Seems like a lot more press is dedicated to the Democratic race, particularly between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Last week, I managed to catch the webcast of the latest debate (it was only just the two of them and John Edwards - no Mike Gravel - not sure why he hasn't dropped out yet - and Dennis Kucinich has since dropped off the ballot), and I managed to convince my wife to watch the last half-hour with me and then she saw some of the highlights...she said the same thing as I was thinking - Clinton comes off as very pompous and incredibly fake. I don't question Edwards' sincerity (and I like his stance against gay marriage) and Obama exudes confidence yet is humble at the same time. Clinton- there's something about her aura - she appears wooden, aloof, and not incredibly warm. When another candidate gets under her skin, she starts to show her true self. It's kind of weird...for a woman, she doesn't seem to have many feminine qualities - she seems like she's really trying hard to act like a man...but I digress. I hope Clinton doesn't win, regardless, but I'm not a Democrat or a left winger, so when it comes down to it, I couldn't care less which Democrat wins. On the other hand, I do have a copy of one of Hillary Clinton's books, signed by her (it's an investment vehicle, nothing more). If she gets the nomination, it'd be a good time to flip that book for some cash.
Anyhow, Obama wins South Carolina. Can't say I'm surprised. As much as people try to take race out of the picture when it comes to constituency, you can't really avoid it when you see that Oprah (who is black, of course) backs Obama, and in state where around half the voters are black, and 80% of them vote for Obama, it's hard not to make those connections or form conclusions. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see Obama win Iowa, a state with something like 97% white folks. He's leading in delegates currently, but that's for now - the projections on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) seems to indicate that Clinton will be in the lead (with big states like New York and California seemingly being pro-Clinton) this time next month. But then again, Obama has garnered some big name supporters like former presidential candidate John Kerry and just today, Caroline Kennedy (not sure how strong her influence is, but anyway...)
Now, enough of the Democrats. Guess that's where the heated race is. And I guess people want to see who will triumph - the woman or the black man. But there is another party and on the Republican side, the general feeling is that John McCain seems to be the guy who will be on the Republican ticket this November. I really hope not. Not because he's old (doesn't bother me at all). He's a really, really soft conservative. His positions are fairly centrist, which I'm sure really piss off the conservative evangelical segment of voters. I can understand completely, and it is for that reason that I hope that Mike Huckabee wins. Even though I'm not an American, I donated to Huckabee's campaign just about a month ago. Ron Paul is an interesting choice, but not really a factor, despite the internet support - I find that he's a bit too libertarian for my liking and I am not crazy about his pro-home-schooling positions. Not to mention his views on an immediate pullout in Iraq (which is neither plausible nor realistic). Thank goodness Giuliani is buried in there and trailing badly - I hope he drops out - he was never a candidate that I could see American conservatives supporting. As for Mitt Romney - I can't seem to read that guy. His NRA gaffe made me go hmmm... (buying votes, anyone? The NRA gave him a crappy rating, anyway), and watching him on interviews - he seems a bit too polished for my liking. At least Huckabee has a sense of humour and is willing to jam with the Tonight Show band, and be himself. Romney seems too much like a typical weasely politician. Plus, his social policies make me ill. McCain needs to make some serious inroads into the conservative grassroots populace if he stands a chance of winning the presidency. When James Dobson doesn't endorse you, you are in trouble if you consider yourself a conservative.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Rape Is About Sex, Not Power
Haven't had that much time to write blog entries this year - between my wife being 8+ months pregnant and having to work like a dog, logging lots of overtime hours this year, I've been too tired to do anything, even writing and target shooting, both of which I thoroughly enjoy. However, I have a few minutes tonight and have been itching to discuss an issue that has been on my mind, the catalyst of my wanting to examine this issue coming recently in my inadvertent eavesdropping on a conversation while in line at the supermarket.
There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.
Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.
I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.
I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.
Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.
1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.
2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.
3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.
Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.
There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.
Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.
I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.
I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.
Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.
1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.
2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.
3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.
Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
John Ferguson Jr. Finally Fired...The Leafs Still Suck
Yesterday, the Toronto Maple Leafs acted on the worst-kept secret floating around the NHL and in particular, Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) - they gassed their General Manager John Ferguson Jr., after a fairly abysmal record at the helm for the past...what is it now...four or five years?
I agree that Ferguson had to go, but as I have said before, I don't think that the problem is entirely with Ferguson, despite the fact that yes, he was inexperienced, he made some really bad choices, and to a degree, he showed some incompetence. The root problem rests with MLSE and its board, especially that idiot Richard Peddie (who is a meddler to the extreme). Sure, he brought on Brian Colangelo for the Raptors and gave him full autonomy to run basketball operations, but the MLSE board has never been as instrusive with their basketball operations anyway - rather, it's the hockey operations that they've always poked their nose into (and I mean Peddie here). I mean, despite what Ferguson may or may not have done, he did show class up to the end, refusing to bad-mouth the organization - I heard him being interviewed by several media sources on my way home last night...and this despite the fact that he was hung out to dry several months ago - even half a year ago, when Peddie wanted to bring on a "mentor" for Ferguson. Why not just get rid of him then? Then Peddie publicly admits he made a mistake hiring Ferguson - I'm not sure why Peddie doesn't step down himself - he hired Ferguson! And who was at the helm before Ferguson? Another inexperienced (albeit well-known) GM in Ken Dryden. When you start hiring duds, I'm not sure you can keep blaming it on the dud. I do find it interesting that the search committee that Peddie put together includes interim GM Cliff Fletcher, local Toronto sports lawyer (and frequent guest on the local sports radio station) Gord Kirke...and....HIMSELF! If this is not meddling or the epitome of micro-management, I don't know what is.
And then the whole soap opera of the past few weeks with public speculation about Ferguson's future. It's tough to do your job when you know that they are planning to terminate you. But to Ferguson's credit, he kept his mouth shut and kept punching into the office. In that vein, I think Peddie is classless, gutless and I have zero respect for him. I actually hope that the Leafs continue to suck badly, so the pressure will be to get rid of him. Of course, I totally question how the Leafs report to a board, whereas most teams have a single owner - less bureaucracy.
Now, as for interim GM Cliff Fletcher - good choice, but they tossed him out 10+ years ago, so I'm surprised he's back (considering the fact that he never got along with Larry Tanenbaum. I heard the news conference on the way home from work yesterday and it sounds like this is Fletcher's last stop in the hockey world. It's just as well. How old his he now? 70? Still, during Fletcher's first time with the Leafs, he did make some really good trades and draft picks (although he made some poor ones as well). I'm sure Cliff will be able to right the ship, though he and MLSE have made it abundantly clear that he is here short-term (think the contract is for 19 months, with it being initially an interim GM role that will morph into a consultant role).
I'm no expert, but let's talk about the problems here. People focus on Sundin, but that's only one of the things to consider (Sundin is around 35/36, has a no-trade clause, and will be an unrestricted free agent by the end of the season). It would make sense to trade him rather than lose him, but if you look at the way he's played, he continues to show himself to be the heart of the team. He's their top point-getter. Shows leadership on and off the ice. A tremendously hard worker. Makes around 5 million this season, but if you were to trade him, what would you get for him? Based on his age, who would want him? Sure, older players have, in the past year or so, joined teams to offer a veteran presence, but look how some of these have worked out (Mark Recchi, anyone?) Aside from the Sundin question, and in a similar vein, another issue the fat contracts that Ferguson awarded to really mediocre players. Now the Leafs are stuck with these underperforming and overpaid players (a bad combination) - they can't unload them because of both reasons. They can't keep them because of the enormous hit on the cap. Buying them out will be costly. Right now, the Leafs best hope is that they will just tank and hopefully get some decent draft picks. If they tank for two years in a row, there's a better chance of them getting good picks like John Tavares next year, but even that's no guarantee.
There's always drama in Leaf-land...
I agree that Ferguson had to go, but as I have said before, I don't think that the problem is entirely with Ferguson, despite the fact that yes, he was inexperienced, he made some really bad choices, and to a degree, he showed some incompetence. The root problem rests with MLSE and its board, especially that idiot Richard Peddie (who is a meddler to the extreme). Sure, he brought on Brian Colangelo for the Raptors and gave him full autonomy to run basketball operations, but the MLSE board has never been as instrusive with their basketball operations anyway - rather, it's the hockey operations that they've always poked their nose into (and I mean Peddie here). I mean, despite what Ferguson may or may not have done, he did show class up to the end, refusing to bad-mouth the organization - I heard him being interviewed by several media sources on my way home last night...and this despite the fact that he was hung out to dry several months ago - even half a year ago, when Peddie wanted to bring on a "mentor" for Ferguson. Why not just get rid of him then? Then Peddie publicly admits he made a mistake hiring Ferguson - I'm not sure why Peddie doesn't step down himself - he hired Ferguson! And who was at the helm before Ferguson? Another inexperienced (albeit well-known) GM in Ken Dryden. When you start hiring duds, I'm not sure you can keep blaming it on the dud. I do find it interesting that the search committee that Peddie put together includes interim GM Cliff Fletcher, local Toronto sports lawyer (and frequent guest on the local sports radio station) Gord Kirke...and....HIMSELF! If this is not meddling or the epitome of micro-management, I don't know what is.
And then the whole soap opera of the past few weeks with public speculation about Ferguson's future. It's tough to do your job when you know that they are planning to terminate you. But to Ferguson's credit, he kept his mouth shut and kept punching into the office. In that vein, I think Peddie is classless, gutless and I have zero respect for him. I actually hope that the Leafs continue to suck badly, so the pressure will be to get rid of him. Of course, I totally question how the Leafs report to a board, whereas most teams have a single owner - less bureaucracy.
Now, as for interim GM Cliff Fletcher - good choice, but they tossed him out 10+ years ago, so I'm surprised he's back (considering the fact that he never got along with Larry Tanenbaum. I heard the news conference on the way home from work yesterday and it sounds like this is Fletcher's last stop in the hockey world. It's just as well. How old his he now? 70? Still, during Fletcher's first time with the Leafs, he did make some really good trades and draft picks (although he made some poor ones as well). I'm sure Cliff will be able to right the ship, though he and MLSE have made it abundantly clear that he is here short-term (think the contract is for 19 months, with it being initially an interim GM role that will morph into a consultant role).
I'm no expert, but let's talk about the problems here. People focus on Sundin, but that's only one of the things to consider (Sundin is around 35/36, has a no-trade clause, and will be an unrestricted free agent by the end of the season). It would make sense to trade him rather than lose him, but if you look at the way he's played, he continues to show himself to be the heart of the team. He's their top point-getter. Shows leadership on and off the ice. A tremendously hard worker. Makes around 5 million this season, but if you were to trade him, what would you get for him? Based on his age, who would want him? Sure, older players have, in the past year or so, joined teams to offer a veteran presence, but look how some of these have worked out (Mark Recchi, anyone?) Aside from the Sundin question, and in a similar vein, another issue the fat contracts that Ferguson awarded to really mediocre players. Now the Leafs are stuck with these underperforming and overpaid players (a bad combination) - they can't unload them because of both reasons. They can't keep them because of the enormous hit on the cap. Buying them out will be costly. Right now, the Leafs best hope is that they will just tank and hopefully get some decent draft picks. If they tank for two years in a row, there's a better chance of them getting good picks like John Tavares next year, but even that's no guarantee.
There's always drama in Leaf-land...
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Benjamin EB22 .22 Caliber CO2 Pistol - Quick Review
Last year, I had an opportunity to finally find and buy (at a greatly discounted price) the Benjamin EB 22 air pistol. I've always been on the prowl for a 22 caliber higher velocity (but still within PAL limits) CO2 pistol, preferably a repeater, but I don't believe such an animal exists, so when I had an opportunity to get the EB22, I didn't hesitate. I got it for around $127.00, though I also had an additional 20% taken off due to the discount I had, but then, 14% taxes were added back. Anyhow, it probably came out around $115.00 or so, all in, which was very good, considering the fact that last year, this was about $160.00 + tax.
My EB22 came in a box (very refreshing, considering all other pistols come in that modern age pain-in the-butt oversized sealed plastic) that was obviously a EB17 box with factory replacement stickers to cover anything that says EB17. So the specs on the box would not be accurate. It came with a manual (that covers the EB17/EB20/EB22), as well as a Crosman plastic keyed-trigger safety (that's one thing I have always liked about Crosman products).
I've always liked the Benjamin series (the Benjamin airguns are all made by Crosman), with the all- metal construction and read hardwood grips. Sure, the 2240 is about 60% cheaper, but it's pretty plasticky. The EB22 is in the same family as the EB17 and EB20, the numbers obviously reflect caliber. The gun is a bolt action, with the bolt being at the back of the gun, not the side of the breech. Operating the bolt is pretty straightforward with a slight twist and pull (and push/twist to close). I'd prefer the side-bolt, since it seems easier to operate - believe it or not, you can actually jam the skin of your thumb on the EB22 bolt when you are twisting it if you don't do it right.
The weight of the gun feels good in the hands, and while I've never been a fan of wood grips (to me a grip is a grip is a grip), I can now see where I was mistaken. Plastic grips slip and are less comfortable than wood. The CO2 canister is inserted below the barrel and a twisting cap secures it in place. I believe the initial trigger pull pierces the powerlet. There is a manual cross-bolt safety in place, and while there are no onboard rails to mount accessories, I was able to purchase some add-on 3/8" two-piece dovetail mounts which clamp onto the breech. I don't have anything at this point to mount on it, but left the clamps on anyway.
As for performance, two things. 1) This gun is REALLY loud, even louder than the 2240, I would say. I'd prefer quite over loud, but since sound suppressors are illegal, I'll just put up with the noise. I am hoping the noise is not caused by the CO2 dispersal, but I am pretty sure it is, and if the shots per powerlet are any indication (I got around 24-28, which is terrible usage), much of the sound is caused by too much escaping gas. That should probably be fixed, since I can get around 55+ shots off one 12gram powerlet on the 2240. 2) The accuracy with open sights is really good (not just because it has a rifled steel barrel). The trigger pull is adequate and not long and I was able to get close groupings with all my shots at the range.
In terms of speed/velocity, I haven't an opportunity to chrony it yet. The marketing and Crosman website says it's up to 500FPS (pretty darn good for a non-PAL .22 cal), most other places say it is around 400FPS. There is a suggestion that the newer EB22s shoot harder out of the box. I can't qualify this, however.
Overall, I'd say that I am MORE than pleased with my purchase. I wished that I didn't go through so much CO2 with this pistol (and it wasn't so darn loud), but in terms of look, feel and performance, you can't go wrong with a Benjamin.
My EB22 came in a box (very refreshing, considering all other pistols come in that modern age pain-in the-butt oversized sealed plastic) that was obviously a EB17 box with factory replacement stickers to cover anything that says EB17. So the specs on the box would not be accurate. It came with a manual (that covers the EB17/EB20/EB22), as well as a Crosman plastic keyed-trigger safety (that's one thing I have always liked about Crosman products).
I've always liked the Benjamin series (the Benjamin airguns are all made by Crosman), with the all- metal construction and read hardwood grips. Sure, the 2240 is about 60% cheaper, but it's pretty plasticky. The EB22 is in the same family as the EB17 and EB20, the numbers obviously reflect caliber. The gun is a bolt action, with the bolt being at the back of the gun, not the side of the breech. Operating the bolt is pretty straightforward with a slight twist and pull (and push/twist to close). I'd prefer the side-bolt, since it seems easier to operate - believe it or not, you can actually jam the skin of your thumb on the EB22 bolt when you are twisting it if you don't do it right.
The weight of the gun feels good in the hands, and while I've never been a fan of wood grips (to me a grip is a grip is a grip), I can now see where I was mistaken. Plastic grips slip and are less comfortable than wood. The CO2 canister is inserted below the barrel and a twisting cap secures it in place. I believe the initial trigger pull pierces the powerlet. There is a manual cross-bolt safety in place, and while there are no onboard rails to mount accessories, I was able to purchase some add-on 3/8" two-piece dovetail mounts which clamp onto the breech. I don't have anything at this point to mount on it, but left the clamps on anyway.
As for performance, two things. 1) This gun is REALLY loud, even louder than the 2240, I would say. I'd prefer quite over loud, but since sound suppressors are illegal, I'll just put up with the noise. I am hoping the noise is not caused by the CO2 dispersal, but I am pretty sure it is, and if the shots per powerlet are any indication (I got around 24-28, which is terrible usage), much of the sound is caused by too much escaping gas. That should probably be fixed, since I can get around 55+ shots off one 12gram powerlet on the 2240. 2) The accuracy with open sights is really good (not just because it has a rifled steel barrel). The trigger pull is adequate and not long and I was able to get close groupings with all my shots at the range.
In terms of speed/velocity, I haven't an opportunity to chrony it yet. The marketing and Crosman website says it's up to 500FPS (pretty darn good for a non-PAL .22 cal), most other places say it is around 400FPS. There is a suggestion that the newer EB22s shoot harder out of the box. I can't qualify this, however.
Overall, I'd say that I am MORE than pleased with my purchase. I wished that I didn't go through so much CO2 with this pistol (and it wasn't so darn loud), but in terms of look, feel and performance, you can't go wrong with a Benjamin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)