Tag: Guns and such

My favorite toy

Once Again, With Feeling

Old Essays, The Gun Thing

In talking about old cartridges yesterday, I made brief reference to an article I wrote many years ago.  How old can be seen by its date, and here’s the thing, in its entirety.

Nothing Good Since 1955

February 26, 2003
10:00 AM CDT

I was asked the other day what I have against certain cartridges, specifically the .40 Smith & Wesson and the .357 SIG for handguns, and the plethora of new rifle cartridges (Ultra Mags, Short Mags and so on).

Simple answer: I have nothing against them.  Our culture and economy flourish because we insist on choice.  I refuse to get into a discussion of “need” for choices, because when you talk about “need”, the unanswerable question is, ”Who decides what you need, and when?”  It’s unanswerable, because no one should decide what we need — the market decides what stays and what goes, and we make our choices as part of the “market”.

However, one of the problems we face is that in the relentless pursuit of choice, some excellent options may get lost, just because they’re old and no longer worthy of production.

A while back, I read an article written by Ross Seyfried, entitled “Cartridges We Can Live Without”.  Now I know that writers seldom pick their own topics — they’re usually assigned them by editors — but this article prompted me to write a seething letter to the editor of the magazine, the subject of my letter being “Gun Writers We Can Do Without”.  (Unsurprisingly, they declined to publish it, the craven wussies.)

What raised my ire on this specific occasion was Seyfried’s assertion that the venerable 7x57mm (“7mm Mauser”) cartridge was passé, being no longer on a par with some of the new “wonder” cartridges.

Well, excuse me.  Considering that the late Great White Hunter Walter “Karamojo” Bell used to hunt elephant with the 7×57, it’s a little silly to think that the slow-moving, long bullet won’t do pretty much anything you ask of it.  I once went hunting with an old surplus Mauser in 7x57mm, and the professional hunter (PH) nearly refused to take me out with such an “underpowered” rifle.  One dead eland later, killed with a single shot, changed his mind.  (The eland typically weighs well over half a ton.)

Now I know that new products are a good thing.  Research and development make for improvement, on just about anything.  But there is an implicit danger in this, that being that the “tried-and-true” can sometimes be forced out simply because of economics.  Indeed, were it not for the fact that the European shooting market still enjoys the 7×57, I doubt very much whether any U.S. company would still make the old girl today.  The fact remains, though, that the 7×57, while admittedly inefficient by today’s cartridge standards, still has many attributes (low recoil, astounding penetration) which endear it to many shooters, myself included.

The problem with new cartridges is that you need new rifles to shoot them with — and over the past few years I think that most new cartridge development has been done to sell new rifles, rather than to improve a similar cartridge’s shortcomings.  And the market being what it is, a number of fine old cartridges have been simply lost, because they weren’t popular enough.  In the cold light of capitalism, this is a good thing. In the gun world, well, I’m not so sure.

Because when a cartridge is no longer made, unless you learn to handload your own, your rifle becomes an expensive club, or mantelpiece ornament.  And that just plain sucks.  If the newer cartridges were that much better than the ones they’d replaced, that would be one thing.  But, since 1950, most newer cartridges are only marginally better than some they’ve “replaced.”

Here’s a short list of cartridges developed since the advent of the metallic cartridge, with their dates of introduction. And please don’t write to me and ask me how come I left off your favorite .278-08 Ackley Improved—the list is indicative, not comprehensive or definitive. (* = rare and can be difficult to find these days, bold = Kim’s favorites)

Rifle Cartridges:

.45-70 Government: 1873
.32-20 Win: 1882
8mm Lebel: 1886
.22 Long Rifle: 1887
.303 British: 1888
8x50Rmm Mannlicher: 1888
7.5x55mm Swiss: 1889
7.62x54Rmm Russian: 1891
7x57mm Mauser: 1892
.30-40 Krag: 1892
6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser: 1894
.30-30 WCF: 1895

And here’s a partial list of the military cartridges in the above- and below lists:

Actually, I could argue that a rifleman would do just fine with cartridges developed before 1900 (unless hunting Cape buffalo or elephant, perhaps), but let’s be charitable and give the first half of the 20th century its due:

.32 Win Special: 1902
8x57mm Mauser: 1905
6.5x50mm Arisaka: 1905
.30-06 Springfield: 1906
.35 Remington: 1906*
.470 Nitro Express: 1907*
.404 Jeffery: 1909*
.35 Whelen: 1910 (?)
.416 Rigby: 1911
.375 H&H Magnum: 1912
.250 Savage: 1915*
.300 Savage: 1920*
.25-06 Remington: 1920
.50 Browning: 1923
.270 Win: 1925
.300 H&H Magnum: 1925*
.22 Hornet: 1930
.257 Roberts: 1934*
.220 Swift: 1935
.22-250: 1937 (as a wildcat; later, as a production item, in 1965)
.270 Weatherby Mag: 1943
7.62x39mm Russian: 1943 (as a combat round only)
.257 Weatherby Mag: 1944
.284 Weatherby Mag: 1944*
.300 Weatherby Mag: 1948
.222 Rem: 1950
.308 Winchester: 1952 (aka. 7.62x51mm NATO)
.243 Win: 1955

That’s it: two world wars, countless other conflicts, and millions of game animals would all attest to the power and value of those cartridges.

All other rifle cartridges made since 1955 have been attempts to gild the lily, with the possible  exception of the following:

.458 Winchester Magnum: 1956
.223 Rem: 1957
.338 Winchester Magnum: 1958
.22 Win Magnum: 1959
7mm Remington Magnum: 1962
.300 Winchester Magnum: 1963
7mm-08 Remington: 1980

There have been dozens of others introduced, but truthfully, the only ones really worth the trouble are the ones listed.  I’ve left off the “experimental” cartridges like those of John Lazzeroni, Rick Jamison, Layne Simpson and J.D. Jones, because they have a limited following (so far).  Here are a few pics, comparing the relative size of various cartridges, by category:



 

The fact that the U.S. Armed Forces’ current main battle rifle is chambered in .223 (5.56mm) doesn’t mean anything.  The fine gun writer Chuck Hawks makes a powerful case that the .243 (6mm) would be a better compromise between portability and knockdown power than the .223 varmint round (and let’s face it, military high command decisions have a pretty spotty track record on this topic anyway).  Even the 7mm-08 was just an attempt to tame the recoil of the .308, and the venerable 7x57mm fills that slot more than adequately, as would the .300 Savage, which, lamentably, has almost disappeared.

I consider the latest flock of “Short Magnum” and “Ultra Magnum” rifle cartridges to be essentially marketing ploys, whose sole purpose is to drive new-gun sales.  Not one of them really brings anything new to the party, the writings of the manufacturers’ pimps (aka. gun magazine writers) notwithstanding.

It’s even worse for handguns. With the exception of the .44 Magnum, which was essentially an improvement of the .44 Special cartridge for handgun hunting purposes, we could have ended all handgun cartridge development in 1940.  The improvement of bullet and propellant performance, of course, is another thing — improved bullet design has turned a marginal cartridge like the .380 ACP, for example, into an acceptable self-defense one.

Handgun Cartridges:

.45 Colt: 1873
.38 Long Colt: 1892*
.30 Mauser: 1893*
.32 ACP (7.65mm Browning): 1899
9x19mm Parabellum: 1902
.38 Special: 1902
.45 ACP: 1905
.44 Special: 1907
.25 ACP: 1908
.380 ACP: 1912
.38 Super: 1929
7.62x25mm Tokarev: 1930
.357 S&W Magnum: 1935

That’s just about all you’d ever need, right there, for almost any handgun purpose, especially if you add the .22 LR to the list as a dual-purpose round. The only other major handgun cartridges worthy of mention since 1950 have been:

.44 Remington Magnum: 1955
.454 Casull: 1957
.41 Rem Magnum: 1964
10mm Auto: 1983
.32 H&R Magnum: 1984
.40 S&W: 1989
.357 SIG: 1998
.480 Ruger: 2001
.500 S&W Mag: 2002

…and I’m not so sure about the last half-dozen, either.  As Jeff Cooper has put it (talking about the .40 S&W), they are a solution to a non-existent problem, or the answer to an unasked question.  Once again, some comparative pics:

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s the critical conclusion to be drawn from all this:  it seems quite clear that in the confines of physics, cartridges have about topped out in terms of capability.  In other words, we’ve climbed the steep curve of performance improvement, and are now on the flat slope of diminishing returns.

Bullet design and development of propellant have the only real chance of making serious improvements to cartridge efficiency, but it’s clear that if the gun business is going to grow, the change will have to come from a different kind of gun altogether, or a different kind of bullet.

In the meantime, leave my precious 7x57mm alone.

And this is the point.  While I’m all for cartridge development, it’s clear that the continuing drive to improve gun sales by new cartridge introduction (for that is what it has become) may result in many fine old cartridges losing favor and being discontinued — meaning that at some point in the future, if you want to keep your 8mm Mauser rifle in ammo, you’ll have to reload them yourself.

Or maybe I’m just a fuddy-duddy who should been alive in about 1910. [loud chorus of “Yes, you are, you old fart” in the background]

Update:  since this was written, I think the only “new” rifle cartridge that has any chance of longevity is the 6.5mm Creedmoor — and that longevity will depend on whether the .dotmil adopts it as their main battle rifle cartridge.

Later next week I’ll post a list of my favorite rifles in all the bold chamberings above.

Cartridge Thoughts

The Gun Thing

There’s been quite a bit of discussion in Comments and in my Inbox to various posts recently about rifles and chamberings.  Here’s an example, from Longtime Buddy and Reader Termite:

What are your thoughts on the ubiquitous 1894 30-30? Either Winchester or Marlin; I like the Marlin because you can more easily mount a scope or red dot. Ammo is EVERYWHERE, it is easy to reload, and in the right hands, a 200 yd rifle. Plus, you can usually pick up a decent one for somewhere around $400 – $500, maybe less if you find someone in dire need of cash.
Added bonus: it isn’t an E.B.R.

I’ve often  recommended the 1894 .30-30 as a “do it all” or even “essential” rifle — see here for an example — so all the above can be taken as read with no argument from me.  If you have young eyes, then the iron sights are fine, and if not, the addition of a 1.5-5x scope will fill the bill admirably.

Which brings me on to the main topic of this post:  chambering choices.

Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes on this website will know that if faced with a choice between “traditional” vs. “modern” — on just about everything — I will always go traditional.  When it comes to cartridges, this is even more true.  Many years ago, I wrote a piece which maintained that with only a couple of exceptions, no centerfire rifle cartridges brought to market since 1955 were any better than the offerings on the market prior to that date.  In fact, apart from the 7mm Rem Mag and maybe the 6.5 Creedmoor (jury still out on that one, although I’m told by an insider that the Brit SpecFor guys are just lapping it up), it’s hard for me to think of a “modern” cartridge which, if replaced with an older equivalent, would be sorely missed.

As for the .30-30… sheesh, it’s probably killed more deer in the U.S. than any other cartridge, and in heavily-forested places like Pennsylvania and Maine, likely more than twice as many than any other three  cartridges combined.  And I think that if Bubba’s Gun ‘N Bait Shop doesn’t  have any .30-30 on their shelves, they’re probably breaking a state law, in most states anyway, and it would be wise to steer clear of them.

As a last-ditch gun, I don’t think the 1894 / 336-style lever rifle (of any brand) would be a bad choice.  Here’s a Winchester 1894, made in 1948:

At Collectors, it’s going for $750 (because of the pre-1964 manufacture date).  Later models from other gun makers can be had for around $400, like this Marlin 336 (1963):

…and this price point puts them squarely with the older Mausers I spoke of earlier — the only difference being that these  old girls aren’t pig-ugly.

Damn, I love living in America — where the argument rages not over whether  you can own a gun, but which choice you’re going to make for any specific purpose.  Even, like now, for no specific purpose at all.

Not Grasshoppers

Disaster, SHTF, The Gun Thing

From Shooting Times:

Between private conversations with firearm, ammunition and optic manufacturers over the past two weeks, along with public information disseminated by major gunmakers, I am fairly certain a major disruption in the supply chain for those products and likely many more is coming, and coming soon.

Read the whole thing.

And this, my children (he explained for the thousandth time), is why we gun owners need to have not only a plentiful supply of ammo, but also of guns.

Ant and Grasshopper story (executive summary):  buy and lay in stocks during Times Of Plenty, so that when the Lean Times come busting in through the front door, you don’t have to beg for anything from anyone.

This is as true (or more so) for guns as it is for any other household product.

Gratuitous Gun Pic: Last-Ditch Rifles

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

As the above post recommends, it’s during times of plenty when one lays in stocks of the necessary stuff, in anticipation of Dark Times.  (And having lived through the Urkel Regime quite recently, and the Chinkvirus right now, I think everybody understands what I’m talking about here.)

Let me also be clear about what I’m suggesting in this post.  I think that everyone needs a rifle that could be regarded as ugly / awful / not wanted when one has, say, a couple AR-15s or AK-47s, or even a smart-looking hunting rifle or two.

By “ugly rifle” I mean the gawdawful Mosin M44 carbine or its older and taller brother, the 91/30 rifle, respectively:

Rugged as all get-out, these rifles have survived Russian winters and worse yet, Russian soldiers.  The only problem I have with them is their ammo.  While cheap and plentiful, 7.62x54mmR cartridges are not what one would call “common” ammo — i.e. available at Bubba’s Guns ‘N Bait Store in Bumfuck, Nowhere.

The same is true for just about any of the “ugly” rifles out there — even the not-so-ugly ones (which are still relatively cheap) like the excellent Swiss K.31 rifles in 7.5x55mm Swiss:

Fantastic rifles, usually only a couple-hundred bucks more than the Mosins, but that ammo… highly effective to be sure, but is it on the shelf at Bubba’s?  No?  Aahhhh…

See my point?

Here’s what I think is the rifle which checks all the boxes:  ugly, cheap, reliable, BUT found in a chambering which is so common, it makes Miley Cyrus look classy:  the rebuilt Spanish small-ring Mausers, in 7.62x51mm NATO.  This is the 1916 model, derived from the 1893 model (not  the ’98), which was made from 1916 till after WWII in 7x57mm, and later rechambered into 7.62 NATO:

Best of all, these old warhorses are seldom found at a price higher than $500 — and it’s usually less than $400, with a decent bore and iron sights which will still deliver at minimum a “minute of 6-inch paper plate” at 100 yards, if the shooter knows his stuff.

It’s not pretty, it’s not a rifle to be proud of owning, it has a severe recoil (like the M44), and it’s not even worthy of a place in your safe:  trunk of the car, semi-annual cleanings timed to coincide with range visits, you get the picture.  But it’s the ammo  which sets these battered old ladies apart from their newer, semi-automatic and sexier cousins.

And yes, the 1916 small-ring Mausers can handle modern .308 Win cartridges — those will be the ones that kick like hell, btw — but even that can be avoided by shooting lighter bullet sizes (<150gr).   If you look up the rifles and hear warnings about “soft Spanish steel” and “use only the light 7.62 CETME loads”, you are in the presence of major league bullshit.  I know this because I myself used to own one, and after well over a thousand rounds of commercial .308, I had it checked out and it passed with flying colors.

I’m not saying you should run out and buy one of these right away;  but on one of those occasions when you feel the need for another rifle, but have less than $400 handy, I am saying that one of these rifles deserves some serious consideration.

One Forward, Three Back

Gun/Ammo Tests, The Gun Thing

Sometimes I wonder why they bother.  In an article which reviews Ruger’s new mini-wonder pistol, the field-stripping process is described thus:

Field stripping is easily accomplished by following the directions in the instruction manual. That’s the usual gunwriter verbiage, but it isn’t quite what I experienced with the 57. Following the direction to ensure the pistol is unloaded, the slide is first locked to the rear.
Opposite the takedown lever is a pin that takes a bit of effort to depress. Ruger recommends using the base pad of one of the magazines; I ended up using a punch. Once the takedown lever is protruding from the frame, it can be rotated down. Next, rather than the conventional method of running the slide forward off the frame (I warned you to read the directions) the slide is moved forward about a quarter inch, then lifted straight up.
The recoil spring and barrel can then be removed from the slide in the usual manner. Ruger has designed this pistol to be taken apart without the need to press the trigger, a feature I heartily applaud.
Reassembly is quite easy if one follows the instructions, but entirely impossible if, somehow while messing around with it, the takedown lever is allowed to snap back into the frame. (Ask me how I know.) Anyway, it really is quite easy, but I enjoin you, make sure the takedown lever is still out (or in the disassembly position) should you wish to avoid a couple of frustrating hours mucking about.

OR: 

Ruger could just have made their new wunder-pistole come apart like their own Mk IV .22 pistol, namely:

  1. Remove all boolets (and the mag) from the gun.
  2. Cock the piece and click the safety catch up into SAFE.
  3. Press the little button under the slide tabs at the back.
  4. Lift the slide assembly off the frame.

And that’s it: no special tools, no screwdrivers, no coins, nothing. The firing pin assembly is loose in the slide, and just drops out into your hand for cleaning. Here’s a pic-by-pic:

And now for the best part: the reassembly.

  1. Slip the firing pin assembly back into the slide (it can only go one way).
  2. Place the slide’s hinge hook back into the front of the frame.
  3. Drop the slide back onto the frame, and push it closed until you hear the click.
  4. You’re ready to start shooting.

Best part:  I never had to consult the manual.

Did Ruger do that?  No.  Instead, they made the new 57’s field-stripping procedure more akin to the older Mk I/II/III pistols:  a study in frustration.

I don’t know the answer to this (but I’m willing to learn):  how difficult would it have been just to stretch out the Mk. IV’s frame and breech to accommodate the longer 5.7x28mm cartridge?  Or, for that matter, the .22 Win Mag?

Oh, wait, I forgot:  that wouldn’t engender the same increase in sales (and all the concomitant gun-magazine hype) that a new pistol  would.

Instead, Ruger seems to have made a “new” pistol which hearkens back to the past.

Not interested.

Now if I were seriously interested in the 5.7x28mm ratshooter cartridge (a BIG if), I’d be far more likely to look at the PS90 mini-carbine:

I shot Doc Russia’s daughter’s PS90 a couple weeks back, and it was a sweetheart (albeit as ugly as Rosie O’Donnell).  But that gun’s way too spendy (over a grand and a half), so:  no.

I just can’t get excited about a new cartridge which is simply a very hot .22 Win Mag and which would cost an arm and a leg to get into, what with all the new guns etc.

I have enough calibers in Ye Olde Gunne Sayfe, so:  no.

What I may look at, if ever the funds become available, is the Kel-Tec PMR-30 in .22 Win Mag (of which I may already have one or two rounds in Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer)…

…and it’s all Ruger’s fault.

Or am I missing something, and is the 5.7x28mm the absolute bee’s knees?  Chuck Hawks doesn’t seem to think so.

Gratuitous Gun Pic: High Standard Supermatic Citation (.22 LR)

Gratuitous Gun Pics

Here’s a lovely old pistol:

I don’t know anyone who’s had much bad to say about High Standard Citation .22 LR pistols, other than the fact that replacement parts and magazines are ruinously expensive to come by — this, of course, because HS stopped making the line over forty years ago.  It remains the only U.S.-made pistol ever to have won an Olympic gold medal (Rome 1960), and still features in NRA competitions today.

In the 1960s you could have bought one of these beauties for about $40, and today they fetch close to a grand, depending on condition.

Mostly, HS pistols are known for their reliability — provided  that you clean them often (more so than modern pistols), that is, because their tolerances are so tight.  (I was once told by a gunsmith that 100% of the “malfunctioning” High Standards brought to him for “fixing” needed only a thorough cleaning before going back to their original flawless operation.  And we all know that .22 ammo, particularly the El Cheapo practice brands, can be filthy to shoot, right?)

Speaking for myself, the “rake” of the High Standard Citation model is a little too Luger, not enough 1911 for comfort — but that’s just me.  Others love the feel of it, and reckon its point is so natural as to almost compel good marksmanship.  And back before my eyes started to fail, I recall shooting a Reader’s Citation off a rest, and getting sub-1″ groups at 25 yards.

And, of course, he refused to sell it to me (the bastard).