The Gun Blogs

It's funny when parody can become official Government fact. It's sad when the Brady Campaign parrots that information as if it were holy writ and actually uses it to further their own agenda. Talk about getting suckered on both sides by a gag!

Read more about their ineptitude here.

I am looking to buy another shotgun and I found a good used Winchester 1300 (with 3 chokes) for $289. However, on Winchester's website they advertise their new Speed Pump Walnut Field for just $399 + tax. I was wondering what the difference is between their new shotgun and their old shotgun? Is it just a remake of the model 1300 with the ability to shoot steal shot out of the barrel?

I'm looking for thoughts from folks on this topic. 18 USC 926(a) specifically prescribes against the establishment of systems of licensing and registration for owners or guns and yet, States seem to do it.

Am I misreading the law here? If so, please clarify? If not, please tell me how registration of any gun or licensing of owners (IL FOID anyone?) are legal under this statute? I'd love legal opinions from lawyers who deal with 2A cases.

Just wondering aloud, folks. This is a pet peeve of mine.

While there are exotic arms which fire the .50 BMG the .500 Magnum is the current "over the counter" big kid on the block. The cartridge was developed by Cor-Bon with the "X-Gun engineering team at Smith & Wesson for use in their Model 500 revolvers and introduced in February 2003 at the SHOT trade show. Currently only a handful of models have been introduced that fire this massive caliber, including the X-Frame Model 500 revolver from Smith & Wesson, Magnum Research's "BFR" (Biggest, finest revolver), the Taurus Raging Bull and German Janz JTL-E 500. Each holds only five rounds to allow for thicker cylinder walls to accommodate the pressure generated by such a large and powerful cartridge.

It is claimed to be the most powerful handgun cartridge commercially manufactured with over 2500 ft·lbf (3.5 kJ) of energy created with a 440 gr (29 g) bullet travelling at 1625 ft/s (495 m/s). Some loadings can even achieve muzzle velocities of 2300 ft/s using a 325 grain (21 g) bullet. This produces a muzzle energy of over 3817 ft/lb. A good average is 350 Grains travelling at 1975 ft/s.

Bullet weights available for this cartridge, range from a 265 grain jacketed hollow point, to a 700 grain cast lead bullet. Moderate velocity, heavy bullet loads from the .500 S&W Magnum are similar in performance to the black powder .50-70 Government.

So, how does this stack up to say, being hit by a small car?

2,000 lb Car20 mph = 29.4 ft/s Light Car= 2,000 lbs. = .05 X (2,000 X (29.4X29.4)) = 86,436 ft/lbs
350 Grain .500 Magnum1343 mph = 1975 ft/s 350 Grains= .05 lbs. = .05 X (.05 X (1975X1975) = 9,756.5 ft/lbs

The base argument, and you would be right, is that the bullet translates its energy more efficiently as it has a smaller surface area. This being paper science does not take into account the surface area of contact which will reduce the amount of weight usable in transferable energy, but it does give us some idea of the equivalent potential energy. It also does not take into account the pull of gravity which effects the energy of objects in flight.

To level the field if we add in the pull of gravity we can better see the differences in terms of base energy which is closer to the advertised energy of the .500 magnum.

2,000 lb Car20 mph = 29.4 ft/s Light car= 2,000 lbs. = .05 x (2,000/32.4x(29.4X29.4) = 2,667.76 ft/lbs
350 Grain .500 Magnum1343 mph = 1975 ft/s 350 grains= .05 lbs. = .05 x (.05/32.4x(1975X1975) = 2,971.64 ft/lbs

The intended design for this cartridge is for big game hunting and wilderness protection, as well as for ultimate defense (bears, etc). As we see from our calculations the energy from the 350 grain .500 Magnum is very close to a car travelling at 20 miles per hour, though I wouldn't expect the same results. So I imagine the cartridge is pretty well suited for its intended purpose.

So please, shoot as you drive, safely and with one on on the road. You thoughts, as always, are much appreciated.

Link Textwww.gunshopping.blogspot.com

I'd almost give this a hearing, except that Bloomberg is bellowing for it. That makes it more than a little suspect in my mind.

The bill, S. 1237 / H.R. 2074, was introduced by Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and, for the first time, allows the Department of Justice to prohibit known and suspected terrorists from buying a gun. Currently, terror suspects are not prohibited from purchasing firearms. This bill gives the Justice Department the authority to block such purchases. “It defies common sense that nothing in our gun laws prevents terror suspects from buying a firearm. This 'terror gap' in our gun laws has been open too long and my bill will close that gap,” said Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ). “One of the most glaring mistakes in preventing 9/11 was the government’s failure to share information and connect the dots,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “As you remember, 2 of the 19 hijackers were on a terrorist watch list, yet they were allowed to board an airplane. Today, suspected terrorists cannot fly – but they can still buy guns. We just can’t afford to wait for another attack to take these kinds of basic, common-sense precautions.”

Well, it might be a good idea if the country didn't have a thing called a constitution. Where did they get the idea that you can now punish people because you "suspect" that they are bad? Last I knew punishment could only come after a trial by ones peers.

And how is this common-sense? Last I heard the terror suspect list was a warning tool. It doesn't have any way of vetting the suspects. Hell, it's had children and politicians on it, yet they still are flying. Common sense would dictate that the list actually have vetted intelligence and some specificity to who exactly they are worried about rather than just a name.

No doubt that a terrorist can use guns to great effect, as was seen in Washington D.C. area Beltway snipers. But take a second and think this through. If they can't get them legally, what makes you think they won't have ways of using their network of sympathizers to assist them with a straw-purchase or just a plain old theft?

Currently, there are nine factors, such as status as a felon or evidence of serious mental health problems, under Federal law that disqualify an individual from buying a gun – but being a known or suspected terrorist is not one of those factors. The government is powerless to stop a gun sale to a terror suspect unless he also meets one of the nine disqualifying factors. The Lautenberg / King bill gives the Department of Justice the ability to use terror watch lists to prevent a terror suspect from purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The bill also allows the Department of Justice to prevent known and suspected terrorists from working with explosives and from becoming a federal firearms license (FFL) holder. These DOJ determinations would be subject to judicial review and, under the bill, a suspect would have the opportunity to challenge the determination in federal court.

Challenge it in court? How will that work when you can't even challenge your name being on the terror suspect list now?

This is security theater at its worst. All we need now is some screeching harpy bellowing that it's for the children.

Go ahead and enact it. It is worthless and will remain so.

Can anyone out there with experience with NRA Smallbore competition give me some recommendations for a good .22LR rifle. Budget is up to $1000.

More info here.

Many thanks.

Hey guys we have lowered our prices even more so come check us out again.

We now have photos for our products as requested.

Prices dropped anywhere from 10-30% and with our flat rate shipping of $25.00 we are without a doubt the Cheapest place online to purchase your firearms.

www.actionpawn.net

Just in courtesy of the Guntards is a new bill from Diane Feinstein that would make the .50BMG and equivalent "copycats" (and not in caliber either) NFA "destructive devices".

For those in Maryland, Barbara Mikulski is a co-sponsor.

More here.

Not really newsworthy but nice to see it is still policy for Barrett Rifles to refuse sales and service to any State who has banned the .50 caliber from citizen ownership.

Hat's off to them!

Perhaps the silliest anti-gun website on the net, .50 Caliber Terror tells us that

The .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle puts us all at risk whenever we fly an airplane.

.

Here's point-by-point analysis of the site.

This evening I was able to post a short interview with Republican Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter.

Here is one question:

1. Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?

“The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.”

The rest of the interview is here.

[cross posted from my new blog at http://outdoorlogic.blogspot.com]

A self described "liberal with a temper" posted this blog post saying she is "Thanful for restrictive handgun laws." She goes on to say "I am in the foulest of moods."

So, she seems to fear she'd go on a rampage were she to have a gun. Guess that's why lots of liberals want to ban my guns...if they don't trust themselves, why would they trust me?

Sure, she may be just making a joke here, but I'm sure there are many liberals out there that actually believe that.

From Alphie comes the news I've been waiting to hear:

The St Jude Machine Gun Shoot is taking place and Range USA on September 23rd from 1-6 pm.

The last time I went, I got to shoot a .45 caliber MAC 10 on full auto, a .458 Win Mag, and a Mauser Broomhandle. It's a good way to gain experience in weapons you wouldn't normally have access to.

When I went up to the MAC 10 station, the guy asked me if I'd ever fired a machine gun before. I fought back the usual smartass answer (Yes, and submachineguns like this one, too)and let him do his job. Best to keep the cadre in their comfort zone, especially when they are dealing with folks who haven't fired anything on full auto before.

I think this year I'll spend the big bucks and shoot everything they have. It's for the children after all. =)

Seems this bill has had more support than I would have originally expected.

The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency.

Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves.

"Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication,"he said."It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911."

The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill. The limitation would apply to federal law enforcement or military officers, along with local police that receive federal funds.

As anticipated, those who are against the bill had little intelligence to support their position.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., repeatedly called the bill"insane."

He and some Democrats said the bill might satisfy the gun lobby, but it would put people into more danger during already perilous disasters. "The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense,"said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

Well, maybe that's just how they were quoted. Or not.

The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed the measure. In a letter to Jindal, National President Chuck Canterbury said law enforcement officials concentrate on search and rescue during major disasters, and breakdowns in communications and transportation can lengthen police response times to calls. "A law-abiding citizen who possesses a firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first responder,"Canterbury wrote.

The police get it. At least at this level. But I'm certain that the gun grabbers would prefer that the police be going door-to-door confiscating guns instead of responding to emergencies. And in fact, that action would leave a wake of emergencies that the police wouldn't have the ability to respond to. Once the civilians are stripped of their means of defense, the criminals are free to plunder. But let's not bother pointing that out to the gun-grabbers.

Here's a link to the bill if you're interested. And here is the related senate bill.

Lots of corn on the ground and a big boar coon in the trap. He's now in the corner of the pasture waiting on Black Vultures to start the cleanup. He bled all over the trap so I expect they will steer clear for a while. I moved it out of the feeder area by five yards. The useless moultrie 100 had nine photos. Seven of them were white-out overexposures and the other three were of me setting the trap. Nothing of the coon IN the trap which was squarely in the photo zone.

The other Moultrie had 245 photos in two days, one of which is attached. This is going to be a nice buck, but not a trophy. Very thick bases and a narrow but high tines. He might be Big Ten from last year. His body looks about at the 3 1/2 year mark.

Well it's about time.

A lawsuit in the District against gunmakers was dismissed yesterday by a D.C. Superior Court judge who ruled that the suit was precisely the sort of claim that a new federal law was intended to block.

In a 37-page opinion, Judge Brook Hedge wrote that the city and the federal government had two competing policies, and only one could prevail.

The D.C. Council, she wrote, had determined that assault weapons have "little or no social benefit but at the same time pernicious consequences for the health and safety of District residents and visitors." Congress, however, "has trumped local law by passing legislation to protect the profits of such manufacturers," she wrote.

The suit, filed by the city and by victims of gun violence and their families, aimed to hold gun manufacturers liable for the flow of firearms into the District and for the carnage created by the sale of illegal weapons.

And now we get to wait for the appeal. Might as well punish the gunmakers with as many legal fees as they can while they can.

In thinking about statistics and how they are used by every gun control advocate from Sarah Brady to Michael Bloomberg,it occurred to me that perhaps we should use some of our own. Admittedly this idea will be much more effective when you are talking to that sister or neighbor or uncle or talkative stranger in the taxicab than it would be to a large audience. Someone with whom you have established a rapport that predisposes them to at least listen, and maybe with a tendency to trust what you say.

Ignorance and prejudice feel safe in a crowd, so this may not work when speaking to a large body of people. But, let's face it, we have to reach every person we reach on a personal level to convert them to liberty and to the belief in the legitimacy and the desirability of the right to keep and bear arms. We already have the independent thinkers. Our belief in the right to keep and bear arms, to us, is the natural order of things and has been sanctified by our founders. We know this. The victims of 'groupthink' do not. They know what they have been told, and will adhere to it as long as they have the support of the crowd.

Ergo, we must lead them to the second amendment and its impact on our national life and psyche either individually or in small groups where discussion isn't suppressed through the weight of numbers.

I sat down and figured out my personal statistics in part tonight. My inspiration was all those signs that one sees at the entrances to workplaces. You know the signs I'm talking about. The ones that say "____ days without a lost time accident". Proudly proclaiming how safe they are. Or "We have worked _____ manhours without injury". I think that is great, but it occurred to me that I have a much better record than any jobsite or factory or workplace whose sign I have ever witnessed. I have never seen one in the millions of manhours without injury.

I can beat their records. The formula is this: number of guns owned or possessed x number of years owned X number of days in a year & 1 day for every leap year X number of hours in a day. Adjustments of course are made for the varying lengths of time each firearm is owned.

I have gone 1,648,008 (one million six hundred forty-eight thousand eight)hours approximately without a lost time firearms accident or firearms injury to any human party(even minor).

I have read repeatedly that there are 80 million gun owners in America, many of them owning as many or more guns than I do, many owning less. If we accept that I am average, and offset those 80 million with the relatively few accidental or intentional misuse of guns we arrive at a safety and responsibility record unmatched by any other group of any other endeavor. Yet we retain the ability to protect ourselves and others.

Here is the point I have taken too long in making: Figure out how many manhours you have safely possessed a firearms without any injury to any human so that you can state it in conversation or debate and challenge others to name any one endeavor of their own that has such a record of responsible use. I dare say there will be no viable challengers.

Comments with your injury free manhours would be appreciated and I believe would be an eye-opener for all of us as to just how safe we are while retaining the means to protect our persons and liberty.

I have been informed that my first post was put in moderation. I assume that is for review, because it did not mention guns.

It didn't. It addressed the spirit of Americans, without which the tools of freedom are useless. We are unique among nations because the citizen is the repository of power. We may bestow power to the state, but the state has no rights. This is just exactly opposite every other nation ever on the face of the earth.

I note here that the second amendment doesn't address guns either. Arms are what are addressed, today, that is almost synonymous with guns, except for the second amendment doesn't limit us to guns.

As a destination for immigrants of every stripe it behooves us to steep them in what it is to be American. With all the rights and duties attendant in that. This is of paramount importance since no matter where every single immigrant originates he has lived as a subject at the sufferance of government and comes with cultural and traditional predispositions to accept that the state has the right to regulate who may be armed. We have enough domestically born people now with this same ignorant belief.

We are not allowed to make them take a test or learn anything about our founding or the constitution nor the constitution's teeth that protect the citizenry, the second amendment. We should not miss this opportunity with those that come here.

That was the purpose of my first post, to lay down a base on which to build and why it is important that we have the means to protect that structure from all that would mar it. First the spirit of liberty, then learn the tools.