All posts by glen Zediker

Go Figure: Gun Controllers Use Fuzzy Math to Push an Agenda That Doesn’t Add Up

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

I guess that ‘figures can lie,’ and ‘liars can figure,’ and when it’s both at once, well, then we have gun-control advocate’s mathematics. READ MORE

numbers don't add up

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

There are a lot of things Second Amendment supporters and gun control advocates disagree on, including history, constitutional interpretation, the frequency of armed self-defense, and the role of human agency in violent crime.

But one thing everybody should have a common understanding of is numbers and mathematics.

Unfortunately, recent events show that even when it comes to numerals and counting, gun control supporters inhabit their own alternate reality.

Take, for example, the Statements of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that advanced H.R. 8, commonly referred to as a “universal background check bill,” to the full House floor.

Nadler insisted during Wednesday’s debate on the bill that its opponents were exaggerating the penalties that could be assessed for violations. “I just want to point out that the penalty in this bill that keeps being cited as $100,000 is in fact $1,000,” he said (see this video at the 1:44:11 time mark).

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), — Chairman of the House “Gun Violence Prevention Task Force” and the author of H.R. 8 — then took up Nadler’s theme, characterizing the $100,000 fine as among the “outrageous allegations that were made about this bill” (see video at 1:45:13).

Not only did both men neglect to mention that violators can also be punished by up to a year in federal prison — even if the recipient of the private transfer can possess the gun legally and intends to use it only for lawful purposes – both were wrong about the fine.

We think that bears repeating. The two men most responsible for H.R. 8’s passage through the House, including the man credited with writing the bill, both misrepresented the maximum fine that could be imposed for violations of the law it would create.

As Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) explained later in the debate (see video at 2:25:24), the maximum penalties available for violations of the Class A misdemeanor the bill would create already exist in federal statute and include a term of imprisonment of up to one year (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(5)) and a fine of up to $100,000 (18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(5)).

Where in that range a particular violation would be punished would of course be up to the sentencing judge, but nothing in H.R. 8 itself would prevent the judge from imposing the maximum penalties against any violator.

Nevertheless, gun control math requires that when foisting a law upon the public that could criminalize completely harmless conduct — such as gifting a cousin who is a police officer a shotgun to hunt turkeys with — it’s best to minimize the potential penalties by a factor of 100.

Another example of gun control math concerned the debate on H.R. 1112, a bill to extend the waiting period a dealer must observe before deciding whether or not to transfer a firearm to a purchaser whose NICS check has not been completed by the FBI.

Currently, the federal law states that such a transfer may occur when “3 business days … have elapsed, and the system has not notified the [dealer] that the receipt of the firearm by such other person would violate [federal law.]”

This is a critical provision to ensure legally eligible people are not denied firearm purchases simply because the FBI for whatever reason cannot or will not complete their NICS checks.

But in the fuzzy math of gun control, “3 business days” already equals a minimum of 5 calendar days.

That’s because, no matter what time of day the person tries to buy the gun, the ATF doesn’t consider the 3-day clock to start running until the following day.

And, according to ATF, the person isn’t eligible to pick up the firearm on the third day. Rather, the recipient has to wait until the day after the third day.

So 3 actually means at least 5 when it comes to how many days a person has to wait to obtain a firearm when the FBI’s “instant” criminal background check drags on for days, rather than seconds or minutes, the usual timeframe in which it is supposed to complete a check.

As recently as 2013, when the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (another expanded background check provision) was pending, even gun control supporting Democrats were willing to vote for a provision that would have gradually stepped down the 3-day safety valve period to 48 hours and then 24 hours. That was one of the few provisions in that legislation that made sense. After all, continual advances in computer technology should deliver results more quickly, not less quickly.

But now, six years later, anti-gun Democrats want to go in the opposite direction. Under H.R. 1112, which passed the House on Thursday, the 3-day safety valve for open NICS checks would be eliminated.

The bill’s author, House Majority Whip James Cyburn (D-SC), suggested during debate on the bill that he considered this (a seemingly mandatory) 10-day “cooling-off period” for gun purchases (see video at 25:00), rather than a chance for the FBI to conduct additional research in exceptional cases.

“What would make one so anxious to purchase a gun in the first place?” Clyburn asked rhetorically during his opening remarks. “If you’ve got to have a gun right now, chances are you have no useful purpose, no redeeming value in the purchase of that gun,” he said. Clyburn continued: “And maybe we ought to participate here as members of this body in helping this purchaser with a cooling off period, which is all we’re asking to do here.”

Once again, this was the author of a gun control bill that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives suggesting that Americans, including those in grave danger of violent victimization, should be treated suspiciously for wanting to exercise their constitutional rights without arbitrary delay. Americans would be wise to take him at his word when he described his own legislation this way.

Meanwhile, the anti-gun media tried to minimize H.R. 1112’s effects, claiming the 3-day safety valve period would merely be extended to 10 days to give the FBI more time to conduct checks. See, for example, these articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNBC.

But contrary to how these and other news stories portrayed the bill, the dealer would not have the option of transferring the gun after the initial 10-day period.

Instead, the prospective purchaser at that point could only petition the FBI for a final answer to the check.

And if the FBI still did not answer, the dealer would have to wait an additional 10 business days before deciding whether or not to transfer the firearm.

So, 10 business days + 10 business days = 20 business days, not 10, as suggested by the numerically-challenged media.

And this is the bare minimum a purchaser with an unresolved NICS check would have to endure.

It’s also important to remember, as we recently noted, that NICS checks expire after 30 calendar days.

So it’s probable that because of weekends and other days when state offices are closed, potential purchasers with open delays will not be able to complete H.R. 1112’s 3-step wait-petition-wait process before they have to undergo another NICs check, which would restart the whole timeline.

When you tally it all up, the 10-day period repeatedly parroted in the uncritical media could actually turn into a repeating loop of month-long delays.

During final debate in the House, a hastily-written amendment was adopted supposedly to fix this problem. It would not.

Numbers, unlike gun control advocates, don’t lie.

And H.R. 8 and 1112 would, if enacted into law, have far-reaching negative effects on law-abiding gun owners.

That you can count on.

 

Kentucky lawmakers approve NRA-backed concealed carry bill

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Kentucky lawmakers have approved a bill to allow people to carry a concealed handgun without a permit or training. KEEP READING

kentucky flag

SOURCE: ABC News 12

The Kentucky bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, won final House passage Friday and now goes to Gov. Matt Bevin.

Under the measure, Kentuckians able to lawfully possess a firearm could conceal their weapons without a license. A gun-carrying permit now carries a fee and training requirement.

If the measure becomes law, The NRA says Kentucky would become the 16th state to allow adults statewide to carry concealed firearms without permits.

Supporters in Kentucky said the bill is a recognition of gun-ownership rights.

They said Kentuckians already can carry weapons openly without any training. But if they carry a gun under a coat, they currently need a permit.

Opponents objected to dropping the training requirement.

 

Oklahoma Enacts Constitutional Carry Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Oklahoma becomes the 15th state to recognize our constitutional right to freely own a firearm, and keep it handy… READ MORE

oklahoma flag

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt for signing into law House Bill 2597, NRA-backed legislation that fully recognizes the constitutional right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a concealed firearm.

“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, we would like to thank Governor Stitt for signing this important legislation into law,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA. “This law is a common sense measure that allows law-abiding Oklahomans to exercise their fundamental right to self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

H.B. 2597 passed both chambers with broad bi-partisan support (House vote 70-30 , Senate vote 40-6). With the enactment of H.B. 2597 into law, Oklahoma becomes the fifteenth state to allow constitutional carry and the second state to enact the law this year. The complete list of constitutional carry states includes Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and New Hampshire.

This law does not change prohibited person laws or any law governing the misuse of a firearm, prohibited places where a firearm cannot be carried, or when force may be used in defense of self or others.

“NRA members and all of Oklahoma’s law abiding gun owners appreciate the efforts of the bill sponsors. Without the hard work and leadership of Senators Kim David and Nathan Dahm as well as Representatives Jon Echols, Kevin West and Sean Roberts this bill would not have become law,” concluded Cox.

 

RELOADERS CORNER: Choosing Your Brass

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

It’s not all the same! Depending on needs and application, there are three decisions that can have an impact on your satisfaction. READ MORE

norma brass

Glen Zediker

Last time I offered a few ideas on loading the same cartridge for use in different rifles. Essential message in that was, in one word, “compromise.” There’s some give and take when we’re trying to please more than one at time, as such is life…

Choosing cartridge cases is a little, to a lot, the same. Different rifles, different action types, different uses, different budgets, all suggest input that helps determine what works best, all around.

There are three things to consider, maybe four.

One is the action type. Semi-autos need “tougher” brass. That, overall, means “harder,” not necessarily thicker. Due to the resizing requirements for good function, which means a little “more” in all areas, there’s likewise more expansion in each subsequent firing. Brass made of harder alloy is less, not more, susceptible to failures — by my experience. Considering the elastic and plastic properties of brass, harder exhibits a little less effect from each.

I prefer harder composition brass for a bolt-gun too. Most NRA High Power shooters do. Reason? It runs better! There’s less “stickiness” in running the bolt for rapid-fire events.

Two: case capacity. They are not nearly all the same! My experience has shown me that more capacity is better, and that’s especially if we’re wanting to edge toward max-pressure loads. Even though the pressure generated inside the case using more (larger case volume) or less (smaller volume) may get to the same level, there is usually more net velocity (at the same pressure) when there’s more room in the case. If it didn’t matter then other things done to expand case capacity (like shoulder angle changes) wouldn’t matter either.

cartridge case capacities
Case capacities vary, and, as you can see, a good deal. These .223 Rem. are each filled with an equal amount of spherical propellant.

Three: Precision standards. What do you expect, what are you willing to do to get it? After enough experience with enough different brands, that is a legit question. Some brass is “better” out of the box. Cost usually reflects on initial quality. Paying a premium for premium quality, which is three things: consistency, consistency, and consistency. That consistency will primarily, or at least measurably, be in wall thicknesses. The choice there is to buy it or make it. That choice is a balance between effort, value of time, and proven results.

lapua brass
Consider first-use or re-use? Good stuff! And you’ll pay for it! Lapua cuts case prep down to sizing: the case heads are milled, the primer pockets and flash hole are reamed. It’s also a little thick and a little soft. Single-shot-style use in a bolt-action, can’t really beat it, but my AR15 Service Rifle beats it to death.

After using enough different brands with varying levels of costs and claims, I think the most honest thing I can tell you is that you’ll likely end up with the overall “best” brass case you can have shopping in the middle, plus a little, and then getting to work on it. A good commercial “name” brand can be made at least effectively close to the dimensional equivalent of a premium brand, like Norma, but it’s not without effort.

Before spending any time weighing or otherwise sorting cases, do all the prep work you plan beforehand. If any prep involves material removal, even trimming, that influences weight accuracy and, therefore, the viability of segregation by same.

Recommendations?
Yes. And no.

About the time you decide there’s some certain way some certain thing is, they up and change it. I avoid making too many lumped-together, generalized statements about particular brands because of that. However! I can tell you that some of the “better” brands of brass also tend not to hold up as well, or won’t if there’s much working load to load (expansion, sizing). I’m thinking here of the better-known European brands, like Norma and Laupua. Those are near about dimensionally flawless out of the box, but they tend to be a little on the thick and soft side. I use Norma in my .22 PPC because the cost is worth it. If I drive from Mississippi to New Mexico to shoot a match, that’s the least of my expense.

nosler brass
This isn’t cheap either, but I have had good results with it. Nosler is, or can be, ready to go out of the box, including case mouth chamfer. It’s held up well for me in semi-autos.

This is also the reason that every serious competitive shooter I know says to buy up as much of one lot as you can, if you know it’s good stuff. That’s for all components.

Sometimes brass chooses you!

As said last time on the “Multiple Gun” loads, if you’re mixing brass things like case volume do factor. As also suggested then, the best solution is to pick a load that’s in around the 80- to 90-percent range of max. I mix brass all the time. I shoot quite a lot of factory ammo and, yes, I save each case we can retrieve. I clean them all, size them all, and fill them with a “compromise” load I worked up for can blasting. The need for those excursions is not quarter-minute precision.

If you’re looking to save as much as you reasonably can and still get “good” cases there’s honestly nothing wrong with Lake City. The more recent production 5.56 measures pretty well, and it’s tough, and relatively high-capacity. I sho can’t vouch for any other headstamp on mil-spec ammo beyond “LC.” However! I suggest purchasing it prepped. Avoid “range dump.” A big issue with once-fired is which chamber it was first-fired in. Avoid .308 Win. (7.62 NATO)! You DO NOT want to deal with M60 or Minigun leftovers.

lc nm brass
This is LC Match 7.62. No primer crimp! For reuse in a semi-auto, it has the right stuff, which means made of the right stuff: it’s hard, tough.

Start HERE on Midsouth. Great deals! Great brass!

Glen’s books, Handloading For Competition and Top-Grade Ammo, are available at Midsouth HERE. For more information about other books by Glen, visit ZedikerPublishing.com

Glen’s newest book, America’s Gun: The Practical AR15. Check it out HERE

par15

 

 

The Unequivocal Instrument: Snubnose Magnum Revolvers

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

While the revolver is often looked down on as old technology, few handguns are as reliable and accurate as the short-barrel .357 Magnum revolver. KEEP READING

ruger sp101 357

Wilburn Roberts

With the great and growing abundance of concealed carry permits as Americans exercise their rights and commons sense, and with a present political climate that nurtures such progress, armed citizens are choosing to be responsible for their own safety. Choosing which handgun may be an easy enough choice for seasoned shooters, but quite a few of the new generation of handgunners are newcomers to one handgun in particular…

Many are steered toward a handgun that doesn’t fit their skill level. A semi-auto 9mm or .40 compact isn’t for everyone. However, the novice and very experienced shooter alike often choose a revolver. They are well armed when they do so.

snubnose revolvers
Short barrel revolvers are great personal defense firearms. Be certain to train well!

The snubnose .38 Special is a reasonable choice, however, the snubnose .38 is seen as less powerful than the 9mm pistol. (A “snubnose” is generally defined as having a barrel length 3 inches or less.) This is overcome by the power of the .357 Magnum revolver. When comparing the types, the advantages of the revolver have to be plain to make the short-barrel revolver an attractive choice.

Reliability is one advantage.

A further advantage of the revolver is that the revolver can be fired repeatedly even if it’s contacting an opponent. The semi-auto would jam after the first shot. It may also short cycle due to a less than perfect grip.

taurus 605
This Taurus 605 .357 Magnum revolver is carried in a 3Speed holster. This is a great deep concealment rig.

For a weapon to be used at conversational distance, the revolver’s reliability in this scenario is a big plus. A further advantage would be in a struggle for the gun — and this happens often — the gun grabber has little to hang onto in the case of a short-barreled revolver.

As said, an alternative to the .38 Special is the .357 Magnum. The .357 operates at almost three times the pressure level of the .38 Special. The Magnum operates at some 40,000 copper units of pressure compared to 18,000 for the .38 Special, and 20,000 for the .38 Special +P. This gives the magnum a great advantage in power, and the ability to use heavier bullets. There are .357 Magnum revolvers almost as compact as the snubnose .38, but often the Magnum will have a heavier frame and a heavier barrel which offers a better platform for the more powerful cartridge.

galco holster
Galco’s Carry Lite revolver holster is among the best for concealed carry. This inside the waistband holster is affordable and available.

These handguns also willingly chamber the .38 Special, providing a power level option in the same gun (that’s not available in a semi-auto). A .38 Special +P load is a good choice for the beginner for use in his or her .357 Magnum revolver. The shooter may move to the Magnum loadings after sufficient practice.

The obvious mechanical advantages of the revolver as related to reliability, the ability to use the weapon with a less-than-perfect grip and at point-blank range, are compelling sales features. However, in the end, the ballistics might be the best selling point. There has been a myth circulated for some time that the snubnose .357 Magnum is no more powerful than a .38 Special, as the Magnum loses velocity when fired in a short barrel. This is far from true. The Magnum does lose velocity when fired in a 2- to 3-inch barreled compact revolver, but it remains far more powerful than the snubnose .38 Special as the accompanying table shows. The .357 Magnum considerably outperforms the .38 Special by any measure.

With these revolvers, recoil could be grim to the uninitiated. Recoil energy approaches 12 pounds in some .357 Magnum revolvers, compared to 6 to 8 pounds in the 9mm and .40 caliber handguns, and a slight 4 pounds with .38 +P ammunition in a snubnose. This is a sharp jolt not to be underestimated. The person deploying this revolver must engage in practice and use the proper techniques to master this revolver.

sp101
The Ruger SP101 in .357 Magnum is among the strongest handguns — ounce for ounce — ever built.

Modern .357 Magnum revolvers such as the 5-shot Ruger SP 101 are designed with every advantage toward making the gun controllable. The factory grips on these revolvers are among the best ever designed. If you are able to find a Smith & Wesson K-frame revolver at a fair price, the 6-shot Smith & Wesson is even more controllable, albeit a bit larger.

Use a proper holster such as one of the Galco inside the waistband holsters and you will find the snubnose revolver very concealable. The revolver is simple to use — simply draw and fire. The Ruger and Smith & Wesson each have smooth double-action triggers that promote accuracy.

Another advantage of the revolver is superb accuracy. The Smith & Wesson Model 19 I often carry has been in service for four decades. A combination of excellent high-visibility sights and a smooth trigger make for fine accuracy. As just one example with the .38 Special Fiocchi 125-grain Extrema, this revolver has cut a 1.5-inch 25-yard group for 5 shots.

The .357 Magnum revolver isn’t for everyone, but for those who practice, one offers excellent accuracy, reliability, and proven power.

magnum specs

Check out Midsouth AMMO here.

HANDGUNS: 10 Minutes of 10mm History

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Many-time champion Rob Leatham gives his take on one of the most powerful semi-auto loadings. Listen! HERE’S MORE

springfield armory 10mms

SOURCE: Team Springfield, Rob Leatham (find Rob on Twitter)

The 10mm auto is a curious cartridge.

Designed originally as a best-of-all-options for the defensive pistol world, it was targeted to be an all things to all people service pistol cartridge. Sort of a hybrid of the service pistol standards, .45 ACP and 9×19 rounds. The goal? To have more capacity than the .45 and be more powerful than the 9mm.

Without completely retelling the detailed history, in the early 1970s, the late Col. Jeff Cooper was reportedly looking for a round that combined the advantages of both velocity and momentum. The ballistics of a 200 grain .400 (10mm) diameter bullet traveling 1000 feet per second looked good to Jeff on paper.

CASE CREATION
There was a problem, however. There wasn’t a readily available cartridge case for an auto pistol that would handle that bullet diameter. So it wouldn’t be as simple as just powering up an existing cartridge as had been done with .38 Special, .38 Auto, and .44 Special.

A new case had to be devised. Well, maybe not new, but altered and repurposed.

Similar “wildcat” cartridges had been developed previously using .224 Weatherby and .30 Remington brass. These had been chambered in a number of different guns. Most promising was the .40 G&A round developed by Whit Collins, followed shortly thereafter by the Centimeter and then the .40 S&W.

Of those, only the .40 S&W would ever make it into production, albeit much later, but the ground was laid for the 10mm as we know it.

10mm

BREN TEN
When the design of this new hybrid cartridge occurred, a new gun (with design input from Colonel Cooper) was being developed to accept it. Known as the Bren Ten, it was basically a sized-up CZ 75.

Both the 10mm gun and round were in development about the same time. However, the ammo was finished long enough before the gun that people were becoming impatient to try this new hybrid.

WE HAD AN INTERESTING NEW ROUND AND NOTHING TO SHOOT IT IN.

So, what to do? The combat pistol world was in its hey-day and the buzz over this new combination was eagerly awaited by pistol enthusiasts worldwide. As time dragged on and the Bren Ten didn’t seem to be happening, Colt stepped in and introduced a model to accept the 10mm. While familiar, it really wasn’t the totally new, complete package we were all hoping for.

AMMO ADVANCES
Remember that the design goal was originally to achieve a 200 grain bullet at 1000 FPS. This would deliver a flatter trajectory, greater penetration with a slightly higher level of power in both energy and momentum than standard .45 Auto (with the bonus of increased magazine capacity).

Norma, the company that originally developed the 10mm, in their enthusiasm to make the round as good as modern propellants would allow, made their ammo far more powerful than was originally requested. The ammo was approximately 20% higher in velocity than the original specifications called for. While this sounds like a good idea, it was in fact not. At least not for service-pistol use.

With that increase in power came costs that were just not worth it for the majority of shooters.

While exceeding the power of any other standardized auto pistol combination encountered, the gun/ammo combination was just too difficult for most to control.

To add to the overall problem, the Bren Ten Pistol was long delayed and in the end, sadly never made it. Some were built, but they too couldn’t take the beating of the “hot” Norma ammo. Other manufacturer’s 10mm guns did not deliver on the promise the 10 had made. They were harder to shoot than .45 in the same platform and did not hold up well to the very high-pressure ammunition.

So for most shooters, the existing 1911 platform pistol with the powerful 10mm ammo just didn’t offer enough benefits to replace the already-available and time-tested .45ACP.

Springfield Armory 10mm

10MM TIMEOUT
With no viable new gun, the high expense of ammo, and the excessive recoil that made it hard to control and shoot, the 10mm never became as popular as was hoped. And it mostly vanished from the public eye.

But it didn’t die.

Although too hot for most applications for a service pistol, the 10mm with its potentially higher power levels continued [slowly] to make friends in the civilian and law enforcement world. A lot of shooters still wanted a 1911 with more velocity, penetration, momentum, energy, and flatter trajectory than the .45 offered. The 10mm’s devout but small following, by those who recognized its niche, soldiered on.

FBI CONNECTION
The FBI adopted the 10mm after the infamous 1986 Miami shootout, where they unfortunately discovered that they needed more gun, power, and firepower than they currently had.

The bureau soon concluded after the adoption, that existing 10mm ammo was “too hot” and as a result, requested a special lower-pressure load developed for them. This new load didn’t exhibit the same problems the original hot 10mm cartridges did, and proved a good compromise between power and controllability.

This ammo was more inline with the original request. Due to the FBI adoption, the 10 was back in the limelight and major loading companies jumped on the band wagon.

Since then, the 10mm has continued to exist for both gun manufacturers and ammunition companies, albeit not as a best seller. I sense a change in the air though…

SPRINGFIELD ARMORY 1911 TRP 10MMS
Springfield now produces their top-of-the-line TRP in 10mm in both a 5-in. and long-slide 6-in. model.

But wait, what about all the 10mm problems of gun wear and tear and hot ammo?

Better materials, 10mm-particular specifications, and improved manufacturing capabilities allow us to produce superior, more-durable 10mm pistols. Specifically, one that will withstand the force of the “hot stuff” and still work with the lower pressure “standard ammo.”

Flat out, the Springfield 10mm pistols are better than any previously available models from any manufacturer.

The only thing that could make our 10mm TRPs better, is if they were easier to aim. #OldEyes

springfield armory optic 10mm

MEET SPRINGFIELD’S 1911 TRP 10MM RMR
With the Trijicon ACOG® RMR® optic sight, this 1911 offers the ballistic advantages of the 10mm round in a strong, accurate, durable package with the latest in optical sights.

For many shooters, aiming is difficult. Some eyes just don’t see that well. While vision issues can be resolved with glasses or contacts, there is almost always a compromise. You can correct vision to either the sights or the target, but one of them is NOT going to be in focus.

Optical sights allow focusing on the target. You never have to refocus back to the gun to align the sights. Seeing all the elements of a good sight picture clearly is no longer difficult. Look at your target and the dot is superimposed, showing the potential impact point of the round. The old argument of whether to look at the sights or the target no longer applies. Everything is in focus.

The 10mm is the most powerful round commonly available that fits the 1911 platform. It can be a viable “all things to all people” chambering.

For you speed junkies, the 10mm offers high velocity. Some loadings have bullets going upwards of 1300 FPS. This guarantees high energies and flat trajectories.

For the big-and-heavy-is-better guys, the 10mm bullet is .400 inch in diameter and regularly available in 200 grain weights. So it’s a perfect fit for those who like the old saying, “I don’t care what caliber it is as long as it starts with 4.”

So thanks to all you stalwart 10mm fans, a purposeful caliber has survived and will continue to thrive into the future.

Check out the new gun HERE

 

CCW: Avoiding Reloaded Ammo?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Many handgun owners reload, but is it wise to count on that ammo for defensive carry? Jason Hanson says “no.” READ WHY

handgun bullets

Jason Hanson

During war, one of the most common tactics used to fight the enemy is to disrupt their supply lines.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers did this in a different way than just simply stopping supplies from getting to the enemy.

This specific operation, code named “Project Eldest Son,” was carried out by U.S. Green-Beret patrols, who captured enemy ammunition stashes that were typically 7.62 X 39mm ammo cartridges, which were used in the AK-47’s regularly carried by Communist forces.

Once the U.S. captured the ammo stashes, the cartridges would be disassembled and then put back together with different components.

For instance, the powder in the cartridges was replaced with a high explosive powder that would generate five times the pressure in the firearm.

The high explosive powder inside the cartridges would typically cause the AK-47 receiver to explode sending bolts and pieces of the gun backwards towards the person holding the rifle.

Once the sabotaged ammo was ready to go, U.S. forces would return the ammo to the stashes and would usually put one bad round in a container full of good rounds.

Basically, this would put doubt into the enemy’s mind regarding the safety and reliability of their ammo.

In addition, most of the Communist forces ammo was coming from China so this also was done so the enemy would question the ammo they were receiving from China.

The fact is, our firearms are obviously worthless without ammunition that works.

I’m sure you’ve heard how many gun activists want to make ammo harder to come by and there is no question that depending on where you live, it’s becoming more difficult to walk into your sporting goods store to buy ammo.

This has led to a continuing growing popularity of reloading your own ammo. Now, I know people who have done this for years and are very good at what they do.

On the other hand, I have a family member who spent countless hours reloading thousands of rounds, only to find out the powder was a little off and the ammo was unusable.

This is why if you reload ammo you have to take your time and know what you’re doing. This is not something you want to watch one YouTube video about and then think you’re a pro who knows it all.

So, if you are considering getting into reloading ammo, keep in mind the factors below and make sure you invest the time to do it right.

Reliability.
As I mentioned, I had a family member who reloaded his own ammo and was slightly off with his measurements.

Of course, no one is perfect, but the thing is, the big ammo manufacturers clearly have numerous safety inspections in place that make their ammo much more dependable, which is why quality ammo rarely has any issues.

Cartridge gets weaker.
Unless you keep your eye on every cartridge you use for reloading, you never know how many times the cartridge has been reloaded. The more you reload a cartridge, the weaker it will become over time.

Essentially, as it becomes weaker, it will be more prone to failure and malfunctions.

Legality.
I realize this is a big “what if,” however, if you were ever involved in a self-defense shooting would you really want to explain your reloaded ammo?

Again, I realize this is a stretch, but it is one more thing an aggressive prosecutor or civil attorney could use to try and blame you for what happen. During a trial, the best thing you can do is show the court a box of ammo from the manufacturer and say contact them with any questions.

When it comes to ammo, some of my favorite brands are Speer, Hornady, Remington, Winchester, and Federal. These are all quality and dependable brands that won’t break the bank.

I do realize a lot of folks reload ammo for the huge savings cost. If this is the case, I see nothing wrong with reloading rounds for simply target practice at the range or shooting with friends.

However, I would not use reloaded rounds in my self-defense weapon and I would spend the extra money to make sure you have a reliable round when your life depends on it.

Jason Hanson is a former CIA Officer and New York Times bestselling author of Spy Secrets That Can Save Your Life. To get a free copy of his book, click HERE 

Another Study Blames Guns, Excludes Reality

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Jumping to conclusions from a small and unreliable sample is not the way to win a debate, but here they go again… READ MORE

mental health

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A study published in Preventative Medicine by Yu Lu and Jeff R. Temple concludes that “the majority of mental health symptoms examined were not related to gun violence. Instead, access to firearms was the primary culprit.”

The first caveat here is that the researchers did not measure or test “gun violence.” They asked respondents — young adults who at one time attended one of seven public high schools in the southern United States — if they had ever threatened someone with a gun. There is no context for these incidents mentioned in the published study or in the supplementary material, no means to identify if the respondent was the aggressor in these scenarios or if they were defending themselves. Sixteen respondents reported they had threatened someone with a firearm; six were young women.

The author’s conclusion is based on 16 out of 663 total respondents drawn from just seven public high schools across the southern United States. There are more than 50 schools serving grades 9 to 12 in the Houston Independent School District alone.

Mental illness itself is not tested; the researchers tested symptoms of mental health using a variety of screening questions about anxiety, depression, stress, PTSD, hostility, impulsivity, and borderline personality disorder. The authors do acknowledge that participants who report such symptoms do not necessarily reach criteria to be diagnosed. Some of the questions, specifically when asked of young adults, introduce some doubt into the validity of the results. See pages 2-3 of the study for examples of the questions asked. They excluded substance abuse and severe mental disorders, and this is where we really start to run into problems.

Lu and Temple believe that mental illness is blamed for gun violence. We suspect this belief — and it is not limited to these researchers — is because mental illness is a common factor in the highest-profile mass shootings. The authors cite a previous study that found “only major mental disorders were significantly associated with past year violence” but then exclude severe disorders like schizophrenia and more severe symptoms like hallucinations from their study. Grant Duwe is the research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections and literally wrote the book on mass murder. In an op-ed after Parkland, Duwe noted that peer-reviewed research showed that individuals with major mental disorders are more likely to commit violent acts, especially if they abuse drugs. Duwe cited the same author that Lue and Temple cited for the similar claim in their paper. Duwe also reports that there is a relatively high rate of mental illness specifically among those who commit mass public shootings and notes that Mother Jones reached a similar conclusion.

Lu and Temple’s study finds that young people with guns are more likely to have threatened someone with a gun. Re-read that finding. Soak in the insight it offers, so long as you don’t mind a shallow pool. The presence of a gun is sort of a requirement to threaten someone with a gun, isn’t it?

Maybe not among the 16 “emerging adults” who told strangers they had committed a potentially illegal act.

The model in this study found that those who received mental health treatment in the past year significantly predicted threatening someone with a gun but that significance was washed out when the symptoms of mental health were included in the model. We suspect some multicollinearity between mental health treatment and mental health symptoms, as mental health treatment and the tested symptoms may be correlated.

Lu and Temple position their research as a contribution to the debate between “dangerous people” (the mentally ill) and “dangerous weapons” (firearms). Their own opinion on firearms is clear; their survey found that most people who carry guns did so for protection, and so they argue that “the best method to prevent gun carrying may be the building of an overall safer environment.”

Anti-gun advocates want to limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners and so research like this is held up as evidence that it must be the firearms themselves when, in reality, no one is arguing that everyone with any of the symptoms of mental illness tested here are necessarily dangerous. The inclusion of mental illness in the debate over gun rights is because some with severe mental illnesses do not receive the help they need and commit horrible acts. The responsible, law-abiding nature of tens of millions of American gun owners is ignored by efforts to restrict our rights.

Framing the argument as an attack on anyone dealing with any form of mental illness does a disservice to the debate. So does a study based on the unclear and potentially illegal self-reported actions of 16 young adults from a handful of schools in a specific region of the country.

 

Indiana: Self-Defense Bill Passes House, On To Senate

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Now for some good news: A new bill in Indiana seeks to prevent frivolous lawsuits against its citizens use of justifiable force in defensive situations. READ MORE

ccw

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On February 11th, the Indiana state House of Representatives voted 80-13 to pass House Bill 1284 to enhance protections afforded to law-abiding citizens acting in defense of themselves and others. HB 1284 will now go to the state Senate for further consideration.

House Bill 1284, sponsored by Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), would provide immunity for a justified use of force in certain instances to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Victims of violent crime shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary civil suits, therefore being victimized twice. This bill would also require a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable attorney’s fees if it determines a suit was brought unjustly, helping to prevent financial ruin for individuals protecting themselves and others.

 

Turning a Right into a Privilege: HR 1112 Gives Feds Unfettered Power to Block Gun Sales

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

H.R. 1112 would eliminate the 3-day safety-valve provision under the federal firearms background check system that prevents the government from enacting an indefinite delay of firearm purchases for law-abiding Americans. READ MORE

HR 1112

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

H.R. 8, which would criminalize the private transfer of firearms, has received significant attention from the gun rights community. However, H.R. 1112, which purportedly targets the inappropriately-named “Charleston loophole,” is just as insidious an attack on gun owners. Both bills were passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

All Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers) are required to conduct a background check on prospective purchasers to determine if transferring the firearm would violate state or federal law. Under current law, if an FFL initiates a background check, but does not receive a determination from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System within three business days, the FFL may proceed with the firearms transfer. After the three-day window, FBI continues to research the matter that gave rise to an individual’s delay for 90 days after the check was initiated. If it is later determined that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is notified and tasked with retrieving the firearm.

Under the proposed legislation, the 3-day safety valve would be eliminated and replaced with a procedure that provides gun buyers with no protection. If an FFL initiates a check and does not receive a response from NICS after 10 business days, the prospective purchaser may petition the FBI to permit the transfer to proceed. The FFL may not proceed with the transaction until an additional 10 business days have elapsed from the date of the petition.

Existing federal law limits the validity of a NICS background check to 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Because H.R. 1112 uses business days and the NICS validity provision is in calendar days, in practice, H.R. 1112 would have no default proceed available.

For example, if H.R. 1112 were to become law, gun buyers who are delayed on the busiest gun buying day of the year, Black Friday, would not be able to clear their delay under H.R. 1112’s provisions before their NICS check expired. Black Friday 2019 falls on November 29th, so the first day that the prospective purchaser could file a petition would be December 14th.

The additional 10-business day wait after the petition would make December 31st the first day that the FFL could transfer the firearm, but that would be prohibited because the NICS check expired on December 29th. The purchaser would have to begin the process again with another NICS check, with the likely result being another delay and the process beginning all over again.

The current three-day safety-valve provision is vital and protects gun owners in numerous ways. The safety-valve provision ensures that if there is a disruption to the NICS system or an overwhelming volume of background checks, lawful firearms transfer from dealers can still take place. Most importantly, the safety-valve provision ensures that the FBI carries out its background check duties in an expedient and responsible manner that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutionally-protected individual right.

Absent this provision, the FBI would have less incentive to conduct NICS checks in a timely manner. Moreover, the agency would have free reign to indefinitely delay any transfers they deem undesirable, for whatever political or purported public policy purpose they could concoct. This would turn all firearms sales from dealers into something akin to may-issue licensing. Prospective gun buyers who are not prohibited from owning firearms by law could be denied by bureaucratic dictate through the form of an indefinite delay.

Providing FBI with this sort of discretion poses a danger to Second Amendment rights. This is clear, because the FBI already attempts to use assumed discretion to encumber certain lawful gun sales.

According to the Congressional Research Service it is standard FBI practice to delay firearms transactions to those on the government’s secret watchlists. A person’s placement on a secret government watchlist with secret and nebulous criteria is not sufficient to encumber their constitutional rights, therefore they are not prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of their watchlist status. Aside from the constitutional matter, those on the secret federal watchlists are not statutorily prohibited from possessing firearms. However, the FBI has taken upon itself to delay all background checks for those suspected of being on its secret watchlist.

As the CRS report explained:
In the case of a possible watchlist match, NICS sends a delayed transfer (for up to three business days) response to the querying federally licensed gun dealer or state POC. During a delay, NICS staff contacts immediately the FBI Headquarters’ Counterterrorism Division and FBI Special Agents in the field, and a coordinated effort is made to research possibly unknown prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting factors are uncovered within this three-day period, firearms dealers may proceed with the transaction at their discretion. However, FBI counterterrorism officials continue to work the case for up to 90 days in case disposition information is returned that permits a final determination.

Even those who have little sympathy for those who currently find themselves on secret government watchlists should understand that FBI’s dubious and assumed discretionary authority in this instance is a grave threat to liberty and that this threat would be severely exacerbated without the safety-valve provision. What group might an emboldened federal government find deplorable enough to target next?

Legislation to remove the three-day safety valve provision has been marketed as an effort to close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” The term stems from the hate-fueled 2015 shooting of several parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. Proponents of the legislation claim that perpetrator of the attack could have been stopped but for the three-day safety-valve provision. This is false.

On April 11, 2015, the perpetrator of the Charleston attack attempted to buy the firearm he used in the shooting from an FFL and was delayed due to an arrest for drug possession. The firearm was transferred to him five days later, absent a direct proceed order from NICS. The attack did not occur until June 17. In the intervening time, the FBI had the opportunity to continue to investigate whether the perpetrator was prohibited from possessing firearms and could have referred the case to ATF for a firearm retrieval had they determined he was indeed prohibited.

Contrary to inaccurate statements made by the FBI, the perpetrator was not prohibited from possessing firearms. Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing firearms if they are an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The FBI has contended that the perpetrator’s arrest would have prohibited him from possessing a firearm. In turn, this has prompted gun control supporters to claim that this instance proves the FBI should be given further time to conduct NICS checks, even though the FBI had more than two months to investigate the validity of the transfer in the case. To sustain a conviction for firearm possession by an “unlawful user” federal courts require the drug use to be “sufficiently consistent, prolonged, and close in time to [the] gun possession . . . .”

A simple drug arrest does not meet this standard.

Therefore, for multiple reasons, the ploy by this bill’s proponents of connecting the three-day safety-valve provision to the Charleston attack is simply fraudulent.

Gun rights supporters have spent the last 30 years successfully working to remove may-issue licensing schemes that empower those in government to indulge their political biases and general prejudices to control the exercise of a constitutional right. Gun owners and civil liberties supporters across the political spectrum must recognize H.R. 1112 for what it is, a measure that would subject the exercise of a constitutional right to the unfettered discretion of federal bureaucrats.