Articles by Herschel Smith

Just several days ago we were discussing how to get the most distance out of your tactical shotgun, and the corollary issue of how to get the best pattern.

Little did I know this was going to come out on that very issue.  These results are very impressive.

Here’s the catch.  The choke is currently not available.  I’ve written Kick’s Industries to ascertain when it will become available.  I’ll let you know what they respond.

I carried a .44 Magnum when hiking in the Tetons several weeks ago.  Color me still a bit skeptical on use of the 10mm for bear defense.  I guess the advantage is capacity, but only that.

I don’t have a .454 Casull or I would carry that.

Here is a news report of the attack.

This image won an award by The New Yorker.

Folks have recently been having a bit of fun with it.  “How you react to this photo says ALL you need to know about American politics.”

The reactions are interesting, ranging from noticing the family man, to the bumper stickers on the truck, to the rusted body of the truck, to the fact that the truck driver is leaving his shotgun unattended, to these.

“Paddle guy gives me immediate disgust. Typical yuppie type who probably couldn’t even lift a finger to defend his family if the need arose.”

“Maybe he’s former special ops and decided to settle down and have a family. He met his wife and kids there after work. The truck is his, the car is hers (it’s safer for her and the kids). He’s looking over his shoulder because he’s still on edge from his previous life.”

“Pick-up owners kids are safer than those pictured.”

The clothing doesn’t interest me, and the fact that it interests some folks is weird to me.  I’ve seen squared away Marines with “high-and-tight” haircuts wearing shorts, tucked in tee shirts, and white socks with shoes.  That could be a former Marine for all I know.  If I could be around him for 30 seconds I’d know.  I have no idea what he’s supposed to be thinking.

But the artist apparently wants you to think that ownership of shotguns is somehow connected with the cross, Gadsden flag, and MAGA.  I’m not a Trump or MAGA person, but if they want me to connect ownership of weapons with the cross and Gadsden flag, I’m okay with that.

One woman calls the shotgun a rifle, and a another guy says the shotgun is okay if it’s a Mossberg.  I’m not a Mossberg guy – I’m a Beretta guy.  But the gun is clearly not a Beretta, or it would look prettier.  But the gun is also clearly a turkey or upland gun.  See, this is the sort of thing I think about, not politics.

Honestly, among my first thoughts were that the image is stupid.  I see no point in it and I simply don’t see how it won any awards.  My immediate reaction was everything is fine.  Pistols and Rifles are designed drop-safe these days as every gun owner knows.  Shotguns are not designed drop safe and never have been, even while on safe.  That’s why we carry the way we do and have designated fields of fire when we bird hunt.

However, the gun is not being moved, so there is no danger of dropping it.  So, what’s the big deal?

I guess I can’t escape being an engineer.

But since others are having fun with it, you can too in the comments in you want.

Y’all know how much I love dogs.  This is an inspiring video of a dog learning to walk on four prosthetic limbs.

Waterbuck versus lion.  The moral of the story?  Never give up.  I’d suggest that lion was beaten up pretty badly by the end of the encounter.

Cowboys are still relevant.

In a previous post I mentioned that I witnessed first hand the heavy snow pack in the Northwest this year.  The Wyoming deer herd is in deep trouble because of the snow pack.

Finally, this is a feral animal in Times Square.  He’s lucky he didn’t do that around these parts.  He deserves to be put in chains on a road crew for a year.

Wisdom from his son: “Let’s not sleep on a ridge any more.”

Yea, I could have told him that too.  However, I see the alure of the camp site. If he thought there would be no foul weather, it’s easier for him to see what he wants to see and get where he wants to go for hunting from the top of the ridge.

If I’m going to sleep high, I prefer to find a strong patch of evergreens to help block the wind.  Large boulders will do that too.  There were both just down from the ridgeline. But you have to be careful around trees because they can come down on you if there are any dead ones.

The storm starts around 15 minutes.  I’m surprised the tent survived.

American Hunter.

To appreciate the Creedmoor’s design details we must first look back to the mid-twentieth century. At a time when the Beatles were the hottest band in the land and the Bay of Pigs debacle was unfolding, American hunters and shooters were obsessed with belted magnum cartridges. The 7mm Remington Magnum, the .300 Winchester Magnum, and Roy Weatherby’s red-hot cartridges had become the standard for making long shots on big game. If you wanted to improve performance from your favorite belted magnum the answer was simple: shoot a lighter bullet.

Over the decades, serious shooters recognized two things. First, while lighter bullets did offer higher velocities and flatter trajectories at moderate ranges things changed when shots stretched much beyond a quarter-mile. Light bullets tended to drop very quickly when their velocities waned, and the wind shoved them all over the place. Second, hunters realized that powerful magnum rounds kicked hard, burned a lot of powder, and required long actions, magazines, and barrels which increased gun weight and overall length.

Fast magnums remained popular through the end of the twentieth century, and they are still popular choices for those who hunt big game at long distances. But by the turn of the century, shooters were taking a long, hard look at long-range bullet performance, and what they learned was that a bullet’s ballistic coefficient played an important role in downrange performance. Heavy-for-caliber bullets with aerodynamic profiles and high ballistic coefficients make sense for long-range shooting.

The sensible solution would be to load magnum ammunition with high-BC bullets, but there were two problems. First, many rifles had barrel twist rates that were too slow to properly stabilize extremely heavy-for-caliber bullets. Second, most cartridge cases were not designed with maximum-weight bullets in mind, so heavy bullets would rob case capacity or exceed acceptable cartridge overall lengths (COL).

Enter the 6.5 Creedmoor. It’s based on the .30 T/C, a cartridge that never garnered a major following. The Creedmoor was necked down and features a 30-degree shoulder and a long enough neck so that it can accommodate 140+ grain bullets without robbing case capacity, yet still fit in a short action. Muzzle velocities weren’t extremely high—around 2,700 fps with Hornady’s ELD match load—but that bullet boasts a G1 BC of .697, so at 500 yards it retains over 2,000 fps of velocity and almost 1,500 foot-pounds of energy. Compare that to Hornady’s .308 Win. 168 Boat Tail Hollow Point (BTHP) Match ammunition, and you’ll see why the Creedmoor makes sense. The .308 Win. load has a BC of .450 so it’s going to move more in a crosswind. The .308 Win., with its heavier bullet, is actually about 200 fps slower than the Creedmoor at 500 yards, and the .308 Win. produces more recoil.

That’s the best explanation of the 6.5 Creedmoor I’ve ever seen.  Not even the engineers at Hornady have done so well at explaining why they developed the round.

It’s a heavy-for-caliber bullet, but not heavy.  It’s long and has a high BC, but it fits in a short action rifle.  It’s a long bullet but it doesn’t rob the case of powder capacity.  It’s a compromise round.  It achieves moderate to high MV at short ranges, but exceptional velocity at longer ranges.

Its recoil is of course more than say a 5.56mm, but it’s not like shooting a 30-06 or 7mm magnum.  Guns designed for it send the round downrange with enough bullet twist to take advantage of the cartridge design.

There isn’t any such thing as perfect ammunition.  Every decision is a compromise on something.  But this round achieves the best of the compromises that have to be made, and is nearly as perfect as can be for white tail, hogs, varmint, and elk at close range.  “When Emary and Thielen designed this round, they wanted a superb low-recoiling cartridge that was accurate and could take advantage of high-BC bullets, and that’s exactly what they’ve created.”

If you want something else, then get something else (e.g., use a 7mm magnum or 7mm PRC for ridge-to-ridge hunting in Idaho or Wyoming).  Don’t criticize the 6.5 Creedmoor – its design has a purpose.  Know what your bullet and gun are designed for, and stay within the boundary conditions of the analysis.

Field & Stream.

• You’re Probably Putting Too Much Pressure On Your Rifle
• Shooting Bags Aren’t Just For the Range
• Blading Your Shoulders Leads to Bad Shooting
• Learn to Build Good Shooting Positions
• Light Rifles Can Be Accurate, Too
• You Don’t Need A Lot of Ammo to Practice
• Respect the Wind and Your Limitations

See the discussion at F&S.  I’ve tried to put some of these principles to practice recently in my own rifle shooting.  I’m a long ways from mastering them all.

That’s the title at Slate, because Mark Joseph Stern thinks he has found out that progressive judges have finally found a use for the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.  After a silly and emotional (and factually incorrect) diatribe against the Bruen decision, he says this.

What’s a progressive judge to do? Public defenders have already offered an answer: employ the Second Amendment in furtherance of progressive constitutional values like equal protection and the rights of criminal defendants. Because so many high-profile gun cases are manufactured by conservative activists—including this one—it’s easy to forget who’s really on the front lines of the Second Amendment revolution: criminal defense attorneys representing indigent clients charged with firearm offenses. (It’s telling that one Biden appointee who joined the majority in Range, Arianna Freeman, spent her entire legal career as a federal public defender.) Public defenders have a Sixth Amendment obligation to provide their clients with a zealous defense, which increasingly includes constitutional challenges to gun restrictions.

That’s why New York City’s public defenders filed a brief in Bruen urging the Supreme Court to strike down nearly all limitations on public carry. And it’s why the 3^rd Circuit’s top public defenders—Freeman’s former colleagues—filed a similar brief in Range attacking the federal felon-in-possession ban. The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions all envision “law-abiding, responsible citizens” who seek to protect themselves and their families from violence. But in the real world, the people who have the most to gain from these rulings are criminal defendants facing down years or decades in prison. Recent decisions establishing a right to scratch out a gun’s serial number and purchase a firearm while under indictment or restraining order all arose out of criminal prosecutions, not NRA-backed test cases.

Like a growing number of public defenders, liberal judges like Freeman, Ambro, Greenaway, and Montgomery-Reeves may think that the Second Amendment can be repurposed as a weapon against over-policing and mass incarceration. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Range will certainly be a boon to the criminal defense bar, as well as a source of immense confusion for prosecutors. The majority’s standard is extraordinarily vague: It acknowledges that some people may be disarmed for committing a felony, but a person “like Range” could not. How can judges tell when someone falls on Range’s side of the line? The majority didn’t say. In 2019, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett took a stab at a clearer standard, asserting that only “dangerous” and “violent felons” may be disarmed. But which crimes count as “violent”? Is selling or using cocaine “violent”? How about possessing child pornography? Drunk driving? Burglary? Harassment? In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court found it impossible to give the term “violent felony” a “principled and objective” standard. Why should courts have any more luck today?

This uncertainty would force prosecutors to think twice before bringing felon-in-possession charges, asking first whether they could persuade a court that the defendant is sufficiently “dangerous” or “violent” or “non-law-abiding” to justify disarmament. And from a criminal justice reform perspective, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of left-leaning commentators have argued that the felon-in-possession ban is disproportionately enforced against people of color, contributing to mass incarceration and persecution of minority communities. For many progressives, these problems raise concerns about equal protection, unlawful policing, and unconstitutional sentences. But this Supreme Court doesn’t see them that way; it cares far more about gun rights than traditional civil rights, such as basic civic equality of Black Americans. So progressive judges may instead seek to use the Second Amendment as a stand-in for constitutional principles that SCOTUS has abandoned.

That’s a lot to unpack and I haven’t the time to fisk it all.  He makes many mistakes, including the assumption that the NRA is a gun rights organization.  As we’ve pointed out many times before, they were in favor of NFA, GCA, the completely unconstitutional Hughes Amendment, the original AWB, the bump stock ban, red flag laws, and a host of other liberty-infringing laws and regulations.  The sooner we can move the NRA out of the way, the sooner we can begin to restore our liberties.  Because pols turn to them for views and approval, they are like a ball and chain attached to us.

Other false assumptions might be that advocates of liberty would somehow be opposed to a turnaround in mass incarceration and over-policing.  Look no further than this web site for advocacy of this recent third circuit ruling, including your truly and all of the commenters.  And even a cursory look at our police category proves that we are against over-policing.  The writer is confusing lovers of liberty with the advocacy of modern incarnation and reflexive “conservative” cop-advocacy.  Here, think Bill Barr, who defended Lon Horiuchi.

His is a very dated view.  He lumps us in with folks who think nothing like us.  I don’t believe in incarceration as it is currently conceived anyway, i.e., as effectual for redemptive and rehabilitative purposes.  Put simply, I don’t believe in imprisonment.  Per the Biblical paradigm, I believe in slavery to pay debts, and capital punishment for capital crimes such as rape, kidnapping and murder.  There is absolutely no good reason, and by the way, no Biblical justification, for charging a man with the carry of a weapon if he commits some other crime, regardless of whether he had approval from a state permitting schema.  Charge him for the crime he committed, not ownership of weapons.  If you wonder what modern gun owners think about this view, look to the guys at Reddit/Firearms, who completely support this decision as do we.  Gun control laws are infringements – full stop.

But that’s not the end of the conversation, you see.  Because if by over-policing the writer at Slate means the arrest of the Antifa protesters in Portland, Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, and elsewhere, we disagree with him.  More to the point, liberty means the right to defend yourself and your loved ones.  It means the right to shoot people who endanger your life and the lives of your loved ones.  As I have told my wide when she had to drive in Charlotte several years ago when this was all going down, if you’re on John Belk Freeway (I-277) and Antifa protesters block the way and start beating on cars (like they did at least once), run them over, and kill them if you must.

That road is like a moat.  It’s walled on both sides for miles, and the only opportunity for egress to protect your life is finding one of the few exits and getting out of the city.  Liberty doesn’t mean allowing communists agitators to rape you, kidnap you, steal from you or damage your property, or take your life.  It means defending against all of that, including with weapons of your choice.

Mr. Stern is a controller and finds it so remarkable that mass incarceration might suffer a blow from this decision that it’s worth an article.  Join the club, Mark, albeit a bit late.  I don’t believe men should go to prison for ownership of weapons either.  We don’t like the controllers any more than you do.  But be careful what you wish for.  When I say we don’t like the controllers, that also means we don’t like their agitators and instigators and believe we have rights against their methods and intentions – without interference from the controllers.

It’s fascinating to me that this country is finally figuring out what the second amendment is all about.

Decision.

The material facts are undisputed. In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). In those days, Range was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour as he and his wife struggled to raise three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife prepared an application for food stamps that understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Though he did not recall reviewing the application, Range accepted full responsibility for the misrepresentation. Range was sentenced to three years’ probation, which he completed without incident. He also paid $2,458 in restitution, $288.29 in costs, and a $100 fine. Other than his 1995 conviction, Range’s criminal history is limited to minor traffic and parking infractions and a summary offense for fishing without a license. When Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. That conviction precludes Range from possessing a firearm because federal law generally makes it “unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

[ … ]

… the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is as expansive as it is vague. Who are “law-abiding” citizens in this context? Does it exclude those who have committed summary offenses or petty misdemeanors, which typically result in a ticket and a small fine? No. We are confident that the Supreme Court’s references to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” do not mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket is no longer among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps, then, the category refers only to those who commit “real crimes” like felonies or felony-equivalents? At English common law, felonies were so serious they were punishable by estate forfeiture and even death. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 54 (1769). But today, felonies include a wide swath of crimes, some of which seem minor.5 And some misdemeanors seem serious.6 As the Supreme Court noted recently: “a felon is not always more dangerous than a misdemeanant.” Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2020 (2021) (cleaned up). As for the modifier “responsible,” it serves only to undermine the Government’s argument because it renders the category hopelessly vague. In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a “responsible” citizen. At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”). In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are counted among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny lead us to conclude that Bryan Range remains among “the people” despite his 1995 false statement conviction.

That he made a false statement in order to obtain food stamps is an absurd reason to effect a prohibition on firearms ownership. We in America suffer from death by a thousand cuts.  It was reversed like it should have been by the Third Circuit.