A Fine Trade for Innocent Lives

I was just reading about the Muslim nutwad who stole a front-end loader and used it to kill and injure a bunch of innocent people in Jerusalem.

This vicious, deluded individual went on a rampage, throwing cars and doing as much damage as he could do. What finally stopped him? Firearms. The best solution to random violent crime.

The first shooter was an off-duty soldier. The second was an anti-terror officer. For some reason, it took two guns to take this moron out and send him to hell, where he did not find the virgins he was promised. By the time he was dead, a large number of people had become victims.

Israel now has bizarre, suicidal gun-control legislation. When I lived there, you couldn’t walk down a street without seeing two or three automatic rifles. Now the populace is disarmed, except for a lucky few. Diane Feinstein would have fit right in, when she had her precious elitist gun permit. Chuck Schumer still has one; maybe he should emigrate.

Would this fool have tried this twenty years ago? I doubt it. When I was there, a bunch of inbred “freedom fighters” attacked a public square, and they were immediately put in their place by armed Israelis. When questioned, they said they would not have attacked, had they realized people were armed. Duh.

It seems like we now have a strange and asymmetrical situation in Israel. In “Palestine,” i.e. the bits of Israel the Jews gave away to thieving squatters, it’s okay to have a shoulder-fired rocket. In Jerusalem, you’re not allowed to have a pistol. How can anyone think that’s a good arrangement?

Arm your people, Israel. We know from experience that they don’t use weapons to commit violent crime. And we know what happens when they can’t fight back.

You Need It

I’m about to mention something wonderful, but supposedly, the site where it originally appeared has some sort of adware on it, so instead of linking to that site, I’ll link to the site where I found it.

Luckily for everyone, that site belongs to Sondra K.

It’s a T-shirt you really need. And I hope the design is also going on thongs and such.

Gun on Way

I’m starting to get into the general period when my new used Smith & Wesson 27-2 should arrive. It’s killing me. Jim really did me a service, locating this thing. I don’t ordinarily buy holsters for my guns, except for a pocket holster for the Glock 26. Man, I love having that thing with me when I run errands. I feel like I should get a holster for the 27-2. Just because it would be cool.

I always want more guns. It’s a sickness. But I realize you have to space purchases out, because if you don’t, you end up with a whole bunch of guns you don’t know very well. I bought two 1911s very close together, and that worked out okay, but you can definitely overdo it.

I think a Colt King Cobra would be a great thing to have. Seems like kind of a ghetto/trailer park gun. Good quality, but a little rough. How can you not love a gun with a ridiculous thing like “KING COBRA” stamped on the barrel? You can tell the people at Colt wanted people to shoot it while drinking King Cobra Malt Liquor.

The Python sounds disappointing because of the weak guts and frame. Part of the fun of having guns is that they will often be among the best-engineered, most well-made items you own. Can you say that about a .357 that only shoots .38 Specials? I dunno. Maybe it’s so much fun to shoot with .38s, you don’t miss real ammunition.

The 27-2 is supposed to be heavier than my 686+, which is not a wimpy piece. I don’t think I’ll have to baby it.

A Ruger would be nice. I don’t know if you have to go old when you buy a Ruger. The older Smiths are better, and there aren’t any new double-action Colts.

Liberals misunderstand the gun-collecting urge. Which makes sense, because they misunderstand nearly everything. It’s not that you want to stockpile weapons so you can fulfill a warped tough-guy image and kill your neighbors and have a standoff with the FBI. It’s just that guns are fun to collect. Like…let me think of something liberals enjoy collecting. I know! STDs! No, wait. Welfare checks. No, wait. Fatherless babies. No, still not right. Yanni CDs? Well, you get the idea.

TC forwarded a funny story. Georgia is a conservative state, but Atlanta is a liberal city. It’s like a boil on an otherwise healthy body. A Georgia lawmaker got a law passed, allowing permit holders to carry guns on public transportation, in restaurants that serve alcohol, and in parks. And he is planning to take his gun to the airport, presumably relying on the public transportation clause. The Atlanta authorities say they’ll arrest him in spite of the law.

This should be fun.

I don’t want to reflexively back the legislator. I know 911 has made airport administrators and the admittedly hysterically anti-gun FAA crazy, and I would not want to make their jobs harder. Of course, the thing is, guns inside airports aren’t the biggest terrorism worry. Guns on planes…that’s the real problem. And I think it would be impossible for a crazed Muslim to use a gun inside an airport to get on a plane. He’d have fifty red dots on him in five minutes. And the presence of hidden civilian weapons would be a real deterrent. Imagine how your heart would leap if you got a chance to splatter a jihadi’s brains in an airport. I know it’s awful, but the satisfaction would be beyond description. I’m sure they realize many of us feel that way.

I tend to think guns in airports are a good idea, and that they’ll make airports much scarier for Muslim terrorists. Maybe I’m wrong.

Civilian guns make crime a very risky business, and criminals find them discouraging and upsetting. That’s what they tell us, and for once, they’re right.

I get more excited about concealed carry every day, and not solely because I carry. I love knowing that every time I’m in a public place where a moron is likely to show up and cause a problem, there are a few weapons around me, in the hands of people the criminals and I can’t identify in advance. I love knowing that criminals know it, too. It’s like being surrounded by invisible angels.

Concealed carry means hope. Gun bans mean surrender and helplessness.

I would like to see the Atlanta authorities publicly humiliated and spanked over their efforts to nullify the state law. I am a bad person. I am working on that.

Bullet Choices

Mike swears that the next time I see him, he’ll have a firearm to bring to the range. Me, I put the odds at 30%. I truly thought I was attention-deficient until I started helping Mike shop for a pistol. Then I realized some people were out of my league. “What do you think about Glocks?” “The guy at the store wants to sell me a Taurus.” “Maybe I should get a frame for my Dan Wesson barrels.” Arggh. When did that start? Like two months ago?

I hope he’s for real this time. Mike has his own health-care staffing company, and I want to see him get rich, mainly so instead of waffling around like this, he’ll have the money to buy every gun he likes and get it over with.

I haven’t loaded any rounds for the 9mm yet. When I bought bullets for the .38 Super, I picked a size I also liked for the 9mm. Then I started reading about polygonal barrels. My bullets are hard, but they’re cast. No jackets. The Glock has a polygonal barrel, and some people believe you should not fire cast bullets through that type of rifling.

A normal barrel has raised ridges of metal inside it, spiraling from one end to the other. The bullets are gripped and turned by the ridges as they move. The inside of polygonal barrel is shaped like a polygon, in cross section. Also spiraled. Imagine the shape you would get if you put a hex nut in a soft tube and twisted it as you pulled it through. Sort of like that, except that I chose a hex nut as an example because it was familiar, not because barrels actually have six flat sides inside them. Wikipedia shows an eight-sided barrel as an illustration.

I don’t understand what goes on in a polygonal barrel that would make cast bullets a problem, but the theory is that lead will build up and obstruct things. In Glocks, like my 9mm and .40 caliber, the lead may build up in a way that prevents the shells from entering the chamber all the way, and then they may not be supported fully when they go off, and your gun explodes. This is known as “the Glock Kaboom.” It’s somewhat upsetting, as it instantly ruins your gun, and it may injure you. You can buy an aftermarket barrel to get around it.

There are those who say no polygonal barrel should be used with cast bullets. Others point out that some gunmakers who use polygonal barrels don’t advise against cast bullets. They say Glocks have a problem and other guns don’t, because of the way the chamber meets the barrel. And a lot of people shoot the brand of bullets I bought–Laser-Cast–with no problem.

So here I am with a pile of 9mm bullets I got at a good price. And I don’t know if I can use them. Something to think about, if you have Glocks and you reload.

Midway is having a pretty decent sale on jacketed bullets, so it’s possible to buy those and save the cast bullets for the .38 Super.

I’m surprised Glock hasn’t fixed the kaboom problem. If the theory about the chamber is right, and other manufacturers aren’t having the problem, it should be simple to remedy. And it harms the guns’ reputation. Imagine relying on a Glock to defend your life, while wondering if it was going to blow up in your hand. I’ll bet that’s extremely unlikely, since an intelligent person in a self-defense situation would probably use quality jacketed ammunition from a reputable manufacturer. But you still have to wonder.

I’m not sure what diameter bullets to get. I assume anything labeled 9mm will be fine, but there are choices within a range of three thousandths or so. Guess I’ll figure it out. I would hate to make reloads that degrade the accuracy of the Glock 26, which is usually a tack-driver.

I’ve Been Dying to Say That

One of the first things I did today when I turned on the PC was to check and see if the Supreme Court had issued an opinion in the Heller case. We all knew the drama would end this morning. I had to wait a while, but they finally ruled.

People are excited because they killed the DC gun ban. I don’t know why that would be a big thrill at this point. We all expected that. And we knew the court was going to rule that the dishonest far-left “militia” argument was nonsense. So there’s no big news to report yet. We still have to root through the opinion to find out exactly how helpful it is. We knew the bums were going to lose, as Mr. Lebowski would put it. What we did not know was how badly they would lose.

I haven’t read the opinion yet. If Scalia was on his game, and he got his way, it will be a clear and decisive ruling that you have to have a damn good reason to screw with the availability and use of firearms. If not, expect a limited impact. It’s possible to get a favorable decision which doesn’t do you much good.

In the first Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court opinion, the unfortunate phrase “all deliberate speed” was used. The evils of segregation were to be remedied “with all deliberate speed.” Sounded like a victory. But for years after the decision, hostile courts seized on that phrase and essentially claimed it meant “slowly.” That’s an oversimplification, but that was how it shook out in practice. If Scalia left any wiggle room in the opinion, the bums will find it, and they’ll exploit it, and we’ll see more frivolous, overly broad gun bans.

All I know about the language of the opinion is that it contains this passage: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Imagine what the bums will do with that, if it isn’t clarified. Their eagerness to exploit the phrase is revealed by the fact that this is the only phrase the liberal media is widely quoting today.

It’s a good day for right-thinking, law-abiding people who don’t have granola for brains. How good? We don’t know yet.

We can take solace in this fact. Today hippies everywhere are drinking their bathwater.

Oops. Oxymoron.

More

Here’s the holding, from the opinion. When a court issues an opinion, assuming the opinion was not written by Sandra Day O’Connor, the opinion will contain rules lower courts can apply. These rules are “holdings.” Scalia, brain that he is, laid out the court’s holding in this case in a prefatory section separate from the rest of the opinion.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Judging from this part of the opinion, it’s not too good. Clearly, states will conclude they don’t have to issue carry permits. And we can expect college students to remain prime targets for rapists and murderers, because the Supreme Court says it’s okay to ban guns in schools. The bit about unusual weapons means we can look forward to more “assault weapon” bans and restrictions on magazine capacities.

States can’t ban handguns, and they can’t make ridiculous laws making it impossible to use guns effectively in our homes. That’s all I see here. Whoopee. A few people in cities ruled by hippies will be able to buy guns, and the cities will be able to force them to get permits, and the Supreme Court has issued virtually no guidance as to how restrictive permit laws can be. So DC’s permit law will be crafted in a manner that will make it nearly impossible for anyone to qualify.

Seems to me like we got screwed.

I may be wrong because I haven’t read the whole opinion, but don’t expect me to read the entire 157-page mess. I am willing to let the wonks handle that.

More

Look at this: “Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.”

That should send chills down your spine. Look how close we came to losing the right to bear arms. If you’re one of the many idiots who do not understand that a vote for a liberal President is a vote for judges who will destroy your rights, you need to have your face rubbed in this sentence over and over. And if you’re stupid enough to stay home as a protest or vote for Bob Barr, helping Obama get elected, you deserve to live in North Korea. All four far-left judges wanted to repeal the Second Amendment, and the only thing that saved us was the presence of that perpetual embarrassment, Kennedy.

Had Al Gore won the 2000 election, we would not have Alito or Roberts, and the individual right to bear arms would no longer exist, and every one of us would be facing the possibility of total gun confiscation, with no constitutional remedy. We would have to rely on the good judgment of our state and local governments to protect us.

Full of Caffeine

Busy day today. Obligations. Connections. Whatnot. That’s why I haven’t been around.

I just put an FFL in the mail for the guy in Texas with the 27-2. Got a couple of emails from Jim, regarding pistol upgrades and care. He says not to store the gun in a holster, because it will mess up the finish. I never really thought about that, but I’ll follow his advice. I don’t have a holster, anyway.

I’ll probably want new grips, primarily in order to avoid beating up the originals. Generally, on a range gun, I’d want something rubbery. But this gun is too pretty for that. I’m thinking I should find something in walnut or rosewood. I haven’t decided.

Kim du Toit is filling my head with dreams of a Model 65, which is another Smith & Wesson .357. I will not listen. I will not. I will not.

Maybe I will. Damn it.

It’s an L frame, which means .357 rounds will wear it out. So maybe I’ll be able to resist it.

I feel horrible today. I barely slept. Last night I kept wondering why I couldn’t sleep. I didn’t drink coffee yesterday, and I only had one glass of tea. Then it occurred to me…I had eaten one item without knowing the ingredients. And sure enough, it turns out you have to be careful about protein bars. They’re putting caffeine in them now. They could say so on the label, couldn’t they? I’m really mad.

Mike will be in town this week. Hopefully I’ll be able to drag him to the range. He still has not bought a gun. Every time I hear from him, he’s looking at a different model. His current idea? The Sig 229. Looks like a Glock clone. I know nothing about it. Seems like a boring gun to me. My guess? Near-Glock performance at a Sig price. I’m sure I’ll get lots of comments for saying that.

You can get a Glock for like 600 bucks. Let’s see what a Sig costs. Yeah, this is what I figured. Cheapest web price: $778. Oh my God. You can buy a Glock now for $480. Less than I paid in 1991. I very much doubt the Sig is $300 better. And it’s even uglier than the Glock. And the Glock holds two more rounds. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.

Anyway, Mike must suffer until he buys something.

New Baby on the Way

I am out of control. And I have another blogger to blame. Jim from SOTW called me today and told me he had found a Smith & Wesson 27-2 with a 5″ barrel, in 95%+ condition, for a very nice price. How was I supposed to turn that down? I called the guy in Texas who was selling the gun, and it will be in my sweaty paws next week.

The Internet is a good place to buy most things, including new guns. But for used guns, excluding milsurps, it’s not that great. Gunbroker’s prices are completely crazy. Seems like they’re 15% over market, all the time. If you search their completed listings, you’ll see the same guns over and over, re-listed because no one was willing to pay the ridiculous reserve prices. Some shops advertise on their own websites. Generally the prices are bad. Seems like Gunsamerica has better prices; maybe it’s my imagination.

Jim did me a big favor. It’s tough to find nice guns around here, and I can’t inspect the guns I find on the web. Because I know Jim knows what he’s doing, I don’t have to worry that I bought a piece of crap.

I plan to shoot the 27-2; I have no use for safe queens. I’m thinking maybe I should put a better grip on it. That would preserve the factory grip and give me something nicer to shoot with.

I can take one gun off my buy list now.

I suppose you can’t pick one gun and buy it and then pick another and buy it, and so on. I suppose what you do is, you make a list, and then you buy as good deals become available. That’s what happened this time.

I can’t wait to shoot it! Dang, I better buy some .357 brass. I have given up on scrounging it. Thank God it’s not a semi-auto. When I’m done shooting, instead of crawling around the range like a bum looking for cigarette butts, I’ll just pop the cylinder out and remove the cases.

What if this gun shoots better than my beautiful 686+? I’ll never get over it.

Thanks, Jim. I owe you one.

Good Monday Topics

First item today: TC sent me a link to a story about Christianity in China. The Chinese have repressed Christianity, going so far as to commit widespread atrocities. But it looks like it hasn’t worked. It never does. About five percent of the Chinese people are Christians. That’s a lot, in a nation five times the size of the US. And their numbers are growing.

More exciting: the Chinese churches teach the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s extremely important. A lot of the older churches behave almost as though the Holy Spirit were an embarrassment, and that is what has torn the heart out of them and made them so disappointing to believers.

On a personal note, I was struck by the realization that once again, God was answering my own prayers, on a giant scale. The evangelization of places like China is something I include on my prayer list regularly. Looking at this story, it occurred to me that God must be guiding millions upon millions of Christians to pray for the same things, because over and over, I see my global-scale prayers answered. I don’t think God looks down and says, “Steve wants to save China, so I better do it.” I think He must be guiding huge numbers of people to pray for big-ticket items, like change in China, and answers to our energy problems, and victory over militant Islam.

Why mention it? Because it might encourage people to pray for things they think are too big for God to grant. Don’t assume you’re the only one on the job.

I’ve been very pessimistic about China. On the whole, China is our enemy. And if China ever has enough wealth and power to cause us real problems, we’ll be in big trouble. It represents a fourth of the world’s population. You don’t want an enemy that big, with a sound economy propelling it. The rise of Christianity in China is very encouraging, because it could lead to better relations and a profitable alliance. At the very least, it will weaken China’s efforts to harm us.

On the gun front, I got a comment from someone putting down the M1 carbine. As if to confirm what I said this weekend about the dangers of criticizing other people’s guns, people are firing back! They’re seriously annoyed! The commenter compared the M1 to a .22 rifle and essentially described it as worthless.

I’m not stupid; I know the M1 carbine isn’t a battle rifle. But it looks like it would be tremendous fun to shoot. It has a cartridge big enough to be considered a real rifle round, making it more fun than a .22, and it should be much more pleasant to shoot than a K31 or M1 Garand or Moisin Nagant or Mauser.

I don’t know, but my guess is, it would be an easy and fairly inexpensive reload. And each gun has history. Some have been through World War Two AND Arab-Israeli conflicts, on the proper side.

If I get one, I want a Rock-Ola, an IBM, or maybe a National Postal Meter. Simply because those are funny names to put on a gun.

Yesterday, I mentioned the fact that joining the Garand Collectors’ Association would enable me to buy Civilian Marksmanship Program surplus rifles. In a comment, a reader says he thinks a carry permit will get me in the door, with no club affiliation. If I read the CMP’s site correctly, this is not true. To buy their guns, you have to prove you’re actively involved in marksmanship, and they’ll accept a carry permit as evidence. But you still have to join an affiliated organization. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I’m still debating the purchase of a Golani, which is a Century Arms parts-bin copy of the Israeli Galil. As I understand it, this is basically an AK with some real improvements. The big knocks are a. parts gun, and b. heavy. I like the idea of buying Israeli products, even if they’re assembled somewhere else. I like the idea of a military-style rifle with cheaper, lighter ammunition than the stuff I’m used to. And I think the gun will appreciate, simply because they’re not available often. But it’s not a real Galil.

Last note on guns: pray that the Supreme Court will get it right and expand our Second Amendment rights to the greatest extent possible, without alarming Congress to the point where they can get a majority and amend the Constitution. I have to tell you, there is nothing like the sensation of walking around in stores and malls with a loaded gun. This is the power the framers wanted us to feel. Let’s not let effete wimps and hippies on our coasts take it away from us. I hope everyone at the BATF and the Brady Center has indigestion for the coming month.

Speaking of the BATF, I’m holding my breath until I get the go-ahead to cruffle. Once that happens, look out.

Once again, I apologize for falling behind on email. I’ll try to fix it up today. I have been distracted by BS, but things have cleared up.

Useful Knowledge

I am taking a break from Sabbath festivities. I find that you can only go so long without a break. Which is odd, since the Sabbath itself is a break.

I have been utterly irresponsible about answering emails and responding to comments lately. Sorry about that. If you’re waiting for my explanation, you will be waiting a long time, because I don’t have one.

One comment I should have mentioned: I bitched that I couldn’t join the Civilian Marksmanship Program and get decent prices on M1s and M1 carbines, and reader Gromulin pointed out that I can join the Garand Collectors’ Association ($25) and qualify that way. All the clubs near me were high school ROTC outfits, and I didn’t think I could pass. Great comment. Very useful.

Now I have a question. Is it worth it to join the CMP? Seems like they don’t have a great selection of rifles. And the prices on Gunbroker and Gunsamerica seem about the same.

Another question: can anyone explain how M1 carbine collecting works? Apparently, when you buy a rifle, they identify it by manufacturer. BUT–I think–some rifles are relatively pure, and others aren’t. In other words, you may buy an IBM rifle and find that it’s as it was when IBM shipped it, with mostly IBM parts. Or you may buy an IBM rifle and find out it was refurbed with used parts from other makers. If I understand what I’ve read, there’s a big difference in value, and that makes buying confusing.

Irate Gun Owners Respond

Yesterday I made an admittedly speculative comment, stating that I thought .38 snubnoses were obsolete. I still think that’s true. The .38 is a weak round; even the +P is not great, and it doesn’t work in all .38 Special pistols. And you only get four or five shots, and the tiny barrel makes the gun hard to aim, and high-recoil +P loads would seem to exacerbate the problem. I suggested that the Glock 26 was a better idea. It’s extremely accurate; you can put bullets right on top of each other at 7 yards. It holds eleven rounds safely, if you holster it right. It’s reliable. It’s light. It’s small. And you can get deadly, low-recoil ammunition for it. What’s not to love? Glocks are boring and ugly, but they work.

But that’s not what I want to write about. I want to write about the response I got. I clearly annoyed people! I didn’t say anything about them; I just offered an opinion about firearms. And I still made people mad. The lesson I learned is this: criticizing a gun (or type of gun) a person likes is like saying that person has an ugly baby. They really hate it.

So I guess I’ll have to tread lightly in the future.

I don’t identify with my guns too much. You can insult them all day, and I won’t care. With one exception. When I was 12, my dad bought me a Remington Nylon 66 rifle, which has a SPACE AGE DUPONT ZYTEL™ stock. And my buddy Mike insists on calling it a “plastic gun.” Every time we talk about guns, he says “plastic” like nineteen times. I have to take this, from a guy whose only current gun is missing a frame. That’s right. Mike STILL HASN’T BOUGHT A 1911. He used to have a Dan Wesson .357 with three different barrels, and some crackhead stole the frame, so all he has are barrels. But hey, at least they’re not plastic.

The general rule is, I don’t take it to heart when people make fun of my guns, so I guess I didn’t realize how much I could upset other people by criticizing their pathetic backward underpowered lovely snubnoses.

As a means of sucking up, I’ll point something out. I love revolvers. It was only recently that I became fond of the 1911. When I graduated from law school, I bought myself a present: a sweet Smith & Wesson 686+, not an automatic. That should tell you something. I’m dying to get the 27-2 .357 with a 5″ barrel, which Jim from SOTW recommended, and I think I’d also like a Model 29, just because Dirty Harry used one. And I have dreams of owning a USFA Peacemaker clone. And a Colt King Cobra. And maybe a Python. And a few others.

I could actually see buying a nickel-plated Jack-Ruby-style .38 and putting pearl handles on it, since it’s a pimp gun from the word “go.”

My dad has a Smith & Wesson snubnose; maybe I’ll take it to the range to shut everyone up. I believe he inherited it from my mother. My grandfather had a habit of giving his daughters snubnose revolvers from time to time. When I was a kid, my mother had a rusty Colt. I believe he gave that to her when she got married. Is that foresight or pessimism?

Oh, crap. Marv has released himself on his own recognizance. Hold on while I put him back in custody. I still don’t know how he does that. He only releases himself when he’s sure I’m not looking. And naturally, he clambers over as close to Maynard as he can get, as if he is eager to feed him another toe.

I think I would like to take a chunk of money and sink it into some decent used firearms. Fireable milsurps and lightly used civilian arms. And maybe some new items which are likely to be banned eventually, such as the “Golani” Galil clone Century Arms is making available for $700. I wouldn’t want as-new guns I couldn’t shoot. Collecting those is pathetic. It strikes me as a grotesque waste, putting a gun in a safe and waiting for it to be destroyed by rust or fire instead of shooting it. Seems to me that if I bought wisely, the guns would only appreciate, and they would enrich my life.

In addition to the revolvers, I’m considering picking up a couple of really nice walnut K31s. Also a Colt Woodsman, an M1 carbine, maybe a Lee-Enfield .303, a Finnish Mauser, and a Swedish Mauser. How can you go wrong with K31s? They’re great guns, and you can get a beauty for $240, and the importer is local, so I can pick them out in person. I worry that the availability of ammunition will suppress their value; don’t know if that will actually happen.

Enjoy those snubbies. Marvels of engineering that they are.

Dead Men Can Kill You

Earlier today I mentioned a reference which claimed to debunk the notion that there is such a thing as one-shot stopping power. I finally found a place where you can read it. A PDF can be found on this thread at The High Road: CLICK.

The PDF contains a piece written by FBI employees. Here’s a quotation:

In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the
officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

That was the part that got me wondering if center-of-mass is always the right choice.

Here is a more disturbing quotation:

“Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing to hit the center nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart, or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10 to 15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.”

That’s interesting. John Lennon was shot through the aorta, and at the time, the authorities claimed he died instantly. Maybe that was an exaggeration.

One lesson you can definitely take away from this is that you don’t want to be in a situation where you have to shoot to defend yourself. You may kill your assailant and still get carved up.

Even Worse Than Guilt

Sondra K. wanted to know if I could offer gun advice to a female blogger who lives somewhere in my general area of the state. I’m not qualified to give advice, but I tried to direct her to some better resources. And I blogrolled her; can’t believe she wasn’t already on the list.

I don’t know what a woman should carry. The Glock 26 comes to mind. Some people recommend .38 snubnoses, apparently on the theory that women are too stupid to operate semi-automatics, but the .38 is not a good defensive round. If it’s not for carry, maybe a .410 shotgun is the way to go.

While I was looking for stuff to recommend, I came across an interesting report about the uncertainty of stopping an assailant with one shot. People like to criticize the 9mm pistol, and a sort of worship has developed around the .45 ACP round, but apparently some criminals barely notice 230-grain .45 ACP shots to the chest. They persist in attacking and then survive. How about that?

What’s the lesson here? Maybe the lesson is that you should shoot for the face, if you are capable of doing so. I know from watching shooters at the range that most people can’t do it, even up close. But many can. If you’re an experienced shooter, and you’re in a self-defense situation, it may well be possible for you to aim well and shoot the attacker in the brain. It wouldn’t work well if you were rushed, but I’m sure that if people who have been in gunfights could be questioned, an appreciable percentage would say they had time to aim. People always say to shoot for the center of mass, but every situation is different. Isn’t it a mistake to rigidly adhere to principles that don’t work well in every situation?

Another thought: maybe using a pistol to defend yourself is just plain stupid, when you could just as easily reach for a shotgun. Where movement is restricted, or where you have to carry on your person, a shotgun won’t work well. But in your house, why not? A shotgun is much more destructive, and because it has a long barrel (not because of the mythical giant pattern that covers an entire wall), you’re less likely to miss. And you can mount a light and a laser on it, and you can crush a burglar’s skull or testicles or push his teeth down his throat with the butt. The big drawback, I would guess, is low magazine capacity. But some shotguns hold a fair amount of ammunition.

I think a great idea would be to buy a high-capacity autoloader, put a laser and light on it, and pay the fee for a short barrel. I think you have to pay an extra $200 if you want to possess a “sawed-off” shotgun. Geez, that sounds like a bargain.

Finally, we are not devoting enough effort to point-shooting, which is shooting without using sights. I used to point-shoot an old CO2 pistol a lot, and it’s easy to get to the point where you really can’t miss at room-to-room distances. With a long gun, it’s even easier. Give me a day of practice, and I’ll be able to hit man-size targets from the hip all day long at 7 yards, even if they’re moving. A skill like that would be a horror for a burglar or even a team of burglars to face. For those times when you can’t aim carefully, a shotgun fired from the hip would be a life-saver.

I also ran across a news video of an interview with a man who was forced to kill two robbers with an 11-shot pistol. Sounds like he may be a Glock 26 man. This poor guy had a string of ghetto apartments, and he and his wife were cleaning one to get it ready for renting, and two idiots in ski masks came into the apartment and menaced him with some sort of pistol that looked like an Uzi. He managed to shoot both of them twice, hitting one in the face. They both died at the scene. I admire him tremendously. He fully expected to die, but he was determined to save his wife, so he pulled his gun and fired, and thank God, he survived. But it’s not really a happy ending. These jerks made him take their lives, and now he has to live with the memory and the reputation.

They knew he had rent money in his wallet, and the robber holding the gun told him he was going to die. Helpful hint for robbers: don’t tell your victims they’re going to die. Tell them everything will be fine if they cooperate. Otherwise, they have nothing to lose, so they fight back. This guy would probably have handed over his wallet, had he believed they would leave. I certainly would. Unfortunately, criminals are sadistic as well as greedy, so they enjoy terrifying their victims, hence the pointless and counterproductive death threats.

Send me One

Here’s an interesting fact for people who, like me, are cleanliness and order freaks.

Shut up.

It turns out that once you have an electric dishwasher, it is not possible to wash dishes by hand any more. It’s true! The dishes just pile up on the counter. How about that?

I guess now I should launch into a story about how I spent half the day under the house, talking about pipes. But I won’t.

Now that I’m not under the house, I am taking a second look at the M1 carbine.

This is an interesting gun. When I was a kid, I had a Crosman M1 replica BB gun, which I loved. The peep sight was way better than the sights on my old Daisy lever action, and the BBs flew a little faster. Believe it or not, a BB gun is pretty accurate as long as you’re shooting short distances. I liked the styling of the gun and the way it felt in my hands. I would assume that a real M1 carbine would feel the same way. Actually, I know it does, because my grandfather had one, made by Universal. But I never shot it.

I’m talking carbines here, not the M1 Garand, which is the big .30-06 job used for combat. I had to look up “carbine” the other day, because I realized I didn’t know what the word meant, and it turns out it just means “small rifle.” I had this vague notion that it meant “semi-automatic rifle,” but I was wrong. The Winchester Model 1892 lever-action rifle (pant, pant) is a carbine.

Carbines are typically used by people who need rifles but don’t need them badly enough to justify big, heavy guns. Cooks, drivers, and officers are examples. Also cavalrymen and paratroopers. There are soldiers who don’t expect to find themselves in heavy fighting, yet who want something better than a pistol when they get in trouble.

I wonder if the horrible accuracy of military-issue 1911 pistols is part of the justification for the M1. When my father was a prison guard in the Army, they told him the best way to use a 1911 was to put it in a prisoner’s ear. Actually, I suppose all pistols are inaccurate for the majority of users. A shooter who can consistently hit you at thirty feet is well above average.

The M1 carbine shoots a little-bitty .30 caliber bullet that has a muzzle velocity of something like 1900 fps. Works okay up close, but not so great farther out, where the speed drops off. It has been compared to a .38 Special. I’ll bet that’s totally wrong. An M1 round has about 1.5 times the energy of a .357 Magnum.

The M1 carbine has been criticized for bad accuracy. That’s too bad. I can’t stand a gun that won’t shoot where I point it. I suppose there must be a way to make one shoot straight. Maybe a new gun (Auto-Ordnance/Kahr Arms) would shoot better than a milsurp. But a milsurp would have more soul. As I understand it, you can buy a carbine that was used by Americans in World War Two and then shipped to Israel for use by the IDF. Is that history, or what?

I’m checking the web…looks like the Kahr M1 shoots very well. Geez…this is a puzzle. The milsurp rifles have a reputation for bad accuracy, but the new ones are…new. And they depreciate.

The carbine is cheaper than the Garand. That’s nice.

Seems to me that this thing would be a nice step up from a .22 plinker, without the pain of .30-06 recoil. But couldn’t you say the same thing about Kahr’s delicious Thompson semi-autos in .45 ACP? The problem with those is that the accuracy is deplorable. A gun rag says the spread is over 3″ at fifty yards. I’ll bet my .45 pistol could approach that, from a machine rest. I wonder why the Tommy gun is so inaccurate.

Here’s something funny. M1 carbines were contracted out to a number of different manufacturers during the war. So you can get a carbine made by IBM or even Rock-Ola, the jukebox company. I think I’d want a Rock-Ola. How can you beat that for historic weirdness?

Some people like the Winchester-made rifles, but I have read that they had terrible QC issues.

It’s very hard, trying to get straight info on these rifles. I’d be afraid that if I bought one for what seemed to be a good price, I’d find out later that I had missed some important characteristic that lowers the value.

Anyway, I need one.

Papers in Play

Looking at Colt Woodsmans got me thinking about cruffling, so I got the process going.

This was a bad idea. I can see where the bulk of my net worth is going to end up.

Compulsive

I finally buckled down and rooted around the web and found out exactly what kind of Colt Woodsman pistol my grandfather had. It was a second series gun with bakelite grips and a 6″ barrel. And I found a few promising old guns for sale. Looks like they range from $500 to $900 for pretty much the same item. I figure I should be able to find a good one for $600 to $700. I still wish I knew which of my cousins ran off with my grandfather’s gun. I should go ahead and send a mass email and ask. Otherwise, someone will probably trade it away. I’m the only grandson who ever shot it with him, so I’m sure it has no meaning to anyone but me.

He had a couple of big S&W .357 revolvers. I believe they had 4″ barrels. I let those go instead of buying them from the estate. They had no sentimental value to me. Now I’m kicking myself. They may have been 27-2s.

Problem with the Woodsmans I found: they all have holster wear, to one extent or other. My question: is it possible to repair holster wear on an old blued gun without ruining it?

I’ve put bluing on my Romak III, and it looks swell, but considering the finish it came with, that’s about as daring as whitewashing an outhouse.

Seems like Gunbroker has horrible prices on anything that’s popular, but obscurer weapons are not as bad.

Am I crazy to want to try a Colt King Cobra? Anaconda guts in .357…how can that be bad?

My dad used to have a Trooper Mk. III in nickel with a 4″ barrel. Marvelous gun to hold in your hand. But this is Miami, so naturally it was stolen.