Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

So maybe now since there are conflicting opinions on the AWB, the supreme court will take up the issue.

Nah. They’ll keep running from it like screaming little girls.

This note was sent to S&W sales, marketing and engineering.

To whom it may concern,

At my blog we’ve discussed the fact that Smith & Wesson has gotten into the lever action long gun market at long last.

We have noticed that this platform would be ideal for cartridges that are traditionally S&W cartridges, such as the 460 S&W magnum and the 500 S&W magnum.

Besides, at the moment the only way to obtain a rifle chambered in these cartridges is to purchase from Bighorn Armory.

It sure would be nice to see Bighorn Armory get some pricing competition in these calibers.

I would be interested in obtaining a rifle chambered for 460 S&W magnum, and would devote several posts to a review of said rifle.

Thank you for your consideration.

I’m not going to get too far into the theories yet about everything else associated with the ugly event that unfolded a few days ago, but I have always followed some basic rules for thought. Among the most basic is the need for consistency. I don’t believe narratives – I believe data. After all, I’m an engineer.

There is an idiot writing for Slate named Myke Cole who penned a commentary titled “Was Thomas Crooks a Good Shot? He Didn’t Need to be.” I’ll let you go read the article for yourself, but there are a number of false statements such as the lack of recoil of the AR-15 being good for not jolting the rifle out of position. Specifically, he states “My experience shooting my M4 was that it was incredibly stable, aptly counteracting the recoil that throws shots off.”

Recoil doesn’t throw a shot off. Recoil may make it more difficult to regain sight picture, but it doesn’t throw a shot off. The bullet has long left the barrel before the shooter’s shoulder moves backwards from recoil (or before, say, a bolt action gun rotates about the pivot point and the barrel moves up).

Furthermore, thank goodness the shooter was using a crappy AR-15 build rather than a Tikka bolt action hunting rifle in 6.5CM, .308, Winchester .270 or 300 Win Mag. A Tikka is a << MOA rifle, whereas that crappy AR he was shooting was probably a 2-3 MOA gun.

Anyway, the narrative is apparently that this shooter was so bad that he was thrown off the shooting team in school for being dangerous, but so good because of using an AR-15 that he could take a single cold bore shot and come within 1 MOA of killing the president (without him turning his head), but then so bad (and here is the real rub for me) that a man on the very back row of the bleachers to Trump’s very left (looking at the stage) was shot and killed. That poor man was a long, long ways from Trump.

If something is inconsistent, it cannot be true. Remember what I said about having rules for my life? I don’t believe things that are inconsistent. This had bothered me since the shooting. I never accepted that we know the full story, and we may never know the full story. But there is a reason that man on the back row of the bleachers perished that day, and it wasn’t because the shooter was good, or bad, or so good, or so bad, or was using an AR-15.

There is much more to this story, and you know it. We all know it, the FedGov knows that we know it, and they can’t make up lies fast enough to cover this up. Trump’s team never requested more SS protection. But oops, now that we’re being investigated, we regret to inform you that we lied and maybe they really did request more SS assets. So sorry.

The Secret Service, after initially denying turning down requests for additional security, is now acknowledging some may have been rejected.

Now acknowledging means we lied and we want to cover that up as some sort of confusion before the investigation castigates us. But now, on to the things I have concluded thus far that make some sense of the poor man in the last row of the bleachers being shot.

Eleven shots were fired that day. Not 6, not 7, not 8, not 9, not 10, but eleven shots. Eleven shots were fired that day. It would be interesting to have examined the weapon the shooter used, and to recover the bullets he shot if possible, and mostly to have recovered the spent brass from the roof. But as local LEOs pressure washed the roof that very day, we will never know. Someone knows, but not us. Not you and me. I doubt there were eleven spent brass casings on the roof.

Next, the shots were fired at four different and distinct distances that day. Not one, not two, not three, but four different distances. What? They didn’t really think we weren’t going to analyze the audio signatures from that day? I will have to say that while not conclusive, I’m not so sure that the figure on the water tower wasn’t a human. But as of yet we don’t know. After all, while the shooter used a drone, the SS had no assets in the air.

There was an open window in the building adjacent to the roof of the building the shooter was on, and more troubling, the single image I’ve seen of the roof of the building shows the shooter’s rifle being some distance away from the shooter (I estimate 20′).

You can fill in the blanks for what we don’t know, or do know, or suspect, but we already know the things I said above. The narrative they have posited is inconsistent and thus cannot be true. There were eleven shots fired that day. Those shots were fired from at least four different distances.

There was more than one shooter (the would-be assassin) or two shooters (the would-be assassin plus the sniper team who took him out).

Prove me wrong.

They’re out there – people who believe strange things about bullet ballistics as if there’s some sort of magic to the science. Interestingly, it’s often the people who think they are the most dedicated to science who believe it has some sort of magical properties.

Polling data from Morning Consult shows 34% of registered Democrats believe it’s “definitely credible” or “probably credible” that the shooting was staged, according to The Washington Free Beacon. Another 18% of Democrats don’t know/aren’t sure whether the shooting was real.

Staged. As if it’s possible to shoot << 1 MOA into an ear, and as if someone would put themselves at risk to pull something like that off.

Here are a couple of good videos, but before we get into them, remember a few things. There is a difference between accuracy and precision. Accuracy has to do with how well your gun does at targeting the same view you have in your crosshairs. Precision has to do with how well your gun groups even if the gun is zeroed on the target.

When we speak of a sub-MOA gun, or a 1 MOA gun, or 1.5 MOA gun, it’s almost always an imprecise figure of speak. Technically, we should speak of a gun that is _____ precise (fill in the blank with 1 MOA or whatever), tested with 5 rounds, or 7 rounds, or 25 rounds, or 100 rounds, using cold bore conditions, with a relative error of ___% (or fractional standard deviation of ___).

It’s easy to say that a gun shoots 1 MOA. It’s much hard to shoot the requisite number of rounds with that gun to get a passing standard deviation with the data. A 3-shot or 5-shot group rarely proves anything. The grouping will increase with increasing number of shots (even under cold bore conditions) until the tails of the distribution are filled in and you have met the Central Limit Theorem. I think most readers will understand what I’ve said here.

This is math, and I know what I’m talking about.

It’s a shame that people rely on politics to inform them rather than admit when they don’t understand mathematics. The inability to admit ignorance is called stupidity. Ignorance isn’t a sin. Stupidity is.

Now to the videos. No one in their right mind would believe you could pull off a fake or staged shooting like this to damage just an ear, especially with a cheap rifle using a red dot sight rather than magnified optics.

I like it that S&W is in the lever gun market now. Frankly I just don’t like the polymer furniture. But they do sell a walnut gun that is beautiful.

One commenter observes that it would be nice for S&W to come out with more calibers, and specifically, the 460 S&W mag and 500 S&W mag. After all, they are S&W cartridges.

That would provide some nice competition with the 45-70.

Here is a brief review.

A multi-reticle system with NV overlay where you can use it day or night. Very nice. Count me as very impressed with the design and features, and a bit disappointed in the price point of $1176.46.

Not again.

New Jersey officials can pry into gunmaker Smith & Wesson’s internal company documents as part of a long-stalled state fraud probe, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The three-judge panel rejected a challenge from the gunmaker in a 2-1 ruling, with the dissenting judge questioning New Jersey’s “novel” efforts to take on the gun industry in court.

It’s over how S&W markets firearms.

Hey, I want to know how household cleaning product manufacturers market their cleaners? After all, they kill more children than anything else.

I hope we don’t see another good gun builder go down the toilet because no one will force states to follow the law.

I like finding resources like this. Actually, reddit/Firearms is the source, and this comment was insightful.

Easiest way to check the forcing cone for wear is to put a straight edge on it (if you see light from a gap, it has some erosion – not necessarily an issue) and to run a q-tip around it to see if there are any burrs (the burrs will pull off strands of cotton).

Offhand, I would say that one looks pretty much new.

My first GP100 was bought well used and easily has 25k-35k rounds of handloads, including a ton of rapid fire (~900-1000 rounds in an hour and a half or so, barrel was literally too hot to hold) nuclear bear loads. Even with the forcing cone eroded a bit it will still shoot about a <4″ group at 100 yards.

The cylinder wear timing mark looks normal – GP100 / Redhawk / Security Six actions lift the cylinder stop pin into place relatively early to ensure it drops fully into the cylinder notch during rapid fire.

Pro tip to smooth out the trigger pull as a novice without messing with the sear:

1. Take the hammer strut and smooth & polish the top and sides to mirror finish, then lube with grease – many of the factory guns are under lubed and may have burrs left from the factory (giveaway in the gunshop is if you hear a squeak when cocking the hammer).
2. Deburr the trigger return spring / trigger guard latch hole and the trigger return plunger. These often have a burr.
3. Polish the sides of the hammer and frame window where the hammer pivots to remove burrs – you can tell if this is necessary if there are rub or scrape marks on the sides of the hammer.

Then later in the comments, located on Google drive, is a more complete description of revolver checkout. If you have any resources yourself, feel free to drop them in the comments.

At Outdoor Life.

It wasn’t too long ago that I didn’t see Spartan in the mix. Frankly, I don’t like the Harris or the Magpul.

It’s nice to see Spartan being mentioned among the best.

Spartan Precision Equipment

Of note: I received nothing for making mention of Spartan.

Shooting Illustrated.

Before I get into it, allow me the following disclaimer: Tactical gurus abound who discount any notion that clay-target shooting can be compared in any way to the act of using a shotgun to defend your life. I do not argue that the two uses are, of course, night-and-day different. But, in my view, the shotgun and the fundamentals of using it to hit whatever you are shooting at are inherently similar. Certainly, the pressure placed upon the shooter in a life-or-death situation compared with a silly clay game is not remotely similar, but if a shotgunner can consistently flip the safety, mount the gun smoothly and orient the barrel quickly and accurately enough to hit small flying objects, nearly any target encountered in any situation will likely be easier.

In other words, I’ve never witnessed a great wingshooter who couldn’t quickly be trained in tactical applications, because this person already has the fundamentals of shotgun shooting mastered. Of course, there are differences in technique—the main ones being stance and weight distribution—but these can be quickly learned. The shotgun, whether a Remington 870 pump with a short barrel and an extended magazine or a 32-inch-barreled over/under clays gun, remains similar in form, and, when used as intended, functions as an extension of the body to hit targets. Of course, in a defensive scenario you will need to aim the shotgun at the target in a manner similar to a handgun or rifle, whereas when shooting clays you move with the target and lead it, but ask yourself, which is harder: aiming at a stationary or slow-moving target a few feet or yards in front of you, or a fast-moving, small target flying on a path designed to be challenging?

On the other hand, I’ve seen plenty of decent tactical shotgunners who couldn’t use their shotgun well when they were removed from a static range with stationary targets and placed in more fluid scenarios where unpredictable, moving targets were encountered. Based on my experience, I believe it’s best to master the shotgun via practice until it can be effectively used at an almost subconscious level. One efficient way I’ve found to do this is via clay games that are challenging, yet enjoyable.

First of all, I don’t listen to “tactical gurus.” I have absolutely no use for such people.

Second, more shotgunning is better because shotgunning. Just because.

Enough said.

Go get some. Head to the range. Hunting upland birds is an awesome sport, as is just shooting clays of any sort, including unorganized practice if that’s what you like. Hunting quail is the most fun you’ll ever have.

And not only that, but we’ve also discussed chokes that will give 00 buckshot a pattern within 5 inches at 50 yards. What’s not to love about shotguns?