Monday, July 05, 2021

Grinds My Gears: No Zero

I read a lot -- non-fiction and fiction, the latter in several genres.

My "light" reading tends toward thrillers of various sorts, from spy novels to legal potboilers to police procedurals to "guy or gal wandering around and getting into hairy situations" stuff like.

Many, maybe even most, of these novels, for obvious reasons, reference firearms. Some do a better job of getting those references right (Stephen Hunter's novels in which the protagonist is sniper Bob Lee Swagger, for instance, go into loving and seemingly correct detail quite often). Some do a worse job. Sometimes a bad job.

Here's one thing that bothers me in many of those novels, even the ones that get shooting technique, etc., mostly right:

The protagonist is in a situation requiring gun work. He or she is a skilled, experienced shooter. The shooting technique is well-described.

BUT! The shooter picks up a random rifle -- maybe off a bad guy's corpse, maybe from the closet of a fellow protagonist, whatever -- engages in proper known-distance shooting technique (good sight picture, good stock weld, proper eye relief, stable position, etc.; Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze), and puts his or her first round in the chest, or even the head, of an antagonist at, say, 300 meters.

Do you see the problem here? I'm no sniper, but I was a trained marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps, and what I just described doesn't happen except under a very unlikely set of circumstances: That the rifle's sight or scope just happens to already be battlesight zeroed to the standard (for the M16A2, the last rifle I taught, anyway) 300 meters that the individual shooter requires.

That would be insanely unlikely to happen to me. I don't remember the dope on the last M16A2 the Marine Corps issued me (it's been more than 25 years), but it was a crap ton of clicks on the rear sight, likely for the simple reason that I learned to shoot right-handed and right-eyed even though I am left-handed and left-eye dominant.

Even for a right-handed, right-eye-dominant shooter shooting right handed and right-eyed, any random rifle is almost certainly not going to put its first round right where a dead-center sight picture or scope crosshair shows the round hitting at any significant range.

I suppose some writers know this but decide they can't let it interfere with the flow of action, while perhaps other writers aren't really familiar with firearms and skip to the good part (the combat shooting) instead of researching the work that goes in before the shooting starts. But it bugs the shit out of me every time I see it.

That is all.

Friday, July 02, 2021

Size is Starting to Matter

While I was traveling, I noticed that I seem to be having a harder time reading both my phone and my laptop screen.

My last eye exam was only a few months ago, but I think I may go in early to see if my "near" vision is sliding (and, since I have been running "high normal" ocular pressure for years, to get a re-check and make sure glaucoma isn't finally manifesting).

For years, I've been able to avoid either doing bifocals or just rocking two pairs of glasses. I wear glasses for everything "distance." That is, everything except reading a book, phone screen, computer screen, etc. If my "near" vision is degrading, I'll probably just keep one pair of glasses for reading and one for "distance" rather than trying to get used to bifocals.

BUT! I'm getting ready to reorganize my office, and buy a new (fairly cheap) computer desk to replace the one I've had for more than a decade (IIRC -- it was either a yard sale or hand-me-down-from-a-friend item, isn't really the shape I like, and wasn't in the greatest shape when I got it).

As I do that, I may go ahead and shell out for bigger monitors. I run a two-monitor setup, both 19". I may go to a larger size. Since I like prime numbers*, probably either 23.x" or 29". Not that that would solve the phone and laptop reading problem, but it would be, well, cool. If I can find a really good deal, anyway. But I see monitors for $5 at garage sales all the time, so I can probably do it that way.


* It's not so much that I like prime numbers as that I'm slightly obsessed with them. I didn't mention it to my travel partner, but having camp site #46 at PorcFest bugged me a little. If 47 hadn't been taken, I might have asked if we could move over one site. But I wasn't quite obsessed enough to ask anyone if we could trade sites. I'm not sure why prime numbers bother me so much. I have a history of mild OCD (not diagnosed, but when you go back three times to make sure you've locked the house door every time, you know). I've mostly, but not completely, gotten over the desire to move in a clockwise direction whenever possible. At PorcFest, I usually took shorter routes even if they ran counter-clockwise, and it didn't really bother me.

Thursday, July 01, 2021

Thanks For Asking! -- 07/01/21

1. ASK ME ANYTHING (YES, ANYTHING)*

2. I'LL ANSWER**




* Ask in the comments below this post
** I'll answer in comments, or link to an answer in some other location/format