Category: The Gun Thing

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

Gratuitous Gun Pic: Beretta 686 Silver Pigeon (20ga)

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

As I grow older, I find myself torn between holding onto what has always worked for me, yet often having said experiential wisdom undermined by pesky things such as facts.

Take shotguns.

As Loyal Readers all know, I prefer side-by-side shotguns to over-and-under shotguns, illustrated by my own maxim:  “Shotgun barrels should be side by side like a man and his dog, and not over and under like a man and his mistress.”  (Yes, I coined that phrase.)

Actually, it’s bullshit.  While I yield to no man for my love of fine side-by-side shotguns, the plain fact of the matter is that when it comes to sustained usage, the old SxS just doesn’t cut it.  No matter how costly the gun, or how hardy, they all break after thousands of rounds;  the much-maligned over-and-unders, much less so.  (Ask yourself why Olympic shotgunners like Kim Rhode have always used over-and-unders — in fact, nobody in serious shotgunning competition uses a side-by-side, and that’s for good reasons.)

Which brings me to today’s gun under discussion, the shotgun which is pretty much the international gold standard for the ordinary shotgunner:  the Beretta 686 Silver Pigeon.

 

From a pricing perspective, it’s always difficult to pin the 686 down, because the addition of different Roman numerals makes the price shoot up faster than the options list on a Porsche 911.  The one in the picture is the bottom-of-the-range “Silver Pigeon I” in 20ga, and it typically retails for around $2,000.  This, by the way, is common in the shotgun business:  adding a couple inches to the barrel can double the price, as can asking for superior wood for the stock.

The dirty little secret about the 686 is that it probably represents the best value for money of any O/U shotgun.  (Its closest rival, sales-wise, is the excellent Browning 725 Citori, which typically retails for nearly a grand more.)  I use as an example Mr. Free Market, who each year shoots thousands of rounds through his 686 (he actually shot out his earlier 686 to the point where it would have cost more to repair than just buying a new one), and despite my constant needling, he steadfastly refuses to change to another brand.  (This post was in fact triggered by me saying to someone that we should learn from others’ mistakes or equally, by the example of others, and in the matter of O/U shotguns, I therefore bow to his experience.  If you wish to do the same, feel free to browse here.)

Where I will not change, however, is in the matter of barrel length.  I’ve always though that the longer the barrel, the better.  A 29″ or 30″ barrel will add many yards to the effective range of a shotgun over a 26″ barrel, and the increased range (and efficacy) far outweighs the weight and handling disadvantages.  Save short barrels for the self-defense pump-actions;  field guns should have longer barrels.

This doesn’t mean I’m going to run out and buy an over-and-under shotgun, by the way.  I don’t shoot clays often enough to warrant a change over to an O/U, so I’ll stick to my side-by-side companion.  Yes, I’m preaching form over function, which should surprise precisely nobody.

But if I was looking to buy an O/U, the 686 would get a very close look.

Alternative Use

Good Stuff, Real Estate, The Gun Thing

Looks like this is a week for alternatives, but this one is a little less… contentious, shall we say, than the one from yesterday.

While looking at this article about Harry Redknapp’s little beach cottage, one of the pics got me thinking.  While I think the house in general is awful (like Alyssa Milano:  quite lovely from the outside;  inside, not so much), this room is excellent:

Now I have little use for a wine cellar, being that I don’t drink a lot of wine and have no interest in collecting it either.  But a temperature/humidity-controlled room, with very limited access… can we all say “Gun Room“, children?

If I ever same into something like this (assuming it was in the Land Of The Free and not Hoplophobic Britannia), I know that one of the first things I’d do is turn to the interior designer and say, “Lose all those faggy shelves and stuff, and put in some glassed gun display cases, with room for a couple-three safes on the side.”  All that’s left is to have a decent, robust table somewhere with several clamps for gun cleaning and -smithing, and there ya go.

The same is true of houses that have projection rooms — in-home cinemas, as it were — which I think are a total waste of space.  Here’s one, from some mega-mansion on the market here in Plano:

Once again, a room with no windows, a single door access… who the hell needs stupid Disney movies that much. when you could have a primo gun room?

I know, I’m so hopelessly out of touch.

Stuff We Already Knew

Anti-Gun Nannies, Elections, Marxists, The Gun Thing

From Ammo.com I get an email which serves to remind us of one of the consequences of a Biden presidency:

According to Joe Biden’s own website, he plans to put [Ammo.com] out of business:

“End the online sale of firearms and ammunition.  Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.” We’re not telling you who you should vote for, but we do want to inform you of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party’s current position on these Second Amendment issues from the candidate who proudly proclaims:

“In 1994, Biden – along with Senator Dianne Feinstein – secured the passage of 10-year bans on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again.” 

Like the title of this post says, we all know what these pricks want to do to the Second Amendment:  gut it and do everything they can to make it irrelevant.  (They can’t repeal it, but they can emasculate it with regulation after regulation to render its freedoms moot.)

What saddens me the most — just a little — is that all this new buying of guns by our citizens has drained the shelves and pipeline of ammo and related supplies to the point where National Ammo Day (Nov 19th, mark yer calendars) is going to be really difficult to observe.  (Reminder:  500 rounds or more of rimfire, or 100 rounds or more of centerfire, or reloading supplies sufficient for 500 or more rounds, all to be purchased or ordered on that date.)

It makes me think of this conundrum:

Asking Too Much

The Gun Thing

American Rifleman asks the question:

The .22 Magnum: Good for Self-Defense?

Short answer:  no.  Longer answer:  Hell, no.

I’m going to put my bias out front:  I love the .22 Magnum cartridge, when I’m shooting it in a rifle.  On varmints, I can personally attest that it’s absolute mustard;  I’ve shot maybe a dozen African silver-backed jackals with the .22 Mag, all were one-shot kills and only one of the little beasts made it more than a couple dozen yards before dropping like a stone.  Rock rabbits (Seffrican:  dassies), maybe thirty or so, with only one which ran off and I never found (probably a clean miss, as there was no blood trail).

And as Longtime Readers know, I carry a little .22 Mag NAA Mini-revolver in my pocket against the threat of snakes when I’m out anywhere near Texas brush country (e.g. the little creek which runs past our apartment complex), but it’s loaded with #9 shot shells, not boolets.

Now:  would it be pleasant to be shot in the face with one of these?  No, of course not.  Would even that stop a hopped-up lunatic with a knife?  You can try it out;  I’ll stick to a .45 ACP, thank you, if that situation presents itself.

As the above article suggests, the .22 Mag is a little powerhouse out of a rifle barrel, but out of the typical short-barreled revolvers which typically carry them:  not so much.  Sometimes you can ask just too much out of a .22 bullet, and self-defense would be one of those times.

The “Guy With One Gun” Myth

The Gun Thing

In this piece, the old saw gets recycled:

As the old saying goes, you should beware the man with only one gun because he knows how to use it.

He explains:

A person who shoots hundreds or thousands of rounds through a particular rifle and spends countless hours carrying that same rifle afield becomes intimately familiar with it. That sort of familiarity quite often means that the rifle almost becomes an extension of the hunter, which usually translates into good results afield.

Frankly, I think that’s bollocks.  While it’s possible that the above may be true, the reality is that a “one gun” guy probably doesn’t practice all that often with it, often relying on ingrained habits to shoot the thing, and if he does practice at all, it’s a few rounds popped off a day or two before the hunting season opens.  I knew a guy in Pennsylvania who boasted to me that he could make a box of .30-30 last for three years.

This is not a committed shooter.  I know that among my Readers, almost all of y’all (except the Brits) own a lot more than a single rifle, shoot a lot of them all year round, and are constantly tinkering with loads, bullet weights and powders — or if not reloaders (like me), at least different brands of ammo — and even scopes, always trying to wring the best possible performance out of their guns.  These are committed shooters, and likely to be far better shots than the guy with one gun.

The only time I’d agree with the old saying is in the area of self-defense pistols, where complete familiarity with your weapon is an absolute necessity.  (If I were restricted to only one centerfire pistol, I’d be fine with my 1911, but I still wouldn’t be happy about it.)

As for the article’s premise  (“If you could take only one rifle out into the field, which one would it be?” ), well, it all depends on the “field”, doesn’t it?  Hunting bighorns in the northern Rockies is different from whitetails in Pennsylvania and Cape buffalo in Africa.

The problem with a “general purpose” rifle — e.g. Jeff Cooper’s Scout Rifle concept — is that it may do a lot of things reasonably well, but not much very well.  It’s a concept that all my Longtime Readers encounter in the hypothetical situation of Crossing America which has been a feature of my writing many times over the years.  (By the way, I re-read the post linked here, and I wouldn’t change anything.)

And while I picked my beloved 1896 Swedish Mauser for that specific occasion, and I know it about as well as any gun I’ve ever owned, I would still not be satisfied with it, and only it, in Ye Olde Gunne Sayfe.

Blowing Against The Wind

Anti-Gun Nannies, The Gun Thing

…or to be more precise, against a hurricane.  First, we have this situation:

The trifecta of coronavirus fears, George Floyd protests, and the push to defund the police has resulted in surging gun sales in Minnesota.
…
The number of background checks conducted in Minnesota in March represented a 20-year high.
Then came the May 25 death of George Floyd and the subsequent riots, after which Frontiersman Sports owner Kory Krouse said the demand for guns went through the roof.
Krouse said, “People are really scared coming in here. We had a three, four hour wait just to get up to the counter during the height of … the rioting.”
As a result of the surge, gun store inventories are down and ammunition is scarce.

So one would think that a savvy politician would read the tea leaves (or, the actual statistics), and say, “Hmmm… this is probably not the right time to be pushing for gun control.”

Step forward, Minneso-duh! senator Tina Smith:

Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) is pushing an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and an expansion of background checks that would outlaw private gun sales.
According to her campaign website, Smith cosponsored the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” which would have banned 205 commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms and all ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Smith also cosponsored the Background Check Expansion Act (BCEA). The BCEA was a push to expand retail background checks to private sales as well. In doing that, BCEA would have criminalized private sales, making it illegal for a neighbor to sell a five-shot revolver to a lifelong neighbor without first finding a Federal Firearms License holder and having a background check performed.

You have to be in the grip of a special kind of stupid to do this kind of thing in the current circumstances.  But that’s the deal with doctrinaire Socialists:  it’s all about the intentions, never about the outcomes and consequences.  And never mind what the proles think:  the Party is always right, comrades.

Even when they’re horribly, hopelessly wrong.