Ruger: "I'm impotent"
Oops, I'm sure they meant "important".
S&W will be shipping a bolt-action hunting rifle this year. The single best thing to come to hunting rifles in decades, the WSM, is missing from Ruger's lineup because some a-hole filed a patent and sued Herstal & Remington ... and got them to settle. With their only other U.S.-made Mauser-style competition (Kimber, not having any warranty worth paper it might be written on), Winchester having closed its doors, right now, no one may purchase a brand new U.S.-made Mauser-style WSM rifle.
S&W has ruled the DA revolver market for decades. Ruger has always been a distant 2nd. Since about 2001, S&W has been putting blemishes on the side of their revolvers to satisfy a few ignorant politicians (who never have, and never will, buy any such revolver). Had Ruger followed Taurus' lead and offered a few models far more closely resembling S&W DA revolvers, they could easily overtake S&W.
Ruger also offers basically one lever-action rifle ... that no one would ever buy. Yet they own the U.S.-made SAA market ... mostly due to SASS. But how many Ruger leverguns have you ever seen at a SASS match? Again, with Winchester closing the doors in Connecticut, a huge opportunity ... pissed away. Ditto for any kind of SASS-legal scattergun ... not even a simple $300 SxS ... let alone a '97 or '87 clone.
And speaking of the SAA market, if S&W keeps up what they're up to, and offers SAA clones ... for closer to $500 ... what will Ruger then have that sets them apart?
Some very good custom rifle-smiths flat out refuse to use Ruger actions ... favoring Remington.
And what about the Ruger #1 ... enter Herstal's 1885 ... check, and mate.
The single-biggest move Ruger's made in the last 20yr is they downsized all their SAA's ... drumming up business for what was left of the big ones ... for those with larger hands. I expect that's their ace in the hole, re-introducing the big SAA's ... someday? I'm curious, with the new smaller Vaqueros, by precisely how much did their market-share increase?
And now Ruger is offering early retirement in an attempt to reduce their payroll by $3 million this year.
Remington is importing Mauser-style rifles. S&W is buying T/C. All Ruger'd hafta do is come out with a much better quality version of what they already make ... and differentiate it from the bad reputation the m77 has earned ... perhaps the m98? :-0
Today if a SASS guy wants a new levergun, it's Marlin, Uberti, or Rossi. If Ruger were to scrap the POS they make today, and offer quality '92's and '94's, they'd make a fortune almost overnite. Add a '76 and/or '86 to that to really round out the line-up. A '73 would be very nice as well. For that matter, why not a '71 in a .358-bore? It's tough to know where the Savage '99 thing is going ... but maybe an '88 wouldn't hurt? Boy, why Winchester (Connecticut) went out of business, I'll never understand.
Today if a SASS guy wants a SxS, it's a Stoeger or Baikal. If Ruger were to offer that, and a '97, and and/or an '87, they'd outright own the SASS shotgun market.
If Ruger were to offer DA revolvers using flat-springs like S&W, with the adjustment screw, which fit the same holsters, and otherwise look identical (sans the crater) to the m65 (but blued w/traditional service grips), the Chief's m36 (coil spring ok), a 4in m29, and a 3in m25, they'd easily stand to evenly split the DA revolver market with S&W inside one year. And if S&W weren't to respond, in kind, Ruger could actually take over 1st-place with a comfortable lead.
Then there's the auto-pistol thing. Ruger's been pissing in the wind for years on this. Even Taurus is offering a 1911 now. If Ruger were to focus on delivering just one 1911, with a beavertail and longer trigger, in a very nice blued finish, preferably with a one-piece arched mainspring housing and extended mag-well (see Smith & Alexander), with a consistently, expertly tuned internal extractor, for closer to $800, that'd go a long way to change their reputation in that area. Add on a stainless Commander chambered, reliably, for 9mm and .40sw, and they'd be well on their way. The Glock-knock-off market is extremely saturated. And, at that, the new M&P'd be very tough to beat ... without getting sued. Yet, the 92/P226 market is almost wide open ... with most people all but ignoring the FNP. Put out something extremely closely resembling a P226, and ya'll at least develop a cult-like following there. And should Sig ever completely drop their ball, Ruger'd be on it like white on rice.
Add a .32sw top-break pocket-pistol for the SASS market for icing on the cake.
Yet, none of these things is likely anytime soon. More likely, none will ever come about. What a shame. Too bad they can't do like S&W and hire a new head honcho who knows absolutely nothing about guns?
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Sunday, December 3, 2006
whitetail gun
I can't think of another topic nearly as void of logic with respect to the objective as many such choices made in a long-gun for whitetail. I once heard a wise man say "shooting is a perishable skill". I can't think of another type of shooting that is done with so little practice as deer hunting. And I'm not just talking about year to year ... I'm talking about in the first place. Making a good choice for a deer gun isn't so much knowing what to do as it is what not to do.
1. Simply hitting a deer don't cut it ... not even close! Despite the size of a deer, your intended target is its vitals ... about an 8in circle. I've never seen anyone with a bench and a pile of sandbags out at their deer-stand. Use them at the range to be sure your scope is dialed correctly, then ignore them. The idea you might be able to hold nearly as steady by bracing your arm against a tree is ridiculous. Practice shooting off-hand ... get good at that ... then take advantage of whatever help you can in the field.
2. A deer is not a wild boar ... it is not an elk ... and it is not a moose. .30-30 is a particularly weak cartridge. Yet, the .30-30 has a proven track record ... and is effective on deer out to 200yd. There is much many could learn by studying the choice of .30-30. It's recoil could not possibly be considered violent ... making flinch almost non-existent ... making accuracy among the best ... despite the .30-30's lack of inherent accuracy. This is not to say that one can't be successful with anything but a .30-30. But, rather, that with almost no practice (which pertains to a great many would-be deer hunters), one might be most successful with a .30-30.
3. Buying a new rifle with the intent to practice with it is one thing ... actually practicing with it, in an effective manner, is quite another. Buying a new rifle whose typical field-grade ammo costs twice as much as another comparable choice will go a long way to keeping that rifle away from the range. Simply put, if field-grade ammo for your rifle costs much over $0.50/rd ($1.00/rd being way too much), it's a poor choice.
4. Handloading will go a long way to saving money ... particularly on otherwise expensive factory ammo. However, like practicing, intending to handload, and actually handloading are two very different things. Also, completely regardless of caliber (even pistol vs. rifle), an initial investment into handloading (no bullets, no brass, no primers, and no powder) will cost $200 - $500 (that kinda money buys a lot of factory ammo).
5. Keeping a 4in group, at 200yd, off-hand, at the range, with any rifle is quite a feat. With your heart pounding, and a deer in your sights, keeping an 8in group, off-hand, in the field, with any rifle takes skill ... period. Seven major factors will prevent you from obtaining this skill anytime soon ... 1. expensive field-grade ammo ... 2. excessive recoil ... 3. excessive report ... 4. cheap optics ... 5. poor stance ... 6. poor trigger-control ... 7. insufficient trigger-time (not visiting the range enough, or shooting while at it)
Good trigger-control is keeping your sights on your target while pulling the trigger and not letting the trigger break until your sights are as close to on-target as you can achieve. This is not difficult at all to accomplish ... with a .22lr ... because it has almost no recoil ... and very little report. As recoil, and report increase, your instincts cause you to flinch (to jerk your finger, as well as your entire hold on the rifle, thru the moment you let the trigger break). A great part of developing good trigger-control is learning to de-sensitize yourself to the recoil and report of your chosen rifle. The more recoil and report your chosen rifle has, the more trigger-time will be required of you to overcome them and develop good trigger-control.
A high-power scope does extremely little to help with accuracy. All it does is help you better see that which is particularly far away ... and what if that happens to be another hunter? That's a task best left to a good pair of binoculars. If it were possible to pass a law requiring a hunter to verify every target with a pair of binoculars ... and successfully enforce that law, you may never hear of another hunter being shot in the woods ever again. If you truly have a problem with the open-sights on your rifle, you would be far better served by trying to improve them ... than to simply mount a scope. If your rifle did not come with open-sights, choose a scope with no more than 5x and a 20mm objective ... a fixed 2x or 4x would be perfect ... and such a scope should cost you $100 - $150 ... no more, no less. If at all possible, mount a handgun scope ahead of the action (scout) ... this will prevent your breath from fogging it up ... and should you ever have a loose grip on your rifle, it won't cut your eyebrow open. Otherwise, mount a scope as far forward as possible ... a high quality scope at 2x or even 4x should have plenty of eye-relief for this. 
If you know a good gunsmith, having him mount open-sights may be an option ... albeit, not a cheap one. There's a consideration ... take the $150 - $200 (including base and rings) you might otherwise spend on a scope and apply it to a premium rifle that comes with open-sights (i.e. BLR or BAR).
When you consider all of this together, the field narrows quite a bit. With the absense of a Winchester factory in CT, the Marlin 336 .30-30 seems to be an extremely cost-effective choice. The new Hornady LeverEvolution polymer-tipped ammo suggests 300yd effectiveness. I suggest you not concern yourself with such things 'til you've killed a few deer at 200yd. If anything, fancy ammo comes with a fancy price.
I can't imagine why a special rifle might be necessary ... but, again, I wouldn't concern yourself with such things. BLR or BAR in 7mm-08 or .308 comes in at a strong 2nd. If you don't care so much about open-sights, then just about any bolt-action in 260rem, 7mm-08, or .308 would likely serve you well. A bolt-action is particularly nice as any deer rifle should be cleaned as often as possible ... and I can't think of a gun easier to clean than a bolt-action rifle (the bolt usually comes right out with the push of a button ... no other disassembly necessary). Unfortunatley, very few bolt-action rifles come with open-sights.
.243win is simply too light. Yes, you can kill a deer with it ... as you can with .22lr ... with a precise shot. .243 limits your range, not necessarily by any kind of inherent accuracy ... but rather your own inability to hold a particularly tight group (required to kill the deer with such an anemic bullet) at a particularly long range. Put another way, the kill-zone for a 7mm-08 may be 8in, while the same for a .243 might only be 4in ... or half. Yes, it has particularly less recoil and report ... but if that's your desire, you would be much better served with a .30-30. As it is, .308 is typically far more power than needed to drop a whitetail at most achievable distances. But, while it may take significantly longer than with .30-30, it's not particularly impossible for most adults to learn to overcome the recoil and report of such a rifle. Considering a 140gr bullet may be ideal for whitetail, a 7mm-08 will have a much higher ballistic-coefficient than .308. .30-06 is very popular for deer ... however, it offers no significant increase in effectiveness over .308 ... yet dictates a significantly longer, heavier rifle. .270wsm and 7wsm are excellent cartridges, and do not have a lot of recoil despite the energy they produce, but to whatever extent they may have more recoil or report than a 7mm-08 or .308, their superior energy is simply wasted on 99% of your opportunities. On top of that, WSM ammo typically costs 50% more than 7mm-08 or .308 ... thereby, seriously detracting from your practice.
If your odds of being required to use a shotgun are good, that's too bad. Shotguns are extremely ineffective on whitetail ... beyond 100yd ... if for no other reason, than because any slugs which might be effective past 100yd, have so much recoil, you could shoot hundreds of practice rounds and still have too much of a flinch to deliver at that distance with the accuracy required. Beyond that, there are two types of slugs ... rifled (used in smoothbore guns) and sabot (used in rifled-bbl or rifled-choke guns). The sabot slugs are typically far more accurate ... and also typically $15 - $20 for only five rounds (that's $3 - $4 per shot). And even then, you'd be lucky to score a kill past 100yd. Because of the limited range, a scope on such a shotgun is wholly unnecessary. Ideally, you can find a rifle-sighted (only meaning it has open-sights) "turkey" bbl ... which will be a smoothbo
re ... and then you can use rifled-slugs to develop your skill and confidence with the gun. At some later date, you'd have the option of easily installing a rifled-choke for use with sabot-slugs ... 'til your wallet screams ... and you go running like a little girl back to rifled-slugs. Should you choose a cantilever rifled-bbl, you must then get a scope, and you may only use sabot-slugs from then on. If ya gotta shoot slugs, the single best favor ya can do yourself is to get an automatic ... it'll soak up some of the recoil. There are few prettier slug shotguns than a Remington 11-87 Premier. If you're on a budget, I expect you could get a brand new Mossberg 930 (do not get a 935) for little more than $400. Be warned, both of these have rifled-bbl's. Again, despite the looks, you'd be best served with a Turkey smoothbore model. Another possibility is to get their Field model and purchase an open-sighted bbl separately.
1. Simply hitting a deer don't cut it ... not even close! Despite the size of a deer, your intended target is its vitals ... about an 8in circle. I've never seen anyone with a bench and a pile of sandbags out at their deer-stand. Use them at the range to be sure your scope is dialed correctly, then ignore them. The idea you might be able to hold nearly as steady by bracing your arm against a tree is ridiculous. Practice shooting off-hand ... get good at that ... then take advantage of whatever help you can in the field.
2. A deer is not a wild boar ... it is not an elk ... and it is not a moose. .30-30 is a particularly weak cartridge. Yet, the .30-30 has a proven track record ... and is effective on deer out to 200yd. There is much many could learn by studying the choice of .30-30. It's recoil could not possibly be considered violent ... making flinch almost non-existent ... making accuracy among the best ... despite the .30-30's lack of inherent accuracy. This is not to say that one can't be successful with anything but a .30-30. But, rather, that with almost no practice (which pertains to a great many would-be deer hunters), one might be most successful with a .30-30.
3. Buying a new rifle with the intent to practice with it is one thing ... actually practicing with it, in an effective manner, is quite another. Buying a new rifle whose typical field-grade ammo costs twice as much as another comparable choice will go a long way to keeping that rifle away from the range. Simply put, if field-grade ammo for your rifle costs much over $0.50/rd ($1.00/rd being way too much), it's a poor choice.
4. Handloading will go a long way to saving money ... particularly on otherwise expensive factory ammo. However, like practicing, intending to handload, and actually handloading are two very different things. Also, completely regardless of caliber (even pistol vs. rifle), an initial investment into handloading (no bullets, no brass, no primers, and no powder) will cost $200 - $500 (that kinda money buys a lot of factory ammo).5. Keeping a 4in group, at 200yd, off-hand, at the range, with any rifle is quite a feat. With your heart pounding, and a deer in your sights, keeping an 8in group, off-hand, in the field, with any rifle takes skill ... period. Seven major factors will prevent you from obtaining this skill anytime soon ... 1. expensive field-grade ammo ... 2. excessive recoil ... 3. excessive report ... 4. cheap optics ... 5. poor stance ... 6. poor trigger-control ... 7. insufficient trigger-time (not visiting the range enough, or shooting while at it)
Good trigger-control is keeping your sights on your target while pulling the trigger and not letting the trigger break until your sights are as close to on-target as you can achieve. This is not difficult at all to accomplish ... with a .22lr ... because it has almost no recoil ... and very little report. As recoil, and report increase, your instincts cause you to flinch (to jerk your finger, as well as your entire hold on the rifle, thru the moment you let the trigger break). A great part of developing good trigger-control is learning to de-sensitize yourself to the recoil and report of your chosen rifle. The more recoil and report your chosen rifle has, the more trigger-time will be required of you to overcome them and develop good trigger-control.
A high-power scope does extremely little to help with accuracy. All it does is help you better see that which is particularly far away ... and what if that happens to be another hunter? That's a task best left to a good pair of binoculars. If it were possible to pass a law requiring a hunter to verify every target with a pair of binoculars ... and successfully enforce that law, you may never hear of another hunter being shot in the woods ever again. If you truly have a problem with the open-sights on your rifle, you would be far better served by trying to improve them ... than to simply mount a scope. If your rifle did not come with open-sights, choose a scope with no more than 5x and a 20mm objective ... a fixed 2x or 4x would be perfect ... and such a scope should cost you $100 - $150 ... no more, no less. If at all possible, mount a handgun scope ahead of the action (scout) ... this will prevent your breath from fogging it up ... and should you ever have a loose grip on your rifle, it won't cut your eyebrow open. Otherwise, mount a scope as far forward as possible ... a high quality scope at 2x or even 4x should have plenty of eye-relief for this. 
If you know a good gunsmith, having him mount open-sights may be an option ... albeit, not a cheap one. There's a consideration ... take the $150 - $200 (including base and rings) you might otherwise spend on a scope and apply it to a premium rifle that comes with open-sights (i.e. BLR or BAR).When you consider all of this together, the field narrows quite a bit. With the absense of a Winchester factory in CT, the Marlin 336 .30-30 seems to be an extremely cost-effective choice. The new Hornady LeverEvolution polymer-tipped ammo suggests 300yd effectiveness. I suggest you not concern yourself with such things 'til you've killed a few deer at 200yd. If anything, fancy ammo comes with a fancy price.
I can't imagine why a special rifle might be necessary ... but, again, I wouldn't concern yourself with such things. BLR or BAR in 7mm-08 or .308 comes in at a strong 2nd. If you don't care so much about open-sights, then just about any bolt-action in 260rem, 7mm-08, or .308 would likely serve you well. A bolt-action is particularly nice as any deer rifle should be cleaned as often as possible ... and I can't think of a gun easier to clean than a bolt-action rifle (the bolt usually comes right out with the push of a button ... no other disassembly necessary). Unfortunatley, very few bolt-action rifles come with open-sights..243win is simply too light. Yes, you can kill a deer with it ... as you can with .22lr ... with a precise shot. .243 limits your range, not necessarily by any kind of inherent accuracy ... but rather your own inability to hold a particularly tight group (required to kill the deer with such an anemic bullet) at a particularly long range. Put another way, the kill-zone for a 7mm-08 may be 8in, while the same for a .243 might only be 4in ... or half. Yes, it has particularly less recoil and report ... but if that's your desire, you would be much better served with a .30-30. As it is, .308 is typically far more power than needed to drop a whitetail at most achievable distances. But, while it may take significantly longer than with .30-30, it's not particularly impossible for most adults to learn to overcome the recoil and report of such a rifle. Considering a 140gr bullet may be ideal for whitetail, a 7mm-08 will have a much higher ballistic-coefficient than .308. .30-06 is very popular for deer ... however, it offers no significant increase in effectiveness over .308 ... yet dictates a significantly longer, heavier rifle. .270wsm and 7wsm are excellent cartridges, and do not have a lot of recoil despite the energy they produce, but to whatever extent they may have more recoil or report than a 7mm-08 or .308, their superior energy is simply wasted on 99% of your opportunities. On top of that, WSM ammo typically costs 50% more than 7mm-08 or .308 ... thereby, seriously detracting from your practice.
If your odds of being required to use a shotgun are good, that's too bad. Shotguns are extremely ineffective on whitetail ... beyond 100yd ... if for no other reason, than because any slugs which might be effective past 100yd, have so much recoil, you could shoot hundreds of practice rounds and still have too much of a flinch to deliver at that distance with the accuracy required. Beyond that, there are two types of slugs ... rifled (used in smoothbore guns) and sabot (used in rifled-bbl or rifled-choke guns). The sabot slugs are typically far more accurate ... and also typically $15 - $20 for only five rounds (that's $3 - $4 per shot). And even then, you'd be lucky to score a kill past 100yd. Because of the limited range, a scope on such a shotgun is wholly unnecessary. Ideally, you can find a rifle-sighted (only meaning it has open-sights) "turkey" bbl ... which will be a smoothbo
re ... and then you can use rifled-slugs to develop your skill and confidence with the gun. At some later date, you'd have the option of easily installing a rifled-choke for use with sabot-slugs ... 'til your wallet screams ... and you go running like a little girl back to rifled-slugs. Should you choose a cantilever rifled-bbl, you must then get a scope, and you may only use sabot-slugs from then on. If ya gotta shoot slugs, the single best favor ya can do yourself is to get an automatic ... it'll soak up some of the recoil. There are few prettier slug shotguns than a Remington 11-87 Premier. If you're on a budget, I expect you could get a brand new Mossberg 930 (do not get a 935) for little more than $400. Be warned, both of these have rifled-bbl's. Again, despite the looks, you'd be best served with a Turkey smoothbore model. Another possibility is to get their Field model and purchase an open-sighted bbl separately.carry revolver
Contrary to popular opinion, revolvers are not inherently more reliable than automatics. For every automatic you can hold against a particular revolver as inferior, there are a dozen more that would crush it. This ain't even considering the fact that, for most mere mortals, upon any reload, the auto has got 2x - 3x the ammo on-tap, in anywhere from half to a tenth of the time of that to reload a revolver. Popular opinion is based on popular choices. Most people don't spend a premium on any gun. And, some particularly inexpensive automatics (particularly Hi-Point, when pushed to the limits) are not particularly reliable. Whereas, almost any inexpensive revolver may shoot 1,000rd without any kind of problem. Regardless, if you own a particular revolver that has not failed you ... you need to consider that is has not failed you ... yet. As it is, I shoot both DA and SAA revolvers quite a bit ... and the only problem I've ever had with any of my eight Ruger SAA's is when the ejector-rod-housing came flying off my Bisley Hunter ... which, as it was, did not interfere in any way with the gun being able to fire all six ... just that reloading all six suddenly took a great deal more time. Whereas, I've come to learn that, when firing, even target-grade ammo, thru S/W DA's, once you get past the first couple thousand rounds, you'd better have some loc-tite on-hand. In the end, when an automatic typically fails, it will still fire ... you just need to take a second or two between each shot. When a revolver fails, unless you're intimately familiar with the inner-workings of a revolver, you may need minutes just to diagnose the problem ... and even then, if your cylinder locks up (which is the typical failure), you're usually done shooting for the day.
Having said all that, I would carry a revolver. Specifically, I wouldn't feel particularly vulnerable carrying a revolver. Of course, part of that has to do with my skills with a revolver ... vs. those of most folks with an automatic. Frankly, no one is ever 100% safe ... everyone dies ... you can't live in a padded rubber room the rest of your life. Revolvers are cool ... at least some of 'em are. And having had revolvers fail on me, and learning how to prevent such failures (at least for a period of time), and having fired thousands of rounds thru them, I feel particularly confident with a revolver that I've personally addressed such issues with. Point being, if you want to carry a revolver, because it's cool, or just because you want to, that's fine. But don't try to say you're doing it because it's simply more reliable than an automatic. If I'm carrying a 1911, and a bad guy engages me with a revolver, I don't know that I'd survive ... what with all the shaking ... from me laughing incontrollably.
As I eluded to earlier, there are two basic types of revolvers ... DA ... and SAA (single action army). I refer to SAA for two reasons ... 1. any SA revolver which is not of a basic SAA design does not usually qualify for what I'm referring to ... 2. with no more said about it, most reading SAA know precisely what I'm talking about (specifically, that I'm not talking about a SA automatic).
Also, as I eluded to earlier, for reliability (at least based on my own experience), I prefer a SAA. The one thing to watch out for there is when shooting cast-lead bullets ... if they are not properly crimped, and the gun is particu
larly light (vs. larger SAA's), and the rounds are particularly powerful, the bullets may jump the crimp and be caught outside the front of the cylinder and against the frame ... thereby preventing the cylinder from turning ... thereby ending your shooting for the next several minutes. Beyond that, I personally find a SAA handles particularly powerful loads much better than S/W DA counterparts ... particularly with regard to my ability to handle recoil ... and consequently avoid flinch. Some say the grip of a SAA is designed to allow the pistol to roll up in your hand ... thereby reducing felt recoil. I don't know if that's the reason for what I've experienced or not. Ideally, a carry SAA will have a bbl closer to 3.5in and a non-Bisley grip (preferably, a bird's-head). .357/.38spl will be far more cost-effective (as typical factory .38spl ammo is usually half of that of comparable .44/.45) ... as un-holy as that may be. In fact, the 3.75in Ruger bird's-head .45 Vaquero is probably the best choice ... if you can find one. Please understand, this particular pistol probably weighs close to 2# ... this is meant to be carried in a holster on your hip ... not in your pocket. If you don't invest in a proper holster, and/or you absolutely cannot let anyone discover you're carrying, this would not be a good choice. Lots of luck finding an otherwise small and lightweight SAA.
I must admit, I'm a S/W DA revolver addict. I own several ... of varying sizes and calibers. I've also gotten rid of several. When talking about carrying S/W revolvers, two very important points jump out ... 1. Scandium is not your friend ... 2. J-frames (smallest) are made only for people who wear S or XS gloves. If you are both sadist and masochist, feel free to combine those two with just about any ammunition available and head for the range. Personally, I don't blame S/W for these types of pistols ... they help us all understand that there is a limit to both small and lightweight ... and that both are very important factors, not only for carry, but particularly for actual shooting. Ok, so you've heard the rule "a .22 in your pocket beats a .45 in your safe" ... pay very close attention, a .22 would not be a problem ... do not infer that to suggest that any pistol which is particularly easy (small and lightweight) to carry is preferable. There is a limit there. First and foremost, regardless of caliber, that limit is 15oz ... never buy any carry pistol which weighs less ... period. Secondly, unless you can walk into a store today, and squeeze your fingers all the way into a pair of small gloves, never buy a J-frame-sized pistol ... period. Unfortunately, S/W has discontinued the one and only defensive revolver they ever made that's worth a damn ... the K-frame (m65 or m66). One mistake many shooters make with the K-frame is to try to squeeze all three remaining fingers around the grip ... it is meant to wear service-grips and it is meant to be handled like a non-Bisley SAA (with your pinky underneath the grip). In stainless (regarding carry revolvers, never choose a lightweight alloy frame), a K-frame may be somewhat violent with full-house .357 loads ... but worlds more tolerable than any J-frame or any lightweight revolver. But all is not lost. In fact, you can kill two birds with one stone. S/W, in possibly the biggest chicken-sh!t move of all time, added an integral lock to all their revolvers around 2001. I didn't ask for it. Did you ask for it? I own several S/W revolvers and only one has it ... and I don't use it ... I made sure it was unlocked and threw out the key for fear it might otherwise end up locked. The people who demanded it, never bought one with it ... and probably never owned any S/W revolver. For decades prior, 99.999% of all S/W revolver owners managed not to shoot themselves. Worst of all, these locks are particularly unsafe. They invite assumption ... something that, when mixed with firearms, typically does not end up well. The assumption is that the gun is locked, and therefore safe ... but, this assumption cannot be made visually ... it can, in fact, only be made by actually attempting to operate the pistol to some degree. Whereas, a pistol wearing a traditional (Master) trigger-guard lock is undoubtedly safe ... as is a pistol locked in a gun-safe or some other type of strong-box. This is all besides the fact that there is nothing preventing your 15yr-old kid (who probably knows nothing of self-control, let alone discipline) from obtaining a duplicate key. This is the result of allowing those, with very little to no experience and/or understanding of firearms to assist in the engineering of them. This would be equivalent to myself dictating changes to ABS to the auto industry. Anyone who claims firearms are so simple that very little experience or understanding (beyond that of watching CSI:NY or Law/Order), is all that is needed, is a testament to their own ineptitude.
But I digress. Back on the K-frames ... many former K-frame owners either don't know, or simply don't appreciate what they had ... and those pistols end up on used-shelves ... priced nearly half of their brand new counterparts ... most in at least 99% condition ... no doubt, a result of having been fired all of maybe six times, and left on a closet shelf for the last several years. And the bonus? ... they don't have the integral eye-sore. It's a win/win/win situation for you.
Of course, the new 7-shot .357 L-frame Scandium pistol, as the 8-shot .357 N-frame Scandium pistol, are very tempting ... if for no other reason, than their 17% - 33% increase in firepower ... which sounds preferable for a self-defense encounter. First off, if you prefer more firepower, you really should do yourself a favor and go to an automatic. Secondly, these pistols are usually closer to $800. If that's not a lot of money, keep in mind, they really have only one use. You would be far better served to spend the balance on extra ammo and range-time with a used K-frame.
If, and only if, you happen to have raccoon-hands, your pistol of choice may very well be a S/W 642 .38spl (possibly carried in a Mitch Rosen #18 in your pocket) or a S/W .357/.38spl 60 or 640 (too heavy for pocket-carry). Some may insist that the concealed hammer of the 642 or 640 is mandatory. I agree only when carried in a pocket. When worn on your hip, you need to clear your cover-garment with the entire pistol ... if an exposed hammer is catching anything, you need to practice more, or the hammer isn't really the problem, your cover-garment is ... and a concealed hammer may not necessarily resolve that particular issue. Should you be unlucky enough to find yourself in a self-defense encounter, you may very well not have time to cock a hammer. As such, you would be well-served to have a gunsmith tune your DA-trigger-pull to be much closer to 5# ... this is almost mandatory with a DAO pistol such as 642 (even moreso with a lightweight) or 640. Regardless, most self-defense revolver owners do not practice with them to the extent, or in the manner, that they should ... not even close. As such, when push comes to shove, most such revolver owners will be far more accurate should they find themselves lucky enough to have the time to cock the hammer. Considering the possibility of such an inexperienced shooter firing a shot where the likelihood of a miss is high, and the likelihood of hitting someone they never intended to, is much higher than most would prefer, my preference would be to afford them every advantage to hit their intended target instead. And, while no one should ever rely on such an advantage, the simple fact is, most would benefit from it nonetheless. This is, by no means, meant to suggest that anyone should choose a revolver with an exposed hammer, and furthermore, not practice with it ... only that the only issue with a concealed hammer is pocket-carry.
This brings up another interesting point. If you accept the fact that an automatic is no less reliable than a revolver, consider the speed, shot to shot, of your trigger pull ... and moreover, the accuracy of that trigger pull. Manually cocking a hammer on a revolver takes time ... it also changes your grip from what you might otherwise use to actually fire the pistol. Unless it's a DAO, an automatic will afford a particularly short, light trigger pull (like that of a cocked revolver) with absolutely no effort on your part ... such a trigger pull is available as fast as you can actually pull the trigger. Personally, I prefer an automatic first and foremost because it is more reliable. Second to that, as fast and accurate as I may be firing a DA revolver without cocking the hammer shot-to-shot, there is simply no contest vs. firing an automatic. As such, given the choice between a 6-shot (or even 5-shot) automatic vs. a 6-shot (or even 8-shot) revolver, I'd choose the automatic ... hands down. That is, unless it happens to be a particularly beautiful revolver.
Having said all that, I would carry a revolver. Specifically, I wouldn't feel particularly vulnerable carrying a revolver. Of course, part of that has to do with my skills with a revolver ... vs. those of most folks with an automatic. Frankly, no one is ever 100% safe ... everyone dies ... you can't live in a padded rubber room the rest of your life. Revolvers are cool ... at least some of 'em are. And having had revolvers fail on me, and learning how to prevent such failures (at least for a period of time), and having fired thousands of rounds thru them, I feel particularly confident with a revolver that I've personally addressed such issues with. Point being, if you want to carry a revolver, because it's cool, or just because you want to, that's fine. But don't try to say you're doing it because it's simply more reliable than an automatic. If I'm carrying a 1911, and a bad guy engages me with a revolver, I don't know that I'd survive ... what with all the shaking ... from me laughing incontrollably.
As I eluded to earlier, there are two basic types of revolvers ... DA ... and SAA (single action army). I refer to SAA for two reasons ... 1. any SA revolver which is not of a basic SAA design does not usually qualify for what I'm referring to ... 2. with no more said about it, most reading SAA know precisely what I'm talking about (specifically, that I'm not talking about a SA automatic).
Also, as I eluded to earlier, for reliability (at least based on my own experience), I prefer a SAA. The one thing to watch out for there is when shooting cast-lead bullets ... if they are not properly crimped, and the gun is particu
larly light (vs. larger SAA's), and the rounds are particularly powerful, the bullets may jump the crimp and be caught outside the front of the cylinder and against the frame ... thereby preventing the cylinder from turning ... thereby ending your shooting for the next several minutes. Beyond that, I personally find a SAA handles particularly powerful loads much better than S/W DA counterparts ... particularly with regard to my ability to handle recoil ... and consequently avoid flinch. Some say the grip of a SAA is designed to allow the pistol to roll up in your hand ... thereby reducing felt recoil. I don't know if that's the reason for what I've experienced or not. Ideally, a carry SAA will have a bbl closer to 3.5in and a non-Bisley grip (preferably, a bird's-head). .357/.38spl will be far more cost-effective (as typical factory .38spl ammo is usually half of that of comparable .44/.45) ... as un-holy as that may be. In fact, the 3.75in Ruger bird's-head .45 Vaquero is probably the best choice ... if you can find one. Please understand, this particular pistol probably weighs close to 2# ... this is meant to be carried in a holster on your hip ... not in your pocket. If you don't invest in a proper holster, and/or you absolutely cannot let anyone discover you're carrying, this would not be a good choice. Lots of luck finding an otherwise small and lightweight SAA.
I must admit, I'm a S/W DA revolver addict. I own several ... of varying sizes and calibers. I've also gotten rid of several. When talking about carrying S/W revolvers, two very important points jump out ... 1. Scandium is not your friend ... 2. J-frames (smallest) are made only for people who wear S or XS gloves. If you are both sadist and masochist, feel free to combine those two with just about any ammunition available and head for the range. Personally, I don't blame S/W for these types of pistols ... they help us all understand that there is a limit to both small and lightweight ... and that both are very important factors, not only for carry, but particularly for actual shooting. Ok, so you've heard the rule "a .22 in your pocket beats a .45 in your safe" ... pay very close attention, a .22 would not be a problem ... do not infer that to suggest that any pistol which is particularly easy (small and lightweight) to carry is preferable. There is a limit there. First and foremost, regardless of caliber, that limit is 15oz ... never buy any carry pistol which weighs less ... period. Secondly, unless you can walk into a store today, and squeeze your fingers all the way into a pair of small gloves, never buy a J-frame-sized pistol ... period. Unfortunately, S/W has discontinued the one and only defensive revolver they ever made that's worth a damn ... the K-frame (m65 or m66). One mistake many shooters make with the K-frame is to try to squeeze all three remaining fingers around the grip ... it is meant to wear service-grips and it is meant to be handled like a non-Bisley SAA (with your pinky underneath the grip). In stainless (regarding carry revolvers, never choose a lightweight alloy frame), a K-frame may be somewhat violent with full-house .357 loads ... but worlds more tolerable than any J-frame or any lightweight revolver. But all is not lost. In fact, you can kill two birds with one stone. S/W, in possibly the biggest chicken-sh!t move of all time, added an integral lock to all their revolvers around 2001. I didn't ask for it. Did you ask for it? I own several S/W revolvers and only one has it ... and I don't use it ... I made sure it was unlocked and threw out the key for fear it might otherwise end up locked. The people who demanded it, never bought one with it ... and probably never owned any S/W revolver. For decades prior, 99.999% of all S/W revolver owners managed not to shoot themselves. Worst of all, these locks are particularly unsafe. They invite assumption ... something that, when mixed with firearms, typically does not end up well. The assumption is that the gun is locked, and therefore safe ... but, this assumption cannot be made visually ... it can, in fact, only be made by actually attempting to operate the pistol to some degree. Whereas, a pistol wearing a traditional (Master) trigger-guard lock is undoubtedly safe ... as is a pistol locked in a gun-safe or some other type of strong-box. This is all besides the fact that there is nothing preventing your 15yr-old kid (who probably knows nothing of self-control, let alone discipline) from obtaining a duplicate key. This is the result of allowing those, with very little to no experience and/or understanding of firearms to assist in the engineering of them. This would be equivalent to myself dictating changes to ABS to the auto industry. Anyone who claims firearms are so simple that very little experience or understanding (beyond that of watching CSI:NY or Law/Order), is all that is needed, is a testament to their own ineptitude.But I digress. Back on the K-frames ... many former K-frame owners either don't know, or simply don't appreciate what they had ... and those pistols end up on used-shelves ... priced nearly half of their brand new counterparts ... most in at least 99% condition ... no doubt, a result of having been fired all of maybe six times, and left on a closet shelf for the last several years. And the bonus? ... they don't have the integral eye-sore. It's a win/win/win situation for you.
Of course, the new 7-shot .357 L-frame Scandium pistol, as the 8-shot .357 N-frame Scandium pistol, are very tempting ... if for no other reason, than their 17% - 33% increase in firepower ... which sounds preferable for a self-defense encounter. First off, if you prefer more firepower, you really should do yourself a favor and go to an automatic. Secondly, these pistols are usually closer to $800. If that's not a lot of money, keep in mind, they really have only one use. You would be far better served to spend the balance on extra ammo and range-time with a used K-frame.
If, and only if, you happen to have raccoon-hands, your pistol of choice may very well be a S/W 642 .38spl (possibly carried in a Mitch Rosen #18 in your pocket) or a S/W .357/.38spl 60 or 640 (too heavy for pocket-carry). Some may insist that the concealed hammer of the 642 or 640 is mandatory. I agree only when carried in a pocket. When worn on your hip, you need to clear your cover-garment with the entire pistol ... if an exposed hammer is catching anything, you need to practice more, or the hammer isn't really the problem, your cover-garment is ... and a concealed hammer may not necessarily resolve that particular issue. Should you be unlucky enough to find yourself in a self-defense encounter, you may very well not have time to cock a hammer. As such, you would be well-served to have a gunsmith tune your DA-trigger-pull to be much closer to 5# ... this is almost mandatory with a DAO pistol such as 642 (even moreso with a lightweight) or 640. Regardless, most self-defense revolver owners do not practice with them to the extent, or in the manner, that they should ... not even close. As such, when push comes to shove, most such revolver owners will be far more accurate should they find themselves lucky enough to have the time to cock the hammer. Considering the possibility of such an inexperienced shooter firing a shot where the likelihood of a miss is high, and the likelihood of hitting someone they never intended to, is much higher than most would prefer, my preference would be to afford them every advantage to hit their intended target instead. And, while no one should ever rely on such an advantage, the simple fact is, most would benefit from it nonetheless. This is, by no means, meant to suggest that anyone should choose a revolver with an exposed hammer, and furthermore, not practice with it ... only that the only issue with a concealed hammer is pocket-carry.This brings up another interesting point. If you accept the fact that an automatic is no less reliable than a revolver, consider the speed, shot to shot, of your trigger pull ... and moreover, the accuracy of that trigger pull. Manually cocking a hammer on a revolver takes time ... it also changes your grip from what you might otherwise use to actually fire the pistol. Unless it's a DAO, an automatic will afford a particularly short, light trigger pull (like that of a cocked revolver) with absolutely no effort on your part ... such a trigger pull is available as fast as you can actually pull the trigger. Personally, I prefer an automatic first and foremost because it is more reliable. Second to that, as fast and accurate as I may be firing a DA revolver without cocking the hammer shot-to-shot, there is simply no contest vs. firing an automatic. As such, given the choice between a 6-shot (or even 5-shot) automatic vs. a 6-shot (or even 8-shot) revolver, I'd choose the automatic ... hands down. That is, unless it happens to be a particularly beautiful revolver.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
best of
The single-best all-around pistol is the Sig Sauer P226-ST (stainless w/rail) 9mm (or .40sw) automatic pistol. It's not ideal for concealed-carry ... but no one can agree on that anyhow. The added heft of the stainless frame ... and the rail, putting more heft towards the muzzle ... makes for much faster follow-up shots ... as there is far less muzzle-flip (this is such an advantage, I believe this pistol is not legal for IDPA SSP use). The rail is critical for a nighstand-gun ... every such pistol should have a light ... whenever possible. For plinking, from both a cost, and minimal-recoil standpoint, 9mm is extremely tough to beat. If you've ever tried to do a reload under the pressure of time, you know ... unless your last name happens to be Miculek ... that a reload of an automatic is not only much faster, but for each such reload, you've got another 15rd on-tap (vs. 6rd - 8rd). Yes, you should only need 1rd - 2rd for most defensive encounters ... so just go ahead and remove 4rd from your revolver on your nightstand.
Revolvers are about style. And few have more style than a Ruger Blackhawk (for less than double the money, anyhow). .45colt is anything any handloader wishes to make of it. But there's just something about a .44 Blackhawk. Of course, many prefer a double-action ... typically a S&W. So long as you limit your shooting to cooler loads, they should be fine. Of course, for defensive purposes, they afford much faster reloads (via speed-loaders or moon-clips). But, again, you should only need 1rd - 2rd for most defensive encounters ... that's what made the choice of revolver over automatic tolerable in the first place ... right? I only have two personal problems with S&W ... 1. the eye-sore just above the thumb-latch on post-2001 revolvers ... 2. the discontinuation of K-frames (what I believe was most desirable of the S&W DA revolvers). In fact, while I continue to build my collection of S&W's, with older, used revolvers ... I have absolutely no use for any new S&W revolvers. Gun-writers have taken to nearly completely dismissing the eye-sore ... and proclaiming any such criticism of same as merely juvenile ... as of yet, I've not seen the audacity of such comments adjacent to a full-page S&W ad.
A fine over/under 12ga is simply something to behold. Ideal for Skeet and Sporting Clays, it's also quite formiddable for Trap ... and pretty much any game you desire. I just read "kicks like a 20ga" as to suggest a particular 12ga had significantly less recoil. I'm sure many believe, as I did, that 20ga, being significantly smaller, recoils significantly less. My experience is that most 20ga shotguns have significantly smaller frames as well as bbl's ... and as a result, are significantly lighter than comparable 12ga guns. It's also been my experience that all factory 20ga ammo available is not loaded particularly soft. The combination of the two, in my experience, makes for, if anything, a harder recoiling gun. I've recently heard a guy say "the nastiest gun I ever shot was a 20ga". Winchester ... and, I believe now, Remington ... offer low-recoil 12ga shotshells (and slugs). Why no one offers such 20ga ammo, I can't fathom. Should your boy be unfortunate enough for you to have chosen an NEF/H&R single-shot 20ga for him, do him the least favor of removing the butt-pad to reveal the 3/4in - 1in hole, cut a lead-pipe to length, and fill it with melted sinkers or wheel-weights, stick the pipe in the hole, and replace the butt-pad (this is about the same as a mercury recoil-reducer for a lot less money).While not nearly as refined, honorable mention absolutely has to go to the Mossberg 930. Herstal has seemed to have lost its way with what's left of the Winchester line ... otherwise, the Japanese used to make a very nice SX2. And I'm sure the Browning Gold is a fine scattergun as well. But for the price, particularly considering the Made in U.S.A. stamp, the Mossberg deserves serious consideration. As for 3.5in shells ... unless you've got a T-Rex problem, it's not a concern. Also, inertia-driven is actually undesirable for almost every reason.
For a brief time, Herstal made an absolutely exquisite 1892 and 1886 Extra-Lite out of their Miroku, Japan factory. Those two aside, I can think of no better rifle ... for under $10,000 ... than the Browning A-Bolt. In WSM, they'll do just about anything you could possibly want. In 7mm-08, it's quite possibly the best Whitetail rifle in existence. Until Herstal sees fit to produce a Japanese Winchester 1894 in .30-30, that is. Of course, many others believe the Remington 700 is king (I'll bet they drive Chevy's too). Admittedly, I've only owned one 700 ... an LSS ... and was very unimpressed ... and that may not be fair. I've owned a couple Winchester 70's ... one was OK ... the other ... even the manufacturer stated it was unrepairable and offered me a replacement ... I chose another A-bolt ... and was not disappointed. I've never owned a Weatherby or Sako ... not that I'd mind. I suppose I'm guilty of having been fooled once ... a couple times ... and, along the way, figuring out that I have absolutely no desire to fix what ain't broke.
1911's are notorious for being unreliable. The design is nearly 100yr old. Today, by some of the most knowledgeable and lethal people in the world of/with a pistol, the 1911 is held high above all others ... even compared to designs of the 21st century. There is a reason for that. And it's actually relatively simple. Today's firearm manufacturers ... particularly of pistols ... have a tough time turning a profit. And the fact is, most pistol purchasers fire their new prize only on a few occassions ... and then it sits in a closet for years and years. It may not fire straight ... they may not know how to fire it straight. It may not operate correctly ... they may believe it's the pistol ... they may believe it's them. Either way, the pistol rarely makes a trip back to the manufacturer for warranty repairs. Warranty repairs are expensive ... for the manufacturer ... because most barely even charge shipping for such repairs. They save money manufacturing the pistol initially ... with less attention to detail ... and then take a hit when the pistol is shipped back for repairs. The trick is, if 1,000 pistols are initially shipped ... maybe only 100 come back. Compared to manufacturing all 1,000 near perfectly in the first place, the company saves money ... a lot of it. For those lucky enough to get a pistol initially manufactured correctly ... or who have the patience to send it back to the manufacturer for repairs ... they claim their pistol is among the best in the world. For those not quite so lucky ... or knowledgeable ... they claim the pistol is garbage. Having said all that, if you choose to have a beaver-tail grip-safety, longer trigger, and extended thumb-safety put on your 1911 (if it does not already have all those), and if you have the patience to work with the manufacturer to make the pistol right ... you may find yourself among thousands of others who proclaim there is simply nothing finer than a 1911.
I told myself I wasn't gonna do this ... but here it is ... the best carry gun is a Sig Sauer P239 (.40sw or 9mm). Is it the most concealable? No. Is it the lightest? No. Is it the most powerful? No. Is it the most controllable? No. Is it the most accurate? No. However, I guarantee you one of two things ... should you choose a gun which is one of those ... 1. you will either not shoot it enough to become proficient enough with it to stake your's and your family's lives on ... 2. when you actually need it, it will be at home. The P239 has many positive attributes for carry ... not the least of which, it's size/power ratio. So long as you are able to wear the clothes you normally wear, you should be able to conceal the P239 comfortably. If you cannot, you need to seriously consider changing your wardrobe or re-assessing your desire to carry. But the real issue here is the decocker and the first-pull being DA. Many would argue that this is unnecessary with regard to safety ... and I agree. However, saying and doing are two very different things. Call it paranoia if you must ... but I feel much more relaxed with a decocked pistol on my hip ... period. Not for that, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a Colt Defender or Kahr PM9 (both of which I keep in reserve). But let's consider the reverse. Detractors, of the first-pull being DA, claim the inconsistency from the first to the second pull might yield undesirable results during an encounter. First and foremost, I've actually competed with such a pistol ... and beaten Glocks ... period. Secondly, such a pistol is likely available (or can be made so) to function DAO (utterly unnecessary, IMO). If you consider, if only for a moment, that such a pistol has no disadvantage whatsoever ... then who really cares if it's actually more safe ... or only just as safe? Is a DA trigger-pull more difficult to be accurate with? Yes ... at 50yd. Immensely inconsequential compared to how much time is spent becoming proficient with the pistol. I guarantee, the man who's competed in IDPA/USPSA with his DA will have ridiculously better odds of survival than the man who proclaims his 1911 can shoot 2in groups at 50yd ... regardless of whether he can.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
hypocrisy
Probably in its ultimate form, the dismissal of ideas ... consummated by simply declaring one as intellectually inferior. This can be extreme where one has significant knowledge of the topic in-question, and the other bases his argument on little more than limited first-hand experience and/or television.
Some have the capacity to learn that they, themselves, are hypocrites ... upon discovering that their opinion(s) were based on limited, or biased information. Unfortunately, many fall victim to those experienced in the art of deception ... to varying degrees of subtlety. This is most often achieved by way of statistical information. Many are unaware of the extent to which statistical information may be biased (ex. if a survey asked "do you believe it's ok to slaughter an 8mo-old fetus?", many people's answer would be quite different than "to save a woman's life, or had she been raped, should abortion be permitted?" ... to simply state a particular number of respondents are either for or against abortion would be entirely invalid).
People today are most influenced by television ... and to a lesser degree, movies. When was the last time you saw a tv show that depicted your average Joe averting tragedy with his own pistol? Or the story of how a youngster trains hard to win gold at the Olympics for the 25m Rapid-fire Pistol event? Contrast those with the last time you saw a criminal using a pistol in a despicable, if not cowardly fashion? Or the cop, with a deep-rooted sense of civic duty, reluctantly using his pistol to ... well ... do what must be done? And the news stories citing a pistol having been "brandished" ... leaving you to your imagination ... with no idea of the circumstances ... or to what extent said pistol was actually "brandished".
Then there are billionaires (yes, with a "b") funding movements aimed at nothing less than total civilian-owned firearm abolishment. Like PETA, these extremists put forth whatever statistical information suits them ... along with any news stories ... void of any extenuating circumstances ... that would make just about anyone want to ban laundry-detergent ... I mean, firearms.
Ask yourself these simple questions ...
Who would you trust more, the man who, on his own free time, being paid precisely $0, does his best to make sure your son or daughter is taught DNR Hunter's Safety such that it may save their life ... or a tv news anchor?
Who would you trust more, one billionaire and a few extremists who worship him ... or a few hundred thousand of your neighbors and co-workers? More importantly, would you prefer to take hundreds of thousands of votes away from your neighbors and co-workers and hand them over to one billionaire ... to apply to any election he desires?
Don't believe any such folks exist ... or are not after your average hunting guns? Ask a Brit or Austrailian why they are not legally permitted to own a Remington 870 pump shotgun. And if you think they actually are ... and I'm just making this up ... then you are in for a very big surprise someday. Remember the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban? Could you buy a new pistol magazine that held more than 10rd? Why not? Is a 15rd semi-automatic 9mm pistol an assault weapon? Just who, precisely, do you think is deciding what is, or is not an assault weapon. Once a law passes the majority of Congress, and is signed by the President ... which authorizes a list of assault weapons ... would any addition to that list also require such a passage by Congress and the President? Why is it that today, a Walther PPK can not be imported from Germany, but the same exact pistol, manufactured in the U.S. by S&W is just fine ... for now? Think it has to do with economics? Just how many people do you think actually purchase foreign-made pistols ... vs. cars, cameras, tv's ... hell ... you name it!
There are a very few, very well funded extremists trying very hard to convince a lot more people that we are all much better left to the protection of the police and military (look outside your window right now, you see them there, don't you?) ... than to allow law-abiding citizens the right to own and carry firearms ... all, supposedly, in the name of disarming criminals ... those who would ignore such laws, as is their nature (and the very definition of a criminal). I thought cocaine and heroin were illegal in the U.S.? That must mean that there are no criminals ... or at least an extremely low number of them ... who actually have any ... right?
Firearms have been around since the 1300's ... over 600 years ago. Some of the most effective firearms of today are virtually unchanged from their late 1800's and early 1900's designs. In other words, anyone with late 1800's manufacturing capabilities (i.e. Home Depot) can reproduce these in a matter of days ... if not hours.
During WWII, Britain actually had Germans landing on their shores ... without troops ... or their own firearms ... to defend themselves against certain death. Many U.S. citizens lent their own personal rifles to those Brits ... who, after they were no longer needed, proceeded to melt them down.
Over 3,000 people died in NYC in 2001 at the hands of a dozen terrorists. In New Orleans, not much later, cops were caught on tape ... looting. Some of their fellow officers were later caught ... on tape ... confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens in their own homes.
No ... such tragedies would never strike you and yours ... it's simply not possible ... I know. To think otherwise is simply paranoia. But let's just pretend such a breakdown in civil services were to occur around your house ... cops looting ... rape gangs roaming your neighborhood with absolutely no fear ... and you're out of food and water for your wife and children. Flash your tie-dye t-shirt at 'em ... I'm sure they'll scatter like the roaches they are!
Just propaganda? Maybe. But what if it's the equivalent of one man pulling the fire alarm of both World Trade Center towers on the morning of September 11th, 2001 ... about 1/2 hour prior to the first jet? What if everything said here is 100% true ... and everything else to the contrary is analogous to a used-car salesman looking to rip you off ... for little more reason than to smile at himself in the mirror when he gets home ... that night?
Does watching more than a few episodes of Law and Order or CSI inherently make you an expert on all things firearms? Do you know the precise event which started the American Revolution? Do you know the intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment? If the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, who's to say whether any of the others are or are not? If American Idol is the #1 tv program in the country, is whatever else, the majority of the U.S. population believes, best for the country?
For nearly a full year, every year, year after year, we tolerate 15yr-olds learning to handle 2,000 lbs, 70mph projectiles coming within inches of our own wives' minivans carrying our own children. And even then, insurance companies insure them ... charging them higher rates ... because they are expected to have more accidents than most anyone else. And what percentage of 15yr-olds are afforded this privilege? 90% ... 99% ... 99.9%? Those accidents are considered by everyone to be acceptable losses. Why? Because if they're not, eventually, no one will be able to drive a vehicle ... right? Every year, year after year, over 40,000 people die in car accidents (according the the CDC of the U.S. government).
Every year, year after year, a little over 700 people die in firearms-related accidents (according to the CDC of the U.S. government). How many hours of classroom and hands-on training do we afford our 15yr-olds ... across the country ... to help them become proficient enough with firearms? A right afforded to Americans ... second only to that of Free Speech.
And you're getting bent out of shape over a little wire-tapping? Ask yourself why ... and pay very close attention to your answer.
Some have the capacity to learn that they, themselves, are hypocrites ... upon discovering that their opinion(s) were based on limited, or biased information. Unfortunately, many fall victim to those experienced in the art of deception ... to varying degrees of subtlety. This is most often achieved by way of statistical information. Many are unaware of the extent to which statistical information may be biased (ex. if a survey asked "do you believe it's ok to slaughter an 8mo-old fetus?", many people's answer would be quite different than "to save a woman's life, or had she been raped, should abortion be permitted?" ... to simply state a particular number of respondents are either for or against abortion would be entirely invalid).
People today are most influenced by television ... and to a lesser degree, movies. When was the last time you saw a tv show that depicted your average Joe averting tragedy with his own pistol? Or the story of how a youngster trains hard to win gold at the Olympics for the 25m Rapid-fire Pistol event? Contrast those with the last time you saw a criminal using a pistol in a despicable, if not cowardly fashion? Or the cop, with a deep-rooted sense of civic duty, reluctantly using his pistol to ... well ... do what must be done? And the news stories citing a pistol having been "brandished" ... leaving you to your imagination ... with no idea of the circumstances ... or to what extent said pistol was actually "brandished".
Then there are billionaires (yes, with a "b") funding movements aimed at nothing less than total civilian-owned firearm abolishment. Like PETA, these extremists put forth whatever statistical information suits them ... along with any news stories ... void of any extenuating circumstances ... that would make just about anyone want to ban laundry-detergent ... I mean, firearms.
Ask yourself these simple questions ...
Who would you trust more, the man who, on his own free time, being paid precisely $0, does his best to make sure your son or daughter is taught DNR Hunter's Safety such that it may save their life ... or a tv news anchor?
Who would you trust more, one billionaire and a few extremists who worship him ... or a few hundred thousand of your neighbors and co-workers? More importantly, would you prefer to take hundreds of thousands of votes away from your neighbors and co-workers and hand them over to one billionaire ... to apply to any election he desires?
Don't believe any such folks exist ... or are not after your average hunting guns? Ask a Brit or Austrailian why they are not legally permitted to own a Remington 870 pump shotgun. And if you think they actually are ... and I'm just making this up ... then you are in for a very big surprise someday. Remember the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban? Could you buy a new pistol magazine that held more than 10rd? Why not? Is a 15rd semi-automatic 9mm pistol an assault weapon? Just who, precisely, do you think is deciding what is, or is not an assault weapon. Once a law passes the majority of Congress, and is signed by the President ... which authorizes a list of assault weapons ... would any addition to that list also require such a passage by Congress and the President? Why is it that today, a Walther PPK can not be imported from Germany, but the same exact pistol, manufactured in the U.S. by S&W is just fine ... for now? Think it has to do with economics? Just how many people do you think actually purchase foreign-made pistols ... vs. cars, cameras, tv's ... hell ... you name it!
There are a very few, very well funded extremists trying very hard to convince a lot more people that we are all much better left to the protection of the police and military (look outside your window right now, you see them there, don't you?) ... than to allow law-abiding citizens the right to own and carry firearms ... all, supposedly, in the name of disarming criminals ... those who would ignore such laws, as is their nature (and the very definition of a criminal). I thought cocaine and heroin were illegal in the U.S.? That must mean that there are no criminals ... or at least an extremely low number of them ... who actually have any ... right?
Firearms have been around since the 1300's ... over 600 years ago. Some of the most effective firearms of today are virtually unchanged from their late 1800's and early 1900's designs. In other words, anyone with late 1800's manufacturing capabilities (i.e. Home Depot) can reproduce these in a matter of days ... if not hours.
During WWII, Britain actually had Germans landing on their shores ... without troops ... or their own firearms ... to defend themselves against certain death. Many U.S. citizens lent their own personal rifles to those Brits ... who, after they were no longer needed, proceeded to melt them down.
Over 3,000 people died in NYC in 2001 at the hands of a dozen terrorists. In New Orleans, not much later, cops were caught on tape ... looting. Some of their fellow officers were later caught ... on tape ... confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens in their own homes.
No ... such tragedies would never strike you and yours ... it's simply not possible ... I know. To think otherwise is simply paranoia. But let's just pretend such a breakdown in civil services were to occur around your house ... cops looting ... rape gangs roaming your neighborhood with absolutely no fear ... and you're out of food and water for your wife and children. Flash your tie-dye t-shirt at 'em ... I'm sure they'll scatter like the roaches they are!
Just propaganda? Maybe. But what if it's the equivalent of one man pulling the fire alarm of both World Trade Center towers on the morning of September 11th, 2001 ... about 1/2 hour prior to the first jet? What if everything said here is 100% true ... and everything else to the contrary is analogous to a used-car salesman looking to rip you off ... for little more reason than to smile at himself in the mirror when he gets home ... that night?
Does watching more than a few episodes of Law and Order or CSI inherently make you an expert on all things firearms? Do you know the precise event which started the American Revolution? Do you know the intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment? If the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, who's to say whether any of the others are or are not? If American Idol is the #1 tv program in the country, is whatever else, the majority of the U.S. population believes, best for the country?
For nearly a full year, every year, year after year, we tolerate 15yr-olds learning to handle 2,000 lbs, 70mph projectiles coming within inches of our own wives' minivans carrying our own children. And even then, insurance companies insure them ... charging them higher rates ... because they are expected to have more accidents than most anyone else. And what percentage of 15yr-olds are afforded this privilege? 90% ... 99% ... 99.9%? Those accidents are considered by everyone to be acceptable losses. Why? Because if they're not, eventually, no one will be able to drive a vehicle ... right? Every year, year after year, over 40,000 people die in car accidents (according the the CDC of the U.S. government).
Every year, year after year, a little over 700 people die in firearms-related accidents (according to the CDC of the U.S. government). How many hours of classroom and hands-on training do we afford our 15yr-olds ... across the country ... to help them become proficient enough with firearms? A right afforded to Americans ... second only to that of Free Speech.
And you're getting bent out of shape over a little wire-tapping? Ask yourself why ... and pay very close attention to your answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)