RELOADERS CORNER: Bullet Jump 2

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Tips that help take bullet jump out of the accuracy equation. Find out how!

leade
This is an aluminum staub cut with a chamber reamer. It’s easy to see the transition to the lands. The more smoothly a bullet enters the lands, the better it will shoot. When seating depth can’t be idealized, choosing a “gentle” bullet is the best defense against ill effects of jump.

Glen Zediker

Last time I shared some insight about bullet “jump,” and specifically with respect to the viability of setting up a “zero-jump” chamber/ammo combination.

To hit the highlights: Jump is the gap the bullet must traverse when it leaves the case neck to engage the lands or rifling. Generally, best (and better) accuracy comes with this gap is reduced to a minimum amount, or at the least reduced. Better is better.

To go farther into this topic, it’s worthwhile to move the bullet around, seating it more or less deeply (nearer or farther from the lands at rest) to maximize accuracy. Clearly, there’s a limit on cartridge overall length if the rounds have to fit into a magazine box so they can feed right. In NRA High Power Rifle competition, the AR15 pilots are specifically not allowed to have the rounds feed from the magazine in semi-auto mode; each round must be loaded into the chamber one at a time for the “slow-fire” segments, which includes the 600-yard event. That means competitive High Power shooters using AR-platform rifles are free to move the extra-long 80+ grain .224-caliber bullets out to near or on the lands when chambered. That doesn’t really matter but it explains the popular “Wylde” chamber we tend to use. It’s got a long enough throat to free more case volume and also provide a bigger “expansion chamber” for burning propellant gases, but it’s not as long as a NATO-spec so should perform better with bullets that do have to be loaded deeply in enough to fit the magazine box. Something like a Sierra 80gr or 82gr Berger won’t usually shoot worth a flip loaded to mag-length. That bullet, and others similar, are simply too dang long for a .223 Remington case. A huge amount of the bullet swallows up the case interior.

Sierra bullets compared.
It’s not all in the ogive specs, but it’s influenced by it, because those specs influence the overall profile of the bullet. Here’s a .224 Sierra 77gr MatchKing next to an 80gr MatchKing. The first is approximately 8 calibers, the 80 is approximately 12. The marks indicate the location of the first point of coincidence of land diameter. Considering the overall profile differences, it’s pretty clear that the 77 jumps with better results when each is loaded to the same cartridge overall length. There’s just 3grs difference in these bullets but they’re worlds apart in both tolerance and performance.

The best defense against ever worrying over jump, meaning whether you’re getting good accuracy regardless of the amount of bullet jump (well, at least within reason…) is bullet choice. Specifically, a tangent-profile bullet with a conservative ogive. Recollecting from some materials I did a while back, a “secant” profile is a sharper taper-in from bullet body to bullet tip; a tangent is a smoother transition. Secants, more or less, have a “shoulder” indicating a more abrupt taper rather than a smooth arc. For examples: true VLD (very low drag) and the Hornady A-Max are secant.

Bullets with relatively shorter nosecones and relatively longer bearing areas (length of the bullet that’s in contact with the rifling) are likewise more tolerant of jump.

Sierra 69, JLK 70 VLD
Here’s an example of different .224 bullet profiles at essentially the same weight. A Sierra 69gr MatchKing on left and a JLK 70gr VLD. The tangent 8-caliber-ogive (approximate) Sierra shoots great when it’s jumping; the secant 15-caliber-ogive VLD tends not to shoot well at all unless it starts touching the lands.

There’s been a trend for many years now toward creating bullets with higher ballistic coefficients. Worthwhile pursuit! Only issue is that when a bullet design features better aerodynamics, the features of that are, yep, longer nosecones with shallower angles. The ogive (what I’ve been more descriptively calling the nosecone because it’s easier to picture) usually is expressed in calibers. Technically it’s “calibers of ogive,” and that’s the ogive radius divided by the caliber. To me it’s easier to picture looking at the “other side” of the equation: the arc that scribes the profile in multiples of the bullet’s caliber. So, a 7- to 8-caliber ogive is a tighter circle (more rounded profile) than a 12- or 15-caliber ogive. Most of the “high-BC” profiles use a 15, some more. In other words, they’re stilettos.

calibers-of-ogive
Here’s an illustration of calibers-of-ogive from Sierra. That transition area from bullet diameter to first point of contact with the lands (which will be land diameter, and at least 0.005 smaller) has influence on how well a bullet endures jump. A lower-number is favorable in this regard. In this illustration the ogive radius, 2.240 inches, divided by the caliber, 0.308, gives 7.27. That should tolerate jump well.

I’m kind of breaking this down farther and faster than exercising good technical care in covering this topic should warrant, but: comparing both same-weight and same-caliber bullets, the longer it is the more sensitive it’s going to be to jump.

I have shot way too many high-X-count 300-yard cleans with bullets jumping 0.030+ inches to say that it’s not possible to have good accuracy unless jump is minimal. I admit that’s only a 1 moa group. I’m also using what some makers call a “length-tolerant” bullet, and specifically that’s a 77gr Sierra Matchking, and the same goes for a Nosler 77 or Hornady 75 HPBT (not A-Max). It’s the bullet form, not just its weight, that has the strongest influence on all this.

So, do you have to abandon better ballistics to attain better accuracy? Maybe. At least to a point. With the smaller calibers, which don’t have other advantages larger calibers have simply by virtue of weight and sectional density, there tends to be an effectively greater discrepancy between the lighter and heavier (again, it’s really shorter and longer) bullet ballistic performances.

A rifle with a generous-length magazine box provides greater jump-reduction via loaded round architecture. If there’s enough room, a bullet can be scooted out to the limit of the space within the box.

As always, well at least usually, there are tools! Get them and use them. A gage “set” from Hornady is well advised. There are others similar. I’ve been using their LNL Overall Length Gage and Bullet Comparator for many years and receive needed results. The first tool indicates the seating depth that touches the lands, and the second provides more reliable and accurate means to measure and record it.

Hornady LNL gage
This Hornady LNL gage pair gives you the tools needed to determine the jump you’re getting with the bullet you’re using. Check it out HERE

The leade, which, again, is the transition to the lands and determined by the chambering reamer (or throating reamer if custom-done) does influence tolerance for jump. The shallower the angle the better, but, that’s a two-edged issue. Take a commonly-used 3-degree leade and make it a more preferable 1.5-degree leade and that takes way on more than double the distance (length of cut) to attain. Again, when there’s a magazine getting in the way of bullet seating depth flexibility, a shallower leade eases transition into the barrel bore for a jumping bullet, but also increases jump. There are some cartridges, like David Tubb’s 6XC, that were designed specifically to “perfect” all these relationships: magazine-mandated cartridge overall length, bullet choice, and leade in, and it’s one reason it owns the records it does. Otherwise, it’s often a compromise… But don’t compromise accuracy for anything. A smaller group is, in the long run, the best defense against both wind and distance when it comes to hitting a target. Reliable feedback equals correct adjustments.

The preceding was adapted from Glen’s newest book, Top-Grade Ammo, available here at Midsouth. For more information on this book, and others, plus articles and information for download, visit ZedikerPublishing.com

REVIEW: Beretta APX Pistol

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A radical departure from the infamous (and respected) Beretta Model 92/M9, this new handgun from the Italian maker has so far proven to be just about as good as a striker-fired pistol can get… Read the full review.

APX

by Jay Grazio
NRA: Shooting Illustrated

News of the Beretta APX, a full-size, striker-fired, polymer-frame pistol, took some by surprise, but the handgun has been in development for quite some time. The manufacturer best-known for its double-action/single-action Model 92, has rolled the dice on the APX, opting to break into the full-size, striker-fired market in a big way. While the company’s polymer-frame, striker-fired Pico and Nano subcompact pistols have been available for a while, the mainstay has always been the Model 92 and its military sibling, designated the M9.

Reaction has been somewhat mixed to the introduction of the Beretta APX. Some have wondered why the manufacturer has decided, seemingly out of the blue, to break with its tradition of double-action/single-action semi-automatics, which includes the Px4 Storm line. Others aren’t fans of the unconventional design — the prominent slide serrations are a “love it or hate it” kind of thing. One thing is apparent, though: Beretta did its homework when researching the APX’s target audience.

Beretta APX colors.
Its Italian design allows the Beretta APX to be color-matched with the fashionable shooter’s gear.

A common misconception around the Beretta APX involves the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System (MHS) program for choosing a new handgun for our soldiers (which was ultimately won by SIG Sauer’s P320). Because APX development occurred during the original phase of the MHS project, it was assumed that the pistol was developed in response to the MHS program. Well, the APX had been on the drawing board before that process began, but make no mistake: The APX was designed with the law enforcement and military communities in mind.

A phrase that pops up repeatedly in discussion with Beretta’s engineers is “extreme duty use.” John Tamborino, tactical products manager for Beretta, pointed out that the APX’s prime duty was to work every time, under every condition possible, for people in harm’s way. Police, military, and civilians who carry concealed alike can benefit from the “function over form” design of the Beretta APX. While Beretta obviously recognizes that aesthetics are important in a firearm, for the APX, making sure it works every single time no matter what the task was the be-all, end-all purpose.

Tamborino stated, “Our intent during the development of the APX was to develop the pistol for duty use. Form was secondary to function as we integrated user needs into the pistol based on research conducted with Military, law enforcement, and citizens.”

APX sights
(left and center) Seated in dovetails for adjustment, sights are of the traditional, three-white-dot variety. (right) Controls are well-planned, ergonomic, and ambidextrous for the most part, and can be operated easily.

When talking with Tamborino, another aspect quite apparent in the design of the Beretta APX is the legwork that went into gathering information before the pistol even began. Literally years of crisscrossing the country, talking to hundreds of law enforcement and military members — from beat cops and front-line grunts to SWAT team members and Spec Ops door kickers — intel was plentiful and varied. What various operators liked, didn’t like, found useful, wished they had available; all information was collected, disseminated and studied. The APX project was based around one overarching question: “What does the user need?”

So, what sets the Beretta APX apart from what is an ever-increasing crowd of polymer, striker-fired pistols? The aforementioned slide serrations are the most visible, of course. However, the differentiation doesn’t end there. It’s obvious from even a cursory look at the APX that ergonomics are key: Some companies offer a multitude of backstraps and even side panels to custom fit the owner’s hand; others offer different frame sizes and configurations to achieve that goal. In the case of the APX, it’s both: three backstrap sizes are available, and while only a full-size frame is currently released, Beretta has plans for other options in the coming months and years.

APX features.
(left) Small, medium and large backstraps are available to better fit the APX to the shooter’s hand. (center) Swapping grips requires the pistol be stripped and a pin pulled at the bottom of the magazine well. (right) Two 17-round magazines keep the APX fed and feature sculpted floorplates to assist in removing them if needed.

Naturally, the removable fire-control group (FCG) sets the Beretta APX apart from most competitors as well. Introduced with the SIG Sauer P250, the concept of an integral FCG that comprised the actual firearm was a quiet game-changer. Even now, the concept isn’t really recognized as revolutionary, with the argument that “I’ll just buy another gun” offered to counter the modularity of the removable FCG. While the ability to change calibers isn’t exactly new, being able to change frame size at the same time is — and it’s astounding that the implications of this ability haven’t been better explored.

The trigger on the Beretta APX is pretty good right out of the box. I attended a Beretta Tactical event earlier this year when the APX was introduced, and we were given the opportunity to test it in various “real-life” scenarios with instruction from EAG Tactical (now Forge Tactical) trainers. Weak-hand-only, strong-hand-only, low-light, no-light and other scenarios were played out with the APX, and it repeatedly proved itself up to the task. In a group in excess of a dozen seasoned gunwriters and editors, nearly 5,000 rounds of plain-Jane bulk 9 mm ammunition was chewed up by the various APXs, and the only glitches experienced were a small number (able to be counted on one hand) of times where the slide didn’t go fully into battery on the first round. Given the novelty of the heavily textured slide, it was theorized the glitches were operator-induced (one of the writers who experienced the failure admitted he may have been overzealous in his overhand slingshot of the slide, which is not recommended with the APX).

APX mounting rails.
(left) Lights and/or lasers can be added to the accessory rail under the prominent “APX.” (center) Removable with some care, the fire-control group can be swapped between frames if desired. (right) Equipped with an internal safety, the trigger isn’t as mushy as others in its class.

Back to the subtle differences in the Beretta APX, one feature will appeal to the safety-conscious: the striker-deactivation button. Some striker-fired pistols require the trigger to be pulled as part of the firearm’s takedown procedure, which can lead to a discharge if all safety rules aren’t obeyed.

If you’re of the type who dislikes pulling the trigger to take a handgun apart, the Beretta APX is a handy choice. If you’re not, though, you can certainly disassemble the pistol traditionally: First and foremost, check and double-check to ensure it is unloaded, then drop the magazine and lock the slide to the rear. Turn the takedown lever 90 degrees and release the slide, pulling the trigger as the slide releases. Make sure you’ve got a spot for the slide to go, though, because it’ll come off the frame quick. Remove the captured guide rod and barrel, and you’re ready to start scrubbing.

APX takedown.
Capable of being taken down with or without pulling the trigger, disassembly is easy and intuitive.

The functional component of the Beretta APX was readily apparent on the range. On the first day, right out of the box, 440 rounds went through the APX with zero malfunctions. We chose a variety of bullet weights and profiles, opting for the most-common combinations of 115- and 124-grain full-metal-jacket bullets folks are most likely to use for practice as well as 115-, 124- and 147-grain JHPs suitable for defensive use. Nothing stopped the APX or even slowed it down.

In fact, the single glitch experienced with the Beretta APX occurred on a subsequent function-test range trip. We gathered up in excess of 700 rounds of ammunition from 80-grain PolyCase ARX to 147-grain Browning FMJ and even an old box of lacquered, steel-case ammunition of questionable origin in an attempt to get the APX to hiccup. Note, at no time was the pistol cleaned or even lubricated from the previous range trip. Around round 750, enough fouling had accumulated in the frame that the trigger was resetting more sluggishly than we would like for rapid-fire exercises. One spritz of oil and we were back in business; it’s hard to call this a failure given the total lack of lubrication at any other time in this test. Overall, in excess of 1,200 rounds were fired through the APX, with precisely zero failures to feed, fire, or extract a dozen different types of ammo.

It’s also important to recognize that the current Beretta APX pistol is only the first in what Beretta expects to be a full product line. Offered in 9 mm and .40 S&W initially, more calibers — including .45 ACP — are expected to become available, along with new frame/slide/barrel variations as well. It defies credulity to think Beretta won’t capitalize on this modularity to launch a complete series of compact and sub-compact variants to complement the full-size frame. The company plans on a compact version to become available in 2018, and hinted that a version compatible with a micro red-dot sight is also in the works.

So, you’ve got a pistol that has a decent trigger out of the box, has a variety of backstraps and frame color options, is easy to maintain and has been engineered for years of hard (ab)use. What, exactly, is not to like about that? Does it boil down to the aesthetics? If you’re letting the unconventional look of the slide serrations stop you from checking out the Beretta APX, don’t. Give it a look anyway. Take it to the range and shoot it. You’ll come away impressed.

APX specifications

CHECK IT OUT HERE

SKILLS: Sheriff’s Tips: What’s Your Stance?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Sheriff Jim Wilson shares some recollections and history on development of the pistol shooting stance, and, most importantly, puts it all into perspective for today’s modern world. Keep reading…

by Jim Wilson
Source: NRA American Rifleman
Images courtesy Gunsite.com

The first experience that I had with a two-handed shooting stance was the isosceles stance as taught by the FBI at our police academy. The shooter stood erect and shot with both arms extended and elbows locked. This was also the same stance that we used in department qualifications and PPC matches.

Jim Wilson

This stance worked pretty well as long as we were firing .38 Spl. wadcutter ammo out of our revolvers. Where it got weak was when we were trying to make multiple hits with .357 Mag. ammo, or even .38 Spl. +P. We simply could not do a good job of managing the extra recoil of the fighting ammunition.

Isosceles stance
Isosceles Stance.

It was this same need to manage recoil when firing more than one shot that caused Jack Weaver, a California peace officer, to develop a slightly different technique. Weaver bent his elbows and made sure that his support elbow was pointed down towards the ground. He also exerted an isometric hold on the pistol, pushing forward with his shooting hand and pulling back with his support hand. Using this technique, Weaver’s arms absorbed most of the recoil and made the gun more manageable under rapid fire. Col. Jeff Cooper quickly noticed that Weaver’s technique was helping him to win quite a few matches and incorporated it into the Modern Technique of the Pistol.

Weaver Stance
Weaver Stance.

For quite some time, a healthy argument ensued as to which technique was really the best to use in actual gunfights. The Weaver camp often suggested that the Isosceles was best used in target shooting, while the Isosceles crowd quickly pointed to the number of actual gunfights won by people using the Isosceles method. As it turns out, what the arms are doing may not be nearly as important as what the rest of the body is doing.

The defensive shooter should use an athletic body position. He should be squared to his target. The feet should be about shoulder width apart, with the support foot just slightly ahead of the strong-side foot. By that I mean that the ball of the support foot should be about even with the tip of the toes on the strong-side foot. The knees should be slightly bent and the shooter’s weight should be on the balls of his feet. The shoulders should be slightly forward of the feet.

In this kind of position, the shooter can manage the pistol’s recoil better. And it also puts the shooter in a good physical stance that allows him to move quickly in just about any direction. And, depending upon body size, the shooter may adjust this position a bit in order to be most effective.

Whether one shoots with both arms straight or arms bent, he or she can exert a firm grip on his pistol and somewhat of an isometric, push-pull, hold. The key is to be in an aggressive, athletic body stance without getting into a crouch. As Richard Mann puts it, “Do it like you are killing snakes!” A firm stance and a firm grip are what is needed to manage recoil and allow for multiple, accurate hits.

Many of us older shooters well remember the magazine articles by Col. Cooper and Massad Ayoob as they argued back and forth on the merits of the Weaver vs. the Isosceles. I am told that, later in life, Col. Cooper made the statement that he wished he hadn’t made such as issue of the two stances. Whichever one a person chooses to use, his success will be noted in his ability to deliver quick, accurate shots with full-power defensive ammunition.

It may even be that a good defensive shooter should be well versed in both techniques. Depending upon the available cover, whether he is shooting over or around something, and the angle in which he may have to deliver his shots (we can’t always plant our feet and assume a classic stance when under a surprise attack) one or the other technique might work best.

I have come to the conclusion that arguing the Weaver vs. the Isosceles is about as productive as arguing .45 vs. 9 mm. I have better ways to spend my time and the guys who want to argue these issues might spend their time more productively in good training and practice.

5 Self-Defense Tips For College Women

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A young woman’s first year of college marks a dramatic lifestyle change for most. Here are some pointers on ensuring “victim” isn’t one of them…

college freshman

by Wendy LaFever
Source: NRAFamily.org

If you’re like the vast majority of young women, chances are your first year of college also represents the first time you’ve lived on your own for any length of time. It’s an exhilarating time, when everything is alive with possibility.

Unfortunately, one of those possibilities is becoming the focus of a criminal’s attention. Predators know that very young women lack the life experience to fully evaluate risk, which means that they tend to be too trusting. Campus life adds a few other wrinkles to one’s self-defense strategy, as well. New students frequently don’t have the option to choose where they’ll live or with whom; parking is usually assigned and underclassmen tend to get the least desirable spots; the possession of self-defense tools is frequently prohibited on campus. This article won’t address the wisdom or rightness (or lack thereof) of any of those “wrinkles.” Rather, we’ll focus on what you, specifically, can do to help shore up your own safety right now given the situation that exists.

ONE: Lock your car doors.
Did you just roll your eyes reading that? We can’t blame you if you did, but the fact is that many of the folks who prey on college students aren’t terribly sophisticated. In fact, many of them are college students themselves. The most commonly reported crimes on campus are burglary and car theft…and for many thieves, their targets are targets of opportunity. The unlocked car parked far away from the dorms is fruit hanging so low it might as well be a potato. Can a determined crook break into a locked vehicle? Sure they can—but why make it easy, quiet and safe for them by leaving your car unlocked? You can also cut your risk by remembering to stow or take with you any items that are portable and valuable, such as electronics or textbooks.

TWO: Lock your dorm entry points and insist your friends do the same.
At my alma mater, we had what was (at the time, anyway) state-of-the-art security doors for entry to the dorms as well as for each individual floor. Not that it mattered; the students pretty much never let them close. They — we –would chock them open at every opportunity so that we wouldn’t have to remember our student ID keycards, and so our friends could come and go freely. Most students didn’t bother locking their room doors, either. And then we’d all be shocked and angry when somebody’s computer or TV walked off. The problem is one of perception: Many young people judge the intentions of others based on their own intentions. You wouldn’t wander into an empty room and walk out with someone’s possessions, so it’s hard to imagine someone among your friends and neighbors would do such a thing…but they might. So could an outsider who doesn’t attend your college but just knows his or her way around. What’s more, theft is not the only possible consequence of subverting the security your campus has in place…the third most commonly reported crime on campus is sexual assault.

THREE: Got an image of a “criminal” in your head? Lose it.
In The Addams Family movie, young Wednesday Addams is asked why she isn’t dressed up for Halloween. “I’m a homicidal maniac,” she deadpans. “They look just like everyone else.” The line is played for laughs, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Not only aren’t criminals generally considerate enough to wear a badge identifying them as such, it’s also a sad fact that you are most likely to be victimized by someone you know. That doesn’t mean that you can’t develop a knack for spotting people who might be a problem; you absolutely can. But what you have to look for are suspicious behaviors and attitudes. Pay particular attention to people who discount or ignore your boundaries, people who try to guilt or shame you into doing things you don’t want to do, and particularly people who try to put you into positions of vulnerability.

FOUR: Party smarter, not harder.
Speaking of “positions of vulnerability,” the time when you are arguably at your most vulnerable is when you are under the influence. Although the absolute best advice is to never be under the influence, better people than I have failed at convincing young adults to follow it. So if you must party, do it smarter, not harder. One way to do this is to take refuge in the safety offered by numbers. Go out in groups, and go out with a plan. Determine ahead of time where you’ll go, when you’ll plan on leaving and where you’ll meet up. Arrange for safe transportation ahead of time, so nobody is stuck looking for a ride at the end of the night. Designate one woman in the group to be what we used to call the “mama hen.” Her job is to remain sober, to ensure that nobody gets left behind, and to be the voice of reason when anyone in the group gets any of those oh-so-terrific ideas that occasionally bubble up when folks are downing drink. Speaking of drinks, don’t leave yours unattended…even if it’s just for a minute. It takes seconds to furtively slip something into a person’s unattended beverage…and when everyone’s imbibing, it’s even easier to do so unnoticed.

FIVE: Recognize that there are worse things than being “rude.”
For better or for worse, young women are socialized to be polite. The “worse” part of that “better or for worse” equation is that many of us find it difficult to clearly enforce our boundaries for fear of being seen as rude. It’s even harder to do that when you’re doing your best to fit in with a whole new social circle; nobody, regardless of their age or gender, wants to gain a reputation for being boring, unpleasant or a stick-in-the-mud. That said, the worst thing you can do by being “rude” to someone who is making you uncomfortable is that you accidentally hurt the feelings of an innocent person. The good news is that innocent people who genuinely have your safety and comfort at heart will not only back off immediately, they’ll accept your apology later if you turn out to have been wrong.

As for what to do about the people who will take your wet clothing out of the dorm’s dryers and dump it on the floor the second you turn your back (and they will, just you wait and see)? Can’t help you there — but if you have any suggestions, the comment section is right below…

Arizona Supreme Court Rebuffs Tucson’s Illegal Destruction of Firearms

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A Supreme Court ruling in Arizona establishes that forfeited and seized firearms should be treated the same as any other valuable property. Here’s the story…

destroyed gun

Source: NRA-ILA

On Thursday, August 17, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that the state was within its authority to prohibit cities and counties from routinely destroying firearms obtained through forfeiture or as unclaimed property. State law holds that political subdivisions must instead (subject to certain exceptions) recirculate the firearms through legitimate channels of commerce, just as they do with other types of valuable property. The case represents the latest battle in an effort dating back nearly two decades to prevent anti-gun localities from undermining the pro-gun policies of the state legislature.

While the case — State v. City of Tucson — rests on complicated issues of Arizona constitutional, statutory, and common law, it illustrates challenges facing gun owners nationwide and the importance of sustained advocacy in ensuring Second Amendment rights. Infringements of the right to keep and bear arms are rarely resolved simply by pointing to the Second Amendment or similar provisions of state constitutions. Rather, it often takes remedial legislation, backed by months or years of painstaking litigation, to vindicate the rights of gun owners.

The case also illustrates how even in the most pro-gun of states, there are always anti-gun enclaves and/or political opportunists who will openly defy clear legal authority for as long as possible to further their oppressive agenda of suppressing our firearms freedom.

As explained in the case’s leading opinion, the Arizona legislature passed a statute in 2000 to assert exclusive authority over the regulation of firearms and ammunition. Nevertheless, the City of Tucson five years later enacted an ordinance calling for the destruction of certain unclaimed or forfeited firearms.

The legislature, in turn, responded by enacting two additional statutes in 2013 that prohibited agencies, political subdivisions, and law enforcement entities from “facilitating the destruction of a firearm” and that instructed them instead to sell the firearms to businesses which lawfully participate in gun sales.

Despite the legislature’s explicit directives, Tucson destroyed nearly 5,000 additional firearms after the enactment of the 2013 laws. The legislature again responded in 2016, this time by establishing a framework by which one or more members of the legislature could seek remedial action through the state attorney general’s office against alleged violations of Arizona’s laws or its constitution by political subdivisions.

Pursuant to that framework, Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem asked the attorney general to review Tucson’s firearm destruction program. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich concluded that Tucson’s ordinance was contrary to state law, but the city rejected the findings and refused to take corrective action. Pursuant to the 2016 law, Attorney General Brnovich then filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court to resolve the matter.

Although the justices were divided on their reasoning, all agreed the state legislature had acted within its authority by enacting the statute preventing localities from destroying firearms that were otherwise lawful to sell under state and federal law. The leading opinion of four justices validated the NRA’s argument that protecting the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the state and federal constitutions is a matter of statewide concern and that the enactments of the legislature on this subject therefore take precedence over the acts of charter cities.

Tucson’s behavior to date leaves little doubt that anti-gun officials will continue looking for ways to undermine the rights of gun owners within the city, notwithstanding the state legislature’s pronouncements. This is unfortunately an all-too-common phenomenon across the country in otherwise pro-gun states. That is exactly why the NRA’s work to vindicate the rights of gun owners never stops, even when it does not grab national headlines.

The leading opinion of four justices validated the NRA’s argument that protecting the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the state and federal constitutions is a matter of statewide concern and that the enactments of the legislature on this subject therefore take precedence over the acts of charter cities.

September 1 is Here! This is How the Texas Gun Laws Change

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube
September 1 changes
The TSRA outlines the new laws taking effect September 1.

Read this release from TSRA to learn about ALL of the changes in Texas gun law on September 1. See below:

LTC Fee Reduction Legislation

(SB16 by Senator Robert Nichols/Representative Phil King)

Background:

In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed the concealed handgun license. At that time the fee to the state for the CHL was put into statute at $140 for the initial license and $70 to renew. The only discounts in 1995 were for seniors over 60 at a 50% discount and to indigents for the same 50% discount.

Over the years the Legislature created discounts for various groups such as judges, district attorneys, military, law enforcement and others but nothing for the average hardworking Texan. In addition, the process of issuing the license became streamlined.

With SB 16:

Those who would have paid $140 will now pay $40, and their renewal will also be $40. The cost will be $40 for seniors for their first license instead of $70, and a senior renewal will remain $35.

$40 is the most any Texan will pay the state for the License to Carry.

While TSRA strongly supports unlicensed possession of a handgun, the Texas license has become acceptable even to those who opposed the issue for decades.

Special thanks to Senator Robert Nichols the author of SB 16, to Representative Phil King for HB300, Representative Dustin Burrows for HB339 and to Representative Kyle Kacal for HB1024; all filed to create support for SB 16.

SB 16 was Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s #1 priority for Texas gun owners.

Governor signed (5/26/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017

Caliber Requirement for LTC Qualification

(SB263 by Senator Perry/Representative Drew Springer)

Since 1995 there has been a minimum caliber requirement in the statute for the range proficiency portion of the Texas License to Carry class. Range Proficiency requires the applicant shoot a 50-round course of fire.

Currently, those seeking a license must test with a .32 caliber or higher handgun although there is no caliber requirement regarding the firearm carried by the licensee on a day to day basis.

This minimum caliber requirement negatively impacts those with hand injuries and the elderly who wish to obtain a license.

SB 263 by Senator Perry removes the caliber requirement for the range proficiency exam to obtain a Texas License to Carry.  The bill takes effect September 1.

Governor signed (6/9/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017

Volunteer First Responders

(HB435 by Representative Ken King/Senator Perry.)  Relating to handgun laws as they apply to licensees who are volunteer first responders.

Governor signed (June 15, 2017) Effective Date 9/1/2017

TSRA Suppressor Bill plus a Friendly Amendment

On Friday, May 19th, at 8:55 p.m. the Texas House passed HB 1819, authored by Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster) with Senate sponsor, Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) plus an amendment by Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls).

HB1819 sets up Texas law in preparation for the Hearing Protection Act (HR 367) to pass in Congress. The Hearing Protection Act would remove suppressors, also known as silencers, from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA). This means the purchaser of a suppressor would no longer be required to pay the suppressor dealer a deposit, fill out the form 4, transmit digital fingerprints, send BATFE $200, followed by waiting as long as a year for their application to be processed, the “tax stamp” issued and the purchase finalized.  Again, we’re only talking about suppressors. A device which simply muffles sound.

The US Congress, under our current administration, is expected to act and when the change occurs Texas law will be ready to accommodate the change. This means law-abiding Texans wanting a suppressor for their firearm will show their LTC or submit to NICS as though they were purchasing a firearm.  No forms and no $200 tax to BATFE when the Hearing Protection Act passes in Congress.

But wait, there’s more! Mossberg Shockwave!

It was brought to our attention by State Rep. Poncho Nevarez (D-Eagle Pass) and by TSRA members that the Mossberg 590 Shockwave could not be purchased in two states: Texas and Ohio. There is a Mossberg manufacturing facility in Eagle Pass.
You see BATFE does not require this 14″ barrel,  pistol grip “firearm” to be registered as an NFA device. The Shockwave is not a shoulder-mount shotgun.

The Mossberg amendment was added in the Senate by Senator Craig Estes. Thanks of course to Senator Charles Perry the Senate sponsor for HB 1819.

HB1819 has now been signed by Governor Abbott and takes effect September 1. We may have a wait to purchase a suppressor, but we will purchase the Mossberg 590 Shockwave and other similar firearms after September 1.

HB1819 Bill History with Co-Author’s List

Governor Signed (5/26/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017 for Texas law but we wait on Congress!

Online LTC Course Option

(HB3784 by Representative Justin Holland (R-Rockwall and Senator Van Taylor (R-Plano))

Creates an optional online course for the Texas LTC. The shooting portion must be done with a DPS certified instructor.

Governor signed (6/15/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017

Church Volunteer Security

Relating to the exemption from the application of the Private Security Act of certain persons who provide security services on a volunteer basis at a place of religious worship.

The original bill didn’t pass but was successfully amended to SB2065 by Senator Kelly Hancock (R-N. Richland Hills)

Governor signed (6/15/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017

Primary and Secondary Teachers and School Parking Lot

The language of HB1692 by Representative Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant) Relating to the transportation and storage of a handgun or other firearm and ammunition by a license holder in a motor vehicle in a parking area of a primary or secondary school.

This legislation protects the jobs of hard-working primary and secondary teachers with an LTC. This group was not previously covered by the employer parking lot bill from years ago.

Neither the House Bill nor the Senate bill passed, but the language was amended.

Representative Hefner successfully amended his language to SB1566 by Senator Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham).

Governor signed  (6/15/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017

Legalize the Bowie Knife

HB1935 by Representative John Frullo/Senator John Whitmire eliminates daggers, dirks, stilettos, poniards, swords, spears, and Bowie knives from Texas law, allowing them to be carried in Texas. Governor signed (6/15/2017)  Effective Date 9/1/2017

LTC Range Qualifications and Veterans

SB138 by Senator Van Taylor/Representative Morgan Meyer to exempt certain military veterans and active duty service members with military range qualifications from the state required range portion of the LTC course. SB138 passed as an amendment to HB3784 Effective Date 9/1/2017

Big News on Big Knives Coming September 1