While in Missouri for the Federal Ambassador meeting, two world class pistol shooting champions went to the range to pit their skills against one another. 22plinkster, a long time friend of Midsouth shooters, and the fantastic Julie Golob went head-to-head to see who could split a card the fastest. It’s friendly competition at it’s finest! Check out the video below:
Stop by 22plinksters channel for more vs videos, and amazing trick shots by clicking here!
Want to learn about “Surviving an Active Shooter” situation? Who doesn’t?
Texas & U.S. Law Shield recently launched a new special event in Florida and several other states to advise gun owners and others how to get past the end of such an incident — and live to tell about it.
The groups have scheduled “Surviving an Active Shooter” special events in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. At these events, law-enforcement professionals explain how to “run-hide-fight” effectively, then a lawyer details how to handle the legal aftermath, including how to react to arriving police who are trying to sort out who did what to whom.
Randy Macchi, general counsel of Texas & U.S. Law Shield and coordinator for the “active shooter” events, said the companies saw the need for more training of this type when the initial Texas events filled up within an hour of being announced.
Macchi said, “We were inundated with calls from people who were disappointed they were unable to register for these events because our limited schedule of ‘Surviving an Active Shooter’ events was full.”
He added that because of the importance of the topic, the events are not just for Law Shield members. “Our best hope is that you never, ever have to put into action any of the ideas presented at these ‘Surviving an Active Shooter’ events,” he said. “Regrettably, this is the world we live in, so we choose to be prepared.”
To register for these events, click GunLawSeminar.com. You’ll then be able to choose events from a pull-down state-specific menu.
Macchi said, “Not all of the events listed in the seminar schedule will have ‘Active Shooter’ programming. Check the ‘Event Type’ for a description. The ‘Surviving an Active Shooter’ events are clearly noted, but they may not be at the top of the screen.”
If anyone has questions about the events, he said they could call customer service at (877) 474-7184 (option 3) or e-mail email@example.com prior to the event.
Macchi said, “Please consider inviting friends, family, and work colleagues. Sadly, it is not alarmist to say these unspeakable tragedies can happen anywhere — the fact is, they have happened at night clubs, work gatherings out of the office, schools, movie theaters, political rallies, and many other venues where large groups of unarmed people gather.”
After the Senate didn’t pass four gun control bills a few days ago, Democrats in the House of Representatives have been doing a sit-in until they, too, get to vote on the matter of gun control.
Do you think these Representatives are showing us “what real leadership looks like,” according to Hillary Clinton, or is this just a tantrum by people who are frustrated that the U.S. Constitution is getting in the way of their plans?
Of course, we welcome you to express your opinion pro or con in the comments section below. You can also click the YouTube link on the bottom of the video (which is from the YouTube site of Rep. John Lewis [D-GA]), and offer a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote on this demonstration. The last time we looked, downvotes were well ahead of upvotes.
In this informative video, NRA News contributor Dom Raso, a former Navy SEAL and founder of Dynamis Alliance, reminds us that the AR-15 is the best defense against terror and crime — and he points out that banning AR-15s wouldn’t have prevented most of the recent terror attacks.
Raso also offers his common-sense solution to stemming the tide of terror: Law-abiding citizens prepared to deal with the imminent threats.
Raso highlight quote: “After the attack at Pulse night club in Orlando, Hillary Clinton looked past the obvious enemy — radical Islamic terror — and instead said ‘weapons of war have no place on our streets’ and that we need to ban AR-15s immediately. AR-15s are fine for Hillary and her family. They’ve been protected by armed guards who use them for three decades. But [for] average Americans who watch the news and feel genuine fear for their safety and their families’ safety — Hillary wants to deny them the level of protection she insists upon for herself.”
What did you think of Raso’s “Best Defense Against Terror” video?
The following is a specially-adapted excerpt from the book Handloading For Competition, by Glen Zediker. Visit BuyZedikerBooks.com for more.
by Glen Zediker
A “ballistic coefficient,” or “BC,” is a number that reflects on the aerodynamic performance of a bullet, how well it flies.
I was explaining BC to a fellow once and after talking through all the technical language he said, “So, it’ll hit furtherer on up the hill….” Exactly.
It’s actually a comparison, and that gets explained first. Here’s how it
works: There are “standard” bullets that are mathematical models. Workaday ballisticians know which model to apply to different bullet styles. For most rifle bullets we’ll encounter, one model is a “G1” (there are other models, like G7). The flight of this bullet has been calculated at varying velocities and distances. Pistol bullets, for example, are calculated from or compared to different standard bullet models.
The standard bullet, and, again, let’s say that’s a G1, has a BC of 1.000. An actual bullet that’s compared to the G1 at points, distances downrange, will either be flying faster or slower than the G1. If it’s faster, its BC will be 1.000+; if it’s slower, it will be 1.000- (fractional).
Comparing bullets with different BCs, the one with the higher number will lose less speed over distance. Losing less speed means its flight time will be shorter and it won’t drift and drop as much as a bullet with a lower BC. So, a 0.600 flies better than a 0.550. So: the higher the BC, the less speed lost over distance. That’s it.
Published or stated BCs are either calculated or measured, depending on the maker’s policy. More mathematics than I can wrap my mind around can get these calculations done based on a bullet’s blueprint. Measured BCs involve chronographing at the muzzle and then at other points on downrange, same bullet, same flight. There’s a good question as to which provides the best information. Some logic applied suggests that, without question, a measured BC is more “real world” and therefore more valuable. On the other hand, if the point is to compare bullets, then calculated BCs might be more reliable. One point, however, is that the relationship between measured BCs and calculated BCs is that measured are usually lower…but not always. Reasons for that follow.
All the drift and drop tables (whether printed or digital) you’ll see are based on a bullet’s BC. And, the accuracy of those tables clearly revolves around what the actual BC performance of the bullet you’re shooting is.
So what affects the actual, realized BC of a bullet? A lot of things… Anything that can influence bullet flight influences BC realization. Bullet stability has the lead, though. For a supposed BC to be realized, the bullet has to be “asleep.” If it’s not stable, it’s encountering disruptions that will slow it down. I don’t know many who have had much luck running BC tests “at home.” That’s a logistics issue with chronographs, as could be imagined. Those, however, who have successfully done their own BC testing learn a lot. One, for instance, is that even the rotational speed of a bullet in a test can influence BC. Comparing the same bullet through a 1-8 and a 1-7.5 twist barrel, the 1-8 likely will net a higher BC. The extra revs per second from the faster twist are the likely cause. Easy enough to imagine: 1000-yard BC tests are more revealing than are 500-yard tests.
Atmospherics, which can be a long list of factors, influence BC mightily. Air density is probably the most powerful influence here. Any conditions that allow for easier passage of a bullet through the air don’t detract as much from its BC as any conditions that do serve to impede its flight. A BC, which is based on sea-level air density, can easily show itself as a higher number at 2000 feet above sea level.
Reality is that the demonstrated BC changes from morning to afternoon and day to day and place to place. The calculated BC is not changing, of course, but the mistake is assuming that a BC is some “set” or finite measure of bullet performance. If you’re interested, there’s some valuable information from David Tubb (visit DavidTubb.com). He’s done a volume of work on calculating influences from atmospherics as it applies to his DTR project, which, in one way of seeing it, gets down to understanding why it’s really rare to dial in what a ballistics table says for a particular bullet and speed and distance, and hit the target.
One last bit of information I’ve always found interesting is that a BC is a finite thing, whether the bullet at hand is going to show it or not. Any BC derived from a G1 model, for instance, fits all bullets with that same BC. This was helpful before ballistics apps were as common and easy as they are now. For instance, if there was a new .224-caliber bullet with an advertised BC, but no tables, just find another bullet, of any caliber, with that same BC, plug in the velocity, and the drift and drop figures would be accurate. It doesn’t matter if the other bullet was a .308 or .277 or whatever else.
During a recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Stephanopoulos asked her — directly — twice if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. Her answer? Watch the video below, or read the attached transcript:
Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?
Clinton: I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.
So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and in fact what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.
So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.
And once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done, and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.
Stephanopoulos: And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions. But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe…their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?
Clinton: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.
So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right—I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.
A federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday that Americans have no Second Amendment right to carry concealed guns in public. The 7-4 ruling by the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California law requiring residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun.
What is especially galling about this decision was that the original Peruta case in 2014 found just the opposite. A three-judge panel of the court held that the Second Amendment “does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked that the Ninth Circuit rehear the case with a full panel of judges participating, leading to Thursday’s 7-4 outcome.
Edward Peruta of San Diego County was denied a concealed-carry permit in 2009 for failing to show good cause to have a license.
“Good cause,” as the county defined the term, was a “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.”
The Ninth Circuit ruling covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Other regional appeals courts that have upheld good-cause requirements include the Second (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont), Third (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) and Fourth (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) circuits.
Effectively, that means 20 of the 50 states can decide what is good enough cause to allow for self-defense in their jurisdictions. Decisions in other appellate circuits are pending.
Peruta was brought on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) Foundation and five individuals who were denied carry licenses by the San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore. In February 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit hearing Peruta resulted in a monumental ruling that held that the San Diego County sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public — unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need — was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.
After Sheriff Gore decided not to appeal the case further, state Attorney General Kamala Harris and several anti-gun groups filed requests to join the litigation and continue litigating the appeal as parties to the case. The three-judge panel denied each of the intervention requests. In December 2014, AG Harris and the anti-gun-rights groups filed requests for en banc review of the decision to deny them entry into the case.
This is a specially-adapted excerpt from the forthcoming book, “Top Grade Ammo,” by author Glen Zediker, owner of Zediker Publishing. Click here to order from Midsouth.
by Glen Zediker
A cartridge is a system, a sum of its parts. There’s not really any one part that matters most, but the bullet matters much. The material below will offer an outline to identify influential aspects of bullet engineering and execution.
There are bullets engineered to perform variously on target, including the proximity of impacts on target. I say it that way because a “match” bullet’s job is to perforate a piece of paper. A bullet designed for varmint hunting, on the other hand, is designed to produce explosive impact, and one for larger-game hunting strives to strike a balance between expansion and penetration. All bullets have to meet their target to be effective, and different premiums often also result in a few trade-offs. Specialty hunting projectiles, for instance, don’t usually out-and-out group as well as those engineered for target shooting.
However, no matter how a bullet is constructed inside, essential elements of any bullet design are universal. I’m talking about the outside of a bullet.
Here are the parts: base (that’s the bottom); boat-tail, or not (flat-base); shank, portion of full-caliber diameter; ogive, the sloping “nosecone”; tip, either open or closed (open it’s called the “meplat”). The shape of the ogive and the first point of “major diameter” are very influential elements. The first point of major diameter can vary a from barrel brand to barrel brand because it’s the point on the bullet that coincides with land diameter in the barrel. It’s the first point that will actually contact the barrel as the bullet moves forward. This right here can be a very important thing to determine. When there’s a cartridge sitting in the rifle chamber, the distance to the lands that the bullet has to “jump” to engage is, well, called “jump.” It’s the gap between dead air and first contact. I pick back up on this next article.
The first point of major diameter and the shank combine to determine the “bearing area.” This is how much of the bullet is riding the barrel surfaces.
The two essential forms a bullet can take are “secant” and “tangent.” This refers to the profile of the ogive. A tangent is a more rounded, gradual flow toward the tip, while a secant is a more radical step-in, more like a spike.
Ogives are measured in “calibers.” That’s pretty simple: an 8-caliber ogive describes an arc that’s 8 times caliber diameter; a 12-caliber is based on a circle that’s 12 times the caliber. The 8 will be a smaller circle than the 12, so, an 8-caliber ogive is more “blunt” or rounded. (So I don’t get comments from engineers, there’s more to it than this, as it applies on blueprints to different profiles; it’s the ratio of its radius to the diameter of the cylinder. But my description is accurate as an overview.)
Now, here’s how and why all that matters to bullet selection: Generally, bullets with longer bearing areas are more tolerant of jump and tend to shoot better than those with shorter bearing areas. Shorter bearing areas, though, can allow for higher velocities (less drag in the bore). Bullets with lower-caliber ogives are likewise more tolerant of jump and shoot better. However, higher-caliber ogives fly better, that is, farther. This is an important component in “low-drag” bullet designs. Same thing comparing tangent and secant profiles: the first is easier, the second beats the air better.
When you see terms like “magazine bullet” or “length-tolerant bullet,” that is referring to those with tangent profiles and lower-caliber ogives. They are designed to endure jump so, therefore, can be seated to “magazine length” without much, if any, accuracy loss. If you want to experiment with the longer, “low-drag” or “high-BC” style bullets, you will find they don’t want to group as expected until they get very close to or right on the lands when the round is chambered.