Oct 2006
Are we shooting more than we used to?
Let's jump back to, say, 1935 or so. Someone has just bought a new .38 Special revolver (take your pick of quality makers) and a box of ammunition - a box that might last them for a decade or more!
What I've managed to decipher from the "old folks" I've talked with is that they just didn't shoot guns all that much. There weren't a lot of competitive shooting events back then, and even those that existed demanded less ammunition in a year than a typical IDPA match consumes in a weekend. A box of handgun ammo (50 rounds) per year was considered a "lot" of shooting by many of these folks; at that rate, our mythical revolver would be considered to have been heavily used, having only seen a total of 3500 rounds!
Flash forward to 2006, and a certain maker says that their gun has an "expected lifespan" of 6,000 rounds. Doesn't sound like much to us, but it may be two or three (or possibly ten) times the number of rounds that guns sold in 1935 would expect to see over their lifetime.
Perspective, people. There is a lot to complain about in the craftsmanship (or lack of same) coming out most of today's manufacturers, but one generally can't fault the durability of the guns. There are exceptions, of course, but in the aggregate I suspect that your average GP-100 will last longer than the folks of 1935 could even imagine.
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
FRIDAY SURPRISE: The Abner, John, Warren, and Bill Auto Company
Jay Leno has one (two, actually.)
In 1924, it ran on kerosene, developed 1,000 ft-lbs of torque, got
15+ MPG, had a top speed of over 100 mph, and had an engine that
ran at 900 RPM while traveling at 75mph.
What was this remarkable vehicle? The Doble Steam car! The Doble was the pinnacle of steam automobile design, and even today remains a marvel of engineering. Steam, for those not familiar with the "antiquated" technology, produces phenomenal, linear power with almost no noise. I've long been of the opinion that a modern steam car, taking advantage of advances in metallurgy and computer control, could be economical, powerful, and clean. What's keeping Detroit??
In the meantime, check out this article on the fantastic Doble. (Oh, and be sure to ignore the idiot commentary from one of the readers, who opines that the steam car is impractical because of the "dangerous" high pressure boiler. The Doble used a flash boiler, which doesn't contain a large quantity of high pressure steam. If it burst, the only result would be a sudden drop of power and large cloud of water vapor. Maybe he works for one of the Big 3 - it would explain a lot!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
What was this remarkable vehicle? The Doble Steam car! The Doble was the pinnacle of steam automobile design, and even today remains a marvel of engineering. Steam, for those not familiar with the "antiquated" technology, produces phenomenal, linear power with almost no noise. I've long been of the opinion that a modern steam car, taking advantage of advances in metallurgy and computer control, could be economical, powerful, and clean. What's keeping Detroit??
In the meantime, check out this article on the fantastic Doble. (Oh, and be sure to ignore the idiot commentary from one of the readers, who opines that the steam car is impractical because of the "dangerous" high pressure boiler. The Doble used a flash boiler, which doesn't contain a large quantity of high pressure steam. If it burst, the only result would be a sudden drop of power and large cloud of water vapor. Maybe he works for one of the Big 3 - it would explain a lot!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Another place to feed your gun-blog craving
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 Filed in:
Political
Action, Other resources
Now that winter is coming, most of
us (except for those in the southern part of the country) will find
our opportunity for shooting activities sharply reduced. If you
can't be out shooting, the second best thing is reading about
shooting!
The Gun Blogs bills itself as the "online community for gun bloggers." You'll find a number of bloggers who write about guns, politics, and hunting on a regular basis. Definitely worth checking out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Gun Blogs bills itself as the "online community for gun bloggers." You'll find a number of bloggers who write about guns, politics, and hunting on a regular basis. Definitely worth checking out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
You asked for it - more t-shirt options!
Monday, October 23, 2006 Filed in:
What's
New!, Accessories
Several people sent me emails
about the Original Revolver Liberation Alliance
t-shirt.
Everyone loves them, but many expressed desire for a long-sleeve
version. At the same time, I got some emails about the new
"The earth isn't flat..." shirt, and those folks wanted a
short-sleeve version!
Well, all of your wishes have been granted! I now have both shirts in short and long sleeve versions! Go to the store and check them out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Well, all of your wishes have been granted! I now have both shirts in short and long sleeve versions! Go to the store and check them out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Goodbye to Tom Cruise's most famous ride
The Navy retired the F-14 "Tomcat"
fighter last month. The F-14, one of the premier fighter aircraft
of all time, is being replaced by the F/A-18.
The F-14 grew out of a failure. In the 1960s Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was on a mission to standardize all kinds of equipment across the various military services - everything from boots to rifles to aircraft. He decided that the Navy (who, remember, operates airplanes off of short aircraft carriers) could use the same fighter as the Air Force (who operate from nice, long runways.) He decreed that the Navy should adopt a variant of the Air Force F-111A, to be designated the F-111B.
The F-111 wasn't exactly a rousing success in its original role, and despite throwing huge amounts of money at the modification project it never did make any of the Navy's goals. It remained grossly overweight, had extremely poor visibility for carrier landings, and at the medium speeds the Navy anticipated it to operate it had less than stellar maneuverability. It proved to be less suitable for the role than the plane it was to replace, the F-4 Phantom II.
It should go without saying that F-111B project died a horrible death, and the F-14 project was initiated. What the Navy got was one of the premier fighter aircraft ever made, and also one of the most visually striking. After giving yeoman service for 34 years, the Tomcat received a heartfelt farewell from the Navy.
F-14 FAQ
Tomcat Alley: The F-14 Site
-=[ Grant ]=-
The F-14 grew out of a failure. In the 1960s Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was on a mission to standardize all kinds of equipment across the various military services - everything from boots to rifles to aircraft. He decided that the Navy (who, remember, operates airplanes off of short aircraft carriers) could use the same fighter as the Air Force (who operate from nice, long runways.) He decreed that the Navy should adopt a variant of the Air Force F-111A, to be designated the F-111B.
The F-111 wasn't exactly a rousing success in its original role, and despite throwing huge amounts of money at the modification project it never did make any of the Navy's goals. It remained grossly overweight, had extremely poor visibility for carrier landings, and at the medium speeds the Navy anticipated it to operate it had less than stellar maneuverability. It proved to be less suitable for the role than the plane it was to replace, the F-4 Phantom II.
It should go without saying that F-111B project died a horrible death, and the F-14 project was initiated. What the Navy got was one of the premier fighter aircraft ever made, and also one of the most visually striking. After giving yeoman service for 34 years, the Tomcat received a heartfelt farewell from the Navy.
F-14 FAQ
Tomcat Alley: The F-14 Site
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Carnival is back in town!
The Carnival of Cordite, that is!
That's right, once again you can get your fix of the best gun blogs on the net. This is a great one - lots of links. Take a look!
-=[ Grant ]=-
That's right, once again you can get your fix of the best gun blogs on the net. This is a great one - lots of links. Take a look!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A bit of opinion about MIM parts
Heard about "MIM" parts? MIM is an
injection molding process for metal parts, and it has been
revolutionizing many industries. In the revolver business, both
Smith & Wesson and Taurus have made use of MIM parts. Like any
new process, however, there are those who decry the new technology;
some gunsmiths spread the misinformation that MIM parts can't be
worked on, and refuse to take in guns using MIM parts. Adding fuel
to the fire are a few well-publicized parts breakages, most notably
with 1911 autopistol sears.
Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the story is a bit more complex than that.
I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!
MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting. Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand them.
First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered. This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!
The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost; the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or nearly impossible to economically machine.
The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that are very thin.
There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.
Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the engineering behind the part itself.
As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home free.
The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!
The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that way!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the story is a bit more complex than that.
I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!
MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting. Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand them.
First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered. This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!
The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost; the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or nearly impossible to economically machine.
The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that are very thin.
There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.
Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the engineering behind the part itself.
As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home free.
The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!
The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that way!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: In honor of the 13th
Friday, October 13, 2006 Filed in:
Friday
Surprise!, History, Completely
irrelevant, Other resources
Since this is Friday the 13th, I
thought I'd share with you some link that are a little on the
"eery" side.
The first deals with the Battle of Los Angeles: did we fight extra-terrestrials in 1942?
Second, check out the Glore Psychiatric Museum: a weird exhibition of madness and how we deal with it.
Finally, take a listen to one of my very favorite podcasts: HomeTown Tales - "because every town has one."
Enjoy!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The first deals with the Battle of Los Angeles: did we fight extra-terrestrials in 1942?
Second, check out the Glore Psychiatric Museum: a weird exhibition of madness and how we deal with it.
Finally, take a listen to one of my very favorite podcasts: HomeTown Tales - "because every town has one."
Enjoy!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A new website feature: "Recent Projects"
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Filed in:
What's
New!, Gunsmithing
I've put a new page up on the
site! Called "Recent Projects", it is just what the name
implies: a place for me to share some information about recent
revolvers that I've built.
This page is intended to be a bit different than most other such pages on your average gunsmith's site. You may have noticed that I like to give my clients and potential clients as much information as possible, and this page continues that tradition. I've browsed around a lot of custom handgun sites, and frequently all I see are a few (usually bad) pictures of a gun - and nothing more. I always want to know more about the gun: what kind of work was done, what kind of unusual features were added, the gunsmith's intent and philosophy, and perhaps a bit about how the gun performs. In other words, I want to know if that would be a gun I'd like to have for myself!
On my Recent Projects page, you'll see the gun, learn about how it was built (and why it was built that way), and much more. The first entry is already up: a nice Ruger GP-100 that I recently finished for a client. I started with a gun that was slightly "ratty", and...well, take a look and see how it came out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
This page is intended to be a bit different than most other such pages on your average gunsmith's site. You may have noticed that I like to give my clients and potential clients as much information as possible, and this page continues that tradition. I've browsed around a lot of custom handgun sites, and frequently all I see are a few (usually bad) pictures of a gun - and nothing more. I always want to know more about the gun: what kind of work was done, what kind of unusual features were added, the gunsmith's intent and philosophy, and perhaps a bit about how the gun performs. In other words, I want to know if that would be a gun I'd like to have for myself!
On my Recent Projects page, you'll see the gun, learn about how it was built (and why it was built that way), and much more. The first entry is already up: a nice Ruger GP-100 that I recently finished for a client. I started with a gun that was slightly "ratty", and...well, take a look and see how it came out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Another Revolver Liberation Alliance t-shirt is available!
Monday, October 09, 2006 Filed in:
What's
New!, Accessories
When I reissued
the famous Revolver Liberation Alliance
t-shirt recently, I
was forced to search through my old computer archives to find the
graphics. Along the way I ran across a number of other designs that
I'd done, but which hadn't seen the light of day. I decided to redo
those graphics to modern formats and resolutions and make them
available.
Today I'm pleased to announce the second exclusive Revolver Liberation Alliance shirt: "The earth isn't flat, your gun shouldn't be either!"
The shirt features the custom graphic and RLA logo on the back (so you can annoy the autoloader people even while you're shooting) and my (small) logo on the front.
Since winter is coming I decided to make this is a long-sleeved shirt; I ordered mine one size larger so that I could layer it over a contrasting turtleneck for a recent rainy-day range appearance.
It's a great shirt - order one today!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Today I'm pleased to announce the second exclusive Revolver Liberation Alliance shirt: "The earth isn't flat, your gun shouldn't be either!"
The shirt features the custom graphic and RLA logo on the back (so you can annoy the autoloader people even while you're shooting) and my (small) logo on the front.
Since winter is coming I decided to make this is a long-sleeved shirt; I ordered mine one size larger so that I could layer it over a contrasting turtleneck for a recent rainy-day range appearance.
It's a great shirt - order one today!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: The first commercially produced personal helicopter!
OK, I admit it - I'm a sucker for
the idea of personal aircraft, though I do not own one.
Ultralights, autogyros, hang gliders - I love 'em all, even if I've
never flown in or on one!
Of course the ultimate would be owning a personal helicopter, and it looks like it may now be possible: the GEN H-4 personal helicopter! For about $30,000 and a week's worth of assembly work, you can have a helicopter that weighs only 155lbs and cruises at 55mph.
Yeah, I want one!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Of course the ultimate would be owning a personal helicopter, and it looks like it may now be possible: the GEN H-4 personal helicopter! For about $30,000 and a week's worth of assembly work, you can have a helicopter that weighs only 155lbs and cruises at 55mph.
Yeah, I want one!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On reliability...
Wednesday, October 04, 2006 Filed in:
Revolvers, General gun
stuff, Personal
opinions, Techniques &
Training
Forgive my deviation from revolver
centrism, but a recent rifle class in which I assisted brought to
mind a topic which is just not understood amongst gun owners:
"reliability."
What is "reliable"? You'll hear all kinds of definitions, all kinds of criteria. My definition is deceptively simple: the next time you pull the trigger, the gun will function perfectly. That means zero, zilch, nada, nyet failures. Every single time, regardless of how many rounds you've just shot. Not just "bang", but feed, fire, eject, and feed again.
Sounds like I'm easy to please, right? You'd be surprised at how few guns actually do perform to this standard. I expect a reliable gun to do this after a full weekend of shooting, regardless of the number of rounds I've shot, as well as right after cleaning. Every single time, without exception.
Note that I don't specify any particular number of rounds, because I've encountered instances where reliability was defined by some arbitrary round count, such as 500 - and when the gun crapped out on the 501st round, it was still deemed to be reliable since it had met the number! Sorry, not in my book.
One test I've heard (for autoloading rifles) is "six magazines of duty loads, fired as quickly as you can change magazines." Sounds great, right? I've seen an AR-15 which would only pass such a test one time, yet the owner decided it was reliable because it met the test criteria! The fact that it couldn't perform the feat again did not dissuade him in his opinion.
The only caveats are that 1) the gun be maintained according to the maker's recommendations and 2) fed ammunition which conforms to industry standards for that caliber. Anything else - such as the ever-popular mud wrestling test, making it into a popsicle, and other such activities - can be considered the ballistic equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters game: entertaining to watch, but no indicator of an ability to win the NBA finals.
I've seen more than one gun which happily ate a magazine of ammo after being dropped into a mud puddle, but couldn't be counted on to function perfectly at any unannounced time. Mind you, it malfunctioned maybe once every 400 or so rounds, but sooner or later it would fail. Reliable? Not by my definition.
You'll run into many people who will tell you that this is "no big deal - I've got lots of guns that will do that." At the risk of offending someone - believe me, it's not my intention - I will quote Hugh Laurie, playing the namesake character in the TV series 'House': "everyone lies."
When I say "every time you pull the trigger", I mean EVERYTIME. When I say zero failures, I mean ZERO. One fellow of my acquaintance is known locally for his promotion of a particular gun, which he insists is "absolutely reliable." This is a fellow with a good reputation, someone that other people consider honest and, presumably, look up to. Trouble is, he lies - I've seen his gun fail, and I know others who have witnessed it too. Yet, he continues to insist that his gun is "perfectly reliable." In one class, I met someone with an HK 91, supposedly the epitome of functionality; of course, the owner insisted it was "reliable". It suffered a FTF the first day, and an FTE the second. The owner continued to refer to it as "reliable".
If your gun will not function with ammunition that meets industry-standard specs, then it is unreliable. I had an encounter with a gunstore commando a while back; he was going to loan his "custom built" AR-15 to another employee. He gushed that his pride and joy was the most reliable gun he had ever seen - then, almost in the same breath, told the other fellow not to shoot Winchester ammunition in it, as "it won't feed Winchester all of the time." Even if it functioned 100% with everything else (though I doubt it), that it wouldn't work with one specific brand means that it simply wasn't reliable. (Back to revolvers - if your wheelgun won't fire every brand of ammunition in its caliber with zero misfires, it's not reliable!
My favorite rifle instructor, Georges Rahbani, always says that you are only as good as you are on demand - the same goes for your gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
What is "reliable"? You'll hear all kinds of definitions, all kinds of criteria. My definition is deceptively simple: the next time you pull the trigger, the gun will function perfectly. That means zero, zilch, nada, nyet failures. Every single time, regardless of how many rounds you've just shot. Not just "bang", but feed, fire, eject, and feed again.
Sounds like I'm easy to please, right? You'd be surprised at how few guns actually do perform to this standard. I expect a reliable gun to do this after a full weekend of shooting, regardless of the number of rounds I've shot, as well as right after cleaning. Every single time, without exception.
Note that I don't specify any particular number of rounds, because I've encountered instances where reliability was defined by some arbitrary round count, such as 500 - and when the gun crapped out on the 501st round, it was still deemed to be reliable since it had met the number! Sorry, not in my book.
One test I've heard (for autoloading rifles) is "six magazines of duty loads, fired as quickly as you can change magazines." Sounds great, right? I've seen an AR-15 which would only pass such a test one time, yet the owner decided it was reliable because it met the test criteria! The fact that it couldn't perform the feat again did not dissuade him in his opinion.
The only caveats are that 1) the gun be maintained according to the maker's recommendations and 2) fed ammunition which conforms to industry standards for that caliber. Anything else - such as the ever-popular mud wrestling test, making it into a popsicle, and other such activities - can be considered the ballistic equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters game: entertaining to watch, but no indicator of an ability to win the NBA finals.
I've seen more than one gun which happily ate a magazine of ammo after being dropped into a mud puddle, but couldn't be counted on to function perfectly at any unannounced time. Mind you, it malfunctioned maybe once every 400 or so rounds, but sooner or later it would fail. Reliable? Not by my definition.
You'll run into many people who will tell you that this is "no big deal - I've got lots of guns that will do that." At the risk of offending someone - believe me, it's not my intention - I will quote Hugh Laurie, playing the namesake character in the TV series 'House': "everyone lies."
When I say "every time you pull the trigger", I mean EVERYTIME. When I say zero failures, I mean ZERO. One fellow of my acquaintance is known locally for his promotion of a particular gun, which he insists is "absolutely reliable." This is a fellow with a good reputation, someone that other people consider honest and, presumably, look up to. Trouble is, he lies - I've seen his gun fail, and I know others who have witnessed it too. Yet, he continues to insist that his gun is "perfectly reliable." In one class, I met someone with an HK 91, supposedly the epitome of functionality; of course, the owner insisted it was "reliable". It suffered a FTF the first day, and an FTE the second. The owner continued to refer to it as "reliable".
If your gun will not function with ammunition that meets industry-standard specs, then it is unreliable. I had an encounter with a gunstore commando a while back; he was going to loan his "custom built" AR-15 to another employee. He gushed that his pride and joy was the most reliable gun he had ever seen - then, almost in the same breath, told the other fellow not to shoot Winchester ammunition in it, as "it won't feed Winchester all of the time." Even if it functioned 100% with everything else (though I doubt it), that it wouldn't work with one specific brand means that it simply wasn't reliable. (Back to revolvers - if your wheelgun won't fire every brand of ammunition in its caliber with zero misfires, it's not reliable!
My favorite rifle instructor, Georges Rahbani, always says that you are only as good as you are on demand - the same goes for your gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Brits and illegal guns - one more time
Monday, October 02, 2006 Filed in:
Current
Events, Personal
opinions
A while back, I told you about the Brits
tracing the source of
the illegal guns in their country to a ring operating out of New
Jersey. Sounded a bit fishy to me...
Well, now we learn that the problem isn't people from New Jersey - it's their own soldiers bringing back stolen guns from Iraq! Of course, this won't matter to the Europeans who belong to the Blame America First Club, but I find it ironic.
Note to Tony Blair: you worry about your mess, we'll worry about ours. Heaven knows that we both have enough to deal with...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Well, now we learn that the problem isn't people from New Jersey - it's their own soldiers bringing back stolen guns from Iraq! Of course, this won't matter to the Europeans who belong to the Blame America First Club, but I find it ironic.
Note to Tony Blair: you worry about your mess, we'll worry about ours. Heaven knows that we both have enough to deal with...
-=[ Grant ]=-