Field & Stream.

• You’re Probably Putting Too Much Pressure On Your Rifle
• Shooting Bags Aren’t Just For the Range
• Blading Your Shoulders Leads to Bad Shooting
• Learn to Build Good Shooting Positions
• Light Rifles Can Be Accurate, Too
• You Don’t Need A Lot of Ammo to Practice
• Respect the Wind and Your Limitations

See the discussion at F&S.  I’ve tried to put some of these principles to practice recently in my own rifle shooting.  I’m a long ways from mastering them all.

That’s the title at Slate, because Mark Joseph Stern thinks he has found out that progressive judges have finally found a use for the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.  After a silly and emotional (and factually incorrect) diatribe against the Bruen decision, he says this.

What’s a progressive judge to do? Public defenders have already offered an answer: employ the Second Amendment in furtherance of progressive constitutional values like equal protection and the rights of criminal defendants. Because so many high-profile gun cases are manufactured by conservative activists—including this one—it’s easy to forget who’s really on the front lines of the Second Amendment revolution: criminal defense attorneys representing indigent clients charged with firearm offenses. (It’s telling that one Biden appointee who joined the majority in Range, Arianna Freeman, spent her entire legal career as a federal public defender.) Public defenders have a Sixth Amendment obligation to provide their clients with a zealous defense, which increasingly includes constitutional challenges to gun restrictions.

That’s why New York City’s public defenders filed a brief in Bruen urging the Supreme Court to strike down nearly all limitations on public carry. And it’s why the 3^rd Circuit’s top public defenders—Freeman’s former colleagues—filed a similar brief in Range attacking the federal felon-in-possession ban. The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions all envision “law-abiding, responsible citizens” who seek to protect themselves and their families from violence. But in the real world, the people who have the most to gain from these rulings are criminal defendants facing down years or decades in prison. Recent decisions establishing a right to scratch out a gun’s serial number and purchase a firearm while under indictment or restraining order all arose out of criminal prosecutions, not NRA-backed test cases.

Like a growing number of public defenders, liberal judges like Freeman, Ambro, Greenaway, and Montgomery-Reeves may think that the Second Amendment can be repurposed as a weapon against over-policing and mass incarceration. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Range will certainly be a boon to the criminal defense bar, as well as a source of immense confusion for prosecutors. The majority’s standard is extraordinarily vague: It acknowledges that some people may be disarmed for committing a felony, but a person “like Range” could not. How can judges tell when someone falls on Range’s side of the line? The majority didn’t say. In 2019, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett took a stab at a clearer standard, asserting that only “dangerous” and “violent felons” may be disarmed. But which crimes count as “violent”? Is selling or using cocaine “violent”? How about possessing child pornography? Drunk driving? Burglary? Harassment? In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court found it impossible to give the term “violent felony” a “principled and objective” standard. Why should courts have any more luck today?

This uncertainty would force prosecutors to think twice before bringing felon-in-possession charges, asking first whether they could persuade a court that the defendant is sufficiently “dangerous” or “violent” or “non-law-abiding” to justify disarmament. And from a criminal justice reform perspective, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of left-leaning commentators have argued that the felon-in-possession ban is disproportionately enforced against people of color, contributing to mass incarceration and persecution of minority communities. For many progressives, these problems raise concerns about equal protection, unlawful policing, and unconstitutional sentences. But this Supreme Court doesn’t see them that way; it cares far more about gun rights than traditional civil rights, such as basic civic equality of Black Americans. So progressive judges may instead seek to use the Second Amendment as a stand-in for constitutional principles that SCOTUS has abandoned.

That’s a lot to unpack and I haven’t the time to fisk it all.  He makes many mistakes, including the assumption that the NRA is a gun rights organization.  As we’ve pointed out many times before, they were in favor of NFA, GCA, the completely unconstitutional Hughes Amendment, the original AWB, the bump stock ban, red flag laws, and a host of other liberty-infringing laws and regulations.  The sooner we can move the NRA out of the way, the sooner we can begin to restore our liberties.  Because pols turn to them for views and approval, they are like a ball and chain attached to us.

Other false assumptions might be that advocates of liberty would somehow be opposed to a turnaround in mass incarceration and over-policing.  Look no further than this web site for advocacy of this recent third circuit ruling, including your truly and all of the commenters.  And even a cursory look at our police category proves that we are against over-policing.  The writer is confusing lovers of liberty with the advocacy of modern incarnation and reflexive “conservative” cop-advocacy.  Here, think Bill Barr, who defended Lon Horiuchi.

His is a very dated view.  He lumps us in with folks who think nothing like us.  I don’t believe in incarceration as it is currently conceived anyway, i.e., as effectual for redemptive and rehabilitative purposes.  Put simply, I don’t believe in imprisonment.  Per the Biblical paradigm, I believe in slavery to pay debts, and capital punishment for capital crimes such as rape, kidnapping and murder.  There is absolutely no good reason, and by the way, no Biblical justification, for charging a man with the carry of a weapon if he commits some other crime, regardless of whether he had approval from a state permitting schema.  Charge him for the crime he committed, not ownership of weapons.  If you wonder what modern gun owners think about this view, look to the guys at Reddit/Firearms, who completely support this decision as do we.  Gun control laws are infringements – full stop.

But that’s not the end of the conversation, you see.  Because if by over-policing the writer at Slate means the arrest of the Antifa protesters in Portland, Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, and elsewhere, we disagree with him.  More to the point, liberty means the right to defend yourself and your loved ones.  It means the right to shoot people who endanger your life and the lives of your loved ones.  As I have told my wide when she had to drive in Charlotte several years ago when this was all going down, if you’re on John Belk Freeway (I-277) and Antifa protesters block the way and start beating on cars (like they did at least once), run them over, and kill them if you must.

That road is like a moat.  It’s walled on both sides for miles, and the only opportunity for egress to protect your life is finding one of the few exits and getting out of the city.  Liberty doesn’t mean allowing communists agitators to rape you, kidnap you, steal from you or damage your property, or take your life.  It means defending against all of that, including with weapons of your choice.

Mr. Stern is a controller and finds it so remarkable that mass incarceration might suffer a blow from this decision that it’s worth an article.  Join the club, Mark, albeit a bit late.  I don’t believe men should go to prison for ownership of weapons either.  We don’t like the controllers any more than you do.  But be careful what you wish for.  When I say we don’t like the controllers, that also means we don’t like their agitators and instigators and believe we have rights against their methods and intentions – without interference from the controllers.

It’s fascinating to me that this country is finally figuring out what the second amendment is all about.

Decision.

The material facts are undisputed. In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). In those days, Range was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour as he and his wife struggled to raise three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife prepared an application for food stamps that understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Though he did not recall reviewing the application, Range accepted full responsibility for the misrepresentation. Range was sentenced to three years’ probation, which he completed without incident. He also paid $2,458 in restitution, $288.29 in costs, and a $100 fine. Other than his 1995 conviction, Range’s criminal history is limited to minor traffic and parking infractions and a summary offense for fishing without a license. When Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. That conviction precludes Range from possessing a firearm because federal law generally makes it “unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

[ … ]

… the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is as expansive as it is vague. Who are “law-abiding” citizens in this context? Does it exclude those who have committed summary offenses or petty misdemeanors, which typically result in a ticket and a small fine? No. We are confident that the Supreme Court’s references to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” do not mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket is no longer among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps, then, the category refers only to those who commit “real crimes” like felonies or felony-equivalents? At English common law, felonies were so serious they were punishable by estate forfeiture and even death. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 54 (1769). But today, felonies include a wide swath of crimes, some of which seem minor.5 And some misdemeanors seem serious.6 As the Supreme Court noted recently: “a felon is not always more dangerous than a misdemeanant.” Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2020 (2021) (cleaned up). As for the modifier “responsible,” it serves only to undermine the Government’s argument because it renders the category hopelessly vague. In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a “responsible” citizen. At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”). In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are counted among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny lead us to conclude that Bryan Range remains among “the people” despite his 1995 false statement conviction.

That he made a false statement in order to obtain food stamps is an absurd reason to effect a prohibition on firearms ownership. We in America suffer from death by a thousand cuts.  It was reversed like it should have been by the Third Circuit.

Survival Blog.

“Administration and character of Eutropius, A.D. 395-399:

The first events of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius are so intimately connected, that the rebellion of the Goths and the fall of Rufinus have already claimed a place in the history of the West. It has already been observed that Eutropius, one of the principal eunuchs of the palace of Constantinople, succeeded the haughty minister whose ruin he had accomplished and whose vices he soon imitated. Every order of the state bowed to the new favourite; and their tame and obsequious submission encouraged him to insult the laws, and, what is still more difficult and dangerous, the manners of his country. Under the weakest of the predecessors of Arcadius the reign of the eunuchs had been secret and almost invisible. They insinuated themselves into the confidence of the prince but their ostensible functions were confined to the menial service of the wardrobe and Imperial bedchamber. They might direct in a whisper the public counsels, and blast by their malicious suggestions the fame and fortunes of the most illustrious citizens; but they never presumed to stand forward in the front of empire, or to profane the public honours of the state. Eutropius was the first of his artificial sex who dared to assume the character of a Roman magistrate and general. Sometimes, in the presence of the blushing senate, he ascended the tribunal to pronounce judgment or to repeat elaborate harangues; and sometimes appeared on horseback, at the head of his troops, in the dress and armour of a hero. The disregard of custom and decency always betrays a weak and ill-regulated mind; nor does Eutropius seem to have compensated for the folly of the design by any superior merit or ability in the execution. His former habits of life had not introduced him to the study of the laws or the exercises of the field; his awkward and unsuccessful attempts provoked the secret contempt of the spectators; the Goths expressed their wish that such a general might always command the armies of Rome; and the name of the minister was branded with ridicule, more pernicious, perhaps, than hatred to a public character. The subjects of Arcadius were exasperated by the recollection that this deformed and decrepit eunuch, who so perversely mimicked the actions of a man, was born in the most abject conditions of servitude; that before he entered the Imperial palace he had been successively sold and purchased by an hundred masters, who had exhausted his youthful strength in every mean and infamous office, and at length dismissed him in his old age to freedom and poverty. While these disgraceful stories were circulated, and perhaps exaggerated, in private conversations, the vanity of the favourite was flattered with the most extraordinary honours. In the senate, in the capital, in the provinces, the statues of Eutropius were erected, in brass or marble, decorated with the symbols of his civil and military virtues, and inscribed with the pompous title of the third founder of Constantinople. He was promoted to the rank of patrician, which began to signify, in a popular and even legal acceptation, the father of the emperor: and the last year of the fourth century was polluted by the consulship of an eunuch and a slave. This strange and inexpiable prodigy awakened, however, the prejudices of the Romans. The effeminate consul was rejected by the West as an indelible stain to the annals of the republic; and without invoking the shades of Brutus and Camillus, the colleague of Eutropius, a learned and respectable magistrate, sufficiently represented the different maxims of the two administrations.”  – Edward Gibbon, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Chapter 32

Effeminate Eunuchs.  Does this sound as if it could be written about the current ruling caste of America today?

This seems like a fair test for a run of the mill shotgun with offhand shooting.  I don’t think it’s a fair test of more expensive shotguns or guns that have been modified and adjusted for distance.

Most shotgun manufacturers have much longer barrels, and trying different chokes would have helped with his shot spread.  Beretta has a longer barrel “forcing cone” than other tactical shotguns, and using different ammunition might have helped (e.g., Federal FliteControl).

So if I wanted distance versus a more portable close quarters battle shotgun, I’d install a 32″ competition barrel and use different ammunition.  I’m willing to bet that he could land pellets at 100 yards.  I wouldn’t want to get hit by a 9mm bullet at any range, including 100 yards.

By the way, I think he meant to say Vang Comp.

American Rifleman.

The .444 Marlin was a brainchild of Marlin employees Thomas Robinson and Arthur Burns. They made the first cases from unfinished .30-06 Sprg. brass before it was necked down and the rim turned to its final diameter. Burns presented prototype ammunition and a rifle chambered for it to Earl Larson at Remington, and since an official name for the cartridge had yet to be decided on, the first test ammunition loaded by Remington was head-stamped “.44 Mag”, because that bunter was on hand. It was later changed to “444 Marlin.” The ammunition featured the same 240-grain bullet being loaded by Remington in the .44 Mag.

Advertised velocity was 2,400 f.p.s., reduced to 2,350 f.p.s. soon after the barrel of the Model 444 rifle was shortened to 22”. The 240-grain bullet proved to be sudden death on deer, but elk and moose hunters desired more penetration on quartering shots, so in 1982, a 265-grain soft point at 2,120 f.p.s. was added. It was discontinued around 2010, but has returned to the Remington Express ammunition lineup with an average velocity of 2,239 f.p.s. from my rifles. Demand for the .444 Marlin increased when several shotgun-only states legalized the use of certain straight-wall centerfire cartridges.

The .444 Marlin is often incorrectly described as a lengthened version of the .44 Mag. The two cartridges do share the same rim and bullet diameters, but body diameter just forward of the extraction groove of factory ammo usually measures 0.464” to 0.467” for the .444 Marlin and 0.451” to 0.453” for the .44 Mag. SAAMI maximum chamber diameter for the .444 Marlin is 0.4747” so firing the .44 Mag. in a .444 Marlin rifle could result in a ruptured case and should not be done.

It would be interesting if Marlin came out with a new Model 444, but given the similarity of this cartridge with the 45-70, it may not happen.

See also Chuck Hawks, and American Hunter.

Source.

House Bill 3571 passed both Houses this past week with Senate Floor Amendment 1.

SA1 permits counties and municipalities to hire non-citizens as deputy sheriffs and police officers in the same manner as hiring U.S. citizens, as long as they are: “legally authorized under federal law to work in the United States and is authorized under federal law to obtain, carry, or purchase or otherwise possess a firearm, or who is an individual against whom immigration action has been deferred by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process and is authorized under federal law to obtain, carry, or purchase or otherwise possess a firearm”

What this means in Illinois, is that you may soon see non-US citizens wearing police badges …

People who have no cultural tradition or history with this country may soon hold arrest powers in Illinois.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t also happen in Dearborn, and many other cities across the nation.

They must be very proud in Heyburn, Idaho.  They’ve managed to get the lowest of the low, the most uneducated, the most dangerous and sociopathic, the absolute worst possible people anywhere to be cops.  Is it any wonder cops are hated everywhere now?

Another question might be this: Who ordered this killing?  What is his name and rank, and why wasn’t be brought up on charges along with the cops who did this?

The cop(s) ought to be charged with: (1) reckless endangerment, (2) reckless discharging of a firearm, (3) cruelty to animals, (4) theft of property under color of law (the dogs were probably someone’s property).

There are many ways to, in Mike Vanderboegh’s words, “Lose the mandate of Heaven.”  It seems modern American law enforcement wants to find and effect every single one of them.

I was at a community event last night which included fireworks, and one dog bolted as soon as the fireworks started. A lot of dogs are very frightened of fireworks. We knew, sort of, where the dog took off to, and I spent a good deal of time late last night with tactical lights walking through woods helping the dog’s owner search for him, while I also prayed that we could find the dog before he had to tangle with the Coyotes. We found him late last night. I guess that’s the difference between someone who cares and someone who doesn’t. One searches for lost dogs. Others shoot them for fun.

Also note, this is merely training for them. If they’ll shoot dogs with such callous disregard, they’ll do it to you too. I’ve said many times before, you’re never in more danger than when the cops are around. I guess this is true for dogs too. And I’m wondering since this cop loves shooting dogs so much, if he’s not a good candidate for ATF agent?

Via WiscoDave.

Idaho police officer shot two dogs, retrievers, for being near the highway. The officer was placed on leave and is under investigation.pic.twitter.com/1bq5lOO6ny

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) June 4, 2023

Outdoor Life has a great article on various sorts  and bullet weights and types of 5.56 ammo.  I won’t lift a lot of prose out of the article, and you’re recommended to read his view of .223 and 5.56mm interchangeability.  The summary list of ammo follows.

• Best Overall: Black Hills Ammo 5.56mm NATO MK 262 MOD 1-C
• Best Value: Freedom Munitions .223 69-grain HPBT Match
• Most Accurate: Nosler Match Grade .223 77-grain Custom Competition BTHP
• Best for Larpers: Lake City 5.56mm NATO M855 Ball, 62-grain Green Tip
• Best for Varmints: Freedom Munitions .223 55-grain V-Max
• Best for Deer: Remington Premier .223 55-grain Accutip
• Best Lead-Free Ammo: Nosler .223 55-grain Expansion Tip
• Best Ball Ammo: Winchester USA Target .223 55-grain FMJ
• Best for Shooting Steel: Freedom Munitions .223 42-grain Zinc-core FMJ

Match Ammo

• Black Hills Ammo .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking
• Remington Premier Match .223 77-grain Sierra Matchking
• Remington Premier Match .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking
• Federal Gold Medal Match .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking 
• Hornady .223 75-grain BTHP Match
• Winchester Match .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking

Hunting and Defensive Ammo

• Black Hills Ammo .223 62-grain Barnes TSX
• Hornady Black 5.56mm NATO 75-grain Interlock
• Nosler .223 55-grain Ballistic Tip Varmint
• Winchester Varmint X .223 40-grain Polymer Tip
• Hornady Critical Defense .223 73-grain FTX

I don’t necessarily agree with everything on the list (e.g., I find Winchester ammunition to be quite dirty).  I would also add to the list (e.g., I find PMC ammunition to be relatively inexpensive and good range ammo, and it’s not on the list).

However, this is shooter’s choice.  If you have a favorite for some purpose, drop a comment including a URL.