JAB

  I can't stand the majority of cRap and generally don't consider it to be music (talking over an electronic beat box and "sampling" music that someone who has actual talent created is not music) nor do I consider cRappers to be singers - they are performers.  That said, there were gangs aplenty in this country - including street gangs - long before cRap became a recognized sub-genre and certainly before 'Gangsta cRap' came into existence.  'Gangsta cRap' is a result of the 'thug life', not a cause.  Does it glorify that life?  Sure but I don't think it can be said to be the reason inner city kids get into gangs.  Inner city kids don't need to look to Gangsta cRap to see examples of violence, thuggish activity and evidence that crime damn sure does pay - they need only look out their windows.  Think of it this way - the people who more or less created the Gangsta cRap sub-sub-genre grew up around gangs like the Crips and the Bloods.  As part of a documentary on gangs, I saw an interview with Ice-T - one of the original creators of Gangsta cRap (and, oddly, one of the few who has done at least some Gangsta cRap that I can stand listening to) says that he was never a member of the Crips but that he grew up around them and talks about knowing 'Tookie' Williams, one of the Crips' early leaders.   He talks about being a kid and looking up to Tookie who was just a few years older than Ice-T. The Crips and other, such gangs were founded in the 1960s and came partially out of the Black Panther movement, meaning that such gangs were already well established before Gangsta cRap came about in the 1980s.   I do think that Gangsta cRap likely plays a role in the spread of such attitudes but not among the inner city black kids you mentioned.  Instead, I think it has an influence on wanna-be suburban kids - especially suburban white kids who want to play at being ganstas. 

Okay, the following opinions may not be popular but they are mine and so I will express them for others to consider.  Let me preference them by saying that for roughly 13 years (1990 to 2003) I lived on the 2300 block of East Fifth Avenue in Knoxville.  That was my grandmother's residence and she had lived there for several decades by that point.  I originally started living there, too, because I was attending college at the University of Tennessee which was nearby.  At the time, there was what I remain convinced was a crack house at the corner of East Fifth and Olive, you couldn't get into the alley that turned off of Olive and ran parallel to Magnolia and East Fifth half the time because so many hookers would be standing around and would try to get in your car - repeatedly yanking the door handle even with the door locked - if you stopped to keep from running over one of them and the old Park Theater where I saw a few movies as a kid, which by the late 90s stood abandoned at the end of that alley, was used as a drug and booze hangout for vagrants (it has since been torn down.)  While I lived there, there were at least two gang-related drive-by shootings at the house directly across and one house down from ours on East Fifth.  One of our black neighbors quite likely saved my life one day when I first started living there when she warned me that the doo rag I was wearing (this was back when pretty much every college aged guy wore doo rags) was the wrong color and would get me killed.  My grandmother had her purse stolen one Sunday evening after returning from church right in the back yard one day when I wasn't there and Mr. Colt and I had to persuade three 'urban youths' to stop trying to break in our front door at about 2am one time.  I say all of that to demonstrate that I am not just some rube from a rural area who doesn't know what living in such a neighborhood is like.   Let's be honest, here.  The gangs continue to operate because there is money to be made via their criminal activities.  Lots of it.  The possibility of getting killed while attempting to make said money is simply an occupational hazard.  The possibility of getting blown away or put in prison didn't stop gangsters like Capone or Gotti and it won't stop these 'ganstas', either.  To them, being dead is better than being poor (or actually having to work a steady job for a living, apparently.)  It is an economic as well as cultural issue and simply having a father there to tell them 'don't do it' won't stop the problem in the 'hood any more than coming from a good home and having good parents keeps supposed 'good' kids from suburbia from getting into drugs and so on.  Heck, there are 'good families' in the 'hood whose kids end up in gangs, too.  Further, having a bunch of well-meaning people get together to try and 'stop' the problem isn't going to do any good, either and I doubt any significant numbers of any real gang members participated in the discussions.  Going that route is akin to the members of this forum talking to each other about how irrational and short-sighted the attitudes of anti-gunners are - we are preaching to the choir and it will have little to no impact on the anti-gunners because they don't give a crap what we have to say.  Likewise, a bunch of non-gang members and 'community activists' trying to solve a problem which the main actors in the situation do now want solved is not likely to be very effective.  In other words, it boils down to pissing in the ocean.   Honestly, the attitude of these gang members is nothing new.  I have already mentioned Capone and Gotti.  Further, I think of a PBS special I saw the other day that was about Bonnie and Clyde.  Like the urban gang members, they started out as young people living in poverty.  Bonnie, at least, came from a 'good home' with a mother who 'raised her right'.  She was drawn into the life of a criminal, apparently, by dreams of it being glamorous and romantic - the same kind of glamour and romance a poor, urban kid might ascribe to having a nice 'crib', a car with an awesome stereo, nice rims and being able to afford flashy gold chains and the like.  For Clyde's part, he just couldn't stand being poor and apparently basically decided that he would rather be dead than poor or in jail.  From those simple motivations they went on to commit terrible crimes, murder innocent people and, eventually, die in a hail of bullets.  Further, they and other, similar criminals such as John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, et. al, were actually viewed positively or even idolized by other depression era Americans who also wished they could escape their lives of poverty and drudgery - even those who were law abiding citizens and who would never dream of actually doing such acts, themselves.     So, if 'talking it out' and trying to fix the problem through intervention and so on won't work we have to ask ourselves what other solutions might be available.  As one comparison I have already made involved the mafia, let us look at that aspect of organized crime for an example.  Accepting that the mafia is still extant and that it isn't likely to ever completely go away, we can also see that there was a time period when they rose to the pinnacle of their power and profitability when their criminal activities seemed to be the most widespread and overt and, subsequently, a decline in said power and profitability.  Simply put, the mob made big money off of Prohibition and their nation-wide presence seemed to go into decline after Prohibition ended.  Why?  Because there was profit in illegal booze that was mostly removed once booze was no longer illegal.  To understand just how widespread and powerful the mob became during Prohibition we need only to look at some of the places we might least expect to see the mob represented.  Consider that there was a mob presence in 'backwater' places like Roane County and Cocke County, Tennessee because those were the places where much of their illegal booze was made.  I have even read that Johnson City was sometimes known as 'Little Chicago' due to the mob presence and influence there.  The mob was there because there was money to be made.  Take away the money = take away some of their influence.  Without the possibility of making lots of cash (in this case slinging dope) I would say that enthusiasm for getting killed or landing in jail for a street gang would suddenly become much reduced.  Now, does that mean that we should legalize all currently illegal drugs?  I can't say that.  I am just saying that as long as there is money to be made through selling such substances then there will always be those willing to take the risks associated with doing so as well as those who are more than willing to accept the deaths of innocent bystanders and community members, regardless of the victims' ages, creeds or skin colors, as 'collateral damage.'   I also think that there is another aspect of gang life that will be difficult to overcome.  It is the same type of mentality that causes young men (and, increasingly, women) of Middle Eastern lineage to be willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded, civilian locations.  I think that gangs make use of the same mentality and the same type of 'conditioning' used to achieve that mentality.  Further, while some, such suicide bombers undoubtedly come from troubled families there are also examples of those who came from good homes, some whose families renounce the activities of their sons and daughters and even some who never suspected that their child had gotten in to such radical ideology.  Likewise, I think that while there might not be such an overt 'religious' aspect involved for those young gang members I do think there is an aspect of gang life that includes the idea of being 'martyred' for your 'brothers' in the gang.  Do the higher ups in the gang really give a crap about those 'martyrs'?  I suspect that they do not any more than I suspect the various Imams, etc. give a crap about the rank and file 'martyrs' who blow themselves to bits for 'the cause'.  Maybe there is even some informal idea that one will end up drinking 40s with Tupac in some sort of 'gansta's paradise' of an afterlife (I am not trying to make light of this issue, I am actually being serious, here, even if my example puts a bit too fine a point on it.)  If anyone doubts the pseudo-religious idea of martyrdom as a result of living the 'thug life' (and dying a thug death) just look at the various, post-death representations of Shakur.  Here was a guy who had 'thug life' tattooed on his abdomen and who seemingly refused to distance himself from various criminal activities despite having success both as a recording artist and an actor yet many seem to beatify him as if he were the patron saint of gang bangers.   So, due to the latter issue as well as the fact that there will always be people attracted to such groups, whether because they are bored or disaffected with their law abiding upbringing or because they come from broken homes and are looking for a surrogate family I believe that gangs will never go away any more than the mafia has completely gone away.  However, I also think that the only way to even curb the activities and reduce gang membership is to remove the potential economic benefits of belonging to such a gang.

In an online discussion I have, no joke, had at least one idiot - maybe two or three, I can't recall for sure - tell me that a few criminals with guns isn't nearly as worrisome to them as all the 'gun nuts' running around carrying guns and with personal arsenals at home. This wasn't a case of folks just trying to stir the pot - they were consistent in statements opposing legal gun ownership, either in part or in total, over a long period of time. Yep, you read that right - to the irrational, delusional mind of at least some anti-gunners getting robbed at gunpoint by a cracked-out thug isn't as scary as the possibility that you or I might have a legally carried firearm on our person while sitting at the table next to theirs in a restaurant.

  Personally, I think the physical fitness thing is over-rated in a lot of ways.  I mean, seriously, no matter how fast someone can run they aren't ever going to outrun an enemy force that has them surrounded - they will just run from one group of the enemy into the waiting arms (and jaws) of another. Being able to get away from small groups over short distances makes sense, sure, but ultimately it would come down to evading, eliminating and out-thinking, not outrunning - especially if dealing with '28 days later' type zombies rather than Night of the Living Dead type zombies.  In fact, I would say that flat out running away from the zombie hordes - even slow shamblers - should only be a last ditch thing to do because, especially with the kind of terrain and so on we have in East Tennessee, all running does in increase the chance that a person is going to twist their ankle in which case that person would be well and truly screwed.   So you are saying that when it is all over we will find ourselves living in a Tennessee that is much more sparsely populated and suddenly finds itself devoid of 'progressive' anti-gun types?  SIGN ME UP!!!

I remember watching 'The Mongolian Stomper' wrestle on television.  It wasn't during his prime but, instead, was back in the late '80s when I guess he made a come back.  I never had the chance to meet him and really don't pay any attention to wrasslin' anymore but have heard more than once, despite his mean, almost savage ring persona that he was actually one of the nicest people in professional wrestling.

In high school I was trying to siphon gas from a car that I didn't drive, much to put into my main car and I accidentally swallowed some of it.  The car I was siphoning from was parked next to my dad's workshop and so I got in his refrigerator to get a swig of the water he always kept in a glass jar there.  Well, I grabbed the wrong jar and the smell of the gas was so strong that I didn't notice the smell of the white whiskey (white lightening) in the jar until I had taken a pretty good pull.  So, I accidentally drank gas and chased it with white lightening.  I then changed shirts because the one I had on smelled like an alcoholic mechanic had been wearing it and went to my after school job at White Stores.  Later that night I belched and one of my buddies who also worked there asked if I smelled gas.  I told him, "Yeah.  I belched."  He said, "No, not that kind of gas.  I mean gasoline," and so I explained to him why I was belching gasoline.  I can't imagine intentionally drinking the stuff nor - based on my unintentional taste test -  can I imagine confusing the taste of gasoline and white lightening or moonshine.  Then, again, I already knew what good white lightening and moonshine were supposed to taste like by that point.  Dad made and ran the stuff when he was in his late teens and early twenties so he knew the good stuff from the bad and whoever he used to get his from made the good stuff.

28/30.  Blew the one about the firearm used in the Civil War (kind of read the answers wrong else I would have gotten it correct but whatever the reason, still got the wrong answer.)  Also didn't know what the heck the 'AR' in AR15 stands for.  Not a clue.  I went with, "advanced recoil."   Yeah, I knew that the Chinese had hand cannons and that the Sturmgewehr was the first assault rifle but had no idea about the full name of the AR15.  Now y'all know that I am not joking when I say I have no, real interest in ARs.

Nope.  I hadn't heard of them until I ready your OP.  I am more of a revolver guy than a semiauto guy but I honestly don't see the point behind this.  It isn't like there is a huge hole in the market where .38/.357 revolvers are concerned and I don't know why someone would choose a Kimber .357 over a Smith, Ruger, etc.    To me, being that Kimber seems to be best known for their 1911 handguns - particularly .45acp - it they were going to do a revolver it would make more sense for them to make a .45acp wheel gun to market as a backup to a person's 'main' Kimber.  In fact, maybe they could offer revolvers with cosmetics/features such as finishes, grips and so on that would basically mirror the various models of Kimber 1911 pistols so that a person could have a Kimber 1911 and a backup .45acp pistol that would be a 'matching set'.

I haven't tried it yet, myself, but apparently PVC can be heated with a heat gun, etc. until it is pliable and then molded like kydex.  I have heard that you have to be careful, though, because heated PVC can release some toxic fumes so plenty of ventilation is needed.  I am thinking of using a piece with a large diameter (like sewer pipe) to make a sheath for a machete as the thermoplastic sheets I have aren't large enough to make a machete sheath out of one piece.   The PVC project I am really most interested in right now, though, would be a lightweight, mobile, easily assembled and dis-assembled framework that would allow me to set up a tarp shelter (think 'tent', more or less) over the bed of my pickup.  You can buy a pickup bed tent but the ones I have seen go for a few hundred dollars and I figure I can probably make one for under $50, maybe even less (I already have a few, large tarps.)  I searched for such things on the 'Net and found a video on YouTube where a lady was showing how she had made exactly such a thing from PVC in pretty much the style I was thinking.  I just haven't gotten around to actually doing it, yet.   There are also some pretty cool ideas for hiking/walking/survival staffs and the like made from PVC that can be found on YouTube.  The cool thing about those is that the hollow interior can be used to store various, compact 'survival kit' type items.   Finally, there is a fellah who goes by the handle Backyard Bowyer on YouTube who has got to be one of the most creative people I have ever seen.  Among other things, he makes homemade bows, often out of PVC pipe.  Thing is, he has more than one method he uses for making them and more than one style he makes and the paint jobs he does on some of them are pretty amazing in themselves.  One of his simplest designs uses fiberglass rods bundled in a particular manner and then inserted into the PVC pipe so that the bow will have better stress distribution under draw than the PVC would have by itself.  He uses heat to flatten and shape the PVC for some of his bows in order to achieve that kind of distribution but the one with fiberglass rods is pretty simple and is not heated, etc.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxn-nPNhY8

Nice work!

As someone who dabbles in leather work I have to say that those items are beautiful.  Nice work!  Did you dye the leather or did it come already dyed?  I ask because I used some leather for a project, once, that was called 'English saddle leather."  It was veggie tanned and was pretty much that same, rich color.   I love that pocket knife carrier.  Is the 'D' ring at the bottom there so you can carry it as a neck knife?  I think it would be a great place to clip my keys which I normally carry clipped to a belt loop.  In fact, I might have to bestow the, um, sincerest form of flattery on you and make something like that for myself.  I usually carry a Spyderco Resilience clipped into my pocket but would like to have a convenient, easily accessible way to carry a Swiss Army knife (a Trekker) that doesn't have a pocket clip.  Alternately, that would be a nice way to carry a multi-tool, as well.

I don't have a very large collection but lately have come to realize that my meager collection does already pretty well cover all of my 'needs' and the vast majority of my 'wants'.  Honestly, I'd be pleased if I could get one of the following three this year, listed by order of which I'd rather have (and I might not get any of them if I don't come across a really good deal when I have the cash to take advantage of it - and I would really be just fine if I don't):   1. A Ruger SP101 in .38/.357.  I want one with the wood insert in the grips to make a matching set with my Gp100. 2. A coach gun - preferably a true coach gun with exposed hammers and all 3. A snubnosed .44 Magnum of some ilk   To be completely honest, I think this year I'd be better off spending my increasingly limited firearms budget on ammo and shooting what I already have.  I would like to have a good bit more ammo on hand because with the craziness I think we will undoubtedly see as the presidential election looms nearer ammo will probably become hard to find, again.  Firearms are, of course, of very little use without ammo. 

  A federal goverment that has the power to force every state to recognize carry permits from every, other state would also have the power to dictate that every state must meet the most stringent requirements enacted in any state in order for the carry permit to be valid.  In other words, if the feds can tell New Yorkistan and The People's Republic of Kalifornia that they have to recognize Tennessee's permits then those same feds can also require that Tennessee's permits meet with the requirements for getting a permit in New Yorkistan and The People's Republic of Kalifornia.  Want 'shall issue' to be a thing of the past?  Want to be required to 'show a real need' (with protecting your life possibly not passing muster to be seen as a 'real need') to be able to carry a gun before you can get a carry permit in Tennessee?  Then federally mandated state carry permit reciprocity is for you!   Even if such obvious measures didn't come to pass (and I would be surprised if they didn't) then you can be assured that - at the very least - every, single handgun sold in the United States would be required to be 'California legal' simply because those handguns 'might' get carried there.  Need an example?  Just look at California emissions laws and how they impacted federal emissions requirements for all vehicles regardless of whether or not that vehicle would ever actually be driven in California.  In fact, unless I am mistaken, much of the Gun Control Act of 1968 also originated in California (and was championed by a so-called Republican Governor - not just any so-called Republican but in fact the High Lord of all Republicans, Ronald Reagan)  As for me, I'll just figure that states where the political climate is such that they refuse to recognize a Tennessee HCP are probably not states I care anything about spending any real time in, anyhow.  I'd rather avoid those states altogether or deal with not being able to carry if for some reason I have to go to those states than open a door for Kalifornia's and New Yorkistan's draconian laws to be pushed onto people in other states..

He seemed a bit odd although I suspect that a lot of that was more theater than reality.  Whatever the case there, he put out some great music and truly influenced modern music and (I believe) the idea of rock concerts that were/are as much about the spectacle of seeing the live performance, special effects and so on as about the music.   My absolute favorite of his songs (All the Madmen) :   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb7Xdu7STx8

I missed that discussion, as well.  Ridiculous.  Everything about TN hunting/fishing/shooting regulations seems to be set up to discourage the 'common man' from doing so.  For instance, if I want to fish for trout in the Tellico river I have to buy a Tellico/Citico permit DESPITE the fact that in order to be legal I already had to buy a TN fishing license AND a state trout stamp.  Now we have to pay a fee to shoot at ranges that other fees we already pay supposedly paid for in the first place?

This is Millie helping me vanquish an evil, threatening ham bone to ensure that no scraps escaped to do vile deeds: She wasn't growling, just trying to get her teeth latched onto the bone. She has never growled at me over food. In fact, despite her having really sharp teeth and jaw strength that can break/crush major bones in a living possum if it is unfortunate enough to cross her path (guess how I know) if she is chewing on something and I am not sure she should have it I can literally put my fingers in her mouth and take it away from her with no fear of being bitten. Now, she might look at me like, "Hey! What did you do that for?" but she won't show any signs of aggression. I don't have a picture of my favorite time she 'helped' me do something. See, my mom is my next door neighbor and will sometimes toss a couple of biscuits left over from breakfast, etc. across the fence to Millie. Millie enjoys these little treats. Well, one morning I had let Millie out to play in the yard by herself before I went outside and mom had tossed her a couple of biscuits. When I went outside the first thing I needed to do was take some feed to my chickens so I told her, "Millie, we've got to feed the chickens. Are you gonna help me feed the chickens?" I said that just because I talk to her a lot, not thinking she actually understands. Now, my chicken enclosure has a coop to get inside but there is a small, attached, fenced in area where they can roam around outside. As I walked toward the coop to feed my chickens I noticed Millie pick up one of her biscuits in her mouth and start walking in that direction, too. I figured she was just following me and taking a 'snack', just in case. However, when we got close to the coop instead of following me to the coop, itself, she walked over to the fenced in area, pushed that biscuit hard against the fence then turned it loose and walked away, leaving the biscuit. Yep, she really did help me feed the chickens!

  I think I already did.  Again, see the Madison quote above.  Specifically:         So, there is 'regulation' not by pre-existing officers in a formal military body maintained by an existing federal (or even state) government but by officers appointed from within the militia, itself by whatever local government the militia chooses.  In other words, these officers would be appointed from among the private citizens comprising the citizens' militia and would be private citizens, themselves, not necessarily previously appointed, established officers in any kind of existing, formal military body.  So the actions of the militia would be regulated by governments chosen by the militia via officers appointed from among the private citizens of the militia.  Again, I fail to see how that could in any way be construed as vague and certainly not as requiring membership in an existing, formal military organization in order to exercise an individual, Constitutionally protected right.

  There is no part of 'A well regulated Militia' that is unclear as 'militia' means the whole of the people - every able bodied citizen who is able to use a weapon.  Further, in order for such a militia to exist it is not only permissible but absolutely necessary that each and every citizen have the right to own and utilize firearms.  Don't take my word for it.  Instead, check out what James Madison (one of the main supporters of adopting the Constitution and a system of Federal government and one of the guys most responsible for writing the Bill of Rights in the first place) had to say on the matter.  From The Federalist # 46 (bolding is mine for emphasis):       So there is absolutely nothing vague or open to interpretation about the term 'militia' or its use in this case.  It means 'the free and gallant citizens of America'.  All of us.  Period.  It does not refer to any, formal military organization.  in fact, it is clear that the militia is intended to be a check and a balance against potential over-reach and misuse of a standing, formal military.  Therefore the National Guard - which some people erroneously consider to be what the Second Amendment means by 'militia' - is not only not what the term 'militia' refers to but, by the nature of being a formal military body, is actually the exact opposite.  Further, it is clear that 'well-regulated' means that - once the free citizenry has decided that taking up arms and forming the militia for a common cause is necessary - whatever local governments those free citizens recognize or create will be responsible for choosing militia officers from among the numbers of the militia.  In other words, these officers are to be chosen from among the free citizens at the time that the militia is formed, not chosen by the federal or even state governments as part of a formal military organization beforehand.   I am not a Constitutional lawyer but this is a case where I believe it is clear that such lawyers only confuse a very clear, unambiguous issue.  Instead, this seems to be a case where a simple understanding of the English language and the ability to read the definitions of certain terms as defined by the very people who wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place is all that is necessary to understand that the Second Amendment grants an individual right and that, as its main issue isn't hunting or even personal defense but actually defense against a tyrannical Federal government with a standing military, the individual ownership of 'military type' weapons is protected expressly and not just incidentally.   In short, if SCOTUS would truly read these historical supporting texts and then enforce the true spirit (as well as letter) of the law rather than allowing those opposed to individual liberty to put forward disingenuous meanings of the terms therein then the term 'well-regulated militia' would not only be unusable by their side but would, in fact, possibly be the most damning argument against their misinterpretation of the Second Amendment as this term, as used by the Founders, clearly stands opposite to the type of established, formal military organizations to which the enemies of liberty like to claim the term refers.  Unfortunately, as such an interpretation will - as the Founders intended - limit the scope of power of the federal government and as SCOTUS is a part of the federal government (which in this day and age of corruption and abuse of power is unfortunately kind of like allowing the fox to 'regulate' the henhouse) such an honest, straightforward and accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment likely isn't forthcoming any time soon.

I wore suspenders for several months recently because the surgeries I had, etc. made wearing a belt not an option for a while (too painful.)  I have to say, I hate suspenders.  They tend to make my shoulders tense and achy not to mention that they are sometimes a PITA to keep connected, depending on what kind of pants you are wearing.   That said, I have a pair that I bought at Walmart a few years back that are designed to be worn with a belt.  These do not attach to the waistband of the pants but are designed to hook onto the belt, itself.  Something like that might be a good option for you.  I think I have only worn them a few times and got them when I was still carrying OWB most of the time and, because of my shape needed to sometimes give my belt a little help in staying put (have since gone to mostly pocket carry with smaller, lighter guns.)  I don't remember the brand for sure but I think they are Dickies.  Might not be, though.   EDIT:  Ha - I was typing when raildog's post (above) came through.  Sounds like we are talking about the same suspenders, bought at Walmart.

  To me, the platform doesn't matter - I'm not paying that much for anything chambered in .22LR.  I don't care if it is a full-sized copy of a Barrett 50 cal chambered in .22LR it is still a .22LR and not worth that price to me.  But that is just me.  I am not saying that the company shouldn't produce them or that people who would and do pay that much are wrong just that I wouldn't pay that much for one.

Really? Huh...that wasn't always the case, as my .357 GP100 clearly shows: Also, a now deceased friend of mine had an SP101 that also came with the wood insert. I really want one like it to match my GP-100. Now that I think about it, though, I think maybe I do remember that no longer being offered as a standard option but don't the ones they sell now have a removable rubber insert that can be replaced by factory aftermarket wood inserts? Anyhow, as much as I like Ruger revolvers I really don't see paying GP100 prices for a .22LR, especially given that .22 ammo isn't nearly as ubiquitous as it used to be and may never be, again. I have an old H&R 930 I bought a few years back (obviously used) that, while it isn't as cool looking as the Ruger, will slang them little pills just as well. Of course, it doesn't have a fiber optic front sight but it does have an adjustable (for windage) rear sight. If also 'only' holds nine, not ten but I paid less than a hundred bucks for it. There is no telling how many owners it had (and possibly outlived) before me and I don't see it wearing out any time soon. I also have a Heritage convertible but it is a single action so not exactly the same type of gun. With the existence of such revolvers and prices out there, I just can't see paying Ruger full size revolver prices for a plinker. Luckily, not everyone in the gun world likes the same things I like.

  I don't use Tapatalk.  Sounds too much like a tap-dancing instructional series, to me.  Heck, I don''t usually even use the mobile version of the website.  My phone and tablet have the option to view the full, 'regular' site and that is what I usually do.  That said, I don't use them for getting on the forums all that much.

  Hah, I was typing my reply suggesting maple and light oak as you were typing your post saying you like maple and light oak.  I have never worked with elm.  Ash is another fairly light colored wood and is quite hard but doesn't always have a lot of figure - it is one of if not the main wood of choice for wooden baseball bats.  Linseed oil doesn't really darken the wood much.  It looks like it does, at first, just like getting the wood wet with water would give that appearance but lightens up again as it dries.  Linseed oil might leave it a little darker once it dries and it does help the figure show up better.  It keeps the wood from being too dry.  With linseed oil, you might have to give it a light coat now and then to keep the wood from getting too dry.   If I am understanding what you are asking about the grain patterns and figure then the type of wood you are asking about isn't really a type of wood, at all.  Instead, it is a laminate where thin sheets of wood - sometimes dyed different colors or sometimes simply using different types of wood, etc. - are laminated together.  If you notice, knife handles made from micarta sometimes have the same type of pattern because they are made essentially the same way - the difference being that micarta is layers of cloth laminated together while wood laminates are, of course, layers of wood.  The pattern you are talking about - if I am understanding you correctly - comes from sanding down through the layers of wood so that different layers are on the surface in different places.   EDIT:  I thought more about it and remembered that I have seen the type of pattern you talked about in natural wood.  As I said, I am not an expert nor even what I would call a 'woodworker', but rather someone who likes doing projects with wood, sometimes.  I think - much like the laminate woods - that pattern comes out when different layers of growth (growth rings) in the wood are exposed.  I guess it is especially clear when the lines that separate the growth rings are pretty prominant.  My suspicion for that, however, is that it is a feature that may or may not be found in an individual tree or even a particular piece of wood from a particular, individual tree and that it isn't a feature that can be said with any surety to be present across the board with one or another type or species of wood.  Also, even when it is present, that pattern may or may not be as regular or as pronounced as it is with laminates.   Dymondwood is one, such laminate.  Zoom in the pic at this link and take a look at this Buck knife with a cocobola dymondwood handle.  Is that the kind of pattern you are talking about?   http://www.knifecenter.com/item/BU0118BRS/buck-118-personal-skinner-fixed-blade-cocobola-dymondwood-handles-0118brs   Here is another dymondwood handled knife, from Benchmade:   http://www.knifecenter.com/item/BM150012/benchmade-hunt-15001-2-saddle-mountain-skinner-fixed-s30v-blade-dymondwood-handles-leather-sheath   This Remington pocket knife really shows what can be done with laminate wood:   http://www.knifecenter.com/item/REM19883/Remington-Heritage-Laminated-Wood-Four-Blade-Congress-Pocketknife-R-101-Model   I have never worked with laminates.  I have heard that they can actually be stronger than natural wood.

I am far from being an expert. That said, maple is generally a lighter colored wood and spalted maple has some interesting, darker lines through it (as does most spalted wood.) Curly maple also has some interesting figure - especially if you get a really nice piece. Birdseye maple is usually pretty nice, too. Oak can be a lighter color, depending on the type and the actual piece of wood. I have posted this pic, before, but just as an example the handle of this cane was made from a piece of cherry and the shaft was made from (iirc) oak: Neither were stained or varnished, just rubbed with linseed oil. The pic doesn't show the colors and the figure in the handle to the best effect but you get the idea:

Personally, I don't like stains.  To me, if I am using a nice piece of wood then it is all about the wood, including more or less its natural color.  I can see why some people would stain pine, an uninteresting piece of poplar or something plain like that but if I am going to use cherry, walnut, oak or so on then I want the final piece to look like the wood it is made of.  That is not to say that I might not put a clear coat of some kind - maybe clear varnish, etc. - on it to bring out the natural wood and help protect it.  Honestly, though, even for that I think I prefer just rubbing in a few coats of boiled linseed oil, etc.