Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

David Kopel.

Early in the 18th century, rifle-makers from Germany and Switzerland began settling in Pennsylvania, in the Lancaster area. America was attracting skilled craftsmen immigrants who wanted to set up their own businesses, free from the repressive controls of the homeland.

In the UK or Germany, gunmakers usually had to belong to a trade guild. Entry into the guild was constricted. Guilds, as with other limits on suppliers, create oligopolies that reduce supply to consumers and increase profits to the limited number of suppliers. But in guild-free America, gunmakers could manufacture affordable arms for as many customers as they could find. The absence of guilds was one reason for the prevalence of guns in the American colonies.

It’s interesting to learn of the role liberty itself played in the proliferation of firearms in America due to the absence of oppressive guilds.  David continues in an explanation on when fighters preferred smooth bore guns versus rifled guns.  Then there is this interesting bit.

While European rifles generally had a caliber (interior bore diameter) of .60 or .75 inches, Americans preferred a smaller caliber, usually around .40 to .46, and sometimes as low as .32. A smaller caliber meant smaller bullets. One pound of lead will make 16 bullets for a .70 caliber gun, and 46 bullets for a .45 caliber. With the smaller caliber, a person on a hunting expedition that might last for weeks or months could carry a greater quantity of ammunition.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, yes?  Today the M-16 family of guns continues to be the staple of American fighting because of the smaller, lighter, higher velocity round it shoots.

I truly learn something every time I read Kopel.

So there is yet another post about magazine springs and whether they should be replaced, and if so, when.  This is in the same theme I wrote about several years ago when there was another little flurry of articles and posts about this.  I’m going to cover this ground one time for everyone.

Metal creep is caused from slippage of crystalline structures along boundary planes, whether FFC, BCC, or whatever.  One reader writes that “springs don’t wear out from compression.”  This is along the same lines as most of the [mistaken and incorrect] articles I linked the last time I addressed this issue that claimed that stainless steel doesn’t creep below the yield limit.

Do you know any piano tuners?  I do.  Yea, they have to go back a few days later and retune because of metal creep.  But most piano wires are carbon steel under high stress.  What about stainless steel?

Do not make the claim that stainless steel (like SS304) doesn’t suffer creep below the yield limit and at low temperatures.  Yes … it … does  (“In all tests at applied stress/yield strength ratios above 0.73 some plastic deformation was recorded”).

No offense, but don’t try to be an engineer if you’re not one. If you make the claim that SS304 (I presume the material of most magazine springs) doesn’t suffer from metal creep, you’d be wrong, and then you’d also be answering the question the wrong way.

The right way to look at the question is one of whether the creep is significant.  It usually isn’t, and it is less significant than for carbon steel.  It’s also not significant for applied stress/yield strength ratios lower than what the authors tested.  Where your specific magazine spring falls in this data set is best determined by the designer, not me (I don’t have drawings or any other design information).

Besides, for most readers, you aren’t loading 34+ magazines per day and putting 1000+ rounds downrange for 300+ days per year as a workup to deployment.  For 99.99% of the world, this is a pedantic question.  For those who do put that many rounds downrange and have to use the magazines bequeathed to you by predecessors who did the same thing for years, you will want to watch your feed and ensure that it’s smooth, consistent and reliable.  If it’s not, then change the magazine springs (or get new magazines – there could be another issue).  They’re cheap, and it’s no big deal.

Note: No warranty express or implied is included with this article.  Nothing here constitutes formal engineering counsel – you have to pay to get that.  Nothing here includes claims on any specific magazine spring, whether said spring is loaded to the right applied stress/yield strength ratio to cause deformation, or whether anyone reading this article needs to change magazine springs in any given situation.

Guns.com.

The competitor, Sgt. Benjamin Cleland of Swanton, Ohio, pulled off the feat at the National Rifle Association’s 2019 Charlie Smart Memorial Regional in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on June 2, with a score of 800-34x. This means Cleland not only notched 80 back-to-back hits in the 10-ring but that 34 of those nailed the even smaller “X” ring at the target’s dead center. For reference, at 600 yards, the 10-ring measures 12 inches while the “X” is 6 inches.

[ … ]

The 80-shot course is fired in four stages. This begins by firing 20 rounds from 200 yards in a standing position, followed by 20 sitting/kneeling, rapid-fire rounds before delivering 20 rounds from a prone position at 300 yards. The final stage, at 600 yards, consists of a further 20 rounds. A perfect score is 800, or 10 points for each round in the 10 ring.

The previous high score with a service rifle was a 798 set by Marine Gunnery Sgt. Julia L. Watson.

Service rifles in the match are limited to M16s, M14s and M1 Garands with a maximum of a 4.5x power scope.

That’s 1-2 MOA shooting for 80 straight rounds, some of it rapid fire.  That’s extremely consistent shooting.  That’s something we should all be striving for.

Outside:

I’m not anti-gun, nor am I a city-dwelling ideologue. I’ve lived in Montana for nearly 20 years, and I own guns. The only time I carry one into the woods, however, is to hunt. To kill game. That’s what they’re built to do.

I’ve been an outdoor writer and editor for nearly as long, covering everything from skiing and climbing to hunting and fishing. I own a backcountry guide service and operate exclusively in grizzly country, including some of the most bear-dense parts of Yellowstone. I’ve had dozens of grizzly encounters, run-ins with polar bears on Arctic ski expeditions, and more than a few awkward conversations with disturbed individuals over the years—all sans sidearm and no worse for wear. Some of these experiences were scary, but I’ve never pulled the trigger on my bear spray (much less a pistol), and every one of those encounters made me a better outdoorsman.

Honestly, every time I read one of these pieces my eyes just glaze over when I have to wade through their ridiculous creds.  Why can’t anyone simply say what they think?  Why do they have to trot out their creds?  You know, that’s “appealing to authority,” or in other words, it’s formally called the genetic fallacy.  But this guy still isn’t finished.

I’ve also worked as an armed courier, transporting millions of dollars in an armored Freightliner—a job that required defensive-firearms training and certification with law enforcement and former military contractors. Guns were part of my wardrobe, and I’m comfortable with almost any firearm you could put in my hand. It’s guns in other peoples’ hands that make me nervous.

I’m not going to cite statistics about rifles and pistols or their effectiveness in wilderness-self-defense scenarios (the outcomes are generally piss-poor).

I don’t know anything about this guy and I’ve never met him, but one thing we learn from his writing is that he’s either a liar or a very sloppy and careless man.  But you knew that already.  His allegations disagree with what we learned from the fantastic research work performed by Dean Weingarten concerning bear attacks.  So whatever else you think of what he says, just remember he’s lying or is just too stupid to know the real facts.

We are not in danger on our favorite hiking trails and in our national forests. In fact, these places are ridiculously safe

So if someone listens to him, he disarms himself and loved ones in the face of potential danger.

There are three practical reasons why carrying a gun in the backcountry is silly.

First, any responsible owner knows that the highest priority is the security of their weapon at all times. On the trail, that becomes a real issue, since there’s no way to safely store your weapon. Want to go for a quick swim? Sorry, you can’t leave your sidearm unattended. Need to head into town for a resupply? Public transportation is off-limits, and most businesses don’t allow firearms. Want to grab a cold beer at the local watering hole after a particularly humid stretch of trail? Bummer, because in most states guns aren’t allowed in bars.

Second, hikers and backpackers are notorious gram counters. Are you seriously going to agonize for months over how to save a few grams on your stove, tent, and shoes, and then pack two pounds of loaded pistol on your hip? You may as well carry an external frame pack and a canvas-wall tent.

Finally, and most importantly, carrying a gun changes the way we interact with and feel about others. For thru-hikers, the social element is an enormously rewarding part of the experience. They meet people from around the world, adopt kooky trail names, share information (including who might be sketchy or carrying a weapon), and coexist for a brief time in a remarkable place, doing a remarkable thing. Bring a firearm into that dynamic, and it won’t be the same. Others don’t know you—they don’t know your training, demeanor, judgment, or intelligence. All they know is that you have a weapon and, with it, the power to hurt them. And that’s all that truly matters. Guns intimidate.

So basically this all boils down to three things with him.  First, beer.  Second, weight.  Third, intimidation.  So if you like beer on the trail, or if you’re concerned about a couple of pounds that could save your life, or if you like to gather with folks who call each other by kooky names, then perhaps he has a point.  Or maybe not.  I didn’t have any problems with a couple of additional pounds, I never had beer on the trail, and I’ve just never worried about intimidation when I carry.  That’s not the point.

If you’re not experienced in the bush but very concerned about how people feel about you – in other words you’re a unique and special snowflake – this might be the guide for you.  On the other hand, he might get you killed too.  My bet is that for whatever reason he has been blessed in the bush, and he is conflating his lack of means of and need for self defense with something totally out of his control.

He isn’t in control over the disposition of wildlife or two-legged threats in his life.  On the other hand, he is indeed in control over his own decisions, and he has chosen the option less safe.  That’s his prerogative, just as it is mine to call him an idiot.

I agree with everything he says.  Sometimes gun owners can appear to be pricks to those who aren’t in the gun community and haven’t grown a thick skin like we have.  Off-putting is a good word for how newbies see this elitist behavior, and it becomes a sort of de facto gun control, whether you intend it or not.

OutdoorLife has the analysis.

There are rifles all the way from .22LR to .30-06, with a large collection of guns for 6mm Creedmoor and 6.5mm Creedmoor, and prices that range from around $600 – $6000.

There is one rifle there in 350 Legend, and they don’t seem to like it very much (mainly for the reason of lack of accuracy).  Tim Harmsen has the same complaint.

They’re favorite appears to be the new CZ 457 Varmint MTR in .22LR.  CZ seems to be making very good guns these days, and also appears to be trying to tailor their products to the American market.  John Lovell has a very good review of the CZ P10c.  I find the P10c to be an aesthetically pleasing gun.

Here’s the OutdoorLife video on the rimfire guns.

News from Connecticut.

Stag Arms, a New Britain manufacturer of automatic and semiautomatic AR-15 rifles, announced Friday it’s leaving the city for a yet-to-be-determined site that offers “significant support for the firearms industry.”

Good.  It couldn’t happen to a better state – or worse state – or whatever.  I hate that it took this long.  I hope Connecticut suffers financially from this at least a little bit.

News from Colorado.

About half of the state’s county sheriffs this week joined the battle against Colorado’s ban on gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, arguing that the law hinders peoples’ ability to defend themselves.

Although law enforcement are exempt from the ban, the sheriffs argued in their brief to the Colorado Supreme Court that civilians should have the same access to magazines as typical officers and deputies. If law enforcement agencies believe a magazine that holds 20 or 30 rounds is best for defense, then those magazines are the best option for regular people who want to defend themselves, the sheriffs argued.

“Citizens do and should copy sheriffs’ firearm and magazine selections so they will have reliable, sturdy arms for defense of self and others,” the brief stated. “These arms will be powerful enough for defense against violent criminals, and these arms will be appropriate for use in civil society, because sheriffs’ arms are not mass-killing military arms. Instead, sheriffs’ arms are best for defense of self and others, including against multiple attackers.”

Thirty county sheriffs, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association and the Independence Institute filed the brief on Monday in support of a group of gun rights advocates challenging the law’s constitutionality.

[ … ]

Sheriffs from three Denver-area counties — Denver, Boulder and Arapahoe — were absent from the list.

The sheriffs and others in the brief argued that magazines that hold 20 or 30 rounds should be categorized as standard magazines because they are commonly included in the sale of firearms by default. Sheriff’s deputies often carry magazines of those sizes with them on patrol.

The brief offered an alternative to the ban. The state could instead require that a person have a state concealed handgun permit in order to own a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, the sheriffs argued.

Okay, I see how this works.  An outright ban is unconstitutional, but seeking approval for the object from the controllers isn’t because we say so.  The brief looked good up until that point.

Actually, I have one other nit.  I would argue that rather than “citizens copy[ing] Sheriffs’ firearm and magazine selections,” Sheriffs and the military alike copy our firearm selections.  The best, most difficult, most grueling test for any firearm is on the open market among the working man.

The military buys from the low bidder.  The working man tells others about what doesn’t work and that becomes common knowledge.

I lied.  I have one other nit.  I would argue that Sheriffs are citizens too.

You might be interested in this.