Articles by Herschel Smith

If you can find it.  My observation is that the newer Marlin 45-70 as well as the Henry 45-70 are simply unobtanium.

Shooting Illustrated.

Q: While on a recent cleaning binge of my .45 ACP pistols, I noticed that some of the barrels had a right-hand twist, while the majority had a left-hand twist. This got me wondering why that was and what the difference between the two may be.

A: Related to rifles at distances of 300 yards or farther, spin drift can become a factor that will affect the impact of the bullet on the target. Long-range shooters correct for spin drift in right-twist barrels by making windage adjustments to the left as the distance increases. It is just the opposite for left-twist barrels that require a windage adjustment to the right to keep the bullet impact centered on the target.

Further in that vein, it can be proven mathematically that one twist direction is better when used in the Northern Hemisphere and the other is better for use in the Southern Hemisphere in addition to benefits to countering the Coriolis effect on long-range precision shooting.

This may be so, but I have never met or heard of a shooter who put all that into practical application. Also, note that all of the above examples involve rifles, and most of the scientific explanations involve shooting at extreme ranges—the Coriolis effect is not going to have any measurable influence on accuracy with a handgun shooting a standard handgun round at realistic handgun ranges.

In reference to the .45 ACP specifically, I am aware of tests conducted by some of the military teams regarding twist rates and direction, in an attempt to wring the absolute maximum performance from their match guns. This effort was put forth to give their national-level shooters an edge over their counterparts. I am unaware of any discernible game-changing difference that would favor one twist direction over another. If any irrefutable evidence had come from these tests, there would have been a wholesale effort for change across the board. This did not happen.

It is speculated that when John Browning invented the 1911, he designed it as a right-handed pistol for the Cavalry Soldier who could handle the reins with the left hand and shoot with the right. The left twist in the barrel was designed to torque the gun into the palm of the right hand, lessening the likelihood of the Soldier losing control of the pistol during firing. This makes a lot of sense, but is unsupported by any evidence as far as I know.

I had never heard this about JMB’s design of the 1911, and it may be apocryphal.  But Browning was so meticulous and detailed that the decision would actually make sense.

I confess that I have never closely observed the rifling twist direction in my 1911s before, but you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll pay close attention the next time I do a cleaning.  I’ll also pay close attention to rifles as well.

This is an interesting question.

Source.

… two legal challenges to the Trump administration’s prohibition are pending at the Supreme Court – including one that has been rescheduled for consideration 20 times. The lack of a decision about whether or not the court will hear the litigation has led to speculation among experts who follow the issue closely that the court’s 6-3 conservative majority may not agree on how to proceed.

The court twice declined emergency requests from gun groups to delay implementation of the ban in 2019. And it declined to hear a similar challenge in 2020.

“The six conservatives on the court right now aren’t really on the same page about guns as much as people think they are,” said Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. Some in the court’s conservative wing, he said, “might be afraid to take the case if they’re not sure that they’re going to get their way.”

In addition to once again raising the issue of guns at the nation’s highest court months after it decided a landmark Second Amendment case, the new litigation also delves into how much power federal agencies have to create regulations when the law those rules are based on is unclear. Conservatives for years have sought to limit that agency discretion and their arguments seem to be gaining traction with the high court.

[ … ]

Feldman points to another reason why the Supreme Court may have been slow to take up the issue of bump stocks: So far, gun rights groups have been losing in appeals courts. The justices often like to see a disagreement in circuit courts – known as a “circuit split” – before wading in to resolve a dispute and provide guidance to lower courts on a thorny legal question.

“Right now,” Feldman said, “there is no circuit split.”

But that may soon change. In a separate case, the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has scheduled arguments in a challenge to the bump stock ban for Tuesday. Meanwhile, at least one of the justices has signaled a receptivity to the arguments being made by the gun rights groups.

The ATF, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in 2020, “used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as ‘machineguns.’ Now it says the opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it.

“Why should courts,” Gorsuch asked, “defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?”

Good question.  Here’s the answer.  They shouldn’t.

The bump stock decision was perhaps the worst mistake Trump ever made because of the precedent it set.  I don’t have a bump stock, but that isn’t the point.  The right to own one without interference from the FedGov is enshrined in the 2A.

But more importantly, with all due respect to Justice Gorsuch and his observation on pirouetting (which is correct since the ATF has taken contradictory positions on this as they have on many other things), this is about the question whether a bureaucratic organization has the authority and power to write law.

Here’s the answer.  They don’t.  Beyond that, even the ban on machine guns, I claim, runs afoul of the 2A.  So if the ATF had always taken the position that bump stocks met the definition of machine gun and they had never pirouetted on this issue, it still doesn’t make it right.  Pirouetting isn’t what makes this sinful.  It’s the failure to follow the constitution.

However, with the law and order justices, and also with the progressives, I doubt this issue will find traction in the SCOTUS and I have serious doubts they will overturn this ridiculous rule and put the ATF in its place.

So you see, if they don’t overturn it, the conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too.  On the one hand, they want to disgorge the authority of the bureaucrats from making law (de facto authority because they’ve done it unchallenged), but on the other hand, when it comes to bump stocks their Ox may be gored.  So they will find another route to do their disgorgement of the controllers if they ever do it all.

Will the Supreme Court finally deal the death blow to the bump stock ban?  Color me skeptical.

AllOutdoor.

Here is more description.

We do a lot of talking around here about the sadness of passing of legacy and heirloom firearms made of fine Walnut with beautiful contour lines and craftsmanship.

Over/Under shotguns are the exception.  Winchester makes a beautiful shotgun too, as does Browning.

I’d love to have a new 694 to test at my local sporting clays range and report back to you, but unfortunately Beretta didn’t send me a gun to review.

If any enterprising reader gets one, report back over these pages after testing.

Source.

The rate of the rifling twist inside a rifle barrel would seem to be mostly a gun thing as opposed to an ammunition thing. However, for ammunition to shoot accurately, the bullet must be stabilized, and for a bullet to be stabilized, the rifling rate-of-twist must be compatible with the bullet’s length and velocity. This means that twist rate is very important to ammunition, and it is why the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) establishes standards for twist rates as they relate to arms and ammunition.

This is a good thing. It’s why when you purchase ammunition for your firearm, you can expect that ammunition to shoot at least reasonably well. Most ammunition manufacturers make ammunition to SAAMI specifications, which means the bullets—at their launch velocity—will mesh well with the rifling-twist rate of the gun for which you bought them. It can, however, be a bad thing, as history has shown.

In 1955, Remington introduced the .244 Rem. cartridge. It fired a .244-caliber bullet and had a stipulated rifling-twist rate of one turn in 12 inches (1:12). The cartridge worked great with bullets in the 55- to 90-grain weight range. However, that same year Winchester introduced the .243 Win. (I’m betting Winchester had a spy inside Remington.) The .243 Win. also fired a .244-caliber bullet, but Winchester very wisely specified a 1:10-inch twist rate for the rifling. This meant Winchester’s 6 mm cartridge could handle heavier—longer—bullets of 100 grains. Both cartridges became popular, but the .243 Win. won the battle even though it was not quite as fast as the .244. Why? Twist rate. Eight years later Remington tried to save its .244 by reintroducing it as the 6 mm Rem. and tightening the twist rate from 1:12- to 1:9-inch. This allowed the cartridge to better compete with the .243 Win. But, it was too late.

Remington has always seemed a bit late to the game.

Almost the exact same thing happened to Remington again in 2008. That’s the year Hornady introduced the 6.5 Creedmoor, which fired a .264-caliber bullet out of a cartridge case similar in size to the .260 Rem. Remington had introduced the .260 in 1997 and it had become a very popular cartridge for long-range target shooting and hunting. However, Remington stipulated a 1:9-inch twist rate for the .260, while Hornady stipulated a 1:8-inch twist for the Creedmoor. Because of the Creedmoor’s ability to handle longer, more aerodynamic bullets, Remington got twisted out of the conversation again.

I’m not really sure that’s completely why – I think free bore had something to do with it too, maybe a lot more things.  The folks at Hornady don’t appear to like free bore at all and want the bullet as close to the leade as possible, just at the rifling, in order to avoid bullet deformation.  That’s one reason they don’t like the 300 Win Mag (stock ammo, not reloaders) and do like their own 300 PRC.

While all this was going on, developments with what is now the most popular rifle cartridge in America were struggling through another twisted situation. In 1964, the .223 Rem.—yep, here we go with Remington yet again—was introduced. It was initially famous as the cartridge of the AR-15 and, in 5.56×45 mm form (which isn’t identical) as the cartridge of the military’s M16. The .223 Rem. had a specified twist rate of 1:12 inches, which was about perfect for a 55-grain bullet at 3,200 fps.

But, in the early 1980s, the 5.56 NATO cartridge was standardized. Externally, the cartridge-case dimensions of the .223 Rem. and the 5.56 NATO are identical, but the chambers are different, and the 5.56 NATO is loaded to higher pressures. Also, it is a military cartridge for which there are no SAAMI specifications. Initially standardized with a 62-grain bullet, 5.56 NATO rifles have a much faster 1:7-inch twist rate. This allowed the 5.56 NATO to stabilize longer bullets that were heavier and shot flatter. Aficionados of the .223 Rem. caught on and started re-barreling .223 Rem. rifles with faster-twist barrels and loading their own ammo to take advantage of newer and longer bullets.

However, most ammunition for the .223 Rem. is still built to work with the original 1:12-inch twist rate. Why? Well, there are many, many thousands of .223 Rem. rifles out there with a 1:12-inch twist. If you have one of those and purchased ammo loaded with a bullet that needs a 1:8-inch twist, you’ll struggle to hit a snuff can at 100 yards. But, some ammo makers are now offering .223 Rem. ammo that needs the faster twist.

Rifle manufacturers are doing the same. For example, Savage initially used the slower twist rate for the .223 Rem., but by 1995 all Savage 110 rifles in .223 Rem. had a 1:9-inch twist. In 2007, Savage added a 1:7-inch-twist-rate barrel to several models, but when it entered the AR-15 market in 2017, the company settled on the 1:8-inch twist for its MSRs in .223 Rem. or 5.56 NATO.

Of course, factory .223 ammo designed for a 1:12-inch twist will shoot just fine in the faster 1:8- or 1:7-inch twist barrels and in 5.56 NATO rifles. (Do not shoot 5.56 NATO ammo in rifles chambered for the .223 Rem.) This is one of the reasons many modern AR-15-style rifles are chambered for the 5.56 NATO instead of the .223 Rem., and it’s also why many manufacturers now load 5.56 NATO ammo and sell it commercially. Some manufacturers also cut .223-caliber chambers to the .223 Wylde chamber to allow for the firing of both .223 Rem. and 5.56 NATO ammunition—more accurately in the case of .223 Rem. and safely in the case of 5.56 NATO.

Cartridge designers have now finally learned and are specifying fast twist rates when new cartridges are introduced. Just look at the 22 Nosler, 224 Valkyrie, 6 mm ARC, .277 SIG Fury; the list goes on. Today, longer, more aerodynamic bullets pushed through fast-twist barrels shoot flatter and hit harder at distance.

Tim Harmsen at Military Arms Channel did a video of an M-16 shooting in a 1:12 twist gun into ballistics gel, and other media, and it seemed to outperform the shorter barrels with tighter twist.

Anyway, it’s ironic that this discussion occurred the next day after we touched on these issues.  Also, in my AR-15 category there is a lot of discussion on ballistics and twist rate.  I won’t recapitulate it here.

Take all of this for what it’s worth.  He speaks it as gospel, and I suspect not much of it is.

I will remark that I very much like the performance of the 6mm ARC.  It’s a pure pleasure to shoot, without recoil noticeably stronger than the 5.56 and yet with vastly superior results.

Source.

An influx of migrants into a Texas border town killing local pets, stealing from shops, and knocking on doors late at night has prompted residents to buy more weapons to defend themselves.

The Del Rio section of the border at Eagle Pass, Texas, has seen over 376,000 migrant encounters since October 2021, according to Customs and Border Protection, which doubles the number from the previous year.

One Eagle Pass resident said she taught her children to use tasers and other weapons to defend their family business.

[ … ]

They added that they were aware of some migrants who entered one property ‘and in order to steal something, they killed the dogs.’

Do you want to have your pets killed in the middle of the night and then have your home invaded?  Or if you’re perspective is a bit bigger, do you want to terraform a society and culture, impoverish the middle class, and ruin the culture?

Just throw the borders wide open.  That’ll do it just about right.

Our friend Andy at Practical Accuracy has given us an awesome video on the use of 55 gr. bullets in a 7:1 twist barrel.

Maybe the best, virtually without fear of overpenetration and harm to people in other homes.

A 17-year-old shot and killed two armed intruders during an attempted home invasion, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies were called to the 16000 block of First St., for a shooting in progress.

According to officials, three armed men wearing a mask attempted to force their way into a home. The home was occupied by a woman, 12-year-old boy, and two 17-year-old males. Deputies say a 17-year-old got a shotgun and fired several times, striking two of the suspects. Both suspects were pronounced dead at the scene. The third suspect fled …

Wait a minute!  You mean he was a 17 year old, not a paying graduate of tacti-school training with tacti-cool instructor former JSOC-operator/Ranger/SEAL/SWAT-cop ‘Tacti-dude’?

A shotgun seems like a fine weapon for a multi-man home invasion to me.

Breitbart.

Payment processor Visa Inc. said Saturday that it plans to start separately categorizing sales at gun shops, a major win for gun control advocates who say it will help better track suspicious surges of gun sales that could be a prelude to a mass shooting.

But the decision by Visa, the world’s largest payment processor, will likely provoke the ire of gun rights advocates and gun lobbyists, who have argued that categorizing gun sales would unfairly flag an industry when most sales do not lead to mass shootings. It joins Mastercard and American Express, which also said they plan to move forward with categorizing gun shop sales.

Visa said it would adopt the International Organization for Standardization’s new merchant code for gun sales, which was announced on Friday. Until Friday, gun store sales were considered “general merchandise.”

“Following ISO’s decision to establish a new merchant category code, Visa will proceed with next steps, while ensuring we protect all legal commerce on the Visa network in accordance with our long-standing rules,” the payment processor said in a statement.

Visa’s adoption is significant as the largest payment network, and with Mastercard and AmeEx, will likely put pressure on the banks as the card issuers to adopt the standard as well. Visa acts as a middleman between merchants and banks, and it will be up to banks to decide whether they will allow sales at gun stores to happen on their issued cards.

Gun control advocates had gained significant wins on this front in recent weeks. New York City officials and pension funds had pressured the ISO and banks to adopt this code.

Visa was the holdout, and they buckled.

I see a lot of firearms purchases being made in cash in the future.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit remarks.

SOCIAL CREDIT SCORING COMES TO AMERICA: Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to start categorizing gun shop sales.

Imagine if they were doing this about abortion. Or if legislatures tried to make them do so.

A reader comments: “Have you seen this yet? It sure feels like there is a very coordinated effort throughout the woke financial sector to create ‘private’ gun control. I wonder if it is being driven by interaction with the ATF, etc like the censoring of private speech by coordination between government and social media. Also, wouldn’t this enable the card companies to create a gun registry? The credit card transactions include our names and what we bought and the card company knows our addresses, etc. Seems like another example of actual fascism where government coerces private companies to do their bidding.”

Based on experience, the likelihood that this is happening without government encouragement is very low.

Government => Social Media => Censorship of speech.

Government => Financial Corporations => Censorship of products.

Government = Corporations.

Benito Mussolini would be very proud of his legacy.

If it’s determined that your gun isn’t an SBR, at least they have all of the information on it, including information on you.

If it’s determined that you are in possession of an SBR illegally, then what happens?  Do ATF agents come to your door, shoot your dogs and arrest you?  Or do they simply register your firearm, now putting that gun on a list of NFA items that cannot cross state lines without their approval?

You see, heads they win, tails you lose.

This is a gigantic buffalo jump, folks.