Information

Patchogue II PC-586 - History


Patchogue II
(PC-586: dp. 320; 1. 173'7"; b. 23'; dr. 6'6"; s. 20 k.; cpl. 46
a. 1 3", 1 40mm., 2 20mm.; cl. PC-461)

The second Patchogue (PC-586), a submarine chaser, was laid down 29 May 1942 by Defoe Shipbuilding Co., Bay City,
Mich.; launched as PC-586 on 15 July; and commissioned 5 October.

After sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico, PC-586 transited the Panama Canal and served as an escort craft along the west coast of the United States. Her coastal operations were ultimately extended to the Hawaiian Islands, and during the period 1 August through 31 December she was assigned to Commander, Hawaiian Sea Frontier, for duty. During this time she rendered valuable service as a training craft in the area of Pearl Harbor. She likewise performed patrol and eonvoy escort missions in Hawaiian waters.

A convoy escort mission took PC-586 to Saipan 23 July 1944. With the end of hostilities, the submarine chaser continued to bolster Fleet readiness by briefly serving in a training capacity out of Pearl Harbor, and then along the east coast at both Charleston, S.C. and Coco Solo, Canal Zone

PC-586 decommissioned and went into reserve at Norfolk, Va. in January 1950. She was named Patchogoue 15 February 1956. She was struck from the Navy List 1 April 1959 and shortly thereafter sold to Potomae Shipwrecking Co.

Patchogoue received one battle star for World War II service.


Village Justice Court

Patchogue Village Justice Court is one of approximately 2,300 justice courts in the State of New York and is part of the New York State Unified Court System. The Patchogue Village Justice Court predominately presides over offenses alleged to have occurred within the boundaries of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue. These include: New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law violations New York State Building Code and Patchogue Village Code violations related to Building & Housing matters New York Penal Law and Patchogue Village Code violations related to Quality of Life matters and, Patchogue Village Code Parking violations.


Patchogue, which is approximately 60 miles (100 km) east of Manhattan, became incorporated in 1893. A natural riverfront and harbor are resources that the village has utilized for the past 100 years, to become a modern and largely self-contained community.

Patchogue is the mailing address for residents of the village, as well as residents of the adjoining hamlets of East Patchogue, North Patchogue, Canaan Lake and some areas on Fire Island.

Patchogue and the adjacent hamlet of Medford share a school district and library. There are Primary, Middle and High Schools, plus continuing education programs for adults. The School District, library, and St. Joseph's College provide a variety of educational opportunities. In 2010, the Patchogue-Medford Library was awarded the 2010 National Medal for Museum and Library Science for the library's work in bilingual programming. [4]

The Patchogue Theater for the Performing Arts opened in 1923. It was later renovated into a triplex, after which it was converted to a single movie theater. It closed in the late 1980s. In the mid-1990s the Village acquired the theater, and completely refurbished the building it now seats 1,166 people.

Patchogue has places of worship of various Christian denominations. Three churches in Patchogue are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Congregational Church on East Main Street, United Methodist Church on South Ocean Avenue between Church Street and Terry Street, and the St. Paul's Episcopal Church on Rider Avenue across from Terry Street. St. Francis de Sales is the Roman Catholic parish which was formed in the 1880s. It was formed and flourished despite the protests of the nativist Know Nothing movement. Patchogue also has two synagogues, Young Israel of Patchogue and Temple Beth-El. Patchogue is also home of the Blue Point Brewing Company.

Volunteer organisations include The Patchogue Chamber of Commerce, Knights of Columbus Council 725, Kiwanis, Rotarians and Lions. The Patchogue Ambulance Company is an all-volunteer service.

In 2019, the local downtown area was recognized by the American Planning Association as one of America's four "Great Neighborhoods." Since 2007, the association has recognized over 300 neighborhoods, streets, and public spaces that make communities stronger and bring people together through good planning. [5]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 2.5 square miles (6.5 km²), of which 2.2 square miles (5.8 km 2 ) of it is land and 0.3 square miles (0.7 km 2 ) of it (10.71%) is water.

Historical population
Census Pop.
18802,503
19002,926
19103,824 30.7%
19204,031 5.4%
19306,860 70.2%
19407,181 4.7%
19507,361 2.5%
19608,838 20.1%
197011,582 31.0%
198011,291 −2.5%
199011,060 −2.0%
200011,919 7.8%
201011,798 −1.0%
2019 (est.)12,321 [2] 4.4%
U.S. Decennial Census [7]

In 1812 there were 75 inhabitants in Patchogue according to The Brooklyn Eagle, published in 1930. [8]

As of the census [3] of 2000, there were 11,919 people, 4,636 households, and 2,749 families residing in the village. The population density was 5,301.2 people per square mile (2,045.3/km 2 ). There were 4,902 housing units at an average density of 2,180.2 per square mile (841.2/km 2 ). The racial makeup of the village was 81.27% White, 3.89% African American, 0.34% Native American, 1.39% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 9.23% from other races, and 3.85% from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 23.84% of the population. [9]

There were 4,636 households, out of which 29.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 40.3% were married couples living together, 13.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 40.7% were non-families. 31.8% of all households were made up of individuals, and 9.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54 and the average family size was 3.20.

22.5% of Patchogue's inhabitants were under the age of 18, 9.2% ranged from 18 and 24, 37.1% from 25 to 44, 20.7% from 45 to 64, and 10.5% were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 35 years. For every 100 females, there were 100.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 99.7 males.

The median income for a household in the village was $47,027, and the median income for a family was $60,126. Males had a median income of $38,561 versus $30,599 for females. The per capita income for the village was $22,962. 8.1% of families and 10.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 13.5% of those under age 18 and 10.4% of those age 65 or over.

In 2010, the demographics were 61.8% White, 29.6% Hispanic, 5.3% Black, 0.3% Native American, 1.6% Asian, 0.1% Some Other Race, and 1.4% Two or More Races. [9] [10]


Patchogue man facing sex abuse charges arrested again on new charges, cops say

A Patchogue man already facing sex abuse charges involving a 7-year-old girl in 2010 was rearrested Wednesday on new sex crime charges involving three children who had been in the care of his wife, Suffolk County police said.

Angel Tacuri, 52, was arrested at his home and charged with two counts of first-degree course of sexual conduct against a child, one count of first-degree sexual abuse and three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, according to police. He is scheduled to be held overnight for arraignment Thursday in First District Court in Central Islip.

The charges stem from alleged abuse of three young girls, then between the ages of 3 and 8 years old, that police said took place between 2010 and 2015.

According to Suffolk police, the three girls came forward after Tacuri was previously charged in the 7-year-old's case and said they were sexually abused "at separate times" while they were in the care of Tacuri’s wife at their home. Tacuri was previously arrested in January and charged with first-degree criminal sexual act and first-degree sexual abuse stemming from 2010 involving the 7-year-old girl, police said.

The attorney of record for Tacuri could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

But court records show a temporary order of protection was ordered against Tacuri following his arraignment on those prior charges Jan. 15 — and that he was released on $40,000 bond. His next scheduled appearance in that case is listed as Oct. 8.

It was not immediately clear if his bond would be revoked following the new arrest.

The pandemic has changed education on Long Island. Find out how.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Police said the investigation of Tacuri is ongoing and Special Victims Section detectives are asking the family or relatives of anyone who believes they may have been a victim to call 911 or contact them at 631-852-6531.

John Valenti, a reporter at Newsday since 1981, has been honored nationally by the Associated Press and Society of the Silurians for investigative, enterprise and breaking news reporting, as well as column writing, and is the author of “Swee'pea,” a book about former New York playground basketball star Lloyd Daniels. Valenti is featured in the Emmy Award-winning ESPN 30-for-30 film “Big Shot.”


The History and Future of the Smith & Wesson Internal Lock

There was no avoiding it. Eventually, we were going to have to discuss the darned lock.

The lock I’m referring to, of course, is the Internal Locking System (ILS) on Smith & Wesson revolvers, which was added to virtually the entire line, starting in 2001. “The lock” is one of the great controversies in the modern history of firearms A polarizing move that quickly split the community into one of two camps, much like the production changes to Winchester rifles in 1964, or the addition of the “Series 80” firing pin block by Colt’s to the much-beloved 1911 pistol in 1983.

Similar to Winchester and Colt’s in those missteps, the leadership at Smith & Wesson failed to understand and predict the backlash that would follow the new change. The lock inflamed passions, offended sensibilities, and damaged the brand’s sales. Additionally, the problem didn’t go away. Instead, it festered. The offense had staying power.

So, it’s time for a RevolverGuy to weigh in on this topic. As an enthusiast, I have some pretty strong personal opinions about the lock, but I’ll do my best to separate those from the facts as much as possible, and point them out when they creep in.

The British Are Coming

The story of the lock begins sometime around June of 1987, with the acquisition of the Smith & Wesson brand by Tomkins plc, an engineering company headquartered in London. At the time, Tomkins was remaking itself through a series of acquisitions in various, unconnected industries, with an eye towards revenue growth. Among the various divisions under the Tomkins umbrella were those that dealt in automotive parts, bath supplies (pipes, windows, tubs), baking equipment, and–with the Smith & Wesson acquisition–firearms.

The Bangor Punta years were tough at Smith & Wesson

The Tomkins acquisition came on the heels of financial trouble under the ownership of Bangor Punta, another conglomerate like Tomkins, which was based here in America. When Bangor Punta bought the controlling interest in Smith & Wesson from the Wesson family in 1965, they expanded into accessory sales, including Smith & Wesson-branded ammunition, holsters, and police equipment (restraints, sobriety test equipment, patrol car sirens and lightbars, riot gear, etc.). Bangor Punta grew the business handily, and by the late 1970s, these ancillary products accounted for about 25% of Smith & Wesson’s sales.

In the early 1980s though, Smith & Wesson started showing signs of distress. The problem was rooted in the Carter-era downturn in the economy, coupled with aging infrastructure and increased labor and material expenses. In short, income was going down, while costs were going up. More worrisome however, was the general consensus that Springfield quality control was taking a hit, and S&W products were no longer being made to their traditionally high standards. Even the most ardent supporters of the brand were admitting in print that standards were declining.

Then, in the mid-1980s, the “Wondernine Wars” kicked off. When Uncle Sam selected the Italian Beretta 92 as the new service pistol in 1985, Smith & Wesson found themselves playing catch up in a high stakes game. Their 39 and 59-series pistols had never been very popular in either the commercial or the law enforcement markets in the U.S., and early models had developed a reputation for spotty reliability. The S&W Second Generation entry into the three rounds of Pre-XM9 and XM9 pistol trials didn’t fare well either, getting bested by designs from foreign makers Beretta and Sig Sauer, which hurt acceptance and sales of the S&W product.

BDUs and Berettas. The U.S. military’s selection of the Beretta 92 to replace the venerable 1911 created shockwaves and formally launched the “Wondernine Wars,” which S&W struggled to compete in.

The big nail in the coffin though, was the importation of the Glock 17, beginning in 1985. The radical pistol struggled to gain acceptance from a conservative market at first, but the strength of the design and an aggressive marketing and sales campaign soon catapulted the plastic pistol into the pole position. The commercial and law enforcement autopistol markets were soon dominated by Glock, with Beretta and Sig Sauer taking up large bites of the remainder. Smith & Wesson sales languished, and profits dropped 41% between 1982 and 1986.

The Lear Siegler ownership of S&W was brief

The financial difficulties led to Lear Siegler Holdings Corporation (who had acquired Bangor Punta in 1984) dumping the Smith & Wesson brand. Tomkins plc purchased it in June of 1987, and immediately invested in new design and manufacturing technologies to improve the product. They also instituted strict quality control processes. As a result, Smith & Wesson product quality made a drastic improvement, with warranty returns falling as much as 81% for the pistol lines, and 50% for the revolver lines by mid-1989.

So far, life under the Union Jack had generally been an improvement for Smith & Wesson.

The Bad Old Days

But there were storm clouds on the horizon for Smith & Wesson, and it wasn’t long before the collision of two forces finally brought about the conditions that gave us the lock.

The first was continued economic pressures. While product quality had recovered under Tomkins plc, sales continued to weaken. Smith & Wesson had dramatically improved its line of pistols by the time the Third Generation guns were introduced in the late 1980s, but they still struggled to keep up with the foreign competition. By the mid-1990s, the Sig Sauer P228 had become THE pistol in federal law enforcement, and the Glock had become the most popular gun in uniformed police holsters (particularly the Glock 22, chambered in Smith & Wesson’s new, namesake cartridge—the .40 S&W—which S&W had hoped to make a strong comeback with). A failed attempt to go head-to-head with Glock in the mid-to-late 1990s with the ill-fated Sigma not only burdened the company with a costly settlement, but also served to illustrate the company’s struggle to create a competitive pistol design that sold well.

The second force was anti-gun politics. With the November 1992 election of Bill Clinton, one of the nation’s most anti-gun leaders was now in the White House. As President, Clinton quickly called on Congress to place restrictions on the public’s ownership and use of firearms, and less than two years after he took the oath of office, he signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Part of the Act was a prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic weapons defined by the legislation, as well as limitations on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines that held greater than 10 rounds.

The President signs the “Assault Weapons Ban” in 1994.

While the “Assault Weapons Ban” was Clinton’s most significant achievement, the President aggressively pursued a host other anti-gun initiatives as well. Among them, he placed two vehemently anti-gun Justices on the Supreme Court (Ginsburg and Breyer) and filled the lower federal courts with many more. In United States V. Emerson, his Justice Department argued that the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms for soldiers serving in the National Guard.

Under his watch and direction, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention turned into a political weapon, funding research that supported anti-gun views (the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the CDC, argued that guns, like cigarettes, should be treated as “dirty, deadly–and banned”), while actively suppressing research that challenged the efficacy of gun control. In fact, the situation with CDC got so bad that in 1996, Congress was forced to act, and passed the Dickey Amendment, which prohibited the CDC from using any of its funding to advocate for gun control (stupidly, the current Congress returned to prior practices, and just funded $25M for gun research that will certainly trend anti-gun).

Furthermore, the President pushed for and signed legislation that created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which applied to all new firearms sales. NICS was the nation’s first mandatory federal background check and waiting period (five days, until the NICS system was fully operational).

But the Clinton assault on guns and gun owners was not complete. In an effort to place even more pressure on the industry, the President directed his Secretary for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to muscle the major firearms manufacturers into signing agreements that would place more restrictions on firearms commerce. To entice cooperation, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (the same Cuomo who, as Governor, would later use extra-legal measures to force the unconstitutional “SAFE Act” through the New York legislature in an after-hours, “emergency” session in January 2013) arranged for several municipalities to drop their product-liability lawsuits against firearms manufacturers who participated in the agreement. Although the municipalities stood little chance of winning the frivolous suits, they knew that mounting a defense would be prohibitively costly for the small firearms companies they brought to court with taxpayer money. The suits were simply designed to cripple the firearms industry through litigation, so Cuomo’s promise of relief was a compelling offer.

If you were there, you remember. Tough times.

The rest of the industry–most notably, arch-rivals Beretta and Glock–rejected the effort, but British-owned Smith & Wesson agreed, in exchange for: Promises of favorable treatment on municipal (at least fifteen cities signed, including Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, St. Louis, and San Francisco), state, and federal firearms contracts The promise that they would not be sued by the Attorneys General of New York and Connecticut, and Being dropped as a defendant in many of the 30 existing municipal lawsuits.

The “HUD Agreement” was signed on March 17, 2000 between Smith & Wesson and the Departments of the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development. The terms of the agreement were both oppressive and extensive, requiring changes in technology, handgun “safety” features, product testing, sales and distribution agreements, records reporting to BATFE, advertising, and consumer purchase restrictions. The agreement mandated investment in “smart gun” technology, prohibited S&W from manufacturing new designs that could accommodate grandfathered magazines (under the new Clinton ban) that held more than 10 rounds, pressured dealers to share more of their sales records with BATFE than the law required, mandated magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators, mandated a dealers “Code of Conduct” that required (in part) background checks on every transaction (even when not required by law), mandated a prohibition on persons under 18 in gun stores without an adult being present, and limited handgun sales to one every two weeks, among a long list of other requirements.

The agreement also required an internal locking device on all guns sold by Smith & Wesson within 24 months.

Public Reaction

The gun community’s reaction to the S&W-HUD agreement was swift. Smith & Wesson came under immediate criticism from Second Amendment supporters across the nation, particularly after information surfaced indicating they had betrayed their fellow industry partners by sharing confidential communications from industry meetings with the feds during negotiations.

Many Smith & Wesson dealers dropped the brand, refusing to abide by the highly restrictive and intrusive “Code of Conduct” that Smith & Wesson now required of their dealers. Business dropped off as the distribution network for Smith & Wesson products dried up.

Revenue had been falling for years before the HUD agreement, but Smith & Wesson took an even larger hit in the aftermath. Many enthusiasts (the biggest spenders in the market) boycotted the brand, and sales suffered. Additionally, the promised and highly-anticipated municipal, state and federal contracts never materialized. The HUD Agreement, designed to save Smith & Wesson from bankruptcy, was instead killing revenue.

With Smith & Wesson bleeding badly, influential people in the industry tried to calm tensions and save the brand from destruction, but a large part of the gun community wasn’t having it. The HUD Agreement hit a nerve.

However, the low point hadn’t been reached yet. The majority of the gun buying public–then and now—didn’t stay abreast of political developments that affected their firearms rights, and their first opportunity to vote with their wallet wouldn’t come until a year later, with the introduction of the HUD-required internal locking devices.

The Lock

In May of 2001, just over a year after the HUD agreement was signed, ownership of Smith & Wesson changed again, with Tomkins plc selling the brand to Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. Saf-T-Hammer was a manufacturer of firearms locks and safety products, and by the end of the year, an internal locking system of their design had begun to populate the left sideplates of Smith & Wesson revolvers, in accordance with the terms of the HUD Agreement.

The lock is a key-operated system that blocks the movement of the hammer when activated. When the key is inserted into the lock and turned counterclockwise, it rotates a cam on the inside of the sideplate. This cam bears upon a rotating locking piece that has a raised stud on its surface, and when the cam rotates, it rotates the locking piece and raises the stud into position.

The punch points to the stud on the locking piece/flag, which rides in a groove on the side of the hammer. This stud will bind on the hammer and prevent its movement. The leaf-shaped piece to the right is the rotating cam which raises the locking piece and engages the system when you turn the key counterclockwise. Image from INGunOwnerers.com. https://www.ingunowners.com/forums/gunsmithing/327405-hillary-hole-how-deal-stupid-lock.html

In the raised position, the stud fits into a notch that’s recessed in the left side of the hammer, which blocks the hammer from moving rearward. The trigger will not move to the rear when the lock is engaged, because the hammer has been fixed in position by the stud on the locking piece, and the rest of the action is now tied up as a result of the immovable hammer. The cylinder may be opened or closed with the lock engaged, however.

The punch points to the track in the side of the hammer that the stud on the locking piece/flag rides in. When it’s rotated into position by the cam, the stud will enter the notch, lock up the hammer, and prevent its movement. Image from INGunOwners.com. https://www.ingunowners.com/forums/gunsmithing/327405-hillary-hole-how-deal-stupid-lock.html

On a locked gun, when the key is turned in a clockwise manner, the cam rotates the locking piece again, and the stud leaves the notch on the hammer, freeing it for travel. In the unlocked position, the stud rides in a curved channel in the side of the hammer, where it doesn’t interfere with hammer travel.

The “LOCKED” flag is visible just under the hammer spur.

On exposed-hammer revolvers, the locking piece is partially raised through a gap in the frame’s hammer channel when it’s rotated to the locked position. The exposed part of the piece looks like a small flag, and it bears a “LOCKED” inscription on it as a visual reminder that the system is . . . well, locked. On “hammerless” revolvers, there is no visible locking flag when the lock is engaged, but the system works identically on the inside.

The hammerless guns lack a visible flag, but the system works the same, with a stud on the internal locking piece locking the hammer in place when the key is turned. Image from INGunOwners.com. https://www.ingunowners.com/forums/gunsmithing/327405-hillary-hole-how-deal-stupid-lock.html

Reactions

When the locks first started to appear on guns in 2001, the reaction was generally negative. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the customers who disapproved of the lock were more vocal than the ones who liked it. Some consumers certainly appreciated the ability to lock up the mechanism of the handgun as a security feature, but the overwhelming majority of people who expressed an opinion about the lock absolutely hated it . . . and they were loud.

From the very beginning, there were three main reasons why shooters hated the lock. The reasons have stayed the same for the better part of two decades now, even as a new generation of shooters has entered the culture. The three reasons, in no particular order, are Cosmetics, Reliability, and Symbolism, and we’ll take a look at each.

Fugly

First, cosmetics. The simple fact is that there’s a lot of people who hate the lock because they think it’s ugly. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder, so there’s probably some people out there who don’t mind seeing the lock hole and its direction arrow on the sideplate, but there’s also a legion of folks out there who think it looks awful. Neither side is wrong, they just have different aesthetic tastes.

Beauty, or the Beast?

Personally, I happen to fall in the latter camp. I think the lock looks like a turd starting to crown in the sideplate of the gun, with an arrow to show you which way to wipe. But that’s just me. As we used to say on the web forums, back in the pre-dawn era before social media ruined communication, YMMV.

Red Flags

It didn’t take long before reports of lock failures (more precisely, undesired self-engagements of the lock) started creeping up on Al Gore’s internet with frequency, casting doubt on the reliability of the lock.

Looking back on it now, while many of the early lock failure reports were spurious (for a while there, shooters were quick to label any revolver malfunction as a lock issue, even when there was no evidence to suggest a link), there was a real fire to go with all that smoke. While Smith & Wesson and some influential personalities in the gun press were quick to dismiss the first reports of self-engaging locks, enough data points were accumulated over time to indicate that the lock was indeed malfunctioning under certain conditions, and binding the action so that the trigger and hammer were frozen in place.

The truth about lock failures lay somewhere in between the internet hysteria, and the industry insiders who warned us it was “much ado about nothing.”

While there have been credible reports of malfunctions with both exposed hammer and hammerless designs, a variety of calibers, and frames made from all the various materials (steel, aluminum, Scandium), a fairly consistent pattern has emerged in the majority of confirmed lock failures. In general, the guns most susceptible to self-engagements have been exposed hammer guns, with frames made of lightweight materials (particularly Scandium), firing large caliber rounds (.44 Magnum, in particular) or high pressure, smaller caliber rounds (such as .357 Magnum or .38 Special +P+).

In practice, the locking piece (that doubles as a “LOCKED” flag on the exposed hammer guns) is under very minor spring tension, from a small coil spring at its base. Under the severe forces of recoil in lightweight, heavily-charged guns, inertia has allowed the locking piece to “float up” into a raised position and bind on the hammer, locking it in place. Sometimes this malfunction can be cleared in the field, but other times the jam has been severe enough that it required disassembly of the revolver and/or the attention of a trained gunsmith.

Because the locking piece is bigger on the exposed hammer guns, to incorporate the visible flag, there seems to be a greater tendency for these guns to jam up than on the hammerless models, where the locking piece is smaller and has less inertia to overcome the coil spring tension.

The crowd of shooters who were predisposed to dislike the lock seized on the reports of self-engagements and declared lock-equipped guns completely unsuitable for defensive use, or for protection from dangerous game. In hyperbolic fashion, a legion of Keyboard Commandos preached dark visions of gloom about shooters who would wind up “dead in the streets” with self-engaged, locked guns in their hands.

In truth, the likelihood of a lock self-engaging was low for the vast majority of guns and shooters. The problem was real, and the risk was not to be ignored or dismissed, but the vast majority of gun-ammo combinations were unlikely to cause the lock to self-engage. Choosing a self defense gun that was not equipped with an internal lock was a reasonably conservative way to avoid a potential problem, and one that many experts suggested, but the people who were stuck with a lock-equipped gun (due to product availability or state laws) weren’t doomed to suffer a life-ending failure—particularly if they weren’t shooting a Scandium-framed, .44 Magnum or .357 Magnum with heavy loads.

My personal view is that I would prefer a gun that is not equipped with an internal lock for self defense missions, but if circumstances dictate a lock-equipped gun as the best–or only–choice, I wouldn’t fret too much. Instead, I would just focus on frequent training with my gun under realistic conditions (using duty ammunition, or an appropriate analog) and keep an eye out for any indications of trouble.

The author believes a non-lock gun is preferable to a lock-equipped gun for self defense, but mostly out of an abundance of caution. Lock-equipped guns are suitable if they have proven to be reliable during extensive training with duty loads.

If your lock-equipped gun has a track record of running smoothly with duty-level ammunition, then you can be as confident in it as you would any other gun (keeping in mind that guns—even guns without locks—can break, right?). If problems actually do arise with the lock during training, I’d replace the gun with a different type if I could, or if I was stuck with the gun, I’d start experimenting with other types of ammunition, to find a load that’s problem free after rigorous testing.

As for hunting dangerous game with the lightweight Magnums, I think I’d avoid it entirely and just choose a steel-framed gun in the same caliber, putting up with the extra weight for recoil control and the added guarantee of reliability. I’m sure my wrists and my orthopedic surgeon would appreciate my choice, too.

Politics and Religion

The last of the major beefs about the lock is the one that I personally think is most important, and is also the one that has had the greatest influence on the continued opposition to these guns.

For many of us RevolverGuys, the lock has symbolic value. Yeah it’s ugly, but the ugliness of the lock transcends what the eye can see. When we see the lock, we see a reminder of the powerful, anti-liberty, anti-gun forces that colluded to deprive us of our civil rights in the Clinton era. We also see a reminder of one of their most important victories—a signed agreement that turned one of the most prized and beloved of American companies against its own customers, against its industry brothers, and against the Constitution itself.

The lock reminds us of all the losses we’ve sustained to those enemy forces, and the ongoing struggle to prevent our Constitutionally-recognized, natural rights from being infringed. It sticks in our craw like an enemy flag being flown over an American position, and stings like a finger poke in the eye from a bully.

Conveniently, the key doubles as a tool to gouge your eyes out.

There’s a lot of Second Amendment supporters today who aren’t old enough to remember the HUD Agreement and Clinton’s war on guns, but all of them understand the clear symbolic connection between the lock and the anti-liberty forces arrayed against us today, who would deprive us of our natural right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and others.

We hate the damned lock because we hate the elitist, deceitful, malicious, nanny-state, anti-gun movement that foisted it on us. And that’s never going to change.

Looking Back

The 2000 HUD Agreement was signed by a British-controlled Smith & Wesson. The same Brits who marched on Lexington and Concord to seize our powder and arms at the birth of our nation, showed little regard for protecting the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms some 225 years later when they shook hands with the American traitor, Secretary Cuomo.

A year later, Smith & Wesson was sold to an American corporation (who voluntarily—and regretfully—complied with some key terms of the agreement, despite the fact that the newly-elected Bush Administration advised that the federal government would no longer bind them to the Clinton-era agreement), and it remains in American control to the present day. This is important, because it’s a key element in the full recovery of Smith & Wesson to its former status as an American icon.

While there’s many people out there who doubt that Smith & Wesson will ever fully renounce the legacy of the 2000 HUD Agreement by removing the locks from their guns, the history of our industry hints otherwise.

After Winchester made changes to production methods and popular firearms designs in 1964 to save money, there was a huge outcry and backlash from the buying public. Sales plummeted and demand for “Pre-64” models of the most popular Winchester rifles spiraled upwards for decades, as influential members of the gun press continued to rail against impressed checkering, stamped trigger guards and floor plates, push feed actions, inelegant looking stocks, and lower standards of quality.

It took 28 years for Winchester to come to its senses, and redesign its Model 70 to give the customer what they wanted all along. By that time, production quality had slipped to the point that the newly-redesigned guns didn’t measure up to the older standards, but within a few years, new ownership and licensing agreements returned the quality to the Winchester mark, and the “Rifleman’s Rifle” was worthy of the “Horse and Rider” logo again.

A similar rejuvenation of the classic 1911 pistol occurred in the wake of Colt’s decision to change the firing pin lockwork to the Series 80 standard in 1983. The buying public was mostly cold towards the new firing pin block, but enthusiasts were particularly unhappy with the block’s effect on the trigger pull, and were exceptionally vocal in their opposition to the change. They, and influential members of the press and industry, complained enough about the change that several of Colt’s competitors began to market their no-block lockwork as a premium feature, and consumers responded.

As a result of the discontent and the lost revenue, Colt’s announced several decades later that it would return the pre-Series 80 system (nominally called the Series 70 system, although that’s not an entirely accurate label) to production, offering its consumers the choice between a Series 80 gun with the firing pin block, or a Series 70 gun with a heavier spring and lighter firing pin to achieve a comparable level of safety.

Looking Ahead

In the Winchester and Colt’s examples, we see an indication of what may lie ahead for Smith & Wesson.

Naysayers will point out that the lock is viewed as a “safety feature,” and as such, Smith & Wesson could never back away from the design without a significant legal and/or public relations issue. They believe that removing the lock would subject Smith & Wesson to claims that they were “making the guns less safe,” and the associated liability.

It’s important to note, however, that Smith & Wesson never fully abandoned the no-lock guns. Shortly after the lock became a heated issue, Smith & Wesson made a run of Airweight revolvers using old, pre-lock frames that were in inventory. This limited run of guns sold so well that Smith & Wesson continued to offer a limited supply of no-lock, J-Frame revolvers, through the present (often marketing the absence of a lock as a premium feature, reserved for more expensive models).

If the argument that an internal lock was an essential safety feature was compelling, then these no-lock guns would have disappeared entirely decades ago. Liability concerns would have required it. The fact that they have not, is an indicator that Smith & Wesson and their attorneys understand that while the locks can be viewed as an added “security feature,” they are not required by federal law, are not an essential “safety feature,” and the guns are not unsafe without them.

In practical terms, there is little to keep Smith & Wesson from expanding the existing line of no-lock SKUs, and offering their consumers a more comprehensive choice between lock and no-lock versions, much as Colt’s offers their customers a choice between Series 70 and Series 80 firing pin safety systems. Actually, a more powerful analogy might be in front of Smith & Wesson’s own nose, as they sell multiple variants of their semiautomatic pistols, some with added “safety features” (loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, external safety levers), and some without.

There are important economic reasons for Smith & Wesson to consider this course. At the time of the 2000 HUD Agreement, Colt’s had left the commercial market entirely, and Smith & Wesson’s only true competition in the revolver market came from Ruger (which had a limited selection of double action revolver designs), and to a lesser degree, Taurus (which was perceived as a lesser-quality product at the time). Smith & Wesson may have reasoned that consumers would continue to buy their product, even with an internal lock, because there were so few viable alternatives.

The market has changed significantly since then. Colt’s is back in the revolver business in a big way, and Ruger has become the 600 pound gorilla in the industry, with an extensive selection of high quality products, including designs like the LCR that improve on every aspect of the compact revolver (including sights, trigger and ergonomics), and the SP101 and GP100, which set the standards for performance in their size and weight classes. Even Taurus has stepped up their game, with a new plant in Bainbridge, Georgia, and a vision to grow the company into a leading competitor.

There’s also the new kid on the block, Kimber. The “1911 guys” have managed to build an exciting and compelling revolver, and it’s targeted at the cognoscenti in the revolver market, who appreciate a premium product. The Kimber K6s improves on the basic Smith & Wesson offering by delivering an improved trigger, improved sights, and an additional round in the chamber, while remaining remarkably close in size to the premiere J-Frame, the Model 640.

Oh . . . and it doesn’t have an ugly internal lock hole in the sideplate.

Back to the Future?

So, the game has changed, and Smith & Wesson can no longer rely upon their market dominance to overcome the softening demand for their lock-equipped revolvers. Just as Winchester had to rethink their Post-64 strategy in the wake of growing competition from Savage, Ruger and Kimber, Smith & Wesson may soon have to reexamine the calculus that has them sticking with an unpopular arrangement that a former owner saddled them with, during an economic and political crisis.

Indeed, the November 2019 announcement from American Outdoor Brands (AOB—the Freedom Group-type conglomerate that combined Smith & Wesson, Thompson Center Arms, Crimson Trace, and 13 other outdoor product brands), that they will separate the Smith & Wesson brand from the rest, may accelerate this. In a politically-charged marketplace—where gun manufacturers are constantly under attack from investors, a weaponized banking industry, radical shareholders, ignorant politicians, and foolish citizens— it appears that AOB is trying to insulate their outdoor products businesses from the more contentious firearms manufacturing components. The new Smith & Wesson Brands will have to find its own way in a difficult marketplace that is still suffering from softened consumer demand (the “Trump Slump” continues to hurt many companies in the industry), and a rejuvenated, no-lock revolver line could be a key component of establishing a solid foundation for the newly-independent company.

Today’s Smith & Wesson has the designs, the engineering, the creativity, and the quality control they need to do something really special here. Let’s hope that the Smith & Wesson leadership team also has the vision and courage to seize the opportunity, increase their revenue in a down market, and fully restore the market’s faith in the brand as a steward of the Second Amendment.

I’ll be the first in line with my credit card, when they do. I would probably have another dozen Smiths in the safe, were it not for the lock, and I’d like to give them my money. The lock is a deal-killer for me, though, and I know I’m not alone. There’s a lot of pent-up demand for no-lock S&Ws out there amongst the enthusiasts who spend the most money on firearms.

We need a strong and vibrant Smith & Wesson in the market—they’re an American icon that I want to see flourish. I just think it’s time for them to break free of the chains from a dark past which are holding them back.

Can you hear us, Springfield?

Supica, Jim & Nahas, Richard. Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, Gun Digest Books, 2006


Don’t Miss LI’s Winter Restaurant Week January 26th- February 2nd, 2020 1215

Join us for our WinterLong Island Restaurant Week January 26th – February 2nd, 2020. As always during restaurant week, participating restaurants will offer a $29.95 three-course prix fixe all night every night they are open from Sunday to Sunday, except Saturday when it only has to be offered until 7 p.m.

There are new restaurants participating this winter. Why not take this opportunity to get out and try a new spot, or head back to some of your favorites. With so many different cuisines and options to choose from, you are sure to find something to suit your palate. Bon Appétit!

Here is the list of participating Suffolk County restaurants, click on the Restaurant name for menu options or to make a reservation :

Alexandros Kitchen and Bar (631) 979-9700 Suffolk – Smithtown, Mediterranean

Alexandros Restaurant (631) 928- 8600 Suffolk – Mount Sinai, Mediterranean

Athenian Greek Taverna (631) 499-7660 Suffolk – Commack, Greek

Babylon Carriage House (631) 422-5161 Suffolk – Babylon, American

B armani’s Kitchen and Bar (631) 659-3889 Suffolk – Huntington, Continental

Bella Vie (631) 500-9045 Suffolk – Bay Shore, Italian

Besito Mexican (516) 620-3222 Suffolk – West Islip, Mexican

Besito Mexican (631) 549-0100 Suffolk – Huntington, Mexican

Bistro 25 (631) 589-7775 Suffolk – Sayville, New American

Bistro 58 (631) 881-6013 Suffolk – Islandia, American

Bistro Cassis Huntington (631) 881- 6013 Suffolk – Huntington, French

Café Buenos Aires (631) 603- 3600 Suffolk – Huntington, French

Cafe Havana Bar And Grill (631) 670-6277 Suffolk – Smithtown, Cuban

Café Joelle (631) 589-4600 Suffolk – Sayville, American

Captain Bill’s (631) 665-6262 Suffolk – Bay Shore, Seafood

Casa Rustica (631) 265-9265 Suffolk – Smithtown, Italian

Chachama (631) 758-7640 Suffolk – East Patchogue, New American

Chop Shop Bar and Grill (631) 360-3380 Suffolk – Smithtown, American

Cinque Terre Ristorante (631) 923-1255 Suffolk – Huntington Sta., Italian

Drift 82 (631) 714-4950 Suffolk – Patchogue, American

Garden Grill Restaurant (631) 265-8771 Suffolk – Smithtown, American

George Martin’s Strip Steak (631) 650-6777 Suffolk – Great River, Steakhouse

H20 East Islip (631) 277-4800 Suffolk – East Islip, Seafood

H20 Smithtown ( 631) 361-6464 Suffolk – Smithtown, Seafood

Honu Kitchen & Cocktails (631) 421-6900 Suffolk – Huntington, American

Imperial Meat Company (631) 824-6222 Suffolk – Huntington, Steakhouse

Irish Coffee Pub (631) 277-0007 Suffolk – East Islip, Continental

ITA Kitchen (631) 267-5916 Suffolk – Bayshore, Italian

Jonathan’s Ristorante (631) 549-0055 Suffolk – Huntington, Italian

Konoba Huntington (631) 824-7712 Suffolk – Huntington, Mediterranean

La Parma II Italian Restaurant (631) 367-6360 Suffolk – Huntington, Italian

LaTavola (631) 750-6900 Suffolk – Sayville, Italian

Le Soir Restaurant (631) 472-9090 Suffolk – Bayport, French

Lombardi’s on the Bay (631) 654- 8970 Suffolk – Patchogue, Italian

Mac’s Steakhouse (631) 549-5300 Suffolk – Huntington, Steakhouse

Maria’s (631) 979-7724 Suffolk – Nesconset, Latin

Matteo’s of Huntington (631) 421- 6001 Suffolk – Huntington Station, Italian

Mission Taco (631) 614-8226 Suffolk – Huntington, Mexican

Monsoon (631) 587-4400 Suffolk – Babylon, Asian

Nantuckets (631) 509-4848 Suffolk – Port Jefferson, American

Orto (631) 473-0014 Suffolk – Miller Place, Italian

Pasta Pasta (631) 331-5335 Suffolk – Port Jefferson, Italian

Piccola Bussola Ristorante (631) 692- 6300 Suffolk – Huntington, Italian

Piccola Mondo (631) 462-0718 Suffolk – Huntington, Italian

Pietro Cucina Italiana (631) 862-6129 Suffolk – St. James, Italian

Raimo’s of Amityville (631) 608-3260 Suffolk – Amityville, Italian

Recipe Seven Cocktails and Kitchen (631) 331-5454 Suffolk – Miller Place, American

Ristegio’s (631) 731- 3663 Suffolk – Patchogue, American

Salt & Barrel (631) 647-8818 Suffolk – BayShore, Seafood

Sandbar Restaurant (631) 498-6188 Suffolk – Cold Spring Harbor, American

Sea Basin Restaurant (631) 744-1643 Suffolk – Rocky Point, Seafood

Snapper Inn (631) 589-0248 Suffolk – Oakdale, Seafood

Taormina Ristorante (631) 499-6900 Suffolk – Commack, Italian

The Blue (631) 446-4233 Suffolk – Islip, American

The Fish Store (631) 472-3018 Suffolk – Bayport, Seafood

The LakeHouse Resta urant (631) 666-0995 Suffolk – Bayshore, New American

The Main Event (631) 522-1030 Suffolk – Farmingdale, American

The Sayville Inn (631) 319- 6774 Suffolk – Sayville, American

Ting Restaurant (631) 425-7788 Suffolk – Huntington, Asian

Verace (631) 277-3800 Suffolk – Islip, Italian

View Restaurant (631) 589-2694 Suffolk – Oakdale, Seafood

Vittorio’s Italian Steakhouse (631) 264-3333 Suffolk – Amityville, Steakhouse

Wave Steakhouse and Seafood (631) 928-5200 Suffolk – Port Jefferson, American

Whalers (631) 647-9300 Suffolk – Bayshore, New American

Long Island Restaurant Week is a tri-annual event designed to garner positive publicity and additional business for the region’s restaurants. Since 2006, it has been an annual November promotion until the first spring Long Island Restaurant Week was launched in April 2011 and then winter was added in January of 2016, due to popular customer and restaurateur demand. Don’t miss out, get out and be a part of this popular event!


Who was Nebuchadnezzar?

Nebuchadnezzar II, sometimes alternately spelled Nebuchadrezzar, was king of Babylonia from approximately 605 BC until approximately 562 BC. He is considered the greatest king of the Babylonian Empire and is credited with the construction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned by name around 90 times in the Bible, in both the historical and prophetic literature of the Hebrew Scriptures. Nebuchadnezzar receives the most attention in the book of Daniel, appearing as the main character, beside Daniel, in chapters 1&ndash4.

In biblical history, Nebuchadnezzar is most famous for the conquering of Judah and the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem in 586 BC. Judah had become a tribute state to Babylon in 605 BC but rebelled in 597 BC during the reign of Jehoiachin and then again in 588 BC during the reign of Zedekiah. Tired of the rebellions, and seeing that Judah had not learned its lesson when he invaded, conquered, and deported Judah in 597, Nebuchadnezzar and his general, Nebuzaradan, proceeded to completely destroy the temple and most of Jerusalem, deporting most of the remaining residents to Babylon. In this, Nebuchadnezzar served as God’s instrument of judgment on Judah for its idolatry, unfaithfulness, and disobedience (Jeremiah 25:9).

Secular history records Nebuchadnezzar as a brutal, powerful, and ambitious king, and the Bible, for the most part, agrees. However, the book of Daniel gives additional insight into his character. Daniel chapter 2 records God giving Nebuchadnezzar a dream about what kingdoms would arise after his own. In the dream, Nebuchadnezzar was a “head of gold” on a statue, with the descending parts of the body, comprised of silver, bronze, iron, and iron mixed with clay, representing the less powerful kingdoms that would come after him. Nebuchadnezzar demanded the astrologers and wise men to interpret his dream without him telling it to them and, when they were unable to, Nebuchadnezzar ordered all of the astrologers and wise men to be killed. Daniel spoke up and, through a miracle from God, interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The king then promoted Daniel to be one of his most influential advisers. Interestingly, when Daniel interpreted his dream, Nebuchadnezzar declared, “Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery” (Daniel 2:47).

In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar created a gold statue of himself and required all the people to bow down to it whenever the music played. Daniel’s three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused, and the king had them thrown into a blazing furnace. Miraculously, God protected them, and when they came out of the furnace, Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way” (Daniel 3:28&ndash29).

In Daniel chapter 4, Nebuchadnezzar is given another dream by God. Daniel interpreted the dream for Nebuchadnezzar and informed him that the dream was a warning to the king to humble himself and recognize that his power, wealth, and influence were from God, not of his own making. Nebuchadnezzar did not heed the warning of the dream, so God judged him as the dream had declared. Nebuchadnezzar was driven insane for seven years. When the king’s sanity was restored, he finally humbled himself before God. In Daniel 4:3, Nebuchadnezzar declares, “How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation.” Nebuchadnezzar continued in Daniel 4:34&ndash37, “For his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ … “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.”

The exclamations of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in the book of Daniel have led some to consider the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar became a believer in the one true God. History records Nebuchadnezzar being a follower of the Babylonian gods Nabu and Marduk. Is it possible that Nebuchadnezzar renounced these false gods and instead only worshiped the one true God? Yes, it is possible. If nothing else, Nebuchadnezzar became a henotheist, believing in many gods but worshiping only one God as supreme. Based on his words recorded in Daniel, it definitely seems like Nebuchadnezzar submitted himself to the one true God. Further evidence is the fact that God refers to Nebuchadnezzar as “my servant” three times in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:9 27:6 43:10). Was Nebuchadnezzar saved? Ultimately, this is not a question that can be answered dogmatically. Whatever the case, the story of Nebuchadnezzar is an example of God’s sovereignty over all men and the truth that “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord He turns it wherever He will” (Proverbs 21:1).


Variants [ edit | edit source ]

A CT-156 Harvard II at CFB Moose Jaw in 2005

T-6A Texan II  Standard version for the USAF, USN, and Hellenic Air Force (25). T-6A NTA Texan II  Armed version of the T-6A for the HAF (20). T-6A NTA has the capability to carry rocket pods, gun pods, external fuel tanks, and bombs. ⎙] T-6B Texan II  Upgraded version of the T-6A with a digital glass cockpit that includes a Head-Up Display (HUD), six multi-function displays (MFD) and Hands On Throttle And Stick (HOTAS), ⎡] used at Naval Air Station Whiting Field. AT-6B Texan II  Armed version of the T-6B for primary weapons training or light attack roles. It has the same digital cockpit, but upgraded to include datalink and integrated electro-optical sensors along with several weapons configurations. ⎙] ⎢] Engine power is increased to 1,600shp (1193 kW) with the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6-68D engine, and the structure is reinforced. ⎣] T-6C Texan II  Upgraded version of the T-6B with wing hard points, and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance capabilities. ⎤] CT-156 Harvard II  Version of the T-6A for NTFC with the Canadian Forces. ⎖] Nearly identical to standard USAF and USN in terms of avionics, cockpit layout, and performance.


CJE Micro's AMD 586 133MHz PCcard

Although the label on this PCCard in the first picture says it is an ACA53 (with an IBM 486DX2 66MHz CPU), it has been upgraded by CJE Micro's to use an AMD 586 133MHz. The AMD CPU is mounted on a little daughterboard complete with cooling fan. The PC card is an Acorn Gemini II card part no 1111,000 Issue 2 and also has 512K Level 2 cache in 4 x CY7C109 (128k x 8bit) SRAMs, 2 at the front and 2 on the back. CJE Micro's upgraded many Gemini II PC cards to this configuration.

CJE Micro's CJE59 AMD 586 133MHz PCcard (front)

CJE Micro's CJE59 AMD 586 133MHz PCcard (back)

The CJE59 PCcard is a PCcard which CJE Micro's has upgraded to an AMD586 133MHz CPU with a large copper coloured heat sink. The card is based on an Acorn Gemini II card part no 1111,050 Issue 1 and has 512K of Level 2 cache in 4 x CY7C109 (128K x 8bit) SRAMs, 2 on the front and 2 on the back of the card.

For further details about RiscPC PCcards see Acorn Cybervillage X86 cards


Schedule a Visit with a Doctor who Specializes in Kidney Disease

If you are experiencing problems with your blood pressure you may want to consider scheduling an appointment with a doctor who specializes in kidney disease like Dr. Allan Lauer. Dr. Allan Lauer can help determine your cause of high or low blood pressure and provide you with treatment options that can help you avoid renal failure. Call our offices today to schedule an appointment.

Southeastern Massachusetts Dialysis Group

Convenient dialysis locations in Southeastern Massachusetts with modern and comfortable equipment and a highly caring and professional staff.

Taunton Regional Dialysis Center & Brockton Regional Kidney Center receive Five Star Rating by CMS for being in the top 10% of all dialysis facilities nationwide!

Our Locations

Taunton Regional Dialysis Center

1 Washington Street
Taunton, MA 02780
508-828-5986

Locations Continued.

Brockton Dialysis Center

375 Westgate Drive
Brockton, MA 02301
508-586-2791

Brockton Regional Kidney Center

76 Campanelli Industrial Drive
Brockton, MA 02301
508-427-5329


Watch the video: IBM. Cyrix 6x86MX PR200 vs Intel Pentium 200 MMX (January 2022).