High Exposure

Awesome!

I had two Strider MFS Fixed blades that I got for a song. They are a little big for daily carry but have made excellent entry tools for work. My only complaint was the paracord wrap handles. I have been looking for scales, but the MFS has been out of production for a while and I couldn't find any. A buddy of mine from CT said he had a friend that does custom knife handles in G10 and offered to get me in contact. Just got them back today: I am very happy. They feel great and look cool too. The phone doesn't show it very well, but the dark scales are more gray than black. Now, does anyone know someone that can make me new Kydex Sheaths for them that will fit on a Safariland shroud?

I didn't want to be rude to your wife and not answer her.

Oh. Sorry. Try this one: The Patriot missile has been hailed by some military advocates as the great defender of American troops (in Saudi Arabia) and Israeli civilians during the Gulf War. Furthermore the Patriot's Gulf War performance has been pointed to as a reason to pursue national missile defense as well as theater missile defense. Others claim that the Patriot was ineffective in stopping Iraqi Scuds (particularly in Israel) and is a perfect example of why BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense ) or "Star wars" as its detractors refer to it will not work. Five years after the Gulf War, the debate still continues. The Patriot missile was designed in the late 1970's as an antiaircraft weapon. However, it was modified in the 1980's to serve as a defense against incoming short range ballistic missiles. Until the Gulf War the Patriot had not been tested in combat. The Patriot system has a 7.4 foot long missile powered by a single stage solid propellant rocket motor that runs at mach 3 speeds.The missile itself weighs 2200 pounds and its range is 43 miles. The Patriot is armed with a 200 pound high-explosive warhead detonated by a proximity fuse that causes shrapnell to destroy the intended target. Each Patriot missile system has eight m-901 storage/transportation containers that serve as launchers, and every launcher contains four missiles. The launchers are hooked to an m-860 trailer. The system possesses an MSQ-104 engagement control station, which is mounted on an M-818 tractor. The Track Via Missile guidance system is the basis of the overall system. The system is built around radar and fast computers.The missile is launched and guided to the target through three phases. First, the missiles guidance system turns the Patriot toward the incoming missile as that missile flies into the Patriot's radar beam. Then the Patriot's computer guides the missile toward the incoming Scud missile. Finally, the Patriot Missile's internal radar receiver guides it toward the interception of the incoming missile. (Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret) Gulf War-A comprehensive guide to people, places and weapons Signet 1991) During the Gulf War, the Patriot was assigned to shoot down incoming Iraqi Scud or Al-Hussein Missiles launched at Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Army which was in charge of the Patriots claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were scaled back to 70 and 40 percent. (See Frontline, WGBH Educational Foundation: "The Gulf War" and "Gulf War-A comprehensive guide to people, places and weapons" by Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret), Signet 1991) (Part of the reason the success rate was 30% higher in Saudi Arabia than is Israel is that in Saudi Arabia the Patriots merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations.The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. Furthermore, the Patriot's success rate in Israel was examined by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) who did not have a political reason to play up the Patriots success rate and even had reasons to downplay the Patriot's success rate. The IDF counted any Scud that exploded on the ground (regardless of whether or not it was diverted) as a failure for the Patriot. Meanwhile the U.S. Army who had many reasons to support a high success rate for the Patriots, examined the performance of the Patriots in Saudi Arabia.) A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate. Reuven Pedatzur (an Israeli military affairs analyst for the daily Ha'aretz and a Reserve IAF pilot) also testified before the committee. Pedatzur conducted his own independent research (independent of the Israeli military). Pedatzur pointed out the problem that the Al-Hussein missiles would often break up when reentering the atmosphere "stretching the target" and making the Scuds actual warhead a much more difficult target to identify for the Patriot's computer. Many other analysts also came to this conclusion. The inaccuracy of the Patriot may not have been entirely a problem with the Patriot, but rather due to the poor design or redesign of the Scud and the fact that many Iraqi Scuds (Al-Husseins) broke up reentering the Earth's atmosphere leaving the Patriot without a firm single target. (In the debate over designing a national ballistic missile defense, this fact is interesting to note. If a nuclear warhead was attached to a Scud or another similar missile, would a Patriot be able to guarantee the destruction of the nuclear armed Scud warhead each and every time? In a conventional war a Scud missile landing in the desert or the sea instead of a populated city is acceptable. However, if that same Scud is armed with nuclear materials, then relying on a Patriot as a from of defense may indeed be quite foolish.) The Iraqis changed the configuration of their Scud (Al-Hussein) Missiles from their original Soviet designs in order to make them move faster. They were successful in making the Al-Husseins faster than the original Soviet Scuds but this also caused the Al-Husseins to break up upon reentering the atmosphere thus causing problems for the targeting system of the Patriot. The Patriot's system was even altered to detonate the Al-Hussein missile's warhead before it broke up. However, according to Pedatzur it still did not work. The Patriot was also in an automatic mode (operated purely by computer) rather than manuel mode (operated by partially computer and partially by human command). Pedatzur claims that switching from automatic mode to manual mode helped somewhat with targeting but it was still very difficult to target the Patriot missiles toward what became multiple targets when the Scuds began to break up. Postol, after presenting a great deal of mathematical and scientific data, claimed that the Patriot's computer system is unable to identify multiple targets. Contrary to the testimony of Pedatzur and Postol was the testimony of Charles A. Zakret. Zraket is a scholar in residence at the Center for Science and International Affairs of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Prior to that he had been President and Chief Executive Officer of the MITRE Corporation. The MITRE corporation is a Federal Contract Researcher for the Department of Defense. MITRE conducted a classified study on C3I Systems used in the Patriot Missile during the Gulf War. Zakret is also a member of The Council On Foreign Relations (which has strong relations with Saudi Arabia. For more information on this subject, see "Gun Belt in the Beltway" by Robert Vitalis Middle East Report, November-December 1995, Vol 25 No.197, P.6 ). Zraket testified that Zraket believes that since the Patriot was originally designed as an antiaircraft weapon it worked particularly well against the Scuds. Zakret's conclusions were the following. Peter D. Zimmerman of The Center For Strategic and International Studies also testified that day. Zimmerman testified that: Zimmerman also held the view the Scuds were generally not successful. He compared the Patriot performances in Israel and Saudi Arabia and found each of them to be limited. Also testifying before the committee was Richard Davis, Director of Army Issues National Security and International Affairs Division. Davis testified that The Patriot is currently deployed in South Korea as well as in Saudi Arabia. Former Senator and Presidential candidate Robert Dole has proposed a theater based missile defense for all U.S. allies in the Asian Pacific region including Taiwan. The updated version of the Patriot known as the Pac3 would be used in this case. This would be based on the concept of containing China and North Korea. However, Richard Fisher of the conservative Heritage Foundation (who supports Dole's idea of theater missile defense) agrees that Patriot technology alone cannot provide adequate defense. Five years after the Gulf War the debate over the effectiveness of the Patriot missile continues. However, the implications of the debate extend far beyond the ramifications of the Gulf War. The debate over theater missile defense and national missile defense as forms of BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) is directly connected to the debate over the performance of the Patriot. This is why a serious and sober examination of the Patriot's only combat performance must continue.

As promised by Zeke: A review of The Patriot "The Patriot'' is a fable arguing the futility of pacifism, set against the backdrop of the Revolutionary War. It is rousing and entertaining, and you get your money's worth, but there isn't an idea in it that will stand up to thoughtful scrutiny. The British are seen as gentlemanly fops or sadistic monsters, and the Americans come in two categories: brave or braver. Those who have a serious interest in the period will find it a cartoon; those raised on summer action movies will find it more stimulating than most. Mel Gibson stars, in a powerful and effective performance, as a widower named Benjamin Martin with seven children. He saw enough of battle in the French and Indian Wars, and was frightened by what he learned about himself. He counsels a treaty with King George. Asked about his principles by an old comrade in arms (Chris Cooper), he replies, "I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles.'' But he gets some in a hurry, after the monstrous British Col. William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), arrests Martin's eldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) and takes him away to be hanged, after first shooting another of Martin's sons just for the hell of it and burning down his house. Since Martin had merely been treating the wounded of both sides in his home, this seems excessive, and in the long run turns out to be extremely unwise for the British, since Martin goes on to more or less single-handedly mastermind their defeat. There must have been many British officers less cruel--but none would have served the screenplay's purpose, which is to show Martin driven berserk by grief, rage and the need for revenge. The following sequence is the film's most disturbing. Martin and his sons hide in the woods and ambush Tavington and his soldiers; eventually the battle comes down to hand-to-hand fighting (with Martin wielding a tomahawk). Gabriel is freed, and the younger boys get a taste for blood ("I'm glad I killed them!'' one of the tykes cries. "I'm glad!''). The movie's scenes of carnage have more impact than the multiple killings in a film like "Shaft,'' because they are personal, not technical; individual soldiers, frightened and ill-prepared, are fighting for their lives, while in the modern action movies, most of the victims are pop-up arcade targets. The big players in the war (George Washington, King George) are far offscreen, although we do meet Gen. Cornwallis (Tom Wilkinson), a British leader who promotes a "gentlemanly'' conduct of the war and rebukes Tavington for his brutality. Still, when the Americans refuse to "fight fair'' and adopt hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against the British (who march in orderly ranks into gunfire), Cornwallis bends enough to authorize the evil colonel to take what steps are necessary to bring down Martin (by now legendary as "the Ghost''). "The Patriot'' is a fable arguing the futility of pacifism, set against the backdrop of the Revolutionary War. It is rousing and entertaining, and you get your money's worth, but there isn't an idea in it that will stand up to thoughtful scrutiny. The British are seen as gentlemanly fops or sadistic monsters, and the Americans come in two categories: brave or braver. Those who have a serious interest in the period will find it a cartoon; those raised on summer action movies will find it more stimulating than most. Mel Gibson stars, in a powerful and effective performance, as a widower named Benjamin Martin with seven children. He saw enough of battle in the French and Indian Wars, and was frightened by what he learned about himself. He counsels a treaty with King George. Asked about his principles by an old comrade in arms (Chris Cooper), he replies, "I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles.'' But he gets some in a hurry, after the monstrous British Col. William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), arrests Martin's eldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) and takes him away to be hanged, after first shooting another of Martin's sons just for the hell of it and burning down his house. Since Martin had merely been treating the wounded of both sides in his home, this seems excessive, and in the long run turns out to be extremely unwise for the British, since Martin goes on to more or less single-handedly mastermind their defeat. There must have been many British officers less cruel--but none would have served the screenplay's purpose, which is to show Martin driven berserk by grief, rage and the need for revenge. The following sequence is the film's most disturbing. Martin and his sons hide in the woods and ambush Tavington and his soldiers; eventually the battle comes down to hand-to-hand fighting (with Martin wielding a tomahawk). Gabriel is freed, and the younger boys get a taste for blood ("I'm glad I killed them!'' one of the tykes cries. "I'm glad!''). The movie's scenes of carnage have more impact than the multiple killings in a film like "Shaft,'' because they are personal, not technical; individual soldiers, frightened and ill-prepared, are fighting for their lives, while in the modern action movies, most of the victims are pop-up arcade targets. The big players in the war (George Washington, King George) are far offscreen, although we do meet Gen. Cornwallis (Tom Wilkinson), a British leader who promotes a "gentlemanly'' conduct of the war and rebukes Tavington for his brutality. Still, when the Americans refuse to "fight fair'' and adopt hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against the British (who march in orderly ranks into gunfire), Cornwallis bends enough to authorize the evil colonel to take what steps are necessary to bring down Martin (by now legendary as "the Ghost''). The movie's battle scenes come in two flavors--harrowing and unlikely. Two battles near the beginning of the film are conveniently fought in open fields visible from the upper windows of houses, so onlookers have excellent seats for the show and can supply a running narration. No doubt revolutionary battles were fought right there in the pasture, but would Benjamin Martin allow his kids to stand in the windows, or tell them to hide in the barn? The "real'' battles are grueling tests of men and horses, as soldiers march into withering fire, and the survivors draw their swords or fix their bayonets for blood-soaked combat in close quarters. These battles seem anarchic and pitiless, and respect the movie convention that bitter rivals will sooner or later find themselves face to face. The scenes are well-staged by the director, Roland Emmerich, working from a script by Robert Rodat, the same man who wrote "Saving Private Ryan,'' with its equally appalling battle scenes. Hollywood movies are at pains these days to provide a role for a heroic African-American or two. A role for a black sailor was found in the segregated U.S. Navy submarine corps in "U-571'' (he was a mess orderly). Now we have a black slave who fights beside white men (even those who hate him) because Gen. Washington has promised freedom for all slaves who fight for a year. Good enough, but why not go all the way and give this character dialogue and a real role to play--instead of demeaningly using him only to count down the months and days until his freedom? When the former slave finally gets two whole sentences in a row, at the end, he quotes Martin's son: "Gabriel said if we won the war, we could build a whole new world. We could get started right here with your home.'' Uh-huh. Why not get started with your own home? The movie offers light comic relief to ease the tension (Martin's handmade chairs keep collapsing beneath him), and a love story (Gabriel falls for Ann, a plucky colonial girl who catches his eye with a patriotic speech). Ann's father is a deaf man who misunderstands things. When Gabriel asks permission to write Ann, the old man at first takes offense. Then he says, "Oh ... write her! Of course you may.'' What did he think Gabriel had asked? Meanwhile, there's even female company for the hard-bitten Benjamin Martin, who asks the sister of his dead wife, "May I sit here?'' Her answer got laughs in the screening I attended: "It's a free country--or at least, it will be.'' These passages and others (including the Dead Man Who Is Not Really Dead) have been trucked directly into "The Patriot'' from the warehouse of timeless cliches. They betray the movie's lack of serious intentions. It basically wants to be a summer action movie, with a historical gloss. At that, it succeeds. I enjoyed the strength and conviction of Gibson's performance, the sweep of the battle scenes, and the absurdity of the British caricatures. None of it has much to do with the historical reality of the Revolutionary War, but with such an enormous budget at risk, how could it?

Yes. The accuracy of these guns were amazing.This from a test in 1987 : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

PEC bitches!

Maks, bail reform was enacted after NJs voting public approved a referendum on the ballot in November of 2014. The ballot question heading read : “Constitutional amendment to allow a court to order pretrial detention of a person in a criminal case.” The question posed to voters read as follows: Just in case voters were not sure about what this meant, it came with an interpretive statement which read:

This went into effect on Jan 1, 2017. This is also costing small PDs tens of thousands in OT, and impacting available manpower for calls on a regular basis. Combine this, with a lack of discretion due to the wearing of body cameras (more arrests for minor offenses when previously discretion was used and you cut folks loose with a warning) and you are seeing a serious decrease in response time and an officer safety issue when you can only send one cop to calls that should have 2 or more responding.

I love the old Battleships of WWII. The idea of bringing them back makes my heart soar like an eagle. Could America Send its Old Battleships Back Out to War? I know they are not suited to the modern battlefields we are currently facing, but man, they are badass.

I can't really comment too much on this due to the nature of my position, but I think NJ residents should be aware of how the new Bail Reform thing is working out. "Nobody is afraid to commit crimes" http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Bail-Reform-New-Jersey-Criminals-Streets-Law-Jail-Investigation-422965474.html

Sig USA has had problems since Cohen left Kimber (whose reputation he killed) and took the reigns over at Sig.

That's right, the old extractor still has the issue. As far as ammo, AG policy states basically that training ammo has to be similar to duty ammo. We carry Fed 180gr HST. Our training ammo is Am Eagle 180 TMJ. When we carried Speer GD our training ammo was Speer Lawman FMJ. I know NBPD uses the same Duty and practice ammo that we do. I'm not sure exactly what NJSP uses for duty and training but I'm sure it's a similar pairing. Edit: NJSP duty ammo is Speer 124gr GDHP. Training ammo is Speer Lawman FMJ equivalent.

We discussed this almost exactly a year ago. https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/81268-legion-fail/&page=2#comment-1042702 NJSP use commonly used practice ammo. Nothing weird. New Brunswick had similar issues broken extractors and cracked frames with their 229s in .40 as well. They use the exact same practice and duty ammo that my agency does. NBPD were told by the Sig rep to look into the Legacy Series with the old style extractor. He said it's because it would fit their existing holsters better. When asked point blank if it was really because the new extractors were garbage the rep clammed up and got all uncomfortable.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

NJSP has recently authorized the purchase of the Black Aces shotguns, categorized as a "Firearm" - no stock, 14" barrel, mag fed, manual action, over 26" in length. Their guidance to the purchaser and to the NJ FFL was to put it on a NJ P2P and treat it as a pistol.

I lolled!

Same here. If you are out looking for a fight - for example responding to a shots fired call or hunting for a legit bad dude - you bring the long guns with you whenever possible. But the rest of the time, you dance with who ya brung and that's the pistol. As far as purposefully carrying a less capable round in one weapon system because you have access to a "better" system elsewhere - that's planning to fail. You load each weapon system with the best performing ammo you can get for the task at hand.

Your whole post is good Griz, but this, this is gold. I was trying to figure out the same way to say this, but it wasn't nearly as eloquent. People who have never responded to immediate violence think they have time to do all these crazy things. Your lucky if you have time to blink, let alone fight your way to better gear. For 99.9% of deadly force encounters, if it ain't on you when the balloon goes up, it may as well be at the bottom of the ocean.

Schwartz Magic

Correct. Over 26", smoothbore/Shotgun barrel less than 18", a manual action, and has never had a shoulder stock attached to it. This is classified as a Firearm, not an AOW as per the Gun Control Act - just like those Black Aces shotguns. http://www.mossberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Shockwave-Letter-from-ATF-3-2-17.pdf Keep in mind there are two definitions in play, the GCA and the NFA when classifying these weapons and they are Federal definitions. States can restrict them further - as NJ has done requiring a P2P to acquire one.

This is the answer in its simplest form.

Pump the brakes there for a second Howard. Your second paragraph is complete BS on many levels. "Militirization" comment aside, there is a lot of either supposition due to inexperience or deliberate misinformation there. I have shot in to, and out from, a lot of cars in training - through windows and door panels with a lot of different ammo. All things being equal, .40 pierced auto glass and doors no better, and no worse, than 9mm. There is no advantage there. ARs suck as well. Especially with the soft point rounds most agencies issue to help reduce penetration in typical CONUS construction materials. Additionally, full auto capability has jack and squat to do with penetration abilities either. If you want to skin a car, you grab the 12 gauge. The same gun Cops have being carrying in their cars for ages. Hell, the potential to be in a gun fight around cars is the only reason I still put one in my patrol car every night. Cops are moving to 9mm because bullet technology has made the terminal effects of 9mm and .40 almost indistinguishable. While the 9mm gives a higher capacity and has less felt recoil (yes it's a subjective measurement, but it is almost universally accepted) in a similar sized pistol. There is just a very slight advantage on the terminal effect end with modern .45. Some argue that slight ballistic advantage isn't worth the disadvantages of the lower capacity and the increase in felt recoil (again subjective but almost universally accepted) all in a larger gun. If I told you I could give you a gun that is easier to shoot/train with, easier to teach new shooters on, that holds more rounds, has less recoil, and will give your faster split times all in a gun the same size as the one you are holding and still guarantee that the terminal ballistics would not decrease, would you say no thanks? Neither are the cops.

I'm not necessarily "Pro .40" but I'm issued .40 and ergo almost all of my pistols are .40 I don't have any problem with it. It's reliable out of a series of guns that fit my hand and I shoot it well. I don't think it does anything better than 9mm or .45, but it's not terrible. If we switched over to 9mm tomorrow I would have no issue. I'd just buy a bunch of 9mm conversion barrels and mags and drive on. I have shot the full power 10mm Norma loads and the current commercial stuff. I could not replicate the speed and accuracy I achieved with .40 or 9mm with the 10mm. I was significantly slower and my group was significantly larger with both the full power 10mm and the neutered 10mm compared to my .40 Personally, when comparing what I see as acceptable self defense rounds (defined for my use as one that has adequate energy and penetration to be commonly accepted as able to incapacitate a human) I'd take a smaller and faster bullet that allows me to get more hits closer together in less time than a bigger slower bullet with longer split times and a larger grouping. To me 6 rounds in 4 seconds in a 4" circle at 10 yards from a holster is better than 6 rounds in 8 seconds in an 8" circle at ten yards.

In case you couldn't tell, I think this is a positive thing and Station is a great example of how a healthy marriage works. The individual Stations are capable and intelligent but need to have an eye kept on them. On their own they are important contributing members of their little group that support each other. But when the 2 become one - Big Station is stronger, smarter, more confident, and gets shit done way better and more efficiently than they did apart.