Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

This video is apparently a well-watched video.  I don’t usually like to embed video that I don’t really think is worth the viewing time it will take to go through it all, and I especially don’t like stream of consciousness presentations that could be done more efficiently, any more than I like watching other men scratch their beards.

However, I wanted to ask these questions of readers.  What adult needs to be told that manufacturers are out to sell things and take your money?  What adult needs to be told that there is a difference between what you want and what you need?

Exclude the category of collectors, which as far as I’m concerned, is a legitimate category and limited only by the size of your bank account.  And also exclude investors – guns can be a legitimate investment as well.

If a man can only afford a single rifle, or in other words, he must make the decision to eat or buy another rifle, what mature adult is going to go hungry or let his family go hungry so he can buy another rifle because some video tells him to?

He does make some interesting points about the monetary transaction necessary to get your product “reviewed” or get it good press.  I had always assumed that.  And the great majority of the time for me, I do an awful lot of research before I buy any product, be in rifle or refrigerator.  But I’m just not that impressionable from videos and popular reviewers telling me anything at all.

Whether rifles, refrigerators or truck tires, I do my research and I buy what I want if I have the financial resources to do so.  If I don’t, I settle for second best.

This is how most mature men do things.  And I don’t have thermal scopes, ballistic helmets, NODs or night vision.

Outdoor Life.

The .45/70 outperformed everything else in penetrating brush and delivering a bullet that’s still flying straight and true—something that will surely inflate the egos of its contemporary fans. I expected the .45/70 to yield the best results simply because of the mass of the bullets, but it exceeded my expectations substantially. With extensive enough testing some other big-bore cartridges might outdo the .45/70, but when it comes to common and available brush rifles today, the .45/70 wins.

The best brush bullet in my testing was the 325-grain, .458-inch Lehigh Defense Extreme Defense bullet. It was in Black Hills Ammo’s Honey Badger factory loads, traveling at 1900 fps. These are solid copper machined bullets with a nose that’s fluted and resembles a Phillips screwdriver. The bullet is designed for zero deformation, and to penetrate deeply. The fluting at the tip is designed to cause cavitation and a wound channel like expanding bullets. I’ve seen bears shot with them, and they are formidable. This load had an average deflection of only 0.63 inches, without a single key-holed bullet in 15 total shots.

You can see all of his testing protocol at the link, but the bottom line is that it’s the venerable 45-70 for the unqualified win.

I like his choices, and especially his paint job.

I’m not trying to be a gun snob, but one thing the Italians know how to do is make shotguns.  Beretta for gas operated guns, Benelli for inertial shotguns.  Additionally, anyone who claims that pump action is the only reliable action in a shotgun has never shot a Beretta A400 or 1301.  I’ve shot both, and I’ll say the same thing about semiautomatic shotguns to the malcontents that I say about ARs and 1911s.  I’ve never had a single FTF or FTE, or a malfunction of any kind.  And I run them hard.

You get what you pay for with any product, and guns are no different.  This think looks cheap.  You couldn’t give it to me.

My experience with a .44 Magnum wheel gun is that shooting it is a bone rattling event, at least with a short barrel.  I don’t think I ever want to shoot this thing.

I suspect that by characterizing this thing as controllable, there’s more than a little irony.

The much anticipated 7mm PRC design by Hornady is in the news.  As if pre-planned, the articles piled up this week.

The Hornady 7 PRC is a new long-range hunting and competition cartridge that slides neatly into the gap that exists between the 6.5 PRC and 300 PRC. The best way to think about this round is as an updated version of the venerable 7mm Rem. Mag. I’ve been hunting and shooting with the 7mm PRC for a couple months now and I think it is going to do extremely well, particularly with Western and open-country big game hunters.

First of all, it fits in between the 6.5 PRC and the 300 PRC, which Hornady wants to be replacements for the 6.5mm Creedmoor and the 300 Win Mag, which they believe leave too much free bore and don’t fit well into the lands, leaving open the potential for bullet deformation when the bullet enters the lands.  So this 7mm PRC design not only fits in between the 6.5 PRC and the 300 PRC, it would fit in between the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 300 Win Mag, which aren’t even mentioned in the article.  He goes into some of the details on what Hornady intends to be available bullet designs, and then let’s pick it up later.  This next bit is interesting and correct if you have wondered about why new cartridge designs are being investigated.

The hallmarks of modern cartridge design include:

• Faster twist rates to stabilize heavy-for-caliber, long ogive, high BC bullets
• Adequate neck length on the case for consistent neck tension
• Headspacing off a steep-angled shoulder
• Minimal case taper
• Fine-tuned throat dimensions and taper (usually 1.5 deg.) in chamber
• Moderate muzzle velocities that deliver consistent shot-to-shot MVs and take advantage of the aeroballistically-efficient bullets the cartridge is designed for. This leads to better precision and longer barrel life

The 7mm PRC incorporates all these elements.

This is why he said this cartridge is an “updated version” of the venerable 7mm Mag.

The author says he got Miles Neville, an engineer with Hornady, to help him with accuracy testing.  I can say with utter confidence, Miles has the greatest engineering job on earth.

Unfortunately, there are two needs for a cartridge to be successful.  Rifles, and ammunition.  The manufacturers are making them now (and some already have), but the ammo may be a bit hard to find, at least initially, and then never if this turns out to be a “flash in a pan.”

Next up, Alloutdoor.com has three articles on current guns in production to shoot the 7mm PRC.

Mossberg Patriot Predator.  At an MSRP $616, this is an entry level rifle.

Savage.  They go the spectrum from their 10 Apex Hunter XP with an MSRP of $709, to their Impulse Mountain Hunter at $2,437.00.  It’s quite a good looking rifle, and certainly not entry level.

Then finally, as one would expect, Gunwerks breaks the bank with the ridiculous price of $9000.  You could have a gunsmith do a custom build for less than that.

It will be interesting to see where the 7mm PRC goes from here.

Well, regardless of what he concludes, I don’t think I want to shoot a 45-70 with a muzzle device.  Muzzle brakes throw gas back in your direction, and sound too.  So for a bit of reduced recoil, you pick up sound and gas jets.  If your plan is always to wear electronic hearing protection, then maybe a muzzle brake is for you.

Speaking of electronic hearing protection, for folks who are a bit hard of hearing, like me, not only can it save the rest of your hearing, turning the volume up can introduce you to a world of sound to which you had been unaware.  In fact, amplifying that sound can be to your advantage in the bush if you can rapidly distinguish one sound from another.

I like the idea.  Keep the wood grain, but beef it up in areas where it needs it, making a new concept for chassis rifles.

The same concept, by the way, is used in engineered floor joists, i.e., press wood using glues, and there is no way the historic Southern White Pine floor joists can compete with engineered joists in strength.

Looking on their web site, it doesn’t appear to me that they sell this with the barrel or action – it only comes as a stock.

Oleg Volk:

Reflective optics for artillery have been around since before World War One. With the massive rounds of the Great War, it makes sense – who would want to put their eye next to a scope ocular on a rifle with enough recoil to give shooters a black eye?

At first, these ambient light and half-mirror, “powered” reflex sights were confined to artillery and aircraft. They were simply too bulky and too daylight-dependent for small arms use. After World War Two, reflective optics were offered for sporting guns but were not considered suitable for individual military weapons.

Photo, Oleg Volk

The first “red dot” in relatively wide military use was actually an Armson OEG (occluded eye gunsight), a fiber optic presenting a bright dot to the dominant eye but occluding the target from it. The occlusion guaranteed a high-contrast aiming point, while the non-dominant eye would see the target, and the brain would superimpose the two for a sight picture. Although useful for short-range aiming and quick in use, OEG sights did not gain overwhelming popularity.

Around the end of the 20th century, the battery-operated Aimpoint red dot sight went mainstream with the US military as the M68 Close Combat Optic. Unlike a reflector sight that used a flat half-mirror and a lens-collimated optical source outside the line of sight, the M68 uses a curved semi-reflective mirror to direct the reticle toward the shooter’s eye. The use of a single-wavelength LED permits a long battery life and also allows the passing of all other wavelengths of light through the half-mirror.

There’s some history; read the interesting breakdown of advantages and disadvantages at the link. As always, readers’ insights and experience are welcomed.

American Hunter.

Had this scope been a first-focal-plane (FFP) scope, it would not have mattered at what magnification the scope was set, and we likely would have had 300 pounds of meat to haul out. In a FFP optic, as the reticle is etched or marked on a forward lens in the scope, the holdover hash marks below the crosshair would have been the same value, placing a bullet in the same place at 4X as they would have at 12X. However, this was a second-focal-plane scope, which means the reticle was marked or etched on a lens in the rear, closer to where you look into the scope.

Being a SFP scope, the reticle on my 4X-12X Bushnell will always appear the same size as the magnification is adjusted, but changing the magnification does change the hash marks on the reticle in relation to the target. This is where some of you readers may want to start looking through your scope and twisting that magnification ring. In the story above, at 300 yards, the second hashmark represents approximately 10.5 inches (3.5 inches x 300 yards) of drop at 12X magnification. At 4X magnification, that second hashmark just turned into 31.5 inches (12X = 10.5 inches; 12X/4X = 3 times more value; 10.5 inches x 3 = 31.5 inches). This hold at 4X put the bullet 20 inches over the intended point of impact.

With a FFP scope, the reticle will grow and shrink as you adjust the power ring. This does little good on a scope with a standard duplex reticle, as your only holding mark is the crosshair itself, centered at any power. Where FFP is a help is when you have a drop reticle with hashmarks for simple holdover or when you are using a system such as MIL-DOT. If the scope on that rifle had been a FFP scope with MIL-DOT subtensions, the magnification power would not have mattered as the second hashmark would always be a 10.5-inch value at 300 yards.

That’s all well and good, but that reticle sure does appear small on any power for a FFP scope.  If you plan on shooting from one ridge to another, a FFP scope is the best bet.  If you plan on shooting east of the Mississippi, you’re probably better off with a SFP scope.  I’ve had a FFP scope mounted and wished I had a SFP scope.

But YMMV and everyone has his preferences.