Bandoleer Extra

Heh, what do I put in those 2 extra pouches on the flanks of the bandoleer?

I can think of a first aid kit, and a altoids tin size survival kit. Maybe a gun cleaning kit. Maybe a cellphoe size comunication device.

I think they were meant for grenades, but I'm not going to be carrying those, chances are.

The regular magazine pouches, might fit a pistol magazine in each, giving me 4 of those.

And I loaded the mags open end down, and bullets pointing to my left. Appropriate for a lefty, not a righty. (Thanks for that input, commenter. It's easier to load without shifting your grip on the things.)

Any other ideas for extras?

Bandoleer Get

So I asked the bandoleer question a few days ago because I had a new bandoleer ordered. It holds 8 magazines and an extra 80 rounds of .308 without breaking a sweat, but MAN is that heavy. Loaded.

Chuckles' New Stuff

Chuckles wanted a .357 revolver after trying mine a few months ago. He had to get one for himself. And did.

Smith and Wesson. He's glad it came with rubber grips as well as wood, as the wood one punish his hands with magnum loads. The rear sight wiggles. That shouldn't be...

But he's been drooling on the Springfield EMP. I hope he gets one of those, too. He wants something in 1911 design, and likes that little EMP. I'd love it if he got because I could shoot it and decide if I want to get it.

Chuckles has also made up a spreadsheet of various energy ratings or various ammo calibers and self defense rounds. He knows to take the results with a big grain of salt. The data for feet per second is often provide by the manufacturer. There are other variables not taken into consideration as well. He compares that to actual results with water filled milk jugs on the site Box O' Truth, and see that the numbers don't necessarily match up to performance in reality. We all suspect that reality would be further skewed if the targets were flesh and bone and not plastic water jugs. According to the graphs, .38 Special isn't supposed to do that well, but it penetrates more water jugs than you'd figure.

Any, from the energy NUMBERS on his sheet, Speer GoldDot Personal Protection and Federal Hydroshok do pretty well for .45. Middle of the road on energy, not +P, and still on the heavy side. 452 and 413 foot pounds respectively. Corbon did very well in the +P 45s, 165 grains and 575 foot pounds.

Oh and energy equals half the weight in pounds (a grain is 1/7000th of a pound), times velocity in feet per second, squared, times 32.175; and that give you foot pounds of energy, I'm pretty sure.

Based on pure numbers the .357 Sig and Magnum is an awesome cartridge. The Sig is expensive, though. Speer GoldDot .357 Magnum is 583 foot pounds, on his chart. .38s are in the mid 200's.

Neo Hoplophobia

So MBtGE sends me a blog idea. As follows:

I was talking guns today with some of the guys at work and heard the term that describes you perfectly: "Neo Hoplophobia"

"Shooters that don't like any gun designed in the last 50 years." They were talking about Chuck Heston but it might as well be you. They described fear of owning, "Scary black guns" and clinging to old designs even when stats are clearly in favor of modern rigs (rifle, handgun and shotguns). (even K-Bars were mentioned!) I wish you had been there!!

Hoplophobia (fear of firearms) is one of Jeff Cooper's favorite terms. Do you have "Neo Hoplophobia"?

I am offended. How dare they. Is there an implication that I am AFRAID of ARs? I'm not afraid of them. I just hate them. An all-consuming hatred that fires the blackest depths of my soul. It's a monstrosity foisted upon the US by Robert MacNamara, the architect of a FAILED Viet Nam policy, and a man that unmercifully ravished Japanese population centers from the Air, General Curtis LeMay, USAF. Notice, AIR FORCE. He was not a Marine or a Soldier, but a flyboy. I'd trust a recommendation from General Patton or Abrahms, or a proper dog-face like Audey Murphy or demi-god devil-dog like Carlos Hathcock. People that USED rifles and riflemen in the war. If I wanted to know about car manufacturing or strategic bombers I'd ask MacNamara or LeMay.

And Michael Williamson (hat tip, Say Uncle) talks about how useless a rifle the AR-15 is, to back me up. Here is the money quote:

But you have to admit, if the AR-15 was really successful, you'd be able to get it from 40 different manufacturers, in .22, .222, .223, .224, .243, 7.62X39, .308 and .338 Lapua (in variants) 9mm, .40, .45, .50 BMG, several wildcat chamberings, as a pistol, carbine or rifle, clip fed, box fed, drum fed or belt fed, with barrels from 7" to 24", with dozens of sling combinations, fixed or folding stocks in a dozen lengths, with accessories like scopes, HUD sights, grenade launchers, bi pods, rail mounts, alternate bolt and trigger groups. It would win hundreds of competitions, be used by dozens of militaries and elite units, SWAT teams and commando units, be available as cheap as $450, have hundreds of smiths specializing in working on it and be readily available at any gun store.

See? There you go. Wait a minnit...

In all seriousness, I like the older styles for a variety of reasons. Romanticly, I am a lover of history, and the Garand oozes history. I appreciate the fine workmanship in designs that came before the impersonal CNC machine, and each part had more of a human touch to it, and come from an age when we were a country of mechanics. Walnut is my favorite wood of all time for fine furniture, and rifle stocks. The 1911 and Garand has killed more Nazis, Tojos, and Commies than any other US rifle/pistol combination, combined. The M-14 made a bit of a comeback in Iraq because of the utility of the heavier round. In a TEOTWAWKI situation and I have to use a rifle, I will probably not be in an organized, disciplined squad, with modern battle doctrine of fire and manuever. I won't be trying to lay down volumes of fire to pin down the enemy so another fire team can move and turn a flank on the bad guys... I may even be alone, I will have to make every round count, and not shoot to make noise, so I will have to husband my ammo supply. Some people say that .223 sometimes won't put a bad guy down, and that it just wounds. I don't know about that. I do know that NO ONE says that guys that get hit with a .308 tend to have a lot of fight left in them. Yes they are heavy, the rifle and the ammo. But if I went for a lighter weight round, I'd have the problems of smaller bullets.

The M-14 was a short lived service rifle, I think mainly because doctrine demanded more automatic fire, and that gun was no replacement for a more dedicated machine gun. But as a RIFLE it was good. Even great. And doctrine is sorta returning to semi-automatic rifle fire combined with dedicated machine gun fire. A .223 round makes more sense with automatic fire. If I get a machine gun, I'd consider one in that caliber, yes. But for a rifle I want a rifle. Not a carbine. And a carbine that currently poops where it eats.

I know a bolt action rifle like a WWI Springfield is even more Ooozier, history-wise, but I like the semi-auto because of my left handedness. So there is a concession, there.

But it's just what I prefer. Some guys prefer the AR types, for a variety of valid reasons. More power to 'em. I freely admit that there are negatives to my preference, and guys that are honest with themselves and love the AR freely admit its flaws.

I think it is most interesting to note when a "user" soldier has a choice in his preferred weapon what he or she choose. The tirgger pullers that have enough pull to demand a choice, at least. I am less interested in what some procurement General or political committee selects. And enough real users still select the weapons I prefer that I don't have a single second thought about them.

AND HOW DARE THOSE GUYS BELITTLE CHUCK HESTON!

Jericho Review Update

In the TV series, "Jericho"...

One thing Corky noted watching Jericho months ago is a detail that slipped by me.He remembers being really bothered by people wielding AR type guns and supporting the carbine by holding onto the magazine. Not the mag well, the magazine. Something Corky says was beaten into him NOT to do back in basic training for the Army.

It was little details like that that bothered him. Plus all the big details that bothered him. He didn't like the show.

I dunno, maybe guys DO wield their M-16s that way. I'm gonna give Corky a big benefit of the doubt. Should I learn from someone that was a soldier, or Hollywood, on how to wield a rifle?

Movie Review: Rambo

The movie that came out last year. Not the one from the 80's.

Ok, they saw Saving Private Ryan and decided they could make a war film with that kind of violence, but not as subtle. And with lesser quality CGI. Gratuitous.

And you've never seen a war movie with that much .50 cal action. I've never seen the results of what happens when .50 hits a person, but I have a feeling it doesn't look like that.

That said, at least there are no explosive tipped arrows with matchbox size charges exploding like C-4, but with more flame and flash like it came out of a 55 gallon drum of gasoline fumes.

The movie seems more believable because I remember how unbelievable and escapist fantasy the last 2 or three Rambo movies were, so that was kind of nice. Stallone was broody, but this wasn't an expose of how well he worked out, like before. In other words, he doesn't go around shirtless. Thanks for that, Sly. Beefcake in movies is not my cut of double shot decaf mocha frappachini with skim milk and Splenda(tm).

I mean coffee. BLACK.

What can I say? I like my coffee like I like my men. Hot, strong, and black.


BACK to the movie.

Here is the new and improved grizzled broody Rambo:

While this is old-school Rambo:

They had to have the bad guys seem like bad guys. When the movie came out the cyclone hadn't hit Burma, and no one in this country knew that a brutal junta had ruled the place for decadez. So they had to establish the enemy for Rambo as REALLY evil. The movie made it seem like they had a list of every legendary atrocity written down and were just systematically going through it like a punch list. "Ok we got rape. We got shooting helpless prisoner. We got wagering on suicidal minefield herding... We need to toss a baby on a bayonet or a fire or something."

The mercenaries that are sent to help Rambo with the kidnapped missionaries (well, Rambo helped them, sorta) had a nice collection of military rifles. I can't rattle off the types on sight, but I'm pretty sure one was a HK G3. I've been seeing a lot of those around these days. Bad guys had the ubiquitous AK-47, the preferred weapon of your enemy. It makes a distinctive sound. (Marine Recon guys I have known HATED that Eastwood movie...) There was a sniper .50 caliber rifle, naturally. Magazine fed, too.

A decent netflix rental, but I'm glad I didn't spend money on it in the theater. Ultra-violent, if that's not your cup of tea. More killing in this one than the other 3 combined. And that was off-putting. Like nude scenes, I like violence to be integral to the plot...

Anvil Firing

I have an interest in Blacksmithing and old handtool Woodworking. Sorta like what Roy Underhill does at the Woodwright’s Shop on PBS.

One thing, sorta gun related, that used to be done when blacksmiths and farriers were popular was Anvil Firing. What is that? Simple. You select 2 anvils or roughly equal. Many anvils have a slightly dished up bottom. You want 2 anvils whose bases sort of match. You take one anvil and set it Face down on the ground or a stump, you then pour black powder in the concave bottom that is now facing up. Now set the second anvil right side up to sort of seal in the black powder in the cavity between the two 128+ hundredweight pieces of Arn. Sometimes a paper gasket is used to help the seal. Then set a trail of black powder to the charge.

And like all fireworks, "Light, and get away"

Far away.

When the blackpowder goes off the upper anvil jumps up into the air. Sometimes quite far into the air. With a delightful ring and subsequent thud.

A video by some known at ihatejackblack:



TINK!

Heh, look! Gunblogger Joe Huffman does it at boomershoot sometimes!

This was an especially popular pastime around Independence Day. Who needs fireworks when every town has a smithy.

Is it safe? HELL no. Sometimes the anvil lands on people that venture too close. And it's not like a Warner Bros. cartoon.

Sometimes cast iron shrapnel cracks off of one of the now-weakened hulks and flys around horizontally at the plane of 'crotch-level.' Lots of things can go wrong

Here is a video by whizkid250 to give you an idea what an anvil 150 feet in the air looks like:



And here is a 'safe' shoot by m4gery:

Tax Stamp

Armed Canadian has an image up on his blog that has been making the rounds around the Gun Enthusiast internet.

Someone in Connecticut want to have a rifle with a barrel shorter than 18 inches. Short rifles are pretty cool to play with, but they have a status on the National Firearms Act of 1934, so to make rifle, or own a rifle with a short barrel (or a host of other specialized firearms) you have to apply for approval with the ATF and pay a $200 tax.

The picture AC posted is of the form you fill out, and it has been approved.

The reason stated for making this modification is usually something akin to, "Because I am a firearms collector," and that is a perfectly valid reason for wanting the type or to make a modification to an existing type. It's generally not recommended to put the reason you want, say, a machine gun is, "Because it's HELLA fun to shoot 100 discarded pumpkins on November 1st every year with $1000 of ammo shouting 'take THAT you evil gourds!'" Everything else on the form, besides the tax, is essentially the same thing everyone goes through when buying a gun and the National Instant Background Check is run.

The reason this guy put down, and was accepted, was: "Zombies"

What does this guy know that we don't know? Family members scoffed at my zombie preparation. Well don't come crying to me, Ma, when hordes of undead try to eat your brains. I told you to buy extra cans of soup, ammo, and a serviceable lever action...

I'm kinda worried. Has this guy in Connecticut read some mysterious news clipping recently describing "oddly sick deranged killers" that tried to bite people? Does he work for a gov't agency and has heard intelligence reports describing gray-pallored bitey people that are starting to spread? I need the skinny. I need the gouge.

Crap, I'm not ready.

Reader Request

Got a reader request in the comments (Anvil Firing tomorrow, promise):

Hi - your NYFC loyal reader here.

Soon enough - next 18-24 months - I'll be leaving the land of guns for the Rich and Famous Only, taking my registered-with-the-City long guns and moving to a more reasonable climate for a gun owner.

At that time I'll be making my first handgun purchase, and I intend for it to be a 1911 in .45 ACP. Here's my topic:

What would I get for $2000 that I wouldn't get for $600? I'm coming to the conclusion, from what I read, that a lower end marque will require a substantial amount of after-market add-ons and professional gunsmithing to make it the absolutely reliable weapon it needs to be.

Is this true? What are the mods that a newbie would need to entrust to a pro? Why can't one get a pistol at the low end that does what it's supposed to do (fire reliably and accurately every time you pull the trigger given proper care and maintenance?)

I understand that due to manufacturing variations no ammunition is going to be absolutely 100% (and I have no intention of making myself any poorer and nuttier than I already am by getting into reloading) and that there will be an occasional FTF or FTE, but the literature suggests that out-of-the-box 1911s aren't always what they should be.

Why shouldn't we get what we pay for, even if it's "only" $600?

I read you every day. Keep up the good work!

I am humbled. I might have 3 loyal readers. Let me double check. Be right back, gotta call someone on the teliophone.

Nope, that person doesn't read my stuff anymore. Still only 2 readers.

Anyhoo. I went through a similar selection process, obviously. Came to many conclusions in my research, some educated, some not. Can't remember which is which.

First of all, have you fired a 1911 before and liked it? If so, great. If you haven't tried one, try to go to a range that has rentals and try it.

Now range guns can be iffy. Dozens of people have messed with the pistol, it might not be clean. So don't be put off if it isn't perfect. Don't be put off if the hammer bites the web of your shooting hand, just account for it when picking grip safeties. That sort of thing

You don't have to pay $2000 to get a good 1911. Do you need a fancy pistol that LOOKS great? Do you anticipate getting really good with it really soon so you will be using that pistol to win competitions in the coming year? I'm gonna assume no. If you pay that kind of money it should be perfect and shoot better than I certainly can and you better have lots of hand fitting and such, and features should be what you select when you buy and practically have it made for you I think.

I have fired an RIA, made in the Philippines. It is GI Spec, and has all the features of an issue pistol from the WWII. No bells or whistles. Some guys swear by them, and they work. You can get them for less than $400.

I tried a Llama, even less prevalent than the RIA, and still at about that price range. Worked just fine and the owner never had a problem with it.

Springfield makes a similar GI version, with identical features for less than $600. For about $600 you can get the Springfield Mil-Spec with a few more desirable items. The sort of stuff the Pentagon would ask for after WWII to make the gun a little better. Larger, easier to see, sights, a polished feed ramp, and larger ejection port to help eliminate failure-to-eject issues.

There you go. About $600 for a perfectly fine 1911 that'll do everything you'd want a pistol to do. And with Springfield support mechanism backing it up.

I wanted a few more features for mine. Not least of which was a beavertail grip safety to make hammer-bite nigh impossible, ambidextrous safety, and tritium night sights. You can add a beavertail to the Mil Spec with a gunsmiths services, but night sights are little more complicated, so I went with the Loaded. It had the features I had to have. Still retails for less than $1000, and I got it for less than $800, and it comes with other goodies like a fancy hammer and trigger and such.

If you feel like it, there are lots of drop in parts to customize it that requires no gunsmith skill. New grips is a popular upgrade.

But I don't forsee, even with a gunsmithed new beavertail safety I am contemplating, how cost will ever exceed $1000.

Now $2000 guns are nice, Wilson, Les Baer, other high end brands, but you are right, I think you get into diminishing returns. Especially for a "First Handgun." After I fire 10,000 rounds through the Springfield, and I have a mind to tighten tuna-can size groups (cuz I got really GOOD) at 50 feet to quarter size groups, only then might I consider an upgrade.

So, what do you need feature wise? If you shoot ball ammo round for round out of your $400 RIA, and I shoot out of a custom $2000 version next to each other at a range, and your gun lacks no major functional feature you want, chances are we'll have similar reliability. And who wins then? $1600 buys a lot of ammo for you.

And if the 1911 you buy has the features you want, you should not have to deal with the gunsmith unless it comes out of the box broken, or you wear it out, or mung it up with home gunsmith work. All my modifications were to fine tune features, not function. I took out the full length guide rod and dropped in a standard USGI plane-Jane recoil plug, for instance. Cost? $20.

Trigger is fine out of the box. So is accuracy. On even the cheap ones.

Check out Anarchangels Buyers Guide. I've posted the link before. I read it after I had settled on the make and model for me, but it reinforced all my prejudices. Kim Du Toit and especially former gun-store sales-whiz Tamara helped influence me, too, especially for the Springfield brand, in several of their posts.

Oh, and when you read "This model averages one failure in every 20,500 rounds in military supervised factory testing" as I did with Beretta M9s today... don't be surprised if you get 2 in the first 1000 rounds you shoot. Gun models aren't magic. NONE of them. I've had 2 failures to feed in mine. Probably the shooters fault. Corky had an actual dud round once in a XD, and a couple other failures to feed or eject. Frozen had a BUNCH with his XD, but that was with reloaded ammo before he dialed in the powder charge.

Blog Fodder Bleg

I got some suggestions for blog topics. Keep em coming. One was a suggestion to go to the pound and collect animals that have been euthanised, freeze them, and use them as targets at the gun range. It’d be more fun than a pumpkin shoot, and useful for understanding what kind of damage each round type does for hunting purposes. Uh… maybe that’s not a good practice. Once those critters thawed and got splatted all over Hap Baker’s range the smell would be horrendous. And if word gets out that we used Whiskers and Mittens and Fifi and Commander Puddles for target practice, then it might not shine the best sort of publicity onto the shooting sports. Not to mention what PETA would do with it, even though the animals would already be dead.



What I would like to try is milk jugs, filled with water. If you put an inverted soup can over the jug opening you get a little water powered Anvil Firing! Fooommm!

What? Some of you don’t know what an Anvil Firing is? It’s a delicious piece of disappearing Americana, that’s what it is. I’ll explain tomorrow.

Goin to the Well Too Much

I am running up against more writers block and running down on blog fodder. Part of the problem is I prefer to WRITE something, and restricting the short, “Look at this cool stenciled gunstock” posts to a minimum. Not to say I won’t do that, on occasion, to try to keep up with the nearly one post a day pace.

The fact that I post as a n00bie doesn’t help. I can post plenty of “Lookit what I learned, lookit what I did the first time ever” posts, but the “Lookit what I know” are more limited. Though those with encyclopedic gun knowledge are sometimes hesitant writing about the basics so we all have our own row to hoe.

Maybe I should try to scare up a DC area Gunblog Happy Hour for the locals. There are a bunch: Countertop, Armed Canadian, Progun Progressive, The Ten Ring, Turk Turon Bitter and Snowflakes from Hell, are all kinda local to the area. It would be easier if a gunblog celebrity that everyone wants to hang with came to town, but beggars can’t be choosers. If Tam or Breda announced that they were going to be Rock Bottom Brewing Company at such and such a time and date we’d need to reserve a 25-top banquet table. But those two are rock stars.

So… any blog fodder one of youse loyal readers can send my way? Either of you? I know I asked this last quarter, but I DID get one or two topics out of that bleg. (thanks for that.)

Compromise

Firearm selection is all a compromise. I’m sure I knew this, but the idea has gelled recently. There is no perfect firearm. Even if you narrow it down to one category, there is no perfect be-all end-all self-defense pistol rig. (Of course the categories put paid to any universal firearm concept. A shotgun can’t do the same thing as a conceal-carry piece and vice versa.)

Kim Du Toit often has ‘time machine’ hypotheticals, but even there he let’s you take at least TWO different types of firearms.

All the What If discussions on what is the minimum a shootist should have on hand usually distill down to 4. A .22, a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. Then the discussion elaborates on cost/caliber/works/weight etc. ad infinitum

But let me concentrate on the self-defense handgun. You want reliable. Plenty out there for that. You want accurate. Ditto, and on and on. Then you get into mutually exclusive criteria. You want something as small and as concealable and as ‘handy’ shooting as a Kel-Tec or Bersa Thunder in .380 size, but you also want the hitting power of a big .45 like you get with a 1911 or a Glock 22. And you can’t have that. Your 1911 won’t fit in your summer shorts and be concealed, and your Kel-Tec won’t do the job the .45 can, even with the best self-defense rounds.

The closest that there comes to such a compromise are the Glock sub-compacts or the 1911 minis like the Springfield EMP. And when you do that you get handling issue from increased kick of the big round in the small pistol.

And even if you get a shrunk down version of your favorite big gun, that big gun has flaws, anyway. Even the 1911. They are minor, but they are there. The little piston on the safety and slide released is supposed to be a trouble area, and something Browning would correct if he came back to life. And the capacity is low, even on the biggest model, at around 8 rounds. Then again the Glock is kinda low, too, if your preference is cramming 50 .45 caliber bullets into the magazine. Doable, but not practical.

So say Maryland does get shall-issue conceal-carry. The EMP might be the thing, no? Well, maybe. It has the advantage of working just like a 1911 and can fire a .40 caliber pill, but the thing is bulkier and heavier than other pistols available. Plus I haven’t tried it at the range, and the muzzle flip and accuracy may be less than optimal.

Jeff Cooper even commented on the “smallest possible ideal package” and he didn’t want anything smaller than a 1911 with a 4.5 inch barrel. Still a BIG gun. When the laws of various countries he visited for conducting training restricted his caliber or gun size he went with the largest handgun allowed with the closest functional equivalent of the .45. Like a Pony. Or something in Super .38.

There is no prefect gun, just the best for you. And even that gun might not be that close to the ‘objective’ ideal. Whatever that is.

If you waved a magic wand and I got to carry concealed tomorrow on a 95 degree day, but didn’t let me buy a new gun, I’d carry the 1903 Pocket Hammerless. If you let me buy a gun on a budget it’d be a new .380 like the Ruger, Kel-Tec, or Bursa Thunder. If you bought my gun, or I came into money, and I could pick anything it’d be the EMP in .40. And after I carried it, and shot it at the range for a while, my choice might change.

In the wintertime, I’d carry the 1911.

New-Old Point Shooting

David Codrea linked to an interesting article about a point shooting that went away with the advent of revolvers and was finally sunsetted by the introduction of modern automatics with Browning model 1911

The gist of the technique is, pull the trigger with your second finger, and point at the target with your first finger. Because you naturally point at things with your finger pretty accurately you can get off shots faster when you point and use another finger for the trigger work, as your don’t need to line up sights. And this is very helpful when you are under great stress and/or the threat is at close range. Like times when you are in a gunfight with a pistol.

This works well with single shot dueling pistols, but you run the risk of a serious burn from escaping gases from a revolver, and your finger gets in the way of the cylinder movement on double action shots. And the nail in the coffin was instruction in the original operators manual for the 1911 expressly recommended against it, mainly because the extended forefinger would interfere with the slide’s action, jamming it, maybe injuring the finger.

This warning in 1911 did indicate that some people were still aware of the method despite the absence of appropriate hardware being produced for half a century (not many dueling pistols around once the revolver became widespread more that 50 years prior.)

This goes against everything in Cooper’s Modern Technique, but Jeff Cooper was pretty adaptable. If pistols were designed to allow for this type of REAL point shooting, he may have ended up being a strong supporter.

Cooper even shared a story of an improvisation he had to adopt in a specialized circumstance in one of his books or writings. In college he was challenged to a wager to ice some varmint in the yard of his frat house (a different thing in the 1930 from what we think of today.) The .22 rifle available was proving too cantankerous at getting the job done for any of the other Brothers. The problem was a bad trigger that needed WAY too much pull to get the job done. I think Cooper estimated it at a 10 pound pull. For a .22. MADNESS. Anyway, the challenge was made and Jeff Cooper was not one to back down from a gauntlet fairly thrown. His solution was the go prone and instead of grasping the stock with his trigger hand, he pinched the trigger between finger and thumb, with that thumb in back of the trigger guard. This did the trick, but he freely admitted such a thing had only limited utility for most guns and situation. But a proper point-shooting system like the modified grip I’m discussing here would have almost universal utility. Then again, Cooper DID study more modern point-shooting, and found them lacking despite their speed. He was more of “get your head screwed on straight before you are anywhere near a gunfight, and deliberately aim and hit the target while the point-shooter under the same stresses misses you a few times, as your chances are better” if I understand him right. I’d even bet the Colonel was aware of the point-and-pull system and tried it out.

Modern point-shooting advocates are very practiced with their weapon and very good at what they do and have the ammo budget to prove it, but the “Point with one, squeeze trigger with the other” is something novices can ostensibly master very quickly.

IF the gun allowed for it.

You’d have to produce a pistol with changed geometry, both to the place where the pointing finger goes so it won’t interfere with any of the workings or get injured, and where the trigger is placed on the frame so that second finger has better access to it. It would probably have to be a single action trigger, too, as that second finger isn’t a very good squeezer on mushy long-travel triggers or strong DA pulls, I’d imagine. And a manufacturer would need quick acceptance in order to make the investment in a new model worth their while, so the technique would have to overcome decades of entrenched conservative preferences in an entrenched conservative customer base, and that doesn’t happen that quickly, even if the new method is seen as clearly superior from the get go.

And they’d have to make it ambidextrous to affect me, and the geometry might not be easily adaptable so that an ENTIRELY different model with left-specialized geometry might be necessary for us southpaws.

The changed frame shape might not allow a shooter to shift between point shooting with a different trigger finger and the ‘conventional’ way, either.

There are gadgets available, aftermarket, to retrofit regular pistols to accommodate this P&S stuff. So some part of the market is addressing the need, cheaply. They just help the pointing finger, they don’t reposition the trigger.

I’d never try it, since my weapons are all conventional, with the inherent issues already extrapolated on, and to change my technique at this point of the game would be like Tiger Woods radically changing his driver swing. Tiger DID do this to perfect his game, but it took over a year to iron out the bugs and he performed poorly (for him) in the meantime. And I am no Tiger Woods of pistol shooting. Let me get good at Modern Technique before even DREAMING of changing to another horse mid-stream.


Besides, if it was a superior technique John Moses Browning would have designed the 1911 to shoot that way. He didn’t ergo it is not superior. That’s logic! Ok, maybe not ‘logic.’

It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.

Bandoleer Loading

When you place a magazine in your ammo pouch or bandolier pocket, do you put it in open end down as SOP? I believe so, but want to confirm. I've seen those loops either built onto the bottom of a magazine or stapped on like Magpul sells.

And that loop makes it easier to draw a magazine out of a pocket.

So apparently you at least sometimes do. Is it ALL the time though.

[I should ask a Mall Ninja. They would know.]

I can guess some 'whys' on putting them in open end down. It keeps dirt and water out of the magazine. Dust, like you'd find in Iraq, especially.

I can guess why you'd put em in open end up, so you can see which ones are loaded, and so they the cartridges won't rattle out. But if you are putting empty mags back, just turn THOSE the opposite way, and then you'd know at a glance. And how likely is it that one would rattle out of a full mag, really? In that snug pocket, with that strong mag spring?

M1A Scope Mount, et al.

So what are the thoughts among both readers on the scope rail mounts for the M1A? (I don't have it yet. That will be a while. I do have a coupla magazines so I HAVE to get it, someday...)

There are 3 main types I'm looking at. All courtesy of Fulton Armory, which will probably be my purchase source as well.

An inexpensive aluminum version. Sort of an "Overhanging type"

This one is probably a non-starter. Aluminum and all. But no fear...

A better steel version of similar style but with an extra mount point to the rifle, and 3 times as expensive is available.

And even MORE pricey, the ARMS 18 US Gov't Issue. It is more expensive still because you have to get a another bit to mount to the mount.

I want to take the Garand into Fulton Armory for a check-up, but don't want to NOT have a rifle at home so that will happen after I get an M1A. While there I will ask many questions, but you people may have some insight that will get me ahead of the learning curve.

Can you use the iron sight and any or all of these mounts? I believe you have to remove the scope to use iron sights on the ARMS 18. My impression is the Overhang type doesn't obstruct the sights at all, but I may be wrong. I like the Tritium foresight a lot and may have to get one.

Does the Overhang type obstruct extracting shell in action? Does the ARMS 18, for that matter?

While on the subject of M1A accessories there is another question in my mind. This forestock weaver under rail is useful for attaching a bipod, but I was wondering if it wasn't too far forward on the stock to be used for a foregrip? I think so.

I have a feeling if I want a foregrip, ever, I will have to spend the big bucks on a whole new modernized stock system, or mangle the original walnut stock. And if I got the stock that, the scope mount rails will be inappropriate. I have to divine the future and decide what I want before I buy anything to avoid overlap. For modernized stock option, I'll have to live with iron sights until I can afford it, if I drop cash on a good scope rail mount, then I better forgo the stock until I am super rich. (The modern stock IS a scope mount, and its flip down iron sights are designed to witness, for the most part. As always, correct me if I am wrong.)

There are other advantages to the modernized stock. It puts in the butt more in line with the barrel, for less muzzle flip, similar to Eugene Stoner's innovation with the AR-10, and the higher set iron sights are part of the same innovation.

Today, this minute, I may be leaning toward never getting a scope at all. If I want a 10x scope perhaps I should get a bolt-action for deer and zombie sniping. Iron sights are good and robust and fine for the fun I'd have with the gun.

If it naturally shoots very well in THIS amateurs hands, then a scoped M1A will come to the fore again to see what it can truly do.

But in reality, since I am a bit of a n00b, prudence says I should probably leave the rifle well enough alone, as stock as possible, and not get a lot of whiz bang accessories. Stock configuration was good enough for the serious business it was designed for, and who am I to question that? I am disciplined enough to hold off buying the thing for a bit, I should be disciplined enough to get better at shooting with it before hanging anything else off of it besides a Tritium fore sight. That type of fore sight is a boon to peep-sight type guns, I bet.

Minor Ammo

Minor ammo buy day. I needed to top off some rounds that I had expended at the last rifle range - Hap Baker - trip. Argentine and South African surplus 7.62. Another box here and there for what I shot. And a box of .380 for the Colt 1903, just to have, and a box .30-06 for the Springfield 03, just in case. It's a safe queen and 20 rounds is a paltry amount, but that's ok.

I even got a combination lock for the trigger of the 03. I'll use it when moving rifles outside the house, and the keyed one I own has a flaw. What if I lose the key? With the combo lock I only have to remember the number. And that is easy. Same as my luggage lock. 1111. Don't tell Corky.

But I have a goodly amount of ammo stockpiled. To me. I know, I know, "you can never have too much wine or too much ammo," yes, thank you Kipling. It's more of a 'minimum level not to dip below' and a lot of fresh ammo bought at this point goes toward near-future use at the range. If I wanted to increase this minimum I'll have to think of better storage areas for it. And if I copped to 20 ammo cans of .308 the less enlightened members of the family would turn up their noses and cluck their tongues and mutter, "what are we to DO with this T-Bolt..."

For the record, I don't have 20 ammo cans, full of .308 or anything else.

TV Review: Jericho

Never saw this when it was on, but thanks to the magic of Netflix... I'm on disk 3, 12 episodes into Season One. Beware, spoilers below.


The premise is: Small town Kansas after the US is hit by multiple nukes. Unknown enemies.


And it's not too gun oriented. It took til episode 10 or so before they thought it might be a good idea to start thinking about training an armed security force. Poor planning. It's more than a month and a half into the crisis, too. And they've known that there was NO state or federal government to speak of, that there was a sketchy guy outside of town, that neighboring towns were in shambles at a minimum and they were relatively ok.


Way too sleepy, those townfolks.


Hawkins warned them the first day, and the Sheriff and a deputy got shot for their trouble, at prison bus. No follow-up on where the prisoners went.


When a town person got murdered they called it "the first murder in 30 years" I guess they forgot about that sheriff.


There is one tertiary character that is a gun nut. A real one. You barely see him, but the impression is that he is crazy. Yup, everyone with more than 2 guns is crazy. Paranoid. Why would anyone do that, be a gun crazed Second Amendment fanatic with a bunker. You'd think a nuclear attack would really happen... Oh wait. It did.


They went to him for a spare geiger counter. Still made him sound and act crazy.


There was a kid that found a train full of food. He snuck SOME back to town to give to his grocery-store owning boss, but didn't TELL anyone about it. If I were the mayor I'd have him horsewhipped in the town square for not telling.

And by the 12 episode they are jumping the track, assigning the instigators of the attack to some shadowy semi-governmental group that may be going all rogue and home grown terrorist.

Mmm Hmm. Is that a shark tank they are jumping with a motorcycle? Suspension of disbelief, suspended. Or unsuspended. Whatever.

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

How to Survive a Riot

Thanks to WikiHow Click the link. Good tips, but most of it is common sense. Not being where the riot is is the best tip.

This is why I love people. And Democracy. Hooray mob rule!

There is a reason we have a Federal Republic and not a Democracy. It's because the framers of our Constitution knew what a mob was, and instituting it as a from of national government is as disastrous as it is when an innocent is amidst mayhem seeking Jacobin Anarchists.

Like a wise man once told me, "The whole world has gone to heck since they let that Elvis kid on the TeeVee."

Well, that's not true. I see the French Revolution as the true start of modern tyranny. Yes, I said it, the FRENCH.

Anyhoo, the French Revolution didn't invent riots, but they got it refined pretty well. Regardless of HOW a riot starts though, it's a good idea to know how to extricate yourself from one

MACHINE GUNS

"The ones that run are VC! The ones that don't run are well disciplined VC!"

Flashback: Quang Tri, 1967, when the nametag on my uniform said 'Greasemanelli' but everyone knew me as... SERGEANT FURY!!!


My gunshop guy, Ted of Engage Armament had a customer shoot at his property, WAY up in Frederick Maryland, 10 miles up Route 15 from the city. For those familiar with the area, going north on 270 you come to the scenic overlook, you see the town, and on the horizon there is a line of mountains. He's nestled up against those mountains. You do down a 2 lane road for a bit, then a gravel road, then across a rickety bridge, then up a dirt road, then along a muddy logging trail. Impossible without 4 wheel drive. He, and a few other like minded people brought every machine gun they owned. You paid a fee to participate and had to buy their ammo.


Which machine guns were there? Which WEREN'T? I mostly watched, but fired some of them. Particularly older stuff.


The first one I tried was no fooling around. An MG42, used by the Germans in WWII. It fires belted 7.92x57mm ammo. This set was corrosive surplus from Bulgaria. Powerful. It didn't sound like it does in the war movies. It seemed slower. But the dirt impacts down range looked like I was unzipping the soil.

The second I tried was another Wehrmacht classic. The MP40 submachine gun. It fires 9mm pistol ammo from 30 round mags and it is as gentle as a baby. Very easy to control. Just a wonderful piece of history and privilege to get to fire it.

The only other one I personally fired was an M-1 Carbine made with a select-fire switch. A bit more kick than the Schmeiser (MP40) but still fun. And the action is similar to the M1 Garand so I was familiar with the function already. 30 round mag for this one, too. (update: Sailor Curt picks a nit and lays down the real gouge. It was an M2 Carbine. Good call, Chief. Thanks. That's why I am the Newb Jovian Thunderbolt and you are Da Man.)





I fired those 3 because they were guns that kill lots of Commies. And no one likes Commies.


Stuff I wished were there were the M-60, the BAR, and I wish the Bren that was there was working. I watched Full Metal Jacket the night before in anticipation of the M-60. They left the Chauchat at home.

I saw the Ma Deuce fire, but didn't try it myself. It was also having issues and was mostly working semi-auto. The report wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.


What WAS impressive, report wise, was the shorter gun firing .223 and the HK G3s that were there. The short guns were loud, as I'd heard. A lot of propellant is escaping and adding to the shock wave. The G3s, while not short, use a full size rifle round and had a significant blast wave.

To start the session, the shop owners son shot a can of blackpowder that was in a 55 gallon drum with his bolt action .223 and the explosion launched the drum back into the woods. (We've had a bit of rain otherwise they wouldn't have done that)


The only gun I brought was the 1911. There were a few bowling pins to shoot and I surprised myself at being able to hit them regularly at 40 feet. And I got to try out my new holster that way. During one to the ceasefires I inspected the pins and found one with a pristine .223 round sticking out of it. It just didn't have enough Ooomph to get all the way through. So if your skull is as tough as a bowling pin you don't have to worry about getting shot by an M-16.


Other fun things I saw shot? There was a MAC-11. It has a CRAZY fast rate of fire. rrrrrrrrip! and it is empty. The Uzi's had suppressors and were pretty quiet. One guy had a Thompson submachine gun and another a FN PS90. There was even a Glock built to shoot full auto. The brass flying through the air looked like rain.


I'd never buy a machine gun. Too expensive to purchase and to shoot, and few places to shoot it.


Everyone there was very polite and friendly and safe and were just having a great time.


With luck there will be pictures available electronically and I'll post them when I get them. You may even see ME in them. I didn't bring my camera as I didn't know how welcome it would be.

With that all said, I'll end with: "BOOdadow Boodadow bow bow bow bow!!!!!"

New Acquisition and Range Report

Almost as cheap as a tank of gas...

Taurus Model 62 pump action .22 rifle.

Squirrels beware!

I've had a hankering for a .22 that was a little more appropriate for a left hander and was a heckuva lot of fun. As with the 1894c, Kim Du Toit raving about this gun influenced my choice. He got Mr. Free Market Fairy Tales coveting one at Auld Sod.

This rifle is the first new gun, apart from the 1911, I've ever bought. Most of the others I own are more than 50 years old.

And it's the same rifle (or maybe she had the Winchester that this Taurus model is a clone of, but THAT rifle costs $900+ these days) Ellen Barkin used to shoot a score of 94 in This Boys Life at a turkey shoot. Kicked Robert DeNiro's butt. He shot a 24 with some bolt action tube fed job with peep sights. Later he said "the gun just won't shoot right. It's the third one I bought and none of them have shot right." Yup, 'Dwight,' it's the rifle's fault. I have THAT problem all the time, myself. It can't be my fault, as I am perfect. If I had a good rifle I'd shoot 10 rounds thought a single dime sized hole 3000 yards away. With my eyes closed. And drunk. In a 40 mph cross wind. Mmmm hmmm.

That Winchester version WAS available at my gun shop for a little while sitting right next to this gun. Side by side the elegant, lithe Winchester made THIS gun look clunky. That one was way to dear for a non-collector like me at four times the sticker price of the Taurus. Still, the Taurus I got isn't too shabby looking with real purty walnut.

You load the tube with a dozen or so cheap .22LR rounds, pump, aim, shoot. It's light and simple and I couldn't wait to test it out.

So, luckily, a Range Trip was in the offing to try it out. It's an indoor range, pistol style, but they will let you shoot rifles that use pistol calibers. You have to shoot standing, or off-hand, but that was fine. This trip was a function test, only.

My rifle target was the lower right. 75 feet. The lower left are some holes Corky and Chuckles shot to try out the gun. Yup they shot better. I was just pleased at the function and enjoying that. The ones way off, the fliers, I at least knew they were going to be when the trigger broke. I'll take it bench shooting soon and see how small I can make a group. I'll have to remind myself if I ever DO need to shoot a rabbit to keep from starving that I better steady better, preferable against something.

The OTHER, top two, targets are all shots taken with my 1911 with the .22 conversion kit. Breda gave me a tip that she got from her instructor and I wanted try something. I shoot low and right with the .45 and my left shooting arm is straight across my body and straight. The supporting left arm is bent a bit at the elbow. My thought was maybe that arm is pulling my shot down and right. Breda's tip was to squeeze the support hand a little tighter.

I tried shooting my regular way to see if it fell where I expected, low and right. Well... Some. But the .22 through it just shoot different than the .45. Look at the top left target above. Not gravitating to the lower right at all. Typical. Whenever you make assumptions ahead of time, you make an ass out of "u" and uh... "mptions". Or something. It did shoot low, and that's ok, just not consistently right.

Anyway, my correction didn't help too much. Some maybe. Enough to try it next time with .45. The result was: instead of pulling back, the palms pushed towards each other.

Breda's tip worked better, if for no other reason than that it helped my trigger squeeze be smoother. I think I have a tendency of 'lobster pinching' with the left hand, in that that my thumb moves as well as my trigger finger, trying to pinch together. Even a slightly firmer grip with the support hand noticeably helps this flaw. And I am not going to argue with a better trigger squeeze. If your trigger squeeze is perfect then you are well on your way, I think. And certainly I am. More practice, naturally, will help. And all this practice is fun, even if the progress and improvement is slow.

Bottom right is where I really concentrated. 25 feet. Thanks Breda, that tip may be the shizzle, if you readers will permit me to slip into the vernacular.

Note: THAT one, the careful one bottom right has more noticeable standard low and right flaw, but the squeeze was better so the shots fell tighter. Baby steps.

The top left is with the palm to palm push, top right and bottom left is settling in with a combination of both tips, but mostly Breda's, and the shooting was fast and casual.