Now we know why the old 'armor-piercing handgun ammunition' legislation is being dusted off.
Handy distraction. Now a revenue agency-not a law enforcement one-can charge you with a crime and steal your stuff, without due process or even charges. Contact your representatives. It's time for this agency to be reformed.
Friday, February 27, 2015
I always tell people that confidence is more important than any features of their weapon. As an example, there's Mordechai Rahamim. A paratrooper selected for airline security duty, his aircraft was attacked by four terrorists 2/18/69. Rahamim leaped from the airliner, engaged the terrorists-who were using AKs, grenades, and leaflets (terrs-what are ya' gonna' do?). Using his Beretta .22, Rahamim suppressed the terrorists, killing one, then engaged them hand-to-hand and made a sincere effort to throttle one. Local security forces intervened at that point.
The details of tactics and equipment are less important than training and confidence.
The details of tactics and equipment are less important than training and confidence.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
So, the day manager at the Quik-E-Mart knows that I know a bit about firearms, and was worried about Texas' campus carry bill, and asked me about it. I explained that for the last 30 years, any attempt to restore the right of self-defense to the people has been greeted with promises of blood on the streets-never delivered. Tryin'a make the point, I said that the kind of people you wanted carrin' guns were the same kind of people who would be serious 'bout doin' so. On the other hand, the dude-jocks you wouldn't want havin' firearms were not likely to drop a coupl'a months beer budget on a pistol, and couldn't be bothered to carry two pounds o' steel around anyway-hell, most of 'em can't be bothered to carry a pencil.
We are blessed to live in an age where intelligent, articulate people can spread their message far and wide. So go, read. She says it better than I can.
We are blessed to live in an age where intelligent, articulate people can spread their message far and wide. So go, read. She says it better than I can.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Visiting with a somewhat liberal acquaintance of mine over coffee, while he was grumbling about the current budget hoopla. He is coming to the realization that political debate closely resembles two five-year-olds screaming 'nuh-uh' at each other. I said "Look, President Obama is a genius, he went to Harvard. President Bush was a moron, he went to. . . Harvard. I'M ASSURED THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!"
I'm afraid that coffee may've shot outta' the ears of the fella sittin' behind us.
Yeah, I'm goin'ta Hell, but it'll be fun.
I'm afraid that coffee may've shot outta' the ears of the fella sittin' behind us.
Yeah, I'm goin'ta Hell, but it'll be fun.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Just heard that a lady from Siberia froze to death while hiking in New Hampshire. Y'all be careful out there, there's worse comin'.
Things are crazy around here, too, but it's more stress, I think. Just last week I was standin' at the bus stop, mindin' my own business, when this guy comes up and asks "Hey, do you know what time it is?"
I looked at my watch, said "Yessir, I do," and got on my bus.
Last I saw of that feller, he was standin' in the middle of the street shakin' his fist.
Crazy out there.
Things are crazy around here, too, but it's more stress, I think. Just last week I was standin' at the bus stop, mindin' my own business, when this guy comes up and asks "Hey, do you know what time it is?"
I looked at my watch, said "Yessir, I do," and got on my bus.
Last I saw of that feller, he was standin' in the middle of the street shakin' his fist.
Crazy out there.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
So, the lady of the house is working a jigsaw puzzle on her Improved Personal Amusement Device (that's what it means, right?), and complained that the last piece wouldn't stick. Being a smart a. . .lec, I promptly announced "I'm on it," licked my thumb and poked the screen with my finger.
It worked.
If my body don't turn up in a few days, well, that's probably best. Tell my mother I loved her.
It worked.
If my body don't turn up in a few days, well, that's probably best. Tell my mother I loved her.
Hey, kids! Activity time! How many things can you find wrong in this story?
If you answered "most of it", you win the internet for today!
If you answered "most of it", you win the internet for today!
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
While I always enjoy the bleating about the supposed superiority of the M1E6 rifle (often erroneously referred to as the M14-why a failed P. I. P. justified a new designation is beyond me) every time I refer to the direct-impingement AR as near perfect (gas pistons are anathema to the faithful!), some people may not know the reason. The AR, as designed, uses a small volume of propellant gas to push on a key attached to the bolt carrier, driving the carrier back against the buffer spring to cycle the action. Most other self cycling rifles use a bit of gas to shove a piston against an operating road to push the bolt. ARs can be readily modified, adding a piston and op rod, adding parts and making the system more complex. In what way could this be useful?
First, it is theoretically cleaner. The propellant gas used to drive the action is blown into the magazine/chamber area, and contains carbon, commonly called fouling. A gas piston conversion traps the fouling ahead of the piston, meaning the cleaning process adds a step. The chamber area should always be cleaned on any rifle, with a piston the gas trap area must be cleaned as well.
Second, it is theoretically cooler. Without hot gas being blown into the chamber area, the chamber doesn't heat-saturate as quickly. This means that the rifle can have more rounds run through it, faster, before cooking off.
Note that both of these advantages are theoretical. It take hundreds of rounds (thousands, in some cases) to foul a D. I. AR enough to stop it running, especially if it's lubricated well. If you refuse to clean a rifle, please don't shoot it. It pains me to see good machinery abused. If you have a select-fire AR, too much money, and little sense, it is possible to run it hard enough to overheat. It takes about 10 mag dumps, with fast reloads, to do it, though. If you can afford to dump 300 rounds, in less that a minute, without hitting anything smaller than this planet, don't do it-take a new shooter out teach 'em.
So, if you keep your AR clean (please!), and don't use it as a S. A. W. (it's not designed for it), you don't need a gas piston. If you still want one, go ahead, but mere personal preference does not equate design superiority.
First, it is theoretically cleaner. The propellant gas used to drive the action is blown into the magazine/chamber area, and contains carbon, commonly called fouling. A gas piston conversion traps the fouling ahead of the piston, meaning the cleaning process adds a step. The chamber area should always be cleaned on any rifle, with a piston the gas trap area must be cleaned as well.
Second, it is theoretically cooler. Without hot gas being blown into the chamber area, the chamber doesn't heat-saturate as quickly. This means that the rifle can have more rounds run through it, faster, before cooking off.
Note that both of these advantages are theoretical. It take hundreds of rounds (thousands, in some cases) to foul a D. I. AR enough to stop it running, especially if it's lubricated well. If you refuse to clean a rifle, please don't shoot it. It pains me to see good machinery abused. If you have a select-fire AR, too much money, and little sense, it is possible to run it hard enough to overheat. It takes about 10 mag dumps, with fast reloads, to do it, though. If you can afford to dump 300 rounds, in less that a minute, without hitting anything smaller than this planet, don't do it-take a new shooter out teach 'em.
So, if you keep your AR clean (please!), and don't use it as a S. A. W. (it's not designed for it), you don't need a gas piston. If you still want one, go ahead, but mere personal preference does not equate design superiority.
Hey, does anybody still else still get a kick out of referin' to events of their youth as the "20th century"?
No?
Well, we all knew I was a little weird.
By the way, what ever happened to them Articles of Confederation, anyways? That seemed fairly benign.
What?
Oh.
Since we can't play nice, this is the gubbmint we deserve?
Gone drinkin' Back in five minutes.
No?
Well, we all knew I was a little weird.
By the way, what ever happened to them Articles of Confederation, anyways? That seemed fairly benign.
What?
Oh.
Since we can't play nice, this is the gubbmint we deserve?
Gone drinkin' Back in five minutes.
Tam of View From The Porch corrected me. The "armor piercing handgun ammunition" legislation is from 1986. As stated, without a dog in that fight, I never learned all the details of which, why, and wherefore in that mess. I remain adamant, however, that a federal agency that is actively avoiding doing it's work needs some guidance. Therefore, go forth.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Folk around here have been askin', so I'll try to explain. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but here's the best I can do.
The B. A. T. F. E. is makin' noises about bannin' M855 ammo because it's "armor piercing handgun ammunition". A history lesson is in order-back in the first third of the 20th century, there was a combination of widespread economic depression and a social engineering experiment called prohibition. These factors, along with the then-recent ubiquity of automobiles led to some pretty serious crime. Basically, prohibition made organized crime very profitable, and the depression made bank robbery attractive. Federal authorities stepped in to try to restore order, and some agents wore the overlapping-scale body armor of the time. The most notoriously violent criminals of the period changed weapons to defeat the armor (in the ages-old battle between armor and warhead, warhead always wins), and laws were drafted to ban "armor piercing handgun ammunition", just in case. Physics demands that for a handgun projectile to have any armor defeating ability, the projectile must be shaped like a needle (the available energy can't be increased without damaging the weapon or shooter), and those projectiles don't cycle or fly very well. Unfortunately, the old law is still on the books, and occasionally gets misapplied (remember Teflon coated bullets? not armor piercing), as now.
While I'm not advocating that true armor piercing handgun ammo should be available (our brave peace officers should be allowed that protection), there are NO handguns (designed to be operated with one hand) that chamber the M855 load. There are some bastardized mare's leg things that fall into an arbitrary category called "handgun" due to some legal fiction, but they are no real threat. "No real threat?" you roar, incredulously. "How can a compact weapon launching rifle founds be 'no real threat'?" Physics, again. To get all the energy available in a rifle cartridge, all the powder must be burnt. For all the powder to be burnt, the barrel must be of some minimum length, otherwise the powder burns in the atmosphere after the bullet is gone, and that energy is wasted. "Handguns" that fire rifle cartridges are too big to readily carry or conceal, but can't deliver the potential energy of the cartridge; thus, no threat.
So, why is this old statute being dusted off now, after the M855 was specifically exempt for so long? I don't know, but consider this. Historians don't really have anything to do. History happened, was recorded, and is. Historians must, from time to time, "reinterpret" the historical record in order to justify their jobs. If the agency tasked with collecting the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, keeping records of the manufacturers and buyers of same, and collecting the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco and keeping records of the producers of same, and providing investigative support in events involving explosives has nothing better to do than justify it's budget, something must be done.
Perhaps that agency should become more involved in educating citizens in the safe use of explosives, providing a public service by reducing injuries. Or even helping the national budget by getting off their collective duff and approving applications for sound suppressors, and collecting the tax on same (for only a $200 fee, you can reassure your neighbors that you are not a criminal, and protect your [and everyone's] hearing, but it takes a year to pay for the privilege of being a good citizen).
What can we do? Maybe go here. Please take minute and read Tam's advice first. Contact your elected representatives and point out that this agency is not only trying to misapply statutes to justify it's budget, while actively avoiding doing it's revenue-generating job, but is trying to reduce revenue in the process. If they don't want to work, maybe we need to stop payin' 'em.
In the interests of full disclosure, I prefer the older M193 load anyway, but I stand with my friends who like the M855, and you should too.
The B. A. T. F. E. is makin' noises about bannin' M855 ammo because it's "armor piercing handgun ammunition". A history lesson is in order-back in the first third of the 20th century, there was a combination of widespread economic depression and a social engineering experiment called prohibition. These factors, along with the then-recent ubiquity of automobiles led to some pretty serious crime. Basically, prohibition made organized crime very profitable, and the depression made bank robbery attractive. Federal authorities stepped in to try to restore order, and some agents wore the overlapping-scale body armor of the time. The most notoriously violent criminals of the period changed weapons to defeat the armor (in the ages-old battle between armor and warhead, warhead always wins), and laws were drafted to ban "armor piercing handgun ammunition", just in case. Physics demands that for a handgun projectile to have any armor defeating ability, the projectile must be shaped like a needle (the available energy can't be increased without damaging the weapon or shooter), and those projectiles don't cycle or fly very well. Unfortunately, the old law is still on the books, and occasionally gets misapplied (remember Teflon coated bullets? not armor piercing), as now.
While I'm not advocating that true armor piercing handgun ammo should be available (our brave peace officers should be allowed that protection), there are NO handguns (designed to be operated with one hand) that chamber the M855 load. There are some bastardized mare's leg things that fall into an arbitrary category called "handgun" due to some legal fiction, but they are no real threat. "No real threat?" you roar, incredulously. "How can a compact weapon launching rifle founds be 'no real threat'?" Physics, again. To get all the energy available in a rifle cartridge, all the powder must be burnt. For all the powder to be burnt, the barrel must be of some minimum length, otherwise the powder burns in the atmosphere after the bullet is gone, and that energy is wasted. "Handguns" that fire rifle cartridges are too big to readily carry or conceal, but can't deliver the potential energy of the cartridge; thus, no threat.
So, why is this old statute being dusted off now, after the M855 was specifically exempt for so long? I don't know, but consider this. Historians don't really have anything to do. History happened, was recorded, and is. Historians must, from time to time, "reinterpret" the historical record in order to justify their jobs. If the agency tasked with collecting the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, keeping records of the manufacturers and buyers of same, and collecting the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco and keeping records of the producers of same, and providing investigative support in events involving explosives has nothing better to do than justify it's budget, something must be done.
Perhaps that agency should become more involved in educating citizens in the safe use of explosives, providing a public service by reducing injuries. Or even helping the national budget by getting off their collective duff and approving applications for sound suppressors, and collecting the tax on same (for only a $200 fee, you can reassure your neighbors that you are not a criminal, and protect your [and everyone's] hearing, but it takes a year to pay for the privilege of being a good citizen).
What can we do? Maybe go here. Please take minute and read Tam's advice first. Contact your elected representatives and point out that this agency is not only trying to misapply statutes to justify it's budget, while actively avoiding doing it's revenue-generating job, but is trying to reduce revenue in the process. If they don't want to work, maybe we need to stop payin' 'em.
In the interests of full disclosure, I prefer the older M193 load anyway, but I stand with my friends who like the M855, and you should too.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
O. K.
Everybody around here asks me, so here's the standard script.
Somebody: "What gun should I get?"
Me: "What do you want to do with it?"
Somebody: ". . . "
Me: Sigh. "Point defense? Hunting? Benchrest? What?"
Somebody: "Oh! Self defense and stuff."
Me: "Good. Start with a handgun. Here are the steps, in order;"
"1. Go somewhere with a lot of handguns on display,"
"2. Handle a bunch of 'em and find one or a few that feel good in your hand, and make a list,"
"3. Find a range that rents some or all of the guns on your list, and shoot 'em. Any you don't like, cross off the list. Now you have a short list to consider."
"4. Can you afford the one you really like, along with enough fodder and feeding devices, holsters, security, cleaning stuff, etc. to keep, carry, and practice with it safely? How about two?"
"5. Get a few hundred rounds of cheap plinking ammo, and go practice, every week. There are some good schools out there, think about going to one. Learn and live the four rules."
Somebody: "What caliber should I get?"
Me: "Whatever chambers in the frame that fits you. 9mm/.38 spec. up to .45/.44 spec. all have very similar ballistics. Caliber is not as important as confidence."
Somebody: "The internet said. . ."
Me: "There are way more people on the internet than there are knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts. Some are just repeating misinformation, some have an axe to grind, and some are just liars. Hell, I'm on the internet, and you know what a troublemaker I am."
Somebody: "That's a lot of trouble. Is there an easier way?"
Me: Sigh. "There is a shortcut. Just buy a Glock 19 or 26 and practice."
Somebody: "But you carry a .45!"
Me: Walking away sadly, "Mumble, mumble mumbleing, MUMBLE MUMBLERS!"
Everybody around here asks me, so here's the standard script.
Somebody: "What gun should I get?"
Me: "What do you want to do with it?"
Somebody: ". . . "
Me: Sigh. "Point defense? Hunting? Benchrest? What?"
Somebody: "Oh! Self defense and stuff."
Me: "Good. Start with a handgun. Here are the steps, in order;"
"1. Go somewhere with a lot of handguns on display,"
"2. Handle a bunch of 'em and find one or a few that feel good in your hand, and make a list,"
"3. Find a range that rents some or all of the guns on your list, and shoot 'em. Any you don't like, cross off the list. Now you have a short list to consider."
"4. Can you afford the one you really like, along with enough fodder and feeding devices, holsters, security, cleaning stuff, etc. to keep, carry, and practice with it safely? How about two?"
"5. Get a few hundred rounds of cheap plinking ammo, and go practice, every week. There are some good schools out there, think about going to one. Learn and live the four rules."
Somebody: "What caliber should I get?"
Me: "Whatever chambers in the frame that fits you. 9mm/.38 spec. up to .45/.44 spec. all have very similar ballistics. Caliber is not as important as confidence."
Somebody: "The internet said. . ."
Me: "There are way more people on the internet than there are knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts. Some are just repeating misinformation, some have an axe to grind, and some are just liars. Hell, I'm on the internet, and you know what a troublemaker I am."
Somebody: "That's a lot of trouble. Is there an easier way?"
Me: Sigh. "There is a shortcut. Just buy a Glock 19 or 26 and practice."
Somebody: "But you carry a .45!"
Me: Walking away sadly, "Mumble, mumble mumbleing, MUMBLE MUMBLERS!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)