Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Outdoor Life.

You just bought a new rifle—or maybe had a new barrel installed on an old gun—and are about to head to the range. As much as you want to put a bunch of rounds through it, there’s a little voice in your ear urging caution: Be sure to break in the barrel first!

Chances are you’ve heard this warning from the guy behind the gun counter, or your buddy who’s a ballistic know-it-all, or perhaps from the maker of the barrel or rifle itself—they often include instructions on barrel break-in.

Yep.  I have.

When I was first introduced to the concept some decades ago, the explanation given to me was that the first shots through a barrel would smooth out imperfections in the bore left by the tooling that was used to cut the chamber and impart the rifling in the bore. But you also needed to clean the barrel frequently to begin with so that fouling wouldn’t accumulate too thickly on some of these bumps leading to worse problems down the line. If a smear of copper was allowed to form on one of these rough spots and grow, it would degrade accuracy and would be difficult to remove once it established itself—so the story goes.

I know that’s the alleged problem.  I don’t believe it.  Copper will only foul so far until it gets beaten down and worn off by bullets.  Besides, copper needs to fill in the microcracks and grain boundaries in the metal.  That’s why I’ve stopped cleaning bores with a wire brush and favor polymer brushes now.  I see no need for anything else.

I’ve had many conversations with barrel makers about the break-in procedures they publish and most of them have confessed that the only reason they have a break-in process is because their customers think they need one. Wade Hull at Shilen has come right out and said as much. The general shooter is convinced that a break-in procedure is needed, so the barrel makers have responded by creating them—even if they don’t believe they are necessary.

Third, I’ve tried all these techniques over the years, and I’d be lying if I told you I ever saw a measurable benefit.

Exactly.  As you can tell, I don’t believe in barrel break-in procedures.  I’ve done it before.  I don’t do it anymore and analogize these procedures to superstition.

If you disagree or you can point to actual data that proves otherwise, drop a note in the comments.

David Codrea.

Licht’s Ronnie Barrett reference, of course, recalls a 2002 letter the President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, sent to then-Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department, about his company’s .50 caliber rifles:

“I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.”

Barrett again sent similar letters, one to the State of California in 2005, the Honolulu Police Department in 2008, and the State of New York in 2013.

I recounted these and more in my 2018 AmmoLand article, “More in the Firearms Industry Should Follow Hornady’s New York Example,” documenting President Steve Hornady’s announcement saying in part:

“Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.”

Yes they could stop the disarmers, and yes they should be ashamed.  But they’re not – they are only interested in the revenue.  I’ve pointed out that Cloud Defensive has taken such a stand, and it cost them money to do it.

But here’s the question.  We can point to Barrett, Cloud Defensive, Hornady, and a few others, perhaps, but what pistols and rifles do the disarmers shoot?

Until Smith & Wesson, Glock, and a host of other large manufacturers can be persuaded to join the club of those who truly respect the 2A, this effort won’t go anywhere.  It will be symbolic, and not much else.

I think it would be a good thing to do if someone took it on to mail each and every CEO of the manufacturers, but this is too much time for me to spend.  If some enterprising reader wants to start a thread on this, I’ll find a way to host it.

This rifle is “unobtanium” except for used, and even then, simply not available.  The comments section features educated folks.  One commenter remarks that “I’ve been writing to Henry trying to get them to chamber one of their rifles in .454 Casull.”  So have it to no avail.

Another commenter questions “Did you get any blow back shooting the 454? When they first came out the only gun store here that had them. The counter man said every one they sold had to be sent back because of blow back from the action. And thats what made me get a 44mag instead back then.”

I don’t think Rossi makes this rifle anymore.

The cost is somewhere around $3000, which is right in line with their other rifles (unless you count the fancy Walnut upgrade).  This one is in S&W .500 Magnum.

But overpriced compared to other such rifles in my estimation.  This will limit the sales, but they seem to be fine with that.  I’d love to have a .454 Casull Rifle, but it’s too pricey for me.

Every engineer loves real data.

I’ll set up an entirely hypothetical situation for you.

A potential buyer sees a used rifle that is a classic and cannot be obtained new (it’s no longer made).  It’s noted by the gunsmith to be in good or very good condition with only customary wear marks on the receiver and stock.  The exception mentioned is that there is a “patch” of corrosion in the barrel near the muzzle.

Brownells has a video up from years ago dealing with rust, mainly relying on solvent and brushing, with more work to be done by a gunsmith with bluing afterwards if necessary.

The 1911 forum also has some home remedies like use of lemon juice and water (which it is claimed doesn’t hurt the bluing).

Readers are welcome to weigh in on remedies for rust.  The price is reasonable.  In this hypothetical situation, should the buyer beware of the “patch” of corrosion beyond a certain point?  The rifle is noted by the seller to be still good for hunting and target shooting, so they don’t think the gun has reached a point where this patch is a problem.

There were too many useful reviews of gear and guns to make into individual posts, so they’re all dropped into this one.

Outdoor Life has a review entitled The Best Gun Belts of 2022.

All Outdoor has a review of the Mystery Ranch Three Day Assault Pack.  They like it, and so do I (from a distance).  I saw a SpecOps guy wearing it while taking my family biking in Virginia one time and stopped him and asked him about it.  He saw me eyeballing him and I didn’t even finish the question before he gave me an answer.  He especially liked the 3-Zip design that lets you get into the pack for needful items without emptying the pack.  But at $385 it’s a bit pricey for me.

Outdoor Life has an article on how quarter of a million dollar shotguns are made if you’re rich and that’s your thing.

This guy is yet another satisfied customer and user of the Beretta 1301 combat shotgun.

Shooting Illustrated has a review of the CZ 600 Alpha hunting rifle.  We’ve discussed this many times before.  The polymer furniture makes it capable of being in the rain or taking a bump or bruise without showing the damage, but the Walnut stocks are so pretty.

TFB: Don’t buy Turkish made shotguns.

SOFREP has a review of the Franchi Affinity 3 field shotgun.  Is it me or do shotgun manufacturers seem to be dovetailing into the same sort of external design as the Beretta A400, Benelli and Browning Maximus 2?  No, it’s not just me.  While some things will never change (Beretta is gas operated while Benelli is inertial), the external features are trending towards the same sort of smooth lines, large controls, large charging handle, Camo pattern wrap or Cerekote, etc.

Readers can add in the comments or discuss guns or gear you’d like to see discussed or reviewed.

Writer Nick Harvey (from Australia) addresses a question from a reader.

Q: For years Marlin promoted Micro-Groove rifling as enhancing the accuracy of their rifles. If this is true, why don’t they use it on their big-bore rifles in .444 and .45-70? This has got me wondering if Micro-Groove rifling isn’t just another sales gimmick.

– Dave Edwards

A: Over the years I’ve tested quite a few Marlin rifles which had Micro-Groove rifling and found them to be very accurate.

For a while it was used on big-bore rifles, but then a problem reared its ugly head: the fine rifling does not work well with lead bullets unless you are super careful when reloading with regard to the alloys and velocities you are using.

Many handloaders found that when using lead bullets, especially at higher velocities, Micro-Groove barrels leaded up badly.

Marlin got so many complaints about this that they went back to ‘regular’ rifling, which Marlin calls Ballard-type. I believe the .30-30 and .35 Remington still had Micro-Groove rifling, because these calibres are generally used with jacketed bullets.

Ruger has now begun limited production of Marlin lever-guns under its ownership, and so far only of the Model 1895 in .45-70 with standard six-groove barrels. It’s not yet clear whether they’ll use Micro-Groove rifling future production.

On the subject of accuracy: back in the 1960s Marlin claimed a Micro-Groove barrel was 25% more accurate one with than conventional rifling. True or false? Search me! I’ve never noticed any difference when shooting lever-guns with either type of rifling.

Great answer, and thanks for the perspective and information.  I didn’t know that.

I was talking to an FFL a few days ago about Marlin’s production line, and he said that word on the street is that the 30-30 won’t be the next rifle they produce.  I forgot which one he told me was next, but I hope it’s the .35 Remington.  I don’t think it was.  Of course, there are still Marlin 336s in .35 Remington to be had, but the ones in excellent condition are going for > $1500.

If any FFLs out there are reading and have access to more information on what Marlin (Ruger) is producing next in line, let us know in the comments.

I’d like to have one.  On a final note, I’ve never seen 30-30 ammunition that was unjacketed, so his answer makes good sense.

Source.

Four Walmart customers were injured on Sunday afternoon in a mishap involving the mishandling of a handgun.

The incident took place at a Walmart location in Lovejoy, Georgia, at around 12:20 p.m. According to Sergeant Akeem Turnbull with the Lovejoy Police Department, a patron at the store, 29-year-old Michael Walton, was carrying a handgun in an unsafe manner, causing it to slip and go off.

“The gun was in his waistband not holstered and loaded,” Turnbull explained to local news station WSB-TV. “The gun slipped down his leg, he attempted to grab it, and was somehow manipulating the weapon and discharged the firearm.”

Four at one time.  My goodness!

Don’t do that.  Bob Owens was quick to point out that if your gun drops, don’t try to catch it.

Unless of course you’re carrying a 1911 with a legitimate safety.

Firearm retention is more than just about making sure undesirables don’t snatch your weapon.  It’s also about making sure you don’t lose it yourself.

I think both bullets did their job very well.  I take it the Hornady round would be great for Eastern white tail, while the Buffalo Bore monolithic round would be great for defense against dangerous game.