Straight Case

"USA Today" firearms poll re-do may be a scam - UPDATED !

***************************************************************************************************************************

UPDATE: 011211 1303 PST: Thanks to Joe and Uncle, my fears are somewhat relieved on this old, moldy poll. Joe explained it in comments, on the Rivrdog post. I guess that means that the only real worry, if you want to spare some, is that USA Today has a garbage dump where they should have a Web bureau in their org chart. However, since neither Joe nor Uncle could say that data is NOT being mined from the responses to the old, moldy poll, we should still be on our guard about it. My advice is stay away. We gunnies proved 4 1/2 years ago that we can put more fingers to more keyboards faster than the anti-2A crowd, and for the life of me, I don't see any value in continuing that fight. We WON for Christ's sake! The Brady Bunch KNOWS we won. Put that trophy back in the trophy case, people, we don't have to keep playing the 2007 playoffs over and over again.

***************************************************************************************************************************

I've gotten an email which purports to link to the USA Today poll on support for the Second Amendment. Since I knew that this was a pre-Heller poll taken back in 2007, I began to sense something might be wrong.

Someone is probably collecting/trapping the IPs of those favorable to the Second Amendment. It COULD be a beneficial organization, but it also could be a nefarious one. I suspect the latter.

Here's my evidence:

First, the link location, and do NOT paste this link, just remember it. Break out a medieval quill pen and parchment if you have one, and ink it down.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

Now, go to a real USA Today site and look for polls; you'll find that there is no way to access any. The paper (at least the online edition) doesn't have a web page devoted to a daily poll. There IS something called a USA Today/Gallup poll. Here's the latest one of those which I can find using Google and Ask.com, and it's a month old:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-12/2012-election-swing-states-poll/51844930/1

OK, compare the two URLs I have on this post so far.

The URLs are NOT similar in any way.

Now, search on "usa today quick question polls". There is nothing on that search page to indicate that USA Today ever ran a "quick question" poll after the 2007 firearms poll, and I suspect the reason for that is because the huge response from gun owners (and anti-gunners) thrashed their host so badly they quit doing it.

Now, I'm not a real geek. I have ZERO technical training in this area of Internet technology (and I slept in my own bed last night, and didn't get close to a Holiday Inn Express, heh). That disclaimer aside, I suspect that this latest "re-issuance" of the "USA Today" poll is a fake.

Some evidence of the fake.

All the previous REAL USA-Today polls come up as a full page when you visit their site, but this one does not, it comes up at about a one-sixth page or less, tucked into the top left of a large, otherwise blank page. Also, it is unusual for ANY poll to be presented just as a simple "yes-no-no opinion" box. Any outfit with a reputation to uphold, like USA Today has, would have some other writings and explanations on the page, and probably some links to take you back to a page with more of their content (and some ads, which pay the bills). Survey Monkey is the standard for polls you don't want to pay for but need to post nowadays, and their poll page will always link to back to their website.

I firmly conclude that this is not an actual re-issuance of the 2007 USA Today poll, but is a fake, and that leaves the Big Question: whose fake is it? Also another important question: when you visit a page, any page, you leave a trail to that page. Who is mining the data from these trails to that page? Are they friend or foe?

Unless you know the answers to the above paragraph's questions, don't punch the "send" button on this ersatz "poll".

Now, if some REAL geek wants to set me straight, and offers the science to refute my suspicion here, I will gladly publish that information, with or without retribution at the request of that author, whatever is desired.

Until then, take warning and don't fall for this phishing attempt.

Re-posted from the main blog.

Ballistics by the Inch

...is a website devoted to providing actual data on pistol cartridges as to their performance in barrels of different lengths.

The reason that BBTI is important is pistol-caliber carbines. In my previous post here, I advised that I own quite a few pistol/carbine sets, but what I didn't say was that I follow another of Massad Ayoob's bits of advice, that "your pistol gets you to your rifle".

If you need a second gun, you need a carbine, at least. The same-caliber carbines I have mated to my various carry handguns aren't battle rifles, in that they are not designed to operate full of mud or sand, they can't mount bayonets, and they generally perform better at ranges under 100 yards rather than ranges of 300 yards and better (although the .44 Magnum Marlin Model 1894 rifle DOES perform at those long ranges).

If you are involved in a gunfight with your and maybe other innocent lives at stake, you want to END that gunfight, on your terms, ASAP. You do that with a pistol caliber carbine, if it's a protracted enough fight to get one into action. The simple fact that you can hit and disable your enemy at a range beyond which his pistol is of use against YOU should make you want to be armed with a carbine. If he is armed with a rifle, you are on very bad terms in that gunfight with only a pistol, but are equal or better if you have your own rifle.

If you haven't been convinced by BBTI's data yet, let's just take one example of the difference barrel length makes, from one caliber.

The caliber is .357, and the handgun is my Ruger SP-101 with 2.5" barrel and my Marlin Model 1894 with 18.5" barrel in the carbine. The round will be Buffalo Bore's 158-gr JHP, their SKU# 19C/20. Out of the Snubbie, it will make about 1350 fps, giving a muzzle energy of 639 Foot-Pounds of energy. Plenty steamy! Put that same round into the Marlin, though, and it exits the muzzle at 2,153 fps, making an muzzle energy of 1,626 foot-pounds. This DOES happen to be more energy at the muzzle than an AK-47 round in 7.62X39 (the typical 122-gr fmj round has about 1,560 #/feet ME), or a AR-15 round in 62-gr (XM-855 Penetrator @ 1,344 #/feet)!

The .357 with it's 254% increase in muzzle energy is an extreme example, results with a typical .40 S&W round, the Cor-Bon 165-gr JHP, shot out of a Glock Model 22 and the Kel-Tec Sub-Rifle 2000, show maybe a 40% increase in muzzle energy from the rifle over the handgun, but that's still very significant. What it means in .40 S&W is that with the carbine, you are getting 10mm pistol performance, but without the sturm und drang of that magnum caliber. My accuracy with the Kel-Tec S2K .40 S&W is 6" rested at 100 yards, and about 14" offhand standing.

Your next gun purchase? It should be a pistol-caliber carbine to go with your favorite carry piece. The math doesn't lie.

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop

Did YOUR mother tell you that as she assigned you extra chores? Mine did, and I guess I still feel guilty when I'm not DOING something.

So, at 0145, I woke up, and by 0300, despite the soothing classical music, had failed to achieve sleep, so I switched on the reading light and grabbed the netbook.

Time for research. Gun research. Time to solve the age-old and NEVER-ENDING riddle of what's the best gun-lube, but particularly, does lubing the bore before firing reduce fouling, and if so, how much, and if so, what's the best lube?

Let me tell YOU, if you want to spend, say, a half of a life sentence, just start researching gun lubes. By the time you get through the list, and all the threads, and investigate the 3-5 most promising lubes, they will all have changed and you will have to start over. Wait! Don't tell me! The ancients had a legend about that. The Labors of Sisyphus?

So, after 3 hours of that research, I can politely (@#$^%$*&^%$) report that I'm no closer to the truth than I was when I started. My particular question is serious, because I'm going to be shooting more and more "boolits" (gunny-accepted term for a lead bullet) and less and less jacketed stuff. Lead fouls more than copper in the bore, making it a real CHORE to get all the lead out. In revolvers, multiply everything by 5 or 6, as you have chambers in the cylinders to clean also. I can clean 4 pistols in the time it takes me to do a half-decent job one ONE revolver, and I LOVE to shoot revolvers, and have just bought two more!

So, the thought ocurred to me that if I were to put a light coat of some synthetic wonder-oil in the chambers, and in the bore, and swab down the inside of the top-strap, etc, might the lead accumulations just whisk right off with a little Hoppe's and a light brushing?

The first hour of research was to bone up on the chemistry and standards of lubricants, something I had not done since my Air Guard tech school days over 20 years ago. Yes, Virginia, things have changed. Back then, PTFE (Teflon) was the wonder-stuff, but now it's frowned upon as causing buildup. Back then, moly-sulfates were added to improve lubricity, and they still are sometimes, but the basic lube oil base has been so improved that they are un-necessary. BTW, the 3,000-mile oil change is only "recommended" by the quick-lube places and the dealers' service bays, the automakers themselves have said that since the 70's and the improvements in engines and oils, no one need change oil more often than 5,000 miles, and in many cases, much longer.

As a result of my basic oils research, I got the idea that a Type GF-4, Diesel-service rated motor oil would probably be the only lube I'd ever need, or, I could use a good synthetic ATF. It seems to me that all the things a diesel lube oil is formulated for (being able to resist temps over 600 degrees and still give all it's lubricity, for example) should far exceed ALL the lubing requirements a gun would ever have, EXCEPT for the places where the powder ignites and starts shoving the bullet out of the chamber and down the barrel. Who knows how hot THAT gas is?

Then, I got into the gun boards. Do you want to see flame wars on gun boards? Pick an oil, any oil, and read a few posts. Eventually, you will read one where someone flames it, then the wars start. Flames and counter-flames. Even the best boards, like THR, can't seem to control the flaming on that subject. It may be worse than the AR vs. AK flame wars, and THOSE are legendary.

It boiled down to what oils got flamed the least, or whose defenders best withstood the flaming. Those would be Kroil, Rem Oil, Break-Free and CLP. No one flamed the guy who said use ordinary Automatic Transmission Fluid (the major lube component in the famous home-formulated Ed's Red).

A few bozos (yes, I'm going to flame them) suggested Brake Cleaner for cleaning and WD-40 for lube. They are bozos because while brake cleaner WILL get the bore clean, it will also remove ALL the oil from the pores of the metal, and leave it open to rusting, almost instantaneous rusting. WD-40 is a SOLVENT, not a lube. Yes, it has fish oil in it, which lubes for a little while until the solvents all evaporate, then sets up into a waxy goo that is the opposite of a lube, it is a GLUE! Put it this way. The Army prohibits such abuse of your issued rifle or heavier weapons. On active duty, you wouldn't risk your stripes to get an "inspection" bore, so why would you risk the gun you actually OWN?

I think I'll go buy a bottle of the best cold-weather synthetic ATF I can find, cut it with a little paint thinner or K-1, and that will be my gun lube. If you want to flame me, well, I WAS a mechanic, and I keep a 16" Crescent close by at most times....