Categories
Categories
Huh A Hollywood 1911 !
The orthopedic Surgeons out there must love these for their job security that they provide! Grumpy
Categories
Two quarters Huh!
Anybody out there have a clue about this really strange looking piece? Thanks Grumpy
There’s a couple of issues where I might run into opposition among the readership and that’s all right, we can disagree and one might even enlighten the other. No harm, no foul.
First of all: data centers. I’ve already registered my complaints against them, not theoretical, political complaints, but issues that directly affect myself and my property.
So I question the need for the vast amount of the data centers being built and the incredible amount of debt being racked up to get them into place before the public has a say in their construction.
As a capitalist, it’s hard to deny that corporations that buy land have a right to build on that land whatever they want. However, a corporation should not be able to buy a parcel of land straddling a river and block the river with a damn to generate electricity, if it floods land they don’t own.
In a typical situation the corporation could do whatever it wanted and the people could explore their options once they found their property or rights being damaged. This is the same argument for the second topic: Flock cameras and government operated cameras of all sorts.
In a privately owned store, a person has a right to install security cameras to provide evidence of a crime committed against it. The hard drive of which would probably be purged to make room for more recent recordings, so that there is no ability of the government to subpoena months and months of footage, but could use that recent footage to provide evidence of a crime committed within the establishment.
The problem arises when these cameras rely on the cloud to store the footage. This is where Flock cameras and their ilk run afoul of the 4th Amendment rights of those who are not suspected of crimes, but simply moving throughout the area.
Cameras connected to WiFi or use cloud storage (data centers) are eminently hackable. In fact, one source claimed that while the police departments were accessing the Flock cameras (sometimes illegally), others of a non-law enforcement nature were too. This provides other security services, like private investigators, the ability to gather information to be used in a divorce proceeding.
Maybe, it would allow for groups to monitor and target individuals. How advantageous would that be to someone planning a terrorist attack or assassination?
The cumbersome nature of having to follow someone around to gather information in a divorce proceeding, or to plan a terrorist attack exposes those doing the surveillance and prohibits these activities to a rarified few. The expansiveness of it, the ease with which it can be obtained is the danger.
Once a camera is available to the cloud, it is no longer a security camera, but a surveillance camera and that’s where I find fault with both the Flock camera and the data centers available to house that data. The question to me still comes back the amount of the data centers.
People say, “we’ve had data centers for decades. What’s the problem? You’re being manipulated by the CCP.” I was never a fan of those data centers either, because what need is there, but to store information gathered through internet connections, cell transmissions and other modes of expected private communication?
The connection between data centers and AI seems rather tenuous and a bit of a distraction designed to allow for the surveillance state while seeming to inspire economic activity and beneficial use.
The data centers represent, to me, the ability to store data surreptitiously accumulated through passive spying on all human communication. When there were only a few, the limited number defeated the ability to store enough to impinge on individual rights of privacy to a great degree.
Not completely, but it was at a much better ratio than when there are 5,000 data centers and more being built all the time. The admonition that it’s necessary to keep up with China falls a little flat when China has 385 data centers and the US has 3,600-5,000.
Localities and states are sold on the idea of high-paying jobs in construction and operation, increased tax revenue and an invigorated economy. From a government perspective, there’s no downside. The people have to pay more in electricity. So, what? The people have to pay higher property taxes due to the imagined “invigorated economy.” So, what?
These government entities claim that the tax revenue from the data centers will reduce or eliminate property taxes. I’ll believe that when I see it. What I do suspect is initially some of the increased tax revenue might be used to offset some property taxes, if just to reduce opposition, but surely that will be obliterated when the counties get used to that increased income and come looking for more.
When it comes to terrorist activity, I can’t imagine a more beneficial weapon against the West than it’s own technology. A terrorist cell able to track a specific individual or target by hacking the Flock cameras and others, while never leaving the mosque, exposing themselves to observation and suspicion, seems to be a gift.
I know I’ll lose this argument. Americans are too addicted to convenience to deny themselves the advantages of perpetual spying.
They already take their personal surveillance devices with them wherever they go. They see, especially in the entertainment industry, the advantages of AI as a cost-reduction practice, despite the fact that anything coming out of AI already stinks, looks and feels too easy to give it value by the consumer, who rightfully thinks to himself: “Why should I pay to watch something I could create myself for $25 and share with my friends?”
The concept of using AI in warfare is too compelling to deny it simply because there’s a downside. “There’s good and bad in everything.” Yes, but the surveillance state we’re building will not be constrained to the military or law enforcement. It can and will be used by political and terrorist organizations. It’s being used right now by individuals in law enforcement to track romantic interests, romantic rivals and social enemies and we shrug.
A local police officer was just fired for using the Flock system over 100 times to track a romantic interest. How often is it happening where there is no consequence, where no one is monitoring?
On the other hand, a person who had been destroying Flock cameras, several of them, was arrested and put before a grand jury and subsequently set free, because they would not indict him. If the majority are willing to allow this, those having a stake in the privacy of the individual have a right and a duty to prevent it. The state can make whatever law they want, but people can reject it and refuse to indict.
All of the usual methods of operating a republic are gone. The constitution is ignored; radical judges are frustrating the will of the people to have legitimate elections and to deport illegal aliens; a surveillance state is being erected using our own taxes; our resources are being devoured against our interests and no one in congress is listening to our pleas for sanity. This is a classic example of when the people have to fend for themselves and do what is right, not just what is legal.
WALNUT AND BLUED-STEEL
HOLDOVER FROM THE GOLDEN AGE
Winchester’s Model 75 Target (top) was similar in many respects to the company’s
Model 69A (bottom), which was introduced in 1937. Both delivered competition-class
accuracy for considerably less money than the flagship Model 52.
Few vintage .22s have the legendary reputation for tack-driving accuracy as Winchester’s Model 52. It was discontinued in 1979, but whether in Sporter or Target trim, it’s still a byword among connoisseurs of bolt-action rimfires. The only drawback, of course, has been its premium price.
The original 1919 sticker for the M52 Sporter was $88.50. That sounds like a whopping good deal until you stop to consider what it translates to in today’s dollars. (Hint: it’s a couple hundred bucks north of a grand).
Vintage Redfield aperture sights — front and rear — establishthe Model 75’s paper-punching credibility.
A Better Mousetrap
What was needed, according to the Winchester brain trust, was a relatively low-cost alternative to the storied M52, one that was lighter, yet accurate enough to allow for competition. So they developed the Model 75, which enjoyed a 20-year production span from 1938 to 1958.
To be sure, Winchester also had another “price” alternative to the Model 52 — the Model 69/69A (1935–1963). The M75’s action was similar, yet the bolt was designed with tighter tolerances and the stock was configured for prone shooting. But these were most certainly not the only bolt-action offerings Winchester rolled out over the years preceding World War II. It isn’t surprising when you consider how popular competitive smallbore rifle shooting was “back in the day.”
R.L. Wilson, in his Winchester, An American Legend, put it this way:
“A flurry of activity in the bolt-action .22 market saw a number of new models brought out by Winchester in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The Models 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 60A, 67, 68, 69, 677, 72 and 75 all preceded World War II … these rifles intended to claim their fair share of the increasingly competitive .22 bolt-action rimfire market.”
I’m old enough to remember when serious target “.22-ing” was every bit as popular as Cowboy Action or Metallic Silhouette in their respective heydays.
In those pre-Ruger 10/22 days — or make that Remington Nylon 66 days if you’re really old — I can recall shooting 50-foot smallbore targets from prone on a padded mat with some fairly hefty bolt actions when I was a kid. So I immediately had a twinge of nostalgia when hefting the 8.5-lb. Model 75 Target.
This particular specimen is owned by a shooting buddy, John Wightman. It features marvelous quarter-minute click-adjustable Redfield sights — specifically a Model 75 Micrometer rear and a M63 Globe front. These, I was to discover, required a bit of re-familiarization.
The Model 75 Target sports a 28″ barrel and an OAL of close to 45″. It was also offered at one time with the Lyman 77 front sight and 58E rear. Like its pricier stablemate, the Model 52, the Model 75 could also be had in a lighter, shorter barreled (24″) Sporter configuration.
John, like any sensible collector of vintage .22s, had scoured the market for spare magazines and had both the flush-fitting 5-shot and extended 10-shot models. These are expensive items, running around $70 per copy or more — although this isn’t out of line if you’re hunting spare magazines for classic Winchester rimfires.
And speaking of price, expect starting auction bids for replacement Lyman or Redfield vintage target sights be semi-stratospheric.
Lapua’s Dominator ammo (right) delivered the tightest groups at both 25 and 50 yards.
The Model 75 — long, hefty and “man-sized” — balances well for offhand shooting.
Range Time
We tried to mix up our test ammo menu between bulk pack bargain stuff, high-velocity 36-grain HPs, and standard velocity 40-grain match brands. The list included Aguila Rifle Match Competition and Super Extra HP, Lapua Dominator, Winchester Super-X Power Point, Sellier and Bellot Club and CCI Mini Mag HP.
At 25 yards virtually everything stayed under an inch for 5 shots, with the Lapua Dominator consistently clustering under a half-inch. We then subjected our aging eyes to the aperture sights at an optimistic (for us) full 50 yards with the Lapua and still beat the 1″ mark.
One thing should be mentioned in passing — the trigger was a fabulously crisp 2 lbs. It’s adjustable, but what we were working with was far removed from what were later referred to as “lawyer triggers.”
We were pretty satisfied with the results, seeing as how we’ve been spoiled with scope reticles for most of our adult lives. And those of us who’ve stuck with iron have generally used ghost-ring setups with far more generous apertures than the pinprick-sized hole on a serious target .22.
There’s a definite learning curve to shooting well by centering a 3″ bullseye in a circular aperture (front and rear) and “keeping the edges even” while breaking the shot.
One trick we did learn in coping with the micrometer sights: If your eyes are “well-aged,” a magnifying glass is a godsend in making adjustments and keeping track of those hashmarks. Once you’re locked down, those old sights are pretty much bombproof.
One other caveat — during extended shooting sessions, the occasional scrub with a brush is sometimes needed to prevent sticky chambering from waxy bullet lube buildup.
Winchester’s Model 75 is a wonderfully crafted walnut and blued-steel artifact from what could be described as an era of “full-size, target grade, receiver-sighted bolt-action .22s.”