Guns

Lock failure

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Michael Bane notes that he not only experience but got a failure of a revolver’s internal lock mechanism on film. I’d love to see the footage.

Internal locks are the creation of good intentions that don’t truly serve a good end. It’s integrating a locking system into the internal mechanics of a gun so that, if locked, the gun cannot fire. No one in their right might would use such a thing. If you need the gun for defensive purposes, you will not want it to be locked because there’s no way you’ll unlock it in time to use the gun. If you would use the lock, say for storage, there are other means one can use to render a gun inoperable, such as using cable locks or storing the gun in a proper locked safe.

What does an internal lock do? It adds complexity to the mechanics of the gun. More parts, more things going on, thus more points of failure and things going wrong. And Lord, if your life was on the line and the gun decides to fail — because obviously they can and do — you’re going to be most unhappy.

A gun is designed to be a simple thing. Really, the simpler a tool is, generally the better it is. The more you screw with it, the more you can risk things breaking or going wrong. If this post is correct, I look forward to S&W removing the locks. Helps in my search for a snub. I will admit, I was a bit indifferent about the lock situation in my snub search, but no longer. There will not be no lock on my snub; even if the chances of failure are slim, if this piece is something I’m trusting my life to I want to ensure it’s as reliable and failsafe as I can get it. I don’t need that 1 in a million chance of being attacked to coincide with the 1 in a million chance of the gun failing when I need it most.

Updated: I did some Googling on S&W removing the internal locks and it seems to not be true. There are some limited edition runs without locks, but on the whole no it’s not happening. At least, that’s what I can find right now.

I’ve decided on a snub nose

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Another thing I got to do today was some snub nose revolver comparison.

I got to shoot a steel-frame snub and an “airweight” aluminum frame snub side-by-side. I would load them both up (5 rounds each), then I would shoot 5 rounds out of the steel-frame, then 5 rounds out of the aluminum-frame. Reload. This time I’d shoot 5 out of the aluminum then 5 out of the steel. Reload. 5 steel, 5 alumium. Reload, 5 aluminum, 5 steel. Lather, rinse, repeat until I was out of ammo. My intent was to see what I thought of the airweights, if I really wanted one.

No, I don’t. I want steel.

The 2 revolvers were almost identical. The main differences were the frame material (of course), and the airweight also had a different set of grips on it, with a Crimson Trace laser. I shot the same ammo out of both (Magtech 158 grain .38 Special, lead round nose). Thus, I was able to just compare how the 2 handled based upon their frame characteristics.

The recoil difference between the two? Really, there’s not that much difference, but there is a difference and it is noticeable. I don’t know how to describe it in a way that can really convey it in words — you have to feel it for yourself, which is why I wanted to do this. While I knew a lighter gun would produce more “felt recoil” I wanted to feel it for myself. So that said, again it’s not that much difference, but it’s there. The airweight “bites” or “snaps” or “stings” your hand just a bit more. I bet I could shoot the steel-frame all day and not care; my trigger finger would probably peed out first from dealing with the long heavy pull. But that airweight I’m sure would come to a point where my right hand will say “no mas.”  I’m sure if I was using +P ammo, I’d feel it even more and like it even less. The fact I would switch back and forth between the two guns, shooting one first then next cycle shooting the other first, I did get to feel that really they both do bite/snap/sting, but you just feel it less with the steel.

I also noticed that I did not shoot the airweight as well. The recoil was a bit harder to manage, so it was harder to get all shots on target. I’m sure with practice and getting used to the airweight I could improve. But to improve, that means you have to shoot it a lot, which then leads to your hand getting beat up, and the vicious circle. What good is a gun that you don’t want to shoot because it hurts and/or is no fun to shoot? If you’re not going to practice with it, why have it unless you’re a collector?

I don’t know the exact weight of these particular guns, but I can say that a S&W 640 is 23 oz. and a 642 is 15 oz: 8 oz difference. Half a pound, and yes that’s significant. You do feel that difference in the carry weight. I slipped the airweight into my front pant pocket and I couldn’t tell it was there. I put the steel into the pocket and I could feel the weight. Was it that much to concern myself with? No, because if you carry it often enough, you’ll get used it it and it won’t be that big a deal.

The thing is, these lightweight snubs are made for carry, and I mean that: for carry. The main design concern is carrying it, not shooting it. If you’re going to have the gun, if you’re going to carry the gun, then you need to be proficient with the gun and that means shooting it a lot. If the gun isn’t going to be any fun to shoot, or beats your hands up so much that you have to stop shooting before you get in enough practice… is that worthwhile? Maybe for some, but not for me.

So, I want steel.

Trouble is, it’s going to be hard to find steel.

I’ve decided what I want is:

  • all steel construction
  • J-frame snub-nose size, 2″ barrel max
  • no snag designs, in terms of how the sights are, and anything else on the frame or gun overall
    • Having a higher visibility front sight would be welcome, tho that can always be handled afterwards by a gunsmith
  • a “hammerless” design, such as the “centennial” frame with fully enclosed hammer or the “bodyguard” frame with the shrouded hammer. I think I’d prefer Centennial, but at this point either is fine.
  • Chambered for .38 Special +P
  • No frills, including integrated/internal locks. I want this as simple as possible.

Trouble is? Finding this will be quite difficult.

What does the market bear? Airweights. Any time I go out to stores, if there’s a snub geared towards carry it ends up being an airweight (e.g. S&W 642). If there’s one in steel, it’ll have an exposed hammer. Yes there are some new models, like the 640, but I can’t find them for sale. So, this is a bit frustrating. What’s my plan?

  • If I want something now, I’ll probably have to get an airweight (like the 642). Or I’ll have to get something like a 640, chambered in .357 Magnum. And then, I’ll probably have to order it… which would be OK since I’d like to have a model without a lock.
  • If I want what I truly want, I’m going to have to wait. Just keep looking at the stores, looking at the shows, searching online (e.g. Gunbroker), and then as soon as I see what I want, buying it.

Not a big deal. Just how it goes. At this point, I’m content to wait and get what I want (or as close as I can get to it).

On a quick side note, the Crimson Trace. Meh. Not for me. It’s nifty for sure, but then I feel you’re looking at the wrong things. It puts your eyes on the target and searching for the little red dot. It breaks proper sight picture, no looking at the front sight, and so on. It’s just another gadget that you have to maintain, that can fail when you need it most. Interesting for sure, but not a gadget I feel is a necessity. I guess if you never or rarely practice it might be useful, but I think it’s better to practice.

Another class – post mortem

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Helped out with another Basic Pistol 1 class today.

There were 10 people in the class, 6 were female. Wide range of ages of folks too.

The class was good. People got to learn a lot, set a solid foundation, and try out a bunch of handguns to figure out what worked best for them. One of the best things about this course is the smorgasbord of handguns you get to shoot, because it helps you figure out what works right for you. The biggest issue is gun fit and being able to find a gun that fits you, thus you’ll be able to shoot well. You walk out of that class with the knowledge of how to be able to shop for a gun, how to buy ammo for it, and the basics of how to shoot it with good technique.

In today’s class, I happened to have my Springfield XD-9 Subcompact with me. I let people shoot it next to a full-sized XD-9 so they could compare and contrast. My point? I wanted them to see that you will shoot a large gun better than a small gun (all other things being equal, but for size). Larger guns have more frame to grip so you can get more  hand on them and better control them. Larger guns have a longer sight radius, so you can be more accurate. Larger guns are a little heavier, so they will absorb recoil better. This isn’t to say you can’t shoot a small gun well (more in a moment), but as a beginner you’ll find more success if you start out with a larger gun. Smaller guns are more concealable, but with the right strategy you can conceal a full sized gun without much problem.

On the small gun note, I actually did some shooting with my subcompact today and was quite pleased with the results. I don’t shoot that gun a lot, but because I’ve been improving my skills on the larger guns, all that came back down here. The only thing that wasn’t fun about shooting the subcompact was it has the factory sights: big fat front sight that fills up most of the rear notch (little light on the sides, harder to get things lined up), 3 white dots although I did black out the back 2 dots. I just like my Dawson Precision sights. Nevertheless, I was shooting some timed drills and did quite well because while I knew I had to shoot fast to make time I didn’t sacrifice good form for time… I didn’t rush just to get the shots off in time. I even recall a few times distinctly withholding the shot until I had the proper sight picture, my eyes focused on the front sight.

Speed is important, but I’d say accuracy is more important. No one cares about the first person to get the wrong answer, to miss, to screw up. Use good technique. Watch that front sight.

And I got to ride my motorcycle to and from the range. Gosh it’s hot out. 🙂  I’ve been having thoughts about selling my bike, but I enjoyed the ride too much today. I may not ride as much as I used to, but I think I’d be unhappy if I sold her.

It’s not about guns, it’s about liberty

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Howard Nemerov examines if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution actually works.

But he goes further than that:

According to some, every crime victim must successfully use a gun to fight off an intruder, and every criminal must be unable to use a gun in furtherance of their enterprise, or else the Second Amendment is a failure and should be removed from the Bill of Rights.

Curiously, these complainers never apply the same criterion against other rights. Since their comments seem to consistently evoke counter-points from other readers, it would seem their exercise of free speech isn’t getting them anywhere, so are they going to lobby for repeal of the First Amendment?

OH! They already have!

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

Fairness Doctrine.

Old Media coverage of the civil right of self-defense.

Their actions identify them as anti-Liberty. It’s not about guns.

Learning from my dream

/ hsoi

When I woke up this morning, it also woke up my wife. She asked me why I was breathing short and fast. I shrugged it off because I was dealing with my dream. I’d like to share it with you because there’s something I learned (at least reinforced) and maybe you can learn from it too.

Continue reading →

ShivWorks

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

I believe I first heard of “SouthNarc” and ShivWorks through KR Training. SouthNarc runs a lot of seminars on his own, but my angle in was via “full-spectrum” courses offered in conjunction with Tom Givens’ Rangemaster. Specifically, in September 2009 I’ll be taking a “combined skills” course with Givens and SouthNarc via KR Training. I’m looking forward to it, as both Tom Givens and SouthNarc are well regarded trainers. It should be a humbling but educational experience.

I’ve also become interested in checking out all I can from SouthNarc because he has a background in Filipino martial arts, which I’ve just started studying. As I tend to do when I get involved in new things, I like to devour all the knowledge I can on the topic, so I’ll seek out books, videos, websites, people, forums and obtain all the information I can. I’ve read numerous things online from and about SouthNarc, and watched some videos on YouTube. So the next step? ShivWorks has produced 4 DVD’s:

I purchased them through MD Tactical, who were very quick with order turnaround. I just received them in the mail and have started watching. I’m sure I’ll post some reviews as I complete each DVD.

Updated: added link to my review of PUC v1

Tools don’t matter. Actions with them do.

/ hsoi

Oleg Volk discusses the ethics of weapon use. (h/t to Robb Allen)

For those that may not want to click on this figuring it’s just some pro-gun justification rah-rah article, give it a read. Oleg has a rather well-thought out line of reasoning.

All pistol rounds suck

/ hsoi / 21 Comments

This came over a mailing list I subscribe to. The poster, Jeff Mau, is an instructor at a respected training school, in addition to being a police officer and SWAT member, amongst his other credentials.

Shooting someone with a pistol in soft tissue is like sticking them under a drill press and drilling holes, or as Dr. Shertz states it is like poking them with a #2 pencil. It is simply not impressive to a motivated attacker.

For FMJ

  • A 9mm will make a 9mm hole with around 50 inches of penetration
  • A .40 S&W will make a 10mm hole (I don’t have depth of penetration info on hand, but it will be a lot)
  • A .45 ACP will make a 11.5mm hole with with around 65 inches of penetration

For quality JHP

  • A 9mm will make a 15.5mm hole with around 13 inches of penetration
  • A .40 S&W will make a 17mm hole with around 13 inches of penetration
  • A .45 ACP will make a 19mm hole with around 13 inches of penetration

50 plus inches of penetration is suboptimal. For defensive purposes, a quality JHP round is necessary.

The moral of the story is that all pistol rounds suck. Your skill to shoot a reliable weapon system fast and accurate is far more important than bullet size. That being said we all shoot 9mm.

And the reason they (the instructors at that school) all shoot 9mm is because they can shoot it faster and more accurately than the other 2 calibers. I’ve previously expressed my preference for 9mm.

Updated: Let me add some clarification.

There’s a long and seemingly endless caliber war on 9mm Parabellum vs. .45 ACP, and these days .40 S&W can get thrown into the war as well. Why is there a war, because the issue of “terminal ability” between these rounds is about the same. If one was distinctly superior in the area of “terminal ability”, there’d be no war/argument/discussion. Sure .45 ACP makes a bigger hole than a 9mm, but does a bigger hole necessarily equate to better terminal ability? In the laboratory, probably so. In a real life self-defense encounter? There’s far too many other factors involved. While caliber is important (.22 LR is not ideal for defensive work, but is arguably better than nothing at all), there are many other factors to take into account when choosing a handgun for self-defense. When talking about “all pistol rounds suck”, it is generally alluding to the terminal ability of the round, and in the end, all of the “major self-defense handgun calibers” are about the same in terminal ability.

Thus, if the 3 calibers are essentially the same in that area, what can differentiate them? Recoil for one. The recoil of .40 S&W is greater than the recoil of .45 ACP is greater than the recoil of 9mm Parabellum. If all things were equal other than the gun’s chambering, I’m sure first shots of guns in those calibers would all get off just as fast. But how about follow-up shots? The more the recoil, the slower follow-up shots will be. If you have more recoil to manage, it’s more effort to keep the sights in your field of vision and reacquire them before peeling off the next shot. To me, why exert all this extra effort and have to fight my weapon system more than is really required? Maybe it’s the engineer in me that likes efficiency, but if I can exert less yet get the same or better results, why wouldn’t I do that?

For me, shooting 9mm allows me to be a more effective handgunner. 9mm provides less recoil, so I can shoot it faster and ensure greater accuracy when I shoot it. This isn’t to say .45 or .40 are less accurate rounds, just one’s ability to shoot them. Sure I can shoot .45 and .40 fairly quickly and accurately (tho I admit I don’t care for the snappiness of .40’s recoil), but I can shoot 9mm better. Then you add in the increased capacity, less cost per round, and other such factors, and that’s why I prefer to shoot 9mm.

I’m not against .45 ACP. I think it’s a fine round. If you determine that .45 ACP works best for you, by all means use that. In the end, the key thing is to have something as that’s better than nothing. Then get training, practice, get more training, more practice, and become proficient with it. In the end, that “software” is going to take you further than any hardware.