Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Every once in a while, reddit/Firearms has a good question come up.  It isn’t often, but sometimes one will catch my eye.

Can they be cleaned or are they disposable?  Just asking so I don’t wind up buying mops every time my 22 or shotgun turns those fibers black.

To which he gets this reply.

I reuse mine. I just hose it down with canned gun cleaner or non-chlorinated brake clean.

I like bore mops and use them heavily when cleaning.  They’re far more efficient than running a patch through the bore 1800 times.

However, I would suspect that repeated application of a solvent to clean the mop would begin to disintegrate the mop fibers.

Pat always seems to have some fun shooting.  He’s sporting the Henry Long Ranger in .223 (they also make this model in at least 6.5 Creedmoor, and maybe others).

Although I confess I don’t understand why, if the rifle was zeroed at 50 yards, it would be shooting 1.5″ high at 100 yards.  It should be right on at 100 yards, while if it had been zeroed at 25 yards, it should be on at 200 – 250 yards.

Housekeeping Note: Herschel is offline this week. We’re certain that the quality of the posts will suffer, but the quality of the discussion in the comments doesn’t have to!

Source:

…After the American experience in Korea, where servicemen faced massed assault from Chinese forces, it was decided that the World War II workhorse M1 Garand rifle was no longer adequate; its low capacity and lack of full automatic fire hamstrung U.S. troops.

The Pentagon wanted a new rifle. Around the same time, there was a push among NATO members to standardize a rifle caliber to simplify wartime logistics. American design philosophies dominated both, and the Army’s parochial Ordnance Corps dominated the discussion on design. Ordnance Corps officers clung to the popular myth of the heroic American rifleman, who wins the day with a few well-aimed, long-ranged shots from a full-power rifle.

Thus, the M14 was born, as well as the new NATO bullet, 7.62x51mm. But everyone soon discovered the difficulty of controlling full-caliber rifles on full-auto; 7.62 NATO weapons quickly turned into anti-aircraft guns in longer automatic bursts, rendering the feature ineffective. These experiences were supported by the results of Project SALVO, a Pentagon research project to develop next-generation infantry weapons. SALVO concluded that a smaller bullet traveling at high velocity would be as lethal, if not more so, than big calibers like 7.62 NATO; the SALVO report recommended that the Pentagon should adopt a little-known gun called the AR-15, designed by ArmaLite engineer Eugene Stoner, and based off his earlier file design for the AR-10.

The AR-15 was unlike anything seen before: It was constructed of forged aluminum and plastics, used a direct impingement gas operating system, and was chambered in the new 5.56X45mm cartridge. It was the antithesis of the M14. Naturally, the Ordnance Corps hated it, and moved to kill the project by resorting to testing practices and emulation that were ultimately unfair to the AR-15. The weapon languished in design committee as Army traditionalists butted heads with Robert McNamara and his RAND Corporation  “whiz kids.”

The article goes on to discuss the interesting history of the AR-15 type platform.

Shooting Illustrated.

It’s true that the best 9 mm loads are equal in performance to many .45 ACP loads. However, if recovered-bullet diameter and penetration mean what we think they do, the best 9 mm loads are not the equal of the best .45 ACP loads. Regarding capacity, a first-grader can see a 9 mm pistol holds more ammo, but most civilian self-defense shootings are resolved with between one and eight shots. So, capacity might not be all that important after all. But what about shootability? Are 9 mm pistols that much easier to shoot more accurately and faster? To find that out, I conducted a test to get to the bottom of the 9mm vs .45 ACP debate.

[ … ]

The 6.32-cubic-inch crush cavity delivered by the Federal 230-grain +P HST load is impressive, but it comes with a cost, and that cost is an uncomfortable shooting experience and an increase in the time it takes to fire multiple shots. Measuring recoil can be subjective, but more never helps you shoot better. Everyone will have different limits, but at some point, you must decide if the terminal performance you gain is worth the reduction in shootability that comes with it.

What the information from this test—and the massive spreadsheet created to digest it—might do best is to explain why most law enforcement agencies have gone back to the 9 mm. With the best 9 mm loads, you get terminal performance similar to standard .45 ACP loads out of a gun that holds more ammunition and is easier to shoot fast and accurately. But, what this also shows is that with a .45 ACP, you can select a lesser-recoiling load and shoot nearly as fast and accurately as you can with a 9 mm pistol, while delivering similar terminal performance. If you do that, the only thing you’re giving up with the .45 is capacity.

This is an odd article by Richard Mann.  He spends most of his effort testing and discussing ordinary .45 ACP rounds, but frankly I’ve never seen PD .45 ACP rounds.  They are all +P ammunition.  Furthermore, jacketed ball rounds for dangerous game defense are certainly all +P, and some are +P+ (such as with Double Tap 450 SMC, Underwood and Buffalo Bore).

He admits as much in both the front and end of the article, and yet states that the only thing you give up by selecting the .45 ACP is capacity.  So he admits that the .45 ACP +P has more effect than the 9mm, and then discusses giving something up to carry it (like capacity).

I think this article needed an editor.

But there’s one more thing missing in this analysis beyond “recoil,” however that is felt.  The 9mm is a higher pressure round (35,000 psi chamber pressure) compared to the 45 ACP (customarily 25,000 psi, but admittedly higher with +P+ ammunition).  There is simply a difference in feel, some call it a push versus snappiness.  I would liken it to the difference between shooting the 30-30 and 5.56mm (the former being at42,000 psi, whereas the later is 62,000 psi).

For me the bottom line is purchase and practice with both.  Use whatever you feel the best shooting in the circumstance.  But I’d never liken the performance of the 9mm with 45 ACP +P+ for dangerous game.

For dangerous game, carry a big bore cartridge.

Outdoor Life.

There are some interesting takeaways from the above chart. First, the .350 Legend is by far the lightest projectile on the list at 150 grains, and it has a higher muzzle velocity than any of the others. The two 12-gauge slugs both produce 700 ft.-lb. more energy at the muzzle than the .350 Legend and 240 to nearly 400 ft./lb. more than the .45/70.

However, the ballistic advantage changes at the 200-yard mark. The .350 now has more energy than the 1-ounce rifled slug from Federal and the .45/70 impacts with more energy than any other load on the list. The .350 also shoots flatter than the slugs. At 200 yards, the .350 drops only 7.6 inches when zeroed at 100 yards. The Hornady 12-gauge sabot slug drops just under a foot at 200 yards when zeroed at 100, about the same as the .45/70. Hornady’s 20-gauge Custom Lite slug drops over 18 inches, and the 1-ounce lead 12-gauge rifled slug drops more than 2 feet at 200 yards.

As you can see from the chart, the 12-gauge slugs and .45/70 produce substantially more recoil than the .350 Legend, though Hornady’s Custom Lite 20-gauge projectile produces only slightly more recoil than the .350 Legend.

I’m not sure I’d try to take game at 200 yards with either a straight walled cartridge or a shotgun, so I’m not sure the 350 Legend ever really gives an advantage.

I see plenty of both straight walled cartridges and slug ammunition around, although slugs still seem to dominate where I am (not in a straight wall state).

Most of the guys who shoot 350 Legend seem to have problems with accuracy because of the choice of 9mm bullets they have to load.

If I’m not mistaken, he was having a little bit of sticking with those 45-70 rounds.  Maybe it was just the ammo and he needed the Hornady Leverevolution ammo.  Or maybe it was just that the action needs to be smoothed out from use.  Or maybe it’s just Henry rifles.  His other rifle didn’t seem to have that problem, nor did the Henry 44 magnum I shot have that problem.

The Author used to comment here from time to time. Haven’t seen him around in a while.

Source:

It is interesting to look at American history based on the firearms owned by civilians. Americans, and of course I mean the people who built this country and not those that showed up in the last generation or two, have always had a love affair with our guns. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is paired with the right to free speech and religion in the Bill Of Rights.

In much of the first half of the 20th century, a man who was a “sportsman” wasn’t a guy in multiple fantasy football leagues. A sportsman was a guy that hunted and fished. Men hunted and fished, it was what they did. For certain, many of these hunting trips were just an excuse to get away from their wives for a week, eat like crap, drink beer and be slovenly. Guys that didn’t hunt or fish were considered to be a little soft and effeminate. Back in those days you could order a gun from the Sears catalog and have it sent to your house.

[…]

At this stage, most of us spend most of our time with pistols. While we certainly have lots of rifles and maybe invest a lot of time shooting those rifles, we generally aren’t carrying them around with us. I have more long guns than handguns when counting shotguns and hunting rifles but most of them spend most of their time in the safe. We went out to eat with some Amish friends last night but I didn’t stow a 6.5 Grendel AR under a trench coat. I carried my Hellcat in an OWB holster under a button down shirt. While I subscribe to the school of thought that a pistol is simply a tool to keep you alive long enough to get to your rifle, right now if I get in a situation where I have to go kinetic it will be with a pistol.

He goes on to explain that the day of the rifle, or we could put it, the day of the Rifleman, is coming.

H/T WRSA

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.