Cannon Fodder - Applied Science

After reading A Brief History and Building a Cannon you should know that there is only one thing left to do. Actually use it. Well, I needed a fuse, and it turns out that the hobby shop doesn't sell the regular fuses anymore. They only have the electronic kind. I did find some online through a fireworks warehouse. You got to love the internet. You can buy anything online.

To begin the tests, I had to make certain that I wasn't going to blow myself up (a rather important step if you want to continue to have fun with cannons). I had built two combustion chambers (since I had two tubes of PVC), although I only assembled one in a cannon. The other was for cannon testing.

Over the course of a couple of evenings, I made some small fireworks displays in the backyard. I started with relatively little black powder (about a half a teaspoon) to see how much of a flame/ smoke it would create. I slowly built it up until I was igniting a full tablespoon of black powder. Then I tried it by covering the combustion chamber with a #10 can. Everything worked. And suprisingly, the neighbor kids either didn't notice that I was making big clouds of fire and smoke, or just didn't care.

My first thought was to test this out on Thanksgiving weekend. I was going to be down at my brother's place where there was plenty of open land. However, a combination of deer season (cannons tend to scare away deer, or so I've heard, I'm not a hunter and couldn't care less) and a broken fridge (he lives an hour from town and having a fridge die during a weekend when all of the family is in town is not fun) nixed the testing of the cannon. So it would have to wait until I had another opportunity.

That opportunity came on New Year's Day. What better way to ring in the new year than by firing off a home made cannon. I asked my wife if I could go test it in the afternoon and she consented. I figured that the cold weather (-5 degrees) and holiday would keep people away from the range. I didn't want anyone around in case something bad (like an explosion) happened. While I had tested out the combustion chamber in the backyard, this would be the first live test of the cannon.

For some crazy reason, there were actually half a dozen people at the shooting range. (Don't they know that it is freezing outside!) So I continued on driving down the road to the Shotgun range. I was sure no one would be dumb enough to be out shooting clays in this weather. I was right!

After setting up, I loaded the cannon with a half a tablespoon of black powder. For my shell (cannon ball), I used an empty can of peaches wound with duck tape to the same diameter as the barrel. So, for the first shot, it would be a very small charge, shooting out a very light (and non aerodynamic) shell. It took forever to light the fuse since the wind kept blowing the matches out. Finally, I saw the sizzle of the fuse, and ran back about 50 feet. While I wasn't expecting any negative consequences, I wasn't going to tempt the firearm gods.

Pfft! It sounded just like a 4th of July mortar firework. (Which makes perfect sense since it is basically the exact same thing minus the dazzling display of colors in the sky). The can flew out about 20 feet in the air and 10 yards down range. A big smile broke across my face. I had just built a working cannon with stuff you can get from a hardware store. Now, the fun was about to begin.

Just before Christmas, my kids cleaned out the basement and ended up with two trashbags full of stuffed animals that were not needed. Goodwill won't take them and I was thinking of sending them to fellow blogger JayG who loves to bayonet stuffed animals. But then I got a better idea. If bayoneting stuffed animals is an acceptable practice in the communist state of Massachusetts, then shooting them out of a cannon must be an acceptable practice in the slightly more free (we are still a May Issue state) land of Iowa!

So little teddy bear got to be the pioneering cannonaut! I used a full tablespoon of black powder and just stuffed the bear in the can. Pfft! A little louder this time and the teddy bear went sailing. About 20 yards. Not bad. One of the most satisfying things about a black powder cannon compared to an air cannon or even a flammable fluid cannon is the big puff of smoke. The wind was blowing perpendicular to the range of fire so after each shot there would be a nice 5-10 foot smoke cloud floating away.

A third time with a tablespoon and a half and a fourth time with two tablespoons. The teddy bear did not disappoint, each time going a little farther, until he peaked out at around 30 yards. I did notice that the can was going farther, about 40 yards. So, by my eighth shot I was practically frozen, the wind was blowing and the wind chill was about -30 (no, I am not exaggerating) and since I had to take off my gloves to light the fuse, my hands were numb.

I decided that my eight shot would be the final one for the day. I wanted to get some weight to the shell so that it would have more momentum (also less air resistance as I would fill up the can. At first I thought of packing the can with snow, but decided that it wouldn't really add that much weight, snow just doesn't weigh very much. While I was retrieving the can from the range, it hit me. I'm on a shotgun range and there are bound to be clays I could crush up into the can.

Sure enough, the people who use the shotgun range are about as good of a shot at flying clays as I am (which means not good at all!). In no time I had found a half dozen unbroken clays. I smashed them up into the can. Now it had some weight to it.

Three tablespoons of black powder in the chamber, then the can and the teddybear on top for good measure. I set the camera to continuous picture to be able to get multiple shots.

Pfft! Somehow my camera was timed perfectly to not only capture the teddybear in the early stages of flight but also the growing smoke cloud AND the two foot column of flame.

The teddy bear did a perfect spread eagle at the apex of his flight and traveled about 35 yards. The can continued on to about 65 yards.

I was giddy all the way home. In my mind I started planning what types of shells I am going to make and different combinations of powders to use. This was only a two foot cannon with a combustion chamber that is large enough for about a half cup of black powder (six or so table spoons). I think for the three foot cannon I'll make a combustion chamber that is twice that size. If anyone would like be to give a demonstration and a physics lesson to elementary, middle, or high school age kids, I'm ready. You can bet that the 4th of July will be a whole lot of fun at the Reputo Casa!

Cannon Fodder - Building a Cannon

Well, if you read Cannon Fodder - A Brief History you know where I got the inspiration to build a cannon. Why build a cannon? Because I can (and so can you). First off, there is nothing illegal about building a cannon. For the most part, federal law doesn't even classify them as firearms or destructive devices (even though they use black powder, a lead or other metal projectile, and shoot hundreds of yards).

Second, they are great teaching tools. Lessons in Materials science, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc. can all be taught in a hands on way. The two lessons that I remember most from high school physics were when we made dry ice bombs (try getting that into schools these days) and ignited methane bubbles. Sure many of the formulas and principles have been ingrained in my mind through later courses in college and hands on experience, but if you ask me what I remember about high school physics those are the stories I would tell you. Since my wife and I homeschool our children, we have a lot of latitude in how they are taught. And since my wife says that I am in charge of science, it is my duty as a father and a teacher to provide the best education possible. Why play the cannon game where you lob shells at an opponent on the computer, when you can do it in real life. So in essence, its for the children!

Third, cannons are FUN!. Fireworks are glorified cannons, and we all like them. The last thing we need is to teach our children to be afraid of smoke and flames coming from a barrel. They need to be taught to respect the power of them (just like they should respect the power in a 100hp engine attached to a one and a half ton metal box). But they should also learn that the proper application can bring joy and happiness. (Not to mention it can be a great stress relief - I have never been stressed after blowing something up).

So I was going to build a cannon. Not an air powered or even hairspray/lighter fluid cannon. I wanted a black powder cannon. Something that would have smoke and flames! I wanted to build it out of everyday materials that could be found in any decent sized town in America. I did not want to use any specialized tools or specialized skills. In other words, I wanted to do it so that any adult capable of getting a driver's license could do the same thing. As a final result, I wanted a cannon capable of launching a 5 lb shell, 100 yards.

Now, let me allay any fears that some may have. In showing in excruciating detail how to build a cannon of one's own, am I aiding terrorists or criminals? Uh, no. As I mentioned in Cannon Fodder - A Brief History, the technology I am explaining is 1000 years old and the principles have been known for almost all of recorded history. If terrorists or criminals are coming to my blog to learn how to make destructive weapons, then we don't have too much to worry about.

So, let's start with a list of tools that you will need:
Hacksaw
Drill w/ 1/4" bit

Materials and where to get them:
PVC pipe (home improvement store)
Duck tape (home improvement store or Walmart)
PVC joining glue (home improvement store)
Small copper tubing (home improvement store)
Concrete filler (home improvement store or Walmart)
High temperature grill paint (home improvement store or Walmart)
Various sized cans (from your wife or mom after she makes dinner)
Large band clamp (auto parts store or Walmart)
Shelf tracks (home improvement store)
small nuts and bolts (somewhere in your garage or basement)

So on to the assembly!

First, the barrel is made from PVC pipe. I used 4" sch 40 because it snuggly fit a can of peaches (which became my outermost layer of the combustion chamber). A cap is solvent welded onto one end.

Now, PVC has the nice quality of being rigid (hence less risk of compression holding the shell too tightly and making a bomb). However, it is also a brittle material that will be subjected to many stresses that are going to crack/shatter it in a cannon. Hence, I wrapped it with duck tape. The cloth tape will provide a protective barrier to prevent the PVC from breaking apart, and by wrapping it very tightly, I am introducing some compressive forces on the PVC which will partially counteract the hoop stress from expanding gases.

Second, the combustion chamber is made by nesting various size cans inside of one another. I started with a big 25 oz peach can for the outer base and ended with a 4 oz tomato paste can on the inside. I used concrete filler (the rubbery stuff) to fill in the space between the cans. This does two things. It increases the mass of the combustion chamber (providing strength) and being a compressible material, it will mitigate the amount of hoop stress transfered to the barrel (the highest pressures are going to be in the combustion chamber).

I then sprayed the inside of the cannon with the high temperature grill paint. Not so much to make it heat resistant, as to give it a uniform color. The heat resistance is a bonus. To assemble the cannon, I simply dropped the combustion chamber into the barrel. Then I drilled a hole through the wall and into the combustion chamber. A short piece of copper tubing was inserted to act as the touch hole.

Finally, after scrounging around my garage, I found a 4" hose clamp and a couple of old shelving tracks. I used these with some nuts and bolts to create some legs for the cannon, and viola! The cannon was completed!
Next up, what good is a cannon if you don't use it. See Cannon Fodder - Applied Science.

Cannon Fodder - A Brief History

It all started around September. There I was relaxing one evening watching Mythbusters, when an idea popped into my head. The episode was about duck tape. And they were doing all sorts of things with duck tape. Lifting cars, making sailboats, and naturally, building a cannon.

The building of the cannon intrigued me. Their goal was to make a cannon out of duck tape that performed as well as their steel cannon they had used in other episodes. Their steel cannon shot a 18 pound ball, 500+ yards on three shotgun shells worth of gunpowder.

They took the right approach by figuring out how thick the duck tape needed to be. What was amazing was that a 1 inch thick slab of duck tape was able to withstand the pressure. They then proceeded to wrap a post with ducktape into a cannon shape and removed the post, giving them a cannon. One of the major downfalls to using 100% duck tape is that even with 1+ inch thickness, the duck tape is still not rigid. Not only that but it is highly susceptible to self compression - in other words, as the duck tape is wrapped tightly around the 3" post, the post provides a force back on the duck tape such that the post is not compressed. However, once the post is removed, that counteracting force is no longer there, forcing the barrel to collapse some (so now it is only 2.88").

How could this be bad? Well, in a steel or metal cannon, the cannon ball will just fit into the barrel, it should slide down though with minimal forcing. For the duck tape cannon, the ball literally had to be shoved and pounded in. This created an interesting dilemma, which they did discuss. Do they have a cannon, or a bomb?

So let me give a quick intro in how cannon's work. It is not exactly advanced technology. It has been around for at least 1000 years, and the general principles have been known for many millenia before that.

A cannon has three main components: the barrel, the combustion chamber, and the touch hole. The touch hole or fuse hole or vent hole is a small hole where the ignition source is introduced to ignite the main charge. This hole should be relatively small (<1/8") which I'll explain in a moment.

Next is the combustion chamber. It sounds somewhat high tech, but in actuality it is just a cavity where the charge is burned. Once the charge is ignited through the touch hole, it creates a whole bunch (that is a technical term for you non-engineers) of gases. Since the combustion chamber is completely enclosed at one end and covered by the cannon ball at the other end, at the beginning of the reaction it is a constant volume closed space. So as the charge rapidly burns, the amount of gases increase. Simple physics tells us that for a constant volume, as the amount of gases increase, the pressure will increase. Additionally, since the burning of the charge releases heat, the temperature of these gases goes up also forcing pressure higher. Therefore, the combustion chamber needs to be the strongest part of the cannon. More on that in a second.

Finally, the barrel is a long tube. It holds the the cannon ball. As the gases expand in the combustion chamber, they push on the cannon ball. The barrel helps to direct the trajectory of the cannonball and also allows the further expansion of gases transferring the force of the burning charge, into kinetic energy of the cannon ball.

So those are the basic parts, now to tie up the loose ends. The touch hole needs to be small so that there is not a large pathway for combustion gases to escape. Otherwise, much of the energy would be lost as gases leaked out of the touch hole rather than acting on the cannon ball.

The combustion chamber is made stronger usually by having thicker material around the combustion chamber. This is done in two ways. First, the combustion chamber can be made smaller diameter than the barrel. For a constant outer diameter (say 4"), a 3" bore (1/2" thickness), the combustion chamber may only be 2" in diameter (1" thick). Another way of making the material around the combustion chamber thicker is to taper the metal. This gives cannons their their classic bulbous shape at the end. One or both of these methods could be used.

The cannon ball needs to be matched to the size of the barrel. There needs to be a tight fit. A loose fit will allow gases to leak by, thereby wasting the charge and in extreme cases, not shooting the cannon ball out of the cannon (which would defeat the purpose). A tight fitting ball is going to have increased friction as it travels along the barrel, this could be mitigated by lubricating the barrel. Too tight of a fit and bad things can happen. First, the charge might not be able to overcome the force of friction, thereby sticking the ball in the cannon. A stuck ball can be extracted with much difficulty. Second, the possibility is there that the ball could be friction welded to the cannon, in other words, depending on the metals of the barrel and the ball, the friction might cause enough heat to weld the ball to the cannon. At this point, you cannon is pretty much scrap metal. Third, the worst thing that could happen is your barrel or combustion chamber could fail (i.e. break apart) from the force of the expanding gases, thereby creating a bomb rather than a cannon.

Basically, a good cannon is a fine balance between friction and expansion. A "perfectly" balanced cannon would have a complete burn of the charge (i.e. expansion) at the very instance that the cannon ball left the cannon (i.e. no more friction to overcome). However, that would also eliminate the puff of flame and smoke that makes cannons so fun (mostly the flame).

So back to Mythbusters. With the extremely tight fit of the cannon ball, they surmised that they might have a bomb on their hands. Of course, in the pursuit of science, there is only one thing to do. Light it off and find out (applied science is a lot more fun than the theoretical stuff). They took appropriate safety precautions and lit the fuse. I sat on the edge of my seat as the fuse burned down. Then BOOM! I could see a definite trajectory of smoke and what looked like an intact cannon. Sure enough it worked. The cannon was in one piece, and the cannon ball flew 175 yards. Not quite the 500 of the steel cannon, but my guess is the majority of that can be attributed to the increased friction of the tight fit in the barrel. However, it is not repeatable, then you can't really call it science. So they shot it again. I was in heaven. When my kids watched it, they were in heaven.

And that is when I had my idea: I am going to make a duck tape cannon!
(More coming in Cannon Fodder - Building a Cannon)

Taxes and the US Postal Service

It's December. And one of the times of the year when two government agencies particularly draw my ire. The US Postal Service and the IRS. It's a good thing Christmas is here this year so that I can have a breath of good cheer in the air.

With winter comes snow. With snow comes the drudgery of shoveling out the driveway. And as I found out the first year in Iowa, also making sure that the area in front of the mailbox is cleared. If not then I will undoubtedly get a nasty gram from the mailman telling me that I need to clear it or he won't deliver the mail. Now, mind you. I own my house (and the land that it is on). The city owns the sidewalk, but I am responsible for clearing it. The street/cul-de-sac that I live on is owned and maintained by the city. I don't even have a say in who does the plowing.

So, when the plow truck came by that first year and deposited three feet of snow and ice near the curb (in front of the mailbox), I get a nasty gram. After about the third time, I finally started snow blowing in front of the driveway and mailbox so that there was less stuff to be deposited. After reassessing the situation this year, I think I will just leave a nasty gram myself to the postman if he leaves one for me. "Dear sir, Thank you for your concern about getting my mail to me. However, if you leaf through it you will find over the course of a month there is only 1 or 2 letters that are actually worth opening. The rest goes in the recycle bin. So, please hold my mail until spring. I don't need it."

I am amazed that there is still individual house service by the US Post Office. Earlier this year when they knew they were going to be losing billions (again), there were whispers of maybe cutting service on Saturdays. However they weren't going to make a decision until the September board meeting, more than 6 months away. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of whining about losing money if you aren't going to take any action for 6 months? So I came up with a plan if I was given control over the US Post Office to turn it around.

First, no service on Tuesday or Thursday. Also, I would cut service on every other Saturday. Postal workers would work 12 hour days on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and every other Saturday. Second, no more individual mailboxes for each house. There would be a community mailbox area like I have seen in most new neighborhoods. My street has about 2o houses. These could be served by a single station with 20 boxes at the beginning of the street. I would be willing to bet that you could eliminate half of the delivery workforce just by doing this. Third, no more package delivery to the door. There could be a few large boxes at the community station for packages or they can be held at the post office. Fourth, rural delivery routes would occur once a week. No sense in wasting all that driving to deliver coupons from Bed Bath and Beyond (why don't they just lower all of their prices by 20% rather than sending me a coupon every single week?). Fifth, eliminate the franking privileges of elected officials. We pay them enough and provide enough for their office budgets that they can buy their own stamps. Some quick back of the hand calculations make me believe that these 5 suggestions would cut the postal expense by 75%. If you can't meet your budget after cutting 75% of your expenses, there is no help for you.

The US Postal Service is becoming an anachronism. Sure for 150 years, there was no other economical option to get documents from point A to point B if they were separated by more than 50 miles. However, there are several package/document companies that will do it for you now and overnight. Furthermore, if it weren't for monopolistic government regulations which require them (private companies) to charge more than the US Post Office, than their prices would be very competitive. Email and online bill pay has nearly eliminated the need to send checks through the mail. Frankly, the junk mail people are the only thing keeping the post office afloat. I send out more Christmas cards, than I do all other mail combined. And if there is ever a private company that will deliver them for 50 cents to a dollar a piece, I would use them. Even digital photography has made it so that you can share pictures with family without the mail. So, let's see if we can't get rid of the US Post Office in the next 25 years. Don't worry, private companies will come in to pick up the slack for less money, with better service, and faster.

So the next subject of my ire this time of year is the IRS (and subsequent state department of revenue). Every December, I do an estimate of my taxes to see how much I owe or how much I get back. This is so that my wife and I can budget out the next year. The last few years have been wacky, resulting in thousands of refunds. My work has always had a significant portion of my pay in the form of bonuses and overtime which is automatically withheld at 25% even though I claim enough deductions on my W-4 so that very little is taken out of my regular paycheck.

One of the results of the convoluted federal and state tax systems is that I have paid more SS tax than state income tax than federal income tax. In fact last year, once all of the credits were added in, I had zero federal income tax liability (Note: I am not foolish enough to believe that if I get a refund I don't pay taxes, what I am saying is that my federal refund was equal to or more than the total amount of federal income tax that was withheld). And I make a decent amount of money. The states that I have lived in that charge an income tax (Iowa, New York, South Carolina, Oklahoma) always seem to get more than enough. And while the federal return has enough deductions and credits to eliminate my tax liability, the states don't.

For instance, Iowa allows you a $40 tax credit for each person claimed on your taxes. $40! Compared to the federal child tax credit of $1000 + the $3650 per person exemption of income (which translates into $360 to $1200 of taxes depending on your marginal rate). The $40 is more like an insult than anything else. Why bother even giving it? Times like these, it makes moving back to Texas (with no income tax) look real promising!

The other thing I don't understand the logic for is underpayment penalties. Basically, both the state and federal systems are set up so that if you don't have enough withheld from your paycheck. In Iowa, the penalty is 5% of whatever your underpayment is. However, on the reverse side, if you overpay (i.e. get a refund) they don't tack interest on to it. So, the system forces you to overpay your taxes. Frankly, I'd be happier if we just had to write one check a year. So far our elected officials don't seem to care how much money comes in, they spend 10% to 50% more each year. Any complaint that the government wouldn't have a steady income flow is laughable.

Dividends are another big gripe. In case you didn't know, when a company reports earnings, that is the amount they are taxed on. To the tune of 35%. Then, the company pays out dividends (which have already been taxed at the corporate level), and the individual getting the dividends pays taxes on those (15% or 25% although for the next couple of years some of them are 0%). Double taxation at its finest.

I've blogged before about the federal budget. I support the Fair Tax. Is it perfect, no. But it is a heck of a lot better than the system we have. Now, I need to go look at some retirement properties in Texas, Washington, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. I may work in an income tax state right now, but when I no longer am tied to a location for a job, you can bet I won't be living in a state where I have to pay income taxes.

Firearms and the Medical Profession

In the last 10 years, there has been a small segment of the medical professional population that is pushing for more interaction with patients about firearms. I read an editorial here where a Physician's Assisstant makes a push for talking with patients about firearms. What ever happened to going to the doctor and discussing aches, pains, blood and sometimes snot or stool?

As the author correctly points out, firearms safety is not something that is covered in their training process. Here is a hint: it wasn't covered in my training process as an engineer either. I don't think teacher's go through it, neither do professional athletes (except the one's involved in the shooting sports). And I am perfectly OK with that. I want doctors and nurses to learn about aches, pains, blood, snot and stool. That is what they will deal with. Whether my pain comes from getting kicked by a horse or shooting a Mosin-Nagant 50 times in one hour is irrelevant. Just give me something to dull my senses!

So what do guns have to do with health anyway that we would want our doctors to ask us about them? Well, the author gives a few examples:

"Consider the child who plays with a loaded handgun that he found unsecured in his home" Well, storage of firearms is probably better talked about with a gun dealer or someone who sells safes. You know, the ones who actually know how to secure a firearm. Another good source of information might be your local Sheriff or District Attorney's office to find out what the laws in your area are. Do we expect physician's assisstants to tell us that we shouldn't leave matches where kids can get them?

"the intruder who wrests a loaded gun from a panicked homeowner's grasp in the middle of the night" Oh good, the straw man of someone taking the gun away. Could someone please explain how a doctor's advice (who knows far less about guns than I do) is going to help me out in this situation. It the intruder takes my gun and uses it against me I may (the author didn't like statistics so I am trying to contrain myself from using any) be dead/hurt, if I don't have a firearm the intruder may hurt/kill me anyway since he probably scoped me out and feels he has the advantage. So how is following this physician assisstant's advice any better?

"a gun-owning college student who is despondent over both a breakup with a girlfriend and his plummeting grades" I am guessing she is implying that the student goes on to commit suicide as opposed to his friend down the street who is in the exact same situation and decides not to kill himself because he doesn't have a gun. Its not like he was smart enough to use a knife, rope, pills, alcohol, car, bridge, or any other implement. Wouldn't a doctor be more concerned with the depression/suicidal thoughts and refer him to a psychologist? Furthermore, if the kid is anything like I was, he isn't going to see a doctor, nurse, or physician's assistant for all 4, 5, or 6 years that he is in college.

"the single mom who answers her doorbell, only to find her estranged husband standing there with a rifle—despite a restraining order that is supposed to keep him away." Wait a minute, we need our doctors and physician assistants to tell us that some people who shouldn't have guns get a hold of guns. What advice/counsel would they give to this single mom beforehand that would change this situation? Don't have guns in the home? That isn't the problem, the estranged husband with the rifle on the doorstep is!

After complaining about gun control arguments devolving into a "battle of statistics," she proceeds to use survey results (statistics) to show that there is some hope for this profession afterall. Even though supposedly a majority of people said they wanted doctors to counsel on gun safety (a majority of people also want free food and housing - it doesn't make it a good or practical idea), the vast majority of doctors do not provide any counseling on firearms - probably a major factor in that result is that they have not been trained on gun safety themselves. Perhaps the reason is since Galen, nobody has shown how firearms (or any weapon for that matter) directly (as opposed to someone else misusing it or intentionally using it for harm) affects one's health. When used as the manufacturer recommends, firearms do not harm any innocent party. The author trys to compare guns to smoking or drinking, except that smoking and drinking when used the way the manufacturer intend, do affect one's health. Guns in relation to the medical field are better compared to automobiles or baseball bats.

Then the author has this doozy of a statement: "A gun in the wrong hands at the wrong time or handled improperly can kill instantly." I happen to agree with it (and if you don't you are probably an imbecile). Of course if you change gun with any number of words I would still agree with it: car, bat, knife, lighter, glass window, cement block, bathtub, battery, etc. Do we need our doctors and physician assistant's to be trained in every method that can do us harm? Can you imagine going to your doctor's office and having a display of flyers with the following titles: "Gun Safety in the Home", "How to Properly Jumpstart Your Automobile", "Remember Icicle Safety while Shoveling Snow", "Have You Child-Proofed Your Sports Equipment?". If they need training on all of these (and countless other subjects), when are they going to have time to learn about aches, pains, blood, snot, and stool?

Then she has three rules to counsel patients with:
"(1) Remove guns from your home, or keep them unloaded and locked up, with ammunition stored separately." Besides the removing guns part this is sensible. Should we also remove other things from the home that result in more accidental deaths such as bathtubs, matches, and stairs (I really want to use some statistics from a source the author approves of, the CDC, but I'll restrain myself). Why we need a doctor to tell us this is beyond me. Any training class on firearms will say the same thing. Most of the literature that comes with a new firearm will also say the same thing.

"(2) Treat guns as if they were loaded and ready to fire." Alright, if you are going to rip-off Colonel Cooper's rules, then use all of them. The 4 Rules aren't there to pick and choose from. Slipping up on one is forgiveable.

"(3) Do not allow children access to guns. " Sort of like not letting children have access to birth control, matches, or car keys. This rule is complete bunk. Children should have access to guns, under the watchful care of an experienced adult family member. How else are they going to learn how to properly handle them. I learned the rules of the road long before I could drive. Making things taboo only invites curiosity.

So, if on the 1 occasion every 5 years I go to the doctor, I am ever asked about my firearms, my response will be, its none of your business. If the issue is pressed further, I will engage in a conversation (which includes statistics) about how firearms "affect" my health. Finally, if the doctor/physician's assistant presses further, my visit will end, and I'll find another doctor.

And I would hope that everyone does the same thing. I don't waste my time trying to diagnose my doctor's heart condition. Why should he waste his time (and mine) talking about firearm safety (unless he wants me to teach him, in which case the doctor's office isn't the proper locale, a range is)? If he did have a question about explosives or projectiles, I'd be more than happy to help him with it.

Thanksgiving Weekend New Shooters

The Thanksgiving weekend brought me two opportunities to take new shooters out to the range; one expected, the other unexpected. Let me get in to a little background on training.

The first opportunity was my oldest daughter. I have promised all of my children that I would teach them how to shoot a gun once they were eight years old. I had planned on doing this at a range near our home sometime near Christmas, but since for Thanksgiving we decided to visit my brother and his in-laws own a bit of land, I decided to do it then.

Some quick background. I don't hide firearms from my children. They know I have them and I'll let them hold them (properly following the 4 Rules) whenever I get a new one or I'm cleaning them after a range trip. I do keep them where they cannot access them without my help. So, the initial training of my children started long ago. But this was the first range trip for my daughter. My brothers and I had set up some old hay bales and a table about 5 yards away facing a hill (always a good backstop). My daughter chose the target we would shoot at (paintballs), and I also set up a steel swinging target and an old shovel head that I brought down.

I made sure everything was set up before hand so that my wife and I could walk out with her (don't want to introduce her to the drudgery of setting up the shooting range just yet). We had a review of the 4 Safety Rules and discussed how we would follow them. Then it was time to break out the firearms (all .22LR). One at a time. We started with the revolver. I showed her how to check the cylinder and then load the rounds. I took one shot at the target, exploding a paintball. Then I let her have the chance. The hammer was difficult for her to cock back, although she was able to manage it. After firing the whole cylinder we unloaded the revolver, and went to look at the target. She had almost hit two paintballs.

We returned and I asked whether she wanted to do the revolver again or use Momma's gun (semiautomatic). She wanted to use Momma's gun. So we put the revolver away and got out the semiautomatic. I explained how the action worked briefly, and then we put two rounds in the magazine (one for me and one for her). I showed how to rack the slide and then took a shot. Then I handed the gun to her and she took her shot.

With the semiautomatic, she was much more successful and was able to hit three or four paintballs. She liked Momma's gun a lot and went through several magazines. The only thing she didn't like was the flying brass. Then I was ready for the rifle. I don't have a youth rifle yet, so I might have to get one. Even full sized .22LR rifles are huge for kids. Basically, we had it tucked under one arm and she was shooting it from a seated position. Getting a sight in the scope was difficult for her because she is right eye dominant, but can't close only her left eye very well (probably related to the surgery she had earlier this year). After a few shots she was rather frustrated so I let her shoot Momma's gun again. She did say that she likes the semiautomatic (not having to charge it each time) but doesn't like the flying brass. Anyone know of a brass catcher that works on a Walther P22? I might as well get the sound supressor for it too!

As I mentioned before, the second opportunity was unexpected. I have a relative (who will remain anonymous for this blog to protect her identity) that we will call Janet (again, not her real name). I had taught Janet's husband to shoot previously and they were both at Thanksgiving with us. After shooting clay pidgeons on Friday afternoon with Janet's husband, on Saturday morning I made the joke that she should come and watch us shoot clays that afternoon so that she could see her husband's skill or watch him get knocked on his backside with the double-barrelled 12 gauge.

Laughter all around, and then as people dispersed to go and do chores, she quietly came up to me and said "I'll go shooting with you for a little bit this afternoon." OK, that is a total shock! If you can ever imagine someone who you would think would never pick up a firearm, Janet is it. She grew up in a place and culture that views firearms as objects that only kill people. At lunch I casually mention to Janet's husband that I am going to go shooting with her after lunch. He looks at me and says, "You'll never get her to go shooting."

"I don't have to convince her, she asked me." A dumbfounded look crosses his face. A short while later, Janet's husband and I go out to set up the range. "I have one rule for you." I say to him.

"What's that?"

"Keep your mouth shut. I'm the instructor here and I don't want her having any distractions."

"No problem, I'll do whatever you say."

Janet came out a short while later and I asked her about her experience with firearms. She had shot a rifle once about 20 years or more ago. We started by going over the 4 Safety Rules. I showed her the application of each one (as with my daughter), including looking behind the backstop. I then had her repeat them to me.

We started off with the revolver. One cylinder of that and she was ready for the next firearm (why people don't like revolvers, I don't know, I think they are a blast!). The semi-automatic handgun was next. We were shooting at a swinging target from about 5 yards and she was able to hit it several times. Next we went to the rifle. I told her that she needed to aim about 1 inch higher with the scope since we were so close (5 yards). She was able to hit the target again.

Then we moved the table back to about 25 yards and had her take another 10 shots at the target, this time aiming for dead center. All shots were hits. After this I asked if you wanted to try anything in caliber's about .22LR? She was willing as long as the gun wasn't going to come back and smack her.

So I pulled out the 9mm and the Tokarov. I lined up the cartridges on the table so she could get a visual idea of how much more power each of these cartridges held. I explained where each one was used (US military, law enforcement and Eastern Bloc). I then shot the 9mm first so she could see the reaction of the firearm and the target. The swinger when hit with a .22 makes a plunk and moves slightly. With the 9mm, it swung a full circle. She then shot the firearm once. We repeated the process for the Tokarov.

Now that she had been introduced to handguns and rifle, I wanted to let her have a feel for a shotgun. I had a 20 gauge single shot that had a decent recoil pad (it was one of the ones I was using to shoot clays the day before). I set up a couple of water jugs and grabbed three rounds of bird shot. The picture below is the only one of her. She didn't want any pictures holding a gun. After emphasizing that she needed to hold the shotgun tight to her shoulder (unlike a .22LR rifle) I took aim at one of the water jugs and blasted it into oblivion.

She then took her chance with two shots and was finished for the day. She did comment to my wife that she could see how shooting guns could be enjoyable for some people. Is she going to go out and buy one, most likely not. But she was willing to go through the experience, and now if she is ever asked if she has shot a gun she'll be able to say yes. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Who knows, maybe the next time we get together she'll want to go shooting again.


Since there were plenty of water jugs left, Janet's husband, my brother (who was hosting the shindig) and I had to dispatch them. Janet's husband started complaining about the recoil after barely perforating a water jug with a couple of rounds of bird shot. So, I pulled out the slugs. Janet was still hanging around and basically I showed her that a slug was a giant bullet for a shotgun. Janet's husband was able to redeem himself by successfully exploding two water jugs. My brother also exploded some water jugs. During this I happened to glance at Janet and my wife and saw that a big smile crept onto her face as each jug exploded. Maybe that is what this world needs to solve more of our problems. We all go out onto the back 40 with our shotguns and explode water jugs. There is some primordial urge of everyone I've met to smile when they see some harmless everyday object, like a water jug, explode. It certainly brings me happiness. Remember, just because the plastic is shredded, doesn't mean it can't be recycled. In fact, they are going to shred the plastic anyway, so they should give you a bonus for turning in water jugs that look like this because you have saved them some money!!

Finally, I had to shoot the board of paintballs with birdshot to splatter most of them. Then, I shot the swinger with the slug. While the .22 made it go ping, and the 9mm and Tokarov made it do a flip, the 20 gauge slug turned it from a swinger, into a spinner.

Lessons learned:

1) Have a third person watch with new shooters and act as the "Safety Spotter." While you are concerned with a million things to make sure the outing goes well, it is always good to have someone catch (and correct) any violations of the 4 Safety Rules that you miss. The person doesn't have to be very experienced (my wife and Janet's husband worked fine), but they do need to know proper application of the rules.

2) Explaining a sight picture is a lot easier if you have a pencil and paper (or pre-printed pictures), I wish I had have had this.

3) Lots of varied targets are fun. Everyone likes to shoot at different things.

Twilight Euphoria/Vomitting

My wife is going to go see the Twilight movie tonight with her friends. She never saw the first one or read the books. Neither have I. I found out about the Twilight series about a year ago when a friend of mine mentioned that he had read the books. He was a high school English teacher and likes to keep up with what his students read in their spare time. His opinion of it was that it was definitely something geared towards the teenage girl crowd.

This suprised me then when I read that Miley Cyrus doesn't like Twilight. She goes so far as to call it a "cult" or as one commentor mentioned, perhaps she means "occult." The word "cult" has been vastly overused and pretty much is meaningless other than as a derogatory. Going by Webster's definition you would find that you are probably a member of 2 or 3 cults. However, no one admits to belonging to a cult when asked. Some may say that they used to belong to a cult when they no longer like a certain group. So let's pretend she really meant occult. Which still means something.

Occult is derived from the latin root for hidden. It is usually associated with the paranormal or in the religious sense with satanic roots. Miley, being a professed Christian, understandably doesn't want to be associated with the satanic stuff. But to me, satanic stuff was things like Baphomet, or the Pentagram, or sacrificing goats. Vampires don't have anything to do with that. And if someone is going to say that Twilight is of the occult, where do we draw the line? I mean, Sesame Street has a vampire, The Count.

Vampires are not real. This is all just a fantasy story. Lara Croft isn't real either, neither is Luke Skywalker or Bilbo Baggins or Harry Potter. Yet all of them have had "cult" followings similar to Twilight. I know that Harry Potter has been accused of being occultish, but Hobbits and Jedi's and Angelina Jolie?

Vampires haven't even been around that long. It wasn't until Bram Stoker's "Dracula" that we get the modern incantation of vampires with the cape and fangs and crosses and garlic and wooden stakes and such. Naturally, being completely made up creatures everyone has their own version of it from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the Munsters. Surely all of these can't be occult too?

So, maybe instead of trying to see the "evil" in everything, you should look at it for what it is. Its a love story written by a women for young girls who happen to like love stories. Besides, the author of the Twilight series is a self described devout Mormon, hardly the type of person who would be associated with the occult. Unless of course you belong to a church that believes everything from Jehovah Witnesses to Catholics are cults. But I digress. My guess, the movie would be incredibly boring for me, I really don't care for love stories. So perhaps if the cable channels were smart they would do this:

Let the theaters have their Twilight extravaganza. Let all the women of the world go to the theaters and be swept away by the romance. That will leave us guys at home to watch real vampire movies in peace. Dracula: Dead and Loving It, the Blade Series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Van Helsing. And lets not forget the greatest vampire movie of all time: Underworld. Vampires, werewolfs, guns, swords, other cool weaponry, explosions, and Kate Beckinsale in skin tight black leather.

UPDATE: Wife says the movie was very confusing and didn't make much sense (probably because she hasn't read the books or seen the first one). She did say that there was no need for Vampire-boy to take off his shirt, although she enjoyed the shirtless Wolf-boy. Now I don't feel guilty about the Kate Beckinsale comment.

Blood, Drugs, and Greed

Greed is considered a bad thing and in many cases is equated with capitalists like myself. Yet, it is that very greed that not only allows a home computer possible, but then also allows those who profited from it (i.e. Bill Gates) to dispense the largesse which they couldn't possibly spend themselves. One of the greatest philanthropists in the world, Andrew Carnegie became incredibly wealthy through steel, a product which has greatly enriched our lives. Acquiring wealth by force has never been a secure way to maintain it. Many of the rich nobles of the European middle ages and renaissance were actually deeply in debt to the bankers who financed their operations. The bankers were rich, the nobles just had the airs of wealth.


In spite of the proven track record that greed has in benefiting people, we still don't embrace it in many aspects of our lives. Drugs and blood are two areas where we just have not gotten it in this country.


The FDA regulates blood donations in this country. Blood can be donated by people, it cannot be sold. Is it any wonder that we have shortages all the time? Meanwhile, plasma (a component of blood), can be sold. I looked on line for stories of plasma shortages and the most recent one I found was from 1995. How much money can you get from plasma? Looking on the internet it appears that somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 to $35 per visit. And you can go twice a week, every week of the year. So between $2000 and $3600 per year. Suprisingly, prices have not gone up significantly over the last 20 years. So why not pay people for blood? What is the hangup we have in this country? Hospitals charge you somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 for a pint of blood that is used during surgery. So would the price of blood charged change if we started paying donors for the blood?


Not necessarily. The majority of blood is used in large urban centers. Unfortunately, these are also the places that have the lowest rates of donation. So, the urban centers have to buy their blood from an outlying area that takes in more blood than they need (you didn't think these non-profits would just give them the blood did you?) . In some cases, blood that is donated in Bismark, ND may be sold to Tulsa, OK and then to Memphis, TN, and then to Atlanta, GA, and finally provided to a hospital in Tallahassee, FL. Just like with any product, each stop gets an increase in price. So, if people were paid $50 (or $100) for a pint (which takes about 1 hour), there would be an increase in the supply of people. Whereas before, blood banks rely on people donating their blood (and time) out of their generosity, now, they can lure in the segment of population that is driven by a profit motive. Most people in this country don't make anywhere near $50 an hour, so in deciding whether to work a few extra hours or lie on a bed and read a book and get the same amount of money, I'll choose the lieing on the bed option.


Statistically, city dwellers are less generous monetarily than rural folks. That may be why cities take in less blood than they use. However, if now it wasn't a matter of generosity, but greed, cities which have a much higher percent of non-generous people than the rural areas will see an immediate increase in the amount of blood brought in. Hence, no need to buy from somewhere else. Which means that the four or five markups (from $50 to $200) is available to pay the people giving the blood.


Now, I wouldn't regulate the compensation at all. And what you would find is in less than six months, the market would be normalized. Sure AB- blood in New York City may command a premium of $200 to the person, while common types like A+ in Des Moines, IA were only paying $35. Shortages would vanish. Blood banks would get to become more choosy (thereby putting downward pressure on prices) because the number of people willing to sell their blood is much higher than those willing to donate their blood.


Does this work in real life? Yeah, there is no shortage of plasma. Another example would be sperm and eggs. You can get them in any variety you want, and the market has made it such that you can choose the socioecomomic background, intelligence, and athletic ability of the sperm or eggs. If the free market was allowed to control the blood supply, you would be able to choose to have blood that only came from non-smoker females who breast fed their kids if that is your desire. Government mandated generosity can't even keep up with the demand. We should be allowed to sell organs to. Since we don't there is and always will be a shortage. By the way, I still give blood, although it would be a lot easier to remember every two months if there was a financial incentive.


Drugs are another aspect that the government goes schizophrenic on. There are drugs that are herbs, non-drugs (alcohol, tobacco, caffiene, etc), good drugs (tylenol, advil, etc), strong good drugs (prescription drugs), and bad drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.).


Herbs are labeled as "food supplements" to avoid the regulation as a drug, but sold as "remedies" for all kinds of things that normally one would associate with good drugs. All said, the actual ingredients of herbs are rarely known or labeled and any doseage is unscientific at best - two plants growing next to each other could have drastically different levels of desired chemicals. The herbal market is big in the United States and periodically companies get in trouble when they cross the line between "food supplement" (little to no regulation) and good drugs (which require regulations that the herbal companies haven't met).

Non drugs are the most ridiculous things we have. They run the gamut of caffiene which isn't regulated and freely available to everyone, to alcohol which is restricted but still allowed to advertise, to tobacco which is legal to buy but has become a scarlet letter if you use it. Our country tried banning alcohol once, with disasterous results. We're slowly progressing to a tobacco ban (which guess what...will have disasterous results). We don't like to call these drugs because they are substances that millions of people use (and are dependent on) every day. It doesn't change the fact that they are indeed drugs.

Good drugs are here to stay. Although sometimes we get a little too hysterical when one of them (Sudafed) is used to make a bad drug (Methamphetamine). Then we start doing stupid things like writing down your name and address everytime you buy a box. Do we do that for all of the other ingredients needed to make Meth? No, just Sudafed. What irks me most about it is then they have to come out with pseudoephedrine free Sudafed. That stuff is another drug that doesn't work as well or last as long. Just let me buy the good drugs in peace so I don't have to let my nose run all over your store. Another part of where we get a little goofy is when we let the government say what is good for us. Claritin was a prescription drug that was moved to over the counter because it was so effective. Did it cut into the profits of the company that made it, you bet.

Finally there are the bad drugs. These are still used in research and even in medicine in controlled manners, but the government has decided that the average person should not get their hands on them. So we have a ban. And guess what, it isn't working out to well. You might even say that it is a disaster.

All things are subject to supply and demand. Bans merely exacerbate the problem on certain things. The first thing that bans do is attempt to limit the supply. Since demand hasn't decreased, prices go up. When prices go up, there is more potential for profit and all sorts of undesirable people get into the business. So the "businessmen" find ways to meet the demand. As with any business, disagreements will come up. In the legal business world, these would be solved through mediation and litigation processes. In the illegal world, those options are not available, so disputes are settled by coercion and force.

If drugs were legalized, the crime associated with them (between the gangs and cartels) would go down, because the profit margins would decrease since the costs of smuggling would no longer be part of the street price. Would there still be people robbing stores or breaking into homes to get their money for their fix? Of course, but it wouldn't be any more than it is now. We already have a 200 year history of regulation for alcohol and tobacco. We know that banning them doesn't work but actually creates more problems. So why do we do this with marijuana, cocaine, and heroin?

If you believe that making drugs legal would somehow cause a bunch of people to start using them, you're delusional. Prohibition did nothing to decrease the number of people drinking, it only changed the location where they obtained their alcohol and where they drank it. Repeal of prohibition did not increase the number of drinkers, they just did it in the open. The consequences of drug use are known. More people die from alcohol and tobacco than all of the other drugs (illegal and legal) combined. This is probably a result of the government trying to tell us that alcohol and tobacco are not as bad, so some people act stupid and use them to excess.

Let me make one thing clear. I think recreational use (and definitely unecessary dependent use) of any kind of drug (from caffiene on up to Meth) is stupid. I think the US is even more stupid for trying to blur the lines as to what drugs are OK and not OK. Its OK to ban heroin right now, because Sam Adams didn't cook some up in his home. Maybe instead of focusing on trying to limit the supply of some drugs (which isn't working), the US should focus on addiction recovery for those that want it for all drugs. In the end, you have to admit that there will always be some small segment of the population that are willing to destroy themselves to get a high. No amount of bans or legislation or intervention are going to prevent that. Greed won't allow it. (It also is the reason bans don't work for anything.)

Reactive Targets

Several months ago, I wrote a post on the different types of gun owners. One of the things I have never understood is how someone can go to the range, shoot 2-5 shots from one gun and then pack up and leave. What is even more baffling to me is the people who take 2-4 hours to do this. I usually judge how well a trip to the range went based on how much ammo I return home with. One or two boxes, that was a good trip. Four to ten boxes, it must have been busy and I wasn't able to do all of the shooting I wanted. Zero boxes means that I had a blast (pun very much intended). No one was there and I had no obligations at home that would make me need to leave before the ammo ran out.

Some may ask how much ammo I take to the range. Well, usually on the order of 500 to 2000 rounds. This is spread between as many as six different calibers depending on how many firearms I took. A few days ago when I went, I was trying out some various ideas for reactive targets. For those who get a thrill out of putting a little hole on two intersecting lines, I ain't one of you. Sure, when I have the patience to sit down and take my time, I can put holes in an 8 inch circle at 200 yards with iron sights. However, to me that isn't gratifying for more than about 5 minutes.

Now there is a myriad of reactive targets that one can buy. Tannerite being the foremost among them, however at $5-10 per shot, it can get a little pricey if you are trying to do it 500 times. Steel targets that are designed for target shooting (basically a thick steel plate) are fun as well and quite economical at around $20 per target. Being the frugal guy that I am, I like to find a variety of things that are enjoyable to shoot and cost effective. Looking at the list below, you might notice that anything with the possibility of an explosion (however small) is a good option for me. If you do want to delve into the world of explosive targets, please don't be stupid about it. Explosives can and will hurt you without taking a second thought. Start out with someone who knows what they are doing, as you gain experience then you can venture on your own. So, without further ado, here is the list of inexpensive reactive targets I have used along with my review of them. I included a video of several of them for your viewing pleasure.

Pots and Pans: Price - Free to $3-4. Good for about 100 shots. These are an excellent taget for any distance type of shooting. Try to find ones with a handle (to stick in the ground) and a shiny back side (which make them easier to see). At 100 yards the report is audible with hearing protection on - a nice THUNK! At 200 yards you have to be paying attention to hear it. At 300 yards, you probably won't be able to hear it. Since pans come in a variety of sizes, it is also nice to be able to know that you are shooting at a 6 in, 8 in, 10 in, or 12 in target. .22LR will easily go through most common pans (aluminum and stainless steel) even at 300 yards (so any centerfire will as well). Be sure to ask your wife or mother if it is OK to use the old pans, because if you are a halfway decent shot, they won't be good for cooking when you're done. Cast iron cookware can be used as well. Just don't use it up close (less than 10 yards) to avoid richochets.

Fruits and Vegetables: Price- Free to $5. Good for 1-100 shots depending on caliber and type. This tried and true standby is especially good with high powered hollow points (read rifle/hunting ammunition). The high water content should cause good expansion which tends to show the exploding effects. If kids are watching, be sure to match the caliber with the size of fruit or vegetable to give them the maximum show. Thin skinned apples are obliterated by anything over 9mm (use thick skinned oranges or grapefruits instead). Tomotoes are great for .22LR. Melons of most types are good sized for 7.62x39 through .30-06. Lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower, and brocoli just eat up bird shot. Some stores might be willing to sell (or give) you their old produce at a steep discount. I usually just use what we forgot to eat from the fridge.

Milk Jugs: Price - Free. Good for 1-100 shots. These are great when filled with colored water. Better still, if the range day is going to be, fill partway (2/3) with water and then put it opened in the freezer. Take it out when the temperature of the water is just above freezing and cap it immediately. As the air and water inside warm up, they will both expand, creating a low pressure target. The great thing about this is you can still recycle the jugs after blowing them apart. Who new being green could be so fun!

Cans: Price - Free. Good for 1-100 shots. This standby is invaluable. With BB guns, you can make a dent and not continuously punch holes through them. With a .22 you can see how good aim you are by slicing one in half. Then there is the setting cans up on a ledge/table and shooting them off cowboy style. Its plain to see why this cheap alternative has been a mainstay for plinking for more than a hundred years.

Phone Books: Price - Free. Good for 100-1000 shots (depending on if you mulch). Whenever you think there is not enough paper in the world, the phonebook company prints another one. Thousands of companies print catalogs that they will send you for free too! Paper is actually a pretty decent stopper of bullets compared to the price of the materials. The reason they don't make paper bullet resistant vests is because you still would need 7 inches of it. That being said, tape some of these big books together and you can trap all sorts of bullets. Frankly, it would make a great science experiment for a young shooter (if his or her school doesn't go ballistic about the proper handling and use of firearms). Close range with birdshot is also a great way to turn a phone book into confetti!

Shoes: Price - Free. Good for 100+ shots. Shoes wear out eventually. The nice thing about shooting them with larger caliber weapons is they will jump. Kids love to see shoes jump (especially with no one in them). Steel toed or shanked boots have the advantage of a muffled but still audible report.

Old office equipment: Price - Free. Good for 100+ shots. Had a bad day at the office? Is your company getting rid of an old fax machine? Go Office Space on it! Be sure to get permission from your company before taking the old office equipment. One thing you will quickly learn as you shoot up office equipment, Hollywood has no concept of ballistic penetration.

Balloons: Price - 2-3 cents. Good for 1 shot (unless you miss). Balloons are very versatile. You can shoot them plain. Shoot them with powdered substance inside. Shoot them with a liquid inside. Or shoot them with a flamable liquid inside and an ignition source nearby for great fireball creation. Balloons are very good for long distance shooting (300+ yards) - the colors will usually contrast with the surroundings, you can make them almost any size, and you definitely know when you have hit one.

Pressurized Bottles: Price - 1-25 cents. Good for 1 shot. No I do not mean propane cylinders. I am talking about plastic coke bottles which you pressurize with dry ice or baking soda and vinegar. The goal here is to get the bottle near the rupture point (50 psi - 250 psi depending on the thickness) and then hitting it with the bullet to make a nice report. I am still in the experimentation process of figuring the correct amounts of vinegar and baking soda (remember the goal is maximum pressure without it exploding prematurely) for various types of bottles. The fact that materials science keeps getting better (and bottles are made with less plastic) compounds the problem and makes me believe I'll be experimenting my whole life, which I am OK with.

Paintballs: Price 1-3 cents. Good for 1 shot. These are great for .22LR through a pistol or a rifle. They provide a small target (about 3/4") that leaves a satisfying mark when hit. The only problem I have is a quick way of attaching them to the target. Currently, I pull a line of tape and then put one on every 2 -3 inches as I apply the tape to the cardboard. I am open to any other quick methods of putting these up.

Shotgun Shells: Price - 20 cents. Good for 1 shot. I'm not sure why I hadn't thought of this sooner, but a friend told me about it a month ago and I had to try it. I used .22LR shooting at 12 gauge bird shot (no sense wasting the money for buck or slugs). I put the shotgun shells in three different setups: 1) through drywall, 2) through 2x4, and 3) implanted in 2x4 (i.e. no through hole). The drywall was nice, I was hoping for a bigger hole though. The 2x4 also was OK, I was still wanting more. The encased 2x4 was great! It splintered out the end of the wood. If you are going to try this, use a 3/4" spade bit to make your holes (at least 4 inches apart). Push (don't pound with a hammer) the shells into the hole. Keep the targets at least 25 yards away.

Muzzleloading caps: Price - 5-10 cents. Good for 1 shot. Think of these as a smaller, cheaper version of shotgun shells. The targets are now only 1/4" diameter at most. Which leads to my favorite idea so far...

Muzzleloading caps w/ black powder: Price - 5-10cents. Good for 1 shot. There is unlimited potential with these. How big of a blast is dependent on how deep and wide your hole is and how high you fill it with black powder. The large puff of smoke from ignition is unmistakable and seeing a sturdy 2x4 obliterated has a satisfaction all its own. I'll definitely try different shapes of combustion chambers and maybe add some fireworks chemicals in the future to create a pleasing display.

The Great Halloween Candy Swap

Halloween has come and gone and in our house Operation Candy Swap was a rousing success. Let's start with some background information.

Candy is a child's delight. While each child has their favorites, they are usually willing to consume any kind of candy. However, as we reach adulthood, our preferences end up having more prejudice. My wife and I have moved in the same direction. It has to be chocolate. Sure when I was younger, I would do stupid things with my friends like suck on multiple Atomic Fire Balls or see how many Sour Patch Kids I could tolerate at once. Those days are long gone. Now when the candy urge hits me, I want chocolate, and Lifesavers just won't do.

My parent's didn't care for Halloween much and while we got to go Trick or Treating until 12, we didn't do that much and therefore, didn't have a whole ton of candy to show for it. This was also back when everyone was paranoid about razorblades in candy so you only went to people you knew. Myself, I am indifferent towards the holiday, if it didn't exist, my life wouldn't change much at all. However, this year, my wife hatched a plan to net up as much chocolate as possible for as little financial outlay to us.

Phase 1: We didn't buy any candy. This created a net expense of $0. But we still had to give out candy to the neighborhood kids. Which led us to ...

Phase 2: This past week we attended two halloween parties where our kids were showered with goodies. We didn't have to bring any because A) my wife made great costumes so we didn't guilt ourselves into bringing candy to make up for our lack of participation in the costume department and B) we were chasing our gaggle of children each night (which as you know each child has a mind of their own and rarely do the minds coincide to the point that they want to go in the same direction). At the Wednesday party, I spent half the time scanning the area looking for Barney the Purple Dinosaur (my youngest). Which was good since she kept her clothes on. On Monday, she kept taking them off. So by Saturday, we had a large bowlful of candy.

Phase 3: As mentioned before there are two types of Halloween candy. Good candy which consists of chocolate, baked goods, and licorice. And trash candy which consists of Smarties, Sweet Tarts, Jolly Ranchers, and Pixie Sticks (also known as crack in a tube for kids). I sorted the bowl of candy into the two categories. The good candy we would save and the trash candy we would give away.

Phase 4: You have to understand the neighborhood we live in. There are a lot of older couples who have grandkids and only three families with kids on our street. The next street over has only two families with kids. The couples are all really generous, perhaps to invoke the good karma so that their grandkids do well on Halloween night. As such, I have noticed that the caliber of candy given out has increased. For instance, if you know that your are going to only have 8-10 kids total come to your house, you might as well go all out and buy the full size candy bars. Likewise, even the fun size bars are more prevalent in our neighborhood and houses will give out two or three per trick or treater (making them in some instances MORE than a single full size candy bar). So my wife took our kids out to the streets to gather in as much chocolate as possible. They started early at 6pm so that they could be back in time for Phase 6.

Phase 5: I stayed home with the trash bowl of candy. Now, since Halloween is basically about extortion, I do have a little twinge of guilt about soaking the neighborhood to indulge my wife & I's chocolate cravings. But it is just a little twinge and easily assuaged. Since I know that there are only going to be 8-10 trick or treaters over the course of the night, and I don't want to have too much trash candy left over (usually it gets thrown away around February), so I give out big handfuls of candy. Now, I make sure the bowl is low enough so that the kids can see how generous (with free candy mind you) that I am being. The kids go away happy because my house gave them more than anyone else, I am happy because I got rid of the candy that wasn't going to get eaten anyway (yes, I let my kids eat candy, I just don't let them consume whole bagfuls in one sitting), the environment is better off since 5 lbs of candy will be in some kids stomachs rather than the landfill, the candy companies keep making money (which benefits me as well), my guilt is assuaged, and most importantly, dentists will have plenty of business for the next year. That is what I call a win-win-win-win-win-win-win situation. And now on to ....

Phase 6: Since my kids went out early, they are back by 8pm. This is a good thing, because the trash candy is running low from my generosity. My wife sits the kids down at the kitchen table to sort through the candy. Chocolate is saved and the kids are allowed to pick a few pieces of the trash candy to keep. The rest of the trash is used to replenish the bowl. And just in the nick of time. Naturally, as the night wears on I become more generous. When the last trick or treater came by at 9pm, I doubled the amount of candy he had in his helmet (he was a football player).

Phase 7: We netted around 30 pounds of chocolate. I divided this into 5 bags and labeled four of them January, March, May, and June. These we put in our freezer so that we don't just horde it all in one day. (I may still have to check periodically to make sure my wife isn't sneaking all of the Milky Ways).

So, we considered Halloween night a success. This strategy can only keep up for so long. I imagine over time some of the kids will tell their friends about the house that gives out handfuls of candy, which will increase the number of Trick or Treaters, therefore, economics dictates that the quality of candy will go down. Frankly, I give it 3-5 years before the neighborhood payout of trash candy exceeds the payout of good candy. In the meantime though, I'll milk it. If you do want to get a bunch of trash candy, come to my house on Halloween at around 9pm. And for those who think this was a well thought out plan hatched between my wife and I, you're wrong. It was more of a Friday night, Saturday morning type of thing where my wife mentioned that she didn't buy candy and just planned on giving out the candy from the parties. The hoarding of chocolate came naturally for both of us.