Articles by Herschel Smith

Goodness, there has been so much ink spilled over this subject I can’t even begin to rehearse it all.  Here is an interesting recent piece.

In past years I have run several series of tests with commercial and experimental barrel-cleaning media in an effort to take barrels that had been fired back down to base metal, with no carbon or copper fouling as a starting point. A part of the test was to see which medium worked as advertised and which was less effective than expected. The tests were divided into cleaners that relied on chemical action to realize the expected results and cleaners that were abrasive in nature to remove the fouling. The results were verified via bore scopes with magnification to validate the findings.

It was no surprise that we found that some barrels responded to some of the chemical cleaners better than others. This was particularly prevalent with the smoothness of the barrel’s interior surfaces. Match-grade barrels that had been lapped to remove any irregularities or imperfections cleaned down to bare metal without too much effort. Run of-the-mill production barrels fouled earlier and were more difficult to clean almost universally, though there were a few notable exceptions.

Upon examining the barrels that fouled quicker, it was found that microscopic voids and tool marks left from the original manufacturing process were the greatest contributors to lead, copper or carbon fouling. The rougher the barrel’s interior, the quicker it fouls.

Even after cleaning down to bare metal with the abrasive cleaners, some barrels still needed chemical cleaners to remove the fouling embedded in the voids and irregular spots.

After thoroughly cleaning a barrel down to bare metal and removing all perceivable fouling and contamination, a tight-fitting clean patch pushed through the barrel still had a very slight discoloring present due to the vapor-thin residues left by the cleaning agents. This was not really a concern because the bore scope verified the condition of the bore to the satisfaction of the test.

Out of curiosity, we tried a few cleaners that had nothing to do with firearms, but were excellent cleaners that left no smudges or residual film in their intended application. What we found worked to enable a clean patch in and a clean patch out was glass cleaner. It removed everything but the shine after the hard work was done by the chemicals and abrasives.

I am not recommending you use glass cleaner on your Ruger, I’m just stating a finding that may be of interest.

We’ve discussed this before, but it doesn’t appeal to me as prima facie wise to remove everything.  I need to be convinced before I believe it.

Microscopic voids, minor erosion, stress corrosion cracking, tooling marks, and the like, are part of the scene.  No surface will be free of imperfections.

The very first round after removing all of the copper and lead will refill all of those imperfections with copper and lead.  Why continue to beat yourself up over trying to get it all out as if the gun had never been fired?

Anyway, I know that Paul Harrell uses soap and water, others use copper cleaners, others use solvents and still others use odorless mineral spirits (I do on shotguns).

I have never heard of using Windex on the inside of barrels.  I’d have to study the effect of ammonia on metals (SS, carbon steel, MoCr, etc.) before I was comfortable with that.  At a minimum I’d make sure to remove every last bit of the Windex with solvent and patches, and then oil it, before setting it aside.

Have readers ever used Windex on barrels?

Source.

If you move a rock from one place to the next you may have inadvertently disturbed the home of a tiny critter living beneath it. Moving stones can also contribute to soil erosion or destroy the delicate microhabitats plants and animals need to survive. Also, moving a rock to add to the top of a cairn could cause the whole thing to come down, rather defeating the object.

[ … ]

So what should you do if you see a rock cairn? Well, the advice from the National Parks Service is to leave them well alone, no tampering, building, or adding to existing ones. Don’t be tempted to kick them over either. If that won’t convince you, maybe the law will: the practice of moving the rocks could be seen as vandalism which is illegal.

Yea whatever.  The NPS doesn’t own the earth or any part of it.  “The cattle on a thousand hills” and all of creation belongs to God.

I wouldn’t like it very much if a vandal built a rock cairn to mislead me on the trail.  But some of them are needful as long as they are located correctly.  As for that little critter who might get disturbed if I move one, he can find another place to live.

If I need to collect rocks to build a fire ring, that’s what I’ll do.

Shooting Illustrated.

Both UPS and FedEx allow only FFLs, law enforcement agencies and specific governmental entities to ship and receive firearms of any type, for any reason. That means unless you happen to be an FFL, you’ll have to enlist the services of one to both send your rifle to a gunsmith or to a manufacturer for warranty repairs, or to receive your rifle from either. An added complication is that in order for FFLs to use UPS or FedEx for this purpose, they must first apply for and receive approval to be a firearm shipper from the company they want to use. As an FFL myself, I can attest that this process is neither simple nor a hoop that every FFL will choose to jump through. UPS takes it one step further by requiring that firearm parts only be shipped by FFLs as well. What constitutes a firearm part? According to the UPS representative who serviced my old account, UPS considers a firearm part to be “anything that would be assembled to make a gun or added to a gun,” such as magazines, small parts, aftermarket furniture or any other components.

Moving on to brighter skies, USPS appears to mirror federal guidelines when it comes to the shipping of rifles. “Publication 52” is the postal service’s main-source document for firearm-shipping rules. According to section 432.3, so long as the rifle is unloaded and all other laws (state, local, etc.) are in full compliance, a non-FFL may mail a rifle to another non-FFL within the sender’s state of residence. Outside of one’s state of residence, it may be mailed to an FFL or to yourself (in care of someone else), in advance of your arrival at the destination address. Specific rules are outlined for each of these situations, so check local, state and USPS regulations before shipping that family heirloom off into the wild blue yonder, whether for repair or use in a different state.

USPS regulations are elusive on the topic of FFLs returning firearms to their lawful owners. However, “27 CFR § 478.148” states that an FFL may return a firearm (or like replacement) to its owner across state lines. There are no restrictions on shipping firearm components and parts through USPS, except that receivers and frames that ATF classifies as firearms must be shipped as firearms.

[ … ]

USPS requires that you declare the firearm and certify that it is unloaded before handing your package over to them. At no time may ammunition be shipped with a firearm (regardless of shipping method). You may be required to show a copy of the receiving FFL’s license and include a copy of your driver’s license with the firearm as well. A note for the receiving party is always a good idea. One of my outgoing rifle shipments, also last year, arrived at the receiving end completely out of the box. In fact, there was no box at all, just a rifle in a case. Thankfully, the paperwork was also in the case, so the receiving gun shop had sufficient information to be able to contact me for guidance.

Even though long-gun shipping has become more complicated in recent months, it’s still not overly difficult. By following the relevant laws and shippers’ rules, you can get your rifle where it needs to be without much fanfare.

I think the bottom line is that we’re probably going to have to either [a] drive it to where it needs to go, or [b] go through an FFL.  FFLs know it’s necessary to ask them for this service, so they charge for it.  I don’t blame them – the FFL costs money to maintain.

The murky thing is “firearm parts.”  Thus far I haven’t had any problems ordering things like ammunition, charging handles, BCGs, etc., and I’ve received barrels in the mail before.

But you can count on the federal code making things as difficult as possible.

Seen here.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions of Chapter 131 Section 7(a), which criminalizes carrying handguns in certain “sensitive places,” subparts 12 (public libraries or museums), 15 (bars, restaurants, and where alcohol is served), 17 (entertainment facilities), and 24 (private property), as well as section 7(b)’s ban on functional firearms in vehicles. The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions. The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as the holders of valid permits from the State to conceal carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Accordingly, good cause exists, and the Court will grant the motion for temporary restraints. An accompanying order of today’s date shall issue.

The effects of Bruen continue to be felt.  This is the right decision.  These courts all know that they can be disciplined by the Supreme Court.

But this is just the beginning.  There will be hundreds more where necessary.  I predict the gun control laws will continue to fall, including AWB, magazine capacity limits, showing good character, ad numerous permitting schemes.

Furthermore, I expect constitutional carry to come up again in the South Carolina legislature.  I also expect constitutional carry to pass in Florida because they’ve committed to it on video now.  If this doesn’t include open carry then it will be a failure.

It’s good to see this one go down in the flames it should.  Trump and the ATF should be ashamed.  But I suspect both would defend it to this day and beyond.

Stephen Stamboulieh sends this my way a couple of days ago, but since then it has been covered by others (e.g., see Reason here and here, and reddit/Firearms here and here, and also, never forget the NRA’s position on bump stocks).

This is a very well-written and well-researched opinion and points out the distinction between a function of the trigger and function of the shooter.

Here is the opinion.

BLUF:

1. A bump stock does not turn a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by the statutory definition of machine gun.
2. Even if the Fifth Circuit is wrong, the ATF lacked the authority to make this change.
3. We have no business deferring to the authority of the federal regulators to make this determination since there is no lack of clarity on this issue.  The issue is perfectly clear – a rifle outfitted with a bump stock is not a machine gun.

Elsewhere, the ATF is becoming tepid over their upcoming rulemaking on unserialized firearms.

Yet the move, which the Justice Department described as a clarification of the regulation, is not without risk. Because the rule was created through executive action, rather than a statute validated by Congress, it has given companies confidence that they can keep selling individual gun parts.

Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss possible litigation, said the new guidance would almost certainly be challenged in federal court on the grounds that it violates the Gun Control Act of 1968, which allows people to build firearms for their personal use without submitting to background checks or applying serial numbers.

Their upcoming rulemaking on unserialized firearms not only violates prior statutory law, it now suffers from the Fifth Circuit decision on bump stocks, which says that the ATF lacked the authority to inflict this new regulation on the American public.

Queue up the same thing for unserialized firearms.  And a thousand other lawsuits.

The only problem with the Fifth Circuit decision is that it applies only to states controlled by the Fifth Circuit.

Field & Stream has the backstory.  “A wildlife photographer named Slwomir Skukowski recently shared rare video footage of a mature wild boar fighting off a wolf pack in a Polish forest near the village of Mrzeżyno. The three-minute clip was filmed with a trail camera, and it’s amassed hundreds of thousands of views since Skukowski uploaded it to Youtube on December 13. It shows the big Eurasian boar thwarting multiple advances from at least seven wolves working in unison to bring it down.

In the video, the big hog is seen charging into the encircling wolf pack with reckless abandon. The wolves continue to approach the boar, but they never actually take it down—at least not in front of the camera. Eventually, the snorting pig scatters the canines, and they retreat to a nearby ridge before regrouping for another attack. Around the three minute mark, the wolves disperse and the clip cuts out.”

Of course, we don’t know what eventually happened, but it’s significant that one hog dispersed a pack of seven wolves, not once, but multiple times.  They are smart enough to know when there is danger of being gored by an animal that can run as fast as they can.

This is why you carry in the bush regardless of where you are.  In the Northwest it might be brown bears, but in the South it’s snakes, wild hogs and black bears.  There is danger everywhere.  Never go out in the bush without a sidearm.

Here is the video.

Here is a related video from the Southlands of the U.S.

Tenth Amendment Center.

Del. Bill Wiley (R) prefiled HB 1420 (HB1420) on Dec. 13. The legislation amends existing state law regarding prohibited concealed weapons to include the following:

For the sole purpose of carrying a concealed handgun, any person who carries a handgun anywhere he may lawfully carry a handgun openly within the Commonwealth and who is otherwise qualified under this article to obtain a concealed handgun permit. Such person shall not be required to meet the requirements of subsection B of § 18.2-308.02 or subsection B of § 18.2-308.06, as applicable, to carry a concealed handgun under this subdivision.

Currently, Virginia gun owners must apply to a city or county circuit court for a permit in order to conceal carry it in public under most circumstances.

Just like in my home state of North Carolina except it’s the CLEO who must approve.  Furthermore, purchasing a handgun requires a permit from the CLEO (of course, a CHP suffices for the five years it’s valid).  We’re an oddball state I must say.  I can’t recall the last time the voters handed the legislature to democrats, if ever since I’ve lived here.

But the legislature has to fight the governor’s mansion for just about everything.  I’m not sure of the makeup of the Virginia legislature, but I’d like to see them move forward while Youngkin is governor of the state.

If I have any readers in Virginia, please keep us posted on progress, and if possible, supply me with the email address of Mr. Wiley so I can stay in touch with him on this issue.

Prior: Virginia lawmakers could consider repeal of state gun laws

Outdoor Life has the story.

This information comes from PhD work at the University of Georgia (Blaise Newman, a PhD student at UGA) and which is sponsored by Sitka (which makes perfect sense).

See the link for the details, but here is the BLUF.  Avoid blues.  Avoid anything you might wash your gear or clothing in detergent containing UV brighteners.

What’s even more interesting is that a deer’s ability to see in the blue spectrum dictates where they move and when. Newman’s most recent project touched on this connection by tracking whitetail bucks in Florida with GPS collars and seeing how they moved through different landscapes at different times of day. She found that these bucks often chose to move through more open and brightly lit areas that reflected plenty of blue light including UV.

“They’re actually moving through an environment that makes it easier to detect you,” she says. “One way I always relate it is if you had the option to walk down a dark alley or a well-lit alley, which would you choose to move through?”

Newman also evaluated how deer move during low-light hours by hooking them up to an electroretinography machine and measuring their response to different light stimuli. (This is essentially the same technique that was used in the Deer Lab’s 1992 color vision study.) She found that deer were most sensitive to light and movement under twilight conditions, which supports the idea that deer are more active at dusk and dawn because that’s when their eyes function the best.

“One of the most interesting things we found is that deer eyes can detect the best, and are most sensitive, during twilight periods,” Newman says. “So, if you’ve been hunting all day just waiting for that buck to come by, and he’s finally coming out at twilight, you better be careful because his vision is the most sensitive it’s been all day.”

If deer vision seems inferior to ours, that’s only because we see the world through human eyes. As apex predators and tool developers, it’s beneficial for us to see in finer detail and to be able to recognize a wide range of colors. These subtleties aren’t so important to deer, though. Their eyes have evolved to prioritize detection over detail, and their abilities in this department are vastly superior to our own.

“Deer are a prey species,” Newman says. “Having detailed discrimination isn’t really important to deer. They just need to be able to detect and escape something.”

When it comes to color vision in particular, Newman explains that deer benefit from having less “chromatic noise.” By not having to process so many colors in the retina, their eyes can detect movement more quickly and easily. This means that deer can process visual cues much faster than humans do.

“They see motion at an astounding rate compared to our own ability,” she says. “The other aspect is temporal resolution—the time interval over which you integrate information—and their temporal processing just outstrips ours.”

Movement and blues give us away.

Orange, not so much.  It appears grey to them.

Ian is apparently currently on travel and brings us this interesting history lesson.

Surprising no one, if you haven’t been following the NY case of Ivan Antonyuk v. NY, the state of NY still hasn’t accepted Bruen, and won’t until the SCOTUS slaps them down again.  The federal district court ruled in favor of Antonyuk in a lengthy and well crafted decision that issued a stay on the recently enacted NY law, only to be blocked and held in abatement by the 2nd Circuit by a three-judge panel who said nothing about the merits of the decision.  The 2nd circuit overrode the district court decision with only a few cursory sentences.

The Antonyuk case was appealed directly to the supreme court, with Sotomayor demanding that NY reply.  They did with this brief.  In it, the state of NY insults the SCOTUS and tells them they aren’t needed.

NY to the Supreme Court

Friend of TCJ Stephen Stamboulieh, a terrific attorney, genuinely good man and defender of liberty, issued his reply, and it’s a wonderful thing to behold.

Stamboulieh to the Supreme Court in Response to NY

As Gandalf the Grey said (before he became Gandalf the White), “Until at last I smote my enemy and threw down his ruin upon the mountainside.”

This may not be over so the conclusory sentiment may be wrong, but may Stephen be victorious over his enemies and throw down their ruin upon the mountainside.