Friday, January 07, 2011

Up Early/Observations

It's almost too early for coherent thought. Here, instead, some odds and ends:

- In my "Gun-Bashing" post, I failed to point out one of Tam's observations, which is that "1911" is a category of guns encompassing everything from the finest bespoke models to slag-guns stamped out and indifferently assembled in third-world countries while the usual "compared to" will be a single model of gun by a single company. It's not valid unless you're willing to specify which 1911. And while the amount of work and high-end parts one can put into a 1911 is often cited as a drawback, the reality is that there are few other families of guns* where that's even possible.

- A telephone conversation with "Shootin' Buddy" led to the notion of Attorney General paper dolls, complete with fancy uniform, corncob pipe and a list of guns to ban; and Prosecutor dolls for the AG to boss around (hint: that's not actually how it works), with accessories like crowbars and mixed drinks. Oh, the innocent fun! (And despite the custom by which the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court addresses both the U. S. AG and Solicitor General as "General," it's not a rank; the form of the title comes to us from long-defunct Law French: as the government's primary legal eagle, the AG acts with a general power of attorney for it. Period. --Now someone's gonna argue that a General, a "general officer," was originally an officer of such a high degree of training, knowledge and competence that he could be dropped in anywhere, but that notion ended not very long after Napoleon. If not earlier).

- The only thing worse than blindly reading from a TeleprompTer is trying to adlib from the scant few words visible on the device at any given time. Watching TV with the closed captions on, you are often (but not always) seeing two of the four or five lines the person on the screen sees and you can watch them go right over the cliff. I'm betting most don't review the script in advance. Line! Oh, dear.
* Interestingly enough, first among those few would be, yes, Glock; at one point, you could just about build a "Glock" that had no parts made by Glock in it -- and even use a metal frame!


Anonymous said...

Brain food, it's what is for breakfast, yum!


Tam said...

A general officer held a general command.

One would be a colonel of cavalry or an infantry major, but a general's command may encompass any combination of all types of units.

And that's the origin of that term. :)

Roberta X said...

I'm not sure when it first dawned on me that it was "General" as opposed to "specific" officering, but it kind of put the rank in a different light.

David H. said...

Hi Roberta,
I know it's your blog and all, but isn't it slightly disingenuous to post not once, but twice about our article(s) regarding the 1911, while bashing us for using it as a blatant traffic generator? To be honest, while the traffic was nice, as was getting some notice to our little corner of the blogging world, it was a much bigger traffic generator for a number of other sites.

Gunnutmegger wrote his thoughts down on the blatant fanboy worship, which despite being provactive, was not done for any other reason than his frustration.

In addition, my co-blogger Gunnutmegger wrote a follow-up with a great deal of research showing objective tests of 1911s going back to 1996. You may disagree, but is it really fair to dismiss the parts of the conversation which might contradict you?

Skip said...

Aww, is somebody a little butthurt.
Go sit in the truck and don't play with the buttons.

Roberta X said...

David H: "...isn't it slightly disingenuous to post not once, but twice about our article(s) regarding the 1911, while bashing us for using it as a blatant traffic generator?"

Huh? Did I link to you and not notice?

This isn't debate class. "Fair" is having your own stump to speak from.

Look, 1911-bashing posts are a perennial favorite; because I am a self-defense shooter and only a hobby collector of an obscure, inexpensive line of handguns, I don't follow firearm-specific postings (or even blogs) as closely as I might. When this sort of thing floats to the top in the blogosphere, I find out from my roommate talking about it, usually in general terms. And when I argue about guns, I'm arguing with her 99 times out of 100 -- and usually end up learning something

I would have to know your arguments (and your co-blogger's)in order to dismiss them, out of hand or otherwise. Did you use it as a traffic generator, or was the post an honest opinion? Mine was only my opinion -- and I don't ignore the fact that such posts do generate traffic.

I don't like Glocks. I don't like plastic guns generally. YMMV. Yes, the things are as reliable as a brick but IMO, they have the same ergonomics. A lot of shooters do not agree.

As for 1911s, I can only speak directly of the two I own, (an older Colt in .38SA and a "Sistema" 45 with C&S lockwork) which are dead reliable and shoot well in my hands; so far, they have not stuttered on any round I have fed 'em. What I carry every day is pretty much junk -- either a .380 DAO Colt Pony Pocketlite or a 9mm Star BM/BKM, the latter about as cheap a functioning handgun as you can buy -- and I have never claimed otherwise.

The only "expert" opinion I can render is that if you can shoot worth a tinker's dam, you can shoot any properly-functioning handgun and hit what you aim at (if you can't, you need more range time). Past a certain quality point, any properly-designed gun is more accurate and reliable than they person holding it. Put together, that means choice of sidearm depends mostly on subjective, practical factors: will you actually carry it? Can you afford to shoot it regularly and often? Do you like it?

perlhaqr said...

Yes, the things are as reliable as a brick but IMO, they have the same ergonomics.

Went outside and grabbed one, turns out my hands are big enough to properly wield an actual brick, too. :)

I want to like 1911s, but really reliable ones in my favored chambering (10mm) that hold a boat-load of ammo are way out of my price range. I don't think it'd be accurate to call the Glock models "cheap", but they're a good value, IMO.

But, dear god, to each his own. :) I'm delighted by the variety and abundance available to us, and wish only for an increase in that bounty.

Roberta X said...

PH: I cannot deny that an out-of-the-box Glock will work and work reliably, as well as any other Glock. I don't even want to. I find 'em inelegant, which is not really a major criteria. If I was only gonna own two guns, they'd likely be Glocks, Beretta 92s or some other very mainstream pistol model used by LEOs.

I have the luxury of being able to follow my aesthetic impluses on one hand, and of often needing very small carry guns on the other.