Archive for the 'Guns' Category

As I’ve said, I would enjoy listening to Ryan discuss paint drying.

Anyway, there is a lot of wisdom here, but the best thing is that I learned about the Spartan Bipod System.  I had never seen this before.  It doesn’t look any less expensive than other bipod manufacturers, and may be a bit pricier for the higher end models, but it seems to me to be worth it if it works as advertised.

I’ll have to look into one of these models.  I’ll take one with the sling stud attachment, please, for the bolt gun I’ll take deer and hog hunting.

I said I would watch out for TFBTV discussing the Beretta 1301 with Ernest Langdon, and here it is.  He also compares and contrasts it with the more recent Beretta patrol shotgun (A300 OS, different from the A400).

Here is another review of the Beretta A400 Xcel Black Edition shotgun.  It’s a looker (and the A400 models have the same OS as the 1301), and I like the Walnut furniture.  It has a black anodized receiver.

Source.

Firearms manufacturer Kalashnikov has unveiled an upgraded AK-12 assault rifle, with modifications based on the weapon’s use in the war on Ukraine.

[ … ]

As part of the upgrade, the rifle’s two-round burst mode was excluded from the latest design, because it didn’t increase the weapon’s efficiency significantly and complicated its layout, according to TASS.

The other changes were aimed at making the rifle easier to operate.

The AK-12 has several mounting platforms that allow the installation of additional gear, such as sights, a front handle, a flashlight, a laser designator, as well as devices for noiseless and flameless fire, according to TASS.

Interesting.  They’ve added (I assume) a better flash hider, and made the rifles suppressor-capable.  They appear to have added capability for modularization with points of connection for illumination, lasers, etc., perhaps also better capability for optics mounting (although no picture is provided so I can’t be sure).

They’ve also removed the capability for two-round burst.  This isn’t surprising.  My son never used the 3-round burst capability of the M4 in Iraq.  The only time he used full auto capability was with the SAW.  Lightweight rifles with full auto capability interfere with the main function of the semi-automatic rifle, i.e., being a battle rifle.

Full auto guns are area suppression weapon systems, and need the heavier barrel to keep from melting, the open-bolt system for cooling, etc.  That runs contrary to the concept of the battle rifle and the appurtenant doctrine.

Reddit/Firearms has a post on someone who’s having issues with their new Benelli M4 jamming after addition of the mag extension tube on the gun.  Who knows – perhaps this is a gun problem, perhaps a modification problems, perhaps a gunsmithing problem.

James at TFBTV recently uploaded a 500 round test of his Benelli M4.  It seemed to work fine except for bird shot loads.  Back to the reddit post, the comments point to a need to “break in” the shotgun.  James points to a need not to run cheap ammo in the gun.

Remove cheap ammo from your own equation with firearms.  I never run cheap ammo.  All I can tell you is that the Beretta 1301, modified by Langdon Tactical, (a) runs everything, from bird shot to buck shot to slugs, (b) and needs no “break in” procedure.

Like everything else, you make up your own mind.

James is headed to Ernest Langdon to discuss the Beretta 1301 next.  I await this video – it’ll likely be good and I have a lot of respect for Ernest.

What’s the deal with Smith & Wesson?  I would have expected more devotion to a job well done and proper QC, especially in the Performance Center.  And I also wonder if the agreement they made with Hillary on the lock for wheel guns runs to perpetuity?  Why else would they still be putting that crap in guns?

This one is full lug, so I’m not sure which exact model this is – the Model 19 on their web site is not.

Denizens around here (at TCJ) enjoy some history and probably know more about these two rifles than this article delivers. Mixed with the back story of both and a bit of technical talk, and several factors and trade-offs in the report, we thought you might enjoy adding comments to enlighten further. For the collector, it’s probably a no-brainer, but a modernized M14 has some value in use.

So you want to buy a classic battle rifle? Fair enough. It’s something that most men desire to own in their lifetime. Sure, you could buy a Rolex, Leica camera, or some other luxury tchotchke. But there’s something about a linseed oil-rubbed woodgrain stock and parkerized stainless steel finish that excites you. It calls to you on some primal level. The only question is how do you decide between the M14 VS M1 Garand?

The M1 Garand served with distinction in both the Pacific and European theaters of World War II. Gen. George S. Patton called it, “The best battle implement ever devised.” This semi-automatic rifle accompanied our troops in the Korean War and claimed the U.S. Military’s small-arms throne until 1957, when the M14 took the kingdom.

Not everyone was happy with the decision, and opposing camps remain deeply entrenched on both sides of the M14 VS M1 Garand debate.

Ironically, the man who designed the heavy-hitting .30-’06 Springfield-chambered gun that American troops used on D-Day, Guadalcanal, and Inchon, also helped create its replacement. John Cantius Garand, eager to aid the war effort, refused a single cent in royalties for the roughly five and a half million M1s that bore his name. A post-war attempt in Congress to issue him $100,000 in gratitude failed. Although he was born north of the border, near Montreal, Canada, he was a patriotic American.

M14 VS M1 Garand: The M14/M1A (Top) has a higher capacity, but many prefer the simple operation of the M1 Garand (bottom).

At a glance, the M14 looks like a modern version of the M1 Garand. It still has all the charm of a classic battle rifle, but its upgraded features give it a contemporary flair. It weighs roughly 9.2 Lbs unloaded, while the M1 Garand tips the scales at 9.5. Their barrel lengths are 22 and 24 inches, respectively. Muzzle velocity is nearly identical—a byproduct of cartridge propellant improvement, as it turns out. The newer model was also about an inch longer, despite the shorter barrel.

In hand, the M1 Garand feels more balanced. It may be heavier, but the weight distribution is better. The detachable magazine of the M14 makes the rifle difficult to rest in any position other than its side. The peep sights on both rifles look the same, but something about the M1 Garand’s setup feels more natural when sighting a target. Both guns have a safety in the same position on the trigger guard. The trigger pull and reset on both rifles is similar, with the M14 having a slight edge in reset smoothness.

The rate of fire, however, is where the M14 shines. The limited number of fully automatic guns could deliver 700 to 750 rounds per minute. The vast majority, however, were semi-autos capable of slightly improved speed over the M1 Garand – which stood at 40 to 50. When firing both guns side-by-side, you’ll notice the M14 has a bit more muzzle rise. The M1 Garand has more felt recoil, it’s “kick” is harder. Follow-up shots become natural once you figure out each rifle’s cadence. So it comes down to which gun you’re most comfortable with operating.

Check out the rest at the link.

H/T g/@silvernightpanther, the editor of the piece.

His show-and-tell on hammer fall between single action and double action is interesting.

I know that Colt reduced the spring coefficient on the design, leading to some degree of concern over light primer strikes.

But I haven’t seen this with any ammunition except poorer quality (or in his case, exotic hand loads).

Comments on this are always welcome if you have experience with the new Colt Python.

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).