Guns
Ah, what a time
Spent the weekend with the in-laws. Good times.
Father-in-law got me a Woods Wise “Buc-N-Doe Plus Snort” deer call. Video tutorial and in action. I’ve got some practice to do. 🙂
Also got a gift from the FedEx man. Rifle gunpowders and primers. Looking forward to working on that .223 load over the next couple weeks.
Next couple weeks should be relaxing and fun.
More thoughts on picking a gun
I’ve written in the past about choosing a defensive handgun. Courtesy of James Rummel I’m directed to this short but fine write-up on selecting a defensive handgun.
A summary of points:
Caliber is important but not that important
Caliber matters, but only so much. All pistol rounds suck about the same, so it’s generally better to pick the one you can shoot best. One that when shooting you can control and get fast, accurate hits.
Gun Fit
The gun must fit you. KR Training has one of the best write-ups about this topic, and I consider Karl’s article a must-read before buying a gun.
Small Guns Are Expert Guns
That’s the phrasing of the article author, and while I wouldn’t necessarily state it the same way, he is right that a small gun should not be a newbie’s first choice. I made that mistake. My goal was for concealed carry, so I made “carry-ability” and “conceal-ability” a primary concern in my gun selection. It was a mistake because those guns are harder to shoot. If you’re learning how to shoot, it’s not wise to start with something hard to use. Better is to get a full-sized or near-full-sized (e.g. “service” model) gun and learn with that. A gun that allows you to get all of your hand on the grip (especially that pinky) leads to increased controlability. A bigger gun is a heavier gun, which will be more managable to shoot. A gun with a longer barrel means a longer sight radius and thus you’ll aim better and get more accurate hits.
If you are well-versed in handgun shooting, you can move on to a smaller gun. If you’re just starting out, do yourself a favor and start out with a larger-sized gun. Get your skills. Then you can purchase a smaller gun for carry. If money is an issue, don’t forget you can always sell the larger gun to help finance purchasing the smaller gun.
Reliability
A gun that doesn’t go bang when you need it to is useless.
Granted, all mechanical things can and will fail, but do yourself right in selecting a gun that has minimal chance of that. Do some homework before you buy.
Final Thought
The article said it best:
Whatever you get, invest in quality self defense instruction, and practice!
Amen to that.
On high velocity hunting cartridges
There are endless stories of deer being killed with a rifle chambered in .22 LR. So if a little .22 LR is sufficient to kill a deer, why do we need anything more powerful? Isn’t .243 Winchester good enough? Isn’t .30-06 Springfield good enough? Why do we need this big-ass rounds like .300 Win Mag, and 7mm magnums? It’s not like they can make the deer any more deader.
Basically, shooting at longer distances.
An article from Field & Stream on the topic.
High velocity by itself does not kill anything, nor does it kill anything faster than standard velocity.
I started out believing devoutly in lots of speed, but 40 years later, having shot creatures of all sizes with just about everything that goes bang, I’ve never been able to find any correlation between bullet speed and sudden animal demise.
[…]
Not only do super-speed cartridges not kill any faster, but there are distinct disadvantages to them as well. First, let’s consider recoil and muzzle blast…. Second, when you get bullets traveling at 3000 fps and over—these days, way over—even the strongest and slowest-expanding of them makes a mess of whatever it hits…. Third, barrel life for the super-speed cartridges is considerably shorter than it is for standard-velocity loads.
[…]
Given all these drawbacks, why is it that high velocity keeps getting higher, and new and horrific super loads keep appearing? Because nothing makes hitting at long range easier than a good dose of feet per second. If you think you will need to take a shot at 300 yards and over, high velocity is your very best friend.
[…]
However, speed alone will not solve all your problems in hitting at long range. You also need resistance to wind drift and momentum, or the ability to sustain velocity way out there. The way you get it is by going not to light bullets that give the highest initial velocity—but to the heavier slugs in a given caliber, and to bullets that are streamlined.
So what it comes down to is context and selecting the appropriate tool for the context. If you’re out hunting big elk in the Rockies, 300 yard or more shots are likely and so a big gun helps. Here in Texas, 200 yards might be the extent of it and consider I’m working on a .223 Remington load for Texas whitetail and feral hogs. Heck, my father-in-law, who is a lifetime hunter, says that he’s tried just about everything out there over the years and he finds the .25-06 about the best thing for Texas hunting.
Like all things in life, you can pick the wrong tool for the job and still get the job done. But picking the right tool for the job often yields to the best and most satisfactory end results.
It bears repeating
Having a permit to carry a firearm doesn’t make you a tough guy. It’s not a license to shoot off your mouth, nor is it permission to let your guard down and be careless because, hey, you have a gun. It’s a deadly serious proposition that means you have to man up, put on the big boy pants, and let the loudmouth think he won the battle of wits. You have to be prepared to humble yourself to the jackass that wants to be the center of attention. You have to be ready to walk away, and to hell with what anyone thinks.
Having that gun doesn’t make you invincible. It makes you liable. If a fight happens, your best bet is to be in a different time zone. You don’t want there to be any chance you could get caught up in the excitement and have to make a life-or-death decision. You need to keep a clear head, one unsullied by drugs, alcohol, or foolish pride. You have to be the better person, no matter what that little devil on your shoulder whispers into your ear.
I’d say it doesn’t apply to just guns. If you’ve got legit abilities to hurt someone (e.g. martial arts training), it’s the same thing.
Just because you have a hammer, doesn’t mean everything’s a nail.
When you train for self-defense with firearms, the gun can become the answer to every problem.
When you train for self-defense with empty-hand martial arts, your fists can become the answer to every problem.
It’s the “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” situation.
This is why good self-defense training involves running scenarios that can be resolved by alternative means.
Ikigai posts a story of a man trained in martial arts who was all too ready to solve a problem with his fists, but what ultimately solved the problem was an open ear and a caring heart. Read the story here.
I know. That sounds all sappy and schmaltzy, but it’s still a sound reminder that every situation is different and must be solved on its own merits. We must keep our minds and options open, because everything isn’t a nail.
Ugh
Of course after I order a can of Trail Boss I learn that you shouldn’t use Trail Boss with anything other than pure lead bullets (no jacketed, no plated). I can’t find the official statement from IMR/Hodgdon but it is implied in their Trail Boss description and some things I found online reinforce that Trail Boss should not be used with any sort of jacketed/plated bullet: all lead only.
I wanted it for .38 Special loads, but the only bullets I have right now are Berry’s plated. I guess I’ll have to pick up some cast semi wad cutters from The Bulletworks. I got to meet Jimmy Mitchell last year at a KR Training class. Great guy.
Ruger on the Ruger 10/22
Via TFB I learn that Ruger has their own YouTube channel.
If you own a Ruger 10/22, here’s how you disassemble, clean, and reassemble it.
.38 Special reloads – round 2
Just did another round of .38 Special reloads.
Recalling the results of the the last batch, I had a tough time inserting the rounds into the chambers of the cylinder. I wondered if I belled the case-mouth too much, or if it could be from lack of crimp.
It was over-belling.
This time I did the smallest expansion I could. I could barely feel the difference in the case mouth. Measuring with calipers the mouth
expanded about 0.002″. But that’s all that was necessary, the bullet balanced just fine and seating it went smoothly. After seating, I dropped the round into the chamber and it went in and out without a hitch. Cool!
A few days ago I did pick up a Lee Factory Crimp die for .38/.357. Since I’m using these Berry’s plated bullets and given what I was told by the guy that consults for Berry’s, if any crimping is done it should be a light roll crimp or better would be a taper crimp. So I figured why not try the Lee Factory Crimp?
I loaded 30 rounds total. I used the same recipe I’ve been using (Berry’s .38 158 grain RN DS; 3.5 grains TiteGroup; Remington 1.5 SPP; CBC (Magtech) brass case; C.O.L. 1.510″). I left 15 uncrimped and I used a “light crimp” (1/2 turn, according to the die’s directions sheet) on the other 15. Let’s see how that goes. Not sure when I’ll get to the range to try this, but of course I’ll report the results.
What next?
Thinking out loud….
The goals of this .38 loading are two-fold. First, to just experiment and learn about reloading. Second, I’ve got a snub-nose class with Claude Werner in February 2010 and I’d like to have 400 (reloaded) rounds for that class. I’d like to do it because it sets a goal for me for my reloading work, plus shooting 400 rounds out of a snub over the course of the weekend… not sure how much that will beat up my hands. Having some sort of “mouse phart” load for the class wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
I’m not going to change the bullet or the primers, and I’ll probably go with the same cases for now. Regarding cases, I don’t have 400 of the same case, but I do have over 400 cases. I understand the issues of how cases can vary, but my hope here is to keep the load mild. The gun is +P rated, so I think once I get a basic formula down the case variation ought not matter. So only thing I can think to vary would be the powder (type, amount) or the cartridge overall length.
I was thinking about the C.O.L.. I was trying to remember how I arrived at 1.510″; it might have been looking at the .38 Special “38 LRN 158 grain” data in the Speer #14 manual, as that’s listed as 1.510″. The Magtech 158 grain LRN that I have measures at 1.530″. The Remington UMC 130 grain JFN is I think 1.490″. Books say the maximum cartridge overall length is 1.550″. Other bullet shapes list lengths of 1.4xx”, usually in the mid-to-high .400’s. I might try some different lengths just to see the effect. For instance, try the max length of 1.550″. Try 1.490″. I know I could risk some higher pressures here so I want to keep things light in the powder end of things and not go too short. But I’d like to see how it changes the dynamics.
I’ll probably also try varying the powder. The lowest powder charge I saw for pure lead 158 grain was 3.2 grains of TiteGroup. That may not be enough for the plated Berry’s bullet (especially since I’m also loading with a longer COL and perhaps a light crimp), but I think it’s worth a try. Hodgdon’s data for TiteGroup says using a 158 grain Hornady XTP and COL of 1.455″, .38 Special max load is 3.9 grains of TiteGroup, .38 Special +P is 4.3 grains. Given that, I may try going up to 3.8 grains of TiteGroup or maybe even 4.0. We’ll see. Much to think about.
Here we go again
Washington state lawmakers want to ban “military-style semi-automatic weapons,” whatever that means.
I say that because, at least given what’s written in the article, they don’t even know what that means. Probably involves a shoulder thing that goes up, I’m sure.
In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.
Of course. We must do something. Think of the children.
The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.
It is named for Aaron Sullivan, 18, who was fatally shot last July in Seattle’s Leschi neighborhood, allegedly with an assault-style weapon.
Current owners must pass (more) background checks, because you law-abiding citizens obviously aren’t trustworthy enough. The NICS check and 4473 apparently isn’t good enough. I guess there’s no consideration to the fact that someone illegally in possession of a gun (like these criminal gang members) aren’t going to submit to any background check of any sort. But you know, lawmakers… they’ve got to look tough.
The bill is backed by Seattle’s police department, spokeswoman Renee Witt said. Also pushing it is Washington Ceasefire, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce gun violence. The group plans a news conference today to announce the proposal.
I love the groups that seek to reduce gun violence. Ban the gun and gun violence will go away, right? No, it won’t go away. It may reduce the number of violent acts performed by guns, but sure as heck overall violence will rise. Look at the UK. Gun violence might be down, but overall violence is up. Different implements are used by the criminals (e.g. knives), and law-abiding citizens have fewer and less effective tools at their disposal for protecting themselves. Is this the goal groups like Washington Ceasefire have? Perhaps, but I would like to believe they are just misguided and really want to reduce violence on the whole. That being the case, they should work to address the deeper root causes, instead of trying to ban symptoms that have proven time and time again will not meet their goals.
The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned.
“If they’re used in the army, used in the war — that’s what this ban is about,” said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.
Oh, we’ve been down this road before. But if that’s the case, it sounds like our AR’s are safe. They aren’t designed for military use, and certainly have much sporting and hunting use.
Really, this just his misguided and ignorant written all over it. Too much to write here. If you’re reading this and don’t know how that’s misguided and ignorant, drop me a line and I’ll be happy to expound.
“We don’t allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that’s an unreasonable restriction,” [Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina] said.
Uh wait a minute. So we already don’t allow people to use stuff used in the army, yet this new ban is about stuff people in the army use. So uh… what are you banning? More ignorance.
And here we are with the notion of “reasonable restrictions.” Please define. And why is your definition the one that wins out? Oh, because you’re the “open-minded” one. I’ve learned about these progressive types. “Open-minded” means “agreeing with me.”
[Rep. Jeanee] Kohl-Welles [D-Seattle] said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren’t suggesting guns be taken from current owners.
Oh yes you are. Requiring background checks for current owners? I suppose if they fail whatever it is you deem as worthy criteria for owning a gun, you will take them away. The mere fact you’re suggesting anything like this just raises the slippery slope.
She [Kohl-Welles] also said she doesn’t believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
“Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?” she asked.
Well, if you consider things like the ancient Chinese repeating crossbows that were first created in 4 B.C…. yeah, I’d say it’s possible the framers could have imagined something like a semi-automatic firearm.
So if the only things protected by our Constitution are things the framers could have imagined, let’s outfit our military with flintlock muskets. Apparently that’s the only legitimate thing. Those framers could never have considered that this country might exist for years or even decades and that things might change. Nah… they were some short-sighted people.
On the same token, did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like the Internet? Guess that “freedom of speech” thing should be banned on the same grounds.
Stuff From Hsoi 