JAB

  That is good to know.  Maybe I should give them another look, soon.  Of course, not getting off of work until 5pm probably hampers my efforts.

  Yep.

  I keep reading that in posts from folks on this forum in other parts of TN and in posts on other forums by folks in other parts of the country.  In Knoxville, that simply is not the case.  There was even an article in the Knoxville News-Sentinel a couple of months ago that talked about how the ammo situation was improving elsewhere but, for whatever reason, was not getting any better in the Knoxville area.  In other words, I don't doubt you when you say that, "It's there."  However, while it may be "there', it isn't "here".  Not yet, anyhow.  I sometimes wonder if that is because we have so many gun shows in this area, especially around this time of year.  Not only the RK shows that seem to take place about once a month but also smaller shows here and there.  Maybe the large number of shows keep the profiteers operating in this area even after they have started to slack off, elsewhere.   I haven't seen any .22LR ammo on the shelf of a big box store in at least six months.  That means the Knoxville locations of Academy and Gouger Mountain as well as several (Turkey Creek, Lenoir City, Madisonville, Athens and Rockwood) Walmart locations in the area, the Outdoor World/Bass Pro store in Sevierville or Dunham's Sports in Athens, TN.  I have seen a handful now and again at my favorite LGS but as a small business his costs from his distributors have gone up enough that his prices on .22LR are generally more than I want to pay.

  I agree.  Until things return to the point that I walk into the Walmart Sporting Goods department at any time pretty much knowing that I will see at least some kind of .22 ammo on the shelf (and that means .22LR and .22WMR), I will not believe that things are 'better'.  I don't necessarily mean seeing bulk packs galore, just that I could at least expect to see a good stock of 50 or 100 round boxes of .22LR and at least a few boxes of WMR Dynapoint if nothing else.   For the anti-Walmart crowd, yeah I know that Walmart isn't the only place to find ammo, it might be available online, so on and so forth but I believe that - whether the Wally haters like it or not - that is the true and ultimate benchmark of things being 'better.'   Still, congrats to Slasher on finding what you did. 

Thanks, Spots!

Thanks for the info, Spots.  I can do pretty well on most knives with just a couple of el cheapo stones, ceramic sharpener, sharpening steel and leather that I have but there always seem to be blades that just will not cooperate.  I mean blades of a type/brand that I know I should be able to get sharp but can't seem to.  I am going to try this system on those when I get the chance.   I have a question, too.  You mentioned starting the Bowie's edge on a belt sander.  When you use a belt sander, how do you keep a consistent angle?  I recently bought one of the cheapo, small belt sanders from Harbor Freight thinking toward trying my hand at making some knives using stock removal and will need some way of keeping consistent angles.

I really like the .22WMR cartridge.  I have a couple of rifles in .22 Magnum, one that I bought and one that I inherited.   The one that I bought is a Marlin 925M.  When I bought it at Sportsman's Warehouse in Chattanooga a couple of years back I went ahead and bought a scope at the same time and had them mount it and rough-sight it in.  It is a fairly inexpensive Simmons scope but the model of the scope is actually called ".22 Mag" and it has worked well, for me although I have only shot paper and tin cans with the rifle, so far.  Just FYI, I tested a few ammo types out of it and did see some difference in accuracy, group size and so on.  Not huge differences, necessarily, but they were there.  FWIW, mine like Remington's Accu-tip best for accuracy/group size.   Now for something completely different - and a lot of fun.  That would be the .22WMR rifle I inherited from my grandfather.  It is a Rossi pump-action and is at least as much fun to shoot as my Henry .22LR.  Personally, I wouldn't put a scope on that one but the irons are good enough that I can fairly consistently pick off spent 20 gauge hulls at 15 to 20 yards (maybe further but that is as far as I have tried at this point.)  It is fairly light, compact and handy.  You have to operate the pump pretty aggressively or it won't always load properly but I think that is a break-in issue that I believe will smooth out with time.  I honestly don't think my grandfather ever fired that rifle as it still had the 'safety warning' tag hanging from the trigger guard when I got it.  Another 'neat' thing about that one is that it is designed to be easily taken down.  I don't know if you are a fan of the movie Zombieland or not but I am almost certain that the rifle used by the younger sister character is a Rossi pump .22Mag like mine, just to give an idea of what they look like, etc..

Anyone notice that the OP in this thread is more than three years old?  I wonder how gunrunner32 came out in the end and if he kept one or both of the Pythons.   When I read the OP, particularly the first line:     my first thought was that, as I am the only person who lives at my home, someone coming in unexpectedly with 2 Colt Pythons would, indeed, be in for a fight.  Such a fight would possibly end in them leaving feet first and one Colt Python going to an evidence locker, somewhere.   Only kidding, of course.

  I'm telling ya', man, braise those bad boys.  Beef ribs are not pork ribs and, in my experience, cannot be prepared the same way as pork ribs with very good results.  There is a reason why most barbecue restaurants have pork ribs on the menu but you rarely (if ever) see beef ribs.  Beef ribs just generally do not lend themselves to turning out well when prepared using the methods generally used for pork ribs.  Although I mentioned braising on the smoker/grill earlier you don't have to use a grill, etc. for that.  I was only mentioning doing it on the grill because I thought you had said you wanted to use the grill.  In fact, braising is traditionally done in the oven and using the oven would probably work better.  Low, slow cooking in an enclosed/covered vessel with a good braising liquid is the way to go with beef ribs.  That is actually what the braising technique is all about and probably the reason it was created in the first place - to make an otherwise tough, disappointing cut of meat into something delicious.  Beef short ribs are one of the standard cuts for braising.  Usually they are the short ribs cut a specific way when using them for a braise but I think you could use what you have with very good results.  I probably would suggest separating the rack into individual ribs before cooking so the braising liquid can more fully surround each piece.  Beyond that, just look up recipes for 'braised beef short ribs' and choose the one that sounds best, to you.  One, additional bonus to braising the ribs is that after you remove the ribs from the braising liquid  - especially if you use a recipe that calls for adding carrots, onions and the like along with the ribs - you can use what is left in the cooking vessel (dutch oven, etc.) to make a really nice gravy/sauce.  Oh, and if you decide to go with a recipe that uses wine in the braising sauce don't make the mistake of using cooking wine from the grocery store.  That stuff is extremely salty and pretty foul.  Instead, use a normal table wine.   Don't be too hard on yourself if the first batch didn't turn out as well as you had hoped.  While pork ribs are fairly easy to cook and get at least decent results, beef ribs are not.  Beef ribs are, in some ways, a lot like beef brisket in that the meat sometimes tends toward being tough and dry - often with a lot of connective tissue - if not prepared properly.  Also as with beef brisket, however, when they are prepared properly the very properties that can make them challenging can also make them really, really good. 

So, how did they turn out?

Depends on the brand and type, as well.  Before the current nonsense, Winchester Dynapoint WMR ammo was around $8 for a box of 50 at Wally World.  Dynapoint WMR ammo uses a copper washed bullet, not a true jacketed bullet like most WMR ammo.  It uses a 45 grain bullet and is supposed to be 'downloaded' a little compared to other WMR ammo in an attempt to closely emulate the old WRF loadings.  Some people don't like Dynapoint WMR ammo much but I like it for plinking, etc.  Not that I am currently doing much plinking with WMR (heck, I barely do any with .22LR.)   CCI Maxi Mag - both HP and solids - were usually around $10.xx-$11.00 per 50.  Winchester Super X, which is supposed to be just like the loading Winchester first used when creating the WMR, was about the same.  I don't think I ever saw Remington's or Federal's 'standard' loadings at Wally but they were generally in that price range when I would see them elsewhere.   Winchester Supreme ran closer to $13 or $14 for a box (on the rare occasion I saw it at Wally.)    I don't recall having seen the Gold Dot and Hornady Critical Defense loadings at Wally.  When I saw them elsewhere, they were closer to $17 or so (I think - I only bought one box of each and that was a couple of years ago.)    Remington's accu-tip load (the load my Marlin 925M seems to like best) was $17.xx per box.  The owner of my favorite LGS recently told me that his distributor said he (the distributor) could get  some accu-tip.  He said that the store's cost - not the retail price - would be around $20 per box.

Not one but two 'boatloads' of .22 ammo at Sportsman's Warehouse in Chattanooga in the space of one week.  Meanwhile in Knoxville, to quote Yukon Cornelius, "Nothin'."  I am starting to wish we had a Sportsman's Warehouse around here.  They may not have the best of all, possible prices but at least they have stuff I want, sometimes.  I have found several things at the Chattanooga location that I couldn't find in any, other brick and mortar store.  It is too far away for me to drive there on a regular basis, though.

Some of you may have seen this, before but I have not. A friend of mine saw it on Facebook and, knowing that I am not on Facebook, she sent it to me. I thought it was funny so I found it online and am posting it, here. I did not create this 'poster' (although I wish I had) and do not know who did.

It sounds like a pretty weak cop-out, to me.  I mean, supposedly the Captain's super soldier serum craps out so they have to go out and recruit another, existing superhero (who, presumably, is already doing super-heroey stuff and, therefore, doesn't really need to change) and stick him in the Captain America outfit.  I can see no, good reason for doing so other than as a lame explanation for why they took a long-running, beloved superhero (who happened to be white) and replaced him with a black guy in order to score PC points.   Then there is the female Thor plotline.  Supposedly, Thor does something that makes him no longer 'worthy' of wielding the hammer so it goes to a woman who styles herself after the original (because he once saved her life.)  Seriously?  The gods couldn't find another big, blond, Nordic looking dude to take the hammer?  They had to go waaaay down in the bull-pen and pick some chick to take over the role of a male superhero that is also a male god in the Norse pantheon?  That's just stupid.  Sounds like another PC cop-out, to me.

Top five reasons this article is a piece of runny, fly-blown excrement that lacks even as much utility as good, healthy horse manure:   5. the fact that, in this quote, the author obviously believes that "weapons" and not "criminals" is the operative word:         4. the fact that, on page two, the author is going on about 'Glocks' and there is an accompanying picture - of a Phoenix.  I can't tell if the Phoenix in the pic is a .22lr or a .25acp but to my knowledge Glock doesn't make any handguns in either chambering.  I mean, I don't particularly like Glocks but at least I know what they look like - and I can't imagine it would be all that difficult to find a picture of an actual Glock to go with the article.  Just further indicates the laziness factor involved in writing this garbage.   3.  The author kept citing the ATF.  Is that the same ATF whose agents have demonstrated a lack of safe, responsible actions with regard to firearms - including leaving a loaded .357 on a storm sewer grate to be found by two six year olds or going out drinking and losing a service weapon?   http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-agents-lost-track-of-dozens-of-their-own-guns-reports-show-b99213499z1-247182581.html   In that light, maybe '#1 most dangerous type of gun" should be "those issued to ATF agents."   2.  In an article that, by its opening statement, is obviously meant to refute arguments in favor of legal gun ownership (by enumerating instances of illegal activity) and argue for more gun control laws the author kept citing the FBI.  Would that be the same FBI that, a few years back, released a study which found that the majority of criminals (particularly those involved in officer-related shooting incidents) do not obtain firearms via legal means?  Would that be the same FBI, in the same study, which found evidence that gun control laws are not in any way a deterrent to criminals getting guns?   http://www.secondcalldefense.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Violent-Encounters.pdf   (see Chapter 4: Weapons for the pertinent information.)   1. And the number one reason why this article is a piece of runny, fly-blown excrement that lacks even as much utility as good, healthy horse manure is that the author makes a half-assed attempt at an argument/thesis statement with this declaration in the opening paragraph:         and then goes on to counter her own statement - supposedly the entire 'justification' for writing the article - in her closing paragraph by making this statement:       Of course, I also doubt that the author realizes that there is a difference between assault rifles (a pretty narrowly defined category of fully automatic or select fire capable rifles) and so-called 'assault weapons' which is a term made up by bedwetting antis and doesn't have any, real or clearly defined meaning.

  One of my favorite television shows of all time was Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  The movie was dumb but I like the television show.  That character was created as a strong, female character and remained a strong, female character.  In fact, it took the 'going against expectations' even further in that she was a young, popular cheerleader type who was still a very strong, female character - very strong and very female, not a girl trying to be a tough guy.  It didn't start off as "Biff the Vampire Slayer" and get changed to "Buffy" in the interest of being more PC or giving 'equal representation to all genders' or any of that kind of garbage.

      It matters that Captain America will be black because there doesn't seem to be a good, plot driven reason.  The only reason is to be more PC and that makes me want to vomit.    If the same kind of trend keeps up, I would half expect Robert Kirkman to reveal that the real reason Lori and Rick Grimes were having marital issues before the zombie outbreak was that Rick had an extra-marital affair with Shane long before Lori did.  Maybe they will change the title of the series to "Brokeback Dead."   As for Superwoman and Supergirl (and the She-Hulk, Batgirl and so on) as Steelharp pointed out, those were new characters not bastardizations of existing ones.

  For the same reason there aren't all that many popular female comics, now.  For the same reason I predict that 'Thorine' will fail.  For the same reason that the most popular comics are titles like Batman, Superman and Spiderman instead of Batwoman, Superwoman and so on.  For the same reason that there has not been a Wonder Woman movie, yet.  Because that isn't what the majority of comics fans want to read about in a comic book so no one would buy them.  Comics readership is, hopefully, a place where political correctness and the comics that push the same will die a slow, miserable, wasting death in the face of what people really want to read and are willing to spend their money on.

My favorite use for Allegro is to marinate mushrooms before putting them on the grill.  Portobellos are particularly good that way.  I have also used Allegro as a marinade for steaks and liked it.  I don't know that I would want to actually cook anything in Allegro, however, as in my opinion it is pretty salty.

  So why not create a character based on a reknowned female warrior from Norse legend?  That is my problem with all these 'swaps' - they are trying to force this crap down the public's throat by bastardizing already existing, popular characters.  Marvel has also announced that the Falcon (a black character) will take over as Captain America when the original Captain America loses the powers granted to him by the super soldier serum.  If there was a good, plot-driven reason for doing so then I'd not have a problem with it.  Instead, however, I believe it is all a part of a bunch of PC crap designed to please the PC crowd.  Funny thing is, I doubt there is a less PC crowd than hardcore comics fans (at least as I remember them from back when I was more in to the 'scene' and went to Comic Cons and so on.)  It is just like when they decided to create a gay Green Lantern - pandering to the PC crowd and nothing more.  My thought is that if you want more representation for women, other ethnicities, gays and so forth in comics then why not just create new characters?  Okay, I will answer my own question - because many of them would flop.  I mean, why do folks think that there aren't more of those types of characters, already?  Because the core group of comics readers aren't interested in them.  Marvel is obviously hoping to play on the existing popularity of existing characters to help generate interest in female characters and other types of characters that simply have not generated all that much interest in comics readers in the past.  My prediction is that these characters will lose readership and eventually 'flop', as well.  Then - as when Asrael became Batman (because Bruce Wayne broke his back) and as when Superman died, Marvel will eventually have to choose to pull its head out of its butt and go back to the 'original' characters, let the titles die due to lack of interest or treat these characters as 'alternate universe' versions of the original (which is what I believe they did with the gay Green Lantern.)  The next thing you know Catwoman will be wearing a full-length, flannel mumu after the feminazi crowd bitches that her tight leather outfit is an exploitation of women.  Maybe Nick Fury will experience some gender confusion, become a cross dresser and start calling himself Nicole.   Speaking of PC and comics, did y'all see where Archie (of Archie and Jughead fame) is going to die at the end of the comics title in which he is an adult?  Yeah, it seems he takes a bullet for his best friend who is a Senator.  A gay, military veteran Senator who is pushing for more gun control after his husband is involved in some sort of shooting incident.   The next thing you know, there will be a gay sex scene between the two title characters in the upcoming Batman vs Superman movie.  I am so damned sick of 'political correctness' invading every aspect of our lives that I could puke.

I have the Marlin/Glenfield version.  Mine isn't entirely a 'safe queen' but it isn't so much a user/beater, either.  The reason is that I inherited it from my dad so it has sentimental value as not only was it his rifle but it was also the gun that I learned to shoot rifles with (yeah, I learned to shoot rifles on a lever action 30-30, not a .22.)  I remember when dad got it, back in the early '70s when I was just a kid (so it is both pre-Bremlin and pre-safety)  When we would go deer hunting, he'd often carry that 30-30 and I'd carry his pump shotgun so both of those guns (which I now own) have a lot of memories tied up in them.  I even still have the scope that came with it, somewhere (has 'Marlin' written in white script on the side.)  I'll get it out every, rare once in a while but I honestly don't shoot centerfire rifles all that often, in general and have other rifles that don't have sentimental value for 'users' when I do.   I have actually been tempted to pick up another one - preferably one that already had scratches and the like but was mechanically solid - to have as a beater/user (and because lever action is my favorite action for a rifle) but I'm really not sure I would use it all that much.  I already have a pre-safety, micro-grooved Marlin lever in .44 Magnum that I bought used that has no sentimental value and with which I have a .44 Super Blackhawk to pair.  I think the .44 can serve just as well for deer hunting in my area - especially as I never seem to even see a ^&*$#@ deer when I am hunting, anyhow.

  See the links I posted, above.  In that case, the driver was in his car while a seventy-something year old man was standing next to his car, completely unarmed.  The driver (who was also in his seventies) claims that the other man was trying to choke him but the driver could still have simply driven away.  Instead, he shot and killed his alleged assailant, was found 'not guilty' and did not go to prison.  So, while a different jury might find differently and Greg, in this case, might have gone to prison if he had responded with deadly force, there is at least one, similar case where that certainly was not the outcome.  In fact, it is my opinion (and only that - and I am not a lawyer) that the would-be assailant in the OP posed a greater threat than a seventy-something year old, unarmed man.  Remember, there is no duty to retreat in TN and the assumption of a threat of death or serious, bodily injury when attacked in your car is much the same as when attacked in your home.   As for your second statement asking how the driver was in danger, do you believe that car windows can't be broken by a baseball bat?  A person driving a car is hardly enclosed in an armored personnel carrier.  If the car is sitting still, stuck in traffic and unable to drive away, I would say that the protection that car provides could be more of an illusion of protection than actual protection.   Further consider that a baseball bat, by Tennessee state law, is considered to be a deadly weapon.  In fact, since the change in knife laws on July 1 that now allow anyone to carry any length or type of knife, clubs (such as a baseball bat) are now pretty much the only hand-held type of weapons identified in 39-17-1307 as weapons that are expressly illegal to carry in Tennessee for which there is no permit to act as a defense to the charge of 'intent to go armed.'   So, wheelchair or not, the OP's son was being threatened by an individual who was:   1.  Threatening to attack him in his car, where the assumption of justifiable self defense applies, according to state law and 2.  Carrying and threatening the driver (and any, other occupants of the vehicle) with an object that, according to state law, is an illegal weapon for which there is no permit to carry   So, could the individual have actually caused harm to the occupants of the car from his wheelchair?  Who knows?  I do think those who are completely discounting the possibility are in error.  One would hope, however, that rather than conjecture as to whether or not the attacker might or might not have been able to cause injury, a person would be viewed as guilty or not guilty under the law.  So, according to the law, was the person in the power chair threatening the occupants in the car with a weapon?  According to state law (39-17-1307), yes - and an illegally carried weapon, at that.  So, then, could the person in the power chair have posed a threat of death or serious, bodily injury under the law?  Well, as state law identifies a club such as a baseball bat as an illegally carried weapon and as the person in the power chair was clearly threatening the driver with that weapon, I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise.   I will say, again, that if one had the opportunity to drive away in such a situation then that is what one should do.  However, I will also say that if the baseball bat wielding nutjob actually began attacking the car and the driver in such a case were to shoot the baseball bat wielding nutjob, wheelchair or not, and if I were on the jury then the best they would get would be a hung jury as I would not go along with a 'guilty' verdict.

          Glad to see that at least one other person on here has actually been in Gatlinburg when traffic is heavy, realizes that using a power chair doesn't mean a person can't stand and understands what I am talking about.

For pork ribs, I hit them with a dry rub, wrap them in cheesecloth and put them on the smoker for 8 hours or more until done.  Keep the cheesecloth damp with a water/vinegar mix.  None of this boiling beforehand, baking in the oven, wrapping in foil for part of the cook time nonsense.  Sometimes when I am unwrapping the cheesecloth from the ribs the meat will be so tender than several of the bones will come out of the meat and pull away with the cheese cloth.  I know a lot of folks remove the membrane but - and maybe I am weird - I like to eat the membrane, too (at least on pork ribs) so I leave it on.  I find that as long as the ribs are kept moist the membrane is pleasantly chewy, not dried out and tough.  In fact, sometimes I like it almost as much as the meat (especially on those rare occasions where the ribs have a bit of fat on the membrane side.)    Before I had a smoker and did pork ribs on the grill, I admit that I would usually boil them a little in a water/vinegar mix first.  That is because it can be difficult to get them good and done in the middle without burning the outside when cooking them on a grill.   For beef ribs, I think a good braise is the way to go.  I have actually braised beef ribs on my smoker for the best of both worlds.  What I would do on the grill is that I think I would grill the beef ribs over direct heat long enough to brown them on the outside.  Then I would place a deep, foil pan over indirect heat.  In that pan I would have a mixture of red wine and/or beer, tomato sauce, minced fresh garlic, sliced onions, black pepper, Worcestershire sauce and just a little brown sugar, honey or molasses as a braising mixture.  I would want enough of that braising mixture to cover the ribs when I place them into the pan.  I would cook low and slow.  At first, I would cover the pan with foil but would remove that foil once the ribs were about done and allow to continue cooking uncovered until the braising liquid thickened up a little so that it would become a sauce.  When I uncovered the pan, if using a gas grill I would want to put in a smoker box* to get a bit of a wood smoke flavor into the mix.  Honestly, I think using this method with a charcoal grill would simply be too much of a PITA because you'd have to constantly add charcoal to keep the fire going for the extended cooking time that would be needed.  I can say it works great on an offset smoker and would probably work well on a gas grill, though.   *A smoker box (or whatever, other name a manufacturer might call it) is simply a metal box, often stainless steel, with holes in it and a lid that usually slides on and off.  To use it, you soak wood chips in water, drain them then put the damp/wet chips into the box, put the lid on and place the box over the heat in your grill.  Most gas grills that I have seen say not to put such boxes directly on the burners but if you are using an indirect cooking method then you could just place the box on the cooking grid over the direct heat.  The steam/smoke from the wood chips won't give you nearly as much of a smoky flavor as you would get in a smoker but it can give some.

  Hey, if you are sitting in bumper to bumper traffic that isn't moving then you ain't outrunning anything.     If traffic were such that you couldn't simply drive away, how long would you continue smiling and waving after he started smashing your car windows with that baseball bat?   What I am saying is that, in certain circumstances, just because someone is in a wheelchair doesn't mean that person couldn't possibly pose a threat.  A ball bat to the cranium is a ball bat to the cranium.  Also, I wouldn't assume that just because someone is in a power chair that they can't stand, at all.  Some folks use those because they can't walk a whole lot, not because they are confined to them just to get around.   I am not saying that the first response should be to shoot.  Driving away, if possible, is certainly the better approach.  Still, treating someone with a baseball bat as if they could not, possibly pose a threat - power chair or not - is a mistake, IMO.   All that said, on a somewhat lighter note, something about the whole thing did make me think of this scene from Seinfeld:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csuZHyW-iGI