What day is it again?
So to get over that gagging thing, a little Italian food humor:
Some Wop humor:
And some gender-specific stuff:
And speaking of beautiful Italian women… oh hell, where to begin? I’ll just pick one, and don’t yell at me because I didn’t pick your favorite.
Say hello to Sabrina Ferilli:
And a more recent one:
Bellissima.
I have often counseled young men to take up a trade before (or, depending on the lad, instead of) going off to college. This is as much for some kind of income stability, of course, as it is for them to learn the value and reward of hard physical work — which every man should experience.
So when I saw this link about “Durable Trades” at Insty’s, I hurried over to see what it was all about. And was a little disappointed.
Defining “durable” has not been easy. I wanted to know which types of businesses have been the least affected by external factors throughout history, place, governments, economic cycles, invention, and social upheaval. Which trades have endured for centuries and still exist today? Which trades are the most family-centric? And, of course, which trades do all this and still provide a living? Conversely, which trades are overly dependent on brittle systems and therefore not likely to withstand economic, societal and technological upheaval?
Granted, in a time of economic collapse or a return to Middle Ages-type living, the demand for “Instagram influencers” may not be as important as they are today (quit that cheering). But at the same time, I have to question some of his trades because while they may have been durable in the past — and to be fair, the author doesn’t attempt to forecast anything — I’m not so sure what the future holds for them. Here are his top trades in order (and go back to the link to see his methodology):
Shepherd (rancher, livestock farmer, dairyman)
Farmer
Midwife
Gardener (arborist, landscaper, florist)
Woodworker (cabinetmaker, “finish” carpenter)
Carpenter (a builder of structures)
Painter (siding contractor, wall covering specialist)
Cook (chef, caterer, restauranteur)
Brewer (winemaker, distiller)
Innkeeper (hotelier)
For some reason, I think that an electrician is a more durable trade than a gardener — it certainly will be, going forward — and likewise, a metalworker (blacksmith, welder, etc.) will have a better go than an innkeeper. (I know: there wasn’t much call for electricians back in the sixteenth century, but I’ll bet that metalworkers were in high demand.) And since we’ve moved away from leeches and trepanning, I’m pretty sure that a doctor would have a more durable trade than a wall covering specialist.
There are basically four kinds of trade, methinks (and there is some overlap, certainly over time):
Primal: builders (carpenters, bricklayers, stone masons, and ship builders), farmers (crops and livestock) fishermen, weavers / tailors, drovers (carts and wagons, and the trades which built them: blacksmiths, cartwrights and wainwrights), soldiers, cooks / bakers and yes, midwives. From the Year Dot until, say, the twelfth century, all these trades could garner for their practitioners a decent and even consistent living.
Mechanical: engineers, electricians, [add: plumbers, thankee ] coachbuilders, and the trades which are extensions of, or adjuncts to the earlier ones: architects, doctors, brewers / distillers, and so on.
Services: innkeepers, painters, gardeners, waiters, repair technicians (outside of the primal trades), prostitutes, police, teachers and the like.
Intellectual: lawyers, software developers, accountants, entertainers (actors, musicians) and so on. (Typically, these do not require any kind of manual labor.)
I take Groves’s point about “family-centric” trades being the most durable (cooking, building, teaching and birthing are the first that come to mind), but the extension of that thought is that as one moves further away from home and family needs, one eventually ends up with advertising account executives and marketing consultants, whose value to society is so close to zero as makes no difference.
Feel free to discuss this topic further in Comments
Note: I’ve left “professional sportsmen” and careers like “modeling” off the list entirely. Although these folks can earn a substantial amount, the actual number that do (as a percentage of all people who perform such activities) is tiny — far less than 1% — and the vast majority of professionals of this type earn very little. Also, the working life of a professional sportsman is little more than a decade, less for a model, so it’s not a durable trade. (I know, golf. It’s not a sport, it’s a game, like snooker.)
Some may also raise an eyebrow at my inclusion of prostitution on this list, but it’s not only a durable trade (assuming you can survive it, e.g. Carroty Nell), but one you could theoretically practice for a very long time. (Here’s a little personal anecdote. In my three-and-a-half years as an undergraduate here in Texas, I knew personally about half a dozen girls who had been on the game, and another few who were still doing it. All were amazingly attractive, by the way.)
As part of my desire to pull back from longer-distance shooting — perhaps “desire” is the wrong word; “forced by crap eyesight” is longer, but more accurate — comes the need to look at a rifle which would suit my purpose better than those I already have. Here’s one such example of a gun currently sitting in Ye Olde Gunne Sayfe, a CZ 550 (6.5x55mm Swede), topped with a Meopta 6-24x56mm scope:
As any fule Longtime Reader kno, I love me my 6.5×55 Swede cartridge, and I love equally the gorgeous CZ 550 Mauser rifle with its sweeeeet single set trigger. To replace this beauty would require ripping out a piece of my heart; but, at the same time, it has become too much rifle and honestly, would better suit someone who could actually use it to its full potential. I’m not that person, anymore.
But if I were going to replace this paragon of excellence, the new bolt-action rifle would need to fill several criteria: reliable, accurate, and chambered for a cartridge which would not require me to spend almost as much on new ammo as on the rifle and scope. Something like the 7.62x39mm Russian (of which I have a ummm modest supply already in Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer).
There aren’t too many of these extant, but here are a couple, with their comparative features side by side:
Given my long and affectionate relationship with CZ rifles, one would think that the 527 would have the inside track; but I have to tell you, that stubby little bull barrel of the Ruger looks very tempting. I’m not too concerned about the difference in barrel length, because as it is, the 7.62x39mm works just fine in an AK’s 16.5″ barrel, and the shorter barrel would make the Ruger less unwieldy.
And I know that the Ruger’s standard trigger isn’t as good as the 527’s set trigger, but given the price disparity between them, a drop-in Timney (about $150) would still bring the Ranch Rifle’s price in below that of the CZ 527, and if I set it to a sensible 2.5lb pull, that would be more than adequate.
I hate the Ruger’s plastic stock material — or is it a painted laminate? either way, it’s awful — and of course the CZ’s walnut is exquisite by comparison, albeit somewhat heavier.
As for glass: the 24x Meopta is much more than I need when my likely (and preferred) shooting distance would be somewhat around (and probably less than) 200 yards. Something smaller (and lighter, as a bonus) would work just as well on either rifle, and I’d be looking at something like a Leupold 3-9x40mm 3HD, a Leupold 2-10x42mm VX-5HD, or else the Minox 2-10×50 ZX5i (all with illuminated reticles, to help my pathetic eyesight):
I have a long and satisfying association with both Leupold and Minox scopes too, so this would not be short-changing myself at all.
One more thing: I’m not a huge fan of rail scope mounts such as on the Ruger, because they do raise the scope high off the action. Low scope bases (lower even than on the CZ 500 pictured) would definitely work better for me.
As I said earlier, all the above is certainly food for thought, and I will be considering the whole thing carefully for a while before I drop the hammer, so to speak. I hate selling guns, but if I’m replacing one that I can’t shoot properly for one that I can, it does make the process easier.
Read this sad story first, then come back here for my thoughts. Read more
As I was meandering through the Gun Dork Forest (as I do occasionally), my eye was caught by a couple of rather fine-looking older guns from Messrs. Smith & Wesson. Here’s the first, the lovely Model 25-2:
Now for those who are unfamiliar with this creature, or those who are perhaps new to this corner of The Gun Thing, you might ask:
“But Kim: how can you chamber a rimless cartridge into a revolver cylinder? Don’t the boolets just fall through and out onto the floor?”
Indeed you might think so, Grasshopper, but there are these things called “half-moon” or “full-moon” clips:
I’m not quite sure what brand those cartridges are, but let’s go with “G.I.” (Gay Issue). (I know I know, it’s really inert ammo shuddup.)
Back in the day when I owned one of these wondrous guns, I always preferred the full-moon clips because I found them easier to load, less likely to bend than the half-moons, and of course it’s a one-step reload. (Another benefit: when you slam the ejector rod on a full-moon clip, you don’t have to spend the next five minutes scrabbling around on the floor picking up expended cartridge cases.)
My particular model wasn’t the Mod 25, but the stainless 625 Version:
And if that doesn’t make your trigger-finger itch, I don’t want to talk to you anymore.
Anyway, there are several good reasons to own a Mod 25/625 in .45 ACP, chief among them being that if you already own a 1911 pistol thus chambered (and you should), it means that you won’t suffer from Caliber Proliferation Syndrome in your ammo locker by having to buy .38 Special and / or .357 Magnum ammo.
Finally, of course, there’s nothing wrong with using .45 ACP in your revolver (especially if it has a 5″ barrel), because duh it’s John Moses Browning’s .45 ACP.
Gotta say, though, that blued Mod 25 above sure is pretty, because this is Kim speaking — and blued steel over wooden grips always looks better than bling steel over rubber.
It’s at Collectors, of course.
Next week, I’ll be talking about the other lovely guns I saw there.
Your thoughts in Comments.