Monday, June 21, 2010 Filed in:
General gun
stuff
I got an email last week from a client whose relative was concerned
that his new Glock "didn't have a safety." To remedy this perceived
fault, he's considering buying one of
these.
So, let me make sure I understand the concept: a safety device that
forces you to mess with the trigger in order to either put it on
safe or take it off safe. What could possibly go wrong?
(Bonus question: how do you take the safety off if you're suddenly
forced to use your weak hand?)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Tags: safety, snake.oil
Wednesday, June 02, 2010 Filed in:
Ammunition, Revolvers
The Firearm Blog alerts us to a company called Lightfield Less
Lethal that is now selling rubber
buckshot rounds for the Taurus Judge. (I'm sure someone will point
out that a Judge loaded with .410 birdshot is already "less lethal"
and thus has no need for this product. Can't say that I disagree
all that much, either.)
I'm concerned that the Judge is already selling to people who
profess to "not wanting to kill someone", but have a desire to
protect themselves. (I've heard that phrase so many times regarding
this gun that I've become numb to the stupidity of the statement.)
We've been working hard over the last several decades to eradicate
the concept of the warning shot, and along comes Lightfield with
products intended to just "scare them off." (Read the company's
statement at the link.)
Given the market segment which appears to be buying these guns,
it's only a matter of time before Lightfield is sued because their
"less lethal" ammo killed someone. No matter how you rationalize or
justify the use of these things, to the legal establishment
discharging a gun is still lethal force even if Lightfield doesn't
understand the concept.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: stupid.people, safety, snake.oil
Monday, March 09, 2009 Filed in:
General gun
stuff
Coffee is one of those vices in which I do not indulge. Not from
any religious objection, mind you - it's just that I can't stand
the taste of the stuff. I admit to loving the smell of brewing
java, but coffee is one of those things that smells a whole lot
better than it tastes!
Stay with me, I'll get to the point.
A number of years ago I knew a district sales manager for one of
the major coffee companies. (Coincidentally, his first name was
also Grant. Obviously a man of superior intellect, charm, and
modesty.) Grant told me that the coffee brand with the largest
market share at that time was Folgers, due largely to their
"mountain grown" ad campaign.
He commented that the campaign was so much hot air, as all coffee
was grown in the mountains - but people had been conditioned to
believe that since a) the mountain environment was desirable, and
b) only Folgers was grown in the mountains, therefore c) Folgers
was the only coffee to buy.
Yes, the mountain environment was desirable, because without it
there would essentially be no coffee, but no - Folgers wasn't the
only coffee which was grown there!
His story came back to me this week when I received yet another
email from what was obviously a salesman for one of those
multilevel marketing (MLM) "miracle lubricant" scams. One of the
consistent claims by all such snake oil concerns is that their
product "bonds with the metal at the molecular level", that it is a
very desirable thing to do, and only their product does so.
Think "coffee."
Reality time: all oils bond with metal at a molecular level,
because that's what oils do. Were there no molecular attraction
between oil and metal, the oil would simply slide off of the
surface to which it was applied. Not drip off, not ooze off, not
pour off - slide off with absolutely no trace of itself left
behind. No film or residue, not a single atom of the oil would
remain. Absolutely nothing.
Of course, that doesn't happen. Apply any oil to a piece of metal,
then turn the metal upside down; the excess oil may drip off, but a
layer of slippery liquid is always left stuck to the surface. That
is molecular attraction - bonding, if you will - at work.
Those who wear glasses know how difficult it can be to completely
rid lenses of even a drop of oil; there always seems to be some
that stubbornly refuses efforts at removal. This is because there
is a molecular bond between the oil and the material from which the
lens is made, and the same thing happens when oil is applied to
metal.
Molecular attraction is why the water in your coffee is in liquid
form, rather than the elemental hydrogen and oxygen from which it
is made. It makes metal alloys possible, and is why lubricants -
all of them - work. The companies which claim their product "bonds
with the metal at the molecular level" are simply saying that their
oil does the same thing that all other oils do.
Admitting that fact wouldn't sell much oil (or coffee), would
it?
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: lubrication, snake.oil