We hear this all the time, which we don’t mind. It’s difficult for us to convey info from a manufacturer, so when they come right out with a Q&A on subjects like limited inventory, we’re more than happy to relay the info back to you as quickly as possible.
Below, you’ll find some quick answers to some supply issues from Hodgdon Powders. They’re one of our favorite vendors. Straight forward folks with the customer in mind from start to finish.
Why can’t I find Hodgdon powders like H4350, Varget, Retumbo and H1000?
As you have seen, Hodgdon powders, especially rifle powders for long-range and precision shooting, can be difficult to find. Dealer shelves that were formerly filled with cans of powder now have empty spots. Here are answers to your questions straight from Hodgdon.
Q: Is Hodgdon still making powder?
A: Yes, we continue shipping powder as quickly as possible. In fact, we will ship more powder in 2020 than last year. The real problem behind empty dealer shelves is complicated, but is related to shifting supply and demand challenges. As supply decreased in 2019, demand only increased. No one wants to ship more powder than Hodgdon.
Q: What is causing the supply challenges?
A: Quite simply, our manufacturing facilities have not kept up with our orders. Additionally, military contracts began specifying Hodgdon powders in the last few years for military ammunition, impacting our supply. With expanded government regulation, shipping explosive and energetic materials has become more challenging, which also impacts available supply. Lastly, rapidly changing consumer preferences for different powder types has impacted both demand and supply. We worked with all Hodgdon providers to resolve open issues and expect powder supply to improve in 2020 as a result.
Q: Is Hodgdon still in business?
A: Yes, Hodgdon has been in business (and family owned) for over 70 years. We are here for the long haul and are doing everything we can to supply our powders to handloaders. Dealer shelves are empty because powder is purchased as soon as it arrives at the dealer’s stores but we will continue to ship more in 2020.
Q: Is the shortage of reloading powder being caused by Hodgdon shipping their powder to the ammunition manufacturing companies?
A: While Hodgdon does sell powder to ammunition manufacturing companies, more than 80% of our powder is sold to our core market – handloaders just like you. Hodgdon has always been committed to the individual handloader.
Q: When will I start to see more powder on dealer shelves?
A: While Hodgdon will continue to ship powder as rapidly as possible, we have a significant backlog in demand. Some powders will be in stock more quickly, but we believe it will take much of 2020 to improve availability for all powders.
Q: I have seen/heard many rumors and conjecture on powder shortages with Hodgdon Powder.
A: If you do not hear it directly from Hodgdon Powder Company, please be skeptical.
What questions do you have for Hodgdon Powders? Leave a few in the comments!
Factory ammo is a fact of firearms life. How does it relate to us, as handloaders, and, how do we relate to it? READ MORE
I’ve long been an ammo snob because of my focus on target sports, and on the creation of ammo for same (a focus both for myself and for my published materials). If you’re building ammo to stake a score on then it has to be the best, it has to be custom, and that is a substantial investment in a lot of time and tools. And testing. Testing testing testing.
I’m now shooting more factory-made rounds than ever, and one reason is because of I’m doing a lot more work with more varied firearms. For me, handloading is a serious step up, not a casual step in. I don’t load for several of the different guns I have because of that. My son, Charlie, has been doing a good deal of published reviews, for instance, and neither of us is about to set up a station just to test a firearm chambered in anything we don’t already load for.
I also have come to accept that it may be a more fair test of a gun to run ready-made through it, but only because that is how it’s usually done: get a gun, get a few boxes of ammo, go to the range, and see what you have. I have every confidence that, given enough of that time and testing, I can make any rifle out there shoot better with a handload — I’ve seen that over and over and over again. But, I say factory ammo is a fair test because overall and after enough different tests with different guns there will be a pattern develop reflecting ammo quality. There are, therefore, decided performance tendencies I’ve seen in factory ammo, and, as with many things that have, at a base level, cost as a variable — it’s predictable.
“Premium” factory ammo shoots better! Of course it does. That’s assembled with, mostly, a quality bullet. For rifles it’s the barrel, for ammo it’s the bullet that matters most. So, if you’re wanting to see how well your new gun can shoot, choose a box of factory ammo that’s got the better bullet. That also gives you the chance to get started assembling a component list when you spool up the press to make your own for it. If you doubt that, ask any old NRA High Power Rifle shooter about “Mex-Match.” And, since I’m handy, I’ll tell you! Pull the bullet from a mil-spec load and replace it with a commercial match-grade bullet of a suitable weight. Groups shrink 50-60%.
The Value Of Factory Ammo
Are there times when factory is prefereable to custom?
Yes. At least, maybe.
I keep factory ammo in my “ready mags.” That might surprise some. Yes, of course I “trust” my handloads. Usually, though, I won’t be shooting a lot of whatever is loaded into my house gun, and that’s all about bullets. I’ll shoot a ton of handloaded rounds through my main carbine, but not with the bullet I want being there if needed.
On that topic: it is the bullet options that factory ammo provides that can give it an edge over a routine-use handload. For instance, some of the “specialty” defensive or hunting factory recipes use bullets that often aren’t even available otherwise (or not readily). Or, and as said, it’s a better value all-around to get a few boxes of what you have chosen to represent best fulfillment of needs, get a zero with some, and then keep the rest at the ready, than it is to load them yourself. That requires routine load recipe testing, which requires purchase of more bullets, maybe different propellants, and so on.
Plus, since most are treated to sealant or at the least little to no contact with humans, there’s less chance of “stiction,” which can and will happen. (That’s when the bullet “freezes” in the case neck, and it raises pressure.) I’ve seen it, and it’s from plain corrosion, which is fueled mostly from handling the components. I’ve had it turn up in rounds loaded for no more than a year (and they popped a few primers). Some use latex gloves, and I started up that after this experience.
Specifics First I apologize for this short list because there’s a lottamo out there. I only feel right, right now, about telling you what I have used that I really like.
Of the factory ammo I’ve shot, and this is across a range of cartridges, the Hornady line has overall been the most impressive. That’s for handguns and rifles. Hornady has a wide range of specialized loads (specialized bullets) that are well thought out, and, by my experience, well constructed. Stuff shoots well! For instance, their lower-cost “mil-spec” simply shoots better than others similar I’ve tried. Likewise, for hunting, defense, and targets, there will very likely be a load that’s been well-proven. Again, it’s usually the bullet that’s the difference. I shot a lot of good scores with Hornady bullets in my handloads, and some of their designs for impact effectiveness have proven themselves indeed effective.
I also like Nosler. It’s not cheap. Neither are the bullets or brass used in it! Nosler has been my go-to for .223 Rem. brass for a good while. Its quality is very good and it’s ready to load right out of the box, and it’s tough enough. I switched to Nolser match bullets also. I mostly got to shooting Nosler factory ammo when I got my 22 Nosler. Hornady has a wider selection for different needs, but my experience has been that I haven’t found anything that beats Nosler on-target. And I get to keep the cases!
I’m leaving a lot of makers out. Clearly, there is good and not good factory-loaded ammo. Those I know with a lot more rounds downrange from freshly-factory-sealed containers have good things to say about Federal Premium, and often favor Black Hills, and also agree with me about Hornady and Nolser.
Variety There are a lot (a lot a lot) of options in bullets especially for .300 Blackout, for instance. The Blackout is that much more variable because of super- and subsonic.
The .223 Rem. range, along with other popular cartridges, includes the “target” use loadings. Some are pretty good. However! I honestly think there’s a tad amount, to a lot, of kidding the self to think it will be better than what you can load for yourself. If you want to really find out how well your gun shoots, getchaseff to the loading bench.
As suggested, it might be wise to try a few factory loads in a new gun before making the investment in choosing components for your handloaded ammo to come.
The preceding is a adapted from information contained in from Glen’s newest book America’s Gun: The Practical AR15. Available at Midsouth Shooters Supply. Visit ZedikerPublishing.com for more information on the book itself, and also free article downloads.
Sometimes the shape of the grip is everything. READ MORE
When choosing a double action revolver the shape of the handle makes a great deal of difference. The primary difference is between round butt and square butt grip frames. Smith and Wesson offers only one grip frame, the round butt, in modern revolvers while conversion grips allow the use of either round butt or square butt grips. Understanding the how and why of grip design will allow you to make the best choice for different chores. Let’s look at a little history and the pros and cons of round butt and square butt design. The first revolver grips were well designed and survive with little modification. The Colt Navy grip fits most hands well and the plow handled Single Action Army is similar. When double action trigger cocking revolvers were introduced there was a need to stabilize the grip as the trigger finger swings down and back rather than straight back as with the single action revolver. Recoil and abrupt edges began to be a concern with the grip design.
A grip frame that properly stabilized the firing hand was essential and slippage was a concern. Some revolvers had bird’s head type grips. This is an odd shape that while round in cross section in double action revolvers offers a stabilizing wedge. The square butt and round butt had made their appearance by 1870. Smith and Wesson’s first revolver, the No. 1, was introduced with a square butt but later models were manufactured with a round butt grip frame. Concealed carry and the ability to cup the small grip in the hand were advantages of the round butt.
When Smith and Wesson introduced the successful Military and Police double action revolver it was manufactured with a round butt grip frame. Eventually the square butt frame became more popular and the majority of Military and Police .38s were square butt revolvers. I frame revolvers were mostly round butt designs but the Regulation Police was a square butt design. The original .22 Kit Guns had special grips that fit over the I frame’s round butt. The J frame was much the same but today is offered in round configuration only. Target sighted revolvers were delivered with square butt frames and when the N frame .44 frame was introduced it was a square butt. When Smith and Wesson introduced the Model 19 Combat Magnum with 2.5 inch barrel it was designed as a round butt revolver. Among my prized revolvers is a Smith and Wesson Model 66 four inch barrel with round butt. It is relatively uncommon. This revolver and its good traits spurred this article forward. While Smith and Wesson revolvers are the ones I use most often Colt also had different frame designs. The Colt New Police and the first Police Positive revolvers had one of the most uncomfortable grip frames ever designed for a double action revolver in my opinion. The Colt Police Positive Special and the treatment given the Detective Special were great improvements. In the small calibers used in the Police Positive the grip frame didn’t matter as much. With the .38 Special things were getting uncomfortable.
With this background in mind we have a basis on which to choose our best hand fit. When Smith and Wesson went to the modern transfer bar actions they also went to the round butt grip frame. Both K and N frame revolvers have the same frame dimensions. (The Classic line differs.) This is fine for manufacturing process but not always the best for the consumer. The revolvers supplied with square butt grips are fitted with conversion grips that give the round butt grip a square butt profile. The worst kicking .44 Special I have ever fired was a Smith and Wesson Model 21 with the modern round butt and small pre Magna grips. I fitted a set of Culina round butt grips with plenty of wood as soon as possible and had a tractable and controllable revolver. The round butt is a good choice for fast handling defense revolvers. The square butt is best for target revolvers. The single action press must be controlled and the larger square butt grip allows that. As an example even the 2 inch barrel Combat Masterpiece with square butt grips is a very accurate revolver. As a field gun for accurate shooting well past fifty yards I will choose my proven Model 19 Combat Magnum with square butt grip. The hand remains in place when the thumb is used to cock the hammer for single action fire. On the other hand the Smith and Wesson Model 66 with four inch barrel and round butt handles quickly in double action fire. The round butt is less likely to print on covering garments when the 66 is worn concealed. The round butt is smaller and has less area but also invites a very fast grip acquisition. When firing heavy loads the smaller grip frame of the round butt may transfer more energy to the palm but that is a trade off — the trigger is more quickly manipulated, in my opinion, with the round butt grip. Another concern is heeling, sometimes called combat heeling. This is the effect when the handgun is gripped improperly too high on the grip. With this grip the shooter will often fire for the heart and hit the head unless the bullet simply flies over the head of the target. This is a product of hurried training and not taking time to affirm the grip. For what it is worth I believe that this type of problem is less likely with the round butt grip frame.
After firing revolvers for many years I have learned that how a grip feels may not necessarily mean it will give the best performance on the range. Smaller grips may actually make for more encirclement with the fingers and a stronger hold. Trigger reach may be slightly shorter with the round butt for most hand sizes. This is important when dealing with a double action revolver. Carefully consider your needs. Smith and Wesson began manufacturing their most successful double action revolvers with a round butt and today the round butt may be the best choice for most of us. I use both Hogue and Pachmayr grips with good results.
There are many considerations in training- but in the end you are responsible for your own safety. READ MORE
There is a lot of discussion concerning training. A lot of it revolves around choosing a trainer. There is much truth in this as the trainer gets you started on the road to proficiency, but it is all your own responsibility in the end.
You have graduated from the public school system good or bad and you are able to read so you survived and perhaps have learned a great deal on your own. We all remember fantastic teachers who inspired us — and then there were the inept. So it is with firearms trainers. Some practice by rote and use the training wheel method and then advance to repetition of the same boring drills. A broken record perhaps. You are well advised to never go to the range without learning something new and thinking about it- and never thinking that you know it all. There should be some stress involved in training. Different personalities handle stress differently. Some have stress from peer pressure others want to be all they can be. There are a number of types of trainers just as there are different types in every work place. There are a several types of men. If you have any work experience, institutional or otherwise, you know these men. The “me first” type cares little to nothing for his fellow man. He is out for himself. The “me too” guy is much the same but generally inept and will cause you much grief. The deadwood really cause a lot of trouble and while some mean well and may even be honest they just don’t get it and will get you killed. Then there are the dedicated. They are in the minority and everyone seems to know who they are. They do things right for its own sake. They master whatever profession they have chosen and will do their best in whatever situation they are thrown into. Trainers of this type understand the physical and mathematical forces at work.
There are things I have learned which may be helpful. Some of you may have experience that makes my own experience no more than light reading, but then battle scars are a form of validation. You learn as you go along the things you need and concentrate on these skills. You can learn to master stress and perhaps even fear. A good healthy respect for the possibilities of combat will serve to make an intelligent person avoid such battles if at all possible. A well trained person will default to training and do what needs to be done and perform as well as possible during a critical incident. Afterwards they may decompress and have the shakes, knocking knees or even tears. True fear is a different thing. There is a type of fear that is a fester. Determination, gumption, self respect and ability are robbed of us by this type of fear. We have all been demoralized by a losing streak and given exuberance by a sense of accomplishment. We must balance the two. One of the ways to balance apprehension and confidence is to move from two dimensional to three dimensional training. Because standing squared to a target and firing for groups is practically one dimensional.
The practice of firing at a one dimensional target you are squared to is one that is suitable only for beginners. We were all there at one time and we progress further we hope. Then there is the problem of aiming for center mass or even finding center mass. Where is the center of the target? Hopefully we are able to quickly set the sights in the center of the target we have available. There is a very good chance that such practice by rote will result in hesitation when confronted by a problem we have not trained for. If the assailant is running toward you, running to one side and firing or particularly if the adversary is behind cover you much revamp your expectations and do so very quickly. There is a steep learning curve to be addressed. You may well be conditioning yourself for failure with poor training. Waiting for a perfect shot or for the adversary to present himself in a more likely position for a shot may result in serious death or injury. In real life the threat shoots back.
Ok, so you are using the center of mass shot. This is firing for the center of the opponent in order to increase the likelihood of a bullet hitting the target- the whole target, the threat. This is something of a compromise as this isnt necessarily the most efficient area to produce a shut down of the body, but it is a reasonable tool for most situations. There are degrees of wound potential lost by aiming for center mass versus aiming for the arterial region, the area most likely (other than the cranium) to induce a shut down for blood loss. The ideal type of training will involve moving target, the shooter moving off the X and finding cover, and firing for center mass when there is no other opportunity and firing for the arterial region when you are able. Consider the likely problem and keep your training three dimensional.
Thousands in Virginia showed to support their unalienable rights. Zero problems, major statements! READ MORE
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thousands of gun-rights activists from around the country rallied peacefully at the Virginia Capitol on Monday, protesting plans by the state’s Democratic leadership to pass gun-control legislation that have become a key flash point in the national debate over gun violence. About 22,000 people attended the rally, 6,000 on Capitol Square and 16,000 outside the security gates, authorities said.
The size of the crowd and the expected participation of white supremacists and fringe militia groups raised fears that the state could see a repeat of the violence that exploded in 2017 in Charlottesville. But the rally concluded uneventfully around noon, and the mood was largely festive, with rally-goers chanting “USA!” and waving signs denouncing Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.
Many protesters chose not to enter the designated rally zone, where Northam had instituted a temporary weapons ban, and instead packed the surrounding streets, many dressed in tactical gear and camouflage and carrying military-style rifles as they cheered on the speakers.
“I love this. This is like the Super Bowl for the Second Amendment right here,” said P.J. Hudson, a truck driver from Richmond who carried an AR-15 rifle just outside Capitol Square. He was one of the few African-American rally goers in the crowd that was overwhelmingly white and male, and frequently was stopped and asked to pose for pictures wearing his “Black Guns Matter” sweatshirt.
Police announced one arrest: a 21-year-old Richmond woman charged with wearing a mask in public after she allegedly ignored an officer’s warnings to remove a bandanna covering her face.
The Richmond protesters came out in the thousands despite the frigid temperature to send a message to legislators, they said.
“The government doesn’t run us, we run the government,” said Kem Regik, a 20-year-old private security officer from northern Virginia who brought a white flag with a picture of a rifle captioned, “Come and take it.”
Northam was a particular focus of the protesters’ wrath. One poster showed his face superimposed on Adolf Hitler’s body.
But Democratic lawmakers said the rally wasn’t going to impact their plans to pass gun-control measures, including universal background checks and a one-handgun-purchase-a-month limit.
“I was prepared to see a whole lot more people show up than actually did and I think it’s an indication that a lot of this rhetoric is bluster, quite frankly,” said Del. Chris Hurst, a gun-control advocate whose TV journalist girlfriend was killed in an on-air shooting in 2015.
Some of the protesters waved flags with messages of support for President Donald Trump. Trump, in turn, tweeted support for their goals.
“The Democrat Party in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia are working hard to take away your 2nd Amendment rights,” he tweeted. “This is just the beginning. Don’t let it happen, VOTE REPUBLICAN in 2020!”
The Virginia State Police, the Virginia Capitol Police and the Richmond Police had a heavy presence, with officers deploying on rooftops, others patrolling in cars and on bicycles.
Authorities were looking to avoid a repeat of the violence that erupted in Charlottesville during one of the largest gatherings of white supremacists and other far-right groups in a decade. Attendees brawled with counterprotesters, and an avowed white supremacist drove his car into a crowd, killing a woman and injuring dozens more. Law enforcement officials faced scathing criticism for what both the white supremacist groups and anti-racism protesters said was a passive response.
In contrast to Charlottesville, there was little sign of counterprotesters challenging the gun-rights activists.
Police limited access to Capitol Square to only one entrance, and a long line formed to get into the rally zone.
Gun rights advocates also filled the hallways of the building that houses lawmakers’ offices. One couple, Jared and Marie March, traveled from Floyd County, over three hours west of Richmond, to meet with lawmakers.
“Guns are a way of life where we live,” said Marie March, who was concerned about a proposed red-flag law which she said would allow citizens to be stripped of their guns due to “subjective criteria.” A proposal to establish universal background checks amounted to “more Big Brother,” she said. “We just feel like we need to push government back into their rightful spot.”
Monday’s rally was organized by an influential grassroots gun-rights group, the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The group holds a yearly rally at the Capitol, typically a low-key event with a few hundred gun enthusiasts listening to speeches from a handful of ambitious Republican lawmakers. But this year, many more attended. Second Amendment groups have identified the state as a rallying point for the fight against what they see as a national erosion of gun rights.
The pushback against proposed new gun restrictions began immediately after Democrats won majorities in both the state Senate and House of Delegates in November, with much of the opposition focused on a proposed assault weapons ban. More than 100 localities have since passed measures declaring support for the Second Amendment.
California continues to try to limit constitutional rights. READ MORE
As an incorporated provision of the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, applying to all U.S. jurisdictions and to the actions of federal, state, and local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the final and authoritative interpretation of that provision, as well as other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. All of this is elementary civics.
But the State of California believes it knows better, requiring publisher McGraw-Hill to annotate a discussion of the Bill of Rights in a popular social studies textbook with the state’s own peculiar view of the Second Amendment’s meaning.
According to pictures from the California edition in the New York Times, the annotation states:
Right to Bear Arms
This amendment is often debated. Originally it was intended to prevent the national government from repeating the actions of the British, who tried to take weapons away from the colonial militia, or armed forces of the citizens. This amendment seems to support the right of citizens to own firearms, but the Supreme Court has ruled it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.
The Times article goes on to state that the publisher “said it had created the additional wording on the Second Amendment and gun control for the California textbook.” The same language, however, does not appear in a national version of the same section, according to the Times report.
The point of the New York Times article is to suggest that different states emphasize different aspects of U.S. history in otherwise similar textbooks, depending on the prevailing political outlook among the state’s education officials.
Whatever might be said of that approach, the problem with California’s account of the Second Amendment isn’t just one of emphasis but of accuracy. California, which prides itself on being one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, simply gets it wrong, using language that falsely portrays the Second Amendment as a “debated” provision that has changed meaning over time and that only “seems” to protect an individual right.
Any “debate” about the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right have been authoritatively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” independent of service in an organized militia. That fact was unambiguously articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.
That decision, moreover, was based on the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified. In other words, not only was the Second Amendment an individual right as of 2008, it has always been an individual right. As the Supreme Court noted, “virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the Amendment as we do.” It is false to suggest, as the California textbook does, that it originally meant something different and then somehow changed meaning in 2008.
Regarding the prefatory militia clause, the Supreme Court took pains to explain the difference between the justification for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the scope and substance of that right.
“The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution,” the court wrote. What justified its codification was “the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms … .” But, the court noted, the prefatory militia clause announcing the reason for the right’s codification “does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.”
That scope, meanwhile, included using arms for “self-defense and hunting,” with self-defense being “the central component of the right itself,” according to the Supreme Court.
The California textbook also misconstrues what the term “militia” meant to the founding generation at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. It wasn’t just a discrete, organized military force, the court explained, but members of the population “physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” whether they were mustered in that capacity or not. Thus, the terms “militia” and “the people” are not at odds with each other in the Second Amendment. The people, with their own arms, are the basis of the militia. To protect the peoples’ private right to arms is therefore to protect the militia’s ability to muster with arms and to preserve its viability.
As for Congress’ ability to regulate the interstate sale of weapons, the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are part of the “longstanding” history and tradition of the Second Amendment, and are thus “presumptively lawful.” That does not mean, however, that every such law trumps the amendment’s protections, especially if there is no longstanding precedent for it.
In any event, the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case that pits the Second Amendment against the Commerce Clause, and it explicitly reserved that and other questions for later consideration. “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,” the court wrote. “[T]here will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”
California likes to emphasize how it sees things differently than the rest of the United States. That’s why common consumer products come with warnings that they include substances “known to the State of California” to pose various hazards, including cancer or birth defects. So numerous are these warnings that people at this point are most likely to ignore them as sensational and unreliable.
The state’s students would be wise to take the same approach to official state pronouncements about firearms and the Second Amendment.
California, as the saying goes, is entitled to its opinions. But it’s not entitled to its own facts.
And when it comes to the Second Amendment, the facts are different than the opinions expressed in the California-specific version of McGraw-Hill’s social studies textbook.
Activist Wilma Mankiller is quoted as saying, “Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.”
Year after year California chips away at the Second Amendment with its ever-expanding gun control regime.
If this continues unabated, the right to keep and bear arms will effectively be nullified for future generations of Californians.
What’s worse – if California’s educational bureaucrats have their way – is that those generations will be too ignorant of their liberties to even understand what has been taken from them.
Our advice to these students is to exercise their First Amendment rights to learn and speak the truth, and as soon as they are able, exercise the right to vote in favor of those who respect their fundamental liberties, rather than those who try to write them out of history.
Donald Trump Jr. slammed incoming Florida Senate President Bill Galvano, a Republican, for siding with extreme anti-Second Amendment advocate and communist China sympathizer Michael Bloomberg. READ MORE
SOURCE: DailyWire.com by Ryan Saavedra
Last Friday, Breitbart Second Amendment columnist AWR Hawkins called attention to two massive contributions totaling $500,000 that Bloomberg’s far-left group Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund gave to Galvano’s political committee, the Innovate Florida committee, after the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018.
Galvano responded to the contribution by saying in September 2018 that he “will make no apologies” for supporting gun control championed by Bloomberg, and said that he was “grateful for the support” from Bloomberg’s group.
In a statement to The Daily Wire, Trump Jr. slammed Galvano for siding with Bloomberg, who is running for president as a Democrat and on the issue of stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
“Any supposed ‘Republican’ who proudly accepts money from Mini Mike Bloomberg and is supportive of his gun control agenda is nothing more than a stone cold RINO,” Trump Jr. told The Daily Wire. “The last thing Florida Republicans need is a liberal, gun-grabbing Bloomberg minion leading them in the State Senate.”
Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter in the Parkland tragedy, slammed Galvano in a tweet, writing: “Democrats exploited the murder of my daughter. I never imagined a Republican would do the same, but that’s exactly what Bill Galvano did. He took $500,000 from Bloomberg & tried to reinstate disgraced Sheriff Scott Israel This boils my blood! #FixIt”
In a separate tweet, Pollack highlighted the money that Galvano got from Bloomberg’s far-left group, writing: “Florida Senate President @BillGalvano is bought and paid for by Michael Bloomberg. He’s accepted over $500k from Bloomberg’s anti-gun PAC. He’s constantly working against Governor Desantis and the Republican Party. He’s a RINO #FixIt”
The past donations from Bloomberg’s far-left group to Galvano garnered attention because Galvano led a Senate panel this last week to ram through Bloomberg’s gun control agenda in Florida.
News 4 Jax reported: A Senate panel Monday unanimously signed off on a far-reaching measure that would close the gun-show “loophole,” create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $5 million to establish a “statewide strategy for violence prevention.” The proposal (SB 7028) is a priority of Senate President Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, as evidenced by the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee’s consideration and passage of the measure the day before the 2020 legislative session begins.
The sweeping legislation would require background checks and a three-day waiting period for firearms sold “on property to which the public has the right of access,” such as “a flea market, a gun show, or a firearm exhibit.” The measure would also mandate that guns be securely stored in households and other places where minors under age 18 — up from the current threshold of 16 — could have access to the weapons.
Former NRA President Marion P. Hammer responded at the time by indicating that Galvano betrayed those who voted for him, saying, “Looks like our Second Amendment Rights were sold for a large contribution from anti-gun former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”
Hammer said that the gun control bill advocated for by Galvano this week, SB-7028, was “the worst I have ever seen” and “is clearly meant to simply ban all private sales of firearms through red tape and fear.”
“This bill contains so much red tape and nonsense that there is almost no way a law-abiding person could comply,” Hammer continued. “The only thing we know for sure is that this bill will only stop law-abiding people from exercising a constitutional right, and it will be completely ignored by criminals.”
“Voting in favor of this bill is like a doctor giving a patient an antibiotic for a virus. The doctor knows an antibiotic won’t cure the illness, but at least he can make people think he’s ‘doing something,’” Hammer added. “Supporting a bill so you can say you’re doing something is ‘political eyewash.'”
Florida REPUBLICAN Senators Vote for Massive Gun Control Bill. READ MORE
SOURCE: NRA-ILA, from Marion P. Hammer USF Executive Director and NRA Past President
On Monday, 1/13/20, it happened again. Senate President Bill Galvano picked a fight with Floridians who believe in the constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is well known — even by the media — that in 2018 Bill Galvano orchestrated the creation and passage of the “Parkland Gun Control Bill.” And, of course, it didn’t stop gun crime or criminals. It only took away rights of law-abiding people.
So now, he’s back for more gun control and it appears likely that Bloomberg’s $500,000.00 “donation” to Senate President Bill Galvano is behind yet another Galvano gun control bill — SB-7028 — an admitted priority of Galvano.
All but one of the Republican Senators on the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee put Galvano’s wishes ahead of principle, the Constitution, their Oath of Office and YOU, their constituents, and voted for a gun control bill.
FORGET that some of them were not truthful with NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida about supporting the Second Amendment. REMEMBER, they KNOW gun control doesn’t work. They know that only law-abiding people obey the law and criminals don’t care what the law says.
When RINOs (Republican In Name Only) vote like Anti-gun Democrats, one has to wonder how many real Republicans are left in the Florida Senate.
If Senate Republicans, who vote for gun control, don’t care about compromising their own integrity, you have to wonder if they care about what they are doing to the character the Republican Party?
Michael Bloomberg is no friend to Republicans! He’s running in the Democratic Primary for President of the US on an anti-gun platform. Why are Senate Republicans doing his bidding?
***IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENT*** ***IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENT*** ***IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENT***
The media is now reporting that House Speaker Jose Oliva and Governor Ron DeSantis are pushing back against this massive gun control bill. Speaker Oliva and Governor DeSantis are to be commended for working to protect Second Amendment rights. They KNOW gun control doesn’t stop crime or criminals.
SB-7028 by the Committee on Infrastructure & Security is a gun control bill. Among other things, it contains a massive two-pronged “Universal” Background Check system that is the worst I have ever seen.
It is clearly meant to simply ban all private sales of firearms through red tape and fear.
This bill contains so much red tape and nonsense that there is almost no way a law-abiding person could comply.
The only thing we know for sure is that this bill will only stop law-abiding people from exercising a constitutional right and it will be completely ignored by criminals.
Voting in favor of this bill is like a doctor giving a patient an antibiotic for a virus. The doctor knows an antibiotic won’t cure the illness but at least he can make people think he’s “doing something.”
Supporting a bill so you can say you’re doing something is “political eyewash.”
This bill is nothing less than GUN CONTROL ON STEROIDS.
Any person of SOUND MIND knows that only law-abiding people obey the law and that criminals don’t care what the law says.
Make no mistake, 4 Senators who claim to be Republicans voted for massive gun control: Not to uphold their oath of office; not to protect and defend the Constitution; not to represent the rights of law-abiding gun owners in their districts.
The article below is reprinted with permission.
SENATE PANEL BACKS GUN CONTROL MEASURE
January 13, 2020
TALLAHASSEE — Over the objections of the National Rifle Association, a Senate panel Monday unanimously signed off on a far-reaching measure that would close the gun-show “loophole,” create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $5 million to establish a “statewide strategy for violence prevention.”
The proposal (SB 7028) is a priority of Senate President Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, as evidenced by the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee’s consideration and passage of the measure the day before the 2020 legislative session begins.
The sweeping legislation would require background checks and a three-day waiting period for firearms sold “on property to which the public has the right of access,” such as “a flea market, a gun show, or a firearm exhibit.”
The measure would also mandate that guns be securely stored in households and other places where minors under age 18 — up from the current threshold of 16 — could have access to the weapons.
The bill also would create a new section of law that would require guns to be stored to prevent access “by a person of unsound mind.”
And the proposal would impose new requirements for private gun sales. Under the measure, individuals who sell guns to other people would be required to fill out a form that would include the name, date of birth and identification information of the purchaser. The affidavit, which would include background questions aimed at ensuring the purchaser is eligible to buy a gun, would have to be notarized.
The measure contains “the worst universal background check language I have ever seen,” Marion Hammer, the NRA’s Florida lobbyist and a former president of the national gun-rights organization, told the Senate panel.
“It appears to be an actual attempt to ban private sales through red tape and fear,” she said. “Asking average citizens to create what amounts to a government form and get it notarized is ridiculous.”
The legislation is “nothing less than gun control on steroids,” Hammer said.
But committee Chairman Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, said the legislation “just makes sense.”
The Senate’s proposal comes as mass shootings in Florida and throughout the nation continue to rise. At least 81 people have died in mass shootings scattered throughout Florida over the past three years.
In 2018, the Legislature for the first time in decades passed a handful of gun-control measures after a massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that killed 17 students and faculty members and injured 17 others.
Lee, a former Senate president, said he empathized with gun owners who are exercising their Second Amendment rights.
“I know that you don’t see NRA members in the headlines of these mass shootings,” he told reporters following Monday’s meeting. “But we have a job to do. We can’t just sit by idly while our children are killing children and pretend this isn’t happening.”
While the Senate measure is a Galvano priority, it lacks a companion measure in the House. Lee said House leaders are “well aware we’re working on this.”
“Frankly, a lot of this is going to happen president-to-speaker and work down from there. But they’re very well aware that this is a priority for the president,” he said.
This year, we’re taking you inside SHOT Show like never before. Stay tuned for a look at new products from the shooting, tactical and reloading world.
Imagine you’re in the desert. You’re thrust into a sea of people (80,000 or so) and you’re tasked with finding the latest and greatest in our corner of the industry in a vast labyrinth of booths and vendors. Sounds like a grown-ups candy land of wonders, right? Well, yeah, kinda! It’s also overwhelming, and more than a little intimidating. Being my 6th year in attendance, I’m hoping I can bring you some content besides what’s new, what’s popular, and dive more into what interests you. I’ll also do my best to find some of the weirder stuff along the way. It is Vegas after all.
So, stay tuned for more updates, press releases, and more.
Let us know in the comments section just what you’d like to see from the show this year!
Reloading press designs vary, and some offer advantages, if they’re needed. Read more about which, what, and why HERE
This is the last (for now) look at reloading press designs and features, and it’s all about power — leverage and linkage.
The more leverage a press can generate the less input effort from us is required in performing an operation, especially a more challenging operation like reforming cartridge cases, but that’s got another side to it. A longer stroke, and a heavier mass to move, also means more exertion on each stroke, and more time spent case to case.
Since we don’t always know the ultimately most demanding operation we’ll call on a press to perform, my advice is to err on the “stronger” side, and also on the “longer” side. I prefer a press with a shorter handle stroke (and a shorter ram stroke) because it’s less tedious to operate — but that’s true only when the press ops are not taxing. Yes, I’ll explain more: when the duties are sizing small to medium sized commercial brass cases (like .223 Rem. up to .308 Win.), seating bullets, decapping, seating primers then excess press isn’t needed. But when it’s more taxing, like in the case reforming already mentioned, and also sizing once-fired military cases, or loading for a honker like .338 Lapua, a longer ram stroke and more leverage is most welcome.
I’ve been doing all this long enough to have collected more than one press, at more than one “size,” and I’ve used them all over a good many years. The one I use the most is on the smaller, shorter end of the press spectrum, and that is only because the most of the loading I do now is decidedly not taxing. But give me a Kroger sack full of Lake City 7.62 and my Forster CoAx or Harrell’s Sportsman is getting mounted up on the bench.
Speaking of effort, case lube is decidedly important in smoothing out taxing sizing ops. I prefer a petroleum-based lube, but that’s not meant to start an argument!
There are a few different takes on the best way to design linkage (the levering mechanism that powers the ram), including those that operate more or less upside down. I’ve not used them all but have, generally, found that handle length has the biggest influence on leverage.
Speaking of linkage… Some reloading presses are designed with eccentric linkage such that it’s possible to “cam” the ram. The concept involves circular motion and linear motion, meaning that when the ram traveling in a linear path reaches full extension, the linkage which is traveling in a circular path, can move through the 0-degree mark and go to a negative degree — like a crankshaft in an engine. To get a picture of this: As the handle is moved downward to elevate the ram, the ram reaches its maximum height just short of the very limit of its travel upward, and, at the last little bit, lowers. So when the handle is all the way through its arc, the press ram is sitting a little lower. This action, called “cam over,” has essentially increased “ummph” in the linkage, and it’s done that by making contact (plus) with the die.
I’m not a fan.
Now, any substantial press, whether it has eccentric linkage or not, can produce the effect of camming-over. A Forster Co-Ax, for instance, can just about crush a chrome car bumper and doesn’t have eccentric linkage. To set up that press, any press, to cam-over, turn the die a little (1/8 turn or so) downward beyond what provides full and flush contact with the shellholder when the ram is at its full height. Then, when the press handle is fully down, the additional pressure in the last bit of the handle stroke goes toward flexing the press. Simple as that, and that is what camming-over does: flex the press. And, again, that’s true whether it has eccentric linkage or not.
Don’t do it. Just don’t.
There’s no need to cam-over a press for a case-sizing operation. It creates unnecessary stress. Dies can get deformed and bent, carbide dies can break, and the press hisself can suffer, and even break. Some defend this practice by saying presses are designed to “take it,” but eventually there’s a penalty for taking any machine to its limits, continually.
The real deal is that it’s just not necessary! Using a cartridge case headspace gage to determine sizing die positioning to get the correct amount of case shoulder setback, it’s clear that sure should occur at a point short of full contact between the die bottom and the shellholder surfaces. But, and this is important, if it’s not then trying to push a case farther up into the die by crushing the shellholder against the die isn’t going to do much. Done is done. The flexing might, maybe (maybe), increase setback 0.001.
If your sizing die doesn’t adequately set back a case shoulder, then that die has to be modified by having material ground off its bottom.
Camming-over a press is a “feel-good” measure for some folks: there’s this satisfying “ka-thunk” at the limit of press handle stroke, and that lets a loader know that they gave it all it could get. I’ve also had some claim that the stress and flex brings “everything into perfect alignment.” No it doesn’t. Alignment in a press was determined by the maker, not pressure. If your press hain’t straight, bending it more won’t help.
Cam-over has its application in some bullet making operations, but those are not on-topic here.
More, And Some Is Good!
To find out if you have a “cammer” run the press ram fully up (press handle fully down) and thread a die in until it touches the shellholder. Try to move the handle back down. If it won’t budge, it’s got eccentric linkage. It won’t move because the ram is trying raise again. Back out the die until the handle moves and pulls the ram away. It’s at this point where “flush” contact with a die bottom will be. As long as the shellholder is not being contacted, presses with this sort of linkage have a smooth feel to them and do a little more positive job of sizing. In effect, the case gets sized twice (the ram elevates again just as the press handle is lowered). Linkage, either way, has zero effect on setting up a die because you measure what you get anyhow, and adjust the die accordingly, after you see what it is that you got.
The preceding is a adapted from information contained in from Glen’s books Top-Grade Ammo and Handloading For Competition. AvailableHERE at Midsouth Shooters Supply. Visit ZedikerPublishing.com for more information on the book itself, and also free article downloads.