Bolt Action Rifles

Today we will do a sort of overview of bolt action rifles. I will discuss their strengths and weaknesses in general and also delve into some specific models. This will not be all encompassing in nature and will be relatively brief when discussing military surplus bolt action rifles. My knowledge and interests do not lend me to going into depth. Also I just don’t see a point in it considering there are multiple books written about different variations of specific rifles.

First of all we will look on the most basic level at what bolt action rifles are. Bolt action rifles are rifles where the bolt is manually cycled for each shot. Cycling the bolt is typically done by a small handle attached to the bolt. When the bolt is cycled it ejects the spent casing, grabs a new round from the magazine, loads the round and cocks the rifle. Magazines are usually a fixed, internal box though some are removable. Bolt action rifles are almost all very similar in nature and most use a Mauser design from the late 19th century.

There are two real roles I see bolt action rifles filling for modern defensive shooters (versus collectors or hobbyists) and survivalists. Those roles are as a precision mid to long distance rifle and as a low cost rifle. They are also useful for hunting in general and particularly as a platform for powerful dangerous game rounds but that outside of the scope of this post.

Bolt action rifles are inherently accurate due to a strong action with very minimal movements. More significantly they are the most affordable rifles for precision mid to long distance (lets say 300 meters plus though 400 might be more accurate as it is about when standard semi auto rifles without optics start to fade) rifles available.

Very accurate offerings based on mil spec semi auto rifles are now available but at a steep price. Sure a Knight Armament M-110 or EBR’ed out M1A can be incredibly accurate but those top end precision guns cost more than most used cars. If you can afford to drop 2k on a rifle and 1k plus on an optic then good for you but for most folks that is a non starter.

However don’t despair you can get a decent rifle and scope combination for a few hundred dollars and a pretty good one for several hundred. These rifles have been made by a variety of manufacturers in variations and calibers too numerous to list. For the sake of discussion let us limit things to that are amply powerful for ‘deer sized game’ and shoot flat and handle wind well enough to be useful at long distances. Being a common caliber guy the logical conclusion is either .308 or 30.06 though if you really want a .300 win mag or a .270 or something else reasonably common (don’t be that guy whose only rifle is a total oddball) then I suppose that is probably fine. The .308 is slightly more inherently accurate (than the 30.06) and available in more interesting bullet/ cartridge offerings which give it an edge; on the other hand in the real shooting world I would say 30.06 is more common and if you need versatility in heavy bullet weights it has an edge.

It is worth talking about accuracy a little bit. I think lots of folks dump a ton of money into a rifle and optic they never use to close to its full potential or put off buying a “precision rifle” because they do not have a couple thousand dollars lying around. For most folks a decent rifle with a decent optic costing $500-800 is all they need. Certainly it is enough to get started. Without starting a flame war or a ton of deliberate thought the consensus seems to be that a rifle/ optic combination needs to be capable of holding about 2moa to be a viable candidate for a “precision rifle”. Now that is not particularly amazing and many rifles can do it. Lots of custom high end jobs can do 1 moa or less. If your goal is to shoot paper or steel a kilometer out and you have thousands of dollars to spend then there are some amazing rifles out there. However for most people’s goals the cost is probably not warranted. Let us look at this; 2 moa would be an eye socket at 100 meters and a head at 250-300 and a center mass shot out to somewhere around 500-600 depending on the target. Most shooters can’t do better than that under ideal conditions, let alone inherently less than desirable field conditions. Given realistic conditions where you may take shots out to say 600 meters a decent rifle/ optic setup and a lot of experience are what you need. Beyond that and it starts being less practical and more for bragging rights by the meter anyway. One viable strategy would be to get a starter setup and down the road if you get serious about it start looking at a better one and sell your old gun or stash it someplace as a backup.
Gabe Suarez’s “Guerilla Sniper” idea/ courses are probably more useful to an average shooter than bench shooting from some super expensive and heavy custom gun. It emphasized mid range shooting under realistic field conditions with pretty normal and common gear.

The best deals are not on tacticool urban swat sniper rifles but on good old generic deer rifles. Pretty much every decent gun shop has a used rack full of these guns often at great deals. I hesitate to get mired in specific manufacturers or models because it really just gets dumb. I will however give the standard advice to stick with common models from major manufacturers. This is for two reasons. First they are much easier to get parts and accessories (like scope mounts or sling swivels or whatever) for and second because they are major manufacturers and common models for a very good reason. Companies don’t stay around for several decades and make hundreds of thousands or millions of a specific model because they suck. I am talking about manufacturers like Winchester, Remington, Ruger, Savage, Weatherby and the like. There are a lot of good viable offerings in used guns and if money is a concern that is a good way to go.

If I was going to buy a new rifle it would be a Savage 110. They are good gun at an affordable price. I don’t mean to boo hoo Remington or Ruger or anybody else as lots of manufacturers make fine guns. It is just that the new Savages offer a lot of good features without frills and fluff at a very competitive price.

As my last thought on “precision rifles” don’t be that guy who buys a nice new rifle and then immediately gets the cheapest piece of junk scope Walmart sells. Personally for distance shooting I have found that optics are at least as important, if not more than, the rifle. Decent rifles are sufficiently mechanically accurate but a scope limits how much of that accuracy the shooter can readily use. In any case buy at least a decent scope like a Bushnell or Nikon. Of course you can always get more by paying more but it is worth it to at least price/ consider some higher end manufacturers like Leupold.

This brings us back to the theme that it is important to consider the cost of fully equipping a weapon. Not just the gun but the gun, optic and ammunition. Caliber comes back around here because some rounds like 300 win mag are pretty expensive. For a typical hunter who shoots maybe 40 rounds a year an extra 5 bucks per box of 20 is not a huge deal. However for a survivalist who wants to stash several hundred  rounds or more or a serious shooter who wants to shoot a few cases of ammo a year cost is a significant factor. Remember to consider the cost of an optic in your overall budget. Unlike a defensive rifle where an optic is a luxury that can be purchased later it is pretty much a necessity here.  Many of these guns either entirely omit sights or give a crude semi buckhorn which is good out to about 100 meters. I heard once that you should plan to spend about the cost of the gun again on a scope.  Personally if given the choice I would rather have a $700 scope on top of a $200 rifle than the opposite.

So in conclusion lots of readily available bolt action rifles will do just fine for “precision work”. If you already have a bolt action rifle in a reasonably flat shooting caliber (not like 45-70 or something else with shotput ballistics) then I would seriously consider just using it. If you want to buy a new rifle the Savage 110 offers a lot of value.

The other real role bolt action rifles have is in the form of old WWI-II era surplus rifles as a low cost budget rifle. To be blunt I have never been a fan of this strategy. If I have to shoot a rifle at somebody I want it to be military pattern and self loading with a detachable box magazine at least until something better is invented then I will try to get one of those. Any argument that a bolt action rifle from 65+ years ago is comparable or in any way equal  to an AK or an AR (or whatever) for fighting is a load of hog wash, sorry but it is true.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love a deal, Wifey and I are some of the cheapest people you will meet. It is just that to me this is sort of like looking for a bargain on factory second fire extinguishers direct from China or buying a used and beat up looking car seat for kiddo. It is my opinion that there are many places to cut corners but safety and defensive gear are not on the list. [As a general statement I would do some prioritization and maybe sell some unneeded stuff or work more to get the cash to acquire quality gear and weapons. I have done it before and will likely do it again.] However I have a real job that earns a decent income and we live pretty simply so we can put money into things that are important to us now and then. I do recognize it is a lot easier to say “it is worth it” if you have the money. 

Between the stagnant wages and rising costs of food, fuel, insurance and about everything else lots of folks are barely treading water. Also if we are being honest lots of folks prioritize other things above getting their selves prepared. Regardless there are certainly some folks who are on permanent disability or who make 23 grand a year and have 6 kids or whatever the situation is. For these folks $300 or whatever is what they can scrape together for a rifle, some ammo and accessories after digging deep and saving.

Enter the military surplus rifle.
These old warhorses are big, heavy and shoot pretty powerful cartridges. Most are about 5 feet long, weight 25 pounds or so (an exaggeration), hold 5 or in the case of the Enfield 10 bullets which are very comparable to the 30.06 and are accurate to as far as you can see and shoot with their iron sights. There are too many variations to discuss fully in a book, let alone a blog post so I am going to zero in on the ones that really fit this specific need.

The most viable option is a Russian Mosin Nagant in 7.62x54R with various Mauser, Enfield and Springfield rifles lurking in the potentially viable category. The reason I have immediately eliminated so many other rifles is that you cannot get widely available affordable ammunition for them, or in some cases ammo period. The pattern seems to be that rifles and ammo are available dirt cheap and everywhere then the cheap ammo is gone and rifles come up piece mil, but more expensively and in lower quality. Ammo is then either entirely unavailable or is darn expensive. A $79 rifle for which ammo is brutally expensive (I have seen a dollar plus a shot in some cases) is OK for a collector but for a person that is seriously short on cash, is relying on that rifle and  likes to keep a lot of ammo around / practice regularly that situation obviously will not work.
The reason the Mosin Nagant is the obvious choice is that the rifles are readily affordable and ammunition is available and cheap. Without being up on the latest prices you can probably get a Mosin Nagant for something around $110-140 delivered and spam cans of 440 rounds of ammo probably run $60ish. Certainly you could have a gun with basic accessories and a reasonable stash of ammo for about $300-400. There is still cheap ammo available and commercially manufactured new ammo to fill gaps which may appear in time albeit at new commercial ammo prices.

Mauser’s are fairly cheap but can have ammunition availability and cost issues. Since they were made and used in numerous calibers by so many countries it is hard to speak about them in generalities. The issue with the other two is cost to equip and or purchase them. Enfield’s are probably the best rifle of the bunch, especially since they have a 10 round detachable magazine. They can still be had at sane ( I would say 200ish on up depending on make/ model/ condition) and .303 ammo is available though it is mostly new commercial manufacture stuff at new commercial manufacture prices. There are some Enfields around in .308 and I am hopefully going to buy one someday, though not really for practical reasons. The Springfield 03 is probably the most expensive of the bunch to purchase and is thus really more of a collector’s item. You will have a hard time touching one for under $350-400 and those are probably going to be “sporterized” which depending on who did it, what they did, and your tastes may or may not be a bad thing. They shoot 30.06 which is still sometimes available surplus and readily available commercially and are very accurate rifles. However the cost of the rifle and ammunition puts it out of the budget of most that choose to go the surplus rifle route.
A Mosin Nagant and a few spam cans of ammo are far better than no rifle or a couple hundred bucks in small bills sitting in a dusty envelope that says FN-FAL (or whatever). If I had to go this route I would put a lot of energy into practicing rapidly cycling the bolt from my shoulder and engaging multiple targets at close to moderate ranges. I would be sure to practice reloading it from stripper clips. Basically you would be taking the CQB lessons that have permeated from .mil to .gov to everybody else in the past decade and apply them as best you can to an old war horse. Also I would want a big old sword bayonet on the thing and a handgun ready as a backup. I would also look hard at getting a pump shotgun to fill in for CQB ranges.

[Despite my strong reservations for these warhorses as a primary defensive tool there are some interesting possibilities here. A rifle you could loan a neighbor or family member or a spare long gun to bury/ hide in the rafters of your cabin set aside for a rainy day. Is it not the rifle I would want to go to war with but as a backup it would be far better than no rifle at all. It would be hard on the budget to go stashing AR’s and AK’s all over the place but at $300 for a Mosin, bare bones accessories and a few spam cans it could be viable. Given the low price point for a Mosin Nagant rifle and some ammo you could easily set aside a couple over time.]

So in closing bolt action rifles can have a legitimate place in a practical shooter or survivalist’s firearms battery for harvesting game, precision shooting or as a budget all around rifle. Also they are fun.

Winter Gear

It seems Afghanistan has a very hot summer (110+ is common) and a cold winter (averages below freezing) with about 4-6 weeks of nice pleasant weather in between where fall and spring should be.

Today winter seems to have come to my current little piece of this miserable country. That means it was time to pull out cold weather gear from my pile of junk and get them ready to conveniently grab. I am going to tell you what I dug out and briefly discuss a few items. The list is as follows:

-Fleece (This is the piece of outer clothing that gets the most use in the cold, dry or snowy winters I have been in recently. I keep a pair of light gloves and a fleece cap in the pockets so I always have them.)

-Fleece watchcap (Get two, one of mine is always in the laundry or MIA. They are cheap anyway.)
-Insulated puffy jacket (I didn’t use this at all last winter but just pulled it out because I was digging and saw it. These are however a good thing to have if it gets real cold, or if you will be outside and sedentary.)

-Lightweight shell jacket (This doesn’t get a lot of use in the cold dry or snowy winters I’ve been in recently. However in a drizzly and 50 PNW sort of winter these are great.)

-Heavy gloves (my light gloves were already out)

-Silk weight long underwear (These are just so great. I wear them almost every day in the winter. Light enough that you will not roast inside but warm enough to be comfortable outside. Also great for when you will be moderately active in chilly weather or active in cold weather. Since these get worn a lot and are right on your skin getting at least 2 pair so you can have one in the laundry and another to wear or a change if you get wet is prudent.)

-Heavy long underwear. (I use the top semi regularly and rarely use the bottoms unless it is real cold and I will be sedentary. They are WARM.)

-Goretex boots (If you are going to use boots often then getting a boot drier or a second pair is important so you can have dry boots in the morning. Boots are expensive but a second set is probably not a bad thing anyway.)
Note- I did not look for or mention but regularly use a neck gator. They are great for keeping your face and neck warm and can be pulled over your head also if need be. These are good because if you warm up you can just pull it down to your neck and let it hang out.

All of this stuff is issued to us however I listed it as brand/ model nonspecific intentionally. My goal was to let you know the types of gear I use regularly in cold weather instead of getting bogged down in specifics. With a combination of the above clothing I can mix and match to stay as comfortable as possible during a variety of winter weather and activity levels.

As a civilian at home I always keep a full change of real clothes, including boots, a heavy coat, gloves and a hat as well as a sleeping bag in my vehicle during the winter. I do this because occasionally I hop into the car in slippers and pajama pants to run to the store for something Wifey needs for a recipe or whatnot.

The hard part about decent winter clothing is that it is not cheap; particularly good boots which can get pricey in a hurry. If you are regularly outside in the winter, particularly far from shelter and clean, dry clothes for long periods (vs say a construction worker who can go change clothes at lunch and dry everything out after work daily) or overnight it is pretty darn important that you have the right gear. Winter is an unforgiving beast. I do not recommend that you go into debt or put yourself in a state of financial hardship to get winter gear. If you plan in advance and shop around some relatively good deals can be had in the off season. If you ‘can’t afford’ serviceable winter clothes and footwear even at those discounts I would take a holistic look at your spending patterns. Maybe you can shave some fat, at least temporarily, from another place in your budget. For those who are disabled, in school or just barely scraping by and genuinely can’t afford to properly outfit their selves I recommend not intentionally getting into any situation your current gear can’t handle. If you go messing around in the snow in summer boots, cotton and low quality junk gloves you might lose some appendages or worse.

The Long View and Goals

In the areas of finances, physical fitness and all around preparedness taking a long view is essential. These are not things you can accomplish in a day or a week or even months. These are truly multi year journeys. Looking at them as anything less and either you have low standards or unrealistic expectations.

The biggest single thing with long view type improvements or journeys is consistence. You will do far better to make consistent, even modest efforts, than to start and stop and take a break over the summer and hunting season and then fizzle out for the winter. Over time consistent efforts really pay off. Think crock pot not microwave or industrial fryer.

I find having goals to be essential to keep myself accountable and measure progress. If you are not defining and measuring progress how will you even know what you are trying to do, let alone if you are doing it? An aimless country drive is nice but that is no way to go through life, at least if you want to accomplish anything.

So we need goals.
Goals are sort of like budgets in that they get a bad rap unjustly. It is important to remember that you, your spouse and your family set your own goals, not me and the other talking heads or experts or famous people or whatever.

Sometimes you decide a path is important and it leads to goals. Example you want to become a better runner so you decide that x, y and z are your goals. Other times you start with a goal and work backwards. Whichever works for you is fine.

Different people set goals differently. Some folks make low goals and regularly exceed them; other folks shoot for the moon and often come short but still accomplish a lot. I am in the middle towards the ambitious goal side. I choose goals that are realistically attainable given hard work and things working out well. I often fall a little short. Part of the reason I do this is that in terms of personal goal setting I often lose motivation when I get real close, it is good enough for me due to my lazy nature. So if I set the goal to work out 3 times a week for 30 minutes it could easily turn into 2 30 minute workouts or 3 20 minute workouts. However if I set the goal to work out for 4 times for 30 minutes I will probably average 3.3 a week for 25-30 minutes each. This is about knowing yourself and whatever mental tricks work for you.

Goals need to be specific enough to be measurable. Being “strong and in shape” is a good goal if you have defined what you mean by strong and what you mean by in shape. Ditto for “become a good shot” or “have storage food” or whatever. You need to be able to easily know if a goal is being met.

As one of my favorite bloggers said “the difference between a goal and a wish is a timeline.” The time component of goals is important because it is always easier to start tomorrow and it helps hold you accountable for progress toward your goal.

Here are a few common issues people have with goal setting and long term planning in general:
Goals and your training or plan to meet them need to be aligned. This should be common sense but in some areas, particularly fitness it is a common mistake. If your goals are to gain strength and explosive speed then doing calisthenics and long distance running exclusively your goal and training are not aligned. If you want to become a good defensive shooter going to the range 3x a year with your buddies to screw around isn’t going to get it done.

For goals which build on or are affected by something else you need to know where you are. It could be amounts of given items, weight, strength, conditioning or whatever. Without a recent accurate benchmark you are just guessing in terms of starting points. This is significant because it will let you know what end point you can get to with realistic progress. Dead lifting 400 next year is probably realistic if you did 365 last month. However if you did 365 a year ago and had an injury and a significant lapse in training so you now would actually max out closer to 315 it would probably not be realistic. In those situations you should reestablish a good max or inventory and go from there.

Look at a goal from a big picture perspective considering your other goals and obligations. Often you want to accomplish A-H and could do any of them in isolation but can only do 3 of them together given the other demands on your time and energy. Total amounts of money and time matter as a measure of how much stuff you can realistically do. Of the common issues we are discussing this is the one that I have the biggest problem with.

Resetting or adjusting goals is also worth discussion. Sometimes on the way to a goal we decide it is not important or that something else is more important. Other times life in the form of work or injuries or financial woes or other obligations gets in the way. This is part of life and not a particularly bad thing.

I would caution people, particularly for mid and long (let us say between next month and 2 years from now) term goals, against constantly changing things. If a goal or two drop off your list over the course of a year that is fine, of your list rewrites itself 4 times in the first quarter of a year something is not working. Either you are not putting sufficient thought into goals to choose ones that are important and meaningful to you or are not being realistic about what you can and will really do. In terms of my personal and preparedness goals I am getting better over the years it seems.

Fitness is the biggest area where this is a problem. Folks jump from program to program with different methodologies and goals always having unrealistically high expectations (every muscle magazine has the ‘”Get a 6 pack this week with 3 easy moves” or “add 40 pounds to your bench press this month”) and thinking the program sucks when it falls short. By constantly switching gears and programs these folks aren’t really getting anywhere and will be in the same place in a year. They would be better off finding any reasonably sane program that meshes with their goals and just doing it than always looking for the perfect one. To counter this I recommend a brief trial period and then sticking with it for a predetermined amount of time. Trying something for a week or two to see if you hate it and sticking with it for 3-6 months to see if you get results is probably a good plan. Obviously if you have a significant life change or injury things change but you aren’t going to move on to the next big new workout until the end of the time frame.

The Freedom To Make Bad Decisions

Alternate Title: Libertarians and Puritans
I am typically a pretty concrete writer. I write about things I have done, things I am doing or the like. I am far more likely to be talk about how to pack a bag, ways to get in shape or how to improve your finances than some philosophical or political stuff. These are my strengths and the things that typically interest me so I play to them. Today we are going in a whole other direction. I posted a picture recently (probably a couple weeks or even months by the time this posts)that basically said if you don’t want people telling you what to do don’t try to tell them what to do and it brought a lot of discussion. I replied to folks in the comments section but it got me thinking.

The thing about freedom is that it isn’t just about good decisions.  In fact I would argue that it is mostly about bad ones. Also there is the thorny issue of which omnipotent power decides what exactly constitutes a good decision and what gives them the right to tell anybody else what to do.

Everywhere you go there is some darn politician or expert who wants to be able to tell people what to do. Now I like experts. I have a money person, a weight training person, a conditioning person, some tactical training people, etc. The thing is that I choose to solicit their advice and follow it if I want to, for as long as I want to. If someone wants to tell me what I HAVE TO DO that is an issue for me.

Who the hell do they think they are? Why are they so inherently superior to me that they can tell me what I have to do? If their argument was actually convincing I will probably have gone along in the first place and they wouldn’t need a regulation or a law at all. I don’t think anybody has my best interests at heart more than I do.  More to the point if I am doing something that isn’t clinically and scientifically perfect but I really enjoy it then why should they get to tell me that I can’t? It could be smoking or drinking or eating ice cream or whatever. If I want to spend my time and money on something to try and bring some enjoyment or happiness to my life it really isn’t anybodies business.

Look at the First Amendment to our Constitution, freedom of speech and religion and a bunch of other stuff. You never hear about a freedom of speech case where a nice woman said something polite to her friend. Freedom of speech is about Larry Flint offending just about everyone and the Westborough Baptist “church” spewing ignorant  hate at military funerals. These things are offensive to any reasonable person.

Not many people would like to have Larry Flint over for Sunday family dinner.  Pretty much everybody hates that “church” full of idiotic hate mongers. If 20 rough men with ax handles showed up at their next funeral protest and cracked some skulls I would be fine with that, and I don’t think I would be alone.  The thing is that the freedoms built into our governmental protect those idiots. This is a good thing. It is built on centuries of accumulated customs and philosophy which culminated in the great nation of America. Really if you want to get deeper I believe these rights come from God.

The point of freedom is that you can do what you want unless it infringes on somebody else directly. Not “well studies show” or “second order effects of” or “society” but directly. Obviously Rapist Jim’s desire to rape doesn’t allow him to infringe on Suzie’s right not to be raped. More to the point as long as I am not threatening, menacing or vulgar I can tell anybody what I think of them at any time.

 I can quit my job and start hitchhiking around the country like some 50’s beatnik. If I could physically do it I could smoke a whole carton of cigarettes in a day. I can wear my shoes on the wrong feet and tap dance in the rain. I can borrow money I know I shouldn’t for stuff I don’t need.

All of the things I talked about are stupid. Quitting my job to chain smoke cigarettes and hitchhike around the country tap dancing in the rain while running up a huge visa bill would be stupid all around. The point simply put is that it is my life and I am free to do with it what I wish, good, negligible or bad.

I can bust my hump, save like crazy, start a business, invest wisely and then make huge money or I can get a shack in the woods, have a still and some chickens and get drunk in a hammock during the summer and a recliner in the winter.  It is my life to do with what I wish.

The thing about freedom is that it doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. I am free to tell a 6’8” 400 pound biker covered in prison tattoos that black leather and motorcycles are just a sad cry for help based on impotence, homosexual tendencies and mommy issues but I doubt that would end well. I am free to tell my boss what I really think of him and after that I would be free to find a new job. I am free to eat McDonalds twice a day every day if I want, and I will become obese and probably have a heart attack at 50. I am free to blow my earnings on gambling knowing full well the odds aren’t in my favor and if I play long enough losing is a virtual certainty but I have to deal with the after affects. I am free to neglect my family and start chasing cocktail waitresses but that is going to cause issues in my marriage and likely I would be doing it from a half empty studio apartment before long.

For everything we do there is a consequence or more accurately numerous ones. There are first, second and third order affects of everything we do if you look hard enough. Take enough simple little decisions like charging a nice dinner out or hitting the gym and skipping desert and they add up to huge things. 

To say you believe in freedom except for this that and the other thing doesn’t work. Really that is just “I am right and you are wrong”. To think that everything you believe is good should be allowed and everything you think is bad should be banned is the most egotistical and idiotic political philosophy out there. My son thinks that way. He will move things or throw them to suit his desires. He will hit people or try to move them or harass them if they don’t want to/ can’t pick him up or otherwise are bothering him. Whatever he wants is right and what he doesn’t is wrong. This is ok because he is a one year old and thinks the world revolves around him. Over the next few years he will grow out of this. I expect it from him so I don’t think it is too much to ask of adults.

That reminds me of the Puritans who fled England because they were persecuted and ultimately came to America, where they promptly persecuted anyone who didn’t believe exactly what they did. I find the comparison between the modern religious right and the pilgrims to be striking. They have strong beliefs and think they should be able to force you to have the same beliefs. Moreover they think they have the right to punish you if you do not have those beliefs. At least the pilgrims went to a new place to force everybody to act like them (though they did it because they were persecuted back home) unlike the religious right who think they can make everyone act like them wherever they are. 

My family is very socially conservative. This is for a lot of reasons but it boils down to us believing it is the right way to live. Other than the various sects that say we can’t have booze and have to do other wacky things we live a lifestyle that meshes quite well with conservative republican/ Christian standards. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that we choose to live this way; we don’t do it because somebody told us to or wants to compel us.

I have realized recently that I can’t even call myself a Republican with a straight face anymore even though I may (or may not) vote for them. There are probably some republicans who are not fascists or puritans but they have been keeping a low profile for awhile now. Is it too much to ask for a candidate who isn’t a shameless whore to big business (crony capitalism, not free markets) or an evangelical who wants to force me to live by his particular religious code?

I just don’t see why anybody has the right to tell me what to do with my own life, money and body and by logical extension I don’t get to tell them what to do with theirs. When it comes to some religious issues I do not see why it is any different. I’m certainly not going to live under Islamic law and someone who is a Buddhist or an atheist shouldn’t have to live under a set of rules they don’t agree with. Also I tend to think that religious issues get sorted out elsewhere.

I have a live and let live philosophy about other people’s beliefs and ways of life. This extends from whacky religious nut jobs and vegans all the way people into weird sex stuff, drug users and the like.  To paraphrase Commander Zero “I don’t really care if people have gay orgies while snorting a mountain of cocaine on top of rocket launchers as long as they do it on their own land and kids are not involved.”  It doesn’t mean that I approve of it, just that it is none of my business and as such I stay out of it. We all have to bite our tongues now and then but we get to do what we want, seems like a fair trade off to me. Also life is short and if a person thinks something will make them happy then I wish them the best.

In closing the freedom to make bad decisions is something I firmly believe in.

Taking A Break

Sometimes the best thing you can do in pursuit of a goal is nothing. Lots of folks don’t like this. We want everything to happen overnight and the idea of taking a break means it won’t (hint, it won’t anyway) and thus we don’t do it. The thing is that you are taking a step back in order to take 5 steps forward. I think in Western, and particularly American thinking this concept has been somewhat lost in recent years. Maybe it is TV shortening our attention spans or that we are just so sure we can do anything overnight that we are really impatient. I don’t know, maybe it has always been this way.

In terms of fitness the benefits of taking a break are definitely quantifiable. In terms of strength, cardio, etc recovery is so underrated. Often the best thing to do is to take a couple days off in a row and just recover. Heck, a week now and then is probably a sound idea. In terms of weight loss/ composition the benefits of breaking a strict diet are documented.  Having a day now and then (weekly or bi weekly) where you eat more to avoid having your metabolism go into starvation mode are reasonably documented.

In terms of preps and finances the benefits are more human and thus inherently less quantifiable. The benefits come from renewing your spirit and continuing the effort. Since both of these are long term projects you are simply not going to finish this week or month or even year. By taking a little break now and then you are relaxing and keeping your spirits up so you can continue and avoid the dreaded burnout. Better to take a break for a week or a month then to get tired and just quit.

It is a good idea to have a plan and use some common sense and moderation. Unless you have a serious injury like say a broken back taking 6 months off of all exercise is a bad idea. Take a week and then start hitting it again. Have a few Christmas cookies, not the whole batch. Spend some of your disposable income on something non preparedness oriented that you have been wanting for awhile but don’t borrow 25k to buy a boat.

Think about what applies to your situation. If you have been hitting something hard for awhile, be it weights, the track, preps or finances maybe it is a good time to stop and take a breather. Remember, sometimes the best thing you can do is to take a break.

Quote of the Day

“Why would you risk your life for a #*$*&bag like Meryl Dixon?”-Steve to Rick
“You best choose your words more carefully”- Daryl (Merly’s brother) to Steve
“Oh no I did, #*$*&bag is what I meant”- Steve
Wifey got me season one of The Walking Dead on DVD for Christmas.

Stay At Home Mothers

A girl I know that just had kiddo #2 brought up the idea of staying at home with them.  That got me thinking and talking about this topic. I thought an update might interest some of you.

In case you didn’t know Wifey has been at home with the kid since he was born. It has worked pretty well for us and while he drives her crazy occasionally she likes it. We know what he eats for meals, because she feeds it to him. We know if he hit his head, because she was there. No worries about him being abused or neglected or whatever else happens in daycare. There is lots of one on one time to play and try to teach him words and all that stuff. Studies consistently show that a stay at home mother is the best situation for a kid’s development and all that stuff. I don’t think anybody will seriously argue against that point.

So far it has turned out to be a very good decision for her to stay at home with him and I don’t see a reason that would change. Mothers staying at home and raising their kids has been, as of the last few decades, going the way of the Dodo bird. I don’t know why exactly.

There are two fundamental questions when it comes to momma staying at home with the kids. The first question is does momma want to stay at home with the kids and where dad is with the whole thing. A simple enough question really. The best part is that there is not a right or wrong answer. Some women have interests and goals outside of the home and that is fine too. While the women’s lib fantasy that a woman can have a big important career and balance a marriage and children could be debated it doesn’t matter. If she wants to work then that is just fine, I’m not the Taliban.

The second question is whether the family can make the numbers work to afford for momma to stay at home. This is a more complicated one and will be addressed at more length. For momma to stay at home the family needs to live off what dad makes. To back up a second this means dad needs to be in the picture and that there is a cohesive family unit which today is sadly not a given. This is one of those things that is simple but not easy, sort of like how the way to lose weight is to eat less. This is really where the hypothetical meets real life. 
To paraphrase Ronnie Coleman, a champion body builder, “Everybody wants to be strong, but they don’t want to lift the weight.” Lots of folks talk about staying at home with kids but it doesn’t happen. The reason is that with only one income you will not be able to do what you could if both partners were working, especially if both are capable of more than menial labor. To say it another way; living on one income means a more modest lifestyle than you could otherwise have. For a lot of people that is a hard pill to swallow.

Personally I don’t really mind it. I have run the numbers on what we would be able to save and invest and otherwise do if Wifey worked and they were pretty attention grabbing. However it is not worth it to me. I certainly wouldn’t mind a nicer vehicle or whatever but at the end of the day it is just stuff. How much do some bigger numbers in some electronic accounts really matter?

 For other folks the math simply doesn’t work. That is a more complicated discussion. Sometimes it just doesn’t, especially if Dad is a part time non union janitor or works for minimum wage. Unless you are willing to live REAL CHEAP that won’t work. However I would say if he is making more than 30-40k or so a year (or course cost of living is a factor, 30k in Manhattan, Kansas is a lot different from Manhattan, New York) income probably isn’t the whole issue.  What gets a lot of folks stuck is that they have a debt load which can’t be covered by one income. It could vary from rent/ mortgage to credit cards and vehicles or whatever which just can’t work with one wage earner. This is yet another reason to stay out of debt. You can radically change spending habits tomorrow should the need arise, it sucks to go from steak and lobster to spaghetti or rice and beans but it can be done. However money that has been promised is baring default, not an expense you can change. This is, more than most folks will admit, the reason the numbers just don’t work. Either they can’t drop their living expenses due to it being locked in obligations or they choose not to for whatever reason.
When I hear folks say it is impossible to have a parent stay home with the kids I want to ask what their cars are, what sort of toys they have and where they went on vacation last. The answer is that yes, it may well be impossible to buy a nice new car or two every couple years, have their toys and vacations on just one of their salaries. However all that stuff is a choice, not a given. I am not sure if they are unwilling or don’t even consider it but usually the answer is that yes, they could afford for her to stay home if they changed their lifestyle.

On the plus side having a wife at home helps with expenses or at least it can. Home cooked meals instead of eating out all the time, stuff like that. The possibility of having one car or an older one that will just go to the grocery store, etc is legitimate. She doesn’t need professional clothes or have those types of expenses. One of the biggest places a second income goes is daycare. Daycare for two or more kids adds up in a hurry. The bitter irony is many wives are working for a tiny salary once daycare is considered. Their real take home is just a few hundred dollars. I would submit to them that cutting that amount from their budget is pretty doable should they be so inclined.

I don’t want to get anybody down or poke at however you choose to live your life. You are free to make whatever choices you want.  All I want is for folks to know that having mom stay at home with the kids is quite possible if they are willing to make a few sacrifices. It is quite worth it to us and Wifey will stay at home until the kids (planning on getting Walker a battle buddy) are in school then she will likely start some sort of job.

Reality Bites

It is interesting to me that I have never met an anarchist or a libertarian who is basically an anarchist that has actually been to a failed state. Talking about anarchy from a dorm room or college party house or a nice quiet farm out in the middle of nowhere is very different from actually seeing it. I am not saying there isn’t a person like that out there it is just that I haven’t interacted with one yet.

First of all anarchy is a very relative term. It is sort of like socialism in that it never truly happens, and when it does it is only for a short period of time. There is going to be some form of government clinging at the greased string of power until the last possible moment. Either that or some sort of  a thug stepping up to try and carve out his own little princely state, most likely a lot of thugs trying to carve out their own princely states. You can have bad government or ineffective government or illegitimate government but some sort of system will at least be trying to keep or take power.

Secondly it is really not something you want to be involved in. Between crime, general lawlessness and assorted thugs and former government entities vying for power there is often a lot of fighting. Basic rights such as property and relative (there is always some crime) safety which we take for granted would be gone overnight. Now granted there hasn’t been a civil war or riot or massive disaster of Katrina proportions in Idaho or Minnesota but ever indicator we have is that these events bring about the worst in people. Sure there are a few neighbors helping each other out and some good Samaritan will save somebody’s grandma but those are few and far between. My observation is that folks will typically do about whatever they think they can get away with in these situations. Also these situations are more likely to lead to another, even worse government, not a better government or a long term lack of government.

Look at how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left the Afghan commies fought on for a few years (till the money dried out with the fall of the Soviet Union if I recall) and then a transitional type government was set up for about a week followed by the big players like Heychmar and Massoud and other smaller regional guys fighting it out for power. The Taliban came to power because they could do a few things. They made roads safe to travel (a relative term in tribal central Asia). They had a court system that, while very harsh, was quick to deal with problems and most people found it to be fair. In short they offered the basic securities of rule of law.

The honest truth is that a pretty bad government is, by any functional measure, better than this sort of situation or the government which stems from it. It is not nice to say and goes against a lot of American ideals but if you look at history it is true. Our revolution is probably the only time in history that a revolution led to citizen’s lives getting better in the long run.

I file Anarchy under a “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”

Thoughts?

Quote of the Day

That’s the trouble with you Americans, you expect nothing bad to ever happen when the rest of the world expects everything bad to happen, and they are not disappointed.
Svetlana on the Soprano’s

Email issues

It has come to my attention that we have had an issue with the blog email. Some stuff got sent to the spam folder and stayed there for awhile. I will reply shortly to the emails we found. Other emails may have been eaten by the internet (amusingly my father blames Bill Gates for all such events to the point of loudly cursing him from the room with the computer).

 

It is pertinent to note I respond to all personal emails (though I sometimes ignore forwarded paranoia and links to prison planet/ etc all). In any case if you sent me an email and have not received a response or seen its content on the site within 48 hours or so please resend it. Sorry for any inconvenience,

Ryan