From this
to UGH this! Grumpy


Obviously, I liked the guns.
Perhaps my favorite, based purely on aesthetics, was the pepperbox revolver. If you’re unfamiliar with it, think of a Gatling gun in your hand and you’ve got a good idea of what it looked like, though the operation was very, very different.
The guns aren’t really a thing in this day and age, yet apparently, you can still get arrested for having one in California.
Just after 8 p.m. on Tuesday night, officials with the Redding Police Department said their officers were called to the Burger King off of Eureka Way for a report of a man seen walking around with a handgun on his bag. Officers said they responded to the area and contacted the suspect, identified as Ryan Battles.
After searching Battles’s bag, police said they found an antique black-powdered pepperbox revolver, black powder and iron pellets.
Of course, the media called it a “musket-style pistol,” which makes little sense.
Battles was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
Now, with all that said, yes, there is more to the story. For one thing, police believe Battles stole the gun in the first place. Apparently, he’s not much of a history buff or something. Either way, if the gun is in fact stolen, I’m all for putting Battles under the jail, metaphorically, of course.
I cannot abide a thief, but especially not a gun thief.
Yet I can’t help but chuckle about someone ultimately being arrested for carrying an 18th-century revolver, something not that different from what anti-gunners routinely tell us the Second Amendment is really protecting.
Again, Battles isn’t actually charged with having a stolen gun. They just think it’s stolen. While they’re probably right, they still arrested a man for carrying an antique, muzzle-loaded revolver that apparently wasn’t even loaded.
Only in California.
OK, not just in California, of course, but you know what I mean.
Still, if they believe it to be legitimately stolen, they need evidence that it wasn’t his gun. I don’t know that they have that, which also means it’s possible that Battles is innocent of that accusation.
Either way, though, this looks like it could be a surprisingly interesting case. I clicked on it because the headline looked weird and I’m a fan of pepperbox pistols, so seeing the picture made it obvious that I’d talk about this one.
But there are a lot of layers to this one that hasn’t really been uncovered as of this writing. I’d say it’ll be interesting to see how all of this shakes out, but it’s California. Even if the gun belonged to Battles lawfully, he’s still getting prosecuted for not having a carry permit at a minimum. As such, we know how it will ultimately shake out. It should still be pretty fascinating to watch in that trainwreck kind of way.
Hey its Hump Day!!!!!!!!! NSFW





I was sitting at the shooting bench in Lander, Wyo., to check my rifle’s zero before the next morning’s hunt. I was there for the One Shot Antelope Hunt—a prestigious event with a dignified provenance—with teammates Larry Weishuhn and Chris Sells (of HeymUSA) when Chris and I began comparing notes. He was shooting the Heym SR30 in 7mm Remington Magnum, while I had the Savage Impulse Mountain Hunter in Hornady’s new 7mm PRC, so the inevitable comparisons were made in short order. Our conversation convinced me this would make a good topic for our “Head to Head” series, as the 7mm bore diameter is one of the most popular all-around choices for North American hunting, and the magnum cartridges are surely a favorite as well.

One is a newbie, and one ranks among the most popular hunting cartridges sold to this day, but both have appreciable characteristics. Both have the ability to launch even the heaviest 7mm bullets at very respectable velocities, and both are perfectly suited to take the vast majority of the world’s game animals, save the biggest and most dangerous species.
Starting with the older design, the 7mm Remington Magnum reared its head in 1962, and quickly gained a foothold among the hunting community. Following the concept of the shortened Holland & Holland belted case, the 7mm Remington Magnum was designed to fit in a standard long-action receiver, and bears a strong resemblance to the .275 H&H Magnum which preceded it by a half-century, albeit at higher velocities. Following the successes of Winchester’s .264 Magnum, .338 Magnum and .458 Magnum released in the latter-half of the 1950s, Remington’s 7mm cartridge showed the major shortcoming of the .264 Winchester Magnum: bullet weight.

Shortening the H&H case to a length of 2.500 inches, and using a 25-degree shoulder, the 7mm Remington Magnum has an overall cartridge length of 3.290 inches. Though it is designed to headspace off the belt of brass, handloaders can improve concentricity by using the shoulder for headspacing. Driving a 140-grain bullet to a velocity of 3150 fps, and the heavy 175-grain bullet to 2800 to 2850 fps, the 7mm Remington Magnum offers a wide selection of bullet types and weights, all at recoil levels which are tolerable for a magnum cartridge in a standard-weight rifle.
There are those who feel the 7mm Rem. is a bit overbore, and that the bore diameter is better served by the .280 Remington case, or perhaps the .280 Ackley Improved variant, but there are also thousands of hunters who sling a 7mm Rem. Mag. rifle over their shoulder each season and get to work. It can be a wonderfully accurate cartridge, often delivering sub-MOA groups, and the energy figures generated by the cartridge make it suitable to almost all game on the North American continent.

While it has been used to take the huge coastal brown bears, I feel comfortable saying that there might be better tools for that job, and by that I mean a bigger bore diameter and heavier bullets. However, the 7mm Remington Magnum is right there near the top of the list as an all-around choice for the hunter who wants a cartridge for pronghorn antelope, distant Coues deer and Dall sheep, as well as whitetail bucks, bull elk and moose.
Fast forward 60 years and you’ll find Hornady releasing their new 7mm PRC, part of the Precision Rifle Cartridge line. Where the earlier 6.5mm PRC was designed to fit in a short-action receiver, and the beefy .300 PRC needs a magnum-length receiver (though some may argue a long-action will work with some modification), the 7mm PRC sits right in the middle, being completely at home in a long-action receiver. Using the same case-head diameter as the H&H case (0.532 inches), the PRC family has dropped the belt, instead relying on the 30-degree shoulder for headspacing. The case measures 2.280 inches, leaving plenty of room to seat the long, sleek bullets, while maintain that 3.290-inch cartridge overall length.

The concept of the shorter case/longer bullet is certainly gaining ground—consider the popularity of the 6.5 Creedmoor over the .260 Remington—and has been applied to the 7mm PRC. Some accuracy hounds insist that the best performance comes from a cartridge which can have its bullet seated so that the base of the projectile does not extend below the junction of the case neck and shoulder; while I cannot refute that, I have seen the 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Winchester Magnum print some seriously tight groups and consistent velocities, despite their bullets extending was down into to the case.
What I can say based upon my experiences with the 7mm PRC is that it has shown wonderful accuracy. At the time of this writing, there are three loads available from Hornady—the 180-grain ELD Match at 2975 fps, the 175-grain ELD-X at 3000 fps and the 160-grain CX monometal at just over 3000 fps. I took my Wyoming pronghorn twenty minutes after legal light, at 330 yards without issue, and the following week took a black bear boar in British Columbia with the same ELD-X load at 75 yards. The cartridge makes a great choice for the hunter, especially if you like the concept of using your hunting cartridge as a long-range target choice.

Pitting the two against one another, quite obviously you will find a huge range of ammo selections for the older 7mm Remington Magnum, while the brand-spanking-new 7mm PRC is, for the time being, proprietary. The difference in recoil between the two is negligible, and in a proper fitting rifle is manageable without the need for a muzzle brake or mercury recoil reducer. The 7mm PRC does offer higher velocity figures—running at a higher pressure—though many feel that the 7mm Remington Magnum has plenty of velocity. The PRC is most certainly a better choice as a long-range target cartridge; I had the opportunity to use the cartridge in a Remington Model 700 at the FTW Ranch in Barksdale, Texas, punching steel out to 1,400 yards with repeatable results.
I actually like the 7mm PRC better than I do the 7mm Remington Magnum, for the slightly shorter case, and for the tighter twist rate used in the two rifles I’ve shot (1:8” for the 7mm PRC versus 1:9” or 1:10” for the belted Remington Magnum). Looking at factory ammunition, the PRC should give better concentricity—headspacing off the shoulder rather than the belt—and therefore better accuracy, but those benefits might not be as apparent at common hunting distances.

The reloaders will appreciate the longer case life of the beltless PRC case. While only time will tell how the 7mm PRC will be received by the hunting community, and I also doubt many hunters will be selling their 7mm Remington Magnum to replace it with the 7mm PRC, I do feel that new shooters looking for an all-around cartridge in the 7mm bore diameter will take a long, hard look at Hornady’s new design. Of the PRC family, I like the 7mm variant best, and my experiences with it have been nothing but positive, whether I was hunting game animals or steel targets. Just as the .300 Winchester Magnum didn’t quite kill off the .30-06 Springfield, I feel confident saying that the 7mm PRC might not kill off the 7mm Remington Magnum, at least not anytime soon.

There have been a number of “revisionist” cartridges—as I mentioned in the comparison of the .260 Remington and 6.5 Creedmoor—which have offered a shorter case and/or tighter twist rate in order to optimize downrange ballistics, and I feel the 7mm PRC fits this category well. I’ve had some folks state that the belted cartridges of the 20th century are going the way of the dodo, but I don’t believe that to be the case either; few who have relied on the 7mm Remington Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum or .375 H&H Magnum for decades are going to retire them just because of a belt of brass. However, I’m going to keep an eye on the PRC cartridges over the next few years, and I’ll make this prediction: if ammunition (in both quantity and selection) becomes and remains readily available, these cartridges will rise to the top.
The backbone and principal resource of every country is the male heterosexual population. Without them there is no country, no births to take the place of deaths. Men have the temperament and strength to fight and to lead. They protect women and children, property, borders. They lead families, communities, businesses, and governments. That has always been their role throughout history. When men become effete, the society collapses. In America this indispensable resource is being destroyed.
It begins with boys, which means they never become men. I remember when boys were trained for leadership. They received more discipline and were given more independence than girls, who were trained for nurture and motherhood. The roles of the sexes were as distinct as the sexes. There was no such thing as a girl who wanted to be a boy or a boy who wanted to be a girl. Transgenderism is an invention of a sick and dying society.
Everything related to becoming a man has been banned. School playground fights, today an excuse to call police and arrest children, were part of growing up. Sports were where you developed confidence as you learned to catch a high fly, field a grounder, throw a strike, hit a single or a home run. Boys were encouraged. They had their own space, sandlot teams, Little League, Boy Scouts. They had after school jobs–newspaper routes, bagging groceries, cutting lawns, washing cars. Girls developed cooking skills, sewing skills, artistic skills, chaste demeanor. None of this meant that women were barred from professional lives. They were authors, Registered Nurses, accountants, para-legals, teachers, scientists, scholars.
The destruction of the male began with feminism. The feminists were the first transgender advocates. They insisted on no difference in the role of men and women. It was the feminists’ insistence that the male role was better than the female’s and that women assume male roles and male sexual promiscuity, combined with their attacks on men as misogynists, that destroyed the role of men in society. All of a sudden it was not alright for boys to have their spaces. Boy Scouts had to have girls.
Little league teams had to have girls. Think about this for a minute. Parents felt they had to support the girl players. Effusive praise would follow a girl catching a high fly, fielding a grounder, getting a hit. But as these are things the boys were expected to successfully do, they didn’t get the praise, and it went on from there. As “diversity” and “multiculturalism” progressed in America, it was less safe for girls to be as independent from home as boys.
The equality on which feminists insisted meant that the independence of boys had to be curtailed. Today American parents who allow their male children the independence my generation had are arrested for child endangerment.
The feminist desire to turn women into men meant a diminution of male leadership roles in society as women entered politics and corporations were pressured to create “gender balance” in executive roles and in academia. Just as white people are sidelined by the accusation that they hold back blacks, men are sidelined by the assertion that they held back women.
Years ago Christina Hoff Sommers addressed the destruction of the male role in family and society. But nothing came of her warning. No lesson was learned. Today behavioral problems of boys, declining academic performance, depression and suicides arising from the loss of their role is falsely explained as girls having better self-control, as boys’ slower development, and attributed to alleged hormonal and neurological causes. No one notices that these blamed causes are new as are the conditions. Neither cause nor conditions were present when boys had leadership roles.
The facts are bald-faced. Normal young white heterosexual males grow up in a non-merit-based society. They witness preferences for females, preferences for blacks, preferences for sexual perverts. What do the normal white men get out of it? The theft of their leadership role and blame for holding back others.
Recently I heard men of the passing generation comparing women of their time with those of today. The adoption of young women of the stripper’s G-string as beach attire, the female use of four-letter words, and so on. They all agreed that the emotional support a wife gave a husband is a thing of the past. They wondered what this means for the marriages of the younger generations. Divorce which once implied failure now has no negative connotation. Are marriages becoming commitment-free? Has marriage become a temporary sexual and economic contract that once a better one is found becomes void?
In my day boys were forbidden to bully girls. Today men are bullied by women. The role of men today is to get out of the way of women and preferred racial minorities. This is not a picture of a society that is succeeding.
Hon. Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. A former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor’s Business Daily. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists.
He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for “his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.” From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.
In 1987 the French government recognized him as “the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism” and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.
Dr. Roberts’ latest books are The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with IPE Fellow Lawrence Stratton, and published by Prima Publishing in May 2000, and Chile: Two Visions – The Allende-Pinochet Era, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen Araujo, and published in Spanish by Universidad Nacional Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile, in November 2000. The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo, was published by Oxford University Press in 1997. A Spanish language edition was published by Oxford in 1999. The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, was published by Regnery in 1995. A paperback edition was published in 1997. Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, co-authored with Karen LaFollette, was published by the Cato Institute in 1990. Harvard University Press published his book, The Supply-Side Revolution, in 1984. Widely reviewed and favorably received, the book was praised by Forbes as “a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead.” Dr. Roberts is the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy, published in 1971 and republished in 1990. He is the author of Marx’s Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis, published in 1973 and republished in 1983. A Spanish language edition was published in 1974.
Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments. He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Harper’s, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.
Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.
He is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com