Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Prior:

First Focal Plane Versus Second Focal Plane

The Importance Of Setting Your Parallax

Shooting Illustrated.

Proofing—as the term pertains to firearms—refers to the test of a fully assembled firearm or component of a firearm with a high-pressure cartridge, or series of cartridges in the case of a revolver, that can be as much as 30-percent higher pressure than the recommended industry safety standard for a given round.

It is essentially a stress test on a firearm or component of a firearm by firing one or more “proof cartridges” to ensure the structural integrity of the gun or part being tested. Once the proof cartridge or cartridges are fired, the gun is inspected to verify no damage to any of the parts of the gun has incurred. If none was sustained from the proofing procedure, the firearm is deemed mechanically sound and ready to enter the distribution chain.

Depending on the manufacturer and/or country of origin, the frame, barrel and slide of a pistol may be stamped with a mark signifying successful completion of the test procedure. Other firearms may have proofmarks stamped into the frame and/or the barrel by itself.

In some cases, only the barrel is tested since it is the primary component containing the pressure of the ammunition. This is usually done in product designs that have a history of durability and reliability as a cost-saving method of manufacturing.

In addition, barrels that have quick-change or drop-in capability in multiple frames are usually proofed individually and are stamped in a conspicuous location as verification that they have been tested.

When proofing a complete firearm, the whole gun must be placed in an enclosed fixture and triggered remotely for safety purposes in case of a failure during the discharge of the high-pressure ammunition.

Proofing a barrel individually is much simpler, even though it, too, must be tested in an enclosed fixture for safety in the unlikely event of failure.

The time it takes to proof a barrel by itself as opposed to a whole firearm is significantly less. From an economic perspective, this is the best option for manufacturers to take without compromising safety.

Generally speaking, once a firearm has been proofed, it is proofed for the life of the gun unless some major changes have occurred to the parts managing the pressure of a cartridge when fired. A gunsmith restoring or rebuilding a gun may have the occasion to re-proof a firearm, but for the average gun owner it should not be a particular concern.

Added to that, proof ammunition is highly regulated and generally unavailable to those who do not either manufacture or remanufacture firearms.

While not dangerous in highly specialized, extremely limited use, prolonged firing of proof ammunition would be harmful to the gun and therefore detrimental to both shooter safety and his or her investment.

It’s called proof of principle, and the principle is engineering design margin.  Manufacturers who do not do this should be shunned.

I actually didn’t know that proof ammunition is “highly regulated.”  It shouldn’t be.  If I want to purchase it, I should be able to purchase it.

I see proof ammunition as similar to 450 SMC (or 460 Rowland), which I should only be shooting in .45 ACP guns that have been inspected and modified with a stiffer spring.  Most manufacturers will tell you that, for example, our gun will shoot +P ammunition, but “We don’t recommend feeding the gun a steady diet of +P ammunition.”

How I run my gun is up to me, but I’m an engineer and I think hard about these things.

I wouldn’t have know how to work some of these.

News from the world of deer hunting.

This is what happens when you don’t use a lanyard / safety rope with a prusik knot.

He doesn’t really give you a best (except to say that he still prefers bolt action), he surveys what’s out there.

Via reader Ned, who says a hunting cartridge can’t go in an ELR gun?  The trick is that it takes some time and expertise.

American Rifleman.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) released the 2020 edition of its Firearm Production Report to members this month, and among its findings is the fact that civilian interest and ownership of modern sporting rifles continues to skyrocket. Since 1990, according to the study, an estimated 19.8 million have been manufactured and put into circulation.

Forty-eight percent of all firearms produced in the United States or imported in 2018 were modern sporting rifles. Despite the manufacturing focus, inventories remained low across the nation, and this year’s firearm sales pace has left many retailers without models to sell.

There are approximately 79.2 million rifle magazines capable of holding 30 or more rounds in circulation—nearly all of them modern sporting rifle versions. The potentially lifesaving advantage of not having to reload during a criminal encounter isn’t overlooked by pistol owners, either. Roughly 71.2 million handgun magazines capable of holding more than 10 cartridges are owned by enthusiasts today.

Lots of luck trying to confiscate all of those guns.  That’s an impossible task.

However, there’s something that bears repeating, and it’s a point of second amendment logic brought up by David Codrea a couple of days ago.

And as few “gunpundits” seem to see, no matter how long you give them, “in common use” is not about popularity. It is about “every terrible implement of the soldier,” that is, “ordinary military equipment” capable of enabling citizens to prevail in “common defense” battles.  Were it otherwise, withholding new technology from We the People would be all tyrants would need to keep it forever out of “common use.”

Make sure to ponder the point he’s making, and focus on the last sentence of his paragraph.  If “common use” had to do with popularity contests, then the whole edifice of the second amendment collapses.

A tyrannical government could (illegally) keep them from being produced for or distributed to the public, and then claim in court (or the court of public opinion) that although our standing army has such weaponry, since they are not in common use among the public (from which the militia comes), the second amendment doesn’t apply to those weapons.

This becomes a “de facto” argument (which is a formal logical fallacy) by themselves nefariously ensuring the preconditions for waiving and cessation of the right.

Never forget what the founders really intended, regardless of the machinations of the lawyers – and ignore the dense gun bloggers who fail to point these things out.

This is a different sort of video for Tim, who doesn’t do revolvers.  I do, and while it technically failed his test, it did better than he thought it would.  I have to confess that I hated to see a nice wheel gun done that way.