I was reading this post by Michael Smith and I was thinking about the Donk platform, and I remember when I was a Union Rep at the Ford plant and I was the only Republican that held union office.  I was really good at it so I got reelected and I had people ask me, "Why don't I support the Democrats?" and I replied, "Well there are some things about the Democrats I do like,(Remember this was the early 2000's), they tend to be a bit protectionist whereas the GOP is the CHamber of Commerce types I.E. Cheap Labor.  We need to keep our industry here in the United States, not outsource it.  The Democrats talk a better game on border security then the GOP(Remember this was the early 2000's).  But they are weak on crime, anti 2nd amendment, have started going along with the global warming crazies(Remember Al Gore?) which isn't good for our industrial base.  If we could find a candidate that combines both the platforms of both parties, I would be ecstatic.  Then my job got outsourced, our replacement car(The Fusion, went to Mexico, and my plant got shut down, and now I am in the aviation industry,   Years later a candidate came along that encompassed what I believed was the best of both worlds...Trump.  Something that was sorely needed.   That is why he has the support of so many from middle America.

     I shamelessly cribbed this from "Michael Smith" off his substack.

Despicable Me It seems my constant and consistent opposition to all things progressive and Democrat makes me a bad guy. Oh, well... Michael Smith Jul 28   I recently received a DM from someone taking me to task for always being against anything Democrats say or do - and telling me, in some detail, why that makes me a terrible person who doesn’t like people, is not compassionate, but is selfish and generally an all-around bad guy. Well, OK then. I do agree with one thing, though. I am always against things Democrats say and do – and I do so for one major reason. They are frauds. Simple as that. Dems are as fake as Hillary’s Southern accent, Hakeem Jeffries’ intellect, Chuck Schumer’s legendary grilling skills, and Graham Platner’s “oysterman” persona. Their entire ideology of progressivism is fraudulent because the true goals always must be kept hidden until they can’t be – and thanks to the Democratic Socialists of America (the Id of the greater Democrat Party), we know what that endgame looks like because they are now openly telling us. It is fun to watch the Dem Party leadership and mouthpieces having their “Oh, shit!” moment now that the DSA are saying the quiet part out loud. Schumer and the Old Guard are sort of in but sort of out with them proves they never had the courage of their convictions in the first place. There is a pattern. It becomes obvious once you stop pretending the rhetoric matches the results. Take the border. For years, the same people who lecture the country about “compassion” and “humanity” treated open borders as a moral imperative—until cameras showed the chaos they created: the caravans moving north, the fentanyl deaths, overwhelmed cities, and human trafficking. Then, almost overnight, when it was apparent it was a losing issue for Biden, the language shifted to “secure the border” and “humane enforcement,” as if a decade of deliberate non-enforcement had been a clerical error. Sanctuary cities continue to protect illegal aliens at the expense of their legal citizens. The fraud is the original claim that the policy was ever about compassion rather than political power and future voters. Or consider crime. Soft-on-crime district attorneys and “reimagine policing” advocates sold the public a story of systemic racism and root causes while violent crime spiked in the cities they governed. They haven’t figured this one out yet. The body count is still rising as the value of prosecution and order is ignored. None of this was ever about justice; it was about ideology dressed up as empathy. The people living with the consequences (mostly in the neighborhoods the theorists never visit), are still paying the price while the theorists kept their grants and their prestige. Climate change rhetoric is offset by private jets, beachfront mansions, and multi-home lifestyles for the loudest advocates as they demand ordinary families sacrifice heating, driving, and economic mobility. The “science” is invoked selectively: catastrophic models justify central planning, but the same models’ failures to predict the last twenty years of mild outcomes are ignored. The real goal is state control over energy, industry, and individual behavior. Economic policy follows the identical script. Minimum-wage hikes, rent control, and wealth taxes are sold as tools to help the working class. The predictable outcomes—fewer entry-level jobs, housing shortages, capital flight—are then blamed on “greed” rather than on the policies themselves. Meanwhile the same politicians who denounce inequality preside over the most unequal cities in the country, protected by union contracts, regulatory capture, and donor networks. The rhetoric is redistribution; the result is protection of the insider class. Education must be on the list, too. For decades the party of “the children” defended failing urban school systems, opposed parental choice, and treated teachers’ unions as sacred. When test scores collapsed and parents noticed the ideological content replacing actual literacy, the response was not reform but accusations of bigotry. The fraud is the claim that the system exists to educate; the evidence shows it exists to employ adults and transmit a political worldview. The DSA wing now openly celebrates the capture of curriculum; the Old Guard still pretends it is about “equity.” But perhaps the greatest example is how they ignore massive waste and failures in the programs they have pushed through. USAID has been conclusively proven to be a generational grift, the State Department estimating something like 12% of allocated funds reaching the intended uses, most being siphoned off through a chain of overlapping NGOs headquartered in Alexandra. Think about that – 88% of billions of taxpayer dollars rarely gets far past the Beltway. And if one considers the massive fraud and waste in other programs like blue state SomaliBucks from Medicare/Medicaid or programs that should never exist (like hundreds of millions for illegal immigrants), it becomes clear that money for social programs and failing schools is already there – but they don’t appear to care enough to stop the leakage, leaving one to logically assume they are benefitting from the status quo. Even their language of compassion is fraudulent. The same people who demand infinite empathy for selected victim categories show none for the truck driver who loses his livelihood to regulation, the small-business owner crushed by Covid era lockdowns while big-box stores stayed open, or the Asian student whose academic record is discounted in the name of diversity. Selective compassion is not compassion; it is the real-life version of the sorting hat of the Harry Potter movies. The DSA has simply stopped pretending. It is all in their platform. The goal is not the goal, the goal is revolution. Better schools, safer streets, or a cleaner environment? Fuhgeddaboudit. The goal is the dismantling of market allocation, national borders, traditional family structures, and constitutional limits on power. State control over the means of production is the new hotness. Now that the Democrat Id is speaking in its own voice, the Super-Ego looks ridiculous trying to claim it never really meant it. That is why I oppose them consistently. Not because I hate people or lack compassion, but because I refuse to treat transparent fraud as good-faith governance. When the stated purpose and the actual purpose diverge systematically across so many domains, and over so many decades, the rational response is permanent skepticism. The email writer can call that cruelty if it makes them feel better. I call it pattern recognition.

Next Generation M1E3 gets fast tracked after lessons from the Ukraine War.

 Sorry was sick and couldn't post....well couldn't muster the energy to post was more accurate.

I have been a fan of the M1 Tank since its inception in the late 1970's and its deployment in to the army in the 1980's when I joined the Army.  It was part of the overhaul of the U.S. Army with the "Airland Battle" concept to offset the quantitative superiority of the Soviet formations as they invaded Western Europe.  We used the doctrine to crush the Iraqi Army in 1991 when we kicked them out of Kuwait when the term "Hyperwar" was first coined.  But the platform is 45 years old and despite upgrades to keep it in the forefront of tank developement, the Ukraine war has exposed weakness in the current tank.  Although I am not a fan of the "autoloader", something that is mechanical can break...and it can remove a crewmember that is necessary to help in tank maintenance....which is a biggie, Tanks are cool, but they require TLC to stay combat effective.

Current look of the M1E3 Abrams features an unmanned turret, autoloader, APS/C-UAS, lighter weight, stronger protection, and safer crew space. Source: Via @M1E1kreyton

Defense Feeds – The Next-Gen M1E3 Abrams Tank is at the center of the U.S. Army’s most ambitious modernization push in a generation, with the Pentagon fast-tracking delivery after combat experience in Ukraine exposed the limits of the current platform.

Army leaders confirmed that four prototypes will be handed over to units in 2026, years earlier than originally planned.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George announced during the Maneuver Warfighter Conference in Fort Benning that the next-generation armored vehicle will join line formations for real-world soldier testing.

The accelerated timeline cuts development by more than half, underscoring the urgency to adapt to warfare where drones, precision-guided munitions and electronic networks dominate the battlefield.

Why the Army Needs a New Abrams

Since entering service in 1980, the Abrams has been the backbone of U.S. armored forces. Yet decades of upgrades have made it heavier, more complicated to maintain, and less able to keep pace with emerging threats.

U.S. tanks supplied to Ukraine since 2023 confirmed these problems in combat. Ukrainian units praised the Abrams’ firepower but reported its immense weight and fuel demands slowed operations, while survivability came into question against modern Russian drones and loitering munitions.

These operational realities convinced Pentagon planners that continuing with incremental upgrades would not be enough. The M1A2 SEPv4 effort—once billed as the logical next step for Abrams evolution—was terminated in 2023.

The Army decided instead to channel resources into a lighter, modular architecture designed from the ground up to fight in the heavily digital, drone-saturated battlefields of the mid-21st century.

Until the M1E3 becomes operational, limited buys of the M1A2 SEPv3 will keep factories running and maintain a stopgap capability.

The M1E3 is expected to feature a smaller three-person crew assisted by an autoloader, advanced sensors supported by artificial intelligence, and a full suite of active protection aimed at intercepting drones, anti-tank missiles, and top-attack munitions. Developers are also studying propulsion breakthroughs.

Concepts proven on the AbramsX demonstrator in 2022—such as a hybrid diesel-electric drive and weight reduction of nearly ten tons—are being folded into the program.

General Dynamics Land Systems, which has produced every Abrams variant, holds a $150 million contract through 2027 to mature these technologies.

Its work revolves around making the tank easier to upgrade over its lifetime, cheaper to sustain, and better suited to expeditionary operations where logistics cannot depend on massive supply tails.

Learning From Ukraine and Looking Ahead

What makes this push urgent is the sobering imagery emerging from Ukraine. Tanks once seen as symbols of unstoppable armored might have proven vulnerable in prolonged, attritional warfare.

Even advanced vehicles like the Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 have required constant maintenance and repair, while facing a new breed of adversaries—cheap but lethal drones, precision artillery, and networked targeting systems.

In July 2025, Ukraine’s 425th Assault Regiment, known by its call sign “Skala,” became the second frontline formation to receive Abrams.

The unit fielded M1A1 tanks supplied by Australia, which had pledged a battalion package of 49 vehicles.

For Kyiv, the arrival marked a boost in firepower. For Washington, the deployment underscored the vulnerability of legacy tanks to modern reconnaissance and strike networks.

The Pentagon concluded it needed an entirely new platform that could withstand both conventional fire and continuous digital targeting.

This reassessment also builds on a 2019 Army Science Board study that recommended moving toward a so-called fifth-generation combat vehicle.

That study called for technologies like hybrid-electric mobility, autoloading weapons, and next-gen modular armor that could be rapidly swapped out when new threats emerge.

The M1E3 reflects those ideas, embedding them into a combat vehicle that will ideally remain relevant into the 2040s.

At the strategic level, congressional scrutiny is now lining up. Lawmakers are expected to question how the program will be funded, what role the National Guard will play, and how partners in NATO or Asia may share the design.

With armored modernization becoming a global race, these debates will shape not only the Army’s future but America’s credibility as a military supplier to allies.

A Global Race for Next-Gen Armor

The U.S. is not alone in rethinking the role of heavy armor. Across Europe and Asia, militaries are unveiling a fresh generation of battle tanks designed to integrate artificial intelligence, improved networking, and more efficient propulsion.

Germany is advancing the KF51 Panther, marketing it as the next leap for NATO forces with a potent new 130mm gun.

France is fielding its Leclerc Evolution, while Britain is working on its Challenger 3 upgrade with Rheinmetall systems.

In South Korea, Hyundai Rotem is experimenting with the hydrogen-powered K3 concept, while China is reported to be testing an AI-enabled vehicle with a reduced crew model.

Meanwhile, Russia continues struggling to fully field its heavily promoted T-14 Armata, despite nearly a decade of promises.

American planners recognize that standing still would risk losing the qualitative advantage U.S. tanks have enjoyed for decades.

With potential conflicts in Europe or the Indo-Pacific looming, speed of development has become paramount.

By moving up field testing to 2026, Pentagon leaders hope to not only stay ahead of rivals but also give soldiers a say in how the tank evolves before mass production begins. The race is therefore not only about technology but about time.

Tanks are still expected to play a decisive role in high-intensity warfare, but only if they adapt to an environment where drones, satellites, and long-range missiles shape the pace of battle.

The M1E3 Abrams—lighter, more digitalized, and built with modular resilience—aims to ensure the U.S. remains at the front of that competition into the coming decade

The Nylon 66 "A Rifle For The Future"

 

 I clipped this off "American Rifleman"   I have a "Nylon 66", paid $99 at a pawn shop for it in the early 2000's.  I had a Magazine fed version when I was a kid  and I was a dork and gave away to a kid of a friend of mine when I came back from Desert Storm and later regretted doing that.  I happen to walk into a pawnshop and saw one and plunked the money on the spot surprising my wife when I did so considering that I normally am very measured with any purchases I make.  My son loves my nylon and loves shooting it since he was a kid over his .22 rifles.  If I run across another one, I will probably buy it.  I run a snake through the barrel keeping it clean, but somehow not being able to break it down and clean "Da Innards" seems unnatural. 

 

Polymer stocks, grips and frames are common on firearms today, but that wasn’t the case back in 1959, when Remington introduced the Nylon 66. Roughly 4,500 became available for sale in January of that year with a price tag of just under $50.

The design was radical and marketed as “The gun of the future.” The stock and receiver were constructed from a synthetic mix that DuPont—which assumed ownership of Remington in 1933—created in 1935. The concoction was actually known as Fiber 66 at the time, a name subsequently swept up in a large family of mixtures often simply referred to as Nylon.

DuPont’s encyclopedic knowledge of chemistry, along with injection-molding expertise, and Remington’s renowned reputation for crafting fine firearms were a historically timed collision of industries in this rifle. An American Rifleman article that covers the gun’s development and summarizes, “The end result was that it became the most successful .22-cal. rifle Remington has ever made, with total production of more than 1,000,000 by 1991 when the Nylon 66 was discontinued.”

First year sales for the blowback-operated semi-auto were so good that the company couldn’t keep up with orders. That demand wasn’t just because enthusiasts wanted to be the first on their block to own a “plastic” firearm, either. The self-lubricating polymer receiver was one attraction. Then there was the rugged stock. It wore a 19.5" barrel and had a 38.5" overall length, but managed to remain light—coming in at roughly 4 lbs. 8 ozs. More than likely, though, the torture testing Remington widely publicized to showcase reliability and fast-growing reputation for accuracy sealed the deal.

The Nylon 66 featured a tubular magazine that held fourteen .22 LR cartridges. It had to be removed from the side of the buttstock to be reloaded. The exterior of the polymer receiver wore a steel shell that was also home to the rear leaf sights, although it was grooved for mounting a scope.

Today, you can expect to pay around $300 for a lightly used, cosmetically solid Nylon 66. As condition drops, of course, so does the price on this groundbreaking rifle. 

 

This article first appeared in American Rifleman, January 2009.

By John Gyde and Roy Marcot

In the early 1950s, Remington Arms Co. did not have a mid-priced .22-cal. semi-automatic rifle. Management knew that there were three high-cost components of any sporting arm—the barrel, receiver and stock. Engineers analyzed each to see if any significant cost savings could be obtained. They soon concluded that barrels did not offer much opportunity for savings, so they focused on the receivers and stocks.

Remington touted the synthetic Nylon 66 rifle as “The only .22 Alaskan fishermen find able to withstand corrosive sea spray,” as demonstrated by a Bob Kuhn painting. The 1959 image (top) shows Nylon 66 stock production at Remington’s Ilion, N.Y., plant. Note the canisters of Zytel waiting to be turned into Nylon 66s.

Remington asked the chemical engineers at DuPont to come up with a plastic that could replace both the wooden stock and the receiver. The specs given to the DuPont chemical development department in the early 1950s were: The material must be capable of forming any shape desired; it must have a high tensile-impact and flexural strength; it must have high abrasion resistance; it must have high resistance to heat distortion; it must be resistant to cold temperatures, it must, if exposed to a flame, not continue to burn when that flame is removed; it must be impervious to solvents, oils, mild acids, alkalis, fungus, rodents, and insects; it must have a finish that is easy to repair; it must be light in weight; it must hold permanent colors; it must have no corrosive effect on other parts; and it must be self-lubricating and dimensionally stable. 

DuPont’s control of Remington (since 1933) provided a resource for the new synthetic rifle stock, which was a radical concept of a combination receiver/stock as one unit made entirely of injection-molded plastic. In less than four months, DuPont’s engineers came back to Remington with Nylon Zytel-101. The Nylon story began when DuPont operated an R&D Laboratory called “Purity Hall.” The lab’s name was to emphasize the separation of the R&D work from production at DuPont. The efforts of Gerald Berchet and Wallace Carothers resulted in 81 new polyamides in 1935. From those new polymers, Polyamide 6-6 was chosen for further testing. It was soon after referred to as “Fiber 66.” The name “Nylon” was adopted by DuPont soon after. The first practical use of the new material was for ladies stockings, which were (and still are) called nylons. The actual DuPont material was structural Zytel Nylon 101, a member of the Nylon 66 family of plastics.

Remington knew that fabricating a .22-cal. Nylon rifle posed three formidable challenges. Would it have durability, accuracy and dependability? An internal memo dated July 7, 1955, reported a preliminary action design had been completed as a cooperative project with DuPont Polychemicals Dept., and a prototype of the new plastic-stocked rifle had been built. The design consisted of two hollow nylon pieces that were fused together to form the completed stock. The center section was covered by a low-cost, formed-steel metal cover—giving it the appearance of a more conventional gun with a steel receiver, and a prototype nylon stock was machined from bar stock.

Nylon 66 rifles used DuPont’s Zytel Nylon 101—part of the Nylon 66 family of plastics—for the stock and receiver, and it had a metal receiver cover. Stocks were offered in Mohawk Brown, Seneca Green and Apache Black.

The assembled rifle was then tested by firing 75,000 rounds with a malfunction rate of only 0.005 percent. Refinements on this prototype continued through the summer and fall of 1955. Testing continued to ensure there would be no distortions during molding and that stock shrinkage would not occur after the rifles were assembled.

A nylon gun had never before been made. Its appearance and feel would be significantly different from any other .22 on the market. Would the shooting public buy it? Remington hoped to gain acceptance through overwhelming evidence of the reliability and ease of use of the new gun. This was a gamble, but Remington felt the public would buy an unconventional .22 rifle—if it was extremely reliable and dependable. The new rifle had to sell at no more than other mid-level .22 rifles on the market.

Considerable time and energy were devoted to cost-control measures. But this was complicated by delays and cost increases on parts supplied by outside vendors. Also, Remington management changed the projected number of nylon rifles that would be produced, and the unit cost of certain parts changed with the size of the projected order. Even with costs not completely firm, Remington continued to proceed with development.

Remington Model 555 Bearcat Prototype Rifles
Early on, Remington engineers referred to the new rifle as the Model 555. A few of the early, prototype guns carrying the barrel stamp “Model 555” have surfaced. The nickname “Bearcat” was initially proposed for the Model 555. But in 1958 Sturm, Ruger & Co. introduced its Bearcat revolver, so Remington dropped the name. 

Remington design engineers launched the most extensive field-testing program it had have ever attempted, conducting tests almost continuously in late 1955, 1956, 1957 and into 1958. Hundreds of thousands of rounds were fired. In January 1958, Remington provided each of its sales representatives two prototype Model 555s for field-testing. They were each given one in olive drab green (later renamed Seneca Green) and one in walnut (later renamed Mohawk Brown). The salesmen were asked to fire a minimum of 1,000 rounds in each gun under adverse conditions, then return the gun with the results within 30 days.
On Feb. 23, 1958, salesman Delbert Conner sent his written report to Wayne Leek, Remington’s primary gun designer of the day. Conner’s summary was four pages long. His report began: “My first impression of these guns was, that they were just toys—or maybe air rifles for Buck Rogers. I doubt that the color or material will make much difference on the first showings. The public will refer to them as plastic ... .”

Conner then went into detail about the testing routine to which he subjected the rifles. He fired 2,000 rounds of various brands of ammunition. He held the guns right-side-up, upside-down and sideways. He fired slowly, then rapid fire by fanning the trigger until the barrel on one of the test guns was too hot to touch. He tested it in a blinding windstorm with blowing sand. Then he deliberately drove his station wagon over one (front and rear tires). The next morning, he took it in a boat to the middle of a lake and lowered it, fully loaded, to the bottom with a string on the trigger guard. He retrieved it, drained the water, and shot 100 rounds without a malfunction. He did manage to crack the front of a stock by deliberately dropping a gun from some unspecified elevation onto a concrete sidewalk. He reported that it functioned flawlessly both before and after that incident. His summary stated: “Looks like a plastic toy—performance and accuracy unbelievable.” And then he returned the rifles to Ilion, but wrote “I would surely like to have one back—charged to my sample account—if and when available.”

Introducing The Nylon 66
On May 2, 1958, Remington changed the model designation from Model 555 to Nylon 66. The final approval for formal introduction was given by management on Dec., 17, 1958. Just why Remington changed the model designation from Model 555 to Nylon 66 is not known. Approximately 4,450 production Nylon 66s were made in late 1958 for shipment after the first of the year. The retail price in January 1959 was $49.95. The Nylon 66 was called the “Gun Of Tomorrow” and introduced with an advertising blitz. Its dependability in adverse conditions was used as the primary selling point. Remington ads said: “This is the rifle trappers depend on from Hudson Bay to the Everglades. The only .22 that Alaskan fisherman find able to withstand the attacks of corrosive sea spray—To protect their nets from marauding sea lions!” Remington claimed “lubricant-free nylon ball bearings throughout the mechanism eliminate the need for lubricants of the functional parts of this rifle.”

A “Gallery Special” Nylon 66 was introduced in 1961, and the “.22 Short Only” variant was made until 1981. It had a shell deflector shield on the receiver’s right side. Most of the 16,474 Gallery 66s were in Mohawk Brown.

Initial Nylon 66 Publicity
In 1959, Tom Frye, a field representative for Remington, set out to surpass Ad Topperwein’s world record (set in 1907) of shooting 72,500 2½" wooden blocks as they were tossed into the air while missing only nine. Frye used three Nylon 66 rifles and maintained an average pace of 1,000 shots per hour (one shot every four seconds) for 13 consecutive eight-hour days. When the smoke cleared, he had shot at 100,010 blocks and hit 100,004, missing only six! The rifles were cleaned only five times during the Marathon trial.

The Nylon 66 was accepted enthusiastically. Demand exceeded projections and production capacity during its introductory year—1959. The Nylon 66 was initially available in two colors; Mohawk Brown (N66MB) and Seneca Green (N66SG). Production was scheduled to be 70 percent in Mohawk Brown and 30 percent in Seneca Green. The names were derived from the Mohawk and Seneca Native American tribes that originally lived near what would become Ilion, N.Y. Production rifles in Seneca Green were dropped in late 1962 because of limited demand.



Nylon 66 Characteristics
The Nylon 66 had a Zytel-101 stock that was injection-molded in two halves, of which one-half had a tongue and the other a groove. They were then bonded together. The buttstock and fore-end, of course, were two pieces and the middle section was the receiver. Between 1959 and 1969, Remington offered the following guarantee on all Nylon 66 rifle stocks: “We guarantee that this stock will not warp, crack, chip, fade or peel for the life of the rifle, or we will replace it free.” The buttplate, the fore-end tip, and the pistol grip cap were all black plastic bonded in place. Each had a white spacer. There were two reinforcing screws with nuts under the receiver cover, and there was one more under the ivory white diamonds on each side of the fore-end.
 
The magazine was in the butt, loaded through the buttplate and held 14 standard or high-velocity .22 LR rimfire cartridges. The striker was either an investment steel casting or a forging, which required no machining except for the hole down its center. The bolt was a steel machined forging. The striker and bolt ran in grooves in the self-lubricating nylon receiver. The other parts were either stainless steel or mild steel stampings, or, like the trigger guard and the trigger itself, were plastic. The forward face of the bolt had no spot-facing cut as originally fabricated; soon a semi-circular end mill cut was added.

The barrel measured just over 19½" and was clamped to the receiver by a screw-secured barrel bracket in a cradle formed within the stock. When the rifle needed cleaning, the barrel could be easily removed and cleaned from the breech. The barrel at its breech had two gas relief cuts added very soon after production started. In the event of a ruptured case, these cuts were to allow the hot gases to escape in a vertical direction, thus not hurting the shooter.

One of the main advantages from a manufacturer’s point of view was that it could be assembled with little or no hand fitting. In spite of the lack of hand fitting, the trigger pulls were excellent. The total weight of the rifle was about 4 lbs., 8 ozs. A slight disadvantage was that the magazine tube had to be completely removed before reloading, unlike the Models 16, 24 and 241, which were loaded through ports in the side of the buttstock.

In order to avoid shooter rejection of this “plastic gun,” the designers covered the nylon receiver with a blued steel stamping. They must have decided that as long as they were going to disguise the receiver with a steel shell, they would make the shell serve some useful purpose so the rear sight assembly was riveted to it. The cover was grooved so a scope could be mounted. It has been found that when a scope was mounted and the gun was gripped too rigidly the point of impact could change. The steel cover also held the ejector into the receiver. Finally, the flat spring that tensioned the cartridge feed guide was mounted by a rivet to the underside of the cover. The receiver covers and barrels were changed from blued to a matte black finish near the end of production.

The receiver cover had no serial number stamped on it until October 1967, just prior to the enactment of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which required that all guns have serial numbers. Serial numbering of the Nylon 66 and its spin-offs started at serial number 400000 and went to 419011, but at that time the number was stamped on the underside of the barrel just aft of the front sight. Three months later in 1968 the serial number started with 419012 and went to serial number 473710. In December 1968, the serial number range was changed to 2100000. When this series of serial numbers reached 2599999 in February 1977, the letter “A” was added in front of the numbers.

Nylon 66 Markings
The original logo stamped on the barrel in the open space just in front of the rear sight was “PAT. PEND.” over “22 L.R. ONLY” plus the date code and the final inspector’s stamp. Later the “PAT. PEND.” was dropped as the patent was granted and the stylized word “Remington” was added. Most Nylons also have the oval stamp with “REP” on the right rear of the barrel meaning “Remington English Proofed.” In the early 1980s, Remington started to use a much larger stamp on the barrel behind the front sight. It read: “REMINGTON 22 LONG RIFLE ONLY.” In 1959, Remington still had two other autoloading .22s on the market: the older Model 550-1 and the newer Model 552. The Model 550-1 sold for $46.75, and the Model 552 sold for $52.25. Therefore, the Nylon 66 acted as a “middle of the line” gun at $49.95.

Nylon 66 Legacy
The Nylon 66 was a huge gamble for Remington, as traditionally “real” guns had wood stocks. But it was a huge success. The end result was that it became the most successful .22-cal. rifle Remington has ever made, with total production of more than 1,000,000 by 1991 when the Nylon 66 was discontinued. The Nylons have been a “love-’em or hate-’em” gun ever since they were introduced. The appearance and feel were certainly non-traditional. The “love-’ems” seem to be winning, judging by the collector interest and price escalation of the less-common variations. Will Remington ever bring back this low-cost, lightweight 22? Only time will tell.

"Experience vs Education"

 

The Cartoon above I had saved several years ago, something like 6 years ago, for me it was telling, you ever see a cartoon that really makes a mark? well that one did with me.  I had had discussions with people that argued with me pitting their education against my experience and thinking that my experience was inferior to what they were taught, that somehow what I had seen and experienced with communism and when the wall fell was somehow not as worthy as what some professor regurgitated and my experiences were somehow not valid when I talked what I had experienced in the communist countries because what i had experienced wasn't "real communism"  Really?  My Experiences during the Gulf War were irrevelant and what their professor told them about Saddam being a peaceful msn and the rape of Kuwait, and gassing the Kurds, not withstanding?0

        When I talk about the Soviets and what the Cold war was like, they immediately go with the United States was the aggressor and that the Soviets were only defending themselves....Really? then why were the Soviets exporting communism through the southern hemisphere and throughout the world, financed a bunch of terrorist groups like the "Baader Meinhof Gang", the "PLO", "Stasi" and any other communist or leftist groups out there.  Despite my family history of having maternal family members disappearing in the gulag systems of the communist countries of Eastern Europe. somehow my experiences don't matter, I was 8 years old when my mom took the oath of citizenship at the courthouse in Georgia in the early 1970's somehow my folks experiences going though the citizenship process don't mean anything compared to the illegals that jumped the border during sleepy Joe's presidency. My folks made sure that they did things the right way, but somehow that is now the wrong way, its bizarro world.    I am getting to the point that i don't want to talk to anyone anymore, people ask what has made me angry and not want to talk to people any more and this is what did it for me.

    I find myself not wanting to talk to people anymore.

    I clipped this from Michael Smith off farcebook

I've written a couple of essays that touch on the value of experience and the danger of lacking it.

It matters that people born after 2001 did not witness the Towers falling.

It matters that people born since the Berlin Wall fell only know what they have been taught, rather than living with the experience of a divided Berlin where the differences between communism and capitalism are only separated by a wall.

Graduate Student correcting the experienced due to his superior education

It matters that they didn't witness the violent takeovers of entire countries by the Soviet Union and the subsequent installation of puppet rulers.

It matters that they never experienced the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction.

It matters that there are no longer Civil Defense shelter signs in public and government buildings.

It matters that they weren't there to see the race to space between the US and the USSR.

The traditional vs the Modern college experience.

It matters they didn't see the spree of bombing, murder and mayhem of the leftists during the 60's and 70's.

It matters because even the best, most accurate, most complete telling of a story doesn't match the impact of witnessing the events.