Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Ryan Muckenhirn discusses the action in the Tikka bolt action rifles.  I share his admiration for the smoothness of the action and accuracy of the rifle.

This is interesting for most of us, although it wouldn’t and doesn’t dissuade me from carrying a revolver for personal defense.  Of course, if your name is Jerry Miculek, none of this applies to you.  It seems to me that one of the lessons is to carry a backup handgun if you think you might be in a protracted gunfight.  If you can’t predict the future like most of us, I guess get good with speed loaders.  I like the idea of carrying a secondary weapon better.

On a related note, I don’t ever buy Armscor ammunition.  One comment to Sam’s video is interesting: “Back as a cop, I carried a 22 mag pocket revolver as a backup to the 38 issued weapon. Our armourer specifically warned us not to use Squires Bingham (what Armscor used to be in those days) 22 wrmf rounds for this reason. And this was quite a while ago now. Seems their QA for their rimfire mag round has not improved much.”

Here is a video from Silencer Shop.  This sounds like a nice idea, but at the expense of registering it with the ATF, not so much any more.  You’re free to disagree. I see that they have designed the suppressors with different choke sizes in mind. That answered the only question I had before watching he video: what does this do to the shot pattern? I do wonder what this does to the weight distribution and balance of the gun though.

I find that using shotguns in particular reduces the need for any sort of suppression of the sound because of the comfort of wearing sound enhancing ear muffs (or electronic ear muffs).  They work well with the lower comb of the shotgun and don’t interfere with getting a good cheek weld.

Rifles are a different story.  With rifles the stock doesn’t have the same profile, and this is especially true of modern sporting rifles where the stock is along the same axis as the recoil.  I find that electronic ear muffs do interfere with my cheek weld.  The only option at that point is foam hearing protection for the ear canal.

The upshot of electronic ear muffs for hunting or other shooting sports is that, especially for a person who is somewhat hard of hearing like me, the muffs actually enhance the sound (other than the shot itself).  I damaged my hearing by running power equipment for years before we thought about things like hearing protection. I always use hearing protection now. Thus, the last time I went quail hunting I had a regular conversation with someone with muffs on, and yet suffered no hearing damage from the shotgun.  The downside of foam hearing protection is that no such conversation can be had.

I am a fairly well rounded engineer, and in addition to studying both mechanical and nuclear engineering, I have studied the physics of sound, including all of the OSHA regulations and the dumbed-down ways they force you to compute reduction in decibels (for example, when double protection is used).  OSHA crafts its calculations for the simplest minded health and safety technician to use, not for the engineer.

But those regulations do provide worker protection.  And while it can be said that OSHA has no jurisdiction over hearing safety for those other than workers, if the FedGov cared in the least about the health and safety of its citizens, OSHA would be in front of Congress lobbying for removal of suppressors from the NFA.  Hearing loss is a human safety issue.  There are no two ways about it.

The only conclusion one can reach is that OSHA doesn’t really care about you, any more than the federal government does.  Because you engage in hunting and the other shooting sports, they hate you.  It’s that simple.  If they cared about you, they would have removed suppressors a very long time ago and allowed them to be sold at the local hardware store.

This video provides good basic instruction to those who would show friends and family how to start out. The entry questions are excellent for a very basic start in understanding somebody’s background. Too bad he didn’t film the initial interview. Perhaps in a later video, he’ll provide some tips on interviewing prospective shooters to get a feel for their experience and desires. I’ve done that too. Having a great first-time experience for new shooters is critical to wooing converts to the, um, shooting sports. Confidence is key for a new shooter to become a lifelong self-defense firearms carrier.

I recommend exactly what Mrgunsngear says, spend a couple of weekends renting everything. Also, go with an experienced and knowledgeable associate to help with understanding different firearm types, handling, and critical safety procedures. The goal in your home defense and carry gun purchase(s) is the ability to hit what you’re aiming at; that’s the gun for you.

Another classic gun type. Ruger is doing well with the Marlin line of rifles and has now offered a new wheel gun to its lineup. There’s just something agreeable about the old classics. Ruger Super Wrangler line, including MSRP. Pretty neat! The Bronze Cerakote option looks a lot better in the video than the picture on the Ruger page.

Video Review:

Source (appears to be a copy-paste of Ruger press info):

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is pleased to introduce the Super Wrangler family of single-action revolvers. Building on the success of the affordably-priced Wrangler line introduced in 2019, the Super Wrangler features a robust steel cylinder frame and ships with two cylinders, allowing you to convert between inexpensive .22 LR ammunition and powerful .22 WMR ammunition.

Built on the legacy of the popular Ruger Single-Six, the Super Wrangler complements Ruger‘s rich history of producing quality, rugged, reliable single-action revolvers. The attractive price, combined with the affordability of rimfire ammunition, make this revolver ideal for learning to shoot, introducing friends or family to the sport, or just experiencing the fun of single-action shooting.

With the introduction of the Single-Six in 1953, Bill Ruger pioneered the use of modern investment casting in firearms manufacturing to usher in a new level of affordability in single-action revolvers. Through the use of modern CNC-machining methods and lean manufacturing techniques, the Super Wrangler continues this tradition and sets a new bar for affordability while maintaining the rugged reliability that is the hallmark of Ruger firearms.

Initially offered in three attractive Cerakote models – black, silver and bronze – the Super Wrangler features an adjustable target sight and 5.5-inch barrel. The standard checkered black grip panels can be swapped for Single-Six panels, allowing for a variety of customized options. The Super Wrangler will fit in Single-Six holsters that accommodate 5.5-inch barrels. Cylinders are unique to the Super Wrangler, and are not interchangeable with standard aluminum-frame Wrangler or Single-Six Convertible cylinders.

Let’s say that, hypothetically, you have two rifles, a Marlin 45-70 and a Marlin 30-30.  I think both rifles are close enough in ballistics (even with the massive weight difference) that they can be considered together.  Neither rifle is considered a 400 yard rifle – they’re both effective at 0 – 200 yards or so, with the 45-70 drop more significant further out than the 30-30.  But let’s go ahead and lump the two cartridges together for the sake of argument.

You obviously don’t need a 4X24 scope, and besides, a good one with that power would cost too much for the rifle it would be mounted on to be worth it.

What power would you recommend?  What brand would you recommend?  Obviously, the stipulation is not breaking the bank (no Steiner, no Schmidt and Bender, etc.).  Also quite obviously, this would be best in a SFP scope.  Any shot requiring use of high magnification and subtensions is probably too far for those rifles.  Assume that the scope is for use within and zeroed at 100 yards, but used by folks with failing eyes.

My regular readers know that in these parts, we speak the names of John Moses Browning and Eugene Stoner with hushed reverence.  As an engineer, I have a special appreciation for fine engineering as was performed by both of these men, as well as by Jim Sullivan.

There have been indications in the past that Eugene Stoner’s family was opposed to civilian ownership of the very weapon he designed and built.  This article points to that.

“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

Of course, this is supposition and hearsay, with his family attempting to leverage the reputation of their father for their own political ends.  But you see why nerves are sometimes a bit on edge when someone like Reed Knight speaks about these issues.  Reed knew him better than virtually anyone else and worked with him at KAC before Stoner passed away.

Along with (on the same day as) the shooting in Tennessee, no less than four hit pieces came out in the legacy media on the AR-15.  It’s not my intent to rehearse the details of the shooting (nor to tackle every hit piece).  That has been done elsewhere, from the rapid response of the police (versus in Uvalde), to the need to harden schools, and finally to the fact that she chose this school because it was a soft location whereas other potential targets had too much security.

My intention is to fisk one of the hit pieces from The Washington Post.  In this piece, Mr. Knight is quoted.

Eugene Stoner, a World War II veteran who invented the AR-15 in the late 1950s while working at Armalite, a small engineering firm in Hollywood, had no interest in civilians using his invention, said C. Reed Knight, who owns a Florida gunmaking company and considers Stoner his mentor.

“He looked at this thing as only for the military side of the house,” Knight said. Stoner, who died in 1997, thought his invention was past its prime by the mid-1990s, Knight said. He added that Stoner would have been horrified by the idea that “he invented the tool of all this carnage in the schools.”

I figured that this was a response to a very specific chronological question, and so I contacted Mr. Knight for clarification.  He graciously allowed me to spend some time with him over the telephone.  Since there is no transcript (I didn’t do this interview via email), I’ll try faithfully to reproduce some of the things he conveyed to me.  You’ll have to trust that I got it right.

First of all, Reed began a rundown of the history of Eugene’s work on the AR platform.  I knew all of this anyway, but it was nice to here Mr. Knight reminisce about his relationship and Eugene’s work.  He began in the late 1950s on the design.  It is of course correct to say that Eugene didn’t design the rifle for civilian use, since his work was targeted towards the military, and it was a military contract under which he worked.  He was paid to work on a rifle for the military.

There is a great gulf between saying that his work was done for, and financially supported by, the U.S. military, and asserting that civilians shouldn’t own the rifle, or that Eugene would have been opposed to such ownership.  That’s what’s being implied in The Washington Post.  Both Mr. Knight and I agreed on this point, and Mr. Knight made it clear that he was answering a very specific question on chronology, not politics or liberty and rights.

As an editorial point, I’ll observe that what Mr. Reed stated to me and what I recalled as the next events dovetail together.  Eugene sold the patent for the AR platform rifle to Colt in the early to mid 1960s.  Reed said to me, “… and colt immediately wanted to market the rifle in the civilian community, which of course is their right.”

Also as an editorial point, for more evidence of both the timeline here, and ATF malfeasance, my friend and colleague David Codrea sent me this article (which I had read before but forgot), in which Len Savage worked with Stephen Stamboulieh to obtain original classification letters through FOIA.  The results are interesting.

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Civilians had this rifle before the troops in the field did.

“There are several things that are interesting,” Savage told AmmoLand News about the classification letter. “One, it shows pre-Gun Control Act ATF policy on the AR-15 system,” He noted. “It also shows why the most likely reason an AR lower is considered a ‘frame or receiver’ is that from 1962-1968 Colt marked the lower receivers with the information (flat surface as the upper is round). Meaning the regulatory scheme used by ATF  1968 to present is based on what Colt marked pre-1968 and not the statute. Willfully and knowingly.”

“Len hit the nail on the head,” Stamboulieh weighed in. “The current notice of proposed rule-making reads as if there was just no way the ATF could have known that the AR-15 split modular design was a thing. Back in 1968, the agency promulgated the definition of frame or receiver, post-dating the classification letter of the AR15, and that shows why they should have originally known what they were making a definition for.”

He and Savage also cleared up a point of potential confusion on why the classification letter refers to the AR-15 as an “automatic rifle.”

“It is because (my thoughts) that they sent two rifles,” Stamboulieh offered. “One was an automatic rifle, and the other was the modified rifle made to be not a machinegun (a semi-automatic version). So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’ is not a firearm under the NFA (therefore, not a machinegun and in other words, a semi-auto).”

“Bingo!” Savage replied. “They sent an ‘Unserviceable’ M16 so ATF could compare it and the new rifle and were told it was still considered an MG even if unserviceable since it was not properly destroyed. I laughed when Colt was told ‘file a Form 2’ in order to get it back… Wonder if it is still in National Firearms Collection?”

“In 1968 firearms industry terminology ‘automatic rifle’ means the same as ‘auto-loading rifle,’ i.e., a rifle that loads itself for the next shot,” he recalled. “Even in 1979-1980 when I took my hunters’ safety course the State of Michigan used the two terms interchangeably throughout the course.”

Thanks to David for reminding me of this article, and to Len and Stephen for the work on the FOIA.

Returning to Reed Knight, I continued with him on what Eugene thought about firearms ownership by civilians.  He told me that Eugene had a large collection of firearms and was a strong supporter of the second amendment.  Just to close the loop on all of this, I asked Reed if he believed that the rifle he currently builds at Knight’s Armament should be prohibited from civilian ownership?

I was met with an unequivocal ‘NO’.  He did opt to clarify that he firmly believes that, but most of the work they do at KAC is for the military since they focus their efforts on military contracts.  But that doesn’t change his beliefs about and support for the 2A.

Reed went on to discuss the current state of affairs concerning schools, shootings, etc.  We both believe in firmer security including armed resource officers and armed teachers, and he mentioned cultural changes that might have led to the situation we see today, including video games (I don’t happen to agree with that assessment concerning FPS gaming), unaddressed mental health issues, and other things.  I mentioned that my own readers might strongly add spiritual and moral problems as the primary cause, and he agreed with me that those issues play a role.

I’ll close my interview report by conveying two quotes by Reed: “I can’t blame the thieving that goes on in the jewelry store on the hammer that broke the glass.”  “It’s terrible to piss on Eugene’s grave because of what evil people do.”

That’s common sense, but not so common today.

I’ll also leave a few more editorial remarks.  If we’re going to consider chronology, it’s a fact that the Remington .223 was designed before the NATO 5.56mm, and in fact, Eugene based the 5.56mm on the .223, making a few minor changes to the casing before adoption as the standard NATO round.  So civilians had both the cartridge and the gun before the U.S. military did.  I won’t go into detail on the minor differences between the .223 and 5.56mm cartridge.  That’s not within the scope of this article.

I’m left wondering how writers like Philip Bump continue to be employed, who stated flatly that …

It is estimated that there are 20 million AR-15-style rifles in the United States at this point — a powerful, deadly type of weapon that didn’t exist as a consumer product two decades ago.

First, I think this estimate is quite low.  But note that he puts the commercial availability as 2023 – 20 = 2003.  How on earth do these writers get paid unless the pay master knows they’re writing pure bunk and wants it that way?

Now, one might criticize Mr. Knight for even agreeing to interviewed by The Washington Post.  But that’s his business, not mine.  But it must be noted that there are two ways to write things: truthfully and with the complete story, or twisted so that every remark, every comment, every [partial]fact, every half-truth, and every quote feeds a narrative, that narrative being the one the publisher wants to push.

That’s what you see when you read The Washington Post and similar publications.  Legacy media indeed.  I repeat: there is a world of difference between making observations and statements in response to questions of chronology (even if the writer is too stupid to know that’s what the question and answer is really about), and world and life views concerning liberties and rights.  It’s easy enough to string hearsay together with false implications of chronology and make a narrative.  It appears to be much harder to tell the truth.

I’ll say the same thing I did to Reed Knight.  Over these pages, we value the truth above all else.

Recall when I recently asked the question why anyone would work hard and put harsh solvents down his barrel to remove copper when the first shot after cleaning will simply refill the discontinuities and imperfections with copper all over again?  And I asked why it wasn’t better to leave it alone?

I can’t locate that post at the moment, but I know I posed those questions.

This experienced gunsmith is telling you not to worry about it.

That’s good enough for me.  I have never worried about copper fouling before, I don’t now, and I don’t intend to in the future.

I think his list devolves a bit into 7 rifles he either wouldn’t trust or wouldn’t choose to carry again.  Anyway, his views are always interesting, and I know he carefully tests out his equipment. I’m not sure I would choose to carry a 13 pound rifle very far on a hunt either. I’m also not sure I’ll ever have a need for 28 Nosler.

Source:

The military use of shotguns has always fascinated me. I love shotguns, like an absolute ton.

I shoot clays with a shotgun, I hunt with a shotgun, and I trust a shotgun for home defense. As a Marine, I was even issued a Mossberg due to my skill and experience with these firearms.

The military use of shotguns has always fascinated me. I love shotguns, like an absolute ton.

I shoot clays with a shotgun, I hunt with a shotgun, and I trust a shotgun for home defense. As a Marine, I was even issued a Mossberg due to my skill and experience with these firearms.

The Very Beginning

Firearms that fire a load of shot have been around since the earliest guns, but the most notable dedicated shotgun came in the form of the blunderbuss.

A flintlock blunderbuss, circa approximately 1780. (Photo: Catawiki)

[…]

The American Revolution

The blunderbuss was never superbly popular with Americans.

Pilgrims being armed with the blunderbuss at Plymouth rock seems to be more fiction than fact. Coming into the American Revolution, the Americans were armed with more traditional muskets.

These smoothbore long arms were not known for their accuracy. Colonial American soldiers recognized this and began using a special load called “buck and ball.” Soldiers would pack a normal musket ball but would also add a small load of buckshot pellets.

These buckshot pellets, followed by the musket round, improved the chance of scoring a hit on enemy soldiers.

In the Battle Of New Orleans, the buck and ball proved its merit. 5,700 Americans faced 8,000 British and routed them. The Americans suffered 62 casualties, and the British suffered 2,034.

Into the Civil War

The American Civil War saw the rapid rise of small arms technology, including metallic cartridges. But at the beginning of the war, the famed buck and ball loads were still being heavily used.

The South, in particular, utilized shotguns extensively, especially with their cavalry forces.

Shotguns at the time were muzzleloading designs and often featured shorter barrels to make them lighter and easier to handle, especially on horseback.

The Confederates also lacked the production capacity of the North, and this forced them to utilize common hunting implements in war.

During the Civil War, metallic cartridges, including brass-cased shotgun shells and repeating rifles, came to be. Like every other firearm, the brass-cased shells improved reliability and reloading speed.

However, the closest shotguns got to being repeaters at the time were double-barrel guns, also known as coach guns. These shorter barrel shotguns were known for being quite powerful and effective for quick engagements.

In the 1870s, paper shells were introduced.

These water-resistant paper shells lowered the price of shotgun shells significantly and were easier to manufacture than brass shells. However, they could not be easily reloaded.

Next, the article goes into the adoption of repeating shotguns, then the World Wars, and later Vietnam and the Modern Era.

A photo of the Remington 870 MCS showing the full modular kit. (Photo: Gunrunnerhell)