http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html
A while back I posted on a guy who went outside to confront two guys who had broken into his neighbors house. The guy had called the police and the 911 operator advised the guy to stay in his house. Since the neighbor was a good friend, the guy told the 911 operator he was going out...and out he went with his 12 gage. He told the two bad guys to stand till or he would shoot. Apparently, one lunged at him and bang, bang, bang.
Texas has a law, as should all states, that the use of deadly force is allowable to defend property. Well, the guy gets arrested..the case goes to grand jury, and lo-and-behold he is not charged with any crime. Well, no shit. He prevented two illegal aliens, one of whom was previously arrested and deported for criminal activity from completing another crime. They had already broken into the neighbors house and were attempting to get away with stolen goods.
I wish I had a neighbor like this guy.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
More on Heller
Time Magazine have now put their spin on the Heller Supreme Court decision.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080627/us_time/thefutureofguncontrol;_ylt=AgJYDB1Y3OETP9050g9Hppqs0NUE
"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote. The gun control advocates are already jumping on that statement. Time is stating, "The ruling, which affirms a federal appeals court decree, makes clear that individual ownership rights are limited. Gun-control advocates say the ruling's focus on gun bans safeguards reasonable gun restrictions from the flurry of litigation it will undoubtedly trigger."
"The Court's decision indicated regulation of guns, as opposed to the banning of handguns, is entirely permissible," says Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions." Scalia said the Court's decision "should not be taken to cast doubt" on many existing restrictions against gun possession, including handgun possession by felons and the mentally ill, possession in schools and government buildings and rules governing commercial arms sale. Says Henigan: "I don't think that there is any federal gun control law that's likely to be struck down."
Basically, the Anti's are saying the court is opening up the wide availability of laws to restrict guns severely, rather then outright banning them. Hummm... well, if they get their wish, I can see taxes up the wazoo on guns and ammo, registration fees, annual renewal fees, etc. Since the Freedom of Speech is not completely unlimited, how about we tax people based on the number of words they utter in a day. How about we tax people for going to church, or the number of Hail Mary's they utter. Let's tax tithes, too. Come on. This is ridiculous. Common sense laws are needed.
To quote Chief Justice Roberts, "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Well what is reasonable about laws that make a "Right" so restricted that no one can avail themselves of that right?
Let's hope the next case to the Supreme Court doesn't take us another 230 years to fix this idiocy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080627/us_time/thefutureofguncontrol;_ylt=AgJYDB1Y3OETP9050g9Hppqs0NUE
"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote. The gun control advocates are already jumping on that statement. Time is stating, "The ruling, which affirms a federal appeals court decree, makes clear that individual ownership rights are limited. Gun-control advocates say the ruling's focus on gun bans safeguards reasonable gun restrictions from the flurry of litigation it will undoubtedly trigger."
"The Court's decision indicated regulation of guns, as opposed to the banning of handguns, is entirely permissible," says Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions." Scalia said the Court's decision "should not be taken to cast doubt" on many existing restrictions against gun possession, including handgun possession by felons and the mentally ill, possession in schools and government buildings and rules governing commercial arms sale. Says Henigan: "I don't think that there is any federal gun control law that's likely to be struck down."
Basically, the Anti's are saying the court is opening up the wide availability of laws to restrict guns severely, rather then outright banning them. Hummm... well, if they get their wish, I can see taxes up the wazoo on guns and ammo, registration fees, annual renewal fees, etc. Since the Freedom of Speech is not completely unlimited, how about we tax people based on the number of words they utter in a day. How about we tax people for going to church, or the number of Hail Mary's they utter. Let's tax tithes, too. Come on. This is ridiculous. Common sense laws are needed.
To quote Chief Justice Roberts, "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Well what is reasonable about laws that make a "Right" so restricted that no one can avail themselves of that right?
Let's hope the next case to the Supreme Court doesn't take us another 230 years to fix this idiocy.
Friday, June 27, 2008
First D.C., now...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_reaction
Several places are now in the sights of the Pro-2nd folks including Chicago and it's suburbs, Massachusetts, Cleveland, and San Francisco. Lawsuits have popped up in a few places, including the link above that shows the NRA "gunning" San Fran to overturn their gun ban as unconstitutional.
"The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling"
Of course, the mayor of San Francisco's socialist government, Gavin Newsom, released the following statement, "... the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety." "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."
Sure, buddy. You keep on with your anti-Constitution and Bill of Rights statements. Show us how American you are by rejecting everything we stand for. Right on, ya butthead!
Several places are now in the sights of the Pro-2nd folks including Chicago and it's suburbs, Massachusetts, Cleveland, and San Francisco. Lawsuits have popped up in a few places, including the link above that shows the NRA "gunning" San Fran to overturn their gun ban as unconstitutional.
"The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling"
Of course, the mayor of San Francisco's socialist government, Gavin Newsom, released the following statement, "... the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety." "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."
Sure, buddy. You keep on with your anti-Constitution and Bill of Rights statements. Show us how American you are by rejecting everything we stand for. Right on, ya butthead!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Heller vs D.C.
I have been following opinion posts and news media all day trying to discern some valid information about how this case will actually play in the real world. The door was left open for some limitations of the 2nd Amendment, even though there was a clear statement that this is a personal freedom, just like all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/119472
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AtMLo6WIf4aEUTnMVYm8j2ys0NUE
One thing that keeps being stated by the Anti's is that this allows for handguns in a house, but that in public they can still be controlled. I do not think this was the intent of the Framers or the Supreme Court, but the Anti's will try everything and anything to win their fight.
The supreme Court voted 5-4 Thursday that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is an individual right. The high court decided the Constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." So, what about the fact that almost all campus dormitories in the U.S. ban handguns? Hummm.. the dorm is their home. Brings an important issue up that I am sure will see the inside fo the courtrooms in the near future.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that some restrictions on gun ownership are permissible. This included "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Scalia said an individuals right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. He also stated, "A handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
One thing that really worries me is that this was a 5-4 decision. This means that 4 of the 9 judges were voting to change the meaning of the Bill of Rights in a fundamental way. There is a reason gun rights in listed #2 among the ten original rights. It's that damned important. It's a personal liberty, or as some would say, a God given right..either way it's fundamental to who we are, who we have been and who we will be in the future.
Democratic presidential candidate Obama, was on both sides of the issue (typical politician), said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." He is well known as an anti-gun person who has voted for every single anti-gun bill brought before him.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, supported the ruling, calling it "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom." He hasn't always been a pro-2nd guy, either, but way more supportive then Obama.
President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."
Shortly after the decision was stated, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded that he has a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Yeahhhh.. right. More guns in the hands of lawful citizen will help lower the crime rate, just as it has done in Florida and most other states with a reasonably open gun policy.
Just look at Britain and Australia..once they banned guns to law abiding citizens, only the unlawful had them. The crime rate in Britain has increased two fold in the ten years since guns were banned. Only the bad guys have them and they know the people they are robbing are not armed.
The NRA is planning to file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions using the D.C. vote against those states breaking the law. I am sure Massachusetts and Maryland are soon to follow.
As soon as they cut away from the Supreme Court decision, they went to a spokes person for the Brady Bunch who stated they are resolved to impose more laws limiting weapons, even though they admit that gun ownership is an individual freedom.... HUH?
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/119472
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AtMLo6WIf4aEUTnMVYm8j2ys0NUE
One thing that keeps being stated by the Anti's is that this allows for handguns in a house, but that in public they can still be controlled. I do not think this was the intent of the Framers or the Supreme Court, but the Anti's will try everything and anything to win their fight.
The supreme Court voted 5-4 Thursday that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is an individual right. The high court decided the Constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." So, what about the fact that almost all campus dormitories in the U.S. ban handguns? Hummm.. the dorm is their home. Brings an important issue up that I am sure will see the inside fo the courtrooms in the near future.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that some restrictions on gun ownership are permissible. This included "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Scalia said an individuals right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. He also stated, "A handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
One thing that really worries me is that this was a 5-4 decision. This means that 4 of the 9 judges were voting to change the meaning of the Bill of Rights in a fundamental way. There is a reason gun rights in listed #2 among the ten original rights. It's that damned important. It's a personal liberty, or as some would say, a God given right..either way it's fundamental to who we are, who we have been and who we will be in the future.
Democratic presidential candidate Obama, was on both sides of the issue (typical politician), said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." He is well known as an anti-gun person who has voted for every single anti-gun bill brought before him.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, supported the ruling, calling it "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom." He hasn't always been a pro-2nd guy, either, but way more supportive then Obama.
President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."
Shortly after the decision was stated, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded that he has a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Yeahhhh.. right. More guns in the hands of lawful citizen will help lower the crime rate, just as it has done in Florida and most other states with a reasonably open gun policy.
Just look at Britain and Australia..once they banned guns to law abiding citizens, only the unlawful had them. The crime rate in Britain has increased two fold in the ten years since guns were banned. Only the bad guys have them and they know the people they are robbing are not armed.
The NRA is planning to file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions using the D.C. vote against those states breaking the law. I am sure Massachusetts and Maryland are soon to follow.
As soon as they cut away from the Supreme Court decision, they went to a spokes person for the Brady Bunch who stated they are resolved to impose more laws limiting weapons, even though they admit that gun ownership is an individual freedom.... HUH?
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun Rights
Landmark decision, 5-4, the Second Amendment is an individual Right and the handgun ban in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional. While this is the decision all Pro-2nd people have known was fact for 232 years, it was not perfect. 4 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court did not properly understand the Bill of Rights.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." With Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban. Guess who's next, guys? That's right..Chicago, San Fran, and all the others crappy anti-Bill of Rights have to fall.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." With Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban. Guess who's next, guys? That's right..Chicago, San Fran, and all the others crappy anti-Bill of Rights have to fall.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Heller
June 26th, starting at 10:30 Eastern time, the Supreme Court of the United States will begin its decision of Heller vs D.C. This is the Landmark case for the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Does the District of Columbia have the ability to ignore the Bill or Rights and ban the ownership, possession or buying of handguns? This case will set the precedent for the 2nd Amendment for the next hundred years.
Cross your fingers.
Cross your fingers.
Cops...outgunned
http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/phoenix_local_news_062408_under-armed.37b4cf41.html?npc
Well, duh!!
I am sure most gangbangers armed by the Mexican Mafia are better armed then the cops running after then with handguns and maybe shotguns *(if they remembered to take them from their trunks). Anyone with a rifle with a scope if better armed then most cops. Swat and special teams are a different breed, but the typical beat cop probably has a Glock, Beretta, or a Sig pistol in their belt and no more.
Well, duh!!
I am sure most gangbangers armed by the Mexican Mafia are better armed then the cops running after then with handguns and maybe shotguns *(if they remembered to take them from their trunks). Anyone with a rifle with a scope if better armed then most cops. Swat and special teams are a different breed, but the typical beat cop probably has a Glock, Beretta, or a Sig pistol in their belt and no more.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Assault Weapons Ban, Part Deux
This time... Sponsored by a Republican. More proof that not all Republicans are Pro-2nd.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257
RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;
‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’
Let's see what happens with this....
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257
RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;
‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’
Let's see what happens with this....
Monday, June 23, 2008
Karma, Baby... Karma
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Home-Invasion-Death.html
You have to love it when the Laws of Natural Selection and Karma work together to stop a dumbass. Apparently, this 19 year old kid was breaking into a house. He kicked in the door and BAM !! His gun went off when he pulled it from his pants. He ran and bled out.
While the medical examiner rled this accidental, I rule this as a win for Karma.
You have to love it when the Laws of Natural Selection and Karma work together to stop a dumbass. Apparently, this 19 year old kid was breaking into a house. He kicked in the door and BAM !! His gun went off when he pulled it from his pants. He ran and bled out.
While the medical examiner rled this accidental, I rule this as a win for Karma.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Imagine this wallet biter
Imagine that you have saved up for an African Safari. It has cost you ten thousand dollars for the plane tickets, a professional hunter, lodging, dining, and everything else. You are on your way through the airport, get on your plane, deboard at your destination and find out there is a T.S.A. sticker on your luggage. You check your weapon case.. everything looks fine. You check your other luggage... son of a B*itch !! Your ammo is gone.
Yup... the T.S.A. checkers has been confiscating (or possibly stealing) ammo out of bags. Now it's gotten worse, though. There seems to be a pattern..everything over 50 caliber is being confiscated.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4002
Cartridges like the .577 Nitro Express have been around for a long time now, over 130 years, but they are very expensive. The.577 Nitro Express with a 750-grain bullet has about 7,000 ft-lbs of energy, about 3.5 times that of a 30-06, and 6 times that of a 223 Remington. Bullets run from about 8 to 20 dollars each...yes, the high end ones are about $19 and change per cartridge. So, if someone steals a box of 10 or twenty from your bag, that's expensive to replace and let's face it, you cannot go into any Walmart or most gun stores to find this cartridge sitting on their shelves.
Yup... the T.S.A. checkers has been confiscating (or possibly stealing) ammo out of bags. Now it's gotten worse, though. There seems to be a pattern..everything over 50 caliber is being confiscated.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4002
Cartridges like the .577 Nitro Express have been around for a long time now, over 130 years, but they are very expensive. The.577 Nitro Express with a 750-grain bullet has about 7,000 ft-lbs of energy, about 3.5 times that of a 30-06, and 6 times that of a 223 Remington. Bullets run from about 8 to 20 dollars each...yes, the high end ones are about $19 and change per cartridge. So, if someone steals a box of 10 or twenty from your bag, that's expensive to replace and let's face it, you cannot go into any Walmart or most gun stores to find this cartridge sitting on their shelves.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
We have it easy
We Americans do spend a bit of time debating the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Both sides think they have valid arguments. Both sides have statistics, charts, glowing stories of success and horrid displays of failures. Thing is, in spite of the fact that two sides are diametrically opposed, we have it pretty easy....
--Chinese citizens are prohibited from owning any guns. Period.
--In South Korea, it is a death penalty for anyone not related to military to own or distribute firearms.
--Japan has strict laws, and civilians cannot own handguns. They can only own a shotgun or rifle, after scrutiny.
--Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution declares that citizens have the right to bear arms However, it is currently illegal in Mexico for any civilian to own a firearm of any caliber ever used or tested by the Mexican Government or Military. A citizen is stuck with a .22 to .380 caliber rifle or similar firearm without a full-automatic firing system. Ownership of any centerfire caliber designed for automatic or military rifles is forbidden.
--In the Netherlands, only citizens who are members of shooting or hunting clubs can get licences for weapons. This is only for sporting weapons.
--In Taiwan, legal private ownership of firearms and ammunition is severely restricted. Aside from a few individuals licensed decades ago and shooting organizations sanctioned by the government, only aborigines may receive firearm permits.
With approval from the government, Taiwanese aborigines may build and possess up to two muzzle-loading black powder rifles per individual, or up to six rifles per household, for hunting and ceremonial purposes.
This shows, it could always be worse for us, but let's hope not.
--Chinese citizens are prohibited from owning any guns. Period.
--In South Korea, it is a death penalty for anyone not related to military to own or distribute firearms.
--Japan has strict laws, and civilians cannot own handguns. They can only own a shotgun or rifle, after scrutiny.
--Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution declares that citizens have the right to bear arms However, it is currently illegal in Mexico for any civilian to own a firearm of any caliber ever used or tested by the Mexican Government or Military. A citizen is stuck with a .22 to .380 caliber rifle or similar firearm without a full-automatic firing system. Ownership of any centerfire caliber designed for automatic or military rifles is forbidden.
--In the Netherlands, only citizens who are members of shooting or hunting clubs can get licences for weapons. This is only for sporting weapons.
--In Taiwan, legal private ownership of firearms and ammunition is severely restricted. Aside from a few individuals licensed decades ago and shooting organizations sanctioned by the government, only aborigines may receive firearm permits.
With approval from the government, Taiwanese aborigines may build and possess up to two muzzle-loading black powder rifles per individual, or up to six rifles per household, for hunting and ceremonial purposes.
This shows, it could always be worse for us, but let's hope not.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Brady Bunch
The NRA has its facts page and so does the Brady Bunch...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/
Now, why would a Pro Bill of Rights person, like myself, go to the oppositions webpage? Simple, know you enemy. As with any war, intel is the key. How can you wage wage with something when you do not know its abilities, strengths, or weaknesses?
For example, "In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown." What they fail to point out is that all this happened during the Assault Weapons Ban.Hi Cap Ban period they helped to promote and that these numbers have been decreasing steadily for the past twenty plus years.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/
"The Federal Assault Weapons Act, banning the sale of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.
The Act led to a dramatic decline in the incidence of assault weapons traced to crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) crime gun traces nationwide. After the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF had traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."
Assault weapons have never been a major part of crime in the U.S. and even they admit there was only 1.61% of all crimes that had anything to do with an assault weapon...and if you actually looked at the weapons in question and compared those to the real definition of an assault weapon, the percentage would drop a lot more. I am very suspicious of these statistics since they can be using a Ruger 10-22 with a folding stock and call it an assault weapon because it looks imposing.
Take a look at their site... it's a scary, eye-opening entertainment
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/
Now, why would a Pro Bill of Rights person, like myself, go to the oppositions webpage? Simple, know you enemy. As with any war, intel is the key. How can you wage wage with something when you do not know its abilities, strengths, or weaknesses?
For example, "In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown." What they fail to point out is that all this happened during the Assault Weapons Ban.Hi Cap Ban period they helped to promote and that these numbers have been decreasing steadily for the past twenty plus years.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/
"The Federal Assault Weapons Act, banning the sale of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.
The Act led to a dramatic decline in the incidence of assault weapons traced to crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) crime gun traces nationwide. After the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF had traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."
Assault weapons have never been a major part of crime in the U.S. and even they admit there was only 1.61% of all crimes that had anything to do with an assault weapon...and if you actually looked at the weapons in question and compared those to the real definition of an assault weapon, the percentage would drop a lot more. I am very suspicious of these statistics since they can be using a Ruger 10-22 with a folding stock and call it an assault weapon because it looks imposing.
Take a look at their site... it's a scary, eye-opening entertainment
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Something to ponder
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.
So, someone explain to me what the "bear arms" portion of this important statement in our Bill of Rights. If bearing arms means what the Founding Fathers intended, it means that the citizens of this country have the right to carry their arms whenever and where ever they want.
If this is the case, then isn't the C.C.W. requirement to carry a weapon hidden on your body unconstitutional? If the bear arms part means what the Found Fathers intended to, doesn't getting a C.C.W. actually limit your Rights? Think about it, by getting a C.C.W. you are agreeing to the terms of the C.C.W. laws in your area and signing away your Constitutional rights to carry whenever and where-ever you want. Now, I have a C.C.W. but I never considered this before.
It's just something to think about.
So, someone explain to me what the "bear arms" portion of this important statement in our Bill of Rights. If bearing arms means what the Founding Fathers intended, it means that the citizens of this country have the right to carry their arms whenever and where ever they want.
If this is the case, then isn't the C.C.W. requirement to carry a weapon hidden on your body unconstitutional? If the bear arms part means what the Found Fathers intended to, doesn't getting a C.C.W. actually limit your Rights? Think about it, by getting a C.C.W. you are agreeing to the terms of the C.C.W. laws in your area and signing away your Constitutional rights to carry whenever and where-ever you want. Now, I have a C.C.W. but I never considered this before.
It's just something to think about.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Liberals
According to Dictionary.com the word "Liberal" means:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. –noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME < class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">liberals of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al1] —Related forms
—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
When did this word take on a negative connotation? Many of the political changes that have improved America came from liberals, Democrat, Republican, or any other party. Using this term to be derogatory to Democrats is just plain stupid. I know many Democrats who are not only gun owners but are ardent supports of the 2nd Amendment. Berating these people is shooting our own brothers in the foot.
Why is the term Liberal so well established in the Pro-2nd as a term of dis-endearment? Let's be real. They are the Anti's, we are the pro. Not all gun owners are Republicans and not all Republicans are pro-guns. The Democrats are not all Anti-2nd and many are gun owners.
Stop flaming our others.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. –noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME < class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">liberals of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al1] —Related forms
—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
When did this word take on a negative connotation? Many of the political changes that have improved America came from liberals, Democrat, Republican, or any other party. Using this term to be derogatory to Democrats is just plain stupid. I know many Democrats who are not only gun owners but are ardent supports of the 2nd Amendment. Berating these people is shooting our own brothers in the foot.
Why is the term Liberal so well established in the Pro-2nd as a term of dis-endearment? Let's be real. They are the Anti's, we are the pro. Not all gun owners are Republicans and not all Republicans are pro-guns. The Democrats are not all Anti-2nd and many are gun owners.
Stop flaming our others.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Changing laws
I have tried to mention many of the laws that have been changed or proposed that are of significant importance. But, I know I have missed more then a few, especially local ones here in Arizona.
Newly signed in laws, within the past year, for Arizona:
---SB 1258 -- Affects A.R.S. §26-303. Prohibits the Governor, or Adjutant General, from confiscating lawfully held firearms, ammunition or their components during a state of emergency, specifically invoking federal and state constitutional guarantees. This important limit has been placed on many officials nationwide, after highly publicized abusive confiscations in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina. Specifically, emergency powers, "shall not be construed to allow the imposition of additional restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition or firearms or ammunition components." Authorities can, however, move large supplies of ammo ("stores of ammunition") "out of the way of dangerous conditions." The governor had previously refused to sign this common-sense bill because, she said, it would prevent moving an ammo stockpile during a forest fire. AZCDL added the language to neutralize that excuse, which lead to the law's passage. CH101
Gotta like this one...so, just a Katrina, the government cannot legally disarm us.
---HB 2469 -- Affects A.R.S. §13-3112. Reduces the penalty for not carrying your CCW permit with you to a petty offense (from the current Class 2 misdemeanor). It also restricts the application of the law to concealed-weapons-permit holders, and clarifies that permit holders can only be charged if they are carrying a concealed weapon when they fail to present their permit at the request of a law enforcement officer. If, on appearing in court after being cited for failure to have your permit with you, you produce a legible permit that was valid at the time of the violation, you "shall not be convicted." CH45
This one is another big one. What happens if you forget your wallet/purse in your car or home and you are out and about when the officer confronts you? Previously, your license was revoked. This gives good, honest people a chance to redeem themselves for a silly mistake.
---May 15, 2006: The Castle Doctrine and Burden of Proof laws were clarified and strengthened, and with the Emergency Clause, they went into effect when they were signed in April. Also, the two-hour CCW renewal class was eliminated (though permits must still be renewed every five years), and all legally issued state firearm permits will now be recognized in Arizona, with minor conditions.
---Arizona has dropped its reciprocity approach to out-of-state permits and adopted a recognition scheme. Under the new deal, spelled out in HB2074, Arizona will recognize a valid firearm permit from any state if it was legally issued by that state, the person is not an Arizona resident and is legally in Arizona, and the person is not a prohibited possessor
There are a ton of minor changes to wording, clarification, but I thought these were the good ones.
Newly signed in laws, within the past year, for Arizona:
---SB 1258 -- Affects A.R.S. §26-303. Prohibits the Governor, or Adjutant General, from confiscating lawfully held firearms, ammunition or their components during a state of emergency, specifically invoking federal and state constitutional guarantees. This important limit has been placed on many officials nationwide, after highly publicized abusive confiscations in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina. Specifically, emergency powers, "shall not be construed to allow the imposition of additional restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition or firearms or ammunition components." Authorities can, however, move large supplies of ammo ("stores of ammunition") "out of the way of dangerous conditions." The governor had previously refused to sign this common-sense bill because, she said, it would prevent moving an ammo stockpile during a forest fire. AZCDL added the language to neutralize that excuse, which lead to the law's passage. CH101
Gotta like this one...so, just a Katrina, the government cannot legally disarm us.
---HB 2469 -- Affects A.R.S. §13-3112. Reduces the penalty for not carrying your CCW permit with you to a petty offense (from the current Class 2 misdemeanor). It also restricts the application of the law to concealed-weapons-permit holders, and clarifies that permit holders can only be charged if they are carrying a concealed weapon when they fail to present their permit at the request of a law enforcement officer. If, on appearing in court after being cited for failure to have your permit with you, you produce a legible permit that was valid at the time of the violation, you "shall not be convicted." CH45
This one is another big one. What happens if you forget your wallet/purse in your car or home and you are out and about when the officer confronts you? Previously, your license was revoked. This gives good, honest people a chance to redeem themselves for a silly mistake.
---May 15, 2006: The Castle Doctrine and Burden of Proof laws were clarified and strengthened, and with the Emergency Clause, they went into effect when they were signed in April. Also, the two-hour CCW renewal class was eliminated (though permits must still be renewed every five years), and all legally issued state firearm permits will now be recognized in Arizona, with minor conditions.
---Arizona has dropped its reciprocity approach to out-of-state permits and adopted a recognition scheme. Under the new deal, spelled out in HB2074, Arizona will recognize a valid firearm permit from any state if it was legally issued by that state, the person is not an Arizona resident and is legally in Arizona, and the person is not a prohibited possessor
There are a ton of minor changes to wording, clarification, but I thought these were the good ones.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Price wars..my wallet against my expenses.
Not too many years ago, ammo was cheap and gas was cheaper. I remember filling up my car for under $15, less then 10 years ago. At the same time, ammo was 50 rounds of 9mm for about 6 or 7 bucks. A box of 45 ACP was less then $10 and 550 rounds of 22LR in the Federal bulk box was like $8.99. I was buying 7.62x39mm for $1.99 a box of twenty and blowing through thousands at this cost.
Now, gas is over $4 a gallon and it takes me $45 to fill up the tank. Even the cheap boxes of ammo cost $12 for 50 rounds of 9mm and you are lucky as hell to find 45 ACP for $20. The surplus 7.62x39mm is about gone and, if you can find imported stuff, it is running at least $5 a box. Long gone are most of the surplus 8mm Mauser, 6.5mm Swedish, 9mm Mak, 7.62x51, 30-06, and 7 mm Mauser.
The price of the U.S. dollar has dropped through the floor, less then a third of the international value it had 10 years ago. So, the cheap import stuff is not as much of a savings, if any, as it used to be.
Places to shoot are a lot further out now then they used to me. Housing has encroached on my old shooting spots and many of the other ones I shot at were closed down because people were dumping stuff. So, not only do I have to drive further, which costs more, each box of ammo is a least double what it used to me. Even the cost of components for reloading has gone up enormously.
I need to win Powerball to get back to the amounts of shooting I used to do.
Now, gas is over $4 a gallon and it takes me $45 to fill up the tank. Even the cheap boxes of ammo cost $12 for 50 rounds of 9mm and you are lucky as hell to find 45 ACP for $20. The surplus 7.62x39mm is about gone and, if you can find imported stuff, it is running at least $5 a box. Long gone are most of the surplus 8mm Mauser, 6.5mm Swedish, 9mm Mak, 7.62x51, 30-06, and 7 mm Mauser.
The price of the U.S. dollar has dropped through the floor, less then a third of the international value it had 10 years ago. So, the cheap import stuff is not as much of a savings, if any, as it used to be.
Places to shoot are a lot further out now then they used to me. Housing has encroached on my old shooting spots and many of the other ones I shot at were closed down because people were dumping stuff. So, not only do I have to drive further, which costs more, each box of ammo is a least double what it used to me. Even the cost of components for reloading has gone up enormously.
I need to win Powerball to get back to the amounts of shooting I used to do.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Fear of guns
The Brady Bunch and the rest of the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd tell us guns are bad. This indoctrination may have been caused by their parents, the media, an idol, literature, a bad experience, or whatever else. This belief can be a misunderstanding, a feeling, a curiosity, or a fear.
There is a term for fear of guns: Hoplophobia. Depending on your source, this word can be traced back to either 1962 or 1980, but in either case, it was created by legendary Gun Guru Jeff Cooper. He created the term to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." Hoplophobia is described as an uncommon phobia in Contemporary Diagnosis And Management of Anxiety Disorders.
The term is derived from the Greek `Hoplites' which meant armored man. These were the spear guys who were part of the formidable phalanx formation of men they used to subjugate most of the known world.
The term has also been misapplied to all anti-gun people, which just isn't proper. It's a clinical term, not a general term. Basically, it's like calling a magazine a "clip" which is generally accepted, but not correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunHate.htm
There is a term for fear of guns: Hoplophobia. Depending on your source, this word can be traced back to either 1962 or 1980, but in either case, it was created by legendary Gun Guru Jeff Cooper. He created the term to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." Hoplophobia is described as an uncommon phobia in Contemporary Diagnosis And Management of Anxiety Disorders.
The term is derived from the Greek `Hoplites' which meant armored man. These were the spear guys who were part of the formidable phalanx formation of men they used to subjugate most of the known world.
The term has also been misapplied to all anti-gun people, which just isn't proper. It's a clinical term, not a general term. Basically, it's like calling a magazine a "clip" which is generally accepted, but not correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunHate.htm
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Frommer "Stop"
One of the oddest looking pistols ever made is the Hungarian made Frommer "Stop." To me, this looks like a water gun. It was manufactured from 1912 until about 1930, but was used by the Hungarians until the end of World War Two. While, aesthetically, it is unappealing all reports state that this ugly duckling was very reliable and well made.
Rudolph Frommer worked at Fegyvergyar Small Arms and Machine Company, in Budapest when he improved upon his earlier designs, like the M1910 to come up with this pistol. I have never found a reason why he named this design "Stop.".
The "Stop" used a long recoil system to operate; the bolt and the barrel both moved a longer distance (the barrel actually moved all the way back to the magazine to strip a fresh round from the magazine) then the length of the cartridge. This system is fairly rare in pistols. This added massive complexity to a small gun in 32 ACP or 380 Auto (the vast majority were in 32 ACP). In addition, the bolt head rotated to lock the breech. Most designers of weapons of these caliber opt for blowback designs as they are easier to make, reliable, and do not batter the guns.
There is some debate on the 32 ACP designation for pistols used by the Austro-Hungarian and Hungarian militaries. Apparently, there is a cartridge called the 7.65 Frommer. This round is almost perfectly identical to the 32 ACP, but loaded more hot. So, while the gun will chamber and fire the 32 ACP, some people believe this gun was intended for use with the 7.65 Frommer round used in earlier pistols designed by this gunsmith.
Magazine capacity for the "Stop" is seven rounds. While there is no manual safety on the "Stop" it did have a grip safety, a-la M1911. For its time, it was a very light weight pistol, only weighing 21.5 ounces. The barrel was 4 inches long.
The pistol was accepted as the Pistol 12M by the Hungarian portion of the Austro-Hungarian Army. When Hungary became its own country in 1919, it was re-accepted as the Pistol 19M.
There was even a "Baby Stop" that even smaller, with a 3 inch barrel. It also used the 32 ACP and 380 Auto cartridges. This was produced from 1912 until about 1930. It only held 5 rounds and weight about 3 ounces less then its bigger brother. Approximately 90000 Stop and Baby Stop pistols were produced. Numbers of these guns were sold to Germany, Bulgaria, and Austria.
All sources of information on these pistols state the same thing, Do Not Attempt to Disassemble This Pistol Without Expert Guidance. Apparently, it is a pain in the butt to take apart and a nightmare to put back together.
Rudolph Frommer worked at Fegyvergyar Small Arms and Machine Company, in Budapest when he improved upon his earlier designs, like the M1910 to come up with this pistol. I have never found a reason why he named this design "Stop.".
The "Stop" used a long recoil system to operate; the bolt and the barrel both moved a longer distance (the barrel actually moved all the way back to the magazine to strip a fresh round from the magazine) then the length of the cartridge. This system is fairly rare in pistols. This added massive complexity to a small gun in 32 ACP or 380 Auto (the vast majority were in 32 ACP). In addition, the bolt head rotated to lock the breech. Most designers of weapons of these caliber opt for blowback designs as they are easier to make, reliable, and do not batter the guns.
There is some debate on the 32 ACP designation for pistols used by the Austro-Hungarian and Hungarian militaries. Apparently, there is a cartridge called the 7.65 Frommer. This round is almost perfectly identical to the 32 ACP, but loaded more hot. So, while the gun will chamber and fire the 32 ACP, some people believe this gun was intended for use with the 7.65 Frommer round used in earlier pistols designed by this gunsmith.
Magazine capacity for the "Stop" is seven rounds. While there is no manual safety on the "Stop" it did have a grip safety, a-la M1911. For its time, it was a very light weight pistol, only weighing 21.5 ounces. The barrel was 4 inches long.
The pistol was accepted as the Pistol 12M by the Hungarian portion of the Austro-Hungarian Army. When Hungary became its own country in 1919, it was re-accepted as the Pistol 19M.
There was even a "Baby Stop" that even smaller, with a 3 inch barrel. It also used the 32 ACP and 380 Auto cartridges. This was produced from 1912 until about 1930. It only held 5 rounds and weight about 3 ounces less then its bigger brother. Approximately 90000 Stop and Baby Stop pistols were produced. Numbers of these guns were sold to Germany, Bulgaria, and Austria.
All sources of information on these pistols state the same thing, Do Not Attempt to Disassemble This Pistol Without Expert Guidance. Apparently, it is a pain in the butt to take apart and a nightmare to put back together.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Polygonal Rifling
Since the Glock was introduced about twenty five years ago, one of it's selling points was that it had Polygonal Rifling. This is a "special" type of rifling that, according to Wikipedia's description, "... Is a type of rifling wherein the traditional lands and grooves are replaced by "hills and valleys" in a rounded polygonal pattern, usually a hexagon." Theoretically, the advantages of this over traditional rifling are: Less friction since there is less surface area, less bullet deformation which can increase range, reduction in amount of lead and copper fouling, and finally increased barrel life.
Polygonal rifling is nothing new. It has been around almost as long as rifled barrels have been used. It was a time consuming process to form these barrels and "traditional" rifling was much easier to do. By the late 1800's, polygonal rifling was virtually dead. As we all know, everything old is made new again. In the late 1930's, Germany gunmakers started using polygonal rifling, again, and it has slowly been reaccepted in Europe and now the U.S.
Currently, Glock, Kahr, Magnum Research, and HK are the big users of this type of rifling---but only in pistols. Polygonal rifling is extremely rare in long guns and even rarer in target rifles. Apparently, for all it's hype, polygonal rifling is not any better then traditional rifling and possibly worse for long barrel or long range accuracy. It it was more accurate and deformed the bullets less then traditional rifling, this would increase accuracy in long range shooting. This appears not to be the case. In pictures of recovered bullets, the polygonal rifling does cause slight deformation, which looked to me like little valleys grooved in the copper jacket of the bullet. Traditional rifling causes small cuts int he jacket of the bullet. 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. However, Glocks are very popular in pistol shooting circles.
This leads to a major disadvantage to polygonal rifling: Many experts and the Glock company advise that lead bullets (non-jacketed) should not be used in polygonal guns. There have been reports of KABOOMS (insider name for a gun blowing up) with Glocks using lead bullets. I have read reports but never seen actual proof of this. The Glock owners manual and website specifically state not to use lead bullets. Kahr and HK's do not come with this warning. The notion is that lead bullets leave a thin film of lead in the barrel each time the gun is fired. This builds up differently in polygonal rifling then in traditional styles. Eventually, the lead buildup is enough to cause the bullet to slow down and cause extreme pressures within the barrel. This can lead to a catastrophic breakdown of the weapon.
Noted Glock website Glockmeister states ( http://glockmeister.com/faq.shtml ): It is not a good idea to shoot bare lead bullets from your Glock. There are two basic reasons, the first is that the polygonal rifling in a Glock barrel really grips the bullet - this causes lead bullets to leave heavy deposits of lead when the gun is fired - heavy deposits of lead can lead to over-pressure problems - over-pressure problems can lead to nasty things like case failures. The second reason is that where the chamber meets the bore there is a sharp full edge (standard rifling does not have such a pronounced edge). This edge can shave off lead from the bullet and cause a headspace problem (the round will not fully seat) - again, this can lead to things like a case failure. Shoot plated or jacketed bullets only.
Polygonal rifling is nothing new. It has been around almost as long as rifled barrels have been used. It was a time consuming process to form these barrels and "traditional" rifling was much easier to do. By the late 1800's, polygonal rifling was virtually dead. As we all know, everything old is made new again. In the late 1930's, Germany gunmakers started using polygonal rifling, again, and it has slowly been reaccepted in Europe and now the U.S.
Currently, Glock, Kahr, Magnum Research, and HK are the big users of this type of rifling---but only in pistols. Polygonal rifling is extremely rare in long guns and even rarer in target rifles. Apparently, for all it's hype, polygonal rifling is not any better then traditional rifling and possibly worse for long barrel or long range accuracy. It it was more accurate and deformed the bullets less then traditional rifling, this would increase accuracy in long range shooting. This appears not to be the case. In pictures of recovered bullets, the polygonal rifling does cause slight deformation, which looked to me like little valleys grooved in the copper jacket of the bullet. Traditional rifling causes small cuts int he jacket of the bullet.
This leads to a major disadvantage to polygonal rifling: Many experts and the Glock company advise that lead bullets (non-jacketed) should not be used in polygonal guns. There have been reports of KABOOMS (insider name for a gun blowing up) with Glocks using lead bullets. I have read reports but never seen actual proof of this. The Glock owners manual and website specifically state not to use lead bullets. Kahr and HK's do not come with this warning. The notion is that lead bullets leave a thin film of lead in the barrel each time the gun is fired. This builds up differently in polygonal rifling then in traditional styles. Eventually, the lead buildup is enough to cause the bullet to slow down and cause extreme pressures within the barrel. This can lead to a catastrophic breakdown of the weapon.
Noted Glock website Glockmeister states ( http://glockmeister.com/faq.shtml ): It is not a good idea to shoot bare lead bullets from your Glock. There are two basic reasons, the first is that the polygonal rifling in a Glock barrel really grips the bullet - this causes lead bullets to leave heavy deposits of lead when the gun is fired - heavy deposits of lead can lead to over-pressure problems - over-pressure problems can lead to nasty things like case failures. The second reason is that where the chamber meets the bore there is a sharp full edge (standard rifling does not have such a pronounced edge). This edge can shave off lead from the bullet and cause a headspace problem (the round will not fully seat) - again, this can lead to things like a case failure. Shoot plated or jacketed bullets only.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver
The Webley Fosbery Automatic Revolver, or more correctly, theWebley-Fosbery Self-Cocking Automatic Revolver is one of the most fascinating handguns to ever be developed, let alone produced.
In 1896 a British Colonel named Fosbery patented a weapon design that combined the reliability of a revolver with an automatic action, so the pistol auto-cocked after each shot. No more fanning or thumbing the hammer or dealing with a long, heavy double action trigger. The gun was manufactured between 1901 and 1915 by Webley-Scott. The gun was large, 40 oz, about 6 oz more then the already standard Webley MkIV, though both were in standard British .455 Caliber. The Webley-Fosbery held six if these rounds. There was a later version in 38 Auto, and this model held 8 rounds in half-moon clips.
There are two main parts for this weapon, the frame and the cylinder/barrel portion. On the frame is a zig-zag. When the gun is fired, the cylinder/barrel assembly runs through this zig-zag and begins cycling the gun to the next round. When the gun returns to its original position, it is cocked and locked for the next round. It was fired by standard double action, though notably lighter then standard Webley Mk IV, V, or VI models. It loads and extracts like most British revolvers of the time, a break open.
It was an ingenious idea, designed at a time when semi-automatic pistols were in their infancy. Problem is, those zig-zags didn't hold up too well in the trenches of World War 2. Basically, they got covered in dirt and debris and jammed the gun.
The gun was extremely reliable and very accurate. Supposedly, due to it's recoil absorbing action, it had extremely tame recoil. The gun was so accurate that it was banned from Service Pistol competitions in England because it created an unfair advantage for shooters, according to Ian Hogg. Apparently, this was due to smooth trigger and ability to make quick follow-up shots.
Less the 5000 were built and the The Webley-Fosbery Self-Cocking Automatic Revolver is an interesting footnote in the annuals of modern weaponry.
In 1896 a British Colonel named Fosbery patented a weapon design that combined the reliability of a revolver with an automatic action, so the pistol auto-cocked after each shot. No more fanning or thumbing the hammer or dealing with a long, heavy double action trigger. The gun was manufactured between 1901 and 1915 by Webley-Scott. The gun was large, 40 oz, about 6 oz more then the already standard Webley MkIV, though both were in standard British .455 Caliber. The Webley-Fosbery held six if these rounds. There was a later version in 38 Auto, and this model held 8 rounds in half-moon clips.
There are two main parts for this weapon, the frame and the cylinder/barrel portion. On the frame is a zig-zag. When the gun is fired, the cylinder/barrel assembly runs through this zig-zag and begins cycling the gun to the next round. When the gun returns to its original position, it is cocked and locked for the next round. It was fired by standard double action, though notably lighter then standard Webley Mk IV, V, or VI models. It loads and extracts like most British revolvers of the time, a break open.
It was an ingenious idea, designed at a time when semi-automatic pistols were in their infancy. Problem is, those zig-zags didn't hold up too well in the trenches of World War 2. Basically, they got covered in dirt and debris and jammed the gun.
The gun was extremely reliable and very accurate. Supposedly, due to it's recoil absorbing action, it had extremely tame recoil. The gun was so accurate that it was banned from Service Pistol competitions in England because it created an unfair advantage for shooters, according to Ian Hogg. Apparently, this was due to smooth trigger and ability to make quick follow-up shots.
Less the 5000 were built and the The Webley-Fosbery Self-Cocking Automatic Revolver is an interesting footnote in the annuals of modern weaponry.
Monday, June 9, 2008
More power !!
The 45 ACP was the U.S. standard pistol cartridge from 1911 until the early 1980's. Even now, it's still the caliber of choice for many of our specialty military organizations. like the Seals. The standard 45 ACP round has a 230 grain FMJ bullet being propelled at about 800 feet per second with about 330 ft-lbs of power. Not too shabby.
Even as decent as those stats are, people are always looking for more power. An early supped-up 45 was called the 45 NAACO. It was developed by the North American Arms Corporation in Canada around 1948. (The company was only in existence until 1952.) NAACO developed a beefed uo Browning High Power (over 4.25 pounds) to launch this new 45 caliber round. The pistol was called the Brigadier and the bullet popped out of this gun's five inch barrel at 1600 fps and about 1300 ft-lbs of energy. The cartridge was made from trimming down 308 Winchester cases. The Brigadier carried 8 rounds of this high powered ammo.
In addition, the pistol had the ability to have the removable trigger module replaced by a special one allowing selective fire. A 20 round magazine and a shoulder stock could also be purchased.
NAACO was pursuing the Canadian militaries requirements for a new weapon after World War 2 and were crossing their fingers that their weapon would be chosen. In a piece of bad luck, the NATO standardization pushed the 9mm cartridge in Canada's direction in 1951 and NAACO folded just a year later.
NAACO was ahead of their time with the 45 NAACO round. It faded into obscurity, or did it? In the early 1970's Winchester created the nearly identical 45 Winchester Magnum. This cartridge never fared too well, except with some silhouette shooters and those who picked up Automag pistols, LAR Grizzlies, or some of the other super automatics that were crated but haven't done so well.
Many other attempts on improving the 45 caliber automatic have been attempted, all with limited success: 451 Detonics, 45 Super, 45 Wildley Magnum, among others. It's a fairly rough trade off.. more power at a cost of a heavier gun, more recoil, larger grip circumference, control, etc. The 45 ACP is a fine balance in weight, control, and power.
Even as decent as those stats are, people are always looking for more power. An early supped-up 45 was called the 45 NAACO. It was developed by the North American Arms Corporation in Canada around 1948. (The company was only in existence until 1952.) NAACO developed a beefed uo Browning High Power (over 4.25 pounds) to launch this new 45 caliber round. The pistol was called the Brigadier and the bullet popped out of this gun's five inch barrel at 1600 fps and about 1300 ft-lbs of energy. The cartridge was made from trimming down 308 Winchester cases. The Brigadier carried 8 rounds of this high powered ammo.
In addition, the pistol had the ability to have the removable trigger module replaced by a special one allowing selective fire. A 20 round magazine and a shoulder stock could also be purchased.
NAACO was pursuing the Canadian militaries requirements for a new weapon after World War 2 and were crossing their fingers that their weapon would be chosen. In a piece of bad luck, the NATO standardization pushed the 9mm cartridge in Canada's direction in 1951 and NAACO folded just a year later.
NAACO was ahead of their time with the 45 NAACO round. It faded into obscurity, or did it? In the early 1970's Winchester created the nearly identical 45 Winchester Magnum. This cartridge never fared too well, except with some silhouette shooters and those who picked up Automag pistols, LAR Grizzlies, or some of the other super automatics that were crated but haven't done so well.
Many other attempts on improving the 45 caliber automatic have been attempted, all with limited success: 451 Detonics, 45 Super, 45 Wildley Magnum, among others. It's a fairly rough trade off.. more power at a cost of a heavier gun, more recoil, larger grip circumference, control, etc. The 45 ACP is a fine balance in weight, control, and power.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
It's not guns...
It's not guns that cause violence, despite what the Brady Bunch and the other goofball lunatics tell you... it's the idiot with the gun. Guns are a tool, neither good nor bad. It's the action with the gun that causes bad problems for good people.
Enter Japan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/ap_on_re_as/japan_stabbing
A crazy guy who said, "He was tired of life. He said he was sick of everything," plowed his vehicle into a crowd then got out and stabbed about 17 people. Seven of those innocents died from the psycho's attack, so far. What would have happened if just one person in the area would have had the right to carry a gun for self protection? How many lives could have been saved?
This is the latest in a rash of knife attacks in the past few years. It's all the crazy guys fault, isn't it? No, wait ! Rather then addressing the issue..the crazy guy...let's follow the current path of logic and ban trucks and knives, since they are, obviously, evil in nature.
One guy who had thousands of people in a shopping center running for their lives could have been saved with the simple possibility that a legally armed person might have had a gun in their possession and stopped most of this tragedy from happening.
Enter Japan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/ap_on_re_as/japan_stabbing
A crazy guy who said, "He was tired of life. He said he was sick of everything," plowed his vehicle into a crowd then got out and stabbed about 17 people. Seven of those innocents died from the psycho's attack, so far. What would have happened if just one person in the area would have had the right to carry a gun for self protection? How many lives could have been saved?
This is the latest in a rash of knife attacks in the past few years. It's all the crazy guys fault, isn't it? No, wait ! Rather then addressing the issue..the crazy guy...let's follow the current path of logic and ban trucks and knives, since they are, obviously, evil in nature.
One guy who had thousands of people in a shopping center running for their lives could have been saved with the simple possibility that a legally armed person might have had a gun in their possession and stopped most of this tragedy from happening.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Ruger LCP
Someone explain to me how the gun magazines all seem to write abut the same things at the same time. I mean, if Guns and Ammo says they have the "exclusive" first peak at something, shouldn't that mean that all the gun rags do not run the article about the same thing for the same month? Even the only rags are telling the same stories.
I have previously bickered about the new "it" items that the gun magazines all love. During the Assault Weapon ban, since the "Wonder Nines" were cut to only carrying 10 rounds, the 45 ACP was in vogue and Para-Ordinance was the darling. Then it was Kimber, then the Springfield XD, and now it is the Ruger LCP.
The LCP stands for Lightweight Compact Pistol and currently comes in 380 Auto. It is a tiny gun, weighing in at 8.4 oz, unloaded. Its overall length is listed a 5.2 inches with height f 3.7 inches, and 0.8 inches wide. It comes with a 2.75 inch barrel. The little bugger hold 6+1 rounds. I am sure it is a fine little, gun, as are all Rugers, but seriously... ! Every major gun rag is carrying an article about it this month.
Most of the authors of these articles mention how similar it is to the Kel Tec P3AT. They have the same basic dimensions, almost the same weight (the Ruger weighs just a tad more), almost identical trigger pulls, and frankly if you has one side by side without any markings, I doubt you could tell them apart. They use the same glass-filled nylon frame composition, similar springs, hammers, and even the locked breech mechanism. They have the exact same take down procedures. The differences are that the Ruger has a Glock-style extractor and a external slide stop.
So, then, why is the Ruger getting all this publicity for a copy of a pistol that has been around for about 4 years now? Because then have nothing else to talk about.
The June 2008 edition of Gun Tests Magazine tells you on page 23, "Unfortunately, we had a persistent problem the Ruger LCP in the form of failures to feed. This happened with all three type of ammunition, and usually right after the third shot from a full magazine." Drop back to page 19 of the same issue and Gun Tests gives the gun a grade of A-, and on page 14, in another test with this exact same gun, "Throughout our tests we suffered no malfunctions." HUH? Guns and Ammo stated they had no malfunctions, and Gunblast.com only had one failure to feed. I would assume that a simple blowback pistol should be fairly reliable.
My point though, is that this is not the first of the tiny pistols. It is not the smallest. It is not the lightest. Nothing on this gun hasn't been done in earlier guns. It is not remarkable in reliability, appearance, capacity, or anything else. Yes, it is Rugers first foray into small guns, but why is this so pushed by all the sources?
I have previously bickered about the new "it" items that the gun magazines all love. During the Assault Weapon ban, since the "Wonder Nines" were cut to only carrying 10 rounds, the 45 ACP was in vogue and Para-Ordinance was the darling. Then it was Kimber, then the Springfield XD, and now it is the Ruger LCP.
The LCP stands for Lightweight Compact Pistol and currently comes in 380 Auto. It is a tiny gun, weighing in at 8.4 oz, unloaded. Its overall length is listed a 5.2 inches with height f 3.7 inches, and 0.8 inches wide. It comes with a 2.75 inch barrel. The little bugger hold 6+1 rounds. I am sure it is a fine little, gun, as are all Rugers, but seriously... ! Every major gun rag is carrying an article about it this month.
Most of the authors of these articles mention how similar it is to the Kel Tec P3AT. They have the same basic dimensions, almost the same weight (the Ruger weighs just a tad more), almost identical trigger pulls, and frankly if you has one side by side without any markings, I doubt you could tell them apart. They use the same glass-filled nylon frame composition, similar springs, hammers, and even the locked breech mechanism. They have the exact same take down procedures. The differences are that the Ruger has a Glock-style extractor and a external slide stop.
So, then, why is the Ruger getting all this publicity for a copy of a pistol that has been around for about 4 years now? Because then have nothing else to talk about.
The June 2008 edition of Gun Tests Magazine tells you on page 23, "Unfortunately, we had a persistent problem the Ruger LCP in the form of failures to feed. This happened with all three type of ammunition, and usually right after the third shot from a full magazine." Drop back to page 19 of the same issue and Gun Tests gives the gun a grade of A-, and on page 14, in another test with this exact same gun, "Throughout our tests we suffered no malfunctions." HUH? Guns and Ammo stated they had no malfunctions, and Gunblast.com only had one failure to feed. I would assume that a simple blowback pistol should be fairly reliable.
My point though, is that this is not the first of the tiny pistols. It is not the smallest. It is not the lightest. Nothing on this gun hasn't been done in earlier guns. It is not remarkable in reliability, appearance, capacity, or anything else. Yes, it is Rugers first foray into small guns, but why is this so pushed by all the sources?
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Chinese Type 68 Rifle
Imagine a rifle that combines the best features of the SKS and the AK-47. Well, it happened. The Chinese made the Type 63 Rifle, often called the Type 68 Rifle in the West. The Chinese call it the Type 63, since it was first issued in 1963. The rifle used the Warsaw Pact standard 7.62x39 mm cartridge.
Outwardly, it resembles a SKS, but the inner workings are a rotating bolt, like the AK, rather then the tilting bolt of the SKS. Plus, this weapon is selective fire, like the AK, while the SKS is a semi-auto weapon, and had a 750 round cyclic rate of fire as well as the ability to fire semi-auto. The bayonet is a folding spike style like the SKS. The gun also incorporates an adjustable gas system, for grenade launching. The standard box magazine holds 20 rounds (though some sources quote 15 round capacity) but many were modified to accept standard AK magazines.
The weapon was used in China and Albania with minor amounts being sent to Cambodia, North Vietnam and various African countries. Some were also sent to Afghanistan, oddly enough, to help the "freedom fighters" fight the Soviets. Manufactured only for a few years, it was doomed by poor manufacturing techniques and the widespread availability of AK and SKS rifles which were already in inventory and being made in ENORMOUS quantities.
The reliability of an AK with the accuracy of the SKS. Good idea.
Outwardly, it resembles a SKS, but the inner workings are a rotating bolt, like the AK, rather then the tilting bolt of the SKS. Plus, this weapon is selective fire, like the AK, while the SKS is a semi-auto weapon, and had a 750 round cyclic rate of fire as well as the ability to fire semi-auto. The bayonet is a folding spike style like the SKS. The gun also incorporates an adjustable gas system, for grenade launching. The standard box magazine holds 20 rounds (though some sources quote 15 round capacity) but many were modified to accept standard AK magazines.
The weapon was used in China and Albania with minor amounts being sent to Cambodia, North Vietnam and various African countries. Some were also sent to Afghanistan, oddly enough, to help the "freedom fighters" fight the Soviets. Manufactured only for a few years, it was doomed by poor manufacturing techniques and the widespread availability of AK and SKS rifles which were already in inventory and being made in ENORMOUS quantities.
The reliability of an AK with the accuracy of the SKS. Good idea.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Philly get cheesed
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20080603_Judge_strikes_down_some_Philadelphia_gun_laws.html
Once again an illegal law banning weapons to lawful citizens, a Right protected by the Bill of Rights, has been struck down. This time it wasn't D.C., or Detroit, or even Chicago.. it was Philadelphia. Philly, the first capital of the United States, home to many of our countries Founding Fathers, where the First Continental Congress and many meetings of the Second Continental Congress were held and also the place that tried to outlaw handguns and "assault" weapons. Yes, one of the major cities involved in the birth of our great nation, The United States of America, was a participant in ignoring the incredible document it helped to create.
Bravo to Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler-Greenspan for adhering to the the document she is sworn to uphold. And to Phily... nice try, you feckless thugs.
Once again an illegal law banning weapons to lawful citizens, a Right protected by the Bill of Rights, has been struck down. This time it wasn't D.C., or Detroit, or even Chicago.. it was Philadelphia. Philly, the first capital of the United States, home to many of our countries Founding Fathers, where the First Continental Congress and many meetings of the Second Continental Congress were held and also the place that tried to outlaw handguns and "assault" weapons. Yes, one of the major cities involved in the birth of our great nation, The United States of America, was a participant in ignoring the incredible document it helped to create.
Bravo to Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler-Greenspan for adhering to the the document she is sworn to uphold. And to Phily...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
A dumbassed idea, revisited
http://www.kpho.com/news/16497513/detail.html?rss=pho&psp=news
To continue to do the same, exact thing each time and to expect a different result is simply ludicrous. A Phoenix, Az neighborhood is planning a gun buy back. It's been tried dozens of time in the past and they never, ever work.
"The essence of this gun buy-back is to get guns off the streets, but we really aim to raise awareness of the extent of gun violence that's occurring here and to promote public safety in general," Saizow said.
Bull.. all they ever get is crappy, broken guns or guns from little old ladies whose husbands died years ago.
Look throughout the history of these programs.. they just do not work.
To continue to do the same, exact thing each time and to expect a different result is simply ludicrous. A Phoenix, Az neighborhood is planning a gun buy back. It's been tried dozens of time in the past and they never, ever work.
"The essence of this gun buy-back is to get guns off the streets, but we really aim to raise awareness of the extent of gun violence that's occurring here and to promote public safety in general," Saizow said.
Bull.. all they ever get is crappy, broken guns or guns from little old ladies whose husbands died years ago.
Look throughout the history of these programs.. they just do not work.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Magazine, clips, and chargers
I hate the whole clip and magazine misnaming crap that comes up in gun conversations. A clip and a magazine are not, nor have ever been the same thing.
CLIP: A device for holding a group of cartridges. It is not a synonym for a magazine. It can also mean a separate device for holding and transferring a group of cartridges to a fixed or detachable magazine or as a device inserted with cartridges into the mechanism of a firearm becoming, in effect, part of that mechanism. A clip is usually ejected once the last cartridge has been fired. For example, the M1 Garand used a 8 round clip as did many Mannlicher rifles.
CHARGER: A metal frame in which cartridges are held and loaded into the magazine of the weapon, rifle or pistol. The charger is positioned opposite the magazine and the cartridges are pushed into the magazine via your thumb. This is common on many modern rifles.
MAGAZINE: A spring-loaded container for cartridges that may be an integral part of the gun`s mechanism or may be detachable. Detachable magazines for the same gun may be offered by the gun`s manufacturer or other manufacturers with various capacities. A gun with a five-shot detachable magazine, for instance, may be fitted with a magazine holding 10, 20, or 50 or more rounds. Box magazines are most commonly located under the receiver with the cartridges stacked vertically. Tube or tubular magazines run through the stock or under the barrel with the cartridges lying horizontally. Drum magazines hold their cartridges in a circular mode. A magazine can also mean a secure storage place for ammunition or explosives. (per the NRA)
CLIP: A device for holding a group of cartridges. It is not a synonym for a magazine. It can also mean a separate device for holding and transferring a group of cartridges to a fixed or detachable magazine or as a device inserted with cartridges into the mechanism of a firearm becoming, in effect, part of that mechanism. A clip is usually ejected once the last cartridge has been fired. For example, the M1 Garand used a 8 round clip as did many Mannlicher rifles.
CHARGER: A metal frame in which cartridges are held and loaded into the magazine of the weapon, rifle or pistol. The charger is positioned opposite the magazine and the cartridges are pushed into the magazine via your thumb. This is common on many modern rifles.
MAGAZINE: A spring-loaded container for cartridges that may be an integral part of the gun`s mechanism or may be detachable. Detachable magazines for the same gun may be offered by the gun`s manufacturer or other manufacturers with various capacities. A gun with a five-shot detachable magazine, for instance, may be fitted with a magazine holding 10, 20, or 50 or more rounds. Box magazines are most commonly located under the receiver with the cartridges stacked vertically. Tube or tubular magazines run through the stock or under the barrel with the cartridges lying horizontally. Drum magazines hold their cartridges in a circular mode. A magazine can also mean a secure storage place for ammunition or explosives. (per the NRA)
Monday, June 2, 2008
Webley and Scott self-loading
One of the ugliest semi=auto pistols ever made is the Webley and Scott Self-Loading. This pistol entered service in 1913 with the Royal Navy, and eventually accepted by the Air Corp and other services and ended up staying in service until the early 1950's. It's square receiver and stock and long thin barrel make for an ungainly and uncomfortable looking package. In addition, there is a large, odd looking grip safety about 2/3rd of the way down the grip.However, reports are that this was a reliable pistol.
This single action, locked breech design. It had a "half-cock" type safety. Another unusual feature was the ability to partially push a magazine into a locked position. This allowed the pistol to become a single shot pistol with the ability to hand feed single cartridges into place. Why this would be practical... no clue.
The caliber for this pistol is .455, technically the .455 Webley and Scott Auto, although this is not the same as the revolver round. The cartridge is semi-rimmed and shoots at a measly 750 feet per second. It's a slow, but big bullet that apparently had plenty of stopping power.
The pistol was also made in .38 Service Round, with a 200 grain bullet for the British. Also, export models were made in 38 Super, and a compact version in 32 ACP and 25 ACP.
This single action, locked breech design. It had a "half-cock" type safety. Another unusual feature was the ability to partially push a magazine into a locked position. This allowed the pistol to become a single shot pistol with the ability to hand feed single cartridges into place. Why this would be practical... no clue.
The caliber for this pistol is .455, technically the .455 Webley and Scott Auto, although this is not the same as the revolver round. The cartridge is semi-rimmed and shoots at a measly 750 feet per second. It's a slow, but big bullet that apparently had plenty of stopping power.
The pistol was also made in .38 Service Round, with a 200 grain bullet for the British. Also, export models were made in 38 Super, and a compact version in 32 ACP and 25 ACP.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Another cool one.. Roth-Steyr
The Roth-Steyr M1907 was an early semi-automatic pistol. It was created by Georg Roth who worked at Steyr. The pistol went into production in 1907 and was adopted by the Austro-Hungarian Empire Cavalry and later its Air Force. This was the first semi-auto pistol adopted as a primary side arm by a major world power. There were earlier semi-auto pistols but they weren't adopted offically by any military force in large numbers. Approxmiately 60,000 were built.
This was a very complicated pistol to build. The pistol worked off of an odd recoil system which utilized a rotating bolt. This bolt moved up to 90 degrees every time it was cocked or fired. It was striker fired and was loaded with a clip from the open breech into the integral magazine located in the grip. It held ten rounds of 8 mm Roth-Steyr ammo. The ammo is still manufactured by several European providers. Fiocchi lists this round with a 113 gr bullet at 1080 feet per second. That's about 290 foot pounds of energy (between a 380 ACP and a 9 MM in power). The barrel was just over 5 inches long.
The gun was a pain in the butt to manufacture and all literature states that it shouldn't be dismantled without professional help. The Roth-Steyr was obsolete by the time it was withdrawn from services in Austria in the late 1930's but a few soldiered on in Hungary and the Italian military until the end of World War 2 (Italy obtained some as reparations after World War 1).
This weapon was not sold commercially, only to the military. It's just another odd gun on my list of weird. It's ugly as sin, but it was reported to robust and reliable.
This was a very complicated pistol to build. The pistol worked off of an odd recoil system which utilized a rotating bolt. This bolt moved up to 90 degrees every time it was cocked or fired. It was striker fired and was loaded with a clip from the open breech into the integral magazine located in the grip. It held ten rounds of 8 mm Roth-Steyr ammo. The ammo is still manufactured by several European providers. Fiocchi lists this round with a 113 gr bullet at 1080 feet per second. That's about 290 foot pounds of energy (between a 380 ACP and a 9 MM in power). The barrel was just over 5 inches long.
The gun was a pain in the butt to manufacture and all literature states that it shouldn't be dismantled without professional help. The Roth-Steyr was obsolete by the time it was withdrawn from services in Austria in the late 1930's but a few soldiered on in Hungary and the Italian military until the end of World War 2 (Italy obtained some as reparations after World War 1).
This weapon was not sold commercially, only to the military. It's just another odd gun on my list of weird. It's ugly as sin, but it was reported to robust and reliable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)