Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Shooting Illustrated.

Faster?
Yup. No matter how good the shooter is with a pump. Many big 3-gun matches also have a side match for shotguns. There is usually a low target count, so nobody has to reload. The buzzer goes off and you shoot the targets. No reloading, running, jumping or standing on one leg, and no tricky targets. Just stand there and shoot the shotgun. Pump guns never win. No matter what the guy at the gun shop says, semi-autos are simply faster.

Semi-autos will not shoot all ammo.
That was an issue with that bird gun I mentioned and a few others, but not with most guns today. Today’s best semi-automatic shotguns can digest a wide range of ammo from low-recoil to full-power without a problem. Shotguns with the inertia system pioneered by Benelli, or the multi-port gas systems like Remington used in its guns, will handle all ammo. Most of the newer gas guns will likewise eat any ammo they are fed.

Semi-autos jam.
They pretty much don’t anymore. At least, no more than other firearms. Pumps do, though. I shoot a pump shotgun a lot. (I never said I don’t like them.) When it counts, I will now and then inadvertently short stroke and jam it up.

It’s not just me. I have seen even the very best pump-shotgun shooters in the world short stroke their guns when trying to go fast. The simple fact is that operating a pump shotgun is a human function. When subjected to stress, humans do not beat well-designed machines, because machines are not subject to emotional stress.

I agree with all of these remarks.  I think that a commitment to pump action shotguns over semi-auto shotguns because you believe that semi-auto shotguns are less reliable is based on a false paradigm that may have been correct 50 years ago, but certainly isn’t now.

Specifically, he’s reviewing the latest Savage tactical shotgun, the Renegauge Security.  It appears to want to compete with the Beretta 1301.  I doubt that it can come up to the level of the 1301, but since Savage didn’t send me one to review, I have no way of knowing with certainty.

It’s a nice looking gun, and maybe I’ll get a chance to shoot one some day.

It always happens.  When the small Green Beret team was ambushed in Niger, Maj. General Bob Scales escalated his whining about the M4, demanding that it be replaced with a piston AR (a point completely irrelevant to anything that happened in the engagement).  The engagement was poorly planned, ill-conceived, and undermanned.  There was no QRF anywhere near them, the team was too small, they had no light or medium MGs (and certainly no heavy MGs), and I could go on with the failures.

But it’s the gun.  It’s always the gun.  It’s never the stupid Colonels and Generals who plan the missions.  It’s always the gun.  True to form, the reason they fielded the Sig XM5 was to bring battlefield superiority against – wait for it – the PKM.  It’s never the planners who put FOBs in the valleys between mountains and waste time even doing that, allowing the enemy to mass forces and field fighters that outnumber our troops by ten to one.  It’s the gun.  It’s always the gun.

No battle rifle can compete with a crew-served, belt-fed medium MG.  There are always answers to medium MGs, such as: taking the high ground, overwatch, QRF, CAS, using our own medium and heavy MGs, and maybe re-introducing a role for the long-forgotten grenadier (the M203 is not a sufficient replacement for the M79 in terms of range).  These things mean rethinking doctrine, weapons systems, TTPs, and training.  But they don’t want to do that – it’s always the gun.

If you want somewhat increased penetration and distance with the AR platform, I’ve already told you what to do.  Switch uppers to the 6mm ARC.  It’s a simple change, and would be the cheapest and most effective remedy for what is currently really a very small problem.  And in-between remedy for this would be to return the 20″ barrel Eugene Stoner originally designed.

But for whatever reason I cannot fathom, the U.S. Army has some sort of sordid love affair with Sig.  And for whatever reason I cannot understand (unless someone has pictures on active generals in the DoD complex), they always need a new rifle.  So here it is, all 13 lb of it.

This is yet another interesting video from Target Suite.

I do have a personal interest in this issue.  I was previously wondering if having a Marlin Model 336 30-30 and Marlin Model 336 in 35 Remington is redundant.  I also stumbled across this article in American Hunter magazine.

Which is the more useful cartridge? Of the two, which serves the hunter better? Traditionally, the tubular magazines of the popular lever-rifles restricted the cartridges to using round or flat-point bullets, to avoid the possibility of magazine detonation, should a pointed spitzer bullet hit the primer of the cartridge ahead of it in the magazine. The exception to that rule is Hornady’s LeveRevolution ammo line, which uses a pliable tip on a spitzer bullet to afford a much flatter trajectory in both cartridges. With the traditional loads, the .30-30 will drive its 150- and 170-grain bullets to a muzzle velocity of 2400 and 2250 fps respectively, while the .35 Remington launches its 180- and 200-grain bullets at 2100 and 2080 fps. Both generate between 1,800 and 1,900 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy with traditional loads, and the hot-rod LeveRevolution will certainly offer an improvement in ballistic figures, but the advancements are parallel between the two cartridges.

I did find it a bit amusing at about the 6:20 mark.  He should have left the stated value of 35% alone without “correction” in the video.  Comparison of areas would be done by the square of the radius: (0.358)^2 / (0.308)^2 ≈ 1.35.

Please weigh in with comments.  Do readers have a preference for 35 Remington over the 30-30, or vice versa, or none at all?  Then again, fine gentlemen of find upbringing have fine weapons, and there shouldn’t be a problem with a collection where both calibers are a part of it.

Our buddy Andy at Practical Accuracy has some real world data for you.  I think the case is closed, at least for me.

One corollary point is that the only real expert is you after shooting thousands of rounds down range.  Use your own gun, your own tuning, your ammunition, your eyesight, and your optics, and spend time at the range.  There are no two pieces of equipment exactly alike.

I appreciate his down-to-earth approach to giving us his opinions.

Concerning the Henry rifle, it would have been much more impressive for Henry Repeating Arms to have fixed the problem to begin with rather than have a mechanic tell him everything is fine, only to have to respond later like they should after he posted a video of the problems.  They didn’t like the bad review – but they should have disliked having a dissatisfied customer much more.

As for the accuracy, I’m glad to see acceptable performance.  I had read and heard unfavorable reviews.

Ron Spomer answers some interesting questions.  I found it interesting that he recommends a slightly more squaring up against the gun with heavier recoiling firearms.  Also, the thumb over the pistol grip part of the stock (rather than around the stock) to prevent breaking the trigger pull badly with a jerking motion seems to have become customary.

As I expected, the Beretta A400 Xtreme Plus did a magnificent job at putting pellets in the bird (19:48).  My takeaway isn’t so much that one shotgun does better than another, but that you need to know what you’re doing and get your testing protocol and equipment settled out when you presume to test one against another.  Having to admit you screwed up a test should be just a bit embarrassing, but at least it’s honest.

I’ll also say that after a morning of shooting quail with the A400, I felt like I had plinked with a .22 rimfire rifle all morning.  The action and stock design manages the recoil better than any 12 gauge shotgun I’ve ever used.

I like the idea of an autoloading .22 magnum more than Tim does, and I also like the idea of a .22 magnum revolver.

I must say that I once owned a KelTec PMR-30 and it was the most unreliable firearm I ever owned.  It wouldn’t cycle a full magazine without a failure to feed or failure to eject.  I suggested to KelTec that they redesign the magazine out of Aluminum because in my opinion the polymer magazine was causing problems with moving cartridges up the stack and into the chamber. It caused too much unnecessary friction.

They didn’t listen to me.  They apparently think the weight is more important than functionality.  I ridded myself of that firearm.  Maybe the Walther WMP would be a better gun at some point in the future.  And by the way, I wouldn’t have any problems carrying the .22 magnum for personal defense against two-legged predators, although it probably wouldn’t be my first choice as I leave the house.

I think the ammo thing is easily fixable.  Just don’t run ammo that isn’t reliable.

American Rifleman.

You are only going to get one shot at this, so take the time required to get it right. Mount the gun in a gun vise so it won’t slip. Select an Allen bit that is in good shape without rounded or worn edges. Make sure the hex pocket in the screw head is clean and free from debris so the bit can enter all the way to the bottom. Insert the bit into the screw and tap it into place with a plastic-tipped hammer. A few solid whacks with the hammer on the screwdriver handle not only seats the Allen bit in the screw, but may also help loosen the screw. If the fit is at all sloppy, put a little Drive Grip or powdered rosin on the bit. Using two hands, push straight down on the top of the screwdriver with one hand, and turn with the other. Keep the screwdriver perfectly in line with the center of the screw; do not allow it to tip. Be careful about how much torque you apply, as these are small, rather delicate, screws. If the screw doesn’t loosen, back off. Try again while tapping on the screwdriver handle with a plastic hammer and applying constant torque to the handle. This is easier if you have some help. One person taps on the handle with the hammer, while the other keeps the screwdriver straight and applies the torque.

If just one of the screws is a problem, remove the rest of them first. Sometimes there is a misalignment of parts, so that puts pressure on one particular scew when all of them are tight. Removing the rest of them will often relieve that pressure, allowing the last screw to be removed.

If the screw is in a scope base that sits on a flat receiver, you can sometimes use a plastic hammer to tap on the base and turn it on the gun enough to loosen the screw. Remove all the other screws, and then tap the corner of the base so that it will drive the base counter-clockwise. It’s not necessary to turn it very far—just a partial turn will often break the screw free. Sometimes working the base back and forth with the hammer a few times will also break the screw free. Be careful about doing this on rounded receivers like the Remington 700, as tapping the mount will cam it against the receiver, jamming the screw tighter or breaking it off.

I found the entire article to be very helpful.  Yes, the value of torque wrenches, quality gunsmithing tools, and gunsmithing screwdrivers cannot be overstated.  You know all of those screws on lever action rifles?  Yea those.

You don’t get them off with a regular screwdriver bought at Lowe’s.  Quality gunsmithing tools cost more, but it’s worth it in the long run from damages to your firearms when you use the wrong tools.

I’m not being a know-it-all.  Like all good engineers, I learn by doing it wrong the first time.

Why is this in dispute?  There is nothing sacrilegious at all to me about putting a scope on a lever action rifle.  I’m in favor of whatever makes it easier for me to hit my intended target.

But I will remark that the prices of scopes seems to be going up, up, up, up and up.

This is a SFP fixed-parallax scope, albeit a good sized objective lens for letting light in, that’s going for $600.