Solutions to Illegal Aliens Crossing into the United States

The hot topic as of late seems to be the problem with illegal aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico. Therefore I have decided to put forth my thoughts on the subject and what should be done about it.

First of all, all of these media outlets need to quit softening the subject by calling them "illegal immigrants". They are not immigrants, they are invaders. If they were immigrants, they would be legal, but these people are not emigrating into the U.S. by legal channels, they are invading our homeland by illegal means. You got that all you liberal media jackasses?

I am not against Mexicans (or anyone else) coming to the United States by legal means, so long as they plan on becoming naturalized citizens, learn to speak English which is the official language of this country, pay taxes and follow our laws, then I will welcome them with open arms and maybe even a nice fruit basket welcoming them to the neighborhood. However, those people (invaders) that wish only to cross into the United States illegally, live off welfare or take the jobs of American citizens for peanut wages, those are the people I have no respect for. They are a heavy burden on our economy, our education system, our healthcare system, and are major sources of criminal activities including drug related crimes, as well as murders, rapes, thefts, burglaries, assault, vandalism, etc. Think about it, why would they worry about obeying our laws when they had to break the law to get here in the first place?

The United States government has the responsibility to protect it's land and it's people from these foreign invaders. When the government fails to do it's job, the burden falls on it's citizens. Unfortunately, the government is tying our hands with asinine (and technically unconstitutional) laws forbidding us from patrolling and defending our borders ourselves. The fault doesn't lie with the United States government completely though. The other major problem is the country that sponsors these illegal invasions our homeland, which, you guessed it, is Mexico. Mexico in and of itself is not the nice friendly neighbor our and their governments would like you to think it is.

The Mexican government knows all too well that their citizens invading our country are putting a major stress on all of our resources, and frankly, they don't care. Mexican officials do nothing to try and stop their citizens from invading our land, in fact they tend to look the other way while it's happening. Mexico doesn't want the responsibility of dealing with the burden of caring for it's own people. For them, the more of their citizens that leave their borders, the less strain their system is subjected to. Following me so far?

So obviously we can't count on Mexico doing anything about it's people invading our country, and it is obvious that our country isn't willing to do enough to protect us from the thousands of foreign invaders flooding into our country on a daily basis. We as citizens of the United States must not allow this trend to continue, if we want to keep our country ours. If we would all band together and do the following things, we might actually still have a chance at saving America while reducing the strain on our limited and ever declining resources:

Number one, we all need to tell the government just how strongly we feel about this issue. Pissing and moaning to our next door neighbor isn't going to help. We all have to flood our politicians with these complaints, and these complaints must be both sincere and demanding.

Two, we need to quit letting our lawmakers tie our hands unnecessarily. Right now, forming our own militia would not be such a bad thing. This is why our forefathers created the 2nd Amendment, among others, so that we, the citizens of the United States of America, would have the power to rise up and defend ourselves against any and all threats to our country, both foreign and domestic, as well as to go so far as to overthrow our own government, should it become too corrupt or tyrannical. (I believe we've already let our government become too powerful and corrupt as it is, but that's a topic for another discussion later on).

We need to build a wall along the border. Not a chain link fence with razor wire on top, but a steel reinforced concrete wall at least 15' thick and 40' high, with armed patrols both on top and at ground level. We need to implement IR and motion sensors along the wall to alert the patrols of possible activity. This wall would need to extend all the way from Brownsville, TX to Imperial Beach, CA. Yes, this would be a long, hard project, and cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money, but in the long run it will actually ease the burden on our system and improve the quality of American life. This might sound ridiculous at first, but in reality would be very effective. Just look at the wall that separates North and South Korea for an effective example.

We need to crack down illegals already inside our borders. Our government already knows where a large percentage of them reside and work, we just need convince our government to deport their sorry butts back to wherever they came from. Get the INS people off their duffs and make them hunt down the rest. Offer rewards for information leading to the arrest and deportation of anyone found to be in this country illegally.

These are but a few of the most effective things we can implement to help secure our borders and our nation's future. Time is running out, we need to act now or be willing suffer the consequences of our inaction.

Hillary's Bust

Hillary Rodham Clinton's bust is going to go on display at New York's Museum of Sex. You can watch Michelle Malkin's report on it, which is quite amusing, here.

I knew there were some sick people in this world, I also knew that Hillary was one of them, but I never thought there would be a sculptor with that perverted a view of what art is. I've said it before, art is subjective, but there are limits to everything, and this goes waaaaay beyond any reasonable logic. We can only hope and pray that this bust gets destroyed before it does any harm.

Then again, maybe there would be some good uses for this bust after all. Placing a copy of this bust in the homes of known sexual predators would be sure to kill their sex drive, making society a safer place. Of course this would equate to cruel and unusual punishment, but who really cares? After all they are the scum of the earth and don't deserve any humane treatment anyway.

One could stick the bust in the farmer's field as a sort of scarecrow to keep the crows out of the crops or the foxes out of the chicken coop. Of course this may end up killing the crops and run off the livestock.

One could set up copies of the bust at key crossing points along the United States/Mexico border to scare away the illegal aliens (foreign invaders). There could be serious political repercussions though, as Hillary's bust could easily be mistaken for a weapon of mass destruction.

May God have mercy on our country for possesing such a grotesque and evil creation.

Nikon's New DSLR Teaser

Visit the Nikon USA website and you will be greeted with a teaser to their new consumer level DSLR they are about to put on the market. There has been some speculation as to just what it will be named and how it will look, but I'm not putting stock in anything I read on non-Nikon websites. The speculation seems to be it will be called the D80 or possibly the D90, and some say it will either replace the D70s or fill the very narrow gap between the Nikon D70s and the Nikon D200. We'll just have to wait and see when Nikon makes it's official press release in 12 more days.

Some sites have even published pictures of what they say are actual pictures of the camera, but I find this hard to believe since Nikon is being extremely tight-lipped about any of the details until they are ready to make their official announcement. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in these image posts, chances are they are just Photoshop manipulations by someone not affiliated in any way with Nikon, who happened to have a little too much time on his hands. If I'm wrong, we'll soon find out.

But, since everyone is playing the guessing game, I'll add my own speculation: My guess, and it's a long shot, but I think they took the D70s electronics, swapped out the 6.2MP sensor for the D200's 10.2MP sensor, maybe added one or two extra menu options, slapped a slightly larger LCD on the back, and left the IR filter off the sensor for Nikonians who have been wishing for a factory produced DSLR that can do near-IR photography. It'll be interesting to see how close or far off the mark I am.

Photography: Artistic Value is Subjective

The artistic value of a photograph is subjected to every imaginable scrutiny by anyone who views it. Remember the old saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure"? That very quote is applicable to the art of photography. Follow the rules, break the rules, it doesn't matter because someone is going to complain, going to nit-pick, and going to find something wrong with anything and everything.

I want to address the trend of what happens to those who dare venture onto the photography specific messaging boards, and why I choose to avoid them as if they were the plague. For those who have been ravaged by the foul vermin that populate these forums, I offer you some resolve: You are probably not nearly as bad a photographer as they made you feel to be. For those who rose to the top in those same forums, you are probably not nearly as good a photographer as what they made you feel to be.

There are obviously exceptions to what I just stated, but remember, these are the exceptions, not the majority! In case you haven't figured it out already, on the internet you can pretty much be whom ever you wish to be. Now, let's put two and two together to make four. These photography forums are populated by an overwhelming number of self-proclaimed "professional photographers" as you may or may not have already figured out. Most of the supposedly professional photographers end up being teenagers or retirement age folks who's career (past, present, and probably future) never involved real photography. I will use fake aliases for the sake of anonymity.

Case #1: "Z. Boobledorfer" is a frequent poster on photography forum "www.photoforumforsuckerswhodon'thaveanythingelsetodo.nut" and has over 160,000 posts in the past two years. He tells everyone he has his own photography business, in fact he even advertises it in his catchy little signature line of each post. Wow, the link actually works and takes you to a real website! Now here lies the problem:

• If Z. Boobledorfer is such a successful professional photographer, how does he find the time to post on the message boards so much?
• If Z. Boobledorfer is such a professional photographer, how come the EXIF data on his photographs that he posts both on the forums and on his "business site" are from either a digital point and shoot camera (all of which are consumer level) or a consumer's entry level digital SLR such as a Canon Digital Rebel XT, Pentax *ist D, or Nikon D70?
• If Z. Boobledorfer is such a professional photographer, why do all his photographs look like snapshots? (Learn about lighting, exposure, focus selectivity, depth of field, and composition techniques and you will readily be able to tell a snapshot from a well thought out professional looking photograph.)

Here is how we come to the find the truth. It takes a little investigation, though it is quite easy. You see, Z. Boobledorfer is still just a teenager, still in high school or maybe he just graduated. We know this because every once in a while he'll slip in his postings and revert to things that are a dead giveaway. Someone will call him on his pro claim eventually, you just have to watch for it, or use the forum's handy search button to research his past posts. You will probably find things such as this:

• Z. Boobledorfer refers to his daddy's experiences a lot, instead of his own, in off topic threads.
• Z. Boobledorfer's EXIF data on his picture posts can be quite telling.
• Most pro's don't get a childish attitude towards everyone else's work, defending their own faults while belittling everyone else for theirs. (With the exception of those in his little clique.)
• Z. Boobledorfer's pictures are only praised by a precious few other "pros" who just happen to be in his little aforementioned clique.

What gives Z. Boobledorfer the right to call himself a pro? Well, here are his excuses and reasoning:

• Z. Boobledorfer thinks he's a real professional photographer because he invented his own catchy business name like "Z. Boobledorfer Photography" or "Perfect Light Photography".
• Z. Boobledorfer is paying $10 a month out of his minimum wage salary (probably from someplace like McDonald's or Food Lion) for his own domain name with his "business" name as the URL.
• Z. Boobledorfer uses the premise that he made a few buck off his sister or cousin for taking snapshots at their wedding. He doesn't realize they were just too cheap to hire a real wedding photographer because of an already stretched wedding budget, so they looked to a family member with an interest in photography who had a working camera, and wouldn't charge and arm and a leg. This of course, in Z. Boobledorfer's mind makes him a bona fide professional wedding photographer, mind you.

"But Z. Boobledorfer has such nice looking pictures", you say. Yes, some of them might actually look pretty good, after he spends a week in Photoshop Elements fixing all his mistakes. Put a monkey in front of a typewriter and eventually they'll type the complete literary works of William Shakespeare. In Z. Boobledorfer's case, he posts maybe 3 out of every 500 photographs he takes, because the rest are so terrible he dare not expose them to anyone. Yes, really-really-real pros take bad pictures too, and have to sort out the bad from the good, but not at a 3 out of 500 rate. A skilled photographer will have a closer to 1:5 or even 1:2 and in some cases even 4 out of every 5 images will be acceptable. But Z. Boobledorfer is a loooooooong way away from that ratio. Also bear in mind, we pesky humans are normally much more critical of our own work than other's. Other's images usually tend to look better than our own, even if they aren't. Those are words of wisdom to remember. In any event, now you know that Z. Boobledorfer is not the actual pro he proclaims to be. His so called business he just started up is nothing more than a website, and he has no clientele at all except for his imaginary friends.

Case #2: "Dr. Pina~Colada" claims he is a professional photographer and expert in the field of digital photo editing. Dr. Pina~Colada even has his own portrait in his profile to prove he's a middle aged man, not some "teenage-punk-pro-photographer-wannabe". Ask him about his qualifications, and he'll tell you that he pulls in between $60K and $80K a year doing his job. He'll also tell you that he uses a camera nearly every day on the job. What Dr. Pina~Colada is not telling you is that he is a realtor for Millennium 22 Real Estate. His use of the camera is taking quick snapshots of people's home who are looking to sell. In case you haven't noticed, any 5 year old with a $5 My Little Pony disposable point and shoot camera can take real estate photo's just as good, if not better, than Dr. Pina~Colada can. It doesn't take a pro to stand in the middle of the street and take a few handheld snapshots of Mr. & Mrs. Doe's 70 year old shack, ditto the cluttered interior. Dr. Pina~Colada then spends fifteen minutes in Photoshop CS2 cloning out the weeds and dog crap in the yard, the missing shingles on the roof, and the cracks in the walls.

In Dr. Pina~Colada's mind, this makes him a professional photographer, instead of an overpaid Real Estate agent with a camera. Dr. Pina~Colada feels that his limited and overly abused photo-editing tricks make him a real expert at digital photo editing. He feels as if he is more qualified to spout off his poorly executed tricks than the real pro's who learned the program inside and out well enough to write a highly acclaimed book on the subject. Then poor Mr. Unsuspecting posts his otherwise very good image on the forum, only to have his image stolen and edited without prior permission from him(which is a federal copyright infringement), by Dr. Pina~Colada, and reposted on the forum as "how it should look". (Of course Dr. Pina~Colada puts some subtext stating he will gladly take it down if the owner of the photograph so wishes, because he knows his ass is riding a fine line and he could be sued for copyright infringement). The question is, just how should Mr. Unsuspecting's photograph look? Mr. Unsuspecting was proud of his very good image but all of a sudden the picture police have pounced on him, pointing out all these minor (inconsequential) flaws that should have been compensated for or otherwise corrected in post-processing. Of course, Mr. Unsuspecting is now crushed that his picture didn't meet these "professionals'" high standards. But then he is also thankful that the "pros" have stepped in with their all knowing advice and trashed his beautiful image to make it look like what they think it should look like.

Here's the problem, Mr. Unsuspecting: Photography is an art. Your photography is your art. All art, no matter what medium, is subjective. What one person likes, someone else hates. What is perfect to one is flawed to another. Yes, we are back to one man's trash is another man's treasure. Did someone come along behind Leonardo da Vinci and paint over the Mona Lisa telling him that's what his painting should look like? I don't think so! A person's art is their own, and if you like it, that's all that matters. Ansel Adams didn't have someone else manipulate his photographs for him in the darkroom, telling him that's how his photographs should look. No, Mr. Adams did his own darkroom work, and when he was satisfied with his work, that was good enough.

So maybe you aren't an Ansel Adams or a Leonardo da Vinci, but you are the person whom you are. Let me rephrase that: You are the artist of your own work, your art is your own and no one else's. If your art satisfies you, then screw what all the self-proclaimed experts think. Don't take their advise, don't take their B.S. If you really want to improve, listening to them will do nothing but turn your work into their vision. Once you become the artist that they want you to be, then they will lift you up on their imaginary pedestal. But the problem is, they aren't teaching you to be creative, they are teaching you to make your vision look like their vision. That's not really what you want to do.
What should you do if want to improve your skills then? Practice, practice, practice! That's the most important thing. Read photography books by real photographers, these books teach you how to develop your own style and vision. They teach you techniques that improve your photography while letting you keep your own unique style. Take an accredited photography course, again they teach you the proper techniques that can be applied to your own style of photography. And finally, stay away from the photography forums. Most professional photographers don't use those forums for the following reasons:

• Posting their images on these forums is yet another way to have their already valuable works stolen and used without permission.
• Professional photographers spend their working lives doing photography. Usually the last thing they want to do regularly is extend that to their recreational time. (Ever notice that a professional landscaper has one of the crappiest lawns in the neighborhood, or that a professional singer normally doesn't frequent karaoke bars?)
• Real professional photographers already know about the fake pro's that populate these photography forums and avoid the forums so as not to be mistaken for one them.
• A true professional will help you learn how to develop your own artistic vision instead of pushing their own ideals on you. This requires one on one private critique, not public humiliation like that found on the forums. (This public humiliation will discourage most people from ever picking up a camera again, very few people gain any true drive to improve their artistry after having their works ripped to shreds in the public square while being flogged with a cat o' nine tails.)

My advice all boils down to a few simple things:

• Avoid the photography forums, they are mostly populated my a bunch of hungry jackals waiting for fresh meat to sink their teeth into.
• Develop your own style that pleases you, quit worrying what other think.
• Learn from your own mistakes, not from the misguided critique of unqualified individuals.
• Study books by real experts in the field and/or take accredited courses.
• You are your own worst critic, lighten up on yourself.

If you are looking for some books to study on, there are some very good books that teach everything from basic to advance techniques that are put out by John Hedgecoe. I will provide links to some of his books for your convenience (please note that some of the information in his books is redundant from one book to the next):

• The Photographer's Handbook
• John Hedgecoe's Complete Guide to Photography
• How to Take Great Photographs
• John Hedgecoe's Photography Basics
• There are various other books by this author that cover specific topics more in depth, such as landsape, portraiture, and black & white photography.

I also recommend if you are interested in photography courses that you look into what is available at your local community college, as well as finding out about photographic workshops that may be coming to your area. The photographic workshops generally last anywhere from one day to a week and cover anything from basic to advanced techniques, digital and film, and specific areas of photography such as fashion, sports, or architecture.

If you are unable to take a regular course offered locally, there is the option of photographic correspondence courses. These types of courses are generally not as good as the "brick-and-mortar" schools, however there is one exception to the rule: The New York Institute of Photography (NYIP) is an excellent resource for learning photography or honing the skills you already have. I highly recommend this course if your schedule doesn't include the option of local schooling. NYIP teaches you everything from basic to advance techniques, as well as giving you excellent instruction on the business end of photography.

Accepted by PineCone Research

That was fast, just one day after applying to PineCone Research, I received a notice stating that I was accepted onto the research panel, as well as receiving my first evaluation study. I think I might actually enjoy being a part of this research panel. Well, that's all I have to say about it. Seems a waste to make such a short blog entry, but that's how the cookie crumbled.

PineCone Research

For those of you out there who know to look for the proverbial "needle in a haystack" ads for PineCone Research, those banner ads are not a fable. I recently ran across a bonafide banner ad for PineCone Research and proceeded to fill out the application. I have no idea whether or not I will be accepted onto the research panel, but at least I was able to apply. If you are wanting to find a banner ad for them, they are out there campaigning right now, so get your browser running and head out on the information highway.

Canon EOS KISS Digital N

Canon photographers in Japan are being treated to the EOS KISS Digital N, which here in the U.S. it's the Digital Rebel XT, and other parts of the world it's known as the EOS 350D. Now I'm not real sure what to think of this. Is Japan just now catching on to the KISS fad of the 70's & 80's, or is Canon just trying to rub salt in the wounds of American KISS fans by not marketing the KISS labeled Rebel over here? It seems to me that there are quite a few KISS fans over here that would grab up the KISS version of this camera, if it were made available over here. Perhaps Canon could have boosted their sales here in the U.S. by offering both models to U.S. customers. Allow KISS fans to order the EOS KISS Digital N, and for those who aren't stuck a 1970's or 1980's timewarp or just aren't KISS fans, let them buy the one marketed as the Digital Rebel XT. At least by offering both models they are opening themselves up to a broader customer base... unless Nikon decides to up the ante by marketing a special AC/DC version of the D50 or D70s. How totally gnarly would that be?

Now as an afterthought, I've also noticed that the Kiss version of the camera is written in a different script than that of the band KISS. So perhaps the name of the camera wasn't intentionally named after the band, but rather just a name, such as how the Rebel is just a model name. With that in mind, perhaps the marketing geniuses at Canon finally made a connection in names and paid some royalties to Gene Simmons for using the KISS band's logo and make-up likenesses in an advertisement. Otherwise, if it were a special edition named after the rock group, then I believe the KISS logo from the band would have been duplicated for use on the camera body, instead of the script lettering. Nevertheless, kudos to the Canon marketing team for making the connection between the names and using it as a coy marketing ploy in Japan.

Regardless, I still think Nikon should make a limited edition AC/DC DSLR with Angus Young signature series DX lenses.

Film versus Digital: Is film really dead?

Too many people are running around crying that film is dead. Sure, this is a new era we are in where digital has taken the front seat, but this does not mean that old analog formats are useless! Film has been around since the advent of photography and it will most likely remain around long after you and I have ceased to exist.

What people need to understand is that digital photography should not be thought of as a replacement for film, but only as an alternate choice or a supplement to film. Let's look at some of the arguments of the misguided film vs digital debate:

Digital:

Pros:

• Instant gratification - you can see the results almost instantly after shooting. Great if you need to change things around or do a reshoot without having to schedule a return trip.
• The media storage devices such as Compact Flash cards, XD cards, SD cards, Microdrives, etc. are not fogged by X-Rays like when your items are x-rayed at the airport.
• Digital media can be stored in heat and cold without much worry of it being affected adversely.
• Can be direct downloaded to a computer for post processing, or to a compatible printer for direct printing.
• Exposure settings can be adjusted later if shot in RAW format.

Cons:

• Rapidly changing technology obsoletes digital storage formats about once a decade, and digital camera technology is upgraded every 2 or 3 years, an expensive way to go if insist on all the latest gear to keep up with the Jones'.
• Equipment can easily cost 3 pr 4 times that of it's 35mm counterpart.
• Digital is still a relatively new and ever changing format.
• Inkjet prints don't last as long as film prints and can be expensive to print.
• Common archival media such as CD's and DVD's don't last as long as first though. Archived discs can start breaking down in as little as 5 years.
• Hundreds of images stored on a single disc can be destroyed if disc is scratched or broken.
• It takes a heck of a lot of megapixels to equal 35mm film, and a whole lot more to equal that of medium and large format films.

Film:

Pros:

• It's a time tested and proven technology that has lasted for lifetimes.
• Modern film emulsions are the best that they've ever been.
• Film can be archived for well over a hundred year with very little concern except for slight fading or color shifts.
• If one slide or frame of film is scratched or torn, the other images remain unaffected.
• Minilab prints are relatively inexpensive.
• Can be digitized by scanning the media into a computer.

Cons:

• Film must be developed before you can see the results, no instant gratification.
• Carrying a lot of film can take up valuable storage space.
• Undeveloped film breaks down with age or when subjected to excessive heat.
• Processing incorrectly can permanently ruin irreplaceable shots.
• Archived sleeves of negatives, prints, and slides can take up considerable amounts of space.
• Some film processing chemicals can be carcinogenic.

As you can see, both offer technical advantages and disadvantages, with the slight overall edge leaning towards digital, however, the price advantage goes to film quite easily.

Film can make you a better photographer. You are more likely to take care properly composing your shots instead of just blasting away in digital. You will learn to look for details quicker shooting with film so that inconvenient reshoots won't have to be scheduled. Thinking about the setup of each picture before pressing the shutter release will do wonders for your photography skills. This is where the instant gratification of digital can become a roadblock to your learing.

On the otherhand, instant previews on the LCD of a DSLR camera are too small to see the minor details that can make or break a photo, though larger errors can be seen immediately and be reshot almost instantly.

Sharing pictures on stable film prints that can be passed around from person to person can be more meaningful that trying to crowd a bunch of people around a small monitor for viewing. Film just has a warmer, more personal feeling because it's something that can be felt and touched, not just a bunch of binary numbers rattling around inside a computer's circuitry.

In 50 years, will your grandchildren have the motivation to find old outdated drives compatible with your old digital storage media so that they can view your old pictures? Let's face it, slide projectors have been around for decades basically unchanged. Look at computer storage, the 5" floppy went the way of the Dodo bird, replaced by the 3.5" floppy which most new computer don't even come installed with anymore. CD's are being replaced with DVD's, and now we have all sorts of storage devices such as zip-disks, external drives of all types, and who knows when they'll be outmoded with something newer and better. You can bet it won't be long!

In those same 50 years, if your grandchildren find all your old film archives, they would be much more likely to hold the negatives or slides up to the light, peaking curiosity and bringing a closer look. Old pictures in a box are much more convenient to look at on the spot, whereas an old media card might be accidentally erased or shoved away to be viewed at a later date only to be forgotten about.

Film negatives are, for the most part, what you see is what you get. It's hard to retouch an original negative or slide! Digital files can be easily modified in photo-editing programs with such skill and precision that it's hard to tell the fake from the original. That's bad news for legal purposes, such as evidence documentation. Nikon seems to have come out with a way to solve that problem, so that the the original image is authenticated instantly. However, like any computer program, I'm sure the techno-geeks will have a way to circumvent the image authenticity checks and make a fake image appear as an original to the authentification software.

With this in mind, we should not write off film as an outdated format quite yet. Film still has a few important advantages in it's corner. Digital is a wonderful media choice too for many things. Both have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Let's not prematurely kill film when it can work side-by-side with digital to make the world of photography all that much more exciting!

35mm SLR Lenses on DSLR's & DSLR Specific Lenses

Message boards on the internet are overflowing with misinformation about the SLR/DSLR lens debate. In the next little while, I will attempt to set the record straight by dispelling some common myths and misconceptions, and give you the straight dope on what really is and isn't. So sit back, relax, and clear your mind of everything you've heard so far about the subject, and let's get started.

First and foremost, I want to clear up the confusion caused regarding lens focal lengths, most notably those 35mm SLR lenses used on DSLR's with smaller APS sized sensors. Like I said in the introduction, forget everything you've heard so far so you can absorb the truth. Putting a 35mm lens on DSLR with an APS sized sensor does NOT change the zoom ratio. For example, a 24-85mm zoom lens will always be a 24-85mm zoom lens no matter what camera it's on. When it's on the store shelf, not attached to any camera at all, what is it? Right, it's a 24-85mm zoom lens. Congratulations, now that you've got that down we can move on to the next step. Let us assume that we take the same 24-85mm zoom lens and attach it to a DSLR with a 1.5x ratio compared to 35mm. Here's where people get confused and start believing all that misinformation floating around. The lens does NOT become a 36-127.5mm lens. Go back and read that last sentence again and commit it to memory. What happens is not a zoom ratio change, only a change in the crop factor. The crop factor for 35mm will be what we consider the standard or 1x ratio, and as stated earlier, the DSLR will have the 1.5x ratio. Once again, this is NOT a zoom ratio, only a crop factor. The smaller DSLR sensor will crop out the outside edges of the scene that would normally fall on 35mm film. This is why most all amateurs and even some unenlightened pros think it changes the zoom ratio of the lens. It essentially makes the subject look like it was shot with longer lens. Let us say for instance that we shoot a subject with the lens set to 24mm. On 35mm with the 1x crop ratio, the same image taken with the same lens setting on a DSLR with a 1.5x crop factor will almost appear as if it were taken with a 36mm lens. I say "almost" because it is not exactly the same. The only thing in the picture that has changed is the crop factor.

The perspective distortion and background compression of subjects in the picture will remain that of a 24mm lens and not a 36mm, if taken from the exact same position. If you move the digital camera back further from the subject to make the image on the DLSR sensor the same as what is on the 35mm film frame, the perspective distortion will stay the same, however the background compression will change slightly due to the change in subject to camera distance, just not as much of a change as would be encountered with a change in focal length settings on the lens. Okay, let's explore this in just a little more detail. A 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is called a normal lens because for the most part, what you see in the viewfinder is the same as what the average human eye sees. Go to a wider lens such as 35mm or 24mm and the perspective changes. Objects behind the subject appear further away from the subject that what they actually are, and object in front of the subject (or protruding from the subject for that matter, such as a nose) appear closer than normal. Just the opposite for telephoto lenses, which tend to compress or flatten the image. Take for example a 200mm lens, object behind the subject appear larger and closer to the subject that what they actually are, and object in front of the subject appear to be closer to the subject than what they are. It doesn't matter whether the lens is on a 35mm film camera or a DSLR with a 1.5x crop ratio. This is important to remember if you want your pictures to turn out the way you had planned. Mistaking a crop factor for a change in focal length like so many misinformed people do will cause your pictures to come out differently that what you might have planned for.

It's that simple! Now that you know the way your lens really works when put on a DSLR with a smaller than 35mm sensor, you can just smile and laugh when someone tries to tell you that your lens actual focal length changes.

Next let's explore whether or not you actually need that special DX lens for your DSLR. Lens makers seem to be pushing DSLR specific lenses for use on APS sensor sized DSLR's only. These digital specific lenses will not work with a 35mm film camera, or even a 35mm sized digital sensor without causing some major vignetting. 35mm SLR shooters who converted to DSLR's when they were first coming out were shooting with their 35mm SLR lenses and the pictures were coming out just fine in most cases. These photographers didn't realize their images would look like crap until the lens manufacturers started telling them that they needed as special digitally optimized lenses that are DSLR specific for their images to look right! So what gives? Were the lens makers right or was it just a bunch of marketing hype? What if I told you it was actually a little of both? What lens manufacturers said was right, but only some of the time for certain things, so mostly their claims were (and still are) fairly exaggerated.

Most 35mm film SLR lenses will work fine on your DSLR without any noticeable degradation in image quality. Sometimes the lens will actually outperform DSLR specific lenses! The reason for this is actually pretty simple. DSLR lenses are sized down to make the lens elements work with the same image circle crop as a 35mm SLR lens does on a 35mm film SLR. Unless you are using high-end pro level lenses, this can cause loss of sharpness near the edges of the image. Most all consumer level lenses suffer from this malady, with some being more noticeable than others. Light enters the lens from sharper angles, therefore not only can sharpness be reduced, but chromatic aberrations can occur. This where the lightwaves of different colors strike the film plane at slightly different positions than what they should. DSLR specific and digitally optimized lenses try to fight this problem with special coatings that reduce these aberrations as well as reduce the amount of reflections from light bouncing around in the lens. The chromatic aberration (color fringing) problems are most apparent when using wide-angle lenses, or shooting into bright lights, whereas edge softening is more apparent with telephoto lenses. So how can a 35mm SLR lens be better than a lens specially engineered for DSLR cameras only, to help overcome these problems? Simple, 35mm SLR lenses and especially those that are "digitally optimized" with special reflection reducing coatings only use the "sweet spot" of the lens. Remember, all lenses are sharpest closer to the center of the lens and image quality starts to fall off towards the edges. (Again, this is most noticeable with consumer grade lenses since the expensive pro-grade lenses are built to much tighter standards to reduce or even eliminate edge softening.) So when a lens built to throw it's image circle on a 35mm sized frame is used on a DSLR with a smaller APS sized sensor, only the light from the center of the lens reaches the digital camera's sensor, resulting in a sharper image from edge to edge.

So should you forget about those DSLR specific lenses and only used 35mm lenses? Absolutely not! Though you can get away with it most of the time, there will be times when a DSLR specific lens has it's advantages. First of all a DSLR lens is smaller, so there is less material involved reducing the cost of the lens to a certain degree. This also means that DSLR only lenses can weigh less than their 35mm counterparts, something to consider if using the lens for extensive travel or all day carry. Wide angle DSLR only lenses are usually considerably less costly than that of a 35mm wide angle lens. The DSLR only wide angle lens will most likely give better results, since it's special coatings and the careful alignment of the internal elements will do a better job of reducing chromatic aberrations (color-fringing) than the 35mm lens would. Again, a digitally optimized 35mm lens would be a fine choice too, if you don't mind the extra size and weight of the lens, this is especially true when considering telephoto lenses in the 200mm or longer range which can get quite bulky and cumbersome.

Basically, the choice is yours to make. Which lens meets your needs and budget? What is more important to you, image quality or portability? Are you keen-eyed enough to notice the differences? Do you really need the critical sharpness of a pro-lens for what you are photographing, or will a consumer-grade lens be more than sufficient for your needs? Unless you are shooting for absolute detail, the slight softness of a consumer lens will not matter nor be noticed. Aunt Hilda might actually prefer the softness imparted from a consumer lens used to take her informal portrait at the latest family gathering, because the fine lines and wrinkles on her face might not be recorded with the tack-sharp detail a high-end lens might capture. Most amateur photographers do not have the trained eye to notice minor differences in sharpness and clarity of detail, or pick up on minor aberrations, while professionals can sometimes be overly critical and demanding of the image quality. Notice that most DSLR specific lenses are consumer grade, while pro lenses are normally 35mm/DSLR interchangeable (digitally optimized) lenses. Also consider that the majority of brand name consumer-level lenses still have better optical properties than the professional lenses of 40 years ago. Again, the average casual viewer (or customer for that matter) will not be able to tell the difference between a photograph taken with a $150 consumer lens or a $1,000 professional lens. Only a trained eye knows what to look for in most instances.

When it all comes down to it, the camera is only as good as the lens that is put on it and the photographer whom is using it. The best camera in the world won't take decent pictures if the lens is of poor optical quality or the photographer lacks the proper skills necessary to take quality photographs that go beyond the average snapshot. A Nikon D70 with a consumer-grade Nikkor DX lens will take images of better quality than the average amateur photographer could ever hope for. On that same token, a Nikon D70 with a pro-grade Nikkor lens will take even better photographs. That same D70 with a pro-grade lens will produce sharper and better images than an expensive pro-level Nikon D2Xs with a cheap consumer-grade lens. Match the lens to the situation, and remember it's the camera's job to provide the specific exposure readings and to capture the image, while it's the lens' job to provide the image to the camera, and it's your job to make sure everything is composed properly and to skillfully use the equipment you have. And yes, skill has a lot to do with it. One last thing to consider: Most pros with that same consumer grade $700 Nikon D70 and cheap zoom lens can usually take better photos than your average amateur with a $4,500 Nikon D2Xs and expensive pro lens could ever dream of doing. This is why I laugh whenever I see the soccer-mom/receptionist/whatever amateur photographer using high-dollar equipment to take snapshots at the fair. It's like owning a Lamborghini for an everyday grocery-getter; it's both unnecessary, impractical, and serves no logical purpose. It's also more likely to get stolen (i.e. ripped off your neck) than the person 5 feet away with a cheap point-and-shoot, since all "soccer mom" is doing is trying to show off how much money she has to blow while she takes her crappy snapshots that will turn out looking just as bad as those taken by the person with the cheap point and shoot. In fact, the person with the cheap point and shoot camera might actually take better pictures because maybe he just happened to use the money he saved buying it, instead of a pro-level DSLR, to take some photography courses.

My advice: Work on your skills first, and don't worry about equipment details until you have the necessary abilities to take advantage of those differences.

Ten Things To Keep In Your Vehicle

I'd like to make a discussion of ten things you should never be without in your vehicle. Okay, so there are actually more than ten things, but I've lumped them into ten basic groups for the sake of convenience. Too many people today travel unprepared, whether it be a trip across the country or even just across town. I'll give you a list of these items and why they should be important to you. Some of the things would seem pretty obvious, but I guess not, considering the fact that I've dealt with more than a few individuals who were totally clueless.

1. Spare Tire with jack and lug wrench, tire plug kit, small pliers, 12-Volt compressor: Make sure that you have one on a wheel that fits your vehicle, and make sure it's properly inflated and in good condition! This is one of those "should be common sense" things, but it's amazing how many people don't have this. Case in point - a young man comes limping to my house on a flat tire asking if I had a jack and lug wrench he could use to put on his spare tire with. Sure, I grab a jack and lug wrench out of the garage and help him out. He drags his spare out from under the bed of his pickup, and I about choke when I see it. First, his spare is flat too. A quality dial gauge confirmed, less than 5 psi in the tire. Second, the spare had such bad dry rot that he wouldn't have gotten more than 5 miles on it before blowing out the sidewall. Luckily he hadn't ruined his flat tire limping to my house on it. It was dirt roads all the way and the lack of weight from the empty pickup bed saved the rim from being destroyed, as well as keeping it from cutting through the sidewall. I found the hole in the tread and was able to plug it for him and get him on his way.

Lessons he learned (some from the experience, some I clued him in on):
A. Having a spare tire does no good if you don't have a jack and lug wrench.
B. Having a spare tire does no good if it is rotten and/or flat.
C. Driving on a flat can potentially destroy both the wheel and the tire.
D. Always check the air in your tires monthly and inspect for obvious damage.
E. If you carry Fix-A-Flat in your vehicle, keep it out of the passenger compartment. If it explodes it will destroy your interior.
F. Get a tire plug kit, small pliers, and 12-Volt air compressor to keep in your vehicle, learn how to use them so that you don't need to call for expensive road service. That way if you have more than one flat, you can possibly repair the tire yourself and be on your way in a matter of minutes.
G. Don't drive on a flat, immediately pull over and change it or risk permanently destroying not only the tire which might otherwise have been repairable, but also can destroy the wheel.

2. First Aid Kit: Never go anywhere without one of these. The darndest things can happen when you least expect it. Keep OTC pain-pills/anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofin in the kit, as well as an assortment of bandages and first-aid ointment. It's also a good idea to keep a bottle of Ocean in there to clean minor wounds or flush out eyes with. Ocean is a saline solution comprised of distilled water and salt content that equals that of human body fluids such as blood or tears. It will not burn, but can effectively rinse dirt or other particles out of minor wounds or the eyes when other sources aren't immediately available. Also in the first aid kit you will want to carry: tweezers, scissors, alcohol pads, sanitary napkins, burn cream, bee-sting kit, sterile gauze pads, ace bandage, instant-ice pack (gets very cold through chemical reaction when you knead the sealed package), sterile latex gloves, and a first aid book. Also throw in any other items you might think would be handy.

3. Camera: Yes, a small inexpensive camera. It would be best to get a small inexpensive digital camera as opposed to a film camera. Film will go bad very quickly in the heat of a parked car. Be sure to check the batteries at least once a month. You never know when you might need to take pictures. For instance, if you are involved in a traffic accident, you can document the damage to both your vehicle and the other person's vehicle for insurance purposes, as well as have possible evidence to contest any false claims. Also, you never know when you might drive by something interesting that you want to take a snapshot of. There are great photographic opportunities or newsworthy events that go missed every day because no one had a camera handy.

4. Blankets, towels, and extra clothing: Blankets come in handy during the cold months if you break down and need to stay warm. But what may go unrealized is that in the warm months, the blanket can come in handy to keep your nice clothes clean if you have to crawl around in the dirt to change a flat tire. Towels come in handy if you have a spill and need to dry the puddle in your seat, or if you get wet and need to dry off (duh!). But towels can also come in handy in a medical emergency. Remember the scissor in your first aid kit? cut a long strip from the towel and use the lug wrench you need to change that flat tire, and you have an improvised tourniquet. Reverse the order and you have a small makeshift splint. The use for an extra change of clothing is fairly self-explanatory.

5. Rain Gear: Whether a small disposable poncho or a full out rainsuit, you never know when you might have an unexpected rainshower or have to change a flat tire in the rain.

6. Flashlight: Comes in handy when you need to see in the dark. Check your batteries at least once a month.

7. Toilet Paper: Sometimes you just gotta head for the trees when there's no sign of civilization around. Also handy if you can't find an attendant at a pit-stop to replace the empty roll in that nasty public restroom. Also great in a pinch for cleaning smudges off the ol' eye-glasses, or that annoying handprint junior put right smack in the middle of the windshield.

8. Leather Work Gloves: Can save a few knuckles from getting bloody when the lug wrench slips off the lugnut that grease-monkey at the tire shop put on too tight because he was overzealous with the impact wrench. Can keep your hands warm in the winter too when changing that tire, or help keep those nice manicured nails from getting all greasy and gunked up.

9. Pen & Paper: Comes in handy when you want to write something down.

10. Spare Change: Use for unexpected toll booths, pay phones, or parking meters.

Cleaning a Marlin .22 Rimfire Rifle

Here again, I find myself dispelling a myth circulating around various shooting circles. This time I will be dealing with the basics of how to clean a Marlin .22 rimfire rifle, but first the crap going around that all these new, and even some experienced shooters are buying into. It goes something like this: "If you have a Marlin rimfire, don't ever clean the barrel until it gets so bad that your groups open up, since Marlins don't aren't accurate if they're clean. When shooting a new brand or style of ammo, shoot at least 100 rounds before checking accuracy so the barrel will become stabilized for that particular round." That is pure and utter B.S. in it's entirety.

The Marlin rimfire rifles are extremely accurate right out of the box, in fact they are generally as accurate as custom rimfires costing hundreds of dollars more. What Marlin has done is give the .22 caliber barrels 12 lands and grooves instead of the customary 6, and it works splendidly. Just like any other gun though, one must find through trial and error what particular fodder that his/her particular rifle prefers.

Have the laws of physics been changed specifically for the Marlin .22's making them different from all other guns? Point of fact is, all rifles perform their best and shoot most accurately (when using the proper ammunition that the particular gun shoots best) when the barrel is clean. No gun shoots better when it's barrel is dirty, not grungy, not fouled with copper, lead, plastic, powder, carbon, or other gunk.

Essentially what is happening is as one shoots, the barrel becomes fouled with carbon, unburned powder, lead, (sometimes copper) and bullet lube. As the barrel becomes fouled, the interior dimensions obviously change, becoming tighter and tighter, which can make some ammo fit the bore better for a short time, making it seem accurate, until the barrel becomes so gunked up that it starts sizing the bullet, and that's when accuracy really starts to take a nose-dive. Some rimfire shooters, when testing ammo, don't clean the barrel between ammo changes, so they aren't really going to find out what shoots best in their rifle. They think they are, but in essence all they are getting is false results based on a barrel that is getting dirtier and dirtier, instead of giving each type of ammo a fair shake with a clean barrel free of fouling.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to shoot a particular bullet at least a hundred times before hoping it starts shooting more accurately. When it comes time to clean, I don't want to have to shoot another hundred or so rounds to refoul the barrel so it will shoot tight groups again. It just sounds ridiculous! I want a bullet that shoots as accurate from the first shot after cleaning until the shooting session ends and I clean my rifle again. I expect that from my centerfire guns, and my rimfire Marlin is no different.

So don't listen to the "don't clean your Marlin" crowd, they're spouting total nonsense.

How did the rumor get started? A famous gunwriter once wrote (wrote several times actually), that with modern non-corrosive rimfire ammo, cleaning a rimfire barrel can do more harm than not cleaning it. Point of fact, if cleaned properly, it is not damaging to the rifle. What is damaging is cleaning your rifle from the muzzle instead of the breech, without a rod-guide, which can damage the crown. A cheap aluminum rod can collect grit and become embedded in the rod, scratching the rifling. Over use of abrasive and corrosive solvents can lessen the life of a barrel. To fix this though, use the proper products. Use a one piece stainless steel rod, and if you must clean from the muzzle, use a rod-guide. Use non-abrasive and non-corrosive solvents. Follow proper cleaning procedures recommended by the manufacturer. Another point to consider, non corrosive or not, powder fouling still attracts and holds moisture which can cause rust and pitting. The only thing standing between that moisture and your barrel is a little lead fouling, maybe.

My main point, for those of you who got lost in my rambling, is this: Buy a few boxes of several different types of ammo for your rifle. Clean your barrel when changing ammo, so you are starting off on even footing with each new brand or type of bullet. This will be the proper way to tell which ammo your rifle prefers. When done shooting for the day, clean and lubricate your rifle thoroughly before storage. Once you find what ammo your rifle likes best, you can rest assured it will perform admirably from the first shot out of a clean barrel until the end of the shooting session.

Slam-Fires and the Remington 700

There is a growing rumor going around both the internet forums and many shooting circles about the Remington 700 action being very prone to slam-fires. It seems everyone knows someone who knows someone who has had their model 700 slam-fire, almost killing them or someone else in the process. Interesting thing is, no one seems to have ever had this happen to themselves. Think about it!

Let's put this rumor to rest right now. Slam-fires are not common for the Remington 700 series of rifles. If you have a factory original 700 that slam-fires (which is quite rare), call Remington and arrange to have your rifle repaired.

I am not saying that slam-fires cannot happen. They do, and 99% of the time, it is because the the rifle is mis-handled, or improperly modified. Let's see what can contribute to slam-fires and what you can do to reduce the possibility of a slam-fire:

• When operating the bolt, do not slam the bolt forward when loading a round into the chamber. This is hard on the rifle, an unnecessary abuse. When operating the bolt, use a smooth motion with only enough force to chamber the cartridge.
• Do not over-lighten the trigger pull. This is the main reason people do have slam-fires. They work the trigger over improperly, or reduce the pull so that it is too light. When combined with the afore-mentioned habit of slamming the bolt closed on a live round, guess what happens? The jarring of the bolt being closed too hard is enough to cause the sear to release, and walla, a slam-fire happens. So, if you have had any trigger work done, pay special attention to the line above.
• Over-lubrication. Yes, you read it right. The trigger mechanism is precision crafted, with tight and exacting tolerances. A small drop of lube at key points is all that is needed to keep things working smoothly. Too much oil can gum up the works as well as become too thick a buffer between parts, changing the overall fit of the parts.
• Some dummy wasn't paying attention and had something caught inside the trigger guard when cycling the action, pulling on the trigger as the bolt closed. The person using the rifle doesn't want to admit his mistake, so he blames the incident on a slam-fire.
• Non-qualified gunsmiths or poor quality gunsmithing has screwed up your rifle making it dangerous. Even the best gunsmiths can make mistakes too. If it started slam-firing after a trip to a gunsmith, that's a pretty obvious clue that many people seem to overlook.

Don't be afraid of shooting that Remington 700 rifle! Millions of these rifles have been produced, and the 700 action is relied upon by both military and law-enforcement. If there was a serious design flaw or defect causing all these slam-fires, these government entities would be looking to someone else for their rifles.

A clean, well maintained rifle is far less likely to malfunction than one that is dirty, poorly maintained, roughly handled, etc. Take care of your guns and they will take care of you.

Ruger 77/50

I blame the gunrag writers for the failing sales of the Ruger 77/50 which ultimately led to it's early and unfortunate demise. Most of the writers, so it seems, were biased against the 77/50 without giving it a fair chance. It seems most of them shunned it, calling it a poorly planned "me too" entry into the muzzleloading rifle world. And why? Here are the three main reasons:

1. It is based on their strong and popular 77 series centerfire rifles, instead of having been created from the ground, up.
2. It has integral scope ring mounts built into the receiver.
3. It is not rated for the latest fad of magnum powder charges.

As for basing the gun on a center fire rifle, Remington did the same thing, with the 700 ML, as has Savage with their 10ML-II. Why the writers chose to pick on Ruger and not the others for doing this is beyond me.

Now, I would just like to note that this is a modern inline muzzleloader. I have noticed that most people end up putting low-powered scopes on their modern inlines, unless state law forbids them for hunting. All Ruger did was make it easier for the consumer to do this, like they always have. They were even kind enough to throw in a set of matching scope rings with the gun. It's worth mentioning that the receiver is also drilled and tapped to accept a receiver sight, which is what I am planning on putting on mine in the near future, unless a good deal on a fixed power Burris scope comes along.

Next I will attempt to address the non-magnum power rating of the Ruger. It is rated for a maximum charge of 120 grains of black powder, not the magnum 150 grains that's all the rage lately. Now, I'm not sure how many people have really sat down and realized that a good hunting charge for a .50 caliber projectile is usually around 70 to 100 grains of black powder or suitable black-powder substitute like Hodgdon's popular Pyrodex line. Any thing over 100 or so grains, substantially increases recoil, while the gains in velocity and energy are minimal. There is only so much powder that can be burned in a barrel, and the rest gets blown out with the blast, unburned, but adding to the weight of the load being discharged, therefore increasing recoil. This is fine for those who like to be needlessly abused by excessive recoil, but I personally choose to submit myself to as little recoil as is necessary to accomplish the task at hand.

Why the magnum craze then? Simple, one hand washes the other, right? The same thing is happening in the centerfire rifle world, magnum everything. It has simply followed into the muzzleloading world. People rush out and upgrade to magnum rated firearms, and in turn, have to buy propellant for these guns more frequently. Everyone benefits except the consumer's bank account.

In any event, thanks to the gunrag gurus, this spelled the unfair demise of the well built Ruger 77/50. Some even go so far as to claim ignition problems plagued the 77/50. Now think about this: if a product is plagued by a known defect or problem, it gets around quickly. The message boards on the internet will be filled with chatter about it. Not so with the 77/50, only a few postings on any of the thousands of websites have any reference to ignition problems. Why? Because it's the exception, not the rule. The culprit is the breechplug nipple is a minute bit oversized, making the percussion cap hard to seat. A simple fix, just polish the nipple and everything is good. If that's not your cup of tea, Ruger offers breech plugs that convert the rifle for use with musket caps. Cabela's has a 209 shotshell primer conversion kit. In essence, you now have your choice of the three popular inline ignition methods at your disposal for the 77/50.

The 77/50 is a fine gun. The medium length 22" barrel makes the rifle fast handling, a dream to carry in brushy or heavily wooded areas, while being plenty long enough to provide more than enough bullet velocity to get the job the done. The version I have is the All-Weather version, with a stainless steel receiver and barrel, and synthetic stock. The synthetic stock is very rugged, not at all like the cheap feeling, lightweight, flex-o-matic synthetic stocks slapped on other brands. The fit and finish of the rifle is top notch, which is to be expect from an arms maker such as Sturm, Ruger and Company, Inc.

My main complaint about this rifle is the synthetic ramrod. I do not like it very well. The bullet pusher/jag end is not removable. The handle end is threaded for ramrod accessories, but as such, one cannot leave an aftermarket bullet starter for their favorite bullet attached to the ramrod. To put the ramrod back into the thimble and through the stock, the ramrod has to be free from any accessories. This is not convenient at all for those who insist on shooting spitzers from sabots. I'm not a fan of the plastic tipped bullets anyways, I'll stick with flat-nosed conicals, thank you very much, and for that, the factory supplied jag on the ramrod works like a charm. I would still have much preferred a solid aluminum ramrod to the flexible synthetic one supplied.

The breech-plug wrench supplied with the gun is too small to fit over the breech-plug by a hair. I had to spend a whole 30 seconds with the dremel to polish enough metal off the wrench to make it fit right. It should have fit right from the beginning, and had I gone directly to the range without checking fit first, I would have been very upset.

These complaints are minor though, and should by no means be a deal-breaker on this strong, good-looking, and well built front-stuffer. The MSRP is around $600, they were selling for about $450, but can be had for around the $200 mark, new in box, if you know where to look. I picked mine up for $210 out the door, and can honestly say this muzzleloader is a literal steal at that price. For the quality it would have been worth paying full retail price, but I'm glad I didn't have to.

.30-30 Winchester aka .30 WCF

I find it somewhat amusing that so many people believe the historic .30-30 Winchester cartridge is an under-powered, useless round. It seems that these days of most everyone being magnum-crazed, anything without the magic "M" word is obsolete. Nay-Sayers would panic you into believing that anything human or deer would be impervious to the .30-30 cartridge, and that the bullet would just magically bounce off the skin, leaving no damage.

First of all, the .30-30 was America's first smokeless powder rifle cartridge, but it got it's name because it was originally developed to be a .30 caliber round pushed by 30 grains of black powder. Synonymous with the .30-30 Winchester cartridge is the gun that was made to fire the first smokeless powder rifle cartridge, the Winchester model 1894, later to become known as simply the model 94. The Winchester lever-action repeating rifle, first chambered for the .30-30 in 1895, set the world hunters and lawmen alike on their ears. Never before had these men seen such a flat-shooting, powerful, recoil-friendly rifle in a compact, easy to carry repeating rifle.

Over the course of the smokeless powder cartridge, no other round can claim to have taken as much game as the .30-30 Winchester round. If it was good enough then, it is still good enough today. The .30-30 has more than enough power to quickly and humanely kill deer sized game, as is proven by the sheer numbers of deer taken with this more than adequate chambering. Most wounded deer that run off and are never recovered are normally blamed on the cartridge being too under-powered, but truth be known, it was most likely shooter error rather than bullet failure. When placed in the vitals, a 150 or 170 grain bullet from the .30-30 is just as deadly as any other bullet. The current crop of bullets, as has been for decades, are well engineered to provide adequate penetration and reliable expansion at velocities common to the .30-30 Winchester. Quite frankly, deer haven't evolved into bullet-proof hided animals, but are still relatively thin-skinned game as they have always been. And they sure don't strut around in the woods wearing ballistic body-armor. And speaking of such, read on...

The .30-30 cartridge is powerful enough to penetrate through any soft body armor, as well as some with steel trauma plates. This kind of kills the Nay-Sayers' theories about the .30-30 being a poor man stopper. I can assure you it is quite a bit more effective than most any handgun cartridge would be. It makes a perfect defensive arm where over-penetration is not a problem, such as on a farm, where neighbors are nowhere near.

Now I'm not trying to make the .30-30 sound like the perfect cartridge, for it is not. Like anything else, it does have it's limitations. At best for the average shooter, it is a 100 to 150 yard gun, while practiced and capable marksmen can stretch that to around 200 yards, which even at that range, the bullet has enough energy to kill a deer quickly and efficiently. However, much past that, it loses too much energy to expand or penetrate reliably, and it's more rainbow-like trajectory (compared to more modern cartridges) make hitting on target difficult for all but the most seasoned shooters. This is a woods or brush cartridge mostly, not best for a shot across the valley from one ridge to another. That's where the faster, flatter shooting modern bottleneck cartridges with spitzer tipped and boat-tail based bullets really shine. But anything under 150 yards, a shot in the boiler-room from a .30-30 will on a deer or, dare I say elk, make the critter just as dead as would a .300 Winchester Magnum.

Most rifles chambered for the .30-30 Winchester are lever action rifles, such as the recently discontinued Winchester model 94 series of rifles and the Marlin model 336 series of rifles. Available in barrel lengths ranging from 26" to 18", with 20" barrels being the most common. Both tradition straight gripped, and pistol gripped rear stock versions are available, and on average these guns weigh around 7 or 8 pounds. The Winchesters tend to be a bit lighter weight than Marlins, thus the Winchester offers up slightly more felt recoil. Having owned and shot both versions extensively, a 1964 Winchester 94 Antique, and a 1987 Marlin 336CS, I can tell you that both are quick handling guns, and the recoil is not unmanageable, nor unpleasant in either rifle. Either one would make a wonderful hunting gun for deer or hog where long range shots past 150 yards are not expected.

A few words on yardage, camouflage, and hunting skills: Most hunters do NOT have any type of range-finding devices with them on their hunts, and most stories about those 300 yard shots are greatly exaggerated. In the woods, when buck fever sets in, that 300 or 400 yard shot is more likely to have actually been around 100 or 150 yards. Even with a high-powered, long-range, magnum caliber, mega-scoped rifle, most shooters can't accurately hit anything deer sized from further away than about 200 yards maximum, and most shots at deer present themselves at under 100 yards. Another thing to consider, knowing and hunting with a limited-range rifle will make you a better hunter. You will learn to be quieter in the woods, you will learn how to approach and stalk your game animal. You will learn to use your senses more efficiently, and learn how to better control your body as a whole. In short, you will learn to do more than just align the crosshairs on your target, you will learn to actually HUNT, and for your effort, you will have experiences and skills that far surpass the average Elmer Fudd clomping through the woods decked out in the latest fashion-camo and blaze orange vest. Honestly, camo is a crock that makes the hunter feel better and more concealed, but it's downside is that extra feeling of concealment usually leads to a false sense skill in stealth. I've hunted in red flannel shirts, and denim blue-jeans all my life and have had deer walk right by me within arms reach, without paying me any mind. You really don't need all that over-priced fashion-camo stuff, unless you just want to blow your money on it.

Now back to the main topic: RCBS lists the .30-30 Winchester in the top ten among die sales. Wherever ammo is sold, .30-30 seems to be a good seller. Interesting, considering no one seems to want to admit to owning or shooting one. It seems almost taboo to speak of ever having or currently owning one. Over 5,000,000 Winchester 94's have been sold since it's introduction, and who knows how many of the other brands. For such a laughed at and scorned cartridge, sales seem to be rather brisk. Lots of people are buying them, but no one is admitting to it. It's time to get over the magnum cartridge fad and realize that just because it doesn't go 3 or 4 times faster than the speed of sound, doesn't mean it's useless and obsolete.