Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

This Magpul Extended Minute demonstrates what I find to be good practice.  But you can always shoot in single action with the hammer cocked (even with DA revolvers), which gives you a trigger pull as light as a 1911.

Hunter’s Corner:

James is also an avid reloader. We had a good chuckle over the latest wonder rifle cartridge, the 6.5 Creedmoor. In 1896 the 6.5 x 55 Swedish Mauser was introduced to the shooting public. It was a smokeless powder cartridge. It became the most popular moose rife in Sweden and probably still is. When the .270 Winchester was introduced to the shooting public the date on the .270 was very close to the 6.5 x 55. In my teen years I wanted to get one but all that was available was war surplus.

Now comes the 6.5 Creedmoor which if you look closely at the 6.5 stats it is very close to the .270. I don’t remember the .270 ever being suggested as a 1,000-yard rifle. Don’t get me wrong, the 6.5 Creedmoor is a welcomed addition to the shooting community, but is the cost of the ammunition worth it? Next time you are at a retailer, check out the price of .270 ammunition compared to 6.5 Creedmoor ammo.

By the way, a friend of mine hunts with a 6.5, loves it, and has taken a monster Maine buck with it. As for me, when I am hunting in a rifle-authorized area, I will continue to use my .270.

There’s nothing wrong with either one, but remember, the 6.5 Creedmoor is a short action cartridge (based on the .308 case) while the .270 is a long action cartridge (based on the .30-06 case).  That means the 6.5 Creedmoor is easier to deal with in semi-auto.

At any rate, I think he’s exaggerating the price of the 6.5 Creedmoor.  There is a wider variability in prices for the 6.5, so for a 20-round box you can spend less than a dollar a round, but as much as $2 per round.  On the other hand, pretty much all of the 6.5 is available for less than $1 per round if you buy in bulk through someone like Lucky Gunner.

Via David Hardy, some useful tests on suppressors.

For our testing purposes, we used a *Larson Davis Model LxT1-QPR Sound Level Meter.

We recorded both suppressed and non-suppressed readings, using the z-weighting method of measuring high pressure levels. This method of measurement is also referred to as linear or unweighted.

Unweighted is a more accurate method of evaluating potential hearing damage and is the best method to use when testing firearms. MIL-STD 1474D is considered the military standard for measuring sound. Following these standards, we placed the microphone 1 meter to the left of the muzzle and 1.6 meters above the ground, with the microphone pointing upward, at a 90 degree angle to the bore. All testing was completed away from any reflecting surfaces, as to not negatively affect the audio readings.

We compared five of the most popular handgun and rifle calibers available on the market today, testing 30 different SKUs of ammunition in the process. Then, we test fired five rounds suppressed and three unsuppressed with each brand of ammo to find an average dB level.

[ … ]

Unsuppressed, we recorded an average of 166-171 dB for the 16″ and 20″ AR15 rifles.  When shooting with a silencer, the levels come in at an average of  135-145dB. That’s an average reduction of 36dB between the unsuppressed and suppressed shots.

We observed a change of only 1-4dB between the two barrel lengths, both suppressed and unsuppressed.

Of all the rifle calibers tested, the loudest average unsuppressed measurement of 172.87 dB came from the 18” Ruger American Predator, firing .308 Win Federal Gold Medal Berger 185gr. OTM ammo. The same ammunition fired with a suppressor came in at an average of 148.4 dB.

[ … ]

We saw comparable results for 45 ACP as we did with 9mm. The average unsuppressed levels, which were some of the loudest results for the pistol calibers, came in at average of 165-167 dB, while the average suppressed levels came in 21-26 dB lower, ranging from 141-146 dB.

This is useful, but I do have one gripe with the data and the explanation.  An unweighted measurement of sound is not the best or most useful for evaluating hearing damage, regardless of what their cited Mil Std does or doesn’t say.

OSHA uses A-weighting because that is the weighting that most closely approximates the effect of frequency differences on the ear.  So does NIOSH, and ACGIH.  That’s what the military should be doing.

A very good and informative video, well worth the time.

Savage Arms has been sold.  Providing further news and perspective on this sale, American Rifleman.

More than a year after Vista Outdoor raised eyebrows by placing its Savage Arms business unit on the block, completion of the sale was announced July 8. Press releases from Vista listed the total purchase price as $170 million and said that the buyer—Long Range Acquisition LLC, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing—is a “group of investors headed by Savage President and CEO Al Kasper.”

When Vista’s intentions regarding Savage became known last spring, some pro-gun commentators reflexively feared that the Minnesota-based conglomerate was abandoning the firearm industry amid a wave of craven corporate virtue-signaling in the wake of the Parkland tragedy. As it turned out, the Savage divesture was part of a larger, ongoing strategy by Vista to reduce debt by selling assets outside of its core business of ammunition, optics and other shooting and hunting accessories. At the time, newly arrived Vista CEO Chris Metz told American Rifleman, “I’m a big believer that new products are the lifeblood of our industry, that the reason someone goes out and buys a new 20-gauge shotgun or .30-‘06 hunting rifle is probably not because they truly need one, but because whatever is new is news. All of our brands are vying for funds to feed product innovation. We sat down, took stock and strategically laid out which brands and which businesses we think we can invest in and grow.”

It makes no difference to me whether Savage Arms is owned by Vista Outdoor or someone else, as long as that someone else doesn’t do what was done to Remington (unload debt, suck off the resources via “financial engineering” tactics).

It sounds like this might be a good move if the Savage President and CEO heads the group, but we may have to wait and see.

I consider Savage to be one of the best large firearm manufacturers left.  I’d like to see them stay strong.

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.