Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is looking for deer hunting and shooting a deer harvesting? Good, then I am a hunter but a poor harvester.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
I could be wrong, but that seems to be the consensus. Even on SIG's website. Course, the internet has failed me before. I'll double check.
Now, getting a .357 SIG barrel is another matter. I suppose my gun shop can get one without problem.
Keep in mind, those that are brand spanking new to firearms, that the .357 SIG round is NOTHING like the .357 magnum round. Both are very powerful effective rounds at the receiving end, but the SIG variety goes in semi-auto pistols, and the magnum goes in revolvers.
Price is a big difference. Plain Jane retail .40 costs $20, .357 Magnum is $25, and .357 SIG is $30. Generally and comparatively. Your mileage may vary.
Say you conceal-carry a P229, and you have both barrel options and plenty of practice with each... Which caliber do you carry with you for emergencies? I don't know, I'd need to do a lot more research and I am not pressed for time in non-carry civil-rights-quashing state of Maryland. While the .357 SIG looks screaming on paper, it might be too much. Chime in if you have any experience with it.
If you look at just the numbers published by ammo manufacturers, and compile them by muzzle energy you get a table where .357 Magnum is generally near the very top, with .45+P and .357 SIG intermingling close up there in the same area of the top of the table. All over a swath of .40 caliber on the table, then the rest... 9mm and .38 and .380 at the bottom.
Rule of thumb for regular ammo; .357 mag is around 550 foot pounds, .45 is 400, .357 SIG is 475, 9mm is 350, and .40 is 425.
The lowly 'minimum' self defense round .380 is around 200 for the hotter stuff.
Energy is mass (in grains) times velocity (in feet per second) times velocity, all divided by 2 times 32.1739 times 7000.
Muzzle energy is NOT the be-all end-all measurement of cartridge efficacy, keep in mind. Colonel Cooper would rise up from the grave and hunt me down with a pistol shooting 230 grain full metal jacket .45 ACP if I maintained energy was the only measure.
My mind right now, while the .357 SIG is impressive, it's not THAT much more impressive.Another future purchase/accessories idea is the .22 conversion kit for same. That's one gun that shoots 3 calibers with a quick takedown and swap out. Cool! Of course the conversion is pricey at $370. 1911 conversion kits run in the low $200s.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
After every range session I field strip my pistols. Remove the slide and barrel from the frame and go to town with the cleaning. Apart from the important bits, the inside of the barrel, and the feed ramp, and grooves the slide rides in, the gun is often pretty shmutzy in other areas. A tooth brush and cotton swabs get's most of these other areas that I can reach, but it isn't too critical to get them as clean as the important areas.
But eventually, I'll have to get all the other part taken down. Grip may get in the sear causing the trigger to be crunchy. The extractor and firing pin are easy enough to take down and clean, but the other parts can be a challenge. To re-assemble, if not to take down. It's do-able, though.
Is there a rule of thumb on how often to detail strip?
And should I just soak all those metal parts in kerosene or paint thinner or something else overnight? There is a lot of nooks and crannies to blast carbon out of.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
How quickly do your holsters wear out?
Let's say you have a IWB holster. Inside the waistband. There isn't a lot of stress on the belt loops but maybe a snap would fail and you'd need to repair that. Maybe sweat is making the leather all oogy. Ok, I can see replacing it for those rare issues.
The front sight might wear a groove on the inside, eventually.
How quick does a shweaty back impact a holster's ability to do its job for you people living in hotter climes?
I'd suppose the biggest issue would be the holster just stretching out from being wrapped around a hard piece of metal that is removed from it daily. I have leather shoes that are whole, but the leather has stretched a bit and they don't fit as well anymore. A holster should hold the gun snuggly, for safety, and not let the firearm work it's way loose.
Am I worried about nothing? Does this just not happen?
If it does happen after a few years/decades, how do you know it's now time to break in a new one? Who has had to replace a favorite, daily, holster?
I hope decent holsters just last a good long time.
And i try to get decent holsters, damn the price. I hear too many stories of boxes of unused low quality, unsatisfactory, holsters.
Monday, November 24, 2008
First of all, what is a Fudd? Fudd is a derogatory term and is short for Elmer Fudd. Jim Zumbo, who implied Americans that own AR-15 style rifles were terrorists, and was piled on by gun bloggers until he resigned, is an example of a Fudd.
All hunters are not Fudds. Lots of hunters own expensive hunting shotguns and rifles, AND have a few self-defense pistols, AND have a few Sport Utility Rifles that look scary and are black in color, and fire semi-automatic bullets inappropriate to hunting from regular capacity magazines that only hold 30 rounds, AND shoot in IDPA competitions or Bullseye. These hunters are not Fudds. I, myself, try to hunt, and want a CCW. I am not a Fudd. These types of firearms owners are us.
There are even hunters that only have a $10,000 bird-hunting gun and can’t for the life of them understand why anyone would want a rifle that looks like a military style Assault Rifle, or why anyone would carry concealed. But these hunters take an attitude of “whatever floats your boat, if you want to carry a 1911 in your belt to the grocery store because you are concerned you might get robbed, that’s fine by me, it is your right, and none of my business.” Bill Schneider may be an example of this type, (but he is less than comfortable with RKBA enthusiasm and is a bit naïve about the interwebz. Still the comments for his piece did at times go way overboard.) These are not Fudds. These are our allies, or, at least, not our enemies. It would be helpful and mutually beneficial if they were better allies, yes. But they are still our friends. On a football team you have offense and defense. Offense is the activist 2nd Amendment advocates. These hunters are defense or special teams. You don't complain when the defense doesn't score as many touchdowns do you? You still need them.
No, a Fudd is a person that has only hunting arms and thinks NO ONE should be allowed to have anything else but. They actively work with gun control groups to ban firearms with little or no hunting utility. They seem to be under the impression that the 2nd Amendment applies only to deer hunting and the like, and not self-defense. Despite the Supreme Courts unanimous. They think that if they throw the rest of firearm owners under the bus that their firearms will be left alone by the gun banners, and that non- Fudds give them a bad name. They can be a bit snobby and elitist this way. And their strategy of diverting attention to other gun-owners may come back and bite them if they successfully deflect gun banners to regular capacity magazine fed pistols and Sport Utility Rifles, as once gun banners are successful with non-Fudd weapons who is to stop banners from shifting to the “sniper rifles that shoot armor piercing ammo and assault shotguns” that they will categorize hunting-iron as? Of course sniper-rifle and assault-shotgun is a misnomer label and future propaganda of the gun-banners, and is as inaccurate as the mislabeling they try to apply to their current firearm targets like so-called assault weapons. They call wrongly call the most common target rifles assault weapons because it is harder to be taken serious if you just call to ban all “scary looking guns”.
Jim Zumbo was a Fudd when he wrote bad things about AR-15 rifles and damaged the 2nd Amendment cause. He lost his job after, performed many meaculpas, and endeavored to learn more about ‘black rifles,’ their appeal, and may have truly reformed since. Shooters that primarily shoot AR’s for fun, competition, and recreation almost certainly outnumber hunters at this point and these numbers are why the outcry against his diatribe was so intense. Hunters are no longer in the majority. They certainly are not in the majority if you only count people with firearms used solely for hunting.
John Kerry is a Fudd. Joe Biden is a Fudd. Hillary Clinton claims to be a Fudd. Dan Cooper is a Fudd. The fake, George Soros supported American Hunters and Shooters Association is a front for Fudds and gun banners. New Jerseys extreme gun control regime is a Fuddesque system. Chicago and DC don’t even pretend to be Fudd-like and have gone beyond mere Fudd measures, with only a token nod possession of hunting-utility only firearms.
True Fudds are fewer in number than is implied by the occasional histrionics of RKBA advocates. And histrionics improperly applied doesn’t help the cause.
I will endeavor to refrain from insulting people with the Fudd moniker unless it is clear that that is what they are. I am sorry if I implied any person that is primarily a hunter is a Fudd because they aren’t as enthusiastic about supporting the 2nd Amendment (but aren’t AGAINST the individual right) as I am, even if I think an attitude that cares little for ALL individual rights is unwise and short sighted.
Hunters that don’t care about non-hunting firearms one way or t’other? Not a Fudd
Hunter’s that want to feed me to the Gun-Banner’s alligator because I have an M1A in the hopes that he’ll be eaten last? That’s a Fudd.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
' As George Will is fond of writing, “Well!” '
Lots of other gunbloggers have been pointing to her new Sport Utility Rifle acquisition. Good on her. But I thought THIS was the money quote:
"Remember...I'm not a gun hoarder, and I'm not out to murder someone. I keep firearms for personal protection, for a sense of freedom, and to give myself a stress relief by going to the range and firing a few rounds at paper. For me, there's nothing more mentally settling than forcing oneself to calm down, focus, breathe, and squeeze that trigger."
Defense, liberty, fun. Yup. That's the golden nugget there. The gun owner trinity. Eloquent. It's why I do it, too.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Even M1A mags.
I thought there was only a rush to snatch-up on AR-15 stuff.
I got some crappy Chinese mags with weak springs that fail to push the follower up when in use. Some new spring from HERE might do the trick.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
And now there is also a plethora of holster posts and glegs out there, too. Also coming soon, my own.
While I don’t think Obama will come out and ask Congress to pass such a law as part of his agenda, he doesn’t have to. I think Congress knows his preference and if they can pass it without too much trouble, from constituents, the opposition, or the States, Reid and Pelosi will. Obama would certainly sign such a bill into law if it landed on his desk and he doesn’t have to take a position publicly other than that.
Let’s examine the ramifications if it does happen.
40 some states have Shall Issue conceal carry laws. 48 have some sort of conceal carry provision. All those states would be stepped on. But let’s put aside that federal republic falderal for now.
The purpose of banning conceal carry to protect people from being shot by someone. Someone with a concealed weapon could assault or murder an innocent with that weapon. It’s purpose is also to cut down on accidents, but the rate of accidental shootings approaches zero, statistically. The main purpose is to cut down on gun crime.
Current CCW holders are some of the most vetted and law abiding people in the country. Many are better trained than any standard police officer. And many ARE police officers. The Secret Service would much prefer to have the President in a room full of CCW holders than a room full of armed criminals. And the President would be, in fact, much safer in a room of CCW holders, all armed, than in a room of criminals, all armed.
CCW holders don’t commit crime. The crime statistics from legal conceal carry permit holders is even smaller than accidental shootings from negligent discharges from the same group. Police officers commit felonies at a higher rate than CCW holders.
Those people, the CCW holders, are most likely to comply with a ban on conceal carry. They are not scofflaws. They wouldn’t like it, and a small subset wouldn’t comply, but for the most part they would render themselves defenseless.
Criminals already don’t comply with Conceal Carry laws, and there is no indication that they would if conceal carry was made MORE illegal. They are criminals, they break laws by definition. If they are willing to rape, rob, and kill they are certainly willing to violate a law with less punishment like concealed weapon prohibitions.
Conclusion: A federal ban on Conceal Carry would do next to nothing to fulfill it’s stated purpose of reducing crime and accidents. Many more people will be victimized by being rendered defenseless than would be saved by the law’s passing. The ban isn’t targeted at crime, but against law abiding innocents.
Further, rational actors know this.
So, passing of a federal ban must have a purpose beyond the stated. Unless it’s proponents are acting irrationally. I believe most are. They support such a law because they are politicians and believe their constituency wants it. Political action is certainly not rational all the time. Politicians may have political principles that necessitate an action that complies with their world view, and that is impervious to rational argument, as well. They comply with their erroneous political philosophy on how they WISHED the world worked, not how it actually does. Finally there are those, motivated by a thirst for power over others, that want to subjugate the people and control them, and they can more easily do this if the subjects can’t resist agents of the government. Paranoids believe this last type of supporter is the most numerous. They may be right. Just because they are paranoid doesn’t mean they are wrong. Optimistic little old me believes this third group are a much smaller subset than assumed by the most strident 2nd Amendment enthusiast. Most politicians enjoy their power, but not to that great an extent. Most politicians are not monsters.
So three types of politicians support the federal ban, those acting purely on politics and damn the truth, those that adhere to an erroneous irrational political philosophy, and tyrants. None of these motivations is truly defensible except perhaps the first. And that purely political calculation goes away when the voting public is informed about the issue.
And hence the purpose of this post…
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Yes, I bought ammo, AGAIN, for a gun I don’t yet have. It happens quite a bit with gun type people.
There is actually some risk doing that in this state, supposedly. Buying ammo for a gun you don’t have. Really. There was a Marylander a few months back that got called on by the local constabulary. Seems he bought ammo of a type that didn’t match any of the guns Maryland knew about, so the po-lice assumed he had some kind of straw-purchase going. His real reason was that he has some guns that the State Police didn't know about as they weren't required to be registered.
Kinda scary. You buy bullets and the cops pay you a visit assuming you are up to no good and question you…
(Now it’s not illegal to buy ammo in Maryland in a caliber that they don’t know you own. They just think it’s a possible indicator of other crimes. You can even legally have a pistol they don’t know about. Say you moved to Maryland 20 years ago and had bought a gun legally in a more enlightened state. )
How was that supposed to work? How did the cops KNOW? Well, some places here won’t sell you ammo without taking down information on your ID. I avoid these places. And Maryland law doesn't require ammunition purveyors to do so. The cops haven’t resorted to checking your credit card purchases, yet, and I don’t think they are able/allowed to be that intrusive, but you never know. Apparently the store the guy in question bought from regularly forwarded the info to law enforcement, and apparently there are resources at the police to check the names against state-controlled firearms permits/purchasers. Sort of like crime speculators. Maybe it’d be good policework if they didn’t snare legitimate gun purchasers and shooters.
Here’s a thought, Maryland State police… Check the list of ammo purchasers against lists of FELONS. That’s an actual crime, not just a suspicion of a possibility of crime. Same with the ATF. The ATF reject purchasers of firearms via the National Instant Check System for being a forbidden person, like being a felon. Isn’t being a felon and ATTEMPTING to buy a gun a crime? And you have the proof, dead to rights, that an attempt was made. Seems like state and federales types could go a good way to taking a bite of crime that way.
The practice isn’t universal here as I said, though some Wal-Marts participate, apparently. Other shops as well. Again, I’d not shop at one that does unless it become universal. And I would complain through channels if universality was contemplated.
Sounds like a crazy made-up story posted on the inernets by paranoids worried about intimidation of the innocent, doesn’t it? It may be made up, for all I know, but there are cites, just all off of gun forums. And forum rumor isn't something you bet the house on. Some forums/comments-types are sure that the CIA executes hippies and makes it look like street crime, others are sure the UN has a fleet of black helicopters, and train cars, and concentration camps set up in South Dakota to round up adn detain Republicans and other undesirable classes. My source for ammo issues is a lot more reasonable than the bat-shite crazy stuff I just mentioned, but it is still just Joe Schmoe gun enthusiasts like me on the internet, talking, with second hand information, so I take even trusted sources with a grain of salt. The Maryland shooters forum even talks about it being unverified. If anyone knows some actual confirmation on the ammo registration harassment, I'd love to see a link. To see the original forum info, google: "Very Disturbing MSI email" or look here.
[and, truth be known, I bought my ammo-day ammo weeks ago, before the election. i had a feeling an Obama win would make the prices go up as folks made a run. and I was right... Just bought 100 rounds of .40 on the ACTUAL day, today.]
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
I wonder how stable that is? The back part of the rail the rear scope ring is mounted to is a single dovetail notch forward of the peep sight, and the front rail part is a around the barrel. Seems like there could be some variance introduced after firing for a bit, with all the vibrations. This type seems a more secure platform:
But the top gives me another data point to think on.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
That's the THING about 1911 pistols. So much is customizable without the need of a gunsmiths services. I talked about mainspring housings before. And I've swapped out the grip safety for something more to my liking. I used a gunsmith there, but it turned out I didn't have to. I swapped out the recoil spring rod and plug as easy as cleaning it.
This was done on a gun I was finicky about the features of, to get it as close as possible to what I wanted without extras I didn't want. Stuff like the polished feed ramp, tritum sights, and ambidextrous thumb safety. I'd prefer a slide without forward serations because it may wear the inside of holsters, but, I can't carry CCW style, yet, so... so what. It is a good thing for grabbing to do a chamber check.
All this is possible because so many people shoot the 1911 and there is a demand for customizations, so the market responds with OODLES of parts to play with.
Anyhoo, back to grips. I don't think I'd ever try aluminum grips. And not just for aesthetic reasons. My fascination with old wood working tools comes into play. Back when handtools were what professionals used to get the job done, the finest tool handles were made of Brazillian Rosewood. It's very dense and won't splinter, and is easy to carve into a handle with smooth, non-blister inducing edges. On disadvantage to rosewood is if you droped a tool on the handle, rosewood wouldn't do to well. You can guard against drops in a cabinet maker's shop, but a carpenter on a job site has more hazards and tools can get knocked about. Plus you have to move the tool box from job to job and tools can get dinged in tool box. Tool makers knew this and tried to cater to the problem with appropriate products. Beech wood handles was generally a subsitute. It's a bit stronger than rosewood. More importantly, it was cheaper. Bakelite and other plastics weren't up for the duty. Too slick, too delicate, and the mold seem on early plastics was a problem. Blisters!
One thought was for aluminum handles. Solid billets of aluminum. They are quite fancy. Even striking to some eyes. I prefer the look of rosewood, especially with a figure, but I wouldn't necessarily reject alumium tool handles out of hand. The market did. Why? These aluminum handles were marketed to carpenters that need more rugged tools, and the hazards on outdoor jobs were too great. Emphasis on outdoor. Can you imagine a late fall job in an unheated half built house, and you grab a plane or saw to do a final few procedures, only to find handle so cold it sucks the dexterity right out of your fingers? Or worse, if cold enough it actually freezes to your skin? Yup. Aluminum tool handles were relegated to high school shop classes for the booming clumsy-teenager trade.
But that's why I won't get aluminum gun grips. Wake up at 4 am in camp and need to use your pistol in a hurry to plug a few zombies that wandered by, well, you DON'T want the problem of useless-cold hands.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Empty and dressed, ready to go home to hand up and skin and quarter.
I counted 8 pellet on the shoulder there. I should have aimed a little bit lower, but it was a good heart and lung shot. Certainly lung. And none in the belly area.
Even a lot of them AREN’T super gun related. If you take out the 2nd Amendment discussions there are darn few high gun-content blogs on that list. The Firearm Blog being the best at stick on-topic. Are there any Firearm Blog type blogs out there I missed? I’d sure appreciate the tip.
Most blogs, including mine, drift off topic. Sometimes for long stretches. I’m thinking or breaking my list up and reorganizing. One list of gun blogs that talk about guns once a week or more, one list of gun blogs that talk about gun politics once a week or more, and then ‘all other links.’
Good blogs for extra thick and rich gun content: Armed Canadian, Blackfork, Firearm, Snowflakes, Breda, Ahab (his podcast with Breda is great), Sharp as a Marble, and JayG are good for lots of personal gun content, as well as a bit of personal content. Pretty Pistolera, too. Xavier keeps a lot of boomstick action going. Joe Huffman is good. Not all these sites post daily, of course, and that can be… disappointing is the wrong word… maybe it makes you anticipatory. They try to , for the most part. Tam posts nigh daily and will go on a tear about guns with great gun info for several days or weeks then drop off a bit and snark out or talk about other cool things for a bit, just non gun related. Things like slide-rules, Venezuela, and litterboxes. Don't get my wrong, I LIKE the off topic stuff. No one skewers Pugsley, the Dictator of Venzuela better than Tam. The above and Others slip into concentrating on the 2nd Amendment Portion of the topic, and less on the shooty aspects. Roberta has occasional gun content but I'd not miss her blog for the world.
War on Guns is ALL politics. I'm glad he's there but if I want a comparison between an XD and a Glock and a S&W M&P I should look elsewhere.
Say Uncle is a good blog for linking to other good blogs.
If I could chain Sailor Curt to a proverbial galley oar and force him to turn out a gunsmith video how-to every 2 weeks I would do it with a clear conscience.
There are other on my blog roll that vary, running hot and cold with frequency and gun content.
Ten Ring used to be REALLY good on gun content but has posted less frequently since moving to my neighborhood from the North East. Kim has acres of individual gun reviews that you can get lost in for weeks, but he, too, doesn’t post about guns every day, and he is taking a break from blogging in December. The gun archives are still there and worth a perusal. For both sites.
Now that I think of it, ALL the gun blogs on the right are occasional gon-content blogs except for Fiream. Maybe I'm lamenting we're not all more like Firearm Blog.
If I had to pick 3 blogs with the MOST just-guns content it would be Firearm Blog, Blackfork, and probably JayG.
What a lot of rambling....
Sounds like a lot of whinging, and that's not my intent. I read all my gun blog roll stuff pretty regular.
One thing I can do is try to keep MY OWN blog on topic as much as possible, and as much as I wish there were other blogs that did. I think I do a halfway decent job. With the election over I was thinking fewer 2nd Amendment posts would be out there fopr me and others, but that all depends on movement in our political classes. (Zombie and Survival posts are tertiarily gun related, but they count. In my head they do.) And if there is NO movement, 2nd Amendment advocates should probably try to MAKE positive movement. So wishing for less political content elsewhere is a fools errand, I guess. Until we win.
But am I actually MISSING an important gun blog or gun source in my list over there on the right?
Go to page 56, fifth sentence and the next 2 to 5.
"San Antone," muttered a Texan. "Imagine, only four, maybe three days for a battle star. Hell I can put up with anything for longer than that."
He reflected the feelings of most of us, and we were encouraged by the commanding general's confirming the oft-repeated "rough but fast" rumors we had been hearing. We kept trying to convince ourselves that the CG knew what he was talking about. We all dreaded a a long, protracted campaign that would drag on beyond endurance like Guadalcanal and Cape Gloucester.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I think I’ll take off the Hi-Point pistol. I know of 2 real people that have one and both experience regular malfunctions. It’s like you get what you paid for. I’m sure there are quite a few lucky Hi-Point owners out there with spot on reliable weapons they got at a bargain price, but they aren’t as desirable a model for me to roll the dice, at any price. 
I’ll take off the Springfield EMP. The SIG 229 fills it’s roll in the cabinet, and there is rumors that the engineering balance isn’t quite there. Second hand reports that the spring isn’t up to the job, sometimes. But it’s getting yanked mainly for it being superfluous. It’s still a neat little 1911 model, I must say. 
I’m gonna settle on the Ruger wee .380 pistol for someday. When they work the bugs out. So the Kel-Tec is off, and the Bersa. Wait… I better try both before deciding. I've tried the Kel Tec, it's ok, if small. 
Drop the spare Garand or just demote it further down the list? I’d be nice to get one in .30-06 instead of .308, someday, but I don’t want to deal with another mass of rifle ammo. 
Combine the 2 Blazers bolt actions into one entry. [4, 13]
There. All better.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
So how? Well, I have training coming up in December. I can probably dry fire a LOT more. What else?
The flinch is worse at the beginning when I am starting out an unaccustomed to the bang, at the end, after 100 rounds, when I am fatigued a bit from all the bang.
I’ll do a cursory Google search now…
Cornered Cat has some tips, recommending putting random snap caps in the magazine for practice. You'll really notice the flinch when the gun doesn't go bang. Also, dry firing at home to accustom myself to goo trigger work and no movement. Dry fire is always good advice for me at this stage. MORE than I am doing.
Mark Burkett has different advice. Be sure the gun fits and it's causing pain when you shoot. A pointy bit might make you shy a bit when shooting. I think I am ok with the gun fitting my hand and not causeing a pinch induced flinch. But if I was getting hammer bite, I bet I’d have a worse one!
Next range trip I’m leaving the .45 ammo at home and running the 1911 with the conversion kit. .22 is practically dry fire.
In that vein, Sniper Country suggests maybe try something BIG to prep for regular calibers. Get used to a .50 and the .357 feels like nothing. That sort of thing
The High Road, again, recommends LOTS and LOTS of dry fire called for.
Chuck Hawks has a column on flinching. Lot of info
Royal Gorge Gun club has some stuff. Including better definitions:
“Flinching” is anticipating recoil by an abrupt backward motion of your shoulder to get ‘away’ from it. “Bucking” is anticipating recoil by shoving your shoulder forward to ‘make up’ for or ‘resist’ the impact. “Jerking” is snapping the trigger quickly to get the disagreeable experience over with as soon as possible.
I am more Bucking and Jerking, I guess. More Bucking, lately.
What else can I do? Dry fire, dowel dry fire (stick a dowel down your empty barrel when dry firing only to check how much you are moving the tip of the gun around on trigger release), wall dry fire (similar to the dowel but you are pointing at a blank wall from only an inch away), snap caps, try higher caliber, try lower caliber, more dry fire, trigger squeeeeeeeeeeeeeze. Anything else?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
First, squeezing 20% tighter seems to tighten my groups. Yay! Still too many fliers, and too low and right.
(Note the micarta grips. Tam inspired those. I like them. And I don't worry about cleaning chemicals doing anything to them as I would really nice wood grips.)
Second, remember that stoppage I had last time that was a mystery? The slide jammed back in the middle of a magazine and wouldn’t return to battery for love or money? Well, the bad news is, it happened again. Happened a FEW times. The good news is, I know why. User error. And it’s Todd Jarrett’s fault!
Let me explain what the stupid user managed to do.
The Todd Jarrett grip works great. It does seem to help my groups and my squeeze. And sight alignment is much easier. But the support hand is awkward. Maybe I’m doing it wrong. I probably AM doing it wrong. But I’m trying to do Todd’s thumbs-forward grip as best I can after learning about it on the Intarwebz. My support hand, the right hand, has that pointing thumb kinda WAY forward. Well, the slide release has a little button of itself that sticks out on the right side of the pistol. And my thumb is resting on that button. And I am squeezing 20% tighter.
Well, what is happening with the stoppage is that pressure is causing the slide release lever to stick on the takedown notch. THAT is why it is jamming. The gun is fine. I am the problem. Which is a relief. I'd hate to deal with a lemon gun.
So my next issue is: now that I know the cause of the problem, how do I adjust my grip to keep it from happening again? I guess I have to keep the support hand thumb off of the frame now.
Oh, I got to try the SIG models again. Chuckles P229 SAS with double action only, and Corky’s 9mm P226 DA/SA which I shot only SA. I shot the 229 great, and the 226 lousy. Which is why I wasn’t going to settle for a different model than a 229 DAK for myself. You can see the 229 target below, and the 226 was too embarrassing to save. I just don’t do well with the SA part. This is the 229:
My ability to hit ANYTHING with the 1911 SA is a good reflection on that big pistol. Looks like I'd be crazy to carry a 1911 if I can carry a 229, huh? Dammit.
One thing while shooting Corky’s gun… He could SEE my anticipatory flinch. The flinch/jerk/push that has plagued me and I need to fix. It may be why I am sometime better with the Double Action. The trigger pull is so long I’ve done the flinch long before it goes bang. Sad, really, if true.
I do so like that 229. As I mentioned in a previous post, this model reminds me of the Glock. The trigger pull is similar, if a bit more smooth. The gun is heavier and metal and has a nicer fit and finish and wood grips. And the trigger doesn’t have that vestigial tongue on the SIG that Glock’s have. The Glock is nothing but business, the SIG is still serious, but is more refined, yet does not sacrifice function to style. But SIG didn’t sell much of this model. Word is, no one liked the type of double action it has. They should have marketed the gun differently. “A Glock for the Discerning Shootist”. They could attract the carriage and snooty trade with that line. People with means. Good thing too, as the big negative the SIG has over the Glock is the price. Phew. Spendy. The other option SIG could use to increase sales is to convince some elite combat unit to carry it into battle (Heh, the Brit Special Air Service!) and then NOT let it be sold in the US. For a while. Tell them it’s too special for mere amateur hobby shooters. After the demand for something forbidden builds to a fever pitch, THEN release the gun for general sale. Hey, it works for Heckler and Koch…
What else? Here’s a thought. I’m going to go to the range with one bullet. Maybe then I’ll take my time and shoot that one bullet right. I am still too impatient, too hurried. When I am hitting this speed isn’t too bad a thing, but forcing myself to slow down and LEARN that trigger is a good thing. Or would be if I can finally manage it. Dammit. Again. Goram flincher!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
After all, the idea came from the Brady's gun control group. But us gon owner like it because it does keep criminals from buying gun as easily. And it's an extension of the 1968 gun-control act that made categories of persons prohibitted from buying or possessing a firearm. Criminals, crazy people, people trying to violently overthrow the gov't, etc...
Gun enthusiasts were wary that the date from a check can be saved and used as a gun registry. And gun registries historically are the precursor to gun confiscations. But the law was changed so that the NICS info should not be retained by a goverment body. That feature was put in there to placate gun enthusiasts and soothe out worries. Of course, government might be saving that date, ANYWAY.
[And my state has a handgun and Sport Utility Rifle purchase form you have to fill out, so the State probably retains all that data in Maryland. But that's neither here nor there.]
But I'm asking what we Gun-Types think of NICS, because we generally don't mind it with the statutory limits on what can be done with the checks. It is a 'reasonable gun control measure' that we generally support for the most part. I'm not saying that ALL Right to Keep and Bear Arms types like it, but a good many don't see it as too high a hoop to jump through.
Is it because it helps legitimize OUR side? "Look, all of US were approved by NICS, and only a small percentage of US go on to commit crimes with the gun we buy, if we keep that gun. That percentage is even smaller for NRA members. And even smaller for people with Conceal Carry Permits. To put further restriction on US will diminish your returns if your goal is less gun assaults or homicides." NICS does indeed cut down on legal gun sales to criminals, forcing them to go to illegal means to obtain a gun.
That's a thought. The Brady's could insist everyone that wants to purchase a gun has to join the NRA and get a Conceal permit. Heh!
But why are we so on board with the NICS check, generally? Is it just too reasonable even to us?
For generalities, say there are 30,000 gun related deaths. About half are suicides, so down to around 15,000. About 1,000 are accidents, so of the 14,000 'angry' shootings remaining, how many gun homicides are done by A) Repeat Offenders that are B) out earlier than their sentencing would indicate.
I'm thinking that this number is a sizable one, and if these offenders were sat upon, and kept in a hole, the homicide rate would be drastically lower. But I don't KNOW. And I don't know where that data would be found.
If you can get that statistic, that would be great.
Then compare the numbers for that and for the numbers of non-justifiable homicides by NRA members or CCW holders.
Unless I miss my guess, you could get a good handle on a possible, 'sensible,' gun-control law by jailing one group longer (or at least for the full amount of their sentence. Or for Life if you go with 3-Strike provisions) and leaving the other, law-abiding, the hell alone. That is, if your purpose for 'gun-control' is to have less murder and crime, and not to simply exert government control over the law abiding.
[update: According to the Department of Justice, violent recidivists (table 7) were just as likely as first time violent offenders to carry a gun. So the worry about going back to prison was not a deterrent to selection of firearm for a item of 'tradecraft.' That source shows on Table 16 that sentencing with possession of a firearm is one number, but the time served will be a bit more than half that in the 1990s. No data listed on how many were out earlier than their sentence indicated and still committed a violent crime with a firearm in that remaining 'time' while out early]
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
What other options do they have? They could buy machinery and hire specialists to make their own castings or forgings. They could even machine it from a solid block of steel.
That would be expensive. But if the market is there and can support it. Fulton would have to consider that balance, naturally. There is a price point per unit that would have it make sense to their business model, but I’d guess the expense of such and endeavor would be above that price point.
You could make a factory that uses only 19th Century style tooling and make replica 1870 Trapdoor Springfield rifles for sale. You could employ a wooden waterwheel for powering the plant’s machinery, and LOTS of highly paid skilled workers to work the labor-intensive process. The rifles they would make, and the manner they’d make them, would be very cool! But if they cost $10,000 per copy, not enough people would buy their rifles. Especially since people can still buy ACTUAL Trapdoor Springfield at a mere fraction of that price.
But man, I’d want to tour that factory.
[update: Armscorp not closed? Hmm. That's what I get for believing what I read on the internets tubes.]
Thursday, November 6, 2008
They are a bit worried about "no closer than" laws for gun dealers. As in, 'no store within 10 miles of a school.' There are 22 schools within a 10 mile radius. And 3 other gunstores, too.
I think I know the appeal. It is a Glock 22, but refined. Twice the quality. The price is indicative of this too... What the Glock would have been if it went to Oxford instead of Ohio State.
Before I settled on the 1911, the Glock 22 sort of beckoned.
AND I just got back from the Range, having shot the above, my 1911, and a P226 all for good measure. But more on THAT later.
Been chewing on a thought. It’s human nature to be risk averse. It transfers to politics, of course, but it’s everywhere. Corporations would rather not have risk. Investors like to minimize it. So you may notice that regulations on business is onerous, but is often halfway GOOD for the corporations that play ball. Bill Gates didn’t want to deal with the expense of dealing with Washington DC, so he didn’t ‘waste’ money on Lobbyists in the 90’s. But his competitors did and he got into a sticky wicket. Now he’s all over that Jahwm, spending the Benjamins, buying the politicians, and no one talks about MS being a monopoly anymore. He plays ball.
Playing ball helps add costs to the up and comers that might dethrone the big guys. It raises the bar on the break-in price to enter the big leagues. Corporations aren’t capitalist. They are corporatists. Regulation alleviates risk, and cost compliance is fine as long as it is universally applied. An extra $20 added to the cost of a $300 computer OS is passed on to the consumer. It’s why corporations give to regulating Republicans and why they give to socialist Democrats.
If you want to go from nothing to the big leagues it’s easiest to start with something wholly new, young capitalist entrepenuer.
Risk means responsibility. Risk is a reason to worry about failure. And it is EASIER to not have to be responsible or worried. A natural human condition. Yet no one wants to think of them selves as irresponsible. Better to wave you hands, say a magic word and do away with EVERYONES worries and responsibilities. Of course, everyone has to go along with that fantasy.
Most people VOTE to maintain this fantasy, and don’t care if it violates inherent human rights. Even enumerated rights. And they go to great lengths justifying their contortions.
Where you going with this T-Bolt?
Relax, there is gun content.
Security Theater at the TSA is an effort to simulate safety. But it is psychological safety. What would happen if I, or most everyone (both of you) reading this blog carried a gun in a holster on every airplane trip? Chances are, nothing. No one would be less safe. If LOTS of people do this there might be a negligent discharge every now and then. Most of those wouldn’t even hurt anyone. There would still be a bigger risk from food poisoning on the plane. Or a car accident getting to the airport. People on the plane with evil intent would have to deal with law-abiding people able to defend themselves so they’d have to change their tactics. But screening for guns was done BEFORE the TSA was put in place. The Security Theater all travelers have to endure is not about guns. It’s about making people FEEL like the hijacks that happened on 9/11 can’t happen again. At this, the Security Theater fails in reality to impact future outcomes. Unarmed passengers wouldn’t sit by idly while a handful of men with box cutters take over a plane. The bad guys would know this and have to change tactics on 9/12, already. People KNEW on 9/12 that they couldn’t just relinquish responsibility for their safety and let the authorities handle it. Terrorists would have to go back to bombs or somesuch to cause grave mischief on a plane, but they weren’t going to be able to fly planes into buildings while passengers just cowed in the back of the plane.
But the TSA security theater has plenty of holes that evil-doers can exploit. The traveling public just chooses to ignore those holes. The public accepts the fantasy. But it’s at great cost in tax money.
The same applies to open carry. People, in general, want to ‘feel’ safe. To them, guns aren’t. These hoplophobes have less reservations when people are vetted by government entities and carry concealed. Once conceal-carry is enacted and no predicted Dodge City type events occur, and the guns are still out of sight, they are out of mind. But to SEE a gun, and the reminders of risk and responsibilities that other people, all people, even THEM, have, their bubble is popped. They’d rather stay in their little bubblewrapped fantasy world.
I keep thinking that the most effective anti-gun tactic the Brady Campaign could enact would be to allow for more sketchy people to conceal carry. They need the unstable and criminals to get permits. Then, when these people commit any acts of atrocity, they can point to the lack of safety. Even if an individual murders someone with a baseball bat, the news story will still say, “man with CCW murders so-and-so.” From this angle they wouldn’t just chip away CCW laws. They’d have to push for a total repeal, nation wide.
It would have to be separate operation, apart from the Brady’s, to push for such arming of the irresponsible. And it’s a very cynical and diabolical tactic that may backfire on them. They “pro-criminal, pro-violent, pro-insane CCW” group would have to push their agenda by something like “You are just discriminating against those people, and discrimination is bad! You are a racist for opposing us!” But it would be a disaster for pro RKBA people (right to keep and bear arms.)
The other side of the coin is we, in the RKBA community, are put in a spot where we have to hide our guns to keep from scaring the vast majority of voters that just want their fantasy safety bubble to stay intact. If you don’t scare the sheep, the sheep don’t vote against you. They don’t vote against you if they see some benefit to maintaining their safety fantasy. Then a person stops a crime with a gun, and word gets out in the press of guns being used in such a positive light, and even BETTER that on one is hurt and the criminal is jailed for a long time, that helps them stay in their bubble and bolsters our cause.
We pro-gun types have a large segment that have their own fantasy safety bubble. These types think of the gun as a safety talisman as much as the other side thinks of the gun as a automatic risk-inducing talisman. We have to guard against this.
So all this means what, T-Bolt? What do we do from here?
We keep hammering that people are RESPONSIBLE. That risk is there and can’t be legislated away. That we need to be careful with open carry and not push too far too soon or risk turning the majority against us. If we DO take the responsibility for being armed, in the home, or on your person, we have to train and train to minimize mistakes. And the most important part of the training is working on mindset (see Cooper) and the vigilance that goes along with it to minimize improper incidents and circumstances.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Well I have trouble telling that one verbally.
I get a little choked up. Because of Old Guy.
I'm NOT crying. I have something in my eye!
Anyway. The first time I relayed it to someone else was actually to My Buddy The Gun Enthusiast. (look! gun content!)
The next day MBtGE brought ME an ivory ruler he had lying around. My first and only. Just happened to have one! Every tool collector needs an Ivory Ruler.
It's dust! Not tears!
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.”
Sorta looks like JayG...
If he grew that little beard.
Somebody buy JayG that old timey hat
JayG is 'the Guy'. YOU are 'the Guy.' We all are 'the Guy.'
Sometimes, you just gotta say, "Bollocks!"
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
It's on the website, but they don't make it. Not no more. None to be had according to my store. Something LIKE it is still made, but not in Double Action. Bastages! I REALLY liked that trigger. Goram gun company!
Now I have to think again.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
You can't argue with graphs!
Now who are you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?! The trend is clealy up. The Zombocalypse is coming.
Some of you are gonna be stuck up on your roof, surrounded by a couple hundred of them, armed with just a pump shotgun and you're gonna say, "Ya know, that T-Bolt guy was right. A shotgun is overkill, but I can't carry enough shells to cut back on the ghoul numbers. They're just too bulky. I should have listened to him. A Beretta CX4 Storm would have been better than this. I better save the last few shells for me and my companions for the end."
Yup. You'll be sorry. Buy Ammo Day is about 2 weeks from now, too. Put it this way. If you brought a ammo can full of shotgun shells up on your roof, and Breda brought an ammo can of .380 up on hers and just her little Bersa Thunder... Well, Breda isn't going to be any Zed's corpse-snack, just say.
Flat or Staight:
The way a 1911 is supposed to look. Honest and straigthforward. And ready for going to the field saddled or no. So why not do that for me? Why do I hesitate?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
I got those goals over there on the right hand side of the blog. But how do I measure my accuracy? What standards do I shoot for and hold myself.
Currently, I want to consistently shoot a group INSIDE a circle as big around as a clay pigeon, and centered. For a pistol at 8 yards, for a rifle at 100 yards. I am about to that level for rifle. I am low and right for the pistol, and a bit loose in the grouping.
What is a goal if you don't have a means to raise the bar?
When I can attain that kind of accuracy for both pistol and rifle, I want to then do it faster! Maybe shrink the circle to tuna can diameter.
Then I want to double the range. 16 yards for pistol in a five inch circle for pistol, and 200 yards for rifle. To get to THAT level? That may be a tall order. But it's possible for me. Maybe. With a lot of work and practice. Right now I'd be plum ecstatic to hit that first mile stone.
Just the iron sights, of course. I may concede a bit to optics for the rifle. That four or five inch circle is smaller than the post on the front sight of the M1A.
Incidentally, clay pigeons are kinda cheap and make excellent plinking targets just scattered all over the face of a berm.