Monday, January 4, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Turse NDT Review
So, I asked Tam if my Christmas present to myself was an example of what she had earlier called a "turse" - a contraction of tactical purse. Leaving for another day the distinction between "purse" and "handbag", let me point out that this example of the product type is probably best described as a shoulder bag, since there is no other provision made for a means to conveniently carry it except by the shoulder strap itself (there is a velcro closure loop permanently sewn to the body-side of the bag, which I presume is intended to serve as a belt loop to keep the bag in place during episodes of physical exertion - climbing, riding a motorcycle, etc). I got the bag from Cheaper Than Dirt across the state from me over in Fort Worth.
I would like to make special note that I ordered the bag (along with several other items) on-line on the 23rd of December. FedEx was banging on my front door the following afternoon, so "well done all around" there.
Let's see, other disclaimers or initial observations? I bought the black colored bag and the woven nylon material is decidedly not "fashionable"; it is extremely durable however and a good deal of care seems to have been taken to make sure the material was cut to the pattern dimensions. The fit and overall appearance seems quite good to me given the limitations imposed by the material and fundamental design criteria. There are a number of questionably located loops on the bag, but since they also provide reinforcement of the joints and seams I won't use them as appears intended but have no real objection otherwise. Finally, there is no provision for the "handedness" of the carrier. The bag is laid out to be worn over the right hip. Leapers lists this as a new product so there may be plans for future model variants, but no information to that effect is mentioned at their site. As Tam commented, the price seems quite reasonable as well.
Let me begin the actual review by acknowledging that this product is not a purpose-built handgun concealed-carry platform. Rather, it is a compromise between several potential applications, among which the requirements for toting a pistol in a less-than-obvious manner are included. The interior dimensions of the central compartment are: 8.5"w x 4" thick x 9.5"d (+3.5" of material in the draw flap closure). Also covered by the primary buckle closure is an anterior pocket internally measuring 6"w x 7"d featuring a zipper that extends at least halfway down the side allowing extreme accessibility to the contents.
Forward of the main compartment is another pouch (the only one with a dual-slider zipper, which also extends at least halfway down the side of the compartment) measuring 3"w x 6"d, while aft is a drink bottle pouch with it's drawstring closure (intended to hold the container secure, not actually close the pouch) which features a grommet in the bottom material to allow drainage/ventilation of spillage.
Finally, the interior-most compartment is a wide zippered opening (at fully open measuring 8.5" max) with an interior width at least 1.5" more. The pocket's interior depth is 9" and there are two velcro strips sewn in to the interior-most side of the pouch as well. Judging by the added padding sewn on to the body-facing side of the bag, I believe the intention is to provide a means of temporarily mounting a holster to the rear of the compartment and at least one spare magazine holder to the fore-end (I suspect that a revolver speed loader would be better accommodated in the forward-most zippered compartment mentioned earlier). I tried both my Colt Commander and Taraus PT 1911 and both fit quite comfortably (I already own a detachable velcro'd holster from a FAG bag) (I've got an assortment of 1911 magazine belt pouches; I'll look into cutting one down and gluing the other half of the velcro onto it and see how that works one of these days).
The shoulder strap is a full 2" wide with closure buckles that, while ballistic plastic, are quite stout in construction. One minor annoyance is the shoulder pad itself has no provision to be fixed in place once a strap length has been adjusted (I keep having to re-adjust the damn pad as it won't stay in place). Also, and as I commented earlier, there are a number of external loops that don't seem particularly useful/desirable in a heavily trafficked locale (they might prove extremely useful in a rural or more remote setting - camping or the like say), as well as a couple of spring-loaded hooks for key rings and such. Since I don't like clipping a pocket knife to the seam of my trousers pockets, I don't see the utility of hanging a knife out in the open myself. YMMV as they say.
In closing, and on short acquaintance, I recommend this product to anyone looking for an alternative pistol carry option or who simply has an interest in a well-constructed, convenient and relatively commodious day pack. I'll have to check first, but I'm thinking my daughter (or more likely SiL) might find one of these useful for baby related items once my new grandson moves out of his current lodging this March or early April. :)
Hope this review proves helpful and the seemingly obligatory FTC disclaimer follows: the foregoing is an unsolicited product review of an item(s) I purchased on my own initiative. No inducement or remuneration was offered or solicited for my writing this review (although such would not go unconsidered should they subsequently be offered :)).
PS: Tam, mine cost 8 bux, but thanks for this, it was really helpful. I told you you will always have a place in my life. :)
I would like to make special note that I ordered the bag (along with several other items) on-line on the 23rd of December. FedEx was banging on my front door the following afternoon, so "well done all around" there.
Let's see, other disclaimers or initial observations? I bought the black colored bag and the woven nylon material is decidedly not "fashionable"; it is extremely durable however and a good deal of care seems to have been taken to make sure the material was cut to the pattern dimensions. The fit and overall appearance seems quite good to me given the limitations imposed by the material and fundamental design criteria. There are a number of questionably located loops on the bag, but since they also provide reinforcement of the joints and seams I won't use them as appears intended but have no real objection otherwise. Finally, there is no provision for the "handedness" of the carrier. The bag is laid out to be worn over the right hip. Leapers lists this as a new product so there may be plans for future model variants, but no information to that effect is mentioned at their site. As Tam commented, the price seems quite reasonable as well.
Let me begin the actual review by acknowledging that this product is not a purpose-built handgun concealed-carry platform. Rather, it is a compromise between several potential applications, among which the requirements for toting a pistol in a less-than-obvious manner are included. The interior dimensions of the central compartment are: 8.5"w x 4" thick x 9.5"d (+3.5" of material in the draw flap closure). Also covered by the primary buckle closure is an anterior pocket internally measuring 6"w x 7"d featuring a zipper that extends at least halfway down the side allowing extreme accessibility to the contents.
Forward of the main compartment is another pouch (the only one with a dual-slider zipper, which also extends at least halfway down the side of the compartment) measuring 3"w x 6"d, while aft is a drink bottle pouch with it's drawstring closure (intended to hold the container secure, not actually close the pouch) which features a grommet in the bottom material to allow drainage/ventilation of spillage.
Finally, the interior-most compartment is a wide zippered opening (at fully open measuring 8.5" max) with an interior width at least 1.5" more. The pocket's interior depth is 9" and there are two velcro strips sewn in to the interior-most side of the pouch as well. Judging by the added padding sewn on to the body-facing side of the bag, I believe the intention is to provide a means of temporarily mounting a holster to the rear of the compartment and at least one spare magazine holder to the fore-end (I suspect that a revolver speed loader would be better accommodated in the forward-most zippered compartment mentioned earlier). I tried both my Colt Commander and Taraus PT 1911 and both fit quite comfortably (I already own a detachable velcro'd holster from a FAG bag) (I've got an assortment of 1911 magazine belt pouches; I'll look into cutting one down and gluing the other half of the velcro onto it and see how that works one of these days).
The shoulder strap is a full 2" wide with closure buckles that, while ballistic plastic, are quite stout in construction. One minor annoyance is the shoulder pad itself has no provision to be fixed in place once a strap length has been adjusted (I keep having to re-adjust the damn pad as it won't stay in place). Also, and as I commented earlier, there are a number of external loops that don't seem particularly useful/desirable in a heavily trafficked locale (they might prove extremely useful in a rural or more remote setting - camping or the like say), as well as a couple of spring-loaded hooks for key rings and such. Since I don't like clipping a pocket knife to the seam of my trousers pockets, I don't see the utility of hanging a knife out in the open myself. YMMV as they say.
In closing, and on short acquaintance, I recommend this product to anyone looking for an alternative pistol carry option or who simply has an interest in a well-constructed, convenient and relatively commodious day pack. I'll have to check first, but I'm thinking my daughter (or more likely SiL) might find one of these useful for baby related items once my new grandson moves out of his current lodging this March or early April. :)
Hope this review proves helpful and the seemingly obligatory FTC disclaimer follows: the foregoing is an unsolicited product review of an item(s) I purchased on my own initiative. No inducement or remuneration was offered or solicited for my writing this review (although such would not go unconsidered should they subsequently be offered :)).
PS: Tam, mine cost 8 bux, but thanks for this, it was really helpful. I told you you will always have a place in my life. :)
Pede Ant Tree
Huh. It seems there are those who consider the calendar to be contextual too.
Some writers[5] like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on. The interval from the year 2001 to 2010 could thus be called the 201st decade, using ordinal numbers. However, contrary to practices in referencing centuries, ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon.
Following the link for ordinal numbers embedded above, we find this:
In linguistics, ordinal numbers are the words representing the rank of a number with respect to some order, in particular order or position (i.e. first, second, third, etc.). Its use may refer to size, importance, chronology, etc. They are adjectives.
They are different from the cardinal numbers (one, two, three, etc.) referring to the quantity.
Ordinal numbers are alternatively written in English with numerals and letter suffixes: 1st, 2nd or 2d, 3rd or 3d, 4th, 11th, 21st, 477th, etc. In some countries, written dates omit the suffix, although it is nevertheless pronounced. For example: 4 July 1776 (pronounced "the fourth of July ... "); July 4, 1776, ("July fourth ..."). When written out in full with "of", however, the suffix is retained: the 4th of July.
Ok then.
Since the modern western calendar system you do indeed use (the time/date function of the computer you are using to read this is based on it) is in actual fact an ordinal number record, and since that system in fact does not contain any such silliness as a "year 0" (if you were to cycle the format back far enough the transition would read 12/31/01bc - 01/01/01ad), it follows that the "common usage" mentioned in the first cite above is yet another example of human stupidity on public display.
Just this once, and do try to follow along, it goes something like this:
A decade consists of ten consecutive years.
A century consists of ten consecutive decades.
A millennium consists of ten consecutive centuries.
See the pattern here?
The first year of a decade is year one (1). Consequently, the last year of a decade is year ten (10).
Do keep up, there's more!
If you sequence ten decades in a row, the result is called a "century" and the convention is to identify that time period by it's final year number. Thus, once a century is completed it is written X (with x- being some number) 00; 200bc, for example, or 1700ad perhaps. This system does lead to the slightly confusing practice of referring to a given year, say 1776 (a year of some significance to American readers), as having occurred during the 18th century.
Continuing to follow the pattern we observed earlier, ten centuries transpiring one after the other is widely known as "a millennium". 1000ad would thus be ten (10) centuries (00). See?
Given all the foregoing to be true, the most previously completed millennium would have been the second following the transitional event in the calendar system we use in much of the modern world. And, indeed, the last year of the 20th century was in fact recorded as 2000ad. It would then consistently follow that the succeeding year would be the first in the new millennium/century/decade that follows on along from there, wouldn't it?
So, to re-cap: the millennium following after the second would be the third. It is scheduled to consist of ten centuries ending in the numbers 21 through 30. Each century is demarcated into segments of ten decadal sub-units which, in turn, consist of ten single year segments, numbered conveniently enough 1 through 10.
Now hover the mouse cursor over the time display on your monitor and read for yourself today's date. January 2, 2010 maybe (if not we have a problem of an entirely other dimension)? Now, the quirks of our cack-handed cousins across the pond notwithstanding, this is written as 01/02/2010 and reads: the second day of the first month of the first decade of the first century in the third millennium.
Got it?
Some writers[5] like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on. The interval from the year 2001 to 2010 could thus be called the 201st decade, using ordinal numbers. However, contrary to practices in referencing centuries, ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon.
Following the link for ordinal numbers embedded above, we find this:
In linguistics, ordinal numbers are the words representing the rank of a number with respect to some order, in particular order or position (i.e. first, second, third, etc.). Its use may refer to size, importance, chronology, etc. They are adjectives.
They are different from the cardinal numbers (one, two, three, etc.) referring to the quantity.
Ordinal numbers are alternatively written in English with numerals and letter suffixes: 1st, 2nd or 2d, 3rd or 3d, 4th, 11th, 21st, 477th, etc. In some countries, written dates omit the suffix, although it is nevertheless pronounced. For example: 4 July 1776 (pronounced "the fourth of July ... "); July 4, 1776, ("July fourth ..."). When written out in full with "of", however, the suffix is retained: the 4th of July.
Ok then.
Since the modern western calendar system you do indeed use (the time/date function of the computer you are using to read this is based on it) is in actual fact an ordinal number record, and since that system in fact does not contain any such silliness as a "year 0" (if you were to cycle the format back far enough the transition would read 12/31/01bc - 01/01/01ad), it follows that the "common usage" mentioned in the first cite above is yet another example of human stupidity on public display.
Just this once, and do try to follow along, it goes something like this:
A decade consists of ten consecutive years.
A century consists of ten consecutive decades.
A millennium consists of ten consecutive centuries.
See the pattern here?
The first year of a decade is year one (1). Consequently, the last year of a decade is year ten (10).
Do keep up, there's more!
If you sequence ten decades in a row, the result is called a "century" and the convention is to identify that time period by it's final year number. Thus, once a century is completed it is written X (with x- being some number) 00; 200bc, for example, or 1700ad perhaps. This system does lead to the slightly confusing practice of referring to a given year, say 1776 (a year of some significance to American readers), as having occurred during the 18th century.
Continuing to follow the pattern we observed earlier, ten centuries transpiring one after the other is widely known as "a millennium". 1000ad would thus be ten (10) centuries (00). See?
Given all the foregoing to be true, the most previously completed millennium would have been the second following the transitional event in the calendar system we use in much of the modern world. And, indeed, the last year of the 20th century was in fact recorded as 2000ad. It would then consistently follow that the succeeding year would be the first in the new millennium/century/decade that follows on along from there, wouldn't it?
So, to re-cap: the millennium following after the second would be the third. It is scheduled to consist of ten centuries ending in the numbers 21 through 30. Each century is demarcated into segments of ten decadal sub-units which, in turn, consist of ten single year segments, numbered conveniently enough 1 through 10.
Now hover the mouse cursor over the time display on your monitor and read for yourself today's date. January 2, 2010 maybe (if not we have a problem of an entirely other dimension)? Now, the quirks of our cack-handed cousins across the pond notwithstanding, this is written as 01/02/2010 and reads: the second day of the first month of the first decade of the first century in the third millennium.
Got it?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Rush Limbaugh "OK"
Hot Air commenter Mankai wins the internets in response:
Grief counselors were immediatly dispatched to dKos HQ and to the Democratic Underground.
mankai on January 1, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Via Instapundit.
Grief counselors were immediatly dispatched to dKos HQ and to the Democratic Underground.
mankai on January 1, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Via Instapundit.
Starting Afresh
Yesterday was solidly overcast with thick fog in the morning and a slow drizzle for the remainder of the day. The temperature was in the low/mid 40's 'till noon, but had risen to the mid 50's by 4:30 that afternoon. As a metaphor for the year just completed I can't think of better.
By contrast, this morning dawns brightly, with clear skies and a crisp temp in the upper 30's. There is a frost on the vehicle and building roofs that fades into memory shortly after the sunlight strikes it. The air is calm and the impression one discovers within is one of promise and optimism. If ever there was desired an illustration of the impetus driving New Year's Eve celebrations, surely this is it.
Our singular and unified challenge may indeed be to raise the next 364 days to steadily greater heights, but I think I'll content myself discovering this day's possibilities. I understand that, if you just keep doing that, you reach a place called "success", but I wouldn't know yet.
Update: You have to love a man that brings such a positive outlook to events.
By contrast, this morning dawns brightly, with clear skies and a crisp temp in the upper 30's. There is a frost on the vehicle and building roofs that fades into memory shortly after the sunlight strikes it. The air is calm and the impression one discovers within is one of promise and optimism. If ever there was desired an illustration of the impetus driving New Year's Eve celebrations, surely this is it.
Our singular and unified challenge may indeed be to raise the next 364 days to steadily greater heights, but I think I'll content myself discovering this day's possibilities. I understand that, if you just keep doing that, you reach a place called "success", but I wouldn't know yet.
Update: You have to love a man that brings such a positive outlook to events.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Umm, Bacon
Fellow Tyler blogger Robert Langham put up a post last Saturday that illustrates the inescapable quandary faced by those of us carrying concealed handguns - we can never be prepared enough.
I initially intended to note that it would be useful to know if unprocessed sausage here was immortalised out back of beyond or beyond my backyard fence, but I see from a subsequent update that this was likely from Robert's deer lease, so the in-town green belts probably aren't this unsafe yet.
My point still being that, no matter how much pistol and ammo you pack about your person, you simply are not going to be able to carry enough for every likely threat scenario, never mind the merely plausible like that captured by Robert's typically excellent photography above. To coin a phrase, carry your damn gun, people; indeed, carry as much gun as your circumstance permits. Spend what's required to load it with quality, effective ammunition. Most importantly though, never forget that you're carrying a defensive weapon for use in escaping the immediate threat, not attacking it. Whether it's ribs-n-hocks here or Hugger the Mugger down the alley, your CHL doesn't empower you to go forth and challenge the potential threat, never mind initiate combat.
That's the line between defense and offense.
I'm all for good challenging training. Just be sure that the correct (as defined by the terms of your state's license) mindset is a prominent part of it. I know; judged by 12 instead of carried by 6, blah blah blah. I say, better to get it right in the first place so that the long and the short of it afterwards is the pork processing fee.
Long. Pork. Get it?
Sigh.
I initially intended to note that it would be useful to know if unprocessed sausage here was immortalised out back of beyond or beyond my backyard fence, but I see from a subsequent update that this was likely from Robert's deer lease, so the in-town green belts probably aren't this unsafe yet.
My point still being that, no matter how much pistol and ammo you pack about your person, you simply are not going to be able to carry enough for every likely threat scenario, never mind the merely plausible like that captured by Robert's typically excellent photography above. To coin a phrase, carry your damn gun, people; indeed, carry as much gun as your circumstance permits. Spend what's required to load it with quality, effective ammunition. Most importantly though, never forget that you're carrying a defensive weapon for use in escaping the immediate threat, not attacking it. Whether it's ribs-n-hocks here or Hugger the Mugger down the alley, your CHL doesn't empower you to go forth and challenge the potential threat, never mind initiate combat.
That's the line between defense and offense.
I'm all for good challenging training. Just be sure that the correct (as defined by the terms of your state's license) mindset is a prominent part of it. I know; judged by 12 instead of carried by 6, blah blah blah. I say, better to get it right in the first place so that the long and the short of it afterwards is the pork processing fee.
Long. Pork. Get it?
Sigh.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sheet Music Distribution
Robert Stacy McCain expands on an initial RedState report concerning an unprecedented conference being held in Israel throughout this week (27-31 Dec). All Israeli Ambassadors, Consuls General and Heads of Mission have been ordered to attend, something which has never occurred in the country's all too turbulent history. RedState poster Kenny Solomon makes it plain he believes this to be a precursor to Israel taking overt (and presumably military) action in the near future - probably in the general direction of Iran.
Given who all else is known to be invited, I'm not so sure just how highly that legitimate concern is actually going to rank on the itinerary. The presence of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer (head of the country's central bank) makes me fairly confident that concern over the reliability of the US$ as the benchmark currency has to be in the low single digit section of the topic priority list. While Israel's reliance on US aid financing (not to mention civilian investment) is likely part of Mr Fischer's presentation, the precise nature and degree of dependency all three of Israel's cross-border neighbors, not to mention at least 6 other arms-length regional powers, have on US financial support has to be of even greater importance. None of the 9 or 10 other countries (I potentially include Gaza in amongst this number) involved is led by especially stable political regimes. The question of just how likely any (or what association of them) might be willing to seriously consider the short victorious war option will be greatly influenced by their separate and shared financial condition, should the US$ indeed go TU in the near-term.
Whatever comes under discussion, I think it most unlikely that anything is being actually scheduled for unilateral action by Israel's leaders. Were that the case, we'd be seeing a great many more El Al flights in-bound to Ben Gurion, with a noticeable passenger compliment of people in the age 20 to 50 range, than we do so far.
The Israelis are worried enough to start getting their ducks all in a row; that ought to be worrisome enough for the rest of us all on it's own. Let's hope at least some of Pres. Obama's Hawaii vacation briefings cover this development with greater confidence of accuracy then I can offer.
Given who all else is known to be invited, I'm not so sure just how highly that legitimate concern is actually going to rank on the itinerary. The presence of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer (head of the country's central bank) makes me fairly confident that concern over the reliability of the US$ as the benchmark currency has to be in the low single digit section of the topic priority list. While Israel's reliance on US aid financing (not to mention civilian investment) is likely part of Mr Fischer's presentation, the precise nature and degree of dependency all three of Israel's cross-border neighbors, not to mention at least 6 other arms-length regional powers, have on US financial support has to be of even greater importance. None of the 9 or 10 other countries (I potentially include Gaza in amongst this number) involved is led by especially stable political regimes. The question of just how likely any (or what association of them) might be willing to seriously consider the short victorious war option will be greatly influenced by their separate and shared financial condition, should the US$ indeed go TU in the near-term.
Whatever comes under discussion, I think it most unlikely that anything is being actually scheduled for unilateral action by Israel's leaders. Were that the case, we'd be seeing a great many more El Al flights in-bound to Ben Gurion, with a noticeable passenger compliment of people in the age 20 to 50 range, than we do so far.
The Israelis are worried enough to start getting their ducks all in a row; that ought to be worrisome enough for the rest of us all on it's own. Let's hope at least some of Pres. Obama's Hawaii vacation briefings cover this development with greater confidence of accuracy then I can offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
