Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

The National Interest:

More than a hundred years after Colt’s successful line of cavalry pistols the company released a new revolver: the Colt Python. One of seven mid-20th century Colt handguns named after snakes, the Python was introduced in 1955. The Python was a beefy, all steel and wood revolver chambered in .357 Magnum. The revolver had a six-shot cylinder and originally came with either a bright nickel or royal blue finish.

The Python was exactly what people imagined a revolver to be. The Python had a slightly oversized, stout .41 caliber frame with beautiful, beveled edges. The trigger well was large and capable of accommodating gloved fingers. The revolver was most commonly sold with a six-inch barrel, although two, three, four, and eight-inch barrels were also available.

The barrel was the Python’s most defining and beautiful feature. A full length ventilated rib ran the length of the barrel, all the way to the muzzle, leading to the front iron sights. This was complemented by a full length underlug with a knurled ejector rod tastefully nestled inside. The result was a barrel that at first glance looked outsized, as though it was a larger caliber than it really was.

Pythons were made the old fashioned way, by hand, when as one gun writer put it, “technology was relatively expensive and labor was comparatively cheap.” Parts were fitted by hand by skilled machinists who could take the time to tweak and polish the fifty-seven parts that made up a Colt Python until it ran like a watch. The Python may have been the last mass-produced handgun built with a nod to Old World craftsmanship.

I don’t know.  The Smith & Wesson Performance Center makes a pretty fine revolver, and I’ve really liked my Ruger GP100.  It’s trigger is as good as any wheel gun made by Smith.

With that said, I’ve never shot a Colt Python.  It’s too rich for my wallet, the lowest starting at just under $3000, and going up to more than $6000 for pristine condition.  I will probably never in my life shoot such a gun.

Here’s an interesting and humorous story for readers.  I have a very dear friend, who had a very dear wife, and we were visiting with them talking and showing guns and grilling steaks one evening.  It was when I did the cheap plastic gun scene and before I threw them all away (traded them in) for nice 1911s and wheel guns.

My dear friend trots out a beautiful Colt Python, SS 6″ barrel, in a beautiful Walnut case, and it had never been shot (except for the obligatory shot by the gunsmith).  It was in pristine condition.  My mouth fell open and I put my cheap plastic gun away.

The humorous part is the story behind it.  One day his wife wanted to kill a snake in their back yard, and he arrived home to find his wife sporting a gun, ready to shoot.  The gun she chose was that Colt Python, and it was a black snake.  My friend managed to stop her by shouting her down.  Don’t ever touch that gun, and don’t shoot black snakes.

And thus he saved several thousand dollars by preventing a single shot.  And that Colt Python is still in pristine condition.  And I’ll still never have one.

Bob Owens and I always disagreed on open carry, and I told him so very plainly.  It looks like the visceral, emotional, irrational hatred for open carriers continues in Bob’s absence with a writer named Tom Knighton.

There’s a lot of debate that takes place around the idea of open carry. Many argue that open carry is tactically stupid as it makes it clear to any potential bad guy who to take out first during a robbery. Others counter with arguments about how open carry initiates conversations about the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

Both are good points, but for one open carrier in Fayetteville, NC, open carry isn’t such a grand thing these days.

[ … ]

Officers arrived and discovered that a man had grabbed a gun off another man who was open-carrying the weapon. The man who grabbed the gun then ran off.

Of course, this illustrates one of the main problems with open carry. Besides freaking out the uninitiated citizen, it also makes yourself a target for crap like this.

To be sure, there are things you can do to mitigate this kind of thing. First, look at your holster and see how easily it is to draw from someone else’s hip. I’ve found that some holsters are very easy to draw from when they’re no your hip, but not so much when they’re on someone else’s.

Also, look at learning some weapon retention techniques. These are, in my opinion, a good idea for anyone who is carrying a firearm, whether open or concealed. The last thing you want is for your decision to rely solely on stealth to come back and bite you in the rear should someone figure out you’re packing.

That said, stealth–in other words, carrying concealed–is the best way in which to carry as a general rule. If you want to make a statement, that’s fine, but don’t expect anyone to listen to you when they’re concerned about the heater on your hip. Some will, but a lot more won’t.

But if you’re serious about protecting yourself and others with a firearm, carry it concealed. Doing so means that not only will you minimize your chances of being murder target number one in the event of a robbery, but you’ll also help make sure that you actually have your gun at that key moment, rather than having lost it to some schmuck in a local Walmart who snatched it and ran off.

Folks, if we want to be considered responsible gun owners, we need to act like it. That means not advertising what we have so would-be thieves like this can grab a hold of our weapons and run for the hills. The last thing any of us want is to help arm criminals, but just what do you think happened with this weapon?

This is an idiotic commentary.  First of all, I absolutely hate the words “packing” for carrying (concealed or openly), and “heater” for firearm.  It comes across as fifth grade level writing (or worse, something a MSM “journalist” would say, but maybe I’m being redundant).  It’s language like this that serves to poorly educate the public rather than open carry.  I don’t “pack a heater,” and neither should you.  I carry a firearm.

He states that “Many argue that open carry is tactically stupid as it makes it clear to any potential bad guy who to take out first during a robbery.”  I’ve made it clear what I think about that argument.

I’ve stated before that you get to hide the fact that you’re carrying a gun to a perpetrator is the most hideously awful argument against open carry I can conceive.  It’s tactically absurd, inasmuch as if the perpetrator intends to perpetrate a crime, he’s going to regardless of whether you have a gun.  You will still have an opportunity to prevent it, and it’s more likely that you’ll be the first to engage the perpetrator.

That’s not a bad outcome unless you wish to see women and children perish before you do.  “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).  I’m not knocking concealed carriers as cowards.  Much of the time I’m a concealed carrier when circumstances prevent me from open carry.  I’m knocking those who knock open carry for the reason that a concealed carrier gets to wait to engage.  I don’t carry a weapon in order to wait to engage.  You don’t hear LEOs making the argument that openly carrying their weapon is a tactical disadvantage.  Let’s don’t look stupid by making that argument for ourselves.

Next, he charges open carriers like me with being irresponsible and unserious.  I’m simply befuddled where he would come up with something like that or why he would make that charge.  He gives no reasons at all, he just reacts like a schoolgirl to something he read in the news.  If he wishes to demonstrate that he can present from a concealed position faster and more reliably than I can present from an open position, I’m waiting and I’ll take the challenge any time.  And while I don’t want to appear “holier than thou,” it’s better for me to engage first and be the one a perpetrator shoots at than some woman or child, even ones I don’t know.

So if you’re an open carrier, use this as a great learning example and do better than the man in the report.  Be more vigilant and aware of circumstances, and wear a retention holster.  I am and I do.  Next, he states unequivocally that more people won’t listen to us than do listen.  He doesn’t really know that, he just made it up.  I’ve had many conversations with folks asking me about it (from the perspective of God-given rights to the laws in my state), and while I initially took the position that I open carry because I simply hate concealed carry and I sweat my weapon, I have morphed to a position of speaking out and trying to educate with my practice of openly carrying.  I think it makes good sense, or otherwise I wouldn’t do it.

I’m guessing it’s been more than a year since I’ve read anything at Bearing Arms, and now I know why.  This is simply awful firearm commentary.  They should be doing a much better job of arguing for and discussing what we see as our God-given rights rather than trying to make sure they run to the crumbs that fall from the master’s table.  At one time open carry was the common practice in America, and it was considered uncouth, crass, ill-bred and even criminal to conceal your weapons.

We should return to that practice, and the only way to do that, other than changes to the law, is educating an ignorant public.  As I’ve said, I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”  Just so.

Via Claire, this video is worth watching.

The .45 ACP knocked that big boy on his can, for sure, but my goodness, I think the shooter needs some retraining in the rules of gun safety.  He just about killed his partner too.  Maybe they need to think a little harder about formation.

Well, it’s gun silly season when the manufacturers trot out their new designs hoping for a piece of the market.  As for myself, I have tried to optimize my gun safe by minimizing the number of calibers it contains.  My favorite cartridge of all time is the .45 ACP.  If your wife really loves you, she gets you something like this for Christmas.  It’s a CMMG .45 ACP PDW, and it sells as a pistol rather than a long gun.

Springfield Armory is introducing their newest line of M1As shooting the 6.5mm Creedmoor.

Wilson Combat is introducing what they call the .458 HAM’R.  Looks like a “wildcat” cartridge and I wonder about availability (and cost).

Ammoland:

The bullet then continues to rise until, under the influence of gravity, it starts to fall back toward the sight-line. This highest point in the bullet’s flight, the “maximum ordinate,” is reached at 140m. At this range, the bullet is six centimeters above the sight line, but no more.

As it continues downrange, the bullet then falls back toward the sight-line, crossing it once more (this time on the way down) at 240m. This is the “second intersection.”

The bullet then continues to fall until it is, once again, six centimeters below the sight-line. This takes place at 260m.

So, between point-blank and 260m, the bullet is never more than six centimeters away from the sight-line, “all other things being equal.”

However, the foregoing holds true only when the rifle itself, as it is fired, is perfectly horizontal. When a shooting position necessitates the rifle be fired from a “rotated” position, the six-centimeter standard collapses after 150m.

Thus, I tell students that their M4 is basically a 150m gun. Within that range, it is deadly accurate, no matter the shooting position, no matter the wind, no matter most other factors.

The “back-curve zone” is that portion of the trajectory which lies between maximum point-blank range and the ultimate point of bullet impact. Any time a rifleman is working in ranges that involve the “back-curve” of the trajectory, that is, after the bullet has fallen more than six centimeters below the sight line (after the second intersection), the path of the bullet becomes harder and harder to predict.

[ … ]

Yet, today’s snipers are amazing is (sic) their ability to skillfully use the back-curve zone, and they enjoy my admiration! But, the rest of us, under “field conditions,” using generic military rifles, will squander much ammunition trying (mostly in vain) to get reliable hits there.

Well then.  I need to tell my former Marine that all that 500 yards qualification he did to earn the expert rifleman badge is worthless.  And all of those kills he had at greater than 150 were just fake news.

Who knew?

But wait, that’s not the whole story.

Governor Asa Hutchinson has informed the Arkansas State Police that he believes a 2013 law made open carry of hand guns the law of the land in Arkansas and they should act accordingly.

There is, as yet, no definitive court case that substantiates this view of the law. Ever since its passage, a debate has raged over the law’s meaning. Some contended it was merely meant to be a technical correction to Arkansas law that long had allowed the carrying of weapons on a “journey,” but not in all circumstances. Gun advocates argued that the wording validated open carry. Critics argue that such an expansive view might override some of the restrictions in law on where concealed weapons may be taken.

The governor’s letter comes as he faces a challenge in the Republican primary from Jan Morgan, a gun range owner who’s depicted Hutchinson (a former spokesman for the NRA) as somehow soft on guns (she was critical of some limitations added to the campus carry legislation, among others). His opinion carries no force of law, but the directive to an executive agency will have the effect of guiding state troopers, as indicated by a notice sent yesterday to troopers by Col. Bill Bryant, director of the State Police.

Context: An off-duty trooper in 2014 arrested a man who was carrying a weapon in a Searcy Walmart. He was acquitted of an obstruction of governmental operations misdemeanor charge, but lost a lawsuit at the circuit court level in which he sought to have his concealed carry permit restored. Judge Wendell Griffen rejected James Tanner’s argument that the 2013 law allowed open carry so long as no unlawful intent was present. The judge called that interpretation “senseless.” The judge ruled Tanner wasn’t entitled to get his license back because he openly carried a concealed weapon as a permit holder and refused to provide identification to an officer who asked for it. That case has not been appealed, court records indicate.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued an official opinion in 2015 that indicated open carry was legal in Arkansas, but she also commented that confusion about the 2013 law suggested clarification would be useful. Her predecessor, Dustin McDaniel, had opined the law was only a technical correction, not legalization of unlimited open carry.

Rutledge also enumerated these caveats about open carry:

* Law officers can freely question anyone openly carrying a weapon about their purpose.

* Other statutes prohibit open carry in certain circumstances — in government buildings such as the Capitol, for example.

* Private property owners are entitled to keep firearms off their property, and armed people who refuse to leave can be prosecuted for trespass.

* The law doesn’t affect concealed carry statutes. All carrying concealed weapons still must comply with permitting and other requirements.

By “soft on guns,” Morgan means that Asa isn’t the gun rights supporter he purports to be.

Hutchinson hasn’t been hard enough on the gays and the transgenders; he once took a meeting with gun control advocates; he wouldn’t sign a meaningless anti-Sharia law bill; he’s supported the continuation of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Arkansas is in fact a stop and identify state, but only for loitering.  The judge that decided the case against the open carrier, Wendell Griffen, is clearly an idiot and communist.  Expect the police to ignore the governor’s edict and work towards their communist ends.

As for the governor’s race, I don’t know what will happen.  But Arkansas is as much a mess as every other state.

Hugh Latimer deals with nonpermissive carry, and does it in an interesting context.

The Bible has very little to say about dealing with a secular government. When it does talk about it, it is usually within the context of finances (Give unto Cesar…) or God’s punishment. We are expected to be good citizens because our faith demands moral decisions based upon the ethics that God lays out. Our citizenship is first with the Kingdom of God, though we participate in the worldly governments because they have direct bearing upon our lives. When there is a conflict between the two, we choose the heavenly kingdom without hesitation.

Romans 13

That being said, Romans 13 is probably one of the most misquoted scriptures that I know of. We must always look at the context of scripture because pulling it out of context is an easy way to get bad theology. Romans 12 is about the congregation and how they are to deal with each other. It is about the Body of Christ, and as individuals we all have our separate parts to play. Romans 14 is also about how believers interact with each other within the congregation, including the concept to not judge each other’s salvation over trivial things.

Why, in the middle of that conversation, would Paul suddenly start talking about obedience to a secular government? No, Romans 13 is about being submissive to church government and church discipline. The whole thing is about how Christians interrelate to each other, not how we relate to a secular government.

Ordained

While God can and does use secular governments to bring about judgment upon a disobedient people, He does not ordain sinful men to positions of authority. God does not ordain a secular government. He does, however, ordain church government and those who have been ordained speak with God’s authority. (Note that I’m talking about those who have been ordained by God, not those who have been through a seminary’s ordination process. You’ll know the difference because those ordained by God speak with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Those ordained by man speak only with knowledge, and usually not too much of that.)

Consequences

As to your question, SurvivalBlog cannot make any recommendation. Only you can make the determination. If you choose to carry when it is against the law, there will be consequences if you are caught. God does not often relieve us of consequences to our decisions. There are two risks that I can see:

1. If an incident occurs and your concealed carry saves lives, you will still probably face charges and your career as a teacher will be over, at a minimum. You might even go to jail for a long time. (But at least you are alive, as is anyone you saved.)
2. You may get caught and face those same consequences without the reward of having saved lives. Speaking as a teacher of high school students for eight years, I can tell you that there is very little that escapes the attention of students, and all it takes is one child to notice your illegal behavior and end your career.

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience has long been a part of U.S. history, but just because you stand for what you believe is no guarantee that you will be released from the consequences of breaking the law. Only you can make the determination of what your convictions are and whether you are willing to face the consequences of such a decision.

Okay, I’m not trying to steal Hugh’s thunder by citing at length, and you really need to read the entire post, including the letter for context, in addition to the very astute comments at SurvivalBlog.

That said, I quoted at length because you needed to have it above for reference because I intend to make some comments myself.

I highly respect SurvivalBlog’s work, including all of the authors.  They are a regular visit for me and I recommend that they be one of your daily stops as well.  I have to agree and disagree with Hugh.

First of all, I have engaged in nonpermissive carry before and I will do it again.  Most places in which I have done so have been places where the maximum punishment would have been being ejected (or asked to leave), although in a few places I might have been cuffed and carted off to jail for the night.  I’ve been very careful in nonpermissive environments, I might add.

What I don’t do is risk my livelihood, and so I am at maximum risk to my life when I am at work.  Everybody must make these kinds of decisions.  I would actually prefer that we home school our children rather than educate them in public schools, and that includes solidly, thoroughgoing Christian education in all subjects.  Or in other words, I prefer a Christian world and life view to be the guiding light for all subjects, all material and all context.

But I do understand that we have Christians (and other gun owners who may not be Christians) in public schools who might need sage advice.  Like Hugh, I cannot give legal advice.  But I do want to say a word about ordained authority and civil disobedience.

I am an unapologetic Calvinist.  With Calvin (who followed Pauline theology), I believe that God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF), e.g., see Isaiah 46:9-10, Ephesians 1:11, and far too many other passages to outline here (I would have to pen an entire treatise on this subject to fully deal with it).  That means God has ordained wicked men to positions of authority at times and epochs in history.

It’s also no accident that the concept of covenant is the ruling concept for how God deals with men, and how He expects men to deal with men in life.  All men and all institutions are under covenant with God, including governments.  When governments of men have broken covenant with God, it is within the purview of the authority God has given men to overthrow said governments.

We’ve dealt with this many times, and as we’ve seen, the American war of independence was just such a war.  Civil disobedience under such circumstances is no mere social justice warrioring.  It is a holy endeavor which has God’s blessing.

However, whether nonpermissive carry in a school is just such a situation must be the call of the individual in the situation.  Rarely in history does an individual example rise to the level of needing revolution as an amelioration.  It’s usually a collection of situations, the weight of the evidence brought against a government.  Like Hugh, you must consider the consequences of getting caught in nonpermissive carry.  I’ve done it before, I’ll do it again, and there are circumstances where I won’t even consider it.

Thanks to Fred Tippens for the tip.

Good Lord!

How many of you think you could handle .450 Bushmaster in an AR pistol and regain sight picture after the first shot in – oh, I don’t know – under four or five seconds?

American Rifleman quotes training material for 1911 operators from WWI.

Too much stress cannot be laid on the fact the pistol is an emergency weapon. The man who wants a stock on his pistol so that he can shoot it at a distance of several hundred yards has no understanding of the function of the arm. It is solely for the personal protection of the bearer when the enemy is within very short range and there is no possibility of accomplishing more with the other weapons with which the soldier may happen to be armed.

The member of an automatic rifle or machine gun squad who stops serving his rifle or machine gun to indulge in pistol practice at the enemy is wholly without a proper sense of his duty to his comrades. At the same time the stupid man who does not use his pistol when the enemy is on top of him and his gun is jammed or it is no longer possible to use it profitably, deserves no better fate than that which he will probably get, that is, immediate death.

When conditions are such that the opportunity for the proper use of the pistol in the near future appears probable, every man armed with the pistol should so place his weapon that it can be used in the minimum of time. What this position will be will depend on the circumstances. It may be on the parapet alongside the gunner, or on the flap of the carrier’s musette, or in the holster.

For the average man, 25 yards may be taken as the maximum range at which the pistol should be fired. To fire at longer ranges will usually result in no casualties for the enemy but only an empty pistol at the crucial moment. This does not apply to a very small percentage of expert shots, but a man should be quite sure that he can be classed as such before violating the general rule.”

Boy that sure is sage advice, and for all handgun operators, not just 1911s.  Things haven’t changed much in those many years.  I don’t mind being told that I’m not Jerry Miculek.  Because I’m not.

NBC Philadelphia:

Gareth Glaser could be seen as an optimist. After all, he believes gun owners will pay more to implement strong safety mechanisms in firearms.

He even believes gun owners might be willing to have chips implanted in their hands.

The implanted microchip would send a signal to a “smart gun” held in that person’s hand allowing for the trigger to operate, Glaser, CEO of Lodestar Firearms, told NBC10.

The implant is only one of a few ideas to improve the safety of guns. Glaser said a ring or watch could also be used as signal-bearers — if worn, a handgun could be fired.

It’s called “token recognition technology”: The technology keeps a gun from firing unless the “token” is within inches of the trigger. Glaser believes it’s the gun of the future.

“Our token is either going to be in a ring, in a bracelet, or quite possibly implanted right here between your thumb and forefinger,” Glaser said as he showed off a similar smart gun made in Germany. “I think law enforcement would go for that.”

As NBC10 reported in November for an initial story on smart gun technology and the impediments to their sales growth in the United States, an average of seven children shoot themselves each day.

That type of tragedy is exactly what spurred Glaser, of Radnor Township in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, to getting into the firearm manufacturing business. The former executive with 30 years’ experience in the energy and pharmaceutical industries was at a colleague’s party when the woman’s son shot himself accidentally with a shotgun.

Oooo … yep.  I’m sure law enforcement will go for that.  And I can’t wait for those chips to be surgically implanted in my hand.  I’m sure willing to double the cost of firearms, even though I will have to cut by half my purchases.

I encourage Mr. Glaser to spend, spend, spend, spend like a drunken sailor to make this smart gun technology.  It’s brand new.  No one has tried it before.  Please write me a note Mr. Glaser and let me know how it works out.  I want to meet those LEOs who are willing to use “smart guns.”

Prior: Smart Gun Tag