I am normally quite fond of Hornady products. I find their dies, especially their "Custom Grade-New Dimension" dies to be excellent. I find their defensive/tactical ammo to be awesome quality at a nice savings over Remington, Federal , or Winchester. Their TAP labelled ammo costs $5 a box (of 20) less, on average and frankly, I think it outperforms the others in expansion.
Hornady has been one of the leaders in ammo, lately. They have been partners in developing quite a few new rounds and calibers and improving some grand old ones with their LeverEvolution series ammo.
Now, they have released their `Critical defense' line of handgun ammo. Currently available in 380 Auto, 38 Special, 38 Special+P, and of course 9mm Para, this is Hornady's answer to hollow points not expanding properly. Federal came out with their EFMJ ammo a couple of years ago and that stuff seems to work well enough, but costs and arm and a leg, if you can find it. Hornady's idea is NOT original in any way, shape, or form. They appeared to have taken one of their normal hollow point rounds and filled the hollow area with a plug of plastic.
Again, this is not an original line of thought. People have been using homemade versions of this for years. People have filled their bullets hollow cavities with BB's, mercury, wax and a number of other things sitting around the garage. While all these ideas solved the potential issue of the normal hollow point not expanding due to it's cavity being filled with denim, fur or flesh, some gun rag writers are promoting this ammo as the second coming. Hornady is claiming 100% reliability in this bullets expansion. That's a huge claim. Once I get my hands on a useful supply of it, i intend to test that promise.
Hornady's own website ( http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=786 ) shows that the 380 Auto went through denim and them only penetrated about 11.5 inches of ballistic gel. The FBI tests from a dozen years ago has stated that ammo must penetrate at least 13 inches to be considered effective.
Like I said, I will test what i can on this. Hopefully, I will be able to post some pictures of what comes of this.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Paranoid...but justified
Here is an interesting read. http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/36036369.html?page=1&c=y
The woman is doing something that is completely legal to do, but others are uncomfortable so the Sheriff revokes her Right to carry a gun. Huh? So, these people would support the Right of a person to worship Satan, the Right of the media to print as many Pro-Obama stories and Anti-McCain stories as they can, the Right for porn to be available to all over 18, and even their own Right to assemble for a soccer game, but they won;t support her Right to carry her gun?
That's irony at it's best. How does one look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves, "Ok, I am in total agreement with 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. But, that #2 I don't support."
I hope she wins her $1 million suit against the sheriffs office...Oh, the "Staunch Supporter of the NRA" Sheriff.
The woman is doing something that is completely legal to do, but others are uncomfortable so the Sheriff revokes her Right to carry a gun. Huh? So, these people would support the Right of a person to worship Satan, the Right of the media to print as many Pro-Obama stories and Anti-McCain stories as they can, the Right for porn to be available to all over 18, and even their own Right to assemble for a soccer game, but they won;t support her Right to carry her gun?
That's irony at it's best. How does one look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves, "Ok, I am in total agreement with 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. But, that #2 I don't support."
I hope she wins her $1 million suit against the sheriffs office...Oh, the "Staunch Supporter of the NRA" Sheriff.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Calibers that deserve more
We live in an age where faster is better, more is better, or as Tim "The Toolman" Taylor would say, "More power."
We have magnums, super short magnums, and now ultra-magnums. Basically, all these "super" cartridges do is vastly increase powder usage and provide a small increase in power, with huge increase in recoil. Most of the time, the increase in velocity is about 10 to 15%, while recoil is increased 20% or more over a similar non-magnum cartridge.
There isn't much a 300 Winchester Magnum can do that a 30-06 can't. There are a number of older cartridges that can still serve a great purpose and are almost dead cartridges theses days. The .32 Winchester Special and .300 Savage are great cartridges. The 32 Win is often called identical to 30-30, but it uses heavier bullets. The 300 Savage is halfway in power between the 30-30 and 308 Win. It can take anything the .308 Win can with quite a bit less recoil. The 300 Savage has been used in the Savage model 99 for 100 years to take millions upon millions of deer. It's another great cartridge being ignore these days since everyone "needs" a 308 Win at minimum.
Other great, useful cartridges being neglected are the 22 Hornet, .257 Roberts, 350 Remington, and 35 Winchester. The 22 Hornet was the .223 of it's day. It is a small, fast and flat shooting bullet used to take multitudes of varmints. It uses little powder, has little recoil, and can be put into very lightweight guns. The 250-3000, aka 250 Savage is a great mid-power cartridge. It's very underrated for it's capability. The other mentioned cartridges are useful for the same reasons. Smaller, lighter recoil, and still offering plenty of power for doing anything needed.
Time to return to useful cartridges that do the job with plenty of power, but not overkill for everything.
We have magnums, super short magnums, and now ultra-magnums. Basically, all these "super" cartridges do is vastly increase powder usage and provide a small increase in power, with huge increase in recoil. Most of the time, the increase in velocity is about 10 to 15%, while recoil is increased 20% or more over a similar non-magnum cartridge.
There isn't much a 300 Winchester Magnum can do that a 30-06 can't. There are a number of older cartridges that can still serve a great purpose and are almost dead cartridges theses days. The .32 Winchester Special and .300 Savage are great cartridges. The 32 Win is often called identical to 30-30, but it uses heavier bullets. The 300 Savage is halfway in power between the 30-30 and 308 Win. It can take anything the .308 Win can with quite a bit less recoil. The 300 Savage has been used in the Savage model 99 for 100 years to take millions upon millions of deer. It's another great cartridge being ignore these days since everyone "needs" a 308 Win at minimum.
Other great, useful cartridges being neglected are the 22 Hornet, .257 Roberts, 350 Remington, and 35 Winchester. The 22 Hornet was the .223 of it's day. It is a small, fast and flat shooting bullet used to take multitudes of varmints. It uses little powder, has little recoil, and can be put into very lightweight guns. The 250-3000, aka 250 Savage is a great mid-power cartridge. It's very underrated for it's capability. The other mentioned cartridges are useful for the same reasons. Smaller, lighter recoil, and still offering plenty of power for doing anything needed.
Time to return to useful cartridges that do the job with plenty of power, but not overkill for everything.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Bill of Rights Day
December 15th is Bill of Rights Day. It should come as no surprise that the vast majority of "parties" for this event won't allow guns, either concealed or otherwise.
Shocking, huh?
Shocking, huh?
Friday, December 5, 2008
National Parks
Well, it's a step in the right direction:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20081205/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_guns_national_parks
Seems to me, that public lands, like National Parks should be governed by the common sense laws we have in this country, but to allow Concealed Carry people the "right" to carry is a start towards common sense. Connecting the "right to carry" with state laws makes no sense in a portion of land governed by Federal laws and managed by Federal employees.
Seems to me, though, my rights are being pre-empted on public lands..public, as in I own them, Go figure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20081205/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_guns_national_parks
Seems to me, that public lands, like National Parks should be governed by the common sense laws we have in this country, but to allow Concealed Carry people the "right" to carry is a start towards common sense. Connecting the "right to carry" with state laws makes no sense in a portion of land governed by Federal laws and managed by Federal employees.
Seems to me, though, my rights are being pre-empted on public lands..public, as in I own them, Go figure.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Someone almost got it right
Moastly, I agree with this editorial.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Free Plaxico BurressNew York City's gun law is unconstitutional.By DAVID B. KOPELNew York Giants star receiver Plaxico Burress is facing a mandatory 3½ years in prison and the end of his football career. His crime? Not having a license, which New York City never would have issued him, for the exercise of his constitutional right to bear arms.To be sure, Mr. Burress got caught because of what appears to have been stupid and irresponsible behavior connected with the handgun.
But he does not face prison for shooting himself. His impending mandatory sentence highlights the unfairness and unconstitutionality of New York City's draconian gun laws.Mr. Burress had previously had a handgun carry permit issued by Florida, for which he was required to pass a fingerprint-based background check.
As a player for the Giants, he moved to Totowa, N.J., where he kept a Glock pistol. And last Friday night, he reportedly went to the Latin Quarter nightclub in midtown Manhattan carrying the loaded gun in his sweatpants. Because New York state permits to possess or carry handguns are not issued to nonresidents, Mr. Burress could not apply for a New York City permit.At the nightclub, the handgun accidentally discharged, shooting Mr. Burress in the right thigh. He was not seriously injured, but he has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It appears that he put the unholstered gun in the waistband of his sweatpants, and when it slipped, he grabbed for it, accidentally hitting the trigger. To make matters worse, according to press accounts, he was seen drinking and may have been consuming alcohol -- which all firearms safety training (including the class he would have been required to take for his Florida permit) absolutely forbids for people handling guns. And of course Mr. Burress's handgun should have been holstered to prevent unintentional movement of the trigger.
Fortunately, his negligent discharge did not harm anyone else.Mr. Burress's behavior was bad. However, Mr. Burress is not facing prosecution for carelessness, but simply for carrying a weapon. This is unjust and perhaps unconstitutional. The legal issues are a bit tangled, but here is the background:This summer, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the District's handgun ban, and its ban on use of any firearm for self-defense in the home, violated the Second Amendment, which guarantees the individual right to bear arms. D.C. is a federal enclave, and the Court did not rule whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.
But as other cases reach it in the wake of Heller, it will.The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.
And then there is the issue of the permitting process for residents. In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.
The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.Some commentators contend that Plaxico Burress should have hired bodyguards, instead of carrying a gun himself.
Mr. Burress might now agree. But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be safe, and they don't have the money for bodyguards. New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
(The author is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, in Washington, D.C., and research director of the Independence Institute, in Golden, Colo.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Free Plaxico BurressNew York City's gun law is unconstitutional.By DAVID B. KOPELNew York Giants star receiver Plaxico Burress is facing a mandatory 3½ years in prison and the end of his football career. His crime? Not having a license, which New York City never would have issued him, for the exercise of his constitutional right to bear arms.To be sure, Mr. Burress got caught because of what appears to have been stupid and irresponsible behavior connected with the handgun.
But he does not face prison for shooting himself. His impending mandatory sentence highlights the unfairness and unconstitutionality of New York City's draconian gun laws.Mr. Burress had previously had a handgun carry permit issued by Florida, for which he was required to pass a fingerprint-based background check.
As a player for the Giants, he moved to Totowa, N.J., where he kept a Glock pistol. And last Friday night, he reportedly went to the Latin Quarter nightclub in midtown Manhattan carrying the loaded gun in his sweatpants. Because New York state permits to possess or carry handguns are not issued to nonresidents, Mr. Burress could not apply for a New York City permit.At the nightclub, the handgun accidentally discharged, shooting Mr. Burress in the right thigh. He was not seriously injured, but he has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It appears that he put the unholstered gun in the waistband of his sweatpants, and when it slipped, he grabbed for it, accidentally hitting the trigger. To make matters worse, according to press accounts, he was seen drinking and may have been consuming alcohol -- which all firearms safety training (including the class he would have been required to take for his Florida permit) absolutely forbids for people handling guns. And of course Mr. Burress's handgun should have been holstered to prevent unintentional movement of the trigger.
Fortunately, his negligent discharge did not harm anyone else.Mr. Burress's behavior was bad. However, Mr. Burress is not facing prosecution for carelessness, but simply for carrying a weapon. This is unjust and perhaps unconstitutional. The legal issues are a bit tangled, but here is the background:This summer, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the District's handgun ban, and its ban on use of any firearm for self-defense in the home, violated the Second Amendment, which guarantees the individual right to bear arms. D.C. is a federal enclave, and the Court did not rule whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.
But as other cases reach it in the wake of Heller, it will.The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.
And then there is the issue of the permitting process for residents. In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.
The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.Some commentators contend that Plaxico Burress should have hired bodyguards, instead of carrying a gun himself.
Mr. Burress might now agree. But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be safe, and they don't have the money for bodyguards. New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
(The author is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, in Washington, D.C., and research director of the Independence Institute, in Golden, Colo.)
Too Many Jokes
Too Many Jokes... Head Hurts. Can't tell them all at once
http://www.wlwt.com/cnn-news/18196466/detail.html
Man Says Wife Was Accidentally Shot During SexSPRINGFIELD, Ohio -- A Tri-State woman is in critical condition Wednesday after police say her husband shot her while they were having sex.Timothy Havens, 38, told Springfield police he was reaching for something on the nightstand when the pistol went off, hitting his estranged wife Carolyn in the upper chest. (Hear part of the 911 call)Carolyn Havens, 42, is being treated at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton.This is isn't the first time there's been trouble for the Havens. Court documents showed Timothy served 60 days in jail for assaulting his wife and was ordered to go to anger management classes.His arrest Tuesday for the weekend shooting was for violating a civil protection order that Carolyn had taken out against him earlier this year.Bond was set at $75,000 after prosecutors asked for a high bond, "due to alleged prohibited contact between the parties (and) the suspicious nature of the circumstances surrounding (her injury)."
http://www.wlwt.com/cnn-news/18196466/detail.html
Man Says Wife Was Accidentally Shot During SexSPRINGFIELD, Ohio -- A Tri-State woman is in critical condition Wednesday after police say her husband shot her while they were having sex.Timothy Havens, 38, told Springfield police he was reaching for something on the nightstand when the pistol went off, hitting his estranged wife Carolyn in the upper chest. (Hear part of the 911 call)Carolyn Havens, 42, is being treated at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton.This is isn't the first time there's been trouble for the Havens. Court documents showed Timothy served 60 days in jail for assaulting his wife and was ordered to go to anger management classes.His arrest Tuesday for the weekend shooting was for violating a civil protection order that Carolyn had taken out against him earlier this year.Bond was set at $75,000 after prosecutors asked for a high bond, "due to alleged prohibited contact between the parties (and) the suspicious nature of the circumstances surrounding (her injury)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)