Marine's open new Combined Arms Training Facility

I would have LOVED to train in something like this. Incredible. It might make a stay at the Stumps worth it.

Tax Day Gun

I finally got it in today...my Tax Day Gun. I ordered it back in March (We filed early this year), and just got it in today. It's a .450 Bushmaster. Actually, the upper receiver is the only part I actually bought with Tax money, the lower receiver is a Bravo Co. lower I had from before. I can't wait to get it out to shoot it.

In love with a blue alien woman

I saw Avatar last night, and all I can say, is wow! I don't care what anyone says, I thought the movie was great. The visuals of course were incredible, but aside from that, I thought the movie was great. The story line, which some said was lacking, I thought was great. it was simple, but who says simple can't be good? I guess it's the world we live in where everything has to be over-complicated. But as we know, sometimes the simple things in life are the best. What makes the plot so good isn't that it is original (man is sent out with dubious intentions, man falls in love with woman, man sees the evil of his ways, man changes ways, man fights for what is right), but it's the delivery that makes it good. And I have to say, I'm as much of an Ooh Rah Marine as the next Marine, but if I found a tribe of almost-naked loin cloth wearing blue women with bodies like Zoe Saldana, I would betray my species also.

Of course a lot of the conservative crowd criticize the movie for it's leftist message, and anti-war message, but I have to argue with that. The leftist message is there, and the movie is anti-war in the beginning. But it gets a lot less clear towards the end. Of course there's Sigourney Weaver's character, who is the righteous do-gooder tree-hugger that most people can't stand. But the movie demonstrates that peace can only get you so far. Because in the end, the peace lovers, including the human scientist Norm Spellman (played by Joel David Moore) picked up a gun to fight. It showed there is a limit to how far peacefulness can get you, but in the end we have a right to defend ourselves and our way of life. And you can't defend yourself with peace. To me the movie has the message that we should all strive for peace, but in the end when you're up against an enemy that doesn't want peace, you have to resort to a good old fashioned butt whoopin'.

My favorite handgun

I have the luxury of owning some really nice handguns. My wife and I each get an allowance, and I spend almost 100% of mine on gun related items. Usually I try to save up for a gun of some sort. So I have a nice collection. I have some fancy ones, like my FN Five-seveN, which I love. It's an awesome handgun, and a great company. For what they do for our military and our civilian shooting community, plus their quality firearms, FN is my favorite gun company. I also have a HK USP .45 compact, which I am also quite fond of. In fact, my license plates are personalized with that handgun's name. I also own a 1911, Browning Buckmark, a Walther PPK, a Ruger LCP, a couple of Russian guns, and a few others. However, there is another that is my favorite. If you would have asked me a couple of months ago what was my favorite I would have told you different. You know why? Because I took it for granted. It's not the flashiest handgun, it's lines are quite classic. It was quite controversial when it first hit the shooting scene. It's caliber has been criticized, though it is the most popular caliber in the entire "rest of the world." In the last few months, every gun rag and gun TV show has had something about the gun, which has made me realize that I have taken it for granted, and it is my favorite gun. It just celebrated it's 25 year anniversary of its adoption by the United States military. It is, of course, the Beretta 92. The M9.

Let me back up a bit and say this: I love the .45 ACP (probably my favorite all around handgun caliber) and the 1911. I think of John Moses Browning as one of the top 5 greatest Americans ever. The 1911 was WAY ahead of its time. But...that time was over 100 years ago. It's still a great gun, and a viable self defense option. Probably the best handgun EVER.

But I still love my Beretta 92. Just as the Marines and Army that came before me who were issued the M1911, I am partial to what I was issued, and that is the M9. I carried mine for almost my entire 11 years in the Marines. (Most of my first 4 years in the infantry my T.O. weapon was the M249 SAW, so my sidearm was the M9. After that in my next M.O.S., my T.O. weapon was just the M9). I have fired thousands upon thousands of rounds with it, and honestly, I can't think of a single malfunction, nor do I remember anyone else that ever had one, either. Though I never fired my M9 in combat, I did carry it in combat, and on several occasions had it drawn and at the ready to engage a threat. Once I even pulled it with the intent of using it, but didn't have to. Every time I pulled my M9 out of it's holster, I had complete, 120% confidence in the pistol. And yes, I'm upping the ante from those that believe we can only give 110%. It is completely reliable, very accurate, and gives me 15 rounds to resolve whatever

situation I'm in.

Every situation dictates which handgun we sue. If I need CCW, the LCP gets

the nod. If someone is in the house that shouldn't be, I'm grabbing the .357 or my USP .45. If the SHTF and I could only grab one handgun, it would be the Beretta 92.

Check out me new YouTube Channel

Check out my new Youtube channel: 762x51 n8o. You'll find gun videos, including the video from the previous post -- the Savage Model 93. More videos will be coming.

http://www.youtube.com/user/762x51n8o

New gun pr0n

I've been wanting to get ahold of something in .17 HMR for some time now. I've heard nothing but great things about the round (except for the bad stuff about shooting it from a semi-auto). I've been shopping around for awhile, then finally found a Savage Model 93 in M.O. Brush Camo, topped by a Simmons 3-9x40, also in M.O. Brush. (I don't know what it is, but I love the look of M.O. Brush camo, even though it doesn't really match anything here in Wiskonsin. I guess it just reminds me of Texas, and I love Texas). It was just north of $300 at Pecker's sporting goods. It's a nice looking gun.

Yesterday I took it to the range for the first time. Let me just say, the accuracy boasts made by Savage about their rifles, and the stuff people say about the .17 HMR. It's all true. Tack driver. Even with the Simmons (joke). There are a couple of things I don't like about the rifle though. 1. the magazine release/catch seems kind of chinsy (a colloquial midwestern term). It's just a piece of metal torqued so it has some spring to it. Because the mag slides up a rail, combined with the mag release/catch, it's not a smooth process getting the mag on and off. And sometimes if you think it's on, the mag release/catch, hasn't fully seated, so the mag isn't seated properly. I think this has something to do with the second issue, which is; 2. I had some feed issues. Some of the rounds just wouldn't feed properly when I slid the bolt forward. The bolt kind of stuck. I think this could be in part because the bolt is such a small diameter, due to the caliber, and the finish on the bolt isn't smooth, it's kind of rough, so it doesn't slide smoothly. Couple that with a wide bolt knob, and I think by grabbing the bolt at the knob and sliding creates an awkward side-leverage to slide the narrow bolt home. I don't know if you follow. In my mind it makes sense, I just don't know if I'm being clear. But, if I push the bolt directly from the rear with my thumb, instead of by the bolt knob, the round went into chamber easier. I think time and some wear will remedy this issue, so I'm not terribly worried.

The other issue is the magazine. After I fired a couple of mags off, I was inserting the mag into the rifle with the bolt open. When I tapped the mag to makes sure it was seated, the rounds spewed/erupted out of the mag and all over the table and ground around me. I have never fired a bolt gun with a removable mag, so I thought this was my fault, and I should only insert the mag with the bolt closed. So I loaded the mag back up and tapped it AR-style to make sure all the rounds were properly seated (not an easy trick with such a small mag) and all the rounds again spewed/erupted out, this time in the deep snow in front of my firing line. Now it's no longer my fault and a mag issue. So I load it up again, and this time don't tap it, and was in the process of moving towards the rifle when the round spewed/erupted out a third time.

I now have a single shot.

So, I got home and first thing, called Savage support. On the main line, after 3 rings, an actual person picks up. "How may I direct your call?" "Service, please." "Hold on." 2 rings. "Service, how may I help you?" Hi, I bought a rifle yesterday, and was at the range today, and the mag...blah, blah, blah..." "OK, would you like a new magazine, sent to you?" "Sure." "What's your address?" "It's ...blah, blah, blah." "OK, the mag is on the way."

Wow, now that's great customer service.

Now I'm looking forward to getting the mag, and hopefully that will fix that issue. Just in time for the weekend before the supper bowl, which is when the group that I hunt with has the "Annual Tree-Rat Roundup" where we go out and thin the squirrel herd on their property.

Semper Fi

*****Follow up - 1/9/2010*****

I received the new magazine from Savage. I measured the feed lips with a caliper, and sure enough, there is a difference of .020" inches between the one that came with it and the new one. The new one being narrower, of course. That doesn't sound like a lot, but with a round as small as this, I think it will make all the difference in the world. I'm sure this will eliminate all the problems I had with rounds spewing/erupting out.

Semper Fi

Cheap fun

I'm going to use a bad word here, in the eyes of many a shooter: Wal-mart. Yep, that's right. I was just in Wal-mart and found a great deal on a cheap piece of kit. They have a "Center-Point" Laser sight for $29.99. It's not the compact little laser sights, but the big honkers that laser-light was putting out 5 or so years ago. the nice thing, it includes a remote switch. This isn't anything I would put on something with sharp recoil like a .45. But, since it's not exactly compact, I think the best application would be to stick it on my Beretta Storm 9mm Carbine. It's perfect for tactical carbines. We'll see next time at the range how it stays sighted with a little bit of recoil.

Past experiences with Center-Point optics haven't been great. I wouldn't advice sticking one of their $49 tactical scopes on something like a 7.62 NATO rifle. The kick is a little much. The crosshairs started to vibrate after about 4 rounds. NOT good.

Semper Fi

Happy Birthday, Marines!

Happy Birthday, Marine Corps!

To all that do not know this, the US Marine Corps was founded in a Tavern. Tun's Tavern to be exact. So go toss back a cool one in celebration of our beloved Corps!

Top 9 most important military small arms cartridge calibers

I am absolutely positive that this list will be controversial and will be completely different from everyone else’s list. This is not a list of which round is better than the other, these cartridges are listed by historical importance, not combat effectiveness. Although in some cases combat effectiveness is why it was so important. Also, this list is based off of my pool of knowledge, and history as how I was taught it, which is out of an American textbook. I’m quite sure someone off in Switzerland, France or elsewhere has a cartridge or two that they would add to the list.

.223 (5.56 NATO) -- Love it or hate it, this is the standard issue infantry caliber of almost the entire free world. Then half of the rest use its Russian-developed knock off, the 5.45x39. I made this number one because it is in the forefront in the global war for freedom and democracy. This round is highly accurate and faster than my Uncle Jim at the Golden Corral Buffet. That’s fast.

7.62x39 -- A solid round with plenty of knock-down (though the FMJ is prone to over-penetration), this round is the standard issue to #1’s “rest of the world.” If your country is former communist, or a developing nation, you shoot this round. This round was the one used to promote Soviet-style diplomacy and the expansion of the Soviet empire for decades. Lauded by Kalash Fanboys everywhere.

.30-06 -- This is the round that saved the world from itself...twice. First in the bolt action 1903 Springfield during The Great War, then second in everyone’s favorite rifle, the M1 Garand in WWII.

.303 British -- I have to give this cartridge its dues. Even though it has never been popular outside of Britain and its empire...oh what an empire it was. This round furthered the British empire and fought on the side of freedom in two World Wars.

7.62x54R -- This one was a close one with #4. Maybe a tie. Like #3, and #4, has plenty of whoop ass to resolve any issues you might have with the enemy. One of the oldest cartridge still being used today by a standing military, this cartridge played a huge part in defeating the Nazis in WWII.

9mm Luger (9mm NATO) -- Once again, love it or hate it, this is the standard issue infantry sidearm caliber of...once again...almost the entire free world. It is such a popular round throughout the world it was used by both sides of WWII.

.308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) -- Ballistically similar to #3,#4 and #5, this round has been proving itself on battlefields throughout the world since it’s inception in the 1950s in battle rifles, but is especially popular in machine guns and sniper rifles. Only its newness prevents it from being ranked higher.

.45 ACP -- One of the all time best handgun calibers in terms of stopping power. This one made the list only in part due to the 1911 handgun it is most famous for, but mostly for its use in the Thompson Sub-Machine gun used primarily in WWII and Korea.

7.92x57 (8mm Mauser) -- I debated this one, is it so much an important round, as it is the rifle that is important? I decided to add it to the list at #9. It is the cartridge for the standard issue rifle of the Army that conquered almost all of Europe...twice. That makes it important.

Range time

I'm a little bummed, I'm missing my shooting time. I haven't gone in a couple of weeks and am having withdrawals. I've been hacking up a lung for a couple of weeks now, and since it's been pretty wet and cold, I figured I had better not go. I'm trying to get better since this coming weekend is the early deer season here in Wisconsin. Also, this weekend is the start of pheasant, so next week I'll be hitting that. mmmmm. Can't wait.

Fox News

There has been more and more talk from the Obama administration and other liberal commentators about the Fox News channel being a "wing of the Republican Party," and they've been talking about its lies and inaccuracies. I try to view stuff like this as objectively as possible, which isn't always easy. But whenever they talk on the subject, they almost always bring up O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, or other conservative talk shows. They are not differentiating between the opinion shows, and the news shows. MSNBC and the other news channels have shows on like Chris Matthews with all of his inaccuracies, but why doesn't the left complain about those shows? I have always felt the other news channels were very unfair to Republicans, while easy on Democrats. And, I've always thought Fox News was pretty even handed to all (we're talking news shows, not opinion). According to a study done by the Pew Research Center, I was right. The report says:

... a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.

So there you have it. Here's the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/

Arrogance and the short memories of Europeans

OK, I'm ticked. I was reading the comments postings in response to a British piece criticizing B.O. being given the Nobel peace prize. I'm DEFINITELY not ticked about the piece, but about some of the comments. The last comment, coming from a Norwegian I suspect, since not a lot of Americans and non-elfs have the name Olef, said (in part):

"As much as admire the man and what he appears to stand for, Obama is still the president of one of the most aggressive martial nation on the planet, which to date has refused to sign the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty, which aims to eradicate a scourge, which has maimed and killed millions of innocent children, a terror which is still ongoing every day. This treaty has been ratified by 133 countries, but the US has to date refused to do so.

The intention of closing down the most hideous and unlawful institution devised by a western nation since WWII, the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, is laudable, but has yet to be accomplished....

...If you want to name heads of governments in the cause of peace, France’s Jacques Chirac, and Germany’s Schroeder would be more deserving, for not joining in the Iraq adventure, but most of all Canada’s Jean Chretien, who must have been under enormous pressure from a nation, which then counted for 87% of Canada’s foreign trade."

There are TONS of things I could respond with on this, I could get into the whole, "the US saved European butts more than once, and blah, blah, blah," but I'm not going to do that. The one thing that I haven't head anyone bring up yet, on this subject of the US and allies going into Iraq and Afghanistan is:

If Europeans hadn't felt the desire to colonize everyone and everywhere they could get their grubby little mitts on, and subsequently leave those areas in such states of utter chaos, the US wouldn't have to get involved in those areas. Look at the two areas primarily under European oppression: Africa and the Middle East. Look at the conditions those areas have been in since the Europeans conquered them, then left. The poverty, the fighting, the identity conflicts, I could go on and an about the problems of those areas, but the bottom line is that those problems arose because of European intervention and arrogance. European greed and the need to oppress free people left those areas the way they are.

So perhaps instead of criticizing the "evil US," Europeans like Olef should be thanking us for once again trying to fix the problems that Europe has perpetrated on the world.

Obama the Nobel Peace Prize recipient

Another great commentary from a Brit about B.O. I'm not surprised at him being given (not earned or awarded, but given) the Nobel, look at some of the recent winners; primarily Al Gore for his movie about global warming. What a sham. Some of the comments made by readers are great also. "Nobel: from leftists, to leftists for being leftist". Also, "like giving a Harvard degree to a 5 year old on his 12th day of kindergarden."

Here is the link:

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize - Times Online

Shared via AddThis

Guns and Utopia

Late last week I was on a message board discussing the Russian arms maker, Izhmash, who going out of business. It was one of the big three network news websites, so needless to say, all but me on the message board were very liberal. One such individual made the comment that they wished all American firearm manufacturers would go out of business, to which everyone, except me, heartily agreed. I quickly pointed out that if that happened, it wouldn’t be good for the only segment of our economy that was actually doing good right now, and that it wouldn’t be good for the millions of law abiding Americans who legally purchase their firearms for legal pursuits. Nor would it be good for our military and law enforcement, who need guns to protect us. I didn’t go back to the message board after that, but I’m sure the follow up comment was something to the effect of, “well if there were no guns, our military and police wouldn’t need guns, and wouldn’t need to protect us.” I’ve heard this argument before from the far “non-thinking” left-wing.

Let me address this idea of a no-gun utopia. Say, just for argument’s sake, that all US firearm manufactures really did go out of business, and authorities were actually able to confiscate every single gun in America. Literally, every single gun. No guns left. As a side note let me point out that the left are proponents of completely opening our border with Mexico, allowing anyone and everyone in, and complete amnesty for those illegals already here. Let me point out -- primarily to the left -- that with the measures you are proposing to freely let people in, **read my lips** you could not keep guns out of our country. They would come in. We are not Britain, Australia, Cayman, or any other place that has a no gun policy. We don’t live on an island. While monitoring guns into your country is hard even if you are surrounded on all sides by water, and the only way in is air, or maybe boat. It is IMPOSSIBLE if entrance into your country can be had over land. No way. Can’t be done. So once again, you have a scenario where the only people with the guns are the bad people. Except in this lefty scenario, even the police and military don’t have guns.

Now say, hypothetically, that every single firearms manufacturer in the world went out of business, and every single gun in the world was confiscated and destroyed. Not one single gun was left in the world. People will still find away to kill other people (for example, a molotov cocktail is a very simple device, or even an IED), or make weapons to gain power over others. Still, you cannot un-invent something. An individual can make a gun in his or her home. In fact, plans to make homemade guns are all over the internet. The knowledge is still there. Just the same, you can’t un-invent the automobile to prevent vehicular homocide. Or, you can’t un-invent the wheel. The knowledge is still there. People will still make them.

Bottom line: get over it. Guns are here to stay. There is no utopia. Men will kill other men. If one means to do it is gone, we will find another way. It’s time to look at the real problem; the person behind the gun. Why do some people choose to do evil with a gun, while most do not. Look at how many commit DUIs; we don’t try to ban alcohol, but instead try to treat or punish the person behind the alcohol and the wheel. We need to approach guns the same way. God forbid if the bleeding-hearts every want to punish criminals. Instead we have things like early-release and parole. Violent gun crimes should face a “do the time” penalty -- if you get charged with 15 years, then you do fifteen years. The only way you get out early is if you get shanked in jail, then you can leave early on a steel table.

Semper Fi

CNN fact checks SNL to protect their president.

You have to be kidding. CNN decided that a spoof on Saturday Night Live was unfair to President B.O., so they ran a fact-checking piece on it. The CNN segment actually makes themselves look like an SNL spoof, leaving the viewer thinking, "you've got to be kidding me." If anyone still (or has EVER thought) thinks that CNN can be trusted to be unbiased in their coverage (read: love affair) of B.O., they are terrible naive, or just blind. It's funny, yet surprisingly scary, to watch how many times the commentators in this segment say that SNL is "not fair" to the President. Where was CNN during their 8 years of comedy spoofs on President Bush? Or on other Republicans? I guess that was fair, by their standards.

Stuff like this just gets me so angry I feel like slapping people. And I'm not really a big slapper. Not much of a slapper at all, to be honest. In fact, I don't think I've ever slapped anyone. But I feel like marching down to CNN HQ and starting my slapping rampage.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw&feature=player_embedded

Semper Fi

Depressing

First, let me put things in perspective -- there are important things in life, like family, friends, our health, there is are wars going on, people are dying, etc, etc. Then there are things that aren't truly important, like video games, sports, etc. Now that I've clarified that, let me say, watching last night's Monday Night football in which the Packers had to play Brett Favre in a Vikings uniform was the most depressing, worst non-important event of my life. On one hand I wanted the Pack to destroy the Vikes, because the Packers are my boys, I want them to do good, and I hate the Vikings. On the other hand, I wanted Brett to do good, because I love Brett (in a football sense) -- despite all that has happened -- and wanted to see him stick it to Ted Thompson, Packers GM, whom I can't stand, and to Mike McCarthy, Packers head coach, who I think stinks as a coach. But I don't want Brett to do too good, because I don't want him to have a legacy with the Vikings, I want his legacy to be with the Packers. For me the whole game was about contradictions, which left my insides twisted.

Brett has always been an anomaly for me. I have never gotten into the whole celebrity or athlete admiration thing. Except for Brett. I remember being at one of the Packer training camps, and Brett walked by fairly close to where I was. I was standing there in his jersey (as was about half the crowd), but for whatever reason he looked at me, and we actually made eye contact for about 10 seconds. My knees grew weak and I about passed out (not quite, but kind of funny). I felt like a stupid little school girl. I spent my entire adult life growing old with him. To me he was almost like family. So this whole ordeal with getting rid of him and now he being on the Vikings has left me kind of put off by football right now.

Chicago's Olympic loss is Bush's fault. Really, people?

For the better part of 8 years, it seemed that every negative occurrence that happened in the world, and especially in the US, was Bush's fault. Global warming, hurricanes, drought, famine, 9/11 attacks, and pretty much everything else were all things heaped onto his shoulders as his fault. I thought that blame game would eventually dissipate, but I guess not. Now Jesse Jackson, members of the Chicago Olympic bid committee and members of B.O.'s crew all blamed Chicago's loss of the Olympic bid and anti-US sentiment because of Bush. It couldn't just be that Chicago is a crappy city with high rates of violence. And God forbid, maybe the rest of the world doesn't think as highly of B.O. as he thinks of himself. Not everyone in the world views him as the second coming.

Check out the article:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1804170,CST-NWS-olyresent03.article

What in the name of God is the President thinking?

Any shred of hope that I had that B.O. and his administration wasn't as inept and incompetent as they seemed to be just went out the door. Take a man who has written about his abuse of drugs. A man who thought it best to not report it to the authorities when one of his underage students told him he was having sex with older men. A man who has written six books on radical gay rights. What kind of position should B.O. give him? How about..."Safe, Drug Free School Czar." Wonderful. It sound like he was given the position because of his anti-bullying policies. But as one commenter in the article says, the only thing he's done is promote the anti-bullying of gays. Good grief. This one beats the tax-evader as the Treasure Secretary.

This is quite possibly the dumbest moves I have ever seen a politician make. Now, aside from the OBVIOUS reasons not to apoint this man to this particular position, doesn't B.O. think there might be some backlash to this? How long before this blows up in his face and one more of his appointees is forced to resign? If this were a Republican doing such blatantly moronic appointments, he would be fodder for late night TV jokes. But not B.O. Just one more instance where B.O. leaves me asking myself, "WTF?"

Link follows.

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Selling out Poland (again)

This Gerald Ford guy is a great writer, and in typical Brit fashion is no-holds barred. He really rips into his subjects pretty good.

When the news first came out that President B.O. agreed to not help Poland with a defense shield, the first thing that popped into my mind is how we have historically screwed over Poland. They have always wanted to be our ally, and have been pretty vocal about it, yet we have historically always screwed them and threw them under the bus in the name of appeasing the Russians. Once the iron curtain fell, they once again tried to become our ally, now here we are in our historic place, stabbing them in the back once again in the name of appeasing the Russians. Anyway, here's the article. Enjoy:

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist restores the satellite states to their former owner

Shared via AddThis

Piece of my childhood

I've recently been blessed with having a couple of pieces of my childhood in my hands. My parents brought me 2 of my "firsts" in firearms. Unfortunately, neither firearm has been cleaned in almost 20 years, since I left for the Marines back in 1990. They were both in remarkable condition, despite this fact. This is a testament to Hoppe's.

Today they brought me the first gun I ever fired - -my dad's High-Standard Dura-matic .22 pistol. It's in great condition, is a great firearm, and since they haven't made them in over 30 years, they're actually a collectable. It was crafted very nicely, and after a little research, I found the serial number places it most likely somewhere in 1960s production. The pistol required very little cleaning, even in the deep nooks and crannies. When the brought me the gun, tucked away in the box they brought with them was the magazine, fully loaded with 10 rounds. No doubt this mag has been sitting there loaded for the full 20 years that I've been gone. I was surprised to find the mag spring was still pretty strong. That's impressive! It's also a huge relief since mags go for $40, and not all mags work well with all variants of the pistol (High-Standard produced some of these guns to be sold under the Sears brand.)

The second firearm they brought me a couple of weeks ago, and is the first gun I ever took hunting -- my dad's Mossberg 42MB .22, marked U.S. Property. When I got this one, it needed some work. Plastic has shrunk, the front sight hood was broken off, and, like the High-Standard, it hadn't been cleaned in almost 20 years. I had to put about 5-6 hours into cleaning this one up. I took almost every single piece apart, including the entire peep sight assembly. Fortunately, there was only 1 small spot of rust, on the outside of the barrel, and the rest cleaned up pretty nice. Now I just need to order the front sight and the plastic hand grip from e-gunparts, and it will be good to go. The magazine is pretty beat up, but for $40 a pop, I think it will have to make due. I remember during the 80s, my dad had to search for a mag for it -- I had been using it as a single shot -- and we ended up ordering it from Numrich Gunparts, and now 20-sum years later, I'm going to the same place to get the parts I need (e-gunparts.com is the online version of Numrich Gunparts.) One really interesting thing about this rifle, is that it is chambered to shoot both .22 Long Rifle, and .22 Short.

Taking these guns apart and cleaning them has brought back many fond memories, and has been a lot of fun. But not nearly as fun as taking them out to the range to shoot -- which I can hardly wait for.

(click on images to get full size. I have no idea why they posted all jacked up like this)