Tag: Guns and such

My favorite toy

What Price History?

Advice, The Gun Thing

From Reader Ranger:

When to restore an old gun versus keeping it with honest wear? For example:  I have several old firearms.

1.) Old heavily worn SMLE, lots of interesting carving on the furniture, but the barrel might as well be a smooth bore. If i remove anymore rust, then fire the rifle I’ll start seeing daylight thought the side of the barrel. Originally I bought this for a song to convert to a modern De Lisle through one of those kits Rhineland Arms sells, by the time I got around to buying the kit (also putting the money together) Rhineland Arms stopped selling the conversion kit.

2.) A between-the-wars commercial 1911A1, which I picked up for a song. It looks like the previous owner had taken a belt sander to it. The rampant Colt is half gone and the serial number is barely visible. Before I dare fire it, I would replace the barrel, grips (broken), and replace all the springs, at a minimum. Of course since I like to shoot, I probably would get a gunsmith to lower and flare the ejection port, fit modern sights, and put some finish on the exterior. This would probably remove the faded Colt, etc. In other words, I’d probably spend the equivalent of buying a new Springfield 1911A1 to turn old steel into new. At the same time, I would be destroying another little piece of history.

The SMLE is easy:  turn it into a “mantlepiece gun” — put it up on the wall somewhere as a decoration, and give the old war weapon a dignified retirement.  There’s no point in “fixing” it, because the history is too important — why lose that piece of history when you could take the same money and get a new gun for about the same price?

As for the 1911,  I say the opposite:  go for it, and fix it up;  turn it into a shooter.  Frankly, from the sound of it, the gun has been all but destroyed, and as such it has little real intrinsic value, especially as it wasn’t a service piece.  By all means replace all the innards (don’t forget the firing pin) and get it running.  Oh, and you may want to talk to a gunsmith about the serial number:  for some reason, the fuzz don’t take too kindly to an anonymous gun, and it may be necessary to redo the stamping (along with a certified notification for future use).  Also check for frame cracks, because from all accounts the poor old thing has been horribly abused.

It’s an interesting conundrum, isn’t it?  And thanks for the letter.

Gun Story

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

From Reader Dave L.:

Should you run out of stuff for your blog (highly doubtful) here’s nice piece of gun porn. It’s a Uberti Cattleman in .357.  I really like the case hardened frame against the blued cylinder and barrel  (me too — K).

I bought this some years back when the gov did an “economic stimulus” of $400 for veterans.  I decided that the best thing I could do with the check was to piss off Nancy Pelosi and buy a gun so I took a ride up to H&H in Oklahoma City.  I may have paid a bit too much but I fell in love with the look and just had to add it to my collection.
I went with .357 because I have several revolvers and one long gun (Rossi 92) in that caliber.  I have .38 and .357 reloading dies and about 3500 rounds in stock.  The pistol rides in a nice holster that I bought down in Mexico back when it was safe to cross the border.
If our idiot governor had signed off on Constitutional Carry, this was going to be my BBQ gun.  It shoots pretty straight and with a stout hollow point .357 load I don’t think that I’m going to need more than six anyway.

“Hi, my name is Dave, and I’m addicted to pretty guns.”

Everybody say after me…

When “New” Means “Expensive”

The Gun Thing

I’ve been thinking recently about supplementing the old Springfield 1911 with another one sometime.  So I’ve been idly browsing the usual places, looking for a new 1911, with only a few specific must-haves.  Mostly, it looks as though I’m going to have to spend around $800-$900 to get what I need.  I’m not ultra-fussy because to me, a 1911 is like a hammer:  you pick it up, it works, and I don’t need much in the way of add-ons.

Over at Shooting Times there’s an article talking about the new 1911s on the market, so I went there with all sorts of anticipation.  Here’s one they listed:

Now before you explode, go to the article and read the comments.

Me, I need a drink.

Enough Ammo

QOTD, The Gun Thing

From Clay Martin (via Peter’s blog):

The one thing I see over and over again in prepping circles is a belief that a mountain of ammo is all you need. Absolutely not true! In fact, I believe that most people would be better off with 300 rounds and the skills of having shot 20,000 as opposed to 20,000 stockpiled and the skills of having shot 300.

Amen to that.  I cannot tell you the degree of comfort I feel when I unholster my Springfield 1911 and raise it to a shooting position.  I’ve put a lot  more than 20,000 rounds through this old friend, and I’m not sure that I can operate any other  piece of machinery as well as I can my 1911.

As for rounds on hand:  I have an ungodly amount of FMJ practice ammo, and maybe a few hundred rounds of self-defense ammo (which I add to on a monthly basis, a box or two at a time depending on the status of my bank account).  I’d have more of the HP stuff, but at the range I always shoot off a mag of premium hollowpoints first — following the maxim of “practice with what you’ll use” — but I can’t afford to shoot 200-odd rounds of premium self-defense .45 ACP ammo every week, sue me.  So I shoot 8, buy 20, week after week.  In my 1911’s “grab ‘n go” ammo bag, I have 200 rounds of .45 loaded in magazines, after which I’d probably need a rifle anyway.  Which brings me to my next point, and a confession.

I don’t have the same degree of familiarity with my rifle  part of the SHTF equation.  I know I should shoot the AK more, but hell;  in my life I’ve probably fired an AK more often than any rifle other than .22, and what’s to remember about shooting an AK-47?  I’m confident that in any SHTF (urban street fight), I can put 20 rounds into a dinner plate-area at 50 yards, shooting “aimed-rapid” (which is all you need to do in that scenario.  At 100 yards, I can’t even see  the damn target anymore because Old Fart Eyesight, and at that point I’d go to one of my scoped rifles anyway).

So I break out the AK every few months (vs. every week for the 1911) and shoot off three or four mags (20-rounders) before I get bored and put the thing away (after letting the barrel cool and the handguard stop smoking, don’t ask me how I learned to do that  before putting the thing away in a foam-rubber-lined gun case).  And yes, I have an ungodly amount of 7.62x39mm ammo too;  in my AK’s “grab ‘n go” ammo bag, I have 400 rounds of the “39”, which should suffice for any urban unrest I’m likely to encounter;  and let’s not even look into Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer for more.

Practice more, folks, and you’ll end up needing less ammo in storage.  To repeat those wise words:

Most people would be better off with 300 rounds and the skills of having shot 20,000 as opposed to 20,000 stockpiled and the skills of having shot 300.

Sound Advice

Advice, SHTF

Kurt Schlichter tells us to be self-reliant (or, as he calls it, “rooftop Koreans”) during times when the SHTF, and lo, he speaketh da troof.

I suspect that the majority of my Readers have long since decided on that course of action — and if they haven’t, they’re either disarmed Brits (cricket bats are not much use on rooftops) or else Murkin denizens of liberal enclaves where they’ve been told to “leave it to the police” — and pretty much have  to do that because their local gummint has made the Koreans’ AR-15s illegal.

For discussion in Comments today:  assuming that possession of eeeeevil-looking AR / AK rifles is verboten  in your locale, what would be your alternative “rooftop” gun?  State gun type and chambering, please, with reasons.

Strange Fascination

Guy Stuff, The Gun Thing

This pic at C.W.’s blog got me thinking.

It makes me smile, too.

I have written before that men like to be in control of machinery — that many men, very much including myself, prefer stick shifts to automatic gearboxes, bolt-action rifles over semi-automatic rifles, ditto revolvers over pistols and so on.

Where we do use the auto / semi-auto doodads, it’s for practical reasons only, like buying a car with an automatic gearbox when having to navigate stop-start traffic on a daily basis, or needing the greater firepower in a pistol’s fifteen-round magazine compared to a revolver cylinder’s six, to give but two examples.  But those are simply reasons of practicality, while our enduring fondness for being in control — i.e. working  the action of a thing — can be found in the fact that the auto/semi-auto versions haven’t replaced the manual versions completely.

When it comes to rifles, men of the manual-operation persuasion are blessed in that we have several types of operation to choose from:  bolt action, lever action and pump action are all there, and all are still popular, hence our reaction to the pic above.

As Longtime Readers will know, I have an abiding love for all three of the above, and have fired countless rounds through all of them.  Don’t ask me to pick my favorite type, but I have to say, when it comes to pure fun, it takes a lot to beat an open field filled with old tin cans, fruit and suchlike, a pump-action rimfire rifle and a couple thousand rounds of .22 ammo.  I know, it takes a while to reload the tube magazine, but that also allows the barrel to cool, which is no small thing.  So let’s look at a few choices among the latter.

Browning Model 90 / Winchester Model 62 are the originals, and are still available today.  The fact that these old guns (discontinued in 1959) in good condition can fetch well over a grand at gun shows today is testament to their popularity.

But are they that popular?  Recent events seem to prove otherwise.  Of all the gunmakers extant, Henry is the only one which continues to make old-style pump-action rimfire rifles:

It’s a beautiful little rifle — that octagonal barrel! — but I think Henry does us gunnies a real disservice by pricing them so high.  I mean, if Marlin and Ruger can make semi-auto rimfire rifles which retail for less than $150, why do Henry pump rimfires typically cost close to $500 for an action which is much less complex?

I would love to own one of these rifles, most of all because it shoots .22 WMR as well as .22 LR and I can think of few better varmint-whackers than a magnum pump action, but at that nearly-$500 sticker?  Sorry.

Actually, I do know why Henry pump rifles are priced so high:  they have no competition.  Which brings me to my next gripe.

I don’t understand why Taurus discontinued manufacture of their Model 62 knock-offs, either.  (I know, they’ll say “no demand”, but they continue to make other guns which hardly sell at all — the Judge revolver in .45-70 Govt comes to mind, for some reason — so I don’t buy the excuse.)

My Taurus stainless-steel carbine model is beyond beautiful, and as I’ve said before, when I take friends shooting with this little thing, I have to take at least  a brick of .22 ammo with me, so much do people enjoy shooting it.  (Hell, I always carry over a hundred rounds in its case, just to make sure I don’t commit the cardinal sin of .22 ammo shortage at the range.)

Finally, we have a sorta-pump (in that it has a pump action, but doesn’t have an exposed hammer), the sleek, beautiful (and expensive, at around $600!!! new) Remington 572 Fieldmaster:

Look, I’ve fired the 572 dozens of times and sent many a hundred rounds downrange through its 21″ barrel, and if someone gave me one I’d never sell it — but I’d trade  it in a heartbeat for a rifle with an exposed hammer.  Like the Taurus Mod 62 long-barreled model:

It all has to do with that “manual operation” thing — and the more parts you can control, the better. De-cocking is easy with an exposed hammer, impossible with the Remington’s hidden one.

Anyway, let me end by saying that if you don’t have a pump-action rimfire rifle, you’re missing out on a whole lot of fun.  You know what to do.