Category: The Gun Thing

Not just the guns, but all the stuff that goes with them

In Memoriam

Bad News, The Gun Thing

I see that John Linebaugh — founder of the “Never Mind The Recoil, See The Dead Elephant Over There” school of large-bore handgun cartridges — has fired off his last round and gone to join JM Browning and Paul Mauser at Vulcan’s knee.

And what better way to commemorate the man than by showing what he was all about, with this Magnum Research monster in .500 Linebaugh?

Just looking at that bad boy BFR makes my wrist ache… but I gotta tell you, unless you’re hunting blue whales or Tiger tanks, you are not going to be undergunned.

R.I.P. John, gone too soon.

Getting Re-Acquainted

Advice, The Gun Thing

From Reader Scott O. comes this request:

My wife is interested in getting back into shooting. She grew up around guns and shooting but with the demands of child-raising her skills atrophied. She wants to remedy that situation and also to have a handgun of her own. Her ultimate goal is to have a home defense handgun that she can shoot proficiently which is also pleasant to shoot recreationally.

Our initial plan was to go to the local gun shop/range and rent a few to find one she liked. We did that a couple of times but it became apparent that she needs a lot of practice to regain her skills. We’re thinking now that we get her a .22 first and another handgun later. That would allow her to redevelop her skills at a lower cost and then when it comes time to get the larger caliber she can focus on choosing one that suits her without being distracted by poor marksmanship.

She much prefers revolvers, which is a bit of a problem since most of what’s on the market are semi-auto. Would you give your opinion on our plan and some advice on choosing a .22 revolver?

So far, you’re batting 1.000 in that you’ve done the logical first steps towards choosing the proper gun — renting different models, figuring out her preferred type, realizing that this would be the training piece prior to getting a home- / self-defense gun, and so on.  All good stuff, and well done.

Here are my thoughts.

  • Pick a .22 revolver which holds more than six rounds.  In the past, this was problematic, because few did;  nowadays, however, there’s a plethora of models available.  The reason I suggest this is that my own experience shows that just when you’re starting to get the hang of the shooting, there’s a “click” and you have to break your grip and stance to reload.  Also, more is almost always a good idea.
  • You didn’t say whether your wife is comfortable shooting a heavier gun like, say, the S&W 617 (which is a bit of a beast, relatively speaking).  If she isn’t, then you may want to disregard my recommendation above, and settle for a decent six-shooter instead.  However, if she’s going to shoot a heavier (self-defense) piece later, let’s assume that this is not a problem.
  • I myself prefer to shoot a single-action .22 revolver, but that’s because I like to take my time shooting rimfires.  Almost everyone else — and certainly beginners — prefer the double-action type, so I’m not going to argue the point.  Get a double-action revolver, then, but let me at least mention what I think is an excellent choice for a single-action 10-shot revolver:

Ruger Single-Ten (in short- or long barrel, blued or stainless)

…but as a longtime owner of the Single-Six version, allow me to mention that the old-fashioned reloading process is a PITA.  There are also cheaper options available (e.g. the Heritage Rough Rider or the Traditions model), but the Ruger has an adjustable rear sight and anyway, I’m assuming that you care for your beloved wife and want her to have the very best. [/wiseass]

Now for the double-action choices.  Here’s the aforementiond S&W model:

S&W Model 617 (with barrel-length options, stainless only)

…and just as nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM, nobody will ever sneer at your S&W revolver.  Good, reliable guns, albeit a tad spendy.

But here’s what I think is the best choice:

Ruger GP100 Standard

Reasons:

  • It’s a Ruger;  it ain’t gonna break.
  • The double-action trigger is a little heavy (because it’s a Ruger), but your local gun wizard can take care of that for you, as likely would a few bricks of practice ammo.  (And some .22 snap caps are your friend, for dry-firing practice:  true for whatever gun you finally decide on, of course.)
  • Ruger makes a .22 speedloader for the GP100, thus making the whole reloading thing a lot easier.  They are spendy ($35!) but if you think about it, that’s about what you pay for a semi-auto magazine.  I’d get two, minimum, so you can be reloading one while the Missus is shooting the other.  (By the way, you can also get a speedloader for the S&W 617, should you decide to go there.)

But to my mind, here’s the clincher for the GP100:

  • When your wife decides to go to a home-defense piece, the identically-framed GP 100 in .38 Special / .357 Magnum would be an excellent choice — less so as a carry piece, perhaps, but that’s all part of the compromise.  However, out of the box the new gun would feel familiar in hold, weight and trigger pull, which would be a compelling reason to get the .22 model first.

I’m a huge fan of the revolver as a bedside gun (I myself have a S&W Model 65 in .38 Special / .357 Magnum, for just that reason), so take that for what it’s worth.  Had I not happened upon a (long-since discontinued) Mod 65, however, the GP100 would undoubtedly have been my #1 choice.

And now I have to stop, because that 10-shot .22 GP100 bad boy is looking more and more desirable, and I am so weak…

Indecision

The Gun Thing

Reader Roger S. sends me this little conundrum he’s faced with:

I recently acquired (through an estate) this 1953 Smith & Wesson K22. A 5-screw, pinned & recessed 6″ K frame .22 rimfire beauty. AKA the holy grail of rimfire revolvers.

I believe that it has been fired very little as it appears to be new all over with just a beginning tiny turn line on the cylinder. No scratches, dings, dents, no worn blue or chipped grips. Like New.

Now the problem I face is what to do with it. Shoot the hell out of it, enjoying as it was intended? Save it as a true heirloom & protect it from fools, idiots and other non believers while NOT shooting it? Sell it to someone that will appreciate it and use the $$$ to buy something to bang away with without feeling guilty?

What to do, what to do?

I know what I’d do, but that’s not the issue.  What would you do, O My Loyal Readers, in a similar situation?

(I’ll post my thoughts in Comments, after y’all have had your say,)

Gratuitous Gun Pic: CETME 58 Model C (.308 Win)

Gratuitous Gun Pics

I’ve only ever owned a few semi-auto “battle” rifles, but I have to say that since the Unfortunate Canoeing Accident on the Brazos River several years ago, I’ve felt the CETME’s loss rather keenly;  and this one from Collectors has not helped at all:

The design went on to be the basis for the HK G3 (unsurprising, as the engineers were post-WWII Germans), but for some reason I’ve always found the CETME more pleasant to shoot.  Purely on aesthetic grounds, of course, the wooden grips are better than the plastic ones by a country mile.  And I really like the quirky upper-mounted bayonet. for a bonus.

Mechanically, mine fed everything flawlessly — .308 Win and 7.62 NATO both — and it was as accurate as any of its FN-based counterparts.

The history of the CETME is here, and once you’ve overcome the shock of paying over a grand for any Century Arms offering, I have to say that this would be a lovely (and cheaper) alternative to the other 7.62 NATO rifles out there.

To paraphrase Othias, I’d take this CETME to war in a heartbeat.

Pavlov’s Nut

The Gun Thing

I love guns.

This, of course, will come as no surprise to anyone who’s ever read more than a page of posts on this website, or has been on this back porch of mine for longer than a couple of months.

There are many like me, of course, but to a lot of men, guns are tools (for hunting or pest control) or hobby implements (such as for competition shooting).

I’m not in that category.  I’m not a very competitive person, and frankly, I lack the dedication to want to put in hours of practice to become really skilled — and by the way, I was precisely the same way when it came to playing guitar:  I got good enough to make a living by playing bass in a band, but was too lazy to practice hard enough to become really good, like Chris Squire or Paul McCartney (never mind the gods like Mark King or Billy Sheehan).

Back to guns.

What brought all this to mind was when I re-watched the Forgotten Guns episode with Ian McCollum talking to Ken Hackathorn about the M1 Carbine.  McCollum is, as we all know, one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet when it comes to guns, and Hackathorn is one of the most accomplished shooters (and cognoscenti ) likewise.

However, when you watch the show, I want you to pay attention to Hackathorn when the two of them start talking about the M1 Carbine.  McCollum is holding the carbine and basically just… holding it.  Then he hands the thing over and you can tell by Hack’s every action that he truly loves the damn thing, and can’t stop playing with it, holding, stroking and patting it like a grandchild or a beloved dog.

I feel the same way about guns, especially guns of a previous generation.  In fact, about halfway through the video, I had to pause it while fetching my own M1 Carbine, and the rest of the time I spent basically mimicking Ken Hackathorn.

I have to tell you that while I agree pretty much with everything that was said on the video, I think Hack missed a key part of the attraction of the M1 Carbine.  He talked about how the men who actually had to use the thing liked it, despite all the gun’s perceived (and actual) shortcomings — but both he and Ian put it down to the carbine’s light weight and other physical characteristics.  They both missed an important point:  people love the little gun, love it beyond reason.

Like I do.

I’ll go as far as to say this:  every man who has any pretensions at all to being a shooter should own one of these wonderful guns.

 

Generational Mistakes

Military, The Gun Thing

What is it about the .dotmil that it hasn’t been able to field a proper battle rifle since 1942?  (In case anyone’s missing my point, that would have been the M1 Garand.)

Now I’m not going to fall into that “they could still use that today without too much problem” trope (although they could, in a pinch);  getting the best-available rifle for whatever the technology can produce at the time is a laudable goal.

But right out of the gate, the U.S. Army has fucked it up since WWII.  Yes, soldiers needed to be able to carry more ammo — but did anyone of sound mind think the best plan for that goal would be in reducing the weight of the ammo by shifting to a .22-caliber bullet?

What gets up my nose is that the answer, even back then, was quite clear:  drop from a .30 bullet to, say, a .275-grain bullet — lighter than a .30, not as light as a .223, but still wonderfully effective against human targets.  Flat-shooting cartridges had been achieved before, when armies moved from the ~11mm- or .4x bullet to a 7mm/.30 bullet.  (Even that was not far enough;  back then the .dotmil wanted maximum punch from their bullets and the 7mm/.30 certainly did that.)

Funnily enough, the Brits came closest when they suggested a .276-caliber bullet, after the Great War, but the U.S. was still wedded to the .30, so thence to the .308/7.62mm which was shorter and lighter than the .30-06, but not enough.  With the .22 bullet, though, not only would the ammo be lighter but the “platform” (what used to be less-pretentiously called the “rifle”) could also be much lighter than the weighty Garand and M-14, and hence the Mattel plastic M-16 / M4 / M-whatever they call it now.

Leaving the cartridge aside for the moment, the next wave was the fascination with geegaws that would supposedly make infantrymen more effective: red-dot scopes instead of iron sights, flashlights and so one.

I have no quibbles with this development, mind you.  Modern dot-scopes are far better than iron sights, as long as battery life is not an issue.

The issue with these new mil-specs for the battle rifle is that the things become more complicated both to operate and to manufacture.  No problem with the latter, of course, because we’re Americans, and with proper equipment training (at which our .dotmil excels, by the way), the first issue becomes likewise moot.

No;  the real problem comes when the people who are drawing up the mil-spec requirements get carried away, and start adding features to both cartridge and rifle of ever-increasing ambition and scope.

Which is what we face today with the latest “generation” of battle rifles, which quite frankly has become a cluster-fuck of absolutely epic proportions, where ambition and wishful thinking have combined to grind the gears to a complete halt.

On all key technical measures, the Next Generation Squad Weapons program is imploding before Army’s very eyes. The program is on mechanical life support, with its progenitors at the Joint Chiefs obstinately now ramming the program through despite spectacularly failing multiple civilian-sector peer reviews almost immediately upon commercial release. 

Civilian testing problems have, or should have, sunk the program already. The XM-5/7 as it turns out fails a single round into a mud test. Given the platform is a piston-driven rifle it now lacks gas, as the M-16 was originally designed, to blow away debris from the eject port. Possibly aiming to avoid long-term health and safety issues associated with rifle gas, Army has selected an operating system less hardy in battlefield environments. A choice understandable in certain respects, however, in the larger scheme the decision presents potentially war-losing cost/benefit analysis. 

The new bullet is a waste of time:

The slight increase in ballistic coefficiency between the 6.8x51mm and 7.62x51mm cartridges neither justified the money pumped into the program nor does the slight increase in kinetic energy dumped on target. Itself a simple function of case pressurization within the bastardized 7.62mm case. Thus the net mechanical results of the program design-wise is a rifle still chambered in a 7.62×51 mm NATO base case (as the M-14), enjoying now two ways to charge the weapon and a folding stock.

…and we’re not even going to talk about the scope:

Another problem is the weapon sight. The Vortex XM-157, which may have critical components made in China, is most definitely not an ‘auto-aiming’ sight. For guaranteed hits, the shooter still must manually ‘ping’ the target. This takes back usable seconds and makes shooting 100% accurately on the fly, as envisioned under the program to justify the reduced available round count, an utter pipe dream. The scope is otherwise a normal scope.

And the conclusion:

Starting from a highly dubious intellectual, strategic and tactical baseline, the NGSW program is now failing mechanically and ballistically at once. Army came out hard with the program’s aims and expectations, unreasonably so, practically declaring a War on Physics from the outset. Unfortunately, like so many other antecedent programs Army has lost the war again, badly. In terms of weight, recoil, durability and ballistics, expectations vs reality are crashing down on Army right now, hard.

I don’t claim to be a military firearms expert,  but even I can tell a horrowshow fuckup when I see one.

What I can see is that the answer to the cartridge issue is simple:  6.5×40-something mm, e.g. the 6.5 Creedmoor.  (As a traditionalist, I’d say the 6.5x55mm Swede is superior in every respect to the Creedmoor except length — but action length is a big deal, so the Creed is a better option.)  What I haven’t seen is a rationale for why the U.S. Army hasn’t adopted a 6.5mm bullet, and is now pushing for a 6.8mm one (almost, once again, something akin to a .30 bullet, long since discarded).  Why?

Here’s what I do know.  The current procurement cock-up is going to end with our kids using a next-generation junk rifle (just like they had to do with the original Armalite, and the Brits had to endure with their first-generation SA-80).  We’re better than that, and our kids deserve better than that.

As for the Army procurement staff, they deserve a collective kick in the ass.