The Gun Blogs

My post about the Bloomberg Protest rally in DC is up.

Click Here

I finally got my first C&R purchase.

I bought a Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine from J&G sales. They had them on sale right after Christmas for $60 (normally $80).

It wasn't cosmolined up too badly (at least I could get the bolt open). I cleaned her up this evening and took her for her first outing to the range. I think I'm going to call her Marina. That name evokes visions of Russian sturdiness but with just a hint of elegance. I think it fits.

Anyway A couple of things stood out right away. First, the trigger pull is EXTREMELY light for a military weapon. Anyone out there know if this is normal for Mosins? I checked out the bolt stop, trigger and cocking piece, nothing seems overly worn. It just seems that the bolt stop and cocking piece barely make contact so that just a hint of pressure on the trigger makes her go bang. Before going to the range, I cocked her a couple of times and tapped the butt on the ground, I could get the cocking piece to release and dry fire just by tapping firmly on the ground. That can't be right. Do I need to replace the cocking piece or bolt stop? Any thoughts?

I decided that it was safe to fire, even with the light trigger, as long as I was careful.

I took her to the 25 yard indoor range just to get the sights on paper and test her out. The light trigger does make for a nice feel, but I still think it's a bit too light. She almost goes off just from me thinking about pulling the trigger.

The second thing that stood out upon the first shot: she kicks like a mule! My shoulder is sore after 20 rounds.

I'm definitely going to have to get a recoil pad for her.

Anyway, I had heard that stock Mosin sights tend to shoot way high so I was pleasantly surprised when she printed right on in elevation and about 3 inches left. A couple of taps to the front sight and she was right on the money at 25 yards. With no rest, just resting my elbow on the tray at the range, I painted about a 2" group. Not great but I think I was flinching a little bit. Did I mention that the recoil is...um...stout?

I actually like the straight bolt handle because I'm left handed. With the straight handle, I could reach across the top of the rifle and work the bolt with my left hand with no problem. When I tried to use my right hand, I had to bring her down from my shoulder which made it awkward.

Anyway, I'm very happy with my purchase, she is clean and seems to shoot well at least at short range. I'm going to plan a range trip to Creeds this weekend so I can test her out more thoroughly and zero the new scope on the SKS to 200 yards.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Cross posted on Captain of a Crew of One

Santa brought me some new toys that enabled me to proceed to the next phase of pimping my project Yugo SKS.

In the previous incarnation of this blog, we covered my efforts to this point. Unfortunately, when I brought my old blog down, my backups failed and I lost almost a year's worth of entries. That means that I can't link to the old posts so I'll just recap:

First I described the trials and travails I had in getting my bargain basement SKS in good operating order, culumnating in the search for a gas cutoff valve that led me to CNC Warrior's web site.

Next we explored updating the woefully inadequate sighting system. We installed a Williams Firesite front fiberoptic sight and a Tech-Sights TS-200 Rear windage and elevation adjustable aperture sight. We discussed the excellent sight picture and increased accuracy of this combination as well as the singular weakness that the Williams front sight is not quite high enough. The end result is that the rear sight must be set to its lowest possible setting in order to get a zero at 200 yards which means that the elevation adjustability is essentially eliminated and the range setting is, for all intents and purposes, a fixed "battle" zero.

This is fine for my purposes, but anyone who wishes to utilize the range adjustment capabilities of the Tech-Sight rear sight will probably want to eschew the Williams front sight.

My project had been placed on hold due to other financial priorities, but I must have been a good little boy because Santa left some goodies in my stocking.

First off, I got the barrel clamp tri-rail accessory mount. Next was the Choate Machine and Tool Scope Mount. Also a set of New Century Lo Profile 1" Scope rings and, finally, a Leapers 6x32 compact scope.

Santa's advisors weren't sure about my choice in scope rings so they convinced her...er...I mean him...to buy a set of standard height rings as well. I knew what I wanted so I've now got a spare set of standard height rings that I'll be able to use later on when I scout the Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine that I just ordered from J&G on sale for $59.99 (sorry, not on sale any more. I'm glad I ordered when I did). I haven't received it yet. When I do, that will be fodder for future posts.

Anyway, I finally had the time, energy and inclination to play with my new toys yesterday. Before I begin, I want to apologize ahead of time for the couple of blurry photos. My digital camera is cheap and sometimes doesn't focus properly. I always try to take more than one picture but, on rare occasions, end up with no good, focused shots of a particular subject.

When checking out the barrel clamp tri-rail accessory mount, I suspected that, by removing the bottom rail, I would have room to install it while still leaving the bayonet installed. I've considered removing the bayonet and I may at some point. If I do, I can always install the bottom rail. Anyway, I just like having the bayonet on there. I doubt that I would find any real use for it in a SHTF situation, but I like the idea of my primary weapon being more than just a club if I run out of ammo in the heat of battle. Am I wrong???

In any case, It seems I was right, the bayonet still closes fine with the bottom rail removed. The problem that I noticed is that, after installing the barrel clamp, the grenade sight would no longer completely seat in the down position. That meant that the gas shutoff valve would not lock in the open (self-loading) position.

For those who aren't familiar with the Yugo setup, the Yugo model 59/66 has a Nato standard grenade launcher installed. When launching a grenade, the gas valve is rotated to the closed position, this releases the grenade sight and allows it to be employed as well as shutting off the gas that would normally be bled off to cycle the action. I'm guessing that this is because the auto-loading system isn't needed when launching grenades and also so that all possible gas pressure is directed toward launching the grenade at maximum velocity. In any case, when using the weapon to fire normal ammo, the grenade sight is folded down and the gas cutoff valve is rotated to the Open position. The gas valve release button also, when closed, locks the grenade sight in the stowed position.

OK. Because the barrel clamp blocked the grenade sight from being completely stowed, the gas cutoff valve couldn't be rotated completely to the Open position and the button would not lock.

Alleviation of this problem required employment of the ever popular Rotary tool (sometimes called a Dremel tool but mine is a Black and Decker). I am planning on removing the grenade launcher and replacing it with a muzzle break at some point. When I do so, I'll also remove the grenade sight. For that reason, I wasn't concerned about keeping the grenade sight pristine. I ground a small notch in the sight where it was in the way of the gas cutoff valve locking button.

If I were concerned with keeping the grenade sight intact, I could have just as easily cut or ground a notch into the barrel clamp to prevent the grenade sight from hitting it and allowing it to stow completely.

Either method would have served the purpose. The notch allowed the locking button to be rotated completely and lock into place even though the grenade sight still doesn't completely stow.

The next phase of this adventure was drilling and tapping the receiver to install the scope mount. The installation instructions said to leave this evolution to a professional gunsmith. Well, I've never been much for following directions and this wouldn't be my only variance with recommendations. I did order the appropriate sized tap from Midway USA since the required 8x40 is not a standard tap size.

The first step was to make sure the the mount was installed as closely to parallel to the barrel as possible. I accomplished this with the extremely high tech equipment pictured. By trying different sized sockets under the receiver I attained a fine degree of accuracy on the bubble level.

Then I clamped the Choate mount to the receiver at the desired location and on the same plane as the barrel.

For future reference, I was pretty sure that the receiver would be level with the barrel but I didn't want to make any assumptions. After matching the mount to the barrel, I verified that the mount was also level with the receiver so the whole bubble level thing was probably unecessary...but better safe than sorry.

This was another area where I decided not to follow directions. The instructions that came with the Choate mount specified installing the mount so that the rear edge is 1.5 inches from the rear of the receiver. I thought that this was too far forward to attain the proper eye relief with the scope and also would place the front of the scope perilously close to being hit by ejected cartridge cases. I determined that the 1.5 inch measurement was intended to be overly conservative. I placed the mount 1 inch from the rear of the receiver.

Then I rotated the receiver and marked the hole locations on the receiver with a pencil.

I initially planned to drill all four holes one after the other with my drill press and then tap them. I am no machinist and my drill press is hardly a precision instrument. After drilling the first hole, I decided to modify my plans a little. I was worried that I would drill one hole a little off and then wouldn't be able to install the mount correctly. To prevent this problem I decided to tap the first hole, then install the mount with the one screw and clamp it into place with a pair of small locking pliers.

Then, using the mount holes as a guide, I drilled the second hole and tapped it. I then installed the second screw and had the mount in place (without the locking pliers in the way) and was able to use the mount as a guide to drill the last two holes. This cautious, time consuming method served me well.

After removing the two previously installed screws and applying a drop of thread locking compound to each one, the mount was successfully installed.

The next issue was the stock. The bottom of the Choate mount interfered with the receiver fitting into the stock. Some wood would have to be relieved.

For this task I chose the ever popular utility knife. I initially was going to cut a notch in the stock that exactly fit the mount, however I let the knife get away from me at one point and removed too much wood from the rear part of the stock. What I ended up with was a well that began at the front of the mount but continued all the way to the rear of the receiver.

This little mishap didn't affect the strength of the stock and I didn't think it hurt the looks too badly either so it didn't break my heart too badly. For anyone undertaking this project, I'd advise great care when performing this part.

I used my finishing sander to put the final touches on the stock.

There was one final modification that I wanted to make while I had the rifle apart and was already working on it. Some models of the Yugo SKS came with flip up night sights. I never liked the sight picture with them and, after replacing the stock rear sight with the Tech-sights, the front sight was pretty useless. The problem is that it would sometimes flip up inadvertantly and obscure the William's fire sight on the front. I decided to remove the night sight and get it out of the way.

The pin holding the night sight in place was peened and couldn't just be driven out (yes, I tried). This would require deployment of the handy dandy drill-o-matic again.

After drilling off the peened portion, the pin drove out easily and the night sight dilemma was solved.

After cleaning up and putting it all back together, this is what the final product looks like:

Pretty sweet huh?

Of course, after putting the effort into setting the scope up, I had to take her to the range and try her out. I didn't have time to go to the outdoor range in Creeds so I just went to the indoor 25 yard range. I knew I'd have to start out at short range to get her on paper before moving to longer ranges anyway so why put off till tomorrow...

It just so happens that there was a nice young gentleman who had already implemented many of the same modifications to his Yugo SKS as I had and even had incorporated some of the mods I have planned for the future. He gave me his email address so I could send him some info on Yugo accessories. He replied and graciously attached a good picture of his Beauty. Very nice, don't you think?

I just thought it was interesting that two people who had virtually identical ideas for their SKS' happened to be at the range at the same time.

When I first started shooting, she was printing way high and left. I adjusted and adjusted and just couldn't seem to figure out why I couldn't get it in. Imagine how stupid I felt when I realized I had installed the scope rotated incorrectly. I'm not very experienced with scopes and being left handed, my perspective was rather skewed. Yes, I freely admit that I'm an idiot but I had the windage adustment knob on the top and the elevation on the left side. Once I got the scope rotated to the correct perspective, I returned both adjustments to center and the first three shots printed right on in elevation and about three inches left.

After I got it dialed in I was very happy with the patterns it printed. The bottom left diamond was the final touches. I made a 1/2 inch five shot group almost exactly one inch high and one inch left. After dialing in the corrections, the last five shot (with the exception of one called flyer an inch high) a less than 1/2 inch group dead center.

The bottom right diamond was my final six shots of the session (I was just finishing off the box I had open). I shot that standing, offhand, quickly (not quite rapid fire, but I squeezed the trigger as soon as I got back on target from the previous shot).

Let's just say I'm pretty pleased with the performance of this setup.

When I get a chance to get her out to the outdoor range and try her at 200 yards, I'll post a range report.

The only real drawback to this setup is that the scope prevents the use of stripper clips. She has to be loaded one round at a time.

This problem doesn't bother me because after I am completely done pimping my SKS, she will be section 922r compliant and I'll be able to use detachable mags.

My next project is going to either be the Tapco T-6 Stock or replacing the grenade launcher with the screw on Muzzle Break...whichever I can afford first.

I'll keep you up to date.

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

Courtesy of The Virginia Citizen's Defense League:

The event that VCDL Board member Dennis O'Connor describes below happened in a SunTrust branch a couple of days ago.

SunTrust does not ban their law-abiding customers from legally carrying a firearm for self defense.

Had this been a Wachovia or a BB&T, both of which ban guns, the outcome would probably have been very different.

This event also underlines something that both Dennis and I believe - open carry, in and of itself, can be a strong deterrent to crime. Yes, I know - the criminal COULD do a preemptive strike against someone he sees carrying openly. But in practice such an event is extremely rare. The outcome described below is the usual case.

In analyzing the encounter, the only thing I can flaw Dennis with is not being aware of the significance of what has happening around him. But I have a law enforcement background and was trained to be on the lookout for certain behaviors and do so automatically.

The tellers at the bank, who are probably trained in how to handle a robbery, certainly knew what had just happened!

The other lesson is that crime almost always happens when you least expect it. In this case Dennis was busy getting some deposits taken care of and was focused on that task, something he has done for years routinely without a hitch. So when something unusual happened, his mind was a little slow switching gears.

Looking at it from a criminal's point of view, it was the perfect time for a holdup - the bank had just opened and there were few customers. (You can imagine that it would be much more difficult to rob a bank with, say, thirty people inside.)

In the end, this worked out as it usually does when a criminal finds himself face-to-face with an armed citizen - the criminal flees without a shot being fired.

In this more unusual case, Dennis's gun wasn't even touched or brandished!

Dennis's report:

On Tuesday the 26th of December I went down to the Sun Trust bank in
Hopewell to complete some financial transactions. I got there just as they
were opening and entered with a woman who had been waiting outside. There
were three tellers in position to the left, one customer service associate
at a desk to the right, and the manager was seated in his office to the
rear right, so there were seven of us in the bank.

I have been banking there for years and know the tellers fairly well, who
are quite used to me walking in with my holstered 1911 government model
.45 and two reserve magazines. As I was transacting business with my
teller, a man came in through the front door on this warm December morning
wearing a full ski mask, with only his eyes showing. He was wringing his
hands and glanced furtively toward the office and then swept his eyes
across the room, finally towards me and the tellers. At that, he turned
and BOLTED back out the door!

The teller next to my position was the first to recognize the implications
of what had just happened, and yelled for the manager who came rushing out
from his office. He glanced toward me before sticking his head out the
front door, looking both ways down the sidewalk, and pronouncing that the
suspicious character had apparently left the area. The same teller then
expressed her relief that I had been there, and mentioned that the next Sun
Trust down on Route 10 (Iron Bridge Road) had just been robbed the week
before.

I regret to say that I was pretty oblivious to anything but the business I
was immediately conducting, and walked out thinking no more about it as a
non-incident at the time. In fact, even later that evening I only
mentioned it as a casual after-thought in a conversation with Philip. He
urged me to write up this account of what had transpired, and I will leave
it to him to dissect and analyze the facts, psychologies, probabilities and
possible alternative outcomes.

FOLLOW UP

I went by the bank again today to make a deposit - same three tellers on
duty. I asked them if the police were called over the ski-masked intruder.
They said no, but they had all discussed the incident yesterday afternoon
and agreed that it was me standing there with a gun at Sharon's window
(first one from the door) that spooked him into changing his plans, and
they all thanked me again (although I didn't DO anything).

Cross posted on Captain of a Crew of One

The Second Amendment Foundation is mounting a legal challenge to the "Sporting Purpose" language that is used in several laws and previous rulings to restrict gun ownership.

The common propaganda sound bite used by anti-gunners is "you don't need an assault weapon to duck hunt".

Let me bring up another common excuse used by the anti-gunners: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." In other words, the only part of the Second Amendment that they seem to be able to remember.

Considering that this prefatory phrase as a grammatical construct is clearly intended as a statement of purpose, isn't it obvious that the statement of the right ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ) has absolutely nothing to do with hunting?

The right, stated in more modern terminology, basically says "Because freedom from tyranny, oppression and invasion depends upon the people being capable, sufficiently trained and properly equipped to fight as a militia, the right of each and every capable person to own, use and carry their own military grade firearm shall not be infringed."

What the heck does that have to do with duck hunting?

The thing that bothers me about this is that we in the pro-rights crowd tend to get wrapped around the axle arguing these two points separately. They bring up the "militia" statement and the "collective rights" argument and we enter into a discourse about why the clear verbiage of the Second Amendment doesn't mean what they insist upon twisting it into.

Often in the same conversation, they drop the "don't need a howitzer to hunt ducks" bomb and consider the argument closed. We then exclaim "the Second Amendment isn't about hunting" but don't explore the blatant hypocricy of their competing points.

If their first assertion is correct...i.e. that the Second Amendment only protects gun rights as they pertain to military service, then their second argument...that we don't need a specific firearm to hunt, is moot. Hunting has no constitutional protection at all other than as one of those nefarious "unspoken rights" protected by the oft ignored 9th Amendment.

So, if hunting isn't specifically protected by the Constitution, why do we need guns at all?

BECAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is about being prepared to act as a militia in times of need.

Therefore, their argument about which arms we "need" would be more appropriately used to deter ownership of non-military pattern weapons (as in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) wherein the court decided that laws prohibiting weapons that have no military application are Constitutional under the Second Amendment).

The arguments in support of hunting as a sport are for another discussion, but any arguments in support of hunting and firearms for "sporting purpose" are not Constitutional arguments by nature...except insofar as the act of hunting constitutes practice that furthers the stated objective of the Second Amendment: "a well regulated militia".

Basically, my point is this: when an anti-gunner brings up the hunting canard as a reason to ban "assault weapons", we should not only state clearly and unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, but loudly and clearly point out the hypocricy in their competing arguments that

a. The Second Amendment only protects firearms ownership for military use

and

b. Military weapons aren't required for hunting and so, are not protected.

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

Action alert from the Virginia Citizen's Defense League

----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's Gun Dealer Legal Defense Fund -- help fight Mayor Bloomberg's
scheme to cripple Virginia firearms dealers. See: www.vcdl.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or change your email address, please follow the
directions at the end of this message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Urgent! We need to roll up our sleeves and hit this hard!

Senator George Allen, keeping his word to gun owners, has introduced S 4057, the National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006, which will allow gun owners to carry in a National Park as long as the state where the National Park is located allows carry in parks!

Senator Allen needs to get the bill a Floor vote in the Senate and get it off to the House for passage that must happen before the end of the current session of Congress.

We need to do the following things ASAP to help Senator Allen MAKE THIS HAPPEN!:

1. Contact Senator John Warner and ask him to support S. 4057

Phone: 202-224-2023
Fax: 202-224-6295

Email web page:

http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

2. Contact Senator Majority Leader, Bill Frist, and ask him to fast track S 4057!

Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264

Email web page:

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm

3. Spread this email on other gun-related web sites and email lists so we can get the word out to gun owners across the nation! Send it to family, friends, and coworkers, especially those outside of Virginia. We need Senators from other states to support this bill and quickly!

Here is the web page that lists all Senators and their contact information for those not in Virginia:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

They should contact both of their Senators and Bill Frist (item #2 above).

LET'S ROLL!

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to
defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
***************************************************************************

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

To the San Francisco Chronicle in reply to This

How is it possible that a disturbed man can get a hold of a shotgun? Easy, if you want something bad enough...no matter how illegal it is...you'll get it. That's how criminals in the UK still get guns even though they have been virtually banned there. The UK is a relatively small island. If they can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals under those conditions how do you propose that we accomplish that in a large, relatively free country with porous borders like the US? Oh, that's right...make guns illegal. Then all the bad guys will just stop using them right? You said it yourself: "We know that gun-control laws on their own won't eliminate gun violence". So, if gun control won't stop criminals and crazies from being what they are, what is the alternative? How about self-defense...and the ready availability of the most effective tools to implement self-defense?

------

To the Modesto Bee in reply to This

Re: The tragedy of Gun Death Grows

"How can a milk-truck driver acquire such an arsenal in a country that's supposedly free?"

Dictionary.com:

Free (adjective)

-exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.

-able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.

The very definition of "free" answers the author's imbecilic question.

"The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

We CANNOT stop the crazies and criminals from being what they are. The best we can possibly hope for is the FREEDOM to own and use the best tools available to defend against the crazies and criminals when they inevitably come calling.

LTE in response to this

Argument No. 1: Laws already exist to get illegal guns off the street.

A: Yes, Pennsylvania has laws. But enforcing them isn't as simple as walking out the cop-shop door and catching the bad guy committing a crime in plain sight.

And your point is??? That we should only pass laws that are easy to enforce? How about if we stick to only passing laws that are effective. Oops, that leaves out one handgun a month laws (or any gun control laws for that matter...unless, of course, effectiveness is measured by how many law abiding citizens can be turned into defenseless sheep).

Argument No. 2: Handgun controls have been enacted nationally and violent crime is still on the rise.

A: Yes, and murders still occur despite the death penalty. No single measure will reduce violence. That's why House members' support for a proposal to have the state bear some of the cost of hiring more police officers is worthwhile as part of a comprehensive anticrime strategy.

You can't control crime in your own city so...penalize everyone else. And when that fails, how much more money will you need to take from others to increasingly subsidize ineffective policies? 10,000 more police officers will do absolutely nothing when coupled with a revolving door judicial system. No single measure will reduce violence? I beg to differ, the single measure of keeping criminals off the streets after they are arrested absolutely WILL reduce violence and crime.

Argument No. 3: Criminals don't care about laws.

A: Duh. If legislators are guided by that premise, they should rescind the entire criminal code. The point is to enact laws that give police and prosecutors more tools to prevent crimes or punish criminals.

Great idea, let's outlaw baggy pants and gold chains...everyone knows that the thugs who wear those getups commit all the crimes anyway right? Or we could set a national curfew between 10pm and 6am and arrest everyone outside during those hours...they're probably up to no good anyway. Heck, that would cut down on drunk driving too. Hey, I've got an idea: Rights be damned...criminalize everything. That way the Police can just arrest whoever they think might be considering committing a crime. Talk about your ultimate "tool to prevent crimes or punish criminals".

Argument No. 4: The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.

A: Yes, but every amendment comes with responsibilities and regulations. The First Amendment doesn't mean journalists can commit libel. Why should the Second Amendment be immune from limits that protect other citizens from harm?

How is the Second Amendment immune from limits that protect other citizens from harm? Isn't murder illegal just like libel? Isn't armed robbery illegal? Assault with a deadly weapon? Even just DISCHARGING a firearm is illegal in many jurisdictions even if it wasn't done negligently and no other citizens were in danger of being harmed.

Sure, a journalist can be prosecuted for libel, but what law prevents said journalist from freely exercising that right BEFORE committing the crime? What law criminalizes speech under the premise that one MIGHT use it to harm other citizens?

Argument No. 5: The more guns law-abiding citizens have for self-defense, the safer we all are.

A: There's an endless supply of guns in Iraq. Would you call Baghdad a safe place to raise a family?

That is a specious and ridiculous argument. The fact that that bit of hyperbole was the best you could do in rebuttal of argument No. 5 speaks volumes to your lack of legitimate points. Baghdad is unsafe due to an ongoing war, not criminality. If the US forces (i.e. the Good Guys...comparable to the law abiding citizens of Argument No. 5) in Iraq all gave up their arms, would that make Baghdad a safer place to live? Would the law abiding Iraqis who arm themselves for self defense against their enemies be safer if they disarmed? Don't be ridiculous.

anticrime advocates...need to fight the reelection of legislators who block reasonable gun restrictions that most Pennsylvanians support.

If they truly were "anti-crime" advocates rather than simply anti-gun, they would support measures that might actually succeed at fighting crime rather than utopian proposals that fail every time they are tried. With that said, they are free to fight the reelection of anyone they choose. If they truly are aligned with "most Pennsylvanians", they will be successful with or without the assistance of your propaganda.

This was just too good not to post. From a fellow VCDL member:

To: Mayor Gavin Newsom

City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mr. Mayor,

I have attached a news story regarding an incident in San Francisco that
occurred yesterday, August 29th 2006, in which a madman with an SUV went
on a killing spree, and ultimately mowed down 14 innocent people on the
streets of that great city. I am writing you to ask you to join with me
in taking action, because when things like this can happen, our laws and
those responsible for making and enforcing
them have clearly failed us. The current laws are clearly
inadequate for the purpose of keeping us and our children safe.

I am writing you to suggest several legislative efforts that I believe
must be undertaken as soon as possible to prevent further
carnage:

First, I deeply believe that the automobile industry must be held
ultimately responsible (and at least civilly if not criminally
liable) for this horrible tragedy that took place yesterday in San
Francisco.

Automobiles are responsible for more deaths in this country than any
other single cause. This man was driving a large, inherently dangerous
SUV. While using the SUV as it was designed to be used, which is to
create motion by means of rotating its wheels on a paved surface, the
deaths of 14 innocent people resulted. No reasonable person could
conclude that an object designed to be so large and move so fast could
be intended for anything other than to kill.

Second, we must hold accountable not only the manufacturers, but also
anyone who would sell an automobile, particularly an SUV, to any person
who may have a criminal past or who might be mentally unstable and might
use such a large, dangerous object in the commission of a crime. The
indiscriminate selling of automobiles must end.

Third, we need to insist on mandatory criminal background checks and
waiting periods for anyone who wants to purchase any new or used
automobile, and restrict the possession of automobiles to law
enforcement only in all major cities and other high crime areas, such
as San Francisco. We must end sales of automobiles between private
individuals.

Fourth, we must also determine if there are any "car show loopholes,"
and work to close them immediately.

Fifth and finally, SUV's, which are a kind of automobile that are big
and scary looking and therefore have no legitimate purpose other than to
mow people down in the ghetto, should be federally regulated and banned
for sale to anyone who is not law enforcement or who does not have a
federal automobile dealer's license.

Although I am a resident of Virginia, I will stand with San Francisco's
governing officials and offer any support I can in your fight to ban all
automobiles from the City of San Francisco, so that your administration
can blaze the trail for the rest of our great society, and so that your
children do not have to grow up living in fear. We can only hope that
one day, we can all live in a world without automobiles. Until that day
comes, I sincerely hope you will accept my help in this fight, which is
ultimately a fight for world peace. Let's put an end to the madness!

My Thanks and Gratitude,
Jack H.
Springfield, VA

I posted about this situation a while back on my now defunct blog "Captain of a Crew of One".

It was reported that the Commander of US Army Alaska has issued an order precluding his soldiers from taking advantage of Alaska's liberal self-defense policies by forbidding the carrying of self-defensive firearms...both on and off duty.

At the time that I posted about it previously, I didn't have an email address but gave a snail-mail address and posted the letter that I sent to General Jacoby taking him to task for his policy.

I just received a Virginia Citizen's Defense League alert with more information. Below I have reprinted the alert which includes an internet "contact" form for USARAK's Public Affairs Office (still no e-mail for the general, but this is better than nothing). I urge all gun rughts supporters and supporters of our troops to let Mr. Jacoby know how you feel about his policy that places the well being of his soldiers (the very people pledged to protecting OUR safety and security) at risk.

VA Alert

**********************************************************
13. Would Army Major General Jacoby rather OUR TROOPS and their
families be harmed than defend themselves?
**********************************************************

In a letter to the Army Times, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Don Clark
reveals that the 3 soldiers whose use of concealed handgun(s) was the
cause of Army Major General Charles Jacoby's recent off-post
concealed carry ban WERE QUIETLY ACQUITTED of all charges, prevailing
on their claims of self-defense!

Yet despite the revelation that OUR TROOPS carrying concealed acted
in self-defense, General Jacoby continues his edict to disarm OUR
TROOPS off base, even when on leave in Virginia!

Here is Chief Clark's LTE:

http://tinyurl.com/ffk3u [subscription required]

Arms policy is unfair

I recently learned of the policy to forbid soldiers stationed in
Alaska to carry privately owned concealed weapons off post. Alaska
law allows all citizens with an Alaska driver's license to carry a
concealed weapon without first obtaining a permit.

I understand that this policy, established in March, was in response
to several incidents involving soldiers and weapons. One incident in
particular that had a major effect involved three soldiers who killed
a civilian in self-defense. These soldiers were tried in a court of
law and acquitted ["Three soldiers cleared in fatal shooting," News
Breaks, April 3].

We are soldiers. Weapons training should be more intensive, as well
as training on the use of deadly force.

How would the above story have turned out had these soldiers not been
armed to defend themselves? We would probably have buried three
soldiers.

What a shame that the chain of command reacted in such a knee-jerk
fashion. This policy severely restricts the soldier's right to defend
himself and his family in a place where all other citizens still have
that right.

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Don Clark

Fort Rucker, Ala.

---------------------------------

It's time to melt the Alaska frost off Major General Jacoby's
Headquarters with some VCDL fire!

How about we send Army Major General Charles Jacoby a few thousand
emails via his command's webmail at

http://www.usarak.army.mil/pao/contactpao.cfm

Suggested Message:

SUBJECT: Please support OUR TROOPS & repeal your US Army Alaska
concealed carry ban!

Dear General Jacoby:

I am very shocked that you have obliterated your troops' right to
carry concealed handguns off post when off duty. It appears that you
would rather put your troops or their families at risk of harm than
to risk your career over whether one of your soldiers might do
something foolish.

48 of the 50 states in the Union trust their citizens to carry
concealed handguns in daily life. Surely you can have the same trust
in OUR TROOPS!

America's troops deserve the right of self-defense when traveling off
base and off duty, and so I ask you to repeal your 100% ban on OUR
TROOP'S right to carry concealed handguns off post when off duty.

Please let me know what you are going to do.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

YOUR ADDRESS

As many of you know, I recently shut down my blog (Captain of a Crew of One) for personal reasons...fortunately, I still have an account on The Gun Blogs so I get the opportunity to share this with the community.

Recently, a story was reported regarding a CHP holder who stopped the attack of a deranged knife wielder who was merrily stabbing co-workers at a Tennessee Supermarket. A Memphis Police Sargeant was quoted as saying "we don't encourage people to take that kind of risk, he could have been hurt."

The comment was soundly and correctly lambasted by the gun blogging community. But did he actually say it?

I've mentioned the Virginia Citizen's Defense League several times on my Blog. It is an all volunteer, grass roots organization dedicated to protecting and restoring gun rights in Virginia. I am proud to be a member of this extremely effective organization.

One of the Executive Members of VCDL, who happens to be a retired Police Officer, had his doubts about the veracity of the quote so he contacted Sargeant Higgins of the Memphis Police Department. Below is the exact text of the VCDL alert sent out to members in the words of VCDL Executive Member Dave Van:

Remember Sgt. Vince Higgins? Sure you do. He is the Memphis Police Public Information Officer who supposedly offered the quote of the day when he opined that ".....we don't encourage people to take that kind of risk, he could have been hurt". He was referring to a Mr. Cobb who stopped the rampage of a knife wielding suspect in Arlington, Tenn. Oh, now you remember? Except Sgt. Higgins was quoted completely out of context and not even quoted correctly.

I spoke with the Sarge the day after our Alert came out. He returned my call and was friendly and gracious. He had 15 years as a street cop in a nasty section of town and we swapped some stories on how departments and politics can screw things up and how reporters do a good job of screwing them up all the time.

Here's what the Sarge really said and did. When the reporters gathered the Sarge took them through the motions of what happened and what Mr. Cobb, a CHP holder did. He praised Mr. Cobb as a genuine hero from start to finish saying he acted in a totally professional manner through-out the entire ordeal. He then continued to say that concealed permit holders were top notch and he'd rather have some of them ".....backing me up than some police officers I know".

Now, I know you're wondering where in the heck that reporter got that other part from. Here it comes. The reporter asked the Sarge what he thought of citizens jumping in to help. The Sarge said that he had no problem with permit holders but if it were someone who had no training with firearms, did not know the law and had just grabbed up a gun it might not be a good idea. Guess what the reporter grabbed up and ran with. Yellow journalism at its worst. Or, just what you would expect.

Sgt. Higgins is a really decent guy and a very experienced law enforcement officer. When I told him that if Maureen and I ever got down his way on our motorcycles we'd like to stop in and buy him coffee or lunch, his reply was "no sir, I'll buy you lunch". Yeah, like I'll ever let that happen.

I'm going to delve further into this and see if I can find out who the reporter was that filed this story. Sarge says he's gotten a lot of calls criticizing him and he wants to set the record straight. Consider it done on this front Sarge.

Dave Van

Some might argue that Sgt. Higgin's true statement was almost as egregious as the reported one. I'll not get into that argument here, I just thought I'd do my part in getting Sgt. Higgins' version of the story out. It doesn't sound like he considers himself one of "the only ones" and was given a raw deal by the press. Not that this surprises me at all. I have to wonder how many of the imbecilic remarks attributed to police officers by the press are really just constructs of the reporter's imagination?

Well, I finally took the next step in the transmogrification of my Yugo SKS. I purchased the Tech-Sight TS200.

Installation was a breeze. The only difficult part was removing the takedown latch from the rear of the receiver. It has a retaining pin that is pressed into the shaft. I couldn't get it out so I used my dremel tool to grind it off. I still have the latch and could probably drill out the old pin and press in a replacement if I ever decide to go back to the original configuration.

The other alternative if the latch turns out not to be re-usable is just to use a small bolt and nut versus a latch. After trying it out this afternoon though, I doubt that I'll be wanting to take the Tech Sight off any time soon.

I also had to relieve a little wood from the port side. At the very top of the stock where the receiver extends out, the angle of the wood was different between the left and right sides. The right side was a little lower to allow for the takedown lever. I simply filed the left side down to match the right and the Tech-Sight fit perfectly.

It looks a little odd but not horribly so. I think that, after I get done applying all the mods that I have in mind the unusual rear sight will be one of the less glaringly incorrect features.

I left the Williams Firesight front sight on to see if it would work with the Tech Sight. The firesight still seems to be a bit too tall but it seems more borderline with the Tech Sight than with the Williams Rear peep site.

I think it will work but I won't really find out until I get her to an actual rifle range. The Atlantic Fleet Rifle and Pistol Match is coming up next week so I'll be pretty busy. I doubt that I'll get to Pungo for at least two weeks.

Anyway, I took it to the 25 yard indoor range at Camp Allen Marine Corps Base nearby. The sight installed per the instructions, I bottomed out the range adjustment and centered the windage according to my calibrated eyeball.

Here is a picture of the first four shots.

Note the nice clean target with no pasties on it.

I've really got to patent this calibrated eyeball thing...who needs a boresight laser?

Seriously though. Any bets on whether I'll ever be able to do that again in my LIFE?

I started out with the Tech Sight bottomed all the way out and the point of impact at 25 yards was still about two inches above point of aim.

If my guesstimates are correct, that should put me about 4 inches high at 100 yards and 1 inch high at 200. That's workable for a battle zero but I'll have to actually shoot it at those ranges to see if I'm anywhere near correct. If it doesn't work out, I can always put the original front sight back on. I REALLY like the firesight front though. I hope I can make it work.

This is an overall shot of the lane. As you can see, I really don't have a good bench rest here. The backstop can handle rifles here (up to and including .50 BMG) but the lanes are obviously designed for handguns.

I included this just to make a point: the groups were pretty tight considering. I have no doubt I can keep them within 1 to 2 MOA from a bench rest at 100 yards considering how I did with this sight setup overall.

This is my last four shots. I called the flier. It wasn't really a flinch so much as a simple wobble. As soon as it went BANG! I knew the shot was off. I know, I know...a miss isn't any less of a miss because you called it...I was just trying to make the point that the flier wasn't the fault of the rifle, it was strictly operator error.

Assuming that performance at 100 and 200 yards doesn't bring any surprises, I'd say I'm pretty darned happy with the iron sights in this configuration.

The only thing I didn't think to try was take the sight off (required for stripping and cleaning) and put it back on to make sure the zero stays true. I'll try that at the rifle range as well.

The only real complaint I have is that, with the limited eye relief due to the sight being on the rear of the receiver, the aperture could stand to be a little smaller. I obviously didn't have any real problem with it and perhaps I'll just get used to it, but it seems that the aperture is a bit too big for true accuracy (of course, the SKS is not designed for accuracy anyway so this may be a stupid gripe...it was just something that I noticed).

In any case, I'd say that the Tech Sights rear sight, whether paired with the Williams firesight front or the stock front post sight, is well worth the $60 investment at this point. I'll be able to make a more firm recommendation in a couple of weeks when I get a chance to try it out at longer ranges.

Related Posts:

SKS resources
Williams Firesight: Range Report
Williams Firesight: Installation
Troubleshooting and Repairs
First Range Report
The Purchase

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

I caught this story on the news this morning (WVEC...ABC affiliate).

A newspaper carrier fired his gun to protect himself from two teenage robbers, he told 13News. 59-year-old "Charlie" said it's the second time in the last few months he's been targeted while on his route.
... "Charlie" said it bothers him he had to resort to violence. "It's really hurting me to know that I injured somebody. I have to bear the fact that these guys were out there to hurt or injure me," he said.

Good on him.

The local paper had a blurb too, but the TV news report was more detailed.

The FOX affiliate (WVBT) had a sketchy report.

That's wierd...WAVY (NBC) had the exact same sketchy story as FOX. Update: I just figured it out. WAVY and WVBT are owned by the same company. I didn't realize that before. I guess there's no point in checking both for news stories as they will be the same. Good info for the future.

WTKR (CBS) had even fewer details and were calling the bad guy who had his attitude aligned an "adult" whereas all the others were calling him a "teen".

I'll update if any interesting new details come out.

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

Re: Weapons cache seized at home in Greenville

I'm a little confused.

According to the last sentence of your report: "The man had been licensed to own the guns, but he isn't allowed to keep them under the court order, reports said."

So. In New Jersey, legally owned firearms can be seized from someone's legal residence because someone else in the residence feels threatened?

Is there more to this story? Was the 23 year old communicating threats? Was he acting out violently? Was he using the firearms illegally? By reading your report, the impression is that the father didn't even know the Son HAD the weapons until he "discovered" them. How could he have felt threatened by that and what grounds are there for confiscating someone's personal (and expensive) property from their legal residence after having jumped through the hoops required to lawfully possess them in New Jersey?

According to your article, the only law that was broken was his possession of "illegal 'hollow-point' rounds".

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the law is that it is not illegal to possess hollowpoint ammunition in one's residence:

Title 2c:39-3 Prohibited Weapons and Devices

f. (1) "Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet,"

g. (2) a. "Nothing in subsection f. (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land..."

That seems pretty clear cut to me. But I'm sure a responsible journalist would have looked up the law and made sure it was illegal to own such ammunition before arbitrarily asserting its illegality. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how I am misinterpreting the code in question.

By the way, what genius decided that "hollow nose bullet[s]" are bad? Hollowpoints generally don't penetrate as well as jacketed rounds and, therefore, are less likely to defeat bullet resistant vests worn by the Police. Does New Jersey have something against Police? New Jersey would rather people carry jacketed rounds that are more likely to penetrate Police's protective clothing than hollow points that are less likely to do so? You people are some strange ducks. But I digress.

In summary, agents of the State of New Jersey relieved a person of their legally owned and properly licensed property because that property made someone else "worried".

What kind of Jack-booted police state are you people running up there?

Cross posted on Captain of a Crew of One

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Self Defense celebrates tonight as they peform Saltatus Cruoris once again. Their gleeful press release rings with jubilation as they revel in the fact that a criminal FINALLY used a horrible, evil, scary looking gun to perpetrate a crime. How long they have been waiting for just such a joyous occasion to exploit.

In typical Brady fashion, their release is replete with ridiculous assertions and unsupportable conclusions:

"Some day -- unfortunately not soon -- our society will do something to prevent people who act like a loaded gun from having access to a loaded gun"

Like what for instance? Like making it illegal for people who have been "committed" to a mental institution to possess guns? Oh, wait a minute...it already is. Or maybe working harder to apprehend escaped mental patients? Oh, wait a minute...he WAS apprehended...and released by the court on bond.

Oh, I get it...it wasn't the lunatics fault. It wasn't the fault of the court who released him. It wasn't even the fault of the family who apparently didn't prevent him from taking the guns...it was the GUN'S fault. Now I understand.

And just in case some of the sheep are unconvinced, plan B...lie:

AK-47s and similar semiautomatic military-style assault weapons were illegal until September 13, 2004, when Congress and the President allowed the ban to expire to please the National Rifle Association just before the 2004 elections.

...Firearms like the AK-47 and Soviet SKS Carbine have become the weapons of choice for street criminals.

"military-style assault weapons" were not illegal; only certain very specific brand names and some specific features. The SKS was NEVER banned and one could still purchase rifles EXACTLY like the (semi-automatic version of the) AK-47, AR-15 and others as long as they didn't have a bayonet lug, or a muzzle brake, or a flash hider. The "assault weapons" ban didn't ban the rifles that they like to call "assault weapons", it banned cosmetic features...period.

Oh, and Congress can ignore the wishes of the other 271 million Americans (who obviously supported the ban)...as long as they please the 4 million members of the NRA, their election is guaranteed. That, of course, explains why most of the congressthings that voted for the ban in the first place were kicked out of office in 1994. It was all the fault of that .01% of the population that are members of the NRA. The other 99.99% supported the ban, but they were helpless in the face of the evil and all-powerful NRA.

And I love that line about the "weapon of choice". First it was "saturday night specials" then it was "high powered hand guns" then it was "sniper rifles"; heck, there was an article not too long ago that named the machete the new "weapon of choice" for criminals. If we ban everything that's ever been called the "weapon of choice" we'd be relegated to eating salad with a spoon and cutting steak with a butter knife. They really need to find a new line. That one is getting a bit shopworn.

The Brady Bunch obviously has no consideration, no couth and no conscience. They have demonstrated time and time again that they will not hesitate to ruthlessly exploit the suffering of others to drive their agenda.

So take heart, friends of the Bradys; for tonight you celebrate Saltatus Cruoris.

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One