just isn’t going to work for you.  And there is no shame in that.  We all cannot be really, really good at everything.  Though every one of us can be expert at something.