Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Reddit/Firearms has an interesting discussion thread on shooting stances.  I think the prevailing wisdom is that you use what’s best for you, and I concur with that.  This string of comments was particularly interesting.

Quick breakdown that most don’t know… (isocoles ISN’T the only way to shoot… and currently it’s mostly done wrong)

This is going to be long and I apologize.There are 3 basic shooting stances -Weaver Chapman and isosceles. Most people think that the stance is based on foot placement,. It isn’t. It is actually based on upper body, and arm position.

Weaver was a big strong muscular guy, who bent his elbows pulled the gun in close and shot almost perpendicular to his target. Weaver IS categorized by bent elbows and pure muscle control. It requires a push/pull between the firing and support hand to create stability.

Chapman came along and modified the weaver stance by introducing a locked-out firing-hand elbow. Chapman is also called the “modified weaver” – typically standing about forty five degrees off of target. If the solid firing arm increases structural support and management, While the bent support arm adds stability. While there is still a push/ pull, the pull creates structure by locking the firing arm.

Traditional isosceles is just that – an isoscoles triangle. Both elbows locked out, your shoulder width acts as the base of the Triangle. As soon as you bend your elbows, you have taken the structure out of the isosceles stance, and you are essentially in a weaver stance (this is the current “isoscoles”- because traditional isoscoles is REALLY rough on the elbows). Isosceles came to prominence in the heyday of early shooting competitions, and more importantly with the advent of body armor. If you stand sideways in a traditional weaver or chapman stance the hole in your body armor is now facing toward your potential threat.

Sorry, long answer to a short question..There are benefits to all three stances, but no one is perfect. Each do certain things better than the others. Each have their positives and drawbacks. They all hold a place.

If i were to take a long pistol shot… it would be in a Chapman stance…

If i was clearing a house/ doorway/etc it would most likely be in weaver …

Wearing body armor… lean toward isoscoles.

[ … ]

I was recently informed that weaver is the way it is because he had an issue with his left shoulder and was doing his best with what he had. Otherwise he’d have shot isosceles.

[ … ]

factual. he had to change so he slapped his name on it to create branding and keep making money as an instructor.

Some call it Chapman, some call it Modified Weaver.  I prefer Modified Weaver.  It’s still the Weaver stance, just slightly altered.  Pew Pew Tactical has pictures of the stances.  I prefer the Isosceles stances, except for hard hitting cartridges like the .44 magnum, which are too much for the hands when the elbows aren’t helping to absorb recoil as a shock absorber.

I think the method taught throughout the military now is Isosceles due to the presentation of unprotected body (lacking armor) that any other stance causes.  Aggressive plates-forward, it’s called.

I’m willing to bet we’ve all had them.  I had one in my life, thankfully at the range with the rifle pointed down range.  It’s silly and juvenile that some folks are giving Erik a hard time for making this a teachable moment.  Go put as many rounds down range as he does in a year and then come back to me and talk about it.

I agree with him, and I don’t need four or any reasons.  I’ve always wanted this rifle, but just always needed something else more.  I see in the comments that some guys want a .357 magnum version.  No, I want the .44 magnum version, and only then will I consider a .357 magnum rifle.

Oh, and fix the ejection problem first (where casings hit the scope).

Nice job.  Something we could all do if we had the gun, some time, and a little practice.

Source.

The world’s first “smart gun” hit the market Thursday, complete with a life-saving fingerprint unlocking system that prevents “unauthorized” people such as kids and criminals from firing it.

The cutting-edge 9mm handgun locks out everybody except the owner and users specifically approved by the owner — technology that could improve gun safety in America, according to reps from the gun-making firm Biofire.

[ … ]

The $1,499 gun unlocks in less than a second, using either a fingerprint or facial recognition sensor, then quickly locks again when it’s no longer in use.

[ … ]

“This Smart Gun was designed specifically for real gun owners who want a quality home-defense firearm that cannot be used by children or criminals,” said Mike Corbett, a BioFire advisor and former member of SEAL Team 6. “In a few years, I believe that the head of every household in America who wants a home-defense firearm is going to choose this Smart Gun.”

Absurd.  What happens to people to make them say things like “I believe that the head of every household in America who wants a home-defense firearm is going to choose this Smart Gun?”  He doesn’t really believe that, and you know it and he knows it and he knows that you know it.

$1,499 is enough money to buy a really nice gun like a CZ Shadow 2, or almost enough to buy a Dan Wesson 1911.  Who on earth would pay that much money for something like this?

Along with its need to be recharged, its additional biometric failure mode, its additional unlocking hardware failure modes, its unseemly appearance, the difficulty of concealment, the lack of textured grip, and the lack of an optics ready package?

And that’s the low end.  If you want more colors or more magazines with a range bag, their price extends to well over $2000.

Yea, Mr. Navy SEAL Mike Corbett doesn’t really believe people will buy this, and the investors have thrown their money away.

Good.

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

2023 is gonna be one helluva year for SIG. pic.twitter.com/EFp8S2Jpjy

— Roland☃️ (@rolandpew1230) April 10, 2023

Then there’s the Milwaukee PD who intend to get rid of theirs.  Then there’s this article.  David Codrea weighs in as well.

If you doubt all of this, there is at least this anecdote from reddit/Firearms.

I’d say that if I hadn’t seen it happen at a match I was at. Guy had his hands at high ready waiting for the beep and his 320 discharged in the holster. Shirt was tucked and it was higher end OWB holster. This was circa 2020 with a newer production gun. Apparently the firing pin spring broke and that some how allowed the firing pin to drop. He was lucky as the bullet ricocheted off something in his pocket.

As for me?  I don’t like the height of the bore over the axis.  I wouldn’t have the pistol.  Then, I wouldn’t have a Sig AR because I loath whatever control Sig has over former U.S. generals that enables them to get unwarranted and undeserved contracts.

You make up your own mind.

Ryan Muckenhirn discusses the action in the Tikka bolt action rifles.  I share his admiration for the smoothness of the action and accuracy of the rifle.

This is interesting for most of us, although it wouldn’t and doesn’t dissuade me from carrying a revolver for personal defense.  Of course, if your name is Jerry Miculek, none of this applies to you.  It seems to me that one of the lessons is to carry a backup handgun if you think you might be in a protracted gunfight.  If you can’t predict the future like most of us, I guess get good with speed loaders.  I like the idea of carrying a secondary weapon better.

On a related note, I don’t ever buy Armscor ammunition.  One comment to Sam’s video is interesting: “Back as a cop, I carried a 22 mag pocket revolver as a backup to the 38 issued weapon. Our armourer specifically warned us not to use Squires Bingham (what Armscor used to be in those days) 22 wrmf rounds for this reason. And this was quite a while ago now. Seems their QA for their rimfire mag round has not improved much.”

Here is a video from Silencer Shop.  This sounds like a nice idea, but at the expense of registering it with the ATF, not so much any more.  You’re free to disagree. I see that they have designed the suppressors with different choke sizes in mind. That answered the only question I had before watching he video: what does this do to the shot pattern? I do wonder what this does to the weight distribution and balance of the gun though.

I find that using shotguns in particular reduces the need for any sort of suppression of the sound because of the comfort of wearing sound enhancing ear muffs (or electronic ear muffs).  They work well with the lower comb of the shotgun and don’t interfere with getting a good cheek weld.

Rifles are a different story.  With rifles the stock doesn’t have the same profile, and this is especially true of modern sporting rifles where the stock is along the same axis as the recoil.  I find that electronic ear muffs do interfere with my cheek weld.  The only option at that point is foam hearing protection for the ear canal.

The upshot of electronic ear muffs for hunting or other shooting sports is that, especially for a person who is somewhat hard of hearing like me, the muffs actually enhance the sound (other than the shot itself).  I damaged my hearing by running power equipment for years before we thought about things like hearing protection. I always use hearing protection now. Thus, the last time I went quail hunting I had a regular conversation with someone with muffs on, and yet suffered no hearing damage from the shotgun.  The downside of foam hearing protection is that no such conversation can be had.

I am a fairly well rounded engineer, and in addition to studying both mechanical and nuclear engineering, I have studied the physics of sound, including all of the OSHA regulations and the dumbed-down ways they force you to compute reduction in decibels (for example, when double protection is used).  OSHA crafts its calculations for the simplest minded health and safety technician to use, not for the engineer.

But those regulations do provide worker protection.  And while it can be said that OSHA has no jurisdiction over hearing safety for those other than workers, if the FedGov cared in the least about the health and safety of its citizens, OSHA would be in front of Congress lobbying for removal of suppressors from the NFA.  Hearing loss is a human safety issue.  There are no two ways about it.

The only conclusion one can reach is that OSHA doesn’t really care about you, any more than the federal government does.  Because you engage in hunting and the other shooting sports, they hate you.  It’s that simple.  If they cared about you, they would have removed suppressors a very long time ago and allowed them to be sold at the local hardware store.

Let’s say that, hypothetically, you have two rifles, a Marlin 45-70 and a Marlin 30-30.  I think both rifles are close enough in ballistics (even with the massive weight difference) that they can be considered together.  Neither rifle is considered a 400 yard rifle – they’re both effective at 0 – 200 yards or so, with the 45-70 drop more significant further out than the 30-30.  But let’s go ahead and lump the two cartridges together for the sake of argument.

You obviously don’t need a 4X24 scope, and besides, a good one with that power would cost too much for the rifle it would be mounted on to be worth it.

What power would you recommend?  What brand would you recommend?  Obviously, the stipulation is not breaking the bank (no Steiner, no Schmidt and Bender, etc.).  Also quite obviously, this would be best in a SFP scope.  Any shot requiring use of high magnification and subtensions is probably too far for those rifles.  Assume that the scope is for use within and zeroed at 100 yards, but used by folks with failing eyes.