Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

I hadn’t heard anything about this.  If you want to skip the gun review, skip to about 14:30 of the video.

The claim is that a former CZ employee has stated that Colt is now beginning to ruin CZ like Colt management did with their own company so many times before.  Tim also shows the discontinued product line from CZ.

If true, what a shame.  CZ is making fine products.

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.

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.

Alloutdoor.

Crimson Trace has finally released the HRO or Heavy Recoil Optic that was announced during SHOT Show 2022. The HRO is intended to be used specifically on rifles chambered in bigger, heavier hitting cartridges like 308 Winchester, 300 Win Mag, 458 SOCOM, and the like. This makes the HRO specifically effective on what most people would typically call a “Hog Gun.”

It has automatic shutoff and gets 50,000 hours of run time with a battery.

This isn’t an advertisement – I do not have one.  They haven’t sent me one to test, unfortunately.

But I find this interesting for bigger bore guns.  Perhaps some enterprising reader wants to run a red dot on top of a Henry .44 magnum or Marlin 45-70.

Daily Kos.

The US army has adopted a new more modern and advanced assault rifle (I know gun nuts HATE that term!) to replace the half century old M 16 5.56mm design.

It fires a 6.8mm round csllef a.277 Fury designed to be much longer ranged, more powerful and capable of penetrating current issue standard military body armor at up to possibly 500 meters.

The new rifle itself is currently known as the XM5, soon be be shortened to M5, or “spear” and is designed to be extremely accurate at much longer ranges than any current assault rifle. With a good scope, say about 6-8x, it is purported to be able to hit a man sized target at 800, possibly 900, meters.

As with the M16 it replaces there will be a ‘civilian version’ of the M5 made available, along with its new ammo, tho at least the civilian version of the ammo will be a little weaker as the military version requires a special bi metal casing to withstand the pressures the new round requires to meet its military specs. The military round supposedly has a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps, the civilian version has a velocity of 2750 fps, about 11/12 the velocity of the military version.

Soon gunstores across america will be selling a military designed and styled assault weapon (Scream, gun nuts, scream!) that even as a civilian version will be more powerful than police and even national guard weapons, plus longer ranged and able to defeat police and national guard body armor at hundreds of meters range, and accurate enough to hit targets reliable at that range with the addition of an easily available scope the rifle has a mount to take.

While the AR 15, the civilian version of the M16, has reigned supreme as the weapon of choice for mass shooters for years, the new M5 civilian version is likely to give it some competition due to its greater power and lethality. Fewer people hit by one will survive, making it a preferred weapon for the mass shooter looking to set a record.

Of course it will be more expensive, at least at first, so the budget constrained mass murderer will still be stuck with the AR 15 as a preferred weapon. Then again at close range the AR15 will still be as effective as before.

The release of this new weapon could hardly come at a worse time as America faces a rising tide of aspiring fascists seeking to overthrow democracy and replace it with an cult of personality dictatorship. Making a weapon available to them that can be used effectively as both a close in assault weapon or an effective sniping weapon is all too likely to embolden budding “Earl Turners” into making attacks not just on crowds of people but LEOs as well. As a sniper weapon this would vastly outperform the 5.56mm rifle used by the beltway sniper in all respects.

I can only imagine the MAGA crowd saving up and drooling to get their hands on the civilian version of the M5 Spear and the 277 fury ammo.

What a silly and juvenile commentary.  It reads like a bad press release for the Sig rifle.  We’ve covered it before.

Meh.  Whatever.  Let it go through a half century of testing in deserts and jungles before I’ll comment on it.  Eugene Stoner rules.

Now.  As for the gun and what they think about it, the commentary reads like there was nothing available before this.  For instance, there was no such thing as a Savage AR-10 shooting 6.5 Creedmoor or a S&W AR-10 shooting .308.

The gun will have its drawbacks and downsides.  It’s a new high pressure cartridge design.  The higher pressures risk throat burnout and decrease in barrel life.  It’s heavier than the AR-15.  The shooter can carry less ammunition.  It’s bulkier.  No one will carry it into the woods or prairies to hunt with it in lieu of a bolt action rifle, especially when the better rifle manufacturers are looking for ways to cut weight such as carbon fiber barrels.  And finally, it won’t have the accuracy to hunt or do long range precision shooting.

I predict its market will be limited, but either way, if you wanted this sort of thing, you could have had it ever since Stoner designed his AR-10 before he ever designed the AR-15.

In a way it’s a good thing that collectivists are such awful gun writers.  They have no idea what they’re talking about, that that works to our advantage.

I wish I had his collection of 1911s.

Well of course it doesn’t suck.  Whoever said it did?  That person is an idiot.  Avoid people like that.

Listen, you can like and shoot whatever you want to.  The 1911 is the best shooting and most ergonomic handgun on the planet, bar none.  There are legitimate reasons to choose something else, e.g., magazine capacity.  But there are other options, namely, a double stack 9mm 1911 design.

And yes, Tim is right.  There are 1911 designs now with optics cuts on the slides.  You can get what you want with a 1911, you just have to pay the money.  But remember, you get what you pay for.

And for the record, I don’t consider a commander size 1911 any heavier than any other carry gun, but it’s a lot narrower and easier to carry – for me.

You don’t have to spend 3K – 4K on a Wilson Combat pistol. You can spend much less and get a Dan Wesson (CZ currently owns Dan Wesson, and CZ is making fine products).

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.