STEPHEN CAMP - BHP & GLOCK 17

The Hi Power and the Glock 17

By Stephen Camp

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

It is no secret that my favorite 9mm pistol has been the Browning Hi Power and that either it or a 1911 pattern pistol is my most often used pistols at the range. Before retirement as a police officer my duty sidearm was either a Hi Power 9mm or a 1911 in .45 ACP. These guns are the ones I "teethed" on when I started shooting seriously circa 1969-1970. I've never been without at least one of each example since.

So the question is raised: If you have nirvana with the Hi Power, why look at anything else, especially a "plastic pistol?"

For me the Hi Power has been the 9mm for over 3 decades, but something gnawed at me to really try and give the Glock an honest try.

For me the reason is simply that I enjoy shooting handguns. Though the bulk of my personal handguns are either DA/SA revolvers or single-action autos, I do have a few conventional DA/SA semiautomatics as well as some that offer cocked-and-locked capabilities if desired. It is also my observation that the Glock is as popular with many of this generation's 9mm shooters as the Hi Power was with mine.

With the immense popularity of this handgun, I thought it might be of interest to honestly compare these pistols straight up and down the line, being as objective as possible. Obviously there will be some subjective comments, but I will identify them as such.

Taking a look at the Glock 17 compared to the Hi Power hit me shortly after I completed A Critical Look at the Glock 17, which is located here for those who might be interested:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Critical%20Look%20at%20the%20Glock%2017.htm

The simple fact of the matter was that I could not really do this until I practiced more with the Glock. Decades of using the Browning-inspired Hi Power (and 1911) had taught my hand and wired my brain to accept only those pistols' very similar grip angles as "correct." Invariably I would find my sights way high when trying to draw and shoot the Glock at speed. I was also not able to get quite as tight of groups at distances beyond about 25 yards and those shot at 25 yards and under required more "work" to achieve. Since I had purchased the Glock 17 primarily to be a "loaner gun" for concealed handgun students, I'd shot it a bit now and then, but never really got "serious" with it.

It hardly seemed "fair" to try and compare a seldom used "loaner pistol" to one I'd used extensively for decades. Conclusions might be drawn from faulty input.

To try and correct this, I spent more than a few range sessions with the Glock 17 exclusively and some shooting it and either a 9mm Hi Power or a .45 1911. Checking back on my notes this involved roughly 1100 rounds through the G17, some handloaded "hotties" and some factory-loaded FMJ bought at good prices.

Slowly but surely, I found that my sights were closer to being "on" with the Glock at speed with practice. Much practice of the presentation or draw was performed at home and then at the range. Starting out I would draw and fire one shot as quickly as I accurately could, then controlled pairs, and so forth. After a month or so, it felt like second nature. I still had to exert more mental effort when trying for precise groups with the Glock than with the Hi Power and especially a tuned 1911. The 3.5-lb trigger just doesn't work for me and I continue to use the standard factory trigger spring in my G17. That is subjective and a personal preference. I am aware that many others do like the lighter trigger pull or go the other way and use various spring combinations including the "NY Trigger." I see no "right or wrong" answers here, as each of us will have our own preferences. (With the light trigger the pistol will be less forgiving of inadequate safe handling practices than it already is, but should constitute no problem for those capable of consistently safe practices.)

Whether it was because I shot them occasionally at the same sessions as the G17 or just from decades of previous use, I did not have any problem staying "on" with either the Hi Power or the 1911. For me, shooting the G17 heavily did not "ruin" me for the other two. I cannot say that this will hold true for others, but such was my experience. (I did find myself wiping off an imaginary thumb safety when drawing and shooting the Glock quickly now and then, but didn't find the reverse to be true; in no instance did I "forget" to disengage the thumb safety at speed with either the Hi Power or 1911. Will this hold true for everyone? I flat don't know. If you use the Glock predominantly and over a lengthy time-span but carry one of the more traditional single-action autos now and then, it might be a good thing to check just to be sure. If it happens to you, shoot the single-action until it doesn't or make a hard decision and go exclusively with one or the other.)

Both of these 15-yard groups were fired from a rest. Though they are similar in size, getting the one with the Glock 17 required considerably more effort than when shooting the Hi Power.

To me the Glock 17 and the Hi Power fill the same niche in service style sidearms and each has its strong and weak points. I believe that this is probably true with anything conceived and created by man. With the advent of the Mk II Hi Powers and the factory-throated barrels, the old saw that Hi Powers are picky about ammunition simply has not proven true for me over several years with more than a few Mk II and Mk III pistols. Glocks are renowned for their reliability in most cases. If we put one up against the other, I don't know which might require cleaning to continue flawless operation. For whatever reasons, I just almost always break down and clean my autos after 700 to 800 shots when trying to check this out. If the Glock will shoot more rounds than the Hi Power before crud induces malfunctions or vice-versa, I really couldn't care less for I always clean my pistols after any shooting sessions. Before I purchased the Glock, I frequently loaned a Mk III for concealed handgun students who needed an automatic to qualify with. Neither gun jammed or malfunctioned for any of the "loanees" despite my having seen some who could make an anvil malfunction!

Empty, the Glock weighs nearly half a pound less than the all-steel Hi Power. While this difference shrinks a tad if both guns are loaded to full capacity, it is only decreased by the additional weight of four 9mm cartridges if both guns are loaded with the same ammunition. This assumes that conventional magazines are used since the G17 will hold eighteen shots compared to the P35's fourteen. I definitely find the Glock magazines easier on the skin when carried in either an OWB or IWB magazine carrier. The Hi Power magazine floor plate is of steel and has pointed corners on the rear. The Glock magazine floor plate is plastic, thicker, and has rounded edges. The Hi Power magazine "problem" can be fixed by adding either a bumper pad or carefully rounding the sharp edges…or both. (If you opt to dress down the Hi Power magazine floor plate edges, go slow and when you knock off the sharp edges, quit. The stamped floor plate is thin and folded to go over a lip on the magazine body. Nothing is gained if we file or sand too much since we just expose the lip.)

With a loose-fitting shirt or jacket, I have not found the Glock to be difficult to conceal with even a Fobus paddle holster. That said, the Hi Power is not "heavy" but I do like the Glock's reduced weight and rounded edges when carried close to the body.

Though the Hi Power shown with the G17 has had Novak sights installed, I have not found them to enhance my shooting either slow or rapid-fire over the conventional Mk III fixed sights. A couple of my Mk III pistols have them, but the rest do not and I do not foresee adding them. I'm not knocking people installing aftermarket fixed sights; what I'm saying is that for me, there has been no advantage.

On the other hand, I absolutely detest the Glock factory sights…fixed or adjustable. For me, the front sight is just too wide and I've seen the front sights on a couple of Glocks worn down when carried in a holster that contacted them! For me they simply had to go and will on any future Glocks I might own. I replaced my Glock 17 sights with fixed ones from AeroTek and have been quite pleased. (I also have them on a G26.)

Most opine that the finish on the Glock is one of the most durable and corrosion-resistant in the firearms market. At the same time, it should be noted that the matte finish on the Mk III is rustproof, as it is a baked-on epoxy. It is not as durable as Glock's tennifer finish. With considerable holster use, the Hi Power's matte finish can wear. I do not consider this a major problem as I clean my handguns regardless of their finish. While the entire exterior of the Glock is protected against corrosion, only the slide and frame are on the Mk III Hi Power. The trigger, hammer, grip screws, thumb safety, slide release and magazine button are blued and the barrel is left in the white. In my case, this is of little importance, but the Glock does have superior protection against rust or corrosion.

For me there was no advantage one pistol to the other in speed of reloading. My Glock magazines are of the "drop free" variety and the Hi Power has had its magazine disconnect removed. Magazines fall freely from either pistol. I found neither to be quicker or easier to insert a fresh magazine in than the other. I do find the Hi Power easier to drop the slide on if using the slide release lever than the tiny one on the Glock. It is my understanding that Glock doesn't recommend routinely dropping the slide by depressing what they call the "hold open" lever and I've heard folks complain of them wearing pretty quickly if this is done over time due to wear. For that reason I "slingshot" the Glock and wound up doing it with the Hi Powers and 1911 pistols when shooting them in the same sessions.

Felt recoil was equivalent for me with the 9mm Hi Power and the Glock 17. In other words, either pistol was quite easy to handle in accurate rapid-fire drills.

In slow deliberate bullseye shooting I still shoot tighter groups with the Hi Power and 1911 pistols. Whether this is due to greater mechanical accuracy or just my ability to shoot them I cannot say. (I was somewhat surprised at this because some of the tightest groups I've ever fired at 50 yards were done shooting a revolver double-action.) At distances of 50 yards and beyond either of these pistols outperform the Glock…in my hands. Glock devotees may find that just the opposite is true. I don't have a definitive answer, as I've never seen a Glock fired from a machine rest to determine its built-in accuracy potential. If this is an important aspect of handgun shooting and you really prefer the Glock, I believe that aftermarket fitted barrels can be had.

The lack of chamber support in the Glock pistol has been mentioned on several gun sites, but in 9mm I have not found this to be a real concern. All of the Glocks in 9mm that I've seen, handled or shot had plenty of case support. This has never been a concern for the 9mm Hi Power. The only instances of inadequate support that I have personally seen were from improper "throating" of the pistol. Too much steel was removed when trying to rework the ramp on Pre-Mk II pistols.

Mentioned earlier was reliability. Either the Mk III or the Glock 17 is capable of it in the extreme. I have noticed that with some foreign military surplus ammunition, the hammer-driven firing pin of the Hi Power would fire rounds that the striker-fired Glock simply would not. If memory serves, there was some Greek surplus ball imported a few years ago and almost immediately some Glock folks began experiencing failures to fire. Within a short time the importer of this ammunition advised that it was not recommended for Glock handguns. Having said that, I have never experienced a single failure to fire using any ammunition from Remington, Federal, Winchester, CCI/Speer, Fiocchi, Hirtenberger or Corbon. With ammo not having unusually hard primers I don't think there is an issue at all.

I do not routinely carry a cocked-and-locked Hi Power just stuck in my waistband sans holster, however I'd feel safer doing that with the Hi Power than the Glock. At least there is a manual safety other than on the trigger that would have to be disengaged before the trigger could move the sear from the hammer's full-cock notch, possibly firing it. It is my opinion that the "point and pull" operation of the Glock offers more potential for disaster in this regard than the traditional single-action autopistol. The "safe action" safety tab on the trigger is certainly better than nothing for a short double-action pull but in my opinion is only adequate if:

1. The pistol is carried in a holster that covers the trigger and is designed not to allow any safety strap or other part to get inside the trigger guard when the Glock is being reholstered, and

2. The Glock carrier always practices safe gun handling, particularly not putting one's finger on the trigger until ready to shoot. (Without question this should be done when using any handgun, but like a cocked-and-unlocked single-action auto, the very short "DA" trigger pull of the Glock simply doesn't suffer foolish handling well.)

Subjectively, I find the Hi Power a more comfortable pistol and more pleasing to the eye. The latter attribute carries more weight with some folks than others to be sure and probably is of no real importance if interested only in form following function. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with using a gun that can not only perform but look good too. From a purely defensive standpoint, the latter point has little merit but for folks who simply "like" handguns, it is often more a factor in what they like than might be expected.

I have so many years using this pistol and find its design so pleasing that it will almost certainly remain more of a favorite with me than the Glock. That does not mean that anyone else has to share the same opinion or make the same choice.

Both pistols have few internal parts compared to several other popular semiautomatics, something I consider a plus simply because there is less to potential go wrong. Each is quite easy to either field or detail strip when necessary.

Though neither pistol seems to lend itself to as extensive customization as the 1911, either can be customized to meet the individual user's personal needs…be they real or imagined. In my observation, there are enough such options available for the Hi Power and Glock handguns, that 99.99% of real needs can be met.

Out of the box, I have to bob the Hi Power hammer spur or fit a C&S Type I ring hammer and sear to avoid hammer bite. The Glock is good to go in that regard as it comes from the factory. Neither usually has what I'd call a stellar trigger pull without work, but I admit that tuned 1911 triggers tend to spoil. Some Hi Power users like the magazine disconnect while others such as myself routinely remove them. The Glock comes with no such device. Mercifully, neither comes with forward slide serrations but either can have them via custom gunsmith work if desired.

Though the grip angle on the Glock is not to my liking compared to the Hi Power, it certainly offers good purchase with the front and rear grip strap checkering molded in as well as the finger grooves. The polymer frame's textured surface is also superior for use with wet or sweaty hands than the slick blue, hard chrome, or matte finish on the Hi Power. This is often remedied with stippling, (fine) checkering, or a simple piece of skateboard tape.

Some complain about the Glock being wider than the Hi Power. While true, I have not found it to constitute a real world problem in concealment. The main problem I've found is that if trying to tote a pistol in an IWB holster in pants that just are not big enough in the waist, the problem is amplified with the thicker Glock. Get pant sizes commensurate with a Glock and an IWB holster and there's no problem I can find.

The Hi Power has a conventionally rifled barrel. The Glock's is polygonal and said to boost bullet velocity and there may be some truth to this. The table below shows some common loads that were fired from both a Hi Power with its 4.66" barrel and the Glock 17, which has a 4.49" tube. The average velocity is based on 10 shots fired 10' from the chronograph screens.

9mm Average Velocities from Glock 17 & Mk III Hi Power

Load:	Hi Power Ave. Velocity (ft/sec):	Glock 17 Ave. Velocity (ft/sec):
Aguila 65-gr HP	1537	1668
Glaser Silver 80-gr. +P	1573	1605
Corbon 100-gr. Powerball +P	1473	1505
Hirtenberger 100-gr. JSP	1348	1353
Corbon 115-gr. DPX +P	1244	1228
Corbon 115-gr. JHP +P	1411	1413
Corbon 125-gr. JHP +P	1312	1320
Winchester 127-gr. +P+	1269	1288
Remington 147-gr. Golden Saber	1033	1016

Only twice did the Hi Power's longer conventionally rifled barrel outperform the shorter polygonal rifling of the Glock and then only by a very few feet per second. In no instance was there a significant difference in bullet speeds, most being well within the shot to shot variations of a given round. Still, the Glock is using a shorter barrel and running neck and neck with the Hi Power so I am pretty sure that at least with jacketed bullets, the polygonal rifling is playing a positive role.

When it comes to using lead bullets, the common wisdom is not to shoot them in Glock handguns. I have done so, but only in limited numbers (under 200 per session and only with hard cast bullets) and rigorously cleaning of the Glock barrel always followed. The idea is that the polygonal rifling "smears" the lead until it coats the interior of the barrel and kicks pressures dangerously high or prevents subsequent cartridges from fully seating due to the leading build-up near the chamber engaging the bullet too soon. (Aftermarket match barrels with conventional rifling are available for Glockers wishing to use cast bullets.) For most, it is a non-issue with jacketed 9mm ammunition being plentiful and relatively inexpensive.

It is true that the Glock can be fired with the slide not fully forward. I have not personally seen it happen when using any ammunition but IF you opt to do cast bullet shooting with the factory barrel, I'd keep an eye open for it just to be on the safe side. Likewise, if reloading, make sure that your homebrewed 9mm rounds are properly sized and seat easily in the Glock's chamber. (This is a good thing to do with any reloaded rounds to be used in any automatic.)

The Glock is touted as being super tough while some say never to use +P in the Hi Power. When asked if +P can be used in their pistol, Glock says, "Go right ahead." Browning does not recommend the use of +P in their pistols. I have given my observations on the use of hotter than standard ammo in the Hi Power and for those interested, they can be found here:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/BHPandHighPressureAmmo.htm

It strikes me that proponents for either pistol tend to look only at their choice's strong points and compare those to the weaker ones of the other. I've tried specifically not to do that here. Both put their best foot forward in some areas but not in all. It falls to the individual user to decide which of these areas or concern are most important to them. I still find reliability to be the most essential element in a defense gun and either the current Hi Powers or Glocks will provide this. (There can certainly be lemons from any maker, but overall, either is usually noted for dependability.)

Neither gun is represented as a match grade target pistol and neither is…but both are capable of better accuracy than are most of their owners. That I find the Hi Power easier to shoot small groups with than the Glock does not mean that such is the case for others. I have never said that the Glock 17 (or any Glock) is not capable of more than sufficient accuracy for most terror-filled, high-adrenaline deadly force encounters that are usually measured in feet, often still in the single digits!

If being able to provide maintenance to your handgun is just not in the cards due to climate or battlefield conditions, the Glock might be the better choice. Having said that I would also ask the reader to recall that for much of the last century the Hi Power was present in military and covert actions all over the globe.

If weight is a major consideration, the Glock is lighter and for some that might be the deciding point while the difference is meaningless to folks not in the same situation(s).

Some shooters report not being able to remember to wipe off the safety when firing at speed or under even a small amount of stress. Assuming that they are not willing to practice enough for this to become second nature or it just really bothers them that they might fail to do so in a fight, go with the point-and-pull Glock.

The other side of that coin might be people who simply prefer a pistol not having the safety on the trigger. Jeff Cooper once likened it to having the combination to the safe written on the door. For those, the Hi Power might win out. Some prefer a weapon that requires deliberate safety disengagement should their handgun be wrested from their grip. The idea is that their opponent might not be able to fire the pistol long enough for them to escape. We each have to make our own decisions here.

This Glock 17 is a trusted 9mm handgun and one that is on constant "duty". It remains loaded 24/7 and I would not hesitate to depend on it in a life-and-death struggle. While it will not replace my Hi Power, it will remain a viable handgun for either fun at the range or as the "final option" if no other reasonable alternative exists.

I've worked pretty hard with the Glock 17 and while it certainly will not replace my Hi Powers, it has proven itself worthy of respect as a "serious gun" in my opinion. Compared to many Glockers my round count is not high and the things seem to just work and work and work without major parts failures. Now and again a trigger spring will break. While a police firearm instructor, I saw more than a few Glocks come through training sessions and qualifications. Most worked quite well. Now and again one would break a spring and I did see one defective slide break on a new Glock 19, but such were the exceptions rather than the rule. (I've also seen several other brand name pistols go down for various reasons.)

I don't see the question as "either-or" but as which best meets my needs. I have no major problems with either and intend to own both. Would this be the right decision for you? Only you can answer that.

It is my intention to keep shooting and learning the Glock. Will it ever find a warm spot in my traditionalist mind? It already has… but it won't replace my Hi Power or 1911.

STEPHEN CAMP - BHP HAMMER BITE

MUST SEE HEBREW VIDEO - PROPHECY

http://www.torahohr.net/gogumagog/
...................................................
THE FOLLOWING IS A MOVIE EVERYONE SHOULD SEE AND YOU MUST MAKE YOUR OWN EVALUATION ABOUT THIS SHOCKING MOVIE.

GO TO - http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

DISCLAIMER AND PERSONAL COMMENTARY: I can not tell anyone what to believe or what to do, but I have my own opinions. As my health declines I will still take in trigger work for carry people or military or special ops or police in harms way. I DO NOT TEACH GUNSMITHING OF ANY KIND, all I can do is point some one in the right direction. My action work is legendary and second to none but I will take it all to the grave with me. THIS IS MY CHOICE.

I had my son eliminate all my sight work off my price list on my website. I will cut down on the no charge free painting of sights that I have always done. I WILL NOT SEAL ANY SIGHTS WITH EPOXY FOR ANYONE. I WILL NOT DO ANY WORK UNLESS THERE IS A METHOD OF PAYMENT UP FRONT. This is the way it must be done. If a person wants a copy of an old invoice you must provide me with the name and year which the work was done, nothing is computerized, its all in loose leaf books organized by year only. If you have bought a handgun that I did you must know the original owners name that the work was done under.

As for my religous beliefs, I am quite religous and have been reading HEBREW since I was 7 years old. I believe in the G-D of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, and nothing else. I spend all my spare time reading the Bible and related prophecy books, & the book of Prophets. I never read gun books or gun magazines. I will answer all emails in a timely fashion but its best to call me at 281 565 6977 as sometimes I get so many emails they get away from me.

I have gone to a great deal of trouble to provide you with things you can not find most any place else. My day starts at about 5 am, but its best to call me most any day after 10 am central time. I hope you will realize my sincerety and honesty and the quality of my work.

Thankyou,

Teddy

......................................................................................

The Hi Power and Hammer Bite

By Stephen Camp

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

The Hi Power's hammer biting the hand that holds it is not an uncommon problem for many of us. Usually, it is not all that difficult to cure.

This affliction usually occurs when the tip of the hammer spur hits the shooting hand behind the pistol's abbreviated tang. Folks who are bitten by the spur hammer will usually get the same if using the factory ring hammer which is the hammer almost always seen on the Practical out of the box.

Folks bitten by the Hi Power usually fall into three categories:

1. Those who get hit by the rear of the hammer spur or the lower rear of the factory ring hammer.

2. Those who get the web of the hand pinched by the rear of the hammer shank and tang.

3. Those who get bit for the reasons cited in both #1 and #2!

I fall in with the first group and have found that the easiest way to rid myself of this problem is to bob the hammer spur off at about the second lateral serration from the rear of the spur. This is a small amount, but it makes a huge difference for me.

The hammer on the left is factory and is stock. I bobbed the one shown on the right using a Dremel tool and a cutting wheel and then reshaped using files and stones. I then cold blued to refinish. (I heated a small amount of cold blue in a plastic cap in the microwave for a very few seconds and this did help the degreased hammer surface to take an even blue.

Here you can see the bobbed hammer atop the factory. Not much metal is removed, but the relief for me has been very well worth it. I do not find the hammer hard to manipulate with the slightly shortened spur. The miniscule loss of weight doesn't come close to causing light primer strikes. With the original mainspring, the bobbed hammer will fire any 9mm ammo I've tried and probably any in the world.

Usually taking the steps mentioned above will solve hammer bite from the Hi Power for most people. Another option is to use a C&S Type I rowell (ring) hammer. This hammer is very similar to the old "Commander" hammer seen on 1911 pistols with the ring being more circular than the FN factory ring hammer. The C&S hammer does not extend as far rearward as the factory hammer. You can see pictures of it here:

http://shop.cylinder-slide.com/clickcartpro/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?usr=50X7812909&rnd=6940588&rrc=N&cip=68.116.251.82&pg=cat&ref=20

If you pistol has a spur hammer and a good trigger pull, I'd simply bob it. If you go with the C&S ring hammer, you really need to go with their sear as well. It's harder than the factory sear and using their hammer with the factory sear does not result in a stable trigger pull for more than about 2K rounds in my experience. If you get the hammer and the sear, you will probably have to have a trigger job as well. This is considerably more expensive than just bobbing the spur or bobbing and having a trigger job done.

If you are in group #2, click to the next page after clicking on the link above to see the C&S "no bite" version of the Type I ring hammer. What it amounts to is that the shank is relieved so that the lower portion of the shank doesn't get close enough to the tang to pinch. These are sold in blue and hard chrome and sets with the hammer and sear are available.

Taking one of the approaches described above usually solves hammer bite problems for folks in groups 1 & 2. A gunsmith can also remove the lower portion of the factory ring hammer should this be desired. This is harder than it looks, especially in reshaping, and I suggest one hire a gunsmith for it. Some gunsmiths can make your existing spur or ring hammer into a "no bite" hammer like the C&S. If your pistol already has a great trigger pull, but you get pinched all of the time, this is an option that will save you the cost of a trigger job and C&S parts. The relief cut on the shank of a factory spur hammer as well as bobbing it should solve the problem for almost all the folks bitten by their Hi Powers. Ditto using the C&S parts.

If you are "lucky" enough to be one who finds no relief, several of the name Hi Power gunsmiths like Novak's, Bill Laughridge, Ted Yost, or Gartwaite (and others) can weld an extended tang onto your Hi Power. This is expensive and requires that the frame be refinished, but this will solve the problem.

The C&S Type I abbreviated ring hammer is shown on the 9mm Mk III below the CZ-75. I'm "lucky" with both guns. Despite its longer tang, I had to bob the spur hammer on the Pre-B CZ-75 to avoid hammer bite.

"NAFTA"

MUST SEE HEBREW VIDEO - PROPHECY

http://www.torahohr.net/gogumagog/

.................................................................
.................................................................

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR OR CONGRESS PERSON "NOW"

go to - www.actionsbyt.typepad.com

PREMEDITATED MERGER

Congress debate begins
on North America Union
Resolution calls for end of NAFTA superhighway, abandonment of integration with Canada, Mexico

Posted: September 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. (Photo: University of Virginia) A House resolution urging President Bush "not to go forward with the North American Union or the NAFTA Superhighway system" is – according to its sponsor Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., in an exclusive WND interview – "also a message to both the executive branch and the legislative branch." As WND previously reported, on Jan. 22 Goode introduced H.C.R. 40, titled "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada." The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ;

WND asked Goode if the president was risking electoral success for the Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP. "Yes," Goode answered. "You won't hear the leadership in the Republic Party admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer." How did he react when President Bush referred to those who suggest the SPP could turn into the North American Union as "conspiracy theorists"? "The president is really engaging in a play on words," Goode responded. "The secretary of transportation came before our subcommittee," he explained, "and I had the opportunity to ask her some questions about the NAFTA Superhighway.

Of course, she answered, 'There's no NAFTA Superhighway.' But then Mary Peters proceeded to discuss the road system that would come up from Mexico and go through the United States up into Canada." Goode is a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development of the House Committee on Appropriations. "So, I think that saying we're 'conspiracy theorists' or something like that is really just a play on words with the intent to demonize the opposition," Goode concluded. Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system:

"The Bush administration as well as Mexico and Canada have persons in the government in all three countries who want to a see a North American Union as well as a highway system that would bring goods into the west coast of Mexico and transport them up through Mexico into the United States and then in onto Canada," Goode confirmed. The Virginia congressman said he believes the motivation behind the movement toward North American integration is the anticipated profits the large multinational corporations in each of the three countries expect to make from global trade, especially moving production to China. "Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins," he argued.

"I am vigorously opposed to the Mexican trucks coming into the country," Goode continued. "The way we have done it and, I think, the way we should do it in the future, is to have the goods come into the United States from Mexico within a 20-mile commercial space and unloaded from Mexican trucks into U.S. trucks. This procedure enhances the safety of the country, the security of the country, and provides much less chance for illegal immigration." As WND reported, the Department of Transportation has begun a Mexican truck "demonstration project" under which 100 Mexican trucking companies are being allowed to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S. Previously, Mexican trucks have been limited to a 20-mile commercial zone in the United States, with the requirement that goods bound for locations in the U.S. beyond the 20-mile commercial zone be off-loaded to U.S. trucks.

WND reported last month that Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., successfully offered an amendment to the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill to block DOT from spending any federal funds to implement the truck project. Dorgan’s amendment passed 75-23, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., changed her vote to support Dorgan. By a voice vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to the DOT appropriations bill comparable to Dorgan's, designed to block the agency from using federal funds to implement the truck project.

DeFazio chairs the House transportation subcommittee that oversees motor carriers. "With the Trans-Texas Corridor, which I would say is part of the NAFTA Superhighway system, and with this NAFTA plot with the Mexican trucks just coming in and not loading off to U.S. trucks, they will just drive right over the Rio Grande and come on over into Texas," Goode argued. "A lot of these Mexican trucks will be bring containerized cargo from the west coast of Mexico where they will be unloaded in Mexican ports to avoid the fees and costs of unloading at U.S. ports." "So, when you look at the total package," he continued, "we do have a NAFTA Superhighway system already in place.

There are those in all three countries that believe we should have a North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, in my opinion takes us down that road. And I am vigorously opposed to the loss of our sovereignty." Why, WND asked, do so many congressmen and senators insist on writing and telling their constituents that they don't know anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or that SPP working groups are really just to increase our competitiveness?

"In the House, a strong majority voted to provide no money in the transportation funding bill," Goode responded. "I commend Congressman Duncan Hunter for submitting an amendment to the Department of Transportation funding bill [which] got over 360 votes that said no funds in the transportation appropriation measure, prohibiting Department of Transportation funds from being used to participate on working groups that promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership." As WND reported, Hunter's amendment to the FY 2008 Department of Transportation funding bill prohibiting DOT from using federal funds to participate in SPP working groups creating NAFTA Superhighways passed 362 to 63, with strong bipartisan support. The House approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included.

"So, I think a majority the House, if you had an up or down vote on the SPP, would vote down on the SPP," Goode concluded. "But some still say, and it's a play on words, that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership that will lead to a North American Union. I don't think they can say anymore that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership arrangement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, because that was done in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, and the recent meeting at Montebello was to talk about it further.

" WND asked Goode to comment on the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, a group of multinational corporations selected by the Chambers of Commerce in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. as the central adviser of SPP working groups. At the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, the NACC met behind closed doors with the three leaders, cabinet secretaries who were present, and top SPP working group bureaucrats, while various public advocacy groups, environmental groups, labor unions – and the press – were excluded.

Should SPP working group meetings be open to the public? "I wish they were," Goode responded. "If it is as the Bush administration says, 'We're not planning any North American Union,' then why wouldn’t those meetings be open, why wouldn’t you let the media in?" Goode asked. "But some of the very big corporations want the goods from China to come in here unchecked," he continued. "It costs money for U.S. trucks to transport Chinese goods from West Coast ports like Los Angeles or Long Beach.

But if you can have a Mexican truck and Mexican truck driver, that's going to be cheaper. And it's all about the margins. The margins relate directly to how much money the multi-national corporations are going to make." Has the Senate debate on the Dorgan amendment brought the issues of the NAU and NAFTA Superhighways more to the attention of the Senate? "I think so," Goode said. "That debate had a very positive effect. You had grassroots support calling the Senate on the Dorgan amendment.

"The Bush administration engages in the same play of words with all these issues," Goode added. "Take a look at the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform, which the Bush administration has now tried to jam through the Senate not once, but twice. "The Bush administration claims it's not [amnesty] when you let someone stay in the country and give them a path to citizenship," Goode pointed out. "Well, that's their definition, not my definition, and not the definition of the majority of the public.

The majority of the public called in and buried the amnesty bill because of public pressure. Public pressure also got de-funded the pilot program on Mexican trucks in this country." So should the U.S. pull out of the SPP? "Yes," Goode answered, "but the best way to end SPP would be to have a chief executive that wouldn't do anything with it." What does Goode think of the state legislatures that are passing anti-NAU, anti-NAFTA Superhighway and anti-SPP resolutions? "If enough state legislatures pass resolutions like that, it surely should have an impact on the House and the Senate," Goode said.

"President Bush's position is that we need to carry out NAFTA and we need to have this free flow of goods with Mexico and Canada," Goode explained. "Well, Bush's approach involves a derogation of our sovereignty and it also undermines the security and the safety of the country. "It will be much easier for a truck to get a container on the west coast of Mexico and haul in a biological or radiological or nuclear weapon than it would be if you are going to have to unload the trucks on the Texas-Mexico border and put the goods and material in a U.S. truck," he continued.

"The problem is that the NAU, NAFTA Superhighways and SPP all go back to money," Goode stressed. "The multinational companies want their goods from Mexico and China because they want the cheap labor." What about the U.S.'s large and growing trade imbalance with China? "I don't want to have to be an 'I told you so' person," Goode answered, "but I was a vigorous opponent of PNTR ("permanent normal trade relations") and before that of 'most favored nation' trade status with China.

We need tariffs and quotas with China. Personally, if I know food is coming in from China, I won't buy it. The American people with the adoption of COOL, country of origin labeling, with the food clearly labeled, I think you will see the American public will shy away from Chinese products." In 2000, Congress voted to extend to China PNTR. "Most favored nation" or MFN trade status, was given to China first in 1980 by the Carter administration. COOL rules are administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Goode concluded the interview by thanking WND for covering the SPP, NAU and NAFTA Superhighway issues: "I want to thank you for putting these issues out where people can read it," Goode said. "You have enlightened hundreds of thousands if not millions of American citizens who otherwise would have been greatly in the dark on the SPP."

STEPHEN CAMP - BHP or 1911

Browning Hi Power or 1911 for Defense?

By Stephen Camp

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

It's not unusual to find fans of the single-action automatic at this crossroad somewhere down the shooting trail. Folks who are wedded to one or the other of these classic designs wouldn't change …and that's fine. There are some for whom it presents a "dilemma". Note that I did not say a serious dilemma. That doesn't mean that it's not worthy of discussion.

I'll present some long-term observations on carrying and defensive use of these two pistols.

Reliability: Contrary to the experiences cited by some, the 1911 and Hi Power are both capable of extreme reliability. The designs are time proven to be grand. Unfortunately, execution frequently is not. Every manufacturer will have a gun slip by quality control and results in a dissatisfied customer. Out of the box, it's been my observation that the Hi Power runs more reliably than the 1911. In other words, if we get 100 new Hi Power's and the same number of 1911 pistols, I believe a greater number of the Hi Powers will operate reliably.

That said, it often doesn't take much to turn a jamming 1911 into a paragon of virtue. Either pistol can run without stuttering when set up correctly. It is not true that hundreds of dollars are required to make the 1911 operate correctly. These guns often run fine right out of the box and when they don't the fix may cost nothing or but a few bucks. Fans often spend great amounts having their 1911's customized, but this is to obtain precisely what they want and not necessarily to make the gun "work."

If you have had reliability problems with either pistol and just cannot fully trust that design again, go with the one you trust. Faith in one's equipment is an overlooked quantity in my opinion.

Caliber: If you are absolutely convinced that 9mm is just not enough for self-defense, Hi Power options are limited to forty-caliber unless you opt for a .357 SIG conversion. Obviously you can with .40, 10mm, or .45 ACP in the 1911 pattern pistol. I purposely omitted .38 Super on the caliber discussion, as it offers no more than 9mm +P in most factory loads. That's sad as it's capable of considerably more. (There is a detailed article on 9mm vs. 38 Super via this link: http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38SuperTo9mm.htm for those interested.)

If you are confident in 9mm power levels and prefer the 1911 platform, the pistol can be had in either 9mm or .38 Super. (Ammunition for the latter will be considerably more expensive.)

Size: As can be seen on the home page of this site, the Hi Power is smaller than the 5" 1911, being about the same as the Commander. Weight is less unless one goes with an aluminum alloy frame 1911 or one of the 3" compacts. I do not care for the compact versions of the 1911 that are smaller than the Commander. This is probably a minority opinion as the little guns are quite popular. Options for compact Hi Power's are extremely limited. FM offers the "Detective" and some gunsmiths will convert a full-size into one for a hefty fee. Frankly, I don't see the point as the butt on the standard Hi Power is not all that difficult to conceal and the gun's handle is usually the hard part to hide. Folks using the cut-down Hi Powers are well advised to replace the recoil springs every few hundred rounds. It seems that these things go through recoil springs far more quickly than the regular size Hi Powers.

Tangentially related to "size" is thickness. The Hi Power slide is thinner than the 1911, but the grip is thicker. Using an IWB holster for either gun, I find either easy to conceal under a loose fitting shirt, jacket or sports coat. I do find the 1911 more comfortable when pressed against my side. The Hi Power magazine floor plate is not flush and the rear corners are at 90 degrees and sharp. This may not be a problem for you, but it has been a minor one for me over the years. Using an OWB holster, no such inconvenience has been noticed. I find spare 1911 single-stack magazines more comfortable in concealed carry also.

This 9mm Hi Power has been very lightly customized and can make a very satisfactory "carry gun" if desired.

Safety: Probably the two "safety" concerns most discussed in Hi Power/1911 comparisons is the lack of the grip safety and seemingly less positive thumb safety engagement on the Hi Power. The classic Hi Powers with the small thumb safety are not a concern, but on some people using some IWB holsters, it is possible to inadvertently wipe the larger thumb safeties into the "off" position. In a proper holster, the trigger is covered so the gun is almost certainly not going to be fired inadvertently but this can be disconcerting. I have not noticed it happening nearly so much in OWB holsters.

The Hi Power and 1911 thumb safeties are tensioned in exactly opposite ways:

· A spring-loaded plunger on the 1911 fits into a detent on the 1911 safety with tension being applied from the frame-mounted plunger tube to the safety.

· The Hi Power safety has a spring-loaded plunger within the safety itself. The frame has a dimple at both the "on" and "off" positions.

More positive thumb safety engagement can be had on the Hi Power. The slide detents can be made a tiny bit deeper and reshaped or one can use a safety from Cylinder & Slide. The detent is more pointed than that on the factory version.

If you really prefer having the additional grip safety, the 1911 is the only choice between the two guns. There is no such conversion made for the Hi Power.

The thumb safety on the Hi Power contains the plunger and spring that tensions the safety either "on" or "off." In the frame "ledge" immediately in front of the thumb safety are the two detents in which the plunger rides. In most instances this is not as positive an arrangement as the 1911 thumb safety. Most report that disengaging the Hi Power safety is more "mushy" than with the 1911. The Hi Power safety blocks sear movement.

The 1911 incorporates two external safeties. The thumb safety blocks the sear while the grip safety blocks rearward movement of the trigger until depressed. The tension for the 1911 safety is via a spring within the plunger tube that is attached to the frame just above the grip and forward of the safety.

Depending on the particular version of either pistol, there may or may not be an internal firing pin safety present.

Accuracy: In the vast majority of instances, either design is capable of greater intrinsic accuracy than the shooter, particularly under the stress of a life-or-death deadly force scenario. Either pistol will usually be capable of dropping their shots at least into a 3" circle at 25 yards. For more on "Hi Power Accuracy", here is a link that might be of interest: http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Accuracy.htm

Either gun can be accurized, but in most cases, this is simply not necessary. Match barrels are available and can be fitted by competent hands for a tighter shooting gun. Done correctly, this does not reduce reliability.

More aftermarket match barrels and accuracy work is done on the 1911 than the Hi Power. Most agree that when taken to the extreme, the 1911 can be made more mechanically accurate than the Hi Power.

The 1911 pattern pistol has been refined over decades and is capable of extremely fine accuracy. It can have far more than we can use in a terror-filled life or death situation when adrenaline is flowing and we realize that we will be dead or injured in the next few seconds unless we prevail. Where the Hi Power has a non-removable barrel bushing, the 1911 often comes with a loose one. These can be replaced with fitted bushings. Used in conjunction with a fitted match barrel and a slide that is mated to the frame, the 1911 will almost always have greater mechanical accuracy than the Hi Power. How much can actually be used is another question.

If concerns about either gun's potential accuracy are a problem, dismiss it. Either is has more than enough.

This group was fired with a 1911 .45 ACP at fifty yards. Most shots would be covered with a grown man's clenched fist.

Trigger Pull: Conventional wisdom has it that the defensive pistol's trigger pull should be no lighter than about 4.5 pounds. I agree and have no problem with slightly heavier trigger pulls for such purposes. Either design can be adjusted by a competent pistolsmith to clean-breaking pulls in this range.

There is one area in which the 1911 trigger is clearly superior to the Hi Power: reset. The Hi Power trigger simply cannot be made to reset in as short a distance, as can the 1911; it just ain't in the design geometry.

In slow-fire one will never notice the difference. In rapid-fire where at least a "flash sight picture" is obtained (as in shooting "controlled pairs"), the same holds true. The problem shows up with really quick 1911 shooters doing "double taps" or "hammers". In this shooting, one sight picture is obtained and the second shot is fired from muscle memory. Practiced shooters can fire extremely fast this way and the good ones can get pretty darned good "practical accuracy." When these folks try it with a Hi Power, they frequently do not release the trigger quite far enough and don't fire the second shot. I've observed this numerous times but only with really fast 1911 fans. This is not saying that extremely fast and accurate shooting cannot be done with the Hi Power, only that the required reset is slightly longer.

Magazine Capacity: Here the 9mm wins when compared to the "normal" single-stack 1911 magazine. The Hi Power's double-stack magazine simply holds more ammunition and is compact compared to many of the "high capacity" 9mm pistols. Even the forty-caliber version holds ten shots compared to the 1911's 7 or 8 in .45 ACP. Extended 1911 magazines are available, but I've experienced varying levels of reliability with them and they're a bit hard to conceal for me if carried in the pistol. I prefer 7-round .45 1911 magazines as these work in all my 1911 pistols. The 8-round magazines work in many of them.

Frankly, I believe that under the vast majority of circumstances both guns hold sufficient ammo. It's been my observation that the first few shots are the most important ones and that we will run out of time before ammunition unless our "problem" is quickly "solved."

The 9mm Hi Power holds a total of 14 rounds with standard capacity13-shot magazines. Some are available holding 15, 17, or more shots.

Sights: A pretty fair crop of aftermarket fixed and adjustable sights exists for the Hi Power and the 1911. I see no advantage here. Sights intended for use primarily on 1911 pistols often work fine on the more petite Hi Power. There are plenty of choices available in plain black-on-black, or three-dot, and most are available with tritium inserts as night sights.

These Mk III Hi Powers have been fitted with Novak fixed sights. The same sight style can be had for 1911 pistols as well. I like the Novak sights but in truth do no better or worse with them on the Hi Power than with the factory fixed sights.

This Commander has a "melted" King-Tappen rear sight. Not as often seen as the Novak or Heine rear sights, I've found King-Tappen to be a very serviceable and have used them on Hi Powers as well. The one shown on this 1911 replaced the smaller GI-type rear sight.

Customization: Both designs lend themselves to "personalization" if desired. There will be more gunsmiths specializing in the 1911 custom work than for the Hi Power, but owners should have little problem finding a competent 'smith to work over the pistol of their choice. For defensive arms I have found that "less is better". What I'm suggesting is that we go with only that we need:

· Reliability

· Sights that are useable at speed and set up so that POA = POI at a desired distance

· Clean trigger at 4 1/2 to 5 pounds

· Acceptable accuracy (Usually nothing need be done here.)

· A gun that is comfortable to use (This may mean new grips or a wide grip safety tang on the 1911, etc. Grip straps may be checkered or stippled, or skateboard tape can be used if desired.)

For most of us factory guns in near stock condition will serve about as well as high-dollar custom guns. I like to keep my carry guns (1911 or Hi Power) relatively close to factory trim, having every feature I think I need and none that I don't. Over the long term, these have been the ones I've kept.

Conclusion: The Hi Power and the 1911 are THE choices for single-action defensive handguns. Both have legions of fans, but in the US the 1911 is still most popular. Make your decision on which one you shoot better or trust most. Don't go with the Hi Power strictly for magazine capacity unless you have a specific need; go with it because it fits you better or you can get quick, accurate hits with it more easily than the 1911. Likewise, if carrying cocked-and-locked presents a problem without a grip safety, the 1911 is the obvious choice. If a shooter simply doesn't trust anything less than .45, the decision is made by default for the 1911 pattern gun.

This magazine holds "only" 7 shots. I suggest that for most of us this will be more than enough. We will be able to deal with our adversary effectively or be out of time before ammunition runs out. The 9mm Hi Power does hold more shots between reloads, but is this a marked advantage in the real world? Sometimes, yes, but a majority of the time I don't believe it really matters.

For strictly self-defense, I prefer the 1911 in .45 ACP…but only by a very slight margin to the 9mm Hi Power. In my situation the extra shots available from the Hi Power are nice but not a major factor. I like the feel of the Hi Power and the way it shoots for me. The 9mm Hi Power remains my favorite all around, general purpose automatic. The 1911 is ever so slightly easier for me to conceal. I believe that when using the best 9mm ammunition, difference in terminal effect will be very slight if any compared to the .45 using most loads. I also believe that in its best loads, .45 ACP is more potent than the best 9mm loads. I do not believe that there is much difference at all and that it's probably not going to make any real difference on the street.

I do not see using the 1911 or the Hi Power as an "either-or" situation. I use both and appreciate these fine handguns for their abilities to deliver quick and accurate shots. Each has its weaknesses as well as its strengths. Each of us places different priorities on these and thus, our decisions will differ as to which is best. If possible try both and make your decision on what works best for you.

Either gun is capable of serving very, very well as a defensive pistol.

........................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................

OLMERT



Olmert, Aliza Ehud Elmert's leftwing, Peace Now leftwing artist wife is openly critical of his policies - and had never voted for him until this year.

Olmert, Dana Far-left and gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) daughter of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud and his wife Aliza who, with her radical leftist friends, demonstrated outside IDF Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz's home on June 10, 2006, calling him a "murderer" and, according to news reports, sang "'The Intifada Shall Prevail."

Olmert, Ehud Is this acting Israeli Prime Minister pussy-whipped by his dominatrix wife, Aliza? We think so! In a speech last summer [2005] to a dovish American group, the Israel Policy Forum, Olmert claimed that Israelis long for peace because "we are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies." This defeatist rhetoric reflects his leftist conversion... or, more specifically, his wife and daughter's. His Aliza wife is a supporter of the left-wing Meretz party and has taken part in numerous Peace Now demonstrations. One of his five children, a daughter, is an outspoken lesbian and active in Machsom Watch, a pain-in-the-ass group monitoring Israeli checkpoints in the territories. One of his sons is a deserter from the Israeli Army and is a member of the extreme leftist group called Yesh Gvul. Another son never bothered to serve in the Israeli Army and has already resides abroad. If Ehud Elmert cannot even stand up to his wife and children, how could he possibly stand up to Hamas! Now this here is some fantastic Zionist household!!!
Click Here for Michael Savage's take on Olmert!

WINCHESTER AMMUNITION RECALL

MUST SEE VIDEO www.commentsbyt.blogspot.com left click on picture of Jimmy Carter ******************************************** News and Press Releases
PRODUCT WARNING AND RECALL NOTICE: WINCHESTER® WILDCAT® 22 & WINCHESTER® XPERT® 22 Olin Corporation, through its Winchester Division, is recalling several lots of its WILDCAT® 22 (Symbol Number WW22LR) and XPERT® 22 (Symbol Number XPERT22) 22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition. Lot Numbers containing Letters: XN, YA, YB or YC Through extensive evaluation Winchester has determined the above lots of WILDCAT® 22 and XPERT® 22 ammunition may contain double powder charges. Double powder charge weight ammunition may cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable, and subject the shooter to a risk of personal injury and/or death when fired. DO NOT USE WINCHESTER® WILDCAT® 22 RIMFIRE AMMUNITION WITH LOT NUMBERS CONTAINING LETTERS XN, YA, YB or YC. The ammunition Lot Number is imprinted (stamped without ink) on the outside of the right tuck flap of the 50-round box, as indicated here: DO NOT USE WINCHESTER® XPERT® 22 RIMFIRE AMMUNITION WITH LOT NUMBERS CONTAINING LETTERS XN, YA, YB or YC. The ammunition Lot Number is imprinted (stamped without ink) on the outside of the top tuck flap of the 500-round box, as indicated here: To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Lot Number. If the Lot Number contains the letters XN, YA, YB or YC return the ammunition to Winchester via United Parcel Service (UPS). Securely pack the ammunition into a corrugated cardboard box, write “CARTRIDGES, SMALL ARMS ORM-D” on the outside, and ship to: USA Customers: Canadian Customers: Olin Corporation – Winchester Division Olin Corporation - Winchester Division Tile Warehouse C/O HSL Warehousing Powder Mill Road, Gate 4A 739 Monaghan Rd. East Alton, IL 62024 Peterborough, ON. K9J 7S4 Attention: 22LR Recall Attention: 22LR Recall International customers, please contact Winchester via the web at www.winchester.com/international22recalla. Please include your name, address, and phone number. Winchester will send you coupons good for replacement ammunition from your local Winchester dealer. This notice applies only to WILDCAT® 22 and XPERT® 22 rimfire ammunition with Lot Numbers containing the letters XN, YA, YB or YC. Other Symbol Numbers or Lot Numbers are not subject to this recall and should not be returned to Winchester. If you have any questions concerning this recall please call toll-free 866-423-5224 (U.S. & Canada), write to the above address, or visit our website at www.winchester.com. We apologize for this inconvenience. WINCHESTER Related Links: Recall FAQ ................................................................................................................ THIS IS AN ON GOING VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM: Discussion with vendors on the ammunition shortages and price increases In the past year or so, most people involved in the shooting sports have noticed a growing "ammunition crisis" which has been marked by dramatic increases in ammunition prices, and in many cases, a corresponding shortage of ammunition stocks. It is not unusual to contact vendors and find the entire surplus ammunition stock sold out, and where there is ammunition in stock, to find prices have gone up by two times or more. These shortages and price increases have been across the board, in all ammunition types, and they have been particularly noticeable for shooters who rely on surplus and military ammunition, such as factory loaded .223 for example. In the past year, the price of surplus .223 ammo has doubled or in some cases nearly tripled, to give just one example. This forum is a discussion on these shortages and prices increases. I've invited a couple of ammunition vendors--Dave, from The-armory.com, and Kola, from StarsAndStripesAmmo.com--to comment on the following questions about the ammunition crisis. I thought their inside knowledge of the industry could be particularly informative and help us learn more about some possible causes for this crisis. They have not spoken with each other, so their answers may be very different. Also, we should not expect them to have all the answers. But, they have both thought about these issues a lot, and they deal with them on a daily basis, so I thought it would be interesting and useful for us to hear their insights. And by the way, if you know of any other ammunition vendors that would like to contribute to this discussion, please invite them to join in and make a comment here as well. And it will be great to hear your questions and discussion, too. I asked Dave and Kola to send me their responses to the following basic two questions. I'm posting their complete responses below (these have not been modified in any way), which will serve as a good way to kick off our discussion. By the way, I want to thank both of these guys in advance--and I hope some of you will too--for sharing their time and insights with us. I've invited them to join in the discussion and make further comments or answer questions if they are able to. * What are the main causes of the rapid price increases, and shortages in the available supply, of ammunition over the past year? * Should we expect that these prices will eventually stabilize or return to a lower level, or should we assume that they will probably never be lower than they are, and therefore stock up on ammunition now?

THIS IS A MUST READ ABOUT THE COUNTRY YOU ARE LOSING

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR WOUNDED SOLDIERS AND TO SECURE THE WALTER REID ARMY HOSPITAL AND MODERNIZE IT AND IT SHOULD NOT BE SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF "AGENDAS" BY POLITICIANS. WE ARE LOSING THE BEST OF OUR YOUTH OVER OIL AND POWER AND MONEY BY GREEDY POLITICIANS. WHEN WILL THIS END ??

---

PREMEDITATED MERGER
Port sparks NAFTA super-railway challenge
Another national line plans 'Asian gateway' to North America

---

Posted: September 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Canadian National railway's North America logo

With the focused development of the port in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, as an official "Asian Gateway," Canadian National is positioned to compete with Canadian Pacific as the first truly continental NAFTA super-railroad, reaching from Canada to Mexico through the heart of the U.S. On Sept. 12, Canadian National used the opening of its new container terminal at Prince Rupert to declare the railroad the "Midwest Express," a reference to its ambition to move containers of good manufactured in China into the heartland of North America through distribution hubs in Chicago and Memphis.

James Foote, Canadian National's vice president of sales and marketing, boasted Canadian National could move containers from China into the U.S. Midwest more quickly through Prince Rupert than through any other West Coast port, including Los Angeles and Long Beach.

According to the Canadian National website, the now-completed Phase I development of the Canadian National Prince Rupert container terminal has a capacity to handle 500,000 20-foot containers per year, growing to a 2 million container capacity in 2010, when Phase II development of the 150-acre facility is completed.

(Story continues below)

A video on the Canadian National website bills Prince Rupert as "North America's Northwest Gateway," stressing the 54th parallel location as the closest connection with the Far East and China, "shaving 30 hours shipping time for the shortest, quickest route across the Pacific."

VIDEO: Prince Rupert as "North America's Northwest Gateway

"It's all in the numbers," Canadian National boasts, pointing out Prince Rupert is 5,286 miles from Hong Kong, while Los Angeles is 6,380 miles away. Also, Shanghai is 4,642 miles from Port Rupert but 5,810 miles from Los Angeles."

Protected by the Queen Charlotte Islands, Prince Rupert is a natural deep-water tidal harbor easily capable of handling the new class of 12,500 container-capacity post-Panamax ships now being built for China.

Canadian National railway network

The Canadian National route map can be conceptualized as a giant "T" that stretches across Canada from Prince Rupert and Vancouver in British Columbia to Halifax in Nova Scotia.

The Canadian National then crosses into the U.S. at Winnipeg and at Windsor, to complete the "T" through Detroit, Chicago and Memphis, ending up in the Louisiana Gulf Coast.

As WND reported, the route map of rival Canadian Pacific in the U.S. roughly parallels Interstate 35, while the Canadian National route map follows more the Mississippi River and roughly the proposed NAFTA superhighway route planned for Interstate 69.

A map on the Canadian National website shows containers from China will enter North America at Prince Rupert.

A secondary, southern route is shown on the Canadian National map, with Chinese containers traveling through the Panama Canal and linking up with Canadian National routes in Louisiana, or heading north into the Atlantic to connect with Canadian National in Halifax.

WND reported plans to build a deeper and wider Panama Canal are aimed at opening a route for Chinese post-Panamax container mega-ship from the Pacific to U.S. ports in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.

To complete its route map into Mexico, Canadian National has marketing agreements in place with Kansas City Southern, or KCS.

KCS's reach into Mexico qualifies it as a NAFTA railroad, but a combination between KCS and either Canadian National or Canadian Pacific is required before the configuration of a continental NAFTA super-railroad becomes apparent.

WND reported the Canadian Pacific acquisition of DM&E gives Canadian Pacific a connection with KCS at the Knoche Yard in Kansas City.

Thus, both Canadian National and rival Canadian Pacific rely on KCS to compete for the claim to be the first North American continental NAFTA railroad.

A route map on the Canadian National website shows the railroad connecting through KCS Mexican railroads down to the Mexican port Lazaro Cardenas, a port WND frequently has identified as another alternative to Los Angeles and Long Beach for containers from China to enter North America.

While the KCS marketing agreements give Canadian National the reach into Mexico, the Canadian National website emphasizes Prince Rupert as the railroad's primary gateway for containers from China to enter North America.

Through Prince Rupert, Canadian National can transport containers from China along 100 percent Canadian National lines, down into the heartland of the U.S., from Detroit and Chicago south to the Louisiana coast.

Yet, Canadian National would have to partner with KCS to reach into Mexico to transport containers from China north from Lázaro Cárdenas.

As WND previously reported, KCS operating alone can already bring Chinese containers from the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas to Kansas City where Kansas City SmartPort is planning to be an "inland port" for switching Chinese containers to destinations east and west on U.S. rail lines.

For a brief period, 1993-1995, Canadian National operated under a CN North America logo, even entering into negotiations to acquire the rival Canadian Pacific.