JAB

I have the Maverick Security 88 20 inch model. Comes with a factory extended mag tube which holds 7 rounds (Maverick calls it an eight shot but I keep mine in 'cruiser mode' so mine 'only' has seven in it.) I added a cheap, simple sling - not because I expect to march long distances with it but simply so I don't have to put it down if I need both hands for something. I added an inexpensive light (clamped under the mag tube) with remote momentary switch so I can light up a potential target before firing. Nothing else - not even extra ammo in a buttcuff or side saddle. I have considered adding a side mount ammo holder and might do it one day but, honestly, I figure that in my situation if 7 rounds of 00 buck doesn't solve the problem then I'm probably not going to have time to reload, anyhow.

Wow, yeah, that is a nice one. The only one's I have seen, before, were just cheap wooden disks.

Yeah, the Taurus is .44 Special only but I still don't know that I'd want to try it out of an Ultra-Lite. The Alaskan, based on what I remember from holding one a couple years back. is a typical Ruger - heavy as all get out and gives the feeling of being built like a tank. If you are talking about the same guy I think you are talking about (from a different forum to which Jonnin and I both belong), yeah, I was able to make it through two cylinders of that beast but only because he put the more comfy set of grips on for the second cylinder. The recoil got my attention but what really hurt was the top edge of his carry grips literally beating a hole in the web of my hand.

Ruger makes a model called the 'Alaskan'. It is a snubbie version of the Super Redhawk and I'm thinking that is most likely the revolver you are talking about. It is available chambered for either .44 Magnum (fluted cylinder) or .454 Casull (unfluted cylinder) but the MSRP for a new one is over $1,000. If an Alaskan in .44 Mag were on my radar and I had the cash to get it, that would be my choice. In fact, just this morning I was thinking I'd like to have a snubbie in either .44 Mag or .44 Special and was thinking about the Alaskan. Then, again, I have the equipment to reload for .44 and already have a Super Blackhawk so chambered plus I have a Marlin 1894 (.44 Mag lever gun) in layaway at the LGS. If you want a Magnum revolver and aren't going to reload then personally I'd look at a .357 Magnum over a .44 just because of ammo costs. .357 ammo ain't cheap but you could shoot the less expensive (although still not exactly cheap compared to 9mm range ammo) .38 Special ammo from it. .44 Special ammo costs about the same as .44 Magnum ammo, based on the very limited amount of .44 Special I have come across - and .44 Mag is at nearly $40 per box of 50 for WWB ammo at Walmart (which is just about the cheapest I have seen, locally.) http://ruger.com/pro...kan/models.html The Tracker is a Taurus product and is also available in .44 Magnum. However, I am not aware of a snubbie version (although Taurus might have made one at some point.) Currently, the only .44 Magnum Trackers listed on the Taurus website have 4 inch barrels (blued or stainless.) http://www.taurususa...eadcrumbseries= http://www.taurususa...eadcrumbseries= The Taurus site does show that they make a .44 Special snubbie but those are Ultra-Lites, not Trackers. I think you are probably talking about the Ruger Alaskan. http://www.taurususa...crumbseries=SF2 http://www.taurususa...crumbseries=SF2

I have printed out a few articles on home canning meat and plan/hope to get started soon, myself. The lady who wrote the article I read was saying not to plan for things where you would use it like fresh meat (in other words, you ain't gonna open up a jar of home-canned steak and toss it on the grill) but if you make things like meat loaf or can beef roasts, stew meat, etc. and plan to use accordingly it works pretty well. That lady says she cans whole chickens but I'm not sure I could get that to work. Quart jars are probably about as big as I can go. I like the idea of catching meat on sale and buying a lot of it at a good price to can. I have home-canned soups, stews, etc. with meat in them and they did fine. I recently canned some home-made chili and in the past have canned some home-made Brunswick stew. I remember opening/eating a jar of the Brunswick stew more than a year later and it tasted just as good as the day I made it. I just haven't tried canning meat, alone, to be used in other dishes later. Below is a link to the article to which I am referring. I have found others but I think this one is the best written and contains the best advice: http://www.backwoods...s2/clay105.html

Supposing? Supposing what? That he signed (and fully supported) a permanent assault weapons ban when he was governor? Sorry, that ain't supposing - that's fact.

I work for a college so not only is carrying against policy it is also illegal. That said, when I get home I will have a firearm on me within five minutes of arriving and will carry for the remainder of the evening whether I go back out or not. I always carry on weekends, etc. So, do I carry every day? Yes. Do I carry all day, every day? No - but only because of legal restrictions at work.

I know there are no words which can truly help but I am thinking of you and am sorry for your loss.

I started to buy a six of the Shiner Oktoberfest the other day but opted for Sierra Nevada's "Tumbler" Autumn Brown Ale, instead. I like Sierra Nevada's brews and this one is pretty good. It is one of those that seems overly bitter for the first sip or two, to me, but smooths/mellows out after you have had a few pulls and your palate 'adjusts'. As far as I know, there are still two 'home brew' supply stores operating in Knoxville. The oldest is Allen Biermakens in the South Knoxville area, on Martin Mill Pike (kind of close to King Tut's Grill.) I bought a few things there back when I lived closer to that end of town and for years they were the only game in town for home brewers/home wine makers. I looked up the phone # to try and get their hours for you but kept getting a busy signal. If that is close to you then it might be worth giving them a call. The number I found is: (865) 577-2430 and the address I found is 4111 Martin Mill Pike. The second is Fermentations. It is located in the shopping center that used to be (but is no longer) called 'Ten Mile Center' - the one where Rothschild's is. I called them and got an answering machine - apparently they are closed on Mondays (as well as Sundays) and the rest of their hours are: Tuesday through Friday 12 - 7, Saturday 10 - 5. Their phone number is: (865) 694-7993. The address I got for them is 8807 Kingston Pike. I have been into both as I occasionally make home made wine (nothing fancy - mostly I combine old 'country' methods with a few aspects borrowed from more 'refined' home wine making.) I have been wanting to get into home beer making for several years but just haven't gotten one of those round tuits you hear so much about, yet. Just FYI - more use for wine making than beer making, probably, but worth a mention - some wineries now sell wine making supplies (and some of those probably transfer to beer making, too.) For instance, I have bought wine maker's yeast from the Tennessee Valley Winery on Sugar Limb Road (which is much closer to where I live now than either of the aforementioned supply shops and the winery is open on Sundays.) Hope that helps. Rolling Rock is not the same beer it used to be. Anheuser-Busch bought the Rolling Rock brand a few years back and Rolling Rock isn't even brewed in Old Latrobe, PA. anymore. Anheuser-Busch moved the production to one of their facilities. It used to be a 'smaller' brand and was pretty good - especially when you wanted something lighter in taste (maybe with pizza, etc.) that wasn't very expensive. Now it is just mass-market swill much like a lot of the other mass-market, fizzy yellow water swill that the big American breweries pump out. Rolling Rock used to be the favorite beer of a buddy of mine and, even though I teased him that it was brewed in an Old Latrine in PA, I actually thought it was one of the better of the pale ales (as in I could actually enjoy it.) Now he rarely drinks it and still laments that it isn't what it used to be. He prefers Yuengling, now. I have read in more than one place that American beers used to be more like European beers and the beers our forefathers (and Founding Fathers) would have enjoyed would have been more like some of the stronger flavored craft beers and imports than Budweiser or Miller. What ruined it all was Prohibition, apparently. It seems that even after Prohibition officially ended, many alcohol related laws still leaned toward 'controlling' alcohol consumption, etc. In fact, some of those laws or laws stemming from them (such as ridiculous laws that keep beer that is sold in grocery stores, etc. from having very much alcohol in them) are still on the books. The result of such regulation was that American mass marketed beers became, basically, watered-down versions of what real beer should taste like. In the years since Prohibition, the average American beer drinker's palate has become accustomed to these sad reflections of what real beer should be so that now many people don't like beer that actually tastes like, well, beer. Instead, they have come to prefer Clydesdale urine (aka Budweiser) and similar brews.

Wow. Makes me feel even better about finding an older (Microgroove) 1894 in .44 Mag on the used rack at the LGS (Farnsworth's) - with a price tag that was a little bit below $400. When I went back to make a payment the other day, I was told that several people who had previously looked it had later decided to buy it and came back for it - after I put it in layaway. I'm glad I 'jumped' when I did. When I put it in layaway I knew that if I didn't act then it would be gone and I'd be kicking myself later.

Hell, I even think Sam Adams tastes like low-grade dishwater. Never have liked the stuff. I used to not care much for beer - was much more a whiskey kind of guy. The only way I could develop a taste for the stuff was I found one that I liked (St. Pauli Girl) and went from there. I finally got to the point I could drink Budweiser, etc. but never enjoyed those as much as the imports/craft beers. Yuengling is pretty good, though - especially their Black and Tan. Does Pete's Brewery (Pete's Wicked Ale, etc.) not distribute in the Knoxville area, anymore, or have I just not seen it lately? At one time it was one of the most available 'premium domestics' around here and I really liked a lot of their brews. A buddy of mine took a business trip to Wisconsin a couple of years back and brought back a few sixpacks of a beer called "Spotted Cow" from the New Glarus brewery. It is a cask-conditioned ale so it is cloudy (think hefeweizen.) Delicious. Unfortunately, they only sell in their region so I can't get anymore and probably won't be able to for a while. There is a beer called 'Monk's Cafe Sour Flemish Ale', brewed in Belgium, that is just downright different - and quite delicious. Skull Splitter and Arrogant Bastard are probably my two favorite, higher alcohol beers. There is a beer out of Louisiana (from the Dixie Brewing Company) called Blackened Voodoo Lager. I admit that I originally bought it (years ago) because of the cool name and label. I still buy some, occasionally, because I like it. It is pretty expensive, though, and I don't enjoy it as much as some imports (some of which are actually less expensive) so I don't buy it all that often. I don't care for Fat Tire but I do like - and I mean really like - New Belgium's 1554 black ale. Another favorite (that I haven't had in a while, come to think of it) is Sierra Nevada Porter. Until recently, I hadn't had Grolsch in years so I decided to pick up a four pack. Yep, still good. I have had a couple of different beers from the St. Peter's Brewery (which come in bottles shaped more like old medicine or whiskey bottles than 'normal' beer bottles) and they are quite good. Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter is one of my all time favorites but I haven't had one of those in some time, either (dang, looks like a trip to the store is just about in order.) Mackeson's Triple Stout is also really good. It has 'tones' of creamy chocolate and is actually classified by many as a dessert beer. I think it is Left Hand's Milk Stout that reminds me a lot of it. Any of you guys ever tried a 'Rauchbier'? "Rauch" (as I am sure Sour Kraut already knows) is German for 'smoke' so Rauchbier is, literally, smoked beer. I have had one that was just okay and another that was really good (and would have been excellent with barbecue.) Sorry, don't remember the brands and haven't seen Rauchbier in this area, lately. Come to think of it both of the ones I had might have come from beer stores I hit when I was visiting Nashville at one time or another. I enjoy most types of beer other than IPAs as long as they are good beer. My favorites are the darker beers (especially Porters) and cask conditioned, hefeweizen or similar. Lately I have realized that I kind of like good ciders, too. I have pretty much quit drinking while I am 'out'. I never really enjoyed drinking in public all that much, anyhow, and now I'd rather carry and not drink. Further, I have realized that I can buy a sixpack of good, import beer for what a couple of Budweisers would cost me at a restaurant. I had some health issues a couple of years back and don't drink nearly as much beer (or any other alcohol) as I once did so now I am all about quality. If I am only going to have a couple of beers a week then they are going to be damn good ones.

I agree but I also have to wonder if that wouldn't help further control muzzle rise/flip.

I think you are mostly right. Heritage's 'Rough Riders' are made in the U.S. at their plant. Their 'big bores', however, are assembled at their plant from parts that are at least mostly if not entirely made by Pietta.

Where did I say my voting for 'other' would change the outcome? I know it won't. What I am saying is that choosing X does not equate to choosing Y over Z. It equates to choosing X, period. Honestly, does any one of us really think our vote is going to change anything - regardless if we vote for Romney, Obama or a third party? I, for one, am not that naive. As long as the 'big two' parties have a stranglehold on the nation then none of our votes really matter because the status quo is not going to see any real change. It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Until people get fed up enough that a good candidate - and not just one of the two 'viable' but equally terrible candidates - could actually win then none of our votes make a difference, anyway. At least I can spend the next four years knowing that I didn't just go along with herd (regardless if it is a herd of elephants or a herd of donkeys.) That's all I am trying to say.

First of all, there is no chance I will vote for Romney (or Obama) so voting for a third party is not taking my vote away from Romney or Obama because neither of then is going to get my vote, period, in the first place. Therefore, my vote going to someone else is not a default vote for Obama because it isn't taking one, single potential vote away from Romney. This whole, "A vote for X is a vote for Y," nonsense is a mantra that has been so oft repeated that people can't even seem to understand why it isn't true. How does that other saying go...something like, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." What you folks aren't understanding is that I realize there aren't going to be 70,000,000 roasts beefs that day because the majority of the voting public will faithfully line up with their blinders on to eat their crap sandwich and talk about how delicious that mayo or mustard makes everything taste (or be happy that at least they got to have mayonnaise because they revile mustard so much.) Yes, I realize that it is almost certain (because there aren't 70,000,000 other people who will refuse to eat the crap sandwich) that, on November 2, I will end up with a crap sandwich sporting either mayonnaise or mustard, just like everyone else. My point is, when it comes to that, I really don't give a flying fig if my crap sandwich has mayonnaise or mustard on it as it will still be a crap sandwich, either way. In other words, my response to, "A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama," would be: No, but even if that were true, who cares? That's like saying, "If you don't choose mayonnaise on your crap sandwich then someone else will choose mustard for you?" Again, so what? So, you are okay with accepting a crap sandwich as long as you get to 'choose' mayonnaise instead of mustard? Doesn't really sound like much of a choice to me, anyhow. I'm not going to go along and 'choose' to eat a crap sandwich regardless of the condiment selection. I might get held down and have it forced down my throat by either the mayonnaise or mustard crowd (or both, even) because I had the audacity to dare and ask for something different but at that point I really don't care, either way, whether someone else decides it should have mayo or mustard on it. I am at least going to ask for roast beef whether it does me any good or not and will willingly give up the illusion of having a choice to at least ask for something more palatable. If, ultimately, the outcome is going to be that I will have to eat a crap sandwich then what difference does it make - other than letting me 'feel good' that I was given a [mostly false and ultimately inconsequential] choice in the matter? So, asking for roast beef doesn't default to choosing mustard (or mayo, for that matter.) It means I asked for roast beef, period.

The way I see that oft repeated argument: You are at a function and someone is serving up excrement sandwiches. They tell you that you have the choice between mustard or mayonnaise on your sandwich. Fifty other people in the room have already chosen mustard and an equal number have chosen mayonnaise. Each group has already gone to their respective corners to congratulate each other on making the 'right' choice and some members of each group are even going so far as to try to convince you that the crap they are eating is delicious because of their choice of condiment. Knowing it is a long shot but refusing to simply shut up and eat a crap sandwich, and having seen a pack of deli roast beef sitting on a nearby table you decide to say, "I'd like roast beef instead, please," at which point the mayonnaise crowd ridicules you for not stepping up and choosing mayonnaise while the mustard crowd is aghast that you didn't choose mustard. You figure, however, that the only thing you are really giving up is choice of condiment on a guano sandwich - which is a false choice, really - and if you are going to eat a guano sandwich, anyway, it doesn't really matter if it has mayonnaise or mustard. At that point, you might as well take your chances on getting roast beef if only so that you know, in your own mind, that you didn't just go along with either crowd and quietly (or even enthusiastically, in some cases) eat crap. Sure, it probably means being ostracized from both the mayonnaise and mustard crowds but who really wants to hang out with people who blithely line up to eat crapburgers in the first place? That is why I won't be voting for mayonnaise (Romney) or mustard (Obama.) I'll ask for roast beef. After all, if I am going to have to eat a crap sandwich, regardless, neither condiment is going to make the excrement go down any easier so it really doesn't matter to me if I end up with mayonnaise or mustard.

I am just wondering what the status of bank fishing is at the Kingston Steam Plant. I used to go there every so often in cold weather and one day - when it was cold enough that ice would collect in the eyelets - we caught a couple of nice ("keeper") sized striped/hybrid bass down there. Biggest fish I have ever caught in fresh water, in fact. Back then, you could fish from the bank on either side of where the warm water discharges or stand on the wall right above where the warm water discharges. Standing on the wall is where we did well. The last time I went down there (a few years back) it looked like they were doing construction or something and it didn't look like I'd be able to get close enough to really even fish so I just left. That was before the ash spill if that is any indication as to how long ago it was. Then the ash spill happened and I just haven't been back to check into the status of fishing there. So, can anyone tell me if bank fishermen can still get in there to fish right up to where the warm water discharges?

A day or two ago I was looking for .38/.357 bullets and came across the website for the company that makes the 180 grain bullets Buffalo Bore uses in their 180 grain .357 load. Dangit, though, I have looked at so many different bullet company websites in the last few days that I can't remember which company it was and can't seem to find it, now. Anyhow, if someone knows what company it is, the 180 grain hardcast bullets that B.B. uses are available to the reloading public.

Which is part of the reason that, for me, a melee weapon would be for use in case my plan failed, not part of my plan.

I have had the opportunity to mess around with ASP batons. They are interesting but I'd still go with the small crow bar. I am not talking about the type of crowbar that is three feet long or so. Neither am I talking about a thin 'pry bar'. Instead, I am talking about the shorter but still sturdily built type of true crowbar that is roughly the same length as the average tire tool. That length could be easily tucked into a belt, etc. and carried almost (although maybe not quite) as easily as an asp.

I went to check out one locally last year that was put on by a local LEA. When I got there and saw all the custom shotguns that were obviously built just for turkey shoots (six or seven foot barrels with what looked like six inch long chokes screwed into them complete with scopes, etc.) I just got my happy ass back into the truck and left. Some folks can't leave well enough alone and just compete with ordinary shotguns and I'm not wasting my time and $$$ using my regular, old shotgun up against stuff like that.

The other day my mom was talking about a couple of my guns. She commented that, since I don't have any kids to leave them to, I might one day want to leave them to one of my nephews. My response was, "Hell, no. I'm going to have those two buried with me just in case I have to shoot my way out!"

Rifles, nothing - I'd want a good, strong umbrella and a sturdy raincoat/poncho. It would be worse than what I imagine a Gallagher show would be like - and watermelons don't generally spread contagion!

I agree. I just think the Dalai Lama was trying to balance common sense (shoot the bastich!) with a desire to remain as 'peaceful' as possible. I am no Buddhist monk, however, and would probably respond more in the spirit of Nathan Bedford Forrest when a junior officer under his command intentionally shot him during an argument. Forrest (with a bullet in him) reportedly drew his sabre, killed the other man and is quoted as saying (one of my favorite quotes, ever,) "No damn man kills me and lives."

Based on some of the testimony by LEO that I read about in articles about the trial, there was no evidence that the defendant had been choked. There were no marks or even noticeable redness on his neck, etc. I don't think that LEO, the prosecution, etc. believed that he had been choked and, therefore, they didn't believe he acted in self defense. That said, the ballistics, shot trajectory and so on apparently did indicate that the deceased was leaning in the defendant's window when he was shot - lending credence to the 'self defense' claim. Interesting. The 'local scuttle' I have heard was that it was the defendant, and not Butcher, who was seen as a trouble maker and not very well liked. Yeah, I saw where the DA was quoted as saying the 'stand your ground' law makes it difficult for prosecutors in TN to dispute a self defense claim and so on because it puts such a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution. Personally, to me that just sounds like a DA trying to justify why his side lost a fairly high-profile (locally) case that he probably initially thought was a 'slam dunk' win for his side. In all honesty, I don't buy that the 'stand your ground' law has that much of an impact beyond forcing prosecutors in such cases to try the cases in the same manner that ALL criminal cases should be tried. After all, innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the rule, not the exception. Therefore, the burden to prove that the defendant is criminally liable for his or her actions should always be in place. I don't see how 'stand your ground' laws change that. All 'stand your ground' laws do is make it harder for a prosecutor to convict a would-be victim of violent crime simply because that would-be victim didn't try to run away before using deadly force on the assailant. If the prosecution couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then what role could 'stand your ground' have played other than preventing the prosecution from claiming the defendant had some duty to flee? I don't see any, real role other than the DA needs a scapegoat to explain why it wasn't the prosecution's fault they lost the case.