The “Captain†is Herschel Smith, who hails from Charlotte, NC. Smith offers news and commentary on warfare, policy and counterterrorism.
2 years, 4 months ago
The M1 Carbine is a fine weapon for its intended purpose. However, the classic legacy models are very expensive. They’re treated as collectibles regardless of how many are in circulation. If you don’t mind having a new production model … well, they’re not any cheaper than the collectibles are. Those guns have maintained their value for many decades.
2 years, 4 months ago
The current count is six pistol brace lawsuits.
Texas Public Policy Foundation, et. al.
2 years, 4 months ago
More than 20 Republican-led states, along with gun rights groups and a disabled Army veteran, on Thursday sued the Biden administration over a new rule restricting sales of gun accessories known as pistol braces.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in North Dakota, the states said that the rule finalized earlier this year by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
This case is joined by the NRA. I guess they arm twisted and pulled enough money out of Wayne’s account for buying suits to assist with the lawsuit. I cannot locate a URL for the complaint.
Why on earth they’re targeting the state of ND I have no idea. They’re not likely to be successful there, and the whole goal should be to drive this to the supreme court. On the other hand, this might be the sacrificial lawsuit to do just that.
A much better chance comes from GOA, and the complaint can be found here. Friend of TCJ, Stephen Stamboulieh, is responsible for this fine work. It has been filed in Texas.
2 years, 4 months ago
At Outdoor Life.
At close range (i.e., < about 350 – 400 yards), .308 packs a slightly bigger punch than 6.5 Creedmoor, but not by much. I’ve known this for a long time.
The real advantages of the 6.5 Creedmoor are (a) distances longer than that, and (b) less recoil thus the ability to stay on target with your scope, and (c) the longer profile of the 6.5, meaning that it minimizes free bore and thus avoids bullet deformation, and has less drag.
This video – while somewhat chaotic at times – shows essentially the same thing.
To me this comes down to intended use and personal preference.
2 years, 4 months ago
Since Caleb is demonstrating gunsmithing techniques, I suspect this video will be demonetized by the communists at Googletube very soon.
But I found it interesting. I would have instinctively taken a torquing pass approach to those screws without having to be told so, just like the torquing passes you take for an engine head.
2 years, 4 months ago
Slate is mostly a worthless rag, but this one actually brings to light more than the author realizes.
The Bruen decision was a multi-faceted decision partly because of the way the votes separated. Sure, it got the votes it needed in the court. We know that Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch are reliable allies.
Barrett is another story. Because she hasn’t written much on this, who knows how she will decide when the time comes to make the hard decisions.
Roberts is apparently owned by someone who has pictures. Kavanaugh is the wild card.
He voted with the majority, but wrote his own decision – there would be no reason to do that unless he’s telegraphing the future to the other justices.
There are some difficult decisions coming up for them. Bump stocks will come up – and there is absolutely no question about the statutory language there. A device like that doesn’t meet the definition.
There are other decisions: pistol braces, the 5th’s recent decision on prohibitions for men of questionable moral character, and the most recent of course is the one concerning users of controlled substances.
Jonathan Turley gets it right in his analysis of the use of controlled substances and firearms ownership.
I particularly liked this observation from the court about reading discretion into the amendment to bar those deemed untrustworthy by the government:
[I]t would be odd indeed for the Framers to have incorporated such a trojan horse into the Second Amendment. The purpose of enshrining a right into the Constitution is to limit the discretion of a legislature. But if the United States’ theory is correct and all a legislature must do to prohibit a group of persons from possessing arms is to declare that group “untrustworthy,” then the Second Amendment would provide virtually no limit on Congress’s discretion. The Framers weren’t perfect, but they also weren’t fools.
In the end, none of this is about whether men of questionable moral character should be allowed to own firearms. The man in the instance of the fifth circuit case committed crimes against others. Prosecute him for those. Ownership of a firearm in this case is irrelevant. If they had removed his firearms and he was still committed to a life of crime, he could have converted to an arsonist.
In the end, none of this is about whether men who use controlled substances should be allowed to purchase firearms (as the judge pointed out). It’s about the degree of government control over the lives of men, and to what end that goes concerning abuses and exploitation by the government.
Gun control is about control. Nothing more, nothing less.
2 years, 4 months ago
From the comments:
“The guys at Vortex recommend not using loctite on scope bases and rings. They say that loctite acts like a lubricant on the threads and can potentially make you over-torque the screws.”
“PURPLE!!! Purple people!! Purple is for the smaller screws, like you see in firearms. Read the instructions. The blue is rated for certain sizes, as is the purple. So few know purple exist. It will save you many a headache. READ the instructions.”
And finally, this one.
“A vortex customer service representative recommended that I use clear nail polish as threadlocker and I’ve never looked back never had a problem. Handles vibration and heat like nothing and breaks loose with not much torque when actually trying to remove something.”
Nail polish is an interesting take. I wouldn’t have thought of that. Any takers here?
2 years, 4 months ago
Readers know I have been closely following this issue. Here’s an update on the Florida constitutional carry effort this session.
People who carry concealed weapons in Florida must complete a gun safety course, but that could change under a bill that has the backing of the state’s Republican leaders.
“Central to the idea of freedom is the right that we can defend ourselves against physical attack, as well as defend those that we love,” said State House Speaker Paul Renner last week after unveiling a proposed measure to allow “constitutional carry,” which would eliminate the requirement of a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
“All aspects of that permit would go away.”
The bill — HB 543 — would eliminate permitting requirements to carry a concealed weapon. Those include completion of a gun safety course and an attestation that the concealed carry permit is desired for lawful self defense.
If enacted, it would take effect on July 1.
At a press conference announcing the legislation, Renner expressed confidence that the measure wouldn’t pose a serious threat to public safety. “Anybody that’s a gun owner and uses guns knows that safety comes first.”
So this discusses the permitting scheme. What about open carry?
The bill reads as follows.
… specifying it is not a violation for persons authorized to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm without a license to briefly and openly display a firearm under specified circumstances.
Oh, so they’re throwing bones to the dogs who want to openly carry to make them happy, but “the only ones” are the only ones who are permitted to openly carry their weapons. “Briefly and openly.” Your shirt or coat tail can accidentally go above your firearm and when the only ones come to arrest you because of that Karen-call down at the grocery store, you can plead for leniency because you really didn’t mean it, and they can take the statement of Karen versus yours and see what a prosecutor will do with it. You can discuss it with the judge in court.
So they’ve queued up an abject failure as far as I’m concerned. Open carry is an essential part of constitutional carry. It isn’t constitutional carry if the state tells you how you must carry your weapons. The job isn’t complete. The job has been left undone.
As far as I’m concerned, they failed. This is a cheap trick to persuade the citizens of Florida that they respect their God-given rights concerning weapons.
I’m not impressed. I’m disgusted. Pffft …
2 years, 4 months ago
Coming on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Massachusetts’ top law enforcement official Andrea Joy Campbell has taken action in court to protect laws intended to keep residents from experiencing gun violence.
Campbell, according to a release, filed the briefs in lawsuits pertaining to handgun safety regulations and a case taking opposition to a motion to block the state’s assault weapon and large-capacity magazines ban.
“Under my leadership, Massachusetts will continue to lead …
What she really means is continue to violate rights as given by God, enumerated in the constitution, and recognized by the supreme court.
This caused me to go read her court briefs for a bit. I stumbled on this.
Further, the handgun must have a “safety device,” as defined by statute, that prevents the firing of the gun by an unauthorized user.
What exactly does that mean?
Such safety devices include, but are not limited to, “mechanical locks or devices designed to recognize and authorize, or otherwise allow the firearm to be discharged only by its owner or authorized user, by solenoid use-limitation devices, key activated or combination trigger or handle locks, radio frequency tags, automated fingerprint identification systems or voice recognition.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131K.
Massachusetts must have passed smart gun laws while I was looking elsewhere. What a cesspool of communist overreach. If there are gun owners who still live in Massachusetts, I just have one question. Why?
I reiterate my smart gun challenge – the one that has never been accepted by any gun controller.
“Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns. Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.
Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again. Compare the state points. Then do that again with a revolver. Be honest. Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.
Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review. If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see. If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice. No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge. I’ll win. Case closed. End of discussion.”
Any takers?
2 years, 4 months ago
Mike does a very good job of the review in this video.
I was hoping that it was a hammer fired gun. It is. I wouldn’t have been even a little bit interested if it was a striker fired gun.
I also very much like the operating system, and the narrowness of the frame. It’s narrowness means that it would be easy and comfortable to conceal for IWB carry at the 3:00 position (my preferred position). I don’t appendix carry.
Finally, I like the price point. So this gun meets all of my criteria. But I will have to say that that gap he’s talking about between the slide and frame is similar to the M&P design. I’ve never picked up an M&P that didn’t have that same gap. Apparently, the S&W engineers prefer that design for some reason. Maybe someone who knows about this will weigh in.
I may have to look into this model.
