Monday, February 28, 2011
Homework Assignment Of The Week
Talk with your spouse about financial or preparedness goals. Agree on at least one financial or preparedness goal with your spouse. It could be saving a few hundred bucks to keep on hand in case of a power outage or disaster, storing more food, paying off those lingering credit card balances or whatever. It isn't so much about the goal itself (though it should be meaningful) but the conversation and decision making with your spouse.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Random Observation: Got Cash?
Wifey buys and sells a lot of used stuff. It is my job to pick it up and or deliver it and give or receive payment. I am like a drug used stuff mule. (Having a vehicle big enough to deliver puts me in that role and it also helps her close a lot of deals) Seriously it is sort of weird. I am regularly going to some place with a piece of paper that has an address on it to pick up or drop off something and exchange cash.
Recently she has been selling off unneeded stuff. Twice in the last couple weeks I have gone to deliver something and needed to run them to the ATM to get cash to pay me. Not a big deal really. Lots of folks here don't have cars and we can all forget something. The more interesting part is that we aren't talking about a lot of money. One time it was $40 and another it was $60. One of the gal's had no cash and the other was $20 short. I sort of shrugged the first one off but the second showed it is a noteable trend.
This was a stark reminder that there are lots of folks out there who have what amounts to no cash (probably a few crumpled ones and a bit of change) on hand. Folks who would be unable to pay for gas or food (I'd bet a c note the cupboards are almost empty too) if the electricity and ATM/ computer networks were down. Part of a day would be an inconvenience but if there was a power outage/ regional disaster these folks would be screwed.
If you do not keep some cash on hand you are a fool. Despite what the 'tangible investment' and beans and bullets folks say in all of the more realistic and likely scenarios people still deal in cash. You don't see complex systems of barter appear overnight in anything but a total collapse. Maybe a good bargain can be made for gas, shotgun shells or canned food but folks will accept good old greenbacks. As for how much you should keep around I am a lot more flexible. Different people have different needs and concerns as well as incomes, assets and tolerances for specific types of risk. I think establishing the minimum is significantly more important than setting a maximum.
Chief Instructor says that a month's worth of cash expenses kept on hand is a good number. Cash expenses would be stuff you need that is not locked into a regular contract. They are also things that if, and I am just tossing some stuff out here, ATM's crashed or banks went on a holiday, there was a power outage or whatever you would still need to pay for regularly in cash on the barrelhead for. Food and fuel are primary considerations here with stuff like medication, smokes, booze, vehicle maintenance, etc in there also. If you have drank the coolaid and are following Dave Ramsays baby steps just keeping baby step 1 ($1,000 in savings, $500 if you are real low income or 2k if you have a high income) in mixed bills at home. However you choose to figure it the end result is pretty much the same. The point is to have enough cash to get yourself through some sort of emergency or otherwise sustain yourself for awhile.
These low numbers should be fairly easy to meet with a bit of planning assuming you live a sane financial lifestyle. They aren't enough money that inflation is a significant issue but are enough to deal with most of what could come up. Also these minumum amounts are low enough that if your stash happens to get found it shouldn't break you. Though as Commander Zero noted once it is far more likely that your stash will be frittered away by you on a pizza here and a $20 for a trip to the bar there then actually get stolen.
As for the maximum. It is really about what you are willing to risk being lost in a fire or by theft. I wouldn't want so much cash in my home that I couldn't afford to lose it should something happen. A certain percentage of your overall liquid assets is probably the way to figure it out. For me 10% seems reasonable and 20% doesn't seem nuts. That means if you have 10 grand in various stuff 1 or 2k in cash. If you have 100k it would be 10 to twenty. Unless you live a particularly high risk lifestyle where you might need running money I would not want to go much higher than that. Baring the potential sudden need to get out of town for a few months I would not want more than then at risk of theft and getting eaten away by inflation.
Recently she has been selling off unneeded stuff. Twice in the last couple weeks I have gone to deliver something and needed to run them to the ATM to get cash to pay me. Not a big deal really. Lots of folks here don't have cars and we can all forget something. The more interesting part is that we aren't talking about a lot of money. One time it was $40 and another it was $60. One of the gal's had no cash and the other was $20 short. I sort of shrugged the first one off but the second showed it is a noteable trend.
This was a stark reminder that there are lots of folks out there who have what amounts to no cash (probably a few crumpled ones and a bit of change) on hand. Folks who would be unable to pay for gas or food (I'd bet a c note the cupboards are almost empty too) if the electricity and ATM/ computer networks were down. Part of a day would be an inconvenience but if there was a power outage/ regional disaster these folks would be screwed.
If you do not keep some cash on hand you are a fool. Despite what the 'tangible investment' and beans and bullets folks say in all of the more realistic and likely scenarios people still deal in cash. You don't see complex systems of barter appear overnight in anything but a total collapse. Maybe a good bargain can be made for gas, shotgun shells or canned food but folks will accept good old greenbacks. As for how much you should keep around I am a lot more flexible. Different people have different needs and concerns as well as incomes, assets and tolerances for specific types of risk. I think establishing the minimum is significantly more important than setting a maximum.
Chief Instructor says that a month's worth of cash expenses kept on hand is a good number. Cash expenses would be stuff you need that is not locked into a regular contract. They are also things that if, and I am just tossing some stuff out here, ATM's crashed or banks went on a holiday, there was a power outage or whatever you would still need to pay for regularly in cash on the barrelhead for. Food and fuel are primary considerations here with stuff like medication, smokes, booze, vehicle maintenance, etc in there also. If you have drank the coolaid and are following Dave Ramsays baby steps just keeping baby step 1 ($1,000 in savings, $500 if you are real low income or 2k if you have a high income) in mixed bills at home. However you choose to figure it the end result is pretty much the same. The point is to have enough cash to get yourself through some sort of emergency or otherwise sustain yourself for awhile.
These low numbers should be fairly easy to meet with a bit of planning assuming you live a sane financial lifestyle. They aren't enough money that inflation is a significant issue but are enough to deal with most of what could come up. Also these minumum amounts are low enough that if your stash happens to get found it shouldn't break you. Though as Commander Zero noted once it is far more likely that your stash will be frittered away by you on a pizza here and a $20 for a trip to the bar there then actually get stolen.
As for the maximum. It is really about what you are willing to risk being lost in a fire or by theft. I wouldn't want so much cash in my home that I couldn't afford to lose it should something happen. A certain percentage of your overall liquid assets is probably the way to figure it out. For me 10% seems reasonable and 20% doesn't seem nuts. That means if you have 10 grand in various stuff 1 or 2k in cash. If you have 100k it would be 10 to twenty. Unless you live a particularly high risk lifestyle where you might need running money I would not want to go much higher than that. Baring the potential sudden need to get out of town for a few months I would not want more than then at risk of theft and getting eaten away by inflation.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Of Safeties and Fingers
I appreciate Gabe Suarez and his company Suarez International. Like every organization they have the weapons they advocate and are out to make a buck. Hey capitalism is cool so that is all good. Awhile back (not as I am writing this but as you are reading it) they did a lot of talking about safeties and the finger on the trigger.
Gabe Suarez made a great point that the M1911 and the AR-15 have done a lot to influence modern training when it comes to weapons safeties. I think that these two weapons were for so long the weapons our military carried is significant. No matter how much folks don't want to admit it most weapons, training and techniques stuff trickles from the military to law enforcement to civilians.
If a weapon has a super fast (AR, M1911, M1A, most DA auto's, Mossberg 500, etc) and easily accessible safety then use it. If in the case of say the AK or the Remington 870 the safety is not so accessible then don't worry about it. With the AK I would just take the safety off when I thought I might likely fire and with the 870 I would keep the chamber empty unless I might likely fire the gun. While this might be a slight generalization modern firearms aren't going to go off while you carry them unless you pull the damn trigger. Most have mechanisms so they won't fire even if they take a sharp impact unless the trigger is pulled.
Physically accessible safeties IMO have a lot more to do with people's psychological comfort than actual mechanical functionality. A good friend and experienced shooter who is my buddy is half scared of his Glock 19. He has shot more guns than most folks I know but is just used to semi auto's with a physically accessible safety.
Personally in terms of handguns I grew up on double action revolvers. They don't have a 'safety' but that big heavy trigger pull makes sure you don't fire it on accident. In any case it is psychological. The trigger makes the gun fire. My first handgun was a Glock .40. Again if you don't want to shoot the thing you don't squeeze the trigger with your nose picker. Really not complicated. I guess it is something you are comfortable with or not.
Finger on the trigger is to me a more complicated issue. It is also a great example to show that life is not black or white but full of grey. By far off the trigger is the way you should train and get muscle memory. However I think there are some situations where one might put their finger on the trigger and not immediately shoot. For example I know a guy who is a cop. He pulled a guy over for a half dozen infractions (the vehicle had issues and he had a suspended license and tickets) and as soon as he went towards the truck the guy got out and grabbed a machete from the bed. Needless to say the cop pulled out his gun. The dude was about 18 feet away and just standing there with the machete. My buddy had his finger on the trigger and as he said it he had about 7 pounds of pressure drawn back on that trigger. He started talking to the guy (he was in a bad spot needing to get to work but having a suspended license, a truck that has issues, tickets, etc) and eventually got him calmed down.
Personally at the risk of generalizing I see it being situations where there is an identified threat and you may have to shoot. I would not put my finger on the trigger unless there was a definite target. The reason I would not squeeze the trigger is that the threat had not forced me to shoot. YMMV.
Gabe Suarez made a great point that the M1911 and the AR-15 have done a lot to influence modern training when it comes to weapons safeties. I think that these two weapons were for so long the weapons our military carried is significant. No matter how much folks don't want to admit it most weapons, training and techniques stuff trickles from the military to law enforcement to civilians.
If a weapon has a super fast (AR, M1911, M1A, most DA auto's, Mossberg 500, etc) and easily accessible safety then use it. If in the case of say the AK or the Remington 870 the safety is not so accessible then don't worry about it. With the AK I would just take the safety off when I thought I might likely fire and with the 870 I would keep the chamber empty unless I might likely fire the gun. While this might be a slight generalization modern firearms aren't going to go off while you carry them unless you pull the damn trigger. Most have mechanisms so they won't fire even if they take a sharp impact unless the trigger is pulled.
Physically accessible safeties IMO have a lot more to do with people's psychological comfort than actual mechanical functionality. A good friend and experienced shooter who is my buddy is half scared of his Glock 19. He has shot more guns than most folks I know but is just used to semi auto's with a physically accessible safety.
Personally in terms of handguns I grew up on double action revolvers. They don't have a 'safety' but that big heavy trigger pull makes sure you don't fire it on accident. In any case it is psychological. The trigger makes the gun fire. My first handgun was a Glock .40. Again if you don't want to shoot the thing you don't squeeze the trigger with your nose picker. Really not complicated. I guess it is something you are comfortable with or not.
Finger on the trigger is to me a more complicated issue. It is also a great example to show that life is not black or white but full of grey. By far off the trigger is the way you should train and get muscle memory. However I think there are some situations where one might put their finger on the trigger and not immediately shoot. For example I know a guy who is a cop. He pulled a guy over for a half dozen infractions (the vehicle had issues and he had a suspended license and tickets) and as soon as he went towards the truck the guy got out and grabbed a machete from the bed. Needless to say the cop pulled out his gun. The dude was about 18 feet away and just standing there with the machete. My buddy had his finger on the trigger and as he said it he had about 7 pounds of pressure drawn back on that trigger. He started talking to the guy (he was in a bad spot needing to get to work but having a suspended license, a truck that has issues, tickets, etc) and eventually got him calmed down.
Personally at the risk of generalizing I see it being situations where there is an identified threat and you may have to shoot. I would not put my finger on the trigger unless there was a definite target. The reason I would not squeeze the trigger is that the threat had not forced me to shoot. YMMV.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Movie Review: Machete
It was an entertaining movie. At times it was somewhat serious and had good dialog with interesting plot twists. At other times it was cheesy and rediculous and funny. I really enjoyed it. Assuming you take the movie for what it is, a cheesy B movie with a bunch of A list actors you will enjoy it. A good thoughtless movie that is best served with a couple beers, buddies are nice but not required.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Does Preparing For TEOTWAWKI Cover All Other Scenarios?
I have heard it said that if you truly prepare for a genuine full on mad max scenario all the other scenarios are covered by default. I used to say that wasn't quite true. Now I would clarify by saying that it covers you for a lot (versus all) other scenarios.
Obviously if you are prepared for a genuine end of the world event then a power outage or even a Katrina like mid length regional disaster is just a practice drill. Having serious depth in food you normally eat will let you wait till sales to resupply and thus get more food for less money. If you have 15+ mags per gun, cases and cases of ammo as well as plenty of spare parts you are well positioned for any sort of gun ban.
However it is also worth noting what the TEOTWAWKI plan doesn't cover.
It completely ignores all sorts of highly likely financial/ unemployment/ slow slide issues. That Cold War mentality where the only option is that everything will go just fine until the world ends misses this one. You need to be concerned about your overall debt as well as savings for a rainy day. Can you afford your super spiffy retreat if you lose that high paying job? Even if your 'retreat' is paid off it is only yours so long as you can pay the property taxes.
Also I have a concern that this sort of planning can lead one not to worry about the progressively more violent world we are living in because you'll just carry a rifle everywhere if TEOTWAWKI happens. That sort of mentality isn't realistic. My real concern with this bionary approach is that it heavily weights things like owning rifles and stashing sand bags n barbed wire against more practical concerns like concealed carrying a pistol whenever possible and other more realistic home/ personal defense stuff. You need to be worried a lot more about 2-3 armed criminals who are probably on drugs breaking into your place tonight a lot more than EU/ Russian/ Mexican soldiers enforcing world government upon you.
I think that if you keep a solid financial footing and put plenty of effort/ energy into preparing to defend yourself today then there is nothing wrong with the majority of your energy going toward the kind of worst case scenario deserving of a fiction novel.
Obviously if you are prepared for a genuine end of the world event then a power outage or even a Katrina like mid length regional disaster is just a practice drill. Having serious depth in food you normally eat will let you wait till sales to resupply and thus get more food for less money. If you have 15+ mags per gun, cases and cases of ammo as well as plenty of spare parts you are well positioned for any sort of gun ban.
However it is also worth noting what the TEOTWAWKI plan doesn't cover.
It completely ignores all sorts of highly likely financial/ unemployment/ slow slide issues. That Cold War mentality where the only option is that everything will go just fine until the world ends misses this one. You need to be concerned about your overall debt as well as savings for a rainy day. Can you afford your super spiffy retreat if you lose that high paying job? Even if your 'retreat' is paid off it is only yours so long as you can pay the property taxes.
Also I have a concern that this sort of planning can lead one not to worry about the progressively more violent world we are living in because you'll just carry a rifle everywhere if TEOTWAWKI happens. That sort of mentality isn't realistic. My real concern with this bionary approach is that it heavily weights things like owning rifles and stashing sand bags n barbed wire against more practical concerns like concealed carrying a pistol whenever possible and other more realistic home/ personal defense stuff. You need to be worried a lot more about 2-3 armed criminals who are probably on drugs breaking into your place tonight a lot more than EU/ Russian/ Mexican soldiers enforcing world government upon you.
I think that if you keep a solid financial footing and put plenty of effort/ energy into preparing to defend yourself today then there is nothing wrong with the majority of your energy going toward the kind of worst case scenario deserving of a fiction novel.
Winter Carry
FerFal wrote about winter carry recently. I have some thoughts and since work today could turn out to be completely rediculous I am writing this in advance.
I have spent a lot of time living in places with pretty cold winters. Not like -700 Minnesota kind of winters but lots of time between 5 and 20F not including wind chill with snow that stayed around for long periods. I also habitually carry a gun. Naturally for 3-4 months of the year the two sort of collide.
I find winter carry easier than summer carry. Concealing anything less than a pistol grip pump shotgun or a folding stock AK-47 is easy. For access it should go without saying that a pistol under a zipped and buttoned coat is about useless. Not as useless as say, a pistol in your nightstand but it's still not going to be a factor in a fight. I find that under most circumstances just keeping your jacket open works really well. It usually necessitates at least a mid weight type shirt or sweater under your coat if the temp is below about 30 degrees. Nothing crazy just something more than a t shirt.
The real decision point to me is if you are going to keep your coat on or take it off. If you are going to keep it on then an outside the waistband holster combined with an open coat is a super fast draw. A shoulder holster would work also. YMMV but I have found this good for when you will spend the majority of your time outside or are just going to one place and not staying that long. Great for a walk or a trip to the grocery store. The other situation is that you are going to be taking your coat off and then the 1911 on your hip might be an issue. In this case it is another layer which slows things.
Carrying in a coat pocket is a hotly debated issue. Revolvers are best with hammerless being most ideal. You really want to have a holster so you don't go to draw and come out with the barrel in your hand. Without a holster I have found one technique that seems to work. Just keep your hand on the grip. Assuming you have a pocket with a good opening (not one of those weird ones where the pocket is bigger than the opening and the edges are awkward) and your hand is already on the gun that is as FerFal says a very fast draw. Nobody notices a guy with his hand casually in a coat pocket. This is also convenient because you just stick a wheelgun in your pocket and go grab a quart of milk. However the downside is that while you could take your coat off you can't really leave it, or at least I wouldn't want to in almost every setting. So you might as well IMO just keep it on and carry under the coat.
I am interested in your thoughts and experiences on winter carry.
I have spent a lot of time living in places with pretty cold winters. Not like -700 Minnesota kind of winters but lots of time between 5 and 20F not including wind chill with snow that stayed around for long periods. I also habitually carry a gun. Naturally for 3-4 months of the year the two sort of collide.
I find winter carry easier than summer carry. Concealing anything less than a pistol grip pump shotgun or a folding stock AK-47 is easy. For access it should go without saying that a pistol under a zipped and buttoned coat is about useless. Not as useless as say, a pistol in your nightstand but it's still not going to be a factor in a fight. I find that under most circumstances just keeping your jacket open works really well. It usually necessitates at least a mid weight type shirt or sweater under your coat if the temp is below about 30 degrees. Nothing crazy just something more than a t shirt.
The real decision point to me is if you are going to keep your coat on or take it off. If you are going to keep it on then an outside the waistband holster combined with an open coat is a super fast draw. A shoulder holster would work also. YMMV but I have found this good for when you will spend the majority of your time outside or are just going to one place and not staying that long. Great for a walk or a trip to the grocery store. The other situation is that you are going to be taking your coat off and then the 1911 on your hip might be an issue. In this case it is another layer which slows things.
Carrying in a coat pocket is a hotly debated issue. Revolvers are best with hammerless being most ideal. You really want to have a holster so you don't go to draw and come out with the barrel in your hand. Without a holster I have found one technique that seems to work. Just keep your hand on the grip. Assuming you have a pocket with a good opening (not one of those weird ones where the pocket is bigger than the opening and the edges are awkward) and your hand is already on the gun that is as FerFal says a very fast draw. Nobody notices a guy with his hand casually in a coat pocket. This is also convenient because you just stick a wheelgun in your pocket and go grab a quart of milk. However the downside is that while you could take your coat off you can't really leave it, or at least I wouldn't want to in almost every setting. So you might as well IMO just keep it on and carry under the coat.
I am interested in your thoughts and experiences on winter carry.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Bags VS Chest Rigs/ LBE's
Bags that are expressedly built to carry the necessary stuff for a rifle fight (but not fit the rifle itself) have started popping up over the last few years. I got to thinking about them today because I saw someone talking about them on some blog. After some reflection here are my thoughts.
As a replacement for a chest rig/ lbe rifle bags are junk. They are hard to carry under less than casual walking around conditions. Seriously when was the last time you tried to run a couple miles with a fairly heavy duffel bag flopping around all over the place? Bet it wasn't real comfortable. What about trying to overcome real world type obstacles with a duffel bag getting hung up on everything?
I know that no matter what I am doing with a chest rig/ rack or to a slightly lesser degree an LBE (they flop around more) I know exactly where my mags are and can get them out quickly. My IFAK is in the same place also, not burried in a small duffel bag flopping around someplace.
If I saw a realistic chance of anything happening I would toss a legit chest rif inside of a duffel bag to carry it around conveniently and discretely if need be. So a 'rifle bag' does not replace a chest rig/ rack/ lbe for likely combat type situations. I would not say that doesn't mean they cannot have a legitimate nitche. What is that nitche exactly?
To me that nitche is as more of a tactical equivalent of a range bag. There is not a known or likely scenario where you see yourself using your rifle. You are just going camping or on a road trip or like to keep a gun in the trunk or whatever. While you aren't planning on anything really bad happening having 4-6 mags, a few extra boxes of ammo, maybe a tourniquet or two and some misc gun stuff just makes sense. Instead of having junk all over the place it is desirable to keep everything nicely organized in a purpose built bag.
A bag of this type is on my long list of gear.
As a replacement for a chest rig/ lbe rifle bags are junk. They are hard to carry under less than casual walking around conditions. Seriously when was the last time you tried to run a couple miles with a fairly heavy duffel bag flopping around all over the place? Bet it wasn't real comfortable. What about trying to overcome real world type obstacles with a duffel bag getting hung up on everything?
I know that no matter what I am doing with a chest rig/ rack or to a slightly lesser degree an LBE (they flop around more) I know exactly where my mags are and can get them out quickly. My IFAK is in the same place also, not burried in a small duffel bag flopping around someplace.
If I saw a realistic chance of anything happening I would toss a legit chest rif inside of a duffel bag to carry it around conveniently and discretely if need be. So a 'rifle bag' does not replace a chest rig/ rack/ lbe for likely combat type situations. I would not say that doesn't mean they cannot have a legitimate nitche. What is that nitche exactly?
To me that nitche is as more of a tactical equivalent of a range bag. There is not a known or likely scenario where you see yourself using your rifle. You are just going camping or on a road trip or like to keep a gun in the trunk or whatever. While you aren't planning on anything really bad happening having 4-6 mags, a few extra boxes of ammo, maybe a tourniquet or two and some misc gun stuff just makes sense. Instead of having junk all over the place it is desirable to keep everything nicely organized in a purpose built bag.
A bag of this type is on my long list of gear.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Homework Assignment Of The Week
Cook at least one dinner made up of entirely shelf stable food storage items.
+1 point if it isn't based around a can. A can of chili technically counts but isn't doing much for ya.
+1 point if you use staple ingredients such as: flour, rice, corn meal or dry beans.
+2 points if you cook it in a fashion that would work if the power/ gas was out.
+1 point if it isn't based around a can. A can of chili technically counts but isn't doing much for ya.
+1 point if you use staple ingredients such as: flour, rice, corn meal or dry beans.
+2 points if you cook it in a fashion that would work if the power/ gas was out.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Got Goals?
I don't think I can really express exactly how important goals are. I am not going to say that all people who are successful (in terms of finances or preps) make goals but I will say that most who are not successful do not do a good job of goal setting. It is really hard to get where you want to go if you do not know how you are getting there.
Lots of folks do their goal setting, revising and tracking in different ways. I really think this is an 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' sort of situation. If randomly coming up with goals and just keeping them in your head ( or whatever) works that is great. However if it doesn't work then moving to establishing written goals and reviewing them at some set interval will likely help. In particular I think that writing goals down helps when a goal is complicated or will go over a long enough timeframe that it may start to slip your mind.
I recall somebody once saying that a goal without a timeline is a wish. Looking at a specific timeline and breaking a task down to effort and money required in a given period is really helpful as a reality check. Clearly laying out your goals helps in figuring out the total amount of time, energy and money required to complete them. That flows well into my next point.
How ambitiously do you set your goals? I set goals from an optomistic perspective. I set goals that are doable if things go pretty well. That works for me because even if I fall short (as I generally do) I've still done pretty well. For someone who just hates not completing a goal shooting lower with goals that factor in a little (or a lot) of life happening wouldn't be a bad way to go.
I also think prioritization is important. It is particularly important if things go significantly less than ideal. Lets say you want to complete A-Z in a given period but find you are running short on time/ money/ energy. If you find yourself running short mid way through it helps to have thought about this and rank ordered your priorities so that you start at the most important and move to the least important.
To me goals are how we move foreward. They focus our effort, time and money on what we deem most important to move to the next place we want to be at. Without goals we tend to misallocate resources and waste effort. Think of it like land navigation where spending an extra 5 minutes to make sure your plots and routes are right can easily save 45 minutes of walking. Your goals are the route that gets you where you want to go.
Lots of folks do their goal setting, revising and tracking in different ways. I really think this is an 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' sort of situation. If randomly coming up with goals and just keeping them in your head ( or whatever) works that is great. However if it doesn't work then moving to establishing written goals and reviewing them at some set interval will likely help. In particular I think that writing goals down helps when a goal is complicated or will go over a long enough timeframe that it may start to slip your mind.
I recall somebody once saying that a goal without a timeline is a wish. Looking at a specific timeline and breaking a task down to effort and money required in a given period is really helpful as a reality check. Clearly laying out your goals helps in figuring out the total amount of time, energy and money required to complete them. That flows well into my next point.
How ambitiously do you set your goals? I set goals from an optomistic perspective. I set goals that are doable if things go pretty well. That works for me because even if I fall short (as I generally do) I've still done pretty well. For someone who just hates not completing a goal shooting lower with goals that factor in a little (or a lot) of life happening wouldn't be a bad way to go.
I also think prioritization is important. It is particularly important if things go significantly less than ideal. Lets say you want to complete A-Z in a given period but find you are running short on time/ money/ energy. If you find yourself running short mid way through it helps to have thought about this and rank ordered your priorities so that you start at the most important and move to the least important.
To me goals are how we move foreward. They focus our effort, time and money on what we deem most important to move to the next place we want to be at. Without goals we tend to misallocate resources and waste effort. Think of it like land navigation where spending an extra 5 minutes to make sure your plots and routes are right can easily save 45 minutes of walking. Your goals are the route that gets you where you want to go.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Entitlements and Gender Roles; Alternate Title How To Upset Every Reader In A Single Post
This morning I was able to watch the news while doing some cardio which is something I enjoy now and then. The topic of entitlements was big this morning on the news. It has become abundantly clear to me that, even in this typically open and rational venue entitlements are a topic on which a rational conversation cannot be had.
We are at or past the point where it is becoming abundantly clear to any rational person that the numbers do not work. Unfortunately we are long past the point where there are easy, gradual and relatively painless options to make them work. The window in which there are viable options with only moderately painful and economically damaging outcomes is probably closing fast. I fear that by the time we are willing to make genuine moves to deal with this problem things will be at the point where there are few, if any (likely just choosing who gets the shortest end) choices left. You would be well advised to think about how this could play out and prepare for what you see coming.
Patrice over at Rural Revolution has been talking about gender roles for awhile. It is my observation that pretty much everyone wants to pick and choose among different traits to get some sort of a hybrid that suits their desires. The normal life part of this is just finding a mate that suits us and figuring out a division of labor that suits both parties. However sometimes the hypocrisy is so problematic or blatant that it is worth talking about. It pretty much goes without saying that feminists think they should be able to do whatever they want but men should act in certain ceremonal ways. For example I would wager a hundred dollars that if I was in a car driving down the highway with four feminists on a cold stormy night and a tire blew out it's this guy that would change it. Furthermore if my feminist buddies and I got to our destination, went to sleep and woke up at 3am to a wierd loud noise in the living room I bet it would be me going to investigate. Now it is time to take a crack at us guys.
Many men want to have our cake and eat it too. We live a lifestyle (wives do of course have a role in this too) that requires most women to work full time outside of the home but still expect them to be homemakers. Somehow they are supposed to keep the house clean and tidy as well as cooking dinner and numerous other tasks. We wonder why the house is a bit messy, dinner is some pre packaged junk and kids are poorly behaved. The answer is that instead of taking care of that stuff, cooking a good meal and raising kids they are at work and kids are in daycare 50 hours a week.
If there is anybody I haven't upset just know your state smells bad and the local sports team is a bunch of whimps.
Have a good day
We are at or past the point where it is becoming abundantly clear to any rational person that the numbers do not work. Unfortunately we are long past the point where there are easy, gradual and relatively painless options to make them work. The window in which there are viable options with only moderately painful and economically damaging outcomes is probably closing fast. I fear that by the time we are willing to make genuine moves to deal with this problem things will be at the point where there are few, if any (likely just choosing who gets the shortest end) choices left. You would be well advised to think about how this could play out and prepare for what you see coming.
Patrice over at Rural Revolution has been talking about gender roles for awhile. It is my observation that pretty much everyone wants to pick and choose among different traits to get some sort of a hybrid that suits their desires. The normal life part of this is just finding a mate that suits us and figuring out a division of labor that suits both parties. However sometimes the hypocrisy is so problematic or blatant that it is worth talking about. It pretty much goes without saying that feminists think they should be able to do whatever they want but men should act in certain ceremonal ways. For example I would wager a hundred dollars that if I was in a car driving down the highway with four feminists on a cold stormy night and a tire blew out it's this guy that would change it. Furthermore if my feminist buddies and I got to our destination, went to sleep and woke up at 3am to a wierd loud noise in the living room I bet it would be me going to investigate. Now it is time to take a crack at us guys.
Many men want to have our cake and eat it too. We live a lifestyle (wives do of course have a role in this too) that requires most women to work full time outside of the home but still expect them to be homemakers. Somehow they are supposed to keep the house clean and tidy as well as cooking dinner and numerous other tasks. We wonder why the house is a bit messy, dinner is some pre packaged junk and kids are poorly behaved. The answer is that instead of taking care of that stuff, cooking a good meal and raising kids they are at work and kids are in daycare 50 hours a week.
If there is anybody I haven't upset just know your state smells bad and the local sports team is a bunch of whimps.
Have a good day
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
.223 vs 12 Guage and Pistol Penetration On Inside Walls
Read this. Turns out that maybe you are better off with a rifle in terms of penetration in addition to round capacity and other factors. The kind of heavy shot that actually stops people (not to rehash another myth but at more than a few feet birdshot is for birds) blows through typical residential inner walls. I wish they had brought something in 7.62x39 along too. Edited a few minutes afterwords to include. Turns out somebody did test 7.62x39 Wolf FMJ's. I suspect 7.62x39 JHP or SP ammo would have more managed penetration.
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
Quote of the Day
"[i]f ... you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock."
-Larry Vickers
-Larry Vickers
Federal .45 ACP Recall
Just in case you didn't hear about this Federal and there subsidiary American Eagle are recalling some .45acp. Check out the full details at Luck Gunner. Lots were made between Sep 2010 and mid January.
Monday, February 14, 2011
It's 4:56 In The Morning And This Is Perspectives
Does anyone else remember that SNL skit? It has nothing to do with anything except that it is a shade before 5 and I am awake with nothing to do. I was tired yesterday and had nothing to do so I went to bed at 9pm which is an hour to an hour and a half earlier than usual. Figured I would get a great nights sleep. Doom on me as I woke up at 3:45 and couldn't get back to sleep. Best of all since I am in Germany there isn't even news on. So I am watching Cops and writing, at least I have coffee. It's 4:59 in the morning and this is Perspectives.
Mayberry talked recently about bloggers dropping off the radar. The liberterian/ preparedness/ survivalism blogisphere is definitely a semi transient population. There seems to be a sort of cycle. Folks get burned out of all the doomage, run out of new material then get writers block or stagnate or get busy with their actual lives. It seems like a few months and one year marks are the times where it happens the most. I've stopped even bothering to adjust my blog roll till folks have a bit of a track record. On the bright side new bloggers pop up. While one doesn't replace another and I get to missing a regular read it does help. New folks bring new energy, thoughts and experiences. I have really been enjoying Arctic Patriot, Garden Serf and American Mercenary lately.
Wifey has gotten home safely and is in the process of getting settled in. We decided for her to leave before I do so I could make sure she got off OK and while separating (geographically, not divorce) earlier than necessary kinda sucks it was the right call. Kids have a truly massive logistical trail and when that is combined with toting them around doing normal stuff is hard. There just isn't a way to move 3 bags and push a stroller. I miss her and kiddo a lot. By the way he is well. Happy, busy and a bit beefy (in the 98% range for his length).
My recent post on 10mm's got an interesting comment "Maybe! But which is more important post SHTF: Being able to kill an elephant with one shot (if you had ammo). OR owning a gun that is so ubiquitous that ammo for it is everywhere?" I addressed it briefly in the comments section but wanted to come back to it again.
Some stuff is pretty general purpose and other stuff is more purpose specific. In terms of tools a generic hammer or an adjustable wrench are quite general purpose. You can use them for all sorts of tasks and they are something pretty much everyone has. On the other hand a shake ax or a 12mm box end wrench are very nitche tools. It should go without saying that you want to get general use stuff before looking to more nitche stuff. In terms of guns you want to have a core of general purpose common caliber guns first and then maybe move to nitche items. You wouldn't want a 10mm to be your only pistol because it is expensive to shoot and ammo is not common. The same way you would not want your only rifle to be a 15 pound .308 bolt gun with a 12-24 power optic. However if you have a .45acp or two (or a 9, .38/.357, etc) lying around, a few bucks to spare and think a 10mm will be useful then get one.
The good thing is that most stuff useful for preparedness/ survivalism is pretty general purpose. Under pretty much any circumstances you are going to want food and water, cash and PM's to trade for stuff you need, some medicine in case you get sick or hurt, guns and ammo for defense as well as backup plans for lighting, cooking and shelter. Gathering and learning to use this stuff in amounts and capabilities sufficient to survive say a moderate length serious regional disaster like Hurricane Katrina will take a lot of time and energy. Spending money and energy in areas that are most likely to have the biggest pay off makes sense in investing, preparedness and most things in life. Somewhere along that process you would want to think about nitche items. A bit of common sense about ones individual situation is a good guide. A guy who lives near a tropical beach can use some gill net's and maybe a spearfishing setup and a guy who lives in North Dakota or Minnessota might want a sleeping bag good to -40F. Needless to say there isn't a lot of spearfishing on the frozen prairie and the odds of the Gulf Coast or Hawaii going far below freezing are slim to nil.
Mayberry talked recently about bloggers dropping off the radar. The liberterian/ preparedness/ survivalism blogisphere is definitely a semi transient population. There seems to be a sort of cycle. Folks get burned out of all the doomage, run out of new material then get writers block or stagnate or get busy with their actual lives. It seems like a few months and one year marks are the times where it happens the most. I've stopped even bothering to adjust my blog roll till folks have a bit of a track record. On the bright side new bloggers pop up. While one doesn't replace another and I get to missing a regular read it does help. New folks bring new energy, thoughts and experiences. I have really been enjoying Arctic Patriot, Garden Serf and American Mercenary lately.
Wifey has gotten home safely and is in the process of getting settled in. We decided for her to leave before I do so I could make sure she got off OK and while separating (geographically, not divorce) earlier than necessary kinda sucks it was the right call. Kids have a truly massive logistical trail and when that is combined with toting them around doing normal stuff is hard. There just isn't a way to move 3 bags and push a stroller. I miss her and kiddo a lot. By the way he is well. Happy, busy and a bit beefy (in the 98% range for his length).
My recent post on 10mm's got an interesting comment "Maybe! But which is more important post SHTF: Being able to kill an elephant with one shot (if you had ammo). OR owning a gun that is so ubiquitous that ammo for it is everywhere?" I addressed it briefly in the comments section but wanted to come back to it again.
Some stuff is pretty general purpose and other stuff is more purpose specific. In terms of tools a generic hammer or an adjustable wrench are quite general purpose. You can use them for all sorts of tasks and they are something pretty much everyone has. On the other hand a shake ax or a 12mm box end wrench are very nitche tools. It should go without saying that you want to get general use stuff before looking to more nitche stuff. In terms of guns you want to have a core of general purpose common caliber guns first and then maybe move to nitche items. You wouldn't want a 10mm to be your only pistol because it is expensive to shoot and ammo is not common. The same way you would not want your only rifle to be a 15 pound .308 bolt gun with a 12-24 power optic. However if you have a .45acp or two (or a 9, .38/.357, etc) lying around, a few bucks to spare and think a 10mm will be useful then get one.
The good thing is that most stuff useful for preparedness/ survivalism is pretty general purpose. Under pretty much any circumstances you are going to want food and water, cash and PM's to trade for stuff you need, some medicine in case you get sick or hurt, guns and ammo for defense as well as backup plans for lighting, cooking and shelter. Gathering and learning to use this stuff in amounts and capabilities sufficient to survive say a moderate length serious regional disaster like Hurricane Katrina will take a lot of time and energy. Spending money and energy in areas that are most likely to have the biggest pay off makes sense in investing, preparedness and most things in life. Somewhere along that process you would want to think about nitche items. A bit of common sense about ones individual situation is a good guide. A guy who lives near a tropical beach can use some gill net's and maybe a spearfishing setup and a guy who lives in North Dakota or Minnessota might want a sleeping bag good to -40F. Needless to say there isn't a lot of spearfishing on the frozen prairie and the odds of the Gulf Coast or Hawaii going far below freezing are slim to nil.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
All Sorts of Stuff
Things in the Middle East have been pretty nuts the past few weeks. The government of Tunisia was toppled. Egypt saw their dictator step down. That he is being replaced by the military is not suprising. The history of that sort of thing in the Middle East is pretty established. On a scale of best to worst case outcomes this is somewhere in the middle. Maybe there will be genuine free and fair elections and maybe they will be postponed indefinitely or less than free and fair. I am inclined to say that if substantial steps have not been made toward voting in a parliment/ representative body, changing the constitution, and such in 90 days they never will. A benevolent dictatorship by one guy or a council of sorts, or in this case the military is not the worst type of government to live under though certainly not the best either.
It is interesting that these sorts of events seem to happen in regional clumps. Sort of like the fall of Europe's monarchies, the colonial dismantling of the late 50's and early 60's or the fall of the commies back in '89. I think this happens for a lot of reasons. Economic downturns seem to be a significant factor in these things; almost without exception. I think the reason for this is that the stress economic downturns, and in poor countries spikes in food prices are involved is because they create unrest which the fundamentally unstable and unpopular government can't handle. Sort of like how money problems frequently are a catalyst that leads to divorce in mariages that have other issues.
That reminds me of another thing. One of the wisest things I did while I was dating was to consider womens money habits. I started doing this after seeing a friend who married a very nice gal who is a money train wreck. It really caused a lot of friction and problems for them. The had some stupid high interest debt and just can't seem to spend less than they make. It almost lead to divorce repeatedly. Of course bad things can happen to good people but typically people who don't have their financial house in order have other issues. Not if they make a ton or know all about investing or anything like that but just that they can live within whatever their means are, pay their bills and generally be financially functional. Marrying someone who can't live within their means or has an entitlement 'I deserve it' attitude is just asking for life long problems.
I have been thinking a lot about housing recently. The first thing in my head is location, location, location. I got to thinking about all the different places I have lived and then balanced them against different scenarios. Personally the two options that interest me are living rurally or in a fairly small town. See old stuff about small town vs rural living here. The small town situation lets you walk or ride a bike to do much of your day to day stuff. Being able to walk to a store, restaurant, hardware store or small shop is nice. I particularly like the option of being able to have a couple beers and walk to get something to eat. This could be very convenient if fuel price or even availability get wonky. Living rurally on a fairly decent sized piece of land (I hesitate to define an exact size but certainly a couple acres) appeals to me also. It is definitely something we plan to do once we stop moving all the time. The reason we will wait until then is that going to the time and expense to get animals and equipment as well as set a place up how we want it isn't worth it unless we plan to stay there for a long time.
One thing that people who advocate for living out in the sticks typically fail to understand, or see the full implications of is how fuel prices and their need for transportation make them vulnerable. The cold hard reality is that you need to work to earn an income. As they say the key to a successful rancher is a wife who works in town. Typically your job will be in town. The people who will buy what you produce live in town or scattered over some distance. Rural folks tend to drive a lot if for work, access to stores or entertainment. Working 30, 40 or even 50 miles from home is not abnormal for rural folks. Do the math on that and it adds up to crazy mileage. The percentage of income lower middle class (whatever the heck that means) rural folks spend on fuel is rediculous and will only get worse. I am not a peak oil doomer but the days of dirt cheap fuel are gone and things are just going to get worse. There are a lot of variables in this one so an easy answer isn't available. However you should think about your area, skills, interests and financial situation and try to come up with some answers for what you would do if fuel prices rose dramatically.
The whole concept of suburbs and other such places (like a small housing development outside of town or whatever) where people live closely but there aren't stores, restaurants and all that stuff does not appeal to me at all. These are probably the worst of both options. If you can't shoot a shotgun off the porch then you should be able to walk to the local grocery store and restaurants.
The nature of houses themselves is the next thing. This is a definite area where people back theirselves into a corner then gripe about it. They buy a home which is bigger than they need as well as fancier than they can afford. If they buy a house where the 30 year mortgage payment is absolutely as much as they can qualify for (and maybe actually pay) then it's not a suprise they are paying for at least 30 years. Clearly it is all the bankers fault, not the knuckleheads who bought more house than they could actually afford.
I saw an ad for this company that does tiny houses. It is an interesting idea. Probably not good for a family of 6 but for a bachelor or a couple it could work just fine. A relative of mine lives in a 2 bedroom cabin that is about 20' x 35' and would be great for a couple or a family of 3-4. I think looking at a house as a place to live instead of a status symbol in your competition with the neighbors is a good start. If your family and or income change it is always possible to add a room or move.
Well it's time for me to wrap this up now so I can go to bed.
It is interesting that these sorts of events seem to happen in regional clumps. Sort of like the fall of Europe's monarchies, the colonial dismantling of the late 50's and early 60's or the fall of the commies back in '89. I think this happens for a lot of reasons. Economic downturns seem to be a significant factor in these things; almost without exception. I think the reason for this is that the stress economic downturns, and in poor countries spikes in food prices are involved is because they create unrest which the fundamentally unstable and unpopular government can't handle. Sort of like how money problems frequently are a catalyst that leads to divorce in mariages that have other issues.
That reminds me of another thing. One of the wisest things I did while I was dating was to consider womens money habits. I started doing this after seeing a friend who married a very nice gal who is a money train wreck. It really caused a lot of friction and problems for them. The had some stupid high interest debt and just can't seem to spend less than they make. It almost lead to divorce repeatedly. Of course bad things can happen to good people but typically people who don't have their financial house in order have other issues. Not if they make a ton or know all about investing or anything like that but just that they can live within whatever their means are, pay their bills and generally be financially functional. Marrying someone who can't live within their means or has an entitlement 'I deserve it' attitude is just asking for life long problems.
I have been thinking a lot about housing recently. The first thing in my head is location, location, location. I got to thinking about all the different places I have lived and then balanced them against different scenarios. Personally the two options that interest me are living rurally or in a fairly small town. See old stuff about small town vs rural living here. The small town situation lets you walk or ride a bike to do much of your day to day stuff. Being able to walk to a store, restaurant, hardware store or small shop is nice. I particularly like the option of being able to have a couple beers and walk to get something to eat. This could be very convenient if fuel price or even availability get wonky. Living rurally on a fairly decent sized piece of land (I hesitate to define an exact size but certainly a couple acres) appeals to me also. It is definitely something we plan to do once we stop moving all the time. The reason we will wait until then is that going to the time and expense to get animals and equipment as well as set a place up how we want it isn't worth it unless we plan to stay there for a long time.
One thing that people who advocate for living out in the sticks typically fail to understand, or see the full implications of is how fuel prices and their need for transportation make them vulnerable. The cold hard reality is that you need to work to earn an income. As they say the key to a successful rancher is a wife who works in town. Typically your job will be in town. The people who will buy what you produce live in town or scattered over some distance. Rural folks tend to drive a lot if for work, access to stores or entertainment. Working 30, 40 or even 50 miles from home is not abnormal for rural folks. Do the math on that and it adds up to crazy mileage. The percentage of income lower middle class (whatever the heck that means) rural folks spend on fuel is rediculous and will only get worse. I am not a peak oil doomer but the days of dirt cheap fuel are gone and things are just going to get worse. There are a lot of variables in this one so an easy answer isn't available. However you should think about your area, skills, interests and financial situation and try to come up with some answers for what you would do if fuel prices rose dramatically.
The whole concept of suburbs and other such places (like a small housing development outside of town or whatever) where people live closely but there aren't stores, restaurants and all that stuff does not appeal to me at all. These are probably the worst of both options. If you can't shoot a shotgun off the porch then you should be able to walk to the local grocery store and restaurants.
The nature of houses themselves is the next thing. This is a definite area where people back theirselves into a corner then gripe about it. They buy a home which is bigger than they need as well as fancier than they can afford. If they buy a house where the 30 year mortgage payment is absolutely as much as they can qualify for (and maybe actually pay) then it's not a suprise they are paying for at least 30 years. Clearly it is all the bankers fault, not the knuckleheads who bought more house than they could actually afford.
I saw an ad for this company that does tiny houses. It is an interesting idea. Probably not good for a family of 6 but for a bachelor or a couple it could work just fine. A relative of mine lives in a 2 bedroom cabin that is about 20' x 35' and would be great for a couple or a family of 3-4. I think looking at a house as a place to live instead of a status symbol in your competition with the neighbors is a good start. If your family and or income change it is always possible to add a room or move.
Well it's time for me to wrap this up now so I can go to bed.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Please Welcome Care One Credit
Our newest advertiser CareOne Credit offers credit counseling, debt consolidation and a variety of other services. I was a bit skeptical about working with them because credit consolidation types are often shifty and do not have peoples best interests at heart. I did some looking and they seem like good honest folks who give people good information and don't pressure them.
If you are in a bad spot get in touch with these folks and they can help you see what your options are.
If you are in a bad spot get in touch with these folks and they can help you see what your options are.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Eating The Stash 2
Still working my way through the food storage. I wrote about this before and have been mentally tracking my observations. Here they are.
-Coffee filters. I have a percolator but it would be nice to have some filters lying around for all the scenarios where I am not going to the store but am working through the stash. They are so stupidly cheap there isn't an excuse. Unsure of the exact coffee filter to coffee ratio but picking up a pack for every can of coffee would probably be sufficient.
-Honey. We needed some for a recipe and had apparantly worked through or misplaced the bear shaped thing that lives in the kitchen.
- Louisiana Purchase Red Beans and Rice. I got a single box of this stuff for no particular reason. It has been in the cupboard for awhile now. Today I cooked it up for dinner and it was really good. Really easy to cook and flavorful. Comparable in ease of cooking to ricearone type stuff but far better tasting. Not something that could or should be a core part of our overall food storage plan but a case of the stuff would be good to break up the monotany of things.
-Coffee filters. I have a percolator but it would be nice to have some filters lying around for all the scenarios where I am not going to the store but am working through the stash. They are so stupidly cheap there isn't an excuse. Unsure of the exact coffee filter to coffee ratio but picking up a pack for every can of coffee would probably be sufficient.
-Honey. We needed some for a recipe and had apparantly worked through or misplaced the bear shaped thing that lives in the kitchen.
- Louisiana Purchase Red Beans and Rice. I got a single box of this stuff for no particular reason. It has been in the cupboard for awhile now. Today I cooked it up for dinner and it was really good. Really easy to cook and flavorful. Comparable in ease of cooking to ricearone type stuff but far better tasting. Not something that could or should be a core part of our overall food storage plan but a case of the stuff would be good to break up the monotany of things.
Quote of the Day
"The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a sh*t whether you live or die. There, you feel better now?
-Dennis Miller
-Dennis Miller
10MM and The Hunting Glock
Compromise is an interesting thing. Sometimes it is amazing and you truly get most of the benefits of both options. I think the Glock 19 specifically and 'compact' sized XD, HK, etc are a great example of this. Other times it completely misses the mark and you keep most of the negatives of each option. Those stupid looking SUV's with the tiny truck beds are a great example of this.
There has been for awhile a movement to get something in between light pleasant to shoot pistol rounds and big heavy, slow and trajectory challenged rounds. Most specifically a round between the 9mm and .45acp. Enter the 10mm. The 10mm which is sort of it's own beast. I would say it completely missed it's intended mark. It is only suitible for large full sized pistols and has a realitively hefty recoil. For a lot of reasons it just never caught on. The round eventually got shortened up and became the .40 S&W which is what it is, some folks like it and others do not.
Just because the 10mm completely missed the mark it was aiming at doesn't mean it didn't hit another one. It's ballistics are somewhere between .357mag and .41mag. It is a pretty big, very fast round that is flat shooting and puts out a ton of energy. Check out 10mm ammo to see for yourself.
I think the 10mm is an interesting round that has a couple viable uses. I think the first is for people who live in places with big dangerous animals all over the place that favor semi automatic handguns. Some folks are just not into wheel guns which rules out the standard big heavy revolver. With a 10mm you could put a lot of big fast rounds downrange in a hurry.
The other nitche is hunting. You can functionally and legally hunt big game with a 10mm. Also Glock makes one which is a huge plus in everything. Being able to hunt with your carry gun (a 10mm is probably too big for convenient CCW but one could carry it) would be cool and a huge confidence builder.
To me the only real downside of a 10mm would be that it isn't a particularly common caliber. However if it is going to be a purpose specific gun or you reload that issue can be managed. If there are bears all over the place but you hate revolvers then consider the 10mm. For the sake of full disclosure I received compensation for this post.
There has been for awhile a movement to get something in between light pleasant to shoot pistol rounds and big heavy, slow and trajectory challenged rounds. Most specifically a round between the 9mm and .45acp. Enter the 10mm. The 10mm which is sort of it's own beast. I would say it completely missed it's intended mark. It is only suitible for large full sized pistols and has a realitively hefty recoil. For a lot of reasons it just never caught on. The round eventually got shortened up and became the .40 S&W which is what it is, some folks like it and others do not.
Just because the 10mm completely missed the mark it was aiming at doesn't mean it didn't hit another one. It's ballistics are somewhere between .357mag and .41mag. It is a pretty big, very fast round that is flat shooting and puts out a ton of energy. Check out 10mm ammo to see for yourself.
I think the 10mm is an interesting round that has a couple viable uses. I think the first is for people who live in places with big dangerous animals all over the place that favor semi automatic handguns. Some folks are just not into wheel guns which rules out the standard big heavy revolver. With a 10mm you could put a lot of big fast rounds downrange in a hurry.
The other nitche is hunting. You can functionally and legally hunt big game with a 10mm. Also Glock makes one which is a huge plus in everything. Being able to hunt with your carry gun (a 10mm is probably too big for convenient CCW but one could carry it) would be cool and a huge confidence builder.
To me the only real downside of a 10mm would be that it isn't a particularly common caliber. However if it is going to be a purpose specific gun or you reload that issue can be managed. If there are bears all over the place but you hate revolvers then consider the 10mm. For the sake of full disclosure I received compensation for this post.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Food as a Weapon, Food and America
The idea of massive food shortages in America is an interesting one. I think there are fallacies as well as misinformation in play. Also it would be naive to say there is not at least some some intentional fear mongering involved.
Food as a weapon is a scary thing. It has been used by brutal governments to force a region or group of people into submission in the one of the most inhumane and brutal fashions. To me it is scary because it intentionally targets the civilian population in a widespread and determined way. The history of it probably goes back as long as their have been organized groups of people big enough to communicate and act cohesively at regional and national levels. The British starved the Irish, the Afrikaners, Kenyan's and almost surely some other groups I have forgotten.
The Soviet communists under Stalin starved the Ukranian peasants in the early 30's. The idea of giving up their land and relying on 'the collective' to support them didn't appeal to these peasants very much. The Soviet troops and police took all of their food and blocked the importation or delivery of food aid to the region. Needless to say bad times ensued. Garden Serf wrote about this more. There is a video here that you can watch if so inclined.
Like I said before this is scary stuff and I don't think anybody can watch it without being profoundly effected. It will likely remind you of why you hate communists and make you want to stock up on food and ammo. These are generally good feelings to have so I won't argue against them.
This is however on the balance not a scenario which worries me particularly. It is somewhere towards the bottom of my list of concerns. It is in the neighborhood of a full on genuine Bosnia or Africa style civil war and above war with Canada or anything involving aliens. Though it is true that Americans tend to have (even those evil liberals) a much higher value for human life than some that isn't really the reason. I honestly think Stalin and Mao (or maybe the Illuminati and Trilateral comission) had a running bet on who could kill more of their population. While different cultures (for a lot of reasons) do tend to act in different ways however events can bring about rapid and crazy changes so in that respect all bets are off.
There are two primary reasons this scenario doesn't worry me much. The first is that privately owned firearms are so numerous and more importantly so widespread in America. It is difficult for Europeans or folks from a couple of large anti freedom cities to fathom just how many guns are out there in the hands of normal people. A hunting rifle with the 3 full 20 round boxes of ammo in the gun cabinet and the 4 random partial boxes spread all over or even a pistol in a nightstand with a single box of bullets are enough to cause real problems.
Even if the second ammendment was totally thrown out or ignored (as well as the rest of the Constitution) it simply would not be possible to confiscate anywhere near enough guns to make a difference. It is pretty obvious to me that well armed people are very difficult to forcibly starve into submission. Shooting would start long before that. I cannot say exactly how it would end but this alone would likely rule out such an outcome here, at least on a big scale.
The next issue is America's ratio of government security forces to citizens. Even if you count all military personnel, federal, state and local law enforcement as well as IRS agents, meter maids and dog catchers (and it would probably be unlikely that they would ALL choose to get involved, but lets just go with it as a worst case scenario) in America the numbers don't work. The ratio of citizens to what could (again a gross oversimplification) be called security personnel just doesn't add up. One of the reasons communist and other totalitarian governments have economic issues is that the ratio of security personnel to citizens is really high. It is really high because people don't like that kind of government. There are also significant budgeting and structural problems because such a high percentage of GDP and the state's budget goes to security. The ratio of people who would be trying to (violently or not) circumvent and bypass any such system to those trying to enforce it would lead to a lot of circumvention.
Food prices are an interesting thing. If you were going to try and specifically design an event to cause massive unrest it would be hard to beat food prices swinging to be either painful or out of the hands of the lower class. Short of a bunch of NeoNazis and the New Black Panthers both deciding to go to the same Waffle house at 2am after a night of hard partying I can't think of a better way to make some crazy stuff go down. While civil unrest is different than an insurgency or revolution one often proceeds the other. This sort of civil unrest has lead to more than one regime change. As I learned from this recent article it isn't so much long term gradual changes like inflation that cause these problems but short term volatile swings. I am not entirely sure why this is. It could be that people have more time to adapt to long term structural changes while someone in true 3rd world poverty can't pay 30, 40 or 50% more for food, even for awhile.
What does this mean for Americans? Well it is a good reminder to use alpha strategy type techniques to use money now to buy goods that will be more expensive later. That sort of strategy also lets you take advantage of good sales. If you have to buy, just for example, a can of baked beans for dinner tomorrow you're stuck paying full price. However if you have a dozen cans of baked beans (or 5 dozen) you can wait until there is a sale in a month and buy 6 cans on sale. Saving .30 cents a can on baked beans isn't a big deal in and of itself but if you do that with a significant percentage of foods you regularly (try for all shelf stable and frozen stuff) eat it will add up to real money.
The more I think about it the harder time I have with Americans who "can't afford food". Now don't get me wrong there are a few Americans with absolutely no income who can not in fact afford to buy anything to include food. However if you really look at the majority of Americans in that boat it is not in fact their situation. According to some reputable seeming website 80% of the worlds citizens live on less than $10 a day. I looked with as much percistence as it was worth to figure out the percentage of their income these folks spend on food and didn't find it. However it is accurate to say it is a pretty high percentage. I want to say more than 50%.
My observation about the Americans who say they cannot afford food is that while their budgeting priorities are fairly sound (unlike say rent food is a flexible part of your overall budget in that if you are flush it can be steak, shrimp and the best of everything; if things are tight it can be pancakes, rice and beans) their actual priorities are completely skewed. The thing is that while to a certain point your food budget can be flexible it is pretty darn important. In reality your actual priorities in order of importance are food, fuel/ energy, housing, insurance and then all that other stuff. While admittedly painting with a broad stroke Americans who are in this situation typically are spending their money on stupid stuff instead of buying food. I would personally like to open face slap everyone who smokes or drinks alcohol and then says they can't afford food. For heavens sake get your priorities strait. I like to have a drink as much as the next man, unless that man is Mel Gibson, but long before I couldn't feed my family I would be off the sauce.
I just don't see Americans who are one of the richest people on earth getting priced out of the food market at least in significant numbers. Even if the dollar and our standard of living drop significantly most Americans will be fine. According to something I read Americans spend a bit less than 10% of their income on food which is, if you look at world figures, rediculously low. If prices went up most Americans would cut something else out (entertainment, booze, whatever) or practice product substitution which is a fancy economist way to say buying cheaper stuff because the stuff you used to use got more expensive. It would be rough on the very bottom rung of society but the vast majority of Americans would still go to bed with full stomach's. My household spends 7% of our income on food including formula which is 1/4 of that. We could easily cut that by 1/4 if we didn't buy soda, the couple premade convenience foods we get as a luxury, and ate less meat. At subsistence levels with little meat or dairy we could probably spend 4% of our income on food including formula for Walker. We would eat a lot of oatmeal, pancakes, eggs, rice and beans but with some veggies and a little bit of meat now and then and a multi vitamin every day it would be fine for a long time.
So what food vulnerabilities do I see that should concern Americans? As I have said I am not worried about food being used as a weapon or getting priced out of the market. However the incredibly long supply chain between food producers and the end user coupled with JIT inventories is a pretty vulnerable system. A power outage here or a terrorist attack there or some bad weather can mess things up in a hurry. It doesn't take a couple days of trucks not being able to make deliveries and nobody will be able to buy anything.
To me the biggest concern about food security is disasters. A bad winter storm, earthquake or hurricane means the normal food supply is going to be disrupted. As we saw in Hurricane Katrina there is a very real possibility that a major regional disaster will put you on your own for weeks (I think 6 is an accurate number). The 72 hour kit that used to be suggested doesn't cut it. You need to be able to feed your family for a few weeks in case of that sort of event. If you are worried about a flu pandemic think in terms of months not weeks. A black swan event like an EMP or a successful NBC terrorist attack could disrupt all sorts of systems and supply chains for at least a couple years.
The great thing is that like most basic preps food is useful in a lot of scenarios. Assuming you buy things you actually eat worst case you can just eat the stuff. Rotate it by eating it and save a bunch because you can wait for sales. So in conclusion I think you should stock up on food, if just for different reasons than others do.
Food as a weapon is a scary thing. It has been used by brutal governments to force a region or group of people into submission in the one of the most inhumane and brutal fashions. To me it is scary because it intentionally targets the civilian population in a widespread and determined way. The history of it probably goes back as long as their have been organized groups of people big enough to communicate and act cohesively at regional and national levels. The British starved the Irish, the Afrikaners, Kenyan's and almost surely some other groups I have forgotten.
The Soviet communists under Stalin starved the Ukranian peasants in the early 30's. The idea of giving up their land and relying on 'the collective' to support them didn't appeal to these peasants very much. The Soviet troops and police took all of their food and blocked the importation or delivery of food aid to the region. Needless to say bad times ensued. Garden Serf wrote about this more. There is a video here that you can watch if so inclined.
Like I said before this is scary stuff and I don't think anybody can watch it without being profoundly effected. It will likely remind you of why you hate communists and make you want to stock up on food and ammo. These are generally good feelings to have so I won't argue against them.
This is however on the balance not a scenario which worries me particularly. It is somewhere towards the bottom of my list of concerns. It is in the neighborhood of a full on genuine Bosnia or Africa style civil war and above war with Canada or anything involving aliens. Though it is true that Americans tend to have (even those evil liberals) a much higher value for human life than some that isn't really the reason. I honestly think Stalin and Mao (or maybe the Illuminati and Trilateral comission) had a running bet on who could kill more of their population. While different cultures (for a lot of reasons) do tend to act in different ways however events can bring about rapid and crazy changes so in that respect all bets are off.
There are two primary reasons this scenario doesn't worry me much. The first is that privately owned firearms are so numerous and more importantly so widespread in America. It is difficult for Europeans or folks from a couple of large anti freedom cities to fathom just how many guns are out there in the hands of normal people. A hunting rifle with the 3 full 20 round boxes of ammo in the gun cabinet and the 4 random partial boxes spread all over or even a pistol in a nightstand with a single box of bullets are enough to cause real problems.
Even if the second ammendment was totally thrown out or ignored (as well as the rest of the Constitution) it simply would not be possible to confiscate anywhere near enough guns to make a difference. It is pretty obvious to me that well armed people are very difficult to forcibly starve into submission. Shooting would start long before that. I cannot say exactly how it would end but this alone would likely rule out such an outcome here, at least on a big scale.
The next issue is America's ratio of government security forces to citizens. Even if you count all military personnel, federal, state and local law enforcement as well as IRS agents, meter maids and dog catchers (and it would probably be unlikely that they would ALL choose to get involved, but lets just go with it as a worst case scenario) in America the numbers don't work. The ratio of citizens to what could (again a gross oversimplification) be called security personnel just doesn't add up. One of the reasons communist and other totalitarian governments have economic issues is that the ratio of security personnel to citizens is really high. It is really high because people don't like that kind of government. There are also significant budgeting and structural problems because such a high percentage of GDP and the state's budget goes to security. The ratio of people who would be trying to (violently or not) circumvent and bypass any such system to those trying to enforce it would lead to a lot of circumvention.
Food prices are an interesting thing. If you were going to try and specifically design an event to cause massive unrest it would be hard to beat food prices swinging to be either painful or out of the hands of the lower class. Short of a bunch of NeoNazis and the New Black Panthers both deciding to go to the same Waffle house at 2am after a night of hard partying I can't think of a better way to make some crazy stuff go down. While civil unrest is different than an insurgency or revolution one often proceeds the other. This sort of civil unrest has lead to more than one regime change. As I learned from this recent article it isn't so much long term gradual changes like inflation that cause these problems but short term volatile swings. I am not entirely sure why this is. It could be that people have more time to adapt to long term structural changes while someone in true 3rd world poverty can't pay 30, 40 or 50% more for food, even for awhile.
What does this mean for Americans? Well it is a good reminder to use alpha strategy type techniques to use money now to buy goods that will be more expensive later. That sort of strategy also lets you take advantage of good sales. If you have to buy, just for example, a can of baked beans for dinner tomorrow you're stuck paying full price. However if you have a dozen cans of baked beans (or 5 dozen) you can wait until there is a sale in a month and buy 6 cans on sale. Saving .30 cents a can on baked beans isn't a big deal in and of itself but if you do that with a significant percentage of foods you regularly (try for all shelf stable and frozen stuff) eat it will add up to real money.
The more I think about it the harder time I have with Americans who "can't afford food". Now don't get me wrong there are a few Americans with absolutely no income who can not in fact afford to buy anything to include food. However if you really look at the majority of Americans in that boat it is not in fact their situation. According to some reputable seeming website 80% of the worlds citizens live on less than $10 a day. I looked with as much percistence as it was worth to figure out the percentage of their income these folks spend on food and didn't find it. However it is accurate to say it is a pretty high percentage. I want to say more than 50%.
My observation about the Americans who say they cannot afford food is that while their budgeting priorities are fairly sound (unlike say rent food is a flexible part of your overall budget in that if you are flush it can be steak, shrimp and the best of everything; if things are tight it can be pancakes, rice and beans) their actual priorities are completely skewed. The thing is that while to a certain point your food budget can be flexible it is pretty darn important. In reality your actual priorities in order of importance are food, fuel/ energy, housing, insurance and then all that other stuff. While admittedly painting with a broad stroke Americans who are in this situation typically are spending their money on stupid stuff instead of buying food. I would personally like to open face slap everyone who smokes or drinks alcohol and then says they can't afford food. For heavens sake get your priorities strait. I like to have a drink as much as the next man, unless that man is Mel Gibson, but long before I couldn't feed my family I would be off the sauce.
I just don't see Americans who are one of the richest people on earth getting priced out of the food market at least in significant numbers. Even if the dollar and our standard of living drop significantly most Americans will be fine. According to something I read Americans spend a bit less than 10% of their income on food which is, if you look at world figures, rediculously low. If prices went up most Americans would cut something else out (entertainment, booze, whatever) or practice product substitution which is a fancy economist way to say buying cheaper stuff because the stuff you used to use got more expensive. It would be rough on the very bottom rung of society but the vast majority of Americans would still go to bed with full stomach's. My household spends 7% of our income on food including formula which is 1/4 of that. We could easily cut that by 1/4 if we didn't buy soda, the couple premade convenience foods we get as a luxury, and ate less meat. At subsistence levels with little meat or dairy we could probably spend 4% of our income on food including formula for Walker. We would eat a lot of oatmeal, pancakes, eggs, rice and beans but with some veggies and a little bit of meat now and then and a multi vitamin every day it would be fine for a long time.
So what food vulnerabilities do I see that should concern Americans? As I have said I am not worried about food being used as a weapon or getting priced out of the market. However the incredibly long supply chain between food producers and the end user coupled with JIT inventories is a pretty vulnerable system. A power outage here or a terrorist attack there or some bad weather can mess things up in a hurry. It doesn't take a couple days of trucks not being able to make deliveries and nobody will be able to buy anything.
To me the biggest concern about food security is disasters. A bad winter storm, earthquake or hurricane means the normal food supply is going to be disrupted. As we saw in Hurricane Katrina there is a very real possibility that a major regional disaster will put you on your own for weeks (I think 6 is an accurate number). The 72 hour kit that used to be suggested doesn't cut it. You need to be able to feed your family for a few weeks in case of that sort of event. If you are worried about a flu pandemic think in terms of months not weeks. A black swan event like an EMP or a successful NBC terrorist attack could disrupt all sorts of systems and supply chains for at least a couple years.
The great thing is that like most basic preps food is useful in a lot of scenarios. Assuming you buy things you actually eat worst case you can just eat the stuff. Rotate it by eating it and save a bunch because you can wait for sales. So in conclusion I think you should stock up on food, if just for different reasons than others do.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Blog Changes Time Now
Hey All. As you know I am going to be deploying to Afghanistan. There are going to be some changes here. Effective immediately posting is going to be cut back to 3 times a week. It will be a regular schedule, probably Tues, Thurs and Sat. I am doing this because we have a lot going on now, I will likely be busy for the foreseeable future and there will be some black out periods for me. Posting less frequently on here will let us save posts for the busy/ black out times. Also since I won't be reading blogs a lot of my inspiration for posts will be gone. I think it will be better for readers to have some regularity versus feast and famine.
Once I get settled into a regular battle rhythm in Afghanistan we may revisit this schedule. Then again maybe I will try to improve my quality to quantity ratio a bit. Also you will not see me in the comments section so much. I will answer emails as quickly as possible in the order they are received.
Anyway I hope this doesn't bother you all too much. However part of me having a family, being in the military, and just having a real job in general is that the blog is not anywhere close to #1 for me. It's not that I don't like you all bunches and bunches, just that other stuff is going on.
Once I get settled into a regular battle rhythm in Afghanistan we may revisit this schedule. Then again maybe I will try to improve my quality to quantity ratio a bit. Also you will not see me in the comments section so much. I will answer emails as quickly as possible in the order they are received.
Anyway I hope this doesn't bother you all too much. However part of me having a family, being in the military, and just having a real job in general is that the blog is not anywhere close to #1 for me. It's not that I don't like you all bunches and bunches, just that other stuff is going on.
AK's For The Ladies
Dear TOR, I know you have a lot on your plate right now, but I'd appreciate it if you could do a blog sometime about the different AK-47s. I saw a MIL channel story about Mr. K and how the AK-47 (and later AK-74) came about. I've also read a lot about its functionality, low maintenance, etc., but I've never seen anyone comment on the differences between countries of manufacture. Are Chinese AKs better than Romanian? What about Ukranian? Others? Are Russian-made the best - and if so, where can you get one? Are the differences significant to anyone other than an African warlord?
What features are most useful? What kind of gear have you put on yours? Do you like the larger 7.+ ammo or the 5.+ better? Why?Would you recommend an AK for a small woman (like me), vs an AR-15? What are the differences in the way they handle, reload, etc.? Does it matter? I have an AR (Bushmaster) and would like an AK, "just because," but I don't really "need" one. Should I just stick with the AR? That way I won't have to stockpile a different calibre of ammo.
Comments? Recommendations? Thnx.
Saddle Tramp
TOR here: I will try my best to answer all these questions. As for the difference in AK's from different countries. AK's are sort of like anything else made by dozens of countries over many decades in factories too numerous to count, let alone mention. While the design is pretty standard they vary in all sorts of ways. Think of it like eggs benedict. If you go to a hundred places and order eggs benedict and it will never be quite the same. Some are great, most are good or at least OK and a few are just bad. Certainly they are all different.
Making AK's in the good old USA even more complicated you aren't getting an AK from a given period, made in a certain factory in a given country. You are getting an AK with all those variables that was potentially stored for decades, sold off in a huge lot, taken apart and shipped across the world to be reassembled with some new parts.
So are Chinese AK's (they are called MAK-90's) better than Romanian AK's? I would say yes. The Norico MAK-90 is a darn good gun. My uncle had one a decade ago and it was a great rifle. I've heard there were some QA/QC issues with them but that is fair to say about most all AK importers. The Romanian AK's are (to be brief, I will revisit it later) not at all bad guns though their fit and finish could be said to leave something to be desired. If I was in the market for an AK and saw a gently used MAK-90 and a gently used WASR-10 or SAR-1 for the same price I would get the MAK-90.
As for the various Eastern European AK's on the market. I am disinclined to try and rank order the AK producing countries and then break it further down by commerical models. You ask "Are the differences significant to anyone other than an African warlord?". That is not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is "are the differences significant to anyone other than a fanboy in some forum or a collector?" The answer is probably not. Assuming the individual weapon is reliable a scenario where a higher dollar AK will keep you alive but a WASR-10 won't doesn't exist. Fit and finish varies but that is really just superficial. If you have the extra cash to get nicer fit and finish and it is important to you then go for it. Think of it like a Colt revolver versus a Ruger or a Taurus. Both are totally functional weapons, while the Colt has a lot better fit and finish you do pay for.
For features I would say you need a good sling, a bunch of mags, plenty of ammo and something to carry your mags. If you feel like getting fancy a red dot/ reflex sight and a tac light are always nice for close up work. I haven't gotten fancy with mine yet. Just a rifle with a sling, mags, ammo and assorted web gear.
As for the AK 47 in 7.62x39 or the AK74 in 5.45x whatever. Personally I own and like the AK47 in 7.62x39. No real deep reasoning behind it. It is a very nice round inside the ranges where civilian combat could happen, most military conflicts happen and the AK can actually hit stuff at. Also 5.45 is almost identical to 5.56 which I already had lying around. I am not going to say 5.45 AK's are bad. In the real gun owning and shooting America 7.62x39 AK's are all over the place. Also milsurp and cheap import 7.62x39 ammo is available. Commercial 7.62x39 ammo exists though the market is small because it is impossible to outprice Wolf and Tulla. For my AK47 if ammo imports stopped tomorrow I could get Walmart white box or a variety of other makes it would just cost average centerfire rifle prices. Deep stocking would be expensive but shooting a few hundred rounds a year to keep familiar would be doable.
In 5.45 ammo is stupidly cheap which is nice because it is frickin impossible to buy it anywhere except mail/ internet order. While I haven't exactly been looking for it I can't recall seeing milsurp or commerical 5.45 ammo in a single brick and mortar store. I am not saying you shouldn't get an AK74 though if you do get one order CASES of ammo. In general I am quite content with 3k rounds of ammo for a defensive rifle. If I was an AK74 owner it would be at least double that. They haven't caught on enough to justify (as far as I can tell) any real commerical offerings of ammo If the milsurp supply was cut off, by say executive order that would mean they wouldn't catch on more and thus ammo would not likely become commercially available.
AK's are probably better for a smaller person than an AR because their length of pull is shorter. They are designed to consider 'nutritionally challenged' conscripts and central Asian troops of compact stature. AK's aren't much heavier than AR's so that is a wash. Handling of AK's is simpler than AR's because they require less manipulation if just because the only controls are the safety, bolt and trigger. Mag changes are different than an AR because they are 'rock in' mags. Just like a Mini-14 or an M1A. Not a big deal, just something to get used to. The AK recoils noticably more than the AR but well so does everything else. The AK has a very comparable cartridge to the 30-30 Winchester and weigh's almost 50% more than a Winchester 94 which I don't think anybody considers a bruiser. If need be then get a recoil pad but familiarity and training is the real issue.
If you want an AK and can afford to properly equip one (to include mags and ammo) without skimping somewhere important then get it. An utterly reliable rifle that can take a beating and is cheap to practice with has a place in every collection. Most folks who get past all the hype and actually start using AK's like them. Worst case you can probably sell it for very close to what you paid.
What features are most useful? What kind of gear have you put on yours? Do you like the larger 7.+ ammo or the 5.+ better? Why?Would you recommend an AK for a small woman (like me), vs an AR-15? What are the differences in the way they handle, reload, etc.? Does it matter? I have an AR (Bushmaster) and would like an AK, "just because," but I don't really "need" one. Should I just stick with the AR? That way I won't have to stockpile a different calibre of ammo.
Comments? Recommendations? Thnx.
Saddle Tramp
TOR here: I will try my best to answer all these questions. As for the difference in AK's from different countries. AK's are sort of like anything else made by dozens of countries over many decades in factories too numerous to count, let alone mention. While the design is pretty standard they vary in all sorts of ways. Think of it like eggs benedict. If you go to a hundred places and order eggs benedict and it will never be quite the same. Some are great, most are good or at least OK and a few are just bad. Certainly they are all different.
Making AK's in the good old USA even more complicated you aren't getting an AK from a given period, made in a certain factory in a given country. You are getting an AK with all those variables that was potentially stored for decades, sold off in a huge lot, taken apart and shipped across the world to be reassembled with some new parts.
So are Chinese AK's (they are called MAK-90's) better than Romanian AK's? I would say yes. The Norico MAK-90 is a darn good gun. My uncle had one a decade ago and it was a great rifle. I've heard there were some QA/QC issues with them but that is fair to say about most all AK importers. The Romanian AK's are (to be brief, I will revisit it later) not at all bad guns though their fit and finish could be said to leave something to be desired. If I was in the market for an AK and saw a gently used MAK-90 and a gently used WASR-10 or SAR-1 for the same price I would get the MAK-90.
As for the various Eastern European AK's on the market. I am disinclined to try and rank order the AK producing countries and then break it further down by commerical models. You ask "Are the differences significant to anyone other than an African warlord?". That is not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is "are the differences significant to anyone other than a fanboy in some forum or a collector?" The answer is probably not. Assuming the individual weapon is reliable a scenario where a higher dollar AK will keep you alive but a WASR-10 won't doesn't exist. Fit and finish varies but that is really just superficial. If you have the extra cash to get nicer fit and finish and it is important to you then go for it. Think of it like a Colt revolver versus a Ruger or a Taurus. Both are totally functional weapons, while the Colt has a lot better fit and finish you do pay for.
For features I would say you need a good sling, a bunch of mags, plenty of ammo and something to carry your mags. If you feel like getting fancy a red dot/ reflex sight and a tac light are always nice for close up work. I haven't gotten fancy with mine yet. Just a rifle with a sling, mags, ammo and assorted web gear.
As for the AK 47 in 7.62x39 or the AK74 in 5.45x whatever. Personally I own and like the AK47 in 7.62x39. No real deep reasoning behind it. It is a very nice round inside the ranges where civilian combat could happen, most military conflicts happen and the AK can actually hit stuff at. Also 5.45 is almost identical to 5.56 which I already had lying around. I am not going to say 5.45 AK's are bad. In the real gun owning and shooting America 7.62x39 AK's are all over the place. Also milsurp and cheap import 7.62x39 ammo is available. Commercial 7.62x39 ammo exists though the market is small because it is impossible to outprice Wolf and Tulla. For my AK47 if ammo imports stopped tomorrow I could get Walmart white box or a variety of other makes it would just cost average centerfire rifle prices. Deep stocking would be expensive but shooting a few hundred rounds a year to keep familiar would be doable.
In 5.45 ammo is stupidly cheap which is nice because it is frickin impossible to buy it anywhere except mail/ internet order. While I haven't exactly been looking for it I can't recall seeing milsurp or commerical 5.45 ammo in a single brick and mortar store. I am not saying you shouldn't get an AK74 though if you do get one order CASES of ammo. In general I am quite content with 3k rounds of ammo for a defensive rifle. If I was an AK74 owner it would be at least double that. They haven't caught on enough to justify (as far as I can tell) any real commerical offerings of ammo If the milsurp supply was cut off, by say executive order that would mean they wouldn't catch on more and thus ammo would not likely become commercially available.
AK's are probably better for a smaller person than an AR because their length of pull is shorter. They are designed to consider 'nutritionally challenged' conscripts and central Asian troops of compact stature. AK's aren't much heavier than AR's so that is a wash. Handling of AK's is simpler than AR's because they require less manipulation if just because the only controls are the safety, bolt and trigger. Mag changes are different than an AR because they are 'rock in' mags. Just like a Mini-14 or an M1A. Not a big deal, just something to get used to. The AK recoils noticably more than the AR but well so does everything else. The AK has a very comparable cartridge to the 30-30 Winchester and weigh's almost 50% more than a Winchester 94 which I don't think anybody considers a bruiser. If need be then get a recoil pad but familiarity and training is the real issue.
If you want an AK and can afford to properly equip one (to include mags and ammo) without skimping somewhere important then get it. An utterly reliable rifle that can take a beating and is cheap to practice with has a place in every collection. Most folks who get past all the hype and actually start using AK's like them. Worst case you can probably sell it for very close to what you paid.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Interesting TV Series: Human Target
I stumbled onto the TV show Human Target. Saw an episode and liked it. I took a chance and picked up season one on DVD for a reasonable price. It is pretty entertaining. Enough violence to be entertaining but still not totally unrealistic. Interesting enough plotline to stand on its own merits but not so complicated you really have to pay attention. Also it wraps up nicely at the end of each episode.
You might enjoy it also.
You might enjoy it also.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Quote of the Day
"it ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and keep moving forward."
-Rocky Balboa
Interestingly this was my quote of the day in late July. I stumbled onto it today while looking for something else. Made me think a lot about a lot of things that are going on and coming up.
-Rocky Balboa
Interestingly this was my quote of the day in late July. I stumbled onto it today while looking for something else. Made me think a lot about a lot of things that are going on and coming up.
Failure To Adapt
A few people in our loose social grouping have had some real financial issues recently. Serious problems that, if not handled or mitigated quickly will completely destroy them financially. I have noticed some commonalities.
1. Failure to adapt. Some of these folks faced (by choice or circumstance) a truly economic life altering event. They failed to really look at and truly recognize how much their situations had changed and that it was not just a bad month or whatever. Really this is more about being honest with theirself than anything. They probably know but are not willing to accept their change in circumstances.
2. Debt. This goes along with the first one. The thing is that since debt is a promise of future earnings if your circumstances and earnings change it is a real problem. When a high percentage of your potential income goes to debt your ability to adapt is very minimal. You have to have the cash to make the payments or stuff starts going wrong in a hurry. On the other side if one earns a good living and has no debt then something happens, all they have to do is earn enough money for food, fuel, maybe property taxes, etc. That is a lot easier than food, fuel, property taxes, mortgage, car loans, credit card payments, etc.
3. They failed to consider probably situations that would occur for them. Two of them got caught in a steriotypical pitfall that they definitely should have seen coming.
1. Failure to adapt. Some of these folks faced (by choice or circumstance) a truly economic life altering event. They failed to really look at and truly recognize how much their situations had changed and that it was not just a bad month or whatever. Really this is more about being honest with theirself than anything. They probably know but are not willing to accept their change in circumstances.
2. Debt. This goes along with the first one. The thing is that since debt is a promise of future earnings if your circumstances and earnings change it is a real problem. When a high percentage of your potential income goes to debt your ability to adapt is very minimal. You have to have the cash to make the payments or stuff starts going wrong in a hurry. On the other side if one earns a good living and has no debt then something happens, all they have to do is earn enough money for food, fuel, maybe property taxes, etc. That is a lot easier than food, fuel, property taxes, mortgage, car loans, credit card payments, etc.
3. They failed to consider probably situations that would occur for them. Two of them got caught in a steriotypical pitfall that they definitely should have seen coming.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Dave, I've been listening to you for years but I don't do exactly what you say. Even though I really like the overall theme of your stuff I just look at things a little different. I like the idea of baby step 1 but prefer to do it in mixed bills and keep it at home in case of a power outage or some sort of natural disaster. Personally I prioritized having a legit emergency fund over paying off all debt except the house. Mainly this is because the interest rate on my debt was low. It depends on individual circumstances and of course credit card debt at 25% is a lot more pressing than a student loan at 5% or a car loan at 6%. The reason I did this is because if something happens like a job loss, car breakdown, emergency trip to see family or whatnot I need cash on hand, my debt doesn't matter. If I have to miss a payment I can but a slightly lower balance won't keep a roof over my head, buy food or fuel. Maybe paying off credit cards and such high rate debts then getting a legit emergency fund and revisiting any debt except the house is more my style.
I also put 10% away for long term savings the whole time. It is my opinion that some future time is always more convenient to start saving for retirement. After you do this and that and get a raise you will be able to save. Again this might not make sense if you are paying 25% interest to visa.
After step 3 I find nothing to disagree with.
My opinions are just that, my opinions. I am not suggesting anyone else do the same just because it's what we chose. I truly did drink the Dave Ramsey coolaid. I love the spirit of the whole thing and it's empowering message to take control of your finances. However just like ordering dinner in a restaurant I made a substitution and didn't get pickles or mayo.
I also put 10% away for long term savings the whole time. It is my opinion that some future time is always more convenient to start saving for retirement. After you do this and that and get a raise you will be able to save. Again this might not make sense if you are paying 25% interest to visa.
After step 3 I find nothing to disagree with.
My opinions are just that, my opinions. I am not suggesting anyone else do the same just because it's what we chose. I truly did drink the Dave Ramsey coolaid. I love the spirit of the whole thing and it's empowering message to take control of your finances. However just like ordering dinner in a restaurant I made a substitution and didn't get pickles or mayo.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
New Years Resolutions: January Update
I've decided that instead of just randomly reviewing my progress and changes in goals I will do it monthly. Accomplished goals will be lined through and changes/ additions and commentary will be in italics.
People:
1.Maximize family time. I think spending at least a hour of good undivided family time a day is doable on all but the longest work days. More on weekends. This one is coming along pretty well.
2. Take better care of myself. I need to work on getting at least 6 hours of sleep even when I get off work late. Also I need to eat more regularly (I have started to get busy and just not eat) and like most people could also consume more green stuff. Find a suplimentary (to regular PT) exercise program that I can really stick with. I got busy and this goal sort of ebbed/ flowed and then just slipped away over the past year. I'm not in bad shape but could definitely be in better shape.
3. Better prioritize tasks and be more efficient.
Money:
4. Become debt free- Should be done in by the end of March
5. Fully fund ROTH IRA's for Wifey and I.
5.1 Learn about how to analyze and value individual stocks.
6. Add at least $500 (ideally $1,000) to our emergency fund.
7. Buy some silver. It is somewhat flexible but am leaning toward 90% coinage. I hesitate to say an exact amount because as I noted last year price swings change those goals from being realistic to unattainable.
8. Start funding Walkers college education.
Of course we will also continue to not make stupid choices.
Skills and Education
9. Study insurgent/ guerilla/ partisan tactics. This has the added benefit of being 'red hat' stuff for work.
10. Get better at first aid/ trauma stuff. May get moving on this next week.
11. Shave with a straight razor. Sharpen it also. (implied task, get a straight razor)
12. Work on making antennas for world band radio’s and tuning into a variety of stations around the world.
13. Get better at using Excell. Particularly writing formulas to get the most out of what the program is capable of. This will help me with work, blog stuff, preps and life.
14. Learn more about IED construction, emplacement and use.
15. Read a couple of significant books. I wouldn't say classic but but old, noteable type stuff. In particular Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is on my list. Also read the entire Bible.
Alternates- Skills are an area where things seem more prone to changing due to factors beyond my control. I decided to come up with a few alternatives against that scenario.
Get better at making flat bread
Learn some HTLM
Get better with Powerpoint
Things:
Family/ Life:
16. Probably going to purchase another vehicle. A fairly low mile mid sized SUV with a decent sized 6 cylinder engine (3.5Lish or above) and 4WD. It goes without saying that we will pay cash.
Prep Stuff:
I did a couple of things differently here. I broke stuff down by category. Also if you notice there are numbers after the goals. Those numbers are a tenative plan on what order I will acquire this stuff.
Force Protection Stuff-
17. 1x bullet proof vest. Probably class II or IIIA concealable type-2
18. 3x gas masks-9
Firearm Stuff-
19.Folding stock for my AK and a US palm grip-1
20. 500 rounds of .38 special-5.1
21. 500 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot-5.3
22. 1 case 7.62x39 hollow points-5.2
23. AK spare parts-11
24. Buy more mags. In particular a few more Glock happy sticks and a half dozen each for the AR and AK. I am not in a bad place but if I happen to have a couple extra C notes lying around in the late fall this is where they will go- 12 This one might just have to get bumped up in priority with all the shenannigans that have been going on recently.
Food and Water-
25. 4x Berkley black filters-3
26. 1x Katadyn replacement filter-7
27. Nice solar oven-4
Energy and communication-
28. Bigger and better solar trickle charger (folding mat type)-10
29. Compact world band radio-6
Random
30. Get 2 spare Cold Steel folding knives (my EDC) and a leatherman for a rainy day-8. I actually got a Gerber at no cost from work which lets me make a leatherman I already have my primary backup multi tool.
I would have accomplished a couple other goals by now but with me deploying and Wifey going home we have so much happening that I am holding off on doing much of anything. For the immediate future I am just going to keep my life simple and hold cash. At some point when we both get settled that may change. Due to this not much will happen in terms of stuff for awhile.
People:
1.
2. Take better care of myself. I need to work on getting at least 6 hours of sleep even when I get off work late. Also I need to eat more regularly (I have started to get busy and just not eat) and like most people could also consume more green stuff. Find a suplimentary (to regular PT) exercise program that I can really stick with. I got busy and this goal sort of ebbed/ flowed and then just slipped away over the past year. I'm not in bad shape but could definitely be in better shape.
3. Better prioritize tasks and be more efficient.
Money:
4. Become debt free- Should be done in by the end of March
5. Fully fund ROTH IRA's for Wifey and I.
5.1 Learn about how to analyze and value individual stocks.
6. Add at least $500 (ideally $1,000) to our emergency fund.
7. Buy some silver. It is somewhat flexible but am leaning toward 90% coinage. I hesitate to say an exact amount because as I noted last year price swings change those goals from being realistic to unattainable.
8. Start funding Walkers college education.
Of course we will also continue to not make stupid choices.
Skills and Education
9. Study insurgent/ guerilla/ partisan tactics. This has the added benefit of being 'red hat' stuff for work.
10. Get better at first aid/ trauma stuff. May get moving on this next week.
11. Shave with a straight razor. Sharpen it also. (implied task, get a straight razor)
12. Work on making antennas for world band radio’s and tuning into a variety of stations around the world.
13. Get better at using Excell. Particularly writing formulas to get the most out of what the program is capable of. This will help me with work, blog stuff, preps and life.
14. Learn more about IED construction, emplacement and use.
15. Read a couple of significant books. I wouldn't say classic but but old, noteable type stuff. In particular Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is on my list. Also read the entire Bible.
Alternates- Skills are an area where things seem more prone to changing due to factors beyond my control. I decided to come up with a few alternatives against that scenario.
Get better at making flat bread
Learn some HTLM
Get better with Powerpoint
Things:
Family/ Life:
16. Probably going to purchase another vehicle. A fairly low mile mid sized SUV with a decent sized 6 cylinder engine (3.5Lish or above) and 4WD. It goes without saying that we will pay cash.
Prep Stuff:
I did a couple of things differently here. I broke stuff down by category. Also if you notice there are numbers after the goals. Those numbers are a tenative plan on what order I will acquire this stuff.
Force Protection Stuff-
17. 1x bullet proof vest. Probably class II or IIIA concealable type-2
18. 3x gas masks-9
Firearm Stuff-
19.
20. 500 rounds of .38 special-5.1
21. 500 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot-5.3
22. 1 case 7.62x39 hollow points-5.2
23. AK spare parts-11
24. Buy more mags. In particular a few more Glock happy sticks and a half dozen each for the AR and AK. I am not in a bad place but if I happen to have a couple extra C notes lying around in the late fall this is where they will go- 12 This one might just have to get bumped up in priority with all the shenannigans that have been going on recently.
Food and Water-
25. 4x Berkley black filters-3
26. 1x Katadyn replacement filter-7
27. Nice solar oven-4
Energy and communication-
28. Bigger and better solar trickle charger (folding mat type)-10
29. Compact world band radio-6
Random
30. Get 2 spare Cold Steel folding knives (my EDC) and a leatherman for a rainy day-8. I actually got a Gerber at no cost from work which lets me make a leatherman I already have my primary backup multi tool.
I would have accomplished a couple other goals by now but with me deploying and Wifey going home we have so much happening that I am holding off on doing much of anything. For the immediate future I am just going to keep my life simple and hold cash. At some point when we both get settled that may change. Due to this not much will happen in terms of stuff for awhile.
We Would Like To Welcome Our Newest Advertiser-PrepareWise
PrepareWise is starting off with a giveaway contest featuring freeze dried food storage and other survival gear. The contest will run February 1st- February 18th with prizes given out each week during the contest and ending with the grand prize giveaway on the 18th, it is worth $1300!! Become our fan on Facebook and be automatically entered into the drawings. For rules and more information visit our freeze dried food storage blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_4.gif)
Posts
