Archive for April 2009
I put some targets on the hill this year that I thought, honestly, would remain un-hit all day. JD discusses it (with pictures) in his post “Consternation”; Da Squirrel Hunter et al took to calling the targets dingle berries. The construction, in the morning, was to take 4” targets and tie them square to the shooting line. Three of these were tied on a 40 or 50 yard line at the top of the hill; the movement with a light wind was impressive. Mid-day feedback was overwhelming and enthusiastic; I ended up cutting off long paracord lines and handing them out at the tree line. I don’t know how many moving targets were emplaced, but not many were left. We tied a mix of 3”, 4”, and one 7” target at the eyebrow; those were mostly gone, as well.
Next year will be more difficult. My expected feedback was that the targets were Too Hard; however, the popularity of the moving targets re-interested one person that was attended 2009 out of politeness: he said he’ll be back in 2010, provided there are a lot more moving targets.
This neatly solves one problem Joe and I have been thinking about for years: how to make the targets harder without making them smaller. Once you get below a certain size, they aren’t as boomescent; the ratio of “don’t shoot here” cardboard to “shoot here” becomes very small, and the detonation unimpressive.
I set aside the helium balloons as wasteful this year; why buy the balloons and the helium if nobody will hit the targets anyway? I have a proposed solution for this; we’ll see if the people that cleaned the dingle berries this year do so well next.
The most expensive item shooting at the Boomershoot Sunday? My guess is this rig:
That’s a RED ONE, son.
MedStar flew over twice – fortunately, for nothing Boomershoot related.
The fireball didn’t quite go off, but Joe boiled some gasoline:
Anna, Arden, and Dad all got boomers at the 400 yard line. Here is Anna working on hers:
Speaking of the auction, this is some old enamel; I wonder where they buy refills?
The end of the day was for relaxing; here, the beer and cigars arrive and are consumed.
We were all tired; Dad and I drove from Boomerland to Seattle straight through. Extensive AAR later.
Two weeks after a wayward 102-pound artillery shell fired from Camp Ripley, Minn., narrowly missed their house and plowed an ugly path through their woods, a central Minnesota couple is still shook up.
One of eight inert wax-filled rounds fired during a test … flew almost 8 miles off Camp Ripley property onto Kathy and Rich Nelson’s 80-acre property, according to Capt. Ross Nieber of Camp Ripley.
No humans were harmed in the manufacture of this device.
Recently, a female shot a male at or near a bus stop in Seattle. As the details emerge, it seems a lesbian riding a bus with her partner and four children were verbally assualted. They disembarked; the male followed, apparently lunging and spitting at her. She pulled a firearm and shot him; he failed to die. The details are in open court; we see that the victim has a long and varied history with the police, however, she hasn’t been convicted of anything. The attacker has a similar history with the court system; he has a couple convictions, though.
The comment threads over at the Seattle Times have been great. Here’s one gem:
shadetree101 et al,
You are waiting for the #31 bus; the #26 pulls up; you step back; the doors open, and two snarling, spitting combatants tumble out of the bus.
As one lunges, the other pulls out her nickel-plated Beretta 84. In the instant before she squeezes the trigger, he stumbles, and as he falls, the bullet passes over his falling body into YOUR chest, grazing your aorta.
a) Praise her for her quick reaction, but chide her for choosing an Italian firearm, and just before you begin losing consciousness suggest she should have chosen a Smith and Wesson 9 mm?
b) Think, “Damn! She reacted a little too quickly. I hope the crew from Harborview gets here soon.”
c) Pray to God you don’t die, and start to rethink the wisdom of your longstanding NRA-sponsored shoot-first-ask-questions-later stance on guns?
I liked “a”. You can look up the bad guy here; his name is Emmanuel Salter. He’s been convicted of “WILLFUL VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER”. The latest article still leaves some questions open; my guess is as time goes on, we’ll find there’s less and less to the story. Eventually, the prosecutor will fail to charge the victim with defending herself and she can look forward to a lifetime of lawsuits from the poor criminal she failed to kill.
Tam builds an ontology for people that own firearms; examining it, I’d have to say I’m in the “none of the above” class. I can rule Trainer, Collector, Hunter, and Gamer out right off; this leaves Owner and Shooter.
Although I’m active in fora, I shoot once a year or so; I spend lots of time on the hobby and would list shooting as a one, but the range time attribute is very far from my level of participation in the sports surrounding firearms.
So why not Owner? Owners don’t do NFA. Owners don’t do political organizing. Owners don’t buy 1200 feet of paracord to cause other owners to spends thousands of dollars on ammo they otherwise would not have spent. While I am certainly an owner, I am not an Owner.
A suggested class is the Spender; I’m not that guy, either. I won’t argue EOTech versus Aimpoint nor 5.56 versus 6.8 versus 6.5. My gun stuff gets used (slowly) and abused (broke my 50 BMG rifle 3 different ways this weekend); I don’t (yet) own a single-point sling.
As such, I think I’ll be content being an owner. Perhaps a more complete ontology will include “NFA owner that shoots once a year, is politically active, and loves to see you burn barrels in frustration”; you know what they say about ontologies, though.