Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Shooting off-hand, no optics, a taped-on ladder sight – I’d say that’s fine shooting!

I love lever action guns, and I love the 30-30.  I could shoot that cartridge all day long.

Breitbart.

Michigan Live reports a 31-year-old alleged intruder broke into the home and was confronted by the homeowner.

The homeowner then shot the intruder, killing him.

ABC 12 notes the homeowner was released after being taken into custody.

An investigation into the incident continues.

On March 29, 2022, Breitbart News reported on a 74-year-old Akron, Ohio, homeowner who shot and wounded an alleged intruder.

The intruder lived, prompting the 74-year-old homeowner to note that he will use a bigger gun next time.

Wait.  Something must be wrong with this report.

I thought guns magically turned and killed the owners rather than home invaders?  I thought that no one except the “only ones” (LEOs) were able to use weapons for self defense?  I thought that fine motor skills totally collapse when confronted by danger?  I thought that people had to go through tacticool training with former JSOC guys to be able to defend their life?  I thought you were supposed to “run, hide and fight?”  I thought that you were supposed to call 911, lay on the floor and grovel, and wait for help to arrive after they got through eating their sandwich?  I thought only former military understood enough about firearms to use them?  I hear that all the time when I read articles that begin with “I’m pro-2A and I shot guns in the military, but … blah, blah, blah, you’re not good enough … blah, blah, blah … I know what I’m talking about because I was in the military or a LEO, you’re in danger, don’t buy a gun … blah, blah, blah.”

I guess we’re all going to have to recalibrate after this.

The narrative is busted once again.

Dean Weingarten.

The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.

This creates a bizarre world where mere open possession of a weapon is sufficient to justify a deadly attack on the possessor.

[ … ]

In a sane world, carrying a weapon is not a provocation to be attacked. The Left has worked hard to make it a provocation, in law.

[ … ]

The concept that an openly armed person is a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.

Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violent, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech.

When leftists surround a car and beat on it; that is not provocation; when leftists shoot at people; it is not provocation; when people the left does not agree with, display weapons; that is considered a provocation by the left.

This is a retreat to tribalism by the Left: Those who agree with us are people; those who disagree with us are the enemy.

A person who is driving a vehicle is behind the wheel of a weapon of mass destruction.  Therefore, you are justified in killing them.

It sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

That’s because it is stupid.

In the comments on person writes “I don’t believe in open carry” because it might tempt a bold criminal to snatch your piece.

There is nothing to believe or disbelieve.  It’s a practice, not a proposition.  It would have been correct to say he doesn’t practice it.  To which we might respond, so be it.  We won’t require it.  Do as you wish.

And he should respond, “It’s a free country, and you do as you wish too.”

This is probably a dumb test.

Besides, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a “Winter Skin Walker” with talons.  I think he just made that up.  I think most things in the cold bush are furry and bad.  “The Alaskan” could help us on that one.

But if you like dumb videos where significantly “beyond design basis” conditions are imposed on machinery just to watch it fail, this may be mildly entertaining for you.

I would probably not choose to impose this particular set of beyond design basis conditions because of the thermal cycling it induces on the machinery (and potential for structural degradation due to cracks in the grain boundaries of the metal).

Outdoor Life.

Electrical tape is the best thing I’ve found to keep moisture and debris out of my rifle muzzle. Once I began hunting in Alaska in conditions that were often harsh and wet, I quickly inherited the trick of tightly covering my muzzle with electrical tape. I even keep extra tape rolled around the barrel just in front of the stock. Once I shoot through the first tape, I’ll eventually retape it with the extra roll. As a matter of habit, any rifle I have with me is taped from the time it’s uncased till I shoot. I simply shoot through the tape and cover it back up afterwards.

[ … ]

In fact, the bullet never even contacts the tape. The air pressure created by the tightly sealed bullet traveling down the bore blows the tape away from the muzzle long before the bullet ever gets there.

[ … ]

Group sizes and group center locations didn’t indicate any trends or notable changes across the rifles …

Tricks of the trade.  I’ve never thought of this before, but it doesn’t surprise me that he finds no difference in shots between taped and untaped.

It seems like a good idea in very wet environments.

Dean Weingarten.

As I collected documented incidents of handguns fired in defense against bears, a pattern emerged. The recorded incidents of pistols being fired in defense against bears overwhelmingly occurred from 1960 onward.

I’ve found 125 documented cases where handguns have been fired in defense against bears, from 1890 to present. Two of the 125 cases were considered to be indeterminate as to success or failure. An additional 20 cases, where handguns were used with other lethal means, are considered combination defenses. They are not included in this analysis.

The total numbers include indeterminate cases, but not the combination cases. 95% of all the documented cases occurred from 1960 onward. 76% of all cases occurred from 2000 forward.

Dean then goes on to examine the causes.

First, while pistols were used against bears prior to the development of the cartridge firing handgun, (about 1840 – 1870) much of the use was in hunting. There the handgun was used as an ancillary device to long guns.

Bears tended to be hunted hard on the outskirts of settled areas. They were considered pests. Bounties were offered for them. Bears had no legal protection. Bears, of necessity, became wary of humans, and seldom attacked humans other than when hunted and wounded.

Second, few records were written of handguns being used against bears during this period. Some hunts were recorded, as were a few incidents involving bears. Most involved long guns. What few records there were are difficult to find. Records became more common after 1960, and much easier to find after the Internet information explosion in the 1990’s.

Third, while human populations continued to increase, bear populations declined, then started to increase, with the greatest increase from about 1960 onward.

To sum up, an increase in effective handguns, record keeping and the ability to search records, and increasing populations of humans and bears do much to explain the rapidly expanding number of documented cases of pistol defense against bears.

It all makes sense.  Handguns firing centerfire cartridges were developed, and cartridges became much more powerful and with much higher muzzle velocity, with much better materials and construction to take the higher chamber pressures.  Next, record keeping and the availability of retrieval.  Third, bears are protected.  You can’t hunt the if they’re not in hunting season, and if you have to shoot one, even in self defense, you just might run afoul of game management officers.  Thus, population is on the rise.

Maybe depending upon how near we are to the bush, we all need to go back to carrying long guns for self defense.  Just a thought.

Long guns are heavy.  Then again, it might be good exercise.

Apparently, there are an awful lot of Savage rifles in use in Ukraine.  This adds to the AR and AK variants we’ve already documented.

Eventually they will want to standardize on both a cartridge and system of weapons, both semi-automatic and bolt.

Outdoor Life.

During the 10mm vs .44 Mag. test, none of us were looking forward to running the S&W 329 PD with the Hornady 240-grain JHP loads I had brought along. But while our hands were fresh we shot the revolver first.  According to Hornady’s data, the XTP bullets from a 7.5-inch barrel clock at 1350 fps and generate 971 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. And I can vouch that you feel every one of the foot-pounds when you pull the 329’s trigger. (I’m glad I didn’t bring the 305-grain hardcast bullets I normally carry in the revolver, which step out at 1,325 fps with 1,189 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.)

Not only was the muzzle flip difficult to control, but running the revolver quickly was painful as hell. And quickly was a relative term. Our average run on the five-target array was 5.5 seconds with a -1.3 accuracy score. (Meaning we missed an average of 1.3 targets during the drill.) Interestingly, one of the misses was an edge hit that failed to knock over the steel popper, which drove home our collective observation of how difficult the revolver was to control while going for vital hits.

Well no wonder.  They were shooting a Scandium frame wheel gun.  I also don’t understand why they were shooting JHPs.  No one would carry JHP for bear defense.

We all shot the 10mm Autos much better, despite the fact that the webs of our shooting hands were swollen and bruised after running the .44. We alternated through the pistols, running them in no particular order, but recording our impressions after each run. For ammo we ran 180-grain JHPs from Federal and Hornady loaded to similar velocities. Published data gives speeds of 1,275 fps and a muzzle energy of 650 foot-pounds.

So what?  I confess that I just don’t get this fascination with 10mm guns for the bush.

I can push 230 grain 450 SMC (Short Magnum Cartridge) bullets at 1150 FPS, and Buffalo Bore +P .45ACP almost that fast.  I don’t consider those rounds difficult to shoot at all.

If you wanted to take a step up for semiautomatic handguns, you could buy a new barrel (with compensator and new spring) and shoot the 460 Rowland and have all the advantages of the rapid reload.

But to each his own

All Outdoor.

The Nitro 505 is supposed to be the perfectly balanced reverse-draw crossbow and is allegedly capable of delivering 400-grain arrows up to 505 fps.

[ … ]

Two packages will be available with the more affordable one being the Nitro 505 which comes complete in a Moss Green camouflage and a black scope for $2,999.99, or the high-end Veil Alpine Camoflague with a matched camouflaged scope for $3,099.99.

My goodness!  You can buy a Bighorn Armory rifle for that.  Good equipment costs a lot of money these days.

I like what he’s done.