JAB

  True.  I think that, because the chips are usually smoked when using that method, you are actually getting more of a wood 'steam' that a smoke until right at the very end when the chips dry out and ignite, a little.   As you say, getting 'bark' probably isn't going to happen.  Not without burning the mean, anyhow.

  Can you have good ribs from a gas grill?  Absolutely.  They may not, technically, be true 'barbecue' ribs (as in low and slow smoked) but you can still get delicious results.  Look into getting a smoker box for your gas grill.  Basically, that is a small, metal box - usually stainless steel - with holes in the sides.  You soak wood chips, place them in the box then put the box on the smoker (usually under the cooking grate, on the burners but your grill may vary.)  This won't get you that deep, smoky flavor you would get from an offset smoker using wood but you will get a nice 'smokey' note to the flavor.  You can do 'low and slow-ish' on a gas grill by using indirect cooking - as in light the burner in one end of the grill and cook on the other.  Of course, that method can use more gas than direct cooking.   There is a guy named Steven Raichlen who has a couple of shows on PBS (around here he is on the Create channel which is PBS 3 on broadcast television.)  His shows are 'Barbecue University' and 'Primal Grill'.  He uses smokers, charcoal grills and gas grills on his show (he has one charcoal grill with a cooking grate so big that it almost looks like an adult of average height could comfortable stretch out on.)   Raichlen did a show, once, where he cooked some delicious looking ribs on a gas grill.  He pointed out that, while not 'smoked', they would still be very good.  I can't remember for sure if he did a rub, a marinate or a mopping sauce but he threaded the ribs onto the skewer for an electric rotisserie attachment for the gas grill (these can be purchased separately from the grill), removed the cooking grates, put aluminum drip pans under the ribs and let 'er rip.  Sorry I can't remember more details but maybe you can find the recipe on the 'Net.   I certainly do not 'dis' gas grills.  In fact, I have a small, cheapo charcoal grill from Walmart, a decent gas grill and a decent offset smoker all lined up beside each other.  The gas grill gives a good, grilled flavor in a format that is quick, easy and convenient.  The charcoal grill gives a flavor that I prefer, somewhat, but is more of a mess and hassle to fool with.  The smoker is for when I really have plenty of time and is a slightly different animal from grilling.   Heck, to be completely honest for a few years my 'main' grill was a $20 'portable' unit that ran on the small propane bottles like are used for lanterns, etc.  Because that grill used reusable, ceramic 'charcoal briquettes', it actually gave a nice flavor.

  Honestly, when I can find good prices on meat I usually do 'load it up' when I am firing the smoker.  Seems a shame to use that much wood for just one or two pieces of meat.  My smoker is not all that big but it will hold (for instance) two full racks of ribs, a smallish brisket and a few chicken breasts, all at once - maybe with room to smoke a sausage or two.  I don't always load it that full (although I sometimes do) but I do usually try to do 'extra' while I am at it.   I usually freeze the extra for later but the next time I smoke a goodly amount of meat I am considering canning it.  I have canned soups, stews and chili with meat in them, before, and they were just as good a year later as when they were first canned.  I have also been reading articles about canning meat without it being part of a stew, etc.  I am thinking that some pulled or sliced pork - with a lot of the fat removed - would be a good candidate as I would fill the jar about 3/4 of the way full then top off with my homemade barbecue sauce to about 1 inch from the top.  That way, not only would the flavor of the sauce and the meat be allowed to mingle but the tomato and vinegar in the sauce I make should help with preservation, as well.   I am also thinking that I might even can some whole (skinless, boneless) smoked chicken breasts.  For those, I'd probably use either 'store-bought' chicken broth or my homemade mustard based barbecue sauce (I don't generally like mustard based sauces but finally came up with one that I do like - and it is really good on chicken.)  Maybe I'll try some of both.   I don't think I would fool with canning ribs as the bone would take up a lot of space and probably speed spoilage - and I don't really see the point of canning rib meat off the bone.  I have thought about smoking some (again, store-bought) sausage like kielbasa or something to can.  We'll see if I get motivated enough to actually go through with any of this, though.   If I do can some of the meat, I am thinking more toward having a quick and easy way to bring portion-sized amounts to work than for 'prepping'.  That doesn't mean it couldn't be used in more of a 'prepping' sense, too, if the need arises. 

  I actually think it is just the policy in 'some' stores.  I know that I have been told (for instance) that the Oak Ridge Walmart will not sell ammo after 10pm.  That said, in the past, I have bought ammo in many, other Walmart locations after 10pm and, once or twice (during the last ammo shortage) at around midnight.  When I have bought ammo at later times, usually there isn't anyone running a register in the Sporting Goods department and a Walmart associate will walk the ammo up to one of the open registers in the front.  In fact, when I have had other shopping to do, I have had them simply tell me (for example), "I will leave this at register #8.  Just go through that line when you get ready to check out and tell the cashier that some ammo was left there for you."   I also wonder if there might be some local/city/county ordinances against selling ammo past a certain time.

  Okay, then - that is pretty dreamy.

Geez - I know that when we take our small camping trailer out we aren't really 'roughing it' but at least we are in the woods, I build (and cook) over a real fire and get out in the river and streams to fish.  I guess as long as these folks enjoy it then whatever.  If I had to live in New York City for more than about two days I'd probably be jumping off the top of one of those buildings, not 'camping' on them.

I can see how you would misinterpret that post. What I was getting at is that risks are inherent in a LEO's job and that the LEO should always assume - when called to a scene where a person is acting out - that there will be possible risk and should not be surprised if a threat presents itself regardless of whether or not the person who called 911 gave a full assessment of the situation. Further, the best way to make sure one does not come up against dangers/risks as part of one's job is to not do a job where such dangers and risks come with the territory - not suing someone else for not telling them that their dangerous job might be dangerous. Suing because, "she didn't warn me of the potential danger in her 911 call," is bull. That is what I meant when I said that dealing with potentially dangerous people is part of his job and that he shouldn't be suing [a third party] because he came up against such a person. For clarity, I probably should have said that he shouldn't be suing someone who committed no crime and who only made the 911 call. Just one of those cases where I knew what I meant so didn't see that someone else might interpret it differently. I have no problem with a cop suing the criminal who actually injured him (which in this case is impossible because his attacker is dead.) Hell, just for a hypothetical, if a cop were injured in an accident while chasing a fleeing criminal I'd have no problem with the cop suing the criminal even though said criminal did not directly injure the cop. All that being said, I still maintain that in a case where a cop is suing a 911 caller who did not break the law and did not attack him simply because she didn't tell him that doing his dangerous job could be dangerous is BS and the individual cop who is doing so is a jackhole.

Man, this thread is making me jones for some good barbecue and now I am feeling the need to 'fight back'. I am off from work on Thursday and Friday (as well as my normal Saturday and Sunday) of next week. I considered going camping but then realized that it will be Labor Day weekend. I don't want to be within ten miles of the campgrounds on Labor Day weekend even if I thought I could find a spot. I am now thinking that firing the smoker would be a good plan. Now I just need to decide if I want to smoke pork ribs: Chicken breasts: Pork loin: Pork butt: A beef brisket: Or even some lamb ribs (honestly, these tasted great but - as you might expect - got a little dry) : Whatever I do will get one or another of the dry rubs I have come up with over the years but I still have to decide whether to just make one of my homemade sauces or go ahead and make two or three, different ones: Decisions, decisions.

A positive ending to a story that could have ended much, much worse.  An escaped prisoner failed in the victim selection process when he chose to hold a former corrections officer and his wife captive at gunpoint in their home:   http://www.omaha.com/article/20130820/NEWS/308209948

Well, that depends - what prices are on those boxes on the shelves at Whittaker's?  If the prices are reasonable then heck, yeah.

  For some reason, that made me think of this:   I have said on here, before, that my dad made and ran shine down around north Georgia in his younger days.  I once had the opportunity to have him 'evaluate' some of the stuff from up around Newport for me.  The first thing he said was that the alcohol content wasn't very high - he estimated only around 80 proof (he said that the stuff he used to make ran around 90 proof, at least.)  Then he tasted it and his reaction was, "Well, I'd say it's safe but they put rye in it.  Why the hell would anybody ruin good whiskey by putting G**damn rye in it?"

  Except that money paid to support their films and the fame they get from those films also allows them to continue a lifestyle where they can spout their anti-gun nonsense to millions who are dumb enough to be influenced by them simply because they are famous.  So, as their opinions influence a segment of the population who could be influenced to support further reduction of our firearms rights, their opinions are relevant even if we wish they weren't.  Heck, I wouldn't doubt that individual anti-gun, Hollyweird types like Wahlberg, Stallone and so on do more to influence anti-gun opinions in the general public than Obama, Pelosi and Bloomberg combined.   This is not to even mention the hypocritical nature of actors who often star in 'action' movies where the use of guns is a major part of the film but then want to push an anti-gun agenda in their 'off screen' lives.    Still, sometimes there are movies that you want to see, anyway.

  Jonathan is my first name.  Mom says that the first time she ever, really heard (or, at least, noticed) the name 'Jonathan' was Jonathan Winters.  She liked the name and ended up naming me 'Jonathan' so, in an indirect sort of way, I am named after Jonathan Winters.

  Well, you can make some pretty good pulled pork in a crock pot.  However, if it ain't smoked it ain't barbecue. :pleased:

  When I lived at my Grandmothers on East Fifth in Knoxville while attending UTK, she had a detached storage building that had two attached carports (we called it a 'garage' but I'm not sure it was, technically.)  There was a large storm drain directly behind her storage building, in the alley.  One day I was in the building and heard something moving around on the shelves in the back.  I shined a light to see what it was and the darned thing kind of hissed at me.  At first, I thought it was a possum but when it came out of hiding to run away I got a better look and realized it was a huge rat that was simply as big as a good sized possum.  I'd say it was every bit of 10 inches, not including the tail, if not more.  I only saw it once (thankfully) and have never seen a rat nearly that big, since.

  I guess I must have overlooked the post(s) where people were saying that.  The only post(s) I have seen pretty much say that the cop shouldn't be able to sue the person who called 911 when that person committed no crime.  Maybe we are reading a different thread or maybe I'm just not reading closely enough.

  Please find in my posts, above, where I said the criminal should be absolved of civil liability.  I saw nothing in the story to indicate that the 911 caller had committed ANY criminal offense - meaning the 911 caller is not, as far as we know, a criminal.  Further, I didn't even see any proof that the lady had provided false information to the dispatcher.  So, therefore, this cop isn't looking at suing the criminal but, instead, is looking at suing an innocent citizen who had the audacity to call 911 and expect this cop to be able to handle his job.  Stupid her - what does she think the cops are there for, anyway?  Protecting and serving or some such nonsense as that?   See, I am talking about this, particular case - not some hypothetical and totally unrelated case where a cop sues the person who injured him (which, as far as I can see, is not what is being discussed by the majority of participants in this thread.)  That is why I say that calling this jackhole a jackhole because he is suing an innocent 911 caller is not 'cop bashing'.  It isn't.  Now, if jackhole bashing is offensive then I guess I am guilty because I refuse to give a jackhole a 'pass' just because he is wearing a uniform and a badge.

Sorry, I don't know a lot about the PMK-380.  I do have a FEG SMC-380 and can tell you that it has been a pretty good gun.  I don't/haven't shot it a whole lot as it isn't carried regularly (I have a Kel Tec P3AT if I want to carry a .380.)  When I do shoot it, I find it quite enjoyable (I really like the Walther-ish style of guns.)  The SMC is pretty accurate at SD distances and functions well with FMJ ammo.  I can tell you that, when I tried them, it didn't like Federal Hydrashoks very much and really wouldn't chamber them very well, at all.  On the other hand, it likes the Monarch JHP from Academy just fine (of course I am not sure how easy that, particular ammo is to find right now.)   Unless I am mistaken, the magazines from a PMK will work in my SMC - they will just 'stick out' a little from the bottom (I say that only to say that the two guns are, apparently, at least somewhat similar, although the SMC is smaller.)  Obviously, SMC mags would be too short to work in a PMK but, apparently, PMK mags are easier to find, anyhow.   Of course, being a slightly larger gun, the PMK might not be quite as 'picky' about JHP types as my SMC.  I imagine that it will be even more of a pleasure to shoot and probably have even more potential accuracy, also do to being slightly larger.  I think you will enjoy the PMK-380.

When I worked at a grocery store years ago, we got a sort of thin magazine that was some type of trade publication.  I remember one article about how it is impossible to keep contaminants out of foods so government food safety laws simply attempt to limit those contaminants.  I don't remember specific limits but the article talked about how many rat droppings are allowed per x number of pre-packaged muffins, how many mouse or rat parts are allowed per x jars of peanut butter, how many maggots are allowed per X units of some, other products and so on.  As such, I am pretty sure that any factory made/packaged/canned/etc. foods I eat have a strong chance of being a whole lot nastier than my dog's mouth.  Hell, for that matter the things that we KNOW are in many hot dogs, potted meat and so on - as in the actual, intended ingredients - are nastier than what is probably in my dog's mouth.   Now, all that said I have just never liked having a dog lick me in the face and my dog generally does not.  If she is being affectionate, she will lick my forearm (and she sometimes licks the heck out of my forearm for minutes at a time.)  If she is in a really good mood and can't contain herself, she will sometimes go after my ear but she simply does not lick me in the face.  She even sleeps in the bed with me but still never takes the opportunity to lick me in the face.  I don't remember actively 'breaking' her from it but I do remember indicating that I didn't like it and telling her to stop.  She is a pretty smart pooch and - although capable of being willful at times - really has a strong desire to please so I guess she just took the hint and stopped on her own.   One thing I find really funny about the whole, "Dog giving STDs by face licking," thing is that I have heard 'old timers' say that if you have a cut, etc. and let a dog lick it then it will heal more quickly than it would heal just on its own.  I have also noticed that if I have a cut on my arm or hand then some dogs (not just the one I currently have but also other dogs in the past) will be almost obsessive about licking the wound - and it really does seem to help wounds heal faster.

  See, that is the problem.  I know the old maxim, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but the fact is that there are so many laws on the books these days - not just state but local, federal and so on - and so many of those laws are little known, vague or actually go directly against common sense that even LEO and legal experts are 'ignorant' of some laws.  That being the case, how could the general public be expected to be aware of them all?  Frankly, we all probably break some or another stupid law we never even knew existed on a daily basis and it probably wouldn't take a determined prosecutor very long to figure out a way to make felons of us all.   It is kind of like how in TN I can legally go and buy a switchblade knife.  I can legally own said switchblade knife.  However, actually carrying a switchblade knife (one that it is legal to buy and own) is a violation of the law.  So I guess that, technically, if I buy a swtichblade knife and get 'caught' with it in my possession between the place where I buy it and my home then I can be charged with a crime.  Those sorts of 'gotcha' laws need to be stripped from the books.  If something (in this case, tannerite) is legal to buy without a permit and is legal to possess, mixing and shooting it should not be a crime.  If mixing and shooting it without a permit is going to be a crime then the requisite permit should be required to buy it in the first place.  Otherwise, it is just another 'gotcha' law and honestly seems a lot like entrapment (maybe not in the legal sense but certainly in a practical sense), to me.

...I'd GTFO as quickly as I possibly could.

I never heard anyone say that an 8-track had the best sound.  I have heard that vinyl - the very first time you play it - has the best sound possible but that you destroy the record a little every time you play it.  I read, once, that the reason vinyl has better sound is that, supposedly, humans hear in analog so analog recordings sound more 'true' to our ears.  That article went on to claim that, as digital sound is converted to analog by our ears, it can never have as much fidelity.  Personally - having been around when vinyl was still a major recording media (it coexisted with 8 track and 45 'singles' may have even outlasted 8 track) right through cassettes, CDs and MP3s, I think that just might be hogwash.  I, personally, think CDs have the best sound of anything I have heard, so far (better than most MP3s, even.)     When CDs first came out, although it wasn't a 'new' album, Pink Floyd The Wall was one of my favorite albums and one that I listened to all the time.   I had listened to it over and over on cassette - to the point that I felt like I knew pretty much every, single note.  Then I got it on CD and was like, "Wow - there are entire layers of sound on this album that I never even knew were there." 

  Might not hurt to have a separate thread for it but the scope of this thread has gone beyond Walmart.  I think people have been listing pretty much any ammo they find on shelves anywhere - Walmart, Academy, LGS and so on.

  And then the prosecuting attorney says, "So, then, you 'need' all of that training because police have extensive training?  But you are not a police officer, are you?  No, you are a private citizen.  So, sir, do you fancy yourself some sort of 'independent law enforcement'?  Is that why you need all that training?  Hmmm...isn't there another name for such an 'independent law enforcement'?  Isn't that name, 'vigilante'?"   I'm not trying to be a jerk or go tit for tat but isn't the belief that such an argument will be used just as reasonable?   Of course, as you said, it sounds like this is all pretty much just a mental exercise as the make/model of the gun is no longer recorded and I have already taken the class and qualified with the 22A.

  My first car - in the late 1980s - was a 1974 Ford LTD Country Squire wagon.  It was kind of a tan color with (fading and peeling) fake wood side 'panelling'.  It had been in the family before i got it.  IIRC. it came with a 351 but that engine was shot so dad and I went to a local junkyard and got a 400 to put in it.  When the exhaust system went to crap, dad put on a dual straight pipe setup with cherry bombs for me.  He also adjusted the shift linkage for the automatic transmission to get more out of the low gears before it shifted.  That thing was ugly as sin, drank gas like water and would run like a scalded dog.  Guys in much nicer cars would pull up next to me at red lights, laugh at my car and proceed to see nothing but my tail lights when the light turned green.  Of course, part of that was the fact that heavy wagon got good traction off the line.  I remember doing that to a nice looking, classic (thinking a '68) Camaro, once.  The driver had revved his engine and he and his passenger were laughing at my wagon.  Then the light turned green and I left them like they were sitting still because, while his tires were spinning and impressively burning rubber, the wagon was already on the move.  The guys in that Camaro wouldn't even look at me when we got to the next red light.