busdriver

At the risk of being told "no shit": Kimber warranty service is terrible. I bought a long slide 10mm double stack 1911 (DS Warrior LS) mainly since a 6 inch barreled 2011 in 10mm seems comically fun. But their new 2011s seemed to be getting good reviews, so I figured I'd give em a try. It didn't run. over the course of 100 rounds, it would three point jam once per magazine (maybe 2 out of 3 magazines) give or take. So I RMA'd it. They found a feed ramp that was not in spec and said the pistol woul need a new barrel, and I would have to pay for it (no chance). Their justification was "the modification/polishing apparent on the barrel is not consistent with any work we perform at the factory." On the phone the rep said it would never have got out of their (paraphrase) looking like that. Basically, they don't make mistakes. I had the gun store verify with the distributer that the gun was in fact new, and hadn't been a test gun or something. Brand new. So basically one of their techs fucked this thing up, and QC missed it, and I'm left holding the bag. Since they will never get another dime of my money, I'll probably spend a bunch more to get a legit smith to build something cool. So don't buy Kimber. They're just as shit as ever. Que the "no shit sherlock" responses. I deserve them.

Ah yes, the "skin on the line" defense. The second cousin of the wookie defense.

Van Dyke was charged with “unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction.” Semantics aside, my point stands.

Of a sort, yes.

Insider trading and fraud. Classified info or not, this is pretty clear cut.

Just to clarify for the heavy guys: Fighter RTMs all have 96 sorties. So two sorties per week, over a 48 week training year. So they calendar determines the size of the pie. It was a big "ah-ha" moment for me when I figured that out. That's about what we were talking about at ACC back then.

Hogs have a BFM requirement now. The RTM is a zero sum game, put something in, you must take something out.

Transitioning the remaining A-10 units to F-16 would be the way. But given how dumb we can be, it wouldn't surprise me if they push those squadrons to F-35, and then convert a handfull of C-130 units to F-16s. But realistically this will slow roll until the current Bob's are out of the seats; and then instutional mono-mania will set back in and all focus will be on NGAD.

The answer back then was guard Vipers, and a few AD TASS units (Nellis, Korea, and maybe Spang?) for advocacy reasons. I don't think the plan made it out of the A3 before the A-10 got saved again though. The giant problem is the RTM. There isn't enough room to do a like for like transition without almost completely dropping air to air, which was a non-starter for the F-15E.

Your last sentence is what gives me pause. Chopping assets in a manner not much different than push CAS seems a different animal than planning stand off munition waves. Mainly requiring a release of assets much earlier. Quibbles aside, I would think the other speed bump that would need to be sorted is who buys the munitions. SOCOM bought tends to be forbidden fruit for the CAF (laser SDB). I'd think the optimum Jiu Jitsu move would be to get Big Blue (probably through the Guard) to buy the desired munitions for NGB Vipers (or whatever) to free up the allocation process and money streams. Assuming I'm remembering my staff time correctly and there haven't been changes.

CH, what's your take on AFSOC tasking outside the TSOC bubble? I remember the unleash the gunships article from years back, but it always seems to come back to funding and SOCOM's penny packet. Is there a realistic future where CFACC target taskings via ATO would actually flow to a TSOC asset? I like the idea, I'm just a bit cynical I suppose.

Blockade on Iranian ports starts tomorrow. "What the President means is...."

Conservative estimate.

Probably. I'm of the impression that it's a foregone conclusion, all indications from big blue pointed (over the last 5-6 years) in that direction. This could very well be the thing to re-light the fire. Fucking good work everyone. TOML

It could be like the Langley policy circa 2015 timeframe. Carry through to your first parking spot, then put the gat in a lockbox in the trunk.

It was just the Straight of Muz until your mom showed up.

Bravo sir. Overall an incredibly level headed, honest broker critique.

VA politics is driven by the DC metro folks, which is really an extension of Maryland politics. It didn't go blue, it was just having an affair with a Republican.

Tell me more ChatGPT

The VA law is nonsense, but that picture is inaccurate. That description applies plus: -A fixed magazine of more than 10 rounds -Detachable magazine plus one of the following {insert expanded AWB list, threaded barrel, collapsible stock, etc.} Political posturing.

I think both incidents change in my mind depending on where I put the "start of the incident." In the second case (keep this shortish). If I just focus on this: a dude gets in a physical altercation with cops. One sees he's has a gun, then a gun shot is heard. Pretty hard. I think by most precedent, that's a lawful shoot. BUT. I think in this case, you could argue that the cop started the physical altercation by shoving the woman into the ground. If you buy that, then the premise of self defense falls apart. Basically, what is a proportionate response by law enforcement to people standing in the street and getting in the way? All that said, the protestors are clearly engaging in civil disobedience, not just protest. Given the the history of successful civil disobedience hinges on getting the state to respond with disproportionate force, this should have been entirely predictable. ICE has handled all of this very poorly. If the goal was lots of deportations, this will end up being a failure. If the goal was a political show of force, it has backfired. In any event, physically getting in the way of law enforcement and not expecting force is just dumb.

Hopefully. Although, the Gold Dot and 197SR look a lot better than I would have thought initially.

Ratner, a thought / suggestion related to using a pump. Make sure you add a bit of time pressure/stress into your training routine with that thing. The first three gun match I tried, I was using an 870. Short stroking the action under pressure is a thing.

So I saw an article about the latest shadow tanker being seized, this time by France in the Med. I did some quick Gemini searching, and that puts the seizure count at 8 in the last month, with European plans to ramp up this type of thing, and the Russian Navy beginning escorting tankers. The fleet size is substantially larger than I realized (estimates vary, but around 1000) so the overall impact is still small on a numbers basis, but military escort of tankers sounds like the portion of this story that matters. Lots of opportunity for a spark here. ReutersFrance intercepts suspected Russian shadow fleet tanker i...The French navy intercepted a Russian tanker on Thursday in the Mediterranean suspected to be part of the shadow fleet that enables Russia to export oil despite sanctions. The War ZoneShadow Fleet Tanker Seizure Operations Expand In The Face...Following America's lead, the boarding and diversion of the Grinch came as Europe is drawing up new plans to go after Russia's shadow fleet.

Ok, I think I'm tracking your line of thought. Here's what I'll say: -Scenario one is the president doing something I think is stupid, but entirely within his role/authority as the president. The one China policy was always a presidential policy. -Scenario two is highly dubious, with a president threatening a war with a defense treaty partner (and all the associated constitutional problems), which would obligate the rest of the alliance to go to war as well. I say all that, fully believing NATO would just fold. From a utilitarian/outcome perspective, the first one pokes a bear (maybe put them in their place, maybe start something), the second seriously impacts our future treaty negotiation position (maybe for the better, maybe not). Either way, what is in our nation's best interest is actually open for debate in both cases. From a rules/procedure perspective, the first one is in line with the rules, the second seriously threatens even more expansion of executive power if it goes unchecked by congress/judiciary. Thankfully, Trump has a tendency to throw shit at the wall and then react based on popular opinion. So he backed away from the military threat (without ever making an explicit threat), whether that was a polling thing, or a GOP reaction thing, or social media. Once you remove the military threat aspect, him tariffing and pushing to buy Greenland falls back into things I think are stupid, unproductive, and ultimately not in our best interest. But I have lots of political opinions that run counter to popular opinion, and he got elected so is what it is. All I can hope for is SCOTUS will slap down the "emergency" tariffs BS.