Articles by Herschel Smith

Here is his recently published paper.  If you don’t want to read it and want the dime summary, here is his discussion.  BLUF: Semiautomatic firearms, including Ar-15s, cannot be banned under the constitution.

While I have carried a .44 magnum before, I’ve advocated use of the .45 handgun all along for big predator defense.  But not just shooting any ammunition.  First, watch this video by Chuke’s Outdoor Adventures, where he advocates use of the HK USP 45 because it can handle 45 Super, then I’ll comment on the .45 Super versus the 450 SMC.

Just to make sure what I’m telling is correct, I’ll check one of several boxes of 450 SMC I’ve got.  Yep, checking the box of Double Tap ammo, it says 230 grains, 1130 FPS (5″ barrel).  I shoot it with a 1911, but with a 22# spring rather than the customary 16# or 18# spring.

Here is the magic.

In the late 1980s, gunwriter Dean Grennell took .451 Detonics Mag. brass and trimmed it to the same overall length as the .45 ACP cartridge case, thus creating the .45 Super. Grennell wrote an article for the February 1988 issue of Gun World Magazine, discussing his new version of the .45 ACP, which was capable of pushing a 185-grain bullet to 1,300 fps. In the August 1988 issue of Gun World Magazine, a second article about the .45 Super—written by Tom Ferguson—appeared. Ferguson was interested in Grennell’s concept cartridge, but he wanted to take things a step further. He took a handful of .451 Detonics Mag. brass and a 1911 pistol to Ace Hindman of Ace Custom 45s. Hindman came up with the idea of heavier springs in the 1911 to make it more suited to the higher-pressure cartridge.

In 1994, Fernando Coelho—owner of Triton Cartridge—reached out to Garey Hindman, Ace’s son, who was still converting 1911s and even some Smith & Wesson Model 4506 pistols to accommodate the.45 Super. The problem with the cartridge was a lack of suitable brass. Coelho had recently started Triton Cartridge and felt that with his background in load development, coupled with actual in-house pressure testing, he would be able to come up with reliable, factory-loaded, .45 Super ammunition. A deal was struck and Coelho reached out to Starline Brass to get the ball rolling. The folks at Starline worked with Coelho to establish correct internal case-wall dimensions, web-area thickness and overall hardness of the cartridge case.

But, just like the .300 BLK found fame because of its name, the.45 Super—as a commercial cartridge—was doomed because of what it was called. You see, when Ace Hindman passed away, his son trademarked “.45 Super.” When Triton made factory-loaded .45 Super ammo, Garey Hindman would get a royalty, which was something a bit unusual in the ammunition business. Because of this, no major firearm or ammunition manufacturer would offer .45 Super guns or ammunition. There was also the concern that a shooter might load and fire .45 Super ammo in a vintage .45 ACP revolver or an old 1911 and get an unpleasant surprise.

All this led to the birth of the .450 SMC. Coelho was fed up with the inherent issues of the .45 ACP/.45 Super cartridge case and the damage being done to the potential growth of the .45 Super. One of the case problems was primer flow; you could experiment with different brands of primers and powder, but most of the time primers would flow back around the tip of the firing pin. The solution: switch to a small-primer pocket and utilize a small-rifle primer. Coelho reached out to Starline again, asking the company to make .45 Super brass with a small-primer pocket. That solved the primer-flow problem and Triton Cartridge soon began offering factory-loaded .450 SMC ammunition. It was loaded to a maximum average pressure (MAP) of 32,000 psi, which is slightly higher than .45 Super pressures, but still less than the 37,500 psi pressure of the 10 mm. The new name—.450 SMC—solved the trade-mark problem, and Triton had two loads: a 165-grain bullet at 1,450 fps and a 230-grain bullet at 1,150 fps.

When Triton went out of business in 2003, it looked like the .450 SMC was doomed. But, another new ammunition company stepped up to offer one of the most potent and practical magnum-category, .45-caliber, defensive-handgun cartridges ever created. Mike McNett of DoubleTap Ammunition recognized the usefulness of the .450 SMC and his Cedar City, UT-based company now offers six .450 SMC loads.

Comparatively speaking, the hottest factory 185-grain .45 ACP load you can buy will generate only about 1,140 fps, and the fastest 230-grain offering only about 1,000 fps. Essentially, what you get with the .450 SMC are 10 mm velocities with a .45-caliber instead of a .40-caliber bullet.

Of course, since no one is manufacturing .450 SMC handguns, what you’re probably wondering is what you have to do to shoot .450 SMC in your .45 ACP. Well, a .450 SMC cartridge can be fired in any .45 ACP handgun. However—and this is a big however—it should only be fired in full-size .45 ACP handguns that have a +P rating. (A 20- to 22-pound recoil spring in your favorite 5-inch 1911, or a 21- to 23-pound spring in a Glock.)

Given the primer problems with the 45 Super, the 450 SMC is the clear winner in this contest.

As I’ve told the 10mm guys before, you can shoot your smaller bullets at over 1100 FPS, or you can shoot 230 grain bullets at over 1100 FPS.  Take your pick.

As for the HK pistol, the advantage would be that its magazine is double-stack and holds 12 rounds.  The 1911 I shoot holds 8 rounds.  Here is the upshot of the 1911 design – with a Wilson Combat or Chip Mccormick Speed Mag, you can increase the magazine capacity to 10 rounds.  The downside is that you have to get used to the bit of additional interference with the extended magazine.

The downside of the large bore revolver cartridges such as the .44 magnum is that the punch from a short barrel handgun (I consider 5″ to be short) is rather painful, especially when using something like Buffalo Bore loads.  Pain when defending your life is irrelevant, but it’s not irrelevant on the practice range.

In any case, I consider 450 SMC to be a legitimate big predator defense round.  If you want to use the HK or a Glock pistol for that purpose, that’s user preference.

Source.

A 22-year old man from Becker, Minn., is facing two felonies for possessing privately made firearms lacking serial numbers in a case his mother called a gross abuse of Minnesota law.

Sara Forgues, the mother of Matthew “Walker” Anderson, spoke with Alpha News regarding her son’s distressing legal battle. The case has concerning implications for gun owners across Minnesota, she said.

According to Forgues, in May 2022, Anderson and a friend were target shooting on private property in Sherburne County. The incident prompted a complaint from a neighbor, leading to the intervention of local sheriff’s deputies.

The neighbor alleged that a bullet had struck his house, but Forgues said no evidence was found to support this claim.

The charging documents provide few details about the incident, saying that the neighbor “heard glass shatter” on the lower level of his home. Discovering a broken sliding glass door, “he believed [to be] from a gunshot,” the neighbor called the police.

Anderson fully cooperated with the deputy who arrived to inspect the shooting range. He and his friend agreed to show the deputy their firearms, which included Anderson’s privately made firearms that did not have serial numbers.

He was then detained for several hours and the firearms were confiscated. Anderson was told by the deputies that he would be charged with two felonies for possessing firearms without serial numbers.

Forgues explained that after they looked into the statute the deputies cited, they believed the charges would be dropped. The statute outlines felony charges for removing a serial number from a firearm or possessing a “firearm that is not identified by a serial number.”

However, Anderson’s attorney notes in legal filings that the federal law referenced in the state statute does not consider his privately made firearms to be firearms that require a serial number.

“Under the plain meaning of the statute, the rifles made and possessed by Anderson were not ‘firearms’ as contemplated in [the federal law] and thus no serial number was required,” his attorney said in court documents. “Federal law does not require serial numbers to be placed on personally manufactured firearms created for private use.”

Additionally, if state law actually does ban Anderson’s privately made firearms with no serial numbers, then it should be ruled unconstitutional, his attorney argued.

“Commercially manufactured or imported firearms were not required to have serial numbers until 1968 and personally manufactured firearms still do not require a serial number under federal law. There is no historical tradition or authority to ban possession of rifles and shotguns that are in common use and circulation that are suitable for civilian purposes and target shooting simply for not having a number engraved on the metal,” he said.

Rob Doar, senior vice president of government affairs with the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said the legal issues are nuanced, but “essentially the prosecutor is taking a bad reading of poorly drafted legislation.”

“In a nutshell, 609.667 prohibits the possession of firearms that do not have a serial number. It defines a serial number by referencing federal law, the National Firearms Act,” Doar told Alpha News. “The clear intent of the statute is to prohibit possession of unserialized firearms that fall within the National Firearms Act regulations, for example, automatic weapons and short barrel rifles. Because these weapons are required to be registered at the federal level, they must possess a serial number. The federal government does not prohibit the manufacture of firearms for personal use, and creates zero requirements for serializing personally manufactured firearms.

“It cannot possibly be construed to extend beyond those types of firearms, because before 1968 firearms were not required to even have serial numbers, but there’s been no question that those are still legal to own today. In fact, the Minnesota DNR auctions off serial-less firearms every year,” he added.

Well, Minnesota.  Is anyone surprised?

The prosecutor is taking a bad reading of poorly drafted legislation.  You think?

Basically, the prosecutor is a bad and unscrupulous lawyer (but I repeat myself) and is using a clearly unconstitutional law to score political points at the expense of an innocent man.  We’ve seen this before (case in point, Kyle Rittenhouse).  There are many other thousands of such cases.

But via reddit/Firearms, consider this wise decision by Judge Joseph Goodwin, U.S. District Judge in WV.

Assume, for example, that a law-abiding citizen purchases a firearm from a sporting goods store. At the time of the sale, that firearm complies with the commercial regulation that it bear a serial number. The law-abiding citizen takes the firearm home and removes the serial number. He has no ill intent and never takes any otherwise unlawful action with the firearm. Contrary to the Government’s argument that Section 922(k) does not amount to an “infringement” on the law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment right, the practical application is that while the law-abiding citizen’s possession of the firearm was originally legal, it became illegal only because the serial number was removed. He could be prosecuted federally for his possession of it. That is the definition of an infringement on one’s right to possess a firearm.

The case against the innocent man from Minnesota will be dropped, or it will be appealed through the channels and eventually overturned, with the inferior courts spanked at some point in the process.

The prosecutor is advised to forget all about this and apologize for the trouble he caused.

On the larger issue of serial numbers, you’re aware why they case so much, yes?  You can’t have universal background checks without serial numbers.  The controllers are nothing is not and relentless good tacticians.

We have to be just as good and relentless.

Prior: The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms

Source.

A hunter in Montana killed a grizzly bear in self-defense last week, officials with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks report. The hunter was targeting black bears on a remote parcel of private land in the Madison Range backcountry when he was charged by the grizzly. He shot and killed the oncoming grizzly bear with a pistol on June 5 and notified MFWP that same day.

[ … ]

Looking beyond the northern Rockies, Alaska Wildlife Troopers reported another self-defense killing, this one involving a brown bear, over the weekend. Saturday’s incident involved 34-year-old Nicholas Abraham, who was hunting hares in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge when he was attacked by a brown bear sow with two cubs. Abraham shot and killed the bear with a .44 handgun and then drove himself to a hospital where he was treated for minor injuries.

I had seen these two reports over other news outlets, and in none of them was the specific handgun and/or caliber mentioned for the first incident.

At least we know the round used in the second incident – .44 magnum.

This one is good.

But it doesn’t hold a candle to the excessive display of drama with this dog, apparently all for the purpose of getting attention.

We were going to do some horse riding one morning years ago (work riding), and when trying to catch and saddle one gelding, he played lame.  Or at least we thought he “played” lame.  More and more time went into trying to figure out what was going on, including hoof inspections, talking about getting a Ferrier out to look at him, and so on.

Finally, we consulted the more experienced, most seasoned horseman I knew, and he felt the horse was really lame, or at least had some bruising, and we shouldn’t ride him that day.  There were other horses to choose from.

We let him go, at which point to galloped off at full speed without so much as a limp.  We’d been had by a better actor than the two dogs above.

Joseph Greenlee.

Since the earliest colonial days, Americans have been busily manufacturing and repairing arms. In the colonies, the ability to defend one’s home and community, hunt, fight wars, and ultimately win American independence depended largely on the ability to produce arms. For the newly independent nation, arms production was critical to repel invasions and insurrections, and eventually, to western expansion. The skill was always valued and in demand, and many Americans made their own arms rather than depend on others. Americans continued producing their own arms in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, leading to some of the greatest technological breakthroughs in the history of firearms and ammunition. The freedom to build personal arms enabled innovations that allowed Americans to better defend themselves and their country than ever before. Meanwhile, restrictions on self-made arms have been rare throughout American history. All restrictions on arms built for personal use have emerged within the last decade, and from only a few states. While still uncommon, legislatures are increasingly targeting homemade arms due to the growing popularity of unfinished receivers and 3D-printed firearms.

[ … ]

Heller established several principles that support the right to build arms for personal use. First, under Heller, any analysis must start with the Second Amendment’s text, which protects the right to keep and bear arms and provides no reason to believe that people must buy the arms they wish to keep and bear. Second, Heller held that the Second Amendment protects the types of weapons that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, regardless of how those arms are acquired. Third, Heller suggested, as lower courts have recognized, that the Second Amendment also protects the right to acquire arms, which includes building them personally. Fourth, history and tradition—which is used to inform the Amendment’s text under Heller—reveals that Americans have long enjoyed and depended on the unregulated right to build arms since the colonial days. In sum, the right to build arms for personal use is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

There’s a lot between the introduction and the conclusion statements and you’re welcome to read it at your leisure.  The founders would be appalled at the notion that the federal government has the right to regulate the making of arms.  They fought and some perished for the sake of living as free men, and that included the right to lack of interference in things that occupied them daily.

They would be even more appalled at the notion that unaccountable bureaucracies would have the authority to regulate such matters.  They said something about that, yes?  “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

They only have that authority based on police powers, the power of confiscation, and the power of taxation, also all things the founder opposed for the federal authority, and things they do not because they have that right, but because no one has stopped them.

Witness this first incident.  It was clear from the beginning that the man wasn’t carrying a firearm.  I’ll also make another observation.  This is one good reason why open carry should have been passed by the controller pols in Florida – return the right to openly carry a firearm and the idiot wouldn’t have had a reason to conduct the stop to begin with.

But on to the incident.  Fat boy got upset that the female cop didn’t get what she wanted out of the man, and so fabricated some unreasonable justification out of whole cloth to arrest him.  It was a capricious arrest, and they lacked the authority to do it.

The female cop, on the other hand, was a “mean girl,” or got bullied by mean girls in school, and takes it out on everyone she meets, I estimate.  She is carried away with her authority.

But here is the problem.  They will be retrained, they lost a few days without pay, and fat boy was demoted.  But other than that, there is nothing learned from this.  The Sheriff said they didn’t rely on their training.  That’s of course incorrect, as they know the law and where the lines are.  They just don’t care.  Without a change in hiring practices to emphasize moral virtue above all else, this will continue across the country, which means no one will have any respect for cops by the time this is all over.

Also witness in the second incident that the cops lied under oath.  You know that’s what happened.  There isn’t a cop in America who doesn’t understand “Terry Stop” and the limits on their authority to detain and arrest.  They just both lied and got away with it, again pointing to the lack of moral virtue in these people.

F&S.

Before getting into how to buy a suppressor, you need to understand the difference in types of ownership. You can own a suppressor either as an individual or as a trust. As an individual owner, you can use the suppressor and you can let others use the suppressor, but you must be with anyone else anytime they have the suppressor or are using it. If you don’t have any friends—and some of you don’t, I’ve seen your Facebook profiles—individual ownership is fine. Well, except when you die, because then your estate is left in possession of an unregistered NFA item. That’s a problem for whoever executes your will.

If you purchase a suppressor as a trust, any co-trustee can be in procession of and use the suppressor just as you would. Also, if you’re smart enough to designate a “beneficiary” then that person simply assumes the trust when you go to the great shooting range in the sky.

The article goes on to explain the relative ease of filling out paperwork these days.  Around here I know there are FFLs with kiosks which assist the buyer, and there are ways to get assistance with setting up trusts.  Every gun show has cards for lawyers in the area who want to charge money for setting up firearms trusts.

Do any readers own suppressors, and if so, what have you fund to be the best way to purchase and own them?

I find it difficult to dump that much money into something when that something could be a relatively nice firearm instead, and with use of electronic hearing protection, the noise problem goes away (for the most part, except for interference with your cheek weld).

Watch the video for yourself, but here’s what I think.  The officer turned around so quickly and charged back to the man (who said nothing but ‘God’), that I can conclude only one thing.  The cop got pissed off that someone didn’t bow down and lick his bootsand obey even unlawful orders.

He’s nothing but a bully.

One in .44 Magnum please.  As soon as possible please.  I’ll buy one. Ruger, are you listening?