summer patriot, winter soldier

fnh-usa's scar 17s leaves me slightly underwhelmed ... but, the u.s. military is gonna buy it ...

friends:

just done reading this month's ish of the american rifleman, (march 2011, vol. 159, no. 3) including two articles on socom's decision to purchase the fnh-usa scar 17s.

at page 49, "heavy metal: fnh-usa's scar 17s," by glenn m. gilbert, the shooting editor, and at page 53, "the u.s. military scar program status: present and future," by david crane.

while the rifle described therein is a good rifle, (and it ought to be, ... , to say it is "derived" from the ar-15/m-16 family of rifles is putting it rather mildly), i am rather underwhelmed by the u.s. military's desire to award a major weapons contract to a foreign corporation.

my reason for this lack of enthusiasm is in the parens above.

i see absolutely nothing in the weapons systems produced by fnh that could not have been done by domestic manufacturers to the ar-15/m-16 rifle system, ... , and, absolutely nothing that has not been done by private firms to the ar system and available to civilian shooters for a long, long time.  this whole business of contracting with fn for millions of dollars to produce a weapons system not available "in house" from multiple sources strikes me as silly.

the fn rifle has a single extrusion upper, in which the receiver and forearm are one unit, in order to provide a single sight plane for the various goodies the military slaps on these rifles.  well, guess what?  ar-15/m-16 rifles do too.

the fn rifle features a "quick change" barrel, in which the user can swap out barrels with relatively little fuss.  well, guess what, several such comparable systems have been available on the civilian market for some time.  and, i believe that some actually predate the fn system.

it is said in the article that it is a virtue that the fn fire controls and basic layout "mimic" the ar-15/m-16 fire control layouts.  well, guess what, ... .

about the only thing that i can see that differs in the fnh-usa's effort from the ar system is the gas system which uses a bolt carrier and operating rod system similar to the kalishnikov.  i know this is getting repetitious, but the ar-15 has had such systems available on the civilian market for a number of years at this point.  (quite amazingly, or perhaps not quite amazingly, fn has been using this same gas system on another rifle it has been manufacturing for about 15 or 20 years or so, ... , so why the expense to "research" its "development" on this rifle?  hey, it is a legitimate question.)

when the scar system was initiated, a big "selling point" was that the 5.56mm (5.56x45 mm nato) version would offer parts interchangeability with the 7.62mm (7.62x51 mm nato) to a high degree, thereby reducing costs of adopting two weapons systems.  the main difference between the two systems was the size of the receivers, the 7.62 requiring a somewhat larger & heavier receivers, top and bottom.  well, after 19 million dollars of "research" fnh-usa & socom have abandoned that, and they are going to build both calibers on the larger 7.62mm platform, simply swapping out barrels and bolt carrier/bolt groups.

well, i fail to see what would have prevented the military from simply adopting that expedient with the ar-10 receivers, or simply adopting a remington/dpms expedient of putting an ar-10 sized barrel extension and bolt face into the ar-15 receiver set, and going from there.  see in the same issue, at page 66, "handloading the new .30 [remington] ar," in which this very process is described and discussed, to achieve a weapon with .300 savage performance in an ar-15/m-16 sized receiver.  

need i mention, that the 7.62x51 nato is "derived" from the .300 savage cartridge, have simply a slightly longer neck to facilitate a little long cartridge suitable for loading slightly longer/heavier bullets than the venerable .300 savage.  this diminutive little cartridge, not exceeding the overall length of the 5.56x45mm nato at 2.260", is capable of shooting a 150 grain round at 2600-2650 fps from the standard ar-15 pattern rifle.

guess how fast the fnh-usa's scar shoots a standard military loading of the 168 grain sierra bullet?  just guess.

so, the military has labored mightily to make a new elephant, but has issued forth a mouse, in my estimation.  now, it is no mean achievement to make a mouse.  and, the fnh-usa rifle/weapons system is a good one.

for the life of me, however, i cannot see how it is any different in kind or in substance from the ar-15/m-16 family of rifles, or how it offers any particular feature not directly derivative from the predecessor weapons system.  now, perhaps it is only fair to concede that some of the things that the private manufacturers have hopped on in the ar-15 rifle may have been inspired by the fnh-usa developments.  but, saying that, it also has to be conceded and recognized that nothing, and i mean nothing in the fnh rifle is not more or less based upon the ar-15 platform.

oh, the trigger group looks a little different.  and, there are some silly looking little minor parts added to the firing pin, which look eminently breakable.  i suppose it would have been a little embarrassing for fnh-usa to have just lifted the trigger group from the ar-system.  but, why not, they copied everything else.

frankly, i am just underwhelmed.  it appears to me that the u.s. military and fnh-usa have achieved nothing not easily obtainable just be tweaking the ar-system rifle.  nothing.

well, that is not entirely accurate.  the u.s. military has achieved one thing, and that is sending your tax dollars to europe.  that it has done.  and, fnh-usa has achieved one thing, and that is diverting your tax dollars to its parent corporation in europe, these dollars comprising corporate profits.  that they have done.

and, little else, in my estimation.

john jay @ 02.19.2011

p.s.  and, i haven't even got to the matter of remington & dpms developing on their own dime a "derivative" of the fnh-usa effort, with an integrated upper with many of the same features.  for a hell of a lot less than the $19 million it took fnh to copy the ar-15/m-16.

oh, well.  it appears a done deal.  and, stupid is, as stupid does.

lady gaga ...

every now and again i read something very funny on the blogs.

this link at "not a sheep" discussing the lyrics of a lady gaga hit is very funny, here, http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-lady-gaga-bob-dylan-of-21st-century.html .

the piece finds its inspiration at an earlier post at "wasted potentialz," in which a wider body of lady gaga's work is considered.  here, at http://wastedpotentialz.com/2009/05/the-haunting-poetry-of-lady-gaga/ .

bluffin' with her muffin, indeed.

i am afraid that all i can do is suggest you follow the links, and enjoy, for tongue in cheek as we used to know it apparently has not become a lost art, at least not just yet.  and, the practioners of this almost lost art, are very funny, indeed.

john jay @ 02.13.2011

there is no flaw w/ the m-4 carbine, real or imagined, not curable w/ a steel receiver ...

i read articles in which the m-4 variant of the m-16 rifle is criticized for a host of faults, not related to the 5.56mm nato cartridge.

it is said that the rifles's gas tubes literally sag when overheated by protracted firing.  and, related to the issue of heat, it is said that so much gas coming into the action heats the upper receivers and bolt groups to the extent that receivers have been known to develop heat related cracks, and that the bolts suffer heat related failures.  finally, the rifle is cursed supposedly because the gas tubes being so close to the bolt carrier cause "premature" extraction, and/or that extraction occurs with too much residual pressure in the barrels.

apparently a new fix is under way, and a variant of the m-4 will be distributed amongst the troops that will have a heavier barrel to absorb more heat.

well, goodness gracious me, what's to be done about all this?

with all due modesty, i have a simple proposal, and it embarrasses me to make it, as it seems so damned obvious that in a nation of some 315 millions plus, somebody hasn't made these two so very simple observations.

1.)if the aluminum receivers are stressed by continuous automatic rifle fire, or by the heat from the same, then make the g_d damned things out of a proper metal, and that being a suitable steel.  good bye heat related cracks, and good by to the receiver ring and threads being stressed by the weight of all the damned stuff they hang off the ends of barrels & all the stuff they hang from the fore ends.

this seems to me, ... , well, ... , just ass wipe simple.  and, oh so very obvious.

2.)if the receivers suffer from too short gas tubes, if the bolt carrier group suffers from too short gas tubes, and if extraction problems and parts breakage suffers from too short gas tubes, ... , well, then, make the god damned gas tubes on the m-4 rifles longer.  i have read in the very same articles that claim the m-4 is plagued by the too short gas tubes the observation that other iterations of the m-16 rifle, such as the basic a-2 variant, do not suffer from these heat problems because the gas tube is long enough that a lot of heat has dissipated from the gas by the time it hits the receiver, even under prolonged fire.  and, i have heard the sage observation that the cycling rate and timing was developed in the m-16 with standard length barrels, and not shorties on the m-4 and others, and those rifles do not suffer from "premature" extractor maladies.

well, fucing duh!!

make the gas tubes longer.

some people make the ar-15 with 7.5" and 10.5" barrels.  beats me.  i am not ever going to be shooting my 7mm remington magnum with a 7.5" barrel, either, and why anybody would want to shoot a full power rifle cartridge from such a short coupled barrel is quite beyond me.

in that case, if you were to insist upon firing such a cobbled up contraption such as that, i should think a steel receiver and a piston/tappet system a necessity, ... , going quite along with the mental examination and institutional confinement commensurate with such an ambition.  (stupid is, as stupid does, seems to me.)

but, an absolute cure for whatever ails the m-4 carbine is as plain as the nose on my face.  put a steel receiver in the silly thing, and put a gas tube on it as close as possible to standard length.  the "problems" go away.

by the way, these "problems" are not problems of the original design.  these "problems" with the rifle are instead symptoms of a stupidity that imposed features/designs upon the basic format of the rifle that had no business being there.  simple as that.  imho.

now, that leaves us with the issue of the 5.56x45mm nato service round, which supposedly cannot kill a human being quickly enough for some people.  well, i have news for some people about that.  now, i wasn't in world war one, nor world war two, nor korea, nor viet nam or any of the unpleasantness involving the middle east, for that matter.

but, i read a lot.  (oh, my, but my ears are burning.)

i have never read of anyone not immediately expiring with a torso hit from a .50 caliber browning.  but, i have read of people not expiring when shot with military ball fired from 7.92mm mausers, and .30-06 springfields, and 7.62x51mm nato's, and just about everything else you can imagine.

i even read a paper written by the doctor who performed the bullet testing at aberdeen proving grounds shooting pigs, goats and the occasional cadaver, and then examining them pathologically and forensically to determine the lethality of rounds considered for adoption by the u.s. military before world war ii.  he said this about wound infliction by small arms fire.  and, that is, that one simply cannot predict the pathology of any given wound nor the physical and physiological reaction to it from the subject struck by a bullet.  even if you had done it hundreds of times, as he had.

you may read the article, "gun shot wounds," by frank t. chamberlin, colonel, medical corps, u.s. army, retired in vol. 2, "handbook for shooters and reloaders," by the inestimable parker o. ackley, gunsmith, publishers press, salt lake city, sixteenth printing, 1993.

colonel chamberlin was also a surgeon, who in his spare time, would visit patients severely wounded and otherwise as they recovered in the medical hospitals, and would discuss with them if they were willing what happened when they were wounded or shot?  did they feel the injury, and were they conscious of it when first received?  how did they react?  what was their emotional and psychological state upon realizing they were wounded?  how were they convalescing?  and, so on.

colonel chamberlin relates an incident in which a man served as a runner over a hotly contested battlefield, and as he carried a message/order to his destination, he was hit by shell fire that blew a foot off above the ankle, knocking him down.   he got up, and ran to complete his errand, and he ran hard enough and long enough that the stump and shaft of his lower leg were packed with mud, so much so that it necessitated more amputation than normal to get to good fresh tissue.

the man was not aware that he had been wounded, and said that he was not inconvenienced in running as he felt no pain.  it was not until he arrived and delivered his message to its recipient, that someone pointed out to him that he had been severely wounded, and that his foot and part of his lower leg were missing.

you can look it up, if you are a mind to.

i worked with a guy, cut off the end of a couple fingers in a saw mill accident.  he was standing next to an unguarded circular saw, making the initial cuts on a pretty good sized piece of lumber, and he distractedly swatted at a summer fly as he was attending to something else.  he did not realize he had cut off his fingers until he noticed that his leg was damp, actually not until he looked down to see what the matter was, and saw his fingers spurting arterial blood.  his reaction was to turn off the saw, put the safety "cut off" guides in place on the switch, and then to get down on his hands and knees and look for his fingers to see if they could be reattached.  they could not.

my friend dr. david shinstrom recalls visiting a clinic in forks, washington when a logger walked through the door holding a handkerchief to his neck.  david asked him what the matter was.  he related that he was trimming logs, and that his chain saw kicked back on him, and took a hunk from his neck.  david looked at the still bleeding wound, and much to his surprise, saw that his first "case" after graduating medical school involved a severed jugular vein.  as they were treating him, david asked him where his friends were that got him to the doctor.  the guy said there were none, that he had driven there by himself, driving and shifting one handed, as he knew he could not take his hand from his neck.  i suppose the hard part was getting his keys from the "wrong" pocket, which is where i always put them.

in short, in would appear to me that some people are tougher and more resolute than others.  and, if you happen to shoot one of the tough ones with a 5.56x45mm nato service round, and he doesn't go down, then shoot him until he does.

what else can you do?

this is why, of course, douglas mccarthur insisted the united states retain the .30-06 in the m-1 garand before world war ii.  but, i doubt if colonel chamberlin would have thought that it made too much of a difference.

you just never know.

john jay @ 02.11.2011

this relates to the john f. kennedy assassination, and the "necessity" of the "grassy knoll" shooter ... slow motion bullet impacts ...

those who propound the "grassy knoll" shooter rely on two arguments to support their theory.

the first one is that lee harvey oswald could not have made the shots that killed kennedy and wounded john connally with "such a crude weapon" as the italian carcano rifle which appears to have been used in the shooting, ... , e.g., it was not "accurate" enough, or capable of sufficiently quick manipulation to have fired so many shots so quickly, ... , and that the "reaction" of kennedy's head and the movement of ejecta from the wounds suggests/proves that he was hit with a bullet fired from in front and not behind his head.

well, with regard to the first objection focused on the inadequacy of the carcano, and its inability to be manipulated and fired quickly & accurately enough to have done the shooting, ... , well, folks, the fact is that kennedy and connally were hit in pretty rapid succession, and aside from the grassy knoll, no one has ever suggested any plausible location other than the texas school book depository as a vantage to have made the shots.

it may not have been "possible" to have made those shots, ... , but, they happened as a matter of fact, not theory.  somebody shot them from somewhere, and right now oswald is the best candidate, and the texas school book depository the likely place of the shooting.  it may not have been "possible," but it happened.

and, to the point of this post.

many have argued with seeming plausibility that the eruption of skin, muscle bone and brain matter from the grievous wounds received by kennedy establish that he suffered a gunshot wound to the head that could only have come from in front of him.

well, i have a film to watch for you.  it is not inherently grisly or gruesome, as a matter of fact, it is a rather routine advertise for the sale of the cz 58 assault rifle, and it has some footage of a fellow shooting various inanimate objects in slow motion with the rifle, both to show the operation & function of the weapon, and the supposed power of the 7.62x39mm russian cartridge that it shots.  please watch, "slow motion bullet impacts and vz. 58 rifle."  update:  take a look at this film.  it shows various power firearms being fired into a 60 liter barrel.  it gets interesting toward the end, when a .338 lapua "sniper rifle" is fired into the barrel, and then a .50 browning rifle is fired into another one.  watch the reaction of the barrel to the strike of the .50 caliber bullet: to my eye, the barrel actually moves toward the direction from which the bullet has come, e.g., toward the rifle.  watch, and see if you agree.  

http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/showthread.php?48582-Ballistic-effects-9mm-  end update.

the point of this post.  at 3 minutes 46 seconds into the film, the shooter targets and sends a bullet through what appears to be a rather loosely constructed red brick or tile block.  i would like you to watch the film, because it shows a rather astounding kinetic reaction of the material in the block to the impact of the bullet, and that is, that material is ejected from the block in two rather narrow cones along the path of the bullet, both towards and away from the direction of the path of the bullet.  and, as a matter of fact, it appears that more ejecta goes back along the path of the bullet toward the shooter than is propelled the other way following the flight of the bullet.

now, i have long known because of a background of prosecuting and defending violent criminal acts, that "blood spatter" will just as often hit a shooter who fires from close range, as it does hitting the wall behind the victim, or the floor beneath him, for that matter.  stuff just goes everywhere.  but, i have never seen such a clear demonstration of this, as in this film.   now, human tissue is far more, ... , what, ... , fluid?, ... , gooey?, ... , than the stuff shot in this demo/advertisement, but i do not understand why it would not behave in a manner pretty similar to what is depicted in this film.

it seems to me that based on this kind of visual evidence, that one cannot safely conclude from what direction a bullet is fired simply based upon some tissue and/or blood showing up in a picture or film of a wound occurring, without knowing more about the pathological evidence involved.

i am afraid that proponents of the "grassy knoll" shooter are going to have to come up with more solid evidence of a shooter there, in terms of wound ballistics & pathology, than what they have relied upon to this juncture in order to establish their arguments.

in short, the film of kennedy's head "jerking back" as if suffering a shot to the front of his head, and showing tissue ejecta from the rear, is just not conclusive evidence of much of anything, and does very little to establish the "necessity" of a second figure.  the ballistics of the matter do not demand or support such a conclusion without more, as illustrated by this film, and nothing rules out other physiological processes as contributing to john f. kennedy's reaction at the point of receiving his wound.

i was, by the way, a sophomore at john d. mcloughlin union high school in harold reid's physics class when news of the kennedy shooting was broadcast over the high school p.a. system: to that point, i hadn't known the high school even had a p.a. system, as it had never been used.  we just sat there in stunned silence, the 1950's not having prepared us for such things.

john jay @ 02.10.2011

will my paean be your paean, or will it be your pain? ...

the basic question posed, is whether or not you can replicate what i have done in formulating my little "system" for field shooting my ar-15 rifle in the 6.8mm remington spc chambering.

and, the basic straightforward answer is, i dunno.

as a matter of first consideration, know that the ar-15 rifle is generally regarded as a very accurate weapon.  it is not unusual at all for a given ar to shoot very well, but every now and again an ar appears that does not shoot so well.  my own rifle was purchased in pieces, with an e.r. shaw barrel, and shaw was one of the first to supply a barrel in this caliber, and a rock river arms receiver, a bushmaster fore end, and a bolt and bolt carrier assembly from model 1 sales.

it did not function reliably at first, as the bolt and extractor were not correctly fabricated for the 6.8mm caliber.  only after some grief was the functioning issue solved by the purchase of a bolt group from lewis machine and tool, which has functioned without mishap since installation.  i will purchase more parts and equipment from lewis machine and tool as the opportunity presents itself: they are great to deal with, and service is prompt, and they make excellent stuff.

the e.r. shaw barrel has shot better since i did an impromptu "crown job" on the barrel, removing what i took to be a burr right at the muzzle with a little valve grind compound & oil and a dummy 7mm mag round with a 175 grain partition.  i simply put the valve compound on the bullet, put the bullet in the end of the barrel, and twisted and turned.  hint: it doesn't take very long at all, nor much effort, to remove considerable metal from a muzzle so ministered to.

as a matter of second consideration, it may not be your fate to concoct a load which shoots so well in your rifle.  i struggled for over two years to find the load that i have now standardized, that being 28.2 grains of hodgdon 322 (h-322) powder pushing a 115 grain sierra matchking bullet, in remington cases and with a cci large rifle primer.

my first efforts tried all manner of bullets, and lots of powders, but nothing shot like the above combination.   there is a certain amount of serendipity in my discovery of a good load, and all i can say is, nothing beats shit house luck.  oh, some diligence may have entered into the picture, but luck and circumstance cannot be discounted.

in the 6.8mm remington spc there are questions and issues of basic chamber design, with the spec 1 chamber being the saami standard, and the various spec ii chambers being touted as delivering higher velocities.  some people also tout a slower rate of twist as a device to lower chamber pressures and/or increase velocity.  i haven't the foggiest notion whether the e.r. shaw barrel i have is a spec 1 or spec 2 chamber, what sort of leade it has, nor have i even bothered to figure out the twist rate. 

the fact is, it is the barrel i have, the only one i can afford as it was purchased during a different economic lifetime than the one i live in now, and it is what i am going to keep.  all i know is, that the load and the barrel (20") produce 2,550 fps with my load, it gives no pressure signs, and it is wonderfully accurate.

why lose any sleep over it?  it is what it is. in short, i do not know if you will find a rifle and a load that will perform for you, and i most certainly do not know how you define what is acceptable or unacceptable performance to you.  me, i tend to accommodate myself and figure a way.  i do not know about you.

the only way for you to find out about these things, and how you will react and adapt to things as they develop, is to buy a rifle, and start shooting, ... , and find your own path.

and, as a matter of a third consideration, there is you.  will you work at achieving your own "system?"  i am something of a dunderhead, in my own little way, but i am also a relatively smart dunderhead, in my own little way.  (hey, it's all certified.  laughing.  all i can tell you, is some agree with my assessment, and some rather spiritedly dissent.)  i have studied ballistics charts, and tables until bleary eyed, and i have looked at and tried many combinations of sighting equipment arriving at the "system."  and, i have purchased a ballistics program from arthur pejsa, and noodled around with it for many an evening, to gain a grasp and feel for rifle trajectories in general, and for the trajectory of my own little pet load.

finally, it all came together, but not without a whole lot of tinkering, experimentation and just thinking about how to do something.  i may not be brilliant, but, i am slow to, as the old saying goes.  you just gotta stick with it.

would it have come together if i had not mounted the 2x7 leupold vari-x compact scope on the rifle?  not all scopes have the same size stadia in their reticules, and not all of them subtend the same degree of arc as the little compound leupold does between the stadia points, and not all such designs are as compatible with the "solution" i have found.

and, as a final consideration.  i am pretty straight forward, and i am pretty objective in my assessment of my peculiarities, weaknesses and habits.  i am not, ... , uhm, ... , organized or very disciplined.  my attention wanders: as cheryl raber once said, rather accurately i think , john, you are a new goose born into a new world every day.  so, i have long known that i would never ever compile log books or shooting books, or a chart of "come ups" and "dial downs," or could ever remember or record the "click" values associated with adjusting an optic to different ranges.

i am a.d.d.  i am not anal.

so, i have arrived at my present happy condition with a rifle that is accurate, and with a rifle that is equipped with an optic that allows me what is essentially a "point and shoot" solution with a standard load out to 400-450 yards or so, which is a happy coincidence because that is about as far as i can hold with any degree of regularity.  and, much past that, i cannot and will not ask, with this particular rifle.

so, can you replicate my path?  do you want to?  will you find a rifle and load that shoots, and will you develop your own scheme to point it, without a lot of fussing around?

were i you, i would give it a whirl.  even when my efforts were not bearing fruit, it was a fun and interesting process, and i was learning a lot.  mostly, i was learning how to analyze what i wanted to achieve, and to objectively assess whether it was worth achieving, and whether i could do it.

i cannot gaurentee you that you can replicate what i have done.  i cannot guarantee you that you will get a shooter, or that you will develop a good load for that rifle.  i cannot guarantee you that your load will shoot, or that if you use my loads, that they will shoot or develop the velocity they do in my rifle.

i suspect that you shoot as "well" as i do.  all my friends out shoot me with my own guns, particularly rollie taylor, who always says, gosh, john, your guns always shoot so well when i shoot them.  ("you know, in contrast to when you shoot them.")

someday, alice, to the moon.

you may end up with a gun and load that requires you to get targets, paste them at every range from 50 to 600 yards in 50 yard increments, and then record the scope settings necessary to get the bullet to the target with reasonable accuracy and repeatability, and then you may be reduced to dialing in those settings whenever you shoot to a different range.

any, you may end up preferring that, if it fits your personality, and if you feel "reassured" by the "certainty" of the methodology and results.  more power to you.

so, my paean your pain, or my paean your paean, as well, that is the question.

john jay @ 02.09.2011

p.s.  others might just use the approach of buying a marlin 336 chambered in the tried and true .30-30 winchester, and take the path of "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."  me, i don't want anybody that close. to tell you the truth, i would rather be served by proficiency than courage.

and, i will let you in on a little secret, in all of this.  if you can hit someone at 400 yards, or even 450 yards, then it is quite likely that you are in a certain amount of risk yourself.  and, this holds true, even more emphatically, if we are talking about you ability to hit someone being limited to 200, or even 150 yards.  at that distance they are even more likely to be able to "touch" you right back.  so, i favor having as much proficiency with as much distance as i can attain, i just don't hold to deluding myself that i am any kind of a marksman past the distances discussed above.  i would like to be a good shot at 700 yards with this rifle and load, but, it is just not in the cards.  no use fooling myself in the matter.

so, don't stand out in the open, doing jumping jacks.  if you catch my drift.

were i you, i would work at it, and practice, practice, practice, and then practice some more.  and, keep it simple, stupid.

it may be a pain to you but it is a paean to me ... in praise of the 6.8mm remington spc "system ... "

update:  as colonel "hannibal" smith was wont to say on "the 'a' team," i love it when a plan comes together.  well, maybe it was just shit house luck, but i prefer to think of luck as the residue of design.

to the 400 yard range this day, with an 8.5 inch target in tow.  tape the target on the standard.  back to the bench, a brick or two on the top, a blanket over that, and drape the rifle and myself over the blanket, pick five bullets from the box, and have at it.

sighting at the center of the bull, i let 'er rip.  walk down to the target standard, and find that the target has emerged unscathed from the whole deal, and that there are five little holes about a foot or so below the point of aim in the cardboard backing.

back to the bench.  five more shots, this time using the point of the bottom post of the plex reticule to aim.  i have constructed a target by drawing the outline of a correl ware bowl (8.5" in diameter at the rim) on two sheets of typing paper, laying some scotch tape across it in a cross pattern, and then coloring in the little pie shaped figures around the clear tape in black marker pencil.  that way, i have a white cross with a black contrast around it.

i simply edge the point of the plex post up the upright of the crossarm, until the black of the tip meets the black of the pie-shaped black shapes.  and, fire off five more rounds.  i walk down to the target again, and find five shots, two shots just off the left edge of the circle, defining a 5.17" group, and the three closest shots in a straight line up the lower right edge of the white cross, 2.20" inches apart.

pure shithouse luck, or skill?  however it was done, the rifle shooting the 115 grain sierras at 2550 fps have shot a 1.29 minute of angle group at 400 yards, off the top of a blanket with no mechanical rest.

consider the center of the target the second button on a shirt or tunic.   viewed that way, the shots to the left are just above the left nipple and right on the bottom rib below the nipple, with the other three shots just to the left of the mid sternum.   in short, the group is satisfyingly accurate, and, in a needed situation, very much lethal at 400 yards.

in sum.--

a rifle with one load, and not changing scope settings or fooling around with "clicks" on the turret, shoots into a 1.00" plus group at 100 yards, with a point of aim of the tip of the top plex, rings the gong dead center at 300 yards by the use of the intersecting cross hairs, and hits a target to point of aim at 400 yards with a point of aim of the tip of the bottom plex.

all, without any fuss or bother with scope settings, or figuring "comes ups," "dial downs" or how many clicks equals 6 inchs at 400 yards.  shit house luck?  the residue of design?  who cares?  it works.  john jay 02.09.2011  end update.

to the range this day, to test a couple of variations of my "whisper," and to decide upon a standard loading for the same.

i loaded some "whispers"  *** , loading 130 grain sierra boat tail gamekings (a lead tip instead of a hollow-point) and 130 grain speer hot core spitzers in front of the same charge, that being 6.6 grains of imr "trail boss."  this load develops about 950 fps in my ar-15 rifle, equipped w/ a 20" barrel.

to cut to the chase, the sierras shot reasonably well, delivering a 2.1" group at 100 yards, and the speers did not shoot well at all, delivering a couple groups at 3.5" and 5.5" at 100 yards.  these latter groups more or less confirmed previous experience, and previous performance.

this is nothing against the speer bullet.  i use the same hot core spitzer in full power loads in preference to the sierras, and they shot very well at around 2350 fps over the chronograph.  i get this performance by using a load from the speer manual no. 13, consisting of 26 grains of h-322 with a large rifle primer and a 130 grain hot core bullet.  in my rifle, i get no indication of excessive pressure from this load, and it is fully 1/2 grain below the listed maximum.

i shot five 5-shot groups with the "whispers."

after that, i shot a single 5-shot group with my standard load of the sierra 115 grain bthp matchking (an "open tip" bullet) at 100 yards, and this bullet at 2550 fps delivered a 1.440" group, with four shots within .775" of one another: the errant shot was the third, and was simply the result of an aiming error on my part when the sear dropped.  i knew it was " ... bad when it left the barrel ...," as the saying goes, and that shot was entirely upon me, landing low and directly below the nice little cluster.  the load consists of 28.2 grains of h-322 behind a 115 grain sierra bullet, the load from the hodgdon web site.

the rifle will shoot, when i do my part.

i want to talk to you about "systems," and devices, which i do not particularly like and which to my mind are to be avoided as useless and nettlesome complications.  in short, i resist whenever possible the resort to very high powered scopes with lots of nobs and settings and twisting to be done at this range and that range, when shooting a firearm.  

were something to go horribly wrong in this world, and i had to resort to my rifle to protect myself, i do not want to have to be sorting through this box or that box for my 276 yard ammo, and to set my scope to the 276 yard setting, when that it highly inconvenient.

k.i.s.s.  keep it simple, stupid.   i like that motto.  its fits me.  its regrettable, but i don't do "needless complication" very well.

for instance, this day i shot the groups at 100 yards with one bullet traveling 2550 fps and another traveling about 950, using the same target, the same scope, and the same scope settings.

and, another fellow and i used the rifle to shoot a steel gong at 300 yards, with the same rifle, the 115 grain sierra bullet at 2550 fps, without changing the scope settings at all, and by holding the rifle dead smack dab on the middle of the gong at that distance.

as a matter of fact, the rifle is "zeroed" to the 300 yard distance.   it shot dead on at that distance.  it also shot dead on using the high velocity load at 100 yards, without changing the scope setting at all.  as for the whisper cartridge, it shot 7 inches below point of aim at 100 yards, also without changing scope settings: for reference, it is just about 7 inches from the point of my nose to the knit neck of my t-shirt.

how is this possible?

i have fixed on my rifle a leupold 2x7 power vari-x compact glass optic.  "dead stock," right off the shelf.  i have used it on .22 rifles, and on a rifle chambered in 7mm remington magnum.

when i shoot the long range gong with the high velocity ammo, i hold directly to point of aim using the cross hairs, the intersection fo the same right on the target.  simple.  just like me.  at that range, i don't want to be using any guesswork, as there isn't a whole lot of room for error.

when i shoot the 100 yard target, i hold dead on the intended point of impact as well.  how is that possible?  well, in reality it is quite simple.  the 2x7 leupold has a "plex reticule," which consists of four stadia which are wide at the outside of the field of view through the scope, and then narrow to points about 3/4's the way to the center of the scope.  from there, the stadia are narrow as they lead toward and "meet" at the center of the scope.  i simply use the top stadia as the "sight", and hold the sharp tip of the same directly on the intended point of impact.

rest assured, you can aim as precisely with the sharp tip of the stadia as you can with the cross hairs.  and, it just so happens, that set at "7" power, the stadia tip is dead on at 100 yards with the above load, and close enough with anything else i will shoot through the rifle that i simply will not worry about it.

for instance, the aforementioned 130 grain speer full power load shoots to the same basic point of aim, and though there is some difference, it is less than i can compensate for by "kentucky windage," so i just hold dead on.

and, finally, i use the same method when aiming at short distances with the "whisper."  except, instead of using the tip of the top stadia when shooting the low velocity round, when shooting targets i use the tip of the bottom stadia to aim the rifle.  is this novel?  nope, not really, the germans are quite fond of scoped rifles that basically use a bottom stadia all by its lonesome to effect aiming.  and, when you think about it, the front sight of a rifle using "iron" sights aim with a blade at the front of the barrel which are nothing more than "posts" sticking up in the air all by their lonesome.

i do not use a range finding laser device to measure distance.

i do not have trajectory charts with "come ups" and "dial downs" taped to the stock of my rifle, nor do i have such information memorized.  and, i do not have a little notebook with all such arcane information written in it, along with corrections for elevation and atmospheric pressure.

nor do i have such information stored on a laptop that i carry with me shooting.

i do have an old palm zire pda with art pejsa's ballistics program loaded on it, and it is helpful in noodling such things out, so that i can figure how to use my scopes to do the above little tricks.

why do i eschew the technology that would allow me to plant a bullet on the brow of a gnat at 312.69 yards, along with the 8x24 power scope that would allow me to see it?

hey, i am not that good a shot.  what i mean by that, is that, i am not that good a shot.  i do not shoot well enough to take advantage of that sort of thing.  i don't need a ferrari testa rosa to drive 55 mph in the slow lane, either.

and, there is another reason.  well, two.  the second reason, is that for my purposes, i don't need to be that damned good a shot.  minute of grapefruit is just fine for most purposes, and it has proved sufficient for most of the armies of the world for over a century of use of smokeless high velocity weapons.  

(i am looking at frank barne's "cartridges of the world," 8th edition, 1997, edited by m.l. mcpherson.  on page 447 --  459, there is published an index to u.s. military ammunition, which sets forth, among other things, the accuracy stands for specific types of ammunition.  at p. 449, we find the description of the m59 ball cartridge, caliber 7.62mm nato, loaded with the 150.5 grain bullet.  under the heading "accuracy: carton or clip pack," we find the notation, "... 5 inch mean radius at 600 yards ... ," which i understand to mean that the bullet is capable of landing within a radius of 5" at a 600 yard target.  actually, this is pretty impressive.  

but, hold on a second.  a radius is one half of a diameter.  this means that the bullet is designed to land within a circle the diameter of 10 inches at 600 yards.  that still isn't too bad, and in fact the bullet is designed to shoot into a 1.666 minute of angle cone at 100 yds.  but, hold on another second.  that is just the performance level of the bullet.  it says nothing about the degradation of that sort of accuracy by being shot out of a rifled barrel not of that quality of accuracy.  and, finally, you may breathe after you consider what happens when you add the fallibility of the shooter firing the cartridge in a rifle of less than perfect conditions under very horrible circumstances.

the fact is, unless someone is a very skilled marksman with adequate time to set up a good shot, not very many adversaries or attackers are going to be hit, on purpose, by a single & precisely aimed shot at much over 400 yards or so.  so, i don't worry about it.  and, i am not going to change a system calculated to give me a reasonable probability of a hit at 350 yards or so, without a lot of fuss and bother, for the chance at being a better shot at distances not calculated to engender a whole lot of danger to an adversary.

are people shot at extended ranges?   you bet.  happens all the time.  sometimes as a result of a shot by an extremely skilled rifleman, but, more often, as a matter of what we call tenderly in the pac nor west, "shithouse luck."  hey, you get killed stepping off curbs in front of pakistani cab drivers, too, ... , and there is no arguing with fate.

the first reason, and the paramount reason, is that in any situation in which you are seriously intent on shooting a weapon to protect yourself, you just don't have all that damn much time.  if you have the weapon at hand, and you need to use it right now, you are not going to have time to take your laser range finder from its case, aim it, lase the target, and then transfer that information into your trajectory calculator, and then dial up the "clicks" on your scope, turn it to the desired magnification, and then take precise aim, and blow the gnat away with a precision shot to the brow.  off of your concrete rest, using a lead sled fixture to absorb the recoil of your weapon.

nope, you are gonna flop down on the ground, first thing, so you don't get your fool ass blown away standing there picking your nose figuring out what to do.  oh, yeah, even on the gravel, and even on the prickly pair, and even in your dior.

then you are gonna charge your weapon, and you are gonna aim, and you are gonna shoot until you get the bastard who is trying to get you, or until he gets you, or until you can figure out a way to get the fuck outta there.

in short, you want things idiot proof.  you want them simple.  you want it pre-arranged, so that you don't have to be dicking around "getting set up" while some asshole is using the precious time to fix your ass.

so, with my "system", it is hold dead on at 300 yards, hoist her up a little bit for 400 yards, or for close in, 150 yards plus or so, you use the tip of the top stadia and aim to intended point of impact.

it is a butt wipe simple operation, because i am a butt wipe simpleton.

and, i got news for you.  i am not going to get a whole lot smarter put into a situation where somebody is seriously after my ass, or shooting at me, or dragging my child off into the bushes.   am i going to have the presence of mind to get my laser out, dial in my clicks, consult my trajectory chart in such a circumstance?  i don't know about you, but i don't think that i am gonna.  i am gonna be in pretty good shape if i can remember how to insert the magazine into the magazine well, and take aim and shoot.

this brings up something almost totally extraneous to anything, but it is just the little thing that i like.  did you you that the french, our beloved froggies, haven't as an historical matter been in the habit of putting safeties on their infantry rifles.  the french believe that if you are not worried, the chamber is not charged with a cartridge.  and, that if you are worried, the chamber is charged with a round, so that when the gun is mounted it is capable of being discharged without having to dink around with putting the safety into the "fire" position.

in this, i am in agreement with the froggies.

keep.  it.  simple.  stupid.

that is my "system."  partly through design, and partly through "trial and error," i have with my little ar-15 in 6.8mm remington spc, a method whereby i can shoot the high velocity round that i load for my rifle from about 0 to 450 yards or so, without a whole lot of messing around with things.  and, why am i not worried about distances greater than that?

well, the fact is, at those ranges, i will not be able to hit anything with sufficient reliability and predictability to warrant messing with it, a whole lot.  well, i will mess with it a little.  i have a target i have prepared, and i am going to go to the range tomorrow, and shoot at it at 400 yards, and then at 500 yards.  am i going to change the scope settings to make sure i can hit those targets at that range?

no.  i am not even going to think about it.  i have a fair notion that it will not involve much to hit at 400 yards.  and, i have a firm conviction, based on my experience walking in the country side and hunting in the mountains, that i cannot estimate range sufficient accurately at ranges over 300 to 400 yards to even worry about it.  if i don't hit something at that range, i will simply figure out how to do so, on the spot.

now, i shot at elk years ago and in another life time at a measured 395 yards, confirmed by topo map and gps readings.  (hey, the elk was dead, we had the time and some people had the equipment, and elk are pretty famous for not shooting you whilst you are consulting your trajectory charts.)  i saw him, i slid down a saddle on my back below the line of shrubbery, and i laid the rifle over a sapling bent parallel to the ground in the previous years snow, and i compensated for the fact that it was a downhill shot, and held the cross hairs on "hair," as the old saying goes.  at the shot he was down in a heap to 175 grains of 7mm bullet, and i had my spike.  i held the cross hairs on a line extending up from his front leg, and on his shoulder just above the bent "elbow."  some 10 or 15 seconds after he went down, he struggled a bit to get up, and i hit him again, mercilessly & mercifully (hey, hunting is complicated to me, like the love of a woman), and killed him without further quiver.  his companion ran away at the second shot.

i took that shot with confidence.

not because i had a whole lot of doodads.  i did not.  but, i had busted a lot of rocks in those canyons, and i knew my rifle had the reach without a whole lot of calculation being necessary to make the shot.

simple.  just like me.

and, were i you, i would keep it simple, too.   that's my opinion on things, and just like everyone else, i have a couple of 'em, ... , just like nipples.

john jay @ 02.08.2011

 

*** the "whisper" concept was developed by j.d. jones of ssk industries, and is a proprietary system whose name is trademarked, and the intellectual property in the same is the exclusive property of j.d. jones.

you want to buy a "whisper," contact j.d. jones at ssk.  simple as that.

my little experiment simply uses his example as inspiration to achieve a desired end, and i do not use or follow the principles he uses in his developments.  i do not use special cases, or special guns, merely working to attain sub-sonic performance from a cartridge case normally producing high velocities, while maintaining a semblance of accuracy, sufficient to give some utility to the use of the cartridge in that guise.

there.  that is explained.  has mr. jones ever given me a hint of grief over my scribblings?  no, and i doubt that he is even aware of them.  i just respect his pioneering efforts, ... , sure as hell, no one else even dreamed of any of this stuff before him, to the best of my knowledge, ... , and have no problems with him trying to make a buck from his thinking and work.

another hans rolling video on demographics, population and wealth ... the third world gains wealth, health & longevity ... and, yes, the bottom stays on the bottom ...

but, it is a healthier bottom.

on december 26, 2010 i did a post on hans rolling and a wonderful videographic demonstration of population and wealth/health dynamics.  

he's back.

hans rolling has done another discussion on world population growth, and the growth of wealth in the world, and it is worth watching.  it does not encompass nearly the number of years as the first study, so the measures of growth do not provide the startling contrast as from the link above.  but, it is helpful to understand that while the world grows, and while the poor among us live far better than before, the distance between the world's wealthier people and the world's poor people grows.

watch the film with hans rolling, "global population growth," here.  

john jay @  02.07.2011 

the eloquence of geert wilders at atlas shrugs ... as reported by pamela geller ...

geert wilders spoke at his trial this day.

his speach before the tribunal, short by well crafted and entirely informative, is set forth at "geert wilders speech in amsterdam court today  ...  'the lights are going out all over europe ...' "   i suspect that only pamela geller and robert spencer at "jihad watch," and a few like minded blogs, will be the only ones reporting on mr. wilders's remarks.

i am going to set out  his remarks in full, but encourage you to go and read the article at atlas shrugs, and to also encourage you to follow the thread of previous articles there.  pamela geller's coverage is, i believe, the most complete coverage of wilders rise as a political power to be reckoned with in holland, and the dutch government's attempts to quash his influence before he becomes prime minister.  she has been with him from his rise to prominence internationally, and, indeed, spurred it by her stirring introduction of wilders to the american audience when she introduced him at c.p.a.c. some few years ago, in 2009.  the rest, as they say, is history.

this is all about free speech, and all about wilders's refusal to knuckle under to an overt, raw and naked attempt by the left to maintain its power in holland.  would our republicans in congress have such courage.

i am also going to set out my remarks in "comments," which, (naturally enough), i think germane.

geert wilders's speech.  

the lights are going out all over europe. all over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. everywhere the foundation of the west is under attack.
 
all over europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us since fourteen centuries. an ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. the islamic mozart, the islamic gerard reve [a dutch author], the islamic bill gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. the ideology of islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.
 
my trial is not an isolated incident. only fools believe it is. all over europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-immigration, which will ultimately result in an islamic europe – a europe without freedom: eurabia.
 
the lights are going out all over europe. anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. freedom loving citizens who criticize islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer and are threatened or criminalized. those who speak the truth are in danger.
 
the lights are going out all over europe. everywhere the orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.
 
this trial is not about me. it is about something much greater. freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. it is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. for centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.
 
future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.
 
the lights are going out all over europe. our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so i repeat what i said here last year:
 
it is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people – and hence also my duty as a member of the dutch parliament – to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called islam. i hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. i hope not only that i shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the netherlands and in europe.

john jay's pitiful remarks, in the "comments."

pamela, friends:

well, eloquently and truthfully spoken [by wilders].

wilders hits the nail precisely on the head when he speaks of the lack of islamic newtons, the lack of islamic shakespeares, and the lack of islamic theatre and plastic arts. such genius does not emerge from islam, because it suppresses the flourishing of individual creativity, expression and exploration of ideas.

islam should not be confused as just another expression of human creativity and thought, ... , precisely for the reason that wilders advances, and that is that islam suppresses and stifles such things. islam is one thing and one thing only, and that is a flat line ideological orthodoxy, enforced by anal fanatics.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

john jay @ 02.07.2011  

p.s.  if you have not visited atlas shrugs, go there now, and begin to learn those things she has to teach.   hers is, i believe, the most important conservative blog in america, precisely because she keeps us informed about such matters as the wilders's trial in holland, and the trials suffered by the e.d.l. in england to get an anti jihad movement up and running there.  no other blogger, save for robert spencer, does this so well.  imho.

the dessert of forbidden art ... a small museum in uzbekistan saves 20th century russian art ...

truth is found in the oddest places.

update:  the points that i have tried so in-artfully to make below are made in this post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/02/the-eloquence-of-geert-wilders-at-atlas-shrugs-as-reported-by-pamela-geller-.html , wherein i have set forth in full the remarks of geert wilders this day at his trial for hate speech, ongoing in amsterdam.  i have taken the speech to the court by wilders from another post at atlas shrugs, here, proprietor pamela geller, who has done the absolute best reporting, bar none, on wilders since he broke into the international limelight several years ago, partly upon the patronage of ms. geller and her efforts to get him more widespread attention.  end update.

savitsky was a child of privilege in czarist russia, but come 1917 it became prudent for him to hide that privilege, so he became a lineman on electrical projects, and then joined an archaeological expedition to uzbekistan.

he had always wanted to be an artist, so he began painting the dessert and its people.  rejected by a prestigious member of the soviet academy, he instead returned to uzbekistan, and began to collect artifacts of uzbeki life, fast disappearing in the soviet effort to "make" the "soviet man" in the dessert.

other russians fled the homeland for the remote desserts, and determined to exercise their artistic passions as remote from soviet academic and political control as possible.  in their self imposed exiles, they could follow their visions, find their voice, and literary & artistic meter.  in alekzandr solzhenitsyn's "the gulag archipelago," the point is made that prison was one of the few places where a man might allow his conscience and thought flourish, without fear of the regime's reprisal.

igor savitsky discovered that all over russia artists continued to create, to follow their passion, intellect and conscience and continued to record events in russia and their view and perspective of them, but that they dared not exhibit or broadcast them, or their artwork.  savitsky discovered the art work, on rolls of canvas tucked away in closets and attacks and storage sheds, and over a period of many years gathered to his home in remote uzbekistan, securing the art work on promissory notes signed to pay the negotiated price in the future.

he approached a minister of the uzbeki soviet government, and wangled a grant from the government, paid by sums from moscow, for a building in which to exhibit his works.

and, over the works, he built an utterly fantastic museum in the remotest reaches of russia, which records from a distinctly non-soviet perspective the attempts to fashion the "soviet man," and the emotional and physical violence meted out by the regime as it sought to reshape the clay in its hands.

"the dessert of forbidden art" chronicles the struggle of soviet-era artists as they tried to honor their conscience and talent, and chronicles the struggle of igo savitsky to tend and grow his intellectual and emotional garden.  

it shows that truth flourishes in the cruelest of circumstances, even if quietly and circumspectly, and it shoes that while a regime may intimidate the body, it cannot intimidate the soul, nor silence the musings of the intellect, nor stem the artistic impulse.

and, it shows that just every now and again, truth will triumph over cant and ideology.  i saw this film, of all places, at a decidedly leftist showing of the spokane (washington) internation film festival, spiff for short.  and, i must add for truth's sake, that the film was warmly received, and when i asked producer/director amanda pope, on hand for the showing, whether the art was jeopardized by muslim fundamentalism in uzbekistan she simply replied "not yet," because the ruler of that country was "... a strong man ... " able so far to keep those forces at bay.  and, she did not dismiss my further inquiry, whether any thought had been given to transfer the museum's 45,000 plus pieces of work to the united states to preserve it.

in my recent post concerning "the demise of the modern state [no. 2]" i of necessity discussed my views on why the modern democratic state is unique in political history, and my view that the modern state is designed to allow and foster the flourishing of human individuality and potential.  central to that discussion, though not preached so overtly, is that for a modern state to have adherents and defenders it must deliniate its aims and goals, and that its citizens must buy into those goals.

in the west, this has involved a process of argument and persuasion, for the most part, and took a period of considerable time starting with the early philosophers hobbes and locke and blackstone, and to include rosseau and others, and concluding with the thinkers of our own revolution such as jay, hamilton and madison in the federalist papers, and the writing of jefferson and others, even to include the poetry of walt whitman, to bring to final voice and acceptance by the people of this country.

this film, "the dessert of forbidden art," details that the building of the soviet ethos did not follow such a path.  the soviets instead relied upon brute force to shape the ethos of the soviet state by ruthlessly eliminating any who opposed or were suspected of opposing or were thought capable of opposing the formation of the state.  the film shows the execution of a man, shot in the back of the head by a pistol standing on some lone bleak plain, by a soldier in military tunic.

it also shows an even more graphic display of what the imposition of the soviet vision meant in soviet russia.  we are shown a film of a soviet artist's academy, with many artists standing at easels in a very crowded room, painting "soviet art,"  (one has only to think of            's novel, "concrete," to get the picture), the artist's also dressed in the tunics of military officers.

art, for the soviets, was just another armored division.

i took the opening to recommend to my daughter, "darkness at noon" by arthur koestler, and solzhenitsyn's "gulag", as works that would amplify the meaning of soviet "indoctrination," and the form that "persuasion" took in the soviet union.

and, i recommend to you, once again, this small film at youtube by baxter black.  "if you have a mind to, you might go to youtube and watch baxter black explain just what it means to be a citizen of a country invented by 'jefferson & adams,' and yes, perhaps 'bush & clinton.'  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-RQovKE-Ys ."   

it seems for all our difficulties and tumult that our nation, built and assent & dissent, has exhibited "stronger legs" in a historical context, than those nations built on the cudgel and the bullet to the mastoid, administered in dark basements and sere empty winter plains.

but, remember, this longevity has not been engendered by passivity.

we are americans so long as we believe in being americans, and so long as we are willing to rise in defense of our conception of our country and ourselves.  just as the english will remain english, so long as they believe in england and being english, and only so long as they are willing to rise in their defense of those ideals, and in defense of what it has meant to be english.

throwing the magna carta into the dust bin of history to ratify the euro union's lisbon treaty was not a good start in that defense of their home land, and the english are going to have to rouse themselves from their slumber.

john jay @ 02.06.2011

the modern democratic nation state has looked to gain its loyalists by reason, argument and persuasion, and asks only of its citizens acceptance of doctrine designed to allow them to flourish and maximize their own potential, as a mechanism to achieve the betterment of us all, as a community.

 

the demise of the nation state ... no. 2 ... the end of the state as a place to allow the flourishing of human potential ...

introduction.   i love the muppets, especially enjoying those skits where the two old curmudgeons groused in the balcony while the chaos swirled below them on the stage occupied by their fellow muppets.  i thought it wonderful that someday i might become a grumpy old curmudgeon, not quite comprehending that which swirled about me, but being able to grump about it.

i am not unmindful of the possibility that part of my feeling that the world is going to hell in a hand basket might simply be symptomatic of the afflictions associated with more hair in my ears and nose than thriving on my head.

maybe i simply cannot keep up.

i had this feeling a little bit discussing this essay with my sun duncan, a 25 year old wizard at blues guitar, though he explains that he is simply emulating frusciante’s lines, and not classic blues which he thinks too confined by the “blues box.”   see, he says.

whatever.

i laid out my main themes supporting my contentions that western democracies are suffering from decay, in that the political regimes of the west do not have adherents and defenders of the basic philosophical, religious and political beliefs, … , we used to call them “truths” in a less self conscious day, that serve as the underpinnings to western politics.

update:  the points that i have tried so in-artfully to make below are made in this post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/02/the-eloquence-of-geert-wilders-at-atlas-shrugs-as-reported-by-pamela-geller-.html , wherein i have set forth in full the remarks of geert wilders this day at his trial for hate speech, ongoing in amsterdam.  i have taken the speech to the court by wildersfrom another post at atlas shrugs, here, proprietor pamela geller, who has done the absolute best reporting, bar none, on wilders since he broke into the international limelight several years ago, partly upon the patronage of ms. geller and her efforts to get him more widespread attention.  end update.

he seemed underwhelmed, leaving me sort of crestfallen.   hasn’t it always been that way, hasn’t a group always felt threatened as their domination gave way to a new wave of power and influence, wasn’t this country dominated by the railroad and financiers, only to lose influence to other forces?  aren’t countries always sort of coming and going, and failing, and don’t new ones rise up, and doesn’t western civilization still continue along, hasn’t it always suffered upset and conflict?

well, yes, i stammered.

but, i made a pretty good comeback, and my conversation with my son forced me to sharpen the focus on what i think is decaying, even unto the point of potential failure, in our society.   and, in order to do that, i really had to better enunciate what i think the danger is to our society, and to western civilization.

he asked, challenged really, what is the thing that you think we are loosing, and why is it bad.

and, i responded by a simple assertion, which establishes the context of most of my remarks, that the history and struggle of the west has been to achieve the flowering of society through allowing, begrudgingly at first and then encouraging and extolling, the flourishing of the intellect and spirit of the individual.

it is this, i said, that is in danger of being lost.  it is in danger of being lost because we do not speak in these terms, and we are loosing our adherence to stated values and beliefs that have allowed the individual to flourish.

he was getting into the spirit of the discussion at this point, and i knew i had hooked him on a notion, when he feigned indifference and said, so what?

well, so what, indeed.  let me add, in a prideful manner the observation, smart kid.  and, then he said, people have always said what you are saying, and i really would like to do nothing more than read and think about things, but how do i eat.  and, he said, isn’t it true that countries have always come and gone, and had he noted that france once belonged to the gauls, and to celtic peoples as they drifted towards the british isles, and was in its past overrun by norsemen sailing up the seine, he would have been correct.  and, had he noted that france was once the plaything of eleanor of acquitaine, and that the lowlands of holland the plaything of french and english ambitions, he would have been write.

things come and go.  the tides of conquest wax and they wane.  so, why is it regrettable, to put the matter bluntly, that the west may give way to the waxing of islam?  to ask the question, in a serious vein, is, of course, to reveal one’s ignorance of what one is about, and about what one is.

precise.  what is happening to the nation state, around the world?   what exactly am i talking about?--  what is my conception of the nation state?  how are we falling away from it?   what is likely to happen, how will this devolution from what i see as a “high water mark” of civilization in the 1950’s “ozzie and harriet show” occurring, and where will it lead?  if you have a mind to, you might go to youtube and watch baxter black explain just what it means to be a citizen of a country invented by “jefferson & adams,” and yes, perhaps “bush & clinton.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-RQovKE-Ys  .   his is the other side of my coin, as it were, and it is brilliantly expressed.  when you’ve finished here, go to watch and listen.

my little essay.  i suppose in order to understand what i consider as lamentable in the passing of the modern nation state, we must first, you and i, come to some sort of conceptualization of what i mean by the modern nation state.

i am talking about that entity which posits the robust health of its citizenry and the individuals who comprise it, above the interests of the state itself, and which in some sense subordinates the interests of the state in order to further the interests of its individuals.

we’ve had countries, in a loose sense, for a long time.

keep in mind, however, that the modern nation state anchored in concepts of democracy and the flowering and thriving of the free market economy is of a very recent derivation.  and, the modern nation state is to be distinguished from countries ruled by aristocracy and even theocracy, as being premised upon the even handed application of law without regard to favor or status or influence, and that too is a pretty recent thing.  it is no accident that a lot of the intellectual premise and theoretical underpinnings for such a structure looked to ancient rome and athens for their well springs, and even for their models of organization, because other models of more recent derivation were not readily handy.  so, to rome and athens went the western mind for models of organization, and even to such niceties as written constitutions and theories and precepts as to what the point of the entire political process was all about.

a great preoccupation of the modern nation state has always been, to what end is the state and political organization to serve?

i think that we are seeing the demise of the nation state because that very preoccupation, that very self conscious striving for purpose and identity, has been lost from our public discourse for a long time, and absent from our education.  in short, the abandonment of notions of “civics” and “civic virtue” have left us adrift.

the modern nation states have entered into a period that can only be described as decadent, perhaps to an extent that foretells the doom of such states.  we see it in the financial irresponsibility and cupidity of our political leaders, who exercise a complete lack of responsibility for the way they spend the public’s money.  they spend and tax and overspend in complete disregard for financial reality.  and, they are corrupt to an extent that is almost breathtaking, personal ambition and greed fueling an avarice barely comprehensible.

this lack of adherence to values of honesty, discipline, piety and rectitude is based i think, upon a complete ignorance of notions of public civility, and a complete ignorance of the standards of public virtue.  you can hardly practice, you can hardly believe in, that regarding which you are totally ignorant.

so, ignorance of horace, and virgil and cicero lead to public decay.  and, ignorance of plato and socrates and homer only lead to a belief in alinsky and marx and marcuse as convenient sources of validation for an unchecked materialism, cynicism and displacement of virtue for a passive acquiescence in “process” that destroys our public virtue.

we see this decadence in the modern state in the crime and corruption that is so widespread in our society.  and, we see it as well, it the lack of adherence to values such as hard work and discipline and rectitude as personal virtues and disciplines.

well, at this point, if you are sitting in the muppet audience, you want to look up at the old grumps who fulminate and fuss in the balcony above, interrupting the performance, and you what to say, what is your point?

why is this so?  who cares?

and, you say all of this besets us, but you have yet to say just what it is, what halcyon state, that proves so elusive of our contemporary grasp, and just what exactly it is that slips away from us.

a fair enough observation.  so, let us look to just exactly it is that i posit as the modern nation state, whose demise is threatened by islamic conquest, and whose is being caused by our lack of adherence to the considerable virtues, and the value systems and belief systems that gave rise to the modern state.  and, keep in mind, the modern nation state is a relatively recent phenomena.  england with its parliament and the magna carta standing as precursor, the united states achieving statehood in 1789 as perhaps the template for the modern state, and followed by the devolution of european empires into their modern nation state forms a bit later.

let’s look to germany.

the german confederation existed from 1815 until the unification of the german principalities under bismark from roughly 1865 to 1870.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_German_Confederation   the confederation was an historical remnant of the breakup of the holy roman empire, neither very roman nor very holy as the old observation goes.  but, basically, the southern part of the german speaking realms were catholic, and the northern parts protestant.

found at the wikipedia link is a fascinating map & list showing the some 42 members of this germanic confederation, and their geographic distribution over central europe.  this association of austrian empire, kingdoms, duchy and grand duchy, principalities, free cities and hanseatic free cities, and other various political entities was under the thrall of the austrian empire.

the kingdom of prussia would emerge from this association as the paramount power in central europe, and in would end up uniting the germanic states into a political whole. 

the process was war.

in the mid-1860’s the prussians and the austrians waged brief military campaigns, sort of punitive expeditions, against denmark to protect territorial claims advanced by the danes over holstein and schleswig.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia and, a very short time later prussian armies took the field against the armies of austria over rivalry centered around the administration of the provinces wrested from the danes, spoiling for a fight over the spoils of war, as it were.  in the resolution of that war with austria, the prusssians handily winning the battle of koniggratz against austria in 1866, and in the peace of prague in 1866 in which the split from austria was formalized and other germanic states were “coaxed” into joining prussia in confederation, the modern germanic state began to emerge.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

the existence of the new state was cemented by the franco-prussian war of 1870, a brief affair in which the prussian armies made handy work of the french armies under napoleon ii, and prussian hegemony over central europe secured.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia . 

for a while.

the following paragraph from the wikipedia article is illustrative of the features of the modern european nation state, with the interests of european aristocracy balanced against the interests and power of the general population and citizenry of the populace:

prussia was the dominant state in the new confederation, as the kingdom comprised almost four-fifths of the new state's territory and population. prussia's near-total control over the confederation was secured in the constitution drafted for it by bismarck in 1867. executive power was held by a president, assisted by a chancellor responsible only to him. the presidency was a hereditary office of the hohenzollern rulers of prussia.

there was also a two-house parliament. the lower house, or reichstag (diet), was elected by universal male suffrage.  the upper house, or bundesrate (federal council) was appointed by the state governments. the bundesrat was, in practice, the stronger chamber. prussia had 17 of 43 votes, and could easily control proceedings through alliances with the other states.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

 

german history has hardly been settled after consolidation of most of the germanic states by prussia.  indeed, the confederation above suffered from some of the same structural and systemic flaws that were exposed under our own articles of confederation after the american revolution.  though the paramount military power in the german confederation, prussia & the confederation had no direct authority to tax its “subjects” in order to gain revenue, and some of the provinces retained their own military.

 

the german state also experienced leftist revolution in 1918, and further structural & political modifications were effected to its structure afterwards, most of them cutting the power of the prussian state.  in addition, “germany” lost considerable territories to other european states as a result of reparations owing from world war one, and the greater bulk of loss of territories was absorbed by prussia.

 

finally, the weimar republic emerged from all this, only to suffer its various vicissitudes and ultimate collapse and surrender to the force of the nazi conquest of the state apparatus.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

 

it is an illustrative & instructive history.—

 

from our vantage the history of nations appears rather static, and we are inclined to say, well, there has always been a “germany,” when in fact, there has not always been a “germany” particularly identical in form and structure to what we have today.  the history consists of tumult, and war, and revolution, and reconciliation and interludes of peace and stability.  but, since the 1800’s it has consisted of loose federation, confederation, domination by prussia, and the tragedy of the nazi conquest of the state apparatus and then the debacle of the nazi attempt at the conquest of europe and russia.

 

so, with all that, why lament its demise?

 

because, for all of that, … , and we haven’t even scratched the surface of the history of religious strife in europe and the america’s, … , during this period we see the absolute flourishing and growth of human potential, and capacity.

 

modernity, for lack of a better term, from the 18^th century on, has seen an explosion of human knowledge in the theoretical and material sciences, and in art, in literature, in music, and in all the allied fields, plus as in no other historical epoch of which i am aware, save for the romans and the greeks, a flowering and benefit directly related to mass participation in societal discussion and debate.--

 

school girls from sunnyside, washington grow up to become n.a.s.a. astronauts, and fly into space and return again.  a long shoreman from san francisco becomes one of the more influential political philosophers of our times, writing in his spare prose in his spare time.

 

in no epoch of time, has the common person achieved such grandeur and stature, and the aristocrat and hero are displaced from their lofty & exclusive perches and man, truly becomes the measure of man.

 

the state looks monolithic and solid as we regard it in the moment, but when we look at it over the course of time and event, and as we look at the struggle of political belief which seems continually fluid and ongoing, it becomes ever more apparent that the modern nation state is in reality quite fragile, and that the glues which bind such political associations are capable of decay and collapse.  and, as a matter of fact, it appears that the chief ingredient of allegiance to and participation in the affairs of the modern nation state are derive largely from intellectual adherence to its tenets, and an affinity towards an ideal of community:

 

in france, eric hobsbawm argues the french state preceded the formation of the french people.  hobsbawm considers that the state made the french nation, and not french nationalism, which emerged at the end of the 19th century, the time of the dreyfus affair.  at the time of the 1789 french revolution, only half of the french people spoke some french, and between 12 percent to 13 percent spoke it "fairly", according to hobsbawm. during italian unification, the number of people speaking the italian language was even lower. the french state promoted the unification of various dialects and languages into the french language. the introduction of conscription and the third republic’s 1880s laws on public instruction, facilitated the creation of a national identity, under this theory.

the theorist benedict anderson argues that nations are “imagined communities” (the members cannot possibly know each other), and that the main causes of nationalism and the creation of an imagined community are the reduction of privileged access to particular script languages (e.g. latin), the movement to abolish the ideas of divine rule and monarchy, as well as the emergence of the printing press under a system of capitalism (or, as anderson calls it, print-capitalism). the "state-driven" theories of the origin of nation-states tend to emphasise a few specific states, such as england and its rival france. these states expanded from core regions, and developed a national consciousness and sense of national identity ("englishness" and "frenchness"). both assimilated peripheral regions ( wales, cornubia, brittany, occitania); these areas experienced a revival of interest in the regional culture in the 19^th century, leading to the creation of autonomist movements in the 20^th century.

some nation-states, such as germany or italy, came into existence at least partly as a result of political campaigns by nationalists, during the 19th century. in both cases, the territory was previously divided among other states, some of them very small. the sense of common identity was at first a cultural movement, such as in the volkisch movement in german-speaking states, which rapidly acquired a political significance. in these cases, the nationalist sentiment and the nationalist movement clearly precede the unification of the german and italian nation-states.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

 

we live and die on the importance of intellectual and emotional construct, and within the context of political, intellectual and spiritual belief.  and, as suggested by the comments above, adherence & loyalty to a state has as a very large component the simple element of faith and conviction.

 

one adheres to a political conviction, the same as one adheres to a religious or ethical conviction, … , and, it is quite readily apparent that one or several of such convictions may come into severe tension with one or more rival convictions.