During the late 1970's and early 1980's there was magazine push for conical bullets. Conical bullets were based on the French Arcane bullets. The bullet was cone shaped at about 65 or 70 degrees and came to a fine, sharp point. There was no meplat for this bullet. The concept was when the bullet hit its target, the sharp angle of the bullet wedges its way through what it hits and creates a huge wound channel that expanded as more material was piled off to the sides of the cone shaped bullet. They used to call it the Snowplow effect.
There was another, similar bullet design called the Spelunker. It was also cone shaped, but it came to a rounded tip rather then a sharp point.
In ballistic gelatin and clay models these bullet forms created a very large temporary wound channel. I have not ever seen any data on real wound ballistic with these bullets. I have also not seen any data on why these forms, so heavily promoted 25 years ago, disappeared except for a a few different moulds.
I think that these rounds, whether or not they are perform any better then standard expanding or fragmenting bullets, are probably better for feeding purposes then even FMJ's. Who knows? There is an old saying about fashion, "old is new again."
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
9mm or 45 acp?
My best friend and I were in his truck after grabbing a bite and he asks me, "So, what should I get; 9mm or 45?"
I asked him, "Well, depends on what you are getting it for?"
He then replies, "I want it for CCW."
This led into a long discussion on whether this was to be a weapon he actually carried or one that stayed in his night table. Eventually, he got frustrated with my questions ans just asked me "Why can't you just tell me which one to get? What's so hard about that question?"
I shrugged and looked at him, "There is no right answer. It's a personal choice over which fits you better for your needed purpose. I was asking you questions only you can answer and allowing you to pick what works for you. There is no right answer. It's a compromise."
I went on to explain that a 9mm pistol tends to hold more rounds then a 45 and is often smaller, lighter, and can be thinner..making it a little easier to conceal. A 45acp is generally agreed to have more stopping power, at the cost of a thicker, heavier, and slightly more difficult weapon to conceal. Also, a 45 acp weapon in a sub-compact size would probably not be all that pleasant to practice with, while the 9 mm would be less bruising in a tiny package.
I did steer him away from a full fized weapon, like a Glock 19 and similar ilk and lead him to something a little more easily concealable. In the end he decided to go for the ultimate compromise cartridge, thr 40 S&W....almost the capacity of a 9mm with almost the stopping power of a 45 ACP in a 9 mm package.
Now comes the tough part...and fun part...to the rental range !
I asked him, "Well, depends on what you are getting it for?"
He then replies, "I want it for CCW."
This led into a long discussion on whether this was to be a weapon he actually carried or one that stayed in his night table. Eventually, he got frustrated with my questions ans just asked me "Why can't you just tell me which one to get? What's so hard about that question?"
I shrugged and looked at him, "There is no right answer. It's a personal choice over which fits you better for your needed purpose. I was asking you questions only you can answer and allowing you to pick what works for you. There is no right answer. It's a compromise."
I went on to explain that a 9mm pistol tends to hold more rounds then a 45 and is often smaller, lighter, and can be thinner..making it a little easier to conceal. A 45acp is generally agreed to have more stopping power, at the cost of a thicker, heavier, and slightly more difficult weapon to conceal. Also, a 45 acp weapon in a sub-compact size would probably not be all that pleasant to practice with, while the 9 mm would be less bruising in a tiny package.
I did steer him away from a full fized weapon, like a Glock 19 and similar ilk and lead him to something a little more easily concealable. In the end he decided to go for the ultimate compromise cartridge, thr 40 S&W....almost the capacity of a 9mm with almost the stopping power of a 45 ACP in a 9 mm package.
Now comes the tough part...and fun part...to the rental range !
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
HK VP70
I have friends who talk about Glocks as being the be all and end all of the gun world. While I respect the Glock for revolutionizing the market place and peoples minds for buying "Tupperware," it is by no means an original design.
Polymers have been used in pistols and rifles for years. Heck, in 1959 the Remington Nylon 66 22 rifle was produced It's stock was made of "Zytel" which is currently used in a bunch of Ruger and other pistol frames. This is long before the Glock introduction in 1983/1984. Striker fired weapons have been around for many, many years, at least since the early 1900's and possibly much earlier. One of the earliest striker fired pistols was the Dresye 1907 model pistol.
The first polymer framed pistol is generally accepted to be Heckler and Kochs VP70. Hk's VP70 was introduced in 1970, 13+ years before Glocks hit the market. The VP70 was a semi-auto pistol until a shoulder stock was attached, in which case a mechanism was actuated that allowed it to fire in 3 round bursts. A civilian version was made without the three round burst capability.
Glocks other claim to fame is its "Safe Action." Almost all modern guns have a firing pin safety to prevent accidental discharge when dropped. And let's face it.. a safety built onto a trigger is just useless. How is a safety on a trigger supposed to prevent the gun from firing when most people will have their fingers on the trigger when pointing the gun at something.
So, the moral to my story is Glocks are great pistols, but are not the revolution in technology Glock owners think they were.
Polymers have been used in pistols and rifles for years. Heck, in 1959 the Remington Nylon 66 22 rifle was produced It's stock was made of "Zytel" which is currently used in a bunch of Ruger and other pistol frames. This is long before the Glock introduction in 1983/1984. Striker fired weapons have been around for many, many years, at least since the early 1900's and possibly much earlier. One of the earliest striker fired pistols was the Dresye 1907 model pistol.
The first polymer framed pistol is generally accepted to be Heckler and Kochs VP70. Hk's VP70 was introduced in 1970, 13+ years before Glocks hit the market. The VP70 was a semi-auto pistol until a shoulder stock was attached, in which case a mechanism was actuated that allowed it to fire in 3 round bursts. A civilian version was made without the three round burst capability.
Glocks other claim to fame is its "Safe Action." Almost all modern guns have a firing pin safety to prevent accidental discharge when dropped. And let's face it.. a safety built onto a trigger is just useless. How is a safety on a trigger supposed to prevent the gun from firing when most people will have their fingers on the trigger when pointing the gun at something.
So, the moral to my story is Glocks are great pistols, but are not the revolution in technology Glock owners think they were.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Bond, James Bond
The coolest pistol, to me, when I was a kid was James Bond's Walther PPK. It was supposed to be in 32 ACP and was declared, "A real man stopper," by Q. It always looked cool as hell in all those movie posters, with the Bond pose.
Knowing what I know now, I still want one..even in the same caliber. The pistol was made in 22LR, 25 ACP, 32 ACP, and even 380 Auto. The 32 ACP was the most common produced. It is a copy of the Walther PP, which when introduced in 1929 was a major improvement on other small pistols of the time. It was the first auto pistol to be made in double action. The PPK is a slightly smaller gun then the PP, with s 3.15 inch barrel, about 0.2 inches shorter then the PP.
Both the PP and PPK are still being made today, by a large number of companies. It has been copied by the Soviets and the rest of the Warsaw Pact as the Makarov. The real PP and PPK's made by Walther command a heavy price over other pistols of the same size, running 200 to 300 dollars more then other pistols. A new PP can run 400 to 650 dollars, brand new.
Lately, Bond has been seen with another Walther, the P99, although for a while during the 80's and 90's was using an ASP in 9 mm. Even still, who doesn't want Mr. Bonds gun.
Knowing what I know now, I still want one..even in the same caliber. The pistol was made in 22LR, 25 ACP, 32 ACP, and even 380 Auto. The 32 ACP was the most common produced. It is a copy of the Walther PP, which when introduced in 1929 was a major improvement on other small pistols of the time. It was the first auto pistol to be made in double action. The PPK is a slightly smaller gun then the PP, with s 3.15 inch barrel, about 0.2 inches shorter then the PP.
Both the PP and PPK are still being made today, by a large number of companies. It has been copied by the Soviets and the rest of the Warsaw Pact as the Makarov. The real PP and PPK's made by Walther command a heavy price over other pistols of the same size, running 200 to 300 dollars more then other pistols. A new PP can run 400 to 650 dollars, brand new.
Lately, Bond has been seen with another Walther, the P99, although for a while during the 80's and 90's was using an ASP in 9 mm. Even still, who doesn't want Mr. Bonds gun.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
America's Military Small Arms
I find it odd that the country who made semi-auto small arms the standard while the rest of the world was still using bolt action and single shot weapons doesn't even design its own weapons any more. The M1911 and M1 Garand were the among the first semi-auto small arms to be widely distributed to all it's troops.
Now, we are equalled or exceeded in small arms by most "modern" countries. With the amount of money our military gets each year, more then 400 billion last year, we should have the finest small arms in the world. And, U.S. defense contractors should be at the forefront of small arms.
Instead, our troops are armed with the M9, which was designed by Beretta. It's not a bad gun and it "won" the shoot off with with another foreign weapon, a Sig. Heck, it's even a 9 mm Parabellum, designed by the German's.
They are also armed with the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, a light machine gun, designed by FN, a Belgium company. This is a variant of FN's widely used Minimi weapon. The M240 Medium Machine Gun is also an FN design, a variant of the Belgium company's FN-MAG.
Even our special forces are using HK MP5's submachine guns, HK SOCOM, both made in Germany, as well as the Mk24 (Sig 226) designed and made in Germany and Switzerland.
Now, for sniping use, the M24 and M40's are American designed and built. It's a modified Remington 700 rifle. Thank God for shotguns...those American designed and built pump action beauties: Remington 870, Mossberg 500 and 590's. Oh..wait. What about the M1014? That's a Benelli M4 Super 90, semi-auto shotgun... designed and made in Italy. Crap....!
Well, at least we have the old gal, M2..Ma Deuce... Fifty Cal, heavy machine gun designed by John Browning in 1921 and our standard heavy machine gun. The M60 medium machine gun is still in service. too and it is American, but neither of these guns are carried around all that much. They spend a lot fo their time mounted to helicopters and other vehicles. Not exactly a small arm.
OH, wait... we have the M16/M4...yippie! Err, not. The Jam-o-matic, by Mattel, I mean Armalite/Colt. It's accurate and as reliable as a... ummm, as a, umm...a Yugo. But the standard bullet is a Belgium designed SS109. can't even win there, on a caliber we forced on NATO.
Now, I am not saying S&W or Colt should win contract just because they are American companies, but one would think our companies would be competitive. We will see. As the two wars wear on, equipment is wearing out fast. Hopefully, our troops will have the best within the next decade.
Now, we are equalled or exceeded in small arms by most "modern" countries. With the amount of money our military gets each year, more then 400 billion last year, we should have the finest small arms in the world. And, U.S. defense contractors should be at the forefront of small arms.
Instead, our troops are armed with the M9, which was designed by Beretta. It's not a bad gun and it "won" the shoot off with with another foreign weapon, a Sig. Heck, it's even a 9 mm Parabellum, designed by the German's.
They are also armed with the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, a light machine gun, designed by FN, a Belgium company. This is a variant of FN's widely used Minimi weapon. The M240 Medium Machine Gun is also an FN design, a variant of the Belgium company's FN-MAG.
Even our special forces are using HK MP5's submachine guns, HK SOCOM, both made in Germany, as well as the Mk24 (Sig 226) designed and made in Germany and Switzerland.
Now, for sniping use, the M24 and M40's are American designed and built. It's a modified Remington 700 rifle. Thank God for shotguns...those American designed and built pump action beauties: Remington 870, Mossberg 500 and 590's. Oh..wait. What about the M1014? That's a Benelli M4 Super 90, semi-auto shotgun... designed and made in Italy. Crap....!
Well, at least we have the old gal, M2..Ma Deuce... Fifty Cal, heavy machine gun designed by John Browning in 1921 and our standard heavy machine gun. The M60 medium machine gun is still in service. too and it is American, but neither of these guns are carried around all that much. They spend a lot fo their time mounted to helicopters and other vehicles. Not exactly a small arm.
OH, wait... we have the M16/M4...yippie! Err, not. The Jam-o-matic, by Mattel, I mean Armalite/Colt. It's accurate and as reliable as a... ummm, as a, umm...a Yugo. But the standard bullet is a Belgium designed SS109. can't even win there, on a caliber we forced on NATO.
Now, I am not saying S&W or Colt should win contract just because they are American companies, but one would think our companies would be competitive. We will see. As the two wars wear on, equipment is wearing out fast. Hopefully, our troops will have the best within the next decade.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
torture tests
Contrary to Glockheads, Gaston Glock did not invent either the polymer pistol (HK VP70, 1970, 14 years before Glock) nor the torture test. Long before Glock was even born, torture tests were done on weapons of all shapes and sizes. Even in 1910, the U.S. Army did a 6000 round torture test of the soon-to-be M1911. I am sure we can did through the internet and find even early tests of this sort.
The torture test, while it seems exciting, if not a valid test of a weapons durability under normal circumstances. What's the point in shooting 3000 to 5000 rounds in a single day when most people will not shoot that many rounds through a weapon in their entire lives? The weapon gets incredibly hot and the wear and tear on it is far beyond normal usage. This is equivalent to the difference between running a car at 65 mph for 100,000 miles over 6 years or that same car at 130 mph nonstop for 100,000 miles. The car simply was not designed for the latter.
Freezing, superheating, running the gun over with a vehicle, etc etc etc are just silly distractions to the real testing of a gun. I want to know it's accuracy, ergonomics, and simple reliability. I call simple reliability the ability of a gun to, after a break in period, to make it through a reasonable amount of firing, without jams or breakages. Reasonable amount would be 100 to 150 rounds, through several magazines. Intentionally trying to break a gun is just plan silly.
The torture test, while it seems exciting, if not a valid test of a weapons durability under normal circumstances. What's the point in shooting 3000 to 5000 rounds in a single day when most people will not shoot that many rounds through a weapon in their entire lives? The weapon gets incredibly hot and the wear and tear on it is far beyond normal usage. This is equivalent to the difference between running a car at 65 mph for 100,000 miles over 6 years or that same car at 130 mph nonstop for 100,000 miles. The car simply was not designed for the latter.
Freezing, superheating, running the gun over with a vehicle, etc etc etc are just silly distractions to the real testing of a gun. I want to know it's accuracy, ergonomics, and simple reliability. I call simple reliability the ability of a gun to, after a break in period, to make it through a reasonable amount of firing, without jams or breakages. Reasonable amount would be 100 to 150 rounds, through several magazines. Intentionally trying to break a gun is just plan silly.
Friday, January 25, 2008
50 round drum magazines
There are some products for guns that just make you shake your head and wonder why they made it. Promag has a 1911-magazines in the shape of a snail drum that holds 50..yes 50 rounds. Besides the fact that 50 rounds of 45 acp weighs a lot, how do you balance the thing? I am sure recoil is quite manageable with that extra weight, but muzzle flip must be bad, simply due to where the weight is on the gun. Unless you have some long arm that takes 1911 magazines, I just find this product to be pretty much useless.
Now they also make a 50 round drum for Ruger's 10/22 rifle, which makes sense. 50 rounds of 22 lr are light and going through that many rounds with the 10/22 is easy and fun.
Now, if Promag would make this drum for Hi Points carbine, Marlins Camp 9 or Camp 45, or some of the other handy pistol caliber carbines, these would be very useful.
Now they also make a 50 round drum for Ruger's 10/22 rifle, which makes sense. 50 rounds of 22 lr are light and going through that many rounds with the 10/22 is easy and fun.
Now, if Promag would make this drum for Hi Points carbine, Marlins Camp 9 or Camp 45, or some of the other handy pistol caliber carbines, these would be very useful.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Best Buys
I have spoken with three people over the past week who were looking at getting a new weapon. When I mentioned Ak's, all three said that they couldn't afford to spend 800 bucks. And while thre are Ak models that do cost that much, there are alos several models under 400 bucks.
http://www.centerfiresystems.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=87
http://www.jgsales.com/index.php/rifles-shotguns/ak-47-and-rpk-rifles/cPath/209_214
http://www.centuryarms.com/
Yes they are all semi-automatic, but are still Ak's in form and function. Many are brand new for 350 to 400 dollars. While not as accurate as an AR, Mini-14, or even an SKS, these are still great buys and a lot of fun.
Another great buy on the market are police trade ins. The market is now flooded with Glock and S&W used weapons. S&W 4046's in 40S&W for $280..Beretta 96D in 40 S&W for 250, Glock 19's for 399, etc etc etc. My personal favorite are the CZ82 and CZ83's in 9mm Mak and 380 Auto. These are outstanding weapon and great buys.
Add to this list Hungary's PA63 pistols in 9mm Mak for about 99 bucks and S&W Sigma's police trade ins starting at about 200 bucks for 9mm Parabellum.
How could anyone go wrong with a Russian/Soviet M91/30's or M44's for 60 to 100 bucks? These are 7.62x54R caliber guns and approximate 308 Winchester Ballistics. Many of these are in excellent to like new condition. This ammo can be found surplus fmj or major commercial ammo makers produce soft point bullets for it. It can be cheaply used to plink or take it deer hunting. At 60 bucks, leave it sitting behind the seat of your truck...
In any case, trade ins and surplus weapons can be a steal and a lot of fun to shoot and collect.
http://www.centerfiresystems.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=87
http://www.jgsales.com/index.php/rifles-shotguns/ak-47-and-rpk-rifles/cPath/209_214
http://www.centuryarms.com/
Yes they are all semi-automatic, but are still Ak's in form and function. Many are brand new for 350 to 400 dollars. While not as accurate as an AR, Mini-14, or even an SKS, these are still great buys and a lot of fun.
Another great buy on the market are police trade ins. The market is now flooded with Glock and S&W used weapons. S&W 4046's in 40S&W for $280..Beretta 96D in 40 S&W for 250, Glock 19's for 399, etc etc etc. My personal favorite are the CZ82 and CZ83's in 9mm Mak and 380 Auto. These are outstanding weapon and great buys.
Add to this list Hungary's PA63 pistols in 9mm Mak for about 99 bucks and S&W Sigma's police trade ins starting at about 200 bucks for 9mm Parabellum.
How could anyone go wrong with a Russian/Soviet M91/30's or M44's for 60 to 100 bucks? These are 7.62x54R caliber guns and approximate 308 Winchester Ballistics. Many of these are in excellent to like new condition. This ammo can be found surplus fmj or major commercial ammo makers produce soft point bullets for it. It can be cheaply used to plink or take it deer hunting. At 60 bucks, leave it sitting behind the seat of your truck...
In any case, trade ins and surplus weapons can be a steal and a lot of fun to shoot and collect.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
50 G.I.
Guncrafter Industries introduced the 50 G.I. round and the 1911-style handgun to shoot it around 2004. The round is an strange thing in this day of bigger, faster, stronger. There is no comparison between this round and the 50 A.E. or the 500 S&W. This round is 50 caliber, but with energy similar to 45 ACP or a light 357 Magnum.
300 gr JHP, 860 fts, 493 ft-lb
300 gr JFP, 700 fts, 350 ft-lb
275 gr JHP, 900 fts, 495 ft-lb
I like the idea of a 50 caliber round that will fit in a slim 1911 package, but I would have hoped they would have loaded this round to at least 10mm power. The Bren Ten, a copy of the CZ75 (which itself was derived from the Browning HP) handled the 10 mm under full power loads. Kimber, AMT, and Colt (and others) all offered full power 10 mm rounds in a 1911 package. I hope the 50 G.I. gets a power upgrade.
300 gr JHP, 860 fts, 493 ft-lb
300 gr JFP, 700 fts, 350 ft-lb
275 gr JHP, 900 fts, 495 ft-lb
I like the idea of a 50 caliber round that will fit in a slim 1911 package, but I would have hoped they would have loaded this round to at least 10mm power. The Bren Ten, a copy of the CZ75 (which itself was derived from the Browning HP) handled the 10 mm under full power loads. Kimber, AMT, and Colt (and others) all offered full power 10 mm rounds in a 1911 package. I hope the 50 G.I. gets a power upgrade.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fun targets
Went out to the desert with a friend yesterday and had a great time. We spent about 2 hours or more on top of a small mesa, shooting at a larger hill about 150 yards distant, as a backdrop. There was a 25 foot, fairly steep dropoff in front of us. We were rolling a oranges and lemons down the hill and shooting at them.
They picked up speed fast and were fun targets...Plus, 100% biodegradable. Some rounds, like 223 and 22 lr's went right through the fruit with tiny holes in the front and penny sized holes on the far side. A good hit with a 9, 40, or 45 will blow the offending fruit into pieces.
In the past, this same friend and I used to use pumpkins at targets. The hydrostatic pressure blows the stems off them. More then one pumpkins had it's stem tossed 20+ feet straight up with 7.62x39mm HP's.
Small balloons also make good targets when tied to a shrub, with the wind blowing are challenging.
They picked up speed fast and were fun targets...Plus, 100% biodegradable. Some rounds, like 223 and 22 lr's went right through the fruit with tiny holes in the front and penny sized holes on the far side. A good hit with a 9, 40, or 45 will blow the offending fruit into pieces.
In the past, this same friend and I used to use pumpkins at targets. The hydrostatic pressure blows the stems off them. More then one pumpkins had it's stem tossed 20+ feet straight up with 7.62x39mm HP's.
Small balloons also make good targets when tied to a shrub, with the wind blowing are challenging.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Arms selection
I went into a well stocked sporting goods store today and, as usual, I am amazed at both the sheer numbers and variety of weapons available. I was staring at Chipmunk 22's right next to high end 22 target rifles and heavy barreled Ar15 copies next to Tommy Guns. There were level guns, single shots, black powder, semi-auto, rimfire, bolt action, slide actions and break opens. It is amazing what we can purchase here in the U.S. There was an Armalite 50 cal on the glass display case that I am positive I wasn't the first to drool over.
I stared at display cases with revolvers and semi-auto handguns from just about every company still in business. It's a little awe inspiring to see a Colt Single Action Army right next to a Sig 1911 and realize that though they are completely different weapons, I want more of each.
I am not even going to start on the cases and cases of shotguns....
I love this country !
I stared at display cases with revolvers and semi-auto handguns from just about every company still in business. It's a little awe inspiring to see a Colt Single Action Army right next to a Sig 1911 and realize that though they are completely different weapons, I want more of each.
I am not even going to start on the cases and cases of shotguns....
I love this country !
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Swedish Mauser
In 1891 the 6.5 x 55 was adopted as cartridge for the United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway. The 6.5 Swedish round was far ahead of it's time. Small caliber and high velocity was not all that common in 1891. The 303 Brit and 8mm Mauser were still using much larger, heavier bullets.
This round as versatile and the much later 243 Winchester. There are lightweight bullets at 100 grs or less and higher weight rounds at 150 grs and more. Just about everything from squirrels to bear to moose have been taken with this round. While in the U.S. this is not considered a moose/elk round, it is in Europe.
This round is inherently accurate, even in surplus military rifles. In addition, it has fairly light recoil. This was the target round of choice, for many years in places like Norway, Finland and Sweden.
Not too long ago, surplus Swedish rifles and ammo had flooded the market and were extremely well prices. You could get an immaculate rifle for under 100 bucks. Cartridges are still made by many firms, including Norma, Hornady, Remington, S&B, and a myriad of European ammo makers. This cartridge is well worth checking out if you or someone you know is recoil sensitive and still wants a fine cartridge.
This round as versatile and the much later 243 Winchester. There are lightweight bullets at 100 grs or less and higher weight rounds at 150 grs and more. Just about everything from squirrels to bear to moose have been taken with this round. While in the U.S. this is not considered a moose/elk round, it is in Europe.
This round is inherently accurate, even in surplus military rifles. In addition, it has fairly light recoil. This was the target round of choice, for many years in places like Norway, Finland and Sweden.
Not too long ago, surplus Swedish rifles and ammo had flooded the market and were extremely well prices. You could get an immaculate rifle for under 100 bucks. Cartridges are still made by many firms, including Norma, Hornady, Remington, S&B, and a myriad of European ammo makers. This cartridge is well worth checking out if you or someone you know is recoil sensitive and still wants a fine cartridge.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Shotgun info, part 2
Gauge info
Gauge size Inch size
4 .925 inches
8 .835 inches
10 .775 inches
12 .729 inches
14 .693 inches
16 .662 inches
20 .615 inches
24 .580 inches
28 .550 inches
32 .501 inches
410 .410 inches
Even the smallest of these bores is huge. I mean, geezzz, a 4 gauge is almost an inch in diameter and a 12 gauge is almost 3/4 of an inch. I am sure that would worked well on elephants, and probably zombies and T-rexes...
Gauge size Inch size
4 .925 inches
8 .835 inches
10 .775 inches
12 .729 inches
14 .693 inches
16 .662 inches
20 .615 inches
24 .580 inches
28 .550 inches
32 .501 inches
410 .410 inches
Even the smallest of these bores is huge. I mean, geezzz, a 4 gauge is almost an inch in diameter and a 12 gauge is almost 3/4 of an inch. I am sure that would worked well on elephants, and probably zombies and T-rexes...
Shotgun Info, part 1
Shotguns have been around for hundred and hundreds of years, easily predating the 1500's. Most of the modern shotgun gauges began to appear between 1880 and 1920.
The rounds available circa 1900 include, the 4 (4 bore), 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 410 gauges. Currently, the 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 28, and 410 gauges are still made by most ammunition manufacturers. The 12, 20, and 410 are the "popular" ones, but by far more 12 gauge ammo is made then all the others combined.
The 4 gauge, also called the 4 bore, and 8 gauge were discontinued in 1918 after a law was passed banning all shotguns larger then 10 gauge in size. These were huge diameter barrels and launched huge loads. The 4 gauge was used in Africa, frequently. It could launch a 1750 gr slug...1/4th of a pound !!!, to 1880 gr slug at 1300 to 1400 fps. Even the smaller 5 gauge could launch a 1250 gr bullet at 1500 fps....that's 6300 ft-lbs of energy.
The 16 and 28 gauge are still being made, but are for specialty purposed. The 28 gauge is popular for skeet shooting and the 16 gauge fit a niche for some people, as does the 10 gauge. Modern 12 gauge rounds almost equal 10 gauge loads.
The 14, 24,and 32 gauges were all obsolete long before the start of World War 2. There were made obsolete by 12 gauge, 20 gauge, and 12 gauges.
The most popular shot gun round is the 12 gauge. There are short shells, 2 3/4, 3, and 3 1/2 inch rounds available. These can match or equal 410, 20, and 10 gauge loads.
The rounds available circa 1900 include, the 4 (4 bore), 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 410 gauges. Currently, the 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 28, and 410 gauges are still made by most ammunition manufacturers. The 12, 20, and 410 are the "popular" ones, but by far more 12 gauge ammo is made then all the others combined.
The 4 gauge, also called the 4 bore, and 8 gauge were discontinued in 1918 after a law was passed banning all shotguns larger then 10 gauge in size. These were huge diameter barrels and launched huge loads. The 4 gauge was used in Africa, frequently. It could launch a 1750 gr slug...1/4th of a pound !!!, to 1880 gr slug at 1300 to 1400 fps. Even the smaller 5 gauge could launch a 1250 gr bullet at 1500 fps....that's 6300 ft-lbs of energy.
The 16 and 28 gauge are still being made, but are for specialty purposed. The 28 gauge is popular for skeet shooting and the 16 gauge fit a niche for some people, as does the 10 gauge. Modern 12 gauge rounds almost equal 10 gauge loads.
The 14, 24,and 32 gauges were all obsolete long before the start of World War 2. There were made obsolete by 12 gauge, 20 gauge, and 12 gauges.
The most popular shot gun round is the 12 gauge. There are short shells, 2 3/4, 3, and 3 1/2 inch rounds available. These can match or equal 410, 20, and 10 gauge loads.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Missed oppurtunities..part 2
--5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum--Created in 1969, this great little round i the forebearer of the current 17 HMR and 17 Mach 2, 25 years before it's time and better the the newer ones. It's listed as 38 gr bullet, 2100 fps.
--30-06 Improved (Ackley)-- A 30-06 with less body taper and more steep neck. The imcrease powder capacity and efficently of this round added to the fact that weapons chambered for this round could also fire standard 30-06 ammo is a huge bonus. This round will pop out a 150 gr bullet at 3070 fps and 3150 ft-lbs of energy or a 180 gr bullet at 2825 fps and 3200 ft-lbs of energy. This is quite an improvement over the 30-06, matching 300 H&H Magnum and approaching the 300 Winchester Magnum in a standard length action. (Very similar to the performance of the 30 Newton developed in 1913).
--
--30-06 Improved (Ackley)-- A 30-06 with less body taper and more steep neck. The imcrease powder capacity and efficently of this round added to the fact that weapons chambered for this round could also fire standard 30-06 ammo is a huge bonus. This round will pop out a 150 gr bullet at 3070 fps and 3150 ft-lbs of energy or a 180 gr bullet at 2825 fps and 3200 ft-lbs of energy. This is quite an improvement over the 30-06, matching 300 H&H Magnum and approaching the 300 Winchester Magnum in a standard length action. (Very similar to the performance of the 30 Newton developed in 1913).
--
Missed oppurtunies
Here are some rounds I think should have been hits, but weren't.
--9 mm Action Express (AE)--This is basically a 41 Action Express necked down to 9 mm, an early version of the 357 Sig (essential a 40S&W necked down to 9 mm). Thing is, the 9 mm AE is way more powerful then the 357 Sig. The 357 Sig pops out a 115 gr bullet at 1584 fps and 624 ft-lbs of energy and a 124 gr bullet at 1329 fps and 486 ft-lbs of energy. The 9 mm AE pops out the same 115 gr bullet at 1825 fps and 850 ft-lbs of energy and a 124 gr bullet at 1530 fps and 645 ft-lbs of energy. Either 9mm AE round is twice the power of a 9 mm Parabellum. It was introduced in 1988, 7 years before the 357 Sig.
--357 Auto Mag--While larger then the 357 Sig or the 9mm AE, this round is quite a bit more potent. 125 gr bullet travelling at 1810 fps with 915 ft-lbs of energy and 158 gr bullet travelling at 1635 fps and 940 fps. This is more powerful then a 357 Magnum in an auto-pistol. This would have made an awesome round for weapons like the MP5 or Uzi.
--5.7 Spitfire, aka 5.7 Johnson, aka MMJ 5.7 mm. This is essentially a 30 carbine necked down to 22 caliber. This was a 40 gr bullet travelling at 3000 fps with 795 ft-lbs of energy or a 50 gr bullet at 2700 fps and 810 ft-lbs of energy. It makes the 5.7x28mm that is all the rage for the new FN weapons seem dismal.
--7.62x25mm Russian Tokarev--This round is alive and well in the surplus market with all the importation of Tokarev and CZ-52 pistols and the Ppsh41 machine pistols (etc). This is a great little round. Prior to the creation of the 357 Magnum in 1935, this round and it's twin (30 Mauser) were the fastest, flattest shooting handgun rounds available. Only S&B currently makes a HP version of this round, at about 1650 fps. This round needs further innovation and it would be extremely useful for more then just it's penetration ability.
--9 mm Action Express (AE)--This is basically a 41 Action Express necked down to 9 mm, an early version of the 357 Sig (essential a 40S&W necked down to 9 mm). Thing is, the 9 mm AE is way more powerful then the 357 Sig. The 357 Sig pops out a 115 gr bullet at 1584 fps and 624 ft-lbs of energy and a 124 gr bullet at 1329 fps and 486 ft-lbs of energy. The 9 mm AE pops out the same 115 gr bullet at 1825 fps and 850 ft-lbs of energy and a 124 gr bullet at 1530 fps and 645 ft-lbs of energy. Either 9mm AE round is twice the power of a 9 mm Parabellum. It was introduced in 1988, 7 years before the 357 Sig.
--357 Auto Mag--While larger then the 357 Sig or the 9mm AE, this round is quite a bit more potent. 125 gr bullet travelling at 1810 fps with 915 ft-lbs of energy and 158 gr bullet travelling at 1635 fps and 940 fps. This is more powerful then a 357 Magnum in an auto-pistol. This would have made an awesome round for weapons like the MP5 or Uzi.
--5.7 Spitfire, aka 5.7 Johnson, aka MMJ 5.7 mm. This is essentially a 30 carbine necked down to 22 caliber. This was a 40 gr bullet travelling at 3000 fps with 795 ft-lbs of energy or a 50 gr bullet at 2700 fps and 810 ft-lbs of energy. It makes the 5.7x28mm that is all the rage for the new FN weapons seem dismal.
--7.62x25mm Russian Tokarev--This round is alive and well in the surplus market with all the importation of Tokarev and CZ-52 pistols and the Ppsh41 machine pistols (etc). This is a great little round. Prior to the creation of the 357 Magnum in 1935, this round and it's twin (30 Mauser) were the fastest, flattest shooting handgun rounds available. Only S&B currently makes a HP version of this round, at about 1650 fps. This round needs further innovation and it would be extremely useful for more then just it's penetration ability.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Rimfire cartridges
The oldest cartridge still in production is the 22 Short. It has been in continuous production since 1857. The progenitor to this cartridge was the Flobert BB Cap, created in 1845. There are BB Caps made today that are different, but obvious descendants of this originating rimfire round.
There used to be 75 or more rimfire cartridges in production, from the lowly 22 short to the 56-56 Spencer and 58 Miller rounds. They ran the gambit: 22, 25, 30, 38, 41, 44, 50 calibers and more. The first successful metallic cartridges were rimfires. One of the first repeating rifles, the Henry used the 44 Henry round during the Civil War along with the Spencer rifle and its specific rounds.
One of the reasons more large caliber rimfires did not survive the end of the 1800's was the inability to reload them.
Oddly, the most economical rounds today are 22 LR, a rimfire. It would seem to me that it would make sense to make handguns and rifle today that fired modern rimfire cartridges. Most people do not reload and if the economical nature of the 22LR can be passed on to a357 or 45 rimfire, people would really go for it. Ammo is expensive these days and I think if we can offer a much cheaper route to shooting, hey... go for it.
Recently, several rinfire rounds have been introduced, the 17 HMR (based on the 22 Magnum necked down to 17 caliber) and the 17 Hornady Mach 2 (essentially a 22 lr necked down). Aguilar also offered their own 17 caliber rimfire round. Back in 1969, Remington offered the 5 mm Rimfire Magnum and Ilarco came out with the 22 Short Magnum Rimfire (a 22 Mag shortened to 22 LR length). Other then these, no rimfire round has been created since 1959 when the 22 Magnum was released.
In 1861 the 32 Long rimfire round was created. It was a black powder pistol round that offered ballistics that match today's 32 H&R Magnum. The 38 Long is a black powder round created in 1865 that exceeds 38 Special rounds from today, and the 357 Magnum of today is matched nu the 1870 black powder rimfire 38 Extra Long. The 44 Extra Long rimfire round was created in the early 1870's and matches pretty well with modern 44 Magnum rounds.
If black powder rounds from 140 years ago to match our modern centerfire rounds, why not make modern rimfire cartridges in larger calibers today?
There used to be 75 or more rimfire cartridges in production, from the lowly 22 short to the 56-56 Spencer and 58 Miller rounds. They ran the gambit: 22, 25, 30, 38, 41, 44, 50 calibers and more. The first successful metallic cartridges were rimfires. One of the first repeating rifles, the Henry used the 44 Henry round during the Civil War along with the Spencer rifle and its specific rounds.
One of the reasons more large caliber rimfires did not survive the end of the 1800's was the inability to reload them.
Oddly, the most economical rounds today are 22 LR, a rimfire. It would seem to me that it would make sense to make handguns and rifle today that fired modern rimfire cartridges. Most people do not reload and if the economical nature of the 22LR can be passed on to a357 or 45 rimfire, people would really go for it. Ammo is expensive these days and I think if we can offer a much cheaper route to shooting, hey... go for it.
Recently, several rinfire rounds have been introduced, the 17 HMR (based on the 22 Magnum necked down to 17 caliber) and the 17 Hornady Mach 2 (essentially a 22 lr necked down). Aguilar also offered their own 17 caliber rimfire round. Back in 1969, Remington offered the 5 mm Rimfire Magnum and Ilarco came out with the 22 Short Magnum Rimfire (a 22 Mag shortened to 22 LR length). Other then these, no rimfire round has been created since 1959 when the 22 Magnum was released.
In 1861 the 32 Long rimfire round was created. It was a black powder pistol round that offered ballistics that match today's 32 H&R Magnum. The 38 Long is a black powder round created in 1865 that exceeds 38 Special rounds from today, and the 357 Magnum of today is matched nu the 1870 black powder rimfire 38 Extra Long. The 44 Extra Long rimfire round was created in the early 1870's and matches pretty well with modern 44 Magnum rounds.
If black powder rounds from 140 years ago to match our modern centerfire rounds, why not make modern rimfire cartridges in larger calibers today?
Charles Newton
Everyone involved in the gun world or just likes shooting has heard of John Moses Browning. He invented the 1911, Hi Power, B.A.R., 38 Super, 45 acp, 50 Cal Browning, a bunch of pocket pistols, etc, etc, etc. He was a genus.
Ask people if they ever heard of Charles Newton. He is an unknown genus who was far ahead of his time. He is the inventor of 22 Savage High Power, 22 Newton, 256 Newton, 270 Newton, 30 Newton, 250=3000 Savage, 35 Newton, also the progenitor of the 22-250, and a slew of other cartridges. He was an early version of Weatherby and made his cartridges from the early 1910's to the late 1920's.
The 250-3000 was one of the first, if not the first round to push a bullet past 3000 fps. This was designed for the Savage 99 level action gun around 1915. With modern powders, this velocity can be exceeded by another 200 fps. 3000 fps was an amazing accomplishment at the time. Remington released a cartridges called the 257 Roberts about 20 years later, with similar shooting characteristics.
The 30 Newton was a 30-06 length case but was much fatter. It was a beltless magnum, pushing a 200 gr bullet to 2730 fps with 3318 ft-lbs of energy, right on par with the 300 H&H Magnum, and darn close to the 300 Winchester Magnums of today. The 25 Newton is a necked up 30 Newton with at least the same power (250 gr, 2975 fps, and 4925 ft-lbs of energy) of as 375 H&H Magnum and the current 358 Norma Magnum. These cartridges were standard action length, unlike the H&H Magnums.
Newton's cartridges, though most are no longer in production, match up nicely to modern produced cartridges. All these cartridges can be improved with today's powders. Had Charles Newton made his cartridges in the late 1940's/1950's rather then 1910 to 1920, with the massive improvements in powders that came in those middle years, he's genus would have been far more recognized. It is sad that a man who contributed so much to the firearms industry, does not even have a Wikipedia entry.
Ask people if they ever heard of Charles Newton. He is an unknown genus who was far ahead of his time. He is the inventor of 22 Savage High Power, 22 Newton, 256 Newton, 270 Newton, 30 Newton, 250=3000 Savage, 35 Newton, also the progenitor of the 22-250, and a slew of other cartridges. He was an early version of Weatherby and made his cartridges from the early 1910's to the late 1920's.
The 250-3000 was one of the first, if not the first round to push a bullet past 3000 fps. This was designed for the Savage 99 level action gun around 1915. With modern powders, this velocity can be exceeded by another 200 fps. 3000 fps was an amazing accomplishment at the time. Remington released a cartridges called the 257 Roberts about 20 years later, with similar shooting characteristics.
The 30 Newton was a 30-06 length case but was much fatter. It was a beltless magnum, pushing a 200 gr bullet to 2730 fps with 3318 ft-lbs of energy, right on par with the 300 H&H Magnum, and darn close to the 300 Winchester Magnums of today. The 25 Newton is a necked up 30 Newton with at least the same power (250 gr, 2975 fps, and 4925 ft-lbs of energy) of as 375 H&H Magnum and the current 358 Norma Magnum. These cartridges were standard action length, unlike the H&H Magnums.
Newton's cartridges, though most are no longer in production, match up nicely to modern produced cartridges. All these cartridges can be improved with today's powders. Had Charles Newton made his cartridges in the late 1940's/1950's rather then 1910 to 1920, with the massive improvements in powders that came in those middle years, he's genus would have been far more recognized. It is sad that a man who contributed so much to the firearms industry, does not even have a Wikipedia entry.
Caseless ammo
During the 1980's and 1990's there was a lot of talk about the future of ammunition and hose brass and steel cases were going to be a thing of the past at the end of the millennium. Well, obviously, that never happened. Caseless ammo was revolutionary as were the G11 and ACR weapons developed to fire them. http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g11/g11.htm
Now, caseless ammo would probably have killed the reloading industry, but would have made buying ammo a lot cheaper. No more need to tons of primers, cleaning cases, or even brass cases. Powder and a bullet is all that were needed. For many years testing and refining of this new ammo was done and all published results said the stuff worked great.
Just makes you wonder what the next great improvement might have been that just passed us by.
Now, caseless ammo would probably have killed the reloading industry, but would have made buying ammo a lot cheaper. No more need to tons of primers, cleaning cases, or even brass cases. Powder and a bullet is all that were needed. For many years testing and refining of this new ammo was done and all published results said the stuff worked great.
Just makes you wonder what the next great improvement might have been that just passed us by.
Thank a veteran
I was just surfing the net for something to occupy my time. I came across numerous articles about the last WW1 veterans. Apparently, there are less then 10 left in the world. This got me to thinking about WW2 veterans. They are all over 80 years old. Their numbers are fading fast. Next time you see one, thank them for their service. There are many reasons they are called the greatest generation, including: Saving the world from Fascism, rebuilding the free world after the war, at the same time building the U.S. into a military and economic superpower, their generation created computers, the highway system, and much, much more. Get their stories now and enjoy your time with them.
And don't forget the Korean War, Vietnam, and Gulf War vets either. So, next time you are out shooting your guns, thank a veteran.
And don't forget the Korean War, Vietnam, and Gulf War vets either. So, next time you are out shooting your guns, thank a veteran.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Dream list
I have everything I need, but things I would love to have from the gun world:
I would love to have an immaculate M1 Garand from WW2. I think they are awesome looking rifles. I want a Barrett 50 cal semi-auto for no other purpose then the WOW factor. I would love an original 1873 Colt Single Action Army (Peacemaker) and a 1873 Winchester. I would love to have a M60, original army. Yes, I know there are people that hated his weapon, but there are other, like me who think it's just an awesome looking machine. Then there's things I want, but not really dream about: Early B.A.R., Steyr AUG, Galil, 1851 Walker, original Henry. And, as an accessory to my dream list, I would like a WW2 production GI Willy (Jeep).
I would love to have an immaculate M1 Garand from WW2. I think they are awesome looking rifles. I want a Barrett 50 cal semi-auto for no other purpose then the WOW factor. I would love an original 1873 Colt Single Action Army (Peacemaker) and a 1873 Winchester. I would love to have a M60, original army. Yes, I know there are people that hated his weapon, but there are other, like me who think it's just an awesome looking machine. Then there's things I want, but not really dream about: Early B.A.R., Steyr AUG, Galil, 1851 Walker, original Henry. And, as an accessory to my dream list, I would like a WW2 production GI Willy (Jeep).
Ammo prices
Last week, I posted something abut ammo prices going up... well, they went up more then I thought. Many of the manufactures have posted memo's on their websites stating a 20% increase, effective Jan 1, 2008. Ouch. I went to Walmart and found that even my cherish 550 round 22 lr's went from 9.88 to 12.88. 100 round Winchester 45 acps are now 29 bucks from 25. I stopped by a local gun store and the prices were even more dramatic. Low end UMC 45 acp, 50 rounds, for 22 bucks. We are talking about some real money now.
Not too long ago, me and a buddy went out to the desert and would blow off a couple hundred rounds and not think twice about the 30 bucks we spent. Now, 200 rounds of 45 acp is a minimum of 55 bucks. I wish I was smart enough to have stocked up back when 7.62 x 39 ammo was 1.99 for 20 in the surplus Soviet boxes. Now the current stuff is about 5 bucks a box.
Not too long ago, me and a buddy went out to the desert and would blow off a couple hundred rounds and not think twice about the 30 bucks we spent. Now, 200 rounds of 45 acp is a minimum of 55 bucks. I wish I was smart enough to have stocked up back when 7.62 x 39 ammo was 1.99 for 20 in the surplus Soviet boxes. Now the current stuff is about 5 bucks a box.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Gun Magazines, part 2
I realize gun magazines get their guns, ammo, and gear from manufactures for free. The manufactures get free publicity by doing this and the gun rags get to preview and review a brand new product to entice magazine buyers to buy the magazine. The problem is, all the magazines lie, except for one. The magazines rarely point out problems with a weapon. But, then, why should they? If you are getting the milk for free, don't kill the milkman. By making the weapons and gear sound its best, the manufacturers make more money, which in turn leads them to give the magazines another item to review...free marketing, which causes people to go out and buy the reviewed super-duper, never jams and always hits the bulls eye gun.
Gun Tests is an interesting exception. They say they go to the gun stores and buy the item off the shelf, test it, and give an honest review. I used to subscribe to them and enjoyed, but not always agreed with their reviews.
I buy the other gun magazines to follow the market and to see the newest gear, but I go to a rental range to test any weapon I plan to buy.
Gun Tests is an interesting exception. They say they go to the gun stores and buy the item off the shelf, test it, and give an honest review. I used to subscribe to them and enjoyed, but not always agreed with their reviews.
I buy the other gun magazines to follow the market and to see the newest gear, but I go to a rental range to test any weapon I plan to buy.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Gun magazines
I just bought the Guns & Ammo 2008 Annual: Buyers Guide. It's a collection of articles from last years Guns and Ammo magazine and a fairly comprehensive list of the various weapons available on the market. It's also the showing of the biggest "donators" to Guns and Ammo and InterMedia Outdoors publications. This can be shown by the inordinate number of Les Baer 1911 models. Browning Buckmark, Kimber 1911's, and Sig 220's, STi 1911's, and Wilson 1911's individually displayed. Someone explain to me why there are 10 separate entries for various Wilson 1911's when they all are identical in action and caliber, 45 acp. It's not like the magazine could not of combined a few of these into one entry with the different sights or finishes listed.
There are 9 STI 1911's listed. Are you telling me all the high capacity ones couldn't be listed as one entry with varying information in the write ups? 11 Springfield 1911's that differ in barrel length, finish, or sights...Longslide, Micro-compact, Milspec, Match, Trophy match, operator, ultra compact... huh? They could not have had just one entry for all those with the description listed "Barrel length 3, 4, 4.5, 5, and 7 inches. Caliber 40 S&W, 45 acp, 38 Super" etc etc etc.
Think of the S&W M&P Series, which was done correctly. There are two entries, standard and compact. The standard series are listed as "Double action, Caliber 9, 357 Sig, 40, and 45 acp. Darrel length 4.25 and 4.5, Weight 24 , 24.25, 25.5 and 29.6 ounces. Mag capacity 15, 19, and price...." Inside the writing it is broken down further based on caliber, finish, sights, etc.
There is no reason that there are 8 separate entries for the Sig 220 all based on finish, color and barrel length. 9 separate entries for Sig's 1911 Revolution series, especially when there is only a 200 dollar difference between the top of the line and the bottom one and the differences are, guess what? barrel length, finish, sights, and grips.
It's the same for the others I listed also. It seems the editors of Guns and Ammo assume we readers are smart enough to deal with the HK USP's being clustered into only 3 entries. Each of those entries has multiple calibers, weights, trigger configurations, finish, sights, magazine capacities, and barrel lengths but we are not smart enough to handle the Browning Buckmark and its myriad of options. 9 separate entries on a 22 pistol.
Well, I buy this annual every year and it's always the same, so, I guess we are that stupid.
There are 9 STI 1911's listed. Are you telling me all the high capacity ones couldn't be listed as one entry with varying information in the write ups? 11 Springfield 1911's that differ in barrel length, finish, or sights...Longslide, Micro-compact, Milspec, Match, Trophy match, operator, ultra compact... huh? They could not have had just one entry for all those with the description listed "Barrel length 3, 4, 4.5, 5, and 7 inches. Caliber 40 S&W, 45 acp, 38 Super" etc etc etc.
Think of the S&W M&P Series, which was done correctly. There are two entries, standard and compact. The standard series are listed as "Double action, Caliber 9, 357 Sig, 40, and 45 acp. Darrel length 4.25 and 4.5, Weight 24 , 24.25, 25.5 and 29.6 ounces. Mag capacity 15, 19, and price...." Inside the writing it is broken down further based on caliber, finish, sights, etc.
There is no reason that there are 8 separate entries for the Sig 220 all based on finish, color and barrel length. 9 separate entries for Sig's 1911 Revolution series, especially when there is only a 200 dollar difference between the top of the line and the bottom one and the differences are, guess what? barrel length, finish, sights, and grips.
It's the same for the others I listed also. It seems the editors of Guns and Ammo assume we readers are smart enough to deal with the HK USP's being clustered into only 3 entries. Each of those entries has multiple calibers, weights, trigger configurations, finish, sights, magazine capacities, and barrel lengths but we are not smart enough to handle the Browning Buckmark and its myriad of options. 9 separate entries on a 22 pistol.
Well, I buy this annual every year and it's always the same, so, I guess we are that stupid.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New cartridges
In the past five years, the number of new cartridges introduced to the market could make your head spin and your eyes roll out. Winchester, Remington, Ruger, S&W, and others have thrown multitudes of new stuff at us. Remington Ultra Magnums in 300, 7 mm, and 338 calibers offer "more" velocity and energy for much greater recoil, oh and dollars. They are expensive. Winchester Short Magnums are available in 300. 257, 270, 325 and other calibers, Winchester also have their Super Short Magnums avail in 223, 243 and other calibers . These all offer magnum velocity and energy as well as magnum recoil and price. Ruger had their 480 Ruger handgun round and a couple of new rifle cartridges (375 Ruger is one). S&W has their 460 and 500. Some new stuff has been bought out to increase effectiveness of lever guns, no not the polymer tips, but whole new rounds for 150 year old level gun technology, which by the matches the 307 Winchester which launched and failed years ago.
Most of this new stuff is made to duplicate older, larger rounds with new more compact cases. These aren't proprietary rounds, like Dakota or Lazereroni, but well know, name brand companies. With all this time, money and effort bringing us all these new rounds the majority of which are bound to fail, the question is why not put more effort into improving what we have? If any of these cartridges, other then the 500 S&W had any chance of actually filling a real niche, then great, but they don't. Remington has already scaled back their production of weapons in the "new offerings." Winchester doesn't even exist as a rifle company anymore. Stop flooding the market with rounds that serve no real improvement for anyone just to line your pockets with funds from guns and ammo that could just as easily be lined with established cartridges that have withstood the test of time and will be around far longer then your sad attempts will.
Most of this new stuff is made to duplicate older, larger rounds with new more compact cases. These aren't proprietary rounds, like Dakota or Lazereroni, but well know, name brand companies. With all this time, money and effort bringing us all these new rounds the majority of which are bound to fail, the question is why not put more effort into improving what we have? If any of these cartridges, other then the 500 S&W had any chance of actually filling a real niche, then great, but they don't. Remington has already scaled back their production of weapons in the "new offerings." Winchester doesn't even exist as a rifle company anymore. Stop flooding the market with rounds that serve no real improvement for anyone just to line your pockets with funds from guns and ammo that could just as easily be lined with established cartridges that have withstood the test of time and will be around far longer then your sad attempts will.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Keep practicing
Many people I know don't get to spend the time at the range practicing as much as they want to, or should. I know I don't anymore. My skills have slipped a little. There is never enough time in the day to do all the things I need to do, let alone doing the things I would like to do. Add to the time problems are the fact that ammo has gotten much more expensive in the past few years. I remember buying 45 ACP Golden Sabres in 185 gr for $9.99 for 25. Now those same cartridges are running $16.95 for only 20 cartridges. I used to buy 50 9 mm in 124 gr fmj made by S&B for $6.99 just 5 years ago and they now cost $12.99. Walmart used to sell 100 9mm in the Winchester White Box for $11.88 early 2006. They now run about 15 bucks. Fortunately, 22 lrs in the bulk boxes still run about the same 10 bucks they always did.
Well, this is all an excuse, really. It is. Yes, I need to practice technique: i.e, sight picture, target acquisition, trigger control, grip, draw, etc etc etc. All this can be done without a bullet int he chamber. Except for a few revolvers and pistols, mostly older ones at that, modern handguns can be dry fired with little to no problems. In addition, Snap Caps can be used to simulate a round in the weapon and prevent any issue with dry firing. Some people also use expended shells as Snap Caps.
In any case, it is important to practice the proper techniques listed above, and more. Most of these are easily doable without ammo. Muscle memory is important. This means you automatically know where to bring the weapon up for proper sight picture, or your thumb automatically knows where to go to turn off the safety, and you body automatically knows what position it is supposed to be in for shooting. Practice...practice...practice. It's practice that can save your life.
Well, this is all an excuse, really. It is. Yes, I need to practice technique: i.e, sight picture, target acquisition, trigger control, grip, draw, etc etc etc. All this can be done without a bullet int he chamber. Except for a few revolvers and pistols, mostly older ones at that, modern handguns can be dry fired with little to no problems. In addition, Snap Caps can be used to simulate a round in the weapon and prevent any issue with dry firing. Some people also use expended shells as Snap Caps.
In any case, it is important to practice the proper techniques listed above, and more. Most of these are easily doable without ammo. Muscle memory is important. This means you automatically know where to bring the weapon up for proper sight picture, or your thumb automatically knows where to go to turn off the safety, and you body automatically knows what position it is supposed to be in for shooting. Practice...practice...practice. It's practice that can save your life.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The M16
Over the past few months, a "TEST" of various replacements for the M16 class of weapons against the M16 (actually the M4 variant) itself have floated around the internet. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003908.html
The moral of this article is that the M4 sucks and jams more then anything else. If you read the article, you will find that the circumstances of these tests were extreme and all the weapons failed, but the M4 failed, umm, worst.
History of the M16...
This weapon was a derivative of a the Ar10 weapon Eugene Stoner designed in the 1954 as a potential replacement for the M1 Garand. It's competition was the FN-Fal and the M14. Varying accounts of the tests have been written and blame has been pushed all around, but basically, one of the Ar10's barrels blew up and the Army rejected this weapon. In 1957, the Army was conducting research into 22 caliber weapons; which eventually turned into the 5.56 NATO we all know of today. One of the generals in charge of this, had Armalite enter a rifle, which was basically a scaled down AR10, called the AR15. Well, after some testing, guess what? one of the Ar15's barrels blew up and after some more trials and debates, the AR15 was rejected in 1960. The Army simply did not want this weapon.
General Curtis LeMay, of the U.S. Air Force went ahead and orders about 8500 of the weapons for the Air Force, but was overruled by Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense. After more drama and headaches, McNamara forced the Army and Air Force to both use this weapon and cancelled the M14. By the way, McNamara also forced the Navy and Air Force into the F111 fighter, which was unable to fight its way out of anything and ended up being a bomber/recon platform (the Navy ended up dropping the F111 before any were accepted). The Army required changes to the Ar15, now called the M16, which included a forward assist which complicated the design. We all have heard the stories about jams from Vietnam.
Well, Blame McNamara. He forced the Army, Air Force, and eventually Marines into owning this pig. The 5.56 round is sufficient..barely. Story after story have returned from Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia and other places that tell that multiple shots have been required to drop an enemy. Sure, the troops can carry more ammo then every before because the gun is light and so is the ammo, but if it takes three shots to do what a 308 can do in one, where is the savings value? If many states will not allow you to hunt a 100 to 15o pound deer with a 5.56/223 Rem because there is not enough power to humanely kill the animal, then why are we using it on 150 to 250 pound enemy combatants that may also be wearing body armor?
In my opinion our troops have always deserved a better weapons platform then the one Stoner designed. It requires constant care, constant. While accurate, it is no more so then many other designs that could have been used. While reliable with constant care, it is much less reliable then many other systems available. Hopefully, the replacements chosen for the M16 series of weapons will be superior in every way, shape and form. Our troops deserve it.
The moral of this article is that the M4 sucks and jams more then anything else. If you read the article, you will find that the circumstances of these tests were extreme and all the weapons failed, but the M4 failed, umm, worst.
History of the M16...
This weapon was a derivative of a the Ar10 weapon Eugene Stoner designed in the 1954 as a potential replacement for the M1 Garand. It's competition was the FN-Fal and the M14. Varying accounts of the tests have been written and blame has been pushed all around, but basically, one of the Ar10's barrels blew up and the Army rejected this weapon. In 1957, the Army was conducting research into 22 caliber weapons; which eventually turned into the 5.56 NATO we all know of today. One of the generals in charge of this, had Armalite enter a rifle, which was basically a scaled down AR10, called the AR15. Well, after some testing, guess what? one of the Ar15's barrels blew up and after some more trials and debates, the AR15 was rejected in 1960. The Army simply did not want this weapon.
General Curtis LeMay, of the U.S. Air Force went ahead and orders about 8500 of the weapons for the Air Force, but was overruled by Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense. After more drama and headaches, McNamara forced the Army and Air Force to both use this weapon and cancelled the M14. By the way, McNamara also forced the Navy and Air Force into the F111 fighter, which was unable to fight its way out of anything and ended up being a bomber/recon platform (the Navy ended up dropping the F111 before any were accepted). The Army required changes to the Ar15, now called the M16, which included a forward assist which complicated the design. We all have heard the stories about jams from Vietnam.
Well, Blame McNamara. He forced the Army, Air Force, and eventually Marines into owning this pig. The 5.56 round is sufficient..barely. Story after story have returned from Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia and other places that tell that multiple shots have been required to drop an enemy. Sure, the troops can carry more ammo then every before because the gun is light and so is the ammo, but if it takes three shots to do what a 308 can do in one, where is the savings value? If many states will not allow you to hunt a 100 to 15o pound deer with a 5.56/223 Rem because there is not enough power to humanely kill the animal, then why are we using it on 150 to 250 pound enemy combatants that may also be wearing body armor?
In my opinion our troops have always deserved a better weapons platform then the one Stoner designed. It requires constant care, constant. While accurate, it is no more so then many other designs that could have been used. While reliable with constant care, it is much less reliable then many other systems available. Hopefully, the replacements chosen for the M16 series of weapons will be superior in every way, shape and form. Our troops deserve it.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution. It guarentees each American their basic human rights.
The First Admendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Admendment is: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There are "Gun Free" zones all over the U.S. these days. These places make it a crime to carry a gun onto the premises. All of these places are posted with signs that say something like "No Guns Allowed."
Could you imagine the media and political fallout, the horrendous nightmare that would accompany anyone putting up a sign on a building that said, "Only Catholics allowed" or "No free speech allowed in this establishment" or "No Mormons allowed?" Seriously, why is it ok to put up a sign to ban one Right, such as carrying a gun, and not another Right like Free Speech? Such, there is private property in play at a bunch of these places and a person can bascially do what they want on their own property.
On the other hand, all these recent National Tragedies have hapopened in these so called Gun Free Zones; Virginia Tech, The Mall Shootings, etc. The reason these tragedies can happen is that the bad guys know they are the only ones armed.
The First Admendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Admendment is: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There are "Gun Free" zones all over the U.S. these days. These places make it a crime to carry a gun onto the premises. All of these places are posted with signs that say something like "No Guns Allowed."
Could you imagine the media and political fallout, the horrendous nightmare that would accompany anyone putting up a sign on a building that said, "Only Catholics allowed" or "No free speech allowed in this establishment" or "No Mormons allowed?" Seriously, why is it ok to put up a sign to ban one Right, such as carrying a gun, and not another Right like Free Speech? Such, there is private property in play at a bunch of these places and a person can bascially do what they want on their own property.
On the other hand, all these recent National Tragedies have hapopened in these so called Gun Free Zones; Virginia Tech, The Mall Shootings, etc. The reason these tragedies can happen is that the bad guys know they are the only ones armed.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Small calibers
Most "experts" will tells you that you shouldn't use anything smaller (less powerful) then a 380 acp or 38 Special for self defense. While I think we all agree, the bigger, the better; I mean if I could have a L.A.W. (Light Antitank weapon) for self defense, I would.
There is also the old maxim that goes, "A hit with a 22lr is better then a miss with a 45acp." There are now 9 mm pistols that are smaller then older 380's or 32's. My question would be, can you accurately control those tiny weapons with enough precision to not only hit with your first shot but be able to quickly follow that up with an accurate second shot? Also, can you practice with it enough to be comfortable shooting it?
Seems to me that carrying any weapon, even a small caliber one is better then none at all. Until recent years, most European police agencies used 32 acps or 380 acps. Heck, a 32 acp was even used to start World War 1 (assassination of Franz Ferdinand).
The moral to my story is, carry whatever you want. The mere sight of a weapon is probably enough to scare off a bad guy, let alone pulling a trigger a couple of times.
There is also the old maxim that goes, "A hit with a 22lr is better then a miss with a 45acp." There are now 9 mm pistols that are smaller then older 380's or 32's. My question would be, can you accurately control those tiny weapons with enough precision to not only hit with your first shot but be able to quickly follow that up with an accurate second shot? Also, can you practice with it enough to be comfortable shooting it?
Seems to me that carrying any weapon, even a small caliber one is better then none at all. Until recent years, most European police agencies used 32 acps or 380 acps. Heck, a 32 acp was even used to start World War 1 (assassination of Franz Ferdinand).
The moral to my story is, carry whatever you want. The mere sight of a weapon is probably enough to scare off a bad guy, let alone pulling a trigger a couple of times.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
M.O.A.
M.O.A- Minute of Angle..."It's about an inch at 100 yards," is what most people will say. A minute of angle is really 1.0471996 inches at 100 yards. In geometry the minute is a unit of angle, 1/60th of a degree.
It's always been a curiosity to me on why people are not satisfied with a rifle that shoots 2 inches at 100 yards. Hell, I wish I could shoot a 2 inch group at 100 yards off hand. Extrapolating out to 300 yards, we are looking at a 6 inch grouping. That's plenty fine for shooting an animal the size of an elk or a deer and still hit plenty of vitals. Sure, everyone would love to shoot a half inch group at 100 yards and many rifles with the right ammo might be able to. Besides, many people use this measurement from a benchrest. Who hunts from a benchrest or even a, except for some varmint hunters? Varmint hunters, trying to hit a target at 300 yards the size of a gopher need a super accurate rifle, the rest of use can settle just fine with a 3 MOA rifle, in my opinion.
It's always been a curiosity to me on why people are not satisfied with a rifle that shoots 2 inches at 100 yards. Hell, I wish I could shoot a 2 inch group at 100 yards off hand. Extrapolating out to 300 yards, we are looking at a 6 inch grouping. That's plenty fine for shooting an animal the size of an elk or a deer and still hit plenty of vitals. Sure, everyone would love to shoot a half inch group at 100 yards and many rifles with the right ammo might be able to. Besides, many people use this measurement from a benchrest. Who hunts from a benchrest or even a, except for some varmint hunters? Varmint hunters, trying to hit a target at 300 yards the size of a gopher need a super accurate rifle, the rest of use can settle just fine with a 3 MOA rifle, in my opinion.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
6.8 SPC
The 6.8 SPC, aka 6.8 Special Purpose Cartridge, aka the 6.8 mm Remington SPC has received a ton of chatter from Couch Commandos and Backyard Brigadier Generals in the past couple of years. For those who do not already know, the 6.8 SPC was created due to input from the U.S Special Operations Command and Remington as an attempt to increase the lethality of the M16 family of weapons using current 5.56 ammunition. The bullet is larger and heavier then the 5.56 and has more energy at all distances.
-6.8 SPC..Max Diameter 0.422 inches, Overall length with 115 gr bullet 2.315 inches. Muzzle velocity 2625 ft/sec, Muzzle energy 1759 ft-lbs..Bullet diameter .277
-5.56 NATO..Max diameter 0.38 inches, Overall length with 62 gr bullet 2.26 inches. Muzzle velocity 3100 ft/sec, Muzzle energy 1309 ft-lbs..Bullet diameter 0.224
--7.62 x 39..Max Diameter 0.445 inches, Overall length with 123 gr bullet 2.197 inches. Muzzle velocity 2300 ft/sec, Muzzle energy 1480 ft-lbs.. Bullet diameter .311
As you can see, the 6.8 SPC is between the 5.56 Nato and the 7.62x39 is bullet diameter and is only marginally more powerful then the old Soviet round. The 6.8 SPC, while more powerful then the 5056 at all ranges, was heavily criticized for accuracy issues past 300 meters..ok, but most engagements occur at 100 to 200 meters.
Seems to me that SOCOM and Remington were trying to reinvent the wheel. The 6.8 SPC, while a step up from the 5.56 in all things but accuracy, just doesn't fill the bill either. To me, it would have made more sense to modernize the old 7.62 x39 with updated powders and bullets. There have been 7.62 x39 uppers for AR15's for years now and the ammo was plentiful around the world. Why would SOCOM and Remington waste so much time and energy designing a new cartridge that would be poor substitute for an already widely accepted 7.62x39 design? With modern powers, the potential for the 7.62 x39 eclipses the 6.8 SPC. Plus, whatever upper was used on the M16 would be instantly backwards compatible with older less potent ammo.
Two of the criticisms about the AK is that the rifle is not controllable at full auto nor was it accurate past 200 yards. Well the bullet is plenty accurate with the right barrel and since M16's are limited to 3 round burst controllable won't be a factor. Even with the SAW's, the much heavier weapon will alleviate much of the supposed barrel rise. The 7.62 x39 case is very efficient and has been used to create several benchrest cartridges, including the 220 Russian, and 6 mm PPC.
Hell, the 6 mm PPC is an extremely accurate cartridge and probably could ahve been easily converted into usage on the M16, over designing and entirely new cartridge like the 6.8 SPC.
-6.8 SPC..Max Diameter 0.422 inches, Overall length with 115 gr bullet 2.315 inches. Muzzle velocity 2625 ft/sec, Muzzle energy 1759 ft-lbs..Bullet diameter .277
-5.56 NATO..Max diameter 0.38 inches, Overall length with 62 gr bullet 2.26 inches. Muzzle velocity 3100 ft/sec, Muzzle energy 1309 ft-lbs..Bullet diameter 0.224
--7.62 x 39..Max Diameter 0.445 inches, Overall length with 123 gr bullet 2.197 inches. Muzzle velocity 2300 ft/sec, Muzzle energy 1480 ft-lbs.. Bullet diameter .311
As you can see, the 6.8 SPC is between the 5.56 Nato and the 7.62x39 is bullet diameter and is only marginally more powerful then the old Soviet round. The 6.8 SPC, while more powerful then the 5056 at all ranges, was heavily criticized for accuracy issues past 300 meters..ok, but most engagements occur at 100 to 200 meters.
Seems to me that SOCOM and Remington were trying to reinvent the wheel. The 6.8 SPC, while a step up from the 5.56 in all things but accuracy, just doesn't fill the bill either. To me, it would have made more sense to modernize the old 7.62 x39 with updated powders and bullets. There have been 7.62 x39 uppers for AR15's for years now and the ammo was plentiful around the world. Why would SOCOM and Remington waste so much time and energy designing a new cartridge that would be poor substitute for an already widely accepted 7.62x39 design? With modern powers, the potential for the 7.62 x39 eclipses the 6.8 SPC. Plus, whatever upper was used on the M16 would be instantly backwards compatible with older less potent ammo.
Two of the criticisms about the AK is that the rifle is not controllable at full auto nor was it accurate past 200 yards. Well the bullet is plenty accurate with the right barrel and since M16's are limited to 3 round burst
Hell, the 6 mm PPC is an extremely accurate cartridge and probably could ahve been easily converted into usage on the M16, over designing and entirely new cartridge like the 6.8 SPC.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Start and finish with a 22
Mom always said "Practice makes perfect." As such as I hate to say it mom was right. With the cost of bullet rising quickly and surplus ammo disappearing fast, it has become much more expensive to shoot. A box of 9 mm only cost about 6 bucks a box 2 years ago, now it costs 9 bucks. I used to go to Walmart and get Winchester White Box ammo, hundred packs of 40 S&W for 14 bucks. That same box is now 23 bucks.
Yet oddly, I can still get a box of 550 22 lr for ten bucks. I spend a lot of time firing my 22 rifle and pistol. I can work on skills and attempt to perfect my practices with a 22 for almost no cost. Now, I am not saying that practice with a more formidable weapon isn't required, I a stating that many of the techniques used for a 22 will also work for a 45 acp, just a lot cheaper. Practicing moving and shooting, pistol drawing, double taps, and other mechanics of shooting can be done over and over and not break the bank.
Th first gun I ever shot was a Marlin model 60 in 22 lr. The first gun I bought was Browning Buckmark, in 22 lr. I have drilled on that pistol over and over. Reloading exercises, jam clearing, target changes, etc. By the time I "upgraded" to my next pistol, a 1911, I was a fairly competent shooter.
I recommend everyone start with a 22 and learn the basics before rushing to a big bore. If you learn bad habits first, it is a pain in the ass to correct those habits.
Yet oddly, I can still get a box of 550 22 lr for ten bucks. I spend a lot of time firing my 22 rifle and pistol. I can work on skills and attempt to perfect my practices with a 22 for almost no cost. Now, I am not saying that practice with a more formidable weapon isn't required, I a stating that many of the techniques used for a 22 will also work for a 45 acp, just a lot cheaper. Practicing moving and shooting, pistol drawing, double taps, and other mechanics of shooting can be done over and over and not break the bank.
Th first gun I ever shot was a Marlin model 60 in 22 lr. The first gun I bought was Browning Buckmark, in 22 lr. I have drilled on that pistol over and over. Reloading exercises, jam clearing, target changes, etc. By the time I "upgraded" to my next pistol, a 1911, I was a fairly competent shooter.
I recommend everyone start with a 22 and learn the basics before rushing to a big bore. If you learn bad habits first, it is a pain in the ass to correct those habits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)