Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Every engineer loves real data.

At Forgotten Weapons, Ian McCollum is asked:  “Have there been any attempts to make miniaturized man-portable chain guns? Do you think there’s a future for such a machine gun given modern advances in energy storage?”

Chain guns are a specific type of externally-powered machine gun. They have a single barrel, and used a loop of chain to control the movement of the breech and feed system of a machine gun so that it cycles under external power independent of energy taken from the firing cartridge. They are most commonly used in:

– 20mm-30mm cannons
– Armored vehicle turrets
– Helicopters
– Naval AA mounts

Read the rest and watch the video in which he offers an interesting explanation of the functionality and history. Most of the commenters add interesting pieces of knowledge about these weapons systems.

Via The Gun Feed

Ammoland.

According to UPS’ “How to Ship Firearms” webpage, nearly everything must have a serial number.

Any item that meets the definition of a firearm (including firearm mufflers or silencers) or a “frame” or “receiver” under federal law (including any partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver as defined by 27 CFR § 478.12) must be identified and bear a serial number in satisfaction of the requirements for identifying such items under federal law, including 27 CFR § 478.92 and/or 27 CFR § 479.102, regardless of whether any such items are otherwise exempt from or not subject to identification requirements under applicable law.  This prohibition applies even before the effective date of 27 CFR § 478.12.

UPS does not accept Firearm Products for shipment domestically unless (1) such shipments are in full compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, including, without limitation, age restrictions; (2) such firearms, including any partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver (as defined by 27 CFR § 478.12), have been identified and bear a serial number in a manner that complies with federal law; and (3) such firearm parts within a package cannot be assembled to form a firearm.

By far, the strictest document is the shipping agreement between UPS and a licensed firearm dealer.

Before making any Firearm Products Shipment under this Agreement, Shipper must submit to UPS, by email to customercompliance@ups.com complete, current and accurate licensing documentation of Shipper’s federal firearms license, as well as satisfactory completion of, and compliance with, any other applicable licensing requirements, including any applicable state requirements. Shipper may not tender Firearm Products Shipments to UPS unless and until UPS has confirmed receipt in writing of Shipper’s licensing documentation.

The agreement holds the dealer responsible for complying with all applicable laws, as well as developing their own “shipper compliance program.”

The compliance program must “include: (1) training for sales and marketing employees regarding lawful recipients, possessors, and purchasers of Firearm Products; (2) due diligence regarding customer licensure or authorization to receive, possess, and purchase Firearm Products under applicable federal, state, or local law; and (3) self-assessments of the Shipper Compliance Program to guarantee its effectiveness.”

That’s too bad.  That’s another option off the books.  Soon we’ll be limited to driving firearms where we intend for them to go.

I once gifted a revolver to someone in another state, and sent it to an FFL as per appropriate legal stipulations.  UPS won’t pick it up at your home, nor can you send it at a local office.  You have to go to a hub and declare it.

That’s all in the past now.  It all has to go through an FFL.  Only FFLs can ship through UPS.

Chalk another win for the anti-gun lobby and fear mongers.

I’ll set up an entirely hypothetical situation for you.

A potential buyer sees a used rifle that is a classic and cannot be obtained new (it’s no longer made).  It’s noted by the gunsmith to be in good or very good condition with only customary wear marks on the receiver and stock.  The exception mentioned is that there is a “patch” of corrosion in the barrel near the muzzle.

Brownells has a video up from years ago dealing with rust, mainly relying on solvent and brushing, with more work to be done by a gunsmith with bluing afterwards if necessary.

The 1911 forum also has some home remedies like use of lemon juice and water (which it is claimed doesn’t hurt the bluing).

Readers are welcome to weigh in on remedies for rust.  The price is reasonable.  In this hypothetical situation, should the buyer beware of the “patch” of corrosion beyond a certain point?  The rifle is noted by the seller to be still good for hunting and target shooting, so they don’t think the gun has reached a point where this patch is a problem.

There were too many useful reviews of gear and guns to make into individual posts, so they’re all dropped into this one.

Outdoor Life has a review entitled The Best Gun Belts of 2022.

All Outdoor has a review of the Mystery Ranch Three Day Assault Pack.  They like it, and so do I (from a distance).  I saw a SpecOps guy wearing it while taking my family biking in Virginia one time and stopped him and asked him about it.  He saw me eyeballing him and I didn’t even finish the question before he gave me an answer.  He especially liked the 3-Zip design that lets you get into the pack for needful items without emptying the pack.  But at $385 it’s a bit pricey for me.

Outdoor Life has an article on how quarter of a million dollar shotguns are made if you’re rich and that’s your thing.

This guy is yet another satisfied customer and user of the Beretta 1301 combat shotgun.

Shooting Illustrated has a review of the CZ 600 Alpha hunting rifle.  We’ve discussed this many times before.  The polymer furniture makes it capable of being in the rain or taking a bump or bruise without showing the damage, but the Walnut stocks are so pretty.

TFB: Don’t buy Turkish made shotguns.

SOFREP has a review of the Franchi Affinity 3 field shotgun.  Is it me or do shotgun manufacturers seem to be dovetailing into the same sort of external design as the Beretta A400, Benelli and Browning Maximus 2?  No, it’s not just me.  While some things will never change (Beretta is gas operated while Benelli is inertial), the external features are trending towards the same sort of smooth lines, large controls, large charging handle, Camo pattern wrap or Cerekote, etc.

Readers can add in the comments or discuss guns or gear you’d like to see discussed or reviewed.

Writer Nick Harvey (from Australia) addresses a question from a reader.

Q: For years Marlin promoted Micro-Groove rifling as enhancing the accuracy of their rifles. If this is true, why don’t they use it on their big-bore rifles in .444 and .45-70? This has got me wondering if Micro-Groove rifling isn’t just another sales gimmick.

– Dave Edwards

A: Over the years I’ve tested quite a few Marlin rifles which had Micro-Groove rifling and found them to be very accurate.

For a while it was used on big-bore rifles, but then a problem reared its ugly head: the fine rifling does not work well with lead bullets unless you are super careful when reloading with regard to the alloys and velocities you are using.

Many handloaders found that when using lead bullets, especially at higher velocities, Micro-Groove barrels leaded up badly.

Marlin got so many complaints about this that they went back to ‘regular’ rifling, which Marlin calls Ballard-type. I believe the .30-30 and .35 Remington still had Micro-Groove rifling, because these calibres are generally used with jacketed bullets.

Ruger has now begun limited production of Marlin lever-guns under its ownership, and so far only of the Model 1895 in .45-70 with standard six-groove barrels. It’s not yet clear whether they’ll use Micro-Groove rifling future production.

On the subject of accuracy: back in the 1960s Marlin claimed a Micro-Groove barrel was 25% more accurate one with than conventional rifling. True or false? Search me! I’ve never noticed any difference when shooting lever-guns with either type of rifling.

Great answer, and thanks for the perspective and information.  I didn’t know that.

I was talking to an FFL a few days ago about Marlin’s production line, and he said that word on the street is that the 30-30 won’t be the next rifle they produce.  I forgot which one he told me was next, but I hope it’s the .35 Remington.  I don’t think it was.  Of course, there are still Marlin 336s in .35 Remington to be had, but the ones in excellent condition are going for > $1500.

If any FFLs out there are reading and have access to more information on what Marlin (Ruger) is producing next in line, let us know in the comments.

I’d like to have one.  On a final note, I’ve never seen 30-30 ammunition that was unjacketed, so his answer makes good sense.

Source.

Four Walmart customers were injured on Sunday afternoon in a mishap involving the mishandling of a handgun.

The incident took place at a Walmart location in Lovejoy, Georgia, at around 12:20 p.m. According to Sergeant Akeem Turnbull with the Lovejoy Police Department, a patron at the store, 29-year-old Michael Walton, was carrying a handgun in an unsafe manner, causing it to slip and go off.

“The gun was in his waistband not holstered and loaded,” Turnbull explained to local news station WSB-TV. “The gun slipped down his leg, he attempted to grab it, and was somehow manipulating the weapon and discharged the firearm.”

Four at one time.  My goodness!

Don’t do that.  Bob Owens was quick to point out that if your gun drops, don’t try to catch it.

Unless of course you’re carrying a 1911 with a legitimate safety.

Firearm retention is more than just about making sure undesirables don’t snatch your weapon.  It’s also about making sure you don’t lose it yourself.

I think both bullets did their job very well.  I take it the Hornady round would be great for Eastern white tail, while the Buffalo Bore monolithic round would be great for defense against dangerous game.

Dean Weingarten has an exposé on the status of Young v. Hawaii.  I knew this and had read the reports, but the interesting thing about this is that in the comments section, Charles Nichols drops by the make an extended comment.

I suspect that the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel would like to issue an opinion that says states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. However, there are a couple of jurisdictional problems with the en banc panel doing that.

The first is the Young v. Hawaii three-judge panel was bound by the Peruta v. San Diego en banc panel opinion and held that there is only a right to Open Carry. Neither side fled an en banc petition challenging either that holding of the three-judge panel opinion or the Peruta v. San Diego en banc panel opinion.

The State of Hawaii did file an en banc petition limited to the Open Carry holding of the three-judge panel, which was granted.

During the en banc oral argument, Mr. Young’s attorney (Alan Beck) was asked point blank if he was challenging the Peruta v. San Diego en banc opinion which held that there is no right to concealed carry. He said that he was not challenging Peruta v. San Diego, en banc.

Putting all of that together, the en banc panel does not have the jurisdiction to decide anything other than whether or not the denial of Mr. Young’s permit to openly carry a handgun violated the Second Amendment. And the en banc panel might not even decide that question because there were a couple of reasons given by the en banc panel, that were independent of the Second Amendment, for upholding the decision of the district court.

My California Open Carry lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al, does not challenge the Peruta v. San Diego en banc panel opinion either. My lawsuit is not limited to handguns. I challenge California’s bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns. I also challenge the license requirement.

My three-judge panel asked for supplemental briefing. The Young v. Hawaii en banc panel has not. Supplemental briefing was completed in my appeal on August 8th.

So if I read this right, Young was about open carry alone.  Peruta was about concealed carry alone.  The Nichols case is about open carry alone, and in California, not Hawaii (although presumably deciding for Nichols in California would be favorable to Young and vice versa).

The trouble is that Bruen didn’t decide open carry, and thus we are left with patchwork rulings and patchwork laws in states.

I continue to maintain that gentlemen, good citizens and men of fine upbringing don’t mind openly carrying their weapons in public.  It is for the good and peace of the country.

It might be more accurate to do this while the rifle is in a vise.