Friday, March 30, 2007

Great Deal on .35 Remington Ammunition at

I just went shopping online for some .35 Remington Ammunition. In the past I have used 200 grain Remington Core-lokt and Winchester Super X with good results. I bought some last year when I saw the prices going up, and I have a hundred or so rounds at home, but I figured since the weather is getting nice, and Brendan and I will be spending more time at the range, it was time to shop for some more so we can shoot as we please. Last year the least expensive I could find in stores, and online, was going for about $15.00 to $17.00 a box.

This year it seems the price has jumped to about $18.00 or $19.00 per 20 round box at most places, up to what I believe to be an astounding price of $32.25 at one website So, you can imagine my pleasant surprise when I saw that had Winchester Super X PP at 13.97 per box, or $13.27 per box if a club member - which I am. I bought 200 rounds which equals a case. If you have a rifle chambered in .35 Remington, you may want to check this out at:

The total price of my order for just the ammo would have been as follows: $132.70 for the ammo plus $15.99 for shipping = $148.69 minus $10.00 coupon = $138.69. This would be a bottom line of $13.87 per box. I think this is not a bad deal, in fact I think it is a great deal, from what I have seen of the prices on this exact same ammunition at other sites and in stores, and no tax charged. (Note I said the price would have been because I also ordered something else, so it was abit higher. The actual ammo price though, with shipping, and with the discounts, was just as I have shown.

By the way, no I do not receive any compensation in any form for posting stuff like this. I just figured that at about $4 to $5 saving per box of 20 rounds, this is one tough deal to pass up. I also thought that since I have bought as much as I can afford right now, why not let other .35 Remington lovers out there get in on it. In this day and age of anti-gun nuts, we who appreciate firearms and shooting need to stick together.

All the best,
Glenn B

Chocolate Jesus... getting an awful lot of media coverage by the mud slinging media as Michelle Malkin points out @ As she mentions, the media would not likely be posting irreverent pictures or representations of Mohammad just before Ramadan, but they are all to ready to post pictures of this insult to Christianity just before Easter. Now I could understand a Chocolate Jesus as being a piece of art that ACTUALLY SAYS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO CHRISTIANS WHO THINK EASTER IS ALL ABOUT EASTER EGGS AND CHOCOLATE BUNNIES, AND WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE CHRIST PART OF IT, but I do not think this the intent of the person who sculpted this piece. One reason that I do not believe such is because of the lack of a loin cloth in the depiction. I cannot understand why this current representation has to be one in which Jesus' private parts are left uncovered, and the overall depiction of Jesus is rather ugly, or is ugly at least in my opinion. It seems to have been sculpted not just to arouse religious devotion, or to make people rethink Easter, but to insult. So my guess is that the so called food artist, who at other times has reportedly covered walls in cheese, does not give a hoot about Christianity and only wanted to get maximum shock exposure for this, as I see it, lurid work.

As far as making a big stink about it, I believe that the offended Christians are going about this all wrong. Sure they can be offended, the depiction seems meant to be insulting, in my opinion, or at the least to be offensive; but I believe it inappropriate for them to try to boycott the show, or the place in which it is shown (as I remember reading that they are calling for as explained on I believe it would be much more appropriate, if actually legal, for them to flock to see this exhibit in great masses this Palm Sunday, and then (if legal) smash it into pieces and eat it until there is not a morsel left over. This way they would accomplish a few things. They would give the media more to chatter about, they would give the so called artist more exposure, they would get rid of the offensive piece before Easter (when by the way, I believe it is scheduled to stop showing), and they would enjoy some chocolate thereby making sure food does not go to waste.

All in all, the biggest accomplishment, as I see it for Christians, would be getting rid of the sculpture in a more Christian, or at least less violent, manner as opposed to rioting, killing, maiming, and calling for a Crusade. Now, please mind you, I am not advocating that anyone do anything illegal, and I oppose any illegal actions; but the thing about smashing it and eating it simply seems to me to be a figurative just dessert for the artist and a fitting end for his so called art. As it is though, I am willing to bet that Christians, in large numbers, will not do anything illegal like destroying his work, nor do I think that they will riot in the streets, kill others, injure others, or threaten to begin a holy war over this depiction of Christ! This is not because they are weak, but because they - for the most part - are indeed Christian. They live by a morality that they apply not just to outsiders but also to themselves - unlike the followers of another religion which readily comes to mind in these trying times. This makes Christians an easy mark for the media, who for the most part, are seemingly much to squeamish to offend anyone whom they believe might actually take violent action over being so offended. The media, and other groups, should be careful though because, as I believe it, you can only push even folks like Christians just so far before they stop turning the other cheek.

All the best,
Glenn B (a used to be Catholic)