General gun stuff
Monday meanderings.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Someone sent me this link to a tale of a Ruger Redhawk whose barrel had parted company from the frame. It's an old story; not this particular occurrence, but the problem in general.
---
Seems that a certain Canadian manufacturer of simulated munitions now has some competition. I've always disliked the existing company's elitist insistence on only selling to police and military buyers, and Speer, the maker of the new product, looks to change that. Their new product, Force On Force, will be sold not just to the public sector but to "professional instructors" as well. They've even got portable enclosed shoothouses available! Cool stuff from a solid, responsible AMERICAN company. (Thanks to Fear & Loading for the tip!)
---
DPMS was apparently the prime sponsor for a match called the "Tri-Gun Challenge", which was recently cancelled. What's interesting isn't the match, but rather why it isn't going to happen this year. The range on which it was to be held was slapped with an order prohibiting the firing of handguns on the property. When the range/club was founded 30 years ago, they allowed all kinds of guns to be shot. In 1995 they were issued a conditional use permit for a trap and rifle range, and their neighbors apparently are alleging that the shooting of handguns violates that permit!
This is hardly unusual. My wife and I belonged to a gun club a few years back, a club which had been in existence since 1952. The conditional use permit under which we operated stated that no camping was allowed. Once a year, however, the Boy Scouts used the club facilities for a two day shooting party, with a sleepover the intervening night. The kids camped out in the classroom, but a couple of the den mothers brought camping trailers (for obvious reasons.) One particularly nosy neighbor, a recent transplant from another state, spotted the trailers and notified the county. We were hit with a similar order for violating the CUP.
People with an irrational fear of guns will always find a way to cause problems. Don't believe for an instant that because we won in the Supreme Court, the gun prohibitionists have been defeated.
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Monday meanderings.
Monday, August 16, 2010
In the Friday Surprise for the 6th, there were two bonus questions. A couple of people came close, but didn't get all the details. The Leopolds referred to in the title were Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, friends who happened to be professional musicians and amateur photo chemists. Their work in color film led directly to the invention of Kodachrome. The connection with Rhapsody in Blue? The song's composer, George Gershwin, had a sister named Frances - who was married to Godowsky.
---
It seems odd to me, but I get lots of inquiries about where to buy targets. My favorite source is Law Enforcement Targets, which carries a huge line of paper and cardboard products. For defensive and "tactical" training, their stuff is the best. My other source, which carries more traditional targets (NRA, IPSC, and IDPA) is Alco Target Company. I've done business with both for years, and have never had a reason to complain.
---
I've mentioned this before, but do check out the forums over at the Personal Defense Network. There are some great discussions there, and the only thing missing is YOU!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Steyr rides again.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
A few years back Steyr Mannlicher USA imported a batch of their M9 and S9 pistols. They were polymer framed, striker fired guns of the type popularized by their fellow Austrians at Glock, but that's as far as the similarities went.
The Steyr guns featured a steeper grip angle, more ergonomically sculpted grips, a lower bore axis, and better triggers. Like all Steyr products, they were superbly constructed of quality materials.
Sadly they've been unavailable in this country for a few years, the high cost of quality Austrian workmanship and the unfavorable exchange rates having combined to make them uncompetitive in the marketplace. Things have stabilized a bit and once again Steyr USA is importing the MA-1 and SA-1, which are the second generation versions of the original M9 and S9.
My wife routinely carries an S9, which is the compact version, and is very happy with the gun. It's proven to be reliable, accurate and a pleasure to shoot. The trapezoidal sights take some getting used to, but work well for their intended purpose. The original guns were criticized for the smoothness of their grips, which the second generation have changed to be "grippier."
Why am I writing about a plastic autoloader? Because it's a gun I believe deserves wider recognition for its unique attributes. Available in both 9mm and .40 S&W at an MSRP of $649.
Thanks to The Firearm Blog for alerting me!
-=[ Grant ]=-
In Oregon, we're used to rust.
Monday, August 02, 2010
That doesn’t mean that we like it, however!
A recent email from a reader asked about protecting guns from rust in long-term storage. There are many approaches to the problem, most of them involving some type of coating or oil.
I prefer wrapping the piece in a Volatile Corrosion Inhibitor (VCI) paper. VCI paper is coated with chemicals that vaporize to provide a protection layer against moisture and rust. Properly used in a sealed container (like a Zip-Loc bag), it can provide years of complete protection.
You can get it in sheets from Brownell's.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yet another reason I don't watch reality TV.
Monday, July 12, 2010
I spent this weekend assisting at a defensive rifle class with Georges Rahbani, and sometime during the weekend thought of a great article for today.
Then I forgot what it was.
My usual habit is to carry, in the left pocket of my shirt, a small pad and a mechanical pencil. When I have an idea I jot it down, thus preserving it for a time when I can make use of it. That's assuming, of course, that I remember to look at the thing!
The weather was pretty warm this weekend (about 90 degrees) and we were in the sun for most of the two days. I'd shed my normal pocketed button-front shirt for a more comfortable short sleeved Henley. My pad and pencil, of course, was in the regular shirt and when the aforementioned great idea struck, I was without a means to record it. Thus this morning's rambling version of "my dog ate my homework!"
Luckily Chris over at The Anarchangel posted something worthy of commentary. Go read it, then come back for a little discussion.
I tuned in for the first episode of Top Shot, recognized it as yet another overblown social manipulation festival common to reality television, and promptly turned it off. My spare time is quite limited and I have to make hard decisions about what I do with it. Even with guns and shooting Top Shot didn't make my cut, so I didn't know what transpired until Chris filled me in.
Those who live in landlocked states probably have no concept of just what the United States Coast Guard does. Here in Oregon, where Coast Guard helicopters and rescue crews are a common sight, we have a deep appreciation for the sacrifices those men and women make. Despite being ridiculed (or even worse, ignored) they go out and do their job to the best of their ability every day of the week.
Those in the other services are only in danger when they've been activated and deployed, and their tours of deployment are limited in duration (a good thing, do not misunderstand.) The USCG is always on deployment, whether doing rescue work, interdicting smugglers, or protecting our Navy's operations in foreign ports. (That's right - when the U.S. Navy needs help, they call the Coast Guard!) When I was growing up it was widely said that you were more likely to be killed in the Coast Guard in peacetime than in the infantry during wartime. While that may not be literally true, it serves to illustrate the tough job USCG does.
Much of that is because the nature of their missions requires them to always be in harm's way. One of their primary duties is to protect lives in America's waters, and here in Oregon they do so constantly. The USCG's rescue swimmers and helicopter pilots are the best that can be found; until you've witnessed a Dolphin SAR helicopter hovering nearly motionless just feet away from a cliff face, in high winds and torrential rain, you have little appreciation for the skill of those crews. I don't know where one goes to recruit such people, but they must have ice water injected into their veins upon enlistment. They are amazing to watch, and when they appear on scene there is a very strong feeling of relief - even if you're not the subject of their attention.
So, to Caleb and all the other past and present members of the United States Coast Guard, and especially to those stationed here in Oregon, thank you. We appreciate your service, your sacrifice, and above all your professionalism.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Coolest video you'll see today.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Tam alerted me to this video which she found at New Jovian Thunderbolt...in any case, it's great. I've seen big-budget Hollywood productions that weren't as realistic, even with a liberal charge account at the local prop gun emporium.
Good job CBE FIlms!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Shameless plug for a great show.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The new season of SWAT Magazine TV starts tonight - 8:00 Eastern time, on the Outdoor Channel!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The worst part of my job.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Do you have a recurring task that you put off because it's just so...annoying? For many people paying bills falls under that classification; for others, doing the dishes. In my job, it's tracking down parts.
If I'm working on a gun of recent manufacture, it's just a matter of popping onto the website of one of the parts houses and ordering up as many as I need. For guns that are out of production, or are of a vintage when the parts were of a different configuration, I have to hunt them down. With Colts everything is discontinued, and the very small number of used parts that are available are hard to find and are often not serviceable. I have to hunt those parts down.
I hate parts hunting.
Hunting takes up a lot of time, especially because many of the better parts houses don't have their inventories online. I have to call them up, in some cases multiple times because their phones are always busy, ask for the part, wait for them to check if they have the right one, and if they don't I have to repeat the procedure with the next company.
It chews up a lot of time, time which I'd rather spend working. It's also often unproductive, so I end up making the same calls for the same parts over and over. Is it any wonder I put it off?
Today is parts hunting day, which I've been putting off for several weeks. Now I have even more parts to hunt down, which makes it worse!
Wish me luck. Not in terms of finding parts, but that I don't go stark raving mad in the process!
-=[ Grant ]=-
This has "bad idea" written all over it.
Monday, June 21, 2010
I got an email last week from a client whose relative was concerned that his new Glock "didn't have a safety." To remedy this perceived fault, he's considering buying one of these.
So, let me make sure I understand the concept: a safety device that forces you to mess with the trigger in order to either put it on safe or take it off safe. What could possibly go wrong?
(Bonus question: how do you take the safety off if you're suddenly forced to use your weak hand?)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Truth Is Out There: I've mentioned Kathy Jackson's CorneredCat site as the best resource on the web for those women who want to get involved in the firearms world. This week on the ProArms Podcast, Gail Pepin interviews Kathy about one of her all-time classic articles: "How to Make Your Wife Hate Guns." The interview is even better than the article, and is a must-listen for any man out there who wishes for his wife/significant to start shooting.
Guys, I'm not kidding - you need to listen to this podcast. Kathy's interview starts about 20 minutes in, preceded by Dr. Paula Bratich talking about concealed carry in Illinois.
Better Late Than Never: Prior to the SHOT show, The FIrearms Blog reported that Ruger was going to show a .357 version of the LCR. It was only slightly premature, as Ruger showed it off at last week's NRA Convention. Not for me, thanks, but I'm sure that there are those who will love it.
The Bad Guys Have An Advantage: An interesting article over at PoliceOne.com asks "Why do bad guys seem to do so well in gunfights?" Worthwhile reading.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Hope for the terminally myopic?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Firearm Blog alerted me to this post over at accurateshooter.com. A new sighting enhancement, making use of a “zone plate" optic, is due to hit the market soon. The device makes it possible to focus on both near and far objects at the same time, without the penalty of large, expensive optical systems.
I'll be anxious to try one of these on a rifle. My eyes cannot focus on close objects without optical help, and I disdain scopes in general. While I can still shoot irons on rifles with long (22" and up) barrels, the shorter carbines are next to impossible for me to use. It is those short, handy rifles that I must scope, which obviously negates the value of a short, handy rifle!
If the MicroSight works, I've got several favorite rifles that might just shed their pregnant guppy personas.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A worthy cause!
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
On Monday I mentioned that my bore cleaner of choice is Ed's Red, the popular homebrew formula. I've used it for many years, and have been satisfied with its performance over a wide range of firearms.
If you don't regularly read the comments section, you may have missed a note from Ed himself. He's always coming up with something that's new to me, and this time he revealed that Brownell's carries Ed's Red in convenient bottles, all mixed up and ready to use!
I had no idea, but that's not the end of the story. Turns out that a portion of the sales of Ed's Red goes to support the Junior's programs of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association. That's reason enough to buy Ed's Red over any competing product. Well, that, and the fact that Ed's Red works!
If you're a Brownell's customer, put a bottle of Ed's Red on your next order. If you're not a Brownell's customer, you should be!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On bore cleaners.
Monday, May 03, 2010
A recent email asked my opinion on bore cleaners, and to my surprise I found that I'd not written anything on the topic. It is, after all, unlike me to have no opinion - and it may be a bit of a surprise to learn that, on this topic, I don't have a strong opinion.
When it comes to bore cleaners, it's been my experience that everything works. Shooter's Choice, Hoppe's, Butch's, Break Free, it really doesn't matter - with one caveat.
I break cleaners into two basic types: general bore cleaners, and copper removers. Copper removers, such as Hoppe's Benchrest and Sweet's 7.62, usually contain ammonia to dissolve copper jacket residue. Ammonia compounds, if not thoroughly flushed, can pit steel. Pitted bores are not generally conducive to good accuracy! Those compounds are also hard on bronze bore brushes, which is why their makers often recommend nylon brushes wound on stainless steel cores. Regular use of a copper removing bore cleaner isn't recommended, and I only use them in rifles where accuracy reductions are likely to be noticed, and only when the jacket fouling gets to a point that those reductions show up. Other than that, I use a regular bore cleaner.
The bore cleaner I use most is the popular homebrew Ed's Red formula. Originated by C.E. "Ed" Harris, noted engineer and certified firearms genius, Ed's Red is both economical and effective. I've found it to be as good as anything else in cleaning rifled bores, and a bit better than most when cleaning shotgun barrels. (The acetone in the formula makes it an ideal solvent for removing plastic wad fouling.) Since I use a lot of bore cleaner, being able to mix a gallon at a time saves me both money and effort.
If you're not the DIY type, anything will work. Many people like the smell of Hoppe's #9 (the distinctive odor comes, I believe, from amyl acetate), and I must admit a certain fondness myself. My first cleaning kit, for a Winchester Model 67 rifle, was from Hoppes. The smell takes me back to my childhood and summer afternoons sitting under a walnut tree, cleaning my rifle from a hard day of plinking.
Frankly, given the generally good performance of all of the bore cleaners I've ever used, that's as good a rationale for a choice as any!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The annual ritual.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
I have a physical exam every year, complete with blood panel. When they take my blood, I always ask specifically for a lead test to show how much of that stuff has gotten into my bloodstream. Last week the doctor did my blood draws, and today I learn the results. I expect my lead levels to be at their normal lows, thanks to a few sensible precautions.
First, I always wash my hands after shooting. I carry a package of those pre-moistened towlettes with me wherever I go, and make sure to wipe my hands and face after shooting, or before I ingest any food or drink. The antibacterial (waterless) gels can also be useful, but only if you immediately wipe with a towel of some sort; allowing it to dry on the skin doesn't get rid of any lead compounds, it just moves the stuff around to a larger area of skin!
Never partake of food or drink on the firing line; smoking while shooting is also a good way to introduce lead into your bloodstream. Take a break, wipe your hands and face, then eat, drink, or light up as you see fit.
Handling lead bullets usually results in some of the metal being transferred to the skin. The very best protection is to wear gloves (latex or nitrile), but if you can't do that at least give your hands a very thorough washing.
There is lead residue on and in your gun after firing. When you clean your gun, those compounds are removed and deposited somewhere. They don't just disappear! Gloves are highly recommended for cleaning chores, and you should always use some sort of disposable or washable covering over the area where the cleaning is being performed. Keep those gloves on while you clean up after the gun maintenance is finished.
I recommend that the first thing down the barrel be a wet patch, followed by a dry patch. This tends to remove the bulk of lead residue, after which you may proceed with any brushing you feel necessary. Under no conditions do I run a dry brush down the bore first; that pushes the residue out the end of the barrel, where it floats into the air that you breathe. Start with a wet patch to trap as much of that stuff as possible.
Even small amounts of lead in your blood can pose a serious health risk. Be smart, take a few simple precautions, and your only worry about lead will be the escalating price!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Back To Work - Returned last night from a rare (for me) three-day weekend. I spent the time in the eastern half of the state (the desert part) to visit relatives and do some shooting. The last such trip was two years ago, and I'd forgotten what it was like to relax!
Somewhere Steve Wozniak Is Crying - The Firearm Blog brings us news that an Aussie company has developed a sniper moving target system using Segways as drones. I was pretty pumped about that - shooting a Segway would be almost as satisfying as perforating a Prius - but alas the little things are armored. Still, it's a neat concept. (I like the part where the Segways run for their lives at the sound of a gunshot!)
Shooty Goodness - One of the topics of discussion amongst my cousins this weekend was their desire to go to Knob Creek for the annual machine gun shoot. Turns out it was happening literally while we were talking about it, and Tam was there.
Pest Control - The shooting part of my trip involved helping to rid my cousin's ranch of the dreaded sage rat. Sage rat hunting has become a Very Big Thing out here in the West, and despite hundreds of thousands of the things being dispatched every season the population continues to outbreed the hunters. Damage to crops from sage rat infestations is staggering, and it doesn't look like the problem is going to end any time soon.
There are a couple of schools of thought regarding the hunting of sage rats. One school likes to set up a shooting bench and snipe the things from long range with a .22-250. The other prefers to use a .22 rimfire, and just get closer. I belong to the latter group, as using a rimfire is significantly cheaper and still quite challenging. (In a good field it's not unusual to go through 500 rounds a day, and I'm just not wealthy enough to afford to do that with a centerfire rifle!)
Another benefit of using rimfires is that it's easy to get kids involved. It's important that children learn early the necessity of responsible wildlife management. The reason we shoot the sage rat is because a) the population is out of control, and b) poisons aren't an option in areas with large raptor populations. (How many of you have actually seen a bald eagle hunting prey? I saw a half-dozen just this weekend, which is the case every time I go out there. With poison, that wouldn’t be the case.)
Happiness Is A New Gun - My nephew Roman came with us on this trip, and I presented him with his first “grown-up” rifle. Up to this point he'd been using one of the little Chipmunk rifles, and it was time for him to upgrade. I gave him a Glenfield Model 25 with some special touches: I shortened the barrel to a more kid-friendly (yet legal) length, tuned the trigger just a bit to get rid of the horrendous grittiness, floated the barrel, and mounted a 3/4"-tubed scope. It turned out to be a fast handling, accurate little gun which he quickly put to good use, making some excellent shots in very challenging (windy) conditions.
Some Thoughts On Equipment - It's normal to think that a beginner doesn't need top notch gear on which to learn how to shoot. My nephew reinforced my belief in the opposite view: the novice is more in need of quality equipment than the experienced shooter. It's hard to learn all the nuances of good shooting when one is fighting with substandard gear, and good quality guns and ammo don't stand in the way of skill development. Regardless of the age of the student, If one is just starting out it's important to buy the best equipment one can afford. It is only after the basics are mastered is one able to rise above his/her equipment, but poor equipment can keep one from truly mastering even the simplest techniques.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Supporting our own.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
SWAT Magazine TV, hosted by the irrepressible Rob Pincus, has been nominated for a Telly Award at YouTube. It's not often that gun-related shows get the recognition they deserve, but in this case we can all help the cause.
Click here to go to the Telly Awards site where you can vote for SWAT Magazine TV. Share it with your friends, your family, and anyone else who has a stake in the growing public acceptance of firearms and shooting.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A final 2010 SHOT Show post, I promise.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
I mentioned my Twitter revelation last time, and one of the more active tweeters (twitterers?) during SHOT was 230grain.com. I'd never seen the site, but it has some of the very best coverage I've seen. Not in terms of quantity, but in terms of quality.
Most of the coverage out there is of the "here's a picture, and if you're lucky we'll caption it" variety. 230grain went the extra mile - multiple pictures and lots of informed detail about the products shown.
Check it out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, January 18, 2010
THEY'RE BA-AACK!: The ProArms Podcast gang has returned from a forced hiatus. The servers at Podbean, which had been handling their podcast feed, went south in December leaving ProArms high and dry. It took them some time to get back, but they have a new site (www.proarmspodcast.com) and they're also available on iTunes. You can listen to the stream on their site, or subscribe to the feed - whichever you're most comfortable with.
The newest episode features interviews with two attorneys. One of them, Brian Hallaq, is an acquaintance; he's an interesting guy who went from being an antigunner to owning Norpoint, a range facility just north of Seattle. Definitely worth a listen!
SHOT SHOW OPENS TOMORROW: I only wish I were there! The ProArms team is, and they promise updates on their site. Jeff Quinn over at Gunblast always has good coverage of the show (with lots of pictures), while Outdoor Channel has Rob Pincus there with a video crew. Rob tells me that they plan to have online coverage of the show, as will Down Range TV. Fear and Loading is already there spending money on beer, and The Firearm Blog is trying to crash the best SHOT parties. There are lots of others, of course, but just these should give you enough news to satisfy your curiosity!
TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT: I'm amazed that people still buy targets these days. There are tons of downloadable and printable targets out there, and here's a good collection of some of my favorites. (If you haven't tried "rimfire tactical" shooting, you're missing out on a lot of fun. Scroll to the bottom of their site for targets for this emerging discipline. The targets have instructions printed on them; try "Know Your Limits" with iron sights!)
OUCH: The Firearms Blog is reporting that Ruger will be showing a .357 Magnum version of the LCR at SHOT. I'm not a fan of uber-light guns in Magnum calibers, but some are, and Ruger apparently aims to supply them with all the pain they can stand.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Not much to say today. I've got a ton of work to do, and have a rare (for me) headache. Seriously - I don't often get headaches. When I do, perhaps once a year, I'm twice as annoyed as those who get them more regularly. I don't do NSAIDs, so I just suffer until it goes away. In the meantime, children, small animals, and insufferable boors are advised to keep their distance.
---
Freedom Arms has lost a lawsuit alleging that their Model 83 is defective. As Uncle points out, there's supposed to be a law that prevents such things.
---
Tam reports plenty of ammo on shelves. I went to a gunshow this weekend and noticed the same thing; unless you want .380ACP, stocks are just about back to normal. As I explained a while back, it's just a matter of the supply chain refilling itself.
(There are folks out there who flunked Econ 101 and continue to believe it's all some great conspiracy. The value of any theory is in its predictive ability, and so far I'm ahead on that count. Read the comments on my article and you'll find that they're still not happy.)
---
Thanks for all the comments regarding our dog. We've come to understand that he'll do what makes him comfortable, regardless of how it looks to us.
---
That's it for now - back to work I go, pounding head in tow!
-=[ Grant ]=-
I almost forgot...
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Last weekend I was assisting at a Defensive Shotgun course taught by Georges Rahbani ("The Best Rifle Instructor You've Never Heard Of"). A couple of the participants were discussing a problem with a ParaOrdnance pistol when I walked up. "Well, it's not like you should be surprised", I said, "when the brand's name tells you everything you need to know."
They stared at me blankly.
"Para- is a prefix meaning 'similar to' or 'resembling' ", I continued. "So, Para-Ordnance means that it's only 'sort of a gun' ."
I'm here to tell you that some people are seriously humor impaired.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Why all the despair?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Some pictures of AK-47 magazines being used for other than their intended purposes made the rounds last week:
The general gist of gunblogger comments was that this was a terrible thing, a travesty, and so sad to see.
Hogwash. I think it's great. Not because I dislike the AK rifle (I don't), but because I would like to see a society where guns and their magazines were so common, and so accepted, that the defective and surplus examples could be freely used for other things without causing apoplexy in the general populace.
I see a garden path made of 30-rounders, and I'm not despondent - I'm hopeful. (Guess I have the answer to why I like sunrises more than sunsets!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Perfectly suited.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
I get a surprising number of inquiries about carrying in an office (suit and tie) environment. I spent a few years wearing Italian suits and selling to corporate types, so I'm passingly familiar with the problems involved.
There are a number of ways to carry a gun in a suit: belt holster, shoulder holster, pocket carry, bellyband, Thunderwear (aka 'crotch carry'), and in an ankle holster.
Belt and shoulder holsters can be considered together, as in a corporate environment they share the same major disadvantage: you can never take the jacket off. If you go to your office every day, sooner or later your co-workers are going to notice that you never remove your coat! For a salesman, who doesn't actually work in the offices he visits, these can be viable. In those cases, the suit needs to be tailored to fit around the gun - and no, going to Men's Wearhouse to buy your suits isn't going to cut it. You need a real tailor, who can either make a custom suit or modify an off-the-rack example to fit properly.
Of course, this means you need to wear the gun and allow the tailor to work around it. This can be easier said than done, particularly if you live in a gun-unfriendly city (which is to say, most of them.) The best thing to do is call around and discreetly inquire if the tailor has experience working with legally armed clients. There are always a few, and it pays to seek them out.
(My favorite clothing store back in the day was owned by a mother and son, neither of whom had any problems with concealed carry. In fact, I got to know the son fairly well, as he routinely carried a very nice Colt Model M in .380, aka Model 1908 Pocket Hammerless. It was his opinion that the sleek little Colt was "the perfect gun for the well-dressed gentleman.")
If, like most people, you need to be more flexible with your habiliments, a close relative of the belt holster is generically referred to as a "tuckable." This is an inside-the-waist holster that allows you to cover the gun with your shirt - the shirt slipping between the gun and your waistband, then bloused a bit to conceal the outline. This leaves a small leather keeper visible on the belt, but if the belt and holster color are well matched it is difficult to spot. Of course, you end up looking a bit lopsided with a bulge on your belt; proponents argue that blousing of the shirt properly on the off side will help conceal the protrusion, but many people dislike the somewhat sloppy appearance which results.
One often overlooked method is the bellyband. Originally designed to be worn just above the beltline (hence the name), it can be effectively employed at the mid- to upper-torso level. At this position the gun is placed under the arm, very much in the same position as a shoulder holster. Getting to the gun is done through the shirt front, (again) using the same movements as one would with a shoulder holster. The shirt button at the base of the sternum is left undone, allowing rapid access to the gun; one's tie covers the buttons anyhow, so that the arrangement is not detected. Be sure that you do not wear 'athletic' fitted shirts - standard shorts only to allow plenty of room to hide the firearm.
The Thunderwear carry is often touted as a solution to many problems, but for those who sit for long periods of time they prove to be quite uncomfortable. They're also slow to access, and the size of the gun is very constrained. I do not personally consider them suitable for a primary sidearm, though they may be useful for backups or deep cover assignments.
Ankle holsters are another special-purpose carry method. They are very slow and cumbersome to access for a primary arm, and are best used to carry a backup pistol. Yes, I know that there are some fancy ankle holster draw moves which are surprisingly fast, but I encourage you to try them in a realistic force-on-force exercise. You'll quickly learn why I don't feel ankle holsters are a good choice for general armed carry.
Finally we come to pocket carry. With a proper holster and loose-fitting slacks, this is perhaps the most viable method of concealing a pistol in a corporate environment. They're reasonably quick to access, comfortable (if used with a lightweight gun), completely invisible (unless you wear your slacks tighter than a gentleman should), and has the additional benefit of allowing your hand to be on the gun without alerting anyone.
You'll need to shop for slacks with front pleats (provides blousing to hide the gun's bulge) and deeper pockets (some have shallow pockets from which the gun's butt can peek out.) I also recommend a medium-weight pant, which typically features a satin lining between the pocket and leg. The lining dramatically reduces chafing as the gun moves around, and makes sitting for long periods more tolerable.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Reality - what a concept.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Yesterday, Tam asked "I laugh at the sight of the pimped tactical N-frame, too, but why?" Allow me to explain with some fuzzy dice.
Yes. You read that correctly - fuzzy dice.
If you go to a car show featuring hotrods from the '50s and '60s, a common sight will be a pair fuzzy dice hanging from the rearview mirror. They're always carefully chosen to complement the paint color, and I've even seen fastidious owners arranging the dice "just so" to get the proper look. Fuzzy dice are an accepted, and expected, part of the decor.
Take those same fuzzy dice, run over to the Tour de France, and hang them from Lance Armstrong's bicycle. No matter what color dice you pick - to go with his jersey or the bike's paint - they'll just look silly. Fuzzy dice on a racing bike? Preposterous!
Yet, objectively, the function of the dice has not changed. That is, they really have no function. They don't do anything, they serve no architectural or mechanical purpose, they simply have mass and occupy space. They derive whatever value they possess from the context in which they occur, but that value is not intrinsic; it exists only because the context allows it to exist. Think of it as Second Life with mag wheels.
Once taken out of the expected setting, stripped of the value of that context, the reality of the fuzzy dice becomes apparent. Understand this: whether on a '57 BelAir or Lance's Trek Madone SL, fuzzy dice are silly. In the former case, we don't see them as silly because we've been conditioned to accept them in that environment. In the latter, if every Tour de France competitor were to carry them for a few years - perhaps a decade or more - they would become part of that context too. They'd still be silly.
The same is true for the tacticool accessories Tam questions. (A bit of a correction: the device hanging at the muzzle isn't strictly a white light - it's a combination light and laser.) We're accustomed to seeing lights, lasers, and milspec red dot scopes attached to autopistols. In the gun rags, in the movies, and especially in video games, we're told that "serious" guns carry these things. Tough guys, warriors and operators, have these on their guns. Thus the context is constructed, such that we no longer objectively analyze the value of those things.
Putting them on a revolver takes them out of context. (After all, "operators" don't carry revolvers!) Once out of context their true worth becomes easier to evaluate, and laughter is the result.
This whole idea of context is particularly important to those of us interested in the concept of self defense. There are a lot of instructors out there who teach what can only be termed range tricks. In class, the instructor's reputation and manner of delivery combine to create a reality distortion field that even Steve Jobs would envy; in that context even the silliest ideas sound valuable. They may be useless and even counter productive, but if the student can't evaluate them outside of their context that reality will be hidden.
The same thing happens with people who get their firearms training from Hollywood - what I've heard called the "Mel Gibson School of Firearms". In the movies, the good guy always orders the bad guy to drop his weapon. The good guy gives the bad guy a chance to redeem himself, to straighten out his horrible life and repent for his sins. Naturally the bad guy doesn't take that opportunity, wheels around to shoot the good guy, at which point our hero drops him neatly with a single shot. Roll credits.
Inside the context of the movie script, this seems perfectly plausible. Through repetition the scene is burned into our subconscious, to the point that we start to accept it as normal. Unless we learn to force ourselves to evaluate the behavior outside of the theater we may find ourselves repeating it.
This apparently happened to a certified good guy up in Washington a few years ago, who faced a gunman in a mall. From all reports, it seems the good guy drew his legally carried gun, then challenged the bad guy to drop his. Life isn't like a movie, and the rampaging gunman simply shot him - five times, paralyzing him permanently.
It's important to develop both the ability to look at things objectively and critically, and the judgement to recognize when it's necessary to do so. I'd say that anything dealing with defensive firearms needs such evaluation.
As for fuzzy dice...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wow, am I behind the times. Don't you be too!
Monday, August 24, 2009
This morning I found that the ProArms Podcast had been updated - a week ago - and I missed it. I'm late to the party!
This is particularly distressing because I'm privileged to know all of the folks involved: Gila Hayes, Diane Walls, Kathy Jackson, and (most recently) Gail Pepin. They are some of the most thoughtful people in the firearms/self defense community, and having all of them in the same room makes for a great discussion. (Gail should get Kathy, Diane, and Gila to do this on a semi-regular basis!)
If you have a loved one who has yet to take responsibility for her own safety, this is a good starting point. The women talk at length about the topic, and the resources they represent are the best in the business. I say that not because I'm trying to curry any favor, but because it's true.
(Don't let the "Women in the Gun Media" title turn you off, guys - this is one you shouldn't miss either. They talk at length about the often bone-headed approaches that we men take to exposing the women in our lives to self defense concepts. No matter how enlightened you think you are, you'll learn something from this podcast.)
Listen to it now.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
Monday, August 24, 2009
A comment on last Wednesday's article correctly reminded us that there seems to be some confusion about the phenomenon known as auditory exclusion.
Under times of high stress, such as a violent criminal attack, the body makes profound physiological adjustments to limit distracting data and focus on the threat. One of these is to radically attenuate (or even completely silence) aural inputs - in other words, it shuts your hearing down. This is called auditory exclusion.
It's important to understand that auditory exclusion is performed in the brain, not in the ears themselves. Though your brain isn't accepting the audio data being collected, your ears are still collecting it. It's a filtering mechanism, where the brain decides what's unimportant and ignores that to concentrate on what is important.
Since the physical parts of the ears are still functioning, they can and will be damaged by high sound levels just as they would under high sound pressure levels in a non-stressful environment. The tympanic membrane and the fragile hairs of the cochlea can still be profoundly affected by gunfire even in a high stress environment.
No doubt someone reading this is thinking "what about the aural reflex mechanism, smart guy?" Aural reflexes do physically protect your hearing by changing the curvature of the eardrum, and preventing the tiny bones of the inner ear from transmitting vibrations to the cochlea. This is designed to protect the sensitive parts of the ear from sustained loud sound. The key here is the word "sustained"; gunshots are simply too short in duration to activate the aural reflexes, and are not a function of auditory exclusion.
Simply put, auditory exclusion just doesn't pull a blanket over your ears to protect them!
In the case of a shooting, the extreme noise levels are doing damage to your ears even though your mind isn't reporting anything. It isn't until the aftermath, when your body starts to return to normal, that your brain turns the audio back on. That's when you discover that you don't hear as well as you used to.
The rationalization that "during a fight, you won't hear those Magnum rounds going off" is true, but the implication that auditory exclusion is preventing all harm to your ears isn't. You're going to have to weigh the risk of a certain amount of hearing loss, however small, against the perceived effectiveness of the ammunition being considered.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Incorrect conclusions.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
This morning I got a very nice email from a concerned gentleman in a southern state. His NRA instructor gave him numerous pieces of incorrect information about his new GP100, one of which I've heard many times before: "Don't carry Magnums, because the muzzle flash will blind you in a self-defense shooting!"
With all due respect, bull twaddle.
The .357 Magnum is notorious for muzzle flash, based largely on some well-known pictures from the 1980s. These days, even the Magnum uses flash-suppressed powders, and muzzle flash with the .357 has been dramatically reduced.
Still, the misconception remains that any muzzle flash will blind you and make it impossible to deliver followup shots. In my experience, that isn't the case.
I once did an experiment, in front of witnesses, on our club's indoor range - using not some wimpy .357 or even .44, but a Dan Wesson .445 SuperMag with a 3" barrel. I personally loaded the rounds to "full house" status, which means maximum velocity, recoil, and flash.
We turned off the range lights except for one in the adjacent classroom, which gave just enough illumination for me to make out the IDPA target about 20 feet downrange.
KA-BOOOOOOOOM! If you've never experienced a SuperMag on an indoor range, it's a treat. If, that is, you like lots of noise, concussion, and muzzle flash. We're talking muzzle flash that witnesses confirmed extended 5 feet from the barrel. I wish we'd taken pictures.
Guess what? I could still see my target; I wasn't blinded at all. So I fired another shot. Then another. Still no flash induced blindness. I could still see my target, but most importantly I could still hit it. Understand: I'm not saying that it had zero effect on my vision. I could see the afterimage of the fireball, but it wasn't at all debilitating even in near darkness.
Is this conclusive proof? Of course not, it's just one person's experience - but it's a heck of a lot more experience with the subject matter than most gunstore commandoes appear to have. No matter how impressive the fireball, it just doesn't seem to possess sufficient intensity to markedly reduce one's vision.
If a non-flash-suppressed SuperMag won't do it, I hardly think a .357 with modern suppressed propellants could. Of course I'm willing to be proven wrong, but at this moment I consider it ill advised to pick a round (caliber or brand) based solely on muzzle flash characteristics.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Well, there's something you don't see every day.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Did you know your eye dominance can be changed? I didn't!
I recently had a problem with shots hitting several inches off my point of aim (at only 5 yards.) That's odd, I thought, it's as if I'm seeing out of my left eye. But that's impossible - I'm right eye dominant.
For some reason I did a quick dominance test, and I was shocked that it showed I was left-eye dominant! I must have done it wrong, I thought; I did the test again, and it showed the expected right eye dominance. Whew! One more time, just to be sure - darn it anyway, it came up left again. And again.
That's odd. Dominance, as I've always understood the mechanism, is neurological, not optical. Your brain simply prefers the vision from one eye or the other, and it appears to be hardwired from birth. I've always thought it to be unchanging, as most people do, yet mine had definitely changed.
Guess what? Turns out it's not as immutable as I'd believed. According to my ophthalmologist, who I called the next morning, eye dominance spontaneously changes only in a very, very small percentage of adults - usually as a symptom of an underlying neurological disorder.
Neurological disorder? Doesn't that mean...tumor?? YIKES!
As it happens, I'd had a complete physical (including a thorough eye exam by this doctor) just a couple of months ago. I had no other symptoms, and he reassured me that lack of symptoms and my recent positive tests made me an unlikely patient for surgery.
As it happens, he said, eye dominance can be trained away. The usual trick is to wear glasses with some Scotch-type tape on the lens of the dominant eye. The out-of-focus image forces the brain to use the other eye, and in time becomes used to the arrangement - thus changing the dominance.
But, I protested, I haven't put any tape on my glas....oh, wait.
For years I've worn a jeweler's loupe over my right eye. When I'm working, I swing it down so I can look through it and back up when I no longer need it. It's a hassle to swing it in and out of my vision all the time and get it perfectly aligned again, so for the last year I've just sort of looked around it instead of flipping it up. I use my left eye for distance vision, and the right when I need to do closeup work.
What I normally see in my right eye, then, is...an out-of-focus image. It's the same as tape on the lenses, and by doing that I've unintentionally trained away my right eye dominance! At this moment I'm part of the small number of people who have no strongly dominant eye. If I continued using the loupe in that manner I'd end up strongly cross-dominant.
I immediately swapped loupe positions to force my brain to accept the right eye again. It's been a month or so, and I'm already seeing results. Once I'm back to my normal, strong right eye dominance I'll swap my beloved loupe for a binocular magnifier.
Trouble is, I hate those things! Decisions, decisions...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, August 03, 2009
It appears that our spell of excessively hot weather has ended. Last week the digital thermometer at our house recorded a high of 111 degrees. (Yes, that's in the shade - who'd be stupid enough to go out into the sun on a day like that?) We set an all-time record for consecutive days over 90 degrees (9 and counting.) I'm just looking forward to being able to spend a full day (more or less) in the shop.
---
From The Firearms Blog comes the news of a(nother) special edition S&W 627 in .38 Super. This one should have a sticker on the box that says "Now With More Ugly!"
---
I'm pleased to note that QC at Ruger is improving - the last couple of SP101s I've seen, of recent production, are much improved over those of years past. Gail Pepin at the ProArms Podcast tells me that she's visited the plant recently, and their production floor has changed considerably. She credits their new emphasis on 'lean manufacturing', with its attendant focus on reducing waste and rework, for the quality bump.
---
The Firearms Blog also brings us happy news of Winchester's reprise of the Model 92 Takedown. I'd be tempted if they'd make it in .357 Magnum...
---
Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to go to work!
-=[ Grant ]=-
So, just what is the .357 Magnum like in a confined space?
Monday, July 27, 2009
A number of years back my wife and I served as coordinators for the defensive pistol matches at our gun club. Our matches were somewhat similar to IDPA, but without the endless rules to make everything "fair." We enjoyed a cadre of participants that were very involved, and loved to build sets for stages.
(Some of them got a little carried away; one particular gentleman once designed a stage that featured cardboard cows. Yes, cows, complete with udders. He's a very creative sort.)
We held our matches on our club's metallic silhouette range, so we had only a large open field in which to set up stages. We'd usually set up four "open" stages (you could see the entire thing), but also liked to set up one secret stage - the participants couldn't see anything until they were actually in it. The way we usually accomplished this was to hang large tarps on portable stakes to block the view, but there were other approaches.
One particular match several guys got together and constructed a dark tunnel. The premise was that you were walking down an alley at night, and targets would swing out or come charging toward you. It was a technical marvel, and all contained in a narrow structure made of wood and black plastic ("visqueen.") As I recall, it was about 8 feet wide, 8 feet tall, and perhaps 30 feet long.
Since the premise was darkness, the entire thing was sheathed in that black plastic - including the roof. It took quite some time to build, so the guys had been on the range the day before to do the construction. When we arrived the next morning to start the match, we found that it had rained overnight. That wasn't a problem, because the black plastic roof had kept everything dry. What we didn't think about were the large puddles of water on that plastic.
Since I was the match director, I got to shoot first. I was using a Ruger SP101 with the 2-1/8" barrel and fire-breathing 125grain JHP magnums. The range officer and I entered the structure, closed the door, and the buzzer went off.
I saw the first target and put two rounds into it, and immediately heard peals of laughter behind me. Outside of the enclosure, the other shooters were becoming hysterical.
I finished the stage (as I recall, there were three more targets) and exited the enclosure to find the laughter had diminished only slightly. People in the crowd told me that my first shot had created such a large amount of pressure in the enclosure that the sides were pushed out and the pooled water on the roof had been thrown twenty feet into the air. The effect, they said, looked like a Looney Toons cartoon of a stick of dynamite exploding in a barrel.
In the heat of the moment I didn't really notice the concussion, but the range officer mentioned that he didn't want to follow me so closely any more!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A crowning achievement.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Occasionally someone will ask me if the muzzle crown is all that important. In the past I'd probably say something like "only if you want the bullet to go where you're aiming!", but I'm trying to reduce my percentage of flippant answers. Today I'd put it more lawyer-like: "it depends..."
The crown is the edge of the bore at the muzzle. It's important to point that out, because it's not unlike the edge of a cliff. Once you've fallen over the edge, you have no chance to change your path (unless you're Icarus, in which case I'd really like to talk to you.) The edge of the bore, where the rifling ends, is likewise the last chance for the barrel to properly direct the path of the bullet.
The edge needs to be perfectly perpendicular to the axis of the bore; if it's not, as the bullet leaves the barrel one side might be clear of the barrel, but the opposite side will still be touching. This can introduce instability to the bullet, reducing the accuracy of the shot.
Even when correctly squared, a crown with a nicked edge can have the same effect. If the last thing that touches the bullet imparts any directional friction, like a nick or burr, the bullet path will be compromised.
It's amazing now small an imperfection can affect the accuracy of a barrel. I recently had a battle of wills with a Mossberg M44US rifle. This was a target .22 that Mossberg sold on contract to the U.S. military back in the late 1940s. They have a reputation for being quite accurate, and every example I've ever shot held up that reputation - except this one.
I could not get a decent 5-shot group out of the gun to save myself. I tested 15 different loads in the gun, went over it with a fine-tooth comb, and still got flyers in every group. I looked at the crown, and it seemed perfectly fine, but still the gun wasn't accurate. After exhausting every other possibility, I decided to recrown the barrel.
The edges of the bore seemed fine, but the first pass with the crowning reamer told the story: the crown was ever so slightly crooked. We're talking perhaps a couple of thousandths of an inch, which isn't a lot. I cut a perpendicular crown, and took the gun to the range.
Night and day.
The gun now shot like a 44US is supposed to! Beautiful groups from Wolf Match Target (aka SK Standard Plus, aka Lapua SC), which had shot no better than cheap Remington bulk prior to the recrowning. The crown had seemed to be a non-issue, even under magnification, but before and after targets proved that even tiny imperfections can make a huge difference.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Still more about testing .22 long rifle ammunition.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A recent email asked about an old article, wherein I talked about the problems with residual lube in a .22 rimfire barrel. Is it really a problem, the email asked, and if so how do I go about eliminating that variable in testing?
Yes, the effects are real. I never believed in the residual lube theory until I saw the results for myself, and to this day I can repeat them at will with that rifle and ammo.
My test protocol now is to use a standard smallbore target, the type with 6 bullseyes on a sheet. The upper left corner is used to fire 25 seasoning rounds, without regard for group size. This both burns off any residual lubricant and allows me to make any sight adjustments to bring the rounds fairly close to center. I then fire a 5-round group at each remaining bullseye, which gives a good average of the groups that ammunition will deliver. If you're counting, that's one single box of ammunition on one sheet of paper.
Rimfire purists will point out that this is not a sufficient number of rounds to really ascertain the true performance of any specific load, and I'll admit that subsequent testing will sometimes show small differences in group size (better or worse) than this. If you're a serious rimfire match shooter, you'll need to fire hundreds of rounds to truly judge what the ammunition will do. Of course, if you are that person you also won't be looking here for advice!
I've found my test procedure to be the easiest, fastest, most reliable method to obtain a decent (field-grade) indicator of relative performance of rimfire ammunition.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings: "back to the grind" edition.
Monday, July 06, 2009
I hope everyone enjoyed their Independence Day holiday! I've been burning the candle at both ends lately, so I took a long weekend, during which I managed to overexpose myself to the sun. (The weekend was hot by Oregon standards - we hit 100 degrees at our house on Friday, and only slightly cooler on Thursday & Saturday.) What's that line - "feel the burn?"
---
Since it was so warm, I drank a huge amount of water. Having been in the ER more than once for severe dehydration (and accompanying heat exhaustion), I'm a little more attentive to this detail than most. For several years, my choice of liquid container has been the classic Nalgene bottle - the translucent white variety, made of #2 HDPE, free of those nasty plasticizers currently suspected of causing cancer. A side benefit is that HDPE is flexible, making it more suitable to hard use than the much more rigid clear varieties. This proved beneficial this weekend, when I ran over my Nalgene with a tractor. Smashed it nearly flat, and collapsed the bottom inward. I managed to squeeze the walls back into roughly cylindrical form, but wasn't able to fix the floor. I filled it with water, threw it in the freezer, and in a couple of hours the expanding ice did the trick! Good as new (more or less), and none the worse for wear.
I just wish they'd make the things in "earth colors" - OD, coyote tan, etc. Nalgene, are you listening?
---
The S&W "J" frame is a generally reliable piece, but lately I've gotten reports of ignition issues with newer examples. S&W has transitioned to a new firing pin, which is much lighter and much shorter than the previous varieties. (This may be their solution to the drop testing standards in California.) They seem to be the source of the problem.To insure reliability, I replace all those I encounter with the Cylinder & Slide Extra Length firing pin. Highly recommended, and an easy "do it yourself" modification for those so inclined.
---
The supply chain is finally starting to recover; AR-15 rifles are becoming a common sight in the stores again, and I'm receiving reports of ammo shelves being restocked. Shortages of certain products (most notably .380ACP ammunition) can be expected to continue for the next few months, but by and large we're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wednesday wanderings.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
I've been collecting conspiracy theories for the ammo shortage, and I recently heard a great one that supposedly came from a local gun store: FEMA has been buying ammunition companies, then shutting them down to eliminate all civilian ammunition sources.
One needs an awful lot of foil for a tin hat that big...
---
Uncle and I have something in common: here in Oregon, our legislature also passed a "no texting" law. We went further, though - we added that you couldn't use a handheld cel phone at all. Then we enacted $2 billion of new taxes and spending in the state with the second-highest unemployment in the nation. We're number 49! We're number 49! Go team!
---
I'm really excited about the rifles Savage has been introducing lately. I like this concept, though I'm not at all wild about the buttstock:
I'm more intrigued by this one:
If it's as accurate as expected, I may have to own one. (Sure, I could build one myself, but I'm too busy doing guns for other people. Remember the parable about the shoemaker's children?)
Now, if we could just get them to cease doing business with H-S Precision...
---
Dr. Helen brings us the story of a woman who fought back against her knife-wielding rapist. Read the comments - some insightful, and some very amusing (in a train wreck sort of way.)
---
From the Irish Times comes news that the powers-that-be want to ban "practical" shooting (i.e. IPSC, IDPA.) The Irish Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, had this to say:
“It’s simply not in the public interest to tolerate the development of a subculture predicated on a shooting activity which by the liberal standards of the US is regarded as an extreme shooting activity." He said any cursory research on the internet showed that these activities were marketed as being at the “extreme end” of handgun ownership and were “anathema to the tradition of Irish sporting clubs”.
Hmmm...such preoccupation with America leads me to suspect his national pride is still smarting from the shellacking his team took back in 1874.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Everything has a purpose.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Even the .32ACP.
Many of you are familiar with Ed Harris, firearms engineer and ballistic experimenter. One of Ed's passions is the hunting of small game - squirrels, rabbits, etc. - and the guns that facilitate that activity.
(Before we go any further, it seems that a lot of folks today don't have any experience with serious small game hunting. There are an awful lot of people who consider it somehow inferior to the taking of large game, but they are sorely mistaken. In virtually every respect, hunting wily little creatures is just as demanding of one's hunting skills as taking a trophy elk. Fieldcraft and marksmanship are just as difficult, but since you get more than one chance per trip you can hone your skills over a larger number of animals. Because of the increased experience, a good small game hunter is almost invariably a good big game hunter, but the reverse - at least in my experience - is rarely true.)
Ed has made up a number of dedicated long guns for the task, but has recently been experimenting with purpose-built handguns to go along with them. What he and John Taylor have come up with is a modified Beretta Model 70 in .32ACP, which Ed calls "the Third Level of Bunny Gun Nirvana".
Now I've never thought much of the .32ACP cartridge except for use as a deep concealment backup gun, but Ed had other ideas. He started by fitting his Beretta with 7- and 13-inch barrels, then developed a subsonic heavy bullet loading:
The barrels are supplied with a very interesting scope mount:
Ed talks about the performance of the combination:
It looks to be a formidable little game-getter!Using 94-gr. Meiser LFN .312 cast bullet and 1.7 grs. of Bullseye velocity just shy of 900 f.p.s. Very low noise, from 13 inch barrel slightly louder than H-D military with can (suppressor), no muzzle flash, the 7 inch barrel sounds like .22 match pistol with standard velocity. Indoor range groups were shot at 25 yards. Not the best range light and targets oscillate a bit, so like it's trying to head-shoot the pirate from pitching deck of a destroyer, but shows potential.
-=[ Grant ]=-
On dry firing.
Monday,
June 22, 2009
One of the great advantages of the double action revolver is that the mechanism makes dry firing easy. Unlike the majority of autoloaders, you don't have to break your grip to operate the slide or recock the hammer; just maintain your grip and pull the trigger, over and over. As a result, I suspect most revolvers are dry fired with greater frequency than most autos.
Various pundits have opined over the years that it is perfectly safe to dry fire any modern gun without regard to mechanical consequences. Some have even gone so far as to claim snap caps to be some sort of conspiracy against dry fire!
In my experience, that point of view is a bit misguided. I recommend the use of snap caps for any extensive dry fire practice, and with good reason: I have to fix the guns that break!
The problems involve broken firing pins, both hammer mounted and the in-frame variety. I do occasionally see broken pins that, upon investigation, would seem to have been caused by dry fire practice. Colt revolvers are probably the worst offenders; their firing pins tend to be harder than those of other makes, and subsequently a tad more brittle. I've seen many broken pins in Pythons and Detective Specials, and more than a few in the other models. If you have a Colt, I consider snap caps an absolute must.
Smith & Wesson revolvers seem to be a bit better in this regard, as I've not seen the number of broken pins that I have with the Colt products. They will occasionally break, however, and as a result I do recommend the use of snap caps if one is planning to do a significant amount of dry firing.
I've never seen a broken Ruger firing pin (though now that I've put this in print I'll no doubt hear about a rash of them!) However, snap caps seem to reduce peening of the back side of the firing pin, which serves to maintain ignition reliability. I don't consider their use as important as for their competition, but I believe them to be a good long-term care strategy.
-=[ Grant ]=-
More on SFL grease
Friday,
June 05, 2009
A few weeks ago I told you about an email I got from reader Troy, who is now selling Lubriplate SFL-0 grease. He packages the SFL grease in a metal 16 ounce can that has a brush in the lid. The brush makes for easier, cleaner application, always a plus when dealing with lubricants.
I ordered a can, and it arrived promptly. He ships Priority Mail, and charges actual shipping cost only. Can't ask for more than that!
Price is just $19.95 plus shipping, and he takes PayPal or Postal Money Order. You can reach Troy at capntroy@aol.com
-=[ Grant ]=-
A short note about a shortened cartridge.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Busier than a one-armed paperhanger today, so I'm just going to give you a link and some commentary.
On Monday I mentioned my attraction to wildcat cartridges. There is one that still intrigues me, because a) it's an easy wildcat to make, and b) it's a cartridge that SHOULD have been factory made from the start: the .41 Special.
I've always wanted to play with it, but have never owned the necessary .41 Magnum gun in which to shoot it. Since I'm not all that much a fan of the .41 Magnum to begin with I doubt I ever will, which automatically leaves me out of the .41 Special fraternity. Unless, of course, I decide to do a conversion on an existing gun! Here we go again...
(Oh, BTW - check out Ed Harris' comments on Monday's post, particularly the video. I've been jealous of his rook rifle since he told me about it some time back; someday I'll one-up him by building a double rifle in .32 Colt New Police, aka .32 S&W Long.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Uncommon cartridges.
Monday,
June 01, 2009
One of my interests, though I suppress it as much as possible, is the field of wildcat and proprietary cartridges. The lure of a cartridge that will give me something that I can't get anywhere else, that will dramatically improve some aspect of my shooting, is nearly irresistible. Of course owning and using something that other folks may not have heard about, let alone used, is a strong motivating factor!
Why do I suppress this interest? First, because I don't need yet another caliber to reload. Second, because reloading non-standard cartridges almost always requires extra work, and I've got enough to do as it is. Finally, because they rarely do anything that can't be done with something more mainstream, no matter how much I tell myself otherwise!
This interest was kindled many years ago when I was tasked with loading up some .451 Detonics for a local Detonics fanatic. The .451 was a proprietary cartridge, supposedly made by cutting down .45 Winchester Magnum brass, that was reported to throw a 185 grain bullet in excess of 1350 fps. This collector had a large quantity of virgin .451 Detonics brass, and wanted to recreate the defunct cartridge.
Loading data was scant, but we proceeded to work up loads using a rare .451 Detonics Combatmaster with an even rarer factory Seecamp double-action mechanism. We stopped when the 185 grain slugs exited that short barrel at 1325 fps - with recoil that can only be described as fierce!
(I don't believe the Seecamp option was ever actually offered for sale by Detonics. This collector, who was friends with someone from the original Detonics company, told me that "several" Detonics models were so constructed for test and evaluation, and he managed to acquire a couple of examples.)
That experience hooked me on odd cartridges, and I fed the addiction by purchasing a Dan Wesson in .445 SuperMag. Several other non-standard cartridges followed, and then I caught the wildcat bug. Wildcats are like crack cocaine to an oddball cartridge addict, and I played with several. I even toyed with the idea of developing my own wildcat, but luckily sanity (in the form of my wife) prevailed and the project was forgotten. More or less.
Most of my pet oddballs were eventually sold as my interest in them waned. Well, that - and I got tired scrounging and/or forming brass for them! I still have a few foreign military cartridges in the collection, though I'm not sure they really fit into the wildcat/proprietary motif.
My single remaining wildcat is a rifle chambered in 6.5-284. This is now a semi-legitimate cartridge, as it has become popular enough that Norma loads it and sells properly headstamped cases. When I took up the cartridge, though, it was a pure wildcat requiring forming cases from .284 Winchester brass. It's a wonderful cartridge, flat shooting and horrendously accurate, and now that it's become more mainstream it's much easier to load. Somehow, it's also lost the allure it used to hold for me.
Must - resist - urge - to - acquire - more...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Gas piston rifles.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Last week's arrival of Ruger's SR-556 rifle has a certain segment of the shooting community swooning with delight. I'm not at all certain the hoopla is justified.
There are those with the opinion that a gas piston system has merits over the direct gas impingement operation used in the standard M-16/AR-15 family of rifles. There are perceived shortcomings in the impingement system, but in my experience, over many rifles and uncounted thousands of rounds of ammunition, most of the complaints are imagined or overblown.
One supposed problem has to do with the AR-15 gas tube, which leads from the sight block into the upper receiver. That tube, so the detractors say, will get clogged with carbon from the hot combustion gases, and ultimately fail to cycle the action. Frankly, I've never seen a tube that had any buildup inside, let alone a clog.
A few weeks back I was helping an acquaintance with some work on his AR-15, and part of the job involved pulling the gas tube out. I inspected the tube, and the inside was shiny clean. Just to prove my point to the gun's owner, I swabbed the tube with a long, dry pipe cleaner (commonly sold as a "gas tube brush.") Nothing showed up on the white nap of the cleaner. This is a gun which has been heavily used, to the tune of thousands of rounds of mixed ammunition - and the gas tube had never been touched, yet was still pristine.
This is not to say that the gas tube never develops deposits. If an owner insists on cleaning the gas tube, using any kind of solvent, the residue from that material could carbonize and adhere to the walls of the tube. CLP-type products, which contain oils, would be especially prone to leaving behind soot. I suspect those who complain of dirty gas tubes have done just that, which ironically causes the condition which they're trying to avoid in the first place!
My solution? I never touch the gas tube, period. I don't put any oil, bore cleaner, or other liquid into the tube. I've found that they stay perfectly clean, no matter how many rounds are fired through, without any attention whatsoever.
Another common complaint is that the gun "defecates where it eats" (though usually the term is somewhat more colorful.) The gas tube outlets in the upper receiver, which supposedly gums up the bolt and leaves deposits in and around the chamber.
Yes, the chamber area does get dirty on the AR-15 - but I can tell you, over many thousands of rounds of shooting both, that it gets no dirtier than an FN-FAL (and is significantly cleaner than any HK rifle.) In our rifle classes, our students will shoot 800 rounds over 2 days; I've never seen a chamber area dirty enough to impede functioning.
The bolt itself does get dirtier than on other rifles, but in reality suffers no more than any other system. Again, comparing to the FN-FAL, the area that gets dirty is simply shifted - on the AR-15, it's the bolt, while on the FAL it's the gas piston head. Both have to be cleaned with about the same frequency, and failure to do so will induce the same failure in each rifle. To me, it's a non-issue, because until someone develops a true self-cleaning rifle I'll be forced to do it myself regardless of the design!
Redesigning the AR-15 with a gas piston, according to supporters, supposedly makes for a more reliable system. I can't imagine how adding more parts to any mechanism makes it more reliable, but perhaps there is some new engineering principle which says it can be done. It would certainly be news to me!
I do have significant experience with gas piston designs. I'm a longtime FN-FAL user, having shot many examples and huge amounts of ammunition. In my experience, the gas piston is in fact the weakest point of the whole gun. On the FAL, if the piston is even slightly bent it will bind in the upper receiver boss, and the bolt will not be able to travel forward into battery. Alignment of the gas block and the upper receiver has to be perfect, otherwise binding will occur in one (or sometimes both) places.
I could go on, but my point is that a piston is not necessarily a guarantor of reliability. This, coming from someone who is a huge fan of the FAL!
Ruger's new gun will probably sell very well to those who believe in the piston concept, but the ironic thing is that Ruger will have to work twice as hard just to equal the reliability of the standard AR-15. First, because more parts doesn't always translate to better performance, and second because a piston is likely to demand more careful construction and assembly - areas where Ruger, to be fair, does have a bit of a problem.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday,
May 18, 2009
It finally dawned on me that I forgot to write a Friday Surprise for last week. That's what happens when you're too busy to remember to eat!
---
You've probably heard by now that Ruger introduced a new rifle last Friday. It's an AR-15 with a gas piston upper, sporting an MSRP of two grand. There's lots of speculation about whether Ruger's customers will pay that much for a rifle, but my primary concern is reliability. Ruger's last foray into autoloading .223 rifles was something less than stellar, both in reliability and accuracy, so I'll be taking a "wait and see" attitude with this one. (I'm sure Ed Harris will be along soon with his anecdote regarding Bill Ruger's attitude toward the Mini-14 problems. I, for one, am thankful that there are no Rugers running Ruger these days.)
---
Recently I mentioned the Major Caudill episode. Last week we learned that Ted Nugent has perpetuated the travesty, much to Marko's completely justified chagrin. By now I'm sure lawyers have been consulted, and The Nuge will no doubt be receiving a letter soon. (Note to Ted: your diatribe condemning piracy will no doubt be used against you at trial. Were I you, I'd settle out of court for a public apology, payment for use of copyrighted material, and an agreement to make a specified number of public appearances to promote Marko's upcoming book.)
---
I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but people continue to feel comfortable doing stupid things with guns they perceive to be unloaded.
-=[ Grant ]=-
The research (as usual) in on our side.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
David Kopel at the Independence Institute has a new research paper forthcoming in the Connecticut Law Review. Titled "Pretend 'Gun-Free' School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction", it deals with the subject of concealed firearms carry on school campuses. From the abstract:
I highly recommend that you download a PDF of the paper from Social Science Research Network. It's a terrific read and well worth your time.Most states issue permits to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection to an applicant who is over 21 years of age, and who passes a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. These permits allow the person to carry a concealed defensive handgun almost everywhere in the state. Should professors, school teachers, or adult college and graduate students who have such permits be allowed to carry firearms on campus?
In the last two years, many state legislatures have debated the topic. School boards, regents, and administrators are likewise faced with decisions about whether to change campus firearms policies.
This Paper is the first to provide a thorough analysis of the empirical evidence and policy arguments regarding licensed campus carry. Whether a reader agrees or disagrees with the Paper's policy recommendations, the Paper can lay the foundation for a better-informed debate, and a more realistic analysis of the issue.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, April 27,
2009
Over the weekend I got a nice email from the shooter in last week's article. Sure enough, the screw had backed out and let the crane past. He's ordered a new screw, and plans to LocTite it in. Good plan!
(The sad thing was that he was shooting really well up until that happened...ruined a perfectly good stage.)
---
Those of you looking for Lubriplate SFL grease may be in luck - I got this interesting email last week:
---Just for your info, I'll be offering the Lubriplate "SFL" NLGI #0 grease in 16 oz. cans starting in about two weeks.
The grease will come in screw-top metal cans with a brush attached to the inside of the lid, real handy for applying the grease without making a mess.
Retail will be $19.95 plus actual shipping, without any inflated "handling" charges.
Email is capntroy@aol.com
Gila Hayes over at the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network recently reviewed a book that I had to buy: "Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World Violence" by Rory Miller. Miller's treatise is about violent criminal behavior - how it happens, why it happens, and what does and doesn't work to counter it. It's written from the perspective of empty hand martial arts (as opposed to the martial art of the firearm), but everything in it is applicable to the person who carries a firearm for protection.
He goes to great lengths to dispel both our romanticized notions of what violent acts are really like, and our belief in our own ability to deal with them. Early in the book, he says "you are what you are, not what you think you are." (Emphasis added.) The rest of the book shows us what why that's true, and why what we believe is not always reality. His perspectives on training, of what is/is not valuable, follow the same hard-nosed refusal to buckle under to fantasy.
This book has earned a permanent place in my library, which is not something I can say of many works. I highly recommend it to anyone who carries a gun for self defense, and perhaps even more to those who don't. (One warning: this book may be unsettling to those who've become attached to their images of how a predator interacts with his/her prey. As Miller reminds us, reality is rarely pretty - and his work is chock-full of reality.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Supply Chain Management 101: on the ammunition shortage.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Gunstores continue to be a never-ending source of hilarity. Walk into your local shooting emporium and ask why there is an ammo shortage, and you'll hear inane speculation coupled with a conspiracy theory or two. The reality is that the supply chain for ammunition is relatively inelastic, and and is easily overwhelmed by a sudden jump in sales.
As one industry consultant has told me, ammunition demand over the years has been remarkably predictable. Ammunition wholesalers know (within a certain margin of error) how many units of each caliber they'll sell in the coming year, and approve purchase orders for the delivery of that amount of product during that year.
Ammo makers, too, know with fair certainty how much they're going to sell to the wholesalers during that period, and sign contracts for the purchase of sufficient components to produce those products. They don't typically keep large stores of components on hand, as standing inventory is expensive, so components are delivered on a "just in time" basis.
The suppliers of those components do the same thing with raw materials; again, ammunition is a stable business, which allows them to forecast with pretty good accuracy the stuff they need to make the components they sell. This pattern repeats itself on up the chain, all the way to the people who mine the stuff necessary to make a single cartridge.
Along comes a huge, sudden spike in demand. Retailers all over the country are suddenly swamped with ammunition purchases, and quickly call their suppliers to get more. The first few calls are rewarded with replacement stock, but soon the wholesaler's shelves are bare too - their entire year allotment of ammunition is gone in just a few days.
The wholesaler calls the maker, and the same thing happens: all of the suppliers are doubling (or more) orders to get their dealers restocked, and the manufacturer is quickly stripped of on-hand components as he tries to fill those orders.
The dealers are out, the wholesalers are out, and now the manufacturers are out. But it gets worse.
The makers of the priming compound, primer cups, brass, powder, jacket material, and lead are suddenly swamped with desperate pleas for more product, and they in turn contact the suppliers of the raw materials for more. The entire chain of supply is empty, and everyone has to wait while all of the raw materials are gathered. (I shouldn't have to tell you that those folks have other contracts to fill before they can get to the rush orders - they're not just waiting around for next year's order from the ammo companies!)
That all sounds simple, but it just isn't. As an example, smokeless powder may contain a huge variety of raw materials: Nitrocellulose, Nitroglycerin, Nitroguanidine, Dibutyl phthalate, Polyester adipate, Ethyl acetate, Diphenylamine, 2-Nitrodiphenylamine, 4-nitrodiphenylamine, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, N-methyl-p-nitroaniline, tin dioxide, bismuth trioxide, bismuth subcarbonate, bismuth nitrate, bismuth antimonide, Potassium nitrate, Potassium sulfate, Talc, Titanium dioxide, Graphite, and Calcium carbonate. Each of these has to be sourced from a supplier, ordered, received, then finally compounded into smokeless powder. Think that all happens overnight??
Once the raw materials are finally in hand, the work can start. Lead has to be formed into projectiles, copper into jackets, brass into casings; priming compound is made from lead azide and/or potassium perchlorate, then the mixture combined with metal cups to make primers (they have to be made, too); the aforementioned powder has to be made (a huge job in itself.)
Once those components are ready, they can be sent to the manufacturer, who puts together into a finished round, then packages them appropriately. (Oops - we forgot that boxes and trays that have to be made and printed. That takes time and materials!) They're then shipped to the wholesaler, who (finally!) can ship to the retailer.
This whole process takes time - lots of it. If demand is high enough (which it has been), even the emergency orders placed all the way to the producers of the raw products may not be sufficient, and shortages will continue. That's what we're seeing right now.
The supply chain is simply empty, all the way up to the people who mine the raw materials. It's going to take time to replace all the links in that chain, and it's not because of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, The Joos, FEMA, the CIA, a secret agreement to implement gun control through ammo availability, or any other silly theory you may have heard. This is a textbook example of what happens when an inelastic supply chain, composed with scarce "just in time" inventories, meets insatiable demand. It's not sexy or intriguing, but that's the way it is.
You know what's scarier? Your food comes to you the same way. Imagine what would happen if...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Be honest with yourself.
Wednesday, April 08,
2009
In college I minored in music performance. Being just out of high school (read: thoroughly stupid) I thought I was a hot musician, harboring dreams of becoming a professional trumpet player. Like so many other aspiring performers I really had no idea what the world of a professional musician actually entailed, but I was absolutely sure I had what it took.
One of my professors, an accomplished professional trombonist, made it his job to bring us post-adolescents into the real world. Shortly into my freshman term, he was talking with a few of the members of the trumpet section after class. The talk turned to the requirements of a "pro", and all of us were convinced we had the Right Stuff. Our prof had heard this kind of chatter before, and bet our first chair player that he didn't yet possess the bare minimum skills necessary for the job.
Trumpet players are usually narcissistic personalities, the kind who don't back down from a fight, and the kid said "you're on!"
The prof sighed and said simply "get out your horn. I want you to blow a perfect half-note G above the staff" (trumpet players in the audience will understand.) The kid smirked, dropped his case to the floor and pulled out his horn. "Wait a minute", said our teacher. "I said a perfect G. No warmup. Just one perfect note; in tune from start to end, solid attack, no slop or waviness, crisp decay. You have one and only one shot. Go."
I shouldn't have to tell you the kid failed - miserably. Then again, none of the rest of us would have done any better. We were clueless: none of us yet knew enough to understand how much we didn't yet know.
Fast forward a few decades, and the shooting range serves up the same lesson. Georges Rahbani, "The Best Rifle Instructor You've Never Heard Of" , has a way of impressing on his students how they should assess their own abilities:
"You are only as good as you are, on demand."
What you can do right now, without warm up or sighting shots, without excuses or alibis, is the true measure of how good you are.
This is different from how most people gauge their ability. Most folks would take their rifle to the range on a nice sunny day, settle in comfortably at the bench, fire a bunch of rounds, then shoot a 1" group. They're so proud of that group they take the target home and hang it in their garage or office. "I'm hot stuff!", they'll think - after all, they have the target to prove it!
The next day at the range it's raining, they've had a fight with their spouse, can't get comfortable on the cold bench, and now their best group doesn't even break 3". "That's not me", they'll say to themselves, "I shoot one-inch groups!" The alibis flow like PBR at a fraternity house, and serve to obscure the fact that the 3" group wasn't the anomaly - the 1" group was. The larger one is the true indicator of their skill.
It's not what someone can do when everything is going their way that shows ability; it's what they can do under suboptimal conditions that does. If a person can't shoot until getting into just the right stance, with perfect foot placement and textbook body positioning, then that person still has a lot of work to do to master the fundamentals. (I've seen people who can shoot pretty well on a concrete pad, but go all to pieces on a gravel range. They can't get into their comfort zone.)
This is one thing if we're talking about plinking, but becomes another thing entirely when the subject turns to self defense. The other guy isn't going to wait for us to get into the perfect stance we learned from our guru; we need to be able to deliver rapid, multiple, properly placed shots from whatever position the situation dictates, under whatever conditions it hands us. That requires the courage to admit to ourselves that maybe - just maybe - we aren't quite as good as we think.
Right here, right now, no warmups, no excuses - how good are you?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sitrep: gunshow vendors tell me that any autoloading rifle is like gold these days (while they can't give away bolt-action hunting rifles.) Concealed handgun licensing is at an all-time high here in Oregon (and a large percentage of applicants are from what is often referred to as the "left" of the political spectrum.) Ammunition shortages continue, as well as components such as bullets and primers.
If I didn't know better, I'd say a lot of people have joined the ranks of "clingers."
---
Someone recently asked if I still had the same opinion of Taurus revolvers that I did back in 2006. Given my recent experience with the brand-new 856 model, I'd have to say yes. Nothing at Taurus has changed, as near as I can tell.
---
Late last year, the ProArms Podcast broke the news that Federal was bringing back .38 Special NyClad ammunition. This load was for many years the best standard-pressure .38 Special available. The NyClad is a soft lead hollowpoint of 125 grains, coated in a nylon compound to prevent barrel leading. It is just the ticket for the recoil sensitive, and especially for the new crop of uber-light "J" frame revolvers.
My sources tell me that Federal planned to do an initial run of the NyClad in March, so it should be available soon (if it isn't already.) Unless your local dealer is particularly astute, he probably won't be carrying it - you'll probably have to special order some.
---
I wish I had time to write a political/economic blog - between Washington and Wall Street, there is a huge amount of material coming down the pipes daily. (The passing reference to waste plumbing is intentional.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Now that's just wrong.
Wednesday, March 25,
2009
Back in the '70s, there was a short-lived craze for "pimping out" VW Beetles. Several companies made fiberglass body kits that would transform a humble Bug into something else (sort of.) One of the most popular was the Rolls Royce kit - consisting of a new hood/grill that resembled a Phantom V or Silver Cloud, complete with new fenders and headlights to finish the "look."
The trouble was that, after spending all that money, it was still a VeeWee, only now resembling Bob Hope in drag. The sad part? The Beetle stood on its own wheels design-wise, an icon and milestone in automotive development; it didn't need the fru-fru, and looked silly with it installed.
This came to mind as The Firearm Blog brought us an engraved, gold inlaid Glock:
Now, I like engraved and embellished personal arms, regardless of whether the item in question is a revolver or an autoloader. It has to be appropriate, though. A Colt Single Action Army? Appropriate. A plastic-framed self-shucker? Not so much.
I hereby nominate this Glock for Xavier's "Ugly Gun Sunday".
-=[ Grant ]=-
Coffee and miracle lubricants.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Coffee is one of those vices in which I do not indulge. Not from any religious objection, mind you - it's just that I can't stand the taste of the stuff. I admit to loving the smell of brewing java, but coffee is one of those things that smells a whole lot better than it tastes!
Stay with me, I'll get to the point.
A number of years ago I knew a district sales manager for one of the major coffee companies. (Coincidentally, his first name was also Grant. Obviously a man of superior intellect, charm, and modesty.) Grant told me that the coffee brand with the largest market share at that time was Folgers, due largely to their "mountain grown" ad campaign.
He commented that the campaign was so much hot air, as all coffee was grown in the mountains - but people had been conditioned to believe that since a) the mountain environment was desirable, and b) only Folgers was grown in the mountains, therefore c) Folgers was the only coffee to buy.
Yes, the mountain environment was desirable, because without it there would essentially be no coffee, but no - Folgers wasn't the only coffee which was grown there!
His story came back to me this week when I received yet another email from what was obviously a salesman for one of those multilevel marketing (MLM) "miracle lubricant" scams. One of the consistent claims by all such snake oil concerns is that their product "bonds with the metal at the molecular level", that it is a very desirable thing to do, and only their product does so.
Think "coffee."
Reality time: all oils bond with metal at a molecular level, because that's what oils do. Were there no molecular attraction between oil and metal, the oil would simply slide off of the surface to which it was applied. Not drip off, not ooze off, not pour off - slide off with absolutely no trace of itself left behind. No film or residue, not a single atom of the oil would remain. Absolutely nothing.
Of course, that doesn't happen. Apply any oil to a piece of metal, then turn the metal upside down; the excess oil may drip off, but a layer of slippery liquid is always left stuck to the surface. That is molecular attraction - bonding, if you will - at work.
Those who wear glasses know how difficult it can be to completely rid lenses of even a drop of oil; there always seems to be some that stubbornly refuses efforts at removal. This is because there is a molecular bond between the oil and the material from which the lens is made, and the same thing happens when oil is applied to metal.
Molecular attraction is why the water in your coffee is in liquid form, rather than the elemental hydrogen and oxygen from which it is made. It makes metal alloys possible, and is why lubricants - all of them - work. The companies which claim their product "bonds with the metal at the molecular level" are simply saying that their oil does the same thing that all other oils do.
Admitting that fact wouldn't sell much oil (or coffee), would it?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Facing your demons.
Wednesday, March 04,
2009
I used to love shooting steel. The plates dropping, the loud "clang" from a Steel Challenge target - no matter what the venue, reactive metal targets are just addicting. This addiction, I discovered, can be broken - even if you don't want to!
A number of years back I was shooting a Steel Challenge-type match. On one stage I was watching someone else shoot when a piece of bullet jacket bounced back from the steel plate, sneaked around my safety glasses, and caught the corner of my eye. (Mine was not the only injury that day - my buddy Hunter Dan suffered a leg cut from shrapnel, and another fellow caught a piece on his cheek.)
My physical damage was minor - lots of blood, though no permanent damage - but the psychological impact was greater than I could have imagined. You see, I'm somewhat paranoid about my eyesight to begin with; always have been. I don't like the thought of anything heading straight for my eyeball, let alone touching it. (In the old days, when glaucoma exams meant a little pressure gauge touching the cornea, having my eyes checked was absolute agony.)
This close call with the jagged piece of copper left me more than a little skittish around steel targets. Ever since then, regardless of size or distance of the target, shooting a steel plate causes me to blink just as the sear releases. (The problem never occurs on paper targets, only steel.) I can't help it, and I shouldn't have to point out that it makes hitting the target more than a little challenging!
Early last year I resolved to cure this affliction. I'm lucky to have a range on my own property, and last year I acquired a self-resetting, half sized Pepper Popper. Whenever I go out to shoot, I make it a point to do so on that target first. I shoot it repeatedly, and with every shot I consciously force my eyes to remain open.
The first few times I tried this were pathetic; no matter how hard I concentrated, my eyelids always won by doing what they're designed to do - protect my eyes. As time went on, and the round count increased, it became easier to keep them open, though I still have to do it consciously as opposed to subconsciously. (The latter will only occur when my mind has been retrained to accept the idea that shooting a steel target is perfectly safe, and that nothing will happen to my precious eyesight. I'm still working on it.)
I could have just ignored the whole issue and simply avoided shooting steel targets, but a) it's not practical - they show up in the most unexpected places, and b) it's not very much fun. Instead I decided to address the issue, and I'm hoping to be in shape to finally shoot a steel match again this summer.
Whether sports, music, or martial arts, if all you ever do is practice stuff that you've already mastered you'll never make progress. When you go to the range, work on those things that you don't do well. By facing your demons with your eyes open and brain engaged, you can eventually conquer them.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, March 02, 2009
I'm gratified - and somewhat surprised - at the tremendous response to last week's post "Risk assessment, or lack thereof." One of the difficulties I've found with this whole blog adventure is predicting what will resonate with my readers. In some cases I've been deliberatively provocative in order to get people to think outside of their comfort zone, while in others I've tried to deliver solid technical information not readily available in the swamp that is the internet.
On occasion (as with the article under consideration) I worry about whether I'm talking over my audience, that the subject might be a bit too abstract. I'm happy to find that my readers are significantly more discerning than average.
---
One complaint about the Bianchi SpeedStrips is that they're not available in calibers other than .38/.357. I'm surprised that, until tipped off by a reader, I didn't know about Quick Strips from Tuff Products. They appear to be a clone of the Bianchi product, but are available in a wide range of calibers. Check 'em out.
---
You may have heard that the U.S. Attorney General called (not surprisingly) for reinstating the infamous Assault Weapons Ban. What was surprising was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's adamant refusal to consider such legislation. Mr. Obama's administration may find their road tougher sledding than they'd originally anticipated. All the better for us!
---
A while back I wrote about the iPhone/iTouch ballistics application iSnipe. While it worked well, it was pretty basic; as I explained to the author, it needed some features added to enhance utility for the serious long-range shooter.
It didn't take long for competition to appear: Ballistic FTE has everything I ever wanted, and then some. It is superb in every respect; you must see the target recording function! It even has a calculator to help with rangefinding (mil-dot) reticle use. Ballistic FTE is a bargain at $9.99.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, February 23,
2009
Sometimes it's hard to understand the mindset of gun prohibitionists, because they come from a different perspective than those of us who hold the opposite view. Unless you can relate to their perspective, you will always look at them in the same way one might look at the monkeys in the zoo.
From ManiacWorld comes this enlightening video. Watch it and learn what you're up against. (I wanted to embed it here, but couldn't find a way to do so. Sorry.)
---
Steve over at The Firearms Blog posted this superb analysis of Remington's new triangular barrels. I had thought that the tensioned upper and compressed lower ribs would serve to reduce barrel flex, but didn't have the engineering background to verify my belief. Steve's correspondent does. Great information.
---
From The Anarchangel comes this cartoon with implications for the CHL holder:
The lawfully carried firearm doesn't necessarily make you safer, folks - it simply gives you a means to resist initiated force. Without awareness and a basic understanding of the nature of violent attacks, all of your painstaking preparation can be rendered moot by a simple blow to the head.
If you carry, but aren't truly aware of your surroundings, you aren't as safe as you think you are. The bad guy can still come out of your blind side and achieve the same result. I've met lots of gunnies who profess to always be in "condition yellow", yet stare straight ahead while crossing a parking lot to their car. When was the last time you looked under your car as you approached, or flashed a light in the back seat before unlocking the door? Do you understand why you should never take a parking space you have to back out of? Do you know the difference between "looking" and "seeing"?
Just as having the most expensive kitchen won't magically turn you into Wolfgang Puck, carrying the currently fashionable handgun in your guru's favorite caliber won't automatically make you safe. (I've often thought about teaching a class on self defense from the basis of situational awareness, but sadly the topic isn't sexy enough to sell.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Is that gun loaded, and do I really care?
Wednesday, February 18,
2009
In the comments to last week's post regarding safety rules, someone asked why checking the condition of a firearm is never listed in any rules. It seems logical enough - why not check the condition of a gun when you pick it up?
I'd like you to think about that for a minute - really think: why are you checking it?
If you plan to shoot it immediately, I can understand wanting to make certain that it was loaded. If you were going to disassemble it for cleaning, or do dryfire, or some other specific task that would require it to be sans ammunition, I understand why you'd want to verify that it was unloaded. But checking just to be checking? I'm not sure that it keeps anyone safer.
Other than those obvious examples, I can't come up with a good reason for someone to obsess about the load condition of a gun - unless it's because, consciously or unconsciously, they want or plan to do something unsafe.
Look at it this way: why are you verifying the condition if you're just going to pretend it's loaded anyhow? The answer seems to be quite obvious: because you're not really going to treat it as though it's loaded, and the reason you're not going to is because, deep down, you want to do something that you know isn't all that safe.
When I'm handed a gun, unless I'm going to do something that requires a particular state, I don't feel a need to immediate check it. Why? Because I treat all guns to the same standard:
I'm not going to point that gun at anything I'm not willing to shoot, regardless of whether it's loaded; I'm not going to have my finger on the trigger, either, loaded or not. I don't make exceptions, because the Three Commandments neither contain nor allow exceptions. That is why they are superior to any form of the existing "Four Rules."1. Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
2. Always make sure of your target, and of where your bullets will land.
3. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until your sights are on target, and you are in the act of firing the shot.
There's yet another dynamic at work, which I've observed over the years with a wide variety of people. Those who do the habitual check often display an absolutely frightening tendency: after they've checked the gun, they relax. Visibly. You can see the changes in their body language and facial expressions, showing that they are now at ease - and less vigilant - with that firearm.
I've seen this with new gun owners, and I've seen it with the most experienced instructors. I've seen it with combat vets and with gunsmiths, with gunstore jockeys and seasoned competitive shooters. People check the gun, see that it's empty, and drop their guard. The situation is obvious to anyone who has the courage to look for the signs. You can almost hear them thinking: "don't worry, it's not loaded!"
(Of course, not every single person does this - but you'd be surprised, when you start looking, how large the percentage is and how it cuts across all levels of experience.)
When people are handling firearms, I want to see them completely engaged. Dropping one's guard because the gun has been verified as empty is the genesis of negligent discharges. Never become complacent - the consequences are simply too great.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Living with your choices.
Monday, February 16,
2009
One-liners, sound bites, and witty retorts are often used to convince others to unthinkingly follow a certain path or belief. When the subject matter is of little import, they are simply amusing. When subjects turn more serious, they impede the flow of vital information necessary to make good decisions.
Such is the latest, a hearty "guns break!" when faced with evidence that one's choice in safety/rescue equipment might not have been ideal. Yes, guns are mechanical contrivances and do suffer failures; it is important, though, to understand the nature of failure before making such proclamations.
Any mechanical device - be it a gun or an automobile - is subject to failure from several causes:
- design flaw
- inferior materials
- construction irregularities
- improper maintenance
- suitability mismatch
Of these, only the last two are within our control - the others are beyond our control. That doesn't mean we're at the mercy of the fates, however; the end result can still be affected by the choices that we make.
In order to avoid failure, one would choose a perfect design, made with the best possible materials and showing the highest workmanship. Of course, that can only happen in La-La Land (or the internet!)
In the real world we have to make compromises at all of those points, and it is necessary that we understand those compromises going in. Nothing's perfect, that's a fact. From 'imperfect' to 'near perfect', though, is a continuum: we have bad choices, better choices, and - if we're lucky - superb choices.
Simply put, there will always be better choices than others for any given criteria. For instance, let's say that you were looking for a car to get you reliably back and forth to work - day in, day out, with as little down time as is possible. You might succumb to glitzy marketing and pick a Land Rover or a BMW, or perhaps something more pedestrian like a Toyota or a Honda.
Were you to look at reliability rankings for those brands over at Consumer Reports, you'd find the Rover and the Beemer were the least reliable over a large sample, while the Toyota and Honda are rated as the most reliable. (One example from each may be at the far end of the bell curve, but the probability of getting that one is not with you. A sample of one is just that: one.)
Of course, there are other aspects to the choice: comfort, amenities, performance, and (admit it) status which also might figure into the decision. Understand, though, that those cannot be transmuted to the primary criteria: reliability.
In this example, were you to pick one of the first two brands, the likelihood of a failure leaving you stuck on the side of the road increases dramatically. You might be able to fool yourself, but the data says that the Euro-rides will suffer more frequent failures than their Asian counterparts. That is a fact you just can't sound-bite your way around.
If your co-workers happen to point out that your fashionable wagon breaks down more often than their less ostentatious wheels, how intelligent would it be for you to yell "cars break!" at them? Yes, they know cars break, which is why they chose examples which break less often. Getting mad at them won't make your car's repair record any better.
The same is true for firearms and their attendant equipment. Like it or not, there are products which, over time, have proven to fail less often than others. If reliability and/or longevity is your primary concern in a gun-related purchase, you should understand that there is in fact a range from most to least, and make your choice accordingly.
Pretending that there is no difference between the alternatives because they all fail at some point is ignoring reality. As someone once told me: you either acknowledge reality and use it to your advantage, or it will automatically work against you.
Georges Rahbani, 'The Best Rifle Instructor You've Never Heard Of', has a great way of putting this in perspective: if you're buying a gun for fun (plinking, target shooting, hunting, competition, etc.), you can be far less demanding about reliability/longevity. A failure in those applications is of minor consequence, and thus you have leeway to factor other criteria into your decision.
If, however, your firearm is a serious tool upon which your life may depend, you need a relentlessly critical attitude toward your choice. Don't make it on the basis of one-liners heard at the gunshop.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I feel your pain, Sisyphus.
Wednesday, February
11, 2009
First, please read this sad story over at Xavier's place. When you're done, come back and we'll talk about it a bit.
I wasn't going to comment on the tragedy, but I simply can't ignore it. I'm so tired of reading this kind of story, and I'm even more tired of the shooting community failing - in many cases, simply refusing - to do anything about the situation.
(For some background, please read my article "On Safety." It lays out my arguments, which I will be referencing in these comments.)
Note that Joshua had in fact completed a gun safety course. I can almost guarantee you that his instructor taught him not just Traditional Rule #1, but the very worst, most ignorant, most negligent version of that rule: "all guns are always loaded, until you've verified that they aren't."
What leads me to that conclusion? Simple - I've demonstrated that people feel free to do stupid things with guns that they think are unloaded. The caption to one of Joshua and Alaina's pictures, according to Xavier, said "We triple checked to make sure ALL of the guns were unloaded!"
There, ladies and gentlemen, lies the proof. They did just what their instructor had told them: they checked to make sure that their guns were unloaded, and once that was accomplished they were completely at ease doing (and chronicling) stupid things with them. Monumentally stupid things. That caption says, in effect, "it's OK - we're doing just as we were told."
As a result, a beautiful young woman lies in the cold, hard ground.
In my view, Traditional Rule #1 is more than partly responsible for her death, because it set up the circumstances under which it could happen. It created a mindset that wasn't devoted to safety, but in fact evasive of it. It gave Joshua a mental "out": "I thought it was unloaded!"
Understand this: I think Xavier is a great blogger, a fellow with whom I agree on so many topics. He deserves kudos for putting this story together, but this time his conclusion is dead wrong. He posits that had Joshua and Alaina just followed the rules more closely, this tragedy wouldn't have happened.
My rejoinder is that they did just as they were taught; it's not that they had any lack of adherence. They followed the rules, starting with Traditional Rule #1, just like they were supposed to. If you've read the article I referenced earlier, you know why I believe Traditional Rule #1 abrogates all of the other rules, setting up situations just like this one. It did not prevent this tragedy, any more than it has prevented any of the others I've written about.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Simply repeating Traditional Rule #1, in a progressively louder voice, isn't working. It can't. Isn't it time we did something better?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, February 09,
2009
One of the most popular items on the Mall Ninja Shopping List has been the Magpul magazine for the AR-15. The polymer (yes, plastic) Magpul has been said to be far superior to the aluminum model that has served for going on 45 years.
Turns out they may not be all they're cracked up to be. Literally. From The Firearm Blog.
---
If pandas were armed, they wouldn't be an endangered species.
Well, that - and if they actually, you know, liked sex. Remember: celibacy is not hereditary.
---
Xavier brings us this funny-yet-sad story from the Land Where Great Britain Used To Be.
---
In response to my recent rant, someone sent me this link to the mike-istan blog. Some of the comments are...interesting.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yes, I'm repeating myself.
Wednesday, February
04, 2009
I've written about this before, but it's getting worse. All across this country are people standing behind gun counters who need to be taught that women are people, too.
I've lost track of the number of times I've run into a woman who was sold (as opposed to deciding to buy) a revolver for self defense. Now it should be pretty clear to even the densest web denizen that this is a revolver-friendly blog, so it should not come as a shock that I think revolvers are a great tool.
They are not necessarily, however, the right tool. As I mentioned last week, the revolver is the easiest gun in the world to shoot, but the most difficult gun to shoot well. That long, heavy (in stock configuration) trigger requires a certain amount of hand strength, without which the gun cannot be fired.
Herein lies the problem: the female of the species, in general, tends to have less strength in her digits than does the male. It's not unusual, therefore, to find a woman saddled with a brand-new revolver on which she cannot manipulate the trigger. I've seen countless numbers of women who actually have to use two fingers to get the trigger moving!
It's not so much a matter of gun fit (though that enters into the equation far too often), but simply the trigger offering more resistance than a slim finger is capable of overcoming. In reality most women would really be better served with the shorter, lighter trigger action of an autoloading pistol, but the wisdom of the gunstore commando is that autoloaders are just "too complicated for the little lady."
Hey, Bubba, I've got news for you: women actually drive cars these days! Yes, automobiles, with their myriad switches and levers and pedals and buttons. Women have no problem figuring those things out, yet you think they can't handle the concept of a slide stop lever?
The usual rejoinder is that women don't have the upper body strength to manipulate the slide of an autoloader. This is fact turned on it's side to bolster a flawed assumption; yes, women tend not to have our arm strength, but that deficiency can be rendered immaterial through proper technique. It's a simple matter, and nearly any female (and a more enlightened male) firearms instructor can teach it inside of thirty seconds.
This whole issue wouldn't bother me so much - and I wouldn't be writing about it again - but the inferiority attitude is so pervasive that some women are themselves buying into the notion that they're not "capable" of handling an autoloader. I've actually had students to whom I've taught the autoloader manipulation techniques (and who've shot very well with one) go out and end up with a revolver. Not because they wanted one, mind you, but because some dolt behind a counter convinced her that it was all she could handle.
Mind you, I'm not some new-age "sensitive man". I'm as big a neanderthal as the next guy; I believe that women and men are different, and you can thank your favorite deity for the difference! I'm just tired of people assuming that my wife, sisters, nieces, and mother are so stupid that they can't handle a simple mechanical device. I'm annoyed that they are doing their level best to indoctrinate women to this nonsensical point of view, and I'm appalled that it actually seems to be gaining some traction among women themselves!
I don't have a prescription for this problem, other than to continue to educate every person - man or woman - I run across. If that means I repeat myself every so often, I'm willing to do so. I hope you'll forgive me!
Yes, revolvers are wonderful, but they're not for everyone. We need to help people to make intelligent decisions, and if that means they choose a self-shucker, so be it. Heretical? No, just realistic.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A perception issue.
Wednesday, January
28, 2009
A recent SHOT show write-up, regarding the new Ruger LCR revolver, contained the (sadly common) comment that the gun would be perfect for "non-dedicated personnel."
I hereby give public notice that I am officially tired of reading excrement like that.
The snub-nosed, double-action revolver is the easiest gun in the world to shoot, but It is the hardest gun to shoot well. Mastering the double action pull takes time, dedication, and practice; that's just a fact of life. The nice, light, short trigger pulls on autoloaders are much easier to become proficient with, which is part of the reason they are popular.
Let's look at what happens when the "non-dedicated" person buys a double action revolver. Because he (or she) is "non-dedicated", he's not going to put in the range time to thoroughly learn how to shoot the gun to a good standard of accuracy, which means his target hit potential is quite low (but the innocent bystander hit potential is quite high.) If it has a short barrel the small sight radius compounds the accuracy issue, and those lightweight models make the gun difficult to control in recoil. Does this sound like the gun for an inexperienced shooter? Not me!
If that wasn't bad enough, if the "non-dedicated" person doesn't become proficient with that heavy double action trigger pull, he reverts to doing what he sees in the movies: cocking the gun to single action. Comes a deadly encounter and we end up with a poorly trained individual whose adrenal gland is going into extra innings, holding a cocked gun with a very light, very short trigger action. This doesn't sound like a Good Idea to me! (Of course, this doesn't apply to the LCR or the S&W Centennial, neither of which can be cocked.)
In terms of administrative handling, I'd agree that the revolver is certainly more suited to this type of person. When talking In terms of hitting the target, though, it just isn't. In my mind, the non-dedicated person is better served by a gun that is easier to shoot well. Learning a slightly more complex manual of arms is a small price to pay to ensure that projectiles aren't flung over half the county.
The revolver, particularly the short-barrelled variety, and especially with a lightweight frame, is a gun for serious shooters. A pox on those who would insist otherwise!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Greasing the skids.
Wednesday, December
31, 2008
If you've read my Lubrication 101 article, you know that I'm a big fan of the Lubriplate SFL series of greases. Unfortunately, they are hard to get; there are no consumer-quantity online sources that I know of, and even the company that once supplied me is no longer.
There is another good choice: the Lubriplate FGL line of greases, which are available in more consumer-friendly packaging - but still hard to find in anything less than case quantity. I remain amazed that Lubriplate makes such terrific products, then makes it so hard to buy them!
Reader Chris S. sent me an email regarding an alternative: Dow-Corning G-0050. It looks good; while technically not quite as robust as the SFL or FGL products, it's a close second - and is still head and shoulders above any lithium-based product that you'll find on the shelves at your local gun store. It's available in single tubes from McMaster-Carr - who have one of those annoying sites that won't let you link directly to an item, but their catalog number is 1445K41.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, December 22,
2008
The snow continues to pile up at the farm. This morning we had 16 inches on the ground, and we've been thoroughly covered for a week now. In Oregon, this is a highly unusual occurrence and I'm ready for it to be over!
We got a small dose of ice in between show showers, just enough to lock the snow onto tree branches and provide a means for more snow to pile up. Result: lots of damaged trees. If I were to go outside right now, the branches breaking and trees snapping sound like a firing range!
---
I haven't been able to make it to the range to test the guns I've finished, let alone make it into town to ship them. Sadly, unless we get a major thaw it's entirely likely that I won't get anything shipped before the holiday.
---
Plastic guns and ovens don't mix. (Obligatory jab at the French omitted, though I'm sure my British friends can fill in the blanks.)
---
As if the miserable weather weren't enough, I'm down with a nasty cold. I don't know how I caught it, as I haven't been able to get out to be in contact with a carrier!
---
SayUncle alerted me to this little bit of racism. (My thought: someone who assumes that you would want to kill her because of her skin color does so because - deep down - she harbors the fantasy of killing you because of your skin color.)
"Projection", it's called.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, December 15,
2008
If you live anywhere west of the Mississippi, you know all about this arctic air mass which has come to roost over our little slice of heaven. It's resulted in a good foot of snow in my front yard, along with temperatures more common to the Midwest than the Northwest.
I'm not even trying to get out of my driveway, and I'm sorry to say that I definitely will not be making the shipping schedule for this week. On the plus side, I'll finally have time to clear out my email inbox.
---
To my friends in northern Florida: don't even think of sending me pictures of sunny vistas from your 79 degree paradise, lest you wind up with a large box of the finest Al Gore Global Warming Snowballs. As mentioned above, I have a nearly inexhaustible supply of the stuff sitting around, and am none too happy with the situation. You have been warned.
---
Someone sent me this over the weekend:
Aside from the error in nomenclature (since when is a miniature revolver a "derringer"?), it really doesn't look all that different from the guns you can find gracing the cover of Mall Ninja Magazine!
---
My little blurb on the lever action rifle generated a greater than normal amount of commentary and email. It seems that there are a lot of fans of the humble "deer rifle" out there! Someday, when I get caught up on all the revolvers needing work, perhaps I'll turn my attention to the lever action.
---
Speaking of lever actions...I managed to get out to a gunshow this last weekend, where I was sorely tempted by a Marlin Model 62 in .30 Carbine. To the best of my knowledge it's the only levergun ever to be chambered in that cartridge, of which I'm a fan. It was only sheer willpower (and the fact that I've made several other large, non-firearms acquisitions lately) that kept me from putting my money on the table.
---
Which reminds me...does anyone know of a bolt-action ever made in .30 Carbine?
---
-=[ Grant ]=-
Working hard.
Wednesday, December
10, 2008
But I think I see light at the end of the tunnel!
I need to keep digging, though, so I'm going to take just a moment to tell you to look at the comments on this article from last week. Scroll down and read Ed Harris' excellent (as usual) point of view.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, December 08,
2008
Local gun stores continue to report strong sales. A weekend trip to a large sporting goods establishment saw a handgun selection that was, quite literally, nothing but an empty wall.
---
A buddy who runs a commercial reloading operation tells me that reloading components are getting scarce as well. He deals with the kind of component wholesalers that only sell to firms with ammunition loading licenses, and even at that level things like primers and bullets are being rationed.
---
Someone asked me what I thought about the Plaxico Burress situation. Short version: I agree with Xavier.
---
I'm hearing that the Ruger SP101 in .327 Federal is hard to find. I'm not sure why (my thoughts having been previously stated), but it seems I've been out-voted!
---
Blogging for the next couple of weeks will be a little on the light side, as in "more linky, less thinky". I'm working to get a lot of projects out the door before Christmas, just like last year. And the year before. And...well, you get the picture.
(Last year, a few days before the holiday, I had the largest FedEx shipping bill yet. I expect to beat it this year by a comfortable margin.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Paranoia, shortages, and a blast from the past.
Wednesday, December
03, 2008
Welcome to Post-Election 2008, where any rifle with a detachable magazine is selling like Haagen-Dazs in Hades. Prices are up (sometimes WAY up), supply is down, and demand appears downright insatiable.
There's no doubt that most of the rifles being sold are destined to be plinkers, used for nothing more than unstructured play time at the range. There is that small group of purchasers, however, that desires to have a rifle for defensive purposes, be it for home or farm. The magazine-fed autoloading rifle is superb in that role, but the current market is such that many people will not be able to find (or perhaps even afford) one.
What's a shooting enthusiast to do in such inhospitable circumstances?
Allow me to suggest an alternative: the lever-action rifle. Yes, the all-American lever action rifle, the gun with which your Dad (or perhaps Grand-Dad) hunted deer. The lever action has been serving Americans quite nicely for more than a century, and it has a lot to offer as a defensive tool even today.
A lever action chambered in a Magnum pistol cartridge is a serious combination. The .357 fired from a long barrel is a decidedly different beast than when limited to a handgun; it's an honest 100-yard deer cartridge, which means that it would make a dandy 100-yard defense tool. The .44 Magnum version gives you another 50-some yards of "edge."
Today's improved ammo in the traditional rifle cartridges (like the venerable .30WCF, aka "30-30") takes that range out well beyond 200 yards. The centerfire lever action, in any caliber, is a superb mid-range protection tool.
The lever action is easy to use; the manual of arms is simple and well-known. They have a streamlined design free of protrusions which can interfere with smooth deployment, and are seen as less threatening to the general public who consider it merely a "deer rifle."
They're light, fast into use, reliable, and that they're relatively cheap to buy is icing on the cake. In practiced hands, the lever action can be accurately fired at a surprisingly rapid pace, and those chambered in the handgun cartridges often boast magazine capacities of 10 rounds. You'd be hard pressed to conceive a defensive scenario where the lever gun wouldn't be a good choice.
Besides, the lever action is the perfect compliment to a good revolver!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, December 01,
2008
Massad Ayoob sent me a note the other day, asking if I'd heard about the Python clone to be made in Turkey. HUH???
According to Magnum Magazine (a highly respected journal out of South Africa), the Turkish arms factory MKEK will be bringing out a Colt clone, presumably sometime in 2009. Magnum's reporters may have seen it at the IWA show in Germany last March, so maybe we'll see it at SHOT this January.
I have my doubts, not because MKEK doesn't have the capability of precision manufacture - they most assuredly do - but because purely sporting arms have not been one of their product lines. Could this be an opening salvo in a move to take on Cerberus?
---
From the land that used to be Great Britain, we learn that there is a push underway to reduce alcohol-related injuries. The mechanism? Police will station themselves outside of pubs, and offer flip-flops to those intoxicated patrons wearing high heels. No, they're not kidding.
How far the Empire has fallen...
---
I'm not usually much for single actions, but I am a sucker for .44 Specials - and next year, Ruger will be making a limited run of flattop Blackhawks in that caliber. Boy, is that ever tempting!
---
The post-election rush continues: Hunter Dan reports that his store received a shipment of five AR-15s just in time for Black Friday. The doors opened that morning, a literal foot race to the gun counter ensued, and less than 120 seconds later they'd all been sold.
---
Over the weekend came the report that police in Mumbai cowered as gunmen raged unmolested. Pay particular attention to the coordination of the shooters - a sign of things to come?
---
-=[ Grant ]=-
Boy, that was quick!
Monday, November 24,
2008
Last Monday I told you about NOBal Comp, the online ballistic calculator for the iPhone. I also mentioned that I was waiting for someone to come out with a native iPhone ballistic application.
Well, a couple of days later I got a nice email from Mat Pridham, founder and chief designer at WebDiligence.ca, the company that developed NOBal Comp. He said that they had a native (offline) ballistic calculator for the iPhone in the works that would hit the App Store on Monday (today.)
That was on Thursday. Last night, curiosity got the better of me and I checked the App Store. There it was - iSnipe, the iPhone ballistics calculator!
Of course I bought a copy (am I the first??) and immediately put it to use. Keep in mind this is v1.0, with all the caveats that entails, but it works as expected and the data generated is as accurate as any other ballistics calculator I've used. It lets you save and recall specific load information, which is one of those "must-have" features, and even supports portrait and landscape orientations.
Mat tells me that the next release will have some neat new features. I don't think I'm at liberty to disclose anything, but this is shaping up to be one heck of an application. Serious shooters will find it invaluable.
iSnipe is a very reasonable $4.99 at the App Store.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, November 17,
2008
iPhone users: now you can turn your phone into a handy shot timer!
Surefire has released a shot timer app for the iPhone, and it's free! All the normal functions are there: fixed delay (user adjustable!), random start and par times, along with sensitivity adjustment.
The timer works quite well, with good sensitivity even in a jacket pocket. Having a list of the shots and splits (as opposed to scrolling through them singly, like a regular timer) makes for easier use. It also boasts the ability to email the output of the timer; I'm not sure if that's of any use, but it's kinda cool!
Check it out at the App Store.
---
There is now an online ballistic calculator formatted expressly for the iPhone. I still want a native (i.e., off-line) ballistic calculator, because so many shooting areas are in cell phone dead spots, but for the time being this scratches the itch.
---
Marko has written a good article for Dillon's Blue Press on the virtues of the revolver. There's nothing in it that would surprise a die-hard fan of the wheelgun, but it's so well written (as is everything he pens, darn him all to heck) that you should read it anyhow.
Here's a link to the online edition; the article is on pages 60 & 61.
---
As long as we're on the topic of good writing, go and read Xavier's post about exposing a new shooter to the revolver.
---
I'm busy as a beaver returning emails for waiting list reservations. Don't worry, I'll get to you sometime this week!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, November 03,
2008
Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has been getting hate mail over his coverage of the Cooper affair. I feel for ya, buddy, as I've gotten a few of those myself. As has been said, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits - and some of the emails received here have obviously not limited out.
---
For better or worse, it'll all be over tomorrow night. Thank (insert your favorite deity).
---
This weekend I finally got around to listening to the latest Pro Arms Podcast. This episode covers the snubby revolver, and in it Massad Ayoob mentions that he suspects Ruger will introduce an aluminum version of the SP101 next year. Sharp-eyed readers will recall that I'm a fan of the SP, though sometimes I tire at the weight of the thing. A lightweight SP would be Da Bomb, and I'd be first in line to get one.
---
Apparently, I'm not the only one who picked up on Mas' comments. Glad to see this great podcast getting some listenership!
---
I don't have the time (or the stomach) to prowl the forums, but others do - and luckily Xavier caught this thread on a Ruger Redhawk shedding it's barrel. (I'm mentioned about midway through the entire exchange.) It appears as though it might be the stress corrosion cracking (SCC) problem that Ruger fixed many years ago. There are evidently still a few Redhawks out there that didn't get caught in Ruger's warranty net, and perhaps is something to think about when buying a used example from early in the production run.
---
Someone emailed that he thought my writing was starting to resemble Jeff Cooper's. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or concerned.
---
From SurvivalBlog.com comes this story: it seems that the Brits have a machine gun that shoots itself. Isn't this the same army that fields the SA80 rifle, the gun M-16 haters should thank their lucky stars we're not using? (Owners of British sports cars will understand.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Another rifle class; more lessons
Monday, October 13,
2008
This past weekend marked our last rifle class for the year. As often happens, we came away with our unusual (In this day and age) opinions about rifles and gear validated and vindicated.
Georges Rahbani, our chief instructor (and my vote for the best "urban rifle" teacher you've never heard of) has a saying: "thou shalt not hang sh*t on thy rifle!" His point is that adding geegaws to a basically sound firearm rarely improves shooter performance, and often results in lessened mechanical performance. The ever-popular "tactical latch" for the AR-15 is such an accessory, and the installation of one may pose an unforeseen risk.
For those who've never seen a "tac latch", it's a large appendage that replaces the standard latching lever found on the left side of the AR's charging handle. (I'm still not really sure of it's purpose, but all the "high speed, low drag" folks appear to have them on their rifles. The latch's large "wing" would, it seems to me, in fact increase drag and decrease speed - but hey, what do I know?)
In all fairness, it should be mentioned that there is one good use for the tac latch: to be able to operate the charging handle with a low-mounted scope, in the same way that a hammer extension performs on a lever-action rifle. Outside of that, however, they serve no useful purpose that I can discern.
If you're absolutely convinced that you really need this accessory, take a piece of friendly advice: DON'T install it on the stock aluminum charging handle! The increased leverage from the oversized latch causes fractures to develop around the charging handle's pivot pin; the "t" part of the handle can then snap off at inopportune times. Yes, I've seen it happen.
There is an all-steel charging charging handle available from Brownell's (and no doubt other fine retailers), and it is a far better choice for the installation of the tac latches. Do yourself a favor and spend the few extra dollars; it's worth it to avoid the problem.
-=[ Grant ]=-
More lessons from Hunter's Sight-In Day
Wednesday, October
08, 2008
For some background, read Monday's post.
Today's lession: you can shoot no better than your gear.
This encounter is interesting both for what happened, and the frequency with which it happened.
The three of us (me, and my friends Georges and Maurice) oversaw the benches reserved for "problems", which are those shooters and guns needing more experienced and knowledgeable assistance than the regular coaches could deliver. Our customers always came to us with a "referral" from another coach, who would tell us the difficulties being encountered. We, in turn, would try to remedy the situation. We often had to resort to a 25 yard target - the only ones on the entire line were in front of our benches - to see where shots were going.
A couple of years ago, Maurice got a customer toting a 7mm Magnum topped with a really cheap scope. The fellow sat down and Maurice had him start at the 25. Even at that short distance, his shots were all over the place. Judging any kind of a center was well-nigh impossible.
(This is not uncommon, sadly - from our collective experience, the vast majority of people carrying Magnum rifles into the woods can't place their bullets with what we would consider "precision". This particular customer, however, was worse than the norm.)
Maurice coached the fellow in the basics - breathing, trigger control - and it really appeared that he was doing everything right. The groups opened up with every string, and Maurice finally sent him to the gunsmith shack to check the mounts and have the scope boresighted.
On return, the problem was no better. In fact, it may have even been worse.
It was at this point that Maurice decided to take the unusual step of shooting the rifle himself to identify the source of the problem. Maurice, who is an eerily consistent shooter, sat down with the rifle and shot a 100-yard group that was, perhaps, six inches. Maurice is used to shooting groups that are less than 1/6 of that size, which pretty much told us where the problem was.
The rifle was handed back to the fellow with the admonishment that he have the (apparently) broken scope and cheesy mounts replaced before venturing into the field. (Could it have been the rifle? Perhaps, but it was a better bet that the scope was the culprit. The rifle was of decent quality - a Weatherby, if memory serves - and looking at the weak link is the rational course.)
A year went by, and another sight-in event was upon us. As usual, Georges, Maurice and I took our positions at the adjacent "problem" benches. At one point a coach brought down a fellow who had a 7mm Magnum; the coach told me that he was having trouble getting the scope zeroed and that the shots were going "all over the paper."
I sat the guy down and told him to shoot three rounds at the 25-yard target while I observed through the spotting scope. His three rounds all landed in wildly divergent places. I coached him on breathing and trigger control, and had him fire three more rounds. If anything they were worse.
At that point Maurice pulled me aside and said "I think this is the guy from last year!" We talked about it, and I couldn't believe that this could be the same guy with the same broken scope and crappy rings. He didn't go out after game last year, did he?
Apparently so, because I sat down behind his gun and proceeded to shoot the most beautiful six inch group I'd seen since...last year, when Maurice did the same thing with the same gun!
While the old taunt of "it's a poor workman who blames his tools" has some truth, it's also true that there has to be a base level of quality to allow any work to be done. Beyond that is the realm of "nice", but below that good results are impossible. Putting a cheap scope in thin aluminum rings on a hard-kicking rifle is almost a guarantee of substandard performance.
Frugal is one thing; cheap is another entirely.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Systems analysis and the sighting-in of firearms
Monday, October 06,
2008
This weekend was the opening of general deer season here in Oregon. I could tell it was opening weekend, because our normally deserted gravel road, which leads into the mountains, has been turned into Interstate 5 for deer hunters! The parade of all the hopeful woodsmen (and perhaps not a few woodswomen) going after Bambi made me realize I'd missed something this year: hunter's sight-in at our gun club.
You see, last January my wife and I bought a new place. When we moved we gave up our club memberships, as a) the club is now 60 miles away, and b) we can shoot all we want on our own property. I don't miss the club, but I do miss the circus-like atmosphere of sight-in days. I actually enjoyed helping out those whose shooting skills were not, shall we say, fully developed. They needed all the help they could get!
(Sight-in days at our former club is a big event. It occupies every full weekend for a solid month; it's not unusual to have several hundred guns per day go through the system, as the club is one of the few rifle ranges within easy driving distance of the Portland, OR metro area. Working at sight-in means long days and lots of activity.)
In recent years I worked sight-in alongside my friends Georges and Maurice, who got the same kick out of the event that I did. We kept a running tally of the best, worst, and most over-gunned shooters on the line. During the lulls we'd trade stories of the unusual incidents we'd had, and not all of them were with customers!
One particularly busy day I had a run-in with one of the folks who served as Assistant Chief Range Officer for the event. I was helping a middle-aged fellow who'd arrived toting a .30-06 of unremarkable (though completely serviceable) pedigree. He showed me his gun, his ammo, and sat down at the bench. The club provided sandbags and front rests for the guns, but this fellow didn't want to use them. "My zero is different if I shoot from a bench than from my hands, so I'd just like to rest my elbows on the table." That was fine with me; this fellow had obviously been around the block more than once and thus knew what he was doing. (His target would later prove my analysis to be correct.)
He had just fired his second round when the aforementioned RO came rushing up. "He needs to use the rest", he sputtered. "He'll never know if he's properly zeroed shooting from his hands!" I told him that the customer knew his own needs, and that I admired the fellow for obviously knowing more than the average schmuck who came through the door.
This annoyed the RO to no end; he wanted to argue with me, insisting that I was a complete fool for letting the customer do this. I simply smiled, waved him away, and went back to my job.
The RO in question, like many, was confused about the reason we sight in a firearm. The goal of sight-in is to get all parts of the weapon system - the gun, ammo, sights, and shooter - in alignment so that the bullets land where desired. If we take away - isolate - any part of that system, we have removed a functioning part that will affect the outcome. The outcome is what we're testing! We're not testing the scope (which is what this RO was convinced we were doing), or the ammo, but the results that they - together with the shooter - produce. We have to test all parts of the system in concert, so that we can see if the goal is being met.
Let's say that we were to test the system using sandbags and a bench. There are very few rifles made that will have the same zero point no matter how the gun is suspended; the points at which the suspension occurs, the amount of pressure on the suspension points, the direction of that pressure, and even the resulting direction of recoil will all change when the gun is taken off the bench and shot from a field position. All of those will change the landing point of the bullet, sometimes dramatically.
Now consider the shooter's input. The head position from a bench is different than it is from standing (or even sitting or kneeling, and especially from prone.) The shooter's eye will not be in the same place relative to the sights or scope; the cheek weld point will be different; the shoulder will be further forward or backward, depending on the physique of the shooter. The shooting hand will shift position slightly, leading to a different grip pressure and direction of pull on the trigger. Think any of those might affect the outcome of the shot? You bet they will - all of 'em.
Change enough of those inputs, and you'll end up with a system that won't shoot to the same point of aim under the expected conditions. We need to check the system's alignment (gauged by the impact point of the bullet) under the conditions in which it will be used. For hunting, that means "not from a bench rest."
An extreme example of this can be found simply by looking at G. David Tubb's rifle. For those who don't know, he shoots with the rifle held at an angle, which is very different than what we were all taught to do! That doesn't matter, though, because he's set his sights to hit correctly with that unorthodox hold. Imagine we "isolated" his rifle; put it on a bench, cradled it level in sandbags, and proceeded to "zero" the gun. Guess what? It wouldn't hit the correct point, because it wouldn't be held in the position in which Tubb shoots the thing. Given his modest success at highpower competition (!), I'd say he knows what he's doing!
One day I was visiting one of the very best handgun trainers I know. I picked up her gun and was surprised to see her sights drifted quite a ways to the right. I thought that odd, but she pointed out that they were that way because that's where they had to be to allow her to hit where she wants the gun to hit. Given that she can regularly clean the clocks of just about any male shooter - some of them state and regional champions - at will, I'd say her system is working perfectly. That's all that matters!
Are there times when we want isolation? Certainly - when we're testing specific parts of the system. Comparing one load to another, for example, demands an isolated gun; we don't care exactly where the rounds hit, because we're interested in the differences between two inputs of the same type. In order to see those differences, we have to eliminate all other variables that might obscure them.
Sighting in, on the other hand, is all about the whole system. To align the system, we need all of its parts to be working as they normally do. The fellow on the line that day understood the concept; the RO didn't.
There is no substitute for thinking about what you're doing, and why you're doing it.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A new firearms podcast - and this time, it's serious!
Monday, September
22, 2008
Last week I discovered that Massad Ayoob has gotten together with some of his friends and started a podcast. (Yes, that Massad Ayoob; the proud and unrepentant technophobe, the man who has proclaimed - in public and multiple times - that to him the computer is "nothing more than a typewriter with a suppressor." With this project, his reputation as a Luddite may experience a steep decline; when he starts toting around a PDA to check his email, however, I'll know the world is coming to an end!)
Anyhow, the ProArms podcast deals with guns and shooting - no surprise there! It's a roundtable format, with Mas and the crew discussing various guns and shooting topics, interspersed with interviews of industry luminaries. (They've already managed to snag, in one fell swoop, three of the most important women in the defensive shooting world: Gila Hayes, Vicki Farnham, and Kathy Jackson. Those are the kind of interviews that you just won't hear anywhere else.)
Though Mas is obviously the main draw, the rest of the cast are phenomenally experienced shooters in their own right. You may never have heard of people like Jon Strayer or Herman Gunter, but in the southeast part of this country they are well known and respected arms experts. You'll grow to appreciate their informed commentary.
The ProArms podcast even has a pretty good website, where you can learn about the show, the crew, and listen or subscribe to the podcast. Of course, like any podcast worthy of the title, it's available on iTunes as well.
-=[ Grant ]=-
On the current fad of Stoner bashing.
Monday, September
15, 2008
No, not THAT kind of stoner - I mean Eugene Stoner!
Websites, forum postings, and blog entries heap scorn and derision on the M-16/AR-15/M4 family of rifles. Why? Everyone has a different reason, but it comes down to the old saying about greener grass. I have no doubt that the same kinds of grousing appeared when our military switched from the .45-70 cartridge to the 'puny' .30 caliber!
What's amazing is the amount of engineering effort and money being spent to produce add-ons to "improve" the gun's operating system. Fixing the gun's "ills" has become big business, and everyone seems to be cashing in on the latest fashions.
I won't bore you with my analysis of the rifle or its engineering; there are lots of armchair commandos out there who have already done so. Instead, I'll simply relate what a good friend of mine tells me about the platform.
Some background: this is a guy who survived a particularly brutal civil war in his native country, shooting and being shot at on a very regular basis. He didn't have the benefit of being in a heavily armed squad with mobility, air and artillery support, a division armory, and the prospect of getting out in a matter of mere months. He had to survive, with only one M-16 rifle and an extremely thin ammunition supply, for years against a well financed enemy hell-bent on killing his people and taking over his country. His rifle was, quite literally, his life.
He fought against the vaunted AK-47 fielded by his enemies (and occasionally with them when they were carried by his allies.) He therefore has unique and important experience with the two weapon systems that none of us is ever likely to accumulate. What is his take on all this?
"The AK-47 isn't as good as you think it is, and the M-16 is better than you think it is."
Most opinions I politely listen to; a few I take to heart. His fall into the latter category.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Unintended consequences of riflestock design
Monday, September
08, 2008
This weekend I was working around the farm on a particularly labor-intensive project. It got to be about noon, and the rapidly rising temperatures (there was no shade where I was working) convinced me to take the afternoon off and go shooting.
I decided to take my "sport utility rifle", which is a .22LR Marlin 39a. This is the gun that stays loaded all the time, as a .22 goes with farm livin' like beer goes with NASCAR. (I neither drink beer nor watch NASCAR, but Jeff Dunham says so and that's good enough for me.) I'd recently replaced the bead front sight with a plain front post from Skinner Sights, and wanted to see if the new sight picture would significantly improve the usable accuracy.
Along with the rifle and it's usual ammunition, I took some smallbore targets and a few paintballs. (There was a recent thread over at RimfireCentral forums about shooting "fun" targets, and paintballs were a common choice. I don't own a paintball gun, but I now own a box of paintballs!)
After setting up the bullseyes I flopped down to a solid, comfortable prone position and fired my first two groups. I've been shooting iron-sighted target rifles for the past few weeks with great success, so when I walked down to check the target I was stunned at what I saw. Both groups were about three times the size I expected, and centered about an inch-and-a-half high and about the same amount to the left. Well, at least I was consistent!
Keep in mind that this is a gun that gets shot regularly on the plinking range, and never has it shown any tendencies such as I'd just seen. I decided that it was me, and if I did something else for a little while and came back to the rifle I'd be fine.
When I picked up the rifle a half-hour later I decided on a "quick and dirty" test: I'd shoot a few of those little paintballs (which are just a tad over a half-inch in diameter) from the 25 yard line. I set up the bright spheres, took a solid kneeling position and started shooting. The first shot connected and produced a nice orange mist; I pulled the second shot, but the next connected; the last two went just as planned - two more dead paintballs.
This was odd: I could hit these half-inch balls consistently, but if they'd been paper targets I'd have missed completely! It must have been me after all. I flopped down to prone to re-shoot those groups.
Imagine my surprise when I again found two-inch groups, high and to the left! What in the world was going on? Position obviously was a factor; I reshot the groups, this time from my kneeling position. Perfectly centered, and less than half the size of the prone shots.
After thinking about it for a while, it became clear that the problem was a sight issue. The receiver peep sights I have on the gun work better the closer one's eye is to the aperture (which is true with any peep sight.) The further back the eye is from the peep, the less effective that type of sight is.
The design of the Marlin's buttstock was preventing me from getting my eye sufficiently close when prone, but not so much when my body was more upright. The comb of the stock is a bit low, and the point is quite narrow and far back; when in a normal, unstressed prone position it put my eye further back from the aperture than is optimal.
The result was that the "self centering" aspect of the peep sight was reduced, and the depth of field (sharpness about the front sight) was reduced as well. This caused my groups to open up and shift. I found that if I contorted my prone position I could get my eye a bit closer to the sight. That helped with the sight picture but the resulting muscle tension made it impossible to hold steady on target, making the situation even worse.
The ironic part of this is that, had I been using the open sights the gun came with, it wouldn't have been an issue. Eye position is not a factor with the notch-and-bead sights the factory puts on the gun. By putting on the receiver peep sight, I'd changed the interaction of the various parts of the gun's design, and the weakness appeared.
The Marlin stock is great for snap-shooting; looking at it next to a shotgun, one notices similarities in shape and dimensions. Both are designed for efficiency in upright shooting positions, but are less than optimal when the upper body moves to a horizontal plane. The folks who designed the 39a made a great gun, and by introducing a new sighting system I'd bumped into the limitations of their design.
This episode has helped me understand how the elements of a rifle stock design interact with the shooter. I already know (from hard experience) that a Monte Carlo stock design has serious problems with certain shooting positions (particularly in prone), but I hadn't stopped to consider all the other little intricacies.
Even after 40-plus years on this planet, I learn something new every single time I go to the range!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Light blogging today, but take a look at these BIG guns!
Monday, July 28,
2008
Somewhere out there, someone is disappointed that the title does not refer to scandalous pictures!
I had a long weekend, working as an assistant instructor in a rifle class. A very small class compared to others, but it still occupied a couple days of productive time. I'm back in the office today to catch up on a ton of paperwork.
Not to worry, though, because I've got a great link to a Dark Roasted Blend story. Normally we see their content in the FRIDAY SURPRISE, but today they've provided something that is more-or-less on topic: guns. Really big guns. Guns where the powder is measured in barrels, not grains.
Have a look.
-=[ Grant ]=-
In praise of the "boy's rifle"
Monday, July 21,
2008
When I was a kid (which was not all that long ago - at least I don't remember it being all that long ago) we had "boy's rifles." Today they're known by a more politically correct term, but as Juliet said "That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."
The boy's rifle was chambered in .22 LR, and was most often a single-shot bolt action - though repeaters were not unheard of. Their wood stocks were sized slightly smaller to fit a teenager's frame (before the days when teenagers were routinely 6' tall and weighed in over 180 lbs), and were slim from butt to forearm. The grip area was smaller in circumference to fit shorter fingers, and the receivers and barrels were similarly proportioned.
Though not normally fitted as nicely as the adult-oriented rifles in their respective lines, they usually shot pretty well. Some, in fact, were downright amazing, especially considering the very simple sights they carried.
People used to larger guns are often astonished when they pick up an old boy's rifle; light weight, quick handling, and superb pointing characteristics are almost foreign concepts today. Unfortunately, those attributes usually lead to snide comments about feeling "like a toy." Were they to actually shoot one - or, better yet, pack one into the field - perhaps their opinions would change. I know mine did!
Like many people, I have a number of "adult" .22 rifles, none of them weighing under 7 lbs. I recently acquired an old Stevens Model 66, which is a bolt action tube fed repeater. At barely 5 lbs, it's definitely a lightweight - but this 70-year-old gun, well worn on the outside but pristine on the inside, is an absolute joy to shoot.
The best word I can use is "handy". It's the kind of gun that carries unobtrusively on the shoulder, yet springs immediately to eye level when needed. It makes my "grown up" .22 rifles seem ungainly by comparison.
Give one a try. You may just get hooked - and wasn't that the whole idea behind the boy's rifle to begin with?
-=[ Grant ]=-
The gun of dreams
Wednesday, July 09,
2008
There are guns that we want - perhaps even "need" - but don't happen to have. This is not about those.
This is about the gun which consumes large amounts of our subconscious thought, in the way that the opposite sex did in high school. Though we desire others, one remains a constant; a gun that, it seems, we've always wanted and always will. Perhaps one day our dream is fulfilled, perhaps not - but it never goes away.
Admit it: you have one. We all have one.
Me? It might surprise you to know that mine is not a revolver. Don't get me wrong - there are a number of wheelguns I want but don't yet possess, the specifics changing a bit over time. My dream gun, though, has remained unchanged for many years now. That is the way of dreams.
My dream gun is a Mannlicher stocked bolt action carbine in 6.5x55 Swedish. Why? Romance, plain and simple. (That's the great part about dreams - they don't have to make any sense.)
Since I was a kid I've seen pictures of the lone hunter standing on a ridge, peering through binoculars at some unseen quarry, with "my" rifle perched on his knee. A graceful yet purposeful gun, lithe of line, whose mere presence brings gentility to the wilderness. (I told you it was romantic!)
Open up a hunting book from the '50s or '60s, and you'll probably see that picture. I have, more times than I can count. That's the reason I want one.
Of course I can recite all the technical justifications for owning my dream. I rationalize that it would make the perfect hunting rifle (which it would); the 6.5 Swede round is well suited for the game we have in North America, and it's one of my very favorite target cartridges to boot. The light weight and short barrel would make it wonderful to carry and even better to swing on target; it would be the perfect tool for "snap shooting" and tramping through our dense coastal rainforest. Yadda yadda yadda.
But, at the end of the day, it's all about peering off into the game-filled distance with the Dream perched ever-so-photogenically on MY knee.
Someday.
-=[ Grant ]=-
On scope magnification
Wednesday, July 02,
2008
Moving back to the farm as I recently did has changed my shooting habits. I'm shooting a larger amount of rimfire rifle lately, not just for fun but also predator/pest control.
For all the years I lived in suburbia (which is a Kafkaesque purgatory for a simple, ignorant country boy like me) I did all of my shooting at the gun club. When I shot rimfire there I invariably took the only scoped .22 rifle in my inventory, forsaking the other iron-sighted rimfires in the safe.
Out here, where the rimfire rifle is a constant companion, the scoped rifle is too awkward to constantly carry around. The open sighted rifles are slimmer, lighter, and less delicate, which means that I'm using them more and more often.
Shooting virtually all open sights has resulted in an interesting revelation: the less magnification I have, the better I shoot.
For years I shot long range rifles with higher magnification scopes. The last centerfire I built - a marvelous 6.5-284 screamer - got topped with a relatively low power 2.5x-10x variable scope, which I've found completely adequate all the way out to 800 yards. Friends shooting at that same range would use 16x or 20x optics, and wondered why I chose the "small" magnification. Even at that time I recognized that the 10x was enough; I just didn't need any more.
As to the rimfires, my scoped rifle carries a straight 4x optic. As I shoot more with iron sights, I find that even this modest magnification is more than I really need, especially from field positions. Even at 4x, movement is sufficiently magnified that my mind starts to play the game that is the bane of precision shooters everywhere: "hurry, the crosshairs are right on target! Pull the trigger now!"
In the field, I've proven to myself that I can shoot open sights more than accurately enough. There are times, though, when a scope would be handy - differentiating target from background in dappled sunlight, for instance. In those cases I'm dreaming of a nice fixed 2.5x scope - or maybe a 2.5x-5x variable, just in case I need a bit more magnification at some point. (In my heart I know that I won't, but the "I might need that someday!" attitude is part and parcel of being an avid shooter!)
For me, less magnification is definitely the way to go.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A new (to me) gun blog
Sunday, June 29,
2008
It's always good to find a fresh face in the gun blogging world. Say Uncle, who is becoming to gun bloggers what Johnny Carson was to new performers, recently came up with another: Politics, Guns, & Beer.
Now I know what you're thinking: you're thinking the author of that title must resemble Larry The Cable Guy. Boy, are you wrong! It's written (quite well, I might add) by a 20-something gal named Laurel. She's from Idaho, is a staunch libertarian ("small-L", as she's careful to remind us), likes guns and beer (duh!), eats organic food, uses a Mac, and is cute as the dickens.
(I'm sure that last comment would probably be labeled as "sexist" by a certain segment of society. Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em, folks!)
She takes a less aggressive approach to gunblogging, and her topics are more eclectic than most. Check her blog out - it's worth reading.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Is the Ruger GP100 inaccurate?
Monday, June 23,
2008
It sometimes amuses me how often one hears the same question, with only slight variations. One that I've heard over the years goes something like this: "Is it true that the GP100 isn't very accurate?" Personally, I've not noticed that any of mine are, but there is more to this story.
Assuming that the gun is "in spec" with regards to its construction (forcing cone, crown, chamber/barrel alignment, etc.) it should shoot quite well. Many GP owners, however, continue to complain about the accuracy of their individual example in the absence of those identifiable deficiencies. It so happens that there is a design defect in certain models of the GP100 that will definitely reduce the precision of the gun: the sights.
Owners of fixed-sight Rugers are generally much happier with the accuracy of the GP than those who have the adjustable sights, and I can't say I blame them. The first problem is Ruger's rear sight: it stinks, to put it bluntly. Don't get me wrong, the rear sight picture isn't bad (in fact I prefer it to Smith & Wesson's); the problem is that the Ruger rear sight often won't hold zero all that well.
It starts with a body which has a very loose fit in the frame's sight channel. It continues with universally sloppy fit on the sight pivot pin - the pin that holds the sight onto the gun, allowing the body to pivot up and down for elevation changes. The elevation screw, likewise, has a lot of "wiggle" in it, and the windage screw is often not any better. The net result is a sight that can't be relied upon to stay where it's set from shot to shot.
The rear sight isn't the only problem, just the biggest one. The interchangeable front sight often shows deficiencies of it's own. It is investment cast (like the rest of the gun), but without subsequent machining the edges and serrations remain quite indistinct. The sight picture isn't all that crisp, making a sure hold on target a bit like driving a well-worn 1951 GMC 2-1/2 ton flatbed farm truck. (For those who've never had the pleasure, imagine going down the street having to constantly move the steering wheel a half-turn in each direction just to maintain something like a straight line. Now try it in the rain. At night. Get the idea?)
I've seen more than a few front sights which also weren't secure in the dovetails, causing them to wobble a bit, and there are quite a few that don't have parallel sides. (Or worse, lack a straight top!)
The fixed-sight GP100 doesn't have any of these problems, which explains why their owners tend to be more satisfied with that model's performance.
There are solutions. The best is to replace the rear sight with the terrific Rough Country sight from Bowen Classic Arms. It fits precisely, and the opposing screws that adjust windage and elevation also serve as lockdowns for those adjustments. (If you've ever adjusted the rear sight on a FAL rifle, you know the concept.) The Rough Country sights have the easy change capability of an adjustable sight, but once locked down are as rugged as a fixed sight. There is nothing better on the market, period. Absolutely the best.
The Rough Country sight has a superb sight picture, and is available with a plain black blade, a white outline blade, an "express" (shallow "V") blade, and a blank blade - so that your friendly gunsmith can provide the notch that you feel is best.
The front sight can also be replaced with a Bowen unit. The Bowen front blade is precisely made, with perfect dovetails and parallel sides. It comes as a "blank" - it must be machined to shape and height, then blued, before it is of any use. It is an expensive part, and the additional machining adds to the cost, but if you're looking for the absolute best GP100 sight picture it is the way to go.
Outfitted with decent sights the GP100 really comes into its own, easily keeping up with the best from the competition. If you've not been happy with the way your GP100 shoots, take a hard look at those sights - my bet is you'll find they aren't terribly great!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A disappointment
Wednesday, June 18,
2008
A few weeks ago the online gun community started buzzing about an impending product announcement from Freedom Arms. FA, for those not familiar with the company, makes the world's best production single-action revolvers. They are strong, accurate, and well made - and dominate the revolver divisions in metallic silhouette competition.
When the news was leaked, speculation abounded. Like many others, I was hopeful that the product would be a double-action wheelgun. I've even mentioned in this blog that I believe FA to be the only company capable of bringing back the era of finely made double action revolvers.
Sadly, we find at gunblast.com they instead brought out a single-shot pistol for the hunting/silhouette market. To quote Gomer Pyle, "I'm sure it's a sight to behold", but I can't help thinking that the engineers at FA are wasting their talents.
I still hold out hope that FA will see the light and bring us a double action. Soon. Please??
-=[ Grant ]=-
On rimfire ammunition and accuracy
Monday, June 16,
2008
Serendipity, that's what it is. Last week a consistent topic kept coming up in a variety of places: the necessity (or lack thereof) for "accurate" .22 long rifle ammunition.
"I don't shoot groups, I hunt {insert favorite furry tidbit here}."
"You can't shoot really accurately in the field anyway, so better ammo isn't worth the price."
"The ammo already shoots better than I can, so I just buy whatever is cheapest."
I believe such comments to be shortsighted. First, though, a bit of information for those not intimately familiar with the vast array of rimfire ammunition.
The .22lr is the most popular (by a huge margin) cartridge in the world. It is available in a bewildering number of forms, from the very cheapest to the "ohmigod, I could buy a good steak dinner for that amount of money!" In general, the more accurate the ammo, the more it will cost.
The odd thing, however, is that not every .22 gun (be it rifle or pistol) will necessarily shoot the most expensive ammo into the smallest group. Rimfires are notoriously finicky; you can, quite literally, take two different .22 rifles, of the same model and vintage (and very close to the same serial number) and each will have very different ammunition preferences. Sometimes the most expensive will in fact shoot the best; other times, a less expensive fodder will do the deed.
In terms of consistency, however, the more costly ammunition will win out - it simply won't vary as much from group to group, even if its absolute accuracy isn't as good. In other words, a cheaper ammo may produce a smaller group occasionally, but the more expensive stuff will shoot the same size group all the time. In the aggregate, the more expensive the ammunition, the more likely it will shoot better in any given gun.
There's no guarantee that you'll set records with more costly bullets, but it's a dead certainty that you won't with WallyWorld specials!
Back to the subject at hand...let's say that you have a rifle that at its absolute best is capable of shooting the magic 1 minute-of-angle (MOA) group (which is, for all intents and purposes, 1/2" at 50 yards.) What this means is that the group it shoots with its best ammunition choice will fit into a circle measuring 1/2" in diameter. Clear so far?
Assuming that the actual center of the group is at the actual point of aim, any shot fired will fall a maximum of 1/4" from the point of aim; this is known as 1/4" radial dispersion. If one shot lands at the extreme edge of that dispersion, and the next at the opposite side of that dispersion, the distance between them will be 1/2", which is the group size. See how that works?
Now, let's say that some other ammunition shoots 4 MOA in this rifle (2" at 50 yards.) Any shot that is fired will now land within 1" of the point of aim. That's still not bad; certainly not enough to even get you in the door at an Olympic training village, but enough to nail pop cans off the fence.
Or is it?
A standard 12oz pop can has a diameter of 2.6", or 1.3" on either side of the center. Aiming dead on that center point, with our 4 MOA ammo, means that the worst shot of the bunch only has .3" to spare to knock the can off the fence. In other words, with that ammo your aim and hold has to vary no more than .3" if you expect to hit the can with any given shot!
Will the better ammo give us an edge? You tell me...with 1 MOA ammunition, the expected radial dispersion is .25". That means that any given shot, holding absolutely dead center, now has a margin of error of 1.05". In other words, your aim and hold now has a bit over an inch of leeway to hit with 100% certainty. I'd say that's a significant advantage, wouldn't you?
Shooting is all about being able to trust your skills, but you can't get to trust your skills until you first can trust your equipment. If you practice by popping cans off the fence, how will you know if that miss was because of your skills, or because of your equipment - and is it the ammo, or the gun?
Someone will no doubt be yelling at his (or her) monitor that not every shot will be at the outer edges of the variables. In other words, an ammo that shoots 4 MOA will distribute shots all over that circle; not all of them will be in the center (otherwise it would shoot better than 4 MOA), but likewise not all of them will fall on the edge of that circle. This is true.
The trouble with this line of thinking is that we don't know where any given upcoming shot will fall. We know that it may hit in the center of its expected circle, or it may hit at the edge, or somewhere in between. We don't know where it will hit until it does; if we expect to hit the target with every shot, we have to assume the worst and prepare for it, looking on anything else as a wonderful happenstance.
It's all about probabilities. Let's take our 4 MOA ammo; it's possible that, say, 80% of its shots might fall within a 2 MOA circle. This means that 80% of the time, you have a bit over 1/2" of leeway on that pop can. Put differently, if you can aim and hold within 1/2" of center, you'll hit the can 80% of the time. If you're happy with 80%, great! (Yes, I'm aware that you can increase the hit probability by simply decreasing the distance to the target. If you're going to shoot everything from 20 feet away, you may feel free to use the worst ammo in the worst gun, and never have the need to improve your skills. Everyone wins - sort of.)
Personally, I'm not enamored with those numbers. Look at it from my perspective: I like to hunt small game with my .22 rifles, both for pest control and dinner. I'm an old farm boy who has a close relationship to the animals around him; if an animal is to die by my hand, I require that death to be as humane - quick and painless - as is possible. For me, that means headshots and instant incapacitation. If you eat small game, you know that head shots are necessary simply to maximize the amount of usable meat from the ammo. Squirrels aren't all that big to begin with!
Further, a missed shot is a lost animal; unlike targets and pop cans, they usually don't wait around for you to try again. I want 100% hit probability if I can supply the necessary foundation (sighting and hold.)
A small animal's head often has a kill zone of around 1-1/2" (even less if forced to take a frontal shot.) If I were to use ammunition that only shoots 4 MOA, that would require me to have absolutely zero error in both sighting and hold to make a clean kill at 50 yards. (Actually, it has negative error - meaning that even with perfect performance on my part, I cannot expect the ammo to deliver a clean hit 100% of the time.) At 25 yards, it doesn't get a lot better - my total allowable aim/hold error for a clean kill is a whopping quarter-inch! Can you do that from a field shooting position? Really? Every time?
Switching to the better ammunition gives me a big edge. At 50 yards my self-induced error allowance is now a half inch, and at 25 yards it is almost 3/4". It means that the chances of a successful clean kill are significantly improved by using the better fodder.
Higher quality .22lr ammunition isn't just for benchresters and group junkies. If one is just starting out, it means faster and surer skill development. For the hunter, it means greater yield and more humane treatment of the animal. In my mind, it's worth the price.
The only thing left is to get a whole bunch of different kinds of ammunition and test them all in your gun. You'll learn just how much you'll have to pay to get the accuracy you really need - not the accuracy someone insists you can settle for!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Illustrating the concept
Wednesday, June 11,
2008
A reader sent me this link to an old Richard Davis "Second Chance" video. The video has Davis shooting a fellow - who is wearing one of Davis' vests, of course - with a .308 rifle and himself with a .44 magnum revolver. The reader's comment was "if this doesn't show an energy dump, I don't know what it shows."
I agree. With the second part of the statement, at least. Going back to our "Stopping power" series, as I pointed out the term "energy dump" is nonsensical - energy isn't "dumped", it is used to do work.
What is the work in this case?
First, I can guarantee that the bullet itself was grossly deformed in its contact with the vest material. It takes energy to deform the bullet, and that energy only comes from one place: the bullet itself.
Second, there is a huge amount of work being done by that slug. It is trying to part and sever the fibers in the vest material, which are quite tough and designed to resist such force. The bullet does manage to defeat some of the fibers - which is why it's buried between the layers of cloth - but the energy required to do that job, again and again (there are many layers in a vest) rapidly depletes the bullet's stored energy. The result is that all of the energy is used up doing the work of penetrating the vest.
Again, the bullet's energy wasn't "dumped" - it was used. Understand the difference, and terminal ballistics won't seem so mysterious.
(Notice also the second myth busted in the video: that a bullet has enough energy to knock a man down. As you can see, even full-power .308 NATO, at near contact distance, isn't sufficient to knock over a man standing on one foot. Again, there is nothing mysterious at work - simply basic physics.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The MSM takes note
Wednesday, May 21,
2008
I don't have to tell you that things are getting more expensive. While the "official" inflation rate hovers in the mid-four-percent range, look at your own expenditures versus last year. I'll bet you're spending at least 14% more than you did in 2007 - perhaps a lot more.
For a shooting hobbyist, ammo prices factor into that increase, and the mainstream media has finally noticed. I'm sure that the average lightweight yuppies reading the article are recoiling in horror that anyone would need to buy "so many bullets", but it's nice to be mentioned at least somewhat favorably. For once.
(Don't fret - I'm sure next week they'll be back to painting all gun owners as ignorant rednecked hicks, racists, and criminals. After all, they have a job to do!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The "Holster of the Week" Club
Monday, May 19,
2008
Last week I promised a story. I heard this from "the horse's mouth", and if you knew this particular horse the story would not surprise you...
Anyhow, I happen to know a fellow (I'll call him "Ted") who, back in the '70s, was a Detective in a very large eastern police department. He had just been promoted from patrol, which meant that for the first time in his career he got to dress in plainclothes.
Ted and his more experienced partner were headed to lunch one day. They worked in a not terribly good part of town, and picked a restaurant in the vicinity of their last call. They pulled up in front of the restaurant, just behind a taxicab.
As they were exiting their unmarked vehicle a male climbed out of the cab ahead of them. He drew what Ted described as "a chrome-plated automatic", and started firing at another person who was still in the back seat of the cab.
(Allow me to digress as I explain that Ted, taking advantage of his now much looser dress requirements, had taken to wearing all manner of holsters. He alternated between a shoulder holster, crossdraw, strong side hip, appendix, and even ankle. He made the decision about which one to wear almost on a whim each morning. I'm sure you're beginning to see where this is going.)
Ted, who was exiting on the curb side of the vehicle, was in direct line of sight of the suspect. Being the gung-ho young cop that he was, he yelled "police, freeze!" as he reached for his gun. The perp turned toward the source of the command, and seeing two witnesses in suits raised his pistol in their direction and started firing.
Here's where the story gets interesting: Ted habitually reached for the spot where his uniform belt had always placed his gun. Of course, it wasn't there! I wish I could convey the level of comical panic that he did, but the gist is that he started patting himself all over, trying to find his gun while at the same time diving for cover behind his car door. "I couldn't remember where my gun was," he exclaimed to me. "I suddenly had the horrible thought that maybe I'd left it on my dresser!"
In the meantime his older and wiser partner simply drew his "snubby" revolver from the crossdraw holster he always used, and proceeded to drop said perp in his tracks. Ted found his gun just in time to help clean up the mess.
Ted told me that this incident convinced him to carry his gun in the same holster and in the same place every day. His advice to me was that I should do likewise - and I always do.
A firefight, gentle readers, is not the time to try to remember where you put your gun, or where your bullets are landing relative to your sights. Standardize on your load and your holster, and practice regularly so that you can quickly draw and reliably put your shots where they need to go!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 9
Wednesday, May 14,
2008
(For convenience, you can
access all the installments
at this link.)
Stick with what works
You've all heard of the "Gun of the Week" club, right? That's the term used to describe an "enthusiast", the guy (gals are too smart to engage in such nonsense) who carries or competes with a different gun every time he goes out. (Closely related is the "Holster of the Week" club. I'll post an amusing story about that, soon.)
There is also the "Bullet of the Week" club. Some folks read the gun magazines assiduously, loading up with the latest and greatest "stopper" from the current issue. The next issue (or possibly a competing magazine) tells them about yet another new bullet, and off to the gunstore ammo shelves they go!
There are problems with this approach. Aside from the fact that one is unlikely to see any major performance differences between modern designs from major makers, there is a reliability issue. If you're shooting an autoloader (an affliction which elicits my sincere sympathies), you need to fire a minimum of 200 rounds of your chosen ammunition to ensure reliability. That's a lot of ammunition to buy and shoot every time you change loads!
Even with a revolver, you should shoot a full box of that ammo to ensure ignition reliability in your gun, especially if you've had action work performed.
The other issue is with the sights on your gun. Fixed sights, as featured on both revolvers and autos, will not shoot all ammunition to the same point of aim, necessitating on-the-fly windage or elevation corrections. Trying to remember whether this week's ammunition choice shoots up or down, right or left, relative to the sights is hard enough. Imagine trying to do that with someone lobbing rounds into your personal airspace!
If you have fixed sights, you should regulate them to match the load you'll be using - then use that load, and only that load, for "serious" use in that gun. If for some reason you change the standard load for that gun, have the sights adjusted to shoot to point-of-aim for that load.
That's why I say "stick with what works." Pick a decent load that proves itself to be reliable in your gun, have the sights regulated properly, and just use it. Constantly switching between different bullets gains you nothing, and may in fact cost you in a dynamic self-defense incident. Pick one load, practice with it, and use only that bullet in that particular gun.
I go even further - I've standardized on one load for all my .38/.357 guns, and I've regulated all of them to shoot that load. That way, I don't have to maintain a huge stock of ammunition to fit a bunch of different guns.
I think this finally does it for the "Self defense, stopping power, and caliber" series. I'm just about "talked out"! I hope that it has given you some insight into the task of selecting a gun/cartridge for your self defense needs.
Stay safe, make sensible choices, and practice. It's all you can do - but, as it happens, all you can do is enough!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Stick with what works
You've all heard of the "Gun of the Week" club, right? That's the term used to describe an "enthusiast", the guy (gals are too smart to engage in such nonsense) who carries or competes with a different gun every time he goes out. (Closely related is the "Holster of the Week" club. I'll post an amusing story about that, soon.)
There is also the "Bullet of the Week" club. Some folks read the gun magazines assiduously, loading up with the latest and greatest "stopper" from the current issue. The next issue (or possibly a competing magazine) tells them about yet another new bullet, and off to the gunstore ammo shelves they go!
There are problems with this approach. Aside from the fact that one is unlikely to see any major performance differences between modern designs from major makers, there is a reliability issue. If you're shooting an autoloader (an affliction which elicits my sincere sympathies), you need to fire a minimum of 200 rounds of your chosen ammunition to ensure reliability. That's a lot of ammunition to buy and shoot every time you change loads!
Even with a revolver, you should shoot a full box of that ammo to ensure ignition reliability in your gun, especially if you've had action work performed.
The other issue is with the sights on your gun. Fixed sights, as featured on both revolvers and autos, will not shoot all ammunition to the same point of aim, necessitating on-the-fly windage or elevation corrections. Trying to remember whether this week's ammunition choice shoots up or down, right or left, relative to the sights is hard enough. Imagine trying to do that with someone lobbing rounds into your personal airspace!
If you have fixed sights, you should regulate them to match the load you'll be using - then use that load, and only that load, for "serious" use in that gun. If for some reason you change the standard load for that gun, have the sights adjusted to shoot to point-of-aim for that load.
That's why I say "stick with what works." Pick a decent load that proves itself to be reliable in your gun, have the sights regulated properly, and just use it. Constantly switching between different bullets gains you nothing, and may in fact cost you in a dynamic self-defense incident. Pick one load, practice with it, and use only that bullet in that particular gun.
I go even further - I've standardized on one load for all my .38/.357 guns, and I've regulated all of them to shoot that load. That way, I don't have to maintain a huge stock of ammunition to fit a bunch of different guns.
I think this finally does it for the "Self defense, stopping power, and caliber" series. I'm just about "talked out"! I hope that it has given you some insight into the task of selecting a gun/cartridge for your self defense needs.
Stay safe, make sensible choices, and practice. It's all you can do - but, as it happens, all you can do is enough!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 8
Monday, May 12,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments at this link.)
"So, smarty pants - what gun should I get?"
I receive many emails asking, in essence, what the "best" self-defense caliber might be. (Those emails, in fact, have served as the motivation behind this series.) The correspondents are probably expecting sage advice, the wisdom of years, a sort of Ballistic Oracle. What they get is a non-commital "it depends!"
If you take nothing else from this series, take this: there is no such thing as "best" - there is only "suitability for purpose."
Why is that? As we learned in the first parts, there is a pretty large envelope - caliber, weight, and velocity - of performance criteria that have shown themselves to work well. Thus, any cartridge you select within that envelope is likely to do the job, as long as you do yours.
That's the most important part: that the gun in question enables you to do your job. It is the first place you should start. You need to be honest with yourself, accurately assess what you can and cannot handle. Remember that a self-defense scenario often will call for multiple, rapid, precisely-placed shots. Can you do that with the guns that you're considering? Really? Be honest with yourself!
I see many people who are talked into a gun that is touted as a "better stopper", but who are unable to handle it to the standards given above. Most of this is technique, and technique can be learned, but everyone has some upper limit. Remember: only accurate hits count, and you should strive to maximize your hit potential. As we've explored, power is irrelevant if it doesn't get to something important!
Once you've passed that hurdle, the choices almost make themselves. In any given cartridge, if you pick a hollowpoint load in the middle of the caliber's normal weight range, you'll generally have most of what you need. There are exceptions, of course: at the lowest ends of the energy spectrum (say, standard .38 Specials) penetration becomes an issue, so you should tend to the heavier rounds. At the other end (the heavy magnums), the more powerful loads often need lighter bullets to limit penetration and enhance expansion.
For everything else, stay away from the lightest and heaviest bullets, pick a decent hollowpoint, and you'll most likely be just fine.
The most important part of this whole selection process is to practice with the load that you've chosen. If the cartridge/gun combination is "too much" for you to do so, that's a sign that you need to pick something else. You need to practice with your safety/rescue equipment, and if you can't or don't want to, then you will be less prepared to face a deadly encounter. The old trick of practicing with Specials while carrying Magnums on the street has been thoroughly discredited, because it doesn't allow the user to get used to the dramatic difference in handling between the two.
(This isn't to say that you have to do all your training this way; I do a lot of work with light loads when I'm diagnosing a trigger control issue, or to help develop a specific skill. When I've got them down, though, I switch to my carry load and train extensively with that.)
So, what do I carry? Most of the time, I load up the trusted and proven .38 Special +P 158 grain all lead semi-wadcutter hollowpoint. I've spoken with many people who have actually used this load against an adversary, and to a person they were all very satisfied with the ballistic effect. Massad Ayoob tells me that his research showed police agencies who switched from that load to hot autoloading cartridges did so not to get "better" bullets, but to get "more bullets." I'm confident in it's abilities, and in my ability to handle the cartridge from any gun under any conditions.
This is a tradeoff for me. For instance, I really like the .44 Special. It's a great round, but in a concealable gun I just don't handle it as well as other calibers. I'm honest with my limitations; increasing joint pain, particularly in my elbows, is beginning to limit what I can handle, which means that the sweet .44 Special is no longer a good choice for my primary caliber.
In fact, a hot .357 Magnum from a Ruger SP101 is easier for me to control than a .44 Special from a small gun, and the Magnum has become to be too much for me in a normal range session. I like the .357 too, but I have to admit to myself that if I want to live relatively pain free, I can't shoot it from my carry guns any more.
The result is that I've picked the most effective round that falls within my limitations, and practice with it extensively. I think that is the most rational way to approach this whole topic!
Next time, we'll explore some less obvious considerations when picking your "ideal" self defense cartridge.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Series index: "Self defense, stopping power, and caliber"
Monday, May 05,
2008
Here's the whole series for
your perusal!
Part 1: Introducing the Twin Tasks.
Part 2: If it doesn't get somewhere, it can't do something.
Part 3: Once it gets there, it has to do work.
Part 4: The bullet is more important than the caliber.
Part 5: More energy can be a good thing - as long as it actually does something useful.
Part 6: What would I want with a reputation?
Part 7: There Is No Such Thing as a Magic Bullet.
Part 8: "So, smarty pants - what gun should I get?"
Part 9: Stick with what works.
Part 1: Introducing the Twin Tasks.
Part 2: If it doesn't get somewhere, it can't do something.
Part 3: Once it gets there, it has to do work.
Part 4: The bullet is more important than the caliber.
Part 5: More energy can be a good thing - as long as it actually does something useful.
Part 6: What would I want with a reputation?
Part 7: There Is No Such Thing as a Magic Bullet.
Part 8: "So, smarty pants - what gun should I get?"
Part 9: Stick with what works.
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 7
Monday, May 05,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments at this link.)
There Is No Such Thing as a Magic Bullet
What does that mean, you ask?
One of the last bastions of the snake oil salesman is in the field of ammunition promotion. Claims that would make Professor Harold Hill blush are the norm, and are repeated in gunstores, shooting ranges, and deer camps across the country. They sometimes even make their way into magazines and the internet - though the latter's instant exchange of information has helped to quell the worst of the hyperbole.
Still, many hold on to their belief in "magic bullets", hoping that there really exists something that will transform their .25ACP into an elephant killer. (I exaggerate, of course, but one ammo maker used to claim that their product for the little .25 had the same "one shot stop" percentage as a .45. That, my friends, is a true belief in magic.)
Like many fables, the legend of the Magic Bullet has its roots in reality. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." In the bullet world, that advanced technology is the hollowpoint bullet.
The hollowpoint, as we've learned, is a good mechanism to control the penetration and wound profile of any given cartridge. Sometimes, it can work what seems like a miracle - transforming an otherwise unremarkable cartridge into a respectable "stopper."
One of the best examples of this is the .30 M1 Carbine cartridge. Many servicemen had experience with the little Carbine in World War II and Korea, and they either loved it or hated it. Those that hated it often complained about a lack of "stopping power" - enemies who were hit often didn't go down with alacrity. (Some even claimed that the rounds "bounced off" the heavy wool coats worn by the opposition. That wasn't true, and was easily shown as such, but when someone is running toward you screaming his head off, a lack of convincing ballistic effect makes the distinction unimportant.)
The .30 Carbine, as it turns out, is a penetrator. Its sleek bullet usually went straight through the target, making a quick-closing wound and doing little damage along the way. (Sound familiar?) After the war, one of the ammo makers got the bright idea of stuffing a semi-jacketed hollowpoint into the casing. When they did that, the entire complexion of the carbine changed.
The penetration was now more controlled, and the expanded bullet had a much larger frontal area that did more damage along its path. So changed was the round that Jim Cirillo, the famous member of the New York Stakeout Squad, proclaimed it one of the two most effective weapons in their entire arsenal - the other being the formidable 12 gauge shotgun. High praise indeed!
He wasn't the only one who made note of the "enhanced" Carbine. The late Gene Wolburg, wound ballistics expert and one of the most knowledgeable people in the field, once said that his home defense weapon of choice was the M1 Carbine loaded with that semi-jacketed hollowpoint.
It may have seemed like magic to the servicemen who had bad experiences with the round, but the effect of the hollowpoint loading was simple physics. It did its job better - it just happened to be a lot better.
A "magic bullet", in contrast, appears to violate the laws of physics, or so skews its sales copy that you think it does. For instance, magic bullet purveyors play up the "energy" of their load, to the exclusion of everything else.
Now, understand that energy is the result of multiplying the mass of the projectile by the square of it's velocity. Without boring you with the math, what that means is that a small change in velocity makes a big change in the energy of the projectile. In other words, if you drop the projectile weight you can up the velocity, which will make a huge increase in energy figures. Sounds great, right?
Well, as we've already studied, energy isn't everything. A light projectile might be moving very quickly, but when it contacts solid matter it loses velocity quickly. That translates into shallow wounds. (Remember the last installment, where we looked at the .357 Magnum? Same thing, only worse.) The projectile needs weight as well as velocity in order to penetrate well, and if you sacrifice enough weight for more speed, you'll fail at the First Task: reaching something important.
Exotic bullets that claim to do something others can't should set off your B.S. detector. Any cartridge that proclaims a "massive energy dump" as the wounding mechanism or pushes velocity over everything else is probably vying for a magic bullet award. Personally, I'm not going to trust my life to that kind of ammo!
What I'm getting at (and have been for this entire series) is that there is nothing mysterious, nothing magic about the way a bullet works. It has to get to something important, and it has to do rapid and significant damage when it gets there. That's it. Any claims that seem to skate around the topic should be looked at with great skepticism, for there is truly no such thing as a "magic bullet."
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 6
Tuesday, April 29,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
"What would I want with a reputation? That's a good way to get yourself killed!" - Jason McCullough, "Support Your Local Sheriff" (my favorite movie of all time!)
What about "reputation"? Some cartridges or loadings have reputations for better effectiveness than others. Sometimes that's valid, but other times it may not be.
Let's take the mighty .357 Magnum, one of my very favorite cartridges. The 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint loads have the reputation of being superbly effective; some believe that they are the "best" manstoppers ever made. I've talked with people who have actually used them in real shootings, and they were very happy with the performance. But there are instances of stupendous failures.
For those who hold that energy is everything, this may come as a shock. How could all that power possibly fail? Simple - if it doesn't do both of the Twin Tasks!
Let's consider what happens with the 125 grain Magnum loads. Leaving the barrel at nearly 1500 feet per second, the bullet enters the target with a huge reserve of energy. As the hollowpoint fills with fluid and starts to expand, it uses up some of that energy to grow dramatically in diameter. The increase in diameter means more resistance in the tissues, which uses more energy and further slows the bullet. Because the relatively light weight of the slug doesn't have great momentum, and thus not a lot of stored energy, it doesn't travel very far before it finally runs out of steam. The result can be a shallow wound - one which doesn't reach something the body finds important.
This is the "ugly secret" that proponents of the .357 125 grain JHP don't want to talk about. Shallow wound profiles with these "barn burner" loads are not unheard of, and occasionally prove to not be as effective as expected. As one noted trainer once told me, when they work they are superb - but when they fail, they fail spectacularly!
Suppose you've decided that you'd prefer something a bit more predictable, but want to retain the superb performance of the round - is there a solution? Yep! Simply go to a slightly heavier bullet, one which carries a tad less velocity and a bit more momentum. Winchester, for instance, has the 145 grain Silvertip bullet, and Speer is now making a 135 grain Gold Dot Magnum load. Both are obviously designed to retain the Magnum's reputation as a fight-ender, but do so on a more consistent basis.
This is a good illustration of the tradeoffs involved in cartridge selection. Speed isn't everything; bullet size isn't everything; bullet weight isn't everything. It's a combination, a concert of all of those (plus good handling qualities as defined by the shooter) that make a round effective. One can't simply say "I've got a Magnum" or "I carry a .45" and smugly claim that one has the "perfect" self defense gun. While it may work, there is always the chance that it may not; handguns, after all, are underpowered things.
Through intelligent selection, you can dramatically improve the performance envelope of your chosen gun, regardless of the cartridge it shoots.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 5
Wednesday, April 16,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
More energy can be a good thing - as long as it actually does something useful.
Last time we discussed the concept of the hollowpoint as a way to increase the frontal diameter of the bullet in the target. I also introduced the idea that it takes energy to expand the bullet, energy that is also needed to push the projectile into something that it needs to reach.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want the bullet to expand, it doesn't happen by magic. Somewhere the energy has to be found to deform the metal used in the bullet, and that energy can only be found in the bullet's own movement. If there is too little to start with, then there won't be enough to continue the bullet on its path.
If the cartridge has insufficient energy, when the bullet expands it will stop forward movement too rapidly, resulting in very shallow wounds that may or may not be effective. This tends to explain the lack of expanding bullets for the venerable .38 Special cartridge - there just isn't enough energy to drive a bullet deeply into the target and expand it at the same time.
How do we get around this problem? Well, the first alternative is to simply switch to a cartridge with more energy. In the case of the .38, we could bump up to the .357 Magnum. The .357 certainly has enough energy! Of course, that energy reserve comes at a price: greatly increased recoil and muzzle blast.
The other alternative is to make a higher energy version of the cartridge we already have. This time-tested tactic results in what's know as "+P" ammunition, which is the designation for a cartridge loaded beyond what is considered "normal" pressure. The idea is to increase the energy delivery of that cartridge to accomplish a specific task. Generally, it works pretty well!
You'll see criticisms on the internet of some +P loadings, usually centered on the idea that "it's not much of an increase in power." If you consider what we've explored in this series so far, you'll realize that it doesn't have to be a "lot" - it just has to be "enough"! If a cartridge at normal pressure can't quite deliver an expanding bullet to where it needs to, but a +P version does, then that is sufficient for the task at hand.
Remember: if the energy doesn't do something useful, then it is wasted from our perspective.
Get away from the idea that you need vast increases in power for defensive applications. You simply need enough power to perform the Twin Tasks. Is it better to have an large reserve amount of energy on tap? That's a question that only you can answer, after being honest about your own abilities and needs.
In the next installment we'll bring together the things we've discussed, and look at the tradeoffs you need to consider to pick your "ideal" self defense cartridge.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 4
Tuesday, April 08,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
The bullet is more important than the caliber.
We know that our bullet needs to do damage to whatever important thing it manages to find. How, exactly, is that going to occur? It just so happens that most animal tissue (including that of the violent felon who has just attacked you) is remarkably elastic, and consequently difficult to damage. Most tissues have a tendency to "close up" around puncture wounds, in the same way that they close up after a hypodermic needle withdraws. If they didn't, every time we get a booster shot we'd spring a leak!
The upshot (pardon the pun) of this is that our bullet needs to die-cut or crush the tissues in its path, rather than sliding cleanly through. The reputation of the old .38 Special 158 grain round nose bullet as a "widow maker" was well deserved, as it often went in one side and out the other with very little blood loss. That smooth, aerodynamic profile travels through water-filled tissue about as cleanly as through air, for all the same reasons. It neatly parts that tissue in a way that facilitates immediate closure and minimal blood loss. In our sefl-defense scenario, that's what's known as "A Bad Thing."
In fact, round nose (or "ball") ammunition is an unremarkable performer in just about any caliber; "they all fall to hardball" is right up there with "the check is in the mail" for statements you should never believe, no matter how authoritatively (read: arrogantly) delivered.
If we can get a bullet to cut or crush a non-closing hole in the target, we stand a better chance of doing the kind of work necessary to cause that target to stop in its tracks.
The amount of disruption that a handgun bullet delivers to the target is dependent on its shape/construction and on the overall diameter (caliber.) A shape that encourages efficient travel through the target is to be avoided; a shape that is non-aerodynamic will generally produce the kind of result that we seek. All other things being equal, flat-faced bullets usually beat pointy bullets.
(Personally, I pay more attention to bullet construction than caliber. Hunting and shooting experience, plus a lot of research with those more knowledgeable in the field of wound ballistics, has convinced me that there is more variation in effectiveness within calibers than between them. In other words, you're more likely to see performance differences by changing your bullet type, rather than changing calibers. )
This isn't news to any old-timers out there! Hunters in bygone days were always told to use flat-pointed bullets over round-nosed varieties, because they delivered more "shock" to the quarry. That was their non-scientific way of explaining why the bullets obviously performed differently, and what they lacked in technical jargon was more than compensated by their acute observations.
Of course there just isn't a free lunch; those flat bullets don't usually work in autoloading actions, and they make speed reloading of a revolver more difficult. There is an answer: the expanding bullet. We can actually enhance the terminal results by using a bullet (usually a hollowpoint of some sort) that grows in diameter as it goes through the target.
A hollowpoint bullet works because, as it enters the target, it expands to a greater-than-caliber frontal diameter and assumes a very flat-faced shape. This means that the bullet can crush a much larger hole than normally possible for the caliber, ensuring the kind of target damage necessary to complete the task at hand.
There are, of course, issues in making these things perform as desired: first, the work of deforming the bullet takes energy. This energy can only be come from the bullet itself, which means there is that much less available to enable the bullet to continue its travel. Second, the resulting increase in drag from that wide face also uses energy at a tremendous rate, and thus also drastically limits penetration. Because of these factors, shallow wounds from hollowpoint bullets are not at all unheard of, both in hunting and in self defense.
The solution is to a) use a different cartridge that has enough energy to spare to begin with, or b) increase the energy of the existing cartridge. We'll tackle those issues next time!
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 3
Wednesday, April 02,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
Once it gets there, it has to do work.
In today's installment, we're going to look at the second of the Twin Tasks:
2) The bullet has to do rapid and significant damage to that thing when it arrives.
It may not be self evident, but kinetic (moving) energy is either used or conserved (stored.) In the case of a bullet, it starts being used simply by fighting the friction caused by traveling through the air. Unless it encounters a target, the bullet will use all of its energy in flight and gravity will pull it to the ground. We're interested in using that energy for lawful purposes before it's wasted in the atmosphere!
I usually refer to the second Task as "doing work", because that's exactly what is expected of the bullet. From the perspective of the target, the kinetic energy in a bullet can only do one of two things: it can be used to do work, or it can be wasted beyond the target.
(There is no such thing as an "energy dump" in a target, no matter how many times you see that nonsensical term. The energy does some sort of work, whether doing damage to tissue or pushing the bullet through the air. The bullet may use up all of the energy available, and stop inside the target, but it doesn't "dump" anything. The energy in such an event is depleted in expansion/deformation and in forward movement, both of which are work. Whether or not the work performed was useful to the goal depends on what it encountered along the way, which brings us back to the First Task.)
As the bullet traverses the target, its energy is used to push it through material more dense than the air it previously encountered. The amount of energy used in this endeavor is dependent upon the shape of the bullet; the more streamlined the projectile, the smaller the frontal profile, the less energy is expended in pushing it through the target. Conversely, the "flatter" the bullet profile, the more energy is necessary to move it through.
Think of a rowboat paddle - easy to move through the water edge first, much harder face first. If the bullet expands in the target, some of the energy is used to deform the bullet itself, and the rest is used to push the much larger, flatter profile through the target. In some cases, it uses up all its energy trying to get through the target and never makes it out the other side. This is why, as we touched on in Part 2, penetration can be controlled through the use of an expanding bullet.
At some point, we hope that the bullet finds something that the body deems necessary for function - and disrupts that functioning. That item could be structural (skeletal) - where disruption causes collapse; It could be electrical, where interruption of signals causes instantaneous nervous system malfunction; or it could be vascular (plumbing), where large leaks cause a loss of pressure that eventually results in unconsciousness.
Whichever system is compromised, the bullet needs to use some of its energy to do the necessary work of disruption. This is why I say that the bullet has to do rapid and significant damage to something when it arrives; if it gets there, but has so little energy left that it is incapable of inflicting necessary damage, then it might as well have not gotten there to begin with.
(This is not to suggest that the bullet's wound in such a case is benign or trivial! Remember, we have a task for that bullet to accomplish; if it doesn't do so in the necessary time frame, then it is useless to us. The classic example is the attacker shot with a .22 but still able to complete his assault. He might die of peritonitis a few days later, proving that the wound is not unimportant. However, it didn't complete our goal of stopping the criminal before he could harm an innocent, making it irrelevant to our situation. Keep the end in mind!)
Now that we understand the Twin Tasks, we'll take a look at the mechanisms by which all this might be accomplished. Until next time!
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 2
Monday, March 31,
2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
If it doesn't get somewhere, it can't do something.
OK, so we know about the Twin Tasks, the two things that a bullet has to do in order to stop an attacker:
1) It has to get to something the body finds important, and
2) It has to do rapid and significant damage to that thing when it arrives.
Today we'll be taking a look at Task #1: getting to something important.
Let's start by pointing out that the user of the bullet must be capable of putting it on a course that will lead it to something important. If the cartridge in question presents too much of a challenge for the shooter to handle with the requisite accuracy, it doesn't make any difference how "good" the cartridge is!
This is only given lip service by trainers and enthusiasts; they'll repeat the mantra "a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45", then in the same breath give some arbitrary limit on "acceptable" calibers for self defense. Folks, there are people in this world who do not wish to, or simply cannot, practice to become proficient with a "correct" caliber. When the time comes that they need the weapon, wouldn't it be better that they possess a bullet that they can send where it really needs to go? Of course!
Step One, then, is pick a cartridge that is within your ability to control.
Once the bullet is in the air, it has to negotiate all obstacles to reach a vital organ of some sort. This requires that it get through any outer shell (clothing), past the skin (which is a lot tougher than you might believe), and alternating layers of bone and muscle. It has to have what's known as 'penetration'.
Penetration is dependent on several things: the weight of the bullet, the diameter (caliber), the velocity, and the shape. If we were to take two bullets of different weight, but of the same caliber and shape and traveling at the same velocity, the heavier one would penetrate further. We can do the same comparison for any of the factors, as long as the others remain the same. If we had two bullets of different shapes - a round nose and a wadcutter - with everything else the same, the more streamlined bullet (the round nose) would penetrate further. Simple, right?
When we look at expanding (softnose or hollowpoint) bullets, which increase their diameter at some point in the target, the situation changes. The increased frontal are of the expanded bullet acts like a parachute, slowing it more rapidly and reducing penetration. Sometimes penetration can be reduced so much that the bullet will not reach anything important, and we're back to that unreliable psychological incapacitation thing again.
Remember that too much penetration can be as bad as too little. Having a bullet that sails through the target without doing much work, or (worse) encountering another (possibly) innocent target beyond, is not a good thing. Hence it behooves us to have a bullet which demonstrates sufficient penetration, but not an excessive amount.
It's not uncommon to find a cartridge that, when loaded with streamlined, roundnosed bullets, goes through multiple targets - but when loaded with expanding bullets stops inside the desired one. As it turns out, this behavior has major benefits in terms of terminal effects, which we'll cover next time.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Turned out to be more work than I anticipated!
Wednesday, March 26,
2008
I'd hoped to have Part Two of the Self defense, stopping power, and caliber series up today. As I was writing over the last couple of days, I found myself adding more and more information to try to make sense of it all. That's a problem when trying to explain a complicated subject in a manner that is clear, concise, and still readable. It's proving to be a challenge for this amateur wordsmith, but I'm not giving up!
Stay tuned, it's coming...in the meantime, take a look at this story. What an idiot.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber
Monday, March 24,
2008
I've gotten a bunch of emails recently regarding the choice of an appropriate self-defense caliber and/or bullet. Around this one topic swirls more misinformation - and outright inanity - than any other I can think of. And now, here's mine!
What follows is a layman's understanding, backed by research of available literature and years of hunting and shooting experience, of the practical mechanics of wound ballistics. It is not intended to be a complete and exhaustive study of the subject. Instead, I hope to give my readers - who are, in all likelihood, laypersons themselves - a solid base of information to help make good decisions when choosing self defense ammunition.
Let's start by understanding that in a self-defense scenario our goal is simply to cause the perpetrator of a crime to cease immediately his/her antisocial activities. That's it - we want the miscreant to quit doing whatever it was that caused us to draw our gun in the first place. The closer to "immediately" that this occurs, the better for all concerned.
There are two mechanisms by which this can be accomplished: psychological incapacitation and physical incapacitation.
The first - psychological incapacitation - is the least predictable of the two. Some people will stop and run when grazed by a well-thrown rock, others will soak up all manner of chemical, electrical, and physical deterrents without so much as flinching. Since it's all in the mind, and minds vary significantly (especially when intoxicated in some form), we cannot count on delivering a reliable jolt to a criminal's psyche. We must instead focus on doing enough physical damage to cause cessation of action through reduction of motor skills.
On this subject has been constructed all manner of measures, each attempting to quantify the unquantifiable: "One shot stops." "Knockout index." "Wound channel volume." There are more, and none of them ever seem to agree (at least most of the time) on what actually works.
Well, folks, hunters have known something for a very long time, and it has been proven in the field again and again: to reliably put the brakes on a living entity, a bullet must do what I call The Twin Tasks.
1) It has to get to something the body finds important, and
2) It has to do rapid and significant damage to that thing when it arrives.
That's it. Either, by itself, simply won't deliver the results we seek (at least, not in the physical sense.) If the projectile fails at either of these Tasks, any success that occurs is in fact a product of psychological incapacitation, which we already know to be both unpredictable and unreliable.
Keep in mind that as the bullet traverses the target, it may repeat the Tasks; in other words, it may encounter more than one thing the body finds important. The more times that it does, and then completes the second Task, the faster the incapacitation is likely to occur. (Note that I didn't say "will", only "likely to". Handgun rounds are underpowered things, and with them nothing is ever certain.)
Within certain limits, it doesn't really matter what the caliber is or what the bullet is made of or how fast it travels, as long as it does both of the Tasks. That's why there seems to be such a wide range of calibers, weights and velocities that have shown "good" results in self defense shootings, and why arguments about "stopping power" rage on the gun forums: there is, as the saying goes, more than one way to skin a cat.
Remember, as long as both Tasks are accomplished, the envelope of "how" they are is large enough to encompass a variety of approaches.
The reason that the "heavy and slow" and "light and fast" bullet camps exist is because, generally, their choices just happen do both of those Tasks on a fairly regular basis. Arguing about which is the "better" approach is really quite silly, because when they work it's because they did both Tasks, regardless of the actual mechanism; when they fail, it is simply because they didn't do one (or both) of the Tasks, again regardless of their physical attributes.
It's at this point that someone invariably chimes in "but my cousin is engaged to a girl whose brother-in-law heard about a guy who saw someone shot fifteen times with a 9mm, and the victim was still able to walk into a French restaurant, order a 5-course meal, eat, chat with the sommelier, and stiff the waiter before finally collapsing on the sidewalk while waiting for his cab! That's why I carry a .467 Loudenboomer Ultra Grande - if it hits them in the pinky the hydrostatic shock wave will knock them down!"
I'm exaggerating, you understand, but if you regularly haunt the gun forums you'll recognize that it isn't all that far off.
Yes, small caliber bullets fail. Guess what? Large caliber bullets fail, too. As someone once told me, "put on your big-boy pants and deal with it!"
A good friend gave me a first-hand account of a battle incident wherein a fellow absorbed several very large caliber, solid torso hits, and was still able to jump from his vehicle and cross a road before finally collapsing.
The gun in question? A .50 caliber heavy machine gun.
Yes, you read that correctly. Sometimes, folks, nothing works.
Our job is to choose those calibers and bullets which seem to do the Two Tasks fairly reliably, and prepare to deal with the times that it just isn't enough. With handgun rounds, those times are more common than the gunshop commandoes would have you believe.
In the next installment, we'll take a layman's look at the physics involved.
Click here to go to the next article --->
Or, you can access the series index at this link.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Can you hear me now? Part Deux
Monday, March 17,
2008
As I mentioned a while back, I recently decided to acquire new hearing protection to replace my aging Peltor electronic muffs. Durability and water resistance were at the top of my list, followed by sufficient clearance to comfortably shoot a rifle.
I chose the Swedish-made Sordin Supreme Pro-X unit, based on rave reviews from other users (and a very good friend.) Sordins have a great reputation in the "tactical" community for ruggedness, which is what I wanted. I also paid extra to get the ultra-cushy gel earmuffs, which (in my estimation) was money well spent!
The Sordin circuitry is a big step up from the old Peltors. (In all fairness, so are the current Peltors!) Instead of completely shutting down the electronics when a sound over it's threshold is detected, the Sordins simply reduce the volume to match that of the background. This is a great improvement, and makes for a far more natural sound than my old muffs.
What really surprised me was the sound quality: it is superb, far better than my old Peltors. When the earpiece volume is set to normal - that is, no amplification relative to the environment - the sound is crisp, clean, and darn near like not wearing the muffs at all. In contrast, my old muffs had a bit of a hollow sound, and a greatly attenuated upper register. Compared to the Sordins, they literally sound like a cheap AM radio!
The gel earpieces, as noted, are incredibly comfortable - well worth the premium over the standard foam one, which themselves are quite comfortable compared to others I've used. The gel pads, though, are just in another league altogether - and they seal around the ear for better protection to boot!
All in all, I'm happy with the Sordins (so far...we'll see how I feel about them a couple of years from now!) I got mine from a company called CSUK (yeah, I know, but keep reading.) Not only did they have the best price, their delivery was lightning fast. Frankly, of all the online companies I've dealt with, these guys are by far the fastest; incredible, actually. I've placed three orders with them so far, and all have been delivered before I ever expected them. That's service; CSUK gets two thumbs up from me!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, March 10,
2008
From Michael "Fashion Plate" Bane comes a story about cops and the 'Triangle of Death' (no, not THAT 'Triangle of Death' - this one is serious.) If you're a cop, you need to read it.
Reed and Malloy were in constant danger and didn't even know it!
---
After my lament last week, I went to a gunshow this weekend and found - of all things - a stainless Ruger Speed-Six in 9mm! The owner and I are dickering about the price right now, but (unfortunately) there is little recent sales data to go on. If you've seen such a beast sell in the last 6 months, please drop me an email and let me know what it went for. Much appreciated.
---
Crazy Rumor Department
Hey, Bane, you missed this one! Overheard at the gunshow: Colt has been sold to Norinco, so that they can have a domestic plant to get around import restrictions.
Ohhhhhh-kayyyyyyy....
---
'It Must Be Something In The Water' Department
Also overheard at the gunshow: the 9mm "doesn't work, so you need to go to a bigger caliber like .38 Special."
A math genius he ain't...
---
So much for my weekend. Back to the salt mines!
-=[ Grant ]=-
I'm beginning to hate myself
Wednesday, March 05,
2008
Big gun show last weekend...didn't find anything I wanted.
Another big show coming up soon...doubt I'll find anything I want there, either.
The problem with being "into" something, to the extent that I am (and many of you are) is that the things we want get more and more esoteric. That translates to "hard to find", which usually translates to "valuable" - which morphs quickly to "the seller thinks it's made of gold from King Tut's codpiece, and has priced it accordingly."
The things I'm looking for range from the admittedly unusual (Marlin Levermatic in .30 Carbine) to the mundane (Mossberg bolt-action .22LR) and lots in between. You'd think, with an extensive and wide-ranging list of "wants" I'd get lucky sooner or later.
You'd be wrong.
For instance, a 3" S&W "K" frame (of any model; I'm not picky) shouldn't be a problem - they made scads of 'em, and they were pretty common just a few years ago. Naturally, I haven't seen one in ages.
I'd like a 9mm Speed-Six (yes, I know they're unusual) but I'd settle for a good clean one in .357. Doesn't matter - they seem to be equally scarce around these parts.
How about a simple Winchester Model 67 (their cheap single shot, manually cocking .22 from the middle of the last century) under $225? Not around here. Come on, people, this is a thin-barreled "starter" rifle, not a rare target gun!
Maybe a Browning BLR in .308? Good luck. (I've given up on ever finding one in .358, which is what I really lust for.) Oh, I can find a Winchester 88 in .308 - and I'd like to have one - but I'm not about to pay $800 for the privilege!
For some reason I want a simple, plain, common Marlin in .35 Remington. If I lived in Maine I'd have my pick of 'em, but out here in the West if it ain't a thutty-thutty you won't find it.
And so it goes. Come the next show I'll drag myself into the exhibit hall, knowing full well I'll be disappointed once again - but I'll do it anyway.
Sigh. I wonder if there's a suitable 12-step program for this...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, March 03,
2008
---
Every once in a while, Tam hits one out of the park.
Read the whole thing - it's good.This is the country where we're supposed to be leading ourselves, not waiting for solutions to be handed down from on high.
---
SayUncle alerts us to this story. Predictable Euro-socialist hand-wringing and whining commence.
(Yes, I would generally agree that brandishing a weapon is both a tactical and legal no-no - but then again, if you're an old, frail lady and someone strange is standing in your yard, refusing to leave, perhaps you are justified.)
---
I missed this until Michael Bane pointed me to it. Hilarious!
---
Happy Monday, everyone!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings
Monday, February 25,
2008
Tam alerts us that today is the "official" birthday of the revolver - courtesy of The Great One, Samuel Colt. (I'm surprised, yet gratified, that she acknowledges someone whose last name is not Browning or Wesson!)
---
As long as I'm doing the link-love bit, over at Michael Bane's place there is something of a brouhaha regarding his assessment of the new Ruger SR9 pistol. Read the first part, then read Michael's response. (Be sure to read the comments on each - that's where the fireworks happen.)
One of the commenters has invoked Massad Ayoob's name as some sort of "proof" that Michael's opinions are "wrong." In the interest of full disclosure, I know Mas Ayoob on a personal basis, and I've done work for Bane. I've read their reviews, and what it comes down to is that they are both opinionated people with very definite tastes and preferences in firearms. That they have different points of view with regard to this particular gun is simply evidence that nothing appeals to everyone. I trust them both, and my feeling is that it's sad they couldn't find a new, innovative Ruger revolver to disagree about!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Ignition troubles
Wednesday, February
20, 2008
I've gotten a number of
inquiries over the past few months regarding ignition troubles in
otherwise stock revolvers.
As ammunition prices continue their climb, many enthusiasts find their budgets strained. In order to continue shooting, those who do not reload their own ammo have been looking at less expensive options for feeding their guns. Brands like Fiocchi and Sellier & Bellot ("S&B"), brands that didn't have many takers a couple of years ago, are now being featured at many sporting goods outlets.
For the most part there is nothing wrong, from a quality control standpoint, with this ammunition. It must be remembered, though, that many foreign ammunition companies do not have the range of cartridge components that we do. Since much (if not most) of their production is often military contract, they are known use the same components for their commercial products - said components to include primers.
Military specifications, regardless of country, usually require a certain level of slam-fire resistance, which necessitates heavier primer cups. Those thicker, harder primers can be more difficult to ignite in firearms that expect to see a "civilian" (more sensitive) primer. It's no wonder, then, that ignition problems with Fiocchi and S&B ammunition are being seen; it's not that the ammo is "bad", but rather that the components used are intended for guns with more robust firing systems!
If you're using foreign ammunition, and your stock firearm is proving to be a bit unreliable, don't blame the gun. Try some "normal" (read: American produced) ammo - I'll bet it returns to 100% function.
(You say that using U.S. ammunition will cut into your shooting activities because of the cost? Well, it's time to learn how to reload your own - it's easy, fun, and economical!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
As ammunition prices continue their climb, many enthusiasts find their budgets strained. In order to continue shooting, those who do not reload their own ammo have been looking at less expensive options for feeding their guns. Brands like Fiocchi and Sellier & Bellot ("S&B"), brands that didn't have many takers a couple of years ago, are now being featured at many sporting goods outlets.
For the most part there is nothing wrong, from a quality control standpoint, with this ammunition. It must be remembered, though, that many foreign ammunition companies do not have the range of cartridge components that we do. Since much (if not most) of their production is often military contract, they are known use the same components for their commercial products - said components to include primers.
Military specifications, regardless of country, usually require a certain level of slam-fire resistance, which necessitates heavier primer cups. Those thicker, harder primers can be more difficult to ignite in firearms that expect to see a "civilian" (more sensitive) primer. It's no wonder, then, that ignition problems with Fiocchi and S&B ammunition are being seen; it's not that the ammo is "bad", but rather that the components used are intended for guns with more robust firing systems!
If you're using foreign ammunition, and your stock firearm is proving to be a bit unreliable, don't blame the gun. Try some "normal" (read: American produced) ammo - I'll bet it returns to 100% function.
(You say that using U.S. ammunition will cut into your shooting activities because of the cost? Well, it's time to learn how to reload your own - it's easy, fun, and economical!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Can you hear me now?
Monday, February 18,
2008
It's time to shop for new
hearing protection.
My wife and I bought Peltor Model 7 electronic muffs quite a long time ago - over 10 years, if memory serves. They've held up remarkably well, even through torrential rain (common here in Oregon) and the inevitable bumps and knocks from being thrown into the back of the car. They're not terribly comfortable (though far more so than the infamous "vise-like" Wolf Ears), the interior padding is coming apart, and they're starting to pop and hiss and make crackling noises. Their time, sad to say, is coming to a rapid end.
As I shop I'm paying particular attention to suitability for use with rifles. The old Peltors are quite large, and getting a proper cheek weld on a rifle stock invariably knocks them slightly off of a perfect seal, resulting in sound leakage. It's not so much a problem when shooting by myself, but try it on a class firing line with another shooter next to you and you'll appreciate the issue!
The choice came down to the Peltor ComTac and the Sordin Supreme XL. Just a few minutes ago, I ordered the Sordins - the Peltor has a big battery compartment bulge on the left side, which meant that I'd have the aforementioned rifle problem when shooting from my weak side. (You don't do that? There are lots of good reasons to practice shooting a rifle from your weak side - just like your handgun.)
The Sordins have a phenomenal reputation for durability and waterproofness, and I have a close friend who has worn a pair for the last couple of years - and raves about them compared to his old Wolf Ears.
I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to put them through their paces.
-=[ Grant ]=-
My wife and I bought Peltor Model 7 electronic muffs quite a long time ago - over 10 years, if memory serves. They've held up remarkably well, even through torrential rain (common here in Oregon) and the inevitable bumps and knocks from being thrown into the back of the car. They're not terribly comfortable (though far more so than the infamous "vise-like" Wolf Ears), the interior padding is coming apart, and they're starting to pop and hiss and make crackling noises. Their time, sad to say, is coming to a rapid end.
As I shop I'm paying particular attention to suitability for use with rifles. The old Peltors are quite large, and getting a proper cheek weld on a rifle stock invariably knocks them slightly off of a perfect seal, resulting in sound leakage. It's not so much a problem when shooting by myself, but try it on a class firing line with another shooter next to you and you'll appreciate the issue!
The choice came down to the Peltor ComTac and the Sordin Supreme XL. Just a few minutes ago, I ordered the Sordins - the Peltor has a big battery compartment bulge on the left side, which meant that I'd have the aforementioned rifle problem when shooting from my weak side. (You don't do that? There are lots of good reasons to practice shooting a rifle from your weak side - just like your handgun.)
The Sordins have a phenomenal reputation for durability and waterproofness, and I have a close friend who has worn a pair for the last couple of years - and raves about them compared to his old Wolf Ears.
I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to put them through their paces.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Oily to bed, oily to rise
Monday, February 11,
2008
Sorry for the very, very bad
pun. My defense? It's Monday!
Quite a while back, I told you of the difficulty an agency in California was having finding a suitable gun oil. I made the recommendations in that article, and my contact indicated that he would make a decision and follow up with the results.
I talked to him last week, and he indicated that they decided to go with a medium-weight Lubriplate FMO-AW series oil versus a light grease, primarily for application ease. He reports that the food grade lubricant easily passed muster with the ultra-picky worker safety people in his agency, which was a big concern.
How about performance? In a word, they're "delighted" with the oil. It lubricates superbly, doesn't run, and seems unaffected by the alkaline environment in which it is being used. That they can choose exactly the right viscosity for their application is "icing on the cake."
He says that it has worked out so well, he's using the stuff on his personal guns, and says that it's better than any "gun" oil he (or his agency) has ever used.
(Maybe I should get a Lubriplate distributorship...!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Quite a while back, I told you of the difficulty an agency in California was having finding a suitable gun oil. I made the recommendations in that article, and my contact indicated that he would make a decision and follow up with the results.
I talked to him last week, and he indicated that they decided to go with a medium-weight Lubriplate FMO-AW series oil versus a light grease, primarily for application ease. He reports that the food grade lubricant easily passed muster with the ultra-picky worker safety people in his agency, which was a big concern.
How about performance? In a word, they're "delighted" with the oil. It lubricates superbly, doesn't run, and seems unaffected by the alkaline environment in which it is being used. That they can choose exactly the right viscosity for their application is "icing on the cake."
He says that it has worked out so well, he's using the stuff on his personal guns, and says that it's better than any "gun" oil he (or his agency) has ever used.
(Maybe I should get a Lubriplate distributorship...!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
SHOT Show wrap-up
Wednesday, February
06, 2008
Remember last Wednesday,
when I wished for some new
revolver introductions - then reminded Taurus that
revolvers which chambered shotshells weren't terribly
interesting?
Guess what they introduced at SHOT?
Yep. More revolvers that chamber shotshells.
Obviously the things are selling (Taurus being notorious for discontinuing products at the first whiff of a sales drop), but I haven't quite figured out the attraction.
---
Taurus did introduce something interesting, but it appears to be getting zero press: a 6-shot compact .38 special revolver. If it's any good at all, this could be the long-awaited replacement for the Colt Detective Special.
Knowing Taurus quality control I'm apprehensive, but I'll reserve judgement until I can get one in my hands. (Reports are, oddly, listing it as a Model 85, which is their nomenclature for the 5-shot line. Hmmm...of course, there's no info available on the perennially out-of-date Taurus website.)
---
Since I haven't gotten any nasty emails from Charter Arms partisans since the last SHOT Show, I'll just mention that they introduced a new .327 Federal chambering for their "affordable" guns. (If it performs as well as the brand-new .38 Special Charter I encountered on the firing line at a class last weekend, potential buyers may want to update their life insurance before filling out the 4473 form. Yes, it was that bad.)
---
-=[ Grant ]=-
Guess what they introduced at SHOT?
Yep. More revolvers that chamber shotshells.
Obviously the things are selling (Taurus being notorious for discontinuing products at the first whiff of a sales drop), but I haven't quite figured out the attraction.
---
Taurus did introduce something interesting, but it appears to be getting zero press: a 6-shot compact .38 special revolver. If it's any good at all, this could be the long-awaited replacement for the Colt Detective Special.
Knowing Taurus quality control I'm apprehensive, but I'll reserve judgement until I can get one in my hands. (Reports are, oddly, listing it as a Model 85, which is their nomenclature for the 5-shot line. Hmmm...of course, there's no info available on the perennially out-of-date Taurus website.)
---
Since I haven't gotten any nasty emails from Charter Arms partisans since the last SHOT Show, I'll just mention that they introduced a new .327 Federal chambering for their "affordable" guns. (If it performs as well as the brand-new .38 Special Charter I encountered on the firing line at a class last weekend, potential buyers may want to update their life insurance before filling out the 4473 form. Yes, it was that bad.)
---
-=[ Grant ]=-
SHOT Show news
Monday, February 04,
2008
First off, you're unlikely
to see this on any other gun blog: I've been privy to the formation
a new organization in the last several months, and sworn to secrecy
until it was officially unveiled at SHOT. Well, my tongue is now
loosened!
The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is a membership organization designed to give those who are involved in a self-defense situation the legal resources to survive the inevitable legal aftermath. The Network gives exclusive access to qualified attorneys and court-recognized experts in the field of self defense, as well as up-to-date education materials in the legal use of force, free case review from nationally respected use-of-force experts, and special discounts on classes by member trainers. This is an idea whose time has come, and I'm proud to bring the news to you!
Smith & Wesson announced several new revolvers, Scandium-framed "carry guns" in .357, .44 Special, and .45ACP. I'm not all that enthused about these lightweight guns - frankly, they hurt to shoot and I'm wary of the self-engaging locks - but apparently I'm alone in my assessment, as S&W seems to sell all they can make. What's interesting about these entries to the field are the new fast acquisition sights: a tritium "Big Dot" style front paired with a new u-channel rear sight.
Courtesy of Call Me Ahab
Note the rather crude, unfinished appearance - one hopes that the production versions will be cleaner:
Courtesy of Gunblast.com
The 5mm Remington Magnum rimfire was a neat round that didn't deserve to die. Introduced back in the '80s, it was discontinued just a few years later in the wake of underwhelming sales. Aguila has decided to reintroduce the round, and Taurus is chambering their Tracker series in the "new/old" cartridge.
I've spoken about Ruger's new blood, and it is in evidence at SHOT this year. They've introduced a new polymer .380 pocket pistol (bearing more than a passing resemblance to the Kel-Tec .380), which is a radical departure for the staid maker. I'm hoping - really, REALLY hoping - that their revolver line will see some new introductions soon. (Chant with me: ".44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100..." Maybe they'll get the collective vibe!)
Finally, though not specifically my thing, USFA has introduced their replica of the large-frame Forehand & Wadsworth single-action revolver. This is an instance where the reproduction will no doubt be of higher quality than the original! USFA has been steadily expanding their range of top-quality guns, and I think they are our best hope to introduce a real, high-quality American double-action revolver. How about it, USFA - give us a Python. Or a Diamondback. Or a Registered Magnum. Cowboy shooters aren't the only people with money, you know!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is a membership organization designed to give those who are involved in a self-defense situation the legal resources to survive the inevitable legal aftermath. The Network gives exclusive access to qualified attorneys and court-recognized experts in the field of self defense, as well as up-to-date education materials in the legal use of force, free case review from nationally respected use-of-force experts, and special discounts on classes by member trainers. This is an idea whose time has come, and I'm proud to bring the news to you!
Smith & Wesson announced several new revolvers, Scandium-framed "carry guns" in .357, .44 Special, and .45ACP. I'm not all that enthused about these lightweight guns - frankly, they hurt to shoot and I'm wary of the self-engaging locks - but apparently I'm alone in my assessment, as S&W seems to sell all they can make. What's interesting about these entries to the field are the new fast acquisition sights: a tritium "Big Dot" style front paired with a new u-channel rear sight.
Courtesy of Call Me Ahab
Note the rather crude, unfinished appearance - one hopes that the production versions will be cleaner:
Courtesy of Gunblast.com
The 5mm Remington Magnum rimfire was a neat round that didn't deserve to die. Introduced back in the '80s, it was discontinued just a few years later in the wake of underwhelming sales. Aguila has decided to reintroduce the round, and Taurus is chambering their Tracker series in the "new/old" cartridge.
I've spoken about Ruger's new blood, and it is in evidence at SHOT this year. They've introduced a new polymer .380 pocket pistol (bearing more than a passing resemblance to the Kel-Tec .380), which is a radical departure for the staid maker. I'm hoping - really, REALLY hoping - that their revolver line will see some new introductions soon. (Chant with me: ".44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100..." Maybe they'll get the collective vibe!)
Finally, though not specifically my thing, USFA has introduced their replica of the large-frame Forehand & Wadsworth single-action revolver. This is an instance where the reproduction will no doubt be of higher quality than the original! USFA has been steadily expanding their range of top-quality guns, and I think they are our best hope to introduce a real, high-quality American double-action revolver. How about it, USFA - give us a Python. Or a Diamondback. Or a Registered Magnum. Cowboy shooters aren't the only people with money, you know!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wednesday Catch-Up
Wednesday, January
30, 2008
Let's see now...this is the
view from my front yard:
Here in Oregon, we're getting historic snowfall amounts - even in our temperate valleys. Record low temps were recorded across the midwest recently, while south of the Mason-Dixon Line Tam has been freezing her tuchus. Personally, I wish someone would explain to me where my share of this "Global Warming" thing is, because I could use it right now...
---
This morning I got an email from AFGWWWTRA, who is en-route to the SHOT show. I'm hoping my secret correspondent will send me back news about neat new revolvers, though I'm not holding my breath. (Note to Taurus: revolvers that shoot shotgun shells are not my idea of "neat.")
---
Note to S&W: the "TR Special Edition" thing is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the guns themselves are getting uglier. If this keeps up, the next one will cost $5k and cause eyes to bleed upon opening the box. Please, no more.
---
Here in Oregon, we're getting historic snowfall amounts - even in our temperate valleys. Record low temps were recorded across the midwest recently, while south of the Mason-Dixon Line Tam has been freezing her tuchus. Personally, I wish someone would explain to me where my share of this "Global Warming" thing is, because I could use it right now...
---
This morning I got an email from AFGWWWTRA, who is en-route to the SHOT show. I'm hoping my secret correspondent will send me back news about neat new revolvers, though I'm not holding my breath. (Note to Taurus: revolvers that shoot shotgun shells are not my idea of "neat.")
---
Note to S&W: the "TR Special Edition" thing is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the guns themselves are getting uglier. If this keeps up, the next one will cost $5k and cause eyes to bleed upon opening the box. Please, no more.
---
Well, isn't that special?
Wednesday, January
23, 2008
Tam is excited that it's John Browning's
birthday.
Personally, I find it difficult to get excited about a guy who never made a revolver....
-=[ Grant ]=-
Personally, I find it difficult to get excited about a guy who never made a revolver....
-=[ Grant ]=-
Why revolvers?
Monday, January 21,
2008
I got an email the other
day, asking in effect "why just revolvers?" I dashed off an answer
(with so many emails demanding a response, it's hard to write
essays for each one.) I always feel that I haven't done the subject
justice, so here is yet more about why I choose the round gun over
the flat one.
Why revolvers? Because I like them! I like their lines, their reliability, their accuracy, their power; I like their history, and that they are prototypically "American" firearms. (I like lever action rifles for that same reason.)
I like revolvers because they can be made to fit the hand in a way a slab-sided pistol never can. I like them because of their almost Zen-like operation: the cylinder goes 'round, the gun discharges, and when the operator wishes, the process is repeated. I like them because you can see what's happening; because they are easy to load and unload.
I did not come to these opinions quickly or easily, you understand. When I was a kid, all the other kids wanted a Colt "Peacemaker" and a Winchester '94. Not me - I looked in the Sears catalog (yes, they carried guns when I was a kid) and dreamed of owning a .45 auto and an M1 carbine. I was definitely a contrarian from the start!
It wasn't until my advanced years that the lure of the revolver affected my soul. (Though, as I've related in past posts, it was more of a challenge to my ballistic manhood than an intellectual appreciation. Introspection came later.)
Oh, the best thing about revolvers? They aren't made of plastic!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Why revolvers? Because I like them! I like their lines, their reliability, their accuracy, their power; I like their history, and that they are prototypically "American" firearms. (I like lever action rifles for that same reason.)
I like revolvers because they can be made to fit the hand in a way a slab-sided pistol never can. I like them because of their almost Zen-like operation: the cylinder goes 'round, the gun discharges, and when the operator wishes, the process is repeated. I like them because you can see what's happening; because they are easy to load and unload.
I did not come to these opinions quickly or easily, you understand. When I was a kid, all the other kids wanted a Colt "Peacemaker" and a Winchester '94. Not me - I looked in the Sears catalog (yes, they carried guns when I was a kid) and dreamed of owning a .45 auto and an M1 carbine. I was definitely a contrarian from the start!
It wasn't until my advanced years that the lure of the revolver affected my soul. (Though, as I've related in past posts, it was more of a challenge to my ballistic manhood than an intellectual appreciation. Introspection came later.)
Oh, the best thing about revolvers? They aren't made of plastic!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A sign of things to come?
Wednesday, October
24, 2007
Last week Ruger did
something unprecedented, at least for them: they introduced a 9mm
striker-fired autopistol.
Those who frequent my little corner of the internet know my general feelings regarding autoloading handguns (I wouldn't turn one down if given to me, but I'd sell it to buy another revolver!) Still, I've got to admit that the engineering and design of the new SR9 are quite good, for a bottom-feeder, and it even looks nice. I'm sure it will sell well for them.
But that's not the best part of the story.
What's more interesting to me is the path by which this gun came to market. Ruger has a new management team these days; with the death of Bill Ruger Sr. and the retirement of Bill Jr., the company has finally gotten some fresh blood into their stodgy executive suite. It shows in this, their first collective effort. They were willing to take some risks, do something that "wasn't Ruger", and the result is a very attractive, well designed, innovative, yet affordable firearm.
The other interesting part of the gun's birth has been the means by which it has become known to the public. Everyone is making a big deal about this being the first gun to be introduced primarily through electronic media, and while that is intriguing I think there is something far more important at work.
The fact that the SR9 project was kept quiet right up until launch is an important sign, an indication that this is a seriously new Sturm, Ruger & Co. No "sneak preview" with a ridiculous one- or two-year gestation period, like every other gun company does. Ruger developed the gun in secrecy, and announced it when it was actually ready to ship. Someone, it seems, has been watching Steve Jobs very closely - this is a stunning about-face from the way the firearms industry usually works, and is very much like the way Apple, Inc. operates. Ruger has decided that "vaporware" has no place in their business, and for this alone they should be loudly applauded.
(Attention, CZ-USA: you could learn something here - though I'm not holding my breath, since you didn't take my advice last time!)
From my perspective, I'm excited to see these changes at Ruger because I suspect it means that we'll finally see some new revolvers from them. Perhaps a lightweight version of the SP101? How about a compact 6-shot revolver to take the place of the much-missed Colt Detective Special and Magnum Carry models - a market segment positively crying for attention, yet completely ignored by all of the revolver companies? Maybe, just maybe, a .44 Special version of the GP100? Please???
Ruger is finally recovering from their infamous anal/cranial inversion. The SR9, despite being a gun I will probably never own, is exciting to me not because of what it is, but because of what it says about the future of the company - a company that just happens to make other products that DO interest me.
Go Ruger!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Those who frequent my little corner of the internet know my general feelings regarding autoloading handguns (I wouldn't turn one down if given to me, but I'd sell it to buy another revolver!) Still, I've got to admit that the engineering and design of the new SR9 are quite good, for a bottom-feeder, and it even looks nice. I'm sure it will sell well for them.
But that's not the best part of the story.
What's more interesting to me is the path by which this gun came to market. Ruger has a new management team these days; with the death of Bill Ruger Sr. and the retirement of Bill Jr., the company has finally gotten some fresh blood into their stodgy executive suite. It shows in this, their first collective effort. They were willing to take some risks, do something that "wasn't Ruger", and the result is a very attractive, well designed, innovative, yet affordable firearm.
The other interesting part of the gun's birth has been the means by which it has become known to the public. Everyone is making a big deal about this being the first gun to be introduced primarily through electronic media, and while that is intriguing I think there is something far more important at work.
The fact that the SR9 project was kept quiet right up until launch is an important sign, an indication that this is a seriously new Sturm, Ruger & Co. No "sneak preview" with a ridiculous one- or two-year gestation period, like every other gun company does. Ruger developed the gun in secrecy, and announced it when it was actually ready to ship. Someone, it seems, has been watching Steve Jobs very closely - this is a stunning about-face from the way the firearms industry usually works, and is very much like the way Apple, Inc. operates. Ruger has decided that "vaporware" has no place in their business, and for this alone they should be loudly applauded.
(Attention, CZ-USA: you could learn something here - though I'm not holding my breath, since you didn't take my advice last time!)
From my perspective, I'm excited to see these changes at Ruger because I suspect it means that we'll finally see some new revolvers from them. Perhaps a lightweight version of the SP101? How about a compact 6-shot revolver to take the place of the much-missed Colt Detective Special and Magnum Carry models - a market segment positively crying for attention, yet completely ignored by all of the revolver companies? Maybe, just maybe, a .44 Special version of the GP100? Please???
Ruger is finally recovering from their infamous anal/cranial inversion. The SR9, despite being a gun I will probably never own, is exciting to me not because of what it is, but because of what it says about the future of the company - a company that just happens to make other products that DO interest me.
Go Ruger!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Vee haff vays of making you feel insignificant!
Monday, October 15,
2007
I'm really glad that HK
doesn't make revolvers. People complain about the supposed
snobbishness of Python owners, but even the most rabid Colt fan
can't hold a candle to the receptionist at Heckler &
Koch.
How do I know, you may ask? One day I had the temerity to call them with the simple goal of obtaining a replacement trigger spring for an HK P7. To characterize the reception I got as "cold" would have been massive understatement. Siberia is a veritable tropic paradise in comparison.
Even after putting me through their version of the Nuremberg trial (boy, do they carry a grudge) they still wouldn't sell me the part.
Having therefore experienced their Teutonic haughtiness, I laughed the laugh of the knowing when I read this post at Monster Hunter Nation.
(Oh, be sure to read the comments. All of them. There are some gems there, especially toward the bottom.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
How do I know, you may ask? One day I had the temerity to call them with the simple goal of obtaining a replacement trigger spring for an HK P7. To characterize the reception I got as "cold" would have been massive understatement. Siberia is a veritable tropic paradise in comparison.
Even after putting me through their version of the Nuremberg trial (boy, do they carry a grudge) they still wouldn't sell me the part.
Having therefore experienced their Teutonic haughtiness, I laughed the laugh of the knowing when I read this post at Monster Hunter Nation.
(Oh, be sure to read the comments. All of them. There are some gems there, especially toward the bottom.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
If you own a revolver, you need one of these
Wednesday, October
10, 2007
Back in the "olden days"
(no, kids, that does not mean the 1970s) it was common to carry a
revolver and a rifle that used the same ammunition. There is still
a lot to recommend the practice! If you have a wheelgun in .357,
.44, .32-20, .41 Magnum, or .45 Colt, Marlin makes a lever action rifle
to take your
ammunition.
Let's consider the .357: in a revolver the .357 is a formidable cartridge, but In a rifle it gets a big boost in performance with surprisingly low recoil. Many people use the .357 carbine as a deer gun at moderate ranges, and there are even some who swear that they can be used for elk. I'll dispute that latter contention, but as a short-range deer gun it is superb.
Of course the .357 rifle will also handle .38 Special ammunition. Using light loads, it can be used for jobs like plinking cans and hunting squirrels. I ran across a fellow a few years ago who used his for hunting sage rats! It should go without saying that recoil from these loads is nearly non-existent.
As a home defense gun it is easily handled by all qualified members of a family, no matter how sensitive they are to recoil. I don't have to tell you of the .357's reputation for "stopping power"!
Light, fast handling, and very low recoil, it may be the very best "all around" rifle you could own. If you don't have a lever action to complement your wheelguns, you're missing out on a whole lot of fun - and utility as well.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Let's consider the .357: in a revolver the .357 is a formidable cartridge, but In a rifle it gets a big boost in performance with surprisingly low recoil. Many people use the .357 carbine as a deer gun at moderate ranges, and there are even some who swear that they can be used for elk. I'll dispute that latter contention, but as a short-range deer gun it is superb.
Of course the .357 rifle will also handle .38 Special ammunition. Using light loads, it can be used for jobs like plinking cans and hunting squirrels. I ran across a fellow a few years ago who used his for hunting sage rats! It should go without saying that recoil from these loads is nearly non-existent.
As a home defense gun it is easily handled by all qualified members of a family, no matter how sensitive they are to recoil. I don't have to tell you of the .357's reputation for "stopping power"!
Light, fast handling, and very low recoil, it may be the very best "all around" rifle you could own. If you don't have a lever action to complement your wheelguns, you're missing out on a whole lot of fun - and utility as well.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Following the safety rules religiously
Tuesday, October 02,
2007
In last week's
article, I mentioned that there was
an ancient religious principle that can help keep you safe from
firearms accidents. Allow me to digress for just a moment to give
you the necessary background.
As you may know, Orthodox Jews have a rather rigorous set of rules that they follow. According to their tradition, there are 613 commandments in the Torah (their Bible, which consists of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) Imagine trying to keep track of, let alone follow, 613 commandments!
To make the job easier and to prevent the unintentional transgression of a commandment, they have a concept called gezeirah, which is explained as "building a fence around the Torah." This idea, which goes back roughly 800 years, refers to the additional precepts that one should follow to avoid even coming close to violating a commandment itself. They supply a sort of early warning system; if you know that you've broken the lesser rule, you know that you're in danger of violating the more sacred one.
Now I'm not saying that everyone should run out and become Orthodox Jews (you'd have to give up Saturday morning cartoons and pepperoni pizza, for starters), but the concept of a "fence" around a core set of rules is as good for keeping us physically safe as it is for safeguarding their spiritual well-being.
So, if our overriding precepts are the Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
These additional rules don't relieve you of the need for always following the Three Commandments, and are never to be considered any exception to any of them. They are a supplement. They provide one extra guard, one extra layer of security, before you're put into a situation where the "fail-safe" of the Commandments is all that stands between you and grievous injury. They set up an attitude, a frame of mind, that makes an accident all the less likely.
For instance, I have my own fence: my shop is a sterile area, meaning that there is no live ammunition in the shop area proper. (Need I mention that there are no exceptions?) I still follow the Three Commandments, mind you, but following the rule of no live ammo in the shop area makes the constant handling lots of guns even safer.
Now go and sin - ballistically speaking - no more!
-=[ Grant ]=-
As you may know, Orthodox Jews have a rather rigorous set of rules that they follow. According to their tradition, there are 613 commandments in the Torah (their Bible, which consists of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) Imagine trying to keep track of, let alone follow, 613 commandments!
To make the job easier and to prevent the unintentional transgression of a commandment, they have a concept called gezeirah, which is explained as "building a fence around the Torah." This idea, which goes back roughly 800 years, refers to the additional precepts that one should follow to avoid even coming close to violating a commandment itself. They supply a sort of early warning system; if you know that you've broken the lesser rule, you know that you're in danger of violating the more sacred one.
Now I'm not saying that everyone should run out and become Orthodox Jews (you'd have to give up Saturday morning cartoons and pepperoni pizza, for starters), but the concept of a "fence" around a core set of rules is as good for keeping us physically safe as it is for safeguarding their spiritual well-being.
So, if our overriding precepts are the Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
What kinds of rules might constitute our "fence"? Well, they might include the "Seven Rules of Dry-Fire":Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and the backstop behind it.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
The NRA has a poster of 10 or 12 firearms rules that could constitute another fence, and I'm sure you'll find more. Some may be very general, others may be specific to the range you're using or the particular shooting activity in which you're participating.- Select the proper time and place (alone, no distractions, safe backstop).
- Remove all live ammunition from your training area (including those in your own gun and the gun that you will use for dry fire).
- Go into “practice mode” state of mind. Say out loud: “This is practice time, I am going to practice now.”
- Perform practice.
- When practice is over, go into “reality mode.” Say out loud: “Practice is over, this is real.”
- Put the gun into the condition in which it is normally kept.
- Put the gun away immediately (secured).
These additional rules don't relieve you of the need for always following the Three Commandments, and are never to be considered any exception to any of them. They are a supplement. They provide one extra guard, one extra layer of security, before you're put into a situation where the "fail-safe" of the Commandments is all that stands between you and grievous injury. They set up an attitude, a frame of mind, that makes an accident all the less likely.
For instance, I have my own fence: my shop is a sterile area, meaning that there is no live ammunition in the shop area proper. (Need I mention that there are no exceptions?) I still follow the Three Commandments, mind you, but following the rule of no live ammo in the shop area makes the constant handling lots of guns even safer.
Now go and sin - ballistically speaking - no more!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On safety
Thursday, September 27,
2007
A reader alerted me to this thread over at GlockTalk, where a debate about the first of Jeff Cooper's "Four Rules of Gun Safety" is raging. Specifically, the argument centers on the allowable "exceptions" to Rule #1: "All guns are always loaded" (or, alternatively, "Treat all guns as if they were loaded.")
I feel entitled to comment, inasmuch as the observance of said rule by gunsmiths has been invoked as one of the "exceptions." I take exception to that exception, and in fact take exception to the very notion of exceptions! Allow me to explain, and perhaps start some exceptional controversy of my own.
To be blunt: I don't like Rule #1. In fact, I believe that it is not just unnecessary, but that it actually sets people up to have accidents. I don't believe it makes anyone safer - I contend that it has the opposite effect.
It boils down to this: people do stupid things with guns that they perceive are unloaded. (Re-read that line, focusing on the word "perceive.") Once people have convinced themselves that a gun is unloaded, they treat it differently. That is where accidents occur.
The trouble with Rule #1 is that it encourages such shoddy behavior.
Follow me here: "treat all guns as if they were loaded" tacitly admits that there are, in fact, two states for a firearm - loaded and unloaded. If there were not an unloaded state, it would not be necessary to admonish someone to treat a gun "as if" it were in the loaded state, would it? If unloaded guns did not exist, the statement would make no sense. Therefore, the phrase itself establishes that there exists such a thing as an unloaded gun. Clear so far?
While Rule #1 logically admits that there is such a thing as an unloaded gun, it asks us to pretend that it doesn't really exist. This is important, as the rule only makes sense if the state of being 'unloaded' exists, but it implores us to make believe that such a state doesn't really exist. This situation is called cognitive dissonance: holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. It's a state of mind that humans don't tolerate all that well.
If one accepts the fallacy that an unloaded state doesn't exist, it becomes clear in the mind that the remaining three rules apply only to loaded guns. After all, the first rule says that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun; therefore, the other three rules can apply only to loaded guns, because - remember! - unloaded guns "don't exist."
Here's where that cognitive dissonance thing comes back to bite us. The human mind cannot maintain two contradictory concepts ("there is such a thing as an unloaded gun, but it doesn't exist because all guns are always loaded") without resolving them in some fashion. The way that most (if not all) people apparently resolve this is to apply the rules to all guns, unless they've convinced themselves that the gun in question isn't loaded.
In other words, to resolve the logical conflict that Rule #1 establishes, the mind translates it to say "treat all guns as if they are loaded, unless you've verified that they aren't." The other three rules are tossed right out the window, because they obviously don't apply to unloaded guns!
See how this comes about? If not, re-read the preceding paragraphs.
That, gentle readers, is the crux of the problem! The sad side of Rule #1 is that it implies once you've verified a gun is unloaded, the rest of the rules don't apply to it; you may handle it differently. That's when the accidents come, and is why I say that people do stupid things with guns that they think are unloaded.
Proof? Easy: it is axiomatic that all gun accidents occur with unloaded guns. Those are guns that people had convinced themselves were not in the loaded state, and therefore didn't fall under the rest of the rules. No matter what the experience or training level of the person involved, "I thought it was unloaded" is the first excuse out of their mouths when something bad happens.
Need more? Here's an interactive proof: go into any gun store, and watch as customers (and often the counter clerks) sweep muzzles over everyone in the store. Now complain to a clerk about the shoddy practice; I guarantee the first thing you'll hear from his or her mouth is "don't worry, it's not loaded."
Still not convinced? Ask Massad Ayoob to tell you the tragic story of a well regarded and highly experienced competition shooter who accidentally killed his wife - with an "unloaded" gun, of course. My contention is that he followed Rule #1 like most people, but that its logical failings caused him to treat the gun differently because he was sure it was unloaded. The result was sadly inevitable.
This is why the forum debate runs so many pages, and ultimately devolves into the attitude "of course, Rule #1 doesn't apply to experienced shooters, who understand what the exceptions are." I'm sorry, folks, but I believe that any safety rule that implies or encourages "exceptions" - experienced operator or no - is a "rule" that should be thrown out.
One of the best shooting instructors I know - Georges Rahbani - has done just that. He acknowledged the problem and dealt with the issue by eliminating what I'll call "Traditional Rule #1" from his curriculum. Instead, he teaches that any and all guns, loaded or unloaded, are treated to the same standards, which he calls The Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
There are no exceptions, and thus less chance for the accidents that usually result from them.Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and of where your bullets will land.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
These rules build on and cover for each other; should someone accidentally violate one of them, the other two remain operative to prevent an injury. The goal of gun rules is to prevent injury or death, to the shooter or others; if one follows these rules without exception, whether the gun is loaded or not, it will reduce that risk to the lowest probability.
As you might guess, in my line of work the chances of a negligent discharge are somewhat higher than usual. Consequently, my interest in the safety rules is higher than usual! The online debate mentions that gunsmiths must, out of necessity, violate the Traditional Rule #1 and thus don't need to follow the other rules.
Not in MY shop, bunky!
I follow the Three Rules as codified above. I don't point a gun (any assembly capable of igniting a cartridge) at anything I'm not willing to shoot. That means, in my case, a solid concrete wall in the back of my hillside shop. Because of that, I know what my target is, and what the backstop is. Finally, I don't put my finger into the triggerguard until my sights are on target (the gun is pointing at that backstop.) Yes, all the time and every time; I'm rather fond of my various body parts, and desire to retain them in full operating condition!
I think that's enough pot-stirring for one day. Next time, we'll see how an ancient religious principle can help to reinforce the constant observance of the safety rules.
-=[ Grant ]=-
What I did on my summer vacation
Wednesday, September 05,
2007
Well, that's an easy story: I didn't have a summer vacation! I did, however, take part of Labor Day off and head to the range. (You were wondering why there was no post on Monday? Did you really miss me?)
You see, I don't get to shoot much any more - at least in the sense of being able to sit down, concentrate on one thing, and just enjoy myself. When I go to the range, it's always with a half-dozen client guns, each of which needs to have 50 rounds of test ammo put through it. The order of those days is "get in, get out, get back to work." It's not at all fun, it's work. Seriously. Quit laughing!
Monday was different. I went to the range with a friend and just enjoyed myself. (Okay, I did have a client's gun to test - but that went pretty quickly.) I got a chance to play my favorite game: see how many shots I can place on the 200 meter metallic ram target, using a snub-nose revolver, from standing, shooting double action only. Yes, it can be done, though admittedly a good result is a round or two per cylinder connecting. The rest will generally hit just a tad low, because it's a bit difficult to estimate holdover when the barrel of the gun is obscuring the target.
My friend was shooting a Ruger New Model Single Six with the .22WMR cylinder installed. He is a phenomenal shooter, and has always been unhappy with the groups from this particular gun. At 15 yards it would print patterns of 4 or 5 inches in diameter, no matter what ammo was put through it. The poor performance wasn't limited to this example, either - this was the replacement he purchased for the first example, which would do no better! To say he was disappointed with the Single Six is a massive understatement.
He figured that he couldn't possibly make the situation any worse, so he examined the gun with an eye to figuring out what was wrong. He notice that the barrel crown was slightly off center and out of square (not unusual, sad to say, with Ruger.) He took a 45-degree chamfering cutter and made a deep, properly centered crown on the barrel.
The results were night-and-day. The gun, which formerly produced groups that my shotgun would beat, now puts rounds on target with all the holes touching. At one point, we stood in front of the targets and I said "you know, we really should have kept the old targets so that we could make a before-and-after picture!" Another lost opportunity...
The muzzle crown is a phenomenally important contributor to accuracy in both handguns and rifles. It is the last thing that the bullet touches, and if it is nicked, off center or out of square accuracy will suffer. That's why I closely inspect the crown on every gun that comes in, and if I think that recrowning will help I'll suggest to the client that it be done. It isn't always needed, but it can pay huge dividends when it is!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 4 - Deconstructing a good design
Monday, August 27,
2007
As promised in the
last installment, today we'll be taking a
look at one iconic revolver and discover how it follows the design
principles we've explored.
The Colt Python easily makes just about everyone's "top 5 revolvers" list. Much of its popularity is due to its gilt-edged accuracy and superb out-of-box action (though, of course, it can always be better. This has been an obvious plug.) However, it's drop-dead-gorgeous looks are no doubt a huge part of the reputation it enjoys.
So "right" is the look of the Python that S&W paid it the honor (though they'll deny it) of copying the distinctive barrel profile in their "L" frame guns. They couldn't get the rest of the gun, though, and that's sad - because, as we'll see, the Python's appearance is a function of the whole gun. (Before you shoot off that hate email, understand that the 686 series are pretty good looking guns in their own right; it's just that they don't achieve the high level of design excellence that the Python does. Keep reading, and hopefully you'll begin to understand why.)
We're using a typical 4-inch Python as our example, since it is not only the most common, but also the best looking of the various Python incarnations.
What do we see when we look at the Python?
The first principle we learned about is proportion - the relationship of elements to each other, and of the whole design, in all measurable aspects.The 4-inch version is near ideal; the barrel, which often looks skinny on other guns, has sufficient volume to hold its own against the cylinder and frame; in fact, one gets the feeling that if the barrel were to be compressed lengthwise, its width would grow proportionally to end up the same dimension as the cylinder. The trigger and triggerguard are perfectly proportioned to each other, and the combination to the frame. Note the hammer tang; having a large pad for easy cocking could have made the hammer proportionally too large for the rest of the design. Through judicious thinning and shaping, the designers made a hammer that complimented the design rather than stood apart from it.
Closely related to proportion, we learned, is the concept of balance, or of visual equilibrium. Here again the Python design simply shines. The Python's gripframe, often criticized for flaring too much, gives needed visual balance to the heavy lugged barrel and frame. The gun has a visual center of balance right in the center of the gun. Contributing to this is the barrel's vent rib; were that top rib solid, it wouldn't look as balanced as it does. Take, for example, the S&W copy:
Without the vents in the barrel, it simply looks front heavy compared to the Colt original; there is a feeling that it will tip forward, while the Python doesn't. (That huge front sight ramp doesn't help, either.)
Eye movement in the Python design is almost classic. If we start at the muzzle, the lines of the barrel - repeating between the lug, the central portion, and the rib - serve to draw the eye toward the cylinder. Once there, the pointed ends of the flutes send the gaze to the cylinder release, whose shape directs the eye to the hammer tang. This is were the design shows a particular genius: the gentle curve and overall shape of the hammer directs the eye in a clockwise spiral to the grips, where their shape sends the gaze to the trigger. The strongly curved trigger - much more curved than on any other brand of revolver - is a sort of "ski jump" that propels the eye back to the barrel.
Note especially the cut of the frame under the barrel down to the triggerguard, and compare it to the S&W. Note how the Python has just a bit of an angular cut with just a hint of curvature, which serves to visually lighten the gun and give it a "flying" feeling. It also serves to help redirect the eye from the trigger back to the muzzle; the S&W, in contrast, looks "blocky", far less graceful, and stops the eye dead at that point. Design is often about such "minor" details!
Which brings us to emphasis, or design elements that arrest the eye without causing visual fixation. It is a design touch that causes the gaze to linger, rather than stop. It's terribly easy for the eye to leave a revolver at the hammer or muzzle, because those are points to which the eye tends to be sent by the barrel and cylinder combination. That gorgeous Python hammer hammer begs to be looked at, but it isn't so overwhelming that the viewer's gaze ends at that point; it serves to slow the eye down, then redirect the gaze to the next element. Were it larger or smaller, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. It is a perfect example of design emphasis, as is the thumb latch that slows the eye down just enough to make sure it doesn't miss the hammer spur.
The front sight shape - and the barrel vents - tend to keep that from happening at the front. If we look back at the S&W picture, you'll notice that the front sight ramp tends to serve as a launch point unto itself, sending the eye right off the front sight into space. On the Python, the sight is enough to stop the eye from taking off into the hinterlands, but not so much that it becomes a stopping or launching point on its own. The vents are a point of contrast, being quite angular in comparison to the smooth curves of the rest of the revolver. That contrast is just enough to catch the eye, but not enough to look out of place or in conflict with the rest of the design elements. (As we'll see in the next part of this series, making a contrast without creating visual dichotomy is a tough task - and not always achieved.)
Finally, when we look at the Python we see an overall unity, the feeling that every element is working to support the overall design. Achieving unity starts with the finish (which is a point of emphasis all by itself.) That deep, glassy "Royal Blue" finish for which the Python is famed is a strong component that ties together all of the elements. It's not the only unifying feature, however!
The shape of the thumb latch repeats the shape of the cylinder flutes, which themselves appear to be continuous from the barrel lug. (So good is that combination, when you look at the gun as a whole it almost seems to be one solid piece of steel from the muzzle to the end of that latch.) Note too how the barrel cross-section matches the frame contours where the barrel is attached, and how the contour of the frame under the hammer is reminiscent of the curve of the triggerguard. (Take a look at the S&W; note how that same curve is much shallower, and doesn't really recall that of any other part of the frame.) Even the points where the triggerguard meet the frame are identical front and rear, which augments that feeling of cohesion.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. One must look at revolver design not just as a series of parts, but also at how those parts work together to produce a design at which the eye can't seem to stop looking. The Colt Python is, in that regard, the ne plus ultra of revolvers.
In the next installment, we'll look at designs gone awry, and find out why some guns are just plain ugly. Until then, always remember: life is too short to carry (or shoot) an ugly gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Colt Python easily makes just about everyone's "top 5 revolvers" list. Much of its popularity is due to its gilt-edged accuracy and superb out-of-box action (though, of course, it can always be better. This has been an obvious plug.) However, it's drop-dead-gorgeous looks are no doubt a huge part of the reputation it enjoys.
So "right" is the look of the Python that S&W paid it the honor (though they'll deny it) of copying the distinctive barrel profile in their "L" frame guns. They couldn't get the rest of the gun, though, and that's sad - because, as we'll see, the Python's appearance is a function of the whole gun. (Before you shoot off that hate email, understand that the 686 series are pretty good looking guns in their own right; it's just that they don't achieve the high level of design excellence that the Python does. Keep reading, and hopefully you'll begin to understand why.)
We're using a typical 4-inch Python as our example, since it is not only the most common, but also the best looking of the various Python incarnations.
What do we see when we look at the Python?
The first principle we learned about is proportion - the relationship of elements to each other, and of the whole design, in all measurable aspects.The 4-inch version is near ideal; the barrel, which often looks skinny on other guns, has sufficient volume to hold its own against the cylinder and frame; in fact, one gets the feeling that if the barrel were to be compressed lengthwise, its width would grow proportionally to end up the same dimension as the cylinder. The trigger and triggerguard are perfectly proportioned to each other, and the combination to the frame. Note the hammer tang; having a large pad for easy cocking could have made the hammer proportionally too large for the rest of the design. Through judicious thinning and shaping, the designers made a hammer that complimented the design rather than stood apart from it.
Closely related to proportion, we learned, is the concept of balance, or of visual equilibrium. Here again the Python design simply shines. The Python's gripframe, often criticized for flaring too much, gives needed visual balance to the heavy lugged barrel and frame. The gun has a visual center of balance right in the center of the gun. Contributing to this is the barrel's vent rib; were that top rib solid, it wouldn't look as balanced as it does. Take, for example, the S&W copy:
Without the vents in the barrel, it simply looks front heavy compared to the Colt original; there is a feeling that it will tip forward, while the Python doesn't. (That huge front sight ramp doesn't help, either.)
Eye movement in the Python design is almost classic. If we start at the muzzle, the lines of the barrel - repeating between the lug, the central portion, and the rib - serve to draw the eye toward the cylinder. Once there, the pointed ends of the flutes send the gaze to the cylinder release, whose shape directs the eye to the hammer tang. This is were the design shows a particular genius: the gentle curve and overall shape of the hammer directs the eye in a clockwise spiral to the grips, where their shape sends the gaze to the trigger. The strongly curved trigger - much more curved than on any other brand of revolver - is a sort of "ski jump" that propels the eye back to the barrel.
Note especially the cut of the frame under the barrel down to the triggerguard, and compare it to the S&W. Note how the Python has just a bit of an angular cut with just a hint of curvature, which serves to visually lighten the gun and give it a "flying" feeling. It also serves to help redirect the eye from the trigger back to the muzzle; the S&W, in contrast, looks "blocky", far less graceful, and stops the eye dead at that point. Design is often about such "minor" details!
Which brings us to emphasis, or design elements that arrest the eye without causing visual fixation. It is a design touch that causes the gaze to linger, rather than stop. It's terribly easy for the eye to leave a revolver at the hammer or muzzle, because those are points to which the eye tends to be sent by the barrel and cylinder combination. That gorgeous Python hammer hammer begs to be looked at, but it isn't so overwhelming that the viewer's gaze ends at that point; it serves to slow the eye down, then redirect the gaze to the next element. Were it larger or smaller, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. It is a perfect example of design emphasis, as is the thumb latch that slows the eye down just enough to make sure it doesn't miss the hammer spur.
The front sight shape - and the barrel vents - tend to keep that from happening at the front. If we look back at the S&W picture, you'll notice that the front sight ramp tends to serve as a launch point unto itself, sending the eye right off the front sight into space. On the Python, the sight is enough to stop the eye from taking off into the hinterlands, but not so much that it becomes a stopping or launching point on its own. The vents are a point of contrast, being quite angular in comparison to the smooth curves of the rest of the revolver. That contrast is just enough to catch the eye, but not enough to look out of place or in conflict with the rest of the design elements. (As we'll see in the next part of this series, making a contrast without creating visual dichotomy is a tough task - and not always achieved.)
Finally, when we look at the Python we see an overall unity, the feeling that every element is working to support the overall design. Achieving unity starts with the finish (which is a point of emphasis all by itself.) That deep, glassy "Royal Blue" finish for which the Python is famed is a strong component that ties together all of the elements. It's not the only unifying feature, however!
The shape of the thumb latch repeats the shape of the cylinder flutes, which themselves appear to be continuous from the barrel lug. (So good is that combination, when you look at the gun as a whole it almost seems to be one solid piece of steel from the muzzle to the end of that latch.) Note too how the barrel cross-section matches the frame contours where the barrel is attached, and how the contour of the frame under the hammer is reminiscent of the curve of the triggerguard. (Take a look at the S&W; note how that same curve is much shallower, and doesn't really recall that of any other part of the frame.) Even the points where the triggerguard meet the frame are identical front and rear, which augments that feeling of cohesion.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. One must look at revolver design not just as a series of parts, but also at how those parts work together to produce a design at which the eye can't seem to stop looking. The Colt Python is, in that regard, the ne plus ultra of revolvers.
In the next installment, we'll look at designs gone awry, and find out why some guns are just plain ugly. Until then, always remember: life is too short to carry (or shoot) an ugly gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wednesday mind dump
Wednesday, August 15,
2007
Let's clean out the ol'
noggin:
-- Neat little "preaching to the choir" site called What kind of person supports gun control?
-- I've been thinking that the reason revolvers don't seem to capture much attention any more is because no "high speed low drag" kind of people use them. Unfortunately, pointing out that France's GIGN used to issue revolvers probably isn't going to have the desired effect!
-- Ruger's QC continues to be hit-and-miss. Just this week, I got in a new 3" GP100 with the barrel screwed in too far (canted to one side), and a 4" example that didn't time correctly. I continue to recommend them as good base guns for custom projects, because once they're sorted out they make a superb custom - and you'll never wear one out. Probably best, though, to buy in person, and inspect carefully.
-- I get an unexpectedly large number of inquiries as to what I use as a bore cleaner. I've used the homebrew Ed's Red formula for years, and have found nothing else that I like more. (I do use Hoppe's 7.62 formula for jacket fouling removal, however.)
-- The number of Detective Specials that are still in use as police backup and off-duty guns amazes me. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get at least one email or call from a LEO who is still using one in a secondary role. I've said it before, I'll say it again: S&W is missing a big market for the small 6-shot revolver. (Colt, of course, is missing out too - after all, they hold the designs for the Magnum Carry, but they don't want to make revolvers any more.)
-- I'm working on pictures for a new entry on the Recent Projects page. I won't divulge any more than it is, for once, not stainless. Stay tuned.
-- A non-relevant entry: got the latest versions of iLife and iWork last week. Verdict: Pages is finally a heavy hitter, Numbers is really cool, and the latest version of iPhoto is worth the cost all by itself. It's a great time to be a Mac user!
That's it for today. Boy, am I glad to get all of that out of my head!
-=[ Grant ]=-
-- Neat little "preaching to the choir" site called What kind of person supports gun control?
-- I've been thinking that the reason revolvers don't seem to capture much attention any more is because no "high speed low drag" kind of people use them. Unfortunately, pointing out that France's GIGN used to issue revolvers probably isn't going to have the desired effect!
-- Ruger's QC continues to be hit-and-miss. Just this week, I got in a new 3" GP100 with the barrel screwed in too far (canted to one side), and a 4" example that didn't time correctly. I continue to recommend them as good base guns for custom projects, because once they're sorted out they make a superb custom - and you'll never wear one out. Probably best, though, to buy in person, and inspect carefully.
-- I get an unexpectedly large number of inquiries as to what I use as a bore cleaner. I've used the homebrew Ed's Red formula for years, and have found nothing else that I like more. (I do use Hoppe's 7.62 formula for jacket fouling removal, however.)
-- The number of Detective Specials that are still in use as police backup and off-duty guns amazes me. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get at least one email or call from a LEO who is still using one in a secondary role. I've said it before, I'll say it again: S&W is missing a big market for the small 6-shot revolver. (Colt, of course, is missing out too - after all, they hold the designs for the Magnum Carry, but they don't want to make revolvers any more.)
-- I'm working on pictures for a new entry on the Recent Projects page. I won't divulge any more than it is, for once, not stainless. Stay tuned.
-- A non-relevant entry: got the latest versions of iLife and iWork last week. Verdict: Pages is finally a heavy hitter, Numbers is really cool, and the latest version of iPhoto is worth the cost all by itself. It's a great time to be a Mac user!
That's it for today. Boy, am I glad to get all of that out of my head!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 3 - Principles of design: Movement, emphasis, and unity
Monday, August 13,
2007
In
Part 2, we looked at the ideas of
proportion and balance as they relate to revolver design. Today,
let's look at some more concepts of good design.
Movement seems like an odd concept for an inanimate object, but it doesn't really deal with the object itself - movement instead refers to the path your eyes follow as you look at the gun.
Movement is important to control in a design, because a designer doesn't want the viewer's eyes to fixate on on detail to the exclusion of the rest, nor to keep moving off of the design into space. Both can (and do) happen!
Movement can be directed by edges and lines, by shapes, and the skilled use of color and texture. For instance, a natural line on a revolver is the barrel; it naturally directs the eyes back to the cylinder, where the flutes further direct the eye along the frame. The same movement happens in reverse. However, that movement needs to be arrested at some point, so that the eye doesn't wander off the design into open space at either end of the design. At the barrel end, the front sight serves to arrest a redirect the eye back along the barrel; at the other end, the hammer can do the same thing.
Those points of focus or interruption comprise the principle of emphasis. Points of emphasis are those which most strongly draw the viewers attention. There is usually a main point of emphasis, though there may be smaller points in other parts of the design. The eye should linger on a point of emphasis, then continue through the design. The idea is to hold the viewer's interest without causing fixation.
Emphasis can be achieved with repetition of color, shape, or texture; through contrast, again of color, shape, or texture; a change in scale or proportion; a position in a strategic location; or through intricacy, or the details of an element. The front sight is a good example of emphasis due to location, while a checkered cylinder release can be an example of intricacy.
Finally, all of the design principles should have as their end goal in unity of design. Unity is the feeling of harmony between all parts of the design; it should create a sense of completeness, of wholeness, of a solidity in the design. There should be a sense that all of the parts are working together to achieve a common result.
Consistency is the watchword of unity, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a contrast - perish the thought! As we learned in the discussion about emphasis, there needs to be some contrast in a design; unity is not to be confused with sameness!
However, contrast for emphasis is a one thing, while contrast that disturbs the unity is quite another. Contrast that supports the function or underlying concept of the design is not the same as contrast for contrast's sake. For instance, a matte part where the others are polished; a checkered part where the others are flat; a round part where others are square, are all examples of contrast for emphasis. Combining all of those contrasts in one part, however, produces disharmony, as does using all of those types of contrast willy-nilly across the whole design. The former promotes unity, the latter does not!
Unity is obvious, and perhaps the first thing we see when looking at a revolver. In a small canvas like a revolver, attention to unity is extremely important. As we'll see later in this series, it isn't always followed!
There is nothing like learning through example, so in the next installment we'll take a look at one iconic revolver from the perspective of these principles.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Movement seems like an odd concept for an inanimate object, but it doesn't really deal with the object itself - movement instead refers to the path your eyes follow as you look at the gun.
Movement is important to control in a design, because a designer doesn't want the viewer's eyes to fixate on on detail to the exclusion of the rest, nor to keep moving off of the design into space. Both can (and do) happen!
Movement can be directed by edges and lines, by shapes, and the skilled use of color and texture. For instance, a natural line on a revolver is the barrel; it naturally directs the eyes back to the cylinder, where the flutes further direct the eye along the frame. The same movement happens in reverse. However, that movement needs to be arrested at some point, so that the eye doesn't wander off the design into open space at either end of the design. At the barrel end, the front sight serves to arrest a redirect the eye back along the barrel; at the other end, the hammer can do the same thing.
Those points of focus or interruption comprise the principle of emphasis. Points of emphasis are those which most strongly draw the viewers attention. There is usually a main point of emphasis, though there may be smaller points in other parts of the design. The eye should linger on a point of emphasis, then continue through the design. The idea is to hold the viewer's interest without causing fixation.
Emphasis can be achieved with repetition of color, shape, or texture; through contrast, again of color, shape, or texture; a change in scale or proportion; a position in a strategic location; or through intricacy, or the details of an element. The front sight is a good example of emphasis due to location, while a checkered cylinder release can be an example of intricacy.
Finally, all of the design principles should have as their end goal in unity of design. Unity is the feeling of harmony between all parts of the design; it should create a sense of completeness, of wholeness, of a solidity in the design. There should be a sense that all of the parts are working together to achieve a common result.
Consistency is the watchword of unity, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a contrast - perish the thought! As we learned in the discussion about emphasis, there needs to be some contrast in a design; unity is not to be confused with sameness!
However, contrast for emphasis is a one thing, while contrast that disturbs the unity is quite another. Contrast that supports the function or underlying concept of the design is not the same as contrast for contrast's sake. For instance, a matte part where the others are polished; a checkered part where the others are flat; a round part where others are square, are all examples of contrast for emphasis. Combining all of those contrasts in one part, however, produces disharmony, as does using all of those types of contrast willy-nilly across the whole design. The former promotes unity, the latter does not!
Unity is obvious, and perhaps the first thing we see when looking at a revolver. In a small canvas like a revolver, attention to unity is extremely important. As we'll see later in this series, it isn't always followed!
There is nothing like learning through example, so in the next installment we'll take a look at one iconic revolver from the perspective of these principles.
-=[ Grant ]=-
The case for DAO
Wednesday, August 08,
2007
In the Gunsmithing pages of
this site, I endorse the practice of rendering defensive revolvers
double action only (DAO.) Many people ask why, and I thought I'd
give you my thoughts on the matter.
Let's start with the usual argument for retaining single action capability, which I call the "Walter Mitty scenario": the mythical need for making precise long range head shots. Let's face it, folks - this just never happens in real life!
However, let's say that you're having a Jack Bauer kind of day and are now facing just this scenario. Mightn't that be just a tad bit stressful? Wouldn't that make you even more nervous, knowing that you'll be trying the toughest possible handgun shot under the worst possible conditions? With all that adrenaline now flowing through your system, is this really the time that you want a light, short trigger pull that is very easy to accidentally release? Not me, bunky!
This is the reason for DAO: light single action triggers are great on the calm shooting range, but pose a liability risk for unintentional discharges under stress. As Massad Ayoob says, single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools.
Now I I know what you're thinking: "OK, but I promise I'll never use it!" I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but It's been well established over the decades that people tend to do in combat what they do in training.
It's human nature to practice what we're already good at, and to do that which is easiest for us. At the range, it's not uncommon to watch someone shoot a revolver at, say 50 feet and become disenchanted with their groups. At that point, they usually switch to the easier pull of the single action, and shoot that way. This imprints their subconscious to use single action when they are unsure of their abilities, and this may be what they revert to under stress.
Once that act of thumbing back the hammer has become habit, another problem crops up: the Hollywood-inspired (and reinforced) act of cocking the gun to show the bad guy that you "really mean it!" I'll refer you back to the second paragraph, with emphasis.
(Yes, I know you'll promise not to do that either. But if you've told your subconscious that cocking the hammer is accepted shooting technique, do you think it'll ask your conscious mind for permission when the time comes - especially if decades of TV and movies has told it otherwise? Of course not! "Besides", your subconscious thinks, "if Tyne Daly can do it, why can't I?")
Removing the SA capability eliminates the chances of any of this happening. (If you make the conscious decision to carry a gun with SA capability, I recommend that you attend the Lethal Force Institute's "LFI-1" class, where you will learn how to defend that choice - and counter any false claims that may arise from it - in court.)
From a gunsmithing perspective, I've found that eliminating the SA capability can, on some guns (Colt and Dan Wesson), give a bit more leeway in terms of honing the double action. Without the need to worry about the single action sear, the double action can be tuned far more radically than is otherwise possible. In S&W and Ruger guns, reducing the DA pull to the barest minimum (as some request) will result in an unconscionably light SA pull - often below 32 ounces. Eliminating the SA notches means that this ceases to be a worry.
Speaking for myself, I didn't start to shoot DA well until I'd gotten rid of the SA capability completely. True story: one day (many years ago), shortly after transitioning to shooting only revolvers, I was participating in a match (Bianchi type.) I was having trouble with missing those little round steel plates they use for one stage, and it was making me madder and madder. At one point the buzzer sounded, and I drew the gun (a Python) and cocked it for each plate. I downed all of them, but my happiness was shattered by a taunting voice of a 1911 partisan that said "hey, Grant, I've got a gun that does all that for me!"
After that I removed the SA from my revolvers and started shooting DA exclusively. It wasn't long before I was beating the guys (including the loudmouth in question) who were shooting 1911s with crisp single action triggers. It can be done!
If you have any doubt as to how accurately a double action can be shot, go watch your local PPC match - there's one just about everywhere in the country. You'll see lots of folks shooting DAO revolvers at up to 50 yards and producing groups that can be covered by your hand. That should be good enough for any defensive use, and you too can do it with just a bit of practice!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Let's start with the usual argument for retaining single action capability, which I call the "Walter Mitty scenario": the mythical need for making precise long range head shots. Let's face it, folks - this just never happens in real life!
However, let's say that you're having a Jack Bauer kind of day and are now facing just this scenario. Mightn't that be just a tad bit stressful? Wouldn't that make you even more nervous, knowing that you'll be trying the toughest possible handgun shot under the worst possible conditions? With all that adrenaline now flowing through your system, is this really the time that you want a light, short trigger pull that is very easy to accidentally release? Not me, bunky!
This is the reason for DAO: light single action triggers are great on the calm shooting range, but pose a liability risk for unintentional discharges under stress. As Massad Ayoob says, single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools.
Now I I know what you're thinking: "OK, but I promise I'll never use it!" I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but It's been well established over the decades that people tend to do in combat what they do in training.
It's human nature to practice what we're already good at, and to do that which is easiest for us. At the range, it's not uncommon to watch someone shoot a revolver at, say 50 feet and become disenchanted with their groups. At that point, they usually switch to the easier pull of the single action, and shoot that way. This imprints their subconscious to use single action when they are unsure of their abilities, and this may be what they revert to under stress.
Once that act of thumbing back the hammer has become habit, another problem crops up: the Hollywood-inspired (and reinforced) act of cocking the gun to show the bad guy that you "really mean it!" I'll refer you back to the second paragraph, with emphasis.
(Yes, I know you'll promise not to do that either. But if you've told your subconscious that cocking the hammer is accepted shooting technique, do you think it'll ask your conscious mind for permission when the time comes - especially if decades of TV and movies has told it otherwise? Of course not! "Besides", your subconscious thinks, "if Tyne Daly can do it, why can't I?")
Removing the SA capability eliminates the chances of any of this happening. (If you make the conscious decision to carry a gun with SA capability, I recommend that you attend the Lethal Force Institute's "LFI-1" class, where you will learn how to defend that choice - and counter any false claims that may arise from it - in court.)
From a gunsmithing perspective, I've found that eliminating the SA capability can, on some guns (Colt and Dan Wesson), give a bit more leeway in terms of honing the double action. Without the need to worry about the single action sear, the double action can be tuned far more radically than is otherwise possible. In S&W and Ruger guns, reducing the DA pull to the barest minimum (as some request) will result in an unconscionably light SA pull - often below 32 ounces. Eliminating the SA notches means that this ceases to be a worry.
Speaking for myself, I didn't start to shoot DA well until I'd gotten rid of the SA capability completely. True story: one day (many years ago), shortly after transitioning to shooting only revolvers, I was participating in a match (Bianchi type.) I was having trouble with missing those little round steel plates they use for one stage, and it was making me madder and madder. At one point the buzzer sounded, and I drew the gun (a Python) and cocked it for each plate. I downed all of them, but my happiness was shattered by a taunting voice of a 1911 partisan that said "hey, Grant, I've got a gun that does all that for me!"
After that I removed the SA from my revolvers and started shooting DA exclusively. It wasn't long before I was beating the guys (including the loudmouth in question) who were shooting 1911s with crisp single action triggers. It can be done!
If you have any doubt as to how accurately a double action can be shot, go watch your local PPC match - there's one just about everywhere in the country. You'll see lots of folks shooting DAO revolvers at up to 50 yards and producing groups that can be covered by your hand. That should be good enough for any defensive use, and you too can do it with just a bit of practice!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 2 - Principles of design: Proportion and Balance
Monday, August 06,
2007
As I mentioned in
Part
1,
there are some recognized design principles that are universal.
Let's look at some of them.
Proportion is the relationship, in terms of size and scale, among the various parts of a design, and of each element to the design as a whole. Proportion is about measurements: length, width, etc. and how those measurements compare to
Remember that a revolver is a three-dimensional object: proportion is not just about length or width, but also volume. If we were to increase the barrel diameter of a revolver, even a small amount, its proportion to the rest of the gun would change dramatically - possibly more so than a simple increase in length. One could also alter the proportion my using visual tricks to make a part look more "3D" and increasing its visual volume - even if the part is essentially unchanged in physical size!
Proportion also applies to every part on the gun. If we were to increase the size of a hammer spur or triggerguard, it would change the proportions and alter the design. Maybe it would be better, maybe not - but each element has to be judged not just on how it relates to each other element, but how it relates to the entire object. Proportion is all about relationships!
Balance, on the other hand, is the concept of visual equilibrium. When balance is not present, the whole design looks as if it will "fall over" in some direction (if not literally) Achieving visual balance can be done symmetrically, where the elements are arranged equally on each side of an imaginary balance point, or asymmetrically, where the elements on each side of that point are arranged non-identically so that the whole looks balanced.
The latter is kind of a hard concept; imagine a teeter-totter. Balance is made when we have two children of equal size on each end of the beam (symmetrical), but could also be made with one really fat and two really skinny kids on opposite ends, of of one fat and one skinny kid, with the fat kid closer to the balance point and the skinny child at the end of the beam. These are examples of an asymmetrical balance, and the same principles apply to design balance.
The interesting thing is that balance is variable, because it relies on a visual fulcrum for your eyes to focus on, and can be very complicated, because there might be more than one balance point. Let's take an example of varying barrel lengths; radical changes in barrel length might change the visual balance of the gun depending on where your eye finds a fulcrum. In a good design, there might be several such points for your eye to rest on, resulting in good balance with a variety of barrel lengths.
What kinds of things can serve as visual balance points? The cylinder, the triggerguard, the cylinder latch, the recoil shield, and so on. Anything that can serve as a reference point on which to "arrange" other objects is a fulcrum.
Understand that this is distinctly different than physical balance, and it is important to separate the concepts. A great example is the Colt Python; while there are small visual changes in the earliest guns to the latest, the design was essentially unchanged from start to finish. An early 4" example has the same visual balance to a late model, yet the physical balance changed dramatically - because the lug on the earliest models was hollow, giving a distinct rearward weight bias. So, the guns had the same visual balance, but very different physical balances.
Next time, we'll examine some more concepts of design as applied to the revolver!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Proportion is the relationship, in terms of size and scale, among the various parts of a design, and of each element to the design as a whole. Proportion is about measurements: length, width, etc. and how those measurements compare to
Remember that a revolver is a three-dimensional object: proportion is not just about length or width, but also volume. If we were to increase the barrel diameter of a revolver, even a small amount, its proportion to the rest of the gun would change dramatically - possibly more so than a simple increase in length. One could also alter the proportion my using visual tricks to make a part look more "3D" and increasing its visual volume - even if the part is essentially unchanged in physical size!
Proportion also applies to every part on the gun. If we were to increase the size of a hammer spur or triggerguard, it would change the proportions and alter the design. Maybe it would be better, maybe not - but each element has to be judged not just on how it relates to each other element, but how it relates to the entire object. Proportion is all about relationships!
Balance, on the other hand, is the concept of visual equilibrium. When balance is not present, the whole design looks as if it will "fall over" in some direction (if not literally) Achieving visual balance can be done symmetrically, where the elements are arranged equally on each side of an imaginary balance point, or asymmetrically, where the elements on each side of that point are arranged non-identically so that the whole looks balanced.
The latter is kind of a hard concept; imagine a teeter-totter. Balance is made when we have two children of equal size on each end of the beam (symmetrical), but could also be made with one really fat and two really skinny kids on opposite ends, of of one fat and one skinny kid, with the fat kid closer to the balance point and the skinny child at the end of the beam. These are examples of an asymmetrical balance, and the same principles apply to design balance.
The interesting thing is that balance is variable, because it relies on a visual fulcrum for your eyes to focus on, and can be very complicated, because there might be more than one balance point. Let's take an example of varying barrel lengths; radical changes in barrel length might change the visual balance of the gun depending on where your eye finds a fulcrum. In a good design, there might be several such points for your eye to rest on, resulting in good balance with a variety of barrel lengths.
What kinds of things can serve as visual balance points? The cylinder, the triggerguard, the cylinder latch, the recoil shield, and so on. Anything that can serve as a reference point on which to "arrange" other objects is a fulcrum.
Understand that this is distinctly different than physical balance, and it is important to separate the concepts. A great example is the Colt Python; while there are small visual changes in the earliest guns to the latest, the design was essentially unchanged from start to finish. An early 4" example has the same visual balance to a late model, yet the physical balance changed dramatically - because the lug on the earliest models was hollow, giving a distinct rearward weight bias. So, the guns had the same visual balance, but very different physical balances.
Next time, we'll examine some more concepts of design as applied to the revolver!
-=[ Grant ]=-
eBay caves - again
Wednesday, August 01,
2007
eBay has decided that it
will no longer allow listings to sell most gun
parts, citing some amorphous
connection to the Virginia Tech shooting. Jerks.
On the plus side, gunbroker.com and auctionarms.com are going to make more money!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On the plus side, gunbroker.com and auctionarms.com are going to make more money!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 1 - Introduction
Monday, July 30,
2007
What makes one revolver look
better than another? Have you ever stopped to think about the
design cues that make the difference between a classic and an
eminently forgettable gun?
In this series, I'm going to relate my opinions and prejudices regarding revolver design, primarily (though not exclusively) from the standpoint of factory guns. All of the concepts, however, are equally applicable (perhaps "especially applicable") to custom guns.
One thing to keep in mind as you read that these are my opinions, nothing more. I don't claim to be a design guru like, say, Jonathan Ive. What I can claim is to be a casual student of industrial design, and of art in the larger sense. (Growing up with a mother who was an accomplished artist and designer assured that I would understand such things, even if I wasn't terribly creative myself! I guess that's the best description of a critic.)
There exist well accepted design concepts, but that isn't to say that good design is carved in stone; if it were, we could just program robots to spit out our stuff and get some extra sleep! It is in the combination of design elements, with the occasional surprise or personal interpretation, that keeps the process of designing from becoming formulaic.
Some of what is people consider "good design" is really quality of execution. A great design, badly executed, is crap; a less grand design, but well executed, can be superb. Sometimes learning to recognize quality is a necessary prerequisite to appreciating good design.
(Engraving is a good example; I've been to gun shows where there was a good cross section of engraving quality. Invariably those guns with the most coverage get the most attention, but to the trained eye their lack of quality detracts from what might have been a great work of art. In my view, bad engraving is worse than no engraving.)
Finally, remember that 'popular' isn't necessarily the same as 'good'. I dare say that there are far more Velvet Elvii floating around this world than works of Rembrandt, but that hardly makes them equivalent!
Stay tuned for more...
-=[ Grant ]=-
In this series, I'm going to relate my opinions and prejudices regarding revolver design, primarily (though not exclusively) from the standpoint of factory guns. All of the concepts, however, are equally applicable (perhaps "especially applicable") to custom guns.
One thing to keep in mind as you read that these are my opinions, nothing more. I don't claim to be a design guru like, say, Jonathan Ive. What I can claim is to be a casual student of industrial design, and of art in the larger sense. (Growing up with a mother who was an accomplished artist and designer assured that I would understand such things, even if I wasn't terribly creative myself! I guess that's the best description of a critic.)
There exist well accepted design concepts, but that isn't to say that good design is carved in stone; if it were, we could just program robots to spit out our stuff and get some extra sleep! It is in the combination of design elements, with the occasional surprise or personal interpretation, that keeps the process of designing from becoming formulaic.
Some of what is people consider "good design" is really quality of execution. A great design, badly executed, is crap; a less grand design, but well executed, can be superb. Sometimes learning to recognize quality is a necessary prerequisite to appreciating good design.
(Engraving is a good example; I've been to gun shows where there was a good cross section of engraving quality. Invariably those guns with the most coverage get the most attention, but to the trained eye their lack of quality detracts from what might have been a great work of art. In my view, bad engraving is worse than no engraving.)
Finally, remember that 'popular' isn't necessarily the same as 'good'. I dare say that there are far more Velvet Elvii floating around this world than works of Rembrandt, but that hardly makes them equivalent!
Stay tuned for more...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Hump day catch-up
Wednesday, July 25,
2007
Saw this on the news last
night, and my very first thought
was "that can't happen - handguns are banned in the UK!" Guess it
just shows the true futility of such laws. (Check the comments,
though - apparently some people think that they're not going far
enough. There are those in this country who think the same
way.
Even when they admit the laws won't work, they pass them anyway.)
---
Say Uncle alerted me to this...c'mon, you know you've always wanted to shoot a propane tank, just to see what happens.
---
Finally, this isn't really gun related, but is just too funny to ignore. Further comment would seem unnecessary.
---
-=[ Grant ]=-
---
Say Uncle alerted me to this...c'mon, you know you've always wanted to shoot a propane tank, just to see what happens.
---
Finally, this isn't really gun related, but is just too funny to ignore. Further comment would seem unnecessary.
---
-=[ Grant ]=-
What makes for a "favorite" gun?
Monday, July 23,
2007
One day, as I was preparing
to go "out" and run some errands, I grabbed one of my revolvers and
a holster and stuffed both into my pants. (Yes, I had a gun in my
pants and no, I wasn't happy to see someone. Everybody's a
comedian.)
Now, as I was saying...as I tightened my belt, I made the mental note that this gun seemed to be with me more commonly than the others in the safe. For some reason it just seemed "right" to carry it most often.
Why? Was it the size, the weight, the caliber, the color, the...??? I wasn't sure, and I'm still not sure. The choice was made, not on the basis of any one of those traits (or any other), but rather in spite of them. It is the indefinable "rightness" of the thing; it is friendly in some way that I can't quite isolate.
Yet I keep thinking of the thing, every time I put it on. I even consciously decide (on an occasional basis) to carry something else. The substitute is always a fine gun, fully capable of good performance, but on those days I miss my "favorite."
Even if the gun is "right" in every way, it still won't be a "favorite." Good example: a number of years ago, I decided to build the "ultimate" .22LR rifle. I took a Ruger 10/22 (naturally), and replaced just about everything in and on the gun. I intended it to be the most accurate, reliable, and good looking .22 rifle in my safe.
What came out - which I still refer to as "The World's Most Expensive 10/22" - was indeed a superbly accurate, easy shooting, good looking rifle. It is light, handy, has a beautiful walnut stock that fits me perfectly, and a great trigger; in short, everything you could ask for in a .22 rifle.
Why, instead of this terrific little rifle, do I usually grab my early-1950s vintage Marlin 39A - which isn't as light, accurate, or handy as the Ruger? After all that time and effort, why did it not become my "favorite"? In every objective way, it is a better gun, but it seems that specifications alone do not elevate a gun from mere possession to prized status.
I'm thinking about this a lot lately. I feel - or intuit - that if I can capture what makes a "favorite", if I can distill into steel what propels a specific gun for into that position, something special will come of it. I'll let you know how I progress in what is starting to sound like a quest!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Now, as I was saying...as I tightened my belt, I made the mental note that this gun seemed to be with me more commonly than the others in the safe. For some reason it just seemed "right" to carry it most often.
Why? Was it the size, the weight, the caliber, the color, the...??? I wasn't sure, and I'm still not sure. The choice was made, not on the basis of any one of those traits (or any other), but rather in spite of them. It is the indefinable "rightness" of the thing; it is friendly in some way that I can't quite isolate.
Yet I keep thinking of the thing, every time I put it on. I even consciously decide (on an occasional basis) to carry something else. The substitute is always a fine gun, fully capable of good performance, but on those days I miss my "favorite."
Even if the gun is "right" in every way, it still won't be a "favorite." Good example: a number of years ago, I decided to build the "ultimate" .22LR rifle. I took a Ruger 10/22 (naturally), and replaced just about everything in and on the gun. I intended it to be the most accurate, reliable, and good looking .22 rifle in my safe.
What came out - which I still refer to as "The World's Most Expensive 10/22" - was indeed a superbly accurate, easy shooting, good looking rifle. It is light, handy, has a beautiful walnut stock that fits me perfectly, and a great trigger; in short, everything you could ask for in a .22 rifle.
Why, instead of this terrific little rifle, do I usually grab my early-1950s vintage Marlin 39A - which isn't as light, accurate, or handy as the Ruger? After all that time and effort, why did it not become my "favorite"? In every objective way, it is a better gun, but it seems that specifications alone do not elevate a gun from mere possession to prized status.
I'm thinking about this a lot lately. I feel - or intuit - that if I can capture what makes a "favorite", if I can distill into steel what propels a specific gun for into that position, something special will come of it. I'll let you know how I progress in what is starting to sound like a quest!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Should you cooperate with criminals?
Wednesday, July 18,
2007
Time and again, the party
line of law enforcement is to cooperate with criminals, to give
them what they want, and they in turn will politely leave you
alone.
This is occasionally true, but there are many times when it is not. How do you tell the difference, and what should you do?
Over at the AnarchAngel, Chris Byrne has an absolutely terrific article on how to determine when you should resist, and gives you the hows and the whys.
This is such an important topic, I urge you to read it, print it out, and keep it in your training documents file. (You do have one, don't you??)
-=[ Grant ]=-
This is occasionally true, but there are many times when it is not. How do you tell the difference, and what should you do?
Over at the AnarchAngel, Chris Byrne has an absolutely terrific article on how to determine when you should resist, and gives you the hows and the whys.
This is such an important topic, I urge you to read it, print it out, and keep it in your training documents file. (You do have one, don't you??)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Cleaning up the "pending topics" folder...
Monday, July 09,
2007
Tam profiled another
revolver at The Arms Room this weekend. Her Smith & Wesson .44 Hand Ejector 2nd
Model was made in 1920, and has
period mother-of-pearl grips. She calls it a "tired" piece - and it
is - but I like honest wear on an old gun. Great historical
information in the article, as always.
---
I've played around a bit with the Steyr "M" series and their "trapezoidal" sights, and have yet to form a strong opinion one way or the other. (My wife loves them, and Massad Ayoob thinks they're neat, so apparently they have some utility - despite being relegated to the top of a self-shucking firearm. Blech.)
Apparently the Steyr effort wasn't lost on the folks at SureSight, who've developed a sight that is obviously inspired by Steyr's (though by no means a copy.) Interesting - too bad they don't make them to fit revolvers, as I'd like to try them out. (Just because I shoot a revolver, and have something of a reputation as a Luddite where firearm sights are concerned, doesn't mean that I'm totally opposed to something that will help me shoot better. They simply have to show me some marked advantage over what I have now!)
---
Speaking of sights, the Israeli company NorthEast Technologies (NET) has developed what they are not-so-modestly referring to as a "revolutionary" handgun sight. Basically, it's a long fiber optic that mounts to the rear of the slide, replacing the front and rear sights. (It reminds me of the late and hardly lamented ASP Guttersnipe that was mounted on their namesake modified S&W 39 autpistol.) Simply place the glowing red dot on the target, and pull the trigger - at least, that's how NET says it works. Hmmm...where have I heard that one before?
Still, if it works well and has no major disadvantages, it may prove to be useful for some folks. Like the SureSight, I'll believe it when I see it. (Maybe I was actually born in the "Show Me" state?)
-=[ Grant ]=-
---
I've played around a bit with the Steyr "M" series and their "trapezoidal" sights, and have yet to form a strong opinion one way or the other. (My wife loves them, and Massad Ayoob thinks they're neat, so apparently they have some utility - despite being relegated to the top of a self-shucking firearm. Blech.)
Apparently the Steyr effort wasn't lost on the folks at SureSight, who've developed a sight that is obviously inspired by Steyr's (though by no means a copy.) Interesting - too bad they don't make them to fit revolvers, as I'd like to try them out. (Just because I shoot a revolver, and have something of a reputation as a Luddite where firearm sights are concerned, doesn't mean that I'm totally opposed to something that will help me shoot better. They simply have to show me some marked advantage over what I have now!)
---
Speaking of sights, the Israeli company NorthEast Technologies (NET) has developed what they are not-so-modestly referring to as a "revolutionary" handgun sight. Basically, it's a long fiber optic that mounts to the rear of the slide, replacing the front and rear sights. (It reminds me of the late and hardly lamented ASP Guttersnipe that was mounted on their namesake modified S&W 39 autpistol.) Simply place the glowing red dot on the target, and pull the trigger - at least, that's how NET says it works. Hmmm...where have I heard that one before?
Still, if it works well and has no major disadvantages, it may prove to be useful for some folks. Like the SureSight, I'll believe it when I see it. (Maybe I was actually born in the "Show Me" state?)
-=[ Grant ]=-
How NOT to spend your training dollars
Monday, July 02,
2007
I admit up front that I'm
not a professional firearms/tactics instructor. I do some assistant
teaching now and again, but I'm no Clint Smith. However, I have
been a student, I have been involved in the teaching side of
things, and I am a general all-around busybody. As it happens,
those are better qualifications than some "instructors" I've
met!
Here's my two cents worth: avoid "checklist" shooting classes. What do I mean by "checklist" classes? Those where the instructor provides a long list of the things that you will (ostensibly) learn in his/her class, implicitly (or explicitly) inviting you to compare how many things he teaches versus how many things another instructor does. It's a variation of the "mine is bigger than yours" game played by adolescents of all ages.
This topic came to mind recently when I read a review of a "tactical carbine" class someone had taken. The student - gushing with praise over how great the class was - had a long list of things that the class had "learned" over two whole days. My assistant teaching experience happens to be in that type of rifle class, and I know for a fact that there is no way to adequately cover even half of his long list in a single two day class. Note the term "adequately."
Just getting proper explanations (lecture portions) of the techniques he listed would take a couple of days, let alone a single repetition of each technique by each student. (A single repetition, you understand, doesn't even begin to develop a skill.) In this case, the sheer quantity of techniques presented would have necessitated a "demonstration only" type of curriculum for many of the techniques. Heck, just doing a proper sight-in procedure with a dozen (or more) students will take a good portion of a day, and sight-in was one of the things he listed!
Beyond that, even those things that were actually treated to live fire would not have allowed time for any feedback from the "instructor." Without feedback, without critique, how do you know how you've done - and how to increase your skill? Isn't that why we train in the first place?
The student who runs his finger down a checklist (see why I use the term?) of things he "learned" in a class will come away impressed - but no more capable. There is a difference between developing a skill (which is what you should be doing in a shooting class) and simply being exposed to the topic (which is undoubtedly the experience of this fellow.) Sadly there are some, both teachers and students, who don't know the difference.
It's that old quality vs. quantity equation all over again. In the immediate area we have a couple of shooting schools; one is of the checklist variety, while the other is more concerned about what their students actually retain. The former trades on quantity, while the latter is concerned with quality. Guess which one I recommend when locals ask me where to train?
When you're shopping for schooling, what you really want to know is if the teacher covers his/her material thoroughly, and is concerned that the students actually make progress - not how many items are on the checklist. It make take a little more effort to find such a school, but your effort will be rewarded.
Unless, of course, you just want to compare your checklist against your buddy's. In that case, there are lots of places that can take your money, and they're a lot easier to find!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Here's my two cents worth: avoid "checklist" shooting classes. What do I mean by "checklist" classes? Those where the instructor provides a long list of the things that you will (ostensibly) learn in his/her class, implicitly (or explicitly) inviting you to compare how many things he teaches versus how many things another instructor does. It's a variation of the "mine is bigger than yours" game played by adolescents of all ages.
This topic came to mind recently when I read a review of a "tactical carbine" class someone had taken. The student - gushing with praise over how great the class was - had a long list of things that the class had "learned" over two whole days. My assistant teaching experience happens to be in that type of rifle class, and I know for a fact that there is no way to adequately cover even half of his long list in a single two day class. Note the term "adequately."
Just getting proper explanations (lecture portions) of the techniques he listed would take a couple of days, let alone a single repetition of each technique by each student. (A single repetition, you understand, doesn't even begin to develop a skill.) In this case, the sheer quantity of techniques presented would have necessitated a "demonstration only" type of curriculum for many of the techniques. Heck, just doing a proper sight-in procedure with a dozen (or more) students will take a good portion of a day, and sight-in was one of the things he listed!
Beyond that, even those things that were actually treated to live fire would not have allowed time for any feedback from the "instructor." Without feedback, without critique, how do you know how you've done - and how to increase your skill? Isn't that why we train in the first place?
The student who runs his finger down a checklist (see why I use the term?) of things he "learned" in a class will come away impressed - but no more capable. There is a difference between developing a skill (which is what you should be doing in a shooting class) and simply being exposed to the topic (which is undoubtedly the experience of this fellow.) Sadly there are some, both teachers and students, who don't know the difference.
It's that old quality vs. quantity equation all over again. In the immediate area we have a couple of shooting schools; one is of the checklist variety, while the other is more concerned about what their students actually retain. The former trades on quantity, while the latter is concerned with quality. Guess which one I recommend when locals ask me where to train?
When you're shopping for schooling, what you really want to know is if the teacher covers his/her material thoroughly, and is concerned that the students actually make progress - not how many items are on the checklist. It make take a little more effort to find such a school, but your effort will be rewarded.
Unless, of course, you just want to compare your checklist against your buddy's. In that case, there are lots of places that can take your money, and they're a lot easier to find!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Brownells grows even larger
Wednesday, June 27,
2007
An email I received
yesterday revealed that Brownells
(purveyors of
all things pertaining to gunsmithing and gun accessories) has
purchased Sinclair
International, the manufacturer/retailer
of top-end reloading gear.
For years I've wondered why Brownells hadn't gotten into the reloading equipment business. They carry darned near everything else related to shooting, but there was a significant gap in their product line. The folks over at Midway, who have the reloading business covered completely, added gunsmithing tools to their line a number of years ago. I'd always thought that to be a "shot across the bow" of Brownells, and expected some sort of response. This would appear to be it!
The acquisition of Sinclair will fill the holes in their product selection very nicely, and serve to solidify their position in the marketplace. It will be interesting to see what new products show up as a result of the combination of these two great companies.
-=[ Grant ]=-
For years I've wondered why Brownells hadn't gotten into the reloading equipment business. They carry darned near everything else related to shooting, but there was a significant gap in their product line. The folks over at Midway, who have the reloading business covered completely, added gunsmithing tools to their line a number of years ago. I'd always thought that to be a "shot across the bow" of Brownells, and expected some sort of response. This would appear to be it!
The acquisition of Sinclair will fill the holes in their product selection very nicely, and serve to solidify their position in the marketplace. It will be interesting to see what new products show up as a result of the combination of these two great companies.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A few snippets of my mind
Wednesday, June 13,
2007
For the 3rd time in 3 months, I'm
working on a 9mm revolver. It is the 3rd Ruger SP101 in a row that
has CrimsonTrace LaserGrips installed. Finally, it has the 3"
barrel.
All these "3"s are starting to become unnerving...I feel a bit like Rod Serling.
---
Michael Bane has a podcast at the top of his blog page these days, and it's pretty darned good. I'm hoping one of these days he'll see fit to make it available as a subscription through iTunes (or one of the other podcast sites) like every other podcast! (Hey, Michael, that's a hint! I listen to podcasts as I work, and having one that's not in the same place as the others interrupts my workflow!)
Seriously, though, it's a great listen. Check it out.
--
Funny how training manifests itself. We're remodeling the kitchen, and I'm making good use of my Bostitch nail gun. I've noticed that I keep my trigger finger straight along the side of the head when I'm not actually nailing, just as one should with a firearm. I guess that safety training really has been ingrained!
--
Speaking of safety: handling guns all day long, as I do, always has a certain amount of danger for accidents. That's why I don't allow any live ammunition in my shop, period. If you do any dry fire practice, follow that same rule: no live ammunition anywhere in the room where you're practicing, no exceptions!
--
-=[ Grant ]=-
All these "3"s are starting to become unnerving...I feel a bit like Rod Serling.
---
Michael Bane has a podcast at the top of his blog page these days, and it's pretty darned good. I'm hoping one of these days he'll see fit to make it available as a subscription through iTunes (or one of the other podcast sites) like every other podcast! (Hey, Michael, that's a hint! I listen to podcasts as I work, and having one that's not in the same place as the others interrupts my workflow!)
Seriously, though, it's a great listen. Check it out.
--
Funny how training manifests itself. We're remodeling the kitchen, and I'm making good use of my Bostitch nail gun. I've noticed that I keep my trigger finger straight along the side of the head when I'm not actually nailing, just as one should with a firearm. I guess that safety training really has been ingrained!
--
Speaking of safety: handling guns all day long, as I do, always has a certain amount of danger for accidents. That's why I don't allow any live ammunition in my shop, period. If you do any dry fire practice, follow that same rule: no live ammunition anywhere in the room where you're practicing, no exceptions!
--
-=[ Grant ]=-
Are ammo prices keeping you from learning?
Monday, June 11,
2007
Lately I've been hearing from
people who've decided against attending training courses because of
the cost of ammunition. If I may, I think that this is a
shortsighted attitude!
Yes, ammo prices are the highest they've ever been. Yes, the number of rounds necessary to complete a decent shooting class is a significantly higher expense than it used to be. It's still worth it, and it's a bargain that you should take advantage of.
If you plan to carry a handgun, or if you keep a shotgun for home defense, training - proper training - may make the difference between a successful outcome and a tragedy. Isn't that worth the few extra dollars that the necessary ammunition is going to cost? I sure think it is!
By the time you add up travel, lodging, registration fees, meals, and incidentals, that little extra the ammo costs really isn't a big deal. Spend the money - it's important to you, and to your loved ones, that you not miss that class!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yes, ammo prices are the highest they've ever been. Yes, the number of rounds necessary to complete a decent shooting class is a significantly higher expense than it used to be. It's still worth it, and it's a bargain that you should take advantage of.
If you plan to carry a handgun, or if you keep a shotgun for home defense, training - proper training - may make the difference between a successful outcome and a tragedy. Isn't that worth the few extra dollars that the necessary ammunition is going to cost? I sure think it is!
By the time you add up travel, lodging, registration fees, meals, and incidentals, that little extra the ammo costs really isn't a big deal. Spend the money - it's important to you, and to your loved ones, that you not miss that class!
-=[ Grant ]=-
From the "Things I Never Knew" department
Wednesday, May 30,
2007
The Second Amendment Carnival is back!
Monday, May 21,
2007
Some great stuff (like
always!)
The Second Amendment Carnival
(Hopefully my plumbing nightmare is over...full report later this week.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Second Amendment Carnival
(Hopefully my plumbing nightmare is over...full report later this week.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Allow me to elaborate...
Thursday, May 10,
2007
In last Monday's post I mentioned
that the Ruger Mini-14 demands factory magazines to work reliably.
That statement may have given a bit of a wrong impression.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently didn't, is that the only reliable Minis I have seen were using factory magazines. I have actually encountered many examples that wouldn't run, and changing to factory mags made them work properly. All is not perfect in Ruger-land, though - in my experience, there is still a large percentage of Mini-14s that are not reliable, even with factory magazines.
The other side of the coin is that I have never seen a reliable Mini using aftermarket mags. Ever. Aftermarket Mini-14 magazines consistently cause Minis - every one I've ever seen - to choke.
Bottom line: factory mags alone will not ensure that any given Mini will run well. However, using non-Ruger magazines is a virtual guarantee that you will have trouble making the thing work properly. (I won't even get into their renowned lack of accuracy, but that isn't the fault of the magazines!)
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
(Oh, by the way - the cheapest I've been able to find Ruger factory 20-round mags is $55.00. That's three times the cost of good quality AR-15 mags. Wow!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The point I was trying to make, and apparently didn't, is that the only reliable Minis I have seen were using factory magazines. I have actually encountered many examples that wouldn't run, and changing to factory mags made them work properly. All is not perfect in Ruger-land, though - in my experience, there is still a large percentage of Mini-14s that are not reliable, even with factory magazines.
The other side of the coin is that I have never seen a reliable Mini using aftermarket mags. Ever. Aftermarket Mini-14 magazines consistently cause Minis - every one I've ever seen - to choke.
Bottom line: factory mags alone will not ensure that any given Mini will run well. However, using non-Ruger magazines is a virtual guarantee that you will have trouble making the thing work properly. (I won't even get into their renowned lack of accuracy, but that isn't the fault of the magazines!)
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
(Oh, by the way - the cheapest I've been able to find Ruger factory 20-round mags is $55.00. That's three times the cost of good quality AR-15 mags. Wow!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
I'm playing catch-up today
Monday, May 07,
2007
Back from serving as assistant
teacher in a rifle class this weekend, and am just beat. My back
hurts; my chiropractor has been making a mint off me for the last
few months, as I seem to injure myself with greater regularity as I
age!
Students reported that ammunition (this class required 700 rounds) was extremely difficult to find, particularly in .223 (5.56mm, if you prefer.) It wasn't so much the price - although ammo prices are high, and getting higher by the minute. No, the major stumbling block was availability; they almost couldn't find what they needed in sufficient quantity for the course.
As a result, we saw a lot of "second tier" ammunition in this class: Fiocchi, Sellier & Bellot, and Wolf.
Luckily, no major ammunition problems presented themselves. In the past, S&B .223 has shown a disturbing tendency to lose the primer cups during ejection. Invariably, those little things would work themselves into the trigger mechanism, and tie up the action. This time we saw none of that. Perhaps S&B has gotten their act together (again)?
Fiocchi seemed to work fine, and the Wolf steel cased is....well, Wolf. I'd personally restrict its use to those guns (Communist-bloc) designed for steel cased ammunition, as the steel is rough on extractors designed for a diet of brass cases. If you insist on using it I'd recommend you keep a spare extractor on hand.
After working these classes for the past several years, and seeing all kinds of autoloading rifles used to shoot large amounts of ammunition over a weekend, I've come to a conclusion guaranteed to raise hackles amongst rifle debaters: the AK-47 series of rifles have proved to me that they aren't as reliable as scuttlebutt makes them out to be, and the AR-15 series of rifles aren't as fragile as that same scuttlebutt says they are. This particular class proved that again: two AKs experienced problems while all of the ARs ran flawlessly.
Boy, am I gonna get hate mail for that one!
(Final thought: if you have a Ruger Mini-14, use only Ruger magazines. Period. Nothing else will be reliable in that model. This opinion is validated in nearly every class, as it was again this time. Yeah, I know Ruger only makes 20-rounders; if you want more, get a different rifle!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Students reported that ammunition (this class required 700 rounds) was extremely difficult to find, particularly in .223 (5.56mm, if you prefer.) It wasn't so much the price - although ammo prices are high, and getting higher by the minute. No, the major stumbling block was availability; they almost couldn't find what they needed in sufficient quantity for the course.
As a result, we saw a lot of "second tier" ammunition in this class: Fiocchi, Sellier & Bellot, and Wolf.
Luckily, no major ammunition problems presented themselves. In the past, S&B .223 has shown a disturbing tendency to lose the primer cups during ejection. Invariably, those little things would work themselves into the trigger mechanism, and tie up the action. This time we saw none of that. Perhaps S&B has gotten their act together (again)?
Fiocchi seemed to work fine, and the Wolf steel cased is....well, Wolf. I'd personally restrict its use to those guns (Communist-bloc) designed for steel cased ammunition, as the steel is rough on extractors designed for a diet of brass cases. If you insist on using it I'd recommend you keep a spare extractor on hand.
After working these classes for the past several years, and seeing all kinds of autoloading rifles used to shoot large amounts of ammunition over a weekend, I've come to a conclusion guaranteed to raise hackles amongst rifle debaters: the AK-47 series of rifles have proved to me that they aren't as reliable as scuttlebutt makes them out to be, and the AR-15 series of rifles aren't as fragile as that same scuttlebutt says they are. This particular class proved that again: two AKs experienced problems while all of the ARs ran flawlessly.
Boy, am I gonna get hate mail for that one!
(Final thought: if you have a Ruger Mini-14, use only Ruger magazines. Period. Nothing else will be reliable in that model. This opinion is validated in nearly every class, as it was again this time. Yeah, I know Ruger only makes 20-rounders; if you want more, get a different rifle!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Interesting people
Wednesday, April 25,
2007
The firearms world attracts the
most interesting people. I'm not talking about my business,
specifically, but in general; shooting attracts good, solid
citizens who often have a great story to tell.
I've yet to meet the pensive, frightening loner; the crazed, wild-eyed revolutionary; the bloodthirsty, gleeful animal slaughterer; or any of the other stereotypes that the media cooks up to "represent" gun owners. I have, however, met a lot of well-adjusted, happy folks who just happen to like shooting, and occasionally are just iconoclastic enough to lead an out-of-the-ordinary life.
This week, I ran into one such person.
This fellow does a couple of things for a living. First, he buys and sell aircraft (planes, helicopters) and related parts. (Do you know what a starter motor for a Boeing 737 costs? Whole bunches of money, and he's sold them.) That's out of the ordinary, and no doubt about it, but it's the other thing he does that catapults him into the "interesting" category: during the summers, he runs a mobile military surplus store!
He's got this box truck that he's outfitted as a store selling BDUs, canteens, caps, and other such materiel. He travels around California from June through about October, setting up on street corners and empty parking lots. He'll spend a couple of days in one place, then move down the road. By the time winter has set solidly in, he's back home where he spends the coming months divesting himself of the airplanes and parts that he's come up with during his trip.
For those of you living in, or perhaps traveling through, the state of California, be on the lookout for the mobile military surplus store on a streetcorner near you. It's easy to recognize: next to the door of the store he's got a female mannequin dressed in BDUs. Stop in, perhaps buy something, and be sure to tell him that Grant says "hi."
-=[ Grant ]=-
I've yet to meet the pensive, frightening loner; the crazed, wild-eyed revolutionary; the bloodthirsty, gleeful animal slaughterer; or any of the other stereotypes that the media cooks up to "represent" gun owners. I have, however, met a lot of well-adjusted, happy folks who just happen to like shooting, and occasionally are just iconoclastic enough to lead an out-of-the-ordinary life.
This week, I ran into one such person.
This fellow does a couple of things for a living. First, he buys and sell aircraft (planes, helicopters) and related parts. (Do you know what a starter motor for a Boeing 737 costs? Whole bunches of money, and he's sold them.) That's out of the ordinary, and no doubt about it, but it's the other thing he does that catapults him into the "interesting" category: during the summers, he runs a mobile military surplus store!
He's got this box truck that he's outfitted as a store selling BDUs, canteens, caps, and other such materiel. He travels around California from June through about October, setting up on street corners and empty parking lots. He'll spend a couple of days in one place, then move down the road. By the time winter has set solidly in, he's back home where he spends the coming months divesting himself of the airplanes and parts that he's come up with during his trip.
For those of you living in, or perhaps traveling through, the state of California, be on the lookout for the mobile military surplus store on a streetcorner near you. It's easy to recognize: next to the door of the store he's got a female mannequin dressed in BDUs. Stop in, perhaps buy something, and be sure to tell him that Grant says "hi."
-=[ Grant ]=-
"It's perfect for the little lady" - NOT!
Monday, April 16,
2007
If you're here, it's probably
because you like (or at least appreciate) our friend the revolver.
My feelings, of course, are well known: I believe the revolver to
be the single greatest firearm that one could ever hope to own. I
believe that people who shoot revolvers demonstrate themselves to
be of above average intelligence, more refined sensibilities, and
generally better looking than those who do not. (I exaggerate, of
course. Except in my own case, where these things are certainly
true. I tell my wife so every day.)
However, even in my zeal I cannot recommend the revolver to every single person; it is not the best choice for everyone or every circumstance. I've said this before, and I'll probably being saying it again and again as time goes on.
I particularly cringe whenever I see some fellow buying (or hear someone recommending) that the revolver is always the "best choice" for a woman, hinting that women are incapable of operating a semiauto properly. Sometimes the revolver is the best choice for a female, just as it sometimes is for a male - though not always, and not even most of the time!
Not being a woman, I've been at a loss to explain my discomfort in any terms other than "that seems stupid to me." Luckily, over at the View From the Porch, Tam does a good (and concise) job of explaining just why.
-=[ Grant ]=-
However, even in my zeal I cannot recommend the revolver to every single person; it is not the best choice for everyone or every circumstance. I've said this before, and I'll probably being saying it again and again as time goes on.
I particularly cringe whenever I see some fellow buying (or hear someone recommending) that the revolver is always the "best choice" for a woman, hinting that women are incapable of operating a semiauto properly. Sometimes the revolver is the best choice for a female, just as it sometimes is for a male - though not always, and not even most of the time!
Not being a woman, I've been at a loss to explain my discomfort in any terms other than "that seems stupid to me." Luckily, over at the View From the Porch, Tam does a good (and concise) job of explaining just why.
-=[ Grant ]=-
More on the Dan Wesson .22
Wednesday, April 04,
2007
In response to Monday's blog
post about
.22 accuracy, a couple of readers asked about the loads that had
proven to be accurate in the Dan Wesson .22LR Model 15-2.
Before I answer, you need to keep in mind that your individual DW may not like the same ammunition mine does. With that understanding, my DW likes the Remington Match Target (subsonic, LRN bullet) and the Remington "Golden Bullet" bulk pack. Of the 23 different rounds I tested in the gun, these two came out on top in their respective categories (target ammunition and hunting ammunition.)
This is quite surprising to me, as Remington rimfire ammo is not generally held in high regard by experienced rimfire shooters. It is often criticized for lack of accuracy and consistency, but in this gun those two loads work extremely well. The "Golden Bullet" also exhibits excellent terminal effects on small game (ground squirrels) as well as being accurate.
Oddly, the Federal Gold Medal Match - a terrific load that shoots well in just about everything - doesn't do well in this gun. Why? Who knows? That's the joy and mystery of the rimfire addiction!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Before I answer, you need to keep in mind that your individual DW may not like the same ammunition mine does. With that understanding, my DW likes the Remington Match Target (subsonic, LRN bullet) and the Remington "Golden Bullet" bulk pack. Of the 23 different rounds I tested in the gun, these two came out on top in their respective categories (target ammunition and hunting ammunition.)
This is quite surprising to me, as Remington rimfire ammo is not generally held in high regard by experienced rimfire shooters. It is often criticized for lack of accuracy and consistency, but in this gun those two loads work extremely well. The "Golden Bullet" also exhibits excellent terminal effects on small game (ground squirrels) as well as being accurate.
Oddly, the Federal Gold Medal Match - a terrific load that shoots well in just about everything - doesn't do well in this gun. Why? Who knows? That's the joy and mystery of the rimfire addiction!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Accuracy from your .22
Monday, April 02,
2007
I've been shooting a lot of .22LR
on a recreational basis lately, and am reminded how fickle this
round can be.
Many people seem to be unaware that you can't put just any old .22 round into a gun - be it rifle, pistol, or revolver - and expect it to function correctly, let alone hit where it is aimed!
It is not unusual to find that any given .22 firearm will not function with certain ammunition. I've seen guns that didn't have enough firing pin energy to detonate certain brands of ammunition; autoloaders that wouldn't load and eject certain bullet shapes or velocities; and guns that would shoot tight groups with some ammo but shotgun-like patterns with everything else.
This would all be a lot easier if it were predictable by gun brand and/or model - sadly, it just isn't. You can take two identical guns and one will shoot incredibly accurately with a specific round, while the other gun throws them every which way; I've seen it happen with a pair of Ruger 10/22 rifles.
Some guns are more picky than others regarding their ammunition preferences. The Dan Wesson Model 15-2 in .357 is renowned for its accuracy, but the same gun in .22 is regarded as very inaccurate. I suspect that this reputation has more to do with ammunition that with any fault of the gun. I have one, and had to test many different .22 rounds before I found a couple that it would shoot well. The difference wasn't minor, either! With most ammunition it will shoot 3- to 4-inch groups at 25 yards; with its preferred ammunition, it will quite literally put a cylinder full into one ragged hole at the same distance. There seems to be no middle ground with this gun!
Bullet velocity also plays a role. Generally, it is assumed that the higher velocity rounds don't shoot as well as their slower brethren - but not always! My personal Marlin 39A, for instance, has a surprising preference for the hyper-velocity Quik-Shok round, which is widely considered to be a very inaccurate load.
The moral of the story is that you have to test - and sometimes test again, and keep testing - until you find the round(s) that shoot and function well in your individual guns. When you find that/those loads, buy a case (or two or three...!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Many people seem to be unaware that you can't put just any old .22 round into a gun - be it rifle, pistol, or revolver - and expect it to function correctly, let alone hit where it is aimed!
It is not unusual to find that any given .22 firearm will not function with certain ammunition. I've seen guns that didn't have enough firing pin energy to detonate certain brands of ammunition; autoloaders that wouldn't load and eject certain bullet shapes or velocities; and guns that would shoot tight groups with some ammo but shotgun-like patterns with everything else.
This would all be a lot easier if it were predictable by gun brand and/or model - sadly, it just isn't. You can take two identical guns and one will shoot incredibly accurately with a specific round, while the other gun throws them every which way; I've seen it happen with a pair of Ruger 10/22 rifles.
Some guns are more picky than others regarding their ammunition preferences. The Dan Wesson Model 15-2 in .357 is renowned for its accuracy, but the same gun in .22 is regarded as very inaccurate. I suspect that this reputation has more to do with ammunition that with any fault of the gun. I have one, and had to test many different .22 rounds before I found a couple that it would shoot well. The difference wasn't minor, either! With most ammunition it will shoot 3- to 4-inch groups at 25 yards; with its preferred ammunition, it will quite literally put a cylinder full into one ragged hole at the same distance. There seems to be no middle ground with this gun!
Bullet velocity also plays a role. Generally, it is assumed that the higher velocity rounds don't shoot as well as their slower brethren - but not always! My personal Marlin 39A, for instance, has a surprising preference for the hyper-velocity Quik-Shok round, which is widely considered to be a very inaccurate load.
The moral of the story is that you have to test - and sometimes test again, and keep testing - until you find the round(s) that shoot and function well in your individual guns. When you find that/those loads, buy a case (or two or three...!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Real life isn't always pretty, part II
Monday, March 26,
2007
Last week I told you
about our trip to my cousin's ranch, during which we hoped to help
rid the place of the nefarious Sage Rat (aka Ground Squirrel.)
Today let's talk about the shooting aspects.
Normally a field infested with Sage Rats is a "target-rich environment." When they are at their peak, you almost can't reload the guns quickly enough! In those conditions, an open-sighted .22 rifle is more than sufficient for the plethora of targets that pop up in the 5-50 yard range.
In really good years, I've taken many with a Dan Wesson Model 15 in .22, shooting the bulk-packed Remington "Golden Bullet" load. This ammo doesn't shoot worth a darn in my rifles, but in the DW it is superb. (Anyone who has shot any real amount of .22 ammunition will immediately recognize the truth of the round: you never know what will shoot well in which gun, and there is no such thing as a prediction!) I usually use the 8" barrel, though I've also used the 6" to good effect.
Nevertheless, this is really a job for a rifle, and most Sage Rat shooters gravitate to the very popular Ruger 10/22 platform. I've shot one fairly frequently myself, but in the last couple of years I've been using a very nice early Marlin 39A (which I picked up for a song a number of years back.) The accuracy and 18-round magazine are much appreciated on those small targets, though it wears only open sights; somehow, a scope on such a classic rifle just seems "wrong."
Last year I ended up visiting two different cousin's ranches (my family is big in the beef business.) The first was heavily infested and the Marlin was the right tool at the right time. The second ranch, however, is at a higher altitude; their population comes out of hibernation later, and as a result they didn't have nearly as many to shoot. Most of the shots were well over 50 yards, and the open-sight Marlin (coupled with my aging eyes) was severely handicapped. I wished that I'd had the presence of mind to bring along the scoped 10/22!
As a result of that experience, I installed a Marble's tang sight on the old Marlin. This year I was ready - and good thing, too! This trip was just as the rodents were emerging from their burrows, and once again long shots were the rule. The tang sight greatly extended the range of the unscoped gun - I made quite a few shots in the 90-100 yard range, and a couple that were actually verified to be 115 and 128 yards. Not bad for a .22!
My ammunition preference is for a hollowpoint round to provide a quick, clean kill at all ranges. (Regardless of the problems the little buggers cause, I still live by the old hunter's credo of causing no more suffering than is absolutely necessary.) Since so many rounds are expended - on a good day it's not uncommon to shoot several hundred rats - I look for the most accurate bulk-packed ammunition. This usually limits the choices to a high velocity 36gn load.
For the last few years my choice has been the Winchester Xpert hollowpoint bullet. The wide hollowpoint cavity gives it some of the best terminal effects I've seen in a .22 cartridge. Accuracy is a bit better than average in this rifle, and It's available in bulk at very attractive prices. That doesn't stop me from desiring something better, of course; I'd like to find a load that is a little more accurate but not much more expensive. I've heard good things about the Federal Champion hollowpoint loading, and when I get time I plan to take some to the range and test it against the Xpert.
The search for the "perfect" .22 ammunition never ends!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Normally a field infested with Sage Rats is a "target-rich environment." When they are at their peak, you almost can't reload the guns quickly enough! In those conditions, an open-sighted .22 rifle is more than sufficient for the plethora of targets that pop up in the 5-50 yard range.
In really good years, I've taken many with a Dan Wesson Model 15 in .22, shooting the bulk-packed Remington "Golden Bullet" load. This ammo doesn't shoot worth a darn in my rifles, but in the DW it is superb. (Anyone who has shot any real amount of .22 ammunition will immediately recognize the truth of the round: you never know what will shoot well in which gun, and there is no such thing as a prediction!) I usually use the 8" barrel, though I've also used the 6" to good effect.
Nevertheless, this is really a job for a rifle, and most Sage Rat shooters gravitate to the very popular Ruger 10/22 platform. I've shot one fairly frequently myself, but in the last couple of years I've been using a very nice early Marlin 39A (which I picked up for a song a number of years back.) The accuracy and 18-round magazine are much appreciated on those small targets, though it wears only open sights; somehow, a scope on such a classic rifle just seems "wrong."
Last year I ended up visiting two different cousin's ranches (my family is big in the beef business.) The first was heavily infested and the Marlin was the right tool at the right time. The second ranch, however, is at a higher altitude; their population comes out of hibernation later, and as a result they didn't have nearly as many to shoot. Most of the shots were well over 50 yards, and the open-sight Marlin (coupled with my aging eyes) was severely handicapped. I wished that I'd had the presence of mind to bring along the scoped 10/22!
As a result of that experience, I installed a Marble's tang sight on the old Marlin. This year I was ready - and good thing, too! This trip was just as the rodents were emerging from their burrows, and once again long shots were the rule. The tang sight greatly extended the range of the unscoped gun - I made quite a few shots in the 90-100 yard range, and a couple that were actually verified to be 115 and 128 yards. Not bad for a .22!
My ammunition preference is for a hollowpoint round to provide a quick, clean kill at all ranges. (Regardless of the problems the little buggers cause, I still live by the old hunter's credo of causing no more suffering than is absolutely necessary.) Since so many rounds are expended - on a good day it's not uncommon to shoot several hundred rats - I look for the most accurate bulk-packed ammunition. This usually limits the choices to a high velocity 36gn load.
For the last few years my choice has been the Winchester Xpert hollowpoint bullet. The wide hollowpoint cavity gives it some of the best terminal effects I've seen in a .22 cartridge. Accuracy is a bit better than average in this rifle, and It's available in bulk at very attractive prices. That doesn't stop me from desiring something better, of course; I'd like to find a load that is a little more accurate but not much more expensive. I've heard good things about the Federal Champion hollowpoint loading, and when I get time I plan to take some to the range and test it against the Xpert.
The search for the "perfect" .22 ammunition never ends!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Real life isn't always pretty
Monday, March 19,
2007
Well, I had a nice weekend...took
Friday off, went to Eastern Oregon (so capitalized because it is
like a completely separate state.) The destination was my cousin's
ranch, where we were to exercise our trigger fingers in decreasing
the population of a local pest known as the Sage Rat
(spermophilus townsendii mollis
kennicott,
aka "Townsend's Ground Squirrel".)
Many folks live their lives in the city and are unfamiliar with the problems ranchers face in producing the food they eat. To those who think that beef originates in the supermarket, this may seem to be a barbaric blood sport. It is anything but.
The Sage Rat is widely distributed in Eastern Oregon. They prefer to burrow in irrigated fields, and they eat green grasses. (Beginning to spot the problem?) If that's not enough, their muli-tubed burrows can be up to 100 feet long.
Imagine, now, that you're a rancher who has spent a not inconsiderable amount of money turning the desert into an oasis; you've dug a deep well, bought the necessary irrigation gear, and plowed and seeded the field. Remember, you're doing all this out in the middle of nowhere, in what's known as the High Desert (and for good reason.) Your green and tender alfalfa shoots are just poking out of the soil, and you anticipate being able to easily feed your cows during the long, cold desert winter.
Along comes the sage rat, who promptly sets up shop in this wonderfully soft soil you've toiled to prepare. He meets a cute female sage rat, nature takes its course, and they are soon blessed with a litter of junior sage rats. Like all adolescents, the kids are eating machines - and they just happen to have made their home in the middle of a rodent supermarket!
You can only imagine what a large number of sage rats can do to a field; it's not unusual for a good sized field to harbor many thousands of the little critters, every one of which is bent on eating everything he can get his little incisors around.
That's not the end of the problems, though. Their burrows, which are below the root level of the alfalfa, take the irrigation water and channel it away from the plants that need it. The sage rats attract badgers, which dig huge holes in the fields, holes that can easily break a large animal's legs. They also attract the coyotes, who bring assorted problems of their own.
When you consider this, you can see why the ranchers and farmers need to control the artificially large populations of sage rats. Hence, the reason for our seven-hour drive out to my cousin's ranch.
To be continued....
-=[ Grant ]=-
Many folks live their lives in the city and are unfamiliar with the problems ranchers face in producing the food they eat. To those who think that beef originates in the supermarket, this may seem to be a barbaric blood sport. It is anything but.
The Sage Rat is widely distributed in Eastern Oregon. They prefer to burrow in irrigated fields, and they eat green grasses. (Beginning to spot the problem?) If that's not enough, their muli-tubed burrows can be up to 100 feet long.
Imagine, now, that you're a rancher who has spent a not inconsiderable amount of money turning the desert into an oasis; you've dug a deep well, bought the necessary irrigation gear, and plowed and seeded the field. Remember, you're doing all this out in the middle of nowhere, in what's known as the High Desert (and for good reason.) Your green and tender alfalfa shoots are just poking out of the soil, and you anticipate being able to easily feed your cows during the long, cold desert winter.
Along comes the sage rat, who promptly sets up shop in this wonderfully soft soil you've toiled to prepare. He meets a cute female sage rat, nature takes its course, and they are soon blessed with a litter of junior sage rats. Like all adolescents, the kids are eating machines - and they just happen to have made their home in the middle of a rodent supermarket!
You can only imagine what a large number of sage rats can do to a field; it's not unusual for a good sized field to harbor many thousands of the little critters, every one of which is bent on eating everything he can get his little incisors around.
That's not the end of the problems, though. Their burrows, which are below the root level of the alfalfa, take the irrigation water and channel it away from the plants that need it. The sage rats attract badgers, which dig huge holes in the fields, holes that can easily break a large animal's legs. They also attract the coyotes, who bring assorted problems of their own.
When you consider this, you can see why the ranchers and farmers need to control the artificially large populations of sage rats. Hence, the reason for our seven-hour drive out to my cousin's ranch.
To be continued....
-=[ Grant ]=-
"Stainless" doesn't mean "won't rust"
Monday, February 12,
2007
I hear the advice all the time:
"buy a stainless gun, because they won't rust." This kind of
comment is what prompted General Norman Schwarzkopf to say "bovine
scatology!"
Yes, stainless will in fact rust under the right conditions. What are those conditions? Generally, if you get moisture trapped in a place where it doesn't evaporate normally (say, under a grip panel or inside the action), you have a situation that is ideal for corrosion. The situation is worse in very corrosive (salt water, perspiration) or very humid conditions.
That's not the only thing; even if the frame of your gun is stainless, there will be some parts in the action that aren't, or are made of a much less resistant stainless. It's not unusual to find springs, some screws, cylinder parts, and more that are made of plain carbon steel. These are just as susceptible to rust as they would be in a blued gun.
I see quite a number of stainless guns that have corrosion. One commonality of those I've encountered is that, since the rust is usually hidden (and less likely to be found because of the belief that stainless "doesn't rust) it usually does more damage. Stainless corrosion tends to be deeper, leaving surface pitting that is more serious than it might be on a blued gun.
If you live in a harsh environment - near the ocean, or in a very humid climate - or if you perspire heavily, you should treat your stainless gun more like a blued equivalent. Take the grips off every time you clean the gun and look for any signs of corrosion; use gun oil on the entire surface of the gun; clean the bore immediately after shooting; take the sideplate off occasionally and lubricate the interior; and always remember that the term is "stainLESS", not "stainFREE"!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yes, stainless will in fact rust under the right conditions. What are those conditions? Generally, if you get moisture trapped in a place where it doesn't evaporate normally (say, under a grip panel or inside the action), you have a situation that is ideal for corrosion. The situation is worse in very corrosive (salt water, perspiration) or very humid conditions.
That's not the only thing; even if the frame of your gun is stainless, there will be some parts in the action that aren't, or are made of a much less resistant stainless. It's not unusual to find springs, some screws, cylinder parts, and more that are made of plain carbon steel. These are just as susceptible to rust as they would be in a blued gun.
I see quite a number of stainless guns that have corrosion. One commonality of those I've encountered is that, since the rust is usually hidden (and less likely to be found because of the belief that stainless "doesn't rust) it usually does more damage. Stainless corrosion tends to be deeper, leaving surface pitting that is more serious than it might be on a blued gun.
If you live in a harsh environment - near the ocean, or in a very humid climate - or if you perspire heavily, you should treat your stainless gun more like a blued equivalent. Take the grips off every time you clean the gun and look for any signs of corrosion; use gun oil on the entire surface of the gun; clean the bore immediately after shooting; take the sideplate off occasionally and lubricate the interior; and always remember that the term is "stainLESS", not "stainFREE"!
-=[ Grant ]=-
"What revolver should I buy?"
Monday, December 18,
2006
If I had a nickel for every time
I've been asked that question...!
On every forum, in my daily email, and in the phone calls I receive is a common query: "of the guns available at a dealer, which one should I buy?" These folks are looking for some guidance beyond the simple choice of caliber and barrel length - this is more along the lines of "who makes the 'best' revolver?"
The answer I give? Ruger. This, from an admitted revolver snob who's known for working on Colt Pythons!
The GP-100 and SP-101, which are the most popular models, are mature designs. Their design is simple and rugged, and their construction has not changed due to fashion or cost-cutting.
The actions respond nicely to gunsmithing work; a well tuned Ruger can have a buttery-smooth, perfectly linear double action pull that will rival any of its competitors. The SP-101, in particular, has an action that is many people feel is more "shootable" than its nearest competitor, the S&W "J" frame.
Speaking of the SP-101, it has another advantage over its competition: superb sights. The rear fixed notch is wide and deep compared to other guns, giving the little SP a much nicer sight picture.
The GP and SP guns, because of their stud grip frames, have trigger reaches that fit people with small hands very well; the GP-100, fitted with the "compact" Ruger grip, has a shorter trigger reach than a S&W "L" frame! This is great news for those of us with smaller-than-average mitts.
The downsides? Fit and finish on Ruger revolvers is not up to the level of, say, older S&W guns. (Of course, new S&W's aren't up to the old S&W's either, so that's hardly a condemnation!) Rugers have lots of sharp edges, and their finishes are not terribly pretty - but, if you're having custom work done anyhow, these are things that can be easily rectified.
Rugers don't get the credit they deserve; if you don't like the new MIM-internal lock S&W models, and want something of better pedigree than the Taurus line, take a hard look at Ruger. You might be surprised!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On every forum, in my daily email, and in the phone calls I receive is a common query: "of the guns available at a dealer, which one should I buy?" These folks are looking for some guidance beyond the simple choice of caliber and barrel length - this is more along the lines of "who makes the 'best' revolver?"
The answer I give? Ruger. This, from an admitted revolver snob who's known for working on Colt Pythons!
The GP-100 and SP-101, which are the most popular models, are mature designs. Their design is simple and rugged, and their construction has not changed due to fashion or cost-cutting.
The actions respond nicely to gunsmithing work; a well tuned Ruger can have a buttery-smooth, perfectly linear double action pull that will rival any of its competitors. The SP-101, in particular, has an action that is many people feel is more "shootable" than its nearest competitor, the S&W "J" frame.
Speaking of the SP-101, it has another advantage over its competition: superb sights. The rear fixed notch is wide and deep compared to other guns, giving the little SP a much nicer sight picture.
The GP and SP guns, because of their stud grip frames, have trigger reaches that fit people with small hands very well; the GP-100, fitted with the "compact" Ruger grip, has a shorter trigger reach than a S&W "L" frame! This is great news for those of us with smaller-than-average mitts.
The downsides? Fit and finish on Ruger revolvers is not up to the level of, say, older S&W guns. (Of course, new S&W's aren't up to the old S&W's either, so that's hardly a condemnation!) Rugers have lots of sharp edges, and their finishes are not terribly pretty - but, if you're having custom work done anyhow, these are things that can be easily rectified.
Rugers don't get the credit they deserve; if you don't like the new MIM-internal lock S&W models, and want something of better pedigree than the Taurus line, take a hard look at Ruger. You might be surprised!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Beware the man with one gun
Wednesday, December 13,
2006
You know that old saw. My Uncle
Bob, for instance, has hunted for most of his adult life with one
gun; aside from being the best hunter the family, at 80-plus years
he can easily outshoot me and all of my cousins. It would seem that
there truly is no substitute for familiarity with your
weapon.
One well known personality in the firearms field who shared this sentiment was the (late) Mike Harries. He was best known for the Harries Flashlight Technique, and was a renowned trainer in his own right. At the Gunzone I ran across this essay that Harries wrote back in '92 about this very topic.
He expands on the one gun idea, even proposing that one should use a single type of ammunition. It's a great read, and and gave me a lot to think about!
-=[ Grant ]=-
One well known personality in the firearms field who shared this sentiment was the (late) Mike Harries. He was best known for the Harries Flashlight Technique, and was a renowned trainer in his own right. At the Gunzone I ran across this essay that Harries wrote back in '92 about this very topic.
He expands on the one gun idea, even proposing that one should use a single type of ammunition. It's a great read, and and gave me a lot to think about!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A gun testing story
Monday, December 04,
2006
One day I was at the range testing
client's guns - in this case, a Detective Special and a Python. I
generally start shooting at 50 yards, because that's the closest
steel target we have and shooting paper is boring.
(Besides, 50 yards is the point that I stop blinking when I shoot a steel target. Seriously - I'm paranoid about bullet splashback. When the 50 yard target becomes boring, I usually switch to the 200 yard target - you silhouette shooters know it as the ram. Shooting the ram, standing, double action, with light .38 Special ammo is something of a trick, as I need to aim about 15 feet above the target! If I get a hit per cylinder under those conditions, I'm a happy camper.)
Sorry for the gap in the narrative...anyhow, I'd just walked over the to 200 yard shooting position when this fellow comes up and stands next to me. As I'm loading he asks me what I'm shooting at. I motion to the 200 yard ram, and he squints his eyes. "No way you can hit that", he says. "I've got a GLOCK, and I couldn't hit that!" (The brand name was pronounced in a manner intended to evoke awe and wonder on the part of the listener. Sadly for him, it did not.)
I finished loading, looked at him and said "Well, it is pretty hard to hit." I turned my gaze back to the target, and squeezed off 2 rounds. From off in the distance came a distinct "clang....clang." I turned back to him and just grinned. He walked off, shaking his head in disbelief.
It's all about knowing when to stop!
-=[ Grant ]=-
(Besides, 50 yards is the point that I stop blinking when I shoot a steel target. Seriously - I'm paranoid about bullet splashback. When the 50 yard target becomes boring, I usually switch to the 200 yard target - you silhouette shooters know it as the ram. Shooting the ram, standing, double action, with light .38 Special ammo is something of a trick, as I need to aim about 15 feet above the target! If I get a hit per cylinder under those conditions, I'm a happy camper.)
Sorry for the gap in the narrative...anyhow, I'd just walked over the to 200 yard shooting position when this fellow comes up and stands next to me. As I'm loading he asks me what I'm shooting at. I motion to the 200 yard ram, and he squints his eyes. "No way you can hit that", he says. "I've got a GLOCK, and I couldn't hit that!" (The brand name was pronounced in a manner intended to evoke awe and wonder on the part of the listener. Sadly for him, it did not.)
I finished loading, looked at him and said "Well, it is pretty hard to hit." I turned my gaze back to the target, and squeezed off 2 rounds. From off in the distance came a distinct "clang....clang." I turned back to him and just grinned. He walked off, shaking his head in disbelief.
It's all about knowing when to stop!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Hunting & gun control: what's the correlation?
Monday, November 27,
2006
First, there was
this article on the decline of hunting
in Newsweek. Great
article, and poignant - surprising treatment from the mainstream
media.
However, we must also realize the necessity of divorcing the subject of hunting - whatever we make think of it - from the topic of Second Amendment activism. As this article on Michael Bane's blog reminds us, the 2nd "ain't about duck hunting" - or any other kind of hunting, for that matter.
Great reading.
-=[ Grant ]=-
However, we must also realize the necessity of divorcing the subject of hunting - whatever we make think of it - from the topic of Second Amendment activism. As this article on Michael Bane's blog reminds us, the 2nd "ain't about duck hunting" - or any other kind of hunting, for that matter.
Great reading.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Sad fate for an innocent Anaconda
Wednesday, November 22,
2006
This
article over at the GunZone alerts us to the sad end of a nice
gun. Be sure to read the owner's narrative - and note the reloading press
used.
I've been following such stories of gun blow-ups for several years, and in the cases I've run across a huge percentage - a majority by far - have been the result of ammo reloaded on a Dillon RL550b press.
No, I don't think the RL550b is inherently dangerous, nor do I believe that it should be blamed; blame always rests with the person doing the work. However, that particular machine does make it easier for a momentary lapse of concentration to result in a catastrophic failure, because it doesn't auto-index. Relying on the human being to remember whether or not he/she advanced the shellplate makes it far too easy to end up with either double charges or squibs. I've documented this happening with relatively new reloaders, and with very well experienced reloaders.
If you own an RL550b, you need to make absolutely sure that you are not distracted when reloading; this means no radio, television, screaming children, or talkative friends in the room when you are operating that press. (This is good practice regardless of the press you're using, but absolutely imperative with the 550b.)
Reloading is generally safe and rewarding - as long as you supply the appropriate vigilance!
-=[ Grant ]=-
I've been following such stories of gun blow-ups for several years, and in the cases I've run across a huge percentage - a majority by far - have been the result of ammo reloaded on a Dillon RL550b press.
No, I don't think the RL550b is inherently dangerous, nor do I believe that it should be blamed; blame always rests with the person doing the work. However, that particular machine does make it easier for a momentary lapse of concentration to result in a catastrophic failure, because it doesn't auto-index. Relying on the human being to remember whether or not he/she advanced the shellplate makes it far too easy to end up with either double charges or squibs. I've documented this happening with relatively new reloaders, and with very well experienced reloaders.
If you own an RL550b, you need to make absolutely sure that you are not distracted when reloading; this means no radio, television, screaming children, or talkative friends in the room when you are operating that press. (This is good practice regardless of the press you're using, but absolutely imperative with the 550b.)
Reloading is generally safe and rewarding - as long as you supply the appropriate vigilance!
-=[ Grant ]=-
What is it with the reloading press fanatics??
Tuesday, November 14,
2006
Funny thing...the other day, my
favorite gun blogger (Tamara K.) posted this rant about brand fanaticism
over at her blog. Yeah
yeah, I know I mentioned it before, but the subject popped up again
this week in a different context.
You see, I'd popped in to a couple of the reloading forums to ask a question about dies (I'm considering new ones.) Reading through some of the past posts on the boards would lead one to believe that there is a Reloading Press Jihad going on! Take a look for yourself sometime...the subject is getting very close to joining religion and politics as something one does not discuss in polite company!
The invective, blind loyalty, outright falsehoods, tall tales...the only thing missing is "let's take it outside, fella!"
This is particularly interesting to me, for as it happens I've owned a progressive press from each of the three major brands. The Dillon and Lee presses I used for more than 30,000 rounds each, while my new Hornady is a baby - only about 10k so far. This gives me sufficient experience, I think, to quote a perennial South Park line: "I've learned something today!"
You see, no currently available progressive press is of terribly high quality when compared to, say, a Star Universal or an RDP Reloading Tool. They simply aren't. Anyone who has ever used one of the latter can easily see that the design, material choice, and construction quality of even the best presses made today pale in comparison. It seems to me that arguing about whether Lee, Dillon, RCBS, or Hornady is the "best" is a little like arguing who has the best deck chair on the Titanic!
The only thing keeping me from buying a used Star is simply the availability of parts and accessories. I'm waiting for someone - maybe Spolar, or Ponsness-Warren, or even Redding - to build a progressive reloading press of equivalent quality to what was available just a couple of decades ago. I'd love to own a truly high end, built-to-outlast-me progressive reloading press with modern features and factory support. Until then, these arguments about reloading presses are about as interesting as watching paint dry - and you can take your pick of blue, red, or green!
-=[ Grant ]=-
You see, I'd popped in to a couple of the reloading forums to ask a question about dies (I'm considering new ones.) Reading through some of the past posts on the boards would lead one to believe that there is a Reloading Press Jihad going on! Take a look for yourself sometime...the subject is getting very close to joining religion and politics as something one does not discuss in polite company!
The invective, blind loyalty, outright falsehoods, tall tales...the only thing missing is "let's take it outside, fella!"
This is particularly interesting to me, for as it happens I've owned a progressive press from each of the three major brands. The Dillon and Lee presses I used for more than 30,000 rounds each, while my new Hornady is a baby - only about 10k so far. This gives me sufficient experience, I think, to quote a perennial South Park line: "I've learned something today!"
You see, no currently available progressive press is of terribly high quality when compared to, say, a Star Universal or an RDP Reloading Tool. They simply aren't. Anyone who has ever used one of the latter can easily see that the design, material choice, and construction quality of even the best presses made today pale in comparison. It seems to me that arguing about whether Lee, Dillon, RCBS, or Hornady is the "best" is a little like arguing who has the best deck chair on the Titanic!
The only thing keeping me from buying a used Star is simply the availability of parts and accessories. I'm waiting for someone - maybe Spolar, or Ponsness-Warren, or even Redding - to build a progressive reloading press of equivalent quality to what was available just a couple of decades ago. I'd love to own a truly high end, built-to-outlast-me progressive reloading press with modern features and factory support. Until then, these arguments about reloading presses are about as interesting as watching paint dry - and you can take your pick of blue, red, or green!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A bit of opinion about MIM parts
Monday, October 16,
2006
Heard about "MIM" parts? MIM is an
injection molding process for metal parts, and it has been
revolutionizing many industries. In the revolver business, both
Smith & Wesson and Taurus have made use of MIM parts. Like any
new process, however, there are those who decry the new technology;
some gunsmiths spread the misinformation that MIM parts can't be
worked on, and refuse to take in guns using MIM parts. Adding fuel
to the fire are a few well-publicized parts breakages, most notably
with 1911 autopistol sears.
Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the story is a bit more complex than that.
I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!
MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting. Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand them.
First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered. This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!
The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost; the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or nearly impossible to economically machine.
The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that are very thin.
There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.
Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the engineering behind the part itself.
As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home free.
The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!
The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that way!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the story is a bit more complex than that.
I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!
MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting. Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand them.
First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered. This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!
The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost; the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or nearly impossible to economically machine.
The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that are very thin.
There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.
Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the engineering behind the part itself.
As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home free.
The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!
The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that way!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
On reliability...
Wednesday, October 04,
2006
Forgive my deviation from revolver
centrism, but a recent rifle class in which I assisted brought to
mind a topic which is just not understood amongst gun owners:
"reliability."
What is "reliable"? You'll hear all kinds of definitions, all kinds of criteria. My definition is deceptively simple: the next time you pull the trigger, the gun will function perfectly. That means zero, zilch, nada, nyet failures. Every single time, regardless of how many rounds you've just shot. Not just "bang", but feed, fire, eject, and feed again.
Sounds like I'm easy to please, right? You'd be surprised at how few guns actually do perform to this standard. I expect a reliable gun to do this after a full weekend of shooting, regardless of the number of rounds I've shot, as well as right after cleaning. Every single time, without exception.
Note that I don't specify any particular number of rounds, because I've encountered instances where reliability was defined by some arbitrary round count, such as 500 - and when the gun crapped out on the 501st round, it was still deemed to be reliable since it had met the number! Sorry, not in my book.
One test I've heard (for autoloading rifles) is "six magazines of duty loads, fired as quickly as you can change magazines." Sounds great, right? I've seen an AR-15 which would only pass such a test one time, yet the owner decided it was reliable because it met the test criteria! The fact that it couldn't perform the feat again did not dissuade him in his opinion.
The only caveats are that 1) the gun be maintained according to the maker's recommendations and 2) fed ammunition which conforms to industry standards for that caliber. Anything else - such as the ever-popular mud wrestling test, making it into a popsicle, and other such activities - can be considered the ballistic equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters game: entertaining to watch, but no indicator of an ability to win the NBA finals.
I've seen more than one gun which happily ate a magazine of ammo after being dropped into a mud puddle, but couldn't be counted on to function perfectly at any unannounced time. Mind you, it malfunctioned maybe once every 400 or so rounds, but sooner or later it would fail. Reliable? Not by my definition.
You'll run into many people who will tell you that this is "no big deal - I've got lots of guns that will do that." At the risk of offending someone - believe me, it's not my intention - I will quote Hugh Laurie, playing the namesake character in the TV series 'House': "everyone lies."
When I say "every time you pull the trigger", I mean EVERYTIME. When I say zero failures, I mean ZERO. One fellow of my acquaintance is known locally for his promotion of a particular gun, which he insists is "absolutely reliable." This is a fellow with a good reputation, someone that other people consider honest and, presumably, look up to. Trouble is, he lies - I've seen his gun fail, and I know others who have witnessed it too. Yet, he continues to insist that his gun is "perfectly reliable." In one class, I met someone with an HK 91, supposedly the epitome of functionality; of course, the owner insisted it was "reliable". It suffered a FTF the first day, and an FTE the second. The owner continued to refer to it as "reliable".
If your gun will not function with ammunition that meets industry-standard specs, then it is unreliable. I had an encounter with a gunstore commando a while back; he was going to loan his "custom built" AR-15 to another employee. He gushed that his pride and joy was the most reliable gun he had ever seen - then, almost in the same breath, told the other fellow not to shoot Winchester ammunition in it, as "it won't feed Winchester all of the time." Even if it functioned 100% with everything else (though I doubt it), that it wouldn't work with one specific brand means that it simply wasn't reliable. (Back to revolvers - if your wheelgun won't fire every brand of ammunition in its caliber with zero misfires, it's not reliable!
My favorite rifle instructor, Georges Rahbani, always says that you are only as good as you are on demand - the same goes for your gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
What is "reliable"? You'll hear all kinds of definitions, all kinds of criteria. My definition is deceptively simple: the next time you pull the trigger, the gun will function perfectly. That means zero, zilch, nada, nyet failures. Every single time, regardless of how many rounds you've just shot. Not just "bang", but feed, fire, eject, and feed again.
Sounds like I'm easy to please, right? You'd be surprised at how few guns actually do perform to this standard. I expect a reliable gun to do this after a full weekend of shooting, regardless of the number of rounds I've shot, as well as right after cleaning. Every single time, without exception.
Note that I don't specify any particular number of rounds, because I've encountered instances where reliability was defined by some arbitrary round count, such as 500 - and when the gun crapped out on the 501st round, it was still deemed to be reliable since it had met the number! Sorry, not in my book.
One test I've heard (for autoloading rifles) is "six magazines of duty loads, fired as quickly as you can change magazines." Sounds great, right? I've seen an AR-15 which would only pass such a test one time, yet the owner decided it was reliable because it met the test criteria! The fact that it couldn't perform the feat again did not dissuade him in his opinion.
The only caveats are that 1) the gun be maintained according to the maker's recommendations and 2) fed ammunition which conforms to industry standards for that caliber. Anything else - such as the ever-popular mud wrestling test, making it into a popsicle, and other such activities - can be considered the ballistic equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters game: entertaining to watch, but no indicator of an ability to win the NBA finals.
I've seen more than one gun which happily ate a magazine of ammo after being dropped into a mud puddle, but couldn't be counted on to function perfectly at any unannounced time. Mind you, it malfunctioned maybe once every 400 or so rounds, but sooner or later it would fail. Reliable? Not by my definition.
You'll run into many people who will tell you that this is "no big deal - I've got lots of guns that will do that." At the risk of offending someone - believe me, it's not my intention - I will quote Hugh Laurie, playing the namesake character in the TV series 'House': "everyone lies."
When I say "every time you pull the trigger", I mean EVERYTIME. When I say zero failures, I mean ZERO. One fellow of my acquaintance is known locally for his promotion of a particular gun, which he insists is "absolutely reliable." This is a fellow with a good reputation, someone that other people consider honest and, presumably, look up to. Trouble is, he lies - I've seen his gun fail, and I know others who have witnessed it too. Yet, he continues to insist that his gun is "perfectly reliable." In one class, I met someone with an HK 91, supposedly the epitome of functionality; of course, the owner insisted it was "reliable". It suffered a FTF the first day, and an FTE the second. The owner continued to refer to it as "reliable".
If your gun will not function with ammunition that meets industry-standard specs, then it is unreliable. I had an encounter with a gunstore commando a while back; he was going to loan his "custom built" AR-15 to another employee. He gushed that his pride and joy was the most reliable gun he had ever seen - then, almost in the same breath, told the other fellow not to shoot Winchester ammunition in it, as "it won't feed Winchester all of the time." Even if it functioned 100% with everything else (though I doubt it), that it wouldn't work with one specific brand means that it simply wasn't reliable. (Back to revolvers - if your wheelgun won't fire every brand of ammunition in its caliber with zero misfires, it's not reliable!
My favorite rifle instructor, Georges Rahbani, always says that you are only as good as you are on demand - the same goes for your gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Winchester is no more, and the buzzards are circling
Wednesday, August 30,
2006
It's all over except the
wailing and gnashing of teeth.
In case you haven't heard - and I don't see how one couldn't have - Winchester has closed its doors permanently. The auction of the remainder of their manufacturing facility is September 27 & 28.
Another sad day in firearms history.
-=[ Grant ]=-
In case you haven't heard - and I don't see how one couldn't have - Winchester has closed its doors permanently. The auction of the remainder of their manufacturing facility is September 27 & 28.
Another sad day in firearms history.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Great firearms links: The Carnival of Cordite
Monday, August 28,
2006
The
Carnival of Cordite is a
regular collection of up-to-the-minute links to current gun topics
and discussions. No matter what your shooting interest, you're
likely to find something
that you just have to read!
-=[ Grant ]=-
-=[ Grant ]=-
Another training vs. intelligence issue?
Wednesday, July 26,
2006
Remember the story I posted a while back about the Washington state police officer who couldn't tell the difference between a Taser and a loaded pistol (wherein the Taser was a bad choice for the circumstance, let alone a firearm)?
Well, the Northwest thankfully does not have a lock on civil servants with sub-par intellects: three New York officers caught in their own crossfire.
What part of "make sure of your target, and what is beyond" didn't these people understand? "Here's your sign!"
-=[ Grant ]=-
Some people are really too stupid for words
Monday, July 24,
2006
Found on the "pdb" blog:
Blind man fatally shoots wife while trying to handle gun, food
MORGANTON - AP
A legally blind man fatally shot his wife while trying to balance a plate of fried chicken and a pistol, authorities said.
Kelly Honeycutt of Morganton was holding a .38-caliber pistol he found in a box while he and his wife were moving into a new home Monday night, said Burke County Sheriff's Sgt. Robert Beall said. He accidentally shot his wife Norita in the head after she handed her wheelchair-bound husband a plate of chicken, Beall said.
Beall said no charges were filed by investigators, but the case was sent to the county prosecutor's office for a final determination.
Beall said the husband was more than 50 percent blind, had limited movement and was in advanced stages of multiple sclerosis. His wife was his caretaker.
"They had a storybook marriage," Beall said. "No history of domestic violence, no indication of alcohol abuse. It just looks like a case of bad timing while handling a gun."
-=[ Grant ]=-
Tamara K. gets it right - again
Friday, July 21,
2006
As you may remember, I'm a fan of Tamara K.'s "View from the porch" blog. She's got a new post up, and it's spot-on.
It reminds me of occasions when I've been goaded into discussing gun control with an anti-freedom activist (usually when I'm in a masochistic mood.) I've often been told that "people can't be trusted with guns because they'll go out and shoot their neighbors."
I've been known to respond "why do you want to shoot your neighbors? Are you unstable?" It usually ends that line of argument very quickly.
It's a great read - be sure to check it out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Every once in a while, the New York Times surprises me
Wednesday, July 19,
2006
The New York Times ran this article on getting a concealed weapons permit in Texas. What's surprising is the relative lack (for the NYT, of course) of fear-mongering, class bigotry, or gratuitous put-downs.
Does this mean they've come over to our side? Nawww, but maybe some of their on-the-fence readers will!
-=[ Grant ]=-
News from the IRC
Wednesday, July 12,
2006
In case you missed it, the IRC (International Revolver Championship) were held last month. As usual, Jerry Miculek won (no news there!) This year, however, a new entrant came in at second place, edging out the man who usually takes that slot: Vic Pickett.
The shooter was...Rob Leatham! That's right, good ol' Rob, he of 1911/IPSC fame. What you may not remember is that Rob is a revolver shooter from way back; he shot revolvers at the Bianchi cup before switching - with the rest of the field - to autoloaders. He's no stranger to the wheelgun, certainly!
But that isn't the most interesting thing - the intriguing part is that he shot in the stock gun class, shooting against Jerry (and Vic) who are in open class (optics and compensators.) That's a show of sheer talent, folks. When you can shoot with essentially no hardware assistance against top competitors who are equipped with the best technology available, you're good. Very good. Of course, anyone familiar with Rob's shooting career already knew that!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Discrimination that won't merit a lawsuit
Monday, July 10,
2006
If you're looking for a job, it's probably not a good idea to put firearms related items on your resume. In today's America, it's acceptable to discriminate on politically incorrect factors.
-=[ Grant ]=-
We're almost there
Friday, June 16,
2006
A friend pointed out this article to me. Seems that the total number of legally owned firearms in America is now approaching 290 million, while our population is right around 298 million. We're close to having one firearm for every person in America! (If only they were all revolvers...)
While you're reading that article at Say Uncle, subscribe to their RSS feed. Lots of good gun news comes out of that site!
-=[ Grant ]=-
This week's favorite link
Monday, June 05,
2006
If you don't yet know about Steve's Pages, you need to. Here you can download PDFs of an astonishing array of firearms manuals. Actually, not just firearms - but reloading equipment, optics, and even high-end flashlights like SureFire.
One of those "must-have" additions to your bookmarks!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Follow
me!
You're reading...
The Revolver Liberation Alliance!
The blog about revolvers, training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an occasional surprise!)
You're reading...
The Revolver Liberation Alliance!
The blog about revolvers, training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an occasional surprise!)
Accessories
Ammunition
Blog stuff
Competition
Completely irrelevant
Current Events
Friday Surprise!
General gun stuff
Gunsmithing
History
Humor
Hunting
Legal Issues
My Life
Personal opinions
Political Action
Recent work
Reloading
Revolvers
Rifles
Second Amendment
Self defense
Shooting industry
Shotguns
Techniques & Training
Technology
Things I like
What's New!
Ammunition
Blog stuff
Competition
Completely irrelevant
Current Events
Friday Surprise!
General gun stuff
Gunsmithing
History
Humor
Hunting
Legal Issues
My Life
Personal opinions
Political Action
Recent work
Reloading
Revolvers
Rifles
Second Amendment
Self defense
Shooting industry
Shotguns
Techniques & Training
Technology
Things I like
What's New!
- .38
- .357
- abandoned
- accuracy
- afgwwwtra
- apps
- ar15
- armed.citizens.network
- attacks
- autoloaders
- awareness
- bloggers
- books
- ccw
- colt
- combat.focus
- computers
- dammit
- design
- dogma
- ed.harris
- failures
- flashlights
- futility
- georges.rahbani
- good.pr
- gp100
- grips
- gun.skool
- gunshows
- gunstore.goons
- holsters
- i.told.you.so
- incredible
- jazz
- kaboom
- knives
- legal.stuff
- lever.actions
- lubrication
- magic.bullets
- maintenance
- massad.ayoob
- msm
- music
- my.bad
- mythbusting
- nasa
- nra
- old.technology
- optics
- oregon
- pdn
- personal.defense.network
- photography
- practice
- preppers
- proarms
- prohibitionists
- reliability
- rhino.revolver
- rimfire
- rob.pincus
- ruger
- s&w
- safety
- shot.show
- sights
- snake.oil
- snubby
- sources
- speedloaders
- stopping.power
- stupid.people
- tacticool
- tactics
- thats.odd
- turncoats
- ugly
- uscca
- vintage
- waiting.list
- women