At Ammoland.

I don’t have experience with four of the five, but I can tell you that the Radian Weapons Raptor is a great product.

It’s also amazing when you outfit your rifle with (a) a good BCG, and (b) a good charging handle, how easily and smoothly it operates – like butter.

Some of the easiest improvements to the gun are not just just convenient because they’re modular, but they’re also fairly inexpensive.

Field & Stream.

The .30 Remington AR was introduced by Remington in 2008, just in time for the Obama-inspired AR buying frenzy. It couldn’t have come at a worse time. Everybody wanted an AR15, but not for hunting, which is the 30 Remington AR’s forte. The same stupidness that would eventually lead Remington to bankruptcy pushed the cartridge into obscurity. Some early advertisements for the 30 Remington AR listed the cartridge’s 300-yard velocity as its muzzle velocity. Even more foolishly, Remington never offered a blister-packaged complete upper receiver and magazine to allow shooters an easy conversion from an AR-15 in .223 Remington.

Designed specifically for the AR-15 platform, the .30 Remington AR will push a 150-grain bullet to almost 2600 fps and a 125-grain bullet to about 2800 fps. Nothing else in the AR-15 platform comes close, and with that rifle twice as popular now as it was a decade ago, it’s time for this cartridge to return and make the AR-15 all that it can be for the hunter. Some folks get it through. Every year Melvin Forbes at New Ultra Light Arms sells several .30 Remington AR rifles in his less than five-pound bolt-action Model 20-Short rifles. I have mine and the deer in West Virginia hate me for it.

I have little interest in the rest of them, but I sure would like to see a comeback for this particular round.  I missed this when it came out, probably because no one chambered a rifle for this round.

Dean Weingarten.

He saw the grizzly coming at them. He dropped the arrow and bow and drew his Taurus .45 1911 semi-auto. He yelled at the bear and started backing away. As the bear saw the two other hunters behind the lead, it momentarily paused, giving him time to rack the slide and chamber a round. The Taurus had eight rounds in its magazine.

The pause was momentary; not a full stop of the charge. The lead hunter was able to start shooting from a range of six feet. The grizzly grabbed the lead hunter by the left thigh and the hunter went down with the bear on top of him.

As the bear closed with the lead hunter, the middle and last hunters had seen the bear, dropped their bows, and drew their pistols, a .44 magnum and a 9mm. They started shooting.

With the lead hunter down and the bear in his lap, he put the .45 against its head and shot his last rounds. The bear went limp. The lead hunter was able to crawl out from under the big bear.

Shortly afterward, the bear was seen to move, and the hunters fired two more rounds into the chest cavity from the side. The hunters estimated they had fired 19 cartridges at the bear; 8 rounds of .45, 6 rounds of .44 magnum, and about 4 rounds of 9mm.

[ … ]

At the scene, they collected 12 cartridge cases, including 9mm, .45, and .44 magnum.

The wardens found seven bullet wounds in the bear, five of which were from the front, and two of which were from the side. They recovered four bullets from the bear in three different calibers.

Good Lord.  That bear was hard to put down.

Yet more lessons learned.  Pistols, not bear spray.  Next, the bow hunters thought they had discharged 19 rounds.  They actually discharged 12.  Finally, don’t always assume you’re going to hit your target in that sort of situation.  They connected with 7 out of 12.

Via David Codrea, this piece at Reason is sad both in its signal tale for where America is, and for further development down the road to tyranny.

… the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a major case that promises to further obstruct people from holding the government accountable when their rights are violated.

In 2017, Euclid Police Department (EPD) Officer Matthew Rhodes shot and killed Luke Stewart, 23, shortly after waking him up in his car around 7 a.m. in Euclid, Ohio. Along with Officer Louis Catalani, Rhodes had attempted to forcefully eject Stewart from his vehicle. Neither officer announced they were law enforcement, nor was Stewart ever informed he was under arrest, as he had not committed any known crime.

After a brief struggle that lasted just over a minute, Rhodes shot Stewart five times.

A jury in civil court could deduce that Rhodes infringed on Stewart’s constitutional rights, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit last August. One would assume so. But the court then turned around and awarded the officer qualified immunity, barring Stewart’s estate from suing.

[ … ]

That decision—and the high court’s demurral in considering it—could have major implications for how Congress addresses qualified immunity. Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) has been one of the few congressional Republicans willing to come to the table on the issue, proposing a compromise last month to hold cities liable for nefarious actions committed by officers in their individual capacities. Yet if the federal courts now consider those same cities eligible for qualified immunity by association, then that plan may be a dud.

It’s well known to readers here that criminals have been using tactical clothing and gear to pretend to be police, and with the SCOTUS refusal to grant cert, they can now even go plain clothes, beat people up with no way of ascertaining that they are actually police, and people need to lay down and take it.

Cops have shot people through doorways in their own home, and in none of these cases can the police be held accountable for their actions.

That’s because according to precedent, the police aren’t there to protect the public.  They exist as a standing land army of occupation, for the purpose of conducting state stability operations.

The supreme court essentially said this in their refusal to overturn this case.  The case couldn’t even garner four justices to get a hearing.

When the police wonder why people hate they, they should look no further than themselves.  And you can fold the judiciary into this analysis.  If there is justice in the system of justice, it’s only spurious and by accident.

Controllers are the same everywhere and in all times and eras.  I’ve had this debate before over gun bans by the Nazis.  It’s claimed that they weren’t really gun banners because some people were able to keep theirs.

Right.  Gun bans don’t affect everyone, just those for whom the bans have been targeted.  Just like in South Africa.  Those poor folks are in real trouble and stand to lose everything.

The wealthy think they will be eaten by the crocodile last.

First of all, there are good, healthy views among South Carolina LEOs concerning the recent changes to S.C. law concerning open carry.

“I think this can definitely be a very positive thing. I think as the sheriff, you know I believe that guns could certainly be a deterrent for a bad guy when considering committing a crime upon a victim,” Anderson County Sheriff Chad McBride said. “It’s going to be something new that we have to get used to and the public will have to get used to of course. Walking into a location or at a location where it is allowed to carry and seeing that and it not being a law enforcement officer.”

“I love it because it’s the second amendment. Our second amendment right guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms,” Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said. “If you are going to be responsible enough to carry something of that magnitude it is your responsibility to train with it right.”

But then there is massive confusion and lack of mental preparation.

Greenville City Police Chief Howie Thompson has some fear about South Carolina’s open-carry law that was signed into law Monday.

Gov. Henry McMaster signed the “Open Carry with Training Act” bill, which will allow people with concealed weapons permits to openly carry firearms.

One of Thompson’s fears is for those carrying guns.

“Everyone will see it, and if someone who is committing a criminal act goes in and sees someone carrying a gun, well now the person who is carrying becomes a threat,” he said.

Thank you for your concern sir, but it’s misplaced.  Open carriers can handle the pressure.  But this next part is more likely to get someone hurt.

Another concern Thompson has deals with law enforcement officers. Thompson said if someone saw another person who is carrying legally and calls law enforcement to investigate, law enforcement  will not know if  the person has a permit to carry. Thompson thinks service calls for visible guns will increase.

“They’re going to ask for the permit, and maybe the person feels harassed, but in reality the police are just following up on a service call and making sure the person has a permit,” he said.

So this is a massive problem.  Allow me a moment to explain.

That’s what LEOs in Texas thought as well – we’ll just walk up and demand to see permits when a call comes in.

That’s not the way this worked out in Texas, and it’s not the way it will work out in South Carolina.  You see, in order to conduct a stop, LEOs need to ensure that it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”  In other words, you have to suspect that a crime has been or is being committed, or else the stop isn’t legal.

It’s not good enough to say that the individual is openly carrying a weapon.  To be sure, if someone is openly carrying and commits a crime leading to detention or arrest, and you ascertain that the individual has no permit, then you can charge him with a crime under the new law.  But then, you could have charged him with a crime under the concealed handgun law as well.  Nothing has changed.

You need to pretend that you can’t see the weapon, because that’s the way the carefully worded law is written.  This is what’s going to happen the first few times such a stop is conducted by LEOs for open carriers.

LEO: “Sir, I need to see your permit.”

Person A: “Sure, but you’re being videoed and this video will end up in court, and I need to ask you two questions.  First of all, am I being detained, and if so, do you suspect me of a crime?  In other words, is this a so-called “Terry Stop?”  Second question.  Does S.C. have a “stop and identify statute?”

The LEO is in a very hard place.  If the LEO says that person A is suspected of a crime, the proper response is, “What crime?”  To which he can give no valid response.  If the LEO says that person A is not suspected of a crime, question #2 becomes salient, and I assure you, S.C. has no stop and identify statute.

In other words, it is not legal for a LEO to conduct this stop for openly carrying.  Finally, you should read the bill again.  The open carry bill approved into law by the governor does not expand S.C. to include any sort of stop and identify stipulation, either under this statute or any other.  You can read it again for yourself.

Here is a much better idea.  Train your 911 operators to respond to callers with this information: “Ma’am, open carry is now legal in S.C.  Are you calling to report any other criminal activities?  Is this person brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone?  If not, we need to hang up.”

If you don’t follow this counsel, the two questions I posed above will be heard in court very soon.

Listen to me when I say this.  Ask your prosecuting attorney about what I’ve said.  They’ll back me up because I’m right.

From a reader, news from Alaska.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Allen Minish was alone and surveying land for a real estate agent in a wooded, remote part of Alaska, putting some numbers into his GPS unit when he looked up and saw a large brown bear walking about 30 feet away.

“I saw him and he saw me at the same time, and it’s scary,” he said by phone Wednesday from his hospital bed in Anchorage, a day after being mauled by the bear in a chance encounter.

The mauling left Minish with a crushed jaw, a puncture wound in his scalp so deep the doctor told him he could see bone, lacerations and many stitches after a 4½-hour surgery. He also is wearing a patch over his right eye, saying the doctors are worried about it.

All that damage came from a very brief encounter — he estimates it lasted less than 10 seconds — after he startled the bear Tuesday morning just off the Richardson Highway, near Gulkana, located about 190 miles (306 kilometers) northeast of Anchorage.

The bear, which Minish said was larger than 300-pound black bears he has seen, charged and closed the ground between them in a few seconds.

Minish tried to dodge behind small spruce trees. That didn’t stop the bear; he went through them.

As the bear neared, Minish held up the pointed end of his surveying pole and pushed it toward the bear to keep it away from him.

The bear simply knocked it to the side, the force of which also knocked Minish to the ground.

“As he lunged up on top of me, I grabbed his lower jaw to pull him away,” he said, noting that’s how he got a puncture wound in his hand. “But he tossed me aside there, grabbed a quarter of my face.”

“He took a small bite and then he took a second bite, and the second bite is the one that broke the bones … and crushed my right cheek basically,” he said.

When the bear let go, Minish turned his face to the ground and put his hands over his head.

And then the bear just walked away.

He surmises the bear left because he no longer perceived Minish as a threat. The bear’s exit — Alaska State Troopers said later they did not locate the bear — gave him time assess damage.

[ … ]

Minish, 61, has had his share of bear encounters over the 40 years he’s lived in Alaska, but nothing like this. He owns his own surveying and engineering business, which takes him into the wild often.

“That’s the one lesson learned,” he said. “I should have had somebody with me.”

He left his gun in the vehicle on this job but said it wouldn’t have mattered because the bear moved on him too fast for it to have been any use.

That’s a hard-learned lesson.

I’ll accept that he couldn’t have deployed a handgun from a holster fast enough to defend himself if he says so.  He was there and I wasn’t.

But I’ll tell you what.  If it was me and I had to go out in the bush alone, I’d keep a tactical 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buck or slug on a sling at the ready on my body.  I say a tactical 12 gauge shotgun because I’d want something with a shorter sight radius than a fowling piece – where I could drop what I was going and pick the gun up within a second or two.

Still better, go out with someone.

Maybe The Alaskan has some better suggestions.

From a number of readers, the SCOTUS has placed limits on the scope of power police may take, while protecting the fourth amendment.

David Codrea has snipped the major details (this isn’t a long ruling).

Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4. 953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.

This is also being discussed at Ammoland here and here, and GOA is calling this a huge victory.

No doubt it is, and this is the right decision.  But some of the justices blather on and on about why they think it was okay to vote the way they did, which vote seems for all the wrong reasons.

I saw the decision, and looked immediately to see what Justice Clarence Thomas said.  He matters.  The rest of them are complete frauds and what they have to say matters no more to me than when a dog barks.

Now.  Let’s see how much this decision actually has an effect in the real life behavior of police.  As for the so-called “community caretaker” issue, that’s a myth fabricated out of whole cloth, with no basis in the law, and in complete contradiction with prior decisions such as Castle Rock versus Gonzales, Warren versus D.C., and DeShaney versus Winnebago County.

Only an idiot would believe in something like the “community caretaker” foolishness.  But the SCOTUS seems to be consumed with the notion – except for Justice Thomas.

This specific instance also highlights the continuing threat of so-called extreme risk protection orders.  Those come with warrants, while this case dealt with actions taken without a warrant.

Warrants are handed out like candy by judges.

200,000 rounds through a single wheel gun.

This seems like a bit of a slap dash job to me.  I clean my BCGs better, and I always make sure to remove and clean the extractor, extractor pin and spring.  It’s dirty under there.